New Covenant

Links for Tuesday, 29 May 2012

Imagine if it was Dubya's Doobies?
Best part of the story? The commenter who points out that while Romney went to High School, Obama went to school high.

###

GOP finally taking some action over Fast & Furious?
It's about time. Perhaps they're trying to play this into an election issue. I've got mixed thoughts about that - after all, Brian Terry, the Border Agent who was killed, should not be a political pawn. Yet if the Right is going to take down the current Left administration in November, they will have to fight for it.

###

Didn't anyone teach these kids (and their parents) how to add?
From the NY Times,

ADA, Ohio — Kelsey Griffith graduates on Sunday from Ohio Northern University. To start paying off her $120,000 in student debt, she is already working two restaurant jobs and will soon give up her apartment here to live with her parents. Her mother, who co-signed on the loans, is taking out a life insurance policy on her daughter.

“If anything ever happened, God forbid, that is my debt also,” said Ms. Griffith’s mother, Marlene Griffith.

Ms. Griffith, 23, wouldn’t seem a perfect financial fit for a college that costs nearly $50,000 a year. Her father, a paramedic, and mother, a preschool teacher, have modest incomes, and she has four sisters. But when she visited Ohio Northern, she was won over by faculty and admissions staff members who urge students to pursue their dreams rather than obsess on the sticker price.

“As an 18-year-old, it sounded like a good fit to me, and the school really sold it,” said Ms. Griffith, a marketing major. “I knew a private school would cost a lot of money. But when I graduate, I’m going to owe like $900 a month. No one told me that.”

###

Abraham Lincoln - Fashionista
I didn't realize that, with his mussed-up hair, Honest Abe was so far ahead in his stylin'.

###

Darn those annoying Home Schooled kids!

###

For the germaphobe - homemade hand sanitizer

 

Memorial Day 2012

When you light up the grill today, take the time to remember those who fought - and died - for our freedom.

On excluding relativists, universalists, pluralists, and inclusivists

In recent discussions in which I've either been engaged in, or have simply read, the notions of relativism, universalism, pluralism and inclusivism have come up. Now, while I can understand how secular post-moderns may succumb to the self-defeating "all paths lead to God" concept, I remain perplexed as to why self-professed followers of Christ continue to fall into this trap. Keep in mind that my concern, in this post, has to do mainly with Westerners who buy into pluralistic worldview notions. I can recall discussions I had, at work, with a colleague from India who claimed that physical reality is - in reality - an illusion. He kept telling me that if I thought about it long enough I would gain enlightenment and see the world as he did. Of course, telling someone to think about it long enough is kind of like what the guy on the corner told me when I asked for directions - "Go to the last stop sign, then turn right." Yeah? Well how do I know when I've reached the last stop sign? As such, who's to say that I haven't thought about reality long enough or that my sincere co-worker hasn't? Even more disconcerting, with this particular situation, was that my colleague is an engineer! Heh. I'm still trying to figure out how an engineer can approach any engineering problem while simultaneously holding the worldview that physical reality is an illusion.

However, I've already gone off on a tangent.

It seems to me that the very foundation of Christianity is based on exclusive, propositional truth and - take note - this propositional quality is not simply an artifact of Western thinking. Indeed, the very first line of Genesis makes it quite clear that God, at a point in time - indeed - the beginning of time, created the cosmos. God, outside of time and not a part of or confined within the natural realm we see, created both. Moses, in enlightening the newly freed Israelites, clarifies this so eloquently in the creation accounts of Genesis 1 and 2, clearly indicating that it was not some mystical force or animistic pseudo-deity who was responsible for our natural realm. There's no room given for the nonsensical "turtles all the way down" hypothesis, or various creation myths featuring assorted deities engaged in procreation, murder, and cannibalism. Remember that this exclusive Genesis account* is coming from a near-Eastern text written well over 3,000 years ago. That Big Bang cosmology now confirms the very start of our reality, as expressed in the Bible, is mere icing on the cake.

Fast forward to 2,000 years ago and here we have record of Jesus walking the Earth. Not content with merely issuing moral quips, he spoke and acted as if he was more than just another human, so much more that the only option he left us was to acknowledge that he claimed to be God (e.g., reference his forgiving people of their sins, claiming that he was one with God). Indeed, he wasn't crucified for uttering too many moral precepts. And, adding insult to injury, He spoke this incredibly limiting statement,

“I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him.” (John 14:6-7 ESV)

Ouch!

