The Cultural Commission

In The Blink Of An Eye

2005-10-27T11:20:00.000-05:00

Rapid cognition. Split second thinking. Snap judgments. Thinking without thinking. Blink.

At the recommendation of a friend, I read the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, the author of The Tipping Point. Talk about a page turner … I read it in under a day. Gladwell is a terrific story teller and his subject matter is fascinating.

If you want some cliff notes on what the book is about, I recommend you check out Gladwell's web site.

Gladwell does not write from a Christian worldview. The book is about psychology, and he throws an obligatory bone to naturalism and physicalism. That does not mean Gladwell in his research is not on to something. I happen to think he is. It just means his worldview colors his interpretation and the attributions of his observations. E.g. Gladwell views the ability of the mind to rapidly process information, as a byproduct of evolutionary advance. This is an assumption, of course, and gives Gladwell the aura of scientific respectability. It adds nothing to main thrust of his theory, however, and I did not suffer in slightest by swatting away these appeals to authority.

Moving on.

Gladwell makes a compelling case that the mind can rapidly process clues and make snap judgments that in some cases are pretty accurate.

The upside is that we can learn to "thin-slice" with great reliability. Thin-slicing is making inferences on the thinnest of data samples. The advantage is of course speed ... providing your quick read on things is accurate. Why waste time doing due diligence if you can get the right answer in one-tenth the time?

The downside is that our thin-slicing can run amok. We make unconscious judgments that are bogus. We reach the wrong conclusion and sometimes are not even aware of our faulty reasoning. When our unconscious mind gets a brain cramp, it can get deadly and fast. Gladwell tells a story of a shooting in the Bronx where all the wrong decisions were made in the course of seven seconds. The result was four distraught cops and one very bullet riddled, innocent man ... a sad case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The cops emptied two and half clips from their semi-automatic handguns. Forty-one bullets later they discovered their mistake … oops.

Gladwell introduces some sticky terms and expressions that I plan to annex into my vocabulary.

Blink : the process of rapid cognition.
Thin-slice : drawing inferences on scant data samples
The Warren Harding error : drawing a false conclusion based on appearances.
Mind-blindness : a temporary autism of the unconscious mind which creates blind spots.
White-space : the distance between a target and a potential assailant

The next step in processing this book is to cogitate and integrate. I am going to give Gladwell the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume his research is correct. What would it mean to acknowledge that our mind has the capacity to influence and control our actions in a split second? Where does this leave us vulnerable? How does this integrate with the doctrine of total depravity? Is thin-slicing a euphemism for prejudging? Is blinking something that can be harnessed for use in a redemptive way?

Thinking about it ... consciously ;-)

Shermer's god of the gaps

2005-10-20T15:40:00.000-05:00

Tenzin Gyatso (aka the Dalai Lama) has a new book out. A friend was kind enough to forward me a book review from eSkeptic magazine written by Mr. Skeptic himself, Michael Shermer. Chuck Colson also has a Breakpoint essay which references Gyatso's new book.

Colson points out that Gyatso's assertion that scientific materialism (i.e. matter is all there is, was, and will be) is completely metaphysical in nature, and his conclusion that materialism is “an invitation to nihilism and spiritual poverty" are both spot on. I agree.

Shermer, ever the skeptic of everything but science, disagrees. He calls Gyatso's warning about scientific materialism a straw man. Well, ok. But why? Shermer never says. Moving on.

The most interesting piece of Shermer's critique is his conclusion that the Dalai Lama falls back on a Karma of the gaps position. While complimentary of the Dalai Lama's attempts at humbling himself before the supreme ruler (that being scientific knowledge in Shermer's gestalt) he accuses Gyatso of committing the same mistake as Creationists. Shermer insists that Gyatso uses Karma to fill in what he cannot explain.

Shermer writes, "In my opinion, God/karma does not explain anything; it is just a linguistic place-filler until science can discover the actual cause."

I think this is an interesting case of the pot calling the kettle black. I think Shermer is right that the Dalai Lama's ultimately falls back on a karma of the gaps explanation. But you know what? We all have gaps in our knowledge. We are all limited. We cannot explain everything under the sun. The Dalai Lama has gaps. I have gaps. Shermer has gaps. Sagan had gaps (though some of his gaps have no doubt been filled since his death in 1996).

The key question is, what fills your gaps?

The answer turns out to be the same. For everyone.

Faith fills the gaps.

Since faith sounds so religious, let me substitute an easier word for some to swallow. Trust. Trust fills the gaps.

For the Dalai Lama, it is a trust in Karma and a magical life force called prana. For me, it is trust in the whole counsel of the one true God and in His revelation. For Shermer, it is trust in his metaphysical system which is predicated on the assumption that it is possible for science to eventually explain everything.

We all have our placeholders. Our gap fillers. Even Shermer, though he cannot see the plank in his own eye, has a god of the gaps. In fact, he names three of them.

In pondering the mystery of the origin of life, sentience and consciousness, Shermer writes: "Yet the solution to these and other problems, in my opinion, is through the new sciences of complexity, emergence, and self-organization."

Pish posh. Complexity, emergence, and self-organization amount to hand-waving. They don't offer explanations. Drill down into them and you will strike air, not answers. Yet Shermer is willing to place his trust in them. The gap in his knowledge has been filled by his faith.

At the end of the day, we all rely on faith and trust. The critical question is not who has gaps and who does not ... it is what reasons do you have to justify your trust in whatever or whoever is filling those gaps. Do your reasons correspond with reality? And, does your system of belief cohere consistently within itself?

Or, does your faith, like Shermer's, amount to wishful thinking?

Has Intelligent Design Reached The Tipping Point?

2005-08-08T10:39:00.000-05:00

Everywhere you look you see intelligent design (ID). The lefty blogs, the righty blogs, the MSM ... now the cover of TIME magazine.

Friends, we are watching what happens when an idea reaches the tipping point.

Regardless of where you stand on the debate about whether it should be taught in schools or not, times such as these present a wonderful window of opportunity for Christian apologists. The mind share of the nation is tuning into this discussion.

While most want to spar about whether ID should be taught or not, I want to suggest a different tactic.

Turn the discussion towards the underlying worldview question -- "where do we come from?". Use the Columbo tactic and ask artful questions designed to take the conversation into deeper waters. Here is one way to do that. Ask your friend if they have seen all the coverage in the news about intelligent design. Your friend may want to talk about the controversy surrounding the teaching of ID in the classroom. You can go there a little, but look for an opportunity to ask a more interesting question. Ask something like,

"I am curious. Just suppose for the sake of argument that scientists did empirically discover that life was designed and not random -- how do you think that would affect people's thinking?" This gets to the heart of the worldview issue. Most have not connected the dots at this level. I suspect most will not be able to answer and reply with "I don't know."

If they answer with "I don't know", I would suggest a follow-up question.

"How would it change your thinking if tomorrow's headline was, 'scientists now agree life was designed'?"

They may not be able to answer. Don't sweat it. That is okay. You have dropped a pebble in their shoe for them to hobble around on. Pray and ask the Holy Spirit to use that pebble to open opportunities for more discussion.

Cross posted at : The Dawn Treader.

New Cures, Fresh Hope

2004-10-15T12:54:00.000-05:00

Most of my frustration with the stem-cell discussion in this country is the absolute apathy toward stem cell therapy that is already at work delivering cures today.

That is right. I am not talking about research. I am talking about cures. From stem cells. Today. Already.

Why do we not hear about these cures?

Answer: human embryos were not destroyed to produce the cures. Adult stem cells were used. Inexplicably, this invalidates hope in the minds of some.

Instead, they would rather hurl invectives at Laura Bush and her husband for stealing their hope.

Take the puzzling case of Michael Kinsley, the editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times.

Wesley J. Smith writes:

Kinsley has Parkinson's. One would think he would be extremely interested in the successful experiment involving fellow Parkinson's patient Dennis Turner, who five years ago received an 83 percent reversal of his symptoms after a treatment using his own brain stem cells. Kinsley should also find great hope in the results of another human trial in which five Parkinson's patients, treated with a natural body chemical known as glial cell-line-derived neurotrophic factor (GDNF), improved so significantly that three regained their senses of taste and smell.

But Kinsley is blind to this wonderful news. In a diatribe against Laura Bush and the president, Kinsley claimed that "stem cell research has been drastically slowed" by the president's stem-cell policy (again, apparently, the only real stem-cell research is embryonic-stem-cell research). Working himself into a blind rage, Kinsley accused President Bush of "ensuring there is no hope at all" for people like him who suffer from Parkinson's disease — a statement exhibiting sheer indifference to the very facts that hold out true hope for Kinsley's own health problems.

