searchcareers

I am a supporter of short-term missions. However, my blog post of the day before yesterday did not make that clear. I have seen at least two people called to long-term missions because they served on a short-term mission team. My problem is not with short-term missions per se. My problem is with under-trained teams who come over and cause multiple problems to the missionaries in residence and who expect the local long-term missionary to be overwhelmingly grateful that they have deigned to come. I saw too many of that type of visitor coming through.

Nevertheless, I do not fully agree with people, such as Tony Campolo, who argue:

Does it ever occur to those leaders who take bright, enthusiastic American young people to Haiti to build hundreds and hundreds of church buildings and schools that Haitians are capable of building them? Do they even consider how many jobs they take away from Haitians because of their well-intentioned construction enterprises? Does it occur to them that when Haitians see an American youth group put up a cinder block school building in just ten days that this could contribute to a sense of inferiority as these Americans do in ten days what seems to Haitians like a miracle?

This an argument that, interestingly enough, is made by some conservative and some liberal Christians. The argument is that there is an incredible amount of money that is spent by short-term mission teams, money that could be better spent if it were given directly to the Haitian churches. And, you know what? There really is a lot of truth to that argument. It is a very idealistic viewpoint, and all the more attractive because it is true.  But, as with many idealistic arguments, it is based on people behaving in an idealistic and perfect fashion.

But, in a less than idealistic world, in a world that is full of fallen and damaged people, people do not behave in an idealistic way. In fact, people do not give freely in the way in which they ought to. We can rail away at Christians who will not freely give unless they are personally involved or personally know the people, or we can come up with ways that educate and help recruit world-involved Christians. I prefer going for the honey rather than the vinegar. Short-term missions is a good way to expose Christians with a limited worldview to something bigger, something that can be life-changing for them. And, when they have the life changing experience that turns them into world Christians, they often become personally involved either as missionaries themselves, or as coordinators and supporters of missions.

And, there are a couple of factors that Tony Campolo forgets to take into account. One factor is that there are organizations such as SIFAT that are Christian and provide sustainable technology to needy areas. Their short-term missions activities improve the quality of life of local peoples through sustainable renewable technologies. The other factor is that there are many areas where the local Christians feel isolated and alone. A visit from a properly taught, properly behaving, mission team lets them know that there is more to Christianity than what they experience locally, and lets them know that they are not alone. In other words, in a properly put together short-term mission, both sides can have their worldview enlarged.

But, there is one further argument that Tony Campolo makes that has me seeing red.

===MORE TO COME===

Fed. appeals court upholds ‘under God’ in pledge

By TERENCE CHEA
Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal appeals court upheld the use of the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” on U.S. currency, rejecting arguments Thursday that the phrases violate the separation of church and state.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel rejected two legal challenges by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, who said the references to God are unconstitutional and infringe on his religious beliefs.

The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Newdow’s favor in 2002, ruling that the pledge violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion. . . .

Judge Carlos Bea . . . wrote for the majority in Thursday’s 2-1 ruling. “The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded,” he said. . . .

Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, agreed. He said the Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case because Thursday’s ruling is the third appellate court decision upholding the pledge.

In addition, Congress passed legislation reaffirming the pledge in 2002, following the 9th Circuit’s ruling that struck it down.

“I think this is the last word on this particular lawsuit,” Little said. “It’s an important ruling.”

In a separate 3-0 ruling Thursday, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto “In God We Trust” on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and “has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion.”

If you want to read the full article rather than the few excerpts above, go here and do a search for “In God We Trust”.

Needless to say, I am utterly pleased with the court’s ruling. I also like the wording of the ruling in that they have struck a moderate tone of voice that honors history while avoiding the thorny issue of activism in religion, which is precisely what the government is supposed to do. It is a ruling that will not please the extremes in this country, but it is one that is within our common law tradition of interpretation. Unfortunately, there will inevitably be the extreme non-theists who will continue pushing for a secular country in which religion is pushed out of public discourse, despite the freedom of religion clause. On the other side, there will inevitably be the extreme Judeo-Christians who will continue pushing to formally establish Christianity as the religion of the USA despite the establishment clause.

