On Anger and Justice

By Greg Peters
Scriptorium

The New Testament is filled with teaching against anger:

(1) anger is to be put away (Ephesians 4:31; Colossians 3:8);
(2) whoever is angry is in danger of judgment (Matthew 5:22);
(3) anger is one of the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-20);
(4) anger does not bring out God’s righteousness (James 1:20);
(5) anger is the prerogative of God, not man (Romans 12:19); and
(6) anger must not cause us to sin (Ephesians 4:26).

Yet, you may be thinking, “but Jesus was angry.” This is true as we learn from Mark 3:5: “He looked around at them in anger….” In spite of this, I do not want to concentrate on God’s anger, for it surely is not the same as our anger considering that God is completely holy and we wholly corrupt. The anger of God is a deliberate reaction to all that violates his holy nature whereas our anger is retributive.

...

In conclusion, we must now answer the question, how do we overcome the vice of anger with the virtue of justice? Well, the answer is quite simple: we must always remember that when we become angry it is because of sin – whether our own or someone else’s. Our anger is never (or rarely) righteous and is motivated out of a desire for revenge. God, on the other hand, acts against people who have offended his holy and righteous nature. God’s response to anger is always just. This is illustrated well in Psalm 73. (more)

The Closing of the American Mind Revisited

By R. R. Reno
First Things

Higher education has become, argued Bloom, the professional training of clever and sybaritic animals, who drink, vomit, and fornicate in the dorms by night while they posture critically and ironically by day. Bloom identified moral relativism as dogma that blessed what he called “the civilized reanimalization of man.” He saw a troubling, dangerous, and soulless apathy that pleasured itself prudently with passing satisfactions (“Always use condoms!” says the sign by the dispenser in the bathroom) but was moved by no desire to know good or evil, truth or falsehood, beauty or ugliness.
...
Leaders in Catholic education should revisit Bloom’s spiritual diagnosis. To a large extent, a similar worry about passionless, commitment-free inquiry dominates John Paul II’s teaching on education, philosophy, and the dignity of reason. In Fides et Ratio, the late pope expressed a great concern that contemporary intellectual culture has lost touch with “the search for ultimate truth,” and as does Bloom, John Paul II evokes the danger of relativism. We should beware “an undifferentiated pluralism,” he writes, for an easy celebration of “difference” undermines our desire for truth and reduces everything to mere opinion.
...

I don’t think that the lectern should be turned into a pulpit, but the soul of Catholic education requires classrooms haunted by the authority of the Church and the holiness of her saints. That was the actual, experienced effect of the old system, when large numbers of faculty were priests and nuns.

Every culture demands and prohibits, encourages and exhorts. The desire to have a university free from demands, a classroom sanitized and unhaunted, is nothing short of desiring an education free from culture. Many professors and administrators today desire this kind of education. For multiculturalism, “diversity,” and disembodied “critical thinking” add up to an imaginary, spectral meta-culture that is, by definition, no culture at all. And as I have said, students are not stupid. They realize that an education free from the commanding truths of culture is an invitation to live as clever, well-trained, and socially productive animals; and like all good students, they live up to the expectations. (more)

L'Eggo My Lego

By Maureen Martin
TCS Daily

A ban was initiated at the Hilltop Children's Center in Seattle. According to an article in the winter 2006-07 issue of "Rethinking Schools" magazine, the teachers at the private school wanted their students to learn that private property ownership is evil.
...
The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive." (more)

The Dawkins Confusion

By Alvin Plantinga
ChristianityToday

Here is where that alleged massive improbability of theism is relevant. If theism is false, then (apart from certain weird suggestions we can safely ignore) evolution is unguided. But it is extremely likely, Dawkins thinks, that theism is false. Hence it is extremely likely that evolution is unguided—in which case to establish it as true, he seems to think, all that is needed is to refute those claims that it is impossible. So perhaps we can think about his Blind Watchmaker argument as follows: he is really employing as an additional if unexpressed premise his idea that the existence of God is enormously unlikely. If so, then the argument doesn't seem quite so magnificently invalid. (It is still invalid, however, even if not quite so magnificently—you can't establish something as a fact by showing that objections to its possibility fail, and adding that it is very probable.)
...

