Intellectuelle   Worldview

Link to us and you, too, can get "discovered" (once people discover us!).  Browsing through the stats, I found Wittingshire, co-authored by a husband and wife.  Amanda explains how LOTR came to be the theme of their blog, offering up Tolkien's own explanation of the ring of power as what led them to define it as  philosophical materialism (a.k.a. naturalism, which is the belief that the natural/physical/tangible world is all that exists, i.e. no spiritual world).  Read the post to see her argument and then come back to comment on this conclusion:

Did you catch that? Materialism (also known as naturalism) denies the existence of free will; that is, it takes away freedom. It says your will doesn't exist, that everything you do--every song or poem you write, every good deed you perform, every cruelty you inflict--is not a choice or a creative act, but is simply the inevitable result of causes over which you have no control.

Materialism says you are nothing but a puppet.

While I totally agree with her point about materialism, what struck me was how much this sounded like Calvinism (minus the God aspect, which I know is huge).  This is one reason I haven't fully embraced the Reformed view, though I lean toward it more than any other.  I keep having the sense that all theological explanations about God's sovereignty and our free will (or lack thereof) are incomplete and that the tension between those concepts will be dissolved when we shed this earthly existence.  C.S. Lewis helps me out here (it's only fitting to mention him in the same post with fellow inkling Tolkien):

Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think... How many hours are there in a mile? Is yellow square or round? Probably half the questions we ask - half our great theological and metaphysical problems - are like that. ~from A Grief Observed

(I googled for that quote and it ended up taking me to my own blog -- I love it when that happens!)

The following is a segment from a paper I'll be presenting tomorrow at the 12th Annual Conference on Bioethics. The entire paper will be made available online at some point, but I thought this could stimulate some interesting discussion today!

But herein lies the problem � neutrality is impossible. Secularists have no claim to neutrality because, as is the case with persons of any philosophical or religious persuasion, no one enters into the public square naked. Everyone enters with a set of presuppositions that guide their moral and ethical analyses. Contending for any position depends upon this framework in that it is through one's presuppositions that all facts are interpreted and therefore, necessarily related. No one lives or operates in a vacuum where the mind is a "blank slate" and facts are uninterpreted. As such, these "brute facts" would exist independently of God and, unless one holds that anything can exist independent of God, have no logical relation to one another. Accordingly, man couldn't know them. Theologians, philosophers, ethicists and scientists all bring their presuppositions to bear on their work.

There is no neutral ground from which to discuss what it means to be human. These questions "are inevitably normative, value-laden, metaphysical in character." Yet there are entities that purport the notion that this neutrality is possible, not unlike that of the Human Embryo Research Panel established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the mid 1990's. In a statement where they discuss their deliberations on the federal funding of research on human embryos, they stated that the "�Panel weighed arguments for and against Federal funding of this research in light of the best available information and scientific knowledge and conducted its deliberations in terms that were independent of a particular religious or philosophical perspective." Meilaender's brings clarity to the table when he asserts that "We are not philosopher-kings who can adjudicate disputes between conflicting views without ourselves being parties to the argument." We simply cannot enter into bioethical discourse and leave our presuppositional framework at the door and any attempt to do so is merely an attempt to disguise one's own worldview and is, at best, na�ve. The answer to the question of whether bioethics can be unbiased is simply, all bioethics are biased.

chau tau� qua (sha-to�kwa), n. [from the summer schools inaugurated at Chautauqua, New York, in 1874.] an assembly lasting several days, for educational and recreational purposes: the program includes lectures, concerts, etc.

I have barely had access to a computer lately due to an opportunity to stay on the grounds of Chautauqua Institution, where I play trumpet part-time with the Chautauqua Symphony. Work with the symphony has been especially heavy, but it�s great work.

Chautauqua Institution began 132 years ago as a summer camp for Methodist Sunday-school teachers but has since expanded greatly and spawned many other, smaller chautauquas around the country. The "Chautauqua Ideal� is based on a belief that knowledge and exploration of all kinds should be as available as possible to as many people as possible, for the improvement of humankind. Chautauqua, as it is called for short, gets its name from the lake it is situated upon. No one knows for sure the original meaning of the word, but popular local opinion has it as Indian for �bag tied in the middle.� (That�s because the lake looks like this.)

This week I received a copy of the study guide for Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition) which is due to be released shortly. What I especially enjoy about it is that she has introduced new material in the form of recent events (e.g. Ron Reagan speaking on ESCr and cloning at the DNC). For each chapter of the book, she provides new material and examples showing the conflict between worldviews in the areas of bioethics, origins, and even the church and Christian higher ed. On page 485, Nancy takes the reader back to chapter 1 where she discusses how its possible "to be Christian in our beliefs yet secular in the way we live." She provides even more content to that discussion:

The vast majority of Christian colleges and universities perpetuate the sacred/secular divide, according to a study by Robert Benne (Quality of the Soul, 2001). He calls it an 'add-on' approach because it treats Christianity as something added on to the curriculum-through chapel, Bible studies, and prayer groups-while the course content is esentially the same as any secular university. These colleges define themselves as Christian because of their ethos and atmosphere, not because they teach a distinctive vision of the world.

The upshot is that many of our churches and schools are turning out young people who are Christian in their religious life but secular in their mental life-who unthinkingly absorb secular worldviews.

