Among the ethical issues which are invariably part of the push for health care reform, is the question of whether health care is a right. We may all want all people to be covered with adequate and useful health care, but to use the word "right" is to invoke all kinds of political realities and social responsibilities. So it really does matter whether it is actually a right alongside things like the freedom of speech or the freedom of religion.
On his prolific blog on bioethics, Wesley J. Smith comments on an article posted on First Things by Dr. Eric Chevlen (a medical doctor). It touches on the rights issue as well as other hot-button topics like rationing.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Jesus and the New Evangelicals
Modern evangelicalism is drinking deeply from the waters of postmodern and contemporary sensibilities. And depending on who you read, that is a good thing, or the one thing that will eventually destroy the movement. It is possible to understand the current postmodern culture well and address it through the lens of traditional Christian faith, or you can use the culture as a template for reimagining the Christian faith. Many in the emergent movement, and some in the seeker-sensitive movement are doing the latter, and it doesn't please John MacArthur.
The Jesus You Can't Ignore begins strong. In his introduction, MacArtuhr outlines the pressing reasons for writing the book. The more he encounters and reads the new evangelicals, the more he worries they are giving up on the central and defining components of the faith for irenic encounters with those who disagree deeply with Christian faith. His introduction to the book centers on the leading thinkers of the emergent movement and the recently published, Evangelical Manifesto. MacArthur argues that both strains of modern evangelicalism are soft on everything that matters and strong on ideas that are dangerous to the faith.
The rest of the book extends his thesis through the life of Christ. Jesus wasn't "nice" the way many construe niceness today. He confronted, even instigated arguments with, false teachers believing and teaching that false doctrine was dangerous to the human soul. Even when the encounters resulted in repentance and belief, Jesus was never less than straightforward about the truth of the Gospel (e.g. his encounter with Nicodemus). Where writers like McLaren and Campolo seek for dialogue with other faiths, glossing over the distinctives of the Christian faith, MacArthur argues that they could not be further from the example of Christ.
The strength of the book lies in MacArthur's overwhelming biblical evidence for his point. Chapter after chapter, he outlines and does the exegesis necessary to describe several scenes from Jesus' life and how he encountered false teaching. From the obvious encounters to the Sermon on the Mount, the book is loaded with biblical evidence. In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming, I think it puts to bed the soft-headed emergent idea that Jesus was first of all nice to others and never confronted them with the truth. If they want that idea to be taken seriously, they need to engage with the scenes portrayed and explained in this book.
The weakness of the book was that MacArthur didn't, to my taste, engage the emergent authors directly. Early on he quotes them a few times, but after the second chapter, they are non-existent. The premise of every chapter is aimed directly at refuting what he sets up early, but I think the book would have a greater impact if he kept up with the citations.
Overall, this is a great book directed at one of the defining issues in evangelical theology today: will postmodern philosophy define our theology as well as our culture? MacArthur's answer is basically, "God forbid!" and he backs it up well.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Ordering of Our Affections
I have recently started Naugle's new book, Reordered Love, Reordered Lives, and am already excited. I enjoy good books that combine Christian spiritual formation and sound thinking, and this one falls smack in the middle of that category. So, unless I radically change my mind, this book is worth the price and a good, slow read!
The book's website is here.
Peter Singer: Both Right and Abominably Wrong
It is said by many that health care reform is a social justice issue - and I agree. As soon as the government takes over your healthcare, your name is forgotten and you are reduced to a set of statistics on a bureaucrat’s actuarial table. Government encouraged (read "counseled") euthanasia for the old and infirm increases as do abortions in tricky pregnancies (in all nations with government run health care), death rates for curable diseases and cancers rise because the medication is “too expensive” for the “people” to pay, doctors get paid less, lines increase at emergency rooms, and on and on.
Peter Singer, ethics professor at Princeton, recently wrote a long piece in the New York Times Magazine on “Why We Must Ration Health Care.” As a radical utilitarian, Singer believes that most, if not all, ethical decisions can and should be reduced to a kind of numbers game. If X number of people are benefited, a few less than X are hurt, and the cost is proportionate to X, then the action is ethical. Both famous and infamous for many things, Singer certainly has one thing right: decisions made on the governmental level are by their very natures utilitarian. People are stacks of numbers to be weighed against budgets and other stacks of numbers. I have argued in my ethics classes that this is not only the most feasible form of decision making for a federal government, it is likely the only one they use.
So Singer is right – a government run health care program would be utilitarian in nature, making health care decisions according to charts and graphs. And then Singer is wrong – this is not the best way to handle human beings.
Tellingly, Singer chastises President Obama for not using the word “rationing”:
In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform.
You have to give Singer credit for telling it like it is. Then (ironically) Singer raises one issue that opponents of expanding government health care raise often. If the current government run plans are awful and bankrupt, what good will expanding them do?
In the public sector, primarily Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits, high patient copayment requirements, low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients and limits on payments to hospitals.
Then a couple of fundamental ideas from his argument:
Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse.
If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without the drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save the lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades.
Singer agrees that deciding who gets the meds and who doesn’t is not an easy thing to do, but luckily he has an equation to help us.
Nevertheless this approach to setting a value on a human life is at least closer to what we really believe — and to what we should believe — than dramatic pronouncements about the infinite value of every human life, or the suggestion that we cannot distinguish between the value of a single human life and the value of a million human lives, or even of the rest of the world. Though such feel-good claims may have some symbolic value in particular circumstances, to take them seriously and apply them — for instance, by leaving it to chance whether we save one life or a billion — would be deeply unethical.
In other words, it makes us feel good to believe that every human life is of “equal” or “infinite” worth, but in reality we know better.
As a first take, we might say that the good achieved by health care is the number of lives saved. But that is too crude. The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities. We can accommodate that difference by calculating the number of life-years saved, rather than simply the number of lives saved.
The next several sentences go on to do the grim utilitarian math of ages of the patients, their average life expectancies, and how “we” get a bigger bang for our buck saving a 17-year old instead of a dozen 85-year olds.
Singer’s article is replete with half-truths, loaded language (all the bad guys are labeled “conservative” and all the good guys have no political monikers and work at respected Universities), and massaged conclusions. But here is what we can take away from what he writes. He is absolutely right that government run health care is by necessity the rationing of a scarce resource, and that disembodied bureaucrats will be making health care decisions for you. He is abominably wrong that this is OK.
Peter Singer, ethics professor at Princeton, recently wrote a long piece in the New York Times Magazine on “Why We Must Ration Health Care.” As a radical utilitarian, Singer believes that most, if not all, ethical decisions can and should be reduced to a kind of numbers game. If X number of people are benefited, a few less than X are hurt, and the cost is proportionate to X, then the action is ethical. Both famous and infamous for many things, Singer certainly has one thing right: decisions made on the governmental level are by their very natures utilitarian. People are stacks of numbers to be weighed against budgets and other stacks of numbers. I have argued in my ethics classes that this is not only the most feasible form of decision making for a federal government, it is likely the only one they use.
So Singer is right – a government run health care program would be utilitarian in nature, making health care decisions according to charts and graphs. And then Singer is wrong – this is not the best way to handle human beings.
Tellingly, Singer chastises President Obama for not using the word “rationing”:
In the current U.S. debate over health care reform, “rationing” has become a dirty word. Meeting last month with five governors, President Obama urged them to avoid using the term, apparently for fear of evoking the hostile response that sank the Clintons’ attempt to achieve reform.
You have to give Singer credit for telling it like it is. Then (ironically) Singer raises one issue that opponents of expanding government health care raise often. If the current government run plans are awful and bankrupt, what good will expanding them do?
In the public sector, primarily Medicare, Medicaid and hospital emergency rooms, health care is rationed by long waits, high patient copayment requirements, low payments to doctors that discourage some from serving public patients and limits on payments to hospitals.
Then a couple of fundamental ideas from his argument:
Rationing health care means getting value for the billions we are spending by setting limits on which treatments should be paid for from the public purse.
If the U.S. system spent less on expensive treatments for those who, with or without the drugs, have at most a few months to live, it would be better able to save the lives of more people who, if they get the treatment they need, might live for several decades.
Singer agrees that deciding who gets the meds and who doesn’t is not an easy thing to do, but luckily he has an equation to help us.
Nevertheless this approach to setting a value on a human life is at least closer to what we really believe — and to what we should believe — than dramatic pronouncements about the infinite value of every human life, or the suggestion that we cannot distinguish between the value of a single human life and the value of a million human lives, or even of the rest of the world. Though such feel-good claims may have some symbolic value in particular circumstances, to take them seriously and apply them — for instance, by leaving it to chance whether we save one life or a billion — would be deeply unethical.
In other words, it makes us feel good to believe that every human life is of “equal” or “infinite” worth, but in reality we know better.
As a first take, we might say that the good achieved by health care is the number of lives saved. But that is too crude. The death of a teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old, and this should be reflected in our priorities. We can accommodate that difference by calculating the number of life-years saved, rather than simply the number of lives saved.
The next several sentences go on to do the grim utilitarian math of ages of the patients, their average life expectancies, and how “we” get a bigger bang for our buck saving a 17-year old instead of a dozen 85-year olds.
Singer’s article is replete with half-truths, loaded language (all the bad guys are labeled “conservative” and all the good guys have no political monikers and work at respected Universities), and massaged conclusions. But here is what we can take away from what he writes. He is absolutely right that government run health care is by necessity the rationing of a scarce resource, and that disembodied bureaucrats will be making health care decisions for you. He is abominably wrong that this is OK.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
The New Eugenics
And you thought eugenics died with the Nazis! You silly American. Eugenics not only has its modern roots in early 20th century progressivism, it is alive and well among, of all people, our new Science Czar. In some circles at least, his past published works supporting doping the water supply to sterilize entire populations and encouraging forced abortions are coming back to haunt him. Well, sort of.
President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.
Maybe he has had a kind of conversion and now believes in your right to chose to have a child without a government permit? Not so. William Dembski weighed in on this issue making the point that he has not recanted. Our Science Czar still believes in government controlled eugenics – the act of deciding who gets to be born, who should be aborted, and who should be euthanized. It is, after all, for the common good.
But Dembski makes a further point. Scientists like Holdren consider themselves the priests of the new religion, Materialism. They alone see the problems of the world, and then proceed to act as our saviors. With cool scientific precision, they will (scientifically) solve our problems if we will only do what they say.
Holdren nevertheless represents the powerful new caste of scientists who have appointed themselves the guardians of humanity and the priests of a new social order. Their agenda and pretensions would be transparently obvious except that, with the mantle of their scientific expertise, they intimidate ordinary people from asking the right questions and thereby exposing their aims. Their strategy is always the same: Scientists have discovered a problem that, as their models and data (often falsely) demonstrate, is on the verge of getting out of control; now, if only we do exactly as they say, we'll avoid catastrophe.
Who knows exactly how much sway Holdren will have in the new administration, but the question has to be asked and answered, why appoint a eugenicist in the first place?
President Obama's "science czar," John Holdren, once floated the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" that would oversee human population levels and control all natural resources as a means of protecting the planet -- controversial ideas his critics say should have been brought up in his Senate confirmation hearings.
Holdren, who has degrees from MIT and Stanford and headed a science policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government for the past 13 years, won the unanimous approval of the Senate as the president's chief science adviser.
Maybe he has had a kind of conversion and now believes in your right to chose to have a child without a government permit? Not so. William Dembski weighed in on this issue making the point that he has not recanted. Our Science Czar still believes in government controlled eugenics – the act of deciding who gets to be born, who should be aborted, and who should be euthanized. It is, after all, for the common good.
But Dembski makes a further point. Scientists like Holdren consider themselves the priests of the new religion, Materialism. They alone see the problems of the world, and then proceed to act as our saviors. With cool scientific precision, they will (scientifically) solve our problems if we will only do what they say.
Holdren nevertheless represents the powerful new caste of scientists who have appointed themselves the guardians of humanity and the priests of a new social order. Their agenda and pretensions would be transparently obvious except that, with the mantle of their scientific expertise, they intimidate ordinary people from asking the right questions and thereby exposing their aims. Their strategy is always the same: Scientists have discovered a problem that, as their models and data (often falsely) demonstrate, is on the verge of getting out of control; now, if only we do exactly as they say, we'll avoid catastrophe.
Who knows exactly how much sway Holdren will have in the new administration, but the question has to be asked and answered, why appoint a eugenicist in the first place?
Saturday, July 25, 2009
ID Conference in Castle Rock, CO
The Shepherd's Project is hosting an Intelligent Design Conference on October 30-31 just north of the Springs. A slew of important thinkers will be there including Meyer, Behe and Dembski. For the registation price (wow!) you can't miss it.
