09.08.08
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 3:39 pm by ebenezer
Dr. Mohler’s Blog - www.albertmohler.com
September 2008
A Private Conviction About Murder?
Speaking Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Senator Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, made headlines by stating that he accepts “as a matter of faith” that human life begins at conception, but he would not impose that view on others as a matter of law.
Sen. Biden’s statement is similar in form to those offered by other Catholic politicians like former New York Governor Mario Cuomo. Nevertheless, what it really represents is far more horrifying than may be recognized at first.
Speaking on “Meet the Press,” Biden responded to a question from Tom Brokaw. The anchor had asked Biden what he would say if Sen. Barack Obama asked him when human life begins [see video clip here]:
I’d say, “Look, I know when it begins for me.” It’s a personal and private issue. For me, as a Roman Catholic, I’m prepared to accept the teachings of my church. But let me tell you. There are an awful lot of people of great confessional faiths-Protestants, Jews, Muslims and others-who have a different view. They believe in God as strongly as I do. They’re intensely as religious as I am religious. They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life-I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. And I know you get the push back, “Well, what about fascism?” Everybody, you know, you going to say fascism’s all right? Fascism isn’t a matter of faith. No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea.
Biden first calls the issue “personal and private,” an interesting way to introduce a statement about a matter that inevitably has relevance to public policy. He claims to accept the teachings of his church, but then states that other religions hold to other views, and these believers “believe in God as strongly as I do” and are equally religious.
We live in a pluralistic society, he argues, and it would be improper for him to “impose” his judgment on others, who may be “equally and maybe even more devout than I.”
He then realizes something of the intellectual problem he has just created and argues that, for example, all good religious folk would oppose fascism, and thus we can presumably establish that as public policy. “No decent religious person thinks fascism is a good idea,” he concludes. So is the new criterion for public policy to be what a “good religious person” might think?
Brokaw then asked Biden about his support of abortion rights, given what he has just said about his belief that life begins at conception. Biden answered, “I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it’s a moment of conception.”
Kate Phillips of The New York Times explained Biden’s predicament this way:
In the interview Sunday, Mr. Biden tried to walk the line between the staunch abortion-rights advocates in his party and his own religious beliefs. While he said he did not often talk about his faith, he said of those who disagree with him: “They believe in their faith and they believe in human life, and they have differing views as to when life — I’m prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception.”
Sen. Biden may have been attempting to “walk the line” politically, but a closer look at his actual argument is truly horrifying.
Sen. Biden says, and we must take him at his word, that he accepts as a matter of faith that human life begins at conception. But, he argues, he is perfectly willing to support a woman’s right to choose to end that human life.
The killing of human life is called homicide. Murder is the willful taking of a human life. The senator has here stated that he believes abortion to be homicide, but he defends a woman’s right to kill the unborn human life within her because he would not impose his beliefs about human life (and thus about homicide) on others.
In other words, if we take Sen. Biden seriously, he would defer to others who believe otherwise when it comes to the law.
How can he live with this? There are significant questions about the extent to which some matters can properly be legislated. But there is no question that the government — any government — must take a stand on the question of human life. This is why the abortion issue simply will not and cannot go away. The government takes a side on this question, like it or not.
I believe Sen. Biden to be a serious man, and that is what is most frightening about this. Can a morally serious man really say that he believes that unborn babies are human beings, but that it should be a protected right to kill them?
Permalink
08.08.08
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 10:22 am by ebenezer
Posted: Friday, August 08, 2008 at 3:31 am ET
By Albert Mohler, Jr.
Atheism is not a new concept. Even the Bible speaks of the one who tells himself in his heart, “There is no God.” Atheism became an organized and publicly recognized worldview in the wake of the Enlightenment and has maintained a foothold in Western culture ever since. Disbelief in God became part of the cultural landscape in the 1960s when TIME magazine published a cover story—“Is God Dead?”—that seemed to herald the arrival of a new secular age.