I couldn't help but to be personally impacted by this additional example. Recently, I've been faced with people in my life who wear their faith on their sleeve yet act in ways that are usually less than Christian. It's this behavior that shows how the Church has been secularized and why Total Truth is an important tool for Christian worldview education today.

Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Ed.)

There once was a God Who Is There
Who with idols his deity He'd not share
But in modern times, it's accepted oft-times
That such intolerance is mighty unfair

Let me begin by saying that I don't know what part, if any, the ethnic Jew plays in God's Grand Plan. I tend to shy away from dispensational pre-milennial eschatology and lean towards amillennialism, and I don't necessarily see any significance Biblically for the current political State known as Israel. I do think the Scriptures are pretty clear (as history also attests by the destruction of Jerusalem) that the religion of ancient Israel had become an abomination to God, and hence He destroyed its center, the temple, which was no longer necessary in the history of salvation, as the final sacrifice had been made in the death of Christ. However, I do find it interesting that Jews are converting to Christianity in much larger numbers than have been seen since the days of the New Testament, and this may indeed be an indication that in a mighty work, God will restore to true faith many ethnic Jews, as many people see Paul saying in Romans 9-11. I also firmly believe that the unregenerate Jew, while certainly forsaken of God, is *no more* forsaken of God than any other unregenerate person.

With that said as a kind of disclaimer so as not to be called an anti-semite (though I am Jew, myself), with the recent good discussion here about truth, I was thinking how we hear so often today that Jews, Christians and even Muslims and others "all worship the same God". You saw this in action after September 11, with the interfaith prayer service at the National Cathedral. How can anyone take that idea seriously? Christians believe that Jesus Christ is God. Jews don't. Muslims don't. Buddhists don't. Etc. It's as simple as that. It's kind of like the popular saying that all religions are basically the same, they all teach the Golden Rule, etc. I think that anyone who believes this must never have looked in a book like World Scripture - A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts

This 800+ page book breaks down every coneceivable religious idea, from Atonement to Individual Responsibility, Satan to Sincerity, Original sin to the Moral Law, and gives examples from "sacred texts" on these subjects from the writings of Judaism (and this goes far beyond the OT to the Talmud, the Mishna and other writings, including kabbalistic ones), various branches of Christianity, Islam, Native American religions, Traditional African religions, Buddhism, HInduism, Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, Confucianism, Taoism, Traditional Japanese religions, and even Reverend Moon's Unification Church. While there are certainly some similarities between the teachings of these different religions (see Romans 2:14-15) at the very roots they are strikingly contradictory. Haven't the "all roads lead to the same place" people ever heard of the law of non-contradiction? For example, salvation cannot simultaneously be of works and of grace. The examples could go on and on. The point being that if the ideas we hold *about* God and His nature are totally different, how ridiculous is it to say that Christians, Jews and others worship the same God?

Human beings are Idol Factories, as it has been so eloquently stated (by John Calvin, I think) . And even true Christians, being fallen, are certain to find they were wrong about some aspect of their doctrine or theology when they stand before God. However, it is impossible for a Christian to say to a Jew or any other non-Christian that they worship the same God without blaspheming; to say that is to deny the ultimate reality of Jesus Christ as He Is, which is the eternal Judge and Lord of All Things, in addition to the Saviour of them who believe. To make statements like this is not "Tolerance", it is compromise of a diabolical sort, and in fact allows Jewish unbelievers especially to rest easy in their unbelief, because they share with us, in part, the same Scriptures. It allows them to continue saying, "We have Abraham for our father", to their peril.

Many today think "Sincerity" is the only necessary element of faith. If someone is "sincere" in their beliefs and their religious practice, if they are "a good person", then they are all right. The Scriptures speak plainly and frighteningly against this idea over and over again. God even gave His people in the wilderness the exact way in which they were to worship HIm, and when Aaron's sons offered "strange fire" upon the altar, contrary to God's command, what happened? They were struck dead. We are not commanded to worship "Our Idea of God" in "Sincerity". We are commanded to repent and worship the true God in "Truth". Big difference.

An article on the August 17th New York Times described a situation that is unheard of today. In fact, when I first read it, I thought "Naaaaaaaaaaa...no way, that didn't happen." But in fact, it did.

This is what happened. A 19 year old, Ryan Cushing, was charged with assault for "tossing a turkey through a car windshield last fall." The driver of that car suffered severe injuries and was forced to undergo many hours of surgery to rebuild the broken bones in her face.

To make a long story short, the victim, Ms. Ruvolo, insisted that the prosecutors show mercy by granting a plea bargain. What could have been up to 25 years in prison is 6 months in jail and five years probation.

Some are attributing her compassion to a religious motivation. The article suggests that her "impulse may have been entirely secular." But I disagree that there can be a "secular rationale" for showing grace and mercy. Understanding man as having been created in the image of God explains why man acts in ways that are reflective of God's character.

I think I caught Hannah's cold through cyberspace. We've spent our weekly grocery money on cold medicine for me it seems -- vapour rub, nasal spray, sudafed; my husband's bringing home cough syrup for chesty coughs (that's how things are designated here) and Kleenex. I'm in bed on a Sunday morning missing out on worship. That just stinks.

