"Just the facts ma'am" sounds archaic and cliché-ish, but is critical to evaluate a position, idea or statement based on the facts. Sound bites, clichés, emotional charges, and personal opinion run amok whenever there is a political race for the presidency. Consequently, these very elements obscure the precious essential facts surrounding our candidates. Whatever ideas you have, whether they are economic, public or foreign policies, etc., you have to evaluate them to see if they carry serious consequences to the christian worldview.
However, this process is rendered useless when there a false dichotmy between what is rendered to Cesar and what is rendered to God. This could be largley due to the misunderstanding between the separation of church and state ideology in general and Christian naivette in particular. As I have mentioned before, Artistotle's remarks about what is virtuous or right is found in moderation; and while on one extreme we have a Christian nation (Theocracy) and on the other we a striclty secular one (false humility, isolationist), I think that our interaction with politics should be specifically that, interacive. Interactivity is the middle ground between isolationism and dominionist ideas. Now, how much this influence should be and what it contains are subject matters that could be further developed.
Nevertheless, we must recognize that many ideas have consequences and we would be amiss to think that these ideas could become part of a political candidate and not have any effects whatsoever on his constituents. While all candidate have ideas that carry some effect on any particular religious belief, let us take a look at one of them to see how his specific ideas about ethics, religion and politics play out when analyzed through the lens of a Christian worldview. This is where Apologetics Resource Center comes in. I think that Craig Branch does a very good job of pointing out specific differences between the Mormon (Mitt Romney) & Christian worldview and the impact it has on us as Christians. I invite you to spend some time and read the article carefully, especially when it comes to the statistics. Let me point out some notable quotes from this article to wet your appetite:
…But along came Jerry Falwell and The Moral Majority. Conservative Christianity and conservative politics became a major focus of time and hope for Christian influence in culture. The concept has some legitimacy. There has been a neglected theological dimension of the role of the Church or believers as activists in shaping our culture. It is important to note that the baseless cliché, “you can’t legislate morality,” is without merit. All laws and ethics are based on someone’s morality.
So Christians work to influence lawmakers and even to become lawmakers, but not to make the country into a Christian theocracy. Our first priority is to see people converted to Christ via the gospel and to prioritize the spiritual kingdom, realizing that the Law can restrain evil (and provoke it) and can have some positive effect on the consciences of image bearers of God, but cannot convert people. Our priority and ultimate goal in the Kingdom is to make disciples of Jesus Christ, minister to those truly in need, and to promote mercy and justice. Our ultimate and proximal trust is in the triune God – not the Republican or Democratic parties.
To complicate the issue more, there are a number of evangelicals who have openly stated that Romney’s faith should not be a factor. Chuck Colson, Ralph Reed, Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, and others have all said, “We are electing a Commander-in-Chief, not a Pastor (or theologian)-in-Chief.” Incredibly Pat Robertson had Romney come to Regent University to give the Commencement address last year! Fundamentalist Bob Jones III of Bob Jones University endorses Romney. The Roman Catholic conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity naively proclaimed that since Romney said he accepts Jesus Christ as his personal savior, it should be enough.
But it is precisely because of these perspectives that we need to seriously discuss this issue. Let’s take a moment to lay some foundations and to clarify and define the issues for this controversy.
You can also look at Ray Ciervo's excellent article on the same issue here
tags: Apologetics Resource Center Craig Branch Mitt Romney Mormonism presidency religion Worldviews
A young man recently wrote to Billy Graham, who authors a column in the Charlotte Observer here in North Carolina. The young man was questioning a friend’s faith: “Every time I ask her why she believes what she does, her reply is, ‘Because it’s in the Bible.’” The young man acknowledged his skepticism concerning the Bible’s authority and in frustration asked Graham why he should believe. What his friend was doing was serving up a “pat” answer.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition, defines a “pat answer” as one that is trite or glib, superficially complete or satisfactory. “Pat answers” assume everyone understands what the underlying meaning really is. The problem is that the real meaning goes unobserved behind what is actually said.
Pat answers have had a very serious effect on Christianity. When Christianity was the dominant religion in America and when it had some influence in society and culture, it presumed everyone knew what it was all about. From a position of authority it responded with pat answers. Christians presumed everyone else knew the substance. Unfortunately, this has served to help undermine that position of authority and influence.
As we know today, Christianity is marginalized in American culture. It does not seem to have much authority and is looked upon critically as having no significant importance. What has happened?
Part of what has happened is that the Church has been asleep at the wheel. There were some who were warning of the impending storm, but most of the Church stayed asleep. We are kind of like the frog in the kettle. The illustration tells us that if you try to put a frog in boiling water he will jump out. However if you put him in cold water and slowly heat up the kettle, then you can boil him.