Nevertheless, atheists have represented only a small (if vocal) minority of Americans. Surveys estimate that atheists represent less than two percent of the population, even as the larger group of “unaffiliated” includes over fifteen percent. Atheists have published books, held seminars, presented their views in the media, and honed their points in public debates. As a worldview, atheism is over-represented among the intellectual elites, and atheists have largely, though not exclusively, talked to their own.
Until now. Get on an airplane, settle in for a flight, and observe what other passengers are reading. You are likely to see books representing a new wave of atheism as you look around the cabin. The so-called “New Atheists” have written best-sellers that have reached far beyond the traditional audience for such books. Books by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have spent weeks and months on the best-seller list published by The New York Times. Clearly, something is happening.
The New Atheism is not just a reassertion of atheism. It is a movement that represents a far greater public challenge to Christianity than that posed by the atheistic movements of previous times. Furthermore, the New Atheism is not just another example of marketing an idea in the postmodern age. The New Atheists are, in their own way, evangelistic in intent and ambitious in hope. They see atheism as the only plausible worldview for our times, and they see belief in God as downright dangerous – an artifact of the past that we can no longer afford to tolerate, much less encourage.
They see science as on their side, and argue that scientific knowledge is our only true knowledge. They argue that belief in God is organized ignorance, that theistic beliefs lead to violence and that atheism is liberation. They are shocked and appalled that Americans refuse to follow the predictions of the secularization theorists, who had assured the elites that belief in God would be dissolved by the acids of modernity. They have added new (and very important) arguments to the atheistic arsenal. They write from positions of privilege, and they know how to package their ideas. They know that the most important audience is the young, and they are in a position to reach young people with their arguments.
It becomes clear that the New Atheism has exploited an opening presented by significant and seismic changes in prevailing patterns of thought. In this light, the contributions of philosopher Charles Taylor become especially helpful. We must acknowledge that most educated persons living in Western societies now inhabit a cultural space in which the conditions of belief have been radically changed. Whereas it was once impossible not to believe and later possible not to believe, for millions of people today, the default position is that it is impossible to believe. The belief system referenced in this formula is that of biblical theism—the larger superstructure of the Christian faith.
In terms of our own evangelistic and apologetic mandate, it is helpful to acknowledge that only a minority of those we seek to reach with the Gospel are truly and self-consciously identified with atheism in any form. Nevertheless, the rise of the New Atheism presents a seductive alternative for those inclined now to identify more publicly and self-consciously with organized nonbelief. The far larger challenge for most of us is to communicate the Gospel to persons whose minds are more indirectly shaped by these changed conditions of belief.
The greater seduction is towards the only vaguely theistic forms of “spirituality” that have become the belief systems (however temporarily) of millions. These are people who, as Daniel Dennett suggests, are more likely to believe in belief than to believe in God.
The Christian church must respond to the challenge of the New Atheism with the full measure of conviction and not with mere curiosity. We are reminded that the church has faced a constellation of theological challenges throughout its history. Then, as now, the task is to articulate, communicate, and defend the Christian faith with intellectual integrity and evangelistic urgency. We should not assume that this task will be easy, and we must also refuse to withdraw from public debate and private conversation in light of this challenge.
In the final analysis, the New Atheism presents the Christian church with a great moment of clarification. The New Atheists do, in the end, understand what they are rejecting. When Sam Harris defines true religion as that “where participants’ avowed belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought,” he understands what many mired in confusion do not. In the end, the existence of the supernatural, self-existent, and self-revealing God is the only starting point for Christian theology. God possesses all of the perfections revealed in Scripture, or there is no coherent theology presented in the Bible. The New Atheists are certainly right about one very important thing—it’s atheism or biblical theism. There is nothing in between.
_____________________
This is adapted from my new book, Atheism Remix: A Christian Confronts the New Atheists (Crossway Books), which has just been released and is available through your local bookstore or by clicking on the link or cover image above.
