A brief analogy

I think people should have the freedom to drive their cars into lakes. I do not want to use the government to stop anyone from having the experiences and consequences of driving their cars into a lake. Because I’m willing to allow people the freedom to be underwater-drivers does not mean I should advocate the government name all lakes as official highways. I think such behavior is harmful as I believe that Toyota did not make cars to drive underwater. Allowing freedom and granting government endorsement are two different things. If I have sway over my government, I can not lovingly allow it to endorse behavior which I feel is harmful, even if I’m willing to allow the freedom for that behavior.

Some may say that the government declaring all lakes to be highways will provide greater safety to underwater-drivers.  This will allow the government to post speed limits and guard rails throughout the lake which will make all underwater-drivers safer.  While I recognize the value of speed limits and guard rails I think they provide minimal assistance to cars unintended for the bottom of a lake.

I recognize that not everyone shares my views on the inability of cars to drive underwater.  Some call it a religious conviction and say that I should give way to other religious convictions.  This is why I’m all for the freedom to drive a car into a lake.  But if I truly believe that Toyota  didn’t make cars for underwater use I should not and can not encourage other people to drive their cars into lakes whether that’s through my personal relationships or my democratically elected government.

On another matter, if the government decides to make all the lakes into highways I most certainly shouldn’t have to build ramps to help people drive their cars into lakes just because I’m a carpenter.  Calling me a bigot or accusing me of discrimination is something I can live with if I know that I am not complicit in the destruction of their vehicles.  If however people want a tow-truck to help them get out of the lake, I’m more than willing to call a Jewish friend of mine who doesn’t charge a dime.

Some will say that I’m attempting legislate my own morality or I’m imposing my values on others.  This idea is so obviously shallow it’s amazing that it has to be addressed.  All laws that affect personal behavior are legislated morality (murder, stealing, pollution control, pay child support, etc.).  All law is a reflection of someone’s values.  Because my values have been influenced by my religion does not make them automatically less valid than values formed by the lack of religion.  It is impossible to have law that does not in some way legislate morality or reflect our values.

The idea that “religious-views-should-not-influence-public-policy” is someone’s view about religion. If we shouldn’t be required to accept other peoples religious views, then we shouldn’t be required to accept “religious-views-should-not-influence-public-policy”.  It’s simply self defeating.  Moreover, Christians should not adopt such a view because it’s not a Christian idea.

If Jesus is the Lord of your life, and not simply your after-life fire-insurance, that means he has influence over all of your actions and everything in your life.  One of your duties as an American is to vote and that means as a disciple of Jesus that He gets to influence your vote.  To not allow him into the voting booth with you is to live a schizophrenic life.  Secularists will tell you that your religious views should remain private and hidden from the “secular” world.  But that is their religious view, not Christ’s.

God, not the government, invented marriage.  Do not let others tell you that it must be distorted or changed.  If it will be changed, do not let it happen with your vote.  Allowing people the freedom to drive underwater is different than endorsing it.

photo credit: CanadaGood

I like Derek Webb.  He not only understands music and verse he understands his job as a Christian artist.  I’m not at all a musician but I’m inspired as an artist when I listen to his albums.

His latest album is surrounded by a bit of controversy.  His record label refused to include one of his songs, “What Matters More”,  in his newest release, “Stockholm Syndrome”, because he chose to use the word “sh!t”.  He, in turn, refused to change the song so they had to work out a compromise where you can only buy the complete, uncensored album directly from Derek Webb himself.

I think Derek made the right choice to use the word and to refuse to change the song.  Please watch the video above to hear the song before reading my thoughts on why it was appropriate.

In the song Derek is challenging Christians to consider “What matters more?”.  He weighs the condemnation we might feel about a homosexual’s personal choices against our need to respond lovingly to the AIDS crisis.  I think he quite thoughtfully uses to word “sh!t” to provoke a reaction out of Christians.  They’ll naturally be offended by his use of the word. Their feelings of offense offers him the opportunity to again ask, but in a slightly different way “What matters more? My profanity or your indifference to suffering?”

