Follow the Shepherd

There's a Change Comin' !!!

2007-04-17T10:49:00.000-07:00

The format of this blog is going to change in a big way! But there is alot going on in right now, so I will try and make my changes as soon as possible.

Dysfunction, Yet Loving

2006-12-27T07:20:00.000-08:00

Okay, I'm on the late freight with this one, but I saw "Little Miss Sunshine" last night on DVD and it was a good movie. One of those movies I wish I saw on the big screen. Yet "Little Miss Sunshine," directed by Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris has that unsettling feeling to it where you want to laugh, but some how feel its inappropriate to do so. This movie places you in that state and doesn't let you go.

The movie is about a family's journey from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Redondo Beach California for the Little Miss Sunshine Beauty Contest. The trip becomes a farcical, yet a bittersweet epic journey as the family struggles through its own dysfunction and tragedy to realize the importance, however messy it is, of family.

Each character has their flaws laid bare for the audience to see. The father,Richard(Greg Kinnear), tries to make it as a motivational speaker, but is totally ineffectual and impotent not only as a 'motivational speaker, but as a father and husband. As he spouts his "9-steps to success" he continually fails at everything he does, including his hopes of making it.

Grandpa, played excellently by Alan Arkin, snorts heroine yet seems the most normal as he interjects his elderly wisdom and bitterness on the family. One of the most touching scenes in the movie is when Grandpa tells little Olive (played movingly by Abigail Breslin), that she is the most beautiful girl as she struggles with her own insecurities.

The mother, played by Toni Colette, is hurried and rushed, as she tries to take care of her brother, Frank (Steve Carell), who was released to her care after a failed suicide attempt over losing his male love interest and his position as the #1 Proust expert in the country to an academic rival.

The son, Dwayne (Paul Dano), reads Nietzsche and has taken a vow of silence until he is accepted into the Air Force Academy to become a test pilot. He's the bitter teen who sees the disfunct in his family, yet adds to its dysfunction as he tries to separate himself from it.

Watching the family struggle through its dysfunctionality is at times painful. For example, when Richard doesn't get the book deal he hopes will bring him success, and Frank stumbles into his ex-love interest, the whole family is so caught up into their own sickness that when the vans leaves the gas station they forget little Olive. Yet the scene is hilarious as they go back to pick Olive up, yet they can't stop so she has to run and hop in the van. It's a funny scene, yet at the same time you shake your head in disbelief at the thought of forgetting your own child because you're so rapped up into yourself.

But there are many scenes in the movie that stumble into the realm of the surreal. Yet the one part of the movie that has a hint of truth to it is in fact the most disturbing part. You feel disgusted at what takes place on the screen. The fictionalized beauty pageant gives a feeling of voyeurism to a world that is indeed sick and twisted. The family, even in their dysfunctional state, sees the twisted nature of the Little Miss Sunshine pageant and in the end comes together as a family in defense of little Olive.

Little Miss Sunshine is a touching, absurd movie that give you a touch of the real in a surreal package. The desultory characters provide you with insight into some of our own charater flaws. We want to laugh at their faults and mistakes, yet at some level we are uncomfortable because we know we are laughing at ourselves.

Spritual 4-mation

2006-10-14T17:30:00.000-07:00

I had an interesting conversation with a couple of friends about spiritual formation. One of them is interested in attending Biola University's Spiritual Formation Program. But I guess he wasn't spiritual enough. I'm just kidding!

As the conversation progressed I let it be known in my apparently spiritually unformed way that I'm a bit apprehensive about the whole thing. On the surface it doesn't seem like a bad thing for a person to be 'more spiritual,' and seek a closer experience with God. And therein lay the problem.

Can we really get closer to God by some method that we have prescribed? Or is it God who presribes how we can get closer to him? Please before you say I'm setting up a straw-man argument only to knock it down, wait and read. (BTW, isn't that part of spiritual formation to be silent and patient, hmmm.)

First, admittedly this is my limited understanding of spiritual formation. The purpose of spiritual formation is to deepen ones relationship with God through various techniques and experiences such as meditation, prayer, fasting, Christian psychotherapy, and lection divina (divine reading). None of those techniques are bad in and of themselves. The problem is these various methods try to reach up to God. We do these various methods to feel more holy, therefore, we think we're more holy. But that is not necessarily the case. The danger lies in the fact that you could possibly do something, say meditation, that gives you a good feeling. A feeling so good that you start to question "why do I need to go to church?" Or "why do I need to listen to such a boring sermon? I get more out of my personal meditation than that other stuff." But it's the 'other stuff' that God has prescribed for us. It's the other stuff that really works. All we're asked to do is trust God.

The problem is we are never satisfied with what God has done for us. Think about it. Adam and Eve weren't satisfied with the Garden; the children of Israel weren't satisfied with the tabernacle. Christians aren't satified with the (completed) works of Christ. We want more. More Christ. More God. More feelings. More experience.

The thing is, God has given us the means of grace. His Word and sacraments. But they are to ordinary for us. We want the magical, the mystical, the experiential, yet forgetting that it is through ordinary things that God shows his grace. Ordinary wine, bread, and preaching; definitely not the wow-factor.

I just had the Lord's supper this past Sunday and you know what? I didn't feel any different after the sacrament then before the sacrament. But that's okay, why? Because I know by God's Word and through faith that his sacrament is effective apart from how I feel.

This doesn't mean feelings are bad or I shouldn't feel anything. I'm just saying that feelings aren't necessary to the operation of God's means of grace. So when I hear about spiritual formation, I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical because it seems like it dilutes what God has prescribed, we need to do these extra steps in order to get closer to God. But you know what? We can't get closer to God. It's God who gets closer to us.

To God be the Glory alone

The Decline of the (Evangelical) Christian! - Oh My!

2006-10-06T09:11:00.000-07:00

Check out this article at NYTimes.com. It's about the loss of evangelical teens in the Christian faith.

There are a few things that bothered me about this article. First, the doom and gloom view of evangelical Christianity, second, the attitude of "if we can't beat'em, join 'em!' and thirdly, the mentality of "the bigger, the better!"

First, we have to realize that American evangelical Christianity is not the end-all of the Christian faith. God will always have a witness, so just because there is a decline in American evangelical teens doesn't mean that Christianity is doomed.

Second, it seems like the evangelicals are taking the cultural milieu and placing a "Jesus-face" on it. When Mr. Luce ask the teens in the arena to write the negative cultural influences on a scrape of paper and then throw it away, that is nothing but therapeutic mumbo jumbo. All he's doing is a new form of alter call minus the Gospel. The kids feel better, but do they understand the Gospel any better? Are they walking away from these events with a true sense of their depravity and necessity for Christ? I some how doubt it. But, hey it probably raises their self-esteem as Christian teens.

Third, why do the evangelicals have to have these huge events? Do we really think that these big arena events are the answer to a decline in teen Christianity? In the article, it's noted that Mr. Luce has more than 2 million teens attend his event over the past 15 years. Yet, there is still a decline in the number of evangelical teenagers? So is his show really an effective means of retention?

I consider myself an evangelical (Reformed), but sad to say it, most evangelicals, in general, are so muddled in their worldview and theology that maybe this is the result -- evangelical teen burnout! The sins of the parents visited on the children. We have lived such paltry, shallow Christian lives, why would a teen want to stay in the religion of his parents? In the end there is no difference between us and the world. But instead of this being a wake up call all we're going to do is take more polls and find the most pragmatic way to raise the numbers!. And you know what? In the end its really not about the numbers, but we don't get it.

Depart from Evil, and do Good.

2006-10-06T08:45:00.000-07:00

I’m still reading Calvin’s Commentary on Psalm 37, one of my favorite Psalms. One thing that shines in Calvin’s commentary is his understanding of the human condition. For example, verse 27, simply states “Depart from evil, and do good,” which on the surface seems like an easy statement; don’t do evil, but do good. Okay, that doesn’t sound hard, but wait…

…And here is the genius of Calvin because he immediately goes to the heart of the problem, because our nature is corrupted by sin, a simple state such as v. 27 is at odds with our (sinful) nature. We can't do good continually, and the good we do is severally tainted. Furthermore, we continually reject God’s blessings, which in and of itself is an evil act. Yet, we want to be happy regardless of the consequences of our actions!

Calvin highlights the duplicity of our ‘good’ acts, you know how we can do good for one person, yet be evil to the next, and it not bother us in the least. Not only does it not bother us to treat someone with evil, but we justify it by saying, “Hey, they deserve it!” or “They wronged me first, so I’m treating them just like they treated me!” This last statement has my name written all over it. I personally went through a horrible, painful divorce. So for the longest time I would justify evil acts toward her by saying “She deserved that!” Yet the Bible doesn’t let me off the hook for the way I treat her because she wronged me. Nope, I am to do good and depart from evil regardless of the actions of others against me. Oouch! This is some tough stuff!

During my roughest times I literally read and re-read Romans 12, telling myself that God is in control and He will take care of her. Oh, but revenge would have been so sweet! But that was not my responsibility; it was God’s. So I had to do good and depart from evil, which meant being amicable towards her, even though I was angry, sad and hurt.

(The beauty of Christianity is this: even though I will constantly struggle with doing good and departing from evil, I know that before God I am justified through the righteousness of Christ. I don't have to worry about my eternal state because I'm trusting in Christ. I'm not 'working' to obtain salvation in any way! -- I just had to point that out.)

Calvin goes on to discuss a lot more than what I mentioned, but it struck me that such a simple statement could be so hard to follow without the grace of God.

To God be the Glory

Things Haven’t Changed

2006-09-16T10:07:00.000-07:00

As part of my devotional, I’m reading Psalms 37 with Calvin’s Commentary. The first three verses read:

Do not fret because of evildoers. Be not envious toward wrongdoers. For they will wither quickly like the grass and fade like the green herb. Trust in the Lord and do good…(Ps. 37:1-3a, NASB)

Calvin states that it is with good reason why David "begins with the doctrine of faith or trusting in God." It is because "there is nothing more difficult for men than to preserve their minds in a state of peace and tranquillity, undisturbed by any disquieting fears, whilst they are in this world, which is subject to so many changes." As I read Calvin, I thought nothing has changed in Man’s attitude towards materialism. We get envious of the rich just as quickly today as they did in the 1550's. Nowadays it’s not just wanting riches, but also fame. I don’t know why, but we are just enamoured with fame and fortune.

