Two or Three (.net)

New RSS Feed for Two or Three

2005-04-27T23:08:00.000-07:00

If you are seeing this, you are subscribed to our old feed - this URL will no longer be receiving any posts. Please visit www.twoorthree.net to pick one of our feeds, or you may just subscribe to http://www.twoorthree.net/atom.xml.

Also, you may notice that many of the imported articles have lost some or all of their comments. That's part of the deal, I guess. So time to make new comments!

We Have Moved Our Site

2005-04-25T22:28:00.000-07:00

This location at blogspot is no longer our true location. Our new home can be found by going to www.twoorthree.net.

Note that our feed RSS has not changed, since it was always via feedburner. Thanks!

Blog Changes

2005-04-21T10:50:00.000-07:00

We are looking at making some major changes to the blog. That is one of the reasons why not much has been posted here. As soon as everything is finalized, we will let you know and you will be able to see all the changes.

Thank you for your understanding during this transition phase!

The new pope has been chosen, let the whining begin

2005-04-19T10:47:00.000-07:00

German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict XVI.

Many stories characterize Cardinal Ratzinger as being essentially Pope John Paul II's right hand man. So do not look for any changes in church doctrine.

I found this prediction from TKS a bit like predicting liberals will oppose a given judicial nominee by President Bush. Nevertheless, it makes a good point.

So – how soon after the new Pope is chosen, does some thumb-sucking columnist point to one of the guys who wasn't chosen and lament that the Church has missed a golden opportunity to reach out to constituency X? “In selecting Pope Whoever over Cardinal Arinze, the Cardinals blew a chance to reach out to the African continent.” “By skipping over Cardinal Hummes, Church leaders fumbled a chance to solidify their influence over Latin America.” And if it’s not geography, it will be ideology – “by picking this traditionalist, the Church has ignored its waning influence among Europeans seeking a more progressive voice,” etc.

I haven't had the chance to look yet, but I am sure it has already happened. All of the news shows tonight will be blanketed with stories of the "almost Popes" and how much of any impact they could have made, how great they would have been, how super every thing would be if they would just allow the New York Times editorial staff to chose the Pope.

I pray that Pope Benedict XVI will lead the Catholic church with grace and guidance from the Holy Spirit.

Update: It has already begun.

Update 2: At least they aren't confusing the new pope with Cliff from Cheers like some other news outlets are.

What Liberals Want (and Why Judicial Confirmations Matter)

2005-04-19T10:35:00.000-07:00

John Hinderaker of Power Line has an excellent column today for The Weekly Standard on what the Left is attempting to accomplish through judicial activism and the effect that those efforts would have on the Constitution as we know it. His column only confirms the critical nature of the looming battle over judicial nominess. It's time to put an end to filibusters and move forward on these nominations in the Senate.

This is my lucky week

2005-04-19T08:04:00.000-07:00

Apparently, this week is my luckiest week ever. How else could you explain the fact that I should be receiving over $24 million dollars in the next little bit, all because of my email [wardrobedoorblog@yahoo.com]. Somehow I managed to win an international lottery I didn't enter and some guy from Africa died with no relatives leaving me (somehow) as the person to get his money.

Here's my winning lottery announcement:
We are pleased to inform you of the result of the Lottery Winners International programs held on the 14th April,2005 Your e-mail address attached to ticket number 370982217413-1298 with serial number 4708-311 drew lucky numbers 2-34-28-13-62 which consequently won in the 7th category, you have therefore been approved for a lump sum pay of US$5.500,000.00 (five million five hundred thousand united state dollars) CONGRATULATIONS!!!

Here is the story about my long lost African uncle (I guess):
I have a proposal for you, this however is not mandatory nor will I in any manner compel you to honor against your will. I am Mr. Ponfa Oley, an auditor with a bank (one of the African leading banks in South Africa). Here in this bank existed a dormant account for the past 4 years, which belongs to an American national who is now late, Mr. Morris Thompson who died on Alaska Airlines Flight 261.
When I discovered that there had been neither deposits nor withdrawals from this account for this long period, I decided to carry out a system investigation and discovered that none of the family member or relations of the late person is aware of this account. This is the story in a nutshell.
Now I want an account overseas where the bank will transfer these funds. There after, I had planned to destroy all related documents for this account. It is a careful network and for the past eleven months I have worked out everything to ensure a hitch-free operation. The amount is not so much at the moment and plus all the accumulated interest the balance in
this account stands at- (US $18.6 million US dollars).

Seriously, it is amazing that so many people fall for these scams. It is sad that every new invention of man is perverted and distored for our own greedy purposes. New inventions are a lot like new days, we can take them and use them for noble purposes and to benefit others. We can also take them, twist them and use them for own our selfish desires.

Just like it is easy for me to talk about how stupid the Isralites must have been to continue to disobey God or Samson to continue to trust Delilah, it is easy for me to condemn the people who send these emails out trying to rip people off. But I am guilty of making stupid mistakes and trying to push myself up by stepping on others. Too often, I hear God's voice and I ignore it, only to ask God why He let these bad things happen to me. Too often, I am guilty of using others (my wife, my family, my friends, my co-workers) simply to boost my pride and stroke my ego.

Maybe this is my lucky week after all. Maybe I will finally stop making the same stupid mistakes and actually be a doer of the word instead of just a hearer. Maybe I will actually place others before myself. That would be worth a lot more than $24 million dollars. (Not that the money would hurt ;) )

The dangers of a politician filled pulpit

2005-04-18T10:09:00.000-07:00

Stones Cry Out has an excellent post on why Christians should be the ones to seperate the local church from politics.

It is not that Christians should not be involved politically, but rather the time for political involvement is not during a worship service.

Jim is speaking about the Family Research Council's Justice Sunday. They will simulcast comments from Sen. Bill Frist and others at Highview Baptist Church in Louisville, KY to other churches who sign-up for the satellite feed.

Along with Jim, I don't see any constitutional issue here, but I do see some problems on the church's end.

Last week I talked about an opportunity I had to experience worshipping God in spirit and in truth during our college's Christian Worldview week. That was during the Monday chapel. I went back Wednesday expecting and anticipating more of the same - I was sadly disappointed.

I sat through a boring, poorly delievered speech (not sermon) on the evils of liberalism, etc. I am as conservative as they come. I agreed with most (if not all) of what the speaker was saying, but I did not want to hear that from the pulpit. All I could see was an evangelical version of the Holy Roman Empire, reading to go out and convert (by any means neccessary) all the infidel liberals. I went to chapel to be challenged and inspired from God's Word, not to hear the latest on the conservative political agenda.

There are many Christian organizations that are set up to engage the political system, but the Church is not of them. We compromise our mission when we attempt to join a conservative agenda to reaching souls for Christ.

I am afraid the evangelical church in America is in danger of becoming just another political demographic for candidates to woo come election time.

Christians neglected their duty to be involved politically until the 1980's, but now we have swung the pendulum too far to the other side. We are no longer neglecting our politically duty in favor of our Christian faith, we are neglecting our Christian faith in favor of our political agenda.

Update: Mark Daniels has more here

Unconstitutional is the new red

2005-04-18T09:40:00.000-07:00

Have you ever been in an debate with someone who kept making your points for you? Were you debating Jermaine O'Neal?

The NBA is considering raising their age limit from 18 to 20, essentially requiring younger kids go to college for a couple of years. O'Neal, who jumped from high school himself, has been one of the most vocal critics of this idea.

Earlier this month, O'Neal gave us this gem:

"As a black guy, you kind of think that's the reason why it's coming up. You don't hear about it in baseball or hockey. To say you have to be 20, 21 to get in the league, it's unconstitutional. If I can go to the U.S. Army and fight the war at 18, why can't you play basketball for 48 minutes?"

Yes that's right, why encourage young kids to go and get an education, that's down right unconstitutional. Who needs an education? We can just say anything we don't like is unconstitutional.

Seriously, O'Neal makes some legitimate points that I have heard others argue much more clearly and effectively (he lost all credibility when he threw "unconstitutional" in there). I would have more sympathy if there was a minor league system like baseball and hockey. Rarely, if ever, do you see someone come up to the pros in those two sports before the age of 20. (It wouldn't hurt my feelings if they put higher age limits on all sports. I think it would make both the college and professional games better.)

But in the NBA, you have kids who just finished their prom traveling across the country with millions of dollars. Not to mention having all the "friends" and women they could ask for, who are all waiting to try to get their hands on some of that money. The temptation to leave early would not nearly be as great, if you knew you would spend at least a couple years working your way through small towns making thousands, not millions, performing for dozens, not thousands. The immediate appeal is not there.

Too many teenagers across this country, black and white, think that the NBA holds all their hopes of "making it" and "being somebody." It is sad to see young guys languishing on an NBA bench, struggling to adjust and not capitalizing on their abilities, when you know if they would have went to college, they could have developed their game and had at least some education (if not a degree) to fall back on if the NBA doesn't pan out.

Sure there are the LeBron Jameses and the Jeremaine O'Neals but there are also countless players who never make it and dozens of high schoolers who get drafted but end up out of the league in a few years because they become overwhelmed.

Being a huge college basketball fan I am biased, but can we at least agree on one thing, if nothing else - a higher age limit for the NBA is not unconstitutional. I don't care what your high school civics teacher said.

Long live Howard Dean the DNC Chairman!

2005-04-18T06:44:00.000-07:00

As infuriating as his comments are, Howard Dean gives more quotable statements than any other politician. Most of those statements are very easily turned back on him and his supporters. This is no exception.

Who else would have the guts to blatently say, "We're going to use Terri Schiavo later on"? (Scroll down, the quote is buried.) Not "We're going to use this issue later on" or even "We're going to use the Terri Schiavo issue later on," but Dean says that the Democrats (he is now their official spokesman) are going to use the now dead person of Terri Schiavo.

I'm sure he or some other Democrat spokesperson will say he was strictly speaking of the issue, not her personally, but he didn't say that. Regardless, he showed no class or compassion in speaking of a deceased woman as a political tool only weeks after she was buried.

Here's another story strictly on Dean's statement, but curiously it leaves out that flamable quote.

I'm sure this will be a lead story on every major newscast and daily newspaper. We have a politician saying they are going to use the death of an individual for political gain. I am holding my breath as I anxiously await this.

Window of opportunity on college campuses

2005-04-15T08:14:00.000-07:00

After an extensive study it seems that a large portion of US college freshman are concerned about spiritual issues.

For many this is nothing more than a passing thing, say a quick prayer to whoever before a test, but for some they are quite devoted to their faith and beliefs. It seems spirituality is coming back in vogue. As I said earlier, hard-core atheism is in decline, most people are now open to the spiritual side of life. This is both a blessing and a curse for Christians and Christianity.

This allows discussions of faith and the spiritual, whereas in earlier years it was deemed unacceptable to talk about such things in public. Many conversions happen in college. It is the place where our faith is either strengthened and developed or weakened and destroyed. (A nice caveat to this study is that a follow-up study will be done to examine what happens to the same students after two years at college.)

This is an open door for Christians to be witnesses on college campuses. The most effective witness will not be those from the outside going in to ministry, although that could be effective, but the best and most impactful evangelism must come from Christian students going to college with a strong, real faith. The survey said that 42% of freshman identified themselves as "secure" in what they believe, but all the evidence is to the contrary. Many Christian young people head off to the state college thinking they know what they believe and are grounded in that, yet too often those same teenagers become jaded, skeptical 20-somethings filling their lives with all the "stuff" they can cram into it, except God.

That will be the downfall of the church in America (it has already been in Europe). We must develop in our Christian teenagers a faith that is sure of itself, that knows questions will come and doubts may linger, but also knows that Christianity is not from cleverly devised tales. We must show them the truth of absolute truth and the contradictions of subjective morality. We must begin to disciple not only our young people but all new converts, if not in the next few decades America will begin to resemble more and more the Europe of today.

Our time is now. The window of opportunity may be closing. I believe it is. Even now, spiritual discussions are allowed and everything is tolerated, except for "intolerant Christianity." We must continue to speak the truth in love, while living the truth in love. A huge impact for Christ can be made with the current seeking generation, but it must be made quickly. The doors will close.

Fostering openness to religious and spiritual diversity is important, but there also need to be boundaries, says [Shelli] Jankowski-Smith, the campus's [Northeastern University] first full-time director for spiritual life. Some cults "prey on college campuses," she says. She recently drew up guidelines, including a distinction between evangelizing and unacceptable forms of proselytizing.

Christianity will be grouped under cult status or marginalized by our "unacceptable forms of proselytizing." While we have the opportunity, work with the young people in your church. Encourage them, strengthen their faith. Sometimes it is a tireless and thankless job, but it is one that must be done if we have any chance of seeing the Kingdom of God grow in the next generations.

More Mind and Media from Two or Three

2005-04-14T07:38:00.000-07:00

I just got my books from Mind & Media yesterday.

I received I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist and Total Truth. Since seeker is already reading/reviewing Total Truth here, I am going to read IDHEFTBAA (that acronym may be as hard and long to type as the actual title). My wife has graciously volunteered to read Total Truth (heh! she loves to read as much as I do) first and allow me to post some of her comments here. Then we will switch (so Mind and Media effectively got two reviews for the price of one).

So far I have been really impressed with Mind and Media. Stacy is running a very professional ministry/business that connects bloggers and book publishers together to give both of us what we want. Bloggers love basically free books (we just have to review them on our blog) and publishers love basically free publicity (they just have to send them to Stacy and then us). If you have a blog and want to be a part of this sign up here.

I must thank the publisher, Crossway Books, for providing Mind and Media with the books to distribute. I think this arrangement is going to work out well for all sides.

But here are my initial thoughts on the book by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek:

I, like seeker, did not think my book would be so large. It is close to 400 pages with almost 60 pages of appendixes, footnotes and indexes. I look forward to this, as the books is supposed to essentially be "your one stop apologetic, answers to skeptics place."

The foreword, which I read last night, is not your average foreword. David Limbaugh writes passionately about the topic and the book for six pages, giving it a glowing endorsement. Along with Limbaugh, endorsements come from a virtual who's who of Christian apologetics and thinkers - Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Phillip E. Johnson, Hank Hanegraaff, Cal Thomas and William A. Dembski.

If the forward and endorsements are any indication, this is going to be one of my favorite apologetics books that I will refer to time and time again like Lee Strobel's The Case For Christ and C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.

Should Children Be Allowed in Worship?

2005-04-12T06:16:00.000-07:00

One of the ongoing debates among evangelical churches is whether children should be part of corporate worship on Sunday mornings. If you survey different churches you are likely to find a variety of approaches to this issue. Not long ago, I ran across this article that really affirmed for me the importance of my children (who are 9 and 7) being with us in corporate worship.

One of the arguments that I hear against having children in worship is their inability to understand fully what is being taught. I've even wondered sometimes whether my children are really grasping what is being preached. Yesterday I was reminded that my children (and children in general) absorb a lot more than adults often give them credit for absorbing.

Not long ago we had a lengthy sermon series in our church on Creation vs. Evolution. We were blessed to have some men come in to speak who were very knowledgeable on the subject and provided a lot of good information to us. Several folks said they didn't need to hear the series because they had heard it before. Some of the information shared was very scientific and technical. My wife referred to it as an "eat your spinach" series. It wasn't necessarily enjoyable but something everyone needed to hear.

Yesterday, my 9 year old daughter was reading a book that we have on mammals. She asked me if she could write a letter to the publisher and send them a Bible because of all the evolution that was in the book. Based on what she had heard in church she had been able to discern that the information presented in her book (which was written specifically for her age group) was full of errors.

This episode only reaffirms for me the importance of our children to be participating in our corporate worship. The Christian faith is "caught" as much as it is "taught". If we expect our children to become believers then they need to be where they can "catch" the faith as well as having it "taught" to them.

An experience of Spirit and Truth

2005-04-11T13:16:00.000-07:00

Today at chapel was the beginning of Christian Worldview week. It was probably one of the most explicit times in my life, when I could feel God saying - "This is worshipping in spirt and in truth."

I have so often wrestled with that phrase from John 4:23. What does it mean to worship in spirt and in truth? I long to become a worshipper that God seeks. How amazing is that? Your worship is so pleasing to God that He seeks after it!

I feel like that was close to being accomplished today at chapel. It was nothing really special. There was a nice time of worship through song - we sang some new praise songs, some older praise songs, some hymns. I could just feel God being pleased by the worship.

Then came the message (still part of the worship). The head of our Christian studies division introduced the topic of Christian Worldview and worldviews in general. His focal passage was
2 Corinthians 10:5.

He spoke about how back when he was younger, the phrase "Christianity is not a religion, it's a relationship" began to take hold. He said that Christianity was more than a religion, it was even more than a relationship, it was also a worldview. It has something to say for every facet of our life.

He called on churches to cease being weekend retreats and become training centers for tearing down those wrong philosophies and then taking every thought captive in obedience to Christ through our Biblical Christian Worldview.

Looking at the verse (2 Cor. 10:5) again, I like how the Message version phrases it: "We use our powerful God-tools for smashing warped philosophies, tearing down barriers erected against the truth of God, fitting every loose thought and emotion and impulse into the structure of life shaped by Christ." That fits right with what a Christian Worldview is to accomplish - fitting every thought, emotion and impulse into the structure of a life shaped by Christ.

He gave two illustrations of what a worldview is:
1) It is like a pair glasses. It brings things into focus. It shapes how we view things. Different people view things differently - because of their worldview. He gave the example of a plane crash some years ago. They interviewed three different people. One guy said that the crash had no effect on him personally. He did not see any type of god in this and didn't see any reason to change the way he viewed the world. A woman said she saw God in this accident. She heard him call to her through the pain to ask her to live more for Him and be about His business because you don't know how long you would be here. Another man said the reason the plane went down was because there was too much negative psychic energy on the plane. Everything is simply a creation of our own mind. Those were three very different ways to view the same thing. They all had different glasses, different worldviews which impacted the way they viewed and reacted to circumstances.
2) It is like a spiderweb. Everything in our minds is connected. We don't have isolated thoughts flying around unrelated to everything else, but some things are like strands on the outside of the spiderweb. If they are damaged not much happens to the entire web. We don't have to reevaluate our entire reason for being, if we find out that we had been misspelling someone's name. We thought we were right, but we weren't. That didn't destroy our entire framework of life. But if we go to college somewhere and they attack our core beliefs, causing us to go from a Christian to an atheist that changes everything. Now you must examine and question everything. It is not a simple matter.

He then spoke of the implications for a Christian Worldview: in our personal life (living consistent with what we believe); educational pursuits (developing our Christianity intellectually as well as spiritually); vocational plans (knowing that God has called you to whatever profession you may be in); evangelical missions (instead of "winning people to Christ," be part of the Great Commission and make disciples); and cultural transformation (it can't be a political movement, but a change of the heart, a change of worldviews).

He closed with something that really moved me. He told us that yes, our faith in Jesus is a personal matter, but it can not be a private matter. No where in the Bible do you see an example of a private believer (especially true after the resurrection). Then he asked for forgiveness on behalf of his generation, for not being the kind of example that the current (and my) generation needed in the area of Christian Worldview. Then he concluded by challenging us (I guess I still group myself with the students, even though I am now at least four years removed from them) to grow in our Christian Worldview by articulating it and displaying it.

To me that is worshipping in spirit and in truth and I long for much more of it.

Theologian and Biblical expert - Charlie Rangel

2005-04-11T10:37:00.000-07:00

I'm sure you did not know that Rep. Charlie Rangel (D, NY) was an authoritative Biblical expert. If you were able to watch the April 7 edition of Hardball, you saw Rangel explain the words of Jesus in a new way, with host Christ Matthews agreeing and enjoying his time studying under such a renouned scriptural scholar.

Somehow, they managed to turn the Pope's funeral and Biblical passages into a political attack against Republicans and rich people (but I am assuming it was only rich Republicans and not rich liberals like Rangel and Matthews or George Soros, or Hollywood liberals, or Warren Buffett or...)

MATTHEWS: I mean, Charlie, Jesus didn't hang around with the swells, the rich people.

RANGEL: Well, he said the rich are going straight to hell. [Ed. I wonder what the income requirements are for Charlie Rangel's heaven.]

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Well, he did not.

(LAUGHTER)

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: He said it is harder to get through a needle's...

(CROSSTALK)

RANGEL: No. But the deal with St. Matthews and all these people are trying to get into heaven. And he said, hey, when I was hungry, you didn't feed me. I was thirsty. I was naked. I was sick. You didn't do all these - he's talking about food stamps, Social Security.

