BBC NEWS Health Embryo test 'offers parents hope'
Today in BBC World Service News, there is an article on an embryo test that “offers parents hope.” The embryo test deals only with embryos existing in the lab prior to implantation in the woman. The new test is called Pre-Implantation Genetic Haplotyping, or PGH for short. Scientists take an embryo that has been created outside a woman through in vitro fertilization and remove a cell from the embryo. They treat the cell in order to cause multiplication and then compare the DNA in the cultured cells to DNA of the parents and siblings of the embryo. According to the article, they “look for markers that show an embryo carries two copies of these faulty units, or haplotypes.” They believe that the new test will allow screening for more diseases than old pre-implantation embryo inspection tests. If an embryo is found wanting, parents will have the choice of killing the embryo before it is implanted.
In vitro fertilization is already morally problematic for several reasons. Embryos are people. Contrary to the attempts of people to re-explain nature, there is no point at which a human being is not alive until it is dead. There is no such thing as “potential life.” Living sperm and living egg join to create a living embryo. That living embryo is a tiny human being that continues to grow and develop until it is killed. In vitro fertilization is problematic because it frequently involves the creation of multiple embryos that are either accidentally damaged or destroyed or that end up being left over after embryos are implanted in the woman to develop. These left over embryos are usually frozen and die essentially of gradual deterioration. Hence, in vitro fertilization is problematic because it leads to the intentional or accidental death of tiny human beings. Intentionally killing additional embryos after inspecting them for diseases adds an entirely new level of ethical dilemma to the process.
Certainly there are many very unpleasant genetic diseases known to humankind. But we don’t normally kill people because they have them. Killing them while they’re very small is undoubtedly easier because we do not see the human being involved. This has certainly been found to be true in military situations. It is much easier to kill someone with a handgun than with a knife. It is easier still to kill someone from a distance with a rifle. And it is far easier to kill someone you cannot see by dropping a bomb on them than it is to shoot someone who you can see through a rifle scope. The more removed we are from experiencing the person, the easier it is to dehumanize them, and the easier it is to snuff out their life without an extra thought. Because embryos are so tiny, it is easy to kill them without thinking about it. In fact, sadly, it is easy to kill them by accident. Embryos, both well and defective, do sometimes die natural deaths. But it doesn’t make things better to undertake processes that are likely to lead to additional accidental or intentional deaths. Still this is bitter medicine for parents who are having difficulty having children. If parents really understood that they were going to be killing several people in order to have a child, it is unlikely that they would take that risk or incur that certainty.
Technology is a wonderful thing. If we had to return to the technologies of 200 or 1,000 years ago, it is undoubtedly true that millions of people in the world would perish from starvation and illness. Technology makes it possible for many more people to live upon the earth and to live healthier, longer lives. It also makes our lives far more comfortable. I do not believe that any of those things are inherently immoral or problematic. What is immoral or problematic is when we decide that because we can do something with technology, we should. Anytime we adapt a technology for use without moral consideration, we are beginning to skate on thin ice. Unless we apply morality and the rule of law to our uses of technology, it is the technology which is using us, not we who are using the technology. Technology must always be evaluated and restrained by the rule of law, morality, and God’s design for humans beings and the universe.
Monday, June 19, 2006
This Wasn't In the Plan
This Wasn't In the Plan
This link has an article with comparative American death statistics from every major war of the united states. It has some interesting and some surprising information.
This link has an article with comparative American death statistics from every major war of the united states. It has some interesting and some surprising information.
Friday, June 16, 2006
Book Review: Islam at the Crossroads
Islam at the Crossroads; Understanding it’s Beliefs, History, and Conflicts by Peter Marshall, Roberta Green and Lela Gilbert is an excellent book. It provides an introduction to the history of Islam and the way in which the history of Islam has contributed to the current crisis within Islam and between Islam and the West. The book is very manageable reading at only 113 pages. It is well-written and has an easy to read style. At the same time, the book takes a scholarly, accurate and dispassionate approach. It is not a work of propaganda or extremist views. Instead, it fairly presents the historical situation with Islam, including the interesting realities of more moderate Islam and the rapidly expanding danger of Islamic extremism.
Marshall et al explains the basic beliefs of Muslims, the history of Islam, and the various major divisions within Islam. They also dispel many of the myths concerning Islam. It is interesting to note, as the book reveals, that the vast majority of Muslims are not Arabs and do not live in the Middle East. The vast majority of Arabs are not Muslims, but rather Christians who live in the western world. And, while radical Islam is an extreme danger because of the spread of radicalism through Islamic media, Wahhabist-sponsored madrassas and social pressure from radicals, the numerical majority of Muslims are far more easy-going about their faith.
Islam at the Crossroads explains the motivations behind the current Islamist movement. Islam believed that they would have the blessing of Allah in conquering the world and forcing the world to either submit to Islam. For hundreds of years, Islam was largely successful. But on September 12, 1683, the Ottoman Turks were defeated in their last siege of Vienna. The history of Islam from that point was largely one of continued defeat. The western powers used their superior technology to slowly spread not only their economic influence, but their political hegemony. Nearly the entire Arab world came under the domination of European powers. While from a western perspective, the reach of colonialism has been destroyed, radical Muslims still see the hidden hand of the West in many of their countries. They believe conspiracy theories that claim the West is behind all of the failures, difficulties and indignities faced by Muslim peoples.
The radicals, per Islam at the Crossroads, are motivated by religion. They believe that the failure of Islam to conquer the world since the defeat of the Ottomans in 1683 has been due to insufficient doctrinal purity and religious practice among Muslims. Hence they seek to “cleanse” and “purify” Islam from practices and beliefs that they view as idolatrous and un-Islamic. They seek to return to a less pietistic view of Islam. The book does not dwell on the quite probable theories proposed by some authors, that the radical Islamists have been affected not only by Islam, but by the teachings of Heidegger, Niche, Marx, Lenin, the Nazis, and the existentialists. While rejecting modernity, the Islamists may, in fact, be very much the products of the combination of modernity. But Marshall and his co-authors do bring this topic up as well as touching on many other important factors surrounding the conflict between radical Islam and the rest of the world. They emphasize that this conflict is not only between Muslims and Christians, but between Muslims and Muslims. For the radical Muslims are unhappy with the more liberal faith of the majority of Muslims throughout the world. It is their goal not only to conquer the West and subject it to Islam, but to conquer their fellow Muslims ideologically and politically in order to force them to abide by their ideas of a “purer” Islam.
The book by Marshall, Green and Gilbert is quite refreshing. It discusses the entire matter in a very appropriate tone, while at the same time not ignoring any of the warts and wrinkles of Muslim history. It is also honest about what the West has done wrong, and about exactly what it is in the West that inflames the radicals in Islam. So often today, modern works about Islam and the radical Islamist movement are really seeking to forward other kinds of agendas (e.g. anti-globalism, socialism, isolationism, etc.).
Marshall and his co-writers also present a balanced view of the possible hope for the future of Muslim populations. Here in the United States, political commentators dealing with the Islamist issue tend to either be overly optimistic and believe that if we can merely introduce Democracy to Muslim countries, their populations will suddenly be like the anti-war protesters of the 1960’s in America and demand the cessation of all “violence and oppression” by their governments, a scenario which is in no way likely. On the other hand, others have suggested that because Islam is incompatible with democracy and republicanism, (ideas originating, in their current form, from the spread of Christianity) democratizing Muslim countries is impossible and they should be left to rule by totalitarian dictators who can hold sway over the masses and keep them out of mischief. This second view is not a very pleasant way to allow our Muslim neighbors to be treated and is unlikely to solve the problem since the existence of dictatorial regimes in the Middle East is usually blamed on the West and is one of the major grievances the Islamists actually have. Marshall and his co-authors recognize that ideas do have consequences and that religious ideas are often the fundamental motivation of peoples—especially Islamic peoples. But they also recognize that even people who believe in a religion like Islam can adopt or prefer governments that are better than the ones they currently have, even if they are not perfect.
