Libertarian Evangelical

2008-10-15T19:29:00.001-04:00

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/QuinHillyer/Lawsuit_Could_Rein_In_Medicare_Bureaucrats.html

Environmentalism

2008-06-21T09:53:00.003-04:00

This article, gives a great glimpse into the mind of environmentalists. It's about a new technology that will remove CO2 from the air, and theoretically, help to curb global warming. But apparently some environmentalist have a problem with it:

The idea is bound to be controversial, with environmentalists seeing so-called technological solutions to global warming as undermining attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries.

You see, it's not actually about saving the earth, or treating it responsibly as good stewards, its about having the right feeling (worship?) toward the earth. If environmentalism were about protecting the earth and its limited resources, then recycling would have long ago died out (except for metals): see here and here.

Followup on Evangelizing to Postmoderns

2008-04-28T12:04:00.004-04:00

This is a follow-up to the comments thread for this post. First, I must say that evangelizing only takes place when we give ourselves over to God, and allow the Holy Spirit's work to take place through us. From there, our love, from God, through us, to others, is what transforms hearts to be open to the Good News.

But what I’m concerned with is what happens after this love affair. At some point we must explain the gospel to them. And how we communicate the good news to postmodern is instrumental in what they choose to believe. What follows is a dialogue be a Christian and premodern man, and a Christian and a postmodern men.
(Note: I'm purposefully oversimplifying these debates for brevity's sake.)

When a Christian preached to the pre-modern man it went something like this:

Christian: "Christ died for our sins, so that we might have everlasting life."

Pre-Modern Man: "Oh really, how do you know this?"

The Christian man would the precede to show him the Bible, the witness to what has been passed down through the ages and attest to his own experience in meeting God. The pre-modern would then look at the evidence, the veracity of the Bible, and the truthfulness of character of the Christian, and decide if the claims are true or false.

Now, when a Christian preaches to the post-modern man, it goes something like this:

Christian: "Christ died for our sins, so that we might have everlasting life."

Postmodern Man: "Well that’s awesome you believe something so strongly. But what is true to you isn't necessarily true for me."

Christian: "I don't think you're listening to me. I'm saying that Christ's death IS true."

Postmodern: "Well, I understand that, but what is true to you isn't necessarily true for me."

And the conversation usually ends there, at least substantively. The problem with evangelizing to postmodern men is one of language. Christians have different definitions for word like "truth" than the postmoderns. So my question becomes what do we do here? How do we talk to postmodern’s about truth when we don’t have the same definition of truth?

On a related note: I’m not saying that it’s impossible for postmoderns to become Christian; far from it. Many prominent theologians have been thoroughly postmodern. The entire neo-orthodox movement is base on this philosophy. For postmoderns, the decision to become Christian isn’t a rational decision, its one based on a “leap of faith.” This is what the liberal mainstream Churches have been advocating for nearly a century now. What it produces is a weak personal association with God, as a “savior” for oneself, but not necessarily for everyone else. It essentially kills evangelism.

On the Bible

2008-04-28T08:41:00.003-04:00

I have been thinking a lot about the Bible and the doctrines of inerrancy and sola scriptura. As I was praying last night, these thoughts came to me, and I wrote them down:

The doctrine of sola scriptura is unnecessary, and in some situations dangerous to the point where one puts it in the place of God Himself (idolatry). We are relational beings, as we are created in the image of the one triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the essense of relations. As such, we only discover truth through relationships with others -- the witness of others. For example, I became a Christian because people I trusted witnessed to me; from there I turned to the Bible, and the authors there witnessed to me more; then I turned to God through the Holy Spirit, and found the ultimate witness to truth. Indeed, the source of truth Himself.

To place the Bible in the position of some concrete absolute truth, is to destroy the power of its witness, while at the same time replacing a true relationship with God with someone's two thousand year-old testimony. Some may say that this view is postmodern. But I disagree. I am not destroying or denying the existence of absolute truth, I am simply disputing the manner in which it is transmitted.

