Going with family on a little trip. No blog until January 1. Have a happy new year!
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
I'm a Christian, I just don't go to church
When someone says to me, “I am a Christian, I just don’t go to church,” I know there is one reason given more than any other. “I was forced to go to church when I was younger.” So, what does this mean?
Obviously, it means the person didn’t like church. I don’t think you will hear one of our children saying someday, for instance, “I don’t go to Disneyland because I was forced to go there when I was a child.” The church experience wasn’t a positive one if people say they were forced to go. Well, as an adult, you can actually go wherever you want. It’s not as if an experience with the Christian community is limited to what you remember years ago as a child. Church experiences can be quite different.
By the way, don’t too quickly buy into parents “forcing” their children to go to church as a bad thing. Being an active Christian is an extremely healthy lifestyle. Active Christians statistically have much better mental and physical health than people of no active faith life. I will say, however, that if parents attend a church which is not “youth-friendly,” then they are doing their children a great disservice, by "forcing" them to go there rather than taking them to a church that loves kids. This can make a big difference in the future.
Obviously, it means the person didn’t like church. I don’t think you will hear one of our children saying someday, for instance, “I don’t go to Disneyland because I was forced to go there when I was a child.” The church experience wasn’t a positive one if people say they were forced to go. Well, as an adult, you can actually go wherever you want. It’s not as if an experience with the Christian community is limited to what you remember years ago as a child. Church experiences can be quite different.
By the way, don’t too quickly buy into parents “forcing” their children to go to church as a bad thing. Being an active Christian is an extremely healthy lifestyle. Active Christians statistically have much better mental and physical health than people of no active faith life. I will say, however, that if parents attend a church which is not “youth-friendly,” then they are doing their children a great disservice, by "forcing" them to go there rather than taking them to a church that loves kids. This can make a big difference in the future.
Tuesday, December 28, 2004
a public Merry Christmas?
I posted earlier about Christmas in the public arena. Let me give an observation that I think is important to note in general. It has to do with issues of faith and values and demographics.
Philip Jenkins in the book, The Next Christianity, speaks of the rapid explosion of Christian faith in the global east and south. The immigrant population coming to America is mainly from these areas. As a result, most immigrants today are Christian. This trend will continue. The types of Christianity most represented in these immigrant groups are traditional Roman Catholic and Pentecostal-influenced Protestant. These groups tend to be quite “traditional” in their morals and values. Joined with existing Americans from these areas, as well as a “traditional,” in many ways, African-American population, America is likely to look far different than many would predict. Obviously, there are large exceptions to cultural generalizations, but I would predict that now and in the years ahead, let’s just say I would be shocked if our nation is leaning left anytime soon.
What does this have to do with Christmas in the public arena? I will give you powerful, yet totally subjective and anecdotal evidence that something is afoot. Shopping and getting the typical “Happy Holidays” from employees is the norm this time of year. Except if your store clerk is Latino/a, Asian, or African-American, which he/she is in many cases in my community. Then you are just as likely to hear, “Merry Christmas.” I can’t think of a time I heard that phrase more often. Interesting development…
Philip Jenkins in the book, The Next Christianity, speaks of the rapid explosion of Christian faith in the global east and south. The immigrant population coming to America is mainly from these areas. As a result, most immigrants today are Christian. This trend will continue. The types of Christianity most represented in these immigrant groups are traditional Roman Catholic and Pentecostal-influenced Protestant. These groups tend to be quite “traditional” in their morals and values. Joined with existing Americans from these areas, as well as a “traditional,” in many ways, African-American population, America is likely to look far different than many would predict. Obviously, there are large exceptions to cultural generalizations, but I would predict that now and in the years ahead, let’s just say I would be shocked if our nation is leaning left anytime soon.
What does this have to do with Christmas in the public arena? I will give you powerful, yet totally subjective and anecdotal evidence that something is afoot. Shopping and getting the typical “Happy Holidays” from employees is the norm this time of year. Except if your store clerk is Latino/a, Asian, or African-American, which he/she is in many cases in my community. Then you are just as likely to hear, “Merry Christmas.” I can’t think of a time I heard that phrase more often. Interesting development…
Monday, December 27, 2004
natural disasters
Living in earthquake country, whenever I hear of one occurring somewhere else, I take notice. But, when the earthquake is followed by tidal waves, or tsunamis, as they are called, the notice is followed by amazement. I have been through a big earthquake, but waves traveling at 500 miles an hour? I can’t even imagine.
My prayers go out for the families and loved ones of so many; 23000+ at my last check. The devastation of 20 foot walls of water is pronounced. In the days ahead there will be many questions. First among them will be why?
Why did so many die? Most of the death occurred on islands and low-lying coast land. Also, tsunamis are so rare in the Indian Ocean that, unlike other areas of the world, there was no early warning system. Many of the dead were clad in swim suits. There is another why question whenever there is a natural disaster of such magnitude. Why did God do this?
Consider two points. First, only people who live in these kind of island and coastal areas, or are visiting, are going to be affected by tsunamis. We know where we live has an impact of our risk level of certain disasters. Hurricanes in Florida, earthquakes in my backyard; we know what is possible and are willing to take the risk. Humans choose to live where they are susceptible. It’s not a God thing where we settle.
Second, why tsunamis in the first place? Factually, earthquakes and tsunamis are essential to “stir” up nutrients in the world’s oceans. Without them, we would not be here. This is no solace for those who have been so devastated, but without natural “disasters,” advanced life would not be possible on earth.
So, what does this all mean? I don’t know about tsunamis. I don’t know why God designed earth’s life enhancing systems in such a way. I only know that one way or another we all face personal “tsunamis” in our lives. Devastating, unexpected disasters come calling as part of the human condition. And I do know something else.
I know that when I have been wiped out, it was holding on to Jesus that got me through. Jesus was able to bring new life in the midst of the pain. And I know another thing. The earth is not my home. My home is the kingdom of God where I live now, and will live face-to-face with Jesus forever, some day. Martin Luther said it in the old hymn, A Mighty Fortress,
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also.
The body they may kill;
God's truth abideth still.
His kingdom is forever.
I don’t have anywhere else to go. I’ll stick with Jesus.
My prayers go out for the families and loved ones of so many; 23000+ at my last check. The devastation of 20 foot walls of water is pronounced. In the days ahead there will be many questions. First among them will be why?
Why did so many die? Most of the death occurred on islands and low-lying coast land. Also, tsunamis are so rare in the Indian Ocean that, unlike other areas of the world, there was no early warning system. Many of the dead were clad in swim suits. There is another why question whenever there is a natural disaster of such magnitude. Why did God do this?
Consider two points. First, only people who live in these kind of island and coastal areas, or are visiting, are going to be affected by tsunamis. We know where we live has an impact of our risk level of certain disasters. Hurricanes in Florida, earthquakes in my backyard; we know what is possible and are willing to take the risk. Humans choose to live where they are susceptible. It’s not a God thing where we settle.
Second, why tsunamis in the first place? Factually, earthquakes and tsunamis are essential to “stir” up nutrients in the world’s oceans. Without them, we would not be here. This is no solace for those who have been so devastated, but without natural “disasters,” advanced life would not be possible on earth.
So, what does this all mean? I don’t know about tsunamis. I don’t know why God designed earth’s life enhancing systems in such a way. I only know that one way or another we all face personal “tsunamis” in our lives. Devastating, unexpected disasters come calling as part of the human condition. And I do know something else.
I know that when I have been wiped out, it was holding on to Jesus that got me through. Jesus was able to bring new life in the midst of the pain. And I know another thing. The earth is not my home. My home is the kingdom of God where I live now, and will live face-to-face with Jesus forever, some day. Martin Luther said it in the old hymn, A Mighty Fortress,
Let goods and kindred go,
This mortal life also.
The body they may kill;
God's truth abideth still.
His kingdom is forever.
I don’t have anywhere else to go. I’ll stick with Jesus.
Sunday, December 26, 2004
Christmas carols
What will Christmas look like in the years ahead? In the Church, the birth of Jesus will be celebrated as always. The traditions of Christmas are secure. For many Christians, Christmas carols are our children’s connection to our faith and the faith of the generations before. How?
The vast majority of churches in America where there are actually children present have contemporary worship. Many children grow up not knowing the hymns sung in prior generations. My children fit into this category. They know the praise choruses and modern Christian songs. They don’t know too many hymns.
Now, don’t get too excited about this fact. God says repeatedly in the Bible, “Sing a new song.” I would take the discipleship exhibited by my children and their peers where I worship and match it with any prior generation. They walk the walk, more than ever, in a “strange land,” shall we say.
At the same time, there are signs that hymns are coming back again. In new arrangements. The old hymns are so ancient that now they are becoming “hip” with modern church worship leaders. In the next decade, I won’t be shocked if we are doing a little revisiting of our hymnody. But in the meantime, it is carols that connect the generations. These songs have a lasting power like no other. Why is that?
Composer Ralph Vaughan Williams put it this way:
The carol is so popular because it gives voice to the common emotions of healthy people in language that can be shared by all.
I agree. Music is such a personal taste, but carols transcend the genres. They never seem to get old. And another thing-
we only sing them for a month.
The vast majority of churches in America where there are actually children present have contemporary worship. Many children grow up not knowing the hymns sung in prior generations. My children fit into this category. They know the praise choruses and modern Christian songs. They don’t know too many hymns.
Now, don’t get too excited about this fact. God says repeatedly in the Bible, “Sing a new song.” I would take the discipleship exhibited by my children and their peers where I worship and match it with any prior generation. They walk the walk, more than ever, in a “strange land,” shall we say.
At the same time, there are signs that hymns are coming back again. In new arrangements. The old hymns are so ancient that now they are becoming “hip” with modern church worship leaders. In the next decade, I won’t be shocked if we are doing a little revisiting of our hymnody. But in the meantime, it is carols that connect the generations. These songs have a lasting power like no other. Why is that?
Composer Ralph Vaughan Williams put it this way:
The carol is so popular because it gives voice to the common emotions of healthy people in language that can be shared by all.
I agree. Music is such a personal taste, but carols transcend the genres. They never seem to get old. And another thing-
we only sing them for a month.
Friday, December 24, 2004
Christmas in the public arena?
Merry Christmas. Well, today is the day. We have finally reached Christmas Eve and I would like to pause and do some inventory. You have undoubtedly had occasion to see the various attempts to bring Christmas into the public arena or keep it out. I will make comments on both points of view.
Keep Christmas out. Honoring Jesus through songs or specific decorations that depict him or use his name, well, I can understand where non-Christians might object. This is simply not a God they believe in and so why are they paying tax dollars to honor him? I have to admit it warmed my heart that my daughter’s public high school choir sang all three verses of Silent Night at the holiday concert, but I can also understand how it might seem rather unfair to the practicing Muslim student who wants to sing in choir, but who is forbidden to commit blasphemy according to the Qur'an and sing those words (“Jesus, Lord at thy birth,” etc.) Now I realize the Muslim could just choose not to participate in that song, but it does cause one to wonder why he/she should be put into that predicament in the first place.
Keep Christmas in. Christmas is a part of our cultural landscape and is not only a celebration of the birth of Christ. The vast (80-85%) majority of our citizens do, however, celebrate this birth. It is a noble part of our heritage. Non-Christians would do well to give their fellow citizens a pass, honoring their fellow citizen’s faith as they are proclaiming peace and goodwill, while not having to honor their Savior. Besides, the birth of one who brought cherished teachings, some of which are universally admired (“pray for your enemies, blessed are the peacemakers…”), can be acknowledged and honored, even if you don’t believe Jesus is God. After all, we honor a preacher of that faith, Martin Luther King Jr., quite extensively in the public arena. Ultimately, America is a bastion of tremendous freedom of religion, almost unprecedented in the world community, and it is not logical to think now Christians are somehow attempting to force religion onto non-Christians.
So, what’s the answer? Legally, Christmas symbolism set up by school staff is allowed in our schools as a teaching tool (Supreme Court, 1998). I think teachers who use the symbols as such are being reasonable. At the same time, I don’t think government employees ought to try to actively promote the Christian faith on public time at public expense, whether in our schools or other government institutions. Christians can do this quite well on our own, thank you very much. Christian students are allowed to reach out in school. Christian teachers are allowed to examine Christianity in class, along with other worldviews. Christian government employees are allowed to share their faith privately at work.
In summary, I think all sides of this debate need to take a time out and look at these issues from the viewpoint of those they disagree with. We can keep Christ in Christmas and respect those who don’t acknowledge him as Christ, in a reasonable, moderate fashion.
Keep Christmas out. Honoring Jesus through songs or specific decorations that depict him or use his name, well, I can understand where non-Christians might object. This is simply not a God they believe in and so why are they paying tax dollars to honor him? I have to admit it warmed my heart that my daughter’s public high school choir sang all three verses of Silent Night at the holiday concert, but I can also understand how it might seem rather unfair to the practicing Muslim student who wants to sing in choir, but who is forbidden to commit blasphemy according to the Qur'an and sing those words (“Jesus, Lord at thy birth,” etc.) Now I realize the Muslim could just choose not to participate in that song, but it does cause one to wonder why he/she should be put into that predicament in the first place.
Keep Christmas in. Christmas is a part of our cultural landscape and is not only a celebration of the birth of Christ. The vast (80-85%) majority of our citizens do, however, celebrate this birth. It is a noble part of our heritage. Non-Christians would do well to give their fellow citizens a pass, honoring their fellow citizen’s faith as they are proclaiming peace and goodwill, while not having to honor their Savior. Besides, the birth of one who brought cherished teachings, some of which are universally admired (“pray for your enemies, blessed are the peacemakers…”), can be acknowledged and honored, even if you don’t believe Jesus is God. After all, we honor a preacher of that faith, Martin Luther King Jr., quite extensively in the public arena. Ultimately, America is a bastion of tremendous freedom of religion, almost unprecedented in the world community, and it is not logical to think now Christians are somehow attempting to force religion onto non-Christians.
So, what’s the answer? Legally, Christmas symbolism set up by school staff is allowed in our schools as a teaching tool (Supreme Court, 1998). I think teachers who use the symbols as such are being reasonable. At the same time, I don’t think government employees ought to try to actively promote the Christian faith on public time at public expense, whether in our schools or other government institutions. Christians can do this quite well on our own, thank you very much. Christian students are allowed to reach out in school. Christian teachers are allowed to examine Christianity in class, along with other worldviews. Christian government employees are allowed to share their faith privately at work.
In summary, I think all sides of this debate need to take a time out and look at these issues from the viewpoint of those they disagree with. We can keep Christ in Christmas and respect those who don’t acknowledge him as Christ, in a reasonable, moderate fashion.
Thursday, December 23, 2004
what I can't do for you
I am posting about reaching out to potential Christians with the good news of Jesus. Christians call this “witnessing.” Yesterday I posted about what I can do as a Christian to fulfill my role of witness. Now I will look at what I can’t do.
I can’t force you to believe anything. Your faith in Jesus will come to you through the Holy Spirit as a gift. There is nothing you can do to earn Jesus’ love and there is nothing I can do to force you to receive it. In fact, there is nothing Jesus can do to force you to receive it.
I can’t shove my religion down your throat. When I am sharing about Jesus, I am commanded to be gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:16). If you have had a bad experience with a Christian who was being aggressive and obnoxious, in other words was not following Jesus, than that is too bad. First, a central teaching of Christianity is all people, including Christians who know better, are sinful and in need of forgiveness. If you meet a belligerent Christian you see why there is a need for Christ. Second, don’t be too quick to dismiss the Christian faith because of the behavior of someone who calls himself/ herself a Christian. That is a huge dose of the genetic fallacy in logic. Remember? “First you must show that a man is wrong before you give reasons why.” Jesus can still be God and the Bible can still accurately tell his story even if you meet an obnoxious Christian.
