Intellectuelle   Faith

(or women :-) )

A good friend of mine (Rusty Lopez) referred me to a great article by John Fischer at Chuck Colson’s Breakpoint website. (thanks, Rusty) Fischer’s concern as expressed in The Separation of Church and Hate is similar to mine – there is far too much witness to The Enemy (Satan) than to Christ in some of the things that come out of Christians’ mouths or are committed by them. Yet I think he takes this idea’s complement, i.e., that non-Christians in essence may be more discerning in a Christlike way than Christians themselves, too far:

...there are a significant number of people who equate Christians in America with hate. Though I’m sure some of this can be blamed on the media and the resulting propaganda surrounding a culture war, that doesn’t explain everything. We must have given ample reason to make the connection.

...If Christians were consistently acting in loving ways toward each other and toward those who are not of the household of faith, this association could not have been made. (emphasis added)

In this week's issue of WORLD magazine, Andree Seu articulates well what I know so well but do not practice nearly so well � the habit of �always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies,� (2 Corinthians 4:10). In This body of death, she says,

Better is the embracing of fresh death served up every moment...It refuses all self-made refuges and self-anesthetizing...because it desires death�s lucidity. It asks, What would happen if this time I didn�t weave a cocoon of numbness around myself? Will I die? (An interesting inquiry.) [emphasis added]

Tactic No. 1: sour grapes; tell yourself you haven�t lost much. Diminish the other in spurned petulance. The gain is temporary relief from the unbearable; the casualty is truth.

Tactic No 2: nurse hope when it is wiser to abandon hope. I choose to carry around death rather than ersatz life.

Tactic No 3: the acrid satisfaction of getting in the last word.

Tactic No 4: drugs, alcohol, and sleep. [or a myriad of other things � like blogging??]

Tactic No 5: fantasizing. �There is always something they prefer to...reality� ( C. S. Lewis, The Great Divorce).

Tactic No. 6: stoicism. Not allowed (Ephesians 4:32), since we are to make the head hard and the heart soft � rather than the other way around. The hard head says: �I have set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be put to shame� (Isaiah 50:7). The soft heart refuses to build bulwarks against future relationship hurts.

...Constant communion with God avoids all...ways of flinching from sanctifying pain.

...Beware of trying to get from people what you can only get from God.

I can�t help but think about how all this might square with considerations of Providence. Just how provident is Providence, or, rather, in what ways is Providence provident? There�s the providence itself, and then there�s the recognition of providence. Perhaps the recognizing is itself provident. Is the practice of such recognition provident? Everything that is provident must stem from providence itself, yet is there not a providentially created part (human) in this as distinct from the ongoing divine-action (above and beyond the created) provision? (Some may argue that I'm using the wrong word/s (i.e., provident/ce), but I think it's apropos.)

You can say that God�s having given humans the ability to act (choose) is a result of divine action (both pre- and post-Fall), or you can say that, post-Fall, God influences humans' ability to act only insomuch as those actions are good and not evil, if indeed man is incapable of a good act on his own due to his fallen and corrupt nature. (Indeed, even man�s sinfulness is determined by God in that He is author of evil � Isaiah 45:7).

What I'm getting at is, if man has no ability to choose, apart from God, not to behave along the lines of the six tactics listed above, then why even point them (and their antitheses) out? Is consciousness-raising a work of the Holy Spirit -- consciously or unconsciously? Does one not �let the Spirit in� by realizing and then acting on the truth of a thing learned via presentation by the Holy Spirit? Or does the learning and acting only happen as directly directed by the Holy Spirit? Does one not have the option of refusing to learn �- of softening the mind and hardening the heart -- or can it not be resisted?

Did man lose the ability to choose to do good, when presented the option, after the Fall?

There are two different kinds of death-carrying that humans can do: that which results from the Fall, and that of Jesus�. Does a person have a choice as to which he/she will carry, apart from the Spirit doing the carrying for him/her? Can �communion with God� be chosen, or only so much as it is irresistibly given? Seu seems to indicate that she can, and does indeed, choose.

Today is the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist. As St Augustine pointed out, “The Church observes the birth of John as in some way sacred; and you will not find any other of the great men of old whose birth we celebrate officially. We celebrate John’s, as we celebrate Christ’s.”

