Theology

Is This Absurd?

Fri, 15 Aug 2008 16:02:47 CDT

I recently read Al Mohler’s blog concerning an article he’d read on politics and extra-marital affairs. He was referring to John Edwards’ adulterous affair with a campaign worker. So, according to proper training, “never use anything but a primary source,” I had to go read the article. Happens it’s from Psychology Today’s blog. It was about how we need to get over sexual sins committed by politicians.

In fact, the article’s author, Prof. Roy F. Baumeister, suggests we’ll “widen the pool” of politicians if we allow them to have “extra-marital affairs.” To be fair to Professor Baumeister, he claims to be an “evolutionary psychologist,” and from his persuasion it is perfectly normal for politicians to look for these “extra-marital affairs.” In fact, (again) he says that men who are attracted to politics have a greater amount of testosterone and that’s what brought them to politics, and the affair.

But take heart, Roy (Prof. Baumeister) really wants to help the American public:

My thesis is that the American people and their chances for good government are the ones most harmed by these scandals. In fact, I recommend that we should stop considering sexual behavior as a qualification for political office.

And,

The best hope to do this, I believe, is to enlarge the pool of qualified candidates. One good way to do this would be to stop disqualifying people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with governing.

Put simply, there is probably a limited supply of people who are willing to go through all the risk, stress, and hassle required to seek major public office. The ones who will govern well is a subset of those. If we lose some of those good ones because they had extramarital sex, our chances of getting good government are further reduced.

Is it just me or does Roy think that extra-marital sex is okay? Well, as an evolutionary psychologist he, of course, doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with adultery. In fact, he wouldn’t use the term. As evolving human animals having an extra dose of testosterone just means we’ll have more than one sex partner. Part of his proof is to go to the “polls” that tell us half of all married men admit to adultery. Actually, they wouldn’t phrase it that way. They’d say they’d had an affair. Adultery is judgmental and passe. But Roy really exposes the extremity of his ideas when he states this:

Indeed, part of the attraction of a political career, at least for some men, may be the promise of more women to bed. Evolutionary data back this up. Linda Betzig's research on powerful men throughout history found that they often had many sex partners and many children. To an evolutionary psychologist, that is the pudding in which lies the proof, the goal lurking behind all other behavior. To chuck men out of office for having multiple sex partners is thus a quixotic, paradoxical quirk of modern society, for whether they realize it or not, many men are drawn to seek that office in the first place by the sexual dimension of political ambition. It would be a bit like disqualifying swimming champions because they like to get their hair wet.

The drive for political career, for some men, is more women. News flash! We thought the draw was public service. “The goal lurking behind all other behavior?” I’m sorry; I must be from another planet. Roy then follows this statement with more poor logic skills by stating that powerful men throughout history have had multiple partners and many children. (My apologies for drooling on the keyboard. There’s just too many things to go after here.) This is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t follow. Just because the sun rises after the rooster crows doesn’t mean the rooster made the sun rise. It just might be that the unguarded morals of a man in power make him think he has the right to adultery because of his position.

Roy doesn’t think there’s anything wrong with being unfaithful either. He thinks that this is part of life. I must quote Roy at length because without reading the direct quote you wouldn’t believe I’m being fair to him.

I can imagine people objecting that sexual decision making reveals a man's character. (I refer specifically to men here, because so far only men have had their political careers ruined by sex scandals.) This argument seems lame to me. [What a great refutation!] A much better and more relevant test of character would involve how the person has managed his money. Has he always paid his bills on time? If the answer is no, that is much more reason to question his suitability for public office than an occasional bit of unsanctioned sex.

So, for Roy a person’s character would be impugned for missing a few of say his gas bills, but not by being unfaithful to his wife. That is, the vows he made to his wife on their wedding day are null and void when his testosterone is pumping; and that's okay. Would it be okay if his wife was aware of his promiscuity? I wonder if it’s okay with Roy for politicians to break their word for anything, or is it just okay for adulterous relationships? Is it okay if they lied about paying their bills on time?

The key word’s Roy used to identify himself were “evolutionary psychologist” and that’s where the differences (absurdities) lay. Baumeister is an evolutionist and has no basis or grounds for morals and believes all morals are social constructs, that is, constructed by society. There are no absolute moral standards according to evolutionists who happen to be naturalists. So, he sees this as perfectly normal and has no qualms about espousing his morality, or lack of it. In fact, he’s trying to impose his morality on the rest of us.

[You may think I’m a bit cheeky by calling Prof. Baumeister, “Roy,” but I’ve read this article so many times I feel we’re on a first name basis.]

So, the point of Roy’s article is that we are hurting ourselves by judging men who commit adultery because they’re wired that way. Therefore we ought not be judging them; it’s only natural for them to have “unsanctioned sex.” The way we’re hurting ourselves is because when we judge these people we’re narrowing the pool from which we can draw our leaders. Look how well Europe is doing.

Baumeister’s logic is pathetic. His one “statistic” doesn’t prove anything and how it is presented makes any true logician roll their eyes. Anyone who understands ethics would grimace at his observations and conclusions. Finally, any moralist would know this “ain’t the way it is.”

An article such as this shows how wide a gap there is between what Christianity purports and where the world is and where it is going. In the gap are the untold numbers of society looking for what is right. Sadly, the “educated” are leading down the slippery slope without any restraints. Heck, they’re wearing skiis down this greased slope.

On the other hand, those that represent the Christian message ought to stand for what is morally and ethically correct. This sort of gap continues to widen as the natural evolutionist determine to call themselves the intelligent voice of reason. We ought to take this seriously as the moral slide in the West affects more and more of our lives.

Become informed. Pay the price of understanding the times from a biblical point of view. Take a stand. Get involved in your church to help present a authentically biblical view of reality. Follow Jesus. Be the salt and light God has made us to be.

Okay, let’s take a closer look at who Roy is. Well here’s the blurb off the web site:

Roy F. Baumeister is Eppes Eminent Scholar, Professor of Psychology, and head of the social psychology graduate program at Florida State University.

For those who want to read the article for themselves here’s the url:

http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/cultural-animal/200808/sex-and-politicians

Might Makes Right

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:17:27 CDT

If you’re like me you’ve already had it with talk of the “election.” I’m feeling like I’ve tried to find out what anyone believes, but only know what their opposition has said about them. That’s not a good way of learning about anyone. Although, you should probably take what someone’s opponents say about them with a ‘grain of salt’.

Always on the prowl for interesting topics to write for the web site or gather as sermon illustrations, one surfaced recently. I’ve paid some attention to the contest between Hillary and Obama with interest. After all, this is historical. The first African-American (even though he’s half white) and the first woman running for the nomination of one of the two major parties. There was no shortage of confusion as delegates were counted then disqualified, popular votes verses delegate votes, the number of states won, and on and on. Finally, Obama received the number of delegates to clinch the nomination. However, Hillary isn’t conceding. She’s “suspending” her run for the nomination. This is all fine as that’s the appropriate language at this stage. However even in her suspension she’s making other noises.

What has surfaced is her touting the amount of votes she has received. It is subtle, but she’s playing the “might makes right” card. Oh, it doesn’t immediately appear this way, but that is what it is. “Never before has anyone had this many votes in a primary, ” she says. Sounds impressive. “These eighteen million votes have to count for something.” Well, my recollection tells me that the contest is decided on delegate votes, even when you count in these “super delegates.” The delegate count tells us that Hillary lost and Obama won. But what Hillary is contesting is that “if” and “only if” the delegates from Michigan and Florida has been fully counted she would have won. And, she would also have the popular vote, which by the way doesn’t count officially. But, it has to count for something. Yes, well it counts as “not enough.”

The subtle premise of “might makes right” is one that our culture resorts to. We trust in the “majority” to make decisions. And when there’s so many people who do anything, that makes it right. That’s why we take so many polls. We’re deciding on our policies, our decisions and our future because “ a lot of people” are doing it.

I can remember my mother asking me, “If everyone jumps off the bridge, are you going to do it too?” Everyone has probably heard their mother say that or they should have. And the fact that “every mother” says it doesn’t make it right. What makes it right is that it appeals to another standard. Implicit in the statement is the idea that there is another deciding factor which is appealed to. It is the deciding factor of, “what ought we do?”

Taking a sharp turn in our thinking this brings us to the “natural law” or the law within our hearts. It is what everyone knows instinctively. We can choose to cover it up, suppress it, or obey it, but it is there. Our country was founded on the premise of “in alienable rights bestowed on us by our Creator.” Jefferson was referring to Natural Law. May I add that the majority of our laws were written with this Natural Law in mind. However, when we move away from something that is objective to the subjective, we adjudicate our decisions on “might makes right.”

It is interesting how many people will resort to this. The guiding factor isn’t, “What do the rules say?” Or, “What is the right thing to do?” Rather, “What do the people say?” Although it sounds noble, it is a request for mob rule. We have enough people to make noise, fuss and over turn decisions so give us a piece, rather than admitting there is a “law in place” to abide by.

