We are the difficult people.
We do not fit in.
We stand out, awkwardly.
And we annoy you, perplex you, vex you.
We try your patience.
We loathe being this way,
but we cannot help it.
We raise the bar of love.
We call forth new patience,
new kindness.
"Love never fails,"
but many fail us.
We are too damned hard to deal with.
We stand out by falling down.
We raise the bar of love.
Our hurt hurts you.
Let that hurt help
Let that aching pain raise the bar of love
So high
So high
That only grace can raise it.
The shape of our Cross is sharp;
it cuts away life.
What is the shape of your Cross
before our Cross?
Thursday, April 29, 2010
My Mother at 80
My mother, Lillian Dunn, turned eighty yesterday. I salute her tenacity: Raising me after the tragic death of my father in a plane crash in 1968, putting me through college, always encouraging my work, always offering help--even though my calling was not always understandable to her. A strong Italian American, she left New York to sojourn to the frontier of Anchorage, Alaska in 1955 with a tall, imposing Dutchman, Harold Fred Groothuis. Now with health problems galore, she soldiers on, never giving up, trying to remain cheerful. I love you Mom! You are always in my prayers.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Comfort and Morality
I am so sick of hearing people say, "I'm not comfortable with X," when the statement concerns a moral issue. Comfort has absolutely nothing to do with it. My subjective feeling does not determine objective moral rightness of wrongness--although if I were perfectly virtuous I would rejoice in the good and abominate the evil.
But not being perfectly sanctified, I am (and so are you) sometimes uncomfortable with what is right and true and comfortable with what is wrong and false. As such, the comfort language is inept, inadequate, and even misleading.
But not being perfectly sanctified, I am (and so are you) sometimes uncomfortable with what is right and true and comfortable with what is wrong and false. As such, the comfort language is inept, inadequate, and even misleading.
Groothuis Apologetics
Here are nine apologetics articles by me, originally posted at the defunct TrueU.org.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
A Thought on Civil Government
Can a corrupt throne be allied with you--one that brings on misery by its decrees?--Psalm 94:20.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Earth has its Day
Today is earth day. What are we to do? Earth is created by God. It must be developed and conserved. It must not be worshipped. It is fallen, but will be remade one day (Revelation 21-22). Humans are the crown of earth--not trees, not rivers, not polar bears. We are "the visited planet."
Christ came here, changing everything forever. Think on these things.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Captain Ahab's Oratory Upon Reflecting on a Peaceful Sea (Moby Dick, "The Gilder")
Oh, grassy glades! oh, ever vernal endless landscapes in the soul; in ye, - though long parched by the dead drought of the earthy life, - in ye, men yet may roll, like young horses in new morning clover; and for some few fleeting moments, feel the cool dew of the life immortal on them. Would to God these blessed calms would last. But the mingled, mingling threads of life are woven by warp and woof: calms crossed by storms, a storm for every calm. There is no steady unretracing progress in this life; we do not advance through fixed gradations, and at the last one pause: - through infancy's unconscious spell, boyhood's thoughtless faith, adolescence' doubt (the common doom), then scepticism, then disbelief, resting at last in manhood's pondering repose of If. But once gone through, we trace the round again; and are infants, boys, and men, and Ifs eternally. Where lies the final harbor, whence we unmoor no more? in what rapt ether sails the world, of which the weariest will never weary? Where is the foundling's father hidden? Our souls are like those orphans whose unwedded mothers die in bearing them: the secret of our paternity lies in their grave, and we must there to learn it.
Truth from a 1981 Classic
The problem always was and is, What is an adequate base for law? What is adequate so that the human aspiration for freedom can exist without anarchy, and yet provides a form that will not become arbitrary tyranny?--Francis A. Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 27.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
The Fate of Campus Ministry in America
On April 19, The Supreme Court will decide whether campus Christian groups, such as Navigators and InterVarsity, can exist as official groups when in light of the fact that they require certain beliefs and behaviors of their members. This is another choice between liberty and tyranny. The trends recently have been moving in the wrong direction. This is a freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue that should have never even come to the court.
Moby Dick, "The Fossil Whale"
This is why my apologetics manuscript is so gigantic:
One often hears of writers that rise and swell with their subject, though it may seem but an ordinary one. How, then, with me, writing of this Leviathan? Unconsciously my chirography expands into placard capitals. Give me a condor's quill! Give me Vesuvius' crater for an inkstand! Friends, hold my arms! For in the mere act of penning my thoughts of this Leviathan, they weary me, and make me faint with their outreaching comprehensiveness of sweep, as if to include the whole circle of the sciences, and all the generations of whales, and men, and mastodons, past, present, and to come, with all the revolving panoramas of empire on earth, and throughout the whole universe, not excluding its suburbs. Such, and so magnifying, is the virtue of a large and liberal theme! We expand to its bulk. To produce a mighty book, you must choose a mighty theme. No great and enduring volume can ever be written on the flea, though many there be who have tried it.
One often hears of writers that rise and swell with their subject, though it may seem but an ordinary one. How, then, with me, writing of this Leviathan? Unconsciously my chirography expands into placard capitals. Give me a condor's quill! Give me Vesuvius' crater for an inkstand! Friends, hold my arms! For in the mere act of penning my thoughts of this Leviathan, they weary me, and make me faint with their outreaching comprehensiveness of sweep, as if to include the whole circle of the sciences, and all the generations of whales, and men, and mastodons, past, present, and to come, with all the revolving panoramas of empire on earth, and throughout the whole universe, not excluding its suburbs. Such, and so magnifying, is the virtue of a large and liberal theme! We expand to its bulk. To produce a mighty book, you must choose a mighty theme. No great and enduring volume can ever be written on the flea, though many there be who have tried it.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Preacher
As of now, I have only one summer preaching assignment in May. I am available in June through August for guest preaching if you church needs this. I have been an interim preacher and have preached at dozens of churches in the greater Denver area in the past seventeen years. Let me know if I can help your church: DougGroothuis@gmail.com.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Summary of an Imporant Book on Christianity and Gender (corrected)
Highlights of Women Caught in the Conflict:
The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
By Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
1. In the debate among evangelicals concerning the properly biblical “place” for women in the church today, traditionalists may usually be heard arguing their case from the biblical texts that directly address the roles of men and women in the NT church. However, the case for unequal gender roles does not begin with a set of biblical prooftexts, but with a set of assumptions about feminism and modern culture. The biblical texts are then interpreted and applied in light of these assumptions.
2. The anti-feminist traditionalist argument goes like this: Any objection to “traditional” gender roles is “feminist,” and anything feminist is entirely a product of modern culture, and modern culture stands in total opposition to biblical values. Therefore, any interpretation of the Bible that questions the “traditional” roles could only arise, not out of a genuine respect for the authority of Scripture, but out of a desire to use the Bible to justify an agenda that the church has imported from modern culture. This particular understanding of how “feminism” relates to culture and to Christianity is, in large part, what fuels the emotional firestorm that can so easily be ignited whenever evangelical Christians discuss this issue.
