The Pro-Life Movement

Recently (May 31, 2009) a man shot and killed George Tiller in the midst of a church service. Tiller was one of the few doctors in America that performed partial birth abortions and he was also consistently in the center of the abortion debate. Because Tiller was such a high-profile person in the abortion services community, and he was shot dead in a church, there has been a lot of media attention paid to the event. This attention has revealed something very telling about the current pro-life movement – we are failing miserably.

Before justifying such a claim I want to state some of my background assumptions via a quick argument seeking to establish that both Tiller’s killing and abortions are immoral. I will then explain why I think the pro-life movement is failing. Finally, I will conclude by presenting the strategy that I think the pro-life movement should endorse and demonstrate what that strategy looks like in action by arguing for the truth of some of the premises in the following argument.

1. Personhood begins at conception. That means from the earliest stage of pregnancy we are dealing with a human person and should treat him or her accordingly.
2. The unjustified killing of a human person is morally wrong.
3. Almost all abortions are instances of unjustifiably killing a human person.
4. Therefore, almost all abortions are morally wrong.

Though this is slightly off topic, I should point out that according to the above argument the killing of George Tiller was morally wrong. I am perfectly content with such a view since I take all instances of vigilantism as being morally inappropriate. On my view, killing Tiller is not just morally wrong but also pragmatically wrong. If one wants to see abortion more highly restricted (or eliminated altogether), killing abortionists won’t help that matter. If anything, it makes it more unlikely.

With the above argument in mind, I want to describe why I think the pro-life movement is failing and what should be done to correct it. First, why it is failing. I take as a representative sample of media coverage a recent column on the BBC News website (Anti-abortion and violence in the US). In this column, author Nick Triggle notes what he takes to be the general tenor of the abortion debate in the US. First he notes that quite-popular President Obama “was heckled by anti-abortion activists over his decision earlier this year to lift restrictions on funding for abortion.” He then notes that such heckling and protests are quite common in the US and its commonplace is, at least, partly attributable to the “hundreds of religious stations across the country.” He continues, “the level of involvement of religious groups” is vastly different in the US than in the UK. Finally, and most tellingly, he says “With half the US population regular church-goers, everything from sexual abstinence and euthanasia campaigns to the abortion debate has been dominated by religious groups.”

Now I don’t have a problem with Triggle’s article. In fact, I think his analysis is spot on. What I do have a problem with is that the pro-life movement has allowed itself to be branded as a religious movement. If you go to any number of websites that have reported on Tiller’s killing and look at just a few of the comments you’ll see a frequent theme. You’ll see many pro-choice supporters accusing “pro-lifers” as being close-minded and trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of America. Sadly, the responses by those same pro-lifers support such an idea.

But don’t get me wrong; I am proud that most people in the pro-life movement are Christians. That religious groups are the primary reason this is still an issue in America today is a good thing. That means we are still fighting for the oppressed and willing to defend the defenseless. However, we do not live in a world that accepts our authority as their authority. Religious groups cannot make a religious argument to convince the world that abortion is morally wrong. We must give them arguments with premises that they can accept on their own terms. We can’t allow the fact that the pro-life movement is dominated by “religious groups” to become a fact that the pro-life argument is a religious argument.

There is simply no need to give a religious argument for the immorality of abortion. Of course, these types of arguments are available, but they will only convince those that already accept that religion as true and authoritative. Most in America today do not (even many of those that refer to themselves as Christians) accept Christianity as true and authoritative. Here one might ask what type of argument should we give, if not a religious argument. What would a non-religious argument look like? Here is an example of one, very simple, argument that all religious and non-religious people can use to make the case for the life of the unborn.

1. Either the unborn are human persons or not.
2. If the unborn are not human persons, then no justification for an abortion is needed (just like we don’t need justifying reasons for removing tonsils).
3. If the unborn are human persons, then the justification typically given for an abortion will never be morally adequate (just because an individual is too busy or too poor to take care of another human person does not mean that individual is justified in killing that human person).

This focuses the debate on the thing that matters most. Are the unborn human persons? I believe they are, but not even that belief depends upon a religious assumption. Why think the unborn are human persons? This can be boiled down to one general idea.

