CenterPoint International f'dation

Slave-girls as sexual objects in the Quran

2010-10-28T19:09:00.000-07:00

Slave-girls as sexual objects in the Quran

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

2010-08-29T20:48:00.000-07:00

by Jonathan Edwards

Deuteronomy 32:35, "Their foot shall slide in due time."

In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God's visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God's wonderful works towards them, remained (as ver. 28.) void of counsel, having no understanding in them. Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as in the two verses next preceding the text. The expression I have chosen for my text, Their foot shall slide in due time, seems to imply the following doings, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites were exposed.

1. That they were always exposed to destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding. The same is expressed, Psalm 73:18. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction."

2. It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in Psalm 73:18, 19. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction: How are they brought into desolation as in a moment!"

3. Another thing implied is, that they are liable to fall of themselves, without being thrown down by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to throw him down.

4. That the reason why they are not fallen already, and do not fall now, is only that God's appointed time is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, their foot shall slide. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.

The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this. "There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God's mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment.

The truth of this observation may appear by the following considerations.

1. There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands.-He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defense from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God's enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?

2. They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?" Luke xiii. 7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back.

3. They are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell. They do not only justly deserve to be cast down thither, but the sentence of the law of God, that eternal and immutable rule of righteousness that God has fixed between him and mankind, is gone out against them, and stands against them; so that they are bound over already to hell. John iii. 18. "He that believeth not is condemned already." So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John viii. 23. "Ye are from beneath." And thither be is bound; it is the place that justice, and God's word, and the sentence of his unchangeable law assign to him.

4. They are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.

So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such an one as themselves, though they may imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them.

5. The devil stands ready to fall upon them, and seize them as his own, at what moment God shall permit him. They belong to him; he has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion. The scripture represents them as his goods, Luke 11:12. The devils watch them; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost.

6. There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish principles reigning, that would presently kindle and flame out into hell fire, if it were not for God's restraints. There is laid in the very nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell. There are those corrupt principles, in reigning power in them, and in full possession of them, that are seeds of hell fire. These principles are active and powerful, exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for the restraining hand of God upon them, they would soon break out, they would flame out after the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity does in the hearts of damned souls, and would beget the same torments as they do in them. The souls of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea, Isa. 57:20. For the present, God restrains their wickedness by his mighty power, as he does the raging waves of the troubled sea, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further;" but if God should withdraw that restraining power, it would soon carry all before it. Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul; it is destructive in its nature; and if God should leave it without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of the heart of man is immoderate and boundless in its fury; and while wicked men live here, it is like fire pent up by God's restraints, whereas if it were let loose, it would set on fire the course of nature; and as the heart is now a sink of sin, so if sin was not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into a fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone.

7. It is no security to wicked men for one moment, that there are no visible means of death at hand. It is no security to a natural man, that he is now in health, and that he does not see which way he should now immediately go out of the world by any accident, and that there is no visible danger in any respect in his circumstances. The manifold and continual experience of the world in all ages, shows this is no evidence, that a man is not on the very brink of eternity, and that the next step will not be into another world. The unseen, unthought-of ways and means of persons going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen. The arrows of death fly unseen at noon-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them. God has so many different unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending them to hell, that there is nothing to make it appear, that God had need to be at the expense of a miracle, or go out of the ordinary course of his providence, to destroy any wicked man, at any moment. All the means that there are of sinners going out of the world, are so in God's hands, and so universally and absolutely subject to his power and determination, that it does not depend at all the less on the mere will of God, whether sinners shall at any moment go to hell, than if means were never made use of, or at all concerned in the case.

8. Natural men's prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment. To this, divine providence and universal experience do also bear testimony. There is this clear evidence that men's own wisdom is no security to them from death; that if it were otherwise we should see some difference between the wise and politic men of the world, and others, with regard to their liableness to early and unexpected death: but how is it in fact? Eccles. ii. 16. "How dieth the wise man? even as the fool."

9. All wicked men's pains and contrivance which they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell one moment. Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines that he lays out matters better for his own escape than others have done. He does not intend to come to that place of torment; he says within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order matters so for himself as not to fail.

But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The greater part of those who heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell; and it was not because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape. If we could speak with them, and inquire of them, one by one, whether they expected, when alive, and when they used to hear about hell ever to be the subjects of that misery: we doubtless, should hear one and another reply, "No, I never intended to come here: I had laid out matters otherwise in my mind; I thought I should contrive well for myself: I thought my scheme good. I intended to take effectual care; but it came upon me unexpected; I did not look for it at that time, and in that manner; it came as a thief: Death outwitted me: God's wrath was too quick for me. Oh, my cursed foolishness! I was flattering myself, and pleasing myself with vain dreams of what I would do hereafter; and when I was saying, Peace and safety, then suddenly destruction came upon me.

10. God has laid himself under no obligation, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.

So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.

So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of, all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.

APPLICATION

The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ.-That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of, there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.

You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his band, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.

Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God's enemies. God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and do not willingly subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who hath subjected it in hope. There are black clouds of God's wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, it would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays his rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff of the summer threshing floor.

The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether unexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it. Those that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it was so with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when they expected nothing of it, and while they were saying, Peace and safety: now they see, that those things on which they depended for peace and safety, were nothing but thin air and empty shadows.

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment. And consider here more particularly

1. Whose wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God. If it were only the wrath of man, though it were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, who have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their mere will. Prov. 20:2. "The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: Whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul." The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments that human art can invent, or human power can inflict. But the greatest earthly potentates in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth. It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their fury. All the kings of the earth, before God, are as grasshoppers; they are nothing, and less than nothing: both their love and their hatred is to be despised. The wrath of the great King of kings, is as much more terrible than theirs, as his majesty is greater. Luke 12:4, 5. "And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

2. It is the fierceness of his wrath that you are exposed to. We often read of the fury of God; as in Isaiah lix. 18. "According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay fury to his adversaries." So Isaiah 66:15. "For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire." And in many other places. So, Rev. 19:15, we read of "the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." The words are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said, "the wrath of God," the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is "the fierceness and wrath of God." The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful must that be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also "the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." As though there would be a very great manifestation of his almighty power in what the fierceness of his wrath should inflict, as though omnipotence should be as it were enraged, and exerted, as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath. Oh! then, what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this!

Consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity. When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so vastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall not suffer beyond what strict justice requires. Nothing shall be withheld, because it is so hard for you to bear. Ezek. viii. 18. "Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them." Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy. But when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only "laugh and mock," Prov. 1:25, 26, &c.

How awful are those words, Isa. 63:3, which are the words of the great God. "I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater manifestations of these three things, vis. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favour, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you, in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

The misery you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what that wrath of Jehovah is. God hath had it on his heart to show to angels and men, both how excellent his love is, and also how terrible his wrath is. Sometimes earthly kings have a mind to show how terrible their wrath is, by the extreme punishments they would execute on those that would provoke them. Nebuchadnezzar, that mighty and haughty monarch of the Chaldean empire, was willing to show his wrath when enraged with Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego; and accordingly gave orders that the burning fiery furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it was before; doubtless, it was raised to the utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it. But the great God is also willing to show his wrath, and magnify his awful majesty and mighty power in the extreme sufferings of his enemies. Rom. 9:22. "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endure with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" And seeing this is his design, and what he has determined, even to show how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah is, he will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and brought to pass that will be dreadful with a witness. When the great and angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and power of his indignation, then will God call upon the whole universe to behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it. Isa. 33:12-14. "And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire. Hear ye that are far off, what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites," &c.

Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of your torments. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty. Isa. lxvi. 23, 24. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

4. It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of God's anger?"

How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But, alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, quiet and secure, should be there before to-morrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber; it will come swiftly, and, in all probability, very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder that you are not already in hell. It is doubtless the case of some whom you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you. Their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy!

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?

Are there not many here who have lived long in the world, and are not to this day born again? and so are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and have done nothing ever since they have lived, but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath? Oh, sirs, your case, in an especial manner, is extremely dangerous. Your guilt and hardness of heart is extremely great. Do you not see how generally persons of your years are passed over and left, in the present remarkable and wonderful dispensation of God's mercy? You had need to consider yourselves, and awake thoroughly out of sleep. You cannot bear the fierceness and wrath of the infinite God.-And you, young men, and young women, will you neglect this precious season which you now enjoy, when so many others of your age are renouncing all youthful vanities, and flocking to Christ? You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful pass in blindness and hardness. And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?

And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now harken to the loud calls of God's word and providence. This acceptable year of the Lord, a day of such great favours to some, will doubtless be a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their souls; and never was there so great danger of such persons being given up to hardness of heart and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts of the land; and probably the greater part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on the great out-pouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles' days; the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the pouring out of God's Spirit, and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist, the axe is in an extraordinary manner laid at the root of the trees, that every tree which brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down and cast into the fire.

Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation: Let every one fly out of Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed."

THE MADMAN-Nietzsche

2010-08-24T22:19:00.000-07:00

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

[Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

Bruce Cockburn Lyrics, "Broken Wheel." (from Groothuis' blog"

2010-07-27T20:49:00.000-07:00

Bruce Cockburn Lyrics, "Broken Wheel"

Way out on the rim of the galaxy

The gifts of the Lord lie torn

Into whose charge the gifts were given

Have made it a curse for so many to be born

This is my trouble --

These were my fathers

So how am I supposed to feel?

Way out on the rim of the broken wheel

Water of life is going to flow again

Changed from the blood of heroes and knaves

The word mercy's going to have a new meaning

When we are judged by the children of our slaves

No adult of sound mind

Can be an innocent bystander

Trial comes before truth's revealed

Out here on the rim of the broken wheel

You and me -- we are the break in the broken wheel

Bleeding wound that will not heal

Lord, spit on our eyes so we can see

How to wake up from this tragedy

Way out on the rim of the broken wheel

Bleeding wound that will not heal

Trial comes before truth's revealed

So how am I supposed to feel?

This is my trouble --

Can't be an innocent bystander

In a world of pain and fire and steel

Way out on the rim of the broken wheel

2010-07-21T22:13:00.000-07:00

2010-05-31T20:10:00.000-07:00

How Christianity Encourages Scientific Inquiry

Kenneth Samples in Without a Doubt (Baker, 2004) has aptly summarized ten ways in which Christian belief creates a hospitable environment for scientific inquiry. (I have modified them somewhat.)

1. The physical universe is an objective reality, which is ontologically distinct from the Creator (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1).

2. The laws of nature exhibit order, pattern, and regularity, since they are established by an orderly God (Psalm 19:1-4).

3. The laws of nature are uniform throughout the physical universe, since God created and providentially sustains them.
4. The physical universe is intelligible because God created us to know himself, ourselves, and the rest of creation. (Genesis 1-2; Proverbs 8).

5. The world is good, valuable, and worthy of careful study, because it was created for a purpose by a perfectly good God (Genesis 1). Humans, as the unique image bearers of God, were created to discern, discover, and develop the goodness of creation for the glory of God and human betterment through work. The creation mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) includes scientific activity.
6. Because the world is not divine and therefore not a proper object of worship, it can be an object of rational study and empirical observation.
7. Human beings possess the ability to discover the universe’s intelligibility, since we are made in God’s image and have been placed on earth to develop its intrinsic possibilities.
8. Because God did not reveal everything about nature, empirical investigation is necessary to discern the patterns God laid down in creation.
9. God encourages, even propels, science through his imperative to humans to take dominion over nature (Genesis 1:28).
10. The intellectual virtues essential to carrying out the scientific enterprise (studiousness, honesty, integrity, humility, and courage) are part of God’s moral law (Exodus 20:1-17).

Dr. Groothuis

While Christianity and science have had their scuffles, there is nothing inherent in the Christian worldview that is inimical to science rightly understood.

The Two Tasks of the Christian Scholar

2010-04-16T08:16:00.000-07:00

by Dr. Charles Malik:

NOTHING IS AS IMPORTANT IN THE WORLD TODAY AS for the Christians of America to grasp their historic opportunities and prove themselves equal to them. I say "the Christians," but I must add also "the Jews," because what is fatefully at stake today is the highest spiritual values of the Judeo Christian tradition. If the highest Christian values are overturned, so will the highest Jewish values.

Perhaps never since the Twelve Disciples and Saint Paul has any group of Christians been burdened by Providence itself with the responsibilities now devolving upon the Christians of America.

In the nature of case, evangelization is always the most important task to be undertaken by mortal man. For proud and rebellious and self sufficient man--and pride and rebellion and self sufficiency are the same thing-to be brought to his knees and to his tears before the actual majesty and grace and power of Jesus Christ is the greatest event that can happen to any man. Indeed just as every man is ordained to die, so every man is ordained to this event happening in his own life. And those who are engaged in mediating this event, the evangelists, are the supreme heralds of God.

But just as we are not alone with God and the Bible but also with others, so we are not only endowed with a soul and a will to be saved but also with a reason to be sharpened and satisfied. This reason wonders about everything, including God, and we are to seek and love and worship the Lord our God with all our strength and all our mind. And because we are with others, we are arguing and reasoning with one another all the time. Indeed every sentence and every discourse is a product of reason. And so it is neither a shame nor a sin to discipline and cultivate our reason to the utmost; it is a necessity, it is a duty, it is an honor to do so.

Therefore, if evangelization is the most important task, the task that comes immediately after it--not in the tenth place, nor even the third place, but in the second place-is not politics, nor economics, nor the quest of comfort and security and ease, but to find out exactly what is happening to the mind and the spirit in the schools and universities.

The Divorce between Reason and Faith

And once a Christian discovers that there is a total divorce between mind and spirit in the schools and universities, between the perfection of thought and the perfection of soul and character, between intellectual sophistication and the spiritual worth of the individual human person, between reason and faith, between the pride of knowledge and the contrition of heart consequent upon being a mere creature, and once he realizes that Jesus Christ will find Himself less at home on the campuses of the great universities, in Europe and America, than almost anywhere else, he will be profoundly disturbed, and he will inquire what can be done to recapture the great universities for Jesus Christ, the universities which would not have come into being in the first place without Him.

What can the poor church, even at its best, do, what can evangelization, even at its most inspired, do, what can the poor family, even at its purest and noblest, do, if the children spend between fifteen and twenty years of their life, and indeed the most formative period of their life, in school and college in an atmosphere of formal denial of any relevance of God and spirit and soul and faith to the formation of their mind? The enormity of what is happening is beyond words.

The church and the family, each already encumbered with its own strains and ordeals, are fighting a losing battle, so far as the bearing of the university upon the spiritual health and wholeness of youth is concerned. All the preaching in the world, and, all the loving care of even the best parents between whom there are no problems whatever, will amount to little, if not to nothing, so long as what the children are exposed to day in and day out for fifteen to twenty years in the school and university virtually cancels out, morally and spiritually, what they hear and see and learn at home and in the church. Therefore the problem of the school and university is the most critical problem, afflicting Western civilization. And here we meet laughing and relaxing and enjoying ourselves and celebrating as though nothing of this order of gravity were happening!

I assure you, so far as the university is concerned, I have no patience with piety alone--I want the most rigorous intellectual training, I want the perfection of the mind; equally, I have no patience with reason alone--I want the salvation of the soul, I want the fear of the Lord, I want at least neutrality with respect to the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

What I crave to see is an institution that will produce as many Nobel Prize winners as saints, an institution in which, while producing in every field the finest works of thought and learning in the world, Jesus Christ will at the same time find Himself perfectly at home in it--in every dormitory and lecture hall and library and laboratory. This is impossible today. Why it is impossible, is the most important question that can be asked.

The sciences are flourishing as never before, and may they keep on flourishing and exploding and discovering!

And lest I be misunderstood, let me state at once that I consider Freiburg, the Sorbonne, Harvard, Princeton, and Chicago among the greatest--and some of them the greatest--universities in the world, and, provided my children qualify, I would certainly send them to them. The diversity and quality of the intellectual fare available to the student in these universities is absolutely unprecedented in history. Western civilization can be proud of many things; of nothing it can be more proud than of its great universities.

But I am worried about the humanities--about philosophy, psychology, art, history, literature, sociology, the interpretation of man as to his nature and his destiny. It is in these realms that the spirit, the fundamental attitude, the whole outlook on life, even for the scientist himself, are formed and set. Nor am I unaware and unappreciative of the great advances achieved in the methods, techniques and tools of education, and in the remarkable enlargement of the scope of the curriculum. But in terms of content and substance, what is the dominant philosophy in the humanities today?

We find on the whole and for the most part materialism and hedonism; naturalism and rationalism; relativism and Freudianism; a great deal of cynicism and nihilism; indifferentism and atheism; linguistic analysis and radical obfuscation; immanentism and the absence of any sense of mystery, any sense of' wonder, any sense of tragedy; humanism and self sufficiency; the worship of the future, not of something above and outside and judging past, present, and future; the relative decay of the classics; the uncritical worship of everything new and modern and different; a prevailing false conception of progress; an uncritical and almost childish optimism; an uncritical and morbid pessimism; the will to power and domination. All of which are essentially so many modes of self worship. Any wonder there is so much disorder in the world!

If what I say is true, then as Christians you should not be able to sleep not only tonight but for a whole week. But I know you are going to sleep very soundly tonight, probably because you do not believe me, probably because you do not care!

At the heart of all the problems facing Western civilization-the general nervousness and restlessness, the dearth of grace and beatify and quiet and peace of soul, the manifold blemishes and perversions of personal character; problems of the family and of social relations in general, problems of economics and politics, problems of the media, problems affecting the school itself and the church itself, problems in the international order--at the heart of the crisis in Western civilization lies the state of the mind and the spirit in the universities.

The University--Future World Leaders

It is totally vain, it is indeed childish, to tackle these problems as though all were well, in morals and in the fundamental orientation of the will and mind, in the great halls of learning. Where do the leaders in these realms come from? They all come from universities. What they are fed, intellectually, morally, spiritually, personally, in the fifteen or twenty years they spend in the school and university, is the decisive question. It is there that the foundations of character and mind and outlook and conviction and attitude and spirit are laid, and, to paraphrase a Biblical saying, if the wrong foundations are laid, or if the right foundations are vitiated or undermined, "what can the righteous do?" (Psalm 11:3).

The problem is not only to win souls but to save minds. If you win the whole world and lose the mind of the world, you will soon discover you have not won the world. Indeed it may turn out that you have actually lost the world.

In order to create and excel intellectually, must you sacrifice or neglect Jesus? In order to give all your life to Jesus, must you sacrifice or neglect learning and research? Is your self giving to scholarship and learning partially incompatible with your self giving to Jesus? These are the ultimate questions, and I beg you to beware of thinking that they admit of glib answers. I warn you: the right answers could be most disturbing.

If Christians do not care for the intellectual health of their own children and for the fate of their own civilization, a health and a fate so inextricably bound up with the state of the mind and spirit in the universities, who is going to care? The task is gigantic, and for it to be accomplished as I believe Christ Himself would want it to be accomplished, people must be set on fire for it. It is not enough to be set on fire for evangelization alone.

Developing Creative Thinkers

This is a solemn occasion. I must be frank with you: the greatest danger besetting American Evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti intellectualism. The mind as to its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough. This cannot take place apart from profound immersion for a period of years in the history of thought and the spirit. People are in a hurry to get out of the university and start earning money or serving the church or preaching the Gospel. They have no idea of the infinite value of spending years of leisure in conversing with the greatest minds and souls of the past, and thereby ripening and sharpening and enlarging their powers of thinking.

The result is that the arena of creative thinking is abdicated and vacated to the enemy. Who among the Evangelicals can stand up to the great secular or naturalistic or atheistic scholars on their own terms of scholarship and research? Who among the Evangelical scholars is quoted as a normative source by the greatest secular authorities on history or philosophy or psychology or sociology or politics? Does your mode of thinking have the slightest chance of becoming the dominant mode of thinking in the great universities of Europe and America which stamp your entire civilization with their own spirit and ideas?

It will take a different spirit altogether to overcome this great danger of anti intellectualism. As an example only, I say this different spirit, so far as the domain of philosophy alone is concerned, which is the most important domain so far as thought and intellect are concerned, must see the tremendous value of spending a whole year doing nothing except poring intensely over the Republic or the Sophist of Plato, or two years over the Metaphysics or the Ethics of Aristotle, or three years over the City of God of Augustine. For the sake of greater effectiveness in witnessing to Jesus Christ Himself, as well as for their own sakes, the Evangelicals cannot afford to keep on living on the periphery of responsible intellectual existence.

Save the University--Save the World

Responsible Christians face two tasks--that of saving the soul and that of saving the mind. I am using soul and mind here without definition, but I can define them in precise, philosophical theological terms. The mind is desperately disordered today. I am pleading that a tiny fraction of Christian care be extended to the mind too.

If it is the will of the Holy Ghost that we attend to the soul, certainly it is not His will that we neglect the mind. No civilization can endure with its mind being as confused and disordered as ours is today. All our ills stem proximately from the false philosophies that have been let loose in the world and that are now being taught in the universities, and ultimately of course, as President Armerding observes in his book Leadership in another context, from the devil, whether or not the human agents knew it. Save the university and you save Western civilization and therewith the world.

These two things are absolutely impossible, and because they are at the same time absolutely needed, God can make them absolutely possible.

Every self defeating attitude stems originally from the devil, because he is the adversary, the arch nihilist par excellence--it cannot be willed by the Holy Ghost. Anti intellectualism is an absolutely self defeating attitude.

Wake up, my friends, wake up: the great universities control the mind of the world. Therefore how can evangelism consider its task accomplished if it leaves the university unevangelized. And how can evangelism evangelize the university if it cannot speak to the university? And how can it speak to the university if it is not itself already intellectualized? Therefore evangelism must first intellectualize itself to be able to speak to the university and therefore to be able to evangelize the university and therefore to save the world. This is the great task, the historic task, the most needed task, the task required loud and clear by the Holy Ghost Himself.

And if this should happen, then think of the infinite joy that would overflow our hearts. Future generations will bless your name and sing your praises for centuries to come. Who, then, would not join with David in singing: "Bless the Lord, O my soul: and all that is within me, bless his holy name. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits. . . . I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live: I will sing praise to my God while I have my being." (Psalm 103:1-2; and 104:33).

A Brief Introduction to Charles Malik:

Few people can match Dr. Charles Malik's credentials to critique "the mind and spirit of the university." He was an outstanding scholar with a Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard, under Alfred North Whitehead, and over fifty honorary doctorates from such universities as Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Notre Dame, and Freiburg. Throughout his career he published articles and books on philosophical, diplomatic, and international matters in America, Europe, and the Middle East. Dr. Malik also served universities throughout his life. In his own country, he was a founding member of the Lebanese Academy. He was chairman of the philosophy department at the American University, Beirut, then Dean of Graduate Studies; from 1962 to 1976 he was Distinguished Professor of Philosophy.

The authority with which Dr. Malik declaims against the university comes also from a larger sphere, that of an international diplomat. He was a signatory for Lebanon of the United Nations Charter in 1945. He served the U.N. for fourteen years, at various times as President of the General Assembly and of the Security Council. More than twelve countries decorated him for his contributions to human rights and international peace.

The Two Tasks speech was given by Dr. Malik at the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in the fall of 1980, the same year Christian Leadership Ministries was founded. Dr. Clint Shaffer, professor of German at Wheaton College, was there: "Sharing the platform with Dr. Graham and President Hudson Amerding was the keynote speaker, Charles Malik, a Lebanese educator and statesman whose words profoundly changed my attitudes toward learning and the gospel. Malik's central argument was that Christians in general and North American evangelicals in particular stood little chance of having a deep impact upon their society unless they proved able to know and influence the intellectual life of the world. We are, he contended, admonished to save both the soul and the mind" (Wheaton Magazine, 13:4 Summer 2000).

Christianity Today first published the Two Tasks speech on November 7, 1980. The Two Tasks is available in booklet form from the Billy Graham Center, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187. at http://bgc.gospelcom.net/emis/books.htm

Why Islam Is Different from All Other Faiths

2010-03-11T08:03:00.000-08:00

By Rev. Bassam M. Madany

Most Americans as well as other Western people, assume that Islam is just a religion like any other of the world’s major religions which include Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, and Shinto. The assertion is almost universally made that “Islam is a peaceful religion,” and anything in Islam that might be termed radical, is only due to the extremists in its midst. Such extremists, or Islamists so-called, have highjacked this “peaceful” faith.

There is one basic fact about Islam that is not taken into consideration in this widely-held view. The world needs to understand that Islam is a synthesis of religion and politics in one indivisible entity. History bears this out for all with eyes to see. More importantly, the synthesis is supported by the authoritative texts of Islam: the Qur’an and the Hadith.

Muhammad claimed that in the year 610 A.D., Allah called him to be a prophet to all mankind. He soon began preaching the Oneness of Allah, and the vanity of idol worship. He claimed to have received “revelations” that “descended” upon him while he lived in Mecca. However, opposition arose from the leaders of that city forcing him to move to Medina in the year 622.

622 A.D. is a most significant date. It marks the first year in the Islamic lunar calendar, known as Anno Hejira, i.e. the Year of the Migration. An activist interpretation of continuing “revelations” was becoming manifest. Muhammad in Medina steadily fostered a distinctively political and juridical course of action. Opposition to him was then seen to be opposition to Allah. Some of the Surahs (Chapters) of the Qur’an sanctioned the use of force in opposing the enemies of the Prophet. And force was used so that by 630, Muhammad had vanquished his enemies, and returned in triumph to Mecca. Thus, before his death in 632, Muhammad had become both a Prophet and Political Leader of the New Community of Believers, known as the Umma.

The history of Islam proves the thesis that Islam is different from all other faiths. Here are the facts:

A. Several Arab tribes gave their allegiance to Muhammad while he lived, but went back on Islam after he died. The first Caliph, Abu Bakr, waged war against them and forced them back into Islam. In Islamic history, they are known as “Huroob al-Radda,” i.e., the wars against Apostasy.

B. The expansion of Islam took place by military force. Between 632 and 732, Muslim armies successfully overran the Persian Empire, and took Syria, Egypt, and North Africa from the Byzantine Empire. They were prevented from making even further expansion into Europe at the Battle of Tours/Poitiers that was fought on October 10, 732, between forces under the Frankish leader Charles Martel and a massive invading Islamic army led by Emir Abdul Rahman Al-Ghafiqi. During the battle, the Franks defeated the Islamic army and Emir Abdul Rahman was killed. This battle stopped the northward advance of Islam from the Iberian Peninsula.

