Aspen Green
Aspen leaves press up
Through sap and vein in white wrap
Rain, soil, sun turn green
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
It's Alive!
Much has been made of a recent technological breakthrough in which the researcher, Craig Venter, assembled a fully synthetic strand of DNA. Such announcements tend to come with some rather grand claims, as evidenced by the article’s headline in The Economist, “And Man Made Life” and this opening paragraph:
TO CREATE life is the prerogative of gods. Deep in the human psyche, whatever the rational pleadings of physics and chemistry, there exists a sense that biology is different, is more than just the sum of atoms moving about and reacting with one another, is somehow infused with a divine spark, a vital essence. It may come as a shock, then, that mere mortals have now made artificial life.
A good collection of reactions and analysis by biologist Jonathan Wells of the science can be found on the blog, Evolution News & Views. As it turns out, nothing too spectacular has happened, despite some of the implications of some of the reporting. All Venter and his colleagues have done is take some life apart, and recreate just DNA (which is not a living organism).
But what is going on in the desire to report this as “life-creating” or even the desire to recreate life in our own image? Two vast questions indeed, but here are a couple of thoughts.
The anonymous article in the The Economist makes it pretty clear the author(s) are excited about humanity’s mastery over “life.” And though the positive and creative possibilities presented by such reconstruction could be vast, so are the darker ethical implications. How much mastery do we need, and what does it mean for the human race (more specifically, governments, universities and companies) to have that kind of control over the next generation of anything biological? At least we are a basically good species with no ill-intent or inclinations toward destruction or evil!
In addition, scientists would love to find what several of the reports call “chemical pathways” to the creation of life. One of the predominant theories of the creation of the first living organisms is called “chemical evolution,” and postulates that some set of chemical reactions took simple material stuff to living stuff. The creation of this synthetic DNA potentially offers the ability to unravel some of the complicated pathways and figure out how the first life came to be.
Though chemical evolution is far from uncontroversial, many of the reports on this event hold a hopeful tone about origin of life discovery. Though there will likely be some set of discoveries made as a result, the drive to exaggerate the breakthrough and its possibilities derives from an a priori commitment to naturalistic Neo-Darwinism. By in large, evolutionary scientists and their supporters simply don’t want to imagine the possibility of a non-natural cause to the origin of life, so anything that even looks like a step in a naturalistic direction is heralded as a leap of magnificent proportions.
TO CREATE life is the prerogative of gods. Deep in the human psyche, whatever the rational pleadings of physics and chemistry, there exists a sense that biology is different, is more than just the sum of atoms moving about and reacting with one another, is somehow infused with a divine spark, a vital essence. It may come as a shock, then, that mere mortals have now made artificial life.
A good collection of reactions and analysis by biologist Jonathan Wells of the science can be found on the blog, Evolution News & Views. As it turns out, nothing too spectacular has happened, despite some of the implications of some of the reporting. All Venter and his colleagues have done is take some life apart, and recreate just DNA (which is not a living organism).
But what is going on in the desire to report this as “life-creating” or even the desire to recreate life in our own image? Two vast questions indeed, but here are a couple of thoughts.
The anonymous article in the The Economist makes it pretty clear the author(s) are excited about humanity’s mastery over “life.” And though the positive and creative possibilities presented by such reconstruction could be vast, so are the darker ethical implications. How much mastery do we need, and what does it mean for the human race (more specifically, governments, universities and companies) to have that kind of control over the next generation of anything biological? At least we are a basically good species with no ill-intent or inclinations toward destruction or evil!
In addition, scientists would love to find what several of the reports call “chemical pathways” to the creation of life. One of the predominant theories of the creation of the first living organisms is called “chemical evolution,” and postulates that some set of chemical reactions took simple material stuff to living stuff. The creation of this synthetic DNA potentially offers the ability to unravel some of the complicated pathways and figure out how the first life came to be.
Though chemical evolution is far from uncontroversial, many of the reports on this event hold a hopeful tone about origin of life discovery. Though there will likely be some set of discoveries made as a result, the drive to exaggerate the breakthrough and its possibilities derives from an a priori commitment to naturalistic Neo-Darwinism. By in large, evolutionary scientists and their supporters simply don’t want to imagine the possibility of a non-natural cause to the origin of life, so anything that even looks like a step in a naturalistic direction is heralded as a leap of magnificent proportions.
Monday, March 29, 2010
A Good Review of McLaren's Latest
Those who have read through any of the posts on this blog know I am no fan of the theological trajectory of the emergent movement. I recently posted on Facebook that the more I read emergent authors, the more I am convinced that their whole system is founded on theological, historical, and philosophical straw men. I haven’t read anything to convince me otherwise.
In light of McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity, I recommend Kevin DeYoung’s book review on The Gospel Coalition website. DeYoung does a very good job of pinning down an author who tries (often with a great deal of success) to be un-pinn-downable. Though I have not read this book of McLaren’s, it has all the appearances of having jumped the shark: he is now obviously in the camp of 19th century liberal theology. And DeYoung and I both hope, “this wave of liberalism fades as dramatically as did the last.”
Often people, who want to see the good in everything, will counter that the emergent movement at least has a deep missional motivation – they want to see people…well, what exactly do they want to see people do? McLaren is clear over and over in his writings that he doesn’t want to see them come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and mostly other emergents who have a compassionate heart are primarily about social justice issues while simultaneously wrenching out the inherently theological core to Christian social justice.