I can’t try to hide the truth. Unlike many other worldviews, Christianity encourages you to put Jesus to the test. Be skeptical. Compare Christianity to other religions and philosophies. Christians are encouraged to do this. Some other worldviews try to keep the Christian message out. Some countries where Islam is the official religion, for example, will not allow Christian teaching, or even Bibles to be read. If Christianity is false, than what is there to be afraid of? You won’t find this with Christianity. We are encouraged to study other worldviews carefully. This helps us when we witness to the non-Christian. If you think Christians try to suppress open-minded thinking, it is just the total opposite. We worship the God who created the mind. I don’t discount that you may have experienced Christians who you thought were “closed- minded.” See the paragraph above for an explanation. Another explanation might be when you call someone “close-minded” what you are really saying is he/she doesn’t agree with you.
I can’t force you to believe anything. Your faith in Jesus will come to you through the Holy Spirit as a gift. There is nothing you can do to earn Jesus’ love and there is nothing I can do to force you to receive it. In fact, there is nothing Jesus can do to force you to receive it.
I can’t shove my religion down your throat. When I am sharing about Jesus, I am commanded to be gentle and respectful (1 Peter 3:16). If you have had a bad experience with a Christian who was being aggressive and obnoxious, in other words was not following Jesus, than that is too bad. First, a central teaching of Christianity is all people, including Christians who know better, are sinful and in need of forgiveness. If you meet a belligerent Christian you see why there is a need for Christ. Second, don’t be too quick to dismiss the Christian faith because of the behavior of someone who calls himself/ herself a Christian. That is a huge dose of the genetic fallacy in logic. Remember? “First you must show that a man is wrong before you give reasons why.” Jesus can still be God and the Bible can still accurately tell his story even if you meet an obnoxious Christian.
I can’t try to hide the truth. Unlike many other worldviews, Christianity encourages you to put Jesus to the test. Be skeptical. Compare Christianity to other religions and philosophies. Christians are encouraged to do this. Some other worldviews try to keep the Christian message out. Some countries where Islam is the official religion, for example, will not allow Christian teaching, or even Bibles to be read. If Christianity is false, than what is there to be afraid of? You won’t find this with Christianity. We are encouraged to study other worldviews carefully. This helps us when we witness to the non-Christian. If you think Christians try to suppress open-minded thinking, it is just the total opposite. We worship the God who created the mind. I don’t discount that you may have experienced Christians who you thought were “closed- minded.” See the paragraph above for an explanation. Another explanation might be when you call someone “close-minded” what you are really saying is he/she doesn’t agree with you.
Wednesday, December 22, 2004
what I can do for you
As I alluded yesterday, my primary goal in life is to grow as a disciple of Jesus. A central role of a disciple is witnessing to Jesus. I want you to trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I want you to be a disciple, too. Practically, here are some ways I can go about living my role.
I can pray for you. Jesus is guiding the whole process of receiving the gift of faith and so I communicate with him about you.
I can befriend you. I have to be in relationship with you in order to get to know you and for you to know me. In this way we can explore faith together. This isn’t weird or manipulative as there is nothing more caring and valuable I can do with you than join you in exploring deep issues.
I can listen to you. What do you think about Jesus? Where do you get your ideas about Jesus and the Christian faith? It is important for us to see what we hold in common where we differ.
I can study for you. I have to be informed about Christianity, other worldviews, and the whole process of clear, principled, reasonable thinking. I honor you by making an informed case for Jesus.
I can behave myself. I have to model life the way Jesus would live my life if he were me, as much as possible. It isn’t helpful for you if there is any confusion of me saying one thing and doing another.
I can pray for you. Jesus is guiding the whole process of receiving the gift of faith and so I communicate with him about you.
I can befriend you. I have to be in relationship with you in order to get to know you and for you to know me. In this way we can explore faith together. This isn’t weird or manipulative as there is nothing more caring and valuable I can do with you than join you in exploring deep issues.
I can listen to you. What do you think about Jesus? Where do you get your ideas about Jesus and the Christian faith? It is important for us to see what we hold in common where we differ.
I can study for you. I have to be informed about Christianity, other worldviews, and the whole process of clear, principled, reasonable thinking. I honor you by making an informed case for Jesus.
I can behave myself. I have to model life the way Jesus would live my life if he were me, as much as possible. It isn’t helpful for you if there is any confusion of me saying one thing and doing another.
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
relax, I'm a Christian
All people who identify themselves as Christian are not the same. Unlike some other worldviews, you are not “born” a Christian. You are not culturally a Christian. Christians can only really be considered Christians if they follow the authority of the scripture and the model of Jesus. Yes, there are some variations to how these are interpreted, but not much, really. When bad stuff is done in the name of Jesus, one needs only look at scripture and the model of Jesus to sort it out.
That Christians can call themselves Christian but not be Christian is not widely understood by non-Christians. There are so many generalizations about Christians that would take a slight amount of time and effort to understand. This isn’t even deep work. Take evangelism for example.
Some non-Christians are afraid that Christians are going to try to “convert” them. This is a rather narcissistic focus on the part of the unbeliever. We care, but we have other things on our mind, as well.
We Christians are first and foremost concerned about own relationship with Jesus, let alone try to worry about yours. Your relationship with Jesus begins with you and him.
Second, Christians may try to be helpful to guide you to Jesus, but that is simply his command and our pleasure. The same Jesus who tells us to make disciples (Matthew 28:19) tells us to back off if you aren’t interested (Luke 10:10-11). A healthy Christian is a Christian who focuses on receptive people.
If you aren’t interested, I am not going to get any Holy Spirit “brownie” points by bugging you. At the same time don’t get too put out that I actually expressed some interest in you. You might have some explaining to do when you stand before Jesus and tell him you were offended I talked to you about him- He probably sent me.
That Christians can call themselves Christian but not be Christian is not widely understood by non-Christians. There are so many generalizations about Christians that would take a slight amount of time and effort to understand. This isn’t even deep work. Take evangelism for example.
Some non-Christians are afraid that Christians are going to try to “convert” them. This is a rather narcissistic focus on the part of the unbeliever. We care, but we have other things on our mind, as well.
We Christians are first and foremost concerned about own relationship with Jesus, let alone try to worry about yours. Your relationship with Jesus begins with you and him.
Second, Christians may try to be helpful to guide you to Jesus, but that is simply his command and our pleasure. The same Jesus who tells us to make disciples (Matthew 28:19) tells us to back off if you aren’t interested (Luke 10:10-11). A healthy Christian is a Christian who focuses on receptive people.
If you aren’t interested, I am not going to get any Holy Spirit “brownie” points by bugging you. At the same time don’t get too put out that I actually expressed some interest in you. You might have some explaining to do when you stand before Jesus and tell him you were offended I talked to you about him- He probably sent me.
Monday, December 20, 2004
reaching out in the name of Jesus
Christianity is a religion built on a relationship between the believer and Jesus. This is a relationship strengthened in community with other Christians. We gather in these communities throughout the world. The purpose of our communities is to make disciples (followers of Jesus) out of all people groups everywhere. They are to join us in this same task and privilege. Now, we are not alone in this process.
Jesus said he will send his Spirit to empower us and guide us. And the potential believer is not alone. The same Spirit prepares the potential believer to hear the good news of Jesus. How? Let me mention two ways.
One way all people are prepared to know Jesus is through their conscience. The Bible says God’s ways are “written on people’s hearts” (Psalm 40:8). When you connect with Jesus, you connect with your best, true self.
Another way people are prepared to know Jesus is through what humans do with their conscience. They develop religions and philosophies to explain the world and their place in it. So, the potential Christian already has been thinking on the truths of Jesus where those truths are reflected. This is why it is helpful for Christians to know the basics of other religions and philosophies so we can witness to what we hold in common.
As we think about this, let’s be clear that Jesus is God revealed to the world. He is not hidden in other worldviews. We do not come to Jesus through other religions or philosophies. It’s not necessary. It’s just that truth is truth and Jesus is the sole source of truth.
Jesus said he will send his Spirit to empower us and guide us. And the potential believer is not alone. The same Spirit prepares the potential believer to hear the good news of Jesus. How? Let me mention two ways.
One way all people are prepared to know Jesus is through their conscience. The Bible says God’s ways are “written on people’s hearts” (Psalm 40:8). When you connect with Jesus, you connect with your best, true self.
Another way people are prepared to know Jesus is through what humans do with their conscience. They develop religions and philosophies to explain the world and their place in it. So, the potential Christian already has been thinking on the truths of Jesus where those truths are reflected. This is why it is helpful for Christians to know the basics of other religions and philosophies so we can witness to what we hold in common.
As we think about this, let’s be clear that Jesus is God revealed to the world. He is not hidden in other worldviews. We do not come to Jesus through other religions or philosophies. It’s not necessary. It’s just that truth is truth and Jesus is the sole source of truth.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
the silence is deafening
I am still waiting on the massive news campaign about Antony Flew’s announcement. I’m sure at least pastors are going to make the most of the news that the world’s most prominent atheist is no longer an atheist. I noticed Robert Schuller had two film clips of Flew in this morning’s sermon. Kind of like a before and after picture. Before, not believing in God because believing in God is like a “married bachelor.” God is a contradiction. After believing in God “almost entirely because of the DNA investigations.” Flew uses words like extraordinary and unbelievable when considering design.
So, be prepared to hear much about this in churches around the country for some time. Christmas Eve will have a lot of Flew illustrations. At the same time recognize that you will not hear much more about this from anywhere else.
Now, if the pope had said he no longer believes in Jesus… Oh, I suppose there would be a Nightline, 20/20, or at least a brief report on the Discover channel. We’ll have to wait and see on Professor Flew.
So, be prepared to hear much about this in churches around the country for some time. Christmas Eve will have a lot of Flew illustrations. At the same time recognize that you will not hear much more about this from anywhere else.
Now, if the pope had said he no longer believes in Jesus… Oh, I suppose there would be a Nightline, 20/20, or at least a brief report on the Discover channel. We’ll have to wait and see on Professor Flew.
Friday, December 17, 2004
A Newsweek Christmas
Every year at Christmas and Easter, it seems Time and Newsweek always have a Jesus cover story. This year is no exception. What they know is Jesus sells. What they don’t know, it usually appears, is Jesus. There is a standard formula that goes like this.
- Have a non-theologically educated, non-historically educated journalist cast doubt on many aspects of the life of Jesus.
- Find obscure out-of- the mainstream biblical scholars or historians to support some of your hypotheses.
- Rehash the same questions that have been asked for the last 250 years since the Age of “Enlightenment”
- Conclude with nothing startling and no new evidence to refute the basic truths of scripture
- Try again next year
Here is this year's Newsweek article. Here is one of many respected scholarly responses. So, what does this all mean? For Christmas, it always comes down to a couple of basics.
- The Christmas story is told differently by gospel writers Matthew and Luke
This is no surprise. All basic Bible students are taught this. What is so astounding are the similarities of the stories between two independent authors. - The wise men weren’t there when Jesus was born.
Christians just combined the later visit of the Magi with Christmas Eve for poetic reasons. The Bible never says they were there. - Christmas was not in December.
The Bible never said it was. Christians just started celebrating it then because the surrounding culture already had celebrations at this time and they borrowed the culture’s emphasis and “Christianized” it. Like Jesus did when he connected Holy Communion out of Passover or like Christian rock music of today. - The Virgin birth.
This is a strange and unusual claim. Miracles always are. Examine the evidence and the response by the earliest Christians. And remember this: After resurrection, all the other miracles are a piece of cake. Our faith rises and falls on the resurrection of Jesus, and nothing more or less than that event.
Well, enough on this topic. I imagine I'll have more to say around Easter time.
Thursday, December 16, 2004
what's the big deal?
I have posted about Antony Flew’s “conversion” from atheism to theism. It is not that unusual for this to happen with the scholastically minded (at least honest, seeking scholars), as the origin of life question is not being satisfactorily answered by Darwinian evolution. Getting something out of nothing and getting life from non-life is becoming more difficult to explain in any other way but a super-intelligent creative agent.
But what makes Flew’s conversion newsworthy is, of course, his stature. I have explained it this way, it is like Michael Moore becoming campaign manager for George W. Bush. Don’t take the analogy too far, however, as Flew has had a gracious relationship with the theist’s he has debated over the years. An exclusive interview of Flew by prominent Christian philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas is available online. This is the first major piece since Flew’s announcement, to be published in “Philisophia Christi.” Take a look.
But what makes Flew’s conversion newsworthy is, of course, his stature. I have explained it this way, it is like Michael Moore becoming campaign manager for George W. Bush. Don’t take the analogy too far, however, as Flew has had a gracious relationship with the theist’s he has debated over the years. An exclusive interview of Flew by prominent Christian philosopher Dr. Gary Habermas is available online. This is the first major piece since Flew’s announcement, to be published in “Philisophia Christi.” Take a look.
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
Famous Atheist Now Believes in God
"Famous Atheist Now Believes in God." This is the headline from an AP article last Thursday. I have been writing on atheism the past couple of days and wouldn’t you know it, one of the world’s foremost atheists has second thoughts. Antony Flew, a British philosophy professor, has had a change of mind at 81 years old. Here is an excerpt of a recent interview.
A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.
That sounds vaguely familiar. This is big enough news that it has caused an instant rebuttal, of sort, but I believe the damage has already been done on this one. Because of the prominence of Flew, his work is frequently cited by atheists attempting to make their case. Time will tell how long that lasts.
In the meantime, remember I mentioned it is up to the theist to make the case for a personal God, for me, the God of the Bible? Sure enough, Flew hasn’t gone that far.
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."
Oh well, it’s a start.
A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature.
That sounds vaguely familiar. This is big enough news that it has caused an instant rebuttal, of sort, but I believe the damage has already been done on this one. Because of the prominence of Flew, his work is frequently cited by atheists attempting to make their case. Time will tell how long that lasts.
In the meantime, remember I mentioned it is up to the theist to make the case for a personal God, for me, the God of the Bible? Sure enough, Flew hasn’t gone that far.
"I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins," he said. "It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose."
Oh well, it’s a start.
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
the atheist goes first
Complete intellectual honesty requires a serious consideration of there being a God of some sort. It goes back to that critical question that must be answered in a rational fashion: How do you get something from nothing? This question is so foundational and obvious that it puts the ball in the atheist's court.
Until you can make a principled, reasonable case for something to be created from nothing, you must always rely on technique rather than logic. Examples of technique used by atheists might be aggressively questioning the God-believer (theist) and taking the offensive, defaulting to an emotional appeal, or falling into logical fallacies.
Now, when it comes to a specific God, then it is the theist’s turn to make the case in the same principled, reasonable way. A “creative agent” does not automatically turn into the God of the Bible.
So, I would argue the atheist is required to provide the evidence there is no God and the theist is required to make the case for a specific God.
Until you can make a principled, reasonable case for something to be created from nothing, you must always rely on technique rather than logic. Examples of technique used by atheists might be aggressively questioning the God-believer (theist) and taking the offensive, defaulting to an emotional appeal, or falling into logical fallacies.
Now, when it comes to a specific God, then it is the theist’s turn to make the case in the same principled, reasonable way. A “creative agent” does not automatically turn into the God of the Bible.
So, I would argue the atheist is required to provide the evidence there is no God and the theist is required to make the case for a specific God.
Monday, December 13, 2004
and Christians are different?
Why don’t those who are following Jesus have the same despair as atheists and agnostics? After all, Christ followers disappoint themselves. Christ followers doubt their own abilities to handle life. What’s the difference? It’s all about the Other.
