at least you can be a horrible warning.
Quoted by Pastor Francis Anfuso in “Perfectly Positioned”
We Need Better Christians February 8, 2010
To talk of “better” Christians is to use language foreign to many persons. To them all Christians are alike; all have been justified and forgiven and are the children of God, so to make comparisons between them is to suggest division and bigotry and any number of horrible things.
What is forgotten is that a Christian is a born-one, an embodiment of growing life, and as such may be retarded, stunted, undernourished or injured very much as any other organism. Favorable conditions will produce a stronger and healthier organism than will adverse conditions. Lack of proper instructions, for instance, will stunt Christian growth. A clear example of this is found in Acts 19, where an imperfect body of truth had produced a corresponding imperfect type of Christian. It took Paul, with a fuller degree of truth, to bring these stunted disciples into a better and healthier spiritual state.
Unfortunately it is possible for a whole generation of Christians to be victims of poor teaching, low moral standards and unscriptural or extra-scriptural doctrines, resulting in stunted growth and retarded development. It is little less than stark tragedy that an individual Christian may pass from youth to old age in a state of suspended growth and all his life be unaware of it.
Those who would question the truth of this have only to read the First Epistle to the Corinthians and the Book of Hebrews. And even a slight acquaintance with church history will add all the further proof that is needed. Today there exist in the world certain Christian bodies whose histories date far back. These have perpetuated themselves after their kind for hundreds of years, but they have managed to produce nothing but weak, stunted Christians, if Christians they can be called. Common charity forbids that we identify these by name, but any enlightened believer will understand.
Evangelicalism as we know it today in its various manifestations does produce some real Christians. We have no wish to question this; we desire rather to assert it unequivocally. But the spiritual climate into which many modern Christians are born does not make for vigorous spiritual growth. Indeed, the whole evangelical world is to a large extent unfavorable to healthy Christianity. And I am not thinking of Modernism either. I mean rather the Bible-believing crowd that bears the name of orthodoxy.
We may as well face it: the whole level of spirituality among us is low. We have measured ourselves by ourselves until the incentive to seek higher plateaus in the things of the Spirit is all but gone. Large and influential sections of the world of fundamental Christianity have gone overboard for practices wholly unscriptural, altogether unjustifiable in the light of historic Christian truth and deeply damaging to the inner life of the individual Christian. They have imitated the world, sought popular favor, manufactured delights to substitute for the joy of the Lord and produced a cheap and synthetic power to substitute for the power of the Holy Ghost. The glowworm has taken the place of the bush that burned and scintillating personalities now answer to the fire that fell at Pentecost.
The fact is that we are not today producing saints. We are making converts to an effete type of Christianity that bears little resemblance to that of the New Testament. The average so-called Bible Christian in our times is but a wretched parody on true sainthood. Yet we put millions of dollars behind movements to perpetuate this degenerate form of religion and attack the man who dares to challenge the wisdom of it.
Clearly we must begin to produce better Christians. We must insist on New Testament sainthood for our converts, nothing less; and we must lead them into a state of heart purity, fiery love, separation from the world and poured-out devotion to the Person of Christ. Only in this way can the low level of spirituality be raised again to where it should be in the light of the Scriptures and of eternal values.
A.W. Tozer, Of God and Men
Of Republicans…Equality…and Relevance… January 11, 2010
I stopped by B. Dalton on my way to work this morning to browse through Michael Steele’s new book “Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda”. He includes a chapter on “Tolerance, Equal Rights and a Culture of Freedom” and I was curious what he would have to say about equality, not just because he is black, but because a proper understanding of equality is essential to the significance and survival of our party (and our nation) – something we have utterly failed to grasp of late. Steele devoted all of a page and a half to the subject, with equality relegated to one-third of one of the 12-steps, sandwiched between two other issues. It is incomprehensible to me that Republicans should overlook this most fundamental of principles, since the party was founded on the belief that all men really are created equal.
