Politics

Is the GOP Anti-Science?

Sean McDowell — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:46:25 -0800

The GOP is dogmatically anti-science. They reject the conclusions of manmade global warming, which has been accepted by virtually all scientists. And they deny the overwhelming evidence of evolution. They are anti-science, anti-knowledge, and anti-progress. The possibility of an anti-science candidate getting elected to the White House is a terrifying prospect for it would put our economic, environmental, and political state into potential disaster. For the sake of the next generation, please don’t elect such a candidate!

If you believe this rendition, it’s likely you’ve been following the incessant portrayal of the GOP in the media. Consider a few recent headlines: “Republicans Against Science,” “Why Republicans Deny Science: The Quest for a Scientific Explanation,” and “Rick Santorum is King of the GOP’s Anti-Science Presidential Candidates.” The list could go on. But the message is clear: the Republican Party is full of ignorant science-deniers who are a threat to the future of America (of course, exception is made for John Huntsman, who has tried to cast himself as the pro-science Republican alternative by accepting evolution and manmade global warming).

Sure, more Republicans are skeptical of evolution and man-made global warming than Democrats. But why does this make them “anti-science”? Interestingly, studies show that anti-vaccine sentiment is higher in progressive areas such as Washington, Vermont, and Oregon. Arguably, the results of rejecting vaccines can be far more disastrous than rejecting evolution. So, why doesn’t this make Democrats anti-science? Do I smell a double-standard?

Let me begin with a qualifier. My purpose in writing this is not specifically to defend the GOP. I have not ever publicly endorsed a candidate for any party and I probably never will. This is not a political blog, although it clearly has political implications. My purpose is to challenge poor thinking about science. If the GOP critiqued Democrats for being anti-science with the same arguments, I would defend the Democrats. My purpose is to challenge the assumption that rejecting a particular scientific theory is akin to being anti-science.

My real question is why doubting evolution makes one anti-science in the first place. Why can’t someone be pro-science yet skeptical of evolution? Maybe the evolution-skeptic just thinks the evidence is lacking. It’s never been clear to me why doubting evolution automatically disqualifies someone from being pro-science. The skeptic may reject the consensus, but again, why does that make one anti-science? After all, even Darwin rejected the scientific consensus of his day. Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton said it best:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had…The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus…If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

Crichton makes a powerful point—consensus is often claimed to avoid debate. That’s why the claim is incessantly made that the evidence for evolution is “overwhelming.” You may be tempted to think that the debate over evolution has been settled. But that may be premature. Yes, a majority of scientists do accept evolution, but a growing number of Ph.D. scientists from leading universities such as Harvard, Princeton, UC Berkeley, and the University of Moscow have come to doubt the efficacy of Darwinian evolution to account for the variety and complexity of life on earth. Does this make them anti-science? Of course not! Only someone blindly committed to a worldview would suggest so. These scientists value science—they just understand the facts differently.

The merits of evolution are actually irrelevant to my point. Maybe Darwin was right. Maybe Darwin was wrong. But it certainly doesn’t follow that someone who doubts his theory is automatically “anti-science.” In fact, such a claim is avowedly anti-science, for scientists are supposed to challenge the status quo and follow the evidence wherever it leads!

In a New York Times column titled, “Republicans Against Science,” Paul Krugman says, “Mr. Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as ‘just a theory,’ one that has ‘got some gaps in it’ — an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists.” The majority of biologists do accept evolution. But is truth determined by numbers? Suggesting so is only meant to silence critics and avoid debate. Even if the majority of scientists would be surprised that evolution has “some gaps in it,” as Krugman suggests, why would that make skeptics anti-science?

Some Republicans may be anti-science. But so may some Democrats. Alex Berezow made this point in his recent USA Today column, “GOP may be anti-science, but so are Democrats.” To label an entire party as “anti-science” is mistaken and simplistic. We need to move beyond labels and actually engage the issues. But maybe I’m too naïve. After all, it’s much easier (and effective) to label someone than actually consider their point of view.

