Florida Board Games

I heard about this story on the national news last night so I followed up on it today, only to find that, once again, the whole point of the controversy has been missed. In Florida, the State Board of Education has been wrestling with the issue of whether or not to allow the word "evolution" to be included in the state's science standards. Today they approved the inclusion of the phrase "scientific theory of evolution," as if wordsmithing a compromise would satisfy those on both sides of the issue. The problem with battles like this is that, while defending their narrow interests, everyone seems to miss what is really important.

On the creationist/religious side of the debate, the problem lies with two issues: one a misunderstanding and one a needless fear that could easily be turned to an advantage.

First, the misunderstanding. Many creationists believe they have scored points against the Darwinian opposition by making them admit that Evolution is "just a theory." As you can see, this is part of the compromise phrase that was agreed to in Florida. The misunderstanding is that labeling something a theory is far from an indictment of the view. In scientific usage ...

... a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable.

In other words, theories are well-substantiated and, in many cases (the Big Bang for instance) not far removed from the realm of scientific laws. So let's not get too enamored with dismissing evolution as "just a theory." That tactic isn't getting us anywhere. Instead, we should be deliberate and specific in pointing out the fatal flaws and assumptions that undermine the theory in question.

And that brings us to the needless fear we can turn to our advantage.

Many creationists are scared silly about the word "evolution." To utter the word is to capitulate to the godless demands of secularism. This is what began the fight in Florida. Creationists, defending the former version of the State School Board's standards, were determined not to allow the word "evolution" into the fray. This knee-jerk reaction is understandable but incomplete. Instead of fighting blindly against the word "evolution," the defenders of theism would be better served and more credible if they were to point out the subtle but more significant issues involved. Doing so would go a long way toward undermining the status quo view of creationists as scientific illiterates who seek only to inject their religious ideas into the classroom.

Here is what I mean. I won't repeat the discussion now but I have elsewhere addressed the issue of being clear and specific about what we mean when use the word "evolution." In this case, this issue is at the heart of the problem. This is how the pro-Evolution lobby describes the controversy on their website:

Evolution occurs because of the need for organisms to adapt to their surroundings in order to survive. Natural selection allows this adaptation. The denial of this natural process assumes that God is responsible for the complexity and diversity of life on our planet. That is religion, not science.

This is the classic bait-and-switch (discussed here). Notice that the proponents of macro-Evolution appeal to the reality of adaptation (micro-evolution) as the "process ... responsible for the complexity and diversity of life on our planet." But these are two completely different things!

I would agree that we see adaptation in nature. In fact, I see adaptation as being completely consistent with the work of any good designer whose goal is to equip his product to survive in different and changing environments. But the acceptance of adaptation in no way entails the acceptance of speciation. In fact, there is no evidence (fossil or genetic) for any mechanism that explains just how adaptation could exceed the limits required to bring about macro-level changes.

Those who claim that it is a fact that such a thing occurs do so solely based on the Naturalistic presupposition that this must be the way it works. And while they claim that the creationist urge to see God as responsible for that change is "religion, not science," their lack of evidential support makes them vulnerable to the same charge.

If creationism can be dismissed as nothing but religion, the Naturalistic lobby can be likewise dismissed as nothing but an appeal to the "religion" of Darwinism. I wish the creationists in Florida would have made that case instead of demanding the non-inclusion of the word "evolution" -- a word that in itself does their cause no harm.

Naturalism's Worldy End

I have often commented on the vacuousness of the Naturalistic, atheistic worldview, but some things I've read recently serve to condense that idea in words more powerful than I could ever come up with.

We have seen where such a worldview leads -- in real time. Stéphane Courtois, director of research at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS) estimates the human death toll (over less than 100 years) in regimes sharing this worldview are as follows:

• 20 million in the Soviet Union


• 65 million in the People's Republic of China


• 1 million in Vietnam


• 2 million in North Korea


• 2 million in Cambodia


• 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe


• 150,000 in Latin America


• 1.7 million in Africa


• 1.5 million in Afghanistan

That's 94,000,000 (million) people. To be fair, Courtois' critics claim he exaggerates. They say the real death toll was only somewhere between 65 and 93 million. Fair enough. But for those who attempt the hideous comparison of this barbarity to the admitted abuses of Christian zealots, here are the numbers for which Christians are culpable:

• 19 witches hanged (not burned) in Salem, Massachusetts


• 300,000 witches executed in Europe between 1484 and 1782


• 2,000 executions during the Spanish Inquisition


• 10's of thousands died during the Crusades

For those who are mathematically challenged, the difference is 93,647,981 -- or more than two orders of magnitude less -- over a time frame of almost 800 years.