St. Augustine goes on:

Patton Dodd writes about speaker and author Donald Miller at Christianity Today. I haven’t read Blue Like Jazz or anything else by Miller, nor heard him speak, but want to comment on some things in the article.

What's the story?

...Miller delivers a variation on a theme ascendant in evangelical Christianity: Truth is rooted in story, not in rational systems. The Christian mission is not well served when we speak in terms of spiritual laws or rational formulas. Propositional truths, when extracted from a narrative context, lack meaning. "The chief role of a Christian," he says, "is to tell a better story."

Well, truth isn’t rooted in story. The Christian story and those that make it up are rooted in truth. Neither is truth rooted in rational systems; the Christian mission is not well served if we speak only in terms of spiritual laws, or only in stories – the problem with elevating story to truth, besides the fact that not all stories point the way to truth, is that significance is found in the story rather than in the truth. We all have stories. Some of them have good endings, some don’t. Seung-Hui Cho had a story. His victims have stories. Everyone has a story. My cat has a story. So what?

I understand the desire for significance, believe me. I’ve struggled most of my life trying to find it. For years I operated under the mistaken notion that the Christian life meant a loss of significance; I believed I could only find goodness insomuch as I, or something about me, pleased someone else, whether that be God or a person. I couldn’t distinguish between sin and the imago dei.

Thank God He led me to see the difference. We are truly significant when living in absolute trust and faith in Him as Creator, through salvation in Christ. Such does not negate me, or you, but redeems us so that we can truly do good as empowered by Him. That’s my story. But so what. It might have meaning to someone who can relate to it; that’s providence. It may mean little to someone else; that’s providence too. God’s teaching is providence -- because of Him, not because of us.

Though they may be harder to grasp, propositional truths extracted from a narrative do not lack meaning; truth’s meaning is not dependent upon whether or not it is understood.

Being winsome

Miller: “You feel confident because you know that this is actually a refreshing message for people," he says. "They don't feel accused. They don't feel hurt or offended by what you're saying. There's a sense of, 'Hey, we have lost meaning, haven't we?' "

He compares his experience to Paul speaking to the Athenians on Mars Hill. Paul understood Greek culture, he was winsome, and he could make an appeal for truth in a way that Greeks would receive. I point out that in that scenario, Don Miller is Paul, and evangelicals are the Greeks.

Miller nods. "I actually believe that I'm setting people free from something that is frustrating them."

His discoveries founded much of modern science, but few know about his writings, which were made available to the public for the first time this week in Jerusalem. Included are calculations pertaining to the apocalypse, details on Jewish temple practice, and financial records, among other things.

"The Newton papers", said Yemima Ben-Menahem, one of the exhibit's curators,

also complicate the idea that science is diametrically opposed to religion. "These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world," she said.

from readers of the Seattle Times.

I lack time to go through all of her responses but recognize some statements as being similar to others I've heard from people such as Bishop Spong and those involved with the Abrahamic Program at Chautauqua Institution, as well as many in mainstream Protestantism such as the United Church of Christ. I've witnessed seeming exoneration from requirement to believe the gospel or follow other Biblical precepts among those who claim a "Spirit-led" or "God-called" path as Redding does, and confusion as to what terms such as "graciousness" and "sacrifice" mean in a Christian context.

About Paul, Redding says:

My experience is somewhat similar to that of the apostle Paul, who didn't think about leaving behind his Judaism when he accepted his calling from Jesus. I never thought that I was leaving Jesus when I entered Islam. Jesus is in Islam. In fact, Jesus was the one who led me into Islam.

True, Paul didn't leave everything about his Judaism behind, but he did leave behind one crucial thing: justification by Law. The Law may lead one to Christ, but no further: "We are Jews by nature, and not sinners from among the Gentiles, nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified." -- Galatians 2:15-16, NASB (emphasis added).

Redding justifies herself by appealing to a calling from God and a leading by Jesus, but these are empty in light of what Paul says in his epistles, as detailed in Romans chapters 3 - 5, about justification by faith in Christ's blood shed unto death, and His resurrection. (Which she denies: "I don't think God said, 'Let me send ths special person so that I can kill him for the benefit of the rest of humanity.'")

