Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Martyrs

Christianity Today's Imago Fidei: provides this image of "The History of Martyrdom" from World Christian Trends, and notes:
The number of Christians killed for their faith has been growing since the beginning of Christianity, in AD 33.
Click on the image or go to the original source for a much larger version.

Some selected statistics from the same source:
TOTAL PERSONS, AD 33-2000
All persons born since AD 33: 36,673 million
All persons evangelized since AD 33: 12,105 million (33% of human race)
All Christians since AD 33: 8,344 million (23% of human race)
All martyrs killed since AD 33: 69,420.000
Martyrs as % all Christians ever: 0.8%
Martyrs among all Christian leaders ever: 2.0%
CONFESSION OF VICTIMS. AD 33-2000 (total martyrs of each tradition)
Orthodox: 42,798,000:
Russian Orthodox: 21,626,400
East Syrians (Nestorians): 12,379,000
Ukrainian Orthodox: 3,500,000
Gregorians (Armenian Apostolic): 1,215,100
Roman Catholic: 12,210,000
Catholics (before AD 1000): 855,000
Independents: 3,512,000
Protestants: 3,172,000
Anglicans 1,046,000
Marginal Christians: 6,700
other and background martyrs: 6,675,7C0
Total all martyrs: 69,420,000
PERSECUTORS AND THEIR VICTIMS - AD 33-2000
Persecutors responsible/Martyrs:
State ruling power/55,871,000
Atheists (overlap with above)/31,689,000
Muslims/9,121,000
Ethnoreligionists (animists)/7,469,000
Roman Catholics/5,171,000
Quasi-religionists/2,712,000
Buddhists (Mahayana)/1,651,000
Hindus/676.000
Zoroastrians (Parsis)/384,060
Eastern Orthodox/222,060
Other non-Christians/115,000
Other Christians/146,000
SUBTOTALS:
Non-Christian persecutors/63,882,000
Christian persecutors/5,538,000
Total all martyrs: 69,420,000
[more]
Christianity Today Imago Fidei: Infographic: The History of Martyrdom, GCTS - Global Christianity - Global Data

When science isn't science

Wesley J. Smith thinks that "Barone Nails That New Time Religion" - Michael Barone, that is.
When science becomes ideology or quasi-religion, it ceases to be science and becomes something else. The brilliant political analyst Michael Barone has weighed in on this concern in a new column (which also deals with gun control, beyond our scope here). He notes that despite the constant propaganda, fewer people today believe in man-made global warming than did just last year. From his column (with gun references deleted):
For liberal elites, belief in...global warming has taken on the character of religious faith. We have sinned (by...driving SUVs); we must atone (by...recycling); we must repent (by supporting...cap and trade schemes). You may notice that the “we” in question is usually the great mass of ordinary American citizens.

The liberal elite is less interested in giving up its luxuries (Al Gore purchases carbon offsets to compensate for his huge mansion and private jet travel) than in changing the lifestyle of the masses, who selfishly insist on living in suburbs.... Ordinary Americans are seen not as responsible fellow citizens building stable communities but as greedy masses, who must be disciplined to live according to the elite’s religious dogmas. [more]
First Things » Blog Archive » Barone Nails That New Time Religion

Monday, May 11, 2009

The promise of his company

In a review of Laura Miller's The Magician's Book, Jordan Davis provides, first, a good, short, fair biography of Lewis, and then a good critical review of the book, in which Miller attempts to account for the affect the Narnia Chronicles had on her as a girl. Davis doesn't think she entirely succeeded:
.... Miller judges the various books—she prefers the episodic (and to my mind, static) quest narrative Voyage of the Dawn Treader to the freed-slave-royal-twin story The Horse and His Boy—but she does not provide a coherent theory of their magic.

I'll take a crack at it. What holds the story together is Lewis, or rather, the benevolent, attentive, encouraging narrator and his occasional presence in the story disguised as a professor, a dwarf, a badger, a lion. His is a sane and playful presence, not tame and never thoughtless. Though great danger is always imminent in Narnia, there is a profound sense of excitement, of mystery, of being loved. This sense is difficult to accomplish but also impossible to counterfeit. Lewis manages it partly through frequent second-person digressions keyed to the experience of any bright but otherwise ordinary 9-year-old, the age at which he lost his mother. Most of all, he forms a bond with young readers by pledging again and again to believe them by proxy: in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Lucy persists in believing that she has gone to another world, and despite the betrayal of her brother Edmund, the other children go there with her. (To my knowledge, no one has followed up on the aside that Edmund's perverse, hateful behavior began when he was sent away to boarding school.) What continues to draw children to Lewis is not only the pleasure of traveling to a world that sounds better than this one but the promise of his company, so entertaining and learned, and so light about it. .... (more)
Into the Wardrobe: C.S. Lewis's Narnia

Saturday, May 9, 2009

St. Augustine, Scripture, and evolution

Writing at Christianity Today, Alister McGrath, in "Augustine's Origin of Species," explains how St. Augustine's approach to Creation can illuminate the modern debate.
North African bishop Augustine of Hippo (354–430) ... interpreted Scripture a thousand years before the Scientific Revolution, and 1,500 before Darwin's Origin of Species. Augustine didn't "accommodate" or "compromise" his biblical interpretation to fit new scientific theories. The important thing was to let Scripture speak for itself.

