Sunday, August 31, 2008

Nancy Pelosi isn't having a good week

Not only is Nancy Pelosi very confused about the Catholic church's position on abortion, as I posted about below, but she doesn't seem to know what natural gas is. I'm pretty sure I learned in junior high science class that it's a fossil fuel, and that it's often found in deposits along with oil, but apparently the Speaker of the House isn't aware of that (via Betsy Newmark, who asks, "Does Nancy Pelosi know what she's talking about?"):
Ms. Pelosi appeared Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," where Tom Brokaw gently pointed out that the various Democratic alternative energy ambitions are "not going to happen overnight." Replied Ms. Pelosi: "You can have a transition with natural gas. That, that is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels." Later, she again said that "I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels," and that wind, solar, biofuels and "a focus on natural gas, these are the real alternatives."

Apparently Ms. Pelosi's new script is still being reworked, but it's a telling mistake. Not only is natural gas every bit as much a "fossil fuel" as oil or coal. More to the point, these concentrated organic compounds found beneath the earth's surface must be extracted by . . . drilling. And sometimes even drilling offshore, on the Outer Continental Shelf. But more drilling is what Ms. Pelosi had refused to allow just a few days ago.
And she's directing energy policy in the House of Representatives?

Labels: , ,

Friday, August 29, 2008

We're Not all the Same...no, Really Part II

By Rich Bordner

(continued from the previous post)

Why is it when the pulpiteers in education utter certain broad-brush aphorisms, that hardly anyone sees the humor in it? Why is it that few people in education think to speak truth to THAT power?

Here's another silly moment I witnessed at the staff development conference I attended recently. The presenters were waxing eloquent about the necessity of having ambiguity in your classroom discussions and lessons. That is, in your discussions, you should stress that there is no one right answer that you are looking for. There is "more than one way to skin a cat." When the students see that their thoughts will be validated and not "put down," they will buy into the discussion more.

The problem isn't so much that ambiguity is always a vice. The problem is that the presenters lacked balance. Though it was never said, the unqualified aphorisms the presenters made it seem like ambiguity was almost an unmitigated good. In fact, the video they showed for this segment was of a MATH teacher teaching the kids that "there is more than one way to skin a cat." She said in the lesson, "gee, I see a whole lotta different answers here. Which one is wrong? (students pause, then answer "none of them!") "That's correct!" (To her credit, the problem was not a straightforward algebra equation. The problem did lend itself to more than one answer. The issue I take with her was the unqualified application she had.) One presenter even went so far as to say, "When discussing morals and ethics, you as the teacher should not try to steer the discussion towards your own view. You should not impose your view on them. That is the job of their parents and churches and communities. Your job is to lead them in thinking about their OWN viewpoints."

GAH! Where do I start?

Sometimes teachers need to stress that there are, indeed, a range of interpretations that are valid for a certain work of literature (not that anything goes, though). When the issue really IS grey, ambiguity is a virtue. But when the issue is black and white, ambiguity is a vice.

As I said to my fellow colleagues, if I hire an engineer to build me a house, and he comes to me and says, "Gee, um, well, this is such a sticky issue, you see. There's no one right way to build the foundation. We're gonna get creative and wing it," I would promptly fire him. If someone walks into my classroom and doubts whether rape is ok, we aren't going to ponder that viewpoint tolerantly and let him "clarify" his values. We will refer him to the school psychiatrist.

That thought had not occured to ANY of my colleagues. When I said that, they muttered, "hmm...I wasn't looking at it like that. I guess you're right....that's a very ambiguous point, Bordner!" (laughter)

The trick is having the wisdom to discern when ambiguity is a virtue and when it is a vice.

While I'm at it: I'm fairly sure that the educator presenters would quickly drop their "ambiguity" and "values clarification" stance if a student voiced a point of view that threatened the pillars of a relativisitic, secular worldview. In a discussion on homosexuality, if a student stood up and said, "I used to be homosexual, and I was miserable. With the help of Exodus International, I have left the gay lifestyle and have experienced much healing and repentance from that sin," I'm pretty sure the teacher would not allow that value to be clarified. The teacher would probably step in and announce concern that the student wasn't being "tolerant" of gays.

They are only interested in ambiguity when it suits them. Start threatening the cherished worldview of the establishment, speak truth to THEIR power, and its game o-v-e-r.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 28, 2008

We're Not all the Same...no, Really

By Rich Bordner

I just finished my first day back at school. Staff reported today, as we attended a day-long staff development workshop with the whole school district (I'm a public high school teacher, by the way). The day was fraught with joys, from seeing old colleague friends to learning something new about teaching to getting 'pumped up' for the upcoming school year. It was a good day on all three counts.

What struck me, however, was just how incredibly liberal the public education establishment is. I don't know why it hasn't hit me until now...denial, perhaps. Not individual teachers or administrators, mind you (though there are definitely a fair share of liberal teachers and administrators roaming around), but the establishment itself.

Education folk are big on diversity. For the most part, this is a good thing, but it can take an ugly twist. At the one point at which you'd think there'd be the most diversity, there's the least: thought and worldview. Most of the day was focused on good teaching strategies, but throughout the workshop, deeper worldview issues and questions came up, questions and issues that most people there didn't stop to ponder. Most just accepted the left leaning answers without thought, because its what they've been taught to think and believe by institutions of higher learning.

When these deeper worldview issues crept to the surface today, what I heard from the pulpit was incredibly predictable and stereotypical.

