Thoughts On "Expelled"

I saw Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed this past week and, since several friends have asked what I thought of the movie, I decided I would weigh in briefly.

This is a controversial film, no doubt. It's aim is to expose the blatant bias that exists within the academic and scientific communities against the very idea that someone would suggest there is evidence of design in the universe in general, or in the realm of biological life in particular. Those who have even expressed openness to these ideas have paid a heavy price by being ostracized, denied tenure, and even fired from their jobs for doing so.

Obviously I agree with the claims of ID and have tried to defend them many times here. It is also undeniable that the scientific community has, in some specific cases, mistreated those who subscribe to this notion. There is not a single assertion in the movie that I think is false or even exaggerated. But for me there are two issues at play here:

First, is ID scientifically supportable and worthy of being given a place at the table? This is the $64,000 question. Unfortunately, Expelled does not offer much evidence to make this case. The movie does show animation about the inner workings of the cell but the scenes that do so lack explanation and are therefore not of much help to the average viewer who is not familiar with what he/she is being shown. I wish the viewer had been given more supporting details about the information content in DNA, or about specified and irreducible complexity, to show the incredible evidence for intelligent design. I say this only because I can't imagine a more effective medium than the big screen for educating those who are unfamiliar with, and uninformed about, the claims of ID. Having said that however, the thing we must remember is that this was not the goal of the movie. Rather, Expelled was meant to expose and rebel against anti-ID bias. This brings us to the second topic.

Second, does Expelled succeed in elevating the acceptability of ID in the minds of the scientific community or the public it was meant to inform? The movie's main premise is to expose bias. If it has succeeded in that effort, one would hope there would be public demand for more consideration of ID and that the scientific community would be compelled to move toward a more open exchange of ideas with ID proponents. Though I hate to say this, I think the movie will fail in that regard. Here's why:

Because of the first issue (above), the probability that those who were unfamiliar with the claims of ID will be better informed after having seen it, is low. I think the lack of explanatory evidence will render this a classic case of preaching to the converted. Because of this deficiency, I can't see there being a groundswell of word-of-mouth advertising that would encourage the unfamiliar to go see it.

Also, though both are logically and historically accurate, the film does two things that I believe will undermine its purpose. It links Darwinism to eugenics and it likens the censorship of ID proponents to the construction of the Berlin Wall and the intransigence of communism.

Again, both of these are valid. But that fact does little to assuage the fact that it is human nature to resist such a comparison. Those who despise ID and are a part of the scientific establishment that practices these tactics will only dig their heals in deeper. That is the sad outcome to which I think the movie will lead.

The value of ID rests not in its ability to score political points, but in the overwhelming inference it brings to divine action by the power of the supporting scientific evidence. We who defend ID are constantly appealing to scientists to "just evaluate the evidence" and not dismiss it because of its implications. Unfortunately, Expelled does very little to bring that evidence to the public's attention in a way that cannot be ignored. Where, for instance, was an interview with Antony Flew -- the world's former leading atheistic philosopher -- who was drawn to belief in God by the strength of the evidence he saw in ID?

Yes, I enjoyed seeing Richard Dawkins in a "gotcha" moment. Yes, it was entertaining to see him offer that life originated "on the backs of crystals" or by the direct action of a super-intelligent alien civilization. Yes, I know that the crystalization explanation is absurd and that the alien zoo explanation is not only an appeal to an infinite regress but that it also sounds strangely similar to the Biblical narrative of a divine Author of life.

I get that. And I liked the movie.

But we, as apologists must also remember that our goal is not to win arguments, but to win people to Christ. No, I don't think the movie should have been couched as an evangelistic tool. But the implications of ID are too important to resort to the use of clever oneupmanship to reveal them. I wish Expelled had been more focused on the superiority of the scientific evidence and a composed defense of those who seek only to consider that evidence through free academic inquiry. Doing so in a non-confrontational way would have put the scientific establishment more on the defensive by making ID a reasoned and reasonable alternative explanation while at the same time demonstrating that we who defend it do so "... with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against [our] good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander."

In other words, I wish Ben Stein would have been able to title his movie: Compelled.

"Listen To The Earth"

Every year, my family vacations at an east coast resort in Delaware. Two houses down from us on our daily walk to the beach a red Dodge van is parked in the driveway. The back of the van is covered in bumper stickers, one of which I was reminded of this week. It says, "Listen To The Earth."

I have addressed the issue of bumper sticker politics briefly elsewhere but, as we "celebrated" Earth Day this past week, that bumper sticker leaped into my brain and I wondered, just how does one go about "listening" to the Earth?

