What is the Gospel? (Part 2)

Scot McKnight asked a while ago whether the gospel was misunderstood by rank and file evangelicals.  He specifically pointed to Luke 4:18-19 which speaks about the poor, about captives, about the oppressed.  The suggestion was that for most evangelicals the gospel is defined in terms of “personal salvation”, where we are individually saved from our own sins and benefit as individuals in a spiritual sense, when the more “robust” gospel is about the “kingdom” here and now, righting of wrongs, healing of wounds, mercy, justice and liberty.  

It is  not my intention to hammer Dr. McKnight, but to push back on the emphasis.  The so-called "soterian" gospel of personal salvation is indeed worthy of some scrutiny.  But so is a gospel that suggests that the effects of grace in the here and now should be the primary focal point of "gospel".(More)

What is the Gospel?

Back to theological issues, I've been observing from a distance discussions about the meaning of the Gospel in evangelical circles.  Everybody talks about "the gospel" in evangelical circles, but like a lot of words or phrases that are used again and again, there is an assumption that everybody agrees on what the term means.  So I think the discussion itself is not a bad idea.  (More)

Post Racial America

Two interesting takes on race relations in America.

For Jamie Foxx it is all about race. While starring in a movie that uses the "N" word over 100 times, reportedly, Foxx (who is a truly talented actor) mentions the indignity of finding that a photo shoot is stocked with snacks of Ritz crackers and cheese.  (For the record, I'm a northern raised, white male and I ate my share of Ritz crackers and cheese growing up - not even aware there was some sort of issue with that one.  And yes, I love fried chicken and watermelon.)

For Robert Griffin III it is not about race.   After being called a "cornball brother" by a black ESPN commentator and accused of being "not really down with the cause, he's not one of us", Griffin says he refuses to be defined by his race.  His sins against the black community?  Apparently inter-racial dating and rumors of having Republican leanings.

Which of these examples best exemplifies a post-racial America?

War Without Rules - Gaza

David French has a well reasoned article at National Review about Israel's moral obligations in the Gaza conflict.

My hunch is that the average Joe on the street these days is oblivious to the notion of rules of war, or more specifically the Law of Armed Conflict.  War is nasty business, a reality of a world in rebellion, but it is a reality that must be faced.  There are people who want to kill other people and who cannot be reasoned with. In this age of relativism based on tribal grievance, patriotism and nationalism are seen as evil and the distinction between having a military and being "militaristic" is sometimes blurred.  (More)

Community Organizing for the Digital Age

Interesting article by Tony Lee at Breitbart analyzing How Obama Won.  The opening paragraph reads

"President Barack Obama sees America as a salad bowl, where multiculturalists are free to pick and choose identities and cultures instead of sharing a unifying one -- the classical melting pot concept. And Obama's successful 2012 campaign -- as sophisticated as it was when it came to micro-targeting voters -- reflected his broader view.

"Instead of running a campaign based on his record or a unifying and forward-looking vision for the next four years, Obama essentially ran multiple, micro-targeted campaigns aimed at specific racial groups, scaring them into believing Republicans would take away their rights and promising them legislation on pet issues in a second term. He used the same template with women voters. He essentially united his coalition by disuniting America, one racial and gender group at a time."  (More)

Election Thoughts

"History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster."
Douglas MacArthur 

I only occasionally venture into politics here and only as I think it relates to Christianity.  After watching the election returns last night, these are my reactions: 

People Died - Obama Lied

There are many reasons I don't want to see Barack Obama reelected.  I think there can be little doubt now about the President's dishonesty regarding the most inept coverup in the history of coverups.  The Bengazi coverup takes the cake.

Simple timeline as we now know it. 

Not only did the administration spend two weeks dishonestly blaming the affair on a cheap video, Joe Biden claimed ignorance in his debate with Paul Ryan and blamed the intelligence community for not giving sufficient info to the administration. 

Chris Matthews Latest Absurdity

Chris Matthews has claimed in essence that the pro-life position is something akin to Shariah law.  From NewsMax:

“...to have that notion that that [fertilized egg] would be a person under this personhood thing that Ryan’s pushing, and under the 14th Amendment rights, the platform that Romney’s running on. This is extremism. I say (to the) center right tonight, it's almost like Shariah."