C. It must be noted that all the early and very deadly disputes among Muslims were of a political, and not of a religious nature:

1. Caliphs Umar and Uthman were assassinated by disgruntled Muslims.

2. Third Caliph Ali (cousin and son-in-law of Muhammad) had to face an insurrection by the Governor of Damascus, and was murdered by one of his own followers for having accepted arbitration with his opponent.

3. A new dynastic Caliphate, the Umayyad, came into existence in 661, and made Damascus the capital of the expanding Islamic Empire. Enemies of this Umayyad dynasty brought it to an end, in a blood bath in 750.

4. The Umayyads were followed by the Abbasid dynasty which moved the capital of the Islamic empire to Baghdad. It was mainly during the Abbasid’s relatively long history that Muslims engaged for a time in discussing theological and juridical subjects.

D. The Turks took on the mantle of spreading Islam after the fall of Baghdad in the 13th century. They succeeded in expanding the Islamic Empire at the expense of the remnants of the Byzantine Empire. In 1453, the Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople, and renamed it Istanbul. In 1529, they laid their first siege of Vienna. Then, in 1683 a huge Turkish army under Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa surrounded Vienna. The Ottomans failed for the second time to conquer Vienna, as John III, king of Poland, came to the help of the Austrians. A decade later, the Treaty of Karlowitz cost Turkey Hungary and other territories.

E. The fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, and the abolishing of the Caliphate in 1924, caused a great crisis in Islamic history. But it did not change the basic beliefs of Islam. Islam remains a religious-political ideology which animates the radicals in the Arab-Muslim world, and gives legitimacy to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and al-Qaeda elsewhere.

F. One little-known by-product of Islamic Jihadism is the continuing struggle between the Algerian government and the radical Islamist group, FIS (Front Islamique de Salut) Islamic Salvation Front. Since 1991, around 200,000 Algerian civilians have been murdered by members of FIS.

These facts of history should make it clear what the true nature of Islam is. To claim that Islam is a peaceful religion evades the real question whether Islam should even be regarded simply as a religion. More appropriately it should be seen as a thoroughly ideological synthesis of religion & politics in one indivisible entity.

The “War on Terror” as declared by President Bush in the aftermath of 11 September, 2001, evaded the true nature of the war. “Terror” is an abstract concept; one cannot fight abstractions. Muhammad Atta & his colleagues attacked vital centers and symbols of America by super-violent means due to their political-religious beliefs. It is unfortunate that political correctness has overtaken political discourse in the United States and the West in general, such that the authorities refuse to see the true identity of the enemy: Islamic Jihadism, which stems from the teachings of the Islamic faith. There is no logical or legitimate reason to keep using the meaningless term, “The War against Terror.” It is as a struggle against Islamist Jihadism! And this particular vision of Islam which is espoused by violent extremists needs to be understood. Is it reformable one might ask? There is reason for some hope. Arabic-language websites, operated by reform-minded intellectuals, denounce Islamism and Islamists as well. They are not afraid to propose far-reaching proposals on how to view certain passages from the Qur’an, particularly those known as the Sword Verses, by suggesting they should no longer be considered normative!

For details of the Battle of Tours/Poitiers please consult the following source: The Battle of Tours (732 A.D.)

Cultural "Christianity" and the Emergent Church (Francis A. Schaeffer)

2010-02-26T20:20:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04sDcBFfWq4&feature=channel

How Unbelief and Apathy Destroys a Soceity: Francis A. Schaeffer

2010-02-26T20:04:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KtfeKJLBZM&feature=channel

Suffering for Righteousness' Sake 1 Peter 3:8-22

2010-02-26T19:33:00.000-08:00

8 Finally, all of you, u have unity of mind, sympathy, v brotherly love, w a tender heart, and x a humble mind. 9 y Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, z bless, for a to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing. 10 For

b “Whoever desires to love life

and see good days,

let him keep his tongue from evil

and his lips from speaking deceit;

11 let him turn away from evil and do good;

let him seek peace and pursue it.

12 For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous,

and his ears are open to their prayer.

But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

13 Now c who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? 14 d But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. e Have no fear of them, f nor be troubled, 15 but g in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, h always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and i respect, 16 j having a good conscience, so that, k when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame. 17 For l it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.

18 For Christ also m suffered [2] n once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, o that he might bring us to God, being put to death p in the flesh but made alive q in the spirit, 19 in which [3] he went and q proclaimed [4] to the spirits in prison, 20 because [5] they formerly did not obey, r when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, s while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, t eight persons, were brought safely through water. 21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, u now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but v as an appeal to God for a good conscience, w through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22 who has gone into heaven and x is at the right hand of God, y with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.

The Death of Shame

2009-12-20T15:54:00.001-08:00

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/12/18/whatever_happened_to_shame/

The Power of Prayer

2009-12-14T11:10:00.000-08:00

I live and air prayer through my ministry; whether in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, La Cote d'Iovire, Liberia or anywhere in the world, prayer has sustained me. We have asked our supporters not to use prayer on our behind as a demonestic intercom for our comfort. You've been faithful in your prayer on our behalf, and for that and many others gift of love we're thankful to y'all.

We are deeply grateful to you all for your personal supporter and prayer for our ministries (Phil 1:3-9). It has been a difficult year in our country history, but you have stood with us through the storm of life (Hab. 3:3, 16-19). "We cannot know what prayer is for until we know that life is war, (Piper, Let the Nations be Glad!).