• The location of a thing is never a morally salient feature of that thing.

If one should think of a newborn as a human person, then there is no good reason to not think of a pre-born as a human person. Frankly, it is absurd to think that a few inches determine the moral status of a person. To believe that the fetus is magically transformed from non-person to person by traveling down the birth canal is rationally unacceptable. The fetus just prior to birth is just as much a human as the infant just after birth. Its location is irrelevant.

Further, there are no good reasons to cut off personhood at some earlier point in the pregnancy either. Distinctions based upon trimester are purely arbitrary ways for people to refer to general stages of development. Almost everything that a person needs to develop into a grown human being is present from conception. The only additional things needed are external. They are 1) an appropriate environment and 2) to not be killed. But this is just as true for you and me as it is for the unborn. If you kill me, then I will obviously not continue grow as a human being. But even if you just remove me from an environment conducive to my continued growth (e.g. by stripping off my clothes and placing me outside during an Alaskan winter), then I too will die. That the unborn depends upon the appropriate environment to live does not mean it is not a human person. If you don’t kill me, then I will continue to grow as a human person grows. If you don’t kill the unborn, they will do the same.

Now of course much more can be said in favor of the pro-life position. This is intended to be a very rough and ready type of argument that, for our purposes, simply demonstrates how the pro-life movement should advance its cause. You should notice that nothing I have said against the morality of abortion has depended upon a religious argument. Not once did I appeal to the Bible or to church teaching. If the pro-life movement begins to advance these types of arguments, then we will have a much greater shot at convincing the general public that abortion is morally wrong. Even if that does not result in Roe being overturned (though I in fact think it could), it will prevent a great number of women from choosing to have an abortion. But as long as the pro-life movement relies upon religious arguments we will continue to be marginalized in the public sphere. Our arguments are compelling and their arguments are not. In order to progress the pro-life agenda we must use the compelling arguments and not ones that rely upon a religious text that a vast number of Americans don’t accept as authoritative.

If you’d like more resources for developing this type of argument I’ll make two recommendations. The first is Stand to Reason’s Bio Ethics page. At STR’s page you’ll find a wealth of good reasoning about the abortion issue (as well as many of today’s other pressing ethical issues). The second is Life Training Institute, which is run by Scott Klusendorf, a former member of Stand to Reason. (I’m indebted to Greg Koukl of STR and Klusendorf for the formulation of the above argument.) Klusendorf just published a book dealing with the abortion issue called, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture (this links to the book’s website). You can get his book from that site or from Amazon at The Case for Life.

I’m Pissed at Brian McLaren and Donald Miller and You Should Be Too

During the presidential election campaign popular Christian authors/speakers Brian McLaren and Donald Miller endorsed Barack Obama. They specifically argued that their endorsement was consistent with their opposition to abortion. For those not familiar with these names, you may be familiar with some of their books. McLaren is the author of A Generous Orthodoxy, A New Kind of Christian, and more recently Everything Must Change: Jesus, Global Crises, and a Revolution of Hope. Miller is probably best known from his book Blue Like Jazz.

Brian McLaren outlines his case that voting for Obama is a step in the right direction for those opposed to abortion here. The basic idea is this: the only way McCain could help the cause is if he were able to appoint more conservative judges. That, at best, would overturn Roe vs. Wade which would only push the issue back to the states. Because most states don’t have a majority of people opposed to abortion, it would remain legal. He concludes his case by saying, “But in regards to abortion along with many other issues, we are convinced – firmly, thoughtfully, and enthusiastically convinced – that casting our vote for Obama is a step in the right direction, fully consistent with our desire to celebrate the sacredness of life and improve the moral health of our nation and world.”

Miller’s case can be found here and is very similar to McLaren’s. Overturning the Roe vs. Wade case is unlikely and won’t be as helpful as pro-lifers think. In addition, Obama supports the 95/10 initiative that “aims to reduce the number of abortions that take place in this country by 95% within 10 years.” While recognizing Obama’s promise to the National Organization for Women that he would repeal Bush’s executive order banning late-term abortions, Miller concludes that Obama “will accomplish more than John McCain” on the abortion issue and that Obama has proposed the only “realistic strategy that can move us around the cultural impasse that is breathing hate and anger into the Christian community.”