Permalink
01.23.08
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 11:17 am by ebenezer
A Legacy of Conviction and Courage
Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 4:04 am ET
Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr. | www.AlbertMohler.com
The year was 1980 and the controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention was in full force. Adrian Rogers, pastor of the Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis has been elected SBC President just the previous June — setting the stage for what became known as the Conservative Resurgence in the denomination.
The issue of biblical inerrancy was front and center. Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today, had diagnosed the crisis of biblical authority in his 1976 book, The Battle for the Bible. Lindsell had identified theological liberalism within the Southern Baptist Convention (and among others as well) and a great number of Southern Baptists were sufficiently concerned to sound the alarm and mount a movement to elect conservative leaders who would return the denomination and its institutions to an affirmation of biblical inerrancy.
Conservatives had committed leadership in men such as Paige Patterson, then President of the Criswell Center for Biblical Studies in Dallas, and Judge Paul Pressler of Houston. The movement had a powerful theological voice in Paige Patterson, an organizational expert in Paul Pressler, a statesman preacher in Adrian Rogers, and a host of concerned pastors and laypersons. What is lacked was a corps of supportive seminary professors and a book that would set the record straight.
Both were badly needed. The argument against biblical inerrancy was dominant in the Southern Baptist establishment, and revisionist historians had pushed the idea that inerrancy was an essentially modern argument. This theory had been popularized in a book that was an assigned text in many seminary classrooms — The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach, by Jack B. Rogers and Donald K. McKim, published in 1979. Later, Russell Dilday, President of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, would make virtually the same argument in his 1982 SBC doctrine study, The Doctrine of Biblical Authority.
Southern Baptists had lacked a book that would document the fact that biblical inerrancy was not a new idea at all, but the explicit affirmation of faithful Baptists throughout the Baptist experience. That book appeared in 1980 as Baptists and the Bible by L. Russ Bush and Tom L. Nettles — both young professors at Southwestern Seminary. Bush, a philosopher and apologist, and Nettles, a historian, documented their case and set the record straight. Their book was timely, urgent, controversial, and filled with ample documentation. It changed history — quite literally.
As Bush and Nettles argued:
This particular doctrine, the inspiration of Scripture, deserves special historical attention because of its inherent importance. Moreover, present-day Baptists have inherited the churches, associations, societies, agencies, and boards that were founded by men who held a particular, definitive view of history. Present-day Baptists, if only for the sake of tradition and historical identity, are under obligation to understand the view of Scripture that bolstered the founding of their vigorous and active institutional life. What did the Baptist forefathers mean by “the sole authority of Scripture?” Once that is determined, extreme caution should characterize any movement away from the position that has produced the basic and successful institutions of Baptist life.
Yet, Bush and Nettles offered far more than an argument from history, necessary as that argument is. They pointed to the biblical, theological, and epistemological foundations of biblical authority and biblical inerrancy.
While Baptists and the Bible set the historical record straight, the controversy in the Southern Baptist Convention continued for well over a decade. The Conservative Resurgence in the SBC eventually led to a transformation of the denomination and its institutions. We can now see that Baptists and the Bible was a critical part of the movement that led to that transformation.
Bush and Nettles were courageous and deeply committed. They set themselves against a bad argument that was nonetheless ensconced within the academy as conventional wisdom. They brought controversy upon themselves and risked their academic careers. Neither could imagine back then where their careers might end. Both risked a premature end to promising ministries of scholarship and teaching.
But Baptists and the Bible was not the end. Nettles now serves as Professor of Historical Theology at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and is widely known through his writings and teaching. He continues the work of historical research and writing that was demonstrated in Baptists and the Bible. Russ Bush went on to serve as Dean of the Faculty and Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina. Later, he would serve as Academic Vice President and as Director of the seminary’s Center for Faith and Culture.
Bush went to Southeastern Seminary when that school was in the early stages of a complete institutional transition. The Conservative Resurgence had reached Southeastern. Russ Bush served with distinction and courage. He continued his teaching and research and served with honor under three Southeastern presidents, Lewis Drummond, Paige Patterson, and Danny Akin.
