IrContent

It is not uncommon for Christians to have occasional doubts about their faith. To help I think it is a good idea to first discover the root cause. I believe that human persons are physical/spiritual beings that have at least three aspects to their spiritual natures: emotion, intellect, and will. Doubt can creep in from any of these facets, or a combination of them. How doubt is dealt with will be determined by which kind of doubt one is facing.

Willful Doubt is caused by sinful disbelief (Rom. 1:18-19). This is not merely a lack of belief but a choice to rebel against the truth. This kind of doubt manifests as a tenacious unwillingness to accept the truth regardless of evidence. This person is always looking for reasons to disbelieve rather than seeking the truth. This should never be the case with Christians of course. The only way this kind of doubt is overcome is through the work of God in the person’s life.

Intellectual Doubt is honest unbelief based on one’s understanding (or misunderstanding) of facts. The heart cannot believe what the head thinks is false. This kind of doubt simply requires evidence to be extinguished. If sufficient evidence is provided to overturn one’s doubt it should dissipate (if not, it was probably willful doubt masquerading as intellectual doubt). Intellectual doubt is often used as a smokescreen for willful or emotional doubt, but it can also be the result of a combination of these with honest factual issues. For example, a person struggling with the problem of evil might have purely intellectual issues with the existence of an all-powerful good God in a world with s much evil. In this case, quoting Romans 8:28 will probably not be sufficient. There are emotional and intellectual issues here as well.

Emotional Doubt is more of a feeling that something is false even if one has no good reasons to think so. This kind of doubt characterizes the believer who desires (or “wills”) to believe and has no factual problem with what they want to believe, but for some reason they just don’t “feel” like it is true. It is important here to realize that feelings are simply not indicators of truth. Emotions are reactions to physical stimuli or thoughts - they are effects, not causes - and they change too often to be reliable indicators of anything other than the subjects personal state of mind or body. Emotional doubt needs to be seen for what it is and denied. Phil. 4:6-9 asserts that this kind of doubt may be dealt with through praying, thanksgiving, occupying ourselves with non-anxious thoughts - those things which are true to reality, honorable, righteous, pure, loving, of good repute, and things which are excellent in virtue and deserve praise. This is not mere daydreaming - it is an effort to develop a habit of dwelling deeply on such things. As C. S. Lewis once said, there are times when it would be very convenient for Christianity to be false. It is at these times, when the will is weak, that we most need facts to fall back upon.

Finally, we need to realize that because humans are physical/spiritual beings that each aspect affects the other. We can have feelings and thoughts that are actually caused by our bodies. Backsliding into sin is the quickest way to allow doubt to creep in. Sin can cause us to doubt our salvation or relation to God. This can result in depression or further rebellion. Instead we ought to trust the fact that “if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9), because “he who covers his sins will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will have mercy” (Proverbs 28:13). Our physical states can also cause feelings - lack of sleep, hunger, etc. can actually make us feel things that are not connected to objective reality. Mental abilities can be short circuited by physical illness. While we do not necessarily want to go running to a doctor that sees all health issues in terms of the physical only, if our thought life becomes seriously aberrant or obsessive it might be time to see a specialist.

For an excellent treatment of the issue of doubt see Gary Habermas, Dealing With Doubt (Chicago: Moody Press, 1990). The entire book can be accessed free of charge here.

In the wake of “all the religious scandals” of late I thought I’d point out some even more depressing news from the Atheist front. Since any act committed by someone with religious affiliation is used by atheists to argue against religion it seems to me they won’t mind if the same logic is applied to them.

Vienna has the lowest percentage of religious conviction of any Austrian province, therefore anything bad that happens in Vienna can clearly be attributed to atheism (don’t think too hard, just keep reading). And what has Vienna been in the news for recently??? CNN reports that:

• An Austrian man (from Vienna!) has recently confessed to killing his parents, wife, and 7-year-old daughter with an ax. Vienna police said, “He is completely matter-of-fact … almost without emotion.”
• Josef Fritzl, 73, confessed last month to holding his daughter captive in a cellar below the family home (Just outside Vienna!) for 24 years, repeatedly raping her and fathering seven children with her.
• Just two years ago in Strasshof (another Vienna suburb!) a young girl escaped from the basement of a house after being held there for eight years and being repeatedly abused by her captor, Wolfgang Priklopil, who killed himself by throwing himself under a train.

Hmmmm - need I say more?

Did anyone go see Ben Stein’s new documentary on Intelligent Design this weekend? “Anyone? . . . Anyone?” (Sorry, had to get that in there somewhere!). Well I did, and I thought Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed was pretty good. No, I don’t think it was the best documentary ever made, and I have to agree with some of the film’s negative critics - but not with most of their conclusions. Basically, their main issue is that the film is skewed in its presentation.

Well yeah, of course it is.

No one makes a documentary about something they do not think is important, and their take on its importance will usually come through. I would even say it should come through. While some film makers are better at hiding their agenda, this does not make more blatant messages false. Whether or not Expelled is 100% objective (I’d guess it was about 80.5% objective), its message is important if for no other reason than to wake America up to the fact that a considerable number of scientists disagree with the Darwinian hypothesis and are simply being lambasted into silence.

