The Virtue Of An Open Mind?
It is virtuous to be open-minded, right? Well, maybe not. At least about some things.
I read a column by Fr. Chris Hayden (Conjectures of a Curate) that drew an emphatic high-five from the crew of the Dawn Treader.
Here is the deal. Being open-minded or close-minded, in and of itself, is
morally neutral. It is kind of like faith. Having faith, for the sake of having faith, means nothing. The question is, what is the object of your faith? Likewise, what are you open-minded or close-minded about?
I would argue, for example, that is not a virtuous thing to be open-minded about pedophilia. True, you won’t find any verses written in red about what Jesus said about pedophilia. Does that mean we should be open-minded about it? Heaven forbid! The corpus of scripture clearly teaches God’s design, context and purpose for sex. Pedophilia is so far out of bounds that we don’t even need to waste time looking for that ball. We should be close-minded about that issue. God has spoken, why in the world should we remain open-minded on this issue?
Another thing. Promoting open-mindedness as a virtue, in and of itself, is
self-refuting. Why? Because open-mindedness is very close-minded about close-mindedness, is it not? Whoops. Little bit of a logical disconnect there. When you encounter a proposition that falsifies itself, please follow my advice. Stand aside and let the argument quietly commit suicide.
That is the funny thing about truth. It is quite exclusive. When we discover truth, we would be well advised to close our minds against that which opposes it.
The next time someone preaches to you about the virtue of being open-minded, ask them what “open-minded about what?” If they are asking you to be open-minded about something which God clearly opposes, then tell them your mind is already full when it comes that subject. Sorry - closed. Full.
We are exhorted to love truth and embrace the one who embodies truth. Let’s fill our minds with truth and our hearts with love, and close our minds around that.
(hat tip: Wes Mollard)
What Is Your Church Doing?
I was glad to see the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) take a strong stand on
marriage at its recent general assembly in Pittsburgh.
Therefore be it resolved that the 32nd General Assembly:
Humbly call on the civil governments of Canada and the United States and all nations of the earth to act within their lawful powers and use whatever legislative and judicial instruments they deem most useful to ensure that marriage is legally defined and interpreted throughout their jurisdictions as existing exclusively between one man and woman.
My question to friends of The Cultural Commission is, how is your church taking a stand on the Biblical view of marriage?
I was commissioned, by our session, to write a letter to our members. My first draft was shot down by the session. I came out too strong in support of the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). The session felt that we should not "bind the conscience" of our members on a particular piece of legislation. I am okay with that, as long as we send out a letter saying something in defense of marriage. Our general assembly certainly came out strong. The session and I are re-working the letter to strip out my endorsements for the FMA.
What is your church doing? Does your church view this issue as "too political" and not touching it? Please comment.
Christians and political issues...
Should Christians really get involved in political issues? It is a question that I have always wondered about. It seems like our faith and our politics are not supposed to mix, at least according to the pundits of our culture. Presidential candidates, for example, are famous for going on record saying that they do not let their personal religion affect their public duties. Thomas Jefferson said there should be a “wall of separation” between the church and the government. So, what is a Christian to do? Two excellent books, which have helped inform my thinking on this question, are Chuck Colson’s
Kingdoms and Conflict and
How Now Shall We Live? (co-written with Nancy Pearcy).
Colson cogently argues for what great Christian thinkers for centuries have thought. Augustine, for example, wrote we are citizens of both the city of God and the city of man. We have a dual citizenship. As members of the city of God, we need to set our mind and heart on things above. We need to be less temporal in our thinking, and more eternal in our mindset. However, we are not to neglect our role in the city of man. We are to be godly citizens in society. We are to live out our Biblical worldview in such a way as to bring God’s righteousness and truth to bear on the ideas that shape our society. Sometimes that involves speaking with moral clarity in the public forum, even on issues that are “political”.