Two years ago, Russ Bush was diagnosed with a life-threatening cancer. He fought bravely and provided for all a demonstration of how a Christian should face both disease and death. His faith in his Lord Jesus Christ was evident, even as his humility never faltered. He kept a brave face and refused to resign himself to a disease. He showed up at denominational meetings where healthy persons complained about boredom. He never complained.
He was seldom seen without his constant companion, Cynthia — his wife of almost 40 years. He was also seldom seen without a smile, as Cynthia cheered him and squeezed his arm.
Defining himself as a Baptist theologian, Bush had argued for a recovery of Baptist identity:
Who are the Baptists? We are a Bible-believing people who teach the New Birth, the priesthood of every believer, religious freedom, the gathered church, the sovereignty of God, salvation by Grace through Faith, the permanence of salvation, and the historicity and factual inerrancy of Holy Scripture. We baptize by immersion to symbolize the literal death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord. We share the Lord’s Supper in order to remind ourselves of His flesh and blood offered as a sacrifice for our sin; and we do all of this by Faith as we await His soon return. Who are the Baptists? They are God’s faithful band of saints who seek above all to present Christ to the world.
Russ Bush finished his race on January 22, 2008. His death leaves Southern Baptists without his keen mind and his singular influence. He died as he lived — as a faithful disciple, minister, and apologist of the Christian Gospel.
In 2006, President Danny Akin announced the establishment of the L. Russ Bush Center for Faith and Culture. Russ Bush retired from his administrative responsibilities and assumed responsibility for the center. He kept reading, teaching, and writing.
Just a few months before his death, he published an essay on the challenge of New Age beliefs. “Things simply are not what or how they used to be,” he explained. “World population is exploding. Technology is changing our lives before our very eyes. In a fifteen-year time span the Internet literally changed the way we do business, entertainment, shopping, and socializing. What will be next? Even youth (under twenty) hardly recognize the world in which we live today compared to the world in which they lived as a child.”
His confidence? “In Christ all the wisdom of God dwells bodily. In Him alone we find the way, the truth, and the life.”
We will all miss Russ Bush, but his legacy continues in those he taught and in all those he influenced through his life and writings, including Baptists and the Bible. That legacy demands our attention — and summons equal conviction and courage.
___________________
Southeastern Seminary posted the following information:
Tuesday evening, January 22, 2008, Dr. L. Russ Bush, SEBTS’ Academic Vice President and Dean of the Faculty Emeritus, went home to be with his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Dr. Bush was loved by us all at SEBTS, and by many others. God used him in a mighty way during his years of service to the Kingdom. We will be forever indebted to him. Please keep his wife and children in your prayers.
We rejoice that now he sees his Savior face to face, and we cherish the time that we had to serve along side of him.
Permalink
01.22.08
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 1:42 pm by ebenezer
Eric Alenander
The excerpt is taken from Eric Alexander’s 1981 address to the Urbana Missions Conference.
TRUE WORSHIP AND TRUE MISSION: FOR THE GLORY OF GOD
Worship and mission are so bound together in the economy of God that you really cannot have one without the other. The reason for this is that true worship is rendering to God the glory which is due his holy name. And this is the great end and purpose for which all things exist. God created the world as a theater in which to display his glory. He created man and woman in order that they might reflect the image of his glory. He sent Jesus in order that the glory of God might be seen in the face of Jesus Christ. He redeemed sinners in order that they may be changed into the image of his glory. There is nothing beyond this for us: it is the terminus of everything in the universe. And that is why worship is the highest employment of our faculties: it focuses on the glory of God.
But when we come to know God, we discover that he is jealous for his glory. He will not give it to another, nor his praise to graven images. He desires his glory to be declared among the heathen (Psalm 96:3). Do you see the logical corollary which must be drawn from these premises? No Christian man or woman worshiping God and desiring his glory can be unmoved by the fact that there are areas of the world and nations where God is being robbed of his glory. That is why true worship and true mission always go together, and it is why the glory of God is the only ultimate missionary motive. There are, of course, others: compassion for the lost, obedience to the Great Commission and so on. But these are not the ultimate motive. The ultimate motive is the glory of God.