My evidence that McLaren and Miller influenced many Christian voters is only anecdotal. Prior to the election I noticed a number of my former classmates at two Christian universities joining Facebook groups endorsing Obama even though I also knew these same former students were opposed to abortion. I also saw several articles by main stream presses arguing that the abortion issue is no longer important – and several cited McLaren and/or Miller (I’ve since tried to locate these but can’t find them. I’ll update this post if I do). Anecdotal evidence can only go so far, but given McLaren & Miller’s popularity it seems reasonable to assume that many Christians were indeed influenced by them.

So why am I pissed at these two men for their support of Barack Obama? Because less than 72 hours in office President Obama has decided that the U.S. government will remove restrictions on the federal government funding oversees groups that provide abortion services (http://tinyurl.com/ajrwfh). In 1984 Ronald Reagan instituted a policy that prohibited foreign groups that provide abortion services from receiving funding from the U.S. government. This was the U.S. policy until 1993 when President Clinton rescinded it, but was re-instituted by President George W. Bush.

President Obama felt that one of the first things he had to do as president was increase funding for foreign groups that provide abortions. Groups that find abortion to be a morally acceptable method of “family planning” will now have more resources to provide this service. How, in the words of McLaren, is this a “step in the right direction” that is “consistent with [his] desire to celebrate the sacredness of life”? I’d like to ask Miller how this is part of a “realistic strategy” that will make progress on the abortion issue.

To me it seems that McLaren and Miller are to the left of many Christians in the U.S. They have tired of the “Conservative Right” and in their zeal to elect a left-minded candidate, they were duped into thinking Obama’s policies are actually going to make progress on the abortion issue. They then went on to give really bad arguments that convinced many to vote for Obama because he was the real pro-life candidate. Within 72 hours they’ve been proven wrong. And if we keep in mind President Obama’s promise to Planned Parenthood that the first thing he’d do as president is “sign the Freedom of Choice Act” then they’ll be proven wrong again. (Note: The Freedom of Choice Act would remove state laws that currently limit/prohibit abortions of any kind.) These are at least two changes that will hurt the pro-life cause and were/would be ordered directly by the president that McLaren and Miller endorsed.

If you care about the pro-life cause, then I think you should do two things. Express to McLaren and Miller your anger that they endorsed a candidate hurting the pro-life cause. Perhaps they will recognize their mistake and use their popularity to pressure President Obama into not signing the Freedom of Choice Act. Second, you should contact your Congressmen about your displeasure concerning President Obama’s recent executive order allowing tax dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries and your desire that he not sign FOCA.

Thoughts on A Generous Orthodoxy – 3

It is very late here in Toronto, but after several hours of lying in bed staring at the ceiling, I decided to sit doesn and write a few thoughts about chapter 2 in A Generous Orthodoxy. Fortunately this chapter, “Jesus and God B,” is very short and there’s not too much going on here.

McLaren doesn’t really say much in this chapter. The first paragraph of the chapter he describes why he is a Christian. In the process he uses Jesus’ name a lot and then has several pages of him justifying why he felt he needed to use the name as much as he does. He then tells us that “son of God”, “son of man”, and “son of humanity” should be thought of in the same way we use phrases like “mother of all wars.” Jesus captures the essences of God and man. We experience God in Jesus. Then there are several pages trying to explain why he has used the masculine pronouns to refer to God and Jesus. Finally, we get to the part where the title of the chapter gets tied in. For many years people thought of God as “God A.” This God was “single, solitary, dominant Power, Mind or Will”. Then after experiencing Jesus, people came to experience “God B” – “a unified, eternal, mysterious, relational community/family/society/entity of saving Love” (76). I would’ve thought the title of the chapter would be worth more than two paragraphs, but hey the guy has sold a ton of copies so he must know more than me about these things.