Augustine wrestled with Genesis 1–2 throughout his career. There are at least four points in his writings at which he attempts to develop a detailed, systematic account of how these chapters are to be understood. Each is subtly different. Here I shall consider Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis, which was written between 401 and 415. Augustine intended this to be a "literal" commentary (meaning "in the sense intended by the author"). ....

Augustine was deeply concerned that biblical interpreters might get locked into reading the Bible according to the scientific assumptions of the age. This, of course, happened during the Copernican controversies of the late 16th century. Traditional biblical interpretation held that the sun revolved around the earth. The church interpreted a challenge to this erroneous idea as a challenge to the authority of the Bible. It was not, of course. It was a challenge to one specific interpretation of the Bible—an interpretation, as it happened, in urgent need of review.

Augustine anticipated this point a millennium earlier. Certain biblical passages, he insisted, are genuinely open to diverse interpretations and must not be wedded to prevailing scientific theories. Otherwise, the Bible becomes the prisoner of what was once believed to be scientifically true: "In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it." ....

So does Augustine's The Literal Meaning of Genesis help us engage with the great questions raised by Darwin? Let's be clear that Augustine does not answer these questions for us. But he does help us see that the real issue here is not the authority of the Bible, but its right interpretation. In addition, he offers us a classic way of thinking about the Creation that might illuminate some contemporary debates. .... [more]
Augustine's Origin of Species | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Friday, May 8, 2009

To be a hypocrite you need standards

Miss California gave the politically incorrect answer to a question about "gay marriage," although it was the answer a majority of voters in her state apparently affirm, and the result is a campaign of personal destruction, joined in by some Christians. Jared Wilson comments:
This poor girl was an immodest fool to allow nude (semi-nude?) photos taken of herself. Perhaps she is an immodest fool today, I don't know. ....

But make no mistake: the outright "she must be destroyed" campaign about her parents' bitter divorce — who's business is THAT?! for goodness' sake — about the photos, about where she goes to church and how awful the place is, or whatever else can be dug up is all about her response to the question about "gay marriage." If she'd said it was cool and the gang, or if they'd asked her another question (about, say, global warming or something), the landslide of personal destruction would not have been uncapped.

Kudos, Christians joining in the smears. Your true colors are showing.

My friend Ray Ortlund writes with much less vituperation:
So a few years ago she did something wrong. A world of love would say, "Let's bury this and give her her life back. She can still have a great future. God bless her." But the actual world we live in, this merciless world, says, "Let's embarrass her and shame her and destroy her."

Thank God for God the merciful. All who, like her, like me, need mercy, should stand together with defiant trust in him. He will have the final word, a very happy word.
There are those who think Christians are intolerant.

Greg Gutfield comments:
Mel Gibson’s getting flack for having sex with a woman who was not his wife - something that never happens in Hollywood - but made newsworthy because he’s a hardcore Catholic. Meanwhile, Carrie Prejean continues to be crucified - for she’s a Christian who posed topless to get a job. And of course, there’s Bristol Palin, unwed and baby in tow, talking abstinence. ....

Yeah, we get it: these Christians are all hypocrites, and you’re not.

But those who point this out so predictably foolishly think the argument ends there, as if a flawed person is somehow proof that the critic’s own moral beliefs - or lack thereof - are superior. But I've said this before: to be a hypocrite you need standards. Without standards, you cannot fail to reach them. And being imperfect beings, we are all destined to fail. The fact that we actually keep trying is what makes us human. And interesting.

It’s not that I support hypocrisy. There are folks who are hypocrites from day one - dirtbags who never had standards to violate (you can find them on any reality show). But the media prefers to focus on the failure of people who try, but fail - as though it’s better just to admit you’re scum, and then revel in it.
The Gospel-Driven Church: Blessed Are Those Who Are Kicked While They're Down, Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Daily Gut: Standards

An atheist and a preacher walked in to a bar

Alex Chediak notes the making of a documentary about:
...the series of joint appearances and debates that Wilson and Hitchens have been engaging in over the last year or so. (For example, at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, PA.) The release schedule of the film and the venue is still to be determined, it seems. But here is a 13-minute sneak preview. The movie looks terrific.

COLLISION - 13 min VIMEO Exclusive Sneak Peak from Collision Movie on Vimeo.