I suspect that most people do not know that, legally, courts have to balance out two separate clauses in the Constitution of the United States of America. One is called the freedom of religion clause, while the other is called the establishment clause. Because both are broadly worded, it is sometimes a difficult balancing act to come up with adequate judicial interpretations. Nevertheless, the establishment clause has been winning all too often in the past thirty years. This ruling is a welcome breath of fresh air pushing back towards the other clause.

language

In January of 2009, I posted a blog on what we can learn from the poor. I talked about Fr. Alejandro Mesco and what he had taught me about sharing the good things that the Lord gives us. Just today, I read an article in Mission Frontiers which is a magazine of the US Center for World Missions. It is found in the column titled Further Reflections and the particular article is called, Learning the Lay of the Land.

The author is reflecting on Haiti and a culture where, “the rule of law is questionable and where only a few people control the flow of the money.” He answers that question with some reflections that do not give a direct answer but cause us to think. Among his reflections are:

“How prepared are the 14-day teams that have gone to Haiti or other places we in the USA consider ‘needy’? Were these teams really helpful? What did they actually do? How prepared were they to understand the situation in the country before they got there?”

He then talks about hearing an interview on a travel channel, of all places, where a question was asked about teams who go to other countries in order to participate in short-term help. The interview was not addressing disaster situations, rather it was addressing a planned short-term situation, such as the physicians who will often go during the summer with a non-profit to do a two-week surgery visit or dental visit, etc. The person being interviewed commented:

Rick first talked about the need for the group to learn about the situation, learning about the history of Latin America and the relationship between rich and poor. . . . He recounted the uneasy historical tensions between the rich and the poor, and the cycle of the rich often oppressing or killing the poor and the poor often revolting and killing the rich. . . . Then Rick Steves added a comment that points to a core issue in mission today. Church people (and he is a church person, he noted) tend not to ask the questions as to why the poverty is there in the first place.

Comments of this type then lead the author of the magazine article to make some very interesting observations:

I couldn’t help thinking about the lingering question: Why are we “church” people often so far behind in our awareness, reflection and action? I know there are many exceptions, but we often seem to be stuck in a sort of “pre-Information Age” in which we bumble around the world with two-week teams ignorant of the histories and cultures of those we serve, and then we’re so relieved to go home, “where people at least pick up the trash.” But what does that kind of mentality communicate to those we visit in other nations?

These short-term trips may impart some blessing to the peoples they purport to serve, but how do these trips really help these peoples deal with their situation? What other problems do we ignore or create while trying to help?

I can remember short-term mission teams coming to “help” us in South America. Sometimes they would be a blessing, but we always shuddered when we received the news that some visitors or a team was coming because us missionaries knew that their expectations and our needs would often be wildly divergent. Interestingly enough, there was one group that we were always glad to receive and it was a secular group. That group was World Challenge from England. What is World Challenge?

World Challenge provides educational expeditions in the developing world and closer to home which teach life skills, stretch comfort zones and expand minds outside the classroom. The bespoke 1 to 6-week itineraries foster team and leadership skills and are the culmination of our pioneering programmes, which see young people involved in planning and fundraising their way to the experience of a lifetime.

The students who travel with them, travel for a mixture of adventure and social service. Each trip requires that the student fully and freely participates in some hands-on work on a social project of some type. But, at the same time, they also do some adventure hiking, etc., so that the whole trip is not simply “work”. The students raise their money during the year, but must also attend seminars in which the history and background of each country that is visited. They must learn important cultural do’s and dont’s. They learn to work as a team, with some team-building exercises during the year. And, most important, they may not go on the trip unless they have completed the entire training.

Thus, by the time we received a team, they were shepherded by experienced adults–who most often were schoolteachers during the year, not full-time employees–,  the students would know how to properly greet and behave among us. And, while the students were every bit as rowdy as First World students often are, they knew how to work as a team and when to cut off the horseplay and get to work. Even in their horseplay, they would never do in public anything that would run counter to the culture. They did their own laundry, asking only where the facilities were, and did not expect us to cook for them unless they had pre-arranged it with us before they even arrived. Again, they would only ask about kitchen facilities or would simply go to a local cheap restaurant.

In the article I cited from the beginning, I mentioned that it documented how I had learned from the poor. This article documents what I learned from the rich. Realistically, the students that I met who traveled with World Challenge were often upper-class since the South America trip was a six-week trip. They taught me about how incredibly helpful a prepared short-term team can be. I took at least one team on the multiple hour mule ride to Choco. I wish I could find a couple of the photographs so you could see a 30 some mule team strung out, hanging over a canyon on a narrow trail, with a student or adult perched on each one. And, when they got there they pitched in and helped in the building of a Mother’s Center, guided by the local Quechua villager. Note: the villagers were in charge of the building and directed, not the other way around. They taught about having the humility to accept the direction of someone who could barely read and write.

