Alcohol

It is one of those subjects that seems to come up on a regular basis: the tenuous relationship between Christians and alcohol. For years as a young person I was given the impression, if not told outright, that the Bible forbids consumption of alcohol. This worked out fine for me, I had no taste for the stuff, and my total abstinence made a positive impression on my non-believing High School friends. I was invited to all the parties, and while I was there the alcohol wasn't. I'd like to think that I may have saved a few lives just by showing up at parties. I'll never know.

The problem is, the Bible does not forbid alcohol; so as I grew into adulthood and began my career as a student and teacher of the Bible, I was forced to come to terms with this fact. There were a few years of struggle - the "badness" of alcohol was firmly entrenched. Then, for a couple of months I had a job as a waiter, and I found that when I worked late I would have trouble unwinding from the stress. During those days I found that a little alcohol helped me to fall asleep more quickly. I never developed a taste for strong stuff, and to this day I prefer a wine that tastes like KoolAid. But I will drink when in a group, and even occasionally on my own. If anyone is still reading my blog, this probably shocks you.

It shouldn't, at least not because I am a Christian. There are plenty of reasons not to consume alcohol, and I have seen many studies linking alcohol to a wide range of negative results. Just today, I came across another: in her book Unhooked, Laura Sessions Stepp takes a look at the "hook-up" culture of casual sex that is prevalent among those in their late teens and early twenties. She covers a lot of ground, and backs her work with a lot of interviews. One of her conclusions is that alcohol is used by young people as a means of greasing the skids towards casual sex. Now, I do not know enough to take issue with this relationship; certainly it looks plausible on the surface. However, I came across an article by a Rev. Mark Creech in which he takes this relationship and draws an equivalence between casual sex and alcohol.

To begin with, there is a logical fallacy here - just because alcohol is used to facilitate casual sexual behavior does not mean that alcohol is the cause of that behavior. In fact, the work by Ms. Sessions indicates rather that the intent to have sex clearly predates the use of alcohol, the alcohol is simply an available tool. One assumes that were it not available, the young people would find another aid to suppressing their consciences. To argue from this relationship that Christians should totally abstain from alcohol is to draw too broad a conclusion. Nearly every activity in life contains some element of risk; wisdom comes not from eliminating risk, but rather in managing it. The Reverend Creech contends that there are no redeeming qualities in either drinking or sex outside of marriage; this is patently untrue. To be fair, he actually states that there are no redeeming qualities that are not countered by risks - but to say this is just to say that there are risks. I think Rev. Creech means that he wants these acts to have no benefits. But even sin has benefits, otherwise it wouldn't appeal to us. As in all areas, we must be clearheaded in our thinking if we are to make wise choices and decisions.

But all of this comes to a head when Rev. Creech states that, while the Bible does not explicitly condemn consumption of alcohol, it

treats alcohol somewhat like it does slavery: it doesn't universally condemn the practice, but it clearly undermines and ultimately dooms the custom by the lofty moral standards set forth throughout its many pages.

The only way to see this analogy is to bring it into Scripture with you. The Bible, as always, has an exceedingly practical approach to alcohol. It warns about and condemns excessive use; but recognizes and encourages careful partaking. There is no similar perspective on slavery, which is redeemed in the law by raising the status of slaves, and is ennobled in the New Testament by being adopted by Paul as the image of the Christian life. The situation with alcohol is totally different. There is nowhere where the Bible encourages the offering of slaves as part of the sacrificial system (Exodus 29:40 and Leviticus 23:13). Jesus did not turn water into a slave (John 2), nor did Paul recommend that Timothy take along a slave to further his ministry (1 Timothy 5:23). But mostly, I am fairly certain that we do not celebrate the Lord's Supper with bread and a slave.

Does consumption of alcohol bring along certain risks? Absolutely. Should young people abstain until they are adults? Without a doubt. Are there people who should avoid consumption of alcohol at all costs. Indeed (some are my friends). But let's not have any of this adjusting what the Bible says in order to "protect" us from the evils of the vine. God was apparently not afraid of His people enjoying alcohol. We shouldn't be either.

Names

I am in the process of fixing a conceptual problem in the software that I work on. As I began to delve into the code to change it, it occurred to me that the problem has resisted early attempts to resolve it because some of the key pieces of the program have misleading names.

