Monday, January 31, 2005
Intelligent Design...Time to Wade In
If megabytes consumed in blogs on a given topic is a measure of that topic's importance, then I would be forced to judge Intelligent Design as the most important topic in the GodBlogsphere. Seems like everybody has had something to say on it, it's even bled over into talk radio.
Well, with all the furor, and with the opportunity presented by Through a Glass Darkly's calling of a Blog Carnival on the topic, I figure it is time to wade into the discussion. For the record, I have some qualifications in the matter. I have a Masters Degree in Chemistry, which should give me some basic science chops. I came close to a Masters of Divinity as well, but God had another career in mind for me, which should give me some Christianity chops. By the way, it WAS NOT bad grades in seminary that let me know God wanted me elsewhere -- those grades compare well with my chemistry grades, and they were pretty darn good.
Here are a few of the links that I have particularly enjoyed on the whole ID thing. There's this one from Evangelical Outpost; this one as well. Then there is this one from A Physicist's Perspective, this one from Ex Nihilo, and finally this one from In the Agora. Great reading, great intellectual exercise. But I wonder, what is all this discussion is really about. What are we trying to do? Where are we trying to go on this issue?
I think this is a big deal because evolution appears to contradict the cosmological argument for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is one of the five basic philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity, probably the most accessible of the arguments, and subsequently one of the most appealing. This is essentially the argument that Paul makes in Romans 1.
Unfortunately, I think all of this is "much ado about nothing," or at least a huge discussion over a minor matter. I think those of us on the Christian side of things are making this into a far bigger deal than we need to, and I think those on the evolution side of things are overstepping their boundaries. Pharyngula has a very cute little parable in which he appears to share my sentiment on the matter. (HT: Evangelical Outpost)
I want to make this point by approaching it from two different directions. The first direction is that philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity are just not that important to the advancement of the Gospel, or in the final analysis to personal faith. The second direction, is by analyzing what scientific theories do, and do not do, to reveal that evolutionary theory is not de facto an argument against God.
Considering first the importance of philosophical arguments, or apologetics, to advancing the Gospel and to personal faith. Apologetics are often a large obstacle in the road to a relationship with Jesus. Many are the testimonies that discuss the need to have some sort of "proof" of a god before the individual could consider the God of Christianity. However, for the vast majority of people who include such concerns in their testimonies, confess that once they have established their relationship with God, that relationship was much larger than could possibly be contained in some intellectual exercise.
The most influential apologist of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis, whose testimony is very much based on finding an appealing apologetic, admitted in his recount of the greatest personal crisis of his life, the death of his wife, A Grief Observed, that those apologetics were pointless in the face of his despair. Lewis concedes in that book that his faith, his personal surety - developed through personal experience, that there was a loving God in his life, was all that kept him faithful in a time when life was simply senseless.
Such testimony tells me that while apologetics may be an obstacle to creating belief in the non-believer, if we cannot overcome that obstacle with the cosmological argument, there exists a path around it. That path may be more difficult, it may be harder to find, but if in the end faith matters more than intellectual ascent, then there is a way to build the faith regardless of the intellectual objections.
I shall now turn my attention to the matter of what science does and does not do. I have seen lots of stuff about theories being "falsifiable" or not. I am afraid, I don't get it. I'll explain science as I understand it.
The first step in any scientific endeavor is to define the "system" to be studied. By system, we mean the something like "the motion of celestial bodies" or "balls falling from towers." A system is the object of study and all the variables that can influence it.
Once the system is defined, one then tries to devise a model, or theory, that described the behavior of the system. In the case of the hard sciences, physics or chemistry, that model will likely be mathematical. In the more descriptive sciences it may or may not be mathematical. For example, geologist may develop a mathematical model for the behavior of a fault or they may simply come up with a descriptive model.
Once the model is developed, science tests the model. This is done by using the model to form a hypothesis, that is some statement about how the system will behave under conditions not previously observed, and then performing an experiment to see if the hypothesis was in fact correct. If the hypothesis was correct, the model remains intact. If the hypothesis was not correct, the model must be modified, or discarded in favor of a new model.
Note; however, that all of this begins with defining a system. Of necessity, no system definition can include a caprious and outside variable or influence, or one can never formulate a model.
God is, by definition, supernatural -- that is to say, outside the system. Thus no scientific system or model can ever include God. That statement; does not mean that God does not exist, it simply means that because God is outside the largest system we can define, the physical universe, he cannot be a part of the scientific process. In fact, this affirms that God is supernatural and not subject to our understanding -- a fact that I personally take great comfort in.
This all being said, when someone, scientist or otherwise, asserts that evolution says there is no God, they are overstating what science can or cannot say. Evolution does not allow for God, but then neither does any other scientific model, or theory. Any theory that proports to , has left the realm of science and joined the realm of metaphysics. Any theory that claims to disprove God has similarly entered metaphysics.
To my way of thinking, asking to teach any theory that allows for control outside the system, leaves science, but so what. Science teachers should not be allowed to say that science shows there is no God either. Why try to insert Intelligent Design or Creation Science, or any other thing of the sort?
We should fight the political battle here, but let's change the battleground. Rather than try and get God's role in creation somehow inserted into the curriculum, why don't we work to limit the curriculum, so that it is God neutral -- which is what evolution really is. Science has nothing to say about God -- he is outside the realm of science, definitionally.
If we can have that taught, then we leave the discussions about God where they belong, in the philosophy class, or in church. I for one have complete faith in our ability to spread the Gospel, as long as the schools are not fighting us. I think this gives us a way to stop the opposition without stopping the science. That should satisfy both sides of this debate.
UPDATE: the next morning
To make my final point a little simpler, allow me to restate it this way. When anyone claims that the theory of evolution says there is no God, they are making a claim that is as much based on their personal religious and philosphical convictions as is a Christian's statement of faith. They are not making a statement of science -- call it a "statement of afaith."
If religion has no place in the classroom, then neither does "noreligion." Both are statements of belief, not science.
With this argument, we level the playing field. I am certain the church can prevail on a level playing field.
Well, with all the furor, and with the opportunity presented by Through a Glass Darkly's calling of a Blog Carnival on the topic, I figure it is time to wade into the discussion. For the record, I have some qualifications in the matter. I have a Masters Degree in Chemistry, which should give me some basic science chops. I came close to a Masters of Divinity as well, but God had another career in mind for me, which should give me some Christianity chops. By the way, it WAS NOT bad grades in seminary that let me know God wanted me elsewhere -- those grades compare well with my chemistry grades, and they were pretty darn good.
Here are a few of the links that I have particularly enjoyed on the whole ID thing. There's this one from Evangelical Outpost; this one as well. Then there is this one from A Physicist's Perspective, this one from Ex Nihilo, and finally this one from In the Agora. Great reading, great intellectual exercise. But I wonder, what is all this discussion is really about. What are we trying to do? Where are we trying to go on this issue?
I think this is a big deal because evolution appears to contradict the cosmological argument for the existence of God. The cosmological argument is one of the five basic philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity, probably the most accessible of the arguments, and subsequently one of the most appealing. This is essentially the argument that Paul makes in Romans 1.
Unfortunately, I think all of this is "much ado about nothing," or at least a huge discussion over a minor matter. I think those of us on the Christian side of things are making this into a far bigger deal than we need to, and I think those on the evolution side of things are overstepping their boundaries. Pharyngula has a very cute little parable in which he appears to share my sentiment on the matter. (HT: Evangelical Outpost)
I want to make this point by approaching it from two different directions. The first direction is that philosophical arguments for the existence of a deity are just not that important to the advancement of the Gospel, or in the final analysis to personal faith. The second direction, is by analyzing what scientific theories do, and do not do, to reveal that evolutionary theory is not de facto an argument against God.
Considering first the importance of philosophical arguments, or apologetics, to advancing the Gospel and to personal faith. Apologetics are often a large obstacle in the road to a relationship with Jesus. Many are the testimonies that discuss the need to have some sort of "proof" of a god before the individual could consider the God of Christianity. However, for the vast majority of people who include such concerns in their testimonies, confess that once they have established their relationship with God, that relationship was much larger than could possibly be contained in some intellectual exercise.
The most influential apologist of the 20th century, C.S. Lewis, whose testimony is very much based on finding an appealing apologetic, admitted in his recount of the greatest personal crisis of his life, the death of his wife, A Grief Observed, that those apologetics were pointless in the face of his despair. Lewis concedes in that book that his faith, his personal surety - developed through personal experience, that there was a loving God in his life, was all that kept him faithful in a time when life was simply senseless.
Such testimony tells me that while apologetics may be an obstacle to creating belief in the non-believer, if we cannot overcome that obstacle with the cosmological argument, there exists a path around it. That path may be more difficult, it may be harder to find, but if in the end faith matters more than intellectual ascent, then there is a way to build the faith regardless of the intellectual objections.
I shall now turn my attention to the matter of what science does and does not do. I have seen lots of stuff about theories being "falsifiable" or not. I am afraid, I don't get it. I'll explain science as I understand it.
The first step in any scientific endeavor is to define the "system" to be studied. By system, we mean the something like "the motion of celestial bodies" or "balls falling from towers." A system is the object of study and all the variables that can influence it.
Once the system is defined, one then tries to devise a model, or theory, that described the behavior of the system. In the case of the hard sciences, physics or chemistry, that model will likely be mathematical. In the more descriptive sciences it may or may not be mathematical. For example, geologist may develop a mathematical model for the behavior of a fault or they may simply come up with a descriptive model.
Once the model is developed, science tests the model. This is done by using the model to form a hypothesis, that is some statement about how the system will behave under conditions not previously observed, and then performing an experiment to see if the hypothesis was in fact correct. If the hypothesis was correct, the model remains intact. If the hypothesis was not correct, the model must be modified, or discarded in favor of a new model.
Note; however, that all of this begins with defining a system. Of necessity, no system definition can include a caprious and outside variable or influence, or one can never formulate a model.
God is, by definition, supernatural -- that is to say, outside the system. Thus no scientific system or model can ever include God. That statement; does not mean that God does not exist, it simply means that because God is outside the largest system we can define, the physical universe, he cannot be a part of the scientific process. In fact, this affirms that God is supernatural and not subject to our understanding -- a fact that I personally take great comfort in.
This all being said, when someone, scientist or otherwise, asserts that evolution says there is no God, they are overstating what science can or cannot say. Evolution does not allow for God, but then neither does any other scientific model, or theory. Any theory that proports to , has left the realm of science and joined the realm of metaphysics. Any theory that claims to disprove God has similarly entered metaphysics.
To my way of thinking, asking to teach any theory that allows for control outside the system, leaves science, but so what. Science teachers should not be allowed to say that science shows there is no God either. Why try to insert Intelligent Design or Creation Science, or any other thing of the sort?
We should fight the political battle here, but let's change the battleground. Rather than try and get God's role in creation somehow inserted into the curriculum, why don't we work to limit the curriculum, so that it is God neutral -- which is what evolution really is. Science has nothing to say about God -- he is outside the realm of science, definitionally.
If we can have that taught, then we leave the discussions about God where they belong, in the philosophy class, or in church. I for one have complete faith in our ability to spread the Gospel, as long as the schools are not fighting us. I think this gives us a way to stop the opposition without stopping the science. That should satisfy both sides of this debate.