For the Christian, this ought not be a hard lesson to learn. We live with the Lord of Lords and King of Kings. His Word is what guides us; His Word is an edict to us. It isn’t the majority that rules in the kingdom of God, but the absolute rule of the King. Although, He is all powerful, has all the might, i.e. Almighty, He cannot deny His own nature and act controvertibly to it. He must act out of His essence. God always acts out of who He is. He is one with that. We on the other hand have a choice. We can choose another way to act, or choose, if you will.

I am not usually one who bangs the “founding fathers” drum. However, I do believe their greatest accomplishment was to build a nation based on Natural Law. They testified in several documents that this only succeeds among a people with a Christian “conscience.” They also understood the persuasive power of sin. They understood that “everyman would be a tyrant if he could be.”

What we’re seeing more and more is the secularization of our culture, society and political process. We move further and further away from what we believe ought to be, toward what the majority, or worse, the loudest voices want. In the latter case it is a different sense of “might makes right.”

Once again, as Christians we’re unaware of what is happening. We respond out of anger, but don’t know why. Or worse, we swept up in the “might makes right” philosophy of living. These too are arguments raised against the knowledge of God which need to be destroyed. We’re better off in succeeding in our mission to know what’s happening.

Paul's Message to Timothy

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:48:19 CDT

Longevity is one of those words we don’t use very much. It is actually a good word. Unfortunately, we don’t understand it. With the “age of nano,” “living in the now,” “instant gratification” and of course the “micro wave generation” longevity isn’t something we dwell upon. Our culture seems to promote the procession of experiences that stimulate instant gratification. We hear small children bemoan the fact they’re “bored” because their senses are not being titillated at every moment.

This “nano age” is contrary to living a life focused on finishing well. Reflected in themes like impulse buying, bungee jumping, extreme sports, we’re steered away at looking at the end of life. Perhaps it runs concurrently with our obsession with “youth.” We do everything we can to avoid aging. Of course, the majority of what we do is superficial. We reconstruct the outer thinking, “if we look good, we’ll feel good.” There may be a smidgen of truth in that.

The Scripture calls us to a life focused on finishing well. From the words of Jesus that imply we’re heading for a meeting where we ought to hear, “Well done, good and and faithful servant” we get the idea there’s a final moment of recognition. (I’m consciously avoiding the word judgment here as I know my postmodern readers will cringe at it.)

Shaking off culture’s trappings of “now” living, we need to turn to the one thing that remains the same - the Scripture. Even apart from grueling attempts to change the message, the Scripture remains the same - it is what it is. No matter how much emphasis is put on “minor aspects” of the Scripture the message remains the same. The message of the good news is that Jesus came to save sinners. That is the truth he came to testify of. God is a merciful God who wishes no man perish. However, men choose to live in the darkness rather than the light. Jesus tells us they do so because they love the darkness.

2 Timothy makes this case strongly. It is most likely Paul’s last writing we have on record. It’s message is simple: Guard the gospel. Guard sound doctrine. Guard the truth. There are forces that want to destroy this message and lead many astray, so you must guard the gospel. The enemy of the gospel is always working to destroy the message of salvation. We’re pretty ignorant if we don’t get this.

William Hendriksen, a well-known Reformed theologian outlined the book simply: Hold on to it; Teach it; Abide in it; and Preach it. It couldn’t have been said simpler. His commentary on the epistle gives a clear theme: “Timothy, do not be ashamed, but by God’s grace exert yourself to the utmost, being willing to endure your share of hardship in preserving and promoting sound doctrine.” This is a timely message where so many are attempting to accommodate cultural ideas into the message of Christ.

Ashamed of the Gospel

Many today, I believe, are imbibing a popular view of postmodern philosophy because they are ashamed of the gospel. They’re ashamed of the gospel’s exclusivism. They’re ashamed of the gospel’s authority, it’s absoluteness. They’re ashamed of the truth. Rejecting shame is one of Paul’s themes from Romans and his exhortation to Timothy. We need to hear this today.

People who are sometimes associated with the “emergent” movement are the ones I mention here. However, not all emergents are the same. There is a movement among orthodox reformed people who are emergent in the sense of reapplying the reformed principles to the church today. Then there are hundreds, if not thousands of churches that want to reach the postmodern generation. They do so without changing the message once believed by all the saints. Finally, there’s those who actually have resurrected much of liberal theology and the social gospel with an indulgence for postmodern philosophy. They’re politely insisting that the gospel has been misinterpreted for the last two thousand years. Brian McLaren’s book, “The Secret Message of Jesus” says this. He believes he’s discovered, or rediscovered what the early church only knew. He subscribes to a Da Vinci Code conspiracy which torpedoed true Christianity. After reading Brian McLaren’s works, I’m not sure what he believes, only it’s not the historic view of Christianity.

This side of the emergent church declares a different message. It is in fact, a different gospel. The gospel is not preached. Again, McLaren’s book on the kingdom did not once discuss the cross of Christ, not once the atonement or any other central theme of the gospel. It did present several behavioral social responses to the world of injustice. This is fine as an outworking of the gospel message but not why Jesus came to die.

I’ve had long discussions with postmodern emergent Christians who cannot say that abortion is murder because it offends someone. They do not believe in war for any reason, even for protection of the innocent. These liberal views are political not spiritual and they have eclipsed biblical doctrine. In fact, there’s a whole new set of doctrines. However, postmodern emergents wouldn’t say they have doctrines, but conversations.

Those who want to present a new kind of Christianity do so because they believe the gospel we call orthodox has not worked. At least, in their estimation. It isn’t working now in America. Here’s an illustration: If a driver continues to crash his car, you don’t change cars you change drivers. Or teach the driver to drive correctly. If the gospel has crashed it’s because those who were driving weren’t doing well with it. You don’t change the gospel, you change the approach.

Let me state this a little more clearly. I don’t believe that as Christians we have always exhibited the grace, love and mercy that ought to accompany the message. We have been carnal at times, wrongly motivated, and used God’s message for personal gain, whether material or psychological. God help us. This, however, doesn’t nullify the message, nor does it warrant a “reinterpretation” of the message.

Deconstruction is a term used in postmodernism. It’s actually a little complex. The term comes from postmodern philosophers who interpret reality as a social construct. More precisely they believe words create reality, and just by the way . . . We create words. So, society or culture creates its own reality in the terms it uses. There is no objective referent that words are joined to. I did say it would was complexed.

What pomo’s are after is a “re-construction preceded by a deconstruction.” Because society creates or constructs its own reality through the words it assigns (constructs) it must first deconstruct the terms with their common meaning and then reconstruct them.
To the postmodern emergent the gospel must be deconstructed as does “church” “ministry” or any other term they deem as important to their cause.

Where the church has misapplied the gospel it must repent. Where we have assumed an arrogant posture we must humble ourselves. Any place we have failed to communicate the Spirit of Jesus Christ we must ask forgiveness first from God, then from those whom we’ve offended. This is important. However, we mustn’t change the message to meet current cultural pressures. There hasn’t been a time when the church has been free of culture. The church’s success (in God’s eyes) has always been when it remains faithful to the call of Christ in communicating the message of Jesus Christ. Relevance is important but I find it is not a major theme of the gospel message.

Some will immediately point to Paul’s reference to becoming all things to all men. His reference there is to the ethnic identity of the person, not their sinfulness. He wasn’t saying, “to the head-hunter, I became a headhunter,” or “to the murdering radical I became a murdering radical.” He said, “to the Jew, I became a Jew, and to the Gentile I became Gentile.” His purpose, we may add, was to win them to Christ. Paul’s emphasis to Timothy in the second epistle by that name was to “hold on to sound doctrine.” As mentioned earlier, the outline of the book by chapter can be seen as: Hold on to it; teach it; abide in it; and preach it. The “it” is always the sound doctrine of the gospel message.

Holding on to orthodoxy is the one sure way of finishing well. Teaching orthodox Christian doctrine, living it and preaching it is a prescription for success.

No Excuse for Jesus

Mon, 12 May 2008 12:57:47 CDT

Recently, a friend mentioned that a family member told her that he despised the Christian view of exclusivism. He didn’t express it this way way but told her, “You Christians believe you’re the only way.” The implication was that Christians are arrogant when they hold to an exclusivist view. She also mentioned she didn’t respond at the time.

When we spoke later on I told her that he (let’s call him a cousin) was actually doing what he accused her of. “His” view claimed to know who was right, namely his. If you didn’t believe or subscribe to his view you are wrong. This is quite exclusive, too.

Christian’s ought not feel this exclusivist view is somehow arrogant. Everyone’s view is exclusivist. Muslims are exclusivist, as are Hindu’s and Buddhist’s. Even B’ Hai’s who claim an amalgam of religions are exclusivist. In fact, they “butcher” all other religions to make them fit into their broad view.

Despite the attempts of people like John Hick or Clark Pinnock, the gospel message is exclusive. Jesus himself said, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.” (John 14:23b) Although this doesn’t express “salvation” in exact words, it demonstrates the need to “keep Jesus’ word.” If a person does keep his word Jesus and the Father will come and make their home in him.

