Stand to Reason Blog

Thinking Christianly

John Lofton of The American View had a lively discussion with Chuck about the new Colson Center and the need for Christians to foster a Christian worldview.

Silencing the Debate

I returned last week from a trip to Calgary where I did a debate on "Do Objective Moral Truths Exist?" with Dr. John Baker at UC, and also did a talk on pluralism at Mount Royal University entitled, "Is it Intolerant to Say Jesus Is the Only Way?"  It was a sanctioned event sponsored by an authorized campus group and held at a university lecture hall.  However, posters for the event were removed and subsequently forbidden to be posted for the event, so there was virtually no publicity and, consequently, a small turnout.

The university's rationale was two-fold.  First, the title was considered "divisive and negative."  However, since the title was taken from the accusation leveled by students themselves against Christians, one wonders if the University was equally offended by the students who made such "divisive and negative" comments.  The second reason had to do with the wording underneath the title: "Is choosing a religion merely a matter of preference, like chocolate vs. vanilla?  Or is it about something much more serious?"  They objected because they said the statement had "racial overtones."

Here's the kicker:  It was the campus "human rights" watchdog commission that silenced the publicity.

No such difficulty with the debate at UC, though, co-sponsored by the Free-Thinkers club.  That was standing room only.

Halloween Worries, Doctrine Apathy

I'm surprised each year by the amount of concern and attention given to whether Christians should participate in Halloween, especially when the same amount of concern and attention isn't given to issues at least of equal weight and what I think have more weight.  Many Christians delve into the details of the history of Halloween in a sincere effort to try to make a good decision about what's pleasing to God; I just don't see the same time and attention given to studying the details of central Christian beliefs like the Trinity or justification, or the Apostles and Nicene Creed.  I dare say that many of the Christians who decide they cannot participate in Halloween, have never taken note of the fact that October 31 is also Reformation Day - and none of us Protestants would be here enjoying the grace of God as we do if it weren't for that day.  Even churches that decide to opt out of Halloween or opt in for Harvest Festivals take little notice of Reformation Day, which restored the Gospel message that we treasure.

I grew up Lutheran, attended Lutheran grade school, and each year we'd have a Halloween costume parade, then change our clothes and have a Reformation Day service - and another one on Sunday at church.  I don't think there was the level of worry over whether Christians should participate in Halloween back then, and certainly our parents, pastors, and teachers were no less pious or dedicated Christians.  In fact, they even knew Christian doctrine quite well and passed it on to us in word and deed - without ever worrying over Halloween.

I cite the example of my own childhood at church not as a justification to celebrate Halloween - it's not an argument.  I offer it as an illustration that participating in Halloween doesn't negate sound Christian living and coincided comfortably with serious Christian living.  It's possible we shouldn't have celebrated Halloween at my Lutheran school (I do think it was okay), but I think it was preferable that our teachers and pastor took very seriously training us in the Christian faith even if they spent no time worrying about Haloween.  I think that's better than obsessing over Halloween and neglecting the weightier things of Christianity.

I'm not talking about the decision Christians make about what to do about Halloween.  That's a matter of conscience each has to make.  I'm talking about the inordinate energy, attention, thought, and focus spent on what to do about Halloween and the polar opposite apathy about theology, doctrine, church history.

It's fair to be concerned and think carefully about how we participate in the culture and Halloween.  It's important to evaluate how cultural practices influence us.  It's essential to use wisdom and discernment how we participate in Halloween, if we do.  It's, obviously, a duty to avoid any occultic involvement.  What I'm talking about is the level of energy and attention given to it and the contrasting lack of it given to arguable more central issues of Christianity.  Christians can be shocked that another Christian will go trick or treating, but not blink an eye of awareness or concern when another Christian distorts the doctrine of the Trinity.

I'm not sure what this inordinate worry over Halloween and apathy about doctrine says about contemporary Christians, but I think it says something - and it's not good.  One friend's theory is the inordinate emphasis in modern Christianity on application and therapeutic teaching to the near exclusion of theology and Bible study (not just Bible reading).  That sounds like a pretty good theory to me.