So when I woke up at 5 am coughing and fully awake (for me at least around that hour) I started thinking about illness and bringing God glory. Although I probably feel quite sorry for myself now, my sickness is nothing more than an annoyance when it comes down to it and in a week or so will be remembered no more. I do not have a chronic illness or cancer or something that keeps me confined to my bed. I really have nothing to complain about. This little dose of perspective is something which can begin to cure my "I'm-sick-help-poor-pathetic-me" blues.

But proceeding from this perspective, how do I live now, being sick, to the glory of God? I could give you a whole lot of Christian answers now: using my time to pray more, reading my Bible more, writing notes to other believers, reading more Christian books, etc. I'm not so much concerned about what things that have to do with Christianity I could do now, but more along a Nancy Pearcy-esque line of how do I live out my sickness Christianly? (I'm just now getting to terms with how much of my life is not lived out according to a Christian worldview -- but instead is Christ tacked on to things rather than a pervading of all I am and think and do -- and am trying to construct one in the little instances first). I think a lot of the problem is that I've usually thought of the word 'Christian' primarily in its use as an adjective -- to do various Christian things -- rather than as an adverb, to do everything Christianly, in a manner worthy of Christ. I don't have an immediate answer right now (and I'm sure my cold medicine will kick in soon and I'll soon be asleep) but I think the question is worth posing. I think my initial thoughts on the wider perspective of the gospel, of the church and of Christ being preeminent definitely begin to answer the question. But I'll also put it to you: How can/do you live out your life today Christianly?

Last week, I took 2 online worldview tests. Apparently I have some studying to do because the results indicate that I don't hold to a strong Christian worldview. In fact, I'm labeled moderately biblical. I think anyone who knows me would beg to differ.

At Worldviewweekend.com, the test evaluates your answers to the questions and attempts to place you in one of the 8 worldview categories: Strong Biblical Worldview Thinker, Moderate Biblical Worldview Thinker, Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker, Socialist Worldview Thinker or Communist/Marxist/Socialist/Secular Humanist Worldview Thinker. Take the tests and see for yourself: www.worldviewweekend.com and the Nehemiah Institute.

It seems that a lot of what passes for contemporary middle-of-the-road evangelical Christianity in the States tends to dismiss doubt as out of hand -- that it doesn't really matter. Or, if someone has nagging doubts about their faith, it simply indicates that person's faith is "weak", that they can "get past" the idea that lurking in the back of one's head that maybe this Christianity is just a hoax, an emotional crutch.

Problem is, most of these people haven't really dealt with large questions -- haven't been shaken up past the point of mediocrity. We have been seduced by SUVs, middle class incomes, and making sure we run with the "secular" crowd, so that we don't lose step in the materialism gain. We've sought prestige, renown and higher incomes. We have not experienced suffering, so we do not care about answering it. We often don't think beyond our day-to-day lives about not only the impact our daily choices has on the world around us or on how our faith is reflected in our daily practices but also have not interrogated larger issues: What is meaning? Does the Bible have the ultimate say in matters of truth, authority and application of faith to life? What happens when people turn away from the gospel -- does it really have the power to save?

We've become so cozy in our lifestyle choices and this in turn, reflects our intellectual apathy. We repeat cliches, thinking they're truth. We water down the gospel so that it's palatable for the "seekers". We say we have "no creed but Christ" without looking for the implications of Christ's teaching and the way in which that informs our every action and our worldview. We use pat answers so that we needn't ask questions, needn't wrestle with the hard truths of the Christian faith, needn't think that doubt has an important role to play in our faith.

For when seeking to respect the whole personhood of those unsaved around us, we must ask their questions as well. We must understand that doubt -- not only asking the questions, but looking for answers, and for the Christian, praying through our doubt -- helps to root our foundation in the Christ of Scripture, rather than making an idol to be worshipped out of a pathetically nice, flanograph version of Jesus.

[These thoughts have been most recently stirred up by Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth, Kevin Vanhoozer's Is there a meaning in this text? and Ronald Sider's Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger]

Elusive, mysterious, and almost dubiously brilliant as portrayed in Plato's dialogues, Socrates (470-399 B.C.) lived during the classical age of Athenian democracy. He was thought to hold unconventional ideas about the traditional Greek gods - an especially dangerous move in light of the unfavorable events of the Peloponnesian War, which suspiciously came at a time when the gods were increasingly neglected or defamed - and this made him, standing out in the heavily communalistic Athens, a prime candidate for one of Aristophanes' pointed comedies. In The Clouds, "Socrates" is the head of a sort of gnostic (note the lowercase 'g') institution where he has done away with the gods and replaced them with natural phenomena (e.g. clouds). In reality, he denied being any kind of natural philosopher, and his "services" were free and open to the public, but his dexterous dialectic method tended to reveal mere pretense of knowledge in those who were thought the wisest, thus making it an "ask at your own risk" venture for interested philosophizers. Eventually the risk became much higher for Socrates himself.

The victors over Athens in the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans, had a strictly oligarchic government; ideologically, this also set the two cities at odds. Spartans thought (read: did family planning) in terms of definite, inborn characteristics and abilities that were to be developed according to the way the individual could best be employed for the good of the state. Athenians prided themselves on their good faith in the natural ability of any man to run a government - they counted all male citizens qualified for public office. But Socrates was thought to have oligarchic sympathies - strike two against him.