There's no room there for something like "I am one of many ways..." or "Some people get to the Father by..."

So, what are the relativists, universalists, pluralists, and inclusivists to do? They could claim, as some post-moderns have, that the institutional church down through the ages has overemphasized doctrine, to the point of distorting original intent. But, they'd be wrong. They could claim that we, as humans, are too limited in our understanding to claim to have sufficient knowledge of God's truths. Of course, if anyone claimed that, then we'd have to ask how they came up with that knowledge (given that we're so limited). They could claim that rational Western thought has stymied our understanding of the emotional and the experiential, so we have inadvertently limited ourselves in how we can experience God. Hmmm. Let's take a look at that one.

This experiential notion has been on my mind for some time now. On the one hand, I agree that our Western mode of thinking has limited our appreciation for the richness of experience, particularly (but not limited to) the supernatural. On the other hand, I also tend to see how our Western culture has gravitated towards an overemphasis of relational and experiential aspects, especially with regards to Christianity, many times at the expense of clear thinking. In my opinion, we need to understand that our human psyches are not simply rational or emotional but both rational and emotional. While it is a statement of the obvious, it seems to get lost on a great many people. At issue is the need to tow the middle ground. It may be a more interesting ride in the ditch, but the highway was designed for a reason. In my bias, I think that our culture, especially the evangelical culture, is not in danger of becoming too rational or too empirically minded. Quite the contrary, I think we've been gravitating towards an experiential mindset - one of relational as the driver. If that is the case, then there is cause for alarm.

So perhaps, as I see it, there are three very real dangers we must face if we continue to have a reliance or overemphasis on the experiential. And each successive ordinal reflects a more dangerous condition for evangelicalism in America:

1) Christ followers may tend towards relativism, by expecting experience to guide their decisions (as described by the Stand to Reason series From Truth to Experience),

2) Christ followers may have the tendency to see God within the moral therapeutic deism mode (as described in the book Soul Searching),

3) Christ followers may tend to let experience drive their worldview so much so that they end up moving from Christianity into the inclusivist and / or universalist camps (as potentially indicated by Rob Bell's ideas and directly indicated by Michael Sudduth's move to Vaishnavism).

These are certainly issues that I need to ponder further.

 

* Some will attempt to lump the Genesis creation accounts in with various other ancient creation myths (e.g., the Enuma Elish), however even a cursory comparison of what is found in Genesis with what is found in supposed similar accounts reveals striking, and critical, differences.

Heaven meets Earth like a sloppy, wet kiss?

The phrase Heaven meets Earth like a sloppy, wet kiss is found in a song titled "How He Loves" (see full set of lyrics here) which is currently used as a worship song in corporate worship settings. The particular line in question has, understandably, caused quite the controversy in Christian circles with advocates for both its inclusion and exclusion. An alternate version is sometimes used with the offensive portion of the lyric replaced by the words unforeseen kiss. For the purposes of this analysis, HME will refer to Heaven meets Earth, and SWK to sloppy, wet kiss.

As I see it, there are at least three issues with, or related to, this specific lyric:

I - Whether by design or by accident, the intended meaning of the lyric is vague and internally inconsistent. This, despite attempts by John Mark McMillan, the author, to define and explain the meaning of the words he used.

II - Much of the current corporate worship singing methodology, found in the contemporary evangelical church in America, is inconsistent with foundational corporate worship practice. The modern practice, in the West, of interjecting the personal into the corporate, reflects secular influences.

III - Those who hear, read, or sing the song, whom I will refer to as recipients of the  song, readily misinterpret the author's intended meaning in both the HME and SWK lyrics.

The difference

You're probably well aware by now of the murderous attack that left 15 people dead in Pakistan.

What? You thought it was 16 people in Afghanistan who were killed? Well, certainly that news is making the headlines on newswires across the world. But I'm referring to a suicide attack on mourners at a funeral in Pakistan. From Bill Roggio, at The Long War Journal,

A suicide bomber killed 15 people and wounded dozens more in an attack at a funeral in the Pakistani city of Peshawar today. The attack appears to have targeted a senior provincial government official who has raised an anti-Taliban militia in the area.

Pakistani officials confirmed that a suicide bomber carried out today's attack as mourners were offering prayers for a woman during a funeral in the Badaber area of Peshawar. 