I think part of the problem is the ubiquitousness of TV; it’s everywhere. Most homes in America probably have no less then two TV's. And we see everyday the story of any ordinary person vaulted to the top (or so we think) because of their exposure on TV. Think about Richard Hatch, the first winner of NBC’s Survivor series. He wouldn’t be famous (or infamous) without TV. He had his 15 minutes of fame and riches, regardless of his felony charges.

To get back on point, Calvin brings up an excellent point about the state of humanity. Without our attention directed towards something, we devolve into a selfish state of disrepair. We see the rich getting richer and we ask ‘why not I?’ And not having the ability to step back and say ‘is that really the most important thing?’ We become jealous and envious. We want what they have thinking that’s going to make us happy. As the Psalmist points out and Calvin elucidates, we need to trust in God to know He is the "author of all good, and that by his blessing alone prosperity is to be looked for," and that’s a very hard thing to do. But that is the only way we can overcome the muck and mire of our sad and miserable state.

Soli Deo Gloria

When the Levees Broke: Part II

2006-08-23T22:14:00.000-07:00

Acts III and IV where on HBO last night. The second part was not as good as the first part. But I think the weakness was inherit in the story. Let’s face it; politics can get messy and dirt. So when our political structure breaks down basically it’s a he said- she said match and nobody win. And it makes for a pretty weak storyline, too.

Spike tried to keep the emotions in the story, for example when he focused on the many bodies still being found in the houses after Katrina. One story in particular kept me awake last night. I tried to imagine what it would be like to find my mother dead under a refrigerator after four months, when search and rescue was suppose to have checked the house! That’s a true nightmare; one in which you are awake and can’t escape.

One thing I’m wondering about is, after such utter devastation, people still want to go back to New Orleans. WHY? Your house is destroyed, your livelihood is destroyed, and everybody left. I mean I can understand why those who have property would want to stay and give it a try. You’ve invested in a home for 20 years, so walking away is not your first option. But for the thousands who don’t have property, why go back? There is nothing there. New Orleans as they knew it, no longer exist.

I was left last night with the feeling that New Orleans will come back, but it will not be like before. There is going to be some changes, not just in the racial make-up of the city, but in the spirit of the city. New Orleans was a corrupt place (interesting Spike didn’t bring that fact up). and I think now that everything is exposed that corruption can’t happen anymore (or at least at the level pre-Katrina.) Why its so hard to get things done now is because officials can’t operate like the ‘good ol’days’. Those days are over. Welcome to the 21st century, New Orleans!

Interview with Terence Blanchard, Soundtrack Composer for "When the Levees Broke"

2006-08-22T11:53:00.000-07:00

Check this out! Here is an interview with Terence Blanchard, Soundtrack Composer for "When the Levees Broke".

When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts

2006-08-22T08:51:00.000-07:00

Last night I watched the first two acts of Spike Lee's documentary on the Katrina disaster in the 'Big Easy'. First, I liked the fact that Lee let the people who were actually there speak to tell their experience. He didn't overlay the story with an omnipotent narrator to lead you down a winding road of hersay or theories. You were looking in the faces of the victims who were there and had to experience one of the worst preventable disasters in recent American history.

It was befitting to call the documentary a requiem. New Orleans is known for jazz. In this case, the musical setting not only highlighted the plight of the natives but the overall feeling of sadness and foreboding. The score produced by Terence Blanchard, who also was displaced by Katrina, doesn’t overwhelm the movie, but highlights the faces and voices of those affected by this tragedy. It is this sense of tragedy that comes though the music as face after face is shown in despair and frustration. In one part of Act II there are pictures of children alone and wondering through the streets; you can’t help but think of your own children, nieces, or nephews in that horrible situation. You can do nothing but pause as the sublime music carries you to the depths of your soul.

It is a very compelling story of government failure at the highest levels. From the mayor to the president, our government failed at a time when something like should not have happened. Starting with Mayor Ray Nagin, Lee lets him talk and provide his defense concerning his actions from his initial order to evacuate to his meeting during day 5 with President Bush. There is, at a point, an unfair comparison between Nagin and former NYC mayor Gulianni. Based on the events that took place Katrina vs. 9/11 you should have different responses. I agree with Mayor Nagin when he states that 9/11 was a confined disaster while Katrina devastated a whole city. It would be comparable to the whole of Manhattan flooding affecting everybody in the city. Can you imagine a mass evacuation of Manhattan or Washington DC. But having said that I do think a comparison of leadership ability is inevitable. It hard for me to say what Mayor Nagin could or could not have done under those extreme circumstances. But it was obvious from the documentary’s perspective that all government officials had some blame. (Even though I think Lee was easy on the governor.)

I am looking forward to Acts III and IV, tonight. If it is anything like the first two acts it will be convicting. It’s hard to watch and not wonder how could this have happened to us? God have mercy on our souls.

What is the Church for?

2006-05-15T07:55:00.000-07:00

I had a very interesting conversation this past weekend. A friend of mine is going through a transition in his church, and so he is asking some basic questions about the Church. And you can't get more basic than what is the Church for?

I guess before you can ask what is the Church for you have to ask what is the Church. I think, simply put, the Church is the people of God. The earthly manifestion of the Body of Christ. Now for the hard part -- What does that mean? It's kinda hard to get your head wrapped around a concept like the "Body of Christ" or "the People of God." You know Israel was chosen by God and they didn't fair to well. Kinda makes you think what's instore for us modern folk?

After you figure out the primary function, purpose and goal of the Church, then hard part starts. You have to figure out your part in the Church! And that means serious self-examination, and then some serious action. Now that is the real 'existential' dilemma of our existences. If we really existence as the people of God, then what is our purpose in fulfilling our existence?

Providence: Revisited

2006-04-10T13:24:00.000-07:00

The Westminster Shorter Catechism states that God executes "His decrees in the works of creation and providence," and His "works of providence are, his most holy, wise, and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions."(Q. 8 & 11)

Besides reading the book 1776 by David MacCullough (see my review here), I've been struck by God's providential works that I see and hear about. For example, a friend related to me how she's seeing God's providential Hand work in her life as professional connections she has made years ago are coming around full circle. There was no way she could have known that the person she assisted with research a few years ago is aiding her search for a post-doctoral position, but God governed her actions, her associates actions, the time, the place, the conditions, the weather, etc., etc., etc. you get the point. As Ps. 103:19 states,

The LORD has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over all.(NASB)

As believers in the one true God, my friend and I can take comfort in the fact that God is actively 'preserving and governing' our lives and the world around us. "Bless the LORD, O my soul!"

The Crux of Christianity

2006-02-28T08:17:00.000-08:00

I was watching a PBS special on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and one of the interesting questions that came up was "Does the sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5- 7:27) embody Christianity?"

Bonhoeffer was influenced by a french theologian named Larrere at Union Theological Seminary in NYC. Larrere stressed the importance of the Sermon on the Mount as the essence of the Christian Faith. Because of that he was a pacifist (See Matt.5:39, "...But whosoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.")

Now, I don't agree that the Sermon on the Mount is the 'essence' of the Christian faith. The primary problem with this view is works righteousness. The Sermon on the Mount emphasized a standard of how people are to live if they really wanted to live according to God's law. Furthermore, the Sermon is not a complete picture of salvation. You can't read the Sermon on the Mount and know how you are saved from your sins. In fact, I would argue that the Sermon on the Mount convicts you of how far you are from living according to God's true law.

Furthermore, I would argue that the essence of Christianity is summed up in Paul's letter to the Romans. In Romans 10:9, "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved..."

Christianity isn't about following the law... it's about the fact that we can't follow the law, and are doomed to God's wrath and eternal misery . But, God in His graciousness has condescended to save a wretched sinner such as me through Christ, THEN out of a love for my Savior do I try and follow His commandments.

Finally, you can't get around the supernatural aspect of Paul's statement, "and believer in your heart that God raised Him from the dead," Christianity is not Christianity without the miracle of the resurrection. The Sermon on the Mount is important and should be studied and obeyed, but it is not the essence of Christianity...Christ and who he is...is the essence of Christianity.

Harry Potter, again!

2006-02-14T16:00:00.000-08:00

Recently, I had a conversation with a Christian friend about the Harry Potter series (books and movies). My friend argued that he wouldn't let his daughter, who is six years old, watch the Potter movies because of the blatant use of magic. In fact, my friend said that Harry Potter 'promoted' magic and in a sense made it seem like something attainable.

Now of course I disagreed, see my review on the Goblet of Fire. Fundamentalist Christian have shot themselves in the foot, again. The issue with the Harry Potter series is not the use of magic and witchcraft, that's a surface, the deeper issue is whether the Potter series is good literature (or a good story) or not. This is a clear case of focusing on the trees and not the forest.

J.K. Rowlings, for those who have read the book, (in most cases the Christians I've talked to about the series have NEVER read one book!) uses the magic as part of the fictional setting of the book. As Dr Jerram Barrs points out in his talk on Harry Potter,

The magic is simply a part of the imaginative worlds that Lewis, Tolkien, and
Rowling have created. In such an imaginary world, people can become invisible;
animals talk; mythical creatures like unicorns and centaurs exist; and rings and
spells work wonders.

The use of magic and witchcraft is not the main point of the books, and this is were most Christians get stuck. Dr. Barr also points out the following positive points about Harry Potter

1. These books are great fun (just consider a game like Quidditch!)

2. J.K. Rowling has created a delightful world of the imagination. She has
constructed an alternative universe, another dimension (rather like C. S. Lewis’s Narnia or J. R. R. Tolkien’s Middle Earth), but, right within our world.For those who have a problem with the idea of fantasy and alternative universes - we need to recognize that almost all children play imaginative games in their minds starting at a very young age and have no difficulty whatsoever in distinguishing between fantasy and reality.