Merry Christmas and a happy New Year

2009-09-22T15:06:00.000-07:00

To the contrary. Jagdish Bhagwati 2
It depends. John Gray 4
Yes, but… Garry Kasparov 6
No. Qinglian He 8
Of course it does. Michael Walzer 10
No! And, well, yes. Michael Novak 12
Certainly. Or does it? Bernard-Henri Lévy 14
Yes, too often. Kay S. Hymowitz 16
No, on balance. Tyler Cowen 18
We’d rather not know. Robert B. Reich 20
Not at all. Ayaan Hirsi Ali 22
It all depends. John C. Bogle 24
No. Rick Santorum 26
Does the
free market corrode
moral character?
Thirteen views on the question
Autumn 2008
Online at www.templeton.org/market
Does the
free market corrode
moral character?
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 1
The John Templeton Foundation serves as a philanthropic catalyst for research on what scientists
and philosophers call the Big Questions. We support work at the world’s top universities in such
fields as theoretical physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, cognitive science, and social science
relating to love, forgiveness, creativity, purpose, and the nature and origin of religious belief. We encourage
informed, open-minded dialogue between scientists and theologians as they apply themselves to the
most profound issues in their particular disciplines. And we seek to stimulate new thinking about wealth
creation in the developing world, character education in schools and universities, and programs for
cultivating the talents of gifted children.
The Big Question posed in these pages has obvious contemporary relevance. Over the past decade, the
effect of the market economy and globalization on long-established habits, beliefs, and institutions
has been much debated in scholarly circles, in popular books, and in the serious press. Recent crises in
American and international financial institutions have added urgency to the discussion. At the John
Templeton Foundation, we are especially interested in exploring the relationship of these economic
developments to ethics and morality — to character in its fullest sense. In what ways does the free market
strengthen or undermine personal virtue and concern for others?
This booklet neatly embodies the approach that we take to the Big Questions across all of the Foundation’s
areas of interest. The contributors are distinguished scholars and public figures, they address a perennial and
much-disputed subject, and they bring to bear — in civil, elegant prose — a range of different perspectives.
By assembling this “conversation” and inviting the public to join in, we intend to spark a discussion
that transcends the familiar positions usually found in such debates. We aim to turn discourse on the Big
Questions in a more thoughtful, considered direction. It is our hope that this booklet will be a lasting
resource for students, teachers, parents, political leaders, business people, clergy, and anyone else engaged
with the great issues of human nature and purpose, especially as they relate to the complicated arrangements
of modern life. Additional copies of the booklet can be ordered at bigquestions@templeton.org.
Three previous conversations on Big Questions at the core of the Foundation’s mandate may also be of
interest to readers. They can be found online at the following addresses:
Does the universe have a purpose?
www.templeton.org/purpose
Will money solve Africa’s development problems?
www.templeton.org/africa
Does science make belief in God obsolete?
www.templeton.org/belief
INTRODUCTION
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 2
Jagdish Bhagwati
To the contrary. I can attest from personal experience that, if you try to talk about the free market
on today’s university campuses, you will be buried in an avalanche of criticism of
globalization. The opposition of faculty and students to the expansion of international
markets stems largely from a sense of altruism. It proceeds from their concern about
social and moral issues. Simply put, they believe that globalization lacks a human
face. I take an opposite view. Globalization, I would argue, leads not only to the creation
and spread of wealth but to ethical outcomes and to better moral character among
its participants.
Many critics believe that globalization sets back social and ethical agendas, such
as the reduction of child labor and poverty in poor countries and the promotion of
gender equality and environmental protection everywhere. Yet, when I examined
these and other issues in my book, In Defense of Globalization, I found that the actual
outcomes were the opposite of those feared.
For example, many believed that poor peasants would respond to the greater economic
opportunities presented by globalization by taking their children out of school and
putting them to work. Thus considered, the extension of the free market would act
as a malign force. But I found that the opposite was true. It turned out that in many
instances, the higher incomes realized as a result of globalization — the rising earnings
of rice growers in Vietnam, for example — spurred parents to keep their children in school. After all, they
no longer needed the meager income that an additional child’s labor could provide.
Or consider gender equality. With globalization, industries that produce traded goods and services face
intensified international competition. This competition has reduced the yawning gap in many developing
countries between the compensation paid to equally qualified male and female workers. Why? Because
firms competing globally soon find that they cannot afford to indulge their pro-male prejudices. Under
pressure to reduce costs and operate more efficiently, they shift increasingly from more expensive male
labor to cheaper female labor, thus increasing female wages and reducing male wages. Globalization hasn’t
produced wage equality yet, but it has certainly narrowed the gap.
There is now plenty of evidence that India and China, two countries with gigantic poverty problems, have
been able to grow so fast by taking advantage of trade and foreign investment, and that by doing so, they
have reduced poverty dramatically. They still have a long way to go, but globalization has allowed them to
improve material conditions for hundreds of millions of their people. Some critics have denounced the idea
of attacking poverty through economic growth as a conservative “trickle-down” strategy. They evoke images
of overfed, gluttonous nobles and bourgeoisie eating legs of mutton while the serfs and dogs under the
Jagdish Bhagwati is
University Professor of
economics and law
at Columbia University,
senior fellow for
international economics
at the Council on
Foreign Relations, and
the author of In Defense
of Globalization.
He writes widely on
public policy and
international trade.
Jagdis h Bhagwati
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 3
table feed on scraps and crumbs. In truth, focusing on growth is better described as an activist “pull-up”
strategy. Growing economies pull the poor up into gainful employment and reduce poverty.
Even if they grant that globalization generally helps the achievement of certain social aims, some critics
still argue that it corrodes moral character. A widening free market, they say, expands the domain over
which profits are pursued, and profit-seeking makes people selfish and vicious. But this is hardly plausible.
Consider the Calvinist burghers described by Simon Schama in his history of the Netherlands. They
made their fortunes from international trade, but they indulged their altruism rather than their personal
appetites, exhibiting what Schama aptly called the “embarrassment of riches.” Similar self-restraint can
be seen in the Jains of Gujerat, the Indian state that Mahatma Gandhi came from. The riches that the Jains
reaped from their commercial activities were harnessed to their values, not the other way around.
As for the influence that globalization continues to have on moral character, let me quote the wonderful
sentiments of John Stuart Mill. As he wrote in Principles of Political Economy (1848):
The economical advantages of commerce are surpassed in importance by those of its effects,
which are intellectual and moral. It is hardly possible to overrate the value, in the present
low state of human improvement, of placing human beings in contact with persons dissimilar
to themselves, and with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they
are free market is no nation which does not need to borrow from others, not merely
particular arts or practices, but essential points of character in which its own type is
inferior.…It may be said without exaggeration that the great extent and rapid increase in
international trade, in being the principal guarantee of the peace of the world, is the
great permanent security for the uninterrupted progress of the ideas, the institutions,
and the character of the human race.
In today’s global economy, we continually see signs of the phenomena Mill described. When Japanese
multinationals spread out in the 1980s, their male executives brought their wives with them to New York,
London, and Paris. When these traditional Japanese women saw how women were treated in the West,
they absorbed ideas about women’s rights and equality. When they returned to Japan, they became agents
of social reform. In our own day, television and the Internet have played a huge role in expanding our
social and moral consciousness beyond the bounds of our communities and nation-states.
Adam Smith famously wrote of “a man of humanity in Europe” who would not “sleep tonight” if “he was
to lose his little finger tomorrow” but would “snore with the most profound security” if a hundred million
of his Chinese brethren were “suddenly swallowed up by an earthquake,” because “he had never seen
them.” For us, the Chinese are no longer invisible, living at the outside edge of what David Hume called
the concentric circles of our empathy. Last summer’s earthquake in China, whose tragic aftermath was
instantly transmitted onto our screens, was met by the rest of the world not with indifference but with
empathy and a profound sense of moral obligation to the Chinese victims. It was globalization’s finest hour.
Jagdis h Bhagwati
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 4
John Gray
It depends. Free markets corrode some aspects of character while enhancing others. Whether
the result is good, on balance, depends on how one envisions a good life. Much also
depends on whether one believes other economic systems can do better. The question
can only be answered by comparing realistic alternatives and by understanding how
different systems promote divergent types of human character.
It is important to avoid thinking in terms of ideal models. In recent years there has
been a tendency to think that free markets emerge spontaneously when state
interference in the economy is removed. But free markets are not simply the absence
of government. Markets depend on systems of law to decide what can be traded
as a commodity and what cannot. Slavery is forbidden in modern market economies;
so are blackmail and child pornography. Free markets always involve some moral
constraints of this sort, which are policed by governments. More generally, free
markets rely on property rights, which are also enforced — and often created —
by government.
The free market as it existed in mid-Victorian England came about not because
the state withdrew from the economy, but rather because state power was used to
privatize land that had been under various forms of common ownership, or not
owned at all. The laissez-faire economy that existed for a few decades in 19th-century
England was made possible by the Enclosure Acts. These laws, enacted by Parliament starting in the
second half of the 18th century, displaced farm laborers from the countryside and created the industrial
working class that was the free market’s human base. But with the extension of democratic voting
rights in the late 19th and early 20th century, these workers began to demand that economic activity be
subject to various kinds of regulation. The eventual result was the managed market economy that exists
in Britain and many other countries today.
A historical perspective is useful because it enables us to see that economic systems are living things. In real
time, free markets rarely work according to the models constructed by economists. There are booms and
bubbles, busts and crashes. It is only in economics textbooks that markets are self-regulating. Against this
background, the relation between economics and ethics can be seen more clearly. The traits of character
most rewarded by free markets are entrepreneurial boldness, the willingness to speculate and gamble, and
the ability to seize or create new opportunities. It is worth noting that these are not the traits most praised
by conservative moralists. Prudence, thrift, and the ability to press on patiently in a familiar pattern of life
may be admirable qualities, but they do not usually lead to success in the free market.
John Gray is emeritus
professor at the London
School of Economics.
Among his recent books
are False Dawn: The
Delusions of Global
Capitalism (Granta)
and Black Mass:
Apocalyptic Religion
and the Death of
Utopia (Penguin).
JOHN GRAY
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 5
In fact, when markets are highly volatile, these conservative traits may well be the road to ruin. Retooling
one’s skills, relocating, switching careers — such risk-taking actions help people survive and prosper in
free-market economies. But this kind of risk-taking behavior is not necessarily compatible with traditional
values that stress the value of enduring human attachments.
Adam Smith, one of the originators of free-market economics, was also an astute critic of commercial
society. Smith feared that the market economy emerging in his time would leave workers adrift in cities
lacking cohesive communities. As he perceived, the subversive dynamism of the market cannot be
confined to the marketplace. Free markets demand a high degree of mobility and an ingrained readiness
to exit from relationships that are no longer profitable. A society in which people are constantly on the
move is unlikely to be a society of stable families or to be notably law-abiding.
In the end, the answer to this question depends on how one conceives the good life. What a traditional
moralist views as family breakdown may be seen by a liberal as the exercise of personal autonomy. For
the liberal, personal choice is the most vital ingredient of a good life, while conservatives may regard the
preservation of valuable institutions to be more important. With regard to contemporary Western
societies, I tend to a liberal view. But the important point is not so much which of these conceptions one
adopts. Rather, it is this: though free markets reward some moral traits, they also undermine others. If
they emancipate individual choice, they at the same time corrode some traditional virtues. One cannot
have everything.
The moral hazards of free markets do not mean that other economic systems are any better. Centrally
planned systems have corroded character far more damagingly and with fewer benefits in terms of
efficiency and productivity. The planned economies of the former Soviet bloc only functioned — to the
degree they did at all — because they were riddled with black and grey markets. Corruption was
ubiquitous. In the Marxian model, the greed-fuelled anarchy of the market is replaced with planning
based on altruism. But actual life in Soviet societies was more like an extreme caricature of laissezfaire
capitalism, a chaotic and wasteful environment in which each person struggled to stay afloat. Homo
homini lupus — man is wolf to man — was the rule, and altruism the exception. In these conditions,
people with the most highly developed survival skills and the fewest moral scruples did best.
No economic system can enhance every aspect of moral character. All rely to some extent on motives
that are morally questionable. Greed and envy may be vices, but they are also economic stimulants. An
economic system is good to the extent that it harnesses human imperfections in the service of human
welfare. The choice is not between abstract models, such as the free market and central planning. In the
real world of history, neither has ever existed in the form imagined by its advocates. No, the true choice
is between different mixes of markets and regulation, none of which will ever be entirely morally benign in
its effects. A sensible mix cannot be achieved by applying an ideal model of how the economy should
work. Different mixes will be best in different historical contexts. But one thing is clear: a modern market
economy cannot do without a measure of moral corrosion.
JOHN GRAY
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 6
Garry Kasparov
Yes, but… other systems are worse. The free market is a crucible of competition that can bring
out the basest in human nature. Competition is fierce, and when survival is at stake,
there is no room for morality. But, to paraphrase Churchill, for all its flaws, the free
market is still superior to all the other economic arrangements that have been tried.
At first it seems obvious that a system based entirely on self-interest would lead to the
moral decay of the individual. If you pause momentarily to aid your brother during
your struggle to reach the top — to beat your competitors, to maximize earnings, to
buy a bigger house — you will be surpassed by those without such qualms. How, in
a truly free market, can there exist consideration for the good of one’s fellow man?
Despite the seemingly cruel nature of unregulated market forces, there are two
important ways in which they can improve the well-being of society, much as
Darwin’s unseeing laws generate the best-adapted forms of life. First, if moral
character is valued by a society, it can be in one’s self-interest to practice and
preach moral behavior. It may seem to make little sense for a company to donate a
share of its profits to charity when that money could instead go to improving its
competitive position. But we know that such giving can enhance a company’s image
in ways that do improve its competitive position. In a free market, reputation is
based on popular opinion, and that perception can become a material benefit.
Second, if a society (or at least a majority in a society) reaches what we might call a state of surplus, where
survival is no longer in doubt, individuals have the luxury of indulging their moral character. No one would
take desperately needed food from the mouth of his own child to give it to the child of another. Our giving,
moral instincts exist, but they are secondary to the imperative to flourish. Bounty makes charity feasible.
There are, of course, exceptions to both of these rules, although they only strengthen the overall case for
the free market. In the absence of real competition, there is no commercial advantage to moral conduct.
This is demonstrated all too well by the rapacious behavior of the state-supported oligarchy that runs
Russia today. A dominant clique simply does not care about its reputation.
Resource-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and (increasingly and unfortunately) Russia can generate excess
wealth despite command economies and epic corruption. But a surplus that comes without accountability
— to employees, shareholders, and consumers (or voters, I might add) — leads to corruption of every kind.
Nearly all of the nations benefiting most from today’s record energy prices use their unearned riches to tamp
down dissent and to preserve the world’s most repressive regimes.
Individuals who rely on the goodwill of their neighbors tend to act morally. So do companies that
depend on the loyalty of employees, the favor of consumers, and the support of investors (if only, to be
Former world chess
champion Garry
Kasparov is a leader of
the pro-democracy
coalition The Other
Russia. He is the author
of a book on decisionmaking,
How Life
Imitates Chess, and
speaks to business
audiences worldwide.
He lives in Moscow.
Garry Kasparov
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 7
honest, as morally as they must). And so do governments that depend on the participation and tax
revenues of their citizens. Though the relentless pursuit of self-interest can corrupt, a free market clearly
creates incentives for moral behavior. Other systems lack these concrete incentives.
The utopian thinkers of the 19th century were certain that a global socialist paradise was inevitable.
Looking around at the cruel excesses of the industrial revolution, especially in the United Kingdom and
the United States, they imagined a future in which harmony would replace struggle and selfless cooperation
would replace brutal competition. This was an understandable sympathetic reaction to the suffering
brought on by the unrestrained free-market forces that had yet to produce a critical mass of surpluses.
(One might point to the world’s impoverished billions today and argue that we are still not wealthy enough
to trust our welfare to the free market.) Surely, they thought, there must be a better way in a more
enlightened future.
This socialist dream was based only in part on discontent with the capitalist status quo. It was also part of a
belief in man’s fundamentally moral nature. Given the opportunity and sufficient education, the idealists
believed, man would sacrifice his immediate self-interest for the greater good. This in turn would eventually
create a comfortable surplus for all and put an end to human suffering on a grand scale.
It is possible there would be less suffering in a world in which man desired harmony and contentment
more than competition and achievement. But that world does not exist. We are the product of our ancient
struggle to survive. And we deny our instincts at great peril. If the market is not free, it must be controlled
— and controlled by someone or some group. When confronted with our natural human desire to
achieve, an enlightened craving for equality soon turns to enforced equality. Self-generating incentives
for moral behavior are replaced by edicts and punishments. Carrots give way to sticks.
I spent half of my life living under such a regime in the USSR. There, the aspirations of every individual
were suppressed and fused into what was intended to be one great national destiny. But without the
voluntary participation of the citizenry, moral character cannot be mandated or imposed without destroying
free will itself. The Soviet Union rapidly descended into totalitarianism and terror, as did other
Communist states.
The alternative is not anarchy; a society is not a society worth living in without the rule of law and protection
for minority political, religious, and business groups. Rather, the alternative is a system in which
individual freedoms are combined with incentives to act morally. The free-market economy — along with
democracy, which is the free market of ideas — is the closest that we have come to that.
So, yes, the free market can lead to the corruption of moral character. It is man’s nature always to want more,
and the free market enables these urges with few protections for those who fail to thrive. But attempting
to restrain these basic human needs and desires leads to greater evils. All the needed evidence can be found
over the last century in Russia, from the czars to the Soviets to Putin’s oligarchic regime today.
Garry Kasparov
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 8
Qinglian He
No. Over the past several centuries, the world has seen the many ways in which an
active free market spurs material and social progress while at the same time
strengthening moral character. By contrast, people who have lived under the free
market’s primary modern rival, the ideologically-driven planned economy of
state socialism, have suffered as economic performance stagnated, civil society
withered, and morality was corroded. In recent decades, as planned economies
collapsed under their own contradictions, this utopian experiment has proved to be
a systematic failure. Citizens who had endured long years of economic, moral,
and political disaster were eager to get rid of them.
Of course, the market economy is not a perfect system. But the market’s flaws stem
from the actions and motivations of its human participants rather than from its
design. Experience has taught us that a free market is closely associated with a free
society. And in free societies, people are better able to act in concert to improve
their lives. Free societies afford people the opportunity to make their own political
and social systems more just. In general, these activities support rather than
corrode morality.
From a comparative historical perspective, we tend to define the market as an allencompassing
socioeconomic system, covering economic institutions, social relations,
and culture. But when we analyze the relationship between the market and morality,
it makes sense to use a narrower definition of the market as the rules that coordinate economic activities.
Is the market or morality the most likely causal factor in our analysis? We must recognize that moral
judgments about particular socioeconomic activities are different from moral judgments about the rules of
the market. Values and business ethics shape the behavior of economic actors. If their activities result in
unfavorable or unintended consequences, we should look for an explanation primarily in the social institutions
that nurture the market rather than in market rules themselves.
Discussions about “moralizing the market” — that is, about softening some of the consequences of growth
or of the global expansion of the market — are best addressed to the sociocultural priorities of economic
actors. States, international organizations, and civilian groups or movements must help to shape new values
and moral concerns before they can hope to shape the rules of the market and see more desirable behavior.
All economic activities are embedded in sociocultural circumstances. From 10th-century China to 21stcentury
Europe, consumption and production have operated according to prevailing moral values. And in
all historical contexts, moral vision has always been related to religious belief. For instance, there is a
perception today that religious people in East Asian countries tend to be honest in business. By contrast, in
contemporary China, where religion was once banned and is still strictly controlled by the state, poor
business ethics became rampant as the market economy took root.
Qinglian He is a Chinese
economist and a
former senior editor of
the Shenzhen Legal
Daily. She is the author
of The Pitfalls of
Modernization: The
Economic and
Social Problems of
Contemporary
China and The Fog of
Censorship: Media
Control in China.
Qinglian He
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 9
Other factors affect moral vision as well. The economic and cultural globalization of recent decades has
introduced developing countries not only to new economic institutions but also to the norms and values
of the West, which themselves keep changing. The recent hot trends have been ecologically-friendly
consumer products and the establishment of international standards for workplace conditions, as in the
Social Accountability 8000 Standards developed a decade ago. Both are prominent examples of shifting
mores, but the latter has had much more influence on countries like China, where it has improved working
conditions in many factories that were once sweatshops.
A dramatic adjustment of moral values is taking place in today’s transitional societies, as once-isolated
planned economies are being transformed into interconnected market systems. To be sure, the legacy of
statist institutions and the role of dominant elites may delay or hinder the adjustment. In Europe, the
integration of former Soviet bloc countries into the continent’s free-market trading system does not seem
to have brought many negative moral consequences. But in China, one can easily find evidence of a
decline in both the moral order and business ethics. Political influence and government offices are traded
for money, bribes free people from criminal punishment, employers of child labor are rarely punished,
and the sale of blood and human body parts is a common practice.
All of these activities are illegal in China, but the government tolerates them. Obviously, the country is still
far away from the rule of law. Indeed, it is ruled by a political group that stands above the law. Non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) are struggling to fight against these disturbing problems, but their activities
are strictly controlled and each one must be supervised by a government office. Rather than take decisive
action to prohibit these nominally “illegal” activities, the government makes great efforts to control media
reports and Internet discussion about such “negative news damaging to the image of the regime.”
So what deserves blame for the de-moralization of development in China — the free market itself or the
failures of the state and its exclusive ruling elite? The people who set and enforce the rules of every
market play a critical role. This is particularly true in China, where government and party officials make the
laws and supervise economic activities even as they themselves seek to make profits. It is their tolerance of
immoral activities, not the growth of the free market, that has distorted the moral order of Chinese society.
Based on China’s recent experience, I would conclude with three important lessons. First, that despite all
the celebratory coverage in the international press, the Chinese government’s influence on the market
has not been unconditionally positive. Second, that a sustainable and strong market requires a democratic
political structure. Third, that pursuing moral development is no less important a task for China than
encouraging economic development.
Qinglian He
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 10
Michael Walzer
Of course it does. Competition in the market puts people under great pressure to break the ordinary
rules of decent conduct and then to produce good reasons for doing so. It is
these rationalizations — the endless self-deception necessary to meet the bottom
line and still feel okay about it — that corrode moral character. But this isn’t in
itself an argument against the free market. Think about the ways that democratic
politics also corrodes moral character. Competition for political power puts
people under great pressure — to shout lies at public meetings, to make promises
they can’t keep, to take money from shady characters, to compromise principles
that shouldn’t be compromised. All this has to be defended somehow, and moral
character doesn’t survive the defense — at least, it doesn’t survive intact. But
these obvious flaws don’t constitute an argument against democracy.
To be sure, economic and political competition also produce cooperative projects
of many different sorts — partnerships, companies, parties, unions. Within these
projects, empathy, mutual respect, friendship, and solidarity are developed and
reinforced. People learn the give-and-take of collective deliberation. They stake out
positions, take risks, and forge alliances. All these processes build character. But
because the stakes are so high, participants in these activities also learn to watch and
distrust one another, to conceal their plans, to betray their friends, and — we know
the rest, from Watergate to Enron. They become “characters” in familiar stories of
corporate corruption, political scandal, defrauded stockholders, and deceived voters. Let the buyer
beware! Let the voter beware!
Is there a way of making political and economic competition safe for moral men and women? It certainly
can’t be made entirely safe. Free markets and free elections are inherently dangerous for all participants, not
only because the wrong people, products, and policies may win out, but also because the cost of winning
for the right people, products, and policies may be too high. We don’t, however, treat the dangers of markets
and elections in the same way. We work hard to set limits on political competition and to open politics
to the participation of more or less moral mortals. Politicians aren’t widely recognized as moral exemplars
these days, in part because they live so much in the media eye, and every sin, every foible, is broadcast
to the world.
Nevertheless, constitutional democracies have succeeded in stopping the worst forms of political corruption.
We are free from the whims of tyrants, from aristocratic arrogance, from repression, arbitrary arrest,
censorship, fixed courtrooms, and show trials — not so free that we don’t need vigilantly to defend our
freedom, but free enough to organize the defense. Politicians who lie too often or break too many promises
tend to lose elections. No, the worst corruptions of our public life come not from politics but from the
economy, and they come because we don’t have similar constitutional limits on market behavior.
Michael Walzer is
professor emeritus in
the School of Social
Science at the Institute
for Advanced Study
in Princeton, New Jersey.
He is a contributing
editor of the New
Republic, co-editor of
Dissent, and the author,
most recently, of
Thinking Politically.
MICHAEL WALZER
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 11
Perhaps the most important achievement of constitutional democracy has been to take the desperation out
of politics. Losing power doesn’t mean getting shot. Supporters of the losing side are not enslaved or
exiled. The stakes in the power struggle are lower than they used to be, which greatly improves the options
for moral conduct. The modern welfare state is supposed to do the same thing for the economy: it
constitutionalizes the market by setting limits on what can be lost. But in fact, in the United States at least,
we don’t have much in the way of market constitutionalism. For too many people, the competitive
struggle is pretty close to desperate. What is at risk is the survival of a family, healthcare for the children,
a decent education, dignity in old age. And risks like those don’t leave a lot of room for morality.
Decent people will act decently, and most people are decent when they can be. Still, the effects of the
struggle are steadily corrosive.
Another achievement of constitutionalism has been to set limits on the political power of the most
powerful men and women. They must live with countervailing powers, opposition parties and
movements, periodic elections, a free and sometimes critical press. The primary point of these restraints
is to minimize the harm that already corroded characters can do. But some of our politicians actually
internalize the restraints, and that is an important character-building process.
Market constitutionalism would set similar limits on the economic power of the wealthiest men and
women. But again, obviously, we don’t have much of a market constitution. Restraints on economic
power are very weak; the countervailing power of labor unions has been greatly reduced; the tax system
is increasingly regressive; the regulation of banking, investment, pricing policies, and pension funds is
virtually nonexistent. The arrogance of the economic elite these last few decades has been astonishing.
And it stems from a clear-eyed view that they can do just about anything they want to do. That kind
of power, as Lord Acton wrote years ago, is deeply corrupting.
The corruption extends to politics, where the influence of money, earned without restraint in an unrestrained
market, undermines the political constitution. You need money, let’s say, to run a political
campaign (for a good candidate or a good cause), and here is someone — a banker, a corporate giant —
who has a lot of money and is offering it for a price, for policies or legislation that will improve his
market position. The other side is taking money like that, as much as it can get. Whose character will
resist corrosion now?
Some might argue: isn’t this the way character is tested? If market constitutionalism limits the power
of wealth and the welfare state reduces the fear of poverty, don’t we make virtue too easy? Easier, maybe, but
never very easy. Consider again the political analogy: do we make virtue too easy when we deny Presidents
tyrannical power and when we protect the powerless from persecution? The corrosive pressures of electoral
competition don’t go away. We set limits on those pressures out of respect for human frailty. And if we
need to do that with regard to governments, we surely need to do it with regard to markets.
MICHAEL WALZER
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 12
Michael Novak
No! And, well, yes. At America’s birth, most societies were organized on the foundation of either a
landholding aristocracy or a strong military establishment. The American founders
rejected these models and argued strenuously that a new society, built upon
free commerce, would both engender a higher set of virtues and prove safer for,
and more committed to, the rule of law. Such a society would be dedicated not
to the pursuit of power but to the creation of plenty. As Alexander Hamilton
noted in Federalist #12: “The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged
by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most
productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object
of their political cares.” Commerce would distract men from previous sources
of division and faction. Their passions would turn from political causes to market
activity, and the spirit of cooperation necessary for free markets would gradually
attach their loyalties to the larger republic.
A commercial society also would be far, far better for the poor, and it would have a
beneficent effect on public and personal morality. Through their careful study of
history, the founders had learned that a society rooted in military power tended to
become touchy and erratic — too quick to fight wars of injured pride — at great
and repetitive expense to the poor. Generation after generation had seen scant
progress out of poverty, the Scottish philosopher David Hume averred. Wars
of honor and revenge and quarrels among emperors, monarchs, and barons repeatedly erased any small
steps of progress made by the poor.
As for landed aristocracies, their courts were too given to diversions, entertainments, seductions, and
decadence. Even though many chivalrous barons and counts were good soldiers and raised their own
armies, their lives were idle on the whole. They lived easily off the fat of their own spreading properties and
the labor of peasants. They trained armies in order to use up their own agricultural surpluses, which
primitive roads and the absence of the rule of law (outside major cities) prevented from becoming a source
of productive commerce.
Organizing a new society on the basis of aristocracy or the military would not be safe for a republic,
the American founders concluded. A republic would need independent, self-made, inventive, creative men,
unafraid to get their hands dirty, proud of being hard workers, much taken with innovation, and determined
to find better (often less onerous) ways of doing things. Independence and innovation, leading to
a constantly improving common good, would be the fruits of a commercial society, at least for a free
republic such as the infant United States.
Furthermore, the founders thought, a society built upon commerce would have to establish personal
accountability before the law. Without a law-abiding society, relying on courts to enforce contracts, how
Michael Novak is the
George Frederick Jewett
Scholar in Religion,
Philosophy, and Public
Policy at the American
Enterprise Institute.
His more than twentyfive
books include The
Spirit of Democratic
Capitalism and,
most recently, No One
Sees God.
MICHAEL NOVAK
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 13
could men and women engaged in commerce take large risks before they had even received full payment
for their efforts? Ships sent from New England to bring back tea from Asia had to be paid before
they could return and sell their cargo. Pirates would need to be fought, not only by written law but by law
enforced at gunpoint upon the high seas (thus Jefferson’s campaigns against the Barbary pirates). No
wonder the motto of Amsterdam, then one of the great commercial capitals of the world and an object of
the founders’ admiration, was Commercium et Pax: Commerce fosters peace. Commerce is what neighbors
exchange with each other peacefully, rather than simply seize in warfare.
Our forebears believed that a commercial society would instruct all its members in hard work, regularity,
and innovation. It would also teach Americans to be bold in adventure (like the New England sea captains),
modest in their expectations of gain, and thrifty in their repeated reinvestment of gains for the sake of
future compounding. These activities would be an alternative to the conspicuous consumption of the old
landed aristocracy. A commercial society encouraged an honest, responsible, self-denying, and futureoriented
citizenry. Such a citizenry is especially needed to make free republics law-abiding and prosperous.
Because the roots of commercial society — habits of innovation and invention, the blessedness of hard
work, a focus on the future — spring from imperatives in the Jewish and Christian religions, it was not too
long a stretch for America’s founders to recognize the crucial role of religion and morality in curbing
commercial instincts, keeping them within bounds and steering them from self-destruction. “There are
many things that the law does not prevent citizens from doing that the religion of Americans prevents
them from doing,” Tocqueville noted approvingly.
On the other hand, the successes of a commercial republic also produce, over time, various enervating
influences that corrode the moral strength of societies. Younger generations take for granted the prosperity
won by the sacrifices of their forebears. Some want escape from the disciplines of a commercial republic,
and some have contempt for the restrained manners and mores of their ancestors. Generations inured to
hard work and self-discipline can give way to new generations that hear other music blowing in the wind
and long for rebellion, preferring to luxuriate in idleness rather than to engage in menial work. A generation
committed to saving for tomorrow is replaced by a generation heedlessly living just for today.
In such ways, the very successes of a commercial republic tend to undermine the moral stamina of the
young. The sociologist Daniel Bell dubbed these cyclical turnings of the wheel “the cultural contradictions
of capitalism.” In other words: strong morals in, but over time, loose morals out.
We can see all around us the opportunity for accelerating moral decadence. But such moral decadence
is only a possible outcome, not a necessary one. Well warned against it, we can make special efforts
to overcome its attractions. In this way, the greatest task of a commercial society becomes moral and
cultural deepening, a return to spiritual roots, what our forebears called a “Great Awakening.”
By the reckoning of the Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Fogel, the United States is now in the
slow upsurge of a Fourth Great Awakening. It is characterized by a return to basics, an emphasis on family,
and an invitation to the young to develop the self-nourishing habits of will and mind that are the best
guarantors of strong character. Such young people are the best hope of the future vitality of our republican
liberties and commercial creativity.
MICHAEL NOVAK
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 14
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Certainly. Or does it? It is clear that the ferocious competition of interests and passions, the mad rule of
money, and materialism as the measure of all things — in short, the free market,
released from all rules and governed only by the greed of the most powerful — fatally
corrodes our souls. This is what the great Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn thought
at the end of his life.
This view was shared by the family of French thinkers of the 1930s called the “nonconformists,”
which included Charles Péguy and a few others. They saw commodity
exchange as a source of depersonalization. It was also the thesis of an entire group
of Christian (or simply spiritualist) thinkers who saw in the idea of the “free market”
the death of moral values and the end of man’s faith and aspiration to the absolute.
It was also — and this should put us on alert — one of the main themes of fascism and
one of the reasons the masses were seduced by it. “Stop materialism!” it was proclaimed.
“Put an end to destructive individualism and the social atomization against
which fascism presents its good, safe, organic, and natural communities!” In short,
watch out for the rule of “generalized equivalence” among human values (another
term for the “market”), which the fascisms of every age have found anathema.
So then?
Well, the problem is actually more complicated than it seems. We cannot — we
must not — declare, as if it were a definitive truth, that the market simply and only corrupts. Three corollaries
must be added to this seemingly obvious common-sense contention. First, if the market corrupts,
the various negations of the market corrupt absolutely. Look at fascism. And look at that other hatred of
the market that preceded and followed it: Communism. I doubt that anyone would posit Communism
as the fulfillment of character and soul for its victims or agents.
Second, if it is necessary to choose, if these corruptions must be ranked, it is patently obvious that the
Communist or the fascist corruption through the negation of the market is significantly deeper, deadlier,
and more irreparable than the first. That was obvious for fascism from the start, and it eventually became
obvious for Communism too. I think back to the long journey I made through Central and Eastern
Europe just after the fall of the Berlin Wall. I can still hear my Czech, Polish, Bulgarian, Hungarian, and
East German friends explaining to me that the Communist era, those long decades in a society not
at all governed by the rules of the market, had caused them, in their hearts and souls, to develop a certain
number of vices, even defects — and that they themselves did not know how long it would take to get
rid of them.
Consider, for example, the habit of acting irresponsibly, that is, the inability to take risks, even to make
decisions. I vividly recall an East German engineer who seemed perfectly normal, a democrat in her soul
Bernard-Henri Lévy,
the French philosopher,
has written more than
thirty books, including
the New York Times
bestseller American
Vertigo (2006) and,
most recently, Left
in Dark Times:
A Stand Against the
New Barbarism
(2008), both published
by Random House.
Bernard -Henri Lévy
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 15
and a dissident for years, but who burst into tears the day I asked her to lay out the itinerary for the day
we would be spending together. “They taught me not to decide,” she said, between sobs. “It is like an
amputation, an excision, as if they physically came in and corroded a section of my brain.” Imagine a deep
selfishness with neither nuance nor recourse, much more radical than the self-interest of market societies.
From the viewpoint of those who survived, that is the true balance sheet of Communism. These are the
proofs of corruption, of a corrosion of character, brought about by the actual absence of a free market.
Finally, a third corollary: because it develops the qualities of taking initiative and making decisions, because
it places individuals into relationships with each other, because it is a regime that makes sense only if its
subjects relate to one another — the free market remains, all in all, a factor promoting socialization, a means
of connecting human beings, even of creating fraternity or, in any case, mutual recognition. Hence, it is
the opposite of corruption. We should read Hegel’s texts on the dialectic of recognition in the development
of modern consciousness. We should read Emmanuel Levinas on the question of money (a question
that is tricky, nearly cursed, in my own country). He argued that, far from isolating and atomizing individuals,
money is, in fact, the medium of their interchange. And so, finally, it is necessary to conclude that
there are good uses for the market, since it is one of the means that human beings have found to resist
the all-out war of everyone against everyone else, diagnosed first by Hobbes and then by Freud.
Does the free market corrode moral character? Well, undoubtedly no. It even reinforces our moral
defenses, giving us the capacity to say no and to disagree. Naturally, this is on the condition that we willingly
submit to the rules and refuse the temptation of the jungle and of untamed capitalism. The market, to
borrow Winston Churchill’s famous phrase about democracy, is the worst solution, except for all the others.
(Translated from the French by Sara Sugihara.)
Bernard -Henri Lévy
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 16
Kay S. Hymowitz
Yes, too often. Critics rightfully grasp that the free market undermines the traditional, local arrangements
that people depend on to teach and sustain morality. Consider especially the
experience of children. They first learn morality from their families, with whom they
are most emotionally bonded. Love attaches children to moral conventions and
arouses essential moral emotions like sympathy and guilt. In a preindustrial society,
these moral habits are further reinforced by the tribe or the village, as well as by
religious institutions and folk tales. The developing child is surrounded by a kind of
conspiracy of moral teachers, demonstrating lessons of character by word and (less
reliably) by deed.
Market economies weaken this cultural conspiracy in three powerful ways. First, they
introduce novelty, which challenges established cultural habits and moral verities.
Second, they stir up individual desire in ways that can easily weaken the self-discipline
and moral obligations that make free markets flourish. (As the sociologist Daniel
Bell famously argued, markets can end up cannibalizing their own moral infrastructure.)
And third, as they advance, market economies become more likely to treat
the yet-to-be-socialized child as an autonomous, adult-like actor rather than as an
immature dependent. They often turn the pliant student of moral obligations into
a skeptical, even resistant peer.
Two of the most influential new products of the 20th century, the automobile and the television, perfectly
illustrate the market’s potential to dilute moral consensus and personal loyalties. By exporting insiders
and importing outsiders, the car reduced the sway of the local community and its moral requirements. By
taking fathers to jobs far from home, it accelerated the separation of work from family life. Indeed,
market evolution was the direct cause of the “separate spheres” that placed mothers at the helm of domestic
life and fathers at a distant workplace.
The car also scattered family members (uncles and aunts to California, grandparents to Florida) who
previously might have buttressed the child’s developing moral sense. It increased opportunities for anonymity,
which made it easier to escape shame and embarrassment over violations of moral behavior, and
allowed individuals, especially teenagers, to avoid the judgmental eyes of adults. In the early 20th century,
a juvenile court judge, noting the unexpected use to which young people were putting the new invention,
grumbled that the horseless carriage was nothing more than a “brothel on wheels.”
The cultural disruption wrought by television, and particularly by advertising, has been even more troubling
than that of the car. Before the advent of the small screen, families could expect to do most of their moralizing
work safe from commercial intrusions. Family life could be imagined as a “haven in a heartless world,”
in the words of the sociologist Christopher Lasch. Salesmen may have come to River City, but they had
to knock on doors and ply their band uniforms and instruments to domestic gatekeepers, usually mothers.
Kay S. Hymowitz is
the William E.
Simon Fellow at the
Manhattan Institute
and a contributing
editor at City Journal.
Her most recent book
is Marriage and Caste
in America: Separate
and Unequal Families
in a Post-Marital Age.
Kay S. Hymowitz
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 17
Television allowed the salesmen to push past parents and sit down right next to the unmoralized child,
tempting him with pleasures against which he had few defenses. More generally, television uses fantasies
of revenge, violent mayhem, sexual license, and material excess to lure viewers, young and old.
Of course, today the Internet is usurping television’s long-held status as the chief sponsor of hedonism,
materialism, and anarchic egotism. If broadcast television had censors who clumsily expressed a cultural
consensus about acceptable public speech, the World Wide Web knows no bounds. Moreover, just as
the automobile gave provincial people new opportunities for anonymity, the Internet allows children to
escape the limitations of their status. Nothing better symbolizes the market’s penchant for turning the
child into a pseudo-adult, for undermining parental authority, and for fostering shame-escaping anonymity,
than the 13-year-old girl arranging a rendezvous with a 40-year-old man on an Internet chat room while
her parents assume she is doing her homework.
But all the news is not bad. Even though the market has undermined the power of community norms
and loaded sole responsibility for moral teaching onto the shoulders of individual parents, all the while
bombarding kids with the likes of Grand Theft Auto and Paris Hilton, it has yet to bring us Gomorrah.
In the United States, indicators of juvenile moral health, like rates of violence and promiscuity and rebellious
attitudes toward adults, have declined in recent decades even as the electronic media have
increased the market’s reach.
Why? One reason is that middle-class parents have reacted to the market’s siren calls by intensifying their
watchfulness. Their efforts have sometimes been ridiculed, and for good reason. But hyper-parenting is
an understandable response to the dislocations that come with free-market innovation and actually attests
to the resilience, at least among the middle class, of the bourgeois family, which evolved in response to
capitalism. In communities where mothers have gone to work, extended families have moved away, and
strangers and cars roam, parents continue to supervise their children through the use of cell phones,
extracurricular programs, surrogates like tutors and coaches, and, alas, Internet spying programs and even
GPS devices.
The relative moral health of the young has also been bolstered, it must be said, by the free market’s relentless
encouragement of self-discipline. To succeed in today’s knowledge economy, young people understand
that they must excel at school. Despite the temptations of consumerism, middle-class and aspiring immigrant
children grow up knowing that education is crucial to maintaining or improving their status and that
competition in the knowledge economy is keen. In an earlier day, children imbued with the Protestant ethic
did their chores and minded their p’s and q’s. Today’s kids go to cram schools and carry 40-pound backpacks.
So does this mean that critics of the market have been proved wrong? Not exactly. The free market’s
celebration of hedonism and autonomy has had its predicted effect on those with less cultural capital — the
poor and, more recently, the working class. In low-income communities, the assault on norms of selfrestraint
and fidelity in personal relations has undermined both the extended and the nuclear family. In
many such communities, divorce and out-of-wedlock births are becoming the norm. The work of
moralizing the next generation in an advanced market economy is difficult under the best conditions. For
single mothers in low-income communities, where schools are chaotic and responsible males are few
and far between, it may be close to impossible.
Kay S. Hymowitz
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 18
Tyler Cowen
No, on balance. In matters of morality, the free market functions like an amplifier. By placing more
wealth and resources at our disposal, it tends to boost and accentuate whatever
character tendencies we already possess. The net result is usually favorable. Most people
want a good life for themselves and for their families and friends, and such desires
form a part of positive moral character. Markets make it possible for vast numbers of
people, at every level of society, to strive for and achieve these common human ends.
Other features of the free market also encourage the better angels of our nature and
discourage our destructive impulses. People who are good at cooperating with others
tend to be better money-makers, for instance. They find it easier to work with fellow
employees, easier to communicate with customers, and easier to pitch a business plan
to venture capitalists. The more we are rewarded for such cooperation, the more our
characters move in a cooperative direction.
In a more personal sense, the free market also allows people to realize a range of
good intentions. Markets allow productive people to provide extraordinary service
to generations of their fellow human beings: by inventing new drugs, developing
labor-saving devices, or finding cheaper, more efficient ways to supply the world with
food. The chance to become wealthy is often an incentive for such creative types, and ego and ambition
are also prime factors. But we should not confuse these motivations with bad character. Markets make it
possible to harness our desire for wealth and personal distinction to our more altruistic impulses. They
spark us to do good by doing well. And, of course, they create the means for people to donate their wealth
and labor to a range of philanthropic causes.
From an international point of view, the moral attractions of markets are clear. Consider immigration.
Across the world, people tend to migrate to market-friendly societies and away from market-unfriendly
societies — and money is not the only motivating factor. They are also drawn by the opportunity to
live under a system that offers a better quality of life, and especially by the opportunity to escape from the
morally degrading favor-seeking of many other economic arrangements. Every year, Transparency
International issues an index of the most corrupt places in the world to do business. The countries topping
last year’s list were Iraq, Myanmar, and Somalia. The least corrupt countries were Denmark, Finland,
and New Zealand, all of which have active market economies.
Does this mean that markets have caused the lack of corruption? No, but it is obvious that the rise of
markets and the decline of corruption are part of a common and consistent thread of progress. One of
the most important functions of markets is to create a consensus around certain moral expectations:
that agreements should be binding, that honesty is expected in transactions, that economic actors are held
accountable for broken promises. All of these ideas have positive social consequences far beyond the realm
of commerce, as any observer of modern market societies can see.
Tyler Cowen is Holbert
C. Harris Professor of
Economics and director
of the Mercatus Center
at George Mason
University. His latest
book is Discover Your
Inner Economist,
and he blogs at www.
marginalrevolution.com.
Tyler Cowen
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 19
Some qualifications are in order. Not all markets are “free,” in the sense of having well-enforced laws
against aggression and fraud. Free markets also require a certain baseline level of trust and a shared cultural
understanding of market rules. “Corrupted” markets, as I would call them, do not meet these criteria.
They allow evildoers, such as hit men and the mafia, to commit crimes, and they give deceptive businesses
the means to sell tainted or defective products or (borrowing from recent headlines) to pawn off
mortgages that are too good to be true.
Nor should we deceive ourselves by thinking that the broader definition of self-interest encouraged
by markets is always noble. Trying to advance the aims of your family, friends, and community certainly
has a positive moral dimension, but it can also be accompanied by envy, greed, self-deception, and a
variety of other human imperfections. By making more social activity of every kind possible, the market
creates greater scope for these vices.
As observers of economic life, many of us (especially if we happen to be journalists or academics) focus
too often on these sorts of negative examples. But we need to take a wider view of human progress. In
the midst of our own long era of economic growth and expansion, it is obvious that the positive features
of markets decisively outweigh their negative features. This is true not only because of the practical and
material benefits of wealth creation but because of its beneficial effect on personal morality as well.
Tyler Cowen
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 20
Robert B. Reich
We’d rather not know.
Most of us are consumers who try to get the best possible deals in the market.
Most of us are also moral beings who try to do the right things in our communities
and societies. Unfortunately, our market desires often conflict with our moral
commitments. So how do we cope with this conflict? All too often, we avoid it. We
would rather the decisions we make as consumers not reflect upon our moral
characters. That way we don’t have to make uncomfortable choices between the
products and services we want and the ideals to which we aspire.
For example, when the products we want can be made most cheaply overseas, the
best deals we can get in the marketplace may come at the expense of our own neighbors’
jobs and wages. Great deals also frequently come at the expense of our Main
Streets — the hubs of our communities — because we can get lower prices at big-box
retailers on the outskirts of town. As moral actors, we care about the well-being of
our neighbors and our communities. But as consumers we eagerly seek deals that may
undermine the living standards of our neighbors and the neighborliness of our
communities. How do we cope with this conflict? Usually by ignoring it.
Similarly, as moral beings we want to think of ourselves as stewards of the environment,
intent on protecting future generations. But as consumers, we often disregard
this moral aspiration. Many of us continue to buy cars that spew carbon into the air, and some of us
spend lots of time flying from one location to another in jet airplanes that have an even greater carbon
footprint. And we often buy low-priced items from poor nations in which environmental standards
are lax and factories spill toxic chemicals into water supplies or pollutants into the air. How do we square
our moral stand on the environment with our purchasing habits? Beyond buying the occasional “ecofriendly”
product, we typically don’t even try.
Our market transactions have all sorts of moral consequences we’d rather not know about. We may get
great deals because a producer has cut costs by setting up shop in poor nations and hiring children
who work twelve hours a day, seven days a week, or by eliminating the health and pension benefits of its
American employees, or by cutting corners on worker safety. As moral beings, most of us would not
intentionally choose these outcomes, but as seekers of great deals we are ultimately responsible for them.
We usually avoid addressing the conflicts between our market impulses and moral ideals in two ways.
First, if we learn of morally objectionable outcomes such as those I have described above, we assign responsibility
for them to producers and sellers rather than to ourselves as consumers. We believe, for example,
that big-box retailers are wholly responsible for giving their employees low wages and for draining business
away from Main Streets, or that automakers are responsible for producing cars that emit so much
carbon pollution.
Robert B. Reich is
professor of public policy
at the University of
California at Berkeley.
He has published twelve
books on public policy
and has served in three
national administrations,
most recently as secretary
of labor under President
Bill Clinton.
Robert B. Reic h
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 21
Yet this logic is flawed. Producers and sellers usually have little choice but to cut costs as low if not lower
than their competitors. Our own incessant demands for great deals require them to do so. They know that if
they fail to offer us what we want, we’re likely to take our money to their competitors. The morally objectionable
outcomes we blame them for are often the inevitable side effects of their attempts to respond to
our own demands for great deals.
The second way we avoid facing up to these conflicts is by compartmentalizing our market desires from
our moral visions. We in effect “launder” our money through the market mechanism. When we buy
from a seller who is the local franchisee of a giant retailer, and that giant retailer obtains the product
through a distribution network that gets it from a manufacturer, and that manufacturer assembles
specialized components from contractors who employ subcontractors all over the world, the ultimate
social consequences of our purchase are so far removed from it that we can easily shield ourselves
from moral responsibility. We simply don’t see the connection between our consumer choices and, for
example, the child laboring in a poor nation or our neighbors losing their jobs and wages.
To be sure, some consumers do shop with an eye to these far-removed moral consequences, and
some companies pride themselves on selling goods and services produced in socially and morally responsible
ways. But the evidence shows that most consumers want only the great deals. Even if we like to
associate ourselves with responsible brands, most of us don’t want to pay any extra for responsible products.
The market does not corrode our character. Rather, in these two ways it enables us to shield ourselves
from any true test of our character. It thereby allows us to retain our moral ideals even when our market
choices generate outcomes that would otherwise violate them.
If the market mechanism were so transparent that we could not avoid knowing the moral effects of our
buying decisions, presumably we would then have to choose either to sacrifice some material comforts for
the sake of our ideals or to sacrifice those ideals in order to have the comforts. That would be a true test.
Absent such transparency, we don’t need to sacrifice either. We can get the great deals and simultaneously
retain our moral scruples without breaking a sweat.
Robert B. Reic h
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 22
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Not at all. There is little consensus on what is moral, let alone on what corrodes morality. A
man of faith measures moral character by one’s ability to abide by the demands of
his God. A socialist might measure moral strength by one’s dedication to the
redistribution of wealth. A liberal — by which I mean a classical, Adam Smith or
Milton Friedman liberal, not a liberal in its American meaning of “pro-big
government” — might be religious, and he might see the merits of income equality,
but he will always put freedom first. This is the moral framework to which I subscribe.
According to this school of thought, freedom of the individual is the highest aim, and
the ultimate test of a person’s character is his ability to pursue his own chosen goals
in life without infringing upon the freedom of others to pursue their own goals. From
this perspective, free economic activity among individuals, corporations, and nations
boosts such desirable qualities as trust, honesty, and hard work. Producers are compelled
to continually improve their goods and services. The free market establishes a
meritocracy and creates opportunities for better jobs for those students who work
hard at school. The same mechanism pushes parents to invest more time and money in
the education of their children. Producers invest in research and innovation to beat
their competitors in the marketplace.
To appreciate just how effectively the free market strengthens moral character, it is helpful to glance at
economic systems that undermine or openly reject it. Everywhere Communism has been tried, for instance,
it has resulted not just in corruption and sub-standard products but also in fear, apathy, ignorance, oppression,
and a general lack of trust. The Soviet Union and pre-reform China were morally as well as economically
bankrupt.
Or consider the feudal order typified by Saudi Arabia. There we see an absolute monarch, a religious
hierarchy that reinforces the ruling family’s hold on power, and several classes of serfs: the oppressed Shi’a
minority, the vastly exploited underclass of immigrant workers, and women, who are confined and
abused. The stagnation and oppression of Saudi society make it utterly immoral in the eyes of a classical
liberal. Unlike Communism, it cannot even proffer the fig leaf of greater “fairness.”
Free markets have their moral flaws. I can see why critics find it difficult to detect morality in a market
system that allows young girls to earn vast wealth for swaying and warbling on TV and young men to
become obscenely prosperous because they can hip-hop to drug-induced rhythmic heights. A legitimate
debate also exists between proponents of entirely free markets and those who suggest that vital services
such as healthcare and education require a measure of government oversight.
Born in Somalia, Ayaan
Hirsi Ali emigrated in
1992 to the Netherlands,
where she served as a
member of parliament
from 2003 to 2006.
She is the author of the
bestseller Infidel
and a research fellow
at the American
Enterprise Institute.
Ayan Hirsi Ali
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 23
To my mind, the extent of government welfare services in Western Europe is excessive and counterproductive;
it discourages innovation and rewards dependency, corroding moral fiber and individual responsibility
by encouraging people to become lazy and dependent on the state for things they could (and should) do
for themselves. In a free-market society, where liberty comes first, individuals tend to be more creative and
to innovate; in welfare states that assign priority to equality, the natural resourcefulness of human beings
is perverted. To become successful, you must learn how to “work the system” rather than how to develop a
better product. Risk is avoided, and individual responsibility is thwarted. Although superficially the
system may appear fair, it promotes mediocrity and a sense of victimhood, and it discourages those who
want to excel.
Free-market societies are under fire from environmentalists today for supposedly ruining the planet. But
the passionate debate about global warming and the moral implications of waste and pollution has arisen
only in politically free societies. Moreover, as governments debate whether global warming is really
man-made, economic actors have already begun to incorporate these concerns into their production and
investment. They have begun taking measures to build more fuel-efficient cars and to create affordable
systems to provide alternative sources of energy. Greener-than-thou marketing is a strong force among a
certain sector of consumers. Corporations and firms do this because they are rational economic actors.
Companies that are greener may actually make more profits than those that ignore environmental morality.
Are the rich always greedy? There are many wealthy, decadent, and vapid people in America. But there
are also many very active philanthropists, and indeed, thanks to some of the wealthiest people in the
country, there is a marked improvement in public awareness in the fight against various epidemics. The
goal of wiping out malaria, for instance, might sooner be achieved by private investors than by states
or UN bureaucrats.
These fortunate men and women also take pride in their contributions to such cultural goods as libraries,
concerts, museums, and, lately, a cleaner planet. The very active individual philanthropy that characterizes
America may be a function of the tax code, but that is interesting in itself: a well-framed free market
can be more effective in improving the common good than a bloated international bureaucracy operated
by governments.
For those seeking moral perfection and a perfect society, a free market is not the answer. In the course of
history, the search for perfect societies — that is, the failure to acknowledge human imperfection — almost
always ended in one or another form of theocracy, authoritarianism, or violent anarchy. But for those
who seek to work with human flaws of every stripe, and to increase the sum total of individual happiness,
the free market, combined with political freedom, is the best way.
America is imperfect, chaotic, sometimes decadent, and often rough on the weak. But its moral standards
are far higher than those of history’s other great powers.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 24
John C. Bogle
It all depends. The answer depends completely on what kind of market we are talking about and
what we mean by “moral character.” Today’s supposedly “free market” could
be described more accurately as a “fettered” market. Our financial and corporate
regimes fall well short of the classic assumptions of perfect structure, perfect
competition, and perfect information.
In the first edition of Economics: An Introductory Analysis, a textbook that I read during
my sophomore year at Princeton in 1948, the Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson aptly
summed up the issue: “the problem with perfect competition is what George Bernard
Shaw once said of Christianity: ‘the only trouble with it is that it’s never been tried.’ ”
Another Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, has been even tougher on the recent
failures of the free market. A former World Bank chief economist, Stiglitz notes
that the corporate scandals of the last several years “involved virtually all of our
accounting firms, most of our major banks, many of our mutual funds, and a large
proportion of our major corporations.” His conclusion: “Markets do not lead to
efficient outcomes, let alone outcomes that comport with social justice.”
I would argue that the effect is less causal than corollary. The wellspring of the current
financial crisis has less to do with the fundamental character of markets, or of people,
than with relatively recent structural changes in the character of our financial and
capital institutions. A little more than a half-century ago, we lived in what could be described fairly as an
ownership society, one in which corporate shares were largely owned by individual investors. In this society,
the “invisible hand” described by Adam Smith in the 18th century remained an important factor. The
system was dominated by individual investors, who, pursuing their own self-interest, not only advanced the
interests of society but exhibited such positive character traits as prudence, initiative, and self-reliance.
But in recent decades we have become an agency society, one in which corporate managers hold control
over our giant publicly-held business enterprises without holding significant ownership stakes. Call it
managers’ capitalism. Similarly, the financial intermediaries that now hold voting control of corporate
America are agents for the vast majority of individual investors. In the early 1950s, individuals held
92 percent of all U.S. stocks, and institutions held just 8 percent. Today, individuals hold only 25 percent
directly while institutions — largely mutual funds and pension funds — hold 75 percent.
But these new agents haven’t behaved as agents should. Too frequently, corporations, pension managers,
and mutual-fund managers have put their own financial interests ahead of the interests of the principals
whom they are duty-bound to represent, those 100 million families who are the owners of our mutual
funds and the beneficiaries of our pension plans. This failure is hardly a surprise. As Adam Smith wisely put
John C. Bogle is founder
and former CEO of
Vanguard and president
of the Bogle Financial
Markets Research
Center. His many books
include The Little
Book of Common
Sense Investing
and Enough: True
Measures of
Money, Business,
and Life, which will
be published this fall.
John C . Bogle
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 25
it, “managers of other people’s money (rarely) watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which…
they watch over their own.… [T]hey very easily give themselves a dispensation. Negligence and profusion must
always prevail.”
What’s more, the free-market system has been debased because our new institutional agents not only
seem to ignore the interests of their investor principals, they also seem to have forgotten their own investment
principles. In the latter part of the 20th century, the predominant focus of institutional investment
strategy turned from the wisdom of long-term investing to the folly of short-term speculation.
When long-term owners of stocks become short-term renters of stocks, and when the momentary price of
the stock takes precedence over the intrinsic value of the corporation itself, concern about corporate
governance is the first casualty. The single most important job of the corporate director is to assure that
management is creating value for shareholders; yet that goal is secondary for our new agent/investors.
As for moral character, it is an absolute. One either has it or one does not. So if moral character in our
society today is eroding (as I believe it is), it can only follow that fewer of our number display solid
character and more of our number do not. Has the change from a free to a “fettered” market contributed
to this development? Certainly. The values of our financial and corporate leaders have deteriorated.
Not all that many decades ago, the rule seemed to be, “there are some things that one simply doesn’t do.”
Let’s call that moral absolutism. Today, the common rule is “if everyone else is doing it, I can do it, too.”
There can be no other name for this view than moral relativism.
This change helps to explain some of the recent aberrations in the free market. We have seen attempts to
administer the prices of the goods and services we sell; the insane rise in executive compensation (30 years
ago the average corporate CEO earned 40 times the compensation of the average worker; today the number
is more like 500 times); financial engineering in the audited statements of firms in order to present the
illusion of sustainable earnings growth; scandalous amounts of money paid to lobbyists hired to shape the
law in favor of the rich and powerful; and excess risk-taking and expensive financial innovation by our
banking system.
Now that the financial crisis is upon us, however, the burden is largely falling not on the irresponsible few
who created it but on the many who, against the counsel of traditional thrift and prudence, were lured into
it — namely, the investors in overrated mortgage-backed bonds and borrowers whose homes are being
foreclosed at record levels. “Fettered” capitalism has indeed corroded our moral character, by both privatizing
the rewards of the market and (in the form of federal bailouts) socializing its risks. Both are betrayals of
the free market and its genuine virtues. Our society has a huge stake in demanding higher moral values in a
less fettered market system.
John C . Bogle
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 26
Rick Santorum
No. In fact, markets require moral character if they are to be truly free, and truly free
markets, in turn, promote moral character. But free markets are no guarantor
of moral character. As today’s cultural environment shows, the free market tends
to heighten certain moral risks.
As a politician, I might seem less qualified to answer this question than an economist.
But as a politician, I have learned a great deal in the many years I’ve spent discussing
freedom, morality, and economics with thousands of Americans. These experiences
have taught me that the most important word in “free market” is “free” — that a free
market is more of a political and moral reality than an economic one.
The free market depends on and rewards many human virtues. For example, market
actors must develop the virtue of prudence — carefulness, foresight, and good judgment
about the best way to apply a general rule in particular circumstances. Market actors
must make and keep promises, even when an error in judgment means a particular
promise is not profitable to keep. These habits result in increased social capital, which
is the best lubricant for the free-market machine.
Success in the free market depends on industry and diligence. Lazy and unfocused
participants don’t last long in business. Moreover, direct participation in a free-market
economy promotes self-reliance and healthy individualism. Participants develop
the habit of seeing problems as opportunities and of solving them by their own effort.
But here we encounter our first check. Critics often charge that free markets and the profit motive promote
an unhealthy, selfish individualism that elevates self-concern above all else and slights social obligations.
But individualism is perfectly compatible with social solidarity and charity toward others. In fact, healthy
individualism — an individual’s belief in his own power to provide for himself and his family and to
bring about needed social change — is the necessary precondition of solidarity with peers and charity
toward others in need. Indeed, as George Gilder has eloquently argued, actors in a market economy
are inherently oriented toward service to others: they discover others’ reasonable needs and satisfy them with
useful goods and services.
Though market economies tend to promote and reward many virtues, we should not equate free-market
economics with virtue and morality. First, markets cannot exist without underlying moral norms, rights
and obligations such as private property and peaceful exchange. Many economists explain basic moral
questions such as ownership, the illegitimacy of theft, and even the illegitimacy of slavery in terms of the
supposed “efficiency” of such norms. They’re welcome to do so. But it is impossible to derive the basic
norms that make free markets possible from free-market principles themselves. The reason: “efficiency”
Rick Santorum, a U.S.
Senator from
Pennsylvania from
1995 to 2007 and
a member of the U.S.
House of Representatives
from 1991 to 1995,
contributes a twicemonthly
column to the
Philadelphia Inquirer
and is a senior fellow
at the Ethics and Public
Policy Center in
Washington, D.C.
Rick Santorum
A TEMPLETON CONVERSATION 27
analysis depends on voluntary and peaceful exchange, which depends on the social or legal enforcement of
a preexisting moral order.
Second, while free markets can contribute to virtue and morality, they are by no means their guarantor.
Market factors such as the profit motive can become unbalanced and over-prioritized, leading to greed and
selfishness. The solution is not to condemn the market economy, but rather to teach its participants to
focus on service to others both inside and outside of economic exchanges, and to keep profit and self-interest
in balance with family, community needs, and the promotion of trust and other social goods. Also,
the basic market principle of profiting by serving others’ needs can lead to problems if the “needs” being
met are vices. Though market actors must be careful not to impose a narrow Puritanism on their customers
and clients, there are points where the pursuit of profit can cross clear moral boundaries.
This tension poses a broader question beyond free markets: does freedom itself corrode moral character?
Looking at the dismal state of contemporary American culture, one might be tempted to answer “yes.”
We are constantly bombarded with grim statistics about the state of moral decay, from pornography and
marital infidelity to drug use and crime. This decay has resulted from the devolution of liberty, best
defined as freedom with responsibility, into license, the freedom to do whatever you want irrespective of
its effect on others.
The American founders’ conception of liberty as a purposeful freedom, oriented toward something more
important than self, diverges sharply from today’s pop-culture view of freedom as a freedom from any
restraint on immediate urges and desires. Pope John Paul II rightly distinguished between the true freedom
of doing what you ought to do in a way that makes use of your unique situation and talents — the freedom
of means — to the false freedom of doing whatever you want, however base the goal or desire — the
freedom of ends. Human ends and human goods, given to us by our nature, are not things we can freely
define and redefine. We thrive not when we do whatever we want in the moment but when we choose
higher goods and longer-term goals. This kind of human thriving requires self-discipline and creativity.
Ultimately, as we find all too often today in the United States, the licentious view of freedom leads to
a disregard for the moral and licit. This tendency actually leads to less freedom, because people become
enslaved to their own passions and end up disregarding the rights and impinging on the freedom of
others. This licentious understanding of freedom undermines the proper function of free markets, which
depend on honesty, trust, responsibility, self-reliance, and setting and adhering to long-term goals.
Free markets do not corrode moral character, though they may increase the risk of certain kinds of moral
problems. And while free markets undoubtedly play an important role in promoting virtue, strong families
and communities are required to help foster individual virtue and the freedom this virtue allows. Like
other aspects of a free and just society, free markets depend on individual morality — on taming our selfish
passions and impulses and choosing the goals given to us by Nature and Nature’s God.
Rick Santorum
300 Conshohocken State Road, Suite 500
West Conshohocken, PA 19428
Tel: 610.941.2828 Fax: 610.825.1730
www.templeton.org