Had you heard about this? If you had, was it a news headline or merely another one-of-many filler stories?

In a way, perhaps the fact that such stories get so little airplay, and stories of U.S. military personnel committing crimes get so much airplay is an indication of the very difference between our moral high ground and the terrorist enemy's.

Consider the following account of muslim on muslim killings, per The Long War Journal.

Over the past five years, the Taliban and allied Pakistani terror groups such as the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Punjabi Taliban have shown no reservations about striking inside mosques and other religious sites, as well as during religious processions and events. There have been 36 major attacks on mosques and other Islamic institutions in Pakistan since December 2007, according to information compiled by The Long War Journal.

One of the most brazen attacks took place on Dec. 4, 2009, when a suicide assault team stormed a mosque frequented by military officers in Rawalpindi. Two senior generals were among the 40 people killed.

Another major attack took place on July 1, 2010, when suicide bombers struck the Data Ganj Bakhsh shrine in Lahore, killing 41 people and wounding more than 170. Three suicide bombers detonated their vests at the shrine at a time when it was most frequented, in an effort to maximize casualties.

The last major attack against religious targets took place on Sept. 15, 2011, when a suicide bomber killed 31 people in an attack at a funeral in Lower Dir.

All told, The Long War Journal lists 36 major attacks since December 2007 (in Pakistan alone), resulting in 805 people killed. That's an average of 22 people killed per attack - attacks at mosques and other Islamic institutions.

Try to find that on CNN.

Training Young Adults in Christian Apologetics

Recently, in Christian apologetic circles, it was noted that a former Christian professor of philosophy had converted to an Eastern religion. Dr. Michael Sudduth, from San Francisco State University, was highlighted in the blog post Michael Sudduth Converts to Vaishnava Vedanta!

As part of our home schooling effort, we engage in a weekly Current Events series in which I have my oldest daughter (high school) read various news items (which I have selected), and then write a brief commentary on the item, first explaining what the article was about and then giving her opinion on the story.

Here is what she wrote regarding the conversion story of Dr. Sudduth:

This article is a letter written by a man who has converted from Christianity to Vaishnava Vedanta. He had been a Protestant Christian for 25 years, but had increasingly become drawn toward Vedanta, both trough a philosophical attraction and an experiential attraction. As he began to explore the religion more deeply, he became profoundly affected by it and to feel the presence of God through it. He began to believe that his former beliefs in God were a limited expression of the deeper meaning he found through Vedanta.

Vaishnavism articulates a model of the love of God, where intimacy and separation are the two important elements of the divine-human love relation. People are both one with God and separate from God. The relationship with God is a simultaneous difference and non-difference. He believes that God is manifested in different ways, and God-realization takes on diverse forms. Vaishnavism acknowledges religious truth found across different religious traditions, and though the names are many, God is one. How we experience God depends on different aspects of our own personalities.

The author says that he does not believe he is worshipping a different God than he worshipped when he was a Christian – he believes it is the same God, under a different, and fuller manifestation. He says that the basic principles of Vaishnavism are compatible with a number of fundamental Christian beliefs, and that he is not relinquishing these beliefs but situating them in a different philosophical and theological context. He closes his letter by saying that he doesn’t want to convert any of his friends to Vaishnavism, but he hopes that they’ll make each other better devotees in their respective faiths.

From this letter, it seems like the author has based his entire conversion on experience. He felt something when reading the texts associated with Vaishnavism, he felt a closeness to the person of Lord Krishna, he felt profoundly affected and overwhelmed with a sense of the presence of God. He felt Krishna’s presence in his bedroom, he felt a validation of his spiritual journey. Even when he starts talking about philosophy and theology, he says that he has found aspects of the Vedanta theology and philosophy appealing to him. I think that his question should not be, “is it appealing?”, or “does it feel right?”, rather, he should ask “does it line up with reality?” He seems to ignore this question, replacing it with how he happens to feel. If these beliefs don’t line up with reality, if they’re not true, they shouldn’t be believed no matter how appealing they are or how good they make one feel.

The author claims that Vaishnavism is compatible with Christianity. He even claims he is worshipping the same God he worshipped before he switched religions. However, if he really means this, he couldn’t have been worshipping the Christian God before. Jesus said that He was the only way to God – obviously, the author believes there are many ways to get to God, so his beliefs are in direct opposition to fundamental Christian beliefs.