So, what about the “Christian” short-term teams or visitors? Frankly, they were the ones who caused us to shudder. . .

information

From Pithless Thoughts:

Do you fast?
Let the ears by not listening to evil talk and gossip.
For what good is it if we abstain from birds and fishes,
but bite and devour our brothers and sisters? (St. John Chrysostom).

When my wife and I were married less than five years, we were asked to go to Port Huron, Michigan, where there was a small congregation that was also a covenant community. They were affiliated with what was then one of the leading examples of intentional community in the USA, the Word of God Community. We both learned many things from that community and the Word of God Community, but, at the same time, came to realize that we were looking for something that we had not yet found. It was from that community that we became Anglicans and ended up going into mission work.

Among their best teachings were the “practical” teachings on living out the Christian life. And, one of the ones that we use to this day is the teaching on gossip. I will not try to reproduce it other than to say that the cartoon above is a good representation of the teaching received. You see, it is all too easy for Christians to hide a massive temptation to gossip and habit of gossiping by putting on a suitably pious face on the whole thing. As the cartoon shows, we often use a supposed concern for the fate of others as an excuse to share information which the other person has no right to know. We are not gossiping; we are asking for intercessory prayer; we are asking for the intercession of the saints. And, when we sin with our tongues with the other person, we claim that we are simply giving them the information that they need in order to intercede for the person about whom we are concerned.

And so, they gave us several guidelines to determine whether something we were sharing was gossip. Among them were:

• Did the person about whom you are talking give you permission to share their story and ask for prayer?
• Would you be embarrassed to repeat what you said in front of the person about whom you were talking?
• Does the person who is hearing the story have any authority to deal with the issue? They specifically said that you could not use intercessory prayer as an excuse to share. Though intercessory prayer changes things, in the realm of gossip it is all too often (over 90%) of the time an excuse to share inappropriately.
• Is what you are sharing going to diminish the reputation of the person about whom you are sharing?

There were one or two more guidelines, but you get the idea. So, what would I recommend when you hear an item you think you ought to share?

• Share all you want with Our Lord Jesus Christ. Express your concerns to Him in prayer, then leave the matter in His hands. However, be prepared for the idea that He may very well begin to work on YOU and maybe even call you to confession and repentance while leaving the other person alone!
• Share all you want with the saints in glory. They are with the Lord and purified of their sins. Ask them to intercede on behalf of the person about whom you are worried.
• Share cautiously with your priest (pastor). However, be prepared for the idea that if he is a good priest and wise that he may very well begin to work on YOU and maybe even call you to confession and repentance!
• Do not share with anyone else.

As I said, to this day I consider many of their practical teachings to be quite wise.

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other toys.
One grey night it happened, Jackie Paper came no more
And Puff that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar.

As I was listening to this Peter, Paul, and Mary song on Sunday, I found myself with tears in my eyes. In part this did not surprise me. I am a proud Latino, that means that my original culture has taught me that I am allowed to be emotional, and my adopted culture (USA) has taught me that it is OK for men to cry. So, between one and the other, I had tears in my eyes. But, why did I have such a strong feeling? Well, I think for any of several reasons:

1. The song was written at a time of high idealism. Whatever one may think of all the mistakes that us babyboomers have made over the decades–and there have been many–the late 1960’s and early 1970’s were a time of high idealism in this country. From that time came movements such as the Jesus People, the modern Christian music movement, etc. I would argue that on the political front there was also a time of high idealism in which there was a hope of a change for the better. We did not notice at that time that people continued divided into “right” and “left” but it certainly was a time of high idealism. I admit it. I miss the idealism and the high hopes that were as common as breathing at that time. Our hope was not in the Lord, and so it was vain, but even as a false hope, it was hope of real change in this world. Yet, for all the mistakes we made, many of us would not be Christians if it were not for the radical Christianity that sprang up at that time.

