Evolutionary "Just-so" Stories, part 1 of n...

Evolutionists will sometimes accuse Creationists of positing "just-so" stories to explain God's actions in the history of life on planet Earth. For instance they will accuse us of tailoring our explanation to fit with the data provided - in other words - however it appears in the record of nature is how God must have done it. I have argued that a properly understood Testable Creation Model does not do this. But what of the Evolutionary Model? Are they completely innocent with regards to "just-so" stories? Let's take a look at DNA. As research has continued in the field of molecular biology we have learned much about the enormous complexity of the double helix of DNA. Initially there was supposedly cause for celebration in the evolutionary camp. The reason? - Junk DNA. In decoding the structure of DNA scientists ran into a great deal of non-coding DNA - what was referred to as Junk DNA. Aha!, they exclaimed. Here is evidence for the random, chance driven mechanism behind evolution. How else do you explain such waste in the strand of DNA? It is not what one would expect from a Designer is it? In fact, as some had said, it is what you would expect if the evolutionary paradigm is correct. Score 1 for Evolution, 0 for Creation? Not quite. There's that welcome activity called additional research. As research has continued we are discovering that the so-called Junk DNA really does have function! Whether it is used to facilitate DNA folding or whether it used in complex processing of chromosome sequencing, what is now being understood is that it's not so junky after all. As the Creation Model predicts, the more research we perform on structures such as DNA, the more evidence we will acquire that these structures were designed. But don't expect the evolutionists to roll over and play dead with these new findings. In fact, expect them to now say that this is exactly what we should expect from the evolutionary scenario. After all, small mutations over great periods of time are sure to produce finely tuned structures well-adapted to their environment - the DNA genome is testament to that. It's "just-so."

Link of the Weekend...

I hesitate to even put in any more links to the Evangelical Outpost (EO). It's not because I don't think highly of it - I DO! It's just that I doubt that anyone who visits my site hasn't already been to Joe's EO site. Anyway if, by chance, you haven't been to Joe's site then do it. Joe's site has a diverse variety of topics on which he posts. In particular for this past week he has a couple of posts on the topic of Evolution; check out Macro Evolution and the Fossil Record and The Evolution of "Evolution."

Final Reflections on Lincoln...

In Lincoln's Greatest Speech, Ronald White examines the short 2nd Inaugural address given by Abraham Lincoln. While Lincoln's Gettysburg Address is probably his most remembered speech, most historians consider his 2nd Inaugural to be his greatest speech. The Civil War was coming to a bitter end and many people expected Lincoln to sound the cry of victory and coming judgment against the South. Instead Lincoln crafted a speech that spoke of a unified nation that was entirely responsible for the sin of slavery and, therefore, was entirely within the sights of God's judgment. Consider this excerpt from his speech:

"The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offences!"... If we suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences{,} which, in the providence of God... He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war... "...if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether[.]""

Yet because of Lincoln's charity he did not limit this judgment to the South alone. In looking to the future he did not announce retribution, for he believed the entire Nation was responsible for the atrocities of the last four years. Rather he looked towards reconciliation and love. The first sentence of the last paragraph exemplifies his position well:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all..."

In reading Lincoln's Greatest Speech one can't help but realize, with utter astonishment, what horrors the country went through during the Civil War. Divine judgment for the offense of slavery? If so then I wonder what may lie in our own future for I can't get away from one simple phrase... Roe v. Wade.

Wheels on the Ground...

Check for the latest on Opportunity here.

Testable Creation continues...

Thanks to Ed for his charitable responses and critiques of my statements. The area of Creation / Evolution and Old Earth / Young Earth can easily generate heated debate. I will give a final response to his latest critique but I need to state that this will not be an extended debate. I’ve done those in the past and not only do they tend to get drawn out, but in order to convincingly make one’s point one must draw in voluminous amounts of data. Suffice it to say that I have read several books by those holding to the theory of Evolution and a fair number of books by those in the ID realm. If pressed I could produce the references where my claims come from… but I typically don’t have the time to do that for these blog posts. Indeed, as Ed notes in his comments, it sometimes take several hours to produce a valid post on this subject. With that I’ll address some of Ed’s comments. The Biblical Creation Model posits that the first life on Earth was complex. Why? It is a typical expected characteristic of a designer to build a fully functional, integrated and complex system. Take, for example, the Wright flyer. In putting the first airplane together the Wright brothers tinkered and experimented with various designs as they gained knowledge in aerodynamics. In their research they built models, tested gliders and experimented with a variety of materials; but the actual Wright Flyer was a complete, functional system that had integrated complexity as well as a measure of irreducible complexity. Some of the attributes of the God of the Bible are that He is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-caring. So our analogy to the Wright brothers is not a perfect one – for God, if He is all-knowing, does not have to experiment. In fact the very meaning of the word experiment would preclude us attributing it to God. Therefore, if God is all-knowing we should expect Him to produce functional life forms which, by the very nature of their required structure, will be complex. Note that this is not imposing a constraint on God – He is certainly capable of producing a simple life form but, in keeping with the Biblical record, He chooses to use the physics He has established (this will be the topic of a future post). Remember that with the Wright brothers, or with anyone else who has invented a functional system – the initial product has a measure of irreducible complexity. Also remember that I’m talking about a system’s complexity and not whether it is an advanced form of the system. A 747 is certainly more advanced (and complex) than the Wright flyer, but that does not take away from the minimal high complexity found in the Wright flyer. The point is that a designed, functional system will exhibit a high degree of minimal complexity. But what about the movement from primitive to advanced? The ORDER of appearance in the fossil record, as Ed has stated. Yes Evolution posits that this is what should appear in the fossil record. But remember that even if this were the case, and I’m not conceding that it is, it would not mandate that evolution be true. Why? Consider the movement from primitive Wright flyer to advanced 747. While this change is compatible with an evolutionary sequence, it is entirely compatible within a design scenario as well! Yet evolutionists are blind to the design implication and see such human artifacts as compatible with the evolutionary sequence. Zoologist Tim Berra referred to such a sequence in his book, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism, where he stated, "If you compare a 1953 and a 1954 Corvette, side by side, then a 1954 and a 1955 model, and so on, the descent with modification is overwhelmingly obvious. This is what [paleontologists] do with fossils, and the evidence is so solid and comprehensive that it cannot be denied by reasonable people." (emphasis in original) Of course the Corvettes were all designed. What is typically shown as evidence for common ancestry is just as applicable to common design. What is needed is a mechanism with which to produce the change and I posit that evolutionists have yet to show such a mechanism in action. Evolution posits that the primitive moves towards the advanced and that simplicity moves toward complexity so that whatever life forms first appear will be primitive, as compared to advanced, and simple, as compared to complex. Now the word simple, as used in life’s most basic forms, can be misleading. The point of fact is that even the simplest forms of life are still so complex (e.g., ~ 750 proteins) that origins of life researchers concede that their chance organization is virtually impossible. Drs. Ross and Rana have attended the last few origin of life conferences and know that of which they speak. Doubters should pre-order their upcoming book Origins of Life. Note that we are investigating the aspects we should expect to see from an omnipotent Designer. Ed thinks I made a misstep when, later in my post I state that the primate fossil record leading up to humans may just indicate that God enjoyed the act of creating. But he misunderstands my comment. The reason he misunderstands it probably has to do with the fact that he interprets the primate fossil record to be evidence for evolution and, therefore, if God was doing that type of creating then God must enjoy tinkering with His designs in an evolutionary compatible sequence. I’ll address this further towards the end of this post. Suffice it at this point to say that I am not making a non-falsifiable statement such as, “God decided to do it that way.” Part of my post outlined the fact that the late heavy bombardment ended at approximately 3.85 billion years ago. This bombardment contained impacts with enough magnitude to be sterilization events – in other words, any life that may have been around prior to 3.85 billion years ago would have been erased from the earth. Yet life appears at 3.86 billion years ago – and it’s complex life to boot. That’s the point. Not only are there no prior simpler life forms around to evolve into the first recorded life forms, if there had been they would have been eliminated before they had the chance to evolve. The data is telling us that life didn’t have billions of years to originate but rather at most only a few million years in an environment that did not have a prebiotic soup and was hostile to the chance formation of life's building blocks. This is what I mean when I say if life appears as soon as conditions permit that it is indicative of supervision. Either we're unbelievably lucky (as in zero chance) or someone was fiddling with the equipment. Ed makes some statements regarding simple life forms evolving into more complex bacterial life forms and he refers to (imaginary) evolutionary pathways from (imaginary) biochemical precursors that we’ll never find. This is not science, it is conjecture. Produce, as Michael Behe has asked for, detailed evolutionary sequences that show us how we can produce a functional irreducibly complex system from no system. Better yet, produce sequences that show how a life form can exist with, say, only 50 proteins. The early conditions of the Earth are compatible with the Bible. I claimed that the early Earth was covered with water, as stated in the Bible. Ed states that the conditions on the early Earth were molten, as I also stated. Here we just have a misunderstanding about what is being stated. “The early Earth was covered with water.” “The early Earth was in a molten state.” Both statements of course are true; the key issue being how broad the definition of “early” is. Nowhere have I stated that the Bible directly records the molten state of the Earth or the late heavy bombardment. This is not the issue. What I am addressing is that the conditions for the early Earth described in the Bible over 2,000 years ago conform to the conditions we now know to be the case. The Genesis account describes a world covered with water with the land eventually rising out of the water. Whether anyone formally classified that as a prediction over 2,000 years ago is irrelevant to the fact that it is testable. For further information on how the days of creation in Genesis 1 compare to the history of the universe, download a PDF Creation Timeline Chart at Reasons to Believe’s website. Ed refers a few times to the fact that God waited for things to happen or spent time tinkering. He reasons that this is not the work of an optimal omnipotent designer. An omnipotent designer, according to Ed’s thinking, would be able to zap animals into existence in an instant. Perhaps I was not clear when I explained that optimally timed events in the formation of the cosmos point to a designer. First off let me reiterate that we need to understand that God chooses to act in whatever manner He wants. That He does or does not take a lot of time to act is not an indication of constraint. If God is a being that exists outside of our time dimension, as the Bible indicates, the accusation that He has taken too much time is essentially meaningless. With that understood we must also be aware of the Biblical record that God does not waste His miracles and that His purposes occur at His timing. Therefore, the Biblical prediction for God’s actions in creating would posit that we should find events occurring as soon as possible or at the precise time they need to occur. What this means is that we should not expect to find that life took billions of years to originate but that it appeared on the scene as soon as necessary. We should expect that advanced life forms, such as those found in the Cambrian Explosion, appeared on the scene in a geological instant. We should expect that the event of the Cambrian Explosion occurred at the first opportunity it could. We should expect that the collision of a Mars sized body into the Earth occurred at the right time, with the right force, and containing the right elements to sustain plate tectonics, disperse our early heavy atmosphere, and provide us with a right sized Moon – all in preparation for the advent of advanced life. We predict that future data will add to this list rather than detract. For example, future research into the aspects of the Cambrian Explosion should provide additional evidence that the event was finely tuned with respect to its extent, timing, dispersion, diversity, etc. The point is that the precise timing of such events indicates planning, supervision, and design. I must admit I’m perplexed that Ed clings to the fossil record as evidence for evolution. To put it bluntly, the fossil record, in terms of supporting evolutionary claims, is a dismal failure. Darwin predicted countless transitional forms would be found – there are none. The purported transitional forms are always fully functional and are more frequently larger animals that had smaller populations – understand that the very types of animals most susceptible to extinction are the ones usually purported to be the best examples of evolution (e.g., whales and horses). The evolutionary tree, with its branches reaching upward and outward, going from the few types to the many, from the primitive to the advanced, does not exist - in its place we have an evolutionary lawn. The aforementioned Cambrian Explosion gave us scores of phyla of which many have gone extinct, with no new ones added – that’s evolution in reverse! Within 10,000 years after the K-T Extinction event we see entirely new and large animal species appear in the fossil record - suddenly, not in a gradual progression. There is the already mentioned temporal paradox with regards to theropod dinosaurs and birds - don't even get me going on how cladistics attempts to rearrange the fossil record to support preconceived notions. The fossil record shows examples of convergent evolution - while the paradigm is supposed to be historically contingent. Early primate fossils are so disjointed that single discoveries alter entire evolutionary pathways with paleontologists arguing over whether the find belongs to Australopithecus or Kenyanthropus or Paranthropus – this should be an immediate warning flag of a poor model. Evidence for modern humans dating to 100,000 years ago is disputable, and the fossil record in this area goes strangely silent between 80,000 – 40,000 years ago and then – an explosion of fossils for modern humans. This list as well could go on and on. In re-reading Ed’s post I think I see where he is coming from. He accepts the evolutionary paradigm, regardless if it can’t give him a valid mechanism for producing the change it demands and, in so doing, he views intermediate forms of, let’s say whales, as indicative of transition. Never mind the issue of internal organ structure change, much less the entire morphological changes that must occur in less than 10 million years. Yet it must have happened! Why? Well we see it in the fossil record don’t we? That’s what is happening here – the record is being interpreted in light of the assumptions being brought to the table. Fully formed species appearing in the fossil record? – of course they’re fully formed, they wouldn’t survive otherwise – but that misses the point that they not only need to be transitional for the theory to work but that we should see that transition in the fossil record. Notable paleontologists freely admit the lack of continuity in the fossil record and that is why the concept of Punctuated Equilibrium was born - it's what we'd expect to find in the fossil record if evolution is true - that's simply a convenient way to get around the data in the fossil record. The order of appearance in the fossil record? – well that matches what we’d expect to see, from an overall viewpoint – but that misses the point that the transitional forms are missing and that it does not mandate evolutionary change. Scales to feathers? – sure, a single mutation will do it – but that misses the point that a reptile that that happened to would have a dismal chance of survival. This post has become excessively long so I will not spend any more space refuting the claims that Ed makes as to the validity of my claims regarding dinosaurs to birds, early humans, bipedalism, or human expression. I stand by my claims and one can do their own research to further their understanding. Check my post regarding the list of books I’ve read related to this field. If you are a skeptic and wish to get the skinny on some of the claims I’ve made I urge you to call in to the weekly webcast that Reasons to Believe has every Tuesday, from 11 a.m. – 1 p.m. PST. They welcome calls from skeptics and if you have research reports you believe counter their claims – all the better. Thanks to Ed for a thoughtful discussion!

Kids will be kids...

Check Homeless Man Freed After False Attack Allegation. It seems an 11 year old girl had a boyfriend that her parents didn't approve of (yeah, wait 'til your 12 kid) and was late after spending time with him. Rather than take the heat for that she thought up a story of her and her friends being attacked in a local park. She convinced her friends to go along with the story and the three of them went to the park, rolled around in the grass, crawled through some bushes to get some scratches, and then went home and told their parents they had been attacked. It seems that the police picked up a homeless guy not long after that and included him in a picture lineup for the girls. The first girl picked him out and noted the location of the photo for the other two girls (unbeknownst to the cops). That was 8 months ago. The girls finally fessed up on Monday and this guy was let go.

Feeding the Self-Centered Mentality...

Al Mohler's post today is titled, The Epidemic of Permissive Parenting: The Brats are Coming. Mohler reviews a book by Berkeley psychiatrist Dr. Robert Shaw titled, The Epidemic, in which Shaw posits that permissive parenting is leading to increasingly anti-social children. Here are some excerpts, "Put most simply, Shaw wants parents to act like the grown-ups in the family relationship. Parents must set the rules, apply discipline, establish expectations, and inculcate a sense of right and wrong in their children. Shaw provides a checklist for ruining a child's life. His list includes failure of parents to make adequate provision for their personal responsibility in child-rearing, leaving children to be raised by inadequate caretakers, keeping themselves stressed and busy, giving in to a child's desires on all matters, facilitating the child's bent toward materialism, and letting the child believe that he is "the boss of the universe."" Mohler concludes with, "The Epidemic presents a powerful argument, but it is essentially a secular argument. Shaw writes as a medical specialist with an obvious concern for the health and well being of children. The Christian worldview demands that we also give attention to the reason why children need parental love and discipline and the expectations of parents as the molders of the future generation. Christians understand that children are not little innocents whose only bad habits are likely to come from outside themselves as the result of societal failure. Instead, we know that children are miniature sinners, who need parental nurture and discipline in order to emerge in adulthood as anything else other than self-centered, anti-social brats." Give the full article a read.

The Church and Culture...

One of the claims that the PoMo Emergent Church crowd makes is that the Church must adapt to the culture around it or else it will die. My answer is that theirs is not so much a culture as much as it is a disposition. They keep telling me of their likes and dislikes... not of their culture. Al Mohler at Crosswalk.com posts a nice commentary regarding the Church and Culture. It's titled The Path to Cultural Destruction--and the Way of Recovery. Give it a read.

A bit more regarding Testable Creation...