No, not theology held by Idiot A or Idiot B, although that’s not unrelated, but theology based on the premise that the world is full of people who believe cockamaney nonsense because they don’t accept the gospel and are therefore idiots. The atheists, the gays, the drunks, the pedophiles, the murderers. Those who say they believe the gospel but hold to all kinds of other nonsense – the Ann Holmes Reddings, the emergents, the Arminians, charismatics, gays, drunks, heck, maybe even the pedophiles.

I'm guessing that the thinking goes something like this: since these people are in direct defiance of God and thereby incur His wrath, they must therefore incur our wrath also. We’re supposed to love what God loves and hate what God hates; God hates sinners and therefore so should we, right? None of this “Love the sinner/hate the sin” stuff.

Someone I know and love used to have this kind of attitude toward certain people. Their crime? Being black. Many were criminals and caused all kinds of trouble, making the city ugly and unsafe, so they deserved disdain.

Well, that’s different, someone may say. It’s based on worldly standards, not Godly ones. Not necessarily. There’s a big difference between us and God (OK, a lot of big differences): He has the power to save or to condemn, and we don’t. No sense trying to do His job for Him, right?

The evangelism of the insult

My question is, are people drawn to God by insult? If you diss a person, are they likely to appreciate you? Respect you? Listen to a word you’re saying even if it’s truth they'd do well to hear? (Are we in a position to speak to the Pharisees the way Jesus did?)

Tony Snow describes Cancer's Unexpected Blessings at Christianity Today. I found his words incredibly moving.

His lessons learned:

* We shouldn't spend too much time trying to answer the why questions: Why me? Why must people suffer? Why can't someone else get sick? We can't answer such things, and the questions themselves often are designed more to express our anguish than to solicit an answer.

(Great insight there.)

* We need to get past the anxiety.

* We can open our eyes and hearts...[draw] closer to God, closer to those [we] love, closer to the issues that matter

I don't know why I have cancer, and I don't much care. It is what it is—a plain and indisputable fact. Yet even while staring into a mirror darkly, great and stunning truths begin to take shape. Our maladies define a central feature of our existence: We are fallen. We are imperfect. Our bodies give out.

Funny, I’ve never been a “Why me?” type of person. That’s not to say that I’ve never cursed my lot in life or wished desperately that it was different, but for some reason I’ve been able to accept that terrible things happen, even while hating them thoroughly. My approach has been, pretty much, “Okay, what do we do about this; how do we cope; how do we survive; wake me up when it’s over.”

But #2 in Snow’s list is my weakness. I panic in the face of great pain or threat. Stoic up to a certain point, past that threshold I dissolve completely.

The moment you enter the Valley of the Shadow of Death, things change. You discover that Christianity is not something doughy, passive, pious, and soft. Faith may be the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. But it also draws you into a world shorn of fearful caution.

The words of Psalm 23 went through my head one February past as I laid, shivering, in a cold OR after getting an after-hours blood patch for an unbelievable headache that was way more than a headache – a stiff-necked, muscle-spasmed, someone-is-crashing-cymbals-against-the-sides-of-my-head-in-the-middle-of-a-
tunnel-no-wait-maybe-it’s-a-train-station kind of feeling. I’m not kidding. I’d had a C-section two days before. The blood patch didn’t work at first. I was Scared. To. Death. What was going on? Would this ever go away? How would I take care of my new baby and toddler?

I realized then and there how much I depend upon being capable and healthy, and on what I know. When I’m incapacitated, or something happens that’s way outside of my understanding and familiarity, well...terrifying isn’t the word to describe it.

Through such trials, God bids us to choose: Do we believe, or do we not? Will we be bold enough to love, daring enough to serve, humble enough to submit, and strong enough to acknowledge our limitations? Can we surrender our concern in things that don't matter so that we might devote our remaining days to things that do?

What is man that Thou art mindful of him? [Psalm 8] We don't know much, but we know this: No matter where we are, no matter what we do, no matter how bleak or frightening our prospects, each and every one of us, each and every day, lies in the same safe and impregnable place—in the hollow of God's hand.

