practicalithe(ology)

omnipotence #1: a new testament understanding of "all things possible"

2007-10-24T15:10:00.001-04:00

This is the first in a series of post I am writing on omnipotence.

In the New Testament, there are several passages that talk about what God can and cannot do. At a glance, it would seem that the New Testament is contradicting itself. Jesus when he is speaking to God in the Garden of Gethsemane, says that with God, "all things are possible" yet Paul asserts that God cannot lie. If God supposedly can do all things, yet cannot lie, then it seems that either he can lie, or he cannot to all things possible, in that lying is a possible thing to do.

Before we can talk about what is implied by “all things possible”, it is best to investigate how First Century reader would have understood such statement. The original language of the New Testament is Koine Greek, which is not formal Greek but the Lingua Franca of the day. It is probably safe to assume that it was not the first language of many first century readers, but it was the most widely spoken language in the Eastern Mediterranean, therefore it made since to write the New Testament in this language, with all its caveats and idiosyncrasies. The statement first appears in Matthew 19, when Jesus is comparing man’s capabilities to God’s capabilities. Jesus says the often quoted verse: "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." This verse paints a dichotomy between what man is able to do and what God is able to do. The word translated "possible" here is the adjective δυνατός in Greek. The word occurs 35 times in the New Testament, and is most often translated, "possible", but can also mean "able", "mighty" or "strong". What is certainly implied from the world is the ability to do something, with no regard to the will to do that thing. The passage in reference here is talking about salvation. The disciples are asking Jesus, "Who can be saved then?" Jesus replies, implying that salvation is not the work of man, but the work of God, in that God is able to save when man is not.

The word translated "impossible" is the same word δυνατός with an alpha privative in front of the word. This negates the word in the way that an "a" in front of "theism" is "atheism" meaning "without theism". It is no different in Greek, in that αδυνατός is the inability to do something. The references here is into salvation, which is something that man cannot do, in that only God can save people. Another word that is critical to understanding all things possible is the word translated "all". The root of the word is πάς which is most often translated "all". The word is used over 1,200 in the New Testament, making it one of the most common words in New Testament. Although the word is used often, it does not really have any other meaning, other than to imply something is whole and complete, in that it is not lacking in any part. Often words that occur often carry a variety of meanings, but this one does not.

Another passage where these words appear in tandem is Mark 14:36. In context, Jesus is praying before he is arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane. He says, "Abba Father, everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will." Jesus here is stating that all things are possible for God, asking God to take the cup of the crucifixion from him if it be God's will. It seems that Jesus is suggesting that there might be another way, without actually revealing what that way is. The same words, πάς and δυνατός are translated "all things possible". In the parallel passage in Matthew 26:39, Jesus asks God in a different manner, asking "If it is possible". This passage does not make the statement that “all things are possible”, but like the parallel passage in Mark, seems to leave open the door for another possible way. The parallel passage in Luke 22 asks the question in a different way, saying "If you are willing". Jesus is recorded as not having used any form of δυνατός or πάς. He uses a form of βούλομαι which seems to be speaking having a desire to do something, not to ones ability to do something. In any case though, what seems to be going on in this episode with Jesus, he is asking God to remove the cup more so if he is willing to remove it rather than if he is able to remove it. Jesus is not calling into question God's ability to remove the cup, but rather asking if God is willing to remove the cup, then he could. In all cases here, God’s ability to remove the cup seems to be apparent, but Jesus is asking if God is willing to remove the cup. From Mark, we can see it is explicit, but in the other gospel it seems more implicit. We don’t know for certain if there was another way but it does seem to suggest that perhaps there may have been another way, still begging the question, could God have removed the cup from Jesus and saved humanity another way? I do not know if this question can be answered this side of eternity, but it was certainly God's will for Jesus to die in the manner in which he did to save men regardless of what God’s god could have done. This opens at least opens the doors for things that God can do but does not.

Peter Geach's sees God's omnipotence as "Almightiness". Almightiness in the New Testament stems from another word, but this one refers not to the ability to do something but the power over something as a king has power over his people. The word κράτως refers to dominion, and when coupled with a form of the word πάς, renders παντοκράτωρ which is translated "Almighty". This word, παντοκράτωρ is almost exclusively found in the book of Revelations and once other time in 2 Corinthians 6:18. In all cases, it is referring to Jesus as Lord or King over everything, seemingly in the form of a title, much like we refer to one as "Mister Smith" or "Doctor Evans". It is recognizing the proper position of God. While this view of God's power is certainly accurate concerning the realm of God’s power, it says nothing about particulars of what God can and cannot do. It says that God has power over all things, but it does not say that God can or cannot do particulars. This concern will be addressed more later on, but realizing this now will help address understand the intent of this work.

Elsewhere in Scripture, the word "pas" appears with the word ἰσχύω, which is translated "can do". This word similar in meaning to δύναμαι which means "I am able". δύναμαι is the verb form of the word, δυνατός that we have been discussing thus far. Paul in Philippians 4:13 makes the statement, "I can do all things through Christ". Taken as is, it would seem that Paul is saying he is omnipotent through Christ. In context though, I do not think this is what Paul is talking about. Prior to this verse, he talks about being in need and having plenty, being comfortable and being in the most dire circumstances, and other such disparities. Such are literary devices to show contrast, similar to John's use of Alpha and Omega. When Paul is talking about "all things", he is talking about all circumstances that he encounters, with form of πάς referring to these circumstances. This is somewhat unique from the aforementioned passages, with particular regard to the Mark 14 passage. In the same verse, Jesus talks about a singular scenario: men saving themselves, but then says all things are possible with God, referring to a larger group of scenarios. Similarly, with the episode in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus is referring to a set of scenarios broader than the one at hand when referring to what God can do.

From these passages, we can establish that as Geach has suggested, God is the Almighty, in that he has dominion over all things and that with God all things are possible. The question remains however, what is included in all things possible? Is "All things are possible", "All things possible" and "All possible things" the same thing? In Greek, being verbs are generally optional, so from this point of view, these three phrases would essentially communicate the same thing. One could come up with several other permutations of these and other related words to communicate the same idea. What we really need to do then is focus on what is meant by "all things possible".

infinite punishment for finite sin

2007-08-14T12:47:00.000-04:00

One of the most purported objections to one becoming a Christian seems to be the injustice invoked by God. Some see eternal (thus infinite) punishment in hell as unjust punishment for finite sin. On the surface, this objection seems to have warrant, and would naturally lend one not to trust in a God that is suppose to be loving and just. But I think such is a view doesn't take the whole picture into account. What I want to do here is perhaps clear up or at least finish the picture as to how God is justified in sending people to hell for sin, on the basis that God judges not quantitatively, but qualitatively, and in doing is just.

First, it is probably best to define what I mean when I stay "quantitative" and "qualitative". Something that is quantitative is essentially something that is countable or comparable in some fashion. Quantitatively, 4 is greater than 2. One could also say something like quantitatively, black is darker than charcoal but charcoal is darker than gray. The quantity in question here is the amount of darkness in a color. One could also say that Michael Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all times based on statistical analysis of his records compared to all other basketball players of all times. All these examples attempt to use quantities of various attributes to define somethings.

Something that is qualitative has a certain attribute associated with it that defines it. Going back to the prior examples, 4 and 2 are are both divisible by 2, so based on that quality, we say they are even numbers. Charcoal and black are both dark colors because they have the qualities that make something dark. One could make a qualitative judgment based on qualities as such. I could say they Picasso's art is better than my art, because great art enjoys international renowned, studied in academic settings, and mimicked by aspiring artist. My art enjoys none of these things, so my art is not great art.

Going back to the original objection, many people say God is unjust for inflicting infinite punishment for finite sin. As most see it, the punishment for a given crime should be equal to the crime committed. A more serious crime should be punished more seriously than another crime. Let the below diagram represents two sins: M is for murder, and P is for theft of a peanut from a peanut stand. Obviously, murder is a much more serious offense than petty theft. The size of the circle represents the degree of the sin, comparatively speaking.

I used the disproportionate circles to represent the difference in the degree of the two crimes. In any case, nobody would expect P to spend life in prison or face capital punishment, nor would someone let of M with merely a slap on the wrist. In most cases, one would want P to be a slap on the wrist and M to be punished severely, such that the degree of punishment is equal to the degree of the crime committed, as in the diagram below.

The objection see to God sees things in a similar fashion, expect the degree of punishment for the given crime is exuberantly disproportional to the degree of crime. It would impossible to show the size of the punishment in this medium or any medium because the punishment is infinite, but for illustrative purposes, imagine that G is God's punishment for sin, which is obviously much larger than M and P, or even M and P combined, which would seem to make God unjust because the punishment is excessive.

The objection could be stated, "I can't believe a God that would allow infinite punishment for for finite sin." Considering what I have discussed so far, the objection could be rephrased, "I can't beleive in a God that would allow quantitatively infinite punishment for a quantitatively finite sin." When I am talking about a quantitatively infinite punishment, I am talking about a punishment that in same fashion is will never end, such that if it were to begin now, it would never cease for all eternity. In the same manner, integers are quantitatively infinite, in that they can be counted eternally so as long as one has all eternity to count them. Comparing God's judgment to sin would be the same as comparing infinity to 10 or even 10 million to. In either case, infinity is much larger than either number. Both numbers infinity and the numbers are quantitative values. in the same manner, God's justice and the given sin would be quantitative too. In such a frame work, it would be true that the punishment was excessive, if indeed this is how God punished sin.

I propose, however, that Gods' infinite punishment again sin is not quantitatively infinite, but qualitatively infinite. Most people would ask, "What's the difference?" The difference between the two is a categorical difference. Remember, to refer to something as quantitatively infinite, is to refer to it as being measurable in some way so long as one has an infinitely long ruler to measure the line or all eternity to count it in some. To refer to something as qualitatively infinite, we are not talking about a measurable attribute, it a categorical attribute. A categorical attribute would be something such as light and dark or hard and soft. A qualitative infinite would be an attribute that never changes, in that it is always the same.

Sin to God is as such. When I think of God, I think of him being without sin. I could use "without sin" as a working definition for "holy", and to have sin would would be not holy. It is on these grounds that God judges. An holy being does not have sin, so it is impossible for such a being to have any degree of sin. An infraction against an infinitely holy being would mean that whoever committed the infraction is infinitely unholy. To illustrate, imagine a spotless sheet. A spotless sheet by definition has no spots. The minute the spotless sheet gets a spot, it becomes spotted. It would categorically fall in the same category with a sheet with thousands of spots or just two spots, no matter how small or large the spot is. All that is sin no matter how large or small, like the spots on the sheet make the sheet spotted, make the sinner unholy. God's judgment is against directly proportional to his holiness, therefore infinite. To remove such unholiness, the punishment must be infinite. Let S represent unholiness. S would include M and P, and many other sins, but is doesn't matter what how many sins are in S or the degree of sins in S. In any case, S is always unholy so as long as God is holy, and the punishment therefore is equal.

How then, can human justice be maintained in such a view of sin? It would seem that any sin, no matter how small would make one unholy. P and M are both worthy of eternal punishment in hell. If they are as such, then it seems that we should treat all crimes the same or not treat them at all. In either case, justice doesn't exist. However, remember that God is judging based on the state of a person's holiness, not the quantity or degree of his or her sins. Human justice in such a framework can still be maintained simultaneously. It isn't concerned with individual's holiness but the degree of the crimes. Even if a person makes reprimand for a crime, he or she is still a criminal. God is essentially judging a person on that basis that he or she is a criminal, regardless of the crimes that person may have committed. To mix holiness with human justice would be a categorical error.

One question still remains: Is such a view of God's judgment biblical? I think so. In the Old Testament, we find numerous laws requiring specific reprimand for specific crimes. Some crimes are more serious than others, and therefore are punished more severely than others. Such justice is finite punishment for finite sin, and would be the first framework of justice described. However, even crimes are reprimanded, God still deals with sin according to his holiness. According to Romans, the wages of sin is death. It doesn't specify the degree of sin or the minimum requirements in order to receive the death sentence. It is a categorical statement for all sins. But the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus. Jesus on the cross made an qualitatively infinite sacrifice to rectify the qualitatively infinite unholiness on our behalf. This satisfies God's justice and makes makes humans holy again, even though they have sinned.

what about those who don't hear?

2007-07-02T00:02:00.000-04:00

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

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

One of the classic struggles debates in Christianity throughout the centuries has been over the fate of the unevangelized. There has been everything from a universalist approach under which all are saved to hyper-Calvinism, which suggests that God damns some and saves others. I am certainly not one who thinks that God saves all. I think the scriptures are clear: those who don't believe are not saved--even the ones who don't hear. At the same time, I am not one who thinks that God is in the business of damning people to hell either (I'll talk more about this later).

What doesn't seem fair however is that some get to hear the gospel and some don't. The ones that hear the gospel at least have a chance to reject it, while the ones who don't hear the gospel don't get that chance. On the surface, this complaint seem to be founded. There does seem to be an imbalance between those who hear and don't hear, and God is some how responsible. When I started to think about it, I realized that perhaps I've got the picture all wrong. What struck me was that the gospel isn't something I am entitled to, but it a gift of grace on God's part. When I looked at it from this perspective, it changed everything.

What I really deserve isn't pretty. The scriptures are clear that the wages of sin death. As I said, I am don't think God is in the business of condemning people to hell. People go to hell as a result of there own action, and no action of God. The bitter reality of sin is that if we truly got what we deserved, we would suffer in hell, apart from God for all eternity.

When I look at the gospel as a gift and not as something I am entitled to, it doesn't seem fair that God should have to die on my behalf. If God caused me to sin, then perhaps I could expect him to die for me, but he didn't cause be to sin, and he voluntarily died for me. This was not an act of obligation, but an act of love. When God offers the gospel to a person, he is offering a gift. A person may choose to accept or reject that gift at that point, but that too is their own doing and not one of God's. The one who gives the gift isn't obligated to give everyone a gift, not unlike me when I when I give a gift. As a giver, I am able to dispense my belongings to whomever I please. I am not unfair in doing so, by giving a gift to one and not giving a gift to another. The same is true for God - as a giver, He is able to dispense his grace to whomever he pleases He is not unfair in doing so, by giving a gift to one and not giving a gift to another.

Matthew speaks of a vineyard owner who hires people early in the morning, at midday, and just before sundown, and he pays each one of them the same wage. Yet, the ones who had been working all day complained, saying they had worked all day and received the same pay as the ones who had been working only a few hours. Then the landowner spoke

But he answered one of them, "Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?"

While this passage isn't speaking directly to what is at hand, I think we can get a picture in our minds. The landowner is under no obligation to pay those who had been working all day anymore than those who had been working only an hour because it is his money to dispense. God as the landowner has no obligation to dispense his grace, and we as humans have no right to complain about how he dispenses it.

I think the best thing to do however is to stop speculating as to what will happened to the unevangelized and eliminate the question altogether. If everyone had a chance to hear the gospel in his or her lifetime, we wouldn't have to worry about this question.

what if e.t. believed in god?

2007-06-15T17:30:00.000-04:00

I was driving down the road one day thinking about another post, and wondered, how would the discovery of aliens affect my beliefs in God? I responded along the lines that it would probably depend on the religious beliefs of aliens. With that in mind, I divulged my mind into thinking up possible case scenarios and their implications on the theism/atheism debate. Here are 6 that I came up with. This is by no means definitive, but I think it at least a good start.

The first possibilities are those related more to atheism:

Possibility #1: The Aliens are Atheists -- By this, I mean that the aliens had at once believed in God, and at one point disbelieved in God for some reason, similar or dissimilar to the reasons given by many atheists. If the aliens were atheists, I don't think I would it would add to either case, because it wouldn't add anything new to the debate.

Possibility #2: The Aliens are Apatheists -- They have no concept of God. This is distinct from atheism, because atheists disbelieve God. The aliens in this case have nothing to disbelieve, so there is no disbelief. If the aliens were indeed apatheists, then I think this would give some credibility to the argument that God is a delusion, something created by human imagination, thus be in favor of atheism.

There are three distinct possibilities under theism:

Possiblity #3: The Aliens are Autotheists -- They think of themselves as God or gods. If anyone is familiar with the Stargate franchise, you know that the premise behind the series is that many of the gods of mythologies were in fact aliens that had propped themselves up as gods, and enforced the delusion through technological marvels and other means. The aliens may present themselves as gods with full knowledge they are not gods, or they may present themselves as gods and be fully convinced they are gods.

There are several implications here. In this case, we could implement C.S. Lewis' trilemma: either they are liars, lunatics, or gods. If they are liars as Stargate proposes the gods are aliens who are posing as early humans and lying about it. I think this would help explain many of the objections raised by atheist, in that the plurality of gods shows that perhaps there isn't a single god, but that all gods are fictitious. It could be that the aliens are delusional in thinking they are gods. From the human perspective, this wouldn't be a whole lot different from the aliens posing as God and being liars, but from the aliens' perspective, humans would be blaspheming gods should they deny the deity of the aliens. The last possibility is that they are indeed gods. I find this highly unlikely. Such beings wouldn't really fit the traditional definition of what a god would be.

Possibility #4: The Aliens are Anthropotheists -- They think of humans as gods. Humans aren't gods, although some might think of themselves as such, so the aliens would be deceived.

Possibility #5: The Aliens are Traditional Theists -- This like Possibility #1 would seem to add to the fray without significantly changing it.

Possibility #6: The Aliens like earth have a hodge-podge of religious different beliefs -- Again, this like Possibility #1 would seem to add to the fray without significantly changing it.

I think the odds are in favor for the propagation of atheism, should aliens land and we learn that are like Possibility #2 or Possibility #3, but all in all, I don't think such an event would kill religion or theism for that matter.

Thoughts? Other Possibilities?

theological implications of fermi's paradox and the drake equation

2007-05-30T15:04:00.000-04:00

I am an avid science fiction fan. I was talking to some friends the other day around a game of Diplomacy, and the topic of Star Trek came up. It quickly became apparent to many that I was perhaps the biggest Star Trek geek at the table. After leaving, I started to wonder some things about the implications extraterrestrial life on theology. This is by no means scholarly and will probably sounds just as much like science fiction as Star Trek, but these are my musings nevertheless.

When considering Star Trek, Star Wars and other science fiction franchises, we usually get a galaxy teeming with intelligent extraterrestrial life. Encountering a new species make a good story line and opens the door for endless imagination and possibilities for character creation, varying species, and many other things, as such. Science fiction as such has often influenced the minds thinkers and has certainly played a part in attempts to discover alien life in reality. Two things that are very familiar to the search for extraterrestrial intelligence are Fermi's Paradox and the Drake Equation. Any casual science fiction fan has probably at least heard of these things, but I will assume you haven't and explain them according. Fermi's paradox, simply put is the apparent contradiction between the seeming possibilities of thousands of sentient species in the galaxy, yet to date, there has been no conclusive proof that any other intelligent species exist other than our own. With this in mind, there are perhaps two possibilities we can come up with: either they do not exist, or we have not made contact them yet. There have been a number of suggestions that have attempted to reconcile the paradox, but generally speaking, most of these fall under the second of the two possibilities, in that for whatever reason we haven't made contact yet.

On the other hand, there is the possibility that human beings are a unique occurrence in the universe, and against all odds have come into existence. Theologically speaking, human beings are the special and unique creation of God, such that there is nothing else like them in all creation. This would seem to rule out the possibility of other sentient life forms in the universe from a theological standpoint. But we are not speaking theologically, but more (or less!) scientifically, and thus there is a need to substantiate such things.

In 1961, Frank Drake came up with the Drake Equation, a proposed way of estimating the number of sentient species capable of transmitting radio communication into space. The Drake Equation is a type of Fermi equation, which are used in physics and other science to identify key aspects of a given situation in order to predict possible outcomes. Here is a summary of the key aspects of the Drake equation:

N = R * fp * ne * fl * fi * fc * fL

N: the number of communicating intelligent species at this time

R: Number of "suns" that develop in the galaxy per year

fp: the percentage of R with planets

ne: number of planets capable of sustaining life

fl: fraction of ne on which life would evolve

fi: fraction of fl on which intelligent life would evolve

fc: fraction of fi of which the intelligent life would learn to communicate with radios

fL: the number of years such civilizations would exist

Here are my assumptions:

R: 1 -- Scientist estimate that 1 "sun" develops in the galaxy per year.

fp: 75% -- Recent evidence shows that planets are not a rare occurrence as they once thought. There have been a number of exoplanets, planets outside our solar system, discovered in the past 15 or so years.

ne: 50% -- This is a guess. It is suggested that every star has what is called a habitable zone. This region surrounding a star where water can exist on a planet as liquid, thus providing the bedrock for life to form as we know it. The discovery of life around hydrothermal vents at the bottom of the ocean and in near boiling temperatures around geysers suggest that the habitable zone is rather large, rather than narrow as it was once thought to be. About the only kind of starts that would not be habitable are those that produce dangerous radiation. Even if planets formed in the habitable zone with liquid water, life is unlikely to form because of the radioactivity of the nearby star.

fl: 100% -- fraction of ne on which life would evolve -- I tend to think that if life can evolve, it will.

fi: .0000001% -- Now here is the catch: Although life may be abundant, intelligent life perhaps is not. What seems to be true is that higher-order life has a narrower band of existence, such that the ranges required for sustaining intelligent life are narrower than those required to sustain lower-order life such as bacteria. Such things would be temperature variation, the existence of lower-order life for the survival of high order life, and the necessarily resources (tool making materials, etc) needed to sustain life among other requirements.

fc: 50% -- I tend to think that if intelligent life evolves, then it is highly probable that such life will develop the technology to use the eltro-magnetic spectrum to communicate.

fL: 200,000 -- Our civilization has only been using radio communication for about 100 years, and our civilization is estimated to only be about 10,000 years old. Our species is relatively young too: an estimated 200,000 years old. This means humans existed for 190,000 years prior to developing civilization and 199,900 years prior to developing eltro-magnetic communication. Given the resilience of the human race, I'd would at least say humans will exist another 200,000 years a species if they don't destroy themselves or face destruction by some other means.

N: .00375 communicating civilizations

If I go based on my guess, then human beings are the only communicating civilization at this time, and that only happened by a .375% chance. Accordingly the human species is indeed rare.

But here are a few problems:

The equation doesn't take into account the possibility of life in other galaxies. There are an estimated 100,000,000,000 galaxies in the which would drastically increase the probability of intelligent life forming.

The equation does take into account the possibility of an intelligent species who can't communicate via radio. If civilizations are anything like humans, then they have only been able to communicate via radios .05% of their entire existence. We don't know however how long humans will continue to exist with this ability. We don't know if we are at the apex of our technological achievements, or if radio communications is just a baby step in technological development.

The equation doesn't take into account the possibility of all civilizations for all time. Scientists estimate that the universe has existed for some 15,000,000,000 years. Taken that into consideration, we could estimate that life began to evolve around 10 billion years ago. If we consider this, then it is possible that intelligent life has existed for 6 billion years ago, taking into account that is perhaps how long it took life on earth to evolve.

With these considerations, we could modify the Drake Equation with these values:

R: 100,000,000,000 -- 1 new "sun" per day per galaxy

fp: 75% -- unchanged

ne: 50% -- unchanged

fl: 100% -- unchanged

fi: .0000001% -- unchanged

fc: -- remove this from the equation to take into consideration aliens that don't develop radio communication

fL: 6,000,0000,000 for all time; 200,000 for current civilizations;

N: 225,000,000,000 for all time; 7,500,000 for current civilizations;

With these new assumptions, there even with the low probability that life evolves into intelligent species, it is still very likely that there are a number of intelligent species in the known universe.

Now consider Fermi's paradox: In spite of the significantly large number of possible civilization, we have no conclusive evidence that such civilizations exist. While this is merely speculative, I think that we can at least consider the possibility with some degree of certainty that perhaps humanity is a unique occurrence in the universe. Going back to the two original possibilities, either aliens don't exist, or we made contact them yet, I think we can rule out that we haven’t made contact with them yet, and conclude that they don’t exist. This doesn't show the theological implications to be true, but certainly leans towards such a thing.

greer-heard review 5: more problems with memes

2007-04-09T23:52:00.000-04:00

McGrath was quick to point out that the entire discussion of religion as Dennett paints it is focused on the meme. Dennett bases his entire paper on the concept of the meme, and it is on that issue that his house will stand or fall. As discussed and McGrath points out, memes are based on an analogy: memes are to information as genes are to biology. Like most analogies, they break down at some point. Analogies generally speaking not represent their analogs in every aspect, and are generally used to aid understanding, but they cannot be the analog entirely. The analogy between memes and genes is no different. To McGrath's analysis, I would add a few things.

First, I would add that genes are not irreducible. In other words, genes are self-contained—one cannot make a new gene by combining other genes and one cannot make another gene by deconstructing a gene. If the gene is combined or deconstructed, it will not be useful in biological terms. They can be no more complex or simpler than they already are. Because of this, one can map genes, locate genes, manipulate genes, and count them. Because of these properties, there are only a finite number of genes in any given organism.

Memes, however, are not irreducible. Given a meme, it can be broken into smaller memes, and those smaller memes can be broken into even smaller memes, perhaps with no end in site. Dennett uses the analogy of words. Words can be broken into letters, letters reduced to symbols, and symbols reduced to abstractions. Take for instance the sentence, "Memes can be scientifically observed and manipulated." If a word is a meme, then this sentence could be reduced to, "Memes meme meme memeficially memed meme memed." Then one could reduce the letters in the same way accordingly. Such a sentence could perhaps contain more memes than there are genes in the entire human body, depending on how a person wants to look at the words.

On these terms, the analogy breaks down. It would virtually impossible to treat memes in the same manner one treats genes; one cannot identify them, count them, or change them according. This doesn't make for good science, because there is no means to quantify, analyze or even recognize memes.

Second, I would add that the whole concept of a meme is somewhat self-defeating. As aforementioned, genes are a particular item: they are self contained, can be counted and worked on. The processes that work on genes are not genes themselves, but other biological processes, such as mutations, DNA replication, and protein building to name a few. Likewise, genes undergo selection, whether it is artificial or natural. Bad genes are weeded out of populations by selections and vice versa for good genes.

Memes however are different, because the processes that manipulate memes are memes themselves. If these processes are memes themselves, then it is possible that the processes will themselves be weeded out or replaced if the processes are deemed bad. If meme selection is a meme itself then it is possible that the standard for evaluating memes may change. It is even possible that the concept of meme themselves get weeded out. (It would essentially be the suicide of the meme!) Whatever happens in memetics, it seems that memes ultimate evaluating memes because viciously cyclical or self-defeating altogether. The processes that govern genes are independent of the genes themselves, and therefore are not subject to the same volitions genes are. This is not true for memes, so again the analogy breaks down here.

Third, even if memes are mutually exclusive and not self-defeating, what does one gain from using memes? McGrath pointed out that scientist and social scientists can and have applied evolutionary paradigms to other sciences without the use of memes, such as Freud and Marx. If memes catch on, it could perhaps slow, not help the process of science because sciences will have to be reframed in terms of memes. It would like going through the Manhattan Phonebook and giving everyone a new name in German. Such processes can over-complicate the issue unnecessarily, and not to mention the time that would be needed to undertake such projects. In the end, it seem that memes are neither necessary nor beneficial to the overall scientific project.

If Dennett were to abandon the idea of memes, and approach his analysis of religion from other more developed science, such as anthropology, then he may be able to build a case. As it stands right now though, his entire case seems to be internally inconsistent because of it dependence upon memes.

greer-heard review 4 :analysis of mcgrath’s arguments on dennett

2007-04-07T20:54:00.000-04:00

In McGrath's lecture, he addresses some critical issue in the relationship of science and religion. This particular relationship has been of great interest for McGrath. He has a number of titles on the subject, including his three-volume set, A Scientific Theology, and a primer of the subject called, Science and Religion, and Introduction. He is perhaps one of the most qualified people on the subject.

Although McGrath's resumé is impressive, it does seem that his presentation did have at least one internal contradiction. When he suggested that religions are difficult to define and that one should look for the essence of religion, and then critiques Dennett and Dawkins for not having a clear definition for memes, it seems that he is muddying the water for religion, and attempting to clear for memes. It is almost an imperative that one needs clear definitions in science as to what something is, and it is probably just as important to have one when discussing metaphysical matters. The problem with metaphysics though it that it is a subjective project, and definitions will vary. Perhaps the solution would be to have some sort of middle ground: working definitions and qualified attributes. A working definition is not necessarily a dictionary like definition, but one that is clear enough and understandable enough to uniquely identify something in the context of discussion. The qualified attributes would be cataloged characteristics that the items in discussion all have, such as the object of worship for a given religion. This is admittedly daunting, but one thing that any aspiring philosopher learns quickly is that clarity of the utmost importance.

McGrath does a sufficient job of pointing out that Dennett's work is really lacking in science. He points out that Dennett has theories but fails to back them up. All Dennett does is appeal to the analogy that he uses through out as the science, and for McGrath, that isn't science at all, and it is as if Dennett is expecting the analog to genes to be the science and do the science for the argument.

On memes, McGrath excelled. He proposes a catalog of objections to memes, some which are lacking. Of the eight that were mentioned there were at least two could be scrapped, but he would still have a case. The idea that there is no testable model is implied by the fact that there is no definition for memes. It seems to be implied. The other one that could be dropped is the suggestions that memes make great use of circular explanations, and offers not explanation as to how they do this. Even if these two are dropped, that still leaves six objections, all which he develops rather well.

greer-heard review 3: mcgrath's critique of denett's hypothesis

2007-03-29T22:24:00.000-04:00

After Dennett delivered his presentation, Alister McGrath began his lecture. McGrath has been one of the most outspoken critics of the idea of the meme. He first published a book entitled Dawkin's God: Memes, Genes, and the Meaning of Life, which challenged the scientific appeal of the concept of the meme. McGrath brings many of the same arguments to life in this lecture on Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell, because it like Dawkin's book is based on the idea of the meme. He does so by first addressing the asking the question, "What is a religion?", critiquing Dennett's use of science, and ending on a lengthy critique of memes.

For McGrath, there seems to be a shortcoming to how Dennett describes religion. Dennett describes religion without a God as a "vertebrate without a backbone." McGrath challenges the validity of this idea on the notion that there are many would be religions that don't have gods, and he mentions Buddhism in particular. He suggests rather than trying to define a religion, one should look for the "essence" of religion. He didn't really specify any criteria as to what the essence of religion may be though. He does seem however to think that one could objectively deem something a religion and something else as just merely a worldview.

