Words fail me--and that's rare. Read this review of AOL's "Video Game of the Year," and think of what it is doing to the souls of millions of people around the world. Consider also the soul-less, amoral attitude of the writer. It utterly stuns me that human beings would spend countless hours in these hellish virtual environments. But, then again, humans are dreadfully fallen. It is even worse that this kind of cyber excrement is publicly lauded. It is one thing to hide vice and relish its evils secretly; it is quite another to shout it from the rooftops as does this article.
Well, I guess words did not entirely fail me. The last word goes to Scripture:
"But those who fail to find me [the wisdom of God] harm themselves; all who hate me love death."--Proverbs 8:36.
--------------
Review : Gears of War
Microsoft's PlayStation 3 killer is an action filled blood bath.
by Chris Buffa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Epic's Xbox 360 game Gears of War has been injected with so much testosterone that the disc should grow hair. There's nothing in this game that isn't ridiculously big, covered in dirt, and infected with a bad attitude. Hell, even the grenades look mean. Anti-violence crusaders will no doubt retch when confronted with the blood and guts splattering the screen, but for everyone else, Gears is a big-budget blockbuster chock full of monsters, weapons, and mayhem.
The game actually has a pretty decent story that chronicles the war between humans and a race of creatures known as the Locust Horde. The main character, a mean looking soldier named Marcus Fenix, has been tasked with saving the world. Naturally, nothing goes according to plan, things get FUBAR, and a small team of army guys find themselves stuck in the middle of hell (not literally, however). There's certainly more to the story, but let's skip the formalities. Gears of War is all about grabbing a gigantic machine gun and killing big, ugly monsters that die about as well as any glorified Hollywood stuntman. Blood erupts from wounds, heads explode, and dismembered body parts fly in multiple directions. It's a gorgeous display of war at its absolute worst, a fabulous combination of delectable gameplay and luscious visuals that are shock and awe at its most demonic. It's also akin to watching Robocop for the very first time. Despite the gore, despite the all of the offensive material, it's the coolest damn thing, the type of experience that begs for a replay mode, just so the best kills are seen a billion times.
...
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
The New Nihilists
A Noncreed for 2007
We are the new nihilists.
We don't care much for philosophy, theology.
We can’t tell you what they mean.
But "whatever" is what does the trick.
"Whatever" is the scene.
Nihilist sounds cool; awesome right now; so nihilists we are.
We cram our heads with lots of cool stuff.
We take it wherever we go.
We love our designer world, we create it wherever we are.
Don't bluff me with your call to truth, we're too busy with the show.
iPods and Palm Pilots and Cell phones and MySpace,
YouTube and Second Life and Digital Cameras.
We're spiritual, you know.
We're real, it's true.
We've picked out our iTunes.
They make us the rule.
iPods and PalmPilots and Cell phones and MySpace,
YouTube and Second Life and Digital Cameras.
No time for books.
They don't even move.
We're busy with data.
That's the real groove.
iPods and PalmPilots and Cell phones and MySpace,
YouTube and Second Life and Digital Cameras.
Posing and morphing, dig the digital fix.
We crave the unreal whatever the mix.
Nihilist sounds cool; awesome right now; so nihilists we are.
God, yeah sure.
I guess God must be there.
But whatever the God,
He must fit with my hair.
Download that God
Bring him right in
Download the sacred
Right now on my iPod.
Posing and morphing, dig the digital fix.
We crave the unreal whatever the mix.
iWorld, iChoice, iRock.
Whatever… We are the new nihlists. Yeah.
We are the new nihilists.
We don't care much for philosophy, theology.
We can’t tell you what they mean.
But "whatever" is what does the trick.
"Whatever" is the scene.
Nihilist sounds cool; awesome right now; so nihilists we are.
We cram our heads with lots of cool stuff.
We take it wherever we go.
We love our designer world, we create it wherever we are.
Don't bluff me with your call to truth, we're too busy with the show.
iPods and Palm Pilots and Cell phones and MySpace,
YouTube and Second Life and Digital Cameras.
We're spiritual, you know.
We're real, it's true.
We've picked out our iTunes.
They make us the rule.
iPods and PalmPilots and Cell phones and MySpace,
YouTube and Second Life and Digital Cameras.
No time for books.
They don't even move.
We're busy with data.
That's the real groove.
iPods and PalmPilots and Cell phones and MySpace,
YouTube and Second Life and Digital Cameras.
Posing and morphing, dig the digital fix.
We crave the unreal whatever the mix.
Nihilist sounds cool; awesome right now; so nihilists we are.
God, yeah sure.
I guess God must be there.
But whatever the God,
He must fit with my hair.
Download that God
Bring him right in
Download the sacred
Right now on my iPod.
Posing and morphing, dig the digital fix.
We crave the unreal whatever the mix.
iWorld, iChoice, iRock.
Whatever… We are the new nihlists. Yeah.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Fifteeen Refusals for 2007
In good curmudgeonly fashion, I will forgo the tradition of resolutions for 2007. Instead, I offer refusals, negations, denials. I soon turn 50 after the beginning of the year, so these refusals are born out of the gravity of aging and the thirst to make the most of the time God gives us in this vaporous life. But with every refusal comes an "instead," or an affirmation. Every true curmudgeon (in the sense defined and, I hope, illustrated on this blog) denies only because he is utterly enthralled by the transcendent Ideal, the divine Yes.
1. I refuse to waste time on trivia: that means 95% of popular culture. Instead, I will center on study, teaching, preaching, writing, and mentoring.
2. I refuse to accept the anti-intellectualism (and even misology) of American evangelicalism. Instead I will teach, preach, and write in ways that demand concentration; I will write what ignites the intellect; I will preach as deeply as I can and dare you to come with me.
3. I refuse to dumb down anything, anywhere, any time. Instead I will inspire people to rise to the occasion intellectually.
4. I refuse to join those Christians who seldom read or reflect on the Bible. Instead I will read it, reread it, study it, memorize it, and meditate on it. I will try to incorporate it increasingly into my thoughts and words.
5. I refuse to seek no more than "personal peace and affluence" (as Francis Schaeffer put it thirty years ago) for my life. Instead, I will contribute to Kingdom endeavors here and abroad.
6. I refuse to tolerate bad preaching, superficial books, or kitschy Christian culture (Precious Moments, Thomas Kinkaide, etc., ad nauseum). Instead I will seek out the best, praise it, and challenge underachievers to climb higher.
7. I refuse to ever play a video game. Instead, I will look for Kingdom opportunities in the land of the living.
8. I refuse to waste time on small talk. Instead, I will endeavor to make all my words count for eternity.
9. I refuse to speak in cliches or outworn adjectives ("awesome," "cool," etc.). Instead I will try to find the right word for the right thought. Or say nothing.
10. I refuse to pose. Instead, I will live.
11. I refuse to accept the de facto deism of so many evangelicals who do not seek God for supernatural manifestations of Christ's Kingdom (healing, signs and wonders). Instead, I will seek (but never presume upon) God's miraculous, supernatural presence in this dark world.
12. I refuse to confine the Kingdom of God to America. Instead, I will keep an eagle eye for ways I can bless, encourage, and edify Christ-followers around the world.
13. I refuse to consign Christian women to second-class status in the church, the home, or the world. Instead, I will support and encourage gifted women to serve God in accord with their gifts and opportunities.
14. I refuse to preach only to the choir, to limit my ministry to the church, Christian school, parachurch, and so on. Instead, I will in every way possible seek to inject Christian truth creatively into culture through my writing and teaching, to colonize alien lands with truths not normally found there.
15. I refuse to follow any trend simply because it is a trend. Instead, I will seek to discern the hand of God in the world.
None of this can be achieved in my own power: "Yet not I but Christ who lives in me."
1. I refuse to waste time on trivia: that means 95% of popular culture. Instead, I will center on study, teaching, preaching, writing, and mentoring.
2. I refuse to accept the anti-intellectualism (and even misology) of American evangelicalism. Instead I will teach, preach, and write in ways that demand concentration; I will write what ignites the intellect; I will preach as deeply as I can and dare you to come with me.
3. I refuse to dumb down anything, anywhere, any time. Instead I will inspire people to rise to the occasion intellectually.
4. I refuse to join those Christians who seldom read or reflect on the Bible. Instead I will read it, reread it, study it, memorize it, and meditate on it. I will try to incorporate it increasingly into my thoughts and words.
5. I refuse to seek no more than "personal peace and affluence" (as Francis Schaeffer put it thirty years ago) for my life. Instead, I will contribute to Kingdom endeavors here and abroad.
6. I refuse to tolerate bad preaching, superficial books, or kitschy Christian culture (Precious Moments, Thomas Kinkaide, etc., ad nauseum). Instead I will seek out the best, praise it, and challenge underachievers to climb higher.