UPDATE: the next morning
To make my final point a little simpler, allow me to restate it this way. When anyone claims that the theory of evolution says there is no God, they are making a claim that is as much based on their personal religious and philosphical convictions as is a Christian's statement of faith. They are not making a statement of science -- call it a "statement of afaith."
If religion has no place in the classroom, then neither does "noreligion." Both are statements of belief, not science.
With this argument, we level the playing field. I am certain the church can prevail on a level playing field.
Worth the Worry...
Last week some of us got worried for a short period that new laws in Illinois might grant the government the power to force churches to hire homosexuals. Thankfully, it turned out not to be true.
Then comes this article about a woman being legally persuaded to become a prostitute. (HT: WSJ - BOTW -- who thinks it might be a urban legend. I can't figure out how to confirm or deny the story without more international phone calling than I am willing to do.)
Regardless of whether government, here or in Germany or anywhere else for that matter, is forcing repugnant morality on the governed, it is clear that we are worried about it - generally a sign it might happen, if not now, sometime in the foreseeable future.
I think the time is upon us where political involvement for the morally definite (Christians -- for example) is not an option.
A democratic society is a delicate balance of authorities, governmental, corporate, religious, and personal. When that balance becomes upset, we need to work to restore it or we run the risk of having the society collapse.
Clearly there is a fear that government is gaining too much power over the moral and religious realms. Fortunately, in a democracy, we can enter the government and back it off. Difficult and, to some, odious as that may be, it is a far cry better than letting the government drive us into these kinds of situations.
Then comes this article about a woman being legally persuaded to become a prostitute. (HT: WSJ - BOTW -- who thinks it might be a urban legend. I can't figure out how to confirm or deny the story without more international phone calling than I am willing to do.)
Regardless of whether government, here or in Germany or anywhere else for that matter, is forcing repugnant morality on the governed, it is clear that we are worried about it - generally a sign it might happen, if not now, sometime in the foreseeable future.
I think the time is upon us where political involvement for the morally definite (Christians -- for example) is not an option.
A democratic society is a delicate balance of authorities, governmental, corporate, religious, and personal. When that balance becomes upset, we need to work to restore it or we run the risk of having the society collapse.
Clearly there is a fear that government is gaining too much power over the moral and religious realms. Fortunately, in a democracy, we can enter the government and back it off. Difficult and, to some, odious as that may be, it is a far cry better than letting the government drive us into these kinds of situations.
Scripture Break...
2 Cor 5:20 (NAS)
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
Gal 2:20 (NAS)
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.
Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
Gal 2:20 (NAS)
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and delivered Himself up for me.
While I'm bashing the MSM...
Today's Headlines (link requires registration and only good on day of posting)from the NY Times leads with this:
Attacks Kill 35; Turnout Heavy Among Shiites and Kurds. Is this a question of "If it bleeds it leads," or is this just another example of media bias? Admittedly they change their tune in the actual story head, but....Even the LA Times had more sense.
Attacks Kill 35; Turnout Heavy Among Shiites and Kurds. Is this a question of "If it bleeds it leads," or is this just another example of media bias? Admittedly they change their tune in the actual story head, but....Even the LA Times had more sense.
Monday Humor....
The Media
Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, along with a US Marine assigned to protect them, were hiking through the Iraqi desert one day when they were captured by terrorists. They were tied up, led to a village, and brought before the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq.
Zarqawi said, "I am familiar with your western custom of granting the condemned a last wish; so, before we kill and dismember you, do you have any last requests?"
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili." Zarqawi nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."
Peter Jennings said, "I am Canadian, so I'd like to hear the song 'O Canada' one last time." Zarqawi nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.
Zarqawi turned and said, "And now, Mr. U. S. Marine, what is your final wish?"
"Kick my behind," said the Marine.
"What?" asked Zarqawi. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick my behind," insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him.
The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled out a 9mm pistol hidden in his cammies, and shot Zarqawi dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the remaining terrorists with gunfire. In a flash, they were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying Rather and Jennings, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you?"
"What," replied the Marine, "and have you jerks call me the aggressor?"
Dan Rather and Peter Jennings, along with a US Marine assigned to protect them, were hiking through the Iraqi desert one day when they were captured by terrorists. They were tied up, led to a village, and brought before the Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda leader in Iraq.
Zarqawi said, "I am familiar with your western custom of granting the condemned a last wish; so, before we kill and dismember you, do you have any last requests?"
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili." Zarqawi nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."
Peter Jennings said, "I am Canadian, so I'd like to hear the song 'O Canada' one last time." Zarqawi nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.
Zarqawi turned and said, "And now, Mr. U. S. Marine, what is your final wish?"
"Kick my behind," said the Marine.
"What?" asked Zarqawi. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick my behind," insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him.
The Marine went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled out a 9mm pistol hidden in his cammies, and shot Zarqawi dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the remaining terrorists with gunfire. In a flash, they were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying Rather and Jennings, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask them to kick you?"
"What," replied the Marine, "and have you jerks call me the aggressor?"
Sunday, January 30, 2005
More on the Iraqi Elections
As I write, the polls are recently closed in Iraq. It was an amazing day. Early indications are a 72% turnout. What a blessing!
I wish I had time to explore it more thoroughly, but alas, efforts on the GodBlogCon Prayer Blog do not allow me time to do so. However, I am struck with the historical dance that democracy and Christianity have made together.
John 14:66
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."
John 8:32
"...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
One has wonder if more than the first non-Jewish Middle Eastern democracy is in the long-term future for Iraq?
I praise the Lord for the Iraqi people and how brave they are to show up in such number under such conditions. But more, I prasie God for the our soldiers and the work they have done to make this opportunity available to those brave, brave Iraqi people.
Some words from a friend on the scene. In an email I got just last night, in which he granted me permission to reproduce his emails here in the blog, he introduced himself...
"...my full name is LT Jared Leinart with 1st Platoon, Company A, 113th EN BN. The unit is from LaPorte Indiana, however I was born and raised in Northern Indianapolis and currently reside in Arcadia, IN, a small farm community about 20 miles north of Indianapolis. I am married to the most beautiful Christian woman (in my opinion of course) who has blessed me with two wonderful children (Vincent is 8 going on 15 and Hannah is 3 going on Miss Independent). I had just started working on my MDiv prior to being deployed and plan on returning to my studies when I return to the states. When I'm not in Iraq, I work full-time for the Indiana Army National Guard in Operations and Training. My platoon is currently stationed in Mosul, Iraq and have been conducting missions into downtown Mosul to provide barriers around polling sites for the elections. Last night, we removed any deserted vehicles around polling sites that could house Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's)."
In an email from last weekend, he described some of what he was doing in preparation for the election...
"I am here now trying to finish getting our vehicles fitted with the "up-armor". I will probably be flying back to Marez in the next couple days. The four guys from my platoon that are here with me will convoy out sometime next week when the vehicles are done.
In Marez [ed. downtown Mosul], my platoon will travel out with EOD (Explosives Ordanance Disposal) who are supossed to destroy enemy explosives, but since there are so many to destroy and so few EOD, we go out and destroy them. Out here, EOD has become "Engineer On Duty." The unit we are replacing was supossed to be here until after the elections (30 Jan) but they are already heading out the door. We do have a great deal of muscle with us to include a battalion of infantry and calvary. We also have field artillery and other units too.
Yesterday a squad from another engineer platoon got to go out on a mission conduction cordon and search of a small village north of Tel Afar (NW of Mosul). They had infantry air assault (drop from helicopters on ropes) into the town, Stryker vehicles with infantry and cav come rolling in, and apache attack helicopters flying overhead. The enginners went in and set up an EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War) holding area inside of a walled school. Friday is their version of our Sunday so no school was in session. The troops go in and search door to door for weapons and enemy. The had intelligence on one farmhouse as being an enemy hiding area so it was bombed."
Finally, in an email from the middle of this past week he write...
"We are really gearing up for the elections here in the Mosul area. We will be putting in barriers around multiple polling locations (both real and deceptive ones) in the next few days. The locals have been ordered to not drive their vehicles until after the elections, so this will reduce the threat of car bombs (Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices or VBIED in military speak). Then, we will provide security for our engineers with wreckers and remove any vehicles near the polling sites. So far we have only had to go through the city a few times and have only had a few "pop shots" fired in our general direction. You can hear the rifle go off and see it hit a building way above you or off in the distance. Please do not be alarmed as these shots have been WAY OFF. The intelligence we get is that many Iraqis will actually close their eyes when they go to fire their weapons and pray t o Allah. Lucky for us, Allah doesn't seem to be interested in the trajectory of their rounds. We responded to an IED call the other day but we were pretty sure it wasn't going to blow because it was near a playground and kids were still playing in it. It's when there are usually a lot of people and suddenly they are all gone is when you run into problems."
Somehow, when you read it firsthand like this it drives home the situation our men and women, and the FREE, civilized citizens of Iraq are in. I pray and I pray -- I urge you to as well.
I wish I had time to explore it more thoroughly, but alas, efforts on the GodBlogCon Prayer Blog do not allow me time to do so. However, I am struck with the historical dance that democracy and Christianity have made together.
John 14:66
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."
John 8:32
"...and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
One has wonder if more than the first non-Jewish Middle Eastern democracy is in the long-term future for Iraq?
I praise the Lord for the Iraqi people and how brave they are to show up in such number under such conditions. But more, I prasie God for the our soldiers and the work they have done to make this opportunity available to those brave, brave Iraqi people.
Some words from a friend on the scene. In an email I got just last night, in which he granted me permission to reproduce his emails here in the blog, he introduced himself...
"...my full name is LT Jared Leinart with 1st Platoon, Company A, 113th EN BN. The unit is from LaPorte Indiana, however I was born and raised in Northern Indianapolis and currently reside in Arcadia, IN, a small farm community about 20 miles north of Indianapolis. I am married to the most beautiful Christian woman (in my opinion of course) who has blessed me with two wonderful children (Vincent is 8 going on 15 and Hannah is 3 going on Miss Independent). I had just started working on my MDiv prior to being deployed and plan on returning to my studies when I return to the states. When I'm not in Iraq, I work full-time for the Indiana Army National Guard in Operations and Training. My platoon is currently stationed in Mosul, Iraq and have been conducting missions into downtown Mosul to provide barriers around polling sites for the elections. Last night, we removed any deserted vehicles around polling sites that could house Improvised Explosive Devices (IED's)."
In an email from last weekend, he described some of what he was doing in preparation for the election...
"I am here now trying to finish getting our vehicles fitted with the "up-armor". I will probably be flying back to Marez in the next couple days. The four guys from my platoon that are here with me will convoy out sometime next week when the vehicles are done.
In Marez [ed. downtown Mosul], my platoon will travel out with EOD (Explosives Ordanance Disposal) who are supossed to destroy enemy explosives, but since there are so many to destroy and so few EOD, we go out and destroy them. Out here, EOD has become "Engineer On Duty." The unit we are replacing was supossed to be here until after the elections (30 Jan) but they are already heading out the door. We do have a great deal of muscle with us to include a battalion of infantry and calvary. We also have field artillery and other units too.