I think some evangelicals like sola scriptura and inerrancy because it provides for an easy foundation for one's beliefs. However, our foundation should be in God Himself, as revealed to us through the Holy Spirit. Sola scriptura and inerrancy allow for a weak faith, one that is not continually challenged and improved upon by the Spirit.

My point here is not to throw out the Bible, but to discuss the epistemology of the truth. Please feel free to weigh in...

Gender

2008-04-28T07:58:00.002-04:00

If you don't read Parchment and Pen daily, you should. Today Michael Patton has a very comprehensive post on the differing views of men and women in the church. He sets out both sides of the debate very well.

I'll post my thoughts on this later.

Modern Day Martyrdom

2008-04-27T13:12:00.003-04:00

Over at Parchment and Pen, Dan Wallace discusses modern day martyrdom in the form of forgoing money making opportunities because of one's moral beliefs. I think a more proper term to use would be sacrifice, but I suppose it is a lesser form of martyrdom.

He raises a really good point that many people face situations where there is the "temptation to choose money over righteousness" and then they rationalize their actions to fit their morality. Another related problem among Christians, is changing their morality to fit their actions. For example, I've had several Christian friends who have changed their moral beliefs of sex to fit the situation they were facing; i.e. they wanted to have sex, so they changed their morals so that they could without a guilty conscience.

In the age of relativism, I think the latter "moral adaption" is more common problem. But in both situations, people are killing their conscience. Our conscience is God's law written on our hearts. (see Rom. 2:14-15), to kill it is to kill one of the primary ways that God speaks to us.

Some Preliminary Thoughts on Intelligent Design

2008-04-26T20:34:00.004-04:00

I've been thinking and reading a lot about Intelligent Design lately. So here are some thoughts, and as always I welcome thoughtful comments, disagreements, debates, etc.:

Evolutionary theory explains, well, the evolution of life; not completely though, there are many things that scientists do not have a natural explanation for, but it's a good start. Some evolutionary scientist have taken the theory out of its context and used it as supporting evidence for atheism. In reaction, some theists (I use theist because there are some non-Christian ID supporters) have taken offense, and decided to come up with an alternate explanation. Now, while I agree with their sentiment or motivation, their theory leaves a lot to be desired.

Theists presume that science is attempting to explain away the control or sovereignty of God. In it's purest form, science has no such goal. However, some scientists have become amateur philosophers and have deduced that because there is (or will be in the future) a natural explanation for everything, then there cannot possibly be a God. I understand why this upsets many theists, after all it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. But theist look at this as though science is narrowing the "window" where God can act. If there are natural explanations for everything, then there is less and less opportunity to attribute action to the will and power of God. (This view of God is sometimes called "God of the gaps.") So it's understandable that theists have become upset because the sovereignty of their God is being reduce.

These theists have themselves limited the sovereignty of God, by limiting the ability of His action to those places and things that science has not discovered a natural explanation for. The problem with this is that throughout time, humans have slowly been explaining away more and more natural phenomenon through natural science. No longer are thunderstorms and floods caused by God's anger, but by a predictable identifiable natural system. The unexplainable will continue to be explained as the progress of science marches on. So where does this leave the theists? With an emasculated god.

Christians need to understand that the sovereignty of God transcends and encompasses the natural world. Just because there are natural explanations doesn't mean God doesn't continue to sustain the world. Just because cell division continues to take place in my body time after time, just the way it's supposed to according to our natural scientific understanding, doesn't mean God isn't in control.

In summary, Intelligent Design theist are (unintentionally) limiting the sovereignty of God. By doing so, they are backing themselves into a wall that is dangerous to their faith and the faith of others.

Intelligent Design

2008-04-24T14:07:00.001-04:00

I'm looking for a good book on Intelligent Design. I'd like one that approaches ID from a philosophic perspective and not the scientific behind the theory. It'd be a plus if it also covers the philosophy behind Darwinism. Any suggestions?

