Short Attention Span

My new blog home, with a few termites

2005-05-05T21:37:00.000-07:00

For a number of reasons I have moved Short Attention Span to my own domain:

Here!!!

It still has a few bugs but it is now operative and my new posts are going there. One major bug is that I'm having trouble importing my posts from here at Blogger, although in theory it's doable. I do think that in time the blog will be better as a result. The theme is way cool.

So if you are one of those kind enough to have me on your blogroll, please change the URL and bookmark me. And thanks!

BTW, I have also resurrected my defunct Web site, which you can see here. It too has a few bugs of a minor nature. I'm toying with the idea of a forum but I'm not sure about the time commitment.

More bias from Google?

2005-05-04T09:48:00.000-07:00

WorldNetDaily: Google censoring conservative ads?

Google's AdWords program places text ads in the right-hand margin of search result pages that relate to the words a user types in. So, a search for "Tom DeLay" elicits ads for mostly anti-DeLay sites.

Upon seeing one of those ads, RightMarch.com decided to place an ad using the same words but just swapping Pelosi's name for DeLay. The ad read: "Truth about Nancy Pelosi: Learn about Pelosi's many scandals and help us clean up the House!"

Said RightMarch.com: "That's all we did – we took the liberal ad and changed the words to make it a conservative ad."

...Mike Mayzel, a spokesman for Google, says both the anti-Pelosi ad and the anti-DeLay ad are gone.

"Both ads were taken down," he told WND.

Is Google going to be the next media outlet to alienate half the country by promoting ideology while protesting its neutrality? I hope not.

Blogger is getting slow again...

Aw, shucks!

2005-05-04T02:23:00.000-07:00

It seems that yours truly has been awarded the top prize at the Evangelical Outpost's recent Blog Symposium. This is a great honor, given the quality of many of the entries. Even more exiting than my award is seeing the number of intelligent, thinking evangelical bloggers out there, challenging people to love God with all their heart, soul, mind and strenth.

My thanks to Joe Carter and the other judges, and to those of you who motivate me by dropping by.

For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. Proverbs 2:6

What do you have that you did not receive? 1 Corinthians 4:7

Happy to be a day late & a dollar short

2005-05-03T18:35:00.000-07:00

I had been writing a book on the origins issue. The thesis was that discussion of origins had been hijacked by extremists on both sides who distort both science and Christianity in promoting their ideologies, and that Christians could help repair the damage by disregarding the dogmatic pronouncements of theologically unbalanced, demagogic, sectarian creationist leaders and instead return to a serious examination of what the Bible actually says. Much harm is being done to the cause of Christ by those who now now assert that a novel doctrine with roots in Seventh-Day Adventism --young earth creationism and a global flood-- are the clear teaching of the Bible and campaign for them as a test of orthodoxy and fellowship.

Today I began reading Hugh Ross's new book, A Matter of Days: Resolving a Creation Controversy. In the first few chapters, Ross makes the same point I wanted to make, and probably more effectively too. So now I have half a book that is suddenly redundant. Maybe I'll put it online, on the site I plan to set up and relocate the blog to.

So much for my second career as an author. Still, I'm very glad that someone of Ross's stature is saying what I think needs to be said. May his book be widely read and his warnings taken seriously.

Requiem for a servant

2005-05-03T11:56:00.000-07:00

Bill was born in West Texas during the Depression, third of eight kids in a poor family. After the tenth grade he was forced to leave school in order to provide for the family. By his early twenties, married with two children, he was also supporting his paraplegic mother and had his two youngest brothers living with him.

Bill was raised in the cultural religion of the Bible Belt, but in his early thirties he experienced the reality of the risen Christ, which changed the course of his life. By the time he and Lorain had their sixth and last child, they were serving as missionaries on a Native American reservation. Today the mission is led my a man whom they discipled as a young boy. A year after leaving the mission to accept a pastoral position, Bill was forced to make a choice between his pastoral duties and providing for his family. Scriptural mandate and personal habit on the same side, he chose family and resigned his position. He and Lorain then worked for many years in a food processing plant, providing their children with the start in life that had been denied to them. Retirement brought them a time of family gatherings, road trips, puttering in the garden and garage, and declining health.

Bill was an avid student of the Bible and, in his own way, a systematic theologian. He remained a preacher-at-large, evangelizing those he came in contact with and discussing the Bible with those who were interested. He defied stereotypes: in some ways arch-conservative yet embracing the ethos of the Jesus People. He lived modestly, as though the world to come is more of a reality than this one, even while placing great importance on the practical needs of others. He, like the rest of us, had his faults, but he continued to look with confidence to the cross of Christ. He had a twinkle in his eye that suggested there was always a punch line, and his roaring laughter was infectious.

As he lay dying, he wanted his family to be happy for him, confident that it was not "Goodbye" but "See you later."

See you later, Bill.

The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. Matthew 23:11-12

Kingdom of Heaven Bowdlerized?

2005-05-02T19:58:00.000-07:00

Someone is claiming insider information that the new Ridley Scott movie Kingdom of Heaven has been heavily edited to make Christian Crusaders the bad guys and Muslims the good guys, under pressure from Muslim groups including death threats.

Now after all the disinformation that preceded the release of Passion of the Christ I'm hesitant to believe this before seeing the movie. In fact, as great as Gladiator was I hope that the claims are false. (Hat tip: Little Green Footballs.)

Why I no longer use Google News

2005-05-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

WorldNetDaily:

The dominant search engine on the Internet is getting ready to begin ranking news searches by "quality rather than simply by their date and relevance to search times," giving preference to big news agencies such as CNN, BBC and AP.

For a while now, "quality" journalism has been a leftist code word for "discredited, unpopular, left-leaning news sources that we like", in contradistinction to the much more popular Fox News or WorldNetDaily which hardly ever turn up on Google News despite their much greater popularity.

Given that Blogger is owned by Google also, I wonder whether it's time to move my blog to my own domain. I wouldn't want Blogger to get any slower for me by allocating greater bandwidth to quality blogs.

"Freedom of the press belongs to him who owns one."

Blast from the past, still relevant

2005-05-02T08:59:00.000-07:00

In the 80s I used to enjoy the music of Resurrection Band, or Rez. Hard rock and thought-provoking lyrics about being a follower of Christ in the real world. It was a nice surprise to see that Rez front man Glenn Kaiser is now blogging.

Telegraph: biased journals

2005-05-01T21:50:00.000-07:00

For a while now I have suspected that the journals Science and Nature were biased when it came to origins. Now the Telegraph accuses them of blatant ideological bias when it comes to global warming. Read the whole thing.

Taking a break

2005-04-26T13:00:00.000-07:00

I will be taking a brief break from blogging. My wife's Dad is in the end stage of cancer and hospice said that this is the time for family to gather. A servant of Christ is going home.

Update: We hadn't even gotten packed before we got another call. Bill is now with the Lord. Thanks for the thoughts and prayers.

A politically incorrect rant

2005-04-26T04:00:00.000-07:00

Catez at Allthings2all has some thoughts on evangelical Christianity's own version of political correctness:

I have been thinking about the cognitive dissonance that occurs when matters of faith are manipulated to suit political ideology. It's a type of Christian political correctness that compromises faith because we do not want to critique the political ideology we subscribe to... I'm looking to hold my conscience right with the Image Maker. That's what matters most to me.

This is a valid point, and one that needs to be made a lot because we don't all understand it. But what struck me more about Catez's post was what led up to it: a months-long struggle with pressure to not say certain things so as not to be on the "wrong" side of a political issue.

I understand what she is saying because I see it too. Western, evangelical Christianity has become too closely connected to specific policies, positions and political parties. This is not to say that Christians shouldn't use their moral voice in the voting booth, but to an extent we've allowed the life-changing good news of Jesus to be traded for a mess of voter guides, sound bites and political positions. I also think that particular issues are placed on the front burner for us by political operatives who would be just as happy to use anti-Christian groups if it suited their purpose. Here in America, evangelicals have for the most part placed their hopes in the Republican Party. Well, now the Republicans hold the White House and Congress, and aside from a more aggressive foreign policy it's status quo all the way. Yet they still have the evangelical church chasing its tail over same-sex marriage or judicial appointments (even while announcing they will not investigate law-flouting activist judges). I don't know what is the worse insult to our collective intelligence: that they blame the Democrats for all of this or that we might actually buy it. Or perhaps we don't buy it but don't really care either, since the only option (since only two parties are allowed to be heard on the airwaves) is for the Democrats to win, which would mean a rapid spiral into full-blown socialism and summary scrapping of the Constitution, or what's left of it. We keep supporting the Republicans and fighting for what we're told are the imprtant issues of the day, somehow hoping that things will turn out differently this time. Didn't someone define insanity that way?

It's not just Karl Rove pulling the strings. Evangelicals have, to an extent, disregarded the biblical model of church leadership. The folks in the pews --and not a few pastors-- are marching to the drum beat of parachurch ministries and talking heads on Christian radio and TV. Where do these people get such authority? Who are they accountable to? Yet they carry a lot of weight and set the agenda. We oppose gay marriage because we hear about it every day and hear how the sky will fall if it happens. We don't give much thought to opposing divorce because the talking heads don't talk about it. Or maybe it's because the people who do that are within our ranks.

It's been said that rat poison is 95% good grain; it's the other 5% that is deadly. I don't want to call Christian radio rat poison; I don't regard it as a deliberate attempt to mislead us. I was a DJ on Christian radio for a few years, so I know that's not the case. But I do believe that along with the good music and beneficial teaching that there is some poison that accompanies it. A lot of that poison is demagoguery and invitations to put our trust in political leaders, in mortal men who cannot save (cf. Psalm 146:3). We hear unbiblical, demagogic teaching whenever we are told that a particular group of people are a dangerous enemy that we need to defeat (see Ephesians 6:12), whether they are the ACLU, gay activists, activist judges or anyone else. Sure, these folks are wrong. That's why they need God. But how will they come to know Him if His people are too busy arguing politics to talk about anything else? How are we going to show God's love to those whom we are told are the new barbarians kicking down the gates of Western Civilization?

I don't hardly listen to Christian radio these days, in part because I don't want to hear about homosexuality half a dozen times every day. (If this statement doesn't strike you as incredibly ironic, think about it for a minute.) I know what it's like to be the target of both subtle and outlandish attacks from ignorant Christians whose zeal for their pet cause far exceeds their biblical literacy, because I had the temerity to express disagreement with that cause. But it's a fair price to pay for keeping my eye on the prize rather than being led into the ditch by myopic, tunnel-visioned people who think that certitude is next to godliness. This life is too short to waste by letting ourselves be led around by those who have stopped thinking a long time ago, or who have become --to borrow Steve Taylor's phrase-- deaf from the din of their self-righteous battle.

Lay Christians and pastors, let's turn off the demagogues and return to the old paths of self-denial and humility. And let's not fear to speak the truth in love: all of it.

Apologetics that need an apology

2005-04-24T01:23:00.000-07:00

Christianity Today:

[Christian Research Institute] said Alnor's repeated attacks have harmed the ministry and must be challenged. In a prepared statement, CRI told CT, "CRI is not opposed to fair and truthful comments or opinions with respect to matters of public debate and certainly honor[s] the constitutional right to express them. However, fabricating malicious falsehoods and then actively circulating them not only belies any profession of Christianity but is defamatory and libelous. Unchallenged, such unjustified accusations ruin reputations, damage ministries, and cast aspersions on the cause of Christ."

On why CRI is taking a fellow believer to court, Hanegraaff told CT that Christians should never do so in an arbitrary fashion, but, "At some point, you have to say, 'Enough is enough.' Truth and justice do matter."

Hanegraaff added, "If you don't respond, people think there may be something to it."

One guy's opinion: It does greater discredit to CRI that they would disregard what the Bible says when they think they have a good reason to do so than the false accusation of a blogger.

When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers! Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:1-11

The latter part of the passage is a well-known one on behaviors that are inconsistent with being a new creation in Christ. It is preceded by --and seemingly prompted by-- the practice of Christians suing other Christians.

One would be forgiven for wondering: If CRI isn't above explaining away a clear passage when they are affected financially, what is to keep them from doing so in their apologetic work? Alnor's accusation was bait, and CRI bit hard.

For the record, I gave up getting CRI's newsletter around a decade ago, as I thought that their monthly pleas for funds were over the top then. I'm surprised they don't seem to realize that our actions are an apologetic also.

Popular not just with the faithful

2005-04-23T09:05:00.000-07:00

Telegraph:

Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said the Pope's image as a German "panzerkardinal" was unfair. "He is human and he will convince you," he said. "He is both a man of science and of faith. He possesses a great sense of humanity, he loves nature and music."

The same churchman said that Cardinal Ratzinger was a cat lover. "Every time he met a cat, he would talk to it, sometimes for a long time," said Cardinal Bertone. "The cat would follow him. Once about 10 cats followed him into the Vatican and one of the Swiss Guards intervened, saying 'Look, your eminence, the cats are invading the Holy See'."

Having cats around the Vatican would be cool, but I can see where one hopping up on the altar of St. Peter's during a televised Mass would be ...er... a little disconcerting. Even so, I'm sure Jesus is a cat lover too.

More censorship & disinformation on origins

2005-04-23T08:52:00.000-07:00

WorldNetDaily:

[Eugenie] Scott – executive director of the Oakland, Calif.-based National Center for Science Education – wrote that Caldwell attempted to get the district to adopt materials advocating Biblical creationism, including a young-earth creationist book, "Refuting Evolution," by Jonathan Safarti; and the Jehovah's Witness book "Life: How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or Creation?"'

But Caldwell told WorldNetDaily he has never even heard of the books she cites.

He sent a letter to Scott and to the California Academy of Sciences, outlining the alleged errors and demanding a retraction and equal space in the magazine to present his side.

Caldwell asked for a response by 5 p.m. yesterday but has heard nothing from Scott or the academy.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with this.

Caldwell says matters are made worse when the mainstream media routinely publishes "what Scott and the NCSE tell them to print about the evolution debates around the country. She is the source of much of the misinformation about the evolution debate in American media. The misstements in this article prove that legacy media's primary source of 'facts' is a liar."

Double ouch. I don't know which will hurt worse: the "liar" bit or the "legacy media" bit.

Busted

2005-04-23T08:36:00.000-07:00

WorldNetDaily:

ADF points out that in 2003, shortly after Prince v. Jacoby was decided, the ACLU sent an information letter to school officials in Washington state explaining the case "makes it clear that student clubs promoting tolerance for gay students are entitled to the same resources as other clubs."

But now, the ACLU has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Truth case that takes the opposite position.

The ACLU now wants to strike down the Prince case if it will be used to allow a Bible club on campus, the ADF's Tim Chandler told WorldNetDaily.

The Anti-Christian Litigation Union's commitment to the law is conditional? I'm shocked. Shocked. But the question is, will they still claim legal precedent for the gay groups?

More mileage from jokes

2005-04-20T01:19:00.000-07:00

It turns out that Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost has real talent as a humorist: sort of a cross between Dave Barry and Red Green.

Being too lazy to blog about anything new (or possibly busy reading his symposium entries), Joe has recycled some tidbits from a humor column that he used to write, and it's great stuff.

Meeting the President

2005-04-19T06:51:00.000-07:00

Corrie at A Simple Desultory Dangling Conversation relates his meeting with President Bush. It ran on a wing and a prayer. And a couple of Sharpies.

Back to the future in the East and West

2005-04-17T07:17:00.000-07:00

Wretchard at the Belmont Club thinks that China's development of a blue-water navy suggests similar machinations to that ot Imperial Japan 60 years ago: protect the sea lanes used to import its oil while extending regional hegemony. Meanwhile, PubliusPundit (hat tip: InstaPundit) thinks that the Chinese Communist regime's consideration of foreign adventures is a desperate measure from a dying regime.

Speaking of regimes past their prime, Wretchard also suggests that the European Union was, from a French perspective, an attempt at Gerrymandering: losing their majority status in France to North African immigrants, ethnic French see a united Europe as a way to remain in the majority. Yet the penchant in some parts of the EU for free markets clashes with France's socialist ways, tilting France toward saying non to the EU constitution, dealing a grave blow to European integration. The Danes are rethinking some things too (another H/T to InstaPundit).

About six weeks ago I suggested that Europe would likely turn back from its march toward a bland, secular superstate cowering in fear of militant Islam.

Really reaching

2005-04-15T07:30:00.000-07:00

New York Times:

Democrats, for their part, are already stepping up their efforts to link Dr. Frist and the [nuclear option] with conservatives [sic] statements about unaccountable judges hostile to faith.

Hey, if the shoe fits. The question is whether the Republicans will chicken out again and let the Democrats continue to stack the judicial deck with activists and secularists. Chuckie Shumer weighs in:

"The last thing we need is inflammatory rhetoric which on its face encourages violence against judges," he wrote.

Very lame, Chuckie. Opposition to judicial activism constitutes incitement to violence? Have you been reading the NY Times Op-Ed section?

Is this a new meme now: "If you disagree with us you're violent and must be stopped"?

School choice

2005-04-14T15:53:00.000-07:00

In San Bernardino, a high school student was suspended for wearing makeup to express his Wiccan beliefs. In justifying the suspension, a school official provided an insight into what some people mean by "choice":

"We bend over backwards to provide our students better educational choices. I think this student needed to make a better choice."

Got that? You have choice. It's just that if you make a choice we disapprove of, we will punish you until you make a different choice.

The end of skepticism: the AAAS

2005-04-14T01:43:00.000-07:00

It has been my belief that certain, specific scientific journals and organizations have been flying under false colors. Scientific American, the Smithsonian, the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (not to mention popular science magazines and TV shows) have been using science as a stalking horse for philosophical materialism. Now, the AAAS has published an editorial that appears to let the cat out of the bag as to how they perceive their role.

The Blinne Blog links to an article in the AAAS's journal, Science, complaining of a religious assault on the Enlightenment value of reason. Since membership is required, I will quote from the Blinne Blog:

For much of their existence over the past two centuries, Europe and the United States have been societies of questioners: nations in which skepticism has been accepted and even welcomed, and where the culture has been characterized by confidence in science and in rational methods of thought. We owe this tradition in part to the birth of the Scottish Enlightenment of the early 18th century, when the practice of executing religious heretics ended, to be gradually replaced by a developing conviction that substituted faith in experiment for reliance on inherited dogma.

That new tradition, prominently represented by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, supplied important roots for the growth of modernity, and it has served U.S. society well, as it has Europe's. The results of serious, careful experimentation and analysis became a standard for the entry of a discovery or theory into the common culture of citizens and the policies of their governments. Thus, scientific determinations of the age of Earth and the theories of gravity, biological evolution, and the conservation of matter and energy became meaningful scientific anchors of our common understanding.