Here are the facts.

Private investors have poured money into adult stem cell research and shunned embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because embryonic stem cells have been shown to correlate with dangers such as tissue rejection and tumors. Adult stem cells, however, have shown much more success. If you are an investor, where are you going to put your money? Into research that produces tumors, or research that produces cures?

The federal government poured $200 million into adult stem-cell research and $25 million into embryonic stem cell research in 2003. The human-embryo-obsessed crowd would like to see these numbers reversed, and federal money poured into the research that has the least chance of success.

Go read the Smith article and help me get the word out. Perhaps bloggers can help correct the blindness of the print and news media to report the wonderful news today of new cures from adult stem cells.

Be A Wise Ambassador

2004-09-18T08:45:00.000-05:00

We are all called to be ambassadors of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 5:20) and that includes students who are followers of Jesus Christ.

The ministry of Stand to Reason has helped me become a more effective ambassador for Jesus Christ. Their slogan about effective ambassadors rings true. Effective ambassadors exhibit knowledge through an accurate mind, wisdom through an artful method, and character through an attractive manner.

How do we gain these things?

We gain knowledge as we read scripture regularly and seek to love God with our minds. As for character, it is shaped through the process of radical obedience and submission to Christ, and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

As far as wisdom goes, some of that is gained through personal experience and a lot of that is gained through mentoring.

Permit me to take a small rabbit trail.

Mentoring is an important and often misunderstood area of life. My father has co-authored a book on mentoring that is extremely helpful.

.

There is a lot of material out there on mentoring, but Dad's book truly has fresh content. It presents two powerful concepts that I have not seen done in other mentoring books: the constellation model of mentoring, and the mentoring continuum. I used to simplistically view mentoring as the same thing as discipling. It is much broader than that. This book opened my eyes so that I can be intentional about setting up mentoring relationships in my life.

Get his book here:

Connecting: The Mentoring Relationships You Need To Succeed In Life

Returning from my rabbit trail.

In the area of tactical apologetics, Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason has mentored me. Mentors do not have to know those whom they are mentoring, btw. Though Greg does not know me, he mentors me through his webcast and his excellent training materials. His series on Tactics in Defending the Faith is superb.

I have talked about one of the tactics he teaches already. It is the Columbo tactic.

See The Dawn Treader: Worldview Case Study 2: Using Columbo

It is an adaptation of the Socratic method of asking good questions. You go on the offensive in a non-offensive way with carefully selected questions.

The Columbo method is what I would recommend to Betsy See The Dawn Treader: Confronting The Professor or any other student facing a professor who is interested in putting down truth, promoting moral relativism, or promoting a false view of the Bible. The basic problem is that the professor is in the power position. He controls your grades. In some cases, you may have a scholarship that is tied to your grades.

However, I don't think you should sit idly by why he and others in the class bash away at truth. We can look to Daniel in the Old Testament for how to respond to false ideas. We need to walk in faith, show integrity and have courage. God is big enough to see you through any challenge. Sometimes you will be put in position and asked to take a stand. But you don't have to be aggressive and pushy about it. This is where wisdom kicks in. An artful method is to learn how to ask a good question. Here are two good questions to tuck away. What do you mean by that? How did you come to that conclusion?

Don't ask those questions in an aggressive mean-spirited way. Show respect, and ask them genuinely. After all, you are the student and she/he is the teacher.

Some professors will stoop to use fallacious tactics like Appeal to Force(argumentum ad baculum). Basically, arguing through threat. Just reply, "I am not trying to be argumentative. I am trying to learn. I was asking a question to help me understand why you came to the conclusion you did."

Other professors simply choose to intimidate students and switch the burden of proof over to the student. Here is a short article from Greg Koukl on how to counter that. "Oh, You Believe in Absolutes? What are They?" Greg's point is that "students should not be afraid to challenge their professors if they do it with grace and respect."

I believe the truth does need to be defended, even in the classroom. If you have a professor that is into bullying Christians, do what Betsy did. Set up a private meeting and it would not hurt to take along some friends who are in the class. Recruit others to pray for you, and go and make your point as humbly and graciously as possible. In the classroom, it requires more guts, but if you use Columbo in a wise and humble way, you will not come across as a rebel rouser. Most teachers love to have students engage the material in a good discussion; they are far more used to students either sleeping through class or being so indoctrinated by postmodernism that their most englightened comments are typically, "...whatever..."

As far as evolution goes, I would follow the advice of my commentators who said to answer test questions, "according to evolutionary theory, blah blah blah." You are not in agreement with it, but the teacher is covering the material he was assigned to cover. I would not be afraid to ask a good question though and get a good discussion going.

Here are 10 questions you can ask the next time you are bored in biology class and would like to get a good discussion going. Ten Questions about Origins Pick one and try it.

Friends, the point is that we in the church cannot retreat onto our Christian reservations any longer. We have been largely doing that for the last 100 years. It is not biblical. We were not called to live divided lives. We are called to integrate our faith into all of life, and engage our culture redemptively. That does not mean going around trying to get people saved (unless God presents an evangelistic opportunity, of course). It means letting your Christian worldview influence others. For those of you who are students, that includes the classroom. For the rest of us, it includes our work. The story of the Christianity does not begin with salvation, btw, it begins with creation and goes forward through the Eschaton (the culmination of history). Christianity is a full worldview. We need to live it 24 x 7 and in all of our spheres.

More tactical posts to follow.

Paul Hamm

2004-09-04T15:03:00.000-05:00

The Paul Hamm gold medal controversy now seems to be behind us. It captured the interest of the world for two reasons. Paul Hamm made one of the greatest comebacks in history in winning the gold medal in the all around competition. Second, the judges made a clear mathematical error against the Korean gymnast Yang Tae Young ... ultimately costing him the gold medal.

Bruno Grandi, international gymnastics federation chief, wrote a letter to Paul Hamm and said if the gymnast were to return the medal “such action would be recognized as the ultimate demonstration of fair play by the whole world.”

What is the fair thing to do? I got into many discussions with family and friends. At first, I thought he should keep it. Then, I reconsidered and thought he should give it back. Then, I flip flopped and thought he should keep it.

As far as moral cases are concerned, this was a tough situation. Imagine the roles were reversed and it was Paul Hamm who accidentally got the bronze due to an oops by the judges. Maybe our feelings would change entirely.

My point in this post is not to work out the particular moral reasoning in this intriguing case. I think that would be a fun exercise, but I observed something more significant going on in this whole affair.

The rightness of fair play is a universal moral truth. Now we may disagree over the particulars of what constitutes fair play. I do not dispute that. But almost everyone agrees that fair play is a good thing and we all ought to practice it. I don’t know of any country or athlete who thinks that fair play is a horrible idea, and the gold medal should go to the best cheater.

It reminds me of how C.S. Lewis opens his classic book Mere Christianity

“Everyone has heard people quarreling … They say things like this: ‘How’d you like it if someone did the same thing to you?’ – ‘That is my seat, I was there first’ – ‘Come on, you promised’ … Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man’s behavior does not happen to please him. And the other man very seldom replies, ‘To hell with your standard.’ Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does then there is some special excuse. He pretends that there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it… it looks very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of law or rule of fair play or decent behavior or morality or whatever you call it, about which they really agree.”

Lewis is right. There is a universal sense of “oughtness” … and the Olympics, despite its controversies, reminded me of one component of that “oughtness” – when we play, we ought to play fairly.

2005 Centurions Program

2004-09-01T09:41:00.000-05:00

FROM THE WILBERFOCE FORUM: Thank you for your interest in the Centurions Program. The application process for our 2005 program has changed from the previous year. Rather than taking open applications from the general public, we are targeting key leadership in 7 major culture-shaping institutions to recruit as applicants to the program. We will select 108 Centurions - 12 applicants from each of the first 6 groups listed below and 36 from the last one:

- Multi-media (film, television, internet and video game industries)
- News media
- Music industry
- Law/Government (Legislators, public policy makers, lobbyists, criminal justice officials)
- Education (particularly professors in higher education institutions)
- Business
- The Church (12 for each of the following groups: pastors and key lay leadership; seminary professors; para-church staff responsible for training other leaders within their organization)

Centurions make a lifelong commitment to take what they have learned and teach others as well as take what they have learned and shape culture by living out a biblical worldview in their sphere of influence. Therefore, Centurions must be experienced teachers or gifted at imparting knowledge and learning to others. This program is not for personal enrichment. It is designed for people who are committed to influencing culture by teaching others how to do so and by changing the inside culture and message output of the industry or sphere in which they work.