7. I refuse to ever play a video game. Instead, I will look for Kingdom opportunities in the land of the living.
8. I refuse to waste time on small talk. Instead, I will endeavor to make all my words count for eternity.
9. I refuse to speak in cliches or outworn adjectives ("awesome," "cool," etc.). Instead I will try to find the right word for the right thought. Or say nothing.
10. I refuse to pose. Instead, I will live.
11. I refuse to accept the de facto deism of so many evangelicals who do not seek God for supernatural manifestations of Christ's Kingdom (healing, signs and wonders). Instead, I will seek (but never presume upon) God's miraculous, supernatural presence in this dark world.
12. I refuse to confine the Kingdom of God to America. Instead, I will keep an eagle eye for ways I can bless, encourage, and edify Christ-followers around the world.
13. I refuse to consign Christian women to second-class status in the church, the home, or the world. Instead, I will support and encourage gifted women to serve God in accord with their gifts and opportunities.
14. I refuse to preach only to the choir, to limit my ministry to the church, Christian school, parachurch, and so on. Instead, I will in every way possible seek to inject Christian truth creatively into culture through my writing and teaching, to colonize alien lands with truths not normally found there.
15. I refuse to follow any trend simply because it is a trend. Instead, I will seek to discern the hand of God in the world.
None of this can be achieved in my own power: "Yet not I but Christ who lives in me."
Islam: The Religion of Peace?
Thanks to Tim McGrew, I just discovered a web page called, "Islam: Religion of Peace (Believe it or Else). It looks very solid. Their book recommendations are on target. Some essays are not signed, but that it out of self-preservation. I also noted worthwhile links. It looks to be a very thorough and courageous source of information.
Wednesday, December 27, 2006
Curmudgeon of the Year: Oriana Fallaci
When popular culture "remembers" the deaths of mostly celebrities in 2006, let us turn our attention elsewhere, to someone who mattered. The Constructive Curmudgeon hereby names the irrepressible, incorrigible, and indefatigable Italian, Oriana Fallaci (d. 2006), Curmudgeon of the Year. The storied journalist and intrepid interviewer died early this year from cancer, but managed to write two explosive and deeply truthful books during her illness unto death, The Rage and the Pride and The Force of Reason, both of which lamented the loss of Christian, European culture to the invasion of Islam. She paid dearly for her courage, receiving countless death threats and public excoriations of the most vile manner. She was even convicted of "blaspheming Islam" in Italy. She spent her last days in New York, in order to avoid arrest. It boggles the mind and turns the stomach simultaneously.
Miss Fallaci (she never married) was no saint. She was an atheist; but, as she put it, "a Christian atheist." By that she meant that she loved the culture and much of the ethics of Christendom, even in the absence of God; and she would not accept Allah as a void-filler. Her arguments against the existence of God turned on the problem of evil. They were hurled at the reader with red heat, then dropped. She had to move on to decry the evil of Islamic terrorism and warn of its threat to the West and to civilization as we know it. Her arguments for atheism were paper thin; her passion for justice was deep and courageous. She respected Jesus, but denied his deity--an intellectually hollow perspective since Jesus' self-perception as divine was inextricably tied to all he did and all he said.
Yet Oriana Fallaci is Curmudgeon of the Year. I was drawn to her courage, her wit, her Italian passion, her extremity, her insouciance. As a young girl, she worked with her family to oppose Mussolini's fascism (as did some of my relatives) and that spirit of rebellion against oppression stayed with her to the end. I read that she published one last book in Italy before she died, which was an interview of herself by herself! Yes, she was a bit of a narcissist as well. So be it. I eagerly await the translation of that last testament to this remarkable, if deeply flawed, woman. God may even use the blast of an atheist to rouse a stupified world--if we have ears to hear.
Miss Fallaci (she never married) was no saint. She was an atheist; but, as she put it, "a Christian atheist." By that she meant that she loved the culture and much of the ethics of Christendom, even in the absence of God; and she would not accept Allah as a void-filler. Her arguments against the existence of God turned on the problem of evil. They were hurled at the reader with red heat, then dropped. She had to move on to decry the evil of Islamic terrorism and warn of its threat to the West and to civilization as we know it. Her arguments for atheism were paper thin; her passion for justice was deep and courageous. She respected Jesus, but denied his deity--an intellectually hollow perspective since Jesus' self-perception as divine was inextricably tied to all he did and all he said.
Yet Oriana Fallaci is Curmudgeon of the Year. I was drawn to her courage, her wit, her Italian passion, her extremity, her insouciance. As a young girl, she worked with her family to oppose Mussolini's fascism (as did some of my relatives) and that spirit of rebellion against oppression stayed with her to the end. I read that she published one last book in Italy before she died, which was an interview of herself by herself! Yes, she was a bit of a narcissist as well. So be it. I eagerly await the translation of that last testament to this remarkable, if deeply flawed, woman. God may even use the blast of an atheist to rouse a stupified world--if we have ears to hear.
Sunday, December 24, 2006
Audio Sermons of High Exegetical and Theological Value
My friend and Denver Seminary graduate, Rev. Douglas White, is making his sermons available on-line. Doug is planting a church in Boulder called New Day Covenant Church. Boulder is infamous for being the graveyard of church plants as well as for being one of the most spiritually oppressive places in America. Buddhism is the unofficial religion of the city. A professor at the University of Colorado there who favors infanticide just received a prestigious title. And on it goes Yet Doug is building a ministry based on prayer, character, and biblical teaching. I could go on about this remarkable man; but instead, I challenge you to listen to some of these deeply biblical, practical, and heartfelt messages.
Unplug the Television: From US News and World Report
Unplug the Television
By Beth Brophy
Posted Sunday, December 17, 2006
Consider these statistics from the Center for Screen Time Awareness, founded in 1994, to warn about the evils of excessive tube time: The average child watches 1,680 minutes of TV per week. The average student spends 1,500 hours watching TV versus 900 hours in school. And the number of 30-second commercials seen in a year by an average child is 20,000.
"Television is a great enabler," says Robert Kesten, the center's executive director. It enables us to be sedentary, to buy unhealthy food products, and our kids to watch bad role models." For the past two or three years, Kesten's kids, now 12 and 13, can't watch TV from Monday to Friday and are restricted to two hours per day on the weekends. Their grades have gone up, and they read and run around outside more than they used to, he says.
Brent Bozell, president of Parents Television Council, a group that advocates decency in entertainment, favors not completely unplugging the TV but limiting and monitoring instead, as he did for his five children, whose ages now range from 9 to 28. "It takes a herculean effort, but if you involve your child in an activity with you or with another person, instead of sitting passively in front of the TV, the child will develop better," he says. Bozell's a fan of substituting board games, cards, and musical instruments.
Service project. Alternative activities to watching TV also can include after-school clubs, family walks, puzzles, organizing a photo album, drawing, the children reading to each other, and learning a foreign language. On weekends, ask your child to be your exercise partner, invite family over, or do a community service project.
Kesten warns that it's not so easy to turn the TV off, and parents should steel themselves for complaints. To be fair, he doesn't work on his computer until after his sons go to bed. Now, a few years later, everyone has adjusted so well that his sons often don't even use up their allotted two hours of TV on the weekends.
By Beth Brophy
Posted Sunday, December 17, 2006
Consider these statistics from the Center for Screen Time Awareness, founded in 1994, to warn about the evils of excessive tube time: The average child watches 1,680 minutes of TV per week. The average student spends 1,500 hours watching TV versus 900 hours in school. And the number of 30-second commercials seen in a year by an average child is 20,000.
"Television is a great enabler," says Robert Kesten, the center's executive director. It enables us to be sedentary, to buy unhealthy food products, and our kids to watch bad role models." For the past two or three years, Kesten's kids, now 12 and 13, can't watch TV from Monday to Friday and are restricted to two hours per day on the weekends. Their grades have gone up, and they read and run around outside more than they used to, he says.
Brent Bozell, president of Parents Television Council, a group that advocates decency in entertainment, favors not completely unplugging the TV but limiting and monitoring instead, as he did for his five children, whose ages now range from 9 to 28. "It takes a herculean effort, but if you involve your child in an activity with you or with another person, instead of sitting passively in front of the TV, the child will develop better," he says. Bozell's a fan of substituting board games, cards, and musical instruments.
Service project. Alternative activities to watching TV also can include after-school clubs, family walks, puzzles, organizing a photo album, drawing, the children reading to each other, and learning a foreign language. On weekends, ask your child to be your exercise partner, invite family over, or do a community service project.
