The wisdom of this world that is not rooted in the Word is ultimately meaningless and misleading. The Apostle Paul exhorts us to “see to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”[1] And again he says, “You must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”[2] People are actually alienating themselves from experiencing a full life of intimacy with God because of blind ignorance and stubbornness to learn the truth. But we who know better must do away with those weak ways of thinking. Instead Paul tells us to “be renewed in the spirit of your minds.”[3] As followers of Christ we are to submit to this process of trading in our old ways of thinking for the truth and guarding ourselves from being deceived. No better context for this has been devised than the local church. In the church we encounter three ways of knowing that fortify our faith and shape our worldview. In this essay, I will first discuss the formation of a worldview, in general, then, I will turn to how the church can contribute to developing a robust Christian worldview.
Worldview
According to J. P. Moreland,[4] worldview is the “sum total of what a person believes about life’s most important questions.” We cannot choose our worldview because we cannot choose what we believe. Moreland is an indirect doxastic volunteerist, which is to say he thinks we do not have free will over what we believe but only where we choose to place our minds. We cannot will to believe something we do not think is true. But we can, by experience or exposure to new information, come to believe something is true that we did not believe before. This flies in the face of our modern view of faith as what we choose to believe even in the absence of evidence or knowledge. However, it does coincide with a biblical view of faith as confidence in what we know to be true, where more knowledge strengthens and enriches faith.
Knowledge
There are three kinds of knowledge that may inform our beliefs and thus shape our worldview. First, there is knowledge by acquaintance, or simple seeing. In this case, thought or language is not required, only awareness. Imagine a child who does not yet have a concept of temperature or a vocabulary to express that something is cold or hot. That child would no less sense and be aware of the chill of a winter’s night. Or what if a missionary tried to preach the gospel in Russian to an isolated African tribe, the people may be able to hear the foreign language but would not have a concept to recognize it as European or have a word to identify it as Russian; much less would they understand what was being said to them. Thus, knowledge by acquaintance is access to facts independent of interpretation. Second, there is propositional knowledge. In this case, thought and language is required in order to judge whether a statement is true or not. Think of a slightly older child with a concept of cold who can judge whether it is indeed cold outside and call it “cold.” Or consider the tribesman who has studied Russian online and can recognize it when he hears it; he may even be able to communicate back. Thus, propositional knowledge is true belief based on adequate reason. Third, there is knowledge of skill, or know-how. In this case, an ability or aptitude is required in order to perform a task. For example, a knowledgeable repairman may hear you describe the noise your appliance makes and immediately know what to do to fix it. Thus, knowledge of skill is a sort of mechanical intuition based on ability and experience.
What Comes First?
Moreland maintains that we see things in light of, not through our worldview. Though belief cannot be directly attained, knowledge, which determines our beliefs, can. Therefore, we can have knowledge of reality prior to our interpretation or presuppositions about it. This is because how we see the world is the product of us actually seeing the world, not the other way around. Nevertheless, once we see something in a certain way we tend to limit our awareness of what we see in subsequent looks to what we first saw. We begin to form habits of thinking in what we notice and disregard in terms of facts. In other words, our worldview determines, not what we see, but what we focus on when seeing. For example, when a journalist reports on a wildfire he must decide what the story is. If there is suspicion of arson, he might write the story around that theme and include only those facts that are relevant to his story. Another reporter may be looking for the human interest angle and interview a family who lost their home. Still another reporter may focus on the economic cost of the disaster. Although all the facts are accessible to every reporter, their presuppositions lead them to focus on certain aspects of the event and to disregard others. Thus, what we focus on determines what’s in the foreground and the background of our vision. In this way, we may end up perpetuating and strengthening our particular worldviews. Still, Moreland encourages us that we can change our worldview by repeated exposure to facts.
In summary, we do not directly choose our beliefs. Experience and exposure to facts via three types of knowledge determines our beliefs, which taken together constitute our worldview. Though it does not determine what we see, our worldview often determines what we pay attention to, which limits the forming and refining of beliefs and perpetuates our thinking, good or bad.
Hearing through the Church
"So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.”[5] We start to believe the things we hear, so we need to be careful that we are hearing the truth on a regular basis. It just so happens that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth.”[6] I want to suggest three ways participating in a body of believers builds our faith and strengthens a Christian worldview based on the three categories of knowledge presented by Moreland.
The Holy Ghost: Knowledge by Acquaintance
The Spirit of God is alive! And we have access to His power and the manifestation of the kingdom all around us. Likely the most common way to experience God is in the congregation of the saints. When we gather together to praise Him, He makes His presence known to us in various ways. Our spirits sense Him near, filled with joy or peace. Our bodies sense warmth or coolness or weakness. Our souls are refreshed by the healing power of His spoken Word. Our hearts are encouraged by the grace of God’s people praying for, loving and serving one another. We see instant miracles and witness the slow growth of changed lives. For all these reasons and more we cannot afford to not gather together. In all these ways, regular corporate worship is vital to the building of our faith because it gives us direct knowledge of the presence and power of God.
The Good Book: Propositional Knowledge
“But solid food is for the mature, for those whose faculties have been trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.”[7] The writer of Hebrews is talking about the faculties of the mind. We are supposed to train our minds, literally to exercise naked. That is, we are to cast off any hindrance to disciplining our minds. Instead of being dull, we are to be sharp; instead of being slow, we should be quick; instead of being lazy we should be disciplined. “Now, discipline always seems painful rather than pleasant at the time, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”[8] We train our minds by practicing habits of the mind. The NIV says we train our minds by “constant use” of them.
This kind of mental training is a central part of what we do when we gather together for worship. Sermons, classes and small group studies are full course meals, with both spiritual milk and solid food. We walk away having tasted again the goodness of God through His Word. And no one expects to sit passively in a pew and receive the Word intravenously. We take the time to chew on the truth so we can digest it better. Beyond our regular gatherings, we learn good Bible study skills and engage in spiritual disciplines that enrich the life of the mind. As we saturate our minds with the truth of Scripture we are better equipped to be students of culture and Christian worldview thinkers in our academic and business fields. The teaching of sound doctrine, in a way that transcends self-help and sloganeering, trains us to think through and articulate our faith in any context.
The Body of Christ: Knowledge of Skill
“God has given each of us the ability to do certain things well.”[9] Everyone in the church already has certain gifts, or skills. It is only a matter of recognizing, developing and fanning those skills into flame. Every Christian has a useful place in the Body of Christ. Those of us skilled in the area of speaking counsel, preach, prophesy, teach, lead and encourage. Those of us skilled in the area of serving cook, clean, plan, organize, give, pray and meet needs. When we use our gifts to build one another up we are vessels of God’s grace to others. We strengthen each other’s faith as we come alongside them. And the world sees what Christians can be by our love for another. It’s an amazing thing to see God at work through His people!
And so through the experience of God, training in His Word, and the ministry of His people we gain knowledge of who God is and who we are in Him. We exchange the philosophies of the world for Christ-centered truth. The case for faith gets stronger as our beliefs are informed and reformed by the facts that we encounter. The result is a genuine and robust Christian worldview.
[1] Colossians 2:8, New International Version
[2] Ephesians 4:17-18, English Standard Version
[3] Ephesians 4:23, English Standard Version
[4] J. P. Moreland, class lecture, Spiritual Formation and the Life of the Mind, Biola University, October 26, 2006.