Yesterday a squad from another engineer platoon got to go out on a mission conduction cordon and search of a small village north of Tel Afar (NW of Mosul). They had infantry air assault (drop from helicopters on ropes) into the town, Stryker vehicles with infantry and cav come rolling in, and apache attack helicopters flying overhead. The enginners went in and set up an EPW (Enemy Prisoner of War) holding area inside of a walled school. Friday is their version of our Sunday so no school was in session. The troops go in and search door to door for weapons and enemy. The had intelligence on one farmhouse as being an enemy hiding area so it was bombed."
Finally, in an email from the middle of this past week he write...
"We are really gearing up for the elections here in the Mosul area. We will be putting in barriers around multiple polling locations (both real and deceptive ones) in the next few days. The locals have been ordered to not drive their vehicles until after the elections, so this will reduce the threat of car bombs (Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices or VBIED in military speak). Then, we will provide security for our engineers with wreckers and remove any vehicles near the polling sites. So far we have only had to go through the city a few times and have only had a few "pop shots" fired in our general direction. You can hear the rifle go off and see it hit a building way above you or off in the distance. Please do not be alarmed as these shots have been WAY OFF. The intelligence we get is that many Iraqis will actually close their eyes when they go to fire their weapons and pray t o Allah. Lucky for us, Allah doesn't seem to be interested in the trajectory of their rounds. We responded to an IED call the other day but we were pretty sure it wasn't going to blow because it was near a playground and kids were still playing in it. It's when there are usually a lot of people and suddenly they are all gone is when you run into problems."
Somehow, when you read it firsthand like this it drives home the situation our men and women, and the FREE, civilized citizens of Iraq are in. I pray and I pray -- I urge you to as well.
Saturday, January 29, 2005
Royal Rumble -- Superhero Style
On this weekend when our nation finds itself in the throes of one of its greatest cultural events, Charlie from Pittsburgh writes "Ask Yahoo" with the question, "Say there's a brawl with all the superheroes. Who wins?"
"Ask Yahoo," whoever that is, gives the extraordinarily predictable, and utterly prosaic answer -- Superman. Please! Maybe you "only read few comic books when I was a kid" types would answer that way, but us "wasted our lives in dark stores looking at picture books, spending WAY too much money" types would beg to differ.
This could be an excuse for endless posturing, pages of analysis, name-calling and general havoc throughout comicdom. But alas, I shall resist.
My short answer -- Batman.
Oh...so you want something that sounds like a reasoned argument? As if, something like that was actually necessary in a situation like this.
Simple, the guy's got no powers, but for over 60 years he has more or less beaten every opponent the fevered minds of comicbook writers could throw at him. This is a guy with a strategic mind beyond compare. Reed Ricards may be smarter. Superman may be stronger(not the mention the Hulk). Spider-Man may be more agile. Need I go on? But Bats just flat out knows how to win a fight. He'll find a way. Can anyone forget the penultimate scene in "The Dark Knight Returns" when Bats absolutely cleans Supes' clock. I never will -- one of the finest scenes in all of comics.
Scoff, if you want. Mock, if you dare. Posture all you like, but if you're not careful, I may just write the story, take it to a convention and see if I can sell it to anyone. Then it will be official. Then we'll see who gets the last laugh.
"Ask Yahoo," whoever that is, gives the extraordinarily predictable, and utterly prosaic answer -- Superman. Please! Maybe you "only read few comic books when I was a kid" types would answer that way, but us "wasted our lives in dark stores looking at picture books, spending WAY too much money" types would beg to differ.
This could be an excuse for endless posturing, pages of analysis, name-calling and general havoc throughout comicdom. But alas, I shall resist.
My short answer -- Batman.
Oh...so you want something that sounds like a reasoned argument? As if, something like that was actually necessary in a situation like this.
Simple, the guy's got no powers, but for over 60 years he has more or less beaten every opponent the fevered minds of comicbook writers could throw at him. This is a guy with a strategic mind beyond compare. Reed Ricards may be smarter. Superman may be stronger(not the mention the Hulk). Spider-Man may be more agile. Need I go on? But Bats just flat out knows how to win a fight. He'll find a way. Can anyone forget the penultimate scene in "The Dark Knight Returns" when Bats absolutely cleans Supes' clock. I never will -- one of the finest scenes in all of comics.
Scoff, if you want. Mock, if you dare. Posture all you like, but if you're not careful, I may just write the story, take it to a convention and see if I can sell it to anyone. Then it will be official. Then we'll see who gets the last laugh.
In poor taste? Perhaps -- but this link is just too good to resist. And to think of it...most of us thought Doug & Bob McKenzie were fictious characters doing stupid, but uproariously funny things.
Iraqi Elections
I was planning on doing a heavily linked post on the Iraqi Elections today and trying to find some spiritual theme and comment on it. Some big intellectual discussion about the link between flourishing democracy and flourishing Christianity.
Then an email landed in my inbox -- a forward from a friend that originated from a military chaplain with a transportation brigade, doing the job on the spot. I think it says all that needs to be said.
As a transportation battalion, my unit will be delivering the voting machines and the ballots to villages and cities throughout Iraq during the upcoming elections (January 30/31).
Our convoys are prime targets for the insurgents because they do not want the equipment to arrive at the polling stations nor do they want the local Iraqi citizens to have the chance to vote; timely delivery must occur so that the elections occur.
Encourage your friends and family members and those within our churches to pray specifically for the electoral process. Historically, the previous totalitarian regime would not allow individual citizens to vote. Democracy will not be realized in Iraq if intelligent and competent officials are not elected to those strategic leadership positions within the emerging government; freedom will not have an opportunity to ring throughout this country if the voting process fails.
Announce this prayer request to your contacts throughout your churches, neighborhoods, and places of business. Those with leadership roles within the local church post this message in as many newsletters and bulletins as possible. There is unlimited potential for God's presence in this process but if we do not pray then our enemy will prevail (See Eph. 6:10-17).
A prayer vigil prior to the end of the month may be an innovative opportunity for those within your sphere of influence to pray. This is a political battle that needs spiritual intervention. A powerful story about God's intervention in the lives of David's mighty men is recorded in 2 Samuel 23:8-33.
David and his warriors were victorious because of God's intervention. We want to overcome those who would stand in the way of freedom. David's mighty men triumphed over incredible odds and stood their ground and were victorious over the enemies of Israel (Iraqi insurgents' vs God's praying people). They don't stand a chance.
I will pray with my soldiers before they leave on their convoys and move outside our installation gates here at Tallil. My soldiers are at the nerve center of the logistic operation to deliver the voting machines and election ballots.
They will be driving to and entering the arena of the enemy. This is not a game for them it is a historical mission that is extremely dangerous. No voting machines or ballots. No elections.
Your prayer support and God's intervention are needed to give democracy a chance in this war torn country. Thank you for reading this e-mail. Please give this e-mail a wide dissemination.
Thank you for your prayer support for me and my family. Stand firm in your battles.
Blessings,
v/r
Lyle
CH (CPT) Lyle Shackelford
Battalion Chaplain
HHD, 57th Transportation Battalion
Then an email landed in my inbox -- a forward from a friend that originated from a military chaplain with a transportation brigade, doing the job on the spot. I think it says all that needs to be said.
As a transportation battalion, my unit will be delivering the voting machines and the ballots to villages and cities throughout Iraq during the upcoming elections (January 30/31).
Our convoys are prime targets for the insurgents because they do not want the equipment to arrive at the polling stations nor do they want the local Iraqi citizens to have the chance to vote; timely delivery must occur so that the elections occur.
Encourage your friends and family members and those within our churches to pray specifically for the electoral process. Historically, the previous totalitarian regime would not allow individual citizens to vote. Democracy will not be realized in Iraq if intelligent and competent officials are not elected to those strategic leadership positions within the emerging government; freedom will not have an opportunity to ring throughout this country if the voting process fails.
Announce this prayer request to your contacts throughout your churches, neighborhoods, and places of business. Those with leadership roles within the local church post this message in as many newsletters and bulletins as possible. There is unlimited potential for God's presence in this process but if we do not pray then our enemy will prevail (See Eph. 6:10-17).
A prayer vigil prior to the end of the month may be an innovative opportunity for those within your sphere of influence to pray. This is a political battle that needs spiritual intervention. A powerful story about God's intervention in the lives of David's mighty men is recorded in 2 Samuel 23:8-33.
David and his warriors were victorious because of God's intervention. We want to overcome those who would stand in the way of freedom. David's mighty men triumphed over incredible odds and stood their ground and were victorious over the enemies of Israel (Iraqi insurgents' vs God's praying people). They don't stand a chance.
I will pray with my soldiers before they leave on their convoys and move outside our installation gates here at Tallil. My soldiers are at the nerve center of the logistic operation to deliver the voting machines and election ballots.
They will be driving to and entering the arena of the enemy. This is not a game for them it is a historical mission that is extremely dangerous. No voting machines or ballots. No elections.
Your prayer support and God's intervention are needed to give democracy a chance in this war torn country. Thank you for reading this e-mail. Please give this e-mail a wide dissemination.
Thank you for your prayer support for me and my family. Stand firm in your battles.
Blessings,
v/r
Lyle
CH (CPT) Lyle Shackelford
Battalion Chaplain
HHD, 57th Transportation Battalion
Friday, January 28, 2005
Liberal Talk Radio
It's late -- way past my bedtime, but I have just got to post on this. I just finished listing to Right Thoughts audio capture of John Hinderocker's self-proclaimed "worst 15 minutes in the history of radio." That being his interview with Al Franken on Air America this date.
This is my first exposure to liberal talk radio -- and likely my last. As much talk radio as I listen to, I have to qualify as an expert of some sort. Franken has got the form down pat, but he sure is missing the spirit.
For example -- the self-promotional stuff. Franken talked about himself incessantly. As he did, I heard echoes of Rush's proclaiming himself "equal time" and doing his program "with half his brain tied behind his back." But what was missing was the spirit of humility in which Rush utters those things. You can only say that stuff if you DO NOT take yourself too seriously. Even Hugh Hewitt, king of self promotion, knows better than to actually mean it when he climbs up on that horse. I am a huge fan of Hugh. I admit he can be overbearing at times, but never does he take himself that seriously.
Another example would be interrupting the guest. A lot of conservative talkers do that, but they do it when their guest rambles, or more likely is trying to wiggle out of a well laid socratic trap. Franken did it just because he could, the result was simply rude.
One might ask, if I am predisposed to miss the spirit when Franken does it simply because I am conservative. It's possible, but then liberals would have to admit to being similarly predisposed when they listen to Rush, et. al. In which case, none of us has any grounds for criticism and should just shut up.
But that would not be any fun, now would it.
This is my first exposure to liberal talk radio -- and likely my last. As much talk radio as I listen to, I have to qualify as an expert of some sort. Franken has got the form down pat, but he sure is missing the spirit.
For example -- the self-promotional stuff. Franken talked about himself incessantly. As he did, I heard echoes of Rush's proclaiming himself "equal time" and doing his program "with half his brain tied behind his back." But what was missing was the spirit of humility in which Rush utters those things. You can only say that stuff if you DO NOT take yourself too seriously. Even Hugh Hewitt, king of self promotion, knows better than to actually mean it when he climbs up on that horse. I am a huge fan of Hugh. I admit he can be overbearing at times, but never does he take himself that seriously.
