:Reasonable Force

This is a new plugin for linking Bible verse references in web content. Logos Bible Software is a powerful Bible study tool, an earlier version of which I purchased many years ago, but which I have never made full use of. Their newer versions are very impressive and I look forward to upgrading when finances allow it.

In the meantime, Logos has a beta version of an online Bible at Bible.logos.com which, like BibleGateway and others, offers several different translations. The RefTagger plugin has been provided for WordPress, Blogger, and other web2.0 applications as an easy way to link Bible references to the online Bible, but also to provided a tooltip-style popup to view the verse without having to leave the page.

Assuming I have the plugin active as you read this, it should be as simple as typing this reference to Philippians 2:3.

Okay, I saved and previewed the post after typing that last, and what’s nice is that there is no markup on that reference at all and the plugin still knew to link it. There are numerous customizeable features as well that I’m going to have to play with.

One feature that I hope to be able to make use of in the near future is to have RefTagger put a link beside the reference that allows you to open the reference in Libronix, the digital library system of the aforementioned Bible software, from which all of your cross-referenced materials will be instantly available, including commentaries and original language tools.

Thanks to Logos for providing this plugin.

No Comments

Courtesy of Dallas Theological Seminary

Follow these links for Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 of this lecture series.

No Comments

Officials at Nepal’s state-run airline have sacrificed two goats to appease Akash Bhairab, the Hindu sky god, following technical problems with one of its Boeing 757 aircraft, the carrier said Tuesday.

Okay, my headline betrays the amusement with which I originally intended to treat this Reuters story of airline personnel attempting to deal with their mechanical problems by sacrificing goats to the “Hindu sky god,” but it occurs to me that to laugh at this practice would be more appropriate for an atheist than a Christian such as myself.

After all, do I not pray before I travel? Am I not asking the God of heaven to watch over and protect me, not only on an airplane, but at all times and in all places? And it’s not as if they didn’t also fix the mechanical issue with the plane.

These officials believe, as I do, that there are unseen forces that affect the physical world we live in. They believe that these forces have their own purposes and that, by prayer or other form of appeal, we are able to interact with these forces and, if they give ear to our entreaty, to move them to stay their hand or change the course of things. And while today Christians pray in spirit and in truth, availing ourselves of the access we have been granted into the presence of the King of all Kings, in the times before Christ this same God demanded animal sacrifices for all manner of things.

So if I join with the atheist in mockery of this display of Hindu religion what am I really laughing at?

Rather than laugh at what, at first glance, seems foolish, I choose to take this opportunity to reflect on how foolish my faith appears to the world today, to be thankful that these Hindu people are able to place their faith in something they cannot see, and to pray that the God of heaven will lead them to faith in the only One who is worthy of it.

No Comments

Presided over by Bishop Tiny Muskens, of Breda in the Netherlands, according to WorldNetDaily.

Catholic churches in the Netherlands should use the name Allah for God to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians, says a Dutch bishop.

Actually, sir, that won’t ease tensions at all because, regardless of what word is used, the god of the Muslims is not the God of the Bible. This Catholic Bishop would no doubt be right at home with the Episcopalian one who claims she is both Christian and Muslim.

You can just feel the love.

1 Comment

I received this from Rebecca:

Please comment on the revival going on among the Messianic Jews who are being filled with the Holy Spirit and baptized in the name of Jesus according to Acts 2:38, as well as Matthew 28:19; being the NAME of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (which are titles) is Jesus. There is no other name given among men whereby we MUST be saved.

Thank you for your comments.

Well, Rebecca, to the extent that such a revival is taking place, I would praise God for His faithfulness and mercy. I haven’t fully hammered out my eschatology yet, but I am pretty firmly in the camp of those who believe that Israel is still a distinct people to whom God will fulfill His promises (and is fulfilling to some extent today). Romans 11 speaks unquestionably that the olive branches that were broken off that we might be grafted in will be themselves grafted back into the very tree from which they were cut.

I further believe that literal Jerusalem will be the seat of a literal, Earthly kingdom with Christ as its head for a literal thousand years. Even though the present political state of Israel is a secular nation, I view her as David viewed Saul (not a direct parallel, but hopefully you take my meaning). Though presently in disobedience, God’s warning to bless rather than curse His people is still to be heeded. Israel is the anointed of God. I am saved today because God saw fit to harden her heart that Christ’s Gospel might be taken to the Gentiles.

Therefore it is a tremendous cause for joy when one of Abraham’s physical children becomes his spiritual child as well.

I hope I’ve addressed your topic satisfactorily. God bless.

No Comments

OpinionJournal featured an editorial by Tawfik Hamid, former member of an Islamic terrorist group, in which he made this admission:

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the “end of days.” The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

In the same day, I heard this story of a school district in New Jersey holding an exercise to test their readiness in the event of a Columbine-style shooting and hostage incident. With the cooperation of local police, they staged their scenario, in which two armed men stormed the school, shooting several students and holding ten others hostage. Striving for realism, they crafted a backstory for the incident.

It seems that the gunmen were “right-wing fundamentalists who don’t believe in separation of church and state.”

The fictional trigger for their rampage? The daughter of one of the men had been expelled from school for praying before class.

