Posted by Anthony on March 10, 2010
I’ve been thinking about the culture wars lately. I have a real problem with Christians who seem to be driving for a change in the culture just for the sake of having a ‘holy’ culture. I think we’d have to call that a legalistic culture. I believe that the Christian church should be about something more than creating white-washed tombs.
On the other hand, the nature of ‘culture’ is that it perpetuates itself, feeds itself, fuels itself. The culture is the air we breathe and the water in which we swim. It has the ability to mold us into its image, and once so molded, we mold others in that same image. Resistance isn’t exactly futile, but it is difficult. Conformity to the culture is the path of least resistance. It would behoove us, therefore, to ensure that the culture is not toxic. If the culture is healthy, the path of least resistance will more likely result in healthy beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 23, 2009
I’m getting some hits regarding scientism but don’t actually have any posts dedicated to it. I thought if I’m going to be looked at on the subject I should make at least a few deliberate comments. They should not be construed, however, as exhaustive.
Scientism can refer to a few different ideas and I denounce them all. 
It goes without saying that people who exhibit ’scientism’ would not use the word to describe themselves and they will resent the suggestion that they are as described.
Because this post is pretty lengthy here is a list of the headings in order of appearance:
- Science as the Only Reliable Source for Knowledge
- Scientific Reality the Only Reality
- Science as Club for Ending Debate
- Scientific Inquiry Always Righteous
- Scientism as Fundamentalist Faith: “Atheism of the Gaps.”
- Conclusion
Science as the Only Reliable Source for Knowledge
One aspect of scientism is the unbridled deference to Science in all matters as the only reliable source of knowledge. Apologists such as myself frequently point out that there are numerous areas in our lives where we believe we know things where that knowledge is not derived from science, the scientific method, empirical inquiry, or anything that could possibly be considered ‘Science.’ One can bemoan it, but some things just are not suited for scientific inquiry and there is nothing you can do about it. Experiential realities like ‘love’ and and abstractions such as the law of noncontradiction are things we ‘know’ but not through science. That is reality. You don’t have to like it. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on March 11, 2009
A recent commentator posted something from the Internet Monk and on a whim I thought I would check his website. He has an article up from 2002 taking the Church (in particular the Evangelical brand) to task for a variety of things, essentially following up on a survey which listed Evangelicals as a group hated in American culture. I agree with much of what the Monk says. I usually do, with a few exceptions here and there. I would concur with much of the article I posted above.
What the article does not address is what I perceive to be the solution. In my blog entry of yesterday discussing the decline of religion in America I abstained from offering my own suggestions. I will remedy that somewhat today.
The long and short of it is that, speaking in general terms because I know many, many, exceptions exist, the Church is loveless.
Now, we Christians think we’re loving. This is because we have never opened up the Bible to perform any kind of deliberate study on the topic of Love. Oh sure, you can find theological treatise after treatise in all the denominations over things like Communion/The Lord’s Supper, baptism, Christian unity, worship, predestination, justification by faith, inerrancy, inspiration, on and on and on, but not on Love. These topics, though important, occupy a tiny fraction of the New Testament when compared with how often and how extensively the New Testament discusses Love. Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on February 6, 2009
Actual conversation from last night:
[having spotted me reading a book titled Introduction to Biblical Interpretation]
Him: So, are you a religious nut?
Me: A nut?
Him: Yea, do you like really believe in God?
Me: (to myself: does mere belief in God make you a nut?)
Him: Do you believe in Jesus? The holy Mary…
Me: Well, I’m not a Catholic. I’m protestant, so I don’t go in for that Mary business…
Him: I used to be a Catholic.
Me: And now?
Him: I’m an agnostic.
Me: What happened?
Him: Like I said, I was raised Catholic.
Me: You can believe in God and not be Catholic.
Him: I really don’t care. If there is a God or not, I don’t care.
Me: Not at all?
Him: What has God ever done for me?
Me: [fishes for business card]: Well, if you ever decide you do care, shoot me an email.
Him: Have a good night.
—————-
All in all it was an interesting exchange. I thought his explanation for his disbelief confirmed what I’ve been saying for some time about the church actually creating atheists. In fact, let me take a minute to single out a correspondent from a church in Indiana- is that specific enough?- who recently complained about my ‘law’ posts attacking the state of the church and how we are transmitting the faith and just ask him: do you ever even talk to people who are not Christian? It must be nice to operate in a little bubble where you figured you did your job after you confirmed all the kids in your youth group but then 48 out of 50 of them fall away in college- and you hardly are aware and are happily willing to go on doing everything the same way you’ve always done it. Meanwhile, we apologists strive to clean up the mess. It is a mess made worse, often, I think, then if they had never been raised in the faith at all. (Matthew 12:43-45) Yes, if it’s law, it is a law message that you need to hear.