This is not to excuse the barbaric taking of human life by anyone, but let's be fair. The Christians who took those 352,019 lives did so in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith. We cannot hold a belief system responsible for those who choose to abuse and corrupt it.

By contrast, the atheistic worldview that murdered 94,000,000 people did so based on the direct result of, and adherence to, the nihilistic, valueless system from which it gained its power to kill.

It was with these facts in mind that I read Andrew Stuttaford's review of Orlando Figes new book, The Whisperers: Private Life in Stalin's Russia, a chilling account of "private lives, and thoughts, of those who lived through it, inhabitants of a society where reticence, conformity, and role-playing could be, even at home, matters of life and death."

For those who may defend the Naturalistic worldview, I would challenge them to listen to the lamentations of the Russian poet Anna Ahkmatov -- listen and consider the kind of society such a worldview logically entails and has been verified to create ...

This was when the ones who smiled
Were the dead, glad to be at rest.
And like a useless appendage, Leningrad
Swung from its prisons.
And when, senseless from torment,
Regiments of convicts marched,
And the short songs of farewell
Were sung by locomotive whistles.
The stars of death stood above us
And innocent Russia writhed
Under bloody boots
And under the tires of the Black Marias.

... Listen, and reconsider.

Book Of Myths And Legends (a.k.a. The Bible) Proves Accurate (again)

Though it wasn't reported anywhere that I know of in the so-called "mainstream press," a recent issue of Biola University's alumni magazine reported on a tiny clay tablet that's impact on the veracity of Christianity is inversely proportional to its size. You can read the article here for details but suffice it to say that many critics of the Bible have long claimed that the Old Testament book of Jeremiah is fictional. But the tiny tablet (which was actually dug up in the 1870s but, because it was written in cuneiform, remained previously undecipherable), contained the name of a chief officer in the Babylonian court of Nebuchadnezzar II -- and was recognized as such by a visiting Viennese researcher. This tiny detail looms large because it offers proof that the book was actually written in about 595 BC by "someone with firsthand knowledge of the Babylonian court."

This was a case of "lost in translation" brought on by unfamiliarity with the ancient Akkadian language that rendered the name in question ambiguous in differing manuscript versions. But it was by comparing the translations of different versions of the Bible with someone educated in the discipline that scholars were able to determine which was the most accurate. This process -- like it always does -- resulted in vindicating the Bible against those who had denounced its veracity.

Though such a find does not speak directly to the claim that the Bible is Divinely inspired, it does serve to solidify its historicity and thereby makes it all the more reasonable to accept the rest of what it says as well. For a book that has been compiled over thousands of years of history, numerous geographic locations, and a diverse band of authors, the message that comes through is incredibly consistent; the prophecy is inexplicably accurate; the correlation to scientific discoveries which were not verified until thousands of years later is eerily spot on. This is one incredible book -- a book that has yet to be successfully discredited.

Our man-centered world may claim that "the devil is in the details," but the more details we examine in this book, the more they reveal that our trust in the Creator and the Book He gave us is a well-placed trust indeed.

High Stakes Monkey Business

When a Vienna court recently declared that Matthew Hiasl Pan was not a person, the case didn't just end there. Matthew's supporters will appeal their case to a higher court. Absent a reversal there Matthew, who will soon be homeless, will not be able to receive personal gifts and could therefore wind up sold into what amounts to indentured servitude somewhere outside Austria. Some think he could even face deportation to his native Sierra Leone. The entire legal case stems from the bankruptcy proceedings through which Matthew's shelter will soon be closed.

The most stunning aspect of this story is that Matthew's case may be allowed to be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights. Though it only seems fair that Matthew should be allowed to argue for his own personhood, the case gets a little sticky when you consider one little detail about it.

Matthew, you see, is a chimpanzee.