If you or someone you know should be considered to apply for the Centurions Program, please submit their name, address, phone number, email, sphere of influence with regard to culture shaping institutions listed above, and a brief explanation of why they should be considered. Send the information to Centurions Program, The Wilberforce Forum, 1856 Old Reston Avenue, Reston, VA 20190 or Martha_Anderson@pfm.org. If we determine that this candidate should be considered for the program, we will send an application in early September.

Let me know if you have any questions about this excellent program.

(hat tip BreakPoint)

Joni Eareckson Tada On FOX

2004-09-01T09:38:00.000-05:00

After praying at the close of the first session of the Republican National Convention, Joni Eareckson Tada was taped for Cal Thomas -- After Hours program. This is a debate with Mort Kondracke on stem cell research. It will air on Fox News Network 11:00 pm Eastern (8:00 pm PST) this Saturday. Please watch it and let others know of this opportunity too.

For those who don't know who Joni Eareckson Tada is ... she is a wheel chair bound Christian woman. She was crippled in a spinal cord injury in her youth. She will speak against human embryo stem cell research ... though she clearly would have much to gain if if this technology could rebuild her spinal cord.

Tape it. Watch it. Learn how to make a coherent and articulate defense of the sanctity of human life.

The Imago Dei

2004-08-18T13:45:00.000-05:00

The imago Dei is the Latin expression for “image of God”. Gen 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”. Theologians through the centuries have debated what it means to bear the image of God. While that is certainly an interesting question, I want to talk about one of the reasons the imago Dei is so important.

One of the major worldview questions is, what is man? If the materialists are right, then man is a bag of molecules. We are a collection of proteins, complex chemistry and neural pathways formed by some serendipitous chemical reactions that took place in a primordial puddle. Or, to use Dr. Richard Pratt’s expression, “lucky mud.”

The Bible tells a different story. It reveals that we were created in God’s image. While we can debate exactly what this means, one thing is for clear. Unlike the rest of the created order, God has put His divine stamp on us. We bear His image. We are made in His likeness. We are special. We have value. We have dignity. This has an important bearing on the significant moral debates of the day.

Abortion. Assisted suicide. Euthanasia. Genetic engineering. Cloning. Human embryo stem cell research. Transhumanism. The great cultural debates of our day all hinge on the basic question: what does it mean to be human? If we are nothing more than lucky mud, then human beings have no more right to dignity than yeast. Utilitarian values (i.e. having a useful function) become the dominant determinant. In other words, get the dying, the infirm, the disabled, the nonproductive and the unwanted out of the way of the living. If, however, human life bears the stamp of the divine Maker, then human life is infinitely precious and ought to be protected.

Why do Christians take a stand to protect human life from the human embryo to the old and the sick? Simple. God values human life and made it precious by stamping human beings with the imago Dei.

Worldview Case Study 2: Using Columbo

2004-07-30T15:04:00.000-05:00

Click Worldview Case Study 2: Using Columbo for some more fun with worldviews.

It is a worldview exercise employing a tactic I learned from Stand To Reason called the Columbo tactic.

Come on over and post a Columbo question.

A Case Study In Biblical Worldview

2004-07-27T11:04:00.000-05:00

I developed my first case study in Biblical worldview thinking. My goal is to provide practice for all of us in clear thinking with a Biblical worldview using a real world example. I would be interested in your input.

Rather than copying the posts here, I will just link to my posts on The Dawn Treader.

First post:

The Dawn Treader: Exercise In Clear Thinking - Case 1

Second post:

The Dawn Treader: Exercise In Clear Thinking - Conclusion

The Cultural Commission

2004-07-22T14:04:00.000-05:00

The Cultural CommissionIt is Thursday and we have an official heatwave here in St. Louis. I have been back from the second Centurion residency and have finally "come down off the mountain." I did not want to, but as Dawn Treader puts it, I have to get my shoes in the mud. I can echo a hearty ditto to his comments about the various speakers and the interactions among the Centurions. Ken Boa always speaks to my mind and my heart; behind the wit is a two edge sword of truth. Humor can make a slice seem like something beneficial -- and it was spiritually. But for me, the highlight was Sunday mornings service, especially the communion. I don't yet have grasp on where the remaining years of my life are headed, but I DO KNOW that my life has changed, again. A new fork in the road has been revealed; I have just started to take the first steps on this part of the journey. I want to be, my heart cries out, where God is moving providentially.

WOW!! Maybe I havn't come down off the mountain after all.

Dawn Treader's Thoughts on the 2nd Residency

2004-07-19T08:58:00.000-05:00

The Centurions program, of which all of the bloggers on this site are members, is a one year long, distance-learning program. On two occasions, however, we meet together for a weekend of teaching and small group interaction. These are called residencies. We just finished our second residency. It started on Friday (7/16) and concluded yesterday (7/18).

I thought it would be helpful for Centurion bloggers to post their reflections of the second residency on this site. Create a new post to do it. Don't use the comments section of this post for your reflections (unless you want to comment on my reflections).

My own highlights.

- Mark Earley's talk was a highlight for me. Mark Earley (of Prison Fellowship Ministry) reminded us that our ministry is one of "teaching and touching." In other words, we need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. He talked about the notion of spiritual authority giving power to one's words. He used the example of Mother Teresa's speech at the 1994 prayer breakfast. She basically read her speech from a piece of paper and never had eye contact with the audience. She gave a lousy speech, technically speaking. Nonetheless, the power of her life made the truth of her speech hit with the force of 10 megaton bomb. The fact of the matter is, the true teacher is ALWAYS the Holy Spirit when it comes to truths about life and faith. A life well lived is something the Holy Spirit uses to add force to the words. Mother Teresa broke almost every rule for good speech making, yet her speech had a life changing impact on those who heard it.
- TM Moore's materials on worldview teaching were powerful. His handout on preparing to teach a series is something I know I will use again and again and again.
- I had a good one on one chat with Pat Nolan of PFM. As a result of that chat, I believe I will be writing and self publishing a book as part of my ministry. It will be focused on the "theology of technology"; this is not Pat's area. My chat with him gave me the idea though. He wrote a simple book about prisoner release and re-entry which has given him a great platform to speak with authority about this important topic. I was able to tell him about my company (Lightning Source), which as it turns out, printed his book. My company is the leading player in the growing "print on demand" segment of book publishing. We print and ship books on demand, kind of like a virtual warehouse of books. He and Mike Synder are interested in leveraging our technology for their materials. It was a divine appointment for both of us.
- I was encouraged by all of the Centurions who are already out there getting mud on their boots teaching worldview in their spheres. God is already at work using the Centurions.
- The panel discussion on Saturday night was riveting. Roberto Rivera continues to amaze me. For those who were there, can you imagine sharing a work cublice with a guy like that? I would come home worn out every night. Roberto's mind is remarkable. What a gift. I am glad he is on our side =)
- I was encouraged by Chuck Colson's willingness to plug our individual worldview teaching efforts on the Breakpoint radio commentary and the Breakpoint website. What an offer. I am continually impressed by Chuck Colson's intentionality in sponsoring little guys like me, and investing in the future. Colson is a great example of a Christian leader who is finishing well in the race of life. As a Centurion, I am privileged to see him a little more up close than the public. His example inspires me.
- Overall, I felt encouraged and motivated to press on with the hard work of thinking, teaching, writing, and advocating the Biblical worldview. We Centurions are a small platoon of Christians who are committed to the notion that God accomplishes big things with small armies. In God's economy, you need to "think small." That is exciting, if you ask me.

Jeff Clinton aka "The Dawn Treader"

This Phenomenon Called Blogging

2004-07-02T10:04:00.000-05:00

As a worldview analyst, I want to take a look at the topic of blogging for a moment. What is it about blogging that makes it appealing? What does the explosive growth in blogging indicate about us as a culture?

Here are a few thoughts that I am chewing on.

There are some positive reasons.

One, blogging builds community. We live separate lives, for the most part. Independence is touted as a virtue. What loses? Community. The thing is, we are relational creatures. It is God’s design. Blogging taps into that basic human wiring. We get connected in a large virtual community. We find other people who share our convictions. We find kindred spirits. It is not a perfect proxy for the old fashioned kind of community, however. I can’t come over and help you move some furniture if you live in Asia like Joe Missionary, for instance. Still, blogging builds community so I think it is popular and good.

Two, blogging provides a platform for shaping thought. It is an easy way to get your ideas out there in the marketplace of ideas. We can bump our ideas up against each other and learn. Sometimes the thoughts we shape are our own. Blogging helps me understand what I am thinking. I am able to coalesce my ideas into a more focused, articulate and cogent form. I blog to get my thoughts to all fly in formation, as it were.

Is all of blogging positive? Not necessarily.