Matthews went on to say Romney and Ryan would govern from a religious viewpoint. 

“We're going to run our country this way, to the point of making a woman's decision to have an abortion, her reproductive rights, as criminal, perhaps murderous.”

Aside from the usual hostility from the media to pro-life views, a few questions seem to be in order.

Shooting the Messenger - The Left's Only Enemy

Very interesting article in the Jerusalem Post by Caroline Glick titled "The Left's Only Enemy".  She begins with reference to Mahmoud Abbas, whom the left in Israel and the United States holds up as a moderate.  Writes Glick,

"The fact that Abbas was an inveterate Jew-hater who spent four decades in the senior leadership of a terrorist organization and whose doctoral dissertation was a long denial of the Holocaust, was brushed aside."

It is difficult for the left to define an enemy, particularly the Christian left.  What philosophical commitments lead particular individuals and groups to pretend evil does not exist is an open question I suppose.  Glick continues,  

"Abbas’s Israeli supporters are the core of far-leftists who brought us the phony peace process with the PLO. Two thousand dead Israelis later, and with no peace in sight, their camp is much smaller today than it was in 1993. But it is still dedicated. And it is overpopulated by members of the media".  (more)

A Concise Statement of a Familiar Point

Cornelius Hunter at Darwin's God presents a new twist on an old objection to Darwinist views of origins.  Hunter's point is that there is an a priori assumption inherent to the mindset of most Darwinists that can logically prevent them from seeking truth.  Key paragraph is near the top.

Though evolutionists think of themselves as realists—ruthlessly objective investigators interested only in truth—their naturalistic constraint ultimately leaves them with only anti realism. This is because any a priori restriction of the answer might exclude the true answer.

The last line is worth repeating.  ANY a priori restriction of the answer logically may exclude the true answer.   (Read More)

Conservatism - The Care of the Widow

Amid all the political propaganda coming from the left, including the Christian left, there are countless portrayals of conservatives as somehow "against" the poor and "for" the rich.  Jim Wallis recently wrote that caring for the poor is one of the Biblical roles of government.  Not sure anyone would argue with the quote from Psalm 72 regarding the ruler:  "May he defend the cause of the poor of the people, give deliverance to the needy, and crush the oppressor."

But is it really right to leap from defending the poor to what Ron Sider in the article calls " both procedural and distributive" justice? How does one get from defending the cause of the poor to "distributive" justice?  What exactly does "distributive" justice mean?  (More)

The State of Political Discourse

Civility.

I keep hearing that word uttered by those who decry the sorry state of negative politics these days.  "Why can't there be more civility?" 

One cannot understand politics today without understanding a little bit about one Saul David Alinsky.  And in particular, his rule number five:

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Now I know that political satire and name calling and dirty tricks are nothing new.  They've been with us from the beginning.  But what has changed is the way Alinsky weaponized amoral tactics. (Read More)

Paul Ryan and the Catholic Bishops

Excellent piece at the Wall Street Journal on Paul Ryan's budget proposal and the charge by Catholic bishops that the proposal is immoral.  The piece is by Antony Davies and Kristina Antolin. 

Key lines:

"Perhaps we dehumanize the poor when we treat them as nothing more than problems to be solved, and we dehumanize the rich when we treat them as wallets to be picked." 

Romney - Ryan

Mitt Romney was not my first choice for President.  But I would have supported him regardless of who he picked for VP.  I suspect a lot of folks are like me, the choice of Paul Ryan for VP takes my enthusiasm up several notches.

More than anything else, Ryan seems to be able to articulate the ideas plain old grassroots conservatives hold dear.

This line from his speech at the big rally in Wisconsin caught my ear...

"  ...America is more than just a place ... it's an idea. It's the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not government."

Obamacare and the Forfeiting of Religious Liberty

This is predictable, but chilling nonetheless.  CNS News reports that a Colorado family that has owned a business since 1962 and employs over 250 people is being told by the government that a private businesses cannot opt out of Obamacare mandates for religious reasons.  Apparently the Justice Department asserts that since an HVAC business is not a religious enterprise, the owners of that business have no right to exercise religious freedom in what medical procedures are included in policies offered to employees.