Let’s not forget that it was Stephen Douglas, the Democratic senator from Illinois, who introduced the Kansas-Nebraska Act to expand slavery across the new territories. Let’s not forget it was Douglas, the Democratic incumbent who said, “I do not believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had any reference to negroes when they used the expression that all men were created equal…They were speaking only of the white race, and never dreamed that their language would be construed to include the negro.” Of course Douglas couched his arguments for slavery in ardent states-rights language, but the basis for those arguments, his platform – and the platform of his party – was to preserve the lifestyle of white landowners forged on the bloodied backs of black slaves.
And let’s not forget it was Lincoln, the Republican challenger, who – in Douglas’ own words – said “that by the Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kind of men, negroes included, were created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and further, that the right of the negro to be on an equality with the white man is a divine right conferred by the Almighty, and rendered inalienable according to the Declaration of Independence. Hence no human law or constitution can deprive the negro of that equality with the white man to which he is entitled by the divine law.”
That is the foundation of the Republican Party – not lower taxes, not reduced federal spending, not limited government, not free markets, and certainly not unchecked states’ rights. These are all secondary to the foundational truth that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. To the extent that we elevate lesser principles over this truth, we cease to be relevant – or even necessary – as a political force.
Silent Night December 21, 2009
Silent night. Such a quiet evening in Washington DC as the snow continues to fall.
Holy night. There is a hush over the city, but my spirit is in turmoil. Abortion, the question of who has power over life and death, is a wedge issue.
All is calm. At least for the moment. A storm far larger and stronger than one hovering over the city tonight is brewing. Decisions are pending that, once made, cannot be undone without great difficulty.
All is bright. Our nation is in the hands of One far mightier than those who claim to be the decision-makers and power-brokers. He who sits in the heavens laughs (Psalm 2:4).
Men Have Forgotten God… December 18, 2009
With such global events looming over us like mountains, nay, like entire mountain ranges, it may seem incongruous and inappropriate to recall that the primary key to our being or non-being resides in each individual human heart, in the heart’s preference for specific good or evil. Yet this remains true even today, and it is, in fact, the most reliable key we have. The social theories that promised so much have demonstrated their bankruptcy, leaving us at a dead end. The free people of the West could reasonably have been expected to realize that they are beset · by numerous freely nurtured falsehoods, and not to allow lies to be foisted upon them so easily. All attempts to find a way out of the plight of today’s world are fruitless unless we redirect our consciousness, in repentance, to the Creator of all: without this, no exit will be illumined, and we shall seek it in vain. The resources we have set aside for ourselves are too impoverished for the task. We must first recognize the horror perpetrated not by some outside force, not by class or national enemies, but within each of us individually, and within every society. This is especially true of a free and highly developed society, for here in particular we have surely brought everything upon ourselves, of our own free will. We ourselves, in our daily unthinking selfishness, are pulling tight that noose…
Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Men Have Forgotten God (1983)
Plus Eighty December 16, 2009
I am a Christian…and a first-generation American. My parents didn’t come here seeking religious freedom; they came seeking financial opportunity. Nevertheless, I am a beneficiary of the First Amendment liberties upon which this nation was founded – chief among those being the freedom to worship God without government interference.
Now I’m not one to argue that our Founding Fathers were devout Christians (I would even say that some of them engaged in some explicitly anti-biblical practices), but they did understand that protecting the right of people to worship freely was essential to securing the “blessings of liberty” spoken of in the preamble to our Constitution. They, even the ones outside the spectrum of orthodox Christianity, were willing to pay a high price to ensure the adoption of the Constitution with the Bill of Rights intact.
The question is, what has their posterity done with the right to worship and express their faith freely…and publicly?
I struggle with this, as I’m not sure my expression of Christianity is worthy of the price paid by so many over the history of this nation, to say nothing of the price paid by Jesus Christ Himself. Christians in America have supplanted liberty and its attendant responsibilities with laziness and its attendant apathy.