HT: The Constructive Curmudgeon
HT: The Constructive Curmudgeon
Doing the Christian Life
Sometimes nobody puts it like George MacDonald puts it:
It is to the man who is trying to live, to the man who is obedient to the word of the Master, that the word of the Master unfolds itself. When we understand the outside of things, we think we have them: the Lord puts his things in subdefined, suggestive shapes, yielding no satisfactory meaning to the mere intellect, but unfolding themselves to the conscience and heart, to the man himself, in the process of life-effort. According as the new creation, that of reality, advances in him, the man becomes able to understand the words, the symbols, the parables of the Lord. For life, that is, action, is alone the human condition into which the light of the Living can penetrate; life alone can assimilate life, can change food into growth.
From a sermon titled, "The Cause of Spiritual Stupidity."
It is to the man who is trying to live, to the man who is obedient to the word of the Master, that the word of the Master unfolds itself. When we understand the outside of things, we think we have them: the Lord puts his things in subdefined, suggestive shapes, yielding no satisfactory meaning to the mere intellect, but unfolding themselves to the conscience and heart, to the man himself, in the process of life-effort. According as the new creation, that of reality, advances in him, the man becomes able to understand the words, the symbols, the parables of the Lord. For life, that is, action, is alone the human condition into which the light of the Living can penetrate; life alone can assimilate life, can change food into growth.
From a sermon titled, "The Cause of Spiritual Stupidity."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
God and Temptation
A little theological reflection on the nature of God as described in James 1:13-15. In essence the passage says we should not succumb to blaming temptation on God because he is not tempted by evil and cannot tempt anyone.
First of all, what is temptation? A working definition might be, “it is the seductive presentation of evil to my will through my mind or senses.” As “seductive” is it a lure, an attraction to me. It is something some part of my will wants to engage in. I may even see some benefit in it, exactly because it is seductive. There are evils that present themselves to me that are not seductive. Serial killing is in no way a lure to me – there is nothing within me that thinks that might be fun or beneficial. So temptation cannot simply be the presentation of evils, but of seductive evils.
As a “presentation of evil” it is something contrary to God’s moral will in my life that I become aware of through any set of means. I cannot be tempted by an evil I do not know about or am not thinking about. But if I see it, am told about it, reflect upon it, or become aware of it in any way, it is a potential evil that is presented to my will.
Is temptation itself a sin? I don’t think so. Dallas Willard states in Renovation of the Heart that, “Choice is where sin dwells.” If I choose to engage, I then sin. And I might add that if I chose to allow myself to be tempted, I sin.
So James says God cannot be tempted by evil. That is because by His very nature there are no seductive evils in the world. God, as omniscient, is aware of all evils - all thoughts and behaviors contrary to his moral will, but he is repulsed by all of them.
Therefore, it is contrary to God’s very nature to tempt anyone. God is repulsed by all evil, and therefore cannot and will not attempt to lure anyone into evil. No action of God’s in my life is a temptation; they are all good. If, however, I sin as a result of what God is doing in my life or in the world, it is because I am drawn away by my own desires (James 1:14-15).
This takes us to a couple of important conclusions about Christian maturity. First of all, growth in the Christian life is not a matter of getting rid of temptations as such, but of the changing of our desires. As our desires change, it will be the case that fewer and fewer evils will be temptations, but to focus on getting rid of the temptations first is putting the cart before the horse, and becoming a bit of a works oriented legalist.
And secondly, how should our desires change? They should become like our Heavenly Father’s desires, for he is good and there is no change in his character. God in Christ is our example of the formation of our desires here on earth.
First of all, what is temptation? A working definition might be, “it is the seductive presentation of evil to my will through my mind or senses.” As “seductive” is it a lure, an attraction to me. It is something some part of my will wants to engage in. I may even see some benefit in it, exactly because it is seductive. There are evils that present themselves to me that are not seductive. Serial killing is in no way a lure to me – there is nothing within me that thinks that might be fun or beneficial. So temptation cannot simply be the presentation of evils, but of seductive evils.
As a “presentation of evil” it is something contrary to God’s moral will in my life that I become aware of through any set of means. I cannot be tempted by an evil I do not know about or am not thinking about. But if I see it, am told about it, reflect upon it, or become aware of it in any way, it is a potential evil that is presented to my will.
Is temptation itself a sin? I don’t think so. Dallas Willard states in Renovation of the Heart that, “Choice is where sin dwells.” If I choose to engage, I then sin. And I might add that if I chose to allow myself to be tempted, I sin.
So James says God cannot be tempted by evil. That is because by His very nature there are no seductive evils in the world. God, as omniscient, is aware of all evils - all thoughts and behaviors contrary to his moral will, but he is repulsed by all of them.
Therefore, it is contrary to God’s very nature to tempt anyone. God is repulsed by all evil, and therefore cannot and will not attempt to lure anyone into evil. No action of God’s in my life is a temptation; they are all good. If, however, I sin as a result of what God is doing in my life or in the world, it is because I am drawn away by my own desires (James 1:14-15).
This takes us to a couple of important conclusions about Christian maturity. First of all, growth in the Christian life is not a matter of getting rid of temptations as such, but of the changing of our desires. As our desires change, it will be the case that fewer and fewer evils will be temptations, but to focus on getting rid of the temptations first is putting the cart before the horse, and becoming a bit of a works oriented legalist.
And secondly, how should our desires change? They should become like our Heavenly Father’s desires, for he is good and there is no change in his character. God in Christ is our example of the formation of our desires here on earth.
Monday, July 13, 2009
A New Direction for Bioethics?
In the past, I have mentioned my appreciation for the latest couple of incarnations of the President’s Council on Bioethics. If you read any of their reports over the last 10 years or so, it is clear they were a group of thinkers from across the ideological spectrum, and many of them I would consider world-class thinkers on these issues. One worry some watchers had with the new administration was that the Council would be disbanded and something a little less diverse put in its place.
As it turns out, at least the first part of that worry has come to pass. Colleen Carroll Campbell at the Ethics and Public Policy Center reports on the latest change and why it happened.
Last month, President Barack Obama quietly disbanded the President's Council on Bioethics, a deliberative body whose changing cast of erudite and ideologically diverse members had spent the past eight years thinking through today's toughest moral questions. Members received only one day's notice of the council's dissolution, forcing them to cancel a planned meeting and leave unfinished several major reports that were due to be released soon.
The stated reasons for disbanding the Council were interesting to say the least.
According to White House press officer Reid Cherlin, the council was "a philosophically leaning advisory group" and Obama wants a new bioethics commission that focuses less on discussion and more on forming consensus around "practical policy options." As University of Wisconsin law professor and Obama ally Alta Charo explained, the old council "seemed more like a public debating society," whereas Obama's new one will help him form what the Times described as "ethically defensible public policy."
Campbell shares my concerns about the possible new direction of a new Council. It is my view that these issues require intense and (sometimes) protracted philosophical discussion before reasonable public policy is put in place. So to disband an organization due to its philosophical nature that by its very nature is a philosophical endeavor seems a little disingenuous to me.
Campbell is also concerned that if a new Council is erected around public policies, it will be nothing but a rubber-stamp group of pundits for whatever policies are promoted by the administration.
Obama's desire to see his policies backed by expert "consensus" more likely will be realized with a new commission composed of like-minded political liberals steeped in utilitarianism than with the brainy, diverse and unpredictable crew that populated the now-defunct council. Ensuring uniformity of thought among one's ethical advisers may make the president's job easier, but it will do little to benefit the diverse nation that he serves.
We shall see.
As it turns out, at least the first part of that worry has come to pass. Colleen Carroll Campbell at the Ethics and Public Policy Center reports on the latest change and why it happened.
Last month, President Barack Obama quietly disbanded the President's Council on Bioethics, a deliberative body whose changing cast of erudite and ideologically diverse members had spent the past eight years thinking through today's toughest moral questions. Members received only one day's notice of the council's dissolution, forcing them to cancel a planned meeting and leave unfinished several major reports that were due to be released soon.
The stated reasons for disbanding the Council were interesting to say the least.
According to White House press officer Reid Cherlin, the council was "a philosophically leaning advisory group" and Obama wants a new bioethics commission that focuses less on discussion and more on forming consensus around "practical policy options." As University of Wisconsin law professor and Obama ally Alta Charo explained, the old council "seemed more like a public debating society," whereas Obama's new one will help him form what the Times described as "ethically defensible public policy."
Campbell shares my concerns about the possible new direction of a new Council. It is my view that these issues require intense and (sometimes) protracted philosophical discussion before reasonable public policy is put in place. So to disband an organization due to its philosophical nature that by its very nature is a philosophical endeavor seems a little disingenuous to me.
Campbell is also concerned that if a new Council is erected around public policies, it will be nothing but a rubber-stamp group of pundits for whatever policies are promoted by the administration.
Obama's desire to see his policies backed by expert "consensus" more likely will be realized with a new commission composed of like-minded political liberals steeped in utilitarianism than with the brainy, diverse and unpredictable crew that populated the now-defunct council. Ensuring uniformity of thought among one's ethical advisers may make the president's job easier, but it will do little to benefit the diverse nation that he serves.
We shall see.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge
I hope to blog a lot more as I read through this book, but I have to take this time to simply say that Dallas Willard's new book, Knowing Christ Today: Why We Can Trust Spiritual Knowledge, is a tremendous read. Willard, who knows his way around both philosophy and spirituality, writes what I consider to be a foundational book for his work on spiritual formation and discipleship.
In what are fairly easy-to-read terms, Willard describes how spiritual knowledge has been lost in the academy and in our culture, what consequences that has for us all, and why spiritual truths count as knowledge as much as anything else does.
As a side note, I would like to see an emergent's reaction to Willard's clear stance for Christian particularity and his stance against epistemological relativism.
Who is More Catholic?
This is the kind of thing that can happen when you sell your soul to politics. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has written a piece reflecting on President Obama’s visit to the Vatican, pontificating (pardon the pun) on how Obama is more Catholic than the Pope.
Where, oh where, does one begin to mock such childish fawning? (And the article is full of the requisite fawning.) First of all, President Obama is not Catholic. The Pope is. Strike one. But of course she means that the President represents Catholic teaching and ideals better than the Pope does. Well, not exactly. What she means is that the President represents the polling data from American Catholics better than the Pope does.
In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.
So here is the rub: when politics trumps substance, substance and truth become the results of polls. Kennedy argues in her piece that the Pope and Catholic teaching ought to conform themselves to American Catholics and their latest polling data. And may I say how intolerant and culturally insensitive that is.
Why shouldn’t the Pope conform his views to African Catholics? Asian Catholics? Why not Mexican Catholics? Why do American Catholics have pride of place?
Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think.
Well, Kennedy is not actually interested in the views of American Catholics. She is primarily interested with their views as they align with her own elitist views. Her article becomes more and more myopic, selfish, and bigoted the more we think it through.
What Kennedy is unable to grasp is that there are truths, even theological truths, beyond the scope of her personal preferences. There are truths about the world which refuse to conform to her polling data, or the coffee-klatch of her cocktail circuit.
The beauty of the church is, in part, that it will outlast, out-think and out-influence such parochial relativism.
Where, oh where, does one begin to mock such childish fawning? (And the article is full of the requisite fawning.) First of all, President Obama is not Catholic. The Pope is. Strike one. But of course she means that the President represents Catholic teaching and ideals better than the Pope does. Well, not exactly. What she means is that the President represents the polling data from American Catholics better than the Pope does.
In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.
So here is the rub: when politics trumps substance, substance and truth become the results of polls. Kennedy argues in her piece that the Pope and Catholic teaching ought to conform themselves to American Catholics and their latest polling data. And may I say how intolerant and culturally insensitive that is.
Why shouldn’t the Pope conform his views to African Catholics? Asian Catholics? Why not Mexican Catholics? Why do American Catholics have pride of place?
Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think.
Well, Kennedy is not actually interested in the views of American Catholics. She is primarily interested with their views as they align with her own elitist views. Her article becomes more and more myopic, selfish, and bigoted the more we think it through.
What Kennedy is unable to grasp is that there are truths, even theological truths, beyond the scope of her personal preferences. There are truths about the world which refuse to conform to her polling data, or the coffee-klatch of her cocktail circuit.
The beauty of the church is, in part, that it will outlast, out-think and out-influence such parochial relativism.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Stephen Meyer - Signature in The Cell
This is the video of Stephen Meyer discussing his latest work on Intelligent Design. If you haven't tracked the book down, it has a plethora of impressive accolades already.
Christians and Public Science
President Obama recently tapped Francis Collins to head the National Institutes of Health. This is a really interesting nomination for a few reasons. Collins is the author of the best-selling book, The Language of God, in which he makes an argument akin to and Intelligent Design argument for the existence of God. And he is no small-scale scientist. He headed up the Human Genome Project under President Clinton, which essentially mapped the human genome.
Add to that his hot-and-cold relationship with the Christian world. He is an outspoken Christian, but as a theistic evolutionist, he is on the outs with many who work on these scientific and cultural matters from the Christian worldview.