Kesten warns that it's not so easy to turn the TV off, and parents should steel themselves for complaints. To be fair, he doesn't work on his computer until after his sons go to bed. Now, a few years later, everyone has adjusted so well that his sons often don't even use up their allotted two hours of TV on the weekends.
Saturday, December 23, 2006
US News and World Report Recommends a Media Fast!
[The only problem is that the duration of the abstention is too short. You need to unplug for a least one week.]
Give Each Week a Tech-Free Day
By Diane Cole
Posted Sunday, December 17, 2006
"Take out the earplugs and plug into the world!" That was the message from protesters at Western Kentucky University recently who were encouraging students to reconnect with the actual world by disconnecting from their cellphones and iPods.
"It wasn't a protest against technology itself but against the way we use it today" and our overdependence on it, protester Tom Cannon explained. "The purpose is that we take charge of the technology before it takes charge of us."
It's a message that appears to be gaining traction.
Peter Whybrow, director of the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California-Los Angeles, calls it "electronic cocaine"-tech addictions revealed by "people checking their BlackBerrys under the table while they're on a date."
Overdependency on technology has so eroded personal time that the national chain Panera Bread cosponsored "Take Back Your Time Day" to get families to schedule time to connect and converse with each other at mealtime (whether at home or at a local Panera) with minimal wireless interruptions.
Overload. Technology's double-edged sword troubles high-tech gurus like David Levy, a professor at the Information School at the University of Washington. Last year he informally surveyed his undergraduate students; 80 percent said they felt they spent too much time online. Levy also asked a class to log its E-mail behavior. "People became aware that they were checking E-mail because they were bored or anxious," Levy says, "and sometimes found that it made them more anxious."
For his part, Levy observes a 24-hour Sabbath break each week from all things electronic. "Whether you think of this as a religious mandate or simply as a good idea," he says, "it's a piece of ancient wisdom that people can incorporate into their lives."
Give Each Week a Tech-Free Day
By Diane Cole
Posted Sunday, December 17, 2006
"Take out the earplugs and plug into the world!" That was the message from protesters at Western Kentucky University recently who were encouraging students to reconnect with the actual world by disconnecting from their cellphones and iPods.
"It wasn't a protest against technology itself but against the way we use it today" and our overdependence on it, protester Tom Cannon explained. "The purpose is that we take charge of the technology before it takes charge of us."
It's a message that appears to be gaining traction.
Peter Whybrow, director of the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at the University of California-Los Angeles, calls it "electronic cocaine"-tech addictions revealed by "people checking their BlackBerrys under the table while they're on a date."
Overdependency on technology has so eroded personal time that the national chain Panera Bread cosponsored "Take Back Your Time Day" to get families to schedule time to connect and converse with each other at mealtime (whether at home or at a local Panera) with minimal wireless interruptions.
Overload. Technology's double-edged sword troubles high-tech gurus like David Levy, a professor at the Information School at the University of Washington. Last year he informally surveyed his undergraduate students; 80 percent said they felt they spent too much time online. Levy also asked a class to log its E-mail behavior. "People became aware that they were checking E-mail because they were bored or anxious," Levy says, "and sometimes found that it made them more anxious."
For his part, Levy observes a 24-hour Sabbath break each week from all things electronic. "Whether you think of this as a religious mandate or simply as a good idea," he says, "it's a piece of ancient wisdom that people can incorporate into their lives."
Second Life: Shameless, Sinful
It only gets worse, it seems. I wrote of the dangers of virtual worlds in The Soul in Cyberspace a decade ago. What was once in the perverted vanguard is now mainstream muck.
There is nothing wrong with virtual adultery or flaunting it before millions, according to "My So-Called Second Life." Joel Stein writes of his venture into Second Life (a virtual reality role playing environment) in the December 25-January 1 issue of Time. He recounts his "relationship" with a sexy virtual character, whose real-life counterpart is pictured (trying to look wholesome) and described as married and a mother of three. The word that describes it all is "shameless."
Mr. Stein, who sadly has no moral discernment (especially considering a previous article, which confessed that he could not live one week without television), enters the Second Life "world" amorally and navigates it as such. His world--and, apparently the world of Second Life denizens as a whole--is one without morality, without sexual decency, without soul, without consequences, and a world without God, without the audit of Eternity (Kierkegaard)--or so they imagine. The article betrays no sense guilt or of even wondering if this cyber-activity is somehow debasing or dehumanizing or demoralizing. I'm sure the avatars in Second Space cannot blush (although they can activate and wield genitalia).
Those reveling in Second Life should consider finding a life worth living, a life embodied in and edified by Truth. This is a world where "love of neighbor" become a reality day by day, a reality that has demands, rewards, and joys enough...without the surrogate and vain imaginations and high-tech perverseness of Second Life.
There is nothing wrong with virtual adultery or flaunting it before millions, according to "My So-Called Second Life." Joel Stein writes of his venture into Second Life (a virtual reality role playing environment) in the December 25-January 1 issue of Time. He recounts his "relationship" with a sexy virtual character, whose real-life counterpart is pictured (trying to look wholesome) and described as married and a mother of three. The word that describes it all is "shameless."
Mr. Stein, who sadly has no moral discernment (especially considering a previous article, which confessed that he could not live one week without television), enters the Second Life "world" amorally and navigates it as such. His world--and, apparently the world of Second Life denizens as a whole--is one without morality, without sexual decency, without soul, without consequences, and a world without God, without the audit of Eternity (Kierkegaard)--or so they imagine. The article betrays no sense guilt or of even wondering if this cyber-activity is somehow debasing or dehumanizing or demoralizing. I'm sure the avatars in Second Space cannot blush (although they can activate and wield genitalia).
Those reveling in Second Life should consider finding a life worth living, a life embodied in and edified by Truth. This is a world where "love of neighbor" become a reality day by day, a reality that has demands, rewards, and joys enough...without the surrogate and vain imaginations and high-tech perverseness of Second Life.
Epistemology
Communing with thoughts through words,
written, spoken; human or divine.
Words: the gateway to minds.
Minds: knowing or unknowing.
Knowledge: truth worth believing, truth held wisely.
Truth: thoughts worth reality.
Falsity: thoughts missing their mark.
Reality: what is...stubbornly, persistently
Reality: In the beginning was the Word.
Listen.
written, spoken; human or divine.
Words: the gateway to minds.
Minds: knowing or unknowing.
Knowledge: truth worth believing, truth held wisely.
Truth: thoughts worth reality.
Falsity: thoughts missing their mark.
Reality: what is...stubbornly, persistently
Reality: In the beginning was the Word.
Listen.
John Coltrane: "Naima" (1965)
I am further amazed and delighted to have discoverd this. This video (also on Google Video) is said to be from 1965 and done in France. The filming is artistic and appropriate. The classic quartet seem to be in the open air: you can see their breath. Trane was starting to go "outside" at this point, and the quartet would break up later that year. The last half of "Naima," after McCoy Tyner's piano solo is transcendently passionate and powerful. Prepare thyself for a near miracle.
If anyone knows any more historical facts about this performance, please let me know. Perhaps it was the Antibides Festival. I'm sure Lewis Porter (the foremost Coltrane scholar) would know.
If anyone knows any more historical facts about this performance, please let me know. Perhaps it was the Antibides Festival. I'm sure Lewis Porter (the foremost Coltrane scholar) would know.
Friday, December 22, 2006
John Coltrane and Stan Getz Video (1960)!
I never knew that Trane played with Getz, let alone that it was captured on video. There is very little video of John Coltrane, but apparently this recently emerged. It is posted on Google Video. The filming is very dark, with players barely appearing from time to time. Paul Chambers is on bass, Jimmy Cobb on drums, and Oscar Petersen on piano. What a find.
The Glorious Incarnation
I will send my eight-page sermon outline, "The Glorious Incarnation" to anyone who wants it. Again, may God zap you if you steal this sermon! May God bless you if you read, look up the texts, and ponder deeply the profound truths in John 1:1-5, 14. Email me at DRGroothuis@aol.com.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
YouWorld
Welcome to YouWorld. YourWorld, all the time, for You.
You matter to us. You do. You are worth it. It's all about You. You can do it. You have done it. You can have it. You have it all. You will do it. We know You. You are special. Everyone will like You; it is guaranteed. You deserve the best. In fact, You are the best. You for You, in You, ever You, world with You, Amen.
YouTube. YouAudio. YouAuto. YouFood. YouRest. YouWork. YouDress. YouPerfume. YouLotion. YouPotion. YouMotion. YouBody. YouMind. YouMate. YouLover. YouSpirituality. YouOrientation. YouMultiTask. YouSpace. YouPlace. YouTime--all the time.
YouYou!