Those who follow Jesus (disciples) can look outside of themselves for help. If there really is a God then this God can actually intervene and provide guidance. In the Christian worldview, this God can forgive and disciples realize this and can bounce back from any disaster they bring upon themselves. If there is a God then this God’s power must be amazing (universe creator, after all). Therefore, to follow this God will bring hope and assurance rather than despair and hopelessness, because the results of faith are immersed in reality.
Those who follow Jesus (disciples) can look outside of themselves for help. If there really is a God then this God can actually intervene and provide guidance. In the Christian worldview, this God can forgive and disciples realize this and can bounce back from any disaster they bring upon themselves. If there is a God then this God’s power must be amazing (universe creator, after all). Therefore, to follow this God will bring hope and assurance rather than despair and hopelessness, because the results of faith are immersed in reality.
Sunday, December 12, 2004
if there is no God
Have you ever disappointed yourself? Have you ever doubted your own abilities? Now, add to the mix that there is no God. No spiritual realm. So what do you do?
Learn from your mistakes? How do you know you won’t just mess up again? How would you learn in the first place? If there is no God then you are just the circuitry in your brain and that has already disappointed you before. Are you going to try to tell your brain to fire in some different synapses next time so you get the correct decision? How do you know you are thinking correctly in the first place to be able to do even that?
Now you can see how unbelievably difficult it is to fathom there not being a God. I would argue that these kinds of questions are not generally examined by an agnostic or atheist. How could they? Despair is not a sustainable condition. Eventually it will drive one to madness or some psychological or chemical dependence to attempt to mask the hopelessness. In the meantime, how would any decision be made other than what your body and emotions influence you to do? Unless of course, you are not an atheist or agnostic at all.
Maybe, just maybe, you are holding out for something more. He is holding out for you. Tomorrow we’ll look at another way.
Learn from your mistakes? How do you know you won’t just mess up again? How would you learn in the first place? If there is no God then you are just the circuitry in your brain and that has already disappointed you before. Are you going to try to tell your brain to fire in some different synapses next time so you get the correct decision? How do you know you are thinking correctly in the first place to be able to do even that?
Now you can see how unbelievably difficult it is to fathom there not being a God. I would argue that these kinds of questions are not generally examined by an agnostic or atheist. How could they? Despair is not a sustainable condition. Eventually it will drive one to madness or some psychological or chemical dependence to attempt to mask the hopelessness. In the meantime, how would any decision be made other than what your body and emotions influence you to do? Unless of course, you are not an atheist or agnostic at all.
Maybe, just maybe, you are holding out for something more. He is holding out for you. Tomorrow we’ll look at another way.
Friday, December 10, 2004
girls just want to have fun
I hung out with our soon-to-be 16 year old daughter and her friends the other day. We went to the mall for a quick look and then off to the volleyball banquet at the local soul food restaurant. As I am eating fried okra and hot links watching the young women sing karaoke, it dawns on me what a strange world I have entered. Girls do just want to have fun.
You never saw a group of people so enjoying the company of each other, no posturing, and no one was left out of the mix. I don’t know if it was the fact that they played sports together (has to help), or these young women simply have their act together. Now I am not naïve. I have worked with youth for over 20 years. I coach middle school girl’s basketball; I have seen Bring It On and Mean Girls for crying out loud! But I dare say there is something we can learn from teenage young women.
Pay attention to everyone in the room. Encouragement and affirmation are pretty powerful tools. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Smile a lot. Laugh a lot. Thanks for the lesson 2004 Reseda High School Girl’s Volleyball team. You rock!
You never saw a group of people so enjoying the company of each other, no posturing, and no one was left out of the mix. I don’t know if it was the fact that they played sports together (has to help), or these young women simply have their act together. Now I am not naïve. I have worked with youth for over 20 years. I coach middle school girl’s basketball; I have seen Bring It On and Mean Girls for crying out loud! But I dare say there is something we can learn from teenage young women.
Pay attention to everyone in the room. Encouragement and affirmation are pretty powerful tools. Don’t take yourself too seriously. Smile a lot. Laugh a lot. Thanks for the lesson 2004 Reseda High School Girl’s Volleyball team. You rock!
Thursday, December 09, 2004
some concluding thoughts
I have spent several days now reviewing the debate concerning Darwinian evolution. Those of you who may have glossed-over eyes, you can breathe a sigh of relief, I am done for a while on this topic. Please know that this is an important issue. For example, it is a good entry point for discussion with your atheist or agnostic friends. The debate is not over by a long shot. As evidence for “something else” continues to mount, we will see science adapt. Now I will make some final observations before moving to different topics.
Darwinian evolution is not a crackpot theory. There is much in this theory that has solid evidence behind it. Most scientists wouldn’t call themselves classic Darwinians anyway. In fact, it is said that if he knew the new evidence today, Darwin himself would not be a Darwinist! Most scientists have adapted from this position and have modified their views. The late Stephen Jay Gould is probably the most prominent (he was featured on the Simpson’s after all!) scientist in this camp. Neo-Darwinism, or whatever term is in vogue, questioning some of the aspects of the Darwinian model, is what science is all about. Examine the evidence.
I think it is important to put your cards on the table and examine the evidence. In a proper education environment, the weaknesses of an argument are always clearly stated. Those few “pure” Darwinians left out there will not be able to hold on to a monopoly (intended or not) on public information in government and education much longer. The search will continue.
As far as a Christian view of all of this, I don’t consider the Bible a science book. I don’t base my validating of the biblical texts according to their accuracy with the scientific traditions. At the same time, I find it interesting that there are so many allusions in scripture which “coincide” with the evidence of the latest scientific theories. I address this in detail on my website.
Saying all of this, examining the evidence is what Christian faith is all about. It’s not just good theology; it’s good science.
Darwinian evolution is not a crackpot theory. There is much in this theory that has solid evidence behind it. Most scientists wouldn’t call themselves classic Darwinians anyway. In fact, it is said that if he knew the new evidence today, Darwin himself would not be a Darwinist! Most scientists have adapted from this position and have modified their views. The late Stephen Jay Gould is probably the most prominent (he was featured on the Simpson’s after all!) scientist in this camp. Neo-Darwinism, or whatever term is in vogue, questioning some of the aspects of the Darwinian model, is what science is all about. Examine the evidence.
I think it is important to put your cards on the table and examine the evidence. In a proper education environment, the weaknesses of an argument are always clearly stated. Those few “pure” Darwinians left out there will not be able to hold on to a monopoly (intended or not) on public information in government and education much longer. The search will continue.
As far as a Christian view of all of this, I don’t consider the Bible a science book. I don’t base my validating of the biblical texts according to their accuracy with the scientific traditions. At the same time, I find it interesting that there are so many allusions in scripture which “coincide” with the evidence of the latest scientific theories. I address this in detail on my website.
Saying all of this, examining the evidence is what Christian faith is all about. It’s not just good theology; it’s good science.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
rare earth
Another challenge to the idea of Darwinian evolution is how common you would expect it to be to find advanced life on other planets, if he Darwinian model were so easy. Even life as advanced or greater than human. But that isn’t proving to be the case at all. In fact, just the opposite evidence is surfacing. We continue to search for the most primitive life forms on any other planet. We are not having a lot of luck! When it comes to advanced life, the odds are unbelievable. It has been worked out to 1 to 10282 odds of there being even one life-supporting body in the universe.
All the work that is being done to show life on other planets in interesting. As I have stated before, part of the problem is that we don’t have a real clue about the origin of life here on earth and so we are going to other planets for the source. It appears miraculous that we have a planet that would support life in the way it does. In fact, here is a use of the word (in quotes, of course) in a paper published by Stanford and MIT physicists that says just that.
"Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the “miraculous”states discussed above."
Indeed.
All the work that is being done to show life on other planets in interesting. As I have stated before, part of the problem is that we don’t have a real clue about the origin of life here on earth and so we are going to other planets for the source. It appears miraculous that we have a planet that would support life in the way it does. In fact, here is a use of the word (in quotes, of course) in a paper published by Stanford and MIT physicists that says just that.
"Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the “miraculous”states discussed above."
Indeed.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
random chance?
If life begins and is developed by random chance, then mathematicians get in on the action when it comes to Darwinian evolution. If random chance is an option, one begins to see how improbable it is for life to form in this way. One example I find fascinating is a protein molecule.
A minimally complex cell would need between 300 and 500 protein molecules. The odds of only one protein molecule forming by chance are 1 to 10125. This is a huge number. A number you can’t even comprehend. Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, gives an example of what these odds look like.
Take three grains of sand and paint them red. Then hide them individually somewhere in the Sahara desert. Send a friend out to find the grains. They have to pick only three times and each time it has to be one of those red grains. One other thing. They have to do this blindfolded! The odds of your friend finding those three grains and choosing correctly? 1 to 10125.
Now you can see why questions are being raised.
A minimally complex cell would need between 300 and 500 protein molecules. The odds of only one protein molecule forming by chance are 1 to 10125. This is a huge number. A number you can’t even comprehend. Michael Behe, author of Darwin’s Black Box, gives an example of what these odds look like.
Take three grains of sand and paint them red. Then hide them individually somewhere in the Sahara desert. Send a friend out to find the grains. They have to pick only three times and each time it has to be one of those red grains. One other thing. They have to do this blindfolded! The odds of your friend finding those three grains and choosing correctly? 1 to 10125.
Now you can see why questions are being raised.
Monday, December 06, 2004
starting from the beginning
When considering the origin of life, you can see why there is a challenge to Darwinian evolution immediately. If natural selection and mutation are the mechanisms that drive the process, first you have to have something to naturally select from and you have to have something to mutate. The Darwinian model presupposes you have life in the first place! But how was that formed?
In origin of life research there is no strongly supported theory at this time. We just don’t know. This doesn’t mean we will not discover a solid origin theory, it just is not happening today and it would be honest to admit as much in the classroom rather than gloss over this fact. Like anything else in life, if you want to know about something, an important part of the process is to start at the beginning.
In origin of life research there is no strongly supported theory at this time. We just don’t know. This doesn’t mean we will not discover a solid origin theory, it just is not happening today and it would be honest to admit as much in the classroom rather than gloss over this fact. Like anything else in life, if you want to know about something, an important part of the process is to start at the beginning.
Sunday, December 05, 2004
how do you explain the origin of life?
The greatest difficulty of the Darwinian evolution model is the most obvious- How do you get life from non-life? In the Christian worldview project we are working on, Rich Melheim puts it this way.
“One cannot speak of the origin of life. Today one must speak of the origins of life. The carbonaceous deposits in the oldest known rocks on the planet suggest that life appeared shortly after the earth cooled, then disappeared, then arose again, then disappeared in a series of multiple spontaneous eruptions and mass extinction events. Recently, science has made it disturbingly clear that the conditions on earth were hostile to life arising at each of those times. The chemicals for the “primordial soup” did not exist for the recipe and the UV radiation bombarding the earth would have killed off anything organizing into strands of life without some thing or some one “hovering over” the whole experiment. That life would arise by chance even once is mathematically improbable. That it would arise again and again in absolutely hostile conditions is cause for great skepticism.”
The “primordial soup” was such a slam dunk theory, that scientists have been quite slow in taking it out of high school and university textbooks now that it has shown to be a dead end for first life. Now scientists are looking to outer space and other planets to try to explain where life comes from. Problem is this just delays the inevitable question, “How did life originate?” All the evidence points to advanced life only on earth. If life did originate on other planets or heavenly bodies the question will be the same regardless if it is Earth, Mars, or a moon of Jupiter, “How do you get life from non-life?”
“One cannot speak of the origin of life. Today one must speak of the origins of life. The carbonaceous deposits in the oldest known rocks on the planet suggest that life appeared shortly after the earth cooled, then disappeared, then arose again, then disappeared in a series of multiple spontaneous eruptions and mass extinction events. Recently, science has made it disturbingly clear that the conditions on earth were hostile to life arising at each of those times. The chemicals for the “primordial soup” did not exist for the recipe and the UV radiation bombarding the earth would have killed off anything organizing into strands of life without some thing or some one “hovering over” the whole experiment. That life would arise by chance even once is mathematically improbable. That it would arise again and again in absolutely hostile conditions is cause for great skepticism.”
The “primordial soup” was such a slam dunk theory, that scientists have been quite slow in taking it out of high school and university textbooks now that it has shown to be a dead end for first life. Now scientists are looking to outer space and other planets to try to explain where life comes from. Problem is this just delays the inevitable question, “How did life originate?” All the evidence points to advanced life only on earth. If life did originate on other planets or heavenly bodies the question will be the same regardless if it is Earth, Mars, or a moon of Jupiter, “How do you get life from non-life?”
Friday, December 03, 2004
intelligent design
A fourth viewpoint in the Darwinian evolution is intelligent design theory. Most of the scientists questioning the validity of some of the Darwinian model are in this group. The organization most active here would be Discovery Institute. They define intelligent design in this way.
intelligent design- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Intelligent design scientists come from all religions as well as agnostics. Supporters of Darwinian evolution have tried to label them, “creationists,” but this is a failing attempt at the straw man approach, as the scientists are becoming well known in the public arena, including their religious background, or their lack thereof.
Intelligent design theorists use real scientific methodology to support their theory and they are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals despite efforts to isolate them from the scientific community. Presently, intelligent design proponents don’t advocate teaching intelligent design as an alternative to the Darwinian model. Instead they focus simply on teaching the Darwinian model and the challenges to the Darwinian model.
I will give some examples of some of the challenges to the Darwinian model in the days ahead.
intelligent design- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Intelligent design scientists come from all religions as well as agnostics. Supporters of Darwinian evolution have tried to label them, “creationists,” but this is a failing attempt at the straw man approach, as the scientists are becoming well known in the public arena, including their religious background, or their lack thereof.
Intelligent design theorists use real scientific methodology to support their theory and they are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals despite efforts to isolate them from the scientific community. Presently, intelligent design proponents don’t advocate teaching intelligent design as an alternative to the Darwinian model. Instead they focus simply on teaching the Darwinian model and the challenges to the Darwinian model.
I will give some examples of some of the challenges to the Darwinian model in the days ahead.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
theistic evolution
Another viewpoint in the Darwinian evolution controversy is the one held by many mainline Christians. This can be called “theistic evolution.”
Theistic evolution- the view that there is a God who created the universe and set everything in motion. The origin and development of life follows the natural system as given by the Darwinian model.
This is the official position of some Christian denominations. Generally theistic evolutionists would keep speaking of the miraculous in the private faith department and mutation and natural selection in the science department.
The challenge with theistic evolution is it really is simply Darwinian evolution in practice. The question is not, “Could a God have done the creating and continue to create through a Darwinian process?” but rather, “Are there difficulties with the evidence for the Darwinian model to begin with, whether you believe in a God or not?”
Theistic evolution- the view that there is a God who created the universe and set everything in motion. The origin and development of life follows the natural system as given by the Darwinian model.
This is the official position of some Christian denominations. Generally theistic evolutionists would keep speaking of the miraculous in the private faith department and mutation and natural selection in the science department.
The challenge with theistic evolution is it really is simply Darwinian evolution in practice. The question is not, “Could a God have done the creating and continue to create through a Darwinian process?” but rather, “Are there difficulties with the evidence for the Darwinian model to begin with, whether you believe in a God or not?”
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
real bible/ real science
Another group of people who would challenge the evidence of the Darwinian model as an accurate explanation of the origin and development of life would be those who are labeled, “Old Earth Creationists.”
Old Earth Creationists- those who trust in the God of the Bible and use current scientific critiques when examining Darwinian evolution evidence. This group would say that the Bible gels with big bang theories and the evidence of a 13.7 billion year old universe. The “old earthers” would say the creation story of Genesis One is not 6 literal days but rather 6 “eons” of time. The word “yom” (day) in the Bible language can be translated accurately as:
24 hours
12 hours (daylight)
An undesignated period of time (e.g. the “day” of the Lord)
The most influential “old earth” creationist is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe ministries. Dr. Ross’s organization is developing a scientifically testable creation model which matches the Genesis One creation account. This group would be in favor of critiquing the Darwinian evolution model in public schools, but not bringing the Bible into the science classroom, as some of the strict biblical creationists would advocate.