As I have discussed before, I believe we are duty-bound to be good stewards of our environment, but that is a far cry from the political agenda behind the Earth Day movement. I was going to comment on those ideas but, once again, my friend Rick Gerhardt not only beat me to it, but summarized the problem far more concisely and eloquently than I ever could have. Rick has advanced degrees in biology and works as an avian ecologist. In other words, Rick is not only much smarter than me, but he is well-versed in subject areas that directly effect environmentalist ideas.

Please check out Rick's two recent posts here and here. But if you don't have time, let me offer a Cliff's Notes summary of Rick's take on the basic issues Christians should consider as they approach the subject of environmentalism:

First, environmentalism as we know it today has largely been co-opted by those with a neo-pagan or pantheistic worldview. This is easily seen around Earth Day, whose most vocal participants openly honor “Mother Earth” or worship Gaia, the earth goddess. Thus, for Christians to join the existing environmental movement would involve closely aligning themselves with people whose religion and worldview are diametrically opposed to their own.

Similarly, the environmental movement in America has been twisted for political means, to the point that unbiased, reasonable discussions of environmental issues have become all but impossible.

Third, the modern environmental movement has a distinctly pro-death (anti-human) aspect to it. For many in this movement, the biggest problem facing the planet is human beings.

That's it in a nutshell. And from that Rick draws the following conclusion:

... these amoral and anti-Christian elements makes it reasonable for Christians to avoid such alignment, it does not absolve them (us) of the responsibility of either personal or corporate environmental stewardship. If anything, it requires us both to stiffen our resolve to be the very best creation caretakers that we can be and to better understand why good stewardship makes more sense from within a Judeo-Christian worldview than from a pantheistic or atheistic perspective.

As usual, there is a lot of wisdom in his words. Though he would never be so self-serving as to suggest this himself, let me say that if you are encouraged by someone to "listen to the earth," you might want to click back here and listen to Rick instead.

Good stuff ...

An Unexamined Faith

As a follow-on to my post of a few days ago, USA Today provides an article that addresses, Those Touched Most Deeply By 9/11, A Turning Point In Faith. The story provides a short but telling insight into the way many approach issues of faith in our culture. The gist of the piece is that the tragedy of 9/11 had a significant impact -- in both directions -- on the faith of those who were personally affected by the terrorist attacks.

The "violence and pain" of the worst terrorists attack in history brought out not only the dangers of religious fanaticism, but the problem that all religions must face in addressing the problem of evil in our world. As the article notes,

Many whose lives were changed that day are still coming to terms spiritually with 9/11. Some have taken comfort from their faith; others have found it lacking. Some have a stronger faith, a different faith or no faith at all.

I admit that this is nowhere near a "scientific study" of the issues surrounding how people consider their faith (or lack of it), but I do believe the anecdotal evidence in this story reveals a lot about how many approach the topic. A few examples ...

The Jewish rabbi says he was "almost overwhelmed" by the devastation he seeing the incredible devotion of the rescue workers "... was one of the most affirming moments of my life," he says now. "I felt this was something I was worthy of doing."

Similarly, the wife of a trader who was killed in the attacks, Jennifer Sands " ... pray[ed] for her husband's safe return.

When Jim Sands didn't come back on 9/11, it shattered her faith. "My anger was not at the terrorists. I hadn't been praying to Osama bin Laden, I prayed to God. He could have stopped it. I felt very alone — rejected and abandoned."

But she still believed in God. "I realized, 'I can't be angry at someone who doesn't exist!' " Curiosity over that paradox led her to study the Bible for the first time, and to a new evangelical Christian faith.

Then 12 years-old, a now 19 year-old young man, whose mother was killed in the attacks ...

... realized his mother was not coming back. His midnight prayer changed from asking that she be found to asking God to care for him in her absence. He says he was not angry or bitter: "I knew God does things for a reason, not just when and how we want them. Things don't happen on our time, they happen on God's time ... Now a freshman at Virginia Union University in Richmond. He's made the dean's list and founded a gospel choir. He quotes St. Paul: " 'Faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.' I was happy to see the unseen; that's when my faith came into play."

Another mother, whose son was killed in the attacks had an opposite reaction:

"I was not a religious person to begin with," she says, "but whatever faith was left to me, I lost when they took my son away" ... She refuses to be a hypocrite and worship a God who would tolerate 9/11.

Likewise, another woman whose husband was killed ...