I think it’s an appropriate use of profanity.  He doesn’t sling the word about because he can’t find a better word to use.  His ability to communicate isn’t handicapped by the word, it’s enhanced.  He wishes to cause offense and the most expeditious way to do that is via profanity.  I think he follows a Biblical model for using profanity.  There is plenty that is profane in the Bible and my understanding of the Old Testament prophets is that they too use profanity but it has been white-washed out in translation.

All that being said, crossing this barrier in Christian art causes me concern.  Artist have a need to continue to provoke.  Once an audience becomes numb to one thing the artist must take the next step to illicit a similar reaction.  Next we’ll be on to the “f” word and then the “c” word.

A couple of years ago I saw an art exhibit in which the artist was torturing himself through various methods (his purpose had nothing to do with the Bush administration if that’s what you’re thinking).  It was quite disturbing and quite powerful.  He successfully garnered the reaction from his viewers that he was seeking.  Unfortunately I don’t think his message was worth the price to himself or to his viewers.  It’s one thing to be controversial, it’s another to be controversial for controversy’s sake.

I hope as Christian artist explore the use of profanity that they do so as thoughtfully as Derek Webb and avoid the cheap punch of sensationalism that it might provide.

“Mr. President, if the unborn are not living, human persons, then WHY on earth should we strive to have fewer abortions?”

I encouraged others to do the same.  Not surprising, I got a lot of affirmative responses.  It didn’t surprise me because the majority of the country is now pro-life and it makes sense that people I’m friends with on Facebook would agree with me.  I did get a couple of challenges to the idea.  One person in particular sent me several messages in passionate disagreement.

I won’t post her personal message to me (since she chose not to make it public).  But the main thrust of her thoughts were that we will never come to an agreement on abortion so we should at the very least agree to seek ways to reduce the number of abortions in our country.  She said that she couldn’t defend abortion but wouldn’t want to make the decision for some one else. (this is becoming a common viewpoint)

She also sent me these links:
http://www.whchurch.org/whchurch/pdfs/Christians-and-Abortion.pdf
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2518/t/2447/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=973

The following is my response to her:

Hi, thanks for the links. I’ll check them out. I appreciate your respectful and thoughtful tone. I’ll try to reciprocate it. The basic premise I’m approaching the topic from is this:

If the unborn are living human persons, then there is simply no justification for killing them (except for the life of the mother). Any justification for killing them can be extended on out throughout their entire lives.

If the unborn are not living human beings, there is no justification for preventing abortions. It’s has the same consequence as removing a mole or laser eye surgery. It should be free reign all the way until the hour before delivery.

These are the two consistent positions. Obama’s position actually alienates both sides by recognizing that there is something fundamentally wrong with abortion, but does nothing to stop it.

I agree with the President, there should be fewer abortions. I think he needs to answer the fundamental question on “why”. Once he starts probing the deeper aspects of “what is it?” I think he would recognize that the right to kill another person, regardless of her location is not a right we should be protecting.

One of government’s jobs is to protect the rights of the weak from the abuses of the strong. The government interferes in deeply personal choices everyday on behalf of the weak. Owning slaves was a deeply personal choice that many had personal qualms about but thought others should be allowed to do. Once we recognized that all humans are persons our government saw that it had a duty to protect the weak. There are all kinds of things that government will not allow women to do to their bodies that have no affect on other people. You cannot pay a doctor to cut your hand off. Why do you let government impinge on that freedom over your body? If government will not allow you to harm yourself, why should it allow you to harm someone else?

I recognize that abortions will still happen even if it is made illegal. Slavery still happens to this day. That doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t do what it can to stop it.

You asked “I am curious to know if you truly see abusive parents as more loving than someone who makes the decision to abort–for any reason.” I recognize the opportunity for both of us to have passionate responses to my answer. So please take a deep breath before reading more. . .and I’ll do the same. . . .

Do you think there is any loving reason for a parent to kill an 8 year old? Downs Syndrome? Product of incest or rape? Poverty? Single parent?

As little as I think of abusive parents, I think the parent who kills their child is more abusive no matter the good intentions they perceive themselves under. Death is the ultimate abuse.