3. Once we examine the influence of culture, Christianity, and tradition in the historical development of the feminist and traditionalist views of gender roles, we see that evangelical feminism cannot justifiably be dismissed as an offshoot of the modern feminism movement, nor can traditionalism be automatically accepted as the model of family life upheld by the Christian church for centuries past. Reducing the issue to a simple conflict between biblical tradition and modern secular culture misconstrues the nature of the two positions and deflects the discussion from actual ideas to superficial caricatures.
4. The gender roles that are considered “traditional” today are modeled on the middle-class suburban American culture of the 1950s; and this culture was essentially a reincarnation (with minor adaptations) of the middle-class Victorian culture of the 19th century. Except for the truly traditional elements of male authority and Christian moral standards for sexual behavior, the gender roles of the traditionalist family model today (such as the woman being “full-time mother” and the man being “sole provider”) are no older than the last century. These roles do not come from biblical teaching or centuries of Christian tradition, but from the economic and social changes that occurred with the industrialization of American society. Moreover, the nature and purpose of male authority has been revised considerably by today’s traditionalists, so that even this truly traditional item has been transformed into something of a historical anomaly.
5. The idea that women should be allowed to exercise their gifts alongside men in the evangelical church has not popped up suddenly in church history, simply in imitation of modern secular feminism. More than a hundred years before Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963, a significant number of evangelical women and men were earnestly exhorting women to emerge from obscurity and do what God had called them to do—even if their calling was to a public ministry of preaching, teaching, or evangelizing. This emphasis on women’s ministry was a by-product of the evangelical revivals of the 19th century—as were other social and spiritual concerns, such as the anti-slavery movement, the missionary movement, and the campaign for women’s right to vote, own property, and obtain an education.
6. After 1920 or so, the early evangelical women’s movement petered out, as did the women’s movement in American culture at large. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, a concern for women’s equality resurfaced in both secular culture and the church. So it has been easy for conservative Christians to assume that evangelical feminism came from secular feminism, and therefore to dismiss it in one fell swoop and without further discussion. In reality, biblical feminism is not a recent social development that depends on contemporary secular feminism for its impetus, but rather is historically rooted in a movement that began in a much earlier time and arose out of a much more Christianized culture.
7. There are various types of feminism today, arising from a diverse assortment of worldviews—including pantheism, postmodernism, humanism, socialism, classical liberalism, and Christian theism (which itself is divided between those who adhere strictly to biblical authority and those who do not). All feminists are in agreement that woman’s traditional “place” in the home and society is somehow unfair and inequitable. But their understanding of how women are untreated unfairly, why this is so, and what to do about it, depends on the worldview that undergirds their feminist theory.
8. Briefly described, and roughly in order of their historical origin as social/religious movements, some of the major types of feminism (with their respective worldviews) are:
(1) Evangelical/biblical feminism (based on Christian theism, grounded in biblical authority) seeks to exposit and implement the biblical principle that, because every human being stands on equal ground before God, there is no moral or theological justification for granting or denying spiritual status, privilege or prerogative solely on the basis of race, class, or gender (Galatians 3:26-28). Biblical texts that have traditionally been understood to say otherwise should be interpreted in light of both their cultural context and the fundamental principle that Scripture will not contradict Scripture (the analogy of faith).
(2) Classical feminism (based on classical liberalism) strives to achieve equal rights under the law for every individual, regardless of race, gender, or any other social grouping. The individual’s right to free choice is emphasized, but is also circumscribed by a social consensus of moral norms based generally on Christian ethics.
(3) Liberal feminist theology (based on Christian theism, not grounded in biblical authority) revises and reconceptualizes the Bible from the woman’s point of view. Portions of the biblical text that are considered hopelessly biased by the sexism of the male authors are rejected. Those texts that resonate with the principle of liberation and equality are accepted as “authoritative.”
(4) Modern liberal feminism (based on humanism and socialism) fights for legal rights that are not “equal” in the sense of being color-blind or gender-free, but rather are dispensed according to a standard of reverse discrimination, whereby past grievances are compensated for. Since there is no cultural consensus of Christian moral values in modern society, the individual’s right to free choice has become the new moral absolute (hence abortion rights and homosexual rights are included in the feminist “rights” package).
(5) Spiritual feminism or goddess religion (based on pantheism and polytheism) maintains that the Goddess—generally regarded as the divine feminine creative force of the universe—is within every woman. The goal is for women to become attuned to, and experientially one with, the goddess within, and thereby to become spiritually empowered. This is accomplished through various religious, mystical, and occult rituals.
(6) Woman-centered radical feminism (based on the maximal relativism and irrationalism of postmodernism) deems “truth” a product of one’s experience, which is, in turn, a product of one’s gender, race, and/or ethnic background. For the woman-centered feminist, the traditional, patriarchal, “male” way of thinking and doing must be overturned and replaced with a female perspective (i.e., “truth” according to women’s experience). This approach is fairly common among feminist academics.
9. Evangelical feminism differs from other types of feminism in that it looks to the Bible, not women’s experience, as its final authority. It therefore adheres to the fundamental biblical norms for sexual behavior, and within this context seeks to provide for women the opportunity to utilize their God-given gifts for the good or the church and the glory of God. The goal is mutual submission and service to others in obedience of God—which contrasts sharply with other types of feminism that focus on acquiring “female power” and independence from (or even superiority over) men.
10. The problem with modern, non-evangelical feminism is not that it is feminist, but that it is modern. It has turned away from the biblical and classically liberal idea of the equality of the individual under God. Like other modern isms, it is ideologically based upon radical individualism and moral relativism; that is, it locates the source of moral values in the individual rather than in God. As a result, feminism today is very different from the pro-family, pro-life, Christian-compatible feminism of the 19th century.
11. To be “pro-choice” is to be anti-woman. This truth was seen clearly by early feminists, but it is lost to the view of modern feminists. Nineteenth-century feminists sought to hold men accountable to moral standards for sexual behavior, and opposed abortion in part because it allowed men to escape their responsibilities. Modern feminists, however, have leveled the moral landscape by advocating sexual promiscuity for women as well as men—which has created a demand for the “quick fix” of abortion. Because abortion is now seen as the woman’s “choice,” pregnancy and parenthood are also seen as the woman’s choice. This puts the entire responsibility for children upon the mother, and relieves the father of any obligation to care for his offspring—which hardly works in favor of women’s social freedom and equality. The fundamental assumption of the abortion agenda is that women are not “equal” as women (a condition that can involve pregnancy); they must have the opportunity to be made “equal” (i.e., not pregnant) through invasive surgery, whenever the “man’s world” in which they live, and to which they must adapt, requires it. In advocating abortion rights, modern feminism betrays the premise of any liberation movement (namely, belief in the equal rights of all human beings) by denying the rights of preborn humans.