What is interesting, but not surprising, about the NYT article announcing his appointment, is that he is controversial due to his "very public embrace of religion." I still fail to see why that would make someone who has clearly done a great deal of ground-breaking scientific work controversial for a public post like this.
I know what the basic and over-repeated arguments are for this "controversy," but they remain very unconvincing. Collins could be a fascinating addition to the world of science on this level, in part exactly because he is a scientist committed to God's universe.
Add to that his hot-and-cold relationship with the Christian world. He is an outspoken Christian, but as a theistic evolutionist, he is on the outs with many who work on these scientific and cultural matters from the Christian worldview.
What is interesting, but not surprising, about the NYT article announcing his appointment, is that he is controversial due to his "very public embrace of religion." I still fail to see why that would make someone who has clearly done a great deal of ground-breaking scientific work controversial for a public post like this.
I know what the basic and over-repeated arguments are for this "controversy," but they remain very unconvincing. Collins could be a fascinating addition to the world of science on this level, in part exactly because he is a scientist committed to God's universe.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
The gods of Our Age
In case you missed it, Michael Jackson died. If, on the other hand, you have read or watched or listened to a minute of news over the last two weeks any time day or night, you were aware of that fact. The hysteria and overblown coverage of his life and death is not only itself pathetic, it reveals where we are as a culture.
We don't have lives. We don't have lives of significance. We live vicariously through unhealthy, but famous, people. We don't know the difference between famous and important. We have no tolerance for substance because our diet is the sugary-sweet junk-food of style.
According to one report, Jackson's funeral "took a spiritual turn."
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Michael Jackson's public memorial started out more spiritual than spectacular Tuesday, opening with a church choir singing as his golden casket was laid in front of the stage and a shaft of light evoking a cross as Lionel Richie gave a gospel-infused performance.
Pastor Lucious W. Smith of the Friendship Baptist Church in Pasadena gave the invocation, followed by Mariah Carey singing the opening performance with a sweet rendition of the Jackson 5 ballad "I'll Be There," a duet with Trey Lorenz.
"We come together and we remember the time," said Smith, riffing off one of Jackson's lyrics. "As long as we remember him, he will always be there to comfort us."
Part of me is frustrated with the pedestrian blashpemy here, but another part of me is not at all surprised. Psalm 115 tells us that we become like the idols we worship. And, to extend the thought, we are ready to use the ultimate of all ultimate justifications to support our idol worship - God himself. It should not shock us that there are those who would use God to put their own stamp of approval on this gold-ensconsed circus. Afterall, nothing supports our own vanity like a god encased in our own little boxes.
We don't have lives. We don't have lives of significance. We live vicariously through unhealthy, but famous, people. We don't know the difference between famous and important. We have no tolerance for substance because our diet is the sugary-sweet junk-food of style.
According to one report, Jackson's funeral "took a spiritual turn."
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Michael Jackson's public memorial started out more spiritual than spectacular Tuesday, opening with a church choir singing as his golden casket was laid in front of the stage and a shaft of light evoking a cross as Lionel Richie gave a gospel-infused performance.
Pastor Lucious W. Smith of the Friendship Baptist Church in Pasadena gave the invocation, followed by Mariah Carey singing the opening performance with a sweet rendition of the Jackson 5 ballad "I'll Be There," a duet with Trey Lorenz.
"We come together and we remember the time," said Smith, riffing off one of Jackson's lyrics. "As long as we remember him, he will always be there to comfort us."
Part of me is frustrated with the pedestrian blashpemy here, but another part of me is not at all surprised. Psalm 115 tells us that we become like the idols we worship. And, to extend the thought, we are ready to use the ultimate of all ultimate justifications to support our idol worship - God himself. It should not shock us that there are those who would use God to put their own stamp of approval on this gold-ensconsed circus. Afterall, nothing supports our own vanity like a god encased in our own little boxes.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Reality of Hate Crime Laws
I have argued here before that hate crimes legislation is an utterly arbitrary act of power, especially as it becomes a political reality. Even though we are able to point to legitimate and historical instances of systemic hate, as a matter of legislation, what groups get covered by hate crime laws is nothing but a matter of who is in power and the ideology they wish to impose.
Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony about the latest form of the law before Congress. Among the presentors was Attorney General, Eric Holder. His actual report is on the Senate website, and the Q&A in his testimony is in the web/video link.
He received a question from Senator Sessions about who is covered in this bill. The hypothetical situation went like this:
"[A] minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality, is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality."
Is the Christian minister covered under this law? AG Holder responded:
“Well, the statute would not -- would not necessarily cover that. We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute.”
So, the long and the short of it is that speech derived from the Christian worldview is not covered because it does not fit into the agenda upheld by Holder and the lobby groups behind him. This is a perfect case in point for the arbitrary and subjective nature of these laws. They are not aimed at protecting victims, but at suppressing certain kinds of speech through acts of power.
And it raises another important question for the practicality for these kinds of silly laws: who wins when competing victim groups are involved? Rationally, this kind of politicized victimhood should make it clear to us this is a ridiculous path to tread down, but in reality, some lobbying group has enough money and influence to make themselves the most victimized of the victimized.
Recently the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony about the latest form of the law before Congress. Among the presentors was Attorney General, Eric Holder. His actual report is on the Senate website, and the Q&A in his testimony is in the web/video link.
He received a question from Senator Sessions about who is covered in this bill. The hypothetical situation went like this:
"[A] minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality, is thereafter attacked by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality."
Is the Christian minister covered under this law? AG Holder responded:
“Well, the statute would not -- would not necessarily cover that. We're talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends -- is designed to cover. We don't have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person's desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute.”
So, the long and the short of it is that speech derived from the Christian worldview is not covered because it does not fit into the agenda upheld by Holder and the lobby groups behind him. This is a perfect case in point for the arbitrary and subjective nature of these laws. They are not aimed at protecting victims, but at suppressing certain kinds of speech through acts of power.
And it raises another important question for the practicality for these kinds of silly laws: who wins when competing victim groups are involved? Rationally, this kind of politicized victimhood should make it clear to us this is a ridiculous path to tread down, but in reality, some lobbying group has enough money and influence to make themselves the most victimized of the victimized.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Augustine and Missional Theology
I have been thinking a lot lately about the “missional” trend in evangelicalism. On the whole, I think the drive is right: we need to see our communities in North America more and more like missions fields and approach our cultures with the sensibilities of missionaries. In that light, our LHC book club has been reading Augustine’s Confessions, and I was struck by his own account of his conversion. There was a lot more there than I recalled. So in the spirit of thinking about how people (especially those completely outside the circle of influence of Christianity) come to faith in Christ, here are a few reflections on Augustine’s conversion.
First, he was passionately devoted to truth. Though he wasted over a decade of his life stuck in systems he knew were unsatisfying, he stayed in them for their security (and income) before he had the wherewithal to leave. So what are people passionate about, and do they belong to systems of thought they are not entirely satisfied with?
Second, he had a praying mother. This may be the most well-known fact of his conversion, but it cannot be passed up. Prayer is indispensible.
Third, he had an authoritative Christian figure in his life who was different than anyone else. Whereas Augustine was wholly disappointed with the Manichean elite, Bishop Ambrose genuinely impressed him with his devotion and command of life and theology. Are we these kinds of “aliens” to the unsaved around us or do we look and sound and smell exactly like everyone else?
Fourth, he had a circle of friend who were on the spiritual journey with him. I had completely forgotten this important fact. The chapter Augustine devotes to his conversion begins with his retelling of friend who were either just “behind” him on the path to salvation, or who were just “ahead” of him and how it moved him toward Christ. We cannot neglect the power of spiritual journey with people!
First, he was passionately devoted to truth. Though he wasted over a decade of his life stuck in systems he knew were unsatisfying, he stayed in them for their security (and income) before he had the wherewithal to leave. So what are people passionate about, and do they belong to systems of thought they are not entirely satisfied with?
Second, he had a praying mother. This may be the most well-known fact of his conversion, but it cannot be passed up. Prayer is indispensible.
Third, he had an authoritative Christian figure in his life who was different than anyone else. Whereas Augustine was wholly disappointed with the Manichean elite, Bishop Ambrose genuinely impressed him with his devotion and command of life and theology. Are we these kinds of “aliens” to the unsaved around us or do we look and sound and smell exactly like everyone else?
Fourth, he had a circle of friend who were on the spiritual journey with him. I had completely forgotten this important fact. The chapter Augustine devotes to his conversion begins with his retelling of friend who were either just “behind” him on the path to salvation, or who were just “ahead” of him and how it moved him toward Christ. We cannot neglect the power of spiritual journey with people!
Reality TV and You
This is a great little piece by Colleen Carroll Campbell at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. The garbage of reality TV not only degrades the people involved and reveals the thinness of our culture, it degrades us as well. Speaking specifically to the debacle that is the “Jon and Kate Plus 8” show, Campbell writes:
The excruciatingly public marital troubles between Jon and Kate Gosselin reached their predictable denouement Monday when the reality television stars announced their impeding divorce before an audience of 10.6 million. After 10 years of marriage and two years of filming "Jon & Kate Plus 8," the parents of 8-year-old twins and 5-year-old sextuplets denied that the constant intrusion of cameras into their private life had precipitated their split or exploited their children. And true to form, the couple assured viewers that the divorce would not interfere with their hit cable series. As Kate Gosselin said gravely, "The show must go on."
It is very telling that the TV show carries more weight to these people than does a marriage or the health of a home in trouble. But this is emblematic of our own lack of personal substance. Not only do we live vicarious and dysfunctional lives through TV people, but we find our own substance through them. The fodder for our daily conversations and perceptions about relationships, language, work, politics, comes through TV.
An uncle to the children on this TV program (Kreider) had a great piece of advice:
"So please," Kreider said, "stop watching."
The excruciatingly public marital troubles between Jon and Kate Gosselin reached their predictable denouement Monday when the reality television stars announced their impeding divorce before an audience of 10.6 million. After 10 years of marriage and two years of filming "Jon & Kate Plus 8," the parents of 8-year-old twins and 5-year-old sextuplets denied that the constant intrusion of cameras into their private life had precipitated their split or exploited their children. And true to form, the couple assured viewers that the divorce would not interfere with their hit cable series. As Kate Gosselin said gravely, "The show must go on."
It is very telling that the TV show carries more weight to these people than does a marriage or the health of a home in trouble. But this is emblematic of our own lack of personal substance. Not only do we live vicarious and dysfunctional lives through TV people, but we find our own substance through them. The fodder for our daily conversations and perceptions about relationships, language, work, politics, comes through TV.
An uncle to the children on this TV program (Kreider) had a great piece of advice:
"So please," Kreider said, "stop watching."
Friday, June 19, 2009
Great Lecture on Truth and Christianity
Sadly, many in Christian circles are dismissing the value, relevance or reality of truth claims about spiritual and moral truths. My former professor, Douglas Groothuis, wrote a great book on the issue - Truth Decay. Here is an introduction to a lecture he gave on the book's topic.
Great Satire: The Value of a Life
Satire the way only The Onion can do it. But it presses a very important ethical issue: when is euthanizing appropriate (if ever)? Many will argue that "biographical life" is what is important. In other words, then the value of a life is done, it is ethically permissible to end a life. Apparently the gymnast's parents agree...
Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put To Sleep After Breaking Leg
Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put To Sleep After Breaking Leg
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Back to the Bookshelf: Pastors are Not Professionals
I have to admit that the first few chapters were a rollercoaster ride for me. I bought the book with one expectation, the first chapter met that expectation, then the second two went another direction altogether. Piper opens with:
We pastors are being killed by the professionalizing of the pastoral ministry. The mentality of the professional is not the mentality of the prophet….Professionalism has nothing to do with the essence and heart of the Christian ministry. (pg 1)
I was excited to read a book from a veteran pastor analyzing the current state of professional ministers, and the details of how the prophetic role of pastor is incompatible with the professional mentality of a CEO. But that is not what Piper wrote.
His next few chapters began to deal with a few of Piper’s pet theological issues and how important they are to the life of the church. If you have read Piper, you know he has a handful of themes that run throughout his preaching and writing, and honestly, a couple of them wear thin for me after a little while. For example, Piper is an ardent traditionalist/compatibalist when it comes to male/female roles, and though I disagree with some of the justifications of his position, I don’t mind reading his mind on the issue. But when he managed to squeeze that into several of his chapters while citing his own works on the matter, it got a little old for me.
But once I got over my initial shock about the purpose and direction of the book, I settled into a wonderful and incredibly lucrative read. This book is not an analysis of professionalism versus pastoring, it is a work of pastoral theology. What kinds of things should be important from behind the pulpit, and what kinds of lifestyles are necessary in the lives and careers of pastors? The chapters, which average a very readable nine pages long, have titles like, “Brothers, Consider Christian Hedonism,” “Brothers, Let Us Query the Text,” “Brothers, Read Christian Biographies,” and “Brothers, Our Affliction is for Their Comfort.” Piper’s book is essentially a call to action; a call to have pastors regain their prophetic role before Scripture and before God, and to live lives that may become their congregations’ comfort and guide.
