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.”

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.