like...SPEAK WITH AUTHORITY...you know

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

Example of a friendly conversation about politics

I thought I’d share a conversation I had recently with an old friend on facebook. I’ll call him “John”.

Me:

You said: "Republican, Democrat ... you can be a chimp for all I care .. just be able to LEAD a country!"

It sounds like you voted for McCain. Because we all know (at least those who voted for McCain) that Obama doesn't have the experience to lead. ...which we are now finding out the hard way. (hope this doesn't offend you. : )

John:

I did vote for McCain, and no you didn’t offend me. Exactly ... Obama doesn’t have a clue. and I meant what I said. I don’t care about political parties. I think we should do away with them all together. We need to ONE in order to move forward and make progress. This bickering back and forth has gotten us nowhere. Meanwhile, we are just treading water as more and more illegal immigrants and terrorists enter our country, and we continue to spend over 300 BILLION $ a year to support them! WTF is up with that?!!! We are a mess and I’m really not that political in nature, until just recently when I starting being effected directly. It’s sad to see how corrupt and what a mess our political system is.

Me:

I’m glad, John, that you can discern Obama’s inability to lead our country correctly. I would encourage you, though, to reevaluate your advocacy of doing away with political parties. Politics with no partisanship means we are left with two (if I’m not mistaken) options: either we have no politics at all – which is called anarchy; or we have a one party system – which is called communism. (And I doubt that you are an anarchist or a communist.) Despite what we hear in the mainstream media (MSM), partisanship is actually a good thing. For instance, it prevents a radical president from enacting radical laws by having the opposition party (and others who are not radical) in the legislature stop him by filibustering or other obstructionist means. The MSM is trying to help him anyway. That’s why you hear of the press complaining of “gridlock” right now. Their guy is in the White House, and they don’t want less liberal and more conservative legislators stopping his agenda. So they simply blame the Republicans for the problem. What’s new? You would never hear of “gridlock” when Congress is more liberal and the White House is more conservative. The interesting thing is, it’s not actually the Republicans that represent the main opposition to Obama – its Democrats! – non-leftists, non-radical “blue dog” Democrats, to be exact. We see this, for instance, with the Stupak amendment in the House on health care. The American people, both Democrats and Republicans, don’t want the American taxpayer funding abortions. The Republicans are too small of a minority to prevent an Obama health care system that includes taxpayer-funding of abortions. It’s actually Obama’s less liberal, more conservative *fellow-Democrats* that are the ones who are successfully slowing down the Obama Express. But you’re not going to hear about that much in the MSM (minus maybe FOX).

I agree our political system is not perfect, but history shows that our partisan politics form of government has been the most workable system in this current broken age east of Eden. While speaking on the subject of democracies (as opposed to say communism), Winston Churchill once said: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

While our political system is not perfect, I believe the bigger problem is that our societal systems are systematically being subverted, and in many cases, *have been* subverted, by historically non-American and untenable worldviews: our economic system of capitalism is being replaced with socialism; our legal system of constitutional law is being replaced with activist adjudication; our country’s moral compass (philosophy/ethics) of moral objectivism, *has* been replaced with moral relativism; our political system of a representative republic/democracy may eventually be replaced by a ONE-party system of communism.

I’m glad, John, you’ve gotten more politically active and informed. I would just encourage you to continue on that trek armed with good information and analysis. (BTW, John, have you ever heard of townhall.com? It's a good place to go to get informed.) Indeed, as you said, politics does matter, because it always affects us – whether directly or indirectly, whether we are aware of it or not.

This year is critical for the American people to really learn what’s up, and then vote correctly. As Biden admitted recently, this year’s congregational elections will be the last chance the American people have to stop the Obama Express from becoming a full and irreversible reality.

"When the people fear government, that's tyranny; when the government fears the people, that's liberty." – Thomas Jefferson

Is Being Gay A Civil Right?