Ed over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars took issue with my plug for Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana’s upcoming book The Origins of Life: Biblical and Evolutionary Models Face Off and the short response I gave. He was wondering how such an animal (a Scientifically Testable Creation Model) could exist. He’s written two posts so far critiquing my post and Reasons to Believe’s (RTB) model. Before I respond I’d just like to say that one of the advantages of blogging is that it allows quick, short commentaries to be posted to the world. One of the disadvantages of blogging is that it allows quick, short commentaries to be posted to the world. First off there should be no contradiction in what I wrote with what is presented by the RTB model. I did state that life forms appear quickly in the fossil record, while Hugh Ross' refers to the “many “transitional” forms seen in the fossil record.” Yet note that the word transitional was italicized by Ross. He was comparing the many life forms, purported to be transitional life forms by evolutionists, as not being transitional at all, but being the handiwork of the Creator. Ed says, “it appears that both he and Ross use what I regard as a rather anachronistic definition of "testable". The primary focus of the article by Ross that Rusty cites as the "testable creation model" was on how to read modern scientific theories IN to the Genesis account, and the technique used to do it was to take vague statements from Genesis and read an infinite amount of detail into it so that it appears that the bible predicted what we have now found to be true.” Ed brings up a good point in that we need to understand how RTB is using the word “testable.” Perhaps a bit of clarification is needed here. RTB is stating that if we take the Biblical record on Creation – not just the account in Genesis – but all of the Bible’s references to God’s activity of Creation, we can then compare what the data of nature is telling us to that record and we can make predictions as to what we should expect to find in various areas of future scientific research. As to reading in “an infinite amount of detail” into the Scriptures I would disagree. For instance, the text of Genesis states that “the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters,” to which Ross responds with, “At its beginning, Earth is empty of life and unfit for life; interplanetary debris and Earth's primordial atmosphere prevent the light of the sun, moon, and stars from reaching the planet's surface.” This is not a translation of the text in Genesis but simply an analysis to see if the text corresponds to what we understand to be the case. In other words, the text clearly states that the early Earth was without life, covered with water, and in darkness. This corresponds to our best understanding of the conditions on early Earth. The claim that this only shows compatibility with our understanding of the facts misses the point that these words have been around for over 2,000 years. In his second post Ed states, “…What they are doing is testing whether or not a particular creation story can be reconciled with a scientific model. That may be valuable in a theological context, but means little in a scientific one. Big bang cosmology, or evolutionary theory, is either true or it is not true, and whether it agrees or disagrees with one's interpretation of Genesis has no bearing on whether it is true or not. Those are models that can be tested against the data and from which inferential predictions logically flow and they are tested solely on the basis of whether they have explanatory power, not on whether they agree with one's religious views.” I would posit that whether a Creation story corresponds with scientific understanding is immensely important. Native American creation myths that propose the earth was formed from the dirt under the fingernails of a turtle are interesting but hardly inspire one to consider anything else they say as true. Contrast that with the consistency of the Biblical record on Creation in accounting for the structure of the natural realm. Ed states, “Nowhere in Genesis 1 does it mention a space-time continuum, nor is there any evidence that the ancient Hebrews had any such conception whatsoever. It says that he created "the heavens and the earth", but it says nothing about "time itself". Nor, I might add, does big bang cosmology say anything about a "transcendent event". I will agree that one can interpret Genesis in a manner that makes it "consistent" with big bang cosmology, but that is not at all the same as saying that it "predicts" big bang cosmology. There is a bait and switch at work here.” In my short post I edited down perhaps a bit too much. Although Genesis does not state that God created time, that data is found in other parts of the Bible. I would disagree that Big Bang cosmology does not posit a transcendent creation event. Ross likes to state that “exhaustive testing affirms general relativity as the best proven principle in physics, and the spacetime theorems derived from general relativity establish a “singular” simultaneous beginning for all the matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. The universe came into existence from a source, or causal Agent, beyond matter, energy, space, and time.” Two major components of the Big Bang model are, according to Ross: 1) the cosmos is traceable in finite time to a transcendent (from beyond the cosmos, i.e. from beyond matter, energy, and even the space-time dimensions associated with matter and energy) creation event and hence to a transcendent Cause, and 2) the universe is expanding (thus, cooling) with respect to time. The Bible describes the cosmos in term compatible with these characteristics. It describes a beginning, it describes a cosmos that has been stretched and continues to be stretched. These are concepts that would be foreign to anyone prior to the recent past. That no one predicted the aspects of Big Bang cosmology prior to Big Bang cosmology does not negate the fact that its attributes have always been in the Bible. This is not a bait and switch. I have not read Quentin Smith so I cannot comment on his argument that Big Bang cosmology leads one to atheism. Suffice it to say that the response of Big Bang opponents in the 20th century to the concept of the Big Bang was primarily due to their understanding that the theory ran counter to atheism. Until I acquaint myself with his work I will consider Smith an anomaly. Yet the model does have more contemporary predictive power. In my post I write, “an omnipotent designer is not constrained to build systems from the simpler to the more complex, as is posited by Evolution,” to which Ed responds: “…that leaves one with some difficulty explaining why the natural history of life on earth DID go from simpler to more complex systems. …The earth is ~4.55 billion years old. The first life appears on earth in strata ~3.9 billion years ago, and those life forms are anaerobic bacteria. Over the course of the next 3 billion years, while the forms of bacteria become more diverse and relatively simple multicellular organisms begin to appear, nothing more complex than algal stromatolites is found on the earth. If, as Rusty claims, "an omnipotent designer is not constrained to build systems from the simpler to the more complex", then why would he propose that an omnipotent and unconstrained designer DID create life from simple to complex? I'm sure the response will be that even bacteria are highly complex organisms, and relative to non-organic entities, that may be true. But relative to the vast increase in diversity and complexity that took place in the last 800 million years, why did this unconstrained designer only work with the relatively simple bacteria and stromatolites for 3.1 billion years prior to that? Surely an omnipotent and unconstrained designer doesn't need to create starting with the relatively simple and working his way up to the relatively complex, but that is in fact how life appeared on the earth. Clearly 3 billion years of nothing but relatively simple bacteria is not a prediction that flows from it having been designed by an omnipotent and unconstrained designer.” The prediction made by RTB’s model is that life, in its earliest and simplest form, will be complex. Here we are considering life in its earliest and simplest form as contrasted with life in its latest and advanced form. For example, contrast the first bacteria with modern humans – simple to advanced. Yet, and here is the catch, the structure of the bacteria is highly complex (as Ed ponders). It is this complexity that is predicted by RTB’s model. Got that? The model is not addressing, here, the issue of life going from simple to advanced; it is addressing the issue that simple life is complex. Ed brings up another good point in pointing out that the first evidence of life appears approximately 3.86 billion years ago. It interesting to note that the late heavy bombardment – that time in our solar system’s history when the inner planets underwent asteroidal bombardment – concluded at approximately 3.8 billion years ago. Up to that point the surface of the Earth is either in a molten state or is subject to sterilization events during the late heavy bombardment. In other words life appears as soon as conditions permit. At 3.86 billion years ago the Earth rotated on its axis in about 8 hours. That means that at the surface of the Earth the wind velocity was 0 mph but at about 6 feet in elevation it was several hundreds of miles per hour! Advanced life forms would not survive – yet. But Bacteria would. Additionally the ratio of heavy metals in the Earth’s surface was too high to allow advanced life forms to survive. Certain forms of bacteria play a role in the removal of these high concentrations of metals. Further the Earth’s surface was not optimally ready for advanced life forms in that it was still susceptible to “snowball” events, did not yet have the right land to water ratio, nor the best atmosphere. One of the hallmarks of a good design is optimal timing. Research continues to show that events orchestrating the appearance of advanced life on planet Earth are optimally timed. Now keep in mind that a reading of the Bible will not cause one to predict that the Cambrian Explosion should have occurred approximately 540 million years ago. If one is looking for that type of testable prediction then they are out of luck. But a reading of the Bible will cause one to predict that life will appear quickly. Here is what Ed responds with, “…A life form either appears or does not appear, "quickly" has nothing to do with it. Fossils freeze a specific moment in time, and the fossil record as a whole (the order of appearance of the various species) can only show trends. That order of appearance, I would argue, is a very powerful prediction made by evolution... this order: fish ---> amphibian ---> reptile ---> mammals and birds…. Evolution says that they appeared in that order because they evolved in that order… If evolution is true, and each of these major animal groups split off from the previous one, then what would we expect?... the order of appearance within those groups should be as conspicuous as the order of appearance in general… if birds evolved from reptiles, then the first birds must have been very similar to reptiles... And what does the fossil record show? Precisely that… The first birds to appear are so reptile-like that they would be classified as theropod dinosaurs if not for the feathers. We now have multiple feathered theropod species to bridge the gap, and they all appear very early and share most of their traits with reptiles, not with modern birds. Over time, they diversified and became less reptile-like... If modern birds appeared all at once in the fossil record, with entirely avian skeletal structure and feathers and fully adapted for powered flight, there would be no way to link them to reptiles… But they don't appear that way, and the order in which they do appear is precisely what evolution predicts.” I disagree with Ed on most of these points. The fossil record although considered not complete is considered adequate. It reveals periods of stasis and then sudden appearance (or extinction). Indeed, Punctuated Equilibrium was posited to address this very issue. The Cambrian Explosion remains an enigma to the evolutionary community for in a period of just a few million years – a short time for evolutionary sequences – we have the appearance of tens of phyla, not just species. That is evidence of appearing quickly. Simply because animal forms appeared on Earth in a certain sequence does not mandate that they are related or transitioned from one to another. Another completely valid explanation is that they were designed that way. What we need to accept the evolutionary proposition is a valid method by which the organisms can change. People need to understand that an animal that appears intermediate in form is not the same as it being transitional in nature. Consider the sequence of automobiles from the early 1900s up until the present. They are intermediate in form but in no way are they transitional (in the evolutionary sense). Design is a valid option. The fossil record does not show us transitional forms with regards to the dinosaur to bird sequence. Dinosaurs with feathers do not qualify. They are dinosaurs. They have fully formed feathers. Where are the dino-birds with scales forming into feathers? The evolutionary model predicts they will be found; the Creation model predicts they won’t. Besides, feathers are not the only requirement for a dinosaur to become a bird. The avian lung is a complete reworking of the reptilian lung. Where are the transitional forms? Better yet, what would a transitional lung look like? Flight needs to be addressed and there is no consensus on how flight is acquired. There is also the issue of the temporal paradox in the fossils claimed to be transitional to birds. The earliest bird fossils date to around 150 million years ago – note they had complete and modern feathers. Yet the earliest dinosaur fossils that best fit into the dino to bird scenario are contemporary with the earliest bird fossils. Where are the transitional sequences? The evolutionary model predicts they will be found; the Creation model predicts they won’t. The fossil record shows species appearing fully formed and functional with long periods of stasis - as the Creation model would predict. Ed states, “True Homo sapiens remains have been dated as far back as 120,000 years, or 2 1/2 times older than Rusty says the bible allows even at its most generous point. And of course all of humanity came from a small group of individuals, that is true of any species whether it was created ex nihilo or whether they split off from an ancestral group... As far as the "Mind's big bang" goes, the fossil evidence shows that there was no "big bang" at all. Upright bipedal primates with big brains didn't just suddenly appear at some point. The hominid fossil record shows a very clear progression in all of the key human traits - brain size relative to body size, bipedality, dentition, the use of tools, and cultural sophistication... Again one must ask why it would logically follow that an omnipotent and unconstrained designer would spend the last few million years tinkering with animals, making a series of species with each one having a slightly larger brain and better adaptation to walking upright than the last one... Was he making rough drafts? That would imply constraint. Was he trying to fool us into thinking that evolution as true? I'm sure that's theologically unacceptable to my correspondent. Lastly, it is simply false to claim that "virtually all genetic links to Neandertals and other primates have been eliminated"... The mtDNA studies on Neandertals show that they are an evolutionary cousin and not an ancestor, but that is a far cry from "all genetic links have been eliminated".” This may just be a definition issue but there is no evidence for homo sapiens (i.e., modern humans) any further back than 50,000 years ago. The point of my stating that humanity came from a small group (e.g., two) of individuals is to point out the fact that such an event in the evolutionary sequence is highly problematic. The chances of extinction rise dramatically with the lower the number of starting individuals. It is a prediction in that the evolutionary sequence posits that groups evolve and not individuals. In reference to the Mind’s Big Bang I again will disagree with Ed. Evidence of the advent of creative expression, ritual burial practice, spirit worship, etc., is recent and can in no way be attributed to any of the primates once thought to have evolved into the human race. The evidence shows that early primate skull size was tiny and limited in its growth over time. The human skull shows a jump in size that is not consistent with the evolutionary sequence. Bipedalism too is shown to appear suddenly and then remain constant. In stating that the genetic links to all early primates have been eliminated I was describing the fact that all early primates, including Neandertals, can now be shown to be unrelated in the evolutionary sense to humans. We did not evolve from Neandertals. Finally I would like to address the issue raised by Ed as to why the Designer would create primates or tinker with animals for millions of years. Unfortunately this type of question is asking for the motives of the Designer. We may have an indication of His motives by what He reveals to us, such as His loving and caring attributes, but we may also be left in the dark with regards to why he created Neandertals or Tyrannosaurus rexes. Conjecture as to why remains that… conjecture. Was He trying to fool us, as Ed thinks, or was He just enjoying the process of creating?

January 27, 1967...

Martian Landmarks Dedicated to Apollo 1 Crew "The crew of Apollo 1 [Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee] perished in flash fire during a launch pad test of their Apollo spacecraft at Kennedy Space Center, Fla., 37 years ago" yesterday.

Forgiveness...

I was reading the book of Matthew recently and was struck by the context of chapter 18. Beginning in verse 15 we see a teaching on church discipline. It begins, "If your brother sins..." Brother in this context is taken to mean a familial relationship within the family of God - a "fellow believer" or "fellow Christian." Interestingly enough verse 20 is frequently used out of context. "For where two or three are assembled in my name, I am there among them," is typically used as an affirmation of belief on an upcoming prayer in a church service. Actually in the context of the paragraph, it is referring to disciplinary action within the body of believers. But that's not what struck me in this chapter. It was the term "brother." For in verses 21-22 we see Peter asking Jesus how often he should forgive a "brother." Jesus replies seventy times seven. Immediately following this account is the Parable of the Unforgiving Slave (verses 23-35). Jesus finishes off in verse 35 by saying, "So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive your brother from your heart." How many time do we hear, rightfully so, about the power of forgiveness. Yet we usually hear about it in the context of forgiving non-Christians who have done us wrong. The context of Matthew 18 is clearly within the body of believers. How should we be addressing the issue of forgiving - as expressed in this section of Scripture? I think I've got a topic for a personal Bible study over the next few weeks...

A Scientifically Testable Creation Model...

How is this possible? Are we saying that science can prove creation? No. Reasons to Believe is saying that we can test the predicitions made by competing scientific models. Per Hugh Ross, "...the scientific method comes from the Bible and from biblical theology. The core of this method is an appeal to the interpreter to delay drawing conclusions until both the frame of reference and the initial conditions have been established. If we approach Genesis in this way, we discover that we can, indeed, discern there a scientifically plausible, objectively defensible account of creation." I won't try to explain their Scientifically Testable Creation Model in detail; you can read for yourself at their site. But here is a short synopsis of their methodology: The Biblical model posits that God exists outside of the created order and that He not only created the universe and all that it contains at a finite point in the past, but that He created Time as well. The prediction made from this would be that space-time began at a finite point in time in the past through a transcendent event. Through data such as the WMAP results, confirmation of the validity of the Big Bang continue to pour in. Such a model is consistent with the statements found in the Bible. If in fact, God is the Designer of all life, then we should expect life, in its most simplest form and in its earliest form, to be complex. Why? Because an omnipotent designer is not constrained to build systems from the simpler to the more complex, as is posited by Evolution. Furthermore the Bible paints a picture of a caring and loving Creator... not one who is removed from his work. As more and more data is acquired it is becoming evident that life, even in its most basic form, is highly complex. We should expect life forms to appear quickly in the fossil record. Once again, the Bible paints a picture of a God who is intimately involved with His creative work. The Hebrew words used in describing His creative work show Him to be the force at work... not nature. We see this reflected in the fossil record in events such as the Cambrian Explosion as well as the speed of introduction of new species after extinction events. Finally, the Bible describes the human race as coming from two individuals, specially created in the recent past - anywhere from 6,000 to 50,000 years ago. The scientific evidence is mounting that humanity came from a small group of individuals in the recent past. Anthropologists refer to the "Mind's Big Bang" when describing how the attributes of humanity exploded onto the scene. Virtually all genetic links to Neandertal and other primates have been eliminated. Again this list is by no means comprehensive. If one is interested in further analysis or discussion, Reasons to Believe has a weekly webcast in which they discuss the latest discoveries supporting their model. Questions are appreciated from believers and non-believers alike (by phone or e-mail... although phone-in questions get priority). The moderators are cordial and more than willing to listen to views contrary to their own.

Worshipping the Creation...

Breakpoint has a post that dovetails in with my comments on our tendency to worship the creation rather than the Creator. In Fatal Visions, Chuck tells of the mountain biker killed and partially eaten by a mountain lion here in so. Cal. earlier this month. He then ties that in to a similar incident in Boulder a few years back in which a teenager was killed by a mountain lion. Yet the difference was that the radical environmentalist bias in Boulder didn't view the repeated spottings of mountain lions in the area as a threat - even when pets were being eaten at night. In fact, after the killing, one teacher of the teenager suggested that his body be left in the wilderness so the animals could finish what they do. Last year there was a woman killed by a shark near a pier in Avila Beach, California. She had on a wet suit and flippers and was swimming with a group of seals. It was said she liked to commune with Nature while swimming in the harbor. In Alaska a bear photographer was mauled and killed after getting a bit too close to a grizzly. This "oneness" with Nature mentality is not only non-Biblical... it is dangerous.

Feelings, Nothing More Than...

From the Washington Post, School Honor Rolls Under Privacy Scrutiny, NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The school honor roll, a time-honored system for rewarding A-students, has become an apparent source of embarrassment for some underachievers... After a few parents complained their children might be ridiculed for not making the list, Nashville school system lawyers warned that state privacy laws forbid releasing any academic information, good or bad, without permission. So if I understand this correctly, we can't honor those who have worked hard for their achievments for fear of hurting the feelings of those who haven't? I guess I shouldn't really be so surprised at all the flak I took back on my PoMo posts for hurting someone else's feelings...

A Positive Report on Homeschooling...

Thanks to World Magazine's Blog for a link to an AP story on homeschooling. In Colleges Noticing Home Schooled Students we see a report on how the misunderstood students of homeschools are now being admitted to mainstream universities. Regarding homeschooled students the article states, "Such young people have grown up academically with a greater emphasis on learning - rather than testing - compared with conventionally educated students." Examples of homeschooled students in a college environment dispel the myth that they have poor social skills. Holly Porter, homeschooled from K-12 and now at the University of Denver, argues that it was the conventionally educated students that had a difficult time adjusting to the new environment of the university. She states, "It was kind of a shock, I had been given a lot of independence and a lot of freedom inside my parent's home. And I kind of got the feeling that there were all these girls that had never been away from their families before and they just went hog wild." What is interesting are the comments generated on World Magazine's Blog site. There was a question from a prospective homeschool parent on the pros and cons involved with such a venture. Here is one response from a homeschooled student: "Mr. Steve H, as a homeschool senior looking back and looking around me, I encourage you to homeschool your children. Mr. Perry’s advice is right on. Being read to by both Dad and Mom, well, really ever since I can remember, has led me to a joy of reading that enables me to learn from a book. Partly because of this I can concur with the idea that homeschoolers, "have grown up academically with a greater emphasis on learning - rather than testing - compared with conventionally educated students." The other reason that I can concur with this is because around 7th or 8th grade I began literally to teach my self (though with more sufficiency in some subjects than others). Mom became more of a goal setter than a teacher. I don’t think that that can happen, at least to that degree, in public school. To Mr. Perry’s advice to “love your wife and your kids” may I add love God. I never really thought about it until now, but I always saw homeschooling as something that God wanted my family to do. It was an extension of my parents commitment to God. As I look back, I’m very thankful for that. Some bring up the question, “Well what about a social life?” Being around your family so much teaches the things that are necessary to have a “good” social life - forgiveness, self-control, tact, wisdom, patients. Besides that, you can be involved in sports, church, homeschool groups etc. It’s not like you live in a monastery! If I could have chosen whether or not to homeschool I would have chosen the possibility of being socially deficient to having to face what kids in public school face every day now. At times I wonder how they can learn at all having to deal with what they do. Speaking about what public school children face, probably the best advantage of homeschooling is the spiritual one. These years at home provide a wonderful time to instill in your children a biblical, godly wordview. You get to shape their minds Christward instead of state filling their minds with garbage and the world squeezing it into it’s mold. It’s a wonderful opportunity that should not be missed. In brief, homeschooling is a great idea because you have no need of worrying about a social life, and have the benefits of great academic possibilities and a wonderful spiritual advantage. Only one word of caution Mr. Steve H - it’ll be an adventure with downs and better ups that you’ll never forget!" Let the gist of that comment be encouragement for all homeschool parents out there.

Origin of Life: by Chance or by Command?...

Coming in April. A testable creation model approach to the issue of the origin of life. Pre-order your copy today.

Reflections on God's Will...

In reading Lincoln's Greatest Speech, by Ron White, I've come to the point in Lincoln's Second Inaugural address in which he begins to describe why he believes the Civil War was so utterly devastating. White clues us in to a personal memo that Lincoln had written in 1862, just after the second defeat of Bull Run. In it we see Lincoln meditating on God's Divine Will. Regarding God's Will, Lincoln states, "The will of God prevails." On the issue of both sides claiming that God is on their side he writes, "Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not [sic] be for, and against the same thing at the same time." And on the topic of the war itself, "I am almost ready to say this is probably true - that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end." In his inaugural address Lincoln was setting up the crowd for the reason he felt our country was being ravage by war. While the Northerners in the crowd were hoping for a judgment against the Confederates, Lincoln, understanding the justness of God and the sin of slavery, posited that both North and South had brought this upon themselves. God's Sovereign Will. He will work out His plans through our choices and, sometimes, in spite of our desires.

The Lord Told Me (last part)...