My friend Arthur calls this the American “cult of comfort.” Sure, we move in and out of difficulties. But as soon as we get out of any particular hardship – be it spiritual, political, or personal – we coast along, exerting only as much effort as is required to keep us out of trouble. Arthur uses a number line to illustrate the point, which is helpful for linear thinkers like me (sometimes I wish I were less left brain).
Let’s say someone is going through an existential crisis,wondering why she is here on this planet and what will happen to her when she dies. That could represent a minus fifty on a two hundred point scale that spans from minus one hundred to plus one hundred. Just getting to zero – i.e., no anxiety about the future – might be a huge relief. If, in the course of her crisis, she meets Jesus and has an understand of God’s direction for her life on earth as well as a sense of anticipation, rather than dread, about seeing Him face to face in heaven, she may be at plus twenty or thirty. Life is good. And most of us are simply content to stay on the plus side of the number line. No need to wander too far from zero.
But there is more. So much more.
The challenge is that getting from plus twenty to plus eighty requires you to make an about face and march headlong into the land of hurt that you are so relieved to have finally behind you (or so you thought). To move across the number line to the place of your inheritance – your birthright – you must be willing to embrace a certain amount of pain. And face it, our culture is obsessed with avoiding pain.
It wasn’t always that way. The Founders willingly took on a good deal of pain when they published the Declaration of Independence, knowing the British would view it as a declaration of war and respond accordingly. America had prospered under British authority. She had enjoyed the security provided by Her Majesty’s warships. But, ultimately, the destiny of America could not be fulfilled as long as she was subject to the crown of Britain.
And so it is with us…with me, at least. I cannot continue to live in the realm of contentment and get to where I believe God wants me to be. I can’t live the kind of life that is reflected by God worshipers in the New and Old Testament by maintaining the status quo. It’s time to up the ante. Kick it up a notch. Not sure what that’s going to look like just yet, but I’m packing my bags.
Lone Wolf November 6, 2009
The House Judiciary Committee marked up an amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act today. The Democrats succeeded in seriously watering down a number of provisions and in deleting one key section entirely – the so-called “lone wolf” provision, which was passed in added because of limitations that had kept the FBI from searching the computer of Zacharias Moussaoui, 9/11’s 20th hijacker.
The FBI believed it had no authority to access Moussaoui’s laptop because existing statutes only permitted such searches in cases where suspected terrorists was working with a foreign power. Had the government been able to search Moussaoi’s computer, it is likely 9/11 never would have happened. A sobering thought.
Under the lone wolf provision, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is applicable to individuals “engaged in terrorism or the activities thereof”, even if they are not acting on behalf of a foreign power. Some have argued that the FBI could have gained access to Moussaoui’s laptop under existing statutes. But the fact that the FBI believed it couldn’t – and therefore didn’t – and that the lack of clarity regarding solo actors resulted in the loss of untold lives – those killed on 9/11 as well as those killed in subsequent military actions – demonstrates the need for the provision.
In spite of the fact the prior administration liked to take credit for not having had another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we have experienced a number of events with all the markings of lone wolf terrorists, including the 2001 attempted bombing of an American Airliner by Richard Reid (who continues his attacks on the U.S. from prison), the July 2002 shooting of El Al Airline employees at LAX, and the June 2009 shooting at a Little Rock recruiting office – just to mention a few.
I find it so ironic that the same party to eliminate the lone wolf provision is also twisting arms to get its health care overhaul through Congress. How is it that people who take such an expansive view of the federal government’s authority to regulate every facet of human living hold such a narrow view of the authority of the federal government to protect us from those who want to see us dead?
They will empower the federal government to reach obscenely deep into our pockets, yet will tie the hands of the same government when it tries to protect its citizens from those who seek to kill us – which is, not incidentally, the first function of government. All liberties flow out of the premise that you will be alive to exercise them.