... stopped talking to God ... she still wants to believe in God, but "something has shifted, and even my limited spirituality seems to have been squashed among the debris" ... She describes feeling "like a spurned friend" -- her relationship with God another casualty of 9/11 ... and believes that "Organized religion has caused most of the problems we're having today."

Pardon all the quotes above but here's the point that jumped out at me when I read this article: Every one of those named in the story who rejected God in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks did so for emotional reasons. They could not accept a God who would allow such a thing to occur. In contrast, every one of those named in the story whose faith was renewed or grew in the aftermath of the attacks attributed it to a thoughtful analysis of the issues that led them to a reasoned conclusion about the way the world is.

I think this is significant -- especially in light of the commonly accepted notion that the faithful are unthinking and that their conclusions consist of nothing more than an indefensible "blind faith" in the undetectable existence of a heart warming fairy tale. At least in this story, the evidence suggests that the exact opposite is true!

Part of the reason I write here is that I reject the notion that a real, Biblically-based faith is "blind." Though there are many who are deeply engaged in such a faith, it is not the kind of faith I believe we are called to practice. As far as I know, there is not a single example of such a faith anywhere in the Bible.

[For the presuppositionalists out there who would challenge me on this let me say that I understand. There is no doubt that some who cannot defend their faith intellectually no doubt possess a faith that is stronger than mine. Presuppositionalism has merit. But I think it is a false dichotomy to assert that the arguments between presuppositionalism and evidentialism are mutually exclusive. Though I won't discuss it here, I don't see any contradiction in appealing to both. My claim is two-fold: 1) that presuppositionalism is not superior to evidentialism and, 2) that evidence is a requirement for unbelievers and those who are emotionally antagonistic to the idea of God's existence -- i.e. for evangelism.]

I would challenge unbelievers to examine the evidence and arguments of the faithful as the are applied to the human condition. And, though I pray that no one ever has to experience the pain that those in this story have had to endure, I would challenge believers to learn from the thoughtful responses of those whose faith has been so severely tested. I challenge us all to a reasoned and reasonable consideration of these issues before the towers in our personal worlds come crashing down on us.

Mysterious Ways

Do miracles happen?

The presuppositions of your worldview determine the answer you give to that question. A naturalist rules them out a priori (prior to consideration) because the materialistic world he or she demands will not allow for any kind of non-material cause for anything.

The theist believes that even though miracles are, by definition, rare -- that fact does not preclude their possibility. We should examine the evidence and decide if there is a natural explanation for the event in question. We should not presume that anything we observe is a miracle just because it seems unlikely to have occurred otherwise. But on the other hand, the theist is open to such possibility.

Because the naturalist does not accept the existence of the supernatural, it follows that supernatural intervention in the physical world is not possible. The theist disagrees. But supernatural intervention should not always be defined as miraculous. On the theistic view, God acts in the world through his sovereign control of all that happens. In cases where direct intervention is not necessary, the theist can also see that "God's hand" was involved in human events. As someone put it, "a miracle is only a coincidence when God chooses to remain anonymous."

With that in mind, check out this story about postal worker Lisa Harrell of Albany, New York. While delivering the mail yesterday she saw a 1 year-old baby in an open second floor window of a family home. As she neared the house, the baby crawled out the window and fell into Lisa Harrell's arms. A few seconds earlier or later and Harrell would not have been there. Interestingly, Harrell was on a completely different route than she normally would be.

A miracle? Maybe not. I would certainly not be compelled to label this event as being miraculous.

A coincidence? Sure.

But was God's sovereign will at work? You decide. Only a presuppositional bias would prohibit that possibility. God's anonymity notwithstanding, I believe I know who was responsible for this "coincidence."

Nothing To Believe In

When it comes to spiritual issues, I am always amazed that people will accept and defend things that they would never, ever accept when addressing any other subject. People will convince themselves (and try to convince you) that the most illogical, nonsensical claims make perfect sense as long as they are attached to religion, spirituality, or questions surrounding ultimate meaning for our existence. Case in point: Nica Lalli, who has recently written a book entitled, Nothing: Something To Believe In. In a recent interview, Lalli proclaims that:

I am an atheist. I have never joined, or been part of, any religious group or organization. I was raised without religion, and without much understanding of what religion is. I have never had much of an identity religiously, and I stayed away from much thought or discussion on the matter. It is only recently that I have really explored the many options for religious beliefs and have decided that rather than saying, "No comment," I now call myself an atheist.