In its first week (the largest release of a documetary ever - just over 1,000 theaters) Expelled earned over $3 million . That’s very good for a documentary. True, this is substantially less than the $23 million Michael Moore’s anti-America “Fahrenheit 9/11″ claimed in 2004. However, I.D. is not exactly at the top of most Americans’ interests right now (which is a huge part of the problem, and one reason Stein’s film is so very important).

To make Expelled, Stein and company talked with educators and scientists who say they have been persecuted for questioning Darwin’s theory of natural selection. This included Dr. Richard Sternberg, who was fired from the Smithsonian Institution for publishing a paper that mentioned I.D. as a possible way to help explain life’s origins. Guillermo Gonzalez, an accomplished astrobiologist who was denied tenure at Iowa State University because of his pro-I.D. stance (which university officials admitted, BTW).

Also interviewed extensively is the Dickety-Doc himself, Richard Dawkins (Oxford University). Dawkins is the current pop-prophet and media darling of Darwinism. In a rather bizarre moment, between his typical rants about the evil of religion and how it holds back real science blah blah blah, Dawkins states that evidence of I.D. points to aliens who themselves were evolved along Darwinian paths. So, even if I.D. were to topple Darwinian evolutionary theory on earth the evolutionists will simply push it back to another planet??? Whoa! Talk about dying in the ditch for an ideology! How can that possibly be seen as authentic science? These people are so committed to keeping the supernatural out of the equation that they will stick to their theory even if it means positing a Darwinian evolution on another planet to explain its lack of presence here! I wish I had faith like that . . . not.

As stated above, critics of the film are whining quite a bit about the rhetorical devices employed by the film (examples of these with useful comparisons to Fahrenheit 9/11 can be found here). Stein’s use of holocaust imagery, communist film clips, and much anonymous footage to alternately make fun of and accuse evolutionism-ists is clearly designed to evoke emotional responses. My reply - so what? First off, this is typical documentary behavior (consider “Jesus Camp’s” use of Bush/Iraq news footage to frame their entire story of the so-called evangelical subculture, or, well, anything that Michael Moore has ever produced . . . ).

Second, it shows the atheists can’t take their own medicine. Is Expelled emotionally manipulative? Yes. Is the rhetoric overdone? Yes (if only slightly). Does the film use scare tactics? Yes. Is this the same tactics that these new militant atheists use with regard to religion? Absolutely. Blaming religion for what a handful of people over the centuries have done “in the name of God” . . . referring to scientists with better credentials than themselves as stupid because they don’t bow the knee to Darwin . . . it makes for brilliant satire if nothing else.

Most important though - none of this whining over rhetorical devices matters if it’s true!!! I was a member of the women’s abuse council at DSS. At our first meeting we listened to a 911 call from a child who was watching his mother being brutalized by his father. It was one of the most horrible things I have ever experienced, and it certainly made me want to help the group in passionately acting to stop such things. Was that propaganda? Was it emotionally manipulative? Did it use scare tactics? Yes. Did that matter? No.

What the critics seem to be failing to do is give me a reason to think Stein’s thesis is false. Rather, they have launched a series of their own emotive attacks - some very personal ones on Stein himself.

Richard Dawkins whines about everything from the title of the film being changed to being misrepresented when he tries to be nice to the “IDiots” (his phrase). He says that the interview was set up under false pretenses and that he didn’t even know who Stein was. OK, first, so what? He said what he said regardless of what he thought he was doing. Second, Dawkins is now attacking Stein (a lawyer, law professor, economist, and speech writer for two presidents) as “honestly stupid.” Dawkins even goes so far as to mock Stein’s reaction to his visit to a Nazi death camp (and if you don’t believe that he would do such a thing then you don’t know Dick!). Basically it boils down to him not being aware of the film’s agenda. What seems “honestly stupid” to me is not bothering to Google Stein’s name to discover his background before agreeing to be filmed for a documentary! Even if this was somehow Stein’s fault, the point is moot - facts are facts regardless of one’s purpose for exposing them.

Andy Klein (LA City Beat) gives this enlightened response to the film: ” In its simplest terms, Expelled sees Hitler’s push for racial cleansing as a natural result of Darwin’s ideas. Whoa. Big F—ng Whoa.” Brilliant! Insightful! Seriously Andy, have you read Mein Kampf? Consider this quote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. . . it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

Is this not textbook Nazi racism? Nope - it’s from Darwin’s Descent of Man! Klein makes another rhetorical-yet-factually-lacking statement with regard to Planned Parenthood: “‘The spirit of eugenics lives on in Planned Parenthood’ – huh? – and then lumps together “abortion and euthanasia” in one breath. This is yet another tip-off as to Expelled’s true goal.” Wow. There is NO QUESTION about the eugenic origins of Planned Parenthood (Margaret Sanger, the founder, once said that, “The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind”); and the medi-ethical issues of abortion and euthanasia go hand in hand by definition (whether one is for or against either).