If the theology is this bad, chances are the behavior will trend in the wrong direction. In order to recover a Christlike sense of care for creation and its inhabitants, it begins with a holistic view of God’s revelation to us, not by cherry-picking and fuzzy thinking.
In light of McLaren’s new book, A New Kind of Christianity, I recommend Kevin DeYoung’s book review on The Gospel Coalition website. DeYoung does a very good job of pinning down an author who tries (often with a great deal of success) to be un-pinn-downable. Though I have not read this book of McLaren’s, it has all the appearances of having jumped the shark: he is now obviously in the camp of 19th century liberal theology. And DeYoung and I both hope, “this wave of liberalism fades as dramatically as did the last.”
Often people, who want to see the good in everything, will counter that the emergent movement at least has a deep missional motivation – they want to see people…well, what exactly do they want to see people do? McLaren is clear over and over in his writings that he doesn’t want to see them come to a saving knowledge of Christ, and mostly other emergents who have a compassionate heart are primarily about social justice issues while simultaneously wrenching out the inherently theological core to Christian social justice.
If the theology is this bad, chances are the behavior will trend in the wrong direction. In order to recover a Christlike sense of care for creation and its inhabitants, it begins with a holistic view of God’s revelation to us, not by cherry-picking and fuzzy thinking.
Friday, March 19, 2010
A good book that suffers from an emergent point of view
Shane Hipps’ desire with this book is essentially two-fold. First, he wants to take a serious look at the effects of media technology in the lives of believers. Secondly, he works to take that analysis and apply it to the life of the church.
Using the powerfully prescient McLuhan as his touchstone, Hipps proceeds to remind us of the truth that the “medium is the message” and the subsequent analysis provided by McLuhan to help us understand the impact of any technology. Hipps moves fluidly from oral to written culture to projected sermons in video venue church services. As such, I think Hipps does a good job of reminding us of some very important reflection – the kind of reflection we so rarely do as evangelicals. At times Hipps is insightful, at times he is appropriately biting in his critique, but most of all the first half of the book provides analysis that needs to be heard. We live in a technologically saturated culture, and hence we tend to lose our ability to “step out” for a moment and think through whether it is any good for us or the message of the Gospel.
Where the book begins to lose its impact is the second half – the application to church culture. Several problems become fairly obvious as the book progresses. I was personally disappointed to discover that Hipps is squarely in the emergent theological fold. I know his book is endorsed by leaders in the emergent movement, but that didn’t necessitate the theological problems with Hipps’ analysis. As is becoming almost stereotypical of emergent writing, Hipps’ history, philosophy and theology are rife with straw men, hyperbole, and unkind generalizations.
For example, Hipps simply assumes that epistemological foundationalism is dead. It isn’t. The result from Hipps’ point of view is that church life needs to look more at a “web of belief” way of presenting the Gospel, but that is not free from its own serious problems. If the foundation of your argument is a broad generalization, your conclusion is bound to suffer.
Hipps argues against the cultural captivity of seeker sensitive style churches and the prevalence of modernism in too many evangelical circles. Though this is true in some places, the emergent point of view has painted with a very broad brush and pigeonholed every church that doesn’t look at things the way they do. Ironically, at this point Hipps falls into the same trap as so many emergent authors – while accusing the modern church of cultural captivity they have willingly become captives to a postmodern culture.
And then there are the ad hominem attacks. Hipps is not above mocking the “30 minute lecture” style of preaching or stating that top-down leadership models “inevitably” lead to corruption and abuse. I’m growing tired of hearing these kinds of obviously false and unkind generalizations from emergent authors.
Hipps’ personal narrative is compelling and his work in McLuhan’s theory is a great reminder for us, but the book would have been a lot more persuasive with better application to church life.
Using the powerfully prescient McLuhan as his touchstone, Hipps proceeds to remind us of the truth that the “medium is the message” and the subsequent analysis provided by McLuhan to help us understand the impact of any technology. Hipps moves fluidly from oral to written culture to projected sermons in video venue church services. As such, I think Hipps does a good job of reminding us of some very important reflection – the kind of reflection we so rarely do as evangelicals. At times Hipps is insightful, at times he is appropriately biting in his critique, but most of all the first half of the book provides analysis that needs to be heard. We live in a technologically saturated culture, and hence we tend to lose our ability to “step out” for a moment and think through whether it is any good for us or the message of the Gospel.
Where the book begins to lose its impact is the second half – the application to church culture. Several problems become fairly obvious as the book progresses. I was personally disappointed to discover that Hipps is squarely in the emergent theological fold. I know his book is endorsed by leaders in the emergent movement, but that didn’t necessitate the theological problems with Hipps’ analysis. As is becoming almost stereotypical of emergent writing, Hipps’ history, philosophy and theology are rife with straw men, hyperbole, and unkind generalizations.
For example, Hipps simply assumes that epistemological foundationalism is dead. It isn’t. The result from Hipps’ point of view is that church life needs to look more at a “web of belief” way of presenting the Gospel, but that is not free from its own serious problems. If the foundation of your argument is a broad generalization, your conclusion is bound to suffer.