After briefly discussing religion, McGrath looks at the would-be scientific underpinnings of Dennett's arguments. Here he notes two things. First he notes how Dennett suggests that it has been taboo to evaluate religion scientifically. McGrath notes that the scientific study of religion is nothing new, and it is in fact several centuries old. He dates it to around 1780. McGrath also notes that many of the naturalistic attempts to explain the rise of religion presuppose that God doesn't exist, the very thing that many of them are trying to show. Second, McGrath then asks, "Where is the science?" He notes Dennett supposes a "Sweet-tooth theory" which suggests that humans have a "mystical gene" that somehow makes them more fit, but he doesn't see any science in Dennett's book to back it up.

The final part of McGrath's critique, and where he spends most of his time is on the idea of the meme. There at least eight objections that McGrath gives to memes in his presentation. First, McGrath is quick to note that memes are based whole on an analogy, in that memes are like genes. McGrath points out that analogy break down at some point, and that the analogy between memes and genes is no different. Second, McGrath asks what model of cognition is used to transfer memes. He notes that neither Dennett or McGrath propose a model, but just state that memes jump from brain to brain as if they were flying through the air. Third, McGrath notes that there is no clear working definition for a meme, and thus is makes it hard to identify or locate a meme. Fourth, he notes that there is no testable model, but he says without developing the thought. Fifth, he notes that it ignores existing models, but he had already developed this analysis earlier in the presentation. Sixth, he suggests that memes have a high degree of circular explanation, but again he doesn't offer any analysis to how. Seventh, he notes that the analyzing religion through memetics makes the debate of religion based solely upon the meme. For McGrath, this is problem because of the other problems inherent to memes. And lastly, he notes that somehow Dawkins excuses his own ideas from memetics, so they don't fall under the same critique. McGrath then ask in reference to this, "Is there a meme for atheism? Is there a meme for a memes?" He suggests that Dawkin's judgments are somewhat subjective, and need to be clarified more.

He concludes his presentation by noting that science is wonderful for making discoveries and offering explanations for things in the material world, but it is limited in its scope when it comes to metaphysical questions. McGrath seems to think that science does not offer a good rubric for analyzing these things.

greer-heard review 2: denett's analysis of religion

2007-03-25T02:13:00.000-04:00

Dennett's presentation started with a humanist look at the world. He showed a video with the reflections of Homer Groening, father of Simpson's creator Matt Groening. The video reflects on the loneliness of man in on a planet in the vast ocean of space. It builds a motif of how small and infinitesimal human kind is, and then exhorts man not to screw it up in light of that. Daniel Dennett seems to endorse such a view of the world. After showing the video, he starts by showing demographic information about the rise of non-religious people in the world, and suggests that nonreligious groups are perhaps the fastest growing population in the world, may only second to Islam. From this he asks the question, "Why?"

Next, Dennett goes on to show how religions are like genes. He starts by show the picture of and Aurochs, an ancient cow species, then shows a modern cow. He then says that humans have developed the cow from the aurochs over thousands of years in order to have the kind of cows that people have today. He then likens religions to the same thing. He says religions have evolved from more primitive religions, starting off as "wild" and slowly they become sophisticated over time.

After developing his analysis of religion, he begins to talk about memes. Dennett borrowed the idea of memes from Richard Dawkins, who first proposed memes in his book, The Selfish Gene. A meme is analogous to a gene. Memes are packets of information that get passed down from one generation to the next in the same way genes do. Fit memes, like genes, will more likely survive than less fit memes. The unfit memes will then be thrown out, and the fit will be passed down. The memes are adapted and changed sometimes. New memes pop up every now and then. They behave vary similarly to the way genes do, and are governed by the same laws that genes are. Dennett suggests that religions are a meme, and like all memes, they will evolved and change with time.

greer-heard review 1: introduction

2007-03-10T01:32:00.000-05:00

The Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum this year featured Daniel Dennett, and atheists and University Professor and Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy at Tufts University. He has recently published a book promoting the use of memetics to evaluate religion called Breaking the Spell. Alister McGrath is a researcher, Christian theologian, and Professor of Historical Theology at Oxford University. His has written a number of books on the relationship between science and religion and is highly critical of Dawkins and the use of memes in discussing religion.

Dennett offered an inductive study of how religions evolve, and made it analogous to how genes evolve. McGrath went on the offensive critiquing Dennett’s analysis on the multiple points including the relationship of science and religion, the scientific basis of Dennett’s argument, and the concept of the meme which Dennett’s arguments are based on

This paper will summarize both positions, then analyze McGrath’s arguments in light of Dennett’s presentation, and will build on McGrath’s arguments and memes.

journey of an atheist 6 -- land ho!

2007-02-26T10:54:00.000-05:00

Checkmate doesn't end with Lewis becoming a Christian, but it ends with Lewis becoming a theists. The last chapter, "The Beginning" tells of the last and final step towards becoming a Christian. Lewis had earlier in his life struggled with pluralism. He had a hard time accepting one religion as true in the face of thousands of options. Even after becoming a Christian, it seems that he maintains a portion of this thinking. He states on the matter: I do not think the resemblance between the Christian and the merely imaginative experience is accidental. I think that all thins, in their way, reflect heavenly truth, the imagination not least. 'Reflect' is the important word" (Check). So for Lewis, "The question was, no longer to find the one simply true religion among a thousand religions simply false. It was rather, 'Where has religion reached its true maturity?'" (The Beginning) To Lewis, there were 2 options: Hinduism and Christianity. Everything else was a 'vulgarization' or 'unrefined' version of these two. Hinduism lacked in two areas: First, its philosophy and practice existed in two separate arenas, and were not mixed, as “oil and water” in Lewis’ terms (The Beginning). Second, Hinduism did 5 not have the historical context that the Christian religion had. The gospels for Lewis did not possess the mythical elements that other religious traditions did. Of Christianity, Lewis says, "This is not 'a religion', nor 'a philosophy'. It is the summing up and actuality of them all." (The Beginning)

greer-heard point-counterpoint forum

2007-02-20T23:28:00.000-05:00

This is a shameless plug for the Greer-Heard Forum to be held at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. This year, Alister McGrath, a Oxford scientist/theologian and Daniel Dennett a philosopher from Tufts University, will be debating the future of atheism.

The cost is $20 for the general public, $10 for students, and free for any NOBTS faculty or students.

it's all about me...

2007-02-19T02:14:00.000-05:00

journey of an atheist 5 -- narrow straights

2007-02-17T21:18:00.000-05:00

The Third was the logical outgrowth of accepting the Absolute and the newly found discovery. To Lewis, Humans have appearances of the Absolute, thus are rooted in the Absolute. This allows mortals to experience Joy. For Lewis, "Joy was not a deception. It's visitations were rather the moments of the clearest consciousness we had, when we became aware of our fragmentary and phantasmal nature and ached for that impossible reunion which would annihilate us or that self-contradictory waking which would reveal, not that we had gad, but that we were, a dream" (Checkmate) This statement is somewhat ambiguous language, but it seem he is saying that our existence apart from the Joy is rather dismal, and an encounter with Joy wakens one to the ultimate reality beyond oneself.

The Fourth and Final Move was the step into full-fledged theism. To explain, Lewis uses an extended metaphor of Shakespeare meeting Hamlet. At first God was not personal. Lewis says, "I could no more "meet" him than Hamlet could meet Shakespeare" (Checkmate), but later he theorizes, "If Shakespeare and Hamlet could ever meet, it must be Shakespeare's doing. Hamlet could initiate nothing." (Checkmate) He concludes with this:

The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to the prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape? The words, 'compelle intrare' (which means is forced entry into the church), compel them to come in, have been so abused by wicked men that we shudder to use them; but properly understood, they plumb the depth of Devine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation. (Checkmate)

journey of an atheist 4 -- navigating the course

2007-02-10T16:55:00.000-05:00

Accepting the Absolute was a baby step compared the next step Lewis takes in the chapter entitled, "Checkmate". Checkmate is the term used by chess players to describe a situation in which the king can no longer avoid capture, and thus the game ends. Lewis describes his conversion experience from the "New Look" to theism in these terms. He divided his conversion into four moves, each distinct in its characteristic and fundamental to his surrender.

The First Move for Lewis was to "annihilate the last remains of the New Look." J.R.R. Tolkein played a significant role in tearing down the barriers between Lewis and theism. Tolkein was both a catholic and a philologist, which is one who studies ancient literature. Recall that Lewis adhered to chronological snobbery, so anything old was discredited in his mind on that basis and that Lewis wanted nothing to do with God. Tolkein's friendship help remove these barriers in Lewis. Lewis says as a result of Tolkein's influence that, "Realism had been abandoned; the New Look was somewhat damaged, and chronological snobbery was seriously shaken" (Checkmate). All these things had been essential to Lewis' philosophy before Tolkein.

The Second Move was for Lewis a complete paradigm shift. Lewis adopts and adapts the philosophy presented by Alexander in Space, Time and Deity. Lewis describes the philosophy, saying:

I accept this distinction at once and have ever since regarded it as an indispensable tool of thought...It seems to me self-evident that one essential property of love, hate, fear, hope, or desire was attention to their object. To cease thinking about or attending to the woman is, so far, to cease loving; to cease thinking about or attending to the dreaded thing is, so far, to cease being afraid. But to attend to your own love or gear is to case attending to the loved or dreaded object. In other words, the enjoyment and the contemplation of our inner activities are incompatible. You cannot home and also think about hoping at the same moment. for in hoe we like to hopes object and we interrupt this by (so to speak) turning round to look at the hope itself; but they are distinct and incompatible. (Checkmate)

Lewis adds a third dimension to Alexander's philosophy: The unconscious He states succinctly: "We do not love, fear, or think without knowing it. Instead of the two fold division of Conscious and unconscious, we need a threefold division: Unconscious, the Enjoyed, and the Contemplated." (Checkmate) For Lewis, the he Unconscious is the mere acts; the Enjoyed the thought of the act; and the Contemplated is the thought on the thought of the act. For Lewis, this thinking was revolutionary. He reflects saying, "This discovery flashed new light back on my whole life. I saw that all my waitings and watchings for Joy, all my vain hopes to find some mental content on which I could, so to speak, lay my finger and say, 'That is it' had been futile attempts to contemplate the enjoyed." (Checkmate) He reflections on his attempts at Joy were "the mental track left by the passage of Joy -- not the wave but the waves imprint on the sand." Lewis then realizes he had been asking the wrong question all along. To him, it should have been, "Who is the desired?" and up to that point, he had only asked "What is it?" (Checkmate). This mode of thinking becomes the bedrock that permeates through many of Lewis' other writings.

journey of an atheist 3 -- catching sight of land

2007-02-05T18:41:00.000-05:00

It is admittedly daunting to summarize how such a wonderful, thought provoking story such as Lewis' journey from atheistic thinking to full-fledge Christianity is such a forum as this, but this is an attempt none-the-less. The journey is sign-posted by Lewis in three broad categories, which include the "New Look", his conversion to theism, then his conversion to Christianity. These three stages of the journey reflect the content of the last three chapters of the book, with particular emphasis on the middle of the three.

Lewis' directionless journey caught sight of the island he long for after he came to Oxford. The predominant mode of thinking at the time at Oxford was idealism, which for Lewis created the seedbed of what he calls the "Absolute". Lewis sets up for himself a philosophical system, which is an outgrowth of idealism. Although the Absolute was not God, it was one step closer to God than where Lewis had been before. He describes the Absolute:

The Absolute Mind -- better still the Absolute -- was impersonal, or it knew itself (but not us?) only in us, and it was so absolute that it wasn't really much more like a mind than anything else...Yet there was one really wholesome element in it. The Absolute was 'there' and that 'there' contained the reconciliation of all contraries, the transcendence of all finitude, the hidden glory which was the only perfectly thing there is. In fact, it had much of the quality of Heaven. But it was a Heaven none of us could ever get to. (The New Look)

The Absolute, whatever it may be, was for Lewis more religious than what he had called Christianity. However, his acceptance of the absolute was not full blown theism. It was at least an acceptance of something ethereal or transcendence, but it was still intangible, impersonal, and not a being itself.

journey of an atheist 2 -- drifting at sea

2007-02-02T10:36:00.000-05:00

The first course that Lewis plotted was a course of indulgence. Lewis went to many boarding schools as a boy, teenager, and a young man. These schools were anything but edifying for Lewis, save a few teachers and peers he encountered on the way. To him, the thing to do at these schools was to be self-centered, so Lewis did just that. He became what he calls, "dressy" (I Broaden My Mind) He dresses in the latest fads with designer ties, and slicks his hair with oil, although he personally thought it was gross. Lewis for the first time stoops to vulgarity, swearing and cussing, as it seems to be the thing to do. He also notes that for the first time here really begins to lust after women. These indulgences were his first attempt to fill the void left by the absence of Joy in his life. But these things seemed to lack, and it was at that point Lewis changed directions.

The second course that Lewis plotted was almost a 180-degree turn from the life of indulgence. It doesn't seem that Lewis took on a whole new persona overnight, but the shift was gradual, subtle over time, with the indulgences in culture lessening. The indulgence was replaced with isolation. Lewis delved into education and learning, but this produced a whole new set of problems for Lewis. As he put it, he had replaced self-centeredness with selfishness (The Great Knock) with the emphasis being on the intellectual arrogance. Lewis, after having gone to Wyvern began reading a number of highly scholastic authors. This reading gave him a sense of superiority to those who only read magazines and listened to nothing but ragtime (Light and Shade). This also gave him an intellectual justification to reject faith in addition to his experience. He doubted prayer, and seemingly used unanswered prayer as an excuse not to believe in God (I Broaden My Mind). He rejected religion in light of pluralism because struggled with accepting truth claims of a particular religion over the competing religions (I Broaden My Mind). Likewise, he struggled with a world of what he calls "undesign", and he questions how a god could make a world like his own (I Broaden My Mind). Perhaps the climax of Lewis' rebellion was what he called chronological snobbery, in which he rejected anything that was old because he thought newer things were better. It seems that he was one who sought to debunk the status quo, to be novel or revolutionary, whether it was against established orthodoxy, or its polar opposite (Check).

But in all of Lewis attempts to be novel and find Joy on his own, he struggled with confronting those he held dear with his beliefs, particularly his father. He admits that he could not face his father with his beliefs and postulates how his father might react. So cowardice compelled him to heap on more novelty and intellect that him drove further and further into rebellion. Lewis says of this, "Cowardice drove me to hypocrisy and hypocrisy to blasphemy" (Fortunes Smiles). In all though, Lewis still remained empty, yearning for something to fill him. Lewis agonizes, "The authentic 'Joy'...had vanished from my life: so completely that not even the memory or the desired remained. The reading of Sohrah had not given it to me. Joy is distinct not only from pleasure in general but even from aesthetic pleasure. It must have the stab, the pang, the inconsolable longin." (Renaissance). The more he read, the more the memory of Joy crept back into Lewis' life. He likens the feeling to heartache. And yearn he did -- to the point that he wanting nothing more than to have Joy back in his life. Lewis says, "And at once I knew (with fatal knowledge) that to 'have [Joy] again' was the supreme and only important object of desire" (Renaissance).

journey of an atheist 1 -- pain, loss, and evil

2007-01-31T01:12:00.000-05:00

Pain, Loss, Evil -- these were the things that Clives Staples Lewis struggled with in his early years. Lewis, one of the most profound and prolific writers of modern times tells of his journey away from the Christian faith to a valley of unbelief, then back up the mountain where he meets God--whom he calls Joy with a capital "J". Lewis starts by recounting his early childhood fantasies and experience, which he notes are a manifestation of Joy. To him, these memories would become goal of his existence to recapture the feelings and security that they offered.

Lewis recalls that his first religious experience in his life was he death of his mother. After reflecting on this experience, Lewis says, "With my mother's death all settled happiness, all that was tranquil and reliable, disappeared from my life. There was to be much fun, many pleasures, many stabs of Joy; but no more of the old security. It was sea and island now the great continent had sunk like Atlantis." (The First Years) What Lewis had known as solidarity and peace became an island, puny memory of existence in an ocean of life. This imagery reflects the deep disappointment and the longing to return to that island that seemed so large in his early life. But it seems that Lewis was lost at sea and had no idea how to find his way back, so with that, he attempts to find the way on his own with no charts, maps, or a compass to guide him.

fundamentalism meets mac...

2007-01-23T17:58:00.002-05:00

This guy isn't serious, but I found this parody of the Mac commericals to be funny.

thank god or thank goodness?

2007-01-22T19:06:00.000-05:00

I hope I never thank God for Daniel Dennett's death, and I am glad that his life was spared. Being a theists, I hope one day that he will see God and will convert, but I can only hope. I can imagine that he'd want the same for me concerning atheism.

It was interesting to read an atheist's perspective on how one views medicine and healing. Surprisingly, it wasn't all that different from the way Christians see it, save one thing: God. And it is on that matter I have been thinking about.

One thing that Dennett notes in the article is how "good intentions" are often used as the standard in view of God, but not the one that is applied to man. He thinks that if a doctor's work was just "good intentions" by theist standards, then the doctor would have a lot more room for error. He says:

…if you have good intentions, and are trying to do what (God says) is right, that is all anyone can ask. Not so in medicine! If you are wrong--especially if you should have known better--your good intentions count for almost nothing...In other words, whereas religions may serve a benign purpose by letting many people feel comfortable with the level of morality they themselves can attain, no religion holds its members to the high standards of moral responsibility that the secular world of science and medicine does!

I think that Dennett misevaluates Christianity. It is true that God wants our intentions to be pure, but it also true that God wants our conduct and effort to be pure too. People are filled with good intentions, but often fail to act on those intentions. This is not at all what God wants. I am sure that Ted Haggart had all the intentions in the world to not do what he did, but he did it anyways, and now has become yet another moral failure in the eyes of Christianity and secular world alike. Intentions weren't good enough here. What if this had been the pope? The ramifications would have been even larger. It is of the utmost importance that Christians and Christian leaders especially maintain impeccable behavior to not discredit themselves or Christianity. When Bill Clinton failed morally, it didn’t deface the faith as much as when someone like Jim Baker did.

On the same issue, God wants more than good intentions in the work place and work of the church. What if Christian charities all over world who deliver aid to the people who need it desperately decided that it was just good enough to have the intent to help people? Nobody would ever get helped. But the intentions have manifested themselves and today many people receive aid because of Christian charities. And what about the doctors who work for these charities? These people often sacrifice potentially lucrative careers to live in less than acceptable living conditions to help people. Such sacrifice goes beyond mere intentions to showing people an example of what Christ preached: complete selflessness without any intent other than love. So essentially, religion demands excellence in two areas: work and morality. This is a far cry from what atheism would demand.

On thankfulness, Dennett thanks goodness, rather than God for all that he has received. Dennett sees goodness as those who have helped keep him alive for his life. He says:

I really do mean thank goodness! There is a lot of goodness in this world, and more goodness every day, and this fantastic human-made fabric of excellence is genuinely responsible for the fact that I am alive today. It is a worthy recipient of the gratitude I feel today, and I want to celebrate that fact here and now.

I am in complete agreement with Dennett on this statement, but as a theist I would take it a step further. First, I would thank God for goodness. From whence does goodness come? As a theist, I believe God, but where does an atheists get the concept of goodness from? C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity writes about how he perceived there to be so much evil in the world, but in doing so, he realized that he could have no perception of moral law without a moral law giver, namely God. How can Dennett know anything about goodness apart from someone who defines goodness? If it is subject to himself, then as an individual I could certainly think that murder is a goodness. But we know it is not, and on that I thank God for the goodness and justice he gives us.

Second, I don't have to be an atheist to thank goodness. Dennett spells out those who he thanks, and I too and grateful to those who have helped keep me alive all these years. I can thank the doctors, nurses, orderlies, security guards, insurance agents, x-ray technicians, and so many other. I can thank religion, the very institution that is so often criticized for stifling the growth of reason is the very institution that preserved learning while the Europe was in chaos, from which medicine was born. And on top of that, I can thank God. So which heart of gratitude is ultimately a greater? If I am thanking God and people, then presumably I would have more gratitude than those who just thanked people. I can also thank God for life, the air I breathe, the planet on which I live, the food that the planet provides me with. Can an atheist thank the ground for food? Can an atheist thank anything for life? Certainly not. It is quite humbling to realize that there is so much that we take for granted, and I can't help but think that these things are a gift, not an accident--something I can be infinitely grateful for.

Third, Dennett holds that we should repay goodness for what goodness has given us, but he also maintains that trying to repay God is ludicrous:

The best thing about saying thank goodness in place of thank God is that there really are lots of ways of repaying your debt to goodness--by setting out to create more of it, for the benefit of those to come...Or you can thank God--but the very idea of repaying God is ludicrous. What could an omniscient, omnipotent Being (the Man Who has Everything?) do with any paltry repayments from you?

Dennett is right on when he says we can't repay God, but I don't think it is ludicrous. What seems more humbling is realizing that I can't repay what has given to me: life, air, food, and so much more. This exponentially increases my gratitude. It is in that gratitude that love is born. It is fundamentally different than the way Dennett see it. He sees it as a give and take economy--what one takes out he or she should put back in. A person with that perspective might feel that they have given more than they have taken, and hav a sense of entitlement. The Christian worldview is all give, because we realize that we have been given so much more than we could ever repay. It is out of a heart of gratitude that love is born. So which is true altruism? Because of how Christians perceive blessing, it makes one more grateful and more generous than atheism, which is more altruistic.

One final thought: What if Dennett had died? Can anyone thank goodness for that? Probably not, but one can at least thank God when someone who is a Christian departs. For a Christian, life doesn't end at the grave but continues on and for that hope that I can and will be eternally thankful.

the vanity of atheism

2007-01-16T09:15:00.001-05:00

One does not have to read about atheism for very long to find something written about how religion is superstitious. Atheism thinks that religion is based on ignorant beliefs in a deity and that are the results of irrational people trying to explain things in nature, when they could not. Superstition is an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear, or a "set of behaviors that are related to magical thinking, whereby the practitioner believes that the future, or the outcome of certain events, can be influenced by certain specified behaviors". Superstition is often associated with good luck charms, black cats crossing one's path, opening an umbrella indoors, and things like that. Atheists reject these things saying that such practices do not fundamentally future events, and they liken religion to the same thing, particularly prayer and worship.

The point of this essay is not to defend prayer, but to show that atheism is even more futile than religion even if faith is false. If you are interested in looking at the arguments for this, read or watch the video at GodIsImaginary.com, and you will quickly see how misinformed the author of the site and many others who think like him are about prayer.

As mentioned above, what atheism often critiques related is worship, and the vanity thereof. Worship as they see it is pointless because what one worship does not exist. Worship however is not confined strictly to religion, although it is generally associated with religion. One can worship God, while another can worship the Beatles. The object of worship is different, but the fundamental principles are the same: adoration and devotion to something. Atheists will probably say that they worship nothing at all, but the reality of it is that anyone who adores something or someone in the highest regard is worshiping that thing. For an atheist, it is not supernatural, but something else. It is that “something else” that lies the problem.

Anything that is not supernatural is part of the natural order of things. Such things are bound to the universe: its laws and substance. Everything in the universe is made from the same fundamental building blocks of matter and energy, so whatever it is that an atheist holds in high esteem is made from the same elements as a block of wood. Whether an atheist adores intellect, reason, humanity, or science, ultimately these things can all be tied back to the same material that comprises a block of wood, so there really is no difference in adoring science than worshipping a totem pole. It all the same if it is part of the natural world.

The Bible also shows the absurdity of this in Isaiah 44:

16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire;
over it he prepares his meal,
he roasts his meat and eats his fill.
He also warms himself and says,
"Ah! I am warm; I see the fire."
17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol;
he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
"Save me; you are my god."
18 They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand. (NIV)

It tells how a man takes a block of wood, carves a god out of it, then bows down to worship it. He then takes the other half of the block of wood and cooks his dinner with it. The same thing that the man cooks his dinner with is the same thing he worships. The reality of the matter is that it doesn't matter what he makes his god out of. One may as well be worshiping a sculpture made from bellybutton lint. One may object, saying that they don't hold a thing in high regard, but an idea, such as humanism, love, science, or reason. These things though are also part of the natural order of things, and without something to give them intrinsic value outside of the natural order; they are merely chemical processes in the brain, and nothing more. It would seem even more absurd to worship chemical-electric process than to worship a block of wood.

Where theism differs is that it doesn't worship the natural order of things, but worships that which created the natural order. One cannot reduce creator worship to the absurdity of worshiping the created because the creator is fundamentally different from the natural order.

But what if atheists are right and theists are wrong? One could grant hypothetically that atheism is right and theism is wrong. In this hypothetical world, all the religion of man would be in vain and all that has been done in the same of religion is futile. In this hypothetical world, nothing religion does changes the outcome of events in the future, nor does anything in the past matter. Even if these are true, it still doesn't fundamentally change the vanity of atheism. In the video on GodIsImaginary.com, the analysis shows how prayer does not fundamentally alter random events. They conclude saying,

And think about this. What if a minister says, "God tells you to tithe money to the church. If you do, God will answer your prayers." This is fraud. The minister is lying to you in order to get your money. The belief in prayer is pure superstition.

One then has to ask, is atheism any better? Most atheists have in one way or another some form of optimism. As they see it, opening the worlds eyes to what they call the truth will usher in a new era for mankind that will ultimately better the race, however hope in the this optimism is nearsighted. On the same principle applied to prayer, the optimism cannot alter random events in natural world. Such events may be natural disasters, disease, accidents, and things of that nature. Likewise, this optimism can't cheat death. Ultimately, the universe will decay into heat. The stars will all burn out, the earth will be absorbed into the sun, and the places for refuge will grow fewer and fewer, ultimately leading to the extinction of the human race. So any hope outside the hope for life after death is in vain, and such is the vanity of atheistic optimism.

One then has to compare the eschatological implications of religion and atheism. Atheism will lead nowhere. Theism leads to life beyond the grave. Even if theism is wrong, the hope it offers is so much better, and not nearly as delusional or nearsighted as atheistic optimism, so it seems more reasonable to be a theist than it does to be an atheist in that sense. It would seem that if atheism was really better, it might have caught on, but it hasn’t. The idea of atheism is nothing new, and has existed for thousands of years, but it has yet to become main stream. That may due to the fact that after seeing the vanity of atheism, that the presumably primitive and superstitious people saw the vanity of it and abandoned it for something better: theism.

imagine 'no religion too'

2007-01-10T02:08:00.000-05:00

I don't think that this critique really applies to the whole of atheism, because I have personally met atheists that don't think like Richard Dawkins. Dawkins is just one of the many of atheists out there, but his views are probably the most discussed. I thought I might add to the fray with an analysis of Dawkins' view.

It is no secret that Dawkins would like to see religion just disappear and everyone endorse atheism and humanism as their worldview. While his intentions may be noble, I think that his view would ultimately spell disaster, not utopia, for the people of the world. First, if everyone believed like Dawkins and there were no religion in the world, then everyone would effectively be atheists. He wants uniformity on worldview. The question I would ask, how this is any different than fundamentalist religious sects who want everyone to believe like they do. How can Dawkins preach against something so adamantly when he himself portrays himself in the likeness of fundamentalists. Even under his worldview one could not be an agnostic because in agnosticism there is at least the possibility of God and thus a chance that religion might be warranted, because they have no other reason to believe otherwise.

Dawkins also likens his views to those of John Lennon, the ex-Beatle who wrote the song Imagine:

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there are no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

In this song, there are a few things to note. First note uniform atheism. We've discussed this already. Second, note the communist overtones: "No Possessions" and "Sharing all the world." Lennon's version of utopia sounds good, but is it possible? Atheistic communist states have been proven empirically to fail within the first 70 years of their conception. Consider the former Soviet Union and the Soviet Block countries of Eastern Europe. The USSR started as a communist state with atheism (more or less) as the state sponsored worldview. It wasn't even 70 years before it fizzled and plummeted into ruin. China was much the same. After the death of Mao, China has lessened its stance on hardline communism and pressed for a more market driven style government and economy after seeing the failure of communism. One of few remaining communist nations, North Korea, can't even feed its people. This is a far cry from Lennon's view of utopia where there is no hunger.

Dawkins Writes in the God Delusion :

Imagine with John Lennon a world with no religion...Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as 'Christ killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money.

Let's imagine a world with Dawkins view: Hope in inherently greedy men for a better tomorrow, starvation and poverty on everyone corner because your leaders would rather pursue nuclear technology than grow food, a great Cultural Revolution to destroy religion, no ability to think about spiritual things or convene with those who do, no televangelist fleecing you for money because you don't have any, no need to work because you could live off the labor of someone else, and if you do work what you work for may be taken away and given to the one who does not. These are just a few things that one could say drawing from the examples that we have of failed atheistic states.

Christians would like to see a place of peace without war, famine, and all the vices, but Christians are not so naive in thinking that everyone would want to embrace such a place. The Christian worldview maintains that people are inherently selfish, and would rather seek the good for themselves, even at the expense of others. As a result, Christians do not expect nor act as if people would embrace selflessness and peace, but they assume they will act to the contrary even if peace and selflessness were completely possible. It is not human nature to want to give up something for somebody else, but rather a force of will. Christians desire to have peace and to eliminate hunger and they do much to attempt to solve these problems.

I am not blaming atheism for the problems in Russia, North Korea, and other communist or formerly communist states. But I am saying is that Dawkins' analysis of many world problems is not really the result of religion as it is political ideology in the guise of religion. Communism carries with it atheism, and atheists would be quick to point out that the two are not the same thing. In the same manner, Atheists cannot call terrorist cells Islam, for it too would commit the same fallacy.

internal inconsistencies of a purely scientific worldview

2007-01-06T09:44:00.000-05:00

I just finished a book written by Alister McGrath called Science and Religion: An Introduction which describes the relationship between science and religion since the days of Copernicus and the planetary controversy which changed the way we view the planets. In that book, McGrath shows that one of primary axiom of science is empiricism. Empiricism is the idea that all one learns must first come through the senses. This stands in stark contrast to rationalism, which says that some things that are known are known a priori, or before sense experience. Empiricism, however, should not be confused with empirical learning. When one learns something empirically, he or she is learning trough experience. Such learning can coexist with the idea of rationalism. In fact, most if not all rationalists would say that most of what we know is indeed learned trough experience. However, there is a problem with pure empiricism, particularly in the form of science.