[5] Romans 10:17, English Standard Version
[6] 1 Timothy 3:15, New International Version
[7] Hebrews 5:14, New Revised Standard Version
[8] Hebrews 12:11, New Revised Standard Version
[9] Romans 12:6, New Living Translation
The Making of a Christian Worldview
Posted by Shawn on 12/11/2006 02:39:00 AM 0 comments
The Gospel of the Kingdom
During the ministry of Jesus, He preached the gospel of the kingdom wherever he went. Later, the Apostle Paul “proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31, TNIV). It is the mission of the Church to continue this tradition until the kingdom comes in all its glory. Therefore, it is imperative that we spread the word of the kingdom faithfully. The Gospel of Matthew reveals at least five fundamental truths about the kingdom of God.
The Advance of the Kingdom
The kingdom of God is at hand. It has been growing like a seed into a tree since the coming of Christ and will be established with power and glory when He comes again. In the meantime, the kingdom comes to those in whose lives the power of the Spirit is manifested. And through the Church the rule of God is being spread. However, though the will and influence of God reigns in the hearts and minds of many (and more each day), Satan is also at work to defeat the advance of God’s kingdom in this world and the lives of men. Not surprisingly, Jesus promises that the gates of Hell will not ultimately be able to withstand the assault of His Church, those who have the keys to His kingdom.
The Access of the Kingdom
Faith is the key to entrance into God’s kingdom, which is only possible for those who are ready to stop being self-centered and commit to a radically God-centered life. Those not disinterested or defiant, but decidedly devoted to Christ, adopt a very different set of priorities. Their allegiance is to their King and they submit to the reality of the kingdom in their lives and in the age to come regardless of their present circumstances. The kingdom comes first for them, even before the necessities of life, because they trust their King will provide. They hold their earthly possessions lightly, knowing a greater inheritance is theirs. One thing is clear: even in the face of overwhelming obstacles, the people of the kingdom will continue to preach the gospel and persevere until the end.
The Attitude of the Kingdom
Humility is the key relationships in God’s kingdom. The children of the kingdom are in need of God and know it. They have come to God for healing and forgiveness and must in turn be people of forgiveness. No one has special privileges. Special honor goes only to the ones suffering or serving others.
The Actions of the Kingdom
Righteousness is the key to living in God’s kingdom. Righteousness begins with repentance and continues by producing the fruit of the kingdom. Kingdom people are not interested in relaxing their Ruler’s commands but in keeping them and teaching them to others. Their hearts’ desire is to do God’s will and to be, not merely seem, righteous in His sight. Far be it from them to turn people away from the kingdom by hypocritical living. Their lives prove their hearts. Eternal life and glory will be their reward.
The Authority of the Kingdom
Submission is the key to power in the God’s kingdom. Where His dominion is manifested His will is done; all things are made new. As people submit to the rule of God in their lives, they are invested with authority and power over all His (their) enemies—disobedience, disease, demons, death—and over nature, to make them also subject to Christ in order to set people free from the dominion of darkness.
The Attestation of the Kingdom
References to the kingdom of God in the Gospel of Matthew are as follows:
3:2
4:17, 23
5:3, 10, 19-20
6:10, 13, 33
7:21
8:11-12
9:35
10:7-8
11:11-12
12:25,26, 28
13:11, 18-23, 24-30, 31-32, 33, 37-43, 44, 45, 47-50, 52
16:18-19, 24-28
18:1-4, 23-34
19:13-12, 14, 23-24
20:1-16, 21-23
21:28-32, 43
22:2-14
23:13
24:9-14
25:1-13, 31-46
26:29
Posted by Shawn on 12/05/2006 02:33:00 PM 0 comments
Four Letter "D" Word
I just requested to postpone my jury service (you can do it online now). It is not because I don’t want to serve. I do. It is because it’s scheduled to be around the time that school will be particularly busy for me. Though I have been dismissed a handful of times, I have served on two juries in the past. So I know that there’s a chance I could be taken away from my studies. Thankfully, the court system is flexible. But too many people that I know (including some of you reading this right now) are not as flexible. They would do anything to get out of jury service. Some are annoyed by the inconvenience. Some are disgusted by the imposition. Some are just plain baffled by the whole institution. They tell proud, piteous stories in which they are the heroes who, by some clever or conniving contrivance, manage to escape the perils of public service. As they tell these stories I get the sense that they expect to receive some sort of knowing sympathy from me. But I confess that there is within me no such sentiment to exhume. I can only respond by telling my own stories of service. So I clumsily attempt to retell the details of the cases on which I have deliberated. There is intrigue, humor, danger, deception, crime and justice. They are not impressed. To be so would betray their prior conviction that they are indeed the heroes due laud for their evasion of such a mundane chore. Sure, I have had my turn sitting in the waiting room for hours, going to lunch, and coming back only to find that I was free to leave. But I have also played my part in bringing two criminals to justice and, along with a group of eleven others, righting the wrongs of society. It is my duty.
The four-letter “d” word has become a contemptible ideal among many Americans. The mere mention of the word is enough to conjure up begrudged and bitter feelings. Why is that? It is because very few people know what freedom is. Too many people think freedom is liberty to choose whatever one desires. In truth, freedom is the liberty to choose what one ought to do.
Freedom may be understood in comparison with slavery. Slavery is a state in which one has responsibilities but no rights. What if freedom was just the opposite? If people enjoyed their personal rights and privileges as citizens and then proceeded to act on every whim and fancy how free would they be? Think of driving, for example. If people went about exercising their right to own a car of their choosing and to drive wherever they so desired, yet each one decided for themselves whether they would drive on the road or the sidewalk and whether they would stop on a red or green light, how free would they be? How would they best be able to enjoy their right to drive? By following the rules or by making up their own? Would not you say that in order for them to truly be free they would have to live up to certain obligations to the other drivers? And would you not agree that he who did not live up to those basic, common-sense obligations was not fit for the freedom he were afforded? Should not such a radical individualist be given what he wants—freedom from societal constraints in his own private cell?
To perform our duty is an honor and honorable people carry it out. Those inconvenienced by duty are overly individualistic and must realize that they are not the end-all of human history but that we have a moral imperative to press on and pass the baton. Those who feel imposed upon by duty are too self-important and must learn the difference between having rights and being royalty. Those who dismiss our institution of law and justice as pointless or corrupt are pitiable and must not have had a proper upbringing, education, or exposure (either through books, media or acquaintance) to sophisticated moral thinking.
Those who denigrate civic duty do damage to our democracy and demonstrate their own character deficit. And I am here writing not to defame such people, but hopefully to awaken us all to our obligations as citizens. Indeed, there are those that have very good reasons for not being able to serve our country, despite their desire to do so. Today, I would simply ask that you consider our American military doing their duty to protect our freedoms. If they can sacrifice their careers, their families, even their lives, cannot we honor these patriots by serving our country as jurors when asked and using our blood-bought freedom to vote our conscience? They went to Afghanistan. The least I can do is go to the courthouse and to the polls.
Posted by Shawn on 11/07/2006 04:38:00 AM 0 comments
What is the Emergent Church?
Today I began, in earnest, an exploration of the landscape of the Emergent Church. I am taking a class studying emergence—the people, ideas and manifestations of the movement. When I tell people that I am studying the Emergent Church, the inevitable next question is: “What is the Emergent Church?” Some who ask the question have an idea of what it is and want my take on it. Most have simply never heard of it.
I think those in the Emergent “movement” would likely call it a conversation about how the Christian Church should think and act within the post-modern, post-Christian context of our current Western culture. In a sense, what is emerging is a sort, or sorts, of post-Evangelical Christianity.