Hipps argues against the cultural captivity of seeker sensitive style churches and the prevalence of modernism in too many evangelical circles. Though this is true in some places, the emergent point of view has painted with a very broad brush and pigeonholed every church that doesn’t look at things the way they do. Ironically, at this point Hipps falls into the same trap as so many emergent authors – while accusing the modern church of cultural captivity they have willingly become captives to a postmodern culture.
And then there are the ad hominem attacks. Hipps is not above mocking the “30 minute lecture” style of preaching or stating that top-down leadership models “inevitably” lead to corruption and abuse. I’m growing tired of hearing these kinds of obviously false and unkind generalizations from emergent authors.
Hipps’ personal narrative is compelling and his work in McLuhan’s theory is a great reminder for us, but the book would have been a lot more persuasive with better application to church life.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
Love and (necessarily?) Hate
Love, when properly understood is necessarily and rightly accompanied by hate. In fact, I think it can be said that we can measure our moral character by what we can’t stand.
First of all, I’m not all that interested in hating people. I think Scripture and Christian teaching are clear that people are to be loved with God’s kind of sacrificial love. But then, I also believe that Scripture and Christian teaching are clear that the development of moral virtue in our lives is accompanied by a development in the things we hate.
To love a person is to properly hate the things that separate them from God and destroy their lives. God, for instance, hates divorce. Does that mean he hates divorcees? Such a conclusion would be silly – he hates the dysfunction that leads to and destruction that results from divorce exactly because he so deeply loves divorcees. If someone you love deeply is destroying their life, chances are you can’t stand the behaviors or habits causing their ruin. And it is right for you to hate those things – because they hurt the ones you love.
If love can be understood this way, then our popular cultural view of love should be immediately jettisoned. It is commonly thought that to love someone is to allow them to be who they want to be or do what they want to do. But if this is true, then there is no real room for my hatred of the things that corrupt and destroy my loved ones.
Thus, true love assumes and enforces moral rights and wrongs.
First of all, I’m not all that interested in hating people. I think Scripture and Christian teaching are clear that people are to be loved with God’s kind of sacrificial love. But then, I also believe that Scripture and Christian teaching are clear that the development of moral virtue in our lives is accompanied by a development in the things we hate.
To love a person is to properly hate the things that separate them from God and destroy their lives. God, for instance, hates divorce. Does that mean he hates divorcees? Such a conclusion would be silly – he hates the dysfunction that leads to and destruction that results from divorce exactly because he so deeply loves divorcees. If someone you love deeply is destroying their life, chances are you can’t stand the behaviors or habits causing their ruin. And it is right for you to hate those things – because they hurt the ones you love.
If love can be understood this way, then our popular cultural view of love should be immediately jettisoned. It is commonly thought that to love someone is to allow them to be who they want to be or do what they want to do. But if this is true, then there is no real room for my hatred of the things that corrupt and destroy my loved ones.
Thus, true love assumes and enforces moral rights and wrongs.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Segregating Ages In Church
There was a strong wave of this kind of thing a decade ago, but the trend of planting churches targeted to a specific generation and segregating church services remains a strong impulse in evangelical churches. In some ways, the inclination is good: we see a lot of young people leaving the church, so let’s find a way to make church something they are more attracted to.
From an article in Christianity Today about this trend, Hemingway notes that these churches tend to morph into traditional congregations anyway, as young singles grow, get married and have kids. Suddenly you either have to change the focus of the congregation, or start squeezing people out.
I believe in a congregation that is deliberately transgenerational. I believe in a youth group that is with the rest of the congregation in worship more often than not. I believe in young kids sitting with and learning how to worship God with their families.
Out of Ur recently ran an article on some possible coming trends in the church. Based on what I have seen from the last several years of generational ministry, I would like to add transgenerational church to the list. I know, the best ideas have been around for the longest time.
From an article in Christianity Today about this trend, Hemingway notes that these churches tend to morph into traditional congregations anyway, as young singles grow, get married and have kids. Suddenly you either have to change the focus of the congregation, or start squeezing people out.
I believe in a congregation that is deliberately transgenerational. I believe in a youth group that is with the rest of the congregation in worship more often than not. I believe in young kids sitting with and learning how to worship God with their families.
Out of Ur recently ran an article on some possible coming trends in the church. Based on what I have seen from the last several years of generational ministry, I would like to add transgenerational church to the list. I know, the best ideas have been around for the longest time.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
On the Power of Words, and a Prayer for Our Time
Psalm 12
1 Help, LORD, for no faithful one remains; the loyal have disappeared from the human race.
2 They lie to one another; they speak with flattering lips and deceptive hearts.
3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaks boastfully.
4 They say, "Through our tongues we have power; our lips are our own—who can be our master?"
5 "Because of the oppression of the afflicted and the groaning of the poor, I will now rise up," says the LORD. "I will put in a safe place the one who longs for it."
6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times.
7 You, LORD, will guard us; You will protect us from this generation forever.
8 The wicked wander everywhere, and what is worthless is exalted by the human race
1 Help, LORD, for no faithful one remains; the loyal have disappeared from the human race.
2 They lie to one another; they speak with flattering lips and deceptive hearts.
3 May the LORD cut off all flattering lips and the tongue that speaks boastfully.
4 They say, "Through our tongues we have power; our lips are our own—who can be our master?"
5 "Because of the oppression of the afflicted and the groaning of the poor, I will now rise up," says the LORD. "I will put in a safe place the one who longs for it."