Alex Chediak Blog: Collision Movie: Douglas Wilson & Christopher Hitchens

"If you believe in this world, you're stuck"

At The New Ledger, Sean Curnyn [of RightWing Bob.com] approves of Dylan's new CD and, in "Bob Dylan: Keeping It Together," explains one of several reasons for his continued success:
Together Through Life, the album just released by Bob Dylan, has entered both the U.S. and U.K. charts at the number one position, and is at or near the top of the charts in numerous other countries across the world. Dylan appears to be doing something very right, in commercial terms, at the ripe old age of 68, but I question whether even he has any firm idea of what that might be. One thing for which he doesn’t get much credit, but which I think has paid off for him in the end, is his consistency. ....

I think that his consistency extends to his tastefulness (in musical terms), his instinct for spontaneous and dynamic creativity in the studio, and his particular way of looking at the world in his songs. Although all of these qualities are apparent on the new album, it is the latter one that is perhaps the easiest to contemplate in print.

In a 1984 interview with Rolling Stone magazine – following some skeptical remarks about globalism and world peace – Bob Dylan said the following:
But none of this matters, if you believe in another world. If you believe in this world, you’re stuck; you really don’t have a chance. You’ll go mad, ’cause you won’t see the end of it. You may wanna stick around, but you won’t be able to. On another level, though, you will be able to see this world. You’ll look back and say, “Ah, that’s what it was all about all the time. Wow, why didn’t I get that?”
The sentiments Dylan expressed in that quote twenty-five years ago are presented in another way in the final track of his new album, the caustic and darkly humorous song It’s All Good, which careens along with visions of crumbling buildings and suffering citizens punctuated by that dumb modern catchphrase that caught Dylan’s ear:
The widows cry, the orphans plead / Everywhere you look, there’s more misery / Come along with me babe / I wish you would / Y’know what I’m sayin’ / It’s all good!
The perspective is essentially the same as in that old interview. This worldly existence is enough to drive you mad, if that is all in which you have to believe. .... [more]
Bob Dylan: Keeping It Together | The New Ledger

Who needs it?

Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck collaborated on Why We're Not Emergent: By Two Guys Who Should Be, a book that managed to be both informative and entertaining. Reading it made me a fan. Any author who can teach truth clearly while making the learning process painless is worth following. DeYoung's next book [solo this time] was Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc., another short, wise, helpful book. Now, co-authors again, DeYoung and Kluck offer Why We Love the Church: In Praise of Institutions and Organized Religion, to be published in July. I'll get this one, too.

At his blog [also well worth your attention] DeYoung, Restless, and Reformed, DeYoung excerpts from the book's first chapter, describing some of the reasons for dissatisfaction with the Church. Briefly:
The Missiological. Many Christians feel like the church just doesn’t work any more. .... There are a host of problems in society that we are ignoring. The church has turned a blind eye to the community around her and is making no impact on the world. Face it, many people say, the church tried and failed.

The Personal. Personal objections to the church are frequently voiced by both insiders and outsiders. The church, in the eyes of many outsiders, especially the young, is filled with hypocritical, anti-women, anti-gay, judgmental, close-minded, bubble-dwelling, acolytes for the Republican Party. ....

Many church insiders have an equally negative impression. They feel personally wounded or let down by the church. They find the church legalistic, oppressive, and hurtful. .... Many in the church silently, or not so silently, feel like the Sunday services are a drag, the sermons are fluffy and uninspiring, and the music is pre-packaged. The whole thing is, for some, a big, repetitive, soul-shriveling show. Who needs it?

The Historical. According to some disgruntled Christians, the church as we know is an unbiblical, historical accident at best and a capitulation to paganism at worst. .... Surely history demonstrates that the church has, for the most part, been an embarrassing failure. Let’s say we’re sorry and move on to some other way of building the kingdom.

The Theological. .... Most Christians will acknowledge that “church” is an important New Testament concept and that Jesus loves the church and shed his blood for it. But for many, “church” is just plural for Christian. All you need for church is two or three people who worship Christ to be together in the same place. .... The more we can move away from all the man-made doctrines, rituals, and structures of church as we know it, the closer we will be to truly knowing God in all his unconditional, untamed, mysterious, relational love. [more]
As the title of the book makes clear, DeYoung and Kluck "love the church" and DeYoung promises to offer some of their responses to the criticisms in the months ahead.

Bound to this world

Michael S. Horton names the heresy and then describes one of its more popular purveyors:
"Name it, claim it"; the "health-and-wealth" or "prosperity gospel" : these are nicknames for a heresy that in many respects is only an extreme version of perhaps the most typical focus of American Christianity today more generally. Basically, God is there for you and your happiness. He has some rules and principles for getting what you want out of life and if you follow them, you can have what you want. Just "declare it" and prosperity will come to you. God as Personal Shopper.