The world has changed on us much the same way. The changes have been slow over a long time. Few people realize how long ago it began….
The young man was questioning a friend’s faith: “Every time I ask her why she believes what she does, her reply is, ‘Because it’s in the Bible.’”
A QUICK HISTORY
The Mayflower Compact declared that the first Pilgrims intended to share their Christian faith as they settled in their new land. The founding fathers depended on God to guide them through the process of independence and the establishment of this nation. The government even sponsored evangelism among Native Americans.
It appeared this would be a nation which would have its roots in God’s Word and depend on His guidance. The influence of the first and second “great awakenings” had significant impact on the young nation. It appeared this would be a nation which would have its roots in God’s Word and depend on His guidance. Granted, some of the founding fathers were not perfect, but in most cases, they were God-fearing men. However, this was short lived.
In 1859, Charles Darwin introduced his Origin of the Species. This book had a profound affect on the scientific and religious community. Yet, that book did not discard religion or God as Creator of man. It wasn’t until 1871 that his Descent of Man, proclaimed that man evolved from apes. In 1925, the Scopes Trail, totally misrepresented by the play and movie, Inherit the Wind, made headlines over whether it was unlawful to teach evolution in public schools. The Christians won the case, though you would never know it. In 1933, the Humanist Manifesto was written declaring, “We need no God and no savior. We can save ourselves.” One of the signers of the manifesto was John Dewey.
John Dewey had a strategy to rid the public school system of anything that related to God and religion. His strategy called for training a generation of humanists who would teach American children. In the early sixties, school prayer and Bible studies were banned from public schools. It took Dewey’s strategy only 30 years to succeed.
THE NEW DOGMA
Today, few people realize what is being taught in schools and what will soon become common fare. Take for example just one professor who has had a devastating effect on education: Peter Singer. Professor Singer, chairperson for the Center of Human Values at Princeton University is an avowed secular humanist who teaches ethics at the university to future world leaders. However, his “ethics” consist of the ends justifying the means; he is a consequentialist, a utilitarian. Singer seemingly believes and teaches that abortion on demand should be commonplace. He also seeks to promote physician assisted suicide, and euthanasia. Some consider Singer a monster. To his credit, he has assisted famine victims and helped alleviate poverty in some instances. However, he is an atheist who holds to an evolutionary world view.
Educators of Singer’s ilk believe that in some cases, paraplegics, quadriplegics, the blind, and others who suffer and have no hope of a cure should be terminated. Babies born with deformities should be terminated under this chilling worldview. Ironically, Peter Singer is considered one of the brightest minds in academia today.
What is taught at the university level will soon become what is taught at the lower levels. It will filter down through the system until it becomes law. The effects of other legal decisions and advances of atheism have reached all of us today. As Christians, we have lost significant ground in every quarter.
THAT WON’T CUT IT
When we try to use pat answers today we realize they fall on deaf ears, even perplexed minds. “How could you believe something like that?” comes the reply. Pat answers don’t cut it anymore. In one sense, they never did.
But here is some good news…we live in a day of great opportunities for evangelism. You see, Christians are not the only ones guilty of giving pat answers…this is now the world’s mode of operation and communication. Advertising agencies, businesses, governments, and even educators are spouting trite, glib responses to the questions or circumstances surrounding all of us. “Just do it” and “No boundaries” are some of the cliches the Madison Avenue crew has picked up on. “Whatever” is the consummate pat answer today. It is the glib, trite expression that says, “Who cares?”
Here are some others: “That may be true for you,” “You can’t legislate morality,” and “All religions lead to God.” These are all trite, glib, self-refuting, pat answers. We must recognize the nature of the statements and bring them into the light of analysis. Each of these statements contain fallacies which betray the person who uses them.
Today, you have an opportunity to share your beliefs and ask probing questions of others. Of course, you must first understand what it is that you believe. Could you, for example, explain or even state your church’s statement of faith? Do you know what the essentials of evangelical Christianity are? Could you give a somewhat clear description of the Trinity, in terms that would not freak out the average listener?
When you talk about Jesus, to which “Jesus” do you refer? The Mormons have a Jesus. The Jehovah Witnesses have a Jesus. B’hai, New Age, and even the Hindus believe in a Jesus. Just which Jesus are we speaking about?