I have been leading a young adult ministry for a few years now. We also began by asking questions about what exactly a young adult ministry should look like in our particular Southern California context. And truly it has been a conversation. It has been a conversation with our mother church’s expectations. What does our board, staff and congregation want in a young adult ministry? What is the need in our church or community that we can meet? It has been a conversation with the actual young adults who attend. Where are they at in their spiritual journey? How can we help them grow? What we learned is that every person in our fellowship contributes in unique ways to the others and changes the shape of our ministry and we have developed a very person-driven church life. It has been a conversation with Scripture. We try to faithfully understand God’s Word and mold ourselves and our fellowship to the truth we discover. Mostly, the conversation has been with the Holy Spirit. We try to stay attuned to Him and watch as He guides us step by step. In many instances, our organizational posture and practices turn out to look much like some of the so-called emergent churches. The fundamental difference is that we see ourselves as a movement toward truth. Many of the emergent church leaders (not all) see themselves as a movement away from what has come to be accepted as true into a new understanding of truth. At its core, the difference is that while the community of which I am a part seeks to experience transformation through truth (Truth > experience), emergent communities seek to first embody the truth in the way of Jesus and then interpret “truth” through the lens of experience (experience > truth).
For example, the fellowship that I pastor could be considered decentralized. You could come to one of our gatherings and never know what my role is in our ministry. I teach Bible study; but I encourage others to do the same. I preach at our gatherings; but I am only one of a team of preachers in our body. I lead worship sometimes; but I am not the lead worshipper anymore. My role as the leader is essentially praying for and equipping our people to minister to each other. Now, that does not mean I have no authority as a pastor. It simply means I do not lord it over the others. I use my authority to empower the others. This is all due to our reading of scripture. In Ephesians 4 we are told that the ministry of pastors is to edify and equip the others to be the ministers. In Romans 12 and 1 Corinthians 12-14 we are told that each person is to do their part in building one another up and using their unique strengths for the common good. A worship gathering should be something like a pot luck or gift exchange. So, that is how we have endeavored to order our gatherings.
An emergent congregation may also look very similar. But their motivation may be very different. Most emergent leaders join the emergent bandwagon for one or two reasons: as a reaction to postmodernism and / or as a reaction to evangelicalism.
The reaction to postmodernism is very much on my radar as well. Postmodernism is a very real and fundamental shift in our culture. It accounts for the reality of how people think these days. And the Church MUST adapt and respond. For the emergents, the result of this response can take two forms (or something in between). The first result might be repackaging the same old time-tested, historical, orthodox Christian faith so that people with a secular, postmodern mindset can grasp it and respond. That is, we can re-communicate the gospel to a new generation in a new era, retaining the substance of the truth and reality of scripture. (I would definitely put myself in this camp, philosophically speaking.)
The other result might be to rethink Christianity altogether and basically take on the tenets of postmodernism and apply them to the Church. Truth and tradition get a thorough deconstruction. Christianity becomes true only insofar as it is lived out in your own community. Language becomes primarily creative rather than communicative. Confidence in scripture is held loosely as other religious points of view take on more significance. Christian ethics starts to sound more like secular humanism than Christian compassion.
However they land in their reaction to postmodernism, emergent churches then have to contend with their evangelical forefathers, the contexts from which most of them emerged. If we need a new way to communicate the truth to a new mode of thinking then continuing in the now established Evangelical traditions may be counterproductive. The evangelistic mindset of Revivalism and the discipleship methods of Wesley are terribly passé and ineffective for the average person today. We need new ways to capture hearts with the true story of God. (Again, I am philosophically onboard here.) There are those with this attitude of care for the culture who understand we need new approaches to ministry. Then there are those who have been burned by the evangelical churches in which they found themselves and are now reacting against them on more personal levels. Also, there are others who have adopted postmodern thinking altogether and, as a matter of course, have thrown the baby (evangelicalism) out with the bathwater, opting for an less orthodox expression of spirituality.
So, an emergent church may happen to look like the fellowship that I pastor in some ways. However, in the aforementioned example, the route they take would likely be very different. If it is a church trying to be relevant to postmodern culture, their motivation might be to make their congregation more participatory or communal for a hands-on and connected culture (admittedly, one of my motivations as well). If it is a church that is adopting postmodern tendencies, their motivation could be to allow their congregation to create their own unique version of Christianity that is authentic to them. If it is a church that is shedding its “churchiness” to be more accessible to a new people, their motivation may be to show that church is not all about the “talking head” at the podium. Or if it is a church that is totally reacting against evangelical practice altogether, its motivation may be a distrust of authority in reaction to an actual or possible misuse of authority that prompts the decentralized ministry environment.
As I am a pastor committed to pursuing truth, I cannot accept adoption of postmodern tenets as a means to be relevant. Rather, I support addressing postmodern thinking with biblical truth in new ways. As an evangelical, I also see our weaknesses. But our strength is in staying true to the faith. And while I anticipate growth in our tradition I do pray that any movement toward relevance will remain anchored in truth.
This is not to say I think I have it all figured out. As Leonard Sweet has said, “not one of us can boast immaculate perceptions.” But just because none of us have it all figured out does not mean that some of us don’t see it more clearly than others. There is a reality to be perceived. We can know that we know what we know. Then we go from there. And within the Christian faith there are immense chunks of Truth that are truly beyond a reasonable doubt. Yes, there are nuances of Truth we will be discovering for centuries, though their basic truth is unchanging. And there are nuggets of truth I discover all the time. And by both these nuances and these nuggets I am nourished. The Word of God is living and active. It must not be discounted or diluted. It must be studied, understood, lived out and communicated in whatever context we find ourselves.
For an introduction to postmodernism click here.
Posted by Shawn on 9/08/2006 03:21:00 AM 0 comments
No News is Bad News
When the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel first broke out I was transformed into a news junkie (even more so than usual). I was constantly checking the news before I’d go to bed, or the left the house, and right when I woke up. This was news! According to the pundits, this has the potential to escalate into WWIII. I listened carefully for nuances of policy and progress and watched as the story unfolded.
Then something happened. All the news channels set up camp in the region and began covering the story from all sides, and doing a great. But then the news stopped.
I know they’re still there and the conflict continues. But there is no new news. The only thing to report is when and where attacks are taking place and how many casualties there are on each side.
If I remember correctly, there was other news in the news before this news broke. I believe there was something about nuclear threats in Asia and the Middle East, and a little project called the Iraq War. And what about that Embryonic Stem Cell Research thing? Yeah, it was covered, but was it analyzed to death like it should be?
The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel may be important, and is certainly compelling. But I believe the time has come to get “fair and balanced” again. Let’s devote just a little more time to domestic news and other important stories around the world. As it is, for the last few days we have had to endure endless speculation in lieu of new news. Why hasn’t the US said anything? What will happen when we do? Well, can’t we just save that for water cooler talk? I mean, aren’t there any Americans out there who can think for themselves and have intelligent conversations about world events without having the talking heads do it for them?
Is it just me? I thought that news and journalism was dedicated to the enterprise of reporting what has happened, not what will happen. But I guess that is the price we pay for a news culture that is content to “report” press releases rather than research a story.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no problem with news commentary. I enjoy it sometimes. But there is a difference between analysis and speculation.
And so today I could not stomach watching the news another minute. Why? Because they were only really covering one story and there was nothing new to report. Maybe I’ll wait a day or two. In the meantime, I’ll have to search the net for other important stories.
Posted by Shawn on 7/25/2006 09:15:00 PM 0 comments
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005
I am an American, affiliated with no party. I champion only truth and common sense in politics. On the following issue I must wholeheartedly agree with our president in his reasoning for vetoing the bill supporting embryonic stem cell research, a practice that used to be called theraputic cloning. The text is as follows...
--
I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 810, the "Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005."
Like all Americans, I believe our Nation must vigorously pursue the tremendous possibilities that science offers to cure disease and improve the lives of millions. Yet, as science brings us ever closer to unlocking the secrets of human biology, it also offers temptations to manipulate human life and violate human dignity. Our conscience and history as a Nation demand that we resist this temptation. With the right scientific techniques and the right policies, we can achieve scientific progress while living up to our ethical responsibilities.
