VOTE!

Today is election day. The next four years of Supreme Court of the United States appointments hang in the balance. How the war with Islamofacism is handled will change in one way or another. Taxes, both on income and social security, may change in one way or another. Legislation, by a House and Senate dominated by the Democrat party, on issues like homosexual marriage, abortion, retirement funds, the fairness act, military spending, and a lot more will either be signed or vetoed. Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses. The results of their victories will not be identical. And there are many other offices and initiatives on the ballot all over the country.

Your vote will make a difference. If you have not voted yet, and are eligible to do so, please go out and vote now.

May God grant us a better government and a better future than we deserve. Best wishes.

Happy Reformation Day

Today in 1517 Martin Luther tacked up 95 theses on the door of the Castle Church. Luther's insistence on the primacy of scripture, on justification by faith through grace (not works), on the priesthood of all believers, on the preaching of the Word, and on fidelity to truth is still critical today.

Recent Radio Show on Marriage

At the link, the audio of my recent appearance on the Apologetics.com radio show to talk about In Re Marriage Cases:

http://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=272:a-christian-look-at-the-law-in-relation-to-gay-marriage&catid=43:kkla-995-fm-los-angeles&Itemid=58

(Somehow it does not seem right to call being on radio an "appearance." But then what is it? It cannot be an audience.)

Case Review: California Supreme Court Case In Re Marriage Cases

In 1999, the California Legislature enacted domestic partnership legislation. In 2000 and nearly every year thereafter, the benefits associated with domestic partnership were expanded by the State Legislature. By 2006, the state had given domestic partners nearly all of the benefits of marriage, including married filing status on state income taxes. There were still some differences relating to the parameters of defining domestic partnership, i.e. that it can’t be secret, that the parties must live together, etc.

In the year 2000, a backlash to the growth of gay rights in California occurred with Prop. 22, a proposition that made it a state law that marriage in California should be between one man and one woman. The law, however, did not affect domestic partnerships. In 2004, the Supreme Court of California rejected an attempt by local officials to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. That decision was based largely on the local authorities’ lack of constitutional authority to force such a change on the state. The court, however, did not foreclose the possibility of future litigation. In the case In Re Marriage Cases, the question of the constitutionality of limiting marriage to opposite sex couples came before the California Supreme Court. On May 15 of this year, the California Supreme Court found that it was unconstitutional under the California State Constitution to limit marriage to opposite sex couples. The court concluded that denying same sex couples the label of “marriage” treated them as second-class citizens and violated equal protection under the California State Constitution

The court started off its reasoning by discussing several technical arguments such as the argument that the case was moot, that it was barred by Prop. 22, or that current marriage law already allowed domestic same sex marriage. After rejecting these, the court also went through a long summary of the development of laws related to marriage in California.

The court noted a general right to marry based on case law interpreting the California Constitution and the Federal Constitution. The court quoted Ortiz v L.A. Police Relief Association (2002) 98 Cal. App. 4th 1288 at 1303:

“We have recognized that the concept of personal liberties and fundamental human rights entitled to protection against overbroad intrusion or regulation by government extends to such basic civil liberties and rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution as the right to marry, establish a home, and bring up children.”

The court also referred to the right to marry as discussed in the federal courts in Meyer v Nebraska and Griswold v Connecticut. In this way, it associated a right to marry with fundamental rights and with privacy. But while the court cited federal cases based in natural law and natural right, it sought to avoid the traditionalist moral claims associated with that line of reasoning by focusing on the evolving nature of legal norms. The court noted, “Constitutional concepts are not static…we have never been confined to historic notions of equality.” It noted that in California, the right to marry “is not based on anachronistic notions of morality”…but is “rooted in the necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities in an organized society.” The court, however, did make “moral” judgments of its own, and took a swipe at people who believe that homosexual acts are immoral by implying that the past was essentially wrong when it “once denigrated the general character and morals of gay individuals, and at one time even characterized homosexuality as a mental illness rather than as simply one of the numerous variables of our common and diverse humanity.” The court noted that by contrast, “this state’s current policies and conduct regarding homosexuality recognizes that gay individuals are entitled to the same legal rights and the same respect and dignity afforded all individuals and are protected from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation.”