Balance is important for dealing with the Islamist problem. Christians are correct in believing that a truly just government is maintained most easily by true believing Christians. This is because ideas really do matter. Christians believe in the fallenness of man and hence if they take their faith seriously, and are not co-opted by the beliefs of the world, they are unlikely to fall for various utopian schemes like Marxism or nationalist socialism that vainly seek to remake human nature. Our ideas about the sinfulness of mankind have led to our emphasis on separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, and a humble view of government’s ability to recognize the truth or solve human problems. By contrast, the religious and historical experience of fundamentalist Islam seems to support absolutist rule by religious extremists. Nevertheless, the history of the world should tell us that even though people may have false religious beliefs, and even though those beliefs can and do undermine successful government, people who are not Christians are still capable of having governments within a whole spectrum of options.
As Russell Kirk has pointed out, the faulty religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks caused the instability and failure of their city states. The Greeks’ democracies did not prevent them from engaging in wars of aggression, defrauding their neighbor city states, and taking politically repressive measures against some of their best citizens. But the Greeks still had what we consider a flourishing culture that was more open to democracy, freedom of conscience, and the spread of truth than say, Saudi Arabia. Today we have imperfect but functional democracies in Japan and India, despite the false nature of the dominant religions in those countries. In addition, both nations have been relatively at peace during recent decades and have been relatively good neighbors for most of the world (the religious persecution of Christians and others in India being an exception). But places like Japan and India show that it is possible for countries to have better governments than the dictatorships of North Korea and, for practical purposes, Iran. What Marshall and his co-authors do not deal with in depth are potential solutions to the Islamist problem. They are certain that we should support moderate Muslims who have a more pietistic version of their religion than a militant version. They also believe that it is appropriate to oppose the Islamists with force. But that is where they stop. Their book is largely descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Ultimately, the only way that the Islamist threat will be permanently stemmed is if there is a complete change in the ideology of peoples in Islamic nations so that they shift permanently away from the views of the Wahhabis and toward something closer to genuine Christianity. Ultimately, people who live in the darkness of the Islamic world need Christ. And to what ever degree they will not fully accept the truth, they will still be better off in this earthly life to whatever degree they are persuaded to accept propositions that are true, even if they are not the key saving propositions concerning salvation in Jesus Christ. As a result, the main need of the Muslims is actually for spiritual and ideological influence. This is very difficult and delicate business since Muslin people are often deeply offended by even remote attempts at proselytization or conversion. But somehow, the gospel needs to penetrate Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations. And with the gospel we mean not only the basic truth of the gospel, but also the entire Christian worldview and the legal and political ramifications of that worldview. Democracy, republicanism, the rule of law, checks and balances, religious freedom and toleration, all need to be explained.
One simple means of doing this is by reaching out to people from predominantly Islamic nations who are already living here in the United States and elsewhere in the West. Many of the radical Islamists have spent time studying in the West, and the result was not good. They became more radicalized by what they saw as the decadence and corruption of the United States and Western Europe. Instead, we need people who are here from Saudi Arabia or Iran or Iraq or central Asia or south central Asia or Southeast Asia or Africa to see the love of Christ modeled and lived out by His people, by His church.
We cannot coerce people to accept the truth. Instead, we can engage them in dialogue and find out what they believe and why, and look for opportunities to share or for them to ask and receive good answers for what we believe and why. We can spread the truth about Christianity, law and politics among our own people (who are currently almost in need of the truth about such things as people from anywhere in the world). And we should be producing an translating into accessible languages like Farsi, Arabic, Turkic, etc. books, films, documentaries, motion pictures and television series that, in reasonable ways, present the truth about Christ, about natural law, about the rule of law, about human nature, about religious freedom and toleration, and about government. Americans have been doing the opposite to themselves for decades—preparing and promulgating television programs, motion pictures and novels that lead them to believe in a false version of human nature and to soften their opposition to sin and sinful lifestyles. These films and television series have often been subtle and clever in the way they have affected the mind of the populous. They have led to widespread toleration of sexual immorality, addictive lifestyles, radical consumerism, and other vices. It is time to turn the tables and to begin to use the tools of culture such as the novel, the motion picture and the screen play to gently move people in the opposite direction back toward Christ, and back toward truth. It needs to be understood that this needs to be done subtly and cleverly, just as our opponents have done. And we need to be careful to avoid being sucked into the worldview of modernity through the use of modern tools.
If we are to survive, we must not only defeat our immediate enemies on the battlefield, but we must persuade our potential enemies of as much basic truth as we can get them to accept. And, of course, in order to accomplish all of this, we must pray. Because ultimately, while God can use us to act, it is His sovereignty and providence will ultimately determine the issue. And on top of work and prayer, we obviously need to repent and turn from our own wicked ways. If Christians were truly living out their Christianity, Islam would appear much less attractive.
I highly recommend Islam at the Crossroads.
Marshall et al explains the basic beliefs of Muslims, the history of Islam, and the various major divisions within Islam. They also dispel many of the myths concerning Islam. It is interesting to note, as the book reveals, that the vast majority of Muslims are not Arabs and do not live in the Middle East. The vast majority of Arabs are not Muslims, but rather Christians who live in the western world. And, while radical Islam is an extreme danger because of the spread of radicalism through Islamic media, Wahhabist-sponsored madrassas and social pressure from radicals, the numerical majority of Muslims are far more easy-going about their faith.
Islam at the Crossroads explains the motivations behind the current Islamist movement. Islam believed that they would have the blessing of Allah in conquering the world and forcing the world to either submit to Islam. For hundreds of years, Islam was largely successful. But on September 12, 1683, the Ottoman Turks were defeated in their last siege of Vienna. The history of Islam from that point was largely one of continued defeat. The western powers used their superior technology to slowly spread not only their economic influence, but their political hegemony. Nearly the entire Arab world came under the domination of European powers. While from a western perspective, the reach of colonialism has been destroyed, radical Muslims still see the hidden hand of the West in many of their countries. They believe conspiracy theories that claim the West is behind all of the failures, difficulties and indignities faced by Muslim peoples.
The radicals, per Islam at the Crossroads, are motivated by religion. They believe that the failure of Islam to conquer the world since the defeat of the Ottomans in 1683 has been due to insufficient doctrinal purity and religious practice among Muslims. Hence they seek to “cleanse” and “purify” Islam from practices and beliefs that they view as idolatrous and un-Islamic. They seek to return to a less pietistic view of Islam. The book does not dwell on the quite probable theories proposed by some authors, that the radical Islamists have been affected not only by Islam, but by the teachings of Heidegger, Niche, Marx, Lenin, the Nazis, and the existentialists. While rejecting modernity, the Islamists may, in fact, be very much the products of the combination of modernity. But Marshall and his co-authors do bring this topic up as well as touching on many other important factors surrounding the conflict between radical Islam and the rest of the world. They emphasize that this conflict is not only between Muslims and Christians, but between Muslims and Muslims. For the radical Muslims are unhappy with the more liberal faith of the majority of Muslims throughout the world. It is their goal not only to conquer the West and subject it to Islam, but to conquer their fellow Muslims ideologically and politically in order to force them to abide by their ideas of a “purer” Islam.
The book by Marshall, Green and Gilbert is quite refreshing. It discusses the entire matter in a very appropriate tone, while at the same time not ignoring any of the warts and wrinkles of Muslim history. It is also honest about what the West has done wrong, and about exactly what it is in the West that inflames the radicals in Islam. So often today, modern works about Islam and the radical Islamist movement are really seeking to forward other kinds of agendas (e.g. anti-globalism, socialism, isolationism, etc.).
Marshall and his co-writers also present a balanced view of the possible hope for the future of Muslim populations. Here in the United States, political commentators dealing with the Islamist issue tend to either be overly optimistic and believe that if we can merely introduce Democracy to Muslim countries, their populations will suddenly be like the anti-war protesters of the 1960’s in America and demand the cessation of all “violence and oppression” by their governments, a scenario which is in no way likely. On the other hand, others have suggested that because Islam is incompatible with democracy and republicanism, (ideas originating, in their current form, from the spread of Christianity) democratizing Muslim countries is impossible and they should be left to rule by totalitarian dictators who can hold sway over the masses and keep them out of mischief. This second view is not a very pleasant way to allow our Muslim neighbors to be treated and is unlikely to solve the problem since the existence of dictatorial regimes in the Middle East is usually blamed on the West and is one of the major grievances the Islamists actually have. Marshall and his co-authors recognize that ideas do have consequences and that religious ideas are often the fundamental motivation of peoples—especially Islamic peoples. But they also recognize that even people who believe in a religion like Islam can adopt or prefer governments that are better than the ones they currently have, even if they are not perfect.