Lastly, he says that he’s only interested in making his friends better devotees to their respective religions, not in making them converts to Vaishnavism. Why is this? If he believes that Vaishnavism is true, then shouldn’t he want to convince other people of that? This religion seems to be one without much substance – it seems like anything you believe goes, and I don’t think that lines up to the way the world we know actually works.

Personally, I think that it is incumbent on us, as Christian parents, to prepare our children for the realities of a post-Christian America, thereby providing them with the resources to not only counter the worldviews they will come up against, but to courteously provide a clear explanation of the veracity of the Christian worldview.

And, I'm proud of my daughter's grasp of these concepts, while in high school. We must engage our young adults (that would be anyone older than 13) in the marketplace of ideas, stretching them, and setting the bar high - they can achieve it.

Shooting in Los Angeles: Cop on Cop

Actually, it was in Long Beach (close to Los Angeles), and it was ICE Agent on ICE Agent.

From CBS2 News,

A workplace encounter turned deadly when a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent turned a gun on his boss after he threatened disciplinary action at the Long Beach Federal Building Thursday evening.

...

During a press conference held by the FBI and ICE, officials said the incident began when an ICE supervisor called in an agent to discuss disciplinary action. The agent responded by shooting his superior. Another employee intervened and shot the gunman, who died at the scene.

Why is this important?

In the debate regarding the 2nd Amendment and private ownership of firearms it is often argued, from anti-2nd Amendment apologists, that we the people should only trust firearm ownership and possession to "those qualified" - i.e., law enforcement. The fly in the ointment with such "reasoning" is that law enforcement personnel are human and, as such, are subject to the same failings as the rest of us regular folk.

While incidents such as this one should not be used to broadbrush paint all law enforcement officers as derelict, we need to remember that responsible firearm ownership and possession is by no means limited to their domain. As such, we should also remember that private citizens in the United States are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.

Another point to take away from this story, particularly with regards to the use of firearms in the act of self-defense, can be found from this L.A. Times excerpt,

Kevin Kozak, 51, a second-in-command of ICE in Los Angeles, suffered six gunshot wounds to his legs, upper torso and hands. Authorities identified the shooter as Ezequiel Garcia, 45, a supervisory agent, who was shot to death by another supervisor in the office after wounding Kozak.

The victim was shot six times yet was, as an article elsewhere states, "awake and lucid."

Private citizens who keep firearms for self-defense need to always be cognizant of the fact that an attacker may not be stopped when hit by only one or two bullets - unlike what is typically portrayed on TV or in the movies. If forced to use a firearm for self-defense, per all competent trainers, you never shoot to kill, you shoot to stop (the attack). However, be aware that it may take multiple shots on the assailant to stop him from harming you or your loved ones.

As with any form of self-defense you may choose to use, training and preparation are key.

Fifth Candle of Advent, 2011 - Praise

Tonight, we will light the fifth candle of Advent, that of Praise.

The Lord God said when time was full
He would shine His light in the darkness
He said a virgin would conceive
And give birth to the Promise

For a thousand years the dreamers dreamt
And hoped to see His love
The Promise showed their wildest dreams
Had simply not been wild enough

- The Promise, Michael Card

We praise God that Jesus, the Christ, came into this world, lived a sinless life, died for the sins of mankind and, most importantly, was raised from the dead.

Merry Christmas!

 

 

Fourth Sunday of Advent, 2011 (belated) - Joy

Joy to the world.

Yet the world (and, many times, Christians) tend to confuse joy with happiness. In the reality of the West, we live amidst abundance and peace not realized many times in history. It is no wonder, then, that our culture has come to worship happiness as the end all goal of our existence.

Disneyland is referred to as "the happiest place on earth." Indeed, especially during the season of Advent, seekers of happiness from all over the planet make a pilgrimage to the Disney Resort, hoping to partake of the promised happiness. The Sleeping Beauty Castle (pictured at left) is adorned in "holiday" decorations and lit up especially vibrantly each evening, for the pilgrims to marvel at. Yet the facade of joy is unescapable. After the nightly fireworks extravaganza, pilgrims in various parts of the park are treated to falling snow! However, since the park is located in the southern California basin, it is never cold enough for real snow to fall... hence, fake soapy snow falls upon the guests.

Fake snow - and fake joy.