Jeannette Catsoulis (NY Times) called Expelled “One of the sleaziest documentaries to arrive in a very long time . . . a conspiracy-theory rant masquerading as investigative inquiry.” She then revealed startling ignorance when she stated that, “Every few minutes familiar — and ideologically unrelated — images interrupt the talking heads: a fist-shaking Nikita S. Khrushchev; Charlton Heston being subdued by a water hose in ‘Planet of the Apes.’” Excuse me? Is she seriously questioning the evolutionary links between evolutionary theory and communism or Planet of the Apes (a film wholly dedicated to the evolutionary hypothesis)???

Sorry guys, but these links have been recognized by scholars for quite some time. Discovery Institute fellow Dr. Richard Weikart explains the Nazi connections in his book From Darwin to Hitler (even a pro-Islam website shows many of these Nazi/Communist connections). While it’s true that Hitler did not mention Darwin by name, he hardly ever named thinkers from whom he derived ideas. Even if, like most people today, Hitler never even read Darwin, he would have learned evolutionary ideals in school, and popular media (again, like most people today). As Weikart notes, “Hitler believed that population pressure causes a struggle for existence between organisms that leads to evolutionary progress. He also believed that this struggle occurred between human races. This is completely Darwinian . . . and Hitler often described evolution in Darwinian terms. . . . Hitler’s anti-Semitism did not derive from Darwinism, but many of his ideas did have Darwinian roots.” Dawkins himself tries to make a strong distinction between Darwinism and its social ramifications when he says, “As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it” (see “Dick” link above).

William Dembski pointed out the media ’s inconsistency with regard to these connections:

. . . the same weekend that “Expelled” opened in theaters saw the opening of another documentary, “Constantine’s Sword.” Here’s what the Village Voice has to say about that film: “X marks the spot, literally, where Christianity and the Catholic Church fostered the centuries of religious hatred and anti-Semitism that culminated in the Holocaust…” So, for our culture’s secular elite, a film that shows how Christianity “culminated in the Holocaust” constitutes cutting-edge cultural commentary. But a film like “Expelled,” which carefully documents how the Nazis appropriated Darwin’s ideas, is “bizarre and hysterical.”

Where are the facts??? Whether or not Expelled has any artistic merit, what few critics seem to be unable to do is find actual instances of outright falsehood. Besides vague references to “other issues” being involved with Sternberg’s firing I have not heard anything but outraged opinions about Stein’s outraged opinions.

But being outraged is not the same thing as being outrageous . . . not if you’re right.

Ministry used to be a verb. Apparently now it’s a noun.

I’ve been out of seminary for a few years now and I’ve noticed a trend lately that I think represents a very poor way of thinking about ministry. Many of the students and alumni I see these days are forming “ministries” instead of just going out and doing ministry. I can’t tell you how many students I know right now whose goal for getting educated is to “have a speaking and writing ministry.” Where are the pastors? Where are the teachers? Where are the evangelists? Ephesians 4 does not list “speakers and writers” as gifted positions God gave for the establishment of the Church!

Now, what these people are doing is a good thing so far as it goes, but the problem is that instead of involving themselves with the local church or schools they put up a false front and then attempt to fund their “ministry” by requesting donations. The thinking seems to be that doing ministry involves these steps:

1. “Found” your ministry. (By “found” is meant “think up a title and make a website out of it.” The title should include words like National, International, Institute, Center, or Society.)
2. Give yourself the title of “founder,” “director,” “president,” or whatever. (Note that from this point on you must never refer to yourself in the first person, rather you should use “us,” “we,” and “The Ministry.”)
3. Get 501(c) 3 status for your “ministry” so you can accept tax exempt donations for your “ministry work.”
4. Hit the road doing “speaking engagements” and ask for money for “The Ministry” so you can speak more.

The question these “ministries” need to ask themselves is why they should be siphoning off funding for the local church when it is the local church that should be paying them to preach or teach in the first place. What are these donations for anyway? If they are speaking they should be getting paid. And if they aren’t making enough doing speaking engagements then they should either get better or get another job! In the good ole’ days seminaries fed the churches. Students came to seminary in order to get training in how to support the Church - not compete with it by creating their own little tax-exempt solo careers. We need less superheroes and more laborers.

Sure, there will always be the Billy Grahams and James Dobsons of the world whose ministries are making a huge difference and require support from churches. But many today think that they should instantly be paid full time speakers just because they have a few PowerPoint presentations made from their class notes. It’s like the debt problem Americans face today. Kids graduate High School with nicer cars than people who have been working for twenty years and think they should be in a 3,000 square foot home by the time they’re out of college. They see the results of a lifetime of labor and think that’s just what they should have; so they go into massive debt instead of earning the income. In the same way, these “ministry founders” seem to think that being a Ravi Zacharias or a William Lane Craig involves nothing more than being able to parrot real scholars’ material in a 45 minute seminar. Then they beg for money because “the world needs to hear this stuff!”