MATTHEWS: Right.

Of course that's right, of course Jesus was refering to social programs and not individuals. Why didn't I see it before? I guess I should have studied more at the feet of Dr. Rev. Rangel.

It is utterly ridiculous to assume that Jesus was speaking about food stamps and Social Security. Look at his audience. He wasn't speaking to the governmental powers of his day. He was not standing before Caesar denouncing him for not having enough "federal safety nets." Jesus' goal was not to change government, but to change hearts.

Conservatives (sometimes rightly so) are denounced for trying to force their morals on society through laws, but rarely are evangelical liberals forced to answer questions about the zeal for their own brand of morality. How many editorials have you read condemning Rep. Rangel for "legislating morality?" How many TV talking heads have called on him to keep church and state seperate? Any ACLU lawsuits? Any People for the American Way press conferences?

It should be clear to anyone watching that for those organizations (ACLU, People for the American Way, MSM, academia, any other place where the liberal establishment reigns) the only harmful religion or morals are those that lead someone to a conservative mindframe. But, any and all liberal ideas on religion are welcomed and encouraged. We do have freedom of religion afterall.

Total Truth, Part I

2005-04-09T23:13:00.000-07:00

Woo hoo! My first title from Mind & Media has arrived, and judging by the endorsements, it's gonna be great. As you may know, M&M distributes books to reviewers for free, with an agreement that they review the books on their web site. You can learn more about their program and sign up if you wish, here.

In this case, publisher Crossway Books, has provided Total Truth, by Nancy Pearcey.

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

If I've only got 30 days to read this book, I better get going! (I don't really - that's just the minimum time I must leave the M&M endorsement up in the sidebar, but I'll leave it as long as it takes me to read the book.) I thought it would be just another easy-reader paperback- no way! It's 465 pages!

The list of endorsements is impressive- James Sire, J.I. Packer, Ted Baehr, J.P. Moreland, Michael Behe, and others.

The subtitle, "Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity" is intriguing and hints at a challenge to the status quo. All of us with a rebellious streak find such hints strangely appealing - we might even break out in that sinister grin, or maybe even the beginnings of an evil laugh (muahahahaha). Stick it to the man!

The table of contents is equally impressive - 13 chapters broken into 4 parts - it looks wonderfully academic and content-rich, which is fine with me. If I have to read any more cutesie illustrative stories, I'm gonna scream!. Too many Christian books seem filled with inspirationally stories rather than well-organized ideas arranged in a persuasive manner. I mean, I like Guideposts just as much as anyone else, but don't sell me a whole book with chicken soup stories without warning me that that's all you are selling! (Oops! Got on the soapbox - down boy!) I guess it takes all types of readers, but I'm glad I got this book instead of the latest "isn't God wonderful" pablum, if you know what I mean. Meat, baby, meat!

Anyway, thanks to Mind & Media for letting me review this book. However, I warn you - I won't be nice just 'cause it's a freebie!

Random thoughts & Random links

2005-04-08T07:32:00.000-07:00

Just some things that struck me around the blogosphere that you may have missed:

A Top 10 to get angry about
The Heritage Foundation has compiled a top 10 list of the biggest government wastes. I sure they had a lot to choose from since apparently compassionate conservatism, doesn't include the conservative principle of smaller government and less spending.
Hat Tip: World Mag Blog

Lack of diversity
Josh at the Conjecturer complains about a lack of diversity as he live blogs this morning at a conference in the liberal mecca of Boulder, CO.

The future of ID
The future of Intelligent Design is now at the new blog - ID the future. The new group blog, combines many of the leaders of the Intelligent Design theory movement today. If you are interested in that aspect of science and religion, go and check it out.

I need one - badly
I wish they would of had these when I was in college. That could have prevented me from almost failing an 8:00 class.
Hat Tip: Ace

This has to work...right?
A Christian oilman is using the Bible as a guide to find oil in the Holy Land. Unfortunately, as Stones Cry Out points out, the passage could very well be speaking of olive oil, not crude oil, especially seeing how crude oil was not very valuable to people who rode animals and had no need of heating oil. But hey, I hope it works out for the man - anything to lower gas prices.

Continue reading

Rethinking Prayer

2005-04-07T06:13:00.000-07:00

I'll admit it - my prayer life stinks. By that I mean that I don't think I really pray the way God would want me to pray. Reading this essay by Rob Asghar only confirms that feeling. In fact, Mark Daniels' essay on prayer (which led me to Rob's post) offers some further direction on how we should really be praying.

Thanks to Rob and Mark's essays I'm going to be rethinking prayer and how I pray.

All your strawmen are belong to us

2005-04-06T09:48:00.000-07:00

With the death of Terri Schiavo and the Pope, I have been wondering when we will get back to the real work that needs to go on in America - making up fake people to bash conservatives and Bush's judicial nominees. Now that is getting back to work for the American people.

Washington Post columnist Art Buchwald, who apparently has turned a schtick of talking to imaginary people into a very lucrative profession, writes of a conversation he has with his conservative friend Sam Sampson (definitely not this Sam).

Sam it seems is just your average conservative guy. He is mad that the liberals in the Senate are holding up the President's judicial nominations, so mad that in fact he expreses a desire to kill all the liberal judges. You know, just like every good conservative. Sam is afterall the conservative everyman.

Not only does he want to kill them, Sam argues that some judges are "nonhuman" and only "our people" can tell the difference between human judges and nonhuman judges by "read[ing] their decisions and watch[ing] their body language."

Not only does Sam have violent tendencies and the strange ability to tell a nonhuman from a human, he is also an idiot that cannot construct an argument for the defense of the death penalty, while maintaining a pro-life (on abortion) stance and whose idea to fix the judicial system is to "file a friend-of-the-court brief on cases we like, and an enemy-of-the-court on cases we don't."

Of course Sam goes on to describe why he doesn't like the ACLU (because "they're always taking flag-burning cases") and why having the Ten Commandments "on court property so everyone can read them" was exactly what "our founding fathes had in mind." Because doesn't every conservative argue that an essential part of our nation should be the requirment that every courthouse has the Ten Commandments, not just that this issue should be decided upon by the people (specifically the people of the area), but that everyone courthouse should be ordered to have a monument to the commandments?

Why am I suddenly hit with the thought that Sam is not, in fact, a real person? Why does this remind me of film critic Pauline Kael of the New Yorker and her infamous quote after the 1972 Presidential election? Maybe becauase I think Art might as well be saying "How can that be? No one I know wants conservative judges."

Hat Tip: Chris at Patterico's

Update: Thanks to Ace for the link, even though he bashes the blog name for lacking sizzle. So maybe we could be Two or Three of Spades HQ, would that add enough sizzle? We go for substance over, style (which apparently includes fake retirements and numerous fake guest bloggers including a time traveling sandwich). It's all about the substance, the sometimes sporadic, contradictory substance.

Why Condi Rice Was the Right Choice For Secretary of State

2005-04-05T11:36:00.000-07:00

Johnathan Karl, in the April 4, 2005 issue of The Weekly Standard, has written a terrific article entitled "Condiplomacy" that explores why Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be so much more effective in her post than her predecessors. This excerpt sums it up pretty well:

If her first months in office are any indication, Secretary Rice's State Department is going to be radically different from Colin Powell's. Rice has forbidden her senior staff to make even off-the-record comparisons between her and Powell, but they don't need to. Rice's senior advisers like to say that she will be an effective secretary of state because when people talk to her they believe they are talking to the president. Powell may have been respected around the world, but he was viewed as out of step with the administration. As a result, when he spoke to a foreign leader, there was often a nagging question: Is Colin Powell speaking for the Bush administration or is he speaking for himself? Nobody asks that question about Condoleezza Rice. So when Rice hits somebody, it stings.

Rice's proximity to the president, combined with the sense of urgency she brings to her new job, has turned the State Department into a political power center again, the kind of place where Karen Hughes, one of President Bush's two or three closest advisers, would take a third-tier job. Even Dina Powell, who as director of White House personnel had no shortage of opportunities in the administration, chose to go to work for Rice as an assistant secretary of state. The State Department has been something of a political backwater for more than a decade. In the Clinton years, Warren Christopher was so inactive that a running joke among Foreign Service officers during his tenure was to complain about something and add, "None of this would be happening if Warren Christopher were alive." Madeleine Albright traveled more, but that only contributed to the perception that she was out of the loop and AWOL when the major national security decisions were being made by the National Security Council. And in George W. Bush's first term, Powell made his biggest headlines when he was at odds with the White House.

Read the whole thing.

Was Jesus gay?

2005-04-05T11:26:00.000-07:00

It was only a matter of time. The first openly gay Anglican bishop, Gene Robinson, insinuated that Jesus may have been gay.

You can go and read the story (which is surprisingly balanced, except for their choice of photos) for yourself, but here is the set up and the Robinson quote:

In answer to a question from the congregation about how the acceptance of homosexuality could be squared with the scriptural emphasis on redemption for sins, the Bishop replied: "Interestingly enough, in this day of traditional family values, this man that we follow was single, as far as we know, travelled with a bunch of men, had a disciple who was known as 'the one whom Jesus loved' and said my family is not my mother and father, my family is those who do the will of God. None of us likes those harsh words. That's who Jesus is, that's who he was at heart, in his earthly life.

Now here is his Clintonian vague denial by his spokesperson:

"Jesus was a non-traditional person who broke all the rules and hung out with all the wrong people. Anything else that people infer from the Bishop's comments is all speculation."

Maybe he has a future as a politician.

Hat Tip: Blogotional

If I'm gone for awhile, don't call the cops

2005-04-05T09:37:00.000-07:00

I'd better post this while I have a chance. My wife and I are expecting our second child at the end of this month (or any day now). Tomorrow we start going to our once a week visits to the doctor, meaning she is full term and could deliver at any point.

I just wanted everyone to know that, in case I don't get to post anything about it before I have to leave for an extended period of time (up to two weeks). Please keep us in your prayers. It was a big enough change having one little one, but now having a rambunctious almost three year son and a newborn son is going to be....exciting to say the least.

If I get a chance, I will try to sneak away during nap time to go somewhere with internet access and let everyone know how things are going.

I wish I knew when this was going to happen, but it could be today, it could be the end of this month. Only God knows and He's not spoiling the surprise.

This is one of the reasons why I wanted to start a group blog. I knew I would be gone, but I wanted my seat warm when I came back. ;)

Depressed

2005-04-05T08:01:00.000-07:00

I have not been this depressed since 1993, when we first learned that Chris Webber could not count.

I hate to say this, but this season UNC was the most talented team in college basketball and they...de...they deser....okay, they deserve (man that was hard) the national championship (at least we have the ACC title).

As always there is a silver lining to this dark dreary cloud of a Tar Heel championship - I think at least two players (up to four) from this team will go pro early, not to mentioning them losing several of their key reserves and senior leaders to graduation.

Duke will lose Daniel Ewing and Patrick Johnson, but not only do we keep our first team All-American and our national defensive player of the year, but we will be getting the McDonald's High School Player of the Year as well as another McDonald's All-American at a position we need more than anything else - point guard.

So celebrate and rejoice while you can Tar Heel fans, the sky will not always be that weak, pasty blue. It will turn back to the deep, royal blue and I, for one, can not wait.

Reflecting on the Pope

2005-04-05T06:03:00.000-07:00

Pope John Paul II was the first Pope I ever really knew. I remember vividly watching the television awaiting his election. The passing of Pope John Paul I just a few short weeks after his installment as Pope was the first realization I had that there was a Pope. Not growing up Catholic, I didn't really have a great understanding of the role of the Pope. In many ways, Pope John Paul II defined the papacy for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Although many tributes have been written about the Pope and his legacy, this one from Charles Colson is one of the best that I have read. Pope John Paul II should be remembered as the man who stood up for freedom in many places both before and after he became Pope. He will be greatly missed.

Quodlibet - The Online Journal of Christian Theology and Philosophy

2005-04-04T16:34:00.000-07:00

So, I just found Quodlibet (definition), a site with great content and a colorful look. Check it out. They even have a sense of humor, as seen in this tagline:

And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?" They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed." And Jesus replied, "What?"

HT: Internet for Christians

'This I Believe' Invites Citizens to Share Beliefs

2005-04-04T10:45:00.000-07:00

Here's a chance for you to get into the history books, and maybe even get to read your entry on national radio! NPR is reviving the classic This I Believe radio series. All submissions, which are in the form of 500 word or less essays, will be archived for posterity, and some will be read on the radio! Go for it!

Thoughts on the passing of Pope John Paul II

2005-04-04T09:47:00.000-07:00

Not being a Catholic or associated at all with that tradition, I don't know much about the Pope or any of those things.

He seemed to have a strong character and repaired many bridges that were burned between the Catholic church and the rest of Christianity as well as the Catholic church and the Jewish community. He was also a tireless advocate for life as well as a vital part in the collapse of communism.

Because of my ignorance, I feel more comfortable referring readers to Mark Daniels and his thoughts on the life of John Paul II.

All I know to do is pray for my Catholic brothers and sisters and pray that God uses this to bring many who don't know Him to a saving relationship with Him and as always bring glory to Himself. [ed. for clarity sake]

Deconstructing Euthanasia's Slippery Slope

2005-04-01T00:09:00.000-08:00

I've had it with my conservative fellows who insist on tightly linking abortion with right-to-die issues. Sure they are related. NO, they are not synonymous, nor must the decision to allow the right-to-die be instricately linked to abortion rights. Let us instead try to separately elucidate the principles that should govern our decisions at both ends of life, then look back and see where the overlaps are. Here's my first take. You help me fill in the gaps ;). And yes, I am still a biblical Christian even if I don't share your opinion ;)

Our general rule should be to err towards preserving life when a questionable case comes up. In all cases where we are considering refusing treatment or active termination, we must balance the value of life against the pain and suffering of the individual.

Beginning-of-Life Advanced Treatment Principles
In my post on Citizens for Reasonable Abortion Limits (CRAL), I outlined and discussed the possible principles for the beginning of life. Here are those principles (minus the discussion of each):

In Any Pregnancy, Both Of The Parents And The Developing Child Have Limited Rights
The Developing Fetus Has Human Rights After a Defined Point in a Pregnancy – The Point of Personhood
Terminating a Pregnancy Based On Physical Attributes such as Gender, Race, Sexual Orientation, or Treatable Medical Conditions is Not Acceptable
Terminating a Pregnancy for Severe, Untreatable Fetal Conditions Must Be Preserved as a Parental Right, but Not Required by Law
Terminating a Pregnancy Based on the Means of Pregnancy (Rape, Incest, Artificial Insemination, Natural Insemination) is Not Acceptable
Terminating a Pregnancy to Protect the Life of a Mother Must be Preserved
Abortion as A Medical Procedure Should be Protected and Taught In Medical Schools, but Should Not Be Mandatory

End-of-Life Advanced Treatment Principles
Here are the analogs to the above principles. I am sure we could add lots of detail around this, as Oregon did around it's Death With Dignity legislation.

A lucid individual has the right to refuse medical treatment.
A lucid individual has the right to assisted suicide if their condition is physically painful, untreatable, and terminal.
If an incapacitated person has created an advanced directive regarding refusal of medical treatment or the use of euthanasia in certain types of incapacitation, this directive must be followed.
If an incapacitated person has created an advanced directive giving authority to an agent in certain types of incapacitation, but does not specify what should be done in those cases, the agent has the right to refuse medical treatment or call for euthanasia in those cases only.
If an incapacitated person has created an advanced directive giving authority to an agent, but the type of incapacitation in question is not specified in the directive, the agent may only authorize refusal of treatment or euthanasia if the condition is physically painful, untreatable, and terminal.
If an incapacitated person has not created an advanced directive, their legal guardian may only authorize refusal of treatment or euthanasia if the condition is physically painful, untreatable, and terminal.

Overlap
The main overlap is in cases where the patient (unborn child or sick person) fits the following conditions: if the condition is physically painful, untreatable, and terminal, then assisted suicide (for the lucid) or euthanasia (for those unable to communicate) is permissable.

So what do we do if we are missing one of the above? What if the condition is

painful and untreatable, but not terminal? Palliative care.
painful and terminal, but treatable? HIV comes to mind. I say treatment and palliative care.
untreatable, terminal, but not painful? If there's no pain, let them live and hope for a treatment!

I understand that many will agree with the above if I would just back off of the euthanasia/suicide thing and just stick with refusal of treatment. Despite the fact that one is active and the other passive, they are arguably both decisions to act, letting a person die. It is not always more noble to "let nature take its course" than to have the courage to act and eliminate suffering - to not act is not virtue, but often cowardice.

It's like when liberals say we should not interfere with another culture when it is involved in severe human rights abuses because we should have the virtue to "not interfere with their values." That's not virtue, that's stupidity in not recognizing self-evident, objective principles of right and wrong, and cowardice in not being willing to confront another culture.

I think I am covered, so fire away!

Advanced Directive

2005-03-31T23:42:00.001-08:00

The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity is offering a free downloadable Advance Directive. The form is simple yet carefully worded and based on biblically-informed bioethical principles.

NOTE: It contains instructions for using and modifying it. Personally, I will probably be modifying the provision saying I don't want want to be put to sleep by assisted suicide - for me, I think that would be more humane than starving me or letting me suffer a protracted, painful death. That's what they shoulda done for Terri if they were gonna let her die. Idiots.

HT: evangelical outpost

Who's up for a long essay?

2005-03-31T14:00:00.000-08:00

I just posted my thoughts on what comes next for the Christian blogosphere after the Terri Schiavo case. If you are in the mood for a long essay connecting the Christian blogosphere to Shakespear to rap music to the political blogs, then I have the post for you. If not, that's why I didn't post it here.

Empty tomb possibilities

2005-03-31T10:39:00.000-08:00

Earlier this week, I rasied all of the possibilities that I knew of to explain the resurrection and the empty tomb. Today, I will address the easiest to dismiss (in my opinion) leaving the more extensive two for a more indepth profile. (Since the original post, I found another explanation that I hadn't thought of, but I will add it here.)

1) Jesus did not actually die on the cross.
It is safe to say that if Jesus went up on that cross, he didn't come down alive. No where in history do we have any kind of support for this position. In fact, all we have is support for the opposite - Roman guards were trained killers. They would know how to kill someone. What type of evidence is there that Jesus was not dead when he came down from the cross?

The Romans took great pride in their ability to bring about a torturous death. (In fact, death by the cross was so intense and painful a new word had to be made up just to describe it - excruciating literally means out of the cross.) Did they just happen to mess up with Jesus of all people?

If there was any doubt that Jesus died from the crucifixion, the spear to the side should have done the trick. In John's Gospel, he describes "blood and water" flowing out of Jesus' side after the spear was thrust through his side and was removed. This is consistent with what we know today about what would happen if a spear goes through the lung and into the heart. The pericardial effusion and pleural effusion would appear as a clear fluid, like water, followed by a large amount of blood.

If somehow Jesus' escaped the cross with his life, please explain to me how lying him on a cold rock in a damp tomb is going to revive him. If he was still alive, it would probably kill him through an infection. Nothing about that situation would allow a man who had been beaten extensively, crucified, had a spear stuck through his side to simply get up as if nothing ever happened, somehow roll the stone away without the guards noticing and appear to his disciples strong enough to inspire confidence that He had risen from the dead. It is all too improbable and illogical to believe.

2) The women went to the wrong tomb on the first Easter Sunday.
Even if somehow they did go to the wrong tomb on the first Easter, what was to prevent the authorities from pointing to the right tomb when the disciples start claiming that Jesus was alive. Christianity would have been destroyed from the beginning. The pharisees could have simply brought people to the correct place and it's over. Again, this is not very likely.

3) The disciples (or others) came and stole the body from the tomb.
Motivation is the key for this possibility. What motivation would the disciples (or anyone) have for stealing the body? Sure, the disciples wanted Jesus to be the Messiah, but would that motivate them to stop cowering in a locked room, sneak past the guards, roll away the stone without waking them up, grab the dead body and run away with it. Not to mention they would be violating Jewish law by doing that on Saturday and touching the dead body. Then if they did steal the body, why whould they die for that lie. They would have known He was not alive, why would they give up their lives for something that wouldn't give them anything. It seems improbable that they would die to simply to keep a lie alive.