Peter’s statement in Acts 4:12 makes the case awfully strong, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” This is about as exclusive as you can get. Speaking of Jesus, Peter declares there is “salvation in no one else.” He then states the reason: “for there is no other [exclusive] name” “No other” is complete. He then qualifies it by saying “under heaven that has been given.” These and other Scriptures support the idea that the gospel is exclusive. This contradicts the claims of pluralists.

A pluralist is someone who would suggest there is more than one way for anything. The pluralist believes that Muslim’s, Buddhist’s, Hindu’s and all other sincerely religious people will find salvation in their beliefs. The inclusivist is similar in that he believes that the gospel message includes more than strict adherence to the message. (For more complete descriptions of these positions, read my paper here.)

Even these views believe they are right and everyone else is wrong. Neither the Hindu, nor the Buddhist, nor any other religion believes you can believe contrary to their beliefs and find salvation. Of course, all these views differ on their beliefs about God, reality and truth.

What they are appealing to is the “law of non-contradiction.” The law states that two opposite truth claims cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense. This “law” is part of first principles espoused by Aristotle. It is neither Christian nor non-Christian. This is part of common sense, law written on your heart which everyone instinctively knows it is true.

My friend, who is a relatively new believer, did the right thing by not responding. Sometimes, no answer is better than an incomplete answer. Certainly, it is better than the wrong answer. Personally, I believe that bad apologetics does more harm to the gospel message. More importantly, it doesn’t help in reaching the heart of the unbeliever.

The argument that “Christianity is wrong because it is exclusive” is a “non-starter.” All religious views are exclusive. The truth is exclusive. In our postmodern world we’ve arrived at the place where we want to believe that there is no one way to anything. We instinctively ask for “more than one way.” However, when we realize that truth is exclusive we have no apologies.

Dinesh D'Souza Debates Peter Singer

Sun, 04 May 2008 12:58:07 CDT

To the Source sponsored yet another debate between Dinesh D'Souza and a leading atheist. Dinesh has debated Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. I believe he would debate Richard Dawkins if he could. I hope someone of more stautre would. Some have called them the "Four Horsemen of Atheism." This time Dinesh faced Dr. Peter Singer from Princeton University. The debate was held at Biola University.

I have to admit, I was not overly impressed with Dinesh's debating skills when he faced Harris or Hitchens. Dennett wasn't much of a debater either, so that exchange went to Dinesh easily. I've thought Dinesh was more a "social theorist" or "political commentator" than an apologist. Certainly, he isn't a philosopher and this last debate proved that.

The format for the debate was to open with each side having a fifteen-minute statement followed by a five-minute rebuttal. Then a new twist in debate was added with a "cross-examination" as it was termed. Each side was to ask the other whatever he pleased. The debate concluded with questions from the audience.

Dinesh's first mistake was to come out attacking Singer's world, instead of showing evidence for the existence of God. Singer quickly picked up on this and began to show evidence why he believed God cannot exist. His main point was the cruelty in the world, better known as the problem of evil. Unfortunately, Dinesh didn't know how to present the theistic presentation for this argument either. Another strike against Dinesh.

Singer appeared confident, not arrogant, which is not a good sign for your opponent. Even on a Christian campus, Singer exuded a self-confidence that should beg you to ask some questions. In the end, Singer's questions to Dinesh either went unanswered or the answers were incomprehensible. A few times I found myself asking, "What is he talking about?" referring to D'Souza's replies.

On the other hand, Singer's answers were cogent and clear. His logic was impeccable. Make no mistake this man is brilliant and hasn't risen to the head of his field because he's stupid. Dinesh on the on the other hand came out "reporting" how he'd been debating "these atheists all week." It appeared he may have been feeling his oats after one of his less taxing debates. Personally, I thought it was an arrogant statement. He may have felt he was on a Christian campus and would play to the crowd. Singer had Dinesh sized up and then began to unravel his argument.

Having studied in the world of debates and apologetics I've watched a couple of dozen debates. There are much better choices to debate Singer than Dinesh D' Souza. Bill Craig comes to mind immediately. He'd give Singer much more to ponder. Dinesh wrote some good books and is known from his White House days during the Reagan administration. Christian apologist, I don't think so. His fumbling through questions and ill-advised attacks on Singer do not win anyone, even the listeners. Personally, I think this does more harm than good for the cause of Christ.

Singer's last comments were that he felt this kind of debate is what is supposed to happen on university campuses - that is, the exchange of ideas. This is true. We would all benefit from the kind of debates that explained views and helped us understand our opponent's position.

If you wish to watch the debate you can see them here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Phgb67NAaHA

. . . under the "Blade of Entertainment."

Thu, 01 May 2008 09:18:24 CDT

With some concern I’ve watched the attention to Miley Cyrus. As a fan of her father, Billy Ray, I thought this was worth the watch. Admittedly, I’ve never watched Disney’s hit TV show, Hannah Montana. For those who don’t know, this is the show that catapulted Miley to stardom and made her a teen phenomenon. So my concern grew a bit when some very suggestive photos appeared of the fifteen year-old star.

The day the photos appeared on the morning news show Miley had already made apologies and confessed she was embarrassed. I have to believe her. Why would she allow the photos to appear if she knew the backlash she would receive? This would be a stupid publicity stunt. Parents of young girls were the most outraged, after all they’re looking for role models, and Miley has accepted that position. She’s not just admired, but worshiped. The news has reported tickets to her musical appearances have sold for thousands. This photo op could be a disaster.

There are a few things that arise from this episode of “good girls doing the wrong thing.” After Jamie Lee Spears, Britney’s sister, became pregnant, it looked like Miley was the only hope for a role model. Now, these distasteful photos. As a grandparent of four granddaughters I’m troubled by the attachment to these personalities. But, this reminds me of why I have distaste for entertainment. It becomes more than entertainment. It is an influence on our lives or one’s we love. No, it has become more than entertainment - it is a focal point where people get their identity from by clinging to “idols.”

Entertainment becomes a focal point of life because of at least two reasons. We’re bombarded with it 24/7. You can hardly exist in this culture without turning the TV on. Now TV can be watched on your phone or PDA, not to mention the computer. It’s everywhere. Many times it gives instant gratification, makes us feel good.

This speaks to our bankrupt societal mores. We worship just about anything that pleases us, makes us feel good, and attempts to tell us we have some kind of connection. In the case of young people aspiring for a fulfilling life it gives them a point of identity. If there were ever a time for the church to demonstrate the reality of Jesus, this is it.

But the church is not positioned to reach the culture. The church continually takes steps to secure its survival. It adapts to the culture so it becomes indistinguishable from culture itself. It loses the power of its message because it compromises the call of Christ to repentance and faith offering a comfortable place for people looking to stroke their feelings, feel accepted, and make friends.

From postmodern expressions of cultural accommodation to mega church appeal of a Hollywood/Broadway Sunday service with something for everyone. And the church gets creative to do this. Even when these are “successful” they are survival-minded and not mission-minded.

A mission-minded church is a church that first of all understands that worship is a sacrifice. Mission is intrinsically involved in the sacrifice of Christ. The Catholic Church understands this in theory, at least. Jesus poured out his life as a sacrifice which was the supreme act of worship; He offered all. Curiously, the [Evangelical] church sees the worship service as a “feel good” time for God to touch us. In fact, the idea of sacrifice is scarce among professing Christians.

It’s curious that a religious faith based on sacrifice rarely mentions it. Barely illustrates it. “Well, people don’t want to hear it.” I’m told. Well, go find some who do want to hear it.

Our culture provides unique challenges to the message of the gospel and the mission of the church. Challenges aren’t a bad thing, but actually can help the church find its course and walk in stride with Jesus. Answers or solutions to these challenges are found in the Scripture and these answers must be Bible-based. The power must be Spirit-driven. But, this requires sacrifice, humility, and faith. This requires a “no-compromise” stance and a “want-to” attitude.

The challenges of culture are supported by the 24/7 media that bombards our senses, captures our imagination, and subdues our will. We lay submitted under blade of the “age of entertainment.”

Only a determined heart and mind will turn its attention to the One who speaks from an eternal throne to capture our hearts and souls for the glory of His Father. The church must awake from its slumber to rise up in an attitude of sacrifice and worship. This alone will produce a mission-minded church whose identity is found in the One it worships.

Blather . . .

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:21:27 CDT

Blather . . . That's the term I associate with nearly all the news the media delivers. Even over the channel I would normally turn to; it's still blather. As Neil Postman said in effect, on any TV program there's very little that will change the way I live today. Perhaps the weather is the most informative media event that will actually affect my life.