12. Many people tend to have a “bandwagon mentality”; they assume that anyone who is not on the traditionalist bandwagon must be on the radical feminist bandwagon, and will ultimately end up advocating abortion rights, homosexual rights, sexual “freedom,” and even goddess worship. Evangelical feminism tends to be perceived as a “package deal”: it cannot be purchased separately, but with it comes all the baggage associated with moral relativism and radical feminism. Those who believe that women should have equal opportunity with men for ministry in the church, and shared authority and mutual submission with their husbands in the home, are regarded as having stepped out onto a slippery slope that will soon have them sliding into all the blasphemous excesses of feminist apostasy. But is evangelical feminism on a slippery slope? Does it have within it the beginnings of blatant and blasphemous error? Is it, in both essence and premise, identical with modern secular feminism? No, no, and no.
13. Many errors in thinking have contributed to this state of affairs, including: naiveté concerning the inevitable influence of culture on biblical interpretation; historical myopia (ignorance of the historical development of ideas); “poisoning the well” (condemning an idea on the basis of where it is believed to have come from); chronological snobbery (accepting or rejecting an idea according to whether it is from the past or from the present); the false dilemma (thinking that traditionalism and radical feminism are the only options from which to choose); caricature (exaggerating the worst in feminism and then ridiculing it); and imputing false motives to one’s opponents (evangelical feminists are anti-family, traditionalists are anti-women).
14. Traditionalists tend to believe that the biblical teaching about gender roles is not open for debate, and that anyone who questions the traditionalist gender agenda has been unduly influenced by the unbiblical beliefs of modern culture. With such fears, prejudices, and preconceptions in place—aided and abetted by the deeply-held but usually inarticulated emotional resistance many people have to the very idea of women’s equality—the biblical case for equality between women and men does not even receive a fair hearing. In the end, an interpretational disagreement that is within the bounds of biblical orthodoxy comes to be regarded as a watershed dispute between the heretics on one side and the champions of biblical authority on the other.
15. We need to clarify what is and what is not at stake in this conflict, so we can engage in healthy debate on an issue that is legitimately debatable on biblical grounds. What is not at stake is women’s opportunity to be whole persons and to pursue their callings whatever they may be, as well as everyone’s opportunity to benefit from the full range of women’s gifts and to learn from and relate to women as whole persons.
May 1995
The Culture War Between Traditionalism and Feminism by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
By Rebecca Merrill Groothuis
1. In the debate among evangelicals concerning the properly biblical “place” for women in the church today, traditionalists may usually be heard arguing their case from the biblical texts that directly address the roles of men and women in the NT church. However, the case for unequal gender roles does not begin with a set of biblical prooftexts, but with a set of assumptions about feminism and modern culture. The biblical texts are then interpreted and applied in light of these assumptions.
2. The anti-feminist traditionalist argument goes like this: Any objection to “traditional” gender roles is “feminist,” and anything feminist is entirely a product of modern culture, and modern culture stands in total opposition to biblical values. Therefore, any interpretation of the Bible that questions the “traditional” roles could only arise, not out of a genuine respect for the authority of Scripture, but out of a desire to use the Bible to justify an agenda that the church has imported from modern culture. This particular understanding of how “feminism” relates to culture and to Christianity is, in large part, what fuels the emotional firestorm that can so easily be ignited whenever evangelical Christians discuss this issue.
3. Once we examine the influence of culture, Christianity, and tradition in the historical development of the feminist and traditionalist views of gender roles, we see that evangelical feminism cannot justifiably be dismissed as an offshoot of the modern feminism movement, nor can traditionalism be automatically accepted as the model of family life upheld by the Christian church for centuries past. Reducing the issue to a simple conflict between biblical tradition and modern secular culture misconstrues the nature of the two positions and deflects the discussion from actual ideas to superficial caricatures.
4. The gender roles that are considered “traditional” today are modeled on the middle-class suburban American culture of the 1950s; and this culture was essentially a reincarnation (with minor adaptations) of the middle-class Victorian culture of the 19th century. Except for the truly traditional elements of male authority and Christian moral standards for sexual behavior, the gender roles of the traditionalist family model today (such as the woman being “full-time mother” and the man being “sole provider”) are no older than the last century. These roles do not come from biblical teaching or centuries of Christian tradition, but from the economic and social changes that occurred with the industrialization of American society. Moreover, the nature and purpose of male authority has been revised considerably by today’s traditionalists, so that even this truly traditional item has been transformed into something of a historical anomaly.
5. The idea that women should be allowed to exercise their gifts alongside men in the evangelical church has not popped up suddenly in church history, simply in imitation of modern secular feminism. More than a hundred years before Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique in 1963, a significant number of evangelical women and men were earnestly exhorting women to emerge from obscurity and do what God had called them to do—even if their calling was to a public ministry of preaching, teaching, or evangelizing. This emphasis on women’s ministry was a by-product of the evangelical revivals of the 19th century—as were other social and spiritual concerns, such as the anti-slavery movement, the missionary movement, and the campaign for women’s right to vote, own property, and obtain an education.
6. After 1920 or so, the early evangelical women’s movement petered out, as did the women’s movement in American culture at large. Then, in the 1960s and 1970s, a concern for women’s equality resurfaced in both secular culture and the church. So it has been easy for conservative Christians to assume that evangelical feminism came from secular feminism, and therefore to dismiss it in one fell swoop and without further discussion. In reality, biblical feminism is not a recent social development that depends on contemporary secular feminism for its impetus, but rather is historically rooted in a movement that began in a much earlier time and arose out of a much more Christianized culture.
7. There are various types of feminism today, arising from a diverse assortment of worldviews—including pantheism, postmodernism, humanism, socialism, classical liberalism, and Christian theism (which itself is divided between those who adhere strictly to biblical authority and those who do not). All feminists are in agreement that woman’s traditional “place” in the home and society is somehow unfair and inequitable. But their understanding of how women are untreated unfairly, why this is so, and what to do about it, depends on the worldview that undergirds their feminist theory.
8. Briefly described, and roughly in order of their historical origin as social/religious movements, some of the major types of feminism (with their respective worldviews) are:
(1) Evangelical/biblical feminism (based on Christian theism, grounded in biblical authority) seeks to exposit and implement the biblical principle that, because every human being stands on equal ground before God, there is no moral or theological justification for granting or denying spiritual status, privilege or prerogative solely on the basis of race, class, or gender (Galatians 3:26-28). Biblical texts that have traditionally been understood to say otherwise should be interpreted in light of both their cultural context and the fundamental principle that Scripture will not contradict Scripture (the analogy of faith).
(2) Classical feminism (based on classical liberalism) strives to achieve equal rights under the law for every individual, regardless of race, gender, or any other social grouping. The individual’s right to free choice is emphasized, but is also circumscribed by a social consensus of moral norms based generally on Christian ethics.
(3) Liberal feminist theology (based on Christian theism, not grounded in biblical authority) revises and reconceptualizes the Bible from the woman’s point of view. Portions of the biblical text that are considered hopelessly biased by the sexism of the male authors are rejected. Those texts that resonate with the principle of liberation and equality are accepted as “authoritative.”