An example: we watched a filmed interview of several Latino fifth graders in a local elementary school. Most of the parents of these fifth graders, presumably, had entered into the U.S illegally. The interviewer asked the kids, 'what do you feel when you hear the phrase 'illegal alien'?' The kids responded, 'like everyone hates us, like they think we're dirty and don't want us here.' There was more to the interview, but the view the students communicated was clear: if you are against illegal immigration, you are prejudiced and don't believe in freedom. People have an unmitigated right to come to America.

Next, the film showed these same students 'taking on' an old, old (and I mean old), white male with a thick southern accent on the subject of illegal immigration (This man was actually the librarian of the school). The man went on and on about how illegal immigration needs to be curbed because of the trash and litter they bring: 'when I chew gum, I don't spit it on the floor.'

The students were all over him...when he actually tried to make an economic argument, they interrupted him. Afterwards, the presenters praised the kids for 'speaking truth to power.'

Oy...it's almost like the interviewers went out of their way to find a strawman to oppose the students, as if they said, 'hey, we need someone to represent the conservative viewpoint. Hey, you, you're old, and you're white..reeeeal white...so far so good. Say a few words ('howdy pardner!'). Great..you'll do.'

And about 'speaking truth to power.' Power sometimes corrupts...true. And it sometimes needs to be opposed...true. But I can't help but feel that power gets a bad rap these days. After all, Churchill needed a certain amount of power to bring down the Third Reich. Speaking truth to THAT power would go something like: 'great job..thanks bro...keep it up.'

Anyway, I was amused at the uniformity of worldview the different presenters had.

(Photo courtesy of Pyromaniacs blog at www.spurgeon.org/~phil/posters.htm)

Labels: ,

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Democrats' Moral Confusion

I know I've posted a lot about abortion lately, but I just keep finding good articles. It is a pretty big political issue and it is a presidential election year, so I guess that explains it. Anyway, Newsweek actually posted a web article that is a pretty solid presentation of the pro-life side of the debate, and how this issue affects the Democratic party. It's a good read:
Throughout this lengthy campaign, the Democratic Party has worked hard to present itself as the party of intellect, competence and moral seriousness. Yet it's off to a very rocky start in addressing the substance of the abortion issue—which remains, 35 years after Roe v. Wade, one of the most volatile in our public life. Talk this week by Democratic leaders about lowering the incidence of abortion in America will rightly be welcomed by pro-life Democrats, including the large number of pro-life African-American Democrats. But the recent public record has to make committed pro-lifers of both parties wonder just how serious the Democratic leadership is about engaging the abortion debate.
The part of the article that caught my eye is about Nancy Pelosi:

Then there are the multiple confusions of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. In her "Meet the Press" appearance Aug. 24, Pelosi was asked by Tom Brokaw whether she agreed with Senator Obama's statements on abortion at Saddleback. Pelosi, declaring herself an "ardent, practicing Catholic," told Brokaw that "this is an issue that I have studied for a long time"—and then got herself into a deep muddle, in which she seemed to confuse St. Augustine with St. Thomas Aquinas (neither of whom, in any case, knew anything about modern embryology); misrepresented the settled (and scientifically informed) judgment of the Catholic Church on when life begins by declaring it an open question, and concluded by suggesting that none of this really makes a difference, because what the scientists, theologians, and philosophers say "... shouldn't have an impact on a the woman's right to choose." The Speaker then misrepresented the legal impact of Roe v. Wade, arguing that the Supreme Court hadn't created a right to "abortion on demand"—which will come as news to those on both sides of the ongoing debates over partial-birth abortion and other late-term abortion procedures, parental- and spousal-notifications laws and regulatory oversight of abortion clinics.

Democrats who had hoped to persuade a good number of evangelicals and Catholics to return to their traditional 20th-century political home in November 2008 cannot be very encouraged by such intellectual disarray on the part of their party's senior federal official. For more than three decades, the abortion license created by the high court in Roe v. Wade has been an important factor in determining American voting behavior—in more than a few instances, the decisive factor. Yet, judging by her performance on "Meet The Press" (which seemed to surprise the usually unflappable Tom Brokaw), the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives is as ill-informed on the scientific and legal facts involved in the abortion debate as she is of the teaching of the Catholic Church. Speaker Pelosi is, like most "ardent, practicing" Catholics, a great admirer of the late Pope John Paul II. Was John Paul wrong, one wants to ask Speaker Pelosi, when he wrote in the 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae [The Gospel of Life] that "abortion ... always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being"? Was he wrong when he further stated that this moral truth could be known by reason, and was thus a matter of grave concern to public policy?

Obviously I understand that not everyone in this country is a practicing Christian and so not everyone will have the same moral stance on abortion that I do. But I find it beyond comprehension that someone like Nancy Pelosi (or Joe Biden) could claim to be an ardent, practicing Catholic and still support abortion. I guess it just demonstrates how confused and twisted their worldviews have become.


Labels: , , , ,

Monday, August 25, 2008

Obama/Biden: Biden on Abortion

So Obama announced his pick for VP: Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. It's not all that clear that the VP selection matters a whole lot, but informed voters should still probably do a little research on the VP's opinions. Biden might influence Obama's policies should he win the presidency, so you should know what he believes.

In that spirit, here's a few links with some information:

Biden, a Catholic, is a fairly strong supporter of abortion and stem cell research, although he did vote to ban partial-birth abortion. Here's an interesting article from a Catholic perspective about how his abortion views are in conflict with his faith.

