LONG TIME NO SEE!

Oh goodness, it has been such a long time since we have posted! I'm so sorry to everyone, especially if anyone was looking forward to the interviews under the Science! posts. Hopefully we will get to them one day. As this is a volunteer mission site, posting time must fall under that which is labeled "freetime" - something we haven't had much of lately. I am still weeding through one of the interviews. It was a written interview and the fella answered every question under the sun on the first point. Then again on subsequent points. It makes for interesting reading, but very long reading indeed, particularly for a blog site. Ergo, I edit.
Anyway, in other news, we have been very busy with work, sicknesses and other missions and programs. My daughter came down with a version of the flu (which one I don't know and I'm not sure the doctor knew) but she is fine now. Just a high fever, so no worries. But we are always thankful to God for healing!!

In TimorDei news, as we have been busy other places, we realize that this mission and website need to be attended to more readily. So, I am glad to announce that we will be moving over from the 'free blogger' template, which has been wonderful (and I highly recommend it to any and all as need sees fit) to a more capable WordPress site. The layout is completely different, so please don't freak out! Hopefully it is easier to use, navigate and recommend (if ever you felt like doing). As before, anyone is allowed to comment, though foul commentary will be promptly deleted.
We are still filling out many of the pages and hopefully it will continue to grow as we grow. If anyone is interesting in helping out in this endeavor, please let us know and we will be glad to talk to you about it: we need all the help we can get. - Especially as both Dave and I (James aka. Robin) are back to school soon. I'm hoping a good dose of seminary will quell any heresy in me (hehe). Check out the new site HERE. Both sites will stay up and running for another few months and then everything will bleed over there and (hopefully) any links or bookmarks that you had before will be directed to the new site. Our readers may have to do a little work...

Science, Faith and Reason

I’m currently reading “The Challenge of Jesus” by N T Wright, and he makes an interesting statement on p21. He says, “The Enlightenment notoriously insisted on splitting apart history and faith, facts and values, religion and politics, nature and supernature, in a way whose consequences are written into the history of the last two hundred years – one of the consequences being, indeed, that each of those categories now carries with it in the minds of millions of people around the world an implicit opposition to its twin, so that we are left with the great difficulty of even conceiving of a world in which they belong to one another as part of a single indivisible whole.” This got me thinking about the relationship between science and faith, or faith and reason (as it is often characterised), and I think he is certainly on to something. For some time now people, especially theists, have been trying to integrate faith and science or faith and history and books have been written attempting to do just that. Yet there is still, as Wright says, an opposition in the minds of many to the uniting of these ideas. Why is that?

This is not restricted to the secular world, either. Many Christian have this strange idea that if you know something then you cannot have faith, like if you prove the Bible correct historically or archaeologically then you no longer have faith in it because you have certainty. It’s like faith is at one end of the scale and certainty is at the other and we must avoid certainty in order to have faith! I think this is without doubt a mistaken view of what the Bible teaches about faith, and it leads many Christians to stick their heads in the sand and not engage with the culture because “you just have to have faith”.

In 1999 Stephen Jay Gould published “Rock of Ages” in which he formalised this notion when he advanced his idea of Non-Overlapping MAgisteria (NOMA), the idea that “the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value. These two magisteria do not overlap...” (Wikipedia). In this same year we see the National Academy of Sciences making a similar claim, “science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each” (Wikipedia). This idea seems to have taken root in the minds of many Christians and non-Christians alike, reinforcing the Christian’s previously stated aversion to fact and the non-Christian’s belief that the sciences have nothing of religious value to say.

Is this the true?

I don’t think so, although I think that there is perhaps some merit to this idea. As J P Moreland said at the Saddleback Apologetics Conference 95% of science has nothing to do with religion, and 95% of religion has nothing to do with science. For example, religion has nothing to say about the mechanics of an aircraft engine, and science has nothing to say about the atoning blood of Jesus. But what about that 5%? What about things like the origins of life on earth, or of the universe itself? These are areas where science and religion overlap, and you might find conflict here or you might not. Should we continue to attempt to separate the two? Is it even possible? I don’t think we can, nor should we try. For example. belief in a purely naturalistic explanation of origins (the Darwinian Hypothesis) is in conflict with the Genesis account that says “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Now, how God did it and how long He took are legitimate debates, but that God did it is an integral part of the Christian’s convictions, and a purely naturalistic view excludes God resulting in a conflict that needs to be resolved. This is a case where science and religion make claims about the same thing that are in conflict, and I don’t think it is enough to say, as some Christians have, that you just need to believe, whatever the evidence. I think we need to try and reconcile the two, we need to do our spade work, as Koukl says.

I think we have been seeing a shift in that direction for the last 20 years or so, a shift that is slowly gaining momentum, both in academia and in the public square. The ID movement would have to be a case-in-point, as they attempt to show that science points to a Designer, that science and faith can work together. Ministries like Greg Koukl’s “Stand to Reason” (www.str.org) and William Lane Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” (www.reasonablefaith.org) are efforts to show that faith and reason go hand in hand, indeed that reason can be a support for faith, and have been very successful in doing so, at least in my opinion. Craig often points to the radical shift since the ‘70s in philosophy which is seeing many more believers take posts in university philosophy departments and has led to a resurgence of philosophy as a tool that can lead us to God I think this is what’s needed from the Christians – engage with the culture, don’t hide from it. What’s needed from the scientific community is an abandonment of their policy of scientific naturalism that, to use Richard Lewontin’s words, doesn’t “allow a divine foot in the door” (NY Times, 1997). The documentary “Expelled” is a great example of what happens to scientists in secular universities who question this approach. I think scientists should be free to follow the evidence wherever it leads. All options should be considered, and the one that has the best explanatory scope should be the one presented, regardless of naturalistic preconceptions.

Can we see this conflict ending anytime soon? I’m not sure. Dr Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute disagrees. He thinks the tide is turning. In an interview with Greg Koukl (available from the website) he predicts that we will see this paradigm shift in his lifetime! That’s a pretty big claim, and I sure hope he’s right!

SCIENCE - What can we really say?

First, please excuse the amount of time between posts. It’s been busy around here and I consider that extra cause for thanks.

Dave’s last post brings us very nicely into a most important point in our series. Some roads in our apologetic walk should not be trod upon. You will quickly find yourself in a mire. The same can be said for scientific claims. As J.P. Moreland points out in the Saddleback conference, about 95% of science has nothing to do with theology and 95% of theology has nothing to do with science. There is some overlap mind you, and we shall explore much of that overlap as we proceed. But it needs be known that just because someone is a scientist does not mean he or she can say they have disproved God. And there are many Christian believers (or Jewish or Muslim) who just as mistakenly say, ‘I can give you proof for God.’

This is most important. Write this down; it is childishly simple: There is no proof or disproof for God. There is no one who can come to you and say, “I can prove to you that God does not exist.” Nor is there is anyone who can say, “I can prove God exists.”

C.S. Lewis once (quite seriously) quipped, ‘the day that someone can offer proof for God it will likely be too late, for it will be the Last Day.’ We have other articles on faith here at Timor Dei, but the gist is that belief in God or disbelief in Him, must be just that: a belief. If the existence of God were so easily known, we would not have a choice in knowing of Him at all.