Now, since I'm no good at history lessons, let's get to the meat of this. The Sophists were traveling non-Athenian intellectuals who boasted in their rhetorical abilities and graciously condescended to educate any willing buffoon who could satisfy them financially. They liked to do their business in Attica most of all because Athens (home to the agora, the marketplace for fish, fruit, and...philosophy), was a place where it was perhaps normal to sit a child on your lap, look into his eyes, and say, "When you grow up, you can be whatever you want, dear." This isn't lying, of course - it is charitable, democratic parenting in action!

Academics often say biblical belief has no place in the social sciences because it keeps people from open-minded analysis of data. Actually, the opposite is true: A biblical worldview often reveals the limitations of conventional approaches and pushes us to ask the right questions so that the data we obtain will not leave us still ignorant.

Biblical social scientists have an advantage because they know truths about human nature. Those who dismiss the Bible and create surveys that don't measure crucial factors are the ones who have closed minds. Sometimes the Bible gives us clear answers and sometimes it doesn't, but it always helps us to ask the right questions.

Olasky's words remind me of a post I wrote last year wondering why columnist Ellen Goodman made astute observations about people and leadership yet didn't seem to understand what the things she observed meant. She couldn't see them for what they were, apparently, because her worldview lacked a biblical perspective (or, more specifically, a saving faith in Jesus Christ.)

Conversion to such faith invariably results in a change of worldview, which is what many evangelicals focus on when seeking to "engage the culture." They've observed differences among the worldviews produced by various beliefs and seek to evangelize by engaging people via these worldviews (I hope I'm getting that right). "Worldview" thinking has received criticism, though, because the focus of such thinking can center upon worldview itself rather than on the beliefs that form it or the gospel that ought to inform it. Besides that, not all "true believers" have fully identical worldviews (obviously), and this is not necessarily because someone is wrong.

When hearing the gospel, a person can't help but filter it through their worldview, or, perhaps more accurate, their personal life-view, and it may not make sense if not explained in that language. This is what Paul means by becoming all things to all (I Corinthians 9:22), and I think it's part of the basis for a "worldview"-type evangelism. We have to remember, though, that much of what we call worldview is culturally informed, and none of us is outside of culture; we are each part of one or many cultures, or an amalgam of many. When we speak of reaching the culture, we are really speaking of cross-cultural dialogue. Being in but not of the world does not (and should not) mean we have a different culture; it means we live in the culture differently.

I think we have to go beyond cultural and "worldview" differences to the real humanity that each and every one of us shares -- the truth of who we really are and of who God is and what He did for us in Jesus. Underneath it all, we are all basically the same. Worldview change has to start here, and a complete transformation (if even possible) takes time to achieve. Indeed, our worldviews are continually changing as we work out our salvation, though perhaps not as drastically as when we first came to saving faith. Therefore, discussion of worldview may actually be more fruitful when taken up with those who have some openness to, or even a burgeoning faith in, God (through Jesus) already.

But we must start with the basics. If we gently speak to that which, underneath it all, we "can't not know" -- that common ground that we all share -- (which ultimately involves matters of the heart as well as the mind) then we may find a fertile place to sow the seed of the gospel. We can worry about cultivation afterwards. It doesn't do a whole lot of good to point out differences in worldviews if we are not addressing the matters of the heart/mind that lead to those worldviews.

In my department, we outsource a lot of work to India, so for the past three or four years I�ve been in daily contact with colleagues in Mumbai. It was only a chance remark, months after the Mumbai outsourcing project began, that made me realise that Mumbai was the same as Bombay.

Obviously I had missed the latest round of new spellings for traditional foreign placenames, adding Mumbai to Beijing, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and many others.

I find the whole business of names and name-changes fascinating. Names have so many layers. A name has the primary function of referring to something, with (one hopes) little ambiguity in its usual contexts. But if that were the only function, we could just refer to everyone and everything with randomly-chosen made-up words or even serial numbers. But names have meanings as well � literal meanings, associations, historical usages, and all those reasons why people want to change them, or not change them. A name can strongly influence people�s perception of the social, historical and political situation.

I leave the debate over what constitutes civilities to others... I have no real comments on the Ted Haggard issue, primarily because I believe we are not over the worst of such yet. I think lots more exposure of the church, its leaders and methods, is awaiting us. There will plenty to blog about -especially as we go into the next presidential campaign in earnest. So, in this time, and for this purpose, I want to resume looking at fundamental ideas and views we have which tend to articulate our direction in the culture,and as a culture. Our views of women, our ideals of egalitarianism.

What we think will determine how we act, and the degree of clarity we have will impact our ability to fend off manipulation that is a part of moving large groups to go in specific directions. In other words, the better handle we have on what and how we think the more likely that we act, as individuals and citizens, and saints, in concordance with our core beliefs.

So, in the service of that goal, a look at and discussion of some points in an article that was published 3/29/2006:
"Culture wars: Beware of presuming sameness" by Jonathan Zimmerman.

In a recent BBC Newsnight interview, Madonna, dressed in black and sitting in a carefully staged set that would have been more appropriate in the Adam's Family mansion, defended her decision to begin adoption proceedings with baby David Banda.