Don't be too fast to dismiss this story as the nonsensical nuttiness that it really is. These people are serious. Their view is the natural conclusion that can be drawn from the denial of "human exceptionalism" -- an all-too-common view held by many Naturalistic philosophers. I have commented before on this subject and its chief proponent, Peter Singer. But it is important to remind ourselves about how these people think and why we should be shouting their views from the mountaintops.

I admire Singer for being one of the few philosophers who is willing to take Naturalism to its logical conclusion. Singer believes that valuing humans over animals is "speciesism." And he's right. If we are all just the random outcome of a totally naturalistic system of particles and natural forces interacting and mutating, human beings are no more important than any other living thing. A dog, is a rat, is a roach, is a chimp, is a boy. End of story.

But this view has further, more radical (if that is even possible), implications. Human cloning, pursuing chimeras (human-animal hybrids), Embryonic stem cell research -- all of these should be permitted without objection. Creating human embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them for the purpose of research should not trouble anyone because there is nothing special about human beings. We're just higher up the Evolutionary food chain than the rest.

The irony in all this is that humans cannot live their lives believing this way. Consider that the research in each of these cases is being done precisely because the therapies (in the case of ESCR) they promise, and the hybrids they seek, are being pursued to improve the lives of human beings -- precisely because those lives are so highly valued.

Though I can only pray that folks who are so deluded by these ideas will someday admit to the irrationality of them, I love it when these stories come out. They expose Naturalism for the empty, purposeless, unlivable system it really is. And they remind us, even those who don't know why, that to deny human exceptionalism is to deny the intrinsic value that empowers our lives -- our creation in the image of our Creator.

Gimme That Old Time Religion

At a recent meeting of "academics" at Vatican City, news reports claim that the pope has "revived the science-vs-religion debate," and thereby relegated himself to Neanderthal status -- unenlightened and intolerant of more modern views of science.

Those who made the allegations were among students and teachers at Rome's La Sapienza University and were some of the same folks who "cited such views when they protested a papal speech scheduled for January 17 [which] had to be canceled" as a result. Apparently, these enlightened, tolerant folks fail to see the irony in the fact that they shouted the Pontiff down to keep him from espousing his intolerant views. Think about that one for a second.

They also failed to notice that it was the pope who founded La Sapienza University more than 700 years ago -- back when popes were allowed to start universities that respected both religious and scientific studies as being legitimate ways to interpret the creation and thereby seek real Truth.

Here is a portion of what the dastardly pope had to say:

"In an age when scientific developments attract and seduce with the possibilities they offer, it's more important than ever to educate our contemporaries' consciences so that science does not become the criteria for goodness," he told scientists.

Scientific investigation should be accompanied by "research into anthropology, philosophy and theology" to give insight into "man's own mystery, because no science can say who man is, where he comes from or where he is going," the Pope said."

Man is not the fruit of chance or a bundle of convergences, determinisms or physical and chemical reactions," Benedict told a meeting of academics of different disciplines ...

The fact that such views are considered controversial and worthy of silencing is a sobering thought. How can anyone defend the idea that science should work in a vacuum without being considered in light of other forms of knowledge? Since when can science even pretend to be able to define the "criteria for goodness"? Those criteria, by modern science's own definition, are things for which science is not even equipped to deal.

It is not the pope who has "revived the science-vs-religion debate." It is the secularists and the Naturalists who demand a war between the two. In their eyes, science and religion cannot peacefully coexist. We have to pick one or the other. But on the pope's view -- a view I share -- there shouldn't be a rivalry between science and religion, there should be a dialogue. Both are means to find the Truth about how our world actually works and both have legitimate arguments to bring to the table. To force us to choose between the two is to demand a false choice. Simply listening to what the pope actually said makes that obvious. What really set his detractors off is ...

... the conservative German-born Pope's public stand on issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research lead critics to accuse him of holding antiquated views on science.

If by "antiquated" they mean pre-Enlightenment and pre-modern; or if by "antiquated" they mean prior to the time when the findings of scientific research were not limited by arbitrary presuppositions but left to interpretation of the actual data itself; if by "antiquated" they mean prior to the time when acceptance of Darwinian Evolution was not presumed; if by "antiquated" they mean prior to the time when human worth was established in virtue of being a member of the human family and not some arbitrary criteria such as location or the desires of the mother or her attendant society -- then yes, the pope's views are "antiquated."