I’m not suggesting their scenario should have included Islamic terrorists. It was unnecessary in my view to ascribe a particular motive to the attackers at all. I mention the article about the violence implicit in mainstream Islamic theology because I find it ironic that all of the Western world has an avowed enemy that daily carries out terrorist acts against civilian targets and yet these school officials are apparently more afraid of “fundamentalist” Christianity.

Or perhaps they simply lump as all together as do Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, and A. C. Grayling, who in a recent London debate defended the position “We’d be better off without religion.”

The absolute certainty, the unreflective credence given to ancient texts that relate to historically remote conditions, the zealotry and bigotry that flow from their certainty, are profoundly dangerous: at their extreme they result in mass murder, but long before then they issue in censorship, coercion to conform, the control of women, the closing of hearts and minds.

Thus there is a continuum from the suicide bomber driven by religious zeal to the moral crusader who wishes to stop everyone else from seeing or reading what he himself finds offensive. This fact makes people of a secular disposition no longer prepared to be silent and concessive.

Religion has lost respectability as a result of the atrocities committed in its name, because of its clamouring for an undue slice of the pie, and for its efforts to impose its views on others.

If you spend just a little time reading the comments on nearly any post on Dawkins’ site you will see that a common thread of the community there is the belief that religion is the source of all the world’s ills, or at least its violence and hatred.

When I think on these things I find myself driven to spend time in God’s word. I reaffirm to myself who He is and reacquaint myself with His matchless power. I’m also gripped with a sense of urgency for the practice of the spiritual disciplines that are our part of the sanctification process. Because I believe that there are dark times ahead for people who are willing to profess a belief in Jesus’ literal resurrection and everything that means. And Scripture gives us some comfort if we suffer for the sake of the name of Christ, but we must guard our behavior so as not to deserve the world’s condemnation. As Peter said, “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler. However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.” (1 Peter 4:15-16)

We must be ever mindful not to repay evil with evil, to bless those who curse us, and to pray for our enemies (Rom. 12:17, Luke 6:28, Matt. 5:44).

Daily, it seems, we have occasion to recall the words of Christ:

18“If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first. 19If you belonged to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is why the world hates you. —John 15:18-19

No Comments

My grandfather, whom I always addressed as “Granddaddy” when I was younger, died this past week after a long period of decline that seemed to accelerate these past few weeks after he left his home of 90-plus years. I have struggled with what kind of post I wanted to write, but found that my sister has said about all I could have, and likely said it better.

Her recollections of our barn-exploring brought back fond memories for me, and I think there are a few other things I can add.

His house was so old, and my youthful mind so full of fancy, that I was sure that it must contain secret passages somewhere. Never mind that it really wasn’t that big of a house. It just seemed so because, well, because we were small, but also because we always went in from the back where the land dropped off a bit and we climbed a rickety set of stairs that rose above a cellar. Ah! The cellar was another thing that added mystery to the place. Accessible through full-sized doors, one on each side of the stairs, this was a perpetually gloomy, musty darkness, packed with relatively mundane things such as bushel baskets and tools. But the dim light at the front receded into blackness farther back, and the support beams of the house overhead were home to an intriguing sort of bee that built nests resembling a pan flute right on the surface of the wood.

Farm stuff can be really cool to suburban kids.

As for the man himself… the thing that always struck me about him was how slowly and deliberately he spoke. His was a life lived at a different pace than any I’ve ever known. To have a conversation with him forced one to practice patience, yet I never found it difficult (and I’m not a patient person). It just really gave me the sense that always being in a hurry is a foolish and largely unnecessary thing.

Some time in the last few years I made a point of asking him very specifically if he was trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of his sins. My sister pointed out his lifelong membership in the Lutheran church, but many people make a tragic error of assuming that their church membership grants them a pass to heaven rather than ever actually repenting of sin and trusting in Christ for the remediation of it. I’m glad I asked the question.

Like blestwithsons, I wish I’d known him better. I look forward to one day knowing him better, to knowing more fully who he is, than I ever could have on this earth. We’ll all be able to look directly on each other without having our vision obstructed by the baggage of mortality, further weighted by all of our ill choices and unfortunate circumstances.

How surprised I think we’ll all be!

3 Comments

In my last post I remarked that I don’t live a very Christ-like life. What I meant by that was that my life is primarily concerned with me, my family, and various entertainments and distractions between the necessities of day to day life. Well, that and the fact that sin is a constant lurking presence, that my heart is often as hard as a diamond, and that I sometimes go long stretches without seeking my Father’s face in prayer.

Why would I tell you this? Primarily because I don’t think I’m alone. I suspect that a discouraging percentage of the Church here in the U.S.A. are of my stripe, and I’d like to see that change. Convicted by a combination of sermon messages at my home church and by the murmuring of the Holy Spirit in my soul, I have begun to allow God to re-sensitize me. I am committing myself to a discipline of daily time with Him, and consciously trying to be aware of opportunities to make godly choices rather than worldly ones. Already I feel a difference in the attitude of my heart.

I want to share this tidbit from an interview with Ravi Zacharias, Christian apologist and one of my favorite authors, that was published in the latest issue of his “Just Thinking” resource.

I really think that today, as Christian apologists, that the biggest challenge to the faith is not an intellectual question. In fact, I have not heard an intellectual question to the faith that has disturbed me. I am more convinced than ever of the message of the Gospel. But the biggest challenge to the Christian faith is this: If the message that we have lays claim to a supernatural regeneration, then why is it that we do not see that regeneration more often? No other religion claims a supernatural regeneration. They may claim ethics and morality. Hinduism does. But we are the only ones who claim a new birth. Born of the Holy Spirit, our hungers have changed, our disciplines have changed, our behavior has changed. If it is a supernaturally engendered thing, why do we not see it more often?