3. The books are well written. Try reading them aloud – this is the simplest test of good writing.

4. The multitude of characters in the books. J.K. Rowling has brought into being an entire portrait gallery of people, adults and also children who are growing up book by book.

5. Additionally, the Harry Potter books send a strong message about moral behavior.There are beautiful and enjoyable human relationships among the characters, and there is a depth of commitment and service among them.The characteristics celebrated in the relationships are friendship, loyalty, integrity, kindness, and self-sacrifice. Harry Potter himself is prepared to set aside his own success, in order to serve his friends. These are qualities in which we can all delight. There is also a very clear portrayal of the distinction between good and evil — Both the appalling destructiveness of evil to human life And the beneficial fruit of treating people with justice, kindness, mercy, faithfulness, and integrity. It is particularly significant that the books recognize that goodness and faithfulness in relationships have a cost. Virtue is rewarded primarily in terms of character development and the increasing depths of relationships among the characters, rather than through the attainment of popularity or success. J.K. Rowling also has a very deep understanding of the folly of those who turn their eyes blindly towards evil and of evil’s destructive consequences.

6. Finally, I see the books as valuable because they consistently include the
three fundamental themes that can be found as a subtext in almost all good
literature: -The beauty of creation -The appalling reality of evil -The
universal human longing for redemption — for a better world -These themes touch
the way the world truly is, the way God has made it
Dr. Barr is not all incompassing in his assessment of Harry Potter, but one would have to note that beyond the magic there is something good about the series. Christians do a disservice by only focusing on the superficial aspects of literature and not on the ultimate questions of goodness, beauty and truth.

Lazarus, the Fourth Evangelist?

2006-02-14T12:46:00.000-08:00

Ben Witherington writes an interesting article for BAR titled "The Last Man Standing." In it, Dr. Witherington puts forth the possibility that it was Lazarus and not John who was the last man standing at the cross, and furthermore it was Lazarus and not John who wrote the Fourth Gospel. Also you can check out Dr. Witherington's web site here.

(Note: You have to subscribe to view the complete article.)

A President's Day Treat

2006-02-09T07:33:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading 1776 by David McCullough. If you don't understand God's work of Providence, then I would suggest reading this book. The confluence of people, events, and timing is amazingly displayed in McCullough's book.

I don't mean 1776 is a religious version of the American Revolutionary War, but what you do see in the pages of this narrative is that events outside the control of the individuals shaped the very outcome of the War. For example, Washington's retreat from Brooklyn was successful only because the British Navy didn't have a favorable wind to tack up river and thereby cut off the Continental Army's retreat. Or the fact that General Lee, second in command of the American Army, was captured by the British while eating breakfast freeing up Washington to eventually make his bold move on Trenton.

By every account the Continental Army should not have prevailed, and we should still be British subjects. The British were better equiped, more powerful, and commanded the seas, yet America came out the victor and won her independence. You definitely get a sense that it was only by the providence of God that America eventually won the war. I'm not implying that America is the new promised land or anything like that. But what I am suggesting is that all of history is God's History. The American's didn't win because of Washington's perseverance, as McCullough concludes, America won because of God's providence in Washington being in that time and in that place. As the Psalmist wrote, "The steps of a man are established by the LORD"(Ps. 37:23), that is something you can't really forget as you read 1776.

Engineering Dream Jobs (Is it Possible?)

2006-02-06T14:54:00.000-08:00

I've been an engineer for over 11 years now and I wouldn't call my current job a 'dream, (I'm a bridge engineer - hence the picture of a bridge). But I found an interesting article concerning engineering dream jobs. Check it out here.

My question is 'what constitutes a dream job?' Is it making a boat load of money? Or is it performing some task that just gives you immense joy? Or is it a job that gives you a little satisfaction at the end of the day? The article doesn't go into the 'philosophy' behind the 'dream job' only highlights 10 engineers who have their dream job. But the philosophy or "worldview" that motivates a person to seek a dream job interest me. Is there a standard which we all follow in seeking the job of our dreams? Is there some criteria for the ultimate dream job? To be honest, I don't know but it's interesting to ask the question, though.

I Found a New Reformed Blog...

2005-12-28T08:47:00.000-08:00

Check this blog out. It's called Soli Deo Gloria: the ramblings of two reformed guys!

Shawn and David tag team on various Christian related topics. Read one of their latest articles on what Christmas meant to Jesus (Note: it's not about receiving presents!)

Check it out!

True Christian Suffering

2005-12-28T07:44:00.000-08:00

I found this article on the BBC News website about Christians in the Middle East. Roger Hardy gives a brief overview of the plight of Middle Eastern Christians. It's not good. What is interesting is the pro-Palestinian Christians in comparison to the pro-Israeli evangelicals in America. Most Middle Eastern Christians are of the 'Orthodox' tradition and not protestants. That in and of itself is a huge difference, but now mix that with politics and you have an even larger rift.

What can be taken from the article is the belief that Christ is keeping his Church. There will always be a witness for Christ in the Middle East no matter how much suffering takes place. So my prayer is for the church 'invisible' in the Middle East that goes beyond sectarian distinctions. So even though it's disheartening to read "Once 15% of the Palestinian population in Israel and the West Bank, today Christians make up only 4%" that 4% is still a witness of Christ, and the gospel is still present.

Reformed vs. Charismatic: Some Quick Thoughts

2005-11-29T15:59:00.000-08:00

I've been lightly following the discussion in the blogosphere between cessationist and continualist/charismatics. It's interesting to me because I came out of the charismatic tradition into the reformed camp, so I think I have a interesting perspective on the whole subject.

First, it strikes me as odd that being reformed is limited to the view that God is sovereign and believing in TULIP. There is so much more to the reformed position that I haven't seen expressed. Such as, being confessional. To me you can't call yourself "reformed" unless you hold to one of the historic protestant confessions like the Westminster Confession or the Belgic Confession. A person might not hold to every point in their particular confession, but realize the importance of confessioning what one believes. Another point missing is the means of grace. Historically protestants believed that the Holy Spirit operates within the means of grace: Word and Sacrament. But you don't hear the importance of that with Reformed Charismatics.

Second, it doesn't seem clear to me whether continualist are debating about particular gifts of the Spirit, such as what Grudam explains in his systematic theology, or is it the work of the Holy Spirit that has cessed? The reason why I asked this question is because if its the latter than of course you have a red herring fallacy. It seems to me the view is reformed churches in general don't experience the presence of God. So now the 'reformed' believers that want to stay reformed, but have a personal experience with God want to find the 'middle ground.'

This leads me to my final point. Did the Reformed-Charismatics forget the historical Reformed view of the work of the Holy Spirit within the Church and within the believer? Because it is one thing to say that you want a personal experience with God, but it is another thing to say that experience has to be tongues and prophecy.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: A Book Review

2005-11-18T11:19:00.000-08:00

One of the pleasures (and also frustrations) is to compare a book with the movie version. It’s a pleasure because you look for those exciting markers in the movie that made the book so good. So, I set out to read the fourth book in the Potter’s series The Goblet of Fire before I venture to see the movie. So far I have enjoyed all the Potter movies, and book series (at least the books I've read). But, I heard that this particular book/ movie is a bit darker than the previous three movies. So I wanted to check this out myself. I found out that it is a darker story then the other three books, but there is an important reason why.

In the Goblet of Fire, you have the same cast of characters, but there is a definite edginess to the book that was not there in book one; it is Death. Death is real and palpable in this book. Rowlings introduces the theme of death in the first chapter with the unfortunate killing of a hapless muggle (a non-witch or wizard) and ends the book with the death of an innocent Hogwart student. She interwove this theme subtly through out the book by names like the Death Eaters, and how dangerous the even a Triwizard tournament can be. Previous books had characters that died, but death wasn’t in the foreground and holds such a major part of the plot.

J.K. Rowlings’ writing is fluid, yet descriptive. She has the ability to describe settings and surrounds, and character emotions in a crisp way that doesn’t allow the reader to get bogged down in minutia. For example, during the different Triwizard Tournament tasks, Rowlings active prose places you right in the middle of the action drawing layers upon layers of imagery to propel the reader along almost effortlessly.

Because she uses such a heavy theme as death, you could say that this book is Harry’s coming of age Book. By the end of the book you see Harry grow in maturity and depth that is heart warning and sad at the same time. The adolescent angst that is so typical of most light teen fair is offset by a dose of reality that is all to real. Death is real. It is painful, and The Goblet of Fire does not hide that fact, and shows through the adventures of a teenage wizard, a painful lesson we all learn in real life.

A Small Incident

2005-11-01T09:20:00.000-08:00

Frustration can be summed up in the on-going tug-of-war between children and parents. As a single father of three, at times this tug-of-war seems like a losing battle. I’m constantly on them to pick up this, straighten out that, or think about somebody else beside themselves. It is an ongoing effort to correct, teach, and sometime just maintain normalcy.

You never know, when that time will come where something you have taught your children will come to fruition. A lot of times those little moments come and go and we don’t notice them. They pass before us like the vapors of breath on a cold morning. We know something just happened, but in the whirlwind of life and routine that moment evaporates among the confusion and chaos of ordinary home life. But recently I was able to capture one of these moments with my son, where a change in his attitude showed something was getting through.

Nobody likes to get stuck in a bathroom with no toilet paper. Children, for some reason, think toilet paper appears on the dispenser like Christmas gifts under a tree. Sometimes they want to use it up as quickly as possible to glimpse the magical change from empty to full. My children are no exception. They will leave an empty cardboard role on the dispenser and expectedly wait for the toilet paper fairy, which is me, to place a full role. So that the next trip to the bathroom the process starts all over, again.

But I wanted to change the children’s attitudes from passively expecting to actively participating. So that meant they will change the empty role of toilet paper. Some parents, might think that this is minor and inconsequential; an ‘empty role-smole,’ who cares! But it’s the small things in life that sometimes have the biggest effect.