Although explicit proponents of the so-called "prosperity gospel" may be fewer than their influence suggests, its big names and best-selling authors (T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joel Osteen, and Joyce Meyer) are purveyors of a pagan worldview with a peculiarly American flavor. It's basically what the sixteenth century German monk turned church reformer Martin Luther called the "theology of glory": How can I climb the ladder and attain the glory here and now that God has actually promised for us after a life of suffering? The contrast is the "theology of the cross": the story of God's merciful descent to us, at great personal cost, a message that the Apostle Paul acknowledged was offensive and "foolish to Greeks."

The attraction of Americans to this version of the "glory story" is evident in the astonishing success of Joel Osteen's runaway best-seller, Your Best Life Now: Seven Steps to Living at Your Full Potential. Beyond his charming personality and folksy style, Osteen's phenomenal attraction is no doubt related to his simple and soothing sampler of the American gospel: a blend of Christian and cultural elements that he picked up not through any formal training, but as the son of a Baptist-turned-prosperity evangelist who was a favorite on the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN). However, gone are the eccentric caricatures of "prosperity" televangelism, with its flamboyant style and over-the-top rhetoric.

In the Wal-Mart era of religion and spirituality, every particular creed and any denominational distinctives get watered down. We don't hear (at least explicitly) about our being "little gods," "part and parcel of God," or the blood of Christ as a talisman for healing and prosperity. The strange teachings of his father's generation, still regularly heard on TBN, are not explored in any depth. In fact, nothing is explored in any depth. ....

I have no reason to doubt the sincere motivation to reach non-Christians with a relevant message. My concern, however, is that the way this message comes out actually trivializes the faith at its best and contradicts it at its worst. In a way, it sounds like atheism: Imagine there is no heaven above us or hell below us, no necessary expectation that Christ "will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead" and establish perfect peace in the world. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find anything in this message that would be offensive to a Unitarian, Buddhist, or cultural Christians who are used to a diet of gospel-as-American-Dream. Disney's Jiminy Cricket expresses this sentiment: "If you wish upon a star, all your dreams will come true."

To be clear, I'm not saying that it is atheism, but that it sounds oddly like it in this sense: that it is so bound to a this-worldly focus that we really do not hear anything about God himself—his character and works in creation, redemption, or the resurrection of the body and the age to come. Nothing in the past (namely, Christ's work) nor in the future (namely, Christ's return in judgment, raising our bodies in everlasting life) really matters. .... [much more]
In other words, religion that is as materialistic as its enemies.

Michael S. Horton - Joel Osteen and the Glory Story: A Case Study

Thursday, May 7, 2009

"A rich vein of spiritual, intellectual, and practical resources"

At Christian History Blog, Chris Armstrong, a Professor of Church History at Bethel Seminary in St. Paul, MN, explains his enthusiasm for attending a conference on medieval studies. Excerpts:
.... Another thing that has spurred me to engage medieval history is ... well ... this will raise eyebrows, but I'll say it: I am a long-time fan of fantasy literature, and a one-time enthusiastic player of Dungeons and Dragons. Both that genre and that game (with all of its countless spinoffs) were inspired by the writings of J.R.R. Tolkien. And if the number of sessions at the Medieval Congress dedicated to Tolkien is any indication, there are plenty of folks doing medieval studies today who love Tolkien—including, I don't doubt, many who got into the field of medieval studies through reading Tolkien.

The potential lesson here for evangelicals goes beyond The Lord of the Rings. Some of modern evangelicals' favorite writers are scholars of the medieval period: along with Tolkien we can list C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton, Charles Williams, and Dorothy L. Sayers. Surely we should stop cherry-picking these authors, concentrating on the "mere Christianity" that they defended so eloquently and imaginatively, and ignoring their strong sense that the medieval world has something to show and tell us today.

One more thing that has spurred me to dig into the Middle Ages has been the trend among younger evangelicals toward returning to “tradition” as a resource for tomorrow’s church. ....

Surely evangelicals who are sampling these medieval wares would benefit by moving beyond a piecemeal, “consumer” approach to medieval Christianity into a more systematic, in-depth study. Beneath the surface of now-trendy medieval practices, and amidst that era's wrong turnings and corruptions, lies a rich vein of spiritual, intellectual, and practical resources. I can think of at least nine facets of medieval faith and life that we can stand to learn from today:
  1. their willingness to engage in spiritual disciplines,
  2. their theologically grounded devotional and even "mystical" practices,
  3. their high valuation of tradition handed down in texts,
  4. their passionate search for theological knowledge (fides quaerens intellectum—"faith seeking understanding"),
  5. their moral seriousness, expressed for example in the lists of "deadly sins" and "cardinal virtues,"
  6. their adaptation of classical learning to Christian theology (which paved the way for the birth of modern science and continues to provide a model for Christ-culture engagement today),
  7. their deep affection for the doctrines of creation and incarnation, issuing (for example) in many profoundly spiritual treasures of Western art and literature,
  8. their high valuation on eternity over temporal life, and the "art of dying well" (ars moriendi) that developed from this commitment, and
  9. their insistence on works of charity (fides caritate formata—"faith formed by love").
Well, these sorts of thoughts have spurred me to start reading seriously in the area of medieval studies (still as an amateur, rather than as a scholar), seeking a "usable past." .... (more)
Christian History Blog: The Monks Did It

"Fewer girly songs"

The British Mail Online reports on a survey of English male church-attenders:
Nearly 60 per cent of those who took part in a survey said they enjoyed singing - but added comments showing they preferred anthemic songs and 'proclamational' hymns as opposed to more emotional love songs.