After being somewhat addicted to 24 hour news, gone through recovery, and witnessed a miraculous transformation I know I'm free. It was crushing to realize even my most trusted media personalities were just that, media personalities. After all, even the news is about profit. There ability to couch news items, report the most sensational, and even sensationalize the mediocre in order to draw attention is well, less than sincere. Other than sincerely wanting your attention there's no other sincerity. Neither is there any neutrality. One personality came across devoted to her channels ethics and cast. Then mysteriously she was absent, only to be found anchoring her opponents show! Crushed! How could she do it? Her poise, style, intellectual prowess all bundled in a beautiful smile supported her news organizations motifs. But after it's all said and done - it's a show.

Even the "fair and balanced" presumption is not very fair or balanced. Our trouble is that we want this to be true. We want a neutral report on issues where we can decide for ourselves. But, in the end, it is blather. Words, words, words about nothing that will alter life, improve life, or give some direction . . . blather. The end of the news is to get us to watch the news so sponsors will pay the bucks to get their products sold. Once again, I refer to Neil Postman: The news has become entertainment. In the very least, it works to be entertaining. To keep watching the 24-hour programs they must lure you in and make you think you need to know this. The question is, "Why? Why do you need to know this?"

Why do I need to know about the crane that fell off the building? Or about the back hoe that fell through the ice? What does it do for me to know these things? Catastrophe's, human-interest stories, wars, famine, drug testing, all have the same importance to the news program - they get your attention. The discourse (I use the word loosely) of information is then interrupted by the real point of the news - the commercial. Your brain will go from giving attention and focusing on a disaster with thousands of innocent victims to a woman's hygiene product. The disruption of thought is harmful. It takes a few moments to realize what has just happened, but you hang on to hear about these innocent victims and sit through up to thirteen commercials (I've counted). In the middle of the next round of blather is a "tease" about a corruption scandal that you won't want to miss, but wait - we'll be right back . . . and on it goes.

Perhaps it's moving back to the Northeast that has caused me to be even more conscious of my time and where I spend it. Or maybe the blather saturation point was reached during the recent "election results" from the numerous primaries and caucases. Whichever or whatever the cause is I've tuned out the blather and returned to the book. Which book? Almost any book will do - you have to think when you read, and that my friend is a beginning.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:55:21 CDT

Those of you who read, To the Source, will have read and enjoyed the interview with the producers of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film is scheduled for a Spring 2008 release but faces some hurdles. The theme reveals the battle between establishment Darwinists and closet Creationists. Evidently, the film catalogues many scientists who have either been fired, threatened, or blackballed because of their belief in Intelligent Design. It will prove to be an interesting movie.

The best part of the interview was the report of Ben Stein's interview of noted Darwinist, Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is adamant about intimidating Creationists, especially those of the Christian kind. His arguments are basically ad hominen. That is, he attacks his opponent's person and character rather than his arguments. Dawkins approach to arguments is usually uninformed ranting. Most of the "new" atheists' approach the discussion this way. Read their blogs for confirmation.

However, Ben Stein reportedly takes Dawkins to the woodshed in Expelled. Here's the complete quote:

"Something rather shocking takes place when Mr. Stein asks Mr. Dawkins about the possibility that intelligent design might be useful in the area of genetics. Mr. Dawkins responds by laying out the "intriguing possibility" that life may have come into existence elsewhere in the universe and that this unknown intelligence seeded life on earth. Mr. Stein skillfully exposes the stunning contradiction in the foundation of Mr. Dawkins thesis. That is, Mr. Dawkins is "intrigued" about the possibility that there could be an intelligent designer in the universe-just so long as that designer isn't God. Anyone who would suggest that there is a God designer is stupid, ignorant or evil.

What's so important about this moment is that Mr. Stein doesn't just expose the double-speak of Mr. Dawkins, but also that of his fellow Darwinists. Mr. Stein exposes what's really going 0n in this debate. The controversy isn't about the science; it's about the atheistic, materialistic philosophy of the elitist establishment. If the Darwinists discovered evidence of an alien designer they would be giddy. If they discovered evidence of God, they would be crushed, and would do everything in their power to dismiss the evidence as fraudulent or inconclusive."

Dawkins rants on his blog about the film, but never mentions this encounter. I find it hard to read anything by Dawkins and his fellow atheists, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Daniel Dennett, who is also of the new atheist movement, isn't usually as caustic. The reason I find it hard is that they rarely present any arguments. What they do is provide anecdotal evidence which neither represents a contrary argument nor is good evidence.

Not all atheists are of Dawkins' ilk. Some, no many are intelligent and intellectually honest. Editor of Skeptic Magazine, Michael Schermer has been outspoken about his doubts concerning the ID movement. However, he made this comment about Expelled:

Mr. Shermer told the producers: "Your film, by the way, was beautifully produced. The music, cinematography, and editing were drop-dead powerful. Good job. That's a lot of work to make that all come together into a coherent whole." Although Schermer wouldn't agree with the conclusions of the ID movement, he's objective enough for make honest appraisals.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed will be a lightning rod for debate and conversation. Hopefully, what it represents will bring the issue to the foreground for what it really is: a concerted effort to keep ID from being seriously reviewed in academia.

The Case for Eyewitnesses

Sun, 23 Mar 2008 10:21:49 CDT

The morning of the Resurrection is the most important date not only in Christian history, but world history. From this moment of his resurrection the world would be different. One significant point of the Resurrection was the first eyewitnesses on the scene, namely women. Luke records (Luke 24:10) Mary Magdelene, Joanna, and Mary, the mother of James as the three women. From an apologist's point of view this is the first significant point other than just being an eyewitness account.

The fact that they were women who first found Jesus is important because the testimony of women in First Century Judea, was not acceptable. If the disciples were going to falsify this account they would not have chosen women as the first eyewitnesses. There is mild support for this from the disciples' response. When the women reported to them what they had seen, the disciples considered it as "nonsense."(vs. 11)

There is another important item in this account. When the women saw the angels and bowed their faces to the ground, the angels said, "Why do you seek the Living One among the dead? He is not here, but he has risen." Then they say something startling, "Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” (vs 26, 27) This is startling because it infers that these women were privy to information only the disciples are credited with. These women were in on the private teachings of Jesus.

Luke, as in the other gospels attributes the discovery of the empty tomb to women, but goes further. It appears Luke relied on the women to recall their eyewitness testimony. One other supporting fact would be the rememberence of how the women waited for the Sabbath to pass before they went to the tomb. After seeing where the body was laid, they returned and prepared spices and perfumes. (23:55) The it says, "And on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment." (vs. 56) This is not an insignificant recollection. It testifies that Luke relied on these women as others probably wouldn't recall this detail.

Ususally, at this time of year there's a flood of articles, programs and films trying to discredit the life of Jesus, especially the Resurrection. (This year seems to be an exception.) What always amazes me is how little time is ever spent looking over the text in the gospels. The assumption is that the Bible, especially the gospels is not reliable as a credible source. However, when you survey the accounts of Scripture, understand the authority of eyewitness testimony, and look at the trajectory of history you come away with a completley different conclusion. The word of the angels at the tomb spoken to the women ought to be heard by those whose attempts continue in vain. "Why do you seek the Living One among the dead. He is not here, but he has risen."

For The Sake of Argument

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:06:15 CDT

" . . .We are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ."
The question is: "Are we taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ?"

If we are, we're employing what is called critical thinking. And, if we're doing that, we're also employing the lost art of argument. If we're not, we're in danger of being taken captive.

Argument. The word conjures emotional shouting matches; disagreements that separate everyone from couples to political parties; disputes over property, possessions, and lots of other stuff. However, I'm going to persuade you that arguments are necessary if we want to progress as a person, a people, and a nation. Certainly, if we want to grow as Christians, we need to understand what "argument" means and rescue it from the non-thinking.

"Argument is essential, in the first place, because it is a way of trying to find out which views are better than others." So says Anthony Weston in his concise, but excellent book called A Rulebook For Arguments (Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, 2000), xi. Weston goes to say that "not all views are equal," a refreshing statement to read. Some of the politically correct camp has said, "All ideas or views are equal." If you consider that statement, it asserts that it is a superior idea or view to one that would contradict it. Such is the madness we find ourselves conversing with.

Even if someone is against argument, he must make an argument in order to be heard. Postmodernists have asserted that logic is no longer useful and propound the idea of non-cognitive learning. Feelings are more important than thoughts and certainly more important than arguments. Of course, this is an argument, and as such it needs to be supported cognitively.

My purpose here is not to derail progressive or politically correct arguments, however tempting that may be. My purpose is to discuss "argument" and the need for it today to be able to weed out the shallow, anemic, self-defeating statements that go nowhere and give us nothing.

Argument is essential because ideas or views do differ, and some are better than others. Slavery is not better than freedom. All people are created equal. Men and women are physically different. All these are assertions that you can differ with. All these are conclusions that someone has arrived at to make the assertion. They become arguments when the conclusions can be supported by reasons.

The idea of argument is that, when a conclusion is stated, reasons for the conclusion must be presented to inform us of its worth. Some conclusions can be supported by good, strong reasons, and others are supported by bad, weak reasons. Often people don't understand why some conclusions are wrong and why the reasons are weak. A statement without reasons to support it is only an assertion. Arguments must be supported.