There is a problem with this account. The scientific approach did not in fact come from Hume; otherwise how do we explain a Galileo or a Newton who lived 100-200 years earlier? Indeed, as Pearcey and Thaxton demonstrate in The Soul of Science: Christian Faith and Natural Philosophy, the philosophical underpinnings of science were developed in the Middle Ages by Christians. Skeptical? Get the book!

Where does Hume come in then? Hume's contribution to Western thought is logical positivism, the idea that nothing should be believed until it can be proven. Positivism is a philosophical basis for atheistic materialism: the spirit world isn't seen so we shouldn't believe in it. In connecting science with Hume, the Science article suggests that the AAAS sees science as an essentially atheistic enterprise.

Of course, not all scientists are atheists; not by a long shot. But there is a vast difference between science and Scientific Truth for the Masses. Science is about a search for knowledge, not indignant certitude. Its approach to claims is one of skepticism, true; but the article seems to suggest that skepticism ought to be reserved for religion, the ostensible enemy and opposite of science, but not exercised toward the minority philosophical position of atheistic materialism (aka "science"). Science is descriptive, telling us provisionally how things are; not prescriptive, telling us what we ought to believe. Science is the opposite of dogma, because dogma is a definitive answer that may not be questioned, but when questions end so does learning. Yet, in Orwellian fashion, the Science article tells us that evangelical Christianity is a threat to skeptical science because it is skeptical of that which ought not be questioned.

Science operates on the principle of methodological materialism, which means that science can only study the physical universe. Popularly though, science is often misappropriated and misrepresented to promote philosophical materialism, the unverified belief that the physical world is all that exists. Skeptic, heal thyself!

Comfy religion

2005-04-14T01:20:00.000-07:00

WWJD?

If Jesus were here, I think He would take a whip to the multimillion-dollar Christian publishing & entertainment industry (subsidiaries of Sony, NewsCorp, etc.) and proceed from there to a lot of our churches.

Joe at the Evangelical Outpost says Jesus Ain't My Homeboy:

"As a religious movement we [evangelicals] have almost completely abandoned the concept of a transcendent creator in favor of a God who is our “best friend.” ...The idea of Jesus is mainly our “friend” is deeply rooted in our particular religious culture. Our lack of reverence expresses itself in everything from our worship to our evangelism."

Spot-on. When a Catholic friend of mine said that evangelicals are relativistic, I thought she was way off; it's not like we don't believe in objective, propositional truth. Now, I think she was right to an extent. There are exceptions, but too much of evangelicalism is personal, subjective, experiential, and light on propositional truth. Commonly-held evangelical theology amounts to a handful of "essentials" that would fit easily on a 5x7" page of a church bulletin. Even then, it's probably fair to say that the average evangelical is much more knowledgeable about the latest Hollywood fare than about the biblical basis for what we could put on that 5x7" piece of paper.

It's been said that heresy arises in the church when one truth is emphasized to such an extent that other truths are denied. We've done a great job of emphasizing a personal relationship with Jesus but we've forgotten that "the fear of the Lord" is a New Testament concept also; we've at least assumed to some extent that it's a legalistic heresy. Where does the idea of God as a possession or plaything arise among a people whose only ostensible authority is the Bible?

And now for something... completely different

2005-04-11T16:00:00.000-07:00

NewsMax:

The deals haven't been finalized yet, but it's looking as if Iran will begin promoting its tourism sites to Americans and Britons on cable networks in each country.

...Iran would provide the footage for the spots, which will feature "Iranian tourist sites," but "not. . . Friday prayers."

Can't imagine why. I'm sure there are many Americans whose idea of a fun vacation includes being surrounded by a mob chanting, "Death to the Great Satan! Allah Akhbar!"

Really, it would be a vacation experience like no other. Where else would you find jolly tour guides who are ayatollahs? Or get a fatwa with your driving directions? There won't be any loud drunks at the next table while you're trying to have a nice dinner. And if your wife spends too much at the casbah, bring her to the town square for a public flogging!

So it seems that the mullahs hate Americans... unless they come with tourist dollars. Maybe we can do a deal. Americans will visit Iran if the mullahs all pack up and move to Saudi Arabia.

Judeo-Christian morality in an ethically pluralistic society

2005-04-09T05:11:00.000-07:00

The Evangelical Outpost is hosting a symposium on Judeo-Christian Morality in an Ethically Pluralistic Society.

At the outset, a couple of observations need to be made.

The first is that ethical pluralism is not the same as moral relativism. Pluralism is a pragmatic decision made by a society that its internal differences do not warrant political disunity or civil war. Pluralism means that more than one position will be tolerated despite disagreement on which if any position is right. In contrast, moral relativism asserts that on questions of morality there are no positions that are objectively and absolutely true; we each have our own code of morality shaped by our unique personal experience, and nobody’s is better than anyone else’s. This is an application of postmodern philosophy, which doubts that objective, absolute truth really exists. So while our society has made the pragmatic decision to tolerate differences of opinion on morality and ethics, it does not follow that none of the competing positions on a given issue are objectively and absolutely right. Historic, orthodox Christianity makes truth claims –including statements on morality-- which Christians hold to be objectively and propositionally true regardless of who believes or disbelieves them. (For more on this, see Francis Schaeffer, The God Who Is There.) Thus, Christians legitimately believe in certain moral absolutes while recognizing that the society we live in might not hold them as the consensus view.

The second observation is that, while an ethically pluralistic society does attempt to respect differing moral viewpoints that are held by individuals, the formation of laws and public policies shows that this pluralism is limited in scope. Laws and policies define what is and is not acceptable behavior and thus cannot possibly be separated from any and all moral viewpoints. Someone’s ethical viewpoint will become imposed on everyone and actions based on opposing viewpoints will not be tolerated. For example, we might ask whether it is right to take money from one person and give it to another (i.e. using tax revenues for welfare programs). People disagree on whether such a thing is right or wrong under a given set of circumstances, but the law makes one of the competing viewpoints operative. People on the other side of the issue will be (to use a current buzzword) disenfranchised.

So how does a believer in historic, orthodox Christianity with its moral absolutes live in a society of limited ethical pluralism? Here are a few suggestions.

First, Christians should unequivocally and unconditionally support individual freedom of conscience and expression. The implementation of one view as public policy must not prevent individuals from personally holding and freely expressing other views. There is a pragmatic reason for this, because if laws may impose specific viewpoints or suppress specific ideas, then there is no objective limit; there is only the shifting sand of consensus as to what may be permitted. If we try to silence those we disagree with, then we may justly be silenced ourselves. Noam Chomsky said, “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all”, a message that all too many on today’s left are ignoring. Respect for individual freedom of conscience and expression also follows from the historic Christian view of human beings as uniquely created in the image of God and therefore possessed of inherent dignity (see James 3:8-10).

If freedom of conscience and expression applies to everyone, then it applies to Christians also. This seemingly obvious point takes on increasing relevance as the political left is more and more seeking to suppress dissent, using a range of “hard” and “soft” methods. Soft methods include use of name-calling and shame. For example, if you’re against affirmative action, it couldn’t possibly be because you hold certain moral or economic viewpoints that are at odds with such a policy; you must be a racist, even if you don’t know it. Now, many people don’t want to be thought of as racist, so it’s easier to just remain silent on the question than to voice opposition. People on the left also object to opposing moral views being given the weight of law as the imposition of some people’s morality upon all, but this is a false framing of the issue as discussed above. “Hard” methods of suppressing dissent are imposed most often upon the next generation, in college campuses. These include things like campus speech codes, skewed choice of speaker invitations,intimidation or vandalism of college newspapers, intimidation or assault on members of politically incorrect groups and banning of such groups, as well as orthodoxy within the various disciplines. We have already seen the beginning of generalized “hard” suppression of dissent with the implementation of hate crime laws, in which additional penalties attach to a crime if it is believed to be motivated by a certain viewpoint. And as Christians have already found out in places like Sweden and Canada, expression of verboten ideas is itself a punishable offence regardless of whether any other crime was involved. Christians need to be fearless in speaking up, both voicing our perspectives and defending the right of ourselves and others to do so. Ask not for whom the FCC bell should toll; it tolls for thee!

Another thing that Christians need to be doing is what Francis Schaeffer called pre-evangelism. It is no use to make a rational defense of Christian truth claims to someone who rejects reason and doesn’t believe that any claims can be objectively, absolutely true. We need to promote and demonstrate the concept that objective, propositional truth exists and is knowable. Here are some specific ways that we can do this:

· Become acquainted with some of the basics of logic, and use them in communications. If Christians were in the general habit of doing this, so that people who rubbed elbows with us couldn’t help but be exposed to careful, logical thinking, it should rub off to an extent and so have an impact on public discourse and private thought. Jesus’ statement “I am the Truth” is better understood by people who have at least an intuitive grasp of what “truth” is, as opposed to falsehood or mere subjective opinion. Also, not everyone has embraced the intellectual suicide of postmodernism, and we owe it to such people to demonstrate that historic Christianity is consistent with evidence and reason. I recommend Geisler and Brooks’ Come, Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking as an easy-to-follow introduction for lay people.

· Rather than countering other ethical conclusions with our own ethical conclusions, we should be in the habit of asking what the premises are that have led to each conclusion. Too many non-Christian moral conclusions are getting a free pass because their advocates depict as a troglodyte anyone who questions them. Since people who do this generally seem to have high opinions of their own intellects, we should be able to ask them to explain it slowly and carefully for us, from premises to conclusion, why the rectitude of their position is so painfully obvious. Let the premises be fully disclosed, and this in itself should win half the battles. If someone wants to be adamant about a position despite having only feelings that it is correct or preferable, this should at least be made evident to those trying to make their minds up, such as swing voters.

· Point out that postmodernism is not viable; it is inconsistent and contrary to human nature. In truth, postmodernism is a parlor game that people only play when the stakes are thought to be low. For example, someone who rejects belief in the historic Judeo-Christian God will find it much easier to advocate and practice moral relativism than someone who believes in a future Judgment Day. On the other hand, most people avoid the application of postmodern denial of objective truth in areas where their own well-being is more evidently at stake: for example, medicine, engineering, economics and civil rights protections. Few people are prepared to take a “your truth is true for you, my truth is true for me” line when they can see it affects them personally. After all, what if my morality says it’s OK for me to slash your tires… or your throat? You say that’s going too far because now I’m forcing my morality on you? What if my morality says it’s OK to do that? But seriously, it is my view that moral relativism must be preceded by a rational, objective disbelief in the Judeo-Christian God as Lawgiver and Judge, even if such a decision is made unconsciously. Nobody can be a consistent postmodernist and survive long.

· We must live out the truth we say we believe in. To use a word that has fallen out of fashion, we must not be hypocrites. Otherwise, if there is a disconnect between how we act and what we say we believe in, we are actually denying absolutes while ostensibly advocating them. Rationalization is no substitute either; it is arrogant and arbitrary to explain away our failures to live up to the moral standards that we say God expects from us all.

· We need to consider and embrace the necessary conclusions of the truths we say we believe in. For example, if we say that every human being is created in the image of God and is therefore possessed of inherent dignity and worth, then we ought to act like it in how we treat each one (1 Peter 3:15). Far too often, we don’t. Leftists sometimes love people collectively and hate them individually. Christians have a better way, but it must be demonstrated and not just talked about. It would be better, in the cause of truth, to admit our failures and ask forgiveness than pretend we have done nothing wrong.

· We should stop supporting all churches, ministries and parachurch organizations that don’t embrace the last two points. There are prominent ones that treat those with opposing viewpoints with disrespect or as enemies to be defeated; or which defame the truth and insult the intelligence of their hearers with silly, illogical arguments; or who are shady in their financial dealings, among other things. Now, some ostensibly Christian entities are adept at painting the situation as so dire and the enemies so dangerous, that (implicitly anyway) their “fighting the good fight” in an unchristlike manner is somehow justified or excusable. It never is, although it is consistent with postmodernism to think it might be.

· To the extent that we seek to have our moral positions implemented as public policy, the greatest care should be taken to examine the effects of such policy and whether such effects uphold the value and dignity of every individual, even those who disagree. A truly Christian society cannot be implemented by the coercive power of the state, for at least a couple of reasons. As Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson point out in Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America? politics operates on the basis of compromise but Christian truth cannot be compromised; as a logical necessity Christian witness must always be at least partly separate from government. And as Roger Williams pointed out, “the sword may make a nation of hypocrites” but true, biblical regeneration is beyond the power of the state to effect, and moralism without that results only in false appearances. It is heresy to confuse adherence to a moral code with the Gospel of Christ.

There will always be ethical pluralism to a degree, but biblical morality will be embraced by the larger society only to the extent that the Gospel is communicated with clarity, we demonstrate in our day-to-day lives that the historic Judeo-Christian tradition offers real, relevant, viable solutions to the problems that confront us individually and collectively, and people embrace it. Truth must be lived as well as spoken. And if we maintain our hope while confessing our faults, it might just suggest to people the biblical truth that we are ultimately saved by God’s grace and not by our adherence to a moral code.

Update: 4/13 While I advocate that we not be hypocrites, Ron Sider says that in fact we are:

"The heart of the matter is the scandalous failure to live what we preach. The tragedy is that poll after poll by Gallup and Barna show that evangelicals live just like the world. Contrast that with what the New Testament says about what happens when people come to living faith in Christ. There's supposed to be radical transformation in the power of the Holy Spirit. The disconnect between our biblical beliefs and our practice is just, I think, heart-rending. ...we have to face the fact that we're not any different from the world. And that's just incredible hypocrisy and it undercuts our message to the larger society in a terrible way."

More involuntary euthanasia

2005-04-09T04:33:00.000-07:00

WorldNetDaily:

But while the doctors ponder her condition, it is not certain if Magouirk has had a nasal feeding tube inserted for nourishment or an IV for hydration. According to Magouirk’s nephew, Ken Mullinax, 45, his aunt has been without substantial food or hydration for 10 days.

As WND reported, Magouirk was neither terminally ill, comatose, nor in a persistent vegetative state, when Hospice-LaGrange, in LaGrange, Ga., accepted her as a patient upon the request of her granddaughter, Elizabeth ("Beth") Gaddy, 36, of Hoganville, Ga. Also upon Gaddy's request, the Hospice began withholding food and water from the patient.

Nope. No slippery slope here.

Navel-gazing or metablogging?

2005-04-08T11:51:00.000-07:00

Joe Carter and Josh Claybourn agree that blogging about blogging is "incestuous and self-serving". Well, it could be depending on one's motivation, but I don't think it is necessarily.

For one thing, the blogosphere is about bloggers being connected to other bloggers rather than millions of bloggers doing their own thing in isolation. Even the "long tail" is connected to the main body rather than being an amputated appendage. Who links to whom is a deliberate choice, presumably with some thought going into that choice. So bloggers thinking about what other bloggers are doing and saying is unavoidable. This can either take a reactionary form or an analytical form. There's certainly no harm in giving thought to what we're doing individually and collectively.

Also, I think there is biblical precedent for giving thought to communication within the church and with the rest of the world. When we consider examples like Paul's address to pagan Greeks on Mars Hill, his defense before the Sanhedrin, or Peter's letters to "the twelve tribes scattered abroad", it is evident that these apostles were not just saying clever or profound things but were giving thought to how their message is received by a particular audience: they considered how they were coming across. More than that, they received and responded to feedback from their audiences. No, they didn't lose sleep over how many people did or didn't accept their messages because that decision is made by each individual. But they did place a premium on seeing that Christians lived and communicated the Gospel where non-Christians could see and hear it. There is no New Testament precedent for a separatist, isolationist church, invisible to the world. Not that Joe or Josh are saying we should be. But whether we blog or do other things, we should do it mindfully, even when we're just playing.

Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. Ephesians 5:15-16

You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Matthew 5:14-16

Two more popes?

2005-04-08T11:23:00.000-07:00

OK, this is weird. According to NewsMax, a 10th Century Irish bishop made predictions on all future popes, and two remain.

Historians say Malachy's prediction – wherein he listed just 112 popes – has been amazingly accurate.

According to his list, there are just two more popes after the late John Paul II.

...The 111th prophecy is "Gloria Olivae" (The Glory of the Olive). The meaning of the olive is unclear. The Order of Saint Benedict – not St. Malachy – has claimed that this pope will come from its ranks and Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its final fight against evil.

Now the prophecies don't seem to be so uncanny as to be inexplicable; they appear to have a sort of Nostradamus-like ability to find fulfillment in a number of ordinary ways, but it does beat the odds that JP2 was both born and buried during lunar eclipses.

The next pope, so the prediction goes, will be "the glory of the olive". NewsMax speculates about a Dominican, aka Olivetan. Is it coincidence that the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 and 25 has to do with end-time propecies?

Secular fundamentalists show their class

2005-04-07T15:58:00.000-07:00

Wisconsin State Journal:

A Madison secular organization is protesting Gov. Jim Doyle's order to fly flags at half-staff at public buildings all week to remember Pope John Paul II.

The gesture "appears like an endorsement of Roman Catholicism over other religious viewpoints," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

It doesn't matter that the pope was the leader of 1/6 of the world's population, and of a good number of the citizens of his state, I guess. Typical of fundamentalists to be so provincial in outlook.

I want a new drug

2005-04-05T08:23:00.000-07:00

JibJab links to this great video that makes fun of the mass-marketing of drugs by pharmaceutical companies. What's the chances we'll see this on Fox News during prime time?

The next pope

2005-04-05T08:00:00.000-07:00

Irish Bookmakers Take Bets on Next Pope. Leave it to the Irish. (Fair disclosure: I am half Irish and descended from Brian Boru.)

OK, I'll take a stab at this, and will be sure to end up with egg on my face. My bet is the Nigerian, Francis Arinze. The money quote from AP:

"Arinze, 72, converted to Roman Catholicism as a child and shares some of John Paul's conservative views on contraception and family issues. But he brings a unique element: representing a nation shared between Muslims and Christians at the time when interfaith relations assumes growing urgency."

First, he's a convert. I think this will play well as the Catholic Church is renewing attention on winning converts and reuniting Christians. The conservative aspect should be a plus also. Sure, the talking heads on TV keep saying the cardinals like to alternate things, so they will likely choose a moderate successor. But these cardinals were appointed by JP2, and I don't think he would have chosen the theologically wishy-washy for such promotions. Also, not just interfaith relations is taking on a growing urgency, but an in-depth understanding of Islam is also. After a five-century haitus from conquest since being halted at southeastern Europe, some in the world of Islam think the time has come to resume advancing their faith at the point of a sword. 9-11 showed us that an ancient threat to Western civilization is reappearing, and it must be understood to be dealt with. In fact, as Wretchard points out, the appointment of a black pope would harken back to the days when North Africa was Christian, again emphasizing the universal nature of the Catholic Church and expressing a desire to win back that which was lost. Finally, at 72 the Nigerian should fill the need some see for a "caretaker" pope, i.e. someone who will not occupy the Chair of Peter for another quarter century, but serve for a briefer period.