…altogether wrong… July 14, 2009
Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
New York Times: July 7, 2009
Free “Crazy Love” July 7, 2009
Free audio book by Francis Chan available at christianaudio this month.
Profile of the Lukewarm…It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, churchgoing, hollow hearted prosperity.
Ouch.
Find out more at crazylovebook.com.
Maafa 21: 21st Century Holocaust July 6, 2009
Saw an amazing movie a couple of weeks ago – an carefully and passionately crafted documentation of intentional genocide against the poor in America as carried out by Planned Parenthood and others. The film is titled ”Maafa 21,” after the Swahilli word for holocaust.
They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.
But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.
What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now.
From Maafa 21 website.
Gendercide and the Sacred Cow May 13, 2009
Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare has issued new guidelines under which doctors cannot refuse to perform abortions through the 18th week of pregnancy for any reason, including sex selection.
You should know from the outset that I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances, except in cases of medical necessity to preserve the mother’s life. I think the evidence reveals beyond a reasonable doubt that unborn babies are people too and we simply don’t kill people – even small people – indiscriminately (well we do, but we shouldn’t). But I also think that even if you are in favor of abortions in certain situations, you have to wonder what in the Helsingborg this Board has been smoking. How can a Board of physicians – which, even in Sweden, has a duty to draft its policies on the basis of something more than expedience - say it’s a-okay by them to eliminate people on the basis of gender? This practice has been condemned by virtually every human rights body on the planet as a form of genocide, yet Sweden is happily declaring it legal. Where’s a good UN Human Rights Council Resolution when you need one?
A doctor and his assistant were sent to jail for telling patients they could “take care of” unborn babies who were of the wrong sex – i.e., who were girls. Sex selection abortions have been banned in India since 1994.
Dr. Vinary Agarwal, president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) responding to the sentences, said, “”The medical profession is doing all it can though we have to address this as a social evil.”
Now, that’s my kind of medical board. Who would have thought India’s physicians to be far more progressive in terms of protecting basic human rights than Sweden’s?
In the US, however…
The jury is still out. We haven’t formally banned the practice (yet – see HR 1822), but we certainly don’t endorse it. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists used to say sex-selection abortion is “innapropriate” – something akin to popping gum at the opera, I suppose. Their newly scrubbed revised document ”opposes meeting requests for sex selection for personal and family reasons…because…such requests may ultimately support sexist practices.” It’s not exactly India, but thankfully, it’s not Sweden either. But it does prompt me to ask: Why are people so afraid to approach the sacred cow of abortion? Are they really afraid that if they say abortion is just flat-out wrong in some cases, they will have caved in to the right-wing fringe? If so, they’re giving the right-wing fringe much more credit than they deserve. Where is the voice of reason? For that matter, where are the feminists on this issue? After all, in most countries where sex-selection abortion is practiced, the victims are female. But there’s no outcry because there’s no interfering with one’s veneration of the sacred cow…unless, ironically, you’re in India.
Enough May 10, 2009
I’ve been reading Will Samson’s “Enough: Contentment in an Age of Excess.” Interesting that it would be published now, when we are leaving the land of excess and stumbling toward the world of not so much. Still, the premise is timeless – “we are not consumed by an incarnational God the same way we are consumed with stuff. We also probably do not believe God is sufficient.”
At times I practice what my friend Arthur calls “white knuckle Christianity.” I have no doubt in God’s sufficiency on a macro level – but I sometimaes wonder whether he’ll choose to pull through in a given situation. This is probably because I live in a country where, in most circumstances, I can choose to rely on God…or not. And here lies the real tragedy of our abundance. It was never intended to be a substitute for an omnipotent, beneficent, and personal God.
running along the corridor April 29, 2009
Note: I originally posted this as the start of a new blog, but decided to consolidate, as it were.
I’m starting a new blog. A journal for the journey. A place where I can write just for the sake of writing. A little less serious…or perhaps a little more. In either case, somewhere I can keep watch over my days, lest they simply slip away into oblivion. I’m always amazed at how seamlessly one day can pass into another – what day is it again? – without pausing to make sure I’m on the right track.