Everyone uses argument, but not everyone uses it well. Some are thankful that argument is not well understood, so they can get their view across without good reasoning. There is immense need today for "critical thinking." Critical thinking is not the ability to criticize, but the ability to discern what is actually being said. It's the ability to understand what is being said and whether the reasoning behind it is valid, strong, and simply good reasoning. Critical thinking is "directed thinking." TV commercials, politicians, and some people in sales depend on your inability to discern their propositions.

"Numerous national reports have shown that instruction designed to improve the thinking process is desperately needed. The United States has been described as a "nation at risk" because we are failing to provide students with the most essential component of education - instruction that fosters the development of the ability to think ( National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983)."
The quote above is over twenty years old, and little has been done to change this.

Here's a definition of critical thinking:

When we think critically, we are evaluating the outcomes of our thought processes - how good a decision is or how well a problem has been solved. Critical thinking also involves evaluating the thinking process -the reasoning that went into the conclusion we've arrived at or the kinds of factors considered in making a decision. Critical thinking is sometimes called directed thinking [my emphasis] because it focuses on obtaining a desired outcome. Daydreams, night dreams, and other sorts of thinking that are not engaged in for a specific purpose are not subsumed under the critical thinking category.

Critical thinking is active; it makes use of our minds to understand what we are hearing, reading, or watching. It is through critical thinking that we can observe and then evaluate arguments. Critical thinking is the broader subject of which arguments are part.

So, let's define what an argument is to help us grasp it:

"An argument is a group of statements (sentences or clauses), either within one larger sentence or within a group of grammatically distinct sentences, such that one or more of the statements are said to ‘support,' ‘prove,' or ‘provide evidence for' one other statement. The statement that is supported, proven, or for which evidence is provided is called the conclusion. There is one and only one conclusion for each argument."

One conclusion per argument means that the issue is declared in a statement or a question. What then makes it an argument is that reasons are given to support the conclusion. Begin to listen to TV debates where an issue is discussed. You will be amazed at how the issue will become blurred, the opponents sidetracked, and supportive reasons totally ignored. This is how TV will make you stupid. Also, watch commercials and decide what the "real" issue is they're trying to sell you. Few commercials support their products and make unsustainable comments about their wares. This is the first step in thinking critically - understanding argument.
So argument has a conclusion and reasons to support it. In logic this is called premises and conclusion, and the argument most used to illustrate this is:

1. All men are mortal.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Socrates is mortal.

Two premises support the conclusion Socrates is mortal.
Something that will help to ascertain an argument is understanding the difference between a topic and an issue. A topic becomes an issue when questions arise about it. Abortion is a topic until a question is posed about it: "Should abortion be legal?" Now, it is an issue. "Is abortion murder?" Or, we could ask the opposite about abortion. "Are anti-abortion forces invading the rights of women?"

The issue then becomes an argument when supportive reasons are given for it. For example, let's make the topic an issue by asking the question, Is abortion murder? The declarative sentence might be Abortion is murder, in response to the question. Then reasons must be given to support the statement for the argument to be valid. Abortion is murder because the embryo is an innocent human being. Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder. Therefore abortion is murder.
Logically the argument can be stated this way:

1. Taking the life of an innocent human being is murder.
2. Abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.
3. Abortion is murder.

Here you can see the two clear premises in 1 and 2. The conclusion is stated in 3. No one would contest the truth of 1. It is in the second premise that another issue arises, the issue of whether the unborn embryo is in fact a human being. So, the issue becomes Is the unborn embryo a human being?

Listening to a debate on this issue rarely solves anything for anyone. The reason is that the argument gets lost in other issues, and most people are unaware of what has happened. If someone were to ask me whether I am opposed to a woman's right to privacy, I would answer "no" in most cases. However, I would ask some other questions before I could answer honestly. The issue is often presented in the light of abortion. The statement "A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body" is the conclusion usually given in the abortion debate. This is her right to privacy. However, there aren't many supportive arguments for this conclusion - especially when there is an unborn human being within her womb. So, when you listen to an abortion debate, you can listen with enlightened minds to hear what it is that is actually being contested.

Unfortunately, this argument about abortion becomes too emotionally debated, and it seems that no one can make his or her argument make sense.

Argument is necessary to weed out the bad ideas or, as the Bible says, "speculations raised up against the knowledge of God." (2 Cor 10:5) Today, there are many ideas, assertions that are against the knowledge of God. Without understanding argument, we will allow these ideas to sneak easily into our thought patterns and take us captive.

A Culture of Illusion

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 14:57:23 CDT

The recent sex scandal of New York's governor, Eliot Spitzer serves to elucidate another issue. Although I'm not excusing Spitzer's behavior, that isn't the focus of this blog. Neither do I want to focus on the money spent, nor the personality of the woman involved. Rather, I'd like to focus on the absurd attention this draws, not only to Spitzer, but to the prostitute in question.

Although her name is quickly becoming a common household name, I'll withhold it here for the simple reason of not giving her another "google hit." As of yesterday Wednesday, (March12,) her name drew over 71,000 hits on Google. The next morning, (March 13,) it is over 230,000. A star is born. [Today, March 17th it is over 600,000.] The young woman who allegedly served as Spitzer's call girl for inordinate amounts of money (not that any amount is ordinary), has not only drawn attention but offers for book deals and of course, the obligatory offer from porno magazines. What a country!

There are two things to note here. The first is that the amount of time it took to get Spitzer to resign is indicative of our move toward a more "European" approach to sex and politics. If Spitzer hadn't misused funds or played the "holier than thou" part when he was Attorney General, this might not have cost him his career and job, just his marriage. The idea that the media was questioning whether he should resign was disturbing, yet enlightening. We are moving toward a "progressive European" model of politics. That is, what you do in private doesn't matter, unless of course you let it spill over into your public life.

The other perhaps more insidious aspect of this is how (and why) the media makes celebrities. The woman in question's first comment was that she didn't want to be known as a "monster." The media gladly obliged and told her poor girl story of being a run-a-way, hook on drugs, and subsequent fall into prostitution where she took advantage of her good looks and old men's stupidity. She made quite a life for herself selling her body and remaining dignity.

The irony of this story is that although she may be Spitzer's last fling, she was by no means the first, not all the ones in between either. She just happened to be the one that was there when the bust came down, and wallah - stardom. What about prosecution?

But wait, this is not what gets you to watch TV or read the rags. Those who direct the media knows what it takes to get you to keep tuning in. The poor girl story and suggestive photos will get you interested to know where she came from and the kind of life she's lived. The information garnered from this will do nothing to help you live your life today. It's not even entertaining. What it reveals is our culture's obsession with gossip in the form of "you have a right to know."

Personally, I believe you have a right to learn, not just facts but how to think. I believe that's the original intent of education. However, the media much more enjoys the "right to know" idea because it plays on people's ignorance as we chase after unusable facts. After all, this is how media survives and makes money. It must stay in control to keep you tuning in so they can continue to charge huge amounts of money for sponsors.

Here's my suggestion: find a source of information that actually helps you make the right choices when you need to make important decisions. You'll be amazed at how life changes.

Life's Illusions

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:22:38 CDT

Recently, I watched a movie of Dieter Dengler, a Navy pilot who was shot down during the Viet Nam war. The film was moving as it portrayed Dengler's torture, plot and subsequent escape. Dengler was kept in a small prison with two other American prisoners and three from Thailand. What made Dengler's story more interesting is that he was shot down over Laos.

Because of my inquisitive nature I googled Dengler and tracked down a couple of Youtube shorts. I also found out that Dengler died of ALS recently. What was surprising was that Dengler was flying an Observation Aircraft when he was shot down. What made this somewhat disconcerting is that the movie portrayed him flying a "Skyraider" which is a WW2 vintage fighter/bomber. Why filmakers feel compelled to remake movies according to thier own imagination always amazes me. One would think that portraying the story as close as possible would be true art. However Hollywood sees it differently.

Take the case of Jeremiah Johnson. Johnson was a real mountain man who actually left civilization to live in the far reaches of the Rocky Mountains. However, the filmakers took considerable liberty to make Johnson a likeable character. In reality, Johnson's nick name was "Liver Eating Johnson" because after he killed his hated foe, he ate their liver. This would not make for an appetizing film, so Hollywood distorts, creates, or twists the facts to suit its end.

I believe the real issue is that everything that comes across the screen is an illusion, not reality. Video creates an unreal environment. Not even "Reality TV" is real. It is anything but real as it is altered and modified to fit what the directors and producers want to portray.

Although, I enjoy films and some TV shows as entertainment, I've learned how to watch it. Even the way I watch the news is through personal censorship. I'm aware that what I am viewing is selected material presented in a way to makes me keep watching. After all, TV is about ratings. Live TV will talk about "teasers" that may or may not deliver what they promise. It is, after all, just an advertisement to keep you watching.