From a theistic point of view, we'd expect that our cognitive faculties would be (for the most part, and given certain qualifications and caveats) reliable. God has created us in his image, and an important part of our image bearing is our resembling him in being able to form true beliefs and achieve knowledge. But from a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive, but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he'd have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It's as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.

If this is so, the naturalist has a defeater for the natural assumption that his cognitive faculties are reliable—a reason for rejecting that belief, for no longer holding it. (Example of a defeater: suppose someone once told me that you were born in Michigan and I believed her; but now I ask you, and you tell me you were born in Brazil. That gives me a defeater for my belief that you were born in Michigan.) And if he has a defeater for that belief, he also has a defeater for any belief that is a product of his cognitive faculties. But of course that would be all of his beliefs—including naturalism itself. So the naturalist has a defeater for naturalism; natural- ism, therefore, is self-defeating and cannot be rationally believed.

The real problem here, obviously, is Dawkins' naturalism, his belief that there is no such person as God or anyone like God. That is because naturalism implies that evolution is unguided. So a broader conclusion is that one can't rationally accept both naturalism and evolution; naturalism, therefore, is in conflict with a premier doctrine of contemporary science. People like Dawkins hold that there is a conflict between science and religion because they think there is a conflict between evolution and theism; the truth of the matter, however, is that the conflict is between science and naturalism, not between science and belief in God. (more)

Markets and Miracles: What the Market Economy Needs to be Moral

By Joe Carter
The Evangelical Outpost

Today we have become so accustomed to hearing criticisms of free market economics from socialists, Marxists, and other extremes of the political left that we find it difficult to imagine that it being opposed by conservatives. Attitudes toward the market economy, however, have less to do with the political spectrum than they do with the conception of who should retain control over economic life. Progressives, fearing that no one is in control and that powerful will take advantage of the weak, believe the state must step in to prevent inequitable and unjust outcomes. Conservatives (as we would define them today), by contrast, put their faith in the system itself and believe that left unhindered by the state, is sufficient to lead to the best possible end result. Libertarians, who view markets as morally neutral, contend that the individual, when allowed total liberty, will usher in the ideal end state. While all of these positions have some merit, they all ultimately fail when they leave out the most significant reason for putting our trust in the markets: because all control ultimately belongs to God. (more)

Simply Lewis

By N. T. Wright
Touchstone

I have something of the same feeling on re-reading C. S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity. I owe Lewis a great debt. In my late teens and early twenties I read everything of his I could get my hands on, and read some of his paperbacks and essays several times over. There are sentences, and some whole passages, I know pretty much by heart.

Millions around the world have been introduced to, and nurtured within, the Christian faith through his work where their own preachers and teachers were not giving them what they needed. That was certainly true of me. (more)

Bono Still Hasn’t Found What He’s Looking For

By Ryan T. Anderson
First Things

Buying overpriced luxury items—the true meaning of the Parable of the Good-Looking Samaritan. Anyway, it’s been a year now, and the results seem poor. Unhappy with the Advertising Age report, the CEO of (RED) issued a public response. It makes some valid points: The money was going to be spent on product advertising anyway, so we might as well raise awareness about AIDS in Africa and raise some money at the same time. Certainly the sick in Africa aren’t sneering at the $18 million. For many, it has been the difference between life and death.

But there is something wrongheaded—even repulsive—about the approach. Turning the life-and-death plight of an entire continent into just another advertising strategy. Making charitable giving a matter of satisfying consumerist desires. Attempting to solve African need by Western greed.

...

Just sign our petition! Just call President Bush! Wear our wristband! That’s all it takes to make poverty history! You don’t even need to give a dime!