At issue are a mandate to cover procedures that include sterilization and abortifacient contraceptives.  The owners, the Newland family, are Catholic and those particular procedures go against their faith based ethical beliefs. 

In essence, the solution the Justice Department suggests is this:

If you have a religious objection to Obamacare then don't own a business.  

(More)

Context and Fairness - The Gospel Coalition Keruffle

I've been following the controversy over a post on the Gospel Coalition site about distorted views of sex and a relation to views of male/female roles.  I find it interesting that the progressive Christians who are all about "contextualization" have been up in arms about a post they refused to read in context.

The context concerns the novel Fifty Shades of Grey which apparently contains several explicit sequences detailing sexual bondage, sadism and masochism.  So Jared Wilson published a post from a complimentarian perspective which was intended to speak against bondage, sadism and masochism.  The loud and angry response to the post by many egalitarians and progressives suggested instead that his complementarian position somehow promoted the rape and subjugation of women.  (More)

Information - The Immaterial Reality

In much of the debate between ID and Evolution advocates, the focus is on the mathematical complexity of the genetic code.  ID advocates point out that the sequences of chemicals arranged to carry the information that makes life possible are so detailed and vast that no amount of time could account for the unguided arrangement of even the most basic chemical structures of proteins.  Steven Meyer's recent tome suggests that the random combination of chemicals necessary for even the basic building blocks of the genetic code are so unlikely to have arisen by random processes as to be equivalent to finding a single marked atom blindfolded in an area equivalent to size of the known universe.  ID does not then merely resort to a "God of the gaps" argument where "design" wins by default, as his critics charge, nor is it merely an argument about "chance".  Rather, the suggestion is that the order of the genetic code is analogous to virtually everything else that we know to have been designed, therefore design is the best explanation.  (More)

Conservatism - Judeo Christian Foundations

Two key ideas are essential to the existence of a functioning democracy.  One is the notion that there is a higher law that all - from the highest office-holder to the lowest citizen - is subject to.  The other is that belief that every individual has "inalienable rights" that are "endowed by their creator” and as such are not granted by nor taken by the state.  The twin anchors of the rule of law coupled with the security of basic human dignity provide for the necessary checks on human corruption to make democracy viable.  Our US Constitution was intended to limit the powers of centralized government on one hand and to prevent the chaos of mob rule on the other. There was intended to be a balance between law and freedom.  

This is why those who wish to denigrate the “Christian” roots of our form of government not only miss the mark historically, but enable the continued erosion of Western civilization and hasten the death of Constitutional democracy.  Jefferson, Franklin and Washington need not have all been explicitly “Christian” by evangelical standards to understand that Laws that are not based on unchanging universal truths are inevitably malleable tools in the hands of tyrants, and that individual rights dependent only on the whims of those in power have no lasting relevance at all.  Without a generalized belief that there was an eternal and good Creator who stood behind the very concept of Law and in whose image individuals are made, the balance between form and freedom is impossible to articulate, much less maintain.  If foundational standards change and shift the definition of “rights” must also change.  (More)

It's Immaterial

There was much consternation on the blogosphere a month or so ago over the Gallup poll t hat showed that in this country very few believe in evolution.  46% believe God created humans in pretty much the present form, 32% believe God somehow guided evolution and only 15% believe evolution occurred with no help from a deity.

The lament seems to be that somehow science education has failed or worse, the false science of Creationists has poisoned the minds of too many of the undereducated folks in flyover states.  I find that hard to accept.  For decades evolution has been taught virtually unchallenged in public education and major science programs on popular and public TV have also pushed the standard Darwinist viewpoint, while one would be hard pressed to find a "creationist" view tolerated on virtually any mainstream media outlet without considerable qualification.  In addition, Intelligent Design views are almost universally disdained in mainstream media and academia while in the courts ID is lumped in with creationism as an enemy to be vanquished.  (More)

Children of "Unstable" Marriages

Ed Whelan of NRO has a three part article about the recent study of children of various alternative forms of marriage published by the academic journal Social Science Research.  The study has caused a fair amount of buzz on the web with opponents of gay marriage quoting it and supporters of gay marriage trashing it.  Interesting that there is a secondary conclusion that is suggested by the study.  (More)

Another Reason to Oppose Government Controlled Medicine

A number of sources report this case of a Chinese woman forced into the abortion of her baby in the seventh month of her pregnancy.  While the Chinese government is apparently "investigating" the officials who had five men forcibly hold this 23 year old woman down to give her an injection that resulted in the birth of a dead baby two days later, it has been pointed out that the officials were simply enforcing the Chinese national policy of one child per family. 

