mcdanell99's Xanga

The Mising Story: Ida and the Search For Secular Validation

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 14:58:26 GMT

Remember Ida? Ida was the name given to a fossil discovered last May that many eager scientist identified as the missing link. The media was quick to pick up and spread the story. With the discovery of Ida came a book and a host of documentaries all arguing that the missing link had been discovered and Darwin had finally been proven right.

We've been here before. Ever so often a new discover leads to the same claim that the missing link had been discovered and the media is always there to report it. Such a claim and "scientific breakthrough" is always front page news. The cameras begin to role, keyboards begin to type, and the world watches with glee as their ancestors have finally been discovered.

But the story never ends there. The cycle begins with a discovery which is touted as proof of evolution, but is finally debunked as nothing more than a hoax. Ida is no different. Though those who discovered Ida gained their 15 minutes of fame, the truth has been uncovered; Ida is not who the media said she was.

What is most shocking about all of this is the lack of coverage this breakthrough receives every time. Just like the numerous times before the false claims that the missing link had been discovered is either not reported or considered unworthy for the front page. To most who got caught up in the Ida craze, she remains proof of the missing link because they remain ignorant of the truth. Ida is not who the media and many scientist said she was.

It is an appalling formula every time it is tried. Scientist continue to make wild claims about new discovers and the media always reports it before a full investigation is made. They blindly buy into the craze only to be disappointed. And it happens every time. And every time it happens those who gleefully welcomed the discovery are unavailable to report the truth.

But should we really be surprised by this? Every time the missing link is reportedly found the culture goes crazy, and when proven wrong, it gets shoved under the rug. Should we not expect this? Only when we buy into the hoax that the media and its many journalists (not to mention the scientists) are unbiased reporters of the truth, do we find ourselves surprised.

What is at play here is not science, but a worldview. Secularism and the modern science community is built, almost exclusively, on Darwinian evolution. The problem with such a worldview, however, is that evolution has yet to be proven. The incomplte fossil record leads to uncontrolable excitement because such a discovery would cross all of the t's and dot all of the i's of evolution. But to discover that fossils like Ida are not the missing link is a major cloud on one's worldview. Therefore, it gets pushed under the rug.

What the media and the culture craves from these discoveries is not breakthroughs in science, but validation of their worldview. Darwin's theory of evolution is the foundation by which modern secularism stands. Secular, relative morality assumes an evolutionary worldview. If evolution is true, then all morality is relative and determined by the culture. Morality evolves with the rest of the world. The modern movement of sexual ethics and liberation is rooted in a Darwinian theory of evolution. Marriage, family, and sexual identity have no purpose or ethical basis and thus are not morally necessary or even needed. Abortion and biotechnology also become issues of evolution. Why allow the handicap and the unwanted live in a survival of the fittest world? What about religion and belief in God? If evolution is true, then aren't such ideas foolishness?

Evolution shapes ones worldview and always has. Theories of origins have always shaped worldviews. Since Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species and later his Descent of Man, people have realized the implications of the theory. Thus when a new discovery is made promoted as proof of Darwin, secularist and cultural elites alike eagerly welcome the claims as a means to validate their worldview, but when proven false, it is ignored without fanfare and once again the world waits for yet another failed discovery.

Despite the repeated broken hearts of secularists, they continue to wait for their validation. The truth about Ida and all of the previous falsified finds should remind us of the desperation of fallen man. To accept the many holes and improababily of evolution would shatter the worldview of liberation from millions of people. So rather than acknowledge the obvious, many continue to wait for the next press conference in hopes of the validation they seek. Ida is not an example of good science, but hope-filled secularism on its ropes.

The battle over evolution is a battle of worldviews and thus the war will continue to wage. To tear down the walls of evolution would lead to a reshaping of the Western world and a likely return to more theistic roots. Likewise, to abandon a Biblical understanding of creation is to redefine the gospel, robbing the cross of its glory. What is at stake here is more than just scientific investigation, but the future of the Western world. Which will triumph in the end: the gospel of Creation or the gospel of evolution? As yet another discovery gives way to disappointment we are again reminded of the Apostle Paul's words regarding a society that denies the Creator in favor of man-centered myths: "professing to be wise they become fools" (Romans 1:22). And fools we have become; that is, until the next discovery.

For more:

BBC - Primate fossil 'not an ancestor'

New York Times - Fossil Skeleton Known as Ida Is No Ancestor of Humans

World Magazine Blog - Ida not one of u

Must Conservatives Believe in God? The Role of God In Shaping Our Politics

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:06:26 GMT

Is it possible to be both a conservative and an atheist? Does political, economic, moral, and foreign policy conservatism depend on one's view of God? At the popular conservative blog, American Thinker Shane Corsey argues that one can be conservative even without a fundamental belief in God. Corsey is case in point. He makes it clear that he does not believe in God and has serious objections to religion. He goes so far as to suggest that "God and religion do not belong in politics or . . . in the public arena." So is Corsey consistent with his worldview? Can one hold to conservative values like small government, low taxes, healthy families, strong national defense, and free market capitalism without any belief in God?

In a word: no. As Corsey lays out his argument, one is left wondering why Corsey is a conservative in the first place? On what foundation is conservativism based on without a fundamental belief in God? He begins by laying out his basic reason for considering himself a conservative:

One of the reasons I am a proud conservative is because it comes closest to the belief of what our Founding Fathers had in mind for this country, and the values of that system give an equal shake to anyone who wishes to come here. Religion in my opinion is not as forgiving, and can be as big of a divider in this country as race . . .