One of the many accusations levelled at her in the media has been the idea that she picked out the child in much the same manner that one would choose a puppy in a pet shop. In the interview, she refuted this and describes how she first saw David as part of a documentary film that was being made relating to her Foundation. She went on to defend her decision to remove the baby from Malawi, despite the fact that he has a father and allegedly a Grandmother who visited him regularly. She denied any knowlege of a Grandmother and insisted that both a Malawian Government minister and the man who runs the orphanage told her that no-one visited the boy.

Quite apart from the all the obvious questions that this whole adoption debacle raises, one issue that remains unchallenged is the part the media played in this. The simple version of the story, as portrayed in the press, would have you believe that Madonna flew into Malawi astride a broomstick, picked out the child she liked the look of with complete disregard for his family and Malawian law. Not only that but she hoodwinked Malawian officals, the boys father and her adoring public into believing that she did this with the boys best interest at heart, something which couldn't possibly be true of someone like her.

But of course it's never that simple. Bastions of journalistic integrity such as the Guardian, The Times and others of similar ilk, would never dream of spinning such a story, they are only interested in exposing the truth. As well as the tireless pusuit of truth, they are of course concerned for the welfare of the child, something ably demonstrated by the way in which they, along with others, welcomed him with flash photography during his arrival at Heathrow Airport.

Ok, I'll dispense with the sarcasm, but I think it's interesting to note the scathing criticism Madonna has received over this issue, yet the adoption of a baby from Africa by Angelina Jolie last year was noted only by a few lines in the Guardian's 'in brief' section

Duo
1972
Julian Stanczak

An article introducing an exhibit of 'op art' gives an interesting interview with one of the artists represented, Julian Stanczak. Op art was one of those interesting phenomenons of the sixities, when it went mainstream into everything from posters and ads to ladies scarves. In some ways, it followed abstract's emphasis to the extreme with a reduction into the effects of color and pattern, quite apart fom representation life's objects.

When Christians, especially the more conservative, discuss art it is often to bemoan the flight from realistic representation. As a group we tend to elevate the type of art that speaks more didactically to us, and attribute the abstractions of the modern art age to the general chaos which attends the breakdown of a society. After reading some of Stanczak's comments... I took another look at this worldview idea.

I'm a great fan of Francis Schaeffer and he uses concepts of modern art to illustrate the decline of modern man in his quest for a universal in life, at once losing the idea of universals while becoming more disjointed in ability to communicate. In this, I think we ought to see the works of modern artists, who are pushing boundaries and really trying to say something with their art, as manifestations of philosophical problems we all face. It has its parallel in religion, too (the universals of the Eastern religions end up swallowing the individual details, the West's determined individualism fractures the sense of there being any whole). We seek a universal- the cohesion of the whole and how we, and all of the creation we see, holds together in meaning and relationship. But we are constantly finding ourselves fragmented and our attempts at universal truths laying shattered upon the foundations where we start. I think this explains the swing of the pendelum to minimalism and extremes of simplification. It is a tension that seeks relief in spurts of complexity and focus on detail, only to try again in the discovery of the universals. Each time this desire for wholeness on the part of man demands more ascetism of reduction. I think we see that in such types of art as "Op Art"... and Julian Stanczak gave what I thought was an important piece of the explanation of this process not only in the artist, but in all of us.

I say captivating because they now have my attention. I hope they have yours as well. God has called each of us to bow down and worship Him, and has given each of us gifts and talents and desires that are intended to serve him through the cultivation of the earth – the creation mandate.

I have been focused recently on drawing attention to women who serve God outside of the church. These women are moms, doctors, musicians, artists, writers, businesswomen, carpenters (watch HGTV and you’ll see them), teachers, politicians, pilots, etc. These women love what they do, but many have not figured out that they, as believers, are serving God through their vocation. I have a special mission that I invite each of you to take up with me, and that is to let these women know that what they do matters to God as much as being a women’s ministry leader or Christian author. There is not one single area of our lives that is unimportant to God, but sometimes that is the message we send. And let's face it, some of these women struggle to fit in amongst the women I fondly refer to as church ladies. And I can relate. We really need to broaden the scope of women's ministry to invite and include women who are outside the box of those who are normally involved. And women's ministry leadership needs to be reshaped to include more personalities, characteristics, gifts and talents so as to identify with our contemporary landscape. I hear from women who are wired different than others on their leadership teams, and are being misunderstood and excluded because they don't fit the preconceived mold. It's very sad....so I beg of you, take another look at your ministries, especially who is not there.

As womens ministries continue their work in the church, many are putting forth a fragmented perspective on living. In all fairness, this isn't just happening in women's ministry, but in all areas of the church. For many, your "spiritual life" are those times with God - personal devotions, Bible studies, worship - and the rest of your life is....well....the rest of your life. Spirituality is not a separate part of our life, independent of more "ordinary" things. Yet this is a mindset that became prevalent in the 19th and into the 20th century. But the only "true division in the Christian life...is that line we call sin." (Franky Schaeffer, Addicted to Mediocrity, p. 27)

This segmented approach to living only enables one to live for themselves most of the time, and attempt to live for God in concentrated moments. And for those who haven't entered into vocational ministry, many continue to struggle without the knowledge that they are serving God in their work. We thank our pastors, worship leaders, and women's ministry directors for their service to the ministry, but when was the last time you thanked an artist, a car mechanic, or a garbage man for their service in the Kingdom?