Blogging taps into my desire for control. I own my domain. I make the rules. If I want to be rude, I can be rude. If I want to blow off some steam, I can vent. If I want to say nothing in particular, I can blog about … well … nothing in particular. I can just make noise. I am allowed to. It is my blog. I make the rules. No social mores to worry about. No constraints. No restrictions. In short, it appeals to our culture's love affair with autonomy.

Blogging, for some, appeals to a desire to complain, but do it and stay invisible while doing it. It is a way to easily slip into and out of an argument with no strings attached. Post a comment as “anonymous”. Set up a blog using a pseudonym. We say what we want and then walk away. If someone else’s comment bugs us, we delete it. In short, we don’t have to follow all the rules of engagement that normally apply in social settings. This allows us to get away with being rude and blunt. We don’t have to temper our words and act like nice people. Exception: I am not all against pseudonyms. A blogging friend of mine reminded me of the importance of internet safety. Point taken. I do think some are attracted to the notion of staying anonymous for reasons other than safety, however.

Finally, alas, blogging can appeal to our pride. I see a whole lot of blogs registered in the ecosystem at TTLB including yours truly. I get caught up in checking my rankings and evolution on the ecosystem. I admit it. It is kind of like a game, trying to see whose posts got the most links?. Who is advancing up the chain the quickest? Who has the widest reach?

The Lord continues to work on me. He used two instruments this week. The first was Joel Belz. I found myself convicted. Was I trying to make a name for myself through blogging? Was I not thinking “small” enough? Was I out there promoting myself? Ouch. The second person the Lord used was my wife Leslie. She asked, Jeff, would you blog even if your audience was just ONE other person? Translation into blogspeak, would I continue to blog even if I remained an “insignificant microbe” in the ecosystem?

Ouch. I had to stop and repent. I sensed pride rearing its ugly head! I want to blog for the right reasons. The heart is deceitful, and my pride needed to be exposed.

Let’s continue to build community and join together. Be encouragers. Be generous and self-less with your praise. Also, go onto the other team's turf some more. Be the visiting team once in a while. Take a look at some blogs who don’t agree with your point of view. Post a comment, but do it respectfully and put your name on it. Own it. Let your posts and comments always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt.

Let’s use this emerging technology to promote good ideas, challenge bad thinking and build community. Let’s blog for the right reasons, and reflect the character of Christ while we are at it.

Blog On!

(hat tip: James Walters for some excellent insight on this topic)

Tolerance Reloaded

2004-07-01T20:24:00.000-05:00

Speaking recently at a national conference, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan stated, "Unquestionably, very evil things happen in the world” however "...the difficulty is to know where to draw the line." But "If we are intent on naming evil, then let us name it intolerance."

Really now? Can evil be that difficult to recognize?

Mr. Annan's statements reflect the growing belief that the only virtue is tolerance and the only evil, intolerance -- where tolerance carries the demand of accepting my neighbor, as well as, accepting what he does. It is a tenet at the heart of relativism where value-free choice is touted as a right along with freedom from interference, criticism, or consequence. And in the wake of this new morality, it has become more offensive to name evil than to do evil.

Regrettably, this new morality has also taken root in the Church where, according to George Barna, only 32% of "born-again" Christians believe in absolute truth. After all, since Jesus accepted everyone, He couldn't have been too serious about moral absolutes, right? Seemingly so if you listen to what George Dennis O'Brien, author of The Idea of a Catholic University, has to say,

"...Any single biblical text may be trumped by the overall message, which for Christian(s) ... is a message of love and acceptance..."

O'Brien's message is that love supplants all other moral truths. This growing sentiment reflects the distortion of the classical view of tolerance, moored in the belief that universal truths exist and are knowable. As a result, the classical view was elitist towards ideas while being egalitarian towards persons.

However, without absolutes personal beliefs became sacrosanct and modern tolerance drifted from its classical roots and became egalitarian towards ideas and elitist towards people. And with time, came the inevitable speech codes to silence those who believe that certain things are true and others false. For example, intolerance has come to mean moralizing, bigotry, racism, misogyny, and fanaticism. The result is the self-destruction of relativism’s very underpinnings, as Gregory Koukl writes in the Myth of Tolerance,

"...if one rejects another’s ideas, he is automatically accused of disrespecting the person... This often results in the very elitism regarding people relativists say they are trying to avoid. Christians who think their ideas are true are often verbally abused, called bigoted, disrespectful, ignorant and -- can you believe it -- intolerant."

As Koukl indicates, the classical aspect of tolerance -- the ability to have discourse and disagree about beliefs has been totally abandoned in the modern distortion. However, since people can only be tolerant of those with whom they disagree, this underscores the self-refuting nature of moral relativism, where "tolerance" is nothing more than intolerance.

So what are the Christian responses to those whose beliefs and behaviors are different from our own?

True discipleship requires that we not only comfort and feed His sheep, but that we help them understand why they are hungry. The costly nature of discipleship means living AND speaking His truth, even at the risk of being marginalized. As the late Francis Schaeffer writes in The God Who is There,

"Both a clear comprehension of the importance of truth and a clear practice of it, when it is costly to do so, is imperative if our witness and our evangelism are to be significant in our own generation and in the flow of history."

The Virtue Of An Open Mind?

2004-06-28T12:20:00.000-05:00

It is virtuous to be open-minded, right? Well, maybe not. At least about some things.

I read a column by Fr. Chris Hayden (Conjectures of a Curate) that drew an emphatic high-five from the crew of the Dawn Treader.

Here is the deal. Being open-minded or close-minded, in and of itself, is morally neutral. It is kind of like faith. Having faith, for the sake of having faith, means nothing. The question is, what is the object of your faith? Likewise, what are you open-minded or close-minded about?

I would argue, for example, that is not a virtuous thing to be open-minded about pedophilia. True, you won’t find any verses written in red about what Jesus said about pedophilia. Does that mean we should be open-minded about it? Heaven forbid! The corpus of scripture clearly teaches God’s design, context and purpose for sex. Pedophilia is so far out of bounds that we don’t even need to waste time looking for that ball. We should be close-minded about that issue. God has spoken, why in the world should we remain open-minded on this issue?

Another thing. Promoting open-mindedness as a virtue, in and of itself, is self-refuting. Why? Because open-mindedness is very close-minded about close-mindedness, is it not? Whoops. Little bit of a logical disconnect there. When you encounter a proposition that falsifies itself, please follow my advice. Stand aside and let the argument quietly commit suicide.

That is the funny thing about truth. It is quite exclusive. When we discover truth, we would be well advised to close our minds against that which opposes it.

The next time someone preaches to you about the virtue of being open-minded, ask them what “open-minded about what?” If they are asking you to be open-minded about something which God clearly opposes, then tell them your mind is already full when it comes that subject. Sorry - closed. Full.

We are exhorted to love truth and embrace the one who embodies truth. Let’s fill our minds with truth and our hearts with love, and close our minds around that.

(hat tip: Wes Mollard)

What Is Your Church Doing?

2004-06-28T08:09:00.000-05:00

I was glad to see the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) take a strong stand on marriage at its recent general assembly in Pittsburgh.

Therefore be it resolved that the 32nd General Assembly:

Humbly call on the civil governments of Canada and the United States and all nations of the earth to act within their lawful powers and use whatever legislative and judicial instruments they deem most useful to ensure that marriage is legally defined and interpreted throughout their jurisdictions as existing exclusively between one man and woman.

My question to friends of The Cultural Commission is, how is your church taking a stand on the Biblical view of marriage?

I was commissioned, by our session, to write a letter to our members. My first draft was shot down by the session. I came out too strong in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The session felt that we should not "bind the conscience" of our members on a particular piece of legislation. I am okay with that, as long as we send out a letter saying something in defense of marriage. Our general assembly certainly came out strong. The session and I are re-working the letter to strip out my endorsements for the FMA.

What is your church doing? Does your church view this issue as "too political" and not touching it? Please comment.

Christians and political issues...

2004-06-23T14:11:00.000-05:00

Should Christians really get involved in political issues? It is a question that I have always wondered about. It seems like our faith and our politics are not supposed to mix, at least according to the pundits of our culture. Presidential candidates, for example, are famous for going on record saying that they do not let their personal religion affect their public duties. Thomas Jefferson said there should be a “wall of separation” between the church and the government. So, what is a Christian to do? Two excellent books, which have helped inform my thinking on this question, are Chuck Colson’s Kingdoms and Conflict and How Now Shall We Live? (co-written with Nancy Pearcy).

