Jasen Tracy archive at Zeal For Truth

« Older

Loading Newer »

Less

Excerpts Headlines Full Length

Author Archive for Jasen Tracy

Links: Obama, War, and Giant Chicken Eggs

Published by Jasen Tracy August 15, 2008 in Current Events. 10 Comments

Obama:

Obama, the postmodernist. “In the Illinois senator’s world, words have no fixed meaning, and truth is often just a matter of perspective.”

The 2004 “God Factor” interview transcript with Barack Obama. [link]

OBAMA: I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

OBAMA: I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I’m not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I’ve got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.

OBAMA: When I’m talking to a group and I’m saying something truthful, I can feel a power that comes out of those statements that is different than when I’m just being glib or clever.

GG: What’s that power? Is it the holy spirit? God?

OBAMA: Well, I think it’s the power of the recognition of God, or the recognition of a larger truth that is being shared between me and an audience.

GG: Who’s Jesus to you?

OBAMA: Right. Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher. And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

OBAMA: There’s the belief, certainly in some quarters, that people haven’t embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior that they’re going to hell. … I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

OBAMA: What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

GG: What is sin?

OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

GG: What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA: I think it’s the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I’m true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I’m not true to it, it’s its own punishment.

GG: What are you doing when you feel the most centered, the most aligned spiritually?

OBAMA: I think I already described it. It’s when I’m being true to myself.

More Politics:

G.O.P. Drops in Voting Rolls in Many States

Over the same period, the share of the electorate that registers as independent has grown at a faster rate than Republicans or Democrats in 12 states. The rise has been so significant that in states like Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina, nonpartisan voters essentially constitute a third party.

…

In the 26 states and the District of Columbia where registration data were available, the total number of registered Democrats increased by 214,656, while the number of Republicans fell by 1,407,971.

Why The Georgian Conflict Should Go Down In History

Other:

A Cuban chicken lays a giant egg. Yes, this is newsworthy.

Archbishop of Canterbury compares gay relationships to marriage

Study Debunks Web Predator Myths

Travelers’ laptops may be detained at border

The Mistaken Battle for President Reagan’s Conservative Legacy

Published by Jasen Tracy March 27, 2008 in Politics. 39 Comments

During the current presidential primary season, Ronald Reagan was a hot issue. His name was used interchangeably with “true conservative.” The Republicans battled each other to claim the mantle of being Reagan’s ideological successor. Meanwhile the Democrats, Clinton and Obama, each tried to label the other as more “Reganite.” By this, they meant “actually conservative,” which of course is a bad thing to be seen as in a Democratic primary.

Reagan did talk a good conservative game:

get government out of the way of the people
the government that governs the least, governs the best
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help’

However, his record often failed to live up to that promise.

Social Record
Reagan, especially in the Republican primaries, campaigned as a strong anti-abortion candidate. There is even a good deal of evidence to suggest that Reagan himself was personally against abortions. However, once in power he did very little to restrict abortions. He was fond of addressing the national pro-life rally by phone, so that he wouldn’t be seen on T.V. news with anti-abortion leaders.

Conservatives probably should not have expected much; as governor of California in 1967 (before Roe v Wade) he signed one of the then most liberal laws on abortion, under which over one million abortions would be performed.

Reagan’s record on appointing judges was a bit better for conservatives. He did appoint the conservative judge Scalia, and at least didn’t appoint an outright liberal like H.W. Bush did with Souter. Reagan also appointed moderates Kennedy and O’ Conner, who combined to prevent any of the changes to abortion laws that conservatives wanted until O’Conner’s retirement.

On immigration, an issue today that divided certain pro-business conservatives from other conservatives, Reagan signed a bill granting amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants. During the Republican primaries, “amnesty” was a word candidates did not want applied to their plans.

Financial Record
Given the quotes mentioned previously, one would expect a Reagan presidency to create a smaller government. He ran on that platform. He didn’t accomplish it. He really didn’t even try. He campaigned on a promise to eliminate two cabinet departments; he cut none and added one. After a promise to cut back social security, he greatly expanded it, increasing pay roll taxes on both businesses and employees, adding federal workers to the program, and for the first time taxing social security benefits. Spending on welfare increased as well. In fact, social spending increased faster than the famed military spending increase of the Reagan years.