But one must wonder, then, why follow the beliefs of the Fonding Fathers? On what basis did the Founding Fathers found this nation? Where did their ideas of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness come from? Grant it, there were centuries of political theory and philosophy behind much of the Founder's demand for liberty and a Democratic Republic, but the question remains, where did such fundamental convictions of the Founding Fathers come from?

Though the Founding Fathers stopped short of pushing one particular religion, their belief in the existence and providence of God stood as the foundation for their political thought. Even a cursory read of the founding documents and from the Founding Fathers themselves affirm this conviction. No nation will establish a small government that promotes liberty instead of tyranny if it denies the authority and providence of God as the twenty-first century proved. By rejecting God, government takes the role of the highest authority in the life of the people. Even in atheistic nations the people must follow and submit to someone and when God is denied, government willingly takes His empty seat (and His unlimited authority). This is not a religious statement. The Founders opposed a federal religion but encouraged a national belief in God.

Corsey raises an interesting point regarding the divisiveness of religion. Most religions, including Christianity, regards itself as the one true religion and rightfully so. Why bother with a religion if it offers no assurance? If one can find God anywhere, why bother participating in a particular religion? But we must not forget the serious questions that religion seeks to answer like how can I be made right with God? how can I escape judgment? what is the meaning of life? why am I here? is there a God? what is right and wrong? Even atheism has answers to these questions.

Corsey continues his argument by focusing primarily on the issue of homosexuality. In our world today homosexuality is proof of the divisiveness of religion. He argues:

Religion also leaves many people by the wayside if you don't subscribe to their beliefs. Many gays and lesbians share all the same values as any other American yet they are shunned in most religious circles, because of their sexual preferences. I'm a happily married man and I do not subscribe to their way of doing things, but who am I, or who are you, to judge them? . . . . I also believe that they should be entitled to anything that a married couple should be entitled to, including adoption and getting the other spouse's Social Security benefits after one spouse has passed on.

One can see where the fundamental difference between an atheistic worldview and a theological worldview lie. The issue of morality is itself divisive and the homosexual debate only adds fuel to the fire. From an atheistic worldview, there is no reason to regard homosexuality wrong. Apart from a Divine Lawgiver why condemn two people in love, even if they are of the same sex, just like you and me?

But this raises an important issue regarding morality? Why does Corsey consider homosexuality to be moral yet other sexual preferences immoral? On what basis is he making his conclusions? Corsey goes on to raise the issue of the slippery slope: if homosexuality is permited what about polygamy, polyamory, incest, or even bestiality? Can the same arguments in favor of homosexuality be made for these other lifestyles? And if so, then why deny a polygamists his right to fulfill their own sexual desires.

Corsey allows this to be a possibility, but yet remains firm in conviction that there should be limits to what the State considers sexually lawful. He says that as long as "gays and lesbians follow the same value system as the rest of us, are over the age of 18, are not accosting minors, and they are doing it of their own free will and not being forced into it, then they are not harming anyone, and should not be ridiculed or excluded from society or religion for that matter." But why? On what grounds are his limits to sexuality based on? On what basis can one deny a minor and an adult, regardless of their genders, participate in sexual activity? On what basis can one deny bisexual polygamy between adults and minors? Why must it be consensual? What do you mean by a shared "value system?"

Apart from a fundamental belief in God who acts as a Divine Lawgiver that determines what is right and wrong, moral relativism is inevitable and as culture evolves, so will its morality. Can Corsey say today that if he were still alive 100 years from today he would still affirm this statement? By then not only will homosexuality likely be legal and normal, but so will other sexual lifestyles? On what basis does one draw limits and laws within a society when morality is relative on account of the absence of a holy deity? Such a philosophy is left with the option of simply making moral claims up. Divorce and homosexuality were morally wrong 100 years ago, but today it is not because society has said so and society has drawn such conclusions arbitrary because of its rejection of God.

Corsey goes on to provide more moral and political conclusions based on this weak foundation. He adds that neither sexual education (except maybe in high school, but before that, it should be limited to discussions of the differences in gender only, and only with parents attendance) or prayer should be promoted in schools. Prayer promotes one religion over another and sexual education is abused and encourages students to violate possible moral convictions:

My being against teaching gay sex in school is one of the same reasons school prayer should not be allowed. Sexual preference and religion have no business in our schools, these are subjects that are for home discussion, not school discussion. School is for learning, not for teaching about sex or religion. Religion belongs in one's home or place of worship, not in our schools. In instituting prayer in our schools, we would be forcing the beliefs of one religion onto the ones of another religion, or on those who do not wish it, causing strife. Just like teaching sexual orientation would force a set of unwanted beliefs on others.

Again, on what basis does Corsey make such conclusions? If homosexuality is a shared value among Americans, why not teach it at public schools? If prayer is a shared value among Americans, why not allow it in public schools? Corsey, again, is left determining policy out of a straw hat of his own design. Theism, on the other hand, is not so lucky.