You are You of the year, You! You are You of the decade--all of You. You are the One--all of you. With You is the You-ness of You.
We never flatter You: You just are the one and only You--all of You. None of You are can be left behind. You can get the edge on all the others--all of You. You are never alone because You are with You. The You of You is Your's. You own it. You know You do. We know You know You are the one. You rock, You Rocker. Celebrate You. You go, You.
...Go away, You.
[Inspired, in part, by Thomas De Zengotita, Mediated and Time Magazine's "Person of the Year [2006]: You."]
You matter to us. You do. You are worth it. It's all about You. You can do it. You have done it. You can have it. You have it all. You will do it. We know You. You are special. Everyone will like You; it is guaranteed. You deserve the best. In fact, You are the best. You for You, in You, ever You, world with You, Amen.
YouTube. YouAudio. YouAuto. YouFood. YouRest. YouWork. YouDress. YouPerfume. YouLotion. YouPotion. YouMotion. YouBody. YouMind. YouMate. YouLover. YouSpirituality. YouOrientation. YouMultiTask. YouSpace. YouPlace. YouTime--all the time.
YouYou!
You are You of the year, You! You are You of the decade--all of You. You are the One--all of you. With You is the You-ness of You.
We never flatter You: You just are the one and only You--all of You. None of You are can be left behind. You can get the edge on all the others--all of You. You are never alone because You are with You. The You of You is Your's. You own it. You know You do. We know You know You are the one. You rock, You Rocker. Celebrate You. You go, You.
...Go away, You.
[Inspired, in part, by Thomas De Zengotita, Mediated and Time Magazine's "Person of the Year [2006]: You."]
G.K. Chesterton on Christmas
[Thanks to Paul Adams for this post.]
A child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home:
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost--how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.
To an open house in the evening
Home shall men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.
G.K. Chesterton, "The House of Christmas," from Robert Knille, ed., As I Was Saying (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), 304-5
A child in a foul stable,
Where the beasts feed and foam;
Only where He was homeless
Are you and I at home:
We have hands that fashion and heads that know,
But our hearts we lost--how long ago!
In a place no chart nor ship can show
Under the sky's dome.
To an open house in the evening
Home shall men come,
To an older place than Eden
And a taller town than Rome.
To the end of the way of the wandering star,
To the things that cannot be and that are,
To the place where God was homeless
And all men are at home.
G.K. Chesterton, "The House of Christmas," from Robert Knille, ed., As I Was Saying (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 1985), 304-5
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
Masculine Christianity?
There is something of a trend to blame the problems in the church on the lack of masculinity in leadership. More testosterone equals more spirituality, more outreach, more "kicking demonic [posterior]" as one over-heated word-waster recently (unworthy of a link) put it. There are too many "girly men" in pulpits; the decor is too feminine in church buildings; we need men "wild at heart," and so on.
Perhaps these commentators (if I may so dignify them) are concerned about a lack of courage in American Christianity. If so, I agree. We need to grow backbones theologically, apologetically, and ethically. But courage is not exclusively masculine; nor is leadership in general. We don't need more masculinity in the pulpit or anywhere else. We need more Christian virtue: faith, hope, and love. We need more of the glorious power of Jesus Christ to be manifested in female and male leaders: "Your sons and daughters will prophesy." May the Holy Spirit (who is neither male nor female) empower God's blood-bought children to do great exploits for the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33). This is our greatest need.
For all my curmudgeonly complaints, whines, rants, and denunciations of the chronically underachieving American church (to which I am committed), a lack of masculinity has never crossed my melancholic mind--no not even once. I have been offended by bad doctrine, terrible art, pitiful oratory, and abysmal music; but I have never left a service thinking, "Oh, it was too feminine!" In fact, much of our malaise stems from male monopolies: those doctrines and churches and parachurches that limit women's participation simply because they are female. Some of the best sermons I have heard were delivered by women. They were not masculine women either. They were Spirit-led, truthful, and pastoral in demeanor--and thank God for them.
"In Christ there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:26-28). This means that gender does not place men above women spiritually or vocationally. The Kingdom of God does not advance by an increase of testosterone or because deep voices yell and beat their hairy chests, but as believers seek God, repent, exercise intelligent faith, love each other from the heart, and do exploits of eternal value.
Perhaps these commentators (if I may so dignify them) are concerned about a lack of courage in American Christianity. If so, I agree. We need to grow backbones theologically, apologetically, and ethically. But courage is not exclusively masculine; nor is leadership in general. We don't need more masculinity in the pulpit or anywhere else. We need more Christian virtue: faith, hope, and love. We need more of the glorious power of Jesus Christ to be manifested in female and male leaders: "Your sons and daughters will prophesy." May the Holy Spirit (who is neither male nor female) empower God's blood-bought children to do great exploits for the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:33). This is our greatest need.
For all my curmudgeonly complaints, whines, rants, and denunciations of the chronically underachieving American church (to which I am committed), a lack of masculinity has never crossed my melancholic mind--no not even once. I have been offended by bad doctrine, terrible art, pitiful oratory, and abysmal music; but I have never left a service thinking, "Oh, it was too feminine!" In fact, much of our malaise stems from male monopolies: those doctrines and churches and parachurches that limit women's participation simply because they are female. Some of the best sermons I have heard were delivered by women. They were not masculine women either. They were Spirit-led, truthful, and pastoral in demeanor--and thank God for them.
"In Christ there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3:26-28). This means that gender does not place men above women spiritually or vocationally. The Kingdom of God does not advance by an increase of testosterone or because deep voices yell and beat their hairy chests, but as believers seek God, repent, exercise intelligent faith, love each other from the heart, and do exploits of eternal value.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Doug Groothuis Veritas Forum Lecture
My friend Paul Adams just told me that my 1996 Veritas Forum lecture at the University of Colorado is on line. It is called "Are All Religions Created Equal?" A google search would not expose it since my last name is misspelled: Groothius (intead of Groothuis). I wonder how many other things are listed under a misspelling of my Dutch name.
My Story and the Gospel of Jesus
My web site has just posted an updated version of my testimony and presenation of the Gospel, "My Story and the Gospel of Jesus." I often give this to people who need to understand what Christianity is and how to enter into it. Perhaps it may help some one out there.
Harper's December Cover Story: Lies about Schaeffer
[I sent Harper's the following letter to the editor regarding their December cover story by Jeff Sharlett slamming the Christian right. I could have written in much more depth regarding the distortions, the ignorance, and meanspiritedness of the article (which also managed to make a few good points), but I chose to address what sparked the most fire in my bones. They have not contacted me, so they will not likely publish it.]
Jeff Sharlet's piece on the Christian right's understanding of American history was an eccentric admixture of random insight and radical misrepresentation. Perhaps his most egregious error was to describe the Christian study center) of theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer as a "Christian madrasah." Madrasahs are Islamic centers for indoctrination and jihad. Schaeffer never indoctrinated, but welcomed questions from doubters, skeptics, and unbelievers. He encouraged intellectual challenges instead of rejecting them; he modeled persuasion, not coercion; he issued intellectual arguments, not theological fatwas. He never engaged in the ignorant invective displayed by Sharlet.
Jeff Sharlet's piece on the Christian right's understanding of American history was an eccentric admixture of random insight and radical misrepresentation. Perhaps his most egregious error was to describe the Christian study center) of theologian and philosopher Francis Schaeffer as a "Christian madrasah." Madrasahs are Islamic centers for indoctrination and jihad. Schaeffer never indoctrinated, but welcomed questions from doubters, skeptics, and unbelievers. He encouraged intellectual challenges instead of rejecting them; he modeled persuasion, not coercion; he issued intellectual arguments, not theological fatwas. He never engaged in the ignorant invective displayed by Sharlet.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Dorothy Sayers Strikes Again
"Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as bad press. We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine—dull dogma as people call it. The fact is quite the opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man—and the dogma is the drama."
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Greg Koukl on Truth, Faith, and Belief
Greg Koukl has written a superb article on truth, faith, and belief. This distills paramount truths that so many are missing, especially those stupified under the spell of postmodernist philosophy. These concepts are vital to every aspect of the church's witness today. Spread the word. Bravo to Mr. Koukl!
Dorothy Sayers on Christ, the Controversialist
The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused him of being a bore--on the contrary, they thought him too dynamic to be safe. It has been left for later generations to muffle up that shattering personality and surround him with an atmosphere of tedium. We have very efficiently pared the claws of the Lion of Judah, certified him 'meek and mild,' and recommended him as a fitting household pet for pale curates and pious old ladies.