Now, it is not a matter of knowing of God with which Christianity concerns itself, but knowing Him, i.e personally, having an intimate relationship with Him. There is a difference. I can know of a beautiful woman, or I can know her. By merely knowing of a woman I may never actually speak to her. However, in knowing her personally, I can come to know her quite intimately and even become engaged and marry her. Then our knowledge of each other really begins to grow, but not without consequence on our lives mind you; I must make concession for her and she for me. That need not be the case for someone of whom I am merely aware exists. (In fact, quite happily for them, most beautiful women don’t know I exist!)

I digress. My point here is that if there were proof of God, then we must know of His incredible majesty and beauty as the Creator of all, including our consciences, our reason and emotions, all wonder, good and love (not evil, but that is a different argument - see WHAT GOOD IS EVIL?) so, just as a man may be overwhelmed by a beautiful woman, so would we be overwhelmed by God. He is our ultimate joy or our ultimate fear. And were He undeniably real, than so would His majesty be and our love for Him would, too, be entirely thorough, though it would not be ours, so to speak, for we would have no choice in the matter. In order for our love for Him to be real love, so great and real a God is He that He must stay hidden. Love must be a choice. That is a wondrous first clue to His love, that He honors you enough to give you a choice. You don’t have to believe. And for that, too, I love Him.

So, Christianity cannot say, “I can prove God.” Nor can science say it disproves God. Science as we will see cannot make statements about 'metaphysical' things. It can, at times, answer the how, but not the why; giving reason does not answer purpose.

But what we, as witnesses can say is, ‘I can give you some very convincing clues, both scientifically and theologically that I would like you think about.’ The evidence we do have, the universe and life as we do know it, as we experience it, I believe that the theological answer is the answer that best fits what we know reality to be. Ultimately, nothing we say can ever convince anyone of the truth of God anyway; that isn’t our job. It’s the Holy Spirit’s job to do that and He is best at it. So let Him do His work and let us get busy doing ours.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

I was listening to Bill Craig’s address at the Saddleback Apologetics Conference held at Saddleback Church in California yesterday (the whole conference is available here) and he was talking about the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This would have to be one of the first, maybe actually the first, philosophical arguments for God’s existence that I heard some years ago, and it is very simple to remember and to trot out in conversations, so I thought I would post on it. My goal here is by no means a complete defence of this argument – such a thing has filled volumes in the past and is certainly unsuitable for a blog such as this (not to mention that its gets pretty complex pretty quickly). All I hope to achieve here is the presentation of the argument in its basic form to bring it to people’s attention, as I believe it has great merit. Where you go with it and the detail of your investigation into these premises I leave to you. This argument is attributed to Muslim philosopher al-Ghazali from the mid to late first millennium and it has been used by Muslims, Jews and Christians alike. It goes like this:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
2) The universe began to exist;
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

The first premise seems to me to be so obviously true that it barely needs defending. After all, nobody believes that things can just pop into being uncaused out of nothing! Let me give you an example: if I turned up at work driving a Ferrari and told people that it just popped into existence, uncaused and out of nothing, in my driveway that morning no one would believe me, and nor should they! As Dr Craig says, were we to believe that things can pop into being uncased out of nothing then I should be concerned that a horse might pop into existence in my living room while I’m at work and be there all day defiling the carpet! People would say I was certifiable if I espoused such a view!

The second premise is the one that really attracts the most criticism. Since the 1920’s the belief in the eternality of the universe has been in decline, and since the theory of the big bang became the common model the modern models of an eternal universe have really been restricted to the halls of academia, failing to gain a widespread popularity and belief. The model that continues to account for the evidence and provides the best explanatory power is the standard big bang model. But here’s the rub – the big bang model has at its core a beginning to the universe! Thus the theory of the origin of the universe that seems best supported by the evidence and has failed to be dislodged from that post by a multitude of other theories over the past 60 years is the one that shows our second premise to be correct. (For a very detailed and complex treatment of the models that propose an eternal universe see Dr Craig’s collected works. Discussions can also be found on his website www.reasonablefaith.org.)

Therefore, our third premise follows logically and inescapably – the universe has a cause.

What can be inferred from this argument about that cause? It must transcend space and time since they both began at the big bang. Since it is not in time, it must therefore be changeless, and since it is not in space it must me immaterial, or non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful since all that exists was created out of nothing, because before the big bang there was nothing out of which to create the universe. Finally, this being must be a personal one. There are two types of causes: firstly, you have event causation, that is, one event causing another. For example, the event of the temperature dropping below zero leads to the cause of water freezing. This could be thought of in terms of dominos - one falls which causes another to fall and so one. Secondly, you have agent causation. This is where an agent causes something to happen. For example, I decide to press a button on my keyboard (cause) that results in the letter appearing on the screen (event). Since the universe is not eternal, it could not have been brought about by event causation alone, and there must have been an agent who started the series of events, who chose to create the universe.

A.K.A. the God of monotheism.

Dawkins, the mountain and the explosion

There’s a problem with evolution: it seems impossible, improbable, inexplicable. When one looks at the incredible complexity and diversity of life on this planet (and we can’t look elsewhere – as far as we know we are alone amongst the stars) it seems to be a stretch too far to believe that we all started as single celled organisms that, over the last 3 billion years (give or take a million) evolved into every living thing around us. This is one of the key reasons that many people have trouble buying this theory of origins today – it just seems too unlikely for this process not to have had help along the way.

Prof Richard Dawkins sums up the problem nicely for us when he says (paraphrasing) that it’s like we are standing at the bottom of a very high cliff, looking straight up. We say to ourselves, ‘there is no way we could get up there, it’s just too high”. I think this is not a bad analogy, for it does seem improbable that we could get from the bottom of the cliff (amoeba) to the top of the cliff (everything that exists around us today) without aid.

He then offers a solution: if we were to look around the other side of the cliff, what we would see is that there is a long, gentle slope stretching from ground level up to the top, and that it is this route that evolution through natural selection took to get us to the top of the cliff. Not a direct ascent, scaling the vertical cliff-face, but a slow, steady stroll up the gentle slope at the rear of the cliff.

Not a bad analogy, right? Seems to take the improbable and make it seem possible. The problem with this idea, though, is that the evidence seems to me to speak against it. When the fossil record is examined, what one finds over and over again is fully formed and complete organisms, organisms from the top of the cliff, with no evidence of that slow ascend Dawkins is selling. Take, for example, the Cambrian Explosion. What one sees here is the sudden arrival in the fossil record of most major groups of animals, in forms that are incredibly similar to today’s animals. This is not evidence of a slow and steady ascent!

What we would need for evidence of a slow and steady ascent would be millions and millions of intermediate fossils, the so-called ‘transitional forms’. Darwin knew this was an obstacle for his theory, but he believed they would be discovered eventually. But 150 years on, they haven’t been. All we have are a handful of fossils (like Archaeopteryx or Ida, the latest flavour-of-the-month) that are claimed by some evolutionists to be a transitional form, while other evolutionists clam they are not a transitional form. This is the best we have – a few examples that not even all the evolutionists are agreed upon. If Dawkins’ slow and steady ascent really took place it would have obviously happened over billions of years, which gives ample opportunity for thousands, possibly millions, of fossils to be preserved after each step evolution took, giving us a pretty good picture of what happened. But that evidence is just not there! Not only is the evidence sparse, it is so sparse that the evolutionary ’tree’ keeps getting re-drawn when new discoveries come to light, which tells us that we really don’t know the way it happened at all. Why should I trust the way the story is told at the moment when it is likely to be re-drawn with the next major find?