“Wenn man in einen flaschen Zug einsteigt, nützt es nichts, wenn man im Gang entgegen der Fahrtrichtung läuft.” Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Or, “If you board the wrong train, it’s no use running along the corridor in the wrong direction.”
Well, I’ve been running furiously in what I thought was the right direction. As it turns out though, I’m starting to wonder if maybe somewhere I boarded the wrong train.
A Man 4 All Seasons February 23, 2009
Watched the story of Sir Thomas More last night, thinking of course about Walter Hoye, who founded the Issues4Life Foundation to bring to light the holocaust of the unborn happening right under our very noses.
Just as Thomas did not waiver on the sanctity of marriage, Walter does not waiver on the protection of human life.
Just as Thomas counted the cost and paid the ultimate price for standing on truth, Walter too is looking at the near certainty of a prison sentence yet will not allow himself to be silenced by succombing to the judge’s ”stay-away” order (see prior post).
Just as Thomas continued his appeal to justice even to the end of his life, Walter intends to appeal his case and seek to have Oakland’s unjust and unconstitutionally vague “bubble ordinance” overturned through lawful means.
Just as Thomas, Walter did everything he could humanly do to stay within the parameters of the ordinance, yet he, as Thomas, was convicted.
And just as Thomas was chastised by his son-in-law, William Roper, for not going after his betrayers, so Walter, I’m sure, will be asked to take his fight to the “next level.”
But just like Thomas, Walter will resolutely defend the existence of a legal system that has unjustly taken away his freedom, because the alternative is unthinkable.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
The Road to Chaos February 22, 2009
“I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their countries by a short route to chaos.”
Sir Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons
Walter Hoye February 20, 2009
I have to keep this short because it is nearly 3:00am and I have an early meeting tomorrow. Just returned from a long day in San Francisco which began with the sentencing hearing of my friend Walter Hoye. Walter was arrested last year for violating Oakland’s newly enacted “bubble” statute, which prohibits approaching, without permission, within eight feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic. The law is modeled after the Colorado statute upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado in 2000.
Anyway, Walter was convicted in January of two counts of violating the statute – each of which carry a maximum penalty of a $2000 fine and/or one year in jail.
At the hearing today, the judge attempted to offer Walter 3 years probation on the condition that he agree to stay at least 100 yards from the Oakland clinic where he was arrested. The DA had recommended probation and a ”stay away order”, stipulating that if Walter did not agree to the sentence, he should be required to serve the maximum 2 year jail term. This for holding a sign and handing out pamphlets with alternatives to abortion.
As it turned out, Walter did not agree to the stay away order! He did agree to abide by the law, but he would not – could not – forfeit his constitutional right to speak on the public sidewalk at 200 Webster Street. Nevertheless, the judge tried to impose the “sentence” three times and each time painted himself further into a corner. I think the judge was shocked that anyone would risk his freedom simply to inform women that they have choices to abortion. As a result, Walter will return for another hearing next month while the judge scratches his head.
Here is an example of the type of egregious behavior Walter has been convicted of. Please note that Mr. Hoye is not the woman in the orange vest (that would be a clinic volunteer), nor is he shoving his sign in anyone’s face.
The San Francisco Chronicle wrote a decent piece on today’s events – complete with this fully loaded quote from Katrina Cantrell, executive director of Women’s Health Specialists:
“When anyone restricts access to reproductive health services, every woman affected is a living example of a colonized body.”
Wow. Did she really say that? First of all, Walter never restricted the access of women (“colonized” or not) to the abortion clinic. He simply asked them if they were interested in hearing about their choices. Aren’t clinic directors part of the ”pro-choice” movement? If so, why this unfounded paranoia when another choice (besides the one that puts $$$ in your purse) is suggested?
Second, I object to the term “reproductive health clinic” as a euphemism for abortion clinic. Just call it what it is. Because “reproductive” it certainly is NOT.