6 The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times.
7 You, LORD, will guard us; You will protect us from this generation forever.
8 The wicked wander everywhere, and what is worthless is exalted by the human race
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Prosperity Gospel and Economic Ruin?
The Atlantic recently ran an article touching on another possible cause for the housing bubble and our economic troubles. It had an arresting title: Did Christianity Cause the Crash?
In what is to me an aggravating and enlightening article, Hanna Rosen does a great job of covering at least two big issues – the prosperity gospel and the national demographics of foreclosures. You might be able to guess the thesis of the article. Rosen details how several hot spots of the prosperity gospel overlap the foreclosure hotspots. Is it possible that this way of preaching the gospel encouraged people to seek subprime loans and banks to offer them in unusual numbers?
As it turns out, I think she has a case. A couple of excerpts from her article:
Demographically, the growth of the prosperity gospel tracks fairly closely to the pattern of foreclosure hot spots. Both spread in two particular kinds of communities—the exurban middle class and the urban poor. Many newer prosperity churches popped up around fringe suburban developments built in the 1990s and 2000s
Nationally, the prosperity gospel has spread exponentially among African American and Latino congregations. This is also the other distinct pattern of foreclosures. “Hyper-segregated” urban communities were the worst off, says Halperin. Reliable data on foreclosures by race are not publicly available, but mortgages are tracked by both race and loan type, and subprime loans have tended to correspond to foreclosures. During the boom, roughly 40 percent of all loans going to Latinos nationwide were subprime loans; Latinos and African Americans were 28 percent and 37 percent more likely, respectively, to receive a higher-rate subprime loan than whites.
And it’s not just that a prosperity gospel may have encouraged people to seek these loans, but banks saw an opportunity afforded by these churches.
The idea of reaching out to churches took off quickly, Jacobson recalls. The branch managers figured pastors had a lot of influence with their parishioners and could give the loan officers credibility and new customers. Jacobson remembers a conference call where sales managers discussed the new strategy. The plan was to send officers to guest-speak at church-sponsored “wealth-building seminars” like the ones Bowler attended, and dazzle the participants with the possibility of a new house. They would tell pastors that for every person who took out a mortgage, $350 would be donated to the church, or to a charity of the parishioner’s choice. “They wouldn’t say, ‘Hey, Mr. Minister. We want to give your people a bunch of subprime loans,” Jacobson told me. “They would say, ‘Your congregants will be homeowners! They will be able to live the American dream!’”
[As a side note, you might wonder why banks would seek such risky loans when they inevitably default. The answer to that question leads you directly to the root cause of the housing bubble and the current crash. The only reason a bank would buy those loans is because, as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act run by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank, banks were promised that if they provided “affordable housing” (the same thing as subprime loans to people who couldn’t pay them back), the federal government would buy those mortgages through Fannie and Freddie. Over a short period of time the Fed government had millions of dollars worth of worthless paper, several financial institutions got caught in the mix, and things went downhill from there.]
But back to the problems of the prosperity gospel. I have a deep and dark spite for that kind of spiritual vomit, and I have no problem believing it played a role in the financial destruction of thousands of people in the pews. Rosen visited one such Latino church and pressed the pastor, Garay, about the failings of the whole prosperity system. His answer qualifies him for a punch in the mouth, which I am more than willing to take care of.
Once, I asked Garay how you would know for certain if God had told you to buy a house, and he answered like a roulette dealer. “Ten Christians will say that God told them to buy a house. In nine of the cases, it will go bad. The 10th one is the real Christian.”
In what is to me an aggravating and enlightening article, Hanna Rosen does a great job of covering at least two big issues – the prosperity gospel and the national demographics of foreclosures. You might be able to guess the thesis of the article. Rosen details how several hot spots of the prosperity gospel overlap the foreclosure hotspots. Is it possible that this way of preaching the gospel encouraged people to seek subprime loans and banks to offer them in unusual numbers?
As it turns out, I think she has a case. A couple of excerpts from her article:
Demographically, the growth of the prosperity gospel tracks fairly closely to the pattern of foreclosure hot spots. Both spread in two particular kinds of communities—the exurban middle class and the urban poor. Many newer prosperity churches popped up around fringe suburban developments built in the 1990s and 2000s
Nationally, the prosperity gospel has spread exponentially among African American and Latino congregations. This is also the other distinct pattern of foreclosures. “Hyper-segregated” urban communities were the worst off, says Halperin. Reliable data on foreclosures by race are not publicly available, but mortgages are tracked by both race and loan type, and subprime loans have tended to correspond to foreclosures. During the boom, roughly 40 percent of all loans going to Latinos nationwide were subprime loans; Latinos and African Americans were 28 percent and 37 percent more likely, respectively, to receive a higher-rate subprime loan than whites.
And it’s not just that a prosperity gospel may have encouraged people to seek these loans, but banks saw an opportunity afforded by these churches.