Balance is important for dealing with the Islamist problem. Christians are correct in believing that a truly just government is maintained most easily by true believing Christians. This is because ideas really do matter. Christians believe in the fallenness of man and hence if they take their faith seriously, and are not co-opted by the beliefs of the world, they are unlikely to fall for various utopian schemes like Marxism or nationalist socialism that vainly seek to remake human nature. Our ideas about the sinfulness of mankind have led to our emphasis on separation of powers, checks and balances, the rule of law, and a humble view of government’s ability to recognize the truth or solve human problems. By contrast, the religious and historical experience of fundamentalist Islam seems to support absolutist rule by religious extremists. Nevertheless, the history of the world should tell us that even though people may have false religious beliefs, and even though those beliefs can and do undermine successful government, people who are not Christians are still capable of having governments within a whole spectrum of options.
As Russell Kirk has pointed out, the faulty religious beliefs of the ancient Greeks caused the instability and failure of their city states. The Greeks’ democracies did not prevent them from engaging in wars of aggression, defrauding their neighbor city states, and taking politically repressive measures against some of their best citizens. But the Greeks still had what we consider a flourishing culture that was more open to democracy, freedom of conscience, and the spread of truth than say, Saudi Arabia. Today we have imperfect but functional democracies in Japan and India, despite the false nature of the dominant religions in those countries. In addition, both nations have been relatively at peace during recent decades and have been relatively good neighbors for most of the world (the religious persecution of Christians and others in India being an exception). But places like Japan and India show that it is possible for countries to have better governments than the dictatorships of North Korea and, for practical purposes, Iran. What Marshall and his co-authors do not deal with in depth are potential solutions to the Islamist problem. They are certain that we should support moderate Muslims who have a more pietistic version of their religion than a militant version. They also believe that it is appropriate to oppose the Islamists with force. But that is where they stop. Their book is largely descriptive rather than prescriptive.
Ultimately, the only way that the Islamist threat will be permanently stemmed is if there is a complete change in the ideology of peoples in Islamic nations so that they shift permanently away from the views of the Wahhabis and toward something closer to genuine Christianity. Ultimately, people who live in the darkness of the Islamic world need Christ. And to what ever degree they will not fully accept the truth, they will still be better off in this earthly life to whatever degree they are persuaded to accept propositions that are true, even if they are not the key saving propositions concerning salvation in Jesus Christ. As a result, the main need of the Muslims is actually for spiritual and ideological influence. This is very difficult and delicate business since Muslin people are often deeply offended by even remote attempts at proselytization or conversion. But somehow, the gospel needs to penetrate Saudi Arabia and other Islamic nations. And with the gospel we mean not only the basic truth of the gospel, but also the entire Christian worldview and the legal and political ramifications of that worldview. Democracy, republicanism, the rule of law, checks and balances, religious freedom and toleration, all need to be explained.
One simple means of doing this is by reaching out to people from predominantly Islamic nations who are already living here in the United States and elsewhere in the West. Many of the radical Islamists have spent time studying in the West, and the result was not good. They became more radicalized by what they saw as the decadence and corruption of the United States and Western Europe. Instead, we need people who are here from Saudi Arabia or Iran or Iraq or central Asia or south central Asia or Southeast Asia or Africa to see the love of Christ modeled and lived out by His people, by His church.
We cannot coerce people to accept the truth. Instead, we can engage them in dialogue and find out what they believe and why, and look for opportunities to share or for them to ask and receive good answers for what we believe and why. We can spread the truth about Christianity, law and politics among our own people (who are currently almost in need of the truth about such things as people from anywhere in the world). And we should be producing an translating into accessible languages like Farsi, Arabic, Turkic, etc. books, films, documentaries, motion pictures and television series that, in reasonable ways, present the truth about Christ, about natural law, about the rule of law, about human nature, about religious freedom and toleration, and about government. Americans have been doing the opposite to themselves for decades—preparing and promulgating television programs, motion pictures and novels that lead them to believe in a false version of human nature and to soften their opposition to sin and sinful lifestyles. These films and television series have often been subtle and clever in the way they have affected the mind of the populous. They have led to widespread toleration of sexual immorality, addictive lifestyles, radical consumerism, and other vices. It is time to turn the tables and to begin to use the tools of culture such as the novel, the motion picture and the screen play to gently move people in the opposite direction back toward Christ, and back toward truth. It needs to be understood that this needs to be done subtly and cleverly, just as our opponents have done. And we need to be careful to avoid being sucked into the worldview of modernity through the use of modern tools.
If we are to survive, we must not only defeat our immediate enemies on the battlefield, but we must persuade our potential enemies of as much basic truth as we can get them to accept. And, of course, in order to accomplish all of this, we must pray. Because ultimately, while God can use us to act, it is His sovereignty and providence will ultimately determine the issue. And on top of work and prayer, we obviously need to repent and turn from our own wicked ways. If Christians were truly living out their Christianity, Islam would appear much less attractive.
I highly recommend Islam at the Crossroads.
House Resolution on War
Thanks to Hugh Hewitt, who posted a copy of the House Resolution. It is amazing to me that so many democrat's voted against this language. The text is basic enough and ambiguous enough that even those who did not want us to invade Iraq, or who have legitimate concerns over whether the new Iraqi government will remain free and friendly in the long run could have signed on to this very basic statement of determination. The factual statements all seem correct, and a bit obvious.
Hewitt is right when he questions how reasonable Americans can vote for democrats if they are determined to loose the war or deny the basic facts about the global situation. While war is unpleasant and painful for all involved, you cannot base policy on wishful thinking. This resolution tells our enemies they cannot wait us out or frighten us out of the war. The democrat's opposition sends the opposite message if they become the ruling party.
I understand some people's opposition to the war. But now that we are in the war cutting and running or signaling surrender will not have better results.
Despite the pain and loss caused by the war, by historical standards it is actually going very well. People cannot be trusted to govern if they cannot see things as they really are.
RESOLUTION
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;
Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;
Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;
Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;
Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;
Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;
Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;
Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;
Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and
Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Hewitt is right when he questions how reasonable Americans can vote for democrats if they are determined to loose the war or deny the basic facts about the global situation. While war is unpleasant and painful for all involved, you cannot base policy on wishful thinking. This resolution tells our enemies they cannot wait us out or frighten us out of the war. The democrat's opposition sends the opposite message if they become the ruling party.
I understand some people's opposition to the war. But now that we are in the war cutting and running or signaling surrender will not have better results.
Despite the pain and loss caused by the war, by historical standards it is actually going very well. People cannot be trusted to govern if they cannot see things as they really are.