The court characterized the question before it as not a question of whether or not there is a right for homosexuals to marry each other, but rather whether or not the right to marry could justly be denied to anyone based on sexual orientation. The court was aware of the argument that marriage law in California passes the equal protection test by allowing all persons to marry persons of the opposite sex regardless of sexual orientation. But they dismissed this as essentially requiring people with a homosexual orientation to change their orientation or live unsatisfied lives:

“In light of the fundamental nature of the substantive rights embodied in the right to marry—and their central importance to an individual’s opportunity to live a happy, meaningful, and satisfying life as a full member of society—the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all individuals and couples, without regard to their sexual orientation.”

The court finds that marriage is actually a cluster of rights that includes “the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized family.” The court tries to bolster its expansion of the notion of who’s entitled to marry by referring to other civil rights cases such as those involving miscegenation and the case involving reproductive freedom for a disabled woman. The court tries to say that rights should be interpreted broadly and has given a sweeping definition and scope, rather than limiting it through a narrow definition. The court attempts to distinguish the cases cited by the California Court of Appeal in which the Supreme Court had used a narrow definition of rights in order to avoid their expansion, such as its narrowing of the definition of autonomy in order to avoid a right for assisted suicide.

The court proceeds to an equal protection analysis in which it finds that sexual orientation is a suspect class. The court claims that sexual orientation is the equivalent of an immutable trait because “whether or not sexual orientation is based on biological factors, which may be a matter of some controversy, it is a deeply personal characteristic that is either unchangeable or changeable only at unacceptable personal costs.” The court concludes with little or no discussion of data that it is prima facia the case that homosexual people make a contribution to society and that that categorization does not in any way eliminate that contribution or mitigate it. They also discuss the history of stigma associated with homosexuality. Given those three criteria, they find that sexual orientation is, in fact, a suspect class and that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard. The court finds no compelling interest for excluding people with a homosexual orientation from marriage to one another. The court claims that there is no harm to children either from gay parents or from the existence of homosexual unions, asserts that there is no harm done to opposite sex couples by expanding the scope of who may marry whom, says that the new definition of marriage will avoid the disparagement of people with a gay sexual orientation, and maintains that the law must not treat these people as second-class citizens. The court has an extensive discussion of the statutes that limit marriage to couples of the opposite sex, and concludes that these statutes are in effect unconstitutional. But the court recognizes that it should not destroy marriage itself, and so essentially allows that marriage will have to be understood to include same sex couples.

The practical impact of this case is, of course, that same sex couples can now officially marry in California. Now all of the rights pertaining to marriage will apply to them, including, for example, California Family Code sections 7540 and 297.5 that provide that a child born to one member of a couple is presumed to be the child of the other member of the couple as well. This, and the law related to annulment, will fit uncomfortably with same sex couples, but the California Supreme Court has not felt challenged by these anomalies.

The court has also already applied the Unruh Civil Rights Act to require that businesses not discriminate against people based on sexual orientation. This will undoubtedly also be expanded to include non-discrimination on the basis of same sex marriage. The court tried very hard to claim that its ruling would not interfere with religious freedom. The Court cited a provision of the California Constitution that says, “Free exercise and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed. This liberty of conscience does not excuse acts that are licentious or inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.” The court said:

“Affording same sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same sex couples, and no religious officient will be required to solemnize a marriage in contradiction of his or her beliefs.”

Of course, this statement is dicta. It remains to be seen whether or not future courts will accord churches the religious freedom, or whether they will conclude that the exercise of that religious freedom in deciding against the morality of same sex unions is “inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.”

The same dilemma will face policy makers with respect to private schools. It remains to be seen if private schools will be allowed to maintain statements of faith or other documents that have either the intent or effect of discriminating against homosexual couples or individuals. The effect on public schools, however, is quite certain. Public schools will almost certainly be required to teach that same sex marriage is entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded the unions traditionally designated as marriages. In effect, it is now public policy in California that homosexual sex is just as normative and normal as any other kind. It will need to be discussed in a positive light in sex education classes. It will need to be depicted in a positive light in books K through college graduation. Students who are critical of same sex relations will need to be disciplined just as if they expressed racial animus or other irrational or bigoted ideas. It remains to be seen how the parents in the state will accept this. But it would appear that so far the court has made this shift in conjunction with the legislature without any real opposition except for Proposition 22 and Proposition 8.

Yet to come from the effects of this ruling are a variety of other demands, issues, and conundrums. It is likely that this issue will be used as a wedge to get rid of civil marriage as we know it and only have contractual relationships and a separate non-legal, non-state recognized religious marriage. That would be a precursor to encouraging an uncommitted “free love” society with no civil benefits for marriage and no special rights for parents of families or special family control over children. Such a situation would encourage lack of marital commitment on the part of nearly everyone except sincere religious believers or people who recognize their self interest in having some sort of a marital union. It would also facilitate the shift of parental responsibility from families to the state.