Let’s draw the distinction between homosexuality and the black cause. Homosexuality is a behavior (like pedophilia), whereas being black, is *not* a behavior. While homosexuality is an ethical issue, being black is an ontological issue in which blacks are endowed by their Creator with more melanin in their skin than non-blacks. They are still human. (Just as a homosexual, by the way, is a full human being.) But it’s important that we affirm what it means to be human without mistakenly bringing behavior into the mix.

I mention pedophilia to show that behavior, even if shown be in-born, does not mean that that behavior should be tolerated or condoned by society. The question is what kind of behavior ought a society deem to be beneficial to that society, and what behaviors should be deemed not tolerable. That’s what a government needs to address – that is, a just government.

It gets more interesting when you bring in an evolutionary worldview into the mix, and then contrast it to a Christian worldview. True Christianity teaches that blacks are children of God just like whites. Adam and Eve had the genetic diversity that made whites and blacks and every other racial difference that natural selection brought out. Evolution, on the other hand, believes that blacks are not as advanced as whites in the evolutionary continuum. Racism is at the heart of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, whether that side wants to admit it or not.

Moreover, Christianity better explains homosexuality – even the “gay-gene.” It’s called the Fall. We are all broken and guilty for our messed up family business – whether we are homosexual perverts or heterosexual perverts. Gay activists who say they believe in evolution, in contrast, assert that homosexuality is an evolved trait that should have the right to exist and be celebrated along with those who hold to heterosexual traits. Notice that word “ought” implied in their claim. “Ought” connotes morality. What is the supreme morality at the foundation of an evolutionary worldview? – getting one’s genes into the next generation. Yet a basic understanding of science tells us that two human beings (or human-oids in the past) practicing in homosexuality would NOT pass their genes to the next generation. In essence, according to their own presuppositions, one who holds to macro-evolution, if they are going to be consistent to their own moral standards, would deem homosexuality as immoral (that is, unable to pass their genes to the next generation). Again, a Christian worldview has a better grounding in claiming homosexuality is wrong, than a homosexual activists has in claiming that homosexuality is right.

Reagan: Still the Great Communicator

Last week I happened to read some excerpts from a speech Ronald Reagan gave in 1964. It's a classic, called "A Time for Choosing" or sometimes "A Rendezvous with Destiny." He made the speech while on the campaign trail for Barry Goldwater (he actually gave it a more than once, in slightly different versions). I was amazed at how many of the things he said still ring true in this election. Here's a few choice quotes:

You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

Small-government conservative vs. big-government liberal, right there. Personally I think the sad part is how few conservatives are still for small government.

Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Seems to me those thoughts still apply to any number of liberal programs, from health care to welfare to the mortgage issues at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Never forget that those who want to expand the reach of the government are ultimately expanding their control over your life. Reagan says in the speech that the government doesn't have to actually take your property to be socialist; it just has to be able to control your property.

He has some thoughts on foreign policy too. Remember, this was at the very beginning of the Vietnam War and the height of the Cold War.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum.

Substitute Islamic fundamentalism for the Iron Curtain and communism, and you could apply this almost word-for-word today. Did you catch this line: "And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers." Isn't that essentially what a lot of Democrats say about Islam? It's all our fault and if we get our soldiers out of the Middle East they won't be mad at us any more? And that Alexander Hamilton quote is money; it's why we can't leave Iraq without a stable government and military.

In my opinion, these are the important principles that are hopefully still the foundation of the conservative movement today. These are things you should think about in this election, in our own "time for choosing." It's important to think about why we believe in small government, strong defense, and all those other good conservative causes. If you want to read the whole speech you can find it here. (And hats off to Townhall Magazine, which is where I read it in the first place and which regularly reprints "Conservative Classics.")

Male and female He created them...

Ran across an interesting article in the New York Times. Apparently sociologists are starting to catch on to what we already knew--men and women are actually different. We have different attitudes and approaches to life. Crazy, huh? Of course, this is upsetting for liberals, because they want to believe that men and women are exactly the same, and that any differences between the genders are evidence of some sort of societal sexism, of discrimination that must be addressed through government action. But it just reinforces what Christians believe--that the genders are created differently, for complementary purposes, not identical:

When men and women take personality tests, some of the old Mars-Venus stereotypes keep reappearing. On average, women are more cooperative, nurturing, cautious and emotionally responsive. Men tend to be more competitive, assertive, reckless and emotionally flat. Clear differences appear in early childhood and never disappear.