The Outrageous Imposture of Contemporary TV as a Medium of Knowledge, by Dr. Groothus

2009-09-07T09:23:00.000-07:00

As many of you know, I do not watch television. But occasionally, I watch a segment on YouTube. I just did and it appalled me deeply. This is a four-minute "story" on the teaching of science in Texas. I favor "teaching the controversy" over Darwinism. Darwinists typically do not. However, you will not learn anything of substance from this special-effects laden, image-mongering, sound-bit crazed, and factoid-frenzied hyperactive hodgepodge. Since I do not watch TV, when I see something like this it is jarring, startling, and intellectually offensive. It frightens me to think that people live in this world--on an average of four hours a day, according to the new Nielsen ratings.There is simply no way to gain any meaningful knowledge about this issue from this format. They took hours of interviews and used no more than 10 second sound bites. They tried to distill (and dramatize) important scientific, pedagogical, and legal issues into four minutes of rapid-fire image explosions (with musical background where needed, of course).Friends, stop watching TV for just ten days. Then go back and watch. You will be stunned. You will be better for it. Leave the cave and ascend to reality.

John Piper on "Re-Birth."

2009-09-06T16:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.desiringgod.org/media/pdf/books_bfa/books_bfa.pdf

See also NT Wright book on Justification

Never Defend Yourself-EXodus 23

2009-08-30T21:01:00.000-07:00

You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a e malicious witness. 2 You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, 3 f nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.
4 g “If you meet your enemy's ox or his donkey going astray, you shall bring it back to him. 5 If you see the donkey of one who hates you lying down under its burden, you shall refrain from leaving him with it; you shall rescue it with him.
6 h “You shall not pervert the justice due to your poor in his lawsuit.7 d Keep far from a false charge, and i do not kill the innocent and righteous, for j I will not acquit the wicked. 8 k And you shall take no bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted and subverts the cause of those who are in the right.
9 l “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.
Laws About the Sabbath and Festivals
10 m “For six years you shall sow your land and gather in its yield, 11 but the seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, that the poor of your people may eat; and what they leave the beasts of the field may eat. You shall do likewise with your vineyard, and with your olive orchard.
12 n “Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, may be refreshed.
13 o “Pay attention to all that I have said to you, and make no mention of the names of other gods, nor let it be heard on your lips.
14 p “Three times in the year you shall keep a feast to me. 15 q You shall keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread. As I commanded you, you shall eat unleavened bread for seven days at the appointed time in the month ofr Abib, for in it you came out of Egypt. s None shall appear before me empty-handed. 16 You shall keep t the Feast of Harvest, of the firstfruits of your labor, of what you sow in the field. You shall keep the u Feast of Ingathering at the end of the year, when you gather in from the field the fruit of your labor. 17 p Three times in the year shall all your males appear before the Lord God.
18 v “You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with anything leavened, or let the fat of my feast remain until the morning.
19 “The best of the w firstfruits of your ground you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God.
x “You shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk.
Conquest of Canaan Promised
20 y “Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 21 Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; z do not rebel against him, a for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name is in him.
22 “But if you carefully obey his voice and do all that I say, then b I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries.
23 y “When my angel goes before you and brings you c to the Amorites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, and I blot them out, 24 you shall d not bow down to their gods nor serve them, e nor do as they do, but f you shall utterly overthrow them and break their g pillars in pieces. 25 You h shall serve the Lord your God, and i he [1] will bless your bread and your water, and j I will take sickness away from among you. 26 k None shall miscarry or be barren in your land; I will fulfill the l number of your days. 27 I will send m my terror before you and will throw into n confusion all the people against whom you shall come, and I will make all your enemies turn their backs to you. 28 And o I will send hornets before you, which shall drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you. 29 p I will not drive them out from before you in one year, lest the land become desolate and the wild beasts multiply against you. 30 Little by little I will drive them out from before you, until you have increased and possess the land. 31 q And I will set your border from the Red Sea to the Sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the Euphrates, for r I will give the inhabitants of the land into your hand, and you shall drive them out before you. 32 s You shall make no covenant with them and their gods. 33 They shall not dwell in your land, lest they make you sin against me; for if you serve their gods, t it will surely be a snare to you.”

allAfrica.com: Liberia: Memory And Politics - The TRC Report (Page 1 of 2)

2009-07-25T22:40:00.000-07:00

allAfrica.com: Liberia: Memory And Politics - The TRC Report (Page 1 of 2)

You need the truth NOW!

2009-07-22T13:16:00.000-07:00

You need the truth NOW!

Francis Schaeffer-on the Media

2009-06-20T09:12:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qcjvdhV2Ok&NR=1

Dr. Doug Groothuis, on Truth Decay

2009-06-09T23:19:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNaR2kqCryE

The Ethics of Eternity

2009-06-08T12:03:00.000-07:00

The Ethics of Eternity

By Douglas Groothuis

Blaise Pascal the seventeenth century French philosopher, scientist, and
Christian—dwelt deeply and often on matters eternal. The vibrancy of his own
intellectual powers was offset by the strain of his frail and fragile body, which would
survive but a short thirty-nine years. His last few years were wracked by physical pain
and debility; mortality was never far from his view. In this crushing crucible of pain,
Pascal’s passion for truth was undiminished, even as his strength ebbed away. He took
notes on what was to be his “Apology for the Christian Religion.” Although he died
before finishing the work, the notes or “fragments” were discovered and passed on to
posterity. Many of the fragments address the significance of eternity for mortality and
morality. Pascal often attacked the indifference of those who through apathy and
ignorance refused to take the claims of Christianity seriously. In one arresting fragment,
he brings the afterlife to bear on the present life:
The immortality of the soul is something of such vital importance to
us, affecting us so deeply, that one must have lost all feeling not to
care about knowing the facts of the matter. All our actions and
thoughts must follow such different paths, according to whether there
is hope of eternal blessing or not, that the only possible way of acting
with sense and judgment is to decide our course in the light of this
point, which ought to be our ultimate objective.[1]
Pascal the apologist is prodding the agnostic to sober up and consider his
destiny, instead of disposing of Christianity as though it were a trifle. If Christianity is
true, the ramifications are never-ending and beyond measure—for believer and
unbeliever alike. If we are destined only for the grave, this life loses its meaning.[2]
While aimed primarily at the unbeliever, Pascal’s reflections are profitable also
for those who know that eternal blessing awaits them through Christ. The Christian’s
mortality and morality are framed by eternity. “All our actions and thoughts” are affected
by our belief in our own immortality. The reality of heaven is rich with ethical insight for
daily life.
The Christian’s “hope of eternal blessing” removes the ultimate fear of God’s
wrath. We must all appear before the throne of the universe, with nothing hidden and
without excuse. Despite its unpopularity in contemporary culture and even in some
churches, the Final Judgment is a fundamental fact of the future. There come be a Day of
ultimate reckoning for all souls (Daniel 12:1-2; Revelation 20:11-15). As Pascal said,
“Between heaven and hell is only this life, which is the most fragile thing in the
world.”[3] The conscience of the non-Christian labors to obscure this truth either by
chopping the holiness of God down to a scaleable size while pumping up human
page 1 of 4
goodness, or by denying the reality of a personal and moral God altogether—as with
atheism and pantheism.
Countless thoughts and actions are motivated by anxious attempts at selfjustification,
the yearning to be good enough when we know we are not good enough. As
Paul proclaimed, “ no one will be declared righteous in [God’s] sight by observing the
law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin” (Romans 3:20). Pride,
arrogance, and folly result from attempting to attain righteousness apart from Christ.
Richard Lovelace captures the problem of a conscience without roots in the sufficiency of
Christ: “ Such a conscience is forced to draw back into the relative darkness of selfdeception.
Either it manufactures a fictitious righteousness in heroic words of ascetic
piety, or it redefines sin in shallow terms so that it can lose the consciousness of its
presence.”[4]
The Christian can be gloriously free from such folly. We can joyously confess
that God is “ holy, holy, holy,” and that we, in ourselves, are unholy. We can exult that
our final destination is to live forever with God and all his saints in a perfected universe,
all because of Christ’s finished work on the cross on our behalf. The truth that believers
in Christ are under no condemnation from a holy God (Romans 8:1) ethically liberates us
from all efforts at self-justification and allows us to rest in God’s love for us. Because the
Christian has been utterly pardoned of all sin and has received the “ alien righteousness of
Christ” (Luther) as a bestowal of grace, he or she is free to serve God out of gratitude and
thanksgiving, without fear of divine judgment. If we are qualified for heaven on account
of Christ, we can reckon sin to be sin, know we are forgiven, and seek God for greater
conformity to the image of Christ (sanctification). Knowing that we securely live in
God’s justifying grace, we can better experience God’s sanctifying grace—a grace that
empowers us to follow God’s commandments and exhibit the gifts and fruits of the Holy
Spirit.
For the heaven-bound saint, Christ’s command to love God with all our heart,
soul, strength, and mind, and to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37), is
neither an obedience that justifies by works nor an impossible standard that condemns us;
it is, rather, but a compass that guides the soul set free. As Jesus promised, “ If the Son
sets you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
The heaven-ward orientation is sometimes accused of disparaging earthly life,
when just the opposite is true. Storing up treasures in heaven (Matthew 7:19-24) means
glorifying God on earth in all our affairs (1 Corinthians 10:31), for we are the salt of the
earth and the light of the world (Matthew 5:13-14). The Creator owns the universe and
has given humans the charge to care for it under his Lordship (Genesis 1:26-28). Our
arrival in heaven will disclose the measure of our faithfulness to this charge. There will
be no judgment against our sin because Christ alone is our righteousness; however, we
will all give an account for what we have done with the time and talents God has given
us. This fact lends urgency and gravity to our endeavors. As the Teacher counseled:
“Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For
God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is
good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).”
page 2 of 4
All our thoughts and activities should be placed before heaven’s gaze. The
throne room of the universe will disclose everything. Truth will reign without resistance.
This is why Paul exhorts us to “ be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as
wise, making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:15).
As a young Christian, I was profoundly affected by Soren Kierkegaard’s
meditative book, Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing. Kierkegaard can be faulted for his
fideistic tendencies, but his devotional writings are often deeply rewarding. The theme of
this book is the alignment of one’s will with God’s will in light of “ the audit of the
Eternal.” By this, Kierkegaard means the omniscient audience of God concerning our
lives. “ Purity of heart” involves consistently pursuing what matters eternally, according
to one’s unique endowments.
After reading the book, I discerned some basic patterns of obedience to which
God was calling me. I later realized that this obedience also involved teaching. Although
I know that all my sin has been atoned for through the work of Christ and that he has
equipped me to teach, I also remember James’s warning that “ Not many of you should
become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged
with greater strictness.” (James 3:1, NRSV). I will give account for the use of my gifts.
That Day will disclose it all. Therefore, I strive to honor God in my teaching. This
principle applies to whatever gifts anyone has in Christ. Heaven knows and heaven will
show. This sobering thought may bring us up short, but we can always flee to the cross
and remember John’s comforting words, “ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just
and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).
Lest our zeal for God’s kingdom become a frenzied and restless quest to save
the world in our own meager strength (the “messiah complex”), we must remember that
apart from Christ’s strength all our efforts are empty, even if noisy (John 15:1-8). Yet
through Christ, even in the midst of our weaknesses, we can do all the things he calls and
enables us to do (Philippians 4:13).
Besides lending a sense of peace as well as gravity to our endeavors, an
orientation toward our heavenly future can impel us to do what we might otherwise avoid
as small or insignificant. While our culture values media celebrity, however short-lived or
absurd, the ethics of eternity challenges us do what is godly, no matter how seemingly
obscure or unappreciated. Jesus instructed his disciples to give in secret and to pray in the
closet before God and for God’s sake, rather than for the praise of people. By so doing,
we can be sure of God’s reward (Matthew 6:1-6). The cup of cold water given in Jesus’
name may go unnoticed on earth, but it will receive heaven’s eternal praise.
Because, as Pascal observed, our view of the afterlife affects our lives so
thoroughly, we should labor to lay hold of the truths of heaven and bring their reality
down to earth. As Paul declared, “I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which
God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14).
Endnotes
[1] Blaise Pascal, Pensées (New York: Penguin, 1966), 427/194, 156

How Should We Then Live?