But perhaps the most amazing argument comes in the concluding paragraph. The atheist conservative argues:

In values we can all find common ground, but not so much with religious views - too many differences. Right and wrong have no religion, they are of almost every religion and of none. Don't get me wrong, I think religion does have its place in our society, but that place is a place of our own choosing not religion's choosing. Religion does not choose us, we choose whatever religion we choose to be. But American values and principles reside in the vast majority of all Americans, and can be used to bring all of us closer together regardless of religion, race, or sexual orientation.

"Right and wrong have no religion?" His argument is that one cannot say that the morality of one religion is superior to another religion (including non-religion) because all religions teach basically the same thing. This is simply not true. Already Corsey has shown his moral view regarding sexuality that runs contrary to many other religious beliefs. If God is not needed in conservatism then does that mean that Corsey's moral opinions rooted in his atheistic worldview become the standard that one must adopt in order to be included in the conservative movement? Is Corsey not encouraging his readers to follow him and not their religious beliefs that run contrary to his moral beliefs? Is that not divisive?

Such naivete is folly. America is built on division. Democracy cannot thrive without divisions. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to ensure that democracy will flourish. And that Bill of Rights is built on the assumption that there is a God. The minute persons are told what not to say or the press is told what not to report is the minute democracy dies. Unity is wonderful, but apart from uniformity (which quenches freedom and liberty) it is impossible. There is no such thing as a uniformed democratic, free society.

So must one believe in God in order to be conservative? Regarding some political issues perhaps not. But regarding the issues raised by Corsey, including small government and morality, unless one affirm a belief in the Divine it is hard to imagine how one could consistently be conservative. The atheist conservative sounds more like a atheistic moderate (or even liberal) regarding moral issues than his theistic counterparts and fails to explain why he believes in the small government principles of the Founding Fathers if God does not exist.

As Christians, we must not forget the effect that our theology plays in our politics and our moral outlook. If we are bound by Scripture, then relativism is an unwelcomed guest. So long as America affirms its traditional and founding belief in a providential God who stands as the ultimate judge over our actions, policies, and vote then we will uphold the legacy of our Founding Fathers. But the minute we let go of such a foundation, then all that the Founders stood for will likely crumble before our very eyes.

For More:

Shane Corsey (American Thinker) - God, Conservatism and Values

What's the Difference? Drawing the Line Between Liberals and Conservatives: Politics

What's the Difference? Drawing the Line Between Liberals and Conservatives: Morality

American Gospel

"Common Sense" - Glenn Beck

"Common Sense" - Thomas Paine

The Contrast Are Clear: Obama and Jindal's Proposals

Mohler: When Ecology Replaces Theology

Graham: The Unwavering Love of God

Prophet, Priest, and President: Is Obama Really the Messiah?

The Missing Gene: The Failed Search For the Gay Gene

The Missing Gene and Ray Boltz: The Theistic Argument, Did God Make Him This Way?

D'Souza: Are Atheists Cultural Christians

"Liberal Fascism"

"Ronald Reagan"

"Why Government Won't Save You"

"Is Jesus a Republican or a Democrat?"

"Imagine! A God Blessed America"

"A Conflict of Visions"

"How Would Jesus Vote?: A Christian Perspective on the Issues"

The Transcedence of Greed: What Economics Can Teach Us About the Gospel

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 11:44:48 GMT

Current political events and debates, particularly regarding the economy, has encouraged more divisive barking between liberals and conservatives in America. I was recently listening to a radio show where the host (an economic conservative) was arguing with a caller (an economic liberal) over the issue of taxes, the rich, and the economy. Both were making the same argument that has been repeated over and over again.

The argument runs like this. Liberals who lean towards a more democratic socialistic model believe that rich people are greedy and evil and should be punished. For the sake of the whole nation, their excess should be taken and given to those less fortunate. One common argument given is that capitalists are greedy and government should regulate the market in order to "look out for the little guy." On the other end of the spectrum, conservatives lean towards a more free-market model and believe that everyone is in charge of their own destiny. They charge that liberals and socialists hate and stand in the way of freedom. Government robs ingenuity and liberty. Government is the problem. The smaller the government, the better the economy.

We've all heard these arguments before and there is no need to go into more details. The goal here is not to defend or attack either one. As I was listening to the radio host and the caller go through their talking points, something eye opening hit me: they are both right, but not in the way one might think.

The primary charge raised by the liberal was that conservatives and capitalists are greedy. They are exactly right. Adam Smith, the intellectual founder of capitalism, would agree to this. Smith understood that men were by nature greedy and thus developed his economic theory of capitalism on that doctrine. Both the customer and the businessman are greedy. The entrepreneur wants the customers money. The customer wants the best products for the least amount of money. They both contribute to the other's selfishness thus satisfying the greed of the other.

This is really the beauty of the capitalist system. Anyone who criticises capitalism based on its lust for more money and power miss the point. Of course entrepreneurs want more money, that is why they are in business. They do their advertisement and decorate their businesses for the sole purpose of making more money. So to charge capitalism for being a system of greed is to only state the obvious. It was built and has thrived on it.

But socialist leaning liberals need to be careful; their economic theory is also guilty of greed. Socialism says, "its not fair that I don't have what they have, therefore, what they have should be taken." That's greed. As President Obama told Joe the Plumber on the campaign trail, he wanted to take his wealth and give it to others. That's greed. Capitalism is built on selfishness and socialism is built on theft. Socialism believes that the government should have authority over how ones salary, production, and growth. It will decide if someone makes too much, has too much, or is paying enough in taxes. Whenever the government introduces a new program or runs a program into bankruptcy, instead of making tough decisions, it simply takes (or steals) from the rich and uses class envy as a means of justifying themselves. Many liberals find themselves saying things like, "the rich have more than they need; its not fair that they have so much while everyone else has so little; etc."