Finally, the idea that a woman’s relationship vis-a-vis her unborn child resembles that of a ”colonized body” is indefensibly ignorant…at best. It is not just wrong…it is exactly wrong. Not only is the phrase “colonized body” pregnant with all kinds of imperial and racial overtones, the inconvenient fact is that if anyone is the colonizer in this absurd analogy, it would be the mother. The fetus is merely the “colonizee,” subject to, and at the mercy of, his or her protector.
Since Katrina brought it up, let’s see what role the Women’s Health Specialists play in the colonization scenario. Because the clinic provides the colonizer a means of ridding herself of her unwanted populace, I guess it would be the Royal African Company pillaging the West African Coast for lucrative human commodities.
Maybe she’s not exactly wrong after all.
Vigilance February 20, 2009
Changed my blog template. Again. This one is called Vigilance. Why did I choose it? Because it is so necessary.
a kinder, gentler eugenic? January 26, 2009
Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
Nancy Pelosi: Speaker. U.S. House of Representatives. 2009
The problem of the dependent, delinquent and defective elements in modern society, we must repeat, cannot be minimized because of the alleged small numerical proportion to the rest of the population. The proportion seems small only because we accustom ourselves to the habit of looking upon feeble-mindedness as a separate and distinct calamity to the race, as a chance phenomenon unrelated to the sexual and biological customs not only condoned by even encouraged by our so-called civilization. The actual dangers can only be fully realized when we have acquired definite information concerning the financial and cultural cost of these classes to the community . . . when we see the funds that should be available for human development, for scientific, artistic and philosophic research, being diverted annually, by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who should have never been born.
Margaret Sanger: Founder. Planned Parenthood. 1922
Come, let us reason together… January 7, 2009
This post is largely a response to certain comments inspired by my previous post, “May Reason Prevail.” First, I never stated that Mr. Barker, does not have a right to post his sign alongside the nativity. That is a matter for the folks in the city of Olympia to decide. I am simply commenting on the content of the placard. With that said, I still think the sign is absurd, despite its appeal to reason.
Ichabod’s question, “What makes an atheist’s view less valid than a non-atheist?” gets to the core of the issue – and raises the subsequent question, “Is validity a necessary component of one’s belief system?” I would argue that it is. Which is why Dawkins’ purple spaghetti monster is a straw man. Now, if Dawkins truly thinks that belief in his mythical invention is equally valid to belief that the world was created by an intentional, intelligent Being, then he is either completely dishonest or completely delusional.
The cosmological claims of theism are simple (not simplistic) and compelling. It is the atheist who bears the burden of demonstrating the validity of conclusions that are not immediately apparent.
Theism is based on the premise that the vast complexities of the macro and micro universe can be explained by a force – God – acting outside of and apart from humanity, nature and time. Moreover, the laws of logic, numbers, and physics are not merely abstract principles floating around somewhere in space; rather they reside in the mind of God. The idea that God has mind distinguishes theists from pantheists, who believe that God is everything and everything is God.
In short, when theists contemplate the origin of things, they see a God of mind and purpose. It is not an irrational leap of faith to believe that the intricacies of our universe, which depend on billions upon billions of complex processes occurring at precisely the same time in an ornately particular manner, are the product of a sentient Being.
Atheists, on the other hand, seem hard-pressed to show how the physical universe came into being through raw chance. And I don’t see how raw chance, regardless of the length of time in which it has to operate, can ever begin to explain the existence of non-physical attributes that possess some degree of universality, such as justice. Even if one could present a cogent argument for justice as a purely social construct, how does one explain the laws of logic upon which justice relies? A fortuitous toss of the dice?
As William of Ockham put it, “all other things being equal, the simplest solution is best.”
