Thinking Christians

I rarely do this anymore, but I decided to read some of the long stream of posts on Biola’s BBS about recent political happenings. This often is both frustrating and enlightening, though usually more frustrating, (which is why I do it so rarely).

In any case, much of the discussion was concerning prop 8. Now I personally voted yes on it, and it was after some thought and reflection. I feel I came to an informed decision and voted with confidence and pride. After all, this is what a democracy is about, yes?

But I’ve come across several discussions within the church where people see this as entirely black and white. Some say that you can’t be a Bible believing Christian in submission to Christ and vote no. Others seem to imply that you can’t be an intelligent, enlightened person if you vote yes, and if in fact you do, you are in favor of “legislating morality” or worse yet, are in favor of discrimination and promoting inequality.


I’m not as interested in breaking down my points pro-8, but more in reflecting on how Christians handle discussions such as these. It rightly should strike us as alarming when we see Christians pandering so far to the secular that they have diluted (at best) their core faith, but it is equally disturbing (to me) to see Christians who refuse to actually engage an issue. I’m thinking specifically of those who would rather cite a passage from Leviticus or Romans 1 and think that essentially closes the case on an issue like prop 8. This is essentially a refusal to engage an issue intellectually, but also a painful oversimplification of God’s truth.

Certainly the morality of an issue such as homosexuality is clear enough from scripture. But issues such as how Christians should engage society and government, how Christians specifically should reach out and bring the Gospel to the homosexual community, and how the church and state relate are certainly not. These types of questions cannot be solved by simply quoting a passage from scripture, or citing truism.

Instead what is needed are things such as actively engaging such questions, spending arduous time thinking through these, and honestly engaging the discussion. It’s not that we really don’t think, or are incapable of thinking. Instead, we’re more interested in thinking about straw men and not actually engaging issues. What this should look like is instead of mischaracterizing, we need to first accurately portray. For example, when we can accurately reflect why a certain Christian voted no on 8, or voted yes for Obma, only then we can begin to engage and formulate a reasoned disagreement. The need is for Christians to actually use the mind God has given us. Certainly the Holy Spirit is involved here, and certainly Scripture is too. But the reality is that if God is the rational being we believe he must be, and if truth is truly based on his character and person, then we not only can but must engage such questions with our minds.

Instead, I have recently come across several who not only discourage such engagement, but nearly condemn those who try. Instead of promoting healthy discussion, the realm of ideas is portrayed as something dangerous, something that regularly is leading Christians away from Christ. Is our foundation of the Gospel as true this unstable? Are we this susceptible to corrupting influences?

The reality is that if ideas are this dangerous to the body, then Christian leaders should try and strengthen the body instead of protect it. If the church remains in this pattern, things will only get worse. And if we are afraid of having godly Christian thinkers, then this will only further damage the mind of the church. The reality is that Christian thinkers will rightly challenge the world, but they also raise challenges for the church. They fight against falling into easy patterns of oversimplified thinking, they can reveal holes in our popular ways of thinking about issues. This is frustrating, and it is very easy to respond in anger or hyperbole (or worse, condemn them as supporting the opposition), but the reality is that if we all listen to such men and women, and seek to become greater thinkers ourselves, then we will grow as Christians and as people. I certainly have fallen into this trap. After all, it is very annoying to think you have a simple and water tight argument for an issue, and find out it’s a ship full of holes sinking fast.

This isn’t just about becoming stronger Christians, but about having a more balanced perspective on truth. God is truth, and the more our thinking is oriented around truth, certainly the better we can know him, right? If Christians truly reclaim our grasp of truth, certainly this will spill over into how we engage culture and evangelize, right?

But more importantly, the more tightly we grasp truth, the stronger we will stand against attacks. The church should be an impenetrable fortress when it comes to truth. Because we know the one true God who is the source of truth, we should be beacons of light, intelligent thought, and truth. This certainly is proven true when it appears one of the more successful attacks by the enemy has been the stereotype of the church in the western world as an unthinking mass. This is bad, not as much because of how others see us, but because we’ve bought the lie.

We’ve degraded truth and thought as something entirely man made, and produced a false dichotomy between our minds and the Spirit. We hear Paul’s condemnation of the wisdom of man in 1 Cor 1, or his condemnation of the philosophies in Col 2 and we apply it far more broadly than the philosopher / theologian himself intended. What we see in scripture is not a mass of uneducated, unthinking men and women, but both the educated and uneducated, acting, thinking, and speaking with a greater grasp of truth and wisdom that humbled even the most educated in their society. This is what Christianity is about: its not the dichotomy between mind and spirit, but the reality that with a grasp of the Truth, both our mind and spirits can excel. Spiritually this means we have access to the one true life, and mentally because we have the foundation of Truth himself. This does not negate general revelation, but puts it in its right context.