RESOLUTION
Declaring that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Whereas the United States and its allies are engaged in a Global War on Terror, a long and demanding struggle against an adversary that is driven by hatred of American values and that is committed to imposing, by the use of terror, its repressive ideology throughout the world;
Whereas for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States;
Whereas it is essential to the security of the American people and to world security that the United States, together with its allies, take the battle to the terrorists and to those who provide them assistance;
Whereas the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other terrorists failed to stop free elections in Afghanistan and the first popularly-elected President in that nation's history has taken office;
Whereas the continued determination of Afghanistan, the United States, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will be required to sustain a sovereign, free, and secure Afghanistan;
Whereas the steadfast resolve of the United States and its partners since September 11, 2001, helped persuade the government of Libya to surrender its weapons of mass destruction;
Whereas by early 2003 Saddam Hussein and his criminal, Ba'athist regime in Iraq, which had supported terrorists, constituted a threat against global peace and security and was in violation of mandatory United Nations Security Council Resolutions;
Whereas the mission of the United States and its Coalition partners, having removed Saddam Hussein and his regime from power, is to establish a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq at peace with its neighbors;
Whereas the terrorists have declared Iraq to be the central front in their war against all who oppose their ideology;
Whereas the Iraqi people, with the help of the United States and other Coalition partners, have formed a permanent, representative government under a newly ratified constitution;
Whereas the terrorists seek to destroy the new unity government because it threatens the terrorists' aspirations for Iraq and the broader Middle East;
Whereas United States Armed Forces, in coordination with Iraqi security forces and Coalition and other friendly forces, have scored impressive victories in Iraq including finding and killing the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi;
Whereas Iraqi security forces are, over time, taking over from United States and Coalition forces a growing proportion of independent operations and increasingly lead the fight to secure Iraq;
Whereas the United States and Coalition servicemembers and civilians and the members of the Iraqi security forces and those assisting them who have made the ultimate sacrifice or been wounded in Iraq have done so nobly, in the cause of freedom; and
Whereas the United States and its Coalition partners will continue to support Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--(1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles;(2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom;(3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq;(4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq;(5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution;(6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Book Review: David Wells' God in the Wasteland
I recently completed David F. Wells’ excellent book God in the Wasteland; The Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams. This book was intended as a sequel to the author’s earlier book No Place for Truth. The book is particularly good and makes a variety of excellent points. Wells’ central point is that the church is too affected by secular culture and seems almost unaware of the effects the world is having on it. Among these effects is that the church no longer takes morality, character or theology seriously enough. Instead, people who call themselves Christians tend to really be consumers who assemble an eclectic set of religious beliefs to their own liking. Many churches in turn seek to cater to this because of their very modern attitude that all problems in life can be dealt with through psychology, management and marketing (even though this is not true). Wells correctly identifies the solution to this problem as a re-emphasis on proper doctrine and good theology. If we are going to see the world as it really is, we need to look to God and seek Him first. If we begin to see God clearly, everything else will come into proper perspective. Wells suggests that we have underestimated the holiness of God and failed to fully appreciate His transcendence, while at the same time we have overemphasized the imminence of God to the point of seeing Him as a magical genie who exists to provide us with self-fulfillment and what Francis Schaeffer would call “personal peace and affluence.” (Speaking of Schaeffer, his classic The Church in the 20th Century is an even more excellent book on the same sort of subject.)
My only criticism of Wells is two-fold. First, he is very critical of the structure of modern capitalism without what I would consider the necessary disclaimers. While it is true that there are things in this economic system that hurt the poor and create among ordinary people an attitude that everything is for their personal benefit, it is also true that every other economic system known to the world has even worse side effects, drawbacks and problems. Perhaps Wells is well aware of this, but I don’t believe that he addressed it adequately in the book. One got the impression that it might be that it would be a happy thing to return to feudalism or to have socialism. Under those systems the poor are even worse off and there are even greater inequities and problems. But this first criticism of mine is not a criticism of what Wells said, but rather, of what he did not say.
Second, in some ways Wells is affected by the very modernism he criticizes. He criticizes the modernism of Hobbs, while falling at times into what appears to be the modernism of Rousseau. At least that is the impression created in my mind by the tone of his critiques of modernism and post-modernism. Part of his own modernism is also his use of extensive polling data. A close examination of the questions of the polling data shows that they were overly ambiguous and could be interpreted as resulting from a variety of internal polling phenomena as opposed to being an accurate reflection of the worldview and thought processes of the people surveyed. Since Wells did not write the surveys, he had to take what he was given. But I am not sure that the data he had to work with are completely accurate or explainable in the ways he supposes.
Nevertheless, these are minor quibbling criticisms. Overall, this is an excellent book and I recommend that people read it. Wells is really correct in stating that we need to recognize that we have been overly affected by the assumptions of the world in which we live. We have too often come to assume that “if it works for me” that is enough to accept something or believe in it. At the same time, we allow other people to do “what works for them” without criticism or objective evaluation. Ignoring the fact that God is the center and meaning of life, we effectively deprive life of its meaning, living as though we were “like those who have no hope.” We have been far too willing to compromise doctrine and objective truth in order to get a larger market share of Christians attending our church. We have been far too willing to conform to the group expectations of the world while at the same time being individualistic and rebellious against God’s moral principles.
While Wells’ theology would cause him to reject the label of prophet, his book is a timely, prophetic scolding of an errant church. Instead of seeking market share, the church needs to seek God and take both God and His revealed word far more seriously. God’s truth and commands need to be more important to us than the “felt needs” of our post-modern congregants. As I have often said in this blog, we need to return to a belief in and pursuit of objective propositional truth. We need the real Jesus, the God of the whole Bible, not an idol that mirrors our own desires. We need sound theology based on what we can see in the Bible, not a philosophy of how little we can know because we focus on man. God must be the center.
My only criticism of Wells is two-fold. First, he is very critical of the structure of modern capitalism without what I would consider the necessary disclaimers. While it is true that there are things in this economic system that hurt the poor and create among ordinary people an attitude that everything is for their personal benefit, it is also true that every other economic system known to the world has even worse side effects, drawbacks and problems. Perhaps Wells is well aware of this, but I don’t believe that he addressed it adequately in the book. One got the impression that it might be that it would be a happy thing to return to feudalism or to have socialism. Under those systems the poor are even worse off and there are even greater inequities and problems. But this first criticism of mine is not a criticism of what Wells said, but rather, of what he did not say.
Second, in some ways Wells is affected by the very modernism he criticizes. He criticizes the modernism of Hobbs, while falling at times into what appears to be the modernism of Rousseau. At least that is the impression created in my mind by the tone of his critiques of modernism and post-modernism. Part of his own modernism is also his use of extensive polling data. A close examination of the questions of the polling data shows that they were overly ambiguous and could be interpreted as resulting from a variety of internal polling phenomena as opposed to being an accurate reflection of the worldview and thought processes of the people surveyed. Since Wells did not write the surveys, he had to take what he was given. But I am not sure that the data he had to work with are completely accurate or explainable in the ways he supposes.
Nevertheless, these are minor quibbling criticisms. Overall, this is an excellent book and I recommend that people read it. Wells is really correct in stating that we need to recognize that we have been overly affected by the assumptions of the world in which we live. We have too often come to assume that “if it works for me” that is enough to accept something or believe in it. At the same time, we allow other people to do “what works for them” without criticism or objective evaluation. Ignoring the fact that God is the center and meaning of life, we effectively deprive life of its meaning, living as though we were “like those who have no hope.” We have been far too willing to compromise doctrine and objective truth in order to get a larger market share of Christians attending our church. We have been far too willing to conform to the group expectations of the world while at the same time being individualistic and rebellious against God’s moral principles.
While Wells’ theology would cause him to reject the label of prophet, his book is a timely, prophetic scolding of an errant church. Instead of seeking market share, the church needs to seek God and take both God and His revealed word far more seriously. God’s truth and commands need to be more important to us than the “felt needs” of our post-modern congregants. As I have often said in this blog, we need to return to a belief in and pursuit of objective propositional truth. We need the real Jesus, the God of the whole Bible, not an idol that mirrors our own desires. We need sound theology based on what we can see in the Bible, not a philosophy of how little we can know because we focus on man. God must be the center.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Movie Review: Second Hand Lions on DVD
This weekend I saw a videotape of the movie Secondhand Lions with Michael Caine and Robert Duvall. I do have one criticism of the movie in that it did include some post-modern philosophy. People are not basically good, they are basically bad. But you should treat them as though they were good even though they are not. Next, the film implied that you should sometimes believe things that are false because this is useful and good for you and others. I have to disagree with that. Noble truths like the importance of virtue and honor (so long as it is God’s definition of virtue and God’s honor) and the unimportance of things like money and power by comparison are believable because they are really true, not merely because it is inspiring to believe them though false. But this minor criticism apart, I thought the movie was really delightful. Here you see a tale of a boy growing up that involves his growth in morality and character rather than the loss thereof. In addition, the spirit of adventure, the masculine approach to things, and the unabashed willingness to accept the virtuous use of force all made the movie quite delightful. It is especially wonderful that obvious vices were not thrown in to counterbalance the virtues of the two old uncles. I only wish I had known more about the film while it was in theaters.