The most critical moral issue being debated in our culture is the role and purpose of marriage. There are those in this country who want to deconstruct and re-interpret what God meant by marriage. This God-ordained institution is God’s design for families, and families are the building blocks of societies. Sadly, the church has been largely silent on this issue, preferring to stay out of politics. It is no time for silence. It is time for the church, and that means all of us in the church, to speak God’s truth into a morally confused culture.
Christians need to obey Christ’s command to be salt and light, and courageously speak the truth about an institution that God established and blessed. Political or not, silence is not an option.
Support The Federal Marriage Amendment
Throughout history there have been times when the church has been called to speak with a prophetic voice to the culture. Now is such a time.
A small but well organized and well funded group is launching an attack on the most fundamental institution ordained by God: the institution of marriage. Marriage is the first institution ordained by God and has served from the beginning as the foundation for continuation of the human race. Marriages form the basis of families. Families are the building blocks of societies and cultures. As Christians, we have a cultural mandate from God which includes acting as salt in a culture stained and corrupted by sin. Salt was used in ancient times as a preservative. Likewise, we are to act as preservatives to stop the moral decay in our culture. In addition to fulfilling the Great Commission, we are to be agents of common grace and work toward the restoration of culture. In so doing, we will bring the majesty of God and His righteousness to bear against the crumbling structures of a fallen society.
We are now in a situation in which some courts and local officials have decided to enforce their concept of justice in a matter that affects everyone in our nation. The result is that the desires of the few are being imposed upon the many. This small but vocal group is attempting to redefine the meaning of marriage to conform to their homosexual lifestyles. Further, they have strategically marketed their cause as a moral one, involving civil rights, and morally equivalent to the civil rights movement of Martin Luther King, Jr. This is a false comparison. In the case of gay “marriage”, no one’s civil rights have been violated. Everyone has a right to marry, and marriage means and has always meant a union between a man and a woman. What the homosexual community truly wants is societal and governmental approval of their lifestyle choices. They want moral legitimacy. If ever there was a time where the church needed to speak with moral clarity and with one voice, it is now.
The best hope of saving marriage from redefinition is a constitutional amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. An amendment such as this protects marriage from redefinition by either state legislatures or an activist liberal judge. Why federal legislation? It is naive to think that the adoption of same-sex civil "marriage" in one state would not affect the other 38 states (Virginia included) that have codified the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. For example, homosexual couples that may soon be allowed to "marry" in Massachusetts will inevitably seek recognition of their "marriages" in other locales. The outcome will be a flood of litigation across the country, and courts in other states may order full legal recognition be granted to same-sex "marriages," even over the will of the people and their elected representatives.
Why is this threat so serious?
One, legalizing homosexual marriage puts society’s stamp of approval on a lifestyle choice that is immoral and clearly condemned throughout scripture. It lays the groundwork for further legislation like the law recently passed in Canada. Only months after legalizing same-sex “marriage” in Canada, activists there successfully passed C-250, a bill criminalizing public statements against homosexuality, punishable by up to two years in prison. Say the wrong thing; go to jail. Further, churches could be forced to perform same sex unions. When courts -- as happened in Massachusetts -- find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will successfully argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor natural marriage.
Two, marriage between a man and a woman is God’s design for raising children. Unraveling this basic institution, to satisfy the lifestyle choices of a few, will cause serious harm to the fabric of our society for generations to come. Marriages form the basis of families. The purpose of a family is to produce the next generation. That makes this issue about the future. It is about the culture in which our children and grand children will raise their families. The stakes are serious.
Three, we have clear evidence of what happens to societies that water down the meaning of marriage. The Scandinavian countries granted societal and governmental approval to same sex marriages 10 years ago. It locked in, reinforced and escalated a trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. According to Stanley Kurtz, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, Scandinavian gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. The result? In Denmark, sixty percent of first-born children have unmarried parents. The co-habitation statistics from Sweden and Norway are frightening. In the words of Kurtz, marriage is dying in Scandinavia. Gay marriage accelerated that death.
Remember, there are only three institutions ordained of God—the Church, the family, the government. It’s like a three-legged stool; take one away and the other two will not stand by themselves.
How can you make a difference?