4) Jesus was resurrected in spirit, but not in body. (This is the new one.)
This "solution" tries to ride the fence and satisfy both sides, but it ends up satisfying nothing. This does not answer the question of the empty tomb, since the body would still be there if it was only a spirit resurrection. It would still be a miracle and a supernatural event, but would not be what the New Testament writers say they saw. Jesus told Thomas to place his hands in the scars. Jesus ate bread and fish with his disciples. He purposefully set out to prove that He was not simply a spirit, but He was alive with a glorified body. If you believe in a miracle, why not believe what the authors wrote? And what do you do with the empty tomb? This solution is too politically correct and not supported by any evidence.

The last two possibilities are that nothing extraordinary happened, but legend came in years later and added the resurrection or that the Biblical accounts are true. We will examine this in a greater detail to determine what exactly did happen to Jesus to best of our knowledge.

Did Chrisitans ban the IMAX movie?

2005-03-31T10:09:00.000-08:00

TKS has an update on the story of IMAX theaters not showing the film "Volcanoes." It appears that the whole story may be a ploy by the scientist to prop up a poorly made film.

In the New York Times article that started it all (well it didn't actually start it all since the film has been showing in close to 35 IMAX theaters since it's opening in 2003), they quoted two people who say the movie has shelved in some markets because of the influence of Christians and the possibility of protests (no actual protest).

The two people they quoted, were not directors or owners of IMAX theaters, they were people involved in making and distributing the film.

The article quoted two theater spokespersons from Fort Worth, TX and Charleston, SC who mentioned the evolution aspect of the film. Both said the evolutionary overtones of the movie was part of the reason they decided (initially) to not show it, but there were quality issues as well. Most of their reviewing audiences didn't like the flim for various reasons, only some of which were the evolutionary science in the film.

So far we have no protest and two theaters who said they weren't going to show it for various reasons, including the evolution part. One of those theaters (Fort Worth) has changed its mind and is now running "Volcanoes." The other (Charleston) has not yet made up its mind. It has not ruled out showing it.

In an AP story, they quote someone from an Atlanta IMAX theater that chose not to run the film. She said the science was fine, but the movie "was slow moving and a little dry."

The filmmaker said that theaters who spoke poorly of the quality were only doing that so as not to admit they bowed to Christian pressure.

Again, I have yet to see any Christian pressure or reglious protest, etc. All I have seen and read is about a film not doing very well and those behind the film start screaming "Christian censorship" and everyone from the New York Times comes running and dutifully writes the articles, ignoring all the history of the story.

How is the film being censored or scientific speech being supressed when it is already running on 35 theaters and of the handfuls that have rejected it most said it was because the film just wasn't that good?

Audiences at test screenings have panned the movie, giving it low marks on quality. The audiences found the disliked the music and narration, found it to be too academic, lacking in color in the deep-sea images and on and on.

So did the mere thought of Christians protesting in the streets stop this otherwise quality movie from succeeding or could it have been a case where those behind the film thought a little controversy could go a long way in helping their poorly received, lackluster film?

It just strikes me as odd that two years after the film has been released and shown in 35 theaters it becomes a story about Christians stopping this movie from being shown by the general public. Maybe it just the New York Times assumes "those people" should be ridiculed one more time.

Terri Schiavo has died

2005-03-31T07:03:00.000-08:00

Yahoo has the headline, but no story yet.

America has successfully starved a disabled person to death.

Please pray for everyone involved in this situation.

Update: They have a story up now.

Navigating Moral Gray Areas

2005-03-30T20:16:00.000-08:00

While the scriptures are clear on the morality of some issues, on the more mundane issues, it is largely silent, and it is up to us to apply principle to determine these issues.

So to answer questions of the gray areas of personal morality, Romans 14 is very instructive.

The Apostle Paul taught that, while some matters are black and white, other matters, like whether it is a sin to eat meat offered to idols, are up to the invidual. He gives the following guide to navigating such gray areas:

1. Obey Your Conscience

Each person ought to obey his or her own conscience in the matter. If I feel something is wrong, I should not do it. If I feel it is OK, I can do it.

One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. (Romans 14:5)

2. Exercise Concern for Others

For those who feel free to enage in a questionable activity, Paul remarks that they should let concern for others guide their actions. If my friend feels it is *not* OK to drink alcohol (maybe he is an ex-alcholic), but I feel it is OK for me, I should still restrain myself around him out of concern for him, even though my conscience does not bother me.

Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. (Romans 14:1)

Make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way (Romans 14:13)

Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. (Romans 14:19)

There is a balance to this, though. If you have an overactive conscience because you are trapped in an overly strict ideology, you lack freedom, and I may need to tactfully display freedom in your presence to let you know that you are bound! Remember how willing Jesus was to offend the religious sensibilities of those caught in the Pharisaical religious system.

3. Avoid Condemnation of Others

For those who do not feel free to enage in a questionable activity, Paul asks that they do not JUDGE the person who feels he has the freedom to do so. Each should obey his own conscience and leave it at that.

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. (Romans 14:4)

You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. (Romans 14:10)

Sweet, huh? Hat tip to J. Vernon McGee, the great radio bible teacher, who first showed me this. He's not with us anymore, but his teaching is still on the radio!

The Five Functions of Civil Government

2005-03-30T17:49:00.000-08:00

Here's one more article from Mark Beliles, culled from an old publication, and probably expanded upon in his book Liberating the Nations:

Civil government is one of the five main areas of jurisdiction to whom God gives certain responsibilities and very definite limits. This article takes a brief look at these, and highlights how they were incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. Civil government is not the most important of the five spheres, but probably has been the most ignored by modern Christians. As a result, the civil government of the United States has strayed far beyond its biblical and constitutional limitations, thus creating great injustice for many U.S. citizens.

If we [snip] study the example of early America, however, as highlighted in the following article, we can learn a great deal, The American Revolution was a Christian Revolution, not simply because it was led by great Christian men such as Samuel Adams, but because of the biblical worldview that united the Colonies and motivated their actions and means of resistance. Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence based on Christian ideas of resistance and liberty.
The Continental Congress repeatedly sought God in prayer and acknowledged Him in their proclamations and legislation. Patrick Henry urged the use of arms as a biblical third step in resistance. George Washington led the American armies urging prayer among his troops and doing so himself frequently. Washington relinquished his power as commander of the armies and promoted the drafting of a new Constitution and became the first President by godly means rather than by a coup.
The Declaration of Independence is based upon the Christian idea of man and government. In fact, it was the first national covenant in history with such a foundation. The Declaration ends with the Congressional Representatives "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World" and acknowledging "a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence."
After the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, the father of the American Revolution, stated: "We have this day restored the Sovereign, to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and ... from the rising to the setting sun, may His Kingdom come."
America's founders understood that the birth of their nation marked the birth of the first Christian nation in history - Christian not because all who founded it were Christians, but because its system of government was founded thoroughly upon Christian principles.
J. Wingate Thorton relates how the sixth U.S. president, John Quincy Adams, said, "The highest glory of the American revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."1
The U.S. Supreme Court has concurred with this a number of times. For example, in 1892, it declared:
"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it would be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institution are emphatically Christian ... this is a Christian nation."
The chief author of the American Constitution, and justly called its "Father," was a Christian statesman, James Madison. (He would also become the fourth U.S. president.) That the Constitution was the product of Christianity, and of its ideas of man and government, is revealed by the biblical functions of government that Madison listed in its preamble:
1. To establish justice - This is the goal of the passages in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:14, which say that government is to punish evildoers and protect those who do right.
2. To insure domestic tranquility - This phrase comes from the focus of prayer for government, which Paul urged in 1 Timothy 2:1-2. The New American Standard Bible says to pray for government "in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity."
3. To provide for the common defense - The protection of innocent human life is at the base of not only capital punishment (Genesis 9:6), but also in the provision of an army for protection from external threats.
4. To promote the general welfare - Romans 13:4 says that civil rulers are servants "to you for good." The common good of all classes of citizens must be promoted by government passage of laws guaranteeing equal opportunity. It is not proper for government to provide money and aid to special interest groups. It is to promote, not provide, and to do so for all people in general, not for special people.
5. To secure the blessings of liberty - Blessing are a gift of one's Creator, not a privilege granted by government. These blessings include life, liberty, and property. A biblical view of government sees that it cannot provide these, only secure them. Besides all these goals that are biblical, the United States Constitution established all of the basic structures that a biblical framework of government should have ...
Although not perfect, the U.S. Constitution clearly represents the fullest expression of biblical ideas and structures of government. For this reason it has lasted for over 200 years and has been copied by many nations around the globe.
1 John Wingate Thorton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston, 1860)

Presenting A Thorough, Intellectually Appealing Biblical View Of Government

2005-03-30T17:29:00.000-08:00

As a Christian, I believe in the Lordship of Jesus. But I don't want a Christian theocracy. There is only so much we can do through making laws - as it is said

No governmental system can rule an immoral people

This leads me to my two main points:

1. Civil Governement Should Be Based Upon A Biblical View Of Man

Man is both sinful and made in the Divine image. This basically means we need a system that allows freedom within contraints - freedom to express the divine beauty and intelligence of man, and constraints in the form of checks and balances, and laws and penalties, in order to prevent society from devolving into chaos.

We need a combination of inner restraint (i.e. virtue or personal morality) combined with external support and restraint (laws that support virtue and morality, and punish evil) in order to keep society organized and safe. Kirby Anderson at Leadership U has a nice article on this entitled Christian View of Government and Law.

2. The Five Spheres of Government

This viewpoint is very instructive: each realm of government (self, family, church, business, and civil) has its own limited sphere of authority, which interfaces with the others, and each sphere should not try to assume the responsibilities of the other, even if the other abidicates.

For example, if I as the head of my family government do not take care of my kids, the solution is not to have my family become permanent wards of the state. Sure, the church or the state can step in, but the goal should be to get me to reassume my responsibility, or get someone else (i.e. a new husband!) to assume it.

Conservative v. Liberal Views of Rule of Law

2005-03-30T16:58:00.000-08:00

Sorry to be a contrarian, but... I found the aforementioned article on the Rule of Law (ROL) to be a little overly simplistic, painting both conservative and liberal positions in an incomplete light. Also, it failed in presenting a nice picture of a Christian view of government - it made it sound like Christians support a theocracy similar to the Islamic state!

I. A MORE EXPANSIVE VIEW OF THE CONSERVATIVE ROL
The author makes the conservative position seem inflexible and bound by traditional understandings. He should have mentioned that while the conservative understanding of ROL bases law in unchanging, objective laws, it is flexible in that, as our understandings of said laws expands, or needs clarification, we have the flexibility to update it. Hence the many amendments to our Constitution. As a good example, the prohibition against slavery was not a more evolved position, it was the natural extension of the original idea of "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." Same with women's suffrage.

II. A MORE EXPANSIVE VIEW OF THE LIBERAL ROL
He also makes the liberal position sound based totally in the subjective. While I agree, in general, the liberal position is one of shifting, subjective reality, most liberals would probably chafe at such a simplistic portrayal. However, here is why I think Liberals reject the idea of objective morality as reflected in the idea of ROL:

(a) Many Liberals Do, In Fact, Believe in Subjective Morality
This sad fact was clearly emphasized in the article. I think that liberals are comitted to subjective truth because:

They limit their search for truth to empirical science, and reject revealed truth, so all sources of revealed truth are spurned. So what claim to objective truth do they have? Perhaps the laws of nature or societies as revealed in history, but again, the interpretation of history is subjective, so perhaps they must rely on the shifting sands of human assumptions
Instead of divine law as the measure of mankind, they measure man by man. Then, if it's just a battle of human opinion, who can say they are objectively right?

Unfortunatly, for example, this reasoning would go as far as to say, if your society condones infanticide, than it is ok because your society has agreed upon it as a norm. This extreme position, unfortunately, can allow the base nature of man to destroy himself and society.

(b) Liberals Often Reject Objective Truth Because We So Strongly Associate it With Divine Law
Our founders chose well the words "we hold these truths to be self-evident." Rather than appealing directly to divine law, they appeal to reason and naturalistic law. This is important because Liberals rightly want to avoid a theocracy of any type. If we appeal to the laws of nature (and nature's God), we do better than appealing directly to the Christian Scriptures.

By being careful in this way, we give room to liberals who, by use of reason, recognize that *some* issues of morality and law are objectively consistent across cultures and time. If we clothe it merely in scripture, we are bound to be rejected.

(c) Liberals Often Reject Objective Truth Because We Make No Room For the Gray Areas
The intellectual sin of our times is the presentation of unbalanced, polarized truths. We take one half of a truth paradox, and exclude the other. In this case, we forget to mention that some truths are self evident and timeless, but lesser ones are not so clear, and should be left up to the individual nation, group, or individual. This quote echoes that sentiment:

In the essentials, UNITY (we should push for unanimous agreement)
In the non-essentials, LIBERTY (we should allow each to decide for himself)
In all things, CHARITY (in any case we ought to be kind)

When discussing objective truth and divine law, we need to remember to remark that not every issue can be codified, and government is limited to the big things.

The Five Spheres of Government

2005-03-30T16:46:00.000-08:00

The following essay on government is from an out of print Christian newspaper, but I believe it has been updated and documented in Liberating the Nations by Mark Beliles, et al. I want to post this short section of the essay, since it is a great primer on a biblical view of government. This essay was originally written as a response to a letter from a young Chinese Christian, so you will notice some references to China and Chairman Mao, etc.

God has broken down human existence into five basic areas or spheres of government, which make it much easier to comprehend. These five spheres of government are: (1) self government, (2) family government, (3) church government, (4) business government, and (5) civil government.

All human activity falls under the jurisdiction or guidelines of one of these five spheres. The Bible outlines very definite instructions and responsibilities for each sphere as well as definite limits of authority. When each sphere of government operates according to biblical principles in harmony with one another, justice results. When any sphere neglects its God-given responsibility or usurps responsibility from another sphere, injustice results.

Gaining an understanding of each of these jurisdictions and their interrelatedness is absolutely essential for anyone desiring to see justice prevail in China or anywhere else. We will be taking an in-depth look at each of these spheres in future letters, but a brief explanation of each at this time will help us to gain an overview of what constitutes a just society.

Self Government

The first sphere, and the most foundational, was the theme of the last issue of The Mandate. This sphere in one sense is the most important of the five. It refers to the ability of an individual to govern or control himself or herself in a moral and upright manner without being swayed or intimidated by external forces. Put another way, a self-governing individual is one who will not lie or steal even when there is no chance of being discovered; one who will not cheat or deceive others for personal gain; one who will seek to serve others as one's greatest ambition; one who will keep a promise and remain loyal even when disappointed by other people.

In view of these very lofty standards that God exemplifies in His own character, we can see why the Bible teaches very plainly that it is utterly impossible for an individual to be self-governing without the inner power of Jesus Christ.

[snip]

None of us can measure up to what God expects without the supernatural inner transformation of Jesus Christ. Christianity is not another religion or intellectual pursuit, but rather it is the story of God the creator coming down to a world full of selfish people and dying on a wooden cross in our place that we might exchange our dark selfishness for His glorious love.

Without this inner transformation on a personal level, it is an exercise in hypocrisy and futility to consider bringing justice to society at large. Changing public policy alone will have only a temporary benefit at best if there is not enough character within individuals to support new responsibilities previously held by the state.

Family Government

The second sphere of jurisdictional government is family government and is God's primary building block for society. The Bible gives fathers, mothers, and children their own definite instructions and parameters in which to operate. When these are followed, strong healthy families result, which in turn produce new strong and healthy families.

Thus, the single most important function of the family is the care and training of children. The state, according to God, does not own the children! It has no biblical authority to indoctrinate them or even to determine their fate through abortion.

This subject will be addressed in depth [later], but for now suffice it to say that when the state assumes the role of God and claims ultimate ownership of the children, we open ourselves up to huge problems. This usurpation of power is more commonly known as tyranny, and will always produce devastating results. Although Chairman Mao may have meant well, his Cultural Revolution was a failure for many reasons, not the least of which was its open assault on the biblical framework of the family.

Church Government

The third sphere of jurisdictional government is church government. This sphere is unique among the other four in that it is the primary function of the institutional church to train individuals to function in their daily lives within the other four spheres (Ephesians 4:11-16 NIV) as well as to reproduce church leaders.

For example, the church is responsible for training individuals to be self-governing citizens able to communicate and demonstrate Christ's love to their fellow citizens. Second, the church is responsible for providing training for families, including among other things marriage and child-rearing counseling.

Third, the church is responsible for training individuals regarding the biblical principles of finance and business. Karl Marx observed the great injustices taking place in early 19th-century England and jumped to the false conclusion that "business" was inherently wicked. What he didn't realize was that it was a cold and cowardly church primarily responsible for not confronting the moral decadence of Marx's "bourgeoisie." In other words, the church was doing a terrible job of teaching the people biblical standards for business.

Finally, the church is responsible for training statesmen who love God and understand how to apply the Bible to public policy. This is considered by some to be the area of the church's greatest failure of the modern era.

While the church as an institution is not to rule over society or dominate civil government, it is to be the primary training ground for communicating God's love and His plan for the nations in every sphere of government.

Business Government

The world of finance - and more basically, the ownership of private property - is a predominant theme of the Bible. Most of Jesus' teachings and parables dealt in one way or another with this issue.

When the individuals within a nation learn how to handle God's resources according to the biblical pattern, great wealth will always result. Conversely, when the biblical pattern is ignored, poverty and suffering will always result.

This applies both to the individual just beginning a small business as well as to corporate giants such as IBM and General Motors.

This particular sphere should be of vital concern to us as we move toward a market economy, and we will explore it in more depth in a future letter in this series later this year.

Civil Government

Finally, God has very definite instructions about how civil government should operate, the most noteworthy quality being that its responsibilities are very limited. These limited responsibilities are mentioned on page 6 and will be discussed at length later in this series.

Civil government, according to the Bible, is to be a servant of the people (hence the term "public servant"), not a dictator. It is not to control business or own industry. It is not to infringe in any way on the sovereignty of the family, and is not to control what people say, think, or believe.

The moment civil government infringes upon any of the other spheres, the wheels are put into motion that produce death, destruction, poverty, and misery - every time.

Descartes would be proud

2005-03-30T08:35:00.000-08:00

Rene Descartes gave us the famous philosophical statement: "I think therefore I am." Today he would be very proud of himself and how ingrained his work has become.

When asked in a debate about the personhood of Terri Schiavo, Florida bioethicist Bill Allen flatly stated that she is not a person.

I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood. Even minimal awareness would support some criterion of personhood, but I don't think complete absence of awareness does.

Allen's opponent in the debate, Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, wrote for National Review about how that statement is no longer news.

In his column "Human Non-person," Smith looks at the implications of a view of life that does not accord each life any intrinsic worth, but rather people must basically earn personhood. You must meet certain qualifications in order to become an actual person. There are also levels of personhood that one can attain.

Allen allowed that "minimal awareness would some some criterion of personhood," but apparently it does not meet enough to be classified as a full person.

We see this all around us today. Embryos and fetuses are "human non-persons." We have to view them as "humans" since they can be no other type of organism, but we can refuse to allow them the status of personhood. Some bioethicists also refuse to place newborn infants in full personhood. Of course, as we have seen in the Schiavo case, those who have extensive cognitive disabilities or impairments can also be grouped into this new class of humans.

This would allow those of us human persons able to kill any and all human non-persons and use them for harvesting organs. Does this sound a bit scary to you yet? I am sure many will argue that this is simply another slippery slope argument from another "Christian wacko," but quotes from prominent bioethicists support this extreme view of life.

John Harris, a bioethics professor at the University of Manchester, England, has argued for the harvestability of "non-persons." "Non-persons or potential persons [embryos, fetuses, possible infants] cannot be wronged" by being killed "because death does not deprive them of something they can value. If they cannot wish to live, they cannot have that wish frustrated by being killed."

This is not fringe thinking in the world of bioethics. Smith quotes Tom Beauchamp of Georgetown University as saying that "because many humans lack properties of personhood or are less than full persons, they...might be aggressively used as human research subjects or sources of organs. Allen basically said the same thing in his debate with Smith.

This is not to even venture into the world of Joe Carter's favorite bioethicist Peter Singer, who argues for doing medical research on orphans and mentally handicapped babies instead of animals.

In one of his diatribes on Singer, Joe expanded Singer and his fellow pro-death bioethicists' thought process to its conclusion.

Take, for example, his criterion for "personhood." According to Singer's definition, a "person" refers to a being that is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. The problem with this definition is that a human being ceases to be a "person" when they are unconscious, temporarily comatose, or even just asleep. This leads to the absurd conclusion that a human stops being a "person" when they go to bed at night and yet wake in the morning with their status as a person fully renewed.