Read the article.

A recent ChristianityToday article quotes Francis Beckwith, recent (re-)convert to Catholicism, on sanctification and virtue:

As an evangelical, even when I talked about sanctification and wanted to practice it, it seemed as if I didn't have a good enough incentive to do so. Now [in Catholicism] there's a kind of theological framework, and it doesn't say my salvation depends on me, but it says my virtue counts for something."

After discussing justification by faith, the article concludes with this:

So, Professor Beckwith, virtue does count for Protestants—it signals our understanding that Christ's virtue counts for everything, and that any good the Holy Spirit enables us to do is but a grateful response to God's gift of justification.

Yes, but... it’s so much more than that. Our virtue comes only by way of Christ’s virtue and sacrifice. Gratitude may be a springboard, or an initial impetus, or one impetus among many. But, though one (hopefully) continues to grow in gratitude as one progresses in the life of faith, one’s good works flow from one’s re-created being (II Corinthians 5:17) – the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 8:1-17) – not merely from a sense of gratitude.

For example, I wouldn’t say I’m moved to compassion for a certain hateful person (no one you know, don’t worry) because of gratitude to God for His mercies and pardons (or Salvation with a big “S”), but because His compassion for me moves me to feel compassion for others. I am moved to love my husband even when I’m mad at him (after I’ve yelled at him, of course) because I know I’m loved by God even when I do things that I know make Him angry (such as yelling at my husband).

I also think that we are rewarded according to our works. (See Revelation 22:12, Matthew chapter 6, II John 8) This doesn’t seem to get talked about much these days, at least that I’m aware of, perhaps because of how it’s gotten twisted into a salvation-by-works doctrine (as the article addresses). But it seems that we get rewarded for that which we have control over – the steps in the Spirit that we choose (or assent, or whatever) to take. Why would we be rewarded for something we didn’t earn, i.e., if it’s something only God-wrought within us? Yes, it’s God-wrought, and without God it can’t be wrought. But we allow it to be wrought, i.e., we cooperate with God in allowing it to be wrought.

I don’t believe that God can’t wring something in us even if we don’t want Him to; this would limit God’s power and sovereignty. But, past that which He wrings in us completely, that gets us in a position to walk in the Spirit, clearly He offers us some choice in the matter at least a good part of the time, or in a good many things, or else there would be no need for exhortations (such as we find all over Paul’s letters).

I think our virtue counts for something in that it is pleasing to God and achieves His purposes on earth by bearing witness to His goodness and mercy. Our virtue magnifies and glorifies Him, here on earth.

The thing is, if virtue is merely a response from gratitude, even if enabled by the Holy Spirit, then it’s still a work from the person who’s grateful, not solely from Christ, as the author asserts in the rest of the article. It seems as if the author is trying so hard to affirm justification by faith that he confuses sanctification with justification. He not only gives short shrift to human volition in the process of sanctification, but still ends up asserting, in effect, something he purports to deny. But there’s no escaping the fact that humans respond to God in many ways; indeed, they were created to do this. Not in ways that earn salvation, for salvation is wholly of God, but ways that help achieve it, here on earth, and work it out in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12).

(No, I’m not on my way to Rome, I don’t think, any more than I’ve ever been, in case you’re wondering.)

This is a repost from Flash Point, but its very fresh and want to bring as many minds into this very worthy project.

I have been pondering for some time the relationship between women, worldview, ministry, and career. Probably because being a woman myself and wanting to serve the church - serve God - according to my areas of giftedness - I have been left to wonder if young women today are struggling with where they fit in the grand scheme. Not all women are called to or are necessarily drawn to marriage and motherhood at an early age. Today, this record-size Y generation has more educational pursuits and career desires than previous generations. At the same time, there are few positions of leadership that women can pursue in the church and - from my perspective - the academy isn't much different. But I firmly believe that with a solid understanding of what it means to hold a Christian worldview will prepare women to as they enter the early season of adulthood. Knowing that each of us was created to live on earth, we can seek careers that may not necessarily be ministry-proper, but know that they serve a role in God's larger plan and that each of us are called to do our work to the glory of God. In light of this understanding of work, worldview and women, I hope you find yourself curious at the prospect of a young Christian women's leadership conference that will equip women leaders in a variety of professions and callings while at the same time learning to engage our culture. Nothing like this exists for young women in the Christian community, but it should. If you have any interest, drop me a note or comment here on the blog.