For context, remember that Joe Biden has expressed sympathy for the Chinese one-child policy, and the president who has forced a number of health care mandates on us was once a champion of live-birth abortion.  When efforts in our country were made to reduce the horror of partial birth abortion, the party of Biden, Clinton and Obama could do nothing but spout talking points to ignore the substance of the issue.

Health care is too important to leave in the hands of power brokers with political agendas and collectivist tendencies.

There Aren't That Many of Us

David French blogs at Patheos under the blog name The French Revolution.  He recently wrote An Open Letter to Young, “Post-Partisan” Evangelicals.

In the article he describes his own journey of rebellion, young idealistic political views that focused on justice and the poor and eschewed the culture wars - until gradually he came to a place where he became a full fledged conservative.  It is worth a read.  A couple of highlights:  (More)

Christian Unity - And the Son...

Interesting little post at the Anglican site Virtue Online about the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed.  For those unfamiliar, the filioque controversy surrounds a single phrase in the Nicene Creed.  In the original version of the Creed, the Holy Spirit "proceeds from the Father".  But at the council of Toledo in 589, the phrase was added that in English is translated "...and the Son", meaning that in some sense the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son.

The issues are two:  Does the Holy Spirit originate from the Son?  Is the existence of the Holy Spirit contingent on the Son?   (I'm not sure most who use the latter version of the Creed would assert that).

Why I Am a Conservative - Health Care

My first thoughts about health care go back about 29 years when I went to a dentist in California for a toothache.   I had signed up for an HMO, which seemed like a great program.  Pay a small set fee and everything is covered!  Wonderful.  The dentist in question was part of that HMO plan and I could only go to a dentist "in plan".  After an X-ray revealed that I had swollen sinuses from a sinus infection that was causing the pain in the roots of my teeth I went to a regular doctor - in plan - and after an antibiotic I was good to go.  So I decided to take advantage of the plan and schedule a normal dental checkup.

I expected what I had always experienced - that I would sit down in a chair, a dentist would poke and prod at my teeth, they would take some X-rays and if necessary I would return to have a cavity filled - one visit or maybe two.  What happened opened my eyes to the realities of what is now a health care mess.  First I came in for the checkup.  Cha-ching!  (More)

Why I Am a Conservative - The Poor

Maybe no other issue divides the Christian left and right more than the care of the poor and downtrodden.  I suppose it is true that some on the right who are more adept at generating heat than light caricature the more liberal views as coddling the lazy or something like that.  I know it is true that the secular left has for decades repeated the same phrase election cycle after election cycle "tax breaks for the rich" while accusing conservatives of being heartless and greedy.

In the end, both sides agree there needs to be a safety net.  People lose jobs through no fault of their own.  Illness and misfortune can happen.  And yes, people make bad choices leaving spouses and children in difficult circumstances.   A safety net is needed and that includes some provision for job loss, for income loss and for catastrophic medical needs.  (More)

A Glimmer of Hope

Watching the news of the recall election in Wisconsin, one little tidbit caught my attention.  Apparently a number of Democrats who were not Scott Walker supporters voted for him.  Why?  Apparently because they disliked the recall process.  Normally a recall is held when there some sort of malfeasance on the part of an elected official.  Recalls are not intended to be a "redo" of an election simply because someone dislikes the outcome.

So apparently, a number of Democrats took the position that we have regular elections every four years and having a recall over policies is not the intent of the law - the rule of law needs to hold so they voted to reaffirm the lawful election rather than vote party line on something they found wrong on principle.  

That kind of stand for principle gives me a little bit of hope not all is lost on the left side of the aisle.  Whatever one thinks of Walker or his policies, the recall seemed out of line from the get go.  Glad a new precedent was not set.  