This seems a trivial issue at first glance. Why get all hung up on the names of pieces of the code? Just fix the problems and move on. After all, we have a major release coming up in just a couple of weeks. But truly, names are not trivial. It is a basic human trait to name things. I believe that the significance of naming is reflected in the fact that the story of Adam naming the animals is one of the stories retained in the creation narrative. I honestly can say that I do not remember taking any great note of this fact in the past. The presence of this tale in the creation story should give us an indication of the importance of naming to humans.

Upon further reflection, this becomes obvious. We name everything, mostly because names give us short handles for the complexities of the universe. So much of many advanced courses studies comes down to learning the names of things; consider the examples of medicine and law. By learning the names of the things around us, we simplify the complexity and make the difficult manageable. Imagine if every time you wanted to talk about your child, you needed to go all the way back in your family tree to describe their lineage - their name eliminates all of that.

But names do more than just label things - they bring connotations and emotional content as well. This is why, in modern political discourse, it is so important that you get to pick the names used in the discussion - the term "pro-choice" has many fewer negative connotations than does "pro-abortion." The correctness of either term is not the point; the point is that the power to choose names often dictates the course of the ensuing debate.

But we use names internally as well. For years, I struggled against the internal name "useless" that I applied to myself. I didn't really recognize it, but that name informed everything I did and all of my thoughts about myself. As I learn to abandon that name and recognize the truth, I learn to apply more accurate names to myself.

There is a lot more to this; but I would do well to think more intentionally about the names that I apply to myself and to those around me. After all, they define the world for me, whether accurate or not.

Clear thinking

A new paper argues that democracy is doomed to be non-optimal (that is, to rarely take the best course of action) because most people in a democracy will not bother to understand an issue before acting on their preconceived notions about that issue. As a result, democracies tend reflect the unfounded beliefs of their population, and only very slowly make changes.

At the same time, Walter Williams' most recent article on townhall.com notes separately that people do not typically have an accurate understanding of the costs of their actions. They tend to value maintaining the status quo without considering whether the current course will accomplish the goals they have in mind.

You put these two together, and I doubt most of us are really in any position to act, or even speak intelligently, on any issue of great importance.

I would really enjoy discussing these issues with people who disagree with me; but of course, rational discourse is no longer in vogue. It is easier to call names than to allow for the possibility that you might have to re-think your position.

If all this doesn't make you pessimistic about our future, I'm not sure what will.

High-risk activity

It shouldn't be, but apparently taking your children to a movie targeted at them has become a high-risk activity. I took my boys (11 and 14) to see Transformers today. I have heard good reviews from a number of sources that I normally find trustworthy, so I felt good despite it's PG-13 rating. Unfortunately, there was way more "13" in this movie than I would have liked.

One scene in particular really makes me angry. The main character (a 16 year old boy) is in his bedroom looking for something the good robots really need, when his parents come up to inquire as to the racket he and the robots are making. Now, you have to know that there are a number of very funny, clever things about this scene. At one point the lead robot (Optimus Prime) is looking in the window and speaks to our hero in a voice that is reminiscent of a parent mildly frustrated with their teenager. To hear it come from a giant robot was hilarious. Anyways, his parents come into the room, and follows a discussion about what is going on that centers on "self-pleasuring." I choose not to use the standard term here because I do not want my blog to go down the same path as the stupid movie. I was so frustrated. And the scene went on and on, all while I was sitting next to my 11 year old who needs not be exposed to this right yet. He will be soon enough, it was just so aggravating to have to sit through this totally gratuitous scene.

Why is this necessary? There was absolutely no need for it, and I remained sufficiently angry throughout the rest of the movie that it lessened my overall enjoyment. Why would anyone target a movie to young boys and then go in this direction? The low-key sexuality of the starlet was bad enough, but is there not a single person in all of Hollywood with the practical sense to know that this would be inappropriate for a large portion of their target audience?

And since when is this subject even funny?

Harry Potter

I love the Harry Potter books. I have since the first one came out all these many years ago. From the very beginning I have differed strongly with the shallow perspective of many Christians concerning these books. In my previous life as the associate pastor of an evangelical church, I kept my opinion mostly to myself. However, I no longer have this constraint, so I thought I would take a minute to reflect on the issue.