God has two wills. God's Sovereign Will (what He decrees) and God's Moral Will (what He desires). In this last post reviewing Greg Koukl's Decision Making and the Will of God I'll summarize what Greg says regarding God's Will and quickly roll-up the Biblical view on decision making. I highly recommend that you pick up the CD / Outline packet (through Stand to Reason). It'll only set you back about $20 or so. The Sovereign Will of God is what God decrees. It is His total control over the Universe. He created the natural realm and is Sovereign over it. It is His plan. Scriptural references for it are: Ephesians 1:11; Romans 9:19; Daniel 4:35; Acts 2:23; Acts 4:27-28; Job 12:9. One note regarding this aspect of God's Will is that we usually know about it only in hindsight. Unless God reveals it, through His Word or through supernatural means, it remains a mystery to us. A conclusion here would be that we, then, do not have access to it for decision making purposes. The Moral Will of God is what He desires for mankind in how we ought to live. Scriptural references are: 2 Peter 3:9; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Ephesians 5:16-18; 1 Peter 2:13-15; 1 Thessalonians 5:15-18. God's Moral Will is completely revealed. It is not revealed as an individual plan but is applicable to all Christians. Rather than give us specific instructions on who to marry, for example, it tells us how to be a good spouse. As Greg Koukl states, "It’s not about what I do, but about who I am." So taking these concepts as outlined in the Bible we have an area of our life that is guided by God's Moral Will. It is what we find written in Scripture regarding God's commands and prohibitions. We are tasked with diligently studying and learning His Word in which we will find how He desires we should live. Intersecting with God's Moral Will is the aspect of Wisdom. The Bible states we should seek Wisdom by either searching God's Word, praying for it, or seeking guidance from wise counsel. Personal factors are then applied as well. In 1 Corinthians 7:40 we read, “In my opinion she is happier if she remains as she is.” Or in 2 Corinthians 9:7, “Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.” Note that we are working this pattern in sequence: 1) Moral Will, 2) Wisdom then, 3) Personal Desires. Too often we work it the other way around. Therefore we have been given the resources with which we can make decisions, our decisions, in this life. Finally we must be cognizant of the fact that God's Sovereign Will encompasses the factors I've just described. This is certainly a great mystery, namely, how can God use our Free Will within His Sovereign Plan. Yet God can, and will, intervene in our lives to work out the purposes of His Plan.

It ain't much...

But this pic lets the NASA engineers know that Opportunity is safely on the ground on Mars. Here's to happy and successful exploring by both Spirit and Opportunity over the next 3 months.

If it's the Truth, then...

Totem to Temple has a link to a Razormouth post titled Hi, I’m 21, have we met? In it Trenton Starnes offers an open letter to the relevant and hip mega-churches. There is a lot I like in this post. Starnes addresses the idea of seeker-sensitive mega churches watering down the Gospel with lines like, "I basically know what I can expect: a rockin’ praise and worship band, Academy-nominated skits, and a non-boring, non-threatening, non-lengthy sermon with movie clips interspersed for good measure," and, "I wanted something different. I wanted something to stand out. I wanted something confrontational. I want to be offended. I picked up the Bible and read it; it offended me. It also grabbed my attention, and I wanted more of it. It’s relevant to me; you aren’t." Yet I'm struck at, once again, with the me, me, me, me, me, me mentality inherent in the character (albeit fictional). For instance, "And the power point? I learned that in fourth grade. It’s so nineties… but then again, it seems like most of your church is still stuck there, which isn’t surprising, since your average age in here is 40, twice my age." or "I know, you have a rockin’ praise band. But if you look really close, you’ll notice that it a bunch of thirty or forty something’s trying to be my age." or "The problem is, you just don’t know my generation. That’s why you’re losing us. Awesome job of being relevant. You lost me, and you’re losing us. I just thought you’d like to know." "You lost me, and you're losing us." I think what I'll be doing over the next several weeks is studying the Bible to see what it outlines as normative behavior for the Church. In particular I will be looking to see if the Church should: 1) alter the delivery of its message based on the likes / dislikes of the group in question, 2) alter the average age of its congregation to satisfy the likes / dislikes of the group in question, 3) alter the fact of the Gospel Truth to satisfy the cultural worldview of the group in question.

The Lord told me (part 3.5)...

I'm inserting a partial post before my last post on this topic due to a comment by Mac Swift. He references asking for guidance by asking God to close the door if it isn't in His will. Greg Koukl provides the following New Testament examples of open and closed doors. In 1 Corinthians 16:8-9 we see Paul go through an open door, “But I shall remain in Ephesus until Pentecost, for a wide door for effective service has opened to me, and there are many adversaries” But we see in 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 that he chooses not to go through an open door, “Now when I came to Troas for the gospel of Christ and when a door was opened for me in the Lord, I had no rest for my spirit, not finding Titus my brother, but taking my leave of them, I went on to Macedonia.” Curious isn't it? If in fact the open door was God's direction He was telling Paul to take, why did Paul choose not to go through it? How about a literal open door? In Acts 16:26-28 Paul is presented with a golden opportunity to walk through an open door. Being chain-bound and in jail, he suddenly found the chains supernaturally unfastened and the jail doors wide open. Yet he chooses not to go through the door. “And suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken, and immediately all the doors were opened, and everyone’s chains were unfastened. And when the jailer had been roused out of sleep and had seen the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Do yourself no harm, for we are all here!’” Could it be that opportunities that we refer to as open or closed doors are, in fact, simply opportunities in which we have the power and responsibility to make a decision for ourselves? end of part 3.5, go to last part

The Plain Reading of the Text (last part)...

So hopefully we have come to understand that we have a responsibility to put forth some effort to understand the author's intentions of the text we are reading. In so doing we will have to take into account the literary genre, the cultural settings, the author, the intended audience, etc. By taking a quick look at the creation account in Genesis 1 we see that it's genre is a narrative (not necessarily an historical narrative), the author is accepted to be Moses, he was writing to the Israelites of his time, they had just left 400 years of domination by an Egyptian culture, and so on. Therefore, the conclusion we come to is that the creation account was intended to set a foundation for the Israelites on just who God is and how He relates to the created order. Is this important? I think it is. Being an Old-Earth Creationist I am well aware of the debate that exists among Christians regarding the age of the Universe and / or the time span of the creation account. Yet I still can't get away from the fact that we may be missing the BIG IDEA of the account - namely that God is the Creator. Is this important? YES! Few people realize how unique the Genesis account of creation truly is. Virtually all other explanations of how the universe, the earth, and life were created rely on a closed system; that is, they typically explain the events in terms of pre-existing ideas. For example, think of any variety of Native American accounts of creation. Krista Bontrager at Reasons to Believe gave a presentation titled, The Gods of Other Religions, at their Who is the Designer? conference last June. In it she touched on the aspect of other creation stories. For the Maidu Indians we have the Water-Diver Myth: "In the beginning, all was dark. There was water everywhere. Then a raft came from the north, floating on the water. There were just two in the raft. They were Turtle and Pehe-ipe." The account goes on to describe how dry land was formed by the bit of dirt underneath the fingernails of the turtle. Bontrager comments on the common aspects found in these types of creation myths: 1) they rely on what we already know about the natural realm to account for the origin of the natural realm, 2) they cannot account for a transcendent beginning of the universe. Yet the Genesis creation account stands alone in its description of where we came from. From the first verse we are told who did the creating and that He exists outside the created realm. Genesis 1:1 (all NET) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Those few words tell us: 1) that God created the heavens and the earth (or "the entire universe" as the Hebrew phrase in this context is understood) and, 2) that there was a beginning to the created order. A "therefore" from the first verse would be that God must exist outside the created order we exist in since He created it and it had a beginning. That is just a glimpse of the true importance of the creation account in Genesis for, as history has shown us, humans tend towards worshipping the natural realm. Indeed what are the words of Paul in Romans? Romans 1:18-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (emphasis added) This is not a point that should be lost on us 21st century believers. Whether one gravitates towards New Age spirituality or is a confirmed believer in Naturalism we see a worship of the creation rather than the Creator. Would a plain reading of the text in Genesis have given us this insight?

The Lord told me (part 3)...

In this continuing series highlighting Greg Koukl's Decision Making and the Will of God CD / study guide, I would like to address the aspects of teaching that the Bible gives regarding "Reading the Signs." After researching the text of Scripture regarding decision making and the will of God, Greg Koukl states that the Bible "does not teach that we get guidance from feeling “led by the Spirit,” having a “peace” about it, open doors, fleeces, or confirmations." I will not address Greg's entire outline here (you can buy it and the CDs on your own) but only hit the issues of being "led by the Spirit" and setting out fleeces. Where does the idea that we get guidance by feeling led come from? Sometimes we hear about the still small voice of God and attribute that to a mystical urging of the Spirit. In 1 Kings 19:13 we read: When Elijah heard it, he covered his face with his robe and went out and stood at the entrance to the cave. All of a sudden a voice asked him, “Why are you here, Elijah?” (all references NET) A clear reading of the text reveals that the still small voice was a... voice. It was not a feeling. How about being "led by the Spirit"? Sure, we understand that all Scripture is God-breathed and that we understand the meaning of Scripture through the help of the Spirit; but being "led by the Spirit" in the context of decision making implies He is giving us direction. If we read Romans 8:14 we see: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. Is this instructing us on guidance? Let's read the paragraph it is contained in as well as the paragraph previous (Romans 8:5-17): For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit. For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is your life because of righteousness. Moreover if the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, the one who raised Christ from the dead will also make your mortal bodies alive through his Spirit who lives in you. So then, brothers and sisters, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh (for if you live according to the flesh, you will die), but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God’s children. And if children, then heirs (namely, heirs of God and also fellow heirs with Christ)—if indeed we suffer with him so we may also be glorified with him. Is this passage about divine guidance and decision making? What are the contrasts Paul is making? "For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit." As Koukl states, "Being led by the Spirit in this passage is not referring to individual guidance, but rather empowerment to live holy lives." Okay how about setting out fleeces? What about Gideon? What about asking God for a providential sign? Good questions. Let's take a look at the text. Gideon setting out the fleece occurs in Judges 6:36, yet he had already been given direction and a supernatural sign earlier in the chapter - note Judges 6:11-22 The Lord’s angelic messenger came and sat down under the oak tree in Ophrah owned by Joash the Abiezrite. He arrived while Joash’s son Gideon was threshing wheat in a winepress so he could hide it from the Midianites. The Lord’s messenger appeared and said to him, “The Lord is with you, courageous warrior!” Gideon said to him, “Pardon me, but if the Lord is with us, why has such disaster overtaken us? Where are all his miraculous deeds our ancestors told us about? They said, ‘Did the Lord not bring us up from Egypt?’ But now the Lord has abandoned us and handed us over to Midian.” Then the Lord himself turned to him and said, “You have the strength. Deliver Israel from the power of the Midianites! Have I not sent you?” Gideon said to him, “But Lord, how can I deliver Israel? Just look! My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the youngest in my family.” The Lord said to him, “Ah, but I will be with you! You will strike down the whole Midianite army.” Gideon said to him, “If you really are pleased with me, then give me a sign as proof that it is really you speaking with me. Do not leave this place until I come back with a gift and present it to you.” The Lord said, “I will stay here until you come back.” Gideon went and prepared a young goat, along with unleavened bread made from an ephah of flour. He put the meat in a basket and the broth in a pot. He brought the food to him under the oak tree and presented it to him. God’s messenger said to him, “Put the meat and unleavened bread on this rock, and pour out the broth.” Gideon did as instructed. The Lord’s messenger touched the meat and the unleavened bread with the tip of his staff. Fire flared up from the rock and consumed the meat and unleavened bread. The Lord’s messenger then disappeared. When Gideon realized that it was the Lord’s messenger, he said, “Oh no! Master, Lord! I have seen the Lord’s messenger face to face!” In studying the account of Gideon we find out that he was, in fact, scared of the Midianites, and his setting out of the fleece demonstrated his lack of faith. Yet even in this example there is an important point to note: Gideon's request for confirmation was a supernatural request. How often, when we ask for confirmation, do we ask for supernatural answers? Koukl says that, if we want to truly follow Gideon's example, then we should ask God for a supernatural answer to our question. Well what about the instances of specialized guidance we do find in the Bible such as those in the book of Acts? This is another good question that Koukl addresses in depth. Suffice it to say that those instances in the Bible have the following qualities: they are "rare, intrusive (unsought), supernatural in character, and clear." In other words, those who received special guidance from God in the Bible didn't feel they were being led - they knew it. And this makes sense doesn't it? If God is intervening to direct you to do something - He will make sure you know about it. One big note of clarification here: Koukl is not stating that God cannot supernaturally intervene or give us direction in our daily lives here on earth; he's just saying that it is not the normative behavior displayed in the Bible. Recently I heard him put it something like this: "Can God let you know what you should buy every time you go to the grocery store? Sure! Should we expect it? No." In the last part of this series I'll highlight Koukl's analysis of the "Biblical Model for Decision Making." end of part 3, go to part 3.5

The Plain Reading of the Text (part 2)...

In the first part of this post I posited that, in our sloppiness or in our arrogance, we sometimes tend to think that our plain reading of Scripture to be sufficient enough to gather the meaning of the text. So as part of my argument I used the account of the 10 Plagues brought upon Pharoh and Egypt to illustrate that the story was intended to show God as Sovereign over the natural realm by showing His control over specific Egyptian deities. The conclusion of this approach is that we are tasked with the responsibility to research into the aspects of the text that will give us an indication of the author's intent. Author's intent. There's a concept we need to make sure we understand... that authors have intentions whenever they write something. It may seem obvious, but in our "post modern" age how many times have you heard the phrase: "What does this verse mean to you?" Or if you read up at all on issues before the Supreme Court you have surely run into the term "Living Constitution." This tendency to ignore author's intentions permeates our culture. Hence it is no surprise that many people are unaware of the proper way to study a book such as the Bible. And although it is not surprising, it is disheartening to see many people write off the proper study methods as ultimately unimportant. Anyway let's take a look at another event described in the book of Genesis and apply this methodology. The account of Creation in Genesis 1. If you mention it to a group of Christians you'll probably get comments about whether we should take it literally or figuratively; does it support a young-earth or an old-earth? Think though - is that our 21st century Western culture talking or not? After hearing about the meaning behind the 10 Plagues I started thinking about the Creation account. Put it into perspective. Moses is writing to the Israelites - after they've been living in Egypt for how long?, 400 years? What would their exposure have been with regards to Egyptian religious ideas regarding Creation? Yeah, you know, all those gods that God desecrated with the 10 Plagues. From that perspective, would the issue of the time it took to do the creating be as important - or important at all - when compared to the issue of who was doing the creating? Read it with that perspective and you will see the clear intent of the author to establish for the Israelites that nothing in the created order was responsible for creating the world around them. Rather it was Yahweh, who exists outside of and is in control of the created order, who did the Creating. In other words - don't worship Ra the Sun god, worship Yahweh who created the Sun. end of part 2

Focus on the Family January 2004...

Do you know who this little boy is? James Dobson's January 2004 letter from Focus on the Family is in honor of Sanctity of Human Life Month and brings us up to date on the outcome of the person whose tiny hand we see here His name is Samuel Armas... the little boy in the picture at the top of the post.

The Chosen...

Thanks to Breakpoint for the link to this malarkey. From the NARAL website: Generation Pro-Choice It’s not just your mother’s pro-choice movement… If you support access to birth control, sex education and abortion, and you've never lived in a time when abortion was illegal -- then congratulations, you are Generation Pro-Choice. And we need your help getting other young people involved in the fight to protect the right to privacy and a woman's right to choose -- or else quite frankly, we're gonna lose it. "It's not just your mother's pro-choice movement..." One hopes that our young people are intelligent enough to understand that their mother's pro-choice movement has produced millions of dead choices. Would that they be intelligent enough to realize that their existence could easily have ended up as one of those dead, legal choices. Finally, let's hope they can see through the flimsy rhetoric of the NARAL, which only sees fit to grant them the right to call the woman who bore them the title of mother based soley on that woman's choice.

The Lord told me (part 2)...

In this series I am touching on the highlights of Greg Koukl's Decision Making and the Will of God CD / study guide. The question I posed earlier was: How do you make decisions in your life? Greg expounds on that with the qualifier, "How is God involved in the process of making decisions?" We tend to think that God has an individual Plan for our lives and that it is our duty or obligation to find out what that plan is. How many times have you heard the phrase, "God loves you, and has a plan for your life"? When I reviewed Walt Russell's book Playing With Fire I spoke of how Russell agrees with the first half of that statement (i.e., God loves you), but he has some hesitation believing the second half. The reason for Russell's reluctance has to do with how we understand the Biblical Worldview. According to Russell, and others, the Israelites and the New Covenant believers of the first century did not have an individualistic view of their relationship with God, as we do. Rather, there's was a worldview rooted in history - knowing where they came from was a foundation for knowing who they were, and where they were going. This worldview dovetails into what Russell outlines as the Biblical view of God's Plan: 1) God, has a Plan 2) He is working out through history 3) First through Israel, and now through the New Covenant believers 4) To establish His kingdom on earth and bless all peoples of the world through faith 5) This maximally glorifies - God Note that we only fit into that view inasmuch as we are a part of God's plan. The earlier statement should then be re-phrased to, "God loves you, and wants you to be a part of His Plan." Russell contrasts the Biblical Worldview with the prevailing "existentialist" worldview in which things such as work, home, family, church, God, hobbies, country, etc., all exist in an attempt to bring fulfillment to the individual. Now, getting back to Greg Koukl, if we are under the impression that God has an individual plan for our lives, then it isn't too surprising for us to attempt to find out just what that plan is - after all - that would ensure we would make the right choices in the important decisions we face. But in searching for what we consider to be God's Will we end up relying on some sixth sense in order to know just what that will is. Thus we tend to hear phrases like, "I feel led...," "I feel God is calling me...," etc. As Greg says, this is "All based on a very important assumption: the blueprint; the road map—God made the decision that we must discover in order to make our decision." (emphasis added) Can you relate? Do you remember going through issues like these or, perhaps, having a friend go through them? What usually happened? I remember one friend who was having relational problems with her boyfriend and was at a crossroads on what to do. In seeking advice from her friends she got conflicting messages. One friend told her the problems she was facing must mean that the devil was trying block a wonderful relationship from happening - forge ahead! Another friend told her that maybe it was God closing the door - pull back! She began to wonder if she was just not mature enough spiritually to discern God's Will. Well... how do we find out God's Will? Greg decided to check with one source - God's Word. end of part 2, go to part 3

Lincoln's Greatest Speech, part 1...

"At this second appearing, to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first." The Civil War had been dragging on for four years. In Lincoln's Greatest Speech, Ronald White tells us that an estimated 623,000 men died in the Civil War. He compares that number with those of World War I at 117,000, World War II at 405,000, the Korean War at 54,000, and the Vietnam War at 58,000. Add the major wars of the 20th century and you have 634,000... just barely over the number killed in the Civil War. If the same ratio of casualties to population occurred in World War II over 2,500,000 men would have been killed. White believes that it was these four years of bloodshed that set the stage for Lincoln's short, and direct, address. Was it all about slavery?, cotton?, the Constitution?, secession? Who was responsible? Lincoln was about to surprise the audience with his belief. The days leading up to the inaugural had been stormy. The day of the address is was still cloudy. As Lincoln got ready to speak, White tells us, quoting a reporter on the scene, what transpired: ""Just at that moment the sun, which had been obscured all day, burst forth in its unclouded meridian splendor, and flooded the spectacle with glory and light." Lincoln prepared to speak."

The Revenge of Conscience, last part...

I recently finished J. Budziszewski's book, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man. I heartily recommend it. It is his second book in a "trilogy" of sorts... Written on the Heart, The Revenge of Conscience, and What We Can't Not Know (that's next for me). J.B. has the ability to take complex topics, such as philosophy and ethics, and unpack them to the level of the layman. His writing is clear and concise and he weaves in examples that are understandable as well as informative. He truly has the gift of teaching. Joe at EO commented that the chapters in The Revenge of Conscience read more like a collection of essays than a single book, and he's right. But there is still a coherence within the topics discussed and a point to the book as a whole. J. Budziszewski tells us, in the Preface, of his trip into nihilism and then, ultimately, to God. He then explains why he wrote this book, "What I write about now is those very moral principles I used to deny - the ones we can't not know because they are imprinted on our minds, inscribed upon our consciences, written on our hearts... One might say that I specialize in understanding the ways that we pretend we don't know what we really do - the ways we suppress our knowledge, the ways we hold it down, the ways we deceive ourselves and others. I... try to show that in order to get anywhere at all, the philosophies of denial must always at some point assume the very first principles they deny." (emphasis in original) His prose is especially gripping in the first paragraph of Chapter 8 - Why We Kill the Weak: "If we may kill, we may do anything - and historians will write that by the last decade of the twentieth century, great numbers of men and women in the most pampered society on the earth had come to think it normal and desirable that their sick, their weak, and their helpless should be killed. When they were a poor country, they had not so thought; now in the day of their power and prosperity, they changed their minds. Babies asleep in the dim of the womb were awakened by knife-edged cannulas that sucked and tore at their soft young limbs; white-haloed grandmothers with wandering minds were herded by white-smocked shepherds into the cold dark waters of death. Many physicians came to think of suicide as though it were medicine." (emphasis added) Do yourself a favor and get this book.