Friday, December 15, 2006
G.K. Chesterton on the Incarnation. From The Everlasting Man
Omnipotence and impotence, or divinity and infancy, do definitely make a sort of epigram which a million repetitions cannot turn into a platitude. It is not unreasonable to call it unique.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
National Census: Less Reading, Less Meaning, More Media
[The following material is from The New York Times review of the national census figures. My comments follow the Times report.]
Adolescents and adults now spend, on average, more than 64 days a year watching television, 41 days listening to the radio and a little over a week using the Internet. Among adults, 97 million Internet users sought news online last year, 92 million bought a product, 91 million made a travel reservation, 16 million used a social or professional networking site and 13 million created a blog.
The demand for information and entertainment seems almost insatiable,” said James P. Rutherfurd, executive vice president of Veronis Suhler Stevenson, the media investment firm whose research the Census Bureau cited.
Mr. Rutherfurd said time spent with such media increased to 3,543 hours last year from 3,340 hours in 2000, and is projected to rise to 3,620 hours in 2010. The time spent within each category varied, with less on broadcast television (down to 679 hours in 2005 from 793 hours in 2000) and on reading in general, and more using the Internet (up to 183 hours from 104 hours) and on cable and satellite television.
How does all that listening and watching influence the amount of time Americans spend alone? The census does not measure that, but since 2000 the number of hobby and athletic nonprofit associations has risen while the number of labor unions, fraternities and fan clubs has declined.
“The large master trend here is that over the last hundred years, technology has privatized our leisure time,” said Robert D. Putnam, a public policy professor at Harvard and author of “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.”
“The distinctive effect of technology has been to enable us to get entertainment and information while remaining entirely alone,” Mr. Putnam said. “That is from many points of view very efficient. I also think it’s fundamentally bad because the lack of social contact, the social isolation means that we don’t share information and values and outlook that we should.”
...
More than half of American households owned stocks and mutual funds in 2005. The 91 million individuals in those households had a median age of 51 and a median household income of $65,000.
That might help explain a shift in what college freshmen described as their primary personal objectives. In 1970, 79 percent said their goal was developing a meaningful philosophy of life. By 2005, 75 percent said their primary objective was to be financially very well off.
-----------
Please notice the coorelation between the decline in reading, the increase in media consumption, and the freshman's lack of concern to find a "meaningful philosophy of life." (Although I don't have any statistics on this, I wager that older people as well as less interested in this pursuit or have trivialized it.) I don't think the relationship is incidental. It reflects our descent into a "sensate culture," as Pitrim Sorokin put it years ago. (Harold O.J. Brown also wrote a book called The Sensate Culture.) The realm of ideas, philosophy, and objective meaning is eclipsed as people immerse themselves in the realm of subjective, sensory immediacy. For us, that means the blanishments of restless electronic images: TV, video games, movies, and more. As Professor Putman points out, since most of these activities are solitary, this leads to social isolation. This is not the isolation of the contemplative, who prizes silence and solitude as a realm for the illumination of higher things. No, it is the the sonic and visual isolation of the over-stimulated, the wired, the restless, the chronically ADD and proud-of-it multi-taskers.
But even music DVDs need not be isolating. Recently, I spent a fulfilling evening having dinner and watching a music video with a long-time friend. I had watched the video, Pat Metheny Group's "The Way Up," by myself, and was very impressed. However, watching it on an excellent system with a bona fide musician who possesses superb musical taste added a richness to it not otherwise possible--not to mention the enjoyment received through judicious intake of a liquid substance celebrated in Psalm 104:15.
The trends the census reports are ominous. Millions spend the equivalent of 64 days of the year rotting their minds and souls watching television. Books--and the Good Book--are pushed aside. We are creating a false digital heaven that will one Day be revealed as hell. Selah.
Adolescents and adults now spend, on average, more than 64 days a year watching television, 41 days listening to the radio and a little over a week using the Internet. Among adults, 97 million Internet users sought news online last year, 92 million bought a product, 91 million made a travel reservation, 16 million used a social or professional networking site and 13 million created a blog.
The demand for information and entertainment seems almost insatiable,” said James P. Rutherfurd, executive vice president of Veronis Suhler Stevenson, the media investment firm whose research the Census Bureau cited.
Mr. Rutherfurd said time spent with such media increased to 3,543 hours last year from 3,340 hours in 2000, and is projected to rise to 3,620 hours in 2010. The time spent within each category varied, with less on broadcast television (down to 679 hours in 2005 from 793 hours in 2000) and on reading in general, and more using the Internet (up to 183 hours from 104 hours) and on cable and satellite television.
How does all that listening and watching influence the amount of time Americans spend alone? The census does not measure that, but since 2000 the number of hobby and athletic nonprofit associations has risen while the number of labor unions, fraternities and fan clubs has declined.
“The large master trend here is that over the last hundred years, technology has privatized our leisure time,” said Robert D. Putnam, a public policy professor at Harvard and author of “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.”
“The distinctive effect of technology has been to enable us to get entertainment and information while remaining entirely alone,” Mr. Putnam said. “That is from many points of view very efficient. I also think it’s fundamentally bad because the lack of social contact, the social isolation means that we don’t share information and values and outlook that we should.”
...
More than half of American households owned stocks and mutual funds in 2005. The 91 million individuals in those households had a median age of 51 and a median household income of $65,000.
That might help explain a shift in what college freshmen described as their primary personal objectives. In 1970, 79 percent said their goal was developing a meaningful philosophy of life. By 2005, 75 percent said their primary objective was to be financially very well off.
-----------
Please notice the coorelation between the decline in reading, the increase in media consumption, and the freshman's lack of concern to find a "meaningful philosophy of life." (Although I don't have any statistics on this, I wager that older people as well as less interested in this pursuit or have trivialized it.) I don't think the relationship is incidental. It reflects our descent into a "sensate culture," as Pitrim Sorokin put it years ago. (Harold O.J. Brown also wrote a book called The Sensate Culture.) The realm of ideas, philosophy, and objective meaning is eclipsed as people immerse themselves in the realm of subjective, sensory immediacy. For us, that means the blanishments of restless electronic images: TV, video games, movies, and more. As Professor Putman points out, since most of these activities are solitary, this leads to social isolation. This is not the isolation of the contemplative, who prizes silence and solitude as a realm for the illumination of higher things. No, it is the the sonic and visual isolation of the over-stimulated, the wired, the restless, the chronically ADD and proud-of-it multi-taskers.
But even music DVDs need not be isolating. Recently, I spent a fulfilling evening having dinner and watching a music video with a long-time friend. I had watched the video, Pat Metheny Group's "The Way Up," by myself, and was very impressed. However, watching it on an excellent system with a bona fide musician who possesses superb musical taste added a richness to it not otherwise possible--not to mention the enjoyment received through judicious intake of a liquid substance celebrated in Psalm 104:15.
The trends the census reports are ominous. Millions spend the equivalent of 64 days of the year rotting their minds and souls watching television. Books--and the Good Book--are pushed aside. We are creating a false digital heaven that will one Day be revealed as hell. Selah.
Christmastime for Curmudgeons
How does a curmudgeon approach Christmas?
1. This curmudgeon despises all the terrible music foisted upon innocent victims in public. Any other time of year a foray into a public space (such as a bookstore, swimming pool, or supermarket) might expose one to the good (rare), the bad (common), and the ugly (all too common). But at Christmas, it is all bad; unless someone is playing Handel's Messiah or Vince Guaraldi, which is almost never. Instead we get Dean Martin singing about a reindeer...or some pop/shlock icon screeching about something pointless or another or Stevie Wonder doing "Ava Maria."
Oh, to hear John Coltrane's version of "Greensleaves." In fact, I will hear it, since I brought that CD with me here from Denver.
The worst by far is the putrid, appalling, and horrific John Lennon Christmas song. Who cares what the name of the poison is. Lennon, an anarchistic atheist and virtuoso corrupter of youth, a hyper-narcissist, and as overrated as any artist ever has been or probably will be, dares to sing about Christ-mas. He threw in the children's voices for the effect of innocence, since Lennon had no innocence of his own. I met a man whose ex-wife--Yoko Ono--was seduced by Lennon while he and "Oh, no" were still married.
2. I will reflect on and teach about the doctrine of the glorious Incarnation. Since I am preaching on John 1:1-5, 14 on December 17, that is exactly what I am doing: reading commentaries by F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, Craig Blomberg, and Leon Morris, and reflecting on many passages in that beloved and profound book. Compare the glories of the Incarnation with the American observation of Christmas. Then weep. A sign on a front yard in Sun City West cries out amidst holiday trapping, "Think snow." How about, "Think Jesus"? That's too snappy, to be sure; but it's an improvement.
3. Try not to gain any more weight by consuming Christmas goodies. The holiday is rigged to encourage the already overinflated inflate even more. Gluttony is still a vice this time of year (I hear, anyway).