Friday, June 09, 2006
Slipping Down the Slope
Critics of Christian approaches to bioethics often complain that the slippery slope argument presented by Christian ethicists is inaccurate—that society is able to set a definite point along the slope between what Christians want and chaos and anarchy, and to maintain that position. But we had yesterday, on the front page of the well-known British newspaper, The Guardian, more evidence that western society is slipping down the slippery slope. A British ethicist, one Professor Doyal, is advocating that in the instance of patients who are no longer able to respond and choose for themselves, doctors should be able to exercise active euthanasia without consent. In other words, if a person has a painful disease and is in so much pain that they cannot lucidly respond to a question about whether they would like their life ended or not, the doctor may choose to actively dispatch them by injecting them with poison rather than merely waiting for them to die by natural means. Or if someone is on a feeding tube or on hydration by IV, rather than wait for them to starve or dehydrate, the doctor, according to Professor Doyal, should be allowed to choose for the patient by injecting them with poison and hastening their demise. Doyal actually argues that allowing people to die from want of water or dehydration is like a father allowing his drowning infant to drown until dead. He is, in a sense, correct that withholding food and water from patients who are not in the process of immediately dying is in fact an unethical practice. But giving people poison rather than waiting for them to die from dehydration is not more ethical. So much for holding fast on the slope.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Pain and Christ
My apologies to any of you who regularly look at my blog. I have not been able to post anything for a couple of weeks. My wife was diagnosed with a growth on one of her ovaries and we had to put her in for an almost immediate surgery. God was merciful and answered our prayers yes. The mass removed was not cancerous and she has been recovering very smoothly. My time staying with her in the hospital though was a constant reminder of the degree of human pain and suffering. Julia’s pain was happily easily controlled and she was able to go on Acetaminophen after the second day in the hospital. This was not the case for many of the other patients there. There were many people who were crying out in severe pain from time to time. Others moaned quietly. I saw people coming and going in the lobby who were dealing cheerfully with their illnesses and others who seemed surrounded by a black cloud of despair. While many of the conditions were invisible to the eye, there were those whose conditions had caused grotesque deformities of one type or another. All of this just reminded me of the vast degree of pain and suffering in the world.
I have to admit that I’m a little reluctant to talk about human suffering because one always has the apprehension that whatever one says about it will be put to the test with additional suffering for oneself. No one likes suffering. And indeed, I think there is merit in reducing people’s suffering. I don’t think that it is inherently holy or beneficial to suffer under all circumstances.
It is nonetheless true that God does sometimes use suffering in order to grow the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. He sometimes uses suffering to get through to us. C.S. Lewis said that God whispers to us in our pleasures, but shouts at us in our pain. This has certainly often been true in my own life. When I have been in pain, I have definitely been more diligent in seeking the Lord than during times when I have been too comfortable to remember Him. Since then I have attempted to make it my goal to seek the Lord constantly in the hope that additional pain will be less necessary. Pain also sometimes comes about because of sin. In fact, really in a sense all suffering comes about because of sin, but in different ways. Sometimes we sin because we’ve done something that causes the pain that we ultimately suffer. If someone eats too much, they then gain weight and then suffer the health problems associated with overindulging. (This tends to be my problem.) However, not all suffering is caused directly by our personal sin. The book of Job clearly has as a major theme that not all suffering is actually caused by the sin of the individual who suffers.
Human sin in general is what has allowed suffering to enter the world. It is because of the sin of Adam and of all who sinned after that God has had to bring death and pain into the world. God is so holy and human sin is such an affront and an abomination to God that the whole of all the terrible human pain and suffering that is experienced by the whole of mankind is not enough to satisfy the just desserts of sin. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ upon the cross—the atonement by a perfect and infinitely valuable victim—was able to counterbalance the well-deserved wrath of God for human sinfulness. Since apart from Christ all human beings literally deserve to suffer eternally in hell, we cannot ever say with complete honesty that human beings do not deserve the horrible suffering that they experience here in this life, since that suffering is far less than they will experience eternally if they reject the grace of God. But this does not belittle the cost of suffering or the horror of it. Instead, it should serve to magnify the amazing quality of Christ’s sacrifice and God’s grace. The amazing thing is not how terrible the suffering caused by human sin is, but rather that we serve a God who was willing to suffer in our place and who feels and understands our pain because He too became human, lived among us, and suffered in the ways that we suffer. He did this even though He deserved only glory, laud and adoration and not pain and suffering.
The sad thing about human suffering is not merely that it occurs, but that in some people it seems to drive them further away from God rather than driving them to God. Certainly suffering should drive us to Christ for He is the only person who can ultimately dry our tears, heal our hurts and take away our pain. While human physicians can seek to mitigate pain and to extend our feeble lives for a few years or possibly decades, they cannot prevent death and they cannot ultimately prevent all pain and suffering. Because we live in a sinful world, a fallen world, we suffer. But Christ has lived, died, risen, and lives so that we do not need to suffer forever, so that when He comes, we can be resurrected and live and reign with Him. And between the time of the death of the body and the resurrection of the body we can be with Him in spirit, and with Him there is no pain because He is life and healing itself. One who suffered for us and indeed suffers with us will one day make an end to all of the suffering of those who put their faith and trust in Him. It is a mystery that sometimes we receive the partial fruits of that healing in this life when God intervenes to help us get well or to eliminate the source of pain, and yet sometimes we will not experience it until we go to be with the Lord. Yet either way, whether by foretaste or in the final consummation, it is Christ who takes away our pain and who makes us whole, and it is only because of Christ that the pain and sufferings of life are bearable and can be faced with courage.
I have to admit that I’m a little reluctant to talk about human suffering because one always has the apprehension that whatever one says about it will be put to the test with additional suffering for oneself. No one likes suffering. And indeed, I think there is merit in reducing people’s suffering. I don’t think that it is inherently holy or beneficial to suffer under all circumstances.
It is nonetheless true that God does sometimes use suffering in order to grow the fruit of the Spirit in our lives. He sometimes uses suffering to get through to us. C.S. Lewis said that God whispers to us in our pleasures, but shouts at us in our pain. This has certainly often been true in my own life. When I have been in pain, I have definitely been more diligent in seeking the Lord than during times when I have been too comfortable to remember Him. Since then I have attempted to make it my goal to seek the Lord constantly in the hope that additional pain will be less necessary. Pain also sometimes comes about because of sin. In fact, really in a sense all suffering comes about because of sin, but in different ways. Sometimes we sin because we’ve done something that causes the pain that we ultimately suffer. If someone eats too much, they then gain weight and then suffer the health problems associated with overindulging. (This tends to be my problem.) However, not all suffering is caused directly by our personal sin. The book of Job clearly has as a major theme that not all suffering is actually caused by the sin of the individual who suffers.
Human sin in general is what has allowed suffering to enter the world. It is because of the sin of Adam and of all who sinned after that God has had to bring death and pain into the world. God is so holy and human sin is such an affront and an abomination to God that the whole of all the terrible human pain and suffering that is experienced by the whole of mankind is not enough to satisfy the just desserts of sin. Only the shed blood of Jesus Christ upon the cross—the atonement by a perfect and infinitely valuable victim—was able to counterbalance the well-deserved wrath of God for human sinfulness. Since apart from Christ all human beings literally deserve to suffer eternally in hell, we cannot ever say with complete honesty that human beings do not deserve the horrible suffering that they experience here in this life, since that suffering is far less than they will experience eternally if they reject the grace of God. But this does not belittle the cost of suffering or the horror of it. Instead, it should serve to magnify the amazing quality of Christ’s sacrifice and God’s grace. The amazing thing is not how terrible the suffering caused by human sin is, but rather that we serve a God who was willing to suffer in our place and who feels and understands our pain because He too became human, lived among us, and suffered in the ways that we suffer. He did this even though He deserved only glory, laud and adoration and not pain and suffering.
The sad thing about human suffering is not merely that it occurs, but that in some people it seems to drive them further away from God rather than driving them to God. Certainly suffering should drive us to Christ for He is the only person who can ultimately dry our tears, heal our hurts and take away our pain. While human physicians can seek to mitigate pain and to extend our feeble lives for a few years or possibly decades, they cannot prevent death and they cannot ultimately prevent all pain and suffering. Because we live in a sinful world, a fallen world, we suffer. But Christ has lived, died, risen, and lives so that we do not need to suffer forever, so that when He comes, we can be resurrected and live and reign with Him. And between the time of the death of the body and the resurrection of the body we can be with Him in spirit, and with Him there is no pain because He is life and healing itself. One who suffered for us and indeed suffers with us will one day make an end to all of the suffering of those who put their faith and trust in Him. It is a mystery that sometimes we receive the partial fruits of that healing in this life when God intervenes to help us get well or to eliminate the source of pain, and yet sometimes we will not experience it until we go to be with the Lord. Yet either way, whether by foretaste or in the final consummation, it is Christ who takes away our pain and who makes us whole, and it is only because of Christ that the pain and sufferings of life are bearable and can be faced with courage.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
Hayden Hearings
On Thursday morning, I listened to a small portion of the hearings for the possible confirmation of General Hayden for director of the C.I.A. Once again, I was shocked at the politicization of intelligence, foreign policy and national defense that occurred. The secret programs that have been disclosed to the press recently about tapping international phone calls and about keeping track of long distance phone records were both brought up repeatedly. But what was particularly shocking was that misrepresentations were made by members of the committee.