Though she admits that she has had little training in religious matters and that she really doesn't even understand what religion is, she seems to feel comfortable making judgments about religious ideas -- especially those attached to "organized religion." What Ms. Lalli fails to see is that, by calling herself an atheist, she is in no way laying claim to a neutral position. Contrary to the deliberately provocative title of her book, she is most definitely not believing in "nothing." Ms. Lalli is, by definition, making an explicitly religious claim.

The Dictionary definition of Religion is: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

The universe either has a natural or supernatural cause. Those are the only options available to us. By claiming atheism, Ms. Lalli is putting forth the specific notion that God does not exist and that the cause, nature and purpose of the universe must therefore be (respectively) random, materialistic, and meaningless. These ideas have real-world consequences that infer a deterministic, meaningless existence that has no grounding for any moral code.

This is hardly a detached, neutral stance.

Ms. Lalli is also rather proud of the fact that she is leading her own children to not be committed to any belief system but rather to have them aspire to eternal skepticism ...

Most young children accept what their parents tell them as true, whether it is the existence of Santa Claus or Jesus Christ. It is important that children understand what their parents believe, but it is also important for children to know about all the options out there. This is tricky if a parent is a true believer of a religion and feels that her way is the only path. But how can children question openly when they are taught that there are absolute truths in belief? ... Part of being a good parent is allowing our children to become whatever and whoever they become.

In this offhanded attempt to equate belief in Jesus Christ with belief in Santa Claus, Ms. Lalli again demonstrates a thinly-veiled antagonism toward "organized religion" even as she attempts to sell her way of thinking as the philosophically superior high ground that seeks to judge nothing and no one. But just where is this "high ground" she occupies?

Ironically, it is in just the place she so wants to avoid -- the place where people make judgments about truth. When Ms. Lalli teaches her children to always question but never claim to know absolute truth she is really juxtaposing the practice of serious inquiry against any possibility of knowing absolute truth. But is that a legitimate contrast?

I would say that anyone serious about seeking the truth in this life should, by all means, continue to observe and ask questions. But doing so in no way prohibits the seeker from making the reasonably founded case that they have found it. The actual truth is out there somewhere. Jesus Christ claimed he was that Truth incarnate. He was either right or wrong. But those of us who believe he was right have legitimate reasons for seeing that Truth as the best explanation for the way the world is.

Ms. Lalli denounces that idea (that our faith has a valid foundation) as being wrong. In other words Ms. Lalli is claiming that it her view is the correct one. Do you see the irony? While claiming that no one can think their "path is the only one," she is promoting the notion that her meaningless belief in "nothing" is the right path.

Everybody believes what they believe because they think it is true. They (we) can not help that fact. Ms. Lalli's book is an attempt to make her case for her belief system. She is free to do so. But she must also realize that her claims to judgment-free neutrality are impossible to sustain. And that her call to disavow "organized religion" can only end in a kind of "disorganized religion" unable to account for an objective assessment of the way the world really is.

Atheism is not "nothing." "Nothing" is not what she really believes. And neither atheism nor "nothing" cut the mustard with regard to the origin, the meaning, or the destiny of this thing called life. I hope that Ms. Lalli and her children will continue their search with honesty and that they would one day see the Truth.

Shalom

To be honest, it can get bit discouraging to constantly attempt to defend the Christian worldview here. In my efforts to stay up to date on what is going on in the world, I am constantly searching for news stories that touch on worldview issues. The result of that is that I am constantly mind-wrestling with negativity. It wears you down. That's the nature of the beast I guess.

And don't get me wrong, it is a passion of mine, I think it is vitally important, and I love to do it. But weeks like this one are particularly dispiriting:

In Britain, researchers have combined genetic materials to produce human-bovine hybrids. Why? Because they can. And apparently they see nothing Frankensteinian about it. Just doing research, you know -- maybe harvest some stem cells along the way -- and they justify it by claiming it may help cure disease. The manipulation of the very nature of humanness is apparently not an issue.

In Georgia, a group of 3rd graders hatched a plot to kill their teacher, this in retaliation for the teacher making a student stand on a chair. These kids had assigned students to cover the windows of the classroom, duct tape and gag the teacher, and supply knives to finish the job. How does a society produce a batch of 8 year-olds who can even conceive of such a thing?

In Oregon, Thomas Beatie (that would be a "he") announced that he is five months pregnant. Oprah had him on her show. And, without any exception I could find, the entire news media insists on referring to Beatie as a "pregnant man." Hello! His sex-change surgery notwithstanding, "Thomas" Beatie is, by definition, a woman. This is not debatable. Yet we live in a society that condones and patronizes those who demand not only that their "gender" is a matter of personal preference, but that those who would question the idea are nothing but old fashioned bigots. How did we get here?