More on Inclusivism

2008-04-23T18:39:00.003-04:00

Following up my post from last week on inclusivism (http://libertarian-evangelical.blogspot.com/2008/04/inclusivism.html), I think this excerpt from "Faith Seeking Understanding" by Daniel Migliore is a great summary of my thoughts on the subject:

Affirming the universality of God's grace requires an openness to the
working of the Word and Spirit of God beyond the boundaries of the church. It
also requires the abandonment of those understandings of the atoning work of
Jesus Christ that see it as limited in its scope. God's fundamental word to the
world in Jesus Christ is a resounding Yes. There is, of course, a divine No, a
divine judgment, contained within this Yes. Nevertheless, as the apostle Paul
writes, all the promises of God find their Yes in Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:20).
The free grace of God is inclusive. This is the testimony of Scripture. The
life, ministry, death, and resurrection of the incarnate Word of God are
characterized by a radical inclusiveness. He has table fellowship with tax
collectors and sinners, befriends women, the poor, and the outcast, and finally
gives his life for his enemies as well as his friends.
But affirmation of the freedom and universality of God's grace is not to be
equated with an abstract universalism. To affirm God's free grace is to refuse
to make God captive to some metaphysical necessity. Universal salvation is
not a divine obligation. God is not a prisoner of any metaphysical scheme,
including the scheme of eternal double decrees or the necessity of a
universalist logic. While never abitrary, God's grace is free; while freely
given, God's grace is costly. Theology and the church have no
authority either to declare that God must save all or that God can save only
through the ministry and witness of the church. What the church is called
to proclaim is the good news that there is no encumbrance on God's side to
including all in the company of the redeemed. It is called to proclaim that all
men and women are summoned to receive and rejoice in the free grace of God
realized once for all in Jesus Christ. (Migliore pp. 326-327, emphasis
added).

Christianity and War

2008-04-23T12:25:00.003-04:00

http://www.christiansincontext.org/2008/04/how-christians-ought-to-talk-about-war.html

Andrew Faris has a good post up at Christian in Context, that mirrors my thoughts on Christian beliefs about war. I too am frustrated with the superficiality of the debate on both sides. As a result, I don't have a clue where I stand on just war vs. pacifism.

To those who are pacifist: Did Christ come to liberate the the oppressed? Is this liberation only spiritual?

To those who support just war theory: Did Christ ever pick up a sword to defend himself or others? Did he ever advocate others to do so?

A couple other thoughts that have been floating in my head recently:
1. Supporting just war means that killing is acceptable in some contexts. By allowing killing (albeit just) does that demean or lower Christ's sacrifice for us?
2. If pacifism extends to the point where even the defense of others is wrong, what does they say to non-Christians about our love for others? Does it show that our love is shallow because we're not willing to put our lives on the line for others?

Irrationality of Obama Supporters

2008-04-22T22:10:00.005-04:00

As a libertarian, I've felt particularly disengaged from this year's presidential campaign, mainly because no candidate is even close to my political views. However, I have followed what some have referred to as the "Cult of Obama." There really seems to be some kind of mania behind the attraction to Him, and this is my attempt at explaining it. (And I should stress this is just a thought experiment.)

You see, postmodern people have given up their rationality in the areas of religion and philosophy. Once they realized that reason would not provide a universal design or truth in these areas, they just gave up (a kind of post-enlightenment depression). In the place of rational philosophy/religion, postmoderns have developed an irrational faith in faith. They don't have an rational basis for their faith, they just believe for the sake of believing. The result of this is the postmodern religion: "Believe whatever you want, so long as you sincerely believe it."

Are Obama supporters the entry point for this irrationality into politics? This cult fanaticism, that believes in change for change's sake, that believes in hope for hope's sake -- they just want to believe in something greater than politics has provided thus far -- the logic and rationality of political discourse has proven fruitless, so they abandon it. Instead of reaching for the rational, instead of searching for the issues (and I'm not critiquing Obama on the issues, this is a post about his supporters), they settle for the irrational, the faith in faith.

On a side note, this may have begun to be apparent with Bush supporters in the previous elections, but I think it is particularly apparent with Obama's supporters because more of the left is firmly entrenched in postmodernism.