As I stated a few posts ago, I haven’t read any of McLaren’s stuff before this book. But I have heard many reports indicating he’s not a big fan of exclusivism (the idea that only those who believe in Jesus as Son of God enter Heaven). A Tyndale student reports that during a talk McLaren recently gave in Toronto he said he’d rather someone be a compassionate Muslim concerned about social justice than a non-social justice minded Christian. With these types of stories in mind, my ears perked when I read,

For too many people the name Jesus has become a symbol of exclusion, as if Jesus’ statement “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me” actually means, “I am in the way of people seeking truth and life. I won’t let anyone get to God unless he comes through me (pg. 70).

Here it seems McLaren is attacking a straw man. There are many that would say Jesus’ statement was exclusionary, but it’s not because he simply wouldn’t let anyone else come to God (as McLaren suggests). Instead, Jesus is the only way to get to God because all of humanity has sinned and is in need of a redeemer. Jesus is that redeemer but the only way to have access to that redemption is to come through him. There just is no other way about it. It’s not that the Muslim or Jew has walked up to “God’s door” and Jesus is there blocking it. Instead, the Muslim or Jew could not even get to the door without Jesus showing them the way.

I don’t know what McLaren thinks about mankind being in a sinful state, but I hope he clarifies his views later in the book. If he doesn’t think we are sinful from birth, then it makes much more sense for him to think the Muslim or Jew has the same access to God as the Christian.  As I said above, in the opening paragraph of the chapter McLaren writes why he is a Christian. Note what is missing from it.

I am a Christian because I have confidence in Jesus Christ – in all his dimensions (those I know, and those I don’t). I trust Jesus. I think Jesus is right because I believe God was in Jesus in an unprecedented way. Through Jesus I have entered into a real, experiential relationship with God as Father, and I have received God’s Spirit into my life. I have experienced the love of God through Jesus, and as the old hymn says, “love so amazing, so divine, demands my heart, my life, my all.” As I seek to follow Jesus as my leader, guide, and teacher, I believe I am experiencing life in its fullest dimensions – full of joy and love, and yes, full of struggle and challenge, too. For all these reasons and more, I love Jesus. I believe Jesus embraces me, and you, and the whole world in the love of God.

Did you notice that he doesn’t say anything about redemption or forgiveness? Of course if he doesn’t think he is a sinner, then God has nothing to redeem or forgive. To be fair, McLaren doesn’t say these are the only reasons he loves Jesus. He says it is for “these reasons and more.” Perhaps the part about humanity’s sinfulness and need for redemption gets packed into the “and more” part of this, I guess we’ll have to wait and see. The title of chapter four is “Jesus: Savior of What?”, hopefully we’ll get some clarification then.

Thoughts on ‘A Generous Orthodoxy 2′

Last week I published a few thoughts about Franke’s forward to McLaren’s book. This week I read the “Introduction”, “Chapter 0″, and “Chapter 1.” For the most part, each seemed to be created to fill space (this is less true of “Chapter 1″), but there were a few things that would be worth mentioning. Since this week’s readings were split into three categories, there’s not much chance of a single thread running through each, so I’ll just break my thoughts into three sections. Hopefully next week I’ll be able to concentrate my reflection on one or two overarching themes of the chapter.

“Introduction”

This is a book for new Christians, old Christians disillusioned with their church, and people that have yet to become Christian. Because the focus is decidely on these groups of people, it will not be surprising if his generous orthodoxy turns out to be a ‘new’ orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has been around for some time, so if he’s just going to present what people have mostly always believed, he’ll be covering a lot of old ground. If that were the case, then I doubt the book would have been such a hit.

Here we see something about McLaren’s writing style. He writes very humbly. He does not come across as arrogant in the least. It appears that he is trying to make sure the reader feels comfortable enough with the book to disagree with it. This, for McLaren, is a sign of good writing because that is when people will truly learn. Whether or not that is the only way people learn is beside the point.

“Chapter 0″

McLaren writes this chapter as a warning to the reader. He is going to discuss topics that will likely make immature people (Christians?) cringe. If that is you, then you’re supposed to take the book back to the bookstore. Honestly, I found this entire section highly irritating. The combination of “this is going to shock you” and more evidences of his humility made me want to stop reading entirely. Not because I’m not mature but because it was so annoying. I seriously doubt McLaren wants people to actually take the book back. And even if he did, then he’s taking himself way to seriously. We no longer live in a society where questioning the status quo is dangerous. In fact, supporting the status quo is more dangerous that blasting it. Added to that were more self-deprecating remarks intended to demonstrate just how humble of a writer he is and that he is fully aware of his own ignorance. By the end of the chapter it really felt like he was just fishing for complements. If he believed he is as amateurish as he claims, then he should never have written a book.