I agree that the world needs to hear many of these messages - but it needs to hear them from all believers. And that requires training all believers (which is what Church is supposed to do). And I am talking about real training - not just weekend seminars. Churches and schools are the best places to prepare people for that sort of ministry - but what if all they do is run out and “found speaking ministries”? Sure, if these “ministers” become so popular that they can do it full time, fine. But people should not think that this is just what ministry is and simply ask people to fund them.

I think what irritates me the most, though, is the image manipulation. What right does an average seminary student or graduate have to act as though they are heading up some huge ministry when it is really just them trying to get paid to speak here and there? This is not doing ministry, this is spin doctoring. Does Gary Habermas have “The International Center for Resurrection Studies”? Does Tom Howe have “The Institute for Classical Hermeneutical Training”? And why doesn’t Win Corduan host “The National Society for the Philosophy of World Religions”? Because these “ministries” don’t exist (even though these guys could legitimately get them going if they so desired!).

Worse, if the terms used in titles like these are taken in their natural sense then it might even be seen as lying. These are not “centers” or “institutes” and they are not “national” or “international.” They are just people with websites. And that is enough! Why act like there is more to it than that? That is why I have dougbeaumont.org - not because of vanity, but because that’s all my ministry is: me, and what I do at school, church, and the venues where I speak. I am not “international,” I have no “institute,” and as far as I know no “societies” have formed because of me (unless they are secret societies and I have not been invited!).

Having a catchy title for a ministry is fine. Asking for donations because someone really can’t work and do her ministry well at the same time might be appropriate if her church cannot support her. But let’s be honest people . . . fake storefronts are no way to begin a legitimate ministry.

My grandmother died this week. Having lost my other grandparents, she was the last of my “grand” generation. It’s strange that my parents are now grandparents and at the head of my family lines. There is a sobering sadness that, rightly, surrounds the passing of a loved one. We are reminded of how fleeting life is, and hopefully this prompts us to live better while we can. But I also think there is a deeper issue that lurks beneath the particular sadness that I would like to briefly discuss below.

Now, my family does not do death well. Both sides come from essentially secular backgrounds, so there just isn’t a lot for them to say when someone passes. When my grandmother on my dad’s side passed away we took a trip to one of her favorite spots and my dad spread her ashes over an overlook. When it was done he simply said, “Well . . . that’s it.” Now he was not in the least bit flippant when he said this. He was crying (which is rare for us Beaumonts), and I could tell his heart was broken. But what else could he say? If there is nothing after this life then that pile of dust blowing around in the breeze truly was “it” as far as his mom’s life was concerned. It was one of the saddest moments of my life.

The apostle Paul wrote this in 1 Thess. 4:13, “I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.” The reason the non-believers had no hope was because they thought death was the end and the dead were gone forever. This sentiment is reflected in the movie Highlander during a touching scene montage showing the aging and dying process of the hero’s wife. The beautiful song being played in the background is “Who Wants to Live Forever?” by Queen. The chorus ends with these words:

Who wants to live forever?
Who wants to live forever?
Who dares to love forever?
When love must die?

These are poignant words indeed, but the problem extends beyond love. I would argue that nothing is ultimately worthwhile if this life is all we have. At the end of all things, if nothing is left, then nothing has any ultimate value. As I did when I lost other family members, I pondered this the night after my grandma died. I have many treasured memories of her, but these memories are not her. And when I die none of my memories of grandma will remain behind. My son who only met her once (see picture above) will not remember her, and by the time my son has grandchildren there will probably be no one left on earth who even knew my grandma. So what of her life? She produced children who each had children who will probably have children of their own. And if that is all there is, then, to quote my dad, “that’s it.”

Something about this rings awfully hollow doesn’t it? When I think about all that my grandparents went through, all they learned, all they contributed to my life, it seems patently absurd to think that within a generation or two it will all be non-existent and, therefore, practically worthless. Something that does not exist now has no value now. I am not talking about the effects of their lives, of course. But even granting that currently-existing effects of no-longer-existing causes can be considered valuable, that does not solve the problem because eventually these will be gone too. If materialistic philosophers and scientists are correct then the universe as we know it will someday cease to exist. Even if this isn’t for a few billion years it will still be gone someday, and gone is gone. Imagine that - all the lives, experiences, accomplishments, lessons, struggles, sufferings, and joys of hundreds of generations ending in nothingness. No memories, no lasting consequences, no ultimate punishments for evil or rewards for good. Just . . . nothing.

Unless, of course, this is not how it will end - or, rather, there is no end. If our lives have everlasting consequences, if our existence and the effects of our existence will never cease, then the intrinsic value we intuitively place on this life makes sense after all. With an eternal God and the promise of our everlasting existence our lives do have true, everlasting value. It does and will matter that my grandma lived her life. It does and will matter how I treat my son - whether or not he ever appreciates or even remembers all of it. It does and will matter that people have stood against (or for) evil. Moreover, it does and will matter whether one chooses for or against God.