So, Christians we should think more. :)

Read more...

On Chomsky

I cannot say I’ve read much Chomsky. But, I recently read this interview.
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/18257

He is a very interesting fellow. I find it a bit humorous that he is “America’s greatest intellectual”. From what I understand, I do not know if he is really academically qualified to be an expert on politics, (I thought his field of study was linguistics), but really in our society today, this shouldn’t be surprising. After all, it is far too common for somebody to speak with “authority” outside their sphere of expertise.

Chomsky’s article is interesting, humorous, and infuriating. He has a lot of insights, but draws a lot of wrong conclusions in my opinion. Chomsky certainly thinks himself a scholar of popular thought. He seems to pride himself in identifying with the vast majority over against the oppressing powers. This dichotomy already is difficult. I am not convinced that such a clear oppressive power system is in place in America. Certainly public opinion of the government is extremely poor (and Congress has been far less popular than Bush for a long time now).

I think part of the problem is two fold. First, everyone thinks that the world around us is not right. We think and recognize that policies are wrong, we realize that others are using power to take advantage of us, we see injustice, we experience powerlessness, and so on. I cannot help but think that this recognition of the wrongness of the world goes beyond politics and to something more profound. Chomsky would not like this (I imagine), but I think he is hitting on our innate, spiritual recognition of sin in the world and our need for God. We all recognize that the world is flawed, we see injustice and oppression, and even if we do not like the term, evil in a variety of forms. No political philosophy will solve this problem, only the Gospel. Though, I do think that conservative politics ultimately are built on a recognition of evil and are thus more effective at properly (and Biblically) restraining it.

Second, just because we recognize oppression and evil does not mean that there is an “establishment” that is doing this to us. It seems a common thing to try and explain this evil in the world by vilifying an organization and imbuing it with almost divine like qualities (which in itself could be significant of the real issue at stake). Of course there are not extraterrestrials controlling the world secretly, nor is there (likely) an evil government conspiracy to subdue the population. These are simple explanations, but are far from plausible. After all, if the government was capable of that level of organization and efficiency.... well, it obviously isn’t. I’m not saying Chomsky is Fox Mulder, but he definitely has his Mulder moments.

It is very easy to idealize the situation into “bad guys” oppressing the “masses”, but this is unfair. Part of this is because it will be very difficult to decide who is in these different classes. Further, humanity cannot function without leaders, and leaders will always have to make decisions. Chomsky rather seems to idealize a “pure” democracy, where popular opinion dictates everything. I am not a historian, but I do not think there is evidence that this actually works. Even at the smallest level, leadership is always needed in order to provide organization and direction. Further, leadership is about seeing the big picture in a way that might not be possible for those who are in specialized roles. Of course human nature corrupts leadership, and we have far more examples of bad leadership in history than good, but I sure hope Chomsky does not really believe that removing all leadership and making every person on the planet have equal say in decisions is really a good thing. But it definitely appears that is his opinion.

Chomsky also seems to assume a lot of the American public. He points out that if it were up to the public, we would have had a universal healthcare system 20 years ago. I think at the heart of this is he believes Americans are liberals, and although this sounds unfair, I get the impression he feels that businessmen and politicians are the ones who are pushing foreign ideas on the people. This certainly is not fair at all. Chomsky likes quoting statistics, but I do not believe this accurately reflect people’s opinions. People will respond to attractive promises like “free healthcare”, but they might not be informed to understand the drawbacks.

Chomksy sees an uninformed society that makes decisions based on attractive images that convey no substantial content. He is insightful in realizing that people are attracted to superficial images, and I think he really hits the nail on the head with Obama. Obama is a “blank slate” of sorts that people can easily project their ideals on. He is charismatic, and is full of short and simple platitudes that convey no content at all. “Change” is not always a good thing after all, the real question is not “change” for change’s sake, but “change to what?”.

This gets at one of Chomsky’s biggest weaknesses (at least in this interview). Its the whole chicken and egg question. Is the society uninformed because of the (oppressive?) business powers and their propaganda, or are businesses and politicians able to get away with such superficiality because people no longer know how to think and are saturated in an entertainment driven society?