I was one of the millions who stood in line at midnight to get a copy of the 7th book. I knew that I could have just slept in and gotten one the next day. I didn't even start reading it until I awoke the next morning. I just wanted to be a part of the fun of the final book. I met 5 or 6 really interesting people in line; one of the young ladies in out little group won the door prize of a signed poster and we all rejoiced with her. I think that is one of the nice things about the books - the heroes are unquestionably the good guys, and the bad guys are unquestionably evil - so there are not a lot of ambiguous fans. Everyone roots for the good guys. It's a huge club.

Since then, I have read two very different articles about the series, both by conservative Christians. One, in the online journal OneNewsNow.com, is a wondrous example of the silly, shallow stupidity spouted by Christians who don't bother to think beyond the surface. Nearly nothing the "evangelist" Tim Todd says about the books is inaccurate, yet he is viewed as credible by many. He makes statements about J. K. Rowling without any corroboration, and rather than quoting her, he makes vague references to things she is reported to have said. All in all, it was embarrassing; but even worse, I am fairly certain that Mr. Todd is not, and will never be, embarrassed. And worst of all, there are probably many people who read his writings or hear him speak and accept what he says as authoritative without ever bothering to check his credentials.

The other article, by La Shawn Barber in townhall.com, (do not read her article if you have not read the final book, to say it has spoilers is a MASSIVE understatement) is none of these things. Ms Barber is a fan, and she see the positive qualities in the stories for what they are. There is no superstitious fear of a book because "magic" is the underlying plot device; rather, Ms. Barber points out the power of the common themes of sacrificial love, true friendship and rebirth. These are themes that resonate with humans because they are the themes on which our fallen world is now built. The final resolution of history will come from the sacrificial gift of the One who created it. Men and women are destined for a glorious rebirth because of that sacrifice. And while the Potter books do not use these themes for religious reasons, the themes are nonetheless there, and believers can find much that recalls for them the truths in which we place our hope.

Finishing the final book was horribly bittersweet. I will greatly miss Harry, Ron, Hermione, Hagrid and Dumbledore. I have looked forward to each new adventure, and have loved sharing them with my boys. If you haven't had the opportunity, or have been afraid, go find a used copy of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and read it. Or, if you haven't the patience, watch the movie. These are stories that reflect the Great Story told by the Greatest Storyteller of all.

My children recently asked me if I thought God liked the movie Evan Almighty (we all did), and I told them I thought He probably did. I'm pretty sure He likes the Potter books as well.

More on civility

Yesterday, while talking about the helicopter crash here in Phoenix, I touched briefly on the loss of civility in our culture. This came to my mind in part because of a segment on the Hugh Hewitt show last evening. He and his guest were reviewing some of the submitted questions for the GOP YouTube debate, and they and I were both struck by the tone of the questioners. So many of the clips featured people being major-league smart-alecks. Now, I have a long history of sarcastic wit, it probably is even genetic to a certain extent for me, so I can appreciate the approach (I have, however, sworn it off, but that is for another time and post).

The problem with sarcasm in adversarial relationships (and debate questioners are typically adversarial towards their targets) is that the sarcasm effectively ends communications. The target of such attitude would really like to propose a suitable destination for the attacker, who is themselves obviously looking for a fight. So, rather than doing anything to mitigate the dissension and find a place of conversation, the sarcasm guarantees that neither participant in the exchange is even vaguely open to communication. And both leave feeling that they got the better of the situation.

Personally, I would love to see a lot less attacking, fewer sound-bite arguments, and more open discussion of what we purport to be talking about. With all the sarcasm, there isn't much communicating going on right now.

Tragedy

I live in Phoenix. Today, two news helicopters collided in mid-air, killing the pilot and photographer in each aircraft. My prayers go out for each of the families. They were following a police chase of a stolen vehicle, and early reports are that there was some confusion as to which was above the other.

I am hoping that this will cure us of our morbid cultural fascination with these stupid car chases. Years ago the sports channels stopped broadcasting idiots who run onto the field of play during a game; I think a similar, self-imposed moratorium would be appropriate here.

In general, I would welcome a preference for facts over voyeurism in news coverage. I think this morbid fascination with the exciting is telling of the overall degradation of civility on our culture.

Or maybe I'm just a prude.