The final chorus of the Queen song ends on notes of hope, but they are meaningless if not addressed to the everlasting God who can grant eternal life:

But touch my tears with your lips
Touch my world with your fingertips
And we can have forever
And we can love forever

I heard this post’s title in a line from a song by R.E.M. recently and it really hit home. I admit that I tend to be rather easily star-struck, especially when it came to my favorite musicians, authors, and apologists. I am pleased to say that I have met many of my heroes: bands like Saviour Machine, the Violet Burning, even Whitecross (hey, it was the 80’s give me a break!). But even more impressive is the list of apologetic luminaries I have rubbed shoulders with in the last few years:

Yeah, I pretty much know them all (and a few even know me!). What is interesting to me that it turns out that these are mostly just regular people once you get to know them. I think everyone knows that at some level, but sometimes it is hard to avoid celebrity awe. Beyond my own star-stricken issues, however, is something more serious. It seems to me that once someone gets their name in a brochure, on a poster, or (hold tight!) on the cover of a book, they automatically attain a kind of mythic status. I distinctly remember the first time it happened to me: It was my first time speaking at a large conference (name and picture on the brochure and everything!), and as I was walking through the building one of the attendees saw me. He approached with with wide-eyed wonder and said, “you’re one of the speakers!” I think I just blinked. I guess he thought that since I was listed alongside some big names I must be worthy of note. It’s closer to the truth to say I just knew some of the right people. But the experience made me realize that I probably thought the same way concerning others who I assumed were great because they were on a pamphlet.

The truth is that while many of these people have earned their lofty reputations, others aren’t nearly as impressive as they are made out to be. Some get inordinately popular by simply re-stating what real scholars have been saying for years. The truly praiseworthy ones have sufficient training in their areas, have original thoughts on their subjects, write carefully, and produce genuinely impressive works that contribute to scholarship. Unfortunately their materials often do not see the light of day because they “put the cookies on the top shelf” (i.e., they are written above the 6th grade level), and lack the funny stories, endless anecdotes, and pretty pictures necessary to sell well in today’s dumbed-down environment. Books that don’t sell well do not get re-published. Books that do not get re-published become very expensive and difficult to find. So they do not get read, and the authors don’t make money or get offered speaking engagements. And authors that don’t sell a lot of books or speak often don’t get published again. So guess who does? The guys who reformat them.

These popularizers get published because of new packaging ideas, not original thinking. Then they sell a million books and get on the speaking circuit so their adoring fans can can actually be in their presence. I’ve heard some of these guys at conferences do nothing but tell stories and prattle on about unrelated subjects, yet get standing ovations at the end. I’m sitting there thinking of many professors and even many students who could have done a much better job (with content, if not cheer-leading). It is frustrating to see truly original, high-level thinkers being ignored because they have not written dozens of pop-level books while their popularizers are made into celebrities. For example, I was in a church once that had just had Lee Strobel speak there the previous week. The Sunday School teacher was discussing some point of translation or theology concerning an ethical question, and said he sure would like to know what Lee thought about it. WHY? Now, it’s entirely possible that Lee Strobel knows Greek, ethical theory, or enough theology to be helpful - but I have never heard him give any reason to think so. what he has done is sell a lot of books where he interviews apologists. This generally goes unnoticed by the masses who do not know to check on such things; they simply assume that publication in any area qualifies someone to write on every subject under the sun with equal authority.

Further, some of the headliners I have met are just plain jerks. I don’t know what it is about celebrity status (if it is the cause or the effect), but many of those in the spotlight are, to put it mildly, socially deficient. Maybe it’s the constant adoration from people who don’t even know them. Maybe it’s pride. Maybe it’s the passes they often get get when they behave badly. Of course this problem is not limited to Christian celebs, but I guess I expect more from them.

I say all this because of my prior status as a star-eyed fan of anyone with their name on a book. I understand the gravitas that comes with publication, but there are simply too many ways to get it these days without warrant. When I was in seminary I took 2-3 courses per semester, worked 40 hours per week, ran a website ministry, and taught at churches and schools. Addi tonally, for two of those years I spent a considerable amount of time killing myself assisting someone with a book just so I would have my name mentioned on the “Thank You” page. Talk about desperation! After all that, guess how many people are impressed? Pretty much none (including myself!). It was a great experience, don’t get me wrong - but my purpose for doing the work was seriously flawed.

This and other experiences have taught me to be a lot more careful with who has hero-status in my eyes. My advice to you, regardless of your particular areas of interest, is to be careful who your heroes are (as well as why they are your heroes). Don’t be surprised if you discover that they are not really all that heroic. There truly is a lot of nonsense out there - and spotlights don’t change that.

OK I had this weird idea while thinking up material for an upcoming class on “Christ & Culture” that I’d like some help with. Since “Christian bands” seem to make secular music safe to listen to (hahaha), I wondered what a good set of songs would be for them to cover. I am especially interested in songs that would communicate something good and true but from unlikely-sounding sources.