1. This curmudgeon despises all the terrible music foisted upon innocent victims in public. Any other time of year a foray into a public space (such as a bookstore, swimming pool, or supermarket) might expose one to the good (rare), the bad (common), and the ugly (all too common). But at Christmas, it is all bad; unless someone is playing Handel's Messiah or Vince Guaraldi, which is almost never. Instead we get Dean Martin singing about a reindeer...or some pop/shlock icon screeching about something pointless or another or Stevie Wonder doing "Ava Maria."
Oh, to hear John Coltrane's version of "Greensleaves." In fact, I will hear it, since I brought that CD with me here from Denver.
The worst by far is the putrid, appalling, and horrific John Lennon Christmas song. Who cares what the name of the poison is. Lennon, an anarchistic atheist and virtuoso corrupter of youth, a hyper-narcissist, and as overrated as any artist ever has been or probably will be, dares to sing about Christ-mas. He threw in the children's voices for the effect of innocence, since Lennon had no innocence of his own. I met a man whose ex-wife--Yoko Ono--was seduced by Lennon while he and "Oh, no" were still married.
2. I will reflect on and teach about the doctrine of the glorious Incarnation. Since I am preaching on John 1:1-5, 14 on December 17, that is exactly what I am doing: reading commentaries by F.F. Bruce, D.A. Carson, Craig Blomberg, and Leon Morris, and reflecting on many passages in that beloved and profound book. Compare the glories of the Incarnation with the American observation of Christmas. Then weep. A sign on a front yard in Sun City West cries out amidst holiday trapping, "Think snow." How about, "Think Jesus"? That's too snappy, to be sure; but it's an improvement.
3. Try not to gain any more weight by consuming Christmas goodies. The holiday is rigged to encourage the already overinflated inflate even more. Gluttony is still a vice this time of year (I hear, anyway).
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Antipathy and Apathy Toward Christianity
Antipathy toward Christianity is in some ways easier to engage than apathy toward Christianity. The one who cries "Wrong!" is engaged. The one who mutters "Whatever.." is disengaged. The former needs answers; the latter needs questions.
By Request
I sometimes receive emails from folks who request I write on certain topics. That leads me to ask what sort of things you might want a (free) curmudgeonly perspective on.
There is no master or systematic plan to this blog. I write and link as things strike me--and often I strike back!. One hopes it stems from a unified, true, and compelling worldview, of course.
This blog is not my life; I have a day job (and more). I cannot invest huge amounts of time into it. However, I am interested in what you may take to be of value for its content.
There is no master or systematic plan to this blog. I write and link as things strike me--and often I strike back!. One hopes it stems from a unified, true, and compelling worldview, of course.
This blog is not my life; I have a day job (and more). I cannot invest huge amounts of time into it. However, I am interested in what you may take to be of value for its content.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Homosexuality, Creation, and the Fall: A Response to The New York Times
The New York Times has run an article called "Gay and Evangelical: Seeking Paths of Acceptance," which cites several examples of men and women who purport to hold orthodox beliefs about the Bible and who love Jesus, but who believe that God made them homosexuals. Thus, they want to be evangelical and practice homosexuality. This fits the postmodern proclivity to mix and match beliefs and behaviors apart from any received moral or theological tradition. But two deep theological concepts are missing from the article: creation and fall. (Leave it to The Times to omit the essential when covering religion.)
The Times gives heart-wrenching accounts of people who beg God to take away their sexual attraction to the same sex, who do not change, and who then end up believing that God made them homosexual. This is false. Genesis chapter two teaches and Jesus reaffirms (Matthew 19:4-6) that sexual intimacy is reserved for heterosexual monogamy. This is the God-ordained pattern, the definitive norm, for life-long, sexually involved coupling. Homosexual desires and actions stem from the fall of humanity into sin, wherein the human person is radically disoriented and fragmented (Genesis 3; Romans 3). These categories of creation and fall are clearly discerned in Paul's discussion of the pattern of sin in Romans chapter one.
But what of the woman or man who confesses Christ and still has homosexual desires, even after asking God for healing? First, solitary pleading, however earnest, may not be sufficient for change. Various programs and support groups exist for the purpose of helping those tempted by homosexuality to find sexual restoration. Exodus Global Alliance is one such group. Second, even if protracted efforts fail to change one's sexual desires from homosexual to heterosexual, biblical morality does not allow for the physical expression of these desires, since all homosexual activity is forbidden in Scripture. The Bible never depicts any homosexual inclinations or behaviors as godly. (In fact, illicit sexual thoughts are harmful as well; see Matthew 5:27-30). Here again, the doctrine of the fall gives us wisdom. God may wonderfully deliver people from homosexual inclinations at conversion or quickly after. I once met with a man who told me he was delivered from a lifetime of homosexual desires in an instant by God's power. Nevertheless, we must remember that it is a very fallen, broken, and bent world (see Roman 8:18-26). Those justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8), still struggle with various kinds of sins (1 John 1:8-10). A homosexual may never completely leave that sinful tendency behind until he or she meets the Lord face to face. Nevertheless, a Christ-follower must resist acting out those desires or dwelling on them. That means that a Christian who is sexually injured in this way must be celibate. Since Christ calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him (Luke 9:23), denying a strong inner urge is intrinsic Christian discipleship. Of course, we also seek to have our desires transformed so that we can enjoy God and God’s creation as they should be enjoyed.
Yes, it is quite a sacrifice for one to never be able to act on one's sexual desires. But the ultimate question is not one's sexual desires or one's honesty, but whether Christ is truly Lord. Since the creation is now fallen, Jesus Christ came as its divine Redeemer. If he is Lord, then no practicing homosexual (who unrepentantly insists on homosexual expression as a divine right) can authentically claim to follow the Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture. Jesus may redeem homosexuals from their inclinations in this life or help them cope with unhealed homosexual proclivities. Christ can redeem the homosexual! But if he does, that person will seek divine deliverance and will submit to biblical teaching. “You will know them by their fruits” (see Matthew 7:15-23). But Christ does not and cannot redeem homosexuality itself, since it is rooted in the fall, not in creation.
The Times gives heart-wrenching accounts of people who beg God to take away their sexual attraction to the same sex, who do not change, and who then end up believing that God made them homosexual. This is false. Genesis chapter two teaches and Jesus reaffirms (Matthew 19:4-6) that sexual intimacy is reserved for heterosexual monogamy. This is the God-ordained pattern, the definitive norm, for life-long, sexually involved coupling. Homosexual desires and actions stem from the fall of humanity into sin, wherein the human person is radically disoriented and fragmented (Genesis 3; Romans 3). These categories of creation and fall are clearly discerned in Paul's discussion of the pattern of sin in Romans chapter one.
But what of the woman or man who confesses Christ and still has homosexual desires, even after asking God for healing? First, solitary pleading, however earnest, may not be sufficient for change. Various programs and support groups exist for the purpose of helping those tempted by homosexuality to find sexual restoration. Exodus Global Alliance is one such group. Second, even if protracted efforts fail to change one's sexual desires from homosexual to heterosexual, biblical morality does not allow for the physical expression of these desires, since all homosexual activity is forbidden in Scripture. The Bible never depicts any homosexual inclinations or behaviors as godly. (In fact, illicit sexual thoughts are harmful as well; see Matthew 5:27-30). Here again, the doctrine of the fall gives us wisdom. God may wonderfully deliver people from homosexual inclinations at conversion or quickly after. I once met with a man who told me he was delivered from a lifetime of homosexual desires in an instant by God's power. Nevertheless, we must remember that it is a very fallen, broken, and bent world (see Roman 8:18-26). Those justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8), still struggle with various kinds of sins (1 John 1:8-10). A homosexual may never completely leave that sinful tendency behind until he or she meets the Lord face to face. Nevertheless, a Christ-follower must resist acting out those desires or dwelling on them. That means that a Christian who is sexually injured in this way must be celibate. Since Christ calls us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow him (Luke 9:23), denying a strong inner urge is intrinsic Christian discipleship. Of course, we also seek to have our desires transformed so that we can enjoy God and God’s creation as they should be enjoyed.
Yes, it is quite a sacrifice for one to never be able to act on one's sexual desires. But the ultimate question is not one's sexual desires or one's honesty, but whether Christ is truly Lord. Since the creation is now fallen, Jesus Christ came as its divine Redeemer. If he is Lord, then no practicing homosexual (who unrepentantly insists on homosexual expression as a divine right) can authentically claim to follow the Jesus Christ of Holy Scripture. Jesus may redeem homosexuals from their inclinations in this life or help them cope with unhealed homosexual proclivities. Christ can redeem the homosexual! But if he does, that person will seek divine deliverance and will submit to biblical teaching. “You will know them by their fruits” (see Matthew 7:15-23). But Christ does not and cannot redeem homosexuality itself, since it is rooted in the fall, not in creation.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Apologetics Resources: Free
1. I recently gave a talk at the Aslan Society luncheon held on the Arizona State University campus called, "Is Jesus the Only Way?" I handed out a four-page outline, loaded with facts, Bible references, and a resource list at the end.