Why I Am Conservative - Economics

I find it odd that issues surrounding macroeconomics divide Christians.  The Christian left seems primarily concerned with social justice issues and the disparity between rich and poor and the Christian "right" seems more concerned with personal responsibility and limited government.  To be clear, neither side thinks the poor should be ignored, the question is how to best manage a national and global economy - debates about helping the poor are about the balance between government program and private charity and that would require a different post.

For me, the matters related to economy and government are fairly simple.  But I need to be clear that I do not believe there is a prescribed economic system in the Bible.  The Old Testament deals with Jews under a theocracy, the New Testament deals with Jews and Christians living under Roman rule. Neither is directly parallel to being citizens of a constitutional democratic republic.  Theories about Capitalism, socialism, Marxism, had not been developed.  Neither Adam Smith nor John Maynard Keynes  nor Milton Friedman were around in the 10th century B.C.  (More)

Why I am a Conservative - The Sword

One of the key planks in conservative thought is a strong national defense.  Critics on the left, including the Christian left, often suggest the conservative position is nothing more than feeding a lucrative war machine at best and a direct contradiction of Jesus command to turn the other cheek at worst.  And typically the accusation against Christian conservatives is that they are dupes of the Republican party on this issue as well as others.

But I have to disagree.  Once again, I think the position of the Christian conservative has a matter-of-fact view of humanity as fallen and in rebellion against what is true and good, and because of the fall, because of the corruptibility of human nature, it is necessary to have both a police force at the local level and a standing army at the national level precisely because there are those whose aggression cannot be restrained by anything less.  (More)

The Problem of Unity - Part 5

I wrote a meandering thought experiment on Christian unity a long time ago.  More thoughts:

Here is a further illustration of the problem. Regarding the question, "What is essential?" we could attempt to categorize a list of doctrinal issues. We could categorize them in a descending hierarchy with the "Essential" things on top and the "non-essentials" on the bottom.  The problem really lies in the middle, the things some consider essential, but which others either do not, or do not agree with.  (More)

The Real Misogynists

Odd that theological complementarians are called misogynists when this stuff it going on everyday without comment from the political left, the Christian left, or supposed "women's" groups. 

An article appeared earlier this week at Frontpage detailing the unconscionable sexual degradation of conservative women.  The most recent egregious case was that of commentator S.E. Cupp depicted in Hustler as needing to be "shut up" by having a particular object photoshopped suggestively into her mouth.  It is one article of many that could be cited.  In it former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Former Florida Congresswoman Katherine Harris and current Wisconsin lieutenant governor Rebecca Kleefisch have all been attacked using vivid sexual imagery and conservitive commentators like Laura Ingram, Michelle Malkin and Elizabeth Hasselbeck have been subjected to rape language. (more)

Egalitarians, Complementarians, Patriarchalists and Misogynists - Oh My!

I'm not one who thinks that defining the role of women in the church is an "essential" on which the church stands or falls, but boy do folks get bent out of shape over it.  I've been in some pretty conservative churches over the years and I've never felt like this was a huge issue in the overall scope of things, because I never felt the difference between egalitarian and complementarian was all that great.

Recently  Rachel Held Evans called complementarianism patriarchy.  That seemed to me more than a little false.  Count on Tony Jones to up the ante. He referred to Russell Moore and John Piper as misogynists, haters of women. 

The reason for the consternation was apparently a statement by Moore that too many complementarians were living as practical egalitarians, which carried the suggestion to egalitarians that to be consistent, complementarians needed to "push women down" more.  I think Moore spoke poorly, but knowing what most complementarians think about "servant leadership" I tend to think the point is that Moore feels men often exercise no leadership at all, behave in a passive manner that serves no one. I do not think he was "pushing women down" as Tony Jones opined.  (More)

Why I Am a Conservative - Original Intent

Since it has become fashionable for some to portray politically conservative evangelicals as either unthinking lemmings who have been duped by the Republican Party or worse power hungry theocrats bent on establishing a fundamentalist theocracy, I thought I should get back to a topic I started long ago on Why I am a Conservative.  