Calls to get rid of exemption for faith-based organizations and churches in hiring may only be the beginning of the difficulties that faith-based organizations face. Will the California Legislature ultimately claim that the Bible is hate speech because of its opposition to homosexual sex or same sex unions?

Demands for the right to clone human beings and utilize other genetic manipulations are likely to increase with the desire of same sex couples to have children with the genes of one or both “parents.” Polygamy and polyamory are also on the horizon. While the court in a footnote denied that polygamy was consistent with “mutual supportive and healthy family relationships,” that can easily be contested through pseudo-scientific studies like those supportive of same sex parenting, and can easily be subjected to the same gradual change through social pressure and avant garde legislation. There is no principled way under the court’s reasoning in In re Marriage cases to prevent polygamy or polyamory. Practitioners of polygamy and polyamory can likewise claim that their propensity to this is in some way immutable and linked to their fundamental personality. They can also claim that there is nothing wrong with their sort of unions and that they will benefit society. Certainly they can claim that they, too, have been subjected to social opposition and stigma. In other words, they can easily obtain the same strict scrutiny that the court used In re Marriage Cases and, given a few years of social pressure and Hollywood TV and movie-making to approve them, they can easily obtain the same imprimatur of a court eager to please a left-leaning contingent in society.

Of course the results from this court decision are going to be devastating. There will be widespread adjustment problems for the children of same sex marriages. Think what will happen when they are confronted with moral and biblical truth as they grow up. In the 1970s and 80s, there were literally hundreds of books written by people who identified the cause of their dysfunctional families as the stoicism of their fathers and grandfathers. Just wait until we have to deal with the hundreds of male children raised by two women who hate men and the female children raised by two men who hate women. In addition, it is likely that the levels of child abuse and subsequent acting out are likely to increase as we see more non-genetic parents who recognize no inherent moral limits on what they consider legitimate activity. While not all homosexuals are pedophiles, and not all pedophiles are homosexuals, there is a high correlation rate between pedophilia and male homosexuality. As a result, we are likely to see increases in child abuse for that reason alone. In addition, other moral ideas will erode because there is less fear of God and man in a society that is willing to sanction same sex unions. Instead, we have only desire and an arrogant demand for human autonomy. Most people fear God or man enough to be “civilly righteous.” In other words, they don’t openly kill people, or openly steal things, or do other obvious and open crimes. One aspect of civic righteousness was that people avoided public sexual immorality. Now the Supreme Court of California says the public must endorse certain kinds of sexual immorality. We now “not only do such things, but approve of those who do them.” Romans chapter one clearly speaks of the acceleration of moral decay based upon such gradual rejection of God and His order.

Of course one other problem that is likely to accelerate is that we will face unprecedented legal shell games with the most fundamental and sweeping aspects of our culture even at the hands of supposedly conservative justices like Justice Ronald George. This is due in no small part to the way lawyers and judges are trained in secular law schools. Unless the fundamental nature of legal education is altered so that lawyers and future judges and future legislators are once again taught and made to understand the implied limits of law, the nature of the rule of law, and the relationship between law and objective morality, we will see more and more of the same, even if there is a temporary reprieve through the passage of Proposition 8 or other constitutional legislation.

There are several lessons we can learn from all of this. Allowing social evil in the present leads to more social evil later. Slavery and racial discrimination in the United States were very wrong. They were heretical and should never have been allowed by Christian people in a society dominated by Christians. Allowing them for so long and dragging feet in correcting them created the judicial power and template for the In Re Marriage Cases decision. If we had not allowed slavery and discrimination, this never would have happened because the courts would have been limited to dealing with individual disputes instead of becoming broad social policymakers in these areas. In other words, the court accrued power dealing with a legitimate moral evil, but now has used that power in order to create a moral evil. Had the first moral evil not been tolerated politically, it never would have been necessary for the court to accrue that power.