Oprah's New Faith

2008-04-22T12:11:00.005-04:00

http://lysaterkeurst.blogspot.com/2008/04/truth-part-two.html

I was sent this post by a friend of mine. I thought it was an excellent example of how many evangelical Christians fundamentally misunderstand modern religious beliefs. This is a huge problem for evangelicals because to evangelize we have to know how to reach our targets. Part of that is understanding the philosophical tradition they're coming from. For most new age religions it's some form of postmodernism.

The problem with confronting these new age postmodern religions is that Christians, especially evangelical (or orthodox, or conservative) Christians are looking at these teachings from a different philosophy. It’s apparent from that Lysa’s blog (not to knock her) that she doesn’t really understand the postmodern perspective. She thinks in terms of right and wrong; if something isn’t right, then it’s wrong (and I’m not saying that’s the wrong way to think), postmoderns don't think that way. What we as Christians have to realize, is that we either have to (1) challenge the postmodern philosophy or (2) change the terms Christians use to evangelize to the postmodern man. I prefer #1; most of the mainstream protestant theologians have been doing #2.

The author of that blog miss a HUGE opportunity to explain the irrationality of the postmodern religions. When she says, “So, if you don't ascribe to this teaching... you will live unskillfully, blindly thus becoming a person who suffers and causes suffering,” she’s hinting at the fundamental problem in all new religions. They all say, “No one belief is right, but the overarching belief that no one belief is right, is right.” Do you see the logical contradiction there?

That said, I think she’s fundamentally confused about what the new age crowd is arguing. It’s even more apparent when she starts talk about the Biblical definition of sin verses the one I just quoted. She defines sin as that which separates us from God. That’s correct, except that it’s not a definition, it’s a symptom of sin. Likewise, the new age people aren’t really defining sin either, they are stating a cause of sin. Thus we have, “living unskillfully and blindly, causes us to sin, which separate us from God.” So, she’s not really arguing against them, even though she thinks she is.

Her last argument basically amounts to an ad hominem. "People's egos are stroked when they hear that only a few will ever achieve the enlightenment that you can receive if you read and apply his words." In other words, "Only people with egos will buy into this new age crap." Please, as Christians, we should be able to come up with more honest arguments than that. In the Socratic tradition, ad hominems were the arguments of last result; if you can't refute the argument, attack the person.

In summary, we Christians need to be careful of our methods of refuting false teachings. First, we have to understand what we believe. Second, we have to understand what they believe. Third, we need to develop thoughtful refutations in terms of what they believe. Arguing on our own terms will get us nowhere in evangelizing.

DNA and Evolution

2008-04-20T15:22:00.002-04:00

http://www.confessingevangelical.com/?p=1299

This is a good post over at Confessing Evangelical about the DNA evidence for evolution. So many evangelical, especially in the US, having gotten caught up in the conspiracy theory called Creationism. The proponents of Creationism don't actually look at the scientific evidence behind evolution, but instead look to the philosophy that many evolutionary scientists follow - usually some kind of secular humanism. To all such creationists out there: you don't have to buy into those philosophies, it is entirely consistent to believe in evolutionary theory , and also have a Biblical worldview. Evolution and those philosophies are not a packaged deal.

Inclusivism

2008-04-15T20:26:00.008-04:00

http://www.twoagespilgrims.com/doctrine/?p=231

Interesting post up at Doctrine Unites on inclusivism and universalism. I've generally tried to stay away from determine who will or won't be saved. It seems that is a question solely for God. That said, I still love to discuss and think about the possibilities. Nollie gives a good summary for the two ideas:

Universalism states that all humankind will ultimately be saved and that there is no such thing as a literal hell or eternal punishment, and all religions ultimately lead to heaven. Inclusivism, on the other hand, while acknowledging salvation by faith in Christ alone, also proposes that explicit knowledge of Christ is unnecessary for salvation. God can give salvation to a person who implicit responds in faith to His general revelation.

Universalism is largely a product of our post-modern philosophy of everyone's opinion is equally right. I find this at odds with the Bible and almost all pre-modern Christian writings.