There is an oddity or two to the book. The one that sticks out to me occurs in the pull-quotes that open each chapter. Most books that contain these cite other authors than the one writing the book to make their point. This one, however, cited John Piper probably 80-90% of the time. So Piper was quoting Piper to help make Piper’s point.
The book is very well-cited. In fact, it is a wealth of resource material on several issues. For example, he encourages pastors to read biographies of Christians who have made a difference in this world. He has a chapter specifically devoted to that issue in which he provides several good possibilities, but then it is evident throughout the rest of the book that he has read a lot of them himself, and he cites them often.
Overall, the book’s value lies it its break from the standard fare of pastoral leadership. Piper is not at all concerned that we are competent professionals (as his opening chapter makes abundantly clear). He is concerned that we present the glorious truths of the Gospel to our congregations and that we live lives that reflect those truths. And, in my opinion, in a world that just doesn’t know what a pastor does (but which is abundantly clear on what CEOs do), his call is a necessary one if we are to regain—in the eyes of God and in the eyes of our congregations—the uniquely biblical role of pastor.
To see this review among others by pastors and for pastors, visit Pastor's Books.
Monday, April 27, 2009
The Difference Between Grace and Karma
This is great.
Rolling Stone: Don’t you think appalling things happen when people become religious?
Bono: It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the Universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between grace and karma.
RS: What’s that?
Bono: At the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, you put out what comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics every action is met by an equal and opposite one. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I have done a lot of stupid stuff. I would be in big trouble if Karma is going to finally be my judge. I am holding out that Jesus took my sins to the cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.
RS: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe that.
Bono: The point of death is that Christ took the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of Heaven.
Rolling Stone, one of the worst cultural perps in our world right now, opens with one of the most hackneyed and false salvos possible, and Bono responds with, well, grace. I'm not Bono's biggest fan, but this is great stuff.
HT: Salvo Blog
Rolling Stone: Don’t you think appalling things happen when people become religious?
Bono: It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the Universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between grace and karma.
RS: What’s that?
Bono: At the center of all religions is the idea of Karma. You know, you put out what comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics every action is met by an equal and opposite one. And yet, along comes this idea called Grace to upend all that. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of your actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I have done a lot of stupid stuff. I would be in big trouble if Karma is going to finally be my judge. I am holding out that Jesus took my sins to the cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.
RS: The Son of God who takes away the sins of the world. I wish I could believe that.
Bono: The point of death is that Christ took the sins of the world, so that what we put out did not come back to us, and that our sinful nature does not reap the obvious death. It’s not our own good works that get us through the gates of Heaven.
Rolling Stone, one of the worst cultural perps in our world right now, opens with one of the most hackneyed and false salvos possible, and Bono responds with, well, grace. I'm not Bono's biggest fan, but this is great stuff.
HT: Salvo Blog
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Hate Speech Police
More and more hate crimes laws are being woven into the fabric of our legal structure and even our societal assumptions about what crimes are the really heinous ones. If two people are murdered alongside a road, one is a WASP and the other is a female Mexican immigrant, one murder is much worse than the other. Thankfully, Congress is ready to help us broaden our current myopic understanding of what counts as a hate crime. From the Philadelphia Inquirer:
This month, Congress has an opportunity to deal with this challenge by adopting the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
A top priority of the Anti-Defamation League, this legislation would strengthen federal hate crimes laws by authorizing the Department of Justice to assist local authorities investigating and prosecuting certain bias-motivated crimes. The bill would also provide authority for the federal government to prosecute some bias-motivated crimes directed against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Current law does not provide sufficient authority for involvement in these cases.
The “mark up” of this piece of legislation actually happens this Wednesday (April 22nd) and will present to Congress, the Senate and President, legislation that explicitly includes speech against sexual orientation as a hate crime. According to one report, it includes all 30 (yes, there are 30!) sexual orientations recognized by the American Psychological Association. Ironically, many of the behaviors based on those orientations are currently against the law in most, if not all, states. Politicians have never let such ironies stop them before.
The ever clear-minded Huffington Post contained an opinion piece…wait for it…supporting it! The argument proffered is full of postmodern language about the maintenance of power structures and the evils of what children are taught in their homes about people who are different than them. And in case you thought that all people could be hateful, the article make it clear that, “Hate crime exists at one end on a continuum of privilege.”
It is incredibly convenient to support a piece of sweeping and horrific legislation like this one, and in one quick sentence exempt most people (including yourself) of the crime. Only “those guys” are guilty of hate, because we have simply defined hate as an attitude and act shown from the powerful to the disenfranchised.
Another inconvenient falsehood perpetrated by this kind of legislation is that things that are not crimes become crimes. Literally, it is not a crime to think something, and it is not a crime to say most things. The clear application sought by it supporters is that this kind of hate thought legislation will be applied to religious organizations and churches. It can become a crime to speak truths and beliefs taught by religion, thus making the State the arbiter of speech and acceptable belief.
Another crushing and obvious irony to all this is that hate crime and hate thought legislation is more often than not supported by those who espouse the virtue of “tolerance.” In reality, their agenda is the crushing of any thought and belief different than their own, and because they don’t have a leg to stand on in public debate and analysis, they force their views on everyone else through laws and the courts.
This month, Congress has an opportunity to deal with this challenge by adopting the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.
A top priority of the Anti-Defamation League, this legislation would strengthen federal hate crimes laws by authorizing the Department of Justice to assist local authorities investigating and prosecuting certain bias-motivated crimes. The bill would also provide authority for the federal government to prosecute some bias-motivated crimes directed against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability. Current law does not provide sufficient authority for involvement in these cases.
The “mark up” of this piece of legislation actually happens this Wednesday (April 22nd) and will present to Congress, the Senate and President, legislation that explicitly includes speech against sexual orientation as a hate crime. According to one report, it includes all 30 (yes, there are 30!) sexual orientations recognized by the American Psychological Association. Ironically, many of the behaviors based on those orientations are currently against the law in most, if not all, states. Politicians have never let such ironies stop them before.
The ever clear-minded Huffington Post contained an opinion piece…wait for it…supporting it! The argument proffered is full of postmodern language about the maintenance of power structures and the evils of what children are taught in their homes about people who are different than them. And in case you thought that all people could be hateful, the article make it clear that, “Hate crime exists at one end on a continuum of privilege.”
It is incredibly convenient to support a piece of sweeping and horrific legislation like this one, and in one quick sentence exempt most people (including yourself) of the crime. Only “those guys” are guilty of hate, because we have simply defined hate as an attitude and act shown from the powerful to the disenfranchised.
Another inconvenient falsehood perpetrated by this kind of legislation is that things that are not crimes become crimes. Literally, it is not a crime to think something, and it is not a crime to say most things. The clear application sought by it supporters is that this kind of hate thought legislation will be applied to religious organizations and churches. It can become a crime to speak truths and beliefs taught by religion, thus making the State the arbiter of speech and acceptable belief.
Another crushing and obvious irony to all this is that hate crime and hate thought legislation is more often than not supported by those who espouse the virtue of “tolerance.” In reality, their agenda is the crushing of any thought and belief different than their own, and because they don’t have a leg to stand on in public debate and analysis, they force their views on everyone else through laws and the courts.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
New Book Review Blog For and By Pastors
Another pastor and I have begun a blog dedicated to books for pastors reviewed by pastors. Take a look!
Pastor's Books
Pastor's Books
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Truth, Arrogance, and the Wisdom of Deepak Chopra
Lee Strobel has a wonderful apologetics site full of videos and information on the basic questions regarding the truth of the Christian faith. In this video, Greg Koukl debates the ever evading Dr. Deepak Chopra regarding religious truth.
As is standard for Chopra, his only fall-back position to facts and arguments is that because other people think differently about religious matters, they must not be any truth to the matter. Don’t bother me with facts! I know a guy who thinks differently than you do, and you are arrogant for not being a relativist!
What bothers me the most about this argument is that it seems to have a hold on a large and growing number of people, even thought is it so thin you could drink tapioca through it (I don’t know what that means). Part of the problem our culture has when it comes to debate is that there is a point of view out there (a dominant point of view) that believes differences are evidence for relativism and that dissent from relativism is arrogance. In a fatal twist of irony, this is the most arrogant and tyrannical belief possible to hold.
For instance, if I believe it is true that “Jesus is the only Son of God,” and I believe that because of an objective source (Scripture, God’s existence, etc.), then I make my appeal to you through another “truth maker.” In addition, I make, or ought to make, my claim humbly. I did not make my belief true, therefore I am in a position of humility with regards to it. In other words, I assent to the truth and provide good reasons for you to do so as well.
On the other hand, Chopra and others like him do not believe there is a “super-human” standard for truth, and thus have made themselves the makers and bearers of truth. If Chopra believes “all religions are ways to god,” then his only standard for that truth is himself. In addition, that makes him infinitely arrogant. As a result, his reply to anyone who holds to any kind of objective truth is one of arrogance.
The Christian worldview has hold on the truth, not because we are that smart, but because God has revealed it to all of us. And that makes us infinitely humble in all the right ways with regard to the truth.
As is standard for Chopra, his only fall-back position to facts and arguments is that because other people think differently about religious matters, they must not be any truth to the matter. Don’t bother me with facts! I know a guy who thinks differently than you do, and you are arrogant for not being a relativist!
What bothers me the most about this argument is that it seems to have a hold on a large and growing number of people, even thought is it so thin you could drink tapioca through it (I don’t know what that means). Part of the problem our culture has when it comes to debate is that there is a point of view out there (a dominant point of view) that believes differences are evidence for relativism and that dissent from relativism is arrogance. In a fatal twist of irony, this is the most arrogant and tyrannical belief possible to hold.
For instance, if I believe it is true that “Jesus is the only Son of God,” and I believe that because of an objective source (Scripture, God’s existence, etc.), then I make my appeal to you through another “truth maker.” In addition, I make, or ought to make, my claim humbly. I did not make my belief true, therefore I am in a position of humility with regards to it. In other words, I assent to the truth and provide good reasons for you to do so as well.
On the other hand, Chopra and others like him do not believe there is a “super-human” standard for truth, and thus have made themselves the makers and bearers of truth. If Chopra believes “all religions are ways to god,” then his only standard for that truth is himself. In addition, that makes him infinitely arrogant. As a result, his reply to anyone who holds to any kind of objective truth is one of arrogance.
The Christian worldview has hold on the truth, not because we are that smart, but because God has revealed it to all of us. And that makes us infinitely humble in all the right ways with regard to the truth.
Stem Cell Debate Over?
Kablamo!
While on the show with Michael J. Fox, Dr. Oz describes how useless embryonic stem cells are and how useful adult stem cells are. The video cuts short the whole discussion, but for the objective student, there is a growing amount of information to support his argument.
While on the show with Michael J. Fox, Dr. Oz describes how useless embryonic stem cells are and how useful adult stem cells are. The video cuts short the whole discussion, but for the objective student, there is a growing amount of information to support his argument.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Should Doctors be Made to Practice Against their Conscience?
President Obama has recently announced his intent to reverse what is commonly called the “conscience clause” for medical professionals. Officially, the Provider Refusal Rule, allows a medical practitioner to opt out of procedures they personally find immoral and distasteful. Their conscience can be their guide in their practice, and for many, that means their religious views will come into play.
Enter the standard drum-beat of public vs. private morality. Stanley Fish wrote a column on this issue for the NY Times in which he invokes Hobbes’ political theory in order to support the view that doctors should be bound by law to carry out what the law requires. If we allowed each individual doctor to practice according to their conscience, the public order of law and morality would be on the brink of disorder. According to Hobbes and Fish, Law becomes the public morality, and each of us in society is bound by our kinds of social contracts to abide by those laws.
Fish’s argument has some fatal flaws to it. I agree, for example, that because premeditated murder is against the law, all citizens are bound to not commit premeditated murder. And if they do, they should be punished. In this way, murder has a tight legal force behind it and our society has contracted to abide by it.
The provision of abortion has no such tight legal force around it. Where the universal prohibition of premeditated murder is on the books, no such universal provision for abortion exists. There is no law stating that all doctors are bound to provide abortions. So Fish’s argument stands with murder – it fails with abortion. If any doctor (or any set of doctors) refuses to provide abortions, they violate no laws, and certainly do not even rise to the level of violating a social contract.
Secondly, Fish doesn’t even raise the question of the status of the fetus. And he doesn’t, because to do so is to make the social contract theory he enjoins work against him. If a fetus is human or potentially human, then abortion is murder or tantamount to murder, thus we have a universal law agreed upon by our society protecting the fetus against abortion. Fish’s argument might just commit suicide.
