TALITHA, KOUM!

On "Déjà Jew"

2012-01-20T12:25:00.006-06:00

Wednesday, The Jerusalem Post published this article on the resurging Anti-Semitism in some European countries, particularly in France and Belgium. It cites instances of some Jews masquerading as Muslims in order to escape violence and persecution from Muslims. As if that weren't troubling enough by itself, the author unfolds an eerie backdrop behind these invidual situations reminiscent of the institutionalized persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany (or, Nazi-Europe as the case became) leading up to the Holocaust.

After WWII, the Western world just about swore that a Jewish Holocaust would never happen again. Indeed, civic organizations were built on the motto "Never Again" to protect all future generations of Jewish people from suffering the kind of Anti-Semitism that led to the Holocaust. Unfortunately, in some significant ways it apears that their aims are not being met. In various countries in Europe today, a similar lead-up to the outright persecution of Jews is happening in places with growing Muslim (not Aryan) populations. The hate is the same; the rhetoric is the same; the excuses are the same; the supposed cause is still socio-political.

This is the 21st century. Ignorance of this kind was supposed to be educated out of the masses through mandatory government schooling and national legislation. This great failure of the State is only matched by the failure of morals, ethics, and a consistent belief in the humility found in our human createdness under God. Ye olde libertine maxim that government cannot legislate morality is only correct when you realize that what legislation cannot change is a person's immorality. Legislation changes only the occassions in which one exhibits it.

I know my Muslim friends may accuse me of fingerpointing that the chief persecutors today of Jews worldwide are Muslims, but I should hope that people would look at the problem itself, not at the finger. Europe burns occassionally from these ethno-religious conflicts that we have come to view at the least as uncivilized. The underlying reality is that Europe is burning invisibly everyday. Our American society must say much more than that such behavior is simply uncivilized. It must say that persecution and violent persecution are objective, irrefutable wrongs. Until we purge our collective minds of this insidious moral relativism that shackles our consciences, we will never be free to "Love your neighbor as yourself," much less "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind." (Matt. 22:37)

(HT: David Wood on Answering Muslims for sharing this article.)

Facts about Mormons, not Mormonism

2012-01-17T14:50:00.007-06:00

It’s true what they say about journalists being unable to write accurately about matters of science or religion. This morning, Yahoo! News published an article titled “Will America Get It’s First Mormon President? Five Facts About Mormons.” I’ll just dive right in and tell you what it says, and more importantly, what it doesn’t say.

1. The founder, Joseph Smith, was murdered.

True, he was, but leaving out the details makes it sound like he was a martyr for his beliefs. Smith was so not a martyr, for he was killed in a gun fight while in jail for vandalizing and destroying a newspaper press that was publishing articles critical of him.

2. The Book of Mormon and the Bible are important.

This makes it seem as if both books are placed on equal footing. However, Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book on earth,” while the Bible has many “plain and precious things” removed from it (according to the Book of Mormon) and only believable “as far as it is translated correctly.” What is important for Mormonism has been to downgrade the moral and spiritual authority of the Bible and to replace it with the Book of Mormon. The Mormon can say with a straight face that the Bible is important, for without it, Mormonism has no basis for claiming that it is the religion that “restores” the true practices of Jesus and the Apostles. In everyday reality, however, the Bible is maligned far more than it is admired in the LDS church.

3. Marriage is forever.

In the article, it says “Marriage is between a man and a woman and should be forever.“ If only it told the truth that in “forever,” marriage is between a man and his women.” Aside from the real fact that Jesus taught that there is no marriage in the age to come, Joseph Smith’s sacred teaching that polygamy is the way of (and the way to) eternal life is still affirmed by their other scriptures in the hereafter (Doctrine & Covenants, Sec. 132).

4. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

Really? The author could not come up with a full five facts about Mormons, so she throws in the choir as a “fact?”

5. Fasting.

Now it seems the author has run out of things to write, because neither “The Mormon Tabernacle Choir” nor “Fasting” are even statements. Many Mormons do fast as directed by the LDS church as a religious duty. Failing to participate in all the religious duties as outlined in the directives of the Word of Wisdom is unworthiness to receive further advancement (read: eternal life) within the Temple system of Mormonism.

The real story here is that this so-called list aptly points out facts about Mormons but does nothing to enlighten us about Mormonism (what the LDS church really teaches). I think Mormons would be relieved at this weak and trivial representation of what they believe, because it camouflages Mormonism as an innocuous religion that needs no critical evaluation. That is, of course, helpful in diverting attention away from the LDS church when a Mormon is running for President.

Does the LDS church have any legitimacy from the Bible?

2011-12-13T20:49:00.002-06:00

What is "this rock" that Jesus will build His Church on?

One of the main Mormon claims to divine authority is in interpreting Matthew 16:13-18 to refer to their concept of "continuing revelation." By basing the organization of the LDS church on "continuing revelation," as "the rock" on which Jesus builds His church, the LDS church claims legitimacy for its founder Joseph Smith and the entire line of its prophets "continuing" through today. It is widely known that Mormon leaders routinely misread, mangle, and misapply the Bible in order to fabricate legitimacy for Mormonism, so how has this been done to Matt. 16:13-18?

"13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

According to Mormon teaching, "the rock", or foundation, of Jesus' Church is the act of God revealing new information or new revelation to Peter. It infers, therefore, that it is the act of new revelation or continuing revelation that is to be the basis on which Jesus builds His Church. The Mormon Church, as Joseph Smith claimed, is that church that receives God's continuing revelation through the Mormon prophets.

Even if true, this is a curious position for the LDS church to adopt. The concept of "continuing revelation" is believed on the basis of necessary change. The idea that God can give "new" revelation has weak limitations in Mormonism, forcing most Mormons to contradict either themselves or the doctrine itself whenever called on to explain it. On the one hand, the LDS church's main proposition is that it is a 'restoration' of the lost faith in God, yet on the other hand, it accepts that beliefs can and do change based on the next revelation from God. If the former is true, then "continuing revelation" is a danger to the very nature of Mormonism, for it would suppose that the restoration is complete and there would be no need for "continuing revelations." If the latter is true, then Mormonism should not need any validation from the Bible; it does not need to 'restore' anything but only live out what is "new," which is a door flung open to any and all possibilities, even ones that contradict former revelations and all in the name of necessity (God does, because God must). This has forced Mormons to place weak limitations on just how far a theoretical new revelation can lead them, but of course, there is no such limitation within Mormon doctrines or the Four Standard Works themselves. The late Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson himself headed off this question of consistency by discouraging Mormons from comparing the words of previous prophets to any current one. “Beware of those who would pit the dead prophets against the living prophets," he said. Indeed, Mormon Prophet Harold B. Lee said, "Sometimes we get the notion that if it is written in a book, it makes it more true than if it is spoken in the last General Conference. Just because it is written in a book does not make it more of an authority to guide us. President Taylor goes on with this same idea and explains why the scriptures of the past are not sufficient for us today." [emphasis mine]

But I digress. Back to the topic, which is the Bible passage from which the LDS church draws its legitimacy and divine authority, unnecessary as that is by its own standards. Does it exegete the passage correctly?

The "rock" which Jesus calls Peter is masculine (petros), but the "rock" that Jesus says He will build His church on is feminine (petra). Looking at the syntax, "revealed" is a verb and cannot be 'petra', so neither can be the concept of "continuing revelation" which is further removed from the context of the passage. The one question that is almost never asked of this passage is "What is the subject matter?" 'Petra' can only point to the next closest idea, the subject, which in this case is Peter's confession that "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jesus' Church, therefore, is built on the divine identity of Jesus Christ, which leads necessarily to the believer's confession of His divinity. What Jesus is + our confession of Him = the foundation of the Church, which will continue to build and defeat evil to the point that not even the gates of Hell will be able to hold the Church back.

If the identity and confession of Jesus Christ as the divine Son of God is the foundation of His Church, then no religious body, sect, or denomination can claim to be the "One True Church" anywhere on earth. Jesus did not build and is not building His Church on the outer trappings of religious practices or principles, of names or lineages. The Church is built on Himself and is made of the people (the 'petros'-es) who believe on Him. As it is, all institutions with bylaws, constitutions, hierarchies, and religious rituals are NOT the Church, even as those who are in them ARE the Church. Those who believe and follow Jesus are not simply 'in the Church,' they are the Church as temples of the Holy Spirit.

The confession of Peter can only be made in earnest at God the Father's revelation into the heart of the individual, as Jesus said. For Mormons, this confession is not the foundation to faith and church, as the Mormon prophets have so clearly declared. I should hope that every Mormon who places that high value in sincerety looks at Peter's confession and the confession of all Christians throughout the history of the Church wonders why the Mormon prophets substitute themselves over "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" for the foundation of Jesus' Church.

9-11 Blogroll

2011-09-11T19:14:00.002-05:00

Christian bloggers unite!
We have, and on this 10th anniversary of the worst Islamic terrorist attack on the United States, we have collaborated on writing a collection of blogs in remembrance and response to 9-11. Please welcome the Apologetics Bloggers Alliance blogroll with a drumroll:

"Divine Commands Post 9/11" (MandM)
"The Problem of Evil: Whose problem is it? Is it a problem?" (Tilled Soil)
"The Need for Moral Choices and Consequences" (Possible Worlds)
"Ground Zero: Why truth matters in preventing another 9/11-style attack" (Wintery Knight)
"My 9/11 Memorial: Christianity Offers Authentic Hope In The Face Of Suffering" (Bringing Back the Tao)
Remembering 9-11: Which revelation is true? The need for evaluating religious claims" (Eric Chabot, Ratio Christi - Ohio State University)
"If God, Why Evil?" (In Defense of the Christian Faith)
"Unsung Lessons from 9/11: 'Moral Monsters' & Fear of Death" (Clay Jones)
"9/11 and Religious Pluralism" (Another Ascending Lark)
"The Tiptoes of Tolerance" (Valley Girl Apologist)
"9-11" (Deeper Waters)
"Do all roads (and flights) lead to God?" (Sarcastic Xtian)
"On September 11, 2001, harmless things became fearful" (J.W. Wartick - "Always Have a Reason")
"Remembering 9/11: A Young Californian's Perspective" (Take Two Blog)
"The Two Ground Zeros" (Reasons for God)
"Suffering and the Cross of Christ" (Hieropraxis)
"America after 9 11: Is Religion Evil?" (Apologetics Guy)
"Resources on the Problem of Evil" (Apologetics 315)
"Atheism, Evil, and Ultimate Justice" (Faithful Thinkers)
"9/11: 'Full Cognitive Meltdown" and its Fallout" (Thinking Christian)
"Where was God on 9/11?" (Cold and Lonely Truth)
"The Three Faces of Evil and A Christian Response" (The Real Issue)
"Christianity and 9/11: Guilt by Association?" (Tom Gilson, The POINT)
"Did God Allow the Attacks on 9/11 for a 'Greater Good?'" (The Gospel According to Erik)
"Where was God on 9-11?" (Neil Mammen's Blog)
"From Ground Zero to Ten Years Later--September 11, 2001" (Sententia)
"9-11 Remembered" (Answering Muslims)

and of course, there's mine too: "9-11, Jihad, and the Christian" (Talitha, Koum!)

**Many, many thanks to the idea guys behind this collaboration, especially Greg West of The Poached Egg. Without him, getting all these individual links would have been hard!) :-) **

9-11, Jihad, and The Christian

2011-09-11T02:32:00.001-05:00

The history behind 9-11 contains a long series of events that theoretically stretch back to the time of Muhammed. The shorter explanation for 9-11 points to Islamic jihad (holy war) against the United States and the West. There is a jihad, because of Shari’a (Islamic Law). There is Shari’a, because it is the Islamic way of life as proscribed in the Qu’ran. Every Muslim who takes the Qu’ran seriously will live out Shari’a and promote Shari’a, which broadly outlines a policy of dominance and hostility toward regimes and religions that contradict Islam…which is just about everybody non-Muslim.

Both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama have declared that America is not at war with Islam. I agree to the extent that America did not seek a war with a religion; the wars that the U.S. is engaged in are considered wars to dismantle terrorist control over countries like Afghanistan and Iraq. However, those Muslims the American military is fighting have declared war against the U.S. and also against the religion that broadly characterizes this country, Christianity. Islam is openly hostile toward the fundamental doctrine of the Christian God, namely that Jesus Christ is God the Son, the second Person of the Trinity. The Qu’ran states that Christians (and Jews and Pagans) are targets of war and subjugation until only Islam is observed*. Islam makes violent jihad an option for Muslims, either to destroy or convert their enemies to Islam under duress.

9-11 reminds us that as believers, apologetics matters. The tyranny of a religion that teaches a false god and a false worldview, which is enforced by directives to violence begs for Christians to combat its inhumanity in both word and deed. Christians must take a special interest in the teachings of Islam and how they readily promote bloodshed and hostility instead of God’s grace and freedom. Of course, most of the world’s Muslims do not live out those Qu’ranic directives to wage violent jihad, but it is not Muslims with whom we should dispute. It is the existence of the teachings that violent jihad is permissible and virtuous in Islam that I find so contrary to the Bible’s witness to objective moral values.

The solution to Islamic jihad against Christianity is for Christians to wage a holy war of our own, one that is also proscribed by the words of Jesus Christ. In opposition to the jihad we see today, Christ told His worshippers to spread the Gospel, the “Good News,” as messengers of the cross and the Resurrection. “Go, therefore” in Matthew 28 is more properly viewed “As you go, therefore,” signifying that the Gospel is spread not only through words but a life lived reflecting the goodness of God. Christ said to “…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust" (Matthew 5:43-45). As Christians, our greatest apologetic for the truth of the Gospel is showing the intrinsic value in which Christ has placed on every human being, and that part of being human is respecting the role God has to play in another’s decisions, either to believe or to deny Jesus Christ. Holy war for us is fought on our knees in prayer and by proclaiming without shame the objective truth of God’s victory over sin and death in Jesus.

It is possible that God has ordained for every generation a stark reminder of the presence of evil in this world swimming in sin. The “day that will live in infamy,” for the WWII generation was December 7, 1941. For us today, that day is September 11, 2001. May the remembrance of the infamy of 9-11 drive us to “Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand” (Ephesians 6:11-13).

*Source: Qu’ran, Suras 8:39, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 9:73, 9:123, 48:29, 66:9

The Future of Debating for William Lane Craig

2011-08-29T09:31:00.006-05:00

Like a rock band touring the UK, Dr. William Lane Craig is trying to fill his calendar with concerts of head-pounding apologetics to audiences in London, Birmingham, Oxford, Cambridge, and Manchester. According to the official Reasonable Faith press release, the trouble is, he is having difficulty finding fresh new atheists to challenge his belief in theism and Christianity. Given Richard Dawkins' and A.C. Grayling's continual refusal to debate, the president of the British Humanist Society, Polly Toynbee, at first volunteered to meet Craig in a head-to-head, but then withdrew herself from the debate, citing something about a debate with Craig not being her cup of tea*. Craig is still debating two other atheists, however, Drs. Peter Atkins and Peter McMillan.

With 25 years of experience, he has pretty much debated every atheist in academia that cares to make an issue out of theism and Christianity. The last two recent debates this year put to shame two of atheism's top celebrities, Lawrence Krauss and Sam Harris, each giving Craig a win by disengaging from the debates' topic and failing to rebut during the time for rebuttals. I doubt either would like to try again. Atkins will be debating for the second time, just as several others have in the past. It is looking more and more like Dr. Craig is recycling opponents. At this point in William Lane Craig's debating career, I'm starting to wonder if he is at the top of the mountain, where it is a lonely place indeed. With more atheists refusing to engage, and fewer willing to speak his name out of spite, perhaps Craig's career in debates is over.

However, lest some of my colleauges gasp "may it never be!" this is not necessarily a bad thing (nor a fargone conclusion). If I were to guess at what may lie beyond posters of "Craig vs. ___," the future might be quite positive for Christian apologetics.

First, I would love to see Dr. Craig invest his time and experience to train and coach future Christian debaters--lots of them--to carry on the tradition and keep issues surrounding theism in the forefront. Atheists presently hiding from him may be willing to engage other Christians who don't have Dr. Craig's name recognition. The icing on the cake would be the opportunity for me his students to see and learn the wealth of debate materials he typically keeps on the table in those tantalizing manila folders.

Also, Dr. Craig may become an even bigger phenomenon. Up until now, his name recognition was by and large limited to the circles of philosophy and Christian apologetics. Last week, a major news source, Fox News, picked up on the issue of Dawkins' (and now Toynbee's), refusal to debate. The avenue of being a more public figure is possibly opening up for him, and media attention could drive more public speaking engagements, sans debating (although attention could bring a few more debates to fruition). In light of The Four Horsemen's strategy of appealing to popular audiences with their message, I say that a balance of viewpoints needs to be achieved. What if all these years of experience could be put into a weekly or monthly column in a more popular outlet offering his arguments for theism and Christianity? What could that kind of exposure do for Reasonable Faith? One has to admit there is potential here.

It is my confident prayer that, unlike a real rock band where one must have (ideally) a natural talent for music, the fun doesn't end when the tour ends. May Dr. Craig's efforts, even if he turns this page in his career, fuel the continued proliferation of apologetics and apologists through education and training. Debates will not cease, that's for sure, but even if atheism lacks for guts, let us not find ourselves similarly, ahem, understaffed for the challenge.

*UPDATE: Atheist Dr. Stephen Law of the University of London (Heythrop College) has accepted the opportunity to debate Dr. Craig.

Douglas Groothuis Agrees With Me! ;-)

2011-08-27T00:35:00.001-05:00

In a total confirmation of my convictions, Dr. Doug Groothuis of Denver Seminary echoes a good portion of my sentiments in an article on patheos.com about the comments on Rep. Michele Bachmann's so-called "Dominionism" view of the material world. Just to be clear, Rep. Bachmann is only the means by which this topic is being trodded out, straw manned, and falsely attributed to people I deeply respect within the Christian faith, namely Nancy Pearcy and the late Francis Schaeffer. The political hit-men responsible for their crazy-train-of-thought (Lizza and Knight) literally know nothing about which they are mocking and throwing up as "dangerous" in the attempt to pummel a respectable Presidential candidate with their near-libelous words.

From Dr. Groothuis' article:

Third, the key Christian influences on Bachman are not Rushdoony and his followers, but Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey. Schaeffer referred to Rushdoony's views on mandating biblical law as "insanity," and never sanctioned any form of theocracy. (The name "Rushdoony" does not even appear in the index of Schaeffer's five-volume collected works.) Schaeffer explicitly condemned theocracy in A Christian Manifesto (p. 120-1). Nor did he call for the violent overthrow of the government if Roe V. Wade were not overturned. Schaeffer rather explained various ways of resisting tyranny according to a Christian worldview and in light of church history. He saw "civil disobedience" (his phrase) as a last resort and did not stipulate any specific conditions under which it would be advisable in America. In fact, Schaeffer worried (on p. 126) that speaking of civil disobedience is "frightening because there are so many kooky people around." Further, "anarchy is never appropriate."

Schaeffer condemned theocracy and found civil disobedience frightening? OMG, that's crazy!! Lizza and Knight need to realize that they are the ones on the crazy train, not Michele Bachmann. It certainly is crazy what drinking that liberal Kool-aid does to the human mind.

Hate the Idiocy, Not the Idiot

2011-08-23T01:14:00.013-05:00

Last week, a truly worthless hit piece on Rep. Michele Bachmann was published in the LA Times. The average American newsreader is probably used to a certain amount of libertinism (yes, I do mean that) in order to inject sensationalism into their stories, but never have I read something so atrociously wrong as this, which made me feel as if it infected me with aliens that were about to bust through my chest.

Calling himself a "Culture Monster," Christopher Knight takes on the arrogant task of characterizing Bachmann in a way too obvious attempt to smear her in the public eye, but it is as if he protests too much. From the beginning, he accuses her of disliking the Renaissance and the art of the Renaissance greats. His article is a travesty of honest-to-goodness honesty as he completely fabricates the animosity of Nancy Pearcy and Francis Schaeffer against figures such as Leonardo Da Vinci. In what anyone can recognize as extreme self-imposed ignorance, Knight fails to see from the video that he himself embeds into the article that Schaeffer both admires the philosophical journey of artist/philosophers like Leonardo, yet sees the journey's end, just as Leonardo himself did: life and philosophy eventually arrive at an empty void that humanity and the human mind alone cannot fill.

It's fairly obvious that Knight hasn't read even a page out of one of Schaeffer's or Pearcey's books. Are we to believe that an author who cannot even get a solitary concept correct in those he criticizes actually knows anything substantive about the Renaissance? Only with an agenda of evil would one dare to publish such naked vitriol against a woman who's simply running for the office of the President of the United States, for crying out loud. Our society has been telling little girls they can be whatever they want and dream big, but only the Antichrist forbid that any girl ever actually reach that place of dreams when she grows up. Journalists and authors should be praising Michele Bachmann for bucking the stereotypes of gritty, haughty women too coarse for prime time who must resort to screeching their way into political power for the substitution of affection they lack otherwise. Talk about irony walking backwards in the Midieval direction, Mr. Knight. Yeah, that would be you.

Knight repeatedly frames Bachmann's supposed views on a subject she's never talked about in public with words of his own choosing:

o "artistic spawn"
o "Renaissance ruin"
o "ungodly error"
o "Hate the art, in other words, not the artist."
o "drivel"
o "kooky"
o "wicked Renaissance humanism"
o "Schaeffer's crazy train"

Also, not content to simply project his own words into her thoughts, he quotes from another journo-assassin, Ryan Lizza from the New Yorker, that Schaeffer (and thus Pearcy onto Bachmann) thinks Renaissance philosophy was "dangerous" and "blasphemous."

The LA Times should be red-faced ashamed to have let this person publish such a mammoth-gagging piece with their name on it. It has all the sense and sensibility of a drive-by shooting. Not only does the author misunderstand everything that Francis Schaeffer stood for in his ministry, valuing art and teaching on the perspective of artists, but goes on to attribute the care and thoughtfulness of such a scholar like him to insanity. The entire article is as if it is the result of what happens when garbage smokes dope and then vomits on a keyboard. The earth would be greener indeed if such energy wasting dopehead garbage were never conceived to pollute the net with its inanity. However, hate the idiocy, "in other words," not the idiot.

The probability of a chimpanzee smashing its fists on a keyboard and pounding out a fairer article on Michele Bachmann is infinitely higher than Christopher Knight's inane and vacuous treatment of not one, two, but three intelligent and accomplished Americans of faith. Has Christopher Knight even cracked one of the books he's bashed? I think his response to recommended reading would be the phrase of the day: resist we much. Knight should go write about some wet t-shirt contest somewhere on a college campus. That's the level of journalistic responsibility he appears capable of maintaining.

I join others like Doug Groothuis in calling for a Renaissance of reading. Those who claim to love the Renaissance of history should avoid absolute hypocrisy by reading Francis Schaeffer themselves. Some of Schaeffer's titles include:
The God Who Is There
He Is There and He Is Not Silent
Art and the Bible
True Spirituality

"Imagine..."

2011-08-03T12:58:00.003-05:00

An article titled “Jesus, Reagan, and John Lennon” came out on FoxNews.com recently that was as stunning as it was hopeful (if you’re a Christian apologist). According to the article’s author, John Lennon’s life near the end was one keenly interested in Christianity. In the book, The Gospel According to the Beatles, rock biographer Steve Turner claims that in his later years, Lennon at one point professed to be a born-again Christian. The point of the Fox News article, however, was to highlight that Lennon’s wife, Yoko Ono, might just have kept all this a secret after his death.

Although this article was news to me, the information gathered for it came from an excerpt from Turner’s book, which was published in Christianitytoday.com in 2007. According to Turner, John Lennon’s interest in Christianity was both significant…and brief.

“Over the following months he baffled those close to him by constantly praising "the Lord," writing Christian songs with titles like "Talking with Jesus" and "Amen" (the Lord's Prayer set to music), and trying to convert nonbelievers. He also called the prayer line of The 700 Club, Pat Robertson's program. The change in his life perturbed Yoko, who tried to talk him out of it. She reminded him of what he'd said about his vulnerability to strong religious leaders because of his emotionally deprived background. She knew that if the press found out about it they would have a field day with another John and Jesus story. John became antagonistic toward her, blaming her for practicing the dark arts and telling her that she couldn't see the truth because her eyes had been blinded by Satan.”

Lennon’s story takes a turn, however.