And Amen to that.

Not-So-Silly Scripture Tricks

This morning I heard a news story that made my skin crawl with embarrassment. CNN reported that a new movement has sprung up in mid-America. The gist of the story is that some apparently believe that this passage from Isaiah 35:8 -- “And a highway will be there; it will be called the Way of Holiness. The unclean will not journey on it; it will be for those who walk in that Way; wicked fools will not go about on it” -- is a specific reference to modern America's Interstate 35 and that it will fulfill its prophetic status as a "holy highway" only through the dedicated prayers of the faithful.

While this scripture gives us the basis for the entire Light The Highway movement, it also specifically gives us direction for our own lighting of the highway, Interstate 35. I-35: Highway of Holiness is about coordinating our efforts as a people across the nation to reclaim for the Kingdom of God what the enemy thinks is his own.

The originator of the concept of "Light the Highway"...

... is a Texas minister named Cindy Jacobs. She says she can't be sure Interstate 35 really is what is mentioned in the Bible but says she received a revelation to start this campaign after "once again reading Isaiah, Chapter 35."

She "can't be sure." But then again, she seems to think the idea is reasonable. Wow.

To be fair, not all proponents of this cause believe that this passage in Isaiah 35 is a literal reference to the modern American version of Interstate highway I-35. That makes me feel a little better. But, here's what they do believe:

... we do believe that we can use this text in a symbolic way as a catalyst to begin praying, just like those who live in Interstate 40 can use Isaiah 40:3,

"The voice of him that cries in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God",

and those on Interstate 10 could use John 10:10,

"The thief comes not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

My beef is not with those who feel the need to find ways to encourage others to pray for our nation. God knows we need that. But why is it that some feel that they have to concoct the most convoluted, nonsensical reasons to do so?

The problem here is bigger than it seems. Beyond making followers of Christ look a little silly (no doubt the reason CNN chose to run this story), it also unveils an even more insidious practice that is all-too-common even among those who are not out there doing silly things on national TV. This is the practice of "finding new revelations" and personalized messages buried within the Scripture, then claiming them for ourselves. This practice is similarly revealed in the oft-asked Sunday School question, "What does this passage mean to you?"

May I politely suggest that it doesn't matter what the passage means to you?

Seriously. What matters is simply what the passage means.

Why is it so hard to understand that what really matters in our interpretation of Scripture is not what we think we can "discover" in the text, but what the author of the Scripture meant to convey when they wrote it? No, finding that meaning is not an easy task, nor are we to demand that we have done so exhaustively, but the point is that we at least have to give our best in the endeavor. This is hard work ... too hard apparently, because most of us just don't try.

Greg Koukl points out that the habit of finding personalized meanings in the text of Scripture is an incredibly new phenomenon -- one that has just popped up in the last 150 years. I don't think it is a coincidence that this habit has arisen at the same time that existential, human-centered, philosophical reasoning has become all the rage. If everything else in the universe revolves around me personally, surely it follows that the Scripture was written to me personally.

Notice that the defenders of the I-35 phenomenon insist that we could use Isaiah 40 or John 10 in the same way they are using Isaiah 35. Why could we? The connection is absolutely baseless and absurd. By insisting that we can do so however, these folks open the door for those who could yank any passage, any verse, or any phrase out of Scripture, and then invoke it to defend any idea or practice that "works for them."

This is not to deny that there are implications and applications we can derive from our understanding of Scripture. But we need to remember that the intended meaning precedes any ability we have toward personal application. When we try to connect Isaiah 35 to Interstate 35 we simply look goofy. But when we accept the practice behind the goofiness, we are unconsciously engaging in a dangerously destructive abuse of the Bible.

'Legends' In Our Own Minds

Our family just saw I Am Legend and I can't help it ... the worldview implications of the film compel me to comment. It was a tension-filled, entertaining movie no doubt. I enjoyed it. But the messages it sent speak directly to my mission here at TrueHorizon.

Without giving too much away, let me summarize: A British doctor announces that genetic manipulation of the measles virus has turned it into a virus that, instead of wreaking harmful havoc on people, can attack cancer cells. Testing of the genetically manipulated virus has produced a 100% cure rate in cancer patients. “So you have cured cancer,” the interviewer asks. “Yes … yes, we have.”