New Current Read...

I've finished The Revenge of Conscience and will post my final remarks on it tonight. The next book on my list is Lincoln's Greatest Speech by Ronald White. It's not about the Gettysburg Address... his greatest speech is considered to be his Second Inaugural address. From the publisher, "In 703 words, delivered slowly, Lincoln transformed the meaning of the suffering brought about by the Civil War. He offered reunification, not revenge. Among those present were black soldiers and confederate deserters, ordinary citizens from all over, the black leader Frederick Douglass, the Cabinet, and other notables. John Wilkes Booth is visible in the crowd behind the president as he addresses posterity."

The Plain Reading of the Text (part 1)...

We tend to think of ourselves here in the 21st century West as being pretty cognizant of the reality of things due, in part, to a secular Worldview born, so we believe, in Christianity. For instance, we don't believe that there's any deity physically pushing the Sun across the sky. Non-Christians believe that for scientific reasons alone. Christians believe it because it contradicts the Biblical account and because of our understanding of the natural realm (i.e., science). But how does that logically and technologically based perception affect our reading of Biblical text? Does it help or hinder us? Consider the account of the 10 Plagues brought onto Egypt by God through Moses. What is it about? Deliverance? My own sins making me into a "Pharoh" of sorts? God's Power? It might surprise many of you to learn that each of the 10 Plagues corresponded to an Egyptian deity. Moses told Pharoh that God (I AM) demanded he let His people go. Pharoh resisted and Yahweh responded by showing that He superceded any other animistic god the Egyptians had. God desecrated everything that the Egyptians worshipped to provide rational reasons for understanding that He alone was the Creator of the natural realm. I told someone about this meaning of the text once and they responded by saying, "Well... you only understand that if you dig into the text." I guess that was supposed to mean that: 1) The meaning you present is not readily apparent, 2) The meaning you present can only be found by extensive research, 3) Therefore, the meaning you present is secondary. In general I would probably agree with #2 and #3. But #1 is the tricky one. I propose that the intended meaning of the 10 Plagues is readily apparent. Keep in mind that the original text what written by someone to an intended audience. To whom was the account of the 10 Plagues written? The Israelites at or around the time of when Moses wrote the account (although the event itself would have prompted talk throughout the region before it was actually written down). For an Israelite or Egyptian at the time of the event, the meaning of the 10 Plagues would have been clear - there would have been no mistaking the intent of God in choosing the types of plagues in which He did. For example, in plunging the land into darkness God was demonstrating His power over Ra, their Sun god. That we consider it to be hidden in the text is indicative of our being separated by a few thousand years and completely removed from the culture of the intended audience. Does this separation, of sorts, actually place on us the responsibility to do diligent research with regards to the meaning of the Biblical text? end of part 1

The Lord told me (part 1)...

When we hear someone say that God is speaking to them we usually place them into one of two categories: 1) He is a deranged but charismatic cult leader, probably just about to order his followers to commit mass suicide or, 2) He is a solid Christian getting direction to specific issues in his life. That's a pretty wide range between # 1 and 2 isn't it? I'll postpone any comments on #1 for another time and will just focus in on #2. How do you make important decisions in your life, whether it be the choice of a career, a school to attend, or a potential spouse? Do you pray and intently wait on some supernatural guidance from God? Do any of these phrases sound familiar?: "God told me to...," "I have a peace about...," "The Lord opened a door for me...," "The Lord closed a door for me...," "I feel led by the Spirit to...," or "I received confirmation on..." Is any of that Biblical? I just purchased a study by Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, titled Decision Making and the Will of God. As I go through it I will be posting some highlights or salient points about his treatment of the subject. Suffice it to say here at the start that his argument is that, as a mode of normative behavior, the Bible does not teach that we are to receive special guidance from God on issues that pertain to our day to day lives here on Earth. If that doesn't sit well with you then all I ask is that you be patient and allow me to post further points on this topic. end of part 1, go to part 2

The Day after King Day...

For an interesting take on MLK's sexual virility as well as his drive to champion Civil Rights, read Remembering Martin Luther King Jr., by Richard John Neuhaus in the October 2002 issue of First Things. Despite the "pelvic issues" discussed, it is not a slam on MLK. Neuhaus knew him personally and the article surprisingly, for me, praises King's overall efforts. Neuhaus closes with, "Marshall Frady and others are right: if everything was known then that is known now, Dr. King would early have been brought to public ruin, and there would almost certainly be no national holiday in his honor. But God writes straight with crooked lines, and he used his most unworthy servant Martin to create in our public life a luminous moment of moral truth about what Gunnar Myrdal rightly called “the America dilemma,” racial justice. It seems a long time ago now, but there is no decline in the frequency of my thanking God for his witness and for having been touched, however briefly, by his friendship, praying that he may rest in peace, and that his cause may yet be vindicated."

Baby Steps...

10 feet away from the lander's platform is a football-sized rock now named Adirondack. It appears less dusty than another rock nearby, so it was chosen as the first rock to perform analysis on. Also, the engineers needed to get the feel of the land as they guided Spirit onto the surface.

Yet even more on The Purpose Driven Life...

In his December 28, 2003 radio show, Greg Koukl, from Stand to Reason, describes the first video in Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life series. The tape series is designed to be shown in homes in which, presumably, non-Christians have been invited as part of the outreach of 40 Days of Purpose. Greg's issue with the tape is that it appears to water-down the Gospel. There is no offense, no presentation of the reason why we need the atonement of Christ, namely - that we SIN. Greg reads, verbatim, the prayer that Pastor Warren leads the listeners through. It's a good prayer, as Greg says, but its geared for believers - kind of along the lines of "lead me onward towards my God given purpose." The problem is that, after the prayer is finished, Warren welcomes those who prayed it into the kingdom of God. Yet there was no mention of sin, no mention of repentance, indeed, no Gospel message presented whatsoever. Listen for yourself at this link. It's a 2 hour show, but Greg hits this issue in the first 15 minutes. Is this important? I think so. It is indicative, to me, of a growing trend in the Church to tone down Christianity's message so as not to offend any non-Christians to the point of their turning away from the message. But where is the logic in that? Change the message so they'll accept the message? What message? That we have Purpose or that we need a Savior? This thinking seems to permeate our Western mentality in Church Growth movements such as "Seeker-Sensitive," or "Emergent Church." Granted, the motives are sincere - the desire to reach the unsaved; but at what point have we altered the Gospel to the point where it is no longer The Gospel?

Cross-Calibration...

That would have saved one of the Mars missions back in 1999. Remember the one that crashed into the surface because there was a mix-up between English and Metric units? It seems that the navigational coordinates were incorrectly entered and the poor, multi-million dollar piece of machinery went by-by. Recently, while listening to the January 6th webcast from Reasons to Believe, I heard a former JPL scientist describe how a backup system could have saved that 1999 mission. His name is Dave Rogstad and he worked on the Galileo mission to Jupiter. He described a navigational system that is, evidently, very complex and tedious to manage. Nevertheless, if it had been employed on that 1999 mission it would have provided a calibration check to the fatally erroneous numbers that ended up being used. Such a cross calibration would have sent up a red flag, alerting the scientists that something wasn't quite kosher. Backup systems, redundancy, cross calibration via multiple independent checks... these are all hallmarks of design. In the realm of molecular biology we are just beginning to discover the myriad of complex, interdependent systems that display the handiwork of the Creator. Look for continued discoveries in 2004 that will provide further evidence of planning and forethought in this exciting field.

Worship Time...

Why do worship songs today seem to be so self-centered? Have you noticed the overuse of the pronoun "I" in a lot of our worship songs? And whatever happened to worship songs that were, in effect, verses straight out of the Bible? Remember Clap Your Hands (Psalm 47), Thy Loving Kindness (Psalm 63), Seek Ye First (Matthew 6), or Thou Art Worthy (Revelation 4)? Instead we're settling for the likes of Here I Am to Worship or I Will Exalt Your Name. They're okay, I guess. But why settle for hamburger when...

The Revenge of Conscience, pt. 2...

In J. Budziszewski's book, The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man, he takes a look at both liberalism and conservatism, contrasting the errors in both. Here's part of his take in chapter 7, The Problem with Conservatism, "What does the contrast between meritism and charity look like in ordinary human relationships? Consider the governmental policy of paying women cash prizes for bearing children out of wedlock. Liberals want to continue the policy because they cannot tell need from desire. Meritists [conservatives] propose ending it because the subsidies are undeserved. Although a Christian may accept the cutoff, he cannot accept it for the reason given. All of us at all times need and receive many things we do not deserve. The problem with subsidies is that they are not what is needed. They so completely split behavior from its natural consequences that they infantilize their supposed beneficiares; to infantilize them is to debase them, and no one needs to be debased. Very well, says the meritist to the Christian, but we both support a cutoff. The rationales differ, but so what? That makes no difference in practice, does it? But it does. After achieving the cutoff, the meritist thinks his work is done, but the Christian thinks his work has only begun. He must now find another way to offer help; and he had better be prepared to pay the price. For a portrait of that price, think not of a bureaucrat; think of Mother Teresa." Broken Masterpieces comments on the spending habits of America and Europe in his post Really Messed Up Priorities. But I'd like to know how well the Church (of which I am a part) is responding to touch those in need. Do you think we might not like the answer?

Mere Comments...

Check David Mills on Watch Those Sacred Texts regarding the upcoming opening of The Passion.

Malkin on Homeschooling...

Check the Townhall article, Homeschoolers vs. big brother by Michelle Malkin. She tells of incompetence in the child welfare system in New Jersey. As part of the solution the state government has decided it must crackdown on homeschoolers. She concludes, "...Weinberg's bill is a cynical power grab -- something homeschoolers across the country have been fending off as the movement's success has skyrocketed. "This is about legislators interfering with parental rights," Tricia McQuarrie, a South Jersey homeschooling mother of five, told me. "It's Big Brother." Indeed, legislators and the liberal media (witness CBS News' anti-homeschooling hit piece last October) are pushing for increased regulation of homeschooling parents, including criminal background checks, because the grass-roots movement gravely threatens their socialist agenda of promoting dependency. God forbid children be taught by their own parents without oversight from the all-knowing, all-caring, infallible wizards of the child welfare-public school monopoly! A crackdown on innocent homeschooling families to cure the incompetence of government child welfare agencies is like a smoker lopping off his ear to treat metastatic lung cancer. It's a bloody wrong cure conceived by a fool who caused his own disease."

40 Years Ago...

Beatlemania started in the U.S. It seems that Marsha Albert wanted to hear I Want To Hold Your Hand and made a request at her local radio station. Once it hit the airwaves its popularity spread and, as they say, one thing led to another... resulting in the British Invasion beginning about February 1964. Interesting sidenote... if the Red Sea had parted in January 1964, then the Israelites would just now be entering the Promised Land wouldn't they? Anyway, there's a big bash planned in honor of the 40th anniversary. Private Eyes were hired to find this Marsha Albert but they were unsuccessful. Finally, it seems, a reporter tracked her down. She's living outside of the D.C. area, married, with grown-up children. She wants no part of the celebrations and prefers to remain anonymous. In fact, in the Washington Post article, she states, "I bought and listened to all the records, and I saw the movies, but that's about it. Then I grew up." (emphasis added)

Beginning of Week Links...

Mark D. Roberts throws in his 2 cents on the Barna study that is making the waves in blogdom lately with a post titled, Reflection: Pastoral Worldviews. For a good commentary on the ESV Bible, check A Bible for Everyone, by Alan Jacobs in the December 2003 issue of First Things. Also, you should get into the habit of reading Richard John Neuhaus' While We're At It in every issue of First Things... it's along the lines of a printed monthly blog from a clear thinker. I was alerted to a blog from a pastor by the name of Mark Perkins of Front Range Bible Church. The blog is titled, oddly enough, Front Range Bible Blog. Another interesting link was forwarded to www.MichaelCoren.com.

Another Blogger on PoMo...

Check the Triggerman at Walloworld for a few posts on the Emergent Church / PoMo fad. He posts A Little Mo' PoMo, PoMo's Silver Lining?, and Perils in Postmodernism.

Who's in charge?...

In the U.S. our government is structured as a separation in shared power. It is not, as most think, a separation in powers. In his book, Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges, Robert Bork enlists a quote from James Madison, “I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation.” Richard John Neuhaus reviews the book in The Public Square: The Culture Wars Go International, First Things, January 2004. Here's how Neuhaus starts off, "The defenders of judicial activism, properly understood as the judicial usurpation of politics, count on wearing down their critics over time. Robert H. Bork is not easily worn down." He quotes Bork, "Courts possess very potent powers, both coercive and moral. Although that power is asserted over an entire culture, it is not always dramatic because it proceeds incrementally, but since the increments accumulate, it is all the more potent for that. What judges have wrought is a coup d’etat—slow-moving and genteel, but a coup d’etat nonetheless." I have not read the book, but based on Neuhaus' review, it looks like a good read. I'm wondering if any other bloggers have read it and are willing to post about it?

On Sanctity of Human Life Sunday...

We had a representative from the Grace Elliott Center in Compton (southern California) speak at our church today. They are a grass-roots organization dedicated "to meet the needs of parents, teens and young women who are facing a crisis pregnancy situation." They offer: Medical Services such as free pregnancy testing; Counseling for crisis pregnancy, abstinence, pre- and post- abortion; Education such as parenting classes; Referrals to WIC, community resources, maternity homes, and adoption referrals; plus Other services such as baby clothing and furniture and the True Love Waits chastity program. They're a small group desiring to make a big impact. Last year they were able to convince 75 women to forego their abortions, thus saving 75 babies. 75 babies in one year out of 1,200 abortions per day in the U.S. may not seem like much... but they are 75 human beings nonetheless. If you don't already have a crisis pregnancy center you support, consider the Grace Elliott Center. 2817 N. Wilmington Ave. Compton, CA 90222 310-635-0181

Good One Dubya!...

Bush appoints Pickering to appeals court: President bypasses opposition in Congress

Excel and Evolution...

In my day to day job functions I will, many times, employ the use of a spreadsheet. The company I work for does its business by executing projects. The cost and schedule portions of a project are controlled by initially having a defined plan, and then comparing actual costs and forecasting where future actual costs will go. In setting up a realistic plan one first enters estimated values for the hours needed to perform the various functions of the project. Labor rates are linked to these hours to produce dollar costs. The labor hours and costs are linked to time based schedule activities, which results in expected resource staffing and cash flow charts. It all sounds pretty simple until one adds variable factors such as U.S. vs. International rates, appreciation, profit margins, benefit mark-ups, etc. But even those factors are pretty easy to account for, and that’s because they are expected. It’s the unexpected factors that end up throwing you for a loop. Unexpected factors can be ones such as: management changing their mind with regards to organizational structure, level of detail, payment patterns, etc. These are very difficult, if not impossible, to plan for. Yet, since they are part of the process, we intelligently adapt our spreadsheets to account for them. So, at the end of the day, you typically have a spreadsheet that is a hodgepodge collection of links, references and formulas. The spreadsheet still works, mind you, but it’s easy to recognize the disorganization that resulted from the unforeseen events. In fact, knowing what you know at the end of the process (i.e., the unexpected factors), you could create a much more elegant and efficient spreadsheet at the very beginning. But that’s the catch, you didn’t know then what you know now. At least, though, it isn’t a spreadsheet put together with absolutely no thought or direction. Now that would be a real mess, wouldn’t it? Yet this is exactly how Evolutionists say that Evolution works… all you have to do, really, is take a mindless process, not capable of knowing where it’s going, yet blindly adapting to unforeseen events, and it will produce functional biological systems. Or so the story goes. Now, if a spreadsheet created by intelligent adaptations to unforeseen events can appear so disorganized, then how much more so one that is created solely by blind chance adaptations to unforeseen events? Taken a step further, if biological systems are indeed created by the combination of blind chance adaptations to unforeseen events, shouldn’t these systems exhibit, at minimum, the same aspects of disorganization as our initial spreadsheet? Reasons to Believe posits that the God of the Bible created biological systems and not Evolution. As part of their Testable Creation Model they also posit that if there was a single Designer and that He was working to a plan, then His creations will not exhibit disorganization but, rather, purpose. For example, coding that is referred to as Junk DNA should, in the end, turn out to show function. Time will tell if the Designer knew then what He knows now.

Legislative Alert for Calif...

Homeschoolers should be aware of AB 56 "5 Year Old Compulsory Education" (in effect mandates Kindergarten). Per the HSLDA, "AB 56 lowers the compulsory attendance age for entry into school from 6 to 5 years of age. This requirement will apply to all children, whether their parents plan to send them to public school or private school (including private home schools.). AB 56 also make "free" public preschool available to every child under 5 years of age on a voluntary basis. Should this bill pass, it could easily be followed by legislation to make institutionalized preschool mandatory. Universal preschool has been proposed by legislators in the past and is openly encouraged by proponents of early childhood education." (emphasis added) Also see my post on First5 - Mandatory Preschool in California here . The Home School Legal Defense Association opposes the bill for the following reasons: 1) AB 56 forces children into school too soon. 2) AB 56 is not necessary. 3) AB 56 decreases beneficial parental contact with their children. 4) AB 56 is based on faulty information. 5) AB 56 will have an adverse financial impact on all Californians. For more information on the bill and how to contact your state representative, visit the HSLDA website. Update: I'm reading The Revenge of Conscience and found a couple of paragraphs that seemed applicable to this idea of lowering the mandatory age in which the State thinks it should take our children. Before collectivism, our family law was based on a philosophy that ran something like this. Growing up takes time, and until the process reaches its end children are not fully capable of deciding what is best for them. Moreover, the family is a more fundamental institution than the state, based on a closer harmony of interests among its members. From these premises we may conclude that in normal families, during the period while children are growing up, their parents may be trusted to act in their best interests. It follows that the state should not intervene except on evidence that the parents are acting abusively. In other words it should confine itself to the restraint of wickedness rather than trying to absorb the functions of the family. Collectivism hides in a forest of reassuring bromides. "It takes a whole village to raise a child," the secular intones; "Every child is my child," the pious drowsily respond... I am reminded of an election-year scuffle between a father, who was also a candidate, and a social service functionary. "No government bureaucrat could love my children as I do," the father said. "That's not true," protested the functionary, "I love them just as much." "What are their names?" asked the father.

We're off and running...

Latest updates on Spirit are found here.

Evolution as a Thinker...

In How humans got the gift of gab: Why do other primates lag behind in language?, per MSNBC, we read about research into the ability humans have to use language and whether other primates have any corresponding ability. The findings are intriguing and point to a unique aspect of human nature. They also point towards the work of a Creator. By noting that monkey's were not able to differentiate between the sound patterns within a type of grammar referred to as "phase structure grammar" (PSG). The common "if... then" construction is an example of this type of structure. In commenting on how the human brain accomplishes this understanding, the article states, "The human brain’s specialized language machinery thus seems to kick in right around this junction between the two grammar types. If further research shows that monkeys, as well as other nonhuman species, can’t process these and other PSGs, “then there is strong evidence that humans had to pass through a fundamental bottleneck in their capacity to generate a virtually limitless variety of meaningful expressions to tell others what they think and feel,” Hauser said. “When this occurred is anyone’s guess, but when it happened, it transformed the mind,” he added." (emphasis added) Note that this "bottleneck" event "transformed the mind." This is along the lines of what other scientists refer to as "the Mind's Big Bang." It is a time when, without any known catalyst, the essence of humanity begins, and we find the distinctive characteristics of what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom... language, contemplation, imagination, spirit worship. The Imago Dei. But what is really intriquing in this article is its closer... that last sentence or paragraph that the reporter writes as a clincher. The reporter, Kathleen Wren, closes with a quote from one of the scientists involved in the study: "“Human intelligence and evolution are the only flexible processes on Earth capable of producing endless solutions to the problems confronted by living creatures,” Premack writes." Get that? Evolution - properly defined as a mindless process - is being equated with Human intelligence in terms of its capacity to produce solutions to problems. Solutions to problems come not from a mindless process... but through the process of a mind.