One, pray earnestly and often about this issue. Any amendment to the constitution requires approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress and ratification by three fourths of the states. If a vote were taken today, the FMA would not pass. Several senators have said they simply aren't hearing from their constituents on this issue. The church, as a whole, has largely been silent. There are millions of evangelicals in this country, and most appear to be sitting this one out so far. With so much at stake, please pray for God to wake up Christians and give them the courage to get involved and speak with moral clarity.
(these are my senators in Virginia, go
here for contact information on your senators)
Two, contact the offices of Senator George Allen and Senator John Warner request that they co-sponsor Senate Joint Resolution 26, the Federal Marriage Amendment. They need to hear from you. Call their offices once a week. Write letters. Their addresses and phone numbers are: Allen, George - (R - VA) (202) 224-4024, 204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510; Warner, John - (R - VA) (202) 224-2023, 225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510.
Three, write letters to the local newspapers. We need to speak for moral truth in the marketplace of ideas.
Four, sign a
petition joining with Jim Dobson, Chuck Colson and other leaders supporting this amendment. The web address is http://www.pfm.org/BreakPoint/Petition
Five, learn more about the issue so you can talk to friends and family and defend the Biblical worldview. Here are some helpful web sites.
Focus on the Family
Institute For Marriage and Public Policy
Family Research Council
Campaign for Working Families
The Senate has announced a vote on the FMA for July. House leaders have promised action this summer. There is no more time to wait.
Dialog with a Christian Postmodern – Conclusion
Continuing in that vein, I asked, “Jane, you certainly have some views on abortion and homosexuality that conflict with scriptures. I was wondering how you reconcile your beliefs with clear biblical truths?”
“Alex, you know that since I left my old church I’ve been on an ever-growing spiritual journey. As God and I continue to work out my personal theology, I am always amazed at how often my intuitive (and I believe, Spirit-led) thoughts are affirmed by others. Often, that which I considered original thought, appears in a book, or I hear someone else express it, or I see something in the natural world that illustrates a concept.”
(Notice the postmodern themes of personal theology, truth by feelings, experience, and community!)
As I patiently listened, she continued, “The truth I know and accept is just this: TRUTH is a person and not a set of beliefs, moral absolutes, doctrines or a creed. Truth as a set of beliefs is exclusive, but TRUTH in the person of Jesus Christ is inclusive. I would also like to suggest that the basis of tyranny, like church violence past and present, has also been absolute truth.”
(As I was reflecting about all of the recent Barna surveys, I was thinking that Jane would have been one of those Christians surveyed to say they did not believe in absolute truth. I then felt a heaviness, realizing how far off center these very sincere people can be and how great our task ahead!)
“Jane, I will agree that Truth is a Person, inclusive to all. But that Person also established a set of truth claims that are exclusive towards counter claims. Dozens of times in each Gospel Jesus introduces us to those prepositional truths when He says, “I tell you the truth…”
Interrupting, she said “Look Alex, to be His followers, all we have to do is look at His life! It is so very simple. We don’t even have to agree on the words he spoke; His life spoke much more loudly than His words.”
I immediately thought, ‘What a bunch of self-refuting prattle!’ Trying not to look too condescending (and probably not succeeding!) I said, “Jane, that line of reasoning self-destructs. If we ignore what Jesus said in favor of what He did, we in effect throw out His whole ministry because His life was lived in complete congruence with His words. Also, think about His statement, ‘The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’ If His statement is true, His words are of the utmost importance. If not, He doesn’t even deserve our attention, much less our respect and worship.”
At this point our discussion tapered off as Jane’s response indicated that her personal theology hadn’t budged. (But who knows? It’s all up to Him!) We did agree to pick this up again in the future and I pray that some of God’s truth will seep in by then. In the mean time she will be in my prayers.
Dialog With A Christian Postmodern Part 4
While in my reverie she continued, “…and how do we know for sure that homosexuality is not a genetic trait? Maybe homosexuality is just another example of nature’s diversity? I have a very difficult time believing that the majority of homosexuals choose to be that way.”