Three years later we see a barren New York City that we quickly learn has been devastated by the virus’ unintended ability to mutate into a human time bomb. We also see, on the refrigerator door of our hero, Will Smith, a three year-old newspaper article touting his status as a “Savior” who is working to stop the proliferation of the disease. He is a military officer and medical researcher who is tasked with developing a vaccine to fight the killer virus.

And there our cultural assumptions show through. It is science, human ingenuity and power that make the world work. Smith's heroic character is based in all three. The future of the human race rests on his shoulders.

In contrast, there are a few other nuances in the film. Smith’s wife and daughter pray for him and the sick before they are forced to leave him in NYC. Their prayers are quickly found wanting. A cross dangles from the rearview mirror of the Brazilian girl who later rescues him from certain death. But Smith later mocks her and any spiritual reality on which she claims to rely. In each case the religious overtones are soon contradicted by evil and suffering in the real world. Scientific research seems to be the only really reliable savior for the human race.

The irony rests in the seemingly overlooked fact that it was science run amok that caused all the pain and suffering in the first place. In our insatiable desire to construct a utopian answer to pain and suffering we inadvertently make it all worse.

I don't want to make too big a deal of it all because I really did enjoy the movie. I also don't want to suggest that the human effort to eradicate disease are somehow misplaced or futile. It is a noble cause for which God provided us reason, rationality and compassion. I just found the ways in which the movie reflected the human condition to be instructive.

We believe that human suffering is unfair at best, and proof of the non-existence or impotence of God at worst. It never occurs to us that pain and suffering serve a higher purpose than messing up our "right" to a comfortable existence. We never seem to realize that pain and suffering serve to perfect us and show us the frailty of our humanity absent any reliance on the perfection of a loving Creator. We always look for answers within ourselves and are then surprised when we get let down ... and when we make things worse in doing so. We have a hard time accepting that we can't save ourselves -- especially in the only sense that being saved really matters.

Totally. Cosmic. Man.

There is an assumption in our modern (postmodern) society that all of us have tacitly accepted whether we are openly "religious" or not. It is an assumption born in the Enlightenment and nurtured through three or four hundred years of modern philosophy, medical breakthroughs, and technological innovation. The assumption is this: That the physical world is all that really exists. The logical follow-on to that assumption is that science will eventually provide us answers to our most profound questions. This, as I have discussed many times, is the foundation of Naturalistic/Materialistic worldview. Though many of us claim not to accept this view, and though we may even vehemently argue against it, this is a difficult assumption to overcome because it is built into the fabric of our culture.

When we hear of an inexplicable healing, or an answered prayer, or an eerie "coincidence," our initial reaction is to seek a scientific explanation. Though we study and do our best to honor and defend a high view of Scripture, we secretly wonder if the walls of Jericho really just fell down; if the Red Sea really parted or (though we would be loathe to admit it) if Jesus really rose from the dead. We are hard-wired to be skeptical of claims like those.

"Test everything," Paul told us, and we take him up on it. That's OK. But in our knee-jerk reaction to do so we sometimes forget that the Christian view of the world is not limited to materialistic causes for things. Ultimate reality is not physical -- it is spiritual. Ours is a worldview that encompasses both the physical and the non-physical. Neither the physical nor the non-physical is, by itself, adequate to describe us as persons. Likewise, neither can explain the makeup of all we know and experience.

The modern, rational, naturalistic culture we have been steeped in disdains such a view and does its best to belittle and destroy it. The result is an ongoing battle of ideas in which we are perpetually engaged. The philosopher Francis Schaeffer addressed this conflict as being rooted in a post-Enlightenment split in the way we think. Though Schaeffer didn't originate this notion, he did popularized it in a form we all recognize when we talk about someone taking a "leap of faith."

Faith, Schaeffer said, is relegated by the secular to an "Upper Story" class of thought consisting of: values, spirituality, religion, faith and the like. The "Lower Story" ideas consist of the converse of the upper. In the lower story are facts, physical reality, science, and knowledge.

