ESPRESSO ROAST - A TEAM BLOG

THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE VIEWS OF ALL CONTRIBUTORS AND EACH TEAM MEMBER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FACTS AND OPINIONS CONTAINED IN HIS POST.

CLICK FLAGS FOR PAGE TRANSLATION OPTIONS

Thursday, December 13, 2007

Atheist Richard Dawkins: A Cultural Christian?

From the BBC: Scientist Richard Dawkins, an atheist known worldwide for arguing against the existence of God, has described himself as a "cultural Christian".

He told the BBC's Have Your Say that he did not want to "purge" the UK of its Christian heritage.

I must admit that I was completely surprised by this admission that Dawkins considers himself a "cultural Christian," not because it makes him a Christian, but because he gives credence to the fact that Christian societies are most certainly better ones. We need to be clear on the former point, though: Do not read into this that Dawkins is really, in any way, calling himself a Christian. He simply supports the influence and expressions of it. In other words, he likes the results of Christianity, but thinks it's all still a figment of someone's imagination. So, if it works, great, but don't expect much more from it than that.

In the article, Dawkins explains that he does not want to put an end to Christian tradition. In fact, he states, "[Britain] is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims. So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I'm not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history. If there's any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists."

The last point he makes is arguable to say the least, but is this a case of wanting to have it both ways? Perhaps. I simply think Professor Dawkins is...how should I say...delusional. He claims to "fully recognise the full historical and cultural significance [of Christianity] in our country." He even goes so far as to say, "We should all be aware of that and celebrate that." The question I have is "why?"

If Christians are suffering from some sort of "God delusion," why would we want to celebrate delusional behavior in any form? How delusional must it be to encourage people to live in a fantasy world? The reality is, even Dawkins understands that true Christianity leads to the kind of society that everyone wants to live in. However, if there is nothing of substance behind it, it cannot last. As a matter of fact, the further we get away from Judeo-Christian influence, the more dangerous and out of control culture becomes. The reason is that simply embracing common morality doesn't work. Without a transcendant law-giver; a universal morality, there is no "common morality," but instead, man can determine whatever "rules" he chooses. In other words, one society could say that citizens killing one another on a whim is wrong while another deems it perfectly acceptable. Who is "right"? Simple...both. There is no "right."

The argument often comes back that no society would choose such rules since we naturally do that which promotes the common good of man; sort of the old survival of the species theory. However, that assumes that the survival of the species is desirable by all. Mass murderers and terrorists might have a different idea of "good." Again, what is the common "good" of man? It all depends on who is defining it. We certainly cannot limit it to just mass murderers and psycho-terrorists. Many governments, even today, have pretty broad ideas of what is good, killing people for what most in the West consider insane. Just look at what one culture wanted to do to a woman who mis-named a teddy bear! Hmm, common good, huh? She was actually lucky. She only got off because of the governmental pressure placed on their leaders to release her. Don't forget, we're talking about the Western government shaped by Judeo-Christians values are the ones who pushed for the release.

I want to go on record as saying I am absolutely against social Christianity which emphasizes mere actions as opposed to a heart transformation brought on because of a personal relationship with Christ (unfortunately, our churches today are full of social Christians!), but when society loses its Christian influence, it eventually dissolves into Relativism. This is the philosophy in which morality is based on the individual's own ideas of what is good and right, thereby leaving no basis for that which is actually and objectively good for that society. (For more of my comments on the subject of Relativism, use it as a keyword in the search Espresso Roast feature on this blog). Mr. Dawkins seems to realize this, to at least some degree, making even is own "godless delusion" hard to actually live with.

Read the complete BBC article here.

Labels: atheism, Christianity, culture, Darwin, David C. Price, Evolution, God, religion

Saturday, December 01, 2007

Quick Follow-up to "Should Christians Boycott The Compass?"

Though I in no way agree with the writer of this article, I think it important for us to read them. I think it supports my position of being careful in how we "protest" particular cultural expressions. Again, our boycotts tend to make advances in the "battle" but do they not hurt the Christ-position in the war against darkness?

I think it important for us to re-evaluate what our intended goals are in protests and boycotts and is it worth the price we pay in our influence and in communicating love to a world that is looking for it anywhere they can find it.

Perhaps that's why they look for love in the darkness...they can't see the light in us.