Another example would be interrupting the guest. A lot of conservative talkers do that, but they do it when their guest rambles, or more likely is trying to wiggle out of a well laid socratic trap. Franken did it just because he could, the result was simply rude.
One might ask, if I am predisposed to miss the spirit when Franken does it simply because I am conservative. It's possible, but then liberals would have to admit to being similarly predisposed when they listen to Rush, et. al. In which case, none of us has any grounds for criticism and should just shut up.
But that would not be any fun, now would it.
Pollution...
Fascinating...Test Tube Beastiality?
When the ethical implications are this complex, one has to wonder if we just should not go there -- even if the science is really cool.
Amazing...What Will They Tax Next?
The EPA recently announced a settlement with animal feeding operations concerning air pollution. These are feedlots and poultry barns. In essence such operations are going to pay up to $100,000 because their charges (pardon the indelicacy here) poop and fart! I wish I could say this is the first time this has happened. I suggest you monitor your and your pets diets closely.
What I want to know is who will we collect from after the next volcanic eruption?
You HAVE to Love the Irony...
First Item
For years we have heard about the need to develop alternate energy sources that do not pollute. MSNBC carries a piece about lawsuits pitting biodiversity versus clean energy. Whose environmental concern is going to win? Which environemtnal concern is more important? We report...YOU decide, if you really want to.
Second Item
Equally for years, we have heard about the need to better insulate our homes, and thus reduce our energy consumption. Well, we've gotten so good at it that indoor air pollution is a legitimate concern. Now we "learn" form Capital Reports that indoor air purifiers may be of concern as well. Note that while they concerntrate on their ire on ozone generators, when making the presentation to the California Air Resources Board, they could not resist taking a pot shot at Ionizers and Elecrostatic Precipitators as well (second page).
One has to wonder if those most concerned about this issue are in the HEPA Filter industry?
When the ethical implications are this complex, one has to wonder if we just should not go there -- even if the science is really cool.
Amazing...What Will They Tax Next?
The EPA recently announced a settlement with animal feeding operations concerning air pollution. These are feedlots and poultry barns. In essence such operations are going to pay up to $100,000 because their charges (pardon the indelicacy here) poop and fart! I wish I could say this is the first time this has happened. I suggest you monitor your and your pets diets closely.
What I want to know is who will we collect from after the next volcanic eruption?
You HAVE to Love the Irony...
First Item
For years we have heard about the need to develop alternate energy sources that do not pollute. MSNBC carries a piece about lawsuits pitting biodiversity versus clean energy. Whose environmental concern is going to win? Which environemtnal concern is more important? We report...YOU decide, if you really want to.
Second Item
Equally for years, we have heard about the need to better insulate our homes, and thus reduce our energy consumption. Well, we've gotten so good at it that indoor air pollution is a legitimate concern. Now we "learn" form Capital Reports that indoor air purifiers may be of concern as well. Note that while they concerntrate on their ire on ozone generators, when making the presentation to the California Air Resources Board, they could not resist taking a pot shot at Ionizers and Elecrostatic Precipitators as well (second page).
One has to wonder if those most concerned about this issue are in the HEPA Filter industry?
Christian Vocation
True Pravda pulls a quote from a piece by Ken Myers at BreakPoint/Prison Fellowship and opines:
"We need to do a better job in dispelling the myth that some vocations (i.e., “full-time Christian ministry") are more sacred than others. After all, all believers are considered among the royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9-10). If indeed all truth is God’s truth, the engineer, physician, homemaker, janitor, teacher—even lawyer!—are all in positions to further God’s truth to a world in need of redemption."
I am going to call Jared and raise him. Not only are the more "mundane" professions an integral part of spreading the gospel -- I think they are the sacred vocations.
Professional full-time Christian ministry is likely a necessity, but I do not think it is a definitive part of God's plan for the church. Our scriptural examples from Acts indicate that the Apostles operated as itinerants, sometimes the offering supported them, and sometimes Paul was sewing tents. Sometimes, Paul at least, would forgo payment for the sake of the gospel. (I Cor 9:11-12.)
I think full time professional ministry comes with a built in conflict of interest and a gross temptation. Do I visit the sick and lonely, or do I call on the largest donor? Do I let my sermon stink this week because I really need to spend time with 'X?' Do I preach what I think the congregation really needs to hear, or do I preach what will keep the pews full and the offerings coming? Do we spend money on an in-house gym, or do we commission a missionary?
I don't know any one in full time professional ministry that has not struggled with questions like these, and I know a whole lot of them that have fogotten to say what Paul said to the Corinthians. I am not saying that professional ministry is definitionally a corrupt vocation -- There are many, many good people in vocational ministry.
I am saying that I think God prefers voluntary, part-time ministry. Jesus came to sanctify our lives, regardless of how we support ourselves. We can spread that sanctification regardless of how we support ourselves as well.
Got a ministry in your church that needs more labor. Let me challenge you NOT to think about hiring someone. Let me challenge you to think about how to get your congregants so excited about Jesus that they step in and get the job done. I think God preferes it that way.
"We need to do a better job in dispelling the myth that some vocations (i.e., “full-time Christian ministry") are more sacred than others. After all, all believers are considered among the royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9-10). If indeed all truth is God’s truth, the engineer, physician, homemaker, janitor, teacher—even lawyer!—are all in positions to further God’s truth to a world in need of redemption."
I am going to call Jared and raise him. Not only are the more "mundane" professions an integral part of spreading the gospel -- I think they are the sacred vocations.
Professional full-time Christian ministry is likely a necessity, but I do not think it is a definitive part of God's plan for the church. Our scriptural examples from Acts indicate that the Apostles operated as itinerants, sometimes the offering supported them, and sometimes Paul was sewing tents. Sometimes, Paul at least, would forgo payment for the sake of the gospel. (I Cor 9:11-12.)
I think full time professional ministry comes with a built in conflict of interest and a gross temptation. Do I visit the sick and lonely, or do I call on the largest donor? Do I let my sermon stink this week because I really need to spend time with 'X?' Do I preach what I think the congregation really needs to hear, or do I preach what will keep the pews full and the offerings coming? Do we spend money on an in-house gym, or do we commission a missionary?
I don't know any one in full time professional ministry that has not struggled with questions like these, and I know a whole lot of them that have fogotten to say what Paul said to the Corinthians. I am not saying that professional ministry is definitionally a corrupt vocation -- There are many, many good people in vocational ministry.
I am saying that I think God prefers voluntary, part-time ministry. Jesus came to sanctify our lives, regardless of how we support ourselves. We can spread that sanctification regardless of how we support ourselves as well.
Got a ministry in your church that needs more labor. Let me challenge you NOT to think about hiring someone. Let me challenge you to think about how to get your congregants so excited about Jesus that they step in and get the job done. I think God preferes it that way.
Friday Humor
The following is from a friend of mine that is quite experienced in the ways of sin. (Can't you just hear Groucho Marx saying, "But then aren't we all?!")
The Definitive Tashlich Guide
On Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), there is a ceremony called Tashlich. Jews traditionally go to the ocean (or a stream or river), pray, and then throw bread crumbs onto the water, so that the fish can symbolically eat their sins. Some people have been known to ask what kind of bread crumbs should they throw.
Here is the definitive Tashlich Guide for the Complicated Modern Jew
For ordinary sins..............White Bread
For exotic sins................French Bread
For particularly dark..........Pumpernickel
For complex sins...............Multi-Grain
For twisted sins...............Pretzels
For tasteless sins.............Rice Cakes
For sins of indecision.........Waffles
For sins committed in haste....Matzo
For sins of chutzpah...........Fresh Bread
For the sin of substance abuse/marijuana.......Stoned Wheat
For the sin of substance abuse/heavy drugs.....Poppy Seed
For the sin of committing auto theft...........Caraway
For the sin of committing arson................Toast
For the sin of passiveness when action is warranted.....Milk Toast
For the sin of being ill-tempered/sulky........Sourdough
For the sin of cheating customers..............Shortbread
For the sin of risking one's life unnecessarily.........HeroBread
For the sin of excessive use of irony..........Rye Bread
For the sin of telling bad jokes...............Corn Bread
For the sin of being money hungry..............Raw Dough
For the sin of war-mongering...................Kaiser Rolls
For the sin of immodest dressing...............Tarts
For the sin of causing injury or damage to others.......Tortes
For the sin of promiscuity.....................Hot Buns
For the sin of promiscuity with gentiles.......Hot CrossBuns
For the sin of davening (praying) off tune.....FlatBread
For the sin of being holier than thou..........Bagels
For the sin of indecent photography............Cheese Cake
For the sin of over-eating.....................Stuffing Bread
For the sin of gambling........................Fortune Cookies
For sin of abrasiveness........................Grits
For sins of pride............................. Puff Pastry
For the sin of cheating..........Baked Goods with Nutrasweet and Olestra
For sin of impetuousness.........Quick Bread
For negligent slip-ups...........Banana Bread
For the sin of dropping in without warning.....Popovers
For the sin of perfectionism...................Angel Food Cake
For the sin of being up-tight and irritable....High Fiber Bran Muffins
Remember, you don't have to show your crumbs to anyone. For those who require a wide selection of crumbs, an attempt will be made to have pre-packaged Tashlich Mix available in three grades (Tashlich Lite, Regular, and Industrial Strength) at your local Jewish bookstore.
Can I borrow some cornbread? Please?
The Definitive Tashlich Guide
On Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year), there is a ceremony called Tashlich. Jews traditionally go to the ocean (or a stream or river), pray, and then throw bread crumbs onto the water, so that the fish can symbolically eat their sins. Some people have been known to ask what kind of bread crumbs should they throw.
Here is the definitive Tashlich Guide for the Complicated Modern Jew
For ordinary sins..............White Bread
For exotic sins................French Bread
For particularly dark..........Pumpernickel
For complex sins...............Multi-Grain
For twisted sins...............Pretzels
For tasteless sins.............Rice Cakes
For sins of indecision.........Waffles
For sins committed in haste....Matzo
For sins of chutzpah...........Fresh Bread
For the sin of substance abuse/marijuana.......Stoned Wheat
For the sin of substance abuse/heavy drugs.....Poppy Seed
For the sin of committing auto theft...........Caraway
For the sin of committing arson................Toast
For the sin of passiveness when action is warranted.....Milk Toast
For the sin of being ill-tempered/sulky........Sourdough
For the sin of cheating customers..............Shortbread
For the sin of risking one's life unnecessarily.........HeroBread
For the sin of excessive use of irony..........Rye Bread
For the sin of telling bad jokes...............Corn Bread
For the sin of being money hungry..............Raw Dough
For the sin of war-mongering...................Kaiser Rolls
For the sin of immodest dressing...............Tarts
For the sin of causing injury or damage to others.......Tortes
For the sin of promiscuity.....................Hot Buns
For the sin of promiscuity with gentiles.......Hot CrossBuns
For the sin of davening (praying) off tune.....FlatBread
For the sin of being holier than thou..........Bagels
For the sin of indecent photography............Cheese Cake
For the sin of over-eating.....................Stuffing Bread
For the sin of gambling........................Fortune Cookies
For sin of abrasiveness........................Grits
For sins of pride............................. Puff Pastry
For the sin of cheating..........Baked Goods with Nutrasweet and Olestra
For sin of impetuousness.........Quick Bread
For negligent slip-ups...........Banana Bread
For the sin of dropping in without warning.....Popovers
For the sin of perfectionism...................Angel Food Cake
For the sin of being up-tight and irritable....High Fiber Bran Muffins
Remember, you don't have to show your crumbs to anyone. For those who require a wide selection of crumbs, an attempt will be made to have pre-packaged Tashlich Mix available in three grades (Tashlich Lite, Regular, and Industrial Strength) at your local Jewish bookstore.