UPPER STORY: Values - Spiritual - Religion - Faith -- Private

LOWER STORY: Facts - Physical - Science - Knowledge -- Public

And here's the key: To the naturalistic, secular way of thinking, the lower story is the only place we can know true things. For that reason it is public and verifiable. It describes the only philosophically acceptable areas of our lives. Upper story ideas are private and subjective, having no business seeping into the "real world." To take a "leap of faith" is to ignore rational thought and the scientific method by leaping upstairs and believing on faith alone. While no one is permitted to question the thoughts or ideas of your "private world," neither are you free to allow those ideas to influence how you understand the lower story.

Unfortunately, most of us accept these notions without even realizing it. We tacitly accept the idea that our personal faith or religion should be disallowed from addressing public issues because private values have little relevance to a fact-based world. But this is a bifurcated understanding of what we know and experience in our lives. It is a corruption of the Christian view of the world which sees: facts and values, the spiritual and physical, religion and science, faith and knowledge; as all comprising a total, integrated view of reality.Though in our hearts we know this is true, the culture continues to denounce it. We know we should fight the battle but sometimes we don't know how. Sometimes we get no help. Some of our thinking assimilates. Some of our leaders and scientists accommodate. Some of our churches capitulate. And with each baby step in the naturalistic direction, the idea of the miraculous diminishes into a faintly held belief we have little hope of defending.

And then Christmas comes ...

Though it took me a bit to get here, I believe the ultimate message of Christmas is the cosmic-sized revelation that human-centered ways of thinking are inadequate to address the human condition. It is humanistic thinking that created our earthly problems from the beginning. It is humanistic philosophy that has exacerbated those problems by manufacturing a "two-story" view of the world -- a view that denies ultimate reality by dividing that which was made to be indivisible.

At Christmas we are reminded that it all can be fixed in only one way. We are shown an ultimate example on a cosmic scale of how the world was meant to work. At Christmastime, the floor joists are shattered and a thundering shock wave pierces the night. The ceiling above our human-centered world collapses and the ghosts who have been rattling around in our attics come crashing into our living rooms.

The divine is united with the human in one person -- a person who offers us the perfect example of how we were made in the divine image and meant to function as an integrated whole. That person offers us a way out of our self-made morass of idiotic ideas and worldly wisdom. The infinitely perfect man bridges an infinite gap between divine perfection and human failing.

Only He can do such a thing. And when He does, the world all makes sense again.

We Need More Of These Guys!

Yes, we (Navy) won the Army-Navy game handsomely. That requires no comment. With a son at West Point I think it would be piling on to point out that Navy has won the last 6 in a row and currently leads the series between the two rivals by 3 games (52-49-7). It would also be rude to point out that Navy will be participating in its 5th Bowl game in as many years. So I won't even mention any of those things. It just wouldn't be right.

What I really want to point out is a quote I just uncovered by Naval Academy senior Adam Ballard in National Review. It is reported in the December 3, 2007 issue that Ballard, a big, bruiser of a power fullback, has been asked if he will attempt to forgo his military service obligation and pursue the interest that has been shown in him by the NFL. Here's what he said ...

"Being a Marine fits my mentality," he said, explaining why he's seeking a commission that would deny him a shot at a professional [football] career. "I don't see myself as someone who sits back. I like to be down in the dirt with a gun in my hand ... When I'm older, I want to be able to look at my kids and tell them why they can go to any church and why your mom doesn't have to wear a burqa."

Oo- rah

Thinking Allowed

Because I try my best to adhere to the principle of being "tolerant of people, but intolerant of (bad) ideas," I will not identify the author of the following. I only quote said author to make a point about the self-defeating consequences of anti-intellectualism in the church. Check out this excerpt (sorry it is so long) from a book which contains a chapter entitled, "Confused Mind":

Reasoning Leads to Confusion

...O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves? ... Matthew 16:8 (KJV)

A large percentage of God's people are admittedly confused. Why? As we have seen, one reason is wondering. Another is reasoning. The dictionary partially defines the word reason in the noun form as an "underlying fact or motive that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence" and in the verb form as "to use the faculty of reason: think logically."

A simple way to say it is, reasoning occurs when a person tries to figure out the "why" behind something. Reasoning causes the mind to revolve around and around a situation, issue or event attempting to understand all its intricate component parts. We are reasoning when we dissect a statement or teaching to see if it is logical, and disregard it if it is not.