Old Earth Creationists- those who trust in the God of the Bible and use current scientific critiques when examining Darwinian evolution evidence. This group would say that the Bible gels with big bang theories and the evidence of a 13.7 billion year old universe. The “old earthers” would say the creation story of Genesis One is not 6 literal days but rather 6 “eons” of time. The word “yom” (day) in the Bible language can be translated accurately as:
24 hours
12 hours (daylight)
An undesignated period of time (e.g. the “day” of the Lord)
The most influential “old earth” creationist is Dr. Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe ministries. Dr. Ross’s organization is developing a scientifically testable creation model which matches the Genesis One creation account. This group would be in favor of critiquing the Darwinian evolution model in public schools, but not bringing the Bible into the science classroom, as some of the strict biblical creationists would advocate.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
strict biblical creationists
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
This was the statement published in newspapers around the country in 2001. This was signed by 200 PhD. scientists, including Nobel Prize nominees and evolutionary biology textbook authors. The list has now grown to over 300 scientists. This growing debate within the scientific community continue.
But aren’t there various attempts to challenge Darwinian evolution in public schools today? Yes. There are many camps in this debate. I will look at four. Today the first.
Strict biblical creationists-
Also called, “Six-Day creationists” or “Young Earth creationists.” Believe that the universe and its content were created in 6 literal days by God. Examples of organizations that support this are Institute of Christian Research and Answers in Genesis. This view has in common a belief that the scientific evidence for the 13.7 billion year old universe and such is just an “appearance” of age by a God who created the universe mature to begin with. Their basic motto would be, "If God chooses to create the universe and all of life in six days, he is certainly capable of doing it."
There are few scientists who hold this view and they don’t use scientific method to support it. They do provide a valuable critique of Darwinian evolution models, however.
When those who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution are mentioned in the public arena (e.g. media and education) they are almost always lumped in with strict biblical creationists, though those who follow this point of view constitute only a fraction of those skeptical. This is a logical fallacy called the “straw man” approach. You take the most extreme position of those who disagree with you, and then attack that position as if it were the general position. Whenever you see the word “creationist” in the media, you know this is an attempt to discredit the validity of a person’s point of view. “Creationist,” in actuality, simply means, “A person who thinks there is a creator of the universe.”
This was the statement published in newspapers around the country in 2001. This was signed by 200 PhD. scientists, including Nobel Prize nominees and evolutionary biology textbook authors. The list has now grown to over 300 scientists. This growing debate within the scientific community continue.
But aren’t there various attempts to challenge Darwinian evolution in public schools today? Yes. There are many camps in this debate. I will look at four. Today the first.
Strict biblical creationists-
Also called, “Six-Day creationists” or “Young Earth creationists.” Believe that the universe and its content were created in 6 literal days by God. Examples of organizations that support this are Institute of Christian Research and Answers in Genesis. This view has in common a belief that the scientific evidence for the 13.7 billion year old universe and such is just an “appearance” of age by a God who created the universe mature to begin with. Their basic motto would be, "If God chooses to create the universe and all of life in six days, he is certainly capable of doing it."
There are few scientists who hold this view and they don’t use scientific method to support it. They do provide a valuable critique of Darwinian evolution models, however.
When those who are skeptical of Darwinian evolution are mentioned in the public arena (e.g. media and education) they are almost always lumped in with strict biblical creationists, though those who follow this point of view constitute only a fraction of those skeptical. This is a logical fallacy called the “straw man” approach. You take the most extreme position of those who disagree with you, and then attack that position as if it were the general position. Whenever you see the word “creationist” in the media, you know this is an attempt to discredit the validity of a person’s point of view. “Creationist,” in actuality, simply means, “A person who thinks there is a creator of the universe.”
Monday, November 29, 2004
the "evolution" debate
Throughout the country, there is a debate going on just under the surface. It is about the methods of teaching science. The debate centers on the theory of evolution. This is a hot button issue that will not go away. This week I will try to bring some clarity to the various issues surrounding this topic.
First, let’s look at the word “evolution.” It simply means, “change.”
“Darwinian” evolution properly refers to the theory that all of life grew out of a single cell through a random, undirected process of natural selection and genetic mutation.
“natural selection”- the healthiest life forms survive while the less healthy die off. The traits that make an organism more likely to survive remain, while the less helpful traits decline.
“Genetic mutation”- An error in DNA replication that results in possible physical changes in an organism.
There is no question in the scientific community that things change. There is a debate in the scientific community whether Darwinian evolution is the correct process for change.
A statement that is often used by supporters of a Darwinian model-
“No scientist alive questions evolution.”
True statement if you mean “change” as your definition for “evolution.”
False statement if you mean “Darwinian evolution” as your definition. Many scientists express their doubts about the Darwinian model as being adequate to explain the origin of life and change of organisms. What is there to doubt? Tomorrow we will see.
First, let’s look at the word “evolution.” It simply means, “change.”
“Darwinian” evolution properly refers to the theory that all of life grew out of a single cell through a random, undirected process of natural selection and genetic mutation.
“natural selection”- the healthiest life forms survive while the less healthy die off. The traits that make an organism more likely to survive remain, while the less helpful traits decline.
“Genetic mutation”- An error in DNA replication that results in possible physical changes in an organism.
There is no question in the scientific community that things change. There is a debate in the scientific community whether Darwinian evolution is the correct process for change.
A statement that is often used by supporters of a Darwinian model-
“No scientist alive questions evolution.”
True statement if you mean “change” as your definition for “evolution.”
False statement if you mean “Darwinian evolution” as your definition. Many scientists express their doubts about the Darwinian model as being adequate to explain the origin of life and change of organisms. What is there to doubt? Tomorrow we will see.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
on not going it alone
Do you ever see anyone in their teens or twenties by themselves? I know there are “loners” out there in every generation, some by choice, some by unfortunate circumstances. But I am talking about young people who spend any significant time by themselves? It seems to me that my generation and the generations before have many people, including myself, who like to spend time alone. This doesn’t seem to be the case any more. So what gives?
Community just seems to be the way to live. Whether it is for fun or for survival in today’s complex world, everyone seems to have a “backup.” There is a real longing for belonging. So, whenever you wish to be an influence with young people, think community. Think discovering things together. Think there are times that it’s not what you learn that’s as important as who you are learning with. I’m not saying this is a good thing, it’s just a real thing.
Community just seems to be the way to live. Whether it is for fun or for survival in today’s complex world, everyone seems to have a “backup.” There is a real longing for belonging. So, whenever you wish to be an influence with young people, think community. Think discovering things together. Think there are times that it’s not what you learn that’s as important as who you are learning with. I’m not saying this is a good thing, it’s just a real thing.
Friday, November 26, 2004
taking things at face value
I always find it interesting when we try to “read” body language, expressions, nuances in the voice, and such. It is hard enough figuring out what people mean when they say something, let alone how they say it or what their facial expressions are or what their body is doing while they are saying it. We could really mess up the world by simply not buying into this whole subjective enterprise.
I am often tempted to say something in a tone, with a facial expression, and a body contortion which “reads” just the opposite of what I am saying. Either that or delivering every message with a monotone like Ben Stein and an expression like a Buckingham Palace guard. That would be fun.
Instead, let’s just be gracious in our “analyzing” of others. Let’s weigh their words carefully and give them wide benefit of the doubt when it comes to nuances. Jesus said it this way.
“Let your yes be a yes and a no a no.”
I am often tempted to say something in a tone, with a facial expression, and a body contortion which “reads” just the opposite of what I am saying. Either that or delivering every message with a monotone like Ben Stein and an expression like a Buckingham Palace guard. That would be fun.
Instead, let’s just be gracious in our “analyzing” of others. Let’s weigh their words carefully and give them wide benefit of the doubt when it comes to nuances. Jesus said it this way.
“Let your yes be a yes and a no a no.”
Thursday, November 25, 2004
a tough time for preachers
If you are a chef, you are sensitive to how food is prepared and presented. If you are a vintner, you probably freak over “two buck chuck.” If you are an auto detailer, you don’t want to look at my car right now.
If you are a preacher, this has not been a good time for you. I guarantee it. We have just finished an election cycle, after all. Preachers have to be so careful what they say, so that their words mean exactly what they intend them to mean. A good preacher never tries to use “spin” or verbal manipulation of any kind. Listening to candidates and campaign managers and the like is similar to going to a pro wrestling match. You don’t expect much of substance to come out, although the action is mildly entertaining.
A good preacher has a different standard.
Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2)
There is not too much “fudge” room here. An honest, careful, straight-forward study of the Bible with an honest, careful, straight-forward application for daily living is the heart of the matter for a preacher.
I don’t have any solution for “spin” and verbal manipulation. They seem like part of our cultural landscape. But, I do know we personally don’t have to buy into it.
At my best, true self here is what I will do. When you speak with me, I will give you time to express what you want to say. I will make sure what I heard is what you said. I will not be thinking of the best comeback for what you are saying while you are speaking. Pauses are not invitations to rush in with more words. If we are actually trying to accomplish something enlightening together, than let’s take some time to do that. I will not try to figure out why you are wrong if I disagree with you. I will establish in a principled reasonable fashion that you are wrong, first. And indeed, in all of this, I may be wrong. You are invited to show me this in a principled reasonable fashion.
Now you can see why preachers will never be in charge of presidential debates.
If you are a preacher, this has not been a good time for you. I guarantee it. We have just finished an election cycle, after all. Preachers have to be so careful what they say, so that their words mean exactly what they intend them to mean. A good preacher never tries to use “spin” or verbal manipulation of any kind. Listening to candidates and campaign managers and the like is similar to going to a pro wrestling match. You don’t expect much of substance to come out, although the action is mildly entertaining.
A good preacher has a different standard.
Preach the word of God. Be persistent, whether the time is favorable or not. Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching. (2 Timothy 4:2)
There is not too much “fudge” room here. An honest, careful, straight-forward study of the Bible with an honest, careful, straight-forward application for daily living is the heart of the matter for a preacher.
I don’t have any solution for “spin” and verbal manipulation. They seem like part of our cultural landscape. But, I do know we personally don’t have to buy into it.
At my best, true self here is what I will do. When you speak with me, I will give you time to express what you want to say. I will make sure what I heard is what you said. I will not be thinking of the best comeback for what you are saying while you are speaking. Pauses are not invitations to rush in with more words. If we are actually trying to accomplish something enlightening together, than let’s take some time to do that. I will not try to figure out why you are wrong if I disagree with you. I will establish in a principled reasonable fashion that you are wrong, first. And indeed, in all of this, I may be wrong. You are invited to show me this in a principled reasonable fashion.
Now you can see why preachers will never be in charge of presidential debates.
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
cursing
I remember when I was a kid, my parents would never let us curse. Not that we wanted to anyway. There were plenty of non-curse words that worked well when needed. A couple of classics.
“For cryin’ out loud!”
“Dog-gone it!”
“For Pete’s sake!”
Now, it was relatively easy not to curse because neither my father nor my mother did. They were consistent in modeling what they expected of their children. Once I heard my dad say, “Ass,” and I totally freaked out. I can still remember it today.
So, what has happened that civil language has taken such a dive? There are way too many suspects for this crime. But there is one that seems most rampant and most illogical.
People use cursing to aggressively stifle healthy debate. If I have made my views known, I am not interested in what you have to say. I have already formed an opinion without examining the evidence that you may bring up and so the last thing I want is for you to provide any reason for me to have to do further work in my thinking. So, f@#% off! Or something to that effect.
“For cryin’ out loud!”
“Dog-gone it!”
“For Pete’s sake!”
Now, it was relatively easy not to curse because neither my father nor my mother did. They were consistent in modeling what they expected of their children. Once I heard my dad say, “Ass,” and I totally freaked out. I can still remember it today.
So, what has happened that civil language has taken such a dive? There are way too many suspects for this crime. But there is one that seems most rampant and most illogical.
People use cursing to aggressively stifle healthy debate. If I have made my views known, I am not interested in what you have to say. I have already formed an opinion without examining the evidence that you may bring up and so the last thing I want is for you to provide any reason for me to have to do further work in my thinking. So, f@#% off! Or something to that effect.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
name-calling
Name calling, or ad hominem attack, is the logical fallacy where the person is attacked rather than that person’s argument. In the election the most prevalent ad hominems were “Bush is stupid,” or “Kerry is a traitor.” Neither one of these claims is supported by accurate evidence, rather their use is simply for the purpose of demeaning the person. Consider this.
President Bush actually has an above average IQ according to records, has an MBA from Harvard, and in general, this doesn’t usually warrant the definition, “stupid.” Senator Kerry was outspoken about the war in Vietnam when he returned from duty. Some of his testimony may have been unfortunate and had a detrimental effect on the POW’s plight, but he was speaking an opinion as an American and was working within the system. He did not go over to the “other side,” nor did he renounce his country. Please note, Senator Kerry did not call President Bush “stupid,” nor did President Bush call Senator Kerry “traitor.”
So, what do we learn from this? Ad hominem attacks are never helpful. If you want to influence the position of others you have to be in relationship with them. You want the other person to be thinking as clear as possible, and because verbal attacks put someone in a defensive, anxious mode, clear thinking is not promoted. If you actually want someone to see your side of the argument, you want them at their best thinking.
President Bush actually has an above average IQ according to records, has an MBA from Harvard, and in general, this doesn’t usually warrant the definition, “stupid.” Senator Kerry was outspoken about the war in Vietnam when he returned from duty. Some of his testimony may have been unfortunate and had a detrimental effect on the POW’s plight, but he was speaking an opinion as an American and was working within the system. He did not go over to the “other side,” nor did he renounce his country. Please note, Senator Kerry did not call President Bush “stupid,” nor did President Bush call Senator Kerry “traitor.”
So, what do we learn from this? Ad hominem attacks are never helpful. If you want to influence the position of others you have to be in relationship with them. You want the other person to be thinking as clear as possible, and because verbal attacks put someone in a defensive, anxious mode, clear thinking is not promoted. If you actually want someone to see your side of the argument, you want them at their best thinking.
Monday, November 22, 2004
living for the sake of others
What are you focused on? I want to stake a stake a claim for Jesus and his teachings. Trust in Jesus is a worthwhile focus for many reasons. Living for the sake of others is one of them.
The Christian life is to live for the sake of others. ‘Loving God/ Loving Neighbor,’ as it were. When you live your life for the sake of others it brings purpose, meaning, and richness. Even atheists sense the noble aspect of living for the sake of others. This is a high virtue for the God-worshipping and the God-denying alike.
To live for the sake of others means to deny the very core of whom you are as a human. “I am the center of the universe.” So how do you deny the concept of “me, me, me?” On human effort, especially during times of stress and crisis, people overwhelming revert to their own needs. Unless there is something beyond them at work. The power of Jesus active in your life makes it possible to live for others regardless of circumstances. Under his influence you learn that by denying yourself, you expand yourself, and you are more, rather than less.
To trust in Jesus is to be forgiven and forgiving. You are capable of not taking offense at someone who wrongs you. Not because you have become a pushover or a door mat. When you center your worth on your relationship with Jesus you can voluntarily and freely not let the opinion or actions of others towards you harm you in any way. You will respond in appropriate ways, seeking their good so they might be more likely to be influenced by Jesus. Relationships may then be restored or you may quietly refuse to get caught up in the drama.
The Christian life is to live for the sake of others. ‘Loving God/ Loving Neighbor,’ as it were. When you live your life for the sake of others it brings purpose, meaning, and richness. Even atheists sense the noble aspect of living for the sake of others. This is a high virtue for the God-worshipping and the God-denying alike.