Blogging

I haven't posted in months. Many things are changing in my life, and I cannot any longer keep track of everything. As a result, I have let blogging slide, even though I enjoyed the expression immensely while I was doing it.

I'm back now. I do not think there is anyone reading me; but I am no longer writing to be read. I am writing to write. Hopefully, someone will read, but even if not, I still need to write. There is something visceral for me about expressing my thoughts. When I was teaching or pastoring, there was a natural outlet. Those things are gone for me for now, and I need to do this on this forum.

So if you're still out there, I welcome you to come back and get re-acquainted. I have placed my email address and real name on my profile, I would love to hear from you as well.

Until tomorrow.

Jerry Crawford

Jerry is (was?) an NBA referee. During a game last week, Crawford, known for having a short temper at times, gave Tim Duncan of the Spurs two technicals while sitting on the bench. If you know me, you know that I am a long-time Spurs fan. I know that Duncan is a bit of a complainer (but with the possible exception of Hakeem Olajuwon, every big man with a post game is), but two technicals for a guy who is sitting on the bench NOT saying a word to the official is a new on for me. The explanation Crawford gives is that Duncan, who was laughing it up with his teammates on the bench, was laughing at him for a series of bad calls. But no matter what the reason, Duncan was out, and the entire NBA world waited to see what the league would do.

Duncan got fined the characteristic $25,000. Crawford received an indefinite suspension, effectively ending his officiating career. Everyone was stunned. Crawford has been in the league 31 years, and his grandfather and father and one of his brothers (or some such combination) have been profession sports referees. Yes, Crawford has a temper, but this seemed a huge overreaction. Most everyone thinks that the punishment is not commensurate with the crime.

But I find myself wondering if maybe I don't know the whole story. Yes, the results to not seem in accordance with what I know. So I have two possible conclusions: either the league is overreacting, or I don't know the whole story.

Hypocrisy

I was listening to Dennis Prager a couple of days ago. He was interviewing Michael Rogers, a gay activist and journalist who aggressively "outs" politicians (especially those on the right) who are not supportive of gay rights in their public life. His purpose, he says, is to attack the hypocrisy of those who profess one thing but live another in their private lives.

Dennis spent a great deal of time trying to get Mr. Rogers to explain exactly what it is that most concerns him about politicians who privately practice homosexual behavior but who publicly oppose the lifestyle. In spite of continued questioning, the journalist refused to elaborate. He just kept coming back to the "great evil" of hypocrisy. At one point, Dennis asked him if there was any difference between a person who in private practices homosexual behavior but in public supports policies that are viewed as anti-gay, and the person who supports penalties for cheating but who is himself not always honest. Mr. Rogers was not willing to acknowledge that these are morally similar. I suspect that he did not want to make the admission because such hypocrisy is much more widespread, and to recognize any equivalence between the two hypocrisies would dilute his source of outrage.

And I got to thinking (how many times have I said that in this blog?). If hypocrisy is defined as behaving one way in private while being against such behavior in public then we are all guilty of hypocrisy. It is commonly recognized that people are often most adamant in their condemnation of behaviors that hit close to home. This has always been presented to me as a bad thing, but I wonder. Perhaps it is not that we are hypocrites as much as it is that we aspire to be better than we are; and we rightly recognize that many of our private behaviors are wrong. In a great many cases we even want to see them disappear from our own lives. During the time between recognizing our failures and overcoming them, we run the risk of being labeled hypocrite. But I do not think that it is hypocrisy to believe that everyone ought to behave better than we actually do. Do we not all agree that society would be better if everyone behaved better than they actually do. We cannot define socially-acceptable behavior based on what we do. This is the flaw of moral relativism.

But you don't have to be a relativist to make this mistake. The church also misses this distinction as well, expecting that those who lead will themselves not struggle with sin. Or at least not with any sin that the leader may condemn in public. With one exception, no one has risen to this standard of flawless behavior. The story of the Bible is one of deeply flawed people who manage to continue to follow God in the very midst of their flaws. In the New Testament Paul himself admits that his struggle with sin was ongoing and frustrating. I myself expect and desire that my behavior would always be more Christ-like and good than it actually is. But my sins are not any less wrong just because you or anyone else may struggle with them as well. And lately, I have learned that I have enough to do worrying about myself, and have little time remaining to worry about so-called "hypocrisy" in others.