Recent posts to my blog Flash Point and Intellectuelle relating to the various ministries of women seems to have inspired discussion about this person I refer to as "Church Lady." I feel a sense of responsibility to all who read this blog because my desire is not create a collective stereotype of those women who seem to be the opposite of our group here at Intellectuelle. This matter deserves greater qualification, for the dignity of all women and for the benefit of those of you who care to interpret the meaning of my posts. So, the question remains, what is a church lady? This is my response (in no particular order):

A "church lady"...
1. is only able to see one possible role for all women, the stay-at-home wife and mother. (Be careful here, not all stay-at-home wives and mothers see this as the only possible role for women.)
2. believes the hard work of doing theology is men's work, women should only bother with the practical matters of the household.
3. perceives the application of Scripture as logically prior to examination toward understanding context.
4. concludes that her "child like faith" is all she needs to contend with life in this world. Words and concepts that require more than minimal work are unnecessary to grasp, especially because they do not directly pertain to salvation.
5. regards group outings to the mall, cookie exchanges, and the annual Mother/Daughter banquet as the core of a successful women's ministry - ENTERTAINMENT. (These things in and of themselves are not bad, but obviously there is much more.)
6. thinks that evangelism and discipleship of women today is more than redemption from sin, but redemption to something, the role of "church lady."
7. believes that a core element of her faith is to be encouraged, reducing God to personal therapist/coach. (Encouragement isn't a bad thing, but God never promised we'd feel good about ourselves and our circumstances all the time, but asks us to rejoice in Him at all times. These are different categories.)
8. thinks seminary, higher education, and/or the pursuit of a career are exclusively the domain of men. (See #1)
9. isn't [consciously] aware of the need to have bible studies, discussion groups, and other gatherings at times when working women can join.
10. often understands the doctrine of sin and salvation, but rejects the need to understand other core doctrines because knowing them will not impact or affect her salvation.
11. thinks reading books other than the bible is a complete waste of time.
12. prefers to completely cloister her family from the rest of culture, thus paying homage to the sacred/secular divide, as the best way to protect them from the evils of society.
13. believes that there are 2 kinds of women (ala the account of Mary & Martha....Mary at the feet of Jesus) and focuses on living like Martha and never gets to the feet of Jesus.
14. says you don't have to come to church already "cleaned up" but certainly acts like you should.

As a result of these dearly held views, single women never seem to fit in well in relationships with this kind of woman. Women of questionable backgrounds are avoided (can God possibly really redeem "there kind?") and church ladies are almost always what churches want to put in place as women's ministry leadership. From my own experience, I can tell you that I was overlooked by a church as a salaried pastor to women because my husband is an unbeliever....because he doesn't come to church with me.

I'm sure I can say a lot more on this matter, but I really wanted my views to be understood. I do not speak for everyone here, but I'm sure there will be more agreement than not. And just to be real clear here, I am not ridiculing or chastising women who might not consider themselves abstract thinkers are academically geared. I am very supportive of all women, to whatever ministry God has called them to. But I simply cannot tolerate the one dimensional view of women that permeates the church and women's ministry today. I met a woman recently who identifies herself formally as the "wife of the director of....blah blah blah....for such and such organization." How sad is that.

To conclude, I need to give myself a bit of credibility here: I absolutely love to throw a good tea party and I'm as much of a girly girl as anyone else. I know how to have fun, to throw great events, to fellowship, and to encourage, but there is more to the Christian life than all those things. Aspire to Christ-centered ministry, not event-driven ministry.

It seems that the battles between secular liberals and religious conservatives are shifting because apparently the face of conservatives is changing.....and I'm not sure that it is for the best.

