Archive for the 'Religion' Category

Consequences at Ground Zero

Written by Christopher Roussel. Published on August 26, 2010 ago in Current Events, Politics and Religion. 1 Comment

This entry is part 3 of 3 in the series Defending Secularisation

While the spectacle that has received the buzzword title ‘Ground Zero mosque’ continues to rage, there seem to be a few points of fact that have been overlooked. It may be known that the address for the site (currently Park51 but previously Cordoba House) is 45-51 Park Ave. What is less known here is that 45 Park Ave is already a mosque — and has been since July 2009. It isn’t a new site ex nihilo but an addition or expansion of an already existing community. Further, the new site is two-fold: first is a community centre created by refurbishing the Burlington Coat Factory already at the site (which has been in disuse since 9/11); second is a separate prayer centre (i.e. ‘mosque’) within the community centre complex. The relationship between the prayer centre and community centre is analogous to the relationship between a department store and a shopping mall: independent while overlapping.

The second issue I wish to look at is the response to those who oppose the site. It has been said that it is being opposed because the site is taken as an offense. My primary concern is that this offense is based on an illusion. The common arguments on the offense is that it is because, ultimately, it is believed that the Muslim community behind Park51 is no different from al Qaida. However, there is little non-circumstantial evidence to this argument. In many cases, it would be a good idea to change location in order to show that the Park51 community is peaceful/non-threatening/sensitive. But the problem with that response isn’t that it’s wrong: changing locations will make the people opposing it feel justified/vindicated for having their perceptions based on illusions. At some point, someone needs to stand up for honesty (and dare I say truth, in a generalised sense). Feeding a bad, false impression is never a good solution, and it seems that no matter what the Park51 group does now, that bad impression will be fed: it’ll either be ‘see, they backed down because we were on to their schemes’ or ‘see, they are so bad that they do not even respect our opinions’.

It’s a lose-lose situation, and the biggest loser isn’t them nor the relatives and victims of 9/11, but the American people who will have let the media (left or right wing, doesn’t matter) think for them, decide for them, and act for them. It is the feeding of false perceptions that is the worst consequence, as it leads us further into our sollipstic relativism and disavowal of the public sphere. The false perceptions being touted as prima facie evidence is a radical form of individualism. It is a condition in which we’re sinking away into ourselves where the only things that matter are what we think and believe for ourselves, divorced from any kind of public sphere that mediates between the many individuals to create a kind of community. In other words, it doesn’t matter what is real and/or true but what “I” (here being used to mean anyone) think is real or true. “I” make my own reality and substitute it for the one in which we used to live. Such relativism, whether it comes from the left or the right, needs to be addressed. This case is all the more why a truly secularised society is necessary, as it creates a neutral public sphere in which false perceptions regarding religions can be righted.

Conserving Tradition

Written by Christopher Roussel. Published on July 19, 2010 ago in Religion. Closed

This entry is part 2 of 3 in the series Defending Secularisation

In later parts, I will look at the present condition from different angles, however for now I wish to discuss the history behind what I will call ‘traditionalism’. Traditionalism takes a stand against secularisation because it wants to prevent corruption of the tradition and loss of the tradition’s stature. In other words, traditionalism does have good intentions; and this needs to be acknowledged upfront. My defense of secularisation rests not on dismantling traditionalism but arguing that secularisation attains the goals of traditionalism as well as does something more: secularisation creates more avenues for tradition to grow beyond its preservation.

The greatest problem with traditionalism is that it cannot achieve its intended goals. In order to protect tradition’s freedom, traditionalism requires its believers to enter the political realm and play the game of political power. This inevitably leads to disastrous outcomes. Two examples are: [1] the corruption of tradition’s goals by enforcing the tradition upon everyone, leaving it open to later overthrowing and [2] the subjugation of tradition to the game of political power. Whenever a religious tradition enters the political realm as a political power, it becomes subject to the political realm. It is important to read the last sentence as a critique of religion as a political force. Secularisation in the strictest sense is the separation of religion from the political realm as a political power. Secularisation is not the absolute separation of religion from the political realm, as two completely unrelated realms of participation. In other words, secularisation is a rejection of all religious traditions as unified political parties, allowing people to be religious and political participants without needing to be a particular kind of one to be another (i.e. without needing one to be of a particular political party in order to participate in a particular religious tradition and vice versa).

The greatest benefit of secularisation is that one is free to participate in both the political and religious spheres without one interfering with the other. Closely related to this is that each sphere can influence the other but to the extent that one is free to ‘pick the battles’. In short, one can preserve one’s tradition better if one’s tradition is not tied into the rise and fall of political power. This is strength that secularisation provides over traditionalism. While this post is largely a proof-of-concept demonstration, my following posts will analyse details secularisation entails.