If we couple this lack of evidence of transitional forms with the many examples of so-called ‘living fossils’ that look the same today as they did in the earliest fossil records of their kind, showing almost no ‘descent with modification’ over those millions of years we see a fossil record that shows stability in form, not change. For example, the Wollemi Pine, first appearing in the fossil record 150 million years ago, thought to be extinct, then being re-discovered in the mid 1990s in the Blue Mountains west of Sydney, Australia. This tree shows no ‘descent with modification’ just ‘descent’! Or there’s the coelacanth, an ugly fish thought to have died out 300 million years ago, but recently re-discovered alive and well in the Indian Ocean, again showing merely descent, not modification.

It seems to me, therefore, that Dawkins’ attempt to persuade us that his idea of slow and steady ascent doesn’t square with the facts. We have evidence of the rapid appearance of fully formed organisms, no real transitional forms, and ‘living fossils’ that seem to be sitting still, not moving (morphologically speaking) at all. Sorry, Prof, time to go back to the drawing board. And while you’re there, re-draw the evolutionary tree – I’m sure it time for a do-over!

Merciless Mercy

Luke 20:18 describes what I call the 'Rock of Grace' "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, but he on whom it falls will be crushed."

A recent discussion on the Grace of God reminded me of this passage in Luke. And since perhaps humans tend to the extremes and fearing a lean too far towards a libertine philosophy that seemed to rear its head, wise shepherd Ken Sweers on Kingdom Grace reflected on Paul:

“For we all must appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad.” -2 Corinthians 5:10, Paul writing to believers!

“Yes, God’s grace is indeed amazing. But it does not excuse humans for the choices we make in this life. There is much greater dimension to God’s ways than we can possibly imagine.”

I'd like to draw these two together a little and, though it be grace we reflect upon, let it be Him we seek. To that end I second Ken's statement on the dimensions of God's ways. All things here on earth, the actors and their acts so to speak, even the sets and subplots will come to fruition in heaven. All will find purpose in God’s grandeur. C.S. Lewis played with this idea a bit in the last of the Narnia stories. Almost neo-Platonist to the first time reader, all things merely shadow the reality that lies in the eternal Aslan, Lewis’ icon for Christ. The point was lost on many (which speaks volumes on the quality of modern education), but the point was that the Lord God will bring all things together for His purpose, and at the Last (which is the Beginning) we will see the accumulation of all we have known and done for all must appear before the Throne.

At that “time” I think it will be made clear that all good is God’s, none of it ours for the claiming. Even the consequences of our sins, which must be met, will be found to be made into an everlasting wonder. For those that believe and love God, though we are forgiven, God’s world is one of cause and effect and we are called to face it one day (did David, though forgiven, not bear the brunt of his sins with Bathsheba?). Elbert Hubbard once noted, “we are not punished for our sins so much as by them.” Perhaps he was right.

After all, we must be pruned. But the Father works the greatest miracles by pruning us, for that which is pruned burned, and that which is burned turned into fertilizer. God turns the worst evil to into good. Is that not the miracle that Christ proved; is this not the true power of God? God is Life itself and its source, He has given it to us freely, and indeed independently. Adam had a choice to follow or stray. He strayed (and we seem to run full out). When we stray (run) from Life all that is left us is death. Entropy. Death isn’t evil, its just the natural consequence for turning away from the Source of Life, from God. Death is the wage of Sin we are told. Evil is not exactly the opposite of good, it is the lack of it; it is the degenerate and decaying hole left in the absence of the life-giving goodness of God’s Breath.

And running away leaves us breathless.

But you see, though it is easy for mankind in our pride and arbitrary humanism to do evil - and we took all of Creation with us when we fell – it is within the power of God, and God alone, to turn evil into good, to reverse death. Christ’s resurrection gives new life to all of Creation, it puts Breath back into dry bones. Death where is thy sting?

God takes everything He has made and bends it to His will, yet still allows us the freedom of our own humanity. For those who are willing to accept God’s call, to accept His love, to live under His Kingship, though we find pain in death and in bearing our cross, He has parted that water and promises us passage through the river Styx and life on the other side.

Truly all things are made to His purpose – we can either bend willingly or be broken by His merciless Mercy. All will be dashed upon the Rock of Grace.


---------------------

SCIENCE! will continue next

Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Part 2

Time to expand upon the fourth point I mentioned in my first post on this topic: the propaganda put about by the people behind the gay rights movement in the late 80s and 90s. The people behind this campaign saw that the best way to halt the growing public aversion to homosexual behaviour (that resulted from the rising prevalence of AIDS) was to convince us it’s normal, and that it’s not their fault, that they didn’t choose to be this way. The following outlines some of the tactics they used in order to achieve this goal. The bulk of this information comes from Ian Wishart’s book Eve’s Bite (great read, I highly recommend it) with other sources as cited. The primary source Wishart draws from in his chapters on this topic is the 432 page tome After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s, by Kirk and Madsen (still available from Amazon.com, published in 1990, but born out of a conference of leaders in the gay community in ‘88), in which the authors outline their plan to convince the public by means of a PR blitz that homosexuality is a normal behaviour and that any opposition to it is not to be tolerated by the public. They say, “the campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a programme of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising...our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic or proof...”.

With regards to the “born gay” idea, they say “We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate pre-dispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence...to suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen, is to open a can of worms labelled ‘moral choices and sin’ and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it.” In other words, even though they knew it wasn’t true, they wanted others to think that gays were born, not made! Why? Because this legitimises the behaviour, and brands as ‘gay-haters’ or ‘homophobes’ anyone who disagrees with that lifestyle choice. This is the line that we have seen pushed again and again in movies and on TV (which many of watch too much of...) and in the media and many people have assumed it to be true. A whole generation of children has grown up with these ideas and very little to counter this, except what ‘whacko fundamentalist religious nuts’ say.

Yet we are starting to see a change in the literature, and it’s coming from inside the gay community. Increasingly, homosexual authors are admitting that the idea that gays are born not made is purely a political one. Lesbian academic Dr Lilian Faderman acknowledges this when she said in 1995, “And we [the gay and lesbian community] continue to demand Rights ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever...”. She also makes this telling statement: “What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather ‘a sometime behaviour’?” This is a tacit admission that many gay activists know their lifestyle is a choice, yet they realise that the way to gain public support and recognition is by convincing people that they were born gay.

In her book Queer by Choice, lesbian Dr Vera Whisman says: “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist (born that way) foundation, do we [even] have a viable politics?” Jennie Ruby, a lesbian writer, says this in her book Off Our Backs: “I don’t think lesbians are born...I think they are made...the gay rights movement has (for many good practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics.” Again, from lesbian author Jan Clausen, “the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensible tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.” Need I say more?