Sixty per cent said they did not like flowers and embroidered banners in church, while 52 per cent did not like dancing in church.

Comments gathered from the online survey of 400 UK readers of the men's magazine Sorted also showed many did not like hugging, holding hands or sitting in circles discussing their feelings in church. Most were churchgoers. ....

Mr Legg [Sorted managing editor and publisher] added that too many churches were decorated like 'Laura Ashley showrooms'.

He said: 'I often walk into churches and they are like Laura Ashley showrooms with all these flowers and banners and tissues. Men just don't feel comfortable with that.

'Certainly, with the singing, I am fed up with singing these sentimental lovey dovey songs.

'On the football terraces we are very passionate, chanting and cheering, and we want more songs like that. We want fewer girly songs.'
Men want 'macho' hymns, fewer flowers and less dancing in church | Mail Online

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Orthodoxy

The American Chesterton Society will be holding its 28th annual conference from August 6 to 8 in Seattle. The logo on the left links to the registration page.

Chesterton:
The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people.

The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.

Anyone who is not an anarchist agrees with having a policeman at the corner of the street; but the danger at present is that of finding the policeman half-way down the chimney or even under the bed.

There is not really any courage at all in attacking hoary or antiquated things, any more than in offering to fight one's grandmother. The really courageous man is he who defies tyrannies young as the morning and superstitions fresh as the first flowers. The only true free-thinker is he whose intellect is as much free from the future as from the past.

Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anybody is allowed to mention it.

The disadvantage of men not knowing the past is that they do not know the present. History is a hill or high point of vantage, from which alone men see the town in which they live or the age in which they are living.

If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly.

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes—our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking around.
The American Chesterton Society

"I did not think my way into praying. I prayed my way into thinking"

In a fascinating confessional column, David Goldman, onetime "Spengler" and now writing for First Things, explains his former association with a very unsavory political entity, and how he came back to Judaism. From "Confessions of a Coward":
.... My only sense of the sacred had come from classical music, the great avocation of my adolescence. The over-representation of Jews in classical music is no accident: Jews who cannot bring themselves to acknowledge God sometimes find music a safer means by which to evoke religious feelings without the fearful demands of encountering a personal God. To approach the sacred, Jewish tradition admonishes, is both exalting and dangerous, and it is less frightening to look for the sacred in Mozart’s sonatas than on Mt. Sinai. ....

Around 1985, the ugly awareness that I had spent almost a decade in a gnostic cult coincided with a dark time in my personal life. Deeply depressed, I sat at the piano one night, playing through the score of Bach’s St. Matthew Passion, and came to the chorale that reads: “Commend your ways and what ails your heart to the faithful care of Him who directs the heavens, who gives course and aim to the clouds, air and wind. He will also find a path that your foot can tread.” For the first time in my life, I prayed, and in that moment, I knew that my prayer was heard. That was a first step of teshuva—of return. ....

Studying the origins of Western classical music also helped me put religious things in perspective. Magnificent as it is, music remains a human construct, with a hint of divine inspiration in some cases, but not a substitute for God. The great works of Western classical music are not revelation, but they are perhaps the next best thing. Next best, however, no longer seemed good enough. ....

In reviewing my own missteps in life, I feel that temptation to represent myself as a monster in order to cover up something even more painful: I was a coward. I was afraid of being Jewish. Everything else is rationalization. My intellectual life really began only a quarter-century ago when I reconciled myself to being Jewish. The truth is that I did not think my way into praying. I prayed my way into thinking. [more]
FIRST THINGS: On the Square » Blog Archive » Confessions of a Coward

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Intelligent design is not Creationism

Intelligent Design, writes Melanie Phillips in The Spectator, is not Creationism, however much its enemies would like to claim it is. It is, rather, the inference of a Creator from science, not from Scripture.
.... I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead. What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.

One way of doing so is to conflate ID with Creationism. I wrote below that this is wrong, since ID comes out of science and Creationism comes out of Biblical literalism. ....

The first thing to note is that the distinction I was drawing was not between ID and religion but between ID and Creationism. Creationism holds that the universe was literally created in six days or — through ’young earth’ Creationism — that it was created in a few thousand years; either way, it flies in the face of the fact that the universe is billions of years old. Therefore Creationism is inimical to science. But few religious believers in the west subscribe to this literalism, as opposed to belief in a Creator which is common to all of them; Christianity and Judaism (even more so) promote the idea that Genesis is a poetic metaphor.