“Jane, researchers have been in a frantic search for the ‘gay gene’ for decades -- to no avail. And it’s clear why. Each guy that I have mentored and talked to involved in the gay culture confirm what every study I’ve read on the issue concludes -- that gay men all have either a history of sexual child abuse or of a physically, emotionally, or spiritual absent father. Each of these guys has told me personally, that ‘those who claim the gay lifestyle is not a choice are living the lie.’ Their words not mine! This accords well with Paul’s analysis in Romans 1 of those who not only ‘suppress the truth’ but who ‘exchange the truth of God for a lie.’ This is a clear case of multiple attestation of the real issue here.”
Still in evasive mode, Jane replied, “I just don’t see how a gay couple wanting to live together harms anyone else—except maybe the sensibilities of some individuals. Maybe if they were allowed to marry legally, there would be less infidelity amongst them. And with the horrendous trend of heterosexual infidelity, we have a huge splinter in our eye!”
“Jane, you’re right that hetero couples have not lived up to the biblical standard. But, it is clear from virtually all stats that the level of gay infidelity is off the chart – especially in terms of numbers of partners outside of the primary relationship, with 75% of gay men reporting over 100 partners. This has made many observers conclude the gay juggernaut has nothing to do with commitment, fidelity, and monogamy, but has everything to do with demanding societal acceptance, approval, and celebration of their twisted morality.”
Continuing I said, “Jane, the Scandinavian countries have had something close to full gay marriage for a decade or more. This has severed to separate the idea of parenthood from marriage. As a result studies have shown that the majority of children in those countries are born out of wedlock. This is why society through the ages has revered and protected the uniqueness of marriage as one man and one woman.”
“Well, I’d like to see those studies. I don’t see how anyone can determine that gay marriage is the causal factor in the breakdown of society in Scandinavia? As in any study there are many variables.”
Seeing this line of discussion was dead-ended, I cut to the chase.
“Jean, to the fundamental issue behind this whole dialog – I feel that you have been so burned in the past by legalism that you are hesitant to make any stand about exclusive truth in the name of compassion and tolerance. But truth, by definition IS exclusive. And it is in light of that the Church is called the ‘pillar of the truth.’ I agree with you that Jesus demonstrated the highest tolerance for people. But at the same time, He was very intolerant of wrong behaviors and beliefs – the Gospels are VERY clear on that. His compassion was always expressed by giving people what they NEEDED and not necessarily what they may have wanted, with the ever-constant challenge to correct their wrong thinking and behavior.”
Then came the bombshell…
Dialog With A Christian Postmodern Part 3
Sitting down with a fresh cup of brew, I asked, “Now where were we?”
“Alex, I was trying to say that Jesus, unlike the religious Right, would have been an advocate for the homosexual – anyway Jesus accepted people, never condemning anyone!”
“Jane, I will agree with you to a point. Jesus fully accepted individuals and showered them with the compassion of healing, feeding, advocacy, and forgiveness – no doubt! But He never left them in the state He found them, telling them to “go and sin no more.” Clearly, Jesus was expressing judgment against a moral absolute. By the way, if Jesus never condemned anyone what do you think He meant when He told the religious establishment of His day, “if the miracles that were performed in you had been performed in Sodom, it would have remained to this day.”
Then with fleshly air of smugness I added, “Also what do you make of His statement, ”Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only.”
Settling comfortably back in my seat, she soon unsettled my surfacing buoyancy.
“If homosexuality is such an important issue and such a grave sin, why was it not specifically forbidden in the ten commandments? Why did Jesus not condemn it?”
Taking in a long draw on the brew, (forgive me Father, give me wisdom!) I swallowed and said,
“Jane, if you question the immorality of homosexuality because of its omission in the Decalogue and in Jesus’ specific teachings, do you also question the immorality of bestiality, incest, pedophilia, rape, wife-beating, child abuse, drug-dealing, etc, etc,?”