Now I have evidence in my own life that this regeneration actually did take place. It came in the form of freedom from alcohol and marijuana and a faith that has been unwavering, unlike the easily cast aside belief of my youth. But I also have experienced the reality that the new man, that lives by the Spirit, and the old man, who lives according to the desires of the flesh, can not be maintained in stasis. One must ever be increasing and the other decreasing.

If I give fuel to the old life by letting gazes and thoughts linger, or by indulging in entertainment that is profane or salacious, or even just generally unwholesome, then the old man is strengthened while the new man wanes. Actively feeding that nature, however, is not even required for it to encroach on its old stomping ground within my heart. All that is truly required is the neglect of the things of the Spirit.

The Word and prayer. These are the things that give strength and increase to the new man that has been given birth within us. We all know they are needful. They are the answers to more than half of the questions asked in Sunday School classes, after all. If I neglect these things it is next to certain that the effects will be readily apparent in my attitude, my speech, and my inclination toward temptation.

I love the way Stephen Charnock puts it in his Existence and Attributes of God:

It is necessary to excite man to daily and actual considerations of God and his nature which would be a bar to much of that wickedness which overflows in the lives of men.

The purpose of this post is to exhort and encourage believers to begin living lives that make evident the transformation that has taken place within us. I’m going to be working very hard to do that and I would be thrilled if someone were convicted by my moment of transparency to commit themselves to the same. We are the body of Christ. He is within us and willing to empower us if only we ever let go of ourselves enough to see Him work.

I’m tired of mundane, Sunday morning Christianity. Time to see things get shaken up a bit.

No Comments

Andrew Morrison asks:
What do you make of this?

Why should the British, with far less devotion to Christ, suffer fewer social ills than we?

The article concerns this study published in the Journal of Religion and Society. While the author of the study, Gregory S. Paul, like Andrew above, is careful to point out that correlation does not establish causation, the U. K. Times religion correspondent, Ruth Gledhill is less hesitant to lay at least some blame for societal problems at the feet of theists, declaring, “Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.”

Does the acceptance of the theory of common descent promote a healthier society than an unwavering belief in God? Certainly the data compiled in this study cannot answer that question definitively. Taken as presented, however, it does provide food for thought.

Intuitively, I cannot see why this would be so. It seems reasonable and logical to presume that a people who believe that they will one day be held accountable in some way for their actions should comprise a society that is more compassionate, more loving, more considerate of others; it should be more moral, at least as defined by the tenets of the religion they observe.

Likewise, I cannot conclude how a purely materialistic view of nature and man could logically lead to any other conclusion but that life has no inherent value except what enjoyment can be derived in the life of the individual, that anything is permissible provided the consequences can be avoided, and that the grave is the terminus of all our ultimately empty endeavors.

This is fairly well in line with the view of “conservative theists” cited in the study and these are essentially the claims supposedly refuted therein.

Now I’m not really in a position to take issue with the numbers so let’s just assume for the moment that the raw data is accurate. While I find these results troubling, I am not ready to throw in the towel on the positive impact of faith on the culture just yet.

Before I continue, however, it’s important to clarify what I believe is a common mistake among believers and non-believers alike. While moral behavior is a desirable result of religious belief, and can be useful as an indicator of the strength of one’s convictions, it is not a reliable indicator of a particular belief’s validity. Christians holding a Biblical view of salvation in Christ’s name alone are often confronted with the example of the “moral” Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, or even atheist. The questioner demands to know on what basis these good people should be excluded when there are so many Christians who fall short.

The problem lies in the fact that the questioner presumes to be an able judge of what constitutes virtue. They fail to consider that if Christian theology is true then all of the above paragons of human morality fail in one monumental, glaring sense; either they believe themselves to have no sin or they seek to expiate their own sins by their own efforts. Sin is an offense to the holiness of God. Once stained by it, as we all are, there is no power inherent in humanity to remove it.

It is one of the peculiarities of the Christian religion that we don’t believe we are made righteous by how good we are, but rather by how good another person was. I can’t atone for my sins, but Christ could and did. The moral behavior for the Christian is therefore not the means by which we are saved, but rather a result of our salvation; an overflow of the love and gratitude we have toward the One who has saved us.

All this to say that it is certainly possible for a person to have all the appearance of moral behavior and yet be sinful in the eyes of God. Likewise, let me to some degree concede Gregory Paul’s conclusion: It is not necessary for a society to be religious in order to allow its citizens to live in safety and prosperity.

And if religion were merely a pragmatic device, the only value in which was allowing humans to survive against their baser impulses and their members that yield to them, it would then follow that religion is not necessary at all.

Such a view of religion is common among those who subscribe to naturalism, though the religious often unthinkingly act or speak as if it were the case themselves. We do not… or should not, hold religious beliefs because we think they will make us better people, but because we think they are true. We believe, in the case of the Christian, that God loves us and so sent His Son Jesus to share in our sufferings, and take our sins upon Himself to make a way for His perfect justice to be satisfied, so that we could be with Him eternally as we were always meant to be.