Instead of explaining why anyone should accept such a silly notion, Singer simply skips ahead to explain the practical application. But this leads to another absurd conclusion. What if Singer were in a funk over losing his girlfriend and lay on his couch to take a nap. While drifting off to sleep he whines that he "wished he'd never been born" and "wishes he could just die." Imagine also that a grad student walks by and overhears these mutterings. According to Singer's view, the student would be justified in killing the ethicist in his sleep since (a) by falling asleep he had ceased to be a person and (b) he had expressed a desire to not exist. The grad student may not be able to convince a jury, but he would certainly be consistently applying Singer's practical ethics.

I'm not sure, I would tend to doubt, that Descartes extended his definition for being to the inverse statement for not being. But the philosopher should have been able to evaluate the consequences of his thoughts. If they are so important that with them they bring the essence of personhood, should they not be guarded so as not to be used to deny someone else that same personhood?

The logical conclusion of "I think therefore, I am" must be "I do not think, therefore I am not." Why place these arbitrary lines around the state of being, of personhood? It brings so many more unanswerable questions to the table than if we just assume all humans are persons.

Have we not learned from our past mistakes? I do not intend to call anyone in the current debate[s] the equivalent to Nazis and slave masters, but has I use it as an illustration of what the end results are when we allow ourselves to be the judge of personhood.

We like to think if we had been in Nazi Germany of the Pre-Civil War South that we would have done something different. We would not have stood by, while these "non-persons" were treated as such. What about today, are we continually making the same mistakes only with different people groups?

Descartes would be proud. His philosophy is so entrenched into our culture that not only do we accept his theory; we accept it so blindly that we are willing to kill for it.

Hat Tip: World Mag Blog

The Rule of Law

2005-03-30T08:00:00.000-08:00

Conservatives and Liberals both toss around the term "the Rule of Law" but rarely is it fully understood what is meant by the term. This article explains not only how both Conservatives and Liberals view the Rule of Law but how Christians should view the Rule of Law as well. It's well worth reading.

I know better how you should feel

2005-03-29T10:17:00.000-08:00

This is what Harvard student Joe Ford hears when people say of Terri Schiavo and other disable people that they "would not want to live like this."

Ford is very passionate about Schiavo's case and those like it, because he has severe cerebral palsy and had a doctor remove an oxygen tube that was keeping him alive.

Besides being disabled, Schiavo and I have something important in common, that is, someone attempted to terminate my life by removing my endotracheal tube during resuscitation in my first hour of life. This was a quality-of-life decision: I was simply taking too long to breathe on my own, and the person who pulled the tube believed I would be severely disabled if I lived, since lack of oxygen causes cerebral palsy. (I was saved by my family doctor inserting another tube as quickly as possible.) The point of this is not that I ended up at Harvard and Schiavo did not, as some people would undoubtedly conclude. The point is that society already believes to some degree that it is acceptable to murder disabled people.

Ford makes the point that Terri's parents are forced to make the argument that she could possibly "get better" which asserts that when disability, particualarly cognitive disability, is present it provides enough proof that death is more desirable than a life "like this."

He concludes, his excellent piece by outlining the means that are taken when someone is "allowed to die" by starvation. They are most likely treated for "pain or discomfort" and nausea. They may be given morphine for respiratory distress. They may experience seizures as part of them simply "letting go." He includes a link to Terri's "exit protocol" that outlines these possible side effects.

At that link besides reading what could happen during Terri's starvation, you find testimony from a nurse that worked with Terri. The nurse details when the feeding tube was removed in 2003, other nurses dressed Terri in wool sweaters and long pants and wrapped her in a wool blanket to "sweat her out" or to make her dehydrate (and die) faster.

This does not seem right.

Hat Tip: Powerline

My sunrise service message

2005-03-29T07:23:00.000-08:00

My pastor called me Saturday in the middle of my cold and my trying to figure out why we suddenly didn't have enough electricity in our house to run our major appliances or at least we could run one at a time but nothing else. I had almost expected an invitation Wednesday night from my pastor to speak at the Sunrise service, but he didn't ask, so I didn't think twice about it..until he called me Saturday and asked me to speak at the 7:00 meeting the next day.

Because of a deal I have with God that I will basically speak whenever someone asks me, I told him I would. Then I continued my coughing, running nose fit, while trying to flip enough breakers in my house to get some type of power.

After the excitement of the day settle down that evening, after the power company came (very promptly I might add) to look at our problem, after my cold was beginning to die down, after my son was fast asleep, I decided to think (and pray) about what I was going to say the next day.

I guess God's part of our deal, is that if I agree to speak, He will give me something to speak on, usually without much effort. This was the case again. Of course the subject would have to be the resurrection, but being a slightly odd person, I usually come at things from an odd way. I usually go through the theological and scriptural back door.

The last time I spoke on the resurrection, I spoke from 1 Cor. 15, where Paul says that without the resurrection our faith would be in vain. I thought about returning there, but God kept bringing my electricity situation back to my mind. So I asked Him, as I usually have to do, "Okay, what are you trying to teach me in this circumstance?" He began to lay out in my mind, what I thought was such a great illustration and a message that it could have been done as a series of messages to thousands instead of a short mini-message to a dozen or so people.

Here is the basic idea of what God gave me. (I take no credit for anything good from it and all the blame for the bad.):

Philippians 3:7-10a - "But whatever things were gain to me, I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. More than that, I count all things to be loss in the view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him, not have a righteousness of my own derived from the Law but that which comes from God on the basis of faith, that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection..."

This weekend, I had a power problem at my house, so I called my electrician uncle to come over and take a look. He went through all of his electrical tools, none of which I know anything about, and checking my breaker box and giving his hypothesis that "I lost a leg." I had no idea what he was talking about since I looked down and still appeared to have both of them under me. We went outside and checked through the meter box and all that, which proved him to be correct. I had in fact, lost a leg, meaning that somewhere between the transformer and my house I was losing electricity.

I no longer had enough power to do many of the things that my home had been built to do. I could not run the heater/air conditioner. We could not use any of the appliances. Regardless of what my uncle did inside the house, the situation would not change. Something had to be done to fix the flow of power or I would never be able to accomplish many of the things that I need to in my home.

Too often, we as Christians and we as the Church are like my house. We become disconnected from the power, the resurrection power that comes from a relationship with Christ. When we begin to count those things in our life that should be loss or "rubbish" as being more important, the connection to our power supply begins to fade. When the power supply fades, we can no longer do the things that we have been called to do, the things that we were created to do.

Scripture is full of illustrations and verses letting us about this. John 15:5 tells us that in Jesus we can "bear much fruit," but apart from Him we can do nothing. 2 Timothy 3:5 talks about when people have a form of godliness but deny its power. 1 Cor. 15:14 lets us know that with the resurrection power Paul's preaching would have been in vain and our faith would be in vain. The resurrection and staying connected to that source changes everything. As my pastor often says, "Without Easter, Christmas does not mean much."

Galatians 2:20 and 5:24-25 lets us know that as Christians we have been crucified with Christ. Our old self, all our old sin was crucified. As one of my favorite hymns (It Is Well With My Soul) says, "my sin, not in part, but the whole, was nailed to the cross and I bear it no more." But not only has our old self been crucified with Christ, our new life has the same resurrection power of Christ. We now have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside us and enabling us to accomplish the things that God has set for us, but only if we allow the old self to stay dead and the new life to live in that resurrection power.

I present the same challenge to you that I presented to those dozen or so people at the sunrise service, stay connected to the power source of the resurrected Christ and be amazed at seeing what He will accomplish in and through your life - all that your were created to do (even wash clothes, cook lunch and watch tv all at the same time, maybe more).

The Emerging (Goth, Punk, Rave) Church

2005-03-28T16:13:00.000-08:00

As a product of the Charismatic movement, a mostly American revival of pentecostal Christianity in the late 60's which began in California and spread around the world, I am always intrested in the latest trends in the non-traditional (cutting-edge) church.

Tim at e-church.com has a nice article on the current debate going on between the Purpose-Driven Life movement and their criticism of the Emerging Church movement.

What does the Emerging Church look like? Check these quotes from Tim's article:

In Japan, the “new tribe” of Japanese young people, often characterized by dying their hair a rust color, have been the group that have begun many of the emerging churches in their country among the punk and rave scene.
In Germany, the Jesus Freaks started their first church in 1991 among the punk and metal culture. They now have 80 churches in Germany and their yearly Freakstock Festival numbers 7000. And yet the alternative culture still flavors their ministry.
In UK, the alternative worship scene started among the rave culture (Nine O’Clock Service) and was also influenced by the punk scene. The early connection with the rave culture partially explains why UK had a head start on worship over USA.
In USA, the hippie culture of the 60’s birthed many new forms of church and ministry, most of which can be found today in the emerging church. The punk scene of the 70’s gave birth to more churches and eventually the Underground Railroad network of churches among punk, goth and metal cultures. In the mid 90's, many of the emerging ministries, including my own work among the postmodern subcultures in San Francisco, were connected to UR. FoundKids was a mid-nineties movement of rave kids who came to Jesus and ministered around the country. The Prodigal Project formed in the early nineties out of the hippie culture. Further - Read “Understanding the different Sub-cultures”, and other articles on the Paradox web site

My observations about the "controversies" surrounding the Emergent Church, and revivalism in general:

True spiritual awakening often looks like the modern culture. Many traditionalists love to attack true revivals because to them, it is taking the form of "the world." What is actually happening is, people unchurched in the often stale, anachronistic church culture are finding faith in God, and are expressing their faith in the manner that they are familiar with. This means that they employ current language and music forms, rather than King James English and hymns. It is important not to confuse the form with the content. Thrash metal music (a form) is not "sinful," even if born out of human angst and anger. However, what is sung about (the content) is very important.
True spiritual awakening always has a little heresy in the beginning, and in some of its spinoffs. I had a pastor who liked to say "I'd rather have a little wildfire than no fire at all." This occurs because true revivals usually involve many unchurched people experiencing God, but having little doctrinal framwork by which they can interpet what they are experiencing. This is good in that they are not limited to the modern contemporary misundersandings of God, but bad in that they can go far astray and not have the relative safety that proven orthodoxy provides.

Experience without doctrine leads to heresy
Doctrine without experience leads to Pharisee

True spiritual awakening needs criticism to keep it from sliding into heresy. A little testing by fire goes a long way. Sola scriptura!
God offends the mind to reveal the heart. Jesus often taught in parables, which surprisingly, were very accessible to the common people, but to the intellectual and religious theologians, it was confusing. He did this so that the proud and fault-finding would not see, but the humble would. Don't ask why, but the scriptures do say that God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. So be careful. Check it out in Matthew 13:10-17.
You can tell them by their fruits - if you can wait. Many spiritual movements that are man-made or spurious end up in disaster. Those that are of real consequence, like the Charismatic movement, continue to save and bless people who come in contact with it. Despite whatever early abuses take place in the immature stages of a movement's growth, the later stages surely show what it is made of.

Nice job Tim. I will be learning a lot more about this over the coming months.

Theories of the Empty Tomb

2005-03-28T11:53:00.000-08:00

Seeing how Christians just celebrated Easter and the empty tomb of Christ, I thought I would look at the evidences for the resurrection. I use the word "evidences" because I believe it is impossible to use the word "proof." What I intend to present is not rock solid, not other choice left proof. We cannot have that kind of proof almost 2,000 years later. The apostles didn't even have solid proof when they told their stories, since we know many did not believe them.

In this post I want to present the possibilities or circumstances that have been used to explain the resurrection stories. My next post will deal with the viability of each one.

1) Jesus did not actually die on the cross.
Many have expounded on this theory and voiced many different variations. Some Muslims teach that Jesus and Judas actually switched places somehow before the actually crucifixtion and Judas was executed. Others have said that Pilate was paid to let Jesus off the cross alive. The most popular variation of this theory appears to be the "swoon theory," which says that Jesus actually passed out on the cross and the cold rock of the tomb woke him up.

2) The women went to the wrong tomb on the first Easter Sunday.
This has not been seen as credible in recent years, but was presented as an explanation in the early 1900's.

3) The disciples (or others) came and stole the body from the tomb.
The stolen body theory has been around since the beginning. It is recorded in the Gospels that the Jewish authority told the tomb guards to use this story. This has also been used in recent years.

4) Nothing extraordinary happened immediately after his death, but years later a resurrection legend was added the accounts of Jesus.
This is also a very popular explanation today.

5) Jesus died on the cross, but was resurrected and is alive today. The Biblical accounts are true.
We have to examine the evidence for taking the Gospels at face value. Is there any evidence? What are the implications, if this is true or false?

If you know of any other theory, please list those in the comments section and I will address all that I can.

Media Bias, Fake Memos, and Terri Schiavo

2005-03-28T07:21:00.000-08:00

One of the stories that have not been reported thoroughly by the mainstream media is the "talking points memo" that was allegedly distributed to Republican Senators just prior to the vote on the resolution to have her legal case moved to federal courts. Two articles today in the Weekly Standard are worth reading for further insight on this issue. John Hinderaker of PowerLine asks "Fake But Accurate Again?" while Fred Barnes looks at "The ABCs of Media Bias". Both are well worth reading.

Does Judge Greer Have a Conflict of Interest?

2005-03-25T22:06:00.000-08:00

Newsmax reports that Judge George Greer received a $250 campaign contribution from Michael Schiavo's attorney one day after declaring "Terri's Law", the statute passed by the Florida legislature in order to save Terri Schiavo, unconstitutional.

The Anchoress is reporting that under Florida ethics rules a judge who receives a campaign contribution from an attorney in a case he presides over is not required to recuse himself. She goes on to point out:

Nevertheless, a contribution can establish the appearance of impropriety, and the state's code of judicial conduct requires a judge to remove himself in such a case. (Emphasis in original post)

While this story does not entirely explain Judge Greer's insistence that Terri be murdered, it does constitute the appearance of impropriety. The appropriate thing for Judge Greer to have done would be to remove himself from the case. It's not too late for Judge Greer to do the right thing.

Christianity Today Weighs In on Schiavo

2005-03-25T10:06:00.000-08:00

CT has a nice collection of essays on the issues around this case, including:

While I Was Sleeping - Why my husband finally refused to end my life during my two-month coma.
Life with Dignity - Let's not be too eager to pull the plug on our fellow image-bearers.
Speaking Out: Why I Believe in Divorce - Terri Schiavo's only hope to stay on life support is to divorce her husband who wants to pull the plug.
Not a Mercy but a Sin - The modern push for euthanasia is a push against a two-millenniums-old Christian tradition.
Killing with Kindness - Why is the church against euthanasia in instances where people are in terrible pain?

Runaway Judiciary and Terri Schiavo

2005-03-25T06:09:00.000-08:00

Regardless of whether you believe Congress was correct in attempting to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case the fact remains that they did intervene and in doing so gave very specific directions to the courts on how to proceed with her case. As Rich Galen points out today, the legislation passed by the Congress required Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube to be reinserted and a new trial be set to determine all of the facts surrounding her case. In spite of these very clear directions, the courts continue to flagrantly disregard the wishes of Congress.

One of the lasting impacts of this case will be the effect that it has on the judiciary. Certainly this case will help President Bush and Republican Senators make the case that activist judges are dangerous and should be kept off the bench. Judges are supposed to not just interpret the law but enforce it as well. Federal judges are subject to the authority of Congress. In fact, if Congress wanted to they could begin impeachment hearings against the federal judges that have failed to follow the mandate given by Congress. It will be interesting to see whether the House decides to proceed with impeachment hearings once this case has concluded. But judges everywhere should be on notice that they are still accountable to a higher authority even though they often behave as if they are not accountable to anyone.

Confused and Tortured Logic in the Schiavo Case

2005-03-24T18:07:00.000-08:00

Previously, in The 10 Issues of the Schaivo Case, I outlined the many issues brought up by this fiasco. But the worst part of it all is the tortured logic that everyone seems to be using, not to mention the bad science that Louis mentioned (see comment)

Which of the following positions are inconsistent?
What's really bothering me is that many people take a "consistently pro-life" view, and along with liberals, say "I can't understand how someone can be pro-life and pro-capital-punishment." The words "I can't understand" should be replaced with "I want to continue to embrace an overly simplistic model of morality so that I don't have to think."

a. Anti-abortion
b. Pro-right-to-refuse-treatment
c. Pro-assisted-suicide
d. Pro-capital punishment
e. Pro-euthanasia

The Simplistic Pro-life Position: a
In all cases, these people are against any kind of taking of life. To many, that is logically consistent, and favoring "life in all cases" usually stems from the belief that ~~God is mad~~ it is morally wrong if we *ever* take life or help people towards dying.

Where this position seems to falter is that it is so pro-life, it will prolong uneeded suffering in the name of what is "right" - forbidding people to die peacefully by their own accord. They don't want physicians to aid in this work of mercy, and certainly don't want the government to have the right to do this type of "mercy work."

The Typical Conservative Position: a, b, d
The reasoning for being pro-life on the abortion side, and pro-death-penalty is thus: The unborn child has rights that are being disregarded (the right to life), but the person who has committed a capital crime has forfeited their rights. Furthermore, the government has the right to administer just punishments for crimes.

Biblically speaking, capital punishment is supportable - in the same chapter that God gave Moses the commandment "thou shalt not kill," He also gave a nice long list of capital crimes. Most anti capital punishment arguments ignore this, and focus on Jesus' teachings on tolerance and mercy - but they ignore both Jesus' teachings on hell, and some of Paul's somewhat more veiled references to the government's rights to punish.

Interestingly, the Oregon Death With Dignity legislation draws a nice line - they do not permit euthanasia.

BTW, there is some very good Christian theology developed around the right to die. (I'm sorry to say that J.S. Spong was chosen to support the death with dignity position - I'm not a big fan of his theology at all.)

The Typical Moderate Position: Pick a combo
There is not typical position in the middle. Pick any combo not taken by the extremes. Are all of these combos logically consistent? Maybe. Lean a little left, lean a little right. Libertarian, green, whatever ;)

The Typical Liberal Position: b, c, d, e
This group is pro choice all the way. I should have the right to die by my own hands, and in the case of suffering, I should be able to have a physician help me. I should also be able to make the same decisions for my wards - the government should not restrict my or my family's rights to self-determination. And in the name of mercy, it may even be good to help other invalids "die with dignity."

Put in the negative, I can kill myself, ask a doctor to help me kill myself, kill my ailing spouse or child, or kill my unborn child. It's all "kill" in the name of personal autonomy and rights. OK, maybe in a few circumstances one should be restricted, but to this group, even late term abortions are really a personal decision, and not the government's, and certainly, the unborn child has no rights until it comes out of the hole - and maybe not even until the umbilical cord is cut.

This position seems to take personal autonomy to an extreme, while not safeguarding the rights of the weak. It certainly does not address the slippery slope contentions of euthanasia. I'm sure some will call this argument a straw man, but I don't mean it to be so. If most liberals don't hold this position, perhaps they fall into the moderate category.

But those in favor of starving Terry Schiavo to death certainly have forgotten about the "mercy" in "mercy killing." I mean, if she isn't suffering by starving, then she isn't suffering by living either, so why not let her parents care for her?

Experience the Miracle

2005-03-24T13:57:00.000-08:00

We are in the season of the greatest miracle of all time - the celebration of Jesus' resurrection.

Take some time this weekend to contemplate the sacrifice that Jesus made for you. Take some time to think about Him being alive right now and promising you eternal life if you follow Him.

I pray that each of you will find a church to be at on Sunday to worship our Risen Lord and soon coming King of Kings.

Jesus is alive! He is alive forever more!

That message is all the more important in today's climate.

Yahoo/USA Today become psychic

2005-03-24T11:38:00.000-08:00

Today in a USA Today article that was a lead news story on Yahoo.com, the claim is made that Terri Schiavo
will not exprience a painful death.

Unless somehow I missed it when USA Today and Yahoo became psychic or gained super human knowledge, they can not possible know what Terri is experiencing.

The doctors they quote make profound statements like these:

"She's not experiencing hunger - she's not experiencing anything."

"If you're in a state like this for three months or more, you're chance of recovery is zero."

But those movements [Terri's facial expressions] are merely reflexes.

The article does not mention that any of these doctors has ever evaluated Terri Schiavo personally. So again it must be that these doctors have special super powers, too.

Why they go and talk with someone who had their feeding tube removed and recovered and ask her how it felt?

More interesting media thoughts

2005-03-24T10:21:00.000-08:00

It is telling to see who the media thinks has a conflict of intrest and who they think is an objective observer.