USA Today online includes an Aug. 6th article, Who Speaks for Evangelicals? Writer Mark Pinsky wonders

Will it continue to be bombastic, GOP-leaning, Southern preachers, such as the late Jerry Falwell, and strident, hard-line broadcasters such as Pat Robertson and Focus on the Family's James Dobson? I don't think so. From my neighborhood in the suburban Sunbelt, it is clear that a subtle, incremental but nonetheless tectonic shift is under way.

I think it's a worthy question, especially in light of what I am seeing in the evangelical community these days -- where pragmatism, not Scripture, rules the actions and activities of the church...

And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room, even near the door; and He was speaking the word to them. And they came, bringing to Him a paralytic, carried by four men. And being unable to get to Him because of the crowd, they removed the roof above Him; and when they had dug an opening, they let down the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins are forgiven." -- Mark 2:2-5 NASB

The four men had:

* determination
* care and concern for the paralytic
* belief that Jesus could heal him

Whatever a person expends great amounts of time, effort, and energy on is what that person loves and has faith in. May we all have faith in those things which can truly reward our efforts and deliver the objects of our hope.

This has got to be one of the best pieces I've read from TCW. From the Editor's Blog, read Invisible Christian Women.

My mom and I were attending a women's ministry event—a weekend retreat dubbed an escape. To us busy career women, this sounded like just what we needed—time away from the daily grind. And connecting with one another on this getaway was the biggest draw of all.

So on a Friday afternoon we flew to this national conference anticipating encouragement, togetherness, and a sense of belonging to the larger community of Christian women.

But by Saturday night I simply felt invisible.

The event was certainly well planned and executed. I enjoyed the great worship music, the chit-chat with women from around the country, the chance to hear some top-notch speakers. But the entire weekend seemed geared toward young married moms. And as a single 30something with no kids, I felt like an outsider. Even my mom, an empty-nester nearing retirement, felt a bit out of the loop.
...

I don't think this evening would've bothered me if its narrow focus had been an isolated instance. But I've been to many women's ministry events over the years—teas, luncheons, weekend retreats, national conferences—and many of them have had a very homogeneous demographic in mind: young married moms.

The editorial ends with a series of questions, many of which I have been asking for a few years myself.

Is your women's ministry group inclusive and diverse? If so, how do you accomplish that accepting atmosphere? If not, how can you help make it more welcoming to all?

I consider myself something of an expert on this topic because I have been on the outside since I first became involved in church women's ministry. For awhile, I tried to fit in trying to look like everyone else. But my life and my personality were not like everyone else. For example, being "functionally single" at church makes it really hard to find a Sunday school class to fit in (I'm not single, widowed, college aged....but the married group is full of couples!) and in women's ministry, it's even more challenging. And it was one thing if I didn't fit into the group, but when the focus was on happily married young moms with Christian husbands, I felt worse than invisible...more like an alien. Now I'm a functionally single woman with great kids, a great husband (who is still an unbeliever and doesn't attend church with us), and on top of that, I am an academic of sorts.

The bottom line is, I know, it's not about me, but I do have a passion for the women who are on the outside like I once was (and still am) and I want to be part of the solution. We want everyone to have a sense of belonging, to be nurtured and discipled. The church really needs to take serious the different kinds of women inside and outside of the church. What can we do to reach them? Today's women are extremely diverse in age, experience, career, parenting, etc. Understanding that this diversity exists is the first step towards creating opportunities through bible studies, discussion groups, target specific conferences, etc, to minister to all kinds of women. Yeah, we'll miss some - we can never be so target specific that we'll always hit the nail on the head, but we can do more to try. Find out what the diversity of gifts are in your ministry and see what you can do to expand the influence to the women already in your church, and then look at the women who aren't in church but are a part of your church's community, and see how the diversity of gifts in your ministry can be used by God to further the growth of the Kingdom and have a real impact on women's lives.

Last week I highlighted the faith of the four men in Mark chapter 2 (and Luke 5:17-26). This week I wanted to point out a passage in Romans chapter 12 that is also instructive, and relevant to women who seek to honor God and serve Him with their gifts. (I assume that, though the passage refers to the male gender, it applies equally to the female, and recommend that it be read that way):

I urge you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.

Let love be without hypocrisy...
(emphases added)

The whole passage is one of my favorites.