John Paul II took Catholicism out of the Vatican and brought it to the world. I don't expect that the cardinals will elect someone who will let that effort go to waste. Catholicism in Western Europe and North America is threatened by apathy and theological revisionism. The Third World is the future. My money is on Arinze.

Update: Tom Oden has similar thoughts on the issues confronting the next pope, and thoughts on Catholic-evangelical relations.

Update 2: 4/6 NewsMax is also thinking along similar lines:

"Cardinal Francis Arinze of Nigeria has been based at the Vatican for decades, but spent his youth amid the country's mix of Christian and Muslims. The Vatican is also alarmed about inter-religious clashes in Nigeria that have claimed thousands of lives since the late 1990s. But Arinze would require a history-shaping act by the generally conservative College of Cardinals: naming the first African pope in modern times."

I don't think race is as big a deal to most as it is to Americans though.

Update 2: 4/6 Part Deux: Jeff the Baptist has his own trenchant take: "Hopefully he won't be followed up by some stupid Italian."

John Paul II

2005-04-02T17:15:00.000-08:00

Athlete, playwright, poet, author, philosopher, theologian. The head of the Catholic Church was a true Renaissance man, even if he had no use for secularism. He was a study in contrasts: at once cosmopolitan and conservative, approachable yet uncompromising, unhesitating to wield power yet concerned for the powerless, a true intellectual who encouraged faith in God.

I am an evangelical, but I feel a sense of loss as Karol Wojtyla passes into eternity. This man was a vocal Christian on the world stage for a quarter century. No Delphic oracle cloistered within the Vatican, he sought out the people of the world and seemed to genuinely enjoy their company. He sought rapprochement with Protestants, and showed respect to followers of non-Christian religions, even though he sometimes did so in ways that left me scratching my head. At a time when forces within his church --as within other churches-- sought to move its doctrines away from historic orthodoxy and more into line with conventional wisdom, this pope kept the forces of apostasy at bay. At a time when the Catholic Church's credibility might otherwise have tanked in some countries over the priest abuse scandals, people knew that the Roman bishop was a man of integrity and virtue. Several years ago he introduced the paradigm just now catching on in the rest of the Christian world: the culture of life versus the culture of death. As the secular media repeatedly points out, John Paul II was part of a handful of leaders whose courage, conviction and clarity brought down Communism, ending the Cold War without a shot. Perhaps most importantly, John Paul II consistently confronted people with the idea that truth exists outside of themselves and that they ought to conform their lives to it, and so resisted the intellectual and spiritual suicide known as postmodernism and moral relativism.

There are already those who are beginning to call him John Paul the Great, placing him in a league occupied by only two other popes. In Christian history and world history, his greatness will still be remembered long after his critics are forgotten. In an age of cynicism, he was real. While others sought cover in plausible deniability, he stood tall. Here was a hero.

Still active on his deathbed, he wrote a note to his aides:

"I am happy, and you should be as well. Let us pray together with joy."

Requiem aeternam dona eis Domine: et lux perpetua luceat eis. Requiescant in pace. Amen.

Clever new leftist debate strategy

2005-04-01T07:20:00.000-08:00

NewsMax:

Commentator and former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan cut short an appearance after an opponent of his conservative views doused him with salad dressing.

"Stop the bigotry!" the demonstrator shouted as he hurled the liquid Thursday night during the program at Western Michigan University. The incident came just two days after another noted conservative, William Kristol, was struck by a pie during an appearance at a college in Indiana.

I swear, this stuff writes itself. About the only thing they haven't tried yet is to stick their fingers in their ears and yell, "Nyah nyah, I can't hear you!" But remember: leftists are our intellectual betters. Remember it even if you're hit in the kisser with coconut creme.

Terri Schiavo dead

2005-03-31T07:36:00.000-08:00

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like men you shall die, and fall like any prince.” Arise, O God, judge the earth; for you shall inherit all the nations! Psalm 82

The word "gods" here can also mean judges. Earthly judges hold limited power for a limited time. Then, like all of us, they die and face their Maker. And He who said, "Do not commit murder" will not be overruled.

The greatest good for the greatest number

2005-03-31T03:55:00.000-08:00

L.A.Times: "The Roman Catholic Church plans to establish its first religious society devoted exclusively to fighting euthanasia and abortion, church leaders said this week."

Good for them. As the sactity of human life is more and more rejected in favor of utilitarianism and moral relativism, there will be increasing need for pro-life people to do more than sit around talking. All Christians should be giving thought to presenting a competing moral philosophy that explains why we should respect human life.

For some reason, I am suddenly reminded of the bodies found in the bogs of northwestern Europe. They are the remains of people who were ritually killed during the region's pre-Christian era. Caesar spoke of the human sacrifices perpetrated by the Gauls, then proceeded to show Roman moral suporiority by killing a million of them. As our society becomes increasingly post-Christian and even to some extent anti-Christian, we lack a rational basis for seeing any inherent worth in human life.

Quite soon a choice will have to be made as to which world is embraced: a Christian world or that of the Druids. (I am using the word "Druid" somewhat loosely here of course, but Felos' "soul communication" is vaguely pagan.) Terri Schiavo is being publicly, ritually killed. Is it possible that the dread which many of us feel at seeing this is at least partly due to vague memories of a distant past when the average person lived or died at the will of the priests, empires were forged with the sword and many who survived the process did so as literal slaves? Can it be that we have shrugged off a Christian worldview and, in our enlightened sagacity, returned to Thor, Odin, Cernunnos, Mars and Venus? Or even to Molech, who inspired his adherents to mate with abandon then kill the resultant unwanted offspring in the most barbaric manner? And how is it "sophisticated" to be numb or nonchalant toward pure evil?

Terri Schiavo: what's the big deal?

2005-03-30T21:41:00.000-08:00

JunkYardBlog gives it to InstaPundit with both barrels over his stance on Terri Schiavo. All but calls Glenn an antichrist. I don't think this helps Terri, or anyone. I do understand the frustration though.

Glenn says, "But I've tried to keep my head, even as those around me are, all too often, losing theirs."

I saw a poster once that said, "If you can keep your head when all those around you are losing theirs, perhaps you don't understand the situation." While it would be presumption of the first order for me to say that Professor Reynolds doesn't understand the legalities involved, I do wonder whether he realizes what the issue is about for those opposed to starving Terri, and why it matters so much. His concern for fedralism is understandable (although sometimes I wonder if federalism is dead and gone) and his attempt to remain reasonable and hear both sides is commendable. But there are those of us who are more troubled by the idea of judges decreeing death based on quality of life arguments, unsupported assertions about what someone wanted, and judicial usurping of the physician's role in diagnosing medical conditions. Simply put, if we start with Terri, where do we end? If principles dictate putting her to death based on special pleading, then the same principles surely dictate the deaths of others also.

I initially avoided posting about Terri because I didn't think I could do so calmly. But some things we should not be calm about, and judge-decreed murder is one of them. Abortion has indeed led to voluntary euthanasia, and now we're seeing the start of euthanasia that is merely asserted to be voluntary. The next step, as we see in Holland (see last post) is euthanasia with no pretense that the victim desired it.

JunkYardBlog is wrong in its nastiness toward Glenn, but right in its outrage at what is happening. Glenn is right in his concern for the rule of law, but I believe that on this one his neutrality is morally and historically wrong.

Felos, hospice and euthanasia

2005-03-30T07:15:00.000-08:00

The mainstream media has made a big deal of the religious nature of much of the opposition to the torture and murder of Terri Schiavo. For some reason though, the MSM hasn't seen fit to mention the occultic beliefs that motivate Michael Schiavo's lawyer, George Felos, to volunteer as a hospice worker and "right to die" activist attorney.

Speaking of hospice, my wife's parents are both receiving great care from hospice workers, who treat them with dignity as cancer takes its toll on both of them. But not all hospices are the same. My wife's uncle was on hospice a few years back, and the family discovered that this hospice's approach to relieving pain is the same as that of Mr. Felos: starve the patient. They did not disclose this to the uncle or the immediate family, and were discovered only when they had nearly killed him.

Is there a widespread occult connection? Let's not fall into Salem witch-burning mode, but something is clearly motivating many people to seek to end the lives of others even against their will these days. There is a culture of death on the march. It needs to be scrutinized most carefully.

A couple of days ago, Wretchard said this:

MSNBC has come straight out and called the Terri Schiavo case the latest battleground in the culture wars... [T]he Schiavo story... was a match dropped on dry tinder. ...When something comes so abruptly out of blue it is usually a sign of cumulative stresses, long ignored, reaching a tipping point; it is a possible indicator of broken symmetry.

Read the whole post as well as this preceding post to get a better idea of the point Wretchard was making.

But the "culture wars" are between those who hold to a historic Judeo-Christian world view and... who? Secularists? Some are, no doubt. But Felos is no secularist; he is an occultist.

RIP Terri Schiavo, due process?

2005-03-28T00:17:00.000-08:00

Terri given last rites.

No, she's not dying of a fatal illness. She's not being executed for a capital crime, or any crime. So she needs a feeding tube? So do I. Hers is plastic, mine is called an esophagus. But judges have accepted the word of one doctor who states she's in a persistent vegetative state and rejected the word of many doctors and nurses who have worked with Terri who say she's not in PVS.

Why is she in need of last rites? Bottom line, because judges say she must die. We don't need a reason; we have verdicts. That, apparently, is how it works.

The flame passes on

2005-03-27T23:56:00.000-08:00

Letters from babylon has a Protestant perspective and questions the claim: No Creed but the Bible? (Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost)

Christians in the twenty-first century are the beneficiaries of two thousand years of Christian history, in which sincere and intelligent believers have struggled with the perennial issues of the faith, and have expressed their conclusions in many documents of church history known as creeds and confessions. Simply to reject this collected wisdom, and to pretend that we do something other than adopt a creed when we choose to reject this wisdom, is to do ourselves a great disservice. Not only can we learn a great deal from those believers who have gone before us, and avoid repeating past mistakes, but also, the fact that we stand in a long line of Christians ought to be of tremendous encouragement to our faith. We do not live alone in history, and we should not act as though we do.

Certainly, there have been many false ideas advanced throughout church history—some of them contained in the creeds—that are rightly to be rejected. But a wholesale rejection of the study of church history is not a solution to this problem. Rather, we should work to make ourselves aware of those false ideas that have previously worked destruction, that we are better able to recognize and refute them when they appear today.

Spot-on, I would say: a balanced and biblical position. On the one hand, the modern notion entertained by some evangelicals is just plain wrong: "Just me and the Bible, as illumined by the Holy Spirit." On this point our Catholic friends are perfectly right to say that this "Lone Ranger Christianity" is contrary to the Bible itself:

For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot says, “Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, “Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body,” it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be? But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired. If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you”; or again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 1 Corinthians 12:12-21

We don't stand in an historical and theological vacuum; we are indebted to the insights of those Christians who went before us, struggled with some of the same things we struggle with, and searched for answers in the same Bible as ours (at least the 66 books we all agree on). It is only with ignorance coupled with arrogance that we could look at the Christians of the past 20 centuries and say, "I have no need of you!" In my observation, people who claim to rely on the Bible alone as their guide are for the most part relying on the proof texts taught by the leadership of their church or denomination, or possibly their favorite teacher or author. None of us are a tabula rasa, although by God's grace we can overcome our predilections in the quest for a fuller knowledge of the truth.

On the other hand, it must also be acknowledged that the creeds of historic Christianity, though often great summaries of key biblical truth as over against doctrinal innovation and error, are not themselves inerrant or infallible, at least from a historic Protestant position. In the end, all creeds must bow to what all Christians acknowledge to be the word of God Himself: the Bible.

In our quest for a robust Christianity founded on scripture, relevant in our own day and informed by the insights of earlier Christians, particularly the earliest, evangelicals should be encouraged to rediscover the patristic writings: the works of the "Early Church Fathers". After all, who today can claim that their biblical exegesis is superior to that of those taught by the apostles, or taught by those taught by the apostles? Whose dedication is greater than those brutally murdered for their faith in the days of the Caesars?

(The title of this post is from a song by White Heart on their Highlands album, dealing with this very subject.)

Our perilous childhoods

2005-03-26T15:16:00.000-08:00

(Normally I despise those "forward this to all your friends" emails, but my sister sent me this and I thought it was great.)

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they carried us.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, our baby cribs were covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

As children, we would ride in cars with no seat belts or air bags.

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank soda pop with sugar in it, but we weren't overweight because
WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day. And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 99 channels on cable, no video tape movies, no surround sound, no cell phones, no personal computers, no Internet or Internet chat rooms... WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

This generation has produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!

The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.

We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL! And YOU are one of them! CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated our lives for our own good.

And while you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave their parents were.

Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

When it's not a "slippery slope"

2005-03-24T17:31:00.000-08:00

Joe at the Evangelical Outpost is discussing slippery slopes.

I think that often times what liberals dismiss as a "slippery slope" is actually a redictio ad absurdam. What's the difference? A slippery slope asserts without demonstrating that if one thing is allowed then other things will result. On the other hand, premises can have other conclusions besides just the one under consideration, and sometimes these other valid conclusions are absurd or unacceptable. It is arbitrary if not dishonest to insist that only the one conclusion may be discussed. Rather, if an unacceptable conclusion follows logically from its premises, then the premises themselves should be examined.

Joe mentions the example of same-sex marriage and Matt Yglesias' admission that there is merit to the idea of a slippery slope leading to polygamy and/or androgyny. This argument has some merit since the premise -that we can define marriage or gender roles whatever way suits us- leads to these other conclusions also. It is no good merely to deny that polygamy and/or androgyny will result from this premise. Indeed, it seems impossible to construct a coherent argument that society may define marriage one way but not another, other than as an arbitrary choice backed up by the coercive power of the state: might makes right. Let's show this with a couple of syllogisms:

Major premise: Marriage is defined any way that society chooses.
Minor premise: Society defines marriage to include same-sex couples.
Conclusion: Marriage may include same-sex couples.

If the premises are correct, then the conclusion is perfectly logical. Let's use the major premise another way though:

Major premise: Marriage is defined any way that society chooses.
Minor premise: Society defines marriage to include multiple spouses.
Conclusion: Marriage may include multiple spouses.

Now, let's state the major premise more broadly:

Major premise: Morality is defined any way that society chooses.
Minor premise: Society defines euthanasia (or infantacide, theft, laziness, methamphetamine use, cowardice, betrayal, injustice, etc. etc.) as moral.
Conclusion: These things are moral.

Rather than being expected to consider and then accept just leftist conclusions, we should be asking what the underlying premises are and examining those.

Joe asks what we should do when absurd conclusions do become acceptable. Well, I think that they are acceptable only to a fringe and not to most. That's why leftists want to cry "slippery slope" when other valid conclusions from their premises are pointed out; it's just a trick to limit discussion in a manner favorable to their cause. What we should do is not accept such arbitrary ground rules but put leftists on the defense by asking them to show why the other conslusions are not also valid. This they cannot do in a coherent manner. If we are free to make up our own morality, there is no objective limit to this. There is only the arbitrary application of the power of the state to limit the madness that would ensue. The fact is that someone has to choose between alternatives.

The man behind the curtain

2005-03-24T13:12:00.000-08:00

USATODAY.com - 'Call to arms' on evolution

Says Stephen Meyer of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design: "My first reaction is we're seeing evidence of some panic among the official spokesmen for science." He says Alberts is wrong — that intelligent design is not creationism but a scientific approach more open-minded than Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Biologists retort that any reproducible data validating intelligent design would be welcome in science journals. "If there were indeed deep flaws in parts of evolutionary biology, then scientists would be the first to charge in there," says Jeffrey Palmer of Indiana University in Bloomington.

Meyer counters that scientific leaders such as Alberts block a fair hearing of evolution alternatives. "There are powerful institutional and systematic conventions in science that keep (intelligent) design from being considered a scientific process," he says.

This article is further illustration of the unlevel playing field in the teaching of science. ID is to be excluded because there isn't reproducible data. OK, fine. But where is the reproducible data showing that bacteria evolved in to humans? There isn't any.

When it comes to evolution, there is an equivocation that goes on with the result that an empirically untestable philosophical position is promoted as science. It goes like this:

Evolution is speciation (as in the USA Today article). Speciation has been observed, so evolution is a fact. Evolution of phyla is the result of changes at the species level, and since evolution is fact phyla must have evolved.

The part that is passed over quickly is the idea that genetic mutation plus natural selection, which can produce species, can also produce phyla. The latter idea has no reproducible data to back it up, but Alberts neglected to mention that.

The goalposts keep getting moved. First the knock against Intelligent Design was that it was a creationism redux. Philosophical materialists are still saying this, but since they don't have a monopoly on the conversation ID proponents are addressing this misrepresentation, and the claim is shown to be false. So then the knock against ID is that it hasn't had any papers published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Well, now it has, although the decision to include a paper on ID cost the editor his career: Darwinist fair and open minds on display. I used to snicker at creationists' claims of censorship in the journals. I don't snicker any more. But now that a paper has been published, the demand is that others do so as well for ID to be taken seriously. Sure, editors and referees of journals will be just lining up to include ID papers so that they can get fired and prevented from doing research like Richard Sternberg was. No pressure there.

Why a call to arms on evolution? Because science teachers are being pressured to include unscientific ideas like creationism? That's a half-truth at best. School teachers are always getting complaints about what is or isn't taught. If creationism were included, it would be the atheists harrassing the science teachers. Teachers in other subjects get the same thing; it's nothing new. I rather think that Stephen Meyer is right: the materialist fundamentalists are feeling the heat because they're not monopolizing the debate anymore. Darwinism has had a monopoly on the classrooms for a generation or two now. If its committed adherents are feeling some pressure, maybe it's because the idea that all life is the result of undirected chemical reactions strikes many as hard to believe or even --well-- unscientific.

Scientists don't issue calls to arms. Zealots do that.

Republicans did the chicken dance for Terri

2005-03-22T05:02:00.000-08:00

It's what I thought as soon as I learned the upshot of the weekend legislation on the Terri Schiavo case. This was no heroic effort. The judge in Florida thumbed his nose at the Congressional subpoena, and Congress just took it. Then they passed the buck.

Congressional Republicans were in a dilemma. They need those pro-life votes, but their real commitment is to risk-avoidance. So they did the chicken dance. They flapped their arms, squawked and made a big fuss about what was happening to Terri. But instead of taking the bull by the horns --a daring feat for a chicken!-- they passed the buck to a federal judge.