This brings me to a final question: why am I writing this? What’s my goal? Well, it’s twofold. Firstly, I want Christians and others who are concerned about our society to be able to justify their opposition to things like gay marriage and gay adoption in a way that is more than just “the Bible says so”. We need to be able to counter the propaganda put forward by those on the pro-gay side of politics. Secondly, and this is so important, I want to offer those of you out there that might be struggling with sexual orientation a lifeline. You have been told by the media, by the government, by our schools, by our friends perhaps, that you were born that way and you cannot change. That’s not true! It is not in any way conclusive that sexual orientation is a product of nature, and I’ve shown good reasons here to believe otherwise. So, if you are struggling with this, or if you have recently become a Christian and are trying to extricate yourself from your previous lifestyle, take heart! There are people who can help you. Exodus International is a Christian group set up to help people find freedom from homosexuality - see their website (http://www.exodus-international.org/). And always remember – it is the healing power of Christ that sets us free, not anything else. Come to Him, cast your burdens on Him and He will help you!

In this series First | Previous

Homosexuality: nature or nurture? Part 1

In keeping with our theme of going Science Mad, and as a follow up to James’ post on homosexuality, I thought it might be good to examine this idea that homosexuality is a product of nature, a genetically determined behaviour, rather than a choice. But first – why are we doing this? Why the posts on homosexuality? It’s not because we hate gays, nor is it because we fear them. We believe that the homosexual lifestyle is not the one God intended for His creations to live in, just as He didn’t intend for us to live in drunkenness or addicted to drugs, or in any type of sinful lifestyle. We want to see all people fulfil the potential God has for them, and for some people what stands in their way is their sexual orientation. With that said, let’s move on!

The idea that sexual orientation is determined by genes is put about by many homosexuals and gay rights activists, but does it really hold water? I don’t believe it does for four reasons: firstly, the search for the so-called ‘gay gene’ has, as yet, proved unfruitful; secondly, children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay, suggesting that nurture, not nature, is at work; thirdly, it is possible for a person to change their sexual orientation; and finally because of the propaganda put about by the people behind the gay rights movement in the 80s. Let’s examine the first three here, and the fourth in Part 2.

The search for the ‘gay gene’:
Despite much fanfare in the media in 1993 when Professor Dean Harmer published his initial findings in the journal Science suggesting a link between homosexual behaviour and genetics, little more has been discovered in the intervening 16 years to support his claims. Indeed, the following year the same journal published this by Yale’s Dr Joel Gelernter (speaking about the repeatability of studies like Harmer's), “All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute.” In line with Dr Gelernter’s thoughts, a study done by the University of Western Ontario, again in Science, showed no support for “the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation”. In more recent times, the research is no closer to consensus. Dr Alan Sanders, a psychiatric geneticist, said in an article published in 2008 on the ABC news website that “the evidence is pretty convincing already that a substantial contribution to sexual orientation comes from genetics”. Yet his colleagues at the American Psychological Association disagree. The APA publish this in their brochure “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”: “no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles....", which is a revision of their position in 1998 that there is considerable evidence that biology plays a significant role. So it seems we have scientists on both sides, with neither clearly in the lead. Indeed, one needs to look not just at the data, but also the interpretation. For example, commenting on a study that found “if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases”, which the authors claim is proof of genetic link, Billings and Beckwith claim it is “strong evidence for the influence of the environment”. This is a good point with which to move on from the undecided genetics to my second point.

Children raised by same-sex couples are more likely to be gay:
In a 1999 comparative study of 39 children in 27 lesbian families versus a control group of heterosexual families published in the journal Developmental Psychology, 15% of children in the lesbian families went on to have same-sex relationships compared with none of the children in the heterosexual families. Compare that 15% to less than 1% of the general population who are gay. Additionally, other children from the lesbian families stated that they had either already considered, or thought it likely that they would at some point in the future, having a ‘same-gender sexual relationship’.

A person can change their sexual orientation:
The most recent edition (March 2009) of Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment states, “While many mental health care providers and professional associations have expressed considerable skepticism that sexual orientation could be changed with psychotherapy and also assumed that therapeutic attempts at reorientation would produce harm, recent empirical evidence demonstrates that homosexual orientation can indeed be therapeutically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce emotional harm when attempted (e.g., Byrd & Nicolosi, 2002; Byrd et al., 2008; Shaeffer et al., 1999; Spitzer, 2003)” (p488). If it is possible that sexual orientation can be changed, not just ignored but changed, and that such a change does not produce harm in the subject, then that lends weight to the idea that it is not genetics at work. After all, how can one change a behaviour that is determined by genes? The genes cannot be changed, not by the methods at work here, in any case.

That brings us to the conclusion of Part 1. Stay tuned for Part 2, where I look at the way in which the gay rights activists have promoted homosexuality over the last few decades.

In this series Previous | Next

Science - part 1

Mad Science and Flawed Logic

An astrophysics student studying for his PhD went to his advisor concerning his doctoral thesis. “Ma’am, I have two theories I’d like to explore but I’d like your advice on which to choose.”
“Enough research will tend to support your theory,” the Professor said.
“But I haven’t told you what they are yet…”

It’s an old gag, sorry for not showing any originality there. And truth be told, that line of thought, i.e. whatever the idea, enough facts can be found to support it, is at least as old as Aristotle if not older, and certainly isn’t limited to the sciences. But we will notice that much of what we view as authoritarian (or just claims authority) has no sway over a matter save what we give it. Rhetoric can powerfully manipulate any audience. It remains a necessary and beneficial tool in presenting any argument, whether scientific, theological, cultural, etc.

So, in the end, we hope here to constructively and, at least insomuch as possible, objectively, demonstrate what can and cannot be attested to by science, what bounds are real and which are imagined, should we construct some, should we tear some down, which have been crossed and which should we cross? In effect, what claims are pseudo-science, which qualify as meta-physical and in the middle of all this, we are certain to find there are certain questions science cannot answer. Into the fray we venture.

Warp speed, Mr. Sulu.

Over the coming weeks, several interviews are lined up with some Christian scientists… wait, no, lemme rephrase that, with some scientists who are Christian. Yes, that is much better. Anywho, I hope they prove interesting. I know at least two are promising; the rest I cannot yet tell because we haven’t completed them. If they fall flat, we’ll throw in some more Futurama quotes and irrelevant humor. (Editor’s Note: No, none of that, we are going to be pointing out logical fallacies, not making them I hope.)

Boundaries?

There are certain rules of logic that are broken in debate, sometimes unintentionally, often quite intentionally. The logical fallacy has its place in speech and persuasion, and though it may be used in advancing a theory in the natural sciences, it should not display its head by thrusting those theories upon us as fact. Logical fallacy has many forms and some downright tongue-twisting names. When I was a wee lad, we had to study it though not as much as my old man did when he was a young man. Aristotle’s Rhetoric proves a good read if not difficult; a lighter and more enjoyable lesson would be Madsen Pirie’s entertainingly witty “How to Win Every Argument; The Use and Abuse of Logic.” In fact, go out and buy it now. I’m using the Jedi Mind Trick on you. Do it.(What? You mean it doesn’t work? And I spent all that time practicing!)