December 5 Addendum: Here is an excerpt of an article by Albert Mohler offering a good perspective on the movie:

A good first step would be to take a deep breath. The Christian faith is not about to be toppled by a film, nor by a series of fantasy books. Pullman has an agenda that is clear, and Christians need to inform themselves of what this agenda is and what it means. At the same time, nothing would serve his agenda better than to have Christians speaking recklessly or unintelligently about the film or the books.

This is about the battle of ideas and worldviews. While Christians will not celebrate the release of this film, we should recognize the mixture of challenge and opportunity that comes with millions of persons watching this film and talking about the issues it raises. When the movie is mentioned in the workplace, in school, on the playground, or in the college campus, this is a great opportunity to show that Christians are not afraid of the battle of ideas.

HT for Mohler article: Tim Ellsworth

Labels: Christianity, culture, David C. Price, Jesus

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Should Christians Boycott The Golden Compass?

I received an email yesterday asking me to sign a petition pledging to boycott the new anti-Christian movie, The Golden Compass. This will go to distrubutors, I believe, and voice our displeasure. What a great opportunity for Christians to bind together and stand up for our rights, right?

This idea of boycotting is something that I have pretty definite feelings about and have written on before. So, I've decided to simply re-post my response to an old call for boycott.

Back in June of 2005, it was a call to boycott Ford Motor Company for their support of the homosexual agenda. Today, it's over a movie that is reported as anti-Christian. Neither of these "agendas" do I support. However, I will not openly boycott them either. I will personally boycott them by simply not giving them my money. I will not let my child be exposed to it and I hope no one else will either. I may even encourage those within my sphere of influence not to see it...probably will (just did), but that's the extent of a boycott or petition I, personally, will take part in. Why? Glad ya asked. Here is my response, originally posted here:

I am no fan of boycotts. Sure, they often have something of an effect in changing the minds of those to whom the boycott is directed (or at least gives them pause), but I am concerned that it is the kind of situation where one can win the battle but lose the war.

Rarely does the general population look at those who are calling for a boycott with favor. No, I am not advocating a "friend with the world" mentality, but please, if these well-meaning folk want to do more than simply force people to act differently through punishment, I believe a different approach might be called for. In my humble opinion, boycotts, generally speaking, serve only to isolate and marginalize the group boycotting, punish the group being boycotted, and galvanize the group the offending company is supporting. I don't know, sounds like a lose, lose, lose scenario to me.

If Christians are to stand against evil but love all individuals involved, perhaps a different strategy is called for, because with this one, the Christian is seen as someone who merely wants bad things out of society so he doesn't have to look at them. It appears self-centered. That is not the call of Christ. Should Christians stand up and be heard? Absolutely, but it must be done in such a way that fellow sinners know that they are being treated with love and compassion, just the way we all want to be treated. It must also be done in such a way that the Christian Church does not look like just another special interest group. That's a tough one to be sure.

What's an alternative? I think there is nothing wrong with an individual withholding money from any group or company that doesn't share his or her core values. People do that all the time. Further, I think there is nothing wrong with individuals communicating with the company, expressing displeasure for something that company is doing with the money that is being given it by consumers. That, too, is done for various reasons regularly.

Frankly, I see nothing wrong with a group like the AFA communicating the facts about a company with its members or subscribers in order for them to make informed decisions about their spending habits. But that's where I think it should stop. Individuals should then act on their own convictions and in such a way that the door remains open to communicate love to a world in need of a bunch of it without having to overcome the obstacles of punitive actions towards a corporation.

Is there ever a time for a boycott? Perhaps, but we should always err on the side of mercy without sacrificing the integrity of the message of Christ. There are many companies from which I have withheld financial support, but that doesn't mean that I must, in so doing, mis-communicate to the world that I hate an entire group of people. Do what your convictions tell you to do with your money, but leave the door open to demonstrate compassion and love for the world around you.

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

I Can't Get No Satisfaction: One of the Struggles Parents Face in Raising Their Kids

According to an article in the Christian Post, parents are spending much of their hard-earned bucks on stuff that may lead to hard-hearted kids. That's obviously not breaking news, except that the article focuses on a study by the Barna Group that shows many of these are Christian parents who often disagree with the very stuff they are buying to satisfy their kids:

Seventy-eight percent of Christian parents had purchased DVDs of movies and TV programs in the past year for their teenagers and 87 percent had purchased DVDs for their children under 13, the latest Barna Group study found. Yet 26 percent of them did not feel comfortable with the DVD products they purchased.
About six out of 10 parents bought music CDs for their teen children but one out of every three of them had concerns about the content. Also, slightly more than half of all Christian parents had purchased video games for their children yet nearly half (46 percent) of parents of teens admitted to concerns about the content of those games.