Inclusivism, on the other hand, is not a product post-modern thought. It stems from the common desire in all of us for justice. It is based on the thought that it would be unjust of God to offer salvation to one person and not the other. I also think it has more biblical support than Nollie suggests. For example:

For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time. - 1 Timothy 2:5-6

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. - Hebrews 2:9

He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. - 1 John 2:2

Reading this verses in conjunction with the scripture that Nollie cites honestly leaves me confused. Did Christ die to save the elect or the whole world? Given this confusion, I think the PCUSA Church takes the best approach when it says "Although we do not know the limits of God’s grace and pray for the salvation of those who may never come to know Christ, for us the assurance of salvation is found in confessing Christ and trusting him alone.” This affirms that we, as Christians, know that our salvation lay in Christ alone, while leaving open the possibility of non-Christian salvation through Christ. To believe otherwise would be to limit the power of the Lord to bestow grace on whom He pleases.

Any thoughts?

Polling for Christ

2008-04-14T20:51:00.002-04:00

http://www.reformationtheology.com/2008/04/williow_creek_gets_doctrine.php

While I've never been a big fan of "new age" or "seeker sensitive" churches, I have to defend Willow Creek from this criticism. John at Reformation Theology has some very good points about Church being run like a corporation: selling a product; and if your product isn't selling, then change it. But I think he jumps to conclusions in chastising Willow Creek for using a poll for developing a new educational program. How do we know that the Church didn't seek out guidance from the Lord in pursuing the poll? In Acts 1, the Lord uses the casting of lots to guide the disciples in choosing a replacement for Judas. If the Lord can use lots to reveal his Will to people, why can he not use polls?

One of the purposes of a Church is to educate and build up its members in Christ. If it is revealed to them, that the current educational programs aren't working, then why should it matter the means by which this is revealed?

Marriage (of the State and Church)

2008-04-12T17:24:00.001-04:00

I take the traditionally libertarian perspective on the institution of marriage: that the state should have no role in it, whatsoever. What I find troubling is that so few fellow Christians think similarly. The state has a tendency to corrupt anything it touches; it's the nature of the beast. Why then would Christians and the Church advocate giving the state the power over such a spiritual ceremony?

Gender cont'd

2008-04-11T22:52:00.002-04:00

Jason from I Am A Son of God suggested an article in response to my previous post on gender. It's a good read, and Dr. Deddo seemed to be very concerned with seeking the truth with the Holy Spirit's guidance without regard to any human sentimentality (a.k.a. political correctness). Here's the link: http://www.trinitystudycenter.com/topical/trinityandgender

Faith Seeking Understanding: Part 1 - Gender

2008-04-08T21:45:00.001-04:00

Migliore does a decent job of explaining the modern Christian understanding of gender, in that we (both male and female) are created in the image of God. But he takes a curious twist with his analysis of Karl Barth's understanding of human gender and sexuality.

Barth claimed that "(1)human beings are either male or female and are called by God to affirm their particular identity; (2) that human beings are male and female and are called to find their human identity in mutual coordination with their sexual counterparts who are both similar and yet also irreducibly different; (3) and that human beings as male and female coexist in a definite and irreducible order." (Migliore pg. 146; Migliore's summary of Barth)

Migliore claims that stereotypical descriptions of the differences between male and female "have no place in serious theological anthropology." That seems to be quite a broad assertion, after all, do not all stereotypes have at their root some truth? And shouldn't all open-minded theologians consider the possibilities without outright rejection based on some modern notion of political correctness?

He goes on to claim that the male and female relationship is the "paradigmatic and foundational instance of life in reciprocal love," it cannot be limited to just that one relationship; all loving relationship can participate in the "divine intention" that humans live with and for each other. He suggests that the proper reading of scripture will reveal this, but he fails to address the clear commands against homosexual conduct in the Bible. While I want to believe that all people can easily participate in the loving arraignments that God has so graciously provided for us, I cannot accept it without some explanation of the scriptural context.

Migliore outright rejects Barth's claim of male and female being in an irreducible order of man as the "superordinate" and woman as the "subordinate." (the "A" and the "B", the "leader" and the "follower"). Among other assertions, he claims that it is "unacceptable to contemporary sensibilities." That's not much help.

