Ideas Have Consequences!

Related to the discussion that we have had over the past several weeks as to whether any of us could live in a world without a transcendent moral code, I offer this brief clip from an upcoming movie produced by Brian Godawa. Godawa is the author of Hollywood Worldviews and a producer who brings his worldview to bear on film. It looks like this will be well worth seeing when it comes out. This clip employs what Francis Schaeffer described as "taking the roof off" in that it takes the absurd assertions to their logical ends and demonstrates just how frightening that consistency would be in the real world.

Scary indeed!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qd1LPRJLnI

Martin Shakspere

For all of you that are interested in literature and especially Shakespearian, you may find the below article interesting. In this article Doung Wilson lays out the evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford-on-Avon was not the true author of the plays bearing his name.

Here the view that Edward de Vere was the real Shakespeare is presented which unkown to some is the predominant view among the “anti-Stratfordians” today, although a number of other non-Stratfordian names have been suggested, including, but not limited to, Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe, and Queen Elizabeth herself. Among the “anti-Stratfordians” generally we find such luminaries as Henry James, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, Orson Wells, and Kenneth Branaugh. A subset of the anti-Stratfordians are a group called the Oxfordians, who claim that the honors should go to de Vere.

Anyways the article is interesting and begins on page of the PDF file that is linked below.

http://www.credenda.org/pdf/20-3.pdf

The Descent of Man

This past week witnessed the celebration of two men born just days apart two hundred years ago; Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. For the vast majority in the intellectual classes, these men have achieved a somewhat deified status as Great Deliverers: Lincoln having been the Great Emancipator and Darwin having emancipated us from the shackles of religious superstitution by offering us something far better - natural selection and survival of the fittest. I would argue that both men did more to injure western culture than to advance it.

While we live in an age that bars any substantive criticism of Lincoln, much historical evidence points to the fact that he did more to destroy limited government than any other individual in American history. For those that doubt this, just pick up a copy of Thomas DiLorenzo's tremendous book, The Real Lincoln. Lincoln ushered in the era of political messiahship and his successor 150 years later is the quintessential Lincolnian prototype (the irony of all ironies being that both hail from Illinois!). As a result, we now live in an age in which all notions of limited government as set forth by the Founders, and more importantly by biblical instruction and example, have been sacrificed in the name of security and equality. Make no mistake - without Lincoln, there would have been no New Deal, Great Society, and 800 billion dollar "stimulus" plans to "save" civilization from the brink of collapse.

While Lincoln became a tyrant, Darwin helped usher in hundreds more through his propagation of ideas and theories that have led us down the path to social Darwinism, with its vastly wicked notion of survival of the fittest. Now most today will try to say that Darwin was really a nice guy, maybe just a bit confused in certain areas, but his words tell us otherwise. Consider this from The Descent of Man:

"There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind."

I am always befuddled by those who try to negate the connection between Darwin's ideas and Hitler's practices, or more so by those who try to "harmonize" Darwinian thought with biblical Christianity. Pardon me for objecting, but the words above don't sound much like the Sermon on the Mount!

I would encourage reading the two posts below. The first is a post from Doug Phillips on what he teachers his children about the legacy of Darwin. It is most insightful. The second is a commentary posted in the last few days by Chuck Colson. While I do not share Colson's views of Lincoln, I think he accurately describes Darwin's legacy. Here are the links:

http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/newsletters/newsletter.aspx?id=02-12-09

http://www.informz.net/pfm/archives/archive_728387.html

One final suggestion: Instead of getting caught up in Lincoln worship this week, go read about a real patriot, George Washington. Two suggestions: Apostle of Liberty by David Vaughn, and Sacred Fire by Peter Lilliback - both give an accurate account of the greatest president and leader this country has ever produced and one that your not likely to get from the mainstream media or the mainstream history text.

A Strange Thought during the Meeting

Last night's meeting was interestingly all over the place. I was following along on the webcam from the comfort of my home and thankfully so as it appeared the dialogue in the classroom was somewhat intense. I was able however, to see several side conversations on the chat section of the web room. These conversations, along with the classroom discussion brought a strange thought to my mind. This particular thought might have been spur ed by someone (whom I could not see) that made a comment to the young man who continued to speak all night, about God knowing and forming him before he was even born. Many of the young men, and I say men because no female skeptics have come to a meeting so far, whom we have encountered online and in the classroom say or at least suggest that they are searching to know and they think Christianity fails in that area where science may not. The thought that came to me last night however, was that they do not really desire to know, as much as they desire to be known.