"Those close to the couple sensed that the real reason she was concerned was that it threatened her control over John's life. If he became a follower of Jesus he would no longer depend on her and the occultists. During long, passionate arguments she attacked the key points of his fledgling faith. They met with a couple of Norwegian missionaries whom Yoko questioned fiercely about the divinity of Christ, knowing that this was the teaching that John had always found the most difficult to accept. Their answers didn't satisfy her, and John began to waver in his commitment."

As an apologist, this part of the story intrigues me the most. The author does not supply us with details about their interview with the Christian missionaries, but I am tempted to speculate that as eager as Lennon seemed to embrace Christianity, that the missionaries could not adequately explain to him, despite Ono’s skepticism, the most fundamental truth of the Bible was a great apologetics blunder. In my opinion, of all the essential Christian doctrines, the divinity of Jesus is the one that demands our greatest commitment to its defense by all believers. How might things have turned out differently for John Lennon if the missionaries could quote historians that affirmed that Christ was revered by His followers as Deity? What kind of impact could they have had if they couched Jesus in the Jewish monotheistic culture of that day, who put Himself in the very place of God to make the legal and moral pronouncements which the Jews recognized that only God had the right to make? How might Lennon’s perception of Christianity have been different if they could show that Jesus’ own identity claims were understood as claims to be the Creator God of Israel and Judge of the living and the dead? How might evidence for Jesus’ resurrection have kept his mind open to faith in Christ? As influential and introspective as John Lennon was, I can “Imagine” what a few good answers might have done for him.

The Gospel cannot be fully expressed without acknowledgment of Jesus’ divinity. It behooves us to know and be ready to affirm Jesus’ identity as Creator, Redeemer, and Sustainer of the universe, not just for devotional significance, but as an objective truth we publicly proclaim and defend. Sometimes the window to faith in others opens for us to recognize a divine appointment for the Gospel. Can a little apologetics make a difference? I believe it can.

(Look for this article on the International Society of Women in Apologetics website, August newsletter.)

From Arab Spring to Norwegian Summer

2011-08-01T02:34:00.021-05:00

Last week, some Norwegian dude bombed a government building in Oslo and shot 87 people to death at a youth camp. My interest in his story is only in part, as the reaction from the news articles regarding the motives for his actions comprise that added 'wow' (more like 'whoa') factor that only the mainstream media can dish out.

News media of all stripes, in their haste to publicize the fact that Anders Behring Breivik was not Muslim, crooned for two days about what the police described as Breivik's "right-wing Christian fundamentalism" with articles like
"Oslo Shooter Anti-Muslim Christian Fundamentalist" http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/oslo-shooter-anti-muslim-christian-extremist/ From the post: "Anders Behring Breivik, is a frequent poster of anti-Muslim screeds on Christian fundamentalist websites" which came from an article that said merely that Anders "posted on websites with Christian fundamentalist tendencies. He did not describe the websites in any more details."

and
"Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalist Charged Following Norway Attack"

and

"Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War"
In particular, this article which was written by Steven Erlander is a toned-down version of one he wrote a day earlier outright labeling Breivik as a "Christian extremist." This article, which no longer labels Breivik as a "Christian extremist" nevertheless quotes from Thomas Hegghammer who does remark that, “[Breivik's action] seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, exactly in reverse.” Such a statement easily conveys the idea that Breivik's actions are somehow religiously motivated similarly to Al Qaeda.

and

"Norway Terror Update: Suspect Detained Identified As ‘Christian Fundamentalist’"
Of course, none of this news frenzy could go ignored by internet pop-skeptics. Such a salacious story about a Christian shooting up people easily calls out the hounds, which prize expletives like John Loftus seized on to again mime (meme?) his knife-twisting hatred of Christianity. And once the media let a domino fall, it predictably set off a chain reaction of anti-religious media personalities carving a collective "a ha!" gotcha notch on their digital bedposts. /CoughBill Mahercough!

And, the last shred of human decency left in this world disintegrated with the publishing of another little piece of refuse like this:
"Pamela Geller and Co. Connected to Norway Bomber Anders Behring Breivik?"

The Golden Ticket, however, again came from the New York Times. As I referenced above, in an article titled, “As Horrors Emerge, Norway Charges Christian Extremist – Manifesto Shows Plan of Attack, Fear of Islam," Steven Erlander supposedly gave stunning revelations from Brievik's online manifesto to the "fact" of Breivik's religiously-fueled terrorism. However, despite my earnest attempts to find an online link or archive, it has mysteriously disappeared from the NYT online. Think this was a small story? Newsbusters reports that the NYT's article was actually in print on the front page of the July 23rd edition.

But is any of this true? Nope. Anders Behring Breivik himself thankfully provides the answer in what I call his "Treatise on how Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment Can be Crimeless Yet Full of Punishment." In other words, how to rationalize killing the innocent in order to justify killing the perceived guilty. I think that was also the the basic plot of Star Trek VI. According to Brevik, his so-called Christian connection is no more substantive than that Norway is considered a "Christian"-dominant country having adopted Christianity as the state religion. Well if that were the real criteria for being a Christian, then Breivik is certainly a Christian just as anyone else in Norway is a Christian just for living there and not claiming to be anything else. Now, I think I know a little something about what being a Christian is, and I can safely say that your birthplace doesn't determine if you adopt a particular religion even if it is dominant. I think any atheist would agree with that.

Just recently, David Wood from Answering Muslims put out a video discussing Anders Behring Breivik. Wood specifically deals with the whole "Is Breivik a Christian?" question. Not to be missed, here it is:

For the sake of competent reporting, I sure hope that the MSM will wake up soon and realize that the fascists they've been looking for are maybe the ones staring at themselves in the mirror. The thinly veiled hatred the media has for Christianity isn't all that sensational anymore. Just sayin'.

Gay Activists Try to Defend Cisco

2011-07-14T12:30:00.007-05:00

Normally I wouldn’t comment on a situation like this, (because it is far too easy for someone to come along and accuse me of homophobia, even though I love all people, and there is nothing about gay people that scares me in the least), but because it involves someone I know personally, I’m going to make a point on behalf of a friend. This post is my reaction and comments to the contents of Mike Adam's latest article in Townhall.com commenting on the Cisco firing of Frank Turek, titled "A Queer and Present Danger." It is in particular to the argument made by gay supporters that Cisco made no unconstitutional moves against Turek that I respond.

I happen to agree that First Amendment rights exist to protect American citizens from unjust treatment by the goverment. I also agree that a company has the prerogative to fire any employees or consultants for any reason, except for legal limitations. Those limitations exist to protect employees from superflous and ujnust firings and include reasons such as race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and yes, viewpoint discrimination. I agree that Cisco has the prerogative, but I do believe they flubbed it on the viewpoint discrimination.

As far as Cisco is concerned, nothing Frank Turek ever said or did for which he was fired was ever a part of his dealings with the company. Anything the culpable manager found disagreeable was entirely within the realm of Turek’s private life. And what do we know about what people do in their private lives? That it is viewpoint discrimination if a company takes action for something that does not concern it. Cisco fired Turek for something he did in his private life.

So, gay supporters have been especially shrill as a result in trying to expand an acceptable limit to the First Amendment to justify Turek’s firing, saying that a private citizen is not constitutionally protected from the consequences of having a politically incorrect point of view to the point of forced unemployment. But let’s turn the tables and see if this argument works the other way: would it only be “consequences” if a gay rights activist were fired from his job because the manager didn’t like his views, views that never intersected with his job? The use of the word “consequences” is rather backhanded, as getting fired on account of viewpoint discrimination is no more a "consequence" than it was for blacks to get lynched as a “consequence” of the passage of the 13th Amendment. The manager who sought Turek’s firing did nothing out of said “consequence.” If not he, then Cisco, should have the balls to admit that this was an act of aggression on an indivdual’s private life, not a consequence of anything Turek said or did on behalf of the company.

While we’re talking about consequences, let’s imagine what the consequences of Turek’s experience can bring to Cisco. This would be a great capitalistic opportunity for a competing company to clarify that any similar brouhaha would be stridently avoided and actively woo Cisco’s current clients over to them. Cisco’s clients could also take the time to reevaluate if Cisco’s heavy-handed and unfair firing practices are something they want to associate with. And finally, Cisco managers can all be publicly branded as the invasive, intolerant bigots they have been so far. If Cisco thinks I am being unfair and wants to redeem itself even a little, then the execs can display some public some good faith in showing the offending manager the same courtesy that he showed to Frank.

Read the background story of Frank Turek's firing from Cisco in Mike Adam's articles for Townhall.com:
The Cisco Kid (a reprint of Turek's letter to Cisco's CEO concerning his firing)
Cisco Sinks to a Dishonorable New Low
Holier than Mao

You can also listen to Frank himself talk about his experience on a radio broadcast with Crane Durham:

Much Ado About Harold Camping Nothin'

2011-05-17T18:14:00.008-05:00

With five days to go until Take Two of the Camping-senian apocalypse, I've clicked through a number of Harold Camping's YouTube videos logging his final radio shows. Many of his adherents have sold all their possessions and eliminated their savings in preparation for the end of the world, which he predicts will happen on May 21. These last days, his staff have been hyping up the advertisements for the end. In today's video, his webmaster speaks with an air of expectation, like a husband who's pregnant wife is at the 'any day now' phase.

Is May 21 going to be the end of the world? Oh, it's entirely possible..............just like it's possible that any other random day could be the end of the world. Other than the fact that Camping is just one end-times predictor just like all those who have gone before him (e.g. Joseph Smith Jr, the Jehovah's Witnesses), he's apparently marvelously captivating and believable. Otherwise, why would there be purportely so many families who have followed his directives to stop attending churches and crowd around the radio listening to him and him only? Hmmmmmmm.

As I see it, Camping is really no different than any other self-glory-seeking man (and we all have a little of that in us anyway). Perhaps the fact that he is now 90 years old and may actually see the Lord has prompted him to reclaim the fame that he had prior to his 1994 failed prediction of the end of the world. I don't know. What I do know is that the Bible specifically says that the exact day of the end is not known by anyone except God the Father alone.

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." (Mark 13:32-33, NIV)

If you're like me and want to know the secret formula for predicting the end of the world, we can thank Camping for generously obliging us. Here it is: 2 (5 x 10 x 17) = Judgment Day. Ta da!

On a more compassionate note, if you know any Camping followers who have seriously ditched all in life to wait by their radios, I beg of you to please be kind and put together care packages for them and deliver them on May 22. Yeah, it's their fault they are deceived and unbiblical in their belief of Harold Camping, but this going to be a tragedy for many people. Some of them may even try to take their own lives in the days and weeks to come. I hope that conscientious believers everywhere would reach out and care for the children of Camping adherents and help these poor folks to get back on their feet. They will need food, jobs, and homes again. Most importantly, they will need you to be Jesus to them.

Welcome, The Valley Girl Apologist

2011-05-12T09:44:00.000-05:00

My friend and fellow apologist Sarah Ankenman has started her apologetics blog. Welcome to the blogosphere, Sarah!

Check it out:
The Valley Girl Apologist

Man Pleads Guilty in Ohio Gunpoint Abortion Case

2011-04-28T10:25:00.000-05:00

From AOL.com news:

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- An Ohio man has pleaded guilty to charges that he tried to force his pregnant girlfriend at gunpoint to get an abortion.

Dominic Holt-Reid entered his pleas in a Columbus courtroom Thursday to attempted murder, weapons and abduction charges.

He was charged under a 1996 fetal homicide law.

Police say Holt-Reid pulled a gun Oct. 6 on his girlfriend, Yolanda Burgess, who was three months pregnant, and forced her to drive to an abortion clinic.

Burgess did not go through with the procedure but slipped a note to a clinic employee, who called police.

I can't wait to hear Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW say that the worst wrong and most dangerous thing this man did was have a gun. Legalized abortions with the kind of privacy demands that abortion supporters make end up tying them into ethical knots; the abortion clinic technically did not have to call the police or acknowledge the woman's note, and that is a problem. How many other incidents of coerced abortions take place, shielded from the authorities because someone didn't use a gun to force a woman to the abortionist? No one will ever know.

Dearborn Moves to California?

2011-04-27T14:37:00.009-05:00

This video ignited a firestorm on my facebook. Take a look:

The complete story about this incident can be found here.

The controversy surrounds not with the behavior of law enforcement, which I think should be the focus this incident, but the behavior of the man reading the Bible. Much was said about how this man was an "obnoxious idiot," a "Bible-thumper," and a detriment to the Church. I really don't see that in the video, but let me grant it for the sake of the argument. Even if the man were to behave 100x's worse, would that justify an arrest? Even if he were Terry Jones can anyone justify an arrest--oh wait, that happened too!

As Lydia McGrew pointed out, this incident happened on public property on which no laws were broken. The video shows that the men were peaceful and stood at a distance away from others. Had this man been a Muslim, I think this point would have hit home, for political correctness would have seen to his protection, and no one would have dared lay a hand on him.

As believers, we should be just as compassionate for these brothers in Christ as we would have for the nonbelieving public. To reserve from them that which we would give to others is duplicitous. The man has been called an "obnoxious idiot," but not one said that the security guard or the patrolman were "obnoxious idiots," even though they were. I cannot in good conscience shame fellow Christians in public for what they were trying to do and for which they were unjustly arrested. I have even had one individual tell me that the man got what he deserved even though the patrolman was wrong--hello, contradiction? The three fellow believers in the video have been unjustly treated; I don't know why as a matter of principle we don't defend their legal rights first instead of savaging someone's character. We don't do this to nonbelievers, but we find it somehow acceptable to eat our own.

Having said that, I can now address the separate issue of the wisdom of standing at a DMV and reading aloud from the Bible to people who clearly don't appreciate the effort. First of all, that's weird. Out of context and out of place, it is a gratuitous intrusion on the sensibilities of the general public, especially to read Bible passages without an explanation of the reader's intentions. Christians and non-Christians alike readily attribute a negative character to anyone who would do so, as shown by the comments on my facebook thread.

Second, this type of "cold" preaching is, as people have accused, detrimental to the mission of the Church. By creating a situation in which the people associate the Gospel with weird, intrusive, and annoying Christians, one may taint the impression of the Gospel itself. This, of course, is not how real missionaries operate. In a strikingly similar case, believers who traveled to Dearborn, MI were unjustly arrested for trying to preach the Gospel to Muslims. But in that case, the Christians had a context, a clear limited scope, and brought people willingly into a dialogue about Jesus Christ.

I think we all agree that maybe these men should have behaved more wisely leading up to being falsely arrested, but if we justify the arrest in any way, shape, or form over and against the Constitution, we have all taken a step toward losing our own First Amendment rights. Hey, it's your freedom (and mine). It takes surprisingly few cases to set off unconstitutional limitations if they aren't constantly being defended.

Are There Unicorns in the Bible?

2011-04-21T11:25:00.001-05:00

Yes, there are, but it's not what you think! :)
Please watch:

Another lesson about why we don't read backwards in the Bible.

Denied Valedictorian Receives Her Honor, 75 Years Late

2011-04-19T01:50:00.005-05:00

For totally inarticulate-able reasons, this story just struck me right there. A long overdue rectification of an injustice toward a more-than-deserving individual just has the right ring of sorrow and satisfaction. Please watch:

The story reports that “it’s believed that school leaders did not want two black valedictorians so close together.” Fanetta’s Gordon’s sister claims that the principal of the school especially did not want two black students from the same family to graduate with valedictorian honors. As a result, the principal ordered the music teacher to lower one of Fanetta’s grades in the class.

Most of us would quickly judge this a case of discrimination and robbery, and I believe that it was. But I believe it was more sinister than even that. You see, the principal denied Fanetta not what she was entitled to as a human being (because not all human beings are valedictorians). Far worse, he denied a title and an honor that Fanetta earned and deserved. The principal took something away from Fanetta that she had already possessed by ordering the music teacher to change her grade. The way I understand it, the principal did not simply discriminate, he made her the victim of affirmative action to a position that traditionally has a quota of one. So instead of one black young woman who earned her way to the top, a most likely white student received the valedictorian honors that he or she did not deserve just because of race.

I hope that those who support affirmative action in the contemporary debate realize that affirmative action almost always victimizes someone. Some colleges have quotas; almost all colleges have limits on the number of acceptances per school year based on race and ethnicity, which means someone will inevitably be rejected for belonging to the wrong race. Employers cannot legally discriminate in hiring, yet they must fill out surveys on the racial makeup of their employees (by percentages!) that can be used to accuse them of doing the very thing they try to avoid, usually at the bark of some malcontent civil rights attorney. In affirmative action, the dividing line between acceptance and hiring vs. rejection is race-based. As a society, we should know that what is used to allow one race to gain a certain benefit almost always means that another race must face an undeserved loss, just as Fanetta Gordon did so long ago. Certain races have always been favored over others for whatever reasons in any civilization. As much as I’d like to change it and would encourage change on this, I have to admit that this is the way of the world.

It is thankfully not the way of the Kingdom of Christ, however. Galatians 3:27-29 says, “for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Every believer is a favored person under the merits of Jesus Christ. We are all spiritual paupers who have been given lavish suites in the mansion of Christ. How then can we deny another something that he/she deserves in this world? It is with the understanding that each human being is unworthy of God’s favor, yet we have it through Jesus, that we can act with justice toward each other.

I am so glad Fanetta Gordon finally received her honor, albeit a sorrowful 75 years denied. Kudos to the school for doing the right thing after all these years.

Is Faith Blind?

2011-04-15T15:26:00.005-05:00

This is my Q&A response article up on the Smart Faith Conference website:

Faith has become one of those terms that has come to be popularly defined as knowingly or unknowingly having positive belief in something that is not true. Even well-meaning Christians have spoken of faith as “a statement of trust in what we do not know for sure.*” With the idea of a necessary uncertainty built into the common understanding of faith, it is no surprise that many people have come to equate having faith with the opposite of having knowledge, evidence, and certitude. In other words, “faith” is the same as “blind faith.” Therefore, all faith must be blind, right?

Is faith really blind? Blind faith is certainly blind, but is this how faith should be defined? Both the Bible and our experiences tell us otherwise.

The Apostles of Jesus taught that their belief in Christ is an informed, evidenced faith. The Apostle John’s opening paragraph in 1 John is an emphatic statement of the reality of Jesus Christ in history. He states,

“That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life—the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us—that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things we write to you that your joy may be full. This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:1-5).

Redundantly, John assures the reader that the Disciples’ experiences of Jesus in this life are rooted in tangible reality.

The Apostle Peter says similarly. “For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.’ And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain” (2 Peter 1:16-18). Peter writes that the message he preaches came not from conjecture but through actual observance of God’s proclamation about Jesus not once but twice.

Likewise, Luke the historian says that the resurrected Jesus “presented himself to [the disciples] and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). Certainly the Gospel writers considered their faith an evidenced faith; this high value on reason and evidence is a surviving legacy that continues to lead Christians today. The legacy has produced many Christian thinkers who have contributed multiple lines of reasoning, arguing not only for God’s existence but for the essential truths regarding the identity and claims of Jesus Christ.

In our own experiences, most rational people understand that blind faith is ultimately an uncomfortable faith. We demand a reality to our lives that is minimally verifiable. Even the atheist who questions the veracity of the Christian faith does so with the assumption that an objective reality exists to support his objections, though he often fails to apply his own criteria to inquire about his own views. In fact, we could ask the skeptic what his evidence is for his belief that all faith is unfounded.

Of course, people can believe things that are untrue. In a strict Christian sense that may be belief, but that isn’t necessarily faith. Hebrews 11:1 says, “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” To the person who thinks that faith is necessarily uncertain, the writer of Hebrews equates faith with having confidence placed in what Christians hope for, which is actually a “Who” in the person of Jesus Christ. Christians then have the assurance of the living Jesus to see us through all of life’s uncertainties. Christian faith, therefore, is not about belief statements which may or may not be true, but it is about trusting and depending on Jesus and His promises.

Is Christian faith blind? In light of the evidence and the object of faith, certainly not.

*D'Souza, Dinesh. What's So Great About Christianity. p. 195.

The Eve of Village Atheism?

2011-04-10T01:51:00.007-05:00

While reflecting on his debate with Sam Harris and the audience questions that came after, Dr. William Lane Craig wrote the following about the makeup of the audience that night:

I wonder is something culturally significant is going on here. Several years ago, I asked the Warden at Tyndale House in Cambridge why it is that British society is so secular when Britain has such a rich legacy of great Christian scholars. He replied, "Oh, Christianity is not underrepresented among the intelligentsia. It's the working classes which are so secular." He explained that these folks are never exposed to Christian scholarship because of their lack of education. As a result there is a sort of pervasive, uninformed, village atheism among them. I wonder if something like this could be happening in the States. I was surprised to see the number of blue collar folks from the community buying Harris' book and thanking him for all he has done. They didn't seem to have any inkling that his views had just been systematically exposed as logically incoherent. The intelligentsia have almost universally panned Harris' recent book (read the reviews!). Yet it is lapped up in popular culture. Wouldn't it be amazing if unbelief became the possession mainly of the uneducated?

This comment causes my heart to sink. Personally, I like to think that I am fairly observant of the religious cultural shifts here in the U.S. and their bearing on what Christians should do to respond to them. However, I have to admit that Dr. Craig’s note above catches me a little off guard, even alarming to a degree as I realize what his observation, if truly symptomatic of an eve of a significant change, means for Christian apologists in this day and age. An inculcation of “New Atheism” among the blue collar/working class here would be a dramatic reversal of the religious landscape of America. I cannot help but feel that such a situation might be more “dismaying” than “amazing.”

Christianity is a piece of Americana (whether anyone thinks that is a good thing or not). One of our hallmark cultural contours is the common family of common means participating on a minimum level in a Christian expression of some type. Classically, I think of church attendance on Sundays, respect for the Bible, and a basic familiarity with Christian beliefs. So far, that the common man believes he has a faith is the experience of American life. New Atheists seek to change that through a campaign of popularizing atheism.

I have no doubt that the inculcation is taking place. It is being impressed upon the public through books by New Atheists like Sam Harris that are aimed on the popular level, both to adults and youth (e.g. Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials). In the public classroom, atheism is the default worldview in the disciplines of both the hard and social sciences. Atheism is marketed as the new neutral position in almost all of public literature, television, and many commercial media outlets. Atheists pronounce that atheism is the only viable alternative for fair-minded people once they have shed the evil “superstition” of theism and Christianity that has existed here since the Pilgrims brought their Bibles off the Mayflower. Pair the New Atheists’ media blitz of book tours and public appearances and the fruits of declining Christian influence over American culture, I suppose we should expect an eventual ‘atheism-of-the-masses’ to emerge.

As I ponder on the observation that we are Great Britain’s cultural apple that has until now not fallen far from the tree, I wonder how should we take a leap of faith to escape repeating history rather than march in lock step behind a country that has untethered its Christian moorings. The Gospel of Jesus Christ exists for us (for our divinely ordered fulfillment) as much as humanity exists ultimately to encounter the Gospel and the Savior it heralds. Clearly we cannot remain satisfied with an apologetic approach that centers too heavily on the academy and not enough on the daily court of public opinion. Apologetics must be used more frequently in the day-to-day, not less. Our churches must become robust again in faith and orthopraxis and apologetics. The wisdom of Augustine’s “faith seeking understanding” presupposes that we should seek to understand our faith, contrary to frequent contemporary church preaching that faith with no attempt at understanding (blind faith) can be a superior virtue to serious theological reflection. And finally, we must take the Gospel and the defense of it to the gates of hell themselves (so to speak). We must not be afraid to engage the skeptics in their own backyard, which may include aiming for more exposure in the public eye through old and new media outlets and accessing more public venues receptive enough to an airing of a Christian worldview.

Here, I propose a few audacious plans of action. The following suggestions include, but are not limited to, the following acts of sedition against the prevailing cultural push toward total secularism:

• Appearances on television shows like The Colbert Report, Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show, and anything opposite Bill Maher. If Bart Ehrman can get an interview with Stephen Colbert, I reason that surely someone on the less apostate side can also.

• Opinion columns with as many newspapers as apologists are humanly capable of contributing to.

• Participation in public discussions on worldview-reflective topics. [For an example, see The Journey’s (St. Louis) pre-evangelistic ministry called “Theology at the Bottleworks” at http://midrashstl.com/theology-at-the-bottleworks/]

As with anything, I cannot presume to predict the outcome of any of these efforts by Christians to make a positive impact on our culture for the cause of Christ. I do know, however, that neglecting the cultural shifts that take America farther away from a competent general understanding of theism and Christianity result in the kind of baseline secularism that is found in our neighbors across the pond. I stake an effort in the spirit of the words of the Apostle Paul, “May it never be!”