What’s not clear is the origin of these differences. Evolutionary psychologists contend that these are innate traits inherited from ancient hunters and gatherers. Another school of psychologists asserts that both sexes’ personalities have been shaped by traditional social roles, and that personality differences will shrink as women spend less time nurturing children and more time in jobs outside the home.

To test these hypotheses, a series of research teams have repeatedly analyzed personality tests taken by men and women in more than 60 countries around the world. For evolutionary psychologists, the bad news is that the size of the gender gap in personality varies among cultures. For social-role psychologists, the bad news is that the variation is going in the wrong direction. It looks as if personality differences between men and women are smaller in traditional cultures like India’s or Zimbabwe’s than in the Netherlands or the United States. A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanan clan seem to be more alike than a working couple in Denmark or France. The more Venus and Mars have equal rights and similar jobs, the more their personalities seem to diverge.

Patriotism vs. Nuance

Bill Whittle is one of my favorite writers. He has put out some really amazing essays on his blog about American exceptionalism, patriotism, the emptiness of the left, etc. (Fair warning--He does occasionally use some rough language.) Just found out he is now writing for National Review and turned out some interesting thoughts about the convention. Read the whole thing--it covers a whole range of issues, from Republican values to Sarah Palin to McCain's time as a POW. But this part brought tears to my eyes:

And a final thing: I had heard before that John McCain had been beaten in prison, and I admired him for it. But when he said he had been broken . . . I gasped. When this sometimes cocky, arrogant old man told me he had once been a cocky, arrogant young man until he was “blessed by hardship,” until he had been broken and remade — and in that remaking discovered a love of country so fierce and pure that even as a patriot myself I will never approach it — well, in that moment John McCain won my heart, to add to the respect and admiration he had already had.

When John McCain told me what I and untold millions of Americans have always believed, what others tell me to be ashamed of and mock me for — that I live in the greatest country in the world, a force of goodness and justice in dark places, a land of heroism and sacrifice and opportunity and joy — to me that went right to the mystic chords of memory that ultimately binds this country together. Some people don’t know what it is, but there is such a thing as patriotism — pure, unrefined, unapologetic, unconditional, non-nuanced, non-cosmopolitan, white-hot-burning patriotism. John McCain loves this country. I love it too. Not what it might be made into someday — not its promise, always and only its promise — but what it was and what it is, a nation and an idea worth fighting and dying for. (italics in the original)

Everything wrong with the left, everything I believe about this country, right there in one paragraph.

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.

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.

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.

Soul Searching part 1: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism

By Rich Bordner

In their book Soul Searching, sociologists Christian Smith and Melinda Denton write on a national survey of the religious lives of American teenagers. In the course of their research, their team surveyed over 1,200 teens from all over the U.S, and personally interviewed 267 of those surveyed.

What they found was somewhat surprising, somewhat not.

On the surprising front, they found that, contrary to the stereotype, the overwhelming majority of teenagers are not rebellious in their religious beliefs and practices. Rather, they are very conventional when it comes to religion; they are quite content to just go along with what they've been raised to believe.

Encouraging? No, not really, because the authors found that what they are raised to believe is a quite paltry version of Christianity: Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

1. A God exists who created the world and watches over humans.
2. God wants people to be nice and good.
3. The purpose of life is to be happy and feel good about oneself.
4. God does not need to be very involved in one's life except when He's needed to resolve a problem.
5. Good people go to heaven.

While none of those interviewed explicitly stated this creed (as I'll write about in a later post, most of them couldn't explicitly state any religious beliefs whatever. Some had difficulty with even comprehending the question "what are your religious/spiritual beliefs?"), their feelings on spirituality boiled down to it.