He did cut taxes, but he also raised them. In 1982, he signed the largest percentage tax increase since World War 2. In 1983, he agreed to increase the tax on gas. In 1984, he agreed to toughing laws on businesses, resulting in higher taxes. He did not instigate all of these of course, but he signed them.

In 1986, the tax reformed act saw the biggest increase in taxes on businesses ever. Even some of his tax decreases were done in a liberal fashion. The earned income credit allowed some of the poorest Americans to go without paying income taxes. This is against the conservative tenant that better off Americans shouldn’t have to pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than others.

The most dramatic of Reagan’s financial legacies however, is the increase in the federal debt during his years. Before Reagan’s presidency, the federal debt stood at $789 billion. Afterwards, it stood at $2.191 trillion. That’s an increase of 1.402 trillion dollars in 8 years. Unless the old saw that liberalism means “tax and spend” and conservatism means “borrow and spend,” running up the debt is not conservatism.

Conservatives like to blame Congress, which was under control of the Democrats, for the increase in the deficit. Despite the fact that Reagan often got his way in Congress, with Blue-Dog Democrats like Phil Graham backing him, let’s look at that idea. Figures are taken from the Congressional Almanac.

In Reagan’s eight years, he proposed budgets totaling $7.314 trillion. Congress passed (and Reagan signed) budgets totaling $7.361 trillion. That means Congress spent $47 billion, or 0.6% more than Reagan requested. Since the increase of the deficit during this time was $1.402 trillion, that $47 billion accounts for only 3.4% of the deficit during the Reagan years. Thus, even if Reagan had gotten exactly what he wanted, 96.6% of the debt would still have occurred. Blaming Congress then doesn’t make much sense. Reagan was not a paragon of conservative values.

But He Won The Cold War!
The idea that Reagan won the Cold War is a common one, and one that conservatives love to spread. The idea is that he played tough, increased military spending, and as a result, the Soviet Union fall apart trying to keep up. Sometimes the incredible debt ran up during the Reagan years is forgiven because of this idea.

Let’s examine this idea. Conservatives claim that Communism is an inherently flawed system and that it is doomed to failure. It would then seem that they could not claim too much credit for winning the Cold War for any one person, when Communism was due to fail anyway.

The most that could be claimed is that Reagan hastened the fall of the Soviet Union by a few years. Did he? Well it’s hard claim to disprove, but it’s also impossible to prove. Reagan did oversee increased defensive spending, took a hard line with Moscow, and turned up the rhetoric with remarks like “Evil Empire.”

Did this cause the Soviets to increase spending and thus fall apart sooner? Probably not. The Soviets were already spending all they could in a failed war in Afghanistan. The Soviet economy was in bad shape from years of central planning. This reached a crisis in the 1980’s when Saudi Arabia cranked up its oil exports; this badly damaged the Soviet Union’s ability to raise much needed hard money.

It seems the Soviet Union was already on its last legs financially. Leaders such as Gorbachev were aware of this and were attempting to reform. It’s thought by many that Reagan’s harsh rhetoric made it harder for the reform faction to press forward, as it gave the hardliners evidence that the United states was truly hostile. This increased the threat of misunderstanding and nuclear war, a high price to pay for perhaps hastening the decline of the Soviet Union a couple of years.

Probably the best thing Reagan did in this area was the nuclear limitation agreements with Gorbachev. Done against his the whishes of his conservative advisers, it may have given Gorbachev just enough credibility in Russia to oversee a largely peaceful transition out of the Soviet system.

Conclusion
Reagan’s conservative legacy is greatly overrated. The right has pressed him forward as a great conservative hero in order to use his legacy for their own purposes, and have thus glossed over his many deviations from conservative positions.

The War on Obesity

Published by Jasen Tracy February 11, 2008 in Politics and Current Events. 26 Comments

There is no doubt that obesity is a major health problem. Obesity is a risk factor for several conditions, including: cancer, diabetes, gallbladder problems, gout, heart disease, high blood pressure, and breathing problems such as sleep apnea and asthma.