As I read through the article, I tried to figure out how this happens and what is the root problem here. Is this simply a result in confusion of roles, where the children are "ruling the roost," convincing or, sometimes, demanding that weak parents get them what they want regardless of the parents objections or is it that the parents, though they may not fully endorse the products, feel it will not affect their children negatively?

I think both of those things may be true, but the article points to another point of danger for all of us. Apparently, those parents more saturated in media themselves were most likely to be lenient on their kid's media choices. I can see the truth in this, as what parent under the age of 50 isn't driven by media themselves? I know our house is almost completely wired (or wireless, as the case may be). We're so used to media, it's hard to put it down. Case in point: I'm tapping on it right now.

I think even more problematic is an underlying desire of parents to allow their kids to "fit in" with the society in which they live. In a media-driven society, it is difficult to teach our kids to be "in the world, but not of it." Barna points to this tug-o-war that many parents find themselves in:

"Millions of Christian parents want to appear to be relevant in their children’s eyes, and to provide gifts that fit within the mainstream of postmodern society," George Barna, lead researcher of the latest study, noted. "The problem is that many of the entertainment products that meet those criteria conflict with the moral precepts of the Christian faith. Parents have to make a choice as to what is more important: pleasing their kids’ taste and sensibilities, or satisfying God’s standards as defined in the Bible. When the decision made is to keep their children happy, the Christian parent is often left with a pit in their stomach."

It would be easy for me to self-righteously throw stones at all of these irresponsible parents who provide objectionable material for their kids and preach about how they should stand up and be the parent. Though that is absolutely true that we must be the parent, I do understand the difficulty of that last reason. As the parent of a seven year-old, I'm already facing this struggle. Obviously, there are firm lines that must be drawn, but unless you take your kids out of the greater society, there are difficult choices to be made.

For us right now, it's pokemon. Every little boy in my son's class is into trading pokemon cards and, though that is pretty benign in comparison with some of the video games being sold to young kids these days, I'm not totally comfortable with some of those cards. So what do we do? We're compromising, letting him play with the cards in order to "fit in," but spending a lot of time talking with him about them and the issues that arise from his participation. Are we wrong to even let him? I don't know. I hope not. I do know that not letting him participate removes him from virtually all social interaction with his classmates, so it's a decision we felt we had to make.

I think Barna rightly summarizes the point as it relates to making a choice between pleasing God in our parenting and always pleasing our kids (who often, to some degree, become products of society). Perhaps more times than not, we will not be able to do both:

"Many Christian parents are striving to serve two conflicting masters: society and God. They refuse to believe that they cannot satisfy both," he said. "Sadly, this Christmas season will produce enormous stress for numerous Christian parents who don’t want to disappoint either God or their children, but whose ultimate choices will disappoint both God and themselves, while providing gifts that are not in the best interests of their children. For Christians, the Christmas season should be a time of celebration and appreciation of the life of Jesus Christ. Instead, that joy is being minimized by the pressure and confusion introduced by our focus on material consumption and fulfillment."

In my opinion, this ultimately comes down to an issue of discipleship. For parents, a lack of training in living out their faith in all areas of their lives (most importantly at home), leads to a lack of understanding of just how damaging much of the media content their children are exposed to can be. Further, we're not discipling our kids, teaching them that there are often limits we must place on ourselves in order to please God and, thereby, lead lives of purpose and peace.

It's a tough, highwire act to walk, but unless we do, our kids are the ones who will fall into the abyss.

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, Family, Parenting

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

Willow Creek Church: Seeker-Sensitive No More?

For many of you, this may be old news since the story actually came out about a month ago, but somehow I missed it up until last week. It turns out something extraordinary happened recently: Willow Creek Church, pioneers of the "seeker-sensitive" movement, has declared they made a mistake. What mistake, you ask? The seeker-sensitive movement. When all is said and done, that may be a bit of an overstatement, but writer and radio host, Bob Burney, published an article for Baptist Press recently discussing the shocking revelation:

Willow Creek has released the results of a multi-year study on the effectiveness of their programs and philosophy of ministry. The study's findings are in a new book titled "Reveal: Where Are You?," co-authored by Cally Parkinson and Greg Hawkins, executive pastor of Willow Creek Community Church. Hybels himself called the findings "ground breaking," "earth shaking" and "mind blowing." And no wonder: It seems that the "experts" were wrong.