Satan frequently steals the will of God from us due to reasoning ... What God leads a person to do does not always make logical sense to his mind. His spirit may affirm it and his mind may reject it ...

Don't Reason in the Mind, Just Obey the Spirit

... the realization of how easily we can be led by our heads and allow reasoning to keep us out of God's will provoked in me a "reverential" fear of reasoning.

Let me point out that this author "has been teaching the Word of God since 1976 and in ministry since 1980." This author is the prolific writer of "more than 70 inspirational books" and has "released thousands of audio teachings as well as a complete video library." This author can be heard on national radio broadcasts, seen on national TV programs almost every day, and travels nationwide speaking and doing teaching conferences. This author has influenced a whole lot of people. I don't want to disparage the writer. I'm sure the writer has helped many people and is motivated to do so for all the right reasons. But, in this specific case, this person is just plain off-base. The teaching offered here is deeply flawed and destructive to any Christ-follower who adheres to it. Unfortunately, many new and vulnerable minds do just that.

Where do I even begin with this one?

First, the Bible verse quoted in the section heading (shown above: Matthew 16:8) is taken completely out of context. In keeping with the precept that you should be leery of anyone using a single Bible verse to prove their point (for a great discussion of this precaution go here: "Never Read a Bible Verse"), I would challenge you to look up the actual passage from which this quote was lifted. When you do, you will find it in the middle of a chapter devoted to the story of Jesus' continuing confrontations with the religious leaders who felt his ministry threatened them and their base of power.

Having just performed a miraculous feeding of four thousand seekers from a few scraps of fish and bread, Jesus tells his disciples to "be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." The disciples, who having once again forgotten to bring bread with them (they are obviously slow learners -- like me), attribute Jesus' warning as being in reference to their failure in that regard. Exasperated when he overhears their discussion, Jesus utters the lifted quote. But let's look at the entire passage:

Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, "You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread? Do you still not understand? Don't you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered? How is it you don't understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Does this passage in any way attribute confusion to the use of reason? Absolutely not! In fact, it does just the opposite. Jesus is admonishing his disciples to remember what has actually occurred, then think through what he said. Three times he challenges their understanding of his words. Finally, after thinking it through, they realize what he meant them to guard against -- the fallacious teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees. The entire story is an exhortation to examine the evidence, think carefully about his words, and from that deduce that actual meaning of what Jesus said.

In the words of the Christian philosopher Augustine, and completely contrary to the so-called insight of the author I quote above, this is a textbook example of "faith seeking understanding."

Second, the writer implies that wondering and reasoning are anti-Biblical. This has absolutely no basis in Scripture. Would Cornelius, a "God-fearer," ever have been compelled to ask for Peter's intervention had he not been inquisitive about the vision he reported in Acts 10:3-4? Would Peter ever have recognized his commission to reach the Gentiles without his own vision (Acts 10:9-21)? This passage reports that Peter "was wondering about the meaning of the vision" as Cornelius' couriers approached his home. Why would God encourage Isaiah (Isaiah 1:18) to "let us reason together"? Why would Paul challenge those (1 Thessalonians 5:21) who questioned his teachings to "test everything. Hold on to what is good"? These are not tangential comments. They are at the heart of the Biblical worldview. Try to think of a character in either testament who is not given evidence and reasons for believing in and trusting God. I can't think of any. I do, however, know that we are called to engage the world in a certain way ...

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5

We are engaged in a battle of ideas. The Christian worldview is the most robustly evidenced-based, intellectually defensible, reality-coherent worldview that exists. Our call is to know, live, and defend that worldview. We do so because, in our humanity, we recognize that without a God who created and sustains the world, we are doomed to a meaningless existence. Though we may not know immediately why that is, we know that something is wrong. We wonder why that is. We seek answers. We pursue God with the mind he gave us. And though we will never know Him exhaustively in this life, we can reason our way to His truths and trust His answers because they are always aligned with the way the world He created really is.