Amanda Carpenter quotes NARAL's approval of Biden's record on Supreme Court confirmations:
"Most notably, Sen. Biden has a strong record of opposing judicial nominees with hostile anti-choice records. He voted against George W. Bush's two anti-choice nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and he opposed anti-choice Justice Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Court as well as multiple anti-choice nominees to lower federal courts."- NARAL statement
Biden has served as the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was involved in the confirmation hearings of Bork, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito, among others. He voted against all four and was a big factor in the ugliness of the Bork and Thomas hearings. If he has any influence on Obama's Supreme Court nominations, it obviously won't be good for conservatives.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, August 22, 2008

Why does world view matter?

Michael Medved at Townhall on the importance of worldview in the presidential race:

Barack Obama acknowledges the existence of evil – but the three examples he cited in the televised Saddleback Forum with Rick Warren involved child abuse and street crime here in the United States, as well as the violence in Darfur. He never even mentioned Islamo-Nazi terror as the most obvious and menacing evil of our time – a form of monstrous depravity that elevates suicide, and the slaughter of innocent children, into a holy act.

More than any American leader since Reagan, McCain emphasizes the moral dimension in international conflict, and the importance of core values. And like Reagan, he understands that evil must be called by its name and, ultimately, defeated.
You should also check out this related Hugh Hewitt post on moral equivalence:

Here's what Obama said yesterday about China:

Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a coporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."
On many levels, this bit of Obama oratory is as troubling as Obama's moral equivalence posture on the invasions of Georgia and Iraq. Obama's praise for China's Olympics building binge ignores how those structures were assembled, the source and conditions of the labor, the lack of pollution controls in Beijing and throughout China, the many complaints that Chinese infrastructure outside the Olympics zone remains shoddy, the recent record of Chinese manufacturing scandals, including the heparin fiasco which killed many Americans, and of course the catastrophe brought about by Chinese building standards in the region rocked by the recent earthquake.

Labels: , , , , ,

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

McCain's faith as a POW in Vietnam

Check out this story about John McCain:
Sen. John McCain, who is known for his reticence and even discomfort invoking faith on the campaign trail, was once dubbed a "Hell's Angel" for rioting against his captors in Vietnam in order to hold Sunday church services.
There's a lot more detail in the stories, including a summary of McCain's first lesson as the group's unofficial chaplain and a description of a Christmas service he organized. It's a pretty moving story. I think it's an interesting read partly because McCain doesn't talk about his faith as openly as some other candidates in the recent past, but stories like this do suggest that his Christian faith is an important part of his character.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, August 19, 2008

Put down the controller and back away slowly...

By Rich Bordner

Sunday night, I had a true blue C.S Lewis moment*. I was watching history in the making; Michael Phelps was about to win his 8th gold medal at Beijing. No one has done that in the history of the cosmos. It was one of those moments that people will bring up 30 years from now: "where were you when Michael won his 8th?" No last name needed. Michael will suffice. Everyone will know who that is.

And yet, there was a friend of mine...with headphones snugly on his ears, as he played a video game on his computer...that he had been playing for the last 4-5 hours.

I snagged his attention and insisted he watch the event. He complied, then promptly went back to his video game, missing another historic moment; Jamaica's Usain Bolt becoming the first human being to run under 9.70 seconds in the 100m dash in track and field. What's more, he did it while practically jogging the last 20 meters. It is truly scary to imagine what his time would have been had he not eased up in the race.

Are you kiddin' me? These were two of many moments of this Olympics that have brought goosebumps, but my friend was tinkering away on a STINKIN' VIDEO GAME!!

This insanity only served to increase my disgust for video games. Yeah, allright, a little is ok. 20 minutes a day, tops...and that's pushing it. But past that, what possible good can video games bring? While you are puttin' away on World of Warcraft, you are missing out on soooo much drama, so much good stuff, so much...well...life!

There are a lot of things out there that diminish your soul's capacity to take part in and enjoy other, more substantial things. For example, pornography diminishes the soul's capacity to love one's spouse. Watching too much TV can diminish the mind's stamina when it comes to reading. When you haven't eaten for a week, a juicy steak can throw your digestive system into a tailspin.

I have to wonder if video games, played even in small amounts, are in that category. I think last night gave me my answer.

"But Rich, maybe he just isn't into sports."
Bullfeathers. You don't even have to be a sports fan to see my point. Even if you've never watched a sporting event in your life, what transpired last night is still mind-bogglingly impressive, not to mention the fact that those events will be remembered for centuries to come. Plus, its not like we're talking pro football or baseball. Its THE OLYMPICS, the ONLY time where you will see so many different nations and peoples come together peaceably and celebrate our humanity. So much blood, sweat, and tears go into even one Olympic berth that someone with zero interest in sports should be able to appreciate it.

"But video games are fun and help people relax."
So...there are sooo many other things out there that are more fun and relax you more...like watching history being made with a few good friends. What's more, many (though not all) of these other things actually enrich you...they strengthen your social skills, your relationship with God, your mind, and your body. What do video games enrich, your thumbs?

Put down the Xbox controller. Get out of your mom's basement and take part in the drama of life. Pick up a book. Talk to someone. Get out. Go on a run. Go dancing. Get a date. Pray. ANYTHING but the Wii.