After studying up a bit, its easy to point out fallacies in argument. Why is that important? Well, let’s look at one example to start us off. To whet our appetite, some things propounded by one the world's best know atheist scientists, Richard Dawkins: Dawkins holds to “universal Darwinism,” meaning basically, as he so famously sums up, ‘[the universe] has no design, no purpose; no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference’ (Dawkins, River out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. page 133) He avoids apparent fallacy (in this case, the ever-present petition principii, i.e. “begging the question”) by keeping “purpose” out of it in saying there are no 'ought to’s' in life. But on close inspection he has committed the same fallacy he wishes to avoid – and seemingly hates so much coming from “dyed-in-the-wool faith heads” – by expressing what cannot be empirically known. ‘There ought not be any oughts. How is it one man, or 6 billion men for that matter, would know if there is purpose or not in life, the universe and everything. If he is genius enough to know, let him answer, but I fear genius has nothing to do with it. Dawkins' vantage point would have to allow him, not only access to, but the ability to retain the knowledge of, all things, every action of every person, animal, atom, everywhere, for all time. In short, Dawkins claims omniscience. He claims to know what no mortal can. (Maybe he isn't denying God, so much as to who holds the job title...)

It’s a circular argument. Though for someone omniscient, he contradicts himself later in “The God Delusion,” saying that religion must be an ‘accidental by-product’ of some otherwise useful evolutionary process. (p.188) However, 'accident' denotes malfunction of purpose. Hmmm. No purpose, purpose. Looks like Dawkins should stay out of meta-physics and theology. (Maybe I should to, come to think of it.)

Is this the case for all science? Certainly not. Do not think for one minute that is where we are going. Fundamentalists on both sides, atheist and religious alike, will start to make statements that the other is evil and should be done away with. That is precisely the attitude we are trying to dismiss. But before we start, we need to know that we are on a level playing field. Next time I'm going to tackle what religion can and cannot say as well, focusing largely on Christian theologians and apologetics and absolute existential statements made by both sides.

This introduction to Science has turned out to be more of an intro to logic, but we shall see that logic, religion, theology, psychology and world view will all play very heavily in the next few weeks’ discussions. Stay tuned and we will delve deeper through the mire! Feel free to ask questions anytime, criticize where you see mistakes (‘cause I make ‘em a bunch) or just join in the fun. The question forum is at the right or you can leave comments below!

Homosexuality

"The fact that we are even in the same genus makes me ashamed to call myself "homo"" Prof. Farnsworth - Futurama

I hope no one took offense to that; I figured we needed a good joke to lighten everyone up as this will likely prove very unpopular. Popularity, though, does not decide truth, nor do I. Therefore my own views, whatever they may be, must be put away, and God’s Word come first. It has been asked (by numerous people in numerous ways) what is the “Christian view on homosexuality?” Well, aside from simply quoting scripture, which we should do, but would probably make us look like we-dislike-anyone-different-Bible-thumpers, we would like to give a few thoughts (we hope are worthy of your consideration).

Homosexual Lifestyle and Christianity

First, it needs be noted that we do not condemn anyone for homosexuality, so please do not read this as an angry rant against homosexual behavior. However we cannot condone it either. What we can do is love and accept everyone equally, despise and repent from every sin equally. We love you no less, no more than anyone else; we are all in the same boat. All fallen, all sinful.

That said, it is frightfully hard for us humans to work out this thing called sexuality in all its forms of subtle interest and raging libidos. Give an inch, it takes a mile; try to reign it in, it might pull you down like an anchor dropped through the center of a boat. In short, for many of us our sexuality is monstrously and disastrously confusing. For some it is not (however those people are confused as to why others are confused – so, at least in part, it seems we are all a little confused.) God is fair though, fear not; He knows what shackles may bind our conscience and what effects the Fall may have had on our particular make up. I speak not on what “nature” should tell us, for “nature” may mean, either of two things: that which our body parts show to be seemingly simple Tab-A-fits-n-Tab-B (sorry if that is crude, no way to say it euphemistically) as well as that to which our inner emotion, rational, instinctive and attractive desires point us. Our sexuality is never so easy, nor is the position that argues we are either homosexual or heterosexual. That is fallacious bifurcation (because some are (ahem) “bi.”) Humans are a mass of nerves and issues, desires and longings that are confounding for the best of us (but who is judging “best?”)

Therefore, speaking on purely “Christian” terms, there is no more wrong in the homosexual lifestyle than in, say, a fully heterosexual person who fulfills his/her every sexual desire for everyone of the opposite sex. That loose person doesn’t need a member of the opposite sex, simply the body parts the opposite sex is defined by. He doesn’t seek a woman, only the thing that makes her woman. It is to look on another human as mere meat and ignore the divine image in which they are made.

There are many arguments for homosexual partnerships and lifestyles, we are aware, but they all cannot stand for long. For example, one argument says that heterosexual promiscuity is denounced by Jesus because it denies “love” whereas a homosexual couple’s relationship is argued to be founded solely on love and God is love, therefore it cannot be wrong. However that argument denies many (if not all) other qualifications that go into a Judeo/Christian martial union as well as God’s other defining attributes. Love is important, indeed foremost, but to deny fidelity, mercy, justice, honor, purpose and diversification denies His purpose for making us two separate creatures. There are aspects of a relationship that can only be experienced when paired to our biological counterpart, for we are vastly different beings yet the same. Man is made in God’s image; woman is not made in Man’s image, but God’s as well, therefore there are facets of God’s wonder we will never begin to comprehend – important facets – should we create a homosexual joining. And, of course, denying any of God’s attributes is to make a god in our image, not His. We need the opposite sex, no matter what Bono says of women and men, fish and bicycles.

In this series Next | Last

A Point Unbelievers Cannot Grasp

After rolling around in my head for sometime and coming out in prayers, it occurred to me that the thought of the only One True God, Creator of the Universe, humbling Himself before us, becoming one of us, is certainly one of the hardest points for anyone, esp. unbelievers, to accept. That He would, if He exists, concern Himself with us at all (and even David asked this) is almost beyond comprehension. The mere thought, much less proclamation, of God coming in flesh, dying horribly in our stead (or of dying at all), is preposterous!

He is GOD! Why would He do this? Surely it is ridiculous to even suggest, and blasphemous to believe!

Think instead of how a parent must talk to their child. They must lower themselves in some capacity to the child's level. The child cannot raise themselves up to an adult, nor can one child, no matter how gifted teach another how it is done - neither are parent's. The parent's simply must humble themselves and serve the child, at least in as much as does not harm the child, in order to care and raise them. So, it is with God.

He is humble and loves even when we reject Him. "Yet while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Does the Father not, as Christ points out, let the rain fall on everyone, the sun rise for the good and the wicked? He will judge us, yes. But He will wait till the tally is in, till the accounts are full, until His time, not ours. And it is by His awesome and perfect humility and by His infinite and unfathomable grace that by bowing down for us, He brings us up to Him. We may only love because He loves, we may forgive because He forgives. We know mercy because He is merciful. How could anyone come up with "goodness" like this on their own, and why would we call it "goodness" unless there is an ultimate good?

How could anyone or anything on earth or in heaven get up to Him without it being by His unimaginable power? No man, woman or child, no angel, not even the greatest of angels, Satan could do it without His help (in fact, that is the very thing that caused Satan's fall, that He tried, no?) For this reason, no one else could do it but God Himself. That is why the atheist, agnostic, Jehovah's Witness, and Mormon approach cannot touch the Light. That is why we declare Emmanuel, God with us, Christ the Lord, Y'eshua Netzarim (Jesus the Nazarene) is God in flesh. That is why He alone is worthy of our love. Because He came down to us, because He first loved us.