The report reveals that most of what they have been doing for these many years and what they have taught millions of others to do is not producing solid disciples of Jesus Christ. Numbers yes, but not disciples. It gets worse. Hybels laments:

"Some of the stuff that we have put millions of dollars into thinking it would really help our people grow and develop spiritually, when the data actually came back it wasn't helping people that much. Other things that we didn't put that much money into and didn't put much staff against is stuff our people are crying out for."

That's huge. I mean it's huge that they admit it. Seriously, to their credit, having spent literally millions on this stuff, to admit they were wrong is a big deal.

Many, including myself, have known for years it was a mistake to focus on "felt needs" and have said so many times. Though it should have been a no-brainer, the number of people being reached was hard to argue against. That doesn't mean we agreed, it just meant few people listen when it seems to be so effective. Numbers don't lie? Burney sums up the truth of the issue:

If you simply want a crowd, the "seeker-sensitive" model produces results. If you want solid, sincere, mature followers of Christ, it's a bust. In a shocking confession, Hybels states: "We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become 'self feeders.' We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their Bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own."

I don't mean to be discordant but I have to tell you, when I read this I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Finally, the seeker-sensitive movement has been revealed for what it is...a sham. It is a well-meaning sham, but a sham, nonetheless. It was a matter of feeding people what they wanted rather than what they needed, leading people to bounce around to find a church that made them feel good rather than making them disciples. Sadly, here is the reality...a reality that I hope this mass of "seeker-sensitive" shopping malls can admit to and remedy:

The foundation of thousands of American churches is now discovered to be mere sand. The one individual who has had perhaps the greatest influence on the American church in our generation has now admitted his philosophy of ministry, in large part, was a "mistake." The extent of this error defies measurement.

Then the reality of what this all means sets in: there always seems to be the desire to improve on the model set out in Scripture. Rather than really doing life together (which often gets very messy and uncomfortable), dedicating ourselves to the Word of God with all the difficulty that discipleship demands, giving up our own desires, taking up our cross and following Christ wherever He leads and finding joy in the journey, certainly there must be something better; there must be some other way that leads to massive church growth (never mind that doing it the Scripture way led to 3,000 converts in a single day--when was the last time you saw that happen?). Nah, looks like it's back to the old drawing board for the seeker-sensitive, church growth professionals...which is where the new and very real danger lies:

Perhaps the most shocking thing of all in this revelation coming out of Willow Creek is in a summary statement by Greg Hawkins: "Our dream is that we fundamentally change the way we do church. That we take out a clean sheet of paper and we rethink all of our old assumptions. Replace it with new insights. Insights that are informed by research and rooted in Scripture. Our dream is really to discover what God is doing and how he's asking us to transform this planet."

Isn't that what we were told when this whole seeker-sensitive thing started? The church growth gurus again want to throw away their old assumptions and "take out a clean sheet of paper" and, presumably, come up with a new paradigm for ministry. Should this be encouraging? Please note that "rooted in Scripture" still follows "rethink," "new insights" and "informed research." Someone, it appears, still might not get it. Unless there is a return to simple biblical (and relevant) principles, a new faulty scheme will replace the existing one and another generation will follow along as the latest piper plays.

That is a warning I hope we all take to heart. As people of The Word, we have to ask ourselves how we can really expect to improve on a perfect model? New ways of applying the unchanging biblical principles are fine...we need to be able to communicate with 21st Century culture, but we must not abandon the heart of the Gospel and basics of authentic discipleship in the process.

Labels: Christian, Christianity, Church, David C. Price, Seeker-Sensitive

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Ridiculous Item of the Day: One Complaint Leads to Change in Military Funeral Procedure

You know that all measure of sanity has flown out the proverbial window and that PC has run amok when a single complaint can change the way millions of Americans honor their deceased loved ones in the military. That is the story today that the office of Veteran's Affairs has determined that God may not be referenced in the flag ceremony at the end of a soldier's funeral.