What a bizarre method. Why not appeal to our consciences directly and ask every American to donate 1 percent of our personal budget to the poverty-fighting charity of our choice? The ONE Campaign made significant inroads with the religious communities—having them demand more from the government. Why not ask for a tithe? Why not call for personal contributions instead of political noise-making?

But that would require sacrifice. And that wouldn’t sell. Nor would it be trendy. It’s so much easier to say we can fight AIDS by buying Armani and Gap. It’s so much easier to say we’ll end world poverty by telling Congress to do something about it. My “good-looking” “fine self” sleeps so much better at night knowing that my (RED) purchase has bought pills for someone in Africa, that my signature on the ONE declaration means I’ve done my part. (more)

What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation

By Joe Carter
The Evangelical Outpost

Although the split with the Catholic Church was tragically necessary, the reconciliation into one visible body should be an ecclesiological goal. In this area Catholics have often taken the lead in imparting a spirit of ecumenism. Documents such as Ut unum sint reflect the seriousness which Catholics approach the “call for Christian unity.”

Such unity, of course, must be predicated on acceptance of Biblical truths. Evangelicals can never abandon our commitment to such doctrines as sola fide (salvation by faith alone) in order to achieve consensus. We should, however, be constantly praying that the Spirit will reconcile the invisible church into one holy, catholic, apostolic, and visible Body of Christ.

Unlike Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, Sen. Sam Brownback, and Professor Steve Bainbridge, I won’t be crossing the Tiber. Because the theological differences I have with Catholicism are deep-rooted and currently irresolvable, I’ll remain an unabashedly Reformed evangelical. Yet I, like many evangelicals, have a deep love, respect, and admiration for my fellow believers in the Catholic Church. However much we might disagree, we evangelicals owe them a debt of gratitude for being co-belligerents, fellow servants, and exemplars of the faith. (more)

The 300: Must We Celebrate War to Fight?

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium

There are worse things than death for a Christian. One is to stand idly by while the innocent in our charge are threatened and made to live in a manner unworthy of creatures created in the image of God.

Almost all Christians at all times have scorned the easy virtue of pacifism which too often allows the dead letter of a principle to over ride real world compassion. Like the ignoble Pharisees of old, the pacifist puts his own personal purity over the hard work of doing justice in a fallen world.

But war is not a good thing for any Christian, we long for peace. Our paradise is no haven for warriors to feast and recount their bloody deeds. The Prince of Peace, our Savior, himself takes up His heavenly sword, but only after giving His own blood to try to make peace with His foes.

We hate war, but we are willing to fight if we must in a just cause. The pagan Spartans loved War and were happy to fight. The parasitic pacifist hates War and is too short sighted to wage justice.

...

Against the 300 who would die to preserve the slave state of Sparta (so much like that of the American Confederacy), the Christian republican places the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

Never vote for a party that cannot sing this song and mean it. (more)

Sex in the Body of Christ

By Lauren F. Winner
ChristianityToday

What is chastity? One way of putting it is that chastity is doing sex in the body of Christ—doing sex in a way that befits the body of Christ, and that keeps you grounded, and bounded, in the community.

Sex is, in Paul's image, a joining of your body to someone else's. In baptism, you have become Christ's body, and it is Christ's body that must give you permission to join his body to another body. In the Christian grammar, we have no right to sex. The place where the church confers that privilege on you is the wedding; weddings grant us license to have sex with one person. Chastity, in other words, is a fact of gospel life. In the New Testament, sex beyond the boundaries of marriage—the boundaries of communally granted sanction of sex—is simply off limits. To have sex outside those bounds is to commit an offense against the body. Abstinence before marriage, and fidelity within marriage; any other kind of sex is embodied apostasy.

Chastity, then, is a basic rule of the community, but it is not a mere rule. It is also a discipline. (more)

The Myth of Moral Neutrality

By Greg Koukl
Townhall.com

Gen. Peter Pace was vehemently denounced and condemned earlier this week for expressing a personal moral judgment that homosexuality is immoral. The criticisms excoriated Pace for making a value judgment, while implying that the denunciations themselves were morally neutral. In reality, Pace’s critics expressed a moral judgment, too. They declared his comments wrong, not just factually but morally – and their moral outrage was palpable.