2009-05-31T18:25:00.000-07:00

Propositions to Ponder

Propositions to Ponder in Light of “How Should We Then Live?” Book and Film Series by Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-84)The following thoughts are offered to review some of the most salient ideas of this series and to stimulate further thought for your discipleship under Christ and before “the watching world” (as Schaeffer put it). I make no claim that this list is exhaustive or that I have necessarily covered all the most important points.

1. A person’s thinking effects everything about that person. The thought forms of a culture largely determine the fate of that culture. A culture is only as strong as its sense of and obedience to divine reality. See Matthew 7:24-29.

2. Western Christians should know something of the history of Western civilization, in spite of (and because of) the loss of historical knowledge today. This shortfall is especially egregious among those under thirty. See Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation (Tarcher, 2008). Some historical knowledge is required if we are to understand the present, our place within it, and what we should to for the Lord (see 1 Chronicles 12:32). Can we “read the signs of the times”?

3. The secular humanist project of making sense of life and giving meaning to it apart from biblical revelation has failed, philosophically, culturally, and personally. See Proverbs 8:35-36.

4. Christianity alone gives the proper meaning, dignity, and significance to human beings (as created in God image, fallen into sin, but redeemable through Jesus Christ), but does not make them the center of reality. Because Christianity is theocentric and Christocentric; it is not anthropocentric, but neither is it misogynistic. For a biblical (and Pascalian) view of the human condition and plight, see Doug Groothuis, On Pascal (Wadsworth, 2003), chapter eight.

5. Art often tellingly expresses the worldview of an age. Artists are often like antennae that pick up on culture trends and moods before others do so. Moreover, the art of a culture probably affects culture more than its overt philosophy. See Francis A. Schaeffer, Art and the Bible (InterVarsity, 1973).

6. Eastern religions cannot give true significance to humans or to nature, since all is dissolved into an impersonal and infinite reality that is beyond reason. For an assessment of how eastern thought has effected the West, see Doug Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age (InterVarsity, 1986) and Confronting the New Age (InterVarsity, 1988).

7. Contemporary people tend to put meaning, value, and significance into an “upper story” that is immune from philosophical investigation or empirical verification:

8. Meaning, value, significance, spirituality. Realm of non-reason; requires a leapFacts, science, verification. Realm of reason; no leap requiredChristians should reject these fact/value distinctions since (a) Christ is Lord over all of life (Matthew 28:18-20) and (b) Christianity can be supported through reason; it does not require a blind leap of faith into the dark (to reach the upper story). For more on Schaeffer’s apologetic arguments, see He is There, He is Not Silent (Crossway reprint, 2001). The God Who is There, 30th anniversary ed. (InterVarsity, 1998), and Escape from Reason (InterVarsity Press). For a tremendous exposition of the fact/value dichotomy by a student of Schaeffer, see Nancy Pearcey, Total Truth (Crossway, 2004).

9. The scientific revolution was based on a theistic worldview, not a naturalistic one. This was in keeping with a Christian concept of nature as rational and knowable. See Rodney Stark, For the Glory of God (Princeton, 2003), chapter two.

10. We owe the benefits of individual freedom, human rights, and constitutional form in civil government to the ideas that flowed from The Reformation in Europe. Schaeffer also developed these ideas in A Christian Manifesto (Crossway, 1981).

11. Contemporary science—especially after Darwin—has junked any theistic basis for nature and exiled design as “unscientific.” But Darwinism cannot explain either (a) the origin of life or (b) the diversity of the biosphere, since it can only appeal to time, space, chance, and natural law for its explanations. The critique of Darwinism and the arguments for design in nature have come a long way since Schaeffer’s day, but he was on to the basic ideas. See William Dembski, The Design Revolution (InterVarsity, 2004) and Jonathan Wells, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2006) and Icons of Evolution (Regnery, 2000). See also the DVDs: “The Case for Creator” and “Unlocking the Mystery of Life.” Both are by Illustra Media and available at www.arn.org.

12. Contemporary media often manipulate the populace through selective reporting and its implicit worldview of naturalism. Christians should critique the worldview of the mainstream media and consult alternative sources. On scientific matters, see The Discovery Institute: www.discovery.org. On philosophy and culture, see Doug and Rebecca Groothuis web page: www.DougGroothuis.com. Doug Groothuis blog: www.theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com. Rebecca Merrill Groothuis blog: www.menandwomenleaderstogether.blogspot.com.

13. Much of supposedly Christian theology is held hostage to alien worldviews, perspective antithetical to historic Christian orthodoxy. Schaeffer was especially concerned with traditional liberalism (Harry Emerson Fosdick) and neo-orthodoxy (Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, Paul Tillich), both of which grant far too much ground to naturalism. Today many Christian thinkers are compromised by postmodernism. See Doug Groothuis, Truth Decay (InterVarsity Press, 2000), especially chapter seven. Thinkers such as Donald Miller (Blue Like Jazz) and Rob Bell (Velvet Elvis) are afflicted with postmodern glibness, flippancy, and an unhealthy infatuation with mystery and paradox that robs Christianity of its rational, explanatory, and apologetic power (see 1 Peter 3:15-17; Jude 3). These writers reassert the fact/value dichotomy warned of by Schaeffer forty years ago.

Debuncking One Item of Anti-Christian Aologetics in Albania

2009-05-28T22:57:00.000-07:00

By Craig Blomberg - Posted on January 15th, 2009

Dan Wallace reported last year on the ancient New Testament manuscripts discovered by Western scholars after they had been preserved for years, largely unnoticed, in Albanian archives. Today I had a chance to examine some of them.
I'm here for a week's teaching for the Campus Crusade for Christ staff, which itself is an amazing newsworthy story. In this little country of not quite four million people, Campus Crusade has one hundred university staff. With no known Evangelical Christians still alive in this most closed of all the Communist countries until the fall of the Iron Curtain, there are now about 40,000, almost all of whom are in their thirties or younger.
So today during a break, I was able to go to the State Archives and spend an hour or so with a sixth-century manuscript of most of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. I didn't make any new discoveries. Dan did a detailed and thorough job and I was a glorified textual tourist. But it was interesting to see what my friends wanted to look at.
One key text was Mark 1:1. Textual critics have debated whether "Son of God" was original in the title, "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Some of the oldest manuscripts have it; some don't. The Albanian codex I was looking at is not one of the oldest, though it is still older than the vast majority of existing manuscripts. It adds no new significant weight to argue for the originality of the expression than was already present.
But it is huge for the Albanian Christian community. Islamic apologists routinely argue that the New Testament text was significantly corrupted even before the birth of Islam. One of the most objectionable claims for them in all of Christian theology is that Jesus is the Son of God, so this is a prime example of a passae they are convinced has been tampered with. To have, in Albania, a pre-Islamic manuscript that gives the lie to this claim is greatly encouraging to the local Christians as they try to proclaim truth.

The Supremacy of Christ in All Things! Heb 1:1-14-ESV

2009-05-28T20:34:00.000-07:00

Long ago, at many times and a in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets,

2 but b in these last days c he has spoken to us by d his Son, whom he appointed e the heir of all things, f through whom also he created g the world.

3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and h the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. i After making purification for sins, j he sat down k at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

4 having become as much superior to angels as the name l he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
m “You are my Son,today I have begotten you”?
Or again,
n “I will be to him a father,and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings o the firstborn into the world, he says,
p “Let all God's angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,
q “He makes his angels winds,and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,
r “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;therefore God, your God, s has anointed youwith t the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,
u “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,and the heavens are the work of your hands;

11 they will perish, but you remain;they will all wear out like a garment,

12 like a robe you will roll them up,like a garment they will be changed. [1]But you are v the same,and your years will have no end.”

13 And to which of the angels has he ever said,
w “Sit at my right handx until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits y sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to z inherit salvation?

G.K. Chesterton

2009-05-27T21:38:00.000-07:00

It would be too high and hopeful a compliment to say that the world is becoming absolutely babyish. For its chief weak-mindedness is an inability to appreciate the intelligence of babies. On every side we hear whispers and warnings that would have appeared half-witted to the Wise Men of Gotham. Only this Christmas I was told in a toy-shop that not so many bows and arrows were being made for little boys; because they were considered dangerous. It might in some circumstances be dangerous to have a little bow. It is always dangerous to have a little boy. But no other society, claiming to be sane, would have dreamed of supposing that you could abolish all bows unless you could abolish all boys. With the merits of the latter reform I will not deal here. There is a great deal to be said for such a course; and perhaps we shall soon have an opportunity of considering it. For the modern mind seems quite incapable of distinguishing between the means and the end, between the organ and the disease, between the use and the abuse; and would doubtless break the boy along with the boy, as it empties out the baby with the bath.
Tags: Bill Mouser, G.K. Chesterton

Evil in the Land!

2009-02-15T19:12:00.000-08:00

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0216/1233867938936.html

Developing a Christian World View of Life

2009-02-09T22:19:00.000-08:00

Books that shaped my Worldview of God and the World.

1. The God Who is There, by Francis Schaeffer
2. He is There, and He is not Silent, by Francis Schaeffer
3. The Universe next Door 4th edition, by James Sire
4. Naming the Elephant, by James Sire,
5. Escape From Reason, by Francis Schaeffer
6. Life's Ultimate Questions, by John Newport
7. Truth Decay, by Doug Groothuis
8. Jesus and The Gospel, Craig Blomberg
9. Pensees, Pascal
10. The Historical reliability of the Gospel, Craig Blomberg
11. Jesus Under Fire, JP Moreland

I hope you will find shelter as you mind the mind through these great books. Thank God for these men and for their labor of love and faithfulness to the word.

Books to read!

2009-01-15T12:33:00.000-08:00

The Case for the Mind..

Mark Bauerlein, The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes our Future. New York: Jeremy Tarcher, 2008. 264 pages with index. $24.95, hardback.
The cleverly acerbic title of this learned jeremiad should not offend anyone interested in knowing how contemporary communication technologies affect the mindset and sensibilities of those who use these most-those between eighteen and thirty years old. The book's thesis is that heavy use of technologies such as cell phones, text messaging, and the Internet (especially through laptops) is not wisely connecting younger Americans to the broader world; it not engendering better relationships. Rather, it is decreasing their knowledge of things that matter most: history, civic values, and the enduring philosophical questions. Instead of growing in virtuous knowledge, these "digital natives" (as pundits call them) are adept at using these technologies to interact with each other-usually about popular culture and other adolescent obsessions. They are "tech savvy" (to pluck another cliché) not at uncovering vital facts about crucial matters, but, rather, at tracking things like Paris Hilton's new romance (or lawsuit), learning new video games, downloading cool audio files from pop culture bands, and the like.Bauerlein's conclusions and concerns should not to be dismissed as the curmudgeonly complaints of a "digital immigrant"-one of those over thirty for whom the world of cell phones, text messaging, and so on is strange, and to which it must be adapted reluctantly and only where necessary. Rather, this Professor of English at Emory University bases his conclusions on a raft of studies related to his involvement as director of research with The National Endowment for the Arts. His basic argument is not overstated, but may be a bit over documented. Bauerlein does not argue that these technologies are rendering this cohort less intelligent, per se, but, instead, less knowledgeable, less curious, and less concerned to apply their intelligence to intellectual matters that require sustained study of ancient artifacts such as books and engagement in ancient practices such as classroom lectures and discussions.One of Bauerlein's especially salient insights is that these technologies are radically increasing peer-to-peer interaction (through technologies that many older people do not even understand, let alone use), while decreasing relationships between young people and their elders. This isolates "the dumbest generation" from the wisdom of their parents, grandparents, teachers and others-let alone the wisdom of history. He calls this "the betrayal of the mentors" (the title of chapter five). This peer-to-peer fixation and obsession tends to perpetuate a culture of adolescence; faddishness, impatience, and commitment-anxiety become the new norms. While adolescence historically meant a time used to prepare earnestly for the responsibility of adulthood, it has now been given an independent value detached from actually growing up (168). This valorizing of adolescence (and the technologies now inseparable from it) is yet one more postmodern step away from an inter-generationally integrated society-the kind we find advocated and celebrated in the Bible. Here, parents and other elders (not impersonal technologies) instruct children, children should honor parents (not shun them because there are not techno-savvy), and, while the differences among children, young adults, and the aged are recognized (Ecclesiastes 12; 1 John 2:12-14), society is not segmented by generations such that it loses its social cohesion.Bauerlein skewers the popular misconception that the Internet increases the availability of knowledge in a uniformly valuable way. What was once obscure is now at our fingertips, we are breathlessly told. But this cliché misses what Marshall McLuhan (more of a literary sage than a social scientist) identified a generation ago: "the medium is the message." Each medium-whether telephone, television, or book-affects the content it conveys; the medium is not neutral. For example, Baerlein marshals impressive evidence that while the Internet makes an ocean of texts and images available for inspection, the way people "connect" with this content is by skimming, not reading (this is partially due to the fact that images dominate). One may have up on the screen a most profound essay on G. K. Chesterton's moral convictions, but if one skims instead of studies the essay, the material goes unappreciated. This media milieu leads a generation of well-informed and media hyperactive ignoramuses. This idea of being simultaneously well-informed and ignorant is not contradictory. Having information dancing around in one's mind-usually factoids or sound bites-is not the same as possessing knowledge. Although the meaning of knowledge is philosophically contested, the ancient and still respected view is that knowledge is defined as justified, true belief. That is, to possess knowledge:
1. One believes a statement.
2. That statement must true (it corresponds to reality).
3. One has sufficient reason or warrant to hold that belief.
If 1-3 obtain, then the belief in question is not accidentally true-as when one guesses the correct answer on a multiple choice test-but known to be true.
Therefore, one may be well-informed (given all the data available through technologies) without having very much knowledge, since knowledge requires a particular personal orientation to information-one that reflectively probes material, asks pertinent questions, is aware of the perennial issues, and consults proper sources. This orientation toward acquiring knowledge is not cultivated through text-messaging, YouTube videos, or Wikipedias, for example. This is exactly what Bauerlein has found: Americans aged 18-30 are less knowledgeable than those of this age in previous generations. Ironically, in many cases this means the more technology, the less knowledge.Moreover, "the dumbest generation" often plug into multiple technologies simultaneously. A few years ago, I spied a young woman in a coffee shop who was listening to something on her iPod, talking on her cell phone, typing on her laptop, and yelling to someone across the room-all at the same time. This multitasking is hailed by many as a valuable and even necessary skill in our multisensory, multicultural, multi-everything world. But multitasking has its price: "Multitasking entails a special cognitive attitude toward the world, not the orientation that enables slow concentration on one thing-a sonnet, a theorem-but a lightsome, itinerant awareness of numerous and dissimilar inputs" (84). I often tell my students, "You cannot multitask philosophy. Sit in a quite room and read the text, slowly." Many teachers now battle multitasking in the classroom. Instead of attending to the professor's lecture, to the comments or other students, and to the class texts, students check their emails, look at their eHarmony pages, examine their Face Book account, and even trade stocks and watch entire films. These multiple distractions diminish the classroom, which should be a zone for focused learning and the pursuit of knowledge, not dispersed information poaching. (For this reason, I recently banned laptops from my classrooms.)Without elaborating on Bauerlein's politics and vision for constructive change, his main concern is the loss of cultural memory and the resulting devaluation of civic virtues and knowledgeable engagement. He is a classic professor who wants people to read good books, discuss the great ideas, and engage in civil conversations about what matters most. May his numbers increase! The Christian, of course, should be mortified at the thought of an entire generation losing the spiritual and intellectual disciplines required to know God and make him known (see Hebrews 5:11-14). So much more could be said on this, but I will give the author the last word: "The Dumbest Generation will cease being dumb only when it regards adolescence as an inferior realm of petty strivings and adulthood as a realm of civic, historical, and cultural awareness that puts them in touch with the perennial ideas and struggles" (236).
Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.Professor of Philosophy

Hamlet, Act III Scene III

2008-12-28T13:01:00.000-08:00

Psalm 51

O, my offence is rank it smells to heaven;It hath the primal eldest curse upon't,A brother's murder. Pray can I not,Though inclination be as sharp as will:My stronger guilt defeats my strong intent;And, like a man to double business bound,I stand in pause where I shall first begin,And both neglect. What if this cursed hand Were thicker than itself with brother's blood,Is there not rain enough in the sweet heavens To wash it white as snow? Whereto serves mercy But to confront the visage of offence?And what's in prayer but this two-fold force,To be forestalled ere we come to fall,Or pardon'd being down? Then I'll look up;My fault is past. But, O, what form of prayer Can serve my turn? 'Forgive me my foul murder'?That cannot be; since I am still possess'd Of those effects for which I did the murder,My crown, mine own ambition and my queen.May one be pardon'd and retain the offence?In the corrupted currents of this world Offence's gilded hand may shove by justice,And oft 'tis seen the wicked prize itself Buys out the law: but 'tis not so above;There is no shuffling, there the action lies In his true nature; and we ourselves compell'd,Even to the teeth and forehead of our faults,To give in evidence. What then? what rests?Try what repentance can: what can it not?Yet what can it when one can not repent?O wretched state! O bosom black as death!O limed soul, that, struggling to be free,Art more engaged! Help, angels! Make assay!Bow, stubborn knees; and, heart with strings of steel,Be soft as sinews of the newborn babe!All may be well.

The Inquirer News

2008-12-23T22:11:00.000-08:00

The Inquirer News

God-Free Religion to Go! by Dr Groothuis

2008-12-16T13:23:00.000-08:00

God-free Religion to Go

After much research, hard work, trial and error, and after consulting (and paying; they don't come cheap) a plethora of social science consultants, we have finally achieved our goal. The stakeholders are pleased; our market share is rising; our popularity is going through the roof. We have reached the ultimate reinvention.We have made religion God-free--and in the name of God!Our forms are fabulous, enticing the eyes, tickling the ears, tugging at the heart, drawing in the designer demographic. The choreography is cogent, spectacular, impressive. Our numbers are up, the complaints are down; our path is wide, our message inviting and inclusive.We have put God on a leash. It is a powerful image: God for us, in our way. We celebrate the love of God without a nasty cross; the power of God without judgment and narrowness; the presence of God without any censorious legalism on his part.

O God, we are free of God!We have a Bible. Oh, we all believe it, or at least salute it at some point in the service. We don't expect you to bring your own, of course. We've moved beyond the book to the screen. We supply the multicolored, ever-moving screens. There a few positive, uplifting texts there, too--at least when it fits the mood we create. We do not mention Psalms of lament or, God help us, Ecclesiastes or Job. These do not speak to busy, postmodern people, you see. Our consultants told us so.We have no power to heal the sick, or raise the dead, or cast out demons, or call people to repentance or to worship God in abject humility and desperation. Why should we? Who does that any more? It does not fit our postmodern context; it just is not relevant. Besides, it would reduce the numbers. The giving units would shrink. How could we afford our mortgage? When people get sick and die, we try to move on. We turn mourning into laughter as soon as possible.Gold and silver we have plenty. In the name of our designer God, be happy! Be successful! Don't be negative. God believes in you! God bless us all!We have a new, better, form of godliness. We have the lights, the cameras, the action. Our seats are comfortable; our platform people are pretty. Nothing is out of line: no hair uncombed, no moment unscripted, no unscheduled episodes. There are no interruptions. We even have an emergency generator. There will be no power failures here.We have no dead air. We are busy with our program. We are efficient. We give door prizes and smile.

We have reinvented God, our designer God. Surely God is pleased. We use him in so many ways.We have reinvented communion. Do it your way, in your timing, as you see fit. No old words and stuffy invocations and recitations. Whatever it means to you, it is. And we do it once in while, when our program schedule allow for it.We have made religion free of God, that old God that failed. And we blink and twitch.(Yet the remnant of true God-seekers remains.)

Yearing for Liberia's Liberation

2008-12-16T12:48:00.000-08:00

Yearning for Liberia's Liberation, Doug Groothuis on Tony and family

When I met Tony Weedor in 1993, I didn't even know that Liberia was a country. But I learned that Tony was from Liberia, an African nation founded by freed slaves from the United States. Tony was a student at Denver Seminary, having fled the civil war in his native country along with his wife and young daughter. The atrocities and horrors of that war and its aftermath are bone-chilling: beheadings, rapes, torture, and so on. Tony and his wife have lost dozens of family members to this senseless violence. Tony, Beth, and Abbie fled on foot for one year and were separated several times. They were then in a refugee camp for two years. While there, Tony read the collected works of Francis Schaeffer five times! But God, through his mercy and power, brought them through it all. Tony graduated from Denver Seminary in 1997 and served with his family for four and half years in Ethiopia with SIM. They returned to the United States in 2004 and have been planning to set up an educational ministry in Liberia,now that the country has had free elections and that the country seems to have an honest president, the first woman president in an African nation: Ellen, "the Iron Lady." Nevertheless, the country is in ruins, with no infrastructure, and little hope, humanly speaking.Tony is now in Liberia with a group of pastors from several American states. They are, not unexpectedly, experiencing multiple hassles and problems. The powers of darkness would like to hold on to Liberia (which means "land of freedom") and keep it from the light and liberation that only Jesus Christ can bring (Acts 4:12).I am asking all my readers to visit the CenterPoint web site and to pray for this desperately needed ministry in Liberia. Please consider supporting it financially as well. Tony Weedor is a godly, wise, and intelligent man who has the requisite character and biblical worldview to help reconstruct Liberia from the ground up--and that is exactly what is required.

Liberia's President Says Government Corruption is Rife

2008-12-05T23:29:00.000-08:00

Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf on Thursday denounced widespread corruption in the west African country's government and called for a careful strategy to tackle it.
"Most of the institutions of the Liberian government (have) inherited corrupt criminalized value systems that are so entrenched that some seem irredeemable," Sirleaf, who vowed to fight corruption when she took office in 2006, said in a radio speech.

"Undoubtedly, our nation has been plagued with long-standing plunder and systemic corruption throughout society, both in government and beyond. This is a reality we must face," she said.
Liberia is trying to get back on its feet after being ravaged by back-to-back civil wars between 1989-2003 which left the economy and government institutions in tatters.

Despite her determination to crack down on corruption, Sirleaf admitted it was still rampant.
"We have not failed to act when the evidence is clear," she said, citing examples of ministry and central bank officials who have been either suspended or dismissed.

However the president stressed that corruption should be approached with "a well-thought-out strategy rather than an emotional and euphoric response that plays to the gallery of public sentiments."

Hosted by Copyright © 2008 AFP. All rights reserved. More

Christian Reflections and Other Essays, by Allen Adams

2008-12-01T16:13:00.000-08:00

Christian Reflections and Other Essays, Allen Adams

Christianity and LiteratureLewis here writes about Christianity and literature, specifically what is Christian literature and how does it differ with secular literature. He read this paper to a religious society at Oxford fairly early in his Christian walk. The question he seems to be answering is, "What is Christian literature?" His main argument is that the rules for good literature are the same for both Christian and non-Christian. He writes, "The rules for writing a good passion play or a good devotional lyric are simply the rules for writing tragedy or lyric in general;" He goes on to use a typical Lewisian styly argument by discussing a Christian cook book, "Boiling an egg is the same process whether you are a Christian or a Pagan." He then adds to his argument a very important point, that the Christian view of literature must be that attitude of excellence. He uses two points, "I admit freely that to believe in the Incarnation at all is to believe that every mode of human excellence is implicity in His historical human character: poethood, of course, included." His second point goes with this one, "Applying this principle to literature, in its greatest generality, we should get as the basis of all critical theory the maxim that an author should never conceive himself as bringing into existence beauty or wisdom which did nor exist before, but simply and solely as trying to embody in terms of his own art some reflection of eternal Beauty and Wisdom." As we look at both of these points his argument becomes clear, we are to reflect the image of Christ's character and beauty in the literature we write. Lewis wrote about this concept in Letters of C. S. Lewis "Creation as applied to human authorship seems to me to be an entirely misleading term.