I'm not against TV. I still believe it can a useful tool. However, it is used to sell . . . anything and everything. It's used to sell goods, ideas, and people. Media is the most promininent influence on our culture. What's a person to do? Well, for one, stop believing everything you see on TV or in the movies. In every case it has been altered to fit someones idea of what will sell. Using the idea of "creativiity" directors, producers and writers take license to push their agenda.

What about Dengler? The man was a model of persistence and determination. For the most part the film, "Rescue Dawn" got it right. What it didn't get right was the type of plane he was flying and "Gene" on of the prisoners who escaped with Dengler. In the film, Gene is made out to be somewhat of an obstacle to escaping. Others would say that's not at all the case. The point is that reality was distorted to make "better" film making. That's the illusion.

The Disappearance of Childhood

Sat, 01 Mar 2008 13:18:18 CDT

Neil Postman is one of my favorite authors. His work, Amusing Ourselves to Death, is a must read for every American truly concerned about the culture we live in. Now, when I find an author I like I hunt down more of his works. With web sites like Amazon.com it's not too hard to find some.

I've read several of Postman's books that span almost twenty years. Amusing caught some social theorists' attention and brought him some notoriety. His book, The Disappearance of Childhood, really brought some things home to me.

In Disappearance, he gives a "history" of childhood. Basically, discusses how children have been viewed and treated throughout history. I thought he had some very interesting insights and information. However, what has made me think is the way we are viewing and treating children today.

Postman posits that certain knowledge and information is no longer kept away from children. Comments like, "You're not old enough to know that" are not commonplace any more. In fact, Postman makes the point that with cable TV and the internet children have the access to the same information that anyone else has.

One particular point he made was how parents and other concerned adults would not let children see certain adult behavior. The reasoning behind this was to teach children that certain emotions or appetites ought to be under control. Besides this, there was the understanding that learning certain things ought to be orderly and sequential. Furthermore there was the idea that when appetites and emotions are out of control there were some heavy consequences to pay. However, with this new access and a liberal view of knowledge this is no longer true. Now children see adults with appetites and emotions out of control with no serious consequences. So now we see violence on the rise committed by adolescents. We see shootings, rapes, robberies and the like more and more.

There is no more "ought to" when it comes to behavior. Junior doesn't have to control his emotions because Uncle Jack doesn't either. This Postman says is one serious cause in the disappearance of childhood.

Classroom Conversations

Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:28:37 CST

For the second time, I presented the case for Christianity to a World Religion class at a community college. The professor, a friend of mine, invites different clergy to represent their particular faith. This is the second time I've done so at this college. It's enlightening to interact with the students, as well as fun. I take these opportunities to speak to those who sit by and listen to the dialogue.

I started off with my presentation of the "what" of Christianity and then moved into why the New Testament is the most reliable historical document in the world. Copies, dates, archaeology, and extra-biblical writers make up my direct approach. I'm actually priming the pump for questions I know will come. In this group there were three antagonists from three different perspectives. The most serious one was a young man who was an atheist fixed in his position.

The first to begin questioning was a "serious doubter." He expressed doubts about miracles. "I see outrageous miracles in the Bible, but don't see them happening now." The second comment came from the "intellectual atheist" who authoritatively quoted Isaac Asimov.

Another comment came from an older man in the back of the room with a strong "North Carolina" accent. "Why can't we accept that there's one God worshipped by all people?" One other comment came from a young woman who stated that the "Bible says, God wants His children to be happy and if worshipping their own way makes them happy, what's wrong with that?"

I have to admit I enjoy this kind of interaction. The variety of questions and comments keeps me on my toes. Sometimes I'm challenged by the intellectual capabilities these young folks bring in question form. It's kind of like batting practice - you get better by standing in the box and facing off these pitches. This makes you set up differently in the box and stand differently, too. The group grew lively with a few interacting. Most of the students had that "disinterested gaze" on.

As the discussion unfolded, "intellectual atheist" said, "Truth is all perspective. You have yours and I have mine." I asked him if the statement he made about truth being a matter of perspective was his perspective. He said it was; and I asked, "What if my perspective differs?" He said, "That's your perspective." I asked if that was his perspective on my perspective. He didn't get it. So I moved on to, "So, what you're saying is that there is no such thing as truth?" "That's right!" he exclaimed, as if he had made me aware of something. So now I asked him, "Is that true?" "What?" he rejoined. I continued, "The statement you just made about there being no such thing as truth - is it true?"

He had walked into a very simple verbal trap. He had nowhere to go. If he said that it is true that there's no such thing as truth, his argument self-destructed because he would be affirming something he wished to deny. If he said no, then he would be denying what he wanted to affirm. Very simply, you cannot deny the idea of truth without using the truth to do so. He never quite recovered from that as far as the dialogue went.

I went into my Thomistic explanation of truth as that which corresponds to reality. I know some will credit Aristotle for that, and rightly so. I, however, like Thomas' rendition of it. The students had stopped their doodling and were now listening more attentively. I then took a swing at "naturalism," which I knew "intellectual atheist" subscribed to. I asked, "If only material substances exist, where is the number 2?" Then I asked where thoughts are, where the mind is, etc. If there are only natural things, where are these intangible, nonmaterial substances?

My next step was to ask if they believed the simple law of cause and effect, which states that every effect must intrinsically resemble its cause. Not in every way, but in some way, such as the sun making things melt because of its heat. Melting wax with the sun would be an intrinsic cause and effect. They all agreed this was the case. So next I asked, "Where does intelligence come from? Where does ‘mind' come from?"

"Intelligent atheist" tried to say intelligence comes from survival. I was starting to really like this guy; he was throwing the kinds of pitches that let me hit home runs. I asked if survival was a part of an intelligent response to the situation. While he pondered, I mentioned he still didn't tell me where intelligence originated. Unfortunately, he started getting frustrated, and others tried to make what he was saying sound more intelligent, but that always fails. The simple question is that if intelligence is an effect, what is its cause? Intelligence had to come from somewhere, and it had to come from something intelligent. That's the law of cause and effect. The same would be true of morals and minds.

I refrained from any further "verbal spanking" and started to proclaim why I believe that the message of the gospel is relevant for all in society. Unfortunately, we ran out of time. Several students smiled as they walked past me out of class. "Intelligent atheist" pulled his hat over his eyes and walked out without passing me.

I don't feel self-satisfied in these situations, but I sense I've taken several steps during the presentation to help people consider the Christian message.

The first is that Christians have a role in the intellectual community, and we can answer most of the objections presented to Christianity. More than that, I've given those who simply sat and listened to the arguments something to think about beyond a Bible-thumping message. One Christian girl came up to me afterwards and mentioned how much she'd been helped. "I never knew there was so much evidence to support what I believe. I can now dialogue with my friends about why I believe the Bible is reliable."

Amen to that sister. If I was able to give these young people something to think about, I'd done my job and served a greater purpose in presenting the gospel.

My friend, the teacher who invited me, saw what I was doing. He said, "I saw that you were attacking their belief systems."

"That's right," I said. "I go after the presuppositions that they base their beliefs on. That's the only way you'll change their worldview.

"Everyone has a set of fixed points that they fly by. I simply show how their fixed points are unreliable. It's up to them to make the changes."

Christianity has the most reliable points to fly by.

The Truth of the Matter

Sat, 01 Mar 2008 17:26:35 CST

The truth of the matter is that truth matters. Forgive me for this "play on words," but I find that too many Christians are way too cavalier with their view of truth. I hear all kinds of definitions of truth like, "truth is kaleidoscopic" and "we each have a piece of the truth." Worse, I hear things like "No one can know the truth." My response to all that is to ask, "Is that true?"

Allow me to plant my flag on this hill: I believe truth is absolute, objective and knowable. There, I've said it. Now that the assertion is made, let me demonstrate the evidence.

In John 18:37 we read,

Therefore Pilate said to Him, "So You are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice." (My emphasis)
Jesus asserts his purpose was to testify to the truth. Then he went on to say that everyone who is of the truth hears his voice. Certainly, John's Gospel has more references to the concept of truth than the other gospels. I believe the time of John's writing warranted his emphasis on the truth.

Christianity had traversed its regulated boundaries of Judaism and had begun to make an impact on the Roman world. Where it had once been considered a cult of Judaism, it was now contending with the Pagan religions of the Empire. The Roman world was relativistic and therefore pluralistic. Rome acquired many ‘gods' as they absorbed cities and societies into its empire. All the gods of these societies were welcomed as long as they lined up with emperor worship. As the conqueror, Rome could easily take this place. However, Christianity came singing a different song, proclaiming the one true God, a different Lord than Caesar, and a Savior.

We immediately learn two things from these verses. Jesus' discloses his purpose for being born was to testify to the truth and that there are sides. That is, there are some who are not "of the truth" and do not hear his voice.

John's Gospel has many other references to truth. Jesus told his disciples that after he is gone he would send the comforter who is the "Spirit of truth" (John 14:16,17) and he, the Spirit of truth, would guide the disciples into all truth. (John 16:13) For John to write these things repeatedly is to make the point . . . truth is important. In reality, that is an understatement; truth is essential. He also makes the point that truth is knowable. This is also emphasized in the verse, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32) Of course, the condition of this assertion is to make your home in God's word.