Aw shucks! We really wanted to rescue Terri and all. We truly did! But that mean ole judge said no, just like those mean ole Democrats in Congress and the courts.

Now, Congressional Republicans still have the chance to prove me wrong while Terri lives, but if they do nothing besides make more noises, pro-life voters should think long and hard about whether Republicans are pro-life or just pro-gesture. So far, seems to me, they have shown themselves to be either insincere or ineffectual, neither of which makes them fitting representatives of pro-life voters.

See, I said I can't discuss this calmly.

Keeping track of Terri Schiavo

2005-03-19T23:33:00.000-08:00

Catez at Allthings2all is keeping track of the latest developments in the slow torture and murder of Terri Schiavo. She has several informative posts, so keep scrolling. I'm not discussing the situation myself because I don't think I can do so calmly.

Ghettoes and gatekeepers: end-run

2005-03-19T04:07:00.000-08:00

Jeremy at Parableman responds to my initial post . While he doesn't agree with my premise regarding a paucity of well-known Christian bloggers, and he mistakenly thinks I want more links to Christians from the A-list, still he offers some good information and advice. Let's start with this:

"There are at least thirty that I know about that are evangelicals in the top 400, and that's not including other Christian blogs or any I don't know about. ...I don't know why even four or five Christians in the top 100 is supposed to count as low."

What we're talking about is five or ten percent (mostly in the USA) in a country that supposedly is 76% Christian. OK, Jesus said not everyone who calls Him Lord really is a Christian. And surely the true number is much less, otherwise this nation would look radically different than it does. But five or ten percent? That still looks like under-representation to me. Are we to believe that only 5-10% of people in this country are Christians, or that Christians have lower-than-average interest in blogging? If I had more time, I would look at the numbers in detail: percent of bloggers who identify as Christians, the amount of content of their blogs that is explicitly Christian, and the percent of links that they get from the A-list, and whether those links are to posts with explicitly Christian content. What makes me believe that La Shawn is right that the A-list is functioning as a gatekeeper --deliberately or not-- is that there seems to be a discernable gatekeeper effect. An effect has a cause. I think we need to consider how to do an end-run around the A-list gate.

"[M]y blog is linked to from most of the top philosophy blogs. Hardly any of these people are Christians. Most of them disagree with some of my most deeply held convictions. Yet a number of them read my blog faithfully, interact with me in detail, and link to me from their own blogs." (From my comments section) "The secret is to know a lot about a subject, learn how to say something about it that people want to hear, and then become known within the community of bloggers on that subject. ...Joe Carter had a great series on how to get noted in the blogosphere recently that encouraged people to find their niche."

I think that this has to be a key part of the equation. Christian bloggers, each in their own niches, relating to non-Christians in the same niche. We can't all be philosophers, but we all have our interests. On the other hand, Evangelical Outpost is (per TTLB) the highest-ranking blog with explicitly Christian content, and Joe is not a niche blogger. He covers the gamut, and his comments sections runneth over. So there is also room for someone who can talk effectively about a wide range of issues.

"I have no interest in being associated with blogs like Daily Kos, Little Green Footballs, or any other site whose signal to noise ratio is just very, very low. "

So be selective and give thought to why you want to be linked by a particular blog. This too, I think, is good advice. I would add that for a Christian to seek notoriety for its own sake is mistaken.

"I guess my question is this. What is it about being linked to by the A-list bloggers that's supposed to be determinative of what Christian blogs are all about, and what reason do we have to think bloggers who aren't Christians would have much interest at all in the things most Christian blogs discuss?"

Just to reiterate, I am not trying to figure out how to get linked by A-list bloggers. But neither am I content to live in a Christian blogging ghetto that non-Christians seldom if ever wander into. There has to be another alternative. I think that part of that alternative involves niche blogging, or the sort of thing that Joe does, for those who have the time and talents. We're called to go where the people are. I still think we need to give more thought to that.

What is a Christian blog?

2005-03-19T03:15:00.000-08:00

In my last post, I suggested that elite bloggers have a gatekeeper role, and that their general avoidance of linking to Christians has the tendency to relegate Christian bloggers to a virtual ghetto, as has already happened in the other forms of media. Parableman has posted a reply as well as adding comments to my last post. I think we are looking at different aspects of Christian blogging, or perhaps have different conceptions of it.

Jeremy seems to be thinking of Christian blogs in terms of high-visibility bloggers who are Christians: "Evangelical Outpost, In the Agora, La Shawn Barber, Hugh Hewitt, Scrappleface, and One Hand Clapping" Not A-list, but very well known, widely read and great at what they do. There is certainly a place for Christians addressing news and politics from a Christian perspective; you don't get much of that in the mainstream media except for the occasional guest spot for one of the predicatable few: Dobson, Falwell, Robertson. As Steve Taylor put it over 20 years ago:

A Christian can't get equal time
Unless he's a loony committing a crime.

So I certainly applaud what these folks are doing. I want to ask though: What do we mean when we say "Christian blog"? At first blush the answer should be obvious, but is it? What should we expect to see at a Christian blog? I'm asking this question of myself too, because more often than not my blog has been the place for my reaction to news events, or my opinion on issue X. But if all I do is argue for a pro-life position, what am I doing more than a Mormon would? If I'm just criticizing the Democrats, what am I doing more than a Randian libertarian? If I argue against the denial of a Creator being passed off as science, what makes me different than a UFO conspircist in the eyes of a scientolater?

Surely there is more to being a Christian blogger than lining up with the Republicans 95% of the time; the organizers of GodBlogCon recognize this and that's a positive move. When a non-Christian visits a Christian blog, what is the main idea that they will come away with? That being a Christian means being a Republican? Or pro-life? Or pro-war on terror? I wonder how a Christian in China would answer that. My guess is that he or she would be tearing his or her hair out, seeing that we have complete freedom to blog about anything we want, and we blog about... the news. Is that all we have to talk about?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that there's not a real place for giving the Christian perspective on news and politics. I'm not saying there's no place for what Francis Schaeffer called pre-evangelism. We have to show that objective truth exists and that historic Christianity offers reasoned, coherent, relevant answers to the problems that confront us in our own day. And some of the more prominent Christian bloggers are accomplishing more than being effective Republican partisans, otherwise why do the A-listers not link to them as much as they do to less popular bloggers?

What I'm saying is that a Christian blog, to the extent that it addresses problems in the world, ought to provide uniquely Christian answers. And the answer, ultimately, is not better public policy; you can be an atheist and think that. The answer is that Jesus Christ is Lord. Not Karl Rove, not Rush Limbaugh, not Sean Hannity, not the RNC, not James Dobson, or whoever else you want to put in that list, Democrats included. The answer comes when we repent of our rebellion against God and trust in the crucified and risen Christ. The answer becomes active in us as we surrender to the Holy Spirit and our minds become immersed in the propositional truth of the Bible. It will affect not just what we say in our blogs, but how we say it. Democrats, abortionists, homosexuals and journalists at the New York Times cease to be enemies, or even a threat. They are a threat to themselves, but not to us and not to a fallen world that is only seeking someone to lead it down the wrong path. Any religion can condemn people and tell them what sinners they are, but only the message of Christ is Good News. I hope that we as Christian bloggers are making that known.

Update: 3/20

Jollyblogger is blogging about the role of blogging (i.e. metablogging?) and says this (hat tip: PlaidBerry):

"[B]logging is a vehicle, it is a tool, it is a medium for communication. Blogging could play a part in a new reformation, assuming some type of message develops that can radically alter religion and society at large, as happened during the Reformation of the sixteenth century."

A blog written by a Christian is potentially a Christian blog, but not necessarily. It depends what we're communicating, and how. The Reformation was still empowered by the printing press, even though very few owned one. Christian blogs can do great things without the help of the gatekeepers, and the more distinctively Christian we are the less we should expect to get linked to. Now, my cynical side thinks that last statement is a nice way to put a positive spiritual spin on obscurity, but Jesus did say that the world will hate not just Him but His followers. Paul's address on Mars Hill might have begun with bridge-building via natural philosophy, but it didn't end there.

Ghettoes and gatekeepers

2005-03-17T08:38:00.000-08:00

OK, this is a little weird. I've been thinking about this since yesterday evening. Last night I discover that Joe Carter was posting about it at the same time. Then I discover that La Shawn Barber was too. We're all Christians. Coincidence? (Maybe a non-Christian would refer to Jung at this point.)

It is a phenomenon within the blogosphere. What to call it? Polarization? That's how Joe sees it. A glass ceiling? That's how La Shawn sees it, although she has used her writing skills to smash a hole in it and crawl up. She links to Michael Bowen who also has thoughts on stratification, although he sees it in racial terms. What we all agree is that the blogging elite --the A-list-- are a fairly homogeneous group. Racially so? No idea; I don't know the race of most of them. Gender-wise? Looks like the top 10 are all men except for Michelle Malkin. Politically? Are you kidding? There are partisans of the left and right.

What I see is a paucity of overtly Christian blogs. In fact, in TTLB's top 100 I count two: The Evangelical Outpost and ajhankin. There are a few other Christians in the top 100 (including La Shawn and Michelle), but these are Christians blogging about mostly news and politics. Nothing wrong with that. But there are only two that center on Christianity. This seems a bit odd in the US, where 76% of people identify themselves as Christians.

I'm still thinking about the Washinton Post story I discussed 10 days ago. I can't get the phrase "Christian ghetto" out of my mind. The WaPo story made it sound like this ghetto is the self-imposed cultural exile of ignoramuses. But are ghettoes usually self-imposed? Was Harlem? Warsaw? Were Native American reservations? No, they were imposed upon those without power by the dominant culture; those people had no choice but to live in the ghetto unless they were able to leave their old identity behind. The WaPo story (coincidentally?) suggests the same thing: the couple in the story left the Christian ghetto, got educations and upscale jobs, and changed their identity.

So what I'm wondering is: Are Christians online and in the blogopshere being forced into a virtual ghetto? We're definitely not there commensurate with our numbers, especially in the A-list. Coincidence? La Shawn discusses how moving up in the blogosphere is very hard to do without help from that A-list; someone in that elite has to hold the gate open for you, by linking to your posts, usually a number of times. This is reflected in my own experience; the limited exposure I've had as a blogger is directly or indirectly through the Evangelical Outpost. How willing are those elite bloggers to hold the gate open for Christians? I'm not familiar enough with all ten to generalize, but I will say that there are some whom I've contacted a number of times each with a link relevent to what they're discussing, always without reply. Very recently, I sent a link to one of them, and the link was quickly posted, but without either an email reply or the customary hat tip. Another coincidence? Perhaps. But these coincidences are all tending in the same direction. Are Christians expected to sit in the back of the blogospheric bus and not get uppity? I don't know people's motives, but I'm hard-put to explain this another way. That's not to say that the A-list is anti-Christian as a whole; they likely are not. But it does seem apparent that in the list of things that matter to the elite bloggers, Christianity is not even a blip on the radar screen (Michelle Malkin being the exception). For whatever reason, they are simply unmotivated to hold the gate open to us.

On the other hand, we shouldn't expect those who don't claim to be Christians to carry our water for us. But their gatekeeper role makes it harder for Christians to be seen and heard outside our own community. To paraphrase the famous philosophical dilemma, if a Christian blogs and nobody hears it, does he or she make a sound? We are called to reach out to the people around us, the culture around us. However, in print media, broadcasting, music, movies etc. Christians have been essentially frozen out of the mainstream markets and have been shunted into the Christian cultural ghetto: Christian radio, TV (ostensibly anyway), publishing houses, book stores, and now even to a large extent in this new, empowering medium, the blogosphere.

What do we do about it? I don't know. I do think that Christian bloggers should put our heads together and devise some strategies to be seen and heard in the wider blogosphere and Internet. The glass ceiling can be broken; La Shawn did it. Perhaps it's fitting in a way that a black woman should be our example. This problem is still fermenting in my mind and I will post more later.

Update: 3/18

It seems that there was a lot of misunderstanding about what I was trying to say yesterday. Perhaps the take-home lesson there is that I shouldn't attempt a serious post upon returning from 10 1/2 hours at work. So I will try to keep this brief so as not to repeat my mistake, then post some more later when my brain is firing on all cylinders.

To clarify: It has been my observation that the A-list bloggers do not, generally speaking, link to Christian bloggers much. I'm not trying to figure out how to get them to do it, but how Christians can make an impact in the non-Christian blogosphere in spite of this. To me, the usefulness of the TTLB ranking is not to show that we've acquired a prestigious position but to have a (admittedly rough) gauge of Christian bloggers getting our message across. And again, I'm concerned more about those who blog about Christianity than those who blog about other things but happen to be Christian.

Also, as if I didn't adequately mess things up yesterday, it turns out that Corrie is a guy. My apologies!

I still plan to respond to the thoughts everyone has kindly shared, but when I'm more awake...

Another update: 3/19

More thoughts including a response to Jeremy here and here.

Degree of separation

2005-03-16T16:43:00.000-08:00

Two decisions in California today. Robert Blake has been acquitted, and Scott Peterson was sentenced to death. What's the moral? If you're going to whack your wife, you should outsource?

Science and Christianity Showcase

2005-03-14T08:09:00.000-08:00

The Science and Christianity Showcase is up at Allthings2all. I've just had a quick glance at it before jumping in, and it looks like there's a lot of interesting stuff. Tell your friends!

A contribution from yours truly is included, in which I advocate open, online scientific journals. I see a number of significant benefits, and some potential pitfalls which should be manageable. Other posts I have written that relate to Christianity and science, which also relate specifically to the post that Catez included:

Science vs. faith, in another context

Role reversal: suppressing heresy

Further thoughts on previous post: control through fear

Crushing of dissent at Smithsonian

Further thought on Smithsonian witch hunt

Macroevolution: a smoking gun

Now it might be said that some of these are ...er... less than collegial, but there are some things that ought to be opposed rather than acceded to. Suppression of dissent is one of those, especially in science.

Stranger in the house

2005-03-12T06:26:00.000-08:00

Christianity Today is usually pretty reliable. That's why I was so surprised to see this in their Leadership Journal:

I was so frustrated by last year's promotional hype surrounding Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, and I was so frustrated by the movie itself, although I know many good people found it moving and spiritually edifying. Maybe it's because I have deep concerns about the alignment of major sectors of Christianity with 'red-state Republicanism,' and I worry that a kind of modernist, nationalist neo-fundamentalism is trying to claim all Christian territory as its sovereign domain.

For whatever reason, when I walked out of the recent film Hotel Rwanda, the story of a hotel manager who saves more than a thousand Tutsi refugees from Hutu-led genocide, this thought wouldn't leave me: If we really had the mind and heart of Christ, this is the movie we would be urging people in our churches to see.

It appears that the author would prefer an alignment of major sectors of Christianity with 'blue-state liberalism', to be consistently applied across theological and political dimensions.

The biggest problem I see here is that the author, Brian McLaren, likes the idea of Jesus as a moral teacher, in the tradition of the Old Testament prophets, but not so much as the Saviour who was crucified for the sins of a fallen humanity. No, he doesn't say this outright, but I do believe that the real problem that a lot of people had with The Passion of the Christ is that it shows the redemption of Calvary and what that says about our sin and our inability to save ourselves through our own efforts.

But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:23-24

Christians who didn't want to see The Passion seemed to me to fall into two groups: those who didn't want to see the gore (which is understandable) and those who have rejected historic, orthodox Christianity and have invented a new "Christianity" that replaces the cross of Christ with the shibboleths of postmodern leftist thought. I'm sure there are exceptions, but that's the trend I noticed, from the ad-hoc group of unbelieving "Bible scholars" who pronounced the movie antisemitic before they saw it to the mainlline clerics lined up to discuss the movie in the mainstream media.

Instead of The Passion, McLaren prefers Hotel Rwanda, which I gather is a good movie in its own right, and one that I would have seen if it had been (!) shown locally. But the latter is not an explicitly Christian movie. It is about a man who rejects the tribalism of his neighbors and looks upon all Rwandans as part of the same family; his family. This is commendable in itself but, as Francis Schaeffer so brilliantly pointed out, if one's beliefs are not rooted in objective reality then they cannot be long maintained. Love for others, even members of other tribes, is a rational conclusion from the teaching of the Bible, but believers in Darwinism, atheists, agnostics and postmodern relativists believe in it even though their worldview does not provide a rational basis for doing so.

Another reason I think that McLaren has a beam in his own eye is that he invokes the questionable paradigm of red states --with their gun-totin', abortion-bannin', gay-bashin', racist right wingers-- and blue states with their gun-banning, abortion-defending, gay-affirming, pseudo-pluralistic left wingers and places the two movies on opposite sides of this divide. Say what?! McLaren doesn't even attempt to justify connecting The Passion with red staters; I suspect that it is his own ideological tribalism --the postmodern tribe-- showing through. This is further expressed in his statement:

"I worry that a kind of modernist [as opposed to postmodernist], nationalist [Huh? Is he suggesting a link between historic Christianity and fascism?] neo-fundamentalism [Oh, here we go: "If you don't think like me you're ignorant, uneducated, backward, xenophobic, anti-intellectual, yadda yadda yadda..."] is trying to claim all Christian territory as its sovereign domain."

There is another reason that I think "liberals" were so riled up about The Passion. One of the things that separates Christianity from other religions is that it ultimately rests on the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ as real events that actually happened in history, even though "liberal" Christian scholars have been trying to claim that the resurrection was just made up by the first Christians (who then went on to be martyred for something they knew they had made up).

And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ... And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 1 Corinthians 15:14-17

To rephrase the apostle using a contemporary catch-phrase, if Christ was not raised from the dead, all we have is a "faith tradition" that is on par with the other "faith traditions" of the world, and Jesus' claim that "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6) may be safely dismissed and we can continue doing our own thing and making it up as we see fit. The resurrection shows that Christ is who He claimed to be, in contrast to the decayed bodies of Mohammed, Buddha, Confucius, Enlightenment philosophers, and even God's own Old Testament prophets, none of whom were more than human.

It is not surprising that "the offense of the cross" is still expressed in the world of unbelievers; the message of the cross is still foolishness to those who are perishing. It is surprising to see it in Christianity Today.

Congress outfoxed by a Bear

2005-03-11T14:45:00.000-08:00

N.Z. Bear:

As "Captain Ed" Morrissey of the political blog Captain's Quarters said in an open letter to Sens. McCain and Feingold, during the presidential campaign he linked to Kerry's Web site four times as often as to Bush's, "which would have meant to the FEC that I was a major contributor to his campaign." In fact, he was a Bush supporter.

Where Ed sees stupidity, I see opportunity! It's rare that such a fine chance for amusing civil disobedience comes along.