The unborn are living – if they were not living they would not grow

The unborn are human – they aren’t pig fetuses or rabbit fetuses inside the womb. They are human fetuses

The unborn are persons – they have all the same character traits as their mothers. They have their own individual DNA, separate from their mothers. Like a newborn, if given the right environment in which to grow they will become mothers themselves. Like a newborn, if you stop their life they will not become mothers.

Thanks for taking the time to dialogue on this very important issue.

————————————–

I was deeply influenced by this Stand to Reason podcast

photo credit: size8jeans

The final story was about Mike Nyberg, a Mormon that encountered corruption in international adoption.  Mormonism and adoption are two topics that really fly into my wheel house, so I was excited to hear how the story would unfold.  To be frank, the story made me furious.  A story about corruption alone is enough to make me angry.  But what really set me off were the number of really poor decisions made on behalf of the adopted children once the corruption was exposed.  What made me even angrier was the justification for those decisions was that everyone had good intentions and that there were no clear principles to follow in correcting the situation. The people responsible for the corruption, the owners of “Focus on Children” faced very little consequences and continue to think their work was “good”.

My wife and I approach adoption with four very clear principles. 1) God intends parents to raise their own children. 2) Poverty is not a reason for adoption. 3) Children with living parents are not orphans. (ahem, Madonna) 4) You should never adopt in a way that encourages other able-bodied parents to give up their children or get pregnant so that they can give up their children.

Please listen to this portion of the podcast and listen for these lies that go unquestioned as people explain their justifications.

• Children need stuff to be happy
• God’s intention for children is that they be raised by people with the most means
• God has no concern about American materialism
• Hope only exists in America
• Education is only possible in America
• Only parents with money can raise children well

Despite all the hardship and tragedy the Nyberg’s faced I’m glad they ended up making the right decision. You can download the audio directly here.

You can read more about the case here, here and here.

I had the privilege of attending a debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens at Biola University.  I was able to sit in the main auditorium, but just barely.  I was in the very last row at the back of the room.  It was great to experience the vibe in the room and measure audience reactions for myself.

I’ve watched a couple of other Hitchens debates online (1, 2) and it’s always frustrated me that he doesn’t typically stick to the debate topic.  Let me revise that statement.   Christopher Hitchens doesn’t typically even address the debate topic.  Instead he uses the debate format as an opportunity to air his grievances with the God of the Bible.  He’s always entertaining but still the substance of his remarks can be boiled down to “Does not (and if he does, I wouldn’t like him).”  What makes those debates a little more frustrating is that his theistic opponents are quite often drawn in to his snipes and don’t point out that he isn’t addressing their evidences.

William Lane Craig on the other hand is a scripted debater.  He stays on topic and quite often says exactly what he wrote down to say before the debate even began.  Sometimes a debater’s insistence on sticking to the debate topic can be a little frustrating because they use it as a shield against relevant ideas that contradict their worldview.  But I was thankful that Craig didn’t allow Hitchens to veer off course.

In all of Hitchens’ debates he likes to ask his opponent to name one moral action that a theist can perform that an atheist can’t.  He claims that only once has anyone suggested anything that an atheist can’t do (that being uttering the dying words “Father forgive them for they know not what they do).  I was surprised that Craig took the bait and attempted to answer the question.  No one doubts that an atheist can act morally.   The appropriate response to Hitchens challenge is to ask HOW does the atheist think any of his actions can be called “moral” at all? On what basis are those actions better than picking one’s nose.

To this Hitchens responds that he feels a solidarity with all of human kind to keep the species alive and his morality ultimately serves that purpose.  But this isn’t morality, it’s speciesism.  Perhaps homo-sapiens aren’t deserving of special protection.  As many environmentalist have concluded, perhaps it would be better to feel solidarity with the rest of the planet and regard humans as a threat. If this is morality, it’s no better than preferring one’s own ethnic group or alumni association.

On the way out, a friend of mine heard some one remark that there was no clear winner to the debate.  I doubt anyone’s mind was changed as a result of the debate.  But I would hardly say there was no winner.  Craig offered 5 evidences of the existence of God and Hitchens only scratched at the two weaker ones and didn’t even attempt to deal with the three stronger ones.  In turn Hitchens offered no evidence for his own belief, he merely informed us that he hasn’t seen anything that would convince him otherwise.  Well great, so now what?