Here are my top picks right now (links are to the lyrics):

1. Master of Puppets - Metallica
2. Crazy Train - Ozzy Osbourne
3. Mmm, Mmm, Mmm, Mmm - Crash Test Dummies
4. Wasted Years - Iron Maiden
5. The Last Goodbye - Black Label Society
6. Peace of Mind - Boston
7. Hemorrhage - Fuel
8. Who Wants to Live Forever - Queen
9. Black Halo - Kamelot
10. Time - Pink Floyd

So if anyone is interested, please list songs you think have good content even though they were written or made popular by “evil” secular bands. Please include a link to the lyrics!

“All men by nature desire to know.” So begins Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Unlike Pascal’s alleged “God-shaped-vacuum,” I think Aristotle’s dictum is an accurate statement concerning human nature. Nobody wants to be stupid, nobody seeks to be ignorant. Thus, the intellect is any easy target for people in disagreement with one another. If I can show that my position is “more rational,” I win. Whether or not “rationality” is sufficient to establish many kinds of facts is the subject for another blog, but besides this problematic issue, some groups simply label themselves as smarter than all others and leave it at that. For either side in this (or any other) debate this is an unrealistic and useless way of going about knowledge-seeking.

Before launching into today’s rant, let me begin by stating something that I think we can all agree upon: There a lot of stupid people out there. There are at least a lot of people who are stupid about certain things. The fact is that as much as we would like to think otherwise, smart people do (and believe) stupid things. Consider Nazi Germany. These people were obviously not stupid - you don’t nearly take over the entire world by throwing idiots at it. Yet the same culture that gave us Beethoven, Einstein, and the Volkswagen, cruelly murdered over 11,000,000 people. What the heck?

Many smart people are stupid when it comes to their beliefs. I am not just talking here about false beliefs - many false beliefs would not count as stupid until the believer should know better. For example, prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls it was false, but not stupid, to think that many books of the Old Testament were not recorded accurately throughout the centuries. Now, a generation later, it is simply ignorant to hold to such a view. This issue of believing while in ignorance of the facts is related to another stupidity issue - believing without good reason. It is one thing to be misinformed or ignorant of the facts, but to not even seek reasons for beliefs - especially important ones - is simply irresponsible. To take an example from my faith community (like the PC?), I once worked in a government office doing a job that required about four months of training before one would even be allowed to work without supervision. Pretty tough stuff apparently. Yet when the Benny Hinn show came to town all of a sudden there were about 20 of these folks who couldn’t wait to buy tickets. What, again, the heck?

On the other hand there are atheists and skeptics who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. I know a guy who was raised in a charismatic-fundamentalist-whacko type church who is a skeptic now. Not much of a shock there. The story would not even be interesting if it was not for the fact that he basically seems to follow his kid brother’s beliefs like a lemming, yet ends up with strong opinions on the issues. When his brother was into Christian apologetics, his MySpace page was filled with philosophy quotes and Christian apologists. Then his brother got into Universalism and all of a sudden he’s got universalist arguments cut-and-pasted into his blog. A few months later, when his brother converted to atheism, guess what? That’s right - his page is now filled with raunchy photos, pop-atheist “friends,” and blogs devoted to simplistic, outdated anti-Christian propaganda. Mind you, all these changes came about within a year or two. This does not seem to reflect a careful approach to belief. (I am tempted to send his brother a bunch of books on toilet repair and see if they both end up in janitorial service!).

On the other hand I had a wonderful talk over Thanksgiving with a family member who has migrated from “cultural Christianity” to Deism (yes, apparently there are still deists in the world!). In her words, Deism is Theism minus revealed religion. She therefore disagrees with much of biblical teaching. OK, so we obviously disagreed - but our talk was fantastic! We both found ourselves commenting on how nice it was to be able to intelligently discuss our beliefs and the reasons for them without anger or emotive appeal. It was one of the best conversations I’ve had in a long time. We also discovered that we both needed more information to correctly asses the other’s beliefs. She referred to Thomas Paine, who I had not read, but she did not act like I was an ignorant fool because I had not gotten around to reading Age of Reason yet. I asked what she had read concerning Jesus’ resurrection (because some of her arguments against it were based on false assumptions) - and she admitted that she had not read anything substantial yet. OK, so we both had some homework to do. But we’re not idiots. I don’t think she is stupid for arguing from flawed assumptions, and she does not think I am stupid for not having read more on Deism before rejecting it. But we also agree that it would be stupid for either of us to think we couldn’t learn more - and that gaining that knowledge might change our views.