With these annoyances aside, there is at least one thing worth discussing. On page thirty-five, McLaren writes “Nearly all orthodoxies of Christian history have shown a pervasive disdain for other religions of the world: Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, atheism, etc. A generous orthodoxy of the kind explored in this book, while never pitching its tent in the valley of relativism, nevertheless seeks to see members of other religions and non-religions not as enemies but as beloved neighbors, and whenever possible, as dialouge partners and even collaborators.”

A few things come to mind here. First, what does McLaren mean by “disdain” and how has that been expressed? Does he mean historical orthodoxies have sought the persecution of people belonging to these other faiths? Or does he mean historical orthodoxy has shown disdain by teaching they are wrong? Perhaps he means the disdain has been shown by the belief that other faiths are wrong and those that believe in them will spend eternity in Hell. If it’s the first, then I think the reader is owed some historical examples. (I’m sure they can be found concerning Islam, but that is conspicuously absent from the list.) If it’s the second or third option, then I think we need to be shown how thinking someone is wrong is disdainful. The fact that McLaren believes Barack Obama is the best presidential candidate doesn’t make me disdain him, even though I think he is wrong.

Second, what does McLaren mean by saying participants in other religions are “dialogue partners and even collaborators”? Now I know ‘dialogue’ and ‘conversation’ are big words in McLaren’s world, but what do they really mean? If it means we should sit down and hear each other out, then that’s great. But if it means we should sit down, hear each other out, but not expect one side to convince the other side about the truth of his religion, then this seems to just be religious scepticism. Dialoguing about religious truth shouldn’t be treated different from dialoguing about  mathematical truths. There is a truth to the matter and we should try to get at it. One should only deny this if he thinks there is no truth (relativism-what McLaren specifically denied) or if he thinks there is a truth but we can’t know it. I don’t think McLaren is a skeptic, but I do think he should be clearer about what it means to dialogue with members of other faiths.

Finally, what does McLaren mean when he says members of other religions should be seen as “collaborators”? Collaborating for what? Collaborating implies two or more people working together for something. For what would McLaren have us work together? Fair treatment of the “untouchables” in India’s caste system? Equal rights for women in countries ran by radical Muslims? The abolition of abortion in America? Is it just in the ethical arena that we should collaborate with these people or should we do it in the religious arena too? If so, on what would we be collaborating?

Perhaps these questions will get fleshed out later in the book. If not, perhaps someone reading this blog could help me out.

“Chapter 1: The Seven Jesuses I Have Known”

This chapter has no real thesis, so it’s hard to evaluate. He’s not arguing for something (he may think he’s arguing for something but since there’s no argument here I’ll assume he’s not trying to do so), but instead is giving some of his past views on Jesus. I won’t run down the whole list, but will try to sum it up. He started out seeing Jesus in a very religiously conservative way (Jesus came to die for our sins) and then eventually ended up on the edge of that conversativism (Pentecostalism-Jesus teaches us to have more faith). This was short and he moved on to seeing Jesus through the Roman Catholic and then Greek Orthodoxy lense (Jesus’ resurection defeats death and his birth restores creation). He dabbled in a bit of the Anabaptist movement and then moved on to some form of liberation theology (Jesus came to make peace and confron social injustices). McLaren is careful to point out that the seven ways he has experienced Jesus are just that, his own experiences. Members of each group would probably disagree with some part of his presentation, but he feels he has fairly represented his own experience of each group.

McLaren concludes by saying each of these ways is valuable and we should appreciate each for what they are. We shouldn’t try to make them all one, but should enjoy the differences of each. For example, says McLaren, we enjoy different cuisines: Thai, Chinese, Italian, and Mexican for what they are independent of each other. If we dumped them all into a blender we’d get a pretty untasty meal. In the same way, we shouldn’t just have our Pentecostal Jesus and nothing else, but we also shouldn’t try to make all seven views of Jesus one.