The 2nd Amendment

I have been thinking lately, and have about come to the conclusion that the second amendment to the United States constitution is partially obsolete. The amendment states (in full):

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Looking back at the writings of the early leaders of our government, you see that there are two purposes for this right. The first is to provide for powerful defense of our country in the event of war; the second is to allow the citizens the ability to protect themselves from the power of the federal government. As examples of the second, consider the following quotes:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Clearly, Webster is arguing that an armed citizenry provides protection against the central government. Patrick Henry, at the Virginia ratifying convention, made the same point:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

The question I ask is: does anyone really believe that today, with modern military weaponry, that armed citizens possess any power to stand in the way of their government? Please know that I am not arguing for violent overthrow of the government, nor am I arguing for the repeal of the second amendment.

What I am saying is that we need to think carefully about what the second amendment does actually provide in this day and age. While defense against armed invasion remains a real benefit of an armed citizenry, the risk of actual invasion of our country is truly minimal. The ability to defend our personal property against criminal behavior, while very real, was not (to my reading) part of the original intent, and it is in many ways regulated by our government. Are we now left with a right without a purpose?

This matters because there is a very real push by many in our country to gut, if not downright repeal, the second amendment. Those who wish to defend it need be very clear exactly what it is that they are defending. We live in a society that does not by default accept the judgement of those long dead as sufficient reason for any action. The question now for those who defend the second amendment: what exactly are you defending? If you do not come up with an adequate answer, you are destined to lose.

Dawkins - Look Ma! No God!

Chapter four of The God Delusion gets to Dawkins' main point - why there almost certainly is no God.

Once again, he is all over the place in this chapter, throwing his logic in as many directions as possible, presumably hoping that some stick. I can only assume he is impressed by the force of his reasoning; I am not. Perhaps I will have a chance to comment specifically on some of these individual issues, but his primary argument (which does not consume the bulk of the chapter) is that if there is a creator-God, then he is most certainly exceedingly complex, as he must be able to devise and implement the amazingly complex universe that exists. However, any such being does not solve the problem of the existence of the universe, it simply pushes the question back one layer. That is, when believers invoke God as an explanation for the complexity of the universe Dawkins says we haven't explained anything.

Put more simply, Dawkins is arguing that you cannot bail on answering the question, "If God created everything, who created God?" Traditionally, believers have argued that God, being eternal, simply has no beginning. Dawkins doesn't buy it. The crux of his argument is that, while the universe is extremely improbable; it does you no good to solve it by assuming something even more improbable. And Dawkins finds the notion that there is a god extremely unlikely. It is to this issue that he devotes the bulk of the chapter.

But why is this so? Is God improbable just because Richard Dawkins finds Him so? The bulk of Dawkins' argument is that smart people don't believe in God. Really. He cites studies showing that there are only a small fraction of believers in Mensa; that there is an inverse relationship between IQ and religious faith; that the higher the scientific honor, the less likely the scientist is to believe in God. I am fairly certain that I could dismantle each of these studies if given the raw data - for example, the Mensa study. For those who don't know, Mensa is a society that has as its primary membership criterion an IQ above the genius level. Why might believers be less well-represented in Mensa than in the rest of American society? Could it be that believers of high IQ have better things to do than join Mensa? Could it be that the church provides a more comfortable community? Could it be that believers are just less likely to find meaning in measures of intelligence. I suspect that the relationship between IQ and faith is less dramatic than this study would indicate.

As an alternative to God; Dawkins resorts to two rather insubstantial arguments. First, he says (without elaboration) at least a dozen times in this chapter that natural selection explains everything. It is so consistently stated, it becomes almost a creed. But I have no more confidence in the truth of the proposition that natural selection can create highly unlikely structures than he has in the proposition that God did it. And Dawkins' assertions to the contrary, natural selection doesn't explain anything.

His second alternative to God is what is known as the anthropic principle. Put simply, the anthropic principle says that, no matter how unlikely it is that life should show up in the universe, it must have happened because we are here. Or, more basically, "I know it may be hard to believe, but this all just happened. We know this is true, because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to know it". No mechanism is needed to explain how it happened; so you are free to pick the mechanism you want. Dawkins picks natural selection. I don't.