Kingdom Come

As Grace has posted a quote from Baxter Kruger:

"As the light of Jesus shines into our darkness, we will not be yearning to escape the ordinary, we will be stunned and full of wonder at the ordinary presence of the blessed Trinity in our humanity.

Heaven is not a bodiless state in an invisible place. Heaven is the life of the Father, Son and Spirit coming to full and abiding expression in our human existence, and the earth and the cosmos are filled with the life and love and fellowship of the blessed Trinity.

Meantime we grieve over the self-centeredness, over the lust and greed, the social and racial, environmental and political and religious injustices that run wild around us, wreaking such havoc in our lives.

And we fast and pray for the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to us in our darkness.

We pray for people to be given eyes to see and that the way things are in Jesus Christ would indeed emerge more and more in our human existence." (Grace has added the emphasis)

I would like to discuss the details of what this means, how we bring it about, or more precisely, how God brings it about through us. Is this simply an expression of love? What is it that God wants us to do to see the Truth? Is there something we can do? Isn't it all Him?

If we look at the teachings of Y'eshua in Mark 12:29-31

"Jesus answered, "The greatest [commandment] is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one: you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment. The second is like this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

and then at Micah 6:8

"הגיד לך אדם מה־טוב ומה־יהוה דורש ממך כי אם־עשות משפט ואהבת חסד והצנע לכת עם־אלהיך׃ ף"

"He has shown you, O man, what is good. What does Yahweh require of you, but to act justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?"

We can see that yes, we must love and that love must be in action. Yes, we must pray that God's love reign in us, and that His Spirit reveal to us the Truth so that we may love as He loves, not as we would ourselves (thereby setting up a false and certainly wrong foundation and basis, a flawed rule by which to love by). It is by Christ that God has revealed Himself, God's expression of Himself, that is why John can use the phrase "logos," God's Word. But what does that mean to let Christ emerge in us? By faith certainly, by grace, most assuredly, but also, is it not, as James says, by action? Love without action is merely poetry. Words without deeds are not hollow, they are lies.

Suppose I told my wife I loved her but never showed her, never gave of myself for her. She wouldn't think me a good husband at all. (I'd never get to be her husband without showing her real love, would I?) The word husband means to manage or steward, which is an action verb, and so, my friends, as we often hear evangelical Christians say, so is love.

"God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son..." Love indeed requires action. So I plead that we, as believers must become doers. The scripture says that God saves us by grace through faith in Christ but does not preclude that we must not adhere to the Torah, the instruction of God, to do what God commands of us. Look back at Micah 6:8 again. What often becomes a point of contention though is when we put our faith in Torah (Law, Instruction) to save us; thereby we have made a false god. Our faith must be in God alone.

So only in Christ and His action, His love, do we now know, as Paul says, how important the Law really is! And Christ tells us that those who would follow Him must abide in Him and "do the will of My Father in Heaven." Christ is adamant about action, not merely words. He is not talking about the rituals we do, but the faith we have and thereby display in actions of love.

He was not crucified for merely what He said, but for what He did. He did not tell us love without giving the example of what that means. He healed on the Sabbath, He cured the blind, set free the captive, declared the year of Jubilee. He did not simply speak to the poor and downtrodden, He became one of them. He became one of us. He humbled Himself before us*.

It is my suggestion, we must become humble as Christ became humble. We must pray, and the more we pray, the more we see His love, the more we see His love the more we thank, the more we thank, the more we hope, the more we hope the more we love, the more we love the more we give, the more we act. True love is truly humble and when we are humble, then we will stop thinking about who is in the kingdom of God and who is not. We will treat and love and accept our flawed and perhaps, until now, unloved neighbors as God has loved us. His will done on earth as it is in heaven. His kingdom come.

A Jesus Manifesto

While both Dave and I love to promote other Christian endeavors, we love to promote Christ above all.

So while we have both agreed that Leonard Sweet and Frank Viola's A Jesus Manifesto that is wandering around the net isn't the first thing we would put our names on, not at least without clearing some stuff up anyway, I do want to link to Mark Van Steenwyk's kindly review of it. I think both the work and the review have some very good things to say. Things the Church needs to hear.

For more of thoughts on this subject, see Beloved Bride.

Credit: Due unto Others

Cicero once noted, "nothing so cements and holds together all the parts of a society as faith or credit, which can never be kept up unless men are under some force or necessity of honestly paying what they owe to one another."

'Can never be kept up' indeed. We have seen that first hand. Borrowing money is like swimming with a brick in each hand as Heilein once put it.* But it isn't always the borrowers fault, for there is often no other method of purchasing what is needed but by credit - most of modern Western society works by credit. No credit: no house, no credit: no car, no credit: no credit. If one has no credit, how can he procure it? Well, someone must begin the process by extending trust. At least, that is how it used to be. That isn't the case now, corporations are too big, lender too huge to know you. Its not trust the lenders extend, but some ethereal thing based neither on trust nor dead presidents nor even the gold standard, but offers of a better life. Its a dream, a lie, and that is all it is, but it is yours if you sign your name on this line to someone you will never meet (and may never talk to on the phone either).

As we all now know, and many knew before, if the lenders aren't out to simply offer goodwill then it is debt and death they deal. Without a care for the borrower, only their money, a society cannot perpetuate the faith or credit that Cicero spoke of, merely greed and backstabbing. One generation in and all is lost, for greed eats itself. Watch the news for two minutes and we see the effects of that. And what's worse, in 2009, it seems only the borrower must make good on his end, but the lender is free of such restraints.

We have been warned by many a sage throughout history that lending on credit is a bad road to travel if one wants to get rich (or even remain stable). The old saying, 'those who sell on credit have much business but no cash' hits home (if we still have one). And it is this that has caused our society to crumble to it's present state. Was it the policy of some malicious and dastardly villain, the naive politician full of goodwill 25 or 30 years ago or an ignorant public? My vote goes toward the greed of everyone, we cannot blame one or even a group. We must blame ourselves. We all (well, most of us) want the American dream, not just Americans. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get rich when our neighbors keep buying things we cannot afford.

So, how now to out this rut in which we find ourselves? Well, first we could stand to take seriously the last of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not covet." Be content with what is our own. Put God first and all you need will be given unto you. Get rid of, not only your desire for all that you don't need, but the actual things (and that is rather a lot). It's a harsh teaching, but it turns out, shock of shocks, Christ was right. "Go, sell all you have and follow me." Though of course if you stop reading right here, all that will make you is poor.

Second, we must do what God intended of us: work. Many of us are out of a job at the moment, and that is a really hard thing, I know first hand. That doesn't mean our hands are to be idle though. Volunteer. Do what is worthy. Hard work makes for a clean mind. It also leads others to have faith in you, which is, as we will remember, one of the things that Cicero says cements a society together. Maurice Switzer penned, what should be blatantly obvious, "the surest way to establish your credit is to work yourself into the position of not needing any."

Perhaps if we stick to what we have, pray for what we need, work hard for God's will and not our own and trust for the rest, then the credit on which we found all our interactions will be worthy of more than just "IOUs."