Pondering the role of ethics in scientific pursuits over the weekend, I started to consider the issue of global warming and the associated fact that there are costs to scientific progress. Let me first say, I don’t buy totally into the alarmism of global warming, but I do see that there are real consequences to not protecting the environment. In fulfilling the cultural mandate, caring for the condition of the earth is as much our responsibility as is preaching the gospel or defending the life of the unborn.

So how many environmentalists do you think would like us to turn back time, if it was possible, and reassess some of the so-called scientific progress our society has achieved? “Progress” that has increased the speed and efficiency of our society as well as providing great personal conveniences may also be responsible for the damage to the ozone. It isn’t easy being green when the science and ethics find themselves pitted against each other by politicians ill-equipped for ethical reflection and scientists with financial conflicts of interest. Science isn’t neutral, whether the question is environmentalism or biotechnology.

Proponents of embryonic stem cell research believe that scientific progress in biotechnology necessitates unfettered science, and this will outweigh any of the ethical considerations being raised by those who oppose the research. The discipline of ethics plays a role only when the life of the research is at risk of being terminated, not when the life being researched for cures is terminated. As environmentalists and creation-caring individuals wish for a second chance, someday we may also regret the violations against human dignity in the name of scientific progress.

I recently submitted the content of this post to a local Christian college as part of the application process as they consider me for a half-time faculty position. I have no idea how things are progressing at this point, I'll be sure to keep you posted.

As a student of theology and evidential apologetics over 10 years ago, it became clear to me that a piecemeal approach to the content of my faith and the practical day to day was insufficient as it did not cohere with the testimony of Scripture. While Scripture captures a coherent, meaningful story from creation to consummation, it does not embrace the disorder that has plagued humanity since the Fall. And though this chaos is a manifestation of sin in the world, Christianity has not been immune to its influence of fragmentation. This fragmentation is not helpful to the believer in that it will often point him in a direction where God is not. An approach to Christian living that forces our life into fragments – the vocational and the spiritual as examples of the dichotomous secular and sacred- does not serve to give God glory in all areas of our life, even while he is sovereign over it all. This approach to living our lives before God does not represent a biblical worldview. Obviously every practitioner of his or her faith falls short, but it is my belief that the Reformed Christian worldview best captures God’s intent for humankind in all areas of life.

From Scripture, we learn the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consummation, all of which are answers to the questions asked by man since the beginning of time. How did I get here? Why does evil exist? How can things be better? How can I be spared death and live forever? As worldviews representative of other religions attempt to answer these questions, they often find themselves falling short or borrowing from Christianity in order to avoid charges of inconsistency. We find secularism, a religion grounded in man, a not-so-worthy-opponent to the Reformed Christian worldview, yet one that provides a great deal of challenges to the transforming of our culture.

The interdisciplinary nature of bioethics has allowed for many different voices to enter the discussion – scientists, medical professionals, philosophers, politicians and theologians. It is exciting to me, as a theologian, to see how the concept of worldview plays an important role in many, if not all, areas of bioethics including biotechnology, genetic research, end-of-life care, and so on. While bioethics is interdisciplinary, no one is without a worldview, their own set of presuppositions, and theology is able to speak to science, medicine, philosophy and politics.

So the questions of worldview, whether they are Sire’s seven questions or framed by the influence of Orr, Kuyper, or Van Til, are especially relevant to the bioethics discussions now and into the future. The question of origins is especially relevant, not only for the reformed theologian who accepts that man was created in the image of God, but also for the philosopher who posits that we are here by means of evolution. For the scientist and politician, the question may not be about how we got here, but how can we create humans again through the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning) for addressing the healthcare needs of humanity through embryo-destructive research. Human dignity is ultimately what is at stake with the question of origins in worldview discussions, and the best theological response to secularism on these issues will come from a reformed point of view.

No longer did the Church appear only a disreputable congeries of quarrelling sects: now we saw the Church, splendid and terrible, sweeping down the centuries with anthems and shining crosses and steady-eyed saints. No longer was the Faith something for children: intelligent people held it strongly -- and they walked to a secret singing that we could not hear. Or did we hear something: high and clear and unbearably sweet?

-- Sheldon Vanauken in A Severe Mercy, p. 91