British Muslim convert preaches against the very government that props him up

2011-04-07T14:59:00.004-05:00

A former BBC security guard, now unemployed, converted to Islam and currently campaigns for a Sharia takeover of Britain, all the while living rent-free and collecting £1,256 per month in state welfare benefits. Check it--that's over $2,048 USD.

In the article, Mr. Dart/Salahuddin actually complains about his silver spoon living conditions in what are considered upscale flats: "'It's quite luxurious compared with other ones, but you're crammed in like sardines and I can hear my neighbour coming and going. I don't enjoy living among non-Muslims,' he told the Sun. 'Under Islam things would be much better. You could have a detached bungalow for each wife, maybe four bungalows if you had four wives. I have to live here - and it's very hard to have four wives.'"

Wow, Mr. Dart wants to live the Islama-vida with four wives and separate bungalows, eh? My, but he's such an elegible out-of-work welfare junkie and so dedicated to spending his days biting the hand that feeds him (someone tell me if he's good husband-material by Islamic standards, please). According to the article, "he regularly takes to the streets of Whitechapel, East London, where he now lives, to conjure support for the fight to create a global Islamic state." There's a word for this type of sponging--parasitism.

Well! A la Charlie Sheen: WINNING!

(HT: Answering Muslims)

Smart Faith Conference

2011-04-04T11:49:00.003-05:00

I am pleased to announce that the first Smart Faith Conference on apologetics will be taking place in my hometown of Phoenix this summer! Shawn White and I have organized a slate of phenomenal speakers to teach and assist youth and college students to understand how the Christian faith is a reasonable faith.

Conference dates: June 10-11, 2011

Speakers include:
Mary Jo Sharp (Confident Christianity)
Brett Kunkle (Stand to Reason)
Neil Mammen (No Blind Faith)
Shawn White (Living Dead Man)
and yours truly, Letitia Wong

If you know a teenager or college student searching for ultimate answers regarding faith, science, and spirituality, consider signing them up. Registration is ONLY $30 per student. Early-bird registration is an insane $20 from now until May 13th, so do not delay if you want to attend!

Writer Eric Metaxas' Faith Story

2011-03-08T13:40:00.001-06:00

I must thank God for facebook, otherwise I wouldn't have known about this terrific video of Eric Metaxas sharing his journey to faith in Jesus Christ. The bonus for this huge, huge fan is finding out that Mr. Metaxas also attends church at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York. Hello, Tim Keller? That is freak-out awesome!

Eric Metaxas in his own words

Chris Matthews' 'Don't Know Much About History' Blunder on Hardball

2011-01-29T14:43:00.004-06:00

I found this yesterday on Huffpo. Though suffering through a cold usually makes one numb to what else goes on in the world, I had to gasp at this interview they pulled off of Chris Matthews' Hardball earlier this week:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Wow, talk about biting it on national television with a shameful showing of the utter lack of knowledge on the US Constitution and American history. On Tuesday, leftist lackey Chris Matthews went on a jaundiced tirade against Congresswoman Michele Bachmann's speech for the Iowans for Tax Relief. Specifically, he derided Rep. Bachmann's citation of John Quincy Adams as one of this country's forebearers who worked tirelessly for abolition.

Actually, let me change that. Chris Matthews doesn't have a "lack" of knowledge about the US Constitution and the history of abolition; he has a lack of accurate knowledge about the US Constitution and the history of abolition. He has drunk the liberal historical revisionism that many high school teachers and college professors now pour down the throats of our impressionable students who haven't understood history as it was between the Constitutional Congress and the Civil War. Let's let the circumstances back then speak for themselves.

- John Quincy Adams: according to biographies of Adams' life, he repeatedly attempted to introduce bills by abolitionist groups into Congress calling for the abolition of slavery. Such was the opposition to his ongoing attempts, Southern Democrats passed a number of gag rules in order to prevent Adams from introducing any more abolitionist bills.

"Throughout he was conspicuous as an opponent of the extension of slavery, though he was never technically an abolitionist, and in particular he was the champion in the House of Representatives of the right of petition at a time when, through the influence of the Southern members, this right was, in practice, denied by that body. His prolonged fight for the repeal of the so-called "Gag Laws" is one of the most dramatic contests in the history of the U.S. Congress. The agitation for the abolition of slavery, which really began in earnest with the establishment of the Liberator by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831, soon led to the sending of innumerable petitions to congress for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, over which the Federal government had jurisdiction, and for other action by congress with respect to that institution. These petitions were generally sent to Adams for presentation. They aroused the anger of the pro-slavery members of congress, who, in 1836, brought about the passage of the first "Gag Rule", the Pinckney Resolution, presented by Henry L. Pinckney, of South Carolina. It provided that all petitions relating to slavery should be laid on the table without being referred to committee or printed; and, in substance, this resolution was re-adopted at the beginning of each of the immediately succeeding sessions of congress, the Patton Resolution being adopted in 1837, the Atherton Resolution, or "Atherton Gag", in 1838, and the Twenty-first Rule in 1840 and subsequently until repealed. Adams contended that these "Gag Rules" were a direct violation of the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and refused to be silenced on the question, fighting for repeal with indomitable courage, in spite of the bitter denunciation of his opponents. Each year the number of anti-slavery petitions received and presented by him increased; perhaps the climax was in 1837, when Adams presented a petition from twenty-two slaves, and, when threatened by his opponents with censure, defended himself with remarkable keenness and ability. At each session, also, the majority against him decreased until in 1844 his motion to repeal the Twenty-first Rule was carried by a vote of 108 to 80 and his battle was won." (Source: NDDB biographies, http://www.nndb.com/people/370/000026292/)

Incidentally (or not incidentally, if you believe in Divine Providence as I do), in the last year of Adams' life, he mentored a young Congressman to work toward abolition. This Congressman later went on to become the 16th President of the United States. Oh, what was his name? Abraham Lincoln. (Watch this history video about John Quincy Adams and Abraham Lincoln: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhtkAO9PUE8)

- the Three-Fifths Clause in the US Constitution: historical revisionism has erased the word "compromise" from the Three-Fifths Compromise as written in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3. Why? Because the word "compromise" could cause people to ask questions over what the compromise was about. In the runup to this clause in the Constitution, slave-holding states wanted their slaves to be included in the state population to give them more seats in Congress and votes in the electoral college. Morally, this was outrageous, for using slaves to increase your representation in Congress was insult beyond subjugation, not to mention an unfair advantage in congressional representation against Northern states. Abolitionists moved to oppose such accounting, wanting slaves not to be included at all. In a compromise, Congress adopted the Three-Fifths rule to appease the Democrats yet limit their power.

From Gary Wills, "Negro President”: Jefferson and the Slave Power, cited on Wikipedia: The three-fifths ratio, or "Federal ratio" had a major effect on pre-Civil War political affairs due to the disproportionate representation of slaveholding states relative to voters. For example, in 1793 slave states would have been apportioned 33 seats in the House of Representatives had the seats been assigned based on the free population; instead they were apportioned 47. In 1812, slaveholding states had 76 instead of the 59 they would have had; in 1833, 98 instead of 73. As a result, southerners dominated the Presidency, the Speakership of the House, and the Supreme Court in the period prior to the Civil War.

Chris Matthews clearly needs to go back to school and read some real American history and apologize to Rep. Bachmann for inflicting his ignorance on her and the American public. Maybe then, he won't be as big of a "balloon head" who suffers from so much hoof-in-mouth disease on national television.

A little Christmas rejoicing with one of my faves...

2010-12-16T14:42:00.000-06:00

TobyMac with "Christmas This Year."

Don't miss this Thanksgiving Day tradition

2010-11-24T18:05:00.000-06:00

Sure to bring a smile to your Thanksgiving Day celebration. Enjoy!

Obama Outlines Moral, Philosophical Justifications For Turkey Pardon

Nutshell

2010-11-15T10:33:00.001-06:00

Review: Shattered: Struck Down, But Not Destroyed (Frank Pastore)

2010-10-21T20:48:00.006-05:00

Shattered: Struck Down, But Not Destroyed is an autobiographical sketch of Frank Pastore’s (Frank) spiritual journey from childhood to the present day, from atheism to faith in Jesus Christ.

Raised by an abusive and stalwartly atheist mother, Frank tells the story of her early impact on his views on faith and Christianity. From youth into adulthood as a professional baseball pitcher, he regarded faith in God as a delusion and a fantasy. He indulged in a life of materialism and through friendships with fellow teammates, who were Christians, was determined to disprove the Christian faith.

Through a series of personal life challenges climaxing in a career-ending injury to his pitching arm, Frank recalls a pivotal moment when the Christian players on the team met with him for what reads like an intervention. Unlike previous get-togethers, his teammates brought an evangelist who, in turn, brought books. They introduced him to Frank, and after a while, he introduced Frank to his books. After much reflection on his beliefs and reading arguments for the Christian faith by such esteemed authors such as C.S. Lewis, Frank surrendered his life to Christ.

For me, what came after Frank’s conversion intrigued me the most. He tells that his resistance to Christianity was mostly intellectual, and for all the appeals to believe, his Christian teammates could not defend the faith against his arguments. That is, until Frank started reading, well, apologetics. Never shy about wanting to set his teammates straight, Frank confronted them, this time from the other side of the fence. He writes,

“Guys!” I said. “For years you’ve been sharing with me why I needed to become a Christian. I’ve been asking you all these basic questions, like why do you believe God exists, how do you know the Bible is true, why is there evil in the world, why is Christianity the only true religion, what about the person who’s never heard of Jesus—and for more than five years you’ve given me really bad answers. I could have died and gone to hell, and my blood would have been on your hands!”

This is what I believe is the true mission of Shattered. The book is an implicit plea to all well-meaning Christians that sometimes saying “just have faith” to an unbelieving friend is not the due diligence required to share the Gospel.

Shattered is a heartwarming book for any thoughtful Christian who wants to know the background of KKLA’s most cutting edge radio talk show host today. For added excitement, Frank includes the dramatic details of his cross-country adventure to marry the love of his life, his wife Gina. This book will leave you smiling as it did to me.

A.C.T.S. - Supplication

2010-08-17T22:07:00.005-05:00

Supplication
Imagine a young child sitting on her parent's lap, the two of them sharing a tender moment. The child lifts up her face to Mommy or Daddy and says "I'm thirsty. Can you give me something to drink?" There is no hesitation on her part, no fear of rejection. She has asked for something she needs, even if she cannot yet tell the difference between 'need' and 'want.' She trusts that Mommy and Daddy will take care of her, because she knows they are good. In such an innocence and trusting spirit, God the Father wants us to approach Him with our requests. Like a child, we need to fully realize our dependence on Him and ask without ulterior motives. Imagine yourself as that child, asking the Father for your needs as the Lord's Prayer delineates.

Give us this day our daily bread...

this day...- I've heard it said that if we were to ask God for an annual supply of bread that He likely would not hear from us except once a year. A child rarely knows what he needs tomorrow, and only asks for what he needs today. Similarly, we are to have priority consciousness of what this day's needs are and not shortchange God's provisions for today for want of tomorrow's. God calls a fool the one who arrogantly relies on wealth and/or human planning to give fullness in life but doesn't seek God's will for even daily living (Luke 12:16-18). Let us not make this mistake ourselves.

...our daily bread - the staff of life is used literally, but also metaphorically of Jesus Christ Himself. Bread feeds our bodies. Jesus, the Bread of Life, feeds our spirits. Without either we die, and so we must ask God to grant us both to live for Him. "Jesus declared 'I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never be hungry. He who believes on me will never be thirsty.'" (John 6:35) "Man does not live on bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD." (Deut. 8:3)

And lead us not into temptation,

Walking with God is a walk of dependency. The path that belongs to Him is straight, but we are small and severely myopic to the spiritual reality we live in, that the path He is leading us on is the inward journey toward holiness. So we must ask God to steer us ever away from the temptations that our minds conjure up for our hearts to lust after. Of His faithfulness to us, Jesus says, "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to humanity. God is faithful and He will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation He will also provide a way of escape, so that you are able to bear it." (1 Cor. 10:13)

but deliver us from evil.

God doesn't simply save us from His wrath toward our sin. He saves us from the defiling reach of evil that we should feel in every heartbeat. "Brood of vipers! How can you speak good things when you are evil? For the mouth speaks from the overflow of the heart. A good man produces good things from his storeroom of good, and an evil man produces evil things from his storeroom of evil." (Matt. 12:34-35) Jesus directs us to pray for our deliverance from the grasp of sin in our lives. We are to run to Him, cling to Him, and seek refuge in His righteousness, for He alone is powerful enough to overcome our own evil tendencies. He alone is powerful enough to overcome...us.

A.C.T.S. - Thanksgiving

2010-08-12T20:38:00.000-05:00

Thanksgiving
Though there is no explicit line in the Lord's Prayer that expresses thanksgiving, the entire prayer is fashioned as a response to the Father's creation and providence. The prayer reflects the many points of relationship that we have with His sovereignty, mercy, tender love, and ability to align our wills to His. The God addressed in prayer is a good God, so The Prayer is only effective if prayed with a spirit of thanksgiving.

A.C.T.S. - Confession

2010-08-04T12:14:00.009-05:00

Confession
There is a daily war between our sinful nature and our redeemed nature. We defile our spirits effortlessly in the attempt to elevate ourselves in our own eyes and in the eyes of other defiled spirits. In vanity, mirrors are tools for pride-elevating positive feedback, but Confession turns mirrors into agents of truth and strips the vanity from our eyes to see our sin as God sees it.

And forgive us our debts...

I've always found it interesting how the different English translations render the word "debts." Some say "trespasses;" some say "sins." In each of these different renderings, the message is conveyed that we have something grevious about ourselves that needs the forgiveness of God. The usage of the word "debts" in the King James helps us to understand that each moment of our sinful lives is lived on borrowed time and mercy from the Creator God. The priority of this clause should not be missed. Jesus' directive is for us to recognize that we have sinned against God before we have sinned against others.

...as we forgive our debtors.

As believers then, our lives are then spent "redeeming the time," (Colossians 4:4-6) paying back the time we spent in rejection of God by paying it forward our forgiveness to those who do not believe and have done injustice to us. Let's look at forgiveness as the wisdom to create justice from injustice and establish the peace of our Lord. Such forgiveness is indeed divine.

A.C.T.S. - Adoration

2010-08-04T01:44:00.029-05:00

Adoration
This is bare-faced expressions of love and worship of God's deity, personhood, and attributes that go beyond mere acknowledgement. Believers exalt His beauty and glory in contrast to their own creatureliness. We adore Him.

Our Father,

Our relationship to God as Father comes before His position in our lives. The Father wants devotion borne out of the kind of rapturous love that one can only have for a God that is infintely beautiful and completes the human spirit. He wants our devotion before our worship, belief, or faith in Him. He desires to be "Abba, Father" before anything else.

which art in heaven,

God is our Sovereign. Though He reveals that He is closer than a brother, closer than a whisper into our ears, close enough to study every insecurity etched on our faces and our souls, He occupies that transcendent dimension not seen with human eyes...

Hallowed be Thy Name.

...He occupies that transcendent dimension that burns white hot with a holiness that is so distant from our inferior sinful natures as one end of the universe is from the other end. We cannot bear to look at Him this way, for we will perish in His purity, yet we will never be complete without falling prostrate at the mere thought of His grandeur. We lift up holy hands to exalt Him ever higher for our own sake, knowing that such acts are symbolic and powerless to add anything to Him.

For Thine is the kingdom...

One of Jesus' more famous directives is "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness" (Matt. 6:33); coupled with the equally famous, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe in the good news" (Mark 1:15) there is a powerful message of God's arrival in a "kingdom" way. Jesus tells us that God's kingdom should be sought after, yet there is not far to go to find it. He also tells us that waiting is no longer necessary, and that all that is necessary to enter the kingdom is to believe in the Gospel. Given the nature of scriptures about the kingdom of God, we should begin to see that God is His kingdom insofar as the God's gateway to Himself. As Jesus says in Mark 10:14, "Let the little children come to Me. Don't stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

...and the power..

Though incomprehensible, the power of God is not inconceivable. We see his workmanship in every waking moment and learn of His divine miracles in His Word. When necessary, He still performs miracles beyond the time of the Scriptures. Yet in all of these grand displays, there is none more grander than seeing all the divine creative power and ability to render cosmic justice in the universe bound up in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger. When the Creator can come to exist as the most vulnerable and powerless human ever and grow up to provide redemption for humanity, that is the greatest display of power that can ever be rendered.

...and the glory forever.

It is one thing to compliment someone out of courtesy because he has a position of authority. It is quite another to glorify someone just for being who and what he is. Jesus is the only person who not only is glorious but also deserves glory for His acts on our behalf.

Igor Sikorsky observes that the sentence "For Thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory" is reminiscent of the temptation of Christ in the wilderness, mirroring the Devil's offerings to Jesus. As it says in Luke 4:5-7, "And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine." (KJV) In what I can only say is defiance of the Devil's proposition, the prayer declares that Christ is the kingdom, the power, and the glory already from eternity past.

Amen.

Defined as an affirmation "so be it" or "truly," we are directed to declare our approval of the Lord's will in all that we pray to Him. This declaration is what separates the children of God from all others. James 2:19 says, "You believe that God is one; you do well. The demons also believe—and they shudder." Inasmuch as we affirm God's sovereign accomplishments, the demons oppose them and so will never utter "amen" to His will. Believers should understand how precious few our "amens" are; we are to see them multiplied in worship of God Almighty always.

Praying the A.C.T.S. Model Using the Lord's Prayer

2010-08-03T23:54:00.007-05:00

Our Father, which art in heaven,

Hallowed be Thy Name.

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done

On earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,

And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.

And lead us not into temptation,

But deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom and the power and glory forever.

Amen.

(Matthew 6:10-14)

The Lord's Prayer is timeless. It is also a prayer timelessly named after the Lord who taught it but never prayed it Himself. Such a prayer is meant for His followers, disciples who bend their knees and want to know the heart of communion. The prayer is meant to express the gut basics of a deep, personal connection with God as much as its Spirit-led recitation aligns the believer's heart to establish that connection.

The A.C.T.S. prayer model is also a rather transcendent, albeit a more recent, mnemonic formulation to help believers to remember the elements of communication and communion with God. In this series, I've superimposed the A.C.T.S model onto the Lord's Prayer (or perhaps the other way around), a layering of the ancient with the contemporary of sorts. It is clear that two millenia before we had an acronym, Jesus demonstrated what the human heart should long to say before the face of the Father.

Briefly, A.C.T.S. stands for:
A - Adoration
C - Confession
T - Thanksgiving
S - Supplication

The next four posts will dive into the details of how the Lord's Prayer and A.C.T.S. go together and can give us a way to find prayer memorable and enriching as meaningful communion with the Creator. At the end of each entry, I will insert a song that best captures my mind's ear that buttresses my thoughts. Enjoy.

TATB: Bodies on Display

2010-07-31T11:45:00.012-05:00

Theology at the Bottleworks (July 28, 2010)
"Bodies on Display: The Ethics of Body Modification"

My scattered thoughts on the issue:
Body modification, whether medically necessary or elective, is a terrific question to consider, especially because everyone has a different opinion on where the limits lie (or if there are limits at all). The subject is so iconically subjective that that there isn't anything that cannot be considered a factor in any person's decision to participate or not to participate.

What is our range?
Plastic surgery - piercings -tatoos - implants (decorative, medical, and cyborg) - gastric bypass - circumcision (male and female) - LASIK surgery - hair transplantation - makeup - steroid use

The basic question is, "what governs what we do to our bodies?" Or better, "who governs what we do to our bodies?" Much of what people consider acceptable is culturally conditioned or even culturally mandated. Standards of beauty and "coolness" are products of the human imagination and are applied through personal motivation, peer pressure or, in some cases, force.

Along with the basic question, I'd like to know what the metaphysical implications/motivations are of participating in body modification. Metaphysical naturalism says that our bodies and identities are the same, which means that whatever changes we make to our appearances, we also change our identities. If this is true (given naturalism's denial of the existence of God), how do we make sense of identity in a practical sense? Neither a balding husband nor the law have grounding recourse against divorce if the wife says 'he is not the man I married' in a very literal sense.

With naturalism, most people would disagree. There is a default sense in the human mind that our identities are related to but not synoymous with our bodies; we think intuitively that a woman who wants a full-body transformation (via plastic surgery) to look like Kim Kardashian will never actually be Kim Kardashian or cease to be her self in any fundamental way. Does it matter, then, what a person does to her body? Those who say there are no objective governing principles to human actions must fall back on metaphysical naturalism to justify this position, but then we are back to the same conundrum of identity.

I observe that no matter what the extent of modification, people justify changes to their bodies in an effort to make some 'improvement' over the status quo (with the exception of the mentally insane, or so I'm told). How does a forked tongue or horn implants constitute an improvement? Steroids enlarge muscles but shrink genitalia. Where is the net improvement? Add to this that almost all claim freedom to modify with the caveat "as long as it doesn't harm anyone else." As surely as I know that no man is an island, how do people continue to use this phrase to justify this activity?

Bottom line: perhaps the "who" in "who governs what we do to our bodies?" isn't found in the mirror or in the culture. As someone observed, perhaps our bodies are objects of stewardship like any posession we have in life, given by the One who created all bodies. I find it ironic that the cost of denying this Who sometimes in the pursuit of body modification is greater in terms of pain and expenses than it is to acknowledge Him.

Out of the discussion that evening, two great quotes emerged, which are both humorous and uforgettable:

"If you want to lift 500 pounds, get a backhoe."

While referring to the subject of circumcision, "Any way you slice it..."

"Who's Waiting For Your Kids?"

2010-05-23T23:45:00.005-05:00

Brett Kunkle, from Stand to Reason, has a great video out on conversantlife.com. The video is for parents of kids nearing college age and challenges them to find out what messages and environment the college milieu will impose on their kids. My advice: even if you don't have kids who are about to leave for college yet, please watch the video to find out what they'll see when they get there.

(Apologies for not being able to embed the video. Just click the link below.)
http://www.conversantlife.com/node/29003

Nicole Queen vs. Nabeel Qureshi

2010-05-20T20:35:00.004-05:00

Please watch both stories in their entirety.

VS.

I watched quite a few video testimonies of conversions to either Christianity or Islam. I selected these two people because they related the most thoughtfulness in their stories. Observations:

1) Nicole Queen's decision to become a Muslim came from a desire to find meaning and dignity in life and leave a lifestyle that she found shallow and unfulfilling. As sincere as I believe Ms. Queen is about her belief in Allah, she never talked about how she resolved in her mind the problematic aspects about Islam, such as the mandate to fight and kill Jews and Christians, not to make friends with Jews and Christians, to kill people who leave Islam, to support Sharia, and so forth. I'd also like to know more of her thoughts about her Baptist upbringing early in life.

It is nice to showcase that Islam has an attractive side to it--of course it has (if it were completely noxious, then no one would believe it). However, Ms. Queen's story of her conversion sounds like many, many other conversion stories that I have heard--conversion to Mormonism, conversion to the Jehovah's Witnesses, conversion to Buddhism. What I found missing was an appeal to objective truth and the search for God's actual character. Ms. Queen has found her moral compass, which is laudable.

2) Nabeel Qureshi is a man that I am so glad to call a brother in Christ. His story is particularly interesting to me, because he had no reason to leave Islam. As a devout Muslim in a devout Muslim family that loved him, and all things being equal, why would he convert to Christianity if all his spiritual cards were lined up correctly? He recounts that initial encounter with truth through his good friend David was when it began. The first nugget of truth that fell into his life was the dispelling of the told and retold myth that the Bible is corrupt. From then on, the myths about Jesus and the Christian faith began to fall, and one day, God revealed Himself in a personal way to Nabeel*.

For me, it is remarkable how it is both easy and difficult it is to wrestle with Christianity, and I have to put myself into other people's shoes, like Nabeel's. Sometimes I think the history just speaks for itself and the truth stares at us plainly. Other times, I see that we need to be led out of the maze of our own making by the divine hand of God. And that is what the Gospel is all about--God forgiving and overcoming the sin in our very nature to bring us to life through Jesus Christ.