Evading the obvious question, Jane responded, “How can we judge the behaviors of others who have unimaginable struggles that we can’t begin to understand? As the catchy slogan goes— ‘God doesn’t create junk.’ “
"Jane, you appear to embrace a mixture of Hobbesian pragmaticism and relativism with regard to abortion and homosexuality. That is, if certain moral constraints are too difficult or impractical for individuals because of their genetic propensities or environmental circumstances, then those constraints should not be imposed. Obviously, there are many problems with such pragmatic view. Not the least of which is what would happen if every anti-social behavior is condoned because, hey, that’s the way God made me, and God don’t make junk? Unfortunately, I think that our society has largely bought into that. We increasingly see the legal defense of some of the most heinous crimes being founded on bad homes, bad neighborhoods, bad influences, weak pre-dispositions, etc. Thus, as moral responsibility and accountability have become vestiges of a forgotten past, even perpetrators of crimes are being promoted as victims.”
Seeming a bit on the defensive, Jane countered “Some people are just born different. It seems to me that homosexuality could be compared to Down’s Syndrome. So maybe homosexuality is not a choice.”
Taking in a much longer draw of coffee, while silently praying and desperately scanning my memory banks for all of the great centurion dialogs and materials I’ve been exposed to in the last few months, I remembered my experience in mentoring several men…
Dialog With A Christian Postmodern Part 2
“You know, Alex, ‘pro-life’ is really a misnomer. They believe in protecting life only within their interpretation of the Bible. If we are to take the commandment “thou shalt not kill” at face value, then we should be opposed to all killing including capital punishment, wars, and the killing of animals, besides the obvious premeditated murder. How many pro-lifers protest capital punishment or war? I can understand why pro-choice proponents see pro-life as a hypocritical message.”
After another moment of shocked silence, I responded. “Jane, first of all the sixth commandment is, “Thou shall not MURDER.” Which is the willful taking of innocent (human) life. It is clear that the intent of this command was not about killing in general, human or otherwise, since God sanctioned capital punishment, animal sacrifice, harvesting of crops, and many of Israel’s campaigns against its enemies. So, no, not very many pro-lifers would protest just war or capital punishment since these are not about the taking of innocent life.”
Continuing, I said, “I know that you revere Jesus’ expression of love and compassion. However, one of the ways Jesus demonstrated this during his ministry was to be the advocate and defender of the powerless, voiceless, and unwanted in society. And who today is more voiceless, powerless, and unwanted than the unborn? That is why Christians who take up the banner of pro-choice in legal and respectful expressions of protest are reflecting the advocacy of their Savior.”
In a clever shift of gears Jane re-directed the conversation to the gay controversy.
“You’re right, Alex, Jesus was an advocate and defender of the victims of society. I wonder how He would stand on the issue of homosexuality today? They have certainly been victims of persecution. How often have we seen them ridiculed and discriminated against? I am ashamed to say that in the past I have laughed at the jokes about them and looked at them in disgust. But no more. Because that is not what Jesus would do if He walked today among us. I know this because I know Him!”
Knowing this could be a powder keg, especially since she had recently converted to the Angelican church, I said, “Great point, Jane, let me get a cup of coffee, and let’s pick up on that thought. By the way can I get you one?”
“Thanks, no.”
Dialog with a Christian Postmodern – Part 1
It all begin after Jane read my (Alex's) commentary about the pro-choice march in DC. In that piece, I contrasted the abhorrent actions and demeanor of the “choicers” against that of pro-lifer, Lori McCormick to show the depth of the clash between these worldviews.
“Alex, all I got from your commentary was a one-sided view of the pro-life movement. What about all of the ‘so-called’ pro-lifers who bomb abortion clinics, terrorize clinic staff, and block women’s legal access into such clinics?”
“Jane, I admit that Christians have been guilty of incredible acts of violence. And in the broader view, the Church has had several dark and shameful periods in its past (the Inquisition, Crusades, witch trails, condoning slavery, etc.). However, most of these blemishes were motivated and propelled more by political and selfish human agendas rather than for religious reasons. In fact, all (including abortion clinic violence) were in direct conflict with Christ’s teachings which could have been readily discerned by any honest seeker of the truth.