He says that at creation there is no mention of hierarchy of male and female. But that the proper relationship is about mutual love and mutual service. That sounds pretty good to me, but I don't think we quite have the same idea of hierarchy.

Just because someone is the "leader" to the "follower" does not make that person better than the other. And if man is designed to be the leader of woman, that does not make man better than woman. Migliore seems to be misunderstanding the complementarian view of gender.

I tend to have a view somewhere between complementarianism and Christian egalitarianism because I don't view masculinity and femininity only oriented to one sex. Both can be present in different magnitudes in the different sexes. It is, after all, masculinity and femininity that Barth is trying to label as part of a hierarchy (I think).

Migliore is rejecting the notion of complementarian because he views it as labelling men as better than women. But in actuality it is putting masculinity in its proper place as a leader of femininity. And I'm not so sure I would go so far as to say that the masculine is the leader of the feminine, but that they are simply different.

Thoughts?

Bureaucracy

2008-04-08T07:35:00.002-04:00

Funny, but kinda sad story over at Coyote Blog: http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/04/thanks-governme.html

While I'm sure the government's intention behind the laser requirement on garage doors was benevolent, the is no way anyone could conceive of all the possible problems. Why do we always think government bureaucrats are in the best position to way the pros and cons?

AIDS

2008-04-08T07:30:00.000-04:00

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6172

Here is a great article on AIDS and the fight to prevent it. It gives a good overview of the ideological battle that's taking place in Africa between the condom crowd and the abstinence movement. It gave me some hope that the AIDS epidemic can be halted, if we get the right message out.

Cosmic Treason

2008-04-06T22:27:00.001-04:00

"Every sin is an act of cosmic treason, a futile attempt to dethrone God in His sovereign authority." - R.C. Sproul

I still haven't found what I'm looking for

2008-04-06T01:20:00.006-04:00

I have climbed highest mountain
I have run through the fields
Only to be with you
Only to be with you

I have run I have crawled
I have scaled these city walls
These city walls
Only to be with you
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for

I have kissed honey lips
Felt the healing in her fingertips
It burned like fire
This burning desire
I have spoke with the tongue of angels
I have held the hand of a devil
It was warm in the night
I was cold as a stone

But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for

I believe in the kingdom come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
Well yes I'm still running
You broke the bonds and you
Loosed the chains
Carried the cross
Of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believed it

But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for
But I still haven't found what I'm looking for...

Homosexuality cont'd

2008-04-05T14:34:00.002-04:00

Here's another interesting post on homosexuality: http://www.reformationtheology.com/2008/03/same_sex_romantic_love_not_a_s.php

I think it adequately describes the view of many conservative Christians that haven't bought into the "God Hates Fags" mentality of fundamentalism. The gist is that we are all born into sin, but just because we're born one way doesn't make it who God wants us to be.

I still don't think that's a sufficient explanation of homosexuality. I think these conservative Christians are simplifying the issue into one of just sin. (And I don't mean to say it's not a sin.) It's a much more complex issue when you look at if from the perspective of gender; masculinity and femininity.

Homosexuality

2008-04-05T11:30:00.003-04:00

This is a great discussion over at I Am the Son of God: http://iamasonofgod.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/does-the-bible-tell-me-so/

I have to say I agree with all of Jason's points. The fundamentalists in the U.S. respond to homosexuals with so much hate, it cannot possibly be from Christ. On the other side, the liberals have reacted against this hate and ignored clear scripture teaching on homosexuality.

I'll follow up with a more comprehensive post on homosexuality and gender issues later.

The Golden Compass

2008-04-04T17:22:00.000-04:00

I watched The Golden Compass last night. I definitely think the anti-Christian theme was overplayed by the Christian media. The movie seemed much more critical of any kind of authority that suppresses free will than it did of Christian beliefs.

Overall, it was very entertaining, but I wonder if I would have been able to follow it had I not read the books. It seemed kinda rushed to fit in all the major scenes. That said, it's worth the watch.