It is probably true that not all atheists are irreligious, but generally speaking, being atheist automatically makes one an empiricists because atheism denies any sort of transcendence. Transcendence is necessary of rationalism is to be true. If all that can be learned is from experience, then the sole arbiter of truth is essentially science. Science is the systemized approach that people use to test hypotheses based on observations.

Empiricism and its progeny science themselves are not inherently bad, but by virtue of what they can observe are limited in their scope, and for that reason can make some faulty claims or be used inappropriately when it steps outside that scope. The axiomatic base of empiricism as stated is that all that is knowable is what can be learned from the natural world through the senses. This statement sounds good, but how can it possibly be known to be true? The problem with this statement is that it is absolute; however it cannot be known to be absolutely true without assuming it to be true. In this case, it is a priori , and this something is known outside of sense experience, ultimately defeating empiricism. However, one could argue that it isn't known to be true axiomatically. Rather, it is known to be true based on how one has learned. In this case, it is not absolutely true. In the same manner, atheists cannot say that God does not absolutely exist. Even Richard Dawkins grants this, saying that one can no more prove the existence of God than they can Thor or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He says that it is just a so remotely improbable that it is not true.

Another problem arises when one considers the implications of empiricism. If all that one can know is from the natural world, then how can anything ever be known about God? Atheists think that it is delusional to believe in God, because as Dawkins sees it, faith something that is not based on evidence. One could however turn that statement back on atheism and say how can they say anything about God without evidence or some sort of observational data? In an empiricist?s framework, any and all kinds of God talk are meaningless. Some empiricists have made this observation, but there are some who insists on taking on religion such as Dawkins. This seems to present a problem: if one wants to take on religion, then he or she really isn't committed to the pursuit of truth of science, but to something else. An empiricist would be like Spock in Star Trek IV when he is asked bay a computer, "How do you feel?" As a Vulcan, Spock has no feelings, and he does not understand the question. In the same manner, if one was truly an empiricist, when one mentions God, he or she should act confused rather than repulsed.

One question that begs an answer from empiricism is that if all that is knowable is that which can be learned through experience and the senses, how could a notion like God ever arise? The Freudian tradition thinks that God arose as a result of psychogenesis: a way of explaining things that were unexplainable at the time. While that may offer an explanation for the evolution of theology, it still doesn't answer the question. Why did things not remain a mystery? Apparently human beings are creative enough to invent a concept that had never been observed. If this is true, then it is possible to know about things apart from empirical observation, ultimately defeating pure empiricism. However if the concept of God was observed, then it only seems logical to conclude that God exists.

Even more fundamental to than the notion of God is self awareness. How can the natural world know anything about itself from within itself? If all that was ever known was light and never darkness, how would one know about light? Flying at 40,000 feet moving at 600+ mph in a 747 doesn't really feel any different than standing on the ground. One would never know he or she was flying on a 747 without having entered the 747 or looking out the window and seeing the ground below. Consciousness cannot arise from something without some point of reference outside of consciences. In relating that to empiricism, it only seems fair to say that one has to be at least aware of his or her senses before he or she can possibly learn from them. Otherwise, consciousness is a delusion.

While these four objections to empiricism are by no means exhaustive, they are certainly a starting point and have to be considered when one wants to reject transcendence. I for one cannot embrace this worldview based on the internal inconsistencies it has. It is true that theists do make some assumptions as axioms, but the difference is these axioms don't have the problems that one who reject such thinking.

pachelbel pant

2006-12-25T15:21:00.000-05:00

christians should boycott john's pez dispenser stand at the flea market

2006-11-15T14:38:00.000-05:00

It has been reported that John of John's Pez Dispenser Stand at the local flea market today was bitten by the same misquito that just two hous before had bitten a cop that arrested a man last night for speeding. The blood of the cop was contaminated with some of the nitrogen that was exhaled by the man who was speeding and injected into John's body. Because in turned touched every Pez Dispenser on display at his stand, they too will be contaminated. So to avoid speeding, do not buya Pez dispenser for John at John's Pez Dispenser Stand at the local flea market.

the atheist's carrot: freethought

2006-11-05T20:23:00.000-05:00

I have stated many times and have noted many times that one of the main objections to religion is the lack of intellectualism and the perceived entrapments of doctrine. Many atheists will bolster their claim to atheism with this objection saying they have been freed from the perceived entrapments. They call their freedom free thought, which as they see it is the polar opposite of dogma, and is often the carrot before the mule for atheism. On the surface, this seem to be a grounded objection, and I can honestly see how some atheists would want to reject faith because of the dogma that does exist in certain theistic circles. But I think this throwing the baby out with the bath water: a few theistic sects that promote dogmatic views do not make the whole theistic thought bad. I personally believe in a faith that is grounded in historical fact, and I will address this more later.

Before one we can talk about free thought though, we need to define freethought. Wikipedia says: "Freethought is a philosophical doctrine that holds that beliefs should be formed on the basis of science and logical principles and not be comprised by authority, tradition or any other dogmatic or other belief system that restricts logical reasoning. The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers."

The Freethought Alliance says, "Freethought is the name of an American intellectual and cultural movement that can be traced back to the writings of the founders of our nation, the philosophers of the French and German Enlightenment, and the secular populists of the 19th century. A freethinker is a religious unbeliever who forms his or her judgments about religion using reason rather than relying on tradition, authority, faith, or established belief. Members of the freethought movement strive to free the mind of ignorant presuppositions and superstitions and are generally secular and humanist in outlook."

Both of these definitions reject dogma for logic and reasoning. What could be said then, if one can show that the Christian faith is not based on dogmatic thought, and that free-thought has essentially the same thought processes, then one has shown atheist's objection saying that the Christian faith is dogmatic is unfounded.

First, we should note that freethought is not novel. A lot of what Freethought claims as freethought territory is borrowed from the traditions of others, particularly theistic thinkers. One such idea is the separation of church and state. We do not have to go far before we find a free-thought society page that is promoting this idea, but the idea of separation of church and state was championed by the Separatists in England during the 16th and 17th centuries. The idea was brought to America not by the Puritans and the Pilgrims, but by the Baptists. One such man was Roger Williams, who founded the colony of Rhode Island and the city of Providence. Rhode Island was one of the first colonies to promote religious tolerance. Rogers wrote extensively on the topic of religious tolerance in the work, "The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, for Cause of Conscience." In this piece, he promotes the idea of freedom of conscience, which says a person should be allowed to worship (or not to worship) as his or her conscience dictates without coercion and persecution. Another such person who promoted soul conscience and separation of church and state was George Calvert, also known as Lord Baltimore of Maryland, who was a Roman Catholic. He established the colony of Maryland on the basis of religious tolerance, and he encouraged Protestant and Catholic alike to immigrate.

Another area in which free thinkers borrow ideas are from theistic principles. C.S. Lewis in his book Mere Christianity wrote:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? . . . Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too, for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist, in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless. I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality, namely my idea of justice, was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.

Lewis is making an argument for the existence of God based on the notion that he was borrowing the idea of justice from somewhere. He is was judging the world based on an objective standard that he didn't created, and as he notes, cannot do this without having got that objective standard from somewhere. He also notes that such an objective standard is not the product of chance. He attributes his knowledge of justice to something outside himself, which he perceives to be God. Freethinkers are often involved in social justice, but one has to ask, where did they get the idea of social justice from? It comes from the theistic proposition that God created the objective standards by which we live, or at least how we should live.

Second, we should note that free-thinkers think like other free-thinkers. Often times, free-thinkers will elevate a particular free-thinker a place of authority and fall in line with a particular view of things. I don't know how many times atheists have prescribed a particular book to me, telling me that I should read it and it will convince me that theistic thought is bad. If one does this, then for all practical purposes a free-thinkers just giving up one set of beliefs or teachings for another, which would then raise the question about doctrine.

Doctrine is a "belief (or system of beliefs) accepted as authoritative by some group or school", so it not bound specifically to religion. A military operates under particular doctrines. The military doctrines define the situations in which a military power will begin an operation. Such a doctrine is one known as the "Bush Doctrine" which outlines the operating paradigm Bush uses to justify war. Another such is the Primakov doctrine that was used by Russia in the late 1990's when Yevgeny Primakov, a nationalist, was appointed as Prime Minister in the late 1990's. He had an operating paradigm on which he acted during the Kosovo crisis in relation to the United States and other NATO states. Likewise doctrine can be taught as a school of thought too. If this is true, then atheism is a doctrine. Atheism is a lack of belief in God, but teaching lack of belief is an affirmative activity. I can teach that the moon is not made of cheese in same manner atheists teach God does not exist. In fact, most atheists are on a mission to "educate" the public with non-theistic teachings. So for an atheist to say they he or she does not have doctrine is really a double standard if he or she were to teach atheism.

The real debate then is whether or not Christianity has dogmatic doctrine or not. There are essentially two ways to look at dogma. Dogma can either be a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof, or a doctrine or code of beliefs accepted as authoritative. The former is the stereotypical view of Christian doctrine, but the latter is really more how most Christians think-- even the early church fathers. Paul based what he taught and preached on historical events, namely the resurrection of Jesus and the Jewish tradition which is the Old Testament. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul says that the Christian faith without the historicity of the resurrection is vain. This is probably the reason so many atheists attack the historicity of the resurrection.

One might object, and say that one cannot use the Bible as historical evidence because it is a religious book. This however is anachronistic. All of the New Testament at one point was extra-canonical, meaning it was not part of the Bible. The original Scriptures of the 1st Century church were contained in the Hatanak, or the Jewish Scriptures. The New Testament writings were accepted as canon some time later under several litmus tests that were used to test their authority and authenticity. Only the writings that passed these tests were added as Christian canon. There were more books that did not make it than there were those that did. So one cannot say the Bible is dogma without proof, because it, unlike other holy books, is composed of a number of writings that were not written for the purpose of sacred scripture. These writings testified to historical events before they had the stamp of "canon" on them.

Additionally, if Christianity was based on belief without proof, then there would be no need to refute evidence for Christianity. When someone like Keith Parson writes "Why I am Not a Christian", he is essentially granting that there is evidence for Christianity, although he might not accept it. Parsons treats the Bible as if it were evidence and attempts to refute it using the same methods one would use to refute evidence for other historical events. In doing so he granting that the Christian faith is grounded in proof, even it is false proof to him.

If Christianity is the second form of dogma, then Christian doctrine is authoritative with proof. This is no different from a free thinker appealing to an authority. If ever a free-thinker appeals to an authority such as Dennet, Parson, or Dawkins among others, then he or she is in essence committing to a dogma in the sense of second type of dogma: claiming an authority backed with reason. It should also be noted that free-thinkers appeal to writers of the enlightenment: the "writings of the founders of our nation, the philosophers of the French and German Enlightenment, and the secular populists of the 19th century." If these writings are the foundation of freethought, then it should be noted that they are attributing authority to these writers, which is essentially the same thing Christians do in attributing authority to their faith's founders.

I think it pretty clear that there is nothing freeing about freethought because its formation and form of reasoning is essentially works the same way the Christian faith works. The difference is doctrine free-thinkers teach and what Christians teach. If one wants to reject Christianity on the basis of dogma and replace it with another dogma, then really they have gained nothing.

a biblical basis for reason

2006-11-01T12:01:00.000-05:00

Back in the early nineties and late eighties, there was a series of anti-drug commercial that all had the catch phrase, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." Each commercial would show examples on how drugs ruin lives because drugs impede the mind. A similar context is given in Hebrews chapter 5 where the writers of Hebrews says that the readers of the letters were simple minded, and he admonishes them to move beyond basic theology because it leads to a fuller understanding of Christ. The writer of Hebrews prior to this admonition has just spent five chapters trying explain some complex theology, but it seems as if he stops dead in his tracks and says that he wants to explain more. He can not because the recipients are slow to learn.

Verse 13 points out that believers should be capable of understanding more complex things. It is not that they can not learn, it is that they are either lazy or complacent. He says that they ought to be teachers, and by implications that means they must have been believers for quite some time and have had good discipleship.

Teachers in the New Testament had the duty of guarding the flock against false teachers. These were the ones who understood doctrine and helped correct doctrine when something came up that was not inline with orthodox teaching. The Greek word for "teacher" is didáskalos. Paul referred to himself as a teacher, and the word is generally applied to Jesus. There were at least two other types of teachers in the New Testament that were used to refer to those who imparted doctrine, but in the negative since. They were pseudodidáskaloi, which means "false teacher" and heterodidaskaléo which means "different doctrine".

The writer of Hebrews uses the contrast of milk and solid food to illustrate the point. Milk is for children, or those who are immature and solid food for adults, or those who are more mature. In verse fifteen, it is in reference to their spiritual maturity, which correlates directly with their abilities to understand the "oracles of God". The purpose of being raised up into maturity is so that they will be able to discern (diákrisis) between what is evil and what is good. The writers of Hebrews does not really qualify what is meant by evil and good, but one could infer from the context that the writer is talking about evil and good action as well as evil and good teachings.

Colossians 2 picks up where Hebrews leaves off. Colossians 2 gives more flesh as to why believers should not be afraid to increase understanding. Paul asserts here that having knowledge of Christ will help a believer defeat deceptive arguments. He starts in verses 1-3 saying that wrapped up in Christ there is full knowledge and understanding. The way Paul constructs the sentence in Greek implies that understanding (súnesis) will lead to full knowledge (epígnosis). The Greek work epígnosis is different from the Greek word gnosis, which Paul uses later. It carries the weight of life changing knowledge while gnosis seems to imply general knowledge, or something more like common sense. Epígnosis can understand the mystery of God, which is Jesus who brings salvation.

In verse 4, Paul says that it is in Jesus that one can find wisdom and knowledge. Wisdom (sophia) was generally used to refer to the wisdom sought by Greco-Roman philosophers and knowledge (gnosis) refers to things like general information and common sense. As mentioned before, it does not carry the same punch as epignosis.

Paul encourages the believers at Colosse to find their knowledge in Christ so they will not be lead away by false wisdom and teaching. Paul then begins to address a few of the worldly philosophy (philosophia) and deception (apáte) that they had encountered. Paul is not down-playing the use of ones mental capacities when he is down-playing philosophy. He was referring to the philosophies of the Greeks, and he deals with the Stoics and Hedonists in particular. Deceptions (apáte) are just plain lies. The church at Colosse was established in a pluralistic society. Philosophies and religions sprang up daily, and people could almost make their own religion al-la-carte.

The particular philosophies that Paul addressed were two extremes. In Greek thinking, the flesh was something that was evil and the spiritual things were that which was good. The Stoics were those who denied their flesh, so they would not taste or touch things that might have brought pleasure. The other extreme was Hedonism, which allowed for fleshly indulgence because the body was something that was to be discarded anyways.

Additionally, Paul addresses the traditions of men in the passage as well. Paul was probably addressing the Judaizers here. Verses 11-13 talk about circumcision and verses 16-17 talk about Sabbath regulations. The traditions given to Moses had been added to and modified particularly by the Pharisee, so much so that they probably had lost their meaning and had become tradition for the sake of tradition.

While Paul and the writer of Hebrews encourage believers to grow up in their understanding, believers can never have an exhaustive knowledge of God. Job in the Old Testament was a person who questioned God. After God presents Job with a series of questions, Job realizes his limitations. He replies, "Therefore I have declared that which I did not understand, Things too wonderful for me, which I did not know." Job then repents of his lack of understanding. The readers of Job fortunately get a bird's-eye-view of whole thing. Job in all his suffering never understood why he suffered, but he does realize that he cannot fully understand God.

To illustrate this, think of a tree. A person does not need to have exhaustive knowledge about a tree to know it is a tree. But in order to distinguish it from other trees, he might want to know the species, it's location, how many leaves it has, or any other number of properties about a particular tree. This is similar to God. The more understanding a believer has about God, the better a person will be able to discern between what is good and evil and what is true and false teaching, but nobody can have exhaustive knowledge of God.

passionless christianity: a lesson from atheism

2006-10-30T10:10:00.000-05:00

I was reading an article in Christianity Today that is a summation of Allister McGrath's book, The Twilight of Atheism by McGrath himself. In the article, McGrath speaks to a number of reasons that point to the downfall of atheism as a movement. Interestingly though, I think McGrath points out two things that atheism often uses as objections to Christianity. I was intrigued by this, and decided that it was post worthy, so here it is:

Religiosity: Replacing Relationship with Ritual

Religiosity is the "affected or excessive devotion to religion." Such devotion is often used as a means to draw closer to God. In doing so, people often replace relationships with the rituals of religion. For a while, a person may find comfort in piety, but after some time people grow weary of this. Atheists often point out how religious piety is empty, and reject religion based on that. What seems more natural is that people seek to be in community with like minded people, and on that McGrath writes:

The growth of community churches has helped meet this need. There is a sense of belonging to a common group, of shared common values, and of knowing each other. People don't just go to community churches; they see themselves as belonging there. At a time when American society appears to be fragmenting, the community churches offer cohesion.

Religion can be manifested in two ways: First, there is religious activity: This is essentially "doing" church. Often times, people can get so caught up church activities that they miss relationships. Second, there is religious liturgy: Participating in religious services to essentially check something off a list. While neither of these things are inherently bad, they can be traps if they are done not for the sake of knowing God. The atheist objection does not have to stand if Christians would place religious activity with relationships.

Intellect: Replacing Religion with Reason

One of the biggest objections to Christianity is that it is non-intellectual. As atheists see it, the church is blinded to the truth because of faith. In the article, McGrath addresses Thompson, who basically says that atheists have got the answers to free religious people from the entrapments of faith, and all they need now is leadership. McGrath writes:

Thompson argues that a new dawn awaits-if only the leadership issue can be resolved. "Total victory is the only acceptable goal in a mind-control war because humanity is diminished so long as a single mind remains trapped in superstition by programming or choice." But who will lead them? And can this goal actually be achieved?

The fatal flaw within Thompson's argument, found within many other atheist tracts and publications, is his strident insistence that humanity has been enslaved by supernaturalist superstition. It is merely necessary to educate people, he believes, and these mad ideas will fall away. Thompson and his colleagues have not even begun to understand a fundamental fact about religion: People actually like their faith, find it helpful in structuring their lives, and inconveniently believe that it might actually be true.

While faith has practical value, I do think the atheist's objection is grounded in the anti-intellectualism that so often pervades churches. Often times, church leaders are not willing to wrestle with tough questions, and will diminish such things as being unimportant. Church leaders will replace teaching with feeling, and equating the euphoria of religious worship with spiritual maturity. This is not biblical--the Bible equates spiritual maturity with being learned in the teachings of Christ, and does not advocate Christian minds being lazy. In fact it encourages its readers to engage in studying so that Christians can address and correct false teachings. Christians shouldn't be scared to engage in listening to and thinking about what other worldviews have to say. In doing so, a Christian can answer those worldviews from his own. I will post more on this in the next post.

on wolfhart pannenberg's view of faith and reason.

2006-10-27T09:17:00.000-04:00

Pannenberg in his view on the relationship between faith and reason places reason above faith and justifies it with relationships between faith and reason to truth at particular points in history. He gives a high level view or on how truth has been given and shows how there has recently been a shift from faith being the sole arbiter of truth to reason being the dominant arbiter of truth. During the first 1700 years of Christianity, according to Pannenberg, biblical authority and tradition from which faith stems have been the sources for knowledge and truth. Pannenberg shows how some reformers, particularly Martin Luther, were staunchly opposed to the use of reason in finding truth.

But for Pannenberg times have changed. In essence, reason has caught up and surpassed with faith in its ability beget truth. Pannenberg rejects some evaluations of faith and reason that have tried to harmonize the two. Some have tried to show that faith delves in one sphere while reason delves in a completely different realm. Pannenberg says that this approach is irresponsible. Pannenberg says that something like the kyregma has to be carried further than dealing with salvation and ethics (a sin problem) and into a world of reason, because understanding one's self is strongly correlated with an understanding of the world. For this reason, it is up to faith to provided "not only ethical knowledge but also theoretical knowledge" (Pannenberg, 21). In other words, one's view of faith is fundamental to how one evaluates theoretical knowledge.

With these things in mind, Pannenberg makes the point showing that Scripture and tradition are no longer enough. He says, "Thus, the task if rational account of truth of faith has acquired an ever more acute urgency in the modern period. The appeal to the authority of Scripture and to a proclamation grounded in this is no loner sufficient to establish the legitimacy of faith." (Pannenberg, 22) Because reason has caught up with faith, it cannot be denied or "abridged" in some sense as he says (Pannenberg, 28). Therefore, faith has to be bolstered more and more with reason.

It seems that Pannenberg wants to remove faith from the realm of reason altogether and leave it to speculate about end times. These create a couple of problems in the relationship between faith and reason. First, Pannenberg's position allows man, not God to be authoritative. God under this view is subjected to the opinion of man, not the other way around. If God is up for interpretation, then God essentially becomes as convenient as one wants him to be or subjective according to one's liking.

The second problem stems from the same idea: there is no limit to Pannenberg's position. One might ask, why is God even needed? If one follows Pannenberg's argument to the logical extreme, then it would ultimately deny the existence of God, as many atheists have. This may not happen with everyone who adopts Pannenberg's view, it certainly is possible because there seems to be an inverse relationship between faith and reason here. The more understanding one gains from reason, the less one needs God.

It is undeniable that reason in the last two or three hundred years has mushroomed, but this does not mean that it has surpassed faith. One's understanding of faith doesn't have to be an inverse relationship between faith and reason. It is possible to have reason and faith coexisting without diminishing faith to nothingness, keeping God as an authority, viewing scripture as authoritative, and being able to understand the world through reason. First, it begins in revelation. Faith is based on a two part revelation: general and specific. Pannenberg seems to narrow his scope of faith as being solely based on sacred text and tradition; however it doesn't have to be this way. General revelation is revelation that is revealed to everyone. This revelation is enough to condemn one before God according to Paul in Romans 1. The question concerning salvific knowledge is another debate, and outside the scope of this work, but general revelation leading to knowledge of God is undeniable. Similarly, faith in Jesus doesn't bring one to believe in the resurrection, but that the resurrection brings one to believe in Jesus. Paul asserts in 1 Corinthians 15 that the facts of Jesus? resurrection bolsters the faith, and without the facts, the faith is useless. Simply stated, faith is girded with facts (phenomenon in world and history) such as nature and the resurrection, so faith can be girded with reason.

Reason isn't given to replace faith, but to better help understand that from which we get our faith, which is revelation. Pannenberg rejects the two sphere approach to understand faith and reason, but in the understanding presented here, there are two spheres. Pannenberg does good in pointing out that the two aren't mutually exclusive, but his understanding seems deny the purpose of revelation. It seems that Pannenberg wants to use scripture and revelation in an "as-is" fashion, in saying that the way the scriptures and the church say things happen are the way they do. The wonder of tradition is that it can be dumped or changed at any point, but revelation in the form of scripture and nature does not change. In regards to scripture, one has to understand the purpose and culture in which it was written. Take for instance the Genesis 1 account of the creation of the world. Genesis 1 gives a creation account. The account goes from the Big Bang to the origin of man in one page using terms that could be understood by 14th century BCE Bedouins. The point of the document is not to give a scientific account for creation but to give a theological account. It says in the summary statement: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and one can leave it there. A reader shouldn't try to extrapolate meaning that is not there from it nor impose meaning to bolster as particular theory. If one understands that God created it, then reason can figure out the particulars of creation. Faith (God created it) still remains the point and reason is still allowed to exist.

rapture gone wild

2006-10-17T01:15:00.000-04:00

Rapture Website...Rapture Wills....what's next?

another dialogue on atheism

2006-10-16T12:07:00.000-04:00

This is another dialogue I had with atheists, one named "BleuuNikki" and another named "Captain Atheism". It was an interesting conversation to say the least. Here is the forum.

At last! A theist that knows what he's talking about!

I've been corresponding a bit with a YA Poster known as (me). Some of you may have seen him around. He's a Christian, more or less, and he's pretty knowledgeable about religion and so forth, and I've been impressed with his ability to rationally discuss the subject without getting huffy. (In fact, he's probably better at that than I am :) ).

Anyway, I've invited him to discuss a variety of subjects with me here. I'd prefer not to call it a debate, as it is not my intention to "prove him wrong". I simply think that it will be a good way to get at the truth, by simply analyzing and evaluating the facts. We should pick a topic here pretty soon and begin stating the points and counterpoints, and see what we come up with. Comments are welcome, but of course, please be respectful. :)

Wednesday October 11, 2006 - 11:31am (EDT)

Bluuenikki -- He won't be converting me, that's for sure, but I will keep an open mind to whatever he might blather with a lot of methane---er, I meant say. :-)

Wednesday October 11, 2006 - 11:37am (PDT)

My Reply -- William Lane Craig popularized this adaptation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.

1.) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2.) The universe began to exist. (Big Bang Cosmology)
3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause. (i.e., something external to the universe, thus supernatural)

I have written a similar argument based on the first and second law of thermodynamics:

1.) The First Law of Thermodynamics says the total amount of matter and energy in the universe is constant.
2.) The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that entropy increaes in a closed system. (Things don't get more complex, they get simpler.)
3.) Matter still exists.
4.) If the universe always existed then matter would not exist because it would have decayed into heat energy an eternity ago.
5.) If matter still exists, then the universe has not always existed.
6.) If the universe has not always existed, then it has an origin.
7.) Matter and energy cannot create the universe because matter and energy cannot create matter and energy.
8.) Matter and energy cannot come from nothing.
9.) Therefore, the universe was created by something external to the universe.

How does atheism work around this?

Wednesday October 11, 2006 - 03:26pm (CDT)

Captain Atheism -- Well, to be honest, I don't really think that this discussion is pertinent to religion. We could go back and forth all day debating the merits of several unproven scientific theories, but that really doesn't address the idea of whether a Middle Eastern god created everything 6000 years ago.

To put it plainly however, here is how atheism works around that... we don't. We don't know how or why the universe came into existence. And we probably never will. Atheists admit this, although we definitely would like to know the answer. However, that is the key difference between atheists and theists. We admit that we don't know.

Theists, on the other hand, claim to have absolute knowledge as to the origins of the universe... God did it.

This is clearly a cop out. This is what our ancestors came up with, when they had next to no knowledge of science whatsoever. Back then, religion WAS their science. We have simply improved upon it since then. But in their time, I'm sure it made perfect sense to believe in "magic". Magic, although it has never existed, was wholeheartedly believed to be real back then.

But we know better now. And it is embarrassing, that in this day and age, some people are still so indoctrinated with religion, that they refuse to consider the reality of it.

But before we go further, let me just explain first off, that I don't believe in anything related to the god of Abraham, which I consider to simply be mythology that managed (by military force) to become the dominant mythology in several key cultures. The leaders of this religious movement simply stamped out the other mythologies of the people they conquered, and labeled them as false.

Now, am I correct in my assumption that you also, do not believe in the god of Abraham?

Wednesday October 11, 2006 - 05:06pm (EDT)

My Reply -- I don't necessarily advocate a young earth position, but I don't have to in order to be a Christian. The fact is that the Bible doesn't spend a whole lot of time talking about creation?only one page out of the thousands of others. In the scope of scripture, the emphasis is not on how God created it, but that he did create it.

What seems to be more of a cop-out than invoking God is avoiding the issue altogether. That sounds more like denial, or looking away from the obvious due to prior commitments or the fact that it might challenge one's worldview, which in your case is atheism. Probably more primitive than atheism is a commitment to naturalism, which denies the supernatural altogether. Based on your statements, it seems that you are a naturalist (i.e. magic does not exist). The problem with naturalism is not that they can't find evidence for God's existence, but that evidence for his existence cannot exist in that worldview, so atheism is a logical byproduct. It has nothing to do with the lack of evidence, and everything to do with the premise that evidence cannot exist.

As for how I believe, I believe in a Trinitarian view the Christian God. Christians say (as I do) that the God of Abraham as their God. Jesus says that He was there when Abraham was alive. (Matt 22:32)

This really has nothing to do with the cosmological arguments, but I do disagree with your analysis saying that the primary vehicle for the expansion of Christianity was military force. I am not denying that Christianity has been spread by militaristic force, but I really think that it is more the result of politicians using religion to bolster their ideologies. But atheism is no different: it has been spread through militaristic force too under the banner of communism. Before Christianity ever became a state religion, it has already spread through most of the Roman Empire and to the East of Jerusalem under the Nestorians. As many as 1 out of 10 people in the Roman Empire were Christians. Another counterexample would be the expansion of Christianity in modern China. The church there has grown from less than 1 million believers to nearly 65 million believers in 20 years under a government which condones the faith, and without the aid if an army.

Wednesday October 11, 2006 - 04:55pm (CDT)

Bluuenikki -- 3.) Therefore, the universe had a cause. (i.e., something external to the universe, thus supernatural)

What if the cause is something very VERY natural? And nothing to do with a "god" or anything supa-dupanatural? There was a theory (not proven but not disproven yet either) that there was already a universe and that the Big Bang was burped by another black hole. It swallowed something and then it "shits" a Big Bang, thusly, creating a new universe. I tend to go for that theory over "god" any day.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 02:01am (PDT)

Bluuenikki -- Actually, I do think Christianity was spread by "force". Evangelizing IS a form of spiritual rape. I am not denying the force of communism and all that, Dearie, but atheists no longer "force" anything on anyone, yet I see christians still doing the spiritual rape.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 02:04am (PDT)

My Reply -- Bluuenikki,

1.) You probably need to define "spiritual rape",

2.) Can an atheists be spiritual and deny the supernatural at the same time?

3.) Communisim still exists and is still cracking down on religion.

4.) Where did the black hole that "burped" the universe to existence come from? It still requires an origin, even if it is pre-existent to this universe.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 10:20am (CDT)
Bluuenikki -- 1) Evangelism. Any kind of any religion of any type that forces religion on others is what I deem spiritual rape. I don't see atheists doing that here in the States.

2) Duh, honeybuns, I *AM* a spiritual atheist. Spirituality does not require a childish belief in supernatural. All we do is disbelieve in a deity. It does not mean we totally deny everything else like ghosts, emotional "leftovers" that people leave behind when they die (poltergeists), UFOs, crop circles.....none of those things require a deity belief. What about the Taoists and Buddhists? Majority of them are atheists but fiercely spiritual.

3) I never denied that communism didn't exist.

4) Oh geez, don't tell me you don't know where black holes are theorized to come from??? Scientists theorize that black holes probably born of collapsed stars or stars that went nova and then that collapsed under the gravity.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 11:17am (PDT)

Bluuenikki -- If you agree that there is psychological rape (a la psychotherapists with their patients---I don't trust psychotherapists), then you do believe in a form of spiritual rape. I have met a few christians who are outright rapacious with their comments that I am going to hell for just not believing. Those kind of comments tear down the soul....a la spiritual rape.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 11:21am (PDT)

Bluuenikki -- Cappy, where did you dig this gem up?