(4) Modern liberal feminism (based on humanism and socialism) fights for legal rights that are not “equal” in the sense of being color-blind or gender-free, but rather are dispensed according to a standard of reverse discrimination, whereby past grievances are compensated for. Since there is no cultural consensus of Christian moral values in modern society, the individual’s right to free choice has become the new moral absolute (hence abortion rights and homosexual rights are included in the feminist “rights” package).
(5) Spiritual feminism or goddess religion (based on pantheism and polytheism) maintains that the Goddess—generally regarded as the divine feminine creative force of the universe—is within every woman. The goal is for women to become attuned to, and experientially one with, the goddess within, and thereby to become spiritually empowered. This is accomplished through various religious, mystical, and occult rituals.
(6) Woman-centered radical feminism (based on the maximal relativism and irrationalism of postmodernism) deems “truth” a product of one’s experience, which is, in turn, a product of one’s gender, race, and/or ethnic background. For the woman-centered feminist, the traditional, patriarchal, “male” way of thinking and doing must be overturned and replaced with a female perspective (i.e., “truth” according to women’s experience). This approach is fairly common among feminist academics.
9. Evangelical feminism differs from other types of feminism in that it looks to the Bible, not women’s experience, as its final authority. It therefore adheres to the fundamental biblical norms for sexual behavior, and within this context seeks to provide for women the opportunity to utilize their God-given gifts for the good or the church and the glory of God. The goal is mutual submission and service to others in obedience of God—which contrasts sharply with other types of feminism that focus on acquiring “female power” and independence from (or even superiority over) men.
10. The problem with modern, non-evangelical feminism is not that it is feminist, but that it is modern. It has turned away from the biblical and classically liberal idea of the equality of the individual under God. Like other modern isms, it is ideologically based upon radical individualism and moral relativism; that is, it locates the source of moral values in the individual rather than in God. As a result, feminism today is very different from the pro-family, pro-life, Christian-compatible feminism of the 19th century.
11. To be “pro-choice” is to be anti-woman. This truth was seen clearly by early feminists, but it is lost to the view of modern feminists. Nineteenth-century feminists sought to hold men accountable to moral standards for sexual behavior, and opposed abortion in part because it allowed men to escape their responsibilities. Modern feminists, however, have leveled the moral landscape by advocating sexual promiscuity for women as well as men—which has created a demand for the “quick fix” of abortion. Because abortion is now seen as the woman’s “choice,” pregnancy and parenthood are also seen as the woman’s choice. This puts the entire responsibility for children upon the mother, and relieves the father of any obligation to care for his offspring—which hardly works in favor of women’s social freedom and equality. The fundamental assumption of the abortion agenda is that women are not “equal” as women (a condition that can involve pregnancy); they must have the opportunity to be made “equal” (i.e., not pregnant) through invasive surgery, whenever the “man’s world” in which they live, and to which they must adapt, requires it. In advocating abortion rights, modern feminism betrays the premise of any liberation movement (namely, belief in the equal rights of all human beings) by denying the rights of preborn humans.
12. Many people tend to have a “bandwagon mentality”; they assume that anyone who is not on the traditionalist bandwagon must be on the radical feminist bandwagon, and will ultimately end up advocating abortion rights, homosexual rights, sexual “freedom,” and even goddess worship. Evangelical feminism tends to be perceived as a “package deal”: it cannot be purchased separately, but with it comes all the baggage associated with moral relativism and radical feminism. Those who believe that women should have equal opportunity with men for ministry in the church, and shared authority and mutual submission with their husbands in the home, are regarded as having stepped out onto a slippery slope that will soon have them sliding into all the blasphemous excesses of feminist apostasy. But is evangelical feminism on a slippery slope? Does it have within it the beginnings of blatant and blasphemous error? Is it, in both essence and premise, identical with modern secular feminism? No, no, and no.
13. Many errors in thinking have contributed to this state of affairs, including: naiveté concerning the inevitable influence of culture on biblical interpretation; historical myopia (ignorance of the historical development of ideas); “poisoning the well” (condemning an idea on the basis of where it is believed to have come from); chronological snobbery (accepting or rejecting an idea according to whether it is from the past or from the present); the false dilemma (thinking that traditionalism and radical feminism are the only options from which to choose); caricature (exaggerating the worst in feminism and then ridiculing it); and imputing false motives to one’s opponents (evangelical feminists are anti-family, traditionalists are anti-women).
14. Traditionalists tend to believe that the biblical teaching about gender roles is not open for debate, and that anyone who questions the traditionalist gender agenda has been unduly influenced by the unbiblical beliefs of modern culture. With such fears, prejudices, and preconceptions in place—aided and abetted by the deeply-held but usually inarticulated emotional resistance many people have to the very idea of women’s equality—the biblical case for equality between women and men does not even receive a fair hearing. In the end, an interpretational disagreement that is within the bounds of biblical orthodoxy comes to be regarded as a watershed dispute between the heretics on one side and the champions of biblical authority on the other.
15. We need to clarify what is and what is not at stake in this conflict, so we can engage in healthy debate on an issue that is legitimately debatable on biblical grounds. What is not at stake is women’s opportunity to be whole persons and to pursue their callings whatever they may be, as well as everyone’s opportunity to benefit from the full range of women’s gifts and to learn from and relate to women as whole persons.
May 1995
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Ask the Philosopher (room added)
Ask the Christian Philosopher:
Doug Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and Metro State College of Denver, will present a short explanation of why he is a Christian and then field any questions regarding the truth and rationality of Christianity. Tivoli, 440, Auraria Campus, Denver, April 27, 7:00 PM.
Doug Groothuis, Professor of Philosophy at Denver Seminary and Metro State College of Denver, will present a short explanation of why he is a Christian and then field any questions regarding the truth and rationality of Christianity. Tivoli, 440, Auraria Campus, Denver, April 27, 7:00 PM.
Lost, Found
Erratum,
Erroneous,
Error,
not Verbatim.
Erroneous,
not Veracious.
Error,
not Truer.
Fradulent,
not felicitious.
Defective
in search of
Original.
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Doug Groothuis on "Social Justice"
This is my short essay from Pateous. There should be other quotes by other thinkers there soon.
Moby Dick, "The Try Works, "Chapter xcvi
Nevertheless the sun hides not Virginia's Dismal Swamp, nor Rome's accursed Campagna, nor wide Sahara, nor all the millions of miles of deserts and of griefs beneath the moon. The sun hides not the ocean, which is the dark side of this earth, and which is two thirds of this earth. So, therefore, that mortal man who hath more of joy than sorrow in him, that mortal man cannot be true - not true, or undeveloped. With books the same. The truest of all men was the Man of Sorrows, and the truest of all books is Solomon's, and Ecclesiastes is the fine hammered steel of woe. "All is vanity". ALL. This wilful world hath not got hold of unchristian Solomon's wisdom yet. But he who dodges hospitals and jails, and walks fast crossing grave- yards, and would rather talk of operas than hell; calls Cowper, Young, Pascal, Rousseau, poor devils all of sick men; and throughout a care-free lifetime swears by Rabelais as passing wise, and therefore jolly; - not that man is fitted to sit down on tomb-stones, and break the green damp mould with unfathomably wondrous Solomon.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
Alter-modern Nothing
Here is an article from Adbusters, a magazine of anarchist commentary on American excesses, called, "Postmillennial Tension," by Michael Larson. Notice that he offers nothing of philosophical substance by way of worldview or existential motivation for his "alter-modern" perspective. This is common for secular, continental thinking. I added a comment to the article to this effect.