If you are a Christian and part of a bioethics committee made up of Christians who do not support doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, then I am sorry your opinion on the Terri Schiavo case is tainted and unwanted.

However, if you have spoken to the Hemlock Society, a doctors group favoring doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia, are member of the board of directors of the Choice in Dying Society, a similar group with similar goals and call those who disagree with you "bogus" and a "fanatic," then you are just who the New York Times is looking for.

Isn't that interesting?

The 10 Issues of the Schiavo Case

2005-03-24T09:55:00.000-08:00

There are so many issues that the Schiavo case has unearthed, I wanted to summarize them the best I could, and rant a little too. Enjoy

1. Individual Right to Refuse Treatment
Does an individual have the right to refuse treatment? We all agree on this. Yes.

2. Guardian's Right to Refuse Treatment
Does a guardian have the right to refuse treatment for a ward? If so, under what circumstances?

Coma? What kinds of coma? How much brain activity?
PVS? If so, how much brain activity?
Refusing vaccination for children?- When is refusal of treatment abuse?
Like in the Schaivo case, if her husband refused therapy, is that abuse?

3. Conditions that Invalidate a Guardian's Right to Choose
What conditions invalidate a guardian's right to refuse treatment for a ward? What if a guardian has possible motive for wanting someone dead, like an insurance policy, or they don't want to care for an invalid? Does that invalidate their rights to make such decisions? How about other purely monetary concerns, like it will bankrupt them to support the ward? What if it's not bankruptcy, but just financial hardship? What if they refuse to care, but some other family member or organization wants to care for the ward?

4. Individual Right to Suicide
There are two arenas here - political and moral (religious). Politically speaking, there is nothing we can do about suicide - I mean, you can't punish someone for taking their life. Like insurance companies do, however - they can refuse benefits to their survivors.

Religiously, there are Christian theologians on both sides of this issue. Some assert that our salvation is based on faith and not our ability to maintain good works, so suicide would not invalidate our salvation. Other's argue that suicide shows that we lacked saving faith, and so are damned not just by our suicide, but by the fact that our actions reflect our lack of faith. I prefer the former argument.

5. Right to Assisted Suicide
Conservatives argue that assisted suicide is one of the early steps on the slippery slope towards euthanizing the weak and sick. However, this is where I think conservatives miss the boat. They argue that medicine should be about curing or palliative care, but not actively killing someone. They have no stomach for any kind of "mercy killing."

But in this case, I think that their slippery-slope alarmism is somewhat of a copout. We do have to heed such a warning by putting stringent conditions around ths practice, but to deny it in all cases is just cruel and unjust. Some people suffer so badly, we should allow them to take their lives in a humane way, assisted by a physician if necessary.

I also think that the reason that Terry is starving to death is because of this cruel opposition to mercy killing - I mean, if we are going to let her die, why not make it painless with an injection?

6. Guardian's Right to Choose Assisted Suicide (euthanasia)
I think this is really what the Schaivo case is about. Whether or not she is in a PVS, someone else is deciding on whether she lives or dies. In this case, I think we need to allow spouses to make that decision, *unless*

the ward is not truly in a PVS - we should be able to monitor if they have emotional suffering due to their treatment or lack of treatment
there is cause to doubt the guardian's motives, as there is in this case
we have not already done all we can do to rehab the ward - which in this case, it seems that we have NOT because of the *husband's* decision.

I think this is a strong argument for letting Terry live.

7. Slippery Slope of Euthanasia
Even if we agree with allowing a person to take their own life with assisted suicide, what about putting to death anyone who meets the conditions of PVS or other terminal condition? This would mean first of all that any guardian would be free to put their wards to sleep, and second, it could lead to doing the same to those who are wards of the state. That is sounding dangerous.

Here's where the slippery-slope argument needs to be heeded. We might start out with PVS, but what about extreme suffering like spina-biffida? What about mental retardation? Just severe retardation? How severe is severe enough?

8. Does a guardian's right to make decisions also apply to abortion and the mother's right to choose?
This whole case has some bearing on the abortion debate. I mean, if a husband can put an ailing spouse down because "she would have wanted it that way", can we also abort if we think, for example, a Down's Syndrome child would not want to suffer? That's the type of question that links these together.

9. Does the ward's right to life also apply to the pre-born child's right to life?
If Terry Schiavo can be put to death because she is inconvenient, it would seem that the same logic would apply to the unborn. Pro-lifers argue that the Terry Schiavo death-logic is consistent with pro-abortion logic, and should not be tolerated. I tend to agree in principle, except that in Terry's case there is the added detail that she is possibly always going to be in a PVS, while a child will grow up to have a future.

10. Do the feds have the right to interfere with state's decisions?
As Aaron points out, most conservatives are, in principle, not in favor of the feds interfering with states' rights, and so are not big fans of the recent Bush-led federal efforts to save Terry's life, even though they want Terry to live. They say this is improper, just like Roe v. Wade. NPR had an interesting interview about this, it seems there is some precedent for this (President Lincoln), but it still may not be constitutional. This is one of the conservative arguments, BTW, against Roe v. Wade - it interferes with states' rights.

However, in the case for life, while federal legislation may not be the answer, we may need a constitutional amendment to preserve life - and I totally agree with that.

CONCLUSION
As Bugs Bunny once said "that gives me a conclusion of the brain." There are a LOT of issues brought up in this case, and I am disgusted with the illogic and duplicity, as seen in:

the conservatives' dogmatism against the right to die, which has contributed to Terry's painful death instead of a peaceful, morphine induced death
the liberals' dogmatism for a person's rights (Terry's or her husband's?) to the point of letting someone suffer a cruel death
the liberals' dogmatism that is not giving time for due diligence in making sure that Terry has had all of the tests and chances for rehab before putting her to death (I don't think the last 15 years of data is enough
both liberal and conservative polarization and slippery-slope fear-mongering in issues that we should discuss and make reasonable rules around.

The only time the media likes Evangelicals is...

2005-03-24T08:47:00.000-08:00

when they agree with them or at least when the polls say they agree with the media.

A new CBS News poll (we all know how trustworthy they are) shows that the majority of self described evangelicals disagree with the intervention of President Bush and Congress in the Schiavo case.

The only time the MSM places any type of importance on the views of evangelicals is when they find a poll that shows them disagreeing with Republicans or if they can just find some spokesperson to identify themselves as evangelical and disagree with the President, like last month's big deal with the environment.

Last month the meme was "evangelicals are becoming green" and how more and more evangelicals were supposedly straying from conservative thought on environmental issues like global warming.

Read the New York Times article and see how many dissenting view points you find in the article. See if you can find a poll done to support the claim. If you find any of those you are better than me. All I see is cherry-picked people to support something the writer already wanted to see and establish, not a balanced article detailing different sides to the controversial issue.

I would not be shocked if the Schiavo poll was not entirely accurate. As I said, I have mixed feelings on the federal government intervention, but regardless it still strikes me as odd that the media suddenly cares what I think when they never seem to care about my thoughts on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, social security, immigration, the Iraq war, North Korea nukes or any other social and policy issue today.

U. S. Supreme Court Rejects Schiavo Appeal

2005-03-24T08:10:00.000-08:00

The U. S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the appeal from Terri Schiavo's parents in their attempts to get her feeding tube reinserted. The legal options remaining for Schiavo's parents are dwindling rapidly. Clearly the federal courts have shown contempt for the mandate given by Congress in legislation passed last weekend.

The precedent that has been set by this case is frightening. It is up to our elected representatives to step up and ensure that this does not happen again.

The Schiavo Protocol and Servanthood

2005-03-24T06:29:00.000-08:00

AnotherThink has an excellent post on Terri Schiavo's situation and the call for servanthood from her husband. (Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost). He shares the story of another couple in a much more serious predicament except with one difference: the husband shows servant love towards his ailing wife.

As you can probably tell in my previous posts on this situation, Michael Schiavo's behavior makes me angry. I find it difficult to comprehend how a supposedly loving husband can treat his wife the way he has treated Terri throughout her illness. I'm not just speaking about the recent legal manuvers to have her feeding tube removed so that she can be starved to death. I'm talking about years of denying her rehabilitation, medical treatment, and other simpler comforts that would make her more comfortable and increase the chances of her recovery.

A loving husband would make sure that his wife got everything that she needed in order to be comfortable and would campaign tirelessly to ensure she gets all appropriate medical treatment even if the doctors are unwilling to give it to her.

As AnotherThink describes it, the Schiavo Protocol is a dangerous step along the path to euthanasia. We need to be careful in making these types of decisions making sure to err on the side of life. But more importantly, we need to serve one another in love.

Full 11th Circuit Denies Appeal in Terri Schiavo Case

2005-03-23T13:07:00.000-08:00

In a 10-2 decision this afternoon, the full 11th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear a petition from Terri Schiavo's parents to have her feeding tube reinserted. Her parents have stated they will appeal to the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Florida are scrambling to try to pass a bill that will help Terri Schiavo. Governor Jeb Bush has already said that he will sign the bill. The key senators can be contacted by e-mail by clicking on this link.

UPDATE 5:00PM EST: The Florida Senate has rejected a bill that would have allowed Terri Schiavo's feeding tube to be reinserted. Terri's fate now lies in the hands of the U. S. Supreme Court.

My favorite politician - Howard Dean

2005-03-23T10:35:00.000-08:00

Howard Dean continues his 50-state tour of Biblical ignorance.

Go and see him expound on his favorite New Testament book - Job.

Be amazed at his ability to take virtually ever possible verse out of context and force a political meaning on it to benefit Democrats.

Stand in awe of his....Dan Ratheresqe courage as he chastizes the Republicans for their concern of money while immediately turning around and requesting campaign donations.

Do not miss out on your chance to witness the Howard Dean Biblical Ignorance Tour 2005. Coming to a southern or western city near you.

How the Law Has Failed Terri Schiavo

2005-03-23T10:04:00.000-08:00

In a 2-1 ruling issued this morning, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied requests by Terri Schiavo's family to have her feeding tube reinserted thus allowing the state-sanctioned murder of Ms. Schiavo to continue. Her parents have filed an appeal with the U. S. Supreme Court. Although the Court has previously refused to get involved in this case there is no way to tell what they will do with this appeal since they have heard only a couple of similar cases in the past.

As Charles Krauthammer points out this morning, the law is failing Terri Schiavo. Because her wishes were not documented in a living will or other advance medical directive, the courts have had to rely on the conflicting accounts of her parents and her husband as to what her final wishes might be. Regardless of the outcome of the Schindlers appeals on behalf of the daughter, lawmakers are going to have to wrestle with this issue in order to prevent further cases like this being decided by the courts.

Although I generally don't favor the federal government getting involved in decisions such as this one, I believe that for the good of the country a federal law regarding living wills and life and death decisions will be necessary. One good approach would be that in the absence of a written living will that has been properly signed by the individual, witnessed and notarized, that doctors and medical facilities must take all steps necessary to preserve life.

I don't believe that this debate will end with Terri Schiavo. Although it has been heartbreaking to watch her suffer needlessly at the hands of her estranged husband and judges who do not want to stand up for life, I believe that her case will bring this important debate to the attention of all Americans and will present our elected representatives with the opportunity to do the right thing and prevent this type of travesty from occurring again.

UPDATE 12:56 PM EST: The Schindlers have filed a request for a rehearing en banc before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which means that they are asking the entire 12 judge panel to review the case. If a majority of the judges rule in favor of Terri Schiavo her feeding tube can be reinserted. The original opinion can be found at this link (PDF format).

Meanwhile, a friend of mine e-mailed me this post from Sharp Knife with some thoughts on the hypocrisy surrounding this case. Rich Lowry also has some thoughts on that issue.

And Michelle Malkin does an excellent job of exposing the mainstream media's bias in their coverage of the case.

More conflicting thoughts on the Schiavo case

2005-03-23T05:57:00.000-08:00

Since my post yesterday I have had a few more conflicting thoughts on the issue. So here is two totally different ways to look at the situation.

Thought 1 - This in some ways demonstrates our nation's support of marriage through it's laws.
Our nation values marriage so much that it considers couples who marry to no longer be two people but one, as the image portrayed in the Bible. One can argue how much of a husband Michael has been through this whole situation, but he is still legally her husband. Because of that marriage bond, he is given rights to speak on behalf of Terri in the event that she cannot.

If we did not value marriage or thought little of it, then it would make it easier for the parents to make a claim, but the foundational laws of the country exalt the marriage vows and relationship. Even though the institution has been degraded through the years through divorce, even worse no fault divorce and currently the attempts to redefine marriage, despite all that marriage is still viewed as the supreme relationship that garners more rights than any other relationship.

Joe at Evangelical Outpost has some different thoughts on marriage in the light of the Schiavo case.

Thought 2 - It is a dangerous precedent to argue against Terri Schiavo because of her quality of life.
The thoughts posed by Michelle Catalano and other bloggers that "laying in a vegetative state for fifteen years is not living at all" sets a very dangerous precedent. [Let me first say, that I have nothing against Michelle personally. I think she is a very talented writer. I agree with her on some things and I disagree with her on some things. This is not an attack at her personally.]

When we establish a certain criteria for living we engage in a very tricky issue. How do we determine exactly where that line is and when we crossed it? Many argue that Terri really "died 15 years ago" or that her life right now "is not worth living." Again, how can we make that judgment for that person and tell them that their life is not worth living?

I'm sure people will scream "slippery slope! slippery slope!" but you cannot evaluate decisions without taking into account the future implications of that choice. If we allow Terri to be starved to death, what type of precedent does that set for future decisions? More questions will be raised and with no definitive answers to establish the correct course of action, we have set our nation up for an all out assault on those who cannot speak for themselves.

What is to stop a husband or a wife that has a spouse in a comma to have them taken off feeding tube or other assistance? When we are allowed to move the line that establishes life to one that is determined by "quality" of life, we begin to see different meanings for quality. One person's quality life is not the same as someone else's, who's right in that circumstance?

That is why life should simply be regarded as life, with no variations or degrees of good life. It brings to mind someone saying they are only "kinda dead." There is no kinda dead or kinda alive. You are one or the other. If you want to wander into the realm of nuance then we can discuss ventilators and other life support means that perform necessary bodily functions over extended periods of time with no possibility of that person every getting off of those machines. But this is not that type of case. Terri can be trained to eat, which would remove her from every type of "life support." Would it still be okay to starve her because she can't feed herself? This is not to mention the implications for Alzheimer's and other mentally depleting illnesses. How do we treat them? Where is there line to cross where it is okay to kill them because there life is no longer "quality?"

As I keep coming back to with this issue, it raises more questions than answers and often more heat than light. All I know to do is pray for all the individuals involved and pray that God's will is accomplished and He is glorified.

Update on the State's Rights side: Many more qualified thinkers have discussed the federalism questions. Hugh Hewitt, Mark Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru have all said there is no problem Constitutionally with what Congress did. [Scroll down on the Corner links for more quality thoughts on the issue.] I respect their opinions and hope they are right, but as I said yesterday, I can't help but think we are in a lose-lose situation now.

Stones Cry Out raises this interesting question: "Does anyone else find it interesting that Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, overwhelmingly come down on the side of both life and intervention, while non-religious conservatives are more concerned with the issue of Congress' work?" For the most part, I find that statement to hold up, but there is one irreligious conservative blogger that has been very passionate about this issue.

Update: Charles Krauthammer says we are caught between a travesty and a tragedy. That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the issues that we facing.

Minnesota school shooting raises more questions

2005-03-22T08:19:00.000-08:00

Another school murder rampage has happened, with some of the same signs as the Columbine shooting.

A 17-year-old shot and killed his grandfather and his wife. Then he shot his way into his high school, Red Lake High School, where he killed five students, a guard and a teacher. He ended the shooting spree by taking his own life.

The shooter, Jeff Weise, was said to ask one of his victims if he believed in God. He was a loner, wore all black, alligned himself with Neo-Nazi beliefs, expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and was picked on by some of his classmates.

Someone who identified himself as Jeff Weise of the Red Lake Reservation posted messages on a Neo-Nazi website under the nickname "Todesengel" - German for "angel of death."

This again brings me into conflict on the Terri Schiavo case and my stance on federal government intervention. All of this is connected, as a result of our continually degrading of the value of human life and in terms of the spiritual condition of our nation.

However, we do not need government mandated morality. We need a revival from God to bring Christians back into a right relationship with Him. We have to stop blaming everyone else for our lack of morality. Lost people are supposed to act lost. Christians are supposed to act Christian. If that were to happen a lot of things would change.

Update: Here is the latest information on the shooting. Also Michelle Malkin has plenty of links to the coverage.

Against the status quo

2005-03-22T05:55:00.001-08:00

As most of you probably already know, the judge has said he will not order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube back in.

For the most part, Seeker is the one who post things that are against the status quo. Today, I am going to do that with this case.

First, you need to know that I believe the feeding tube should not be removed. I believe Michael Schiavo is a snake in the grass and a terrible, lying "husband." I believe that Terri's parents should fight as hard as possible to save their daughter's life. I believe what is happening in Florida amounts to government sanctioned torture and murder. Having said all that, I am not sure if I agree with what Congress and President Bush did over the weekend when they passed and signed a piece of legislation that removed the case from state jurisdiction and placed it in the federal courts.

Think long term about this situation and about a consistent position. Conservatives may win this battle, but it might cost them the war.

What happens in 10 years or so (or whenever it happens), when Democrats regain control of the government? What happens when we have some states outlawing gay marriage and some states recognizing it? Do you not think they will go back and use this case as a precedent to reach into state affairs and force those state laws to be ruled on by a far more friendly (read liberal) court?

Think about examples from the past. What about abortion? Do we not complain that the federal government over stepped their Constitutional boundaries by forcing abortion on demand into every state by judicial fiat? They were wrong to force every state to accept the moral position of the court. Would they not still be wrong to force Florida to accept their moral position? The Supreme Court judges in Florida are as wrong as they can be, but that is for the state of Florida to decide.

I know this is a difficult position. My heart aches for this family. I want them to fight with everything they have and exhaust every possible legal remedy, but could we be dooming dozens of Terri's if we allow the federal government the right to judge. Because of this situation, in the future states may pass laws against removing feeding tubes if their is a dispute or some type of law to protect those in a "vegetative state." What happens if the federal government decides its moral judgment is better than the states? It believes those people should "die with dignity" through a "mercy killing." We will have paved the way for that ruling with this case.

The Constitution was set up so that states could decide on these touchy subjects. States know better the moral fabric of their residents than a far off national government. That is why the framers established states. If we allow the federal government the ability to reach into every state decision and throw it to federal judges, what is the purpose of states?

It is humorous to see liberals in Congress scream and wail about state's rights being trampled. Do you know that is so funny and ironic - because they have repeated stepped into state matters and forced their opinions onto the entire nation through liberal judges. They are only for state's rights when it suits them, today it suits them, tomorrow it won't. They will argue one minute why this is a private family decision that the government should not be interfering with, then the next minute they will be arguing why the federal government should be able to take all of your social security and you should have no say in the matter. Their position is consistently inconsistent.

For the most part, conservatives have attempted to remain consistent on our application of the law and the Constitution. The test of our principles come when the decision is tough and it doesn't go our way. Do we stand on our principles or take the short cut?

I am personally opposed to gay marriage, but I think what Massachusetts does is Massachusetts' problem. As long as their decision is not forced on to every state. I remain consistent in my principles even though I am opposed to the decision. Many of the same liberals who are crying about "big federal government" destroying "personal decisions" and state's rights in this case are the same ones who believe the federal government should be allowed to force every state to recognize gay marriage. If conservatives are not careful we will become the laughing stock that the liberals are today - shifting positions wildly to suit our current mood or issue.

This case is not as easy for me to swallow as gay marriage. There is a lady down in Florida who is being starved to death because her lousy husband in name only wants her out of the way. That is wrong every way you look at it, but does that give me the right to jump ship on principle and say now in this special case the federal government should rule.

I don't have all the answers for all the questions this brings up. It almost feels like with this position I am sacrificing Terri's life on the alter of principle and consistency. I can't shake that feeling. But, I just can't bring myself to be excited that conservatives have been forced to bring a federal government solution to a state issue. The other feeling I can't shake is that one day down the road we will regret allowing this to happen either way. We will regret starving Terri and we will regret allowing the federal government even more power over our state laws and our personal lives.

Update: Mark Daniels expresses some similar conflicting opinions and emotions about this issue. Also, Ann Althouse makes the case that Congress and President Bush are upholding federalism by siding with the Florida house and governor. Again, I stay confused and conflicted.