1 When the LORD restored the fortunes of Zion, we were like those who dream. 2 Then our mouth was filled with laughter, and our tongue with shouts of joy; then they said among the nations, “The LORD has done great things for them.” 3 The LORD has done great things for us; we are glad. 4 Restore our fortunes, O LORD, like streams in the Negeb! 5 Those who sow in tears shall reap with shouts of joy! 6 He who goes out weeping, bearing the seed for sowing, shall come home with shouts of joy, bringing his sheaves with him. (Psalm 126:1-6 ESV)

Joy cannot be found in a quest for happiness. It can only come about from the Author of Life.

 

Third Sunday of Advent, 2011 - Peace

I was a child during the 1960s and did not enter my teen years until the 1970s, yet I still recall the faddish prevalence of the "peace" sign / symbol as well as the usage of the word (itself) as a gesture of greeting or farewell. It is because of my memories of said usage, in a quickly degrading culture, that I have such an aversion to present day communiques that end with, "Peace," not to mention the feelings stirred whenever I cast eyes upon the gawdy-bum-ugly resurgence of the "peace" symbol. It seems impossible to not see this sign plastered in all manner of variations upon countless consumer items, from home decor to clothing accessories and even down to sequined versions adorning the back-end of female shorts.

Yet where is this peace we worship? Doesn't it seem a bit comical that the sentiment of the two-fingered (reverse victory sign) flash of the '60s is now mass-produced onto such necessary items as iPhone cases?

We continue to live in strife, whether it be wars, conflicts, or political engagements, or crime upon each other, or social media directed revolutions, or protests by the pampered, or discontent among the crowds at the mall, or religious arguments... That we think we can bring about peace on this planet simply by wanting (or wishing) it demonstrates how blind we are to the reality of our situation. Despite all of our technological advancements, and despite the erroneous view that our "morality" evolves, we still delude ourselves into thinking that peace is achievable.

"Imagine all the world, living in peace."

"I have a dream!"

Noble sentiments, yet the authors of those statements died unexpected, violent deaths.

Yet, what of the man who said, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword."?

He, too, died a violent death... however, it was not unexpected.

Let's remember, this Advent season, that peace (and prosperity) by our own hands results in our ignoring not only our need for God, but our obligation to Him as well.

13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

(Luke 2:13-14 ESV)

Note that it is not peace on earth, but on earth peace. On earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!

Let it be your desire that we would become those with whom he is pleased.

- images © A R Lopez

First Sunday of Advent, 2011 - Hope

Today is the first Sunday of Advent for 2011.

Hope.

In our frenetic, fast-food-paced culture, we tend to equate "hope" with such notions as "wishing," "positive attitude," and "uncertainty". People tend to make statements along the lines of:   "I hope I pulled an A on my Physics test" or "I hope that everything will turn out okay" or "We'll just have to hope for the best."

Yet Biblical hope is not defined as mere wishful thinking for the best possible outcome, all while acknowledging we can never be certain of said outcome. Indeed, Biblical hope is grounded in the understanding that we have a knowledge of what has been promised and a certainty within our minds and hearts of that which will occur. Our task, therefore, is not to worry about whether or not that which we hope for will occur, but to properly work out our existence until our hope is eventually realized.

The Promise

Now the Lord said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.” - Gen 12:1-3 ESV

God promised Abram redemption, through blessing, not only to Abram's seed, but to all the families of the earth.

That which will occur

1 Now muster your troops, O daughter of troops; siege is laid against us; with a rod they strike the judge of Israel on the cheek. 2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days. - Micah 5:1-2 ESV

 

14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14 ESV

The event of the promise - the realization of the Hope - the long promised Messiah, the Christ. The God of Abraham, established in history, declares a Promise with which His followers place their trust - their hope - on.

images - © 2011 A. R. Lopez

Merry Christmas, and a Happy Advent!

Christians Need To Stop Making Converts: Part 5 of 5

Part 5: Becoming Truly Relevant And Truly Counter-Cultural

We Must Never Stop Evangelizing

If you've read the first 4 parts of this series, and have made it to this final post, I thank you. Hopefully, whether or not you fully agree with my argument, you have at least taken a hard look at the issues I've been discussing. However, if past experiences I've had in attempting to discuss this topic are any indication, then I fear that those fully entrenched in the pragmatic approach of evangelical capitalism - those truly in need of hearing my arguments - will have already left the conversation. If that has occurred, then it is unfortunate, because I believe that this issue is critical to how we, as evangelicals, conduct our lives in the 21st century.