You cannot give pat answers and should learn how to recognize when someone else is trying to “put one across” on you. This is not a time for Christians to abandon sound doctrine and embrace a lightweight Christianity. This is the time for in-depth understanding of the basics of the faith and a time to engage people in Gospel conversation. This is time for the Church to rise up and meet the challenges it faces.
tags: Evangelism history Mayflower Pat Answer
There was a panel discussion on Immigration from a Theological Perspective at the University of Dallas last night. I applaude their efforts at being an insitution that at least tried to address this issue from a theological point of view. There were some good ideas as well as some pointed questions but overall the event went well. However, I wanted to write to some of the participants about an issue that I think should be considered when dealing with the illegal immigrant situation. Below was my email:
Folks, I first want to appreciate the effort that was done to take on this monumental and sticky topic. I know that we did not know what to expect, seeing that this issue has been a hot agenda at the local level. The event was well planned and efficiently moderated with few hiccups, if any. As a Hispanic and a beginning student at the school of ministry, I felt proud to see that the school opened up its door to deal with such topics.
I wished that I had to opportunity to share this but I wanted to be conscious of the time and make room for some of the more seasoned folks to chime in. With that said, I just wanted to mention something that was somewhat, but not explicitly, mentioned during the presentation. It is the basic but essential issue of sin. I know that this word does not amount to much in our postmodern world because we have euphemized it to death. However, a basic understanding of this word tell us a lot about who God us and who we are. Before I develop this notion a bit more and how it relates to the immigration issue, let me say that I was very pleased to hear words and phrases such as “human rights,” “the moral law,” and “made in God’s image.” Much to the emotional upset of some, this at least established a solid platform from which we could see and deal with Immigration, from a Theological Perspective.
Nevertheless, let me relate an experience I had when I first received the press release of this event and how this will tie with the above topic. I decided to circulate this to several “Christian” circles to see if anyone was interested in attending. I then received a response from one gentleman who was a Christian researcher of some kind and proceeded to tell me that “These people are just people who placate illegal immigration.” “I speak with experience.” “I do a Cable show exposing illegal immigration and have gone through it all with these people, especially the Churches.” “The "Alien Resident" argument doesn't apply here.” He then proceeded to direct me to one of his “cable shows” on the internet that “exposed illegal immigration.” The video did not mince words and at times seemed a bit vitriolic and borderline hateful. Moreover, the show aired a clip of another show where the gentleman there was going to “tell it like it is” and proceeded to call all illegal immigrants “filthy cockroaches.” To be honest, this disturbed me deeply – that those within our camp would have such a horrid description of illegal immigrants. It was futile to engage in any reasonable conversation with someone who had such a terrible social, and psychological bent of hatred and disrespect.
Back to the event - while this did not have any of the marks of the above situation, there was a question or two that sparked the above concept of sin and the human condition as it related to illegal immigration. There were some great points that were raised as well as some challenging questions. But the issue I would like for us to introspectively ask is “what is the condition of my heart in regards to these issues?” Or better yet, “what is the real motivation for my strong opinion on this matter?” I think we (myself included) need to take ourselves to task and ask these penetrating questions when dealing with any issue that has to do with humans. It gave me a chuckle to hear statements like “what part of illegal immigration do you not understand?” I think that most of us understand illegal immigration very well but we are tied to the political, socio-economical, post 9-11 everyone across our borders is a terrorist, agendas that stagnate the congressional waters of our “legal system.” Nevertheless, a more fundamental question should be “what part of illegal immigration is an actual legitimate issue and what part of it is an emotional, or even (may I say?) sinful one?
I couldn’t of agreed more with some of the solutions proposed by Owen Ross as well as some of the more stringent ones proposed by members of the audience. I will also admit that this is a serious issue and that we need to fix and implement whatever immigration laws need to be in place in order to perpetuate the survivability of our country as well as the protection of our security interest in addition to meeting the most basic human needs (legal or illegal). Nevertheless, I will challenge each one of the readers that we be a bit more honest and ask if these issues are motivated by the above principals only or if his or her judgment has been clouded because we feel as though “our space” is slowly being consumed by these “illegals,” who deplete our resources and are erasing what we know to be “the American way of living.” Why am I saying this? Do I know the intentions of the heart? That would be a resounding no! Only God knows the true intentions of the heart and the last time I checked the closest thing to a throne in my house is called a commode. Nevertheless, I can speak from experience. Even I, as a Hispanic, Latino, Mexican-American or whatever I am to be called, have had these feelings with my own kind! I will admit my sin and territorial arrogance when I say that sometimes, just sometimes, I am not too happy with everything that comes across the border. But once I realized that, I asked myself, “is it really about a border per say?” I think that a more fundamental issue is at stake and you could call it by its subcategories such as arrogance, sectarianism, pride, or even racism. However, sin is at the root of all of it.