What Matters Most Table of Contents
I have sent the rest of the chapters of What Matters Most: Defending Christian Truth today to InterVarsity Press. As it now stands, this is the table of contents. They will edit it and send it out to at least one external reviewer, so things may change (but I hope not too much). I have been writing this since early 2003.
I. Apologetic Preliminaries
1. Introduction
2. Biblical Basis of Apologetics
3. Apologetic Method
4. The Christian worldview
5. Distortions of Christianity
6. Truth Defined and Defended
7. Why Truth Matters Most
8. Faith, Risk, Rationality
II. The Case for Christian Theism
9. Theistic Arguments
10. Ontological Arguments
11. Cosmological Arguments
12. Design Argument: Fine-Tuning
13. Origins, Design, and Darwinism
14. Evidence for Intelligent Design
15. The Moral Argument for God
16. Religious Experience Arguments for God
17. Uniqueness of Humanity: Consciousness and Cognition
18. Deposed Royalty
19. Reliability of the NT: (Craig Blomberg)
20. The Claims and Credentials of Jesus
21. The Incarnation Defended
22. The Resurrection of Jesus
III. Objections to Christian Theism
23. Religious Pluralism
24. The Challenge of Islam
25. The Problem of Evil
26. Conclusion
IV. Appendices
Appendix A: Hell on Trial
Appendix B: Apologetic Issues in the Old Testament (Richard Hess)
I. Apologetic Preliminaries
1. Introduction
2. Biblical Basis of Apologetics
3. Apologetic Method
4. The Christian worldview
5. Distortions of Christianity
6. Truth Defined and Defended
7. Why Truth Matters Most
8. Faith, Risk, Rationality
II. The Case for Christian Theism
9. Theistic Arguments
10. Ontological Arguments
11. Cosmological Arguments
12. Design Argument: Fine-Tuning
13. Origins, Design, and Darwinism
14. Evidence for Intelligent Design
15. The Moral Argument for God
16. Religious Experience Arguments for God
17. Uniqueness of Humanity: Consciousness and Cognition
18. Deposed Royalty
19. Reliability of the NT: (Craig Blomberg)
20. The Claims and Credentials of Jesus
21. The Incarnation Defended
22. The Resurrection of Jesus
III. Objections to Christian Theism
23. Religious Pluralism
24. The Challenge of Islam
25. The Problem of Evil
26. Conclusion
IV. Appendices
Appendix A: Hell on Trial
Appendix B: Apologetic Issues in the Old Testament (Richard Hess)
Let Books Be Books
Many books today seem afraid to rely on pure text. They seem to be embarrassed to be what they are: books, that is, orderly collections of words formed into sentences and paragraphs.Too many books are filled with one-sentence paragraphs (usually a sign of poor style and impatience), call-outs that repeat what is in smaller print elsewhere on the page (annoying), stand-alone call-outs with little connection to the flow of the text and which I find disorienting. (When do I read them? That is their context?) We also find lists, bullet points (the bane of orderly discourse, but the balm of PowerPoint), and font variations. These books are more like children's books of old.
This is enough to send me screaming to acres and acres of pure, small, hard text: Augustine's The City of God or any book by Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky or even Being and Nothingness by Sartre! (But Being and Time...don't go there, although I own it.) These books require concentration, fixation, and focus. One cannot breeze through them. These works have heft; they must be mastered; they cannot be skimmed.
I say: Let books be books!
This is enough to send me screaming to acres and acres of pure, small, hard text: Augustine's The City of God or any book by Kierkegaard or Dostoevsky or even Being and Nothingness by Sartre! (But Being and Time...don't go there, although I own it.) These books require concentration, fixation, and focus. One cannot breeze through them. These works have heft; they must be mastered; they cannot be skimmed.
I say: Let books be books!
Friday, April 02, 2010
Easter Life and the Facts of History
Easter commemorates and celebrates a historical event unlike any other: the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. But what is the significance of the resurrection? Can we know that it really happened?
The four Gospels of the New Testament all report that Jesus predicted his death, burial, and resurrection. He was born to die. All of his wondrous teachings, healings, exorcisms, and transforming relationships with all manner of people—from fishermen to tax collectors to prostitutes to revolutionaries—would be incomplete without his crucifixion and resurrection. Shortly before his death, "Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priest and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life" (Matthew 16:21). Peter resisted this grim fact, but Jesus rebuked him. There was no other way (vs. 22-23). For, as Jesus had taught, he "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28).
And give his life he did, on an unspeakably cruel Roman cross—impaled for all to see before two common criminals. We call this day Good Friday because it was good for us; but it was dreadful for Jesus. Before I became a follower of Christ, I always associated this day with the Alaskan earthquake on Good Friday, 1964, one of the largest quakes ever in North America. I was there in Anchorage. After the death of Jesus, the earth quaked on the first Good Friday as well, heaving with a significance that far exceeds any geological upsurge in world history. As Jesus' disciple Matthew recounts: "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split" (Matthew 27:50-51). When the guards at the crucifixion experienced the earthquake and the other extraordinary phenomena, "they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'" (v. 54). Yet another miracle was waiting, waiting—as the dead Messiah was pried off his bloody cross, embalmed, and laid in a cold, dark tomb, guarded to the hilt by Roman guards.
All seemed to be lost. The one who had boldly claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), the prophet who had announced that "God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son that whoever believes in him would not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)—this man now had died. The man who had raised the dead was dead.
On the first day of the week, two women, both named Mary, came to visit the tomb of their master. They had stayed with him as he died; now they visited his tomb in grief. Yet instead of mourning a death, they celebrated a resurrection announced by an angel, who rolled back the stone sealing the tomb and charged them to look at its empty contents. He then told them to tell Jesus' disciples of the resurrection and to go to Galilee where they would see him. As they scurried away, Jesus himself met them, greeted them, and received their surprised worship (Matthew 27:8-9). He directed them, "Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" (v. 10).
The rest is history, and it changed history forever. The fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection puts the lie to the notion that the idea of Jesus' resurrection was concocted at a later point to add drama to his life. Women were not taken to be trustworthy witnesses in courts of law at that time (although Jesus always respected them). If someone had wanted to create a pious fraud, they never would have included the two Marys in their story. Moreover, all four Gospels testify to the factual reality of the resurrection. They were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or those who consulted eyewitnesses (Luke and Mark); they were people in the know, not writers of myths and legends (see Luke 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:16).