2.  But, we are now grandparents. I think that part of my tears were the sadness that every parent and grandparent has felt since the time of Adam and Eve. And this is the deeper sadness. We raise our children. We watch our children raise our grandchildren. If we are truly honest, we admit that within us there is the desire that none of our descendants go through what we have gone through. We want our children and grandchildren to remain innocent. Theologically we know that this is not possible, but we are like Adam and Eve, when we have our children, we hope that these are the children who somehow will stay in the innocence of the Garden of Eden. We groan and ache when we watch our children “learn” evil. We realize that the damage to our human nature is present in them also. And, so we watch another generation unable to avoid exactly the same mistakes we made, despite all our warnings and teaching. And so, as grandparents we learn even deeper what it means that Adam and Eve sinned and that we are fallen and damaged.

3.  And, we are also older. That is what it means to be grandparents. That also means that every one of us who is a grandparent–or of that age–has watched a loved one die or has had a close friend die. We have learned the bitterness of sin. All of us are realizing, either in our own bodies or by watching our friends, that the curse of Genesis is still quite active. Sin has yet to meet its final defeat. Hell has been defeated; the door to Paradise is open; but death has yet to be fully defeated; we have yet to be fully redeemed. There still remains for us a hope that has yet to be fulfilled. “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’”

And so, it is only as we reach old age that we finally begin to truly understand the curse, that we truly begin to understand the loss of innocence that came as a result of the sin of Adam and Eve. It is only now that we begin to fully realize that we, too, have followed Adam and Eve in their decision. But, to our own personal pain, it is only now that we begin to truly realize that we have passed on the curse to those whom we love most and love best, our children and grandchildren.

Yes, we have hope. Yes, we have been redeemed by Our Lord. But, it is only when one is older that one begins to understand why the Orthodox funeral liturgy has, at its beginning, passages that speak of the agony of death and the pain of sin. Yes, the service is filled with the hope of the Lord. But, that hope only makes sense if one fully understands the effect of the curse on Adam and Eve.

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys.

Pippin: I didn’t think it would end this way.
Gandalf: End? No, the journey doesn’t end here. Death is just another path… One that we all must take. The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all turns to silver glass… And then you see it.
Pippin: What? Gandalf?… See what?
Gandalf: White shores… and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.
Pippin: [smiling] Well, that isn’t so bad.
Gandalf: [softly] No… No it isn’t.

Texas Issues Tim Cole, Who Died in Prison, Its First Posthumous Pardon – AOL News.

Back in October of 2008, I blogged a series on the increasing failures of our national crime and prison policies. At that time I pointed out that states such as California were already spending 10% of their budget for prison costs with it expected to go higher. Since then, you have probably been hearing the news about overcrowding leading to mandatory prisoner releases in California. However, at that time I also pointed out:

A study done by the Federal government shows that it is a mixture of policies that are close to creating the perfect wave of monetary meltdown for California. Among the reasons for this perfect wave are: mandatory sentencing guidelines, increased number of crimes that require incarceration, tighter parole policies, giving too much discretionary power to non-judicial authorities to return a parolee to jail without a hearing, etc.

I also pointed out the startling fact, documented by both “conservative” and “liberal” news sources–look back at the posts cited above– that our prison population is going up despite the fact that our crime rate is going down. This has been the result of well over 20 years of pressure, particularly from political conservatives, for what is called a “law and order” approach to crime. It was, and continues to be, a very popular political tactic to claim that supposedly “liberal” judges were letting hard-core criminals off on technicalities, or not sentencing them to long enough terms, and that we had to get hard on crime. As I pointed out in the earlier series, this has led to the point that the United States of America has a higher proportion of its residents in jail than any other country on Earth. We also have the highest total number of prisoners in the world.

But, it has also had another unintended, but totally predictable, side-effect. Laws were passed to supposedly cut-off “inappropriate” defenses. Laws were passed to give less discretion to judges and to increase minimum mandatory sentences. Laws were passed to lessen the possibilities of non-jail punishment. Laws were passed to make it easier for prosecutors to prove crimes. Public pressure forced every elected prosecutor to take cases to court regardless of how thin the evidence was–one can see that reflected in the various crime shows on TV where more than once people are taken to trial on very thin evidence. Public pressure made every parole board hearing a pressure cooker for members of the board, who are always pilloried for any consideration they give, even if it is allowed by law. Politicians-wishing-to-be-elected are on the hunt for any failure in the parole or judicial system as proof that their opponent is soft on crime. Despite the several year drop in various types of violent crimes, the continuing drumbeat of “law and order” is reflected in polls that show the populace to actually have a higher fear of crime than they did three decades ago when the crime rate was higher!