Christians Need To Stop Making Converts: Part 4 of 5

Part 4: When "Personally Feeling Good And Being Happy" Is Our Goal

A Cultural Laziness Which Has Evolved From An Attitude That Life's Main Goal Is To Have Fun

It seems that our culture has come to expect to be catered to - to have their needs (felt needs) met. It also seems that we have moved from living as pragmatic narcissists to that of entitlement-expecting narcissists with a hedonistic bent. In the secular realm, catering to those felt needs is simply a business transaction; but in matters related to the spiritual, such catering can have eternal consequences.

In discussing the general attitudes of the younger generation with a friend from work, she told me of an e-mail she received from one of the coaches from her son's baseball team. It had to do with what this coach has seen with the kids he's coached and how it is also reflected in the college grads he's hired. He titled his e-mail The Coddled Generation. Here are some excerpts,

Last night I was watching a 60 Minutes program about motivation in the work place and the uniqueness of the generation entering careers in 2011.

The show was really interesting, both from the perspective of an employer as well as a baseball coach. On this particular show, the coaching professionals interviewed were motivators and trainers used by businesses - experts on the emerging generation of workers and how best to speak to and communicate with them. The show highlighted fun and wacky office cultures like Google and Zappos where strange outfits are commonplace, happy hours are frequent and workers can take turns in the “nap room.” This was designed to show how corporate structure has evolved to help make workers comfortable, keep them happy and engaged, and ultimately increase productivity.

At one point, one of the consultants interviewed described this generation as “The Coddled Generation,” and then went on to describe how their upbringing has led to a completely different worker. This expert referenced school environments where Mom calls to complain about a grade, where simply showing up is reason for celebration, and where trophies are awarded to each and every athlete.

...

I honestly believe that the culture has changed, and there are two main differences:

A lack of desire to be outstanding...

A need for coddling and hand-holding

How did we get here?

Christians Need To Stop Making Converts: Part 3 of 5

Part 3: When Christianity Is About The Experience , Feelings Become Paramount

An Emotion-Based View Of Christianity, Giving Too Much Importance To The Feelings Of An Individual And To That Of Making Converts

At the heart of the twenty-first century Western model of Christian evangelism is the scripture found in Matthew 28 - what is commonly referred to as The Great Commission.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

- Matthew 28:19 ESV

With this verse Christians have, in sincere and fervent zeal, taken the Gospel message of Christ to all the nations of the earth. Unfortunately, and in spite of their zeal, some may have missed the true intent of the verse. Note that the reference I show above ends not with a period, but with a comma. The folks at Stand to Reason promote the principle of Never Read a Bible Verse^[23], which is a pithy way of saying that one should never read a snippet of scripture (or any text, for that matter) without understanding the context of the passage the snippet is contained in. Using this principle, a better reference for The Great Commission would be Matthew 28:16-20, the paragraph which contains Matthew 28:19.

Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them.  And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

- Matthew 28:16-19 ESV

Christians Need To Stop Making Converts: Part 2 of 5

Part 2: When A Church Is Run As A Business, It Can't Help But Be About The Bottom-line 

 A Pragmatic Mindset Derived More From Capitalism Than From Scripture

It is my opinion that the United States became a rich and powerful nation due, in part, to the aspects of capitalism which cater to the ability of humans to self direct their will towards goals, achieving them through determination, discipline and hard work. It is not difficult to find story after story of entrepreneurs who took little to nothing and built empires through their perseverance. Yet, hard work alone was not the recipe for success these people used. There were, and are, plans - business plans, marketing methodologies, sales approaches, growth models, etc.

Just about every salesman is schooled on how to entice a potential customer with the product he is selling, convincing the customer that he needs the product - regardless of whether or not the customer does, in fact, need the product. You may have heard the idiom, "He could sell ice to Eskimos!"^[7], describing the abilities of a top salesman to sell a product to an unlikely buyer. Or consider the various marketing strategies employed by establishments wishing to get customers inside their stores - all for the purpose of pitching products to them. The "loss leader"^[8] strategy stresses the point of selling one product at or below production costs for the sole purpose of being able to put other "for profit" products in front of the customer. It's a gamble - a bet - that the customer will not leave the store with only the "for loss" product. And who among us has not had product B pitched to us via means of first having product A presented? For example, at a Bass Pro shop I recently had a timeshare presentation pitched to me after being enticed to win a new truck by just "entering a drawing." Then there is the "bait and switch"^[9] approach in which the customer is led to believe they are getting product A when, in fact, they are sold a cheaper product B. It should be noted that one common feature of any sales approach is that the product is dressed up - enticed - to appear as indispensible to the buyer. Is it any wonder, then, that the phrase "Caveat Emptor"^[10] - "Let the buyer beware" - came about?