Recently, I spied an empty toilet paper role in one of the bathrooms, in which I know the culprit had just minutes before left the throne room with book in hand. “Eh, come change this toilet paper!” I let lose. For the toilet paper fairy is dead, I thought. This time no lectures followed noting how my son could help me with the household chores and basic maintenance. Or the speech of how “your part of the fabric of the family,” and “your role is as important as mine, son!” Cosby would be proud. But this time there was none of that; quick action was expected.

So I thought nothing more of it, just another incident in time. But the next thing I know my son is tells me we need more toilet paper. I’m thinking, okay I need to add that to the never-ending list of things to pick up for WalMart. “Dad, I’ve put two extra roles in your bathroom and two in ours,” my son tells me.

“Two extra roles?” I asked.
“Yeah, I took the rest out and replaced both bathrooms,” my son said. Then the moment hit me. As I thanked my son, I realized that he is getting a little more mature. Not only did he replace the empty role in the bathroom he used, but also he replenished both bathrooms! He took it upon himself to show a little bit more responsibility and care. My son was growing up and his awareness increase that day. Was he aware of this change? Probably not, but I was.

This time the vapor appeared, and I saw it briefly. It shimmered for a moment, as I sat and contemplated what just happened. I did not have to tell my son what to do; he did it himself. No poking or prodding from Father. I realized the process is working, slowly but surely it’s working. My child didn’t selflessly place his life on the line that day, nor did he win the Nobel Peace prize, but he did take on a little bit more responsibility than he had yesterday. I was blessed to notice that moment and see the beautiful process continue to unfold in our lives.

Some Reasons for Being Reformed

2005-10-25T12:28:00.000-07:00

Recently a friend asked me what is the impact of being a Reformed Christian vs. a Pentecostal Christian on my life. Here was my response:

I never really thought about it before because the journey for me was such a gradual shift from Pentecostalism to Reformed (it was over a 2 year period). But I do think that your question is a fair question given such a radical shift in ones theology. Reformed theology has changed my practical Christian walk in the following ways:
1.Christian liberty - Reformed theology has given me a sense of liberty that I did not have as a charismatic. My experience as a Pentecostal Christian was one of "you could not do this or that" because you’re a Christian. It’s well known that Pentecostals believe that drinking alcohol is a sin. But biblically that is not the case; it is getting drunk that is the sin. This is only one minor example, but typifies the legalism within Pentecostalism over Christian prudence. So I have become freer in a sense to enjoy wine, a good movie, a jazz club, etc. with out the guilt of thinking its sin.
2.Reformed theology’s doctrine of justification by faith alone has allowed me, first, to
clearly distinguish between justification and sanctification, then secondly, to free me from the constant feeling that I had to live a ‘perfect’ life or lose my salvation. Now I clearly understand that I am justified before God through faith in Christ work alone and not based on anything that I have done. And my obedience comes out of my love for God, not out of some feeling that I could lose my eternal position. I live a life of repentance knowing that I will struggle with sin until the day I die or Christ returns. But I also know that through the Holy Spirit’s effective application of Christ’s work of atonement, I am not a slave to sin and He has given me power to overcome sinful habits. I no longer have a fear that my eternal destiny is in jeopardy because I’ve sinned. Now I confess and repent of my sins and move on knowing all along that it’s God who is keeping me.
3.Reformed theology has allowed me to develop my intellect for the glory of God. Within the Pentecostal/ charismatic sects you have a very strong strain of anti-intellectualism. If you think about a theological issue or doctrinal point you are thought of as unspiritual. What makes it even worse is that it is subtle and undermines any intellectual endeavors. On the flip side I do acknowledge that within reformed circles there is an extreme intellectualism that disregards experiential forms of Christianity. I believe that is just as dangerous as the Pentecostal extremism.
So these are the three major practical implications of my change from Pentecostalism to the Reformed Faith. There are other practical implications such as how I view worship (God-centered as opposed to Man-centered), how I view the sacraments (baptism and the Lord’s Supper), and hermeneutics. There is also an historical context to my Christianity. Furthermore, I’m still working that out in the context of how do I as an African American fit within the reformed tradition. This is good because within traditional Pentecostalism there never was a historical context to
contend with.

My response in no way was meant to be all inclusive nor as a put down for Pentecostalism. Most people dont want to realize that what you believe affects how you act. This principle applies across the board, and especially to religious beliefs. Maybe we all should stop and think "What is the impact of this on my life?"

New Apologetics site

2005-09-12T09:42:00.000-07:00

Check out this Christian apologetics website here. I've listened to 3 lectures, so far and they were excellent and very thought provoking.

(HT: The Christian Mind)

Is This Art?

2005-07-23T00:34:00.000-07:00

This is an untitled piece by Nina Waisman a 7th term student at Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, CA.

In the Centers on words

Fundamental to Art Center's core curricula is a commitment to social and cultural engagement and giving students the tools and skills with which to effect change and address real-world issues.

Okay, if that is the case, and granted it sounds noble ( it does raise another question of what is arts primary purpose, but I'll get to that in another post), does the piece above engage the viewer 'socially and culturally'?

Now you could say the artist is making a statement about consumerism in society, but what? There are the funny shaped green "bottles" off-centered in the piece, that are lined up and passed off as part of the product placements. What can we infer from that? I don't know. To be honest, the artist would have to explain her piece of work to the viewer. It raises questions, but gives no answers. To sum it up this is post-modern-relativistic art. It has various meanings depending on the interpretation of the viewer. What you get out of it is what it means.

So, back to my original questions, "Is this art?" The postmodern response would be "it depends on what you think." Ahh, that is cultural engagement!

War of the World: A Movie Review

2005-07-15T09:24:00.000-07:00

Steven Spielberg has done it again. He has made another satisfying movie for the masses. I wonder how would it be to produce such art that is so thoroughly enjoyable to watch? Right now only Spielberg knows that feeling, as the movie industry suffers from a poor box office year. War of the Worlds, based on H.G. Wells’s 1898 novel of the same name, is about aliens attacking the earth.

Aliens’ attacking is a simple enough premise for a novel and a movie, but can it be pulled off successfully without being blasé? The answer is “Yes,” Spielberg takes Wells’s novel and from what I here is pretty faithful to its original intent crafts a movie that keeps you on edge for most of the time. Spielberg adeptly starts the movie by focusing on a mechanical beast of our own time – a container crane, in which the protagonist, Ray Ferrier, played by Tom Cruise nimbly removes a container from a ship. This scene foreshadows the mechanical monsters and their methodical way of picking off humans as easy as Ray picks up those metal containers. But this is only the beginning of some of the nuance film directing Spielberg displays in this movie that shows he is a master craftsman at what he does best – make movies.

The film creates a sense of tension and suspense from the first lightening strikes to the aliens burst out of the ground. This is also were the acting becomes key to the weight of the movie. Dakota Fannings’ character, Rachel Ferrier, the 10 year old daughter of Ray, shows the fear and tension an event like this would have on such a child. Sometimes her hollering gets tedious, but as the movie progresses you see the growth of her character as she controls her fears to save her and her Dad’s life. Ray’s son, Robbie, played by Justin Chatwin, seems a little to calm for the tense situation that’s taking place all around him. And the scene where Robbie defiantly marches towards the alien invaders as a military unit takes up defensive positions is just unbelievable and really strains the credibility of the movie. Tom Cruise is Tom Cruise. He has his typical “Cruise” swagger to fit his role as a deadbeat dad/longshoreman, but he does show some skill as he portrays a father trying to keep his family together.

The heart of this movie is a familial theme of how a man becomes a real Dad and not just a biological father. You see the growth of Ray from a loser dad, who gives up in relating to his children to one who, through this very stressful situation, develops a bond that cannot be broken. As Paul Clinton at CNN.com points out, the son-father relationship could have been left totally out of the movie, and it probably would have made the movie better. The scenes with the son were the weaker moments in the film.

Now as a sci-fi fan I did notice some inconsistencies in the films portrayal of the alien invaders. Some of these missteps included the lack of mother ships or aerial assault crafts. Obviously, the aliens have the capabilities because there is a scene that shows how the aliens get into the mech monsters to start the attack. You would think that a blitz like this would include air and ground assault. (I just though about it, but maybe Spielberg wanted to stay away from any comparisons to the alien aerial attack in the blockbuster Independence Day movie. But it would just make sense that these aliens would have spacecraft!) Another faux pas is the lack of infrared capabilities of the aliens. These are highly advanced creatures with amazing technological equipment, yet they can’t see the heat signatures of humans behind a wooden wall? C’mon! There is a scene in which Spielberg lets the viewer see what the alien invaders see as they look on the face of an obviously petrified Rachel. But that move just solidifies the flub by an otherwise solid director.

Finally, I liked Spielberg’s allusions to the 9/11 tragedy and his other alien movies, E.T. and Close Encounters they were not over the top nor overly sentimental. Spielberg is at the top of his game and he knows it. He manipulates each scene to full effect to make a thriller of a movie that is both enjoyable and suspenseful at the same time. I can definitely go on that ride again.

“Why Read Old Books?”

2005-07-12T08:29:00.000-07:00

This was the response of my son when I told him that he had to read J. Verne’s’ 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. According to my son this book is old and boring, (Just think if I had him read the Illiad, he would have went into convulsions.) So, why should my son have to read old books? Is not The Adventures of Captain Underpants good enough?

Since I was not raised with Classical literature, and as one who came late to the game what could I say to my son concerning this question? Any reading when compared to video games is “boring.” In video games you have the imagery created for you, in books you have to create the imagery. For example, in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Captain Nemo isn’t some 2-D character on the screen (Okay 3-D for PS2 and above) as the reader you have to take Julius Verne’s words and imagine Captain Nemo, that is work and nowadays anything relating to work is ‘boring.’ Video games, with the whiz, bang of exciting flashes, character and even storylines is passive entertainment. My son is a spectator in a world that is already created for him.