Jesus: The Hope for Israel

Matt Chapin — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:55:54 -0800

Genesis 32:28 records the conclusion of the wrestling match between Jacob and the angel of the LORD. The angel tells Jacob his name will “no longer be Jacob, but Israel because you have struggled with God and with men and you have overcome.” The name Israel means he struggles with God and the previous two blog entries demonstrated the history of the nation of Israel struggling in their relationship with God, and with men. Although hermeneutically the text of Genesis 32:28 tells us that Jacob himself did overcome the battle with the angel of the LORD, I do not think it is farfetched to understand this verse as a prophetic utterance about the future of Israel.

Historically Israel has struggled greatly, and this has been going on for millennia. Though there have been times of great hope, faith, and survival, there have also been times of great hopelessness, faithlessness, and oppression. Today Israel is threatened repeatedly by Iran. A nation who openly professes they would like to see Israel wiped off the face of the earth. The peace and security of Israel is a matter which will not be resolved anytime soon, nor by any current political arrangements. Whatever kind of peace arrangements accomplished through modern day politicians will be temporary. This is not to mitigate the importance of striving for peace, for peace benefits many, but rather to understand that the real program for long and lasting peace for Israel and its neighbors is one that will be accomplished by the word and hand of the Lord. The question becomes how will Israel overcome?

When Jacob comes to die in Genesis 49 he leaves a blessing to each of his twelve children. To Judah belongs the blessing of the future kingdom of Israel. At the time of Jacob’s blessing, Israel was made up of 12 tribes and living in Egypt. There was no sovereign nation, but the hope of one had not diminished. After all, God had promised he would make them into one. Jacob’s blessing to Judah in 49:10 says, “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.”

Where this promise began to find its fulfillment was in King David. David was the first king of Israel to be from the line of Judah. Saul, who was Israel’s first king, was from the tribe of Benjamin. 1Samuel 17:12 tell us David was the son of Jesse, “who was from Bethlehem in Judah.” Bethlehem is the city, Judah the regional territory. After David became king, God made a covenant with him that he would establish David’s kingdom as an everlasting kingdom. (See 2 Samuel 7: 12-16)

Nearly two hundred years after David’s reign ended, the nation of Israel had split into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom was Israel, and Judah was the southern kingdom. During this time, around 742-740 B.C. God raised up the prophets Isaiah and Micah to foretell what would become of his people Judah, and the covenant he made with David.

Although these prophets prophesied that Judah would be punished and exiled for their sins committed against God, they would not be destroyed. Nearly 156 years before Judah was carried off in the Babylonian exile, Micah and Isaiah spoke of a future hope.

Micah 4:1-8 describes this future hope being fulfilled in the “last days.” He writes that many nations will come to Jerusalem seeking to be taught, and submitting to the Lord’s rule. The result of this will be peace among the nations. In verse eight Micah writes that Israel will be restored: “the former dominion will be restored to you; kingship will come to the Daughter of Jerusalem.” Isaiah 2:2-4 conveys a very similar message to Micah 4:1-8. The closely related message between the two prophets is like two witnesses each testifying to the truth of what they were told.

Micah 5:2-4 tells us the king of this coming kingdom would again come from Bethlehem; that he would bring security to his people, and his rule would reach to the ends of the earth. Isaiah describes this reign coming directly from the line of David. Isaiah makes an early reference to David in Isaiah 4:2 when he writes, “In that day the Branch of the LORD will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors of Israel.” How we can know Isaiah is referring to a rule from the line of David is clarified in Isaiah 11.

Isaiah 11:1 says, “A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.” Furthermore, “In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.” (Isaiah 11:10)

The prophet Jeremiah, who was the predecessor of Micah and Isaiah, also wrote of the rule of the coming king from the line of David. The words in Jeremiah 23:5-6, and 33:15-16 virtually repeat themselves. They are the words of the LORD speaking to Jeremiah. “The days are coming” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up to David a righteous branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The LORD Our Righteousness.” (Jeremiah 23:5-6)

So who is this king who will deliver and restore Israel to a place of prominence, and bring peace to the nations? Jesus’ disciples and other New Testament writers assure us it is Jesus himself who will bring this about. Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew and records the lineage of Jesus being from the line of David. Luke also records Jesus as being the rightful heir to the Davidic throne when he records the visit of the angel to Mary. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” (Luke 1:32-33)

The writer of Hebrews confirms this as well in Hebrews 1:8, and Paul in Romans 15:12 confirms Jesus as the “Root of Jesse”. Finally Jesus’ disciple John, who wrote the book of Revelation gives confirmation to Jesus coming to restore this kingdom. But it is not John’s words or opinion here, but Jesus himself, when he gives John his revelation of himself. After all, the book is not the revelation of John, but of Jesus Christ. (Revelation 1:1-2) Language referring to Christ as the “Lion of the tribe of Judah”, “the Root of David”, and the “Offspring of David” can be found in Revelation 5:5 and 22:16.