We rearrange elements He has provided. There is not a vestige of real creativity de novo in us." Lewis' argument is quite sound here. It works well with the intended audience. I found his insights to be helpful in understanding true creativity. That which flows from us is truly creative when we reflect Christ's image best. Christianity and Culture What is the value of culture? This is the question that Lewis is addressing in this essay. He wrote this collection of papers for a periodical called Theology. They were published in March 1940. He seems to have wrestled with the amount of attention he should be giving to culture because of his faith. Was culture a means of salvation? That is to say is the more cultured person more able to understand the claims of the gospel and come to faith in Christ? Or is the other way around? The cultural minded person is less able to come to Christ and he must lay down all of his cultural understanding to come to Christ? The argument he is putting forward goes something like this, culture is a reflection of Christian values. These values are not explicitly the same as Christian virtues, they are shadows or remembrances of the real thing.

The illustrations he uses are very good. He says, "They resemble the regenerate life only as affection resembles charity, or honour resembles virtue, or the moon the sun. But though the 'like is not the same', it is better than unlike." In this sense culture can be an instrument of salvation for some, though not all. This will also give a good reason for the pursuit of a better cultural understanding, through the understanding of culture we better understand how the biblical truths become relevant in society. His argument seems to me to be sound. He is addressing people who are interested in theology and he is making a strong theological argument. As far as problems or weaknesses in it I would say I wished he held to the total depravity of man because from my own perspective I don't see that as a contradiction to what he is saying. We from a reformed perspective do believe that man still shows forth in some degree the Glory of God. This doesn't mean the same thing as total depravity which I think Lewis assumes it does. In Lewis' mind I think he would say that if man was totally depraved there would not be any of the image of God left in him. I just think Lewis didn't completely understand the reformed position. Religion: Reality of SubstituteWhat is real and what is the substitute? That is the question Lewis is trying to answer here. He isn't really dealing with the issue of communion versus the Jewish sacrificial system, what he is dealing with is the spiritual realm and the physical realm of life in general. He is speaking about our Christian faith. Is what we believe real or what we perceive the real thing. He uses several good illustrations to make his point that perception has more to do with our own introspection than with reality. We perceive things a certain way because we have a philosophy of life apart from faith through which we interpret feelings. Lewis puts it this way, "I am only trying to put the whole problem the right way round, to make it clear that the value given to the testimony of any feeling must depend on our whole philosophy, not our whole philosophy on a feeling." The real problem then according to Lewis is we may have the wrong philosophy. Lewis goes on to point out the real issue is faith. Any philosophy that doesn't begin with faith as a central position is a bad philosophy. He also states the reason, authority, and experience are things that faith can use to bring us the truth. Only through a philosophical view based on faith can we correctly perceive the feelings that are inevitable in our lives. He sees faith as a gift and one that we should ask God for. His argument is biblical, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 NKJV Note in these verses that faith is the gift of God. We don't earn faith nor do we inherently have faith within ourselves. Faith is something God provides for us in order for us to be saved. On EthicsThe question Lewis addresses in this essay is whether the world needs to return to explicitly Christian ethics to stop the decay of society or whether the puritanical ethics of Christianity are really the scourge of society and has been the cause of all the problems. Both of these ideas were present in Lewis' time as they are now in our time. Lewis' main argument is that they are asking the wrong question. He is not going to side with either one of them and disagrees with both of them. This essay first appears in this book and is suggested by Hooper to have been written around 1943. Lewis argues that the moralist view which would impose Christian ethics on society for the preservation of the same, make the same mistake the opposition makes. This mistake is the existence of a moral absolute law. The Christian faith always spoke to the penitent. Those who knew they violated a moral law that was already in existence. There was no need for another law, the people who came to Christ knew already that they had violated God's Law, even those who didn't have the Law. "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them." Romans 2:14-15 NKJV An attempt to enforce a Christian ethic on society for the preservation of society presupposes that society doesn't already know that moral law.

This is an unbiblical idea. Lewis is quite correct in opposing it. Lewis goes on to discuss new moralities. It is clearly misguided to try to create a new ethical code. We will always fall short of that and end up with something quite poor by comparison. Also we will always start by presupposing a moral code in order to create a new code. Lewis puts it this way, "Let us very clearly understand that, in a certain sense, it is no more possible to invent a new ethics than to place a new sun in the sky. Some precept from traditional morality always has to be assumed." He goes on to tell us that type of morality is but a mere shadow of the real morality we already possess. I like the way he puts it, "that those who urge us to adopt new moralities are only offering us the mutilated of expurgated text of a book which we already possess in the original manuscript." I appreciate something Lewis said on this subject in Mere Christianity, "The most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of you own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of them which will not make us into devils if we set it up an absolute guide." This is the danger of those who would propose a new ethic. Whatever we attempt to do, no matter how good intentioned will fall so far short of the moral Law of God that by comparison it will appear devilish. His argument here seems quite sound and he makes a good point, I know I thought that somehow the need for Christian ethics being restored in our society was the answer to many of our problems. I can see from what Lewis said, I had some wrong assumptions. We already have the moral code to effect society, we need to preach repentance and God's grace and forgiveness. De FutilitateFutility is the issue of this essay. Lewis starts out discussing the impending gloom and sense of futility that settled in on people when they realized that the world would probably never achieve peace. The human misery of war was here to stay and that there would be other wars after World War II. After the optimism of the 1920's this is understandable. Most people really thought that World War I was the 'war to end all wars'. I can imagine their dismay and sense of futility when they found themselves immersed in a second world war. He moves to his real issue next, the issue of evolution. He discusses the popular version of evolution and the misconception that evolution means by definition improvement. This is not the case as he points out. He states that degradation is the much more likely position. He moves on to use logic to discuss the options concerning reality and the issue of whether life is futile or not from an evolutionary point of view. If we hold a strict evolutionary view of the universe, life is meaningless and everything is be definition futile. Yet most evolutionists won't go this far logically. Here he does a good job in his argument by showing the illogical conclusions the atheist makes. The evolutionist's inconsistencies show through the in discussing the concept of a moral universe. Lewis writes, "The defiance of the good atheist hurled at an apparently ruthless and idiotic cosmos is really an unconscious homage to something in or behind that cosmos which he recognizes as infinitely valuable and authoritative: for if mercy and justice were really only private whims of his own with no objective and impersonal roots, and if he realized this, he could not go on being indignant". If we don't find complete futility in the universe we have to have some higher authority to answer to. This is basically Lewis' argument. He is a master of this kind of logic. The Poison of SubjectivismIn this essay Lewis deals with subjectivity. Particularly the subjectivity in value systems. When society attempts to create their own value system Lewis calls this, "a fatal superstition that men can create values, that a community can choose its 'ideology' as men choose their clothes." Lewis goes on to state that any attempt to reform a value system is doomed to failure because, "The trunk to whose root the reformer would lay the axe is the only support of the particular branch he wishes to retain." He states that any new morality must then be, "dismissed as mere confusion of thought." He goes on to define good, "God is not merely good, but goodness; goodniess is not merely divine, but God." What he is saying is that what we call good, or morality is defined by the very nature of who God is.

If God imposed the Law on us arbitrarily he would not be good. If He is imposing a Law on us that is outside of His nature, he is not God. Only when we understand that good is defined by who God is do we get an accurate picture of good and evil. We would then understand evil to be that which is in opposition to the very nature of God. Lewis' argument is very good here. He is compelling in his logic and demonstrates his argument well. I appreciate his insightful way of showing the fallacy of the argument by showing the failure of an attempt to create a new morality. The Funeral of a Great MythThe myth Lewis is addressing here is the myth of evolution. By this he isn't talking about the scientific hypothesis, but the popularized belief. The philosophy of evolution is what he is talking about. This essay first appears in this book. It has not been published before. Lewis has works that are similar to this essay that have been published before. Lewis points out the difference between the myth and the theory, in the myth they don't question at all the validity of evolution, they view it as fact. In the theory, it is just that, a theory. In science evolution is about change, in the myth it is about improvement. In this myth man becomes God eventually, we progress through stages where we finally become perfect little demi-Gods. Lewis puts this very well, "Eugenics have made certain that only demi-gods will now be born: psycho-analysis that none of them shall lose or smirch his divinity: economics that they shall have to hand all that demi-gods require. Man has ascended his throne. Man has become God. All is a blaze of glory." Lewis goes on to demonstrate that the myth itself demands that reason is the result of biochemistry. The argument goes like this, my mind is the product of mental habits which result from heredity. This heredity results from bio-chemistry which results from physics. In other words, when we say that we are saying that "proofs are irrational" and when we say that we are also saying, "I will prove that there are no proofs." This argument becomes self defeating. It disproves itself. Lewis goes on to speak about the enticement of the myth. He shows how it is a desirable myth from people different perspectives. It gives us reasons for bad behavior, it justifies our sinful natures as being merely instinctive behavior. He states that it appeals to every aspect of man except reason. Lewis' argument is quite good, if I had any criticism of it, I would say he gives scientific evolutionism too much credit. The quote by Dr. Watson concerning the theory of evololution, "...can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." shows the true nature of the evolutionist.

On Church MusicLewis is discussing here Church music. He seems to dislike Church music and would like to see music out of the church. But he realizes he doesn't stand much hope for that. He also correctly understands the two important reasons for music in the worship service, first the glory of God and secondly the edification of men. These are both the essential marks by which music is to be evaluated. He goes on to mention that the desire of the person is the real issue, those who desire to bring glory to God will bring glory to Him even if they are musically ignorant. Those who may have all of the musical talent and have a bad attitude will in no way bring glory to God. His argument is good here and I especially like it when he said, "For all of our offerings, whether music of martyrdom, ar like the intrinsically worthless present of a child, which a father values indeed, but values only for the intention." HistoricismLewis here takes on the task of exposing the historicist. This is the person who takes events in history and makes implicit judgments from them. Like the person who says that a particular disaster was the judgment of God for a particular sin. Much like those who claim A.I.D.S. is the judgment of God on the homosexual community today. These would be historicists. Lewis states that usually these people are not historians but either theologians, philosophers, or politicians. He warns us of the excesses of this kind of philosophy and points out that Pagan religions have been guilty of using this idea very heavily. He goes on to point out that there is a biblical sense of this, he states, "What appears to be true in the Historicist's position is this, since all things happen either by the divine will or at least by the divine permission, it follow that the total content of time must in its own mature be a revelation of God's wisdom, justice, and mercy." Lewis moves on to show that most of history is not recorded and only a very minuscule amount of information ever makes it to their posterity.

This very small amount of information is far to small to ever demonstrate the purpose of history. He states that the historicist can't support the claim that only the things that support his position survive through history. The historian would say the things that survive tend to be random, some of very significance and others seemingly very insignificant. His basic argument is that too much is brought out by historicists, he in no way implies we can't draw some understanding from history, we should but caution should be exercised and we should look for God in the present. Lewis' argument is again good. I find his insight helpful although I am not sure I completely agree with him. I have seen things in history which I can only see as the direct intervention of God in the events of man. I am not talking about things written in Scripture but other events in history, events that could have changed history. Little small seemingly inconsequential events that had great impact on the future. I have a tendency to believe God was directly involved in these. But I understand the caution Lewis is saying we should have in this area and for that I am appreciative. The PsalmsJudgment is the real issue Lewis tackles in this essay. Lewis compares Hebrew thought in the Psalms and Proverbs with Greek and Roman thought which has primarily shaped our western culture. He finds a close kinship with the Hebrews in a spiritual sense. We find our spiritual roots with them, yet we find ourselves more influenced by Plato and Aristotle than we are by the Psalmist. He then expresses the Hebrews obvious viciousness as a people, and how out of character it seems, they both are carnal and at times they have a knowledge that is quite beyond themselves. They refer to this as revelation. Lewis is disposed to believe their claim in this essay. He finds it surprising that God would choose such a people as this for the coming Messiah. Next Lewis discusses the idea of our own depravity. How much we need forgiveness for our offenses. How we have abused authority. How we have truly despised justice. As he discusses Psalm 109 which is a harsh Psalm, where the Psalmist is crying out for justice for those who have persecuted him, Lewis considers the offenses we may have done. Who may have prayed this kind of prayer about us. This is a matter for great concern as God hears the prayers of the downtrodden. In all of this he notes the consistent cry for justice within the Hebrew people. He is concerned that cry for justice is dying in our culture today. As Lewis discusses judgment we find that the people in the Psalms rejoice over judgment. He talks about the difference between Jewish thought and Christian thought on judgment. Jews look forward to judgment because they sense they are completely right. Christians fear judgment because we are keenly aware of our sinfulness. His argument is again effective. His imagery of the Psalms and how it gives differing impressions is helpful is seeing how God has worked through his chosen people throughout history. It isn't that they were such good people, they weren't. But God worked his work through fallen people and with all their faults has given us a heritage. The Language of ReligionLewis here discusses the concept that the language of religion is not different than the common language of the day. His main argument is that we use metaphorical language to express concrete ideas, sometime that is expressed through the use of poetic language and sometimes through scientific language. Most often though he sees that the language we use in religious expression is the common language. He then goes into a digression to discuss language in general. He discusses ordinary language, scientific language, and poetic language. He argues that sometime we must move into the area of the scientific. That is when we are involved in apologetics we often have to express concepts in abstract form. Lewis says it this way, "Apologetics is controversy. You cannot conduct a controversy in those poetical expressions which alone convey the concrete: you must use terms as definable and univocal as possible, and these are always abstract." He goes on to express that we often use poetic language to express our experiences.

He says it this way, "The necessity for such poetic expressions is clostly connected with the grounds on which they are believed. They are usually two: authority and religious experience." When we are attempting to express something in the emotional realm particularly we will resort to poetic language. I think his argument is a good one. He has expressed what we all have observed from our senses. I don't think he is attempting a proof here as he said himself. When we attempt to communicate ideas to others I can see that we often do resort to metaphorical wording since we don't have the real words to express the idea. These words just aren't in our vocabulary. Petitionary Prayer: A Problem Without an Answer Lewis discusses here the concept of petitionary prayer. He talks about two types of prayer which give him difficulty. He first talks about the type of prayer that Jesus taught us, "Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven." Matthew 6:10 NKJV This type of prayer is petitions that are conditioned by God's will for us. The second type of prayer is petition for specific events like the moving of mountains, "Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, 'Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done." Matt. 21:21b NKJV Both of these are petition type of prayers yet they are also quite different in nature. That is the discussion that Lewis in undertaking. The crux of the problem is this, if God really meant that in this second type of prayer that He would only reward our prayers when they were explicitly within His will, why does He gives us two clearly different teachings? Why did God tell us that he would give us anything we chose? That is the problem. If that is the case, it really isn't our choice anyway. This is a difficult problem to which Lewis does not propose any answer. He does make a good point though in bringing up the problem. Modern Theology and Biblical CriticismLewis here takes on liberal critics of the scriptures, those who deny orthodoxy. He appears to be speaking at a school for theological students. He puts his argument this way, "The undermining of the old orthodoxy has been mainly the work of divines engaged in New Testament criticism. The authority of experts in that discipline is the authority in deference to whom we are asked to give up a huge mass of beliefs shared in common by the early Church, the Fathers, the Middle Ages, the Reformers, and even the nineteenth century." In my opinion Lewis is ripping them apart. He comes across very strong and I like his approach very much. I laughed when I read this, "That, then is my first bleat. These men ask me to believe they can read between the lines of the old texts; the evidence is their obvious inability to read (in any sense worth discussing) the lines themselves. They claim to see fern-seed and can't see and elephant ten yards away in broad daylight." I can almost feel the people squirming in their seats. He goes on to discuss the problem of reconstructionism. This is the way that Biblical commentators have rewritten the history of the New Testament to fit their particular believe system. He uses the example of the book of John being an allegory along the same line as Pilgrims Progress. I appreciate very much his use of his own story with different commentators writing about his books. They almost always were wrong with their facts and yet they have the advantage of the same culture, language, presuppositions, and economic situations. His point is well made, how can these supposed scholars who don't come from the same culture, don't have the same cultural background, don't know the presuppositions that the culture had at the time, suppose they know the truthfulness about the passages they so easily criticize. His argument is very well done. I didn't know Lewis had such a fiery disposition, I was quite impressed with this essay. The Seeing EyeLewis deals with the existence of God in this essay. The time frame was when the Soviet Union put its first people in space, they claimed to, "not found God anywhere." He uses a good analogy to demonstrate his view of God as outside of creation but also in relation to creation. He says it this way, "I am not suggesting at all that the existence of God is as easily established as the existence of Shakespeare. My point is that, if God does exist, He is related to the universe more as an author is related to a play than as one object in the universe is related to another." Lewis goes on to speculate about life on other planets and what that life might be like. Are they completely good and not in need of redemption? Are they diabolical with no good in them at all? Are they also a good creation that has fallen and is in need of redemption? His main point is well made, he says, "But all this is in the realm of fantastic speculation. We are trying to cross a bridge, not only before we come to it, but even before we know there is a river that needs bridging." I can't really add anything to what he has said. He has said it very, very well.

A short Vedio on Back to Jerusalem

2008-11-30T20:42:00.001-08:00

http://www.backtojerusalem.com/pages/video.php

Nietzsche

2008-11-30T19:42:00.000-08:00

THE MADMAN

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" -- As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? -- Thus they yelled and laughed.
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us -- for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -- and yet they have done it themselves.
It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"
[Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

by Doug Groothuis

2008-11-28T22:51:00.000-08:00

The Kingdom of God commands our full allegiance (Matthew 6:33), but the world, the flesh, and the devil nip at our souls and entice us to defect (1 John 2:15-17).

Today, many insist that good people never assert that "their religion" is the only way. Rather, we must accept all religions. Such "tolerance" is deemed mandatory in our pluralistic nation. But when the pressure is on, Kingdom people need to be able to think straight about religious tolerance.A recent cover story in US News and World Report, titled "Faith in America," reported that 69% of Americans say that religion is "very important" to them.

Over half attend religious services at least once a week. Eighty-four percent claim to be Christians, although the numbers of adherents of other religions is rapidly growing. Eighty-six percent of non-Christians say that all religions "have elements of truth." Only 19% of self-described Christians claim that Christianity is "the only true religion," while 77% reject the exclusivity of Christianity and instead believe that all religions have some truth. Although Christ is the only way of salvation (Acts 4:12), other religions (especially Judaism) do express some truths, even if they cannot deliver the saving gospel itself. Nevertheless, these statistics reveal a failure of nerve on the part of many Christians.The US News article mentions that many who claim that all religions have elements of truth also admit that they know little about other religions.

This brand of tolerance is based on ignorance rather than on fact. Religions differ radically on significant beliefs, such as ultimate reality, the human condition, and salvation. When one religion teaches what another denies, both cannot be true. Islam denies that Jesus is divine and the Bible repeatedly affirms it (John 1:1-3; Col. 2:9). Both cannot be true. This is reality, not intolerance. When I give lecture called "Are All Religions One?" at secular college campuses, and the students hear an explanation of the differences between religions, many respond thoughtfully and some show an interest in Christ.What should Christians think about tolerance? First, we need to develop a tenacious commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17).

When our worldview is defined by biblical truth and not opinion polls, we do not become narrow-minded; rather, we find freedom in explaining and defending our beliefs (John 8:31-32; 1 Peter 3:15-17). Ravi Zacharias defends Christianity in many public forums and also shows the willingness to discuss any objections to it during a question-answer time. While not all Christians share his intellectual ability, every Christian can combine strong faith and an openness to dialogue. This often disarms non-Christians who suspect that Christians are unthinking dogmatists.Second, like Paul, we need to be passionate about people's salvation (Romans 9:1-3). We cannot pretend that all religions are pleasing to God (Matthew 7:13). However, we can offer people the promise of redemption because the gospel of grace is open to everyone (Acts 17:30).

Third, while we cannot endorse or overlook religious falsity, we can love those of other faiths. Jesus said to love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), and this includes non-Christians. The gospel never coerces anyone to accept Christ. The prophets and apostles presented God's truth with integrity and trusted their sovereign God for the results.Fourth, when people talk of "my God" and "my spirituality" we should emphasize that Christianity is not a designer religion, custom-fit for our tastes. We bear witness to God's gracious revelation of truth. As G.K. Chesterton put it in Orthodoxy: "I won't call Christianity my religion, because I didn't make it up. God and humanity made it, and it made me." This emphasis helps defuse the objection that Christians are trying to "ram their religion down other people's throats." No. We are more like the physician who prescribes a cure for an otherwise terminal disease. The sick need to know the truth about what will save them, not their choice of "religious preferences."How should tolerate Christians members of other religions? By loving them and bringing the truth to them. We endorse their religious freedom, but the gospel never allows us to be indifferent to their eternal destinies.This article originally appeared in the September/October 2002 issue of Moody Magazine (Vol. 103, No.1) Used with permission by Moody Magazine and Douglas Groothuis.

Mere Materialism

2008-11-15T18:30:00.001-08:00

Mere Materialism:
Chronicles of Nonsense
Francis J. Beckwith

A review of C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason by Victor Reppert (lnterVarsity Press, 2003)

Supporters of the current dominant understanding of the origin of the universe and life assert that all existing things are ultimately material, which includes you, me, the mountains, the streams, the cell, and your pet. They also claim that undirected material processes unencumbered by an intelligent agent account for everything. The intricacies of the human eye, for example, can be explained by natural selection: the eye is the result of random mutation working on a primitive light patch possessed by a less-developed nonhuman ancestor with far fewer cells and far less information content in its DNA than we, its legacy, possess today.

In order to defend this point of view, the materialists must draw inferences derived from reasoning; that is, they must have the ability to think, exercising the powers of a rational agent. According to the materialists, however, reasoning is an activity of the brain, a wholly material entity, like the kidney or large intestine that is subject to the forces of natural selection and random mutation, not to mention the laws of physics and chemistry. If reasoning is the result of "nonrational" causes, however, such "reasoning," including the reasoning on which materialism is based as a philosophical theory, cannot be trusted. Consider this illustration: if while playing Scrabble, the letters randomly spell "materialism is true," should I change my belief and embrace materialism? Of course not, for this collection of letters is the result of nonrational forces; but if the brain's "reasoning" is like the random string of Scrabble letters, then its apparent contentions - including the claim that materialism is true - are arrived at in no more rational a fashion than the phrase "materialism is true" on a Scrabble board.

In response to this conundrum, suppose one were to show that reasoning is not reducible to brain function and that a being whose thinking is not exhaustively accounted for by material processes has the power of reason. This argument would support, and be consistent with, an understanding of reality such as the Christian worldview, and which has room for all sorts of nonmaterial entities such as souls, moral properties, God, and minds.

Christians should applaud this response even though it is inconsistent with the materialism that dominates today's academic world. In the words of Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin, it may "allow a Divine Foot in the door." "Materialism," according to Lewontin, "is absolute.'"[1] This means, of course, that it is not a conclusion inferred from premises. It is instead a first principle about which its devotees are apparently unwilling to harbor doubts or entertain the possibility that if one finds divine footprints, perhaps a Divine Foot made them.

A version of this "argument from reason" gained a wide reading when it appeared in 1947 in C. S. Lewis's book, Miracles. Victor Reppert, in C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea: A Defense of the Argument from Reason, reacquaints us with this argument and offers a robust and highly readable defense of it. Reppert is a serious scholar whose 1989 dissertation in philosophy at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign ("Physical Causes and Rational Belief: A Problem for Materialism?"), wrestled with the problems Lewis raised. Reppert begins C. S. Lewis's Dangerous Idea with a brief presentation of Lewis as a thinker. He weaves together pivotal events in Lewis's life, both personal and intellectual, with his own assessment of Lewis's critics and why Lewis should be considered a significant thinker whose work has lasting importance in Christian apologetics. Reppert rightly says it is unfair to judge Lewis's work according to an unreasonable standard that requires that it be critically pristine in order to carry any philosophical weight. He argues, rather, that Lewis, like any historically important thinker, should be assessed by the quality of the intellectual conversation his arguments put in play. The question, therefore, is not whether Lewis's arguments are without flaws; the question, rather, is whether the arguments Lewis offered can be honed, improved on, and more carefully wrought by Lewis's admirers, who see in his writings a special wisdom worth advancing. Reppert shores up Lewis's argument, and in the process he offers persuasive rebuttals to the argument's critics.

In his second chapter Reppert offers a lesson on how to evaluate and categorize different Christian assessments of the apologetic enterprise. Dividing these assessments into three categories - fideism, strong rationalism, and critical rationalism - Reppert makes the case for placing Lewis in the latter camp. Reppert defines this view as holding that the best arguments for Christian truth are plausible and reasonable, but they are not conclusive proof. The strong rationalist, in contrast, contends that there is "proof that ought to be accepted by all rational persons" (p. 37).

Chapter 3 focuses on an evaluation of the historical account of Lewis's argument and the legendary encounter over its plausibility, which actually took place at Oxford between Lewis and Elizabeth Anscombe, the late Christian philosopher. Reppert separates fact from fiction, offering a historically balanced treatment that reveals - contrary to atheist legend – that Anscombe's public critique did not trounce Lewis out of the apologetic enterprise. In fact, Reppert concludes that with a few conceptual clarifications, some of which Lewis included in the revised edition of Miracles, the argument not only survives but also continues to pose a potent challenge to philosophers who contend that materialism can adequately account for the power of reason.

In the remaining chapters, Reppert first offers six formulations for reasoning (chap. 4). He then argues that because rationality cannot be reduced to matter, some form of mind-body dualism is likely true (chap. 5). He concludes with a response to the objection that nonmaterialist explanations are inadequate (chap. 6).

This book is truly a gem. It is philosophically rigorous, and it is must reading for any Christian professor who teaches apologetics or any student who wants to be equipped to defend his or her faith in the public square; yet, it is also accessible to the serious nonacademic Christian. It is written, fittingly, with a clarity and workmanship like unto that for which Lewis himself is well known.

Notes
1 Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," review of The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Cradle in the Dark by Carl Sagan, New York Review of Books, January 9,1997,32.

___

Francis J. Beckwith is associate director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies and associate professor of Church-State Studies, Baylor University. His website isfrancisbeckwith.com

Praying for Liberia

2008-11-03T07:13:00.000-08:00

Daniel’s Prayer for His People

1 In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus, by descent a Mede, who was made king over the realm of the Chaldeans—
2in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, perceived in the books the number of years that, according to(E) the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the prophet, must pass before the end of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.

3Then I turned my face to the Lord God, seeking him by(F)prayer and pleas for mercy with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.

4I prayed to the LORD my God and(G) made confession, saying,(H) "O Lord, the(I) great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments,

5(J) we have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly(K) and rebelled, turning aside from your commandments and rules.