So it seems like old books don’t have a chance in today’s video game drenched society. So how did I defend my requirement for my son to read the ‘old books’? First, I told him that most things that are truly worthwhile you have to work for it, and that includes the reading of classical literature. As I admitted above I came late to the game. I read Homer’s Odyssey for the first time last year. It was not an ‘easy’ endeavor to get through 24 chapters of Greek epic poetry, but it was well worth the struggle. I was able to examine the idea of Greek heroes and ancient virtues and juxtapose those ideas against our modern understanding of heroes. Furthermore, I was able to get a deeper understanding of what it means to be a leader, as portrayed by Odysseus. I could not have gotten this from a video game no matter how good the graphics are, or the storyline.

Second, like the Book of Ecclesiastes says ‘there is nothing new under the sun,’ and that it definitely true for stories. There are no new themes in modern stories, but variations of the themes that have been around since ancient times. Even the storylines in video games borrow from classical literature with spruced up graphics and player interaction. The Legend of Zelda by Nintendo has overtures to Homer’s Odyssey and Virgil’s Aeneid. But my son will never see the connections and allusions unless he reads the original works.

Well, my son was not convinced by my argumentation. It came down to I, the father, telling my son what he will read this summer or he will not play the very video games he so much loves. I was hoping that my son would desire to read these old books on his own and explore, through story, the very world that God has created, but it wasn’t so. I pray that in the end he will appreciate what I had him do this summer in reading the ‘old books’ so that when he has a son (or daughter) he will explain the “why do read old books.”

Jack of All Trades, Master of None...

2005-07-08T22:18:00.000-07:00

Now that I have a master's degree in Christian Apologetics I have to admit that I really don't know to much. I'm not trying to be humble, just honest. There is so much out there just concerning Christian apologetics that a person could spend YEARS on just one subject!

For example, I love biblical archaeology! But there are so many issues concerning biblical archaeology it's just amazing. Look at Hershel Shank and his Biblical Archaeology Review! He has made a living highlighting various archaeological controversies around the Bible, such as the shroud of Turin. (Is it really the image of Christ?) But I've discovered one thing about archaeology; everybody approaches the "facts" with some type of presupposition, which I don't have a problem with. I just want the "experts" to acknowledge it.

I've come to the realization that some questions will never be answered this side of glory. We will never really know how God form Adam and Eve. Nor will we know what the world was really like before the flood, or Moses' experience at the burning bush. But does that mean that we stop asking questions or challenging our assumptions? I hope not! One thing I do know is that humanity has the God-given ability to question ourselves and our surroundings, so I may never know the answer, but I will always pose the questions.

Change is in the air...

2005-07-07T07:31:00.000-07:00

I am finally settling down from two months of going back and forth from LA to Sac for work. Now I get back to some semblance of a routine.

My blog has been in disarray and unused for awhile, but that is soon to change. I'm planning to update regularly and to post often. So stay tune...

Hey Lucie! I'm Home....

2005-06-03T23:46:00.000-07:00

Finally finished school! Well, almost, I have to finish one final paper for my epistemology class. I'm writing on the postmodern role of scripture. Here is a quote from a postmodern theologian, Brad Kallenberg

Outsiders can read the Bible but cannot read the Scriptures because the term Scripture epitomizes the stance one takes toward the moral authority of the canonical text. (Taken from Virtues & Practices in the Christian Tradition: Christian Ethics after MacIntyre, edited by Nancy Murphy, Brad J. Kallenberg & Mark Thiessen Nation.)

Very interesting to say the least. Postmodern Christianity is a very slippery subject. On the surface it sounds okay, but once you start lifting the layers of rhetoric, it gets kinda' smelly! Take Kallenberg's statement above, for example. Does the Bible have moral authority over non-believers? Traditional Christianity would say, "Yes!" But, Kallenberg would say "not really." According to Kallenberg and other Postmodern theologians one would have to be an insider. He goes on to state

Using Scripture as the lens through which life is viewed, one becomes capable of learning to see in a whole new way. Assuming this stance is identical to becoming an insider to the believing community.

See at first I would not have a problem with Kallenberg's statement. I do believe Scripture for a believer is life changing, but is the Scripture only authoritative to believers? Will God not hold unbelievers accountable for His revealed Word because they are not in "the believing community"? Because they don't accept the Bible as Scripture? If the Bible is only authoritative to Christians because they are within the believing community, then are we just fooling ourselves?

It doesn't sound right once you start asking biblical questions? Hopefully over the next few weeks I will share some of the things that I'm learning about Postmodern Christianity.

Time ain't long...

2005-05-13T22:01:00.000-07:00

When I was "being initiated" into my fraternity(not to be named), we use to sing a song

Time aint long
for (name of fraternity)
to cross those burning sands
of (name of fraternity)

The other "pledges" and I would chant this as we approached the day we were to become full members of the frat. I kind of feel like that now. I am close to graduating and finishing school, finally! And all I can think of is "Time ain't long..."

Whoa Nellie!!!

2005-04-24T15:21:00.000-07:00

I just love my day of rest! Maybe I'm just the odd man out, but I'm thanking God for the Christian Sabbath. After a very busy week, with work, class, children, cooking, cleaning, writing, and researching, come Sunday I truly enjoy my day of rest.

When Christ said the Sabbath was made for man, all I can say is "Praise the Lord for that!" What better day than the Lord's Day to rest and rejoice with family and friends. Oh yeah, I do think that a good dose of fellowship with fellow believers is great on the Lord's Day.

Sometimes I get the sense that we don't want to slow down. It's so easy to schedule something on a Sunday and so hard not to. But we make the choice to run ourselves raggedy and all for what?

Now I'm not a strict Sabbath guy, if I feel like going to say to a resturant on Sunday - I'll go. But what I started doing was examining my own heart and motives. Do I need to go to that resturant, or to a movie? Couldn't I spend the time with my children or reading a good devotional, or taking a nice nap? Mind you this is all after I come home from church. I believe that the Christian Sabbath is a holy day for the Lord. You can glorify God by spending time with your children and not the TV. Or fellowshiping with other believers.

I think the focus for this one day should be off the outside world, and on our relationship with God, family and friends. The Westminster Confession of Faith states

This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employements and recreations, but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (WCF, XXI.8)

Basically let's put this in horsie terms, "Whoa Nellie! - slow down!" We need to take advantage of what God has given us, a day of rest. I think he knows what we need, don't you?

Soli Deo Gloria

What's Happening, Mr. Carta'...

2005-04-22T20:45:00.000-07:00

Man, haven't blogged in awhile. I've been doin' ALOT of writing offline for my classes. Tough, tough, tough! But this is it (at least for now!).

I'm still swinging through the blog-o-sphere and I've seen some good stuff. Such as

Keith Plummer's blog at The Christian Mind. The only question I have is how is KP able to write such looong post (yet well thought out)?
OR
Doug's blog at Coffeeswirls. I swung to Doug's blog by way of Colin's Blogma: Dogma for the Idle Brain. Doug has an interesting post on writer's block.
OR
The tagteam of Mr. & Mrs. Peperium at Patum Peperium. Even though they're Roman Catholic, they have some good stuff to say.
AND
Dawn Eden's distinctly NYC Christian blog The Dawn Patrol. Dawn is a Jewish Christian Music Maven living in the city that never sleeps!

Sometimes I'm really surprised at the level of writing and insight in the blog-o-sphere. Considering that 99% of sphere is g-a-r-b-a-g-e to find something that makes you stop and think is good.

Hopefully, one day I can obtain that level and be able to make people think about the world God has placed us in. 'Nuff Said!

Drinking From a Fire Hydrant

2005-04-08T19:40:00.000-07:00

Wow! I just came from a inro lecture on epistemology (the study of how do we know what we know?) given by J.P. Moreland. Some of the highlights include:

4 important questions in Epistemology-

1) What is knowledge and justified belief? (Okay, I'm tracking; It sounds easy)
2) Do we have knowledge and justified belief? (Alright, I'm still with you.)
3) What is the structure of ones noetic structure that best accounts for knowledge? (Okay, I'm lost!)
4) How do we know what we know and what is the extent of knowledge? (Huh, what is the extent?)

Dr. Moreland knows his 'stuff' because we covered a huge amount of information in three hours of class lecture, from learning that epistemology is a normative endeavor to dealing with skeptics from a particularist point of view.

Epistemology is one of the key philosophical categories in today's apologetic endeavor. Most people I've talked to tend to be relativist. (That's okay for you to believe, and I can believe something totally different. It's all good! - sort of attitude.) So your approach is automatically epistemological. (I've also ran into just, plain ignorant people - but that's a whole other story.)

It all comes down to "how do you know?" The essential question of epistemology. As a Christian apologist, we have to be at the top of our game, and J.P. Moreland is Micheal Jordan of the game.

Update: This happened yesterday, but due to technical difficulty I wasn't able to publish it. For some stinging reason (not my own) Blogger kept messin' up. I couldn't publish anything. But now it's cool.

Living Will (for Terri)

2005-04-06T10:12:00.000-07:00

This is what my friend emailed me concerning Terri Shiavo. My Response is below.

Subject: Living Will

I, _________________________ (fill in the blank), being of sound mind and
body, do not wish to be kept alive indefinitely by artificial means.

Under no circumstances should my fate be put in the hands of peckerwood
ethically challenged politicians who couldn't pass ninth-grade biology if
their lives depended on it.

If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a
cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better. When such a
determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and
attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day.

Under no circumstances shall the hypocritical members of the Legislature
(State or Federal) enact a special law to keep me on life-support
machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business,
and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the
millions of Americans who aren't in a permanent coma.

Under no circumstances shall any politicians butt into this case.

I don't care how many fundamentalist votes they're trying to scrounge for
their run for the presidency, it is my wish that they play politics with
someone else's life and leave me alone to die in peace.

I couldn't care less if a hundred religious zealots send e-mails to
legislators in which they pretend to care about me. I don't know these
people, and I certainly haven't authorized them to preach and crusade on my
behalf. They should mind their own business, too.

If any of my family goes against my wishes and turns my case into a
political cause, I hereby promise to come back from the grave and make his
or her existence a living hell.