One Christian Libertarian’s View On Gay Marriage

Written by Colin. Published on July 6, 2010 ago in Politics, Religion and Theology. 7 Comments

Norman over at LibertarianChristains.com fielded a question today about gay rights. His answer is worth the read. In sum:

…not forbidding certain behavior should not be conflated with not approving of certain behavior. Being permissive of lifestyle choices does not entail me agreeing that the lifestyle choice is morally right before God. Such non-agreement is my religious perspective, and thus cannot be used as a rationale to coerce others. To me, this is the essence of being socially tolerant: though I disagree with a behavior I shall not raise an aggressive hand against it. I would use a similar argument to defend any non-aggressive behavior even if I believed it to be wrong.

This indeed is the linchpin on this issue between more statist Christians and Christian libertarians. Both views see homosexuality as a sin, an abomination before God of which we do not approve, condone and indeed as Christians we hate that sin (as we hate all sin). But only the former believes that we must (in order to be consistent) go a step further and engineer society by force, using the police and threatening to MAKE people conform to our religious views.

The Marriage of Church and State

Written by Christopher Roussel. Published on July 4, 2010 ago in Essays, Religion and Theology. 4 Comments

This entry is part 1 of 3 in the series Defending Secularisation

For Americans, today is the celebration of the American colonies declaring freedom from their European owners. The problem with this is that it has become a common thing to celebrate within the church. My main concern is that church worship is supposed to be dedicated to the worship of God and Christ, not a government.

Perhaps the most telling reasoning behind this marriage is one that confronted me recently. Recently, I commented that today I get to go to church without needing to worship the State. An old friend replied that one should be thankful to the State for the freedom of worship, even if it cuts into the time one spends worshiping God and Christ.

Yet this is exactly the kind of civil religion that ultimately harms the church. Over the next few posts in this series, I will argue that the separation of church and state that we find in secularisation. Through secularisation, Christians have greater freedom to worship God because there is no pretense to glorifying the State before, with, or after God. In other words, a secularised society is better than one in which State and Church is married.

In this respect, American Christianity is largely backwards in its love of civil religion. I wish to analyse the theological underpinning of this marriage, showing that the marriage of Church and State has developed out of a poor understanding of Christian theology. It is only through a secularised politics that Christian theology will grow.

I pledge allegiance to Jesus

Written by Kenneth Martens. Published on June 4, 2010 ago in Religion. 5 Comments

This past Sunday (May 30, 2010) I participated in an annual American tradition: I celebrated Memorial Day in church. An active-duty service member carried the American flag down the aisle while the congregation sang America the Beautiful and God Bless America. Next, everybody said the Pledge of Allegiance, and the pastor spoke a few words of thanks to those who serve and have served in the military. That was it. (We also had this Memorial Day insert in the bulletin, but it wasn’t mentioned during church.) The sermon was not connected to Memorial Day; the pastor continued his series on Identity in Christ with a sermon from Romans 7.

As often happens, I discussed the events later with my wife. I don’t mind celebrating Memorial Day in church. It’s not a religious holiday, but the gathering of believers is a community event as well as a religious event; it’s not out of place to acknowledge Memorial Day in that context. But I then I thought about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in church.

There we were, in church, pledging our allegiance to an earthly institution.

Does that seem right to you?

It seems wrong to me. I love America. It’s my home, it’s my culture, and I think it’s the best country in the world. I am proud to be an American. But I have a hard time pledging my allegiance to this nation, because as a Christian, my primary allegiance is elsewhere. That led to this exchange:

Wife: So would you rather pledge allegiance to the Christian flag?
Me: No. There’s no such thing as a Christian flag. I mean sure, somebody designed one, but that doesn’t make it a real significant thing.
Wife: What about the Bible?
Me: The Bible is just a pile of paper. It can’t save anybody. It’s inspired by God, yes, and it’s important. But it’s not what we worship.
Wife: I guess.
Me: I could pledge allegiance to Jesus. Is there a pledge to Jesus?
Wife: You should write one.
Me: “I pledge allegiance to Jesus.” The end.
Wife: That’s all?
Me: What else is there?

Worth the Watch: Christless Christianity

Written by Colin. Published on May 20, 2010 ago in Religion and Theology. 8 Comments

I finally made it through the hours of video available from the “Christless Christianity” conference held by RC Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries. The whole thing is free online.

The material of the conference goes through the entire litany of false Christianity – everything from more obvious gospels based on prosperity and self-will, to those which I myself have seen creep into mainline conservative evangelical churches (and my own life): gospels of self-help, therapy and “just loving Jesus.” The conference is a supreme reminder of the importance of doctrine – and right doctrine at that.

Finally, the material ends quite aptly describing the solid biblical nature of reformed theology. I couldn’t help but be touched when the last two speakers described what it was like to come into the knowledge of good, consistent, biblical theology about God’s grace. One of the speakers had a similar b***ground to me; being saved in a pentecostal church, moving to an Armenian mainline evangelical church, and finally finding the doctrines of Grace and seeing the whole basis of his Christianity moving away from being about him and what he’s done / should do to being about God and what he has done.