I think we can all agree that there are stupid people everywhere. But, for the most part, they are not stupid per se. Most limit their ignorance to certain areas. Thus, to lump people into a given category, note that many of them are stupid about things related to that category, and conclude that everyone in that category are stupid, is fallacious reasoning. Yes, there are a lot of Christians who could not go head-to-head with Richard Dawkins, but there are a lot of atheists who could not even go head to head with Lee Strobel. To fairly compare the intellectual value of various belief systems their best representative thinkers should be compared, not simply their best-sellers nor even their best-bloggers. Dawkin’s sorry treatment of Thomas Aquinas, for example, can be attributed to his lack of philosophical sophistication. Antony Flew, however, would not have that excuse (perhaps a bad example since Flew is a theist now!). Should I base my opinion of atheism on the cut-and-paste blogs of a 23 year old kid with no training who thinks he’s out-thought Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, and Craig by reading books by the likes of Dawkins, Carrier, and Loftus? That seems unfair. Not because his [and by "his," I mean, "their" (and by "their," I mean whoever they quote)] arguments are not worth considering, but because they have already been answered by people who know a lot more than we do. What both he and I should do is read the best from both sides, understand them, and then make our decisions.Unfortunately that takes more time than virtually anyone has.

This, I think, is the real issue. There is a lot of bad information out there, and we can’t investigate everything. I don’t even know how many email alerts I’ve received that snopes.com debunked years ago. The more I dig into many areas of thought the more I realize that their pop versions are as flawed as they are ubiquitous. Slogan-beliefs such as “religion has caused more death than all wars combined,” or, “the church has always held back science,” or, “Captain Picard was better than Captain Kirk,” have been soundly refuted by those in the know. But who has had time to read the real scholars in every field? This lack of knowledge does not equate to stupidity, although it might show how bad education has become. The real problem arises when ignorant people think they are educated.

And this is also the case with beliefs of all stripes. There are ignorant Christians who do not have the first clue as to why what they believe is true, and yet are fervent in their faith. There are zealous. yet ignorant, atheists as well. What really annoys me is the fact that many people, again on both sides, simply label others as idiots for believing what they believe. Atheists have certainly taken this approach. Their message is simple: “Atheists are the smart ones.” Many of these guys really believe that they are the only rational people on the planet. Although their writings often reveal otherwise, they simply repeat the “we’re rational and you’re not” mantra regardless of the mass of academic criticism they face (see Brandon Dahm’s The God Delusion Series for a good critique of Richard Dawkins - a smart and popular atheist who has seriously overreached his abilities to the acclaim of neo-atheists everywhere). True, both Christians and Atheists are sometimes guilty of this, but while no one would take seriously a church that called itself “The Only Church of People Who Think for Themselves,” or, “The First Church of Smart People,” atheists have gotten away with referring to themselves as “Free Thinkers” and forming “Rational Response Squads” for some time.

Anyway, here’s the point of this blog: If Aristotle was right then no one truly desires ignorance of the truth (although many avoid it for emotional / volitional reasons), and there are both smart and stupid people on both sides of most intellectual debates. Regardless of which side we are on, rather than act like we are the sole possessors of rational belief and simply label all other beliefs as inherently stupid, let’s just agree to deal with the issues. Let’s also not embarrass ourselves, nor others who share our beliefs, by thinking that parroting pop writers (or even substantial writers, if we don’t understand them) gains us the right to claim intellectual superiority. Quips do not equal arguments, and quotes do not equate to knowledge.

Note: I am indebted to Ian Hegger for the title of this blog - I don’t remember its original context, but I just had to use it!

Take me - Raise me above.
Take me - This undying love.
You are the air in which I breathe.
You are the blood I drink and bleed.
These words beyond forever true.
My new religion is you.

I indulged in a guilty pleasure a few weeks ago with a buddy of mine from seminary. We went to see Ozzy Osbourne guitarist Zakk Wylde’s solo project Black Label Society play live in Charlotte, NC. It was rather surreal – I’m standing in a hall with about 500 beer drinking Hell’s Angels looking guys, we’re all yelling our heads off as Zakk and the boys launch into a Black Sabbath cover tune, and I’m thinking “I’ve got to be in church in a few hours . . .” Anyway, I figure if I blog about the spiritual connotations of the show I can redeem myself.

It’s been many years since I went to a metal show (I think I saw the Scorpions in Sacramento, CA last time), but when I heard Zakk was going to be in town I just couldn’t resist. Zakk is one of the few remaining true metal heads (in the movie “Rock Star” he plays Steel Dragon’s lead guitarist in case you didn’t know). I was not a big BLS fan – more out of ignorance than choice – but I wanted to see the guy rock anyway. The show was pretty much what I expected at first, but as it progressed there were some notable exceptions.

First, Zakk comes across like the most loving guy in the world. Between virtually every song he’d talk about brotherhood, love, and the friendship he had with the local BLS fans. I don’t even know how many times he hugged his band mates – they even exchanged some manly pecks on the cheek if that can be imagined (of course, just about anything a monster guitar player like Zakk Wylde does looks manly).

Second, during some lead breaks Zakk would climb up on his monitor and go through a series of ritualistic-looking hand motions that combined beating his chest like a gorilla, kissing his fingers and then pointing toward the sky, and crossing himself like a catholic. What the heck was that all about???

Third, he devoted part of the show to a touching (yet manly) tribute to his pal Dimebag Darrell (ex-Pantera guitarist who was murdered on stage). He talked about their friendship for awhile, then brought out a life size cardboard cutout of Darrell and sang “In This River” for him. Everybody loved it.