Certainly, no one knows the truth as God does. His knowledge is infinite. However, Jesus asserts that if we abide in his word, we shall know the truth. There doesn't seem like there's any uncertainty here. Why Christians would accommodate a postmodern position on truth knowing what Jesus has said is troubling. Do they question what Jesus said? Do they question what he meant?

Another comment I hear regularly is that "truth is a person." The reference here is to the claims of Jesus being "the way, the truth and the life." Think for a moment. What did Jesus mean when he said, "I am the way?" The way to what? From the context we can ascertain he meant that he's the way to the Father. Is he the way everywhere? No, he was claiming that he is the way to the Father, or the way to eternal life.

When he stated, "I am the life," what was he claiming? Was he saying, I am all of life? He was claiming that he is the only life worth having as far as eternity is concerned and that eternal life is in him. In context when Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life" he was not using that in an absolute fashion.

Why then would we consider he is "all of truth?" He is not the answer to every mathematical problem. Nor is he the definition of every word in every language. However, he is the truth concerning the promise of the Father, the seed of Abraham, and the fulfillment of every prophecy concerning the Messiah. Also, we can consider that Jesus is the bearer of the truth about salvation. The law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. This is not to trivialize the Lord's personhood or the substance of his being. He is the source of all truth. Only truth proceeds from his mouth. In him there is no darkness, no lies, and death cannot be found in him. He is light, truth, and life. That is the context of Jesus asserting, "I am the way, the truth, and the life."

Yes, when we embrace Jesus we embrace the truth. Yet, truth is found in doctrine and certainly in God's word. "Your Word is Truth" exclaims the psalmist. (Psalm 119:160; cf. John 17:17) We are saved by obedience to the truth, (1 Peter 1:22). Some oppose the truth, (1 Tim 3:8); some turn away their ears from the truth and turn aside to myths, (1 Tim 4:4; Titus 1:14) some stray from the truth, (James 5:19).

So we come to ask, "What is truth?" Although there are several theories of truth, the classical definition of truth that comes down to us through the ages is, truth is that which corresponds to reality. Truth claims assert what is real, not imagined. That which is truth exists whether we know it or not, whether we believe it or not. Truth exists without us and in spite of our attempts to redefine it. This is the "concept" of truth. This is what Jesus is not. He is the "content" of truth.

The simple question is, does the Scripture comply with this? Some might ask, does this comply with Scripture. Either way the answer is a resounding YES! Thy word corresponds to that which is real, that which is. Jesus Christ is the truth about salvation.

Does Jesus Christ correspond to reality? Absolutely! And he came to testify to the truth and gave us the Spirit of truth to guide us into all truth. In Jesus' day it was common to begin a discourse by saying, "Verily, verily." Translation? Truly, truly. "What I am about to say corresponds to what is real."

Truth is essential for our faith because we do not have faith in faith, but faith in what is true. Essentials are those things that are non-negotiable. So it is with truth. Learn to value it, embrace it, and love it. Truth is knowable through our minds and hearts. We are to confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in our hearts that God raised him from the dead. This is the way to salvation.

Seekers of truth find Jesus, if in fact this is what they desire. If all we're attempting to do is justify our lifestyle, our political position, or our religion, we won't find him. Truth is a master and we must let it master us. The truth sets us free when we abide in his word and come to know it.

The Spirit of truth guides us into truth. When we are "of the truth" we hear his voice because he only speaks the truth. God is the source of all truth and Jesus bears that truth to us today.

Will Islam and the West Ever Agree?

Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:12:27 CST

Will Islam and the West ever agree?
During the Vietnam war, the media, the government, and the military all misunderstood the Vietnamese. Presidents Johnson and Nixon both believed they would beat the Vietnamese by attrition. However, this proved to be untrue. Simply killing thousands of North Vietnamese did not bring them to their knees - or to the bargaining table. What America collectively misunderstood was the Vietnamese resolve to win the war.

While in Vietnam, I had the opportunity to live with a Vietnamese family, and later liaison with the South Vietnamese rescue squad. I ate with them, slept with them, partied with them, and sometimes cried with them. To say it simply, I learned a lot. When South Vietnamese soldiers expressed their doubts about winning the war, I too became doubtful. Vietnam had been at war with China, the French, and then America. They fought the Chinese for a thousand years, the French for a hundred years, and we'd been there 10 years. They knew they'd simply outlast us. They also knew they had something they were willing to die for. We weren't quite sure if we should be dying for this.

Then the media simply misunderstood the North Vietnamese resolve. They also misrepresented the Vietnamese people as a whole. The media reported that the Vietnamese did not value human life. No one knows how many Vietnamese lives were given for their cause - that's another story - but the media assessment was a misrepresentation.

Currently, the media continually misrepresent "radical Islam." Today, I heard a newscaster skew radical Islam as "fascist." This is clearly another misrepresentation. The Muslims who wage war in Iraq today are fighting for a "way of life." Agree with it or not, they're fighting for a theocracy. In fact, when President Bush talks about bringing democracy to Iraq, they hear that as bringing a pagan, idolatrous government, namely democracy, to a Muslim land. For the Muslim, democracy is people-dependent, not God- dependent.

It is not helpful for the media to portray the followers of Islam as fascists, thugs, or anything other than what they are: religious zealots. Of course, there are moderate Muslims who are also targets for the radical kind. These moderates, according to the radicals, adjust to democracy by trading in - compromising - what Islam actually is. Frankly, they're right. To the Muslim, the Koran is the incarnation of God. It is more than the Bible, which has undergone critical scrutiny. The Koran has never undergone any critical scrutiny, not because Muslims are afraid to find errors, but because they revere the book as they revere God himself. True Islam adheres to the Koran. These moderates have deviated from the basic Koranic teaching.

According to an article by Dinesh D'Souza, radical Muslims are out to set things right. At one time, Islam was at the center of culture, the arts, and philosophy. However, this is not evident anymore. The Muslims have asked, "What went wrong?" The answer they've come up with is that they've stopped living by the Koran. And, there are too many non- Muslim influences on their culture, namely the West. America is the "Great Satan" who deceives and lures Muslims away from the Koran, and a holy life.

The problem with the West and Islam is that the West sees two things: an untapped market to reap lots of money, and oil. Our commercial bent keeps us seeking how we can tap into their economy. Our (America and the West) other interest in the Mideast has always been oil. We had no interest in the region until we discovered we needed oil and they had it. Unfortunately, we can't seek either without exporting our culture. Movies, music, and TV are all exported into the Mideast. This drives the Muslims mad.

Conversely, Muslims see one thing: a decadent secular culture corrupting their ability to be holy. They see us like the biker dude, covered in tattoos and piercings, sporting a Mohawk haircut, hanging out with our daughter, and perhaps getting a little bit too physical.

D'Souza points out that radical Muslims are desperate. Terrorism is an act of desperation, which finds justification only in the live-or-die mindset. Muslims want Westerners to leave their lands. They will kill for it, and as we've seen, die for it. They want isolation and will go to any end to achieve it. Suicide bombings tell the story of this mindset and worldview.

But the Muslims want more. When one radical was asked what he would do if America left Iraq, he said he would come after us here. They not only want isolation, but they want the influence of the West to end. They believe the demise of Muslim culture is due to Muslims not living by the Koran. They attribute that to "sell-outs" who have embraced Western lifestyles and the pervading decadent influence of Western culture.

There are some things that Christians must agree with. America is hedonistic. We live for pleasure. Our culture is godless, or we have marginalized God at best. Secularism is the enemy of all religions. Muslims see America drowning in drugs, promiscuity, lewd behavior, crookedness, and the rest. We'd have to agree this is an apt description of American culture. Heck, I don't want that culture influencing my life!

The invasion of Iraq may have removed a threat to "our" way of life. But Iraq is an Arab land inhabited by Arabs. We've watched Iraqis rejoice that Saddam was chased out and captured, but also say they want us out now. The radical Muslims do not want a Western-style democracy to govern Iraq. Neither do they want the West to guide or influence Iraq.

The problem is historical as well as ideological. For more insight into this, read Samuel P. Huntington's description of this problem in The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. In about four pages, Huntington outlines the last 1400 years of conflict between Islam and the West. This problem with Islam has not just appeared out of nowhere. He emphasizes that Islam and the West have threatened each other's existence for centuries. One must simply recognize that this problem between Islam and the West will not just go away.

Politically, the West tries to enlighten the Muslims through democracy. We want to make them "civilized" like the rest of us. Military force is not the issue. We can defeat their armies on any battleground. What the West fails to realize is that this is not a political war, but a war of ideologies. And the war is not contained in one country or region - radical Islam spans the globe. This is not a war the West will win on the battlefield.