During the time of Isaiah, Micah, and Jeremiah, Judah had a king on the Davidic throne until the time of the Babylonian exile. Those who returned from Babylon 70 years later, were unable to establish a sovereign nation as they were under the watch of the Persian Empire. The future fulfillment of Genesis 32: 28 lies in Jesus alone, not only for spiritual reasons, but national reasons as well.

45 Things I Want in a Presidential Candidate

Brett McCracken — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 13:37:41 -0800

A year from now we will (very possibly) have a new president-elect in the U.S. As a registered voter in California, I will have zero influence in deciding the election. But that doesn’t keep me from having opinions about what kind of candidate I’d like to see succeed in becoming America’s 45th president. If I did happen to live in a state like Iowa, New Hampshire, or one of the other “primary” battlegrounds where my vote might feasibly matter, I would be looking to cast a vote for a presidential candidate who fit the following qualifications. Are there any good candidates out there?

Someone who…

Is ethical and principled.
Is eloquent, nuanced, and good with the media.
Is well-read and can speak the “intellectual” language without sounding aloof.
Can relate to working people, NASCAR folks and the NPR crowd without seeming inauthentic
Has a record of being nice to and working with members of the opposing party for the sake of getting things done for the people.
Stands by convictions, but isn’t afraid of compromise.
Can give “moderate” a better name and can build consensus and temper the intensely partisan nature of Washington.
Is a Christian. The authentic, “I think about everything through the lens of Christ-following” kind.
In list of favorite books, films, TV shows, music, etc… has at least a few things that are bold and/or unpredictable.
Reads Grantland.com, and could feasibly write for them.
Saw The Tree of Life and found at least some value in it.
Is generally in favor of lower taxes, but willing to compromise and isn’t shouting “no new tax hikes EVER!” from the rooftops (we need to be reasonable).
Has read a Cormac McCarthy novel.
Can find Kazakhstan on a map.
Is a good politician in the “I have great relational skills and can win friends of all stripes” sort of way.
Does not believe that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson County, Missouri.
Favors smaller, streamlined government, but doesn’t see government as a n’er-do-well bogeyman either. Rather, looks for what government does well and has done well historically and what states & the private sector do best, and budgets accordingly.
Genuinely, passionately, actively cares about the poor and suffering.
Has a reasonable plan to simplify the tax code and shrink federal bureaucracy.
Recognizes that America needs to be weaned off of oil; seeks policies that are friendly to clean energy and alternative fuel research/development.
Can be articulate and impressive on Meet the Press.
Hated the term “freedom fries.”
Cares about human rights and is against torture.
Doesn’t want American to be more like Europe, except in having a less car-reliant culture.
Policies are friendly to business and favor job creation.
Has the leadership style and familial demeanor of Coach Taylor on Friday Night Lights.
Is pro-life on abortion, stem cells, cloning, etc.
Also pro-life on things like helping the poor, reducing global misery, ending slavery/trafficking, etc.
Has experience as an executive (preferably in business and government).
Cares for his or her spouse and children.
Sees the separation of church and state for what it was originally intended to be: a protection for religion (against government meddling), not the other way around.
Favors policies to protect the rights of private schools and private businesses on matters of religious preference.
Reads constantly.
Supports gradual draw-down of troops abroad and perhaps a slight reduction in military spending.
Supports reforming TSA and Homeland Security to make them more efficient.
In general does not have an “America is the police of the world” attitude, but isn’t isolationist either.
Doesn’t believe in bailouts.
Can reasonably articulate “The Bush Doctrine” and situate it within history.
Has a favorite Radiohead song. Or at least knows who Radiohead is.
Would consider asking someone other than John Williams to compose music for the inauguration.
If elected, won’t spend half of his or her time in office fundraising and campaigning for reelection.
Values intellectual nuance, complexity, and avoids simplistic black & white binaries.
Favors faith-based charities and boosting the non-profit and volunteer sectors.
Wants the world to flourish, but not because America is the “last, best hope” for mankind.
Isn’t perfect.