Signature_______________________________
Witness________________________________
DATE__________

My Response:
I guess we're on the opposite sides of the fence on the Terri Shiavo issue. The Living Will piece was comical, but full of misinformation and ad hominem attacks. For example, a feeding tube is not considered "artificial means." Terri slowly starved to death over 13 days. If she wasn't in any pain, then why did they give her morphine?

"If a reasonable amount of time passes and I fail to sit up and ask for a
cold beer, it should be presumed that I won't ever get better. When such a
determination is reached, I hereby instruct my spouse, children and
attending physicians to pull the plug, reel in the tubes and call it a day."

Her husband never allowed Terri to have any type of therapy, so she would have never sat up by herself, and to pull the plug would imply she was on life support; she wasn't. This is definitely an equivocation. Is the issue quality of life (i.e. how much can she regain her former life) or is artificial life support? Clarity is key, but obviously that is not the point of this Living Will.

"Under no circumstances shall the hypocritical members of the Legislature
(State or Federal) enact a special law to keep me on life-support
machinery. It is my wish that these boneheads mind their own damn business,
and pay attention instead to the health, education and future of the
millions of Americans who aren't in a permanent coma."

Congress did not enact a special law to keep her on life support. They enacted a law for judicial review of the facts of her case, which they did not do. Its basically similar to judicial review of a death penalty case. The fact that the judges did follow the law worries me a whole lot more than Congress. The fact that judges can overrule Congress by fiat is amazing to say the least. Furthermore, Terry was not in a permanent coma.

The Terri Shiavo case is by no means an easy issue. There are a lot of question on both sides of the fence like the motives of her husband (living with his girlfriend and their two children), further brain scans to determine her mental state, and the possibility of therapy. This really would not have been an issue if she was on a respirator and brain dead, but she wasn't. What would have been wrong with looking at all the options and erring on the side of life? I definitely don't know all the answers, but it's far more serious then the Living Will lets on.

Revelation over Research...

2005-04-05T08:44:00.000-07:00

I guess I shouldn’t be amazed at the op-ed section of the NYtimes. Paul Krugman’s article in today’s online edition is one of those jaw dropping openly biased articles.

Krugman posits a reason why liberals outnumber conservatives at the university level even in science and engineering. His reason: Conservatives value revelation over research & generally don’t respect science or research. Therefore, “It shouldn't be surprising that scholars have returned the favor by losing respect for the Republican Party.”

His major example, of course, is evolution. According to Krugman, conservatives aren’t interested in the “mountain’s of evidence” that supports evolution. This view is driving conservatives to place politics above course content at universities.

Does anybody else, besides me see some serious problems with Krugman’s argument? First, it’s overly simplistic. Furthermore, he misses the point in the debate over evolutionary theories in science. Conservatives are not disregarding the “mountains of evidence.” We just admit that scientist have to interpret that mountain of evidence in light of a given worldview. It’s called “philosophy of science.”

It’s not the science or research conservatives don’t respect it’s the interpretation of the research we don’t respect. That is a huge difference. But Krugman doesn’t see that difference because in his mind it’s a done deal. Wow! And this guy gets a column in the New York Times.

Christian Community

2005-04-04T07:17:00.000-07:00

I haven't blogged in awhile, but I had to blog about my experience at Trinity Christian Reformed Church in Artesia pastored by 21st Century Reformation blogger, Pastor Brad Hightower. I actually found out about Trinity Christian Reformed Church through Brad's blog. Like Brad, I believe that community is very important within the Christian faith. But I've also noticed, at least within the reformed circles, community means this or that particular "clique."

So when I noticed Brad discuss on his blog how important community is I took notice. I was intrigued with the church. I knew Brad can talk the talk, but can he walk the walk? A visit to his church would tell the truth. I was apprehensive at first as I walked through the front doors, but I slowly relaxed as settled into my pew seat.

The sense of community that Brad speaks about in his blog is definitely there in his church. There was friendliness and warmth from the people that seemed genuine and sincere. After the worship service members approached me with friendly smiles and handshakes that didn’t seem false or ostentatious.

A sense of community was there in the instant connections made with some of the members. Being a Biola student probably helped because I found out that there were more than a few Biola alumni in the congregation. Being an African American Christian who has attended several predominately white churches, I can sort of sense when people are truly comfortable around me and when it’s a forced act. I have to say that I truly felt a comfort from the members that didn’t seem fake at all.

This showed itself in the fact that I received two separate lunch invitations after church that caused me some confusion. (I want to apologize to the nice couple with the pregnant wife who invited me for lunch and I wasn’t able to accept.) I honestly have to say that has never happened to me before. To actually receive two separate and sincere lunch invitations felt really good. Inside I truly felt a sense of Christian community. These people didn’t know me and I didn’t know them, but I experienced first hand the Scriptures exhortation for hospitality among believers.

So what started out to be an uncomfortable morning turned out to be a wonderful time of community and true fellowship among Christian’s working out their “salvation with fear and trembling.”

Dear Frankie - Movie

2005-03-21T14:47:00.000-08:00

This past weekend I finally had a chance to go to the movies. I tagged along with a group of friends who were seeing Dear Frankie. Now, just from the previews I was not terribly interested in watching this movie, but I figure I could tolerate it with good company.

Dear Frankie is about a single mother and her deaf son, Frankie, on the run from her abusive husband. The boy doesn’t know that his real father was like that but thinks he’s a sailor on a freighter ship. This is due in a very large part to his mother who has been writing her son posing as the father.

The mother’s mendacity comes initially from a somewhat twisted sense of love for her son, but we learn that the letters were more for her benefit than for her son. This is only one of the perplexing parts about the film that the director never develops fully. In fact, there are several plot holes and story inconsistencies that leaves you feeling less than satisfied at the end. For example, there is obviously a budding relationship between the mother and the stranger she hires to impersonate the father. The stranger (we never find out his real name) is bold enough to request another day with Frankie and the mother, but never pursue the relationship any further than a kiss goodbye. That brings up the whole issue of the stranger in the first place. If the mother truly wants to protect her son wouldn’t the truth be safer than finding a strange man to play the father?

The one part of the film that actually satisfied me was the resolution of the mother's lying to her son, even though it was resolved with the biggest plot hole in the movie. (Don’t read any further if you don’t want to know what happens). The son, through sheer magic knows that the stranger was not his father. The audience is never told how the boy finds out, but by the boy knowing that his mother made up the story it doesn’t justify her actions in the lest. I felt the movie was leaning towards justifying the mother’s action, but in the end, without being judgmental, the movie resolves that issue and kind-of-sort leaves a happy ending.

All in all I would suggest waiting for the video. It’s definitely a Hallmark Made-for-TV presentation, and that’s probably were they should have stuck it.

Cowardice or Conscientious?

2005-03-18T09:27:00.000-08:00

I just read an interesting article in the NYTimes. It's about the soldiers who are deserting for various reasons during this war. As a Naval Reserve officer on inactive status this article hits home. Even though I'm on inactive status, if the President calls my number I could be going to Iraq.

Maybe I'm tending to look at life in simply black and white. These soldiers signed up to serve our country. Now that a war has ensued they want to back out for what ever reason. What about their oath? What about duty? Not to mention honor? I wonder if it's death that they really fear. The reason why I say that is because the article mention soldiers that served in Iraq who are now conscientious objectors. They know first hand the face of death, and like Marlow in The Heart of Darkness, they have witness true darkness. It's probably a very frightening thing to come so close to mortality and a sense of your finitude face to face.

I wonder would it have been appropriate to ask, "Are you afraid to die?" And what would be their response. That would have been interesting, very interesting to find out.

African American Leaders

2005-03-11T10:30:00.000-08:00

I have to agree with LaShawn, there is something patronizing about the claim that African Americans need African American leadership. The RNC’s move to set up the African American Advisory Committee for the sole purpose of bringing together African American Leaders together as a "sounding board for Republican outreach efforts" is commendable, but who are the so-called ‘African American leaders’ that will speak for me?

I live in the Los Angeles area, probably considered the second most liberal part of California next to San Francisco. And as an African American conservative Christian, I can say with pretty much absolute certainty there are no African American leaders that speak for me. Personally, I don’t need one either. First of all just because a supposed leader has similar skin color to mine does that automatically mean we hold to the same values or ideas?

Granted, historically Blacks had specific leaders that I would consider true leaders. But these leaders focused on improving the conditions of blacks based on the common ideas that all humans are created equal in the sight of God. Frederick Douglas comes to mind as one of these true African American leaders. Douglas came along during a time where the concern of any social reformer was the abolition of slavery and the equality of the African people in America. First, slavery and then equality focused Douglas. To read more on Fredrick Douglas click here.

Now compare that to today’s supposed African American leaders. First of all African Americans are not galvanized behind civil rights anymore. We have overcome that hurdle. Read La Shawn’s article to understand why we don’t need Black leaders.

Blacks come in all shapes, sizes, colors, creeds, and confessions. We are as diverse as the Jews are in America, but you don’t see the need for Jewish leadership only African American leadership. If other racial groups don’t have leader, we don’t need them either. So why doesn’t somebody ‘lead’ that idea?

My First and Last Words on Michael Jackson

2005-03-02T07:36:00.000-08:00

I truly don't understand the brouhaha about MJ. I mean I loved the Thriller album when I was growing up, and respected MJ as a pop icon. But is his trial worthy of being front page news?

Let's look at the face value of MJ. He is a pop singer. His influence beyond his music is minimal. There are no ideas, knowledge, concepts, or discoveries that will be passed down from him to future generations; he will have no significance in 30 yrs.

So again why the brouhaha over his trial? I personally feel sadness and disgust about his situation. On the one hand, disgusted at the implications of molesting children to the sadness that he was blessed with a gift to entertain people but will be remembered for this spectacle.

The Privileged Planet

2005-02-28T22:44:00.000-08:00

Dr. Jay Richard with the Discovery Institute in Seattle spoke Monday at Biola's Christian Apologetics Defending the Faith series.

Dr. Richards presented a quick and 'dirt' cumulative case argument for intelligent design. I though his argument was very interesting. To sum it up, his argument for intelligent design is "habitability correlates with measurability...The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provides us with the best overall conditions for scientific discovery."