Human endeavors need not be regarded as unspiritual or ungodly. As image-bearers, we are wired not only to do work, but to desire it. As God created the world and everything in it and saw that it was good, we too have an interest in working to create beautiful things. And unless something is sin, it is ministry in God's Kingdom.

So as women (and men, of course) express their desires to become painters, musicians, hair dressers, academics, tax professionals, social workers - whatever - don't discourage them. If God has gifted an individual in a particular way, who are we to say otherwise?

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.

Awhile back I began a post on Al Gore's shallow "reasoning" as seen in an excerpt from his book, The Assault on Reason, but never finished it. So I figured, too little too late.

Then I received this plea in the mail (dated simply, "Tuesday Morning"), from none other than Al Gore: "Help Restore Reason to Our Government." I read:

...This perverse political culture [12 years of a Republican-controlled Congress] -- dangerously hostile to reason and knowledge -- is what enabled George W. Bush to use fear and lies to mislead our nation into the Iraq war, ignore the threat of global warming, block promising stem-cell research and ignore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

*sigh*

(Several times, he leaves out commas -- I guess proper use of commas isn't important. Or could he -- or his copyist -- possibly not know better?)

The letter is full of cliched rallying points and value judgments. His "facts" are, of course, mostly opinion. For example, this paragraph (put down your coffee, your Coke, or your white tea first):

For me, the most disturbing aspect of the Republican political culture is how it puts its unquenchable thirst for power, domination and a radical ideology above facts, reason, and the truth. On issue after issue, Republicans in Congress have replaced reason and debate with intimidation and fear mongering -- marching in lockstep with the Bush Administration and its destructive policies.

There it is. The world according to Garp Gore. In black and white, "black" meaning "bad" and "white" meaning "good": Democrats = white, Republicans = black. Al Gore = white, President Bush = black. Embryonic stem-cell research = white, adult stem-cell research = black. Etc.

In Learning Character: How Not to Raise a Barbarian, Chuck Colson reiterates the point that humans are born sinners, and says that it is utopians, not realists, who believe that man can be radically improved by the right “unconstrained” vision or government. Or “enlightenment,” I would say, unless it’s the enlightenment provided by the Holy Spirit via the Word of God. Paraphrasing Aristotle, who said that character can only be learned, not taught, Colson claims that character is “best learned in the communities of the family and the Church, where children can see and experience virtue.”

I thoroughly support this claim. But it is missing one crucial element: character is best learned in communities of the family and the church where people are walking in the Spirit, without which even virtue falls short.

Colson’s article ends thus:

There are so many dysfunctional families today that our church communities have to act as the family writ large—where virtue and Christian character can be touched, tasted, and learned.

To this, I can’t shout “AMEN!” loud enough. I am convinced that it is only through modeling and agape' love – undeserved love, as demonstrated by Christians and the church, that those whose innately sinful character was undeservedly damaged by their family of origin can learn what the gospel truly means. There may be exceptions. There may be some who can find their way anyway, or whom God can find without the loving examples of others. But, given our humanity and our human needs, I wonder.

(Do you know of any? Please tell me in the comments.)

Even those who do have strong, spiritually healthy families need the church community to be the larger reinforcer of all that it means to follow Christ. We need all the different members to make the Body complete and to provide for one another, spiritually and materially.

A Crosswalk blogpost by Michael Craven asks the question, are Christians contributing to unbelief? He discusses the influences of recent books written by atheists Dawkins, Hutchins, et al, and wonders why people who profess some kind of belief in God are persuaded to pick up these books. He talked to David Kuo about this:

According to Kuo, a self-professed conservative Christian, growing interest in questions about God's existence may be the result of a "backlash against the mingling of religion, politics and public policy," and this idea that "Jesus was about a particular conservative political agenda." In essence, he means that the actions of some Christians may be encouraging the spiritual seeker to further doubt the existence of God.

Could it be that our own actions are causing the religiously-inclined but nonetheless lost to doubt the existence of God? Is it possible that the Church is pushing people toward unbelief by virtue of its approach to culture and the world? Has Christianity become so politically defined that true faith and the person of Jesus Christ is obscured in the minds of many? Is it possible that Christians are conducting themselves in such a way that the spiritually seeking are looking anywhere but to Christ? I don't know for sure but I certainly think it is possible and that is enough to make me examine my self in light of these questions. It should cause us all to examine ourselves.

All persons have the potential to be political because everyone generally has an opinion on an issue facing our world - whether all of our opinoins are valid or well-grounded is another issue. But why is it the Christian's responsibility to appear apolitical when the needs of our culture not only need to be addressed by the church, but sometimes we must involve ourselves in such a way to secure the protections and helps that are needed by so many people? Christians - like any other group of people, may err in their approach to political issues, but Christians and Christian views ought not be forbidden from being a part of the processes of our democratic society. I'm sorry if the errs Christians do make causes anyone to question the integrity of the institution, but I'm not convinced that uninvolving ourselves will make us more "attractive" and, like Craven, I don't think being more attractive is our job. The gospel is our purpose, but we're also called to protect the vulnerable in our society. I think uninvolving ourselves from the democratic process will only benefit our opponents and weaken our testimony to those who depend upon the church as their advocate.

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.