Not Something to Cheer

Brett McCracken — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:28:37 -0700

A few weeks ago at the GOP presidential debate, some in the crowd cheered as Rick Perry defended his record on the death penalty. It was a horrifying thing to watch. Why is anyone cheering for the death penalty? Regardless of one’s political stance on capital punishment, it seems to me that at best it is a necessary evil–but certainly not something to be celebrated.

Perhaps sparked by the Rick Perry / audience cheering debate, the Washington Post has featured an array of columns on the issue of capital punishment in its “On Faith” column in recent weeks. Among other things, the columns have illustrated just how diverse the opinions are on this issue, even among Christians.

Richard Land’s post, “The death penalty can be pro-life,” argued that it is not inconsistent to be pro-life on abortion but also in favor of the death penalty. Citing Romans 13:4 and just war theory to defend his position, Land was also careful to note that “If one is going to support the death penalty, one also has to support its just and equitable application.”

Meanwhile, on the other end of the spectrum, and in a seemingly direct response to Land’s position, N.T. Wright began his rather curt post (“American Christians and the death penalty“) with an assertive statement: “You can’t reconcile being pro-life on abortion and pro-death on the death penalty.”

Somewhere in the middle–refreshingly–is John Mark Reynolds, director of the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University, who wrote a column with the title, “Death penalty an imperfect solution.” Reynolds touches on the abortion/death penalty comparison by noting that “There is an obvious moral distinction between the taking of the life of a criminal and killing the innocent… One could support the death penalty for criminals as a necessity while supporting the right to life for the unborn and be morally consistent.”

Later in the piece Reynolds gets it right when he says:

Poor cultures cannot protect themselves from murderers without taking the life of a killer. The death penalty, administered by the state after due process of law, was a Christian solution to this problem. It never was a perfect solution and many Christian nations, such as the Orthodox East, imposed more limits on it over time.

As a society rich enough to imprison wrong-doers the death penalty should be rare in the United States. The Lord Jesus Himself called us to love our enemies, so even in the cases where the state must execute justice no Christian would rejoice in the death of the wicked…

The death penalty is, I think, justified in some circumstances, such as when prisoners kill in prison, but it [is] always regrettable. When the audience bursts into applause at the mention of executions at a Republican debate, they had more common with the mob in the Roman arena, than with the martyrs in it.

Reynolds also points out some of the problems that must be addressed in the discussion of capital punishment, such as the disproportionate number of minorities executed, and the overcrowding of our prisons.

I probably fall somewhere near Reynolds’ position, though I’m not necessarily going to cheer on or even actively support the death penalty. Is it sometimes necessary or appropriate? Probably. I think it was right and just for Osama bin Laden to have been killed, even though I was horrified by the cheers and street parties that event elicited, just as I’m horrified by the Tea Partiers who cheered for Texas’ death penalty record. The death of any person is not something to rejoice in.

I believe the death penalty should be rarely used, and then only as a last resort. In cases where there is any ambiguity, any questions whatsoever about guilt, the death penalty should be completely off the table.

Case in point: Troy Davis, a death row inmate in Georgia. Davis was convicted of killing a police officer in 1989 and was executed last night after numerous appeals were denied. His case had been cast into some doubt, since seven of nine original trial witnesses have since recanted their testimony. Many started wondering if David might actually be innocent, and it seems to me that even the suggestion of that should have caused the execution to be postponed or called off until certainty could be gained.

People should not be executed amidst ambiguity and lingering questions about their guilt. If that’s how the death penalty is in the United States, then I cannot support it. I think it’s ok to have the death penalty as an option in our justice system, but it must be in the rarest, most unambiguous cases. And it should always be something we approach soberly, quietly, something we treat solemnly and not as a political football. It’s not something we should ever cheer on.

9/11: Memorials, Heroes, and the absence of God.