*...Our Lord finds our desires not too strong, but too weak. We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.
C.S Lewis, "The Weight of Glory"

Labels: , ,

Monday, August 18, 2008

Obama: Lying about Abortion

I wrote here about Barack Obama's position and actions with respect to abortion. Frankly, I don't understand how any evangelical Christian could vote for him on this issue alone, but of course that is my opinion. Anyway, there is some controversy about the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act and his position on that bill. Here's what Obama told CBN (video at the link):
And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say --that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening.
To put it bluntly, I believe Obama is the one who's lying here, because he knows that the truth will hurt him with a lot of voters. He voted against a bill protecting infants who survive an abortion while in the Illinois Senate. I don't understand how he thinks he can pretend that didn't happen. Please, check out the facts for yourself and make sure you know what is going on here.

David Freddoso reviews the relevant bills and votes in detail and comes to this conclusion:
Sen. Obama is currently misleading people about what he voted against, specifically claiming that the bill he voted against in his committee lacked “neutrality” language on Roe v. Wade. The bill did contain this language. He even participated in the unanimous vote to put it in.
One more thought--Saturday night, Obama and McCain both appeared at Saddleback Church and answered questions from Rick Warren. I have my differences with Warren's theology, but it sounds like he asked some interesting questions (for example, does evil exist and what should we do about it?). You should definitely read some coverage of the event and the candidates' answers to faith & values questions (including this from Victor Davis Hanson, highlighting Obama's postmodern worldview: "There are no absolutes, just nuances and contexts that preclude certainty."). The question that is relevant to this post is this:

When asked "At what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?," McCain answered "At the moment of conception." Obama's answer here was flaming-dirigible bad:
Whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity is, you know, above my pay grade.

Transcripts for both candidates at Saddleback church are available here.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Hamas Leader's Son Converts to Christianity

This is an incredible story--Masab-Joseph (or Mosab Hassan Yousef) the son of a Hamas founder converted to Christianity. It's really interesting to read about how he converted; basically he is making the point that when he investigated the claims of Islam and the claims of the Bible, it was obvious to him that the Bible is true and Islam is not. He also has some interesting things to say about Hamas and Islam, and Israel. Here he explains how he learned about Christianity and converted:

"It began about eight years ago. I was in Jerusalem and I received an invitation to come and hear about Christianity. Out of curiosity I went. I was very enthusiastic about what I heard. I began to read the Bible every day and I continued with religion lessons. I did it in secret, of course. I used to travel to the Ramallah hills, to places like the Al Tira neighborhood, and to sit there quietly with the amazing landscape and read the Bible. A verse like "Love thine enemy" had a great influence on me. At this stage I was still a Muslim and I thought that I would remain one. But every day I saw the terrible things done in the name of religion by those who considered themselves 'great believers.' I studied Islam more thoroughly and found no answers there. I reexamined the Koran and the principals of the faith and found how it is mistaken and misleading. The Muslims borrowed rituals and traditions from all the surrounding religions."

"...I now see God through Jesus and can tell about him for days on end, whereas the Muslims won't be able to say anything about God. I consider Islam a big lie. The people who supposedly represent the religion admired Mohammed more than God, killed innocent people in the name of Islam, beat their wives and don't have any idea what God is. I have no doubt that they'll go to Hell. I have a message for them: There is only one way to Paradise - the way of Jesus who sacrificed himself on the cross for all of us."

He has this to say about Hamas, Israel, and the Mideast peace process:

"You Jews should be aware: You will never, but never have peace with Hamas. Islam, as the ideology that guides them, will not allow them to achieve a peace agreement with the Jews. They believe that tradition says that the Prophet Mohammed fought against the Jews and that therefore they must continue to fight them to the death. They have to take revenge against anyone who did not agree to accept the Prophet Mohammed, like the Jews who are seen in the Koran as monkeys and the sons of pigs. They speak in terms of historical rights that were taken from them. In the view of Hamas, peace with Israel contradicts sharia and the Koran, and the Jews have no right to remain in Palestine."

If you're interested in more, here's a second interview, with Jonathan Hunt of Fox News:

JONATHAN HUNT: You talk about the good Muslims, like your father, yet you still now renounce the faith of your father. Could you have not been a good Muslim? (note: by "good Muslims" he is referring to the fact that his father was kind and loving to his family)

MOSAB HASSAN YOUSEF: Now, here's the reality: after I studied Christianity — which I had a big misunderstanding about, because I studied about Christianity from Islam, which is, there is nothing true about Christianity when you study it from Islam, and that was the only source.

When I studied the Bible carefully verse by verse, I made sure that that was the book of God, the word of God for sure, so I started to see things in a different way, which was difficult for me, to say Islam is wrong.

...So I had to study Islam again from a different point of view to figure out all the mistakes, the huge mistakes and its effects, not only on Muslims — (of) which I hated the values ... I didn't like all those traditions that make people's lives more difficult — but its effects also on humanity. On humanity! People killing each other (in) the name of God.

So definitely I started to figure out the problem is Islam, not the Muslims and those people — I can't hate them because God loved them from the beginning. And God doesn't create junk. God created good people that he loved, but they're sick, they have the wrong idea. I don't hate those people anymore but I feel very sorry for them and the only way for them to be changed (is) by knowing the word of God and the real way to him.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Sharpening Your Sword: Developing the habit of consistent Bible reading

Would you like to develop the habit of consistent Bible reading? In one year, you can read through the entire Old Testament once and the New Testament and Psalms twice, simply by reading just four chapters a day! You can do it by following the bible reading guide known as the M'Cheyne's Bible Reading Calendar. Touted by Christian leaders from Charles Haddon Spurgeon to John Stott, this classic resource has been used by Christians for generations. Practically speaking, is a great way for everyone in your church community to be thinking along the same lines ("of one mind" Phil. 2:2) as you all meditate over the same passages throughout the year. I heard about this while taking a class last month with world-renowned Christian scholar and speaker, D.A. Carson. I've listed below several formats you can use, including Carson's own version in which he reduces the four M'Cheyne daily readings down to two, thereby making it more manageable for readers. Cutting the original M'Cheyne reading rate in half thereby takes the reader through the New Testament and Psalms every year, and the Old Testament every two years.
  • If you have a printer which can print double-sided sheets, download booklet.pdf. *
  • The RSS feed for the calendar is evidently also becoming very popular.
_______________

* Adobe PDF format can be viewed/printed using Adobe Acrobat® Reader.