—– [Eric Alexander, from a message at the Urbana Missions Conference, 1981 (www.urbana.org/_articles.cfm?RecordId=510). Rev. Alexander was born in Glasgow, Scotland, where he was educated at the University of Glasgow, obtaining degrees in Theology, Philosophy, and History. He served for fifteen years as minister of a rural Church of Scotland parish in Ayrshire, and for twenty years as Senior Minister of St. Georges Parish Church in the center of Glasgow. He retired from St. Georges at the end of 1998. Since then, Rev. Alexander has had a wide ministry both in Europe and in the United States, teaching at a number of seminaries including Regent College, The Masters Seminary, Beeson Divinity School, and Westminster Theological Seminary. In addition, he has spoken at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformation Theology over the past twenty years. (wqotw-bounces@wqotw.org on behalf of Carl Stam (carlstam@aol.com)] —–
Permalink
01.17.08
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 10:50 am by ebenezer
Allen Raynor
Biblical Preaching Falling on Hard Times (Jan. 16, 2008)
araynorweblog@fbcbroomfield.org
For a period of about 3 years I worked as a shoe salesman
while serving bi-vocationally as a youth pastor and then in my first
pastorate. The store I worked at sold mainly work boots and work
shoes. Red Wing was the majority of our business with a few other
brands entering into the mix as well. Red Wing, headquartered in Red
Wing, Minnesota, has abided by one basic philosophy for nearly one
hundred years, that philosophy is to place quality above all else.
One pays more for their products but they stand behind what they sell.
When someone buys a pair of Red Wings they know they are getting a
quality product and if there is a problem the 1-800 number is stamped
all over the box. They have never claimed to be a discount shoe, nor
have they claimed to be the most comfortable shoe. They basically
have always relied on a belief that customers satisfied with the
quality and long-lasting durability of their product would come back
time and again.
Many of the shoes and boots they sold when I worked for
them had not changed, or changed very little, for years, even decades.
The 9335 and the 101 were black work shoes with full leather uppers
with urethane soles and had been in their line for many, many years.
The 9335, in the early 1990s, became the first casualty of a changing
marketplace. The 101 followed, being dropped from the line in the
late 1990s. Often customers would come into the store and inquire
about one of these shoes claiming they had worn that shoe for many
years. Often, it seemed, I was delivering the sad news that Red Wing
had discontinued the shoe to their disappointment. Often I would hear
how much they loved the shoe and how well that style had served them.
Red Wing, like any other business, is in business to make
money! If something becomes non-profitable they drop it, in spite of
the few loyal customers who have faithfully continued to support it
with their hard earned dollars.
When I think of Biblical preaching today I see a lot of
parallels with what happened to the 9335 and the 101. As a pastor, I
have had people time and time again tell me just how much they
appreciated the fact that I remained true and faithful to the word of
God in preaching only to shortly thereafter leave the church, going,
in many cases, to churches which were not true and faithful to the
Word of God. Many people, for whatever reason, tell me the Word of
God is the single most important thing of all, however they leave and
go to less Biblical, less grounded, program oriented churches.
What I often wanted to tell people at the Red Wing shoe
store is that if you would buy the product and get your friends to buy
the product Red Wing would gladly keep making the product! Today any
church remaining faithful to the Word of God is struggling and may
even cease to exist in the not too distant future. If and when that
does happen the biggest lamenters will likely be those who once left
the Bible preaching church in favor of one who had a better _______.
The New Testament is clear where pastors are concerned. We
are called to preach the word! If we have done everything else under
the sun with painstaking effort and precision yet neglected to preach
the word, then we have failed miserably. There will come a day when
pastors of some mega-churches are going to stand before God ashamed
with nothing but regret while some who pastored tiny little country
churches with 25 people are going to hear their Savior say ?Well done.?