Colson cogently argues for what great Christian thinkers for centuries have thought. Augustine, for example, wrote we are citizens of both the city of God and the city of man. We have a dual citizenship. As members of the city of God, we need to set our mind and heart on things above. We need to be less temporal in our thinking, and more eternal in our mindset. However, we are not to neglect our role in the city of man. We are to be godly citizens in society. We are to live out our Biblical worldview in such a way as to bring God’s righteousness and truth to bear on the ideas that shape our society. Sometimes that involves speaking with moral clarity in the public forum, even on issues that are “political”.

The most critical moral issue being debated in our culture is the role and purpose of marriage. There are those in this country who want to deconstruct and re-interpret what God meant by marriage. This God-ordained institution is God’s design for families, and families are the building blocks of societies. Sadly, the church has been largely silent on this issue, preferring to stay out of politics. It is no time for silence. It is time for the church, and that means all of us in the church, to speak God’s truth into a morally confused culture.

Christians need to obey Christ’s command to be salt and light, and courageously speak the truth about an institution that God established and blessed. Political or not, silence is not an option.

Keep moratorium on 'embryonic' stem cell research

2004-06-22T10:56:00.000-05:00

Supporters of embryonic stem cell research are using the death of President Reagan to revisit the Bush policy of August 2001 that stopped federal funding for further embryonic stem cell research. These proponents claim restrictions on research are wrong when that research could potentially find cures for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other debilitating diseases.

Yet, these supporters ignore one central moral issue – using embryonic stem cells in research is the taking of a human life since embryos must be killed to harvest those cells. Their claim is that the greater good is served – that finding a cure for any of these diseases is worth the loss of a few fetal cells that are merely potential humans.

However, research using adult stem cells (which doesn’t require the taking of life) has proven very favorable in curing diseases or reducing their effects. Adult stem cells are readily available from sources like umbilical cords. At the same time the limited research that has gone on using embryonic stem cells has yet to deliver on its promise.

Destroying unborn children for research reduces human life to a commodity. Yet, there is momentum growing in Congress to lift the moratorium on federal funding for this type of research. Adult stem cells are a viable and proven alternative. Let Congress know that embryonic stem cell research is the misuse of human life.

Support The Federal Marriage Amendment

2004-06-22T08:35:00.000-05:00

Throughout history there have been times when the church has been called to speak with a prophetic voice to the culture. Now is such a time.

A small but well organized and well funded group is launching an attack on the most fundamental institution ordained by God: the institution of marriage. Marriage is the first institution ordained by God and has served from the beginning as the foundation for continuation of the human race. Marriages form the basis of families. Families are the building blocks of societies and cultures. As Christians, we have a cultural mandate from God which includes acting as salt in a culture stained and corrupted by sin. Salt was used in ancient times as a preservative. Likewise, we are to act as preservatives to stop the moral decay in our culture. In addition to fulfilling the Great Commission, we are to be agents of common grace and work toward the restoration of culture. In so doing, we will bring the majesty of God and His righteousness to bear against the crumbling structures of a fallen society.

We are now in a situation in which some courts and local officials have decided to enforce their concept of justice in a matter that affects everyone in our nation. The result is that the desires of the few are being imposed upon the many. This small but vocal group is attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage to conform to their homosexual lifestyles. Further, they have strategically marketed their cause as a moral one, involving civil rights, and morally equivalent to the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a false comparison. In the case of gay “marriage”, no one’s civil rights have been violated. Everyone has a right to marry, and marriage means and has always meant a union between a man and a woman. What the homosexual community truly wants is societal and governmental approval of their lifestyle choices. They want moral legitimacy. If ever there was a time where the church needed to speak with moral clarity and with one voice, it is now.

The best hope of saving marriage from redefinition is a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. An amendment such as this protects marriage from redefinition by either state legislatures or an activist liberal judge. Why federal legislation? It is naive to think that the adoption of same-sex civil "marriage" in one state would not affect the other 38 states (Virginia included) that have codified the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For example, homosexual couples that may soon be allowed to "marry" in Massachusetts will inevitably seek recognition of their "marriages" in other locales. The outcome will be a flood of litigation across the country, and courts in other states may order full legal recognition be granted to same-sex "marriages," even over the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Why is this threat so serious?

One, legalizing homosexual marriage puts society’s stamp of approval on a lifestyle choice that is immoral and clearly condemned throughout scripture. It lays the groundwork for further legislation like the law recently passed in Canada. Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison. Say the wrong thing; go to jail. Further, churches could be forced to perform same sex unions. When courts -- as happened in Massachusetts -- find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.

Two, marriage between a man and a woman is God’s design for raising children. Unraveling this basic institution, to satisfy the lifestyle choices of a few, will cause serious harm to the fabric of our society for generations to come. Marriages form the basis of families. The purpose of a family is to produce the next generation. That makes this issue about the future. It is about the culture in which our children and grand children will raise their families. The stakes are serious.

Three, we have clear evidence of what happens to societies that water down the meaning of marriage. The Scandinavian countries granted societal and governmental approval to same sex marriages 10 years ago. It locked in, reinforced and escalated a trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. According to Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. The result? In Denmark, sixty percent of first-born children have unmarried parents. The co-habitation statistics from Sweden and Norway are frightening. In the words of Kurtz, marriage is dying in Scandinavia. Gay marriage accelerated that death.

Remember, there are only three institutions ordained of God—the Church, the family, the government. It’s like a three-legged stool; take one away and the other two will not stand by themselves.

How can you make a difference?

One, pray earnestly and often about this issue. Any amendment to the constitution requires approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states. If a vote were taken today, the FMA would not pass. Several senators have said they simply aren't hearing from their constituents on this issue. The church, as a whole, has largely been silent. There are millions of evangelicals in this country, and most appear to be sitting this one out so far. With so much at stake, please pray for God to wake up Christians and give them the courage to get involved and speak with moral clarity.

(these are my senators in Virginia, go here for contact information on your senators)
Two, contact the offices of Senator George Allen and Senator John Warner request that they co-sponsor Senate Joint Resolution 26, the Federal Marriage Amendment. They need to hear from you. Call their offices once a week. Write letters. Their addresses and phone numbers are: Allen, George - (R - VA) (202) 224-4024, 204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510; Warner, John - (R - VA) (202) 224-2023, 225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510.

Three, write letters to the local newspapers. We need to speak for moral truth in the marketplace of ideas.

Four, sign a petition joining with Jim Dobson, Chuck Colson and other leaders supporting this amendment. The web address is http://www.pfm.org/BreakPoint/Petition

Five, learn more about the issue so you can talk to friends and family and defend the Biblical worldview. Here are some helpful web sites.

Focus on the Family
Institute For Marriage and Public Policy
Family Research Council
Campaign for Working Families

The Senate has announced a vote on the FMA for July. House leaders have promised action this summer. There is no more time to wait.

Dialog with a Christian Postmodern – Conclusion

2004-06-18T19:37:00.000-05:00

Continuing in that vein, I asked, “Jane, you certainly have some views on abortion and homosexuality that conflict with scriptures. I was wondering how you reconcile your beliefs with clear biblical truths?”

“Alex, you know that since I left my old church I’ve been on an ever-growing spiritual journey. As God and I continue to work out my personal theology, I am always amazed at how often my intuitive (and I believe, Spirit-led) thoughts are affirmed by others. Often, that which I considered original thought, appears in a book, or I hear someone else express it, or I see something in the natural world that illustrates a concept.”

(Notice the postmodern themes of personal theology, truth by feelings, experience, and community!)

As I patiently listened, she continued, “The truth I know and accept is just this: TRUTH is a person and not a set of beliefs, moral absolutes, doctrines or a creed. Truth as a set of beliefs is exclusive, but TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ is inclusive. I would also like to suggest that the basis of tyranny, like church violence past and present, has also been absolute truth.”

(As I was reflecting about all of the recent Barna surveys, I was thinking that Jane would have been one of those Christians surveyed to say they did not believe in absolute truth. I then felt a heaviness, realizing how far off center these very sincere people can be and how great our task ahead!)

“Jane, I will agree that Truth is a Person, inclusive to all. But that Person also established a set of truth claims that are exclusive towards counter claims. Dozens of times in each Gospel Jesus introduces us to those prepositional truths when He says, “I tell you the truth…”

Interrupting, she said “Look Alex, to be His followers, all we have to do is look at His life! It is so very simple. We don’t even have to agree on the words he spoke; His life spoke much more loudly than His words.”

I immediately thought, ‘What a bunch of self-refuting prattle!’ Trying not to look too condescending (and probably not succeeding!) I said, “Jane, that line of reasoning self-destructs. If we ignore what Jesus said in favor of what He did, we in effect throw out His whole ministry because His life was lived in complete congruence with His words. Also, think about His statement, ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’ If His statement is true, His words are of the utmost importance. If not, He doesn’t even deserve our attention, much less our respect and worship.”