In some cases I would venture to say that if it were really about laws (a very much discussed thread at tonight’s panel discussion), then why don’t we see people protesting about tougher laws against speeding. You don’t see the multitudes going to congress by the droves declaring that it is so unfair that there are so many people breaking the speeding laws that we just need to impose tougher restrictions, heavier fines, sophisticated equipment, etc. If you think about it, speeding has also caused a lot of damage such as fatal accidents, children’s safety compromised, higher insurance premiums and so on. Nevertheless, since it doesn’t carry much of the emotional baggage that immigration does, we just don’t see it as an issue we care to talk about….unless, we get a ticket for speeding. I think that what I’m suggesting is (I’m still working this out) that lets be careful of not letting our prejudices and violated comfort zones cloud our judgment when it comes to immigration policies. As was mentioned last night, there were many laws that were in place such as slavery and women’s status in society that just because they were laws didn’t mean that they were right. In fact, the bible tell us of a rich young ruler who kept all of the laws since he was a boy (Mark 10:18-21). However, Jesus knew his heart and since his vertical relationship was not in line, Jesus proceeded to expose him horizontally and see if he could at least give everything he had. The Bible says that he “went away sad because he had great wealth.” Let me steal this analogy and say that we might come up with a great and reformed immigration policy that will accomplish what is needed to fix this situation, but what after that? If the vertical is not in line with God, it doesn’t matter if we are successful. We have already failed on the inside.
No Tag
|
How would we classify this new Chimera?1 This is something worth pondering because of the impact and implications this will have on ethics, science and life in general.
|
|||||||
UK scientists planning to mix human and animal cells in order to research cures for degenerative diseases fear their work will be halted. They accuse the body that grants licences for embryo research, the HFEA, of bowing to government pressure if it fails to consider their applications. Ministers proposed outlawing such work after unfavourable public opinion. PM Tony Blair said any new law would have "flexibility" to support scientific research that helped people. He said there were "difficult" issues surrounding creating the embryos, which are more than 99% human but have a small animal component. He added: "I’m sure that research that’s really going to save lives and improve the quality of life will be able to go forward." The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is to discuss if two research requests come under its remit.
The creation of hybrid human-animal embryos was first suggested as a way of addressing the shortage of human eggs available for research. But the HFEA says it is unresolved whether this type of controversial work is permissible under existing laws - or even whether it falls under the HFEA’s jurisdiction to grant a licence. Opponents say the work tampers with nature and is unethical. The researchers have called for greater understanding of what they are trying to achieve. Public opposition The public was consulted on hybrid embryo work among other issues for an overhaul of outdated laws on fertility treatments and embryo research. Ministers felt the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 needed to be updated as science has moved on significantly.
The new white paper says scientists will be able to push forward research in some areas, such as altering the genetic structure of cells that make embryos. But government proposes prohibiting them from making human-animal hybrids or so-called "chimeras" - where genetic material is taken from humans and put into a host animal egg. That is then allowed to grow to a very early embryo stage in the lab as a source of stem cells for research. ‘Hybrids’ Scientists are hopeful that studies on stem cells - immature cells that can become many types of tissue - could lead to greater understanding and even a cure for many diseases, including Alzheimer’s. They say using human-animal mixes rather than human eggs to get the stem cells makes sense because human eggs are in short supply, plus the process is less cumbersome and yields better results. Professor Chris Shaw from Kings College London, along with his colleague Dr Stephen Minger, has applied for a licence for stem cell work on Motor Neurone Disease.
He said: "To shut this down at the moment is a real affront to patients. We do not have a single drug that makes a difference to the disease course." Dr Minger, who hopes to look at the genetic causes of conditions like Parkinson’s disease, said he had been told that the HFEA was unlikely to grant his application. A second team of scientists, led by Professor Lyle Armstrong at Newcastle University, has applied to research how different tissues grow in the body. Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat member of the Science and Technology Select Committee, warned there would be fierce opposition from scientists and parliamentarians to any draft bill which included such a ban. Scientific progress An HFEA spokesman said: "We need to decide whether the law prohibits this research, whether it falls under our remit at all, and then we can look at whether we have a fundamental view on this type of research. "We have a duty to consider any application put before us." If the HFEA decides it is outside its remit, the scientists will not legally need a licence to continue with their work. A spokesman for the Department of Health stressed that the new law, which still needs to be debated in Parliament, would contain a clause allowing for the possibility that this type of work should be permitted in the future. Josephine Quintavalle, of CORE ethics, said: "This is creating an animal-human hybrid and that has to be acknowledged as something that does not meet with approval. "We hope that the HFEA has found this is one hurdle too many and they are not prepared to jump over it." 1. Wikipedia - Chimera (genetics) In biological research, chimeras are artificially produced by mixing cells from two different organisms. This can result in the eventual development of an adult animal composed of cells from both donors, which may be of different species — for example, in 1984 a chimeric geep was produced by combining embryos from a goat and a sheep[3]. A chicken with a quail’s brain has been produced by grafting portions of a quail embryo into a chicken
|
|||||||
To shut this down at the moment is a real affront to patients 