Matt Chapin — Fri, 09 Sep 2011 23:42:01 -0700

As we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I have noticed some confusion within myself as to how to deal with the tragic events which occurred on that day ten years ago. One is how we have identified that horrible day by numbers on the callendar instead of a name. Perhaps this reflects our tech savy age? Past generations do not identify with 12/7/41 or even 12/41. What am I referring to? The Bombing of Pearl Harbor, or perhaps “the day that will live in infamy”. To prior generations, a day of national significance in our nation’s history marked merely by a number would resemble something more along the lines of communicating in morse code. Althought 9/11 triggers a memory of what we experienced both collectively and individually, to identify the day with a date instead of a name leaves a certain amount of ambivalence.

Another aspect is the buildup, anticipation, and conversation this tenth anniversary has brought. Don’t we usually reserve such publicity for the Super Bowl or presidential elections? The tenth anniversary of 9/11 is obviously nothing celebratory, but to be taken in somber tone of remembering the innocent taken from us. A second national Memorial Day if you will.

Except this new kind of Memorial Day observed is radically different because of who it involved. Upon being in Washington, D.C. back in April I was moved nearly to tears as I took in the World War II memorial for the first time. Architecturally it is a great symbol to all the American soldiers who gave so much for freedom, not only for their families back home, but of people they didn’t even know in other countries. However this weekend’s memorial is different because on the day of 9/11there wasn’t a collective cause we were fighting against as in WWII. A day later, 9/12 would clarify that national cause.

In my young adult life, I do not recall a time when our nation held a memorial service of such magnitude as the 9/11 one coming up. Typically our memorials serve as a reminder of the soldiers whose lives were lost for the cause of freedom, but on September 11, 2001, freedom and innocent civilians were attacked. These civilians died from horrific acts of evil, but at the same time we found how heroic the American spirit is as September 11^th changed our concept of heroes.

A hero was no longer our favorite sports hero who won a World Series game, NBA Championship, or Super Bowl with the game on the line in the closing minutes. The heroes from the NYPD and FDNY went beyond the celebrity who creates or acts out heroic tales. A civilian was upheld a hero. Todd Beamer and other passengers of flight 93 took down the high jacked commercial airliner that crashed in Pennsylvania. All these people and more were upheld like our brave men and women in the military and given the heroic status they deserved for risking and giving their life for others.

Though our nation has taken down many significant leaders in terrorist organizations over the last ten years, we know the fight is not over, and we wonder how we can overcome. There is of course military strength, but even president Reagan knew he could not achieve his “peace through strength” strategy against the Soviet Union without appealing to America’s moral fabric. In his famous Evil Empire speech Reagan said, “While America’s military strength is important, let me add here that I’ve always maintained that the struggle now going on for the world will never be decided by bombs or rockets, by armies or military might. The real crisis we face today is a spiritual one; at root, it is a test of moral will and faith.”

It is therefore troubling, that on such a day when we need to appeal to America’s strong Christian heritage, where we have been “endowed by our Creator” and given a unique constitutional right to express this faith in public life, New York city mayor Michael Bloomberg has concluded it is not necessary for any clergy to be involved in the day’s events. Mayor Bloomberg hopes whoever fills his shoes, will continue on his policy, and said in regards to religious leaders absence, “It isn’t that you can’t pick and choose, you shouldn’t pick and choose.” (“Bloomberg: Sunday’s 9/11 Ceremony a Civil, Not Religious Occasion,” Wall Street Journal, September 9, 2011.)

In a time where we need to stand strong, and exhibit strength, Mayor Bloomberg exhibits weakness. How can we afford to allow ourselves to appear to be morally neutral to groups who plan on our destruction and Israel’s destruction? Does Bloomberg’s decision make us look more weak or strong in the eyes of our enemies? Let’s not forget there is evil in the world, and it is bent on destruction. Not destruction as in the removal of a few key leaders, but a whole nation, a people, and way of life. Whenever destruction like that occurs in other countries we call it genocide.

On September 11, upon this national day of remembrance, I will take pride in what makes America exceptional, be thankful for God’s protection at home over the last ten years, mourn with those who mourn, and pray that we might see again what Solomon penned in Proverbs 14: 34, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.”