I think McLaren is right that different denominations tend to focus on different aspects of Jesus. I also think he’s right that we should try to learn from other representations of Jesus. But there is a limit to this approach. If one view is mutually exclusive with the others, then we simply can’t accept all of them. We’ll have to decide which is right and which is wrong. I think this decision is what McLaren wants to avoid, but at some point he’ll figure out it’s unavoidable (I hope).

To conclude this long post (the future posts will cover only one chapter and will therefore be much shorter), McLaren is after good things. He advocates showing more humility when discussing theological issues with other people within Christianity and without. But he may not recognize that intellectual humility should lead to the truth. One can be intellectually humble and still think he is right. One can argue vehemently with the Muslim for the truth of Christianity but still be humble throughout. McLaren seems to suggest that being intellectually humble means giving up the right to argue for a truth claim altogether. That is a mistake.

McLaren also seems to want people to step back from what they have believed for so long and to carefully evaluate those beliefs. Here we are in full agreement. But again, we need not be skeptical of those beliefs just because we have believed them for some time. We can start out by saying “This is what I have believed” and move to examine those beliefs. We need not throw them all out even if we hear a new argument that may call into question some of those beliefs.

The Assemblies of God and Alcohol

A little over a year ago I wrote a paper critiquing the Assemblies of God position paper concerning the consumption of alcohol. In this paper I don’t argue for any particular position concerning the usage of alcohol, but I do argue that the AG position isn’t adequately supported by scripture. There may be a different sort of argument that they could give to support the view that a Christian should never consume alcohol, but I’m doubtful. Some day I may take the time to actually argue that moderate usage of alcohol is morally acceptable, but for the time being, I think it is enough to show that arguments against the moderate position fail.

After writing the paper I sent it to the Committee on Doctrinal Purity, but I guess they weren’t convinced. Because several people have asked for a copy of it, I decided to go ahead and make it available on this web page. You will find a copy of the paper in pdf format on the ‘Research’ page (the tab should be above and to the left). If you have comments or suggestions regarding the paper, I’d be happy to hear them. You can either post them here under the comments section or send me an email, either way is fine with me.

Cheers!

Driscoll, the Bible, and Interpretation

I recently read a friend’s post concerning a video of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill Church in Seattle, WA. (See the video here and my friend’s blog here.) Just for a little context, in the video Driscoll is bemoaning the fact that so many churches are tackily designed, boring, and effeminate, Well, actually he says the reason they are tacky, boring, etc is because they are effeminate.I think my friend has done a great job responding to such a ridiculous claim, and you should visit her site to read it. I want to focus on one part of that response. She notes that Driscoll is aware of the fact the he often offends people with comments like ‘the church in bad shape because of emasculated men’ . His response to this fact has been something like, “Dude, this is what Jesus said.” So the claim is if Jesus says something then I shouldn’t shy away from saying it too. I don’t think that is problematic, but what is problematic is figuring out what Jesus meant.For example, Jesus said “Turn the other cheek.” Now if I go around saying that all the time, people are going to want to know what I mean by that. Unfortunately, Jesus didn’t leave behind a copy of his systematic theology (and no, it wasn’t a first edition Grudem!). If you’ve listened to even a brief conversation between a pacifist and non-pacifist, you’ll realize that there is a huge debate in figuring out what Jesus meant when he said to turn the other cheek. (And given that Driscoll advocates beating up the bully of a playground, I’m sure he’d recognize the tension. See the Christianity Today article here.)Driscoll’s “Dude this is what Jesus said” comment highlights a major problem for the church today. There are many today that are likely to say something very similar. Usually it’s conveyed in the evangelical maxim, “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.” Unfortunately, that usually won’t work. If we take that as our maxim, then there should be very few men with both eyes. Jesus said if your eye brings you to sin, then pluck it out. Well, we also know that if a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart, then he has committed adultery, which is a sin. So, if a man lustfully looks at a woman, then he has sinned. How did he go about looking at that woman? With his eyes. Therefore, he should pluck them out.Not many would agree that this is the best way to interpret those passages. But notice, you’re agreeing for the need of interpretation. That’s a lot more than just saying “the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it.” So, the next time you try to prove a point by using scripture, make sure that you’ve done your homework and have reasons for thinking that was the intended meaning.I’ll end this with a bit of a homework assignment. Luke 6:38 says, “Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Read that verse in context (the verses before and after it) and then try to convince me that it has anything at all to do with money. If you subscribe to the “the Bible says it” mentality, then you’re likely to think it does. But, you would be wrong.