So yes, there are fringe Christians who engage the culture in ways that are incompatible with Christianity. However, their acts can be clearly shown contrary to the Christian Worldview. But the raging pro-choices are acting consistently with the worldview that says, ‘the only absolute is choice and those who don’t agree are either ignorant or oppressors that need to be silenced.’”
Not about to budge an inch, Jane responded, “Well, I can see both sides to this moral dilemma. On each side there are moral and decent people.”
“Jane, You’re quite right -- there are sincere and decent people on both sides of the issue who do good things and bad things. I'm sure we each could name a few atheists who outshine many Christians in altruistic acts. However, those acts do not make the atheist good any more than the lack of acts make the Christian bad. So how do you view this moral dilemma?”
“All I know is that there are situations when to allow a child to develop to full-term would be cruel to both parents and child. To outlaw all abortions, to me, would create more problems than it would solve. I believe getting an abortion should not be easy, but it should be available in extenuating situations. So you could say, that I am pro-choice if strict regulations and controls are applied. ”
After a period of speechlessness, I finally countered with, “It seems that the issue should be plain.
If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, knitted Imago Dei in the “hidden places,” no justification for abortion is adequate.”
Without conceding that point she turned the discussion to the “misnomer” of pro-life and the incoherence of its stance…
Dialog with a Christian Postmodern – Intro
This is from a recent conversation a friend of mine, whom I will call “Alex”, had with a friend whom I will call “Jane”. I share it here with his permission.
=======================================================
I thought it might be interesting to share a dialog I’ve been having with a friend of my wife who could best be described as a postmodern Christian. I think our exchange underscores the real challenge we face with those in our own ranks. As has been said many times on this site, transformation (or reclamation) of the culture must begin within and it seems as an ever daunting task, as I think this dialog will show.
First a little background info. “Jane” was a fourth generation member of a church tradition steeped in the religiosity of legalism. During her membership she was witness, and party, to much of the judgmental exclusivity that is spawned in such settings. Her judgmentalism even extended to her own husband and children who were nominal church members. Needless to say, this caused much strife within their family and the emotional scars continue today.
However, three years ago after reading The Ragamuffin Gospel, by Brennan Manning, she began to see to a radically different God (of unconditional love) than the one of performance-based love she had grow up to know. This epiphany was the beginning of a spiritual quest that took her out of her church and into a local Anglican church.
Because of the scar tissue she carries from a lifetime of legalism, and the guilt she feels for her own judgmentalism, Jane is now reluctant to stand on any moral absolute other than that of tolerance.
As I think our conversation will show, Jane, like so many, reads the bible underlining the passages of the God she wants, rather than the God who is. Her God is the grey, indulgent ol’ gentleman who makes no demands, while showering affirmation and blessing His rebellious, ungrateful children. The God who says, “if you love me, keep my commandments,” “ unless you deny yourself, take up your cross daily, and follow me, you cannot be my disciple” is, in her mind, the merit-based God of her old tradition.
On Marshwiggles and Worldviews Part 2 (conclusion)
To a good Narnian like Puddleglum, Aslan represents everything that is right and good in the world. His word is to be trusted. Aslan never lies. Aslan is never wrong. Despite how irrational it may appear to free the raving lunatic from his bondage, even if it costs them their very lives, Aslan’s word is to be followed. Plain and simple. Though Pole and Scrubb waffle a bit, Puddleglum tells them they must follow Aslan’s instructions. Scrubb and Puddleglum, thinking they are about to die, cut the ropes and set him free.
Puddleglum illustrates a type of Abraham. Abraham’s faith was tested when he was asked to sacrifice Isaac. It was a seemingly irrational request. Abraham faced a faith check for the ages. He obeyed. So did Puddleglum.