As I was riding on the train today, I was (of course) thinking about how secularism is both the result and the cause of fragmented thinking and why it is that some choose separate one's values from the realm of truth and reason. In article in Harvard's Under-Current, a student writer proposes that "[w]hen a person attempts to use both eyes simultaneously to reach a decision on a particular issue, he discovers that the two eyes often see things differently. Ultimately, he either follows God—a feeling for which he has no evidence—or he follows reason. No other alternative is possible." This is the typical view had among secular thinkers, a view to which Christians could provide a more explicit response. To reduce belief in God to a feeling reveals the assumptions made about religious belief by this writer.

As a Reformed presuppositionalist, I get it. Faith is a gift from God, unbelieving man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness, the natural man does not understand the things of the Spirit, and so on. The secularist who hasn't had an encounter with God doesn't yet understand how faith and reason are not incompatible. I believe that this is part of our ministry to them, responding to the negative assumption that faith and reason are foes, and responding positively by establishing their necessarily correlation. Conversations with my 14 year old reveal the priority of this dialogue for all believers, not just academics. He asks about the veracity of Scripture, how we know God exists, the relationship between science and faith, etc. And as we discuss these matters, he's hard-pressed to respond to the arguments that (1) because God exists it's not unreasonable to believe that he would communicate to us through the Scriptures and (2) that by subjecting God to our own authority we are placing ourselves in a higher place than God.

Chuck Colson speaks of the philosophy of Ayn Rand in a recent Breakpoint commentary. Apparently, Atlas Shrugged, Rand's most popular work, came in second (next to the Bible) in a 1991 Book-of-the-Month Club and Library of Congress survey asking members which book had most influenced their lives. According to Colson, 50 years after the book's publication and 25 years after Rand's death, Atlas Shrugged is still widely read. "Given its popularity and impact," as Colson says, it should be read by Christian believers as well.

Rand's "me-first" philosophy essentially turns Christian philosophy on its head (from what I remember of what I read some time ago). Virtue is whatever serves the self; vice is self-sacrifice. (In an intellectual sort of way...her philosophy is complex, and caution should be exercised when trying to boil it down. However, the way she takes true evils and attaches them to non-evils, and vice-versa, is the essence of rationalistic confusion, as well as of that which rationalizes.)

Colson goes on to mention a book by Scott Ryan explaining how Rand's manipulative behavior was justified by her beliefs:

We're not talking here about personal flaws or merely human weaknesses. As Ryan puts it, these abuses are "demonstrably connected to Rand's own 'philosophical' premises"—that is, her worldview.

What this illustrates is that people don't necessarily develop behavior to suit their beliefs; more likely it's the other way around. They search for a belief system that allows them to justify what they want to think and do. Essentially, they search for a system that justifies or has already established those beliefs which they themselves hold in seminal form. Even among those who call themselves Christians, you will find this. Once a person has "sanctified" her behavior by her beliefs, then, she establishes both the behavior and the beliefs. Her behavior will then follow from her beliefs -- and vice-versa -- in an ongoing cycle of justification.

(Makes you wonder why justification is so important to such a person...)

In contrast to behavior sanctified by beliefs is that which follows belief authored, not by oneself, but by God. There is no one who accepts the gospel who is not brought to reckon with his or her own thoughts and behaviors. The gospel compels a person to repent -- turn from wickedness -- and walk in the Spirit. Only by the Spirit can this self-sacrifice occur. Certainly self-sacrificial behavior is evident among those who do not profess to be Christians, but I believe it's still led by the Spirit, Who can work in and through anyone. Yet it's only the person that consciously wills to serve the Father who can consistently walk in the Spirit.

That is why it is said, "You will know them by their fruit" (Matthew 7). "The fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22-23).

Upright thought and behavior needs no rationalization.

I do a lot of things on the train - read, listen to Van Til or some 80's music on my iPod....sometimes I talk to people.....today I was too tired to do any of that....especially since my iPod froze and I couldn't listen to Van Til on Barth. So I decided to spend the time in my own thoughts. Last night I had been reading Clouser's Myth of Religious Neutrality, so I was able to interact with some ideas as I dozed between stops. The essence of his book is that all theories are reducible to religious belief, and so the only way to not have religious belief is to not have theories. He defines religious belief as

any belief in something or other as divine. 'Divine' means having the status of not depending on anything else. (pp. 21-22)

This isn't hard to wrap our minds around. We care for each other on a variety of levels, and when a friend or loved one is sick, we want to see them well, and that may mean taking them to a doctor or hospital. It is a moral obligation within our relationships to care for one another this way because to do otherwise would be to neglect their life. And the basis for that is love and respect of the inherent dignity of all persons and is rooted in the imago dei. We can think of dignity as both something each person has, and also in the way that persons are treated by other persons. But no one gives dignity, all people have it.

So back to the issue of health care. Any moral obligation is dependent on something beyond ourselves, otherwise there is no moral obligation. Health care for all Americans is nothing less than a religious, prolife argument - I'd really like for the presidential contenders to call it what it is.