This also goes to show that incrementalism does work if pursued consistently over time. You have to hand it to the homosexual lobby that they have survived tremendous moral and social pressure and worked through an incremental agenda that has achieved incredible results for them in a remarkably short period of time. This also shows that giving some groups a compromise of legal ground does not necessarily end an issue, but gives them a foothold for their next claim. The nature of legal change is also evident here. Changes in the law often seem sudden, but usually the reality is that small incremental changes in the law build up and create a tension that is suddenly resolved in a change that appears rapid—but was really foreshadowed and pre-arranged by all the small changes that went before. So no small change in the law is necessarily really small if it is part of a trend. In re Marriage Cases is also part of a trend in the public square to exclude or reject arguments based on morality or the Bible. Yet the abolitionists and Martin Luther King could cite the Bible and did so successfully. But in our culture and society, speaking straight from the Bible is no longer a socially viable strategy. Increasingly there is even hostile pressure from those who sense a religious belief behind a secular argument. To you, my fellow users of the internet, this should be more than apparent. The attack comments by radical secularists are quite common on religious blogs. This has led many bloggers to go to a moderated format.

What do I actually think about In re Marriage Cases? Well, I think you can tell from what I’ve already said about the implications. I think it is a perfectly dreadful opinion that uses legal sleight of hand and makes an argument that is quite inappropriate. What the court is really doing is changing the understanding of marriage. Marriage has always been understood as a union between a man and one or more women in all societies. There are no sustained and numerous instances of men marrying men or women marrying women. There aren’t even common instances of many men with one woman. Christianity and an enlightened understanding of the interest of women has illuminated what Jesus Himself said that originally God created Adam and Eve—one man and one woman—and the two of them joined together and became one flesh. What God has joined together, human beings really shouldn’t tear apart. Of course the problem with marriage as with all institutions is that human sinfulness creates additional problems that often mean that a marital union cannot survive. Yet it is still the case in nearly all civilizations that marriage is between one man and one woman, or at the very outside, one man and a handful of women. Same sex unions really are an exceptionally radical idea. But then ideas are not inherently bad because they are radical. They are bad if they are immoral. And indeed, same sex marriage is immoral. The Bible teaches in many places, including the first chapter of the book of Romans, that homosexual acts and desires are not in accord with God’s optimal design for the way human beings are meant to live. They are damaging to society as well as to the individuals who engage in them. This is not to say that they are the very worst of all sins. Certainly there are many sins and there are probably sins worse than same sex unions (certainly genocide, for example). But no sin is excused because other people commit other sins.

Here the court has transgressed a major boundary. It has sought to create a civil right to do something that is inherently wrong. As I have said on this blog before, real objective rights that come from God cannot be rights specifically to do something wrong. They may be rights that make it easier for you to get away with doing something wrong, but there cannot be a right to do wrong in itself. Humanly created rights should similarly not transgress this boundary and specifically enable evil. Yet that is exactly what the court has done here. It is requiring a civil imprimatur for evil.

The court essentially did this by saying that there is a right to marriage itself and that that right applies to all people regardless of who they are inclined to marry. Now the court could have stopped there if it was willing to say that the right to marry is the right to do what marriage has always meant, marrying someone of the opposite sex who is above the age of consent, and not a close of a blood relation. Instead, they have decided that marriage includes the ability to marry whoever you want, even if they are of the same sex. This is a fundamental radical change, and yet the court does very little to justify it apart from saying that attitudes against homosexuality are outmoded, outdated, and contradicted by the legislative trend of the state of California. The court also tries to say that marriage law is really in the realm of positive law. But the court uses many citations from Meyer v Nebraska and other cases that are speaking about natural law, natural rights, and the right reason of the common law as sources for fundamental rights. It is those kinds of arguments that made marriage a fundamental right to begin with, not any kind of positive law finding or indication. The court is cheating not merely by saying that they are merely expanding a recognized right to marriage, but in their claim that they have positive law power vis á vis the right to marry.

Based on this, what can we do? We need to react in love and prudence, and NOT in hate and fear. Certainly the most important thing we can do is to pray. We need to pray for more people to come to Christ, and for revival among those who already believe. We need to pray for good sound doctrine to be taught, believed, learned, and lived. We need to pray for wisdom and for better leaders and judges than we deserve. We need to pray for repentance and for at least a temporary reformation of society. Practically, we can support Proposition 8. We can also make sure that our churches have appropriate expressions of policy on same sex marriage that make clear our religious beliefs and why we believe them so that they can be protected as religious beliefs. We also need to get more good people involved in the political process and train more good people as lawyers. We need to stand against societal evil and injustice regardless of what it is so that we can prevent this kind of situation in the future. We need to educate and train our children in the faith and in sound doctrine and reasoning, and we need to support good Christian education, especially legal education.