What does this say about Biblical faith? What can we learn from the worldview of a marshwiggle? We learn that faith is a confident trust. It is not an irrational leap into the dark. It is a reasoned step into the light. It is Abraham obeying God. It is Peter stepping out of the boat and walking toward the arms of Christ, despite the fury of the tempest. It is Puddleglum freeing the raving Prince Rilian. It is expressed in obedience. It is based on a knowledge of God, revealed to us in scripture, in creation, in history and in our own conscience. We know that God is sovereign, all powerful, all knowing, holy and righteous. In spite of perplexing circumstances, obedience is always the most rational course of action. What faith check are you facing today? Are you being called to step out of the safety and comfort of the boat and walk toward Christ? Are you, like Puddleglum, facing a difficult and scary choice, but you know what you are supposed to do? For the Christian, do the rational thing. Trust. Obey.
On Marshwiggles and Worldviews Part 1
If you have not read C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia to your kids, you really should. I am currently reading the series to my sons Connor (8) and Jesse (6). We have reached book six, The Silver Chair.
Last night, our story was set in a dark castle in an underworld realm. Our three heroes, Pole, Scrubb and Puddleglum have been taken to a castle of an evil queen who is a sorceress. Fortunately for them, she is not there at the moment. She is away, but due back at any moment. However, her main protector, a smug warrior named the Black Knight is there.
While Pole and Scrubb are English children from our world, Puddleglum is a marshwiggle from Narnia. Marshwiggles are tall, skinny, frog-like creatures that inhabit the northlands of Narnia. Marshwiggles lead simple lives. They are peace loving. They basically eat fish, smoke pipes, and watch the world go by. They remind me of hobbits.
Puddleglum, Scrubb and Pole face a confusing and frightening situation. The Black Knight tells them that he is prone to fits of rage that come over him suddenly at night. He must be bound and tied to a silver chair for his own safety and the safety of others. Sure as shootin’, Pole, Scrubb and Puddleglum happen upon the Black Knight that night right before one of his fits of rage. The knight tells them, whatever I say or do, no matter how much I plead with you, never free me from this chair or I will slay you. Moments later, he falls into one of his fits. Instead of a fit, however, it turns out that a spell is lifted from the black knight and his mind clears. He is actually Prince Rilian, the very person Aslan commissioned Pole and Scrubb (and Puddleglum) to go rescue. Rilian begs, pleads, and implores them to free him from his imprisonment. They refuse. They are understandably scared and confused.
Rilian desperately begs them one last time, to free him in the name of all that is right and good, in the name of Aslan. Suddenly, the three realize that this raving lunatic may actually be Prince Rilian. Why? Because Aslan told them that the one who speaks my name will be Rilian. What should they do?
Puddleglum’s worldview takes over...
General Relativity
Why does a theist like myself care about something as esoteric as Einstein’s law of general relativity? Because it is a well tested, well-accepted theory of modern physics that implies something very significant about our universe. It implies that time had a beginning. Don’t take my word for it; take Stephen Hawking’s word.
In the 70s, Hawking, Ellis and Penrose extended the solution of Einstein’s equations to include space and time, not just energy and matter. Their paper showed that if these equations are valid for the universe, then, under reasonably general conditions, space and time also must have an origin, an origin coincident with that for matter and energy. In other words, time must have a beginning
The more evidence we uncover to support general relativity, the stronger becomes the space-time theorem of relativity. No theory of physics has been tested as rigorously and as comprehensively as general relativity. Over the last few decades numerous observational tests have been devised for general relativity. In each case general relativity has passed with flying colors. For instance, general relativity predicts the rate at which two neutron stars orbiting one another will move closer together. When this phenomenon was observed and measured, general relativity proved accurate to better than a trillionth of a percent precision.
Why is a beginning to time such a big deal? Here is why. Your worldview must account for the question, where did we come from? How did we get here? More simply stated, why is there something rather than nothing?
Your answer to that question of origin must account for the fact that time had a beginning. Speculations about an infinite universe or an oscillating universe can be put to rest. Classical thermodynamics, observational astronomy and general relativity all have joined forces to tell the same story. There was a beginning ... just like the Bible said all along. Now the question becomes, who was the Beginner behind the beginning? Read Genesis and find out.