That belief should produce in me behavior consistent with those beliefs. If my faith is not producing love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23) in my own life then there is little hope of others being positively influenced by my beliefs. Even if I am growing in these respects, however, there is not necessarily a corresponding increase in virtue in the society around me.

I don’t know why other, largely secular (according to the study) societies seem to be doing so much better than the U.S. I’m sure Gregory Paul, Andrew Morrison, and perhaps even Ruth Gledhill would acknowledge that there are a great many other variables that would have to be examined in depth before we would conclusively establish religious belief as a societal poison in and of itself. I would swiftly agree in many cases that certain beliefs are precisely that. In the case of the Christian religion, however, while the goal is our salvation one of the results should be that we live as Jesus lived. Can anyone argue that if we all did that the world wouldn’t be a better place?

Of course, if I ask that question then I must ask whether or not I am in fact living as He lived myself. When I consider how far I deviate from His example I confess that I am convicted that the implications of Gregory Paul’s study may not be so easily glossed over as I have attempted to do here. What it suggests to me is not that religious belief is harmful to society, but that Christianity is not particularly beneficial to society as I have been practicing it.

We are not saved, after all, so that we can sit back and put our feet up, contented in the knowledge that we’re going to heaven, but rather to go into the world and do the work that God has prepared for us. I’m long overdue to be about finding out what works are prepared for me. How about you?

7 Comments

I have been unable to quite sort out my emotions in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the fall of New Orleans. The overarching sense is one of gloom. I’m sickened and saddened both by the basest human behavior on display and the calamity that precipitated it, though it could never justify it. I’m overwhelmed at the magnitude of the destruction and the hopelessness of an unfathomable task of saving the survivors from the disaster as well as from themselves, not to mention finding places for them all to go in the present, and homes and jobs for them for the long term.

Along with concern for the survivors and those who seek to aid them is anger and disgust toward those politicians and media outlets who wasted no time in seeking to use this tragedy as a weapon against President Bush and his administration. Everything from the intensity of the storm to the incidental fact that the majority of its victims are black has been cited as evidence of W’s purported dogmatic anti-scientism, his callous indifference toward minorities, or worse. One way or another, we are less than subtly assured, George W. Bush is to blame.

The thought that is most on my mind, however, as I watch from the seeming safety of the foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains in upstate South Carolina, is how tenuous a thing what I consider “normal life” truly is. Sitting here in my den, a college football game on the tube, typing on my laptop connected wirelessly to my broadband internet connection, things seem stable, safe, and secure. Even here, however, relatively removed from the tumultuous events in the Gulf, gas stations were crowded with cars a few days ago trying to make sure we weren’t the ones who might be caught with fuel gauges on empty if the supply should run out entirely.

I don’t know what it would take to accomplish this, but what if the supply actually was cut off for an extended period? How ugly would things start to get around here if no one could put fuel in their tank, keeping most from being able to get to work? And, of course, many jobs would be suspended anyway because there’d be no way to receive materials for production or to ship finished product. How long would it take for looting to begin and violence to break out? Not too long, I’d wager.

And that’s just one scenario. Point is that in a mere heartbeat everything that we consider to be normal life can be ripped away and we could find ourselves fearing for our safety and for our loved ones.

This prompts in me a long overdue evaluation of the ephemeral things that I continually chase after for comfort and security. Things seem okay if I can follow my little routines and indulge in my vain entertainments and distractions. But all the while a great restlessness grows in me because I neglect the only things that are absolutely, unwaveringly certain: God and His word.

The wise person learns this and patterns his life around it. Too many of us, however, have to learn through bitterness and strife. Lets try to let at least this much good come from the disaster that has befallen others; that we take to heart the lesson that absolutely nothing can be counted on in life save the faithfulness and constancy of God.

Psalm 62:5-9 (New International Version)

⁵ Find rest, O my soul, in God alone;
my hope comes from him.

⁶ He alone is my rock and my salvation;
he is my fortress, I will not be shaken.

⁷ My salvation and my honor depend on God [a] ;
he is my mighty rock, my refuge.

⁸ Trust in him at all times, O people;
pour out your hearts to him,
for God is our refuge.
Selah

⁹ Lowborn men are but a breath,
the highborn are but a lie;
if weighed on a balance, they are nothing;
together they are only a breath.

8 Comments

In his op-ed at FoxNews.com titled Religious Right Wrong on Public Opinion former Congressman Martin Frost cautions the “leaders of the religious right” that they may lose their political influence if they preach views that are “out of the mainstream.”

By taking positions on the Schiavo matter and on stem cell research that are so clearly out of the mainstream and not even held by many of their own followers, leaders of the religious right risk diluting the influence that they may have on the political process generally.

There is a clear role for people of faith in politics, but that doesn’t mean that deeply religious individuals will follow their leaders to the end of the earth when they are wrong.

I confess that I don’t know the poll numbers on these issues. Assuming Mr. Frost is correct in his assessment of the majority view, should that dissuade those holding the less popular opinion from speaking in support of their position?

If one is a politician seeking office, a position Frost has some experience with, it would be considered advisable to keep controversial opinions to oneself. But then, isn’t that one of the things that we all despise in politics? The difficulty in pinning down what our representatives and candidates truly believe on any issue?

The role of the Church, in contrast, has ever been to be a prophetic voice in the cultural landscape; calling sin what it is and admonishing men and women to yield themselves to God’s authority.