Courts Take Another Step Toward Murdering Terri Schiavo

2005-03-22T05:50:00.000-08:00

U. S. District Court Judge James Whittemore has become the latest accessory to Terri Schiavo's murder by refusing to allow her feeding tube to be reinserted. Judge Whittemore based his decision on the finding that Terri's parents had not established a "substantial likelihood of success" at trial on the merits of their arguments. Terri's parents will now appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta in an attempt to reverse the ruling.

Although there are many that will claim it is not worth fighting for Terri's life, Cal Thomas points out today that this case has substantial implications for our society at large:

The Schiavo case should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a flow that began in modern times with abortion-on-demand and will continue, if not stopped, with euthanasia. Once a single category of life is devalued, all other categories quickly become vulnerable.

Objective and Subjective Meaning

2005-03-21T14:53:00.000-08:00

Meaning, like truth, has both objective and subjective components. Over the centuries, wise men, spiritualists, and philosophers have observed the human condition and concluded that certain principles and practices lead to relative ruin and unhappiness, while others lead to meaning and satisfaction. This is why we have the concept of a "wasted life." Those who like to say there is no such thing as a wasted life should consider starving children or oppressed peoples.

So, we might ask, what principles and practices for human living lead to satisfaction and meaning? To start, here's a nice list that describes our primary task, that of LOVE:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.
- 1 Corinthians 13:4-8

And here's a nice set of principles to go by as well:

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things.
- Philippians 4:8

One of my favorite authors and authorities on the objective principles that direct us towards objectively meaningful pursuits, Stephen Covey (arguably a modern day wiseman).

Principles are like lighthouses. They are natural laws that cannot be broken. As Cecil B. deMille observed…in the Ten Commandments, "It is impossible for us to break the law. We can only break ourselves against the law."… "Objective reality" [is composed of] principles that govern human growth and happiness - natural laws that are woven into the fabric of every civilized society throughout history and comprise the roots of every family and institution that has endured and prospered.

The reality of such principles or natural laws becomes obvious to anyone who thinks deeply and examines the cycles of social history. These principles surface time and time again, and the degree to which people in a society recognize and live in harmony with them moves them toward either survival and stability or disintegration and destruction.

The principles are not esoteric, mysterious, or "religious" ideas….These principles are part of most every major enduring religion, as well as enduring social philosophies and ethical systems. They are self-evident and can easily be validated by any individual….One way to quickly grasp the self-evident nature of principles is to simply consider the absurdity of attempting to live an effective life based on their opposites.
- The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, pp. 33-35.

In Covey's even more excellent book, First Things First, he identifies many principles and arenas that we should be observing and endeavoring in, in order to succeed in a meaningful, satisfying life – note that these principles are applicable to all humans as a rule, not just "good for some people." Without going into detail, he gives an overview of four areas in which we must develop proper perspectives and habits in order to find meaning and satisfaction. They are:

To Love – to develop into healthy individuals, and to share ourselves and receive others
To Live – to not waste our precious commodities of time and personal potential and resources, but to channel them into worthwhile pursuits.
To Learn – to continue growing in mind and spirit
To Leave a Legacy – to invest ourselves into people and institutions that have ongoing value.

In summary, the meaning of life is well defined through objective, self-evident principles and practices that lead to meaning. Life's activities are not just meaningful because I decide to assign meaning to them.

However, there is a subjective component to meaning. Some things may not have "objective meaning," but for me, they may have meaning. For instance, watching baseball might not have objective meaning to all mankind, but to me, because I used to play baseball, watching it does have meaning (positive or negative). So in this context, you can say that things only have meaning if I give them meaning for myself.

There is a danger, however, in the subjective assignment of meaning – if I fail to assign meaning to things that have objective meaning, or assign meaning to things that do not have objective meaning, I may miss out on meaning, or be controlled by things that are meaningless, respectively. The more our subjective mental map of meaning aligns with the objective map, the more successful, meaningful, and free we really are. It's not that assigning meaning to watching baseball is harmful, but if it assumes supreme meaning for me, I may be hurting myself and other by missing what is actually meaningful.

Lots to talk about but not much to say

2005-03-21T12:26:00.000-08:00

There are tons of things going on out there to talk about, but really what else can be said. Everyone is blogging about Terri Shiavo, inlcuding Two or Three's very own Daddypundit, who has stayed on top of all the latest news. There are other things going on in the news today, but it is hard to write about how huge the upsets were in college basketball this weekend when you have someone being starved to death.

I am almost at a loss for words (which is saying a lot) and have been for the past few days. I posted over at The Wardrobe Door about embracing the mystery of Christianity and maybe that is what is going on. Bloggers are almost expect to know everything or at least have an informed opinion on every major event taking place in the world and sometimes I just have to unplug and focus on the mystery of God and who He is. Sometimes God has to remind me that I don't have all the answers to all the questions. Sometimes God has to put me through spiritual chemo to get rid of the spiritual cancer of pride.

So blogging may be light for me this week. I might not have anything relevant to say or I might be inspired tommorrow. I also am thinking about posting some much promised (poorly delivered) posts on the Jesus Seminar and their value or lack of it.

How do you know if you were right?

2005-03-21T11:33:00.000-08:00

If you are President Bush and you are asking about your appointment of John Bolton as the US Ambassador to the United Nations, you know you are right when terrorist nations refer to him as human scum.

When North Korea calls your choice a "bloodsucker" and "the most undesirable" and "worst UN envoy," you know you have made the right decision.

James Taranto Hits a Home Run on Terri Schiavo Case

2005-03-21T11:02:00.000-08:00

James Taranto, author of Opinionjournal.com's Best of the Web, hits a home run in today's column with his analysis of the Terri Schiavo case (first item):

Congress has granted Terri Schiavo a reprieve. In an extraordinary midnight session, the House voted 203-58 to approve a bill to restore her feeding tube--removed last week by order of a Florida judge--and grant the federal courts jurisdiction over her case. The Senate had earlier approved the measure on a voice vote, but some Democrats obstructed the effort to pass it the same way in the House, forcing Republicans to assemble a quorum for a roll-call vote. President Bush, up well past his bedtime, signed the bill into law just before 1:30 a.m.

Supporters of Michael Schiavo's effort to end his wife's life have asked how conservatives, who claim to believe in the sanctity of marriage, can fail to respect his husbandly authority. The most obvious answer is that a man's authority as a husband does not supersede his wife's rights as a human being--a principle we never thought we'd see liberals question.

But why do those of us who aren't right-to-life absolutists side with Mrs. Schiavo's parents, who want to keep her alive, over her husband, who wants her dead? It's a fair question, and it raises another one: What kind of husband is Michael Schiavo?

According to news reports, Mr. Schiavo lives with a woman named Jodi Centonze, and they have two children together. Surely any court would consider this prima facie evidence of adultery. And this is no mere fling; a sympathetic 2003 profile in the Orlando Sentinel described Centonze as Mr. Schiavo's "fiancée." Mr. Schiavo, in other words, has virtually remarried. Short of outright bigamy, his relationship with Centonze is as thoroughgoing a violation of his marriage vows as it is possible to imagine.

The point here is not to castigate Mr. Schiavo for behaving badly. It would require a heroic degree of self-sacrifice for a man to forgo love and sex in order to remain faithful to an incapacitated wife, and it would be unreasonable to hold an ordinary man to a heroic standard.

But it is equally unreasonable to let Mr. Schiavo have it both ways. If he wishes to assert his marital authority to do his wife in, the least society can expect in return is that he refrain from making a mockery of his marital obligations. The grimmest irony in this tragic case is that those who want Terri Schiavo dead are resting their argument on the fiction that her marriage is still alive.

A Surreal Debate

2005-03-21T07:15:00.000-08:00

Last night I was up until the early hours of the morning watching the live feed of the House of Representatives debate on C-Span's website of the bill to save Terri Schiavo. As I was watching the debate, I was struck by how bizzare it seemed that this debate even had to take place.

While it remains to be seen whether the federal courts will be willing to step in and save Terri Schiavo's life, I believe that Congress did the right thing last night by passing this bill. They have at least protected Terri's rights in this case.

The Republicans clearly had an edge in the debate with sevearl physicians ready to make statements on Terri's behalf. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) did an excellent job of preparing rebuttals to Democratic arguments against the bill.

Among the many ironies of the evening was the Democrats repeated argument that passage of this bill would be a violation of the principles of federalism. As I recall, Democrats have never been proponents of federalism. After all, Roe vs. Wade was a blatant violation of federalism by circumventing the will of the states at the time and creating the right to an abortion which, of course, did not exist in the Constitution.

Democrats are willing to embrace states rights but only when it suits their agenda. Consider for a moment the issue of gay marriage. Democrats will argue that it is a states rights issue because they know they cannot get federal legislation passed recognizing gay marriage.

Another really strange argument (coming from Democrats) is that Congress was wrong to step into what they felt was a "private, family matter". Yet it is Democrats who have repeatedly supported government involvement in private decisions. Given their current opposition to the President's plan to offer partial privatization of Social Security accounts this argument about goverment interfering in a private matter seems ludicrous.

One of the questions yet to be answered is what the long-term fallout will be from this debate. Democrats who stood up last night to oppose this bill have shown the world once and for all that they are the party of death and not life. It will be interesting to see whether any of the representatives voting against this bill will suffer any political consquences in 2006.

The Murder of Terri Schiavo

2005-03-18T21:52:00.000-08:00

Terri Schiavo was murdered today by her husband Michael, Judge George Greer, and the State of Florida. The feeding tube which had been providing her with essential nutrition was removed today. Now she will begin the slow, painful process of starving to death.

Michael Schiavo has maintained that Terri did not wish to be kept alive by such means as artificial life support. Mark Alexander makes an excellent point in his latest Townhall.com column:

If the intentional taking of an innocent human life is defined as murder, does this definition somehow change if the taker of life is the victim's spouse, guardian, or physician? If one person says to another, "Here's a knife; please stab me to death, as I want to die," does this then absolve the knife-wielder from culpability for murder? Is it really murder if and only if the victim says it's murder?

Because Terri had no advance medical directive (often referred to as a "living will") her true wishes are not known. We only have her husband's testimony about her wishes regarding medical care.

His testimony is not credible for several reasons. First, he is engaged to another woman. Second, he has fathered two children by this woman. Third, he has consistently denied rehabilitative treatment to his wife. Fourth, he has denied any type of diagnostic test that would determine her exact condition and whether any rehabilitative treatment would be available. Fifth, those same diagnositic tests that have been denied would also show whether allegations that have been made that Michael physically abused his wife therefore causing her "accident". Sixth, Michael has publicly stated that once his wife dies he intends to cremate her body again destroying any evidence of possible spousal abuse. Given all of these facts is it reasonable to assume that Michael is looking out for Terri's best interests?

The much larger issue at stake here, however, is the sanctity of life. One of the fundamental problems in this case is that Florida law makes it legal to have Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed. Although I am a strong proponent of states' rights, I am afraid that one of the only legislative solutions available that will prevent this type of situation from occurring again is a federal law outlawing the removal of life support in situations where no written advance medical directive has been given.

I was discussing this with an attorney friend of mine earlier this evening. He said that in all the time he has been practicing law he has never had someone come into his office asking him to draft an advance medical directive asking for someone to save their lives. The purpose of an advance medical directive is to instruct physicians not to take extraordinary measures to save a person's life.

There is still time to save Terri Schiavo's life. Continue to pray for a miracle.

Atheists Attempt to Kill Easter Bunny

2005-03-17T16:25:00.000-08:00

David Silverman, communications director of American Atheists recently mentioned in a Hannity & Colmes interview that he objects to the Easter bunny, since Easter is a religious holiday. Now, as we all know, Easter comes from the pagan celebration of Ishtar, which I suppose has fertility rites, hence the bunnies and eggs.

But the real questions that we should discuss are:

Should Christians celebrate Christian holidays with "pagan" roots, like Easter and Christmas?
Should Christians celebrate the Jewish holidays in a Christian way?
Should Christians celebrate alternative holidays whenever they want to?

Now the way I see it, there have traditionally been a few responses:

1. TOTAL ABSTENTION: No Holidays
Well, mostly cults do this, but some groups think that celebrating anything not explicitly mentioned in the New Testament is out, including birthdays and most holidays. Holidays are worldly. I guess for them, even the Jewish holy days are out too, cause they're Old Testament.

2. PARTIAL ABSTENTION: Only Observe Holidays that Don't Offend Religious Sensibilities
So no Christmas or Easter (pagan), but birthdays and Thanksgiving seem ok. Certainly not Halloween.

3. MODIFIED CELEBRATIONS: Creating Alternatives
Many Christian churches now offer alternative Halloween Celeberations, usually called Harvest Festivals or something like that. Fun for the kids, no demons or witches. Sounds good to me.

Interestingly, many more regular Christians are looking for alternatives to the commercialism of Christmas, not to mention it's pagan, secular, and Christian roots and bad timing (too close to Thanksgiving ;).

Many choose merely to volunteer in soup kitchens and not exchange gifts, or celebrate Christmas in a more subdued manner. Many Protestants have even begun to celebrate the more Catholic Feast of the Magi and Twelfth Night, which are the end of the Epiphany Observances. In part, these are attractive because they don't involve ~~Satan~~ Santa, because the latter part of the celebration is farther away from Thanksgiving, and because they are actually more closely aligned with the true biblical events.

4. MODIFIED CELEBRATIONS: Judaizing the Holidays
Instead of Easter, why not Celebrate Christian Passover with Jesus as the Lamb? Some groups advocate replacing the religious holiday celebrations with Christian versions of the holidays, and some actually advocate that Christians should celebrate ALL of the Jewish holidays that reflected the coming messiah.

5. ACCOMODATION: Celebrate Like the Culture, But Emphasize the True Meanings
Most Christians, I would imagine, have ~~Ishtar~~ Easter Egg hunts, even at their churches, and many have Santa as well at Christmas. But in their masses, church services, and homes, they remind us that "Jesus is the reason for the season." Is that good enough? Or is that a copout? It is hard to be an outcast in your culture by not participating, and many parents are concerned about making their kids social outcasts as well.

-----

Now me, I probably do a combination of 3, 4, and sad to say 5. But each year, I am deeply considering what values and events my family wants to emphasize, and we want to develop traditions focus on what has faith and meaning to us.

For Halloween, I'm not sure what we are going to do when my 1 year old gets old enough to know. Last year we just dressed her up as a pumpkin and left it at that. But maybe a harvest festival might be better.

Thanksgiving is a no-brainer. We love it. Thank God and pass the gravy.

For Christmas, because my wife is a born-again ex-Catholic (she was Catholic, but now is a Christian with Catholic sympathies), we may actually do the whole Epiphany Feasts. It seems more bibilcal to us.

For Easter, I'm really not sure. Probably just kind of ignore it. Maybe do the Stations of the Cross (darn those Catholics, they have some good observances despite their other doctrines and practices) .

In conclusion, we should all be free to obey our consciences, but I certainly think we should consider well what we are celebrating, and be willing to contradict our secular or religious traditions in the interest of our own integrity and committment to truth.

HT: World Mag

Fear is a great motivator

2005-03-17T10:59:00.000-08:00

A new study finds that Mormon teenagers are better behaved across the board than other religious teens.

A higher percentage of Mormons followed their religion's teachings on sex, alcohol, drugs, etc than other religious teens. Conservative Protestant Christians were second in most categories.

As I said in the title, fear is a great motivator. If your religion teaches that you have to work your way into heaven, then you are going to work extra hard at being as good as possible.

One surprising stat was that conservative Christians and black Protestant bestes Mormons in belief in God. The numbers: 94% of conservative Protestant and 97% of black Protestant teens said they believed in God, compared with 84% of Mormon youths.

I think both those stats are a consequence of the teachings of the Mormon church. As I said, if salvation is related to works in anyway then you have a very large motivating factor. Also, if you teach some of the things that the Mormon church does, then some will begin to doubt the existence of God because of the contridictory and strange nature of the god of Mormonism.

That still does not excuse Christian young people who have Truth from living a live that is "worthy of the calling" they have been given.

One thing the article mentions is the high expectations that Mormon parents and churches have for their teenagers. Too often that is lacking in Christian churches and among Christian parents. We just expect our teenagers to be worldly and have no desire to live a life set apart for Christ. I think if we called our teenagers to a more holy life, they would take up the challenge and, as Paul told Timothy, "be an example for the church."

Hat Tip: World Mag Blog

Life or death - who decides?

2005-03-17T09:03:00.000-08:00

I don't see how this is fair?

With the Terri Schiavo case, we have two interest at war - the husband and the family. But in the case of 5-month-old Sun Hudson, the only interest was his mother and the hospital was allowed to remove him from life support against her wishes after a judge ruled against her.

Sun may not have ever gotten off the ventilator and may have died in the next few days, weeks or months regardless, but how does a hospital or government have the right to end a life?

For those of you (Sam) who support the right-to-death, what do you think about this case? The baby clearly could not speak for himself, but the mother could and she wanted the baby to live.

i don't see how this is right or fair. How does the hospital get to decide? What limitations do they have? This is very troubling to me.

Hat Tip: World Mag Blog

The history of Maewyn Succat

2005-03-17T07:09:00.000-08:00

Today we celebrate the life of Maewyn Succat.

Maewyn lived an average ordinary life in England, until he was 16 when he was kidnapped by Irish marauders and sold into slavery to a Druid chieftain in Ireland.

He worked for the druidical high priest for six years tending his flock of sheep. While he was in captivity, Maewyn became fluent in the celtic language and began to pray close to 100 times a day.

After working there six years, Maewyn decided to escape. He went about 200 miles before he found a ship ready to sail.

Maewyn went into the ministry and placed himself under the guidance of a bishop, St. Germain. In a few years, he was promoted to priest.

He begin to have thoughts of the people in Ireland and longed to return there to spread the Gospel. He began tell St. Germain of his desires. The bishop recommended Maewyn to the pope, so he traveled to Rome.

Shortly before Maewyn's death, Pope Celestine agreed to let Maewyn return to Ireland to teach God's word. Before Maewyn left, the pope gave him the name "Patritius" or Patrick, derived from two Latin words meaning the father of his people.

Now Patrick, went to Ireland with a vast knowledge of their language and their religious beliefs. He began to spread Christianity to the Irish people.

Because of their beliefs, the concept of the Trinity was a difficult one for them to grasp. Patrick then plucked a three-leaved shamrock from the ground and told them of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - three in one. This enabled many druids to understand Christianity and accept Jesus.

Despite many death threats and attempts on his life, Patrick continued to spread the Gospel to the people of Ireland until his death. Then, his name was changed once more to St. Patrick.

I learned most of this from a cucumber sock puppet. Lutfi, the tinsey-winsey cucumber, told the story on Veggie Tales episode: Sumo of the Opera. It is amazing what you can learn from children's entertainment.

The Promotional Power of the Blogosphere

2005-03-17T06:31:00.000-08:00

I just discovered that Mark Lee, guitarist for one of my favorite bands Third Day, has his own blog at This Guy Falls Down. Mark clearly understands the influence of the blogosphere as he has started a series of posts for aspiring songwriters on how to get their songs published. First step: start a blog! The blog gives you a platform in which to make your material available for folks to hear.

Stacy Harp is tapping into this power of the blogosphere by starting a new blog: Mind and Media. She's recruiting bloggers to review books and post their reviews on their blogs. As further proof that this will work she cites a recent survey that shows one in four readers say the last book they selected was recommended by a friend. And she's already got publishers lined up ready to give her books to share with her review team.

Although many people still think of the blogosphere as a place for political discussion there is still great untapped potential for the blogosphere to be used as a marketplace of ideas and products.

Rumor: Jonny Lang a Christian?

2005-03-16T21:14:00.000-08:00

by Seeker

For those unfamiliar with Jonny Lang, he is a phenomenal young blues guiatarist and vocalist. We went to see him this past week, and surprisingly, he sang some very Christian songs. First, he sang Stevie Wonder's "Have a Talk With God." Someone from the crowd yelled afterwards "I just talked with God, and He says your number one!" Jonny laughed and replied "He doesn't have any favorites."

Then, he sang a beautiful song I've never heard, something about "I can't wait for our wedding day." It sounded like a groom longing for a bride, but the lyrics were "I can't wait to see behind the veil, to see your face, to see your glory..." I looked at my wife, whose similar look asked "Did he just say that?"