Let me make this clear up front: All people regardless of their sexual orientation or other differences should be treated fairly. We all have equal intrinsic value and dignity. But the goal of gay rights advocates isn't so much to gain rights they are being denied as to gain societal approval. Thus the loud denunciations when Pace made a moral judgment. All the while, these advocates claim that that theirs is the neutral moral position. It isn't, and really can't be. But their objection conveys a fundamental assumption of many in our society today that one side of the public debate is "pushing its morality" on society, when in fact that is what the nature of their advocacy accomplishes. (more)

Was it Something I Said? Continuing to Think About Homosexuality

By Al Mohler

Here is a haunting question to consider. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the Apostle Paul condemns an entire list of sins, including explicit references to homosexuality. Then he reminds the church, "such were some of you." The complete text reads: "Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God" [1 Corinthians 6:11]. God brings glory to himself through the salvation of sinners -- and Paul includes homosexuality in that list. Why do we not see more redeemed sinners testifying to the grace of God in bringing them out of the sin of homosexuality? Could it be because many churches would rather just isolate themselves from persons in this category of sin? (more)

Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

By Al Mohler

Christians who are committed to think in genuinely Christian terms should think carefully about these points:

1. There is, as of now, no incontrovertible or widely accepted proof that any biological basis for sexual orientation exists.

2. Nevertheless, the direction of the research points in this direction. Research into the sexual orientation of sheep and other animals, as well as human studies, points to some level of biological causation for sexual orientation in at least some individuals.

3. Given the consequences of the Fall and the effects of human sin, we should not be surprised that such a causation or link is found. After all, the human genetic structure, along with every other aspect of creation, shows the pernicious effects of the Fall and of God's judgment.

4. The biblical condemnation of all homosexual behaviors would not be compromised or mitigated in the least by such a discovery. The discovery of a biological factor would not change the Bible's moral verdict on homosexual behavior.

5. The discovery of a biological basis for homosexuality would be of great pastoral significance, allowing for a greater understanding of why certain persons struggle with these particular sexual temptations.

6. The biblical basis for establishing the dignity of all persons -- the fact that all humans are made in God's image -- reminds us that this means all persons, including those who may be marked by a predisposition toward homosexuality. For the sake of clarity, we must insist at all times that all persons -- whether identified as heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, or whatever -- are equally made in the image of God.

7. Thus, we will gladly contend for the right to life of all persons, born and unborn, whatever their sexual orientation. We must fight against the idea of aborting fetuses or human embryos identified as homosexual in orientation.

8. If a biological basis is found, and if a prenatal test is then developed, and if a successful treatment to reverse the sexual orientation to heterosexual is ever developed, we would support its use as we should unapologetically support the use of any appropriate means to avoid sexual temptation and the inevitable effects of sin.

9. We must stop confusing the issues of moral responsibility and moral choice. We are all responsible for our sexual orientation, but that does not mean that we freely and consciously choose that orientation. We sin against homosexuals by insisting that sexual temptation and attraction are predominately chosen. We do not always (or even generally) choose our temptations. Nevertheless, we are absolutely responsible for what we do with sinful temptations, whatever our so-called sexual orientation.

10. Christians must be very careful not to claim that science can never prove a biological basis for sexual orientation. We can and must insist that no scientific finding can change the basic sinfulness of all homosexual behavior. The general trend of the research points to at least some biological factors behind sexual attraction, gender identity, and sexual orientation. This does not alter God's moral verdict on homosexual sin (or heterosexual sin, for that matter), but it does hold some promise that a deeper knowledge of homosexuality and its cause will allow for more effective ministries to those who struggle with this particular pattern of temptation. If such knowledge should ever be discovered, we should embrace it and use it for the greater good of humanity and for the greater glory of God. (more)

Buying Alaska or Why Good Foreign Policy is Still Good Even If Done for A Bad Reason

By John Mark Reynolds
Scriptorium

It is important to keep the lessons of the Alaska sale in mind when looking at foreign policy today. Something that is a good idea on general principles is still a good idea . . . even if the political or immediate motives fall through. History has a way of rewarding good long term thinking, even if the short term planning goes awry.