Can I borrow some cornbread? Please?
Thursday, January 27, 2005
A New Look at an Old Story
My wife and I lead a small group Bible study for a few high school kids from our church. Last night we studied the story of Jesus healing the blind man with spit. (John 9:1-16) This is always a big hit with kids because it has that whole gross out aspect to it.
As we were discussing it, doing the usual stuff about "Light of the World" and how Jesus was setting up the Pharisees, etc., etc. I could not get the first three verses of the passage out of my head.
John 9:1-3 (NAS)
1 And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Break that short passage down. The disciples wonder if a guy is blind from birth as some form of punishment for sin. Jesus answers that it is not. Now so far this story sounds great. God does not punish us for our sins. It does not explain why the guy is blind, but it is good to know that a loving God does not visit earthly punishments upon us for our sins, or those of our parents.
But then Jesus says that the man's blindness exists purely so that God can display His might. I can just hear the brakes squealing on all those minds out there that are worried about how a loving God can condemn sinners, this sounds even more capricious than that. I think this needs to inform both our theology of salvation, and our ideas about the character of God.
Let's start with the character of God first. All those people out there that claim God cannot possible be the author of suffering in the world -- here's some news for you -- Jesus is flat out claiming responsibility for this man's suffering. All those fuzzy thinkers out there that contend that bad things happen to good people because God is just not quite as in charge as we want to think he is -- guess again. Jesus is telling us here that He is firmly in control.
I think our understanding of the character of God may be a little one-sided. Do I think God is not loving and merciful? Of course not! - but I do think that 1) we have insufficient concepts of what love and mercy really are; and 2) that God's character is far, far more complex than just love and mercy, and that we forget so at our own risk.
I am not going to even begin to try and describe the character of God, because I think that is precisely the point -- We cannot do so. Ultimately God is beyond our comprehension. For someone with a background in science, that is not easy to say. I'd like to think given enough time, energy, and research I could figure anything out -- but not this one. Ultimately we can only ever understand bits and pieces of God, we will never get the whole picture, and we best always remember that.
What about our theology of salvation? I think this points out that salvation is a lot more complex than, "Things were bad, but now I'm saved, so they are good." I think it is more like "I'm saved, so now I am a tool in God's toolbox and He may use me as a hammer, which has got to hurt."
I have been concerned ever since my long ago days as a Young Life staff person at how many people say "Yes" to Jesus and then get lost along the way. Why is that? I think in large part it is because we sell the "It was bad, but now it's good" theory of salvation instead of the "You're saved, life still gets pretty rough" theory.
Admittedly the first theory fills the pews pretty well, but I wonder if it fills the Kingdom? In the end, only God will judge who is and is not in the Kingdom, but I do not think it hurts to wonder, and I really don't think it hurts to figure out what precisely it is that we are selling.
As we were discussing it, doing the usual stuff about "Light of the World" and how Jesus was setting up the Pharisees, etc., etc. I could not get the first three verses of the passage out of my head.
John 9:1-3 (NAS)
1 And as He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. 2 And His disciples asked Him, saying, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?" 3 Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was in order that the works of God might be displayed in him.
Break that short passage down. The disciples wonder if a guy is blind from birth as some form of punishment for sin. Jesus answers that it is not. Now so far this story sounds great. God does not punish us for our sins. It does not explain why the guy is blind, but it is good to know that a loving God does not visit earthly punishments upon us for our sins, or those of our parents.
But then Jesus says that the man's blindness exists purely so that God can display His might. I can just hear the brakes squealing on all those minds out there that are worried about how a loving God can condemn sinners, this sounds even more capricious than that. I think this needs to inform both our theology of salvation, and our ideas about the character of God.
Let's start with the character of God first. All those people out there that claim God cannot possible be the author of suffering in the world -- here's some news for you -- Jesus is flat out claiming responsibility for this man's suffering. All those fuzzy thinkers out there that contend that bad things happen to good people because God is just not quite as in charge as we want to think he is -- guess again. Jesus is telling us here that He is firmly in control.
I think our understanding of the character of God may be a little one-sided. Do I think God is not loving and merciful? Of course not! - but I do think that 1) we have insufficient concepts of what love and mercy really are; and 2) that God's character is far, far more complex than just love and mercy, and that we forget so at our own risk.
I am not going to even begin to try and describe the character of God, because I think that is precisely the point -- We cannot do so. Ultimately God is beyond our comprehension. For someone with a background in science, that is not easy to say. I'd like to think given enough time, energy, and research I could figure anything out -- but not this one. Ultimately we can only ever understand bits and pieces of God, we will never get the whole picture, and we best always remember that.
What about our theology of salvation? I think this points out that salvation is a lot more complex than, "Things were bad, but now I'm saved, so they are good." I think it is more like "I'm saved, so now I am a tool in God's toolbox and He may use me as a hammer, which has got to hurt."
I have been concerned ever since my long ago days as a Young Life staff person at how many people say "Yes" to Jesus and then get lost along the way. Why is that? I think in large part it is because we sell the "It was bad, but now it's good" theory of salvation instead of the "You're saved, life still gets pretty rough" theory.
Admittedly the first theory fills the pews pretty well, but I wonder if it fills the Kingdom? In the end, only God will judge who is and is not in the Kingdom, but I do not think it hurts to wonder, and I really don't think it hurts to figure out what precisely it is that we are selling.
Amen Corner
Proverbial Wife has a great piece on the state of Godblogging.
Weapons of Warfare has an interesting post on evangelism that in some ways echoes my post on radical faith and how to spread it. I think Weapons let's him/herself off a little easy in trying to resolve the tension so well described. An interesting topic for further discussion.
John Fischer over at Purpose Driven Life has a great, absolutely great post, called "It's All About Jesus." As a child of the early 70's Jesus movement, via Young Life, there is little I can say but AMEN! I am trying to make a blog on those exact lines.(HT: Broken Masterpieces)
Weapons of Warfare has an interesting post on evangelism that in some ways echoes my post on radical faith and how to spread it. I think Weapons let's him/herself off a little easy in trying to resolve the tension so well described. An interesting topic for further discussion.
John Fischer over at Purpose Driven Life has a great, absolutely great post, called "It's All About Jesus." As a child of the early 70's Jesus movement, via Young Life, there is little I can say but AMEN! I am trying to make a blog on those exact lines.(HT: Broken Masterpieces)
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Vox Blogoli V1N1 - Take Two
Yesterday Hugh Hewitt interviewed Jonathon Rauch on his radio program to respond to the original "blog swarm" that happened when Hugh posted a pull quote from Rauch's new Atlantic piece and called this Vox Blogoli. Rauch readily admitted that the inflammatory statements in the pull quote were ill conceived and should have been written better. Rauch argued that if the full article was read, and the pull quote appeared in context, the statements would not seem so offensive. He then got Hugh permission to post the article at his blog (link in title)
I have now read the full article twice. I will grant Rauch that having the quote in context takes some of the sting out of it, but there is still a problem with the article. After spending most of it's time quite even-handedly, it concludes with the pull quote, in a fashion that implies that Republicans have a much bigger problem with the inclusion of the extremeists than the Dems do -- that somehow the Dems, while growing more extreme, are closer to the center than the GOP is. This implication exists simply becasue he does not balance his statements about the right with ones about the left. He also implies that the religious right is definitionally extremist, even as he withdrew his assertion that they are violent in the radio interview.
This article definitely belies a liberal bias becasue it choses examples that would appeal in that direction.
It is widely known to all of us that HOW something is said, and written, can mean as much as WHAT is said. The best example I know was a radio report I heard years ago -- it was a known opinion outlet, so the bias was evident. The commentator was reading a piece on the potential ozone depleting properties of an extremely common material called 1,1,1-trichlorethane. The commentator ended the piece by declaring that manufacturers made it difficult for consumers to avoid products using this material becasue they "hide" their use of the material by using names for it like "Trichlor," "Methylchloroform," and "1,1,1."
I am willing to bet that all of you who read the last paragraph stumbled when you got to "1,1,1-trichloroethane." Well, I am academically trained as a chemist, and I stumble over it -- and I have been known to use it literally 100's of times in a day. The synonyms listed above are far from attempts to "hide" the identity of the material -- rather they are attempts to make the material more accessable -- they are supposed to be easier to say, hear, and remember. The formal 1,1,1-trichlorethane name is highly descriptive to chemists and is the official name by a naming protocol devised by chemists to avoid very technical confusion that can arise, but it is admittedly clumsy and commonly avoided in consumer situations.
The commentator, by his choice of the word "hide" revealed a prejudice that could have been avoided simply removing the intent laden aspects of his statement and replacing it with "Things can be a little confusing because the material has several synonyms..."
In his choice of examples, Mr. Rauch has revealed a prejudice as well. The few pertinent words Hugh pulled changed the piece from reporting to commentary -- it's as simple as that. While Rauch's statements may not be as pointed as hearing them out of context makes them look, I see little reason to withdraw what I said in my original post.
I have now read the full article twice. I will grant Rauch that having the quote in context takes some of the sting out of it, but there is still a problem with the article. After spending most of it's time quite even-handedly, it concludes with the pull quote, in a fashion that implies that Republicans have a much bigger problem with the inclusion of the extremeists than the Dems do -- that somehow the Dems, while growing more extreme, are closer to the center than the GOP is. This implication exists simply becasue he does not balance his statements about the right with ones about the left. He also implies that the religious right is definitionally extremist, even as he withdrew his assertion that they are violent in the radio interview.
This article definitely belies a liberal bias becasue it choses examples that would appeal in that direction.
It is widely known to all of us that HOW something is said, and written, can mean as much as WHAT is said. The best example I know was a radio report I heard years ago -- it was a known opinion outlet, so the bias was evident. The commentator was reading a piece on the potential ozone depleting properties of an extremely common material called 1,1,1-trichlorethane. The commentator ended the piece by declaring that manufacturers made it difficult for consumers to avoid products using this material becasue they "hide" their use of the material by using names for it like "Trichlor," "Methylchloroform," and "1,1,1."
I am willing to bet that all of you who read the last paragraph stumbled when you got to "1,1,1-trichloroethane." Well, I am academically trained as a chemist, and I stumble over it -- and I have been known to use it literally 100's of times in a day. The synonyms listed above are far from attempts to "hide" the identity of the material -- rather they are attempts to make the material more accessable -- they are supposed to be easier to say, hear, and remember. The formal 1,1,1-trichlorethane name is highly descriptive to chemists and is the official name by a naming protocol devised by chemists to avoid very technical confusion that can arise, but it is admittedly clumsy and commonly avoided in consumer situations.