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 11:22am (PDT)

My Reply -- Bluuenikki,

1.) If evangelism presents a case and asks one to decide, how is that any different from the mission of Captain Atheism --? He says his mission is to educate about what he considers to be true, and letting people decide for themselves. Second, the site many atheists like to link, godisimaginary.com, has a similar mission. Is this not atheistic evangelism? Christian evangelism is about presenting people with religious beliefs and allowing them to decide, not coercing them to believe.

2.) It seems that you are you are allowing beings to exist without material substance, and in doing so you are allowing for the supernatural to exist. By claiming to be a "spiritual atheist" you are saying there is more to being than the material that makes up a person's physical body, which by definition is supernaturalism. If you allow beings to exist without substance, then it is possible for God to exist because he is an immaterial being.

3.) My point from communism was that atheism was still being impressed on people by a state that is anti-religious. In other words, people are being coerced into atheism under communism.

4.) Again, it's not about how black holes are formed, it's about the substance that forms the black hole. Where did that substance come from? That's the point of the cosmological argument.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 02:27pm (CDT)

Bluuenikki -- Cappy, where you did dig up this funny guy?

1) I don't see evangelizing as "presenting a case and allowing the other to decide". I see evangelizing as "telling others what to believe---period". Cappy does it differently---he does what you just said---presents his case and allows others to decide for themselves. I see a big difference there, hon.

And I live in a fraking bible-belt. :-(

2) Hon, I am atheist, but I don't discount the existence of souls. I just use scientific explanations on how souls came to be. Souls are just a mass of neurons, synapses in the brain that will rot and wither away once death takes hold---ergo, the soul dies at death. Ghosts and poltergeists, the way I see it, are very simply "emotional leftovers" that the person left behind that they didn't absolve yet. Energy. Energy is NOT supernatural. Energy was tested and retestedin the science labs time and time again. I believe in energy.

I think you need to study atheism a bit more before you jump to conclusions, dearie.

3) Again, I never denied that communism still exists. I am stating that this does not happen in the STATES.

4) Dark matter. Matter, molecules, quarks. Read a science book.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 12:41pm (PDT)

Bluuenikki -- I am hoping I clarified myself to the point your christian mind can understand. :-) If my words come across a tad harsh and abrasive, do pardon me---I have been burned by way too many christians in the past and still harbor some anger.

I am a spiritual atheist. I love the mythological deities---Greco-Roman (Ares and Aphrodite), Hindu (Ganesha and Durga), Japanese (Kwan Yin comes to mind). But the way I see it, I see those deities entirely in the context of Jungian psychology----archetypes. I am awfully BIG on JUgnian psychology. Each of those deites---mythological as they are, INCLUDING the oppressive biblical "god"---are just mere representations of who we are. They do not exist out there. We only exist in our imagination, like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

Zeus is the amorous aspect of ourselves. Zeus represents my horny side. Hera represents my jealousy. Durga and Ares represent my warrior status. Janus, my favroite, has two heads: one looking back in time and other looking forward in time. Hermes represents my intellectual side. Ad nauseum. I view that as we all need to learn from our past mistakes and apply them to our new fludic future.

You might be confusing atheism with hard-core skepticism. Skeptics tend to not believe in anymost anything that is immaterial (ghosts, energy, poltergeists, UFOs, crop circles, water stick fishing, blah blah blah), whereas SOME atheists tend to take a softer take on some of the other non-deity beliefs.

Spirituality takes on several forms of mediums: writing, poetry, dancing, panting, volunteerism (I volunteered with deaf and Down Syndrome kids at a mere age of 18---tiring but had a BLAST!!!! Looking into doing that again in the near future).

Spirituality can be most anything. Music, washing dishes, just picking a pen and staring at a blank page.....those speak more powerful words than any bible ever would. :-) Atheists DO feel inspiration. Atheists DO feel ontent, unexplained peace that theyhave no idea where that came from. We are NOT dry and crackly folks devoid of feelings and altruism.

My favorite music are: Folk (Polka, fiddles), electronica, some Gregorian chants, organ music, tribal flute/drum music, some reggae, some alternative. Most of those seems to bring me and my moods into some weird ethereal state. And to boot, I sense no deity, even I try to remain open to it.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 12:59pm (PDT)

My Reply -- 1.) The way I present Christianity is not coercive, but much the same way Captain presents atheism. Am I being coercive here in this forum? I don't think I am. Certainly, I think you are wrong because I am a theist, but certainly you think I am wrong too because you are an atheist. So are we "spiritually raping" each-other? I don't think that disagreeing with somebody is "spiritual rape" as you put it. What would seem more akin to that is calling my belief system "childish", calling me a "funny guy" or calling supernaturalism "supa-dupanatural". I personally don't take it offensively and could really careless what you call me. Evangelism doesn't have to be "spiritual rape" if it is done right. I apologize if you have been brandished by other Christians, but I personally don't advocate that method of evangelism, and I certainly don't think it is biblical.

2.) What seems odd is you equate the soul to a mass of nervous tissue, but you still allow energy to have an essence of being absent of nervous tissue as "emotional leftovers". Does the mass of nervous tissue have an essence of being outside the material that makes it up? If not, then the essence being of the nervous tissue is fundamentally different from the essence of being of the energy. If it does, then there is something more to the soul than nervous tissue. The former would be a contradiction; the latter would be a mitigated position of supernaturalism without calling it that.

3.) So you granting that atheism is still spread by force? That was the point of bringing up communism. I grant that it is being spread peacefully, but the point was that atheism has also been spread through force (like Christianity) too.

4.) The type of matter isn't the point. I am asking, where did all that matter came from? It can't have just appeared from nothing, and if it has always existed, it would have decayed into the most primitive form eons ago.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 03:40pm (CDT)

My Reply -- I like to read fantasy and science fiction novels. I like to listen to music of all types. I particularly like Ulerian Pipes, Bluegrass, and Synth (New Age) like Enya. I love to visit art museums and marvel over sculpture and paintings and the like. I love to visit the mountains and view the vistas that it affords. I love to play guitar and sing sings. I love to do photography and cook. Not all theists are stuffy Bible thumpers that are uniform in nature.

You mention peace, and altruism, and concede that you don't know where they come from. I ponder that too. It seems that ascetics, justice, pleasure, pain, peace, happiness and other things such as these come from something that is not of ourselves, something supernatural. I cannot help but think that it is God. Such things help me have a better appreciation of God, and not seem him as the grumpy old man in the clouds many portray him as, but a being of profound intellect and appreciation of creativity and beauty. That is the God I worship and adore.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 03:53pm (CDT)
Bluuenikki -- 1.) Actually, my calling you "funny gem" is a compliment. *hug* I just show strange ways of giving compliments. Apologies if you took it the wrong way. Right now, I don't think you are raping anyone, and I certainly hope I have not raped you in any way or form. Do please swat me on my head if I have. I have my own petnames for almost everything. Some names are degradatory and others are endearing.

May I know which school did you attend? If that is too private, tell me to promptly shut up my busybody mouth. ;-)

2) Good points, Mule (if I may call you that?). Energy needs not to be attributed to deity or messiahs. We hold molecules that don't die from when we exhale our last breath. Atoms, certain types of molecules just disappiate into the air and become something else later on. A small part of me will live on for thousands of years, as Ben Franklin, Plato and Aristotle have for thousands of years. I see nothing super-duper natural about it. It is very natural.

Hoping I won't be sidestepping here and straight to the point. Neurons create our memories, tramumatic and good. Synapses help create those. Those also contain atoms and molecules that seems not to die after death. They just change form or dissipiate into the air. Molecules and atoms do not have souls or thoughts. They just exist, like viruses and bacterium. I have yet to hear that atoms and molecules die (correct me with references that I am mistaken).

To clarify a bit further but maybe off-topic?...I don't believe we are "born with a complete soul at all". We grow our souls. A baby won't have a lot of soul, but a 50 year old will have a lotta of soul due to living and experiences. I do admit that I am very queasy about abortion at 4 months along cuz the fetus starts to grow nerve endings--still raw and undefined but enough to feel some pain---but not cuz I think they may or may not have a glimmer of soul. In doing so, we grow our soul. In doing so, we gain molecules and atoms as we grow.

3.) I am not denying it. Some atheists are so militant about atheism that they scare the poopylights out of me....even if I agree with their reasoning. I just tend to see that christians are far more forceful about religion than atheists are.

4.) Matter always comes from something NATURAL. Scientists still have yet to know what the origins are. Since we don't know yet, we tend to attribute it to something supernatural cuz we simply don't have the answers yet. As I stated in my Atheism Q and A blog, science does not have all the answers. Science is still in its infancy. It is not infallible, and I accept that wholeheartedly. For now, I like that theory that the black hole that was createdin another universe "pooped" a new Big Bang. It seems the most plausible theory for me---until something else comes along----preferably from scienctific POVs.

I don't know where altruism comes from. However, I think they come from a small part of ourselves, not something supernatural. You heard about what I said about Jungian psychology. Everything comes from within, not from without. Every deity, intermeditary, angel and demon are all a part of who we are----they don't exist outside our minds---they exist only in our minds.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 02:23pm (PDT)

My Reply -- "Mule" is fine.

On Souls and Existence: Now concerning a material soul in relation to ascetics, justice, and the like, I have a hard time with this. If I understand you correctly, you think that human beings have a soul that is made from material substances (i.e. nerve tissue) and there is no supernatural element to the soul. So in essence, one?s being is entirely wrapped up in the matter that makes up his or her body, and beyond that there is nothing. The problem as I have with this is that it binds notions such as beauty and justice to chemical processes in the brain. Outside of these chemical processes, these notions have no intrinsic value. To illustrate, I will use an analogy. Belly button lint and gold are made of the same fundamental building blocks: protons, neutrons, and electrons. One could theoretically take bully button lint and recompose it as gold. Yet we give gold more intrinsic value than belly button link although they are fundamentally the same thing. If beauty is just a chemical process, and it has no intrinsic value outside of that, then it is rather meaningless. But I intuitively know that a sunset over the ocean on a lazy summer evening is a beautiful thing, therefore my perception of beauty has more intrinsic value than the chemicals that compose the process in my brain. I then ask "Why?" It seems to me that there is something that gives these notions value and I think that is God.

On evangelism: I grant that Christians are probably are more forceful with their beliefs than atheists are, but that is motivated by the beliefs themselves. There is no motivation for atheists to convince others of atheism because it really doesn't any implication beyond the temporal world, although that is probably not entirely true. I could see atheists wanting to "liberate" us theists because to some atheists, I am sure we seem to be utterly confused. Christian beliefs have eternal implication (heaven vs. hell, etc.) and are motivated to see that nobody goes to hell by spreading their beliefs. It can come across as coercion, but it is really driven by a sense that none should perish.

On Cosmology: I am glad that you accept science as fallible and limited. If science is all there is, then we'd have a very bland world. As for theists, the "how" isn't the important part for the origin of the universe, but that God created it. I just think from the argument I started with demands that the universe, no matter how far one wants to trace it back, be created. Nothingness isn't an option, and matter cannot make more matter. There is a fundamental problem saying that matter can make more matter, because if it can, then physics would fall apart.

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 05:25pm (CDT)

Bluuenikki -- Cappy, sorry for taking over your blog. Jump in anytime! :-) Mule, I am Nikki, Nicole, Bluue or Cole. PIck what you like. :-)

You quoted: The problem as I have with this is that it binds notions such as beauty and justice to chemical processes in the brain. Outside of these chemical processes, these notions have no intrinsic value.

Actually some scientists are theorizing from some of their discoveries (again infalliable) that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder----actually in the brain of the beholder. When we see a beautiful person, our mental processes does not have to "work doubly hard" to process the beautiful face, whereas we see a ugly face, our brains work just as hard. You ARE correct in the assessing that I see beauty entirely by cranial chemicals and neuron firings and such. I have a neurological disorder, and been seeing a neurologist for years....so that may have influenced my beliefs somewhat.

I know. It seems so cold, so final, so "empty", so void of feeling and warmth. I do feel those things: warmth, depth, no void. I do ask the question of "Why" occasionally. But when I do, I tend to attribute it to scientific theories such as cranial chemicals working OT. It does not mean I cannot enjoy bouts of inspiration to write or to paint or just simply feel inspiration and inner peace for the sake of it.

Do you know I often use theological terms in my poetry? Sin, hell, heaven, angels, demons, etc? I use those words figuratively and not in the christian sense. I use those words in a way that describes what is going on in my head---they take on entirely new definitions.

Well, if the christian (not neccessarily you) are driven by the notion that no one should perish in hell, then they are going by the notion that everyone shares the same beliefs as they do. That, to me, is a gross and disrespectful assumption. One I try hard not to resort to when I meet a christian----with a relapse now and then. *sigh* I once chewed another christian's head off by saying I have "no christian standards"......but I have standards that I gleaned from various religions and philosophies of the world. It appears I shut her up.

Just as science is infallible, so the bible and all other religious texts of the world. :-)

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 03:49pm (PDT)

Bluuenikki -- Science inspires me. Science leaves me to wonder. Science leaves me to dream.

Science-fiction certainly does a good enough job of that! ;-)

Thursday October 12, 2006 - 03:51pm (PDT)

Captain Atheism -- Sorry, I missed out on most of this, haha. I'm going to start another thread here shortly. I'd like to address one of Mule's points above more extensively. But in the meantime, check out my next post, as I explain why I was absent yesterday, hehe.

Friday October 13, 2006 - 09:29am (EDT)

My Reply -- On souls: The point I was making from beauty was that everyone has the concept of beauty, but not that everyone has the same concept of beauty. What makes beautiful things beautiful? The same holds for justice: what makes right, right and wrong, wrong? Leaving it to a chemical process seem to cheapen such things. Let say I walked into a school, whipped out a gun and shot 8 young girls, 5 of whom died. Now if this heinous act is just a chemical process, then nobody should feel remorse for such things, because it would hardly any different than pouring vinegar on baking soda. But we know intuitively that this is wrong, so there is something other than the chemical process going on here, something that is more than just a natural phenomenon. I am not saying that atheists are amoral people, but I am saying that I believe theism better accounts for things notions of right and wrong, beautiful and ugly, etc.

On cosmology/science: I do appreciate science too. Many people want to make science in the enemy of theism, but really it is not. Rather it is a different discipline of study. They can complement one another. As a theologian, I am not really wrapped up in trying to explain the particulars of how things come into being, but that it seems that the particular point to a notion that God created the universe. There are limitations for both theology and science. Where theology excels, science lacks, and where science excels, theology lacks. The spheres however are not mutually exclusive, and one can have implications in the other sphere. So to say that one is the end-all-be-all for truth would be nearsighted.

As far as the Christian faith assuming that all others are wrong, I remain unapologetic about that. I know that it sounds harsh, but I sincerely believe that those who do not believe Jesus are going to hell. Is this assumptive? Yes--I grant that. But what would really be a contradiction is if I didn't assume this. If I accepted other beliefs to be true, then I would be denying my own beliefs, because I think what I believe is the only truth. Either I am right and everyone else is wrong, some else is right and I am wrong, or everyone is wrong, but only one truth worldview can exist.

Friday October 13, 2006 - 09:57am (CDT)

Bluuenikki -- I tend to agree with some scientists who theorize that we have genetic make-up that helps us determine what is sexy and what isn't. For instance, I have brown eyes, and I LOVE brown eyes.....I prefer to date a guy with brown eyes than one with blue eyes. I just don't find blue eyes sexy. I think it has something to do with my genetic make-up that causes me to prefer brown eyes over the blues.

WHat makes right right? What makes wrong wrong? I think everything "just is", Mule. Even murder. We murder cows to get beef. Same thing, at least in the vegetarians' eyes. We just make it wrong or right by applying our own "moral yardstick" to it. I don't see that as cheapening things at all. I apply my own moral yardstick to some issues, too. We all do.

As for murdering children, we applied our 'moral yardstick' a very LONG time ago (try back in the times of Neanderthals and early HOmo Sapiens) that murdering children is wrong so that meme was passed down generation after generation. Eventually that worked for everyone so all cultures adopted this meme of not murdering children.

I think "god" is nothing but an emotion. We feel inspired, we attribute that to something that is external or supernatural. We feel fear, we tend to attribute that to something external as well.

I don't want science to be the enemy of theism at all, Mule. Far from it. I have both science and spirituality in my path. I *was* a theist once.

You said: As far as the Christian faith assuming that all others are wrong, I remain unapologetic about that. I know that it sounds harsh, but I sincerely believe that those who do not believe Jesus are going to hell. Is this assumptive? Yes--I grant that.

At least you are honest about that....which is far, far, FAR more than I can say for a lot of other christians I have met. Actually, I do think christians can accept a more liberal worldview----that they are christians but don't think that their way is the only way at all. I have met a couple of such christians in the past and I LOVE their attitude. :-) I think that is the right attitude to take---again, that is just my moral yardstick showing. :-)

I accept some of Jesus' teachings, believe it or not, and I am not a christian at all. I still have some of my pagan beliefs from when I was Wiccan with me on my atheist path. Do you know that there is a website for atheists who appreciate Jesus' teachings? Just yahoo "Atheists for Jesus" and you will find the site. :-) I only ask that you do NOT judge them, NOT harrass them, NOT tell them they are wrong, ok? :-)

Friday October 13, 2006 - 08:18am (PDT)

My Reply -- I don't think you hear what I am saying...I am not talking about moral absolutes. I am talking about the notions of beauty and justice themselves apart from any standards. Although I would argue for moral absolutes, that's not what I am talking about here. It is probably true that what you find beautiful is different than what I find beautiful. Some things you consider wrong are probably different than what I consider wrong. But we both have a concept of beauty and a concept of justice.

Where Dawkin's meme theory breaks down is at the point where one has to consider where these things came from. This goes back to the original discussion about cosmology. If left to naturalistic process, a concept of beauty is hardly more than a chemical process, so we really aren't conscience at all, but really more like zombies with no real will, no real concepts of beauty, no real concept of justice. In fact, all these things are delusionary, or even worse, meaningless in reality.

You say that everything "just is? and I would say the same thing, but warrant them being that way because God made them that way. Cross apply what I initially said about Captain's concession about the origin of the universe: Not addressing the origins of such notions This seems to be avoiding the issue altogether or looking away from the obvious due to prior commitments or the fact that it might challenge one's worldview, which in your case is atheism.

I Googled the site that you were talking about, and read through some of the stuff they were talking about. They really are drawing from something that was started and rejected as orthodox Christianity. These guys, like many liberal Christians who are not exclusivist seem to be rejecting the claims that Jesus made about himself, or in essence saying that Jesus was wrong. Jesus said that he was the only way to God and said that he was God, and at any point they reject these claims, then they are turning Jesus into something he is not. That is why I cannot embrace universalism.

Friday October 13, 2006 - 01:39pm (CDT)

Captain Atheism -- On the subject of "not addressing" the origins of the universe, I will say this. I don't see that anyone is avoiding the issue. We all want to know the origins of the universe. And better brains than mine are working on the subject. (People like Stephen Hawking, for example.) And I eagerly anticipate their findings. However, the origins of the universe, I'm sure, will be incredibly difficult to understand, and will require all manner of scientific disciplines combined to piece together the puzzle.

This is a far cry from the Creationist point of view... "God did it".

There is no evidence to support such a notion, for one thing. There very well may be some sort of creature or being responsible for the creation of the universe. I'm not going to say there isn't. But I can confidently say that whatever this being is, he/she/it is not responsible for writing the Christian bible. And that's the true heart of the matter.

Whether a god exists or not is not really the issue for me, and I don't think it's an issue for most atheists/agnostics. We are simply saying that if there is a god, it's highly unlikely that it's the God of Abraham.

Speaking for myself, I'm a bit of a spiritualist, myself. I believe there is some form of energy that exists in living beings and so forth. I don't consider this energy magical. I simply view it as something that we don't understand yet. I am what you would call a Taoist. There are some who would say that Taoism does reflect a belief in a higher power, though it's more of an "energy" than a living, thinking, personification. And I have no problem with that.

What I have a problem with is anyone who claims to know, and/or speak for this "entity", and that he can tell someone else what this god likes and dislikes. This is what worshippers of the god of Abraham do. For example, your claim that Jesus is the only way... Sorry, but you can't rationally claim that that is the truth.

Your reason for believing that, is simply a book... the bible. And that's not evidence. It's not proof. It's no more legitimate than the Book of Mormon. And we all know where that one came from...

Friday October 13, 2006 - 03:12pm (EDT)

Bluuenikki -- >>> I am talking about the notions of beauty and justice themselves apart from any standards.

Oh ok. We do both have a concept of beauty and justice. We just are not going to agree on what it is. Leave the topic, perhaps. :-)

>>> If left to naturalistic process, a concept of beauty is hardly more than a chemical process, so we really aren't conscience at all, but really more like zombies with no real will, no real concepts of beauty, no real concept of justice.

Ummm, that IS what I believe, Mule....sans the zombie-with-no-conscience part. I believe in the naturalistic process. I find beauty in the natural. To you, it is hollow and empty and void of meaning. To me, it is rich with wonder, inspiration, beauty. And full of meaning cuz _I_ put the meaning there, not any deity. I define what beauty is, for myself as an individual. I apply the meaning to life and its processes, not any deity. _Some_ theists seem to be unable to grasp that notion and empower themselves with that concept---that they, alone, put meaning to life, not a deity.

>>> In fact, all these things are delusionary, or even worse, meaningless in reality.

While I know you may not be attacking me or my belief system.....let me just say this to those who do attack others' belief systems.....if my belief in the naturalistic process is delusionary, then I can turn around say the same thing of some christian beliefs. What did Jesus say about "doing unto others"? ;-)

Again, I know you did not mean anything by that comment, so no harm done. :-)

>>>> .... such notions This seems to be avoiding the issue altogether or looking away from the obvious due to prior commitments or the fact that it might challenge one's worldview, which in your case is atheism.

Or perhaps YOUR worldview? You never know the future....in the future, you might change to atheism or a more liberal religion and in my future, I might change to a universalist christian. Who knows? You don't know if you will change religions or not in the future. :-)

Friday October 13, 2006 - 12:13pm (PDT)

Bluuenikki -- Btw, I was not avoiding the issue at all.

Friday October 13, 2006 - 12:14pm (PDT)

Bluuenikki -- As for avoiding the issue.....*coughs*

I do have the belief that most things in life "just is".....and it is up to us to determine what is beautiful and what isn't...and what is safe and what isn't. Deity didn't make it that way for us. I already see some evidence (er, it proves it to me, that is) of that in other cultures that are radically different from us. They applied their own meaning to the life they know, they have their own beliefs and so on. Some beliefs are universal throughout cultures such as not-murdering-children.

Life IS hollow. It is up to me to make it meaningful or hollow. I want meaning in my life, so I am making that meaning come to life in my life. :-) That is my spirituality, and no religion or deity is needed. :-)

Friday October 13, 2006 - 12:21pm (PDT)
Bluuenikki -- I agree with Cappy Pinktights latest comments. Well said, better than I could! :-)

Friday October 13, 2006 - 12:23pm (PDT)
My Reply -- Lots to answer here...so I will try and be succinct as possible.

On beauty/souls: What I am saying when I am talking about zombies is that if things are left to purely naturalistic processes, then conscience really doesn't exist. Our perceptions of consciousness are really not perceptions at all because it is nothing more than the chemical reactions. Can a bottle of oil be aware of itself? If so, how? A prerequisite for calling something beautiful is a concept of beauty. A prerequisite for calling something right or wrong is a concept of justice. Apart from consciousness, how can such concepts exist? Or more fundamental to that, how can conciseness exist in a naturalistic framework?

On cosmology: First, I do not necessarily have to argue for the God of Abraham in creation. It could be Zeus, Krishna, or Allah for that matter. All these religions/mythologies have creation stories.

Second, Why is saying "God did it" bad? How is a theory crafted by a man superior to another's theological explanation? One uses science, the other theology. I am glad that you aren't avoiding the issue now though.

Third, I certainly think that there is plenty of evidence that points to creation, but as a naturalist, you probably will reject such evidence. One type of evidence we have been discussing: abstract concepts like beauty and justice. Another type is the complexity in life.

On the Bible and belief: Belief to me isn't blind, but rooted in facts. Like I said, I tried other stuff before I became a Christian, and to me Christianity was the most cohesive and most coherent worldview. It's not based solely on a book, but the testimony of history, the evidences in nature, and the personal experience. The Bible speaks to all these things, but I don't necessarily believe the Bible because it is the Bible, but I believe the Bible because it has shown to be trustworthy. This is another can of worms in and of itself, so I'd rather not go here yet. Let's focus on the thing at hand.

Saturday October 14, 2006 - 02:13pm (CDT)

My Reply -- Concerning engergy, read what I wrote to Nikki further up the blog.

Saturday October 14, 2006 - 02:18pm (CDT)

My Reply -- To answer your question on attacking beleifs...

I am not attacking your worldview per se, but just disagreeing with it. Honestly, atheism as I see it leads to a pretty colorless world. Take that however you will, but I am sure that many atheists see Christianity or the whole of theism for that matter the same way.

Saturday October 14, 2006 - 02:29pm (CDT)
Bluuenikki -- >>> On beauty/souls: What I am saying when I am talking about zombies is that if things are left to purely naturalistic processes, then conscience really doesn't exist.

I have to disagree. Dolphins, apes, and some dogs often have some form of conscience and they are not as sentient as we are. They are more naturalistic. We learn from mistakes what is right and what is wrong and go from there. Early man learned from their mistakes and passed it down thousands of generations, becoming memes, from what little I know of it. That's my stand. :-)

I don't see science as "theology" but I respect many theists who may think we do due to how some people "treat" science---on a pedestral. I can see how theists think that. :-) Anyway, I digress.

I don't see "deity did it" as bad or immature or anything....I just see it as a cop-out, as avoiding the issue---which I know you are NOT doing at all, Mule. :-) I like cold, spelled-out, concise explanations to vague explanations. It may just be my obsessive-compulsive nature (nature again, LOL) that needs more spelled out explanations than vague ones. Science provides me the concise answers I like.

Yeah, atheism can be colorless at times, even I agree with you on that sometimes---I put the color in my life. :-) I think with atheists, we have to do the "coloring our lives" and that requires more thinking, more analyzing, more study......and with MANY theists, they already have the color, so no "extra thinking" required. Er, I said 'MANY theists', not all...and I know that might be a mudsling to some folks. :-)

I am glad you are not the sort that avoids thinking like so many theists do......kudos!!! :-)

Sunday October 15, 2006 - 05:39am (PDT)

My Reply -- Is sentience not the essence of consciousness? That is what seems to separate animals from human beings. The ability to learn doesn't necessarily make one sentient or alive. I program a computer to learn from its mistake. This is the concept behind artificial intelligence (My undergrad was in computer science). But what makes one conscience is the ability to recognize that I am learning something, rather than just the lesson itself. In other words, I know that I learn something when I place my hand on the hot iron. Not only do I learn not do it again, but I also know that I learned a lesson.

If I apply the same idea to the other things we have been talking about, I have be a sentient being to judge right and wrong, and to appreciate beauty. Like I said: I have to be aware of beauty before I can talk about something being beautiful. I think sentience (consciousness) goes well beyond being just aware of one senses--it can be intellectual and spiritual as well.

Philosophers have been pondering the essence of the mind sense as long as history has been recorded. To me, the worldview that seems to correspond with the reality I experience is the worldview presented by Christianity that speaks of a God, his creation, his dealings with creation, the nature of mankind, the nature of the world, and our most intimate deepest needs. This is somewhat subjective and science really can't explain it, but I certainly think that it lends itself as credible evidence for the existence of God. It's more of a pragmatic case for the existence of God, particularly the Christian God.

As far as creation and origins are concerned, I don't have to have the particulars figured out. As I see it, how ever God did it is really not the important part, but the fact that he did. My hunch is that the more science learns about origins, the more we will see God smiling back at us from the evidence we gather. So far, I think that this is the case.

Sunday October 15, 2006 - 01:43pm (CDT)

Bluuenikki -- I define sentience as being self-aware (self-consciousness). Very few non-human animals are sentient. I would deem most apes and dolphins and a few dogs as sentient. I think you and I are on the same page on that issue. :-)

I do agree with you that I have to be aware of beauty to find something beautiful---as well as being aware of ugliness to find something ugly.

Monday October 16, 2006 - 01:52am (PDT)

My Reply -- I think we've said enough on this thread. If Captain will start a new one, we can talk about something different. It's been fun though. Peace.

Monday October 16, 2006 - 10:53am (CDT)

a dialogue on atheism

2006-09-23T23:04:00.000-04:00

I posed a question on atheism on Yahoo! Answers the other day, based on an observation I had made on other questions. One guy, "Evil Atheist Cannibal" and I had a dialogue. Here are the results:

The Question: How does reason lead to atheism?

I often read answers to questions dealing with atheism that say that reason (common sense, thinking, rationality etc.) will lead one to atheism but the response generally fail to explain how. That not reason at all, but rather a statement with no warrant. So I thought I would pose the question: How does reason lead to atheism? I don't care so much about the reason as the reasoning. Use credibility -- (i.e. not calling God a pixie or a fairy) or things like that. These things are fallacious, and most presumably intelligent people would see through that.

Reply 1 from EAC:

Simply because there is no logical reason to believe in a god. God-beliefs are not necessary to explain any natural processes, or the creation and formation of any natural bodies, and there is just simply no evidence for a god or gods. A belief without evidence, or "blind faith" is irrational, because by having "blind faith," you are admitting that your belief cannot be taken on its own merits.

I also thought of another question: do you think that logic and reason lead away from a belief in pink unicorns? If so, applying the same arguments that you've been using against the atheists who have answered your question, explain why a belief in pink unicorns is illogical and irrational.

My Reply:

Evil, You are saying that there is no evidence for God. If that is true then one cannot conclude there is a God. You'd be correct in saying that there is no logical reason for believing in God and you say blind faith is irrational, and I grant that, but how does that lead to atheism?

If one wants to conclude atheism, one has to have proof that God does not exist rather than claiming that there is no proof for his existence. If there is no proof for or against his existence, then one cannot conclude either way. Agnosticism would thus be the only conclusion, which does not disprove God, but niether does it prove God.