*In one of my favorite books by Robert Heilein, The Door Into Summer.

The Armor of God and the Art of War

Image via Wikipedia

At one Army base, the annual trip to the rifle range had been canceled for the second year in a row, but the semi-annual physical fitness test was still on as planned. One soldier mused, "Does it bother anyone else that the Army doesn't seem to care how well we can shoot, but they are extremely interested in how fast we can run?"

We were talking about "putting on the full armor of God" that Paul mentions in Ephesians 6 yesterday and it got me thinking. Armor is worn in battle and we are all in spiritual warfare. Sure, we know that. But what do many of us know of warfare? Sun Tzu writes in the Art of War "So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak." Satan must read Sun Tzu, 'cause he knows this very well. In an all out battle, the enemy can come from all sides, and so we must be prepared. So God gives us indestructable armor.

But the full armor of God has nothing for our back; only our front. The breastplate of righteousness doesn't cover our flank. Would God leave us open to attack from where we least suspect it, where we are weak? I certainly doubt that.

What does Christ say? Would Christ speak of battle? He comes not to bring peace, but the sword. Again, as Sun Tzu says, "Maneuvering with an army is advantageous; with an undisciplined multitude, most dangerous," Y'eshua ha Mashiach gives clear instruction as to how we are to go into battle as one. We are to be One as Christ and the Father are One, and as every kingdom has its army, our King also also gives us our target. One army, one target.
"...upon this rock will I build my assembly [church] and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt 16:18)

What does that have to do with protecting our backs? In battle, if you are the one attacked, the enemy may come at you from all sides because if he is smart he has surrounded you. But if you are the one attacking, you have surrounded him, you act as one, stand together and all face the same way, the same target. The Anointed of God, The Salvation of the Lord, is saying we are to attack the Gates of Hell. Gates are items for defense, not offense. I'm sure we have heard that before. We are well to remember it. Ours is to attack, not defend.

We are to surround and storm the gates of hell, the gates that have locked many of our brothers and sisters inside it's walls and Christ came to set the captives free. But hell's minions will also be protecting their spoils of war and in our attack we will come upon much deadly resistance. So we have our armor, the armor of God. Armor on our front, not back, for attack, not retreat.

Satan, that crafty serpent that he is, will not be so foolish as to waste his strength against the armor of God which he knows he cannot break, but knows to attack what is weak. He will deceive you to think that target is different, that your commander is a fool, that your way is folly, that your companions are mindless, that you are invincible. "Pretend to be weak that your opponent may grow arrogant." (Art of War) Why and how does he do this? He will either get you to attack a false target or expose your weaknesses.

Pastor Takeshi Yozawa at TBC noted that we must understand what the breastplate of righteousness means in order for us to don it. A breastplate (pictured at left) is one of those things that knights and soldiers wore (... yes, on their breast) and then after the war would sometimes hang on their wall as a trophy. But it doesn't really do any good there except to show others that you were victorious in battle. (If you were victorious. If you weren't, you can't really invite anyone over to dinner and show off your stylin' armor, can you?)

Righteousness, according to Webster's is "meeting the standards of what is right and just," and the Bible says that God will judge the world in righteousness (Psalm 9:8a). Christ tells us in Matthew,

"'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matt 22:37-39)

This is righteousness. To love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves. In that order. It is Satan's lie to mix those up; that is his tactic to turning God's army of righteous soldiers into a frantic mess. That we love others more than we love God, we 'love the praise of men more than the praise of God' (John 12:43) But "no one serving as a soldier gets involved in civilian affairs - he wants to please his commanding officer." (2 Timothy 2:4) The approval of Man rather than God is idol worship and it's one of Satan's most effective tactics against the army of God.

In an attack, we all face one direction. But with all eyes facing forward, none can see our beloved breastplate of righteousness or our deeds of honor. We would rather it be on our trophyroom wall. As Satan makes us yearn for the approval of Man, we take our breastplate of righteousness from our chest where it guards our heart and we put it on our backs where others may see it and marvel.*

"... should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his [front]; should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left. If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak." (The Art of War)

We become easy prey to attacks on our heart when we remove the breastplate of righteousness from its rightful place. We are attacking, our enemy at our front. Our battle is never to be about deeds of valor, or even about righteousness but about He who makes us righteous. The armor's breastplate of righteousness is something made for, and given to us. It's property of the King, so to speak. It is His righteousness, not ours and is only effective if we wear it as it is to be worn. As protective armor for our enemy to see, not a trophy room show piece for others.

---------

*We shouldn't be concerned about the honor or valor of others either. "What is that to you? You follow me," is the instruction given us. Help up those who have fallen, but trust the Lord to honor the good deeds done. That is not our purpose, and it is a quick way to die in a skirmish. Keeping our eye on our Commander is the only hope of winning the battle.

Billions and Billions of Demons

Image via Wikipedia

This is the title of Richard Lewontin’s review of Carl Sagan’s book “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark”, published in the NY Times in 1997. You can find the whole review here, and I recommend reading it as he says some very interesting things. One comment on the Trinity near the end I especially liked. But what I have reproduced below is one of his most famous paragraphs. This has been seen by probably most of you, but it is worth revisiting as it really shows us what those of us who do not hold to the materialist worldview are up against. Enjoy!

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.”

Our Father

What is it to be a father? I know nothing of being a mother, of course, but fatherhood, aside from reading Bill Cosby's excellent advice, what direction do we follow? What is a good role model? Are we to be friends or authoritarians and where lies the acceptable mix of those?

Speaking to several friends the other day, talking about Father's Day, we all had differing backgrounds that lead to very different theories on being a dad. One fella had lost his father when he was 4 and never had a male role model at all. Another had an abusive father, creating great tension leading to a bitter separation, losing his father to cancer before they could ever make up. Years later he has found forgiveness and peace in knowing the God of Israel as Father. Thank You, God.

I had a good father. Still do. But, conversely, I spent almost 30 years "wiping the face of my dad off of God." He was a good role model and he pointed me always to Christ. But as I grew up, I found out I couldn't be as perfect as I thought my father was or wanted me to be. I rebelled, as we all do, to the authoritarian ideal, precisely because I knew he would forgive me and part of me thought him a simpleton for it.

Now, having returned to God in Christ, I have come full 'round and am a father myself. I realize now that my father didn't try to be perfect before me, just as good as he could be to the Lord he loves. But now that I am older I see how very imperfect my father is; and I love him all the more for it - more than I ever thought I could.

I will not try to be a perfect father to my daughter, but I will try to be the best son I can. We only have one perfect Father. It is in this revelation that I have come to see that I am a pilgrim on the same journey as my old man, one with whom I can share my failures and mistakes, sins and falleness and he can share his with me. That is the mystery and beauty of confession - becoming transparent before one another, esp. our children, so that they don't mistake our faces for God, but that they may see Him clearly through us.

Good for a Laugh

"Christian Oneliners." Enjoy

Don't let your worries get the best of you;
Remember, Moses started out as a basket case.

--------------------

Some people are kind, polite, and sweet-spirited;
Until you try to sit in their pews.

--------------------

Many folks want to serve God…
But only as advisers.

--------------------

It is easier to preach ten sermons
Than it is to live one.