Here's a little about the inventor of this guide, Robert Murray M'Cheyne (also known as McCheyne).

Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 10, 2008

Amputee Marine returns to combat duty

Just wanted to quickly share an inspiring story from our military (saw this on Hugh Hewitt):
On July 23, 2007, [USMC Corporal Garrett] Jones was on foot patrol near the Iraqi city of Fallouja when he was injured by a roadside bomb. After the attack, his left leg was amputated above the knee. He developed infections and fevers. His weight dropped from 175 pounds to 125. At 21, Jones faced months of painful rehabilitation and a likely end to his service in the Marine Corps.

One year later, Jones is walking smoothly on a prosthetic leg. He not only continues to serve on active duty, but he has worked his way back to a war zone, serving with his Marine battle buddies in Afghanistan.

First of all, it's amazing and humbling that we have such dedicated men (and women) in our military, going into harm's way. Pretty cool story. And don't miss that a big reason Corporal Jones is able to do this is the significant advances in medical science resulting in improved treatment and prosthetic limbs. Personally I would argue that this is an important outgrowth of a free market, not universal/government health care system, but that's a long discussion for another post.

Labels: ,

Saturday, August 09, 2008

MacArthur on Larry King Live

Here's a clip of John MacArthur accurately representing what the Bible says about the ways things are spiritually. Even Larry King recognizes the non-sense the other so-called "Christian" is saying is the way we need to look at it. FYI: This other man is coming from the perspective of what is referred to as religious pluralism and neo-tolerance.

Labels: , , ,

Friday, August 08, 2008

This is why I love the Olympics

The Olympics start tonight. In some ways they were more exciting during the Cold War, when national pride was on the line against the Soviet Bloc machine ("Do you believe in miracles?"), but there are still very inspiring stories.

One of the great honors for an Olympic athlete is to carry the flag in the opening ceremonies. The US team has many world-class, well-known athletes: LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, Michael Phelps, Dara Torres, Jeremy Wariner, the list goes on. But the captains of the US delegation chose distance runner Lopez Lomong:

Joseph Lopepe (Lopez) Lomong is one of the Lost Boys of the Sudan. He was kidnapped from his village in Kimotong at the age of six, escaped by tunnelling under the wire fence of his compound and spent three days on the run. Having fled across the border into Kenya, his home for ten years was the Kakuma refugee camp.

In Tully (population: 927), New York State, Roger and Barbara Tully saw the notice on the board of their local church highlighting the plight of the children of Darfur and offered themselves as foster parents. Joseph Lomong arrived on their doorstep seven years ago, enrolled in Tully High School, discovered a natural gift for athletics, became an NCAA champion in Northern Arizona University and surprisingly qualified for the Olympics by finishing second in the US trials. A year ago to the day of his Olympic selection, he was granted US citizenship. Last year, he returned to his village and saw his own grave, dug by his family in the absolute certainty that their son was no longer alive...

Lomong first discovered the Olympics when he spent five Kenyan shillings - a few pence - to watch a telecast of Michael Johnson’s victory in the 400m at the Sydney Olympics. “Now I’m running for America and I’m grateful for that,” he said. America is a land for everybody.”

Labels: ,

Thursday, August 07, 2008

Soul Searching part 6: (Somewhat) tentative conclusions

By Rich Bordner

(continued from here)

"Rich, bug off. These are teenagers, after all. We can't expect them to care. We can't expect them to be able to articulate their beliefs. The teen years are just something to survive. Have fun. Be young."

Well, I agree in part, but not like you want me to. Those who have impacted teens the most will tell you quickly that they will rise to the level of their expectations. If you expect them to act like that and not care, they will.

And really, we adults hold that low-level of expectation to their detriment, and to the detriment of society as a whole.

The encouraging part of this study is that teens typically aren't engaged in wholesale rebellion from their religious upbringing (with a few exceptions). Most are friendly to religion, and most are happy to go along with what they were taught to believe by their parents. The scary part of this study is that teens typically aren't engaged in wholesale rebellion from their religious upbringing. Most are friendly to religion, and most are happy to go along with what they were taught to believe by their parents.

No, that last paragraph wasn't a typo...teens will and are picking up exactly the values the adult world holds. Their "whatevah-ness" about spirituality is not an accident.

Certainly we should not expect teens to articulate their beliefs like graduate school philosophers, but its not too much to expect them to rise well above where they are now. My experience, as well as the experience of those who are involved in youths' lives, says that they are capable.

What is needed are an army of hard-nosed, wise, loving, and intentional adults that will stop merely exposing teens to spirituality and start teaching them.

Here's one way to put it: if you never talk about Jesus to someone, why are you surprised when they conclude that He's not very important to you? You can do all the service projects you want; if He's never or rarely a topic of conversation, you are telling those around you that He's not important...not something worth talking about.