Greed permeates both economic theories. Should we really be surprised by this? Whether one is a socialist, a communists, a Marxists, a capitalist, a conservative, a libertarian, or even an anarchists, all are stained with greed. This is precisely what the Christian worldview teaches; all of us are selfish and greedy; all of us want more for less work; all of us want what others have and will stop at no lengths of getting it.

We are all greedy. The problem with these economic systems is not their theories (though both could be rightly criticized), but with human nature. Its not our economy that is sick, we are sick. So long as government and pundits run around trying to fix the exterior (like the economy or health care) nothing will be resolved. What we need is revival, not more or less taxes (taxes themselves are based on greed. I want lower taxes so that I can keep more of my own money, yet at the same time, I think the guy next to me should be taxed more so that I can enjoy his wealth).

Though government plays a vital role in society, more or less government is not the solution nor the debate that should occupy our time. The gospel is the solution. Greed can only be conquered by the cross, not through economic or tax policy. So long as everyone trusts in the decisions and programs (or the lack there-of) of government, the more divided and desperate we will be. But once we become transformed by the gospel, then we can see real change.

Though we might shout and yell at one another over critical issues like the economy, let us not forget the most important issue: the external greed of man will not remedied apart from the internal work of the Spirit. That is one thing both liberals and conservatives have taught us. We are all greedy and we all need the sort of change that cannot be brought about by government, but only by God.

The Lion of the Senate and the Lamb of God: The Pope, the Politcian, and the Plea For Grace

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:17:07 GMT

The death of Senator Edward M. Kennedy marks the end of an era. His death marked the first time in decades that a Kennedy did not occupy the Massachusetts Senate seat. Senator Kennedy was the last of the big three Kennedy brothers. Following the tragic death of former President John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert greatly affected the late Senator. The mantle of the Kennedy name fell upon his shoulders.

Of all of the Kennedy's, Senator Kennedy will likely go down as the one who contributed the most to American history. Serving the public for half a century, Kennedy became known as the "Lion of the Senate" and influenced policy, presidents, and the direction of the country.

Prior to his death, Senator Kennedy, a life-long Catholic, sent a letter to Pope Benedict XVI via President Barack Obama who delivered the letter to the Pope. In the letter Kennedy sought assurance that upon his death the Lion of the Senate would be present with the Lamb of God. Kennedy wrote:

I have been blessed to be part of a wonderful family. And both of my parents, particularly my mother, kept our Catholic faith at the center of our lives. That gift of faith has sustained and nurtured and provided solace to me in the darkest hours. I know that I have been an imperfect human being, but with the help of my faith, I have tried to right my path.

I want you to know, Your Holiness, that in my nearly 50 years of elective office, I have done my best to champion the rights of the poor and open doors of economic opportunity. I have worked to welcome the immigrant, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education. I have opposed the death penalty and fought to end war. Those are the issues that have motivated me and have been the focus of my work as a United States senator.

The late Senator went on to add that he has also fought for health care for everyone in America. He continues to trust that his colleagues in the Senate would continue to fight for "the political cause" of his life and everyone would indeed have equal access to health care.

He concluded:

I have always tried to be a faithful Catholic, Your Holiness, and though I have fallen short through human failings, I have never failed to believe and respect the fundamental teachings of my faith. I continue to pray for God's blessings on you and on our church and would be most thankful for your prayers for me.

Kennedy's plea is understandable. I have been at the bedside of many who were dying and wanted the assurance that God would accept their soul into heaven. Though Kennedy was powerful, he could not overcome the assurance of death and his accountability in the next life. In Kennedy's letter one theme runs through: has he done enough to gain the favor of God Almighty?

In answer to that question Kennedy points to a number of accomplishments and good works in his life (most of them political). He turned to his Catholic faith in moments of great difficulty and tragedy. Throughout his life, he tried to right his path and override his personal failings with good works. He has defended the poor and needy. He open doors to economic justice. He welcomed immigrants without discrimination and fought for the nation to welcome them as equals. He has fought against the death penalty and against unjust wars. Finally, Kennedy has fought vehemently to grant health care for everyone regardless of their socioeconomic status, race, creed, religion, or nationality.

Kennedy certainly fought for a lot of causes in his public career. There are no lies and no stretching the truth in this list of "accomplishments." But what affect did any of it have on his salvation? Will these things be enough to assure his entrance into the Kingdom of God? The truth is, Kennedy was looking for assurance in the wrong place. The Pope's brief reply hints at this:

His Holiness prays that in the days ahead you may be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful father. He invokes upon you the consolation and peace promised by the risen savior to all who share in his sufferings and trust in his promise of eternal life.

The Pope's language is interesting. He never gives Kennedy the assurance he craves, but rather pleads for him to "be sustained in faith and hope, and granted the precious grace of joyful surrender to the will of God, our merciful father." The Pope calls on the Senator to surrender himself to the merciful will of God in faith and with hope trusting in His precious grace. What Kennedy wants most the Pope does not grant.