Church & State: How Separate? (Part 3)

Matt Chapin — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 11:41:35 -0700

In the two previous blogs I approached to the Constitution’s address of where religion fits into the civil society, as it was one the topics broached at the previous Republican Presidential Primary debate held in New Hampshire a few weeks ago. The final question of this series on the nature of the Constitution’s First Amendment is what good has been brought to the civil society when religion has been removed from the public sphere of life?

There are many today in our society, through all levels of society, who believe or promote the notion that the Constitution’s First Amendment teaches the separation of church and state. This opinion has lead to a modern day isolationist mentality where one’s faith should be kept private from the public arena. However, a clause which declares “the separation of church and state” does not appear in the Constitution. The First Amendment does say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but “establishment” and “separation” are two completely different definitions.

The word “establishment” means that there would be no national church that would be agreed upon by the governing bodies the people must submit too. For such a lawful action to have been enacted would have lead to a theocracy, which was outside the scope of intention by the framers. The founders understood from history that people having to follow the religion of a king, queen, or a blending of pope and king, did not bode well for the people, more often it lead to some form of tyranny.

What was understood was that the nation’s liberty was tied to its freedom to exercise religion. For in the Declaration of Independence, the precursor to the Constitution, it says that individuals are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. Such a declaration recognizes the absoluteness of God, who grants “unalienable rights” through Natural Law.

The following are a couple of examples from the earliest developments in our nation’s history of men who wrote of the positive attributes religious freedom, particularly Christianity, brought to society. In Francis Schaeffer’s book A Christian Manifesto he cites William Penn who expressed, “If we are not governed by God, then we will be ruled by tyrants.” The other is of John Witherspoon who was a Presbyterian minister and the only pastor who signed the Declaration of Independence. He eventually became the president of Princeton, but said in a sermon on the first Thanksgiving Day after the American Revolution, “A republic once equally poised must either preserve its virtue or lose its liberty.” (Schaeffer, A Christian Manifesto, 33-34)

A nations well being and longevity, of being free from a reign of tyranny, is related to the moral fabric of its society. This is especially true of the Israelites as recorded in the Old Testament. When the Israelites recognized the Lord and followed his statutes life would generally go well for their nation. When they fell into apostasy they were disciplined and driven from their land.

The removal and movement away from the recognition of God, poses a serious problem, for it always leads to moral decay and despotism. There is a difficult balance between religion and freedom. 2 Peter 2:19 describes one of the characteristics of false teachers/prophets as this: "they promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity-for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him."

Although the context of Peter’s writing is in regards to false prophets and teachers, I believe this verse is particularly relevant today. How often we have heard the nature of Peter’s argument in our own politics as well as other world religions? Often in politics there is a twist where to be free, means a freedom from responsibility, or without limit, or constraint. Such a freedom is a lie, as really it leads to more depravity. In some world religions throughout history there has been a belief that true freedom contains no moral restraint. Think of the Greeks and Romans, where they believed their revelry brought them closer to the gods. This too, as the Bible teaches us, leads to more depravity. The best defense from such teachers is given in 2 Peter 3:17-18. We are to be on guard, and grow in the "grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

Ideas and Elections

bo.white — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 14:28:36 -0700

“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on. Ideas have endurance without death.”

The preceding sentence was said by the late President John F. Kennedy and in many respects it’s the theme of this blog. My desire is to explore the power of ideas as well as the expression of those ideas. Why? Well, because I believe I am a work in progress (and maybe I am not alone) and that I live in a world that is trying to make progress. Undergirding all of this progressive optimism are ideas.

Many Christians call the systematic formulation of these ideas a ‘worldview’ and that’s not a bad phrase. But, some ideas, if we’re honest, aren’t always that clear in our head and so it’s difficult to organize them neatly and label them effectively. Let’s take the idea of capitalism and/or free market economics.

Is the idea a good one or is the idea good because we’ve all benefited from the results? Let’s take another idea like intelligent design. The mathematical possibility that our molecules would end up in their proper place to support our own life on this planet is staggering if left to chance. So, why the fuss about faith in a Creator?

Our own Declaration of Independence says that we have ‘inalienable rights,’ and most Americans would bleed before giving those rights up. But, what does the word ‘inalienable,’ mean?