Unfortunately, we live in a day and age where people change
churches for any one of a number of reasons. Equally unfortunate is
that they often do not choose a church for the right reason in the
first place. The criteria are superficial at best, but they are often
ashamed to admit to the real reason(s) they come or go. God, most
truly, knows what is in the heart. At the very core the question is
this: ?is it my greatest desire to serve or is it my greatest desire
to be served?? How you answer that question will determine where you
go to church. It also will, in the bigger and grander scheme of
things, determine the future of Biblical preaching. Biblical
preaching is fast going the way of the two old tired Red Wing styles
because, even though we lament its demise, we are still not buying it.
Ringling Brothers Circus bills itself as the greatest show on earth.
Never once have I heard them claim to be Biblical!
In Christ,
Pastor Allen Raynor
First Baptist Church, Broomfield, CO
Permalink
01.12.08
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 1:52 pm by ebenezer
John Calvin
1. The first rule of prayer is reverence | “be disposed in mind and heart as befits those who enter conversation with God.”
2. The second rule requires that we desire the things we seek from God | “A fault that seems less serious but is also not tolerable is that of others who, having been imbued with this one principle - that God must be appeased by devotions - mumble prayers without meditation. Now the godly must particularly beware of presenting themselves before God to request anything unless they yearn for it with sincere affection of heart, and at the same time desire to obtain it from him.”
3. The third rule warns us not to trust in our own resources to meet our needs, but to trust only in God | “anyone who stands before God to pray, in his humility giving glory completely to God, abandon all thought of his own glory, cast off all notion of his own worth, in fine, put away all self-assurance - lest if we claim for ourselves anything, even the least bit, we should become vainly puffed up, and perish at his presence.”
4. The fourth rule requires to believe that God does answer prayer | “[be] encouraged to pray by a sure hope that our prayer will be answered … [have] a firm assurance of God’s favor.”
—– [The Founders Journal, Issue 69, (Stephen Matteucci, A Strong Tower For Weary People: Calvin’s Teaching On Prayer), Summer 2007, p. 21-22 (adapted)] —–
Philippians 4:6-7
[D]o not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.
Bruce
Permalink
12.21.07
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 12:20 am by ebenezer
John L. Dagg
As intelligent beings, we may contemplate the omniscience of God with devout admiration; and as guilty beings we should fear and tremble before it. He sees the inmost recesses of the heart. The hateful thoughts which we are unwilling a fellow-worm should know, are all known to him, and every thought, word, and deed, he remembers, and will bring into judgment. How terrible is this attribute of the Great Judge, who will expose the secrets of every heart, and reward every man according to his works, though unobserved or forgotten by man!
But with all the awe which invests it, this attribute of the Divine Nature, is delightful to the pious man. He rejoices to say, Thou, God, seest me. He prays, Try me, and see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me into the way everlasting. Gladly he commits himself to the guidance of him who has all knowledge. Conscious of his own blindness and darkness, he knows not which way to take, or what is best for him; but he puts himself, with unwavering confidence, into the hands of the omniscient God.
—– [Manuel of Theology, Harrisonburg: Gano Books, 1982, p. 73-74] —–
Permalink
12.18.07
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 1:01 pm by ebenezer
John MacArthur
Character. It has an old-fashioned sound to it, like a faded relic of the Victorian era. We live in a materialistic culture where prestige, prosperity, and popularity are valued more than genuine integrity. In fact, personal character hardly seems to matter very much at all nowadays - at least in the realms of mass media, entertainment, politics, and pop culture.
Only a few select moral qualities are still prized by society at large. They are chiefly liberal community values such as diversity, tolerance, and broad-mindedness. Sometimes they are even called virtures. But when traits like those are blended with hyprocisy or employed to justify some other iniquity, they become mere caricatures of authenic virtue.