Arguments, Truth, and the Church

At some point we all need to learn how to evaluate that which we believe and ascertain whether or not our beliefs are worth holding. In talking with a friend a while back, we decided that many within the Church have a general distrust of reflection and critical evaluation and so never examine their own beliefs. This is quite an unfortunate phenomenon and has especially troubled me the last few months. More recently, I’ve come to believe that one of the major causes for this sad state of affairs is fear. Many people are afraid that they are wrong and that the positions they hold will be exposed as fallacious. Exacerbating the problem is the place of importance these positions typically hold. However, all is not lost. This fear of being wrong (or of argumentation in general) can be removed once people begin to understand that it is a good thing to discover the ways in falsehood has crept into our belief system.First, we need to have a better understanding of what an argument is. When I talk of arguments or argumentation, I most certainly don’t mean the screaming and yelling matches that you had with your siblings (hopefully just when you were younger!). What I do mean is the methodical laying out and examination of one’s positions. This alone can resolve tensions between two apparently different positions. If you tell me, “God is omnipotent and so can create square circles” and I say “God is omnipotent and yet cannot create square circles” you are likely to accuse me of not really believing in God’s omnipotence. But, once I present my argument in a more structured way, you will likely see why I affirm God’s omnipotence and yet deny his ability to create square circles.Now that we’ve seen what I’m not referring to, we can talk about some tips for considering other people’s arguments. First, it is imperative that you listen to the person state his position and remain open to the idea that you are wrong and not him. This humility is likely to create an environment where you are actually trying to understand his position and not just look for a way to squeeze in your thoughts about why he is wrong. Second, learn how to state the other position in a way that is acceptable to the other person. This forces you to ‘get’ their position. Once I understood why someone would be a Calvinist, I stopped thinking they’re just crazy. If you can only restate the position in a ridiculous or question-begging way, then you’re not actually dealing with that position but instead a caricature of something someone holds dear. I think these are simple practices that we should always try to keep in mind no matter who we are dealing with, but I think they are mandatory when discussing issues within the Church. Christ prayed for his Church to be one, and today we are far from that. As we obtain truth about God and his relationship with us, we will see denominational differences begin to fade.You’ve no doubt noticed a lot of talk about ‘truth’. At this point you might even ask why should we bother with this outdated notion of truth. Why not just keep on marching along in what we already know? Well, because if we deny that there is truth that we can obtain, it seems we also deny that we have the ability to know God and about him. John Polkinghorne has said, “If God is the god of truth, then the more truth we have, the greater understanding we have; the more we are learning about God.” Understanding that knowing truth is knowing God will do wonders to alleviate the fear of being wrong. Why is that? Because being ‘right’ is just simply overrated. Once you know that you’re right (or think you know), you no longer need to learn any more about your own positions or about those of others. If you are humble enough to recognize that you might be wrong, then you’ll continue to seek the deeper understanding that ultimately results in a deeper knowledge of God.Not only should we be open to the idea of being wrong, if we come to learn that we indeed are wrong, we should rejoice. False beliefs ultimately lead us astray from the God of truth, and so we should be glad when we are able to remove them from our lives. So, if in reading this you find that I’m mistaken about certain things, great! Please, take the time to point out my errors to me so I may seek to remove them and find that which may appropriately take their place. Blessings.