In 2001, I set forth a new policy on stem cell research that struck a balance between the needs of science and the demands of conscience. When I took office, there was no Federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research. Under the policy I announced 5 years ago, my Administration became the first to make Federal funds available for this research, but only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed. My Administration has made available more than $90 million for research of these lines. This policy has allowed important research to go forward and has allowed America to continue to lead the world in embryonic stem cell research without encouraging the further destruction of living human embryos.
H.R. 810 would overturn my Administration's balanced policy on embryonic stem cell research. If this bill were to become law, American taxpayers for the first time in our history would be compelled to fund the deliberate destruction of human embryos. Crossing this line would be a grave mistake and would needlessly encourage a conflict between science and ethics that can only do damage to both and harm our Nation as a whole.
Advances in research show that stem cell science can progress in an ethical way. Since I announced my policy in 2001, my Administration has expanded funding of research into stem cells that can be drawn from children, adults, and the blood in umbilical cords with no harm to the donor, and these stem cells are currently being used in medical treatments. Science also offers the hope that we may one day enjoy the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells without destroying human life. Researchers are investigating new techniques that might allow doctors and scientists to produce stem cells just as versatile as those derived from human embryos without harming life. We must continue to explore these hopeful alternatives, so we can advance the cause of scientific research while staying true to the ideals of a decent and humane society.
I hold to the principle that we can harness the promise of technology without becoming slaves to technology and ensure that science serves the cause of humanity. If we are to find the right ways to advance ethical medical research, we must also be willing when necessary to reject the wrong ways. For that reason, I must veto this bill.
Posted by Shawn on 7/21/2006 02:08:00 AM 0 comments
The world is in crisis.
What can we say? Who is to blame? If we blame anyone it may be construed as taking sides. Our consciences compel us to take sides. Our common sense cautions us to remain neutral. Our carnal natures may just be in agreement with the cardinal virtues, at least in the conclusion that decisive action should be taken. But by whom?
If someone were to kidnap my brother, what would I do? I would call the appropriate authorities and do all I could to aid and not hinder their retrieving my brother. What if I was the appropriate authority? I would have to take action myself. The question would then be, “What is the appropriate action to take?” I would block all the roads in and out of town, shut down the airports and train stations. I would establish a perimeter. I would find the identity of the kidnappers. I would find out where they live and stake out their house. I would find out who they know and track their communication. I would monitor their phone calls and credit card transactions for clues to their location. Once I found out where they were, I would freeze their assets. I would then send in hostage specialists to negotiate a release, having a special weapons unit on standby in the event of an emergency. I am not trained in such matters. I simply have watched my share of Die Hard movies.
It seems to me that Israel has attempted to establish a perimeter (disabling transportation). They also know the perpetrators and the people behind the operation (Hezbollah, “the party of God,” backed by Syria and Iran). But instead of going in to get their guys, they have opted to go ahead and destroy everything remotely related to Hezbollah. Could this be analogous to freezing their assets? It’s a tough call. One may get the sense that the action taken by Israel is more that of wrath than rescue. But the context of this crisis is not limited to an abduction of Israelis.
The U.S. had a similar crisis under the watch of President Kennedy. The Soviets were shipping nuclear weapons to nearby communist Cuba. Their intentions were clear. With such a strategic location they could launch a nuclear attack on American soil that would wipe out or severely weaken all our defenses. We could not allow the situation to persist. Through a series of tense tactical moves we averted an all-out nuclear war and persuaded the Soviet Union to remove its weapons.
Israel faces a similar juncture. The very presence of Hezbollah, the sworn enemy of Israel, in Lebanon with their vast arsenal of rockets and missiles, is a clear and present danger. They have demonstrated the will to destroy Israel. So Israel must remove the threat. The issue is not two soldiers but two decades of unchecked and imminent danger.
This danger is not limited to Hezbollah in Lebanon, but extends to all of Israel’s neighboring countries, and especially Iran. Defeating Hezbollah may not be the end to their problems, but it is a more achievable task than facing all their enemies at once.
What about negotiation? Is there a diplomatic track? The world remains neutral and crosses their fingers hoping cooler heads will prevail. But how can the fighting end? Essentially, Hezbollah was formed to fight the Israelis and ensure their destruction. They will not rest until Israel ceases to exist. And so Israel is forced to annihilate or be annihilated. But, even if Hezbollah were wiped out, Hamas, and myriad other Islamic groups, would seek the destruction of Israel. This tension in the Middle East over the existence of Israel will continue to build until The End. The fulfillment of biblical prophecy is inevitable.
At some point—maybe in this conflict or in an as yet unforeseen crossroads—the countries of the world will be forced to take sides. God help us! The Islamic states seek totalitarian domination and will follow the model of Mohammed in forcing submission. The Jewish state wishes only to survive, yet will execute swift justice upon any aggressor. Secular states will have no conscience or backbone by which to judge and will act purely according to their best interests. Communist States will lend their power expediently almost as mercenaries. Only a Christian state, if there were such a thing, would have the moral sophistication to choose sides based primarily on what is true, just, and right. Sadly, in America, the Iraq War has weakened our reserve of such values as a citizenry. Thus, the good of the world may rest at any given moment on the worldview of its leaders, regardless of the convictions of its people. However, especially in a democracy, the Church must positively saturate the culture with a reasoned and biblical worldview so that we produce more Christian politicians and more Christians that will vote responsibly for principled candidates.
This is not about me getting on some sort of soapbox to promote a misguided Christian agenda. I’m not advocating Christianity-only government, or trying to silence divergent voices. I do not believe that being a Christian pre-determines your political persuasion, or that it should be used for political gain. What I am saying is that Christianity is the only worldview capable of providing moral clarity to the prospect of war, and especially of choosing sides. Christ is the only one who can save us from our sins, and Christianity is the only worldview that can save the world from self-destruction. Whether or not one believes the religion is true, its teachings provide the best framework from which to base any decision for military action.
Posted by Shawn on 7/19/2006 03:55:00 AM 0 comments
Anselm’s Proslogium: Faith & The Fool
“You have said, “Seek my face.” My heart says to you, “Your face, Lord, do I seek.” – Psalm 27:8
“And we are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.” – 1 John 1:4
Preface: Epiphany
In this discourse, Anselm seeks to prove the existence and attributes of God as one thinking through what he believes in order to understand it more clearly. He sets out by trying to find a single stand-alone argument that would prove God’s existence. Having almost given up, and trying to put the endeavor out of his mind, “it began to force itself upon [him], with a kind of importunity.” Indeed, Anselm describes the argument as having “offered itself,” presumably as a gift of God, and as something he found, embraced and rejoiced over. He originally titled this discourse Faith Seeking Understanding, eventually Proslogium, a sequel to Monologium.
Having become a Christian at a very young age, I really only know what it is like to have faith. Reason did not lead me to God; the Holy Spirit did. But He has used reason to deepen my faith. Truly, my entire life has been one of faith seeking understanding. I in my own contemplation of God, every time I endeavor to search out an issue, the Holy Spirit guides my research and reasoning so that it almost seems effortless. Often, it is as if I were sitting around the table enjoying a beverage and having a rousing discussion with an old friend. Of course study requires respect for the truth and for the Teacher. I must always remind myself that the fundamental posture of a disciple is prayer and a teachable spirit. For it is God’s to reveal and ours to revel in the discovery.
Chapter 1: Seeking God
Anselm begins with the premise that we were made to see God, but He must teach us to seek Him and we cannot succeed unless He reveals Himself to us. As for our part, we cannot see God unless we seek Him, and that requires us first to believe. With this aim he invites his reader to set aside the worries and cares of the world. “Yield room for some little time to God; and rest for a little time in him.” Think for a while on nothing but God. It is a call to seek the Lord.