A final thought: I wonder how many Christians sitting in church every Sunday (or on Christmas and Easter) could easily be someone like Nicole Queen. Christians are provided with lessons about Jesus' sacrificial love and forgiveness, mercy and spiritual rebirth. We are given Bibles that tell of God's purposes for our lives. We are constantly invited to consider God and see Him for who He is. Yet, many don't even crack open the Bible between church attendances. We cannot remember what was spoken about immediately after leaving the service, and worst of all, we hardly give God a thought in our day-to-day activities. We haven't encountered God at all; He is not in us even though He is around us constantly. No wonder that when certain people reach a level of maturity, they cannot see the presence of God in so-called Christian people. They don't see Him, because He's not there. So they look elsewhere.

*Today, Nabeel and David both operate Acts 17 Apologetics, a Christian ministry with a special focus on Islam.

Theology and Apologetics Q&A (1)

2010-05-09T01:09:00.010-05:00

These are questions asked by my fellow churchgoers. For reasons of length, they are answered here so I can elaborate if I need to.

Q1: The whole Bible is the basis of my faith and I know if one word is not inspired then the whole thing collapses. The biggest barrier I run into in my outreach is the tripwire the old chestnut of the book being written by man and therefore suspect...Bottom line, give me the elevator speech that knocks down that argument about the Bible being written by men. Thanks.

If, by "argument," you mean the view that since the Bible was written with human hands it couldn't also be inspired by God, then I would ask "why not both?" What people are really questioning is whether the Bible can be truly error-free if it were produced by human hands. If there is a God who wants to communicate with us through the Bible, then why can't the Bible be error-free? Again, if there is a God who wants to communicate with us, then why does it matter that He chooses to speak through poetry, narratives, and letters written by men vs another method?

Would it make a difference if God struck His word on tablets on a mountaintop instead? (Oh wait, He did) Would it make a difference if monkeys pounding on computer keys produced all the books of the Bible? Would that make things any more miraculous, inspired, or error-free? It wouldn't to me.

In turn, I'd like to ask if such an argument is made by people, namely men (?). Of course it is. So, if I were to adopt a similar line of reasoning, shouldn't I be able to question whether that is a good argument simply because it was made by a man? Well no, of course not. It just goes to show that this attitude dismisses the veracity of the Bible based on its origins in what's called the genetic fallacy. Other than being guilty of extreme prejudice, this argument carries little weight.

Q2: Why is God so angry in the OT, to the point of killing people on the spot? Why did he stop that behavior in the N. T. ? hum, does that mean GOD changed his tactic with us?

This is a good question that people often ask.

Your question makes it sound like God reacts out of His anger to kill people unjustly. Is this what you mean? If so, God wouldn't be loving or just if He did that. People are created beings; on top of that we are sinners. Our lives are always at His mercy, and if/when He determines that our earthly lives should end, we have no reason to accuse Him of being wrong or unfair.

God may appear to behave differently between the OT and NTs, but I think this is only due to what we perceive as more tolerance on His part. God can and has claimed life in immediate punishment for sin past the OT. Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5 are the examples that come to mind. But you could be right that God has actually changed His behavior toward those in post-NT times. If He has, I'm thankful for His great mercies.

Q3: Did Jesus give a chance to the people of the Old Testament that never heard the Word of God?

Romans 4 talks about Abraham and David believing God and God treating them as righteous long before Jesus walked the earth. Theologians have pointed out that Jesus' blood retroactively covers their sin even as it proactively covers ours today. For those people in the OT who were not a part of the Hebrews or Israel, their witness was the nation of Israel itself. There were many who became part of the Hebrew community all throughout the OT who learned of the God of Israel (i.e. Egyptians escaping w/ Hebrews in the Exodus, the Moabites).

Q4: Why are we saved by grace through faith? Why not grace through love, or forgiving others? Is it because we’d earn salvation that way, in a sense?

Think about it this way: it is not so much the "earning" aspect that plays a role in this question. Being sinful people by nature, we cannot love well enough or forgive others with pure enough hearts and minds to qualify being worthy of being in the presence of God. One guilty person loving and forgiving another guilty person doesn't erase the guilt of either party before God.

Second, the whole idea of grace negates trying to earn salvation, because grace is something God freely gives as He wills. If grace is earned, then it wouldn't be grace (Romans 11:5-7). Suppose if salvation could be earned, then some people would have a right to demand it of God based on a level of achievement. Those people would somehow have less sin or be better than the rest of humanity. But, as Scripture reveals, no one has any spiritual advantage. We are all sinners, whether we sin more or less than the next person.

I think I should point out that only Christianity contains God's grace in this way. God is an agent
independent of us who gives grace and instills faith on believers. Many religions require merit that is ultimately not for God but for collecting self-orbiting accolades meant to force God to do something for us. That is very different from the loving relationship that God wants for us that we find in the Bible.

Q5: What happens to people that don’t hear the Word of God? Are they judged based on the difficulties that God has given them, or solely on never hearing his name?

Wow, this is a question that is as old as the Bible itself! Even if I had another two-thousand years, I couldn't give you a complete answer. You won't be alone when you get to meet Jesus in person one day and ask Him directly. :)

Short answer: it depends. Without the Gospel, there is only Law (Romans 10). How an individual responds to the Law of God, which everyone knows in their heart, is how God will judge him/her (Romans 1). The only thing we know about the unknowns is that God is always just, and whatever happens to those people will be the right thing.

Q6: In the end, it says that “every knee shall bow” (Philipians 2:10) and every tongue confess (Philipians 2:12) that Jesus Christ is Lord. Also, it says “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.” So, it turns back to belief again with the heart, but what about salvation through confession? If everyone confesses, are they all saved? That is a nice thought, but I think I’ve misunderstood something here.

Yes, there are two senses of the word "confess" here. One can "confess" as in pure acknowledgement of the identity of Jesus Christ; another "confess" is what a believer does to identify his belief and faith in Jesus Christ.

Notice that the first sense in Philippians 2:11 is what everyone will do when Jesus comes again and the world must acknowledge Him for who He is. The second sense in Romans 10:8-10 is communication to God from someone with a believing heart. Per your question, the confession of the believer doesn't grant salvation, but it witnesses to the believer's salvation.

Movie Review: The Cartel

2010-05-05T11:10:00.015-05:00

Last Friday, on an impulse, I and my 4-year old rushed out of the house to make the 1pm showing of The Cartel at The Plaza Frontenac (Oohlala).

But I digress; with my toddler's patience clock counting down (as was the number of fries in his lap), and the movie starting 15 minutes late (sans previews, thank goodness!), I was not disappointed in the least. The movie got right down to business as Bob Bowden, the creator of this documentary, reveals to the audience that the New Jersey public education system is about many things, the least of which is actual education.

The public may/may not know that the state of NJ spends an exceedingly high number of dollars per student per classroom, with the average classroom receiving about a sum total of $313,000 (or more) per school year (including teacher salary and overhead). Surprised? So were the NJ residents interviewed on the street, who were asked to guess but named a far lower amount.

So where is the money going if it isn't producing the good results that upwards of six modest incomes combined should produce (if money were the biggest factor)? Bowden follows the moolah everywhere it goes. And not surprisingly, most of it isn't spent in the classroom.

The movie accomplishes several things:
o It dispels the myth that more money equals better schools and better performing students. Most of the money is spent on administrative costs and patronage, a quid pro quo between the teachers union (the NJEA, which is the most powerful lobby in the state) and pretty much everyone on school boards and state and local government. According to the documentary, many friends and family members of teachers, administrators, and school boards obtained their jobs through instances of quid pro quo support of the teachers union's objectives.

(Speaking of administration, the movie does a side-by-side comparison between NJ and neighboring Maryland, both of which have roughly the same number of students in the state. NJ has 616 school districts with all the staff to boot; MD has just 24. You do the math.)

o It reveals that lots of $$$ goes toward exorbitant salaries, severance pay, and pensions; some of them being custodial staff. I said that Bowden followed the money--he did--right into an administrative parking lot where the number of luxury cars might rival that of the dealership where they were purchased.

o It reveals multiple instances of fraud, from teachers using students in order to obtain more money for pet programs to a large construction firm demanding billions on top of billions already paid to construct poorly-built and incomplete school facilities.

o It exposes the NJEA's practice of punishing teachers and administrators for wanting to discipline misbehaving and poor performing teachers. Alongside that practice, the union fosters a mentality that discourages teachers from innovating and benefitting their students if it means that other teachers would look bad by not doing the same.

o It dispels the myths spun by teachers unions that voucher programs are a detriment to public education.

- It dispels the myth that any kind of public voucher program is just a racist Republican scheme to hurt black people and minorities.

- It dispels the myth that private schools and charter schools are unaccountable; those schools are accountable to the parents and to the state, which must approve of the educational objectives set forth in the curricula.

- It dispels the myth that vouchers take resources away from public schools, thereby making public schools worse.

- It dispels the myth that alternative and charter schools favor certain, select students by way of admission.

- It affirms what we've known all along, that competition among schools improves schools, which in turn, benefits the students.

- Finally, it dispels one more myth: that the NJEA is always against vouchers through exposing the double standard that it has toward magnet schools, only because magnet schools are still counted as part of the public education system and the union would still receive funds through those schools. Ch-ching!

The documentary made one important observation about vouchers: change the language, and you change the public's response. If you ask most people if they are in favor of vouchers, many react negatively. However, if you ask if they would favor 'scholarships for everyone' to attend the school of their choice (which is the same thing), the public jumps to support that.

At the end of the movie, Bob Bowden remarks that this is not just about NJ. Indeed, as if corruption exists nowhere except NJ? Everywhere there is a failing school we must pursue the cause and strive to fix it. Our kids depend on us.

The movie had significant personal impact on me. At one point, the viewer joins a room full of anxious parents with their sons and daughters present for the lottery drawing of new enrollees for a charter school. The room is pin-drop silent as the names of children are drawn from a bingo tumbler and read aloud. Tears and muffled elated crying begin to filter from the crowd after each name. Near-silent dancing breaks out as one mother, overcome with joy, dances out to the foyer to praise Jesus that her daughter, in her words, now "has a chance." The joy eventually turns to sorrow as another set of tears begin to flow, this time from the children who must also listen for their names, but only to hear their place on the waiting list. It is not rejection, but it is the awful realization that they must face another year in public school if nothing else comes through for them.

As a mom with a child in a public school, I couldn't help but shed a tear along with these families, for both the 'winners' and the 'losers.' Something primal in myself understands that for something as essential as an education, children should not be trapped in the prisons of bad schools. Parents should have the freedom to use the public funds set aside for their children to seek better schools and better teachers. The state's authority comes in second to parents when it comes to the education of our children, and the teachers union, none at all. Parents in every school district in the country need to wield that authority for the good of their own kids and demand that the state, which holds their money, must relinquish it for the good of the future.

Every concerned parent should see this movie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read other reviews of The Cartel.

View the trailer.

Why Nidal Malik Hasan Did Not Murder Anyone

2010-05-03T01:20:00.018-05:00

I originally intended to publish a post on the Ft. Hood massacre soon after the news broke about the attack by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. In the inital days following, the news media strained to find a possible motive for Hasan's actions. Was he a flaming jihadi or a garden variety crazyman? Now, since the events took place months ago, I've had plenty of time to mull the situation over and grant possibilities and motivations subliminally suggested by the media. I also enlisted the help of a fellow Christian apologist and expert on Islam, David Wood from Answering Muslims, to help me make sense of Hasan's motivations. Questions in bold are followed by his answers in italics. To be fair to the media, I have also included representative media answers in response to Mr. Wood's statements. Thus, this blog entry has both sweet and sour sides to it. I'll let the reader decide which is which.

1. It seems like the American media doesn’t know what to make of this man Hasan except to attribute his actions to a psychosis or a mental breakdown. How legitimate is this treatment of him?

Hasan did exactly what Islam commands him to do, which is why it's absurd to attribute his actions to a mental defect. If Hasan had started running down the highway in a pink dress, barking like a dog and shooting people with paint-ball pellets, we might reasonably question his sanity. But when he proclaims his jihadist views over a period of years, consults Muslim scholars about waging Jihad, purchases weapons, and carries out a brutal attack against carefully selected targets, psychological problems simply aren't the explanation. Islam is the explanation.

Phptht. No, Hasan had to be mentally disturbed. After all, he was about to be shipped to Iraq to fight George Bush’s War. Who wouldn’t go insane? You shouldn’t bring Hasan’s cultural upbringing into this. As an enlightened and tolerant society, we should realize that none of this is really his fault, and he can’t help it if he’s Muslim. I mean, Islam is a religion of peace, right? Right?

2. What are the laws in the Qu’ran prohibiting murder or the killing of innocent people? Tell me about what they mean.

Concerning the murder of innocents, Muslims may appeal to Qur'an 17:33, which says, "And do not kill any one whom Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause, and whoever is slain unjustly, We have indeed given to his heir authority, so let him not exceed the just limits in slaying; surely he is aided." Here a Muslim may rightly claim that the Qur'an condemns the killing of innocents.

The problem is that the Islamic definition of "innocent" is radically different from that of practically everyone else on the planet. According to Islam, non-Muslims aren't innocent. Pagans aren't innocent. Christians and Jews aren't innocent. Consider, for instance, what Qur'an 9:30 says about Jews and Christians: "And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Christians and Jews are therefore guilty of the worst sin imaginable (associating partners with Allah). It isn't surprising that 9:29 commands Muslims to fight us.

Hence, while it is correct to say that Islam forbids the killing of innocents, we must keep in mind the fact that, according to Islam, the only innocent people are good Muslims.

This has to be an obvious twisting of the Qu’ran. I mean, what about The Crusades?

3. According to this understanding of the Qu’ran, why are American soldiers legitimate targets of killing?

The Qur'an specifically says that the penalty for "making mischief" in Muslim lands or fighting against the Muslim community is death. Qur'an 5:33 reads: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."

The American soldiers targeted by Hasan were about to be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, to make what Hasan would regard as "mischief in the land." These soldiers were therefore legitimate targets according to Islam.

Well, I have a Muslim neighbor, and that’s not what he believes. And he says he’s very devout. His kids and mine play soccer together.

4. What is the war/jihad that Hasan chose to fight in and what the imam he consulted with endorsed?

According to Hasan, the United States is at war with Islam (due to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq). Thus, any Muslim is justified in waging Jihad against America.

That’s sooo ridiculous. As stated before, Islam is a peaceful religion. The U.S. is at war in Afghanistan and Iraq because George W-stands-for-Warmonger Bush was a warring warmonger. You can’t base what one crazy man says as representative of the whole religion. I’m sure there’s no justification whatsoever in what he believes. He’s crazy, you know.

5. If Hasan’s acts took place in, say, Saudi Arabia, would he be treated as a murderer as he is here in the US?

In the eyes of Muslims who understand Muhammad's teachings, Hasan isn't a murderer at all. He killed enemy combatants, and therefore should be considered a war hero.

Haw-haw. Hasan is a US citizen, and he has Miranda rights and should be tried fairly in federal court. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty!

6. What could be his defense for his actions? Could he argue that he did not really murder anyone at all, since none of the victims were Muslim?

Murder, by definition, is an unjust killing. In Islam, it's lawful to kill enemy combatants. It's also lawful to kill people who are aiding enemy combatants. It's even lawful to kill civilians as collateral damage when targeting enemy combatants. Everyone killed by Hasan fits into these categories, so there was nothing unjust about his killing spree (according to Islam).

See, this shows that Islam is very tolerant and peaceful.

7. The American society seems to be just one of the things disdained by many militant Muslims about the US. Are the features (positive or negative) of American society fundamentally incompatible with Islam or Sharia? Are Islam and Sharia the same?

Islam is the religion, while Sharia is the legal system put in place when the religion becomes dominant in an area. Thus, while there are many Muslims in America, there isn't much Sharia. Sharia is completely incompatible with American society. Freedom of religion is severely limited under Sharia. Freedom of speech is severely limited. The penalties for various offenses in Islam would qualify as "cruel and unusual" in America. Since America is pluralistic, Islam can exist in America. But Islam is monolithic; therefore, America cannot exist under Islamic rule.

America has separation of church and state, therefore, I cannot conceive of any American Muslims who would tolerate Sharia. Only the radical Muslims, whom I refuse to acknowledge exist, would want to impose Sharia. Even if they did exist (which they do not), I’m satisfied with characterizing them as terribly misunderstood and also confident that they will eventually become as relativistic about their beliefs as I believe they should be.

8. Is Sharia the goal of Islam? I mean, there are plenty of Muslims who do not want to live under Sharia. However, does faithfulness to Islam compel them to accept it as the right way of life?

If someone believes that Islam is true, they should believe that Sharia is the greatest system of law (since it's the system that's been commanded by Allah). It is therefore quite strange for a Muslim not to desire Sharia law. Muslims who do not desire Sharia have either been thoroughly Westernized, or they don't know enough about their religion to know that they're supposed to seek the establishment of Sharia.

Well, if you’re going to get all confusing like that, then there is no longer any reason to rebut you.

9. Are Americans naïve to this aspect of Islam? Are Westernized Muslims likewise naïve?

Since Americans are raised to believe that a particular religion shouldn't be forced on people, many Americans just can't grasp the fact that Islam is completely different in this respect. Americans tend to think that all religions support basic rights, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, etc. Indeed, when the facts about Islam are pointed out to people, many become upset because they assume that those presenting the facts must be misrepresenting Islam. After all, no religion could possibly teach that unbelievers should be fought simply for being unbelievers!

Similarly, many Muslims in America have been raised with Western values, and they believe in Western values. But since they don't know much about Islam, they are convinced that Islam teaches the same thing (when it doesn't).

This is the problem with religion in the first place. Adherents turn perfectly benign beliefs in the brotherhood of man (and woman) and the parenthood of God(ess) into a contest of exclusivity! If religious people would just become as enlightened as we reporters, journalists, and news anchors, then everyone would understand how objectively correct we are in pointing out the relativism of all moral and religious beliefs! Let us all put down the dogma, already! Get it? Put down the dog-ma?

10. There are efforts from people like Irshad Manji to reform Islam into a less oppressive religion. Is this even possible?

People are free to reinterpret Islam, and this is what many are already doing here in the West. The problem is that wherever Islam spreads, there will always be a minority of Muslims who take the Qur'an and Hadith seriously. So no matter how much Irshad Manji waters down the religion of Muhammad, Muslims will continue to oppress unbelievers.

When women and minorities are abused in Islamic countries and bring that abuse to the West, I tolerate it as a mark of their culture that I can’t bring myself to critique in public, even if I wanted to. I’ve abdicated my ability to criticize Islam out of loyalty to moral and religious relativism and political correctness. Christianity—now that’s another matter altogether…

Personal reflection:
An army base with unsuspecting and men and women, most of them unarmed. Motive: kill the enemy. Triggerman: one Soldier of Allah. Result: 13 dead.

However the media (and the military) chose at one point to characterize what happened, I can’t ignore the clear, linear progression of logic that led Hasan to attack the personnel at Ft. Hood. For a Muslim dedicated to the supremacy of Allah by following Qu’ran to the letter, mass murder became more necessary than any gentle proselytizing. Maj. Nidal Hasan was an officer in our military, yet he was of another military, that of Islam. In short, he was a wolf in sheep’s clothing, following the path of what he believed a good Soldier of Allah was supposed to do.

Oh yes, let’s go there. Though 13 people died, assuming none were Muslim, according to the laws within Islam, Hasan did not commit murder at all. The dead were only Jews, Christians, and infidels worthy to be swept up in body bags as the consequence of victory in jihad. In Islam, there is no murder of non-Muslims, just death. This is the first tragedy of Ft. Hood.

The second tragedy is this: it took months for the Army to finally spit out the word “terrorist” in the same sentence as Hasan’s name. And the mainstream media? I’m still waiting. And in the pit of my stomach, I suspect I will be waiting forever. Journalists are doing the equivalent of sticking one’s head in the sand to hide from the obvious. Hasan’s beliefs are Islamic…and protected in the shadow of welfare in a beautiful, magical, multicultural world. Therefore, saying anything negative about the origin of his violence (ahem, Islam) is strictly prohibited in the uber-PC culture of the mainstream media. Political correctness forces us to ignore where Hasan got his jihadist mindset (um, the Qu’ran and the Hadith?)

So it seems that some want to imply that Hasan could have been a radical, violent, religious nutcase that had just as much chance of shooting up an army base as a Christian as he did as a Muslim. Fine. If that were the case, I have complete confidence that the media will call him for what he is: a murderer.

But if political correctness in the media can’t call something for what it is, like murder, terrorism, and jihad, then we might as well blame political correctness for murdering 13 people. If that is the case, then political correctness needs to be murdered in order for people to live.

????

2010-03-24T12:33:00.004-05:00

Found this on HillBuzz.com:

Is that...Karl Marx in the apple?

Note: we have it on the word of HillBuzz, who picked up this photo early when it first came out last week, that the photo is the original cover of Newsweek and has NOT been Photoshopped.

Abortion Coverage--It's Not Not in There

2010-03-18T12:21:00.008-05:00

In the last few weeks, when the Democrats in Congress are racing like cats on crack to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (a.k.a. O-Care, Faux-Care, or my favorite: N-O-Care), one of the more contentious issues about the bill is whether or not it funds elective abortion with taxpayer money. Well, since I don't just identify with contentious but also conscientious when it comes to the frivolities of life or death issues, I wanted an answer. Does it or doesn't it?

I read a smattering of articles by fellow pro-lifers against the bill and articles and responses by N-O-Care supporters who accuse said pro-lifers of making things up, and then I read the sections (AND proposed amendments) to the bill about abortion funding. My findings?

The bill does not not fund abortions with taxpayer money.

Get it? Even with amendments, federal funds can be used to pay for abortions unless states individually pass legislation prohibiting taxpayer funds from being used to pay for abortions...kinda. Someone receiving a federal subsidy to buy health insurance will probably have enough dollars in the check to cover an abortion, although that part will be done in a separate transaction outside of health care proper. Y'know, all straight up like that, yo.

The public should well understand something about the law by now: if the law doesn't explicitly prohibit something (i.e. abortion funding), then it is legal and totally exercisable by the beauracracies that be. Abortion coverage is not just a possibility, it's a plausibility. And that's enough for the family of Planned Parenthood, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to declare that the dastardly deed is done.

Pro-lifers have been told repeatedly that if they do not like abortion, they should not get one. Cute. With this legislation in mind, let's shift the shoe to the other foot. If I didn't get a woman pregnant, I shouldn't have to pay for her abortion.

Should Hell Last For an Eternity?

2010-03-07T23:44:00.008-06:00

A question posted to my church discussion board by a fellow member:

Hello …. I’m looking for some reasoned responses or references that I can go to in order to address an inner struggle I am currently undergoing …. I’m wrestling with the issue of “eternal punishment” …. my question is basically: Given the fact that Jesus Christ “paid it all” through his death on the cross, becoming sin and enduring God’s wrath on behalf of all those who will trust in Him, and the fact that after three days he was then resurrected and restored to his rightful position as Lord and King, how do I reconcile with that the idea that a person who does not accept Jesus Christ as Savior must therefore face the consequences of his own sin, but that the consequence for the sin of that one person is an eternal punishment (separation from God) …. how can I resolve the idea that the punishment for the sins of many was satisfied by Jesus Christ over the course of three days (earth time) but the punishment for the sins of just one (without Jesus Christ) is never satisfied and lasts forever ? I realize there may be too many unknowns for this to be answered “easily”, but I wouldappreciate some help with this …. thanks, TWS

This is my answer to this question and some of the discussion trail following it:

It seems the prevailing assumption on this topic is that the suffering of hell is divinely imposed, that God causes the suffering felt. What if the suffering is self-imposed, and, not only that, for those in hell, such suffering is preferable than to be in the presence of a God that those people have hated and rejected?

In Matt. 16:18, as Jesus commissions Peter to lead the New Testament church, He makes an interesting comment that the gates of Hades (Hell) will not prevail against the church. The popular understanding of this verse is that the church will not succumb to the onslaught of Hell, but this is opposite to what Jesus actually says. The gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, giving the actual imagery that Hell is shut from the inside by its inhabitants, and that the movement of God will overcome its resistance. Indeed, this imagery makes more realistic sense as a city beseiged is shut from the inside, not the other way around.

What might we infer from this? Hell is filled with people who would rather be there over and above spending an eternity with a God they despise. They are unforgiven not because they lapsed in asking for forgiveness but because they have rejected the God who forgives. Paul states that freedom from sin is bondage to the Father, which is precisely what sinful people cannot tolerate. To them, freedom to sin is freedom from God, and so in this sense, hell is exactly what they have desired all along. (My thanks to St. Paul..and C.S. Lewis)

But back to the original question, why the eternality of it all? To say that a sin is finite because it is committed in a finite earthly life assumes that one’s location determines its finitude. It also assumes that sin is confined only to this earthly life. We know this is untrue, since Scripture teaches that all sin has an additional spiritual dimension. Sin is ultimately committed against an eternally existing God, who is timeless. The offense exists as long as God does.