According to Family News in Focus, 125 national cemeteries can no longer honor military veterans families with a flag-folding recitation ceremony because one person complained that the ritual mentions God. Thousands of military families request the recitation ceremony for deceased loved ones. It's considered an unofficial but meaningful way for families to honor a soldier's sacrifice. But the recitations were banned by the VA until further notice because, as Rees Lloyd with the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project of the American Legion puts it, "One disgruntled narcissist has caused a complete ban affecting 300-million Americans honor our war-dead and our comrades, veterans and we think its an outrage and we intend to fight it." [crosswalk]

There are many things that Christians call "outrageous" that I choose not to join in on the fight. Things like the public display of the Ten Commandments, prayer in public schools, etc. Now, to be clear, I'm not against those things being legal, I just don't think they are worth fighting over. I think we often dishonor Christ in the way we respond to these things. After all, prayer in public schools cannot be out-lawed. It is only the public kind of prayer that Jesus was arguably against that has been banned (Matthew 6:5-6). The way He taught us to pray cannot be banned in any public place and, ironically, will actually flourish with more and more freedoms being eroded. It's like the bumper sticker says, "As long as there are tests, there will be prayer in public schools."

I don't want to digress here. My point is that there is much to be outraged about with the fact that the name of God cannot be evoked at the funeral of a veteran. It's absolutely absurd. What outrages me more is that ONE person changed the whole procedure. One, solitary, complaint.

I focus on this because that will be the downfall of this Republic. In a democracy, the majority (for good or ill) is supposed to rule. Yet our government officials are listening to one voice (which, as it turns out, is always the anti-Christian one) and banning, in the name of tolerance, something the majority of Americans are for in favor of. That is absolutely ludicrous because in one stroke of the pen, these bureaucrats have demonstrated intolerance to the majority of Americans. That, I just do not get.

So, I am outraged. I do not fear that these actions can or will somehow remove God from America. It is blasphemy to suggest man's meager actions could move a sovereign, almighty God in even the most minute way. He will do whatever He wishes and be wherever He desires. Certainly, our actions can lead to Him choosing to remove His hand of blessing (which I'm not certain has not already occurred), but God's wisdom and grace always supersede our actions and faithfulness. He will not abandon His chosen, even if all freedoms are stripped and persecution becomes the norm in this Country. It should, though, cause us grief to see injustice on all levels and undue burdens placed on families of those who already have paid a heavy price in service to this Nation, all because, somehow, the one has become mightier than the many.

Labels: Christianity, culture, David C. Price, God, politics, religion

Wednesday, September 12, 2007

Espresso Retro: Born With a Belief in the Supernatural

Every now and again, posts from the past will resurface here that I think were important when they were written and believe they're still relevant. I hope you enjoy them. The following post was first published here on September 6 of last year.

Religions will continue to thrive despite the rise of science and rationality because we are all born with a tendency to believe in the supernatural, according to research published yesterday.

"Magical thinking" is hard-wired into our brains, according to Prof Bruce Hood, of the University of Bristol, speaking at the British Association's annual festival in Norwich. Prof Hood challenged the assumption of Prof Richard Dawkins and other "ultra rationalists" that belief in the supernatural was spread by religions in gullible minds.

"Rather, religions may simply capitalise on a natural bias to assume the existence of supernatural forces," he said.

"It is pointless to get people to abandon their belief systems because they operate at such a fundamental level that no amount of rational evidence or counter evidence is going to be taken on board to get people to abandon these ideas." [Full article]

He's right on one point, it does operate at a fundamental level. For a scientist, he made a very rational statement. The foundational question is, why? Why is it a fundamental part of our make up? Some scientists, like Professor Hood, would like to make us believe that it's simply the way we evolved. Though, if it is something that is a part of evolution, and evolution necessarily leads to determinism, how could it be that so many scientists are atheists? How did they overcome this fundamental part of their make-up? Interesting.

I believe the answer lies in the fact that we are not products of evolution and, thus, not subject to determinism in which the blind series of cause and effect in a closed cosmological system would render us, we actually do have the freedom to choose to supress the truth that there really is a creator (Romans 1). See, I think that if Professor Hood were to let down his hard-fought, scientific predisposition to Naturalism, we would see that he doesn't really believe we're simply products of evolution. Look at some of his word-choices: "'Magical thinking' is hard-wired into our brains...". Later in the article, he says, "The mind is programmed to see coincidences as significant and to think that inanimate objects have minds." (italics added) Words like "hard-wired" and "programmed" imply design. Nothing is hard-wired by accident and nothing is programmed by accident. When was the last time you saw an accidentally "hard-wired" computer that was "programmed" by chance? And those of us who believe in God are irrational?

As I said before, the fact is we are hard-wired and programmed to believe in the supernatural much like, as Alvin Plantinga pointed out, we're hard-wired to believe that all people have brains even though we can't see them...because they are reality; because we see evidence of them (usually), and it is right to make this assumption based on the evidence.