Rereading the charming wit of Dorothy Sayers, I see how she has a profound way of speaking to the plight of the church even in our own 21st century context. In Creed of Chaos? she speaks intelligently of the gospel:

It is, in the strictest sense, necessary to the salvation of relevance that a man should believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Unless he believes rightly, there is not the faintest reason why he should believe at all.(p. 36)

So in a recent article published by Willow Creek in their Seismic Shift edition, I can't help but to think on Sayers' words as I read the words below:

A spiritually formed person loves God and loves others, but love is not just a feeling. It's doing things that are showing God's love in the world. It really comes down to, what is the gospel? What gospel do we preach? If the gospel is merely that Jesus came to die for our sins, so that if we believe in him we can go to heaven some day, then there is no need for spiritual formation. We're all just waiting. But what if the gospel is the work of God to transform human beings into people who love God and love others? What if it is big enough to change people, so that they begin to act in ways that give witness to that gospel? (page 13)

The article continues:

For years the term "social gospel" was considered a dirty word of sorts in evangelical circles. The thinking was that fighting social ills was not as important as saving souls. But some Christian leaders, especially those in the spiritual formation movement, are hoping that the church is waking up to the fact that those two goals are not mutually exclusive. (page 13)

There is no doubt in my mind that Christians of all denominations fail in ministry. We are often hypocrites and liars and cheaters and who knows what else. But this isn't the exclusive domain of evangelicalism as the article would like to suggest.

My understanding of "social gospel" is not represented well here either. And I realize that it's one of those terms which can vary in definition and understanding, but there has historically been a closeness between the social gospel and liberation theologies.

It's never been an either/or thing for me, and while every Christian can improve upon their witness in society, I've never heard an evangelical suggest that we shouldn't fight social ills because it would distract from the work of evangelism. If that were true, many evangelicals would refrain from their work in the prolife arena (or is this not a legitimate area of social concern? Just asking). What I have heard, and oft repeated, are the famous words of Assisi, to "share the gospel, use words if necessary." When has the gospel been communicated without words? The gospel without words is the essence of the social gospel I have seen promoted, especially by mainline denominations. The Gospel of Jesus Christ states that we are sinners, yet Christ died so that we may live....believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. Belief in something is a requirement, the work of the gospel relates to our sanctification and if we are failing in this area, then it is because we are not teaching believers a complete picture of Christianity.

What I want to know is if others see what I see. I see an anti-political sentiment coming from the proponents of this "emerging social gospel" which binds the work of their fellow evangelicals in the public realm instead of supporting it. I see the politically-interested or politically-involved evangelical being told that they have a choice - help the poor or protect the unborn. Recent books suggesting that Christians are perceived as too political make it difficult for evangelicals to continue the work they've been called to because of the perceptions of younger generations, mosaics and busters. Are we to conform our work and our mission to the perceptions of the average man because he doesn't understand it's value and importance? Are evangelicals to sit back and continue being told that they don't care about the poor, the widows, or orphans? Perception is reality only because we're not speaking truth. Let's get back to the work of discipleship or evangelicalism is sure to complete a church split.

No matter the size of your church, you have an idea of what works for your women's ministry, so much of what we do is "safe." Everyone enjoys the holiday tea, the cozy bible studies, and the efforts to use chocolate as a tool for building strong community. I'm not opposed to these events and quite enjoy the opportunity to excuse myself from the monotony of the every day and the ever-so stressful tyranny of the urgent. But enough about me....

There are many kinds of women who our ministries will never reach, so we shouldn't be too quick to beat ourselves up. But in my experience and based on the emails I receive from women, their are women in the church who are available and capable to reach out to women with more intellectual interests. If there are women in your church or on your women's ministry team who have an interest in this area, don't write them off - set them up to succeed in this area of ministry.

Today, women are excelling in higher education and our women's ministries just are not equipped to reach them. Many of these women simply are not available for Wednesday morning bible studies, have little time for retreats, and feel out of place in women's ministry settings as they currently exist. But there are ways to impact these women. Create opportunities to challenge their mind and not just their heart. This can be done through book discussion groups, apologetics studies, and Bible studies that do more than scratch the surface. Go to events at local colleges, coffee shops, and community forums and see what women are discussing. I guarantee they are not talking about how to make homemade baby wipes.They want to know how to identify truth, live authentic lives that help others, and live a life of integrity in spite of the uphill challenges women still face in our society. They want to know how to serve God in ways outside of the kitchen and nursery. God gifts women in all sorts of ways, and some of us just don't have a clue about hospitality.

These women, like many other women I know, are uninterested in being emotionally vulnerable, they want to discuss the reasons for their beliefs - or even the reasons for your belief. We live in a world where it seems very likely that a woman is about to become President of the worlds greatest superpower (whether we like it or not), so women are expecting more. With an uncompromising Gospel message of Christ, sin and salvation, let's meet the 21st century women where they are at.

Join the Facebook group
Out of the Box: Fellowship of Intellectual Christian Women for more discussion and ideas on these and related topics.

In the late 1970's, philosopher William Rowe termed himself a "friendly atheist" after assessing the Christian theist position as rational, even though he believes that God does not, in fact, exist. Former atheist Antony Flew, although not a Christian, has become a theist after his assessment of arguments for the existence of God as well. From the mid-1990s through today, Christian philosophers have been making great strides in all areas of philosophy and have gained much respect for their academic prowess.

But just when Christian/theist philosophers seemed to have finally gained a measure of respect from their atheist philosopher counterparts, 2007 has seen a retroaction in attitude toward all things God. Correction--all things Christian.