The Law exists to teach God’s moral righteousness. James 2 teaches that breaking one law (the only language quantifying sin we have) is breaking the (whole) Law. God’s moral perfection and character, which are abstract and exist eternally outside this temporal world, are represented in the Law, and are the attributes that we offend when we sin/break the Law. From this perspective, sin is far from being merely temporal, since it offends the eternal character of God.

We can look at Jesus’ death on the cross similarly. In fact, my daughter asked a very relevant question related to this just tonight. How can Jesus’ death be efficacious for us living now if Jesus died in the past? (Not in those exact words, of course) But we do know that it is efficacious for us now and for those who lived prior to Jesus’ life on earth, NOT through the limited time of the actual event of dying on the cross, but through the timeless spiritual significance of Jesus’ death on the cross. Specifically, the Resurrection is what makes it efficacious for lifetimes past, present, and future. Jesus is risen and alive and able to reach across time to forgive and save.

On the flipside, I’d like to know: if it seems somehow unfair that hell should last an eternity, then why should heaven last an eternity? I’ve never known anyone to contest that an existence in the presence of God should only be finite because the time spent on earth believing in Jesus was finite.

BTW, Tim Keller’s chapter his book The Reason for God, is one of the better treatments of God and Hell I’ve seen in a lay-oriented book. Chapter 5. I recommend it.

Snagged Me a Photo Job!

2010-03-01T11:28:00.012-06:00

Meet Martin Baker, candidate for MO U.S. Congressional District 1. I had a blast photographing this guy and his fiancee at the Arch yesterday. Lighting was perrrrfect!

International Society for Women in Apologetics

2010-02-21T01:08:00.007-06:00

A new organization; a new website:

The International Society for Women in Apologetics

It's like...the most perfect pair of shoes in the world. I am so happy!

UPDATE: It's official! I am a member, and I'm listed!

"damnant quodnon intelligent"

2010-02-04T11:43:00.003-06:00

Pasted here, because everyone should READ this--this is an article written by Janine Turner on parents need to be involved in educating their children now, as a matter of importance and urgency:

By Janine Turner
In 1775 Israel Putnam was farming in Brooklyn, Connecticut when he heard the British had fired on the American Militia in Lexington, Massachusetts. He immediately dropped his plow and rode 100 miles in 18 hours to Cambridge, Massachusetts to join the colonial soldiers.

On the way he spread the call for "every man who is fit and willing" to come to his countrymen’s aid.

Israel was resolute when revolution beckoned. He was fit and willing. Are we? Are our children? Or is it time for a 2010 resolution for a revolution?

Revolution conjures thoughts of guns and soldiers, passions and pageants. The revolution that currently beckons is an awakening – not an awakening of political parties or partisan politics but of our youth’s minds.

America’s future lies with them.

What is happening to Americas promise? Their intellectual stimulation is benumbed with mindless text messaging, Xbox and reality television. There is an extraordinary, seemingly boundless amount of information available at their fingertips but the question begs: will it be used benignly or brilliantly? Will our children become hypnotized or revitalized? Unfortunately, I see signs of complacency. Recently, I stumbled upon the following words:

The average age of the world’s greatest civilization has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to selfishness;
From selfishness to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependency;
From dependency back to bondage.

Where are our children on this scale? Complacency? Apathy? Are they walking the plank of dependency, over an ocean of bondage? Awakening our children’s sense of faith, courage, tenacity, selflessness, and lessening the belt on prejudice, is paramount for our country’s survival.

We need to unite -- unite in our efforts to rekindle America’s flame.

We come from a lineage of a great, stoic, hard working, positive, philanthropic people who believed in Divine Providence; a Divine Providence that was both the anchor and the launching pad from which dreams were made. America was a land of hope. We cannot become a land of dopes.

We must tell our kids to go outside and look at the stars, sit under a tree, read a book. We must encourage them to seek, understand and value our rich heritage and to do that -- they must study, they must read. We must teach them. We need to turn off the television and read a book of history at the dinner table; be the example. We need to revolutionize our thinking, our moral foundation and our academia.

To quote from one of my favorite forefathers, John Adams:

"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain."

We have come full circle. We have studied painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain for too long. We, both as citizens and as parents, need to study with our children -- history, politics, war, mathematics, natural history and engineering. We, and they, need to be fortified with wisdom, inspiration, Yankee Spirit and American can do attitudes. We need to be both prudent and provocative.

We need a resolution for revolution.

We must no longer rest on our laurels as the aristocracy of Europe did in the 18th century.

Ignorance is the surest way to bring on the demise of our great land. Our children may end up in our enemy’s hands. America will be taken with a subtlety and a craftiness that will feed upon our children’s complacency. The rug will be pulled from under them before they even know there is an enemy in the room. It is not just the terrorists or reckless spending that threatens our country. It is our children’s lack of education and intellectual fortitude. It is apathy. Woe to us, and shudder to think what lies before us, if we do not recognize that knowledge is power.

Our children’s fates and their futures are being carved by our culture -- cultivated and manipulated by a senseless, meandering, electronic society. We must be the hand on the brush that paints our children’s fate.

In our house, one of the ways to paint is with text messaging, Facebook, and Twitter, stimulating thought provoking conversation and patriotism with Latin quotes and American history.

My daughter’s most recent text: “damnant quodnon intelligent.” --They condemn what they do not understand.

I couldn't have said it better.

I support the 2010 March For Life

2010-01-22T10:27:00.008-06:00

TODAY is the annual pro-life rally at the mall in Washington D.C, the March For Life. This year is the first year where those who cannot be physically there can be "present" virtually through signing up to have a symbol of them displayed on the mall with the other ralliers. Why yes, there is a cardboard cutout for me out there!

What's more awesome about this year is that the rally is livecasted on the Americans United For Life website. By going cyber, the pro-life message is going global. People who respect life and are pro-family and have consciences can feel united with other pro-life people all over the world. That, my friends, is beautiful.

I wonder how many protest marches and rallies must go on before our US legislators and Supreme Court justices realize that it is just as wrong to take a life while she is in the womb as when she is out of the womb. No civilization is remotely just when it approves the killing of the next generation of its own citizens. This sanctioning is so close to the eating of our own offspring that anyone who can't see it must not be right in the head, if you know what I mean. That is why this is my symbol for the abortion supporters: The Ouroboros

Are Christians as anti-intellectual as ever?

2010-01-12T21:57:00.002-06:00

Today's younger Christians (under-40) are are more educated than ever in history. The vast majority are college educated (many through graduate school), and because of their tech savviness, are more exposed to different philosophies, worldviews, and political and religious thought than any generation past. In fact, most of these younger Christians have come to believe that they are more educated, objective, and intellectually superior to their parents' generation and their grandparents' generation. Particularly in America, many think that they are certainly superior to the generations before the Enlightenment.

Previous generations of Christians have been characterized as anti-intellectual, unwilling to enter the academic arena or read books challenging Christian suppositions. They eschewed serious discussion over competing worldviews and took a dim view of higher education in the liberal arts and sciences. They thought that real spiritual history began with the Pilgrims (slight sarcasm there).

But younger Christians are better now. Why? Because we know so much more, that's why.

But is this true? Even with all these degree letters swirling around our names like some badge of honor, ask most young Christians how well they actually know their own convictions compared to previous generations. Ask how much Scripture they actually read on a regular basis. Ask how many books they have read.

Have they read books by G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis, Alister McGrath, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon? I could go on ad infinitum, but I'll stop there for brevity's sake.

Most have not. More than most have not. At the end of the day, while we believe that we have more intellectually distinguished knowledge of the world and of faith, I fear that we do not. Most of us can name the companies that have dropped their ads using Tiger Woods (and the ones that haven't). But most of us cannot name the 10 Commandments nor articulate an objective reason why the Christian faith should be believed among religions of the world.

If asked why not, most young people would say that they haven't the time nor the interest. That excuse doesn't sound much different today than it did in yesteryear. So has anything really changed?

What's Yours is Ours: Thoughts on the Christian Collective and Socialism as Policy

2010-01-11T12:54:00.009-06:00

It's an election year, and I feel like mulling over the oft-asked question "How should Christians think about politics?" Since politics is much too broad an issue on which to focus one singular post, I'll start by narrowing down a particular issue that perhaps hasn't received enough attention among believers of late: Biblical Christian community vs. the American way-of-life.

A YouTube video tangentially touched on this subject, and a friend of mine from church obliged me a comment on the prospect of socialism existing here in the U.S. She said:

"I really wish people would stop the fear-mongering, like the quick flashes of the old Soviet Union flag, other socialist and Communist images in the video, and the menacing music. Fear-mongering promotes hatred and hostility rather than respectful dialogue in which both/all parties can learn from each other and promotes consensus. No elected official is trying to turn the US into a Communist state or even a socialist one.

That said, there is nothing inherently evil about socialism. Communism definitely is inherently evil (denial of God, mindless submission to leaders, suppression of human rights, etc.) - it's an ideology. But socialism is merely another economic system and is in itself spiritually neutral. It flies in the face of our American sensibilities of "every man for himself," but it's actually more in line with the first century church where "they had everything in common" (Acts 2:44)."

I find the point in the second paragraph the most interesting and something that I have pondered at least once or twice before myself. In all practical respects, the early church in Jerusalem did live communally and had a touch of socialist redistribution of wealth in the believers' day-to-day.

"Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need." (Acts 2:44-45)

So, is this a model for Christian life today, not just in America, but everywhere? Can it be? Should it be? If it is, then it cannot be merely spiritually neutral, can it? Specifically, if we see it institutionally implemented as a transformation of society from a non-socialist status quo to one that is, should we not embrace it as a move toward that higher biblical living that we should all strive to achieve?

Before anyone objects, I'll just name an incomplete list of issues that have ushered us to this point in America: state and federal welfare programs, minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, COBRA, the National School Lunch Program, WIC, and state and federal unemployment benefits. We are also almost at the point of adding national socialized medicine to this list. Given the mandate from God Himself to exercise compassion, charity, and to care for the poor, it seems the consistent thing to do as a Christian is to support such programs in the effort to obey, or so it seems of late. As analysts continue to dissect the voting patterns of the younger generation of Christians going to the polls, they so far have corroborated what my friend Matthew Lee Anderson has said about those in the younger Evangelical segment. Younger Christian voters do tend to favor the establishment and expansion of government programs which have the stated purpose in assisting the poor financially. Orthodoxy and orthopraxis finally intertwine in idyllic unity as far as this generation is concerned. The leap, therefore, into endorsing a socialist economic system would be nothing more than taking the next step in realizing a piece of heaven on earth. It seems logical that all believers should do likewise, as maintained by many self-professed Christian Socialists. Indeed, the leaders of churches steeped in liberation theology have long preached just such a message, have they not?

Is it really that simple? Some problems with such a proposition should come to mind. The Kingdom-minded who would like to see the advancement of a socialized economy for the sake of the poor should remember objections leveled at other efforts to bring some Jesus into public life, one of which is the doctrine of the separation of Church and State. Parents who have longed for the ability to send their children to superior private or parochial schools (vs. failing public schools) but cannot afford the tuition have thus far been denied vouchers on the grounds that the possible choice of schools includes those administered by religious entities. Not many who support socialism also support school choice, seeing as the latter is more a feature of a free-market system than socialism.

The limitations that socialism brings on society also pose a conflict for the Christian worldview. As with communism, socialism necessarily strips the individuality of persons and replaces it with a category or class in order to address needs through a system. The Marxist ideal of the classless society is not only unrealized but flatly contradicted as socialism must work by taking from one class to give to another. Indeed, the State defines the nature and level of compassion the needy require and determines the manner of aid distribution. Everything is quantified, even down to the worth of a human being. By contrast, the Christian worldview upholds the humanity and distinction of each human person of first importance in regarding his needs and leaves full discretion to the Christian Body on how best to exercise charity. If Christians intend for the government to render financial assistance to the poor, then when it does not on the basis of some discriminatory policy, the sacrifice for living under socialism will have been futile.

There are more limitations to socialism, but I will simply point out one additional. Socialism has always failed and left in its wake the same financial need, hunger, and poverty that it was implemented to fix, if not more. As a system, it is one that consumes and never generates the resources and wealth that it seeks to redistribute to the poor. Contrast the results with that of the U.S. record of charitable giving for all entities both public and private. In the current non-socialist system, the high wealth generation that exists has allowed Americans to fund relief work on a global scale unmatched by any other country in the world. For Christians, the command is to minister to the poor actually, not potentially. Therefore, believers should think carefully about the kind of amelioration to the poor in which to invest support.

But what about that Jerusalem Church? Its unofficial socialist-like economy did serve a definite good, but before Christians today go viral with the idea, the situation in which the Jerusalem Church found herself bears due consideration. First, the sharing of possessions and food served as rescue from a consequence of belief in Jesus Christ: persecution. Jews that embraced Jesus as the Messiah inevitably faced being disowned and homeless by their families and the greater Jewish community. To avert starvation, those with resources shared what they had to care for destitute brothers and sisters in the faith. Second, we find this specific activity in Acts 2 and nowhere else in the experiences of the other New Testament churches, particularly in the Gentile world where believers could live independent of the Jewish community for sustenance. The motivation of the Jerusalem Christians to implement communal life came about through necessity, not as a model for any ideal style of godly living. Third, the overarching point of Acts 2 starting in verse 40 is to highlight the unity and the Pentecostal movement of God within Jerusalem to bring the believers into faith in Jesus Christ. Given the narrative context of the scripture in question, the Christian reader should be careful not to make an 'is' into an 'ought' from them.

Even without this poring over actuality and context, I cannot help but sense a violation of some subtle grounding principle as believers judge what obedience to God really means in service to the poor. In Matt. 25, with eternal judgment on the line, Jesus explicitly places the believer under personal moral obligation to show compassion and make a difference toward the poor, hungry, and imprisoned. By saying it this way, He undercuts substitutions to third party providers. Why? Such substitutions often result in diminished impact and dependence on a third party. And when it fails, obedience fails, while the moral mandate remains unchanged and unfulfilled.

Christians naturally live in a collective called the Church. In it, believers have the greatest ability to copy their Jerusalem ancestors with the same values and benefits. The Jerusalem Church demonstrated the greatest amount of discretion in a collective moved by God to serve their own. Socialism has shown never to be a simple expansion of this communal life. Socialism in the contemporary sense substitutes the values of the Church for the values of the State. Believers today need to consider what surrendering this discretion to socialism would mean to the actual ability to embody the faith. In the end, the decision is a classic one for Christians living in two Cities about what must one give up to live fully in one City or the other.

Happy 2010

2010-01-08T13:12:00.003-06:00

This year, I'd like to start the blog by offering up a New Year's prayer:

Dear Lord of Heaven and Earth,
I submit and commit my thoughts to Your plan and approval. May you make this year one in which my thoughts and my words reflect the truth of Your Word, nature, and glory. May I speak with the wisdom only You can supply. May everything be done according to Your will on earth as it is in heaven, and that includes cyberland as well.

May believers take seriously and use wisely the gift of communication in the time we are given this year. Bless all You allow to hear and understand the Gospel.

Soli Deo Gloria
Amen!

There's no "ethics" in bioethics

2009-12-18T11:30:00.003-06:00

(pasted from my facebook notes)

I received a fundraising letter from CBHD in my snail mail today. Submitted for your consideration an exerpt from that letter:

"Although some bioethicists might wish it otherwise, the voice of Christian bioethics cannot be silenced. CBHD is rapidly cementing its reputation as a center of "scholarship with a purpose." Our purpose is to make sure that bioethics worldwide attends to human dignity. Our scholarship analyzes developing trends and identifies both threats to our human future and opportunities that guard our common humanity.

Why does this matter?

The White House recently disbanded the President's Council on Bioethics for being overly philosophical and not providing enough practical guidance (as if practical recommendations should ever come without substantive reflection!). CHBD advocates healthcare for the common good. However, some alarming trends in the current debates appear to support funding of abortion and erode rights of conscience."

The misnomer that is "bioethics" in the realm of the practical (shall we say pragmatic instead?) only serves to confuse the public as to what is really taking place across conference tables in so many medical facilities and university meeting rooms. The function of bioethicists in these institutions is to convince themselves, politicians, and the public that what is commonly considered immoral treatment of a human being is otherwise perfectly acceptable once you erase the humanity of that person (an increasingly common practice in decisions involving medical ethics). So much for the 'ethics' part in the word "bioethics." The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity is one that stands for real ethics and limitations on the abuse of humankind through pragmatic rationalizations. Simply put, you really can't live without them. Think about it.

I Heart Irenaeus

2009-11-27T09:12:00.001-06:00

Irenaeus explaining the teaching of the Gnostic Valentinus:
"He maintained that there is a certain Dyad (two-fold being), who is inexpressible by any name, of whom one part should be called Arrhetus (unspeakable), and the other Sige (silence). But of this Dyad a second was produced one part of whom he names Pater, and the other Aletheia. From this Tretrad, again, arose Logos and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. These constitute the primary Ogdoad .... There is another, who is a renowned teacher among them, and who, struggling to reach something more sublime, and to attain to a kind of higher knowledge, has explained the primary Tetrad as follows: There is [he says] a certain Proarche who existed before all things, surpassing all thought, speech, and nomenclature, whom I call Monotes (unity). Together with this Monotes, being one, produced, yet not so much as to bring forth ... the beginning of all things, an intelligent, unbegotten, and invisible being, which beginning language terms "Monad." With this Monad there co-exists a power of the same essence, which again I term Hen (one). These powers then--Monotes, and Henotes, and Monas, and Hen--produced the remaining company of Aeon."

Irenaeus--why I love him:
"Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!--for well may we utter these tragic exclamations at such a pitch of audacity in the coining of names as he has diplayed without a blush, in devising a nomenclature for his own system of falsehood. For when he declares: There is a certain Proarche before all things, surpassing all thought, whom I call Monotes; and again, with this Monotes there co-exists a power which I also call Henotes,--it is most manifest that he confesses the things which have been said to be his own invention, and that he himself has given names to this scheme of things, which had never been previously suggested by any other. It is manifest also, that he himself is the one who has had sufficient audacity to coin these names; so that, unless he had appeared in the world, the truth would still have been destitute of a name. But in that case, nothing hinders any other, in dealing with the same subject, to affix names after such a fashion as the following: There is a certain Proarche, royal, surpassing all though, a power existing before every other substance, and extended into space in every direction. But along with it there exists a power which I term a Gourd; and along with this Gourd there exists a power which again I term Utter-Emptiness. This Gourd and Emptiness, since they are one, produced (and yet did not simply produce, so as to be apart of themselves) a fruit, everywhere visible, eatable, and delicious, which fruit-language calls a Cucumber. Along with this Cucumber exists a power of the same essence, which again I call a Melon. These Powers, the Gourd, Utter-Emptiness, the Cucumber, and the Melon, brought forth the remaining multitude of the delirious melons of Valentinus .... If any one may assign names at his pleasure, who shall prevent us from adopting these names, as being much more credible [than the others], as well as in general use, and understood by all?"
--Against All Heresies 1.11

It's the "Iu, Iu! Pheu, Pheu!" that did it for me. Booyah.

WDTD (Who Made God)? A Response to a Response to a Response to a...

2009-11-22T10:41:00.028-06:00

...Response to Theism and the Causal Principle.

For whatever reason, the following YouTube video caught my ~~attention~~ annoyance. Perhaps it is because this person is speaking so close to his webcam that his face nearly fills out the entire screen forcing the viewer to constantly gaze upon his John Travoltesque chin and/or that being so close to the camera gives the feeling that he is literally in-your-face to go along with his rant that is most certainly in-your-face. Triviality--let's deal with the subject at hand.

This video, made by James (a.k.a. DasAmericanAtheist), is a response to William Lane Craig's response to Richard Dawkins' response to the philosophy of the Causal Principle as used by many Christian theists to argue for the existence of God. Dawkins asks 'Well, if the universe was designed, then who designed the designer?' which is the same as asking "Then who made God?" Watch the video below:

(relevant portion begins at :53)

James leads with Dr. Craig's statement, "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don't need to have an explanation of the explanation," to which he flashes the question "Why not?" At this point, asking 'why not?' betrays a key misunderstanding of what Dr. Craig is saying. By asking 'why not?' I think James is suggesting that Dr. Craig is saying 'The Christian theist is not obligated to his audience to give a defense of the explanation that God is the designer of the universe.' In other words, "don't need to" is equated with "not obligated to his audience." This is not Dr. Craig's position.

Dr. Craig is stating a rule in the philosophy of science; the statement above is about in part the procedural requirements for identifying a cause. Now read this slowly: what he is saying is that an explanation of an explanation of a cause is itself not part of the explanation of the cause. That is why it is 'not needed' in the philosophical treatment of the issue at hand and is not necessary to conclude that a certain explanation of a cause is the best explanation. What this means for Richard Dawkins is that his question "Then who designed the designer?" is completely beside the point.

This is evident, as Dr. Craig elaborates in the following example (paraphrased): "If archaeologists were digging in the earth and came across objects shaped like arrowheads, pottery shards, and tomahawks, can you imagine one of them saying "Look how the processes of metamorphosis and sedimentation have formed these uncanny objects!" Of course not. They would recognize that these were products of intelligent design by some unknown people group in the past. Now, in order to recognize that this explanation is the best explanation for these artifacts, the archaeologists don't need to explain the origins or details of the people group in question."

So, specifically to Dawkins' question, the theist does not need to answer 'then who designed the designer?' or, in other words explain the origin of God, in order to legitimize the statement that God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe's design.

James says that he doesn't recognize an argument here, which is exactly my point. Dr. Craig has simply stated the parameters of the philosophy of science on the question of the causal principle in order to refute Dawkins' mistaken notion about causes and origins (an irrelevant question that demonstratively leads to a [potentially] infinite regression of irrelevant questions of causes and origins). This is why Dr. Craig says that such a mode of inquiry is the end of science.

James asks: "How is it, that from among competing hypotheses, you can establish that a given explanation is the best explanation?" [Let me interject a minor aside here by suggesting that perhaps he doesn't like the word "best," as it might erroneously connote that some explanation is "best" as in "best by subjective determination." Perhaps, then, we should use the term "most plausible" rather than "best," if that makes the atheist more comfortable. I have no problem with that.] Back to his question: This sounds like a misdirection, given the context in which he is asking. Going back to Dr. Craig's example of the archaeologists, how applicable would James' question be toward identifying a cause of the artifacts in the ground? What kind of competing hypotheses should we consider to the idea that the artifacts are products of intelligent design? While one could invent a variety of hypotheses, we would easily establish that most, if not all, other hypotheses would lack adequate explanatory power and explanatory scope compared to the explanatory power and scope of intelligent design as the most plausible explanation. But we don't even need to ask such a question in the first place, because it is evident that it doesn't apply to our example. Likewise, neither does it apply to identifying God as the designer of the universe. Now, I do not mean to say that James' question is wrong in and of itself. It is a perfectly fine question to ask in general when beginning a deductive inquiry to establish one's parameters (hey look, we just reaffirmed the scientific method). In the issue at hand, however, the deduction that God is the most plausible explanation of the design of the universe is the conclusion drawn at the end of the Design Argument.

So while James can ask his question at the beginning of the Design Argument (which is then answered in the argument), he cannot ask the conclusion to the argument why it is considered the "best"/most plausible explanation as if it is part of the argument itself. That would be the beginning of a separate inquiry.

James reiterates: "Wouldn't supporting a given hypothesis with evidence or argument be explaining an explanation?" Well, so far James has been using the terms "hypothesis/es"and "explanation" somewhat interchangeably, and it hasn't been a problem until this latest equivocation. A hypothesis is NOT an explanation, even though in the previous context the terms were related enough to let it go. Here in the next question, a hypothesis is a proposition to which the evidence or arguments must either support or disprove. An explanation is a conclusion arrived at through an argument. If we apply this question to the core topic here, then he would be demanding in effect, 'Give an argument for the argument that concludes that God is the designer of the universe.' Well, the Design Argument is the argument that leads to the conclusion 'God is the designer of the universe' as the most plausible explanation of the facts. So, the answer is "no," because his question doesn't make sense.

The last few statements invoking gremlins, I think, is gratuitous...and ad hoc. The possibility of gremlins isn't even worth discussing, except for this: if James is willing to define 'gremlin' as a timeless, immaterial, powerful, and transcendent personal being who created the universe from nothing, then perhaps there could be a future dialogue somewhere in that.