And herein lies the rub. All other things are not equal. The kind of God who would create humans capable of experiencing such exquisite emotions as we are (including the anger that wells up at the mention of such a Being) and then creates a universe perfectly suited to our need for sustenance and our desire for beauty and magnificence cannot be merely winked at and forgotten. This kind of God does not settle into the pages of some Middle School science text as a fact to be recalled on exam day. The proper question, really, is not whether such a God exists, but what to do with Him if He does.
As far as solipsism, I would grant that not all atheists are solipsists. It has, however, been my experience that atheists tend not to be convinced as to the reality/truth that exists outside of their own minds. Still, it is unfair to categorize all atheists that way. Mea culpa.
May Reason Prevail December 5, 2008
Dan Barker, of the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” has been all over the news lately claiming his right to post a large placard next to a nativity scene in Olympia, Washington. The placard reads: “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds.”
Have you ever noticed that avowed atheists are among the most mis-focused people on the planet? You would think that if they truly believed there is no God and no afterlife, they would furiously occupy themselves with the business of living well. Don’t worry, be happy. You would think that if they were going to bother to post anything at all it would be a giant smiley face accompanied by a placard reading “Have a Nice Day.”
So why are atheists protesting a nativity scene in Olympia when they could be cliff-diving off the coast of Acapulco or cruising the Norwegian Fjords or strolling the Champs-Elysees or any number of infinitely more interesting and pleasurable pursuits? I can respect an atheist who is a complete hedonist. I get that. If this brief life is all there is, then go for the gusto. But an atheist who spends his only existence attempting to convince the American public that the claims of Christianity are “but myth and superstition” is either a fool or, as I suspect, not really an atheist. Why so much hostility? What’s it to Mr. Atheist what I believe if there is no eternity in which it makes a shred of difference?
A while back, I had an enlightening conversation with an atheist in my family. As it turns out, he was not an atheist after all, but a solipsist. He worshiped at the altar of his own mind, because it was all he could know for certain. He was forever stuck in the dark ages of Descartes: cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. He never bothered to engage the thought that others might exist as well and that they might be bound up with him in a larger humanity subject to an even larger origin of humanity. Instead he lives his life within the confines of his own mind. I am and that is all I know. And because I am all I know, I am all that truly matters – the ultimate statement of radical autonomy. Except that it’s not so radical. We all experience a phase in which we express this I-centered worldview – it’s called childhood. And, just like children, solipsistic atheists are not at all autonomous.
By posting his sign, Mr. Atheist challenges the prevailing American notion that there is a God to whom we ultimately must give account because this notion shatters his theology, which holds “I am the I AM.” And there are no others besides me. But it is the atheist, more than all others, who is utterly dependent upon a society that adheres to basic principles of civil morality, including the ones that allow him to make his absurd statements to begin with. A society loosed from cultural and religious moorings would soon find Mr. Atheist and his rantings burdensome. To whom would he then appeal? Certainly not to God. To a rational populace? Not possible, since he has effectively made himself the arbiter of all that is rational, in which case he would become to those around him just another mythical god-figure that, according to his own wisdom, must be rejected. To the solice of his mind? Probably. And that would be fine, so long as he didn’t have a mob of fellow atheists pelting him with rocks if they chose this means of maximizing their liberty.
I know that’s dark. But it gets darker still. Mr. Atheist-Solipsist may be a fool, but he is not stupid. He understands the futility of his beliefs. If he is all there is, then the world cannot continue to exist without him. On the other hand, if the world goes on, then he will have spent his life defending a fabrication. This, I believe, is the thought that torments atheists to the core. Human beings crave significance – which is one reason why Mr. Atheist fought to post his placard to begin with. We are wired for community. The atheist, who ultimately lives only in the solitude of his own mind, has no objective, rational reason to exist at all. This is the terror of all human terrors. In order to validate the only thing he knows with apodectic certainty – I am – he must subjugate all else to his mind, his will. This is the legacy of believing atheists. To be truly free from the enslavement of one’s mind by any other, the other must be first rejected, then destroyed, and finally anhiliated.