And thirdly, he assumes an ethical breech between private and public morality. In making a silly emotional plea, he tries to take your emotions and wrap them around a bad conclusion.
But should patients be asked to add to the problems they already have the problem of having to figure out (if they have the time) which providers will be willing to treat them? When a professional hangs out his shingle doesn’t he offer his services and skills to the public and not just to members of it who share his morality?...
The force of these questions depends on assumptions the proponents of the conscience clause do not share, chiefly the assumption that obligations vary with different contexts and that one can (and should) relax the obligations of faith when one is not in church.
I wonder if Fish holds these private ethical values of his loosely when he enters the public square, especially one that on the whole, disagrees with abortion on demand?
Enter the standard drum-beat of public vs. private morality. Stanley Fish wrote a column on this issue for the NY Times in which he invokes Hobbes’ political theory in order to support the view that doctors should be bound by law to carry out what the law requires. If we allowed each individual doctor to practice according to their conscience, the public order of law and morality would be on the brink of disorder. According to Hobbes and Fish, Law becomes the public morality, and each of us in society is bound by our kinds of social contracts to abide by those laws.
Fish’s argument has some fatal flaws to it. I agree, for example, that because premeditated murder is against the law, all citizens are bound to not commit premeditated murder. And if they do, they should be punished. In this way, murder has a tight legal force behind it and our society has contracted to abide by it.
The provision of abortion has no such tight legal force around it. Where the universal prohibition of premeditated murder is on the books, no such universal provision for abortion exists. There is no law stating that all doctors are bound to provide abortions. So Fish’s argument stands with murder – it fails with abortion. If any doctor (or any set of doctors) refuses to provide abortions, they violate no laws, and certainly do not even rise to the level of violating a social contract.
Secondly, Fish doesn’t even raise the question of the status of the fetus. And he doesn’t, because to do so is to make the social contract theory he enjoins work against him. If a fetus is human or potentially human, then abortion is murder or tantamount to murder, thus we have a universal law agreed upon by our society protecting the fetus against abortion. Fish’s argument might just commit suicide.
And thirdly, he assumes an ethical breech between private and public morality. In making a silly emotional plea, he tries to take your emotions and wrap them around a bad conclusion.
But should patients be asked to add to the problems they already have the problem of having to figure out (if they have the time) which providers will be willing to treat them? When a professional hangs out his shingle doesn’t he offer his services and skills to the public and not just to members of it who share his morality?...
The force of these questions depends on assumptions the proponents of the conscience clause do not share, chiefly the assumption that obligations vary with different contexts and that one can (and should) relax the obligations of faith when one is not in church.
I wonder if Fish holds these private ethical values of his loosely when he enters the public square, especially one that on the whole, disagrees with abortion on demand?
And Another Try...
Like clockwork every Easter and Christmas, someone in the main stream press has to make another effort to tell us all how old, outdated, irrelevant, and irrational Christianity is. Newsweek is the latest culprit with their cover proclaiming our nation is no longer "Christian." It grows ponderous and repetitive to deal with each of these rehashes, so we don't always do so here. But posted on the First Things blog is a great treatment of the selective journalism and poor quality that is Meacham's article.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Mediums and a Gospel Message?
Shane Hipps is the recent author of two books on how media and mediums change the way the messages are conveyed. The interview below is specifically in regards to his book, Flickering Pixels: How Technology Shapes Your Faith. I have not read the book, but the few minutes of the video below are provocative.
He goes after the fairly conventional notion that though mediums change, the message stays the same, and concludes, ostensibly with McLuhan, that the medium is the message. On several levels, I find this a very important reality for pastors and churches to reflect upon. We often swallow and use technologies without reflecting first on what they are doing to the message. What happens to a sermon when it is simulcast? What happens to community when more and more of it happens “on-line”? What happens to worship when it is programmed like a Yani concert? And so forth.
On another level, I am curious about how deep his conviction goes. Is his argument that we need to scale back our reliance on technology and be much more cautious? (He is a Mennonite pastor, so that is entirely possible.) Is he traveling down a path where the message of the Gospel itself becomes a little fungible and begins to change in significant ways? (He wrote a book endorsed by Brian McLaren, so that is also possible.)
In any event, enjoy the brief provocation.
HT: Out of Ur
He goes after the fairly conventional notion that though mediums change, the message stays the same, and concludes, ostensibly with McLuhan, that the medium is the message. On several levels, I find this a very important reality for pastors and churches to reflect upon. We often swallow and use technologies without reflecting first on what they are doing to the message. What happens to a sermon when it is simulcast? What happens to community when more and more of it happens “on-line”? What happens to worship when it is programmed like a Yani concert? And so forth.
On another level, I am curious about how deep his conviction goes. Is his argument that we need to scale back our reliance on technology and be much more cautious? (He is a Mennonite pastor, so that is entirely possible.) Is he traveling down a path where the message of the Gospel itself becomes a little fungible and begins to change in significant ways? (He wrote a book endorsed by Brian McLaren, so that is also possible.)
In any event, enjoy the brief provocation.
HT: Out of Ur
Apologetics Study Bible
I was given the Apologetics Study Bible for my birthday, and though I haven’t read every single word (I received it yesterday), I have spent a lot of time reading articles, text notes, and the editors’ explanation for the way they put it together. I have to say I am extremely impressed. I am impressed by the wide array of philosophers who contributed articles throughout the text, and I am impressed with the annotated bibliography on different apologetic issues. I was also impressed, reading through several biblical texts, on the focus of the textual notes. They really did focus on apologetic issues and, where I read them, handled the text well.
A “bonus” feature for me was a set of comments called the Twisted Scripture notes. At several important places, the editors stuck a brief note on how this particular verse of set of verses has been taken out of context and used to justify some pretty bad thinking. If there is any kind of draw-back for me, it would be the Holman translation, and only because it is brand new to me. Now I have a new translation to get used to.
If you are looking for a new and useful study Bible, I highly recommend the Apologetics Study Bible!
A “bonus” feature for me was a set of comments called the Twisted Scripture notes. At several important places, the editors stuck a brief note on how this particular verse of set of verses has been taken out of context and used to justify some pretty bad thinking. If there is any kind of draw-back for me, it would be the Holman translation, and only because it is brand new to me. Now I have a new translation to get used to.
If you are looking for a new and useful study Bible, I highly recommend the Apologetics Study Bible!
Monday, March 30, 2009
President Obama at Notre Dame
If you have followed the news, you know that Notre Dame's invitation for Obama to give the commencement address this year has caused quite a stir. Many are upset at what seems to be an obvious contradiction between some of Obama's beliefs and policies and some of the Catholic Church's teachings. Others are even more upset at the conferral of an honorary Ph.D. from the law school.
I spent some time discussing the matter with a friend, a Ph.D. philosohy student at Notre Dame, and we agreed that there is a lot of silly thinking going on around this topic. It turns out that it is tradition for N.D. to invite a new president to speak, so that is not so unusual, but I expressed that my greatest source of concern was the honorary degree. A speech, especially at a university where a diversity of views ought to be welcomed, is not that unusual. What is more of an association is the degree. It openly states that some department - the law department in this case - recognizes some achievement they wish to say is worthy of their Ph.D.
Francis Beckwith, now a visiting scholar at Notre Dame, was interviewed by Sarah Pulliam for Christianity Today. Not an intellectual slouch, Beckwith had some interesting things to say.
There's nothing wrong with inviting speakers to campus who disagree with the university. I don't think that's the issue here. Here, you have a combination of a commencement address and an honorary doctorate. The honorary doctorate is more troubling than the commencement address because to give him an honorary doctorate in law is to say that he's accomplished something in the field of law that the University of Notre Dame wants to honor. In the past three weeks, we've seen a number of different events, one of which was the change in policy on embryonic stem cell research. The problem is, the areas in which he's been involved with legislation on the issue of abortion have been contrary to Catholic teaching.
For instance, I would welcome Barack Obama to speak at Baylor. But in this case, the honorary doctorate doesn't go to the office of the President. It goes to Barack Obama, even after he ceases to be president. In a way, that gives an imprimatur on him and his views that I don't think Notre Dame should give him. I think if he were just the commencement speaker and not receiving the honorary doctorate, it would tone down the criticism. How can Notre Dame give him an honorary doctorate for excellence in something that our own theology teaches he isn't excellent in?
The last question to Beckwith, who famously converted from protestantism to Catholicism recently, was whether there were things for evangelicals to learn through all this.
I think all Christians can learn to start thinking about what it means to believe something.
One way or another...Amen!
I spent some time discussing the matter with a friend, a Ph.D. philosohy student at Notre Dame, and we agreed that there is a lot of silly thinking going on around this topic. It turns out that it is tradition for N.D. to invite a new president to speak, so that is not so unusual, but I expressed that my greatest source of concern was the honorary degree. A speech, especially at a university where a diversity of views ought to be welcomed, is not that unusual. What is more of an association is the degree. It openly states that some department - the law department in this case - recognizes some achievement they wish to say is worthy of their Ph.D.
Francis Beckwith, now a visiting scholar at Notre Dame, was interviewed by Sarah Pulliam for Christianity Today. Not an intellectual slouch, Beckwith had some interesting things to say.
There's nothing wrong with inviting speakers to campus who disagree with the university. I don't think that's the issue here. Here, you have a combination of a commencement address and an honorary doctorate. The honorary doctorate is more troubling than the commencement address because to give him an honorary doctorate in law is to say that he's accomplished something in the field of law that the University of Notre Dame wants to honor. In the past three weeks, we've seen a number of different events, one of which was the change in policy on embryonic stem cell research. The problem is, the areas in which he's been involved with legislation on the issue of abortion have been contrary to Catholic teaching.
For instance, I would welcome Barack Obama to speak at Baylor. But in this case, the honorary doctorate doesn't go to the office of the President. It goes to Barack Obama, even after he ceases to be president. In a way, that gives an imprimatur on him and his views that I don't think Notre Dame should give him. I think if he were just the commencement speaker and not receiving the honorary doctorate, it would tone down the criticism. How can Notre Dame give him an honorary doctorate for excellence in something that our own theology teaches he isn't excellent in?
The last question to Beckwith, who famously converted from protestantism to Catholicism recently, was whether there were things for evangelicals to learn through all this.
I think all Christians can learn to start thinking about what it means to believe something.
One way or another...Amen!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Cult of Charismatic Personality
This article in Christianity Today by Collin Hansen details yet another integrity problem within the larger Charismatic movement. The Lakeland, Florida revival lead by Todd Bentley had credibility problems from the beginning, yet it attracted tens of thousands of people and took on a life of its own over TV and the web. The article comes on the tail of quite a bit of outspoken frustration on both sides. From the beginning of the revival, a lot of people questioned Bentley, his personal integrity, and his tendency to hit and kick people when praying for them (no kidding!). In the article, one of the standard defenses of Bentley and Pentecostal revival is given by the pastor currently mentoring him and encouraging his return to the ministry after his divorce and marriage to his former assistant:
"If you are such [a] judge of this what gives you the credentials?" Joyner asked Grady on March 12. "What moves of God have you led? What have you built?" He went so far as to allege that Grady's judgment matched Bentley's infidelity in the economy of sin. [Joyner is the pastor defending Bentley and Grady is the journalist for Charisma who has questioned Bentley’s capability]
This kind of reasoning and deliberate manipulation of the situation infuriates me. What Joyner (and so many like him) said was grossly irresponsible and a naked power-play using God as his personal sledge-hammer.
To me, this raises much larger issues. Though all of us from any denomination are human and fallible, why is the Pentecostal movement so prone to following people whose only credentials are their eccentricity and ability to use the right vocabulary and inflection? The Pentecostal movement (and I speak as a Pentecostal pastor) needs some serious reflection and reform. For what it is worth, here are some things I think need to change on the grand scale for us.
We need to redefine “revival.”
Whether Pentecostal pastors admit it or not they tend to equate revival with emotionalism. And emotionalism is a horrible place to put your faith in God. Revival is not measured by the number of bodies that hit the floor; by the number of unsubstantiated miracle reports; by the amount of media buzz generated; by the number of international attendees. It is measured, pure and simple, by the fruit of the Spirit.
Revival happens when lives are genuinely, and in a lasting and growing way, changed by God. It is measured by the furtherance of the Kingdom of God over the kingdom of this world in families and social structures.
We need to wean ourselves from the milk of “ends justify the means” ministry.
This is clearly the defense used to justify the ministry of dozens of heretics and spiritually abusive ministries. If it “works,” obviously God is blessing. The number of “humanist churches” is growing across the country, obviously God is blessing. Thousands of people flock to the pagan Burning Man festival every year, obviously God is blessing.
If the fallacy is not clear to you, you may be beyond hope.
We need to reestablish orthodoxy as the litmus test of revival and ministry success.
Instead of being tempted to cast a blind eye to obvious problems with spiritual power-plays the way Joyner did, we should learn to value fidelity to Christ and His Word over personality. The current culture of Pentecostalism has become idolatrous in the way it holds men up over doctrine.