Most of us who have not convinced ourselves otherwise at least believe that there is "something else" beyond life and death on this earth. Most people on earth are convinced of this. The fact is, eternity is built into us. As Professor Hood so eloquently stated, we are programmed with this. God has put eternity into our hearts and too many times, we try and cast it off as superstition, fantasy and myth. However, too many people have experienced supernatural events in the real world that cannot easily be explained away.

The bottom line is this: those who are convinced that the supernatural cannot happen may never change their minds unless God determines to reveal Himself in a very real way (which He has certainly done before). However, listen closely and you will hear even those who say they don't believe in anything beyond evolution describe the cosmos in very design-oriented terms. Why? Because to use terms that imply mindless chance to describe the most complex systems of the universe sounds simply...well, irrational. And the truth is, it is.

Labels: Christian, Christianity, creation, creator, Darwin, David C. Price, Evolution, Naturalism, religion, science

Monday, September 10, 2007

Are Presidential Candidates Religious? Who Cares?

Apparently, more people than we might think. According to a recent Pew poll, it is important that candidates be perceived as religious, though being seen as too religious might be a handicap. At least, it is of no real advantage.

It struck me as odd that so many of the candidates are perceived as being religious. Here's a sampling:

Among people who offer an opinion of the religiosity of leading Democrats, more say that John Edwards (28%) and Barack Obama (24%) are very religious than say the same about Hillary Clinton (16%). Yet wide majorities see all three as at least somewhat religious, and those who do view the candidates in overwhelmingly favorable terms.
Similarly, just 14% who offer an opinion see Rudy Giuliani as very religious, but another 63% see him as somewhat religious, and both groups offer comparably favorable assessments of the former New York City mayor. Mitt Romney stands apart from the other candidates tested – nearly half (46%) of those who express an opinion say Romney is very religious; that is roughly the same number saying that George W. Bush is very religious (43%), though many more people express an opinion about Bush's religiosity than Romney's. However, a quarter of Americans – Democrat, independent and Republican alike – say they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon. And those who say this have substantially less favorable impressions of Mitt Romney.

Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, 6 in 10 Americans say they would not vote for a candidate if he did not have a belief in god. I don't capitalize "god" there because I'm not certain whether it really matters what kind of god is worshiped as long as there is the belief in a "higher being." I think it only matters in the case of Romney because most people have at least some Christian heritage and have known Mormonism as a cult (which it is) and that "baggage" (especially regarding the word "cult") is carried over from a more Christian-dominated time in our history.

Personally, I don't put a great deal of hope in these numbers or the notion that America is still what is considered a "Christian Nation." All one has to do is look at the lifestyles and stands taken by most of these candidates and one realizes there is probably little substance behind their religious views. I understand that I come very close to sitting in judgment, but in the role of voter in regards to this topic, that's exactly what we have to be. We must determine if their "religion" is real or if it is a political strategy and if that matters when we enter the voting booth.

Let's be honest, we've never been a "Christian Nation" but we have, and apparently still are, a religious nation. It matters to us. The question is, to what extent? We have a desire to have our leaders be religious because we want them to be honest and do the "morally" good thing when it comes to feeding the poor, providing universal health care, fighting crime and the like. We don't want them to be "too religious" so that they start telling us how to live rightly.

We are not a Christian nation because Christ wasn't interested in religion--that outward expression of piety backed up by nothing more than a desire to be perceived as such. Jesus was (and is) interested in a relationship with Himself that permeates the total life, making a difference not just in how our leaders campaign and not just in how they govern, but in how they live...everyday and when nobody's looking. That's when religion really matters.

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, politics, religion

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Dean: What Do You Believe, and Why?

I haven't specifically written on worldview issues in a while, but I do want to commend an article to you by Dr. Paul Dean. Here is an excerpt:

What do you believe and why do you believe it? Such a question is basic to our very existence and all people must answer it in some way whether consciously or unconsciously. To answer the question unconsciously is both to answer it and to ignore it at the same time. To ignore the question is to answer it along these lines, "I only believe what I feel like believing at any given moment." In other words, this individual has no coherent philosophical grid by which he approaches life in general except that he acts merely upon circumstantial feelings. This individual will live with philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions within his own mind without really caring or perhaps even knowing such to be the case.

I encourage you to read this article in its entirety here.