Third, the writer implies that logic and clear thinking are destructive and contrary to "the will of God." To say this is to say that the Apostle Paul's entire life mission was contrary to the will of God. Take a look at Paul's missionary journeys. In nearly every town he visited, the first thing he did was approach the cultural and/or religious leaders (in most cases the Jewish leadership) and "reason with them from the Scriptures." In Romans 12, we are told to be "transformed by the renewing of [our] minds." This, Paul tells us, is our "spiritual act of worship." The word "spiritual" here is the Greek logikos which is (quite ironically) translated: "agreeable to reason, following reason, reasonable, logical."

The only way to defend the notion that clear, logical thinking is contrary to the will of God is to be caught up in the contemporary notion that faith and spiritual issues have been relegated to solitary confinement as "matters of the heart." Banished there, faith is left to flounder as a feelings-based inclination that is personal, private and beyond the reach of intellectual discernment. But the "heart" in a Biblical sense is much more than that. It is the core of our being; the place where our will resides and our choices are made. For that reason, the fashionable trend of separating the heart from the mind is not only unbiblical, but dangerous. It leads to vacuous pronouncements like these (from the same writer, in the same book) ...

I once asked the Lord why so many people are confused and He said to me, "Tell them to stop trying to figure everything out, and they will stop being confused." I have found it to be absolutely true. Reasoning and confusion go together.

... There is a big difference in head knowledge and revelation knowledge ... I don't know about you, but I want God to reveal things to me in such a way that I know in my spirit that what has been revealed to my mind is correct. I don't want to reason, to figure and to be logical, rotating my mind around and around and issue until I am worn out and confused. I want to experience the peace of mind and heart that come from trusting in God, not in my own human insight and understanding.

Here you notice a couple of things. The author claims direct, personal communication with God. Claiming this personal, two-way chat line serves to not only further entrench the idea that faith is a private matter, it also becomes a convenient asset in making the claim irrefutable. Who would dare question such a thing?! Any skepticism automatically renders the questioner a bad guy while simultaneously absolving the claimant of any requirement to defend themselves.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say the author is being absolutely truthful -- God has spoken audibly. Why then, would the hearer need to resort to "knowing things in the spirit" or "experiencing peace of mind and heart"? Neither of these is required if one actually hears the voice of God audibly. This leads to a follow-on objection ...

Fourth, the author's use of the slogan "Just Obey in the Spirit," is one of many similar (and all-too-familiar in Christian circles) exhortations that contains no actual meaning. Like others I could name, this phrase has become part of a kind of Christian-speak that is thrown around but that no one outside the church (or inside it, for that matter) can define. It is an empty slogan.

Humor me for a second and think about it ... how does one "obey in the Spirit" without engaging the mind? I welcome comments from those who can explain to me just how that is done.

This is not just a trivial objection to the author's view. It is a dangerous precedent to set. If "obeying in the Spirit" requires nothing but an inner, peaceful feeling, it can be used to justify any belief, thought, or action. There is no way to critique such a thing ... unless one uses reason and logic to do so. But that, we are told, is not allowed. Do you see how adhering to such a view is not only self-serving, but can be disastrous for those who hold to these ideas?

Being that I have listed the problems I find with this kind of teaching in logical order, and made a reasoned case why I believe it to be not only wrong but destructive, I'm sure that some would point out that my thinking is exactly the kind of thing the author is talking about. I am a living, breathing incarnation of the flaws the author is addressing. But in doing so critics, like the author they defend, help me make the fifth and final point I would like to address.

Fifth, the author has written a book meant to make a logically persuasive case for the point of view being defended. It always amazes me when folks write books meant to convince us all that there is no such thing as truth (so is their book true or not?); or that there is no such thing as an unbiased point of view (except theirs, of course); or that no one's "story" is any more authoritative than anyone else's (this is the strong-postmodern case for relativism); or, as in this case, that we shouldn't be using logic and reason. The idea that reason and logic are bad is dashed on the rocks of the very premise for which the author wrote -- or, for that matter, the reason anyone writes any book in the first place -- they want to convince you that what they are saying is true by logically and persuasively arguing their case!

I do not critique the author quoted here lightly. I used to subscribe to some of the ideas myself. But once one sees the fallacies and dangers in this type of thinking, it is hard to ignore it and look the other way. This type of mindset is destructive to the church. It makes us look foolish to the world and it needs to be stopped. Not because we are capitulating to the ways of the world, but because we are defying the faculty of reason God gave us when He created us in His image.