What is the totally predictable side-effect? We began to convict innocent people on insufficient evidence. As well, more than once the designation of a “person of interest” by the police has targeted an innocent person, who is immediately thought guilty by both the media and the common citizenry. (Think about the security guard who was supposedly an Olympic bomber several years ago in Atlanta. Think about the researcher in a government facility who turned out to be fully innocent.) In fact, that has become a favorite tactic when the police want to convict someone in the court of public opinion without a trial and to put psychological pressure on them. Prosecutors’ refusal to ever declare someone innocent, even after they have soundly lost a trial, contributes to the atmosphere current in America that if you are taken to trial you must be guilty and that if you are found “not guilty” it simply means that you “got away with it.”

The case cited at the beginning of this post is simply the latest in the over several hundred people who have been found illegally and immorally put in jail, but have been freed thanks to the efforts of organizations such as The Innocence Project. When those organizations first began, many political conservatives simply labeled them as “liberal” organizations who were trying to prevent “true” justice. Several hundred innocent people later, that charge is no longer thrown at them. It is not either liberal or conservative to free innocent people; it is just. English jurist William Blackstone famously said many years ago, “Better that ten guilty persons escape, than one innocent suffer.” Benjamin Franklin said, “that it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.” A Georgia circuit court held in 1877 that it was “better that some guilty ones should escape than that many innocent persons should be subjected to the expense and disgrace attendant upon being arrested upon a criminal charge.” But we have forgotten those sayings and we have thrown away our standards. Now our standards are closer to it being better to convict and to let God sort it all out at the Last Judgment.

I would urge you to go to the website of The Innocence Project and click on the link that will show you some of the reforms of the law that they suggest. You may even wish to donate to them. The reforms are designed to return us to what we used to be, a country which adequately safeguarded the innocent from either being convicted or from subjecting the innocent to “the expense and disgrace attendant upon being arrested upon a criminal charge.”

But, I do have a final comment. I notice that there are several overtly Christian “pro-life” organizations that hold prayer vigils, picket abortion clinics, organize votes (though too many of them have become political boosters of a particular party as the Party of God), and spend much energy on that issue. This is a good thing. But, where are the Christian “pro-life” organizations who will do the same thing in favor of the innocent who are unjustly accused and/or unjustly convicted? I am not asking anti-abortion organizations to take on additional duties. But, where are the parallel Christian organizations who, in the name of being pro-life, will also take up issues such as this one? I fear that too many theologically conservative Christians have adopted the general attitude of the populace and are all too willing to convict innocent people in the name of “law and order.” I would love to see James Dobson make as strong a statement in favor of protecting innocent adults from the legal system as he has made on any of several other moral issues. I am certain that God is a just God. But, I am just as certain that someday too many American Christians will have to face Him and He will say, “I was innocent and you convicted me.”

conditions

language

On a recent post about science, one of the persons commenting brought up some reasonable points about science.

But demonstrating bias highlights other problems in modern American discourse – i.e., the false conclusiveness we give to science, and the false distinction we ascribe to it. Science demands repeatable observation to correct bias, but it can’t correct these problems beyond itself.

While I do not agree with every word in his entire comment (only part of which is quoted above), there is a good point brought up. The scientific methods has its limitations. The problem is not that science has its limitations, but that every field of human endeavor has its limitations. There is actually a field of philosophy that deals with limitations in knowledge. That field is called epistemology:

Epistemology (from Greek episteme, “knowledge, science” + logos, “reason, word”) or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.^[1] It addresses the questions:

How do we know what we know?

What is knowledge?

How is knowledge acquired?

What do people know?

OK, so given that every field has its limitations, what are the limitations of science? Well, let me quote from an university lecture, then add a couple of thoughts of my own.

• Science can’t answer questions about value.
• Science can’t answer questions of morality.
• Finally, science can’t help us with questions about the supernatural.

The lecture points out that the reason that science cannot answer questions about these areas is that these are questions that cannot be tested. Science qua science can only deal with the answer to things that can be tested, although that is too general an answer. Science can sometimes deal with things that are tested indirectly. As an example, in both quantum science and Einstinian physics, there are several of the details of those types of physics that can only be tested indirectly, for instance by the decay products of nuclear collisions in an accelerator.

Interestingly enough, the lecture points out that there are many scientists who have forgotten their limitations and make pronouncements outside of the areas which science can answer. One needs only think of popularizers such as Carl Sagan or militant atheists such as Richard Dawkins to see that happening. This would be the opposite of those who try to inject charges of cultural bias, or political bias, or etc., into every scientific discussion, as though those charges had meaning independent of their own biases. I dealt with this in earlier postings.