Even for those who have not yet accepted Reformed Theology, the material is a great measure for what kind of gospel might be in your life or your church. It’s a call to a return to the basics of the gospel and a putting aside of the extra baggage we’ve attached to it.

Quiz: Joel Osteen or Fortune Cookie

Written by Colin. Published on May 14, 2010 ago in Religion. 7 Comments

Tim Challies has put up a brilliant post with a series of statements which are either from Joel Osteen, famous heretical preacher, or a fortune cookie. Take the quiz – your score isn’t the point!

Another Example of The Beauty From Christians Forsaking Copyright

Written by Colin. Published on May 6, 2010 ago in Religion and Theology. 6 Comments

I found this video on Bob Kauflin’s blog. It’s an incredible reminder of the grace of God:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbTK-mKxrAc[/youtube]

But, guess what? This video violates copyright.

If copyright were enforced strictly this video would not exist.

It is in the church’s best interest to free up the creative gifts that God has given to men for the profit of all, and cease to put up barriers of intellectual property. We cannot centrally plan God. No pastor, no local church, no movement of churches has a monopoly or say in how God is going to direct the creative work of his universal church.

As Christian creative artists we need to let go of the illusion of ownership over God’s gifts to us, stop peddling the word of God and follow John Piper’s example at Desiring God and put out our labour for the kingdom without barriers.

Read more in-depth articles on this topic in the two part series on Worship and Intellectual Property:

Dealing With Disappointment in the Church

Written by Colin. Published on April 20, 2010 ago in Religion and Theology. 2 Comments

For those who have been through the process of a church change, may be thinking about it or might need to think about it someday (this basically means every Christian at this point) then this resource might be useful. Kevin DeYoung who authored Just Do Something, which I haven’t yet read, but from the reviews seems to put the correct emphasis on issues about “the will of God” has put together some great (short) blog posts about how to deal with a church that is disappointing:

Leaving a church is never something to undertake lightly, and humility is essential. Essential. These posts have some useful questions to ask yourself and hopefully can lead to resolution and change first before the nuclear weapon of “that’s it, we’re leaving” is dropped.

How Many Evangelical Christians Have Been Neo-Conned

Written by Colin. Published on March 18, 2010 ago in Essays, Philosophy, Politics, Religion and Theology. 6 Comments

The Austrian Scholars Conference 2010 has now concluded and the paper by Dr Kevin Clauson on “Why Evangelicals Don’t Like Austrian Political Economy—But Should” is essential listening for just about any Christian. Dr Clauson was kind enough to send me along a draft to make writing this article easier. Please feel free to read it (NOTE: THIS IS A DRAFT COPY, posted with permission from the author). Also, listen to the paper (30 mins.).

Clauson has spent time both at Liberty University (22 years, most of them as head of their Government department) and also in the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign – so he knows what he’s talking about.

The framework for the argument is laid out by first establishing key definitions:

An evangelical bases his thinking on scripture first (not tradition, not a pope, not natural law). It is, at minimum, an adherence to innerrancy in scripture, the sinfulness of man, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the substitutionary sacrifice of Christ, the resurrection.

But Clauson goes further to note that several non-theological concepts have been added and adopted almost universally among evangelicals:

A vaguely defined adherence to “political conservatism”
Social issues (immorality of abortion, gay marriage, etc..)
Certain immoral behaviours should be regulated by government (alcohol, drugs, pornography…)
A support for a “free market” (but a lack of knowledge as to exactly what that is, and a lack of concern about monetary policy)
Reverence for the Constitution (again, though a fairly abysmal knowledge of what the Constitution actually says)
A “Strong defence” (which can mean a global military presence, especially in the Middle East)
The US is morally obligated to support Israel

Clauson then makes the statement that builds the crux of his argument: that evangelicals, based on their own theological criteria, should actually find some common ground with Austrianism. If Evangelicals would start from their main, and primary frame of reference: that scripture should be of first importance, then they would actually be more sympathetic. Clauson argues that Evangelicals need to examine their bibles closer.

However, the main reasons why evangelicals have problems with Austrianism (and many libertarian views by extension):

Many Evangelicals confuse “sins” and “crimes” in scripture. A simplistic reading of scripture has lead to many evangelicals applying broad, sweeping conclusions about sins as crimes. The bible calls many things sins, but it does not necessarily call all sins crimes (of course areas such as murder, theft, etc… are clearly defined in scripture as crimes). There is no biblical justification for making those sins which the bible does not also call crime, into state-enforced laws against sin. Again, this is derived solely from scripture and fits within the fundamentals of the evangelical worldview. Clauson:

Substantial freedom may not always be “pretty” (on the societal level—churches and religious organizations would certainly be free to deal with such behaviors, and others, within their own private domains), but it is not necessarily unbiblical, according to the Bible itself, the authoritative guide for Evangelicalism.

Continue reading ‘How Many Evangelical Christians Have Been Neo-Conned’