I recently read in a WoW forum an application for one of the better guilds on my server. Because this guild is very good, the applicant recognized that he needed to make a strong case for his commitment to weekly raids. He pointed out that he plays the game 8-12 hours every day of the week. He was in college (now he’s 27), but he dropped out partly due to the game. He currently only works a basic retail job so that he can play the game the rest of his day. This is horrifying! This person has gave up any real productive future in order to play a video game seemingly for the rest of his life.

This is not what humans were meant for. This is not a meaningful life. But this is our society: we work 8 hours a day, and then try to cram as many forms of entertainment into the rest of our free time. We are not interested in thinking, studying, or engaging in philosophical discussions. We are cynical of “scholars” and possibly even afraid of them. Is this because of an oppressive propaganda machine, or is the propaganda a result of a fading society? I think it is the latter. This is partly due to the quick rise of technology and the resulting forms of entertainment. It is also due to our entitlement attitude towards a life of luxury. I think we can also put some blame on our educational system for loosing sight of the value of a real education in place of themes of “tolerance” and a post-modern epistemology.

A final critique of this interview is Chomsky’s liberalism. One of the scariest things about liberalism is its forceful equality. This is the heart of socialism. It is scary because it is so counter human nature. Our differences are what drive us to improve on ourselves. Chomsky uses terms like “free market” which I would think imply this principle. But, I’m pretty sure for Chomsky “free market” means a market where all players are made equal. This simply does not work. My definition of free market is where hard work are rewarded. Humanity is not productive when we are not allowed to work for our own greed and ambition. This is not a pretty picture, but we cannot “fix” humanity with a political system. At least this approach works, and under the right checks and balances can work very well.

Chomsky is a very insightful man. I should read more of him, because I know he is popular in many circles. He is challenging because his conclusions and perspective are so entirely foreign. He is humorous because at times he becomes overly sensational viz. Michael Moore. (Like in implying that Europeans are healthier than Americans because they are taller, or that America orchestrated our victory in WW2 in order to have global power). He is also frustrating because he does get at real issues and real problems. Guys like Chomsky will always be good to break misconceptions about leaders. Bush is not God’s gift to man, he is a flawed leader, and has made plenty of mistakes. I still think the man has done far more good than evil, but history will have to be the judge.
Read more...

Government

I don’t think I’ve ever blogged about politics. I tend to shy away from even talking about it, because no matter who you talk to, discussions are either preaching to the choir (which while providing some sense of belonging and encouragement, seem futile), or disagreement, (which it seems like everyone always has some extra tidbit of information or fact that the other cannot prove or disprove which apparently seals the deal on the argument). So, needless to say, talking about politics bugs me.

But I thought I might reflect some on some of the attitudes in politics that bother me.

1) Entitlement
It is not difficult to find somebody who feels entitled to something. In America we love to appeal to our rights to various things. We act and talk as if anything we individually want should be within the bounds of our rights. However, many of these are hard to sustain outside the basic rights of freedom (within the bounds of the law) and security. Freedom of course must include speech, religion, thought and action. But the reality is the government exists not to provide for us, but to restrain evil. Please note that I stress “restrain”. Government is an imperfect institution that attempts to restrain the influence of evil so that people can live, and so that humanity does not self destruct. But it is impossible for government to eradicate evil, because the solution to evil in humanity is far beyond any mere human institution. Biblically, we know that only through the power of Christ’s death and resurrection can evil be eradicated.
Governments exist to provide some sense of order and control of evil in humanity. Although unpopular, this is essentially legislating a basic moral system. This system includes murder, theft, and harm. Beyond this though, government has not right to function.
So the government does not “owe” us anything. Our taxes are supposed to secure us from outside attack, provide for policing, some control to sustain a basic level of order, and other areas of safety (such as aid in natural disaster, fire, etc.). Further, the government is not responsible for providing basic necessities or luxuries. The idea of people living off of welfare simply because of their laziness is disgusting, and clearly contradicts the biblical principle of 2 Thess. 3:10: “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat”.
Finally, this attitude towards entitlement on many levels is a lazy attitude. It is relegating all responsibility (or most of it) to someone else, and for many the easiest target is the government.

2) Government and good will
In a similar vein, many seem to presuppose that the government is responsible for good will towards those in need, whether foreign or abroad. This simple is not a reasonable expectation of an institution that is designed to restrain evil. Good will is virtuous, but it must be enacted freely by individuals or institutions. Government is not designed to provide good will to others. There are definite ways that government can assist good will movements, but government is too inefficient and poorly designed to solely be responsible for good will.