The person whose post I cited at the beginning of this post was absolutely correct in saying that science cannot help you to choose a set of policies to deal with their results. Let me give you an instance. Dr. Edward Jenner discovered a vaccine against smallpox in 1796 and published his findings in 1798. By 1979, smallpox was eradicated as a disease to be feared. However, it was the job of politicians around the world to implement the laws necessary to make sure that all their citizens were vaccinated. It took a long time.

Science can also warn you about the effects of certain non-scientific decisions. For instance, the rising rate of both mumps and measles in the USA is the predictable result of the increasing number of parents refusing to vaccinate their children. Science cannot force vaccinations, only politicians can. But science can observe and measure and extrapolate (make a prediction) based on its observations. And, when a child dies from an easily preventable disease because the parents based their decision on a bad understanding of science or a personal religious belief, science can only stand by, tally the result, and confirm that the result fits into their predictions.

But, because scientists do not live isolated lives, it will not be surprising if that scientist feels an intense sense of frustration and ends up deciding to become involved in a vaccination crusade. He or she is not joining the vaccination crusade as a scientist, per se, but is joining it as a concerned human being who holds certain ethical and moral beliefs. The other side of this is that because all societies hold to some type of ethical belief system, their belief system will often put at least some limitations on the type of research that scientists may do. For instance, we now consider it unethical and immoral to do medical research on unwilling and/or unknowing human subjects. But, that was not always true in our country, and it most certainly was not true in several other countries.

Thus, if the vaccination case I cited is that of a scientist’s personal beliefs driving him/her into social action, then the second case is that of a society’s ethical beliefs limiting the ambit within which science may experiment. Of the two, the second case is the one that is most often heavily debated. On the one side, there are items such as the Galileo controversy and the fact that autopsies were forbidden by law in Europe, which kept medical science from advancing for several centuries. On the other side are items such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment and the vivisections performed by the medical establishment in WWII German “final solution” camps. Please note that both the Tuskegee and the German experiments were government approved, financed, and run experiments.

I trust that all this discussion may help you to see both the limitations of science,  but also the limitations of other disciplines, and of societies.

information

Thanks to another blog, I saw the short video above by Os Guiness speaking for the Biologos Foundation. What is the Biologos Foundations? Well, their webpage says:

The BioLogos Foundation explores, promotes and celebrates the integration of science and Christian faith.

It not only has well known philosophers such as Os Guiness, but also world-class conservative theologians such as N.T. Wright. I highly recommend looking through their blogs and videos. They deal in much more detail than I do with the problems that I have been discussing with the “Alice in Wonderland” approach to science that is so often the approach in the USA. They also deal with many of the common misconceptions about science that are being spread by many of the ministries that claim to be protecting the Word of God from science.

If you notice rather than taking the common American approach of conflict between science and Christian faith, they talk about the integration of science and the Christian faith. Frankly, this is where I am coming from in my philosophy/science posts. One final thought, as you read or listen or watch the material on the site, please realize that there are many parts of the First World in which there is not a culture war going on between science and Christianity, and yet there are conservative Christians strongly present. You can meet some of them at this website.

Toyota is caught in a very difficult situation. But, look at the cartoon. Yes, Congress does love its “show trials,”  err, I mean “hearings.” Now, I am not sure why they call them hearings since no Congressperson listens. They ought to be called “talkies.” They have no legal effect, but they do allow the Congressperson, be they Democrat or Republican, to posture, moan, and generally get quoted on the evening news. Nowadays those “show trials” rarely lead to actual legislation. But, they allow Congress to try to climb slightly out of their primordial muck to try and take some moral high ground.

But, for the companies or persons caught up in the “show trials,” they can be devastating. There is no guilt being determined, but there is little doubt that after one of those sets of hearings, the companies or persons are left tarred as though they had been found guilty of something. Normal legal rules do not apply, so that the Congressperson can say anything, in the name of finding the truth, without being faced with any binding legal objection from the person or company being pilloried. Of course, this has a side effect that any Congressperson would claim in unintended.

The side effect are that the trial lawyers will find it much easier to get a tort judgment in their favor. In a tort (or civil) case, the standard of proof is not as high as in a criminal case. In fact, as any of several cases have demonstrated, a tort case seems to often be dependent only on the emotional climate of the jury, regardless of the facts. And, the judge is powerless to stop an emotional verdict, though they will periodically get overturned by an appeal court. But, in the case of the “defendant” in a “show trial,” the emotional climate is so warped by the “hearings” that a high money verdict is a virtual certainty.