McCain's Good Choice

I have not always been happy with Senator McCain’s choices, but I am very glad he picked a pro-life running mate in Governor Palin of Alaska. It is sad that Obama picked a solidly pro-abortion rights VP, and is committed to retaining abortion on demand himself.

While there are many other important issues, the recognition that human beings have rights at conception and onward is the great issue of our time. It is an issue that reveals the wisdom, understanding, and philosophy of a candidate or that shows the lack of those things. The way a candidate thinks on the life issue (if their position is thought out and not just assumed for political purposes alone) can reveal a lot about how they will deal with other issues. I am glad that McCain chose a pro-life running mate and glad he stood up for the idea that rights vest at conception during his interview with Rick Warren.

The other most important issues - judicial appointments, the war against islamofacism, wise spending priorities in a time of unmeetable public expectations, allowing people to keep more of their own money, vouchers for education, tax reform, and energy development - are all issues where McCain/Palin are way ahead of Obama. And Palin has a history of reform and anti-corruption that gives her real credibility as an agent of change. While not perfect, McCain and Palin have exhibited character in the adventures of their lives. Obama claims character in his rhetoric, but I have yet to see it in his practice.

I appreciated Obama’s admission, in his acceptance speech, of the importance of family - and of fathers in particular. But much of his speech seemed to claim he could do things that no President or government can guarantee to do. Obama also does not seem to appreciate the need for government to sometimes get out of the way and let charities, non-profits, individuals, and even business get things done. His speech impressed me as having goals that can only be attempted through additional government spending, power, and coercion on a massive scale. Am I being a pessimist? I can be convinced if I hear actual practical steeps to do things another way – but I did not hear that – I just heard a lot of general promises and bootstrapping from Obama and his people.

Perhaps there is still a chance in this election that God will give us far better leaders than we deserve.

Rick Warren Asks Obama About When Human Rights Vest

From what I have watched so far Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church, did a great job interviewing Barrack Obama. The questions were excellent. Obama’s answers are stereotypically political. I am afraid the post –political man is having difficulty living up to his rhetoric.

The transcript I have seen on the internet included the following:

WARREN: “. . . at what point does a baby get human rights, in your view?”
OBAMA: “Well, you know, I think that whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.
. . .
If you believe that life begins at conception, then — and you are consistent in that belief, then I can’t argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.”


First, the question as asked was not purely a religious or scientific question. When rights vest in a human being is a legal question. Obama is supposed to be a high powered constitutional law attorney. He wants to be the head of the executive branch, including the Department of Justice. Even if he lacks certainty, in both roles he must have at least a working assumption with which to answer that question. And it is critical in evaluating his candidacy to know what his working assumption is and why.

The quote from further down in the transcript implies Obama does not believe “life” begins at conception. And, he thinks belief on that is answering a question of “faith.” This is a bit ironic. The question Warren asked was a legal question. Now, when faced with a question science has answered, Obama takes refuge in a “faith” that chooses to disbelieve the obvious. In conception a living sperm and a living egg join to form a living human being. It is true the being needs a special environment to survive – all human beings do at all stages of life. But it is scientifically clear the newly conceived being is of the human species at an early stage of development, and is clearly alive. Believing dead or inanimate objects become living human beings really would be unscientific and really would require a sort of blind “faith” like that behind the old belief in the spontaneous generation of vermin from food. Obama must not have really taken the time to think this through – or he is so committed to a political position that uncomfortable realities are to be ignored rather than dealt with in the area of abortion. There are people who recognize that abortion is taking a human life but still want women to have a license to kill their babies because of the pain, social problems, economic problems, and career problems that can come from an unwanted pregnancy. Or they believe the license to kill is necessitated by society's current inability to accept limits on abortion. While such suffering is real, and while the politics of abortion are an obstacle to reform, neither is a proper justification for the intentional taking of a human life with malice aforethought. But it would be easier for me to respect Obama’s view if he was one of the license advocates instead of one of the “know nothings.”

By the way, real faith does not believe the impossible; it believes what God has revealed to be true in general and special revelation. Real faith requires God’s help. So I sympathize with those who do not have it and pray that God will give them eyes to see and believe the truth. I pray for Obama, that God will give him the ability to see and believe the truth about abortion.

An Apology

Sorry I have not been blogging much. Academic assessment work and a vacation have kept me very busy since early June. New posts will appear soon. Best wishes to you all for a great summer!

Does God Call Christians to be Lawyers?