At this point our discussion tapered off as Jane’s response indicated that her personal theology hadn’t budged. (But who knows? It’s all up to Him!) We did agree to pick this up again in the future and I pray that some of God’s truth will seep in by then. In the mean time she will be in my prayers.

Dialog With A Christian Postmodern Part 4

2004-06-18T19:35:00.000-05:00

While in my reverie she continued, “…and how do we know for sure that homosexuality is not a genetic trait? Maybe homosexuality is just another example of nature’s diversity? I have a very difficult time believing that the majority of homosexuals choose to be that way.”

“Jane, researchers have been in a frantic search for the ‘gay gene’ for decades -- to no avail. And it’s clear why. Each guy that I have mentored and talked to involved in the gay culture confirm what every study I’ve read on the issue concludes -- that gay men all have either a history of sexual child abuse or of a physically, emotionally, or spiritual absent father. Each of these guys has told me personally, that ‘those who claim the gay lifestyle is not a choice are living the lie.’ Their words not mine! This accords well with Paul’s analysis in Romans 1 of those who not only ‘suppress the truth’ but who ‘exchange the truth of God for a lie.’ This is a clear case of multiple attestation of the real issue here.”

Still in evasive mode, Jane replied, “I just don’t see how a gay couple wanting to live together harms anyone else—except maybe the sensibilities of some individuals. Maybe if they were allowed to marry legally, there would be less infidelity amongst them. And with the horrendous trend of heterosexual infidelity, we have a huge splinter in our eye!”

“Jane, you’re right that hetero couples have not lived up to the biblical standard. But, it is clear from virtually all stats that the level of gay infidelity is off the chart – especially in terms of numbers of partners outside of the primary relationship, with 75% of gay men reporting over 100 partners. This has made many observers conclude the gay juggernaut has nothing to do with commitment, fidelity, and monogamy, but has everything to do with demanding societal acceptance, approval, and celebration of their twisted morality.”

Continuing I said, “Jane, the Scandinavian countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. This has severed to separate the idea of parenthood from marriage. As a result studies have shown that the majority of children in those countries are born out of wedlock. This is why society through the ages has revered and protected the uniqueness of marriage as one man and one woman.”

“Well, I’d like to see those studies. I don’t see how anyone can determine that gay marriage is the causal factor in the breakdown of society in Scandinavia? As in any study there are many variables.”

Seeing this line of discussion was dead-ended, I cut to the chase.

“Jean, to the fundamental issue behind this whole dialog – I feel that you have been so burned in the past by legalism that you are hesitant to make any stand about exclusive truth in the name of compassion and tolerance. But truth, by definition IS exclusive. And it is in light of that the Church is called the ‘pillar of the truth.’ I agree with you that Jesus demonstrated the highest tolerance for people. But at the same time, He was very intolerant of wrong behaviors and beliefs – the Gospels are VERY clear on that. His compassion was always expressed by giving people what they NEEDED and not necessarily what they may have wanted, with the ever-constant challenge to correct their wrong thinking and behavior.”

Then came the bombshell…

Dialog With A Christian Postmodern Part 3

2004-06-18T16:01:00.000-05:00

Sitting down with a fresh cup of brew, I asked, “Now where were we?”

“Alex, I was trying to say that Jesus, unlike the religious Right, would have been an advocate for the homosexual – anyway Jesus accepted people, never condemning anyone!”

“Jane, I will agree with you to a point. Jesus fully accepted individuals and showered them with the compassion of healing, feeding, advocacy, and forgiveness – no doubt! But He never left them in the state He found them, telling them to “go and sin no more.” Clearly, Jesus was expressing judgment against a moral absolute. By the way, if Jesus never condemned anyone what do you think He meant when He told the religious establishment of His day, “if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.”

Then with fleshly air of smugness I added, “Also what do you make of His statement, ”Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only.”

Settling comfortably back in my seat, she soon unsettled my surfacing buoyancy.

“If homosexuality is such an important issue and such a grave sin, why was it not specifically forbidden in the ten commandments? Why did Jesus not condemn it?”

Taking in a long draw on the brew, (forgive me Father, give me wisdom!) I swallowed and said,

“Jane, if you question the immorality of homosexuality because of its omission in the Decalogue and in Jesus’ specific teachings, do you also question the immorality of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, wife-beating, child abuse, drug-dealing, etc, etc,?”

Evading the obvious question, Jane responded, “How can we judge the behaviors of others who have unimaginable struggles that we can’t begin to understand? As the catchy slogan goes— ‘God doesn’t create junk.’ “

"Jane, you appear to embrace a mixture of Hobbesian pragmaticism and relativism with regard to abortion and homosexuality. That is, if certain moral constraints are too difficult or impractical for individuals because of their genetic propensities or environmental circumstances, then those constraints should not be imposed. Obviously, there are many problems with such pragmatic view. Not the least of which is what would happen if every anti-social behavior is condoned because, hey, that’s the way God made me, and God don’t make junk? Unfortunately, I think that our society has largely bought into that. We increasingly see the legal defense of some of the most heinous crimes being founded on bad homes, bad neighborhoods, bad influences, weak pre-dispositions, etc. Thus, as moral responsibility and accountability have become vestiges of a forgotten past, even perpetrators of crimes are being promoted as victims.”

Seeming a bit on the defensive, Jane countered “Some people are just born different. It seems to me that homosexuality could be compared to Down’s Syndrome. So maybe homosexuality is not a choice.”

Taking in a much longer draw of coffee, while silently praying and desperately scanning my memory banks for all of the great centurion dialogs and materials I’ve been exposed to in the last few months, I remembered my experience in mentoring several men…

Dialog With A Christian Postmodern Part 2

2004-06-18T15:04:00.000-05:00

“You know, Alex, ‘pro-life’ is really a misnomer. They believe in protecting life only within their interpretation of the Bible. If we are to take the commandment “thou shalt not kill” at face value, then we should be opposed to all killing including capital punishment, wars, and the killing of animals, besides the obvious premeditated murder. How many pro-lifers protest capital punishment or war? I can understand why pro-choice proponents see pro-life as a hypocritical message.”

After another moment of shocked silence, I responded. “Jane, first of all the sixth commandment is, “Thou shall not MURDER.” Which is the willful taking of innocent (human) life. It is clear that the intent of this command was not about killing in general, human or otherwise, since God sanctioned capital punishment, animal sacrifice, harvesting of crops, and many of Israel’s campaigns against its enemies. So, no, not very many pro-lifers would protest just war or capital punishment since these are not about the taking of innocent life.”

Continuing, I said, “I know that you revere Jesus’ expression of love and compassion. However, one of the ways Jesus demonstrated this during his ministry was to be the advocate and defender of the powerless, voiceless, and unwanted in society. And who today is more voiceless, powerless, and unwanted than the unborn? That is why Christians who take up the banner of pro-choice in legal and respectful expressions of protest are reflecting the advocacy of their Savior.”

In a clever shift of gears Jane re-directed the conversation to the gay controversy.

“You’re right, Alex, Jesus was an advocate and defender of the victims of society. I wonder how He would stand on the issue of homosexuality today? They have certainly been victims of persecution. How often have we seen them ridiculed and discriminated against? I am ashamed to say that in the past I have laughed at the jokes about them and looked at them in disgust. But no more. Because that is not what Jesus would do if He walked today among us. I know this because I know Him!”

Knowing this could be a powder keg, especially since she had recently converted to the Angelican church, I said, “Great point, Jane, let me get a cup of coffee, and let’s pick up on that thought. By the way can I get you one?”

“Thanks, no.”

Dialog with a Christian Postmodern – Part 1

2004-06-18T08:03:00.000-05:00

It all begin after Jane read my (Alex's) commentary about the pro-choice march in DC. In that piece, I contrasted the abhorrent actions and demeanor of the “choicers” against that of pro-lifer, Lori McCormick to show the depth of the clash between these worldviews.

“Alex, all I got from your commentary was a one-sided view of the pro-life movement. What about all of the ‘so-called’ pro-lifers who bomb abortion clinics, terrorize clinic staff, and block women’s legal access into such clinics?”

“Jane, I admit that Christians have been guilty of incredible acts of violence. And in the broader view, the Church has had several dark and shameful periods in its past (the Inquisition, Crusades, witch trails, condoning slavery, etc.). However, most of these blemishes were motivated and propelled more by political and selfish human agendas rather than for religious reasons. In fact, all (including abortion clinic violence) were in direct conflict with Christ’s teachings which could have been readily discerned by any honest seeker of the truth.