I do not have time to list his other points. Hopefully I will be able to address them in successive posts. But the breadth of Dawkins' misstatement of theistic positions is breathtaking. He has decided that there is no God, and that those who disagree are idiots. Interestingly, He himself quotes the verse which tells us that fool has said in his heart there is no God. He would just contend it is the other way. His arguments are not compelling.

Slavery and Virginia

So, Virginia has passed a resolution officially apologizing for slavery. I find it ironic on this day - when a movie about a man who devoted his life to pushing the legislature of the British Empire to make significant changes is playing around the country - that a group of legislators makes a meaningless symbolic act in an effort to demonstrate their leadership and compassion.

It takes no guts today to pass such a resolution in the United States; it takes brains and courage to do something that would actually have a positive effect on the oppressed in our nation today. Pity there are no men or women of vision and courage in the legislatures of our country today. I am certain that this resolution (and the similar one being considered in Missouri) will have a profoundly positive impact on the lives of those inner-city children being raised in fatherless homes, and one the lives of the thousands of young black men who turn to gangs and crime because they believe that there is no other option for them.

Well done.

Amazing Grace Movie

I went and saw the movie Amazing Grace this afternoon with my kids (as we walked up to the box office, my pastor and his family were there as well, so we all saw it together. But I digress.) Wilberforce has always been one of my heroes, not just because of his work to abolish the slave trade; but because he understood, as the movie makes so clear, that it is possible to serve God and change the world at the same time.

The movie was wonderful in every way. It started slow, as they attempt to establish the story. But soon I was engrossed in the telling of a story that I already knew. There have been a significant number of movies in the last couple of years that attempt to tell a story with which I was already familiar; and I have been disappointed in nearly all of them. The Lord of the Rings movies were the lone exception until today. The movie gave me an appreciation for the time Wilberforce devoted to his cause, and for the frustrations of his slow progress. The depth of the anguish suffered by John Newton (composer of the hymn Amazing Grace) is brought into stark reality in the movie. The acting is wonderful, the cinematography beautiful, and the storytelling magnificent. No matter what you believe about Christianity, I recommend this movie as the telling of the story of a true hero of the modern western world.

If you have children, know that there is a scene of animal cruelty at the beginning of the movie, and several tellings of the true fate of slaves that might be unnerving for smaller children. There are also a handful of profanities, all mild, except for 2 uses of the N word. Both are in context; but after all these years of avoiding the term in my own life, it was rather shocking to hear. Just caught me off guard, that is all.

The best line of the movie, for me as a believer, comes from the mouth of John Newton, when he says "This I know. I am a great sinner; and Christ is a great saviour." The line is historical, the truth is timeless.

Go see the movie. Now.

Dawkins - The God Hypothesis

Chapter 2 of Dawkins' book is devoted to the question of the reasonableness of what he calls The God Hypothesis (a phrase taken from LaPlace). The question he asks is simply this:

It is reasonable to assume that there exists a super-human, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us? (page 31)

He proceeds in the chapter to address a myriad of subjects, almost none of which is germane to his question. In fact, by the end of the chapter, he has made absolutely no progress in answering the question. Rather, he has regaled us with stories of atheist-phobic hicks, theologians who express offensive opinions and ill-advised studies of the efficacy of prayer. He has told us that Jefferson was an atheist who simply didn't know that it was a permissible opinion. He has mocked theists simply because they are theists, choosing only the most superficial arguments as the targets of his derision.

Finally, he concludes his narrative with an attempt to argue that because Stephen J. Gould wants the province of Science and Theology to be non-overlapping, then theists must accept this restriction. He does this in spite of the fact that the greatest theological thinkers have never made such an argument. He observes that some say that Science addresses the how of the universe and Theology the why. This seems to be an artificial distinction - useful at times, but hardly a general rule. Rather, I would state that Science and Theology can both offer their explanations for what we see around us - and may the best explanation win. Interestingly, Dawkins would undoubtedly accept such an offer; but he is already convinced that Theology has nothing to bring to that table, so there would be no competition. Unfortunately (for him and the book), he never gets around to actually making the case in this chapter.

