Feed on
Posts
Comments

Answer the Question

As I sit here, I have just finished reading something one of my former student’s wrote concerning the point he is at in life. What is more interesting is other students who wrote back to him all agreed – all of them. I sit here as though a weight has been placed on my chest. I sit here with a lump in my throat. Here is part of what he wrote:

“Every day of my existence everything around me feels sullied by the mere fact that I’ve been there and I’ve done that. I get no enjoyment out of thrill rides, video games of any form have become tasteless because at this point everything is just a copy off one another…

Don’t get me wrong… I love being alive, I love everyone around me… Everything just becomes old fast though, yet I’ve only been alive 18 years.”

My heart is torn as I read this, but salt is poured on the open wound as I read the advice he is given. Some say to pick up an instrument or add something else in order to get over his boredom. Others agree and say they have found they must be constantly occupied in order to ignore the boredom they face.

These youth have not been taught that life is an adventure. Chesterton was right – we have rid ourselves of all imagination, of all fantasy, we have forgotten the ethics of “Elfland.” We have forgotten the fairy tales. These youth have been raised in a materialistic culture. They have been told they are a machine, that there is no evidence for a soul, and that everything has a biological cause. They have been taught this philosophical materialism. More damaging, however, is they have been taught popular materialism – their only worth is found in what they own.

They have no real hope. They speak of clinging onto the little things in life in order to avoid the boredom (despair) of life. Here are 16-18 year olds asking the big questions. These young people desire answers and desperately want to listen, but we sit here and offer them pizza parties and watered-down videos. We offer them games and upbeat music. Though these things are wrong, they are not the answers these youth are looking for.

Where are the Christians to teach the deep truths to those that ask? Where are the pastors to speak the difficult to understand truth about life? We do not teach difficult things because difficult things can’t be explained in thirty minutes. We have bought into this lie that youth have an attention span of twenty minutes or less, so we keep the lesson plan lower than that. Anyone who teaches this has never spoken with a youth.

When a youth asks a question or hears about something he cares about, he will listen for hours. He will forget about time – seconds, minutes, hours, none of it will relate to him because he won’t care. His questions are being answered. He is learning about something that he cares about.

I beg of the Christians reading this to please start encouraging your youth ministers to engage in deep studies. If your youth minister isn’t capable of doing this, then please find one that is. Fine one that has a heart for these youth. Find one that will pick them up at a party at 2am and be a father to them when needed. Find one that knows how to connect with them. But also find one that knows how to challenge them.

Questions are being asked, but no answers are being given. This is the death knell of American Christianity; if we cannot rise up today, we will not see tomorrow.

 

Did McCain Lie?

I keep hearing about how McCain lied about Obama’s promotion and “yes” vote on a bill that would have taught sex-ed to kindergartners. Obama says it was just to teach them about inappropriate touching. So, being the former debater that I am, I tracked the bill down. Here’s what it says (the final version):

 

Each  class  or  course  in  comprehensive  sex

14    education offered in any of  grades  K  6  through  12  shall

15    include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted

16    infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread

17    of HIV AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in

18    sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

19        (b)  All  public elementary, junior high, and senior high

20    school classes that teach sex education  and  discuss  sexual

21    activity   or   behavior  intercourse  shall  emphasize  that

22    abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended is

23    the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual  intercourse

24    is  the  only  protection  that  is  100%  effective  against

25    unwanted  teenage  pregnancy,  sexually transmitted diseases,

26    and HIV  acquired  immune  deficiency  syndrome  (AIDS)  when

27    transmitted sexually.

 

The original bill established that the teaching would occur in the 6th grade, when most students are 11 or 12. In today’s society, most of them already know about sex. The bill itself actually isn’t a bad bill, emphasizing abstinence, personal responsibility, and consequences for negative behavior. That was to be the crux of the bill, teaching that self-control is the best way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s. Unfortunately, the “K” was added in (all underlined material was added in prior to the bill being voted on).

The Bill itself, however, deals primarily with teen-to-teen sexual activity and doesn’t really deal with pedophilia or “inappropriate touching” as Obama says. Section 7, lines 8-26 deal with how to turn down sexual advances, but it’s mostly in the context of peer pressure and doesn’t specify “this is all that shall be taught to kindergartners.” Furthermore, this section was added as an afterthought; it was not part of the original bill. In fact, state Senator Iris Martinez – one of the sponsors of the bill – when asked if the bill was specifically about touching, said, “Absolutely not.”

There is nothing designating that anyone below the 6h grade wouldn’t be subject to any of the above. Though the very first lines of section one do designate that a child can opt out via a guardian’s signature, there is nothing (that I saw) saying that a parent/guardian has to know that the child is enrolled in the class.

Again, it actually is a good bill in its original format (which was 6 – 12) that addresses a much-needed issue. However, I think both conservatives and liberals (at least those that still have sanity) can admit that a 6-year-old learning about sex details robs that child of his innocence.

