A Modest Proposal

Many Scientists are agnostic about Christianity because they doubt the veracity of the Bible's claims. As a Christian who believes in the Bible, I believe there's a case to be made for agnosticism towards... science.

Advances in science are fueled by two processes:

1. Discovering new phenomenon or explanations for phenomenon.
2. Correcting the mistakes of the past scientific orthodoxy

Sometimes these process work together when new data shows scientists are again wrong and must go back to the chalkboard (or dry-erase board). Old data can also be reinterpreted to show scientists were wrong.

Every belief in science is open to this threat of new data or reinterpretation. For some things (for instance the Bernoulli Principle) this threat is remote. However there are thousands of sacred scientific orthodoxies that are overturned.

If we believe the Bible contains absolute truth, we should approach science and its claims with some modest skepticism. Now depending on how you view the Bible's “claims” about physical reality, you may come down on differing sides of the origins debate.

However for Christians there doesn't need to be a scientific debate. The margin of error for our beliefs is interpretation of the Bible. The margin of error for scientists is their ignorance of most of reality.

We desire to engage Scientists because we view them as a threat. They're only a threat because people think science is truth. That's why modest skepticism could be a good thing for people besides Christians.

This is how I express my modest skepticism towards scientific theories of origins:

I believe the Big Bang theory may describe creation although I'm uncertain of whether it's true.
I am open to evolution as an explanation for speciation although I'm uncertain if it's true.

While I'm open to the possible truth of scientific explanations I don't give them the weight of unchanging truth. As Christians I believe we should have an open-minded skepticism of science that doesn't view scientific theories as grave threats.

For all we know data could arrive tomorrow which overturns evolution or the Big Bang theory (I say this as someone who accepts both).

So why don't we sit back and leave the scientists alone, while we rest confident in a faith that doesn't require scientific agreement.

General Patton on the War in Iraq

I wish American voters would get serious about war as we were in World War II. Apparently, General Patton agrees:

If I were a Roman Emperor, I'd be

I'm happily married but they claim, I'd be Hadrian.

You scored as Hadrian, You are the great emperor Hadrian. Not only great for the fact that he didn't mess something up, but he relentlessly administered the empire and set viable borders. Art, cultivation and wisdom mark your reign. The fact that you prefer the boys really helps with the wise handing over of the purple to only the most qualified. Hadrian 79% Antoninus Pius 75% Augustus 71% Marcus Aurelius 68% Claudius 68% Tiberius 61% Nerva 54% Trajan 54% Vespasian 46% Domitian 46% Vitellius 43% Nero 29% Commodus 21% Caligula 21% Which Roman Emperor Are You? created with QuizFarm.com

Christian Definition of Human Rights

Lately there's been a discussion of human “rights” with people looking for a Christian or secular or universal origin for them.

People have jumped into this discussion without really examining what human rights are.

I believe an appropriate Christian definition will be drastically different than a humanist definition.

The term “human rights” suggests that rights belong to individuals. Societies and governments just recognize these God given rights. Few concepts could be less Biblically based or more prideful. We gave up our birthright when we fell from Eden.

The Bible clearly lays out what citizens owe the government but never mentions what government owes citizens.

However the Bible does mention what rulers (governments) owe God.

Governments owe their authority to God.

Governments owe service to God. They must establish justice on God's behalf.

The establishment of justice is a difficult and trying requirement for a government to meet. I believe human rights are justified by the government's responsibility to establish justice. By limiting its actions a government can restrain its impulses to commit injustice.

Due Process, Freedom of Speech and Religion are human inventions that help in establishing justice. They're no more sacred than their purpose (establishing justice). We've noticed this enough that someone shouting “FIRE” in a theater can't claim a valid freedom of speech defense. Someone abusing or neglecting children can't claim a valid freedom of religion defense.

God will judge governments.

So as I understand it human rights are what those in authority owe to God (their just treatment of those under their authority). Human rights are not what belongs to individuals. As sinful individuals we are worms deserving nothing except through the sacrifice of Christ. Our only rights are won with the blood of Christ.

Freedom and Death

In Michael Gerson recent article What Atheist's Can't Answer he shows a point I've been trying to express.

Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.