If we seek political power as an end unto itself we will find, having attained it, that we have lost any moral voice we might have had as a result of all of the compromises in its pursuit.

Throughout Israel’s history as recounted in the Old Testament, the prophets were men who spoke truth to the people regardless of whether anyone else was on their side. In fact, when the majority of the country had fallen into idol worship was generally when the prophets spoke the loudest.

In the same way, those called to be a voice for truth and morality in our culture don’t need to lick their finger and hold it up to the wind. They just need to tell it like it is and let God worry about where the chips fall.

5 Comments

Responding to my previous post, a friend and brother named Keith made the following comment:

I have a kind of dualistic approach toward cosmology. I believe in the whole hog literal six days and such, but I also don’t think the physical evidence we have right now points to it. I think if scientists follow the evidence where it most naturally (naturalistically?) leads, I have faith that science will eventually self-correct itself to correspond to scripture. I believe scientists really are trying to find the truth, and the smartest scientist Christians that I know firmly believe in evolution and an old Earth, so I don’t think evolution can be explained away by saying that scientists want to corrupt the world’s youth or whatever.

My response to that grew a bit lengthy so I decided to post most of it as a new post.

I’ve spoken about the self-correcting aspect of science before, and how examples can readily be found in which the peer-review process acts to stifle views that run contra to the prevailing paradigm. But, of course, science involves a constant process of investigation and discovery and it does indeed correct itself frequently. The limitation on that mechanism, however, is that scientists can only correct within the bounds of what they believe is reasonable.

I would agree with Keith that it is unreasonable to presume that naturalistic scientists are engaged in a conspiracy of willful deception in an attempt to convert all of our children to secular humanism. To the extent that such conversion attempts are underway it is not with the intent to deceive, but out of a desire to enlighten. There’s no malicious intent because they truly believe what they teach. And, like Keith, I believe the vast majority of them truly want to understand the hows and whys of their areas of study.

Of course, when we say that most of them are “trying to find the truth” we must speak on two levels. If they are unregenerate then they may be trying to ascertain the truth of the physical world while having subconsciously rejected the Truth, personified in Christ, who created all things and holds all things together. They are therefore crippled in their perception and their reasoning. They are able to recognize patterns that lead to a formalization of physical laws, but they are unable to make that leap from the law to the lawgiver.

Evolution is demonstrative of how scientific observation without the undergirding of well-founded faith can lead to conclusions that are simply bizarre. One sees various species and notes similarities between them. One also notes that, within species, variations are formed in response to environmental pressures. One can only make the colossal leap from these observations to the idea of macroevolution apart from the theological foundation of Creation of distinct types of creatures by a personal, purposeful God.

The modern scientist would view that as an example of science freeing itself from the constraints of an outmoded belief system in order to follow the evidence where it leads.

The orthodox theologian, on the other hand, views it as science going badly astray by tearing itself away from a necessary mooring to reality.

What, then, of all the really smart Christian scientists (not to be confused with Christian Scientists) who also hold to evolutionary theory and an old earth? Well, I’ve addressed in my last post how I think the earth itself might be old, possibly allowing for some ancient geological ages. Unfortunately, that doesn’t do anything to bring Genesis in line with the consensus views on biology, astonomy, or a host of other disciplines. Quite simply, I think the foundations upon which these Christians obtained their scientific education were faulty. I think they’ve allowed views which were shaped by men with presuppositions of naturalism to supplant their trust and faith in the Bible.

One of the most difficult truths I’ve had to come to grips with is that, for virtually any position, you can find very intelligent people who subscribe to it. Theology is rife with examples, certainly, of men of equivalent intellect staking out diametrically opposed positions and defending them from Scripture with equal persuasiveness. Similarly, while many are in the camp Keith describes above, there are highly intelligent Christian scientists who reject the predominant views on evolution and, though undoubtedly fewer, ancient ages.

The institution of science can correct itself, but only within the philosophical boundaries imposed by the individuals who guide it. As regards the individuals who practice science, some have had, or will have, their eyes opened by the beauty of the design that they perceive. Some already know the Designer. For them, science can be a pursuit of truth that ultimately will indeed align harmoniously with correctly interpreted Scripture. Others will only ever see a purposeless universe careening inevitably toward a meaningless end because anything else would force them to deal with a God they prefer, at some level, to avoid. The trick for the former is knowing when their assumptions have been shaped by the unbelief of the latter.

4 Comments

blestwithsons, my übertalented sister, is excited about the Creation Museum being built in northern Kentucky by Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis organization. Her post is enthusiastic about the museum, but critical of some aspects of the FoxNews article that mentions it. Among her objections is the choice of a pastor in nearby Cincinnati who denounces AiG’s young-Earth creationism as “silly.”

Says blest, “Hmmm. Of all the pastors available in the country, or at least in Kentucky or Ohio, the reporter chose a Reverend from the United Church of Christ, which is not exactly known for their faithful handling of the scriptures.”

That’s certainly true. My opinion is that Christians of his stripe are simply afraid of being embarrassed in the eyes of the world by their “simpler” brethren.

That, in itself, isn’t so hard to understand. After all, I’ve been known to cringe myself when some Bible-believing brothers or sisters call in to radio shows and cast reasoned arguments to the wind as they grossly distort or misapply the Scriptures in which they, to their credit, place their trust.