After the resurrection, the gospel of the risen Jesus was quickly proclaimed in the very area where he was crucified. This upstart Jesus movement would have been easily refuted by someone producing the corpse of Christ, which both the Jewish establishment and the Roman government had a vested interest in doing, since this new movement threatened the religious and political status quo. But we have no historical record of any such thing having occurred. On the contrary, the Jesus movement grew and rapidly spread. Christian Jews changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, in honor of Jesus' resurrection. Pious Jews would never do such a thing on their own initiative, because it would set them against their own tradition and their countrymen. Nor would they have ceased offering the prescribed sacrifices their Scriptures required had not Jesus proven himself to be the final sacrifice for sin, the lamb of God (see John 1:29 and The Book of Hebrews). The resurrection best accounts for this change in their day of worship, their manner of worship, and the transformation at the core of their lives. Moreover, the two key rituals of the earliest church—communion and the baptism—both presuppose the historicity of the resurrection and both are very difficult to explain without it.
The Apostle Paul, a man revolutionized through an encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 9), taught that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul listed many witnesses of the risen Christ, some of whom were still living when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), and confidently affirmed that "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead" (v. 20). He also proclaimed that Jesus "through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).
Easter is the core of Christian faith and life. Without the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no gospel message, no future hope, and no new life in Christ. But with the resurrection at its center, Christianity stands unique and alone in the world. No other religion is based on the historical resurrection of its divine founder. When Jesus announced, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 10:25), he meant it—and he demonstrated it. Let us, then, leave our dead ways and follow him today and into eternity.
The four Gospels of the New Testament all report that Jesus predicted his death, burial, and resurrection. He was born to die. All of his wondrous teachings, healings, exorcisms, and transforming relationships with all manner of people—from fishermen to tax collectors to prostitutes to revolutionaries—would be incomplete without his crucifixion and resurrection. Shortly before his death, "Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priest and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life" (Matthew 16:21). Peter resisted this grim fact, but Jesus rebuked him. There was no other way (vs. 22-23). For, as Jesus had taught, he "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28).
And give his life he did, on an unspeakably cruel Roman cross—impaled for all to see before two common criminals. We call this day Good Friday because it was good for us; but it was dreadful for Jesus. Before I became a follower of Christ, I always associated this day with the Alaskan earthquake on Good Friday, 1964, one of the largest quakes ever in North America. I was there in Anchorage. After the death of Jesus, the earth quaked on the first Good Friday as well, heaving with a significance that far exceeds any geological upsurge in world history. As Jesus' disciple Matthew recounts: "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split" (Matthew 27:50-51). When the guards at the crucifixion experienced the earthquake and the other extraordinary phenomena, "they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'" (v. 54). Yet another miracle was waiting, waiting—as the dead Messiah was pried off his bloody cross, embalmed, and laid in a cold, dark tomb, guarded to the hilt by Roman guards.
All seemed to be lost. The one who had boldly claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), the prophet who had announced that "God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son that whoever believes in him would not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)—this man now had died. The man who had raised the dead was dead.
On the first day of the week, two women, both named Mary, came to visit the tomb of their master. They had stayed with him as he died; now they visited his tomb in grief. Yet instead of mourning a death, they celebrated a resurrection announced by an angel, who rolled back the stone sealing the tomb and charged them to look at its empty contents. He then told them to tell Jesus' disciples of the resurrection and to go to Galilee where they would see him. As they scurried away, Jesus himself met them, greeted them, and received their surprised worship (Matthew 27:8-9). He directed them, "Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" (v. 10).
The rest is history, and it changed history forever. The fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection puts the lie to the notion that the idea of Jesus' resurrection was concocted at a later point to add drama to his life. Women were not taken to be trustworthy witnesses in courts of law at that time (although Jesus always respected them). If someone had wanted to create a pious fraud, they never would have included the two Marys in their story. Moreover, all four Gospels testify to the factual reality of the resurrection. They were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or those who consulted eyewitnesses (Luke and Mark); they were people in the know, not writers of myths and legends (see Luke 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:16).
After the resurrection, the gospel of the risen Jesus was quickly proclaimed in the very area where he was crucified. This upstart Jesus movement would have been easily refuted by someone producing the corpse of Christ, which both the Jewish establishment and the Roman government had a vested interest in doing, since this new movement threatened the religious and political status quo. But we have no historical record of any such thing having occurred. On the contrary, the Jesus movement grew and rapidly spread. Christian Jews changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, in honor of Jesus' resurrection. Pious Jews would never do such a thing on their own initiative, because it would set them against their own tradition and their countrymen. Nor would they have ceased offering the prescribed sacrifices their Scriptures required had not Jesus proven himself to be the final sacrifice for sin, the lamb of God (see John 1:29 and The Book of Hebrews). The resurrection best accounts for this change in their day of worship, their manner of worship, and the transformation at the core of their lives. Moreover, the two key rituals of the earliest church—communion and the baptism—both presuppose the historicity of the resurrection and both are very difficult to explain without it.
The Apostle Paul, a man revolutionized through an encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 9), taught that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul listed many witnesses of the risen Christ, some of whom were still living when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), and confidently affirmed that "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead" (v. 20). He also proclaimed that Jesus "through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).
Easter is the core of Christian faith and life. Without the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no gospel message, no future hope, and no new life in Christ. But with the resurrection at its center, Christianity stands unique and alone in the world. No other religion is based on the historical resurrection of its divine founder. When Jesus announced, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 10:25), he meant it—and he demonstrated it. Let us, then, leave our dead ways and follow him today and into eternity.
A Letter to Signers of the Manhattan Declaration
Thank you for your continuing support of the Manhattan Declaration. The timing of our movement is providential. We couldn't have realized when we released the Manhattan Declaration what threats to life and liberty we would soon be facing with the passage of the healthcare bill. At this critical moment for our nation, we give thanks to God that nearly half a million Christians have pledged to stand strong in defense of the most fundamental moral principles of a just and good society. God bless you for making this commitment.
We are reminded by this legislation that we must redouble our efforts. We must equip ourselves to defend winsomely the truth in the public square. The timing of the upgrading of our website is providential as well. We originally released the Manhattan Declaration last fall with a website literally assembled overnight. We realized a couple of months ago that we needed a better facility that could provide more resources to help people to better connect as this movement grows and develops. On the new website you'll find a wealth of resources that will help you to fight this battle. Please visit www.manhattandeclaration.org. You'll find news of the work going on at the grassroots level. For example, a few weeks ago we addressed by phone a group of pastors and lay leaders in Frankfort, Kentucky, who were preparing to present the Manhattan Declaration to their legislature. They did so, and the result was a resolution passed by the Kentucky House endorsing and urging support for the Manhattan Declaration. It was sponsored by 45 members and adopted by voice vote. (www.manhattandeclaration.org/pdfs/KY-bill.pdf)
Just imagine what might happen to our politics and culture if state legislatures across the country were to copy what Kentucky has done. Can you urge your legislators to do so?With the battles going on in Washington, we must intensify our efforts. The three of us want to do exactly what our supporters in Kentucky did, but at the federal level. When we have one million signatures, we will ask for a meeting with the President. Any document this strong, pledging not to compromise our faith, signed by a million people coming from the three great historic traditions of the Christian faith, will make a huge impact. Please help us accomplish this: Here are some things you can do:
Circulate the declaration through your church. One church in eastern Washington did this and got all 470 members to sign on. That made local press. www.manhattandeclaration.org/, www.manhattandeclaration.org/sign.aspx
If you haven't already done so, ask your pastor to refer to the Manhattan Declaration from the pulpit. Remember, too, there's a great Bible study that goes with it which you can download free from our website. Here are some resources your pastor may find helpful: PowerPointChurch Bulletin ArticleStart a Bible study in your home. Speak in any public forum where you have the opportunity. We are doing this and getting a great reaction. I (Chuck Colson) have asked people to raise their hands if they've not heard of the document. Astonishingly, half the people do. Once I explain it, they give it thunderous applause. Despite all the press and internet exposure, many people are still unaware of the Manhattan Declaration. That's why all of us have to work to spread this message. www.manhattandeclaration.org/pdfs/ManhattanDeclarationStudyGuide.pdf
Don't forget letters to the editor of your local newspaper. There are 80,000 of you who have put this on Facebook. Let's do more. Movements today advance by social networking. http://www.facebook.com/ManhattanDeclaration Finally, forward this to your friends and ask them to sign on. If each of us gets just one friend to sign, we'll have nearly one million signatures.