The idea of reaching out to churches took off quickly, Jacobson recalls. The branch managers figured pastors had a lot of influence with their parishioners and could give the loan officers credibility and new customers. Jacobson remembers a conference call where sales managers discussed the new strategy. The plan was to send officers to guest-speak at church-sponsored “wealth-building seminars” like the ones Bowler attended, and dazzle the participants with the possibility of a new house. They would tell pastors that for every person who took out a mortgage, $350 would be donated to the church, or to a charity of the parishioner’s choice. “They wouldn’t say, ‘Hey, Mr. Minister. We want to give your people a bunch of subprime loans,” Jacobson told me. “They would say, ‘Your congregants will be homeowners! They will be able to live the American dream!’”
[As a side note, you might wonder why banks would seek such risky loans when they inevitably default. The answer to that question leads you directly to the root cause of the housing bubble and the current crash. The only reason a bank would buy those loans is because, as a result of the Community Reinvestment Act run by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank, banks were promised that if they provided “affordable housing” (the same thing as subprime loans to people who couldn’t pay them back), the federal government would buy those mortgages through Fannie and Freddie. Over a short period of time the Fed government had millions of dollars worth of worthless paper, several financial institutions got caught in the mix, and things went downhill from there.]
But back to the problems of the prosperity gospel. I have a deep and dark spite for that kind of spiritual vomit, and I have no problem believing it played a role in the financial destruction of thousands of people in the pews. Rosen visited one such Latino church and pressed the pastor, Garay, about the failings of the whole prosperity system. His answer qualifies him for a punch in the mouth, which I am more than willing to take care of.
Once, I asked Garay how you would know for certain if God had told you to buy a house, and he answered like a roulette dealer. “Ten Christians will say that God told them to buy a house. In nine of the cases, it will go bad. The 10th one is the real Christian.”
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
God and Pure Pleasure
I started reading Gary Thomas’ Pure Pleasure the other day, and I found one of his opening premises to be right on the money. He writes, “Spiritual triumph begins and ends with finding our satisfaction in God above all things.” He argues that the best way to deepen relationship with God and find true spiritual transformation is to find our joy and pleasure in Him, instead of being frightened into obedience.
There are two ways to encourage a walk with God, one through fear of the consequences of sin, and the other through love of God. We ought to never ignore or stop paying attention to how sin robs us of life and destroys our relationships, but we need to pick up the theme of love and joy and pleasure in God.
Are we excited about what life with God in this world can be like? Or are we afraid of what sin will do to us? Both questions are valid, but for some reason we tend to ignore the first and most enduring reason for life with Christ.
Do I seek God because I love Him? Do I want His life in mine because I am spellbound by His glory? Does my heart long for the beauty and majesty of God?
There are two ways to encourage a walk with God, one through fear of the consequences of sin, and the other through love of God. We ought to never ignore or stop paying attention to how sin robs us of life and destroys our relationships, but we need to pick up the theme of love and joy and pleasure in God.
Are we excited about what life with God in this world can be like? Or are we afraid of what sin will do to us? Both questions are valid, but for some reason we tend to ignore the first and most enduring reason for life with Christ.
Do I seek God because I love Him? Do I want His life in mine because I am spellbound by His glory? Does my heart long for the beauty and majesty of God?
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Is Christ Ever Safe?
The LHC book club is currently reading through Dorothy Sayers', Letters to a Diminished Church. A great quote from early in the first essay:
The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore - on the contrary, they thought him too dynamic to be safe.
The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore - on the contrary, they thought him too dynamic to be safe.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The Rank of Religion in Colorado
In a lot of circles, Colorado Springs is thought of as a kind of evangelical mecca. After all, with several mega churches and several internationally known parachurch organizations in town, how many people could be left here that are not Christian?
As it turns out, a lot. And not just in Colorado Springs, but in all of Colorado. As a church planter I was subjected to a lot of demographic information several years ago, and was shocked to learn that according to a couple of different surveys, as much as 80-85% of Colorado Springs considers themselves “unchurched.” And now, according to a Pew Forum study, Colorado ranks 41st in a study ranking the importance of religion in peoples’ lives. Barna, the religion writer for the Gazette reports a couple of the details, and is understandably surprised.
I was once in a conference in Denver where one of the speakers was a pastor. He had pastored in Denver and moved on to pastor in several locations around the world. His comment about Colorado was that it was some of the hardest ground to plow for a church.
What does this mean for the life of the church in Colorado? In Colorado Springs?
As it turns out, a lot. And not just in Colorado Springs, but in all of Colorado. As a church planter I was subjected to a lot of demographic information several years ago, and was shocked to learn that according to a couple of different surveys, as much as 80-85% of Colorado Springs considers themselves “unchurched.” And now, according to a Pew Forum study, Colorado ranks 41st in a study ranking the importance of religion in peoples’ lives. Barna, the religion writer for the Gazette reports a couple of the details, and is understandably surprised.
I was once in a conference in Denver where one of the speakers was a pastor. He had pastored in Denver and moved on to pastor in several locations around the world. His comment about Colorado was that it was some of the hardest ground to plow for a church.
What does this mean for the life of the church in Colorado? In Colorado Springs?
Monday, December 28, 2009
Dentists and Pastors
I heard a commercial for the umptheenth time this morning on the radio. It was a testimonial for a local dentist. The patient was saying, “What I want in a dentist is someone who can relate to me…make a personal connection…make me feel better.” Now, I can appreciate the need to not be intimidated by the dentist, but…seriously? Don’t you want certification? Licensure? A degree from a non-Caribbean university? Experience and insight?