Finally, today it is being reported that intelligence officials have uncovered substantial evidence of Al-Qaida's plans to bring a nuclear attack on the United States. Given the number of nuclear components once stored in the former Soviet Union, and the current corruption of the government there that yearns for the old totalitarianism, the materials needed to carry out such a plot cannot be too hard to obtain. And so we live under the constant possibility that the terrorist planning could well come to fruition.

All this is disgusting and demoralizing not so much for me, but for the state of the future world that my children will be forced to live in. Such a world is beyond my comprehension but I'm afraid that it will not be beyond my children's realization. All of it stems from the fact that ideas matter. Some ideas are wrong and destructive. And those seem to be the ideas whose stock is on the rise. It can all be very depressing ...

... and then came yesterday.

Yesterday, I visited an Advanced Biology class at the high school two of my sons attend. I wish I could name the school and the teacher of that class but, the world being the way it is, I am actually reluctant to do that in such a public forum without the permission of all involved. Suffice it to say that my visit there encourages me to be confident that there is hope in this culture.

Here is a teacher whose passion and dedication to the truth are glaringly evident not only in her approach to the material she teaches, but in the attitudes and competence of the students who have the privilege of being under her tutelage. These kids are well-versed in the details of biology, well-acquainted with the worldview issues that underly the technicalities of that field, and confident in articulating and defending why they think what they think. Though I know this is all too uncommon, it is encouraging to see that it is possible to raise up a generation of kids who will be leaders -- and thinkers -- and promoters -- of good ideas. Ideas that can serve as the antidote to the poison that infects our society today.

Ideas matter. These kids know it. And they are ready to go impact a world that needs them badly.

In his book, Not The Way It's Supposed To Be, Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. offered an insight that I have never forgotten when he defined the Hebrew word shalom. "Peace" has always been my translation of the word. But Plantinga points out that my definition of the word doesn't cut it:

The webbing together of God, humans, and all creation in justice, fulfillment, and delight is what the Hebrew prophets call shalom. We call it peace, but it means far more than mere peace of mind or a cease-fire between enemies. In the Bible, shalom means universal flourishing, wholeness, and delight -- a rich state of affairs in which the natural needs are satisfied and natural gifts fruitfully employed, a state of affairs that inspires joyful wonder as its Creator and Savior opens doors and welcomes the creatures in whom he delights. Shalom, in other words, is the way things ought to be.

One only needs to read history to know that the world has long seemed to be coming unglued. I suppose our time is not much different than other times have been in the turbulent past. But when you're living in a time like this, it sure can seem discouraging to be swimming against the tide. Shalom like that seems to be a phantom.

But knowing that there are those who share the passion to strive to restore it as well as humans ever could is encouraging. There are good ideas that long to be brought to fruition. And there are good people who strive to hold and defend those ideas both now and in the future. Though it sometimes seems elusive, there is a hope-filled future for all of those who choose to seek it. And with that future comes a promise -- the promise of a shalom like none of us can even comprehend.

Myth Buster

Last night I got to hear and shake the hand of a man I have admired for many years. Phillip Johnson visited a local university and spoke on the status of the Intelligent Design movement and where he thinks it is headed in the future.

What a treat.

Though Dr. Johnson has suffered a series of strokes since 2001 and has some physical difficulties on his left side as a result, his mind is as clear and analytical as it has ever been. The format of his presentation was an interview (that allowed him to be seated throughout) but his answers to the questions posed were long and lecture-like. He also had no trouble injecting some humor into his assessment of the Darwinist "priesthood" and the reasons for its virulently nasty response to ID. One need only compare the venom of the "priesthood's" response to this gentle man to consider who is more confident in the strength of their case.

For those who may not know him, Johnson graduated from Harvard in 1961, received his law degree from the University of Chicago, was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren, and taught law for 33 years at the University of California, Berkeley. During his time there, Johnson started reading various critics of Darwinism -- many of whom were evolutionists themselves -- and realized that there were giant holes in the theory that was being touted as "fact." So, in good lawyer form, Johnson set out to put Darwin on Trial in 1991. His book (by that title) was so devastating to the Evolutionary paradigm, and so well written, that several closet critics of Darwin took note and contacted him about it. It was from those original meetings that the Intelligent Design movement was born.

If you are interested in reading more about Phil Johnson I would recommend Darwin's Nemesis, a book that looks at his contributions to the Darwinist-Intelligent Design debate by several of those who have joined him in the cause.