What he does do is to state, over and over again, that Theology is of no value. He quotes all of his patron saints (Darwin, Jefferson, Einstein, Sagan, et. al.) over and over, as though the only thinkers in this age were men who questioned the existence of the God of Abraham. It is as if his argument is, "God must be a silly idea, because Jefferson (or Sagan, or whoever) says so". The chapter comes down to a "my experts can out-think your experts". And while he does quote a number of "theistic thinkers," he noticeably manages to avoid quoting anyone who thinks deeply about these issues (Ravi Zacharias, C. S. Lewis, and William Dembski come to mind). It then comes as no surprise that he sees no value in the thinking of theologians - those he mentions say nothing of value to me either.

I do not think that Dawkins' book begins well for him. To begin by setting up straw men and resorting to ad hominem attacks on one's opponents is to begin with nothing. A friend sent me a link to a review of the book by a thinking theist. I am going to avoid reading it until I have finished the book myself, but the introduction to the review notes that Dawkins spends much of his time making arguments that would make a first-year theology student wince; not because they are so devastating, but because they are so superficial. After chapter 3, it feels that way to me.

Richard Dawkins, part 1

I picked up Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion yesterday and began reading it. Dawkins is probably the best-known modern atheist, and this book is an evangelistic text for the cause of atheism. I bought it, not looking for a new belief system, but because I wanted to see what he had to say. It is my intention to comment on the book in my blog over the next couple of weeks as I read it.

I am certain that I will differ on much of what he says. However, in the first chapter he writes something with which I not only agree; but which has significantly helped me to understand where he is coming from. He writes:

The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. [A] clergyman presumably would not have deferred to the expertise of a claimed 'fairyologist' on the exact shape and colour of fairy wings. (page 16)

This is a point which deserves consideration. If religious belief is no more significant than belief in fairies, then it is deserving of no more respect. Since he devotes the bulk of his book to demonstrating that religious belief systems are of little or no merit, I will set aside the assertion for now.

But independent of the accuracy of his contention, I cannot argue with the logic. And it helps me to understand better why so many people regard religious belief with disdain. You see, I not only hold to a particular belief system, but do so with all the intelligence I can muster. Because of this, I can hold open the possibility that religious belief is rational, even if I disagree with the particular belief. But Dawkins, and others who hold to a philosophical atheism, regard those same belief systems as wholly irrational, or in Dawkins' words, delusional. Thus, they need be given no consideration at all.

I disagree, but now I understand.

One more thing, Dawkins' logical applies across religious systems: if what I as a Christian believe is true, then all other religious systems are no better than fairyology. This calls the entire multi-cultural / religious freedom premise into question.

Evidence

One of the reasons why Science can't claim access to absolute truth is that deduction (drawing a conclusion from previously known facts) is very susceptible to what is called the expectational bias. That is, we look only at the evidence that supports the conclusion we expect to reach, ignoring the counter-examples. The most common example of this is the tendency of humans to only see the events that confirm their expectations. If I think that all Phoenix drivers are idiots when it rains (and they are), I will only tend to notice to poor drivers on a rainy day, effectively ignoring all the evidence (good drivers) that contradicts my perspective.

I got to thinking; expectational bias is probably why God placed such a severe penalty on prophets who predicted wrongly in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 18:22 prescribes death for a prophet whose prediction does not come true). Prophets in those days commanded a lot of attention and influence. Lower the threshold for that sort of power, and it is easily abused. So God chooses to draw attention to the counter-examples, raising the bar for the status of prophet, and protecting His people from abuse.

And there is, in my experience, a lot of abuse in churches when people are allowed to speak in the name of God. I am increasingly skeptical of anyone who would believe that they have heard from God on anyone's behalf but their own. Too often I see these people waltz in, pronounce their dictum from Sinai, and waltz out leaving tsunami-like damage in their wake (to mix at least 2 and possibly 3 metaphors). When confronted with their errors, they respond with disclaimers; but when correct, it simply bolsters their belief in their gift. I wonder if we would be so quick to speak in the name of God if He enforced the death-penalty in modern Charismatic churches.

I don't know how many readers I still have after my month off, but if there are any of you out there, I would challenge you to find for me even a single Scriptural basis for members of the church speaking from God into another person's life (what is sometimes called personal prophecy). I do not know of one, which makes me even more skeptical of the validity of this practice. If you know of one, I would be interested to hear.

Hmmmm. This could have been a part of my heresies series.