I'll conclude this post with another clip that shows Dr. Craig's explanation of why philosophically we don't need an explanation to explain who designed the designer (well looky there, we found what Dawkins asked for afterall!). And, James, if you're reading this, I hope this straightens things out for you on this point. And, please stop eating your webcam.

The Manhattan Declaration

2009-11-21T09:43:00.007-06:00

Not just any pro-life, pro-family, pro-ethics statement, the Manhattan Declaration is a call to civil disobedience if (when) the government legislates that people of conscience support abortion, eugenics, and same-sex marriages in their professions and with their tax dollars.

The last paragraph of the declaration states:
"Because we honor justice and the common good, we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family. We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar’s. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God’s." (emphasis mine)

The question is, where will liberty lie when the leftist elites are drafting the laws of the land? The shoe has been on the other foot for almost a year; let us see what becomes of civil disobedience now. Any thoughts?

The Fly-By (11.1.09)

2009-11-01T21:19:00.011-06:00

1. Plastic Surgeon Weds Woman for "Potential," Performs 8 Surgeries on Wife. If there is anything redeeming in this story, I challenge anyone to find it. Otherwise, barf.

2. And the Messianic references just keep coming, only it's not who you think it is. Hint: he might walk on water, but he ain't gonna make me drink it.

3. What's in that new miracle skin cream? YOU'D BETTER CHECK THE INGREDIENTS, NO JOKE. Neocutis, a cosmetics company, is now marketing an anti-aging cosmetic made from tissues derived from an aborted fetus. Apalling and sick.

4. You don't have to convert away from Islam for your father to go all 'honor-killing' on you anymore. UPDATE: The daughter of this man is reported to have now died from her injuries. Just as an observation, I notice that the AP called the murder an Iraqi honor-killing, instead of an Islamic honor-killing. How one can really avoid the obvious Islamic etiology of the "honor-kill" is baffling. I'd like to know: the next time a Catholic priest is reported to have molested a boy, will journalists scrub that story out of all references to "Catholic" and "priest?" Fat chance.

5. This one just leaves me with more questions than answers, like "What happens to the girl who 'type' is the girly-man?"

When Did Jesus Become "Lord?"

2009-10-28T23:08:00.007-05:00

(This is a question I decided to take up posted on Answering Muslims.)

Hi this is Brianman...I am on my gap year before I study medicine, here on a spiritual journey to find my true religion.

I have some questions:
When people say Jesus is the Lord, in what way do they mean that? Do they mean he is one of the trinity when they say he is the Lord?

AND

So, where did this belief come from that Jesus is the Lord (as God)? Where was this philosophy derived from? i.e one of the disciples? Paul? Jesus' authentic words?

My response:
Brianman,
Wow, there is a lot of ground to cover as far as your questions go! I am glad, though, that you feel comfortable enough to ask.

To give context to my answer, you must understand a little about early Christianity. The first Christians were Jews. That is, Jesus was an observant Jew, and all of His followers were observant Jews. Jesus lived and taught everything according to the Jewish understanding of God, the Law, and the Prophets. Now, given that every observant Jew is a monotheist, to call someone “Lord” is a very significant thing indeed, because “Lord” is a title that people reserve for exceptional people, like nobility, heads of state, and perhaps high religious authority. Given that Jesus was not nobility, a head of state, or even an ordained Jewish rabbi, and that no rabbi was ordinarily called “Lord,” that the Gospels would refer to Jesus as “Lord” signifies that they gave Him some exceptional amount of authority. Why did they do this?

From the outset, the Jewish public ascribed authority to Him. “When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.” (Matt. 7:29) He was set apart from teachers and religious leaders of the Law.

Next, He went further by teaching as one who could change the Law of Moses. Read my points here (start where you see the numeral 1). At this juncture, Jesus begins to offend Jewish monotheism. Not only did Jesus lead and teach, He claimed authority to add to and change the Law, something no one can do except God alone. Jesus treads on Jewish sensibilities and blasphemes according to the Law, and it ultimately leads Him to His crucifixion.

Now, what are the options? The only thing observant Jews can do is write Jesus off as a blasphemer cursed by God. So His disciples abandoned Him, ran, and hid for their lives; however, just 50 days later, they came out boldly proclaiming that Jesus was the long-prophecied Messiah and preached worship of Him, the Lord! They claimed they and 500 others had seen Jesus alive and resurrected and began spreading this news all over Israel, Judea, and beyond. Now, there are details in the runup to these events that I have not mentioned, but the practice of worshiping Jesus began with Jesus’ own disciples, who later became the Apostles to the Christian church. The disciple Thomas is famous for his confession (after doubting the resurrection) to Jesus “My Lord and My God!” (John 20:28)

What details I have not mentioned are all the ways in which the New Testament speaks of Jesus as God’s Son and the Divine Judge that determines the eternal destiny of all of humanity. In keeping to the vein of Jewish monotheism, no one can do that except God alone. A good study of the self-understanding of Jesus from the Bible should help you fill in those details.

You mentioned the Trinity. The theology of the Trinity was not formulated in the language we have today at the time of Christ or in the early church. However, the Bible makes certain these three propositions: God the Father is God. God the Son (Jesus) is God. The Holy Spirit is God. From these ideas in the New Testament, Christians had to articulate a doctrine that is both faithful to monotheism and the fact that God has revealed Himself as three persons. So that is what we have: one God who manifests as three persons. Do not be troubled if you find this hard to understand!

My best advice to you to start off, Brianman, is simply to read the New Testament. Ask a Christian to explain parts that you find you need clarification. You seem relatively unfamiliar with the content of Christianity, so I recommend that you read the book More Than a Carpenter (Josh McDowell) too, as a good introduction.

I hope I have answered some of your questions here. It’s been a pleasure!

What I Don't Understand About Muslims

2009-10-28T14:13:00.007-05:00

Again and again, I hear Muslim apologists claim that the Qu'ran forbids any compulsion in one's choice of religion. Apparently, though, this is a one-way door, for someone who is seen to be a Muslim cannot convert to another faith without much threat of compulsion. The following two responses are irreconcilable to me, prompted by a question from a young girl wanting to convert from Islam to Christianity.

Respondent 1:
FREEDOM OF RELIGION:
"(Say to the unbelievers) To you be your Way, and to me mine." (The Noble Quran, 109:6)

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will reject it:.." (Noble Quran, 18:29)

"Let there be no compulsion in religion..." (Noble Quran 2:256)

ISLAM IS AGAINST VIOLENCE:
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, thou shall also incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all there is)." (Noble Quran, 8:61)

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. (The Noble Quran, 60:8)

Respondent 2:
i cannot believe, thant you want to do this!

can you not see that very many people these days convert to islam?
people realise it is the only right religion, you should be happy about what you are.

and to be honest i would blame your parents because they have not brought you up as a proper muslim.

and if you think that everything you are doing is a sin, then you should try to see what you should do about it...read the qur'an! go to the mosque. and stop doing all the foolish things like showing bits of your body, not praying, "thinking you are christian"....

i am ashamed for you.

you should ask for forgiveness because Allah will never forgive you if you convert! you will go to hell!

i do not know what to do with people like you, i just dont understand how i can help you, because you are mentallly disabled.

and yes allah will not be happy with you but no-one know hwta he will do to you, but you will pay for it if you convert.

Anyone care to shed some light on this?

PERVERSION

2009-10-26T21:06:00.015-05:00

Mm, you’d think this might be related to some kind of sex act, but you’d be wrong. Well, almost. Just dropped into my facebook feed is Dana Loesch’s shout-out of Westboro Baptist Church’s latest interstate foray. Next stop: St. Louis.

That’s right, the “church” that has become famous for its “God Hates Fags” posters and picketing of funerals of slain U.S. soldiers is coming here to speak from their unclean lips outside a few public and private high schools in the Metro area. As a Christian and a defender of the faith, not only does this make me go through the roof, it brings me unspeakable dismay.

Righteous Anger

The Bible says I don’t have purely righteous anger. It’s true; I do not. But this is as humanly righteous an anger that I can possibly muster, so I’m going with that. The folks from Westboro are perverts, plain and simple. They want to criticize what they see are moral wrongs in America--fine, only they’re not maligning moral wrongs—they’re maligning people who, for the most part, have nothing to do with the seat of their issue, for instance fallen soldiers and high school students.

“God hates fags?” Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God hates anyone. It does say that God hates the sin we commit and the sin-filled attitudes we carry with us through life. Well, since that covers the sum of humanity from the dawn of man, I guess if God hates fags, then God hates protestors from the Westboro Baptist Church, isn’t that right?

To be sure, I have little objection to comparing aspects of American society to Sodom and Gomorrah. However, this is what I do see: the theological assumptions underlying Westboro’s detestable protests are just as bad as their behavior. In fact, they are downright Islamic in their understanding of God. According to widely available online summaries of the Islamic conception of God, Westboro’s viewpoint, visually displayed in their “God Hates ___” posters, clearly shows striking similarity to the attitudes of Allah, as espoused by the Qu’ran. In the words of Dr. William Lane Craig, Islam has a “morally inadequate concept of God…God loves not the unbelievers; God loves not evildoers….the proud.…transgressors….the prodigal….the treacherous; God is the enemy to unbelievers,”(1) and has mercy only on those who believe and do righteous deeds. It seems that the person himself in a state of wrong behavior garners the actual hate of God.

Now, I don’t judge this theological view too harshly. It is a perfectly natural position to take as a natural outworking of a natural religion made by natural man, who is, naturally, sinful. It usually takes little effort to get most people to agree that the unconditional love of God shown upon people who do bad things seems itself foolishness and a moral travesty, yet this is a core aspect of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

As a follower of Jesus, I am thoroughly convinced that this first misstep in theology firmly places the demonstrators of Westboro outside the camp of orthodox Christianity. To accuse them of defaming the name of Christ is too obvious. To denounce their attitudes and activities is too tame. Therefore, I do not hesitate to call this “church” a cult to which all Christian churches should distance themselves.

Righteous Angle

There will probably be some provocative media attention given to Westboro’s road trip to St. Louis. I wonder if the local media will ask orthodox Christians how they view Westboro Baptist Church? They would if they cared to balance the situation, but why am I concerned at this point?

I see a possible window of opportunity. In Westboro Baptist Church, we have a fair opportunity to study the effects of worldliness and perversion dressed in Christian language and Bible verses, something that Christians have paid far too little attention. We can examine what happens to people who hold to morality without God. We can point out the dangers that such groups have in hindering the message of Jesus and should humbly reflect on ways orthodox Christians have acted similarly in different ways.

Finally, I accept that true Christians are often put in the awkward and unenviable position of being seemingly ‘caught in the middle.’ Too many decent people will view the acts of the Westboro group with derision and make an implication of sorts toward true Christian churches. Others may pressure Christians to say that such groups have no valid point whatsoever, which isn’t true. The window of opportunity just gets bigger as I survey the options. Now is the right time for all followers of Jesus to make the gospel known in the clarity that we’ve all wished we had time for, ironically (and maybe pop another ugly pimple on the face of American Christianity). Let's get crackin'.

(1) William Lane Craig vs. Jamal Badawi: Debate on the Concept of God in Islam and Christianity (relevant portion begins at 7:30)

The Problem of Evil/Suffering

2009-10-23T15:05:00.006-05:00

The following is a quasi-dialogue I cut and pasted from Yahoo! Answers.

Original question posted on Yahoo! Answers:
I'm coming up with a huge final project for my speech class on why God doesn't exist, and there has to be 3 main points. I'm really SERIOUS about this, and I REALLY want to get everybody thinking.So far my first point is the PROBLEM OF EVIL, my second point is the PROBLEM OF CONTRADICTION, and I need one more. What's another REALLY good point that can get these fable believing kids to re-think their patterns?

My reply:
D, I’d like to know why you think the problem of evil and suffering is such a problem for theism. In the absence of God and knowledge of good, how would you know what is evil in the first place? Right now, you assume that evil takes place and object to it (i.e. slavery is evil). You wouldn’t know that unless you have an objective standard of moral conduct by which you think all human beings should live, and that can only be the case if God exists. If God does not exist, there is no way to judge anything to be really evil. If God does not exist, evil is a point of view, and suffering is just happenstance. If the problem of evil is a problem for theism, then it is more of a problem for atheism.

Second, I’d like to know more about this “contradiction” you talk about.

Rebuttal from another person answering the question (abbreviated for length):
Evil - Research shows that the reason humans struggle with emotion to find equitable solutions is pinpointed the region of the brain called the insular cortex, or insula, which is also the seat of emotional reactions.The fact that the brain has such a robust response to unfairness shows that sensing unfairness is a basic evolved capacity. The emotional response to unfairness pushes people from extreme inequity and drives them to be fair. This observation shows our basic impulse to be fair isn't a complicated thing that we learn.It therefore fully illustrates that all humans have morals controlled by the brain and that Christians are entirely wrong to try and claim morals as their own!!!!

But Christians found a way round it!! Government statistics show that christians are vastly over represented in prisons for sexual, violent and fraudulent crime!!The Catholic church is paying millions in compensation for the sex/pedophile crimes of their priests alone!! Christians are vastly over represented in the divorce courts!!

Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!!Agnostics have the intellect to see through the conditioning but lack the courage to throw of the conditioning entirely.

Unfortunately, Yahoo! Answers only allows one-time replies, so here is my reply to the above commenter's statements:
The conclusions drawn here don’t follow from anything stated as premises at all. Your arguments don’t SHOW anything except that you have made an ad hoc conclusion to the fact that human beings do believe in objective morality. The atheist still cannot explain how he knows some things are objectively evil (i.e. slavery), only that he feels that it is somehow.

Reducing the problem of evil/suffering to a problem of unfairness doesn’t help the atheist argument, because basing a sense of morality on emotions and feelings in no way makes anything objectively evil. In fact, thinking like that only argues for the opposite, that morals are relative, and then the atheist has the problem of explaining why he thinks that slavery is really wrong and therefore God doesn’t exist.

Fraud, sex crimes, pedophilia –the only way you could say that these things are evil is if you know that they are evil (even divorce?), not say that you have some evolved capacity to feel that such actions are “inequitable.” Be that as it may, some people feel differently and think it is perfectly fine to commit pedophilia (NAMBLA, anyone?). I see that you think there is some kind of evil perpetuated on the gay community by Christians. If you really think that this is unjust (not simply “inequitable”), then you are appealing to some objective standard that exists apart from anyone’s feelings in the brain. On what basis would you judge those who oppose your particular sense of morality?

Atheists have the intellect to see through the conditioning and escape into the real world!!

How can this be if everything about an atheist is evolved only to survive and perpetuate genes? As it is, there is no advantage in survivability to believing that God does not exist, so how could anyone evolve out of religious belief? How could anyone evolve into it? Ultimately, if naturalistic evolution is the game of life, there is no “real world” that anyone needs to concern himself with, only survivability.

The problem still remains for the atheist who wishes to appeal to the problem of evil/suffering as an argument against the existence of God. In identifying moral injustices in the world to which he accuses God of not being there to rectify, he places himself in the position of actually making an objective moral judgment, something he cannot do without the the objective standard that only God can give. Therefore, God must exist in order for an atheist to make this kind of judgment! As C.S. Lewis says,

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - Mere Christianity

It's not "rape" unless you say it twice in a row.

2009-10-22T21:41:00.003-05:00

The obvious denial of the circumstances by outspoken celebrities in support of movie director Roman Polanski cannot be starker than Whoopi Goldberg’s televised “rape-rape” statement on The View a few weeks back. Apparently, many Hollywood celebs say that the judicial system should overlook his physical, emotional, and psychological assault on a little girl (a crime) just because he happened to successfully run away from his trial sentencing (another crime) for 30 years.

But what can anyone say in defense of the obviously indefensible? Redefine harm? Make lame excuses? Indeed, like marrying a rich ailing widow for her fortune, there is no cliché that gets more repeat performances than the classic movie star wave-off after being caught in sexual immorality.

Just in case anyone is wondering, "pleading guilty to having sex with a minor" equals statutory rape EQUALS rape-rape-rape-rape.

One Awesome Parent Coming Through--Me

2009-09-08T16:49:00.001-05:00

At least, that what it seems like after reading a number of people's opinions concerning President Obama's address to our children today. In the runup to the President's speech, I observed the massive fearmongering of students skipping one day of school and the radical activism of calling one's school superintendent and told myself, "I'm not going to be like THAT. It won't matter to me if Obama teaches our children the national anthem of the USSR! I'm not going to get all wee-wee'd up like THAT." It isn't as if he were proposing to fundamentally transform America or has ever suggested conscripting our country's youth into government service. Noooo. And even if he did, it isn't as if...bah...well we...shouldn't think about that...um...real hard anway...pfffftt.

According to others, I must be awesome, because I let my child be taught and influenced by others for 6 hours a day, five days a week instead of homeschooling her. Because if I homeschooled her, it would be much more likely that she'd be playing XBox or sleeping her life away in abject ignorance just like all homeschooled kids. I bet they grow their own food too. Despicable.According to others, I must be awesome, because I have never discussed Barack Obama's race, not even once to anyone, especially to my kids, although every other critic has: Jeremiah Wright, Janeane Garofolo, and Fr. Pfleger. Oh wait--did I say "critic?"

But you know that's what I live for and how I evaluate my parenting skills. The adulation and approval of others, especially those who dip daily into the vast pool of knowledge and fairmindedness of the Daily Kos and HuffPo, affirm me, affirm me, affirm me. That's what self-esteem is all about--being affirmed by the really cool people, something else I'm going to teach my child.

But I'll tell you what makes me a great parent in my own opinion. I did MY homework and approved of the President's speech before I allowed my kid to hear it. I took the time to watch Pres. Obama deliver his speech at my child's school and stayed with her as the teacher asked the students to write their opinions about his speech in their journals. Then I sat with a bunch of 8 year olds and broke bread with them under fluorescent lights and over asbestos tiles. That's what a parent who loves her children does. Neither suspicion nor fawning at the President should have changed a parent's action one way or another.

As it turns out, I happen to agree with everything that Pres. Obama said: stay in school, work hard, overcome your bad circumstances. This is as good a speech as any conservative Republican president would have delivered, a far cry from blaming racism and poverty for failing to achieve academic success. A far cry from excusing drug use and sexual promiscuity as a reason to drop out of school. A far cry from blaming a culture of hopelessness as the cause of personal apathy. Indeed, for every young person out there: you have two hands, two feet, one brain. You are responsible for what you do with them, so do well.

Thank you. God bless you. God bless America.

Think government-controlled health care is here to help you?

2009-08-22T09:48:00.012-05:00

Think again.

Most critics of private health insurance (especially the President) have tried to make the case that government-controlled health insurance will avoid the drawbacks of denied and/or limited coverage, exemptions, and well, corporate greed. But will it? Reality says no.

Just take a look at this video of the chairman of the Oregon health plan as he explains why the state-run "public option" can deny life-saving medication to cancer patients yet approve the cost of receiving doctor-assisted suicide.

Credit YouTube user AlreadyKnownAsX2

His answer to the question "is it cheaper?" to pay for ($$$) end-of-life care rather than pay for ($$$) cancer treatment is astounding. He ultimately affirms that the issue is about ($$$) money while denying that it is about money. Ohhhh. Heads up, people, the bottom line is still the bottom line whether it be public or private insurance no matter what the motivation.

If it be not corporate greed, it will be some other rationalization. Brilliant.

(Many thanks to Frank Beckwith at WWWTW for the heads up on this one.)

ADDENDUM 9/2/2009:
When private health insurances deny a patient some medical procedure, it's called corporate greed. When govt health insurance (socialized medicine) does it, it's called "saving money." At the end of the day, if you're that patient, do you care WHY you're being denied or BY WHOM? Tell your politicians not to implement the 'public option' that screws the public's options.

Some Cruel Logic

2009-08-12T00:40:00.002-05:00

A video created by Brian Godawa, which I watched at CIA last week (not C.I.A.). I'll put the video up first and followup with my own comments later.

Credit YouTube user thisiscoolstuff

New! Updated Antichrist List!

2009-07-31T18:13:00.019-05:00

They said it about:
Adolph Hitler
Vladimir Lenin
Mikhail Gorbechev (by the Americans)
Ronald Reagan (by the Russians)
Ayatollah Khomeini
Slobodan Milosevic
Saddam Hussein
Osama bin Laden
The Pope (pick any pope)

and even

George W. Bush!

Well, someone has just added another famous name to this list. Congratulations, Pres. Barack Obama, you just made ANTICHRIST! Just consult this incredibly boring, but popular vid:

I guess it's not too surprising. He's been everything else: Messiah, The One, whatever...

But seriously, who makes up this horse manure? Any such tortured reading of the Bible will make my neighbor the Antichrist, for crying out loud. The doctrine of the Antichrist, I've found, is really quite accomodating to anyone of notoriety. Why hasn't the community of prophecy enthusiasts applied Antichrist criteria to the great deceivers within Christendom? Benny Hinn is a wonderful example. I estimate that Hinn might be closer to being the Antichrist than even Hitler. Until those in the Name-That-Antichrist crowd first denounce the deceivers and the heretics among Christian airwaves and popular gatherings meant to bilk the unsuspecting masses, any finger-pointing will have to be ridiculed and proponents stripped of their credibility (if ever they had any).

Prophecy nutcases and faith-healing heretics--two freakshow camps under the label of Christianity that haven't received enough due criticism from within. I think it's about time that changed.

The Fly-By (7.29.09)

2009-07-29T10:44:00.007-05:00

1. Pres. Obama's science czar, John P. Holdren: "The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being,” according to 1973 book titled Human Ecology. [emphasis mine] Nice to know that being human is an acquired property--something like breasts make me a woman?

2. My vote for best title yet under books for women: If You Want Closure In Your Relationship, Start With Your Legs (Big Boom).

3. To avoid the myriad ethical problems with organ donation, medical tourism.......and mail-order brides from China, Daniel Asa Rose makes jokes about it all in his book, Larry's Kidney, to "think outside the box." See his CNN interivew. Oy!

4. Are more unelected officials on their way to run your daily life? Ah, nothing like the sweet smell of oligarchy in the morning!

5. Comprehensive sex-ed program in UK fails to reduce teen pregnancy, one study says. If kids simply stuck to putting condoms on bananas for fun, I'm positive they'll turn the success rate right around.

Brainiacs' Fight Club

2009-07-28T14:06:00.005-05:00

This is where all the apologetics heavyweights are going to see if they can make a crater in the earth with the weight of their collective intellects.

Man, if I could only be there. Booyah!

More About The Damsel

2009-07-19T00:25:00.004-05:00

(Biographical info compiled and adapted from various material I've written for various purposes)

In childhood, I was a typical church kid steeped in Asian Southern Baptist subculture. I became a believer at age 8 and was baptized at 11. I can say with confidence that, though I was a child, I became a believer and was baptized with the full conviction of the Holy Spirit.

At age 13, my spiritual journey toward God quickened while most of my church peers' journeys were away from God. In His providence, God gave me high school friends who were emotionally troubled, spiritually wounded, and highly skeptical (if not downright angry) at the Christian faith and the Church. Other friends were Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Jewish of all varieties. I consider this environment the fire that lit my passion for knowing my God, my faith, and for knowing how to communicate the truth of Christianity to others.

I've since had a trail of personal experiences that have fed my passion for teaching apologetics and theology, especially to college students. Presently, I am a full-time wife and mother, but the passion has not decreased. In fact, I have become more interested in teaching theology to women.

...

Several incidents in my life have brought about my passion for learning and teaching apologetics and theology. My first time considering the truth of any religious belief came when two Jehovah’s Witnesses visited my home when I was a child (perhaps at age six or seven), and my father diligently spent what seemed like an hour or more debating them on whether God could exist as a Trinity. Of course, my dad knew little actual theology and spent the time espousing modalism, but in retrospect, that was a pretty good attempt on his part to defend the Christian concept of God. I realized then that Christianity was not a given, that there exist faiths that seek to undermine Christian truths, and that there should be a defense of the Christian faith.

A second memorable incident came when I was in sixth grade. For some unknown reason, my homeroom teacher decided to challenge the class about what God is like. Now, I’m 11 years old and have never talked to anyone outside of church and family about God, but I answered what I had learned in my short lifetime of Sunday School. He was asking questions in a hostile tone such as “Where is God?” “Has anyone ever seen God?” In the midst of other kids offering up suggestions, I answered, “God is everywhere,” the simplest childhood definition of omnipresence that I knew. Well, in response, my teacher started punching the air with his fists, asking, “Did I just hit God? If God is everywhere, am I punching God?” I can’t remember how this discourse ended, but I do remember feeling offended. I could not express then what I can today that God is also immaterial, but that was certainly an aspect I knew my teacher had not understood in the context of what took place that day.