Our denominations need to make doctrine more of a priority than charisma or “leadership.” After all, we are called to preserve the faith once and for all handed to the saints, not to make effective CEOs out of our pastors.
We need to stop hiding behind the canard, “you can’t touch the Lord’s anointed.”
In case you don’t know, that phrase was used to describe Saul at the pinnacle of his sinful behavior. In deference to God, not to Saul, David did not kill him. David was honoring God, not Saul, when he spoke those words. So, it is a biblical fallacy to use that phrase to defend people who are making clear mistakes. God was on His way to destroying Saul when David spoke those words—is that how we want to use that phrase?
We need to reevaluate who we consider ministry “heroes.”
For all of its influence in the Pentecostal movement, the Azuza Street Revival is deeply misunderstood. The man at the middle of it all, William J. Seymour, was a little unorthodox in his methodology to say the least, but his writings after the revival reveal a deep commitment to the core ethic of Christian orthodoxy – love. Seymour watched the power of God transform lives and tear down the economic and racial barriers the structures of the world erected with such ease. Ironically, his influence was overshadowed by more charismatic and influential white men who tended to be racists, and we have suffered from a cult of personality ever since.
Our heroes are not the most popular, the ones with the largest churches, book sales, or their own TV shows. Our heroes are the faithful preachers of the Gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ. They toil week in and week out to be faithful to God’s Word and the congregation they oversee. Some of them have answered God’s call to the corners of the earth and we will not know anything about them until we learn of them in God’s glory.
"If you are such [a] judge of this what gives you the credentials?" Joyner asked Grady on March 12. "What moves of God have you led? What have you built?" He went so far as to allege that Grady's judgment matched Bentley's infidelity in the economy of sin. [Joyner is the pastor defending Bentley and Grady is the journalist for Charisma who has questioned Bentley’s capability]
This kind of reasoning and deliberate manipulation of the situation infuriates me. What Joyner (and so many like him) said was grossly irresponsible and a naked power-play using God as his personal sledge-hammer.
To me, this raises much larger issues. Though all of us from any denomination are human and fallible, why is the Pentecostal movement so prone to following people whose only credentials are their eccentricity and ability to use the right vocabulary and inflection? The Pentecostal movement (and I speak as a Pentecostal pastor) needs some serious reflection and reform. For what it is worth, here are some things I think need to change on the grand scale for us.
We need to redefine “revival.”
Whether Pentecostal pastors admit it or not they tend to equate revival with emotionalism. And emotionalism is a horrible place to put your faith in God. Revival is not measured by the number of bodies that hit the floor; by the number of unsubstantiated miracle reports; by the amount of media buzz generated; by the number of international attendees. It is measured, pure and simple, by the fruit of the Spirit.
Revival happens when lives are genuinely, and in a lasting and growing way, changed by God. It is measured by the furtherance of the Kingdom of God over the kingdom of this world in families and social structures.
We need to wean ourselves from the milk of “ends justify the means” ministry.
This is clearly the defense used to justify the ministry of dozens of heretics and spiritually abusive ministries. If it “works,” obviously God is blessing. The number of “humanist churches” is growing across the country, obviously God is blessing. Thousands of people flock to the pagan Burning Man festival every year, obviously God is blessing.
If the fallacy is not clear to you, you may be beyond hope.
We need to reestablish orthodoxy as the litmus test of revival and ministry success.
Instead of being tempted to cast a blind eye to obvious problems with spiritual power-plays the way Joyner did, we should learn to value fidelity to Christ and His Word over personality. The current culture of Pentecostalism has become idolatrous in the way it holds men up over doctrine.
Our denominations need to make doctrine more of a priority than charisma or “leadership.” After all, we are called to preserve the faith once and for all handed to the saints, not to make effective CEOs out of our pastors.
We need to stop hiding behind the canard, “you can’t touch the Lord’s anointed.”
In case you don’t know, that phrase was used to describe Saul at the pinnacle of his sinful behavior. In deference to God, not to Saul, David did not kill him. David was honoring God, not Saul, when he spoke those words. So, it is a biblical fallacy to use that phrase to defend people who are making clear mistakes. God was on His way to destroying Saul when David spoke those words—is that how we want to use that phrase?
We need to reevaluate who we consider ministry “heroes.”
For all of its influence in the Pentecostal movement, the Azuza Street Revival is deeply misunderstood. The man at the middle of it all, William J. Seymour, was a little unorthodox in his methodology to say the least, but his writings after the revival reveal a deep commitment to the core ethic of Christian orthodoxy – love. Seymour watched the power of God transform lives and tear down the economic and racial barriers the structures of the world erected with such ease. Ironically, his influence was overshadowed by more charismatic and influential white men who tended to be racists, and we have suffered from a cult of personality ever since.
Our heroes are not the most popular, the ones with the largest churches, book sales, or their own TV shows. Our heroes are the faithful preachers of the Gospel of the grace of Jesus Christ. They toil week in and week out to be faithful to God’s Word and the congregation they oversee. Some of them have answered God’s call to the corners of the earth and we will not know anything about them until we learn of them in God’s glory.
Does Anybody Know What is Going On?
This blog at STR is a terrific analysis of some of the media coverage and current fall-out over President Obama's executive order lifting Bush's ban on further federal funding for ESCR. The long and the short of it is that it seems that the people who matter most to this debate - our politicians and the media - simply don't know what is actually going on and don't seem to have the reasoning skills to even understand the basic facts of the case.
Genuine Knowledge Outside of Science - Get Outta' Here!
A friend sent me this intriguing article in Science Magazine on a Templeton Prize winner. D’Espagnat is a French physicist who has argued that science cannot produce for us a full-orbed view of reality.
What is reality? French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, 87, has spent a lifetime grappling with this question. Over the years, he has developed the idea that the reality revealed by science offers only a "veiled" view of an underlying reality that science cannot access, and that the scientific view must take its place alongside the reality revealed by art, spirituality, and other forms of human inquiry.
For a scientist who is probably steeped in the current academic monopoly of Scientism, this is radical stuff. To those who believe there is genuine knowledge outside of methodological naturalism, this is commonplace. If you make the mistake (explainable but inexcusable) of reading some of the comments, the traditional village materialists have their sophomoric say. Metaphysical naturalism, and the commenter’s reactions, rely on some heavy duty presuppositions, and even in some cases, circular reasoning.
Sometimes you will read a materialist who believes the material world is all that exists because science can only measure the material world. Not only does that rely on the highly dubious epistemological presupposition that science is the only genuine arbiter of knowledge, but it is also obviously circular.
Defenders of ideas like the argument from reason and its cousins, have good reason to believe that metaphysical (and possibly even methodological) naturalism is a self-defeating claim. Since the activity of science relies on rational processes like deduction and induction, and because rational processes are not provable through methodological naturalism, it is an idea that commits suicide. It needs non-natural processes to prove that no non-natural realities exist.
On the other hand, there is genuine knowledge about the universe available through non-scientific means. Theology, and I would say, ethics, are two of these means. And, against current scientific dogma, the knowledge gained through these enterprises are just as reliable as the knowledge gained in a test-tube.
On a broader, cultural scale, we will do ourselves a favor if we listen to people like d’Espagnat, and loosen ourselves from the myopia of Scientism.
What is reality? French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, 87, has spent a lifetime grappling with this question. Over the years, he has developed the idea that the reality revealed by science offers only a "veiled" view of an underlying reality that science cannot access, and that the scientific view must take its place alongside the reality revealed by art, spirituality, and other forms of human inquiry.
For a scientist who is probably steeped in the current academic monopoly of Scientism, this is radical stuff. To those who believe there is genuine knowledge outside of methodological naturalism, this is commonplace. If you make the mistake (explainable but inexcusable) of reading some of the comments, the traditional village materialists have their sophomoric say. Metaphysical naturalism, and the commenter’s reactions, rely on some heavy duty presuppositions, and even in some cases, circular reasoning.
Sometimes you will read a materialist who believes the material world is all that exists because science can only measure the material world. Not only does that rely on the highly dubious epistemological presupposition that science is the only genuine arbiter of knowledge, but it is also obviously circular.
Defenders of ideas like the argument from reason and its cousins, have good reason to believe that metaphysical (and possibly even methodological) naturalism is a self-defeating claim. Since the activity of science relies on rational processes like deduction and induction, and because rational processes are not provable through methodological naturalism, it is an idea that commits suicide. It needs non-natural processes to prove that no non-natural realities exist.
On the other hand, there is genuine knowledge about the universe available through non-scientific means. Theology, and I would say, ethics, are two of these means. And, against current scientific dogma, the knowledge gained through these enterprises are just as reliable as the knowledge gained in a test-tube.
On a broader, cultural scale, we will do ourselves a favor if we listen to people like d’Espagnat, and loosen ourselves from the myopia of Scientism.
Faithful Fiction
I must admit to being put off by Flannery O'Connor from time to time. I enjoyed Wise Blood, but had a very hard time finishing The Violent Bear it Away. Literary critic and professor, Ralph Wood does a great job in a short space of dealing with the value and importance of this great American author, especially the intended Christian overtones that make their way through odd and often brutal books. His essay has had its (likely) intended effect on me - I will pick O'Connor back up and read her again.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Those Crazy Bioethicists
If you follow the world of bioethics at all, you know there are some strange birds out there. I must admit to taking many of the more radical views and programs of research to spark discussion among naïve freshmen in my ethics classes. And it is not hard to find some wild and crazy views.
A friend of mine sent me this address by philosopher David Oderberg. Oderberg laments the state of philosophical reflection in the industry that has become “bioethics.” I have heard this lament before, but Oderberg goes after it with both analytical barrels blazing. And its excoriating. I love academic addresses that contain such lines as, “I cannot plumb the depths of stupidity of such thinking here,” and “Is this sort of reasoning good enough? I mean good enough outside the pub or the restaurant? (I am being unfair to pubs at the least…”
The reason I am drawn to the world of “bioethics” is that it is one of those crossroads between the academic exercise of ethical reflection and “real life.” But more and more, I come to agree with Oderberg and lament with him that those who dominate the field right now are not doing much thinking of any value. Instead, sophomoric utilitarianism seems to rule the day, and anything technology can do can be justified by any cohort of bioethicists.
A friend of mine sent me this address by philosopher David Oderberg. Oderberg laments the state of philosophical reflection in the industry that has become “bioethics.” I have heard this lament before, but Oderberg goes after it with both analytical barrels blazing. And its excoriating. I love academic addresses that contain such lines as, “I cannot plumb the depths of stupidity of such thinking here,” and “Is this sort of reasoning good enough? I mean good enough outside the pub or the restaurant? (I am being unfair to pubs at the least…”
The reason I am drawn to the world of “bioethics” is that it is one of those crossroads between the academic exercise of ethical reflection and “real life.” But more and more, I come to agree with Oderberg and lament with him that those who dominate the field right now are not doing much thinking of any value. Instead, sophomoric utilitarianism seems to rule the day, and anything technology can do can be justified by any cohort of bioethicists.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Renovare Essentials Conference
For those in the Colorado Springs area, Living Hope Church is hosting a Renovare Essentials conference on May 2nd, 2009. Visit our website for more information and for registration. We would love to see you there as we gather to be made more like our Savior, Jesus Christ!
Monday, March 16, 2009
Embryonic Stem Cell Decision: Morally Serious?
This is an excoriating critique of the position President Obama has taken regarding embryonic stem cell research. If you are not familiar with Dr. Charles Krauthammer, he is paralyzed from about the shoulders down, a Ph.D. psychiatrist, a columnist, and as far as I can tell a kind of agnostic. As a member of Bush’s Council on Bioethics, I didn’t always agree with his positions but I always appreciated his moral argumentation. He was invited to the signing ceremony where others in wheelchairs surrounded the President providing photo-ops. He declined, and he is glad he did.
President Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn.
Though I believe conception is that crucial moment of conferred personhood, I like what he has to say. To use embryos for this kind of destructive research is to treat them as fetal pigs purchased for junior high biology classes.
Krauthammer goes on to bemoan the kind of ignorance-based arrogance that often accompanies scientism.
That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would have made me walk out.
Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.
What an outrage. Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.
Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."
He notes later on that there needs to be moral, and I believe, religious reflection guiding scientific advancement.
Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible.
(The Washington Post article requires a free subscription, you can read it for free on Towhnall.)
President Bush had restricted federal funding for embryonic stem cell research to cells derived from embryos that had already been destroyed (as of his speech of Aug. 9, 2001). While I favor moving that moral line to additionally permit the use of spare fertility clinic embryos, President Obama replaced it with no line at all. He pointedly left open the creation of cloned -- and noncloned sperm-and-egg-derived -- human embryos solely for the purpose of dismemberment and use for parts.
I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn.