Unless I'm missing something (entirely posssible), current campaign finance rules would hold the offending blogger responsible for giving a "contribution" with their dirty, dirty link --- but they would also hold the campaign linked to responsible, regardless of whether the campaign wanted the link or not.

Catching on yet? It's easy, and fun, too! Simply pick the least desirable candidate whose sheer presence on our fair planet offends you, and link, link, link to their site!

How incredibly devious. I love it! Not that it takes a genius to pull a reductio ad absurdam on Congress, but this is brilliant. I've suddenly got the feeling I'll be writing a lot about Hillary in roughly three years.

Or maybe we shouldn't wait that long. Maybe the blogosphere will (I hope) cause McCain-Feingold to implode as soon as candidates declare themselves, by exceeding limits on personal donations.

Of course, the FEC will have to assign some monetary value to each blogger's link. So, for example, a single link from this guy might exceed his allowable donation, while I could link to someone 1000 times and it might be worth a cup of coffee. But then, would that mean that Glenn wouldn't be allowed to link to anyone since it would be worth too much? The absurd possibilities are endless.

Dilemma: Terri Schiavo story takes new turn

2005-03-10T16:30:00.000-08:00

WorldNetDaily: A California businessman has offered $1 million to the husband of a brain-damaged Florida woman if he will give up guardianship of her – a move that would save her from court-ordered starvation set to begin next Friday.

On the one hand, Terri's "husband" claims that she would want to be killed, while some people ask aloud if he's scared of her regaining her speech and spilling the beans about the mysterious incident that left her brain-damaged. On the other hand, he stands to make a million bucks. And if society looks down on a gigolo, what's to be said about someone who will allow his wife to live if he's paid?

Aside from whether Michael Schiavo takes the money or not, is the possible problem of precedent. Many people think it's a bad precedent for Ward Churchill to be offered a buyout of his contract, since this might encourage other leftist loonies in academia to make outrageous statements in the hope of receiving similar offers. If Schiavo accepts, I wonder whether other legal guardians of brain-damaged people will make a public show of seeking to pull the plug in order to receive similar offers. So while the businessman's offer is a noble and generous act to save Terri's life, I hope this demand doesn't generate a supply.

Heirs of the Enlightenment?

2005-03-10T06:53:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn:

[T]he same form of words has mysteriously flowered from Toronto to London to Sydney. It’s the catchphrase du jour - like “Show me the money” or “You are the weakest link. Goodbye.” Now it’s “Could Bush be right?”

...Now the torrents of Arabia cascade on, from Baghdad to Beirut, Cairo, Riyadh and beyond. Those of us who argued three years ago that Iraq was the place to start the dominoes falling and that the Middle East was ripe for liberty, for democracy, for one man, one gloat – whoops, sorry, vote… Anyway, those of us who told you so way back when long ago gave up trying to figure out why the media, the Dems, the Europeans and Canadians were so wedded to “stability” uber alles. But we had a feeling that their enthusiasm was unlikely to be shared by the actual subjects of Assad and co.

Let's take that a step further. What do the last few years say about who really has the interests of the people of the Middle East at heart? Who is it that really viewed those people as equally and fully human, rejecting the idea that Arabs ought to resign themselves to oppression and servitude because that's just how things are? Hint: it wasn't the leftists.

Washington to mess with taxes?

2005-03-10T06:37:00.000-08:00

Fox News:

"We need to throw out the current income tax system, look at various types of consumption tax, so people can see how much they're paying rather than all the disguised taxes we have today, DeMint said."

This sounds like the Fair Tax movement might be gaining some traction in Congress. I suppose it could be called the Demagogue Endangerment Act, since it would take the malarkey of "tax cuts for the rich" off the table while the proposed rebate would ensure that the poor would be exempt.

DeMint also points out one of the big flaws in the current system: that paying income tax is not noticed in the same way as taxes that you pay at time of purchase. This has become even more pronounced in the last few years, when public dialogue equates one's annual tax refund with government giveaways, as in the euphemism of "rebates" of taxes that one has not actually paid.

But why stop there? Why not end every activity and agency of the federal government that is not specifically mandated by the Constitution? Why not at least discuss it, so people have an informed choice?

Where's the beef?

2005-03-10T05:57:00.000-08:00

Meryl Yourish is hosting the Third Annual International Eat an Animal for PETA Day (hat tip: InstaPundit). I am going to take part. My only regret is that I don't have deer in the freezer. What could have been more appropriate than Bambi with sauteed onions?

Colorado: academic freedom only for leftists

2005-03-08T23:54:00.000-08:00

WorldNetDaily:

While University of Colorado officials defend controversial professor Ward Churchill in the name of free speech, an evangelical Christian professor at the school claims he's about to be dismissed for religious or political reasons.

...After quoting respected black intellectual Thomas Sowell in a discussion about affirmative action, Mitchell was berated as a racist.

"That would have come as a surprise to my black children," said Mitchell, who has nine children, two of them adopted African-Americans.

Then, says Harsanyi, the professor used a book on liberal Protestantism in the late 19th century.

Harsanyi writes: "So repulsed by the word 'god' was one student, she complained, and the department chair fired him without a meeting."

This is the same university that has defended the vile claims of Ward Churchill --who has been accused of academic fraud-- on the grounds of academic freedom and "free speech". But a highly-respected professor who takes non-leftist positions is being summarily fired.

What is going on at the University of Colorado is fraud. It is extremist indoctrination masquerading as intellectual inquiry. It is also undemocratic, since the university accepts public funding while refusing to be accountable to the public. A Student Bill of Rights with definite enforcement provisions seems now like the minimum of what should be done. I understand that some academics don't like the idea of solutions imposed by law, but there are certain universities that simply don't police themselves, where extremists wield almost total power without any accountability to anyone except their fellow extremists. This is not an environment conducive to learning but great for indoctrination, and the public shouldn't be forced to pay for it.

With cancer, mutation in the DNA of a cell leads to that cell replicating itself and forming a mass in the body, which does not contribute to the health of the body but lives as a parasite within it, until it kills the body. Extreme leftism --not leftist ideas,, but the -ism that tolerates no dissent-- has become a cancer in academia, and the current system for hiring and tenure protects this cancer from surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

Live-blogging Bush Middle East speech

2005-03-08T08:08:00.000-08:00

My first attempt at live-blogging: Bush's address on Fox News. Quotes in italics are approximate or paraphrases.

Calling out Syria & Iran: End support for terror now. Didn't he have something to say about state sponsors of terrorism shortly after 9-11?

Hello, Hosni! Arab states must end public & private hate mongering.

Elections need multiple canditates. Now there's a thought!

We look forward to the day when the Iranian people are free. Segues immediately into situation in Iraq. Hmmm...

Support democratic movements in all nations with goal of ending tyranny in the world.... Not by force of arms. Freedom must be chosen. But sometimes those nasty dictators have a habit of getting in the way. What to do???

Support for nations now simmering in despair. Syria?

Suppressed desire for freedom can emerge with sudden power. Seems like InstaPundit said this in the past, but I can't remember where.

The black helicopters now have "Jesus" fishes

2005-03-07T18:27:00.000-08:00

I see that the Washington Post has a slightly more positive view of evangelical Christians these days (hat tip: Jeff the Baptist). We might still be paranoid, intolerant, extremist zealots bent on imposing theocracy on the nation, but we're not what way by nature. See, we're just the products of our environment. If we could only get an education and an upscale job inside the Beltway, we'd moderate our extremist positions. In fact, we'd become Episcopalians!

That's the impression I get from the article. Consider these gems:

"Uchhhhhh, embarrassing," she says. The gaudy soundtrack of the "Christian ghetto" she lived in as a teenager. Lyric the high school "Jesus freak," chastising her church youth group for wasting time on frivolous pizza parties, ignoring any TV that wasn't "The 700 Club."

"It just makes me wince," she says now that her ghetto self is long gone, now that she's made it here, to Washington, to the languid Friday afternoon tea time in a congressional cafeteria, to her starched white blouse and a stint on the presidential campaign and a husband who works in the Senate, to a salon of what she calls "Christian intellectuals."

...[Evangelical discomfort with politics] was before Roe v. Wade, before the Christian Coalition, before evangelicals made money and moved to the suburbs and "began to lose a sense of pessimism and alienation," says John Green, a professor of political science at the University of Akron.

...Now Lyric and Jeff are married and live in Fairfax. Jeff works in Sen. James Inhofe's office, Lyric is a political consultant. They've stayed away from the usual evangelical megachurch -- "the music is awful" -- and instead joined Truro Episcopal in Fairfax.

Ah, but have we grown up and joined the real world, or have we just activated our Cultural Cloaking Devices?

No more thundering sermons on Wiccans and floods and child molesters, caught on tape and leaked by a political opponent. No more pronouncements about "signs" showing up in California. No more horrors from the Book of Revelation.

It's what Ralph Reed dreamed of, and now it's finally here. Christians in politics are ready to trade in their guerrilla fatigues for business suits and a day job.

...When talking about abortion, the South Dakota Republican prefers abstractions: "I like to connect my principled view with my policy objectives," he says. "Good principles can lead to good policy."

To secular humanists or even your average Democrat, Thune Land is a scary, scary frontier. "He is this new kind of Republican creature who puts an innocuous face on the religious right," says a Daschle aide who worked on the campaign. "Behind this cheerful frat-boy basketball-star persona is just the same old beast of the far right."

(Note: "far right" means pro-life.)

"This new generation has the same convictions but without the edge," says Michael Cromartie, an evangelical scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. "They may believe all the same things, but they are not going to go on 'Larry King Live' and say all homosexuals should die. They've learned how to present themselves."

Oh, we're not supposed to advocate death for homosexuals anymore? Guess I haven't gotten the memo from Evangelical Theocracy Conspiracy World Headquarters. But HQ has lost its edge since it was taken over by Harvard grads.

I must say, also, that I'm ashamed of our attempts to impose our extremist viewpoints by stealth, in contrast to this transparent effort by the WaPo to promote peace, love and understanding.

Treason

2005-03-05T17:07:00.000-08:00

NewsMax:

"As a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress," Soderberg observed, before quickly adding, "But as an American, you hope good things would happen."

However, Soderberg quickly undermined her own caveat, noting, "It's scary for Democrats, I have to say."

After noting that the U.S.'s remarkable foreign policy success followed the toppling of one of the three members of the axis of evil, Soderberg suggested again that the more success America has in defeating global terrorism, the worse it is for her party.

"Well, there's still Iran and North Korea, don't forget. There's still hope for the rest of us. ... There's always hope that this might not work."

Every time someone asks, "Can the Democrats sink any lower?" we are shown in disgusting terms that the answer is yes. Here we have, not principled opposition to war or expression of loyal opposition, but the hope that evil regimes that are hostile to America and their own neighbors succeed in their struggle, so that it will help the Democratic Party politically. Democrats are rooting for the psychotic, criminal regime of North Korea and the fascist mullahs of Iran, both of whom have or are seeking nuclear weapons. This is not the mad, raving accusation of unthinking, partisan Republicans but a public statement from a senior Democratic operative.

If this isn't treason against one's country, could someone please explain what is?

And if there are any liberals in this country who are still loyal Americans, would you please leave the Democratic Party and establish your own so that liberal voters have a palatable choice besides a pack of cynical traitors?

Back to the future: update from France

2005-03-05T07:44:00.000-08:00

Last Monday I said that secularism is the past, not the future. This Christianity Today article demonstrates this with a report from the home of secularist rationalism, France:

At the beginning of the 21st century, the postmodern French have deconstructed deconstructionism, seen through the utopia of socialism, and realized that wine and other sensual delights only go so far in filling what French philosopher Blaise Pascal described as the "God-shaped void."

...Henri Blocher, a well-known evangelical church leader who teaches at an evangelical seminary in Vaux-sur-Seine and heads a new doctoral program at Wheaton College, believes this growth is sound. "I visit a number of churches where I meet many people in their 30s, families with children, committed and balanced, with an interest in Christian truth," he says. "This is what I call healthy." People in their teens, 20s, and 30s are the generation who reject the cynicism of their socialist parents. They are Europe's Christian hope.

If that wasn't amazing enough, there is this bit:

A veteran missionary to French Muslims who I'll call Steve Adams, speaking on condition of anonymity, says he knows of about 17 support groups for Muslim converts to Christianity in France; all have formed in the last 10 years. "We're on the threshold of major breakthroughs with Muslims," Adams says. "God is saving religious leaders from Islam, like the two former Islamic terrorists I met."

Ideologies, like kingdoms, come and go. But the truth remains. In a nation spiritually frozen from cynical secularism, it looks like springtime is breaking out again.

After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands; and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, “Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb.” Revelation 7:9-10

Yes, even French people will be there! Who says miracles don't happen anymore?

Common ground, or mere equivocation?

2005-03-04T07:57:00.000-08:00

Patriot-News (Hat tip: Christianity Today Weblog):

Walczak persisted: 'It's not to say it's not metaphysically correct, but it's not science. There's not a single university teaching intelligent design in its science curriculum."

I might be seeing the faintest glimmer of hope for finding some common ground in the origins controversies. The first sentence is compatible with my own position, which is that ID is not a scientifically testable hypothesis but is a valid philosophical inference from the scientific data at hand.

The problem is when ID is juxtaposed with a concept of "evolution" which in effect denies that any intelligence was involved in the origin of species; the latter position is given the mantle of "science" (as it is in this debate) even though the denial of intelligent involvement is also not scientifically testable and is logically impossible to prove. What we currently have in academia (and schools) is an unlevel playing field where one untestable hypothesis is taught as fact and the opposing untestable hypothesis is barred from discussion.

On the other hand, the above statement from the ALCU lawyer might simply be a repackaging of the old chestnut that "creationism" (which ID opponents keep calling it so they don't have to deal with it on its own perits) can be taught in comparative religion classes. This is the functional equivalent of saying that it may be taught in underwater basket weaving classes, since neither exist in most schools. It also ignores the fact that the denial of ID is taught in science classes.

(And this can't be repeated too often: Intelligent Design is not creation science!!! It is dishonest for anyone to keep saying otherwise.)

Given that the ACLU layer was upholding the current paradigm of evolution-as-denial-of-ID, I suspect that what looks like possible common ground was just an attempt to sound more reasonable while defending suppression of dissent.

4.5 days per victim

2005-03-03T07:03:00.000-08:00

That's what it works out to. Abu Bakar Bashir was found guilty of conspiracy relating to the Bali pub bombing, and got what amounts to 4.5 days in prison for each person killed.

This sentence comes down as tsunami relief efforts continue in Indonesia, led by the Aussies and Americans; it is the legal equivalent of biting the hand that feeds you. Or maybe spitting on a doctor who is binding your wounds.

Fox News:

U.S. terrorism expert Zachary Abuza said that Bashir supporters would be emboldened that the court dropped the serious charges. He said he'd expected the court to hand down an even lighter sentence.

"They (Bashir's followers) are going to feel vindicated, that prosecutors have to drop many charges against him and indeed dropped demands for a fuller sentence," Abuza said.

No culture is better than another, huh? Tell it to the victims' families, who will see this monster walk out of prison to a hero's welcome and resume preaching jihad before the last tsunami aid workers depart.

Rule of lawyers

2005-03-02T16:29:00.000-08:00

Tony Blankley (via Power Line):

When a Supreme Court justice feels it necessary to write as the closing words of his opinion that he still holds fidelity to the Constitution, it is more than reasonable to assume he knows he has just betrayed that sacred document. But at least he has vouchsafed his popularity at liberal cocktail parties for another year.

Deacon adds:

Scalia is right -- words have no meaning to this Court. The law is what a handful of self-aggrandizing old men and women think it should be, without regard to text and without meaningful deference to the democratic processes.

I wonder at what point citizens start to ask themselves: If the highest court in the nation feels the freedom to disregard the law whenever it suits, why can't I?

Also, to what extent is democracy a facade if nine people can veto any publicly-supported measure passed by legislatures and signed by a president or governor? This reminds me of dialogue in the movie Gladiator between Emperor Commodus and his sister Lucilla, on whether or not to abolish the Roman Senate:

Lucilla: Leave the people their...

Commodus: ...illusions?

Lucilla: Traditions.

I realize that I am not a legal scholar, and that there are Constitutional considerations that mitigate against the high court having to uphold whatever passing fancy is held by 50.1% of the people. But if those considerations are not evident to me, then they are probably not evident to other non-lawyers either. It would help if the current Court could articulate some rational, objective set of criteria by which laws in America are spiked on the basis of other considerations, but perhaps the SCUSA is awaiting direction from their colleagues on the Continent or in the UN for that. Or maybe the Revisionist Five know exactly what they're doing but don't dare say it.

Dance of the Republican chickens

2005-03-02T07:17:00.000-08:00

And so it begins: the Senate begins backtracking on Social Security reform. Frist is confirming what some of us already think: that Senate Rebublicans lack President Bush's courage of conviction and prefer safe, non-controversial, status quo "solutions". These folks are not reformers, they do not favor limited government, they do not believe in taking risks for the sake of freedom. They believe in CYA. This does not bode well for other ambitious Bush goals, such as appointing strict constructionists to the Supreme Court.

Voters who think that their Republican Senator is a conservative or lover of freedom ought to let that Senator know they are being watched by those whose votes they will eventually ask for again.

You read it here first, again

2005-03-02T06:56:00.000-08:00

Vancouver Sun: National Hockey League owners are attempting to destroy the players' association, CBC sports announcer Ron MacLean said Tuesday.

I first suggested that this was the leagues true game plan almost two months ago. But I'm not tooting my own horn. (Well OK, maybe just a little bit.) I'm pointing out that this has been evident to me for some time, and I have to think it's been evident to others also. And I maintain my position: the National Hockey League is committing suicide. The players can play anywhere, and if need be a new league will rise up to capture that market. On the other hand, the NHL is dreaming if it thinks that the fans will pay pro-league prices to watch college or Major-Junior lvel play, as would be the case with replacement players.

Enviros follow Dean: Fool them with repackaging!

2005-03-01T15:50:00.000-08:00

Washington Post (via In the Agora):

"While evangelicals are open to being good stewards of God's creation, they believe people should only worship God, not creation," Green said. "This may sound like splitting hairs. But evangelicals don't see it that way. Their stereotype of environmentalists would be Druids who worship trees."

..."The Earth is God's body," Hedman said in a recent sermon. "God wants us to look after it."

A swing and a miss. If you're going to try to convince us that the present environmentalist movement is not pantheistic, it might help to not make pantheistic statements. Just a thought.

The first sentence reflects my own view: we should be good stewards of God's creation. Development should be sustainable, clean technologies should be aggressively pursued so as to minimize pollution, and wilderness areas should be left for future generations. But contrary to what the WaPo article suggests, there are in fact differences between conserving the earth and the current environmentalist movement. They are not merely different names for the same thing.