Right before high school, a family friend gave me a subscription to a teen devotional magazine, and one week was devoted to talking about groups that believe contrary to orthodox Christianity, like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. About the same time, I discovered that my sister owned a few books about cults and doctrine. I simply devoured all the information I could find in the house. Church Sunday School had never taught me the content of my faith in with such clarity as I learned by reading what the Christian response is to heresy. From then on, I often asked my mom to take me to the big library downtown (because the local one was too small for me), where I checked out and read as many books on cults and apologetics that I could find.

At the time, I didn’t ask why I was learning all of this information. I just knew I was hungry for knowledge and was becoming more aware that people need to know Christ and the truth—the burden of evangelism became apparent to me.

When I started high school, God’s providence really came through (in hindsight of course). The friends I made were not the typical teens of that day, and honestly, I didn’t search them out on purpose. A good portion of them was in non-Christian faiths (Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons!); another portion was openly hostile toward Christianity, preferring to call themselves agnostic or skeptical. Yet another portion was the ones that favored the mod/”maud”, rebellious lifestyle and worldview (dressed all in black, etc.). In this environment, I had to listen to their grievances against Christianity and defend my faith and witness to them. I felt for them. I wanted each one to know the salvation of Jesus Christ, and I prayed for God to use me somehow to bring them to faith.

I look back on my teen years and think of them as the refining fire days of my faith. I had to know my faith in order to defend it. I learned compassion and humility. And all of this taking place before I was 18 years old.

My freshman year in college, I chose to defend the Resurrection for my oral presentation in English 102. As a part of Christian college ministry, I have spent time talking to skeptics in the commonplaces on campus. Along with that, I have had to deal with people trying to sabotage Christian events with heretical teachings of their own. I have taught other students how to speak about Christianity and handle hostile people at table ministry. I have dialogued with people who thought my interest in theology was irrational given my study in science. As an immature youth, I once helped ambush Mormon elders by calling the 800 number on TV for a free Book of Mormon (yes, that was wrong; but they met with us for about 4 weeks and even brought a bishop along to help them). I minored in religious studies with an emphasis in Philosophy. My professor of Western Religions (who was also a pastor) was so theologically to the left that I was glad she didn’t actually grade homework or else she might have flunked me for taking orthodoxy seriously. I attended guest lectures from both Christian and non-Christian speakers at my university (Phillip Johnson, John Polkinghorn, Arthur Peacock). I once drove two hours in a car I wasn’t legally old enough to rent in order to listen to William Lane Craig! In church camp, I taught adults, teens, and children alike the evidences for the Resurrection. I really found out my main spiritual gift when Bob Seigel from Missions Door described the prophet as the one at the table who says, “that’s what happens when you’re not careful,” to dinnertime accidents. In my mind, I blurted out, “Oh God, that’s me.” Bob said the person with the gift of prophecy is the one who is gifted at speaking the truth.

In 2000, I married the one boy who had a bigger apologetics book collection than I and could hold up his end of a theological conversation. We now have two little apologists in the making.

Since then, though motherhood is my full-time job, the drive to teach others and defend the faith has always remained strong and incessant. Thanks to technology, I blog my theological and apologetic musings. I sometimes lead community discussions through my church’s outreach ministry, called Midrash. I am always on the lookout for opportunities to lead and teach, especially to other women and also students (both high school and college).

Spotlight on Acts 17

2009-07-10T12:54:00.005-05:00

Acts 17 is my favorite passage in Scripture (if it’s okay to have a favorite!) and has been for many years. Imagine my delight when someone turned it into the name of an apologetics ministry. Founded by apologists David Wood and Nabeel Qureshi, Acts 17 has a special focus on Islam. From their Mission statement:

The mission of Acts 17 Apologetics Ministries is to glorify God by defending the Gospel of Jesus Christ from the ground up. We present evidence for the existence and attributes of God, the inspiration and historical reliability of the Scriptures, and the death, resurrection, and deity of Jesus Christ. We also refute the arguments of those who oppose the True Gospel, most commonly the arguments of Muslims and atheists.

The website shows a full calendar of debates and events that put them on the front lines of dialogue with Muslims and atheists. They also have a blog, Answering Muslims, on which they post their latest ministry updates.

Acts 17 is certainly in the vein of a new generation of Christian apologetics ministries. I look forward to learning more about the work God has given to them in the upcoming months and years.

ADDENDUM: After writing this initally, I perused through Answering Muslims and decided to post their video encounter with Muslims titled “Sharia Comes to Dearborn, Michigan”. Powerful and disturbing, please give thought and prayers for the Acts 17 crew for their ongoing ministry. View it below.

Culture.

2009-07-08T21:57:00.002-05:00

I love Chinese Kung Fu heroes and I love Samurai Jack. The believable rendition of Shaolin Kung Fu artistry is pretty sweet. I enjoyed it, and so will you.

Credit YouTube user nancyscrew.

The Fly-By (7.4.09)

2009-07-03T22:56:00.009-05:00

Yeah, a new series. It will appear whenever I feel like taking the shovel out. Thanks to Joe Carter for bringing on the inspiration. :) It won't be 33 points long (egads, I don't have the patience for that!). I'm shooting for five. Enjoy. Ponder. Discuss.

1. Closet Christian Alice (Vince) Cooper talks about the changes to his life, music, and career. That dude is my homeboy. ;)

2. The God Who Wasn't There, slated to be the next top-selling movie on DVD, next to Bloodsport.

3. The media attention over Sarah Palin's resignation proves that she is more famous than Jacko.

4. A review of the movie, The Stoning of Soraya M, ends with a jab at Pres. Obama's nonexistent support for Iranian democracy.

5. Billy Mays dies the same day as Farrah and Jacko. Who knew?

Driscoll not PG about sex. Amen!

2009-07-02T20:13:00.009-05:00

Axiom: If you want to get conservative church folk really riled up, talk about s-e-x…out loud...on Sunday morning…in the sermon…and skip the metaphors. That’s the reaction pastor Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle is getting from many prominent Christians in the evangelical world. In the latest iterations of protest against Driscoll, Bott Radio Network interrupted one of its programs midway and cancelled another program’s scheduled radio interview at the behest of the network’s founder, Dick Bott, just for featuring Driscoll. According to conservative publications and commentators, like the Baptist Press and others, Mark Driscoll is on a Christian no-no list for saying no-no things, if you get my drift. Among the adjectives used for his language are “vulgar”, “unwholesome,” “coarse,” “filthiness,” and so forth.

It is a fact that Driscoll offends conservative Christian sensibilities concerning sex talk with non-PG language. Now here’s a question that I have: Since when is sex ever rated PG? Sex is for the married. You can be married only if you are 18 (in most states). And, if you are over 18, what about talking about sex should really offend? Why should the fact that he says “sex” out loud and not “s-e-x” give adults with mature attitudes trouble, except if they are not so mature after all?

After reviewing several blog rants and even a four-part article dedicated to criticizing Driscoll’s sermons on the Song of Solomon (which quickly boil down to criticisms about his person and faith), I cannot help but become aware of the river of problems under the church running far deeper than the issue of Mark Driscoll’s mouth. For example, sex is almost always discussed negatively. Driscoll himself observes that the primary message sent to most church youth is that “sex is gross…it’s dirty, nasty, vile, and wrong, so save it for the one you love.” How many Christian couples suffer in silence over sexual issues because they’ve been conditioned to think that sex is too taboo to discuss at church and among believers? In response, some believers might consider the wisdom of the secular world and then struggle over appealing to a source that is so maligned within the church as well. Church, which should be the safest place on earth to talk about healthy sexuality, is sadly the most unsafe and the last place anyone dares talk about it.

I listened to a fair share of Driscoll’s sermons, especially the ones that relate to this topic. There could be the rare occasion that he gets graphic in such a way that might offend (but in listening to three+ hours--and counting--of sermons, I have yet to hear anything even close). I’ve come to the opinion that the messages he delivers are far more important to the listener than the concerns of his critics. He is neither vulgar nor treats sex in marriage as a joke. Vulgarity demeans and degrades people or actions. Driscoll is doing the opposite. He is trying to save marriages and relationships. Not only that, he is trying to save wedded bliss from being the stuff of fairytales and/or the first two weeks of marriage.

Marriage is sacred, which is exactly why Driscoll’s sex talk is badly needed in the evangelical world. Our churchgoers no longer know what the body is used for and how to enjoy it in the way we were created. We have allowed the ungodly secular world determine what is impermissible and "dirty" for believers instead of believers charging the world with its perversion and taking back sexual pleasure under the dominion of the kingdom of God.

Mark Driscoll in general makes people with conservative sensibilities uneasy and takes the fun out of being a liberal. I gotta say that I kind of like that.

Relatives in the Spotlight

2009-06-26T00:13:00.003-05:00

This is NOT video made by my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate. Only my cousin's husband and his buddies. :) They're YouTube famous!

Where There Is No Tolerance

2009-06-13T18:23:00.002-05:00

Reported on FoxNews.com: Christian Man Raped, Murdered for Not Converting To Islam, Family Says.

Comments forthcoming.

The Moral of the Story: Jon and Kate Plus 8, Part 2

2009-06-11T21:28:00.006-05:00

Marriage is expendable
So I’m watching YouTube episodes of the show and note the faint resemblance of their opening sequence to The Brady Bunch. From unemployment to $70,000 per episode, their reality show (thanks to the sextuplets) has vastly improved the Gosselins’ financial state. After four seasons, I’m guessing that adds up to quite a mound of cash. So what if this fifth season is like watching the Titanic break in two? They need the money to care for their eight children’s futures and a new house and two puppies and Kate’s unique hairdo and, and, and…if they don’t have a show, will Emeril ever come back to visit them?

And here is the vicious cycle that I hope Jon and Kate recognize and make a decision to end: the TV show will go on as long as their marriage is in danger. Their marriage is in danger, because they have allowed fame and the pressures of childrearing to take precedence over their relationship. Because their marriage is in danger, fame, fortune, and childrearing will substitute for the apparent neglect of their marriage.

This situation might be a little redeeming if I could hear Jon and Kate say, “We always wanted a huge family with multiples in particular. We wanted our children to be the same ages so they’ll always have this extra special relationship with their brothers and sisters throughout life. We only want to celebrate birthdays twice a year for the birthdays for the convenience of not having to remember 10 different birth dates. And it will be easier for all of them to remember their birthdays too. We want for them to grow up together and leave the house all at once. Having so many siblings helps them intellectually and socially, because they’ll always have to remember each other and not leave anyone out, and they’ve been able to count to ten since the sextuplets were born!”

Of course, neither of them has said anything of the sort, because (unless you really are Octomom) no one ever intends to have six children simultaneously. Neither have they gone the other way and said, “Oops. We made a mistake fighting childlessness in this fashion. Now we have the huge pressure of raising all of them, plus the added dimension of having to entertain a TV audience. It’s tearing our marriage apart. That is ironic, because our marriage is the beginning to why any of this exists in the first place.”

The part I find starkly missing is the appeal to God and church to find a solution to their current marriage woes. Jon and Kate are not superhuman; neither are they doorknobs. In fact, everything in the show tells me that the Gosselins are the most normal people on the face of the earth. And maybe, just maybe, being normal is their biggest flaw. How many marriages similarly dissolve? Why, after the statistics on divorce within churchgoing couples are higher than the national average, do Christians still prefer to treat divorce as a taboo subject and refuse to combat it? Do we not know how? Are we lazy?

In conclusion, that (1) fertility is a god, and (2) marriage is expendable are two lessons from the world that we can find exhibited clearly in the life of a Christian couple named Jon and Kate Gosselin. There are more that I had planned on teasing out, but my better judgment tells me that I should save it for the comment box. That Christians in general don’t stop and consider the ethics of our actions by virtue of our being Christians is a dismal sign that the church has not overcome the world in the more significant ways.

Spice Girls are Back

2009-06-09T21:23:00.005-05:00

I see and hear Spice Girls. I think Backstreet Boys. No?

Earth, Wind, Fire, Water. I get it. If Geri Haliwell were still in the group, they'd have Heart too, and then they could conjure up Captain Planet. Now how cool would that be!

The Moral of the Story: Jon and Kate Plus 8, Part 1

2009-05-29T09:00:00.002-05:00

Introduction
I have never watched the reality show J&K+8 nor given the show a moment's thought in the last five years. Yet, now I think something's changed at the moment of their critical mass. Coincidence? Hardly. At just the right juncture, I’m interested and perhaps providentially so. At least, that is how it seems to me.

Jon and Kate Gosselin, the parents and main "characters" of the show, set themselves up as a Christian couple trying to raise a big family on TV. Their verbal commitment to God and faith linger somewhere above their heads throughout the show’s current four-plus seasons. Kate regularly goes on speaking engagements to mostly Christian audiences, and her name is splashed on many Christian magazine covers announcing interviews inside. A family photo graces the cover of a new book, titled Multiple Bles8ings. But right here, right now, Jon and Kate’s marriage is imploding on national television.

And I'm thinking, ‘Is there anything about this family situation that is healthy at all?’

Fertility is a god
I wrote about the idea of fertility treatment on a previous blogpost, particularly as it concerns Christian couples struggling with infertility. The Gosselins’ situation, unknown to me at the time, perfectly mirrors the situation I talk about right down to the issue of suddenly having many more babies than expected. Their first success using technology gave them twins. Kate wanted a third child, but they cancelled a potential adoption midway through the process in favor of returning to fertility treatments. This time, the sextuplets that caught the attention of a cable TV network were born. Nowhere online did I read that they questioned whether their choices and consequences were aligned with God’s wisdom, yet Kate claims “It’s what God wants for us.*” Even Amazon.com’s editorial review (from Publishers Weekly) of their book states that “she and Jon…decided to accept the extreme challenge God had handed them.”

What God handed them? I believe the conventional understanding of providence involves considerable less control and knowledge over an outcome than what the Gosselins have experienced. Knowing the risks and potential consequences, they circumvented infertility (infertility being a circumstance uncaused by them) to have multiples by artificial means (a circumstance caused by them). How else does an infertile couple go from zero to twins to sextuplets in such short order when they only wanted just one more baby?

The answer is that fertility is a god. Today, instead of erecting physical idols that might grant the next generation of children, livestock, and crops, many go to a clinic where its practices often result in too much of what was wanted (along with consequent “reductions”--ahem, abortions--as remedies). For couples that find themselves unable to have children naturally, the quest to change that through any means necessary can be all consuming, driving even the most well intentioned wannabe parents to take measures beyond godly limits. As Christians, we are most often sensitive to the pro-life position regarding the end of life, but rarely have we thought carefully about the pro-life side of the creation of life. Kate acknowledged the probability of multiples the second time around. “We were told that there was a possibility of four, but we were truly unaware that there were seven on the day that our procedure was done, or we would not have gone through with it,**" she states in an interview. With the potential for a minimum of four more children, did they stop to ask themselves if they were crossing into recklessness by creating more lives than was their intent? If human life is as precious as we say, then we do harm to the children conceived in numbers beyond parents’ normal ability to handle. One thing is true about the use of infertility treatments: many couples may be stamping Jesus’ approval of decisions made without Him retroactively based on the results rather than on principle and responsibility.

Even in the one of the cheesiest near-foreign movies ever made (Bruce Lee’s The Game of Death), the plea to respect life stands out as a universal, objective good; in particular, it is a good that is found within the whole counsel of God. It is about time we apply the whole counsel of God to the subject of infertility and its treatments and realize the bioethical limitations that must exist. To want children is blessed. To avoid ethical pitfalls surrounding the issue of fulfilling this want is equally blessed, if not more.

*(http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/jon-and-kate-plus-8.htm)
**(http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/jon-and-kate-plus-81.htm)

(Next: The Morals of Jon and Kate Plus 8 Story, Part 2)

Welcome to the New 'Elle: Et elle

2009-05-27T10:45:00.009-05:00

After a bit of a scramble, the next generation of Intellectuelle is up and running, renamed Et elle! This will be a co-ed effort featuring a number of fresh voices and blogging styles. Please don't hesitate to give it a whirl.

Many, many thanks to Bonnie Lindblom and Sarah Flashing for making this happen.

How did you prepare for a second child?

2009-05-27T08:30:00.001-05:00

Dana Loesch at Mamalogues asked this question to her blogophytes last week. I felt like sharing, so this was my answer:

After "OMG, am I PREGNANT...AGAIN?!" it was like "whoa, family of four, here we come."

To make a long story short, I determined to have this child drug-free, which was the single biggest change from having my first baby. We got out the baby stuff and ordered some new diapers. I made my OB visits and counted down to D-Day. I delivered him on the day I was supposed to have the shower. Two days later, my daughter went to preschool and announced "He's out!" Then it was mounds of paperwork (wills, life insurance, college savings plan, employee benefits adjustments, etc. etc. etc...).

Ever since, my little boy blessing has been the Tasmanian Devil for the past three years. My husband and I both think that if he came first, and not our daughter, he would be an only child now and forever more. Hah!

Now, before anyone goes off thinking that I hate my son, I couldn't love him more if he were covered in chocolate (oh wait, he is). He's so cute when he's defiant, and he's cute a lot. :)

If you are a parent, how did preparing for a second (or third or fourth...) child differ from the first?

Ouroboros 5: "What if" = "What now?"

2009-05-26T13:34:00.011-05:00

UPDATE 5/26/09: Life Training Institute's latest podcast deals with this very issue. Well worth the listen.

Orignially posted on 5/24/09:
From The Washington Times, the Hot Button article last week is about Sweden's public approval of gender abortion. In Sweden, women may legally use abortion as a method of sex selection. Yep--kill the unborn baby because the she is the wrong gender. Just to make things clear, Sweden has never had a law prohibiting abortion for sex selection. It's just now the issue has become public, and the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has decided that it will not be made illegal.

According to the article, the difficulty started with a woman who aborted twice, because she wanted a boy but conceived girls instead, citing that she already had daughters. This is eerily similar to a reasoning exercised in India and China and current purveyors of biotechnology, that of "too many girls." Gendercide.

I'm skipping the whole discussion about Sweden's philosophical consistency to the pro-abortion stance. Sorry--too callous; too disturbing.

Instead, I want to know what so-called pro-choice people think about this. I want to know why abortion rights are more important than nondiscrimination based on race, faith or gender. I want to know why having the baby you want is more important than just having a baby. I want to know how dehumanizing the unborn doesn't undermine the basic humanity of the born. I want to know at what point pro-abortion feminists will realize that an unfettered right to abortion is a key to feminism's own implosion.

Feminism implodes when feminists approve of gendercide, because gendercide can only be used to hurt women. Historically and globally, females are the undervalued and easily discarded. Feminism argues for the intrinsic worth of women--it only makes sense if it means irrespective of age--and equality of the sexes. How unfortunate that gendercide undermines intrinsic worth and equality in the human community. Metaphysically, gender is a second-tier property, essential to the individual identity, but not foundational to being human. In other words, gender is an accidental property. What does it say about feminists if they choose to support such consumerized death based on the metaphysically nonessential? Oh yes, if you haven't realized it already, abortion is a retail consumer service.

Again and again, the pro-abortion rights movement and its defenses of abortion on-demand shows that the movement rests on nothing other than the exercise of power over the powerless; no other rationale supporting abortion is ever stated without it having been said about another group for the exact same purpose and reasoning. If gendercide is a future reality that we must endure, I hope abortion rights supporters who are women realize that they can never justifiably fight for equality in any arena (equal rights, equal moral standing, equal pay, etc.) outside of the womb if they are willing to deny equality to females who are in the womb.

Ouroboros, the art of self-destruction.

On Memorial Day

2009-05-25T11:51:00.003-05:00

I think of the 100,000+ Americans buried in Great Britain, France, Germany, Okinawa, and other countries. We here on American soil have much to be grateful for in light of their sacrifice and service to not only our freedom, but the freedom of the world today.

Memorial Day Laugh In

2009-05-25T08:00:00.000-05:00

At first, I was afraid of what this spoof might have in it. It's as ridiculous as the actual infomercial, only funny. Happy Memorial Day to all our men and women of the Armed Forces, and to the Pentagon and the DOD. And especially to Donald Rumsfeld, who only got criticized for all the wrong things. Cheers!

Credit YouTube user boomaga.

Therefore, I Am Pro-Choice

2009-05-23T17:23:00.007-05:00

c/o First Things (1994), Killing Abortionists: A Symposium gave serious thought and reflection from notable pro-life respondents to the ethical nature of the termination of abortionists. I found Dr. Robert P. George's contribution so consise and so strong, I am persuaded by the sheer genius of his brevity to be...pro-choice.

Here is what tipped the scales for me:

"I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice."

;)

"Woe to You, Hypocrites!"

2009-05-19T11:13:00.009-05:00

An excerpt from the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Geisler/Turek) that I found very...interesting:

The United States Congress was in a rare joint session. All 435 representatives and 100 senators were in attendance, and the C-SPAN-TV cameras were rolling. The members were gathered together to hear a speech by a descendant of George Washington. But what they thought would be a polite speech of patriotic historical reflections quickly turned into a televised tongue-lashing. With a wagging finger and stern looks, Washington's seventh-generation grandson declared,

"Woe to you, egotistical hypocrites! You are full of greed and self-indulgence. Everything you do is done for appearances: You make pompous speeches and grandstand before these TV cameras. You demand the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats wherever you go. You love to be greeted in your districts and have everyone call you "Senator" or "Congressman." On the outside, you appear to people as righteous, but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness! You say you want to clean up Washington, but as soon as you get here you become twice as much a son of hell as the one you replaced!

"Woe to you, makers of the law, you hypocrites! You do not practice what you preach. You put heavy burdens on the citizens, but then opt out of your own laws!

"Woe to you, federal fools! You take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, but then you nullify the Constitution by allowing judges to make up their own laws.

"Woe to you, blind hypocrites! You say that if you had lived in the days of the Founding Fathers, you never would have taken part with them in slavery. You say you never would have agreed that slaves were the property of their masters but would have insisted that they were human beings with unalienable rights. But you testify against yourselves because today you say that unborn children are the property of their mothers and have no rights at all! Upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed in this country. You snakes! You brood of vipers! You have left this great chamber desolate! How will you escape being condemned to hell!"

Of course such an address never really took place (if it had, you certainly would have heard about it!). Who would be so blunt and rude to address the nation's leaders that way? Certainly no one claiming to be a Christian! Are you sure?

When "I hate you" Is a Compliment

2009-05-11T00:01:00.005-05:00

Disclaimer: this is NOT an endorsment for Quiznos.

Credit: YouTube user Oceanic890

There's something innate in every woman that allows us to understand this commercial perfectly. No, not the sandwiches--the jealousy, of course! In the average female mind, that some other woman is jealous of her (for any of a variety of reasons) is something of a compliment.

Yes, the spot is an amusing and witty celebration of two halves of the breaking of the 10th Commandment. Sadly, women live in the spirit of this commercial everyday, and there's nothing healthy about it. Particularly for women, "thou shall not covet" doesn't exist simply to show us that coveting/envy/jealousy are bad. It exists to show us that we have no need to be jealous of another for anything. Christian women have a secure and liberated identity in Jesus Christ, free from the race for material matters and comparative identity (the constant comparison of yourself with others in order to dwell on what's missing in your own life). In a world that over-glorifies supermodels and trendy handbags and sunglasses, we are saved from living in this skin-deep insignificance.

"I hate you" is sometimes a compliment, but it shouldn't be.

The Interview: Matthew Lee Anderson

2009-05-09T11:09:00.001-05:00

There is no doubt that electronic media in the form of Internet communications is the ultimate revolution of life on earth. Ever since the first century AD, Christians in particular have been eager to use whatever medium readily available to make the Christian message public. Perhaps Paul the Apostle is our greatest example, meeting people in the marketplaces, institutions of higher learning, and the open air "chat room" of the Greek Areopagus. Today, our Areopagus is the blogosphere, webzines, and YouTube (and GodTube too maybe...maybe not).

The blogosphere in particular, as big and wide as it is, has made it possible for many bright people to contribute to the intellectual life of the thoughtful Christian. A few months ago, my friend Matthew Lee Anderson, organizer of the original GodBlogCon, graciously gave me a few precious moments of his time to let me peek into his literary forays. Amongst his online on goings are his blog, Mere Orthodoxy, a smattering of articles on popular Christian websites, and a chapter in the book, The New Media Frontier. So what is up with this guy, certainly a young man at 26, having so much to say?