To live for the sake of others means to deny the very core of whom you are as a human. “I am the center of the universe.” So how do you deny the concept of “me, me, me?” On human effort, especially during times of stress and crisis, people overwhelming revert to their own needs. Unless there is something beyond them at work. The power of Jesus active in your life makes it possible to live for others regardless of circumstances. Under his influence you learn that by denying yourself, you expand yourself, and you are more, rather than less.
To trust in Jesus is to be forgiven and forgiving. You are capable of not taking offense at someone who wrongs you. Not because you have become a pushover or a door mat. When you center your worth on your relationship with Jesus you can voluntarily and freely not let the opinion or actions of others towards you harm you in any way. You will respond in appropriate ways, seeking their good so they might be more likely to be influenced by Jesus. Relationships may then be restored or you may quietly refuse to get caught up in the drama.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
focus
Focus. Pure, complete, laser-beam focus. What are you focused on? What are you sold out to in your life? Whatever it is, this will drive you. This will be the place where you find significance, meaning, and purpose.
I hope this is something big. I hope it is something you can joyfully give your life to. I hope this is something that will have eternal significance. Be careful where you place your focus. Don’t except anything less than completely giving yourself away?
Now what could possibly be worth that much focus? Think about it.
I hope this is something big. I hope it is something you can joyfully give your life to. I hope this is something that will have eternal significance. Be careful where you place your focus. Don’t except anything less than completely giving yourself away?
Now what could possibly be worth that much focus? Think about it.
Friday, November 19, 2004
are labels helpful?
Yesterday, I wrote about what C.S. Lewis termed, “Bulverism.” ‘You must first show that a person is wrong before you explain why a person is wrong.’ This is why labels are so unhelpful. Conservative. Liberal. Right wing. Leftist. On and on. Then there is centrist. What is that? You don’t believe in anything?
Labels mean nothing when it comes to discourse and clear thinking. Either your ideas are supported in a principled reasonable way or they aren’t. The search for truth doesn’t wear a label. If the weight of evidence supports your viewpoint, it doesn’t matter what someone calls you or what you call yourself.
It seems we have to categorize everything. I argue we are so bombarded by stimuli that we try to skip some steps in thinking. This may be a defense mechanism in the overload of modern society or it may just be laziness. Careful thinking is simply that. Careful thinking. But don’t take my word for it. I am just an unorthodox orthodox follower of an unorthodox orthodox Master Teacher named, “Jesus.”
Labels mean nothing when it comes to discourse and clear thinking. Either your ideas are supported in a principled reasonable way or they aren’t. The search for truth doesn’t wear a label. If the weight of evidence supports your viewpoint, it doesn’t matter what someone calls you or what you call yourself.
It seems we have to categorize everything. I argue we are so bombarded by stimuli that we try to skip some steps in thinking. This may be a defense mechanism in the overload of modern society or it may just be laziness. Careful thinking is simply that. Careful thinking. But don’t take my word for it. I am just an unorthodox orthodox follower of an unorthodox orthodox Master Teacher named, “Jesus.”
Thursday, November 18, 2004
"Bulverism"
One of the most frequent logical fallacies out there today is the “genetic fallacy.” A “genetic fallacy” is when you judge an argument by its source (“genetics”), not by its content. C.S. Lewis spoke of this mistake in logic in his book, God in The Dock. Lewis coined the term, “Bulverism,” named after a fictional character in the book, Ezekiel Bulver. Lewis said it this way, “You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong.”
We see genetic fallacies all the time. I use them. You use them. They are hard to escape. Take the Swift boat issue, for example. The lead man criticizing Senator Kerry, John O’Neil, was immediately cast as a pawn of President Bush’s campaign, and what he, and several hundred other Swift boat vets, said, couldn’t be trusted. This is a genetic fallacy. First, you would refute the details of everything these men testified against before you would disparage who they were. In the case of O’Neil it wasn’t logical to dismiss him as a lackey of the Republican Party to begin with, anyway. For example, he supported Al Gore in 2000.
Some of the Swift Boat criticism was accurate, according to Senator Kerry’s own campaign. Some of it was inaccurate. Whether we will ever get to the bottom of the truth vs. propaganda aspect of the Swift Boat Vets is uncertain. The election is over and we aren’t likely to hear much more. But “Bulverism” is alive and well. Tomorrow I will visit the concept of genetic fallacy again.
We see genetic fallacies all the time. I use them. You use them. They are hard to escape. Take the Swift boat issue, for example. The lead man criticizing Senator Kerry, John O’Neil, was immediately cast as a pawn of President Bush’s campaign, and what he, and several hundred other Swift boat vets, said, couldn’t be trusted. This is a genetic fallacy. First, you would refute the details of everything these men testified against before you would disparage who they were. In the case of O’Neil it wasn’t logical to dismiss him as a lackey of the Republican Party to begin with, anyway. For example, he supported Al Gore in 2000.
Some of the Swift Boat criticism was accurate, according to Senator Kerry’s own campaign. Some of it was inaccurate. Whether we will ever get to the bottom of the truth vs. propaganda aspect of the Swift Boat Vets is uncertain. The election is over and we aren’t likely to hear much more. But “Bulverism” is alive and well. Tomorrow I will visit the concept of genetic fallacy again.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Christians are different
I came across this article yesterday. The media has such a hard time understanding Christianity, I thought I would highlight this reasonable attempt to explain some things about Christians. You cannot take the “cookie-cutter” approach. Here are some examples.
You could make a principled case for voting for President Bush using Christian values. You could make a principled case voting for Senator Kerry using Christian values. Not because they themselves are Christian, as I have talked about in earlier blogs, but because of their positions. To take this even further, some “conservative” Christians voted for Senator Kerry, and some “liberal” Christians voted for President Bush. How could that be? One brief example for each.
The Bible takes a strong view of caring for the natural world as a responsibility given to us from God (e.g. Genesis 2:15). “Conservative” Christians who focus on environmental issues may have voted for Senator Kerry because they thought he would be a better leader on environmental issues.
The Bible takes a strong view on the sacredness of human life (e.g. Psalm 139:13-16). “Liberal” Christians who view abortion as taking a human life as opposed to protecting a mother’s privacy and focus on this issue may have voted for President Bush.
Christians can be fairly complex creatures.
You could make a principled case for voting for President Bush using Christian values. You could make a principled case voting for Senator Kerry using Christian values. Not because they themselves are Christian, as I have talked about in earlier blogs, but because of their positions. To take this even further, some “conservative” Christians voted for Senator Kerry, and some “liberal” Christians voted for President Bush. How could that be? One brief example for each.
The Bible takes a strong view of caring for the natural world as a responsibility given to us from God (e.g. Genesis 2:15). “Conservative” Christians who focus on environmental issues may have voted for Senator Kerry because they thought he would be a better leader on environmental issues.
The Bible takes a strong view on the sacredness of human life (e.g. Psalm 139:13-16). “Liberal” Christians who view abortion as taking a human life as opposed to protecting a mother’s privacy and focus on this issue may have voted for President Bush.
Christians can be fairly complex creatures.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
does suffering prove there is no God?
When people say they don’t believe in God because there is so much suffering in the world, I don’t understand. Suffering is not a sign there is no God, because happiness and pleasure are also very evident in the world. The question, “Why is there so much evil?” could just as easily be, “Why is there so much good?”
The next group of people say they believe in God, but they will not worship him because there is so much evil in the world. Some people even despise God for that. They see God as the source of evil.
But, evil is not a thing. Evil is what is left when you take away good. It is the absence of good. God makes good but he doesn’t make evil. Just like darkness isn’t a thing, it is the absence of light.
Evil is allowed by God because he gives us the freedom to love him and follow him or not. When you follow God’s ways, you do not do evil. When you don’t follow God, you are left to yourself as the source. And unlike God, we are quite capable of doing evil.
So, if you are angry at God because he allows evil, it really means you are angry at God for giving you conscious life. You are angry at God for giving people the freedom to choose. The freedom to love God or reject him seems a very honoring and noble gesture on God’s part. He must value humans so much to allow us to live in this way.
So really, all the suffering in the world is evidence that there is a loving God.
The next group of people say they believe in God, but they will not worship him because there is so much evil in the world. Some people even despise God for that. They see God as the source of evil.
But, evil is not a thing. Evil is what is left when you take away good. It is the absence of good. God makes good but he doesn’t make evil. Just like darkness isn’t a thing, it is the absence of light.
Evil is allowed by God because he gives us the freedom to love him and follow him or not. When you follow God’s ways, you do not do evil. When you don’t follow God, you are left to yourself as the source. And unlike God, we are quite capable of doing evil.
So, if you are angry at God because he allows evil, it really means you are angry at God for giving you conscious life. You are angry at God for giving people the freedom to choose. The freedom to love God or reject him seems a very honoring and noble gesture on God’s part. He must value humans so much to allow us to live in this way.
So really, all the suffering in the world is evidence that there is a loving God.
Monday, November 15, 2004
are all religions dangerous?
When you see news of someone cutting off someone’s head as an act of worship, chanting, “Allah is good!” then you are going to have a problem with religion if you aren’t religious. The chances are you haven’t done enough careful study to know that not all religions are the same. Also, if you aren’t religious there is a reasonable chance you follow “moral equivalency” thinking. You might think morality is cultural and so one religion can’t be considered “better” than another. So your answer to the fact that almost every major conflict in countries around the world has an Islamic connection, is, “All religions are dangerous.”
When you say “all religions are dangerous” then you haven’t thought clearly on many different levels. A few examples.
Jainism- A religion that thinks of living thinks as so sacred that Jaina (followers of Jainism) will watch where they walk so they don’t step on bugs!
Christianity- The relationship between a Christian and a non-Christian is to be loving. “Love,” "to choose actions for the good of the other," is the driving force of the religion. A Christian is only allowed to use force if working in military or law enforcement, in defense of others, or, if conscious permits, in self-defense. Revenge or being the aggressor is forbidden.
Islam- Yes, many Muslims adhere to the Wahabi branch of Islam, or a derivative, which leads to acts of violence as we have seen throughout the world. But the vast, vast majority of Muslims are not part of this thinking. Other branches of Islam, such as Sufi, are beautiful in their principles of compassion and care for the other.
Obviously, the worst atrocities in the last 100 years have been committed in the name of forms of Marxism, in the Soviet Union (under Stalin 30+ million dead) and in China (under Mao 30+ million dead). Marxism does not recognize a god at all. “Religion is the opiate of the people,” and such.
So, what can you say? Bad thinking followed by people unusually willing to do evil is dangerous.
When you say “all religions are dangerous” then you haven’t thought clearly on many different levels. A few examples.
Jainism- A religion that thinks of living thinks as so sacred that Jaina (followers of Jainism) will watch where they walk so they don’t step on bugs!
Christianity- The relationship between a Christian and a non-Christian is to be loving. “Love,” "to choose actions for the good of the other," is the driving force of the religion. A Christian is only allowed to use force if working in military or law enforcement, in defense of others, or, if conscious permits, in self-defense. Revenge or being the aggressor is forbidden.
Islam- Yes, many Muslims adhere to the Wahabi branch of Islam, or a derivative, which leads to acts of violence as we have seen throughout the world. But the vast, vast majority of Muslims are not part of this thinking. Other branches of Islam, such as Sufi, are beautiful in their principles of compassion and care for the other.
Obviously, the worst atrocities in the last 100 years have been committed in the name of forms of Marxism, in the Soviet Union (under Stalin 30+ million dead) and in China (under Mao 30+ million dead). Marxism does not recognize a god at all. “Religion is the opiate of the people,” and such.
So, what can you say? Bad thinking followed by people unusually willing to do evil is dangerous.
Sunday, November 14, 2004
does Christianity influence the behavior of Americans?
Does Christianity have a general influence on Americans? I'm not talking actual Christian's behavior, just the general climate of the country. Here is an interesting observation. Since the attack on the United States on September 11th one of the untold stories is the remarkable restraint of American citizens to lash out at citizens of Muslim background. “Religionism” a real problem amongst all cultures and the USA is not excluded from this disorder. But what are the actual statistics? In 2002, FBI stats for incidents of “hate” crime, there were only 66 incidents of verbal harassment, and 34 of aggravated or simple assault against Muslims. No murder. That is 100 incidents total. In comparison there were over 900 total incidents against Jews.
Now, any harassment or assault is uncalled for, but with a country our size, over 270 million non-Muslims, and the gravity of the atmosphere ripe for “religionism,” the lack of sinful acts against Muslims is astounding.
Compare this to the response currently in The Netherlands (a favorite model of "tolerance") where there has already been over a dozen attacks and burnings of mosques in response to the horrible murder by an Islamic extremist of moviemaker, Theo Van Gogh. All this in the last two weeks. In a country of only 15 million non-Muslims.
Conclusion? One crime of revenge is one too many. At the same time, Americans continue to be unbelievably civil in a society much criticized for “intolerance.”
Now, any harassment or assault is uncalled for, but with a country our size, over 270 million non-Muslims, and the gravity of the atmosphere ripe for “religionism,” the lack of sinful acts against Muslims is astounding.
Compare this to the response currently in The Netherlands (a favorite model of "tolerance") where there has already been over a dozen attacks and burnings of mosques in response to the horrible murder by an Islamic extremist of moviemaker, Theo Van Gogh. All this in the last two weeks. In a country of only 15 million non-Muslims.
Conclusion? One crime of revenge is one too many. At the same time, Americans continue to be unbelievably civil in a society much criticized for “intolerance.”
Saturday, November 13, 2004
do Christians think they are better than everyone?
“Christians think they are better than everyone else.” Here is another misunderstanding of Christianity.
Christians think they are better? You must be talking about people who call themselves “Christian,” not show Christian actions. Better? Actually it is just the opposite. Christianity is the only religion where it is recognized that humanity cannot be better on its own. In Islam humans “prove” their goodness by following the Pillars of Faith, in Judaism the Torah, and even people without religion have their “random acts of kindness.”
But Christians realize it is only by receiving the gift of forgiveness through Jesus that one can respond by doing good things. So Christians cannot compare themselves to others. It is no big deal to say, “I received a gift. I am better than you.” It is the gift that is special, not the person receiving it. God offers the gift to everyone. Yet, it is only the Christian who unwraps it.
So, the best arrogance a Christian can muster is this.
“Wow, look at me! I unwrapped a present!”
Hardly noteworthy.
Christians think they are better? You must be talking about people who call themselves “Christian,” not show Christian actions. Better? Actually it is just the opposite. Christianity is the only religion where it is recognized that humanity cannot be better on its own. In Islam humans “prove” their goodness by following the Pillars of Faith, in Judaism the Torah, and even people without religion have their “random acts of kindness.”
But Christians realize it is only by receiving the gift of forgiveness through Jesus that one can respond by doing good things. So Christians cannot compare themselves to others. It is no big deal to say, “I received a gift. I am better than you.” It is the gift that is special, not the person receiving it. God offers the gift to everyone. Yet, it is only the Christian who unwraps it.
So, the best arrogance a Christian can muster is this.
“Wow, look at me! I unwrapped a present!”
Hardly noteworthy.
Friday, November 12, 2004
are Christians hypocrites?
Christians are hypocrites. What does this mean? Hypocrisy is believing one way, and acting another. A classic case would be a lung cancer specialist who is a chain smoker. So, where is Christian hypocrisy? There is none. The Christian faith cannot be called hypocritical. The life style of individuals who call themselves, “Christian,” needs to be examined.
When I say, “Contempt is sinful,” and then you catch me being contemptuous, you have a right to say, “You are sinning.” My response would have to be, “Yes, I am.” The proper solution for the situation is to confess my sin of contempt and intend to not be contemptuous in the future. This is a classic Christian response. There is no hypocrisy involved.
The Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa had a hypocrisy problem. Many Afrikaners considered themselves, “Christian,” though they purposely worked against people of different races. They were not responding to the black South Africans behavior, just the simple condition of their skin color. The Afrikaners would use Bible passages to support their view, though there is no support for this racial oppression in the Bible. So, when you called the Afrikaners who considered themselves “Christian”, “hypocrites,” you were correct.
When I say, “Contempt is sinful,” and then you catch me being contemptuous, you have a right to say, “You are sinning.” My response would have to be, “Yes, I am.” The proper solution for the situation is to confess my sin of contempt and intend to not be contemptuous in the future. This is a classic Christian response. There is no hypocrisy involved.
The Afrikaners in apartheid South Africa had a hypocrisy problem. Many Afrikaners considered themselves, “Christian,” though they purposely worked against people of different races. They were not responding to the black South Africans behavior, just the simple condition of their skin color. The Afrikaners would use Bible passages to support their view, though there is no support for this racial oppression in the Bible. So, when you called the Afrikaners who considered themselves “Christian”, “hypocrites,” you were correct.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
could you be a fundamentalist!?
A
movement began in Europe during the 19th century-earlier 20th century to change the way the Bible was studied. Due to the rise of Darwinian evolution, amongst other influences, scholars began to dismiss the miracles recorded in the Bible. This led to the rejection of doctrine, like the virgin birth, as well.
There were strong reactions to this “modern” thought, in Scotland and America in particular, to counteract this. Out of this were published several volumes called, The Fundamentals (1909). People who supported the content of these volumes were called, “Fundamentalists.” The fundamentals were five basic teachings, which can be summed up in this way.
1. the inspiration and what the writers call infallibility of Scripture,
2. the deity of Christ (including his virgin birth),
3. the substitutionary atonement of his death,
4. his literal resurrection from the dead, and
5. his literal return at the Second Coming.
A modified way of saying this is:
1. The Bible is inspired by God and accomplishes exactly what God intends for it to accomplish
2. Jesus is God
3. Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin
4. Jesus really physically raised from the dead
5. Jesus is coming back
I would differ from the wording of The Fundamentals (e.g. “infallibility” language), but in essence, the five fundamentals are Basic Christian Teachings 101. If you are a Christian, look at the list, at least the modified one. You may find yourself a “neo-fundamentalist.” Wow, who would have thought.
movement began in Europe during the 19th century-earlier 20th century to change the way the Bible was studied. Due to the rise of Darwinian evolution, amongst other influences, scholars began to dismiss the miracles recorded in the Bible. This led to the rejection of doctrine, like the virgin birth, as well.
There were strong reactions to this “modern” thought, in Scotland and America in particular, to counteract this. Out of this were published several volumes called, The Fundamentals (1909). People who supported the content of these volumes were called, “Fundamentalists.” The fundamentals were five basic teachings, which can be summed up in this way.
1. the inspiration and what the writers call infallibility of Scripture,
2. the deity of Christ (including his virgin birth),
3. the substitutionary atonement of his death,
4. his literal resurrection from the dead, and
5. his literal return at the Second Coming.
A modified way of saying this is:
1. The Bible is inspired by God and accomplishes exactly what God intends for it to accomplish
2. Jesus is God
3. Jesus died as a sacrifice for sin
4. Jesus really physically raised from the dead
5. Jesus is coming back
I would differ from the wording of The Fundamentals (e.g. “infallibility” language), but in essence, the five fundamentals are Basic Christian Teachings 101. If you are a Christian, look at the list, at least the modified one. You may find yourself a “neo-fundamentalist.” Wow, who would have thought.
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
Christians are closed-minded??
“Christians are closed-minded.”
This is a closed-minded statement. This is classic projection. Remember the definition?
"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
No one is trying to keep the evidence of Christianity from being examined more than people who call Christians close-minded. Take the Christian(among others) claim that there is a creator of the universe. Try to have a principled, reasonable discussion about the lack of evidence for there not being a creator of some form with someone who thinks you are close-minded.
Christian and non-Christian scientists have been trying to get the “lack of support for the mechanism of natural selection as explanation for the origins of life” on the table for many years now in the public arena. They have had some success, but the resistance of the established public arena Darwinian evolutionists to have everyone put there cards on the table and examine the evidence is not reasonable from a scientific theory standpoint. Examine the evidence means just as readily, “Examine the lack of evidence.”
There is a great debate going on in the public realm about this very issue. Currently Atlanta textbooks which teach Darwinian evolution have this disclaimer sticker in them.
“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Now, I would have worded this differently as I don’t support the “theory vs. fact” language controversy. I may not have used a sticker at all. But the statement is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Origin of Life researchers have no conclusive evidence of the Darwinian nature as to the origins of life. They don’t have conclusive evidence of any nature.
Note that the sticker is not promoting creationism of any form or intelligent design. It is just saying examine the actual evidence, which is, of course, the scientific enterprise in the first place. Now some of the same people who call Christians close-minded are trying to have the sticker removed because it is an “unlawful promotion of religion.” Where is religion in the sticker? It is not there. The sticker calls for open-mindedness. That would be helpful.
This is a closed-minded statement. This is classic projection. Remember the definition?
"A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
No one is trying to keep the evidence of Christianity from being examined more than people who call Christians close-minded. Take the Christian(among others) claim that there is a creator of the universe. Try to have a principled, reasonable discussion about the lack of evidence for there not being a creator of some form with someone who thinks you are close-minded.
Christian and non-Christian scientists have been trying to get the “lack of support for the mechanism of natural selection as explanation for the origins of life” on the table for many years now in the public arena. They have had some success, but the resistance of the established public arena Darwinian evolutionists to have everyone put there cards on the table and examine the evidence is not reasonable from a scientific theory standpoint. Examine the evidence means just as readily, “Examine the lack of evidence.”
There is a great debate going on in the public realm about this very issue. Currently Atlanta textbooks which teach Darwinian evolution have this disclaimer sticker in them.
“This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
Now, I would have worded this differently as I don’t support the “theory vs. fact” language controversy. I may not have used a sticker at all. But the statement is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence. Origin of Life researchers have no conclusive evidence of the Darwinian nature as to the origins of life. They don’t have conclusive evidence of any nature.
Note that the sticker is not promoting creationism of any form or intelligent design. It is just saying examine the actual evidence, which is, of course, the scientific enterprise in the first place. Now some of the same people who call Christians close-minded are trying to have the sticker removed because it is an “unlawful promotion of religion.” Where is religion in the sticker? It is not there. The sticker calls for open-mindedness. That would be helpful.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
are Christians mean?
We are looking at various misunderstandings of Christianity. Today is,
“Christians are mean spirited.”
There certainly are Christians who are mean. There are individual Christians who are nasty to non-Christians who don’t agree with them. Yet, the Bible says,
1 Peter:15-16
And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But you must do this in a gentle and respectful way.
There are individual Christians who are mean to other Christians who don’t agree with them. Yet, the Bible says,
2 Timothy 4:2
Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.
So, when someone says, “Christians are mean,” what they are really saying is, “Some Christians are not following the teachings of their faith.” A growing disciple of Jesus can’t be mean, if you are talking of repeated meanness.
Only those who aren’t Christian might be shocked by this. This might be the issue. Do you know Christians personally? Or are you getting your opinion from watching news clips of those who profess they are Christian? If your view of Christianity is some wacked out guy with a sign that says, “Fags burn in Hell!” then of course you are going to think Christians are mean. You need to get to know some real Christians.
“Christians are mean spirited.”
There certainly are Christians who are mean. There are individual Christians who are nasty to non-Christians who don’t agree with them. Yet, the Bible says,
1 Peter:15-16
And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to explain it. But you must do this in a gentle and respectful way.
There are individual Christians who are mean to other Christians who don’t agree with them. Yet, the Bible says,
2 Timothy 4:2
Patiently correct, rebuke, and encourage your people with good teaching.
So, when someone says, “Christians are mean,” what they are really saying is, “Some Christians are not following the teachings of their faith.” A growing disciple of Jesus can’t be mean, if you are talking of repeated meanness.
Only those who aren’t Christian might be shocked by this. This might be the issue. Do you know Christians personally? Or are you getting your opinion from watching news clips of those who profess they are Christian? If your view of Christianity is some wacked out guy with a sign that says, “Fags burn in Hell!” then of course you are going to think Christians are mean. You need to get to know some real Christians.
Monday, November 08, 2004
who is a Christian?
Projection- "A defense mechanism in which the individual attributes to other people impulses and traits that he himself has but cannot accept. It is especially likely to occur when the person lacks insight into his own impulses and traits."
Matthew 7:3-4
And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? [4] How can you think of saying, 'Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye?
The first definition comes from the field of psychology. The second from Jesus. You see a lot of projection being used today. It is especially plentiful when Christianity is criticized in the public arena. I will look at some examples this week.
To introduce this whole series, let’s start with a definition of "Christian."
Christian- Someone who trusts in Jesus as their Lord and Savior and responds in obedience to his teachings.
When a person calls herself, “Christian,” this is a self-identifying label more than anything else. One is not born Christian. One becomes a Christian through trust in Jesus, made evident by how that person lives their life. Christian behavior is not a mystery. There are clear teachings of Jesus in the Bible, as well as the model of his life. So, in a real sense, someone doesn’t tell you they are a Christian; you can see that for yourself. No one can lay claim to trusting in Jesus as their Lord and Savior and not intend to live their life in obedience to Him.
“Christians” sin, but they do not do so in the authority of Jesus. Only right behavior can be done “in the name of Jesus.” Therefore, when people who self-identify as “Christian” sin and call on Jesus for support (e.g., Afrikaners and South African apartheid), they are not Christian. Jesus anticipated this would happen when he said,
Matthew 7:21
"Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as 'Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven.
So, the only test for behavior being “Christian” is this.
Does this action have the overall authority of the Scripture? Is this action modeled by Jesus?
Matthew 7:3-4
And why worry about a speck in your friend's eye when you have a log in your own? [4] How can you think of saying, 'Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,' when you can't see past the log in your own eye?
The first definition comes from the field of psychology. The second from Jesus. You see a lot of projection being used today. It is especially plentiful when Christianity is criticized in the public arena. I will look at some examples this week.
To introduce this whole series, let’s start with a definition of "Christian."
Christian- Someone who trusts in Jesus as their Lord and Savior and responds in obedience to his teachings.
When a person calls herself, “Christian,” this is a self-identifying label more than anything else. One is not born Christian. One becomes a Christian through trust in Jesus, made evident by how that person lives their life. Christian behavior is not a mystery. There are clear teachings of Jesus in the Bible, as well as the model of his life. So, in a real sense, someone doesn’t tell you they are a Christian; you can see that for yourself. No one can lay claim to trusting in Jesus as their Lord and Savior and not intend to live their life in obedience to Him.
“Christians” sin, but they do not do so in the authority of Jesus. Only right behavior can be done “in the name of Jesus.” Therefore, when people who self-identify as “Christian” sin and call on Jesus for support (e.g., Afrikaners and South African apartheid), they are not Christian. Jesus anticipated this would happen when he said,
Matthew 7:21
"Not all people who sound religious are really godly. They may refer to me as 'Lord,' but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Father in heaven.
So, the only test for behavior being “Christian” is this.
Does this action have the overall authority of the Scripture? Is this action modeled by Jesus?
Sunday, November 07, 2004
come together for support
We have two Labrador retrievers, Dudley and Sarai. They play together, but not much. They lie around outside on separate beds and dream large chunks of time away. Until it gets cold. When the temperature hits in the 40’s and they are lying around, they can be found next to each other. Not as much companionship but they need each other for warmth.
When people need each other, it’s the same way. Pretty much independent and minding our own business but when times get a little uncomfortable, we find ourselves coming together for support. Well, don’t wait for a crisis.
Huddle on a regular basis with one or two or three friends whom you can connect with. Get even bolder and ask to pray for each other during the week. Get unbelievably intimate and talk about personal struggles that are keeping you from being your best, true self. Hold each other accountable for making progress on these struggles. If you aren’t careful, you may have just started a small group.
When people need each other, it’s the same way. Pretty much independent and minding our own business but when times get a little uncomfortable, we find ourselves coming together for support. Well, don’t wait for a crisis.
Huddle on a regular basis with one or two or three friends whom you can connect with. Get even bolder and ask to pray for each other during the week. Get unbelievably intimate and talk about personal struggles that are keeping you from being your best, true self. Hold each other accountable for making progress on these struggles. If you aren’t careful, you may have just started a small group.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
the Christian worldview on trial
After the victory of George Bush this week, there has been much “soul-searching” about why Senator Kerry lost by those who supported him. One common theme occurring is the vote by active Christians. Pretty much “ignorance” and “backward” keep creeping into the vocabulary of the critics. One example from “Slate” magazine contributor, Jane Smiley, had this to say.
Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question.
Interesting observation, but somewhat irrational. I know Smiley is speaking in hyperbole (I would hope) for effect. But, this is the polar opposite of the Christian worldview! Ignorance? Tremendously contradictory? No critical thinking? Dangerous to question?
Ignorance- The Christian worldview is certainly reasonable concerning it’s understanding of human nature, it’s understanding of human relationships, and, of course, the belief system of an intelligent force independent of our universe causing the universe to come into existence. The evidences of psychology, social dynamics, and “big bang” universe all weigh strongly on the Christian worldview side, and make it quite reasonable.
Contradiction- First a definition. “The same statement made at the same time under the same conditions cannot be both true and false simultaneously.” I am still trying to find one of these in scripture. Difficulties? Paradoxes? Things I simply don’t understand? Of course. Quite a few of those. But “contradictory?” Examine the evidence; look for yourself.
No Critical thinking and dangerous to question?- The Bible itself says,
1 Thes. 5:21-22 (NLT)
But test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. Keep away from every kind of evil.
O.K. Next?
Here is how ignorance works: First, they put the fear of God into you—if you don't believe in the literal word of the Bible, you will burn in hell. Of course, the literal word of the Bible is tremendously contradictory, and so you must abdicate all critical thinking, and accept a simple but logical system of belief that is dangerous to question.
Interesting observation, but somewhat irrational. I know Smiley is speaking in hyperbole (I would hope) for effect. But, this is the polar opposite of the Christian worldview! Ignorance? Tremendously contradictory? No critical thinking? Dangerous to question?
Ignorance- The Christian worldview is certainly reasonable concerning it’s understanding of human nature, it’s understanding of human relationships, and, of course, the belief system of an intelligent force independent of our universe causing the universe to come into existence. The evidences of psychology, social dynamics, and “big bang” universe all weigh strongly on the Christian worldview side, and make it quite reasonable.
Contradiction- First a definition. “The same statement made at the same time under the same conditions cannot be both true and false simultaneously.” I am still trying to find one of these in scripture. Difficulties? Paradoxes? Things I simply don’t understand? Of course. Quite a few of those. But “contradictory?” Examine the evidence; look for yourself.
No Critical thinking and dangerous to question?- The Bible itself says,
1 Thes. 5:21-22 (NLT)
But test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good. Keep away from every kind of evil.
O.K. Next?
Friday, November 05, 2004
K.I.S.S.
I recently read an excerpt on writing from C.S. Lewis.
“Always try to use the language that makes quite clear what you mean and your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.”
After going through this latest election cycle I suppose I ought to wait until you get up off the floor from laughing so hard… O.K. finished?
What a brilliant man. Solid and to the point. Also, a couple of weeks ago I attended a luncheon with speaker Ken Blanchard. Not C.S. Lewis, but solid, and to the point in his own way. Ken shared how he would ask CEO’s to give him the mission statements they had developed after $30 thousand consultation fees from “mission” experts. When asked why he collected so many mission statements he said, “I keep them next to my bed when I travel. If I have trouble getting to sleep...”