Now I am not saying that they even know this, but it appears that one would make You Tube video's about themselves, spend hours in a chat room with people all over the world, make face book and myspace pages all about themselves and the like basically to make themselves known. I believe that we all want to be known and that is built in us as image bearers of God. It takes only a short review of the Old Testament to see that God often does what He does to make His name known. We desire to be known by others and the fact of the matter is that all of the knowledge seeking in the world will not do that, all of the friends in the world will not do that. No, not even in the marriage are you truly known by your spouse. Your spouse does however, know you better than any other and it is interesting because it is that relationship that is used to describe our relationship with Christ. Yes, only God who created us and sustains us is the only One who truly knows us. So as this continues to come to me I will share more later... Let me know what you think 

A Real Change Agent

William Wilberforce is the sort of individual that many of us would desire to be like. A man whose life did not only impact those around him, but changed history. He is also a man who is respected both inside the church and from without. So much so that Hollywood took on his story with very little opposition (this doesn’t happen much with overt Christian movies, not that Amazaing Grace was overtly christian). Nevertheless, Wilberforce was a grand individual who did amazing things. In his book Character Counts, Os Guinness cites the work of John Pollock and extracts from Pollock's insights seven principles that illuminate Wilberforce's life. These not only served Wilberforce well, but could also serve to further the work of righteousness today.

1. Wilberforce’s whole life was animated by a deeply held, personal faith in Jesus Christ.

2. Wilberforce had a deep sense of calling that grew into the conviction that he was to exercise his spiritual purpose in the realm of his secular responsibility.

3. Wilberforce was committed to the strategic importance of a band of like-minded friends devoted to working together in chosen ventures.

4. Wilberforce believed deeply in the power of ideas and moral beliefs to change culture through a campaign of sustained public persuasion.

5. Wilberforce was willing to pay a steep cost for his courageous public stands and was remarkably persistent in pursuing his life task.

6. Wilberforce’s labors and faith were grounded in a genuine humanity rather than a blind fanaticism.

7. Wilberforce forged strategic partnerships for the common good irrespective of differences over methods, ideology, or religious beliefs.


For those who might have a problem with the last of these seven and think that Wilberforce was a compromiser, he was not. He believed in the old Anglican principle: “In things essential, unity. In things nonessential, diversity. And in all things, charity.” Compromise on principle was unthinkable, but compromise on tactics was never a problem.

A Real Debate!

Hey all!

I posted this on the Micah 6.8 Blog but thought it might be profitable to post it here as well.

Enjoy!


Over the past several weeks as we have studied the book, The Reason for God, at the University of West Florida with young college students, I have been needfully reminded that faith is not totally evidential; it is a gift, and one that must come from above. For some, no matter how strong the argument for the christian faith, they simply choose to rebel against what they know within their conscience; that God exists.I was reminded of this once again after watching the debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox. It is most profitable - watch, enjoy, and be challenged! Finally, I was struck by what John Lennox had to say about humility - I mean, here is one of world's most gifted mathematicians and defenders of the faith offering some much needed insight about argumentation and gentle persuasion.

http://johnlennox.org/index.php/en/resource/argumentation_an_intellectual_game/

http://www.dawkinslennoxdebate.com/

P.S. Contrast the apologetic of John Lennox above with that of Bill O'Reilly in his discussion with Richard Dawkins! Sadly, Dawkins shows a better understanding of the nature of truth than does the paragon of pragmatism!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wECRvNRquvI

Meeting Feb. 5, 2009

The Discussion in the room tonight was lively and varied. The discussion online was also diverse. It was by most accounts a good night. Some would likely like it to be a little more structured while others woud like more freedom. Both of which are likely good indicators that the meetings are going well. At the heart of the study is a desire to defend and promote the truths of God. A second aim however, is that we have an open and honest dialogue with those who believe and those who do not. For Christians to listen to their faith being brought into question and to bear for a time is difficult to do. But, God is long suffering and if we are to do as Eph. 5:1 instructs us, then we must be long suffering as well. This class by its very stated purpose will be an excercise in that very thing, so here is to the beginning of something that at least has the potential to be really interesting.