3) War
Another troubling attitude is towards war. For governments to properly restrain evil, sometimes war is necessary. There is far too much evil in the world for any government to effectively police the world, (and no government is pure enough to objectively function as such). But when there are powers in place that pose a real threat, government is responsible to respond in an appropriate way. Many are cynical towards the reality of war in humanity. It is all to common in science fiction to have some outsider reflect on the savagery of humanity, that we kill one another and are so naturally violent. This is a true reflection of humanity, and attempting to distance ourselves as if the seeds of such destruction are not in us is only naive and self deception. Humanities’ violence IS a tragedy, but we cannot ignore the source of this problem. It is not some “barbaric notion” that we will evolve away from, but it is at our very core. Biblically, this is unmistakably our sin nature. Roddenberry’s vision of the future was that humanity would evolve away from this, but any examination of history will make clear that we aren’t doing any better. As civilization has progressed, many of us are free from much of the chaos and destruction of life, but this does not mean we have removed the core reasons why such chaos exists in the world. We have only built a wall high enough that we can sometimes forget about it. For many, this may sound like a criticism of the western world, and that we should be more sensitive and “enlightened” about the plight of the 3rd world. At some level, this is certainly true. But at another, I think we should also recognize that all humans are sinful, and although we may have some luxuries the 3rd world doesn’t have, we also have a whole different set of issues and problems that to them are ludicrous. And yet, in all of this, even the “ideal” socialized countries of western Europe, sin still reign sin all humanity.
All of this to say that war is necessary. We should grieve the losses in Iraq, but I am still strongly convinced that it was a right thing. Of course there are other places where things were worse, but there were a number of necessary ingredients involved to make Iraq viable. (Such ingredients that currently are not setup for places such as Iran and North Korea). Further, establishing a peaceful, democratic state in Iraq can ultimately only be good for stabilizing such a turbulent region. We can point to the suffering of Iraqis, and how the new government is only stirring up more trouble in the Middle East, but can we really be foolish enough to accuse the whole venture as wrong? When there are forces and governments bent on evil and not restraining it, we can only expect that when we act to bring such restraint, they will only resist. Such restraint is simply not achieved by pacifism, and it is truly tragic that countries that suffered at the hands of Nazism still are proponents of such a philosophy.
It would be difficult in our globalized world to have another Hitler, (though surely not impossible). But leaders such as Saddam that posture themselves and support terrorist organizations are only trying to bring chaos and destruction to the world. If Sadam brought order (though oppressive), yet still sought to bring chaos and evil to the world, is it not ultimately right (and the right function of government) to remove such leadership? This undoubtedly would (and has) cause suffering, but if its for a greater good, I think it is necessary. Bush may have his failings on many levels, but I do think he has done a right thing in Iraq, and the fruits of his persistent will are beginning to show. My fear is that when Obama becomes president (which it seems all but likely will happen) that he will be so concerned with appeasing the mass that he will undo some of the good that Bush has begun. This attitude towards war is very nearsighted, idealistic, and naive.

4) Cynicism
Most people have some level or another of cynicism towards to government. It is only “out to get you”, it is only there to control you, and in an almost child-like fashion, it is only there to spoil our fun. This attitude presupposes that the government is always corrupt, always out to oppress, and the people who lead in government are only out to secure more power for themselves. These things are certainly true of some, (if not many), but the institution of government is not a singular identity that can rightly be blamed for such things. Such blame is only appropriate when dealing with a dictator. Under more democratic systems, checks and balances are in place to hopefully sustain some level of balance (although admittedly these rarely work perfectly). Further, when governments do function wrongly, in a democratic system it is only the fault of the people. If we elect officials who appealed to us visually and who seduced us with flattery and unsubstantiated promises, and yet prove to lack character, substance, and right vision, then it is our fault for being superficial.

5) Equality
There seems to be a common notion that equality on every level is good. This is often relegated to the function of government to impose this level of equality. Of course inequality in areas such as race are clearly wrong, but other areas of equality such as economic seem hardly fit. Communism (and to a lesser degree socialism) has made clear that human nature is the antithesis of economic equality. It is sad when there is a great disparity between the poor and rich, but in the ideal situation wealth should reflect work. This is a necessary motivating principle for humanity to function. Very few people gain wealth simply by ancestry. It is not the role of government to make sure all resources and opportunities are evenly distributed. If equality at a basic level is truly a virtue, then this must be taught and must operate from the mass, and not legislated.