Kennedy was trusted his politics, while the Pope pointed to God's grace. Kennedy foolishly bought into the notion that somehow our good can outweigh our bad even though all that we do is tainted with sin. Even our good works are polluted. Do we really expect God to accept polluted righteousness?

The folly of Kennedy is a lesson that we all need to learn. Not only are we to embrace the message of the cross, which says we are all sinners separated by God and yet can be reunited with Him by full submission and repentance, but we also ought to avoid the folly of equating our politics with the gospel. At the end of the day, Kennedy had no other source of assurance than his politics. In his letter to the Pope he says nothing about the cross, about Christ, or the Resurrection, nor does he mention repentance or reflect a more Biblical understanding of sin. Kennedy just had his politics.

Sadly, many in America are falling for the same folly. When reflecting on what assurance we have of heaven after death we give a long list of good works; we never got divorced, our children turned out good, and I always voted for the right candidate. Sadly, we put more trust in our many good works than in Christ's one good work. Politicians and citizens alike believe that if only they support the right causes, donate to the right charities, or practice the right morality God will take notice and overlook their fallen nature.

Kennedy's plea for salvation should humble us all. If even the Pope would not give him the assurance he desperately craved, how much more us? Very few who will read these words will have the political resume of the late Senator and yet we all foolishly believe that somehow we are still on God's good side. If this lion feared meeting the Lamb, how much more ought we fear? Kennedy was no perfect politician and seemed to always be involved in some state of controversy, but at the end of his life, he was being humbled before the Lord he was about to meet.

But if we learn anything, let us learn that politics is no source of hope. Politics and government has its role and Christians are called to submit to their political leaders, but even the greatest and most powerful politicians are no match and can pass no legislation that would grant them what we all crave: assurance of salvation when this life gives way to the next. Kennedy fought as hard as anyone else in pleasing his God, but apart from repentance and submission to the Savior who died in our place, no politician, politics, or policy can redeem anyone and grant the hope of ever hearing, "Well done, good and faithful servant. Enter the joy of your Master."

Christians must not fall for the folly that politics can replace theology. Kennedy's letter should remind us that at the end of the day, God is greater than any politician. Therefore, let us be about the business of the gospel, and not so commonly distracted with the business of government.

Luther: Right Doctrine and Righteous Living Go Hand-in-Hand - A Message the Church Needs to Recover

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:14:55 GMT

I am currently taking a class on Martin Luther and have been blessed in studying his life, teachings, and theology. Recently, I came across a few quotes worth considering:

"Bad doctrine is a thousand times more harmful than a bad life."

"Where doctrine is not right, it is impossible for life to be right and good: for life must be prepared by doctrine and must follow it."

These two quotes are taken from Documents From the History of Lutheranism: 1517-1750, edited by Eric Lund, pg. 216. This is classic Luther who stood between hundreds of years of Catholic theology which had corrupted the gospel. When Luther looked at the immorality of the Church during his day, what he saw wasn't just unrighteous living, but unrighteousness.

Luther understood that the answer to the Church's problems wasn't more morality, but an undiluted gospel. These words of Luther need to be heard and understood. Today, most Christians are callas regarding theology. We hate division and seek to get around debate. We all too often find issues of theology not worth our time. As Luther saw in his day and as we see in ours, our bad theology shows.

Due to our horrendous and lackadaisical attitude towards theology, the Church is corroding. Our divorce race is at its highest, most people refuse to wait before marriage to have sex, denominations are confused about what the Bible says about issues like homosexuality and the definition of marriage, we rationalize relativism, and we follow the trail of the culture. What we need is a revival. What we need is the sort of reformation that Luther launched; one not built on more morality, but on the gospel.

The Church has a responsibility an is to be the beacon of God. If people want to know who God is, what He expects, what went wrong, and where our hope lies, it will be found in the Church and the Church is built on the gospel of Jesus Christ. But how will people find God and know Him whenever the Light of the World and the Salt of the Earth is shaded by the debrey of postmodernity and laziness and has lost its flavor to laziness and relativism?

What we need is a return to right theology. What we need is to uncover, once again, the pure gospel as revealed in Scripture. That is where the power of the Spirit lies: the gospel. If we really want to change the world, it won't be through politicians and trying harder and doing better next time, it will be whenever Christians return to the cross and right doctrine and allow the Spirit to change us through the power of the cross and the empty tomb.

Mephibosheth and the Sanctity of the Disable: God's Glory In the Face of Deformity

Thu, 08 Oct 2009 03:28:56 GMT

From my Pastor's Blog:

This upcoming Sunday, we will be looking at the fifth Fruit of the Spirit: Kindness. We will be looking at 2 Samuel 9 which gives us the account of how David showed kindness toward Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan and grandson of Saul (David's enemy). The fact that David would do this is quit astonishing. Typically, in ancient times (and somewhat today. When there's a new President, he rarely keeps anyone from the previous administration), whenever a new dynasty would take the thrown, anyone perceived to be a threat to the new king's throne or anyone who might be considered an heir to the previous king's throne would be immediately killed, exhiled, enslaved, or imprisoned.

But David did the complete opposite. Saul, the king, was dead. His likely heir, Jonathan (David's closest friend) was also dead. Upon taking the throne, rather than killing all potential threats and challengers, David goes out of his way to show kindness to someone who should be his enemy.