But immediately Anselm runs up against a wall. God “dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see” (1 Tim 6:16). Yet, the longing desire within us reaffirms that we were created for that purpose. We have not seen Him because we have lost the blessedness of fellowship in the Fall. We are now left with only a “miserable longing” in which we are “choked with satiety” and “remain empty.” We have suffered loss, going “from the vision of God into our present blindness.” We strive for blessing but sigh in sorrow. Our sin has marred the image of God within us. We must be made new again in order to see God. Anselm, humbled in his iniquities, entreats the Lord, “Look upon us, Lord; hear us, enlighten us, reveal thyself to us,” for he knows we cannot seek God unless He teaches us, nor find Him unless He makes Himself known. Thus, his heart cries to God, “let me seek thee in longing, let me long for thee in seeking; let me find thee in love, and love thee in finding.”
Anselm rightly recognizes that the longing he feels is a longing for God. Many people, including me, often mistake this longing as a desire for something other than God. Some chase after mediated experiences, cheap thrills, or quick fixes. Others try to satisfy the longing with otherwise noble pursuits. But all other satisfactions are no satisfaction at all. As Augustine attests, “Thou hast formed us for Thyself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in Thee.” Sadly, there are some who refuse to acknowledge this truth.
Chapters 2-4: God Exists
Having set aside time for and set his heart on seeking God, Anselm commences in earnest. He begins by explaining why the person who says, “There is no God,” is a fool. The concept of God entails “a being than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Both Anselm and the fool share this concept; and both understand this concept of God to exist in the mind. However, Anselm believes God exists in reality and the fool does not. The fool understands the concept of God to exist only in the mind. Since it is greater to exist both in the mind and in reality, a strictly mental concept of God is not an actual concept of God. A true concept of God would necessarily entail His existence in reality as well as in the conception of the mind. Therefore, to say, “There is no God,” is a nonsensical statement since to evoke the idea of God is to affirm His existence. To take the argument further, “that which can be conceived not to exist is not God,” since it is greater to exist than not to exist. So again, the fool’s statement is shown to be “an irreconcilable contradiction.” Indeed, God is the only being that cannot conceivably not exist; everything else is contingent on His existence.
Lest he be accused of mere sophistry, Anselm explains the two senses in which a thing may be conceived. In the first sense, the word signifying the thing is conceived—the concept. In the second sense, the object that the word is signifying is understood. So God can only be conceived not to exist in the former sense, not the latter. In essence, it does not matter what we call God; it matters what God is—a being of which none greater can be conceived. “And he who thoroughly understands this, assuredly understands that this being so truly exists, that not even in concept can it be non-existent.”
After grasping this argument, Anselm has no explanation for the fool except dullness. “The fool said in his heart what he could not conceive.” In other words, the existence of God is inconceivable to the fool. But this should not surprise Anselm, since he has already admitted to our fallen state and utter reliance upon God for revelation. The fool’s confusion aptly illustrates the maxim of faith seeking understanding. The fool, we assume, has not begun with faith and has, therefore, not found understanding. Anselm, by God’s grace, already believed and thus was enlightened in his understanding. As he states, “if I were unwilling to believe that thou dost exist, I should not be able to understand this to be true.”
We cannot see God except by His enabling, but we must be willing to seek Him. The fool’s true folly is in the posture of his heart. His mind is made up; and he is not willing to open himself to the possibility of being taught by God. If he would acknowledge the hunger of his soul he could be filled. But, as Pascal points out, the human soul is rather good at distracting itself from contemplation of ultimate issues such as the existence of God. And a fool, who will return to such folly again and again, may need to be confronted with the consequences of his unbelief. All of us at times could stand to echo the ancient prayer, “I believe; Help my unbelief” (Mark 9:24).
Chapters 5-13: God’s Attributes
At this point, Anselm shifts his focus from God’s existence to His attributes. Along familiar lines of reasoning, he suggests an overarching criterion that “God is whatever it is better to be than not be.” So he proposes a list of attributes—self-existent, just, truthful, blessed, sensible, omnipotent, compassionate, and passionless—and he begins to explain them. How can God experience sensation without a body? He senses according to His cognitive powers. How can God be omnipotent if there are things He cannot do? To say God cannot be corrupted or lie is not to limit His power but to affirm that He is not powerless against such things. How can God be both compassionate and passionless (affected by emotion)? The work of God in our lives that we experience as compassion is really an expression of the unchanging character of God. How can a just God spare or even pity the wicked? His mercy flows out of His goodness. How can God show compassion to some and justice to others? Only that which God wills is just; so, if God wills to have compassion on some, then it is just.
Concerning all God’s attributes Anselm says, “whatever thou art, thou art through nothing else than thyself.” God is life and the source of that life. He is wisdom and the source of that wisdom. He is goodness and the source of that goodness. He derives nothing from elsewhere or anyone else. All He is He is of Himself. Furthermore, inasmuch as it is greater not to be limited by space and time, and since there is none greater than God, Anselm concludes that God must be “everywhere and always.” God is boundless and eternal.
What Anselm is describing is really the holiness of God. His being and attributes set Him apart high above all His creation. He affects all, but is affected by none. We could take a cue from this sort of holiness: whatever it is better to be than not be. The fruit of the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of such holiness in our lives. For instance, it is better to be loving than not loving, joyful than not joyful, peaceful than not peaceful, and so on. We do not possess these attributes as God does because He is their source, not us. All we are we are of Him. And what we are sets us apart among His creatures. Since it is better for us to be in the world but not of it than it is for us to be out of the world but of it, I must conclude that holiness requires us to be agents, not objects of change. That is, we are to actively affect the world, here and now, without being negatively affected by it.
Chapters 14-17: Delightful Frustration
Anselm pauses and asks himself if he has indeed found what he is looking for. He recognizes that he has seen God, by His grace, but only in part. He wants to see more but only sees that he “cannot see farther.” He asks, “Why is this Lord, why is this? Is the eye of the soul darkened by its infirmity, or dazzled by thy glory?” He understands it is both. For not only can one not conceive of anything greater than God, but God is so great that He is beyond comprehension. He dwells in unapproachable light, which, like the sun, is the light by which we see but which we cannot stand to gaze upon. This is a sort of delightful frustration for Anselm who being so close to God feels so far. Anselm longs to sense God’s harmony, fragrance, sweetness, pleasantness, and beauty but they are hidden from him.
“I have climbed the highest mountains / I have run through the fields . . . / I have run, I have crawled / I have scaled these city walls . . . / Only to be with you / But I still haven't found / What I'm looking for.” These words, written by U2, do not so much express a feeling of disenchantment as of wanting more. When Anselm confesses to God that what he has apprehended of Him is not enough, it is not to say he intends to look elsewhere. It is the confession of a man at a buffet wanting seconds but altogether too stuffed to eat another bite. He must first digest what he has already taken in.
Chapters 18-23: One Supreme Good
So Anselm prays again to God: “Free me from myself toward thee. Cleanse, heal, sharpen, enlighten the eye of my mind, that it may behold thee. Let my soul recover its strength, and with all its understanding let it strive toward thee, O Lord. What art thou, Lord, what art thou? What shall my heart conceive thee to be?”
Anselm begins to contemplate the answer to the question. God is life, wisdom, truth, goodness, blessedness, eternity, every true good, and so much more. But none of the attributes of God are parts of Him, for God is one, not a composite being. All His attributes are unified within Himself; He is indivisible. “Therefore, life and wisdom and the rest are not parts of thee, but all are one; and each of these is the whole, which thou art, and which all the rest are.” That is, every attribute of God belongs to His entire being.