The commentator, by his choice of the word "hide" revealed a prejudice that could have been avoided simply removing the intent laden aspects of his statement and replacing it with "Things can be a little confusing because the material has several synonyms..."
In his choice of examples, Mr. Rauch has revealed a prejudice as well. The few pertinent words Hugh pulled changed the piece from reporting to commentary -- it's as simple as that. While Rauch's statements may not be as pointed as hearing them out of context makes them look, I see little reason to withdraw what I said in my original post.
Thanks to Richard Eriksson at Just a Gwai Lo for pulling a quote from my initial response to Hugh Hewitt's first Vox Blogoli of the year!
Forced Gay Acceptance
UPDATE 1:30PM Same Date
As they say in the NFL, "Upon further review..." apparently the brush up was that certain Illinois legislators were threatening to apply the new statute to churches, but the statute lacks the wording to make that happen. The statute passed, Illinois SB3186 was an amendment to an existing law. While the amendment does not contain the usually standard exemptions for churches, the underlying law does and it therefore applies to the amendment.
Those facts not withstanding, the research has been helpful and there are two organizations that I would like to recommend to those interested in donating to legal protections for the church. As mentioned below, ADF is one of them. The other is Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute. Please, click and be generous.
(Thanks to John Eastman at the CCJ for his input!)
UPDATE 8:45AM Same Date
And prayer is answered quickly! In the research I promised in the post below, I ran across this piece from the Alliance Defense Fund which indicates the law recently passed does not have the sweeping affect indicated in the initial reporting. ADF looks like a good resource in this type of situation and I will keep them in mind and consult them in the future.
Original Post
In the Agora picks up on a State of Illinois press release, JollyBlogger picks up on a Worldnet Daily Story, while Evangelical Outpost, Wittenberg Gate, and SmartChristian pick up on them concerning an anti-discrimination law signed in Illinois this week that might make it illegal for churches to discriminate against gays in their hiring practices.
In the words of Douglas Adams -- DON'T PANIC. I am sure this law is a long way from practical enforcability. I would not be surprised to see this make it all the way to the Supremes. Which raises what I see as the first, most important question -- Where do I send a check?
We have to fight this one. Separation of church and state has to be a doctrine that runs both ways. If the church is somehow limited in its operations in governmnet, then so too should governmnet be limited in its power to affect the church.
When ever this subject, or similar subjects come up I always find my self reflecting of Jesus' statement to "render unto Caesar...." I have a very solid sense of where I stand morally -- and homosexual practice is just wrong. The line about where my moral and religious convictions should or should not be forced into the public sphere is much less distinct.
But on this I have little doubt, those of us in the church, with strong moral convictions, CANNOT allow government to change those convictions, and particularly not when they are shared by a majority of people in the country. I am going to research places where we can send money and let you know.
Pray hard about this one.
As they say in the NFL, "Upon further review..." apparently the brush up was that certain Illinois legislators were threatening to apply the new statute to churches, but the statute lacks the wording to make that happen. The statute passed, Illinois SB3186 was an amendment to an existing law. While the amendment does not contain the usually standard exemptions for churches, the underlying law does and it therefore applies to the amendment.
Those facts not withstanding, the research has been helpful and there are two organizations that I would like to recommend to those interested in donating to legal protections for the church. As mentioned below, ADF is one of them. The other is Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Claremont Institute. Please, click and be generous.
(Thanks to John Eastman at the CCJ for his input!)
UPDATE 8:45AM Same Date
And prayer is answered quickly! In the research I promised in the post below, I ran across this piece from the Alliance Defense Fund which indicates the law recently passed does not have the sweeping affect indicated in the initial reporting. ADF looks like a good resource in this type of situation and I will keep them in mind and consult them in the future.
Original Post
In the Agora picks up on a State of Illinois press release, JollyBlogger picks up on a Worldnet Daily Story, while Evangelical Outpost, Wittenberg Gate, and SmartChristian pick up on them concerning an anti-discrimination law signed in Illinois this week that might make it illegal for churches to discriminate against gays in their hiring practices.
In the words of Douglas Adams -- DON'T PANIC. I am sure this law is a long way from practical enforcability. I would not be surprised to see this make it all the way to the Supremes. Which raises what I see as the first, most important question -- Where do I send a check?
We have to fight this one. Separation of church and state has to be a doctrine that runs both ways. If the church is somehow limited in its operations in governmnet, then so too should governmnet be limited in its power to affect the church.
When ever this subject, or similar subjects come up I always find my self reflecting of Jesus' statement to "render unto Caesar...." I have a very solid sense of where I stand morally -- and homosexual practice is just wrong. The line about where my moral and religious convictions should or should not be forced into the public sphere is much less distinct.
But on this I have little doubt, those of us in the church, with strong moral convictions, CANNOT allow government to change those convictions, and particularly not when they are shared by a majority of people in the country. I am going to research places where we can send money and let you know.
Pray hard about this one.
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
On Education
Circular at Mere-Orthodoxy has a great post on what's wrong with education these days. I think a very interesting question is why have the syptoms he described so well appeared. The egalitarian urge that has done away with anything that might reward, highlight, or encourage excellence has got to be checked. I visited the Soviet Union -- trust me, you do NOT want to live in a society where excellence is discouraged.
Vox Apologia II - Digital Salt
Razorskiss hosts Vox Apologia II, the subject of which is "Digital Salt."
This, I imagine is an obvious reference to Jesus telling us:
Matt 5:13-14 (NAS)
13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
The question I find in the subject is, "How can Godbloggers be salt and light to the world?"
This is a fascinating question indeed. I think Godbloggers can and are bringing critical thought back to the church. I think Godbloggers can and are affecting public opinion concerning religion in general and Christianity specifically. I think Godbloggers can and are being an effective force for reformation and renewal in the church. What I do not know with certainty is if Godbloggers can spread the Good News. Can blogging be a tool for evangelism?
To be honest, I don't really think so. There are two words that I think vital to the spreading of the gospel -- incarnation and indwelling. God Incarnate came to us to prepare the way for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These are very personal things, and they are far more than ideas.
The Old Testament is all about God trying to deal with people through words and ideas. In the end it became necessary for God to come for a visit (Jesus) and take up residence with us (Holy Spirit) for things to get going. I have yet to figure out how to visit, let alone live with someone on the Internet.
The ideas that surround Christianity are vitally important, but in the end, they are not Christianity, Jesus is. I may be able to tell you about Jesus in this blog, but I cannot introduce you to Him.
Blogging is good and Godbloggers need to be doing what they are doing, but it is no substitute for direct people-to-people ministry. We can protect the church from here, but to spread Jesus, we have to get up off our behinds and meet people.
This, I imagine is an obvious reference to Jesus telling us:
Matt 5:13-14 (NAS)
13 "You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how will it be made salty again? It is good for nothing anymore, except to be thrown out and trampled under foot by men. 14 "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
The question I find in the subject is, "How can Godbloggers be salt and light to the world?"
This is a fascinating question indeed. I think Godbloggers can and are bringing critical thought back to the church. I think Godbloggers can and are affecting public opinion concerning religion in general and Christianity specifically. I think Godbloggers can and are being an effective force for reformation and renewal in the church. What I do not know with certainty is if Godbloggers can spread the Good News. Can blogging be a tool for evangelism?
To be honest, I don't really think so. There are two words that I think vital to the spreading of the gospel -- incarnation and indwelling. God Incarnate came to us to prepare the way for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These are very personal things, and they are far more than ideas.
The Old Testament is all about God trying to deal with people through words and ideas. In the end it became necessary for God to come for a visit (Jesus) and take up residence with us (Holy Spirit) for things to get going. I have yet to figure out how to visit, let alone live with someone on the Internet.
The ideas that surround Christianity are vitally important, but in the end, they are not Christianity, Jesus is. I may be able to tell you about Jesus in this blog, but I cannot introduce you to Him.
Blogging is good and Godbloggers need to be doing what they are doing, but it is no substitute for direct people-to-people ministry. We can protect the church from here, but to spread Jesus, we have to get up off our behinds and meet people.
Vox Blogoli V1N1
Hugh Hewitt opens Vox Blogoli for 2005 by asking for comment on the following quote from a Jonathan Rauch piece in the New Atlantic.
"On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a heroÂ’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around."
Where to begin with a passage like this? Three points I think.
1) The romanticization of the social upheaval of the 60's is hard to deal with. I will agree with Rauch's assertion that civil rights activists had to take to the streets to be heard, but not so the anti-Vietnam crowd, the pro-abortion crowd, the ERA crowd, and so on and so forth. These are people that in my opinion fell in love with the protest and not the cause. And I should be quick to point out that the absolute last thing the civil rights people wanted was "street warfare." Dr. King's primary tool was non-violence. Yes - many of the demonstrations turned into street warfare, but on the actions of the other side, not on the actions of the protestors themselves.
I think the left really has lost its way completely. The misunderstanding of what happened then that is apparent in this quote would indicate that they have no clue what they stand for, other than being radical somehow. That's just a shame. The civil rights movement under Dr. King was one of the great movements in American history -- but what it has morphed into is just shameful.
2) I cannot believe that he lumps religious conservatives together with abortion clinic bombers. It's as if we did not have a voice in the party we would instantly resort to bombing. What this says is that in the mind of the left, the ends justifies the means. They ignore the fact that the very essence of our ends (our religious convictions) of necessity limits our means. I pointed this out in the very first post I made on this new blog.
Does the left pay no attention to the fact that abortion clinic bombing are almost universally condemned on the right? I think this says more about what they are willing to do, that what we are.
3) The thinking represented in this quote is so far from my way of thinking that it is a bit terrifying. I am reminded of a scripture:
Isa 55:8-9(NAS)
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.
This scripture makes it plain that I will never really understand God's thoughts or ways, and I work at it. The difference between how Rauch thinks and how I think can only drive home how misguided thought, loosed from an effort to understand the thoughts of the Creator, can become.
When I read such thinking, I feel called to redouble my efforts at scripture and prayer. Only by constantly seeking God, can I hope to even come close to His thoughts. Only by proximity to His thoughts can I have the necessary foundation to keep my thoughts from going too far astray.
UPDATE: 4:06 PM same date. Just heard Hugh's interview with Rauch -- great interview -- way to push on him Hugh! I was confused the first time I read Hugh's excerpt, I thought Rauch wanted it both ways -- which is what he said in the interview. But when one reads the words carefully, the implications are transparent. I think this is a very thin veil.
"On balance it is probably healthier if religious conservatives are inside the political system than if they operate as insurgents and provocateurs on the outside. Better they should write anti-abortion planks into the Republican platform than bomb abortion clinics. The same is true of the left. The clashes over civil rights and Vietnam turned into street warfare partly because activists were locked out of their own party establishments and had to fight, literally, to be heard. When Michael Moore receives a heroÂ’s welcome at the Democratic National Convention, we moderates grumble; but if the parties engage fierce activists while marginalizing tame centrists, that is probably better for the social peace than the other way around."
Where to begin with a passage like this? Three points I think.
1) The romanticization of the social upheaval of the 60's is hard to deal with. I will agree with Rauch's assertion that civil rights activists had to take to the streets to be heard, but not so the anti-Vietnam crowd, the pro-abortion crowd, the ERA crowd, and so on and so forth. These are people that in my opinion fell in love with the protest and not the cause. And I should be quick to point out that the absolute last thing the civil rights people wanted was "street warfare." Dr. King's primary tool was non-violence. Yes - many of the demonstrations turned into street warfare, but on the actions of the other side, not on the actions of the protestors themselves.