Labels: Christianity, creation, creator, David C. Price, God, worldviews

Monday, August 27, 2007

Is It Cool To Call God 'Allah'?

I don't know if you read the story a couple of weeks ago or not, but there is a Catholic Bishop who thinks that all Christians should adopt the term "Allah" in referring to God. His argument is that it would serve to build relationships among Muslims which he says would be a good thing, especially since God doesn't concern Himself with such petty things like what He is called. Is this true? Does God not care? Is calling God "Allah" just another way of saying the same thing? Does calling God "Allah" not bring harm to orthodox Christianity?

When I read this I was deeply troubled by the implications of the statement made by this bishop. It was a topic on which I was going to write, arguing that it matters greatly what God is called, especially the term "Allah." However, I kept putting it off and, as it turns out, Dr. Albert Mohler has covered the subject extensively and more thoroughly than I would have been able to.

Especially if you have read the above synopsis and aren't clear what the big deal is, I would highly encourage you to read this post by Dr. Mohler.

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, God, religion

Monday, July 16, 2007

Pope Claims Catholic Church Alone Legit: Reason for Offense?

In case you haven't heard, Pope Benedict claims it is the only legitimate church. Is this reason to be offended or outraged for those of us outside the "fold"? Dr. Al Mohler has written a helpful article responding to this claim and providing some context in which Protestants can understand the real issues involved.

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, God, religion

Friday, July 13, 2007

Hindu Prays in U.S. Senate for First Time. Does it Matter?

(CNSNews.com) - Three Christian protesters who disrupted the first Hindu prayer ever delivered on the Senate floor have been charged with misdemeanor unlawful conduct and disruption of Congress and will face a court date in the future.

Ante Pavkovic, Katherine Pavkovic and their daughter Christan Sugar were removed from the Senate observation gallery Thursday morning when they began praying loudly during the Senate's routine opening prayer. For the first time in recorded history, the morning invocation was being delivered by a Hindu chaplain. [full story here]

Couple of questions to ponder:

1. Should Christians be upset because these protesters were arrested? Could it not be argued that anyone who disrupts the Senate proceeding would (and should) be arrested and removed?

2. Though I'm not excited in the least to see Hinduism promoted within the proceedings of the United States Senate, does it matter? After all, how many of the lawmakers really care whether prayer of any kind is offered before they get about the business of pushing their own agendas, giving no considerations (besides lip-service) to the will of God being done?

3. Is the senate prayer anything more than a symbolic act/ritual similar (if not identical) to the type of public prayer Jesus spoke against in Luke 18:9-14?

4. Were these Christians justified (even mandated?) to some degree to stand up and commit this type of non-aggressive, non-violent civil disobedience or do they accomplish little more than establish barriers between non-Christians that need not be erected?

I am aware of many differing views regarding these types of questions (some better arguments than others). Perhaps these are just rhetorical questions or maybe there are some good views out there that can serve to move us forward in dialogue regarding how those of us who are Christ followers can develop attitudes and actions that reflect a biblical worldview.

Labels: Christian, Christianity, culture, David C. Price, God, politics, religion

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Does the Church Need Persecution? At Least One Pastor Says Yes.

The best thing that could happen to Christians in New Zealand – and the Western world in general - is a good dose of persecution, says a pastor who was at the heart of a significant revival among the Gypsies of Britain in the early 1990s, ASSIST News Service reports. Roy Warren, a consultant for the Baptist Union of New Zealand, says too many Christians put church in a neat box. “If revival came, it would be an inconvenience to them, they would not be happy with it,” he says. “For me, revival is where God moves in such a way that he changes communities. It’s not a case of more people going to a church – that’s renewal. Revival is changing cultures and whole communities.”

Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, discipleship, persecution

Friday, March 02, 2007

"I'm the King of the Wor-r-r-rblub, blub, blub, blub!"

Check out this editorial cartoon related to Cameron and fake Jesus tomb.