Though I believe conception is that crucial moment of conferred personhood, I like what he has to say. To use embryos for this kind of destructive research is to treat them as fetal pigs purchased for junior high biology classes.
Krauthammer goes on to bemoan the kind of ignorance-based arrogance that often accompanies scientism.
That part of the ceremony, watched from the safe distance of my office, made me uneasy. The other part -- the ostentatious issuance of a memorandum on "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making" -- would have made me walk out.
Restoring? The implication, of course, is that while Obama is guided solely by science, Bush was driven by dogma, ideology and politics.
What an outrage. Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president. It was so scrupulous in presenting the best case for both his view and the contrary view that until the last few minutes, the listener had no idea where Bush would come out.
Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."
He notes later on that there needs to be moral, and I believe, religious reflection guiding scientific advancement.
Science has everything to say about what is possible. Science has nothing to say about what is permissible.
(The Washington Post article requires a free subscription, you can read it for free on Towhnall.)
The Growing Religious Divide
Colleen Carroll Campbell is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and the host of the quietly intriguing show, Faith and Culture. She writes about the recent major religious survey done among Americans and though much has been written about its implications, and I like what she has to say:
The recently released results of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey…found that while most Americans today identify as Christians, the proportion of Christians has dropped by 10 percentage points since 1990. The only religious group that has seen population increases in every state is the "nones": a category of atheists, agnostics and spiritual freelancers like Sheila that now includes 15 percent of Americans, up from 8 percent in 1990.
The after noting that the percentage of evangelicals has risen, she notes:
So what does all of this mean for American public life? For starters, the numbers suggest that Americans increasingly are gravitating to one of two religious poles: Either they are becoming more committed to churches that make strong moral and religious demands or they are rejecting religion altogether.
I find that a fascinating conclusion. If you have been following the furor caused by the new atheists and the Christians who have responded, I thing Campbell’s observation rings true. In many ways, I believe there is a growing hostility between the Christian faith and the (more faithful) atheists in our culture.
Her final observation is right on the money:
The implications of this trend extend beyond religion. Just as more Americans are moving toward stronger religious observance or none at all, a related divide is widening between Americans who fear the growth of government as a threat to religious liberty and those who welcome it as a means of secular salvation. It's no coincidence that we are witnessing an unprecedented expansion of government at the same time that more Americans are disengaging from the faith traditions and communities that provided social, spiritual and economic support for the generations before them. Nor is it surprising that the president driving this expansion inspires religious fervor bordering on idolatry among many of his followers, particularly those with no religious affiliation. The human yearning for adoration of some higher power -- be it God, government or Barack Obama -- dies hard.
I would only add that because we are creatures created to worship, that yearning will never die. It is a void in the human soul that will always seek to be filled.
The recently released results of the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey…found that while most Americans today identify as Christians, the proportion of Christians has dropped by 10 percentage points since 1990. The only religious group that has seen population increases in every state is the "nones": a category of atheists, agnostics and spiritual freelancers like Sheila that now includes 15 percent of Americans, up from 8 percent in 1990.
The after noting that the percentage of evangelicals has risen, she notes:
So what does all of this mean for American public life? For starters, the numbers suggest that Americans increasingly are gravitating to one of two religious poles: Either they are becoming more committed to churches that make strong moral and religious demands or they are rejecting religion altogether.
I find that a fascinating conclusion. If you have been following the furor caused by the new atheists and the Christians who have responded, I thing Campbell’s observation rings true. In many ways, I believe there is a growing hostility between the Christian faith and the (more faithful) atheists in our culture.
Her final observation is right on the money:
The implications of this trend extend beyond religion. Just as more Americans are moving toward stronger religious observance or none at all, a related divide is widening between Americans who fear the growth of government as a threat to religious liberty and those who welcome it as a means of secular salvation. It's no coincidence that we are witnessing an unprecedented expansion of government at the same time that more Americans are disengaging from the faith traditions and communities that provided social, spiritual and economic support for the generations before them. Nor is it surprising that the president driving this expansion inspires religious fervor bordering on idolatry among many of his followers, particularly those with no religious affiliation. The human yearning for adoration of some higher power -- be it God, government or Barack Obama -- dies hard.
I would only add that because we are creatures created to worship, that yearning will never die. It is a void in the human soul that will always seek to be filled.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Federally Funded Embryonic Stem Cell Research
The Executive Order lifting the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research has been signed, and I find the accompanying statements fascinating. While noting that the President was surrounded by and supported by leading scientists, the White House blog and his statements were sure to make note of the faith-based angle on the whole thing.
But he also made clear that his decision was not made based on his belief in science alone: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."
And further:
The President said that a false choice has often been presented between science and faith, and that corrupting, shielding, or shying away from the facts science lays bare benefits nobody...
The translation for this is pretty simple. Opposition to “promising” embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious point of view we find distasteful, and therefore ignorable. To get through the “false choice” between science and faith is to tell that kind of faith to get out of the way. And though the President used the faith-card to try and buttress the religious angle on this event, it rests on the dubious ethical standard of “ends justify the means.” The assumption is that ESR does or will benefit people, when in reality, it does not benefit anyone and it destroys human embryos.
This morning I wrote that we needed a new parade of victims to help press this through. Reenter the exploitation of the Reeve family and a photo op with a crippled Congressman (photo on the White House blog). The President said:
As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting – even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause – people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.
But he also made clear that his decision was not made based on his belief in science alone: "As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering."
And further:
The President said that a false choice has often been presented between science and faith, and that corrupting, shielding, or shying away from the facts science lays bare benefits nobody...
The translation for this is pretty simple. Opposition to “promising” embryonic stem cell research comes from a religious point of view we find distasteful, and therefore ignorable. To get through the “false choice” between science and faith is to tell that kind of faith to get out of the way. And though the President used the faith-card to try and buttress the religious angle on this event, it rests on the dubious ethical standard of “ends justify the means.” The assumption is that ESR does or will benefit people, when in reality, it does not benefit anyone and it destroys human embryos.
This morning I wrote that we needed a new parade of victims to help press this through. Reenter the exploitation of the Reeve family and a photo op with a crippled Congressman (photo on the White House blog). The President said:
As we restore our commitment to science, and resume funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don’t know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting – even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause – people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.
Still Stuck on Killing Embryos
I think in most junior high yearbook classes they call this “reporting”:
President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order and memo Monday in an East Room ceremony that will end a divisive policy decision by his predecessor, while sending a clear signal that science - not political ideology - will guide his administration.
I shouldn’t be, but I continue to be shocked at the deliberate work of obfuscation and perpetrated ignorance when it comes to the main stream media and political liberals when it comes to this topic. Over and over again, the facts of scientific data have contradicted the actual usefulness of embryonic stem cell research. But the propaganda continues. Every time you read of the topic in the ignorant media, it reads like messianic hope:
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases - such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
For years now, scientist have hoped for those things to happen. It’s time to find another victim patsy! Unfortunately, President Bush killed Christopher Reeve before scientific hope could make him walk again. The deliberate manipulation of information and the abuse of the sick and diseased in the service of a horrid process is – well, it has become typical.
In case you are new to this debate, and apparently media types who have been covering it for a decade are, the final nail was put in this coffin months ago. The primary complaint with the incredibly effective adult stem cells is that they don’t appear to be pluripotent. A procedure was devised and repeated in which adult skin cells are chemically “reprogrammed” to behave like pluripotent stem cells, thus allowing them to be used for any and every conceivable problem in the human body.
In a nutshell, here is why embryonic stem cell research should be opposed at every turn.
First, all the science is against it. Adult stem cells and reprogrammed skin cells have been used in almost 100 documented cases of successful treatment. Embryonic stem cells: 0. Embryonic stem cells don’t turn themselves off, thus creating non-malignant tumors when used. Adult and reprogrammed stem cells don’t.
Second, all the ethical reflection is against ESR. Embryos have to be killed in order to harvest their stem cells. Embryos are humans, thus ESR is (now government sponsored) murder. Even if you don’t hold to the actual personhood of embryos, one should at least admit that allowed to grow to term, human embryos become human infants. If we aren’t killing human beings, we are killing potential human beings. And the ends don’t justify the means. The potential benefit of messianic science does not justify the destruction of human embryos.
So, I really want to know, why are we still stuck on funding ESR?
President Barack Obama is expected to sign an executive order and memo Monday in an East Room ceremony that will end a divisive policy decision by his predecessor, while sending a clear signal that science - not political ideology - will guide his administration.
I shouldn’t be, but I continue to be shocked at the deliberate work of obfuscation and perpetrated ignorance when it comes to the main stream media and political liberals when it comes to this topic. Over and over again, the facts of scientific data have contradicted the actual usefulness of embryonic stem cell research. But the propaganda continues. Every time you read of the topic in the ignorant media, it reads like messianic hope:
Embryonic stem cells are master cells that can morph into any cell of the body. Scientists hope to harness them so they can create replacement tissues to treat a variety of diseases - such as new insulin-producing cells for diabetics, cells that could help those with Parkinson's disease or maybe even Alzheimer's, or new nerve connections to restore movement after spinal injury.
For years now, scientist have hoped for those things to happen. It’s time to find another victim patsy! Unfortunately, President Bush killed Christopher Reeve before scientific hope could make him walk again. The deliberate manipulation of information and the abuse of the sick and diseased in the service of a horrid process is – well, it has become typical.
In case you are new to this debate, and apparently media types who have been covering it for a decade are, the final nail was put in this coffin months ago. The primary complaint with the incredibly effective adult stem cells is that they don’t appear to be pluripotent. A procedure was devised and repeated in which adult skin cells are chemically “reprogrammed” to behave like pluripotent stem cells, thus allowing them to be used for any and every conceivable problem in the human body.
In a nutshell, here is why embryonic stem cell research should be opposed at every turn.
First, all the science is against it. Adult stem cells and reprogrammed skin cells have been used in almost 100 documented cases of successful treatment. Embryonic stem cells: 0. Embryonic stem cells don’t turn themselves off, thus creating non-malignant tumors when used. Adult and reprogrammed stem cells don’t.
Second, all the ethical reflection is against ESR. Embryos have to be killed in order to harvest their stem cells. Embryos are humans, thus ESR is (now government sponsored) murder. Even if you don’t hold to the actual personhood of embryos, one should at least admit that allowed to grow to term, human embryos become human infants. If we aren’t killing human beings, we are killing potential human beings. And the ends don’t justify the means. The potential benefit of messianic science does not justify the destruction of human embryos.
So, I really want to know, why are we still stuck on funding ESR?
Saturday, March 07, 2009
Catholic Hospitals and FOCA
In today’s social terms, the further “left” a worldview goes, the narrower it becomes. By its very nature, the more “postmodern” a philosophy becomes the more intolerant and power-happy it has to be. Because argumentation and persuasion are defacto non-factors, all that is left is propaganda and power. (But I digress slightly…)
In a world where religious and non-religious worldviews can live side-by-side, some hospitals can chose to provide abortions, and others can chose not to. In a world where the Federal government legislates the “right” to abortion and forces it on all medical providers, those who have a different philosophy of life are coerced – it is political tyranny.
President Obama famously promised to pass FOCA, a piece of legislation he helped co-sponsor in the past that will overturn all state and local roadblocks to abortion on demand. The Saint Louis Post Dispatch reports:
A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.
The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.
A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later."
Could the Catholic Church sell their interests in their hospitals to other providers and thus get out of a moral bind?
Speaking in Baltimore in November at the bishops' fall meeting, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, a Chicago auxiliary bishop, took up the issue of what to do with Catholic hospitals if FOCA became law. "It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions," he said. "That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."
Though there is debate as to the language and the consequences of the current FOCA bill, the latest incarnation read like a guaranteed right.
In its last incarnation, FOCA defined abortion as a "fundamental right" that no government can "deny" or "interfere with." That language, FOCA's opponents warn, would help overturn abortion restrictions such as parental notification, laws banning certain procedures and constraints on federal funding.
The future, real-world consequences of legislation are tricky and always subject to debate. But I think the Catholic Church is on to something. If a guaranteed right protected and coerced by the government conflicts with their worldview at a very basic and fundamental level, they need to do something. And because abortion is, as Bishop Paprocki said, “evil,” their only morally acceptable option would be to withdraw completely if the consequences go the way they predict.
On a related note, why is it not coercion for abortion to be outlawed in most if not all circumstances? Because it is not coercion to legislate moral behavior. If abortion is the murder of innocent children, and I believe it is, the only morally acceptable action is to speak out and legislate against it. For example, it is not coercion or political tyranny to stop genocide or suicide bombers – it is a moral obligation to do so.
In a world where religious and non-religious worldviews can live side-by-side, some hospitals can chose to provide abortions, and others can chose not to. In a world where the Federal government legislates the “right” to abortion and forces it on all medical providers, those who have a different philosophy of life are coerced – it is political tyranny.