What can the Christian do? Simply, we must win Muslims one at a time. There are 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, and they are largely untouched by evangelism. However, God has been busy reaching Muslims. There are countless stories of Jesus appearing to Muslims in their time of prayer, revealing Himself as the right way to God. There are also many covert missionaries reaching Muslim people. However, efforts to reach Muslims are way out of proportion to reaching other peoples of the world. As Americans, we can fear the hatred Muslims have for us. But as Christians we must find ways of reaching the Muslim world.

On a social note, I believe we can agree with Muslims that America is hedonistic and secular as a culture. We can also agree that most western Christianity is tepid and shallow. It is self- serving and lacks the power the gospel promises. For most of us, we can repent and call the church to follow Jesus into the mission field. Not unlike the people we tend to fear and misunderstand, Christians need to live by the Book.

Will Islam and the West ever agree? I don't believe so. The two ideologies are incompatible. Radical Muslims are not about to go away, not unless their ideology changes.

How Really Affect Culture, Really

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:15:11 CST

There is a lot ofinformation and desire to affect culture. I believe this would fall under theumbrella of “love your neighbor.” Unfortunately, I don’t find a lot of love inthe process. Affecting, or changing, maybe transforming culture normally takesthe shape of voting someone who Christians think represent Christian valuesinto office. I don’t know that I agree with this. Actually I do know. I don’tagree with this. Most of what I hear is angry, sometimes vitriolic languagewhen it comes to changing, excuse me, transforming culture.

I’ve not always believedwhat I now believe about transforming culture. There was a time I believed thechurch would make such a great impact on the culture it would turn to Christ.By “it” I mean the masses that participate in our western culture. I now havecome to the place of believing only God decides when a transformation occurslike the effect the Great Awakening caused. Transforming culture is notsomething God asks of the church unless it is under the umbrella of “love thyneighbor.” God’s plan is not pacifism, nor is it an aggressive military posturelike manifest destiny. I do believe in the “just war” approach to militaryconflict, but that’s a topic for another blog. Back to transforming culture . ..

It is in God’s plan for thechurch to love the people in the world not the stuff in the world. Love youneighbor is the way the church should proceed evangelistically.

Since studying apologeticsI’ve embrace new “tools” for evangelism. I still believe in the greatcommission, the mission of the church to reach the unsaved of the world andmaking disciples. As my years go by I become more astute of my time andresources so I focus more diligently on what I think needs to be done. So here’smy plan for really affecting culture, really.

I believe we need a newkind of missionary, one that will see the high school and college campuses asthe main US mission field. Here’s where Jesus is most needed and will have thegreatest affect. I still believe in confronting those who manufacture ideasthat are raised up against the knowledge of God. The university campus is thelaboratory and factory of such thoughts. And, there’s need to bring the battleto them.

But, what is needed morethan that, in my humble opinion, are those who will go among the collegestudents and share the message of Jesus. I know this is not popular, but it’swhat is needed. Students go to college to get their degree, which now onlyqualifies them for further degrees needed to make a decent living – anotherblog. College is the place where not only are ideas manufactured, but it’swhere these students are forming their plan for life. They’re looking for lifeto make sense and what they’re being told is that it doesn’t make sense. Bothpostmodernism and scientific naturalism give no hope for the future of mankind.Both have a “flat” view of morals and meaning. Another blog?!

What the church ought to bedoing is putting its resources into strengthening their young people to bemissionaries in this field. We ought to focus on the tools needed to equipthese young people for the war they’ll experience in measures they’ve neverdreamed of.

They need to be taught torely on the power of God to resist the plethora of temptations they’ll face andbe equipped to confront the arguments against the existence of God, thereliability of the Bible, moral relativism and militant Darwinism.

We must also move away fromthe “hip-shot” apologetics and teach the core of our beliefs. We must resistthe “pat answers” so often heard from popular pseudo apologists. We must firstunderstand the mind set of the secular world, investigate their gripes and formour answers from an enlightened intellect. Although space doesn’t afford us acomplete answer here – the point is we must focus on the students of ourculture and reach them with the message of Jesus Christ and his resurrection.

A New Atheism

Sat, 16 Feb 2008 09:06:17 CST

Atheism has been around for awhile, but the word didn't appear in the English language until around the 16th Century. Today, there are best selling books on atheism. There's a radical response to religion in general and Christianity in particular. Except for some thinking Christians, the majority of the American church is unfazed by it.

The new atheism has come from the world of scientific naturalism headed by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is a prominent scientist from Oxford University and perhaps is best known for his book, The God Delusion. Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are the others who propound this new atheism. I call it new because it is not of the old style of atheism. This atheism is militant and purports to know it is right and anything to do with God or gods is wrong. Some go as far to say Americans ought to be embarrassed because we still believe in God. Dennett tells us that at one time it may have been necessary to believe in God in our evolution. However, where it would have once been beneficial to believe in God, it has now become dangerous to believe in God.

This and other statements make this form of evolution a concern for the church. Look for more articles and blogs on this as the days pass.

Romney's Speech on Faith

Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:13:37 CST

The confusion of our faith and politics affords uscontinuous errors. After listening to Mitt Romney’s speech, some people areimpressed. He compared himself with JFK and his speech when he ran forpresident. JFK made the point that he was not a “Catholic running forpresident. He was an American running for president who happened to be aCatholic. Romney followed suit. He claimed he is not a Mormon running forpresident, but an American who happened to be a Mormon. His major appeal was tothe Christian right. Although Romney didn’t say anything contorversial, he didobscure some very important facts about his Mormon beliefs. I don’t believe hewas trying to be deceptive, but he used terms that would “acceptable” toChristian listeners. He referred to the “founding fathers” which is anacceptable buzz word for Christians. He definitely got in line with theChristina arguments for a moral society. But, there were some tricky points inhis speech which may go unobserved or uninterpreted.

First, let’s lay things out in a more apparent way.Mormonism began as a cult and has grown into a “folk-religion.” It may well bethat Mormonism is America’s folk-religion. When Joseph Smith received his“revelation” it was to announce that the church had altered the Scriptures, hadleft the religion of the apostles and prophets and that he was chosen torestore it. He was the undisputed leader of the new cult that broke away fromtraditional Christianity. Smith was an authoritarian leader that bandedtogether his followers who sought a place to carry out their new revelation.Mormonism refined its beliefs through the years, at least the ones that wereclearly offensive, like bigamy.

Some Christians were impressed that Romney declared that hebelieved Jesus to be the Son of God and the savior of mankind. This is veryChristian-like. However, Mormons have said that for a while. Jehovah witnesseswill say similar statements. What Mormons will not say is that Jesus Christ isGod’s unique Son. Nor will they say He is God, the Son. Mormons have alwaysasserted that Jesus is the Savior of Mankind, but they do not believe that hedied for you personally. His redemption is kind of a corporate redemption thatis only available to those who walk the Mormon path. They also believe that Jesuswas pre-existent as a “spirit baby” and the brother of Lucifer. We don’t havespace to go into the “special under garments” nor the need to get married inthe Mormon temple in Salt Lake City. Mormons do have some different beliefsthan orthodox Christians.

It’s amazing what some Christians will accept. To many thestatements Romney made sounded authentic. But, this is where the confusion lay.Because someone is a Mormon doesn’t make him a bad candidate for president.Nor, should it be the test whether he will be a good president. Mormons aremoral, for the most part. However, I can’t categorically say that any Christiancandidate will be moral either. If morality is the issue, we ought to make thatthe issue. There was a muddying of the waters in Romney’s speech that may pavethe way for him to become the Republican candidate. The problem will be if he’saccepted because of his allusion to Christian beliefs.

Romney’s hurdle is to garner support from the Christianvoters – he’s looking for the conservative right’s Christian voting block.Pundits like Pat Buchanan have given Romney’s speech high marks. But PatBuchanan is the poster child for Libertarian Christianity, not exactly thecenter of the stream. Buchanan aside, the other apologists have not have notsounded off. They’ll be others who criticize what he said, more than I have.

Here’s what Romney did in his speech. He alluded to apseudo-Christian faith in his statements about Jesus. He then picked up theargument of fighting the secular left. This was a smart move, very smart. Theknee-jerk Christians, whose faith has been politicized, will rally right behindhim. Not a bad political move, not at all.

Here’s the downside of it for Christianity: Romney becomes president and people look at Mormonism in a new light. Mormons can’t be thatbad, look at Mitt. Romney will secure Mormonism as America’s folk-religion.Mormonism is spiritual enough to satisfy many.

I know people will misunderstand my next statement. However,I’ll try to make this as clear as I can. I don’t have a problem with Romneyrunning for president. Nor do I have a problem with him becoming president. Butplease, leave my Christianity alone. It’s muddy enough with all the press itgets. It’s muddy enough with the politicized mumbo jumbo of pundits who don’tunderstand the Scripture and use it for their own political prowess.

Aside from my own consternation about my faith, this oughtto be interesting to watch as it plays out. Romney’s ploy to talk about hisfaith will prompt a response from Mike Huckabee. This ought to make things interesting, really interesting inthe coming months.