In others words, unless one has evidence that God does not exist, then one is making a conclusion on "blind faith" which as we established is irrational.

Reply 2 from EAC:

Well, at least we agree that blind faith is irrational. However, I'm not sure that you know quite what atheism is. Whereas agnosticism is simply a professed lack of knowledge, atheism is a professed lack of belief. In other words, it is not an absolute, "there is no god" position. It simply means that we do not believe in a god or gods. A lack of evidence is perfectly satisfactory for one to be an atheist, and it is up to the theist to provide evidence for a god or gods, since it is completely unnecessary to prove a negative.

Referring back to my pink unicorn example, do you think that it is more logical to be agnostic or atheistic towards the existence of pink unicorns? Concerning pink unicorns, do you profess agnosticism or atheism regarding their existence?

My Reply:

Evil, you define atheism as lack of belief. Not all atheists do. Would this be the same thing as a claim that God does not exist, or something that resembles agnosticism, where I cannot believe that God exists? The latter would weak atheism, and the former strong atheism.

Second, I opted not to answer the pink unicorn specifically because I thought I had done so when I was talking about atheism. (Concluding God does not exist from lack of evidence.). Such an example is "reductio ad absurdum", or mocking the argument rather than debating it. I could do the same thing, saying that we didn't have evidence for Pluto's existence until someone discovered, so it must not have existed unti it was discovered. It the same logic atheists use, but the fallacy turned around and I commit it by saying that.

Concerning pink unicorns, one could say that pink unicorns do exist. They exist in stories fairytales and the like. But does that rule out that they could not exist in reality? Can you anymore prove that they don't exist than I prove that they do? Can you prove that you are not in the Matrix?

One of the fundamentals of empiricism is that it can only make observations and conclusions about the realm of reality in which it exists, which is nature. Because it is limited to the natural realm, one cannot make conclusions about the supernatural realm based on empiricism alone. Any conclusion outside of nature would be an ontological leap either toward or away from the supernatural.

Reply 3 from EAC:

What difference does it make if not all atheists follow that definition? How does that change anything? The definition of a word is not dependent on whether or not everybody agrees on what the word means. If you look at atheism, "a" means without, and "theism" means "god-beliefs." Therefore, an atheist is simply a person without a belief in a god or god. It's as simple as that, but you keep trying to unnecessarily make a more complicated case out of it.

And again, you seem to have missed my point when I said that "atheism is not an absolute." Do I say with absolute certainty that there is no god because there is no evidence? No. I simply point out that since there is no evidence, there is no reason to believe, and it is unlikely that such a being exists. So please stop referring to atheism as an absolute belief, because I agree that such an idea is illogical, but that simply isn't what atheism is.

And as far as the pink unicorns go, my point was simply that your logic can be applied to anything. Do you believe in a kwertyte? What's a kwertyte? It's a creature that I just made up. But it could very well exist. You cannot prove that it doesn't exist. Therefore, it makes more sense to remain "agnostic" about its existence, does it not? I don't think so.

And finally, you are most certainly correct that empirical evidence is unrelated to the "supernatural world." However, there is no evidence supporting the existence of a supernatural world. And since there is no evidence, why would I believe in it?

My Reply

Evil, concerning epistemology: You seem to be an empiricist based on what you have said, but based on other statements it doesn?t seem to be so.

Pure empiricism assumes that what one can know can only be learned from the natural world. If this is all we can know, then one cannot make any kind of conclusion about the supernatural world. A theist then can?t prove anything in an empiricist framework, because empiricism is presumes that the supernatural is unknowable. What is so confusing is that you are making an ontological judgment about the supernatural world based on lack of empirical evidence so you are breaking rules of empiricism twofold: no evidence and a statemet about the supernatural. Empiricism cannot make any statement about theism: whether it exists, might exist, or does not; whether it is unbelievable or believable. Empiricism has to be agnostic on the matter, otherwise it not empiricism, but something else. So which is it -- empricism or somthing else?

Reply 4 from EAC

No offense, but you seem to supply a lot of wordy, intelligent-sounding answers without a lot of substance.

I have already told you how I view atheism; it is a simple lack of belief, and the word itself supports that notion ("a": without; "theism": god-belief; "atheism": without god-beliefs). That is all; I have no belief in a god or gods. What is so hard to understand about that?

And yes, I am an empiricist. To the best of my knowledge, I have never claimed otherwise. The problem here is that you are making assertions and assumptions about a purely theoretical world: "the supernatural world." How do you know that such a place would be unconnected with nature, and thus is exempt from empirical observation? Where do you gain such insight on "the supernatural world?" What kind of evidence would be appropriate for this "supernatural world?" Why would I have any sort of belief in a realm whose existence is impossible to verify?

My Reply:

On atheism: The reason I am asking for a type of atheism is that atheists, not theists, define different types of atheism. Sure ? the word atheism means ?without god-beliefs? etymologically speaking, but that covers a swath of positions. Some firmly believe that God doesn?t exist. Others believe that God is not knowable so has no reason to believe in God, which doesn?t deny God?s existence like the former. Some say belief in anything supernatural is absurd, so they reject belief in God based on that. All these are ?without god-beliefs? but the positions are fundamentally different in the approach. How one arrives at a conclusion is just or if not more important than the conclusion itself. I could say pink unicorns exist, but without explaining why I make myself look like a fool. The same goes for atheism. In order for something to be true, it has be justified.

On Empricism: The problem with an empiricist making ontological judgments about God is that they are circular. There are many forms of this argument, but basically, it looks like this:

1.) The natural world is all that is knowable.
2.) Because the natural world that is knowable, the supernatural (God) can't be known.
3.) Therefore evidence for the existence of God is unobtainable.
4.) Therefore the supernatural (God) is unknowable, so there is no reason to believe.

The problem with this argument is that no evidence for God existence can ever be obtained so it is therefore frontloaded with the notion that God doesn't exist or is unknowable rather than actually proving anything about God. The conclusion is the same as the premise, which is circular reasoning.

Second, the statements make an ontological judgment: God doesn't exist or one cannot have belief in God. Such statements can't be made empiricist framework, because empirical conclusions require evidence. If evidence doesn?t exist, then no conclusion can be made and the concept of God is meaningless because it can't be described.

The polar opposite of empiricisms is rationalism, which basically says that everyone has an innate set of knowledge from which to work. This is analogous to a computer?a computer has to have a BIOS (Basic Input Output System) to interface between the hardware and the software before anything can be loaded onto the computer. Without the computer won?t work. Rationalist say that one has to be at least aware of ones senses before he or she can use them. Other rationalist say there is more, like the universal ?Good? of Plato, and the ?Noumena? of Kant. One such is that all reasonable people think murder is wrong, not because they were told so, but because intuition tells them so. This type of knowledge is ?a priori? or exists independent of sense experience. Theist claim God ?installed? this a priori knowledge in people.

There are mediated postions too. I don't reject emprical knowledge, but I think there is warrant to rationalism.

Reply 5 from EAC:

I just thought of something else: you asked how reason led to atheism. Using the definition that I provided ("without theism"), and the shared idea of blind faith being illogical, what is illogical and unreasonable about atheism?

My Reply:

As I stated above about circular reasoning, atheists don't reason to the conclusion that God doesn't exist or that belief in God is impossible, they assume it based on thier empistemology.

If I say something about God based on an assumption, then it's not based on empirical evidence. That's no different than blind faith.

down by the river on a friday night

2006-09-01T23:50:00.000-04:00

crescent city connection at night

2006-08-27T01:40:00.000-04:00

friday foto: nola street car

2006-08-18T22:42:00.000-04:00

gcp 2: god, infinity, and eternity

2006-08-16T23:25:00.000-04:00

Before I can really delve off into a discussion about the Great Christian Paradoxes, I have to lay a foundation from which I will work. A foundation of any attempt to construct a logical argument is called a premise. A premise is something that is shown or assumed to be true, and can be axioms or conclusions from other logical constructs. An attempt to understand God requires a premise of God as revealed in Scripture. For the extent of this work, I will be talking about the orthodox Christian understanding of God.

All the attributes of God have a common thread, and that is that God is both infinite and eternal. No other attributes of can be exist without these two attributes. It is difficult to describe that which is infinite. Really the only thing I can do is describe what an infinite God is not. I can't say he is 6 feet tall or 120 pounds. I can't say he is 14 years old. I can't say he lives at 125 Maple Street. These types of attributes don't apply to God. Although we can't attach a number to God, we can get a understand how finite we are to him. The Bible attests to how God can count the stars and name each one of them (Isaiah 40:26, Psalm 147:7). Scientist can only estimate that there are 10 billion stars in the galaxy alone, and that are probably 10 billion galaxies in the universe .If you multiply 10 billion times 10 billion, you get ten followed by 20 zeros. At least this number is comprehendable and countable but it really has no practical application. Yet God can come up with that many names for each star. Naming the star means that God isn't merely assigning a number to the stars, but he has intimate knowledge about each star. Such concepts show the magnitude of God compared to that of man. This is just one way of showing how infinite God is to man. The psalmist and the writer of Isaiah appeal to the heavens as a comparison to God's greatness, and they didn't have the advanced telescopes and radios we have today to peer even deeper into space then these ancient observers could. The vastness of the universe still baffles astronomers, and God is still its maker and still yet greater.

By eternal, I mean that God has always existed, and will always exist. Eternity is an immeasurable about of time. I can't say when God was born, or when God will die. He existed in eternity past and will for eternity future. God's eternal existence is one of the most well founded doctrines in the Bible. We know that God existed before the foundation of the world. He would have had to in order to create it. The Bible opens in Genesis 1:1 with God. He then creates the heavens and the earth. Over and over primarily in Psalms, the Bible affirms he is everlasting. In Hebrew, the phrase we translate "Everlasting to Everlasting" (1Ch 16:36, Ps 41:13, 90:2, 103:17, 106:48) is a way of overemphasizing the point through repetition, like when we say "for ever and ever." The writers are going to great lengths to assure us that God is everlasting, or eternal. The New Testament is filled with the same sort of imagery of an eternal God. John 1:1 starts like Genesis affirming that in the beginning God existed. Revelation 1:8, 21:6 and 22:13 affirms that Jesus is the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, and Omega is the last respectively. This is essentially saying God is the beginning of all things and the end of all things. He existed before all things began and he will exist beyond when this world will cease to exist. Isaiah 41:4 affirms that God was before all things and will be after all things. God's eternal existence is hardly refutable. What most people have problems with is not God's eternal existence, but God's knowledge of events to come. I bring this up here to that there is no confusion between God's eternal state and his knowledge of eternal events, which I will address under omniscience.

Eternity can manifest itself in many ways. First, there is the traditional way that eternity has been understood, and is typically attributed to Galileo as Galilean Relativity or presentism. He asserts that the only time that exists is present, and that the past and future do not. This makes time a progression: a succession of events with one event being preceded by another and followed by another. This is the position of St. Augustine, who proposed that the present is like a knife's edge that splits the past and the future. Another proposition is that all of eternity exists all the time all at once. This means that the events of yesterday (relatively speaking) are still happening and the events of tomorrow are happening at the same time. This, then, makes time constant, but seem fluid to the observer who is passing through. This theory of time is afforded in the modern theory of general relativity. It is difficult to see how events of yesterday to continually occur without ever changing. It's kind of like a film strip from a movie. To the observer, it is motion, but in reality it's a sequence of still frames that make something appear to be in motion. If this model of time is true, then God is still creating the world at the same time Jesus is dying on the cross and raising from the dead and coming back. This post is done and being started at the same time too. The problem with this thinking is there is no way to empirically prove it or deny it, thus making it where it cannot be falsified. This doesn't mean that it is wrong, but it is of little practical value. I don't know that I can reject it, but I certainly cannot do anything else with it.

Stemming from the same theory of relativity is that time slows down for a given object the faster that object moves through space. If one were to put a clock on rocket and accelerate the rocket, then the clock itself would tick slower than a clock on earth. This phenomenon has been shown to work and has been detected on satellites orbiting the earth at high speeds. Rather than view this as time ticking by, I think it is best to view this as a slowing of the second law of thermodynamics, which says things move from a higher state of entropy to a lower state of entropy over. It is in essences slows the aging process. Two identical events could occur, but one may take 1000 years (relative to earth) to complete if it were happening near the speed of light while another make take 10 seconds. In both events, the cosmological clock has been ticking at a steady rate. This cosmological time is a time table for the entire universe, so is in essence not bound to the universe or its effects, but rather the universe it bound to it.

St. Augustine proposed that God is not bound by time in that he exists outside the confines of time. We are part of a physical universe, and time is also part of that physical universe. God, being the author of that time, is not bound to time, but rather controls it. This means that the cosmological time table is a part of God's time table. We don't know if relativity works or if it how God chose to design the universe accordin to relativity. It may, but seems to create a problem with how we see the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus though. He is always dying, always dead, and always resurrecting. There is no biblical explanation for this view. The time table presented in scripture is one of the Galilean school, and that is that the only time that exists in the universe is the time at the present. Because of this, I accept it. In scripture though, we do know that God is still in control of time, has knowledge of the future, has always existed in the past, and will be there when time as we know it ends.

gcp 1: an introduction

2006-08-08T23:48:00.000-04:00

This post marks the beginning of a new series of post I am going to writing. I am going to deviate for some time from practical theology into more philosophy, but I hope to bring this back around to the practical side as the series begins to conclude.

The series I am writing is going to be on the Great Christian Paradoxes. As I see it, there are 5 paradoxes that have perplexed theologians and philosophers for millennia:

The origin of God
the problem of evil
the Trinity
the hypostatic union
the existence of free will and God's sovereignty.

Some of these paradoxes are unique to the Christian faith and others are universal paradoxes that all faiths struggle with. Some of these topics may take more than one post, particularly the problem of evil, which I plan to spend a lot of time on.

To clarify, I define a paradox as a situation that seems to be contradictory, but may yet still be true. One such is this: A Cretan says "All Cretans are liars". If the statement is true, then the Cretan who said it is not a liar, and not all Cretans are liars, and if the statement is false, then all Cretans would not be liars, except him, thus making the whole thing contradictory again. There are many types of paradoxes, but generally speaking paradoxes cannot be worked out using classical logic.

The purpose for writing this series is multi-faceted. First, I want to gain a better understanding about how logic applies to the realm of theology. Second, I want to have a consistent, synoptic understanding for all the paradoxes in question. Third and perhaps the practical aspect of all this will be that I want know what kind of statements I can and cannot make about God. I am not looking for solutions to these paradoxes, and after doing some initial thinking a reading, I'm not sure that I will be able to make any definitive conclusions about them, but hopefully, I will be able to make some general observations about the nature of God and how all these things work together.

This is probably the boldest ambition I've ever taken concerning theology, and I hope I see it through to completion. I'm already overwhelmed by the magnitude of the undertaking, and it keeps getting bigger the more I read, because the mountain of questions keeps growing larger and larger.

love 2: the responsiblity of love

2006-08-04T23:43:00.000-04:00

Wow it's been a while since I've posted on this thing. That may be anew record, but who cares?

Anyways, apart from being a slacker and not posting, I wanted to finish a post that I started about two weeks ago on love. The post talked about the cost of love and and I noted how the Good Samaritan had no regard for the victim's background, proceeded long term and short term care, and did it at great personal expense. The principles show that the man had compassion, and it cost him something. Next I wrote about the mystery of love, and how absurd it really is to practice love according to human standards. Our nature is selfish, and love is counter-natural.

I left out part of the passage from John 15 intentionally, mainly because I wanted to reflect on it a little more. I was taken by some of the statements that Jesus made concerning the relationship of the disciples to himself and the mission that he gave to them. If you recall, these statements are made in the framework of "Love each other," the commandment that Jesus gave to them.

The first thing of note is the is dichotomy that Jesus is painting in this passage. The dichotomy is between slaves and friends. Slaves to the ancient Hebrews were not slaves in the context that we think of slaves. Slaves to us are people who are owned by somebody else and work for that person for no wages. Slaves to the ancient hebrews were usually not slavery for a life time, but to pay off some sort of debt. They would indenture themselves to a person as a slave for a given number of years, usually seven. At the end of those seven yaers, he could opt to remain a servant to the master or be set free. The slaves were more or less employees of their master, but they didn't have anything of there own and would usually live in quarters provided by the master. Being an employee, the relationship was a business relationship . An employee doesn't know all the affairs of the master. Usually, they have a touch and go relationship, where the employee does what the master tells him to do, and they never talk about anything other than those matters.

A friend on the other hand is something more. The word used to describe friend by Jesus in the Greek means a more than just a mere acquaintance, but a deep, intimate relationship between two people. By calling the disciples friends and not just servants means that he has a deep relationship with these guys. He had given them more than just an assignment, but also he has told them why they were given the assignment and all it entails. He taught the disciples all that God had revealed while he was on earth. They knew more than the commandments--they knew the commander, his purposes, and why these commandments were so important.

A second thing of note is that the disciples didn't choose Christ, but that Christ chose them. The disciples were Jesus' hand picked instruments to take the gospel to the world. However you take this (as a Calvinist, Armenian, or something else) it seem to me that Jesus is speaking pretty plainly when he notes that he chose them, and explicitly says that they didn't chose Christ. The work was entirely Jesus' doing. Jesus also told them that they would bear fruit. The Bible notes two kinds of fruit: fruit of the Spirit and fruit in terms of more people coming to faith in Jesus. The verb "go" is coupled with the word "bear". Jesus says "go and bear fruit" While it is uncertain which type of fruit Jesus is talking about, it both can apply. Spiritual progeny and fruit of the spirit are both things that requires time and cultivation. Both are active, thus "going" activities. Being Jesus' handpicked fruit bearers means that they would be carrying his name. In addition to understanding their status with Jesus (friends) these men understood who and what they were represent: God himself. They had to bear his burden and his name! That is a huge responsibility!

According to tradition, all but one of the apostles died a martyr's death for the sake of the cross. They knew the cost of love, and they also knew the responsibility too. Being a friend of Jesus was no small task, and by being his friend and obeying him, they suffered greatly. They were Jesus' chosen few to bear fruit in the world. These men and women had the responsibility to bear Christ's name. We should "Go and do likewise."

new nobts logo

2006-07-20T23:47:00.000-04:00

Now that the steeple is gone, I think we should adopt this as a new logo...

i see love

2006-07-20T17:22:00.000-04:00

This song was performed by Bart Millard (MercyMe), Mac Powell (Third Day) and Steven Curtis Chapman on the Passion of the Christ soundtrack.

Some see a teacher
Standing on a hill
Speaking words of wisdom
Some see a healer
Reaching out his hand
To give sight to a blind man
Some see a dreamer
Wasting his life
On what can never be
Some see a fool
Dying for his dreams

But I see love (I see love)
I see love (I see love)
Light of heaven breaking through
Well I see grace (I see grace)
I see God's face (I See Gods face)
Shining pure and perfect love
When I see you
I see love

Some see a prisoner
Alone before his judge
With no one to defend him
Some see a victim
Beaten and abused
With all the world against him
Some see a martyr
Carrying his cross
For what he believes
Some see a hero
Who set his people free

But I see love (I see love)
I see love (I see love)
Light of heaven breaking through
Well I see grace (I see grace)
I see God's face (I See Gods face)
Shining pure and perfect love
When I see you

With your last breath
I see love
Through your death
I see love
I see peace in the eyes of the king
I see hope in your suffering (I see love)
I see a calm in the center of the storm
I see a Saviour

I see love
I see love
Light of heaven breaking through (heaven breaking through)
I see grace
I see God's face
Shining pure and perfect love
When I see you
I see love
When I see you
I see heaven breaking through
See Gods face
Shining pure and perfect love
When I see you
When I see you
When I see you
I see love
I see love
When I see

Some see Him walking from an empty grave

love 1: the mystery of love

2006-07-19T02:09:00.000-04:00

I wrote a few days ago on the parable of the Good Samaritan, and have since that time been thinking on the subject of love. Love is such an elementary truth, and it is something that I come back to time and time again. I guess the reason why is the fact is so elementary. To me, love is the foundational doctrine on which all other Christian doctrines hang. Jesus says that the Law and the Prophets, the bible of the day, hang as something tied to a rope hangs. The image of everything being suspended on those commands is compelling, and the reason I would teach love as a doctrine right up there with Christology and other doctrines we hold near and dear.

The line from the song I posted, "He was showing his love, and that's how he jurt his hands." has been resonating in my mind for the last couple of days. Simply stated, love hurts. When I thought about love in these terms, John 15:13 came to mind, so I went to the passage and looked at it. It is very familiar, yet every time I read it, it seems fresh. I noticed something this time I hadn't noticed before: this verse is part of a larger set of verses seemingly 12-17.

(12) My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.

(13)Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. (14)You are my friends if you do what I command. (15)I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. (16)You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit-fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.

(17) This is my command: Love each other

These verses form what Bible expositors like to call an inclusio. An inclusio is a literary device used to block off a section in a larger text, usually by relating the beginning of the section with the end of the section. Here, verse 12 and 17 repeat one another, thus relating them to one another. What is between then is forming some kind of thought

The command Jesus gives is a rehash of chapter 13 where Jesus gives them a new command. In verse 12 he says as he has shown them how to love. Jesus demonstrated in his life, exemplified in washing their feet just a few chapters earlier. The idea of self-sacrifice and service to people is what Jesus is getting at.

Verses 13 as I've mentioned was the verse that came to mind when I think of love hurting. Love cost Jesus his life, and this is undoubtedly the greatest example of love in all of human history. John points to Christ?s death as the standard of love in 1 John 13:16. Although love seems so simple, it really defies logic. If I was a banker and I had to invest in something, it wouldn't be love. First it is expensive. Love costs the most valuable thing of all, and that is life. Second, there is no return on the investment. If love costs my life, then how can I get a return? But for some reason, God chose to love us. John tells us that our love is a reaction to his love in 1 John 4:19, but not the other way around. Restated, Why would anyone do something that hurts, costs a lot, and has no return? This to me is a mystery. God does things sometimes that cook my brain.

the hand song by nickel creek

2006-07-15T23:43:00.000-04:00

This is a song by Nickel Creek off their self titled album. I thought is was relevant to my last post on "love thy neighbor". I particularly like the last line. Read it and enjoy...

The boy only wanting to give mother something,
And all of her roses had bloomed.
Looking at him as he came rushing in,
without knowing her roses were doomed.
All she could see were some thorns buried deep,
And tears that he cried as she tended his wounds.
And she knew it was love, it was what she could understand.
He was showing his love and that's how he hurt his hands.

He still remembers that night as a child, on his mothers knee.
She held him close and she opened her Bible, and quietly started to read.
Then seeing a picture of Jesus, he cried out:
"Mama he's got some scars like me!"
And he knew it was love, it was what he could understand.
He was showing his love, and that's how he hurt his hands.

Now the boy is grown and moved out on his own.
When Uncle Sam comes along.
A foreign affair, but our young men are there.
And luck had his number drawn.
It wasn't that long till our hero was gone,
he gave to a friend what he learned from the cross.
But they knew it was love, it one they could understand.
He was showing his love, and that's how he hurt his hands.
It was one they could understand.
He was showing his love, and that's how he hurt his hands.

why we should rebuild new orleans

2006-07-14T00:08:00.000-04:00

For once I am not writing about SBC stuff or fundamentalism, but rather about something that is more along the lines of what the stated purpose of this blog is: theology and missions. So hopefully this will be a breath of fresh air. :)

Unless you live in a cave, you are probably well aware of what has been going on in New Orleans over the last few months since Katrina. Katrina as we all know wreaked havoc on the city. In an unprecedented effort, churches stepped to reach out to the victims of Katrina, and they did. The SBC alone was the third largest relief organization in the ravished Gulf Coast, and this isn't counting the countless of non-SBC churches that participated in helping out the victims. It was amazing to see independent fundamentalist Baptists join with semi-charismatic to give relief to so many first hand. This response was awesome, and the church needs to be commended for it.

Now that the initial response is over, there are a number of questions swirling about what we should do with New Orleans. So many are opposed to rebuilding New Orleans for a number of reasons. Some are pragmatic and say that it is pointless to rebuild because it will happen again. Some say it costs way to much to rebuild, and ask who is going to pay for it. Some say Katrina was God's wrath on the city and he wiped it out to purge it from its sin, and we shouldn't rebuild a city that is known for its decadence.

There are a number of other reason not to rebuild New Orleans and they may all have merit, but the primary reason to rebuild New Orleans I feel outweighs any objections we might have, and this is found in the simple command Jesus gave: Love thy neighbor.

In Luke 10, Jesus is having a dialog with an expert in the law who ask him what they must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus answers giving the two Great Commandments, and the expert wanting to justify himself asks, "Who is my neighbor?" Jesus answered with this story:

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

He then asks, "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?" and the expert naturally referenced the Samaritan. Out of this passage I think there are some things we can glean.

First, note that we don't know the nationality of the man who was attacked. This may seem like an insignificant point, but I think it has some significance, because we do know the nationalities of the other three characters. We know the priest and the Levite were both Jews, and the nationality of the Samaritan is given, but not of the victim. The priest, Levite, and Samaritan did not know the man's nationality. This nationality obviously didn't matter to the Samaritan, but probably would have to the priest and Levite who would have shunned the Samaritan and obviously the victim too. It would seem that the priest and Levite would only help their kinsmen or those they knew, unlike the Samaritan who had no regard for nationality or knowledge of the mans background. In pertaining to New Orleans, we really shouldn't worry about whom we are rebuilding for or what we are rebuilding. The Samaritan didn't care, but he saw the man's needs and he met them regardless of the man's background. Such is how the body of Christ should work.

Second, the Samaritan did not help the man out of compulsion, but out of a sense of compassion. The priests and the Levites avoided the man, because by touching the man, they would have made themselves ceremonially unclean and would have not been able to fulfill there temple duties, which was something that was a prestigious honor in the days of the New Testament. Had they not been at the temple, then others may have questions them or they may have not received the honor that comes from working at the temple. The Samaritan was motivated by a since of compassion, while the priest and Levite avoid him because it would have been politically inconvenient. Pertaining to New Orleans, we shouldn't rebuild or avoid rebuilding as due to political motivation, but should be motivated by a compassion to help people who need help.

Third, note what the Samaritan did. First he treated the man's wounds with oil, wine, and bandages, and then took the man to an inn to care for him. The story doesn't stop there, but the Samaritan paid for lodging for the wounded man until he was completely healed. The Samaritan met both the immediate need and the long-term need of the wounded man. The church did an excellent job of meeting the immediate needs of Katrina victims, but few have done anything to provide long-term solutions to the needs of Katrina victims. Churches should be commended for doing what they did in the months and days immediately following the storm, but the job isn't over, and there are a lot of people who still need help putting there lives back together again and the Church can play an integral part in helping people rebuild their lives physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

Fourth, in the same passage we note that the Samaritan used his own supplies and resources to care for the man. He did so at expense to himself, and was willing to go the extra mile to see to it that the wounded man recovered to a state were he was lively. Anytime Christians reach out to others, it costs something, and may come at a great personal expense. I know some churches and individuals gave above and beyond the call of duty in terms of time, talents, and treasure to help others. I thank God for them, and I pray that they inspire others to do so.

The realities of natural disasters are real. We've seen in just the last two years numbers of natural disasters happen all over the world. There was a major earthquake in Pakistan killing thousands and leaving millions homeless. There was the tsunami in Indonesia that did likewise. Nipping its heals was another major earthquake. There really is no place on earth at is immune to disasters whether man-made or natural. There are wars, famines, tornadoes, earthquakes, fires, droughts, hurricanes, typhoons, floods, avalanches, mudslides and countless other catastrophes that happen everyday all over the world. What happened in New Orleans can happen anywhere in one shape, form, or fashion and it could happen to you. If I were a person victimized by such things, I would want the Samaritan, not the Levite and priest, to help me out. The Samaritan was the neighbor who gave of himself out of compassion and no regard for personal gain or loss to help those in need.

son of man on the moon

2006-07-07T23:17:00.000-04:00

Sometimes I wonder where American Christianity is going. It seems at times that Christians do some pretty ridiculous things. First, there was xianz.com. This originally had the tagline, "It's not my space, it's His space." Okay, a Christian alternative to MySpace. That's not that bad I guess, but it seems to be creating a subculture rather than engaging the one we already have. That's another issue. Read some of my previous rants if you want to hear about that. Second there was 10 Commandments Day. I stumbled across the site and couldn't beleive my eyes when I started to read the stuff they had posted there. It was a political advocacy group for the Ten Commandments. I thought that was pretty ridiculous, but it gets better. A church in Memphis built a 72 foot tall replica of the Statue of Liberty (calling it the "Statue of Liberation") and replaced the torch with a cross and the book in the other had with the Ten Commandments. The pastor says people can't drive by the church without thinking of their relationship with God.

If American Christianity is going to continue in this course, I think I'd like to make a modest proposal of a project that is sure to get the attention of the world: We could carve the face of Jesus into the moon large enough so that anyone with a naked eye could see it. From then on people will not be able to look at the moon without thinking of their relationship with God. I even have a name for this project: Son of Man on the Moon. It is sure to cost billions of dollars, so we will need everyone to contribute.

things that go bump in the night

2006-07-05T22:38:00.000-04:00

flood street -- n.o. la.

2006-07-01T01:24:00.000-04:00

on dissent

2006-06-29T23:32:00.000-04:00

If anyone has been paying attention to the latest happenings in the SBC, it is no secret that there is a growing movement of dissent, particularly among younger pastors and leaders on the SBC. Without going into much detail, these leaders feel that the SBC is not fulfilling it's purpose to the fullest. It you want to know more, check out the "Memphis Declaration" and blogs linked to that site.

Before I delve off into dissent, I like to start with a working definition and a framework of what qualifies dissent. The word has a pretty specific in meaning - it means to disagree with the majority or establishment in existence, and in the case of church, it generally is with the doctrines and practices. We talked about doctrine and practice in the last post, so there is no need to really discuss that at great lengths. Instead, there are three observations I'd like to make about dissent. First, dissent isn't dissent unless it is made known. I may disagree in my mind with a doctrine, but I do nothing to change it or present my case, then I am assenting by omission. This is altogether to common, and most people don't like to rock the boat for fear of rejection, chastisement, or whatever reason. Second, although dissent does rock the boat, it doesn't have to be vociferocious. A dissenter doesn't have to be a big mouth, but can disagree in a quiet, and even humble spirit. This kind of dissent is generally accepted more than those who shout on the corners and the streets. People can disagree in good spirit. Third, dissent is not always the opposite opinion, and may be in partial favor and disagree on some of the particulars. Fundamentalism generally has two options: agree wholly or don't. All those who don't agree are the "liberals" and seen as the "enemy" of the church. Such polarity is dangerous, and leads to isolationism and other things.