Over 32 percent of the adult population in the U.S. is obese. Europe is quickly approaching the U.S. level. This problem now is even staring to face developing countries as processed items from industrialized countries are becoming cheaper than traditional local items.

The U.N. now says that there are more obese people than starving ones. Obesity worldwide is soon projected to be a bigger health problem than AIDS and malaria combined.

There is concern about the increased in health care costs due to obesity. A recent study in the Netherlands however, found that over a lifetime obese people cost less to treat than regular weight people because they die sooner. That is likely to be small comfort to obese people and national health services that are facing raising health care costs now.

Worldwide governments are scrambling to come up with solutions.

Some Proposals:
Maryland - is in the process of making walking the official state exercise.

New Mexico - has a proposal to tax video games to fund promotion of healthier lifestyles. This legislation is cleverly titled “No Child Left Inside.”

Mississippi - legislators have introduced a bill that would ban restaurants from serving obese people. The bill is short on specifics and is widely seen as being a publicity stunt.

France - will ban commercials for certain food products during children’s programming. In addition there’s plans for this vague sounding paragraph: “The French government’s plans include the setting up of a food quality watchdog and focus on supermarket groups reviewing their sweet and chocolates display policies and withdrawing stocks from checkouts.”

European Union - thinks that better labeling on food products might help.

Perhaps the biggest news story related to obesity the last couple of weeks has come from the United Kingdom. The result of a survey of doctors was published, showing that 60% of doctors thought that the National Health Service (NHS) could not afford to provide full health care to everyone. They suggested that the unhealthy (obese, smokers, heavy drinkers) and the elderly might have to be denied certain treatments.

The reaction to this was predictable. People were outraged that anyone would deny them their right to full health care. But once government is in charge of health care, isn’t this pretty much inevitable? If I take pains to avoid any lifestyle health risks, why should my tax money be used to pay for those who don’t?

Will we see more governments restricting freedoms in order to combat obesity?

Christianity is an Inherently Violent Religion

Published by Jasen Tracy February 4, 2008 in Religion. 67 Comments

From History
Using history as the indicator, there is little doubt that Christianity has been an extremely violent religion. The expansion by the sword through pagan Europe, the Crusades, the Christian on Christian violence of the Dark Ages and Reformation periods, the genocide of the American Natives, and the forced imperialist rule of most of the world during the “Colonial” Age all testify to this.

Christians often forced compliance to their religion on others. Augustine, one of the must influential people in the development of Christianity, fully supported this practice quoting the Bible passage, “Go out to the roads and country lanes and make them come in, so that my house will be full.” This violent fundamentalism has been far too common in Christian history.

Even today, Western armies lead by fundamentalist Christians occupy Muslim countries and support unpopular regimes on the citizens of other Muslim countries.

The Question of Inherency
The question goes further than simply whether Christians have been excessively violent. Obviously, they have. We have to realize though, that every religion has violent followers. The inventors of modern suicide bombing and by far the most prolific practitioner of it, the Tamil Tigers, are a fundamentalist Hindu group. Islam does not have a perfect record either.

But the question is this: Is Christianity inherently violent? That is, is it by its very nature and true practice a violent faith? I am afraid the answer is yes.

A prominent preacher justified the recent unprovoked invasion of Iraq by appealing to the Bible passage, “let him who has no sword, sell his cloak and buy one.” One of the chief political figures in fundamentalist Christianity went on international television to promote violence against Muslims. She said, “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” Not only was she allowed to do so without legal repercussions (showing support for her ideas reach to the very top leadership), she received virtually no criticism from the wider Christian community at all and remains a key figure and best selling author.

If we merely dismiss these facts as the ravings of a few fanatics, we do so at our great peril. About 10 percent of the 2 billion Christians in the world are fundamentalists. That’s 200 million Christian fanatics worldwide, and they control the most power military in the world - the U.S. armed forces. And all of them are bent upon the exploitation of non-Christian lands.

Liberal Christians
The other 90 percent of Christians are not fundamentalists, but their beliefs are not based on a literal interpretation of the Bible. Unfortunately, this majority rarely speaks out against their fundamentalist brothers. By failing to do so, they enable the fundamentalists and will be lumped together with them in the minds of the non-Christian world. This is understandable though given the nature of the Bible. The Bible’s vagueness and frequent contradictions make literal interpretation both difficult and unpleasant.