And then I wondered if this is part of what is wrong with evangelicalism today. I could easily imagine that commercial changing ever so slightly and becoming a testimonial for a church. “What I want from a pastor is someone who can relate to me…make a personal connection with me…make me feel better.” Why not biblical wisdom and expertise? Why not experience with the presence of God in this broken world? Why not a proclaimed of truth in a world of error?
Maybe I just had too much of a headache on the way to the office this morning.
And then I wondered if this is part of what is wrong with evangelicalism today. I could easily imagine that commercial changing ever so slightly and becoming a testimonial for a church. “What I want from a pastor is someone who can relate to me…make a personal connection with me…make me feel better.” Why not biblical wisdom and expertise? Why not experience with the presence of God in this broken world? Why not a proclaimed of truth in a world of error?
Maybe I just had too much of a headache on the way to the office this morning.
Emergents (De)constructing Houses
I have stated in the past, and will continue to argue that the emergent church movement (and whatever forms it takes on now) is, well, silly. And by silly, I mean without any real grounding in substantive reflection or biblical work. Most emergent types have a passion to reach a world without Christ, and that is obviously a good thing. But they tend to hitch their stars to orbit-less asteroids. Emergent would rather ask questions and deconstruct than be so intolerant and reactionary as to provide an answer or two to very straight-forward questions or issues.
The latest case in point is a pair of blog posts at Christianity Today’s Out of Ur. The first is by a leading emergent pastor, Dan Kimball, who admits he was wrong in the past about church buildings. He used to think them out of date and a relic of Christendom, and now (surprisingly he now has a healthy church meeting in a building), he sees their value. I’m glad Kimball has leveled off a bit about church buildings – clearly lots of good churches do a lot of good, God-honoring things with buildings.
But we can’t leave it there.
Ken Eastburn, a house church movement leader (one of the latest evolutions of the emergent movement), wrote back. Though Eastburn respects Kimball, he corrects several points Kimball made in favor of house churches. Very heady stuff indeed.
The result? A really silly and totally unnecessary exchange. A mouse masquerading as an elephant. A conversation that has a simple and obvious solution, but which will not reach said solution given the starting points of the emergent mind.
The root problem in this little debate is that a lot of the emergent movement and its off-shoots haven’t bothered to ground themselves theologically or philosophically. By their very DNA, they would rather not. So, as a result, we get tempest in teapots about the relative merits of church buildings and house churches, with each claiming their pitcher’s mound as the high ground.
The latest case in point is a pair of blog posts at Christianity Today’s Out of Ur. The first is by a leading emergent pastor, Dan Kimball, who admits he was wrong in the past about church buildings. He used to think them out of date and a relic of Christendom, and now (surprisingly he now has a healthy church meeting in a building), he sees their value. I’m glad Kimball has leveled off a bit about church buildings – clearly lots of good churches do a lot of good, God-honoring things with buildings.
But we can’t leave it there.
Ken Eastburn, a house church movement leader (one of the latest evolutions of the emergent movement), wrote back. Though Eastburn respects Kimball, he corrects several points Kimball made in favor of house churches. Very heady stuff indeed.
The result? A really silly and totally unnecessary exchange. A mouse masquerading as an elephant. A conversation that has a simple and obvious solution, but which will not reach said solution given the starting points of the emergent mind.
The root problem in this little debate is that a lot of the emergent movement and its off-shoots haven’t bothered to ground themselves theologically or philosophically. By their very DNA, they would rather not. So, as a result, we get tempest in teapots about the relative merits of church buildings and house churches, with each claiming their pitcher’s mound as the high ground.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Nazareth - Archeology and the Bible
It has been common for skeptics to point to the lack of a first-century Nazareth in order to chip away at the authenticity of Scripture. Recently, however, it has been found.
Israeli archaeologists said Monday that they have uncovered remains of the first dwelling in the northern city of Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus.
The find sheds a new light on what Nazareth might have been like in Jesus' time, said the archaeologists, indicating that it was probably a small hamlet with about 50 houses populated by poor Jews.
The act of pointing to a lack of archaeological evidence as a kind of proof that the Bible is historically inaccurate is a little dangerous. By the very nature of the science, the lack of archaeological evidence is not yet hard proof for anything.
And as has been seen in the last century, time and time again the sites and people skeptics said did not exist came crawling out of the desert floor.
Israeli archaeologists said Monday that they have uncovered remains of the first dwelling in the northern city of Nazareth that can be dated back to the time of Jesus.
The find sheds a new light on what Nazareth might have been like in Jesus' time, said the archaeologists, indicating that it was probably a small hamlet with about 50 houses populated by poor Jews.
The act of pointing to a lack of archaeological evidence as a kind of proof that the Bible is historically inaccurate is a little dangerous. By the very nature of the science, the lack of archaeological evidence is not yet hard proof for anything.
And as has been seen in the last century, time and time again the sites and people skeptics said did not exist came crawling out of the desert floor.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Nagel and Intelligent Design
At the Discovery Institutes's blog, Evolution News & Views, they make note of the philosopher, Thomas Nagel's view specifically on the Dover legal battle, and generally on ID and science. An excerpt from the blog (and a simple argument that ID is science):
Prominent philosopher and legal scholar Thomas Nagel, an atheist, endorses an argument that is obvious: if the argument against intelligent design in biology (Darwinism) counts as a scientific argument, then the argument for intelligent design in biology must count as a scientific argument, because the two differing conclusions are just the negative and affirmative denouement of the same argument. That is of course not to say that one or the other argument about design is true; it is merely to say the obvious: that for either to be true, the question of intelligent design must be a scientific question.