6(L) We have not listened to(M) your servants the prophets, who spoke in your name to(N) our kings, our princes, and our fathers, and to all the people of the land.

7To you,(O) O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day, to the men of Judah, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to all Israel,(P) those who are near and(Q) those who are far away, in(R) all the lands to which you have driven them, because of the treachery that they have committed against you.

8To us, O LORD, belongs open shame, to our kings, to our princes, and to our fathers, because(S)we have sinned against you.

9(T) To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against him

10(U) and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God by walking in his laws, which he set before us by(V)his servants the prophets.

11(W) All Israel has transgressed your law and turned aside,(X) refusing to obey your voice.(Y) And the curse and oath(Z) that are written in the Law of(AA) Moses the servant of God have been poured out upon us, because(AB) we have sinned against him.

12He has confirmed his words, which he spoke against us and against(AC) our rulers who ruled us,[a] by(AD) bringing upon us a great calamity.(AE) For under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what has been done against Jerusalem.

13(AF) As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this calamity has come upon us; yet we have not entreated the favor of the LORD our God,(AG) turning from our iniquities and gaining insight by your truth.

14(AH) Therefore the LORD has kept ready the calamity and has brought it upon us,(AI) for the LORD our God is righteous in all the works that he has done, and(AJ) we have not obeyed his voice.

15And now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt(AK) with a mighty hand, and(AL) have made a name for yourself, as at this day,(AM) we have sinned, we have done wickedly.

16"O Lord,(AN) according to all your righteous acts, let your anger and your wrath turn away from your city Jerusalem,(AO) your holy hill,(AP) because for our sins, and for(AQ) the iniquities of our fathers,(AR) Jerusalem and your people have become(AS) a byword among all who are around us.

17Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of your servant and to his pleas for mercy, and for your own sake, O Lord,[b](AT) make your face to shine upon(AU) your sanctuary, which is desolate.

18(AV) O my God, incline your ear and hear. Open your eyes and see(AW)our desolations, and(AX) the city that is called by your name. For we do not present our pleas before you because of our righteousness, but because of your great mercy.

19O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act.(AY)Delay not,(AZ) for your own sake, O my God, because(BA) your city and(BB) your people are called by your name."

St. Augustine

2008-08-07T19:52:00.000-07:00

St. Augustine and the Scandal of the North African Catholic Mind

*This article first appeared in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 41/2 (June 1998): 287-95.Posted with permission of JETS.

A couple of years ago, an evangelical historian Mark Noll wrote the book The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Noll pointed out that modern evangelicals are not known for their rigorous thinking, nor does popular evangelicalism tend to sustain the intellectual life.[2] Such a situation, he pointed out, has practical implications. For instance, who will teach the children of evangelicals if they are not taught to love God with all their mind? All too often it is Hollywood or Madison Avenue[3]--not to mention fringe religious groups preying upon unprepared young minds.

This scandal within Christendom is hardly a first, however. One was taking place during the time of St. Augustine (b. 354). In this case, it was the scandal of the North African Catholic mind--a scandal which pushed him toward the Christian fringe group, the Manichees. During Augustine’s day, North African Catholica were closed-minded toward reason, toward a faith seeking understanding.[4] And despite the simple, vibrant faith of his mother, Monica, the young Augustine did not receive within Catholic Christianity the intellectual answers to his questions which he desperately sought.

In this paper, I shall briefly explore Augustine’s anti-intellectual environment and its characteristics--especially with regard to the North African clergy--and then discuss the significant effect this had in driving him into the arms of the Manichees.

1. North African Catholic Christianity

The atmosphere of North African Christendom in which Augustine grew up reflected the influential thought of Tertullian (d. ca. 220), the North African theologian of Carthage, who asked, "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"[5] The Porch of Solomon, where Jesus would customarily teach, was sufficient for him. Tertullian then added, "I have no use for a Stoic or a Platonic or a dialectic Christianity. After Jesus we have no need of speculation, after the Gospel no need of research." Although Tertullian did utilize Stoic philosophy, pre-Socratic philosophers, and even Aristotle (who studied at Plato’s Academy in Athens, of all places!), his aversion to philosophy was no secret.[6] His fideistic comment, "I believe because it is foolish,"[7] was not merely idiosyncratic with Tertullian. He, along with his theological successor, Cyprian (who was slightly less strident than his "master’s") exerted a powerful influence upon North African Christendom’s anti-intellectualism.[8] Rather, it typified the anti-intellectual Christianity among the Catholic clergy of this entire region. For instance, Augustine addressed the council of bishops of the African Church in October of 393--an address preserved in his Faith and the Creed. Rather than utilize heavy theological language, he had to resort to very plain speech and followed the basic credal statements of Christianity--for high-ranking church officials![9] Later on in 412, Augustine received a letter from Consentius, a fellow bishop, who reflected this lack of appreciation for the intellect: "God is not to be sought after by reason but followed through authority." [10]

Such narrow-mindedness and lack of theological and intellectual rigor are easier to understand when we consider the historical context of the North African Church. By necessity, Christians devoted their energies to enduring opposition and even martyrdom up until Constantine’s conversion to Christianity and his making Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Although certainly no excuse for anti-intellectualism and avoiding philosophical questions, Christians had been understandably more concerned to gather together to pray and encourage one another than engage in scholarly discussion. But by the time of Augustine, Christians still had not devoted much time and energy to theological reflection or interaction with the intellectual ideas circulating around the Mediterranean region.

The lack of theological rigor had detrimental side-effects, one of which was the infiltration of Manichean beliefs into the Church. The Donatists would mock the African Catholic congregations because of the proliferation of Manichean heresies within them. Even Augustine mentioned a sub-deacon within the Catholic Church who had concurrently been a member of the Manichees for years. He aroused no one’s suspicion.[11] Such a heretical presence within North African Catholicism was commonplace. John O’Meara elaborates:

Men could change their allegiance from Christianity to Manicheism--and vice versa--without attracting as much attention as they would if they had changed to the Donatists. It even happened that Christian ministers were, after many years’ performance of their functions, discovered to have been Manichees all the time.[12]

The dearth of theological endeavor had yet another negative side-effect: authoritarianism and anti-intellectualism among North African Catholic clergy. Closed-mindedness seemed to be characteristic among these Church leaders. In Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, Augustine urges the "inquirer" who desires to find the truth not to despair when he encounters anti-intellectualism among the Church leadership:

And should the inquirer meet with some, whether bishops or presbyters, or any officials or ministers of the Catholic Church, who either avoid in all cases opening up mysteries, or, content with simple faith, have no desire for more recondite knowledge, he must not despair of finding the knowledge of the truth in a case where neither are all able to teach to whom the inquiry is addressed, nor are all inquirers worthy of learning the truth. Diligence and piety are both necessary: on the one hand, we must have knowledge to find truth, and on the other hand, we must deserve to get the knowledge.[13]

Augustine had once been a seeker in just this atmosphere--an authoritarian one in which church leaders offered questioners no reasoned answers but rather intimidated the laity to blindly accept Church teaching without question.[14] Eugene Teselle characterizes Augustine’s conservative Catholic environment as stressing "reverence for divine authority at the expense of rational inquiry and may even have been inclined to counsel blind faith."[15] So when the questions he was raising were not answered by the Catholic clergy, Augustine looked elsewhere for intellectual satisfaction.

2. Augustine’s Own Disillusionment and Flight to the Manichees

Augustine, who lived near Tertullian’s Carthage in Tagaste, said in The Happy Life that he was "led into error [errorem]" through a "childish superstition [superstitio]" which "frightened [terrebat] me from the search [for truth] itself."[16] This puerile superstitio refers to the anti-intellectualism which pervaded the Church in Africa and demanded belief without offering any rational grounds for it. The word superstitio here has the sense of deterring from scrutiny and investigation. It was the shut-up-kid-and-just-believe mentality.

That this superstition refers to the anti-intellectual Christianity that surrounded him is made even clearer by the similar language used in The Usefulness of Belief.[17] Augustine wrote this piece six years after his conversion to Christianity, which occurred in 386. He sent it to Honoratus, whom he had converted to Manicheanism: "I fell among these people for no other reason than that they declared that they would put aside all overawing [terribili] authority, and by pure and simple reason would bring to God those who were willing to listen to them and so deliver them from all error [errore]."[18] The Manichees had said that "we [Catholics] were overawed by superstition [superstitione terreri] and were bidden to believe rather than to reason, while they pressed no one to believe until the truth had been discussed and elucidated." Augustine was thus "enticed by these promises," being an adolescent "with a mind eager for truth."[19]

Augustine considered his mentally-stultifying experience with the North African Catholica to be like "clouds" or fog that confused his intellectual and spiritual course--clouds by which he was "led into error."[20] It was this "childish superstition" which stifled intellectual inquiry and moved him toward Manicheanism--the religion of inquiring minds[21] and "the heresy of the intellectuals."[22] (In his Order [De Ordine], Augustine himself gently rebukes Monica for her superstitio--for her simple-minded rejection of philosophy. He reminds her that Paul’s warnings in Colossians 2 are against a this-worldly philosophy, not against the true philosophia [the love of wisdom] of the other, intelligible world.)[23] Although Augustine was misguided by this Enlightenment-like ideal of pursuing pure reason, he preferred this route to that of blind submission to authority. Augustine’s hunger for intellectual answers was not unreasonable or excessive.

The Catholicism with which Augustine had grown up commanded belief without lifting a finger to teach the believer or to answer the intellectual difficulties he might have.[24] Instead of a faith seeking understanding, Augustine’s upbringing encouraged a blind faith which was told to suppress any inquiry.

Peter Brown comments, This African church was exceptionally narrow and conservative....The bishops were exceptionally sensitive to any challenge to their authority....This oppressive environment had always tended to produce extreme reactions among some African Christians. A strong current of "new," of "spiritual" Christianity had always run against the massive literalism of the traditional church.[25]

Augustine found that these conservative Catholics tended to be suspicious of any believer who made intellectual or philosophical excursions outside the provincial, popularly-accepted beliefs.[26]

Augustine could not tolerate North African Catholicism’s lack of sympathy for the serious questioner. Augustine offers a couple of examples, apparently from his own experience. First, the Catholica would typically resort to frivolous and mocking answers in response to the serious and reasonable question raised by the Manichees (and their Gnostic predecessors): "What did God do before he made heaven and earth?"[27] Unlike the Catholica, Augustine refused to evade "by a joke the force of the objection" by saying, "He was preparing hell...for those prying into such deep subjects." Augustine continues,

It is one thing to see the objection; it is another to make a joke of it. I do not answer in this way. I would rather respond, "I do not know," concerning what I do not know rather than say something for which a man inquiring about such profound matters is laughed at while the one giving a false answer is praised.

By contrast, Augustine is willing to respect the person who asks a serious question[28] even if it is asked in a challenging spirit.[29]

Another example of Catholic simple-mindedness is the response of an "utterly foolish" woman to a Manichean woman’s praising of the sun as an object of worship:[30] "she leapt up in her excitement and stamped on the place on the floor illumined by the rays that came in through the window, exclaiming, ‘Lo, I tread under foot the sun, your God.’"[31]

Not only did Augustine hear such anti-intellectual quips, he himself was in the thick of particular intellectual difficulties during his pilgrimage. Before Jerome’s scholarly translation of the Latin Vulgate, the Vetus Latina was used by North African Christians. Full of slang and jargon,[32] it was a very crudely translated work which, according to Augustine, was "unworthy of comparison with the nobility of Cicero’s writings" because of its "humble style."[33] Although Augustine indicates that his "swelling pride," the begetter of all sin,[34] prevented him from looking past this crude translation to the truth,[35] the sloppy scholarship behind the Vetus Latina created yet another barrier and reinforced the anti-intellectualism with which he had grown up.[36]
Then there were the particular questions Augustine grappled with--questions for which Catholic Christianity seemed to furnish no answers. Two of the chief questions he sought to resolve had to do with (a) the origin of evil and (b) God’s corporeality (in which North African Catholics typically believed). "Ignorant in such matters, I was disturbed by these questions."[37] In particular, the question of the origin of evil so troubled and wearied him that he was "driven into the arms of heretics," as he wrote in On Free Will.[38] Augustine simply could not see that evil was not a bodily entity--a substance that possessed "its own foul and hideous mass"[39]-- but was actually the privation of goodness. Whatever has being is good insofar as it is, but evil, however, is the privation of being.

Regarding God’s corporeality, Augustine was surrounded by this pervasive belief. Earlier on, Tertullian had borrowed from the Stoics the doctrine of the soul’s corporeality as well as God’s own corporeality.[40] In his mind, if an entity is not embodied, it is not real. Augustine himself could not think of God except as corporeal and spatial, "either infused into the world or even diffused outside the world throughout infinite space....For whatever I conceived as devoid of such spatial character seemed to me to be nothing, absolutely nothing, not even so much as empty space."[41] This, of course, logically entailed the belief that an elephant’s body would receive more of God than a sparrow![42]

Consequently, the Manichees would torment the North African Catholica with their questions on this subject as well: "Is God confined within a corporeal form? Does God have hair and nails?"[43] Augustine only later came to realize that being made in God’s image did not imply that God had a body; rather he is a "spiritual substance."[44] Although Augustine subsequently realized that the Manichees themselves were hardly proceeding by pure reason and that they appealed to authority, they offered an attractive alternative to a religion which suppressed the life of the mind.

Through his encounter with Neoplatonist Christians in Milan (and Ambrose in particular), Augustine’s erroneous belief in divine corporeality was corrected. In the language of Homer’s Odyssey[45], Augustine describes in The Happy Life that his sea-faring brought him to a new "land": "here I came to know the North Star [either Ambrose or Neoplatonist Christianity][46] to which I could entrust myself."[47] Augustine realized that "nothing bodily should be thought of at all when one thinks of God or when one thinks of the soul, for it is the one thing in reality closest to God." [48]

What is astonishing is that Augustine considered his move from the narrow-minded, intellectual "clouds" of North African Catholicism to the Manichees to be a "scatter[ing of] that fog."[49] Becoming a Manichee was an intellectual step forward for Augustine.[50] Shortly before he joined the Manichees, he was inspired to convert to a life of philosophy upon reading Cicero’s Hortensius at nineteen years of age: "I was delighted with exhortation only because by its argument I was stirred up and enkindled and set aflame to love, and pursue, and attain and catch hold of, and strongly embrace...wisdom itself."[51] Once he had been "made more upright" (or "upstanding"), he concluded that he would rather yield to those who "teach" rather than those who "command."[52] In his youth, he found the "yoke" of the Catholic Church to be more oppressive than what the Manichees had to offer. Unlike the Catholic clergyman he had encountered, the Manichees did not demand belief without reason and without offering to teach and instruct the seeker. Augustine could now stand on his own intellectual feet rather than being weighed down by an anti-intellectual authoritarianism. Instead of suppressing reason and blindly accepting authoritative commands in infantile dependence, he could think for himself as an rational adult.[53] Robert O’Connell writes,

For they [i.e., the Manichees] took seriously, more seriously than any Catholic clergyman Augustine had previously met, those words of Christ: "Seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened to you." And factus erectior ["after having been made more upright"], Augustine is boldly claiming that, prompted to choose between Manicheanism and the Catholicism he had experienced, his conversion by these mercenarii was a step in the right direction![54]
So Augustine viewed his conversion to Manicheanism as a positive step--despite its gross errors which he later came to realize. When he read Cicero’s Hortensius, Augustine, inspired to pursue a life of philosophy, viewed himself as the Prodigal of Luke 15 who was finally being awakened to "rise up" so that he might "return" to God: "I began to rise up, so that I might return to you."[55] Leaving his "superstitious" Catholicism behind was, remarkably, a move toward God rather than away from him.[56]

The Soliloquies says as much when Augustine addresses God: "Receive me, thy servant, now fleeing from these things, as they [i.e., the Manichees--God’s ‘enemies’ whom he had ‘served’] formerly received me, a stranger, when I was fleeing from thee."[57] Unlike the Catholics whom Augustine had known, the Manichees had treated Augustine with a far more "Christian" spirit--a treatment which shaped the next decade of his life.[58]

Conclusion

Eventually, Augustine as a converted Christian could maintain his faith "without being ashamed of it."[59] He also came to recognize that authority was not illegitimate per se. Augustine took the Septuagint’s translation of Isa. 7:9 as his inspiration for explaining the relationship between faith and reason: nisi credideritis, non intellegetis--"unless you have believed, you will not understand." Vernon Bourke notes that Augustine came to realize that "there must be some starting points that are things accepted as true before reasoning can begin."[60] What was different upon his conversion to the thoughtful Neoplatonist Christianity of Ambrose in Milan was that Augustine was free to seek to understand--not blindly accept authority and ask no burning questions. His was now a faith--not an unwarranted leap--seeking understanding. And Augustine insisted on the latter just as much as he did on the former.[61]

Augustine’s pilgrimage through the "scandal of the North African Catholic mind" is instructive for us today. It reminds us of the havoc that is wrought on future generations by an unthinking faith that is reinforced by Christian leadership. What Augustine experienced, Roland Teske suggests, "stands as a clear warning for the Church of today that the minds of some of the most intelligent young women and men can easily be driven from the Church by a similar anti-intellectualism."[62]

[1] Thanks to Fr. Roland Teske, S.J., for his inspiration of my study of this subject.
[2] (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 3.
[3] Ibid., 33-34.
[4] During the time of Augustine, North African Christianity was divided into two groups: the Catholics and the puristic Donatists.
[5] Prescription of Heretics. 7.9
[6] Jaroslav Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) (The Christian Tradition, vol. 1) (Chicago: University Press, 1971), 49-50. For instance, Tertullian writes about his belief in the soul's corporeality, "It is the Stoics I am speaking of, who will easily prove that the soul is a body, even though they almost agree with us in saying that the soul is a spirit" (On the Soul 5.2). Again, "Nothing lacks bodily existence but that which is non-existent" (On the Flesh of Christ 11).
[7] Credibile est, quia ineptum est (On the Flesh of Christ 5.4). In chapter 4, Tertullian indicates that if we "judge God by our conceptions," the Incarnation and the crucifixion of Christ will appear foolish. Although Tertullian is not necessarily arguing for the glories of irrationality, he has been understood--and not by accident--to have a dislike for philosophy (Roland Teske, Paradoxes of Time in Saint Augustine [Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1996], 70n).
[8] Robert J. O'Connell, "The Riddle of Augustine's 'Confessions': A Plotinian Key," International Philosophical Quarterly 6 (1964): 343 and note.
[9] Ibid., 69n.
[10] Cited in Eugene Teselle, Augustine the Theologian (New York: Herder and Herder, 1970), 27.
[11] Epistles 236.1-3. For further discussion, see W.H.C. Frend, "The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition in Roman North Africa," Journal of Ecclesiastical History 4 (1953): 22-23.
[12] John J. O'Meara, The Young Augustine: An Introduction to the Confessions of St. Augustine 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 1980), 63.
[13] On the Morals of the Catholic Church 1.1.
[14] Robert J. O'Connell, Images of Conversion in St. Augustine's Confessions (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 101.
[15] Ibid.
[16] The Happy Life 4 and attendant endnote, unpublished translation by Roland Teske.
[17] Pierre Courcelle makes this connection in Recherches sur les Confessions de Saint Augustin (Paris: Boccard, 1968), 272-3.
[18] The Usefulness of Reason I.2.
[19] Ibid.
[20] The Happy Life 4.
[21] Frend, "The Gnostic-Manichaean Tradition," 23.
[22] Robert J. O'Connell, Augustine's Theory of Man, A.D. 386-391 (Harvard: University Press, 1968), 233.
[23] Order 1.22-33, where Monica rebukes Licentius, Augustine's pupil, who is bellowing Psalm 79 in the darkness of an outhouse! The ensuing discussion reveals that Monica is unwilling to venture beyond her simple but "superstitious" faith toward understanding. See O'Connell's comments in Augustine's Theory of Man, 228-9, 233.
[24] Robert J. O'Connell, S.J., "On Augustine's 'First Conversion' Factus Erectior (De Beata Vita 4)," Augustinian Studies 17 (1986): 16.
[25] Peter Brown, 42-43.
[26] Robert J. O'Connell, St. Augustine's Confessions: The Odyssey of the Soul, 2nd ed. (New York: Fordham University Press, 1989), 19.
[27] Confessions, 11.12.14.
[28] James J. O'Donnell, Augustine: Confessions III: Commentary on Books 8-13 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 275. See also, Robert J. O'Connell, St. Augustine's Confessions: The Odyssey of the Soul, 19n. Another instance of this kind of joking answer is found in The City of God (7.1.), where Augustine is discussing what a questioner, based on Marcus Varro's writing, might ask--namely, that perhaps certain select and outstanding gods deserve to be worshiped. Rather than sarcastically assert what Tertullian said--"If some gods are selected, like onions, then certainly the rest are judged unfit," Augustine believes that the idea of "select gods" in itself is not unreasonable, given the vantage point of the inquirer. The same type of selection, Augustine adds, is done in an army or within the church--without "judging unfit" those who are not selected to lead. Augustine concludes, Hence the fact that certain gods were selected out of many does not mean that we should denounce either writer concerned, or the worshipers of those gods, or the gods themselves. [In Against the Nations 2.9, Tertullian sarcastically discusses the division of Roman gods into "certain," "uncertain," and "select."] Instead, we should notice who these select gods are, and for what purpose they seem to have been selected.
[29] O'Connell, Images of Conversion, 173.
[30] Augustine writes in On Free Will that "some people [the Manichees], greatly erring, venerate light as if it were the substance of God most high" (3.16).
[31] The Usefulness of Belief 6.13.
[32] Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (New York: Dorset Press, 1967), 42.
[33] Confessions 3.5.9. See also The Usefulness of Belief 6.13.
[34] James J. O' Donnell, Augustine: Confessions II: Commentary on Books 1-7 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 170.
[35] Confessions 3.5.9.
[36] Gillian Clark, Augustine: The Confessions (Cambridge: University Press, 1993), 9-10.
[37] Confessions 3.7.12.
[38] On Free Will 1.2.4.
[39] Confessions 5.10.20.
[40] On the Soul 5.2.
[41] Confessions 7.1.1.
[42] Ibid., 7.1.2.
[43] Confessions 3.7.12.
[44] Confessions 6.3.4.
[45] Robert J. O'Connell, Images of Conversion in St. Augustine's Confessions, (New York: Fordham University Press, 1996), 7.
[46] Teske makes this observation in a footnote in The Happy Life, 20n.
[47] The Happy Life 4.
[48] Ibid.
[49] The Happy Life 4.
[50] O'Connell, Images of Conversion, 83n.
[51] Confessions 3.4.8.
[52] Ibid.
[53] O'Connell, Images of Conversion, 8, 49.
[54] "On Augustine's 'First Conversion," 28. O'Connell comments: "We must not forget that [Augustine] could, and almost certainly did, feel that in adopting Manichaeism he was not apostasizing from, but actually adopting, a purer, more 'spiritual' form of Christianity than he had found in the North African Catholica of his day" (Images of Conversion, 48).
[55] Confessions 3.4.7: surgere coeperam ut ad te redirem. Utilizing Plotinian language, Augustine alludes to the prodigal son, who arises and returns to his father (see 1.18.28) (Cp. Gillian Clark, ed., Augustine's Confessions Books I-IV [Cambridge: University Press, 1995], 113-4, 144.)
[56] O'Connell, Images of Conversion, 52.
[57] Soliloquies 1.5.
[58] O'Connell, Images of Conversion, 53.
[59] Confessions 5.14.24.
[60] Vernon J. Bourke, Augustine's Love of Wisdom: An Introspective Philosophy (West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press, 1992), 21.
[61] Robert J. O'Connell, Soundings in St. Augustine's Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 1994), 216.
[62] Roland Teske, Paradoxes of Time in Saint Augustine, 12.

Our Generation

2008-06-30T22:10:00.000-07:00

"Our generation is lost to the truth of God, to the reality of divine revelation, to the content of God's will, to the power of his redemption, and to the authority of his Word. For this loss it is paying dearly in a swift relapse to paganism. The savages are stirring again; you can hear them rumbling and rustling in the tempo of our times" (Carl Henry, Twilight of a Great Civilization).

Our generation is not only lost to the truth of God, but the reality is manifested in every area of life, especially among our leaders. We are reaping this reality through tribal hatred, civil wars, corruptions, poor leadership, and nepotism. One of the aims of Centerpoint is to develop a trans-racial, transtribal, transnational and trans-denominational center for all to come and grow physically and spiritually. The African church has opted out of the contest for the Mind and Will of the people. We want to bring that back into the church; for men and women to understand the power of God's redemption in their lives.

The savages are already here, therefore, we must buckle up for the battle ahead of us by taking every thought captive for Christ. Proofing, defending, refuting, and persuading men and women of the joy of the Cross.

2 Cor 10:3-5

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. 4The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. 5We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Tony Weedor

The Late Dr. Kwame Bediako, A Trooper for Christ

2008-06-23T19:46:00.000-07:00

I met Dr Bediako in Addis Ababe, Ethiopia while speaking at a Conference. We became great friends immediately, because of our interest in Africa, her people, her religions, but above all, a Theology for the Continent. Last Friday my friend Fred Asomao sent me a very short email, that read: "Dr. Bediako passed away and he will be bury next month, he will be missed."

It is a great lost for the continent, and for the church in search of a Theological identity (see Bediako's Theology and Identity). He was the champion of what my students at ETC, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia were calling "Mother Tongue Theology." Dr Bediako, said: "it was obvious, therefore, that if Christians of Graeco-Roman culture were to achieve any real measure of valid and settled identity, they needed to come to terms with the various facets of that culture from which they themselves had emerged. For this reason there is more to the study of the fortunes of the Christian movement in the Graeco-Roman world than the political and legal questions which have generally dominated investigations and interpretations of the field." Quoted from Theology and Identity.

He held Doctorates from the Universities of Bordeaux, in French Literature and Aberdeen. He was the founder and Director of the Akrofi-Kristaller Memorial Centre for Mission Research and Applied Theology, just to name a few of his achievements. It is a Centre that is changing the face of African Theology and research as people from all over the world are going there to study.

My dear Brother and Friend, may your soul rest in peace.....Thanks for your contribute to Africa and the church. To your dear wife and children, we will be praying for you as we all deal with this great lost.

Tony, for Beth and the Kids

The Christian Apologetics Manifesto

2008-06-12T15:45:00.000-07:00

Christian Apologetics Manifesto 2003: Sixteen Theses

By Douglas Groothuis

This is a manifesto to ignite the holy fire of apologetic passion and action. It is
not a sustained argument or a development of themes. (I have written and lectured about
these matters elsewhere). It is, rather, a short series of interrelated propositions crying out
for both immediate and protracted action. These challenges issue from convictions
formed through twenty-five years of apologetic teaching, preaching, debating, writing,
and Christian witness.