In any case, to be a non-fundamentalist and non-violent Christian they have to ignore many plain passages of the Bible. Christianity, unlike Islam, has a basic teaching that mandates hatred and abuse of people who follow other religions. Violence is mainstream; it is not just a misguided few. When you read verses from the Bible, you see how it instructs the killing of the infidel, and violence on outsiders.

Such passages from the bible as these:

And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

The LORD is a man of war.

He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.

(Note: this means Christians have to kill four billion people alive today).

O thou enemy, destructions are come to a perpetual end: and thou hast destroyed cities; their memorial is perished with them

(Note: Allah as inaccurately pictured in the Bible is particularly bloodthirsty, killing over 32 million people, whereas Allah in the Qur’an killed only 10 people).

For I set all men every one against his neighbor.

David smote them there, and said, The LORD hath broken forth upon mine enemies before me.

Many other examples are possible, but these should suffice.

New Testament
Some Christians like to say that their New Testament overrules all this violence. However, as you can see, this is not the case:

The New Testament upholds the old:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

It does not contradict the crimes of the old; it reaffirms them.

It does this not just in general, but explicitly:

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

It must be admitted that the New Testament does not have any specific commands to commit massacres, but that is simply because Christians at that time had no political or military power. As soon as they achieved some, 1700 years of conquest and prosecution resulted.

Proof of the Peaceful Islamic Faith
In contrast, we know Islam is a religion of peace. To quote the Qur’an, English translation:

Oh mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (Not that you may despise each other). 49:13

Seest thou not that we have set the evil ones on against the unbelievers to incite them with fury? So make no haste against them, for we but count out to them a (limited) number (of days). 19:83,84

(God has knowledge) of the (Prophet’s) cry, ‘O my Lord! Truly these are a people who will not believe!’ But turn away from them, and say, ‘Peace!’ 43:88,89

“Repel evil with that which is best.” 23:96

You can clearly see that Islam teaches that we should be at peace with those who do not accept Allah’s teachings.

Conclusion
When Christian fundamentalists launch unprovoked attacks that kill tens of thousands of innocent civilians, there will surely be a release of anger aimed at Christians. It will be difficult to be overly concerned about what type of Christian a person is if they have not made it absolutely clear beforehand.

At this very moment, fundamentalist Christian forces occupy several Muslim countries and prop up several other unpopular regimes in other Muslim countries. They have plans to do more. Already the rhetoric against Iran is being turned up, a country they have had a long history of interfering with. We must wake up to this fact and realize that our struggle is not against other countries; it is against fundamentalist Christians, and indeed Christianity and its inherent violence.

Book Review: Reaching Single Adults

Published by Jasen Tracy January 28, 2008 in Religion, Book Reviews and Christian Books. 9 Comments

The author of Reaching Single Adults: An Essential Guide for Ministry is Dennis Franck, who is a long time Singles Pastor in the Assemblies of God denomination. He does manage to keep his denomination’s particularities out of view however. The book is aimed at helping Evangelical churches to retain their single adults and to reach out to unchurched singles. The need for this book stems from the fact that singles are less likely to attend church than married couples.

Franck does a good job in providing an overview of the diverse single adult demographic. He gives five categories (some of which can overlap):

1) Never-married
2) Divorced
3) Widowed
4) Single parent
5) Separated (they are living as a single even if they legally aren’t)

These groups can have widely different needs and outlooks, and thus the challenge facing singles leaders is immense. Older, windowed singles often don’t identify themselves by their singles status, and there’s quite a bit of difference between a divorced 45 year-old who has kids with a never married 25 year old who doesn’t have kids.

Another strong point of the book is Franck’s contention that singles need biblical teaching that addresses issues from the singles perspective. This often is not done during the Sunday morning sermon, and sometimes it’s not easy or perhaps even advisable to do so in that environment.

Criticism
Franck’s general philosophy appears to be “build it and they’ll come.” He notes that churches that have ministries for single adults have more single adults attending their church than churches that don’t have singles’ programs. It may be true that singles programs help attract singles to churches (an assumption Franck makes while offering little support for it), however it’s precisely churches that already have a significant number of singles that are likely to start singles programs. Churches with few singles are not very likely to see impressive growth in the group simply by starting a targeted ministry.