My only post on the topic so far dealt with the concept of limited government as it is related to the Christian concept of the fallen nature of human beings.  (I had also written on why I fear theocracy). (More)

Atonement Theories

Much of the progressive Christian blogosphere seems to be deeply concerned about atonement theories.  I'm not sure how much of this has to do with the comment of a particular skeptic that the cross of Christ amounted to "cosmic child abuse".   At any rate, "penal substitution", the belief that Christ took the penalty for human sin by acting as a substitute for us has fallen on disfavor.

To some degree, this may be a reaction to the trend of our era toward sound bites.  Since the advent of the four spiritual laws, evangelistic strategies have tended toward trying to explain redemption in a few short bullet points - hardly leaves time for unpacking a lot of theology - and the more prominent atonement theory winds up the only one described.  (More)

Disposable People - Culture Wars

This quote from C.S Lewis often comes to mind when pondering the current state of sexual ethics in this country.  

"…when we say of a lustful man prowling the streets that he wants a woman. Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want.  He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition,  One does not keep the carton after one had smoked the cigarettes."

Over the last 50 years, three issues keep coming to the surface in the so-called culture wars, issues which conservative Christians find themselves involved with and as a result, find themselves roundly criticized for poking their noses into "political" affairs.  (Read More)

The Pragmatic Case

It usually does little good to argue about same-sex marriage as a public policy issue using Biblical  arguments, no matter how badly we wish to rebut some of the horrific exegesis that comes from progressive Christians who support this massive and unprecedented subversion of 3400 years of western civilization.

A case must be made that shows how changing the definition of marriage changes society at large in a negative way and why a government should care.  Here are a few thoughts.   (Read More)

Marriage - The Definition is the Issue

I’ll take a stab at the hot button topic of the day.  

Why is it that conservative Christians are opposed to gay marriage in this enlightened post-modern age?

Let me begin by saying it is not that Conservative Christians are opposed to “love”.  I don’t think there is anything anyone would say against two people of the same gender having a certain affection for each other.  It is true that affections can sometimes be unhealthy – even simple friendships and heterosexual romances.  Still the issue isn’t “love” as in a “feeling” two people have for each other.

Christianity is a faith that exalts a set of high moral standards and then tells us that none of us can keep those standards.  It responds to this dilemma with grace – a deep, deep well of forgiveness.  The result is that the moral law of God which none of us keep perfectly ceases to be a source of condemnation, but remains a goal.  We are not always honest, but we strive for honesty.  We are not always faithful, but we strive for fidelity.   The moral standards affirmed in both the Old and New Testament are not a means of salvation but they remain ideals by which we examine ourselves and seek to be better people.  So – the issue is “what are our ideals?” (Read more)

Andy Stanley, Al Mohler and Scot McKnight

We have apparently come to the place where progressive Christians are open to roundly criticize conservatives who simply speak their mind and portray them as judgmental while being increasingly unwilling to speak against others who pass judgment with extreme prejudice.  

Al Mohler raised a question as one part of a discussion about the megachurch phenomena.  The heart of Mohler’s post was that a generation or two ago, it was suggested in “liberal” circles that Christianity needed to change in order to reach people.  But in a short time, those churches jettisoned essential elements of the faith.  While Mohler praised – yes praised – the conservative bent of many  megachurches and megachurch leaders, he said that the temptation would be strong to water down essential truths for the sake of outreach. 

In this context, he referred to a message by Andy Stanley - "When Gracie met Truthy".  Stanley used a sermon  illustration where two men, both having abandoned heterosexual marriage for a same-sex relationship were told they were disqualified from a service role on a “host team” because one was still married to his wife, not yet divorced.  Stanley did directly speak against adultery – since one of the men was still married, and tied that to disqualification from serving in that position.  But Stanley said not a word about the morality of the same-sex relationship itself and whether that might also disqualify someone from the same role.  His silence on the obvious hot-button issue implied to at least some that had both men been divorced while having this same-sex relationship, they could have stayed in their role.  

So adultery was a disqualification while an illicit gay relationship was seemingly not.     (Read more...)

Savage

I feel compelled to respond to a couple of canards from Dan Savage’s classless tirade that caused Christian students to walk out of a presentation that was supposed to decry bullying.  

Much has already been written about the inconsistency of a speaker on the topic of bullying calling those who had the courage to walk out on his ignorant and foul-mouthed nonsense en masse “wimps”.   One wonders why the organizers of a conference for high school students on journalism would invite a guy who used crass and slanderous intimidation to slander Rick Santorum and licked doorknobs while ill in hopes of infecting Gary Bauer to speak as an expert on preventing bullying, but that is another discussion. 