A good read is the proposed resolution to the SBC written by Ben Cole. Although the resolution never went before a vote, it was sent to the resolution committee and at a high level addresses historically how Baptists in particular have dissented.

To me, the value of dissent gives it purpose, so I will address the two simultaneously. The main contention of the following is that the majority isn't always right. Often the voice of one who is willing to dissent is all it takes for those who are not saying anything to dissent, such as in Martin Luther's case. Off of this stems three observations. First, Denominationalism or "towing the denominational line" for the sake of the denomination is dangerous. Just because the denomination says something doesn't make it right. It is often more politically or socially expedient to tow the line than it is to speak one's mind, but this will lead to further entrenchment of denominations and will bolster the power of those who control the denomination. The Anglican Church was one such denomination, and the Baptists were an outgrowth of it. Second, a purpose and value of dissent is to keep the church and denomination from becoming authoritarian. We hold to the Word of God as the source of authority. If man is allowed to keep on, the word of God will become subjugated to this. The Bible is the Word of God, but left to one or a few men's interpretation, can be twisted to say things it doesn't say. Third, dissent keeps the church from slipping into liberalism or fundamentalism. We have to disagree in order to maintain the delicate balance between the two.

When expressing dissent, the dissenter should first dissent publicly. Disagreeing privately, as established earlier isn't dissent. Publicly doesn't necessarily mean out in the open for everyone to know. I personally have dissented with some actions my church was taking, but I first went to the leadership of the church and spoke with them about it. After discussing things with them, they helped me understand why they were doing things. I gained their respect and they had mine, although I may have stilled disagreed with them. Second, dissenters should disagree in writing. Writing things down gives a record of the thoughts, and forces the dissenter to think through his reasons for dissent, and it gives the opposing party something to go from to build a rebuttal. This helps maintain integrity on both sides. Third, the dissenter should disagree with congeniality. Lambasting the opposing party with slanderous words or foul languages polarizes the factions even more the dissenter becomes more than a dissenter at that point. Congeniality gives the opposing party to say everything against the dissenter's arguments, but nothing about how they presented themselves. The establishment should respond in much the same way as the dissenter. They should address the issue personally, in writing, and with congeniality.

One thing that both parties should avoid is coming to the table with a closed mind. The purpose of disagreement and discussion is to seek a win-win situation or understanding if no consensus can be reached. This last year, I attended the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum, and one thing that kind of rubbed me wrong was how some of the people who presented questions to Dembski and Ruse asked the questions. Many would ask the questions with preconceived notions about their opponents and would ask questions as such. If their mind is already made up, then are they really asking a question? It seems to me that they want to tell somebody they are wrong rather than seek understanding. This is contrary to the point of the forum, which is to educate and seek understanding, not to tear down those who disagree with us.

If dissent is squelched, then soul conscience will be diminished and would undermine one of the things that the SBC has upheld for 162 years.

lean on me

2006-06-24T18:37:00.000-04:00

a synthesis of thoughts

2006-06-15T16:00:00.000-04:00

I've been thinking a lot on this subject for the last few months, particularly with the issues surrounding the IMB, the SBC, the SBC Younger Leaders Group, and other who blog or comment on the matters surrounding the SBC. I hope that through this post, I will be to synthesize what I have thought on over the last view months into a single stream of thoughts so it will be more user-friendly.

Typically, Christian groups that unite themselves call themselves denominations. The word denomination usually is a cuss word for most people because of the perceived trappings of denominations which I will discuss later, but the reality is that a denomination, whether explicitly stated or implicit without using the word, is any group of churches that unite together for a common purpose. The union may be highly defined such as in the United Methodist denomination or a loose association such as Willow Creek, but both could be called "denominations." The definition I like to use is from the American Heritage Dictionary , Fourth Edition, which says a denomination is, "A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy." As already stated that groups define themselves based on practice and doctrine. The definition I have tends to lean toward that in terms of "common faith" which would be doctrine, and organization, which would be practice. Groups may put more emphasis on one or the other, but generally all denominations have these two characteristics. I will speak primarily on doctrine from here forth, but I think that same analysis can be applied to practice.

There are basically two extremes that denominations end up at, and those are ecumenism that leads to universalism, and fundamentalism that leads to total isolation. Typically, groups that move toward ecumenism start with a doctrinal statement and will loosen the doctrine over time to allow more and more churches to cooperate with them. Eventually, doctrine dies and the only thing left is a group of churches that have no doctrinal statement. In that case, anything goes. It doesn't matter if a person believes in the Trinity or not. Jesus to them may or may not be the only way to salvation. This is universalism.

The other extreme aforementioned is fundamentalism. Fundamentalism in the sense I am speaking of here are groups that so narrowly define their doctrine such that nobody can cooperate with them. This causes denominations and churches to split repetitively until there is a nothing left but single church or maybe a handful. Fundamentalism though is an ambiguous term at best. Often times, Southern Baptist are called fundamentalists because we have a doctrinal statement and we don't allow churches that don't agree with the doctrinal statement to cooperate in the convention. I think this is a poor assessment, so I will offer another.

I have some general groupings for types of fundamentalism. Groups that define themselves based on first doctrine, then doctrine and practice, and lastly doctrine, practice and militancy. The first group I have already described concerning the SBC. In that sense, the SBC is a fundamentalist denomination, but I don't think that is what true fundamentalism is. The next group is those who define themselves on doctrine and practice. Unlike the SBC, these groups will say unless you agree with the doctrine and live, do missions, and do church like us, then you can't be a part. The churches then are pretty much homogenous. The SBC doesn't fit this description because a traditional, white clapboard church in the country and a storefront contemporary church are both Southern Baptist, but really are nothing alike in practice. They both, however, would agree on the doctrine of the SBC. Chuck Swindoll said this of fundamentalism:

Believe as I believe no more, no less; That I am right (and no one else) confess. Feel as I feel, think only as I think; Eat what I eat, and drink what I drink Look as I look, do always as I do; And then and only then I'll fellowship with you.

The last group are those who are not only exclusive in doctrine and practice, and are militant against anyone who does not agree with them. Unfortunately, there are groups like this in the world such as Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka Kansas that run many militant websites, picket funerals, and raise all sorts of clamor when it comes to practice. This is how the media paints all the fundamentalist groups I've mentioned, but in reality they are a very small minority.

Here is an illustration of what I am talking about. The stricter a group gets, the closer they are to the center of the circle. The size of their circle would be those who are allowed to cooperate with them. The smaller the circle, the more "fundamentalist" they are. I originally thought 3 concentric circles would be the way to go, but there is some gray here. Some of the separatist groups are not as strict as others for instance.

With these things said, I think I will attempt to address the question asked. First, as I've discussed is that there great danger in Ecumenism, because it will end up killing doctrine. Seemingly, a group that defines themselves on practice alone, not on doctrine, will end up universalisms, Doctrine is essential to maintaining the integrity of the gospel, which has the power to save lives. If Jesus isn't the only way to God, then there is no reason to evangelize, and missions are pointless.

There are those who define themselves based on doctrine and practice, as I've discussed, and with that comes a whole host of problems. Narrowing Doctrine and Practice kills cooperation, which is necessary because non one church working alone can reach the world by themselves. There is synergy in cooperation -- that is the total work of churches working together is greater than the total work of each church working separately. Second, a single methodology for doing something doesn't work in all cultures. I cannot have Billy Graham crusades on China without getting arrested by the government. I can't do door to door evangelism in Central Asia without getting shot. Practice seems to be a cultural thing, while doctrine seems to be something that transcends culture. If these things are allowed to happen, then missions will die.

Baptist churches should cooperate with one another. The SBC was established with the stated purpose of cooperating to do missions. The first two agencies created by the SBC where the Home Mission Board and Foreign Mission Board, which later evolved into NAMB and the IMB. The vast majority of the resources of the SBC go to do missions in one form or another. Here is how I believe things should work for Baptists:

Doctrine has to be defined and agreed upon by all those who participate. The denomination or its agencies should never more narrowly or loosely define the doctrine without the consent of the churches that cooperate in the denomination. Naturally, doctrine needs to be updated and changed based on changing culture, because new issues arise with different generations and these need to be worked out accordingly.
The denomination needs a stated purpose. This purpose will be the umbrella by which all denominational entities function, nothing more and nothing less. For Baptists, this should is missions and should exclude political advocacy groups and isolationism, both which are anti-missions.
Volunteer association and contribution/democratic polity must be maintained. Churches should never feel coerced into participating in a convention or denomination, and should have equal representations in the denomination. If a church decides that it no longer agrees with the doctrine, purpose, or practices of the denomination it should have the right to leave. The church should also designate at what level want to cooperate in terms of time, talent, and treasure. The level of cooperation shouldn't be used as a device for political leverage or as a requirement for membership or to hold office.
Local church should always be more important than the convention, its agencies, and people. The denomination exists for the church, not the church for the denomination. If ever a denomination becomes the end rather than the means of cooperation, then it is possible for the denomination become a means of control and a political agency with all the trappings that come with it.
Practice should never be prescribed, but described. Churches should share ideas with each other, but never be told how to implement strategies to reach and disciples people for Christ.

I wish denominations didn't exists, and that the churches all over the world existed as they did in the first century before denominations, but it our pluralistic society, they have to exist in order to maintain the integrity of the gospel and reach the world for Jesus. I share Charles Spurgeon?s sentiment in this quote: "I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living! I hope that the Baptist name will soon perish, but let Christ's name last forever."

a step in the right direction

2006-06-14T14:02:00.000-04:00

Morris Chapman said these word in an appeal to the SBC to "Major on the majors."

I appeal to every Southern Baptists pastor: Major on the majors in our churches. We have no time to lose, no time to be distracted from our calling -- missions and evangelism.

A continuation of the constant politicization of this convention and its churches will come at the price of turning conservative brother against conservative brother, of losing church members who love Jesus, love the Bible, love the church, love the convention, love the Kingdom of God and love world missions and at the price of losing the favor of God upon us.

Our commission for sending missionaries to the ends of the earth is to scatter the seed of the Gospel. Our compulsion to scatter the seed is the transforming power of Jesus' death on the cross.

This is what the Southern Baptist Convention was designed for, and I am thankful that a number of resolution that were propsed were not passed. One such was from Roger Moran who wants Southern Baptists to leave public school for "Christian" alternatives to public school such as homeschooling and private schools. He feels that children are being indoctrinated by the government to accept the homosexual lifestyle. While this may be true, it does nothing to solve the problem, and really leave the lost to there own vices. The SBC alternately passed a resolution enouraging the SBC to engage the culture. Thisseems to be more in line with what is at the heart of the SBC: Missions.

The election of Frank Page as president will put somebody who supports missions at the helm, demonstrated by his Cooperative Program giving, but I hope that the Cooperative Program does not become the means, but the means to the end, which is missions, as Chapman asserts.

a fun shot...

2006-06-09T12:04:00.000-04:00

at a loss for words....

2006-06-04T18:13:00.000-04:00

Okay....nothing much to say, other than I am stoked. I have spent the las six hours translating Hebrew and my brain is officially fried. This means no intelligent thoughts, no creative words, no engaging conversation. I am just here to say that I am tired and I don't want to post anything that means anything or has anything of meaning. That's redundant. yeah rah. bye.

something to harp on

2006-06-02T18:43:00.000-04:00

fundamentalism intruding into nerdom

2006-06-01T13:57:00.000-04:00

say it ain't so: http://www.leftbehindgames.com/

nothing new about it

2006-05-31T16:14:00.000-04:00

nothing new about it...everything gone, well almost...wasted

or am i wrong...rightness runs away...life--creeping back into the crooks and crannies...existence seems futile...all seems vain...never say never though...something is happening, something will come soon

ready or not....everything will bloom again...the fluer d' lis is not dead...undone yet living by the lily of the valley...return home! run home...never come back...so long old freind or hello is yet to come...

a cutie

2006-05-30T19:53:00.000-04:00

is scriptural authority orthodox christianity?

2006-05-30T19:26:00.000-04:00

I was reading the Memphis Declaration, and on the Declaration, the signers say they will cooperate with those who affirm "Christian orthodoxy". Article 4 Reads:

We publicly repent of having forsaken opportunities to reason together with those who share our commitment to gospel proclamation yet differ with us on articles of the faith that are not essential to Christian orthodoxy.

One thing I noticed in Article 7 is that the document had adamant support for Scriptural Authority. It reads, "...unity within the parameters of Scriptural authority..." and "...whose affirmation of biblical authority..." I began to think about this precept, and had to ask, is Scriptural Authority and all it entails (inerrancy and inspiration) "Christian Orthodoxy"?

I went and looked at a couple of early Christian creeds, namely the Nicene Creed and the Apostle Creed. Neither of the creeds mentions anything about Scripture, but rather basic Christian theology about God and his plan of salvation. The Nicene Creed reads,

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty
Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds;
God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God;
begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father,
by Whom all things were made:
Who for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven,
and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man:
And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; he suffered and was buried:
And the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures:
And ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father:
And he shall come again, with glory, to judge both the quick and the dead:
Whose Kingdom will have no end:
And I believe in the Holy Ghost the Lord, and Giver of Life,
Who proceedeth from the Father and the Son
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
Who spake by the Prophets.
And I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church,
I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.
And I look for the Resurrection of the Dead:
And the Life of the world to come. Amen.

The Apostles Creed reads,

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.

It seems that authority of Scripture was not included in Christian creeds or confession until a much later date. The cause if this was probably that Scripture was authoritative by fiat, but when people started questioning it, Scriptural authority started to appear in certain confessions particularly among Baptists

I personally believe in the authority of Scripture, but I am not ready to call it orthodox Christianity based on a historical perspective, in that it was not included in orthodox creeds and cnfessions. This is an argument from silence, so it is hard to say either way. This is beside the point, but the question Baptists have to address is are they willing to cooperate with a church or group that does not believe in Scriptural authority?

tags: Memphis Declaration, scripture, authority

10% to the cp?

2006-05-29T09:59:00.000-04:00

Should the SBC president be required to be from a church that gives 10% of undesignated funds to the cooperative program? The more I thought about this, the more I began to think that is a bad idea. I think the Cooperative Program is a good thing, but it shouldn't be used for political leverage. Here are a few reasons I can think of

First, it limits the candidacy of presidents. The presidency of the SBC is not for an elite few, but open to any person who is part of the Southern Baptist Convention, thus turning the Cooperative Program into a mechanism that could be used for political leverage. A candidate from a church that gives 12% would be "more qualified" for the position than one that only gave 10%. I don?t think giving is something that should be used for that purpose.

Second, it would diminish the importance of local church and would promote denominational functions. The SBC has been pushing for churches to give 10% of their undesignated funds to the cooperative program. Requiring high ranking offices to have such levels of giving seem to make denominational functions a high priority if the church wants to be a part of the denomination. This would ultimately diminish the local church and make the denomination more important, which could ultimately lead to a whole host of problems as noted in my last post.

Third, this could have a trickle down effect. If the president is required to come from churches that give 10%, then vice presidents, seminary presidents, trustees, missionaries, and other SBC representatives might have the same requirement. Along the same line of thought, it could happen that other requirements are placed on offices, like being a graduate of an SBC seminary, or being the pastor of a 1000-plus-member church, or something like that.

I think the hearts are in right place. The SBC wants to protect the Cooperation Program, which is the lifeline of the convention, but should never be done at the expense of cooperation or limit those who can cooperate. It seems like a contradiction

tags: Cooperative Program, SBC

4 reason for local church autonomy

2006-05-23T23:32:00.000-04:00

One thing that Baptists have been adamant about ever since their inception is the autonomy of the local church for a number of reasons. At this point in the game though, it seems as if the Southern Baptist Convention is slipping more into denominational thinking to the point were the denomination, not the local church, is the focus. There are a number of reasons why local church autonomy needs to be preserved. I will try and address a few.

1.) Local Church Autonomy prevents fundamentalism and liberalism from overtaking the convention. These two extremes are possible, and the balance of moderate churches and conservative churches helps keep it in check. If the denomination has the ability to determine doctrine from the top down, one of these extremes is destined to happen given the right amount of time. This is the case of so many other episcopal-type denominations.

2.) Local Church Autonomy allows for greater cooperation with SBC and non-SBC entities. If the denomination chooses who can and cannot cooperate with local churches, then it will indeed stifle cooperative efforts overseas and locally. This has been seen recently in West Africa with two IMB missionaries who cooperated with non-Baptist to plant a church. The church was not "baptistic" so the board nearly fired the missionaries. It should be up to the church to decide who they cooperate with, not the convention or its agencies.

3.) Local Church Autonomy helps keep missions as a focal point of the church. Denominational missions tend to separate missions from the local church making missions into something the churches do. Churches don't DO missions--they ARE missions. If they two some how get separated, then the church is not fulfilling one of its primary focuses: to make disciples of all nations.

4.) Local Church Autonomy allows for disagreement, dissention, and change. Under denominational thinking, decisions are made by a select group of people and handed down to the local church. Anyone who disagrees is chastised or excommunicated. Local church autonomy allows churches and members to disagree with one another. If they feel the association needs to change, then it allows for a forum of discussion, debate, and learning, which ironically stems cooperation. When voices aren't heard because of the powers at be, then churches tend to split, causing schisms that stifle cooperation and ultimately the cause of Christ.

These are just a few points. If I sat around for a while, I could probably come up with a few more. Any additions to this would be appreciated.

tags: local church autonomy, denominations, missions

fundamentalism 2.1: a little ditty

2006-05-22T11:40:00.000-04:00

I borrowed this from Wade Burleson's blog. It was appropriate, so I thought I'd post it.

Chuck Swindoll describes the Fundamentalist mindset in a little ditty that sums up the deep seeded problem of Fundamentalism.

Believe as I believe no more, no less;
That I am right (and no one else) confess.
Feel as I feel, think only as I think;
Eat what I eat, and drink what I drink
Look as I look, do always as I do;
And then and only then I'll fellowship with you.

This would fall under fundamentalist who promote strict doctrine and separitism, or somewhere toward the middle of the gradient (doctrine + practice).

tags: fundamentalism

fundamentalism 6: conclusion

2006-05-22T00:26:00.000-04:00

The primary thing that I think we can learn from fundamentalism is that it is necessary to maintain strong doctrine so missions don't become meaningless. The life-changing experience Jesus brings comes from a high view of the Bible, and taking what it says seriously. The idea of missions is really an absurd concept apart from Christ. We don't believe missions is important because it's a neat thing to do, we believe missions is important because we believe people need Jesus.

Secondary to the former, the other thing we can learn is that calling somebody a "fundamentalist" is really rather pointless. I think I have established that fundamentalism is at best a vague term used to describe a certain sect of people that have a high view of doctrine. The spectrum of fundamentalism is wide, and depends on whom you are talking to. To me, it has less to do with fundamentalism and more to do with name-calling. Rather than calling somebody a "fundamentalist", explain that person's viewpoint, ask questions, and seek clarity. Fundamentalist are stereotypically the ones who construct straw-men arguments. Calling people fundamentalist is hardly any different. Also, be prepared to be called a "liberal." These guys are the sworn enemy of fundamentalist.

tags: fundamentalism, name-calling

white tiger

2006-05-19T22:53:00.000-04:00

fundamentalism 5: seperation vs cooperation

2006-05-18T23:44:00.000-04:00

By now, I am beginning to sound like a broken record or something. My last 5 posts minus the lighthouse have been about fundamentalism. This should be the second to last one.

After I wrote about the two extremes that can kill missions, I recalled reading some stuff in the Baptist Faith and Message on Cooperation that seemed to follow the same line of thinking as I do when I speak of the lowest common denominator for doctrine. Here is Article XIV of the BFM (emphasis mine):

Christ's people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ's Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ's people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.

The SBC has prided itself on cooperation, and will cooperate cross denominationally so as long as it does not violate conscience or compromise loyalty to Christ or His Word. These phrases are somewhat ambiguous, but I think what it is saying is cooperation is ok if doctrine isn't placed aside, and in the case of the SBC, that would be the BFM.

The IFCA under section two of its doctrinal statement says:

Ecumenical Evangelism is that effort to promote the gospel by bringing fundamentalists into an unequal yoke with theological liberals and/or Roman Catholics and other divergent groups.
While the language is a little more blunt that the BFM, It seems to be saying the same thing, although groups like the IFCA would consider people who reject dispensationalism liberal. I don't think that some fundamentalist and Southern Baptist are all that different in their approach, but the major difference is in how strict their doctrine is. The SBC doctrinal statement seems to be more compatible with a wider variety of churches while the IFCA does not.

tags: fundamentalism, separation, cooperation

fundamentalism 4: the lcd principle

2006-05-17T22:25:00.000-04:00

I am a person who likes to read intent. I learn from what I have read, and apply it to my life and ministry. This is the motif of my blog: practical theology. Here are a couple things we can learn from fundamentalism.

There are basically two extreme both ending in the same results concerning fundamentalism. First, if you recall, fundamentalism was a backlash to theological liberalism. The fundamentalist I believe had their hearts in the right place when they decided to break away from the parent organizations, whatever they may be, because avoiding conflict lead to theological compromise. If this happens enough, all doctrine is thus eroded away, ultimately ending in some form of universalism, which kills missions.

The other extreme is the flip side of that coin, which is intentional separatism. Many fundamentalist groups pride themselves in their separatism, but separatism is just as bad as avoiding compromise. If it is allowed to perpetuate, schism upon schism will occur to the point that there is no cooperation. This too is the death of missions. There is no conceivable way that a single local church can reach the globe alone. Cooperation is absolutely required. If it does not exist, then missions will die.

Wade Burleson is right on his observations on narrowing the parameters for cooperation. It is going to the second extreme, and if it is allowed to continue, missions will die. If missions in the SBC are going to survive, then it has to strike a balance between the two. The principle I like to use is the principle of the lowest common denominator. This is a foundational set of doctrines that a group agrees so they can cooperate. For Southern Baptists, this should be the Baptist Faith and Message. This document by no means though is set in stone, and needs to be updated periodically to reflect the changing culture. The choice to cooperate is in the hands of the local churches because there is a bright-line. Certainly, some won't cooperate, but such a principle allows for cooperation without perpetuating either extreme, thus allowing missions to thrive.

tags: fundamentalism, missions, doctrine

lighthouse oh lighthouse

2006-05-14T18:50:00.000-04:00

fundamentalism 3: evangelism

2006-05-12T23:43:00.000-04:00

An interesting study was done by the Barna Group shows that groups that are more passionate about the Bible tend to be more passionate about evangelism. Surprisingly, the group that came out on top weree not fundamentalists, but where charismatics. The study showed that groups that were more likely to study there Bibles on a regular basis were more likely to do evangelism. Barna says:

The groups whose adherents are most likely to possess biblical perspectives are also those whose adherents are most actively pursuing spiritual experiences. The churches where people?s beliefs have strayed farthest from the Bible tend to be those in which the people are least involved in religious and spiritual pursuits.

Another study that compared the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship to the Southern Baptist Convention shows that CBF churches ever since the split from the Southern Baptist Convention has steadily been declining. It takes 92 CBF members to baptize one person, while in the SBC, it takes 44 The CBF has often called he "conservative resurgence" in the SBC the "fundamentalist takeover". But the trends speak. The "fundamentalist" group is doing a better job of baptizing more than its progeny.

If anything, this should say something to fundamentalist who claim they are passionate about God's word, yet they are getting beat out by charismatics in terms of evangelism.

tags: fundamentalism, evangelism, doctrine

fundamentalism 2: definitions

2006-05-12T01:45:00.000-04:00

Good definitions are hard to come by for fundamentalism. I read so many different takes on what fundamentalism is, that is is really hard to say that fundamentalism is this: ________. Rather than a strict definitions, I was thinking categorical definitions might work. The way I am grouping definitions is kind of like gradient circle. The center of the circle is extreme fundamentalism and the further one moves away from they center, the more moderate the fundamentalism becomes. This view will help understand my categorizations. These organizations though don't usually support stances against secular society

Doctrine: These definitions leave out any kind of separatism from society, and have more to do with doctrine. Fundamentalism according to these definitions would include any organizations that defines fellowship based on doctrine.

Adherence to the theology of this movement (Fundamentalist Movement)

Self-described Christian fundamentalists see their scripture, a combination of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, as both infallible and historically accurate. The New Testament represents a new covenant between God and human beings, which is held to fulfill the Old Testament, in regard to God's redemptive plan. On the basis of this confidence in Scripture, many fundamentalist Christians accept the account of scripture as being literally true.

Fundamentalists differ from Pentecostals in their strong insistence upon "correct" doctrine and often advocate separatism (which often also divides fundamentalists from each other) as opposed to the experiential emphasis of Pentecostals.

Doctrine + Practice: Under these definitions, fundamentalism goes a step further, in that they will adhere to strict doctrine and practice a strict moral/purity code such that they shut themselves off from soceity in part or in whole.

We believe that all the saved should live in such a manner as not to bring reproach upon their Savior and Lord; and, that separation from all religious apostasy, all worldly and sinful pleasures, practices and associations is commanded of God.

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

Doctrine + Practice + Militance: These definitions define fundamentalism as taking the two former groupings a step further, in that they lash out against those who don't agree with them. Not only do they define their themselves, they also define their enemies.

An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.

I originally thought 3 concentric circles would be the way to go, but there is some gray here. Some of the speratist groups are not as strict as others for instance.

**Defnitions taken from Wikipedia, dictionary.com, and the IFCA's website.**

tags: fundamentalism

fundamentalism 1: foundations

2006-05-11T22:50:00.000-04:00

I have heard the word "fundamentalism" thrown around on blogs a lot lately. A lot of the things that are going on in the Southern Baptist Convention are being blamed on the resurgency of fundamentalism and many bloggers are opposed to the idea. In light of these things, I thought I'd investigate this phanomenon in a series of post.

The roots of fundamentalism came at the turn of the century in America when the United States was stuggling with the rise of modernism. Modernism brought a whole slew of new arbiters of truth that were replacing the Bible. For centuries, the gerneral consensus was that the Bible was God's authoritative word, and this went without question. The new authorties were science (in the form of evolution) and higher criticism, which began to question the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture as a whole, thus diminishing it to something less than divine.

In reaction to this, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (now the PCA) published a pamplet called that outlined the "five fundamentals" of the Christian faith. These are:

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles

This movement gained steam in the early 20th century and by the 1950 peaked. It began to wane, but the legacy lived on. Any group sense then that has placed biblical doctrine in high esteem has been labeled "fundamentalist" by other groups.

my last SBC rant (for a while anyways)

2006-05-08T14:21:00.000-04:00

The Baptist started as a denomination or sect of Christianity as the Reformation was just beginning to gain momentum in Europe. The Baptist where just a wave in the tide that was the reformation, so their influence in the reformation was nominal, but they did mange to maintain a unique and formative identity. The question is and what has been, "What does it mean to be Baptist?" There have been a number of attempts to answer this question historically and spiritually, and it has caused a number of debates and schism in the past because so many people have struggled with this question. Some claim that the Baptists have always existed. These guys usually trace the Baptist through a succession of churches that go all the way back to the first century. This sucessionist views say that the Baptist church has always existed in the form it does today, or at least a form similar to the Baptist today. The problem with these views is that they are hard to prove or disprove either way. A more academic approach is to look at the succession of churches that has happened and how these groups, Baptist or not, have influenced the Baptist church. This approach deals primarily with historical facts. Because of the nature if this essay, it would hard to do justice, considering that multiple volumes most in excess of 500 pages that have been dedicated to this subject. To narrow the focus and put constraints on the work, This essay will look at select confessions that were produced by some of the groups, and try and deduce from these documents what it is that Baptist hold near and dear. There are many Baptist confessions out there, but here are six both long a short that played a significant role in the development of the Baptist church. These confessions were select based on their influence, use, and time period. The confessions are Standard Confession (1660), Second Philadelphia Confession (1742), Sandy Creek Confession (1758), New Hampshire Confession (1833), Baptist Faith and Message (1925), and Baptist Faith and Message (2000).

Trying to discern what it means to be Baptist based on a set of confessions can be a daunting task, because each confession is written with certain presumptions and in a cultural context. Some of the earlier confessions didn't have to deal with modernism for instance, while the later ones did. Certain confessions are highly defined, such as the Second Philadelphia Confession, and others are rather pithy, such as the Sandy Creek Confession. The objective of this exercise was to gather a cross section of confessions that have been important to Baptists sense the 17th century and find the common threads through all of them. After reading the confessions, six areas came to mind. Each area will be discussed more in detail, but briefly, the areas are the inspiration of Scripture, the authority of scripture, a Trinitarian view of God, Substitutionary Atonement view of salvation (salvation by grace through faith), believers baptism, and local church autonomy. These six categories were placed vertically on a grid, and the each confession was placed horizontally across the top. Then excerpts or summaries from each confession were placed in the cells. The purpose was to give an overview of these 6 areas based on the confessions.
The first area reviewed was the inspiration of Scripture. Earlier confessions didn't really have much on the inspiration of Scripture. This to them went without question. The Standard Confession of 1660 didn't include anything about the inspiration of Scripture. The later confessions Such as the New Hampshire Confession and both Baptist Faith and Message documents did include a definition of inspiration. They all include the statement, "written by men divinely inspired." The 2000 Baptist Faith and Message adds to this saying that it is "God's revelation of himself to man." These statements on inspiration were probably included because the rise of high criticism that called into question inerrancy and inspiration of scripture. For Baptists, it is important to recognize all of Scripture as divinely inspired because it is seen as the authority. Authority will be discussed next, but if Scripture is not the literal word of God in that he inspired it, then it merely a religious document crafted by man, and is no more important than the confessions themselves.

The second common thread in all the confessions is the Authority of Scripture. The earlier confessions were writing primarily diminish an authority outside of te Scriptures themselves. When discussing local church, the Philadelphia Confession, which was based heavily on the Second London Confession, speaks against any authority other than Christ, and say the Scriptures should be the authority and believed because they are the Word of God. The Baptists in England had come out of the Anglican church which had a top down form of government and used things other than Scripture as the authority. The Baptist opposed this and were radically dedicated to doing church according to Scripture only. The later Baptist had a different battle, and as mentioned dealt with the rise of modernism, which is reflected in the latter Baptist faith and messages. The 1925 Baptist faith and message includes and entire article on science and religion primarily addressing evolution, but the overriding implication concerns the supernatural versus the natural. This 2000 Baptist Faith and Message excludes this statement. Many modernists saw Science, not the Bible, as the arbiter of truth. The conflict is still no different in that it is a human source of authoritative truth as opposed to divine. All the creeds agree that the Scriptures are the standard for faith and practice. They each differ on how they saw it, but the manifestation is still one in the same: Scripture is the regulator of doctrine and practice.