American Idol: Today’s Jerry Springer

It wasn’t too long ago that the Jerry Springer Show was at the height of its success. I have only seen a few of the shows in their entirety, but without fail found each one revolting. The cause of my revulsion wasn’t so much the actions of the participants (before or during the actual show) or even their willingness to emotionally prostitute themselves in front of a national audience. The main cause of my revulsion was that there was such a large amount of individuals willing to support the show by watching on a regular basis. The more horrific the actions of the participants, the more the crowd (in the audience and at home) enjoyed it. If a man left his wife for another, the audience would be pretty excited; but if he left his wife for her brother, they would be ecstatic. The crowd loved it all the more when tears turned to rage. During its heyday, you would be hard pressed to find a Christian, much less thousands of them, openly talk about how much fun it is to watch the Jerry Springer Show. It’s probably true that more Christians watched the show than actually admitted it, but it’s telling that most saw it fit to deny that they even watched it. Unfortunately, that may no longer be the case today.

Tonight I became deeply saddened by the state of the Church. I realized that the American Idol auditions aren’t that different from the Jerry Springer Show, but scores of Christians see absolutely no problem with them. I’ve heard more than a few pastors mention from the pulpit that they love the show and are sure to TiVo it each week. I’ve heard countless Christians specifically say that they only watch it in the beginning to listen to all the really bad singers trying to make it on the show. Making fun and laughing at some of the people auditioning has become so popular in general that Fox often has ’special’ shows midway through just to show more of these “awful performances.” I wish I could say the Church wasn’t part of that, but I know She is. I really don’t see how finding humor in the judges’ degrading comments is much different from finding humor in the Jerry Springer Show. A bad performance gets some chuckles, but a bad performance with biting comments from the judges seems to really get people rolling. How many times have you seen an American Idol contestant’s tears turn to rage? Have you noticed that is when the cameras seem most interested in following the person around? I know many won’t agree with this, but I just don’t see God being pleased with his Church when we not only support, but enjoy, this kind of entertainment.

To make my case more concrete, imagine with me that we went to the local high school to watch their open cheerleading tryouts (or to a local college to watch student-athletes try and walk-on to the football team). If the judges at that high school began to laugh in the faces of individuals trying out and berated them because of their effort, we would be appalled. Furthermore, if I began to laugh at the judges comments you would (or should) be even more appalled at my decidedly un-Christian attitude. I don’t see that being any different from what many Christians do during American Idol. Sure, some of the people are just trying to get on TV, but others are obviously not. One of the contests tonight (they called him Red) genuinely seems to have people in his life that thought he had a great singing voice. As Red began his audition he was rudely and shockingly awoken to the fact that he doesn’t have such a voice. Sadly, as the judges laughed in his face, a great number of the Church laughed right along with them. I truly believe the last thing that Christ’s Church should be doing is joining in on the public humiliation that people like Red faced these last couple of days.

Please understand that I’m not saying a Christian shouldn’t watch the show (it may be true that they in fact shouldn’t, but that’s not the point of this post). I am saying that I don’t think a Christian should enjoy watching others get humiliated in front of a national audience.

The Church

What do you think the primary role of the church is? I’m not talking about the Church (big-C), but the local church that has four walls (at least) and weekly meetings. I think I’m pretty clear with what big C-Church is about, but lately I’ve become less and less clear of what role the local church is supposed to play in the Kingdom.Blessings,Paul

The Blessings of Friends

I was reminded this weekend about how nice it is to have great friends. Not only did Tina Marie and I have a great time at the movies with Chad, but we also had a great time Sunday night watching the Super Bowl at the Starling house. It was nice to just hang out and catch up a little bit. The time we spent with them reminded me of other friends that I have throughout the States that I miss dearly.For anyone reading this that is still in college, take advantage of the times you have to build a solid community that you can maintain once you leave school. It wasn’t until after I graduated from SAGU that I realized the difference between graduating from college and graduating from high school. When you finish high school, you still think there is a chance you’ll see your friends back home again. Most of the time that is an illusion, but there’s still hope. When you finish college, most of your friends move to different parts of the country or the world. What’s great though is that I was lucky to develop solid relationships with most of them and still are close. I hope you do can do the same.Lord, I pray that those reading this will continue to understand the value of having a community that will be there to encourage, strengthen, and challenge them in their life’s journey as a follower of your way. Be with them and lead them to new relationships or just help them to renew old relationships that haven’t been appropriately attended to. Thank you. Amen.