The definition is this: “not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated” says one dictionary and Webster says this: “incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred.” These rights cannot be taken away by definition. So, by extrapolation, they must have come from outside of ourselves or as our Founding Fathers put it: ‘endowed by our Creator.’

So, what does this have to do with voting and elections? Precisely this: isn’t every election not only about a person, but about ideas as well? We don’t simply vote for this man we like or this woman we like, but we vote on a set of ideas we like. Yet, let’s be honest, we vote not only for ideas we like, but we vote also for the expression of those ideas. How does the candidate communicate ideas is just as important to us, at times, as what the ideas actually are.

Look at the expression of ideas in Egypt recently by the lengthy protests. The ideas were communicated effectively, don’t you think? The recent GOP debate in New Hampshire was also fascinating (although I could have done without John King’s constant interruptions) because people wanted to see not only what was going to be said, but how it was going to be said.

So, how do you respond best to ideas? It’s worth paying attention to as the Presidential campaign gears up and as you interact with the flood of information coming from the web, social media, and four corners of the earth. Do you respond to ideas better visually or on paper? Do you want to discover something in a story or feel something in a poem? Do you want to be informed or inspired or both? My guess is this: how you answer these questions will directly impact who you vote for in 2012.

-bo

Church & State: How Separate (part 2)

Matt Chapin — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:41:11 -0700

In my previous blog I wrote in response to the understanding of the U.S. Constitution’s establishment of the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause. The motivation for writing this came from CNN’s broadcast of the Republican Presidential Primary debate held in New Hampshire a couple of weeks ago. John King, the moderator of the broadcast, asked Congressman Ron Paul, “Does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?” This brings me to the second part of this topic by addressing whether or not it is possible that any person’s core beliefs can be separated from other parts of their life?

In the book of James there is a great passage which wrestles with this question. It has to do with a person’s faith, which would embody a person’s core beliefs. James 2:14 says, “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?” If there is no action behind what we claim to believe, is our faith a true faith?

The author James goes back and forth to provide illustrations on how faith and action are inextricably linked together. For instance he writes even the demons, the fallen angels and enemies of God; believe in the one true God. However, their belief and acknowledgment of God, does not save them, because they do not follow him by their actions. Indeed, they act contrary to the will of God, and serve the devil. James offers his conclusion in verse twenty six when he says, “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

As Christians we have always been called to live out our beliefs in the public arena. Figuratively, there is not a place for reserving our Christian suit to the closet when we go to work, and then put it on when we go to our Christian functions. Jesus commands us in Matthew 5:16 to “let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”

In the times of the Old Testament the Lord required the kings of Israel to have a copy of the law and to write out their own copy for personal learning. (Deut. 17:18) The goal was that the kings would look to the Lord for their strength in leading and gaining wisdom for directing the nation. God made a promise that following his law would go well for them and the nation. This is a good example of how faith cannot be separated by our actions. The Law provided from God, was to be relied upon in thier leading of the nation. Of course this is true in a negative sense as well. When the Israelites turned thier hearts away from God, they demonstrated this in action, and the results were not good for them. I will address more of this in part three of the series.

This negative example is evident in today’s culture too. Twice in the last ten years the state of California has proposed an amendment to the state constitution as marriage being recognized between a man and a woman. The people of California have twice supported the amendment, thus making it an amendment to the states constitution, but the amendment was declared “unconstitutional” by a judge who himself was homosexual. Even if one is not a Christian, core beliefs will affect public policy, as cited here.

The point is that it does not seem possible to be able to separate belief from action. It seems difficult, near impossible, no matter what a person’s religious preference, to exclude their own personal convictions from what they actually do.

Church & State: How Separate? (Part 1)

Matt Chapin — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:33:37 -0700

Last night I tuned in to watch the New Hampshire Republican presidential primary debate. It is not the goal of this writing to inform you of who to vote for, but to comment on the Constitution’s First Amendment of the separation of church and state, as this was a topic brought up at the debate.

The issue was brought to the candidates as a question from a member in the audience who asked of how the candidates understood the definition, and how it would affect their decision making. In my opinion the second part of the question is rather negative as it implies one sphere of life cannot carry over into the other. In other words, whatever your faith is, it should be kept in isolation, and kept separate from the affairs of government. How else can this question be interpreted when CNN moderator John King asked Congressman Ron Paul, “Does faith have a role in these public issues, the public square, or is it a personal issue at your home and in your church?”