When the adults in a teen's life don't talk about religion/spirituality, s/he will conclude, given the cultural cacophony of voices that bombard him/her every day, that Jesus just doesn't matter. The adults can be going to church every week, praying at dinner time, reading their Bibles faithfully, tithing, serving consistently, and "loving on" others (never mind that intentionally not talking to others about Christ is not loving), the non-action of being silent about Christianity will drown out almost everything else.

Christ-followers, throughout the last 8-9 posts I have used the word "gauntlet." God is throwing down quite a few gauntlets to us today. He calls us to pick up those gauntlets and faithfully serve Him, even when (especially when) it will draw the ire of the world.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, August 06, 2008

A Case Study on 2 Tim. 4:1-4: Joel Osteen

This is a good example of the pseudo-Christianity Rich referred to in recent posts as Moralistic, Therapeutic, Deism (MTD).

Before watching this report from 60 Minutes, I want to let you know one interesting bit of info: a reliable source informs me that the guy from CBS interviewing Joel Osteen is a real Christian.

Part 1 of 2



Part 2 of 2



2 Timothy 4:1-4 (ESV):
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
Here's more from Michael Horton and the folks from the White Horse Inn:

Labels:

Tuesday, August 05, 2008

Art Monk's testimony at the Hall of Fame

Saturday night I happened to catch a few minutes of the Hall of Fame induction ceremony (broadcast on ESPN). The last NFL player, and probably the "class of the class" to be inducted was Art Monk, a wide receiver who spent most of his career with the Washington Redskins.


What I didn't know about Art Monk is that he is apparently a strong Christian who strives to use his position as a witness for Christ. His testimony was awesome, and he gave it at the ceremony in front of thousands of football fans, broadcast live on ESPN. If you want to watch the whole thing (18 minutes), you can find it here on the NFL site (sorry, I couldn't find a shorter clip with just the good stuff). There's also a transcript of the whole thing here; I'll just give a couple of highlights.


First, Art was introduced by his son, James:
Dad's greatness never came from his ability to play football, but it came because he wanted to be used by God for his glory, above all.

He realized and held onto the gifts and talents that God blessed him with. And the Bible says to build your foundation on a rock. Solid rock. For when the storm comes, you will not shake or you will not be moved for your foundation is well built.

Dad built his foundation on the strongest rock of all and that was Jesus Christ.

And because of this he was able to weather many storms and stay consistently strong on the football field, at home, at church, and at work. And from his actions I have learned the following: I've learned that less is more. I've learned not only to become a man of success, but be a man of value; that my decisions should be guided by Christian principles.

It is not hard to make the right decision when you know your value and where you stand. Through the outcomes of hard work and dedication is success. That there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ.

That the reward for hard work is the opportunity to do more. Nobody gets anywhere in this world by just being content with where you are. And that my identity does not come from this world or what people say or write or think about you, but it comes from the one and only Jesus Christ.

After a 4-minute standing ovation, Art Monk finally managed to say a few words:
And even now as a Hall of Famer, the one thing I want to make very clear is that my identity and my security is found in the Lord. And what defines me and my validation comes in having accepted his son Jesus Christ as my personal savior. And what defines me is the word of God and it's the word of God that will continue to shape and mold me into the person that I know he's called me to be.

So I've learned a long time ago never to put my faith or trust in man, for man will always fail you. Man will always disappoint you. But the word of God says that Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. And he will never fail you.

And that is what I live by and what I stand on...

But I understand and I know that I'm here not by in and of my own strength but it's by the grace and the power of God upon my life who I know gave me favor along the way and who provided opportunity and room for me to use my gifts.

So I am very grateful to receive this honor, and I can stand here before you and say, hey, look at me, look what I did. But if I'm going to boast, I'm going to boast today in the Lord, for it's because of him that I'm here and I give him thanks and glory and honor for all that he has done for me.

He goes on to talk about his teammates who shared the gospel with him and led him to Christ, and his family as a blessing from the Lord. I just have to say, how awesome to hear him stand up and speak so strongly for Jesus Christ, and how amazing that it was broadcast coast-to-coast!

Labels: , ,

Sunday, August 03, 2008

Book Review: The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

It has been over ten years now since I first heard about an orthodox Christian pastor who has found growing success reaching young people in arguably the most liberal city in America, New York City. What was so amazing was that congregation was growing mainly as a result of new converts! You ask, “Who is this man?! And how did he do it?!”

Well, this man is Tim Keller, pastor of Manhattan’s Redeemer Presbyterian Church. And he gives details on how he did it in his new book, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. In it, he not only evaluates the reliability of Christianity, but he offers what he considers to be the solution to the growing polarization that has been occurring in the Culture Wars in America where “denunciation has replaced disagreement” in public discourse on topics related to religion.

His thesis is this: The right question isn’t whether one has faith but whether the object of one’s faith is trustworthy; in light of this reality, it can be further demonstrated that sufficient reasons exist that should dissuade one from trusting in anything other than the Person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.

Keller has two main reasons for writing the book. The first, which I guess is the most important, is because his wife told him to. He considers her one of the three greatest influences in his life – along with Christian giants C.S. Lewis and Jonathan Edwards.

The second reason he wrote his book is to try and allay the bitter, vitriolic, nasty atmosphere that exists between the left and the right in America, by imploring both sides – the conservatives and liberals; the religious and secularists – to act more civil towards each other. These two groups are his book’s intended audience. He refers to them as the skeptic and the believer. He hopes his book will help bridge the divide between these opposing sides: one that wants to write off liberals as “God-haters” and one that considers less progressive Christians close-minded to either the Truth, or the truths of others. He expresses a hopefulness as he writes in his introduction (xix) that his book will encourage collegial, yet respectful, dialogue between those he calls “entrenched traditional conservatives” and those he refers to as “secular liberal people” urging both sides towards increased communication and understanding despite the fact that each holds diametrically-opposed worldviews: that is, philosophical materialism and/or epistemological relativism, on the one hand; and theism and epistemological absolutism, on the other.