Furthermore, I’m a bit leery of this marketing type of approach of determining a sub-group and then launching programs for it. I do think some group meetings are good, but many churches need to do a better job of integrating singles in to the life of the church as a whole. Franck is not against singles participating in the whole life of the church of course, but it’s a very minor focus of the book.

The stat that 44% of American adults are single is proclaimed on the book’s back cover and is quoted throughout the book. This is quite a bit misleading however as it is arrived at by counting everyone over the age of 15 as an adult. The reason given for this definition is that some states allow marriage at 15.

Franck spends over half the book discussing various models of singles ministry and all the people and resources that are needed to run them. It becomes quite a bit repetitive at times, and the ideas are often not that useful for smaller churches. For instance, a church of 300 people is not likely to be able to support a Singles Pastor, nor be able to field a large team of volunteers to assist in such a ministry.

Final Opinion
How churches interact with singles (and the somewhat overlapping young adult group) is an issue that I’m interesting in. However, I didn’t find this book very useful or interesting, and would probably only recommend it to someone who was planning to start a singles ministry at their church and who had never lead anything before.

Forgiveness, Justice, and the Death of Jesus

Published by Jasen Tracy January 21, 2008 in Religion and Philosophy. 6 Comments

You have probably heard a common Christian argument that goes something like this:

God is completely holy and cannot abide the presence of sin. Since God is also completely just, He cannot allow sin to go unpunished. He cannot simply forgive sin without there being some sort of satisfaction for sin (this argument typically focuses on personal sins, and not original sin).

We of course, can do nothing ourselves to either earn forgiveness by works or by punishment we suffer. God then sent Jesus, who suffered the penalty for our sins, and therefore we can have forgiveness through faith in Jesus. God is still holy and just because Jesus’ death takes away our sin and sin is punished.

An example of this is a well-known email that has made its rounds around the world. It depicts God as a judge who finds the defendant guilty. He then takes the penalty on himself, and is then able to pardon the defendant since the offense had been paid for. The idea is that if God had simply pardoned the defendant without there being a penalty paid, then God would be unjust judge that allowed sin to exist without punishment (implicitly endorsing it).

My question is: how exactly is it just that the innocent is punished for the guilty? Furthermore, with the whole Trinity concept, Jesus is God. So, not only is an innocent party punished, it’s actually the party the was wronged that is punished (defining sin as an offense against God). But somehow, this innocent and wronged party (the Trinity) couldn’t, or perhaps wouldn’t, forgive us until He had been had taken the penalty Himself.

I understand from the perspective of grace, but how can it be termed just?

The Road to (and from) Rome

Published by Jasen Tracy January 7, 2008 in Religion. 119 Comments

The switching of people from one Christian branch to another is a phenomenon that is becoming increasingly studied in recent years, likely because it appears this type of conversion is happening more than it ever has before (at least by voluntary means). Of particular interest are those who move from Evangelicalism (sometimes lumped with Pentecostalism) to Roman Catholicism, and vice versa.

Here is a look at the common reasons why people make this move. It is by no means meant to be an exhaustive or definite list.

Evangelical to Catholic
Certainty/Authority - The myriad of Protestant positions can lead to uncertainty. With so many different views amongst those claiming the Bible as their authority, it is difficult to determine who, if anyone, is correct. The existence of an authoritative voice to interpret scripture can be very appealing.

A related issue concerns how the canon of scripture came to be recognized. Evangelicalism frankly rarely, if ever, produces a satisfactory answer to this. The Roman Catholic answer is clear and reassuring to many. (Although I would agree the Church “gave” us the Bible, I would say that it was not the Church of Rome that did so).

Unity/History - Many desire a greater unity of believers, and the Catholic Church’s claim as the true church along with it’s great numbers (likely greater than all other groups of Christians put together) and worldwide following produces a strong feeling of unity.

There is also the unity with history that some feel that Evangelicalism has denied them, and that they feel they can regain by becoming Catholic.