Keep it simple, saints. K.I.S.S. That is my motto lately for leaders. It is so critical that the people you lead know where you are going. After all, it’s only fair.
You know how frustrating it is when you are in a strange place and driving a different car and your friend says, “Just follow me.” Then you play stoplight bingo (rushing through a “yellow/red” to keep up). Your friend ends up waiting on the side of the road half the time. How much better that everyone knows where you are going. Then if they don’t want to follow, you’ll have given them a clear choice.
“Always try to use the language that makes quite clear what you mean and your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.”
After going through this latest election cycle I suppose I ought to wait until you get up off the floor from laughing so hard… O.K. finished?
What a brilliant man. Solid and to the point. Also, a couple of weeks ago I attended a luncheon with speaker Ken Blanchard. Not C.S. Lewis, but solid, and to the point in his own way. Ken shared how he would ask CEO’s to give him the mission statements they had developed after $30 thousand consultation fees from “mission” experts. When asked why he collected so many mission statements he said, “I keep them next to my bed when I travel. If I have trouble getting to sleep...”
Keep it simple, saints. K.I.S.S. That is my motto lately for leaders. It is so critical that the people you lead know where you are going. After all, it’s only fair.
You know how frustrating it is when you are in a strange place and driving a different car and your friend says, “Just follow me.” Then you play stoplight bingo (rushing through a “yellow/red” to keep up). Your friend ends up waiting on the side of the road half the time. How much better that everyone knows where you are going. Then if they don’t want to follow, you’ll have given them a clear choice.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
love is not about feelings
The greatest virtue is love. To will the good of the other. Love is about choices you make that benefit another person to become more of whom God desires him/her to be. We can personally affect the God-given destiny of other people by loving them.
We notice that love is about actions we take. Love is not about feelings. Your emotional condition when you are willing the good of another through the choices you make towards them is not important. What you do is what counts; not how you feel.
If love were a feeling we would not accomplish what God wants for us. Feelings are terrible sources for action. Feelings can be helpful servants of encouragement when we act with sacrifice and feelings can be helpful servants of guilt when we need to turn back to God. But if we base our actions on our feelings we are ruled in a way we are not designed.
Jesus has given instruction about this in scripture. When Jesus says, “Love your enemy,” he is not speaking of something that comes naturally. He is saying that we can become the kind of people who can will the good of those who wish to harm us. The most potent choice is to pray for your enemies. In the act of prayer you lift your enemies up to God and say, “God do exactly what is right in my enemy’s life.” If God is to punish them, so be it. If God is to open their eyes, amen. If God is to make them more forgiving toward us because we have wronged them in some way, then this too will be done. But feelings don’t need to enter into any of this.
We are also given “instruction” about not allowing our feelings to rule us in God’s natural design. For example, even though people are sometimes sexually attracted to their children or their siblings, in all cultures and during all times of human history, with isolated exceptions, incest is a strict taboo. Even though your desire might be to be sexually active with your immediate relative, it is forbidden. This is in atheist cultures as well as God-based cultures.
It would not be a loving thing to do to encourage incest because someone has that desire. Even if some day geneticists could isolate behavior genes (there is nothing close to this in actual research), and people are said to be “born with” that desire; feelings must be denied. Incest taboos are in place for consenting adults, as well, and so this is not an adult/child issue. In the case of incest, someone’s feelings must not be acted on and the loving thing to do as a culture is to strongly disapprove.
So whether through our conscience or the special instruction of the Bible we know love is not about feelings, but rather about choices.
We notice that love is about actions we take. Love is not about feelings. Your emotional condition when you are willing the good of another through the choices you make towards them is not important. What you do is what counts; not how you feel.
If love were a feeling we would not accomplish what God wants for us. Feelings are terrible sources for action. Feelings can be helpful servants of encouragement when we act with sacrifice and feelings can be helpful servants of guilt when we need to turn back to God. But if we base our actions on our feelings we are ruled in a way we are not designed.
Jesus has given instruction about this in scripture. When Jesus says, “Love your enemy,” he is not speaking of something that comes naturally. He is saying that we can become the kind of people who can will the good of those who wish to harm us. The most potent choice is to pray for your enemies. In the act of prayer you lift your enemies up to God and say, “God do exactly what is right in my enemy’s life.” If God is to punish them, so be it. If God is to open their eyes, amen. If God is to make them more forgiving toward us because we have wronged them in some way, then this too will be done. But feelings don’t need to enter into any of this.
We are also given “instruction” about not allowing our feelings to rule us in God’s natural design. For example, even though people are sometimes sexually attracted to their children or their siblings, in all cultures and during all times of human history, with isolated exceptions, incest is a strict taboo. Even though your desire might be to be sexually active with your immediate relative, it is forbidden. This is in atheist cultures as well as God-based cultures.
It would not be a loving thing to do to encourage incest because someone has that desire. Even if some day geneticists could isolate behavior genes (there is nothing close to this in actual research), and people are said to be “born with” that desire; feelings must be denied. Incest taboos are in place for consenting adults, as well, and so this is not an adult/child issue. In the case of incest, someone’s feelings must not be acted on and the loving thing to do as a culture is to strongly disapprove.
So whether through our conscience or the special instruction of the Bible we know love is not about feelings, but rather about choices.
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
love is...
We have a working definition for the word, “good.”
“That which God desires.”
Now, let’s consider the word, “love.” I think one of the greatest misinterpretations of language today is the definition of the word “love.”
A proper definition for love is to “will the good of the other.” So we make choices in our relationships that help others move in the direction of what God desires. We want what God wants for people and we act upon it.
This isn’t the common definition for “love” today. “Love” is not working to help others receive what God desires for them. Instead, “love” becomes working to help others receive what they want. Not helping someone fulfill God’s desires but instead helping someone fulfill his/her own desires.
So if loving someone is to accept them as a fellow human being and approve of their desires, then we are in total contradiction with the Bible and common sense.
The Bible is clear from beginning to end that if we follow our desires and our passions, “flesh”, or “nature” as it is called, we are in for a heap of trouble. Because we are sinful human beings, when we become our own measure for what is right and what is wrong, get ready for destruction. We are not good judges.
Common sense tells us that there are many things that we desire but they aren’t healthy. In fact, there are many things you don’t need the Bible to tell you about as far as what’s healthy and what’s not. Your God-given conscience left unmanipulated will tell you the same thing.
To encourage someone to live in an unhealthy way because they desire to make unwise choices is not an act of love. It is promoting deception which is not in God’s category but in someone elses (John 8:44).
“That which God desires.”
Now, let’s consider the word, “love.” I think one of the greatest misinterpretations of language today is the definition of the word “love.”
A proper definition for love is to “will the good of the other.” So we make choices in our relationships that help others move in the direction of what God desires. We want what God wants for people and we act upon it.
This isn’t the common definition for “love” today. “Love” is not working to help others receive what God desires for them. Instead, “love” becomes working to help others receive what they want. Not helping someone fulfill God’s desires but instead helping someone fulfill his/her own desires.
So if loving someone is to accept them as a fellow human being and approve of their desires, then we are in total contradiction with the Bible and common sense.
The Bible is clear from beginning to end that if we follow our desires and our passions, “flesh”, or “nature” as it is called, we are in for a heap of trouble. Because we are sinful human beings, when we become our own measure for what is right and what is wrong, get ready for destruction. We are not good judges.
Common sense tells us that there are many things that we desire but they aren’t healthy. In fact, there are many things you don’t need the Bible to tell you about as far as what’s healthy and what’s not. Your God-given conscience left unmanipulated will tell you the same thing.
To encourage someone to live in an unhealthy way because they desire to make unwise choices is not an act of love. It is promoting deception which is not in God’s category but in someone elses (John 8:44).
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
postmodernism
There is a movement begun in European academic circles that has gained influence here called, “postmodernism.” All you need to know about it is this.
There is no absolute truth. “Truth” is culturally conditioned and so what is true for you may not be true for me. You don’t consider things as “good” or “evil” as these terms themselves are culturally conditioned. “Reality,” then, becomes your experience.
How do you live in postmodernism? Any way you want. Whatever you do is culturally conditioned anyway. There is no right and wrong.
The Christian view of the world is the exact opposite of postmodernism. There is absolute truth. Jesus. We don’t have 100% access to the mind of Jesus but the Bible is his words and teachings. With a careful and straightforward reading Jesus makes it possible for us to know him enough to point to true reality. Our experience is valuable but, unlike truth, it is not absolute because we are sinful people and our experience may be clouded by our sin.
In the Christian worldview there is good and evil.
“Good”- That which God desires
“Evil”- The absence of good
So, we know what “good” is if we know what God stands for. We know what evil is if we know what God stands for. Keep all of this in mind as we continue tomorrow.
There is no absolute truth. “Truth” is culturally conditioned and so what is true for you may not be true for me. You don’t consider things as “good” or “evil” as these terms themselves are culturally conditioned. “Reality,” then, becomes your experience.
How do you live in postmodernism? Any way you want. Whatever you do is culturally conditioned anyway. There is no right and wrong.
The Christian view of the world is the exact opposite of postmodernism. There is absolute truth. Jesus. We don’t have 100% access to the mind of Jesus but the Bible is his words and teachings. With a careful and straightforward reading Jesus makes it possible for us to know him enough to point to true reality. Our experience is valuable but, unlike truth, it is not absolute because we are sinful people and our experience may be clouded by our sin.
In the Christian worldview there is good and evil.
“Good”- That which God desires
“Evil”- The absence of good
So, we know what “good” is if we know what God stands for. We know what evil is if we know what God stands for. Keep all of this in mind as we continue tomorrow.
Monday, November 01, 2004
gang of God
Yesterday, I saw 12 high school freshmen declare their intentions to follow Jesus before an audience of several hundred adults. If they were Baptist, which they weren’t, they would have been baptized. These young people had already been promised to God and connected to his family through Baptism earlier in life, and so the proper term for the rite is, “Affirmation of Baptism.”
So, what did happen? Well, take a dozen teenagers in the middle of LA who declare that they will continue to dedicate their lives to serving the needs of others and what do you have? 12 who say “Yes” to Jesus and thanks to their parents, pastors, and adult faith mentors who are guiding them along the way? It is amazing there was no news media at the event. After all, any time the gangs of LA hint at a truce the media clamors to get the story, and rightfully so. Any decrease in the ill will followed by evil action is welcome news.
But, if you want a real story, take 12 teens who are part of a different gang. A gang of hope. A gang of help. A gang that is a home to them. They follow that radical gang leader, Jesus, who has the guts to tell them they are responsible for their own attitudes and actions. They are not responsible for what others do to them in their families and in society, but they are responsible for how they respond (Mark 7:18-23). When Christians are “dissed” they wouldn’t think of “popping a cap” or whatever.
Their leader, Jesus, even tells them they are to serve rather than be served, and they listen. As this dozen joins the other youth in the “gang” of God, they infect society with everything that is right with our world. So, if there are any reporters out there who want a real story, you drop me a line. Peace, out.
So, what did happen? Well, take a dozen teenagers in the middle of LA who declare that they will continue to dedicate their lives to serving the needs of others and what do you have? 12 who say “Yes” to Jesus and thanks to their parents, pastors, and adult faith mentors who are guiding them along the way? It is amazing there was no news media at the event. After all, any time the gangs of LA hint at a truce the media clamors to get the story, and rightfully so. Any decrease in the ill will followed by evil action is welcome news.
But, if you want a real story, take 12 teens who are part of a different gang. A gang of hope. A gang of help. A gang that is a home to them. They follow that radical gang leader, Jesus, who has the guts to tell them they are responsible for their own attitudes and actions. They are not responsible for what others do to them in their families and in society, but they are responsible for how they respond (Mark 7:18-23). When Christians are “dissed” they wouldn’t think of “popping a cap” or whatever.
Their leader, Jesus, even tells them they are to serve rather than be served, and they listen. As this dozen joins the other youth in the “gang” of God, they infect society with everything that is right with our world. So, if there are any reporters out there who want a real story, you drop me a line. Peace, out.
Saturday, October 30, 2004
compassionate revolution
Historians tell us that the Christian faith spread from Great Britain to India, as well as in North Africa and the Middle East. In less than 100 years! Why? A Christian will say primarily because of the power of the Holy Spirit. Historians, of course, don’t give credit to the Holy Spirit. But they do give credit to the Christian worldview, in particular two of Christianity’s key teachings. One is caring for the poor and one is caring for the sick.
The Christians were well known throughout the Roman Empire as the people who would reach out to those who were not in their own family or tribes. They would take people in who needed food and/or shelter. If you became part of the Christian community, you were never destitute. The Christians were also known as the ones who would heal the sick, and care for those whom others would ignore. The Christians would care for plague victims, for example.
So, with this one-two combination of compassion, the Christian faith swept through a large chunk of the world. A compassionate revolution that is still transforming the world once again, today.
The Christians were well known throughout the Roman Empire as the people who would reach out to those who were not in their own family or tribes. They would take people in who needed food and/or shelter. If you became part of the Christian community, you were never destitute. The Christians were also known as the ones who would heal the sick, and care for those whom others would ignore. The Christians would care for plague victims, for example.
So, with this one-two combination of compassion, the Christian faith swept through a large chunk of the world. A compassionate revolution that is still transforming the world once again, today.
Friday, October 29, 2004
the "Jesus" talk
Well, it’s time to give the “Jesus” talk when it comes to politics, elections, and current events. As Dallas Willard would say, “As we face life immersed in the Trinitarian Reality, it is a perfectly safe place to be.”
In other words, “Don’t sweat it.”
It is important to vote because this exercise in democracy is a key cornerstone of our nation. We are to be involved in this process as good citizens and being a good citizen is a byproduct of being a good disciple of Jesus. But, I really have to say, what seems less important, when all is said and done, is who actually is elected. Yes, I know it matters from a human and historical perspective, but from an eternal perspective, whoever is elected will not have the impact of the power of the Holy Spirit. Will it?
I have bet my life and my family’s life on Jesus. President Bush and John Kerry may or may not be good choices, but Jesus wins every time. He’s the one who has all the answers. Jesus is Lord.
So, I will vote on Tuesday. But I will vote on Sunday, too. I and my family will vote with our praises that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
In other words, “Don’t sweat it.”
It is important to vote because this exercise in democracy is a key cornerstone of our nation. We are to be involved in this process as good citizens and being a good citizen is a byproduct of being a good disciple of Jesus. But, I really have to say, what seems less important, when all is said and done, is who actually is elected. Yes, I know it matters from a human and historical perspective, but from an eternal perspective, whoever is elected will not have the impact of the power of the Holy Spirit. Will it?
I have bet my life and my family’s life on Jesus. President Bush and John Kerry may or may not be good choices, but Jesus wins every time. He’s the one who has all the answers. Jesus is Lord.
So, I will vote on Tuesday. But I will vote on Sunday, too. I and my family will vote with our praises that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Thursday, October 28, 2004
let the voter beware
As I hope I have made clear, it is illogical to think you can possibly isolate your decision making from your faith. In fact, as I have alluded to before, it would be a glaring injustice if politicians of biblical faith ignored the Bible’s clear call to care for the needy and the poor (e.g. Matthew 25:31-46). The Bible’s call to protect children (e.g. Matthew 18:1-6). Can you imagine anyone standing and saying,
“I have a deep faith that impacts every area of my life. But I don’t want to impose my religious beliefs on others who don’t share my faith. Therefore, I must respectfully vote against any funds going toward this pediatric clinic.”
Now, we have to recognize there are indeed religions that do not place the same strong emphasis on caring for the poor, including poor children. There are worldviews, for example, where belief in reincarnation brings with it a belief in absolute fate. In this case, it may be wrong to interrupt someone’s life circumstances if they are living out their fate. You would be messing around with someone's just reward.