Despite his optimism, Keller remains realistic, understanding that simply calling people to civility will not reduce the polarization. Someone has got to show them how to get along better. Keller’s anecdote to this cancer of discord in our country he refers to as a “Spiritual Third Way”. His solution requires both sides to be willing to being honest – first with each other and them with themselves. All parties must understand and fairly represent the other side. I think of 1 Peter 3:15 where it exhorts us to give respect to the other side. I often am reminded when I am evangelizing that I have no right to choose what they do with their own soul. Moreover, while I am confident my faith is indeed well-placed, if I’m going to be intellectually honest, I must admit to skeptics that there is a possibility that I could be mistaken about how I see the world.

Honesty must furthermore extend to oneself. This is where he invites readers to reconsider the meaning of doubt. He urges both skeptics as well as believers to examine the reasons for their doubts. He points out that a skeptic’s doubt in something is actually rooted in his or her faith in an alternative belief. He emphasizes how everyone believes in something. The question they should be asking is whether there is good enough reason for them to be trusting in the things they are trusting in. Skeptics should hold the same high level of scrutiny to one’s own faith as they do with the faith of believers. Proper level of scrutiny of one’s own faith insures that the object of their personal faith is worthy of their trust.

Keller writes in the introduction (xix), that the majority of his book, “is a distillation of the many conversations [he has] had with doubters over the years.” They comprise objections which Keller takes on with a great amount of cultural-sensitivity and philosophical competence. In essence, what he does, as a good evangelist, apologist, and pastor, is metaphorically “come alongside” both the skeptic and the believer and practically guide them through that process of exploring their doubts chapter by chapter, page by page.

Similar in content to other popular apologetics books like Lewis’ Mere Christianity, or the more recent The Case for… series of books by Lee Strobel, Keller’s book is organized topically according to the reason for one’s doubt or belief. Keller devotes the first half of his book (chapters 1 – 7) addressing the major objections skeptics have for why they do not follow Christ. Keller pursues here the unfolding of what is commonly referred to as defensive apologetics. Keller calls it, “tackl[ing] intellectual barriers of theology” (xx). The second half of the book covers the top reasons why believers believe in God and trust in Christ – otherwise known as offensive apologetics. Here he focuses on allaying the doubts of believers by offering reasons why their trust in God is properly placed. Keller describes this section as “a more positive exposition of the faith they are living out in the world.” The methods he employs for developing each chapter are quite diverse. He integrates occasional narration and description, as well as a proportionally greater amount to exposition and argumentation. He provides not only personal stories of those in his church who have been transformed by God, but also carefully-thought-out analogies he has collected over the years, all in an effort to help doubters better understand what Christianity actually says regarding the issues of life.

Argumentation is the main method by which Keller develops his thesis. You may not recognize it though, namely because the way in which he craftily builds rapport with his reader. One way he disarms the unbeliever is by getting on their side of a debate when he can. He argues in Chapter Four, for instance, that injustice like the racism experienced in America often blamed on Christianity was not due to the influences of Christianity per se, but by the lack of application of the faith by those who claimed to be Christians. History demonstrates this, he notes. As Keller points out, “The greatest champion of justice in our era [Martin Luther King, Jr.] knew the antidote to racism was not less Christianity, but a deeper and truer Christianity.”

Along the lines of his argumentation in the book, I largely agree – particularly on a number of points. His overall critique of what is wrong is spot on. Civil discourse is rare and the sources for this contention, I believe, are as he indicates. After reading his book, I have particularly been hard hit by how much of this is true when a very well known conservative political pundit who I – to some degree – admire and respect, went ballistic one day on an animal rights activist over the radio. This conservative was constantly interrupting him and was never affirming what he said that was correct. It caused a very heated conversation. I think this pundit needs to read Keller’s book. Who is our real enemy? The Bible is clear: our enemy is the devil (who is full of pride), the world’s system’s (which are broken), and our own broken natures (which is antagonistic toward God). Keller reminds us that whether we are talking to a radical liberal, or staring at ourselves in the mirror, those three things remain the same!

Having looked at points of agreement with his arguments, I will now share three areas I recognized in his writing for which I may have disagreement: his apparent affirmation regarding pacifism (74-75); his possible perspectives on restoration theology as it relates to social justice and eschatology (224), and what seems to be a rather too optimistic a view regarding man’s ability to reason correctly (7). I am not entirely certain what his views here are exactly; he only quickly touches on these subjects. This makes sense though, considering these topics are not the main focus of his book; they are merely secondary, if not tertiary, points of doctrine. Similarly, these points of potential contention are rather minuscule when compared to the weight of importance given to those areas which Keller does focus largely on, and for which the Christian faith rests. For these reasons, I will leave my conjecture and criticism to only a passing mention.

With few exceptions, the clarity, simplicity and thoroughness by which he writes, is also worth mentioning. He unpacks deep theological concepts so that the lay person can understand them while avoiding being reductionistic. Moreover, he provides additionally helpful information in the end notes, where he often cites leading proponents or opponents of views expressed or events detailed in the book – along with corresponding published works.