My latest Trinity Open House Speech "Does God Call Christians to be Lawyers" is available on Godtube at the following links:

Part 1
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=172c2f0cb4503f18af6a&page=1&viewtype=&category=mvd

Part 2
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=7f43961891c290006177

The Hitchens/Prager/D'Souza Debate Part III

This is a part of an ongoing series based on a debate between Christopher Hitchens, Dennis Prager and Dinesh D’Souza.

Question 3: Does the bitter suffering of mankind support the notion that Judaism is true, that is Christianity true, or that the new atheism is true? Christopher Hitchens clearly believes that no god worthy of being called a god would allow the suffering that we experience in the world. Prager maintains that part of the Hebraic answer to this question is that we cannot fully understand suffering in the world, but that God does. (Certainly you see this in the book of Job.) Dinesh D’Souza more or less agrees with Prager’s position.

What I would add to the problem of suffering is that Christianity deals with suffering not only by saying God has a deeper understanding of life and a deeper set of purposes than we have, and not only is suffering in some way necessitated by human free will and by the drama God is playing out in the universe, but that the Christian answer to the problem of suffering relates to Jesus’ incarnation itself.

God’s answer to suffering is not only His superior knowledge, power, position, and right, but that He Himself has suffered. In the incarnation, God became man. He came and lived among us. He put aside the power, prestige, perks and pleasure of His deity and experienced the pain, suffering, indignity, distress, weariness, anxiety, and even death that we experience. And for God, this would have been a far greater contrast to His prior experience than any change from pleasure to pain is for us. God would have been perfectly happy and had a perfect existence both within and beyond time. By becoming incarnate within time, His change from omniscience to human senescence would have been worse than a human being becoming deaf, blind, and dumb. His change from being able to do and accomplish anything within His own nature and will to the frailty and impotence of human life would have been a far greater change than any paralyzing or crippling disease that grips and terrorizes the poor human frame. God’s descent from absolute omniscience to the limited knowledge, perspective and ability of human beings was in proportion greater than any human descent into dementia or Alzheimer’s. From the infinite to the extremely finite He descended. And beyond that, He lived a life far poorer and more difficult than most western human beings are familiar with, and died a death more painful and ignoble than that suffered by most human beings. On top of all this, He went from being sinless and honorable to bearing the crushing weight of the sins of the entire world. The emotional pain would have been greater than the physical pain. We tend to take all of this for granted, and yet I believe it was so. C.S. Lewis’ stepson, Douglas Gresham, recently remarked in a radio interview that Christ’s resurrection may have actually been a more painful experience than His death because of the re-entry into a pain-filled world from the perfect paradise of heaven.

The Christian’s response to suffering is that God knows suffering; He has suffered as we suffer, suffered with us as we suffer, and suffered for us as we suffer. Stephen Lawhead has repeatedly pointed out in his adventure novels, especially the novel Byzantium, how different this makes Christianity from other religions. The idea of a deity that suffers with and for human beings is so different from the disinterested and triumphalist deities of paganism.

As Dinesh D’Souza alluded in the debate, we have to take into account the new heaven and the new earth that is yet to come. Christianity does not teach, as Christopher Hitchens believes, that the universe has been filled with millions of years of incredible suffering and will face millions of years yet to come of incredible suffering. Instead, the time from creation to God’s re-creation of a new heaven and a new earth will, from the perspective of eternity, seem like a brief period of time. In eternity, God will right every wrong, dry every tear, reward every truly good deed, and deal justly with every wrong. Thankfully, He has already dealt with our wrongs through Christ if we will but accept His mercy and grace.

California Proposition 98 or 99?

Tomorrow is the election in California. Some people are very confused about propositions 98 and 99. 98 is a response to the Kelo court decision which upheld the growing practice of governments seizing land from private parties and handing it over to other private parties for uses preferred by the government. 98 will make it more difficult for the government to seize land for good and legitimate purposes too, but it will still be possible. 98 also gradually ends rent control. Rent control seems nice for people who have a rent controlled apartment, but it creates housing shortages and encourages landlords to do as little as is required to improve and keep up their properties.

99 is a response to 98. If it passes by more votes it blocks 98. 99 protects rent control and allows broader latitude for the government to continue to take land than 98 allows.

If you want to read more here are some links:

Full Text 98:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/state/prop/98/#text League of Women Voters guide. Their analysis & the full text of the proposition

Full Text 99:
http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/06/03/ca/state/prop/99/#text League of Women Voters guide. Their analysis & the full text of the proposition.