In that first book Johnson proclaimed that:

My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias that might distort our interpretation of that evidence ... The question I want to investigate is whether Darwinism is based upon a fair assessment of the scientific evidence, or whether it is another kind of fundamentalism.

That is all he has ever done since.

I approached Dr. Johnson after the event to thank him for all he has done in his pursuit of truth and open scientific inquiry. It truly was an honor to meet him. He is a meek and humble gentleman whose age is wearing on him. But as I stood waiting to introduce myself to him I couldn't help contemplating how many of us, who try to add our own trivial input to this debate, may not realize what a giant of a man it takes to have each of us stand on his shoulders.

Global Smarming

Well, at least the Catholics and (some) Protestants can agree on something. Unfortunately that something leaves much to be desired. The Catholic church, in its ongoing attempt to show its relevance to modern culture, has chosen to "update" its list of Deadly Sins. Though the original list (pride, envy, lust, anger, sloth, greed and gluttony) seems adequately all inclusive to me, apparently the Church doesn't consider it sufficient to encompass new terms that are more politically correct. The Vatican reports that:

The new deadly sins include polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely rich, drug dealing, abortion, pedophilia and causing social injustice.

Maybe I'm just a little slow but, given the definitions of the "old" deadly sins:

Pride is excessive belief in one's own abilities, that interferes with the individual's recognition of the grace of God. It has been called the sin from which all others arise. Pride is also known as Vanity.

Envy is the desire for others' traits, status, abilities, or situation.

Gluttony is an inordinate desire to consume more than that which one requires.

Lust is an inordinate craving for the pleasures of the body.

Anger is manifested in the individual who spurns love and opts instead for fury. It is also known as Wrath.

Greed is the desire for material wealth or gain, ignoring the realm of the spiritual. It is also called Avarice or covetousness.

Sloth is the avoidance of physical or spiritual work.

... it seems to me these new ones would fit nicely into the previously established categories:

• Genetic engineering fits nicely under the demonstration of humanistic pride.


• Being obscenely rich sure does seem to sound like greed, but one would think that the Vatican geniuses who came up with this list could understand the difference between having lots of money (being rich) and having an attitude that just wants more money (greed). Who defines "obscenely rich" anyway? And what about "obscenely rich" folks who give most of their wealth away to, say, the Catholic Church?


• Drug dealing obviously breaks human laws that are not in conflict with Scripture (which is, we might note, one definition of sin in general) but also works nicely with sloth and lust.


• Abortion not only demonstrates the prideful tendency to "play God" but also ignores the clear teaching that we should respect life because all human beings reflects God by bearing His image.


• It doesn't seem difficult to see pedophilia as just one more way perverted way to be lustful. Surely, a group of Catholic priests should recognize that fact.


• Causing social injustice is a nebulous term that is too easily manipulated into including anything the liberal wing of the church chooses as its pet cause. But even ignoring that, can this not be included under the umbrella of pride, envy and/or greed?

Finally, polluting is thrown in to placate the environmentalist mantra concerning "global warming." And here we find the connecting point between the Catholics and their Protestant brethren. Not to be outdone, the Southern Baptists have also weighed in on the issue. In their similar declaration they chastise those who don't believe the sky is falling for their ...

" ... cautious response to these issues in the face of mounting evidence [that] may be seen by the world as uncaring, reckless and ill-informed. We can do better."

Please notice that their fear here is not that we are in danger of ignoring an actual objective truth claim. Their fear is about how they "may be seen by the world." Why are church leaders so concerned about how they are seen by the world? Yes, the church needs to be relevant but being relevant does not entail capitulation to the standards and language of the world. It seems to me that they have things backward. They are critiquing the church from a cultural point of view instead of critiquing the culture from a Biblical point of view.

The Rev. Rich Cizik, Washington director of the National Association of Evangelicals, [has become] a prominent environmental advocate, trying to persuade conservative Christians that global warming is real.

Sorry, but if global warming was so obviously real, it wouldn't take such a concerted effort to "persuade" us. There are thousands of scientists who disagree with the dire warnings about global warming. They don't dissent for religious reasons but for scientific ones. Those who so readily accept the popular view seem a little gullible to me. Take Jonathan Merritt for instance, a student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary ...

Merritt, 25, son of former convention president James Merritt, [who] began rallying denominational leaders ... said a theology class had inspired him. His professor had compared destroying God's creation to "tearing a page out of the Bible" ... "That struck me. It broke me," the younger Merritt said in an interview, "and that was the impetus that began a life change, a shift of perspective for me."