On Conversion...

How should we relate to our secular worldview upon accepting Christ? Does it necessarily depend on the claims of the worldview? In the December 2003 issue of First Things, in an article titled, Coincidence & Conversion, Alicia Chesser describes her path from fundamental protestantism to existentialist meaninglessness to, ultimately, Catholicism. It's an interesting tale, especially where she recounts her inevitable coming to grips with the consequences of her existentialist worldview: "It was around this time, age fourteen or fifteen, that I began to be attracted to the writers and thinkers who described the world as a fundamentally meaningless, if more or less benign, place. I read up on Buddhism, finding its depiction of “nothingness” appealing. A common thread throughout these writings—existentialist, Buddhist, and “beat” alike—was that joy was possible despite the absence of a source for that joy, that good could be done even though no such thing as “the good” existed. I wanted to believe it. I wanted to love life, but I didn’t want God interfering to tell me how or what to love. It would soon become clear that what I wanted was, very simply, a lie. One summer afternoon, my two closest friends came to my house to tell me that our friend Rachel... had driven her car far out onto a rural road, climbed a hill, and shot herself in the mouth. None of us knew how to handle this: the shock of her death, the way it happened, the loss, even how to relate to each other now. At her memorial service... as we prayed the Our Father that day, tears came to my eyes, not just for Rachel but for the emptiness that was in all our hearts. For many in our group of friends, whose homes were broken or filled with abuse and sadness, who had not grown up in the Church, the very idea of a loving Father was an absurdity. I knew that He existed, that He loved me. I grieved that Rachel hadn’t lived to know it. Nothingness was now very concrete to me and my friends. It wasn’t freedom. It was hell. Truth, trust, community: much later John Paul II’s trinomial would teach me what was missing. True community can’t exist without trust, which in turn can’t exist without a foundation in the truth." In Alicia's case, it could be argued, she not only discarded the fundamentals of her worldview, in favor of the Biblical Worldview, but also tossed out any excess baggage that accompanied her false beliefs.

Those PoFolks at PoMo...

Little did I know the commotion my What is PoMo? post would generate. Kevin at Blogbandit followed Joe at EO’s link to my post and wrote a response. Kevin was underwhelmed at Joe’s characterization of my post being a “devastating critique” of postmodernism. Kevin lists the conclusions I came up with: 1) McLaren and Livingstone appear to be solid, mature, well-grounded Christians. I’ve found their material to have solid teaching. 2) PoMo adherents, with regards to Christianity, not only want to avoid being defined… they relish in the apparent fact that theirs is a complex psyche. McLaren, in particular, complains that PoMos don’t really believe in anything as stupid as moral relativism. This leads in to conclusion #3… 3) The issue of PoMo Christianity may be as simple as people not being able to live consistent to their Worldview. 4) The general populace of the PoMo movement don’t seem to be listening to the likes of McLaren and Livingstone. He then states, “Point #1 I fully agree with. Point #4 has no support whatsoever - his defense is a restatement of his prior conclusion. It's hard to really debate that except by saying I disagree, I think many are listening to McLaren. Point #3 is really an extension of his real discussion on conclusion two, but this is how Rusty defends claim three:” and then quotes me, "McLaren attempts to tell us that Post Moderns do not really believe in moral relativism. Yet a short search on Google showed otherwise. His claims that those who make such radical statements are simply fanatics falls short. But his claim that Post Moderns do not really believe in moral relativism rings true." He then states, “The problem is that he jumps from talking about Christians trying to adapt to our post-modern culture to talking about "Post Moderns" in general. Comparing Derrida or Rorty to Brian McLaren seems a little odd. McLaren never suggests a wholesale acceptance of postmodern philosophy - simply that, like it or not, we're in a post-modern world and Christianity must adapt or die.” (emphasis added) I should interject here that Joe at EO has updated his post with a comment that, in my opinion, is right on the money. He states that the issue may be a matter not only of defining the terms used, but of also understanding that the Emergent Church has “baptized” the term postmodernism. Ideas have consequences. This is probably the biggest issue I have with the Em-church movement. As I see it, they have latched onto the term postmodernism and, believing they have “baptized” it, now consider it applicable to Christianity. But there’s that little problem of ideas having consequences. Take naturalism. The idea that nature is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be. It follows, therefore, that everything we experience is due to either one of, or a combination of, the laws of physics and chance. Christian philosophers immediately pounce on that idea as having the consequence of no such thing as morality. Indeed, even some adherents of naturalism will, rightfully so, admit to that being a logical conclusion of their position. Those few naturalists are being logically consistent with their philosophy. Yet most people who hold to naturalism, as with my Carl Sagan example, cannot consistently hold to the consequences of their philosophical worldview. Yet this example applies only to those who claim to be full fledged naturalists. Are there those that try to combine the Christian Worldview with naturalism? As a matter of fact, there are. Let’s take a Christian who, for whatever reason, decides to hold to a portion of the worldview of naturalism. He doesn’t accept the conclusions of nature being all there is and he certainly doesn’t accept the conclusion of the non-existence of morality. But he does believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to use the process of Evolution to give us the wonderfully diverse biological world we see today. This person is referred to as a Theistic Evolutionist. A term which I consider to be an oxymoron. Let me quote Bill Dembski, from Intelligent Design , “For the Darwinian establishment the “theism” in theistic evolution is superfluous. For the hard-core naturalist, theistic evolution at best includes God as an unnecessary rider in an otherwise purely naturalistic account of life… Not to put too fine a point on it, the Darwinian establishment views theistic evolution as a weak-kneed sycophant that desperately wants the respectability that comes with being a full-blooded Darwinist but refuses to follow the logic of Darwinism through to the end.” (emphasis added) The problem for the Theistic Evolutionists is that, apart from their own little world, nobody else believes in the definitions of the philosophy they hold to. Their attempts to sidle up to the aspects of Darwinism they like fail because they do not follow their logic through to its conclusion. Therefore, my complaint with PoMo Christianity is that, like Theistic Evolution, it is a contradiction in terms. PoMo is a bankrupt philosophy that cannot be lived out to its logical end. Attempting to grab portions of it that are appealing and / or attempting to redefine the term and then attaching those aspects to Christianity is not only dangerous, it is ultimately self-defeating. Consider Phillip Johnson’s analysis in Reason in the Balance . “…When I describe postmodernism or deconstruction or radical feminism to nonuniversity groups, many listeners are tempted to make the mistake of disregarding the whole business as harmless academic claptrap… Ways of thinking that seem very strange at first, however, may have their roots in more fundamental ideas that are widely accepted in the general culture. People often do not understand the full implications of what they have been taught to believe. Claptrap or not, ideas have consequences… The stage has been set for this reversal by academic theories about textual interpretation and the nature of truth. Hence it is worth paying attention to how truth is viewed in academia.” (emphasis added) Thus, I do not consider it a far cry to read the statements of Dr. Mary Klages as indicative of postmodernism. Attempting to attribute her statements to mini-narratives, meta-narratives, small groups, large groups, or whether she was speaking specifically to Christianity and postmodernism, is irrelevant. It's like a Theistic Evolutionist attempting to attribute Richard Dawkins description of Darwinism as "general" Darwinism... we don't really believe in that - ours is a "special" form of Darwinism. It doesn't fly. Klages' post is titled Postmodernism, it is a description of postmodernism and it is indicative of the relativistic thought inherent to that philosophy. If you don’t believe her, then check the other links on the University of Colorado at Denver’s website. If you don’t believe them then check with Rorty. If you don’t believe him… well, that was sort of the point of my “short search on Google” statement – namely – that it isn’t too hard to show that the prevailing understanding of postmodernism is that it is an idea driven by relativistic thought. Tap dancing around sub-concepts such as Christianity and Post Modern thought or mini-narratives vs. grand unifying social theories, is simply a diversionary tactic. I want to be clear now, though, that my inclusion of Dr. Mary Klages' quote was not to prove that “McLaren or Leonard Sweet or any of these other guys are advocating relativism in any form.” No, it was to simply show Postmodernism for what it truly is – moral relativism. I’ll admit that my statement, “That sure sounds like relativism to me,” opened me up to attack. Point taken, so… here is my revised version. “Understand that postmodern thinking exists on its own regardless of what McLaren wants it to mean or what he may want to redefine it as. Unfortunately, in reading his articles, I see comments that I infer to be relativistic in nature. Since I don’t know McLaren personally, I would be amiss to declare conclusively that he is a moral relativist. In fact, based on other articles of his that I’ve read it appears that he is a solid Christian. But I still can’t get away from some of the comments he’s written describing the postmodern movement as he applies it to Christianity. The words are there… read them for yourself in my earlier post. He describes how postmodern thinkers approached the worldviews of the 20th century, “These dominating belief systems were responsible for so many millions of deaths, so much torture, so much loss of freedom and dignity, so much damage to the planet, that they sought to undermine their dominance. They advocated incredulity or skepticism toward such stories or belief systems.” He then, in his letter to Colson, describes how PoMo Christians are “against your apparent monopolization of truth in the interest of political domination.” Why should I try to prove he hints of relativism when he does it all on his own? Show me where he makes the claim that Christianity provides the Worldview that is the Grand Story and that it, therefore, demolishes postmodern thought? Instead, I see him, like the Theistic Evolutionists, attempting to accept aspects of postmodern thought while ignoring the logical conclusions they entail." It's a lot longer than "sure sounds like relativism to me," but it should, hopefully, be clearer. Note that the postmodern thinkers, according to McLaren, came to a conclusion that the belief systems (referred to as meta-narratives or worldviews) were responsible for immoral acts. Since, they believe, these belief systems were responsible for the atrocities, they then advocated incredulity or skepticism towards those belief systems. So… the question I ask… what belief system do these postmodern thinkers now believe in? If I understand their thinking correctly then they can’t just substitute one meta-narrative for another, or can they? What would that do but just replace one evil with another? What, then, is the logical conclusion of their assertion? 1) Dominating belief systems were responsible for atrocities 2) We must be incredulous and skeptical of such belief systems 3) There are no valid belief systems Now I’m not saying the McLaren believes #3. As a solid Christian he would probably state that there IS a belief system that is valid – that of the Biblical Worldview. But the logical conclusion of postmodernism precludes him from stating that and remaining consistent with PoMo. Hence he attempts to redefine PoMo to fit within Christianity (or… is it the other way ‘round?), to which we then run back into the same issues that Theistic Evolution must face. An interesting side note: Re-read the quote above and you’ll see where it is claimed that belief systems were responsible for atrocities… shouldn’t it be, rather, the people who adhered to the belief systems were the ones that were responsible? Kevin states, “like it or not, we're in a post-modern world and Christianity must adapt or die.” “Adapt or die.” Refer to my post Natural Selection and Church Growth for a take from Richard John Nehaus on that thinking. I would re-phrase what Kevin said to something along these lines – “We exist in a world in which postmodern thought exists, to varying degrees, depending on one’s locale. Christianity, as part of its mission to proclaim the Gospel to all the world, must address the issue of postmodern thought head-on, exposing its bankrupt philosophy and leading the Christians within the postmodern realm to a fuller and richer understanding of the Biblical Worldview. Finally, rejoice in the knowledge that Christ, as the Head of His Church, will not allow the gates of Hell to prevail against it. It will not die.” Again, I’ll admit that my conclusion #4 was briefly stated. Let me put it into context: It was late, for me, Sunday night and I was exhausted from a virus and wanted to spend what was left of the evening talking with my wife… hence, a quick ending. But take a look at the words I wrote: “The general populace of the PoMo movement don’t seem to be listening to the likes of McLaren and Livingstone.” (emphasis added) I never intended it to be a claim that the entire populace of the PoMo movement was not listening to its leaders. It means precisely what the words say. If you need clarification, here it is: “From what I have read on the few PoMo Christian sites I’ve visited, and from the comments I’ve read on my site, it appears to me that the general population of the PoMo movement (at least, the ones that post on the web) are not listening to the teaching available to them. Indeed, the more sites and comments I read, the more convinced I am that my initial assessment of the Em-church fad is correct.” Finally, I agree with Kevin in that my What is PoMo? post does not sound “the death knell for postmodernism.” Postmodernism will accomplish that all by itself.

Slippery Slope...

Being logically consistent. It's sometimes difficult to do - and still be true to your worldview. But it can also be dangerous, especially when one takes the expected logical steps towards a worldview's conclusion. In Establishing Free Exercise, Vincent Phillip Muñoz, writing in the December 2003 issue of First Things, gives us an analysis of the Supreme Court's view, as of late, of the "free exercise" portion of the First Amendment. He contrasts the verdicts that have come down and how they relate both with "free exercise" and "no establishment." He begins with, "If conservative and liberal church-state scholars agree on one thing, it is that the Supreme Court’s religious liberty jurisprudence is a disaster. No single rule exists to guide decision making. The various doctrines employed are, at best, inconsistent and, at worst, blatantly contradictory. Divisions on the Court run so deep that actions demanded by “free exercise” according to some Justices violate “no-establishment” according to others. The result is an ever shifting, case-by-case jurisprudence based on narrow factual questions that encourages neither the rule of law nor a robust protection of religious freedom." Munoz describes the Newdow case in which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in a Public School was unconstitutional because it contains the words, "one nation under God." Yet, as Munoz shows, taken to its logical conclusion, this ruling is absurd. "The Pledge case reveals that something has gone drastically wrong with Establishment Clause jurisprudence. If the Pledge is unconstitutional, so too are teacher-led recitations of the Gettysburg Address. Lincoln claimed “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom.” Teaching public school students that the Declaration of Independence is true—that our rights are, in fact, “endowed by our Creator” and that the American Revolution was just according to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”—would violate the Constitution. Even an invited performer signing “God Bless America” at a government-sponsored event, like a local county fair, would be constitutionally suspect. Newdow confirms what critics have long claimed: that pushed to its logical conclusion, the various “wall of separation” constructions of the Establishment Clause are hostile toward religious sentiment and drive religion out of the public square. The case demonstrates that the current interpretations of the Establishment Clause are not neutral and are unworkable and thus fit the criteria for being overturned." I'm not a lawyer, and I don't pretend to understand the legal system to any profound degree. But what I do understand are contradictions, double-standards, and inconsistencies. Those are things that most plain folk can see without the benefit of a J.D. I was called for jury-duty a few years ago and the case in which I was up for had to do with two counts of murder. It seems that a pregnant prostitute was killed as was her unborn child (although the child wasn't referred to in those terms in court). I was struck by the inconsistency in the fact that someone could be brought to trial for murder, for killing a woman's unborn child, but this same woman would have been permitted to have an abortion performed on the same child. What gives? A lot of legal mumbo-jumbo couched in an unhealthy worldview is what gives.

First Contact...

The search for life, or evidence of it, on Mars could be seen as more modest reaction to another quest... the search for life in our Galaxy. Is there life beyond our solar system? If so, is it intelligent and advanced? If so, are these life forms visiting us? I'm fully convinced that one of the reasons we, in Western civilization, seem to be so open to the idea that aliens really do exist, is the fantastic advancements made in the area of movie special effects. Compare the effects seen in the movie War of the Worlds (circa 1953) with that of Close Encounters: of the Third Kind (circa 1977) and with even more recent fare such as the shallow Independence Day. Without checking into the physics of what's portrayed, we end up falling for the glitz. Chuck Colson's Breakpoint hits on the issue of UFOs with Is it E.T.—or a Goose?: Why We Believe in UFOs. Colson references Lights in the Sky and Little Green Men, a book authored by Hugh Ross, Mark Clark, and Kenneth Samples, all from Reasons to Believe. Colson writes, "According to Ross, half of all Americans believe UFOs are real, not simply the product of someone’s over-active imagination. One recent poll indicates that 13 percent of our neighbors believe they have actually seen a UFO. One researcher estimates that during the 1970s, around one hundred UFO sightings worldwide were reported every night. Given that many sightings probably go unreported, Ross writes, “the number of sightings may in fact range into the millions.”" Lights in the Sky is a good book because it outlines the phenomenon of UFOs from three basic perspectives: the physics involved (Ross), the aspect of governmental intervention (Clark), and the cult connections (Samples). These are issues that the Christian should, at the very least, become aware of. Indeed, in late 2002 I reviewed the book for my Sunday School class and we learned about the Raelian cult months before they showed up in mainstream media with regards to cloning.

Pedal to the Metal...

Mars rover makes its first moves, per MSNBC. If all goes well, famous last words, the rover Spirit will be rolling off its landing platform late Wednesday or early Thursday. This is an exciting time for NASA and I hope that much data is gathered from this mission and the upcoming one by Opportunity. Christians, in general, should welcome all the scientific data that arrives via this and future missions. We should not welcome, though, all the interpretations of that data. As Phillip Johnson talks of in Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, remember to keep your Baloney Detectors operational.

Reminder on Mark Roberts...

After reading Mark D. Roberts series (1 - 9 out of 11) on Developing a Biblical Worldview in 2004 I won't say that I recommend it... instead, I'll say that I strongly recommend it! These are the types of posts that Christians need to be reading, and applying. Mark takes an interesting look at Genesis and how it correlates to our understanding of God, the physical realm, ourselves, our condition, etc. I think I'll use that as a lead-in to a future post on The Point of the Creation Story (hint: although I'm an Old-Earth Creationist, the post won't deal at all with the questions of "when" and "how long?"). Update: Oops! The post has been edited with the correct link. Mark D. Roberts' blog can be found at www.markdroberts.com

The Revenge of Conscience, pt. 1...

I'm still reading J. Budziszewski's book, The Revenge of Conscience, but I thought I'd throw out a couple of paragraphs for you to chew on. At the end of Chapter 4, Politics of Virtues, Government of Knaves, J.B. writes, "The point I am making concerns the Church as well. Not only does the modern state interfere with family in the name of family, it interferes with faith in the name of faith. Whenever it is not scolding the church in fear of her challenge, it is whispering to her in hopes of making her pregnant with its purposes. So intent on seducing the Bride of Christ is Mr. Clinton, still President at the time of writing, that during his candidacy he tried to imitate her Husband's voice. Identifying himself with the Redeemer, he called his program the New Covenant, then misqoted Scripture to support it: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has imagined what we can build," he prophesied at his convention. The way this runs in Scripture itself is, "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him." (I Cor. 2:9, NIV, quoting Isa. 64:4). The biblical passage gives sovereignty to God. Although the President's language still sounds biblical, it gives sovereignty to Man. Subsidiarity, then, does not mean that the state flatters, seduces, or absorbs the true teachers of virtue. It means it gets out of their way, and keeps other things from getting in their way. The state gets out of the way not by raising taxes and putting all mothers on the dole, but by reducing taxes so that they do not have to work; not by making sex a compulsory subject in the schools, but by letting families choose their own schools; not by keeping children from ever hearing a public prayer, but by keeping them from ever hearing a public obscenity; not by calling for a "politics of meaning," but by honoring the Meaning which no politics made, that Glory which even the heavens, though soulless, declare." Great stuff! But before you conservatives gloat, I think he'll be addressing our side of the fence in the next chapter...

Light Blogging...

due to illness and family obligations. Thanks for the many kind comments and e-mails. If you haven't checked out Mark D. Roberts, please do. He blasted off into the blogsphere only three weeks ago, but already there is a wealth of information on his site. In particular, and with application to the on-going discussion of PoMo, is series he's titled Developing a Biblical Worldview in 2004. I've just had the chance to glance at it but from what I've seen, Mark, you are right on target. This is a topic and a concept we desperately need to broadcast to our Christian brethren.

What is PoMo?...