So yes, there are fringe Christians who engage the culture in ways that are incompatible with Christianity. However, their acts can be clearly shown contrary to the Christian Worldview. But the raging pro-choices are acting consistently with the worldview that says, ‘the only absolute is choice and those who don’t agree are either ignorant or oppressors that need to be silenced.’”

Not about to budge an inch, Jane responded, “Well, I can see both sides to this moral dilemma. On each side there are moral and decent people.”

“Jane, You’re quite right -- there are sincere and decent people on both sides of the issue who do good things and bad things. I'm sure we each could name a few atheists who outshine many Christians in altruistic acts. However, those acts do not make the atheist good any more than the lack of acts make the Christian bad. So how do you view this moral dilemma?”

“All I know is that there are situations when to allow a child to develop to full-term would be cruel to both parents and child. To outlaw all abortions, to me, would create more problems than it would solve. I believe getting an abortion should not be easy, but it should be available in extenuating situations. So you could say, that I am pro-choice if strict regulations and controls are applied. ”

After a period of speechlessness, I finally countered with, “It seems that the issue should be plain.
If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, knitted Imago Dei in the “hidden places,” no justification for abortion is adequate.”

Without conceding that point she turned the discussion to the “misnomer” of pro-life and the incoherence of its stance…

Dialog with a Christian Postmodern – Intro

2004-06-18T08:00:00.000-05:00

This is from a recent conversation a friend of mine, whom I will call “Alex”, had with a friend whom I will call “Jane”. I share it here with his permission.
=======================================================
I thought it might be interesting to share a dialog I’ve been having with a friend of my wife who could best be described as a postmodern Christian. I think our exchange underscores the real challenge we face with those in our own ranks. As has been said many times on this site, transformation (or reclamation) of the culture must begin within and it seems as an ever daunting task, as I think this dialog will show.

First a little background info. “Jane” was a fourth generation member of a church tradition steeped in the religiosity of legalism. During her membership she was witness, and party, to much of the judgmental exclusivity that is spawned in such settings. Her judgmentalism even extended to her own husband and children who were nominal church members. Needless to say, this caused much strife within their family and the emotional scars continue today.

However, three years ago after reading The Ragamuffin Gospel, by Brennan Manning, she began to see to a radically different God (of unconditional love) than the one of performance-based love she had grow up to know. This epiphany was the beginning of a spiritual quest that took her out of her church and into a local Anglican church.

Because of the scar tissue she carries from a lifetime of legalism, and the guilt she feels for her own judgmentalism, Jane is now reluctant to stand on any moral absolute other than that of tolerance.

As I think our conversation will show, Jane, like so many, reads the bible underlining the passages of the God she wants, rather than the God who is. Her God is the grey, indulgent ol’ gentleman who makes no demands, while showering affirmation and blessing His rebellious, ungrateful children. The God who says, “if you love me, keep my commandments,” “ unless you deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow me, you cannot be my disciple” is, in her mind, the merit-based God of her old tradition.

On Marshwiggles and Worldviews Part 2 (conclusion)

2004-06-18T07:44:00.000-05:00

To a good Narnian like Puddleglum, Aslan represents everything that is right and good in the world. His word is to be trusted. Aslan never lies. Aslan is never wrong. Despite how irrational it may appear to free the raving lunatic from his bondage, even if it costs them their very lives, Aslan’s word is to be followed. Plain and simple. Though Pole and Scrubb waffle a bit, Puddleglum tells them they must follow Aslan’s instructions. Scrubb and Puddleglum, thinking they are about to die, cut the ropes and set him free.

Puddleglum illustrates a type of Abraham. Abraham’s faith was tested when he was asked to sacrifice Isaac. It was a seemingly irrational request. Abraham faced a faith check for the ages. He obeyed. So did Puddleglum.

What does this say about Biblical faith? What can we learn from the worldview of a marshwiggle? We learn that faith is a confident trust. It is not an irrational leap into the dark. It is a reasoned step into the light. It is Abraham obeying God. It is Peter stepping out of the boat and walking toward the arms of Christ, despite the fury of the tempest. It is Puddleglum freeing the raving Prince Rilian. It is expressed in obedience. It is based on a knowledge of God, revealed to us in scripture, in creation, in history and in our own conscience. We know that God is sovereign, all powerful, all knowing, holy and righteous. In spite of perplexing circumstances, obedience is always the most rational course of action. What faith check are you facing today? Are you being called to step out of the safety and comfort of the boat and walk toward Christ? Are you, like Puddleglum, facing a difficult and scary choice, but you know what you are supposed to do? For the Christian, do the rational thing. Trust. Obey.

On Marshwiggles and Worldviews Part 1

2004-06-18T07:38:00.000-05:00

If you have not read C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia to your kids, you really should. I am currently reading the series to my sons Connor (8) and Jesse (6). We have reached book six, The Silver Chair.

Last night, our story was set in a dark castle in an underworld realm. Our three heroes, Pole, Scrubb and Puddleglum have been taken to a castle of an evil queen who is a sorceress. Fortunately for them, she is not there at the moment. She is away, but due back at any moment. However, her main protector, a smug warrior named the Black Knight is there.

While Pole and Scrubb are English children from our world, Puddleglum is a marshwiggle from Narnia. Marshwiggles are tall, skinny, frog-like creatures that inhabit the northlands of Narnia. Marshwiggles lead simple lives. They are peace loving. They basically eat fish, smoke pipes, and watch the world go by. They remind me of hobbits.

Puddleglum, Scrubb and Pole face a confusing and frightening situation. The Black Knight tells them that he is prone to fits of rage that come over him suddenly at night. He must be bound and tied to a silver chair for his own safety and the safety of others. Sure as shootin’, Pole, Scrubb and Puddleglum happen upon the Black Knight that night right before one of his fits of rage. The knight tells them, whatever I say or do, no matter how much I plead with you, never free me from this chair or I will slay you. Moments later, he falls into one of his fits. Instead of a fit, however, it turns out that a spell is lifted from the black knight and his mind clears. He is actually Prince Rilian, the very person Aslan commissioned Pole and Scrubb (and Puddleglum) to go rescue. Rilian begs, pleads, and implores them to free him from his imprisonment. They refuse. They are understandably scared and confused.

Rilian desperately begs them one last time, to free him in the name of all that is right and good, in the name of Aslan. Suddenly, the three realize that this raving lunatic may actually be Prince Rilian. Why? Because Aslan told them that the one who speaks my name will be Rilian. What should they do?

Puddleglum’s worldview takes over...

Titus' "Impossible" Mission Field -- and Ours

2004-06-14T19:35:00.000-05:00

A few weeks ago, as I was teaching Titus, I read Paul’s rather unforgettable words about the people Titus was ministering to: “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true.” (1:12) Liars, evil brutes, and lazy gluttons??? Sounds like a promising group to minister to, doesn’t it? At least, it sounds like they were good candidates for GRACE!

As I taught the class, I pointed out just how hard a job Titus would have had in discipling new Christians who had grown up in a culture where people boasted of their ability to deceive others, had a perverted idea regarding what was good and what was evil, and reveled in their sloth and materialism. In other words, to minister to people where everything in their past warred against the Truth that Titus was trying to teach them. Titus was not going to have an easy task bringing them to the place where they could obey Romans 12:2: “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” It was going to take patience, time, lots and lots of teaching and even more “training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). I’m sure it must have seemed an impossible task at times. But Titus was Paul’s troubleshooter, and it’s clear that Paul had left Titus in Crete because Paul trusted that Titus – with God’s help – could manage the challenge.

I think Paul’s words of “encouragement” to Titus are even more applicable to us today. We live in a culture where biblical values are ridiculed and where everything that is anti-God’s design is lifted up as a role model. We have at least two generations that no longer have a frame of reference for the Truth; so when they hear it, it sounds exceedingly “wrong” to their ears – as it must have sounded to the Cretans.

What I find interesting is how Paul told Titus to deal with them in verse 13: “Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith” (1:13). Does this kind of righteous sternness sound strange to OUR ears? Doesn’t it fly in the face of the current trend of pastors to soft-peddle the Truth because they don’t want to offend someone? Maybe it’s time to change that. While we need to “tell the Truth in love,” Paul makes it clear that we need to tell the Truth nevertheless, knowing that it will sting the ears of those who hear, but with godly results for those who respond.

General Relativity

2004-06-10T12:27:00.000-05:00

Why does a theist like myself care about something as esoteric as Einstein’s law of general relativity? Because it is a well tested, well-accepted theory of modern physics that implies something very significant about our universe. It implies that time had a beginning. Don’t take my word for it; take Stephen Hawking’s word.