OK, so what?

Well, it occurred to me that we had many of the usual elements of a church service going on here. There was emotional group singing, messages of love, some ritualistic hand motions, and a general feeling of devotion to the man bringing the message. It occurred to me as I looked around that for many of these folks this WAS church – that is to say, this Saturday night concert was fulfilling the same basic requirements as Sunday morning church. Scary.

I think that perhaps the reason why Zakk gets the kind of devotion that he does from his fans is that he has tapped into something that is missing from many lives - fellowship. All people want fellowship – the personal closeness that shared experiences, insider knowledge, and community brings. Some people get it from social clubs, some from sports, and some, apparently, from rock shows.

Many Christians today are reacting to this truth by trying to create a kind of community in church that makes Christianity attractive to non-believers. While the goal of this effort can be appreciated, the problem is that ANYONE can do this. Christians, cultists, and rock stars can each fabricate the kind of community that people desire. How then can one choose between the different communities? It seems to me that someone who comes to church simply because of the community, and not what the community stands for, is going to jump ship as soon as a more attractive community comes around.

The Church needs to remember that the gospel is offensive. It is judgmental, absolutist, narrow minded, and intolerant. This fact alone will make most secular communities more attractive to those who are not seeking God (which is everyone according to Paul). Churches that believe community to be humanity’s number one need will have to sacrifice the gospel to keep membership up. The gospel will have to be made non-judgmental, relativistic, open minded, and tolerant toward sin and falsehood. Otherwise the community won’t be fun anymore. This, of course, is a problem. I am all for community – but we need to understand that unity around falsehood is worse than disunity with regard to truth. Lost people longing for community should not be made comfortable in their sin. While we need to reach out and show love, the last thing we want unbelievers to feel is safe in their unbelief.

I think people appreciate the truth more than we give them credit for. The desire for community is a longing to belong to something true, and it is the ones who are bold enough to take a stand that lovers of the truth will seek. I don’t know who Zakk is singing to in his song “New Religion,” and I don’t know who the audience is referring to when they sing along. But if it is Zakk, or their spouses, or their friends – anyone but Jesus Christ - then they are in big trouble no matter how good they feel or how many people sing along with them.

Occasionally when I have told someone about my faith in Christ I’ve had them reply with something like this: “I am so glad you have found something that makes you happy. Good for you!” I don’t think people realize how insulting this is. When I say I am a Christian, I am communicating the fact that I have made an ultimate life commitment to follow Jesus Christ – not joined some club or engaged in a mere hobby. It trivializes my faith to act as though I just found something that pleases me and signed on the dotted line.

What this response implies is that Christianity is not true, or at least not believed to be true by the speaker, but that doesn’t matter because, hey, if it makes your life more fun who cares right? So basically, the responder is saying that if believing a fairy tale makes you happy then good for you (moron!). Whether or not it is explicitly thought or stated, that is often how the world sees faith. If it makes a positive difference in your life that is fine so long as you keep it to yourself and don’t hurt anybody. Thus, faith comes across as a simple choice to believe something, not for any good or objective reasons, but just because you like it.

This might be true for many religions, but Christians need to stand up to this preference-based-faith attitude when it raises its ugly head. Think about it – if all people chose their religious beliefs based on preference alone then how would Christianity fair as an option? Here’s one of the very few faiths that not only excludes all other faiths from its rewards, but promises punishment for those who do not believe. Why would anyone desire that to be the case? That’s just mean!

So if someone really thinks that you believe in Jesus Christ simply because of your preferences then you must be some kind of jerk! Why not choose a nice religion like Buddhism or New Age pantheism? They give people all the chances they need and we all get to be one in the end. How sweet! Given these options, for someone to choose an exclusivistic religion like Christianity based on their personal preferences they would have to be pretty awful people. At least it seems that way to most of the world.

Of course some Christians do not have good, objective reasons for their faith. But that is not the point. Christianity has good, objective reasons for making its truth claims whether or not particular followers of the faith know them. This is why apologetics is so important for believers as well as unbelievers.

• I am not Christian because I like Christianity best – as a finite human sinner I can certainly think of religions that sound much more fun.
• I am not a Christian because of any alleged perks in this life – not only are few promised, some degree of persecution is guaranteed.
• I am not a Christian because it makes me happy – I was quite happy before I came to believe, and Christianity has not always been a catalyst for enjoyment.

Rather, I am a Christian because Christianity is true.

How do I know? First, the universe gives evidence of a single, all-powerful, creator (Monotheism). This was discovered centuries before Christianity by the great philosophers and has been continually ratified by most of the best philosophers of all time. Given this, we can summarily dismiss any competing religion that denies this fact. Second, Christianity alone lays claim to the only kind of evidence that is sufficient to show it is from God - supernatural support. Of the competing monotheistic religions Islam has no miracles in its original scripture (the Quran), and Judaism has none greater than Christ’s historically verified resurrection.

So the next time someone tells you how nice it is that you found something to make you happy, maybe tell them that you would choose to believe in the truth one way or the other!