LW: Blogging, particularly Christian blogging, has, as far as I have seen, really taken off in the last five years. There are numerous apologetics, commentary, and devotional-style blogs out there right now (including mine!). Tell me about the blog you contribute to, Mere Orthodoxy, and what role it plays in the blogosphere.

MA: Mere Orthodoxy, or just Mere-O, started as a joint venture with college friends. We wanted it to be a haven for reasonable conversations about faith and culture from the standpoint of mere orthodoxy, the classical, conservative Christian tradition.

LW: What role does your blog play in the blogosphere?

MA: It’s a small role; I wouldn’t say that it is a major stopping point in the Christian blogging community. We at Mere-O try to aim at more substantive analysis about events happening in church and culture, and sometimes that doesn’t play well online. Politics are what always draws traffic, and there were so many issues were related to faith and politics in the last election cycle.

LW: What are the issues that you personally like to emphasize?

MA: I don’t really have a specific area. It depends on what I’m reading at the time. Life and death issues are always an interest for me; so are theological issues particularly from a historical angle. Of particular interest is the state of the church in North America and how we can make it thrive, specifically with young people.

LW: The book, The New Media Frontier, contains a chapter by you. Briefly tell me about the purpose of the book and what your thoughts are in it.

MA: [Jokingly] That was a mistake by the publisher. They should not have had me in there. The purpose of the book is to equip those who are unfamiliar with new media (particularly blogging). For Christians, it is a valuable resource. I was at a Family Research Council meeting recently and the room was full of laypeople who were aware enough to come to a blogging conference, but they didn’t understand how to blog, how to comment, or what to write about. Those who do blog seem to be culturally aware Christians. The book seeks to provide laypeople with a greater cultural awareness on a practical level. It contains chapters on using the new media within church settings, apologetics, and bioethics. The day-to-day Christian life has to be carried over to your online neighbor with the goal of being a winsome witness for the Gospel.

LW: Now, you've also written a couple of other things that have gotten some attention lately. The first is your article, titled The New Evangelical Scandal, in which you point out that political allegiances in younger evangelicals have shifted because of shifting priorities. It has drawn some criticism but a lot of agreement as well. I perceive that those who disagree that they ought to be thought of negatively in this way. Rather, they see it as a positive. How do you respond to that?

MA: I understand the rationale behind the leftward shift in thinking (having a greater affection for social justice, big government accommodation, and repudiation of the religious right). However, I have a difficult time sympathizing with a lot of it, because much of it is a failure of them to understand the issues well. For younger evangelicals to say there are other things that Republicans need to address is correct. But to then say that we should campaign for and support someone who misses the abortion issue but supports others is misguided. Abortion and marriage are still among the most important issues that come to my mind.

LW: How serious is this situation, in your opinion?

MA: Well, I’ve taken a lot of grief for the article, being pigeonholed as the typical right-wing nut. My tone towards the younger evangelical liberalization was critical, but a lot of their conclusions I’m okay with. I employ many of the things they emphasize, like [open dialogue and] conversation, which is always desirable. My criticisms are primarily about their reasons for using them. I don’t think the situation is all that serious, because most people who really love Jesus can also be persuaded to think more clearly about Jesus as well.

LW: The criticism I see from "younger evangelicals" against, to make a contrast, "older evangelicals" is a lack of cultural engagement and anti-intellectualism. Yet, I can see that younger evangelicals are also guilty of those same things, only in different ways. For example, I don't see much sympathy for poor, disenfranchised Southern white people. I also don't see any more interest in pursuing Christianity intellectually than in previous decades proportionally to the available information out there. How do you view the criticism?

MA: The second criticism is spot on. We should persuade Christian evangelicals that reading hard books is something we should be doing with our time. It is true that there is as much anti-intellectualism with the younger crowd as with the older. Most younger, white evangelicals tend to be more intellectual in part because their parents put them through college. We're using what our parents provided and berating them for what most of them had no opportunity to have at the same level. Let’s check the criticisms we are making and the plank in our own eyes first.

Regarding cultural engagement, our parents’ generation did engage in culture but differently. Beating up on the evangelical ghetto is an easy thing to do. [But let’s consider that] the Jewish people preserved their culture in a hostile world by living in a ghetto. Sometimes that is a good cultural strategy to have. Our parents saw their world as hostile, so that may have been a good strategy. For us, the new engagement may end up being consumption. A lot of the mantra of cultural engagement may be an excuse to consume the culture without asking, “is this antithetical [to Christianity]?” We don’t need to consume culture in order to witness to it.

LW: So, you're twenty-six years of age and fit into the age group that typically encompasses "younger evangelical," as do I. Why do you think differently than the evangelicals you describe?

MA: I’m not sure that I do think differently; I do, after all, identify with the ethos of the young evangelical. If I do think differently, it is due to my own education and adherence to [the ideas of] G.K. Chesterton. We need to cultivate Chestertonian patriotism with respect to evangelicalism, which loves it while working to reform it. That’s what I’d like to do.

LW: You also wrote an online series about dating and marriage. A lot of people are going to wonder how does a twenty-something young man who's still technically a newlywed himself know anything about marriage! Tell me what this book does.

MA: People forget that Josh Harris wrote I Kissed Dating Goodbye when he was 18. I think there is something to be said for saying what needs to be said. I think I am writing as one who has made a lot of mistakes, all the mistakes (though I’m not making a comparison between me and Josh Harris). The insights into marriage and dating are fundamentally from my own experiences in dating, both painful and joyful. I came to realize that no one in the Christian world has any idea how young people are supposed to navigate dating. The confusion and the decay of the social fabric place an immense responsibility on the individual to make good decisions themselves, because no institution is helping them along the way. My writing tries to address how thoughts about God and relationships affect their romantic life. Then I move into the practical as to how they should behave. I really want to push off the “what should I do?” questions and ask instead “what do I think about marriage and God?” If you’re on your own, you are going to do well or do badly based on who you are. [It’s a call] to make sure you’re a good person and understand the Gospel.

LW: Please share an example of what you’ve learned.

MA: I’ve learned that we talk a very good game about marriage in the evangelical world, but few people actually commit to the principles [of Christian marriage]. Personally, I was getting the emotional benefits of marriage without being married, which is a common occurrence, both in the evangelical world as well as the world in general. Ask 90% of evangelicals about marriage [and they’ll say] “yes, I believe in marriage,” but in reality that belief doesn’t affect their day-to-day romantic life. That’s really a problem. I reached a point where I realized that even though I affirmed marriage in some abstract way, I didn’t really have any reasons why it was better than any of the alternatives. People don’t have a robust vision of why they should get married.

LW: What can the church do to correct this perception?

MA: The misperception of marriage is that whatever it is, it is in the eye of the beholder. We do funny things at weddings, and we don’t know why. Helping young evangelicals to understand the traditions surrounding weddings and marriage would be a good start--for example, cutting the cake and serving each other—the idea behind it is that this is the first act of mutual service, which is at the heart of Christian marriage. The [joke of] shoving of cake [into the face] is a perversion of that. We need to recover the [meaning of] traditions and grasp the deeper ideas of marriage. These are fundamentally Chesterton’s views; he says it a lot better than I.

We spent the last few minutes talking about church and moving to St. Louis. I am thankful that we have both found The Journey the church we call home. Matt is a great interviewee; I found his prefacing every answer to my questions with “That’s a great question” to be flatteringly complimentary.

As to what I think, I feel particularly refreshed to hear a young Christian articulate the way he does about how he thinks faith should be lived out in everyday life. Our pastor often says we are “living in the tension,” which, in this case, would be the tension between expressing Christian truth to an often unreceptive audience and reserving it for the sake of interpersonal diplomacy, both of which are crucial to the advancement of the Gospel. Christians in every generation should keep this tension in mind and ask for the godly wisdom that determines when and how liberally we should express both.

Atheism, the Cure for Inalienable Rights

2009-05-02T10:08:00.011-05:00

A few months ago, I was kicking the euthanasia question around with a few of my fellow churchgoers at Theology at the Bottleworks. The issue of rights, specifically the right to legalized euthanasia became part of the topic. Underlying that question was the question, "what does God have to say about it?" was not directly discussed, but I could sense the strain that many of the attenders were under keeping it out of the discussion. Philosophically, the question of euthanasia comes down to the classic premise, 'If God does not exist, then all things are permissible.' In this case, if God does not exist, then euthanasia is permissible.

At face value, I agree, but does that give anyone the right to commit suicide, the right to euthanize someone else, or the right to legalization? If it is a question of rights, I don't think so. The consequence of the idea that God does not exist is that objective judgments (neither morals nor rights nor any claims to truth) do not exist.

My argument caches out like so:
1. If God does not exist, then objective moral rights do not exist.
2. The claim that anyone has an objective moral right to euthanasia is a claim to an objective reality that does not exist if God does not exist.
3. Therefore, a claim to an objective moral right to euthanasia does not exist.

Any atheist rallying to legalize euthanasia has two problems here. In terms of legalization, it's a non-starter. Atheism negates any objective right to anything (i.e. euthanasia), which means no one can make it incumbent upon other people to allow or approve of euthanasia. Second, the atheist is guilty of a philosophical incoherence at this point between atheism (to justify the non-objectivity of morals) and the claim to an objective moral right to euthanasia. If anyone wants the argument for legalized euthanasia to go forward, then the argument must reach beyond the limits of atheism for something else, and God only knows what that is. /smirk

One woman there, I think, captured the essense of the issue perfectly. She said in effect, if you want to end your own life, why do you need a law and a mechanism (vis-a-vis a lethal drug) to permit you to do that? Very simply, stop eating and drinking.

Vote For Me!

2009-05-01T22:32:00.004-05:00

My Tea Party sign is one of the top five in the Mother of All Conservatives contest, and the grand prize is a Wii. Please do me a huge HUGE favor and go to the website and vote for my sign!

Could this be the reason?

2009-04-22T11:01:00.003-05:00

Why getting anything done online is so hard to do???

Pascha-n

2009-04-16T20:08:00.006-05:00

I feel I'm developing new layers of appreciation and personal significance of the Easter holiday, which, as a sign, I am calling Pascha more often these days. The risen Jesus is everything.

The kids at the church's Easter Egg Hunt at Tower Grove Park:

Just a little more attitude please, Little Mister.

Okay, I guess the Easter Bunny doesn't freak her out anymore! (Credit: D. Hawkins for the photo.)

iPhone vs. Tracfone

2009-03-20T15:49:00.002-05:00

This is so me.

Credit: YouTube user cobadog

Obama Chop-Shop Ready for Business

2009-03-14T10:49:00.020-05:00

It is official. President Obama's EO permitting ESCR on an expanded line of embryos that rescinds former Pres. Bush's ban on federal funding of such ESCR has stepped the country through the door into A Brave New World. Keep in mind, the door has been open through the last eight years with private entities doing ESCR, but save for the tether of Bush's policy, the government could not fund ESCR. Now, however, no technical restrictions bind the government from funding any kind of ESCR.

The inspiration for this post comes from the multiplicity of blogtalk about Pres. Obama's EO. Certainly most conservatives are saying "oh, that's bad," but very few have articulated just what's so bad about it. Of all the chatter, Secondhand Smoke's Wesley J. Smith probably gives the best breakdown of just what Obama's EO really means in a column he wrote for the Weekly Standard. In a nutshell, ESCR is in, but alternatives that do not destroy an embryo in the process are out.

But wait, there's more. Now, the omnibus bill, also signed this week, contains the Dickey-Wicker Amendment that restricts any federal funding of the creation or destruction of embryos for research purposes (in place in every budget bill since 1996). There was some confusion on what this means on MoAC, but here is what I gather from it and the source article from CNSNews.com. From the CNS article, Michael Werner, a lobbyist in favor of federally funded ESCR, says

“Dickey-Wicker does not stand in the way of the NIH funding the use of embryonic stem cell research, but it does stand in the way of using federal funds to derive the cells from the embryos,” Werner told CNSNews.com. “If it were done away with, it would free up researchers more instead of having one set of dollars to derive the cells and one set of dollars for research.”

Which means, even though the EO frees up money for ESCR, Dickey-Wicker prohibits the stem-cells from being obtained from fetuses directly. Directly, because somewhere in the technicalities, I'm still feeling the breeze through a potential loophole in Dickey-Wicker. In the second point of the amendment, it prohibits

(2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death...[emphasis mine]

Theoretically, there is slight plausible deniability in using stem-cells unknowingly derived from embryos, especially cells which may either be purchased or donated from privately-run research labs. From the article, one White House official even stated, “These [stem-cells] come from, generally come from, embryos that are left over at fertilization labs and IVF clinics, and that can be created privately.” Aha. However minute the loophole is, the question is whether or not the Obama Administration can fit this hot car through it. The letter of Dickey-Wicker doesn't appear all that flexible, which is probably why Democrats in Congress are now trying to get rid of it. That's right, the chop-shop is open for ESCR and laws and to make nuance a way of life for the next four years (at least).

In defense of his EO, Pres. Obama acknowledged the ethical objections of the conscientious, but said that the potential health benefits of ESCR outweigh such objections (chop-shop!). So, in this case, Obama's might makes ESCR right. As much as I find this attitude unjust all by itself, I find the underlying source the greater tragedy that threatens much more than what happens in a lab. The underpinning idea in play is that life itself is not valuable--chop-shop proponents don't value life--they value only what life has to offer in terms of experiences and sensations of the individual (arguably limited to the young and healthy). This is an attitude of temporality, not visionary of the future and not concerned with the benefit to humanity or civilization on the whole. If it does have a vision, it is to make certain that humans in the future share the same temporal attitudes that dominate the ethics scene nowadays.

Add to that the next logical question: just where are scientists going to get all these stem-cells, if not legally from embryos? Ah, they can enact legislation similar to Missouri's own Amendment 2, which redefined cloning to pass the public sniff test, or what I like to call the Gov. Matt "Curry-Favor" Blunt dance. The result? The public funding of cloning by not calling it cloning--presto!

American voters, specifically conscientious voters against ESCR and cloning, need to know the bioethics of these issues, even if they are difficult due to the technical language. The priniciples on what life is and how humans should treat each other are what is at stake, and you should care, because it will be either on your public officials' ballots and/or on yours.

I'll end this post with a reflection: I once read a short story about a society where organs (and lives) were routinely harvested from teens and young adults to implant into the elderly so that aging citizens could maintain active, independent lifestyles. Though the outward circumstances differ, we are experiencing just this Huxley-esque scenario described in the story. Be disturbed. Be very disturbed.

Confident Christianity--Dot Com!

2009-03-13T10:51:00.003-05:00

The Confident Christianity apologetics blog has now launched its apologetics website, confidentchristianity.com. Yay for birth! Congratulations to Mary Jo Sharp. I pray and hope that her site is blessed with much traffic and changed hearts and minds.

Booyah.

No, Really, I'm Not an Object...

2009-03-12T01:04:00.007-05:00

even though I'm selling myself like a fresh slice at the corner deli.

A few weeks ago, I listened to a radio interview of the now famous Natalie Dylan. I hadn't heard of this young woman's story until then, but what I heard has caused scenes of Army of Darkness flash through my mind since. My latest Google search for Natalie (thankfully not her real name), who's gotten bids on her virginity of up to 3.7 million nasty little dollars, didn't yield any new developments, but really, I'm okay with not knowing anymore details right now.

I found the striking statements Natalie made in defense of her actions incredulous. When asked why putting her virginity up for auction did not objectify her in her mind, she compartmentalized the issue, giving allowance for objectification only in the context of selling her virginity--she fully wants to be treated as a person otherwise. If the issue were eating habits, I'd find this funny. Instead, here is a woman who first is pathetically naive and second has the same good sense as a piece of ~~meat~~ carpet.

So, Miss Dylan wants people to treat her like an object in a context that suits her and then treat her as a person in another context when that suits her. Hm. It's unfortunate that she said that she intends the money to pay for graduate school, because admissions administrators probably won't like Miss Dylan to treat them with such disrespect. Future employers of businesses that don't deal in the buying and selling of the human body probably won't like being treated with such disrespect. And any good guy out there worth marrying will definitely dislike being treated with such disrespect. One does not and cannot control another in this way, beginning with the situation at hand. If Miss Dylan thinks that money will be enough to control the 'winner' of her auction and everyone in the world that comes after him, I sincerely fear for her in the most anxious way.

The reality of the matter is that one can never divorce personhood from the body. Why not? Because if we could, rape victims--hey, any victim of violence--could never seek legal reparations against their perpetrators. Any defense attorney would argue that victims weren't persons at the time of the crime. This side of death, there is no such thing as a personless body, at least if you're not a fetus and especially if you are a woman. We can thank the U.S. Supreme Court and Planned Parenthood for nailing that one down.

Way to go, Miss Dylan. Your brilliant rationalizations have pushed womanhood backwards. In a breath, you have turned females into objects...again.

(Why the Army of Darkness imagery? "Gimme some sugar, baby...")

Ouroboros 4: Imagine the Perfect Obama Ad

2009-01-30T00:40:00.001-06:00

Credit: YouTube user catholicvote23

Booyah.

Toward More Justice at NAPAWF

2009-01-19T03:01:00.021-06:00

Having an Asian heritage naturally makes me curious as to what Asian-focused organizations exist around the country. My latest internet surf has yielded my own discovery of the National Asian Pacific American Womens Forum (NAPAWF). On the surface, NAPAWF touts a decade of seeking justice for Asian women and girls around the world who have been abused. They promote awareness of human trafficking and sex slavery. They advocate legislation for improved access to adequate medical care for Asian women, especially those with difficulty understanding English.

All of this sounds terrific. However, all of this is not all there is. Alongside their efforts to help Asian women lies the open support and promotion of abortion, using a more commiserating term, "reproductive justice." As much as the other efforts receive attention, any casual look at their website shows that pro-abortion activism is a mainstay of this organization. For example, the last paragraph of their organizational statement says, "[NAPAWF] is where a longtime pro-choice activist finds young women ready to learn and keep the struggle for reproductive justice alive." Under the Programs & Projects tab, the very first item listed is their Reproductive Justice Program.

But I have found something very interesting about their causes that shows me a glimmer of hope in an otherwise tainted agenda. As much as it sounds like NAPAWF is a rank and file pro-abortion group (which it is on the surface), embedded in their literature and policy agendas is a value for human life that I believe NAPAWF might have simply overlooked in constructing their overall position on reproductive justice. Realizing this value and taking it to its logical end will truly give NAPAWF the solid ground on which to promote its causes.

First, the 2005 publication, RECLAIMING CHOICE, RECLAIMING THE MOVEMENT: Sexual and Reproductive Justice and Asian and Pacific American Women; A National Agenda for Action, states that "between 1994 and 2000, abortion rates fell in the United States for all groups except Asian and Pacific Islanders" (API) and suggests that (1) abortion rates remain higher because legal abortion in many of these women's country of origin (namely China and Korea) means greater acceptability for use of abortion as a method of birth control. Also, (2) lower use of prescription contraceptives than other ethnic groups contribute to increased pregnancy rates. The publication goes on to cite that 35% of pregnancies among API women end in abortion compared to 18% among White women, nearly double the rate.

Why cite such statistics? Why point out the disparity in abortion rates between Asian women compared to all women in the U.S? That Asian women are not having fewer abortions is an issue of concern within the publication. Intentional or not, this suggests something wrong with a steady abortion rate in API women against a falling trend among other ethnicities. In other words, just by calling attention to the disparity, NAPAWF is implying that API women should be seeking fewer abortions when everyone else is also seeking fewer abortions. That they continue indicates some cause for concern.*

Second, NAPAWF Organizing Director Yin Ling Leung points out a gravely critical issue in the abortion debate that I believe American pro-abortionists have intentionally suppressed--the glaring problem of abortion as a method of sex selection, particularly in Asia. In her article, "The Backwardness of Sex Selection Technologies," Leung reiterates the meagerly publicized fact that gender-based abortion/gender abortion is the reason for the disparate ratio of males to females in countries like India and China as ultrasound technology allows parents to know the gender of their fetus prior to birth. But while preference for the male gender is a defining feature of Asian culture, she believes we should not fool ourselves into thinking that the issue leaves us untouched here in America. Current biotechnologies have made much more than gender something to be considered on a consumer level. Leung writes,

"Commercialized sex selection poses several important risks for women and civil society. Gender is one of the most significant determinants of life experiences, and if we are willing to open the door to engineering this characteristic, where do we draw the line? Recently a research project documented that the vast majority of CEO's of Fortune 500 companies are male, heterosexual, light-skinned and 6 feet tall. Will couples wanting to give their children an edge in life select for such traits? Today we select for gender. Tomorrow will we select for homosexuality, skin color, eye color, IQ, height and muscles?"

"Sex selection challenges feminist and social justice activists nationally and internationally in significant ways. Much of the women's reproductive rights movement is based on a pro-choice paradigm of a "woman's right to choice" and the right to privacy. We need to grapple with and draw some lines about what "choice" and "privacy" mean in the context of the new reproductive and genetic biotechnologies. Certainly it cannot mean the unfettered right to a market-based eugenic future. The political climate in the United States is ripe to debate the language of "choice" and consolidate a framework that takes on these ethical challenges." (I checked the NAPAWF site this morning and, apparently, this article has been removed. Their opposition to sex selection still exists on their Sex Selection Factsheet.)

Leung, I believe, hits the target dead on. Instead of criticizing merely the occurrences of sex selection via abortion, she expands her consideration to the entire paradigm of abortion, specifically to the definition of choice. In effect, she is asking "The choice to do what exactly?" acknowledging that not all abortion choices are valid. The issue is simple to understand: gender abortion is a form of eugenics.

Taken together, these statements from NAPAWF are implicit and unmistakable admissions that abortion is intrinsically bad for women, even if NAPAWF supporters do not realize it. I believe Asian women are in a uniquely advantageous position to criticize and challenge the practice of abortion on demand. Our reckoning of the continuing cultural tragedy of gender abortion and gender infanticide as the moral failings that they are should serve to challenge the world into reconsidering abortion as an approved legal practice for widespread use.

Of course, more than a spoonful of sugar will make this medicine go down. Abortion advocates in the U.S. have been especially silent on reproductive technologies that hail the creeping of eugenics back into American society. From their perspective, abortion advocates know that "unfettered" rights keep the moral considerations against abortion at bay. The moment the public has a chance to deliberate reasons for limiting abortion even in any small way is to open the floodgates of conscience over whether killing the unborn is even acceptable. In other words, pro-abortionists must tolerate or even support eugenics if they don't want to end up eroding their own pro-abortion position, because all defenses of human life begin with the idea that life has intrinsic value without discrimination against race, gender, or age (even gestational age). NAPAWF must somehow succeed in convincing the reluctant U.S. pro-abortion power base that female fetuses killed by 'gendercide' should receive protection, even though such arguments contradict the doctrine of privacy and choice of a woman to determine the manner and reasons by which her baby should die.

I think this would be an obviously futile effort. We simply have no good reasons to curb the practice of sex selection or to even prevent it from spreading through biotechnology unless we first argue that the intentional killing of any fetus is a violation of her intrinsic right to life and self-determination. This, of course, is not a pro-abortion position but a pro-life position.

I would hope that this ethical dilemma will cause the leaders of NAPAWF and other Asian-based womens organizations to carefully consider what the pro-abortion position has really done to women across the world. If we reflect on the outcome, women in countries where females are devalued suffer the most as abortion and eugenic technologies advance and people use them to actualize their preferences. Here, I believe the pro-abortion position MUST fall apart. If the right to abort rests on a right to choose, then a woman has the right to choose the gender of her baby and the right to abort when her her baby fails to meet her preferences. This is the logic that maintains the injustice of gendercide.

We can do better. NAPAWF can advocate true reproductive justice by recognizing that support of abortion is a capitulation that injustice still has power over us; leaders can end the cycle of death and injury that destroys millions of innocent Asian girls and women by refusing to allow it to destroy the next generation of women while they are yet in the womb. If one views this 'right to life' as an extension of what it already advocates (fighting human trafficking and sex slavery), the affirmation of life dovetails seamlessly into NAPAWF's raison d'etre. Only in this way do we act as a sisterhood of human flourishing that rises above and seeks a more triumphant way to serve and value the rights of our Asian sisters everywhere.

*A strong pro-abortion stance needs no such concern, however; if API women prefer abortion as a primary method of birth control, then why not congratulate them on utilizing and maintaining abortion services here in the U.S?