Many of you have written asking what you can personally do. The answer first, is to pray. Second, you can help us with the costs of maintaining the website. To make the significant upgrades, two of our member organizations put up the initial funds. We are not in the fundraising business, but we would welcome support, because we will have continuing costs of maintaining the website and providing resources to fuel this movement. If you choose to help, you can send gifts, which a number of people have indicated they want to do. In due course there will be a button on the website to facilitate this, but for the moment those who wish to help can send a gift to Manhattan Declaration, P.O. Box 1396, Ashburn, Virginia 20146.
It is nothing less than a miracle that we have been able, with virtually no budget, to accumulate in four or five months almost a half million signers. Some organizations that have been working to build their lists for 30 years haven't done much better than that. God will continue to do the miracles - and we will do our part as well. As the great missionary William Carey said, "Expect great things from God. Attempt great things for God."Thank God He is raising up hundreds of thousands of Christians to draw a line in the sand at this time of ominous challenge to the fundamental principles of justice and truths of our faith - principles and truths which are the very foundation of our nation and of every society that values human dignity and the common good.
God bless you.
Dr. Timothy George
Dr. Robert George
Mr. Charles Colson
Thank you for your continuing support of the Manhattan Declaration. The timing of our movement is providential. We couldn't have realized when we released the Manhattan Declaration what threats to life and liberty we would soon be facing with the passage of the healthcare bill. At this critical moment for our nation, we give thanks to God that nearly half a million Christians have pledged to stand strong in defense of the most fundamental moral principles of a just and good society. God bless you for making this commitment.
We are reminded by this legislation that we must redouble our efforts. We must equip ourselves to defend winsomely the truth in the public square. The timing of the upgrading of our website is providential as well. We originally released the Manhattan Declaration last fall with a website literally assembled overnight. We realized a couple of months ago that we needed a better facility that could provide more resources to help people to better connect as this movement grows and develops. On the new website you'll find a wealth of resources that will help you to fight this battle. Please visit www.manhattandeclaration.org. You'll find news of the work going on at the grassroots level. For example, a few weeks ago we addressed by phone a group of pastors and lay leaders in Frankfort, Kentucky, who were preparing to present the Manhattan Declaration to their legislature. They did so, and the result was a resolution passed by the Kentucky House endorsing and urging support for the Manhattan Declaration. It was sponsored by 45 members and adopted by voice vote. (www.manhattandeclaration.org/pdfs/KY-bill.pdf)
Just imagine what might happen to our politics and culture if state legislatures across the country were to copy what Kentucky has done. Can you urge your legislators to do so?With the battles going on in Washington, we must intensify our efforts. The three of us want to do exactly what our supporters in Kentucky did, but at the federal level. When we have one million signatures, we will ask for a meeting with the President. Any document this strong, pledging not to compromise our faith, signed by a million people coming from the three great historic traditions of the Christian faith, will make a huge impact. Please help us accomplish this: Here are some things you can do:
Circulate the declaration through your church. One church in eastern Washington did this and got all 470 members to sign on. That made local press. www.manhattandeclaration.org/, www.manhattandeclaration.org/sign.aspx
If you haven't already done so, ask your pastor to refer to the Manhattan Declaration from the pulpit. Remember, too, there's a great Bible study that goes with it which you can download free from our website. Here are some resources your pastor may find helpful: PowerPointChurch Bulletin ArticleStart a Bible study in your home. Speak in any public forum where you have the opportunity. We are doing this and getting a great reaction. I (Chuck Colson) have asked people to raise their hands if they've not heard of the document. Astonishingly, half the people do. Once I explain it, they give it thunderous applause. Despite all the press and internet exposure, many people are still unaware of the Manhattan Declaration. That's why all of us have to work to spread this message. www.manhattandeclaration.org/pdfs/ManhattanDeclarationStudyGuide.pdf
Don't forget letters to the editor of your local newspaper. There are 80,000 of you who have put this on Facebook. Let's do more. Movements today advance by social networking. http://www.facebook.com/ManhattanDeclaration Finally, forward this to your friends and ask them to sign on. If each of us gets just one friend to sign, we'll have nearly one million signatures.
Many of you have written asking what you can personally do. The answer first, is to pray. Second, you can help us with the costs of maintaining the website. To make the significant upgrades, two of our member organizations put up the initial funds. We are not in the fundraising business, but we would welcome support, because we will have continuing costs of maintaining the website and providing resources to fuel this movement. If you choose to help, you can send gifts, which a number of people have indicated they want to do. In due course there will be a button on the website to facilitate this, but for the moment those who wish to help can send a gift to Manhattan Declaration, P.O. Box 1396, Ashburn, Virginia 20146.
It is nothing less than a miracle that we have been able, with virtually no budget, to accumulate in four or five months almost a half million signers. Some organizations that have been working to build their lists for 30 years haven't done much better than that. God will continue to do the miracles - and we will do our part as well. As the great missionary William Carey said, "Expect great things from God. Attempt great things for God."Thank God He is raising up hundreds of thousands of Christians to draw a line in the sand at this time of ominous challenge to the fundamental principles of justice and truths of our faith - principles and truths which are the very foundation of our nation and of every society that values human dignity and the common good.
God bless you.
Dr. Timothy George
Dr. Robert George
Mr. Charles Colson
Thursday, April 01, 2010
From The Terri Shindler Schiavo Foundation
Dear Friend,
Sometimes you just have to say, loud and clear, "Enough!"That's what we said when we recently heard about the appalling parody of my sister's tragic circumstances on an episode of Fox's "The Family Guy" program called "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." We were outraged that Fox and its sponsors would so heartlessly ridicule my sister's death by forced starvation.