However there are three questions I would like to raise in response. One, is separation that leads to isolation really the what the founding fathers of the Constitution had in mind? Second, is it even possible that any person’s core beliefs can be separated from other parts of their life? Lastly, what good has been brought to the civil society when religion has been removed from the public sphere of life? These questions will be answered in a three part series to help serve as a guide for understanding the First Amendment.

In response to what is the Constitutionality of the separation of church and state we look to the actual document itself: the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution’s first amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Reviewing our nation’s history it is clear we have upheld the first half and not the second.

The United States has never proposed a theocratic form of government. Our nation has never established Judaism, Catholicism, a denomination from Protestant Christianity, Islam, or any other religion as the established religion citizens must by law adhere to. Mark Levin wrote the reason those words were included in the First Amendment was, “because they believed the establishment of a theocracy would be destructive of both liberty generally and religious liberty in particular.” (Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, pg. 29) We have adopted principles and laws from Judeo/Christian ethics, but we have not as a nation established any religion all citizens must follow.

In regards to the second aspect of religious liberty, it seems government is interfering more and more, in the people’s right to exercise their religion freely. How many more examples are needed of prayer being dismissed or not allowed at public venues, the promotion of scientific evolution in the classrooms of public schools while ignoring the argument for creation by God, or the conversation and court cases involving the removal of “Under God” from the pledge of allegiance? When these things occur, who are we now yielding allegiance to?

I’ll close with Levin’s words: “Although the First Amendment, as originally intended and applied, had no effect on the states, its adoption by the federal Congress and ratification by the states evinced a national consensus that liberty and religious liberty are inseparable, the same national consensus that motivated the Declaration’s signers.” (Mark Levin, Liberty and Tyranny, pg. 29)

Reagan's precondition for any good

Matt Chapin — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 11:53:06 -0800

Earlier this week was the 100^th birthday of former president Ronald Reagan. Whether or not you believe in Reagan’s philosophy of governing by “Peace through Strength”, there was a more foundational side to lasting peace, strength, and stability Reagan believed in. Although Reagan championed peace through strength by forming a stronger military against the Soviets, he also penned in a letter written to Monsignor Meyers on January 19, 1984, “I believe that a spiritual renewal is the necessary precondition for the accomplishment of any good if it is to be lasting and pervasive.”

Reagan understood that he was up against more than a military conflict with the Soviets. He was battling out an oppressive ideological force as well, that of communism. The religion of such a regime has no room for a creator God to look to. It is atheistic. I believe Reagan’s confidence in being able to defeat communist regimes, came from his belief in America being on a stronger moral foundation.

I have heard it said that politics is theology applied. In today’s political and socio economic world, there seems to be little concern for the moral and ethical fabric of our leaders. In the political game of tug of war, this is an area of life that unfortunately is often compromised.

However, this issue goes beyond the Capital, White House, and Supreme Court and comes back to us. After all, we still live in a free society, and have a voice. If we lose our voice, and what our values are rooted in and where they come from, what are we left with?

The real change in America will not happen by electing the right person with the right economic policies, or foreign policy, although this helps in some degree, but as reflected in Reagan’s words the precondition for everything else is “spiritual renewal”.

How do we do this? This is a question we Christians should all be asking. Not just for love of country, but also because isn’t this a part of what it means to be a Christian? Are we not repentant?

In a small attempt to answer this question, I’ll recommend a few points made at Biola’s campus last week for Chuck Colson’s “Doing the Right Thing” conference. Dr. Scott Rae talked about respecting our call in the workplace, by being willing to be used by God as an agent of good in our workplace. Sean McDowell encouraged Christians to mentor young people, and show them what it means to live life from the perspective of a Christian worldview. This was an excellent suggestion because the virtue of a child is largely developed by the time they enter college.

One reoccurring theme at the conference was this: the single greatest place where ethics, morals, and values are formed is in the home. Spiritual renewal starts with us. In closing I would like to leave a Bible verse for you to reflect on how you can live out a Biblical worldview.

Deuteronomy 6:5-9 (NIV)

"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give your today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.”