But there is another aspect of this story that we can't miss. Mephibosheth (try saying that 10 times fast) is handicap. 2 Samuel 4:4 tells us why. He was essentially dropped by his nurse after his father (Jonathan) and grandfather (King Saul) died in battle. His nurse feared that they would be coming for him and so fled. She then tripped and dropped him leaving him lame. Since the crowning of David, lame Mephibosheth lived in Lo-Debar (which might mean "No Pasture"). Lame, without any family, and lost of his prestige as the grandson of the king, Mephibosheth had to assume that his life would be worthless. He had lost everything he had and was born with.

To be handicap like this was no small issue in ancient times. There was no disability check coming. Oftentimes, family members would require their handicap relative to beg for money (usually at the Temple where people are feeling most generous; see Acts 3) in order to contribute to the family funds.

Furthermore, the disabled were rather outcasts in society. If a Levite was disabled, they were not allowed to go into the Temple or near the altar. Leviticus 21:16-23 reads:

And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles. No man of the offspring of Aaron the priest who has a blemish shall come near to offer the LORD’s food offerings; since he has a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God.

In other words, one born to be a priest and yet handicap, would not be able to fulfill their role as a priest. And so the hopelessness of the disabled continued for centuries.

But this story does make one incredibly important point: God has a purpose and has revealed his grace even to the outcast and disabled. The story of Mephibosheth is one of kindness, grace, mercy, and love. Mephibosheth becomes a metaphor of us. We are all like Mephibosheth who, as a result of our sin, are seperated, disabled, and helpless before God. We deserve nothing but death and hell. And yet God showed His great love, mercy, kindness, and grace towards us by not giving us what we deserve, but in giving us what we don't deserve: salvation.

Furthermore, Mephibosheth is an example that even those handicap and disabled are beyond God's reach and purpose. The ancients would oftentimes leave disabled babies for dead in the wilderness because they considered them unworthy (such as the Spartans). Both Plato and Aristotle favored infanticide and believed that the State should have a greater role in deciding who should live and who shouldn't.

But the Judeo-Christian worldview is quit different. All life is sacred and not beyond the grace and purpose of God. Even the most handicap reveal God's goodness and grace. Yes, even though disability reminds us of the affects of the fall, God shows his grace even though deformaty and pain.

Recall the healing of the man born blind in John 9. The text begins by showing us that even this blind beggar has a purpose in God's eyes:

As he passed by, he saw a man blind from birth. And his disciples asked him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of him who sent me while it is day; night is coming, when no one can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world." -John 9:1-5

Did you notice that? The reason this man was born blind was so that God might be glorified. All life is sacred not because we say it is, but because God's glory is revealed in all of life. The fact that even the worst of deformities can still bring God glory is a constant reminder that God is still on His throne and is still good.

In a culture that is exterminating those with Down Syndrome, we need to hear this message. Yes, God even has a plan, purpose, and is glorified greatly even in the disability of Down Syndrome. A secular culture that has replaced God with Darwin misses this. Life becomes an issue of economics and "happiness." If the handicap are a burden on the parents or society, it would be best if they didn't exist at all. After all, resources are limited.

That's what I love about this story. Without Mephibosheth's handicap, we would never had such a wonderful picture of God's grace, mercy, love, and kindness toward us and the call to mimic God's goodness by being good towards others, and we would miss the fact that even in a fallen world that results in producing horrific and unfortunate disabilities and handicaps, God has not removed Himself from us. Beauty can be found in the midst of deformaty and disability to the glory of God.

Let us not forget this important lesson. Isn't it wonderful that even in the face of depravity and the consequences of our sin, God's glory is revealed. The light really can outshine the darkness. And beauty really can outshine the deformity.

For more:
Get Religion: The patriotic duty to die
Colson: The March of Death
Hitler Is Alive And Well: Repeating the Mistakes of the Past
Colson: Deadly Trend
The Lust For Blood: The Culture of Death and Infanticide
"Freedom is Dead, And We are It's Murderers" - Nietzsche Was Almost Right
Colson: What Would Darwin Advise?
A Return to Rome: When Death Becomes Entertainment
Another Terry Schiavo Condemned to Death
Mohler: The Death Culture Strikes Again
Albert Mohler - The Death Culture Strikes Again
Mohler: A Threat to the Disabled . . . and to Us All
Mohler: The Rise of Infanticide?
Colson: Thirty Pints of Blood Where the Logic of The Culture of Death Will Take Us
Euthanasia: A Good Death?
Albert Mohler: That Was Then . . . This is Now? A Nazi Nightmare

Bell and the Meaning of Evangelical

Fri, 02 Oct 2009 00:19:20 GMT

Pastor, author, and Emergent celerbtiy Rob Bell was recently interviewed regarding the meaning of Evangelical. The published interview is telling of the theology of Bell. Regarding what he means by "Evangelical," Bell said:

I take issue with the word to a certain degree, so I make a distinction between a capital E and a small e. I was in the Caribbean in 2004, watching the election returns with a group of friends, and when Fox News, in a state of delirious joy, announced that evangelicals had helped sway the election, I realized this word has really been hijacked. I find the word troubling, because it has come in America to mean politically to the right, almost, at times, anti-intellectual. For many, the word has nothing to do with a spiritual context.