The "not so junky" DNA molecule
Check out the article in
Nature Magazine discussing what was thought to be junk DNA.
"Junk" DNA?
Junk DNA? This expression has always bothered me. Scientists coined the term to describe the genetic “wasteland” within the human genome, or book of life, which consists of long uncharted stretches of DNA for which there is no known function
Why not “mystery DNA” or “uncharted DNA”? Why junk? I want to suggest two reasons. One, there is a tacit arrogance associated with the worldview that asserts that science will give us all the answers. After all, scientific discovery has been impressive to date. Dare I say, we have gotten a little puffed up? We encounter stretches of DNA for which we have no explanation and presto, it must be junk because it does not appear to do anything.
A second reason, I think, is because the term “junk” fits nicely with the evolutionary paradigm. After all, a mechanism that is unguided and *blind* will produce junk, right?
If the evolutionary model of life’s development is correct, then “junk” DNA will indeed turn out to be junk after all. If the intelligent design model of life’s development is correct, then it will turn out that “junk” DNA will actually have a purpose after all. As scientists explore the uncharted sections of the human genome, we can add data points and watch the trend line to see which model corresponds to reality.
Permit me to submit one data point. Researchers at Harvard Medical School recently announced a new discovery. They discovered a new class of gene in the “junky” section of the genome. It turns out that this gene does not produce a protein or enzyme like other genes do. Its job is regulation. When it is turned ON, it regulates its neighboring gene. Suddenly researchers realize that a whole new class of genes exists. This paradigm shift will cause them to go back and take a fresh look at the “junk” stretches to see how many of these types of genes exist.
My prediction is that this pattern will repeat itself over and over until there is precious little junk left. Let’s watch the trend line on this closely and evaluate which worldview offers us a true picture of reality: naturalism or theism?
Let me be clear about one thing. I love science. It is naturalism that I find troubling because of its truncated view of reality.
In the meantime, I wish we could coin a new phrase besides “junk” DNA. Better yet, I wish scientists would take a more humble approach as they explore the complexity and beauty of life at its tiniest level.
It Begins With The Heart
Want to hear the poets of the day? Listen to the music. POD’s hit song Youth of The Nation is a good case in point. It expresses the mood of our culture and the search for meaning that is felt by many youth today. Shocked and dismayed by school shootings, teen suicides and widespread violence, the songwriter expresses the question many are asking … “Will it ever make sense? Somebody’s got to know. There's got to be more to life than this. There's got to be more to everything I thought exists.”
I saw a picture in World magazine of a smiling, innocent looking teenage girl who attended the recent marriage rally in Seattle. Unfortunately, she was on the wrong side. She was protesting against traditional marriage. She wore a T-shirt that bore the same message as the large sign she was proudly carrying. The sign simply read “Going to hell and proud”.
How do we restore truth in a culture that so clearly lacks a moral compass? How do we convince a skeptical culture that hell is real, God is real, and the Biblical worldview corresponds to reality? How do we deliver *the* message of redemption, hope and meaning to a culture which is searching for answers? Let me suggest it starts with the heart.
Your heart needs to be broken. You need to care. Like Christ gazing at Jerusalem, you need to weep when you look at our culture. It begins with having a heart that beats like Jesus Christ’s heart.
We often think that the yelling, red faced, vein popping protesters of the pro-abortion or the pro-gay marriage crowd are the enemy. May I suggest the true enemy is apathy, indifference, and coldness in the hearts of Christians toward those lost souls in our secular culture.
The poets of the day express the question everyone is asking … how do I make sense of it all? As followers of Christ, we must both tell them the truth and show them the love of Christ. How do we do this? It begins with caring. It begins with repenting from our indifference. It begins with a desire to engage the lost in our culture with the love of Christ. It begins with our hearts.
The Face Of Agnosticism
The face of agnosticism. Photo was taken at a recent marriage rally outside of Seattle. I would be interested in hearing your comments.