But I digress.
The conversation I had last night raised a number of lines of thoughts for me (see previous paragraph for some) but on the off chance that this gentlemen decides to visit my webpage, despite not caring, let me take a minute and answer the question: Why should you care about God’s existence?
First of all, the common complaint that there are too many options out there to care about one or two of them is overblown. In other words, I can see one of my hard core atheist friends saying, “I don’t care about your God, just as you don’t care about Zeus.” This presumes, of course, that I haven’t investigated Zeus, or that educated Christians don’t have a reasonable basis for their dismissal of other religions. I would reply more generally, though, saying that there are nonetheless a finite number of categories, and no one is asking anyone to pursue every varying subcategories until the category itself warrants further scrutiny. (and in some cases, such as Christianity, the diversity of the subcategories is vastly overblown) Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on January 26, 2009
NBC’s The Last Templar has concluded just now. Sort of a The Da Vinci Code warmed over and softened up to be more palatable to believers, I have to confess I didn’t really enjoy the show. I have no idea how close the movie resembles the book it is derived from, so I’m going to stick the blame on the writers of the show. I’m sure they thought that they were doing us all a favor, dangling this document that could disprove Christianity in front of our noses only to have it destroyed before anyone could read it: thus preserving faith.
But you did me no favors, The Last Templar. The idea that faith is important in its own right quite apart from the facts and evidence is an understanding of ‘faith’ common to liberal believers and a certain brand of fundamentalists. Both extremes have in common this idea that faith is by definition indifferent to facts. That is why you can have scholars like John Dominic Crossan running around insisting that they, too, are Christians, even though they have done all in their power to strip Christianity from any claim to actual truth. And why not? A mystical belief in God and a view of all humans as God’s children is all that is required, right? This perspective is what fuels the skeptic’s accusation that ‘faith’ is not merely belief in absence of the facts, but even in spite of the facts.
Near the end, when Tess (the skeptic turned ‘believer’) is confronted by Bill (Richard Dawkins at age 70) I almost thought the show was going to break some new ground. Bill is convinced that the ‘Gospel of Yeshua’ (that’s Jesus, friends) will give Jesus’ account and confirm that he was only a man, was ever only a man. Tess retorts something to the effect, “How do you know if you haven’t even read it?”
Now that would have been something, because the common atheistic take is that any historical discovery will only serve to undermine Christianity. The truth is that discoveries continue to vindicate Christianity. ‘Discoveries’ like the ‘Gospel of Judas’ are trotted out with fanfare as bringing down Christianity but always after people have a look for themselves (if they look, that is) Christianity remains strong. No one seems to wonder what would happen if something popped up that destroyed atheism or gnosticism! Read the rest of the entry… »
Posted by Anthony on January 15, 2009
This is not the first time I’ve said as much, but I maintain that though legislative efforts are important, the abortion debate is to be won on grounds other than that. I don’t think I am the only one to make the point. It has been noted that even on a best case scenario, the overturning of Roe vs. Wade throws the issues to the states. Finally, even if every state banned abortions there would still be women seeking them. At the bottom, persuading women to keep their children and enabling them to do so is utterly necessary.
As pro-lifers begin to gather in Washington let me submit that the Christian church holds in its hand the general resolution of this issue, and by extension, so many other issues.
What is required, in short, is for Christian congregations across the country to shake themselves out of the stupor that they currently find themselves in and take definite, loving, action. By love I mean the word as used in the New Testament, which is not a wishy washy panzy love, but can be hard at times. Hard or soft, it has the best interests of the other in mind, and according to the New Testament, it is willing to lay down its life for another…
The pattern is set in crystal clear clarity in 1 John 3:16 which says “This is how we know what love is, Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.”
True love dies. Or, it is willing to die, and in the meantime expend every ounce of energy available to it.
What does this mean? If World War 2 had its Schindler in response to the German extermination of millions of Jews, do we have tens of thousands ‘Schindlers’ in response to the virtual global extermination of tens and tens of millions of the unborn? The answer, I think, is No.
