Jesus only. Yeah, I know. It seems narrow. And it’s certainly uncomfortable, even for many Christ-followers. But . . . should we always expect truth to be comfortable?
Some folks think the existence of evil and suffering proves that God doesn’t exist. Actually, if anything, it more likely proves He does.
If God is as Christians claim, loving and caring, then surely He won’t hold us accountable for believing correctly. Right?
Have you ever thought about the “counter claims” between “just one true religion” and “all religions have part of the truth but not all of it”?
President Obama’s recent decision to allow for stem cell research to expand to the human embryo is a big deal. So what are the issues at stake . . . or is it just tissue we’re talking about?
The question regarding human embryonic stem cells is not whether it’s human life. The secular scientists tell us that the human embryo is both living and distinctly human. The question then becomes, what is the nature and value of human life.
Some people think it’s not cool to talk about God in public debate/discourse. President Obama talks about “separating idealogy from the science.” Sounds okay . . . but there is human life involved here.
I don’t know if you’ve seen this really cool movie entitled “Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium”. While not a theistic or Judeo-Christian movie, it asks this really big question…is there more to life than what we see? Or, in the language of the movie, “Is it just a box?”
A lot of people are generally okay with Christianity but it’s the thing about “Jesus only” which is the big turn off. How can God be fair if there’s only one way to Him? Well, here’s a new take on Christ alone.
Talk about the ultimately uncomfortable topic! Hell is a myth, right? Nobody really believes this stuff, right? Well, think about this. Isn’t hell a subject so deadly serious that at least at some point in our lives we need to take a moment and think seriously about it?
A lot of people think God is a myth? Really? What are the odds of us having a universe to begin with, much less an ordered one?
For too long the church has just been “running the machinery”. We’ve forgotten about people, serving them, and going out of our way to winsomely share the message of Christ.
April 11th, 2009 at 9:33 am
I think that we have to be careful about citing Thomas Jefferson’s authorship of the the Declaration of Independence as justification for bringing God into our public policy discourse. From my study of Jefferson, he was not a Christian, he did not believe that God was active, he did not believe in the trinity nor the miracles performed by Jesus. However, I do believe the document reflects the convictions of the signers and the majority of the population at the time and in that context it does justify bringing God into the public discussion. I do find it interesting how our during our struggle for Independence, the United States was often depicted as Israel being delivered from the bondage imposed by England acting the part of Pharoah. In fact during the designing of the Great Seal of the United States of America, Ben Franklin wanted to depict the Red sea swallowing Pharoah’s army and Jefferson suggested the pillar of smoke that led the Children of Israel towards the promised land. Though neither were chosen, the fact that they were suggested inducates how widespread our Independence was associated with biblical images.
June 28th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
My computer’s sound card is out of order and therefore I am unable to listen to the video. My responses are informed only by what I can infer from your line of questioning and by what I know concerning the matter.
As a former secular fundamentalist myself it is easy to understand why the president would suggest to “separate ideology from science.” I can only assume that his logic behind this pronouncement is informed by the now prevalent notion that the pursuit of science ought to be conducted free of any attending ideology. Implicit in that pronouncement are two things. First is that science is the only pure unadulterated means of pursuing truth where truth is defined solely by a scientific naturalistic paradigm which basically asserts the a priori absolute statement that the only thing that may be ascertained as true is that which can be empirically verified. Ideology, on the other hand, is informed ultimately by mere opinion and therefore subjective and unreliable. If this is the case then it may be rightfully concluded that the only “true” real aspect of human life,as we collectively experience it as human beings, is our empirically verifiable experience of matter to the extent that our common experiences of relational love, which all human beings, secularist or otherwise, will agree is the supreme ethic, is ultimately governed by the physically and chemically random senseless whim of the all too material atom. Therefore, to do and employ science without compromising its integrity is to pursue it thusly uninformed by ideology. Secondly, it is implied that the pursuit of scientific inquiry completely uninfluenced by any ideology is indeed possible. Otherwise, why make the statement? Therefore, the matter begs these two questions: 1) should scientific inquiry, in fact, be done uninformed by ideology? and 2) if yes, is it possible and doable?