The difference is that this pastor and countless others are firmly nestled into their creche as the matrix program provides them an illusion of reality that they’ve not allowed Scripture to peel back for them. They, many of them anyway, honestly believe that the evolutionary pronouncements of Science are founded in objective, empirical, reproducible evidence.

They haven’t grasped, apparently, that the conclusions of Evolutionary science are necessitated by the naturalistic presuppositions with which their investigations begin.

All that said, here is my view (at this point anyway) on Genesis and length of days. First, I utterly reject the premise of macro-evolution; that all living things are the process of chance mutation and natural selection, gradually causing one species to change to another, beginning with so-called “simple” organisms and culminating with humanity in our present time, until another leap produces some new type of humanity. I believe all types of creatures were created by God and that their genetic codes contain the information that has allowed their original progenitors to variate within their species in adaptation to various environmental conditions.

Second, I have absolutely no problem with the idea that God can do this in six days or six hours. I freely admit that I don’t know the ins and outs of how scientists derive their numbers for ages, but since I know that any method that produced a young-earth age would be dismissed out of hand I’m not too troubled by that.

Third, I do believe that there is some legitimate wiggle room in the language of Genesis that could allow for an age of the universe and/or the earth itself much older than humanity, and possibly even for day lengths that don’t correspond to our 24-hour cycles, at least for the first two days.

The first detail in the account that leads me to keep an open mind is the fact that the six days of creation seem to begin with the heavens and earth already in place. It could be argued that the very first verse stating that “God created the heavens and the earth” is meant to be included in the first day. I don’t have a problem with that view, but I don’t necessarily think it’s unfaithful to Scripture to see it as a starting point. That leaves the prospect of any conceivable amount of time prior to God saying “Let there be light.”

Which brings me to the second detail; why are our days twenty-four hours long? Because that’s how long it takes the earth to rotate on its axis creating the visual effects of sunrise and sunset as that celestial body appears to pass across the sky. But while God created light, separating it from darkness and establishing the concepts of day and night, He hadn’t yet created the sun. In fact, God did not create the sun until the fourth day when He established it along with the moon and all of the other heavenly bodies to give light on the earth.

Where did the light come from prior to the advent of the sun? I have no idea. Perhaps it came somehow from the effect of an expanding universe. Regardless, I have to consider the possibility that at least the three days prior to the creation of the sun could have been of some duration other than the standard day that we know.

I agree with blest that attempts to reconcile naturalistic evolutionary science with Scripture are misguided at best, so if I haven’t made it clear, that’s not what I’m trying to do here. I’m just giving my reasons for not slamming the door on the possibility of an older universe than most young-earth creationist views allow for.

4 Comments

Joseph Farah, in his WorldNet Daily column, condems Billy Graham’s public affirmation of Bill and Hillary Clinton during what may be his last crusade.

Farah does this in a straightforward, brother-to-brother manner. He is clearly regretful at having to chastise Rev. Graham, but resolute that it must be done.

The Clintons are “a great couple,” you said. “I told an audience that I felt when he left the presidency he should be an evangelist because he has all the gifts and he’d leave his wife to run the country,” you continued.

I’ve got news for you, Rev. Graham: Bill Clinton is already an evangelist. But it’s not for the Gospel you preach. He is an evangelist for moral relativism, for the great sin of pride, for abortion on demand, for adultery, for sexual perversion, for abuse of power.

You and the Clintons are, as the Apostle Paul explained it, “unequally yoked.” You should have no part of them. You should rebuke them the way Mother Teresa did when she got the chance. Darkness has no place with the light.

Billy Graham has been used by God to bring thousands into the Kingdom of Heaven, there can be little doubt. His, for better or worse, has been the face of evangelical Christianity, and for the most part few would be troubled by that.

That’s why his inexplicable blindness in associating himself with this self-serving, power-hungry couple is so disappointing. He has essentially allowed his ministry to be used in the Democratic party’s attempt to drain evangelical votes from the right in next election.

God bless Reverend Graham for all that he has done for the Kingdom. But I pray, with Joseph Farah, that he will recognize his error in this instance and publicly recant his endorsement of one of the most morally reprobate couples in American public life.

4 Comments

blestwithsons has completed her series on debate with unbelievers. I’ll have some thoughts on it, but I wanted to go ahead and provide links to the whole thing.

• But I came here for an argument! Part One
• But I came here for an argument! Part Two
• But I came here for an argument! Part Three

No Comments

If you spend any time at Joe Carter’s Evangelical Outpost then you know how, umm… passionate the comment threads can get.

As a relative newcomer to this environment, my sister, who blogs under the moniker blestwithsons, has taken her lumps and come out on the other side with some thoughtful considerations for Christians who undertake philosophical discussions with those who don’t share our faith or our views.

(part one of a series)

No Comments

I was engaged in some discussion over at Evangelical Outpost and decided that some of my comments really ought to make their way into a post here.

It was rightly pointed out that pro-life objections to embryonic stem cell often neglect to address the underlying issues regarding the existence of the large numbers of embryos resulting from fertility treatments. These embryos, pro-stem cell research advocates argue, are already slated for destruction in many cases. We would counter that one evil does not justify another. Kelly J. Hollowell, on behalf of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity, makes this point in her analysis of a 2001 letter to President Bush, signed by 80 Nobel laureates in support of embryonic stem cell research:

To suggest that it is permissible to use embryos for research purposes because an already tragic decision has been made to destroy them represents an absolutely chilling lack of moral conscience.