I’m actually sympathetic to atheistic debaters on this point though.  It’s impossible to prove a negative.  I can’t prove there is no tooth fairy.  It’s a problem inherent in the debate question.  A better question that would make for a more satisfying debate would be something along the lines of “Is the God of the Bible good?”  Hitchens and others would at least engage the topic and there would still be opportunity for their opponent to highlight the short comings of the atheistic worldview.

Here is an audio review of the debate by Greg Koukl.

As you can expect most of the sessions I attended were on religion, faith and the use of new media. But it was the secular key note address at Blog World that I felt had the most profound religious implications.

The key word I walked away from the conference with was “decentralization”. The death of “Main Stream Media”, restricted publishing and elitism were all reported and celebrated. Blogging and other new forms of media have fractured the cultural, publishing and media worlds. No longer are there just a few voices to tell us what to think of the world. Every keyboard and cellphone in the country is a publishing house unto itself. Underlying all of this is the question: have we been yearning for decentralization and shaped the internet around it, or has the internet given us a taste of decentralization and shaped us?

I almost immediately recognized that this does not mean good things for the Pope. Nor does it mean good things for the LDS prophet or any other religous authorities. Decentralization by it’s very nature strips power from authority figures. If you think you’re the authority on any subject, much less the thoughts of God, you’re going to find that fewer and fewer people will take your word for it. Even if they claim to consider you an authority, the way in which they consume media will undermine their own thoughts on the power of authority.

In many ways Protestantism is more prepared for this than many other faiths. Protestants of been decentralized and freely handing out the priesthood for 400+ years. The “personal relationship with Jesus” already argues the power and weight of an individual’s opinions. It could perhaps be argued that Protestantism founded the problem or at the very least bought in and promoted it. Protestants have always pointed to other sources of authority outside of themselves like the Bible or the work of the Holy Spirit. Soon enough the authority to even recommend seeking another higher authority will be stripped as well.

Just today, I heard a caller talking with a Christian Apologist about this very thing. The caller’s question was “If I talk to God everyday, what use do I have for organized religion?” As the conversation progressed the caller said “Why should I take Paul’s word for anything, God is talking to me? I don’t need Paul’s mediation” (paraphrase). I suspect we’re going to hear more and more questions like this.

So then, the religious blogger is faced with the dilemna: If the very action of blogging is undermining the thing I’m blogging in defense of, do I go on blogging? It’s the question Guttenberg never had the chance to ask as he printed off all those Bibles.
photo credit: Mister Awesome

Gnosticism is the belief that the spirit is the only thing that is real or good. The body is disposable and unimportant. In our missionary efforts we are at times evangelically gnostic. We often teach that the MOST important thing is that people say a prayer so that their souls will not go to Hell. Many of our missionary approaches in turn have reflected a huge emphasis on church planting, tent meetings, street evangelism, door-to-door tracting and Billy Graham style crusades.

The problem with this approach is that it’s only one part of the story the Bible expresses. When sin entered the world all of creation fell out of relationship with God. Jesus’ sacrifice doesn’t just redeem our spirit’s relationship to God; it redeems all of creation. The Bible clearly teaches that when Christ returns ALL of creation will be restored. So when we focus solely on people’s souls we do not love them the way God intends them to be loved. God loves their whole person, body and soul. He wants their bellies, minds, hearts AND souls to be filled.

We absolutely should be seeking to save people’s souls. There is nothing wrong with church planting and evangelism. They are vital. But they are not all there is. We also need to be building schools and water wells, teaching people how to grow food and eat nutritiously and strengthening family and community relationships. Sole focus on the spirit leads to gnosticism.

I just heard this Nuclearity podcast on Valentine’s Day that hits directly on this target.

Direct Link.

This is a topic that I’ve wrestled in finding a concise answer for people.  Mostly because I’ve wrestled, along with the rest of the Evangelical world, about what the terms mean.  There are so many concerns and agendas that have found their way into the conversation and it doesn’t at all help that one of the goals of post-modernism is to remain undefined.

I had begun to gain clarity on the conversation but thought that the leaders of my church (as they typically do) found a great way to communicate the issues to everyone else.

Direct link here or Video link here.  You can also read a position paper here.