The Bush administration has made some good long term decisions in Iraq . . . but sold it with some bad short term reasoning.

Getting rid of Sadaam, putting American bases in the Middle East, and building a friendly more stable Iraq are all good ideas that could still put Bush on Rushmore.

In a Global War on Terror a man like Sadaam who was busy cozying up to every anti-American force for evil on the planet could not be tolerated.

Getting rid of a lunatic like Sadaam is good on general principles. Putting a more responsible government in the region is also a good idea . . . and if it turns out to be even a bit democratic might change the region forever.

History will judge such long term wisdom kindly. (more)

The Case for Teaching The Bible

By David Van Biema
Time

Is it constitutional?

TOWARD THE BEGINNING OF THE COURT'S string of school-secularization cases, the most eloquent language preserving the neutral study of religion was probably Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1948 case McCollum v. Board of Education: "One can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for ... which he is being prepared," Jackson wrote, and warned that putting all references to God off limits would leave public education "in shreds." In the 1963 Schempp decision, the exemption for secular study of Scripture was explicit and in the majority opinion: "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment," wrote Justice Tom C. Clark. Justice Arthur Goldberg contributed a helpful distinction between "the teaching of religion" (bad) and "teaching about religion" (good). Citing these and subsequent cases, Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says, "It is beyond question that it is possible to teach a course about the Bible that is constitutional." For over a decade, he says, any legal challenges to school Bible courses have focused not on the general principle but on whether the course in question was sufficiently neutral in its approach.

...

So what? I'm not a very religious person

SIMPLY PUT, THE BIBLE IS THE MOST influential book ever written. Not only is the Bible the best-selling book of all time, it is the best-selling book of the year every year. In a 1992 survey of English teachers to determine the top-10 required "book-length works" in high school English classes, plays by Shakespeare occupied three spots and the Bible none. And yet, let's compare the two: Beauty of language: Shakespeare, by a nose. Depth of subject matter: toss-up. Breadth of subject matter: the Bible. Numbers published, translated etc: Bible. Number of people martyred for: Bible. Number of wars attributed to: Bible. Solace and hope provided to billions: you guessed it. And Shakespeare would almost surely have agreed. According to one estimate, he alludes to Scripture some 1,300 times. As for the rest of literature, when your seventh-grader reads The Old Man and the Sea, a teacher could tick off the references to Christ's Passion--the bleeding of the old man's palms, his stumbles while carrying his mast over his shoulder, his hat cutting his head--but wouldn't the thrill of recognition have been more satisfying on their/own? (more)

Defining Marriage Down Is No Way to Save It

By David Blankenhorn
The Weekly Standard

Does permitting same-sex marriage weaken marriage as a social institution? Or does extending to gay and lesbian couples the right to marry have little or no effect on marriage overall? Scholars and commentators have expended much effort trying in vain to wring proof of causation from the data--all the while ignoring the meaning of some simple correlations that the numbers do indubitably show.
...
By itself, the "conservative case" for gay marriage might be attractive. It would be gratifying to extend the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples--if gay marriage and marriage renewal somehow fit together. But they do not. As individuals and as a society, we can strive to maintain and strengthen marriage as a primary social institution and society's best welfare plan for children (some would say for men and women too). Or we can strive to implement same-sex marriage. But unless we are prepared to tear down with one hand what we are building up with the other, we cannot do both. (more)

"Rights Talk" Collides with Right and Wrong

By Al Mohler

An absolute "right" to an abortion for any reason or no reason at all -- a cardinal principle of modern feminism -- runs right into the fact that this means the killing of females by the millions. The United Nations, a body as obsessed with rights as any other, cannot even respond with coherent moral outrage.