Bell makes the connection between Evangelicalism and the religious right. Bell and others in the Emergent Church are reacting against the religious right. They accuse Christians of being too political. To remedy this abuse, Emergents themselves become too political, only on the other end of the spectrum.

Bell may have a point that the word "Evangelical" is too often connected with politics and mostly the Republican party. But what is most important in his answer is the absense of the gospel. Yes Evangelicals may oftentimes align themselves, wrongly, with the Republican party all too often, but Evangelicals are also known for what they believe about the Bible, about Christ, the resurrection, and salvation. Bell says nothing regarding the issue, and as we will see, he rarely mentions the gospel.

But if Bell draws a distinction between Evangelicals and evangelicals, it seems that he aligns himself on the more evangelical side. But what does he mean by the term? Though Bell has criticized Michael Paulson, who interviewed Bell, of not posting much of the interview he did, but was very selective in what he published. So what does Bell mean by the word evangelical? Outside of the distinction between political loyalty, what else does the word evangelical, in his assessment, entail? Bell answers:

I embrace the term evangelical, if by that we mean a belief that we together can actually work for change in the world, caring for the environment, extending to the poor generosity and kindness, a hopeful outlook. That’s a beautiful sort of thing.

This is what he means by evangelical? I must say that I am disappointed . . . but not surprised. Here, it seems, is Bell 's understanding, not of just the word evangelical, but of the gospel. Enter the social gospel. Thanks to the postmodern bondage of the Emergent Church and its many leaders like Rob Bell, the Emergent Church has become nothing more than a postmodern version of Walter Rauschenbusch's Social Gospel where it is all social and no gospel.

By stripping the cross of God's justice, overemphasizing God's love at the cost of God's righteousness, and in their attempt to be embraced by the culture, Emergents are left with nothing but a social movement where the goal is to save the planet and help the poor. Environmentalism and serving the poor are great things and Christians should be committed to those causes, but to ignore or to even trample on the gospel is nothing short of apalling. Is this really the best Bell can do?

But Bell's last answer is perhaps most frightening. Bell was asked "I’m struck by the fact that I don’t hear a lot of explicitly religious language, or mentions of Jesus, from you." He answered:

I think we have enough religious people who are going around trying to convert people. My guard is up when somebody is trying to convert me to their thing. Are you talking to me because you actually are interested in this subject, because you care about me as a human, or am I one more possible conversion that will make you feel good about your religiosity? I don’t have any embarrassment about my religion, and it’s not that I’m too cool, but I would hope that the Jesus message would come through, hopefully through a full humanity.

And calling people to repent isn't caring about them as humans? The Great Commission is not for the purpose of putting spiritual notches on one's belt, but to bring glory to God. Paul makes this point in 1 Corinthians:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. -1 Corinthians 1:17

He goes on to add:

And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. -1 Corinthians 2:1-5

To Paul, calling on men to repent, fulfilling the Great Commission, planting churches, and reaching the lost world was not about feeling good about his religiosity, but about bring Christ glory by bringing what was lost to repentance; by making the fool wise and by changing the world, not through environmentalism but through reconciliation between fallen man and holy God.

In Luke 15, Jesus tells three parables that have one overarching theme: whenever one sinner repents, God, and the angels with him, rejoices. Repentance of the sinner is about the joy of God. Slaves of Christ seek the joy of their Master, not of themselves. To convert the lost for one's own personal pride runs contrary of the gospel. Sinners repent through the work of the Spirit, not through the wisdom of the wise, but through the foolishness of the cross. And it is all done for the glory of God.

What concerns me most about Bell, at the end of the day, isn't his approach to ministry, but his understanding of the gospel. It is one thing to be considered one of the coolest pastors that young people flock too, it is another thing to abuse such opportunities. Rob Bell undercuts the gospel in favor of a more user-friendly, inclusive, false-gospel. Bell may have the approval of the world, but he does not enjoy the approval of God.

So what is an Evangelical/evangelical? Not politics. Not the social gospel. Not a conversation. But the gospel: Jesus Christ, Him crucified and resurrected. A pure Church is known by that message. Everything else is a distraction that robs God of His glory and is unacceptable in His eyes.

Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, -1 Corinthians 15:1-4

For More:
Boston Globe - Bell aims to restore true meaning of ‘evangelical’
Boston Globe - Rob Bell on faith, suffering, and Christians
Rob Bell Twitter - Ever done an interview and then read it and realized they left out most of what you said? Maddening.
Rob Bell Twitter - A bit of history: the word evangelical comes from the Roman Empire propaganda machine- it was an announcement proclaiming Caesar is Lord...
Out of Ur - Rob Bell Defines "Evangelical"
The Emergent Gospel In 140 Characters or Less
Emerging Church Thesis Available Online
A Theological Critique of Rob Bell's "She" Video
The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Charity
The Wrongs of the Rights: A Response to the 5 Rights Presented By Emergent Village - Conversation

The Anti-Choice Sinner & the Abortionist Saint: One a Martyr, the Other a Nuisance

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:57:23 GMT

There is a double standard in our culture and it is no more apparent than in the tragic deaths of two men who had differing views on abortion. The first murdered victim was George Tiller, a late-term abortionist doctor who was killed while at a church in Kansas. Tiller's death received wide press coverage throughout the nation. At the time, virtually every news orgainzation carried the story. Both pro-life and pro-choice proponents universally condemned the killing as beneath their cause. Pro-lifers understood that any form of murder is inconsistent with a pro-life worldview

The media spin was rather unfortunate. It seemed that the media used the opportunity to demean pro-life proponents. Tiller's murderer was painted as the typical pro-lifer who was radical and bent toward violence. Religious zealots and violent extremists even though pro-life advocates universally condemned the murder.