--------------------

The good Lord didn't create anything without a purpose,
But mosquitoes come close.

--------------------

When you get to your wit's end,
You'll find God lives there.

--------------------

People are funny; they want the front of the bus,
Middle of the road,
And back of the church..

--------------------

Opportunity may knock once,
But temptation bangs on the front door forever..

--------------------

Quit griping about your church;
If it was perfect, you couldn't belong.

--------------------

If a church wants a better pastor,
It only needs to pray for the one it has.

--------------------

God Himself doesn't propose to judge a man until
he is dead. So why should you?

--------------------

Some minds are like concrete:
Thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.

--------------------

The key to a clean heart is dirty hands. – Len Sweet

--------------------

I don't know why some people change churches;
What difference does it make which one you stay home from?

--------------------

A lot of church members singing 'Standing on the Promises'
Are just sitting on the premises.

--------------------

Be ye fishers of men. You catch 'em - He'll clean 'em.

--------------------

Stop, Drop, and Roll won't work in Hell.

--------------------

Coincidence is when God chooses to remain anonymous.

--------------------

Don't put a question mark where God put a period.

--------------------

Forbidden fruits create many jams.

--------------------

God doesn't call the qualified, He qualifies the called.

--------------------

God grades on the cross, not the curve.

--------------------

God loves us all, from the "fruits of the spirit" to the "religious nuts"

--------------------

God promises a safe landing, not a calm passage.

--------------------

He who angers you, controls you!

--------------------

If God is your Co-pilot, swap seats!

--------------------

Don't give God instructions, just report for duty!

--------------------

The task ahead of us is never as great as the Power behind us.

--------------------

The Will of God never takes you to where the
Grace of God will not protect you.

--------------------

We don't change the message,
The message changes us..

--------------------

You can tell how big a person is
By what it takes to discourage him..

--------------------

The best mathematical equation I have ever seen:
1 cross + 3 nails = 4 given.

--------------------

Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass.
It's about learning to dance in the rain.

Transform!

"Autobots, TRANSFORM!"
Okay, enough of that. Wait, just one more; "ROLL OUT!"
Man, sometime I wonder what it would be like to do an animated movie about Jesus with Peter Cullen doing the voice of Christ... how unbelievably cool would that be? (Well, maybe its just me ... but I bet a month's pay Dave agrees)

Anywho, as I'm watching the movie the other night (the new one, ick. Don't take your kids is all I can say. Or yourself, for that matter) I'm thinking of the possibilities of human transformation (you'd know what sparked this if you saw the movie, but like I say, don't). What does it mean to transform? What does it mean to change so completely that you are a new creation? And what is the "all-spark" that would cause such change? Turns out the Transformers movie is rife with Christian symbolism, though I'm pretty sure it's unintentional.

Some brothers of ours have put it very nicely, even if they use the more obvious Christianese, "conversion" instead of "transform." But then again, they point out that "conversion" has a rather bad taste to it for many people, but I'll grapple that a bit after the jump.

"It's a shame that a few conservative evangelicals have had a monopoly on the word conversion. Some of us shiver at the word. But conversion means to change, to alter, to make something look different than it did before [see? like transform. get it now?] - like conversion vans or converted currency. We need conversion in the best sense of the word - people who are marked by the renewing of their minds and imaginations, who no longer conform to the pattern that is destroying our world. Otherwise we have only believers, not converts. And believers are a dime a dozen nowadays. What the world needs is people who believe so much in another world that they cannot help but enact it." Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw, Jesus for President, Zondervan p.308

If you don't know who our brothers Shane and Chris are, they might shock you at first. Because they truly live what they preach. In fact, they don't really preach much, they just live it. In very much the passion of 'prophetic imagination' that Shane likes to talk about (a phrase coined by Walter Brueggemann in his book by the same name - a book I HIGHLY recommend. Link at right.
There is a link to the bottom right under our bookshelf for the "Jesus for President" book if you are interested. That is a good read too, though many of you may find it fanatical. But I like fanatical: God is a fanatic. It's the fanatics that get things done. Anyway, we are talking about transforming our lives, converting to a new way, being reborn.)

I figure there is a large part of the unbelieving world that winces when we say conversion or transformation because they identify the death to self as a death of self without the rebirth of self. Much of the language we use seems to well up in people a vision of one's personality being all together replaced with something other. And though that is true, it is an other in the sense of a bulb into a flower, a seed into a tree, a caterpillar into a butterfly. The thing we are now must undergo death in order that we may change into what we are truly meant to be. Did Christ not say that unless a seed falls to the ground and dies, it produces no fruit? I think none of us want to die because we imagine the thing we turn into won't be 'we' at all.

Let me ask this: if God originally made you (cause you sure didn't make yourself) and the world around you has squashed you, hurt you, hardened you, or conversely, you have squashed, hurt and hardened others, do you not see that it is the fallen nature of the world that has shaped you? Whether by your own idea of what you want to be in order to survive, or like the stone in the river having been slowly shaped and rounded by the flow and rocks around you, that though loved, you shape has ... lost its shape? What God seeks to do is take the beautiful person He originally made and give you back more of your true, original self, to fill back in the places that have been rubbed out or to sand back down the callouses that have formed. He doesn't want to take 'you' out of you, He isn't into making robots (sorry Optimus); He wants real people, not stones in the river or over-calcified bones. And that requires transformation, renewal, conversion, rebirth. God seeks to make you more you. Which will look very Christ-like, god-like. That's what happens when we are reborn into a Holy Family, we take on the divine shape. After all, we are made in His image.

So, instead of the overused revival jargon, 'Be reborn and Go forth!' I can hear in Cullen's deep voice, "TRANSFORM AND ROLLOUT!"

All This For a Bottle of Water?

The Coca-Cola company has a new product out in Japan called ILOHAS. It's being marketed all over the country by the biggest names on TV as the bottle of water for those of us mindful of the environment. Eco-Water. Is the water different? No. But the bottle is.

Everyone is very worried about the affects of our rampant consumerism on the environment, so much so that companies compete for the most eco-friendly way to distribute their much needed products. ILOHAS' bottle uses about half the plastic (it's thinner) than a regular bottle so one can actually crush it down like a wad of suran-wrap or something when they're done. Very eco-friendly!

Wait. Is it? Lets think this through... if Coca-cola was really interested in the environment and not just making money and they seriously thought this the way to go, then why don't they stop selling cola, juice, water and whatever processed garbage they want us to buy in normal (PET) bottles and sell them in this new "invention?" Buying this bottled water is not using less plastic, its more! It is a whole new product with a whole new campaign. If they wanted to use less plastic thereby benefiting the environment, they should go back to glass bottles like they used to. Or, better yet, we could just all drink water or tea out of mugs from the tap (once we get a filter... and then of course that uses plastics and chemicals... darn it, I hate this system) Anywho, we wouldn't be getting so ridiculously fat. But then Coca-Cola would slide out of existence. Aside from the lost jobs, I won't be shedding any tears.

What does this have to do with Christianity or Theology or anything for that matter? How we live and eat, the products we use and the impact that it all has on the society and on God's world should be one of the foremost things in the Christian mind. Am I a tree hugger? Well, yes. You don't see anyone hugging their cola bottles.
Oh, the power of branding. Don't buy into the hype.