For the full post.
Prominent philosopher and legal scholar Thomas Nagel, an atheist, endorses an argument that is obvious: if the argument against intelligent design in biology (Darwinism) counts as a scientific argument, then the argument for intelligent design in biology must count as a scientific argument, because the two differing conclusions are just the negative and affirmative denouement of the same argument. That is of course not to say that one or the other argument about design is true; it is merely to say the obvious: that for either to be true, the question of intelligent design must be a scientific question.
For the full post.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Taking Christianity Seriously?
I have often wondered why our culture at large reserves special distaste for the Christian religion. It tends to come to the fore this time of year, but it exists year-round. How do political commentators get away with claiming that Christianity is the most dangerous religion on earth? How is it that Christian symbols seem to be singled out as targets during holidays?
I have a new theory – it is because Christianity is the only religion our culture takes seriously.
Every other faith is viewed as a matter of personal spiritual fad. None of them, according to popular culture, make objective claims on a human life and none of them are exclusive. Now, all of this would be news to all these religions, but our American culture has reduced them in this way. As a result, Christianity stands alone in the eyes of the populace as the religion that makes objective moral and exclusive religious claims.
If I am right, maybe we have something to celebrate: a few of the core truth claims of the Christian faith remain.
I have a new theory – it is because Christianity is the only religion our culture takes seriously.
Every other faith is viewed as a matter of personal spiritual fad. None of them, according to popular culture, make objective claims on a human life and none of them are exclusive. Now, all of this would be news to all these religions, but our American culture has reduced them in this way. As a result, Christianity stands alone in the eyes of the populace as the religion that makes objective moral and exclusive religious claims.
If I am right, maybe we have something to celebrate: a few of the core truth claims of the Christian faith remain.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
The Emperor Has No Clothes
Berlinski’s book is a masterful romp through the pretentions of modern secular atheism and scientism. It is surprising on many levels. First of all, though Berlinski claims no religious affiliation, he is no water-boy for scientific naturalism or Darwinism. Then his broad grasp of the science involved is impressive. Someone who clearly keeps up with the literature (knows several Nobel laureates in the sciences) and who understands it all, Berlinski has a useful perspective as he critiques everything from gradual Darwinian processes to string theory to molecular biology. And on top of it all, his dry and cutting sense of humor adds to instead of detracts from his philosophical acumen.
As I progressed deeper into the book, I was reminded of the boy who famously cried out that the emperor had no clothes. Not only does Berlinski deny the general, and often unsupported, claims of the secular Darwinian project, he skewers it. He deals with the usual suspects – Dawkins, Harris, Dennett (he reserves special distaste for Dennett), and Hitchens – and he deals with the real mathematicians, biologists, physicists and so forth. Sometimes critiques of the New Atheists suffer from the vapidity of their subject matter. If the book you are critiquing is without real substance, what else can be said? But Berlinski has the capacity to discuss and analyze on every level.
As an interested follower of the subjects Berlinski covers, I appreciated his ability to make the complex understandable without making it sound simplistic. His firm grasp of the details enables him to talk of the grand scheme with authority and insight. If you are interested in the issues raised by the New Atheists or the Darwinian project, this is a wonderful and insightful read. If you would like to have a fresh perspective on the place of science in our culture from someone who considers himself “part of the church” of science, Berlinski’s book will not disappoint.
As I progressed deeper into the book, I was reminded of the boy who famously cried out that the emperor had no clothes. Not only does Berlinski deny the general, and often unsupported, claims of the secular Darwinian project, he skewers it. He deals with the usual suspects – Dawkins, Harris, Dennett (he reserves special distaste for Dennett), and Hitchens – and he deals with the real mathematicians, biologists, physicists and so forth. Sometimes critiques of the New Atheists suffer from the vapidity of their subject matter. If the book you are critiquing is without real substance, what else can be said? But Berlinski has the capacity to discuss and analyze on every level.
As an interested follower of the subjects Berlinski covers, I appreciated his ability to make the complex understandable without making it sound simplistic. His firm grasp of the details enables him to talk of the grand scheme with authority and insight. If you are interested in the issues raised by the New Atheists or the Darwinian project, this is a wonderful and insightful read. If you would like to have a fresh perspective on the place of science in our culture from someone who considers himself “part of the church” of science, Berlinski’s book will not disappoint.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Global Warming and a Planetary One-Child Policy
Much has been made of this piece of journalistic tripe over the last couple of days, so I thought I would go ahead and read it. Mercifully, it is short. The basic claim is the same uber-radical claim made by progressives over the past several decades – the real problem with humans is humans. There are just too many of us, and we are slowing killing the planet and each other (and those are ranked in the right ontological order for them). In her frighteningly titled “The real inconvenient truth,” Diane Francis reports:
The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
Whether Francis knows exactly what that entails, you ought to know. China’s one-child policy is in practice a recipe for three things: millions of state-sponsored and enforced abortions, a severely declining female birth rate, and hundreds of thousands of abandoned malformed and disabled children. In other words, a state-enforced one-child policy means in actuality that girls and “unwanted” children are aborted and abandoned at unusual rates. But, it seems, none of this is a problem for Francis. And as is typical, we humans need to take a cue from our intelligent plant and animal ancestors.