Since ID holds that some vague kind of intelligent force must have been behind the creation of the universe, there’s surely very little difference (and considerable overlap) between ID proponents and the vast majority of mainstream religious believers – amongst whom are numbered many scientists who have no difficulty reconciling their scientific knowledge about the universe, and the evolution of life within that universe, with belief in an ultimate Creator who kick-started the whole process. ....

.... ID proponents say the idea that science can account for everything – the doctrine known variously as materialism or scientism – flies in the face of reason and evidence and seeks to commandeer the space previously reserved for the unknowable, or religion, which can sit very comfortably alongside science, as it does for so many.

Those who have imbibed evangelical atheistic materialism with their mothers’ milk, however, find it impossible to get their heads round this. Shouting from the rooftops that ID is not science but camouflaged religion, they react so viscerally precisely because ID does come out of science and talks its language. ....

...ID is not in itself a scientific discovery. It is rather an inference from scientific discoveries. Looking at the complexity of the created world, it says the evidence points inescapably to a guiding intelligence as the cause of that complexity. It is an idea, a conclusion to a chain of observation and thought. When people demand proof of this idea, what they are actually demanding is proof that an ‘intelligent designer’ exists. The fact that there are no peer-reviewed studies (!) demonstrating the existence of such a cosmic ‘designer’ provokes this yah-boo response. But it is obviously no more possible to prove the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’ than it is to prove the existence of the Biblical God.

ID is thus a paradox. The whole point is that it states that the ‘intelligent designer’ it posits as the only logical inference from scientifically verifiable complexity cannot be known through scientific means. This is because the essence of the ID idea is that there is a limit to science beyond which it cannot go, since science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God nor any kind of ‘ultimate designer’ of the universe which thus stands outside that universe and its laws. That is where science stops and faith begins.

ID makes space — as the result of science — for belief in a creator, whether this is a deistic being (conveniently vague) or the Biblical God (uncomfortably moral). That certainly takes us into the realm of faith. Indeed, as already noted it takes us into pretty much the position occupied by many believers in Biblical religion – but it does so through the route of science. ....

To repeat – I have no particular brief for ID. I am not in a position to judge whether its arguments about ‘irreducible complexity’ and the logic of intelligent design are soundly based or not. But I do know that the attempt to shut down this debate runs against every principle of rationality and scientific freedom; and that the claim that it is rooted not in science but in religious fundamentalism is a falsehood designed to smear and intimidate people into silence. .... [read it all]
Update 5/6: On a related note, an interesting new site, BioLogos, has been created by Dr. Francis Collins, recently retired leader of the Human Genome Project. Considerable space on the site is devoted to explaining its approach, which differs both from Creationism and Intelligent Design. One of these pages addresses the relationship between science and religion:
Science and religion are sometimes thought to offer entirely different and separate bodies of knowledge. Science is thought to provide systematized and empirical knowledge of the world and its behavior, whereas religion is thought only to give value and purpose for one’s existence. ....

Science is not the only source of factual statements, and religion does reach beyond the realm of values and morals. As [Stephen Jay] Gould acknowledges, science is limited to the factual claims about the world’s physical behavior, and therefore provides only a portion of complete knowledge. Writing on the same topic, Dr. Francis Collins borrows an example from astronomer Arthur Eddington:
"[Eddington] described a man who set out to study deep-sea life using a net that had a mesh-size of three inches. After catching many wild and wonderful creatures from the depths, the man concluded that there are no deep-sea fish that are smaller than three inches in length!"
.... For centuries, religion has had plenty to say to the sciences. To keep the discussion concise, the development of modern science is a good example. It is often thought that religious belief was actually a hindrance to the early progress of science, and the disagreement between the church and Galileo...is cited as a popular case. However, religious belief actually was entirely compatible with scientific progress. For example, when the top 52 scientists during the emergence of modern science in medieval Europe were surveyed for their religious beliefs, 62 percent could be classified as devout, 35 percent as conventionally religious, and only two scientists, 3.8% percent, could be classified as skeptics. Given that many of these scientists — referred to as natural philosophers — helped lay the foundation for modern science, there is hardly room to suggest there was any incompatibility between scientific advancement and religion. With those statistics in mind, it should not be surprising that a religious worldview played a significant role in nurturing the development of modern science. This is well summarized by professor Roger Trigg:
"Their belief in God gave them confidence that the physical world, in all its complexity and vast extent, could be understood. […] As a matter of historical fact, modern science has developed from an understanding of the world as God’s ordered Creation, with its own inherent rationality."
This is not to say that modern science would never have developed without the aid of religious faith. However, if religious belief can also function as a framework within which scientific progress flourishes, then there is certainly substantive interplay between the two bodies of knowledge.