Christians Need To Stop Making Converts: Part 1 of 5

Part 1: An Introduction to the Problem Facing the 21st Century Western Church 

The "Takeover and Colonization of Christianity"

Twenty-first century Western Christianity is in dire straits. Europe exists in a post-Christian state, and many believe that the United States is effectively on a path towards that same end. While some may argue that there has been a resurgence of evangelical growth, what with such phenomena as the megachurch or emergent church movements, it seems that more and more people in the U.S. are choosing to affiliate themselves with no religion^[1]. Whereas up through the mid-twentieth century one could expect an average United States citizen to understand the tenets of a Judeo-Christian heritage, a worldview of pluralism is now permeating the environment, essentially deadening secular society's sensory receptors pertaining to moral truths. Strangely enough, we find that this state of affairs has occurred despite the West having experienced over 60 years of peace, prosperity, and religious freedom. Or, perhaps, I should state that this condition has occurred because of said peace, prosperity, and religious freedom.

Links for Monday, 25 April 2011

University Ghost Towns?
Will the 21st century bring with it an end to conventional education?

What schooling is for many is a 12- or 16-year sentence wherein young people are penned up, talked at, cajoled, quizzed, and tested, for the most part on facts and figures that can now be retrieved in seconds with a handheld device.

###

Convoluted Gun Laws
Or how changing a rifle grip can turn you into a felon.

###

Women won't carry guns because it isn't fashionable?

###

Women will carry a gun because you don't want to corner a cat

###

A Mozart Hoedown?

Morality: a stowaway, onboard for the entire journey

It is interesting to note the lengths with which those who adhere to naturalistic evolution will go to defend their worldview against a worldview which claims that abstract reality exists - and, by abstract reality, I'm speaking of thought, morality, moral obligations, love, ideas, etc., all of which are not reducible to mere physical elements.* Indeed, if our entire essence - the totality of who we are, was reducible solely to particles in motion, then what justification would there be for any concept of an objective morality? What grounding** would there be for any application - or imposition - of morality from one human being to another? Survival of the fittest? Perpetuation of our species? The selfish gene?

Sorry. If any of the naturalistic evolutionary explanations utilize language that states or implies that the process of moral evolution occurred because it provided a better pathway, then the explanation is rot. It is inconsistent for a naturalistic explanation to utilize an abstract foundation. Particles in motion do not react or interact for "better" or "good" reasons ("good", in the moral sense), they simply react or interact for physical reasons. Water boiling at a prescribed temperature, a bear killing and eating a salmon, or one species perpetuating itself at the expense of another species are not - cannot be - examples of an abstract or caused by an abstract.

Some who adhere to an atheistic worldview persist in inconsistently holding on to the myth that humans have the ability to engage in free will thought. Such an inconsistency also betrays the very notion of pure naturalism. If you insult an atheist who believes that nature is all there is you will no doubt get a stern rebuke - a "how dare you!" type of response. You see, they feel wronged and, in the process, have smuggled in the very notions their worldview mandates cannot exist - the abstract realities of morality. C.S. Lewis wrote,

The Naturalist can, if he chooses, brazen it out. He can say... "all ideas of good and evil are hallucinations - shadows cast on the outer world by the impulses which we have been conditioned to feel." Indeed many Naturalists are delighted to say this.

But then they must stick to it; and fortunately (though inconsistently) most real Naturalists do not. A moment after they have admitted that good and evil are illusions, you will find them exhorting us to work for posterity, to educate, revolutionise, liquidate, live and die for the good of the human race... They write with indignation like men proclaiming what is good in itself and denouncing what is evil in itself, and not at all like men recording that they personally like mild beer but some people prefer bitter. Yet if the "oughts" of Mr. H.G. Wells and, say Franco are both equally the impulses which Nature has conditioned each to have and both tell us nothing about any objective right or wrong, whence is all the fervour? Do they remember while they are writing thus that when they tell us we "ought to make a better world" the words "ought" and "better" must, on their own showing, refer to an irrationally conditioned impulse which cannot be true or false any more than a vomit or a yawn?