Meaningful Worship - The issue is mainly one of style and the perceived depth of the various worship services. Some are attracted to a more liturgical form than Evangelicalism offers. I don’t think this is a major reason because people with this preference could instead become Anglicans or Lutherans.

Doctrine - Others simply become convinced upon study of the Bible that the Catholic positions on the various points of disagreement are the correct ones. Sometimes Evangelicals have been taught a distorted view of Catholic doctrine, and the discovery that it is not as they have learned is the first impetus to giving the Catholic Church a closer look.

Catholic to Evangelical
Personal Relationship - Perhaps the biggest issue cited by Catholics who become Evangelicals is that Evangelicalism presents them with the opportunity to have a personal relationship with God, something that they perhaps did not find in Catholicism.

The Nominal issue - There are many who can be considered nominal Catholics, that is, Catholic by family or culture, even by baptism, but not by practice. When such people become serious about their faith, they often feel that they need to look outside their nominally Catholic culture.

Enthusiastic Worship - Some find the liturgical form of worship dry and formalistic. They prefer the Evangelical or Pentecostal style and consider it more heartfelt. There’s also the various Charismatic Catholic movements that have helped people to move in both directions.

Doctrine - There are then those who after examining the issues come to believe the Evangelical positions are the correct ones in the various areas of dispute. This may not be the direct cause for change though, as the acceptance of the doctrine (for those going in either direction) is often an after the fact acceptance, after the move has largely been made for other reasons.

Donald Miller’s Lifeboat Theory

Published by Jasen Tracy December 24, 2007 in Religion, Christian Books and Philosophy. 3 Comments

One of the main ideas in Searching For God Knows What, is an idea I’ll call the Lifeboat Theory. It serves as a sort of personality theory, or an alternative or addition to something like Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs.

The Lifeboat Theory’s name comes from the classic lifeboat scenario which is an exercise in “values clarification” that is sometimes used in schools. The scenario pictures a number of different people who have different backgrounds, belief systems, attributes, capabilities, etc. It’s also revealed that there’s not enough room or supplies for everyone, and that a person (or people) have to be selected to leave the lifeboat (and presumably be left to their death). The class then discusses who should be ejected from the lifeboat and why.

The basic idea of Miller’s theory is that people have the need for something outside themselves to tell them who they are, and that this thing seems to be gone. Because this something seems to be gone, people often let other people tell them what their identity and purpose are. Miller found this idea to be of much greater use than the other personality theories he had studied:

It explained why I wanted to be seen as smart, why religious people wanted so desperately to be right, why Shirley MaClaine wanted to be God, and just about everything else a human did.

All of us are in the lifeboat, if we weren’t, feelings like pride, jealousy, and embarrassment would be foreign to us. We also wouldn’t get so upset when we feel we are disrespected. We get upset because when someone disrespects us, it’s a message that they think they we are less important than they are. That really shouldn’t matter, but it often feels to us that there is some sort of punishment for being thought less of; we fear that if people regard us as less important we’ll be thrown out of the lifeboat.

This is why cliques and the battle for popularity in schools and workplaces can be so vicious; it’s the establishment of a hierarchy with a punishment for those at the bottom. It’s why people like to associate with winners. Miller notes that some people (as he did) will say “we won” when their favorite team wins, but say “they lost” when they lose. People do not want to be associated with a loser. It’s why arguments over such silly things as if a movie is good or not can become heated, having wrong opinions can also be dangerous in the lifeboat.

This commercial reminded me of this idea:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4HalGc6Ypk

Why does the driver care that his passenger may find he has “uncool” music? It’s because he’s operating in a lifeboat mentality.

There are ways to make sure you survive in the lifeboat: be an athlete, have good looks, be intelligent, have lots of money, be right. Basically, it’s to have or be something that the people of the world value. Another way is to participate in racism or other types of discrimination, that way there’s a whole group of people on the list to get thrown out of the lifeboat before you.

Miller says that this situation, this being in the lifeboat, is a result of the Fall. God had given Adam and Eve their meaning, but now separated from Him, people are desperately scrambling for something to tell them who they are. As Miller puts in:

All this is to say that when the Bible indicates life comes from God, and death comes from separation from God, it makes complete sense, and this truth serves as an explanation for all of our feelings, for the ways in which we entertain ourselves, and for the general precepts of the human plot. Without Him, we feel that we are being thrown out of a boat.