Difference between Props. 98, 99. Orange County Register
http://yesprop98.com/modules/article/list/release.php?_adctlid=v%7Cwynx8c5jjesxsb%7Cx5kuhdmp3iomiw&pi=wynxp4qld3kyxw&id=x44exoni0lc8z1&done=index.php%3Fpi%3Dwynxp4qld3kyxw

PLF on 99
http://eminentdomain.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/05/what-would-prop.html

Yes on 98, No on 99 http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DebraJSaunders/2008/05/21/yes_on_98,_no_on_99?page=full

Radio Review of Prince Caspian Movie

At Apologetics.com (http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp) you can currently find a radio show on which Chris Neiswonger, Lindsay Brooks and I reviewed the movie Prince Caspian. Our radio show on the movie Expelled is also linked at the site this week.

The Hitchens/Prager/D'Souza Debate Part II

This is part of an ongoing series based on a debate between Christopher Hitchens, Dennis Prager, and Dinesh D’Souza.

Question 2: What is the proper response to the ethical claims of the new atheists? In the Hitchens / Prager / D’Souza debate, Christopher Hitchens maintained (as many new atheists do) that religion is questionable because it does not conform to his superior morality. He furthermore indicated that human beings are quite capable of having a uniform, agreed to, moral and ethical system that is “good” and indeed better than that obtainable through religions. Hitchens claims to believe in altruism, mercy, and most of the normal virtues as well as the Golden Rule. Is this really tenable? Certainly people have been working on this project for over two-thousand years. People have wanted to have the benefits of objective morality without the cost of believing in the God behind reason and morality. Usually this is motivated by a desire to omit certain parts of morality—particularly those dealing with sexuality. Sometimes I think it is just due to a response of anger against God for specific or general suffering in the world. There have been a wide variety of feelings, approaches, and hypotheses used to try to fulfill this quest for a morality without a divine author. Atheists have attempted to come up with means of claiming that altruism supports the survival of the fittest. Kant tried to find a way to create an objective moral system that was based purely upon human will. In truly post-modern fashion, the community of new atheists have basically tried to claim through sheer force of hubris and rhetoric that every reasonable person agrees with them about morality. But there are problems with these claims.

To begin with, I would admit the existence of common objective moral principles in all of mankind, in all cultures, and throughout all time. I openly admit that those moral principles have not been kept by any human being, culture, or society. But all human beings, cultures, and societies are aware of the requirements of objective moral principles. Ironically, Christopher Hitchens seemed to indicate that he believed in the existence of such an objective moral standard. The problem for him is that the existence of that moral standard is one of the strongest evidences for the existence of God. And not just any god, but rather the specific God found in classic Christian theology. Atheists attempt to argue that natural conditions of the world result in the evolution of identical moral principles everywhere. This makes little or no sense. In the animal world, we see highly diverse and numerous ways of dealing with environmental needs which have evidently “evolved” or been designed to appear in different species in different places. All creatures have the need for obtaining the raw material necessary for life and for digesting it in some way for growth and for reproduction. Yet these simple needs are dealt with through a myriad of strategies. Even in creatures of the same species, various strategies may occur in populations in different areas. The same species of bird in different regions may use different mating calls. Apes in different areas may have different techniques for satisfying their need for nourishment. One group uses primitive tools to eat termites whereas another neglects that but has special techniques for obtaining fruit in higher trees. Likewise, there is no reason to suppose that if human beings genuinely developed through evolution in separate communities, each of these communities would come up with identical and objective moral principles. Yet this is what we find. While application of moral principles may vary in certain ways, the basic moral principles themselves remain the same. And it is difficult to associate those moral principles with mere survival of the race or the best genetic material. Extreme altruism usually results in the destruction of the unit bearing the genetic material that might in some way be associated with the altruism. Yet we all find that altruism is indeed good and desirable. It simply is less likely to result in survival than a certain degree of ruthlessness. The reason altruism has prospered and survived is because there is an altruistic God behind the universe, not because survival in a hostile environment is made more likely through altruistic behavior. Survival of the group perhaps, but not survival of the most altruistic individuals. Scientists are trying to come up with theories that explain how altruism could have developed through evolution, but I have not found any of them particularly satisfying. Instead, it appears to me that the universal existence of an objective admiration for altruism is, in fact, evidence of an altruistic God behind the universe itself. I wouldn’t claim that this is a completely conclusive “proof.” But I would claim that it is evidence. Indeed, in a side note, it is interesting that atheism really is not an adequate explanation for the twists and turns of history. Based on evolutionary ideas, we would expect the “fittest” groups to be those that survive and are dominant. Yet this is not the case. It has quite often been the case that underdogs have survived, flourished, and been victorious due to apparently unexpected and unanticipated twists and turns of history. Certainly you can try to find an explanation for all of them, but it’s really quite amazing how often it happens. In spite of repeated and bitter attempts to destroy them, the survival of the Jewish people and of Protestant Christians is really quite remarkable. By contrast, the great towering empires of atheism such as China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba have not flourished, prospered, or succeeded in their goals. The new Soviet man has not evolved from the socialist economic environment.