The 1947 act governing intelligence in the United States does provide that there must be a briefing to the intelligence committees about issues surrounding the actions of the intelligence agencies. But there are exceptions. An exception for certain covert operations and an exception for situations in which the president deems that additional secrecy is necessary to protect human life, sources, and methods. In this case, the wiretapping programs were under the presidential exception. As a result, rather than briefing full committees, legislative leaders were briefed, including both the Republican and Democratic senior intelligence committee members and the Republican and Democratic heads of the Senate.
What was disingenuous was that Democratic lawmakers quoted only the passage of the law about oversight and not the exceptions. They claimed that the president and the intelligence leaders had violated the law by not briefing the whole intelligence committees on the secret programs that were disclosed to others. This is a highly disingenuous politicization of the intelligence process—exactly the sort of thing that the Democrats are constantly accusing the Republicans of doing. While it is reasonable for our leaders to have discussions about foreign policy, intelligence gathering, and military matters, it would be nice if we could get back to a bi-partisan policy that does not include lies and constant attempts to undermine the work of the other party, whether or not that undermining also undermines the security of the United States. While it is true that conservative lawmakers are also not perfect and often suffer from a lack of depth and lack of strong personal character, the left not only has the same problems, but seems to suffer from a preference for winning elections over winning wars.
The 1947 act governing intelligence in the United States does provide that there must be a briefing to the intelligence committees about issues surrounding the actions of the intelligence agencies. But there are exceptions. An exception for certain covert operations and an exception for situations in which the president deems that additional secrecy is necessary to protect human life, sources, and methods. In this case, the wiretapping programs were under the presidential exception. As a result, rather than briefing full committees, legislative leaders were briefed, including both the Republican and Democratic senior intelligence committee members and the Republican and Democratic heads of the Senate.
What was disingenuous was that Democratic lawmakers quoted only the passage of the law about oversight and not the exceptions. They claimed that the president and the intelligence leaders had violated the law by not briefing the whole intelligence committees on the secret programs that were disclosed to others. This is a highly disingenuous politicization of the intelligence process—exactly the sort of thing that the Democrats are constantly accusing the Republicans of doing. While it is reasonable for our leaders to have discussions about foreign policy, intelligence gathering, and military matters, it would be nice if we could get back to a bi-partisan policy that does not include lies and constant attempts to undermine the work of the other party, whether or not that undermining also undermines the security of the United States. While it is true that conservative lawmakers are also not perfect and often suffer from a lack of depth and lack of strong personal character, the left not only has the same problems, but seems to suffer from a preference for winning elections over winning wars.
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
Culture and the World (Londinistan II)
I wanted to clarify something in contrast to my article about loving culture. As I mentioned in that article, by loving culture I do not mean loving “the world.” David F. Wells has rightly said that “worldliness is that system of values and beliefs, behaviors and expectations, in any given culture that have at their center the fallen human being and that relegate to their periphery any thought of God. Worldliness is what makes sin look normal in any age and righteousness seem odd.” It is very much the case from a biblical point of view that Christians are to hate and separate themselves from worldliness. They are not to engage in or tolerate within themselves those values, beliefs, expectations and behaviors that are not in tune with the mind of Christ. For the Christian, Christ must always be the center. Everything must be judged in relationship to Christ. As it says in the scriptures, every thought must be made subject to Christ. As David Wells has also pointed out, the problem with the church today is not that it is not efficient enough or appealing enough. Its crisis is not one of image or management. Rather it is because we are, in fact, too worldly. We love the things our world loves instead of loving Christ. Christians should ask the question of what Christ wants and how God expects us to live and then through prayer and the help that comes from prayer, bring his life, his family, his community and as much of the world as possible into conformity with God’s rule and direction. Naturally, in a fallen world that is in rebellion against God, this is a never ending battle. I am not a post- millennialist and it seems to me that scripture seems to indicate that the church will never be completely successful in bringing the entire world to know Christ prior to Christ’s return. Nevertheless, we should fight the good fight so that when Christ does return we will be found faithful. And who knows, history is a long phenomena. There may be long periods of great success if we will seek God and apply ourselves.
How must we apply ourselves? As I say, the answer is not in management or appearances. The real thing is seeking God and His truth. Jesus in His high priestly prayer asks God the Father to sanctify His people and to sanctify them through His Word. It is through the Word of God that we are sanctified, that is, made holy and brought into conformity with the will and rule of God. In other words, becoming what we need to be involves finding the truth and believing it. It also means communicating the truth to others. And not just a few simple truths, but the truth about everything. This is exactly why post-modernism is so dangerous. It proclaims that there is no truth. It is the anti-logocentric philosophy. By contrast, Christianity should be seeking the truth about everything. It is logocentric. That is, it has Christ as the word, the will, the plan, the knowledge, the logic, the revelation, the order of God at the center.
As I am certainly not the first to observe, the root of culture is “cult.” It is the stuff associated with a religious belief that animates a society. The worldliness of our age resolves around man as his own god. In post-modern philosophy, man rejects the Logos of God and instead substitutes the will of the community. In his post-modern business, he rejects the Logos of God and substitutes modern managerial technique. In his psychology, he rejects the Logos of God and substitutes the desire to feel good, be positive and shrug off guilt. In his politics, he claims that whatever is legal is good and that whatever he wants to do should be legal. As a corollary, whatever he does not want others to do or say should be illegal irregardless of moral truth. The world tries to tell us we can’t know truth, we can’t know anything about God, we can’t really make up our minds of what is right or wrong. Because of sin, there is a tiny grain of truth in claims about our lack of knowledge. But rejecting truth and seeking after the will of the human community is not a substitute for attempting to find absolute truth and falling short of the goal. Truth exists and we must pursue it ruthlessly. Christ is that truth and He wants to be found. In fact, if we find ourselves pursuing truth, we shall eventually learn that it is actually Christ drawing us to Himself rather than our own virtue that is the ultimate cause of such a phenomena. If it is difficult for us to pursue truth, we must pray that the Lord will reveal Himself to us, that He will draw us to Himself, that He will cause us to love Him more and to understand His ways. We must seek the will to be illumined and to have the desires of our hearts be in conformity with the will of God so that God will happily grant them. Undoubtedly, God will not say no to such prayers. Jesus spoke again and again of how God is a loving Father and gives His children good gifts rather than bad ones. If we ask for good things such as a greater knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the Word of God as it applies to life, God will say yes and give us what we seek. His promises about prayer were not given to us so that we could ask God for self-destructive things like money, sex and power grounded outside of His will and used outside of His plan. Instead, it is exactly faith and truth and wisdom that God promises to give in return for our asking. Let us seek His face as individuals, as the church, as a people, and we will surely find Him for He is not far from us though we have tried to be far from Him. We can know the truth. And he will set us free.
How must we apply ourselves? As I say, the answer is not in management or appearances. The real thing is seeking God and His truth. Jesus in His high priestly prayer asks God the Father to sanctify His people and to sanctify them through His Word. It is through the Word of God that we are sanctified, that is, made holy and brought into conformity with the will and rule of God. In other words, becoming what we need to be involves finding the truth and believing it. It also means communicating the truth to others. And not just a few simple truths, but the truth about everything. This is exactly why post-modernism is so dangerous. It proclaims that there is no truth. It is the anti-logocentric philosophy. By contrast, Christianity should be seeking the truth about everything. It is logocentric. That is, it has Christ as the word, the will, the plan, the knowledge, the logic, the revelation, the order of God at the center.