While some teens they interviewed were able to rise above this, and while a select few (very, very few) rejected religion wholesale and preferred instead to think, feel, and talk like Christopher Hitchens disciples, "Christian" Moralistic Therapeutic Deism functioned as the bottom line, unquestioned worldview of a substantial majority of those interviewed to the point where asking them to question those notions was like asking them to question 2+2=4.

M.T.D, obviously, is not Christian, yet, the authors argued, it functions as a parasite on the historic Christian faith. Even many of those raised in "devoted" Christian homes, who are leaders in youth groups, faithfully attending conservative (as opposed to mainline) protestant churches, hold this view.

You might ask, "How could a teen who is raised by devoted Christian parents, who faithfully attends a Bible-believing church, and who is a leader in the youth group, swallow this sham almost wholesale?" The answer is: very easily, given the pervasive, subtle, yet corrosive influence of our culture on the young. With a proliferation of digital media flooding into American homes (TV, iPods, the web, cell phones, etc), plus the nature of public schooling, this is very hard to avoid if adults do not persistently and consistently engage and teach the young....and that is exactly what is NOT happening. Rather than being intentional about teaching them solid biblical truth, many prefer instead to just "expose" teens to Jesus.

The proliferation of this worldview amongst teens is a new phenomenon, something that has popped up on the social and religious scene in the last 30 years or so, and it is a phenomenon that mirrors the young adult and adult world. Therefore, in the next few posts, I will be commenting on it and drawing implications for Christ-followers today.

The Shack: It's Just Fiction! Right?

By Rich Bordner

Recently, the book The Shack, by William Young, has become all the rage. I forget how many copies its sold, but its on its way to becoming a best seller.

Without getting into a detailed review/summary of the book, it seems to have some questionable ideas about God in it. Many are greatly concerned over the book and the influence it is apparently having. I haven't read the book, so what do I know, so I'm not going to attempt a review. What I can do is point you to a review by someone who has read the book, someone I trust.

However, in talking with some about the book, I keep encountering a certain attitude that I can comment on. Many folks, in reaction to the negative criticism of the book, say, "It's just fiction! Why get so worked up over it? The book has incredibly blessed me and taught me about God."
Say I wanted to communicate to the world about God's wrath and justice (these are two biblical character qualities of God, just like His love.), so I wrote a fiction book where I depicted God as the serial killer guy from Saw. You read the book, and (rightfully) express concern (outrage would be more appropriate): 'Rich, I don't think God is like the guy from Saw. Yeah, I know He's just and He exhibits wrath on the unrepentant at the judgment seat, but the way you depict Him...well...That's not quite biblical.'

I respond, 'Relax. It's only fiction! I'm not writing a theological treatise! If you read the book, you will learn about God's justice and be blessed.'

How would you respond? No doubt, you'd respond with incredulity: even though its fiction, I'm communicating something about God, something deeply flawed. The fact that I'm writing fiction doesn't get me off the hook.

It's the same with The Shack. If I'm not off the hook in my flawed attempt at communicating about God's justice, why is Young off the hook when he makes a flawed attempt at communicating about other parts of God's nature, like His love or Immanence?

You see, we usually only express that blasé attitude when the book in question presents God in a soft light. Why the inconsistency?

I understand that fiction is a slightly more fluid genre than, say, theological papers in a professional journal. But that doesn't mean we give fiction authors a free ticket to ride when it comes to speaking about God, truth, and reality.

Far from being the "trash heap" of the written word, fiction is an incredibly powerful and important genre. Brian McLaren and others encapsulate their theological ideals in fiction partly because they understand such ideals will be easier for the rank and file to accept if they are captured in a story. For the most part, this is all well and good, but it has a down side: we can easily let our guard down.

Therefore, we should treat fiction as it is: an important and honorable genre worthy of the utmost consideration.

Evidence showing worldview matters

FRC.org cites another example showing how what one believes impacts one's behavior. Across the ideological spectrum, Peter Schwizer writes in his examiner.com commentary, recent surveys suggest conservatives possess more integrity than liberals.