Another problem I see besides the tendency to divinize the earth, whether one calls it Gaia or "God's body", is that the science is still very incomplete. It doesn't help that activism replaces scientific discussion, scientific dissenters against global warming receive death threats, and resultant policies such as the Kyoto accord are really just backdoor socialism because they impose heavy fines on productivity while exempting the worst polluters because they are developing nations. In short, a lot of the discussion about environmental issues today is not honest discussion, and some environmentalists don't even want there to be a discussion. Further evidence that Kyoto fosters redistribution of wealth more than eco-friendly industry is the already real problem of outsourcing of jobs to exampted nations. In a Christian's consideration of environmental solutions, treaties that cost people's jobs should be taken into account, and claims about the enviroment that are based on inconclusive data and maintained by silencing dissent should be suspect at best.

Then there's this bit fro the WaPo article:

Even for green activists within the evangelical movement, there are landmines. One faction in the movement, called dispensationalism, argues that the return of Jesus and the end of the world are near, so it is pointless to fret about environmental degradation.

James G. Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first interior secretary, famously made this argument before Congress in 1981, saying: "God gave us these things to use. After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back." The enduring appeal of End Time musings among evangelicals is reflected in the phenomenal success of the Left Behind series of apocalyptic potboilers, which have sold more than 60 million copies and are the best-selling novels in the country.

Um, no. The Watt quote has been exposed as a lie, and if you look closely the WaPo article includes a half-hearted correction (but not a retraction) in teeny tiny print. The Left Behind angle is a non-sequitur as there is no evidence to suggest that dispensationalists actually think this way or that the Left Behind books actually promote such thinking.

Christians do have a responsibility to protect the environment, and vote for policies that do so. But for the foreseeable future we will probably have to do so outside the aegis of the "environmental" movement.

The Falwell Factor: more on "Christian celebrities"

2005-03-01T09:28:00.000-08:00

Jeff the Baptist notes my comments on evangelical spokesmen and moves the ball further:

The power of the Evangelical movement is the Holy Spirit. It is individuals communicating and representing the truth that is God and Christ. I think it is important to have some of these individuals as good spokesmen in the public sector. I think it is equally or more important for the rest of us to be good representatives of Christ at home and in our communities.

...But on the other hand how many of us are capable, I mean really capable, of being spokesmen or spokeswomen even in our own communities. Can you give the reason for the hope you have within you? It is not an easy task.

Indeed. It involves a lot of study and reflection over a long period, coupled with the humility that comes from realizing that even then our answers are only partial. My fear is that too many young Christians are more conversant with the lyrics and lives of Christian musicians than with the basis of their faith -God's word- and its relevance to today's problems. There are exceptions of course, but I think that church activities need to be more about learning and discipleship than socializing and entertainment. I see a great willingness to reach out, but confusion and uncertainty about what to reach out with.

In the last election, evangelicals gained the attention of the press and politicians by the way they voted. We ought to be getting their attention all the time by the way we live. To bring this back to Jeff's point, we are filled with the Holy Spirit through learning and submitting ourselves to God's will as revealed in the Bible; listening to the radio helps only to the extent that it is conducive to this.

How do you say "Berlin Wall" in Arabic?

2005-03-01T08:21:00.000-08:00

Mark Steyn (hat tip: Little Green Footballs) summarizes events of the past month in the Middle East and connects the dots:

Why is all this happening? Answer: January 30. Don't take my word for it, listen to Walid Jumblatt, big-time Lebanese Druze leader and a man of impeccable anti-American credentials: 'I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Berlin Wall has fallen.

Bush was right. The neocons were right. Those "intelligent" and "nuanced" Democrats and other leftists were wrong. What next? Will we find out that "freedom" is a real, viable concept and not just a pretext for imperialism? Actually, those of us in the West can't answer that. The Arabs will have to answer that one, by choosing between God-given rights and dignity and a government that protects them, or replacement tin-pot dictators who exploit the masses and round up dissenters. After all, when the first Berlin Wall fell the result in Germany was not freedom all around but a socialist government that survives on America-baiting and the people's desire for a free lunch.

Well of course he's a "dissident"

2005-03-01T08:00:00.000-08:00

Little Green Footballs:

In the caption for a photograph of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Agence France Presse enlightens those of us who were so rash as to call Osama Bin Laden a “terrorist.”

When after all, he’s just a “dissident.”

I don't see what the problem is; I think the term "dissident" pefectly describes bin Laden's relationship with the Saudi regime. They pretend to be our friends while funding our enemies, but Osama takes a more honest, direct approach and declares his enmity toward us openly.

It was fun while it lasted

2005-03-01T07:45:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean (via Power Line):

The issue is not abortion. The issue is whether women can make up their own mind instead of some right-wing pastor, some right-wing politician telling them what to do.

...Moderate Republicans can't stand these people [conservatives], because they're intolerant.

I had great fun lampooning Howard Dean's strategy to attract evangelical voters. The above quote suggests that he gave up that strategy (I can't imagine why) and instead plans to win by attracting moderate Republicans and demonizing evangelicals.

I'm shocked, shocked that his brief, positive overture to evangelicals was only a political ploy and not heartfelt.

With or without you

2005-02-28T16:37:00.000-08:00

The folks at Free Stanley are campaigning to have the Stanley Cup awarded this year even without the NHL. It would be great if they succeeded, but I doubt the NHL would enable anything that shows the sport continuing without them. The Cup was initially to be given to the nest amateur hockey team in Canada, but the NHL has had control of it for many decades now. Regardless of their success, the NHL needs to see players and fans prepared to carry on with the sport with or without them. I hope this makes the league squirm also.

Demagogues in the church, update

2005-02-28T15:58:00.000-08:00

Christianity Today:

"American Evangelicalism seems to defy unity, let alone hierarchy," Time's cover story said. "Yet its members share basic commitments." And apparently its leaders share something else: with few exceptions, all of those on these media lists are themselves somehow involved in the media. The lists highlight Warren's bestselling Purpose-Driven Life above his 22,000-member Saddleback Church. The popularity of Colson's Breakpoint radio program and books make his Prison Fellowship Ministries more noteworthy than the thousands of other large parachurch ministries.

...In a sense, then, these lists are all terribly skewed. The most influential evangelical, after all, is the unsung Christian who quietly and faithfully demonstrates Jesus' love to his neighbors and coworkers. Joe Disciple can have an influence that a million radio broadcasts and books can't.

But the kind of gospel that Joe Disciple follows, how he communicates his faith, what emphases he puts in his life are increasingly determined by a media diet of both sacred and secular victuals.

In a sense, Robertson and Falwell get quoted in papers and booked on talk shows because they get quoted and booked on talk shows: Rolodexes don't get cleaned out very often. But they also get booked because they're quick with the quote: they help to feed an omnivorous media machine hungry for thoughts (or lack thereof) condensable into a dozen words that will make one side or another angry.

While I do not pay enough attention to Robertson and Falwell to say whether I'd consider them demagogues, the article does suggest that their notoriety (I don't say prominence) has more to do with their access to, and ability to use, the media than it does the example of their personal lives or their depth of insight into scripture. I have no idea how deep their theology goes, but they have mastered the sound bite and this makes them evangelical spokesmen.

I was having a conversation with a pastor some years ago, who remarked to me that Christians would be a much better witness in their communities if their giving was through (not necessarily to) their local churches instead of to parachurch ministries which have no biblical mandate; that much more progress would be made in terms of helping the poor and supporting foreign missions. While I wouldn't say that parachurch ministries have no place at all, and some are involved in activities related to the Great Commission, I do think that he was right in broad, general terms. Western (or at least American) evangelicalism is way too celebrity-based, and it is the mass media that enables this to take place. There are demagogues who keep trying to stir Christians up against non-Christians or against each other; but there are also authors, musicians and others who make good livings keeping Christians entertained. Maybe I've just been lazy, but I don't recall coming across the part in the Bible about entertainment being a focus in the Christian life.

Scenes that didn't make the cut

2005-02-28T15:18:00.000-08:00

Jeff the Baptist links to some great satirical animated GIFs from the Lord of the Rings. (Warning: the last of the four contains profanity.) I liked the first one best.

Back to the future

2005-02-28T10:46:00.000-08:00

Alister McGrath has an excellent article on the future of atheism at Christianity Today: The converse can be true. The rise of militant Islam in Afghanistan was the direct outcome of the Soviet invasion of that nation in 1979 and its clumsy attempts to support an atheistic regime. As Karen Armstrong points out in her The Battle for God (2000), the best way to encourage the rise of religious fundamentalism is to impose a secular agenda on people who want to get on with their religious lives.

The whole article ought to be read because it makes several interesting observations, but this part caught my notice because I had just read this from Mark Steyn (hat tip: Power Line):

The president, in other words, understands that for Europe, unlike America, the war on terror is an internal affair, a matter of defusing large unassimilated radicalized Muslim immigrant populations before they provoke the inevitable resurgence of opportunist political movements feeding off old hatreds.

...Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature.

Some of us think an Islamic Europe will be easier for America to deal with than the present Europe of cynical, wily, duplicitous pseudo-allies. But getting there is certain to be messy, and violent.

The two situations are not the same, but are analogous at some points. Europeans have had secularism and anti-nationalism shoved down their throats for a generation now, even while fundamentalists Muslims become a greater and greater percentage of their population. It has so far been so successful that the Dutch are moving toward surrender of their national identity so as not to offend Muslims from North Africa. Steyn sees a future Europe as coming under Muslim control after a messy struggle, but it is also possible that before the Muslims there become strong enough to pull it off, native Europeans might rebel against their imposed secularist dhimmitude and revert to ultra-nationalism and/or the European Christianity of the past. It is perhaps significant in this regard that Roman Catholicism remains strong and holds out a competing, integrated worldview while the nationalist churches of the Reformation have mostly sunk in a quagmire of liberal theology and irrelevance.

Europe might again be a nominally Christian, nominally united collection of nation-states with a sense of continuity with their history and heritage. Conservative Catholicism and radical Islam are also possibilities. In the United States and -even more so- Canada, similar backlashes are also possible, and could take one of several possible shapes.

In any case, neither atheism/secularism nor cowering in the face of Islamist aggression are options that resonate with a lot of people, and I can't help but think that people will not long tolerate public policy being held hostage to either one.

Secularism is not the future; it is the past. Traditional religion and love of one's country should be given a real place at the policy-making table again, rather than being excluded against the sentiments of most people. If not, the backlash will be all the worse when it comes and will be more likely to be extremist.

Newsflash: Hollywood is not mainstream

2005-02-24T16:03:00.000-08:00

Fox News: Thirteen percent of the public thinks moviemakers share their values, while a sizeable majority — 70 percent — disagrees.

What a shock. OK, next question: How can Hollywood maintain its self-identification as "aware", "diverse" and "relevant" when such a large percentage of people don't identify with them? Or is that the greatest fiction of all?

Professional demagogues in the church

2005-02-24T13:38:00.000-08:00

Upon reflection I think that my reference to "professional demagogues in the church" might have been confusing. I was not speaking of those in ministry in local churches, which is in accordance with the biblical model of church leadership, but certain authors, speakers and parachurch ministries. In fact, I will name a couple of names, since in accordance with Matthew a8:15-17 I and others have appealed to these organizations to reconsider their means and ends.

One is Answers in Genesis, a prominent creationist organization, which I believe has become theologically unbalanced, sectarian and unChristlike in behavior.

Another is Focus on the Family, which I fear promotes a Pharisaic mentality among evangelicals, and mistakenly thinks that spreading Chrisitanity is primarily a matter of political action and legal coercion.

That is not to say that everything these two organizations say and do are wrong, but both of them depend on financial donations to do their work, and motivate followers through pointing to a certain group of people (e.g. evolutionists, "compromising" Christians or homosexuals) as enemies to be defeated, contrary to Ephesians 6:12, rather than treating these people as fellow human beings created in God's image.

To put a different light on it, I prevent my younger two kids from listening to much Christian radio, because I don't want them hearing about homosexuality several times every day.

Why they leave, update

2005-02-24T12:00:00.000-08:00

AP Wire (via WorldNetDaily): Though the phone survey depicted broad affinity with religion, the face-to-face interviews found that many teens' religious knowledge was "'meager, nebulous and often fallacious" and engagement with the substance of their traditions remarkably shallow. Most seemed hard put to express coherently their beliefs and what difference they make.

Many were so detached from the traditions of their faith, says the report, that they're virtually following a different creed in which an undemanding God exists mostly to solve problems and make people feel good. Truth in any absolute, theological sense, takes a back seat.

"God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist" who's on call as needed, Smith writes. He says the trend reflects tendencies among teens' Baby Boomer parents. The report speculates that poor educational and youth programs, and competition for teens' time from school, sports, friends and entertainment also are part of the picture.

Last week I shared some thoughts on the phenomenon of teenagers leaving church as soon as they had the freedom to do so. Now this survey provides some insight, but I guess you have to buy the book to get the breakdown even among broad outlines. One detail that was given was that

Mormon youths - whose church runs daily high school religion classes - were the most engaged in practicing their faith, followed in order by evangelical Protestants, black Protestants, mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews.

It would have been nice if they had controlled for choice in teens' involement in their respective religion (for example, the seminary classes for Mormon teens are not exactly optional), but still, broadly speaking, this seems to mirror parents' priorities as well. For instance, I have encountered mainline Protestants who seem quite proud of being too sophisticated to take historic, orthodox Christianity seriously, leaving me wondering what they do take seriously. To the extent I was able to deduce anything, it seems to be this:

"God is something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist" who's on call as needed, Smith writes. He says the trend reflects tendencies among teens' Baby Boomer parents.

This dovetails with my own hypothesis that a lot of kids find role models in their parents, not so much in respect to the content of belief that parents profess belief in, as what parents really believe and consider important as reflected in the choices they make day-to-day in their lives.

Of course, I am not suggesting that it's unimportant for evangelical teens to learn the content of their faith and and the basis and significance of what what they believe; only that head knowledge by itself is insufficient. One of the things that gets lost in our English Bible translations is that there are different Greek words that are translated as the English word "mind". One of these words denotes the intellect, but another word denotes the will, and the issue of the will seems to me extremely underrated in contemporary, Western concepts of thought. The difference between knowing someting abstractly and acting upon it was illustrated by the apostle James:

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? James 2:19-20

To put it another way, we evangelicals can sometimes inadvertently assume that postmodern relativism is something that others engage in: that truth, especially "religious truth" is separated from "real life" and not common to, or independent of, all of humanity. But if we think that religious education in the form of family devotionals, Sunday School, good expository preaching from the pulpit, or even Christian schools or homeschooling, are sufficient to ensure that our kids truly embrace the gospel themselves, then I think we are misguided. Having recently lived in "Mormondom" for several years I can attest to this. Mormon doctrine seems to make its adherents holier, but only on Sunday. The Monday-through-Saturday difference that it makes in their lives seems to be only a cultural one: not drinking coffee or alcohol (while anyone is watching), use of alternate cuss words, choice of friends, etc. If we as evangelicals are "holy" only on Sunday -and being holy is different than being sanctimonious-- then we are in our own way being relativists.

In contrast, if teens do indeed often tend to follow the pattern of their parents, we need to avoid "Sunday truth" and the temptation to let the difference in our lives be a cultural one (Christian radio, Christian books, Christian schools, sanitized movies etc.) and instead embrace what Francis Schaeffer referred to as "true truth": that which is expresses in our daily decision making.

Other ways that we can either counter the idea that "religious truth" is separated from "real life" include taking on the hard questions about life, reasons for belief down to and including the level of epistemology, and resisting the urge to make culture and politics the primary avenues for expressing our faith. This in turn involves saying no to the professional demagogues in the church, whose level of influence is out of all proportion and contrary to the biblical model of leadership in the church. Again, this is not to say we shouldn't vote pro-life or we should spend our money on mindless garbage that passes as art, but these sorts of things should only be part of a much bigger picture than they often are.

Now, I fear that on the whole the multimillion-dollar Christian publishing and entertainment industry is more a hindrance than a help in these regards, but that's another subject.

He who pays the piper

2005-02-24T10:35:00.000-08:00

WorldNetDaily: CBS veteran rips network: "We have literally dumbed down our public," he continued. "We have trained them to accept the coverage they're getting. We so rarely explain what's going on, there's no context. So, people of course, aren't interested. They have no idea what's going on."

So this is what happens when a veteran CBS journalist retires and becomes free to speak. Funny, it doesn't sound much like the huffing and puffing and contrasting of reliable mainstream media with an ill-informed and unreliable blogosphere. Could it be the paycheck that makes the difference?

Caught... in the act of being a Christian

2005-02-23T03:18:00.000-08:00

Christianity Today Weblog: "Being against gay marriage and 'special rights,' but insisting, 'I'm not going to kick gays, because I'm a sinner' sounds straight down the middle of the evangelical world to Weblog."

Sounds right to me too. Of course, this candid statement by President Bush won't go over well with either extreme: those who consider homosexual behavior some special category of sin to be denounced above all others (like say, divorce, self-rightousness or gossip), or those who insist on a false dilemma of either supporting gay marriage or being nasty, hate-filled bigots.

What we have here is Bush being "exposed" as a decent, thinking Christian. I must admit, that when Dubya first ran for president I figured he was just another politician pandering to evangelicals by pretending to be a believer. Four years on, while I don't always agree with Bush on everything I have become convinved that he is a sincere Christian.

(The title of this post was adapted from an album titled Caught... In the Act of Loving Him, recorded by Christian rock group Servant, some 20+ years ago now.)

The ossified avante-garde

2005-02-21T08:07:00.000-08:00

Belmont Club: "Paradoxically, dogmatism is rooted in relativism more than in the belief that real truth is discoverable. For as long as the truth is believed to be 'out there'; it will be sought. When its existence is doubted none will venture into the dark. Under those conditions, we get exactly what Peretz describes: an illogical attachment to old formulations of the 1960s, which can be uttered only because they are hallowed."

While "dogmatism is rooted in relativism" is not true historically (since relativism is relatively recent), as far as the present day is concerned I think that Wretchard is largely correct. I can't recall the last time that a leftist (I wouldn't call them "liberal") made a cogent defense of leftist beliefs. Leftist thinking seems to be promulgated largely though control of education and the mass media (journalism and entertainment), by virtue of the fact that it is often the only side that is represented, or represented fairly. Its validity is considered to be so self-evidently correct that only a fool would question it, with the result that now whole generations have bought into it uncritically so as not to be fools. This is demonstrated whenever a challange to leftist dogma is met with derision and name-calling, unaccompanied with a logical refutation. That is changing now, of course. I think that this is at the root of the blind rage evident on the left these days. Monopolizing the conversation was the only viable way to promote leftist ideas, and since they can't do that anymore they feel leftist ideology is threatened, and with good cause.

