http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/QuinHillyer/Lawsuit_Could_Rein_In_Medicare_Bureaucrats.html

Environmentalism

This article, gives a great glimpse into the mind of environmentalists. It's about a new technology that will remove CO2 from the air, and theoretically, help to curb global warming. But apparently some environmentalist have a problem with it:

The idea is bound to be controversial, with environmentalists seeing so-called technological solutions to global warming as undermining attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries.

You see, it's not actually about saving the earth, or treating it responsibly as good stewards, its about having the right feeling (worship?) toward the earth. If environmentalism were about protecting the earth and its limited resources, then recycling would have long ago died out (except for metals): see here and here.

Followup on Evangelizing to Postmoderns

This is a follow-up to the comments thread for this post. First, I must say that evangelizing only takes place when we give ourselves over to God, and allow the Holy Spirit's work to take place through us. From there, our love, from God, through us, to others, is what transforms hearts to be open to the Good News.

But what I’m concerned with is what happens after this love affair. At some point we must explain the gospel to them. And how we communicate the good news to postmodern is instrumental in what they choose to believe. What follows is a dialogue be a Christian and premodern man, and a Christian and a postmodern men.
(Note: I'm purposefully oversimplifying these debates for brevity's sake.)


When a Christian preached to the pre-modern man it went something like this:

Christian: "Christ died for our sins, so that we might have everlasting life."

Pre-Modern Man: "Oh really, how do you know this?"

The Christian man would the precede to show him the Bible, the witness to what has been passed down through the ages and attest to his own experience in meeting God. The pre-modern would then look at the evidence, the veracity of the Bible, and the truthfulness of character of the Christian, and decide if the claims are true or false.


Now, when a Christian preaches to the post-modern man, it goes something like this:

Christian: "Christ died for our sins, so that we might have everlasting life."

Postmodern Man: "Well that’s awesome you believe something so strongly. But what is true to you isn't necessarily true for me."

Christian: "I don't think you're listening to me. I'm saying that Christ's death IS true."

Postmodern: "Well, I understand that, but what is true to you isn't necessarily true for me."

And the conversation usually ends there, at least substantively. The problem with evangelizing to postmodern men is one of language. Christians have different definitions for word like "truth" than the postmoderns. So my question becomes what do we do here? How do we talk to postmodern’s about truth when we don’t have the same definition of truth?


On a related note: I’m not saying that it’s impossible for postmoderns to become Christian; far from it. Many prominent theologians have been thoroughly postmodern. The entire neo-orthodox movement is base on this philosophy. For postmoderns, the decision to become Christian isn’t a rational decision, its one based on a “leap of faith.” This is what the liberal mainstream Churches have been advocating for nearly a century now. What it produces is a weak personal association with God, as a “savior” for oneself, but not necessarily for everyone else. It essentially kills evangelism.

On the Bible

I have been thinking a lot about the Bible and the doctrines of inerrancy and sola scriptura. As I was praying last night, these thoughts came to me, and I wrote them down:

The doctrine of sola scriptura is unnecessary, and in some situations dangerous to the point where one puts it in the place of God Himself (idolatry). We are relational beings, as we are created in the image of the one triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the essense of relations. As such, we only discover truth through relationships with others -- the witness of others. For example, I became a Christian because people I trusted witnessed to me; from there I turned to the Bible, and the authors there witnessed to me more; then I turned to God through the Holy Spirit, and found the ultimate witness to truth. Indeed, the source of truth Himself.

To place the Bible in the position of some concrete absolute truth, is to destroy the power of its witness, while at the same time replacing a true relationship with God with someone's two thousand year-old testimony. Some may say that this view is postmodern. But I disagree. I am not destroying or denying the existence of absolute truth, I am simply disputing the manner in which it is transmitted.

I think some evangelicals like sola scriptura and inerrancy because it provides for an easy foundation for one's beliefs. However, our foundation should be in God Himself, as revealed to us through the Holy Spirit. Sola scriptura and inerrancy allow for a weak faith, one that is not continually challenged and improved upon by the Spirit.

My point here is not to throw out the Bible, but to discuss the epistemology of the truth. Please feel free to weigh in...

Gender

If you don't read Parchment and Pen daily, you should. Today Michael Patton has a very comprehensive post on the differing views of men and women in the church. He sets out both sides of the debate very well.

I'll post my thoughts on this later.

Modern Day Martyrdom

Over at Parchment and Pen, Dan Wallace discusses modern day martyrdom in the form of forgoing money making opportunities because of one's moral beliefs. I think a more proper term to use would be sacrifice, but I suppose it is a lesser form of martyrdom.

He raises a really good point that many people face situations where there is the "temptation to choose money over righteousness" and then they rationalize their actions to fit their morality. Another related problem among Christians, is changing their morality to fit their actions. For example, I've had several Christian friends who have changed their moral beliefs of sex to fit the situation they were facing; i.e. they wanted to have sex, so they changed their morals so that they could without a guilty conscience.