Meanwhile, genine individual virtue - the stuff of true, timeless, praiseworthy character is made - has been formally relegated to the sphere of “personal” things best not talked about openly. …
According to the Bible. God designed us to be men and women of exemplary character. He repeatedly commands us to pursue what is virtuous and shun what is evil. From cover to cover in Scripture, iniquity is condemned and virtue exalted.
Clearly, we are supposed to be men and women of excellent character. We’re commanded to “hold fast what is good [and] abstain from every form of evil” (1 Thessalonians 5:21-22). …
Truly excellent character is actually a reflection of the moral nature of God Himself. For that reason, all virtures are interdependent and closely related. And all of them are the fruit of God’s grace.
—– [The Quest for Character, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 2006, p. 12-13] —–
Permalink
12.14.07
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 9:48 am by ebenezer
Dr. Mohler’s Blog
Richard Dawkins appears quite comfortable with his status as the world’s most influential apostle of atheism. He can rest his atheist laurels on the reputation of his best-selling book, The God Delusion, and his incessant advocacy of atheism in the media worldwide. To date, Professor Dawkins has demonstrated a take-no-prisoners approach to pressing his case, arguing that parents who inculcate religious beliefs within their own children are guilty of a form of child abuse.
And yet, it seems that Dawkins now wants to call himself a “cultural Christian.” The BBC [British Broadcasting Corporation] reports that Dawkins now wants the traditions of cultural Christianity and plans to sing Christmas carols this season “along with everybody else.” Now, why would an atheist want to sing Christmas carols?
The BBC reports that Professor Dawkins’ comments came in response to accusations by a Member of Parliament that the nation was avoiding references to Christmas due to political correctness.
From the BBC report:
Prof Dawkins, who has frequently spoken out against creationism and religious fundamentalism, replied: “I’m not one of those who wants to stop Christian traditions.
“This is historically a Christian country. I’m a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims.
“So, yes, I like singing carols along with everybody else. I’m not one of those who wants to purge our society of our Christian history.
“If there’s any threat these sorts of things, I think you will find it comes from rival religions and not from atheists.”
The thought of Richard Dawkins singing any carols with explicit Christian content is difficult to hold — unless the Oxford professor intends to sing of a faith he does not profess.
Dawkins expanded on those comments in an article published December 13, 2007 by The New Statesman. In this article Dawkins explains that Christmas is a part of his nation’s history and culture, and thus to be acknowledged, if not celebrated, by all.
He even threw some barbs toward the United States, suggesting that political correctness and a fear of offending anyone’s sensitivities was leading to a denial of the cultural significance of Christmas. All this is unnecessary, he insists:
For better or worse, ours is historically a Christian culture, and children who grow up ignorant of biblical literature are diminished, unable to take literary allusions, actually impoverished. I am no lover of Christianity, and I loathe the annual orgy of waste and reckless reciprocal spending, but I must say I’d rather wish you “Happy Christmas” than “Happy Holiday Season“.
Now, don’t believe for a moment that Dawkins has gone soft on Christian claims about Christmas. He devotes the greater part of his article to an effort to debunk the biblical claims about Christ and Christmas. He argues:
Most but not all scholars think, on balance, that a charismatic wandering preacher called Jesus (or Joshua) probably was executed during the Roman occupation, though all objective historians agree that the evidence is weak. Certainly, nobody takes seriously the legend that he was born in December. Late Christian tradition simply attached Jesus’s birth to a long-established and convenient winter solstice festival.
Well, the claim that Jesus was born in December is indeed a legend — a claim not found in the Bible. The claims that actually are found in the Bible, starting with the virgin conception of Christ and His birth in Bethlehem, are central and essential to the Gospel storyline and to the Christian faith.
We can only wonder which Christmas carols are Richard Dawkins’ favorites. The sight of an avowed atheist joining in the Christmas chorus is a bit hard to imagine. At the same time, there is something comforting about the idea that even the world’s most famous atheist will move his lips to the songs that celebrate Christ’s birth. Perhaps those words will move from his lips to his head and his heart. We should pray that it might be so.