I think the left really has lost its way completely. The misunderstanding of what happened then that is apparent in this quote would indicate that they have no clue what they stand for, other than being radical somehow. That's just a shame. The civil rights movement under Dr. King was one of the great movements in American history -- but what it has morphed into is just shameful.
2) I cannot believe that he lumps religious conservatives together with abortion clinic bombers. It's as if we did not have a voice in the party we would instantly resort to bombing. What this says is that in the mind of the left, the ends justifies the means. They ignore the fact that the very essence of our ends (our religious convictions) of necessity limits our means. I pointed this out in the very first post I made on this new blog.
Does the left pay no attention to the fact that abortion clinic bombing are almost universally condemned on the right? I think this says more about what they are willing to do, that what we are.
3) The thinking represented in this quote is so far from my way of thinking that it is a bit terrifying. I am reminded of a scripture:
Isa 55:8-9(NAS)
8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.
This scripture makes it plain that I will never really understand God's thoughts or ways, and I work at it. The difference between how Rauch thinks and how I think can only drive home how misguided thought, loosed from an effort to understand the thoughts of the Creator, can become.
When I read such thinking, I feel called to redouble my efforts at scripture and prayer. Only by constantly seeking God, can I hope to even come close to His thoughts. Only by proximity to His thoughts can I have the necessary foundation to keep my thoughts from going too far astray.
UPDATE: 4:06 PM same date. Just heard Hugh's interview with Rauch -- great interview -- way to push on him Hugh! I was confused the first time I read Hugh's excerpt, I thought Rauch wanted it both ways -- which is what he said in the interview. But when one reads the words carefully, the implications are transparent. I think this is a very thin veil.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Tolerance - Again!?
Don't know how I missed it, but the Reuters News Service put out a dispatch over the weekend about "increasing intolerance" amongst Christians. (link in the title) Best of the Web compared and contrasted the Reuters dispatch with the Washington Times printing of the story to make a point about the choice of words and revealed prejudices. Great point!
What really irks me though is that when you read the actual dispatch all they are talking about is that Christians are becoming bolder about 1) sharing their faith, and 2) pushing back on societal institutions when they take step that are clearly unchristian and likely immoral. It's as if having a different opinion and standing on it, just that, and nothig more is by definition "intolerant."
I posted on this just a couple of days ago regarding how fuzzy the meaning of words has gotten, and particularly the meaning of the word tolerance. Evangelical Undergorund has a great post on the consequences of the increasingly expanding definition of tolerance.
Michael Medved had on some vehement atheist today that claimed that the simple act of wishing for her that she might meet Jesus was "intolerant." Actually she contended that it was a lot worse than that, but I can't remember her precise words so I will not attempt to quote them.
The anti-Christian left is becoming increasingly hysterical about Christianity having any place in public discourse, any place at all.
I hurt for such people. They wish to reduce our faith and committment to a mere set of intellectual conceits that we can pick up or put down as the situation calls. More importantly, they are incapable of opening themselves up to anything like genuine relational faith.
I remind myself that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to reach such people, not us. The parable of the sower and the seeds seems most appropriate in this setting. The best thing I can think of for such people is to pray for them.
What really irks me though is that when you read the actual dispatch all they are talking about is that Christians are becoming bolder about 1) sharing their faith, and 2) pushing back on societal institutions when they take step that are clearly unchristian and likely immoral. It's as if having a different opinion and standing on it, just that, and nothig more is by definition "intolerant."
I posted on this just a couple of days ago regarding how fuzzy the meaning of words has gotten, and particularly the meaning of the word tolerance. Evangelical Undergorund has a great post on the consequences of the increasingly expanding definition of tolerance.
Michael Medved had on some vehement atheist today that claimed that the simple act of wishing for her that she might meet Jesus was "intolerant." Actually she contended that it was a lot worse than that, but I can't remember her precise words so I will not attempt to quote them.
The anti-Christian left is becoming increasingly hysterical about Christianity having any place in public discourse, any place at all.
I hurt for such people. They wish to reduce our faith and committment to a mere set of intellectual conceits that we can pick up or put down as the situation calls. More importantly, they are incapable of opening themselves up to anything like genuine relational faith.
I remind myself that it is the work of the Holy Spirit to reach such people, not us. The parable of the sower and the seeds seems most appropriate in this setting. The best thing I can think of for such people is to pray for them.
Christian Environmental Viewpoint
I find myself drawn to two posts today, one at Radioblogger and the other at Brothers Judd. Both relate to environmental issues. Duane at Radioblogger is rightfully upset about both political correctness gone mad and another excuse for taxation -- but it is based on an environmental issue. The Brothers discuss some new global warming studies.
I am in the environmental business (a compliance and engineering consultant to industry) and could write on the technical stuff involved here at great length. But thst is not what I wish to address in this blog. I had an aborted weekly posting thing I did for a couple of years a while back. I wrote something for it concerning enivronmental issues, that I want to expand upon here.
The bottom line question is this: When it comes to environmental issues, just who do we think we are? The conceit contained in most environmental discussions truely terrifies me. The assumptions about our power and capabilities are frightening.
I am reminded of a very old joke. Some scientists one day decide to show God what they can do. At the meeting, they lay it out for God. "Look God, we'd really like to thank you for all that you have done. It's an amazing universe you put together here. But you know what, we can handle things from here. We've figured out how to make life and change the planet. Why don't you retire?"
God responds by saying, "So you can make life can you? Well, let's have a contest, first one back here with a new lifeform wins."
"You're on!" respond the scientists.
As they walk out of the meeting the scientists bend over and pick up some dirt to use in their effort. God walks over and taps them on the shoulder. "I sorry," says God, "Maybe I did not make myself clear -- Get your own dirt."
We are God's creatures and He has given us dominion over the planet. Gen 1:26-28 (NAS) 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
The dominion God has given us over the planet does enable us to do some pretty amazing things -- including making some big changes to the planet itself. But we are still part of that created order -- our actions, though tainted with our sinfullness, are also a part of that created order.
It is worthy of note that change is something very different than creation or destruction. We can change God's creation, but we cannot do the actual creating, nor do I believe we can destroy it. The next time you find yourself worried about some environmental disaster, remember your place in the created order.
With it's Colorado camping properties, Young Life maintains a small chalet above tree line on Mt. Princeton. Whe kids are taken up there, many of whom have never seen anything like the Rocky Mountains, the view is spectacular. There is a cross, and on that cross is a scripture.
Ps 46:10 (KJV) Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Try to take time today and know who God is. It has an amazing way of adjusting your perspective. I know it has for me today.
UPDATE at 3:10 same date: Best of the Web has a hilarious link to another Global Warming Story. The story is really about a new study that shows that global warming may have played an important role in the Great Dying of about 250 million years ago. This hypothesis is not news to those of us on the technical side of things. I saw some stoichiametric calculations some years ago saying that CO2 trapped in the polar ice cap is sufficient to account for the rise in CO2 levels that have accompanied the noted mean temperature increase. It is; however, great news to see some more aqccessible studies released to the public.
I am in the environmental business (a compliance and engineering consultant to industry) and could write on the technical stuff involved here at great length. But thst is not what I wish to address in this blog. I had an aborted weekly posting thing I did for a couple of years a while back. I wrote something for it concerning enivronmental issues, that I want to expand upon here.
The bottom line question is this: When it comes to environmental issues, just who do we think we are? The conceit contained in most environmental discussions truely terrifies me. The assumptions about our power and capabilities are frightening.
I am reminded of a very old joke. Some scientists one day decide to show God what they can do. At the meeting, they lay it out for God. "Look God, we'd really like to thank you for all that you have done. It's an amazing universe you put together here. But you know what, we can handle things from here. We've figured out how to make life and change the planet. Why don't you retire?"
God responds by saying, "So you can make life can you? Well, let's have a contest, first one back here with a new lifeform wins."
"You're on!" respond the scientists.
As they walk out of the meeting the scientists bend over and pick up some dirt to use in their effort. God walks over and taps them on the shoulder. "I sorry," says God, "Maybe I did not make myself clear -- Get your own dirt."
We are God's creatures and He has given us dominion over the planet. Gen 1:26-28 (NAS) 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28And God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth."
The dominion God has given us over the planet does enable us to do some pretty amazing things -- including making some big changes to the planet itself. But we are still part of that created order -- our actions, though tainted with our sinfullness, are also a part of that created order.
It is worthy of note that change is something very different than creation or destruction. We can change God's creation, but we cannot do the actual creating, nor do I believe we can destroy it. The next time you find yourself worried about some environmental disaster, remember your place in the created order.
With it's Colorado camping properties, Young Life maintains a small chalet above tree line on Mt. Princeton. Whe kids are taken up there, many of whom have never seen anything like the Rocky Mountains, the view is spectacular. There is a cross, and on that cross is a scripture.
Ps 46:10 (KJV) Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.
Try to take time today and know who God is. It has an amazing way of adjusting your perspective. I know it has for me today.
UPDATE at 3:10 same date: Best of the Web has a hilarious link to another Global Warming Story. The story is really about a new study that shows that global warming may have played an important role in the Great Dying of about 250 million years ago. This hypothesis is not news to those of us on the technical side of things. I saw some stoichiametric calculations some years ago saying that CO2 trapped in the polar ice cap is sufficient to account for the rise in CO2 levels that have accompanied the noted mean temperature increase. It is; however, great news to see some more aqccessible studies released to the public.
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Visit this post and lend Dr AJ at "SmartChristian Blog" your support for GodBlogCon I -- be there, or be square.
An Interesting Question
Dr. AJ over at Smart Christian picks up on my post this morning and asks the question, "Is blogging on Sunday a sin?" Thankfully, he acknowledges that I do not make such a claim. And I want to reiterate that here -- it's not. That should be obvious since this is my second post of the day.
I do; however, think it is very important to set aside a day to do something different than the normal. Let me explain a little about my specific situation. The goal of my blog is to review the news of the day -- whatever seems to be the big discussion on the poliblogs and talk radio, and then come up with a few brief devotional thoughts related to that discussion. My idea is to remind all of us that Jesus came to change the world -- not through our institutions, but through each of our personal lives. If everyone knows Jesus, if each of us focuses on Jesus, somehow I think the whole institutional thing will work out.
Of course, as Christians we should each do our best in our institutional roles, this is no call to some sort of monastic life -- it's a simple statement of priorities.
What I am giving up by limiting my blogging on the sabbath is the news search. I am taking the day to withdraw from the common and the ordinary, to focus on higher and holier things. That is why I am willing to respond today instead of waiting until tomorrow. This topic of discussion is God's business, and I am more than willing to tackle that any day.
Scripture is full of references to days away and years of rest. Of course, there is the commandment concerning the sabbath. But then there are all the concepts of sabbatical and jubilee years.
God clearly plans for renewal for each of us. We need to build time into our lives to be so renewed.