This mentality is consistent with Nazi medicine. Taken to its logical conclusion, prisoners on death row, the elderly, patients in chronic comas, mentally retarded persons, and others destined to die or be cast away from society could and should be used for experimentation in the name of furthering research to save others.

That begs the question, however, of why more noise isn’t made about the fate of these embryos in the absence of using them for research, or about the procedures that produce them in such abundance to start with.

I think for many, the answer is simply that two and two haven’t been put together. For others, however, it is more likely the awareness that it wouild be political suicide to come out publicly with a hard line against commonly accepted fertility treatments that prevents this issue from being raised. That applies, sadly, to pastors as well as politicians.

I suggest that the root of the problem is that, in all things, but certainly when it comes to having children, we have made our desires paramount over an older view that accepted conception as the province of God. Clearly I’m speaking primarily of believers here.

The modern Christian (or postmodern, if you will) determines when and if they will have children, and how many. Soon they will choose whether they will have a boy or a girl, if they’re not already. Soon after, they will determine in advance height, hair color, and whether they prefer athletic or musical aptitude.

If our career goals are incompatible with children we use birth control. If, when we’re ready, children are not forthcoming, we go to the fertility clinic. When we’re ready to stop having children we undergo surgery.

I’m not arguing against examinations and/or treatments to make sure all our parts are in working order, but beyond that I would suggest that we have lost the view of children as blessings bestowed upon us by God and view them, rather, as something to which we are entitled when we’re good and ready, and only in the quantities with which we’re comfortable.

This is one area in which we have adopted the world’s view of things without even blinking. When we begin to examine the extensions of our arguments against some of these more abominable practices, however, our error is brought to light.

Understand, please, that I am not condemning any and all fertility treatments. In a fallen creation it is difficult at times to know how far to go in correcting things that don’t seem to be working as they should. My wife and I have discussed where we believe that line is and we will not cross it. Each one’s conscience would have to advise them in this.

3 Comments

I haven’t linked anything by Mr. Lileks in a good while and this is a gem. He expresses bemusement at nominal Catholics who dreamt of a left-leaning successor for John Paul II.

I have my doctrinal differences with the Catholic church as well; I understand the reasons for requiring priestly celibacy, but I don’t agree with them. I don’t agree with many Catholic positions on issues regarding sexuality. Growing up Lutheran, I was gently guided away from the clanging errancy of Maryolatry. Because I disagree with the Catholic Church on these and a few other matters, I am– how do I put this? – NOT CATHOLIC. Hence I am always amazed by people who want the church to accommodate their thoughts, their new beliefs, their precarious and ingenious rationales, instead of ripping themselves from the bosom and seeking a congregation that doesn’t make them feel like a heretic banging thier head on Filarete’s doors. To those who want profound change, consider an outsider’s perspective: the Catholic Church is the National Review of religion. You may live long enough to see it become the Weekly Standard. In your dreams it might become the New Republic. But it’s never going to be the Nation. And if ever it does, it will have roughly the same subscriber base.

Comments Off

Despite all of my Christian experience having been in evangelical protestantism, it still feels presumptuous for me to say something like, “I hope the Pope was saved.”

And if I were a radio talk-show host, I might be at risk of losing my job.

Pope John Paul II was, by all human standards, a great man. Even for those who disagreed with his views, whether Protestants critical of Marian dogma or abortion-rights activists opposed to his ardent defense of the sanctity of human life, it is undeniable that his was a remarkable life, spanning momentous and tumultuous times. In human history, his name is indelibly etched. Yet, it is by no means impossible that the leader of the most powerful Church in the world, a man regarded by many as one of the most devout and spiritual Popes to have lived, died in his sins and will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

As I noted from the outset, even the suggestion of that possibility seems preposterous even to my Protestant ears. This has more to do, however, with the pervasive nature of postmodern thinking and the siren-song of ecumenism than it does a rational consideration of the Biblical criteria for salvation weighed against the beliefs enumerated by the man once known as Karol Jozef Wojtyla.

If, however, Scripture is your standard for discerning truth from error, it should be plain that one’s eternal disposition depends not a whit on the sum of good works done nor the high esteem in which one is held, nor even the extent of one’s involovement in a religious body, but only on the sovereign grace of God.

⁸For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith–and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God– ⁹not by works, so that no one can boast.
Ephesians 2:8-9

Within both Protestantism* and Catholicism there are men and women who are bound for heaven and others who are bound for hell. I would say the same for some other nominally Christian groups, cults more like, such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, some of whose members may stumble into a relationship with the genuine, living Christ of the Bible despite the doctrines of their leadership.

The evangelical’s fear is that the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, treated as on par with Scripture, place upon Paul’s simple prescription of faith encumbrances that act more as a barrier to the saving grace of the Gospel than the means by which men might obtain it. Can you truly be trusting in Christ’s completed work on the cross for salvation if you accept Rome’s teaching that faith is insufficient apart from sacraments administered by her priests? That is our concern and that is why, crass and impolitic as it may seem during the period set aside for mourning a man beloved by many, we cannot help but discuss these issues as we hear so many presume that, if there is such a thing as heaven, he must surely be there.