No structure of "rights" can long survive without a clear and substantial moral foundation. In other words, matters of right and wrong must come before claims to abstract "rights." Just ask the millions of missing baby girls. (more)

Let's Think About Sex: Sex Education Programs and Critical Moral Reasoning

By Joe Carter
The Evangelical Outpost

If forced to choose I would be firmly on the abstinence only side. But I believe the debate is rooted in a misguided focus on a false dilemma. Both approaches are primarily concerned with indoctrination toward a particular viewpoint and inoculation against the effects of certain behavior. Neither is concerned with providing an "education", in the truest sense of the term. The abstinence advocates, for example, want teens to "just say no" while the comprehensive crowd want students to "just wear a condom." Both are more concerned about "effectiveness" than with teaching teens how to think for themselves about human sexuality. (more)

There Are No New Heresies -- New Thought Isn't New

By Al Mohler

Look closely at a claim that appears on the Web site of the Understanding Principles of Better Living Church and, most interestingly, is also offered by the minister of the Unity congregation. They both claim to teach how to think, not what to think. This statement implies that the groups offer no doctrine, merely a route to transformed thinking.

But the claim is false -- and must always be false. The distinction between how to think and what to think is artificial. It is sloganeering and advertising, not serious thought. Every pattern of thinking is based on certain presuppositions and leads to certain conclusions. A pattern of thinking that begins with relativism as a presupposition will inevitably (if at all consistent) lead to relativistic conclusions. In other words, when it comes to thinking, there is no how that does not include a what.

You cannot begin with the presupposition that you are the center of the Universe and then reason to conclusions that are in any way consistent with the Bible. You cannot get from the presupposition that you are a sinless victim of negative thinking to the conclusion that the cross of Christ is the answer to our deepest need. You cannot reason from the presupposition that you can cope with all your problems by the exercise of positive mental imagery to the conclusion that your greatest need is for a Savior. The how is a what when it comes to thinking about anything of importance. (more)

How to read a lot of books in a short time

By Matthew Cornell

Naturally, because my goal is to learn, the reading involves work. But the question is: How can one read efficiently, capture relevant ideas in a usable way, and keep the process sustainable and enjoyable? The rest of my post summarizes the best solutions I've found, but the most useful technique comes from Jason Womack [3], and synthesizes nicely the most common ideas. In a nutshell, he says he reads the book four times:

1. Table of contents, glossary, index.
   
2. Anything in bold, titles, and subtitles.
   
3. First line of every paragraph.
   
4. Entire book

(more)

What Books Should I Read on the Trinity? A Top Ten List

By Fred Sanders

Every few months I get e-mails from people asking what books I would recommend on the Trinity. These are not requests for the latest scholarly work. They’re not focused inquiries with specific topics in mind. Nor are they requests for the greatest books of all time on the doctrine of the Trinity, the kind of thing I would use in a seminar class on the doctrine. These are just people asking, “I heard you talking about the Trinity, and I want to think harder about that doctrine. What books are in print (or not far out of print), readable, and broadly trustworthy on this subject?” (more)

The Reality Based Community: How Faith in Jesus Avoids Utopian Fallacies

by John Mark Reynolds

I try to explain that this is not faith . . . at least not Christian faith. Faith is believing things despite some contrary evidence. It is building a view of the world based first on things we know beyond a reasonable doubt (though we can still have doubts on a very dark and terrible night of the soul!) and then building on that foundation to ideas we can accept that seem (on the whole) better than their contrary. (more)

Do Democrats think Billy Graham is Immoral?

By John Mark Reynolds

Instead, what the Pope thinks about homosexuality is called “divisive” by Senator Obama. So much for his outreach to Evangelical voters who evidently only support marriage because they want to divide the nation!

...

Are the two leading candidates for the Democrat nomination for President saying that every traditional Jew, Christian, Islamic person in the United States have an immoral position?

Are the majority of Americans immoral? (more)