Inerrancy: The Useless Doctrine

Published by Jasen Tracy December 17, 2007 in Religion. 23 Comments

Inerrancy, as believed by most Evangelicals, means that the bible, in the original manuscripts, is free from error and completely truthful in all that it addresses. The Chicago Statement has a detailed explanation of the doctrine. It is my contention that this doctrine is of little or no practical use.

We do not have the original manuscripts of the bible. It is true that we can reconstruct 98 to 99 percent of it with a very high degree of confidence and that few issues of any importance are contained in the areas most in dispute. Nevertheless, this leaves us in the position that, even if inerrancy in the original manuscripts was accepted, in which we do not have an inerrant bible today.

Another major problem is the issue of canon, or just what should be considered to be a part of the bible. Famously, Protestants and Roman Catholics have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church, and the various Oriental Churches, also have slightly different canons.

This is important because a major benefit of having an inerrant bible is to have a 100% accurate highest authority. But of course, the bible did not fall to us from the sky a complete, single entity. Any “highest” authority must make a circular argument for itself, that is, it must say that it is the highest authority. The bible fails a crucial element of this task in that it contains no list of what should be included in itself. That is, the bible does not say which works should be in the bible. So, should Tobit be considered inerrant? Heck, what about Jude? And if Jude, why not the Book of Enoch? Where is the inerrant source that decides?

There are other issues, but I think the two above are enough to show why the doctrine of inerrancy has little practical use.

The doctrine forces people to defend a position that is not provable, as well as forcing focus on a verse-by-verse defense of apparently mistaken or inconsistent passages and textually uncertainties. Instead the focus should be on just how well preserved the biblical texts are and it’s amazing contents

All and all, I’d say we need a better way to express our view of the bible.

Book Review: Decision Making & the Will of God - Part 5

Published by Jasen Tracy December 10, 2007 in Religion, Book Reviews and Christian Books. 6 Comments

Wisdom when Christians Differ, and a Conclusion
This section, on what to do when Christians have different positions on issues (which are often all backed biblically, at least in the view of some), was truly excellent. Many reviewers point this section out as their favorite in the book. I also enjoyed this section, but I cannot say if I liked it better than the section critiquing the traditional view.

The Wisdom View when Christian Differ
A major idea of the book is that when scripture makes no clear command, Christians have the freedom (using wisdom and on the basis of spiritual expediency) to make their own choices. There is not always agreement on what scripture clearly teaches, however. The authors spend the last two chapters of the book (other than a conclusion chapter) addressing this important problem.

Based on Romans 14, the authors lay out how we should deal with issues on which Christians disagree. I think something like their ideas are commonly accepted. We should:

1) Learn to distinguish between matters of command and matters of freedom.
2) On debatable issues, cultivate your own convictions.
3) Allow your brother the freedom to determine his own convictions - even when they differ from yours.
4) Follow Christ as the model and motivator of servanthood.

Weaker Brothers, Stronger Brothers, and Pharisees

The interesting part of this section though, is the definitions the book gives of weaker brothers, stronger brothers, and Pharisees (for which the authors wish they had a nicer name).

Weaker Brothers
Weaker brothers are not those who hold to a different view on an issue than you, those who are offended by your use of freedom (ie. drinking alcohol), or simply new believers. Weaker brothers are marked by four characteristics:

1) They are weak in faith. Not in saving faith, but in not being able to see their full liberty in Christ.
2) They lack knowledge. An example is those who didn’t know idols were nothing, and so didn’t want to eat food that had been sacrificed to them.
3) They are weak in conscience. That is, their conscience is overly sensitive, prohibiting things not prohibited in scripture.
4) They are weak in will. They can be influenced to act against their conscience.

Stronger Brothers
Stronger brothers are strong in those very areas in which weaker brothers are weak. They have the responsibility to not produce stumbling blocks for weaker brothers. Stumbling blocks are actions by stronger believers, which would otherwise be permissible uses of freedom, which cause a weaker brother to sin against his conscience.

Thus, although Christians were free to eat meat, including that sold from markets that may have previously been sacrificed to idols, they were not to eat in an idol’s temple because a weaker brother might be influenced to sin against his conscience.