This form of "liberation" is like liberating a plant from the soil or a whale from the ocean. In this kind of freedom, something dies.

Atheism has a high price for it's "freedom". We become trapped in a world of stone sentenced to oblivion and irrelevance in this dying universe. Our very virtues becoming mocking symbols of futility and meaninglessness.

Christian Carnival

Want this badge?

The 180th Christian Carnival is up at Everyday Liturgy.

From my casual perusal it's quite a good one.

Smoke and Fire

Have you ever seen a large puff of smoke in the distance? You run to the smoke to see what's burning. Getting there you notice its a smoldering fire that went out hours ago.

Faith can be described as a fire which burns within the soul.

The outward signs of faith can be like smoke seen from a distance.

Long after a fire has simmered down wisps of smoke will continue to rise. In fact a fire being extinguished can sometimes produce more smoke than a healthy fire. Of course a healthy fire produces steady wisps of smoke while a dying one produces a brief burst of smoke.

There are other places I could take this allegory (a smoldering fire without material to burn, a backdraft as a starved faith that is quickly renewed or conversion described as a flashover)

I believe faith can be the same way. The outward signs of faith can linger long after the actual faith has cooled. A dying faith can also produce spasm of good works that belie the soul's internal condition.

A nation's faith-based culture may create signs of faith long after most people have really given it up. Eventually though the culture will decline making it appear faith has suddenly declined when it was already dead.

Instead of bursts of fervor, I think we should look for consistency. We should also look for an attitude of love and obedience that signals the presence of faith.

When did the Age of Disbelief begin?

I believe we Christians set the beginning too late because we mistake smoke (good works) for fire (faith).

Historically I'd set the beginning of the present Age of Disbelief in the 16th century. Of course on the surface faith remained strong and outward signs of piety would often surge. I believe these surges or Revivals (the Reformation, the Great Awakenings, and modern revivals) were mostly signs of a dying faith that struggled to burn.

A (Brief) Guide to Supporting Candidates

OK, so you're into politics and you have a candidate you strongly support.

How can you promote this candidate effectively?

Bumper stickers and yard signs can help to raise a candidate's visibility. You want to do more. You want to support your candidate in your community or online.

Here are a few brief principles I've learned while supporting (or volunteering for) various candidates:

1. Don't use hype. Voters have become immune to hype from advertising. Now it's a turn-off. Don't oversell your candidate. Also try to avoid over-enthusiasm.
2. Understand why you support the candidate. I mean more than a bumper sticker slogan. A heartfelt description of why you support a candidate can be powerful.
3. Emphasize the candidate's popular qualities. This means identify qualities voters (or readers) find important in candidates and then emphasizing your candidate's best popular qualities.
4. Emphasize the candidate's popular issues. This means identify voters' (or readers') most important issues and emphasize where your candidate's stands are popular.
   
5. Be positive. A positive (or positively delivered) message is more favorably received than a message based on negative emotions or negative appeals.
6. Be respectful. When you're respectful it restricts your opponents options. It also makes voters (or readers) comfortable with your message.
   
7. Finally, Ask Questions and Listen to the Answers. It's hard to emphasize how much people like to be listened to. If you'll listen they'll often let down their guard and listen back.
   

How Christians Should Vote

I've heard some Christian say the Bible prohibits us from voting. We can't really know though because democracy wasn't a reality in any nation written about in the Bible. All arguments basically come down to inferring God's will based on Bible verses.

Lacking an explicit 'rule', I believe all Christians should pray as to whether they should vote or not. In voting as in all things we must strive to remain in the will of God.

This is an important decision. Elections can have important consequences. When we vote we exercise great power. This choice should never be taken lightly.

So how do we as Christians vote if after prayer we are led to do so?

First we should be open and obedient to God's direction. God may make his will in your vote clear.

When God's will is unclear to us, we should pray for discernment to judge candidates according to Biblical principles.

We should carefully use our votes as Christians to do good in accordance with the will of God.

While God's will is going to happen regardless of our vote, we know that our vote can be a force for good or for bad. Esther knew that the Jews would be saved regardless of her decision but that her family's fate rested on her decision.

Likewise our votes are neither all powerful nor meaningless.

So how should Christians Vote?

Faithfully.