As I am certainly not the first to observe, the root of culture is “cult.” It is the stuff associated with a religious belief that animates a society. The worldliness of our age resolves around man as his own god. In post-modern philosophy, man rejects the Logos of God and instead substitutes the will of the community. In his post-modern business, he rejects the Logos of God and substitutes modern managerial technique. In his psychology, he rejects the Logos of God and substitutes the desire to feel good, be positive and shrug off guilt. In his politics, he claims that whatever is legal is good and that whatever he wants to do should be legal. As a corollary, whatever he does not want others to do or say should be illegal irregardless of moral truth. The world tries to tell us we can’t know truth, we can’t know anything about God, we can’t really make up our minds of what is right or wrong. Because of sin, there is a tiny grain of truth in claims about our lack of knowledge. But rejecting truth and seeking after the will of the human community is not a substitute for attempting to find absolute truth and falling short of the goal. Truth exists and we must pursue it ruthlessly. Christ is that truth and He wants to be found. In fact, if we find ourselves pursuing truth, we shall eventually learn that it is actually Christ drawing us to Himself rather than our own virtue that is the ultimate cause of such a phenomena. If it is difficult for us to pursue truth, we must pray that the Lord will reveal Himself to us, that He will draw us to Himself, that He will cause us to love Him more and to understand His ways. We must seek the will to be illumined and to have the desires of our hearts be in conformity with the will of God so that God will happily grant them. Undoubtedly, God will not say no to such prayers. Jesus spoke again and again of how God is a loving Father and gives His children good gifts rather than bad ones. If we ask for good things such as a greater knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the Word of God as it applies to life, God will say yes and give us what we seek. His promises about prayer were not given to us so that we could ask God for self-destructive things like money, sex and power grounded outside of His will and used outside of His plan. Instead, it is exactly faith and truth and wisdom that God promises to give in return for our asking. Let us seek His face as individuals, as the church, as a people, and we will surely find Him for He is not far from us though we have tried to be far from Him. We can know the truth. And he will set us free.
Banned in Boston
Banned in Boston
At the link is an excellent article about the growing conflict between religious freedom and homosexual marriage. Laura Ingraham interviewed the author, Maggie Gallagher on her show today.
At the link is an excellent article about the growing conflict between religious freedom and homosexual marriage. Laura Ingraham interviewed the author, Maggie Gallagher on her show today.
Monday, May 15, 2006
Da Vinci Code V
On Friday, May 12, I attended a showing at Calvary Chapel of D. James Kennedy’s new documentary refuting the errors in the Da Vinci Code, entitled The Da Vinci Deception. This was a good documentary of this sort and I recommend that people see it. The thing that I thought was particularly effective was that the documentary incorporated humor rather than taking everything too seriously.
One of the points made in The Da Vinci Deception that I’ve also seen in other books and items refuting the errors in the Da Vinci Code dealt with the way in which the Apostle John is depicted in art. In art from the Renaissance, the Apostle John is usually depicted as young and clean shaven with long hair. To modern eyes this makes him look somewhat feminine. Brown took advantage of this to claim that Leonardo's painting of John in the "Last Supper" is really a picture of Mary Magdalene.
After I watched The Da Vinci Deception, I had the opportunity to go to the Los Angeles Museum of Art the very next day in order to visit a special exhibition of some excellent paintings by Gustav Klimt as well as the general collection. In looking at depictions of the Apostle John in both medieval and Renaissance art, I was able to verify exactly what had been said about the depiction of John as a young man. Either John is commonly depicted as a somewhat feminine looking young man with no beard and long hair, or every work of art was actually depicting Mary Magdalene and no Apostle John. Of course the other problem would be not merely that nobody really believed that Mary Magdalene was depicted in the Last Supper, but also there is the problem that if all of these depictions of John are really depictions of Mary, there aren’t enough disciples. You would end up with ten disciples (Judas already being missing in most of the works) rather than the appropriate eleven. In addition, I did see a number of paintings that also do depict Mary Magdalene intentionally. She is not ignored in the world of church art. But she is depicted in a different way from the youthful Apostle John. In all of the art actually depicting Mary Magdalene, she is clearly identifiable as a woman. And in none of it is she in any way depicted as the spouse of Jesus or as having her own children or child.
One of the points made in The Da Vinci Deception that I’ve also seen in other books and items refuting the errors in the Da Vinci Code dealt with the way in which the Apostle John is depicted in art. In art from the Renaissance, the Apostle John is usually depicted as young and clean shaven with long hair. To modern eyes this makes him look somewhat feminine. Brown took advantage of this to claim that Leonardo's painting of John in the "Last Supper" is really a picture of Mary Magdalene.
After I watched The Da Vinci Deception, I had the opportunity to go to the Los Angeles Museum of Art the very next day in order to visit a special exhibition of some excellent paintings by Gustav Klimt as well as the general collection. In looking at depictions of the Apostle John in both medieval and Renaissance art, I was able to verify exactly what had been said about the depiction of John as a young man. Either John is commonly depicted as a somewhat feminine looking young man with no beard and long hair, or every work of art was actually depicting Mary Magdalene and no Apostle John. Of course the other problem would be not merely that nobody really believed that Mary Magdalene was depicted in the Last Supper, but also there is the problem that if all of these depictions of John are really depictions of Mary, there aren’t enough disciples. You would end up with ten disciples (Judas already being missing in most of the works) rather than the appropriate eleven. In addition, I did see a number of paintings that also do depict Mary Magdalene intentionally. She is not ignored in the world of church art. But she is depicted in a different way from the youthful Apostle John. In all of the art actually depicting Mary Magdalene, she is clearly identifiable as a woman. And in none of it is she in any way depicted as the spouse of Jesus or as having her own children or child.
Sythetic Privacy
During the last number of years, it almost appears as if a number of people within the government have been waging a quiet war against the policies of the administration. This war has involved not only leaking but even the apparent fabrication of false evidence. A number of stories in the Weekly Standard have described this phenomenon. One of the latest salvos in this struggle has been the leak of yet another secret program in the war on terror. This is the leak of the program regarding the accumulation of statistics and data on American telephoning. Undoubtedly, the timing of this leak was designed to interfere with the nomination of former N.S.A. head, General Michael V. Hayden, as the new director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The newly leaked program, if press accounts are to be believed, is a program in which the National Security Agency has essentially collected all of the phone records for all of the telephone calls made involving the phones in the United States. These records don’t include names or addresses, merely phone numbers and calls to and from each of those phone numbers. In other words, this is a database of phone call patterns. It allows the N.S.A. to analyze overall who is calling who and the amount of traffic between certain areas of the country and the United States and different countries overseas. It also means that if a terrorist’s number is detected, it will be possible to go back and find all of the numbers that were called by that number and then to investigate accordingly. This is an obvious tool for the war on terror. It is also something that cannot be done under the system of court orders and warrants. There is no way to obtain a blanket warrant to engage in this type of program. But probably there is no need to do so. Because specific names and addresses are not used, and because the content of telephone calls is not monitored, there is probably no actual violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, this program is again well within the president’s war power to conduct tactical intelligence operations during a time of war. All of these arguments are likely to be lost on the administration’s critics.
Our society has come to have an unreasonable expectation of privacy. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the government will not raid your home, look through your private papers and letters, or read your letters as they go through the mail without warrants. It’s also true that the government probably should not wiretap your home or office without some kind of a warrant. On the other hand, Americans have come to not only expect this regular level of privacy—security in our personal homes and papers—but to think that other people should actually take actions of ours that are public in nature and essentially cover them up so that our privacy must be protected by others. For example, people are concerned if grocery stores provide information to advertisers about what sorts of products they buy. Undoubtedly, if the Department of Agriculture were collecting information from grocery stores about what Americans bought, this would be highly objectionable to the same people who object to the phone number data collection. But we buy items in public. We go to stores that are public places, we pick things up and put them in a cart where everyone can see them, and we pay for them in front of 15 other people standing nearby at the checkout line. There is no question that what we buy at the store simply isn’t private. The same thing is true for public library records—a major bug-bear in the debate about the Patriot Act. You go to a “public” library. You pick out books in front of all the other patrons. You take them to a counter where another human being sees what you are checking out, and where other patrons may likely see what you are checking out. Records are kept of the books that you take out and when you return them. These records are kept by a public institution, a library belonging to the government. And yet people somehow think that the library has a duty to cover up any knowledge of whatever books you publicly looked at. With these kinds of expectations, I suppose it’s only natural to expect that people will also want the phone company to protect their phone records from the government. When you make telephone calls, the telephone company knows who you called. They even know how long you talked to them. There are thousands of employees in the telephone company and many of them may actually have access to some part of your record even though that record may not include your name and address. They may see exactly the kinds of things the N.S.A. sees—lists of numbers which have called other numbers. And now people expect that the telephone companies, corporations filled with many people, should effectively cover for individual’s concerns about other people knowing what numbers have contacted other numbers. Pardon me, but it seems to me that this is rising to a high level of paranoia and silliness. Isn’t it more important to keep people from getting blown up than that some giant computer somewhere in Washington has two lists of correlated phone numbers. The government still isn’t listening in on your individual phone calls without a warrant, unless, of course, you’re talking to a known terrorist. The government still isn’t prosecuting people based upon these phone lists, let alone making them disappear in the middle of the night as happens in the many totalitarian countries that the same people complaining about this program are often apologizing for. And if information from this program were used in a court, it probably would be excluded, based on a broad interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, even though that does not mean that the government should be prevented from gathering or using the information for intelligence or war-making purposes.