As explained previously, the secularist’s answer to the former is a resounding “Yes.” However, this only holds true if we choose to believe that the conduct of scientific inquiry presupposes no direct consequential impact on human life whether individually or collectively. Reason dictates we take into account the pragmatic fact that any scientific pursuit will necessarily and inevitably impact humanity. To suspend this knowledge is tantamount to a less than honest assessment of humanity’s state of affairs. After all, it is doubtful that scientific pursuits are borne in a vacuum; the desire to do science precisely arose to fulfill a pragmatic human need and/or to satisfy sheer curiosity about the physical universe. Even if the latter, the satisfaction of human curiosity was, and is, never an end unto itself. It is driven, and always has been, by a more fundamental need which far exceeds our most primal instincts, that is, our need to establish our own significance. And, therefore, because it impacts human life, we are forced to reckon with the question of whether that impact is for good or for ill. This then begs one other question: by what ethical standard shall we use to determine what is good and what is ill? It is here that the notion that man can do science completely uninformed by ideology may be found untenable. Every human action, endeavor, pursuit is motivated by ideology inasmuch as it is intended to impact, directly or indirectly, others in the community of persons. Where the confusion may lie is in the semantics of the word “ideology”. As a secular fundamentalist, the mere mention of the word or anything that smacks of ideology is anathema. Connotatively, the word ideology evokes images of human atrocities inspired either by totalitarian ideologies like Nazism, fascism, and communism or, perhaps even more egregiously, by religious fundamentalism. Largely due to this, secularism, of which I was once an adherent, has successfully influenced academia, and indeed the popular culture, into thinking that ideologically influenced endeavors especially religiously informed moral decisions in the public arena are inherently wrong. But is it? Is it possible to conduct human life, individually and communally, entirely devoid of any ideology? If we define ideology by its denotative (as opposed to connotative) definition i.e. the body of doctrine and belief that guides an individual, social movement, institution or class, then the answer would necessarily have to be “no.” By that definition, ideology is essential to the conduct of human life and, therefore, to ethical decisions because it is precisely what defines for our admittedly finite human minds what is good and what is ill. We cannot will to be or to do good apart from a systematic set of beliefs (here understood as ideology) with which we may discern good or evil. Otherwise, how shall we know how to act or respond to any ethical dilemma? How are we to determine if the aim of a particular piece of scientific research is truly a good thing? The issue, therefore, is not whether we ought to do science apart from ideology. The more essential question is whether or not the ideology that informs the conduct of science is logically and morally sound. It is true that ideologies have wrought unspeakable evil throughout human history. However, does that fact, in and of itself, indicate that any ideology is wrong based solely on the fact that it IS ideology? To this, a paraphrase of Augustine of Hippo is apt: man ought not to judge an ideology by its abuse as by the consequences that arise out of its premises.
Looking back, I venture to say that back then, as a secular fundamentalist, my ethic was logically and necessarily defined by a utilitarian orientation. Owing no moral accountability to an absolute and eternal Other besides mere matter, there is no basis for determining right from wrong other than what is practically useful and beneficial for the individual as well as the general good of a community. My morality was dictated by a social contract. If it were possible to assure mutual survival, and above all, the mutual success in our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness based on the merit of a social contract, then it seems only rational that pragmatic morality constrained by social convention is the only feasible way to live peaceably in a shared world. A utilitarian and pragmatic morality constrained only by the dictates of a social contract allowed me a convenient personal morality. By that I meant it gave me license to indulge passions and appetites with relative impunity without the burden of guilt. The hope was that governing institutions would think and do likewise. It follows that any government that is likely to hinder that is necessarily suspect. And why and how is the secularist afforded this luxury? It is because without an appeal to an eternal Other that exists apart from our own human subjectivity, the value of human life is determined solely by its instrumental goodness. While the Judaeo-Christian ideology would say that human life is INTRINSICALLY good, the atheistic secularist would necessarily have to say that human life may only be INSTRUMENTALLY good if his logic were to remain consistent given its premises. An individual or society that assesses the value of human life merely upon its instrumental usefulness will necessarily have to make ethical decisions based on what is either individually or collectively pragmatic or convenient. Any religiously informed ethical deliberation may not be entertained. I can only surmise that cloaked behind the principle of the separation of church and state, this is precisely the inspiration behind then President Kennedy’s campaign address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in Houston, TX on 12 September 1960.