There is also conflict at another level. Historic Christianity is rooted in propositional statements about who we are, who God is, and how we relate to God. The objective truth of propositional statements is incompatible with relativism, and so leftism has become anti-Christian. There is hostility towards a competing worldview, of course, but I think that there is also a level of jealousy, of being cheated. Christianity offers the promise of truth that is knowable, which relativism despairs of finding. So the left has no hope of discovering truth-claims to counter Christianity, because they don't believe that they are out there to be discovered. So they are forced to counter truth-claims, not with other truth-claims, but with... nothing. Thus they place themselves at a disadvantage in a conflict with those whom many leftists judge to be their intellectual inferiors. It must be galling.

Blogosphere far from peaking

2005-02-20T07:46:00.000-08:00

Turkish Press: "Some 27 percent of Internet users read blogs, according to the survey, which reports that some eight million US adults say they have created blogs.

Yet despite its influence, 62 percent of Internet users do not know what a blog is, according to the Pew survey."

So 38% of Internet users know about blogs. 27/38 or 71% of those who know about blogs read them.

Imagine the clout that the blogosphere will have when 100% of Internet users become aware of it. No wonder why some folks in the MSM are apoplectic. This isn't your grandfather's information source.

Conservative?

2005-02-19T07:00:00.000-08:00

NewsMax: "Karl Rove, President Bush's top political strategist, on Thursday pronounced conservatism the 'dominant political creed in America' and coached fellow conservatives on how to support his boss."

How far have the markers been moved in the last generation? Under Bush's tenure, the Dept. of Education saw a 50% funding increase. Farm subsidies saw large increases. Deficits are shooting through the roof. That's conservatism?

People on the left talk as if the Bush administration is a small step from fascism, Nazism, the KKK, etc. Ignore the rhetoric for a minute and look at what has actually been going on in terms of fiscal and social policy. The government is still spending like a drunken sailor and for all the cries of McCarthyism and legislating morality, social decay continues apace and Christians seem to be the only people who can get in trouble for speaking their minds.

Seems to me that the Bush administration (and the Republican Congress) is center-left if anything. Sure, judged by the standard of socialism, which is what most of the Democrats now espouse (Nancy Pelosi was a card-carrying member of the World Workers' Party until just days before she became the House minority leader), just about anything would seem "right-wing" by comparison. But despite the shrill shrieking of the left, big government chugs happily along.

Google News: fair & balanced in what way?

2005-02-19T04:31:00.000-08:00

I was going to post this comment at Little Green Footballs in response to this discussion of Google News, but registration for new posters wasn't working. So I'll post it here...

I too have seen a pronounced lack of balance in the news links offered up by Google News. We can speculate about intentions on Google's part, but regardless there seems to me to be a clear tendentiousness in the stories shown. Consider the last election: a 51-49 split. Sounds like the country is pretty evenly divided pro/con the Bush administration, right? What we see on Google News does not reflect this at all, and when they select Wonkette as a news source but not LGF it doesn't seem a mystery as to why.

Now to be fair, if Google casts a wide net and includes the world press, then the balance of reporting would be skewed against the current US govenment. If so, then Google has decided to treat state-run media outlets of dictatorships as equivalent to a free press. That is saying something, shows a definite viewpoint, and I don't blame them for not saying it out loud.

Defining some terms

2005-02-18T07:14:00.000-08:00

Once upon a time, we all used to know what "is" is. Since then though, we have realized that this is too simplistic. Educated and intelligent people know that words sometimes have little to do with their prosaic dictionary definitions. So in the interest of keeping everyone on the same page as much as possible, I offer explanations of what the following popular buzzwords really mean.

Diversity: Blind and unquestioning acceptance of specific political, economic and social viewpoints, usually socialist and humanist in orientation

Awareness: see definition of 'Diversity' above

Justice: see definition of 'Diversity' above

Equality: treating everyone with the same indifference; aka justice

Free expression: "Take this, you stupid Jesus freak!!!"

Separation of Church and State: "Shut up, you stupid Jesus freak!!!"

Environment: The ecosystem of humans, preferably without the humans

Organic: For your own good, your salad was grown in cow dung and has a few bugs in it.

Kyoto Accord: an international agreement to punish wealth (see 'justice', above)

Educational achievement: I cant reed or rite good, butt I have a hi self a steam.

Total Quality Management: We don't actually do our work, we analyze it.

Competitive: government subsidized

Government reform: making lawyers competitive (see above)

Choice: (on abortion) a good thing

Choice: (in education) a bad thing

Choice: (in entertainment) making the arts competitive (see above). See also free expression (above)

Vital government program: money spent here

Pork barrel spending: money spent elsewhere

Homophobia: "Approve of my lifestyle or I'll call you irrational."

Self-esteem: self-centeredness

Assertiveness: "Give me what I want now, because I have a high self-esteem (see above)."

Strategic partner: A nation whose actions are deplorable but whom we need to be friendly with because they could hurt us

Consensus building: it's not your place to think, but to just go along

Of course, those of us in the church have our own lingo too. An explanation of a few expressions:

I'll pray about it: I don't want to make a commitment right now.

Fellowship: food and/or entertainment and/or hanging out

CCM: music, non-competitive (see above)

Sharing in love: gossip

Dying to self: OK, we won't get the Premium Sound System in our new SUV

Accountable: Now that I've found someone who agrees with all my viewpoints, we hold each other responsible to them.

Christian psychology: human behavior models based on studies of Christian rats

New move of the Spirit: I have no idea at all why we're doing this, but it feels good.

Those we don't speak of

2005-02-17T15:55:00.000-08:00

WorldNetDaily: City can bar 'family values' message: "Supervisors Robert Bobb, then city manager, and Joyce Hicks, then deputy director of the Community and Economic Development Agency, ordered removal of the flier, stating it contained 'statements of a homophobic nature' and promoted 'sexual-orientation-based harassment,' even though it made no mention of homosexuality."

In The Village, people in a nineteenth-century rural community lived in an uneasy truce with terrifying creatures who inhabited the surrounding forest. The creatures were so fearsome that the villagers dared not even call them by a name, but only referred to them as "those we don't speak of", and uttered the phrase nervously, as if even this would cause the creatures to appear. There are now city officials and judges in some places who believe that Christians should have the same sort of relationship to the homosexual community: not only may we not question what they do, but we can now get into trouble even if we don't articulate who we're talking about!

Thankfully, though, not all judges agree. The Philadelphia Four have been acquitted of the "crime" of speaking publicly within earshot of aggressive homosexual demonstrators. The judge who acquitted them said: " "We are one of the very few countries that protect unpopular speech."

Well, you do in Philly anyway. Oakland doesn't seem to have gotten the memo.

Their own private hell

2005-02-17T08:02:00.000-08:00

“The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. --Matthew 13:41-42

Some people aren't waiting until Judgement Day to begin gnashing their teeth. Over at the Evangelical Outpost, non-Christian participants have come unglued. Not much in the way of calm or rational debate; a number of them have descended into blind rage, spewing slander and the worst names they can think of at the Christians there, and at none more than Joe Carter himself. If he posts something that someone disagrees with, he's dishonest. If someone doesn't agree with gay marriage, they are "bloodthirsty" and advocating "theocracy", no different than the Iranian mullahs. No agreeing to disagree; either you're with them or you're an enemy to be defeated.

Intelligent people, or so they seem (and some of them keep implying). All they are contributing is schoolyard name-calling, albeit with a mature vocabulary. Whatever happened to classic liberalism, with its belief in respecting those you disagree with? And I can't help but wonder: do these people consider themselves tolerant?

If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A slave is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also. But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me. John 15:19-21

You read it here first

2005-02-17T07:05:00.000-08:00

Heh heh. This stuff writes itself.

Three days ago, while satirizing Howard Dean's attempt to win over evangelicals with clever (?) rhetoric, I depicted the Dems saying:

"What we really need is for DNC confabs to be held behind closed doors, otherwise those rubes might not buy it."

Well, it isn't exactly a "Democratic confab", but as if on cue:

"Howard Dean, the new chairman of the Democratic National Committee, requested a media blackout of a debate with top Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, then quickly changed his mind Wednesday after news agencies complained." --Newsday (via Drudge)

It probably wouldn't help for the new DNC chairman to remind the public what a dove he is, as he tries to reclaim a moderate image for the party fronted by Kennedy, Pelosi and Kerry.

Moral absolutes? (for Creeping Jenny)

2005-02-16T18:53:00.000-08:00

In this comment, Creeping Jenny said,

"Good question about [source of absolutes in] morality. I think human beings have some kind of innate morality-understanding faculty, a bit like our innate language-speaking faculty. Something's striking me as wrong is decent (though pretty imperfect) evidence that it's wrong. I can check up on whether my moral faculty is misleading me by making sure I've got all the facts right, examining whether I have egoistic reasons for prejudicing my judgment one way or another, using logic to check whether my moral beliefs are consistent, and speaking to people who are wiser than me.

As to why anybody has moral perception in the first place, I do not yet have a good answer."

If this conversation continues, it could well need space of its own, hence the new post.

CJ,

Thanks for your response also.

Language is something that appears to be hard-wired into our brains. Although there is much about brain physiology that isn't understood yet, there is a specific region of our brains that processes language. If morality worked the same way, I would think there would be a corresponding region of our brains that dealth with that. Nobody has discovered one that I'm aware of.

Also, what happens when someone is as rational as you, as well-intended as you, but has a radically different perception of what is right? We can think of the 9-11 terrorists, or the Iranian mullahs, or the Nazis. I'm fascinated by the account of Albert Speer, the well-educated, well-intended young man who because Hitler's architect then Minister of Armaments because, in his words, "Adolf Hitler can save Germany." At least that's according to the movie on his autobio, Inside the Third Reich. I make it a point to watch this movie every year or two, to revisit the question of how such an educated, "enlightened" democracy could descend so quickly to the point of genocide. To make things even more complicated, there were even members of the "Christian" clergy who supported the Nazis (although some opposed too.)

So it's not at all apparent to me that morality is either evident or innate, although we do have (as the Bible says) consciences that remain more or less intact in each individual.

In his book How Shall We Then Live, Fransic Schaeffer poijnts out that if we have only ourselves, individually or collectively, as sources of information from which to reason to conclusions, our ability to reach satisfactory conclusions will be limited, because what we know is limited, especially in comparison to what we need to know to reach the conclusions we seek. That is why the Enlightenment resulted ultimately in postmodernism: despair of finding objective true answers to the human condition, once the possibility of revelation from God is rejected.

Bettman out

2005-02-16T18:23:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Gary Bettman said: "We are increasing our offer of yesterday by increasing the maximum individual team cap to $44.7 million ($42.5 million in salary and $2.2 million in benefits). This offer is not an invitation to begin negotiations - it's too late for that.

This is our last effort to make a deal that's fair to the players and one that the clubs (hopefully) can afford. We have no more flexibility and there is no time for further negotiation."

Today he said: "Well, if they had suggested a $45 million cap, that might've changed something."

That's the man the NHLPA was bargaining with. As soon as the negotiations become open to the press, it became apparent to me that the players' union was making all the concessions and that Bettman had no intention of compromise, and perhaps no intention of reaching an agreement. The players gave in on the key difference: a salary cap. They threw in a 24% salary rollback across the board. It wasn't enough.

The players didn't have a serious partner in negotiations, and now the hockey season is cancelled, something that two world wars failed to achieve. It's time for Gary Bettman to go. Now.

Thank you!

2005-02-16T07:21:00.000-08:00

Thank you, everyone who stopped by my blog, especially those of you who posted a comment or linked to me, even if you disagreed with me! I hope to keep this blog entertaining and thought-provoking enough that you want to stick around, and even invite a friend.

Special thanks to Joe Carter of The Evangelical Outpost, whose link brought me visitors.

As a result, in just a couple of days I have evolved from an Insignificant Microbe all the way to a Slimy Mollusc! That just makes my day.

Jittery mullahs

2005-02-16T07:08:00.000-08:00

Fox News: "An aircraft reportedly fired a missile near the southern city of Dailam in Iran on Wednesday as both Iran and Syria said they will unite against any challenges or threats to their nations' livelihoods.

...the explosion may have been caused by a fuel tank dropping from an Iranian plane."

Now why would the Iranian mullahs be so jumpy? Just because the world's only superpower is on their doorstep, with its unmanned drones and special ops forces doing recon in and over Iran, having sucessfully completed the forcible transition of their neighbor Iraq from tyranny to democracy, and the Iranian people wanting freedom too? Is that reason to be nervous?

I understand that they brew their coffee very strong in that part of the world. Perhaps the mullahs need to cut down a bit. Anyway, don't they trust in Allah?

Gary Bettman: moonbat?

2005-02-16T06:59:00.000-08:00

Yahoo! Sports: "Early Tuesday evening, the league had made a take-it-or-leave-it pitch of a $42.5 million salary cap to the players' association. The union responded with a cap figure of its own: $49 million.

The league dismissed that out-of-hand, saying all teams couldn't afford that much.

``If every team spent to the $49 million ... total player compensation would exceed what we spent last season,'' NHL commissioner Gary Bettman said in his second letter of the day to NHLPA executive director Bob Goodenow. ``We cannot afford your proposal.''"

Um, excuse me, Mr. Commissioner. A salary cap of $49M doesn't mean that a team must spend that much. It means they can't spend more than that.

Either Bettman was sincere in making this statement, or he wasn't. If he wasn't, then to throw up another roadblock to an agreement in the dying seconds lends credence to the suspicion that his real goal is to break the players' union even if it costs the hockey season.

If he was sincere, then two years' negotiations and the possible loss of the hockey season, unsuccessful because of irreconcilable differences over a salary cap, went on with the Commissioner of the NHL not understanding what the term means. Wouldn't that be a real screamer?

Settle down, Dr. Dean. I wasn't talking about you.

I don't feel good about this

2005-02-15T10:19:00.000-08:00

I read some more of the Zondervan article. It doesn't look good.

Zondervan: Why the TNIV Bible is Important: "Part of the reason for this mass exodus is that today's generation thinks differently than previous generation. For example, they're more likely to relate to stories and personal experiences than to traditional expressions of propositional truth. For them, authentic religion is a much about HOW they live as WHAT they believe."

First of all, if postmodern existentialism is the cause of young people leaving the church, I fail to see how catering to it can be the solution. The Christian gospel is communicated in "traditional expressions of propositional truth". The gospel isn't merely "true for us" because we choose to believe it or because it "works" pragmatically (although if it is true, it should work). It is objectively true whether we believe it or not. It is existentialism, not historic Christianity, that needs to be rethought.

Also, the above quote proposes a false dilemma: On the one hand we have propositional truth and on the other hand we have "authentic religion" with integrity. This forgets the "traditional expression of propositional truth" taught in James 2: that the propositional truth must be lived out to be genuine.

We can't get the cart before the horse. Personal experience should agree with the propositional truth of the gospel, but truth is not determined by experience. I am sure that someone who doubts this would quickly resort to propositional truth if someone claimed, for instance, that their "experience with God" had led them to become a murderer or misogynist. And if ever an airline pilot taxiing to a takeoff decided to announce that he would rely on experience rather than navigational computers, I wonder how many people would choose to remain aboard. Existentialism is a cute parlor game played when the stakes are not perceived to be high.

Intentionally or not, Zondervan seems to be coming dangerously close to implying that "the faith once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 2) is epistemologically deficient and must embrace existentialism to remain relevant. I don't think I'll be buying a TNIV.

Why they leave

2005-02-15T09:36:00.000-08:00

(This entry speaks of a phenomenon within evangelicalism, but should be of interest to non-Christians who have ever thought that Christians are hypocrites or no better than the rest.)

Mark D. Roberts is starting a series on the new TNIV translation of the Bible. As he reports, part of Zondervan's rationale for a new translation (their NIV isn't exactly archaic yet) is this:

Perhaps the most important reason to produce a new translation is to reach today's generation of 18- to 34-year-olds, a generation that is leaving the church in record numbers. According to research, four out of ten people leave the church after high school, and another eight million twenty-somethings will likely leave the church by the time they turn 30. (barna.org)

This has been phenomena for longer than a recent poll. I've seen it happen. A good friend of mine who is a pastor told me that he's seen it for a long time. A teenager faithfully attends church and even goes to youth group, but when they turn 18 poof! they disappear. We puzzled over this together, and I continue to puzzle over it. As an elder in my former church (we moved recently) I felt it was my responsibility to at least try to understand what was causing it. I share here not a definitive answer (surely such an answer could come through several doctoral dissertations) but a few short observations and suggestions. These are offered with trepidation, knowing that my own kids are coming of age.

What is most evident to me is that, when you look closely, you get a feel for which kids will remain in church and which will not. You look close enough, you might see it even when everything looks good on the outside. Sometimes it is apparent: a kid is dragged along unwillingly to church by parents and puts up with it until it's time to leave and go do something that matters. Sometimes the signs are more subtle. How involved is the teen in church activities that he or she is not forced to attend? What do they talk about when they talk about whatever they want? They might listen to Christian music (especially if secular is frowned upon) but do they ever engage the lyrics, or is it just an occasion to shake their groove thing? Is their Bible worn from use or because they toss it around like a dead fish? They might go on a weeklong mission trip to Mexico to help the poor, but are they more excited about that or about the layover at Disney Land on the way back? They might speak using evangelical lingo, but what attitudes are conveyed with it?

God sees not as man sees, for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” 1 Samuel 16:7

We can't see the heart of another. Not really. But we can infer some things from clues as to what's going on within.

For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth what is good; and the evil man out of the evil treasure brings forth what is evil; for his mouth speaks from that which fills his heart. Luke 6:44-45

Sometimes kids grow up in the church mouthing the right answers, but those answers aren't real to them. They've just learned that saying that stuff elicits a positive response from their "owners", perhaps as a gorilla is taught to dab paint on a canvas. There comes a point when each of us are faced with the choice of accepting the Christian gospel as true or not, and the claims of Jesus Christ: who He is and what His claims are on us as individuals. I think that some teenagers who leave have not come to that point yet, because nobody becomes a "new creature" by osmosis. Some are faced with the choice after they are on their own. Some make the choice to become a Christian, and some make the choice not to. Some (including myself) belonged to a dysfunctional or legalistic church and had to leave for a time in order to learn to separate the wheat of God's revelation from the chaff of human tradition and hypocrisy.

Some have had a genuine personal encounter with Christ while growing up but are enticed away for a while to "sow their wild oats". These often return, sometimes scarred from the experience.

Some too, if they have an inquisitive or introspective turn of mind, might get discouraged and leave if their church is not the same way, and the leadership commands unquestioning faith and obedience rather than "lov[ing] the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength. (Mark 12:30) I include this too in my own experience.