Merry Christmas, Professor Dawkins.
Permalink
12.10.07
Posted in Other Noteworthies at 5:31 pm by ebenezer
Allen Raynor
araynorweblog@fbcbroomfield.org
Monday: 12-10-07
1 Week, 2 Worldviews, 3 ? plus Attacks
On Wednesday Dec. 5, I learned that the couple which my wife and I had bought our house from in Colorado had a son who was killed in a deadly rampage in Anchorage, Alaska where he was attending college. This Godly young man, Jason, actively worked with youth and young adults and was, by all accounts, sold out to God. A crazed man seemingly went berserk and killed two people and injured a few more. Jason was attempting to prevent the gunman from stealing his car outside his own home when he was shot dead in the street.
The very same day we all became aware of another senseless incident which defies explanation. A 19 year old kid walked into Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska and began shooting, killing 8 people, injuring 5 others before finally taking his own life.
Yesterday afternoon, while many were enjoying a football game on television, local news, here in Colorado, broke in to report the heart-breaking report that there had been a shooting in the early morning hours in nearby Arvada which took the life of two people at a rescue mission and that another shooting had just occurred in Colorado Springs in the parking lot of New Life Church. As I write this, it has still not been determined if the two acts were committed by the same person. Quite honestly, if they are not connected it only makes things worse!
Pastor and author Rick Warren, appearing on ABC?s Good Morning America, Monday Dec. 10th, reiterated that the real problem is a spiritual one. People do not commit these acts of violence without a severe spiritual abnormality in their life.
When we consider these shooters who have claimed the lives of 14 people and severely injured several more, we notice the lack of hope in their lives. The shootings were a sort of ?acting out? stemming from the spiritual depravity or void in their hearts. They themselves were miserable and wretched inside and they sought to inflict as much hurt on others as possible. Often when these type things occur, it is determined through suicide notes, recorded messages, etc. that the shooters actually blame the victim(s), in advance, for their own violent outbreaks. It is a form of evil and twisted transference of guilt.
The worldview demonstrated by these shooters reflects one of extreme selfishness. They are, most truly, the center of their own universe. Regard for others is almost non-existent. It boils down to what they see as, ?I am hurting, therefore, I am going to hurt as many as I can as much as I can.? The pattern is eerily similar in case after case. The person kills as many as he can then puts himself out of his own misery by killing himself. We have seen it time and time again in the rash of school shootings over the last decade (Columbine, Virginia Tech, and the list goes on). Even men like Timothy McVey (The Oklahoma City Bomber) and the 911 hijackers felt completely justified in their actions and only expressed sorrow and regret that they could not inflict even more pain, hurt, and taking of life. This worldview is the worldview of Satan. Jesus said of Satan in the New Testament, ?The thief comes to steal, to kill, and to destroy, but I have come that you might have life and have it more abundantly.? Satan will tell anybody anything to get them to do his work. Whatever you want to hear, Satan will speak it to you in a convincing and irresistible tone.
Contrast this mixed-up worldview with that of friends, family members, and fellow church-goers interviewed not long after these shootings which expressed a need for forgiveness, even pity and compassion for the shooters themselves! How can that be explained in human terms? Quite simply it cannot. It is a God thing! Human beings, left on their own, lack the power to truly forgive. Those who have expressed a willingness to forgive and act ?Christ-like,? represent so very well the call to rise above this world and view things in light of the big picture of eternity.
The Christian Worldview does not see life here on earth as an end in itself but merely a precursor to the life which is to come. 1 Cor. 13 teaches us that when that which is perfect has come, that which is only temporal or non-complete will vanish away. Let us be diligent to make known the Christian worldview to others. Please use moments like this to convey to others the hopelessness and emptiness of life lived apart from a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. He is our only hope!
In Christ,
Pastor Allen Raynor
First Baptist Church, Broomfield, CO
Permalink
« Previous entries