Okay. That’s about as dark as it gets. Nihilism is the only rational end of true atheism. Those naive atheists who post signs calling for freedom from the gods of moral judgment so they can prance around in some Rousseauian utopia have simply never lived with the consequences of their theology.
Have a Nice Day 
The Price of Speech December 4, 2008
Crystal Dixon was fired by the University of Toledo for submitting the following letter to the editor in the Toledo “Free” Press:
Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective
Written by Autumn Lee | | news@toledofreepress.com
By Crystal Dixon
I read with great interest Michael Miller’s April 6 column, “Gay Rights and Wrongs.”
I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider.
First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.
As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are “civil rights victims.” Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded “to set people free… I finally obeyed God.”
Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor’s degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.
The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.
My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.
Crystal Dixon lives in Maumee.
Posted April 18, 2008
It takes a family to raise a village… November 16, 2008
Tonight I was in Oakland for Life Legal Defense Foundation’s annual dinner. Jennifer Roback Morse was the speaker and she focused largely on the defense of one-man, one-woman marriage. Her argument is that marriage is gender-specific and child-centered. The primary reason the state is involved in the business of marriage to begin with is not to provide tax benefits, but because it has an interest in ensuring a secure environment for the products of marriage – which are not SUV’s, but children.
Somewhere in the whole debate over California’s Proposition 8, we seem to have forgotten this. Children are entitled to a stable, functional home with two parents – one of each gender. Of course, in our divorce friendly state, most children do not get what they are rightfully owed. But the state’s interest in facilitating (to the extent it is able) an ideal family environment remains. In this world of technologically-enhanced fertilization, why should we continue to assert that children have a right to be raised by two heterosexual parents? Because – please don’t faint with shock here – men and women are fundamentally different.
The so-called feminist movement of the middle of the last century did much to undermine the inherent worth of women. It is an affront to women to tell them they are only valuable if stripped of their femininity. Yet last century’s feminists viewed liberation from all things feminine as their objective. And since the most obvious uniquely female quality is the ability to have children, the old guard demanded that childbearing be optional. Instead of celebrating the amazing privilege of experiencing the growth of a new human being within our own bodies, they determined that women would be better served if given the right to destroy the lives of their yet unborn children at will.
[By the way, the original feminists of the late 1800's had a completely different view of abortion. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for example, spoke for the most progressive feminists when she wrote, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."]
Because last century’s feminists got their way, we now have an entire generation living in the shadow of that determination. An entire generation – the first in human history – that believes marriage is not connected to sex and that neither marriage nor sex are connected to babies. A generation that views women and men as fundamentally interchangeable, sex as purely recreational, and children as disposable. How ironic that in an age that prizes all things holistic, we should become so completely disintegrated.
For this reason, the state – now more than ever – has a substantial interest in protecting children by upholding the integrity of the bi-gender marriage relationship.
With that said, I don’t disagree with Roback-Morse’s child-centered marriage argument, but I’m not sure it’s sufficient.
I suppose one could counter that, given the epidemic of dysfunctional heterosexual families, the notion of the holistic family is a myth and that the state has no legitimate interest in preserving myths. Even if that were true (and I don’t believe it is), the state would still not possess the authority to call any relationship it chooses a “marriage.” In spite of Jacques Derrida’s efforts to deconstruct language, words still have meaning and the word “marriage” conveys a specific relationship, namely that of one man and one woman, that the state is not at liberty – California Supreme Court justices notwithstanding – to alter. It is akin to giving the state the authority to call – or not call – anyone it chooses “human” – or to determine the properties of numbers, for that matter. We may be foolish enough to think we can expand the role of the state to define marriage or humanness or numbers, but this does not change the fact that these things, and their unique properties, exist apart from the state’s determination. Of course, the authority of the state to make such determinations can have severe consequences, as history has borne out. Nevertheless, the state’s power in such cases is limited to a particular time and location. It is temporal – and ultimately illusory.