Welcome to the Planet links to Joe at EO and myself with regards to our opinions on Post Modernism. He also links to an article by Brian McLaren at www.EmergentVillage.com who wrote an open letter to Chuck Colson as a result of a Breakpoint Colson did on the Post Modern movement. Well I’ve read McLaren’s letter. I’ve also read his article titled An Open Letter to Worship Songwriters. On www.EmergentVillage.com I’ve read the What is Emergent? page, and an article by Neil Livingstone titled How Can You Trust The Bible?. I also Googled on Post Modernism and read a bit about it via the University of Colorado at Denver’s English Department at a site titled Contemporary Philosophy, Critical Theory and Postmodern Thought. In addition, I’ve had discussions on this subject with people I consider to be mature Christians, I’ve read a few other Blog sites that are either pro or con with regards to PoMo, and I’ve visited as well as Blog comments I’ve either received at my site or read on other sites. With that, I’ve come to four basic conclusions: 1) McLaren and Livingstone appear to be solid, mature, well-grounded Christians. I’ve found their material to have solid teaching. 2) PoMo adherents, with regards to Christianity, not only want to avoid being defined… they relish in the apparent fact that theirs is a complex psyche. It is interesting to note that McLaren asserts that PoMos don’t really believe in anything as stupid as moral relativism. This leads in to conclusion #3… 3) The issue of PoMo Christianity may be as simple as people not being able to live consistent to their Worldview. 4) The general populace of the PoMo movement don’t seem to be listening to the likes of McLaren and Livingstone. 1: McLaren’s article on worship songs is good. Consider the following, “Too many of our lyrics are embarrassingly personalistic, about Jesus and me. Personal intimacy with God is such a wonderful step above a cold, abstract, wooden recitation of dogma. But it isn’t the whole story. In fact – this might shock you – it isn’t, in the emerging new postmodern world, necessarily the main point of the story. A popular worship song I’ve heard in many venues in the last few years (and which we sing at Cedar Ridge, where I pastor) says that worship is “all about You, Jesus,” but apart from that line, it really feels like worship, and Christianity in general, has become “all about me, me, me.”” I agree! In fact, this is one of my main complaints about PoMo but, don’t forget this, I don’t limit this narcissism to PoMo exclusively. Livingstone, in his article, states, “First, as a believer, I am involved in honoring and carrying on the mission of the communities to whom the word of God first came, and who preserved these records for me. I should not ignore or forget my "roots", the heritage in history of the family of faith from which I have come. To forget the history of which I am a part would be to forget a large part of who I am. That would give me a false picture of myself, as I imagine that I read the Bible as a solitary individual. So, on the one hand I have to agree that as I read the Bible it is part of my direct relationship with God through Christ, but it is also a gift which has come to be by many hands down through the ages.” In a culture that is rampantly a-historical, this is a refreshing pronouncement. 2: McLaren, in his open letter to Colson, essentially accuses Colson of over-simplifying the PoMo movement. He claims that only fanatics would, and have, made claims of moral relativism, and that Christian adherents to PoMo do not think that way. He states, “I can agree with you that the “no transcendent truth” kind of postmodernism is dead, because as I said, it never was very alive. At most, it was an early, reactionary phase in a yet-embryonic movement that has much more mature, constructive, and positive voices emerging. Like you, I’ve spent a lot of time talking with college students and other thoughtful postmoderns. In fact, before entering pastoral ministry, I was a college English instructor – and as you know, English departments were the hotbed of postmodern thought back in the 70’s and 80’s. But I must tell you: I’ve never heard anyone articulate as their belief what you consistently assert that postmoderns believe. Sure, many college freshmen will resort to extreme statements when they’re approached by an angry Christian waving the sword of “absolute truth,” but if you (and George Barna and others) understood what they think you mean by “absolute truth,” you’d understand why they react as they do. Nobody likes having a sword waved at them!” At this point let me interject a piece from the University of Colorado at Denver’s English Department’s web site regarding Post Modernism. In Postmodernism, by Dr. Mary Klages, she writes, “Lyotard argues that all aspects of modern societies, including science as the primary form of knowledge, depend on these grand narratives. Postmodernism then is the critique of grand narratives, the awareness that such narratives serve to mask the contradictions and instabilities that are inherent in any social organization or practice. In other words, every attempt to create "order" always demands the creation of an equal amount of "disorder," but a "grand narrative" masks the constructedness of these categories by explaining that "disorder" REALLY IS chaotic and bad, and that "order" REALLY IS rational and good. Postmodernism, in rejecting grand narratives, favors "mini-narratives," stories that explain small practices, local events, rather than large-scale universal or global concepts. Postmodern "mini-narratives" are always situational, provisional, contingent, and temporary, making no claim to universality, truth, reason, or stability.” (emphasis added) Just as a point of clarification, that was written by Dr. Mary Klages… not a college freshman. I must state that I was disappointed with McLaren’s letter to Colson. Not for his opinion but for the lack of information it ultimately provided. He never really gets around to defining Post Modernism except to say that it isn’t what Colson says it is. It appears as if he’s tap dancing around the issue by claiming that PoMo is so complex that it defies definition. He continues, “But try to understand this parallel reality: In the late 20th century, postmodern thinkers looked back at regimes like Stalin’s and Hitler’s. (One must never forget how postmodern thought developed in the aftermath of the Holocaust, as deeply ethical European intellectuals like Michael Polanyi reflected on the atrocities their peers had perpetuated or acquiesced to.) Postmodern thinkers realized that these megalomaniacs used grand systems of belief to justify their atrocities. Those systems of belief – which the postmodern thinkers called “metanarratives,” but which also could have been called “world views” or “ideologies” – were so powerful they could transform good European intellectuals into killers or accomplices. They thought back over European history and realized (as C. S. Lewis did) that those who have passionate commitment to a system of belief will be most willing, not only to die for it, but to kill for it. They looked at powerful belief systems of the twentieth century – world views (extreme Marxism is one such world view), grand stories (anti-Semitism is one such story, White Supremacy is another, American manifest destiny is another), ideologies (such as the industrialist ideology that the earth and its resources are not God’s creation deserving care through reverential stewardship, but rather, are simply natural resources there for the taking by secular industrialists), and they were horrified. These dominating belief systems were responsible for so many millions of deaths, so much torture, so much loss of freedom and dignity, so much damage to the planet, that they sought to undermine their dominance. They advocated incredulity or skepticism toward such stories or belief systems.” That sure sounds like relativism to me. McLaren then attempts to link Colson’s concern about Post Modernism’s moral relativism with Post Modernity’s concern about Modernity’s absolutism. “Anyway, Chuck, you’re legitimately worried that “postmoderns” will use their relativism as an excuse to do anything they want. But they’re worried that you and other “moderns” will use your absolutism as an excuse to do anything you want. (If you can’t see any validity to their concern, then I’m truly speechless, and it’s hardly worth your reading the rest of my letter.) From where I stand, I’m afraid both of you are seeing a valid danger in one another. Postmodern people like me – you can call us post-postmoderns if you want to continue asserting postmodernity is dead, but please don’t call us truth-denying relativists, because we’re not, even though we don’t like your unreflective use of words like “absolute truth” – people like me want neither the self-indulgent narcissism of the one nor the unreflective absolutism of the other. You’re against their supposed denial of truth in the interest of self-indulgence, and they’re against your apparent monopolization of truth in the interest of political domination, and you’ve convinced some of the rest of us that you’re both at least partly right about each other.” (emphasis added) I just said this, but I’ll have to say it again… that sure sounds like relativism to me. McLaren concludes the letter with 7 definitions of “truth” and a plea for Colson’s prayers as he, and others, deal with the Post Modern world out there. I’ll be praying for you Brian. 3: Consistently living your Worldview. Ron Nash, in Faith & Reason, posits that one of the tests of a Worldview’s validity is the test of Practice, “Can the people who profess that world-view in theory also practice what they believe in their daily lives? Can the person consistently live the system he professes?” (emphasis in original) Carl Sagan failed the test. He was a Naturalist… believing that matter was all there was. Remember his COSMOS opening line, “Nature is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be.” Being a professed believer in Naturalism, he was forced to conclude that we are, essentially, no different from the animal kingdom. As such, violence against animals was tantamount to violence against humans… a no-no. Yet, when his life was threatened with illness, treatments existed that depended on animal-testing. The dilemma of his Worldview conflict was resolved with his inconsistently living out his Worldview – he accepted the treatment. McLaren attempts to tell us that Post Moderns do not really believe in moral relativism. Yet a short search on Google showed otherwise. His claims that those who make such radical statements are simply fanatics falls short. But his claim that Post Moderns do not really believe in moral relativism rings true. Say what? Yes. It rings true because, in the world of Absolute Truth, moral relativism fails. He knows this because he appears to be a solid, mature Christian. As with the example of Carl Sagan, Post Modernists, if they don’t admit to it to themselves, will eventually do so as they face the impossibility of consistently living out their Worldview. 4: Simply said, read the posts of the various PoMo or Emergent Church sites. Read the comments posted. These people, for the most part, don’t seem to be partaking of the meat that the likes of McLaren and Livingstone are feeding them. Keep the faith Brian and Neil. I applaud your efforts, but I disagree with your conclusions.

Are We Safer?...

Check the editorial at the Washington Post, Why We Are Safer, for a good analysis of the bankrupt thinking from Dean and his co-horts. They don't understand what is going on here, this War on Terror... Hugh Hewitt has said something along the lines, "If they can't understand that, then what can they understand? Nothing much that matters."

Another link via EO...

EO = Evangelical Outpost. Wow Joe, you certainly keep busy! I'm wondering... are you a professional blogger? Where do you get the time to do this, buddy? Joe links us to Collected Miscellany. It's a good read. There is one post in particular... a review of The Probability of God by Stephan D. Unwin. I especially like the following, "Unwin uses a formula to explain: Belief in God = the probability of God + Faith in God. He asserts that a proper balance is necessary for faith to have meaning. If faith simply picks up the tab for whatever reason can’t cover then the more you know the less faith you have. This would put reason at odds with faith and vice versa. Unwin believes that humans use both the cold logic of probability and the more existential trust to combine in a belief in God. In this way, belief in God’s existence is rational even though God can’t be proven by mathematical formula and yet faith is still an integral part of that belief." Interesting. Let's combine that thought with a reading of Psalm 13. How long, Lord, will you continue to ignore me? How long will you pay no attention to me? How long must I worry, and suffer in broad daylight? How long will my enemy gloat over me? Look at me! Answer me, O Lord my God! Revive me, or else I will die! Then my enemy will say, “I have defeated him!” Then my foes will rejoice because I am upended. But I trust in your faithfulness. May I rejoice because of your deliverance! I will sing praises to the Lord when he vindicates me. (NET) King David is feeling lonely, isolated, and ignored... by Yaweh! Yet, despite his feelings, David trusts in his knowledge of Yaweh's faithfulness. Faith... AND Reason.

NET...

I recently purchased a copy of the NET Bible. NET is an acronym for New English Translation, but it also conveys the idea of the Worldwide Web. From the Biblical Studies Foundation: The NET Bible (New English Translation) is a completely new translation of the Bible, not a revision or an update of a previous English version. It is being completed by more than twenty biblical scholars who are working directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide an electronic version of a modern translation for electronic distribution over the Internet and on CD-Rom. Anyone anywhere in the world with an Internet connection will be able to use and print out the NET Bible without cost for personal study. In addition, anyone who wants to share the Bible with others can print unlimited copies and give them away free to others. (emphasis added) Click on this link to access the NET Bible on-line. This translation looks like a very good study Bible. It has over 60,000 translator's notes packed into its over 2,000 pages! While striving to keep the literal aspect of the translation, certain nuances were translated using the dynamic equivalent method. What is nice about this is that when the translators went to a dynamic equivalent translation, they footnote the fact with comments about the literal meaning. The preface details the types of decisions the translators had to make. For instance, in Mark 1:17, the KJV reads "I will make you fishers of men." Did Jesus only expect adult males to be saved? The NRSV says, "I will make you fish for people." Will Jesus force us to fish for people? The NLT says, "I will show you how to fish for people." This addresses the teaching aspect but relegates the act to a mere occupation. NET translators decided on, "I will turn you into fishers of people." As they state, in this passage, accuracy was more important than readability or elegance.

Links for Friday...

Evangelical Outpost mentions a post from Captain's Quarters on Clues for the Clueless, in which he analyzes the mass media's ignorance of things religious and, in particular, how the church should respond to matters sexual. Joe also links to a new Hewitt inspired blog, Everything I Know Is Wrong. Sheesh, visit it just because of the cool title! Finally, check out Professor Bainbridge and his post on the Mars Mission proposal. Well, it's such a short post I'll just copy it here, "So President Bush is going to propose manned missions to Mars and the Moon. Why? So a bunch of ex-fighter jocks can play Buzz Lightyear and go to "infinity and beyond"? I'd really like to see a serious cost-benefit analysis before I get all excited about this proposal." I agree Professor. I'd like to see more unmanned missions though... less glamorous to be sure, but a heck of lot more safer. This... you must remember, is fiction and, due to the laws of physics, will almost certainly remain so.

An Interesting Week...

I ruffled some feathers this week and it was definitely a learning experience for me. Many thanks to Joe at Evangelical Outpost for his supportive words, both here on site, and by e-mail. You help keep me focused Joe! In thinking about the two major issues I wrote on this week, I came to the realization that they were, in a way, connected. The issue of the meaning of Proverbs and the issue of Post Modern Christianity have to do, in some part, with relativism. Interpretation of the Bible (and of any literary document, for that matter) has become a relativistic act hasn't it? Yo! Wendy? Listen up... I'm not accusing you of doing that! (Let's be clear at the start here) No. My concerns about relativistic interpretation centers around the narcissistic worldview prevalent in our culture. Indeed, if you read Walt Russell's Playing With Fire: How the Bible Ignites Change in Your Soul, you will quickly see that he is also concerned with the relativistic way in which we in the church tend to read the Bible. How many times have you heard the question, after scripture is read, "What does this verse mean, to you?" How many sermons have you heard in which the story of Jesus calming the storm was used to convey the idea that Jesus can calm the storms in your life? Or how many worship songs do we sing that contain multiple entries of the word "I"? The list is, unfortunately, very long. And this is how I see the tie between our self-centered and lazy interpretive skills, and the Post Modern Worldview. We have fostered a relativistic mentality within our churches. When we ask what a verse means to us, are we really that different from the deconstructionists who refer to our country's founding document as a "Living Constitution?" So, should we really be that surprised at the relativism displayed by Post Modern Christians (by the way, I'm starting to think that the phrase "Post Modern Christian" is a contradiction in terms)? Should I have been surprised at the lack of appreciation for the rules of logic and the overwhelming concern for personal feelings that I ran into after my posts on the emergent church? I think it all boils down to one thing. Truth. By its very nature, Truth must be unique. Yet so many confessing Christians would not agree with that statement. I'm in the process of reading The Revenge of Conscience: Politics and the Fall of Man by J. Budziszewski. So far, it's excellent. Budziszewski, now a Christian, is a reformed Nihilist. He writes from experience and he writes to the 21st century person. Francis Schaeffer once said that if he had only 1 hour to speak with a "modern man" that, because of this "modern man's" relativistic worldview, he would have to take the first 50 minutes to explain why he needed to be saved. Only then would he be able to spend a coherent 10 minutes actually delivering the Gospel. Schaeffer understood the problem well.

Apologies to Iphy...

Apparently Iphy, from the em-church or related site I referred to below found my post "Would you like a little cheese?". She was not pleased with what she read, which is to be expected; yet she was hurt from what she read, uh... not to be expected. Iphy, I meant no personal attack in what I wrote. If you feel personally offended by what I wrote then I apologize. My comments were meant to address the phenomenon, idea, philosophy, trend, fad, or whatever you want to label as... POST-MODERNITY (and how it relates to emergent church christianity). You stated that "there are quite a few people who don't like me so much." Well Iphy, I'm not one of them. I don't even know you, so how can I not like you? Let me reiterate... that post I wrote was not about you - it was about the worldview I saw in the comments you and others wrote on your page. I pray that God allows strong, mature Christians to come into your life not to simply provide relational comfort, but to build you up with exhortation and discipleship.

Wesley J. Smith...

author of Forced Exit - Death with Dignity? and author of the article Waking from the Dead, which I reviewed in the post It Takes a Village? was a guest on Greg Koukl's Stand to Reason radio show last month. You can access the web site listing his radio shows here, or you can access the MP3 of the 12/21/03 show here. I haven't listened to the entire interview yet, but from what I've heard so far, it is good stuff. Smith alerts us to the inroads the culture of death is making in ours and other societies. From the publisher's web site, "Forced Exit offers chilling evidence of just how powerful and dangerous the death culture in America has become. Smith makes a compelling case against legalizing assisted suicide and takes a closer look at the truly humane and compassionate alternatives, challenging us to maintain morality in medicine and protect the most vulnerable among us."

Another take on Purpose Driven Life...

Tim Rogers at Broken Masterpieces has posted a review of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life that does a good job of pointing out the good and the bad.

The End of the World is Near!...

Before you read Study sees mass extinctions via warming, please re-read the recent post on a speech given by Michael Crichton. What we have here is a classic case of malarkey masquerading as science. Politics driving research results. Crichton says that when you hear statements like, "They applied climate change models developed by a United Nations panel that predicts Earth’s current warming trend will increase average global temperatures by 2.5 degrees to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100." (from the article) to grab hold of your wallet, because you're being had.

But you Promised...

Wendy responded with comments to my When Proverbs mean Proverbs post below. To avoid the truncating problem I will respond here. By the way, thanks for visiting my site Wendy. I'll have to disagree with you on the idea that it may be a pre-conceived notion to consider the Proverbs being just proverbs. First and foremost, we need to understand what the book of Proverbs were intended to be: Promises?, or Proverbs? There are two big reasons why I believe it to be the latter. 1) It makes sense in literary terms and, 2) It is the overwhelming consensus. 1) The Bible is God's special revelation given to us in written form. We communicate through a variety of means, with the written form being one of them. Context matters. Genre matters. An author's intent may not be realized if we do not take into consideration the context and genre. Think of the concern we have here - is this verse (Proverbs 22:6) a promise or a proverb? In our own world, a contract is a literary form that carries with it an agreed upon (public) meaning - it is not taken to be just a wise saying or a happenstance statement. My point is that if something is called a proverb it is because it is a proverb. If it were a promise, it would be called a promise. It really can't get any simpler than that. Wishing it were different doesn't change it. It was given to us in a form that we are to read and receive, as given... we aren't to be in the business of altering its delivery. I've yet to see any evidence why a book that was originally titled, and continues to be titled, Proverbs, should be taken as Promises. 2) Now in reviewing the issue of Proverbs I did not do an exhaustive study, but I did attempt to reference a significant amount of various commentaries, from multiple denominations and time periods. I also spoke with several pastors and a Messianic Rabbi as well. I found no one - zip, zero, nada - that held to the viewpoint that the Proverbs, in general, and Proverbs 22:6, in particular, should be taken as Promises. Does this conclusively prove that the Proverbs are not Promises? No. But it sure does put a lot of weight on my side of the fence. I see that you rest on the Hope found in the Bible. Good. So do I. But let's be clear - a potential promise in one part of the Bible does not necessarily mandate that a verse in another part of the Bible be a promise as well. Are we clear on that? Even if there is a promise that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much, that does not justify turning Proverbs 22:6 into a promise nor does it somehow validate any other passage that deals with parenting as now becoming guarantees from God. This brings up a side issue of God's Will and His desires. Maybe in the future I'll do a post on that topic, but we need to understand that there are two aspects to God's will - as just stated, His Sovereign Will and what He desires. Simply because God desires that all should be saved (not just our children) does not mandate that we can pray all people into Heaven. (is that my Calvinistic bent showing there?) I'd be very careful in stringing together verses from various parts of the Bible to make your point (e.g., "I don't really understand why this verse has to be debated when we are promised that the prayer of righteous man availeth much, that we can receive what we ask for when it's according to His will, and we know we're dealing with a God who appeals even to our earthly desires to do good to our children when He asks us if we'd give a stone to one asking for food."). Lifting one verse out of the Bible runs the risk of taking it out of context... lifting a series of verses out, and then stringing them together is, in my opinion, dangerous exegesis. I also disagree that the answer Focus on the Family gave (I don't think it was Dobson himself) is without hope. We have our Hope... it is Jesus Christ and Him raised from the dead. I suspect that the folks at FOTF also do not consider the Bible to give a guarantee to parent's that they can insure the salvation of their children. Think about it. If that were truly in the Bible, why isn't it plastered on the front page of every publication that FOTF issues? Why isn't every evangelical pastor leading off and closing with it to his flock every single Sunday? Could it be, just maybe, because it isn't there?