Merritt accepted global warming in a theology class! If this is all it takes to "break" you, I submit that you are not thinking with your brain, but with your emotions and feelings -- an all-too-common practice these days.

But, for the sake of argument, let's assume they are correct. Let's assume that the planet is warming. Maybe it is. But there is virtually no proof that it is doing so because of the actions of human beings. Claiming that man can affect or control the temperature of the massively complicated system that is the Earth just sounds a little prideful to me.

This is not to say that we should not take care in how we treat our environment. We should. For those who believe in the Bible this is a moral imperative. For those who don't believe in the Bible it just makes common sense. But one must observe the motivations of those who want to blame man for an alleged global temperature rise. Those motivations are not Biblical but they are theological. They have their basis in the religion of Environmentalism.

These people see global warming as a political tool that can be used to control and confiscate wealth from what they consider to be an "obscenely rich" United States so that it can be redistributed in the name of "social justice." They are "greedy" and "gluttonous" in their pursuit of power and influence. They are "prideful" in their claim to know the unknowable and control the uncontrollable. They are "angry" at those who have the audacity to disagree with them based on the actual scientific evidence.

The issues are new but the results are as old as the humanity that promotes it. Sounds like a deadly, human-centered combination to me.

Train Up A Child

This story (Francis Schaeffer's son: Dad 'worse' than Obama's pastor. Charges black minister's 'anti-America' rhetoric mild by comparison), sent to me by a good friend earlier this week, really got me going for two reasons. First, it is textbook example of the fallacy that goes with believing that Proverbs are promises. Second, the self-righteous, pseudo-sincerity in it is exceeded only by the complete lack of logic it demonstrates.

The second topic first. Frank Schaeffer is the infamous son of one of the greatest philosophical minds in history, Francis Schaeffer , a man whose teaching and writing on the philosophical foundations of the Christian worldview and analysis of the trajectory of human thought are not only required reading for anyone interested in thinking clearly about the Christian faith, but concise and deadly accurate in its predictions about where the humanistic philosophy would take us as a society. His influence on contemporary Christian thinking has been profound. In short, the elder Schaeffer got it right when it came to assessing the philosophical underpinnings of our moral and cultural decline. He was a giant in the area of worldview analysis and his writing has stood the test of time. Yes, there have been those who have taken his views to extremes but we could say that about anybody -- including Jesus Christ. Having said that, please don't let us judge any philosophy or religion by those who choose to corrupt it.

Unfortunately one of those who has chosen to corrupt it is the author's own son.

There isn't room to defend the elder Schaeffer's record here. Others have done a better of that than I ever could. But what I cannot stomach is the deliberate mischaracterization and twisted accusations his son has stooped to for his own left-wing political purposes. Don't get me wrong, Frank Schaeffer has no obligation to agree with or defend his father's views. But to distort them in the way he has in this article is an Obamanation I feel compelled to call out.

For starters, Frank ...

Schaeffer, writing in the Baltimore Community Times, charges "the far-right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the 'scandal' of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency."

and then goes on to claim that:

"Every Sunday thousands of right-wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits," Schaeffer writes. "They tell us that America is complicit in the 'murder of the unborn,' has become 'Sodom' by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children."

With this he makes the ridiculous claim that reporting the actual words of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's racial rants makes those who do so racist themselves. They do so, Schaeffer says, only to undermine the first black American's legitimate presidential candidacy. The utter foolishness in that claim requires no further discussion. My ten-year old could see how vacuous it is. But the parallel attempt to compare Wright's words to the preaching of a Bible-based morality has to be a deliberate effort to twist the truth. There is no other explanation for it.

Wright denounced, and asked God to damn, America for being a society just like the one the "right-wing white preachers" describe. But what are the characteristics of that society? In his own words it is one that sees abortion, homosexuality, idolizing the creation over the Creator, and pushing aberrant sexuality on children as each being "sinful." Never mind that each of these is defined as sinful in the Bible and has been for the last, oh, 4000 years!

Please note, this is not to claim the veracity of any of these. It is not even to defend the truth of Christianity. That is another subject. The point is that the Bible itself claims that each of these is wrong. There is no denying that. For those that hold Christianity to be true, to teach each of these is simply to articulate their faith. Whether Frank Schaeffer agrees with it or not, it is completely disingenuous to put a defense of the clear teaching of Scripture on par with the outrageous allegations made by the "Reverend" Wright. Is claiming that the Bible calls homosexuality a sin even remotely similar to claiming that the U. S. government deliberately injected the AIDS virus into black men?