I’ll not delve into issues of tone, the ethics of his presentation, and speculation about what it is that drives this guy.  I’ll just respond to some specific ideas.

The Lie

It is said by Evolutionary Creation advocates that if Young Earth Creationism is true, then God “lied” by making the universe appear old. In fact the “appearance of age” is one explanation some YEC use to explain the apparent age of the universe. The argument YEC makes is that if God were to create a tree, instantaneously, and someone came along moments later, the someone may have no idea the tree was only seconds old, for a “created” tree would appear to be mature. The same logic would apply for the land masses, earth and the universe itself.

But to evolutionists, Theistic Evolutionists and evolutionary creationists, this explanation imputes to God a “lie”, that he would have left clues in the universe that make it appear to be old when it is not, deceiving…well, scientists primarily… who want to assume the age of something very old can be determined by examining its properties.

It is not my purpose here to defend a particular age for the cosmos. As a conservative Christian, I am not committed to a particular age of the most distant star, or of the necessity of a precise 24 hour day in the creation of planets or land masses, but I am committed to the historicity of Adam and his fall into sin as recorded in the Genesis account. What concerns me here is logic, for this is a curious and horribly inconsistent charge made by EC advocates against YEC.

If find it stunning that EC advocates suggest that

A) God “LIED” if the universe is young when it appears to be old,

B) But there is apparently nothing deceitful about an “inspired” text that indicates absolutely nothing about the alleged irrefutable truth of common descent!

The utter absurdity of that inconsistency ought to be enough to cause any serious reader of scripture to doubt whether EC is the least bit honest with the text of scripture.

What is the greater lie?

Is it the lie latent in a subtle set of clues allegedly buried in inferences made by a few highly specialized technicians; conclusions measured in the long slow decay of radio-isotopes or measurements of the speed of light, each revealed only through sophisticated scientific methods based on philosophical assumptions about the nature of the physical universe?

Or is the greater lie laid out in common human language in story form which explicitly and repeatedly claims that human beings are descended from a single pair whose rebellion is the cause of all death and suffering?

It is often asserted by these sophisticated academics that God revealed the Genesis story to earlier pre-scientific peoples because they would not have been sophisticated enough to comprehend common descent. Really?

Were the men who lived in the age that built the pyramids really so incapable of higher level thinking that a story of creation which simply suggested all living beings came from earlier creatures would have been incomprehensible to them? Is it more credible that instead God reveals to them a story that all humans descended from a single pair?

Oxford Ethicists OK Killing Live Infants

Follow up to my last post. The UK Telegraph publishes today an article justifying infanticide. As I indicated in my previous post, there is no discussion at all of the medical facts of fetal development. Only this:

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

How much "value" is "some" value? At what point does society determine that the young individual who can be legally killed is "capable of attributing to her own existence" this undefined "value".

This is pure use of language to say nothing. And it comes from the science establishment, from the Journal of Medical Ethics at Oxford.

Any wonder why common decent folk don't trust the scientists?

Science Deniers

A label often attached to those who doubt either Darwinism or man-made global warming is “science-denier”. If one questions either the assumptions or the conclusions of either of those narratives, one is assumed to be anti-science, as if disagreeing with a conclusion was the same as losing all contact with reality. But I have to say in the dispute about a number of issues, I have a strong suspicion it is not really about the science. Why?

Because I have a pretty direct example of agendas driving conclusions in spite of evidence coming from the other side of the political and religious spectrum.

The Fall of Man and the Rise of Science

Two Interesting reviews of a book by an Oxford guy. here and here.

The book is “The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science” and the Oxford guy is Peter Harrison.

I'm intrigued by the book, and will likely buy it, but I have to say I find this thesis vaguely familiar. Francis Schaeffer outlined a similar viewpoint decades ago.

There are a few distinctly Christian presuppositions about the universe that many argue were necessary for science as we know it to come into existence. The first is often cited and understood by Christians in the ID and Creationist camps. It is simply the idea that the universe is orderly and that our brains can apprehend that order.