Would you like a little cheese?...

with your whine? Joe at Evangelical Outpost linked us to a blog that is, evidently, an em-church blog. Or it's, at least, an example of post-moderns verbalizing their thoughts on church shopping (wasn't it called a "steeplechase" by Steve Taylor?). I've got to tell you... I haven't read the blog and its comments in depth, but from what I have read I'm not impressed. My hopes that we're dealing with just another fad are just about dashed after reading the whining, self-centered, don't-preach-at-me, musings at this site. From what I gather, the site is run by someone named Iphy. She and her husband and child went looking for a church to call home and she describes the disappointment they had. Joe at Evangelical Outpost gives a good rundown of that aspect of the blog on his site. I decided to read some of the comments and was struck by the arrogance that permeated the site. If you think I'm being too harsh then read it for yourself. A pastor, named David, attempted to add his views and console the poor distressed Iphy back to try his church out. One reader comments on one of the pastor's posts with, "David, Good grief, man, I'm tryin' to be on your side - are ya tryin' to make yourself indefensible? Can you not see that you've gone and made the same mistake that kicked off this whole thing? Based on your own personal experience, you're making assumptions about other churches based on the something trivial like the length of their sermons. Can God not move through a 20-minute sermon? I s'pose not - that'd be as ridiculous as God talking through an ass or something. What if I start a church movement that consistently preaches 12-hour sermons? Does that mean your piddly 67-minute sermon contains less spirit and truth than mine? Does that mean that you and your just need more discipline, that your level of "sacrifice" ain't enough? You begin by saying we ought not base our church gatherings on our own expectations, then proceed to outline your own personal expectations for church, and, worse, to say that if some other church isn't doing things your way, it's "usually" an indicator that they're not "God glorying." I don't want to make assumptions based on these posts of yours, because I know that this internet thing ain't the best method of communication, but you ought to know that you're sending out seriously arrogant vibes. I'm no pomo, but the scripture is very clear that God deals with different people in different ways. He is absolute Truth, yes, but He works however he likes, not according to your (or my) plan." What was David's crime? Here's his arrogant post, "If we are gathering as a people of God with expectations as to what is expectable to "me" and not to God, then we certainly have our priorities inverted. Our attendance of church is for the worship and glory of God. Not for us to get back in enough time to catch the game, or any other "scheduled" conflict. The problem is this; many churches are catering to the "felt needs" of the people instead of giving the people what they really need, which is the washing of the water of the word in conviction, truth, and power as it is carried along by the Holy Spirit. Those that I am familiar with that only have 20 minute sermons, usually are not able to hold the attention span of individuals for longer than that, or they simply don't want to "rock the boat" for people that don't agree with a longer sermon length. The problem is, we need to rock the boat! People are by nature selfish, self-serving, lazy and frankly apathetic. If I were to feed my 6-year-old little girl what she wanted to eat, she would have a staple of Twinkies, ho-ho's, and coke. Not very healthy for a growing child. It is my responsibility to be a good father to her and give her what I know to be food that will strengthen and grow her into a healthy woman. The same can be said for the people of God..often they want milk when they need meat, they want candy when they need good old spinach (though I hate spinach and realize now that example is simply gross!). A pastor is charged with the responsibility of assessing the health of the church and preaching and teaching and worshipping to equip and strengthen them, not sit around with open Q and A and ask, what do you want to eat today? Now, I am not saying that this laziness is the case for all those that preach 20-minute sermons, but it is usually an indicator of some greater issue, that is, the issue of being seeker sensitive instead God glorying. Christ did not come to make bad men good; He came to make dead men live, to teach us to die to ourselves, to live sacrificially, to point to the Father and His glory. It would be wise for all of us to follow His lead, sit down, stop whining, open your bibles, learn of Him in truth, and live by that truth as we are led by the Spirit. John 4:23 "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Not just spirit, not just truth, but spirit and truth. Just some thoughts...off to a meeting." Here's a pastor telling it like it is... giving out what is needed rather than what is wanted, and he's accused of being arrogant. If you scan the site it's easy to see why comments such as this pastor's are unwelcomed... "david - your long, long answers on this topic are indicative of some things about your personality that cause people like iphy to feel uncomfortable around you." "iphy needs healing. she needs to find a place where she can trust people again. the institutional church (which is part of what she means when she refers to 'another evangelical' sermon, or whatever that comment was exactly) needs to learn a new way of interacting with people like her. and me." "we should talk less and listen more. i believe you have a good heart, david. but one of the biggest problems with communication between modern people and postmodern people, is that the postmoderns don't feel as if anyone has heard them. they feel lectured to." "it would good at some point to ask iphy why she feels so hurt by the church. ask her exactly what she is looking for in a church. accept that she may not choose your church, and give her permission to do so without your disapproval. " "But as much as I love a good theological hair-splitting, I have learned through much pain, that above all, I am human. And being so, all the theology in the world doesn't hold a candle to how I _feel_ about my relationship with God. Nor does it change it in any way." "good question about conversation and argument, i don't know.... for me, i can tell it gets into argument when i start to feel completely overwhelmed by it, when it becomes so personal i completely lose my objectivity." "First impressions do mean something dont they? I am kind of troubled by the dialogue. " "wow, iphy, what an experience. I pray you are recieving peace and strength from God, who loves you so much, just as you are... " "Ok, What I dont get is why Iphy cant have an opinion of a church. I mean if she doesn't like it, and feels its not for her , than big friggin deal. Where God wants her is between her and God , not between her and every Pastor that she might come in contact with." "There has to be an environment for us to feel comfortable in in order for our faith to be nurtured and exposed. People are reached in a variety of different ways. For me-it is music. If the church doesn't have good music, I won't go back. Music is a defining factor of who I am. The sermons often times to very little for me. Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. I don't think it makes me self worshipping either to desire a Church with good Praise and Worship music. I want to see worship in action. I don't like being lectured on how one individual thinks I should go about doing it. Our relationships with God are uniquely individual, and I think Iphy has the right to pursue one under whatever circumstances she feels create a longing and desire in her to go deeper in her own." "thank you all for being a part of my life. this has been a wonderful, poignant, exhaustion, emotional experience for me." "I refuse to apologise for my feelings. I refuse to believe that God does not have a sensitivity towards people and their feelings. Whatever that makes me, it makes me." "I am only recently learning that God accepts me where I am. Certainly God doesn't accept sin in my life, nor does God justify my wrongs, but God still loves me and God still accepts me and God is okay with where I'm at. I have never heard that until a few weeks ago. I'm 34 physical year old and I have always believed that in order for God to love me or accept me I just had to do a little more or try a little harder or read the Bible a little more often. I am only now learning that where I am, in this moment, in this breath, in this moment of existence, is still within God's love, still within God's acceptance." "David, As one who defended your original actions as being well intended, I have to admit you are starting to sound terribly arrogant. It is hard for you to sit in judgement of so many other churches and faiths when you have only peripheral knowledge of their practices." "i have reached my ability to continue this conversation. i wrote in detail about this on another post in this blog. you are all completely invited to continue the discussion here, but for my safety, i'm no longer going to read it." These people need our prayers. They have immersed themselves within a bankrupt philosophy that rips at their, at our, need for relationship. It promises that if they forego knowledge and logic and reason, they will attain the elusive relational experience to fill the empty void in their lives. We can't really blame them... we've pushed a form of that philosophy for years - "God has a Plan for You!" In their immaturity, they are sincerely yearning for something to give their lives meaning... but they've ended up in a room full of mirrors - continuously gazing at themselves. "I want, I need, you have no right to judge, how arrogant you are, my experience, I'm tired, I have the right, God loves me just how I am, etc., etc., etc." I fear that they aren't our church... they are our mission field.

When Proverbs mean Proverbs...

I taught a class last year on interpreting the Bible. We reviewed Playing With Fire, by Walt Russell, a professor from Biola University. Essentially, Russell posits that in interpreting the Bible we need to be cognizant of the literary genres involved. This makes sense, since the information in the Bible is conveyed to us, by God, in written form. Written forms vary and that variance will influence how we interpret the intended meaning. So far so good. But I ran into a few difficulties when reviewing the genre of Wisdom Literature, in particular, the book of Proverbs. There are some Christians who believe that the Proverbs are, because they are part of the Bible, actually promises by God. I find this confusing if not for the simple fact that the the title of the book is, again, Proverbs. This brings us to the Focus on the Family website which has a question posted that asks, "You have said that the children of godly parents sometimes go into severe rebellion and never return to the faith they were taught. I have seen that happen to some wonderful families that loved the Lord and were committed to the church. Still, it appears contradictory to Scripture. How do you interpret Proverbs 22:6 (KJV), which says, "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it"? Doesn't that verse mean, as it implies, that the children of wise and dedicated Christian parents will never be lost? Doesn't it promise that all wayward offspring will return, sooner or later, to the fold?" The answer is interesting. I won't list the entire answer, but here is an excerpt, "I wish Solomon's message to us could be interpreted that definitively. I know that the common understanding of the passage is to accept it as a divine guarantee, but it was not expressed in that context... the proverbs appear to represent likelihoods rather than absolutes with God's personal guarantee attached. This interpretation of the Scripture is somewhat controversial among laymen, but less so among biblical scholars... " I believe that here we have another example of the need for us, as Christians, to be careful not to come to the Bible with pre-conceived notions in mind. It is difficult, if not impossible, to be sure; but the results are a better understanding of what God intends to tell us in the scriptures, rather than what we may hope to find.

Epiphany...

January 6th. Kings Day. Historically in the Western Church, since around A.D. 300, January 6th has been celebrated as the date of the visit of the Magi. An earlier post outlines how one scholar feels the early Church came up with this date. A study at The Biblical Studies Foundation provides some basis for the following. Even though it’s always depicted as such, the Magi’s visit was not done to the manger where Jesus was placed. Why do we see it that way? Maybe it’s because we’re lazy or maybe it’s just because no one really cares to get it right. In all likelihood, Jesus was anywhere from a few months to about 18 months old when the wise men left their gifts. This is surmised due to several reasons: Note that the text indicates the passage of time after Jesus’ birth, “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, in the time of King Herod, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem” – Matthew 2:1 (NET) (emphasis added); note, also, the apparent passage of time since the beginning of the magi’s journey, “…wise men from the East came to Jerusalem saying, “Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”… Then Herod privately summoned the wise men and determined from them when the star had appeared.” – Matthew 2:1-7 (NET); note that the text describes the Magi’s visit was to a house, and not a stable; finally, note the age of the children that were slaughtered by Herod in his attempt to do away with the future king. Another interesting tidbit is that there is no mention of three wise men… only that there were wise men. So much for the song, We Three Kings. What about the Star that guided the wise men? Hugh Ross at Reasons to Believe wrote a short piece titled, The Christmas Star, analyzing the possibilities of what the star could have been, as well as giving his take on the visit of the magi. First, although translated as astrologer, the derivative of the term magi means oriental scientist or wise man. The same Babylonian word would have been used to describe Daniel and his friends as wise men in the king’s court. The Magi who visited Jesus may have come from the same legacy as Daniel. It is interesting to note that Matthew says very little about these Gentile wise men and the Divine guidance that led them to worship the Messiah. The Star, based solely on the Greek, could have been anything from a meteor, to a comet, to a planet, to a star. Most astronomers think it was either a conjunction of planets, a comet, or a supernova. The problem with this interpretation comes when one attempts to compare this account with those of other civilizations. There is no mention of an astronomical event, of that magnitude, during the time that Christ would have been born. Keep in mind that ancient civilizations were much more aware of the heavens than we typically are. Any event in the night sky sufficient to cause wise men to travel to a far away land would certainly have been mentioned by neighboring groups. But we see no mention of such an event. A rare recurring nova may have occurred, thereby allowing the star to brighten and dim, as the text seems to indicate. ““For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”… After listening to the king they left, and once again the star they saw when it rose led them until it stopped above the place where the child was. When they saw the star they shouted joyfully.” – Matthew 2:2, 9 (NET) Such an event could be sufficiently rare enough to garner the attention of the magi, while also being sufficiently unspectacular enough to not be recorded in other civilization’s records. This option, though, is by no means conclusive, and there are staff members within Dr. Ross’ organization who disagree with it. Compounding the mystery is the manner in which the star seemed to guide the wise men. “After listening to the king they left, and once again the star they saw when it rose led them until it stopped above the place where the child was.” – Matthew 2:9 (NET) Normal astronomical events do not move in such a manner as to guide someone to a specific geographical location. The text, though, seems to indicate that the event of the star was designed to coincide with timing rather than location, for the kings asked of Herod, ““Where is the one who is born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”” – Matthew 2:2 (NET) It was up to Herod’s wise men to specify the location of Messiah’s birth to the Magi. Therefore, another conclusion regarding the star is that the event was not strictly physical in nature, but was evidence of God’s supernatural authority. Some feel that the account of the star is evidence of God’s Shekinah glory. Others disagree on the grounds that the Greek text used for the word star does not support that interpretation. What of the gifts brought to King Jesus? Some have mentioned that the gold, frankincense, and myrrh are symbolic, in a specific sense, for Jesus the Messiah: Gold – a gift for a King; frankincense – a gift used in worship; and myrrh – a gift used for embalming (foreshadowing His future death). Others have said that the timing of the gifts, immediately prior to the flight to Egypt, indicates their specific purpose to fund that journey. Finally, it is also interesting that there is only one account of the Magi’s visit recorded in the Gospels. So although we’ve gained knowledge on the event, we’re still left with many unanswered questions… who were the Magi exactly?, where did they come from?, what prophecies did they read that guided their journey?, what was the star that guided them?, when did the event occur?, why is it not mentioned in the other Gospels? One question we do have the answer to, though, is: Who was the King they came to worship?

How 'bout some Em-pathy?...

Am I being too hard on the Em-Church? Maybe so. I tend to get that way when I hear arguments along the lines of, "Well, as long as it's bringing people to Christ..." Why should we have to rationalize a church movement? Shouldn't we, rather, be striving to disciple Christians in the Word? Yes, I know that we have different styles of worship and different bents that will emerge as denominations. But I don't think that's the issue here. I believe what's going on here strikes at the core of how we, or they, perceive Christianity. Read the article. Check the general feel of what is preached - we are witnessing a marketing approach clothed in the guise of connecting with kindred souls. Unfortunately, emotional experience tends to trump knowledge in our culture. We tend to give authority towards something that moves us emotionally and relegate to the lower realms anything that requires thinking. And, unfortunately, emotional experience is extremely self-centered. Yet, can we really blame the post-moderns for wanting this experiential aspect of life - when our style of worship and our walk with God seems to be driven by it as well? This, I believe, is the core of the issue - our insatiable appetite to be stroked. It has nothing to do with meeting 18-30 year old's needs, or those of the now 10-17 year olds. If it did we should get a jump on things and start a marketing plan to kick off in 2018, when the current 3 year olds turn 18. It's ludicrous. And it's ludicrous because, in our American mentality, we're looking at it like it's a marketing plan. The Christianity Today article closes with, "We're waiting to see what emerges once Emergent becomes mainstream." I predict Emergent churches will never become mainstream. And I predict this for the same reason that you find people now wanting to get their tatoos removed. They grow up.

Emergent Church...

Evangelical Outpost outdoes himself again with a report on the Emergent Church movement. Has the Emergent Church Emerged? per Christianity Today. JPC wonders if it is just another version of Seeker-centered outreach? I wonder if it just another variation of our self-centered worldview? We seem to be so concerned with life meeting our needs don't we? Rob Moll, in Christianity Today, states, "First, in case you don't know, "Emergent is first and foremost a friendship, a network of warm and mutually encouraging relationships," according to the official Emergent website. The idea is that Christianity, as we often see it, is outmoded. Postmodernity has taken hold in our culture and the church needs to adapt or die." (emphasis added) I disagree. Christianity outmoded? Adapt or die (see my previous post)? Let's be real here. First and foremost, what these people want are experiences. This is the mantra for Post-moderns - give me an experience. It's an honest request... it's also incredibly selfish. What is outmoded is the idea that we have a historical connection with tradition and the people that made up that tradition. The Biblical Worldview shows quite a different story with regards to historical understanding. Whether it be Israel or the early Church, we see a people that understood where they came from and how, not only their ancestors fit into God's Plan, but how they fit into it as well. Don't take my word for it... read it for yourself. So, instead of educating a-historical individuals that have a self-centered, narcissistic worldview, with the proper Biblical Worldview, we've bent over backwards to deliver a church service to them in a manner that won't offend them. Heaven forbid that they should be told of the shallowness of their philosophy. I'm aware that we need to take care not to criticize too harshly any program that is bringing people to Christ, but the issue, as I see it, has more to do with properly discipling believers than catering to their whims. Yes, to be sure, there are emergent churches out there interested in feeding the hungry, or clothing the naked, but at first glance it appears to be merely an informal committment at best. "Scum of the Earth (that's the actual name of the church) founded by the Christian band Five Iron Frenzy says, "They want to sing, they don't want to be sung to. They don't want to go to church to listen to a sermon, watch a drama skit and go home without talking to anyone. They want to offer a spare bedroom to a stranger who got kicked out of the house. Most of all, they come to Scum of the Earth Church to connect with kindred souls." The MTV generation's distrust of anything polished, marketed, political, or conformist is driving the trend. "You can come in here and not have everyone stare at you," said one Scum of the Earth member, "who until recently wore dreadlocks and still stands out with nine body piercings."" (emphasis added) They want, they don't want, they want, they don't want... Sounds like my 3 year old. Now, as Joe Carter has said, we don't want to lump all people into one basket, and there are probably sincere and theologically sound emergent churches out there. But, what I'd like to see are some pastors with the guts to say, "Tell me what you want and I'll give you what you need!"

Natural Selection & Church Growth...

Richard John Neuhaus, in First Things November 2003, brings up the issue of church growth in the Protestant arena (he's Catholic). He makes an interesting connection between the idea of Natural Selection (survival of the fittest) with the many variations and adaptations we see in church growth programs. "It must be twenty years ago that the “church growth movement” was the big new thing in American Protestantism. It’s not so new anymore, but it goes on and on. Writing in Nicotine Theological Journal... Brian Pieters takes note of current evangelical books claiming that “the age of the Church is over.” The message is that Semper Reformanda, understood as perpetual change, is the imperative for survival-oriented spiritualities devoted to becoming rather than being, and so forth. The Protestant Church as we have known it is doomed to the fate of the dinosaur. Pieters writes: “Reading these words prompts one to wonder: whoever claimed that evangelicals don’t believe in evolution? These people are the veriest of Darwinists, only they have cut it out of their biology texts and pasted it into their church growth books. Really, it’s all there: dinosaurs, a hostile environment, muting genes, and natural selection (i.e., seekers). Indeed there seems no more firmly held and shared conviction about the Church today than the theory of evolution. Pick up any church growth manual today, and if you are sturdy enough to wade through some bizarre neologisms, you are bound eventually to wind up with this impassioned plea: Change or die! ”" Have we, in our shortsightedness, become so concerned with numbers, as in quantity of people sitting in church, that we have forgotten the foundation of the Church? If your church has seating for 1,000 people but only gets 50 each Sunday... is that a bad thing? Should you change your marketing strategy (and, let's be honest here, church growth strategies are marketing strategies)? What would you rather have between these two options: 1) 1,000 people marginally committed to Christ or, 2) 50 people with a genuine heart for God? These are questions I ponder as I survey the Seeker-centered mentality within Evangelical circles. We seem to be so concerned with making church a comfortable, safe place for the non-churched person to show up at, that we've washed away any remaining substance to the message. In our efforts to make church a non-boring environment for our short-attention-span culture are we indeed following the concept of Natural Selection? Are we truly adapting to survive? Where is that concept presented in the Bible?

Rationality and Belief in God...