In summary, here is what I think government is responsible for:

1) Restraint of evil
- Basic ethical code and enforcement of it (including appropriate consequences)
- Protection of citizens from outside evil
- Consequences for unrestrained evil
- Sustain balance of security and freedom (even though these two are in antithesis)

2) Order
- Basic level of management of financial system
- Transit system
- Some basic checks and balances to encourage fair commerce
(though it is difficult for government to be solely responsible for fair commerce)
3) Foreign
- Maintaining good relations with other countries to encourage trade
- Restraint of evil against nation
(note, this must be balanced with a sense of justice towards foreign nations. It would be wrong to commit an injustice towards another nation in the name of security.)
Read more...

Ben Stein

Had to work for an apologetics event tonight at Biola... it was about the upcoming documentary made by Ben Stein "Expelled".

Anyway, some interesting testimony tonight, and Ben Stein gave a good speech about his motives for the documentary. What strikes me as incredible is looking up the movie on wikipedia how /already/ (movie wil be released on April 18) the majority of the entry is full of slams and responses to the movie. It is just very fascinating....

You know, it just blows me away how loud, powerful, and prevelant the voice of liberalism is in our country.... sometimes its almost overwhelming.... Like just a split second thought of... "wow I am a fool for not buying into the whole package deal"

It just amazes me how at the drop of a hat groups can come up with so much convincing data.... its sort of like debating a Calvinist.. they will throw so many scripture passages, that the cumulative effect is very convincing.... if it weren’t for the nagging feeling that the picture painted is too perfect, and the data doesn’t match your own interpretations (or leaving the metaphore, experiences).

Not that Ben Stein is flawless... the few clips from the film did seem a bit extreme, I seriously doubt he is no Michael Moore, but he is also an entertainer. But I’ve heard to many testimonies from Christian scholars I trust of the extreme bias they have faced in the scientific community... I have seen too many times that "intelligent design" is referred to with the pejorative term "creationism" (when I know first hand that there is a very clear difference)... I have also seen all too often how the media catches on to trends (like any evidence of global warming automatically = man caused)..... The testimonies of scholars who have been black listed and kicked out of universities for writing articles or supporting intelligent design is very believable.

It truly is ironic that we live in a society that exalts freedom of speech so high, but at every turn we make sure that you "freely" speak about the right things in the right way.
Read more...

Security

I've had a bit of a paradigm shift... or at least had that "kick you in the head" experience realizing a new perspective that I was very naive about.

It is the issue of security. In the past, I've always been real frustrated whenever you here a politician talking about security, because yeah, its important, but historically it has been used as justification to do something that probably ought not be done, (or at least in its manner).

One big example of this is the present conflict between security on one side, and jsutice on the other. Usually those in category #1 are willing to set aside some morality, and some justice, for the sake of their security. Those in #2 cry out at the injustice they have suffered, but often a few from #2 are willing to inflict evil on #1 for retribution. In the past, I have had such a hard time understanding how #1 could opperate without realizing how great a cost they pay for their goal!

Anyway, so recently a friend of mine at my apartment complex was robbed, and for the few weeks after that I had a bit of loss of a sense of security. I feared for myself, but even more for my wife. I didn't freak out, but was nevertheless uneasy.

It hit me that what I expereinced was so minor compared to the fear many people have to live in day by day. Of course that kind of fear and provoke a person to do thigns he wouldn't normally do! And its a very deep fear... the fear of not being in control, the fear of benig at the mercy of somebody with il intentions, and the fear of simply being violated.

9/11 didn't spark this fear in me, probably because I am livinvg in the exact opposite corner of the country from NY. Probably because our culture is so desensitized to evil in the world, but I rarely get disturbed by all the evil that is happening in our world, pooring through the TV every night.

So I have had a change of thinking in several ways:

1) The need for security is real, it may provoke one to hasty and bad decisions, but it is a powerful motivational force.

2) Security is something all people feel is a need. We need to have a "safe place"

3) The sense of security is ultimately an illusion (viz. 9/11)

4) When you have a conflict between one side needing security and the other side needing justice, neither side is "the good guys" or right. At least in my limited knowledge, it seems both ideologies are willing to sacrifice what is right to achieve what they want.

so these still remain:

1) The world is full of evil people wanting to do evil deeds to otehrs

2) Our only real security is being in the will of Christ. Only here can we find peace and true safety. Of course followers of Christ experience evil, but there is a biblical sense of peace of mind, knowing that it will happen, but that ultimately whatever happens your on God's side.

Read more...