2. Today I gave a talk to a group of teens called, "Teens, Truth, and Christ." This is a two-page outline of a much simpler nature; and it was a much tougher crowd, believe me. I am increasingly becoming aware of how vital it is to reach teens with a biblical concept of truth, apologetics, doctrine, and ethics. On this, see Christian Smith, Soul Searching and Josh McDowell, The Last Christian Generation.
I will make either or both outlines available to anyone who asks me. But remember, No lecture or sermon stealing! This is for your edification and education. Email: DRGroothuis@aol.com.
2. Today I gave a talk to a group of teens called, "Teens, Truth, and Christ." This is a two-page outline of a much simpler nature; and it was a much tougher crowd, believe me. I am increasingly becoming aware of how vital it is to reach teens with a biblical concept of truth, apologetics, doctrine, and ethics. On this, see Christian Smith, Soul Searching and Josh McDowell, The Last Christian Generation.
I will make either or both outlines available to anyone who asks me. But remember, No lecture or sermon stealing! This is for your edification and education. Email: DRGroothuis@aol.com.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Some Thoughts on the New Atheism
The fact that three recent books have lauded atheism and savaged religion has caught the attention of the media. A recent Wired cover story wrote of "The New Atheism." US News and World Report had a similar story in a November issue. Time Magazine weighed in (mostly with pictures, as usual) as well.
The two books leading the charge are Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion. I plan to review both for The Christian Research Journal soon, but I offer a few preliminary comments. (The other is by Breaking the Spell, by Daniel Dennett, and I will not comment on it.)
1. These two books are offering nothing new by way of critiques of theism or specific religions. Christian philosophers and biblicla scholars have responded to all the charges before. What is different is their severe tone. Religion is not just wrong, but terribly dangerous. It should scarcely be tolerated. To demonstrate this, one must argue that a belief is both false and deleterious. That doubles the intellectual load--and produces a fair amount of bombast.
2. Harris especially assumes that all believers are fideists or rely on the worst possible arguments. This is false. A debate with Bill Craig would demonstrate this in short order. When Harris's book was discussed on NPR, the host said, "Should religion, which is based on faith and not reason, have a say in public policy?" Talk about the fallacy of the complex question! Some people's faith is unsupported by evidence and argument, but this is not true of all religions people. It is not true of me, for example. So, the good old straw man makes another appearance to supply the fallacy.
3. Harris and Dawkins are correct in demanding that religious worldviews supply good arguments for their beliefs. Blind faith is no virtue in Christian teaching and apologetics is not optional (Acts 17:16-34; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3).
4. Harris in particular conflates all religious claims: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. They are all of a piece in being irrational, false, and dangerous. He thus commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. Believing that one will receive the ministrations of exactly seventy two virgins after dying in a jihad is an order of belief far different than believing that since Jesus Christ rose from the dead in space-time history, one who believes in him will enter paradise after death as a martyr (which precludes anything resembling jihad). Christianity is well supported apologetically; Islam, which denies the central tenets of Christian, is not. For example, it denies that Jesus was crucified--a fact affirmed by virtually every biblical scholar in the world today. The fact that both are "religions" says nothing about their relative epistemic status.
5. Harris and Dawkins are wrong in saying the religious moderates (this probably includes evangelicals to them) give safe haven to religious extremists, such as jihadists. Their reasoning seems to be that moderates give religion a pretty face and insulate it from rational testing. That means that radicals' religious beliefs cannot be intellectually critiqued either. Some moderate may make this claim to intellectual immunity, but I do not. As an evangelical (or historic Protestant) I believe that (a) religious beliefs should hold water philosophically and historically, (b) that Christian fulfills the condition of (a) and that (c) Islamic militants' religion is at once false, irrational, and dangerous. I fail to see how my "moderate" religion encourages, shields, or emboldens radicals in any way whatever.
There is much more to be said. This is but a preliminary blast of the trumpet. The rest of the troops will follow later.
The two books leading the charge are Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation and Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion. I plan to review both for The Christian Research Journal soon, but I offer a few preliminary comments. (The other is by Breaking the Spell, by Daniel Dennett, and I will not comment on it.)
1. These two books are offering nothing new by way of critiques of theism or specific religions. Christian philosophers and biblicla scholars have responded to all the charges before. What is different is their severe tone. Religion is not just wrong, but terribly dangerous. It should scarcely be tolerated. To demonstrate this, one must argue that a belief is both false and deleterious. That doubles the intellectual load--and produces a fair amount of bombast.
2. Harris especially assumes that all believers are fideists or rely on the worst possible arguments. This is false. A debate with Bill Craig would demonstrate this in short order. When Harris's book was discussed on NPR, the host said, "Should religion, which is based on faith and not reason, have a say in public policy?" Talk about the fallacy of the complex question! Some people's faith is unsupported by evidence and argument, but this is not true of all religions people. It is not true of me, for example. So, the good old straw man makes another appearance to supply the fallacy.
3. Harris and Dawkins are correct in demanding that religious worldviews supply good arguments for their beliefs. Blind faith is no virtue in Christian teaching and apologetics is not optional (Acts 17:16-34; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 3).
4. Harris in particular conflates all religious claims: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim. They are all of a piece in being irrational, false, and dangerous. He thus commits the fallacy of hasty generalization. Believing that one will receive the ministrations of exactly seventy two virgins after dying in a jihad is an order of belief far different than believing that since Jesus Christ rose from the dead in space-time history, one who believes in him will enter paradise after death as a martyr (which precludes anything resembling jihad). Christianity is well supported apologetically; Islam, which denies the central tenets of Christian, is not. For example, it denies that Jesus was crucified--a fact affirmed by virtually every biblical scholar in the world today. The fact that both are "religions" says nothing about their relative epistemic status.
5. Harris and Dawkins are wrong in saying the religious moderates (this probably includes evangelicals to them) give safe haven to religious extremists, such as jihadists. Their reasoning seems to be that moderates give religion a pretty face and insulate it from rational testing. That means that radicals' religious beliefs cannot be intellectually critiqued either. Some moderate may make this claim to intellectual immunity, but I do not. As an evangelical (or historic Protestant) I believe that (a) religious beliefs should hold water philosophically and historically, (b) that Christian fulfills the condition of (a) and that (c) Islamic militants' religion is at once false, irrational, and dangerous. I fail to see how my "moderate" religion encourages, shields, or emboldens radicals in any way whatever.
There is much more to be said. This is but a preliminary blast of the trumpet. The rest of the troops will follow later.
You Tube Offensive
I checked YouTube for my name and came up with nothing by me. However, a class wished a "Mr. Groothuis" (pronounced the same way!) "Happy Birthday." So, I wonder if anyone out there has any video of me to put on YouTube. I rather doubt it, but if you do, please let me know. I did appear on "Day of Discovery" twice several years ago to talk about apologetic themes. I'm not big on appearing on video, as one may guess; I usually turn down TV interviews--not that this happens often. (I cannot strike poses or smile on command.) However, a few chops on that medium might stimulate someone to read of my books or articles. It could have instrumental value at least.
Thursday, December 07, 2006
You Tube and Apologetics
You Tube is now the rage, taking the net by storm, and all that. I wonder if there is any video there on apologetics. If not, perhaps someone could post a short lecture on the reasonableness of Christianity. Would it be censored? Would it do any good? What do you think? Or is it that all the content is entertainment and no instruction? I have only seen musical performances and a few short clips from elsewhere. Tell me what you think.
Friday, December 01, 2006
Swearing in on the Koran: Dennis Prager from TownHall.com
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
A Palestinian woman holds the Koran during a Hamas rally against Israeli troops operation in northern Gaza strip November 3, 2006. Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian women acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen during a clash at a Gaza mosque on Friday, witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism --my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.
So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?
The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columinst for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.
A Palestinian woman holds the Koran during a Hamas rally against Israeli troops operation in northern Gaza strip November 3, 2006. Israeli troops shot and killed two Palestinian women acting as human shields between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen during a clash at a Gaza mosque on Friday, witnesses said, before the gunmen escaped. REUTERS/Mohammed Salem (GAZA)
First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism --my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.
Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.
Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?
Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.
So why are we allowing Keith Ellison to do what no other member of Congress has ever done -- choose his own most revered book for his oath?