This being the case, God’s eternity exists as a whole forever and, as such, does not have a past, present and future (they are all one); He simply exists. He is outside of time and is not contained by it. All other things exist only in the present and cannot exist without the transcendent, eternal God, in whom all the ages of time are contained within His eternity. Since there is no time when God does not exist, all other beings owe their existence to Him, “the only one supreme good.” Finally, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are equally the “single, necessary Being, which is every good, and wholly good, and the only good.”
Anselm is making a case for the oneness of God. God is not a pie chart; He does not possess attributes in percentage. Neither are the Persons of the Trinity pieces of a puzzle that somehow give a full picture of God. Rather, each Person is eternally and fully God. And each Person possesses every attribute of God in its fullness. Both the Persons and their attributes are unified in God’s one being. Though this formulation goes beyond the historical creeds in some respects, it is in agreement with the essence of their proclamation. Thus, Anselm demonstrates the ability to have a free thinking and full theology that is faithful to essential Christian doctrine.
Chapters 24-26: Fullness of Joy
In order to grasp the great good that is God, Anselm considers the goodness of His creation. For, “if wisdom in the knowledge of the created world is lovely, how lovely is the wisdom which has created all things from nothing!” There is so much goodness to enjoy in God’s creation, how much more joy might we find in God?
Therefore, to the wandering soul searching for fulfillment Anselm exhorts, “Love the one good in which are all goods, and it sufficeth.” All that we desire is in Him. He satisfies our senses. He reveals truth. He perfects friendship and unifies His Church. He bestows power. He secures for us all goodness. “But what, or how great, is the joy, where such and so great is the good!” Not one human being person could contain such joy. And to share in this joy would multiply it beyond all containment!
“Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full” (John 16:24). And so Anselm finds what he was looking for. He had asked God to reveal Himself. In the revelation was joy. “For I have found a joy that is full, and more than full.” His faith sought understanding and he now understands that “they shall rejoice according as they shall love; and they shall love according as they shall know.” And if we have so much knowledge, love and joy in this life, how much more will we have in the life to come. So when we find ourselves longing for more of God we can seek Him and find Him. As Anselm prays, “Let the knowledge of thee advance in me here, and there be made full. Let the love of thee increase, and there let it be full, that here my joy may be great in hope, and there full in truth.” All the love and joy that we now experience in knowing God is merely a taste of what is to come.
Why is the fool such a fool? It is because in discounting God he forgoes the search of Him and never finds what his heart truly longs for. There are rewards for those who diligently seek God. But how can one seek what he believes does not exist? It would seem that the fool is lost in his folly. But his understanding is not darkened beyond the possibility of faith. Even the fool has an intuitive sense of God. If it were not there he would not try to hide it by the various distractions of the world. The fool also has a basic sense of morality by which he is accountable to the very God he denies. This internal revelation of God, coupled with the external revelation of the natural world, leaves the fool without excuse and truly foolish, since faith is within his reach. The wise person realizes and rectifies the folly of disbelief.
So, while faith may seek understanding, there are some properly basic beliefs and even certain evidences that might lead a person to faith upon reflection. Then again, the heart may have its own reasons to believe. The longing for God alone is enough to disquiet a man’s heart and prepare him for faith. If the fool is not convinced by reason of Anselm’s argument that God exists, he may still believe on the basis of the result. The uncontainable joy that Anselm finds in knowing God and shares with his fellow Christians may be just the impetus he needs for faith and his own journey toward understanding.
Posted by Shawn on 5/27/2006 11:23:00 PM 0 comments
The American Mind
I have recently noticed two major threats to reason and religion in America today. Unfortunately, it may be necessary for me, at the outset, to affirm that reason and religion are not mutually exclusive. Each serves the other to some extent. Most great philosophers have found the idea of God to be a necessary contingent. And not even the most experiential of religions has long survived without positing grand metaphysical statements on which to base belief and practice. I may develop this subject in detail at a later date. For now, I will take it as a given, keeping in mind that the purpose of this essay is to treat both reason and religion generically.
The first threat to reason and religion is the secularist who believes that religious belief is unfounded, irrational and irrelevant to public life. He has his own principles and philosophies by which he orders his life. He most likely came about them through experience and education. They inform his decisions and guide his actions. They have led him to believe that religious teaching has merit only insofar as it affirms naturalistic and rationalistic notions of the way things are. Supernatural assertions and explanations of the world are fantastical and superfluous to him. His view being delineated as such leads him to categorically discount anyone who takes religion to be anything more than inspiration, moral education, or a conduit of goodwill. To the secularist, those who allow their experience of and beliefs about the metaphysical to inform their decisions and guide their actions are not to be trusted. He fears religious people who take themselves seriously and would advise the conscientious citizen to marginalize believers whenever possible.
One example of this is the media’s marginalization of Tom Cruise, whose Scientologist ranting has come across as abrasive to secular sensibilities. If the secularist ever were to honestly employ reason to judge the merits of various religions or particular religious teachings, this would not be a problem. On the contrary, his default posture is to label all religious thought and thinkers as misguided. This being the case, when people like Tom Cruise make a scene in public, in the mind of the secularist, Cruise is at that moment a representative of all religions. Thus the secularist, who really thinks his way of approaching the world is better than the religionist’s, never has to contend for his point of view, even if challenged with a more robust religious argument.
(It may be worth noting that, in much the same way the secularist maintains the baseless notion that all religions are equally invalid, the multi-culturalist maintains that all cultures are equally valid. She maintains that every culture should be appreciated and celebrated and no culture should consider itself better than any other since such arrogance would likely lead to oppression and power-mongering. The incongruity of such a perspective has come to light in America’s ongoing immigration debate.)
The second threat to reason and religion is the “Christian” who does not believe the Bible is true. The academic would call him a progressive; the theologian would call him a liberal; the sociologist would call him a secularist. This is apropos since his religion is subservient to his secular presuppositions. I will call him a deconstructionist. I do so because I believe this is likely his problem. He, if from the beginning or over time, has come to be skeptical of the biblical writings from a philosophical and historical point of view. Since he is secular in orientation he tends to doubt the mythical accounts of the supernatural and miracles in the Bible. And due to his naturalistic convictions he is also suspicious of the motivations of the biblical writers who make extraordinary claims about Jesus. He readily accepts the value of Jesus’ teaching. But stories about the virgin conception of Jesus or his resurrection from the dead may be hard for him to swallow. And all the theologizing about sin and atonement is a little archaic for his postmodern tastes. He is reluctant to admit to a fallen humanity. And at best he sees the death of Christ as a demonstration of God’s perpetual love and acceptance rather than the satisfaction of divine justice.
There is an obvious problem with the Christian deconstructionist. He purports to believe in the Christian God, yet in reality he has become his own god by is acting as editor of the biblical texts. Why would he bother calling himself a Christian? It is useless and inconsistent. But that is his own problem. The threat he poses to our society is that it fuels the secularist’s notion that religion is irrelevant and unworthy to be taken seriously.
Here’s how it works. The apologist for the secular point of view, not wanting (in this case) the Christian who is faithful to the Bible to be taken seriously in public discourse, will try to win her over to the view of religious privatization. The faithful Christian, who actually thinks that she has good reason to believe that what she believes is true and relevant to real life, resists the notion. So the secular apologist reasons with her by quoting respected “Christian” ministers and scholars, who are really just deconstructionists, who cast doubt on her Christianity and look down on her notions of truth. Whether or not the apologist succeeds in convincing the Christian, he gains ground in the public perception by popularizing, and passing off as legitimate, a new breed of secularized Christianity. His friend, the secularist, who before was tolerant of Christianity at best, now discovers that he has some common ground with these “progressive” Christian (who is really just a secularist in Christian clothing). So then the secularist and the deconstructionist join forces against the faithful Christian, both legitimizing secular Christianity and marginalizing faithful Christianity in the culture.