*Protestantism here defined as purportedly Christian denominations having some historical/theological link to the Protestant Reformation. Obviously today there are many groups that fall under this exceedingly broad category that have nearly abandoned all pretense at anything remotely resembling Biblical Christianity, having rejected the Bible as authoritative in any way. Many of these groups would be of more concern theologically than the Roman Catholic Church, which generally has applied additional layers to Biblical truths rather than rejecting those truths and stripping them out of faith and practice.

Comments Off

(Part 1)

My apologies to anyone who may have been frustrated by my delay in completing this series of posts.

To continue, J. P. Moreland has outlined some steps to cure the epidemic of empty self syndrome. The first was admitting the problem which I discussed in part 1 of this thread. The second is to choose to be different from the trend of the culture, even in our own evangelical subculture. In elaborating on this point, Moreland uses a phrase that I particularly like; eschewing intellectual flabbiness. One means proposed for doing this is to engage in discussions with people with whom you disagree. While it can be frustrating, the net result should be that you will be challenged to refine your own beliefs and your reasons for holding them, and be motivated to learn how better to argue your positions. The goal here is stretching your own intellect, not necessarily changing someone else’s view. A side effect of this, however, may be that unbelievers who are accustomed to Christians that merely parrot what they’ve heard from the pulpit are surprised to hear someone actually applying reason to their faith and its objects. This can lower intellectual barriers that may have kept the Gospel from being effectively communicated to these people.

A third requirement for casting out the empty self is changing our routines. The object of this step is to take note of times during the day that we are typically low in energy and, rather than allowing ourselves to sink into passivity, like collapsing on the couch and turning on the television, using those times to exercise our bodies. This seems paradoxical, to do something that requires energy when we feel like we have no energy, but strangely it works. I put it to the test Friday evening. When I came home from work I felt completely drained of energy and felt gravity pulling me inexorably toward the couch. Before lethargy took me completely, I put on my running shoes and went out for a three-mile run. I don’t know where the energy came from, but the run felt great and the result was, when I got back and cooled off, I felt rejuvenated and was able to spend the rest of the evening playing with my son and finishing a book.

Moreland specifically suggests using the energy we gain from exercise to refocus and read a challenging book.

Fourth, develop patience and endurance which are required for the hard work of stretching ourselves intellectually. It takes effort and time to work through a complex idea, particularly when we are encountering it for the first time. If we have not developed these attributes we will quickly weary and likely move on to a less challenging activity. Self-denial is an integral part of developing these traits, as we learn to ignore our natural tendency to distraction and become better able to focus our thoughts.

Dr. Moreland recommends two specific resources; Richard Foster’s Celebration of Discipline and Dallas Willard’s The Spirit of the Disciplines. Both of these volumes aid the reader to practice the spiritual disciplines, such as fasting, solitude and others, which Moreland encourages as the ideal means toward growing in patience and endurance.

If the term, spiritual disciplines is unfamiliar to you, don’t feel bad; I daresay it’s not something you’ll hear about in even most evangelical churches these days. To some degree that may be because of our aversion to anything that might suggest that salvation is a product of any effort of our own, i.e. works salvation, but in reality these disciplines are nothing more than processes by which we work off some of our dead flesh and strengthen our spiritual muscles. Our neglect of them is why, in my opinion, our Christianity is often little more than skin-deep.

The fifth step is self-explanatory; develop a good vocabulary. As I am inordinately fond of saying, “Words mean stuff.” The more words you know, the better able to express yourself precisely you will be and the more you will be able to glean from books and articles that challenge you. Make a point of noting words you come across that you aren’t familiar with and, if you haven’t a resource with which to look them up right then, keep a list and look them up later.

Finally, set some intellectual goals. The most important part of this step, I believe, is the idea of accountability. Moreland describes an ongoing relationship with a study partner with whom he establishes a reading program. They each read the same books and/or magazines and meet weekly to discuss them. If, like me, you tend to flounder in your reading, or just jump from book to book without finishing many of them, this seems like an ideal way to keep your reading goals on track and make it a more profitable exercise at the same time.

These steps are perhaps less specific than we might like. The reason, I suspect, is that there aren’t any quick fixes to the problem of the empty self. It requires determination and effort to alter, radically in many cases, our overly passive lifestyles.

I’d like to point out, in case there’s any confusion, that the oft-used term passivity in this discussion refers largely to intellectual passivity. Thus, there’s no contradiction in citing our hurried and busy lifestyles as part of the problem while claiming that we are too passive. We are carried along by our daily frenzy of activities with very little required of our minds.

On a final note, the empty self is not, obviously, merely a Christian phenomenon. The cultural influences that have turned us into vegetables have acted equally on Americans of all religious persuasions. Dr. Moreland wrote his book largely from the concern that the academia was overwhelmingly secular and the Christian intellectual was an endangered species relative to days gone by when, as he quotes an unnamed historian, “the church could still out-think her critics.”

The difference for us is that our Biblical worldview compels us to love God not only with our hearts and our souls, but with the minds that he has given us. I believe that not just the university, but our local churches suffer from a lack of intellectually challenging material that goes beyond the familiar phrases and the latest Christian fads. Theology, for example, is often viewed as a “turn-off” in our trend toward “seeker-friendly” churches and so our people continue on a milk diet when we need to be maturing to spiritual food.

These steps, summarized here from J. P. Moreland’s book Love Your God with All Your Mind, can help to banish our empty selves and replace them with selves who are alive and growing in every facet of our being as God means us to be.

No Comments