President Obama famously promised to pass FOCA, a piece of legislation he helped co-sponsor in the past that will overturn all state and local roadblocks to abortion on demand. The Saint Louis Post Dispatch reports:
A proposed bill promising major changes in the U.S. abortion landscape has Roman Catholic bishops threatening to close Catholic hospitals if the Democratic Congress and White House make it law.
The Freedom of Choice Act failed to get out of subcommittee in 2004, but its sponsor is poised to refile it now that former Senate co-sponsor Barack Obama occupies the Oval Office.
A spokesman for Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the legislation "is among the congressman's priorities. We expect to reintroduce it sooner rather than later."
Could the Catholic Church sell their interests in their hospitals to other providers and thus get out of a moral bind?
Speaking in Baltimore in November at the bishops' fall meeting, Bishop Thomas Paprocki, a Chicago auxiliary bishop, took up the issue of what to do with Catholic hospitals if FOCA became law. "It would not be sufficient to withdraw our sponsorship or to sell them to someone who would perform abortions," he said. "That would be a morally unacceptable cooperation in evil."
Though there is debate as to the language and the consequences of the current FOCA bill, the latest incarnation read like a guaranteed right.
In its last incarnation, FOCA defined abortion as a "fundamental right" that no government can "deny" or "interfere with." That language, FOCA's opponents warn, would help overturn abortion restrictions such as parental notification, laws banning certain procedures and constraints on federal funding.
The future, real-world consequences of legislation are tricky and always subject to debate. But I think the Catholic Church is on to something. If a guaranteed right protected and coerced by the government conflicts with their worldview at a very basic and fundamental level, they need to do something. And because abortion is, as Bishop Paprocki said, “evil,” their only morally acceptable option would be to withdraw completely if the consequences go the way they predict.
On a related note, why is it not coercion for abortion to be outlawed in most if not all circumstances? Because it is not coercion to legislate moral behavior. If abortion is the murder of innocent children, and I believe it is, the only morally acceptable action is to speak out and legislate against it. For example, it is not coercion or political tyranny to stop genocide or suicide bombers – it is a moral obligation to do so.
Friday, March 06, 2009
Don't Let Your Embryos Out Of Your Sight
In the dystopia, Brave New World, Huxley foresees a world where humans have been genetically modified to fit certain strata of society, and have become slaves to their own technology. In the film (and book), Gattaca, a similar society is on display in which the genetically advantaged have all the social advantages anyone needs, just by virtue of their DNA. I once tried to describe the Gattaca plot to someone who simply laughed at me and the “ridiculous” premise. That was a few years ago. My how things change.
A fertility clinic, Fertility Institutes, is making headlines along with other IVF providers for a procedure called prenatal genetic screening (PGD). A process that has actually been around for a while, it allows families to take a peek into the genetics of their pre-born children to check for genetic diseases and other traits tied to genetics. The difference now is, Fertility Institutes and others are promising and providing screening procedures for gender and cosmetic traits. This means you can choose the embryo of your choice with all the right physical features, and not just all the right genetic tendencies.
From their website:
In addition to our renown infertility and in vitro fertilization services, we are the world's largest and most successful 100% gender selection program and offer very popular egg donor and surrogacy options.
From a news piece on the Fox website:
It isn't clear that Fertility Institutes can yet deliver on its claims of trait selection. But the growth of PGD, unfettered by any state or federal regulations in the U.S., has accelerated genetic knowledge swiftly enough that pre-selecting cosmetic traits in a baby is no longer the stuff of science fiction.
But Fertility Institutes disagrees. "This is cosmetic medicine," says Jeff Steinberg, director of the clinic that is advertising gender and physical trait selection on its Web site. "Others are frightened by the criticism but we have no problems with it."
At a certain level, this is already fairly commonplace in some contexts.
Embryo screening, for example, is sometimes used to create a genetically matched "savior sibling" — a younger sister or brother whose healthy cells can be harvested to treat an older sibling with a serious illness.
Trait selection in babies "is a service," says Dr. Steinberg. "We intend to offer it soon."
From the PHG Foundation website dedicated to this kind of news:
A US fertility clinic is reportedly offering patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) selection for or against cosmetic traits such as eye, hair and skin colour. The embryos produced by IVF are screened for chromosomal abnormalities prior to implantation (see previous news), with an option for sex selection, and now parents will also be offered additional screening for certain physical features (presumably for an additional fee) as well as for “potentially lethal diseases” and “cancer tendencies”
Hitherto, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been limited to determination of the presence or absence of a genetic variant associated with a serious form of disease; in the UK, this is the only permitted use of the technique, which is carefully regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)
In the US, services providing PGD are subject to voluntary regulation.
The growth of this technology and the growing acceptance of the uses of this technology requires ethical reflection, cultural and political action, and education. As presented on the website and in the news pieces concerning Fertility Institutes and other organizations of the like, these applications of technology need to stop. A few things require reflection.
First, the IVF procedure is the Pandora’s Box technology. It promises great things, but it opens the door to unethical technologies. In the typical IVF, several fertilized embryos are created which means the “leftovers” can be experimented on, frozen, or destroyed. When a fertility clinic speaks of choosing the best children for parents, what they mean is they destroy the unacceptable unborn children. IVF is eugenic abortion writ-large.
Second, this technology is available only to those who can afford it. This means designer children for the rich, and natural children for the not-so-rich. In addition, this presents questions about government control and regulation, and if it becomes seen as a “right,” does this mean taxpayer dollars will be used to destroy unacceptable embryos?
Third, this is generational slavery. When we choose the cosmetic traits for our children, we impose upon them our current standards of what looks good or healthy.
Fourth, there is no really good definition for the difference between therapy and enhancement. In other words, can you adequately define the difference between fixing what went wrong and purely “cosmetic” procedures? If we can replace or genetically aid a diseased or underperforming eye, for instance, we probably should. What happens if the genetic enhancement becomes stronger and more acute than the natural product? Should we genetically enhance embryos so their eyes will be better than nature intended? Should height be “fixed”? Skin color? Gender is being “fixed” right now – are you OK with that?
Fifth, the answers to all these questions and thousands more rely on a good definition of human nature. The predominant philosophies running our scientific and political organizations, however, don’t have one. And when there is no good, unmovable definition of human nature humanity becomes pliable and subject to the whims of technology, instead of the other way around.
Christian thinkers need to continue to stand up and say these technologies need to stop and be subject to sound ethical thinking before they are implemented. It is not the case that just because we can do it, we should.
A fertility clinic, Fertility Institutes, is making headlines along with other IVF providers for a procedure called prenatal genetic screening (PGD). A process that has actually been around for a while, it allows families to take a peek into the genetics of their pre-born children to check for genetic diseases and other traits tied to genetics. The difference now is, Fertility Institutes and others are promising and providing screening procedures for gender and cosmetic traits. This means you can choose the embryo of your choice with all the right physical features, and not just all the right genetic tendencies.
From their website:
In addition to our renown infertility and in vitro fertilization services, we are the world's largest and most successful 100% gender selection program and offer very popular egg donor and surrogacy options.
From a news piece on the Fox website:
It isn't clear that Fertility Institutes can yet deliver on its claims of trait selection. But the growth of PGD, unfettered by any state or federal regulations in the U.S., has accelerated genetic knowledge swiftly enough that pre-selecting cosmetic traits in a baby is no longer the stuff of science fiction.
But Fertility Institutes disagrees. "This is cosmetic medicine," says Jeff Steinberg, director of the clinic that is advertising gender and physical trait selection on its Web site. "Others are frightened by the criticism but we have no problems with it."
At a certain level, this is already fairly commonplace in some contexts.
Embryo screening, for example, is sometimes used to create a genetically matched "savior sibling" — a younger sister or brother whose healthy cells can be harvested to treat an older sibling with a serious illness.
Trait selection in babies "is a service," says Dr. Steinberg. "We intend to offer it soon."
From the PHG Foundation website dedicated to this kind of news:
A US fertility clinic is reportedly offering patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) selection for or against cosmetic traits such as eye, hair and skin colour. The embryos produced by IVF are screened for chromosomal abnormalities prior to implantation (see previous news), with an option for sex selection, and now parents will also be offered additional screening for certain physical features (presumably for an additional fee) as well as for “potentially lethal diseases” and “cancer tendencies”
Hitherto, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) has been limited to determination of the presence or absence of a genetic variant associated with a serious form of disease; in the UK, this is the only permitted use of the technique, which is carefully regulated by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA)
In the US, services providing PGD are subject to voluntary regulation.
The growth of this technology and the growing acceptance of the uses of this technology requires ethical reflection, cultural and political action, and education. As presented on the website and in the news pieces concerning Fertility Institutes and other organizations of the like, these applications of technology need to stop. A few things require reflection.
First, the IVF procedure is the Pandora’s Box technology. It promises great things, but it opens the door to unethical technologies. In the typical IVF, several fertilized embryos are created which means the “leftovers” can be experimented on, frozen, or destroyed. When a fertility clinic speaks of choosing the best children for parents, what they mean is they destroy the unacceptable unborn children. IVF is eugenic abortion writ-large.
Second, this technology is available only to those who can afford it. This means designer children for the rich, and natural children for the not-so-rich. In addition, this presents questions about government control and regulation, and if it becomes seen as a “right,” does this mean taxpayer dollars will be used to destroy unacceptable embryos?
Third, this is generational slavery. When we choose the cosmetic traits for our children, we impose upon them our current standards of what looks good or healthy.
Fourth, there is no really good definition for the difference between therapy and enhancement. In other words, can you adequately define the difference between fixing what went wrong and purely “cosmetic” procedures? If we can replace or genetically aid a diseased or underperforming eye, for instance, we probably should. What happens if the genetic enhancement becomes stronger and more acute than the natural product? Should we genetically enhance embryos so their eyes will be better than nature intended? Should height be “fixed”? Skin color? Gender is being “fixed” right now – are you OK with that?
Fifth, the answers to all these questions and thousands more rely on a good definition of human nature. The predominant philosophies running our scientific and political organizations, however, don’t have one. And when there is no good, unmovable definition of human nature humanity becomes pliable and subject to the whims of technology, instead of the other way around.
Christian thinkers need to continue to stand up and say these technologies need to stop and be subject to sound ethical thinking before they are implemented. It is not the case that just because we can do it, we should.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Dead People Have Nearly Nothing To Say
Andy Crouch tells the story of a friend who made the mistake of looking for a book by a dead author in a Christian bookstore.
"Do you have Henri Nouwen's Show Me the Way?" he asked, referring to the late Catholic writer's collection of Lenten meditations.
"Oh no, dear," answered the clerk at the cash register. "He's dead. We don't carry books by dead authors."
I was told the same thing once. I was searching for eight copies of C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters for some of my teens at church. The Christian bookstore didn’t carry it and told me the same thing. They didn’t carry books by people who were dead.
A policy like this in a Christian bookstore should raise one glaring question. After lamenting the culture this “no dead authors” policy reflects, Crouch wonders out loud:
Nowhere is this trend more evident than in the one part of the Christian store that clearly violates the "no dead authors" dictum: the Bible section. To be sure, the hundreds of lifestyle-oriented Bibles do include the original text, but too often the tedious, dead-author part of the Bible is in the smallest, least appealing type, while the easy-to-read study notes, helpful hints, and contemporary stories offer their assistance with lively type and colorful graphics.
I am more and more thankful for other book outlets. After my futile search in the Christian bookstore, I found all eight of my copies of Screwtape at Borders and Barnes and Noble and enacted a public boycott on such trite institutions as my local Christian bookstore. And as time goes on, I grow more and more attached to Amazon. If websites will make their way into eternity (in a good way), that one has a real shot.
"Do you have Henri Nouwen's Show Me the Way?" he asked, referring to the late Catholic writer's collection of Lenten meditations.
"Oh no, dear," answered the clerk at the cash register. "He's dead. We don't carry books by dead authors."
I was told the same thing once. I was searching for eight copies of C.S. Lewis’ Screwtape Letters for some of my teens at church. The Christian bookstore didn’t carry it and told me the same thing. They didn’t carry books by people who were dead.
A policy like this in a Christian bookstore should raise one glaring question. After lamenting the culture this “no dead authors” policy reflects, Crouch wonders out loud:
Nowhere is this trend more evident than in the one part of the Christian store that clearly violates the "no dead authors" dictum: the Bible section. To be sure, the hundreds of lifestyle-oriented Bibles do include the original text, but too often the tedious, dead-author part of the Bible is in the smallest, least appealing type, while the easy-to-read study notes, helpful hints, and contemporary stories offer their assistance with lively type and colorful graphics.
I am more and more thankful for other book outlets. After my futile search in the Christian bookstore, I found all eight of my copies of Screwtape at Borders and Barnes and Noble and enacted a public boycott on such trite institutions as my local Christian bookstore. And as time goes on, I grow more and more attached to Amazon. If websites will make their way into eternity (in a good way), that one has a real shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)