Later, he sang what sounded like an old spiritual, which ended each verse in "I believe just what He said." The last verse he sang with much passion (like he does all of his music), singing, "Halelujah, halelujah, halelujah, I believe just what he said." It was really awesome.

On the way out, I said to the person in front of me, "he sure sang a lot of spiritual songs," to which the person, probably a Christian, said "I liked it. Maybe he's coming out of the closet." Obviously, I wasn't the only one surprised.
Interestingly, those songs got the most applause from the crowd (besides his classics like Lie to Me). I know that blues has its roots in gospel, and so a lot of musicians play those songs with sentimentality and not true faith, but it was fun to hear such a great musician sing those songs.

Why Fairleigh Dickinson will beat Illinois

2005-03-16T09:51:00.000-08:00

Go over to The Wardrobe Door to see why the Knights will send the number one team in the country home!

Why am I sending you over there? Because I don't feel like coping and pasting all that over here. But go and be amazed!

Motive to the madness

2005-03-16T08:01:00.000-08:00

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, part of the motive behind Terry Ratzmann murdering seven people, including himself, was a sermon delivered on Feb. 26.

The paper reports that the police are studying the sermon given that day, when Ratzmann walked out early without giving the closing prayer, as he was scheduled to do that day and had done before on numerous occasions.

He joined the church four or five years ago and attended regularly. On the Saturday (the day the Living Church of God worships) before the shooting, Ratzmann did not come. The day of the shooting, he came early with a Bible in a briefcase and spoke to fellow parishioners. He then left, went home and came back with a Beretta 9mm handgun with several clips.

It seems he specifically targeted the pastor and his family, which lends credence to the sermon being part of the motive.

According to those who knew him, Ratzmann had struggled with unemployment in recent years. He lost a job that he loved three years ago and he was due to lose his current job at the end of March.

What does all of this have to do with a sermon that the church's national director said was about "basic Christian living?" The taped sermon focused on how bad fortune befalls those who make ungodly choices, according to a church member and friend of Ratzmann.

This does not give one reason to murder innocent people, but as seeker said, cults tend to push people and sometimes they break (Jim Jones, Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.) All the more reason to tell others about the freedom and grace that comes from a relationship with Christ.

Hat Tip: World Mag Blog

Rick Warren's "Purpose" Affects One More Life

2005-03-15T10:21:00.000-08:00

I'm a big fan of Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Life. Despite its inefficient and verbose prose, its content is excellent. CBN.com reported yesterday on how Ashley Smith, who was taken hostage by Brian Nichols, talked to him about God by reading to him from the chapter she was on in the Purpose Driven Life. Reportedly, he said to her "you are an angel sent to me by God, my sister in Christ, and I am a sheep that has gone astray." Here's more from CBN.com:

Surrender Followed Talk about God, 'The Purpose Driven Life'
ATLANTA (AP) - Ashley Smith says she gently talked to the armed suspect in Atlanta's courthouse slayings -- turning from hostage to confidant as they discussed God and the Reverend Rick Warren's "The Purpose Driven Life."During the long weekend ordeal, Brian Nichols eventually untied Smith, who suggested it was a miracle that he would escaped alive. She also told him that God's purpose might be for him to surrender so he could spread the gospel to fellow prisoners.Smith told reporters, "He said he thought that I was an angel sent from God, and that I was his sister and he was my brother in Christ and that he was lost and God led him right to me."When he let her go, the 33-year-old Smith called police, and Nichols surrendered peacefully.

Rick Warren 'Humbled' That Book Helped Hostage Ordeal
LAKE FOREST, Calif. (AP) - The author of "The Purpose Driven Life" says he was "humbled to learn that hostage Ashley Smith found strength and encouragement in its pages" during her weekend ordeal.In a statement, the Reverend Rick Warren said he had learned that Smith shared part of the chapter on "Servanthood" with Brian Nichols, the suspect in last week's Atlanta courthouse killings. Nichols finally released Smith, who had talked him into surrendering peacefully.Warren says, "Jesus sometimes calls us in some of the most difficult situations to be an advocate for Him." He adds that he's "thankful that Ms. Smith was able to draw from the Scriptures and her reading from 'The Purpose Driven Life' to bring some hope to her captor's life that was unraveling so tragically and dramatically."

Top this!

2005-03-15T08:08:00.000-08:00

Rick at Stones Cry Out is taking nomination for "the most amusing (but clean) search keywords discovered through Site Meters."

I think most would find it hard pressed to beat one of Two or Three's most recent search engine hits:
turkish cattle prod master slave

Who knew?

New York Times finds religion. . .strange

2005-03-15T06:11:00.000-08:00

In an effort to "balance" out an article on the church shooting in Wisconsin, the New York Times makes a point to interview someone to disassociate an "end times" belief wtih violent actions.

While I am glad that the NYT made the effort perhaps the insinuation of the effort reveals even more bias. Rob Vischer at Mirror of Justice asks this basic question: who (besides possibly the reporter) actually thought that because this church had an apocalyptic teaching that they would automatically be violent?

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost looks at the implications of the media trying to "take religion more seriously."

As Christians, we know what things are foundational to the faith and which things are debateable. The media, however, will not (can not) distinguish between the two or even between false doctrine. In their attempts to be more "fair" to religion it is entirely possible, if not likely, that they will remove foundational elements in an effort to make Christianity easier to swallow.

If you remove the offensiveness of Christianity from the faith, you have removed the essence of it. The cross is offensive. Dying to oneself is offensive. Joe sums it up nicely with these quotes:

We are called to proclaim the evangelion to the world, not to be a PR firm for the Kingdom.

“Everything should be made as simple as possible,” said Einstein, “but not simpler." The same could be said about the essentials of “mere Christianity.” The Gospel should be presented as reasonable as possible, but not more reasonable than it warrants. After all, God does not call us to be spin doctors but to be fools for Christ.

Too often in an effort to "win people to Christ" we leave out the hard teachings. We leave out the self-sacrificing life. We leave out taking up your cross. We focus on love of God, but not the holiness of God. The question becomes once we have won them over to this type of faith, what will happen when they are called to "die daily," as Paul said.

Sometimes in our effort to be more "seeker friendly," I think we have sown in the shallow ground and not given the seed enough dirt to grow for fear that the dirt will "scare them away."

Promoting Life in a Culture of Death

2005-03-15T05:26:00.000-08:00

David Limbaugh has a great column today on the continuing fight to save Terri Schiavo's life. He asks many hard questions about her situation that do not have easy answers. But the most striking part of the column are the final paragraphs:

I find it haunting that we live in a culture of death where the presumption seems to be against finding that a human being would want to go on living and the burden of proof is on those promoting life.

Terri Schiavo and her parents need and deserve our prayers.

Profile in Courage: Ashley Smith

2005-03-14T14:16:00.001-08:00

Here is the video from one of many TV interviews with Ashley Smith, the woman who was held hostage for a night by Atlanta courthouse gunman Brian Nichols. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

Ms. Smith displayed tremendous courage in the face of danger and was able to share her faith with Mr. Nichols during the time they spent together. Nichols later told her that she was "an angel from God". There is not doubt that she is.

There is hope for Terri Schiavo

2005-03-14T13:15:00.000-08:00

One of the arguments that has been made in the Terri Schiavo case has been that there is no hope for her to recover from the serious brain injury that she suffered that has left her in her current state. However, after reading the story of Kate Adamson posted by Dory over at Wittenberg Gate, it reminds me that God is capable of doing all things even though we sometimes cannot see how it is possible. Kate Adamson was a stroke victim and thought to be too brain damaged to survive let alone return to a relatively normal life.

Spread the word about Kate's story (and Terri's too) so that others can see that there is reason to hope for Terri.

Science and Christianity

2005-03-14T10:36:00.000-08:00

Catez at Allthing2all.com has posted his first Science and Christianity Showcase - a list of really nice articles about how Christianity and science relate to one another. This will keep me busy reading for a while! Thanks Catez!

Always a stumbling block

2005-03-14T09:00:00.000-08:00

The cross and what it stands for will always be "foolishness to those who are perishing" and a "stumbling block" (1 Cor. 1:18,23)

A California atheist has finally won a 15-year battle to remove a 90-year old cross from a San Deigo hill.

The cross is expected to be removed within 90-days. Several churches have expressed interest in taking the unwanted cross. Which brings to my mind one of my favorite non-Biblical lines from The Passion, which I finally watched again yesterday (I had the DVD since it came out, but it has taken me this long to watch it).

When Jesus begins his journey with the cross, one of the criminals with him begins to mock him by saying, "Why do you embrace your cross, you fool?" That shows the essence of the Christian life, embrace the cross and our cross.

Developing a Robust Faith

2005-03-13T09:46:00.000-08:00

Columnist and radio host Doug Giles has begun a series of columns today on developing a robust faith. Today's column examines how we can incorporate faith into daily living.

To help you take your Christianity out of the Christian ghetto where the secularists would love you to remain, here’s a simple can do: start to see life as a whole. Begin to merge, as J.I. Packer says:

Your Christianity with culture,
Your contemplation with achievement,
Your worship with work,
Your labor with rest,
Your fasting with a Foster’s,
Your love of God with love of neighbor and self,
Your personal identity with social identity
Your wide spectrum of relational responsibilities with each other in a thoroughly conscientious and considered way.

Try that next week, next month and the next few years, and watch your influence spread like butter. And you can be certain that such a resurrection of a hearty Christianity will definitely tick the sassy secularist off and get Satan’s panties in a wad.

A True American Hero

2005-03-11T20:23:00.000-08:00

This is the story of a true American hero.

When I read stories like this, I am reminded how truly blessed we are to have men and women willing to sacrifice everything to defend our country.

Citizens for Reasonable Abortion Limits (CRAL)

2005-03-10T21:45:00.000-08:00

For about a year now, I have been troubled by the argument that embryonic stem cell research has been deemed morally unacceptable by my fellow conservatives. It stems (pun intended) from their logic in the abortion debate. Their logic goes like this (I hope I am not building a straw man here):

A young child has human rights
The child’s right to life begins before birth. A day before birth is not different from the day after
Therefore, their personhood must be defined by some factor before birth
We believe that as soon as the zygote is formed, a distinct genetic invidual exists, and must be protected from that point on
Therefore, embryonic stem cell research is human experimentation, which is, a priori, wrong

When I did leukemia research, I took human cancer cells (skin cells), and cultured them week after week. They had a complete, unique set of DNA. Why weren’t they considered inviduals with rights? Conservatives counter that they were not trying to develop into embryos. I counter that they certainly could if we knew how to turn on and off the various genes needed – all of the genes necessary are there.

Anyway, that argument could go on ad nasuem, but I'm actually not here to make arguments. My problems with the above logic led me to explore other methods of defining when a fetus’ rights begin.

Also, I am very tired of the very polarized, entrenched viewpoints on both sides, where no one is really listening to one another. They both refuse to budge, both relying on "slippery slope" logic, saying that one step towards the other camp could lead to an inexorable slide all the way to that side. The fact is, despite both sides' work with pregnant women, the conservatives come across as not caring about a woman's plight, sticking to their religious guns, and the liberals come across not caring at all for the unborn baby, sticking to their hyperbolic stands on womens' rights.

Having thought about this some, I thought to create an organization sure to drive both poles of this debate mad. I call it Citizens for Reasonable Abortion Limits.

Here are what I think would be the starting Statement of Beliefs. There are some huge holes here, but I want to open it up to discussion – what is missing? What is poorly said? What seems illogical?

I purposely am NOT going to play out every argument, which could take pages, but rather, want to make statements of belief without indepth apologies at this time.

We believe that:

1. In Any Pregnancy, Both Of The Parents And The Developing Child Have Limited Rights
No one has unlimited rights. An individual’s rights are limited at the point where he is infringing on another’s rights. For example, the right to free speech is limited at slander – one can not knowingly lie about someone else in the media. Similarly, a woman’s right to her body is limited when her developing child has rights that could be taken away.

a. Woman’s Pregnancy Rights
A woman has the right to practice birth control in any legal manner she chooses, including abortive methods up to the Point of Personhood of the child. However, abortive actions are limited by the father’s rights.

b. Father’s Pregnancy Rights
The father of a child has the right to contribute to the decision-making about the welfare of a child. A father can not force a woman to terminate a pregnancy, and a mother should not be able to terminate a pregnancy without permission from the father, unless the father has abdicated his rights [these conditions to be developed].

This permission or abdication does not have to be legally documented, but may be documented through the notarized signature of a Release of Pregnancy Rights form, or if a court has determined that a father has otherwise abdicated through criminal activity or abandonment.

c. Unborn Child’s Rights
After the point of personhood, the child has the right to life and protection of that life under the law.

2. The Developing Fetus Has Human Rights After a Defined Point in a Pregnancy – The Point of Personhood
There are many possible ways to determine when a fetus becomes a person with rights. Many have argued forcefully for defining the starting point based upon genetic uniqueness (fertilization), by discovery time (giving the woman ample to time to discover her pregnancy), by viability (can the fetus survive out of the womb), by actual birth, and by other ethical and moral teachings and standards.

We believe those arguments to be insufficient, and believe that the beginning of human life ought to be defined by the same measure we use for the end of life. However, even this is controversial.

Science has given us at least five early developmental milestones that could be considered as the starting point for life and personhood. They are (reference):

Heartbeat
Today's technology can detect a baby's heartbeat eighteen days after conception. That is only four days after most women miss a period and begin to suspect they are pregnant.
Brain waves
Six weeks after conception signals from the fetal brain can be detected. Dream patterns have been discovered around the eighth or ninth week
Independent movement
At about the sixth week, the baby in the womb can move spontaneously: Kicking, swimming, jumping and stretching.
Sensory Response
A baby in the womb is capable of responding to touch and sound by about the eighth or tenth week. A child at that age will move away from painful stimuli.
Breathing
By about the fourteenth week, a baby's lungs are functioning and he or she will practice breathing. Vocal cords are formed by the thirteenth week.
We believe that good persons can disagree on which or how many of these five need to be present before we believe the unborn child has rights. We propose that the ability to respond to pain at 8 weeks sets the latest limit of the abortion timeline, and we should discuss moving it back to 6 weeks, which is when independent movement begins. This 8 week upper limit is a compromise, and not an absolute.

3. Terminating a Pregnancy Based On Physical Attributes such as Gender, Race, Sexual Orientation, or Treatable Medical Conditions is Not Acceptable
Pregnancy termination based on basic physical characteristics amounts to killing for convenience (at best), and at worst, genocidal murder.

Regarding treatable medical conditions, the threat of a child’s potential suffering, physical or emotional, does not justify terminating its life via abortion.

We also understand that science is still debating the physical origin of sexual orientation. However, if a proposed physical or statistical measurement of the possibility of same sex orientation is used for fetal testing, the results of such a test could not be used as justification for terminating a pregnancy.

4. Terminating a Pregnancy for Severe, Untreatable Fetal Conditions Must Be Preserved as a Parental Right, but Not Required by Law
Some conditions are not treatable by today’s standards. Untreatable medical conditions that cause intense suffering AND death within the first two years of life (arbitrary?) may be candidates for abortions throughout the term of a pregnancy. However, terminations should not be mandated by law in such cases.

5. Terminating a Pregnancy Based on the Means of Pregnancy (Rape, Incest, Artificial Insemination, Natural Insemination) is Not Acceptable
Beyond the point of personhood, an unborn child has the right to life, and the method of its creation does not diminish these rights.

It is understood that a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy due to rape or incest is under extreme duress, but we propose that abortion will not in any large measure cure her anguish, and may actually create new emotional suffering of its own.

We believe that the best way out of a woman’s emotional duress is for her to make ethical and moral decisions in her pregnancy-related decisions. These include:

allowing the child to live
working through her anger and hurt to a point of healing and forgiveness of the perpetrators (if any)
the pursuit of justice against the perpetrators in a court of law
providing or helping the child find a good home where it is wanted and loved.
We also expect that other means of support, both private and public, will be brought to bear to help such women with pre- and post-natal care, adoption services, counseling and other services.

6. Terminating a Pregnancy to Protect the Life of a Mother Must be Preserved
There are some medical conditions where the abortive methods must be used to preserve the life of the mother.

However, mental anguish over a pregnancy, and any resulting physical problems from the mental anguish, are not justification for abortion.

7. Abortion as A Medical Procedure Should be Protected and Taught In Medical Schools, but Should Not Be Mandatory
Due to the remaining cases of early term abortions and rare but necessary late term pregnancy problems, many of the current abortive techniques should be taught in medical schools, at the discretion of the faculty. However, practice of these methods should not be a requirement for graduation or certification in any medical specialty.

Are American Universities Liberal?

2005-03-10T14:03:00.000-08:00

One of my liberal coworkers and I had a heated discussion about this - amazingly, he thinks that universties are NOT overly liberal, that it's just a bunch of conservatives complaining about not always getting their way. I guess he missed the recent Univ. of Colorado affair and the previous firings of conservatives. So I provided the following links for him.

1. New York Times Op-Ed
This article talks about how each university has it’s token conservative, but they are seen not as representative, but as “dissenters.”

He'll run into even more intense discrimination because the establishment gets more concerned the closer you get to the golden ring….The most common advice conservative students get is to keep their views in the closet....

Will Inboden was working on a master's degree in U.S. history at Yale when a liberal professor pulled him aside after class and said: "You're one of the best students I've got, and you could have an outstanding career. But I have to caution you: hiring committees are loath to hire political conservatives. You've got to be really quiet."

2. AEI Shows Most University Professors Register Liberal

Our Cornell sample showed 171 Democrats, 7 Republicans, and 21 professors registered as independents or in other (mostly left-wing) parties.

The Stanford rofessors broke out this way: 163 Democrats, 17 Republicans, and 6 independent/other.

At Brown University, for instance, we uncovered a total of 54 professors registered in a party of the Left, to just 3 registered in a party of the Right.
University of Colorado, 116 on the Left, 5 on the Right.
UCLA totalled 141 professors on the Left, 9 on the Right.
University of Maryland: 59 Left, 10 Right.
Syracuse University: 50 Left, 2 Right. And so on.

3. Science and Politics
This blog has a nice summary of similar statistics.

So, Q.E.D.

Where Should Christians Get Their News?

2005-03-10T12:44:00.001-08:00

For Christians to be intelligent contributors to our society, we should be looking in the following places:

1. Mainstream News, Domestic and Foreign
If we are to be involved in our mainstream culture in order to incluence it and cogently discuss it, we need to be aware of what is going on. Despite any liberal bias, the big news organizations do have extensive resources to be able to bring us some very good reporting. And some notworthy conservatives work at these "liberal" institutions, and write some very good stuff. Credible sources I am aware of include:

BBC News (British, liberal?)
CNN News (American, liberal?)
The Economist Magazine (British, moderate)
National Public Radio (American, moderate)
National Review (American, conservative)
New York Times (American, liberal)
The Week Magazine (American, moderate)
Wired Magazine (American Geek News, moderate to liberal)
US News and World Report (American, conservative)

2. Alternative, Non-Christian News
To avoid the omissions of the maintsream media, we should look at the publications of advocacy and watchdog groups that bring to our attention worthy items that the mainstream media does not cover. This includes ethnic-oriented groups (e.g. the Anti-Defamation League), human rights groups such as Amnesty Intl, and environmental and animal rights groups.

3. Christian News Sources
Last but not least, we should seek news with a Christian world view. There are plenty of these, including

World Magazine (a Christian "Time")
First Things (scholarly, Christian/Catholic world view)
Foreign Affairs (scholarly, conservative)
Agape Press (nice Xian news blog)
SmartChristianBlog (nice news aggregator blog)
Christianity Today (mainstay of evangelical monthlies)

I happen to get my news through the following avenues:

1. NPR
While some people think NPR liberal, I find the commercial-free and indepth analysis really refreshing. And they're not as liberal as they used to be. Third Party RSS Feed

2. The 700 Club
Some people will scoff at this, but the first 15 minutes of this show is a daily wrapup of the news from a Christian perspective. No RSS.

3. The Economist Magazine
This British news weekly is packed! And it's not about economics! It makes magazine like Time and Newsweek look like lightweights. It is balanced and has indepth analysis of American and world news. Sometimes, I don't get time to read it because it is so dense. Third-party RSS Feed

4. The Week Magazine
This compact news weekly is inexpensive and covers world news with a balanced perspective. Minimal online content, though.

5. Wired Magazine
Not only does this magazine of technology and culture have great news articles, each month it has at least one good article on some social issue - the environment, genetically modified foods, stem cell research, etc. RSS Feed

6. Headline News
When I need a half hour to catch up on what's hot, I hit CNN on the TV. RSS Feed

7. Christianity Today Magazine
Nice Christian view of what is important, and how evangelicals view world events. Too bad their online blog doesn't have an RSS feed! BLINO - BLog In Name Only.