I do believe that people do have a right to be secure in their homes and personal documents. I don’t want the government eavesdropping on just any conversation willy nilly. But on the other hand, we need to have realistic expectations concerning privacy and an understanding that other people do not have an obligation to keep private what is actually public.
The newly leaked program, if press accounts are to be believed, is a program in which the National Security Agency has essentially collected all of the phone records for all of the telephone calls made involving the phones in the United States. These records don’t include names or addresses, merely phone numbers and calls to and from each of those phone numbers. In other words, this is a database of phone call patterns. It allows the N.S.A. to analyze overall who is calling who and the amount of traffic between certain areas of the country and the United States and different countries overseas. It also means that if a terrorist’s number is detected, it will be possible to go back and find all of the numbers that were called by that number and then to investigate accordingly. This is an obvious tool for the war on terror. It is also something that cannot be done under the system of court orders and warrants. There is no way to obtain a blanket warrant to engage in this type of program. But probably there is no need to do so. Because specific names and addresses are not used, and because the content of telephone calls is not monitored, there is probably no actual violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. In addition, this program is again well within the president’s war power to conduct tactical intelligence operations during a time of war. All of these arguments are likely to be lost on the administration’s critics.
Our society has come to have an unreasonable expectation of privacy. I believe it is perfectly reasonable to expect that the government will not raid your home, look through your private papers and letters, or read your letters as they go through the mail without warrants. It’s also true that the government probably should not wiretap your home or office without some kind of a warrant. On the other hand, Americans have come to not only expect this regular level of privacy—security in our personal homes and papers—but to think that other people should actually take actions of ours that are public in nature and essentially cover them up so that our privacy must be protected by others. For example, people are concerned if grocery stores provide information to advertisers about what sorts of products they buy. Undoubtedly, if the Department of Agriculture were collecting information from grocery stores about what Americans bought, this would be highly objectionable to the same people who object to the phone number data collection. But we buy items in public. We go to stores that are public places, we pick things up and put them in a cart where everyone can see them, and we pay for them in front of 15 other people standing nearby at the checkout line. There is no question that what we buy at the store simply isn’t private. The same thing is true for public library records—a major bug-bear in the debate about the Patriot Act. You go to a “public” library. You pick out books in front of all the other patrons. You take them to a counter where another human being sees what you are checking out, and where other patrons may likely see what you are checking out. Records are kept of the books that you take out and when you return them. These records are kept by a public institution, a library belonging to the government. And yet people somehow think that the library has a duty to cover up any knowledge of whatever books you publicly looked at. With these kinds of expectations, I suppose it’s only natural to expect that people will also want the phone company to protect their phone records from the government. When you make telephone calls, the telephone company knows who you called. They even know how long you talked to them. There are thousands of employees in the telephone company and many of them may actually have access to some part of your record even though that record may not include your name and address. They may see exactly the kinds of things the N.S.A. sees—lists of numbers which have called other numbers. And now people expect that the telephone companies, corporations filled with many people, should effectively cover for individual’s concerns about other people knowing what numbers have contacted other numbers. Pardon me, but it seems to me that this is rising to a high level of paranoia and silliness. Isn’t it more important to keep people from getting blown up than that some giant computer somewhere in Washington has two lists of correlated phone numbers. The government still isn’t listening in on your individual phone calls without a warrant, unless, of course, you’re talking to a known terrorist. The government still isn’t prosecuting people based upon these phone lists, let alone making them disappear in the middle of the night as happens in the many totalitarian countries that the same people complaining about this program are often apologizing for. And if information from this program were used in a court, it probably would be excluded, based on a broad interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, even though that does not mean that the government should be prevented from gathering or using the information for intelligence or war-making purposes.
I do believe that people do have a right to be secure in their homes and personal documents. I don’t want the government eavesdropping on just any conversation willy nilly. But on the other hand, we need to have realistic expectations concerning privacy and an understanding that other people do not have an obligation to keep private what is actually public.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Loving Our Cultures
Wednesday morning on the Laura Ingram Show, Laura interviewed Melanie Phillips, the new author of a book entitled Londonistan. Londonistan is a book detailing the British attitude toward the war on terror and the sociological factors that have put
There are a variety of interesting dimensions to this problem. Here in the
It is also interesting to me because for most of my life I have been an ardent Anglophile. I have a deep love for English culture and English history. This is not to say that
From a Christian standpoint, the whole trick is to take our lives, our society, our communities, and our institutions and bring them into submission to Christ. The end result should be a pervasively Christian culture. Christians have never done this perfectly. All of the cultures of predominantly Christian countries have been wanting in one way or another due to human sinfulness. But many of the wonderful things about cultures in predominantly Christian countries have come from Christianity and its foundational effect on those cultures. And it also should be recognized that for a culture to be transformed by its Christian beliefs takes time. After the Germanic tribesman began to accept Christianity, it still took hundreds of years for them to give up their violence, looting and pillaging. The desire of those with Norse blood to “go Viking” and the desire of Celts for interminable clan feuding died hard and took a lot of time to extinguish in the light of the cross. And sometimes the adopted ideals of
There are some people who believe that having a “Christian culture” is even inherently impossible. They see culture as identical to “the world” as discussed in scripture. They could never bring themselves to believe that a majority of influential people in a society were actually significantly committed to Christ. While this may be rare, I do not believe that a “Christian culture” is impossible. Christianity is at times more successful and pervasive than many people want to think, even though it does not result in the perfection of society due to inherent human sinfulness. And, there is a difference between the human world system and a predominantly Christian culture – though such a culture is still not the
I think it is possible to justifiably “love” cultures in the sense of admire, enjoy and in some ways copy, despite imperfections. That love, like all love, should motivate us to want to change and improve the culture rather than merely accepting it as is. C.S. Lewis talks about this transformative aspect of love in his book The Four Loves. It may not be wrong to love (in the above sense) British culture or Scottish culture or American culture while at the same time recognizing that there have been some historical misdeeds and some sinful aspects to those cultures since all human cultures involve sinful human beings and their practices. We seek to bring culture to the feet of Christ. Loving so in this way may not be “loving the world” as condemned in the Bible.
Another interesting problem of the love/hate relationship of culture is the difficulty that today some of the things people are criticizing about culture are the very aspects of culture that were in fact correct. For a culture to be opposed to sexual immorality is currently thought to be in some way inappropriate. But it is appropriate for us to discourage sexual immorality as a society.
I hope that both
In the end, I really hope that people in England can continue to love and cherish the writings of C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Milton, Shakespeare, Spencer and Wordsworth, the speeches of Winston Churchill, the music of Vaughan Williams, Elgar and Thomas Tallis, the architecture of the Middle Ages, the Tutor period and Christopher Wren, to love the black umbrella and the stiff upper lip, the academic worlds of Oxford and Cambridge, the little rivers of the Cotswolds, the open vistas of the lake country, the moors of Cornwall, the waterways of Norfolk and the green fields of Kent; and even the political kingdom that through force of arms and strength of will and answered prayer brought the stop to the expansion of the Spanish empire and its inquisition, the demagoguery of Napoleon, the 19th century Islamo-Fascism of the Mahdi of Sudan, the mechanistic will of the Kaiser, the unspeakable evil of Nazism, and now the depredations of the tyrant Saddam Hussein. In some of these wars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