Heresies, part 3 (the Gospel)

Let me first acknowledge that a series with over 3 months between part 2 and part 3 does not actually count as a series. Nonetheless...

I find myself, as of late, questioning much of what I have thought about the gospel. Not the core stuff, not the truth that Jesus, as both God and man, came to earth to re-open relationship between God and man. Not that part. The other stuff. In particular the notion that we must present the event of Jesus' life, death and resurrection solely in terms of sin and forgiveness. This notion is so prevalent in evangelical circles (in which I have travelled my entire adult life) that it is seen as a cheapening of the gospel to address the felt needs of those in our culture. This is particularly true if that means the we don't get around to "You are a sinner destined for hell" before a person responds to the message.

The problem with this approach is the education required. You see, there is good evidence that modern American culture does not come with a built-in perception of sin. So before we can give someone the good news that Jesus died for their sins, we have to convince them of the bad news that they are sinners. I'm afraid that too often we have lost them before we ever had a chance to really touch them.

But what our culture is looking for is a sense of purpose, a sense of community, and a chance to meet God. These we have in the church as well. In fact, Paul spends much of his writings talking to people about building community and about living a life of purpose. I find myself wondering if we wouldn't be more effective in touching people's lives if we spoke to them about those things and let the Holy Spirit handle the awareness of sin part. Personally, I doubt that a person could enter a growing relationship with the God of the universe as related in the Scriptures without eventually coming to terms with the fact of their own sinfulness.

So it's not that I am looking for another way to God, maybe just another way to Jesus...

Expectations

A very good friend of mine loaned me the DVD set for a TV series from the turn of the millennium. I am not going to tell you what the show was, in part because I do not want to spoil it for you should you ever watch it. And you should, because even though there is a good deal of sexual innuendo (and sometimes more than innuendo), it was an incredibly well-written show, and the characters were the kind you really want to pull for. Of course, this isn't much of an endorsement, since I'm not going to tell you what show it was.

When my friend loaned me the DVDs, he and his wife both told me that I would love the show but hate how it ended. It only ran for 2 years, and ended rather abruptly. I misunderstood what they were saying, and thought that the show ended on a very down note. So as I watched the show, I found that I had trouble enjoying the struggles through which the cast worked, assuming that it was all going to end very badly, and I was enduring a modern-day Greek tragedy.

But I was wrong. The show ends very positively, with the cast overcoming their struggles and building for future success. I loved this cast enough that I was tearful as I watched the ending. Tearful and stunned, because I expected tragedy. I found myself thinking, "I would have enjoyed that a lot more if I had known it was going to turn out OK."

Not the lesson I expected from a cancelled comedy. A good lesson, just unexpected. But the Bible says very clearly that our lives, as we walk in the relationship with God that Jesus' sacrifice has availed us of, turn out OK. No matter what the current struggles, this life is not a tragedy. He has promised in Romans 8, verses 28, 31, and 38, that He will bring triumph out of tragedy; that the looming disasters will not destroy us; and that the ending will make us cry with joy.

I would like to have that perspective during those times of my life when nothing seems to be going well. Perhaps, if I could grasp the truth of God's sovereignty over all, I would be able to enjoy, not just endure, every moment of my life, whether it appears to be destined for disaster or delight.

It's not fair! Emperor penguins get all the photos!

A friend sent me a link to this article on the disparity between the amount of attention that cute endangered species get as compared with ugly ones. My first reaction was "Duh!" but I thought I owed the writer, who is after all a professional journalist and paid for insightful, information-rich writing, to read the article and avail myself of their expertise.

Past research has shown that lack of human interest in an animal group can result in decreased funding for its protection.

Really?! That surprises me. Let me see if I understand: we human have all the money, but it took research to figure out that we only spend it on things we are interested in. Isn't that sort of the definition of interest? We spend money where we are interested. What's next? Research to determine that we only hang out with people we like? That we only engage in activities that we believe we will derive some benefit from?

Seriously, though, I find it very telling that our intellectuals no longer recognize that our interests must dominate our behavior. This is a central part of our freedom. I suspect that the same conservationists bemoaning the fact that we use our freedom to do whatever we want are the ones who argue that there is little or no significant difference between humans and other living species.

If that is so, let the ugly species get their own money.