Pharisees
A third group is given attention by the authors: Pharisees. They are believers with strong convictions who take offense at those who resist their pressure to conform to their views. Unlike weaker brothers, they are not influenced by others’ use of freedom, but they nevertheless seek to force their views on others.

A Summary Using the Drinking Alcohol Issue:
The authors don’t use this example, it’s my example based on what the book teaches.

Weaker Brothers - Believe drinking alcohol is wrong, or at least are not fully convince that it is ok do to so. They can be influenced into drinking if they see other believers doing so. Strong brothers are required by love to avoid drinking in their presence and potentially causing them to sin against their conscience.

Stronger Brothers - Are fully convinced that drinking alcohol is a matter in which they have freedom (as long as they aren’t getting drunk, of course). Or, they may be those who are fully convinced that drinking is wrong (at least for them), but are not influenced by other believers drinking, and do not seek to impose their view on this issue on others.

Pharisees - Are fully convinced that drinking alcohol is wrong. They cannot be influenced by other believers into drinking (and thus sinning against their conscience). They also seek to impose their view of the issue on others, even those whose conscience is fully convinced that drinking is fine. The book says that stronger brothers may choose to limit their freedom to get along better with Pharisees. They are not required to do so however, because Pharisees take offense when none is given.

It is important to note that “weaker brother” should not be a permanent label for someone; they are to be trained and become stronger brothers. They should not change their actions though, until they are fully convinced, so that they do not sin against their conscience. Obviously, Pharisees aren’t supposed to stay Pharisees either.

Jesus and the Pharisees

The book gives an interesting account of how Jesus dealt with Pharisees. It was a case of escalation. At first they asked him questions (why are you doing that?) and Jesus simply told them. Then they began to observe Jesus to see him breaking their rules, so that they could accuse him. Jesus responded with grief and anger, and publicly justified his actions (the episode of healing a man on the Sabbath).

The Pharisees then conspired against Jesus. Jesus responded by withdrawing from them. The Pharisees next turned to slander, by attributing Jesus’ miracles to the power of Satan. Jesus refuted them and rebuked them for the first time. The Pharisees then accused Jesus’ disciples of violating their traditions. Jesus called them hypocrites and warned his disciples about them for the first time.

The Pharisees then turned to trying to trick Jesus into blundering by giving him trick questions (should we pay taxes?). Jesus avoided their attempts to trap him, and publicly warned the multitudes against the teachings of the Pharisees. The Pharisees then actively sought Jesus’ destruction, and Jesus delivered scathing denouncements of the Pharisees and their practices.

How Believers Should Act Towards the Pharisees

The authors give some points on how believers should behave towards Pharisees based on Jesus’ actions. Notice, he did not go out of his way to avoid doing things that would offend them.

1) Be careful not to become a Pharisee.
2) Explain your convictions when asked.
3) Don’t conform to their errant views.
4) Try to have peaceful relationships with them.
5) Instruct others on the dangers of Pharisaism.

And for “aggressive Pharisees”

6) If Pharisees are causing spiritual damage to others, the church, or God’s reputation, then confront them privately and seek to help them change.
7) If private reproof does not work, then church discipline is called for.

I found this section really interesting, especially the differences between stronger brothers, weaker brothers, and Pharisees.

Conclusion

The last chapter in the book is named “Conclusion” and is a nice four page wrap-up of the book. It repeats the high points of the book. It provides a basic summary of the wisdom view (quoted before in part 3):

1. In those areas specifically addressed by the Bible, the revealed commands of God (His moral will) are to be obeyed.

2. In those areas where the Bible gives no command or principle (nonmoral decisions), the believer is free and responsible to choose his own course of action. Any decision made within the moral will of God is acceptable to God.

3. In nonmoral decisions, the objective of the Christian is to make wise decisions on the basis of spiritual expediency.

4. In all decisions, the believer should humbly submit, in advance, to the outworking of God’s sovereign will as it touches each decision.

I found this book to be quite helpful, and especially enjoyed the sections critiquing the Traditional View, and about what to do when Christians disagree. I would highly recommend this book to all believers.

Zeal For Truth