Earth's habitability allows us to pursue scientific discoveries, such as observations of a solar eclipse (this was the example Dr. Richards used).

There is a book and DVD out, which explains this hypothesis more in depth called The Privileged Planet. It sound like something I will have to check out.

Empty Lives...

2005-02-27T18:30:00.000-08:00

The Academy awards are over, with back slapping probably continuing for the rest of the week. But it's not the awards ceremony that I want to take aim at, it's a statement by a woman who won front row seats to the Oscar show.

"I've always wanted to do this," said 48-year-old Pam Ford, who won front-row seats from a TV station and brought three friends. "To win and sit in the front row, it's beyond comprehension, anything I ever dreamed of. I could die tomorrow." (see complete article here.)

Now I know that in the heat of excitement and exuberance, we tend to say things that are over the top. But, Pam's statement strikes me as profoundly sorrowful. I don't know Pam from Adam so this is not directed at her per se, it's directed at society in general.

If the biggest night in Pam's life is attending the Oscar awards, then what does that say about her life? Is it so empty and shallow that to be in the audience is the apex of her existence where by for her to pass from this earth she would have had a wonderful life?

I don't believe that Pam would be the only one to have that feeling about Oscar night, I believe a majority of people would probably feel the same. We spend our time in front of the TV or movie screen watching actors and actress portray stories that become a part of our lives, a part of our psyche. Wouldn't it be great to be apart of that 'world' for just one minute?

But what about the real lives that we are living? Have we lived it to the fullest? Or are we hoping and wish for a better life portrayed as on the screen?

The truth hurts sometimes. And I think if most of us reflect on the true nature of the life we live it would hurt, and probably hurt deep. All those missed opportunities to do better, to make more money, to have true love, etc, etc, etc. The list could go on and on. But God has provided something that we rarely think about: forgiveness.

We need to forgiven ourselves of the past mistakes and seek forgiveness from others. Then we need to move on with our lives towards more meaningful and fulfilled lives. Truth be told that's the hard part, but also the most rewarding. God did not place us here to find fulfillment in watching others act out the life we wish we had. No we are to live the life God had given us to the fullest.

Peter Kreeft Lecture at Biola

2005-02-25T20:33:00.000-08:00

Tonight Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christian philosopher, spoke tonight on the Culture of Death and the Culture of Life. You can check out his personal website here. Professor Kreeft lectured on the two distinct cultures that inhabit society. The culture of death is the one that is obviously prevailing in our current society.

Kreeft spoke from a distinctly Roman Catholic perspective, which was very interesting giving that Biola is a protestant school. But he did not shy away from his Catholicism. I like that because so many time we are afraid to state our true position for fear of offending someone.

I could also tell that Kreeft truly believed in the pro-life position. He believes that the only way to conquer this culture of death is through Christ. Pope John Paul's "new evangelization" of showing Christ to the culture of death is the way to proceed. Basically, that means change "sinners into saints." It was very interesting to hear this noted Christian philosopher speak in such frankly Christian terms. I was expecting more of a philosophical treatise on life and its importance, but Kreeft took a decidely pastoral stance.

He knew he was speaking to the choir, and use that to his advantage. He quoted liberally from the Bible, and challenged the audience in a rhetorical way to "look it up."

One issue that was real interesting was his use of "white magic" vs. "black magic." Kreeft was in no way shy about the need for a supernatural answer to this war of cultures. We can not defeat this culture of death; it must be defeated from above. "Exocist are needed" was a memorable statement, yet unpacked.

Another interesting topic was this culture of death desire to have immortality. There is a concerted effort in society to live longer and longer. Kreeft called it the desire to create heaven on earth. But instead creates a living hell.

Selfless love and contemplation were two themes that Kreeft stressed to the audience. First, love of others is an imperative. Quoting C.S.Lewis we need to put first things first and ourselves a far second. Second, living a life of contemplation is important to defeating this culture of death. We need to contemplate God more and turn towards him. Bring up contemplation seem to really chime in with the spiritual formation movement.

Part of me agrees that sometimes we always feel like we have to 'do'. But, in our hurried motion we miss God. God tells us to first seek His kingdom and righteousness, but I think we are to busy seeking other kingdoms.

The night was wrapped up with questions from the audience.

World Religion and Science Class

2005-02-23T21:53:00.000-08:00

Tonight was my 3rd class session. The professor continued his discussion on Judaism, but emphasized the more conservative branch and it's teachings on the origin of the universe. Right now my head is swirling with , big bang, anthropic principle, Imago Dei, etc. But on thing that stood out was the question of primitive cultures.

One of the students had asked during a discussion on the difference in degree or kind with humanity and animal, what about primitive cultures and is that "proof" for the difference in degree of humanity from animals?

First, I think primitive cultures can be examined and explained within the context of the Imago Dei. There are attributes that we can point to to say " They are human" and not some bipedal animal. I think the issue of primitive cultures actually give naturalist more problems to reconcile then Christians. Why? Because how do they justify the stance that they are human and not some subspecies of man? You could argue that they are not technologically advance as modern man? The reason being they (primitive culture man) is not intellectually as advance as modern man. But we all know that the naturalist would shudder at the thought of an inferior primitive man. Yet, in their worldview there would be no answer as to why shouldn't primitive man be considered inferior.

It would be an interesting question to pose to a naturalist.

Dennis Prager's Happiness Hour

2005-02-18T10:35:00.000-08:00

Dennis Prager has a once a week happiness hour. Today's topic hit the nail on the proverbial head. He started discussing how women aren't happy with raising their children because there is no recognition from society that being a stay at home mom is an achievement.

Dennis Prager pointed out that society's attitude is wrong concerning this whole issue. What is more important than raising a child to be a productive, healthy, stable adult? There is a tendency to look at stay at home mom's (and pops) as not truly achieving anything. But it's totally not true. The achievement is definitely not immediate, nor glamorous. I could understand why a woman would think that just because she's receiving a paycheck that she is achieving more, as opposed to being at home managing rugrats. Therefore, there is an immediate sense of gratification because they are seeing the fruits of their labor. But raising a child and taking care of a husband and home doesn't give an immediate sense of gratification.

I don't have the answers but I think there needs to be a real shift in our thinking concerning this issue.

The Apostle Paul's Tomb

2005-02-18T10:30:00.000-08:00

Archaeologist have possibly found the tomb of the Apostle Paul. Read article here.
Due to the serious nature of the find. It will probably be a while before they confirm that Paul is buried there.

The Simplicity of the Gospel

2005-02-16T09:16:00.000-08:00

I had a wonderful experience with my children last night. During our family devotional, my youngest( 5 years old) asked how can she go to heaven. (We're reading through the Gospel of Luke and chapter 21 deals with end times). So I explained to her that all she has to do is ask God to forgive her of her sins and trust in Jesus Christ that he paid the price of our sinfulness on the cross. My daughter puts her face in her hands and said a silent prayer.

My oldest son then asked "How does she know what she's just done? Isn't she to young to even understand?" His voice was agitated and serious, as he asked the questions.

"Ah, that is the beauty of the Gospel," I said. "It's simple enough for a child to understand."

On some level my daughter believes that she is going to heaven because she believes that Christ died on the cross for her sins. Does she understand the complexities of the theology of the Gospel? No. But, I believe she does understand forgiveness and trust.

I explained to my oldest son that I have a duty to teach my daughter as well as him what it means to be a Christian. Simply put we are to trust in Jesus Christ for our salvation. And out of obedience and love for God, we are to do good works. (At this point I read eph 2:8-10 to them.) The uniqueness of Christianity is the sole fact that its only through faith in Christ that one is saved. All other religions depends on the good works of the person to obtain heaven, nirvana, higher enlightenment, paradise, etc. In Christianity we depend on the righteousness of another.

I could tell my son was contemplating what I had said. On the surface, the Gospel message seems to simple and counter-intuitive to human nature. But the Gospel is simple and elegant enough for a 5 year to understand.

To God be the Glory.

Evolution vs. Creationism part#1

2005-02-14T11:51:00.000-08:00

I was surfing the net to find the latest information out there on evolution. As a Christian apologist I want to know the popular arguments and propaganda that's out "there." So I did a google search and found a site called Understanding Evolution: An Evolution Website for Teachers. On a superficial level the website is very well done. It's easy to understand and easy to navigate.

But as I was going through the site I noticed some of the more obvious errors. For example, it list one of the main misconceptions of evolution as "Evolution and Religion are incompatible." It's response goes like this

Response: Religion and science (evolution) are very different things. In science (as in science class), only natural causes are used to explain natural phenomena, while religion deals with beliefs that are beyond the natural world. The misconception that one has to choose between science and religion is divisive. Most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution or other scientific findings. In fact, many religious people, including theologians, feel that a deeper understanding of nature actually enriches their faith. Moreover, in the scientific community there are thousands of scientists who are devoutly religious and also accept evolution.

First, religion and science are different, but not mutually exclusive. Religious beliefs affects one worldview concerning the natural world. Secondly, evolution specifically contradicts a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of the beginning of life. Another website, in its FAQ section states

Certainly it[evolution] contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, but evolution is a scientific principle, like gravity or electricity...If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

This is honesty that I like. The previous website tries to white wash the difference, but in reality its just not true. The Bible specifically states that God created the animals and then he created man from the ground separately from the animals. Evolution theory holds that there is a common descent of all species. These two views are mutually exclusive. I applaud their attempt at smoothing over the differences, but above all else one must be true.

Speaking of Art...

2005-02-13T18:29:00.000-08:00

The New York Times reported that the artist Christo and his wife Jeanne-Claude unveiled "The Gate" in Central Park today. The Gate is a bunch of orange panels with hanging orange fabric. These panels are placed throughout Central park as sort of an orange gateway.

It cost $21 million to produce this 'art,' which was mostly paid for by the artist. This is a further continuation of conceptual art, 'art as idea' a conception in the mind of the artist. As I read the article in the NY Times, the acceptance of this type of art was a forgone conclusion. What made this art was not the fact that it added to the aesthetics of the park, no it was art because the artist said it was art. In fact Christo goes as far as defines the very purpose and meaning of his art.