“…Whatever issue may come before me as President….on birth control, divorce. or censorship, gambling or any other subject—I will make my decision in accordance with….what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to do otherwise.” (as quoted in The Clash Of Orthodoxies by Robert George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University,p. 281)
While I do not advocate twisting the proverbial arm of government to placate the religious sector (for that would be wrong) I do question what ultimately guided President Kennedy’s CONSCIENCE in matters of public policy. It had to have been informed by some belief system, or ideology if you will, that gave him the discernment that the policy he has chosen to enforce is for good and not for ill. A honestly peaceful attempt to dialogue and reason with a government official on matters of public policy is hardly tantamount to arm-twisting. I suppose that what saddens me is that popular culture has come to believe that for a president to make a religiously informed public policy is tantamount to kowtowing to some perceived religious threat or that the mere fact it is religiously informed somehow makes it intellectually untenable and inferior. I do not suppose that our elected public officials, for all their erudition acquired in the lecture halls of Harvard, Princeton and Yale are convinced that public policy borne out of secularist principles is policy that is not informed by ideology. I venture to say that secularism IS a sectarian doctrine. It follows that any public policy is logically ideologically informed. For all practical intents and purposes, no public policy is borne in an ideological vacuum. It will ALWAYS and NECESSARILY be informed by some ideology. It is only a matter of which ideology holds greater sway in the culture and if, as pointed earlier, the ideology is logically and morally sound. Public policy in a democracy is almost always influenced by popular demand even if it goes against a president’s own religious convictions. It seems that ultimately, the task then is to battle for the hearts and minds of the body politic and convince popular culture of the intellectual merits of the Judaeo-Christian ideology as it were. If this is true, then what ought the Church to do to bring this about? And how? Is it to reconvene the Moral Majority or the Christian Coalition and unequivocally ally herself with a particular party? Or would the Church be better off making herself relevant to the culture in very tangible fashion by being a servant to the people first? As a former secularist myself, it seems the answer ought to be plain. It seems that, in the United States and Western Europe at least, the church has lost her relevance (or at least is perceived to have lost her relevance) because the state has taken over the church’s role in the succor of the marginalized in society. Sadly, secular historians commit academic dishonesty when they fail to give due credence to Judaeo-Christianity as having ushered in an age of pervasive humanitarian good in western civilization her abuses and dysfunctionality notwithstanding. So pervasive it was that it became the norm in a civilization once mired in barbarism and despotism. Over time throughout the history of western civilization, the popular culture, first with the literati and then the general populace, eventually deluded itself into thinking that the humanitarian good now prevalent and “normal” in modern western society were realized by a secular humanistic ethic and is altogether philosophically divorced from its Judaeo-Christian roots. Malcolm Muggeridge put it succintly, “We have educated ourselves into imbecility.” And I fear that we have, little knowing that the humanitarian good we see present today, however imperfect, were first historically borne precisely out of a Judaeo-Christian ideology. To this end, the Church is partly to blame. Since the Age of Enlightenment, the Church IT SEEMS (correct me if i am wrong here) withdrew from the public intellectual forum and chose instead to practice faith as a matter of private pursuit. Consequently, the Church practically ceded all intellectual ground in the halls of academia and thus in the public square. This, coupled with the general impression (at least in the eyes of the secularist) that the Church has totally relinquished the responsibility to succor the marginalized and the pursuit of justice and mercy to the state government, has rendered the Church culturally irrelevant.
But I digress. Back to the question of religiously informed moral judgments.
The next question, of course, is whether the merits of those religiously informed moral judgments may be defended by an appeal to objective and publicly accessible reasons without an appeal to special Judaeo-Christian revelation. I believe the answer is yes. However, the matter is too philosophically involved to be undertaken in this forum.
I imagine it would have something to do with Aquinas and his take on natural law. However, I am not sure how that would square with the Van Tilian apologetic in reform theology. 
My visit to Westminster Theological Seminary and one hour with Peter Enns were all too brief to get into it in grave detail.
So now we are left with some nagging questions. Is a secularist and relativistic morality true and correct? Is human life intrinsically good as suggested by a Judaeo-Christain ideology or is it merely valuable if it affords an individual or community some instrumental benefit? And ultimately of course, can the merits of moral judgments informed by a Judaeo-Christian ethic be defended through publicly accessible reason without appealing to Judaeo-Christian special revelation?
This has been long and grievously verbose. For that I apologize. I shall conclude this with something a priest had told me and my batch mates during our high school graduation ceremony. Fr. Leonard CMF, in relation to our school’s coat-of-arms credo, said, “Knowledge without virtue is dangerous.” The school’s credo? Scientia maxime cum virtute which means “Maximize knowledge with virtue.” I am hard pressed to believe that a secular fundamentalist can deny that. As a former secularist myself, I found I couldn’t even when I tried.
September 11th, 2009 at 4:30 pm
Tks Cesar . . . blessings to you in every area of life. Nate