In the 70s, Hawking, Ellis and Penrose extended the solution of Einstein’s equations to include space and time, not just energy and matter. Their paper showed that if these equations are valid for the universe, then, under reasonably general conditions, space and time also must have an origin, an origin coincident with that for matter and energy. In other words, time must have a beginning

The more evidence we uncover to support general relativity, the stronger becomes the space-time theorem of relativity. No theory of physics has been tested as rigorously and as comprehensively as general relativity. Over the last few decades numerous observational tests have been devised for general relativity. In each case general relativity has passed with flying colors. For instance, general relativity predicts the rate at which two neutron stars orbiting one another will move closer together. When this phenomenon was observed and measured, general relativity proved accurate to better than a trillionth of a percent precision.

Why is a beginning to time such a big deal? Here is why. Your worldview must account for the question, where did we come from? How did we get here? More simply stated, why is there something rather than nothing?

Your answer to that question of origin must account for the fact that time had a beginning. Speculations about an infinite universe or an oscillating universe can be put to rest. Classical thermodynamics, observational astronomy and general relativity all have joined forces to tell the same story. There was a beginning ... just like the Bible said all along. Now the question becomes, who was the Beginner behind the beginning? Read Genesis and find out.

Regenerative Medicine and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

2004-06-07T07:29:00.000-05:00

“Broken Heart, Heal Thyself” by Susan Jacoby
From the AARP Bulletin: May 2004, vol. 45, No. 5

A decade of heart attacks left Samual Cohen’s heart with severe damage. Part of the muscle was “dead.” Doctors took a small piece of muscle from his thigh and used it to grow millions of immature cells that eventually turn into muscle fibers. They injected the cells into Cohen’s heart. Scans show gradual shrinkage in the damaged area as the transplanted cells grow into new heart muscle.

The procedure is known as regenerative medicine. The process involves using “… anything using human, organic materials to stimulate the body’s healing powers,” according to William Haseltine former professor at Harvard Medical School and now CEO of Human Genome Sciences, Inc. in Rockville, MD. Included are such “…procedures as bone marrow transplants … and the long range hope of programming embryonic stem cells in a lab to turn into specific tissues and even entire organs.”

In case you missed it, the article casually references “embryonic stem cells.” One irony is that while AARP purports to support senior citizens, a group at risk for all kinds of health problems and who deserve sanctity for their lives, it does not regard the life of the human in the embryo as sacred.” Another irony is that the article itself is based on a procedure using adult cells. In such subtle ways a publication aimed at senior citizens (a large and growing segment of our society) generates support for embryonic stem cell research.

Reagan

2004-06-06T18:14:00.000-05:00

As much as anyone of the past 50 years Ron Reagan had one of the most positive impacts on the culture and fulfilling what we call the cultural commision.
Though not everyone will agree with what he did as president or with some of the stands he took look in contrast between American in 1990 following Reagan's eight years and America in 2002 following Clinton's eight years. As much as the one had in destroying the culture the other had in restoring the culture. I wonder what America would like today had Reagan not beaten Carter, or better yet if Reagan had beaten Ford and Carter never given the chance at the Presidency.
Just some radom thoughts of a man who lived during the Reagan years and came to admire the man.

The "not so junky" DNA molecule

2004-06-04T16:44:00.000-05:00

Check out the article in Nature Magazine discussing what was thought to be junk DNA.

"Junk" DNA?

2004-06-04T10:47:00.000-05:00

Junk DNA? This expression has always bothered me. Scientists coined the term to describe the genetic “wasteland” within the human genome, or book of life, which consists of long uncharted stretches of DNA for which there is no known function

Why not “mystery DNA” or “uncharted DNA”? Why junk? I want to suggest two reasons. One, there is a tacit arrogance associated with the worldview that asserts that science will give us all the answers. After all, scientific discovery has been impressive to date. Dare I say, we have gotten a little puffed up? We encounter stretches of DNA for which we have no explanation and presto, it must be junk because it does not appear to do anything.

A second reason, I think, is because the term “junk” fits nicely with the evolutionary paradigm. After all, a mechanism that is unguided and *blind* will produce junk, right?

If the evolutionary model of life’s development is correct, then “junk” DNA will indeed turn out to be junk after all. If the intelligent design model of life’s development is correct, then it will turn out that “junk” DNA will actually have a purpose after all. As scientists explore the uncharted sections of the human genome, we can add data points and watch the trend line to see which model corresponds to reality.

Permit me to submit one data point. Researchers at Harvard Medical School recently announced a new discovery. They discovered a new class of gene in the “junky” section of the genome. It turns out that this gene does not produce a protein or enzyme like other genes do. Its job is regulation. When it is turned ON, it regulates its neighboring gene. Suddenly researchers realize that a whole new class of genes exists. This paradigm shift will cause them to go back and take a fresh look at the “junk” stretches to see how many of these types of genes exist.

My prediction is that this pattern will repeat itself over and over until there is precious little junk left. Let’s watch the trend line on this closely and evaluate which worldview offers us a true picture of reality: naturalism or theism?

Let me be clear about one thing. I love science. It is naturalism that I find troubling because of its truncated view of reality.

In the meantime, I wish we could coin a new phrase besides “junk” DNA. Better yet, I wish scientists would take a more humble approach as they explore the complexity and beauty of life at its tiniest level.

The New Eco-Spirituals

2004-06-03T11:26:00.000-05:00

One of the fastest-growing segments of the environmental movement is… the Church! At least according to Paul Gorman, executive director of the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE) who explains, “During the 1970s and ‘80s, there were only pockets of people in the religious community who saw pollution and other issues as connected to humankind and God.” But this sleeping remnant appears to have awakened in the 90s. The most visible movement of the new “ecoreligious” was the “What Would Jesus Drive” campaign in 2002, which was soon followed by “What should the governor drive?” – “an interfaith effort to focus attention on government’s choices for its auto and bus fleets.”

This may seem odd to those who view Christian America’s conservative alignment as antithetical to the environment -- a perception not always without merit, as personal practice has too often run counter to the doctrine of environmental stewardship.

However, the Church, which was MIA in the environmental skirmishes of past decades, seems to be spawning pockets of “eco-spirituals” – people in the religious community who are looking at how global warming and auto pollution are hurting the living planet and are responding to the cultural mandate of environmental care in increasing measure. This new ecclesiastical wave is born out of the conviction that everything is endowed with value and purpose -- because everything is a product of divine intention and will.

Advocacy of the environment is an example of putting Christian thinking into action. It is also a point of cultural engagement between those who see the care of the environment as an end in itself and those who see it as a holy responsibility in the conviction that “EVERYTHING MATTERS.” And as the former group responds, “Right on!” we, in the latter group have the opportunity to explain WHY it matters.

It Begins With The Heart

2004-06-03T06:32:00.000-05:00

Want to hear the poets of the day? Listen to the music. POD’s hit song Youth of The Nation is a good case in point. It expresses the mood of our culture and the search for meaning that is felt by many youth today. Shocked and dismayed by school shootings, teen suicides and widespread violence, the songwriter expresses the question many are asking … “Will it ever make sense? Somebody’s got to know. There's got to be more to life than this. There's got to be more to everything I thought exists.”

I saw a picture in World magazine of a smiling, innocent looking teenage girl who attended the recent marriage rally in Seattle. Unfortunately, she was on the wrong side. She was protesting against traditional marriage. She wore a T-shirt that bore the same message as the large sign she was proudly carrying. The sign simply read “Going to hell and proud”.

How do we restore truth in a culture that so clearly lacks a moral compass? How do we convince a skeptical culture that hell is real, God is real, and the Biblical worldview corresponds to reality? How do we deliver *the* message of redemption, hope and meaning to a culture which is searching for answers? Let me suggest it starts with the heart.

Your heart needs to be broken. You need to care. Like Christ gazing at Jerusalem, you need to weep when you look at our culture. It begins with having a heart that beats like Jesus Christ’s heart.

We often think that the yelling, red faced, vein popping protesters of the pro-abortion or the pro-gay marriage crowd are the enemy. May I suggest the true enemy is apathy, indifference, and coldness in the hearts of Christians toward those lost souls in our secular culture.

The poets of the day express the question everyone is asking … how do I make sense of it all? As followers of Christ, we must both tell them the truth and show them the love of Christ. How do we do this? It begins with caring. It begins with repenting from our indifference. It begins with a desire to engage the lost in our culture with the love of Christ. It begins with our hearts.

The Face Of Agnosticism

2004-06-02T13:49:00.000-05:00

The face of agnosticism. Photo was taken at a recent marriage rally outside of Seattle. I would be interested in hearing your comments.