Furthermore, religion has not only served to advance scientific discovery, but it also exerts a positive and significant influence on the practical application of scientific discoveries. With the constant advance of technology and medicine, new questions are continually raised as to what applications should be deemed ethically acceptable. The scientific method alone does not provide a way of answering these ethical questions but can only help in mapping out the possible alternatives. Such ethical concerns are only resolved by standards of morality that find grounding and authority through faith in a higher being. .... [more]
The Spectator, The Questions | The BioLogos Foundation

A token of His love and a reminder of His care


This children's sermon was delivered by my great-uncle while he was pastor of the Plainfield, NJ, Seventh Day Baptist church in the 1920s. It was published in a collection, When I Was A Boy, in 1928. When Ahva J.C. Bond was a boy, he was growing up on a farm located on Canoe Run, near Roanoke, West Virginia. The "Charley" he refers to was my grandfather, my mother's father.

My Father's Clock
I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them.—Ezekiel 20: 12.

ONE day, when I was a very small boy, before I was old enough to go to school, my father bought a new clock and brought it home and set it on the mantel over the fireplace. The other boys were at school, and my mother said to me, "Now, let us say nothing to the boys about the clock when they come home from school and see if they will notice it or hear it tick."

I remember how excited I was. I was afraid I just couldn't keep from looking, and would give it all away. I managed though! And I remember how Charley came in talking and telling something—just as children always do when they come home from school—when, suddenly he looked up in great surprise, for he had heard the ticking of the clock and saw it right there on the mantel. Then I could tell him all about it, for that was what I had been aching to do.

The tick of that clock became a very familiar sound to me during the next twenty years, before I went away from my boyhood home to make a home of my own. All times of the day, and sometimes in the night, when I would be awake, the tick tock of that clock fell upon my ears and broke the stillness. And as it counted off the hours it would start with a whiz, and then without more ado it would strike off the number in rapid strokes as if to warn us that time was precious and that it was swiftly passing.

A few years ago my father gave me that old clock which carries so many memories of the old home. Now it sits on the mantel in my study and ticks off the minutes just as it used to do "some forty years ago." And when the fire is burning low in the grate and I have put aside my book and all is still in the house, I sometimes listen to the familiar tick of the old clock, and in memory I can live over again the scenes of my childhood. The ticking of the clock takes me back to the old home of my earliest years, with the open wood fire and the tall spinning wheel and with the family circled about the hearth. I recall the tender love of my mother and the kind protecting care of my father, as that old clock ticks away on the mantel. And I can see my father as he used to get up from his chair at the right of the fireplace to wind the clock—a notice always that it was time to go to bed. All these things, and many more, come back to me with the ticking of the clock which my father brought home so many years ago when I was a little boy and which a few years ago he gave to me and which now sits on the mantel in my study.

What I have told you about the clock is all true. But to me it is also a parable. It teaches me a lesson of heavenly things, and I hope you can get the lesson also. Our heavenly Father has given to me and to all his children a timepiece which tells us of his love and helps us to think of the heavenly home and of all the peace and joy of our Father's house. I think you know what I mean. I mean the Sabbath day.

A long, long time ago God gave the Sabbath to the world. He set it at the end of the week to mark for us the passage of time. And that it might stand through all time as a token of his love and as a reminder of his care, he blessed and hallowed it. He asks us not to do any work on the Sabbath, but to take time to be still and listen. And as we are quiet on God's holy Sabbath day we can hear him speak to us. We can think of the home over there; but we can think also of this world as the home of our Father, in which we can live happily with him. The Sabbath is the symbol of God's abiding presence. God is in his world. That is what the Sabbath says to us.

Of course we should think of our heavenly Father every day. Many times a day we can think of his goodness. But there is no day that can help us to think of him as the Sabbath can.

It is the clock which my father gave me, the one which I used to see him wind every night when the day was done, that brings my father to mind, and the happy memories of home. It is the day which God placed at the end of the week and which he blessed in a special way, that brings God nearest to us in our thoughts. The Sabbath day reminds us of God's love as no other day can. In the dawn of every Sabbath day God says to his children, "I am still here." Every week as the Sabbath comes around reminding us of our Father's loving care, let us find some time to be quiet and feel his presence and receive his blessing.

I gave them my sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them.
Rev. Ahva J.C. Bond, When I Was A Boy, American Sabbath Tract Society, Plainfield, NJ, 1928, pp. 55-57.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

An unethical teacher

Any teacher who ridicules or humiliates a student for disagreeing with him isn't an educator but an indoctrinator. Challenging a student to defend his position is perfectly legitimate. This guy went too far.
James Corbett, a 20-year teacher at Capistrano Valley High School, was found guilty of referring to Creationism as "religious, superstitious nonsense" during a 2007 classroom lecture, denigrating his former Advanced Placement European history student, Chad Farnan. ....

"Corbett states an unequivocal belief that Creationism is 'superstitious nonsense,'" U.S. District Court Judge James Selna said in a 37-page ruling released from his Santa Ana courtroom. "The court cannot discern a legitimate secular purpose in this statement, even when considered in context."