What can be done? I don't think that a fresher Bible translation will do it, even if endorsed by the uber-cool Peter Furler. My own suggestions:

Parents: You have the most important role. Taking kids to church, and even reading the Bible and praying as a family are good. But where is your heart? Do you make day-to-day choices tht reflect the reality of what you say you believe, including the transitory nature of this life and the permanence of the next (what some call "the eternal perspective")? Have you given thought to how the teachings of the Bible pertain to different aspects of your own life? Do you embrace them, or rationalize to yourself why you don't or can't? Simply put, is it real to you? If it isn't, your kids will see it. They're not dummies.

Are you equipping your kids? Feelings of certitude will only take them so far. Are they becoming Biblically literate? Are they critical consumers of the messages they are bombarded with every day? If they are not homeschooled, then what are they learning in school? Do you even know? There are many fine public schools, but there are also zealot teachers who use the classroom to proelytize for alternate lifestyles, postmodern relativism or even overt, specific rejection of Christianity. How is your kid dealing with it?

Are you and they in a healthy enviroment? The Christian radio you listen to, the books you read, the church you attend, what are their focuses and goals? Is Christianity a mere source of Rated G entertainment or aid to "clean living"? Is the worship service focused on God or on providing an experience for an "audience"? Is the focus so much on Left Behind/black helicopter fare that you have become fearful and paranoid, or irresponsible? (This is not to deny the Second Coming, but a Christian life should be balanced.) Even if you are into defending the faith, do those you learn apologetics from make their case in a respectful and loving manner (1 Peter 3:15), or do they model self-confidence, sarcasm and disdain? A Christian life involves integrity: not just a lack of dishonesty but an embracing of the implications of what we say we believe. (Example: you believe that even an atheistic, evolutionary scientist is created in the image of God, right?)

That kid you love so much is not perfect. They sin sometimes. You don't do them a favor if you either ignore or rationalize it, or punish them in anger and denigrate their personhood.

If you want it to be real to your kids, then model it yourselves. If you don't, then don't be surprised if they bail.

Pastors and leaders: If you are told to exercise oversight of the flock, then how well do you know each one? Are you a shepherd among them, or just a speaker in front of them? Are you there to equip and strengthen them, or are they there to serve and affirm you? Do you have concrete plans to promote biblical literacy and correct handling of the word, or do your people have the notion that they can't understand the Bible themselves and must look to you to explain it? Are you equipping them to assess contrary truth claims and worldviews? How do you treat the world outside those church doors: with compassion, hostility or indifference? Are you a servant or an employee?

Oh. And all the stuff I said to the parents about Christlike character, integrity, eternal perspective and healthy balance? That applies to you too; you more than anyone must show the reality of what you say you believe. If you're just a symbol manipulator, most of the kids will get bored and leave.

We have enough Bibles. We have enough sermons, Christian music, books, church growth and mamagement programs, activities and fellowship. What we need is more reality. Then maybe, by the grace of God, more of our kids will see it and want it.

Captain should go down with the ship

2005-02-14T16:56:00.000-08:00

Yahoo! Sports: "There has been more talk ever since the league sent out a memo to its 30 teams on Friday releasing the gag order on owners, GMs and team executives, not only allowing them to talk about the lockout to the media but also giving them the green light to reach out to players if they wanted. This appeared to be a move to circumvent the union leaders, hoping GMs could start a groundswell among their players to put pressure on Goodenow to accept a salary cap."

Does this sound familiar? Um, yes. Over a month ago I suggested that the league's real game plan was to break the players' union. To repeat what I said then:

The league might think it's going to break the players' union, but it is slitting its own throat. Very few fans will pay to watch replacement players drawn from farm leagues, obscure European leagues or the Juniors. It just will not fly. Hockey will go on, but I have my doubts about the National Hockey League. It's too bad too. A league with so much history and tradition is about to die because of imbecilic management.

The NHL will look for replacement players or strikebreakers, but what is needed is either replacement league management or a replacement to the NHL itself. Bettman's statement above demonstrates what is all too clear: he is a businessman but not a lover of the game. The NHL needs a commissioner who is both. I add my voice to those who think that Wayne Gretzky would do a fine job.

Praise the Lord and pass the talking points

2005-02-14T12:24:00.000-08:00

Christianity Today has an article on Democrats and evangelicals that, intentionally or not, is hilarious. It shows why the DNC's hopes of capturing the evangelical vote are ...er... a longshot. Some excerpts:

Earlier in the week, congressional Democrats hosted a study session with University of California-Berkeley linguist George Lakoff on how to communicate the Democratic commitment to moral and religious values.

Shades of the movie Stargate. The military sends a team through a space portal to the other end of the universe. Since they could find either strange aliens or humans who had been separated from earthlings millennia earlier, they wisely decided to include a linguist in the team in the hope that they might communicate. Certainly they couldn't have communicated with such alien beings without one. As it turned out, the linguist enabled them to free distantly related humans from their ignorance and slavery.

At least two years ago Democrats started to worry that they were painting themselves into a small corner of a mostly religious America as the secularist party. Democrats started holding workshops on how they could win the support of religious voters.

Translation: we must learn the ways of these strangers.

As governor of Vermont, Dean promoted homosexual civil unions. His presidential campaign stumbled over clumsy attempts to display biblical literacy and religious values. At one point the governor was quoted as declaring that the Book of Job is his favorite New Testament book.

Yes, that learning curve can be rough.

Pollster Celinda Lake told the women Democratic leaders that "the most powerful predictor of the 2004 vote was religion. The religious 'others' and the nonreligious voted for us. The worst voters were against us." Catching her misstatement, Lake said she meant that the voters among whom the Democrats had the worst support were the evangelicals and Catholics.

Really rough.

Immediately after Lake's presentation, Dean launched a volley of well-prepared pro-religion, pro-moral-values remarks. This time there were no biblical misquotes.

Those evangelicals are such rubes, all we need to do is repackage ourselves a bit.

Dean told the women not to say that the Democrats are pro-abortion. "We are not pro-abortion!" was his lead off sentence.

Those evangelicals are such rubes, they just believe what they hear. They won't remember our legislative track record of the past 30 years.

Dean seemed to be trying to leave the impression that the Democratic women need to reach out to pro-life women. "There are a lot of women's groups," Dean observed. "We need to figure out how they can all get together."

What?! There are women's groups besides NOW and NARAL? Who knew?

Dean mocked the Republicans as family values hypocrites. "The GOP wants to cut the money for feeding kids. They only get two of the values of the New Testament. Do they talk about having walked among the least of these?"

There you go! Stay on the message that limiting the growth of social programs to 3-5% a year is a "cut". That one will get us some traction, because those who didn't vote for us are rubes.

Comparing the Republicans to Sadducees and Pharisees, Dean said, "I haven't heard the Republicans talk about that it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man through the gates of heaven."

In contrast, the Democrats' fresh new strategy is to remove that excess baggage. They aren't just trying to save us from temporal want now, but from Hell! I wonder if Soros got the memo.

Dean said that Democrats have failed to use language that common Americans could relate to. "We need to get away from slogans and ideology," he said. "We learned in the last election that language makes an enormous difference."

Translation: Hey, does anybody know some Bible verses that promote class warfare and dependency? And what are we going to do about those pesky passages on sexual morality?

However, after this stirring anthem to openness to evangelicals, Dean was still not ready to say that he would name an evangelical to his transition team. He told CT that his planning hadn't "got that far yet."

Look, we favor desegregation. But do you really expect us to live with these people too?

Dean did not address the controversy of the fierce personal attacks against pro-life Democrat Tim Roemer while he was still in the running against Dean. One night earlier, outgoing Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe called the attacks on Roemer "way over the top." Many pro-life Democrats who don't feel welcomed in the party, likely feel that Dean's supporters savaging of Roemer is a sign that the party hasn't changed... Few rank-and-file Democratic leaders had yet to catch a hold of Dean's new way of talking.

What we really need is for DNC confabs to be held behind closed doors, otherwise those rubes might not buy it. And we need language coaching. Position statements need to be prefaced with, "The Lord is leading us to..." and include a few Bible quotes.

Charles Saechting, chairman of the Texas Democrats, regaled his audience with declarations that the Republicans "are probably the least Christian party that has ever been." He talked of his own upbringing by an African American who became a pastor, but also unconvincingly argued that "pro-life falls within the pro-choice belief."

This should work a lot better than, "I was in favor of abortion before I was against it" or "It depends on what the definition of 'pro-life' is."

The most honest expression was this one:

[T]here were a few evangelicals sprinkled here and there—a deacon from Alabama, a minister from Maryland, or a faith-based community service leader in a few states. But most Democrats preferred to duck the issue. Jim Fraser of the Oklahoma delegation declared that he was "pro-choice, pro-life" and that he didn't ask people what their religion was. "I am not being very cooperative with you, am I," he chuckled as he walked away.

But our only real difference is a matter of semantics; not attitudes, priorities or policies. Really!

While [Rev. Zina] Pierre's role was relegated to a time when most Democrats were exhausted and streaming out of the auditorium, the emotional high point of the convention occurred with Dean's embrace of Democratic lesbians.

OK OK, so our stagecraft needs a little retooling also. Next time, someone find a lesbian minister for the candidate to hug.

Memo to the DNC: Wanna know what the real problem is? Most of us evangelicals haven't bought into this whole postmodern relativistic thing-- even those of us who went to college! We believe that our creeds contain propositional statements that are objectively true in their own right, regardless of whether people believe them. We believe that God is the maker, ruler and judge of the universe, not a tool to be used for crass political ends. We believe that God has revealed His will for each of our lives, and so it's not up to us to invent a religion or a god as we conceive of Him/Her/It/Them/Other. While we respect everybody's right to practice their own "faith tradition", we don't think that someone's believing in a given "faith tradition" necessarily makes it valid or true. While most of us recognize an individual's right to live in what the Bible calls sin, we will never express approval of it or buy into the idea that someone's sin constitutes their whole identity.

And this whole "compassion for the poor" thing? There's this wee small matter of it being voluntary. And the goal isn't long-term dependence on Caesar.

See, the thing is, even though you are trying to figure out how to talk in our lingo, we still see a lot of things that suggest that you remain secularists and relativists, antagonistic to us way down deep at the level of worldview. I really don't think that a linguist can help you. So your only real hope at this point is that the Republicans run candidates who are like you: secularists and relativists who think they can snow us with a bit of lingo and a few Bible verses.

Oh. And Job? It's Old Testament.

Peace: just an interlude

2005-02-09T07:17:00.000-08:00

Palestinian Media Watch provides a translation of the Friday, Feb. 4 sermon on the official Palestinian Authority TV station (via WorldNetDaily):

"Our willingness to return to the 1967 borders does not mean that we have given up on the land of Palestine. No! We ask you: Do we have the right to the 1967 borders? We have the right. Therefore, we shall realize this right with any mean it takes. We might be able to use diplomacy in order to return to the 1967 borders, but we shall not be able to use diplomacy in order to return to the 1948 borders. No one on this earth recognizes [out right to] the 1948 borders [before Israel's existence]. Therefore, we shall return to the 1967 borders, but it does not mean that we have given up on Jerusalem and Haifa, Jaffa, Lod, Ramle, Natanyah [Al-Zuhour] and Tel Aviv [Tel Al-Rabia]. Never."

Meanwhile, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas announced,

"We have agreed with [Israeli] Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to cease all acts of violence against the Israelis and the Palestinians wherever they are," Abbas said in a statement at the end of a landmark summit with Sharon in Egypt."

and Hamas weighs in:

" Abbas's declaration "expresses only the position of the Palestinian Authority (news - web sites). It does not express the position of the Palestinian movements," said Hamas spokesman Mushir al-Masri."

So what we have is no breakthrough at all, but only more of the same: a "peace" process in which the Israelis continue to make concessions in exchange for an end to Palestinian terrorism, promised by the Palestinian Authority as they wink and nod to the various Palestinian militias and terrorists whom they claim they can't control, all with a view to incrementally reducing the Jewish state to the point where it no longer exists.

For the West to support such a cynical "peace" process while ignoring the true and plainly stated aims of the Palestinians only shows that anti-Semitism is still alive and well. Melanie Phillips eloquently exposes the shape of the new European anti-Semitism but also notes that some of it, including "journalism" from the BBC, is straight out of the Josef Goebbels playbook:

"When Tam Dalyell claimed that both Tony Blair and George Bush were influenced by a ‘cabal’ of powerful Jews – including people who were not Jews at all, but merely had some Jewish ancestry -- his remarks were brushed aside indulgently as an embarrassing outburst by a venerable eccentric. The following day, BBC TV Newsnight – far from asking how such an ancient prejudice could have been revived – devoted a substantial item to asking whether Dalyell’s claims were true in the US . This left the impression that there was indeed a group of ‘tightly-knit’ Jews in America who wielded far too much power."

Ah yes. Things are so different now. No archaic prejudices, no bigotry and hatred arising from ignorance and fed by government propaganda, no scapegoating of minorities; we're above that sort of thing now. Never again.

Home to roost

2005-02-04T07:19:00.000-08:00

Supreme Court questions Utah bigamy law in case against officer.

The Left ripped Sen. Rick Santorum for asking it, but it's a legitimate question: if society can't pass laws outlawing homosexual activity, then what is the objective basis for outlawing polygamy? They ripped him not because the question was illegitimate but because there was no answer.

Now the folks in Utah might find themselves in a situation where polygamy is technically illegal but not prosecuted: exactly where homosexuality was until recently.

If I had a nickel every time the Left expressed contempt at "slippery slope" arguments... But the slope is indeed slippery when we have nothing to hold on to, and morality is as changeable as whim, or subject to activist judges.

A terrible thing to waste

2005-01-31T14:01:00.000-08:00

Fox News: "[M]ore than one in three high school students said it goes 'too far' in the rights it guarantees. Only half of the students said newspapers should be allowed to publish freely without government approval of stories."

Another example of kids going to school without being educated. Another example of why education should be devolved to local communities.

Just who benefits when citizens don't know their own rights? Who decides that it's more important to have a new gym floor, newer classrooms, newer buildings etc. etc. than to educate citizens?

I wonder if something else might be in play also. Might kids be rebelling against the excesses of their parents? There seems to be a significant number of people in this country who conceive of civil rights primarily in terms of doing whatever they want without having to face moral judgments or even the natural consequences of their actions, that the end of freedom is lack of responsibility. There are also those (Hello, ACLU) who conceive of freedom as the right of priveleged groups not to be offended by expressions they don't want to see or hear. In both of these situations, freedom is a cynical, even hypocritical concept. Maybe there are high schoolers who see this and have little regard for "freedom" of this sort, and haven't been taught a better conception of it.

When a land transgresses, it has many rulers. Proverbs 28:2

Macroevolution: a smoking gun

2005-01-31T01:26:00.000-08:00

I've had it. Between Richard Sternberg losing his position at the Smithsonian for allowing a paper that questioned atheistic accounts of origins to the ignorant ranting of non-scientists who think that science mandates philosophical naturalism, to those who have been lied to and believe that large-scale evolution by naturalistic means is scientific, I've just had it. Time to blow the lid off.

An unpublished paper by three evolutionary biologists at UC Davis admits that macroevolution --large scale evolution-- is unscientific. For obvious reasons, the paper is prefaced with this warning:

Do Not Cite In Any Context Without Permission Of Authors

Know what? I don't care anymore. Let them pursue legal action! I'd love to see them defend this, and what it says about their position, in a court of law. This amounts to taxpayer-funded deception of the public. So bring it on.

The fifth paragraph of the paper says this:

“Macroevolution” is the evolutionary biologist’s term for the large scale and long-term pattern of evolution. The contrasting term, “microevolution,” refers to generation-to-generation changes. Because much important evolutionary change takes place at macroevolutionary time scales, it is important for evolutionary theory to explain such changes. Unfortunately, while small-scale microevolutionary changes are accessible to direct observation and critical experiment, processes that act on long time scales are not.

Read that last bit again. Let it sink in. Macroevolutionary processes are not accessible to direct observation and experiment.

"Not accessible to direct observation and experiment" means not scientific! When is the last time you heard that in a court case on whether to allow ID in schools? When is the last time you heard it from Richard Dawkins or Eugenie Scott? Dawkins surely knows it, which is why he argues for macroevolution by using rhetorical tricks, not references to controlled experiments. It's deceit, pure and simple. It's the deliberate misrepresentation of an agenda. It's atheism, given the sugar coating of "science" and shoved down the throat of every child in school. It's the basis for rejection of moral absolutes as outmoded and irrational relics from a time before we "knew" that we are just another primate.

In The Creationists, Ronald Numbers relates that American schools got serious about teaching evolution during the early 1960s. Is it a coincidence that the first generation to be given such an education quickly lost its way in a drug-induced fog of anomie? Is it a coincidence that that generation, now in charge of things, includes those who lie to the public about the status of science relating to origins and use immoral, unethical means to silence dissent? Might does indeed make right, if we are merely another primate. Philosophical materialists might reject social Darwinism or euthanasia, but do so without a rational basis. They might do well to remember that as the years go by and they become infirm, and must rely on the tender mercies of those whom they raised and taught.

And when they lie to the public about science discrediting the involvement of a Creator, they ought to realize that the Creator is not thereby done away with.

This needs to be exposed. Like CBS, the scientific community will not be served, nor its reputation protected, by continued deceit. It's time to come clean.

Further thought on Smithsonian witch hunt

2005-01-29T23:58:00.000-08:00

There is another problem with this sort of behavior at a premier scientific institution. There are those who allege that this sort of thing is par for the course, that most if not all universities, journals etc. are so firmly committed to Darwinism (whether the term means speciation or philosophical materialism) that any dissenting voice is silenced. Whether true or not, the Smithsonian has just given credence to this fear. It has also called into question the objective, rational nature of the scientific enterprise. Further, it is unlikely today that such imposition of dogma can escape the public's attention.

Polls consistently show that about half of Americans believe that the universe came into being some 10,000 years ago along with all modern and now-extinct species. This single fact is sufficient to demonstrate that the policy of keeping alternatives to evolution out of the classroom and the scientific journals has been an abject failure. It is also contrary to the spirit of scientific enquiry to state at the outset that some conclusions are not just expected but mandatory, while differing conclusions are forbidden and fatal to one's career. It is not those who have facts and reason on their side who must resort to consorship and witch hunts.

Insistence on philosophical materialism in the biological sciences as The Truth is unscientific, hostile to scientific progress and undermines the public's confidence in science as an objective attempt to explain the natural world. It is time that this ideological hijacking be ended. In our postmodern age, there are enough assaults of an irrational nature on science. Scientists shouldn't be providing ammunition for rational assaults as well.