Fortunately, not everyone who follows these “fate”-based religions actually practices them in this way. But, even if people were to interpret their religion to mean you shouldn’t help those in need, including children, this doesn’t mean these same people don’t have the right to run for political office. In America we rely on the voter to decide.
“I have a deep faith that impacts every area of my life. But I don’t want to impose my religious beliefs on others who don’t share my faith. Therefore, I must respectfully vote against any funds going toward this pediatric clinic.”
Now, we have to recognize there are indeed religions that do not place the same strong emphasis on caring for the poor, including poor children. There are worldviews, for example, where belief in reincarnation brings with it a belief in absolute fate. In this case, it may be wrong to interrupt someone’s life circumstances if they are living out their fate. You would be messing around with someone's just reward.
Fortunately, not everyone who follows these “fate”-based religions actually practices them in this way. But, even if people were to interpret their religion to mean you shouldn’t help those in need, including children, this doesn’t mean these same people don’t have the right to run for political office. In America we rely on the voter to decide.
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
should I vote for a non-Christian?
Yesterday, I wrote about supporting candidates for election who have the greatest chance to do good, rather than those who may match my values more closely. Here is where it starts getting interesting. Do I automatically vote for a Christian candidate over a non-Christian candidate? Two views.
Yes-
A candidate who acknowledges Jesus as Lord has at least shown he/she has an excellent view of reality. If he/she uses the Bible as their filter, than he/she uses the most brilliant resource available. A Christian may be more likely to make sure the anti-Christian bias of present government institutions (e.g. “Inherit the Wind” is still showing up in the public high school theatre circles, including our daughters!) doesn’t increase. If he/she is a man/woman of prayer to Jesus, than all the more likely Jesus guides this faithful Christian seeking his wisdom.
No-
A candidate who acknowledges Jesus as Lord may not necessarily follow the filter of the Bible. The same candidate may not be consistent in applying biblical principles. A Christian candidate may think he/she has God’s guidance on a decision, but it wasn’t God, it was his/her own projection, or worse, Satan’s temptation disguised and joined with their projection.
God also guides non-Christians in government (Romans 13). Biblical principles can be used by non-Christians to inform their decisions. Conscience is also a tool at God’s disposal. The non-Christian may simply have greater political influence and may, therefore, have a better chance to bring about change that is more conducive to good.
I would argue that the “No” position is more supportable, though “Yes” is quite attractive. I would tend to agree with Christian thinker Martin Luther who said, (paraphrase) ‘I would rather be ruled by a wise Muslim than a foolish Christian.’
Yes-
A candidate who acknowledges Jesus as Lord has at least shown he/she has an excellent view of reality. If he/she uses the Bible as their filter, than he/she uses the most brilliant resource available. A Christian may be more likely to make sure the anti-Christian bias of present government institutions (e.g. “Inherit the Wind” is still showing up in the public high school theatre circles, including our daughters!) doesn’t increase. If he/she is a man/woman of prayer to Jesus, than all the more likely Jesus guides this faithful Christian seeking his wisdom.
No-
A candidate who acknowledges Jesus as Lord may not necessarily follow the filter of the Bible. The same candidate may not be consistent in applying biblical principles. A Christian candidate may think he/she has God’s guidance on a decision, but it wasn’t God, it was his/her own projection, or worse, Satan’s temptation disguised and joined with their projection.
God also guides non-Christians in government (Romans 13). Biblical principles can be used by non-Christians to inform their decisions. Conscience is also a tool at God’s disposal. The non-Christian may simply have greater political influence and may, therefore, have a better chance to bring about change that is more conducive to good.
I would argue that the “No” position is more supportable, though “Yes” is quite attractive. I would tend to agree with Christian thinker Martin Luther who said, (paraphrase) ‘I would rather be ruled by a wise Muslim than a foolish Christian.’
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
voting the greatest good
If my faith necessarily informs my thinking, than do I use my faith filter to decide whom to vote for in elections and what to vote for when it comes to ballot initiatives? Yes, but there are some considerations to be made.
Greg Koukl speaks of “incrementalism.” This is the idea that to change something you work at it bit by bit. One works with others to move toward an outcome more closely reflecting his/her desired worldview. Here’s an example.
If you follow the biblical standard that human life begins at conception, then an embryo is a human being. Therefore, the idea that you develop embryos in a lab in order to harvest their stem cells, and discard that person afterwards is homicide. So, does that mean you would vote against a ballot initiative on promoting embryonic stem cell research? Yes, if you think the embryo is a human being, which is the biblical position (note: almost all biologists would also say that “life begins at conception”).
Would you then only vote for a candidate who opposes embryonic stem cell research? Here is where “incrementalism” comes in. You vote for the candidate whom you think has the best chance of getting elected and will promote the greatest good. Candidate A may reflect your values entirely and be unelectable. So to vote for him/her would only be a vote of conscience. Candidate B may support embryonic stem cell research, but may also be more likely to uphold biblical values in other areas. Candidate B also has a good chance on being elected. You go with B, who is able to promote the greater good. More tomorrow.
Greg Koukl speaks of “incrementalism.” This is the idea that to change something you work at it bit by bit. One works with others to move toward an outcome more closely reflecting his/her desired worldview. Here’s an example.
If you follow the biblical standard that human life begins at conception, then an embryo is a human being. Therefore, the idea that you develop embryos in a lab in order to harvest their stem cells, and discard that person afterwards is homicide. So, does that mean you would vote against a ballot initiative on promoting embryonic stem cell research? Yes, if you think the embryo is a human being, which is the biblical position (note: almost all biologists would also say that “life begins at conception”).
Would you then only vote for a candidate who opposes embryonic stem cell research? Here is where “incrementalism” comes in. You vote for the candidate whom you think has the best chance of getting elected and will promote the greatest good. Candidate A may reflect your values entirely and be unelectable. So to vote for him/her would only be a vote of conscience. Candidate B may support embryonic stem cell research, but may also be more likely to uphold biblical values in other areas. Candidate B also has a good chance on being elected. You go with B, who is able to promote the greater good. More tomorrow.
Monday, October 25, 2004
how else can you think?
So, should your faith be a resource for decision-making? I have argued that it has to be if it is truly your faith. Your filter. Now, if you are a Christian, this is completely logical. If Jesus is God, as Christians claim, then he is the creator of everything, including knowledge and logic itself. If the teachings of Jesus from the Bible are accurate, which again Christians claim, then they must be the most brilliant teachings in existence. So, obviously, if you are a Christian, it would be harmful and illogical to purposely ignore the teachings of Jesus when considering a decision to be made or an action to be taken.
Of course, one can misapply a teaching of Jesus, misinterpret it, or simply not understand it. “This side of heaven” we can’t say we are thinking exactly like Jesus thinks. But, there is a certain universal clarity to his teachings that inform the thinking of those who call themselves “Christian.” The point is to be a Christian and say I can’t let my faith cloud my thinking in the public arena is an unsupportable position from a faith and reason standard.
Of course, one can misapply a teaching of Jesus, misinterpret it, or simply not understand it. “This side of heaven” we can’t say we are thinking exactly like Jesus thinks. But, there is a certain universal clarity to his teachings that inform the thinking of those who call themselves “Christian.” The point is to be a Christian and say I can’t let my faith cloud my thinking in the public arena is an unsupportable position from a faith and reason standard.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
everyone has values
Everyone has a filter for thinking. Everyone views the world in a certain way. In the present election, there has been some talk about being cautious not to let your religious values affect your decision making. For some, this is considered a bad thing. This is not a logically possible point of view. We all have values that are based on something. So, whether it is biblical values or values based on Mao’s Little Red Book or values based on Star Trek, there is a filter.
This is not a consistent point of view, either. Some candidates say they can’t let their religious values affect their decisions on issues such as abortion. The thinking goes if you follow the biblical model of “life beginning at conception,” then abortion is taking a human life. But, the candidates say they don’t want to impose their beliefs on others and so they support abortion.
Here is the inconsistency, plain and simple. The Bible says we are to love our neighbor, which includes caring for those who are poor and in need. Well, the same candidates who say they don’t let their religious point of view affect their position on issues, rightfully support legislation to help the poor and those in need. This is clearly using their religious views to influence their decisions when addressing poverty. I see……
This is not a consistent point of view, either. Some candidates say they can’t let their religious values affect their decisions on issues such as abortion. The thinking goes if you follow the biblical model of “life beginning at conception,” then abortion is taking a human life. But, the candidates say they don’t want to impose their beliefs on others and so they support abortion.
Here is the inconsistency, plain and simple. The Bible says we are to love our neighbor, which includes caring for those who are poor and in need. Well, the same candidates who say they don’t let their religious point of view affect their position on issues, rightfully support legislation to help the poor and those in need. This is clearly using their religious views to influence their decisions when addressing poverty. I see……
Saturday, October 23, 2004
religion in politics?
Due to this being election time, there has been some talk of whether it is appropriate for a politician to use his/her faith as a filter for decisions he/she makes. That is an interesting question when you think on it deeply.
How do you make a decision in the first place? Here are some options.
1. You take prior information that you have processed, you seek out the wisdom of those with expertise in the area of concern, and you compare all of this with possible actions you could take. After careful consideration, you decide.
2. You decide quickly using your “gut” instinct
3. You think about what would be to your best personal advantage, and you decide on that
4. You find out what most people would think and you go with that
Only the first option seems right and reasonable. So, prior information and the wisdom of others is your filter. Then the questions become what and who? What prior information and whose expertise?
Everyone has a worldview they use as a filter. If your worldview is “keep religion out of the decision” then you can’t decide. Everyone has a “religion”; a filter through which they view the world.
If you are of the “no god” variety you are simply filtering through the “no god” faith. Most “no god” folks have faith in some form of Darwinian evolution. Their decisions are then of the classic “survival of the fittest” variety, and they would logically use number three from above to make a decision and we know that would be wrong for public policy.
So, the only option for sound decision making is to use a worldview of some sort and arrive at a decision. “Religion” in political decision making is then absolutely essential. It is just a matter of competing worldviews. Which worldview is most reasonable? Put your ideas on the table and let’s decide.
Friday, October 22, 2004
sin and stress
Confessing your sin to God and others doesn’t feel good. It is not a pleasurable experience to admit you have a problem. But, as I said yesterday, it is a welcome experience. It is a way to travel light. When we hold on to our sins, one of two unhealthy things happens. Either we get overwhelmed by our guilt or we push our guilt into our subconscious. Then sickness is usually right around the corner.
Yes, sickness. It is a well accepted theory that our immune system has connections to our stress level. Overwhelming guilt or internalized denial of guilt will bring extended periods of stress, which will cause the immune system to be overworked. Likely illness follows.
Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven,” when healing people. Indeed.
Yes, sickness. It is a well accepted theory that our immune system has connections to our stress level. Overwhelming guilt or internalized denial of guilt will bring extended periods of stress, which will cause the immune system to be overworked. Likely illness follows.
Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven,” when healing people. Indeed.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
I didn't do it
Why is it so important to realize we are our own worst enemy? Without this personal inventory, we repeat the same unhealthy behavior over and over again. Then our creativity kicks in and we find a million reasons why our unhealthiness is just not so.
When we see this denial-type behavior in little kids we think it is cute. “I don’t know who colored on the wall, mommy.” Well, what we are really witnessing is a toddler preparing for a life of pain. A life of not taking responsibility.
I remember the Simpson episode where Bart becomes a celebrity by repeating the phrase, “I didn’t do it?” Hilarious, but fairly common for many of us.
“I didn’t do it” has become the motto of humankind. But there is hope. When you are in relationship with Jesus, he can change you into the type of person who willingly admits wrongdoing. For the one who follows Jesus, confessing sin becomes a welcome and critical element of life. Graciously and generously opening oneself up for forgiveness is an act of encouragement. One knows that better days of expanded life are ahead for one who is honest before God.
When we see this denial-type behavior in little kids we think it is cute. “I don’t know who colored on the wall, mommy.” Well, what we are really witnessing is a toddler preparing for a life of pain. A life of not taking responsibility.
I remember the Simpson episode where Bart becomes a celebrity by repeating the phrase, “I didn’t do it?” Hilarious, but fairly common for many of us.
“I didn’t do it” has become the motto of humankind. But there is hope. When you are in relationship with Jesus, he can change you into the type of person who willingly admits wrongdoing. For the one who follows Jesus, confessing sin becomes a welcome and critical element of life. Graciously and generously opening oneself up for forgiveness is an act of encouragement. One knows that better days of expanded life are ahead for one who is honest before God.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
on being honest
I have talked about brain development (9/6/04) before. The brain doesn’t complete all of its connections in the judgment center (prefrontal cortex) until about 25 years old. Prior to this time, it would be physiologically normal for a person to not always make the wisest decisions, even if they wanted to. If you are a parent of a teenager, you know this to be the case. But, as an adult of over 25 years, you can still make choices that are not thought through carefully.
However, now there is a difference. Unless you have an abnormality or chemical imbalance in your brain, you are totally responsible for your attitudes and actions. You are physiologically quite able to think clearly and act accordingly. This seems so obvious, but it is not generally known to be true.
Too often, as an adult, I am told I am not responsible. Some politicians make promises that they will take care of me. Attorneys on the radio tell me it’s not my fault and they will help me convince a judge this is so. Even some churches get in the act. They tell me I am a victim of life’s circumstances and if I connect with them I will be healed. Well, almost.
I will be healed if I connect to the healer, Jesus. But the road to healing is to realize the source of almost all of my problems in life is staring at me in a mirror. Yes, it is I, Lord. I am not responsible for what is done to me. I am responsible for how I respond. So, the journey to healing and wholeness begins with being honest before God. Like standing before that great cosmic AA meeting.
“I am Dana, and I am a sinner.”
However, now there is a difference. Unless you have an abnormality or chemical imbalance in your brain, you are totally responsible for your attitudes and actions. You are physiologically quite able to think clearly and act accordingly. This seems so obvious, but it is not generally known to be true.
Too often, as an adult, I am told I am not responsible. Some politicians make promises that they will take care of me. Attorneys on the radio tell me it’s not my fault and they will help me convince a judge this is so. Even some churches get in the act. They tell me I am a victim of life’s circumstances and if I connect with them I will be healed. Well, almost.
I will be healed if I connect to the healer, Jesus. But the road to healing is to realize the source of almost all of my problems in life is staring at me in a mirror. Yes, it is I, Lord. I am not responsible for what is done to me. I am responsible for how I respond. So, the journey to healing and wholeness begins with being honest before God. Like standing before that great cosmic AA meeting.
“I am Dana, and I am a sinner.”
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
it starts with you
One of the difficulties of escaping from character disorder is most society is based upon it. It is the public way of life. It is the private way of life.
If something goes wrong in my life here are my options:
Public
It’s your fault
It’s the government’s fault
Private
It’s my spouse’s fault
It’s my parent’s fault
This even applies to whole nations. 20th century Christian thinker and political advisor Reinhold Neibuhr made this point when he applied this “rule” in international relations.
'The other side is more right than you think they are and you are more wrong than you think you are. The trick is to find the truth in between.'
The next time we are quick to point “out there” to show where the challenges of life come from, perhaps some personal inventory is where to start.
If something goes wrong in my life here are my options:
Public
It’s your fault
It’s the government’s fault
Private
It’s my spouse’s fault
It’s my parent’s fault
This even applies to whole nations. 20th century Christian thinker and political advisor Reinhold Neibuhr made this point when he applied this “rule” in international relations.
'The other side is more right than you think they are and you are more wrong than you think you are. The trick is to find the truth in between.'
The next time we are quick to point “out there” to show where the challenges of life come from, perhaps some personal inventory is where to start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
About Me
- Dana
- Pastor from LIFEhouse Church in Northridge CA, focusing on the theme, "How To Be A Christian Without Being A Jerk."