The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate…. Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it.
On one level the only appropriate response to this is a good chuckle and casual dismissal. On another level, Francis is allegedly one of “the only rational animals” but apparently needs a quick lesson in reason. Francis is wrong on every assumption – she assumes the entire planet’s human population is growing at an unsustainable rate, she assumes China’s policy is environmentally driven and successful, she assumes it is a good thing to have this kind of “planetary law,” and she assumes the moral high-ground belongs to population control advocates.
It is flatly false that the planet’s population is growing out of control. The smart (and outside the inner circle of politically correct scientific coercion) view is that most of the world is in a demographic winter. Only certain segments of the world’s population are growing. Most of them are deeply religious groups and countries in the developing world. So, as argued before, population control like this on a planetary level is de facto eugenics.
China doesn’t care one whit about the environment. They force families to have only one child because their command and control economy can’t keep up. It’s an old story, really. When Stalin’s Five Year Plans couldn’t feed his entire population, he decided the best thing to do was stick with the Plan and slaughter tens of millions of peasants. Francis might be on-board.
Without going too long, it is simply not true that the population control advocates have the moral high-ground. First of all, the radical predictions over the last 50 years have failed to come true. Obama currently has a Science Czar who predicted in the 60s and 70s that the East Coast would be unlivable and the Mid-West would be an arid dust bowl – all by 1985. And we still listen to these people? Secondly, the plans advocated by population control advocates are, pure and simple, an effort to eliminate “other people.” Eugenics is eugenics is eugenics.
By the way, Diane Francis has two kids.
The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China's one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
Whether Francis knows exactly what that entails, you ought to know. China’s one-child policy is in practice a recipe for three things: millions of state-sponsored and enforced abortions, a severely declining female birth rate, and hundreds of thousands of abandoned malformed and disabled children. In other words, a state-enforced one-child policy means in actuality that girls and “unwanted” children are aborted and abandoned at unusual rates. But, it seems, none of this is a problem for Francis. And as is typical, we humans need to take a cue from our intelligent plant and animal ancestors.
The world's other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity's soaring reproduction rate…. Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it.
On one level the only appropriate response to this is a good chuckle and casual dismissal. On another level, Francis is allegedly one of “the only rational animals” but apparently needs a quick lesson in reason. Francis is wrong on every assumption – she assumes the entire planet’s human population is growing at an unsustainable rate, she assumes China’s policy is environmentally driven and successful, she assumes it is a good thing to have this kind of “planetary law,” and she assumes the moral high-ground belongs to population control advocates.
It is flatly false that the planet’s population is growing out of control. The smart (and outside the inner circle of politically correct scientific coercion) view is that most of the world is in a demographic winter. Only certain segments of the world’s population are growing. Most of them are deeply religious groups and countries in the developing world. So, as argued before, population control like this on a planetary level is de facto eugenics.
China doesn’t care one whit about the environment. They force families to have only one child because their command and control economy can’t keep up. It’s an old story, really. When Stalin’s Five Year Plans couldn’t feed his entire population, he decided the best thing to do was stick with the Plan and slaughter tens of millions of peasants. Francis might be on-board.
Without going too long, it is simply not true that the population control advocates have the moral high-ground. First of all, the radical predictions over the last 50 years have failed to come true. Obama currently has a Science Czar who predicted in the 60s and 70s that the East Coast would be unlivable and the Mid-West would be an arid dust bowl – all by 1985. And we still listen to these people? Secondly, the plans advocated by population control advocates are, pure and simple, an effort to eliminate “other people.” Eugenics is eugenics is eugenics.
By the way, Diane Francis has two kids.
Wednesday, December 09, 2009
Wisdom Calls
Proverbs 9:1-6
1 Wisdom has built her house;
she has hewn her seven pillars.
2 She has slaughtered her beasts; she has mixed her wine;
she has also set her table.
3 She has sent out her young women to call
from the highest places in the town,
4 "Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!"
To him who lacks sense she says,
5 "Come, eat of my bread
and drink of the wine I have mixed.
6 Leave your simple ways, and live,
and walk in the way of insight."
Wisdom built a house. Where do I dwell?
Wisdom set a table and prepared a banquet. Where do I eat?
Wisdom sent messengers to get my attention. To whom do I listen?
Wisdom calls me in. Who has my attention?
Wisdom asks for the simple. Am I too arrogant to heed?
How my daily life answers these questions determines whether I will live and walk in the ways of insight.
she has hewn her seven pillars.
2 She has slaughtered her beasts; she has mixed her wine;
she has also set her table.
3 She has sent out her young women to call
from the highest places in the town,
4 "Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!"
To him who lacks sense she says,
5 "Come, eat of my bread
and drink of the wine I have mixed.
6 Leave your simple ways, and live,
and walk in the way of insight."
Wisdom built a house. Where do I dwell?
Wisdom set a table and prepared a banquet. Where do I eat?
Wisdom sent messengers to get my attention. To whom do I listen?
Wisdom calls me in. Who has my attention?
Wisdom asks for the simple. Am I too arrogant to heed?
How my daily life answers these questions determines whether I will live and walk in the ways of insight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)