In other words, McCain didn’t lie at all. The ad is accurate – Obama supported a bill that would have allowed teachers to explain detailed aspects of sexuality with 5 and 6 year olds. Certainly McCain has embellished other things in ads and taken unnecessary swipes at Obama (such as comparing Obama to Paris Hilton), but this one just is not it. There’s no wording in the bill that would prevent a teacher from teaching intricate details about sex to a six year old.

Not that I am trying to be a conservative mouthpiece, I just don’t like injustice and less-than-truthful statements. 

It’s not about race

Jack Cafferty at CNN has come out and said the main reason the polls in the US Presidential Election are so close is because of race. As he argues:

“The differences between Barack Obama and John McCain couldn’t be more well-defined. Obama wants to change Washington. McCain is a part of Washington and a part of the Bush legacy. Yet the polls remain close. Doesn’t make sense…unless it’s race.”

The sad part of Cafferty’s article is that there is some truth to what he’s saying. There are some people out there who, even if Obama were a carbon copy of Reagan in terms of policy, wouldn’t vote for him because of his skin color. It’s unfortunate that we still live in a nation where someone wouldn’t vote for someone of a different race, even if that candidate were more than qualified and would be good for America.

At the same time, if we go off stereotypes (and complete the irony), wouldn’t most of these people who wouldn’t vote for a black man no matter what also struggle with voting for a female vice president? Granted, not every racist is also a sexist (and not every sexist is a racist), but it’s fair to assume that someone who is closed-minded enough to be a racist is likewise a sexist. Continue Reading »

Adding onto the “Christian and Abortion Series” - 

 

Lately a lot of Christians have been coming out and saying they’re pro-choice, declaring they’re not necessarily for abortion, but they are for the right of the woman to choose. I want to look at some of the arguments for this and argue why a Christian simply cannot be pro-Choice:

1)   “We have no right to tell a woman what to do with her own body.”

 

This argument has been dealt with already in another post I made concerning abortion. I argued:

 

This way of thinking assumes too much - it assumes that we can do whatever we want to our bodies without having a communal consequence. However, there are times where what I do to my body will inevitably affect those around me (i.e. if I inject myself with an airborne disease, because it will harm those around me I do not have the right to do such a thing). Almost everyone would argue that if we take an action against our body that negatively affects others, that action shouldn’t be taken.

 

In this case, the child in the womb is ontologically separate from the mother, though reliant. That is to say, the child really isn’t part of the mother’s body. The mother plays host to the body. If a guest comes into your house, eats your food, drinks your water, and sleeps in your bed, does that guest belong to you? Of course not - the guest, though reliant upon you, is not a part of who you are.

 

The counter to the above argument is that the baby, especially early on, is made up of cells provided by the mother. This is true, but completely irrelevant. No female can spontaneously produce a child without any fertilization from a male. This means that the baby isn’t entirely made up of the mother’s cells, which would seem to indicate that the child in the womb isn’t really part of the mother’s body (in the same way an arm, heart, or lung is part of the mother’s body).

 

All of this means that the child growing within the mother is really a body inside a body and not just an extension of the mother’s body. It contains foreign matter (via sperm) that is not natural to the mother’s body. If that is true, an abortion is an act that is taken out on the mother’s body that severely affects the child (through death). This would mean that abortion is highly immoral since it is a selfish action that harms an innocent party.

 

In short, a baby simply isn’t a part or an extension of the mother’s body, but instead a separate being that is reliant upon the mother.

 

In light of this, though we might not have a right to tell a woman what to do with her own body, we do have a right to tell her what to do with her body when her actions affect a living human being.

  Continue Reading »

Bedfellows with the law

In the United States the election season is in full swing. It is a time when people become extremely concerned with what candidate will be elected, the direction of the country, and what they can do to change the course of America. Every four years, the American people revolt against the system and vote in a new leader, or they show support of the system by electing in the same leader (or one like the previous leader). In the midst of all this are the Christians.

Christianity in the last two centuries has been quite interesting. It was paid lip service for most of the 19th century, became quite irrelevant in politics in the early and mid 20th century, and came back into full-force in the early 1980’s. The ‘Religious Right’ was born and attempted to legislate Christian morality.

It was originally a reaction to the issue of abortion, but then began to tackle other issues as well (such as homosexual marriages and the disintegration of the family). As time progressed it began to take more and more stances on issues that weren’t necessarily supported Biblically, such as a Capitalist structure. More and more it found itself in bed with the Republican Party as an ally and not just a co-belligerent.

With this newfound alliance, many Christian leaders began endorsing politicians, taking up political causes, getting petitions signed, and partaking in protests. Yet, the louder Christians became the less irrelevant they seemed. There is a reason for this.

In our pursuit of political purity we forgot one simple rule; individuality. We forgot that legislation cannot change a culture, but can merely hold back the underpinnings of change within that culture. Legislation doesn’t force a person to think a certain way. Legislation doesn’t force a life change. Legislation only forces people to comply with a moral standard. We forgot about the individual.

We forget that if we truly want to see abortion – both legal and illegal – come to an end, we need to reach out to single mothers and at risk ladies. We forget that if we want to see Welfare slowly dwindle then we need to stop moving out into the suburbs, building million dollar idols to our own achievements in membership, and instead focus our monetary gains on helping the needy and under privileged. We forget that if instead of protesting a homosexual rally or banning homosexual marriage that we should instead demonstrate the love of Christ to homosexuals and bring them to Christ, where sanctification can save them from such a lifestyle.