C'mon, Frank. Argue your politics all you want, but please don't try to have us accept nonsense like that.

And that brings us to the first topic. It is a common misunderstanding that the Book of Proverbs contains promises that all of us can claim. But proverbs are not contracts we make with God. They are simply the wise sayings of wise, godly men. They represent good ideas that are smart to practice if we hope to live our lives in godly ways. They aren't promises. One has to believe, based on the demonstrated faith of Francis Schaeffer, that he knew them and put them into practice. In this specific case, it is safe to assume that Francis Schaeffer probably believed it was wise to "train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it."

The actions of his son are living proof that the practice of this particular proverb guarantees the parent nothing whatsoever.

Easter: Marketing Nightmare

A couple of weeks ago a co-worker and I were navigating through blizzard conditions in the Midwest when I said something like, "Wow, it sure is weird to think Easter is right around the corner."

"What do you mean?"

"I'm just saying that when your running around in a snow storm, it's hard to believe it'll be Easter Sunday in less than two weeks."

"Are you serious? When is Easter anyway?"

"It's on March 23rd ... Sunday after next."

"Holy crap. I'm flying that day. I didn't even look at the calendar when I bid for my schedule."

The conversation went on but here's my question. Can you even imagine the average American (let alone the average Christian) not realizing when Christmas was?

Yes I know that the date for Christmas doesn't change on us every year and that makes it harder. But that's not the real problem. Easter is by far the most significant Christian holiday (holy day) because it memorializes the linchpin of the faith -- the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. As Paul put it, "... if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins (1 Corinthians 15:16)."

Your faith is worthless without Easter and yet Easter has become a second-rate holiday. The Christmas marketers start in the stores in October (around here anyway). It's in your face everywhere you go. Easter, on the other hand, gets a row dedicated to it in the greeting card section and an aisle of pastel candy colored candy at Kroger.

The real problem with Easter, you see, is centered in that three letter little word at the end of Paul's statement: s - i - n. Nobody likes that word. Madison avenue can deal with the holiday that revolves around gift-giving and its direct correlation to shopping. But the concept of Easter and its relationship to sin doesn't lend itself well to the modern feel-good culture that would try to market it.

Sin doesn't sell.

That notion was brought home for me in the March 20, 2008 issue of USA Today (Life section) in the article titled "Is Sin Dead?." There, this question was asked:

... as Easter approaches, some pastors and theologians worry: How can Christians celebrate Jesus' atonement for their sins and the promise of eternal life in his resurrection if they don't recognize themselves as sinners?

Sin is "the word that shall not be spoken" from far too many pulpits in America these days. In fact, maybe the most popular preacher in the nation, a man with a vast TV following and several best-selling books to his credit, Joel Osteen, admits that he never mentions sin in any of those media.

"I never thought about (using the word 'sinners'), but I probably don't," Osteen told Larry King in an interview. "Most people already know what they're doing wrong. When I get them to church, I want to tell them that you can change."

Apparently, Mr. Osteen didn't get the data presented elsewhere in the piece about what WHAT AMERICANS CALL SIN:

• Adultery: 81%

• Racism: 74%

• Using "hard" drugs, such as cocaine, LSD: 65%

• Not saying anything if a cashier gives you too much change: 63%

• Having an abortion: 56%

• Homosexual activity or sex: 52%

• Not reporting some income on your tax returns: 52%

• Reading or watching pornography: 50%

• Gossip: 47%

• Swearing: 46%

• Sex before marriage: 45%

• Doing things as a consumer that harm the environment: 41%

• Smoking marijuana: 41%

• Getting drunk: 41%

Source: Ellison Research, August 2007, based on 1,007 adults through a representative online panel ad adjusted to be demographically representative of the USA Margin of error: ±3.1 percentage points.

Apparently folks don't know what constitutes sin -- or at least, according to these numbers, about half of us have no clue. A question for Mr. Osteen. Which behaviors are your followers going to change if half of them think most of this stuff is OK?

It is no small irony that the culture we live in finds it more reprehensible to point this out (i.e. be "judgmental") than to actually exhibit the sinful behavior itself. The worldliness that sin promotes is in itself a comfortable denial of standards that exist outside our own little spheres of happiness and personal fulfillment. As David Wells puts it in his classic, "God In The Wasteland,"

Modernity is worldliness, and it has concealed its values so adroitly in the abundance, the comfort, and the wizardry of our age that even those who call themselves the people of God seldom recognize them for what they are.

Christmas plays to that theme. Easter upends it. So it is no surprise that the latter gets conveniently, even if unintentionally, forgotten.