Since 9/11, this has been happening enforce to the Muslim. A clear distinction is being imposed between “peaceful” (secularized) Islam and “radical” Islam. But such extreme categories leave little room in the American mind for a more fundamentalist approach to the religion that is neither secular nor fascist. Unfortunately, when it comes to religion the secularist does not put much thought into the spectrum of religious commitment and relies on tired stereotypes. In effect, those religious adherents who nonetheless accept the idea of religious privatization are tolerated by the secularist. But those of any religion who take their beliefs seriously are considered fundamentalists. And in a political climate where the term “Islamic fundamentalist” has a particularly negatively charged connotation, the consistent secularist blanketly applies that attitude, regardless of warrant, to anyone who takes his religious beliefs seriously.
This would all be fine if indeed the secularist was indisputably right in thinking he is right and the all religions are wrong. But that is not the case. In reality, what we have is a case of secular totalitarianism. Rather than considering views on their merit, whether religious in origin or not, the secularist exercises a dictatorship over American culture. He would have us believe that this domination of the public square is the result of already having debated the other ideas and demonstrated superiority. But in fact he dismisses opposing views without due consideration and has the audacity to call himself rational. The result is the mitigation and corruption of true religious belief and the degeneration of true reason in the American mind.
Posted by Shawn on 5/16/2006 03:38:00 AM 0 comments
Issues in Immigration: From Rhetoric to Realism
Recently, I accompanied my dad to the hospital where he works as he did a routine safety check on a couple of ventilators. He explained to me that there was only a certain amount of current that could “leak” from the unit in order for it to be safe. But that standard used to allow for a lot less current than it does today. The standard has been changed. I don’t know the reasons for the change, but I do know that the ventilators are still safe even with the new standard in place.
I am a Mexican. I was born in America. All the generations before mine have spoken Spanish, but they did not pass it on to me or my cousins. My grandparents were poor. My parents were poor. I am still poor. But just as my parents’ wealth grew, I don’t doubt my future will be comfortable as I continue to work diligently.
Growing up I did my own lawn. Last year my parents hired people to do theirs: Mexicans. I do not know whether they are legal residents or not. But they do a good work.
I’ve heard a lot of heated debate on the issue of undocumented/illegal immigrants from Mexico. For the most part, I think both sides are right. But I am quite annoyed at the unhelpful rhetoric. Calling immigrants “undocumented workers” is an unnecessary spin that deflects from serious consideration of the problems these people create for American citizens by being here. Calling them “illegal” and characterizing any “guest worker program” as “amnesty” is simply ignorant and unfair.
There is a problem. Both perspectives of the problem have valid concerns that need to be addressed. I will not attempt to offer a solution. But I will suggest an approach.
Government is a human and fallible institution. In America we are under the rule of law, which we create in order to establish morality, justice, and order in society. Ideally, we make laws based on what is naturally right and wrong. Unfortunately, in our postmodern mindset we have come to think that laws create right and wrong. Just because something is currently illegal doesn’t mean it should be. It is wrong to break the law; but not all laws are just. We may at times need to revisit or revise some laws to address unforeseen contingencies.
To address the whole immigrant problem by characterizing them as “illegals” is supremely unhelpful. Though technically correct it categorically ignores the reality of why the immigrants come and how they affect our society.
On the other hand, it is no use whatsoever to throw out the law and just allow anyone to come to America. To do so would weaken our State economically and eventually equalize the US and Mexico, thereby eliminating the need for anyone to migrate at all. It would also compromise our security, which no one wants.
The answer is simple, but not easy. 1.) The laws must be just and fair; and 2.) the laws must be enforced. It seems the two sides of the debate are not really divided on what need to be done but on where to start. I say it is a waste to attempt to enforce unrealistic laws. If we must choose a priority I choose to revise the laws.
But we must also think of the security risks we take in not policing our borders. And to that end I say continue to increase our presence there and do whatever is necessary to secure the border. It must be done. But I see the border security issue and the Mexican immigrant issue as two separate but related problems. Border patrol is primarily a security issue. But the question at hand is about what we should do with those who are here or who will get through in the meantime, primarily an immigration issue.
I fear my lengthiness has made my argument weak and imprecise. I’ll stop here and let you decide.
Posted by Shawn on 4/20/2006 01:39:00 AM 2 comments
Can God do anything? (capacity + power = possibility)
Can God do anything? The question came up today. I said, “No, God can only do what is possible.” The following is my first (and very awkward) attempt at explaining my assertion. Lest this sound like mere philosophical gibberish, I want to base my answer on Scripture.[1]
Speaking of a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven, Jesus said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible” (Mt. 19:26). From this we learn that there are things beyond the power of man to accomplish. But there is nothing beyond God’s power. He can do all things. Notice, it does not say that God can do the impossible. It says God can do what is impossible to man. All of those things that God can do are possible. All those things that are possible God can do.
It may help to note that the word “possible” here refers to the power, strength or ability a person has to do something. So, what is in the realm of possibility is not contingent on the thing being done but on the person doing it, whether he has to ability. With that in mind, to say that God can do the impossible is nonsense. The fact that He can do it makes it possible.
The first image that comes to mind is that of a father and son. There is so much the adult father can do that his young son cannot. Or think of a computer nerd and a body builder. The computer nerd cannot bench press half as much as the body builder. The body builder doesn’t know the first thing about writing an operating code. This illustrates the difference between actual and potential possibilities. The son has the potential to grow up and do all the things his dad can do, and maybe more. The body builder can learn computer code. The nerd can start strength training. Of course, no one actualizes human possibility. In other words, no one human has or could accomplish all that humans have or can do (at least not in one lifetime).
Though humans do share in some of the attributes of God (reason, will, emotion, etc.), we do not bear these attributes infinitely as God does. His power in every aspect is greater. We can be like him in many respects but in our finitude never match his power. With God the possibilities are endless because His power is endless. There’s only so much man can do in his limited power.
It is like a bird and a fish. They both eat. They breathe. They have offspring. They have some similarities. But a bird cannot swim. A fish cannot fly. It is against their natures, outside the realm of possibility. This illustrates the difference between power and capacity.
Capacity encompasses all those things you can do. Power is the degree to which you do them. God and man have the capacity to love. Only God has the power of everlasting love. Both God and man have the capacity to think. Only God can know all things.[2]
God’s power is greater. But His capacities are different too. Though both can think, only man can be mistaken. Both God and man have the capacity to make choices. Only man can choose evil.
The point I am making is that if possibility is contingent on the person’s ability, then his capacity (nature) and power govern what is possible for Him. Therefore, God can only do what He is able to do, that which is in accordance with His nature and power.
ability = capacity + power = possibility
[1] Of course, philosophy is a noble enterprise. The philosopher is a lover of wisdom, which Solomon admonishes us to pursue above all else. And if Christ is the Logos, then logic, the chief tool of philosophy, is paramount in pursuing wisdom. Therefore, philosophy should not be discounted but rather employed toward understanding. Colossians 2:8 says, “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” I do not want to buy into or propagate any hollow or deceptive philosophies. But we must realize what makes them so: faulty premises (human tradition/principles of this world). I am confident that using Scripture as a premise (and test) we can reason as to what the truth is on any matter that Scripture speaks to. This reasoning from the Scriptures is formally called Theology, what I attempt here, albeit on a very basic level.
[2] I must admit my complete lack of formal philosophical training. I am sure there are technical terms to be using here. I may be using the right ones in the wrong ways. Please bear with me.
Posted by Shawn on 4/15/2006 02:42:00 AM 0 comments
It's Hot!