The last four areas really are a manifestation of the first two sense Baptist takes the Bible seriously. The Trinitarian view of God had been the orthodox view of God since the council of Nicea in 325 where Unitarian views of God were rejected. The battle wasn't settled at Nicea because Unitarian views of still exist in sects of Christendom such as the Jehovah Witnesses and the Unitarian Church. Baptists have traditionally held this view in order to maintain orthodox views of Christianity, and include it their confessions. The Baptist did deal with it at points in their history, particularly in England where some seemingly Baptist groups rejected the deity of Christ (cite notes). In modern times, the Baptist separate themselves from Unitarian Universalist groups and ecumenical groups that will not endorse a view of God such as this.

The fourth area where all the confessions will agree is on the substitutionary atonement view of salvation. This view says that became a man and died on the cross in the place of men in order to atone for their sin so they might live eternally if they just believe. Each confession expresses the view using slightly different terminology, but in essence all are saying that it was Christ work on the cross that paid for sin. The Standard Confession seems to allude to a ransom view of salvation, but also mentions propitiation, which would imply some form of substitution, in that Christ died in order to pay a debt owed by someone else. The act of Christ was an act of grace. There is no other way nor is any additional grace needed in order for salvation to be complete. There haven't been many battles fought over this view of salvation mainly because it was a product of the Reformation, where the Reformers rejected the notion of additional grace being imbued by the church. The concept of "Sola Fida" (faith alone) was established by Martin Luther, which the Baptists adopted in their confessions. The Campbellites in America rejected faith alone as being enough to save a person when they said that salvation is needed in order to receive remission from sin. This adds to faith being just enough. Baptist don't view baptism as a sacrament, but merely a symbol of what is happening in the spiritual life of an individual.

The namesake doctrine of the Baptist is believers' baptism, which is the one doctrine that separates Baptist from other groups that would agree on all other points of doctrine except this one. All six confessions referenced say baptism is believers only in water without a question. The Standard confession qualifies "Baptize" saying it is the English word "to dip", which strongly implies immersion. Immersion is mentioned explicitly on all of the other cited confessions, and in water in the last three. The Philadelphia Confession and the Standard Confession go to great lengths to debunk infant baptism, and even goes as far as to say it is unscriptural. The church, as they note is made only of baptized believers and nothing else. To say otherwise would be doing an injustice to the Bible. Baptists have always been somewhat at odds against most mainline denominations concerning baptism. For the most part, Baptists are the only denomination that exercises believer's baptism where it is merely a symbol and not done done on infants. Two major controversies come to mind concerning baptism and the Baptist. The first was with sucessionism, in that every Baptist had to be baptized by a Baptist. Any other baptism outside the Baptist church was unacceptable (class notes). The other controversy with the (as fore-mentioned) Campbellites who insist that baptism is necessary for the remission of sin. This is not the view held by Baptist, who believe it an outward symbol of an inward change.

The last of the 6 areas gleaned from the confession concerns local church autonomy. The earliest confessions don't explicitly call local church, "local church" but if one reads these confessions, he or she can see that the form of church polity these churches are suggesting is local church autonomy. They draw a line between the "invisible" and "visible" church, and reject any form of church headship other than Christ. The invisible church is all those who believe, and the visible church are those who meet together to fulfill the functions of a church. The Standard Confession and Philadelphia Confession strongly reject church hierarchies because both these documents were written by churches that spawned from the Anglican church, which has a visible head and many strata of authority. The Baptists have always gone to great lengths to insure that local churches remain autonomous. The later confessions had to deal with Landmarkism, which was an over emphasis on local church. They made local church so strict that any form of cooperation, such as in missions societies and conventions was strictly forbidden, and lashed out against such groups.

These six pillars are a very high level view of what Baptist hold near and dear, and each confession reflects each period's struggle to maintain these six areas. These areas are by no means definitive, but these represent the major distinctions that make a Baptist church a Baptist church.

Ever since the demise of the Baptist in England and the Baptist in the American in the North, the premiere Baptist group has been the Southern Baptist Convention. Two of the selected Confessions were crafted specifically to serve as confessions for the Southern Baptist Convention. The Southern Baptist Convention in the Uinited States is comprised of thousands of churches representing millions of Baptists. The Convention was organized in 1845 with the stated purpose of doing missions, and the first two boards that were organized were mission boards to manage missions in American and abroad. The first confession didn't come until 1925 at the same time the Southern Baptist Convention established the Cooperative Program, which is a cooperative effort in the Southern Baptist Convention to fund missions locally and around the world. Ever since it's organization, the Southern Baptist Convention has seen growth and has taken on a corporate structure with multiple braches and large, bureaucratic entities. These entities thrive in a modernist frame of mind that likes structure, however, there are winds of change blowing right now.

Perhaps the primary issue for Baptist in the future will be regarding politics. More and more people are gaining a distrust for political machinery. There has been a lot political manipulation that has gone on in the Southern Baptist Convention and some of it has been less then wholesome. Some see politics standing in the way of missions. It is probably not possible without authoritarian rule to have a system that does not have politics, but the challenge will be is to figure out how to minimize politics so that it doesn't stand in the way of reaching people for Christ. Many churches want to abandon the Southern Baptist Convention because of the ongoing bickering matches. Wade Burleson feels that the Southern Baptist Convention is worth saving and is a great mechanism for doing missions. The solution may lie in Steve McCoy's suggestion from a bottom up approach to influence. Rick Warren, who carries great clout in Southern Baptist Circles now change the minds of a number of peoples not by campaigning, but by fulfilling the Great Commission in Lake Forest, California. His influence has change the way a number of people do church now. This may be the way to invoke change without political manipulation.

The second issue for Baptists is going to be surrounding authenticity and experience. Postmodern thinkers are often willing to abandon pluralism for something they feel is authentic, with the emphasis on feeling, not head knowledge. They want transformation, not just intellectual ascent. This usually comes through experience, not through didactic lesions or formal training. Structured learning has been the norm in churches from at least the past two or three hundred years. Many postmodernist though want to learn from experience that is not artificial and want to belong to a community that is honestly seeking truth. Churches have to learn to communicate and probably emphasize the love Christ has for people and show that through lives radically devoted to God because of what he did for men on the Cross. Baptism will be not something that is done lightly, but should carry the significant spiritual weight of its implications. Those who call themselves Christians can no longer be good Christians by checking off lists, but rather by being devoted to Christ in ever aspect of life. This isn't that far removed from what drives Baptists separate from the churches they came from. The challenge to Baptists is going to be how they address this issue through restructuring church ministries not for the sake of restructuring, but for the sake of authentic transformation that teaches good doctrine and promotes radical commitment to God and the Scriptures.

A third challenge for Baptist is going to be pressures over denominational loyalty and local church autonomy. This is already being seen in issues surrounding Wade Burleson and the like who feel the denomination is handing down doctrine to the local church by the entities, not the churches, defining what is acceptable baptism. The issue could mushroom into a much larger one. Many feel that the Southern Baptist Convention has become exactly what it was trying to prevent itself from becoming, and that is a hierarchal denomination. Many church leaders came up in Southern Baptist Churches, were educated in Southern Baptist Seminaries, and have worked in Southern Baptist Entities for years. They have a strong sense of denominational loyalty because of this. If a church were to feel that it was time to cut ties with the Southern Baptist Convention as many are feeling, yet the staff are devoted loyal to the convention, this will create tension between where allegiances lie: the denomination for the local church. If the pastor is truly loyal to Baptist teachings, then he would have to side with the church, and not split the church over denominational loyalty. Joe Thorn is already dealing with this issue as he addressed it on his blog.

celebrate 613 commandments day!

2006-05-07T01:30:00.000-04:00

Read my post on the 10 commanmments...

And dont forget to visit:

www.tencommandmentsday.com

chiming in

2006-05-05T21:15:00.000-04:00

doubt

2006-05-04T15:15:00.000-04:00

risky business...
he will require...
uncertainty...
the song of the chior...
turmoil...
is unquestionably the norm...
shivers and quakes....
caused by the storms...

my hope is etherreal...
my vision unseen...
my future seems a whim...
my faith but a dream...

BUT IT'S REAL i TELL YOU!
SO So so real...
doubt begone...
for now i will kneel

what if?

2006-05-04T00:42:00.000-04:00

What if? Remember those old Shel Silverstein poems where he'd list a bazillion "what if"questions? Well, I am going to ask just one instead of a list, and this is more of a hypothetical situation, and I'd like feedback if you are willing.

What if you were a pastor of a small Southern Baptist church in a county seat town in the middle of Ohio. Recently, you've been sensing that your congregation feels somewhat isolated from the town around them because Southern Baptist generally don't cooperate cross-denominationally. Being in the Mid-West, there aren't that many Baptist churches around. There is one about 20 miles away in the next small town over, but it is an independent Baptist church. Your congregation wants to get involved doing ministry in the community, but they also feel like they'd be compromising there Southern Baptist ties because the churches don't agree with their's on every point of doctrine. Feeling like an odd ball, the congregation starts a movement to cut ties with the SBC in order to cooperate with others that are not SBC churches. As a pastor, you went to an SBC seminary, you started the church with SBC support, and you go to great lengths to ensure that the church supports the Cooperative Program. What would you do? Agree with the congregation, and severe SBC ties, or tow the denominational lines in spite of what the congregation wants to do? Or would you do something else?

denominations part 2: the sbc

2006-05-02T22:36:00.000-04:00

I've taken a few days off from blogging to really focus in on a quality post rather than trying to crank one out that was more babble. I have been following the conversation over church planting networks versus the SBC for a while on a couple of different blogs. It is sometimes hard to get a handle on these kinds of things, especially when you are someone like me, who is pretty new to the blogosphere, the emerging church movement, missional thinking, and all the other stuff that goes along with these things. It has been interesting trying to "catch-up" only to get behind when something else percolate to the top of the pile. I do appreciate the thoughts though that people put into their posts, and the respect that most bloggers/commenters have for one another even if we do disagree.

This post is sort of an extension to my last post in a way, because it does talk about denominational issues, although this post will address the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) specifically. I refer to the SBC as a denomination primarily for reasons of semantics, but to me it is not really a denomination based on the way I define it. I generally think of a denomination as a corporate entity with a top-down approach to church government with multiple layers of leadership and tightly controlled churches, such as the United Method Church, the Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church, or the Presbyterian Church (USA). These would be denominations in my way of thinking. The SBC is not because the convention (theoretically) has no control over local congregations, nor is there multiple levels of leadership beyond the church leadership. In conversations with SBC officers though, I got hissed at for not calling the SBC a denomination, but a convention. So for reason of conversation, I will call it a denomination. But like I said in my last post, if the SBC can be a denomination, then anything cooperative, formal or informal can be a denomination.

The definition I used as a handle to discern what causes schisms denominations, to recap, was over issues of faith and governance. I want to extend faith to include doctrine, and governance to include practice. There is a lot of overlap between doctrine and practice. It is hard to speak of them without really considering the other, but for simplicity sake, I will speak of them separately.

The traditional conflicts in the SBC have generally all been matters stricly concerning doctrine and not about practice. The publication of the commentary on Genesis that denied the event as be history saying that Abraham didn't actually hear from God and that he was following a cultural norm was challenged because it made the Bible non-literal. The conservative resurgence that caused a systematic take over by conservatives of SBC was to oust those who thought more liberally than the current SBC'ers. All this and more deal with doctrine, not methods. It seems that the contemporary issues concerning church planting deal with practice, which is being questioned.

Joe Thorn rhetorically asks the question, "When would we leave the SBC?" He answers, "When the Convention gets in the way of our work; when the SBC is working against our goals, vision, and theology," He does mention theology, and says that "fundamentalism chokes the missional life out of our work, or even as people who want change distract us from the most critical issues by focusing on political tug of war." He seemingly calls the conservative thinking of the SBC and its entities "fundamentalism." The term is vague at best, because it can incorporate doctrine and practice. For the most part, the SBC would agree with fundamentalist Baptist groups on most points of doctrine. The differnces between Southern Baptists and fundamentalists is that fundamentalists don't just lay out the grounds on which we will cooperate, but they go further by painting other groups as the enemy, and label them "liberals" or something like that. I am not denying that this happen in the SBC, and I would be fool if I did deny it. But I'd say that the majority of the SBC doesn't do this, and in fact wants to cooperate, but a few apples spoil the bunch sometimes if we allow it. This brings me back to the original observation then. It's not a struggle over doctrine, but a struggle of practice, and Joe thus hits the nail on the head with politics.

Steve McCoy builds the case, saying:

"Here's the big problem for me. Gaining influence through being better pastors and missional churches (my hope for us) and wielding political power (votes and forced change) are two ways to bring convention change. I don't question that. What I do question is the kind of change each brings, and the kind we should seek.

Being missional will lead to influence and then we can use that influence to bring internal change (convinced hearts), the political way will only bring superficial change (convinced by force)...If we really are about MISSIONS, then we must be about the big picture and lasting, internal change rather than over-reacting.... I think the reason political power is even on some minds of YL's (Young Leaders) is because we know a lot of rooms will be full of YL's in Greensboro. I think it opportunistic, and it will backfire."

I think Steve thinking is right on concerning the Young Leaders. I have said it myself time and time again that grassroots level movements are the way to go in today's cultural, and grassroots level movements change hearts while political movements force change. I can't think of a better case and point than Rick Warren (gasp) and how he influences the denomination. His peers for wanting to plant a church in Lake Forest, California that was non-conventional and non-traditional scoffed Rick Warren in the early 80's. Now, he and his cohorts are the poster-children in churches across the nation. Churches are buying into their motifs wholesale, even big traditional mega-churches who 20 years ago would have laughed him out of the convention hall. Times are changing though, and the purpose-driven motif is waning. People are beginning to question its authenticity (McNeal and Barna to name a few) and effectiveness. The "missional church" movement is pioneering new ways to reach people with the gospel, and picking up where the purpose driven model leaves off.

It is no secret that American cultural is increasingly becoming more postmodern. Postmodern thinkers don't generally like huge corporations or bureaucratic entities, both of which the SBC and its entities are. Postmodern thinkers generally like to be hands on, and participate in the work that they are endorsing. This flies in the face of things like the Cooperative Program which people give to and never really see anything other than maybe an occasional missions brochure. They never actually see the workers they are supporting. Postmodern thinkers generally like to avoid conflict because of pluralism and relativism. There are no absolutes, so nobody gets in fights. Struggling over faith and doctrine seem pointless then. Who cares of you are liberal or conservative? To postmodernists, this gets in the way of progress. All this brings me full circle back to politics, and will address church planting networks.

Steve McCoy calls this new era "post-denominational." Increasingly, churches are beginning to look elsewhere other than the SBC as a way to fulfill it's missional calling. The question that Joe Thorn started with this stems from this thinking when the perception is that the SBC no longer aligns with the vision, theology, etc. of a church. Going back to what Joe Thorn said, the SBC sometimes gets bogged down in a political tug-of-war, which is where the frustrations can arise. Steve McCoy also offers the following:

Imagine this. What if some of us were to start and/or join stronger, local, post-denominationally minded networks that envisioned a whole new future for the SBC as it relates to evangelicalism. If many of us worked in this direction we just may have the footing in 10 years to shed old systems for better ones, and it may happen much more naturally than if we tried to use votes and power to change things. It certainly would be healthier.

My initial response to this thinking was, no, it won't work, but the more I thought about it, the more I think it will. I think there is genius in Steve's thinking, especially concerning structures and systems in change. One thing I certainly believe in, and I am affirming is smaller, grassroots type work, and if these networks are the solution to the problem, then I am all for them. But I do have some reservation.

My first reservation is that church planting (strictly speaking) is not all there is to reaching people with the gospel. One church that comes to mind that reaches people with the gospel in a method that is not church planting is First Baptist Church of Leesburg, Florida. These guys have their "ministry village" which is a complex that offers a host of social ministries that are not connected to church planting. These ministries (or missions if you prefer) reach out to people in need, and the church should always be at the forefront of meeting needs. After Katrina hit, I was amazed how the grassroots aid, as chaotic and disorganized as it was, effectively ministered to those in need. It shocked the heck out me when a independent fundamental Baptist church teamed up with a charismatic church to set up a evacuee camp in Louisiana. I was there working with the camp on my own fruition as a Southern Baptist along side charismatics and fundamentalist. It was the church, not the government, who responded effectively to the call, and God has equipped is to do this, and we cannot deny this end of our mission. God has called us to do this and do the church planting as well in order to spread the gospel.

My second reservation is that the networks should not replace the SBC, and honestly I think they should support the SBC. Wade Burleson who has been at the forefront of criticism from various people at the IMB, says,

The SBC already has a mechanism in place for reaching a world in need of a Savior --- the International Mission Board --- and it would take at least a century for another evangelical missions sending organization to duplicate what the SBC is already doing. There are some who seem to be saying, "If I don't like what the SBC is doing, I'll just leave." I would propose that the SBC is in need of people who will tough out the bad times, be faithful in the rough times, and in general, give their finest efforts to better the SBC.

I couldn't agree more with Wade's remarks concerning the SBC. He is speaking in reference to the International Mission Board, but I think it could be extended to the North American Mission Board as well. NAMB has hit a few snags recently, and maybe has had a rough decade, but just because it has not be performing at top notch doesn't mean it should be abandoned and left for dead. Marty Duren, editor of the "SBC Outpost" blog recently posted a question about what would some people do if they were to be elected as president of NAMB. A number of people posted different suggestions, a common thread through them all was that people would make name more focused on planting quality churches in strategic areas, working much like church planting networks do. I would add to that they continue the social ministries they do such as shelters, port ministries, construction ministries, and others. It could be that NAMB facilitate these networks, rather than being a network itself or something along those lines.

Ir is a crucial time for the SBC: do we continue to do things the way they have always been done, do we abandon the SBC for smaller, more localized ministry, or do we somehow revamp the SBC to allow churches to continue to cooperate in spite of the politics. I think the latter is the way to go. As I said in my last post on denominations, politics is the cost of cooperation. Wherever people are, politics are going to happen. It is unavoidable. Change, however can occur if people are willing to work with the SBC and stay true to the course.

takin' a hike

2006-05-01T23:57:00.000-04:00

a little trickle-fall

what is a denomination?

2006-04-27T13:58:00.000-04:00

I posted this mainly in response to "Systems: Change/Redirect or Build New?" on the Missional Baptist Blog. I wanted to investigate denominational thinking for myself, and here is some stuff I compiled.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

WordNet ® 2.0: a group of religious congregations having its own organization and a distinctive faith

Wikitionary.org: A class, or society of individuals, called by the same name; a sect; as, a denomination of Christians.

Wikichristian.org: Although there is only one universal Christian Church, there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations or churches. These denominations have formed and divided since the time of Christ, because Christians have had differences in beliefs and practices. Some of the main groups include the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, Protestant churches, and Pentecostal churches.

Wikipedia: Religious Denominations

A religious denomination, (also simply denomination) is a large, long-established subgroup within a religion that has existed for many years. However, in Islam such subgroups are referred to as "sects", not denominations.

Denominations usually have a significant degree of authority over their member congregations, although the term is also used to describe religious groups when the congregations have authority over the "denomination", such as Congregationalist church governance such as the Unitarian Universalist Association, the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and the numerous Baptist associations.

Denominations often form slowly over time for many reasons; due to historical accidents of geography, culture, and influence between different groups, members of a given religion slowly begin to diverge in their views. Over time members of a religion may find that they have developed significantly different views on theology, philosophy, religious pluralism, ethics and religious practices and rituals. As such, in any of a myriad of ways, different denominations eventually form. In other cases, denominations form very rapidly, either as a result from a split or schism in an existing denomination, or as people from many different denominations share an experience of spiritual revival or spiritual awakening, and choose to form a new denomination based on that new experience or understanding.

Wikipedia: Christian Denominations

Expressions of Christianity, in modern times, exist under diverse names. These variously named groups, Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics, etc. are colloquially called denominations.Some denominations are large (e.g. Roman Catholic, Lutherans, Anglicans or Baptists) while others are just a few small churches, and in most cases the relative size is not evident in this list. Also, modern movements such as Fundamentalist Christianity, Pietism, Evangelicalism, Pentecostalism and the Holiness movement sometimes cross denominational lines, or in some cases create new denominations out of two or more continuing groups (as is the case for many United and uniting churches, for example). Such subtleties and complexities are not clearly depicted here.

What Is a Denomination? By D. Gene West

...As a matter of fact, when one begins to read the history of the religion called "Christianity," he will find that from almost the time of its beginning heresies arose in the midst of Christians that eventually divided the church and formed new churches, or what we call denominations. The biblical word for heresy and heretics has reference to those teachings (doctrines) and teachers who "split" the early church with their false views, forming new denominations...

...The source (dictionary) then names a religious body as an example. However, when this has been said, we have insufficient information to really tell us what a denomination is. Two other important things must be added. (1) There must be an organizational concept added into which the local churches are drawn for the purposes of identification and function. Hence, denominations are organized collections of churches. (2) There is collective function (government) or activity.

...Still another characteristic of a denomination is that it has some kind of formal creed that sets forth, usually in few words, the fundamental beliefs of that body....

...In addition to these things, denominations wear special and peculiar names that designate such things as one of their outstanding ceremonies (baptism), their form of church government
(presbyterian), the name of the person whom they claim as founder....

The common thread in all of these statements goes back to the first two definitions that I gave: faith and organization. Faith is the common beliefs that a group of churches large or small have in common, and organization is how they unite themselves together. Even these characteristics of denominations still leave a great deal of ambiguity. It seems that it would allow for a denomination of denominations. Such a group would be something like he Baptist World Alliance which is a grouping of smaller Baptist denominations from all over the world. And even larger than that is the World Council of Churches. These structures are somewhat stratified, but there are also networks of churches, such as the Willow Creek Association. This group is formed from churches that are part of other groupings. Overall, the term denomination is somewhat ambiguous.

Because of the perceived trappings and discontentment with denominational thinking, some churches have declared themselves nondenominational. Nondenominational means "not restricted to a particular religious denomination." A nondenominational church then under this context in does not subscribe to a particular grouping, but is independent. In order to truly be nondenominational, the particular church could not cooperate on any level with any church. If the church were to agree with another church on a common goal, and pooled their resources (monetary or not) with another church to accomplish the task then they would in essence be part of a denomination. Even nondenominational churches, although they may not officially subscribe to a particular sect, often doctrinally will agree with a particular denomination, although the denomination may not be officially a denomination, such as Baptists.

Interestingly enough, many mainline denomination where formed based on the doctrinal persuasions of certain theologians although they themselves had no desire to be separatists.
Martin Luther: "I ask that men make no reference to my name, and call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians. What is Luther? My doctrine, I am sure, is not mine, nor have I been crucified for any one. St. Paul, in 1 Cor. 3, would not allow Christians to call themselves Pauline or Petrine, but Christian. How then should I, poor, foul carcass that I am, come to have men give to the children of Christ a name derived from my worthless name? No, no, my dear friends; let us abolish all party names, and call ourselves Christians after Him Whose doctrine we have."
John Wesley: "Would to God that all party names, and unscriptural phrases and forms which have divided the Christian world, were forgot and that the very name [Methodist] might never be mentioned more, but be buried in eternal oblivion."
Anti-denominational thinking among Baptist is nothing new. Charles Spurgeon wished that the Baptist name would disappear. "I look forward with pleasure to the day when there will not be a Baptist living! I hope that the Baptist name will soon perish, but let Christ's name last forever." The idea of only church denomination being the church that Jesus started in the first century is nothing new either. Their are many denomination that trace their lineage back to this church and not through the schisms that happened over the centuries.

I personally have mixed feelings about denominations, even my own the SBC. But anytime there is a group of churches gathered together whether 2 or 200,000, there is always going to be bickering and politics involved. Cooperation at the cost of politics may be the only way to cooperate. And avoiding cooperation because of politics doesn't seem to be biblical and downright impossible in some regards. I do like what C.S. Lewis said, "Our divisions should never be discussed except in the presence of those who have already come to believe that there is one God and that Jesus Christ is his only Son." If somehow those who have never believed could see the church without seeing the denominations and schisms, then it would be great. And rather than trying to share the Baptist Faith and Message with someone, I think I would be better off sharing the gospel.

too emergent?

2006-04-26T10:39:00.000-04:00

Interesting: an emergent community swapping liturgy for drama. Here is the original article published by the Wall Street Journal.

No one preaches at Hot Metal Bridge. Plays are its liturgy. Mr. Walker, a soon-to-be ordained United Methodist minister, leads the church with his friend Jeff Eddings, a Presbyterian seminarian. "Instead of coming to our church and listening to a sermon, you can be part of the sermon," Mr. Walker says. On Sunday when many ministers all over the country will be complaining about church attendance the rest of the year, Hot Metal will be grappling with where to put the 300 people who pack the Goodwill Industries cafeteria every Sunday, not just Easter and Christmas.

Hot Metal Bridge is part of the emergent church movement that rejects rigid orthodoxy and strives to use hip language and culture to draw in young Americans who stopped, or never started, attending church.

puke

2006-04-24T10:51:00.000-04:00

some say ignorance is bliss
i'd agree
reality-- how can I make sense of this

reality is cold
i'd agree
when life gets tough it all will unfold

so what do i do?
i'd ask
if i was sitting, i'd make life a padded pew

comfortable, reserved, inviting, warmed
i'd slouch
and eat up a message so misinformed

pitiless, rich, lavish, and confined
i'd become
but in reality i'm wretched, pitiful, poor, naked, and blind

playing with the camera

2006-04-21T23:35:00.000-04:00

Shame

Spying

bible in the classroom

2006-04-21T14:47:00.000-04:00

A bill in Georgia allows for the Bible to be used as a textbook in public classrooms:

The bill, which was overwhelmingly approved by the legislature and is expected to be signed by Republican Governor Sonny Purdue later this month, would make Georgia the first state in the nation to require that the Bible itself be used as the core text in classes on the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. The measure supplanted a proposal, introduced in January by three Democratic state senators, that would have instructed the Georgia Department of Education to develop a state-funded elective course on the Bible and approve a textbook to be used in the class.

The purpose of the new courses, according to the bill, is "to accommodate the rights and desires of those teachers and students who wish to teach and study the Old and New Testaments." Local school systems would decide whether to offer the classes.

Here is an excerpt from the bill establishing the guidelines and purpose of the course.

(1) In implementing this Code section, it is the intent of the General Assembly to accomplish the following objectives:

(A) To equip the student with a fundamental understanding of important literary forms contained in the Bible as well as people and symbols often referred to in literature, art, and music;

(B) To equip the student with a fundamental understanding of important biblical contributions to history, law, American community life, and culture;

(C) To give insight into the world views of America's founding fathers and to understand the biblical influences on their views of human rights;

(D) To provide a greater knowledge of Middle Eastern history, geography, religion, and politics; and

(E) To inform the students of the importance of religion in world and national history, without imposing the doctrine of any particular religious sect.

(2) In implementing the course provided for in this Code section, it is the intent of the General Assembly that the following terms and guidelines shall apply:

(A) 'Secular purpose' is defined as those studies which instill in students values such as independent thought, tolerance of diverse views, self-respect, maturity, self-reliance, and logical decision making, and those studies which give students great insight and appreciation of literature, the arts, politics, history, law, social studies, and current events. Secular purpose, for example, should not mean 'nonreligious purpose' but 'general public purpose';

(B) The studies shall be structured and presented in such a manner that the presentation of material neither enhances nor inhibits religion. Inculcation or proselytization of any particular doctrine, dogma, religious belief, or theory is prohibited;

(C) There shall be no requirement that a teacher shall have a particular religious belief (or nonreligious belief) or persuasion in order to conduct religious studies;

(D) Funds for the presentation of instruction shall be provided by the school board. If school board funding is not available, then the funds may be raised by the private sector;

(E) The teaching about religion in public schools and the presentation or offering of an elective course in Bible study, comparative religion, or both in the secondary schools is expressly permitted and is constitutional;

(F) Study of the Bible should stress the influence of the Bible on history, culture, the arts, and contemporary issues;

(G) Study of the Bible should permit and encourage a comprehensive and balanced examination of the entire spectrum of ideas and attitudes pertaining to it as a component of human culture;

(H) Study of the Bible should examine the religious dimension of human experience in its broader cultural context, including its relation to economic, political, and social institutions as well as its relation to the arts, language, and culture;

(I) Study of the Bible should be objective and nonsectarian;

(J) Study of the Bible should be academic in nature, stressing student awareness and understanding, not acceptance and conformity;

(K) Study should be descriptive and nonconfessional and should be conducted in an environment free of advocacy;

(L) Study should seek to develop and utilize the various skills, attitudes, and abilities that are essential to history and the social sciences, that is, locating, classifying, and interpreting data; keen observation; critical reading, listening, and thinking; questioning; and effective communication;

(M) Study of the Bible should be academically responsible and pedagogically sound, utilizing accepted methods and materials of the social sciences, history, and literature; and

(N) Study about the Bible should center on the biblical text itself rather than extraneous material and theories which might express a particular theological position rather than the historical presentation found in the Bible.

My initial reaction was objection. I questioned whether or not I really want the Bible to be taught in high schools, but after reading the bill, I think the intent was to show how the Bible has influenced culture. The bill says that the Bible should be taught objectively, and is not a matter of teaching doctrine or dogma from a sectarian point of view.

On paper, this sounds good, but in reality, I am not sure that it is possible. The Bible nowadays is a polemic device that is being used to garners supporters for certain candidates. In Georgia, the bill received a large Democratic backing because of the democrats are anxious to get the religious vote. Georgia has traditionally been a stronghold of religious conservatism.