Because of (a) the waning influence of the Christian worldview in public and
private life in America today, (b) the pandemic of anti-intellectualism in the
contemporary church, and (c) the very command of God himself to further divine truth, I
strongly advise that the following statements be wrestled with and responded to by all
followers of Jesus Christ.

1. Christian apologetics involves the public presentation and defense of
Christianity as true, reasonable, knowable, and existentially pertinent to both individuals
and entire cultures. Apologetics involves rebutting unbelieving accusations against
Christianity as well as giving a constructive case for Christian theism.

2. The fundamental issue for apologetics is not how many apologists one has
read, or what apologetic method one embraces (although that must be worked out).
Rather, the fundamental issue is whether or not one has a passion for God’s
truth—reasonably pursued and courageously communicated—and a passion for the lost
because of the love of God resident in one’s life.

3. One must be convinced of the truth, rationality, pertinence, and knowability
of the Christian worldview—derived from Holy Scripture, logically systematized, and
rightly harmonized with general revelation (truth knowable outside of Scripture).

4. In light of (1), (2), and (3), fideism—the claim that Christian faith has no
positive connection to reason or evidence—should be rejected as unbiblical and harmful
to the great cause of Christ’s truth (Matthew 22:37-39; Romans 12:1-2).

5. Any theology, apologetics, ethics, evangelism or church practice that
minimizes or denigrates the concept of objective, absolute, universal and knowable truth
is both irrational and unbiblical. As such it must be rejected and repented of.

6. Any intellectual discipline or church practice that minimizes or denigrates the
importance of apologetics is unbiblical and must be repented of (Acts 17:16-34; 2
Corinthians 10:3-5; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3).

7. The artificial separation of evangelism from apologetics must end. Many
evangelistic methods die when those evangelized ask questions related to apologetics.
Therefore, all evangelistic training should include basic apologetic training as well.

8. Apologetics is meant just as much for believers with doubts and questions as
it is directed toward unbelievers. Therefore, Christians with doubts should not be shunned
or shamed, but given good apologetic arguments (as well as pastoral care) in dealing with
page 1 of 3
their intellectual struggles (Matthew 11:1-11; Jude 22).

9. Since all Christians are called and commanded to have a reason for the hope
within them (1 Peter 3:15), Christian teachers, pastors, mentors and educators of all kinds
are remiss if they avoid, denigrate, or minimize the importance of apologetics to biblical
living and Christian witness.

10. Those outside of the leadership positions mentioned in (9) should request
that apologetics be made a constitutive part of these institutions if this is not already the
case.

11. In light of (9) and (10), Christian colleges, seminaries, and churches should
incorporate apologetics into their institutional/educational life, mission, and vision.
Specifically, every Christian college, university, and seminary should require at least one
class in apologetics for every degree in their curriculum. Moreover, every discipline
should be taught from a Christian worldview, since all truth is God’s truth. This has
significant apologetic value in and of itself.

12. Because apologetics is meant to be the public presentation and defense of
Christianity as true, reasonable, pertinent, and knowable, apologists should attempt to
offer their arguments in as many public venues as possible. Therefore, qualified Christian
apologists should learn to become public intellectuals: thinkers who have mastered their
material and are willing and able to enter public discourse and debate in a way that
challenges and engages the non-Christian mind as well as galvanizes other Christians to
hone their apologetic skills. Areas of engagement include the following:

a. Letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines.
b. Op-ed pieces for newspapers.
c. Calls to talk radio programs.
d. Public debates and dialogues on religious and ethical issues.
e. Apologetic contributions to interactive web pages.
f. Lectures on college campuses on apologetic themes.
g. Books oriented to those outside the typical evangelical market, published by secular
publishers if possible.
h. Any other creative outreach—drama, poetry, cinema, and more.

13. Young Christians with an aptitude in philosophy and academic pursuits in
general should be encouraged that these disciplines are just as spiritual as anything
directly church-related. For example, being a Christian philosopher at a secular college or
university is just as godly and spiritual than being a pastor, missionary, or professor at a
Christian institution (1 Corinthians 10:31; Colossians 3:17). One may prudently apply
one’s apologetic skills in these settings and extend the Christian witness.

14. All apologetic endeavors should manifest the virtues of both humility and
courage through the empowering of the Holy Spirit. If we have been bestowed by
Almighty God with truth to defend rationally, this is because of God’s grace, not our own
goodness. There is no room for pride. If we have been bestowed by Almighty God with
truth to defend rationally, we should take it to the streets and not shrink back from
appropriate encounters with unbelief. There is no room for cowardice.

15. Apologetics must be carried out with the utmost intellectual integrity. All
page 2 of 3
propaganda, cheap answers, caricatures of non-Christian views, and fallacious reasoning
should be avoided. One should develop competent answer to searching questions about
the truth and rationality of Christian faith. This demands excellence in scholarship at all
intellectual levels, even the most popular. This cognitive orientation takes time, money,
and sustained effort. It will not happen by watching television or by otherwise wasting
our limited time.

16. All apologetics ventures—whether in writing, speaking, or
dialogue—should be backed by personal prayer by the apologist and supporting prayer of
the church (Ephesians 6:18).

Douglas Groothuis (Ph.D., University of Oregon) is professor of philosophy at Denver
Seminary, where he has served since 1993. He has written ten books, including On
Pascal and On Jesus (both in the Wadsworth Philosophers Series), and he served as
contributing editor for Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World.
Copyright ©2005 Douglas Groothuis. All rights reserved. This article may be reproduced and circulated
only as “freeware,” without charge. For all other uses, please contact Douglas Groothuis to request
permission.
This article can be read online at: http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/doug/archives/000010.php

Summer Reading Lists, by Tony Weedor

2008-05-30T13:28:00.000-07:00

Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad, by Andrew C. McCarthy
Infidel, by Ayaan Ali
Flames of Rome, by Paul L. Maier
Religious Literacy, by Stephen Prothero
Kingdom Triangle, by J.P. Moreland
The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, A Christian View of the West (5 volumes)
God, Revelation and Authority, by Carl Henry (6 volumes)

Have a great summer...Tony for the family

The Content of the church

2008-05-29T20:43:00.000-07:00

The content of church proclamation is therefore not just anything and everything. The church's message to the world is not about the energy crisis, pollution, white or black power, detente, the Israeli-Arab conflict, ad infinitum. It is the very specific Word of God. The church is called to proclaim what God says and does. Unless it verbally articulates and communicates the revelation of God, the church has no distinctive right to be heard, to survive, or even to exist.
Nor is the Christian minister anything and everything--a fund-raiser, marriage-counselor, pulpit orator, public relations specialists, ad infinitum. He is primarily the proclaimer of God’s revealed Word. Unless he declares the revelation of God he has no unique vocational claim and standing.
.... The unmistakable priority of God’s people, the church in the world, is to proclaim God’s revealed Word. Divorced from this calling, the church and Christians are undurable and unendurable phenomena. By stifling divine revelation, they are, in fact, an affront to God. Devoid of motivation for implementing Christ's cause, they become both delinquents and delinquent in neighbor and world relations.
Why does the modern world so comfortably chain its passions to power, lucre and sex, instead of harnessing itself to God in his revelation? The answer lies not in any intrinsic weakness of Christianity, not in any peculiar contemporary antipathy for the gospel, and not even in the theological, evangelistic and social failures of the past genration of believers. The fault lies rather in timid preaching of God’s revelation by professional pulpiteers, in presumptuous tampering with God’s revelation… in subtle evasions of God’s revelation.” Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 2:22-23.

One New Light in Liberia, an Inch Back From Abyss - New York Times

2008-05-13T12:43:00.000-07:00

One New Light in Liberia, an Inch Back From Abyss - New York Times

2008-05-11T17:04:00.000-07:00

Abby and Leechelle at Debbie and Steve's Ranch...Family vacation

MMR #32 Modernity Sweeps Africa

2008-05-04T18:33:00.000-07:00

MMR #32 Modernity Sweeps Africa

Defining an Animistic Worldview

2008-05-04T18:23:00.000-07:00

Defining an Animistic Worldview

Christian Apologetics in a Non-Christian World

2008-05-02T17:45:00.000-07:00

Dr. J. P. Moreland, Talbot Seminary

Summarized by Rich Milne

What do theologians talk about when they get together? Not always theology. At the recent annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, the opening address by Dr. J. P. Moreland was about the need for believers to understand philosophy in order to advance the kingdom of God.

For many of us, our contact with philosophy probably comes from Colossians 2:8 which says "See that no one take you captive through philosophy and empty deception." So why would any Christian want to have anything to do with philosophy?

Many Christians today feel that they and the church have been pushed to the edge of the cultural discussion: they feel marginalized. How did Christians in the past earn the right to be taken seriously in their culture? What did they do in the "good old days"?
Dr. Moreland spoke of John Wesley's requirements for a minister of the gospel. What was first on his list? A capacity for sound reasoning. And what should he study? "Logic, metaphysic, natural theology, and geometry!" Most seminary students today don't even take one course in philosophy, and yet we expect them to understand the times and know how to answer the philosophical skeptics who love to ridicule Christianity.

What did the great Church Father Augustine say in the fifth century? "We must show our scriptures not to be in conflict with whatever our critics can demonstrate about the nature of things from reliable sources." Philosophy was the main tool Augustine used in this task.
Philip Johnson, a distinguished law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, speaks and writes pointedly about the weaknesses of what he calls philosophical naturalism. This is the philosophy that undergirds not only evolution, but also much of the way our culture looks at all of life. It proclaims that science gives the only facts we can know are true, and if science cannot study something, then it isn't important. This is a deeply held philosophical position, and Dr. Johnson's arguments have been philosophical ones, but he has made them understandable to most of us. He has been an excellent example of using philosophy to show the weaknesses of a world view that attacks Christianity.

What can the church be doing to carry forward the task of "letting philosophy provide structure and sharpness to our discourse in the public square"? We need to integrate philosophy into the everyday work of the church. We can encourage our seminaries to hire at least one philosophy professor. We can make classes and institutes a part of the church's teaching ministry and attend them. We can set aside funds for students who want to study philosophy. We can bring Christian philosophers into the network of the church to both teach us and be a part of the body of Christ.
"As the history of the church has shown us, the broader development of the life of the mind is important for advancing the kingdom of God, and learning philosophy is crucial for developing a broader life of the mind."

So, perhaps each of us needs to think a little more and encourage those who lead us to teach us how to think carefully, logically, and clearly so that we can have accurate, well-thought-out answers when people challenge our Christian faith. As Peter says, God expects us to "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15). Are you prepared?

Paul on the Issue of World View

2008-04-20T18:12:00.001-07:00

Col 2:8

See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.

The point of worldview is to analyze the basic elements of the Christian understanding of worldivew and to compare that understanding with other worldviews-

Atheism-There's no God

Islam-Sits on five Pillars

Polytheism, many gods

Pantheism-everything is God (African Traditional Religion)

Deism

Hinduism

Buddhism

Monotheism

2 Cor. 10:3-5For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. 5We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,

Our task as Christians, is to destroy strongholds, arguments any lofty opioion raised against the knowledge of our God.

2 Tim 2:22-26

So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along withthose who call on the Lord from a pure heart. Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels. And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone,able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

Ref.

See Understanding the Times, David Noble

The Universe next Door 4th edition, by James Sire

http://www.biblegateway.com/

www.bible.org

In Wichita, Kansas

2008-04-10T10:37:00.000-07:00

Greetings----

I just got back from Wichita Kansas, teaching perspectives, meeting with church leaders and supporters… Thanks Pam, Eric, Jake, Alex, Beth and Lucy for opening your home and hearts to me for almost four days. Thanks to Hospitals of Hope for lunch, and Dinner. I was truly impressed with your passion for God, his word and his people. Your desires to minister through medicine around the world are an example of your deep love for God and his people.

I was touched by the responses of young people to the message and their desires to serve the Lord either at home or the mission field. I still remember the face of Dr. Alexis C. and her question she put to me concerning work in Africa; I will never forget her face! It was great meeting Liz W, her smiles and passion for God are contagious… Beware!

I am sorry Russ, and Linda, next time we have to connect!

The church according David Wells, in his book; God in the Wasteland.

"Technique is being substituted for truth, marketing action for thought, the satisfaction of the individual for the health of the church, a therapeutic vision of the world for a doctrinal vision, the unmanageable by the manageable, organism by organization, those who can preach the word of God by those who can manage an organization, the spiritual by the material. At the center of these substitutions is an individualism fired by a shallow, self centered consumerism. And along with this and because of it, has come a debilitating loss of truth-- David Wells, from his book, God is the Waste Land

I am back home in Colorado, enjoying the snow storm, Nah!

Saving the Mind!

2008-03-28T22:38:00.000-07:00

Saving the Mind: Charles Malik, the former Lebanese Ambassador to the US, in his inaugural address at the dedication of the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois, emphasized that Evangelicals were confronted with two basic tasks:1. Saving the soul 2. Saving the Mind Evangelicals were lacking behind in the second task, saving the Mind.

At this point I want for you to take a pen or pencil and underline these powerful words of the late Malik, a true Ambassador of Christ.

I must be frank with you: the greatest danger confronting American (both the northern and southern churches) evangelical Christianity is the danger of anti-intellectualism. The mind in its greatest and deepest reaches is not cared for enough. But intellectual nurture cannot take place apart from profound immersion fro a period of years in the history of thought and the spirit. People who are in a hurry to get out of the university and start earning money or serving the church or preaching the gospel have no idea of the infinite value of spending years of leisure conversing with the greatest minds and souls of the past, ripening and sharpening and enlarging their powers of thinking.The result is that the arena of creative thinking is vacated and abdicated to the enemy. Who among evangelicals can stand up to the great secular or naturalistic or atheistic scholars on their terms of scholarship? Who among evangelical scholars is quoted as a normative source by the greatest secular authorities on history or philosophy or psychology or sociology or politics? Does the evangelical mode of thinking have the slightest chance of becoming the dominant mode in the great universities or Europe and America that stamp our entire civilization with their spirit and ideas?It will take a different spirit altogether to overcome this great danger of anti-intellectualism. For example, I say this different spirit, so far as philosophy alone-the most important domain for thought and intellect-is concerned, must see the tremendous value of spending an entire year doing nothing but poring intensely over the Plato’s Republic or the Sophist Plato, or two years over the metaphysics or the ethics of Aristotle, or three years over Augustine’s Confessions and the City of God….For the sake of greater effectiveness in witnessing to Jesus Christ himself, as well as for their own sakes, evangelicals cannot afford to keep on living on the periphery of responsible intellectual existence. (Craig.1994.xii)

Reading has become a disability for some evangelical Christians in Sub Sahara Africa. Wealth gospel has taken the place of the intellect. Name it, and claim, no question ask. Love for the fine arts, music, play, humor, and literature, have been replace by singing, screaming and dancing. The soul has been redeemed, but mind is still in cultural captivity... As the church spread south ward in mass, the tasks are still the same, saving the soul and saving the mind.

The battle is still same between two cities, the city of God and the earthly city of humankind...The city of God is dedicated, in principle, to the attributes, will and glory of God. I hope we can lovely confront the challenge/task shaping the mind in the great contest of worldview….Some missionaries take more DVDs and movies with them on the field than they do with books, forgetting that we are in an intellectual war, and we are losing the minds of the southern church. We are living on the periphery of intellectual responsibility, as we watch the minds decayed. We have no sense of our Christian history, theology, hermeneutics, apologetics, philosophy, and ethics, just to name a few.

Gresham Machen, puts it better:“False ideas are the greatest obstacles to the reception of the gospel. We may preach with all the fervor of a reformer and yet succeed only in winning a straggler here and there, if we permit the whole collective thought of the nation or of the world to be controlled by ideas which, by the resistless force of logic, prevent Christianity from being regarded as anything more than a harmless delusion. Under such circumstances, what God desires us to do is to destroy the obstacles at its root.” (Craig, 1994.xiii)

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. 4For the(A) weapons of(B) our warfare are not of the flesh but have(C) divine power(D) to destroy strongholds. 5We destroy arguments and(E) every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to(F) obey Christ, 2Cor 10:3-5

For further reading

Reasonable Faith, William Lane Craig,

Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey,

The God who is There, Francis Schaeffer

How Now Shall we live, Nancy Pearcey, and Chuck Colson

Habits of the Mind, James Sire,

The Universe Next door, James, Sire

The Christian Mind, Harry Blamires,

Love your God with All Your Mind, J.P. Moreland

Amusing ourselves to Death, Neil Postman

Kingdom Triangle, J.P. Moreland

God and Other Minds, Alvin Plantinga

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, Mark Noll

Scaling the Secular City, J.P. Moreland

Dissonant Voices: Religious Pluralism and the Quest for Truth, Harold Netland

The Heart of God in the Cross

2008-03-22T08:22:00.000-07:00

I stand in awe at the wonder of God in reconciling sinful human beings to himself on the cross. As thousands if not millions walk, or drive to churches this week, we must never forget the heart of God, the cross. In the cross we see God’s justices, and love for humankind. J.I Packer puts it better in his book, Knowing God:

“There is, certainly, great cause for humility in the thought the he sees all the twisted things about me that my fellow humans do not see (and I am glad), and that he see more corruption in me than that which I see in myself (which, in all conscience, is enough). There is, however, equally great incentive to worship and love God in the thought that, for some unfathomable reason, he wants me as his friend, and desires to be my friend, and has given his Son to die for me in order to realize this purpose. We cannot work these thoughts out here, but merely to mention them is enough to show how much it means to know not merely that we know God, but that He KNOWS us.”

In the cross God’s justice was satisfied, and my sins forgiven…
In the cross humanity was brought back to God, by taking away sins of the world…
The cross revealed God’s heart, and conquered evil…
The cross transforms everything in history and human culture….
In the cross I have a new relationship with God
I can approach him personally in prayer and worship…
He did not just reconcile us to himself, but to one another in newness of brotherly love…
The cross gives me a new understanding of myself, my culture, my society, and the world around me..
In the cross I am able to love my enemies, evangelize the lost, get involve in missions and new courage to face the daunting task of suffering in the Southern Church…

In the Cross I glory for ever Gal 6:14! May you find hope in the Heart of God, the Cross today…

For further reading
1. Knowing God, J.I. Packer
2. The Cross of Christ, John Stott
3. The Apostolic Preaching of Cross, Leo Morris
4. The Empty Cross of Christ, Michael Green
5. The atoning Death of Christ, Ron Wallace
6. The Atonement, Leo Morris
7. Why the cross? H.E. Guillebaud, in this book Guillebaud asked these three critical questions to the critics of substitutionary atonement: (1) is it Christian? (Compatible with the teaching of Jesus and his apostles); (2) is it immoral? (Compatible or incompatible with justice); (3) is it incredible? (compatible or incompatible with such problems as time and transfer of guilt)

A short Theology of Listening, by Prof. Groothuis

2008-03-18T20:10:00.000-07:00

In a world scrambled by aimless philosophical speculation and ever-more commercial and marketable religious apostasy and crass superstition, we should exult in our knowledge that we personally bear the very image of God (imago Dei). Consequently, we have the God-given capacity to reasonably and spiritually respond to the Creator-God’s revelation and to know Him personally. We can further rejoice that our Lord Jesus Christ, through His costly grace, has died for the sin that previously blinded our eyes and deafened our ears to spiritual reality (2 Cor. 4:3-6). The Lord has spoken: in creation, in the Bible, and by his Son—and we have heard and obeyed, by His grace. Jesus preached: “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life” (John 5:24).Yet how do we listen to Christ’s prophets and teachers and preachers? How do we respond to the spoken word of biblical teaching and preaching? Do we really hear?In his classic text, Biblical Preaching, Dr. Haddon Robinson affirms the centrality and power of preaching the authoritative word. He says of the Apostle: “Preaching in Paul’s mind did not consist of a man discussing religion. Instead, God Himself spoke through the personality and the message of a preacher to confront men and women and them to himself.”God has specially appointed teachers and prophets for equipping the saints and for the building up of the Body (Eph. 4:11, 14). They must be heeded, for they are no less than the spokespeople of God. In an age rebelling against all legitimate authority, during a time when error is enthusiastically embraced and Truth largely shunned, we must become disciplined, earnest listeners to the Truth. It is our privilege; it is our responsibility.Our worship does not end with the last hymn or chorus before the teaching; rather, our worship shifts from vocally praising God to actively listening to Him. “Hear O Israel,” cried Moses, God’s prophet, “The Lord our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deut. 6:4).Listen . . . with all your might; hear the living and active word. The teaching and preaching of God’s imperishable word is truly a sacred event whereby the Truth penetrates hearts and minds, consciences are quickened, sin is disclosed, salvation is offered, wisdom is imparted . . . if we listen, if we actively engage ourselves in hearing, if we participate as the Holy Spirit works in our midst.We are all too accustomed to being entertained and passively amused. Television often hypnotizes or anesthetizes us; it demands little response and by its very nature stimulates stagnation, not spiritual encounter. Video games, cell phones, and Internet access offers an endless source of possible distraction. But when we come together as the Body of Christ we come as participants not as spectators, we come to hear and obey the Truth not to be entertained. Neither Moses nor Paul captured their audience through eloquence or style. They were not entertainers but Truth-tellers: they spoke God’s word with a power that provoked response. Our Lord, when teaching by parable, alerted his hearers: “Therefore, consider carefully how you listen” (Luke 8:18). We are to be engaged in listening, intent on hearing.Just as it is ethically incumbent upon the teacher or preacher to diligently hunger and thirst after an exegetically and theologically correct message (James 3:1; Matt. 12:36, 37), so it is ethically imperative that the hearers receive and respond to the word—always considering the message according to Scripture. For no human is infallible, and all must be corrected biblically; yet God in His mercy uses these earthen vessels “to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us” (2 Cor. 4:7).Sound biblical teaching and preaching when illumined by the Spirit is a transaction of grace: needed Truth is dynamically imparted to both redeemed and unredeemed sinners through the spoken word—a momentous event! It’s not just another Sunday’s half hour, not just another “religious” routine. The gracious gifts of the Spirit are to freely operate with the wind of the Spirit filling our sails and refreshing our hearts.Practically, we must regain a biblical reverence, a fear and trembling before our Maker (Prov. 1:6). As a teacher and a preacher, I know the meaning of the congregation’s eye contact, facial expressions, and posture. Yes, in a way it is the speaker’s responsibility to provoke the interest of the hearers. But it is equally our responsibility to listen and to help the speakers by demonstrating an interest. This may require a sacrifice if you are not naturally captivated—but is not that the essence of following Christ—a sacrifice placed on God's altar for his own use(Romans 12:1-2)?We obey what we have truly heard; we truly hear what we dedicate ourselves to hearing “and the message is heard through the word of Christ” (Rom. 10:17). “Hear O Israel.” “Let everyone be quick to hear” (James 1:19) that the Lord may be honored, revered, and obeyed.

Hell's View of Pleasure

2008-02-29T17:35:00.000-08:00

Never forget that when we are dealing with any pleasure in its healthy and normal and satisfying form, we are, in a sense, on the enemy's ground. I know we have won many a soul through pleasure. All the same, it is his invention, not ours. He made the pleasures: all our research so far has not enabled us to produce one. All we can do is to encourage the humans to take the pleasures which our enemy has produced, at times, or in ways, or in degrees, which he has forbidden.

Hence we always try to work away from the natural condition of any pleasure to that in which it is least natural, least redolent of its Maker, and least pleasurable. An ever-increasing craving for an ever-diminishing pleasure is the formula. It is more certain; and it's better style. To get the man's soul and give him nothing in return-that is what really gladdens our father's heart.

C.S. Lewis, in the Screwtape Letters

Trust-Micah 7:5-9

2008-01-07T21:05:00.000-08:00

5(M) Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend;guard(N) the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms;[a]

6for(O) the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother,the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; (P) a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.

7But as for me, I will look to the LORD; (Q) I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me.

8(R) Rejoice not over me, O(S) my enemy; (T) when I fall, I shall rise;(U) when I sit in darkness, the LORD will be a light to me.

9(V) I will bear the indignation of the LORD because I have sinned against him,until(W) he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me.(X) He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication.

Resolutions-08

2007-12-31T23:21:00.000-08:00

I resolve, in 08 to study the Bible steadily, persistently, constantly, frequently, in order to find daily riches that are beyond my knowledge of the God who is There. Helping men and women to understand God's word, by making his word attractive.

To Pray for Pastors and church leaders who are face with daily decisions in the lives of many in their congregations. Praying for Missionaries around the globe as they confronts culture with the word of God.

I resolve to take risk for the glory of God. I want to be intentional in my faith by lovely confronting, and engaging my generation with the truth of scripture.

I resolve to pray daily for my kids, and their teachers

I resolve to develop my Mind for Christ by reading 10.000 pages of books in the field of
1. Theology
2. Ethics,
3. Logic
4. Phisolophy
5. Apologetics
6. History
7. Greek language
8. Amharic language

I resolve to carefully check everything I eat or drink to the glory of God:-) Pray that I will keep this resolution.

I resolve to ask myself daily where I stand in relationship to my Resolutions.

Happy New Year my dear Readers-Proverb 20:6, I hope God will find us faithful.

Tony Weedor

The Lazy Cry for Simplicity

2007-12-22T07:50:00.000-08:00

"There are few dangers threatening the religious future more serious than the slow shallowing of the religious mind... Our safety is in the deep. The lazy cry for simplicity is a great danger. It indicates a frame of mind which is only appalled at the great things of God, and a senility of faith which fears that which is high. Men complain that they are jaded and cannot rise to such matters. That may mean that the matters of the world absorb all the energies of the great side of the soul, that Divine things are more than a comfort. And, if so, it means much for the future of religion, and much which is ominous. And the poverty of our worship amid its very refinements, it lack of solemnity...is the fatal index of the peril."
P.T. Forsyth

Salvation Comes Full Circle-Luke 2:29-35

2007-12-05T12:12:00.000-08:00

"Sovereign Lord, as you have promised, you now dismiss[a] your servant in peace. For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people, a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel." The child's father and mother marveled at what was said about him. Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: "This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too."

In the midst of Pain, Joy Came!

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve.

6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

7Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,

8and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

9For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me.

11Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Tony Weedor

--------------

Reference

See John Stott on "The Cross of Christ." Must read!