If we as Christians were willing to love in this radical fashion I am convinced so many issues would fade away into oblivion. Gone would be the atheistic crticisms of hypocrites in the church, for example. Examples would multiply.
“Judge not, lest you be judged.” Indeed. I am guilty of my own charges. I too need to love in the radical way described in the New Testament. As I evaluate my situation I recognize that the whole structure of my life is set up to make that sort of activity difficult to implement, except now and then. Does this mean I throw up my hands and say “Oh well! I have my excuse, then!” No. I am steadily chipping away at the ’structure’ and hope to put in its place something which will allow me the freedom and flexibility to act as I know I should regarding the people in need in my own neighborhood- and this includes those considering abortions.
God did not include an expiration date on the contents of the New Testament. The admonitions to radical love are still in effect. My contention is that a critical mass of Christians carrying out love as described in the New Testament would be utterly transformative. I have good reason to believe that: we saw it in history as the Christian church sprang into existence.
Think about it.
Posted by Anthony on November 10, 2008
I have been harping on this for some time, now, but a friend exposed me to Barna’s latest polling about the election which measured how Christians voted.
In brief:
- The Republican challenger generally won over a majority of people whose beliefs reflected a conservative Christian faith. For instance, he won 57% of those who strongly believed that the Bible is totally accurate in all the principles it teaches; 61% of adults who strongly affirmed a personal responsibility to share their religious faith with others; 63% of those who believe that Satan is a living, influential force; 64% who contend that a person cannot earn their salvation, that it is a gift from God; 60% of the adults who say that Jesus Christ never sinned; and 54% of the people who have an orthodox, biblical perception of who God is.
- Adults who claimed to be “absolutely committed to Christianity” voted overwhelmingly for Sen. McCain (59% to 40%). However, those who were only “moderately committed to Christianity” were overwhelmingly persuaded to back Sen. Obama (64% to 35%). People who called themselves Christians but said they were not committed to the faith also sided heavily with Sen. Obama (79% to 21%).
There is clearly a trend away from McCain depending on one’s positions regarding Christ and the conviction associated those convictions. On the other hand, what did the ’second largest voting block after Christians’ vote? Atheists and agnostics…
Three-fourths of atheists and agnostics (76%) gave their vote to Sen. Obama, while only 23% backed Sen. McCain. That is a step up from the level of support Democrats have previously received from skeptics. In 2004, 64% of atheists and agnostics voted for Democratic challenger John Kerry
There is again a clear correlation between beliefs and the one receiving the vote. I don’t perceive this as particularly insightful: it isn’t brain surgery to deduce that one’s beliefs impact where one puts their vote. However, my proposed solution doesn’t seem as obvious to the Christian church as it does to me: if you want to transform the culture, raise up more educated, informed, passionate Christians.
I made this argument in a well received WorldNetDaily article several months back. For example, I said:
Putting our attention on our apologetics and evangelism efforts [rather than legislation] puts it in a place that treats the root issue: the heart condition of each human soul. A person who sees that God’s plan for the human body was not arbitrary and capricious will not need the force of law to check his sexual ambitions. A person who sees that life is in the hands of the Life Giver does not need legislation to tell her to keep her baby. Moreover, is it not the case that far from simply prohibiting certain behaviors, we are concerned about the individual souls engaged in them? Of course.
I say that this essay was well received- and it was. However, as near as I can tell, the Christian church hasn’t taken any steps to act on these principles. Churches are not adding staff apologists, for example. There isn’t a big move to implement apologetic programs. In fact, if anything the anti-intellectualism of a ‘we have faith in Jesus, we don’t need anything else’ attitude seems to be popping up on my radar even more.
This is not to demean legislative efforts. As I said in the WND article, I think they have their place. To me, however, the mere fact that we need legislative efforts means we’ve already lost. Legislative efforts (in a world without judicial activists) imply having more people voting in favor of your position than the other- Barna’s polling shows the effects of such correlations- so a perfectly plausible approach (to me) would be to focus on changing people’s minds. Change their minds on the big metaphysical issues, and this will trickle down as they grasp the practical implications.
So, providing Obama doesn’t do anything glaringly outrageous, I will likely not speak much more about the election on this blog. That he will sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” is something that is obvious and requires no additional comment. Such an act would be par for the course. Assuming he doesn’t do anything more radical than I already expect him to do, I will return this blog to primarily taking my own advice: persuading people to Christianity.