The only problem this bill may create is it will open the door for other religious texts to be taught in high schools, such as the Koran, Hadith, Apocrypha, pseudopygraphal writings, and extra-canonical texts. I hope that it will remain objective, and teachers will not give Christians a bad name by being dogmatic about their approach, and that the students who listen will receive the instruction critically, not from a predetermined mindset.

the blender in my brain

2006-04-20T11:50:00.000-04:00

this used to make sense until somebody hit [LIQUIFY]
scattered now thoughts are my
things us-u-al-ly start out chu-nky
b u t t h e n g e t b r o k e n i n t o l i t t l e b i t t y p i e c e s
andthenturnintoonefluidmass
Is the blender a bad thing?
mAyBe NeXt TiMe, I wIlL gEt A mIcRoWaVe To NuKe My ThOuGhTs...

praticalithe turns 500

2006-04-19T23:21:00.000-04:00

Well, at least in terms of visits. Thanks to everyone who has made this possible.

paradox

2006-04-19T09:51:00.000-04:00

Why are you 3?

?1 ouy era yhW

How do you choose people to be saved?

?lliw eerf evah ew nac woH :lla wonk ouY

You are immortal.

?eid ouy nac woH

You are all loving.

?etah ouy nac woH

You care for everyone.

?elpoep doog ot neppah sgniht dab od yhW

You are everywhere always.

?nis si ereht erehw eb ouy nac woH

Who am I?

.srouy ma I

thoughts on starbucks

2006-04-18T11:03:00.000-04:00

This is posted from Kevin Lee's Blog, a pastor of a church in New Orleans destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

I have to begin these thoughts by giving full credit to our Pastor of Worship, Byron Townsend. The guy finds the best articles out there. He sent me an article concerning research that has been done on the global impact of Starbucks. The primary researcher determined that the draw of Starbucks is the sense of community it affords to people. In a world that is unstable and inconsistent, Starbucks' setting provides consistency and stability for people.

I thought about how true these observations are. I am a coffee shop fanatic. My two favorite coffee shops in the world are Rosie Lea's Bubble Tea Room on Maple Street and Flora's Coffee House in Bywater (both New Orleans classics). These are hands down the two best coffee houses in the world. But I don't go there for the ambiance or the coffee even though both are great at both places. I go there for the people. I go there because I know I can sit down with a cup of coffee and strike up a conversation about the arts or ethics. Even Jesus is welcome conversation at coffee houses. There is a sense of belonging at coffee houses. A sense of community.

As I read this article I thought about what this should say to the church. I think it tells us that deep down where the image of God still resides in people there is a hunger for authentic life. Life that is experienced in deep and meaningful relationships. First with God and then with neighbor. When we look past the frantic pace of life in our culture we see coffee shops where people gather for the purpose of living real life. Life that comes in the form of conversation with people who love one another and are willing to be open and vulnerable about who they really are. And this is what I love about coffee shops. More than that it is what I love about the church.

The church is a community of the walking wounded. People with the scars of sin who have been healed by the grace of God. The church is the place where fragmented people go to experience the wholeness that comes through the reconciling work of Jesus on the cross. The church is the community where people can come with all of their junk and wrestle with God. I desperately want an article to be written about how the church in America is growing at an alarming rate because of the sense of community it provides for a broken and fragmented world. Because it is a community where busted and broken people experience healing and restoration through the beautiful story of the gospel. Coffee shops are great. But coffee shops aren't the church. The question I ask myself is, "Why should we let Starbucks have all the fun?"

easter -- a syncretism or contextulization?

2006-04-14T21:12:00.000-04:00

This is an interesting article, with a different take on chocolate bunnies, easter eggs, and the like. It quotes Susan Richardson, author of Holidays and Holy Days.

As Richardson says, "the new Christian might look at a familiar symbol and see it with new meaning." For example, the hare, which has evolved into the modern day bunny, was seen as a symbol of fertility and spring. A Christian could view the hare?s coming out of the burrow, as representative of the burial and resurrection and a completely different form of "new life."

As the early church began to expand into new lands, there were diverging opinions on how to handle local customs. One school of thought was to require converts to abandon their cultural traditions in order to embrace Christianity. Another tactic was to maintain local customs as much as possible but to give Christian meaning to them.

Richardson explains that the second strategy "was not an attempt to mislead, but more a cultural sensitivity to the people that were there." She says that this is much like the missionaries today who try to take the gospel and put it into context that is meaningful to people within their frame of reference.

Here is an oposing view:

Can we imagine that God would be pleased with those that are commemorating the resurrection of His only begotten Son - on a day devoted to the worship of the sun.....or to a pagan goddess of fertility, Ishtar? In fact, God, the Father, has never asked His people to celebrate the resurrection at all - on any day of the week. A celebration of the resurrection is not taught in the Bible, but people do as they choose. They celebrate a day of their own making, in the way they please, while ignoring the request and example of their Savior.
The modern celebrations of Christmas (as celebrated in the northern European tradition, originating from Pagan Yule holidays), Easter and Halloween are examples of relatively late Christian syncretism. Earlier, the elevation of Christmas as an important holiday largely grew out of a need to replace the Saturnalia, a popular December festival of the Roman Empire. Roman Catholicism in Central and South America has also integrated a number of elements derived rom indigenous and slave cultures in those areas (see the Caribbean and modern sections); while many African Initiated Churches demonstrate an integration of Christian and traditional African beliefs. In Asia the revolutionary movements of Taiping (19th-century China) and God's Army (Karen in the 1990s) have blended Christianity and traditional beliefs.

I looked up Syncretism and Contextualization , and here are some good definitions

Syncretism is the reconciliation or fusion of differing systems of belief, as in philosophy or religion, especially when success is partial or the result is heterogeneous.
Syncretism can be contrasted with contextualization or inculturation, the practice of making Christianity relevant to a culture.
Contextualization is a word first used by linguists involved in communicating the translation of the Bible into relevant cultural settings. It was adopted formally by a gathering of scholars in the Theological Education Fund in its mandate to communicate the Gospel and Christian teachings in cultures which had not previously experienced them. Prior to the usage of the word contextualization many cross-cultural linguists, anthropologists and missionaries had been involved in such communication approaches such as in accommodating the message or meanings to another cultural setting.

The Catholic view is somewhat mediatied between contextualization and sycretism

The process of the Church's insertion into peoples' cultures is a lengthy one. It is not a matter of purely external adaptation, for inculturation "means the intimate transformation of authentic cultural values through their integration in Christianity and the insertion of Christianity in the various human cultures." The process is thus a profound and all-embracing one, which involves the Christian message and also the Church's reflection and practice. But at the same time it is a difficult process, for it must in no way compromise the distinctiveness and integrity of the Christian faith.

Through inculturation the Church makes the Gospel incarnate in different cultures and at the same time introduces peoples, together with their cultures, into her own community. She transmits to them her own values, at the same time taking the good elements that already exist in them and renewing them from within. Through inculturation the Church, for her part, becomes a more intelligible sign of what she is, and a more effective instrument of mission.

For me, what would seperate the sheeps from the goats is, "What is being worshipped?" If I answer "Jesus" and use the easter rituals to point to him, then I'd say that I am being contextual. It's a tough question, and missionaries have struggled with this notion since missionaries started taking the gospel to the world. I have heard various opinions at Acts 17 where Paul used the "Unknown God" to point to Christ. Some people say, it is a beautiful peace of rhetoric, but an example of what not to do. You should just preach the gospel. Others have used it as a reference point to saying Paul used a familiar item to point to Christ. We should too. Who's right? We do know that a few people wanted to know more and some got saved as a result of it. Do the ends justify the means?

Today, we say we are "culturally relevant." By this we mean that we addresses issues cultures deal with and integrate culture elements in our churches so that people don't seem disconnected from the world when they enter a church. In America, this may be rock music, lights, coffee, multimedia while in rural East Asia, it may be folk dacing, operas, and presentations on embriodery. Is this "in the world" or "of the world?"

What do you think?

na2ra

2006-04-13T15:51:00.000-04:00


hours? Days? YEARS?
how long has it been?
how can i still know
yet there is nothing to know
a blob of darkness in darkness
is still darkness

						light

what is that?
wait...i can faintly see my edges
a faint against the abyss
is it possible?
am I still here?

					light

it's me!

				light

it's...me...yet...
i...am...not...me...
there...is...something...
.
.
.
different...yet...so...
.
.
.
familiar

			light

wait! the void! no! go away!
come no closer!

		light
		
you are going in THERE?!?
there is no escape
not even for me
who are you?

	light

ARE YOU NUTS!?!
STAY AWAY!
I AM WARNING YOU!

light

what? What? WHAT?
this is impossible
i am not...empty...

Light

my members...
my face...my arms...my soul
are...filling...with...light
wait...the mirror!
the light...is radiating
from...ME?!?
 
LIGHT

What's this i see?
spots...faint against the abyss...

LIGHT!

what? What WHAT?
are you mad?
i am not going close to those

						help
LIGHT!

did they say something?
i thought i heard...

						help

LIGHT!

they can come here...
i'm not going

						help
LIGHT!

never

						help
		Light

where? Where? WHERE?
are you going?

						help
			light
				
wait! come back!

						help
				light


i udnerstand now!
come back!
don't leave me!
i will go! 
i will take you to them!


			light

forgive me! 
for far to long have i waited for you
only to reject you now!
	
						help

	LIGHT!
	i am going
	
						Help
		LIGHT!
		i am coming

						HELP!

				LIGHT!
				i am here!

						HELP!
						LIGHT!
						LIFE!

n/a

2006-04-13T10:30:00.000-04:00

why? Why? WHY?
the question that bounces
off the walls of my hollow existence
i'm staring into the emptiness i see in the mirror
my face, my arms, my soul --
an all consuming machine
a black hole --
whatever can be thrown in is
and nothing ever escapes
not even me

who? Who? WHO?
can reach in and save me
not you

how? How? HOW?
can this be?!?
a larger emptiness
a broader gulf than mine?
the cosmos
the cloudy pitch sky falling on top of me!
i am holding out my arms
"back i say you, back!"
i'm flailing, but the void is ethereal
i see nothing now
not even my own emptiness
for it has been swallowed by something else
a darkness the larger than space and time

whose? Whose WHOSE?
is it?!?
not mine

i'm suspended now
just my nothingness suspended in nothingness
i am worthless, now part of the abyss

a review of "the present future"

2006-04-10T22:13:00.000-04:00

Reggie McNeal's book, The Present Future is an intentional piece to attempt to "galvanize church leaders to action before it's too late."(xvii-xviii) As McNeal sees it, the church in North America is on the brink of extension. As he puts it, the church is living on "life support" (1) McNeal's entire work is an attempt to wake church leaders up and make the realize that these realities. McNeal says, "I'm talking about the church world in North America. A world that has largely forsaken its missional covenant with God to be a part of kingdom expansion. It has, instead, substituted its own charter as a clubhouse where religious people hang with people who think, dress, behave, vote, and believe like them." (xv) Simply stated, the church isn't doing missions anymore, but rather just does church activity. The club-house religion that McNeal is talking about are the churches that spend most of the their time and effort on themselves and not on the community surrounding them. The churches act more like exclusive clubs rather than places that want people to know about Jesus.

McNeal is the director of ldeadership development for the South Carolina Baptist Convention. He received his PhD. and M.Div from the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas. He has worked with numerous churches for over 20 years. 10 of those years were in various staff roles at different churches and 10 years as a senior pastor of a church. He teaches in the D.Min program at Fuller Theological Seminary. He is the author of Revolution in Leadership and A Work of the Heart in addition to the Present Future.

McNeal's entire book seems to be based dichotomy between ministry and missions. There seem to be, for McNeal at least, two places to be: the church building and the street. McNeal strongly delineates between ministry and missions and also institutions and movements. If churches have some how separated these pairs, then everything in McNeals book is true, and there is no need to write anymore. But if the pairs are inherently connected, there is a problem with McNeal's argumentation, and the entire book really misses the mark; he is addressing the wrong thing. Based on Matthew 28:19-20, there doesn't seem to be a disconnection between ministry and missions as well as institutions and movements. In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus, tells his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations. The imperative in the Greek is "make disciples." Making disciples seems to be an all-inclusive approach where the mission and ministry are really the same thing, and cannot be separated. The process put rather simply is proclaiming the gospel, bringing people into the church, and preparing those who are brought in to proclaim the gospel. This is very basic, but in essence is what the church is called to do. In terms of institutions and movements, these two are also mutually inclusive. The church, whether McNeal agrees or not, is an institution. It is a body of people with officers that fulfill ministerial needs and offer logistical support to the church's expansion. The expansion would be the movement, which is both qualitative and quantitative in nature. As the church ministers to the world, it gets more and better followers of Jesus. The church in Acts and beyond expanded through a series of church planting movements. A church planting movement is a movement to multiply the institution of the church to different areas. Trying to delineate between the movement and the institution doesn't seem to fit the motifs in the Bible. The real problem isn't that the church isn't doing missions, it's that the church has stopped functioning. It's not that the machine is breaking, it's that it already has somewhere. Also, this critique and McNeal's as well are speaking in generalities. There are many exceptions to what McNeal states. The purpose of stating this critique early on is because the framework of McNeal's book and the analysis of it hinges on the contentions.

Church Culture vs Culture in General

McNeal's book outlines six problems that the church in North America is facing. The first problem that McNeal states is there is strong separation between church culture and culture in general. McNeal states that, "Church activity is a poor substitute for genuine spiritual vitality" (7) and he gives a laundry list of what the churches in North America are doing in terms of providing activities. Among these activities are small groups, contemporary worship, service marketing, focus on customer service, create a spiritual experience, and being seeker friendly. Although these things may seem outwardly focused, as McNeal sees it, the church has created segregated itself from culture by creating its own sub-culture and using the "come and get it" mentality. McNeal says, "Those who hold to this perspective (refuge mentality) frequently lament the loss of cultural support for church values and adopt and 'us-them' dichotomous view of the world. Those with a refuge mentality view the world outside the church as the enemy. Their answer is to live inside the bubble in a Christian subculture complete with its own entertainment industry. Evangelism in this worldview is about churching the unchurched, not connecting people to Jesus." (9) Rather than getting people to come to Christ, churches have been come more focused on getting people to come to their churches. Following McNeal's thinking, he seems to draw a line between church and Christ or he is overlooking the fact church is where people meet Jesus. The church is the body of Christ, and in order to be a viable part of the body of Christ, one has to be connected to the body. McNeal is right in that he says that people need to be connected to Jesus, but people are best connected to Jesus through the church. Thus, it comes down to the intent of what the church is trying to do. If the intent of the church is bridge the divide between Jesus and people by using things like small groups and contemporary worship, then they should. These things done for the sake of doing these bites McNeal critique, but if these ministries are done with missional implications, then they don't bite his critique

Church Activity vs Community Transformation

The second problem that McNeal's book is seeing church growth as kingdom growth. McNeal's contention here is that churches are more interested in getting more people on the membership role than they are getting they are getting people to know McNeal says, "The church growth movement was a missiological response to the initial warning signs that the church in North America had lost its mission." (20) McNeal draws a line between "church activity" and "community transformation" It seems that McNeal is saying that Churches increase the number and qualities of their programs in order to attract more members to the church. The members are heavily involved internally, not externally. McNeal says this leads to busyness rather than transformed lives. This critique is only true if the church activities are strictly internally focused. Many church activities are geared more internally, but the intent is to meaningfully connect people to the body of Christ, not strictly to keep them busy. If activity is the end, not the means, then what McNeal says is true. Additionally. McNeal seem to ignore church activities that are outwardly focused. This seems to stems from his thinking that ministry and missions are somehow separated.

Ministers vs Missionaries

Directly related to the critique already given is McNeal's third contentions, the struggle between making more "ministers" and more "missionaries." McNeal says from experience, "Every time I see the slogan, 'every member a minister,' I cringe. It usually means that there has been a lot of effort put into getting church members to get onboard" (45). McNeal later follows this with the question, "How do we deploy more missionaries into community transformation?" (48) One can cross apply the analysis given in the second problem and the original critique, except here, it should be applied the persons rather ministries. It seems that McNeal is restating the same problem from a different perspective. Following the problem, McNeal lists several suggestions for getting a church connected to the community. The suggestions are outwardly focused, and he seems to be implying they are missions as opposed to ministries.

Better Church Members vs Spiritual Transformation

McNeal states that the fourth problem is the tension between developing better church members and spiritual formation. In short, McNeal sees churches fitting their members into certain molds so that being a church member is about giving offering, church participation, and membership status. The churches are calling spiritual vitality with these things. Rather than developing better members, churches should have "life coaching" Life coaching is the practice of developing Christians to have good spiritual disciplines. McNeal lists worship, biblical truth applied to life and relationships, and ministering to others in the name of Jesus. This sounds a lot like Rick Warren in the Purpose Driven Life where he says people were created for worship, discipleship, fellowship, ministry, and missions. McNeal's points are right if he being a good member is left to itself. The disciplines of being a good church member are inherently connected to spiritual discipline if churches teach them as such. The responsibility then lies in the hands of church leadership to teach church members how to do these things in such a way that they see them as being connected to spiritual formation and the purpose of going out and connecting more people to Jesus.

Preparing vs Planning

The fifth problem as McNeal's sees it is that churches do planning apart from God. McNeal says,"The difference between planning and preparedness is more than semantics in the biblical teaching. God does the planning; we do the preparing. It is God who declares: 'I know the plans I have for you,' he says in Jeremiah 29:11. He does not say, 'I am waiting for you to develop plans I can bless' "(95). Because of the differences between preparing and planning, McNeal goes onto explain that instead of planning, churches should catch visions and implement those visions. The problem here is that the Bible doesn't reveal how the church is going to reach the homeless population in New Orleans or plant a church in Alaska. This takes vision. This takes planning. It hardly seems that they are different, except maybe in a rhetorical since. Simply put, if vision and plans aren't God's plans, then they won't prosper.

Apostolic Leadership vs Other Forms of Leadership

The last critique McNeal gives is on leadership itself. McNeal is a renowned leadership developer. He function in the South Carolina Baptist Convention is leadership development. McNeal thinks that the form of leadership that church leaders need to embrace is apostolic leadership. McNeal describes apostolic leadership as follows: "The focus of apostolic leadership is not on office or gifts, but on content of leadership that responds to the new spiritual landscape by shaping a church movement that more resembles the world of Acts than America in the last half of the twentieth century." (125-126) He focus in on a "Learning Community" which connects "life to life" and "hearts to heart" (137) McNeal seems to want to make leaders the facilitators of groups embracing one another. This is what churches leaders are suppose to do. It doesn't require new buzzword to make it sound revolutionary.

Are Buzzwords Neccessary?

Apart from the original critique, the only thing that McNeal does that seems out of place is rhetoric. McNeal's stated purpose in writing the book was to be polemic, so that might be the reason he chose to write in the manner he did. It seems that McNeal uses as lot of buzzwords to make what he is saying something dynamic. Such wards are "post-congregational", (4) "missional" (all over), "transformational" (17), "organic community" (137), "chief learning officer" (118), "pre-Christians" (82), "life coach" (72), and "apostolic leadership" (125). In addition to a few new words, he seem to use a lot of postmodern ideology too. Among these are things like "journey" (xix) and "story" (xvi) which related to whole concept of meta-narratives and "movements" (16), "emerging" (23) which are related to deconstruction, decentralization, and de-institutionalization. Most of these words aren't used regularly in even in churches. When writers use this kind of rhetoric, they sound like they are coming up with new ideas.

politicizing the 10 commandments

2006-04-07T11:36:00.000-04:00

I was driving down a dirt road one day that dead ends. There are 3 houses at the end of that road. 1 of them had a sign. That means only 4 other people see the sign. I almost laughed...I was like, $10 for a sign for 4 people to read...that's $2.50 a person. Wow. Also, I was driving by a church, and out in front of the church with a multi-million dollar facility was a granite monolith with the 10 commandments engraved on it. I couldn't help but ask, how much did that cost?

I've been thinking for a while on this whole issue of rhetoric and polemic devices that Christians use to rally the masses to support particular ideologies. It is the same device the Pat Robertson and the Muslim clerics used to gain supporters for their views about the opposing religions. It seems that the 10 Commandment activists do the exact same thing. The intent of putting up signs is to fly in the face of court decisions made to remove the 10 Commandments (and references to God for that matter) from public buildings.

I've been reading "The Present Future" by Reggie McNeal. While I disagree with his philosophy of ministry, I think he makes some good observations about church.

Many congregations and church leaders, faced with the collapse of the church culture, have responded by adopting a refuge mentality. This is the perspective reflected in the approach to ministry that withdraws from the culture, that builds walls higher and thicker, that tries to hang on to what we've got, that hunkers down for the storm to blow over and for things to get back to "normal" so the church can resume its previous place in the culture. Those who hold this perspective frequently lament the loss of cultural support for church values and adopt an "us-them" view of the world outside the church as the enemy...Evangelism in this worldview is about churching the unchurched, not connecting people to Jesus. It focuses on cleaning people up, changing their behavior so Christians (translation: church people) can be more comfortable around them. Refuge churches evidence enormous self-occupation. They deceive themselves into believing they are a potent force.

I just finished Richard Land's "Imagine! A God Blessed America" In that book, Land makes a great point about Christian involvement in political issues.

An 'issues only' focus narrows our sight to temporal political agendas. A truly biblical vision opens our sight to the transforming power of the gospel in all of life.

First, things like the 10 Commandments being removed from public buildings is the symptom, not the problem. The problem is that we have of lost our commitment to share the gospel and substituted political activism for missions. I don't recall anywhere in scripture where Jesus tells us to make a Christian Utopia (Land would say otherwise), but rather the tells us to be submissive to government and pray for those in authority. I quoted Piper earlier, and his observation says that in doing so, make inroads to sharing the gospel.

Second, polemic devices further polarizes Christianity from the culture Christ wants to redeem. This is McNeal's main gripe in his book. This is "us-them" mentality he is speaking to. Christians are counter-cultural (as Land says) but they are also culturally relevant, in that they address the issues the culture is dealing with rather than separating themselves from the culture in a pseudo-Christian Utopia, which is the subculture built around para-church organizations. America is probably the only nation in the world where a person can do business without ever having to set foot in a secular business.

My question then is, how do we use the 10 Commandments? I think the answer to this lies in the purpose of the Law. Galatians 3:

(19)What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed (Jesus) to whom the promise (made to Abraham) referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator.

(20)A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. (21)Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. (22)But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

(23)Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. (24)So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. (25)Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Notice the motif Paul is using: a school teacher. The purpose of the law was two fold: to reveal sin and to show the need for Christ. The law cannot impart life, which can only be given through Christ. If the law reveals our sin all the more, it makes us all the more aware of our need for a savior. Elsewhere in Romans 1, Paul talks about how conscience does the same thing. It reveals our need for a savior. With this said, instead of turning the 10 commandments into a polemic device, use the 10 commandments to show people their need for a savior. So what if the courts remove the 10 Commandments from public buildings? How does posting the 10 Commandments on public buildings do anything to advance the gospel or advance the Kingdom of God?

This is a little something extra: If you are going to list 10, why not all 613 commandments? If you only list 10, then you are missing 603 others. I stumbled across a website that is declaring May 7th "Ten Commandments Day." I think I want declare May 7th "613 Commandments Day" instead. That way we don't leave anything out.

a bad day of blogging

2006-04-06T12:43:00.000-04:00

This is PG-13. I don't recommend clicking the link if you don't like gore. Not Al Gore that is. click here...

a flower...since everyone else posted one

2006-04-04T22:59:00.000-04:00

incarnational ministry (with muslims in mind)

2006-04-04T00:04:00.000-04:00

I started to write this post last week, and I am just now getting around to finishing it. Joe and I must have been on the same wavelength. He posted an article on incarnational ministry. I realized that I had been talking about Muslims without giving an alternative to bashing the religion. The more I thought about this stuff, the more I realized that I could really use the same lines of thinking for anyone. Although this post will primarily focus on ministry to Muslims, I think the principles are timeless, and have application beyond just sharing with Muslims.

The incarnation of Christ is the union of God and man in a single being. The being of Christ was not two separate being or some form of hybrid god-man. As Christians, we are incarnations of Christ. If one does a little etymology on the word Christian, you will see that it comes directly from the Greek word, "Christianós." A "Christianós" on of the "Christos", who is the Anointed One. Christos comes from the word, "Chrio" which means anoint. To a Jew, the "Christos" would be the anointed one (king) from God. Being of the "Christos" means that he basically owned them. Their identity was found in Jesus, and no other. In the first century world, followers of a particular teacher would try to me like that teacher in every way they could be. So the followers of Jesus being called "Christians" would mean that they were mimicking him. An incarnation is one who is believed to personify a given abstract quality or idea. So in terms of being an incarnaitonal witness, we are trying to be "Christianós," or of Christ, to the point we imitate what he did.

With this said, incarnational ministry is not as much an approach to sharing Jesus as it is a way of Life, because by living like Christ, we are sharing our lives, which should reflect Jesus. There are plenty of methods for sharing the gospel that have already been written. I don't think I need to make a new one, because I think it would just add more stuff to an already large pile. What I want to do is describe what I think an incarnational witness would look like in a Muslim setting.

But first and foremost, we have to realize that sharing Jesus isn't just the task of trained missionaries. The call to make disciples of all nations is for every believer, so in essence, every person is called to minister. What we do for avocation (our jobs) are extensions of our calls as Christians. We cannot be Christians on the weekends or after work, but we are Christians everywhere you go. This means that our lives have to be in order spiritually. This doesn't mean that we are perfect, but that we are allowing God to shape and mold us to me more like Christ.

Before we can start sharing with Muslims, or anyone for that matter, we should have a constant, consistent walk with the Lord. We'd be surprised how telling people about our relationships with God can change their perspectives about God. Muslim don't see themselves as being in a relationship with God, but that God is a distant judge who you can't relate to. To have a relationship with him foreign, and can even be blasphemous to Muslims. But the reality is that God wants a relationship with us, and he did everything to make that possible. If we are indeed in a relationship with him, then we must build that relationship before telling others that they need that same relationship. Before you can share the first word of doctrine with them, you should have a legitimate, transforming relationship with God. This will speak more to them than any explanations of complicated doctrines. Muslims value and revere it deep devotion to faith.two of the pillars of faith in Islam requires faith.

Working with Muslims takes prayer. Prayer is quintessential to all things we do as Christians, and especially when we start to engage the world in an attempt to transform it with the gospel. Transformation is the work of the Holy Spirit, not believers, so pray that the Holy Spirit would work in the life of your Muslim friends.

When we start to build relationships with Muslims, we should be learners. We can never assume that we know all there is to know about Islam or a particular person's beliefs about Islam. Islam like Christianity is diverse and complicated, and Muslim theology can very Muslim to Muslim, person to person, sect to sect. Be open to what you can learn from your Muslim friends.

The best way I know to summarize is to use the old cliché, "They never care how much you know until they know how much you care." There is a lot of truth in that statement when it comes to working with Muslims. Most Muslims find their identity in their families networks and with their faith, which is contrary to the West, were individualism is how people find identity. For a Muslim to leave this identity and embrace something entirely different usually ostricizes them from their families, friends, and communities. If Muslims are going to embrace Christ, they are going to have convinced that Jesus is better than anything they have ever experienced or have. This is why being incarnational is so important.

Here is a good resource with some practical suggestions for sharing with Muslims.

Any suggestions would be welcome. I know that this isn't the ultimatum on sharing with Muslims, but just some thing I had on my mind.

incarnational ministry

2006-04-03T09:40:00.000-04:00

My friend Joe (re)posted an article on incarnational mininstry. It's a good post with some great comments. Check it out.

muslim clerics critique christians

2006-03-29T00:41:00.000-05:00

I was reading the news, and I came across an article about the man in Afghanistan that was arrested for being a Christian. Here are some excerprs from the article

On Monday, hundreds of clerics, students and others chanting "Death to Christians!" marched through the northern Afghan city of Mazar-e-Sharif to protest the court decision Sunday to dismiss the case. Several Muslim clerics threatened to incite Afghans to kill Rahman if he is freed, saying that he is clearly guilty of apostasy and deserves to die."

Abdul Rahman must be killed. Islam demands it," said senior Cleric Faiez Mohammed, from the nearby northern city of Kunduz. "The Christian foreigners occupying Afghanistan are attacking our religion."

As these clerics see it, the Christians are attacking Islam, not the other way around, yet Pat Robertson thinks the goal of Islam is world domination. Who's right? I don't think either of them are. I've said it at least three times over several posts that Christians critiqing Islam makes Christians just like Muslims who critique Christianity. Unless Christians stop, then it will be increasingly difficult to reach Mulsims with the Gospel of Christ.

prayer: the only way (cont.)

2006-03-26T23:10:00.000-05:00

I recently posted comments on some stuff concerning to verbal critiques of Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham of Islam. I was reading an article by John Piper concerning prayer and missions. I was really taken by this excerpt. Here is the text. I underlined some crucial thoughts in the piece.

But I Timothy 2:1 looks like it might conflict with this battlefield image of prayer. Paul says that He wants us to pray for kings and for all who are in high positions "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (v. 2). Now that sounds very domestic and civilian and peaceful.
But read on. The reason for praying this way is highly strategic. Verses 3 and 4 say, "This (praying for peace) is good, and acceptable in the sight of God our savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." God aims to save people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. But one of the great obstacles to victory is when people are swept up into social and political and militaristic conflicts that draw away their attention and time and energy and creativity from the real battle of the universe.
Satan's aim is that nobody is saved and comes to the knowledge of the truth. And one of his key strategies is to start battles in the world which draw our attention away from the real battle for the salvation of the lost and the perseverance of the saints. He knows that the real battle, as Paul says, is not against flesh and blood. So the more wars and conflicts he can start, the better, as far as he is concerned.
So when Paul tells us to pray for peace precisely because God desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, he is not picturing prayer as a kind of harmless domestic intercom for increasing our civilian conveniences. He is picturing it as a strategic appeal to headquarters to ask that the enemy not be allowed to draw away any fire power onto decoy conflicts of flesh and blood.

While Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham are busy calling Islam satanic, Satan is winning a major victory by widening the gulf between Christians and Muslims through the embattlement of the two faiths. It seem that rather than critiquing Islam, we should be praying for those in leadership so that we can have quiet and peaceful lives. Piper's observation fits the context of 1 Timothy, because in Chapter 1, Paul is exhorting Timothy to keep on in spite of the false teachers and the dissention that they had stirred up.

What Satan wants more than anything is for us to be distracted from the purpose we have on earth. Ephesians 6:12 tells us that the real battle we are fighting isn't against powers of this world, but powers in the Spiritual world. Our battle isn't against Islam, but against Satan. If we view Islam as the enemy, then we are missing the real deceiver--Satan.

Pray for those in power, so we as Christians van live peaceful lives, so we can go about the real work we have, and that is proclaiming salvation, not lambasting Islam.