8. Agape Press
This blog really has a nice stream of news from a Christian perspective. RSS Feed

What are your favorite news sources?

Song choice, life choice

2005-03-10T11:54:00.000-08:00

The decline of Christianity in Europe can be recognized in many different ways, an usual way is a survey of European's choice for their funeral song.

In the list of songs most Britons would like played at their funeral, no classic Christian hymn (or any Christian song at all) made the top five. Robbie Williams' "Angels," a song about a female angel protecting the singer whether he's "right or wrong," finished first. Williams was followed by Frank Sinatra's "My Way," Monty Python's "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" and Mozart's "Requiem" rounded out the top five.

The rest of Europe appeared to be split over their final destination. Following Queen's "The Show Must Go On" were Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" and AC/DC's "Highway to Hell." Take that however you would like.

A human tragedy - that no one will talk about

2005-03-10T08:08:00.000-08:00

Is slavery bad? Of course!

Should we allow slavery? Of course not!

Then why is no one outraged at the over 40,000 slaves being held today just in Niger? The CS Monitor reports that more than 7,000 slaves were to be released, but because the government sent mixed signals, the slave-holding tribal chief decided to keep all of his slaves.

When someone says slavery, we immediately think of the US South pre-Civil War. Our history has focused, rightly, on that as being an evil thing - the owning of another human being.

But our history has largely ignored the slavery that has existed throughout the world, throughout the history of man. Not only has our history ignored it, our news ignores it today.

How many stories do you see on the nightly news or internet news services calling attention to this modern day atrocity?

This raises an interesting question of why? Why do politicians and media ignore slavery in Africa, where it is the most prevalent today?

Is it a quiet racism similar to those who said that Arabic people would not be able to handle democracy? Do people think that Africans just "don't know any better?" Does the international community allow it because they view African people as having lower standards than the "civilized world?"

In my view, in a Christian view, all people are created in God's image, therefore everyone has intrinsic value. No one can or should be the property of someone else.

Even if no one else will rally to the aid of these people, Christians should. An English Christian, William Wilberforce was the driving force behind the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade. Today's believers can be the leaders in the abolition of the current African slave trade.

The blogosphere has been used to bring down people (rightly so, for the most part). Can we be used by God to lift people up and end this blight on humanity?

Avoiding the News

2005-03-10T08:03:00.000-08:00

Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost has a great post today entitled "The Daily Show: How the News Cycle Makes Us Dumb".

Like Joe, I don't watch the news on television (not having cable or satellite helps). I don't listen to the news much on the radio unless I'm out driving somewhere and happening to be listening to talk radio instead of whatever CD I have in my CD player. I don't read the newspapers either.

The fact is that most of what passes for "news" these days is really unimportant stuff. The important things are what goes unreported most of the time. Often it's not until some time has passed that we truly understand whether an event was really as important as the "news" made it out to be.

As Christians, we should be looking at events from an eternal perspective rather than getting bogged down in the minutiae of daily life. Avoiding the news is one way to accomplish that goal.

Evil has a new name - confused

2005-03-10T07:39:00.000-08:00

The word "evil" has once again become popular, or at least acceptable, to us according to a story by the Christian Science Monitor.

It has popped up in the nation's lexicon in several interesting ways - whether it is refering to terrorist states as the "Axis of Evil" or discussing the New York Yankees as "The Evil Empire." It appears "evil" is back in vogue.

The only problem is the definition is not solid and so vague that no one can get a grasp on it.

Though use of the word "evil" is on the rise, Americans are finding it difficult to agree on what it means. Influenced by religious or cultural values, they tend to use it to describe both a supernatural force and something humans create. In some cases, the tag is pinned onto people; in others, to their actions. Many adopt the "I know it when I see it" definition.

A common use for people is to describe "them" as evil. We never want to look at ourselves and see the evil there. It is always "they" who are evil, never "us." This is evident in the discussion of the BTK killer in Kansas.

"You need to ask why is it that we're so surprised when the alleged BTK killer [in Wichita] ends up being someone who lives among us and works in our church and is a Cub Scout leader," says Daryl Koehn, an ethicist at the University of St. Thomas in Houston and author of a new book, "The Nature of Evil." "We want evil to be monstrous," she says, "because if evil is monstrous, then by definition it doesn't look like us."

Once again this allows Christians an end road into relevant cultural discussions. We must be ready with an answer to the issue of evil, where it came from and how it can be stopped or ultimately defeated.

Hat Tip: World Magazine Blog

So long Dan

2005-03-09T13:46:00.000-08:00

With tonight being Dan Rather's last night, please honor him by reading some of his best quotes. Here are two of my non-biased favorites:

The new Republican majority in Congress took a big step today on its legislative agenda to demolish or damage government aid programs, many of them designed to help children and the poor.
— Dan Rather leading off the March 16, 1995 CBS Evening News.

Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story. They allege that the documents are fake....The 60 Minutes report was based not solely on the recovered documents, but on a preponderance of the evidence, including documents that were provided by what we consider to be solid sources....If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far, there is none.
— CBS Evening News, September 10, 2004, two days after his 60 Minutes reporting alleging President George W. Bush failed to fulfill his National Guard service.

We wish you well, Dan, in your life after the evening news. If you are looking for a job, I hear Kinko's is hiring.

Update (by Daddypundit): In case you missed it, here is video of Dan's farewell. (Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

National Review's Jim Geraghty has a great column on Dan's farewell and the decline of network news.

The Real "McCarthyism" at Colorado

2005-03-09T12:27:00.000-08:00

Wizbang points to a Denver Post column that gives the story of someone actually being fired from the University of Colorado because of their views.

Phil Mitchell's contract is not being renewed because he is a conservative Christian. Oh and I forgot a "racist" too, but don't tell that to his two adopted black children (two of nine).

What are his crimes, besides being named Teacher of the Year in 1998, having 20 years teaching experience, and being highly regarded by his students?

Crime number one happened while teaching at the Hallett Diversity Program - he actually quoted conservative black intellectual Thomas Sowell in a discussion about affirmative action. That diverse thought ended his 24 straight semesters teaching at the diversity program and caused Joyce Nielsen, associate dean for Social Sciences to berate him and label him as a "racist."

Crime number two was using a book on liberal Protestantism in the late 19th century and uttering the profanity "God." This led to a student complaint and the department chair firing him without a meeting.

In the column, David Harsanyi says it best:

So [Ward] Churchill may play the part, but Mitchell is the true dissenter at CU.

Hat Tip: Kevin McCollough

UPDATE: Thanks to Ace for the link! If you would like to see the rest of the site click here.

Contributors to the site are myself from The Wardrobe Door, Seeker from When You Return and Daddypundit.

Aslan is coming (and I am excited)!

2005-03-09T09:57:00.000-08:00

If the name of my personal blog - The Wardrobe Door - was not evidence enough, you should know I am a huge C.S. Lewis fan. Two of my favorite books of all time are Mere Christianity and Screwtape Letters.

I loved several of his lesser known books such as Til We Have Faces, The Great Divorce and his space trilogy (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength).

But I would have never really found out about Lewis, his conversion and his faith, if it were not for his beloved children's novels - The Chronicles of Narnia. I remember reading The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe (and to some extent The Last Battle) as a child and thinking, "Aslan sounds like Jesus." At the time, I was unaware of C.S. Lewis and his faith.

As a young child I seemed to be attracted to novels by Christians without knowing of their faith. I also loved A Wrinkle in Time and Madeleine L'Engle books. I only found out in college that she was a Christian. Ironically enough, this November, Disney will release on DVD an adaptation of L'Engle's classic. (As much as I admire both Lewis and L'Engle, it should be stated that I differ from them on many areas theologically, but I am still able to find their work encouraging, entertaining and useful.)

Most people know that Disney has bought the rights to the Narnia books and is in post-production on The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, with the movie to be released this December. Many, myself included, have been worried that Disney would strip Narnia of all of its Christian imagery and substance, leaving the stories empty and shallow.

The Telegraph has some encouraging news on that front. It seems Disney wants to make Wardrobe a "Passion of the Christ for children." They recognized the impact Christians had on the box office take of the Passion, so they are showing clips of the movie to evangelical leaders and working closely with many Christians to ensure the elements of the faith are present in the movie version.

For those of you, like myself, who are anxiously awaiting the release - here are some links to tide you over until the movie trailer comes out. This site has links to two short promo pieces on Weta (the Oscar winning design studio who worked on The Lord of the Rings) and their work on Wardrobe and one on the director (who also directed Shrek). Also, here is a link to the official site, with lots of information on the books, the movie and all things Narnia.

Facing Trials

2005-03-08T20:53:00.000-08:00

"Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. And let endurance
have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in
nothing." (James 1:2-4)

The book of James is one of my favorite books of the Bible because it is so immensely practical. The passage I cited above is one that God seems to be bringing me back to over and over again either (a) because I need to hear it or (b) I haven't learned how to properly apply it yet.

As I was studying this passage for my sermon this past Sunday at my church, God brought out three observations from this passage.

Observation #1: Trials are inevitable.

Notice in verse 2 that James uses the word "whenever" instead of “if”. It is a given that we will face trials of many kinds.

We live in a fallen world that hates us, attempts to marginalize us, and does not hold the same values that we do. We are criticized for who we are and what we profess. Sometimes that criticism will even come from within the body of Christ when we commit ourselves to applying God's word to every aspect of our lives.

Consider Jesus' encouraging words to his disciples:

"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man. Be glad in that day and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven. For in the same way their fathers used to treat the prophets." (Luke 6:22-23)

Jesus tells the disciples that trials are inevitable. As long as we profess to be followers of Christ we will face criticism for His sake. I believe that one way to tell whether we are doing what God wants us to do is by seeing whether we are being criticized for what we are doing.

Observation #2: Trials are necessary to developing faith.

Look at James 1:3 – “knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.”

God uses trials to develop faith and character in Christ. One of my favorite examples is Joseph. When we first meet him in Genesis 37, God had just revealed to him in a dream a glimpse of what God had in store for him. Although the Bible doesn't specifically say it, I've often thought that Joseph might have been bragging a little to his brothers about God speaking to him in his dream. I think that might have contributed to the anger that Joseph's brothers felt towards him.

Although God had a specific purpose for Joseph, he first had to endure a series of trials in order to be fully prepared that purpose. He was sold into slavery, wrongfully accused of a crime by Potiphar’s wife, and thrown into prison. God used all of these trials in Joseph’s life to shape his character and prepare him for his ultimate purpose.

God also allowed the nation of Israel to wander for 40 years in the wilderness in order to shape their character as a nation:

"You shall remember all the way which the LORD your God has led you in the wilderness these forty years, that He might humble you, testing you, to know what was in your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not."
(Deutornomy 8:2)

And of course, Jesus suffered many trials for our sakes.

"Therefore Jesus also, that He might sanctify the people through His own blood, suffered outside the gate." (Hebrews 13:12)

I once heard someone compare faith to muscle. If a muscle is not used it will atrophy, wither away and become useless. However, if you exercise a muscle it will grow stronger. The same applies to our faith.

When I was in high school, I tried out for our basketball team. Although I was the tallest player on the team, I didn't succeed because I couldn't make it through preseason conditioning that was necessary to get us in top physical shape. Conditioning was hard work. I didn't have what it took to perservere. As a result, I failed to develop as an athlete.

Right after I graduated from high school, I went to Europe for three weeks. One of my stops was in Venice which is known for hand blown glass. We went to a factory where the work was being done. In order for the glass to be ready to be shaped it first has to be subjected to great heat so that it can be pliable enough that when the glassblower starts to make the piece by blowing into the tube the glass will be easily formed into the desired shape. The trials we face are like that fire. They are necessary for God to be able to shape us into the person in Christ that He wants us to be.

Observation #3: Our response should be to rejoice and trust in the Lord.

Our response to trials should be to rejoice as God is using the trials to strengthen and shape us.

"And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance; and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope; and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:3-5)

The apostle Paul knew something about trials. He encountered numerous physical, emotional, and physical trials during his ministry.

Jesus had this to say during the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way
they persecuted the prophets who were before you." (Matthew 5:10-12)

We will all face trials during the course of our walk. Jesus himself told us to expect trials. God will use trials in our life to strengthen our faith and deepen our walk with him. Rather than become discouraged, we should rejoice in the middle of our difficulties knowing that God is with us.

There are great rewards for those who persevere:

"Blessed is a man who perseveres under trial; for once he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord has promised to those who love Him." (James 1:12)

Even More Reflections on Worship

2005-03-08T13:27:00.000-08:00

Well Daddypundit, as a worship leader myself, I thought I’d answer the same questions. Can’t resist ;)

1. How did you get into worship ministry? How long have you been a part of the worship ministry?

a. Getting Started
I never knew I had any kind of musical ability until *after* I became a Christian at age 21 (1986). I had always wanted to play guitar and sing, but had no experience, so I bought a guitar. I started worshipping in my own personal time with God as a young Christian. I then joined the worship team at my first church, where I had wonderful mentoring in singing and playing guitar.

b. Overcoming Beginner’s Weaknesses
One of my main problems with singing was I always wanted to improvise, but as a backup singer, you really need to be consistently on your note. Only the leader or soloist really gets to improvise. This was a tough discipline for me, but it forced me to be a better singer.

I had the lazy tendency of sliding between notes rather than hitting them dead on. Think of it like this – ever have one of those silly little slide pipes when you were a kid? Try doing a scale with one of those – rather than having 8 individual notes, you have one silly noise going from low to high! Sliding between notes is the equivalent of the slide pipe. It’s sloppy.

However, learning worship in a charismatic church is awesome because they really seek for the presence of God in worship, and allow and encourage people to raise their hands, dance, and yes, even sing in the Spirit, a.k.a. in tongues. This phenomenon is very powerful if done without hyper-emotionalism. However, this makes some non-tongues folk a little uneasy, I must admit.

c. Gospel Training
Later, I got some training in a gospel choir, and boy, was I weak! I went to a Shirley Caesar crusade, and sat in on one day of a gospel workshop with Mattie Moss Clark, mother of the Clark Sisters. She made us sing so loudly! She stopped us many times, reprimanding us for our lack of projection. Once, she said, “You sound like a bunch of little girls, no wonder the devil’s taking over your town!” A second time, she said, “You need to sing like you’re shouting for help, and the nearest person is three blocks away.” Needless to say, I realized that singing tenor in a gospel choir requires practice and stamina.

d. First Time Leading
During my first career transition at age 27, I quit my medical research position and did a six month stint with Youth With A Mission. During this time, I was able to lead worship for the first time, and in order to confirm to me that I should be in worship, God sent a consistent anointing on my worship, way beyond my skill level. The presence of God was palpable, and I never forgot it. I learned there that your heart must be in the right place in order to lead worship. Skill is fine, but you can add that as you go!

e. Leading Contemporary in a Traditional Church
I returned, and took up leading worship in a small CMA church in New Jersey. As it turned out, they only had traditional hymn singing with an organ or piano, but the pastor wanted to start a contemporary worship service in addition, and I was the leader. It was hard but fun work, and the pastor took all the complaints and shielded me from the naysayers – we had people leave the church because I dressed too casually when leading!

f. Till Today
I left Christianity for the next ten years, and have recently returned, and am now involved in worship in my current church, along with my wife, but not as leaders. The church is not charismatic, but it does have contemporary worship and a good worship leader.

2. What artists/music types/styles appeal to you? Are these the same types/styles that you play at church?

I met wife in a blues/classic rock cover band (you know, CCR, Eagles, BTO, Doobies), and I must admit, I love singing those gravelly vocals on blues and blues rock. My favorite stuff to sing is Jonny Lang stuff (I’m going to see him for the, um, 4th time tomorrow). This past year, I also discovered the band Pillar, and man do they ROCK! I love their music, but don’t think I could sing that, and it’s way too hard for my kinda worship.

As far as worship goes, I actually got to spend a little time with Bob Fitts when in YWAM, and I like his style. I also really liked Kevin Prosch for his brokenness in worship. Of course, Prosch fell into some kind of sin and has been recently restored to ministry, but I haven’t followed it too closely.

I really love Morris Chapman for his “gospel light” style too. And can anyone leading worship not be influenced by the likes of Darlene Zschech and Chris Tomlin? They both write and lead some of the best worship today.

3. What helps you to enter into worship?

a. Having a Good Setup Team
Funny as that sounds, to have a bunch of guys who’ve got the stage and sound all set up is a great relief – I’ve had to set up and test everything myself, and it really takes a lot of energy and concentration. I thank God for a good sound team

b. Practice Practice Practice
I like to practice enough so that, even in our practices, we are worshipping. I don’t want people to have to read the lyrics while trying to lead worship. We want to focus on God.

c. Personal Holiness and Devotion
Nothing makes me confident and relaxed, ready to be intimate with God as when I am feeling close to God. When I haven’t spent time w/ God during the week, the worship can be weak – not all of the time, but often enough. It’s the difference between good enough and awesome.

d. Be a Worship Leader, Not a Song Leader
I'm not there to get people excited, or to put on a good show. Good leaders worship (see my discussion of this in Why Most Churches Suck)

4. How do you pick your songs for a worship service?

I pick songs I like – songs that I can worship with.

I ask the team for song suggestions.

I pick songs that flow from praise (upbeat declarations about God) to worship (talking directly to God, bowing down before him, more mellow). Sometimes we use a faster song at the end to kind of perk everyone up again, but not too much or it just seems too jarring.

I try to pick songs in similar keys or even with similar melodies to do together - the latter reduces the learning curve for the congregation. If we do change keys, I try to make a smooth transition.

5. What are you trying to accomplish when you lead worship? How do you tell if you're successful?

First, I expect myself and the worship team to enter into heartfelt worship where we feel God’s presence. That in itself is success.

Second, I like to encourage the congregation to be free to raise their hands, sing, even dance if they want to. Many people want to be more expressive, but need “permission” from the front so they don’t seem disruptive. If the congregation is able to enter into free worship, then we have really succeeded.

Third, many worship leaders try hard to tie in the worship to the message. I personally think that is too hard, too cerebral, and only a nice to have, not essential. If one song, maybe the last worship song, or the offertory (I hate offerings, but I digress) can tie in to the main message, that's fine, but I hardly think that's something to work hard at.

How to destroy the improving economy

2005-03-08T13:01:00.000-08:00

It seems the Democrats in the Senate are growing so tired of an improving economy that they are trying to do something to stop the the growth.

Yesterday, Sen. Edward Kennedy's proposal to increase the minimum wage over $2.00 was thankfully defeated.

This should be very simple to understand, but seemingly intelligent people often fail to grasp this elementary economic equation. If a company has X amount of dollars for labor (which includes minimum wage employees) and the minimum wage is increased, the company will be forced to fire someone in order to stay in business. The company will spend as much as then can on labor to increase productivity, if they are required to pay each worker more, then they will have to fire some of the workers.

Sounds simple right? I have 10 dollars, I plan on buying 5 products for $2 a piece. The price for those products goes up to $2.50 a piece, now I can only buy 4. The same is true for labor. The higher you force the minimum wage, the more people companies are forced to layoff and/or not hire.

The other unintended consequence of a higher minimum wage is the removal of lower educated people from the work force. If I am paying a high school drop-out minimum wage ($5.15 per hour), but the minimum wage is raised $2.10 (to $7.25 - Kennedy's proposal) then I will simply fire the drop-out and hire someone who is more qualified and more worth (labor wise) the additional money spent. It removes (for an extended period of time, until the labor market re-adjusts) low-end workers from the only jobs that they can get. The simple fact is - the higher the minimum wage the more selective a company is when hiring a minimum wage worker.

A higher minimum wage is bad for everyone in the economy. Many of those protesting the current minimum wage and rallying for an increase would be the ones who would feel the worst of the economic fall-out (if they indeed hold minimum wage jobs).

Saving Darfur

2005-03-08T10:31:00.000-08:00

Intent discusses the terrible genocide going on in Sudan, and links to many good sites, especially savedarfur.org. Please go there and try to take some action, esp. writing your congress person.

According to the United States Agency for International Development, "The grave situation that has unfolded in Sudan's western region of Darfur in recent months is the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today."

According to an Amnesty International human rights monitor in Darfur, "The violence against civilians breached not only international human rights standards but also appears to be an intentional attempt to humiliate and destroy the social fabric of communities."