In a December 2007 lawsuit, Farnan, then a sophomore, accused Corbett of repeatedly promoting hostility toward Christians in class and advocating "irreligion over religion" in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause.

The establishment clause prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion" and has been interpreted by U.S. courts to also prohibit government employees from displaying religious hostility. ....

"To entertain an exception for conduct that might be characterized as isolated or de minimis undermines the basic right in issue: to be free of a government that directly expresses disapproval of religion," Selna said.

Farnan's lawsuit had cited more than 20 inflammatory statements attributed to Corbett, including "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies – that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want."

In an April 3 tentative ruling, however, Selna dismissed all but two of the statements as either not directly referring to religion or as being appropriate in the context of a class lecture, including the headline-grabbing "When you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth." [more]
High school teacher guilty of insulting Christians | corbett, religion, court, farnan, selna - News - OCRegister.com

Nominal Christians no more

Steven Waldman interprets the recent Pew survey differently than many of the recent press analyses:
The Pew study founded that 79% of the currently unaffiliated—also known as "nones" in the survey—started off life connected with a religion. But get this: only 30% of "nones" who used to be Catholic and only 18% of former Protestants said they'd had strong faith as a child. This is true even for those who attended church regularly.

In other words, perhaps it's not that the devout have lost their way, it's that the nominally religious have stopped pretending to be religious. Perhaps what we're seeing is not an increase in the number of "nones" but an increase in the numbers willing to admit it.

Another bit of evidence for this theory is that the rates of church attendance during this same period from 1990 to 2009 have remained stable. The pious are just as pious; it's the more tenuously connected that seem to be fleeing. [more]
The State of U.S. Piety - WSJ.com

Friday, May 1, 2009

He read the Bible

I received my copy of the May Touchstone this afternoon. I always appreciate its arrival, anticipating a period of pleasant, agreeable, and enlightening reading. This issue included something of particular interest to those of us who admire Lincoln, "Lincoln & the Methodists", by Matthew May, which provides an interesting account of Lincoln's relationship with Christianity and Methodist support for the Union and for Lincoln.

In 1846, Lincoln's Democratic opponent for Congress was a Methodist preacher named Cartwright, who attempted to use Lincoln's apparently heterodox religious convictions against him:
.... Lincoln published a pamphlet to combat Cartwright’s offensive. He did not attempt to claim to be something he was not (in this case, a member of a particular denomination), nor did he necessarily disagree with the basic proposition that religious observance was a requirement for public officials. He wrote:
That I am not a member of any Christian Church, is true; but I have never denied the truth of the Scriptures; and I have never spoken with intentional disrespect of religion in general, or of any denomination of Christians in particular. . . . I do not think I could, myself, be brought to support a man for office whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion. Leaving the higher matter of eternal consequences between him and his Maker, I still do not think any man has the right thus to insult the feelings, and injure the morals, of the community in which he may live.
Lincoln made good on the prediction he made at Cartwright’s rally and won the 1846 election, serving in the US House for one term. ....
At Lincoln's burial, Methodist Bishop Matthew Simpson, a supporter and personal friend, spoke:
Standing beside the coffin at Oak Ridge Cemetery, Simpson tacitly acknowledged the ongoing mystery surrounding Lincoln’s faith and his distance from formal religious ceremony and ritual. Yet this leader of an organized Christian denomination perhaps best described that faith. The bishop said of Lincoln, according to Crooks, that he
read the Bible frequently, loved it for its great truths, and he tried to be guided by its precepts. He believed in Christ the Saviour of sinners, and I think he was sincere in trying to bring his life into harmony with the principles of revealed religion. Certainly if there ever was a man who illustrated some of the principles of pure religion, that man was our departed president. [more]
There is much more in this issue and it remains, with First Things, one of the few magazines I read from cover to cover.

Touchstone Archives: Lincoln & the Methodists

Worshiping apart?

9Marks Journal [online here] provides a series of articles discussing the phenomenon of multi-site churches. There are both advocates and critics of the trend. One of the articles, by Jonathan Leeman, raises the issue of whether multi-site and/or multi-service "churches" are actually churches: "Theological Critique of MultiSite: Leadership Is the Church." Here is the abstract of his article and its first paragraph:
Both the multi-site and multi-service church models remove "the gathering" from the necessary ingredients of what constitutes a particular church, since neither model requires all the members of a church to gather together in order for them to be a church. Instead, both models equate the local church with its leadership and its corporate structure, since it's the leadership and corporate structure that are the only things that the separate assemblies uniquely hold in common. Leadership is the church.

Neither the multi-site church nor the multi-service church is a church. Both are an association of churches, since one essential component of what constitutes a church as a particular church on earth is a gathering. And in that regard, the multi-site and the multi-service churches are no different. One divides its gatherings geographically while the other divides them chronologically. [more]
Theological Critique of MultiSite: Leadership Is the Church - 9Marks