Next, another issue within this question, if altruistic transcultural objective morality is not achievable through evolution, is it achievable through philosophy? I would not even hazard to try to attempt a full argument on this subject on a blog. It’s simply too large and I’m probably not well trained enough in all of the aspects of philosophy to answer the most sophisticated philosophical arguments. But if Nietzsche and post-modern philosophers have achieved anything, it is an excellent refutation of the attempt by modernism and materialism to have an objective rational morality without God. I think they make it clear that the real choice is between classic
Christianity and nihilism. Of course within nihilism there are both the “hostile ubermensch branch” and the “community-based wishful thinking branch.” But neither of them meets the need for objective transcultural moral principles.

Questions Raised in the Hitchens/Prager/d'Souza Debate on God

On May 1, I had the pleasure of attending a debate in Orange County, California, sponsored by Redeemer Presbyterian Church, Temple Bat Yahm, and Fieldstead & Co. The debate considered whether the truth was in the Christian God, the Jewish God, or in no god at all. As with most debates, there was perhaps more heat than light generated in some instances. But this was a very good debate by debate standards. While I don’t agree with Hitchens, I must admit he is a masterful debater both in terms of his fair and unfair tactics. Dennis Prager has great presence, popular appeal, and is an insightful thinker, and Dinesh D’Souza is both polite and bright. Hearing the discussion in the debate made me want to discuss a few of the issues raised.

Question 1: Is the New Testament more deferential to Christians than the Old Testament is to the Jews? Dennis Prager made the claim that the Old Testament is constantly complaining about how bad the Jews are, but that the New Testament makes Christians look fantastic.

I think that Dennis must have missed much of what is actually in the New Testament text. It is true that the Old Testament is hard on the Jewish people. They are always rebelling against God. But then this is because human beings tend to rebel against God. As it says in the New Testament, “Now all these things happened unto them for examples: and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.” I Cor. 10:11. We see the Old Testament Jews in their sinfulness and rebellion because we are all sinful, rebellious and stiff-necked people who would just as soon reject God if He did not call us to Himself. The New Testament clearly recognizes that Christians are no better than their Jewish forbears at being the people of God.

Throughout the Gospels, the disciples are always making foolish mistakes, misunderstanding Jesus and failing to get the point of whatever He is telling them in fairly clear terms. In the books of Acts and Galatians, we see Peter move away from the revelation God has just given him about His relationship with the Gentile Christians because He is cowed by those who demand obedience to the Jewish law. Paul has to rebuke him and there is a big argument.

Paul himself is “no saint” in that he has an argument with one of his co-workers so severe, they split up and start working separately. Perhaps under God’s guidance, or perhaps just because he was difficult, Paul also rejects a variety of prophecies warning him of the dangers of returning to Jerusalem.

Nearly all the epistles of the New Testament are written to churches or individuals who are having trouble obeying God and have allowed one type of heresy or misconduct or another to creep into their lives. In the book of Revelation, Jesus speaks to the seven churches of Asia Minor. He has severe criticism for five of them, and none is described as holy, strong, hearty and pleasing to God in every respect.

So I don’t think it can really be said that the New Testament is any easier on the people of God than the Old Testament. It, too, depicts us as sinful human beings, entirely dependent upon God’s grace, forgiveness, mercy and sanctifying power. One of the major differences is that the emphasis in the New Testament makes it even clearer than the Old Testament that God is concerned not only about outward conduct, but about the deepest thoughts of mind and heart.

Bobby Jindal for VP?

Michael Medved and Bill Kristol have suggested that John McCain should consider the 36-year-old former two term congressman and current governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal for the Vice Presidential candidate slot.

This is a great idea. Jindal has a conservative pro-life record and more real experience than either Democrat in the Presidential race.