Now we hope you will join us in expressing that outrage to the sponsors of "The Family Guy" by immediately signing our "Enough is Enough!" Petition. After you sign it, please send it out through your email, Facebook, My Space, or Twitter page to all of your friends, family, or fellow worshippers.It's difficult to adequately convey the pain we felt as Terri was mocked and her agonizing suffering ridiculed. I was shocked at the complete cruelty and bigotry the program showed toward our beloved sister as well as toward the efforts of my family to care for her and attempt to save her life.But there is an even bigger issue here.Aside from the obvious pain this caused my family, the inferences of the program are clear: there is a growing, deep-rooted prejudice against people with brain-injuries and other cognitive disabilities.
The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation has given encouragement and support to over 1,000 families with loved ones living with brain injuries.If Fox Prime and its advertisers have their way, our national leaders will increasingly demand that doctors, hospitals, and families do what the characters called for at the end of "Terri Schiavo: The Musical"—pull the plug! Instead of caring for the brain-injured the message is simple: kill the brain-injured!That's why I need you to immediately sign our "Enough is Enough!" Petition aimed at the sponsors of "The Family Guy." I will personally see to it your petitions are delivered to the company executives!
• We MUST let companies like Kentucky Fried Chicken, Dentyne, Sonic Drive-In, Sprint, and Apple Computers know that this sort of bare-faced bigotry dehumanizes those with disabilities and dismisses the efforts of those who work tirelessly to ensure that people with disabilities receive the proper care.
• We MUST tell them that people are not "vegetables" and that ANY company supporting programs that advance the idea certain people are not worthy of medical care because they are viewed as burdens to society is a company NOT worthy of our support.
Please join us now in urging the sponsors and advertisers of "The Family Guy" to stop advertising on the program and STOP supporting such an ugly, cruel and hateful message. Take a moment right now and sign our "Enough is Enough!" Petition to the sponsors of "The Family Guy"!Thank you for standing with us as we stand for the rights of people with disabilities.
Bobby Schindler
Click here to forward this message to friends and family
Sometimes you just have to say, loud and clear, "Enough!"That's what we said when we recently heard about the appalling parody of my sister's tragic circumstances on an episode of Fox's "The Family Guy" program called "Terri Schiavo: The Musical." We were outraged that Fox and its sponsors would so heartlessly ridicule my sister's death by forced starvation.
Now we hope you will join us in expressing that outrage to the sponsors of "The Family Guy" by immediately signing our "Enough is Enough!" Petition. After you sign it, please send it out through your email, Facebook, My Space, or Twitter page to all of your friends, family, or fellow worshippers.It's difficult to adequately convey the pain we felt as Terri was mocked and her agonizing suffering ridiculed. I was shocked at the complete cruelty and bigotry the program showed toward our beloved sister as well as toward the efforts of my family to care for her and attempt to save her life.But there is an even bigger issue here.Aside from the obvious pain this caused my family, the inferences of the program are clear: there is a growing, deep-rooted prejudice against people with brain-injuries and other cognitive disabilities.
The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation has given encouragement and support to over 1,000 families with loved ones living with brain injuries.If Fox Prime and its advertisers have their way, our national leaders will increasingly demand that doctors, hospitals, and families do what the characters called for at the end of "Terri Schiavo: The Musical"—pull the plug! Instead of caring for the brain-injured the message is simple: kill the brain-injured!That's why I need you to immediately sign our "Enough is Enough!" Petition aimed at the sponsors of "The Family Guy." I will personally see to it your petitions are delivered to the company executives!
• We MUST let companies like Kentucky Fried Chicken, Dentyne, Sonic Drive-In, Sprint, and Apple Computers know that this sort of bare-faced bigotry dehumanizes those with disabilities and dismisses the efforts of those who work tirelessly to ensure that people with disabilities receive the proper care.
• We MUST tell them that people are not "vegetables" and that ANY company supporting programs that advance the idea certain people are not worthy of medical care because they are viewed as burdens to society is a company NOT worthy of our support.
Please join us now in urging the sponsors and advertisers of "The Family Guy" to stop advertising on the program and STOP supporting such an ugly, cruel and hateful message. Take a moment right now and sign our "Enough is Enough!" Petition to the sponsors of "The Family Guy"!Thank you for standing with us as we stand for the rights of people with disabilities.
Bobby Schindler
Click here to forward this message to friends and family
Asinine TV program mocks cruel killing of Terri Schiavo. So much for decency and respect for the death and disabled.
Virtual God
One can purchase and outfit virtual pets on line, even buy virtual dog food. This causes me to ponder the possibilities.
Why rest content with old, worn-out, and decaying dogmas? Design your own Virtual God at http://www.virtualanything.com/! Select from a wide variety of exciting possibilities: male, female, neuter; one God, two gods, many gods; personal or non-personal; one with the universe or above the universe; moral or amoral; ritual or a-ritual. And create your own personal, individual form of worship in our virtual world. You pick the God or gods and you, you, you (!) select the forms of worship fitting your busy lifestyle. Consider the choice of one of our satisfied customers:
Joyce created The God I am Most Comfortable With. He is not fussy about sexual activity, really likes TV, accepts everyone as they are; and blesses shopping--any and all shopping! In fact, shopping is sacramental, elemental, and eternal for The God I am Most Comfortable With.
But this is just one possibility among endless possibilities. Virtual God is ready with the metaphysics and theology of your sacred choice. Not only that, you are not locked into you deity! You can change he, she, or it at any time for any reason--for no extra cost. Our computer programs will adjust the bio for the deity and give you a graphically exhilarating and audio mesmerizing deity--all for just $29.95 per month.
Virtual God! Why wait to chose the deity of your choice?
Announcing: Virtual God!
Why rest content with old, worn-out, and decaying dogmas? Design your own Virtual God at http://www.virtualanything.com/! Select from a wide variety of exciting possibilities: male, female, neuter; one God, two gods, many gods; personal or non-personal; one with the universe or above the universe; moral or amoral; ritual or a-ritual. And create your own personal, individual form of worship in our virtual world. You pick the God or gods and you, you, you (!) select the forms of worship fitting your busy lifestyle. Consider the choice of one of our satisfied customers:
Joyce created The God I am Most Comfortable With. He is not fussy about sexual activity, really likes TV, accepts everyone as they are; and blesses shopping--any and all shopping! In fact, shopping is sacramental, elemental, and eternal for The God I am Most Comfortable With.
But this is just one possibility among endless possibilities. Virtual God is ready with the metaphysics and theology of your sacred choice. Not only that, you are not locked into you deity! You can change he, she, or it at any time for any reason--for no extra cost. Our computer programs will adjust the bio for the deity and give you a graphically exhilarating and audio mesmerizing deity--all for just $29.95 per month.
Virtual God! Why wait to chose the deity of your choice?
Friendships Lost
Betrayal,
bellowed, whispered, or silent.
Refusal
to acknowledge, to respond.
Silence,
where words should be.
Nothing,
where something should be.
Part of me
with part of you--
forgotten or spurned.
bellowed, whispered, or silent.
Refusal
to acknowledge, to respond.
Silence,
where words should be.
Nothing,
where something should be.
Part of me
with part of you--
forgotten or spurned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