So upon first walking outside today (around 2pm) my first thought was, Wow, the mountains are beautiful today.Then I got in my car. I thought to myself, it's really hot; it feels life summer, how disgusting! I drove through my neighborhood and noticed a guy mowing the lawn. It reminded me that I had smelled the orange blossoms in the air last night when I got home. Then it struck me: allergy season! By the time I got I pulled into Office Depot I had noticed everyone in Redlands apparently got the memo (looked outside before choosing their clothes) and was wearing shorts and summer clothes. I wanted to go home and change into MY shorts. Pulling onto the freeway on my way to work I notice the smog rolling in and realized the beauty of the mountains would be veiled soon.
Posted by Shawn on 4/13/2006 04:10:00 PM 0 comments
"Hymn of the Triune God"
The following is a work in progress. There's at least one more verse I'd like to write. The melody to these lyrics are so far in a progressive pop vein. I wrote this after a lecture on the nature of the Trinity. It's my best attempt at understanding and explaining the Trinity so far. Enjoy!
Savior Lord, forgive my sin.
Spirit, make me new within.
Father God, create in me new life.
Jesus Christ, you are the way.
Holy Spirit, give me strength.
Father God create in me new life
Father, You are changing me
By Your Spirit making me like Christ
I surrender all of me
That I may know the fullness of Your life
Jesus Christ, Your blood was spilled.
By Your Spirit I am healed.
Father, give my mortal body life.
Christ, You rose up from the grave.
Your Spirit seals me for the Day.
Father, You will bring all things to Light
Father, You are changing me
By Your Spirit making me like Christ
I surrender all of me
That I may know the fullness of Your life
Posted by Shawn on 3/30/2006 04:25:00 PM 0 comments
"Love One Another"
Look all around you
See the family that you have
Love one another
Love one another
Though I am with you
Until the very end
Sisters and brothers
Love one another
By our love we show that You are God
In your love we are strong
And the world will know that God is love
When they see all of us
Love one another
Look all around
See the burdens that you bear
Love one another
Love one another
Count every blessing
As a gift that you can share
Love one another
Sisters and brothers
Posted by Shawn on 3/12/2006 03:58:00 PM 0 comments
"Messiah"
If I would come after You
I must do what You would do
Deny the pleasures of this age
And live a life that brings You praise
I must live a life that brings You praise
Messiah, Son of Man
You suffered, died, and rose again
You came to redeem from sin
In the clouds You will come again
In the clouds You will come again
If I would come after You
I must do what You would do
Count myself dead to old ways
And live my life to bring You praise
I will give my life to bring You praise
Messiah, Son of Man
You suffered, died, and rose again
You came to redeem from sin
In the clouds You will come again
In the clouds You will come again
All authority and glory and power are Yours
Every knee will bow before You now the Sovereign Lord
And You kingdom will not end
You are the Son of Man
Messiah, Son of Man
You suffered, died, and rose again
You came to redeem from sin
In our hearts come and reign again
In our hearts come and reign again
Posted by Shawn on 3/12/2006 02:52:00 PM 0 comments
The Evolution of Science
I agree with R. Sean Baldwin calling Evolution a theory in that it has broad explanatory power. Evolution gives scientists a framework by which to understand life, though it is far from being “conclusively proven” as such. We see genetic mutations within species all the time. And the process of natural selection is in full swing as more species become extinct. However, I am not yet convinced that there is anything more than mere speculative evidence concerning intermediate species.
The idea that the earth was the center of the universe was also a widely accepted theory with broad explanatory power that was found to be false based on theretofore unknown scientific evidence.
Intelligent Design (ID) is a body of heretofore unknown scientific evidence. Its facts are not derived from any religion or religious texts. First, ID begins with observing that microscopic organisms are so complex they could not function if just one part was missing. They could not have evolved incrementally over time since they must have all their parts to survive. Therefore, the arrival of that species by evolutionary means is in question. Second, the parts of an organism are assembled according to a blueprint, DNA, which contains specific and complex information, much like this sentence is an arrangement of letters and words that convey a thought. No one reading this letter would attribute it to random chance, but to a writer. Third, it is a function of everyday, legitimate science to determine whether a cause was natural or purposeful. For example, crime scene investigators use forensic science to determine whether a person was murdered and, if so, by whom.
As fair-minded people we cannot discount this recent evidence, nor confuse the facts with their metaphysical implications. At least, ID calls evolution into question. At most, it allows for the possibility of a designer. It does not nominate a designer precisely because it is science and such knowledge is beyond its scope.
Posted by Shawn on 3/03/2006 01:47:00 PM 2 comments
Just As I Am
It is so time for me to be writing again. But this is my first new and original entry of the year. And, what’s more, it’s my first entry as a thirty-year-old man. What does one say after thirty years of living?
First, write. Just write. Live. I have been wanting my first blog entry of my thirties to be one of weight and worth. But it is much better to attempt expression and insight and create the possibility of sparking thought in others than to say nothing and risk a vain existence. Too often we are paralyzed by the pressure for greatness or the fear of failure. But even the great pyramids were build one brick at a time. Greatness is not the work of an instant. And failure has no more power than what we give it. It means nothing until it means everything.
Second, I live with my family. Some believe a man in his thirties should be independent. I believe that is a modern American farce. I believe no one should be independent. There is value in being on your own and becoming your own person. However, individuality at the expense of family is a mark of immaturity. Isolation—social, moral, emotional, spiritual, physical—shows lack of understanding. We must not live shallow lives of self-interest. No matter what we believe our true personal successes cannot be measured by the events of our own lives but only by the character of our children and the next generation. This treasure of legacy has two sides. One side reveals that the character of our lives is what makes our parents’ lives—every effort and sacrifice—worthwhile. If we become foolish they become failures. The lives we live now we live in honor of the lives that have gone before us. The other side reveals that our success and character depends on the success and character of our children. We have done nothing in this world if not for posterity. We are interconnected with our human and our spiritual lineage. Our heritage is the foundation of our future.
Third, I can’t throw stones. I am currently wearing a shirt that depicts Grumpy from Disney’s Snow White and says “I’m right. You’re wrong. Any questions?” On one hand, this characterization fits me well. The truth is that if you get beyond the surface you will find a gentler genius. I know enough to know that there’s so much more to know. And what I do know so far I have scarcely mastered. I’ve made mistakes. I’ve repeated them, at times willfully, even defiantly. I know the iniquities of my heart, my history, and my propensity for sin. I know God’s long-suffering that has allowed my repentance, his love that constrains me to reconciliation and his grace that restores. Without his mercy I could but weep and wait for judgment. Yet, here I am being used by this wonderful, merciful Savior to call other sinners into saintly fellowship with Him too. So unworthy of this Wonderful Master am I. Faced with my own sin I find no more fitting refrain than…
Just as I am, without one plea,
But that thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidd'st me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come!
Posted by Shawn on 2/12/2006 12:46:00 AM 0 comments
We Still Have Faith
“We’re just flawed, broken, struggling people, you know. And we still have faith. And Jesus is still who He is. And He did what He did and He does what He does.” – Steve Hindalong
Posted by Shawn on 1/08/2006 02:23:00 PM 0 comments
Sidetracked, Backtracked or Off Track?
"If you have failed on the journey. Ask God to give you wisdom. He won’t hold your sins against you. But don’t just give Him lip service; don’t just ask because you know that’s the right thing to do. That will do no good. You need to be willing to submit to His wisdom. Until you decide to do things God’s way, every way you go will be uncertain, unstable. Until you have a faithful heart, you’ll never have a faithful character." - James 1:5-8, CJV
Posted by Shawn on 1/08/2006 02:20:00 PM 0 comments