This is not to say the law isn’t important – it is important to challenge immoral laws. One would be hard pressed to argue that William Wilberforce wasn’t an amazing Christian for engaging the law and eventually getting slavery outlawed in the British Empire. This legislative act, however, didn’t change the view white people had toward black people – the segregation, the racism, and the like still existed. The law prevented the action, but didn’t stop the sentiment. In our own day, though we should use the law to ban immoral practices (such as abortion), we should likewise reach out to the individuals.

The only way to cause actual change within a society is to convince individual people that their worldviews aren’t correct and are inconsistent. It is bringing people to Christ – or even in a minimalist view, a Judeo-Christian ethic – that changes a culture and changes a society. When this occurs, the laws naturally follow.

Instead of wondering which candidate will bring about the most change, Christians instead should concern themselves with reaching out to individuals and bringing the change themselves. 

How does reason work with Christianity? It seems that in the modern age we like to put them opposite of each other. There is ‘reasoning’ and ‘Spirit guided living,’ and never the two shall meet. Yet, this isn’t exactly the Biblical model for reasoning. Here I plan to offer a defense of Christian reasoning by opening with a section from a previous article I wrote: Continue Reading »

In my last post I wrote about a conversation I had with Tony Jones and Doug Pagitt and also alluded to the conversation my friend had with Mark Scandrette. Mark decided to respond on my friend’s blog and it was a very illuminating and helpful reply.

Even though it helps illuminate Mark’s viewpoint – and I think he was a bit too quick to say that we’re trying to fulfill a theological agenda – I’m still bothered by some things. For those interested, you can read his reply here (in fact, it’d make more sense to read his reply before reading my concerns). Continue Reading »

Imagine jumping in a time machine and going back to 1908  - you find yourself in a revival almost a decade after the turn of the century. It’s a time of change, a time of questioning, and a time of theological challenges. This is what Tony Jones (The New Christians), Doug Pagitt (A Christianity Worth Believing), and Mark Scandrette (Soul Graffiti) attempt to do in The Church Basement Roadshow: A Rollin’ Gospel Revival. Taking on characters of the time period, they do an excellent job of acting the part of turn-of-the-century revivalists. What I want to talk about, however, is the parts where they break character and read and explain portions of their books.

The first one to break character is Doug Pagitt – he sits there and reads from his book, explaining his conversion experience. Not having grown up hearing about Jesus, he is introduced to Jesus through a recently converted friend. Shortly after accepting Christ, he is sat down by two men who are supposed to disciple him and they explain deep, complex methods of theology to this new Christian with no background in Christianity. They then gave him a train illustration about how there are three ‘cars’ to Christianity: facts (driving the train), faith (behind the facts), and feelings…separated from the rest of the train. They told him that no matter what he’s feeling, he needed to trust in facts and faith. Doug went onto say that he has never struggled when it was left up to his feelings and faith; the struggle begins when we are introduced to belief systems.

Continue Reading »

Today I watched a little girl try her hardest to run away from her father at the grocery store. He finally let her go explore the massive store, but of course kept an eye on her while staying out of sight. Eventually she got lost – easy to do when you’re little – and began to worry, then panic, and then cry. Her father came around the corner and she ran up to him and grabbed onto his leg tightly. Five minutes before she wanted to leave him, but now, after having her way, she wanted nothing more than to hold onto him.

Humans are a lot like that with God. We hate the idea of a sovereign God because it ruins this idea of free will. We love the ability to choose. We love the idea that we can make our own plans, we can make our destiny, we are in control. Sure, if things get tight God will come along and rescue us, but for the most part He leaves us be. Continue Reading »

There is no doubt that we are entering a cynical age – every idea, every glimmer of hope, every statement made by an authority figure – everything is to be questioned. Barack Obama was seen as this great hope and savior until he started listing some of his plans and ideas. So long as he simply said, “there is hope” and “there is change coming” people didn’t question how this hope or change would come about. Now that he is mentioning some of his plans, he has become nothing more than another joke on The Daily Show, another false hope produced by a secular society.

Generation X and, even more so, the generation following it (those born 1984-2000) has grown up an extremely nihilistic generation. I do not mean nihilistic in the way The Big Lebowski means it (where they care about nothing), but instead in what I believe to be the mantra of nihilism: de omnibus dubitandum (“everything is to be doubted”). Many people associate this saying with Descartes, but I believe it is Nietzsche that understood the real impact of the term.

In the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil Nietzsche uses this term and applies it to all previous Enlightenment thinkers, including Descartes. He argues that Descartes, Kant, Rousseau, and even Hume all took this mantra for granted by never questioning their own existence, their own thinking, their own absolutes, or in the case of Kant, his own synthetic a priori judgments and categorical imperatives. Nietzsche, instead, argued that we should question everything and that we may not come up with an answer to the question – we should simply question. Continue Reading »

Older Posts »