I do; however, think it is very important to set aside a day to do something different than the normal. Let me explain a little about my specific situation. The goal of my blog is to review the news of the day -- whatever seems to be the big discussion on the poliblogs and talk radio, and then come up with a few brief devotional thoughts related to that discussion. My idea is to remind all of us that Jesus came to change the world -- not through our institutions, but through each of our personal lives. If everyone knows Jesus, if each of us focuses on Jesus, somehow I think the whole institutional thing will work out.
Of course, as Christians we should each do our best in our institutional roles, this is no call to some sort of monastic life -- it's a simple statement of priorities.
What I am giving up by limiting my blogging on the sabbath is the news search. I am taking the day to withdraw from the common and the ordinary, to focus on higher and holier things. That is why I am willing to respond today instead of waiting until tomorrow. This topic of discussion is God's business, and I am more than willing to tackle that any day.
Scripture is full of references to days away and years of rest. Of course, there is the commandment concerning the sabbath. But then there are all the concepts of sabbatical and jubilee years.
God clearly plans for renewal for each of us. We need to build time into our lives to be so renewed.
Sundays for Resting
I take seriously God's call to "Remember the sabbath and keep it holy." Therefore, my Sunday postings shall be limited. Some day I will blog more extensively on why I use Sundays for rest and that I am not a fanatic or tyrannical Pharisetical type about, I just think one should set aside a day a week for God and renewal.
I could not; however, let the day pass without a couple of links. Firstly, a sympathetic nod to Hugh Hewitt's vain attempts to get to New York. As someone that has travelled on business quite a bit myself, I know it's a pain. Good luck to day Hugh!
Secondly a big Thank You! to Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost for his suggestions about evangelical blogs and networking and his efforts at establishing a Blog Roll to do so. I have incorporated that roll at the left.
I could not; however, let the day pass without a couple of links. Firstly, a sympathetic nod to Hugh Hewitt's vain attempts to get to New York. As someone that has travelled on business quite a bit myself, I know it's a pain. Good luck to day Hugh!
Secondly a big Thank You! to Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost for his suggestions about evangelical blogs and networking and his efforts at establishing a Blog Roll to do so. I have incorporated that roll at the left.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Speaking of Tension
Turns out I may have been a little premature yesterday -- there was a lot of discussion about Peggy Noonan's WSJ piece -- just most of it on the left. Notable on the right were Best of the Web, PunditGuy, Powerline and Between Two Worlds. There was also quite the thread at Lucianne.
There was a bit of a dust-up yesterday over some comments James Dobson made concerning Spongebob Squarepants. Hugh Hewitttakes them on directly and Evangelical Outpost has a great summary of the whole situation. I am going to leave the arguing to them and, as is my goal, look for a devotional point in the situation.
The whole thing centers on the character of Spongebob (one of my nephew's favs I might add) becoming a spokescharacter for "tolerance," specifically tolerance of sexual orientation. I MUST say that Spongebob's core audience really has no business talking about sexual orientation at all. I do not use scare quotes around the word tolerance above to get a BOTW mention -- rather I use them because I think the word has become so fuzzy as to have little meaning any more.
One of the great movements of our time in winning the rhetorical battle has been to soften or even modify the definition of words to achieve ones ends. In this case a rhetorical equation has been established in the public debate:
Love = Tolerance = Acceptance = Approval
These are different words with very different meanings. Jesus certainly did not accept what the religious official of the day were doing:
Matt 23:29-33 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 "Consequently you bear witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 "Fill up then the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?(NAS)
While Jesus was generally tolerant of their activities even that had its limits. After all, He did tear through the Temple courtyard, something that would have to be considered intolerant.
Yet, when those same officials hung Jesus on the cross, He uttered one of the most loving utterances of all time.
Luke 23:33-34 And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. 34 But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.(NAS)
Yesterday I mentioned the tension of being pulled in two directions between being radically committed to Jesus personally, and having limits on how radically we will approach sharing our devotion. I do not think there is a similar tension between loving the sinner and condemning the sin.
If we really love someone, we want what is best for them, and continuing in some unethical or unholy practice is not what is best. Thus it was definitionally a loving act for Jesus to condemn the Pharisees as vipers and to turn over the moneychangers tables.
Our age needs wisdom. We need wisdom to properly discern what is and what is not loving. We need wisdom to understand what words mean and to retain those meanings. We need wisdom to properly obey God.
The Old Testament book of wisdom, Proverbs, is one of the most currently overlooked books of the Bible. Maybe it needs to become a routine and regular part of your devotion reading. I know it is of mine.
Pray for wisdom, every day. Read some wisdom, every day.
Prov 8:1-14 Does not wisdom call, and understanding lift up her voice? 2 On top of the heights beside the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; 3 Beside the gates, at the opening to the city, at the entrance of the doors, she cries out: 4 "To you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.5 "O naive ones, discern prudence; and, O fools, discern wisdom. 6 "Listen, for I shall speak noble things; and the opening of my lips {will produce} right things. 7 "For my mouth will utter truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.8 "All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing crooked or perverted in them.9 "They are all straightforward to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge. 10 "Take my instruction, and not silver, and knowledge rather than choicest gold.1 1 "For wisdom is better than jewels; and all desirable things can not compare with her. 12 "I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge {and} discretion. 13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the perverted mouth, I hate. 14 "Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, power is mine.(NAS)
There was a bit of a dust-up yesterday over some comments James Dobson made concerning Spongebob Squarepants. Hugh Hewitttakes them on directly and Evangelical Outpost has a great summary of the whole situation. I am going to leave the arguing to them and, as is my goal, look for a devotional point in the situation.
The whole thing centers on the character of Spongebob (one of my nephew's favs I might add) becoming a spokescharacter for "tolerance," specifically tolerance of sexual orientation. I MUST say that Spongebob's core audience really has no business talking about sexual orientation at all. I do not use scare quotes around the word tolerance above to get a BOTW mention -- rather I use them because I think the word has become so fuzzy as to have little meaning any more.
One of the great movements of our time in winning the rhetorical battle has been to soften or even modify the definition of words to achieve ones ends. In this case a rhetorical equation has been established in the public debate:
Love = Tolerance = Acceptance = Approval
These are different words with very different meanings. Jesus certainly did not accept what the religious official of the day were doing:
Matt 23:29-33 "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.' 31 "Consequently you bear witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 "Fill up then the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 "You serpents, you brood of vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?(NAS)
While Jesus was generally tolerant of their activities even that had its limits. After all, He did tear through the Temple courtyard, something that would have to be considered intolerant.
Yet, when those same officials hung Jesus on the cross, He uttered one of the most loving utterances of all time.
Luke 23:33-34 And when they came to the place called The Skull, there they crucified Him and the criminals, one on the right and the other on the left. 34 But Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing." And they cast lots, dividing up His garments among themselves.(NAS)
Yesterday I mentioned the tension of being pulled in two directions between being radically committed to Jesus personally, and having limits on how radically we will approach sharing our devotion. I do not think there is a similar tension between loving the sinner and condemning the sin.
If we really love someone, we want what is best for them, and continuing in some unethical or unholy practice is not what is best. Thus it was definitionally a loving act for Jesus to condemn the Pharisees as vipers and to turn over the moneychangers tables.
Our age needs wisdom. We need wisdom to properly discern what is and what is not loving. We need wisdom to understand what words mean and to retain those meanings. We need wisdom to properly obey God.
The Old Testament book of wisdom, Proverbs, is one of the most currently overlooked books of the Bible. Maybe it needs to become a routine and regular part of your devotion reading. I know it is of mine.
Pray for wisdom, every day. Read some wisdom, every day.
Prov 8:1-14 Does not wisdom call, and understanding lift up her voice? 2 On top of the heights beside the way, where the paths meet, she takes her stand; 3 Beside the gates, at the opening to the city, at the entrance of the doors, she cries out: 4 "To you, O men, I call, and my voice is to the sons of men.5 "O naive ones, discern prudence; and, O fools, discern wisdom. 6 "Listen, for I shall speak noble things; and the opening of my lips {will produce} right things. 7 "For my mouth will utter truth; and wickedness is an abomination to my lips.8 "All the utterances of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing crooked or perverted in them.9 "They are all straightforward to him who understands, and right to those who find knowledge. 10 "Take my instruction, and not silver, and knowledge rather than choicest gold.1 1 "For wisdom is better than jewels; and all desirable things can not compare with her. 12 "I, wisdom, dwell with prudence, and I find knowledge {and} discretion. 13 "The fear of the LORD is to hate evil; pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the perverted mouth, I hate. 14 "Counsel is mine and sound wisdom; I am understanding, power is mine.(NAS)
Friday, January 21, 2005
TOO MUCH????
There does not seem to be much consensus on the topic of the day amongst the stuff I read, so I am going to comment on Peggy Noonan's piece in the WSJ today (link in title). She is not a fan of The President's Inaugural Address yesterday. She seems to think it was "too much."
In matters of faith, one must ask if there is such a thing as too much. The obvious answer seems, at first glance, obvious -- YES. Certainly it can be argued that the various Islamist terrorists are too much, but is that a function of too much or a function of the particular brand of faith that they are having too much of?
Jesus seems to call us to some pretty radical stuff:
John 3:33 "Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."(NAS)
Matt 19:24 "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."(NAS)
Mark 8:34 "And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.(NAS)
That's pretty radical stuff. But Jesus does set limits on how radical:
Matt 10:14 "And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet.(NAS)
Seems to me that in matters of personal devotion there is no such thing as too much, but in matters of spreading that devotion, there may be. Isn't that an interesting tension to live in? We are supposed to be radically devoted to Jesus, but not radical in sharing that devotion. Some of that tension is relieved in the next verse
Matt 10:15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.(NAS)
See, we may not be able to get too radical in sharing our radical devotion, but God is going to get real radical.
Ms. Noonan ends her piece with a reminder that the world is fallen and we cannot achieve perfection. I don't know if the President went too far -- that is for those more attuned to political realities than I am, but I do know that her reminder is a good one.
Do you have the faith to wait on God to be radical? My hope is that the more radically devotied I am to Him, the more my faith will supply me the strength to wait.
In matters of faith, one must ask if there is such a thing as too much. The obvious answer seems, at first glance, obvious -- YES. Certainly it can be argued that the various Islamist terrorists are too much, but is that a function of too much or a function of the particular brand of faith that they are having too much of?
Jesus seems to call us to some pretty radical stuff:
John 3:33 "Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."(NAS)
Matt 19:24 "And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."(NAS)
Mark 8:34 "And He summoned the multitude with His disciples, and said to them, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.(NAS)
That's pretty radical stuff. But Jesus does set limits on how radical:
Matt 10:14 "And whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet.(NAS)
Seems to me that in matters of personal devotion there is no such thing as too much, but in matters of spreading that devotion, there may be. Isn't that an interesting tension to live in? We are supposed to be radically devoted to Jesus, but not radical in sharing that devotion. Some of that tension is relieved in the next verse
Matt 10:15 "Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.(NAS)
See, we may not be able to get too radical in sharing our radical devotion, but God is going to get real radical.
Ms. Noonan ends her piece with a reminder that the world is fallen and we cannot achieve perfection. I don't know if the President went too far -- that is for those more attuned to political realities than I am, but I do know that her reminder is a good one.
Do you have the faith to wait on God to be radical? My hope is that the more radically devotied I am to Him, the more my faith will supply me the strength to wait.