The answer is obvious -- Ellison is a Muslim. And whoever decides these matters, not to mention virtually every editorial page in America, is not going to offend a Muslim. In fact, many of these people argue it will be a good thing because Muslims around the world will see what an open society America is and how much Americans honor Muslims and the Koran.
This argument appeals to all those who believe that one of the greatest goals of America is to be loved by the world, and especially by Muslims because then fewer Muslims will hate us (and therefore fewer will bomb us).
But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.
When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11. It is hard to believe that this is the legacy most Muslim Americans want to bequeath to America. But if it is, it is not only Europe that is in trouble.
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columinst for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
From The Wall Street Journal: On the Vapidity of "Personal Philosophies"
Friday, December 1, 2006 12:01 a.m.
DE GUSTIBUS
Nothing Personal
But this is not philosophy.
BY BRIAN M. CARNEY
"This I Believe" is the title of a new book of essays by authors renowned and unknown alike. The book contains a series of three-page essays that the subtitle calls "The Personal Philosophies of Remarkable Men and Women." Some of the authors are remarkable--Albert Einstein (whose essay is reproduced from an earlier round of the project), for example, or Bill Gates. Some are remarkable only in the sense that, as elementary-school teachers are fond of saying, "every child is special."
The essays, solicited by and published "in association with" National Public Radio, are arranged in alphabetical order. This has some entertaining effects--Einstein's essay about the importance of "service" and the beauty of the "mysterious" comes immediately before playwright Eve Ensler's discourse on the importance of saying "vagina" often. The alphabetical ordering also means that the first essay, by an apparently charming English professor named Sarah Adams, is about the importance of being "cool to the pizza dude." As a life-rule, it beats Eve Ensler's anatomical imperative. (Although that too has its appeal. My children, for example, love chanting "bathroom language" in public as well.)
Being cool to the pizza dude is of course important: All of us, metaphorically if not literally, find ourselves in the pizza dude's position at some point, serving others in a vulnerable way, at the mercy of thoughtless little cruelties. But treating subordinates right--being "cool" to them--is a "philosophy" only in the basest sense of the word.
Ms. Adams is constrained, however, by the strictures of the genre chosen by the project's editors. A three-page essay cannot really capture a philosophy--even a "personal" one. To be worthy of the name, such a statement ought to be either much, much shorter--e.g., Socrates' idea that the unexamined life is not worth living--or much, much longer. Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" approaches 700 pages, none of which, to my knowledge, contain the word "vagina," although "the amphiboly" sounds vaguely like something my mother wouldn't want to hear at the dinner table.
To call Kant's book a "personal philosophy," though, would be misleading, not to mention demeaning. He did not intend his "Critique" as a statement of personal belief. Exactly, one might respond: A "personal philosophy" is not the same thing as "philosophy," and doesn't try to be. But the matter is not so simple. The very phrase "personal philosophy" seeks to traffic in the gravitas of that second word. There's a reason that the book is not subtitled "The Personal Opinions of Random People."
"Personal philosophies" are not a modern innovation. Socrates himself spent his days asking people for theirs--and then poking holes in what he heard. Most of the time, in Plato's telling, his interlocutors reacted by walking away, changing the subject or sticking their fingers in their proverbial ears. Eventually, though, he angered enough people with his incessant questioning that they killed him for it, even though the formal charge read a little differently.
Our rules of public discourse aren't really all that different from those of Socrates' Athens. True, death is generally off the table. But people today do not offer a "personal philosophy" with the notion that someone will challenge them. Ours is a culture of affirmation--people expect a pat on the back simply for stating an opinion. For Socrates, an unexamined belief--or philosophy--was not worth holding, much less publishing. But the worthies at National Public Radio who solicited the manuscripts for "This I Believe" take up the popular view rather than the Socratic one. Studs Terkel, who writes the book's foreword, tells us: "We need not dwell on the old question: What is truth? What you see with your own eyes may differ from the received official truth."
The second statement is unimpeachable; it would make Socrates himself proud in its defiance of authority. But the first sentence bears no relationship to it. To assert that the official truth is wrong is, in fact, to engage the "old question." By saying that we "need not dwell" on what truth is, Mr. Terkel is suggesting that it would be impolite to question these "philosophies" at all. Jay Allison, one of the two editors of the book, makes a similar point in his introduction. "To make such an earnest, exposed statement," he writes about those who submitted essays, "is itself an act of bravery."
If we lived in an age in which people were actually punished for their beliefs, Mr. Allison's claim would make some sense. Even in Socrates' time, the more dangerous occupation was probing the "personal philosophies" of others, not making a statement of one's own. Today, even saying "vagina" onstage doesn't take much courage. Luckily, I won't be made to drink hemlock for saying so.
Mr. Carney is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110009326
DE GUSTIBUS
Nothing Personal
But this is not philosophy.
BY BRIAN M. CARNEY
"This I Believe" is the title of a new book of essays by authors renowned and unknown alike. The book contains a series of three-page essays that the subtitle calls "The Personal Philosophies of Remarkable Men and Women." Some of the authors are remarkable--Albert Einstein (whose essay is reproduced from an earlier round of the project), for example, or Bill Gates. Some are remarkable only in the sense that, as elementary-school teachers are fond of saying, "every child is special."
The essays, solicited by and published "in association with" National Public Radio, are arranged in alphabetical order. This has some entertaining effects--Einstein's essay about the importance of "service" and the beauty of the "mysterious" comes immediately before playwright Eve Ensler's discourse on the importance of saying "vagina" often. The alphabetical ordering also means that the first essay, by an apparently charming English professor named Sarah Adams, is about the importance of being "cool to the pizza dude." As a life-rule, it beats Eve Ensler's anatomical imperative. (Although that too has its appeal. My children, for example, love chanting "bathroom language" in public as well.)
Being cool to the pizza dude is of course important: All of us, metaphorically if not literally, find ourselves in the pizza dude's position at some point, serving others in a vulnerable way, at the mercy of thoughtless little cruelties. But treating subordinates right--being "cool" to them--is a "philosophy" only in the basest sense of the word.
Ms. Adams is constrained, however, by the strictures of the genre chosen by the project's editors. A three-page essay cannot really capture a philosophy--even a "personal" one. To be worthy of the name, such a statement ought to be either much, much shorter--e.g., Socrates' idea that the unexamined life is not worth living--or much, much longer. Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" approaches 700 pages, none of which, to my knowledge, contain the word "vagina," although "the amphiboly" sounds vaguely like something my mother wouldn't want to hear at the dinner table.
To call Kant's book a "personal philosophy," though, would be misleading, not to mention demeaning. He did not intend his "Critique" as a statement of personal belief. Exactly, one might respond: A "personal philosophy" is not the same thing as "philosophy," and doesn't try to be. But the matter is not so simple. The very phrase "personal philosophy" seeks to traffic in the gravitas of that second word. There's a reason that the book is not subtitled "The Personal Opinions of Random People."
"Personal philosophies" are not a modern innovation. Socrates himself spent his days asking people for theirs--and then poking holes in what he heard. Most of the time, in Plato's telling, his interlocutors reacted by walking away, changing the subject or sticking their fingers in their proverbial ears. Eventually, though, he angered enough people with his incessant questioning that they killed him for it, even though the formal charge read a little differently.
Our rules of public discourse aren't really all that different from those of Socrates' Athens. True, death is generally off the table. But people today do not offer a "personal philosophy" with the notion that someone will challenge them. Ours is a culture of affirmation--people expect a pat on the back simply for stating an opinion. For Socrates, an unexamined belief--or philosophy--was not worth holding, much less publishing. But the worthies at National Public Radio who solicited the manuscripts for "This I Believe" take up the popular view rather than the Socratic one. Studs Terkel, who writes the book's foreword, tells us: "We need not dwell on the old question: What is truth? What you see with your own eyes may differ from the received official truth."
The second statement is unimpeachable; it would make Socrates himself proud in its defiance of authority. But the first sentence bears no relationship to it. To assert that the official truth is wrong is, in fact, to engage the "old question." By saying that we "need not dwell" on what truth is, Mr. Terkel is suggesting that it would be impolite to question these "philosophies" at all. Jay Allison, one of the two editors of the book, makes a similar point in his introduction. "To make such an earnest, exposed statement," he writes about those who submitted essays, "is itself an act of bravery."
If we lived in an age in which people were actually punished for their beliefs, Mr. Allison's claim would make some sense. Even in Socrates' time, the more dangerous occupation was probing the "personal philosophies" of others, not making a statement of one's own. Today, even saying "vagina" onstage doesn't take much courage. Luckily, I won't be made to drink hemlock for saying so.
Mr. Carney is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110009326
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