My idea is that sometimes they do forget. That is their glory. Holding a philosophy which excludes humanity, they yet remain human. At the sight of injustice they throw all their Naturalism to the winds and speak like men.

- Miracles

Adherents to naturalism really should read Lewis or, for the other side of the coin, listen to Will Provine, hard determinist (and consistent atheist). 

In the journey of life, humans traverse a world made up of the concrete and the abstract and, hidden in claims to the contrary, objective morality is a stowaway that always tags along.


* And let's not make the mistake of equating the abstract element with a physical property, which may or may not correspond to the expression of the abstract. For example, while electrical impulses may occur when a person has particluar thoughts or feelings (or propositional qualities, per Greg Koukl), the impulses themselves are not the thoughts or feelings. Or, when one understands that he ought to do, or not do some act, the oughtness is not in and of itself reducible to physical elements.

** The title of a book on moral relativism, by Beckwith & Koukl, sums this up very nicely - "Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air"

How to view evidence

Jim Warner Wallace (not to be confused with Jim Wallis) is a cold case detective in southern California. He's partnered with Brett Kunkle, from Stand to Reason, to take groups of High School students to UC Berkeley to debate with local atheists. Here are a couple of videos of Jim explaining how evidence is used to determine the veracity of historical events (whether it be a cold case murder, or the events of Christ's life).

The Nature of Evidence

Testing the Gospel's Eyewitnesses

Morality: it's no different than burping

In my recent post Japan, and God, I made the point that within the worldview of atheism, along with a naturalistic mindset, one cannot escape the conclusion that objective morality is but a mere illusion - a category of behavior that must be reducible solely to physical properties. I referred to the resulting landscape of such a philosophy as a vacuous wasteland, and for good reason, namely - that of the resulting moral relativism.

A commenter engaged me in a discussion on the post, yet he completely ignored the point I was making, choosing to take issue with the rationality of belief in God. He also assumed, incorrectly, that I was claiming atheists are incapable of acting morally.

During our "discussion" a few issues seemed to arise regarding knowledge and morality. The commenter appeared to place a great deal of trust in the scientific method as a means of acquiring knowledge, especially with regards to how it can be used to substantiate (or negate) religious belief. Notice that the definition of knowledge, in the methodology of naturalism, can only refer to that which is natural, concrete, or material - that which can be measured and analyzed empirically. Yet, humans are well aware of the existence of the abstract, or the immaterial. Whether it be the thoughts you perceive in your mind (note, in your mind, not in your brain), or the love that you know you have for a "loved" one, you are aware of and confident in the existence of those abstract realities. Now, consider the fact that the scientific method is incapable of providing data on the abstract realities you know exist - for example, measuring the love you have for your children.

Given the mandate of naturalism, that all which exists is comprised within the natural realm, one must conclude that even the notion we describe as morality is simply an outgrowth of evolutionary processes and, as such, must be guided by natural laws. Indeed, that is what the commenter posited, that moral behavior is simply behavior, and that it was derived from evolutionary processes. While this may sound quite proper on paper, the real-world impact of such a propostion is staggering. If, in fact, what many of us consider to be abstract notions, such as morality, are nothing more than the physical interaction of genes, then objective right and wrong moral values cannot be determined.

Do you see where this leads? If a bear attacks a hiker on a trail, although we lament the tragedy of the event, we do not accuse the bear of moral indiscretion. No, we acknowledge that the bear just did what it does - because of the way its genes are sequenced. Regardless of whether or not the bear acts in manners that mimic human expressions of the abstract, naturalism mandates that such notions are the direct consequence of biology and, as a result, the bear has no objective moral code. Well guess what? If we want to be consistent with our application, then we need to do the same with the human genome. If we are nothing more than particles in motion, then the supposed moral notion "I ought" is reduced to a physical reaction and is no different than any other physical reaction, such as "I have indigestion" (HT: CS Lewis).

Thus, morality, in the world of naturalism, is no different than burping.

For further reference, check these articles by Greg Koukl, at Stand to Reason:
How to know immaterial things exist

What science can't prove

Did morals evolve