Toyota needs to pay appropriate civil judgments for its failures in quality control. But, Congress has actually managed to make me feel somewhat sorry for them.

Thanks to another blog, I was linked to the following quote from an article in the online version of Christianity Today.

Those steeped in the grace of God know there is no difference between freedom and obedience, and that the spiritual life is all about being compelled. Jeremiah says he cannot hold in the message God has given him (Jer. 20:9). Paul feels obligated to preach to Gentiles (Rom. 1:14). Jesus describes salvation in a parable in which servants compel people to come to a banquet (Luke 14:23). What is the life of faith but one compelled by the love of God to love others? Grace is so extraordinary; it has been known to compel people to do extraordinary things, to do things that fill one with dread, to go to places one would rather not go . . .

We read verses such as that one which tells us that we are bought with a price and quickly misread it to our advantage, or actually to our disadvantage. Saint Paul warns us more than once that we have been bought with a price means that we are now owned by God. The term he uses for himself can be variously translated as either bond-servant or slave. At one point, he even says that woe is him if he does not preach. He says this despite the various shipwrecks, beatings, etc., that he has suffered. He is compelled both by the knowledge that he is now owned by God instead of by sin, and he is compelled by the direct experience of the Holy Spirit which is impelling him on.

The Prophet Jeremiah has the same experience of the calling of God upon his life. In fact, his experience of following God has moments so bitter that he ends up writing the Book of the Lamentations. Have you ever read it? Jeremiah had to preach God’s judgment, and it came. But here is a small part of what he says of his personal experience of preaching what God required him to preach:

He drew his bow and made me the target for his arrows. He pierced my heart with arrows from his quiver. I became the laughingstock of all my people; they mock me in song all day long. He has filled me with bitter herbs and sated me with gall.

And, yet, today one hears all too often of how God is a gentleman who will not force Himself upon you. But, the common experience of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles was that God called them with a requirement that could not be resisted. It is no wonder that C.S. Lewis has Mr. Tumnus say in The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe that, “He is not a tame lion.” To which Lucy later says, “No . . . but he is good.” No, the line about God being a gentleman has more to do with our American craving for absolute personal freedom than it has to do with Biblical reality.

Christians in America during the 19th century still understood a God who expected to be King. Francis Thompson, who was born in the 1850’s, wrote a poem called The Hound of Heaven. In part, the poem says:

I fled Him down the nights and down the days.
I fled Him down the arches of the years.
I fled Him down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind, and in the midst of tears
I hid from him, and under running laughter.
. . .
Naked, I wait thy Love’s uplifted stroke.
My harness, piece by piece,
thou’st hewn from me
And smitten me to my knee,
I am defenceless, utterly.

The poem is actually very long. And, yet, in it one gets two senses. One is the inexorable pursuit of the Lord from which the person is desperately fleeing. And the other is the total Love which is pursuing the author of the poem. But, this love is not the weak sentimental love that we often portray from our pulpits. No, this is something much stronger, much more powerful, and, yes, much more fearful (in the old sense of fearful as in the old sense of awesome). This is a God who is King and who expects to be the head of his Kingdom. As generals have to send their soldiers into danger in order to win the war, so this King sends his servants into battle to fight the good fight. And this is a Love which mystics such as Santa Teresa de Avila and San Juan de Dios picture as being given to us as a pure, burning, and transforming energy of God that will burn out our dross from the inside out until we are truly changed.

We love to read the Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis. We love to read the Trilogy of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien. But, have you ever really looked closely at them? In the trilogy, Frodo realizes that he is the only one who can carry out the task. He is almost pushed into it. Sam, in faithfulness, follows his master into the most extreme danger. Pippin and Merry almost perish. Even those left behind in the Shire find no safety there, for the war tracks down the Shire and spills into it. Can you not see that he/she who follows God can either willingly or unwillingly be involved in the battle, but either way he/she will be involved? That is the God we serve and the Earth upon which we find ourselves. He is a King who sends his servants into battle. He is a Lover who changes us and will not let us stand unchanged and filthy.

And, so, this Great Lent I ask what picture of God you have in your mind and in your heart. Do you have an American God? Or do you have a King and a Lover?

rss

conditions