I look at Christo's work, and think "the emperor has no clothes." But neither does the everybody else.

Christian Art

2005-02-12T21:08:00.000-08:00

Joe Clark at evangelicaloutpost.com is starting a weekly post on art. I like the idea. He ask some of the following questions:

When did art stop being important to evangelical Christians?
How did we go from Rembrandt to Kinkade?
When did our appreciation of a work of art become based on how it matched the colors in our living room carpet?

To the first question, art stopped being important to evangelical Christians when we lost focus on the cultural mandate. As James Boice wrote, reformed Christians believed in two things, "First, we are called to be in the world and not to withdraw from it...Second, we are to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and visit the prisoner. But the chief needs of people are still spiritual." It's the first point I want to focus on. If Christians are in the world and not to withdraw from it, then that would mean that art is an area that Christians should be actively working in. And that doesn't mean just art that is Christian.

I want to focus on visual art: painting, drawing, and the likes. As Rookmaaker points out in his book, Modern Art and the Death of Culture, during the reformation and renaissance,

paintings give a philosophy of the world and of life. They are more than
decorations or simply pleasant to look at. They have a message, and what is
vital to notice a message realized by artistic means. The picture gets
across what it wants to say, not just through its title, but by its own
built-in qualities of artistry and method.

Christians seem to miss this point completely. Art to most people is just decorations. It's something nice to look at and that is all. There is no message (usually) to speak of. Or we go to the Christian extreme and it has to have an overt Christian message. To get an idea just look in the latest Christian book and art catalog. It seems like Christian art can't be truly Christian unless it has some religious theme. But where is the cultural mandate?

Thomas Kinkade is an interesting movement in and of itself. Personally, I don't fault Mr. Kinkade for being a marketing success. But there are two issue that must be separated when discussing Kinkade art. First, is his success. His artistic mass appeal is unusual among the "masses." Probably the closest to his success would be Andy Warhol. Warhol's name is probably just as popular if not more, but his art was appealing to the art world and not the masses. Second, is his art. Is his art good art? That is where the debate should be.

Kinkade's appeal is to what you could label "red state" America. His pictures portray a sense of wholesomeness, warmth, and small town appeal. When you look at the homes, in his hearth and Homes series, he portrays an invitation to come in and set by the fire. The homes are fictionalized homes that represent where we all as some point wish to live. The colors are mellow; the compositions are centralized and focused. If nothing else can be said, Kinkade is a talented artist and a shrewed businessman.

Augustine Unleahed

2005-02-08T07:51:00.000-08:00

I've only read 3 books in Augustine's City of God, but so far I'm amazed at how this Church father had such a command of Roman History. You really get the sense that the pagans have no answer for the claims that Augustine makes concerning the reason for the fall of Rome. For example, Augustine shows example upon example the inconsistent worship of ineffective deities. These very deities that are supposed to protect the Roman commonwealth when adversity hits, are nowhere when calamity after calamity befalls the city, and all this before the advent of Christ.

How can the pagans blame Christianity for the fall of Rome when there has been a history of calamity and failure? It might be interesting to see which Romans are blaming the Christians. Christianity is an easy target with its value of love and humility. This was definitely not the Roman way. Rome was blood, glory, and war. In a way one way would have to win out over the other. They were antithetical to each other.

It seems like contemporary Christian society is trying to play the bridesmaid to the world's bride. I see Christianity reflect the world more then Christ. Look at divorce. There is no difference between Christianity and the world.

You can ask most Christians "Who's your Daddy?" But will their response be "God, the Father!" Hopefully.

Torture: A Christian Perspective

2005-01-30T20:39:00.000-08:00

I recently read the Wil Wheaton's http://wilwheaton.net/ blog on torture. He quips that torture is not an American value and therefore he is opposing the confirmation of alberto Gonzales as the new Attorney General.

I've been thinking about a Christian perspective on torture. Is all torture wrong? Is there an acceptable level of torture in war? To be honest, I'm not sure but I need to chew on this some more.

On the surface, and without any serious thought, I would agree with Wil. But I think the issue is a lot more complex ethically. It's easy enough to just brush the issue aside as wrong (in every case) but again, I'm not sure that is the case. Wil writes

While it is vital that we defeat our enemies, we must not become them in
the process. As a nation, we must stand united against Albert Gonzales and
everything he represents. Torture is not an American value.

Again, I think this view sounds good, but in principle I think it's simplistic. I have to ponder this for a while.

The Problem of Evil

2005-01-28T11:14:00.000-08:00

With the tsunami catastrophe and other in the news suffering, the issue of evil and the existence of God is front and center. Here is a post on infidels.org message board from an atheist:

Here’s my own proof of the nonexistence of God. I maintain that not only does God not exist, he cannot conceivably exist.When I mention the word God (uppercase G), I’m referring to the god that most people in occidental society believe in which comprises the gods Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, and even the Hindu god, Brahma. Seeing that this God is said to be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, then he has the power to wipe away all evil and suffering. Moreover, his omnibenevolence would move him, out of compassion and love, to end all suffering (or better yet, not allow suffering to ever start). Since the world is full of cruelty and suffering, the belief in this deity cannot be logically or factually reconciled with the state of the world. Ergo, God cannot exist.

His argument is standard fare and nothing new. The problem of evil, as far as I'm aware of, is the only positive argument from the atheist for the non-existence of God. There are several variations, but it boils down to the same issue: If God exist and He is all-good, all-powerful, and all knowing, then He would stop suffering and evil. Evil and suffering exist, therefore God does not exist.

I'm not going to deal with the nuts and bolts of the above argument, but it seems to me that the post above assumes a few things. He implicitly assumes a standard of good and evil, right and wrong to judge God. What is that based on? Also, he doesn't mention omniscences as a characteristic of God. Why? Is it possible that he knows his argument is weakened by the fact if God knows all, He ultimately knows the reason for suffering and cruelty?

God's existence due to the presence of suffering and cruelty is not so easily dismissed nor is it easily answered. So far theist and in particular Christians have the most cogent arguments that I know of, but I am a little biased.

The City of God Against the Pagans

2005-01-27T09:42:00.000-08:00

Since I have to read the City of God by Augustine. We will explore the together. I'm excited about tackling the book, but even the translator, R. W. Dyson, admits that this book is a difficult read. But as with most things of value there is always a price to be paid. In this case it's difficult reading to get to the truth. So stay tune...

The Closing of the American Mind

2005-01-27T06:20:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading Allan Bloom's, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today's Students. First, let me say that I'm on the very late freight train. I should have read this years ago, but due to the fog of youth I didn't.

For those who have not read it, Bloom argues American universities are teaching a moral value of openness that really is not an opening of the mind, but in reality a closing of the mind in the form of cultural relativism and a desire not "to know thyself."

Bloom's criticism of the university system for it's failure to educate is a scathing critique from the inside. He speaks from over thirty years of experience in the system. Some of his insights are still crystal clear today as they were in 1987 when the book was first published. For example, the dominance of the natural science to the point of skewing the university system as a form of careerism. Or the poor attempt by the university to counteract the removal of liberal arts requirements from the college curriculum.

Even though I enjoyed Bloom's writing, there are some problems with the book, such as his mentioning of the 'soul' being replaced by the self, but not really expanding on the difference of a soul from the self. As somebody who needs explaining, Bloom missed this. Bloom also assumes some important points that should have been part of his discussion. Like a detailed explanation of "the serious life" and "the good life." Are they different aspects of the same truly liberally educated person? The connection is not made and the reader is left to fill in the gaps.

But, what I wanted to ask is, Should it matter that Bloom was homosexual? As a conservative Christian thinker, one would automatically think that I'm quick to shot the messenger if there is any stain of 'sin' especially homosexuality. But quite to the contrary, I value truth no matter what corner it comes from. We all are sinners and homosexuality is just one in many. But truth is truth and can come from the most unexpected places.

The problem is most people have agendas and it's not the truth.

The Start of Something New

2005-01-26T19:35:00.000-08:00

I've been swinging through the blog-0-sphere for a while, and now I feel like it's time to put down roots. For me, starting is always the hard part. But I figured "Why not?" I'm about to finish my Masters of Art in Christian Apologetics; I'm a father; I've lived on this earth for 35 years--- So I should have something to say, right?

This is my last semester at Biola University and I'm excited. It has been a long and fruitful road that will, hopefully, take me into new and challenging areas. If any Christians are truly interested in expanding their Christian resources I would definitely suggest taking the program. Plus the interaction with other Christians is invaluable.

Some of the subjects I plan to study my final semester are:

1. Augustine's, The City of God against the Pagans (Independent study course)

2. Epistomology

3. World Religion and Science

Now you might ask, "Why Christian Apologetics? What are you going to do with that degree?"
Well, let me tell you a little story---

There once was a young man who felt going to Church was good enough. He would even make it to a mid-week bible study. He was comfortable, happy, and maybe just a little prideful. The most he know or cared about the Bible was "Jesus saves" and "The Lord is my shepherd." What else was there to know?

Until, one day he happened to pick up a book that challenged his faith. The book questioned the veracity of the Bible. It claimed that not everything in the Bible was true, in fact some of the passages and saying were just made. The young man was stunned. Was this true? Could he be following a false religion?

That is when the search for truth started. He read; he listened; he questioned. Up until this time the young man was comfortable. He thought his way was the true way. But as the true Shepherd said, "I am the truth, the way and the life..." The young man was awaken from his slumber. He realized comfort was not always a good thing. And like the parable of the frog who slowly boiled to death, he had a false sense of security.

The young man started on a journey to find the Truth. And you know the funny thing was...the Truth found him. The Truth is sometimes called the Logos, the King, and Lord. But his name is Jesus, and he came to save that which was lost.

The young man continues on his journey, knowing that he will not always have the answer, and his journey will uncover coal as well as diamonds. But he trust the Shepherd will not lead him astray. And now when he is challenged about the Faith, he will be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks to give an account for the hope that is in him.

Soli Deo Gloria.