Labels: Cameron, Christianity, David C. Price, Film, Jesus, tomb

More from Archaeologist Amos Kloner on 'Jesus' Tomb' (and a quick observation)

From Crosswalk:

'Jesus Tomb' Filmmakers 'Should be Ashamed,' Archaeologist Claims
The makers of a new documentary detailing the supposed discovery of Jesus' tomb should be ashamed of the inconsistencies and unscientific evidence they are reporting in the film, said the archeologist who oversaw the initial dig, CNSNews.com reports. Nevertheless, said Amos Kloner, the film should be shown to the public in the interest of freedom of expression. "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" has come under harsh criticism from archeologists, scholars and religious figures for claiming to show the final resting place of Jesus, his 'son,' and Mary Magdalene. The assertions in the documentary fly in the face of Christianity and the Bible. The tomb was first discovered in 1980 when construction workers were digging in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot to clear the way for new apartments there. Kloner oversaw the excavation of the site in the 1980s as the district archeologist of Jerusalem. He later published his findings in a professional archeological publication. The documentary was made according to the "imagination of people," Kloner said. "I don't accept the claim that this tomb was the burial place for the family of Jesus."

By the way, did anyone notice that in spite of such an "in your face" attack on Christianity, there have been no riots in the streets, no car bombings, no "holy war" declarations? Nothing.

Just a brief little observation for you.

Labels: Cameron, Christianity, David C. Price, Film, Jesus, Kloner, tomb

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

James Cameron Sets Sail Again (and basically aboard the same ship as before)

I don't know if you've heard the latest from film-maker James Cameron, but he's found the grave of Jesus. Yeah, really, along with Mary Magdalene...and Jesus' kid, too. Now, I heard this story yesterday and chuckled then because it was pretty ridiculous. Clearly, Cameron is out to make another Titanic (along with the bankroll that comes with it!). This time, I believe it's going to be a titanic failure for many reasons. Here are just a few:

First, Cameron doesn't have a very good track record with the facts related to his stories. Even in the case of Titanic, many of the "theories" Cameron advanced as fact have been repeatedly disproved by the experts, including the way in which the ship made her final voyage to the ocean floor. Cameron starts out as a member of the same club Oliver Stone is a member of which lives according to the motto, "Everything is a conspiracy!" What, exactly, is conspiratorial? Whatever will bring in the biggest bucks.

Second, the archaeologist who originally worked on the tomb in question has virtually laughed off the claim:

Bar-Ilan University Professor Amos Kloner, a Jerusalem archeologist who officially oversaw the work at the tomb in 1980 and has published detailed findings on its contents, dismissed the claims.

"It makes a great story for a TV film," he told The Jerusalem Post Saturday night.

"But it's impossible. It's nonsense," he said.

By the way, where was Joseph, Jesus' father (step-father, of course)? Wouldn't he have been in the same tomb? And how, exactly, does a poor family like that of Jesus afford the kind of burial that these bones were found in?

Thirdly, there is classic evidences related to the resurrection of Jesus that includes the fact that all but one of Jesus' immediate followers were martyred because of their belief that Jesus had been resurrected, not to mention the hundreds who died during that first century because of their belief in Christ's resurrection. It is possible to believe that someone might die for something they believed to be true, but based on the kind of brutality that Jesus suffered in His death, unless they saw convincing proof to the contrary (read: Jesus alive before them), there is absolutely no way these very ordinary men could have begun the world-changing movement that started through them. They most certainly would not have had any reason to die for what they knew to be a lie.

Along with this is the fact that, if the resurrection of Jesus did not happen, it would have been quite easy to prove at the time, putting a quick end to this new religious movement (and there were certainly enough people who wanted to do just that). They could have either simply produced the body of Jesus following the crucifixion, which the Jewish officials could not do, though all believed at the time (and most today still do) that the crucifixion did, in fact happen (which Cameron's theory would have to deny and disprove, historically) or go to Jesus' house and have dinner with he, his wife, Mary, their little boy and his mom and show that this man was still alive. This would have certainly disproved that Jesus was actually killed. There is no record of anyone knowing or talking to Cameron's Jesus, including 1st Century Jewish historians such as Josephus, because it didn't happen. Jesus was killed. Even the most liberal, non-Christian historians acknowledge this. Cameron is living in a fantasy world, presenting a story that, based on what is known historically, is harder to believe than any account of someone being raised from the dead.

Cameron wants to re-write history so he can make a buck. Fine. If over 2,000 years of trying hasn't disproved the historicity of Christ's resurrection, I'm quite sure one James Cameron will come no closer. Make your movie...make your money. Some will unfortunately believe him, but it won't do a thing to hurt Christianity. That would be a titanic undertaking James Cameron just isn't up to.

Labels: Cameron, Christianity, David C. Price, Film, James, Jesus, Resurrection

News

Relief Organizations

Glenn Reynolds Says

Proud Member of the Alliance of Free Blogs

BLOG AGGREGATORS

League of Reformed Bloggers