I mentioned there are exceptions; here are two: The first weakness involves his occasional cursory analysis. For example, Keller says (18) he argues against the main efforts to address the current divide on religion in our world. While describing many of the causes for religious division (e.g. not acknowledging both sides are growing, both sides not looking at their own doubts honestly, denouncing rather than reasoning with), he does not move much beyond there. He does indeed support a call for more civil dialogue, as I discussed earlier. However, this is the only time when I found him describing any other efforts at bridging the religious divide (other than his own), let alone arguing against them.

Another instance of weakness involves his lack of clarity and thoroughness when warning people not to seek God as a means to an end. He cautions readers to explore their motives in their quest towards God. Keller asks: “Are you getting into Christianity to serve God, or to get God to serve you?” (228) He states that the correct answer is the former and not the later, yet provides no clear explanation as to why that is or why it can be nothing else. He simply states that if one’s motive is for God to serve them, then it would be illicit for they would be loving the creation rather than the Creator (1 John 2:15). If one’s desire is for God to serve them for the purposes of acquiring the things of this world, then that would indeed be an illicit motivation. Yet, the phrase “get God to serve you” is an equivocal phrase. It could also mean that God serves them by giving salvation to them. Hello? Should they not want God to do that? He is the only One who can serve us in this way. Matthew 20:28 states, “even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (ESV; cf Mark 10:45) Again, Keller provides no sufficient distinction. Consequently, the gospel in this case is misconstrued. On one hand, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt regarding this ambiguous section. After all, none of us are perfect. (I certainly am not.) I am convinced that he fully understands the gospel, and communicates it clearly every other time I noticed. I would conclude that he simply falters here expositionally – not theologically (Gal. 3:1; 5:12). Moreover, I would assume he would be in whole-hearty agreement with my assessment above. In fact, it seems as though he attempts in the paragraph that follows on page 228 to make this point clear. Sadly, despite the attempt, in my view, the clarity never comes. My personal conviction is the gospel is just too important to get wrong at all – even if ambiguity occurs just on very rare occasions. In respect to those like him who are elder-teachers in the church, in some way I feel this is the one area for which no tolerance or grace of any kind should be extended.

In my final review, I think the book will do quite well among all of us doubters – both skeptics and believers. From my own personal experience in evangelism, I am confident this book will be used by the Father to draw people to Jesus (John 6:44). Particularly, this book should fare well among believers considering Keller’s growing reputation and credentials. After all, who should not be impressed with a man who has for many years, in the heart of one of the most liberal areas of our country, following each service, left time for a question-and-answer period (69)! I must say, that takes guts! Besides his reputation contributing to the sale of his book, Keller’s work itself should easily serve as a wonderful reference book on Christian apologetics. But more than that, let’s pray, for our sake, and for the sake of the lost, that we in the church become more honest as Keller hopes we will, and take the “Spiritual Third Way”.[i]

________________

[i] Speaking of which, the Holy Spirit has reminded me after reading his book of my need to lead my conversations with skeptics with an honest assessment of their criticisms. I need to be sure to give adequate time to affirming their criticisms when appropriate. Moreover, as Keller demonstrates, sufficient time needs to be devoted to reflecting back to them what they are saying so that they know I am listening to them and understand them. If they know that I know where they are coming from, rapport will be build, relationships can be manifested, which can establish the fertile grounds necessary to plant the seeds of a clear understanding of Christianity in their minds and hearts.

Labels: , , , ,

Saturday, August 02, 2008

Soul Searching part 5: Confronting the Evangelism Boogeyman

By Rich Bordner

(continued from here)

When it comes to sharing our faith, these days it is popular for many Christians to think in terms of "lifestyle evangelism." This type of sharing one's faith forgoes an emphasis on verbal proclamation ("sharing the message of the gospel with words") in favor of certain lifestyle actions: service, working hard, listening to others' stories, etc. Many today take this so far that they rarely or never talk about Jesus to someone.

You can't underestimate the power of a "lifestyle of love," as its called, but the thing is that you also can't underestimate the power of actually sharing the gospel message by talking to someone about it. There are many reasons for this, but one reason that the posts on *Soul Searching* underscores is that given the current cultural climate of M.T.D, given that religion is just not that big a deal to most Americans (Some of which are in churches every Sunday.) and most don't think about it a whole lot, "preaching Christ by your lifestyle (to borrow an oft used phrase)" won't make people curious about Christ! They won't "get" the gospel just from your actions!

True, a few might...you can always come up with a testimony or two. But the majority won't. The cultural atmosphere of M.T.D doesn't allow for that kind of evangelism to be effective. This, of course, doesn't mean that we go to the other extreme and eschew a lifestyle of love and service. Such a "life" adds "life" and punch to your words. But neither can we go with the current trend...we must resist it.

Labels: , ,

Friday, August 01, 2008

Obama on Oil

So gas prices have come down a little, but not much. I've done a lot of reading about this issue and I'm pretty convinced that we ought to be drilling like crazy here in the US. If you want some more info on the reasons why, check out Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post.

In this current economic climate, then, what would Barack Obama do? Well, a couple of days ago in Missouri he asserted that if we all just inflated our tires properly, we would save as much oil as we could get by drilling. Powerline checks the math:
So, on the above assumptions, it would take only 11,308 years of proper tire inflation to equal "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."

Obama is a curious case. He gives the impression of being an intelligent guy, but through his unscripted comments we have learned that he knows little about history, science or mathematics. He also seems rather shockingly short on common sense, as this most recent gaffe illustrates.

Labels: , ,

Hollywood and God Roe IQ Test
ProLifeBlogs