The Evangelical Outpost has a post on Is Belief in God Rational? :Reformed Epistemology and Properly Basic Beliefs and Walloworld follows up as well with Rational Beliefs. They're good reads and its worth noting here as well that belief in God does not have to be justified with evidence. In his book Faith & Reason, Ron Nash tells of how Alvin Plantinga stunned the philosophical world in an exchange with an atheist in which the atheist basically demanded that Plantinga present his evidence for a rational belief in God. Plantinga responds by saying that "I don't have to give any proof for a rational belief in God." The atheist says, "Yes you do," to which Plantinga says, "No I don't," to which the atheist says, "Yes you do," to which Plantinga says "No I don't," and so forth and so on. Here is where Nash describes Plantinga's rejection of evidentialism. Evidentialism rests on this pattern: 1) It is irrational to accept theistic belief in the absence of sufficient evidence, 2) There is sufficient evidence to support belief in God, 3) Therefore, belief in God is rational. Plantinga accepts # 3 and # 2, but even though he believes there may be reasons to support belief in God, he believes those reasons are not necessary to make such a belief rational. Therefore, he rejects # 1. Nash then explains evidentialism's two fatal flaws: 1) If true, evidentialism would undercut all epistemic activity. There are a number of things we believe without proof - We believe in the existence of minds, we believe that the world continues to exist even while we aren't perceiving it. 2) The thesis states it is immoral to believe anything without sufficient proof - but where is the proof for such a claim? Finally, Plantinga's approach is important because it prevents the atheist from cornering the Christian into the unfair position of justifying something that needs no justification. Why start off in defensive mode when it isn't necessary?

Up for the Weekly "Who Cares?" Award...

MSNBC - Spears marries childhood friend in Las Vegas chapel I must confess that I've never heard a Broccoli Spears song so I can only conclude that she is so bereft of talent that she must resort to a stunt like this to garner attention. We shouldn't really be surprised though... any walk through a mall will quickly let you know we are a bored culture that really doesn't know what to spend our abundance of money on.

We got it...

That's the Spirit! Mars Rover Lands Safely on Mars Spirit has landed on Mars and is sending signals back to Earth. Hopes are that the first images will come in within the next few hours. NOVA will broadcast Mars Dead or Alive Sunday night at 8pm. UPDATE Sunday 7a.m.: Spirit's First Images of the Red Planet Be on the lookout for a bit of ill-logic as you hear reports on this mission. In 1997, when the Pathfinder landed, I heard a NASA scientist exclaim that if "we can find life or the evidence of life then it means that life is not a miracle." (emphasis added) Statements like that are flat-out wrong. Even if life was to have originated (been created) on Mars, that does not mandate that it was not a miracle event. One must ascertain the probabilities involved before showing that the events are common. For instance, if the chance of life originating on Earth, by chance, is one in 10^10,000 (just to throw out a number), does finding life on Mars drop those chances down to common event status? Hardly. It simply means that you now have two miracles to deal with.

Intelligent Design rundown...

After getting an inquiry regarding Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, and its relevance to the Intelligent Design movement, I decided to list books I have read that, in my opinion, deal with the ID movement in one way or another. This list is by no means comprehensive and the order of the books listed is not of any particular significance. It is just FYI… The Creator & the Cosmos – Hugh Ross, Christian astronomer / physicist, President of Reasons to Believe; Hugh presents, from an astronomer’s perspective, the fine tuned aspects of the universe and how it points towards not only a Designer, but the God of the Bible as the Designer. The evidence put forth is very powerful because it is very quantifiable, unlike the data found in biological sciences. Darwin’s Black Box – Michael Behe, Intelligent Design proponent, Catholic; Behe, a molecular biologist stunned the scientific world with his 1996 book which has caused all sorts of conniptions in his field. The premise is simple – there exists a concept of irreducible complexity in which a functioning system is reduced to its component parts, each of which is needed for functionality. Remove any one of the parts and the system ceases to function. Therefore, is there a Darwinian method by which the system can be built up from its aggregate parts? Behe says there isn’t. His critics cry “foul” and posit the existence of evolutionary pathways that have long since been replaced by what appear to be irreducibly complex pathways. Imaginary pathways remain imaginary... Behe's request of a solid evolutionary pathway remains unanswered. Evolution: a Theory in Crisis – Michael Denton, Intelligent Design proponent, Agnostic; Denton’s in-depth analysis of Evolution in 1986 was pivotal in influencing many an ID proponent, Behe included. Critics mainly accuse Denton of misquoting others or they point to the apparent fact that Denton has since accepted Evolution – neither of which are true. It is interesting to note that Denton’s biological analyses have remained intact all these years. Nature’s Destiny – Michael Denton; Denton seems to do an about-face with this book in which he appears to claim adherence to Evolutionary theory. One wonders why he remains as a fellow with the Discovery Institute if this is the case? Actually, being an agnostic, he has a hard time accepting a Designer in the Christian sense and he rather fancies an approach in which Nature has programmed into itself the purpose of developing humans through the eons of time – close to Theistic Evolution in a way, but in no way accepting of the blind chance aspect of Naturalism. Intelligent Design – William Dembski, Intelligent Design proponent, Christian; Dembski presents a layman’s guide to his contribution to the ID field and, in particular, the concept of Complex Specified Information. He also presents an approach with which to scientifically determine design by means of quantifying biological structures in terms of bits of information. Darwin on Trial – Phillip Johnson, ID proponent, Christian; Johnson takes a lawyer’s approach to the philosophy of Evolutionism and how it permeates our science classrooms. He also shows the bad reasoning used in the Darwinian models. One the ground-breaking books in the ID movement. The Origin of Species – Charles Darwin, Evolutionist; The book that started it all, from the Darwinist point of view anyway. Well thought out, but not without errors. Darwin makes assumptions, which he acknowledges, but which evolutionists now seem to disregard. Rare Earth – Donald Brownlee & Peter Ward, Evolutionists, Agnostic and Atheist; The field of astrobiology is addressed here in an excellent guide to the uniqueness of Earth as a harbor for advanced life. A good picture of the events in Earth’s past that contributed to preparing an environment for human life. Beyond the Cosmos – Hugh Ross; Building off the advances in physics, namely, String Theory, Ross shows how multi-dimensionality allows for resolution of some typical Biblical paradoxes such as the Trinity, predestination, etc. Criticized mainly by Christian philosophers, it does not purport to tell how God accomplishes these feats, only a manner in which He could. Defeating Darwinism: by Opening Minds – Phillip Johnson; Johnson wrote this book as a primer mainly for high school students, youth pastors, parents, etc., to educate them to the basics of the Darwinian way of thinking. The Elegant Universe – Brian Greene, non-Christian; Greene takes us on a trip through the world of multi-dimensionality of String Theory – the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Excellent resource for the fine tuning involved in keeping this universe intact. Of Pandas & People – Dean Kenyon, ID proponent; A companion book to be used in Jr. High and High School biology classes presenting the ID perspective through a rational analysis of typically held naturalistic beliefs. What if the Moon Didn’t Exist? – Neil Comins, Evolutionist; A so-so analysis of the importance of the Moon for life on Earth. Although he does a good job of detailing out the Moon’s importance, he too often posits evolutionary sequences as if they were givens in the equation. Conjecture and unsupported environmentalism mar this book’s potential. Buy it only if you see it in a used book store. A Brief History of Time – Stephen Hawking, Agnostic; Hawking’s classic which brought cosmology into the living room. Useful if read with Carl Sagan’s preface in mind… that Hawking attempts to do away with any need for God. He fails. How Now Shall We Live? – Chuck Colson & Nancy Pearcey, Christian; Not truly an ID book per se, but it does delve into the aspects of ID and how they pertain to addressing the Christian answer to how we got here. Night Comes to the Cretaceous – James Powell, non-Christian; Another book that is not necessarily ID in its scope, but it addresses the manner in which science works – whether it be the actual research or the politics involved. Describes how the impact theory of the demise of the dinosaurs came to be. Origins – Robert Shapiro, non-Theist; Shapiro has fallen out of favor with the origin of life crowd because he sees no way for a chance origin to have occurred. They haven’t kicked him out of their meetings, though, because he truly knows so much. Yet, even though he doesn’t subscribe to the chance origin theory he does not accept what he calls “the myth” of creation. Rather, he believes the answer is found in an area probably inaccessible to us… clays. Regardless, he does an excellent job of showing the utter impossibility of life originating by chance and he does this by detailing the immense complexity involved in even the simplest building blocks of life. Afterglow of Creation – Marcus Chown, non-Christian; Chown writes for the layman on the research behind the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) maps. A wonderful polemic for the Big Bang and the intense fine tuning involved within it. Show Me God – Fred Heeren, Christian; Not a scientist, but a reporter, Heeren does a wonderful job of presenting to the layman, the developments in the world of cosmology, from the Big Bang to COBE, that point to the God of the Bible. Icons of Evolution – Jonathan Wells, ID proponent; Wells presents an analysis of several “icons” of evolution that have permeated science literature as “proofs” of the evolutionary theory but, in reality, are nothing more than smokescreens. Eugenie Scott, non-Theist, and head of an anti-creationist organization, said that this book would be a royal pain in the neck. God & the Astronomers – Robert Jastrow, Evolutionist, Agnostic; An out of print book that you may still be able to find in used bookstores. Jastrow takes naturalists to task for ignoring the possibility of a theistic answer to the origin of the universe. He closes the book with, “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” To Engineer is Human – Henry Petroski, non-Christian; Another book that is strictly not related to the ID movement, but it is beneficial nonetheless. Petroski shows the layman how the act of engineering works and how human fallibility enters into the picture. He analyzes various engineering failures, detailing the why and how of such failures. A good primer on the aspects of Design as applied to engineering. Finding Darwin’s God – Ken Miller, Evolutionist, Catholic; Written in response to Michael Behe’s book, Miller attempts to refute Behe’s claims. This book is considered by Bill Dembski (ID proponent) to be the best attack on Intelligent Design put forth by Evolutionists. Miller fails on theological grounds, and his science is best addressed by Behe and his colleagues. Tower of Babel – Robert Pennock, Evolutionist; Pennock attempts to discredit the ID movement, Phillip Johnson and William Dembski in particular, through a series of attacks on the concepts used. Not a scientist, Pennock uses tactics that are suspect, as well as not well thought through. The title should be a good indication of the root of his attack. His major premise, that language is a good indicator of the Darwinian method in action, fails miserably.

Jeanne Dixon & Pat Robertson...

Pat Robertson: God Says Bush Will Win in 2004, per Fox News. "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk," Robertson said on his "700 Club" program on the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded. "I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord it's going to be like a blowout election in 2004. It's shaping up that way." (emphasis added) I hope Pat checked this passage in Deuteronomy before he made that statement... When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, you must not learn the abhorrent practices of those nations. There must never be found among you anyone who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, anyone who practices divination, an omen reader, a soothsayer, a sorcerer, one who casts spells, one who conjures up spirits, a practitioner of the occult, or a necromancer. Whoever does these things is abhorrent to the Lord and because of these things the Lord your God is about to drive them out from before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God. Those nations that you are about to dispossess listen to omen readers and diviners, but the Lord your God has not given you permission to do such things. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you—from your fellow Israelites; you must listen to him. This accords with what happened at Horeb in the day of the assembly. You asked the Lord your God: “Please do not make us hear the voice of the Lord our God any more or see this great fire any more lest we die.” The Lord then said to me, “What they have said is good. I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites. I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command. I will personally hold responsible anyone who then pays no attention to the words that prophet speaks in my name. “But if any prophet presumes to speak anything in my name that I have not authorized him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die. Now if you say to yourselves, ‘How can we tell that a message is not from the Lord?’ whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.” - Deuteronomy 18:9-22 (NET)

It's Showtime...

The Mars lander Spirit is set for a landing on the Red Planet tonight. If all goes well. First, the lander must survive an entry into Mars' thin atmosphere. Then the drag parachute must successfully deploy. After that, a series of airbags will inflate to cushion the impact on the Martian surface. Finally, the lander must survive impact and the possibility of bouncing for up to half a mile along the rocky surface. If it makes it through this series of events it must still be able to deploy itself properly and set up to receive and transmit information. We should know no later than Sunday night whether it landed successfully or not.

Evangelical Outpost...

has written some kind words about me on two occasions in the past week. You can find them here, and here. Please make his blog a daily stop as it is intelligent, insightful, and always informative.

Accept people the way they are...

We had our interim pastor do a "skit" of sorts a few weeks ago. I was not in church that morning but I've heard of this being done before in one way or another. What he did was to come down the aisle dressed similar to a homeless person. It was an eye opening illustration designed with the intent to get one to think. He then addressed the congregation with the essential message of, "Accept people the way they are." Well... maybe. If the person you meet, dressed or looking ragged, does not have the means or understanding to present themselves fit for public viewing, then by all means - accept them as they are. But if the person is aware, or should be aware, of rules of proper conduct - they have set themselves up for chastisement. You are in a position to accept the person but not the behavior. The responsibility would then fall on our shoulders to insure that we convey God's love to them in a respectful manner. Consider if this pastor were to decide to dress in that manner as a matter of practice? (I know this person, and I know that this would not happen) Would we, as a congregation, simply have to accept him as he was? I think not. The reason being that he knows better. It's pretty much that simple.

There but for the Grace of God...

Check Remembering the Gulag, in the November 2003 issue of First Things. It's a brief, but chilly account of the surprisingly untold story of the Gulag system in the Soviet Union. We hear about the holocaust, but rarely about life in the Gulag. Besides the horror involved, it got me to thinking about the depravity of man, and the justice of God. Consider, "In yet another example of the Gulag’s slipshod administration, investigators repeatedly complained about the practice of housing adolescent prisoners in camps for adults, contrary to Moscow’s instructions. Ex-prisoner Lev Razgon recalled of these youths that “the horror of what had happened had deprived them of all defenses,” and that the adult criminal prisoners found it easy to recruit and corrupt them. They soon “displayed a frightening and incorrigibly vengeful cruelty, without restraint or responsibility. . . . The guards and camp bosses were scared to enter the separate barracks where the juveniles lived. It was there that the vilest, most cynical, and cruel acts that took place in the camps occurred. . . . The girls boasted that they could satisfy an entire team of tree-fellers. There was nothing human left in these children and it was impossible to imagine that they might return to the normal world and become ordinary human beings again.”" How can I compare my existence as a child with that of an unfortunate individual who happened to find themselves in a Gulag camp? If I had been in their situation, how would I have reacted? How much can I blame them for their choices? Understand that I believe God to be just. Therefore, I believe that His judgments, in the end, will be equitable. Yet, the questions remain...

Clarification on Warren...

I've had some people take issue with my opinions on Rick Warren and / or his book The Purpose Driven Life (not to be confused with the recently released book by Flipper titled, The Porpoise Driven Life). Lousy jokes aside, I think the main issue I have with the way Warren approaches the issue is that of clarity. He doesn't present the Gospel in a clear enough manner that explains exactly why we need Christ. Sure, he talks about stuff (instead of sin) and the fact that it's not about us, but about God. But the thrust of the book is what?... your purpose driven life. How well do you think the book would have sold with a title along the lines of, How to be a Part of God's Purpose?, or God Has a Plan, Sign Up. The point is that Warren's book is marketed to appeal to our sense of individual purpose. Is this consistent with a Biblical Worldview? Do we see Israel modeling this type of approach in following God's Plan? Do we see the Apostles writing letters to the churches encouraging them to find out what God has in store for them? Don't take my word for it. Read the Bible for yourself and see what it says. Another issue I have with the likes of Warren's book, and books similar, such as The Prayer of Jabez, is that of their poor interpretive skills. They take verses out of context to suit the needs of the point the author is attempting to make. Check out Never Read a Bible Verse by Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason. We have gotten lazy in our reading of scripture and tend to focus solely on single verses, rather than entire passages. At best, it makes for lousy spiritual growth, and at worst, it severely hinders new Christians and their walk with God. Instead of throwing away Warren's book entirely, how about backing it up with something along the lines of How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth by Gordon Fee, or The Word of God in English by Leland Ryken, or Playing With Fire by Walt Russell?

Food & Drinks...

If your church is like ours, then between services you have some latte station where parishioners can get their added jolt to help them through the morning. There is probably also a table with donuts or pastries for a sugar-fix as well. Call it a sign of the times or just another indicator of the lack of manners so prevalent amongst our culture, but there has arisen the need for a sign to be erected in the foyer of the church which reminds parishioners that “Food & Drinks are not allowed in the sanctuary.” Call me an old-fogey, or just say I’m expecting too much, but when I was in high school that sign would not have been needed… we would have known not to enter the sanctuary with a café mocha in one hand and a Krispy Kreme in the other. We understood that a certain amount of respect was expected within the sanctuary.

Seeker-Sensitive...

Our church is looking for a new senior pastor. Nothing juicy has happened. The former senior pastor resigned for health reasons a few months ago, so that puts us in the position of looking for a new one. Now, the quest for a new senior pastor, as one might expect, is fraught with politics and prejudice. In our situation, as I see it, there are two factors compounding the matter: Age, and Target Audience. Age. Put simply, there are some people who feel that the new senior pastor should not be over a certain age, let’s say… 45. I suppose the request for this requirement – you can’t really call it a pre-requisite because pre-requisites are usually something you attain, not grow out of – anyway, the request for this requirement is probably driven by the age of those making the request. It is probably to be expected that such a request will be made, and there are some pragmatic reasons to be had for such a request: you relate a bit better with someone who is closer to your own age; you can expect a younger person to stay on the job longer than an older person; you can expect a younger person to draw in a younger crowd; etc. But, pragmatism aside, it is an invalid request. In matters of leadership, youthful exuberance loses to the wisdom of experience every time. Truth be told, if it comes down simply to a question of age, then the congregation should be looking for someone over 45, not under. Yet, age is not sufficient, in and of itself, to be used as a determining indicator of the worthiness of an individual to lead a congregation as senior pastor. Perhaps, just perhaps, this is why it is not among the qualities that Paul lists in either Titus or 1 Timothy for leadership positions within the church. Target Audience. Seeker-sensitive, Purpose Driven Life, Purpose Driven Church, whatever… we as a church seem to have fallen for the idea that we are to make our church service and / or life as appealing to the non-Christian as possible – to the point of glossing over sound Church doctrines. We seem to be looking for a pastor that is concerned with being seeker-centered. After all, so the thinking goes, our membership is lacking and there are many post-moderns out there just yearning for an experience to give their lives meaning… and we can give that to them, but only if we change church from the boring humdrum ritual they perceive it to be. The only problem here is that we are not meant to make church exciting to non-Christians. We are meant to worship God. If church seems foreign and / or boring to a non-Christian, rejoice. What? Rejoice? Yes, rejoice. Should you be surprised that a non-Christian misunderstands the liturgy? We have got to come back to the understanding that Sunday church service is primarily about worshipping God and developing our spiritual formation – discipleship. Evangelism takes a back seat to that. Ouch! As Greg Koukl likes to say, we need to be Seeker-sensitive, not Seeker-centered.

Security in 2004...

Oil tankers steam away from Alaska: Caution against terrorism comes as safety deadline passes per MSNBC. "Oil tankers began moving out to sea Wednesday away from the port at Valdez, Alaska, as a precaution against a potential terrorist threat, Coast Guard officials told NBC News. Officials stressed that the tankers were moved away from Valdez as a precaution, not as the result of a specific threat. Valdez, the site of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline Terminal, has been mentioned in intercepted communications between suspected terrorists picked up by U.S. intelligence in the past two weeks, the officials said. About a million barrels of crude oil flow through the pipeline each day, about 17 percent of U.S. domestic oil production." I worked at the unloading terminal in Valdez almost ten years ago. It's an interesting place... the northern-most ice-free port in Alaska - hence, the end of the road for the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline which runs from Prudhoe Bay in the north. The average snowfall in Valdez is 35 feet per year. That's right, 35 FEET. The population in the town is only about 3,000. The nearest other town, by road, is about 90 miles away and is smaller in size. By boat, there's a fishing village about 30 miles away, if memory serves me correct. In all likelihood, the tankers in Valdez pose little security risk. The biggest concern there should be the pipeline which, obviously, can't be moved. Yet there are a lot of open areas between Valdez and Prudhoe Bay in which the pipeline could be sabotaged. It will remain a security risk as it has for the last 25 years. One should note that even though the pipeline has 17 percent of the U.S. domestic oil production flowing through it, it does not account for 17 percent of the U.S. oil consumption... different numbers.