In the age of relativism, I think the latter "moral adaption" is more common problem. But in both situations, people are killing their conscience. Our conscience is God's law written on our hearts. (see Rom. 2:14-15), to kill it is to kill one of the primary ways that God speaks to us.

Some Preliminary Thoughts on Intelligent Design

I've been thinking and reading a lot about Intelligent Design lately. So here are some thoughts, and as always I welcome thoughtful comments, disagreements, debates, etc.:

Evolutionary theory explains, well, the evolution of life; not completely though, there are many things that scientists do not have a natural explanation for, but it's a good start. Some evolutionary scientist have taken the theory out of its context and used it as supporting evidence for atheism. In reaction, some theists (I use theist because there are some non-Christian ID supporters) have taken offense, and decided to come up with an alternate explanation. Now, while I agree with their sentiment or motivation, their theory leaves a lot to be desired.

Theists presume that science is attempting to explain away the control or sovereignty of God. In it's purest form, science has no such goal. However, some scientists have become amateur philosophers and have deduced that because there is (or will be in the future) a natural explanation for everything, then there cannot possibly be a God. I understand why this upsets many theists, after all it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. But theist look at this as though science is narrowing the "window" where God can act. If there are natural explanations for everything, then there is less and less opportunity to attribute action to the will and power of God. (This view of God is sometimes called "God of the gaps.") So it's understandable that theists have become upset because the sovereignty of their God is being reduce.

These theists have themselves limited the sovereignty of God, by limiting the ability of His action to those places and things that science has not discovered a natural explanation for. The problem with this is that throughout time, humans have slowly been explaining away more and more natural phenomenon through natural science. No longer are thunderstorms and floods caused by God's anger, but by a predictable identifiable natural system. The unexplainable will continue to be explained as the progress of science marches on. So where does this leave the theists? With an emasculated god.

Christians need to understand that the sovereignty of God transcends and encompasses the natural world. Just because there are natural explanations doesn't mean God doesn't continue to sustain the world. Just because cell division continues to take place in my body time after time, just the way it's supposed to according to our natural scientific understanding, doesn't mean God isn't in control.

In summary, Intelligent Design theist are (unintentionally) limiting the sovereignty of God. By doing so, they are backing themselves into a wall that is dangerous to their faith and the faith of others.

Intelligent Design

I'm looking for a good book on Intelligent Design. I'd like one that approaches ID from a philosophic perspective and not the scientific behind the theory. It'd be a plus if it also covers the philosophy behind Darwinism. Any suggestions?

More on Inclusivism

Following up my post from last week on inclusivism (http://libertarian-evangelical.blogspot.com/2008/04/inclusivism.html), I think this excerpt from "Faith Seeking Understanding" by Daniel Migliore is a great summary of my thoughts on the subject:

Affirming the universality of God's grace requires an openness to the
working of the Word and Spirit of God beyond the boundaries of the church. It
also requires the abandonment of those understandings of the atoning work of
Jesus Christ that see it as limited in its scope. God's fundamental word to the
world in Jesus Christ is a resounding Yes. There is, of course, a divine No, a
divine judgment, contained within this Yes. Nevertheless, as the apostle Paul
writes, all the promises of God find their Yes in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).
The free grace of God is inclusive. This is the testimony of Scripture. The
life, ministry, death, and resurrection of the incarnate Word of God are
characterized by a radical inclusiveness. He has table fellowship with tax
collectors and sinners, befriends women, the poor, and the outcast, and finally
gives his life for his enemies as well as his friends.

But affirmation of the freedom and universality of God's grace is not to be
equated with an abstract universalism. To affirm God's free grace is to refuse
to make God captive to some metaphysical necessity. Universal salvation is
not a divine obligation. God is not a prisoner of any metaphysical scheme,
including the scheme of eternal double decrees or the necessity of a
universalist logic. While never abitrary, God's grace is free; while freely
given, God's grace is costly. Theology and the church have no
authority either to declare that God must save all or that God can save only
through the ministry and witness of the church. What the church is called
to proclaim is the good news that there is no encumbrance on God's side to
including all in the company of the redeemed. It is called to proclaim that all
men and women are summoned to receive and rejoice in the free grace of God
realized once for all in Jesus Christ. (Migliore pp. 326-327, emphasis
added).

Christianity and War

http://www.christiansincontext.org/2008/04/how-christians-ought-to-talk-about-war.html

Andrew Faris has a good post up at Christian in Context, that mirrors my thoughts on Christian beliefs about war. I too am frustrated with the superficiality of the debate on both sides. As a result, I don't have a clue where I stand on just war vs. pacifism.

To those who are pacifist: Did Christ come to liberate the the oppressed? Is this liberation only spiritual?

To those who support just war theory: Did Christ ever pick up a sword to defend himself or others? Did he ever advocate others to do so?

A couple other thoughts that have been floating in my head recently:
1. Supporting just war means that killing is acceptable in some contexts. By allowing killing (albeit just) does that demean or lower Christ's sacrifice for us?
2. If pacifism extends to the point where even the defense of others is wrong, what does they say to non-Christians about our love for others? Does it show that our love is shallow because we're not willing to put our lives on the line for others?