On the other hand, the murder of pro-life advocate and protestor Jim Pouillon has received less press. The motive for the murder was based on Pouillon views and persistent protesting against abortion. What is most tragic about this case is that unlike the Tiller murder, Pouillon has received very little media converage outside of pro-life websites. The silence is defeaning.

I have been stratching my head at this. How is this not a story worth reporting equally as much as the Tiller tragedy? Here is an opportunity for Americans to be united under the right to free speech and protest apart from violence. We can differ and debate without the need of violence. Instead, we get loud laments for Tiller and silence for Pouillon. The murder of the late-term abortionist doctor was universally condemned by all and yet the murder of the abortionists protestor goes virtually unreported.

But upon further thought, should we really be surprised. A culture obsessed with death and the shedding of the blood of our little ones see in Tiller a saint who died for the cause of liberation and sexual freedom. Feminists unite. Pouillon, on the other hand, seems to be, quit frankly, unworthy of our culture's attention. He is, in fact, the enemy. With the demonization of pro-lifers in our culture, no wonder no one noticed the apalling murder of "one of them."

While Tiller was canonized by the press and the broader culture, Pouillon has been characterized as a right-wing radical. Those who have reported on his death point out where and how he would protest against the murder of the unborn such as outside of schools. A few headlines, for example, include: "Homicide victim James Pouillon had extensive background of civil violations, many related to anti-abortion protests," and "Former co-worker describes dead anti-abortion activist, killed Friday morning in front of Owosso High School, as radical and committed."

Should we really be surprised by all of this? With a culture whose hands are stained with blood, what is one more innocent life; especially one who vehemetly opposed and fought against the first and foremost sacrament of Church of Western Secularism. Why care about the murder of an innocent man whenever we, defend, and promote celebrate the decapitation of an entire generation without a sigh. Just another day in America.

"Your Not Bankrobbers. Your Wealth Distrubutors"

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:45:11 GMT

I love looking at good political cartoons, and I World Magazine has some of the best. Here is just one of them.

Taken from World Magazine.

Which Translations Are Best?: A Helpful Chart

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:14:41 GMT

From my pastors blog:

We have spent some time here and there discussing the issue of translations. Which one's are best? Why are there so many? Etc. The following is a helpful chart that helps explain some of the issues raised with the various translations. It is broken up into three categories: Word-for-Word, Thought-for-Thought, and Paraphrase.

Word-for-Word translations begin with the original languages (Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament) and seek to give a word-for-word translation of the text. Therefore, the Hebrew/Greek word son is translated son, and so forth. There are a lot of advantages of this. One, the attempt of the translators is to present the Biblical text as-is without any interpretation on the part of the editors and translators. The main problem with this is oftentimes readability. There is a huge cultural gap between the ancient near east during Moses day and our day. Also, issues like translating monetary words like denarii are lost in today's culture.

Thought-for-Thought translations look at the original language and try to word it in the way that is more readable and understandable to the reader while trying to grasp the meaning of the text. This means that if one looked at the original languages and then compared it to a Thought-for-Thought translation, they will not be very similar. However, upon closer review, the two will essentially be saying the same thing. The advantage of this approach is readability. It avoids some of the odd language in Word-for-Word translations. The problem, however, is that it only gives the idea of the text, not the actual text.

Finally, Paraphrases are simply paraphrases of the text. The editors do not seek to capture the actual wording of the original or even the main thrust of the passage. Rather is is a much easy read that seeks to give the reader the basic point of the passage. The advantage of these is the simplicity of the readability. The problem, however, is how drastically different they oftentimes are from the original language which threatens to loose the original message of the text.

My preference is Word-for-Word. I want to know what the text actually says, not what the translators think it says. I am not saying that the others are useless and bad (although I am not a fan of paraphrases), but that Word-for-Word translations best represent the text as God wrote it.

Here is the chart:

The chart above, and I think their right, considers the New American Standard (NASB) to be the most accurate translation. It is my favorite translation for that purpose. On Sunday mornings, I used the New King James Version (NKJV) not because it is my favorite, though it is a good one, but because the King James Version (KJV) is so prevalent and common in the Bible belt. The NKJV is similar to the KJV minus the thees and thous.

What translation do you use and why?

For More:

Defending, Contending - Bible translation comparison chart.

Translations and the Subjugation of Women: Emergents Make a Stretch

Zondervan - Biblica Announces First Update in Quarter Century of the World’s Most Popular Bible

Baptist Press - NIV to be revised in 2011; TNIV to be discontinued

"On the Seventh Day the Lord chillaxed" - Conan on the NIV Translation

King James Only?

John MacArthur and the Authority of Scripture

Sola Emergent: The Emerging Church and Revelation - Part 1

Sola Emergent: The Emerging Church and Revelation - Scripture is Reaction Part 2

The Bible in One Minute or Less

"The Blue Parakeet"

"God's Secretaries"

Mohler on the Archaeological Study Bible

"3:16: The Numbers of Hope"