Whether you decide to opt out of Halloween, which is just fine, or whether you dress up, let's also remember it's Reformation Day and that we have a treasure and privilege of studying the Bible ourselves and learning from the rich heritage of church history and the careful thinking and love for the truth people committed to hand down the faith to us. Let's be even more diligent in learning the full teaching God has revealed through His Word than we are in investigating Halloween.

Christians & Halloween (Video)

Should Christians participate in Halloween?

War Memorials and Establishment of Religion

The lawsuit to remove the war memorial cross on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert because it supposedly violates the First Amendment has reached the Supreme Court.  It involves the arguments against establishment of religion that we've become familiar with.  It has the potential to affect all public memorials with religious symbols on public land.  And ultimately, as these lawsuits always do, has ramifications for religion in the public square, part of public life.

Jonathan Last gives a good, brief history of the cross, the lawsuit, and explains the long term consequences if the lawsuit prevails.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Buono v. Salazar, a case in which a retired National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, is demanding that the government--specifically Ken Salazar, the secretary of the Interior--take down the cross.

On the surface, Buono is a relatively straightforward Establishment Clause fight--the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Sunrise Rock cross is, indisputably, a Christian symbol. It sits on land that is part of the Mojave National Preserve, which is operated by the National Park Service. But the particular facts of the case--both the origins of the suit and the course of the litigation--demonstrate how the modern machinery of civil liberties law abets a certain type of antireligious passion.

Here is Greg's comment on the philosophy and cultural trends motivating the removal of the cross when he discussed a similar lawsuit to remove the Mt. Soledad war memorial cross in San Diego.

Some people seem to think that this clause was written to protect people from public expressions of religion.  It wasn’t.  It was written to protect the right of public expressions of religion.  And if atheists don’t like the consequences, like looking at crosses, then too bad.  That’s the price of living in a pluralistic society with religious liberty.   That’s when tolerance is called for.

The present trend is different though.  It’s hostility toward religion in the public square, not freedom of religious expression in the public square as the First Amendment states.  It’s rather a freedom from religion, which is something the founders never imagined.  If the First Amendment means freedom from public displays of religion then it ends up favoring of atheism over theism because that’s what a naked public square conveys.

There is a changing view on what the First Amendment means.  This cross was dedicated on public land in 1954.  Why wasn’t it struck down then?  That’s 52 years ago.  It sat there for 35 years before some atheist got bugged about it and thought he had a case.

No one considered it a violation of the Constitution at that time.  So why now?  The reason is that there has been a change in mood.  Tolerance and religious pluralism no longer mean a full public square, it means an empty public square.  Public expressions are not encouraged, they’re discouraged.

Common Ground on Morality

This thoughtful article from the American Thinker is essentially a restatement of that "atheists can be moral, too."  The author points out that he shares most moral principles with religious people, and concludes, therefore, that religion isn't necessary to be moral. 

My main point in this whole statement is that I think that if everyone would promote Good ole American and Conservative values rather than God and Religion, we will probably get a lot more people on board who would otherwise be turned off, but yet who are good Americans and have the same set of values, and know the difference between right and wrong.

It's true that people of all kinds of religious and irreligious views share similar moral commitments.  But this writer commits a common misunderstanding of what religious people are saying when we argue for the importance of religion (and of course, in our case, Christian) values in the public square.  The argument is one of grounding morality, not one of belief or behavior.  Morality might be shared by many of different religious views, but it cannot be grounded without an objective standard to appeal to.  Otherwise, it's simply a civil contract, which is subjective and can be changed by agreement.  It would be fixed to nothing unchanging, no standard we strive to meet.  And without a fixed, objective standard we are obliged to, without grounding morality outside of ourselves and our culture, there is little appeal to adhere to it other than pragmatic ones.  And that seems to me a weak appeal when our moral standards are strongly challenged.

It's not the appeal our Founders made when they declared that our British rulers had violated an objective standard, which freed us to see a government that did oblige itself to the Creator's standard.

The grounding problem surfaces in any discussion about where our morals come from.  We might share moral convictions, but where they come from is what fixes them as our standard.

Science vs. Religion

This New York Times profile of new NIH director Francis Collins is quite illustrative of the philosophical hold naturalism has on science.  A significant focus of this profile is on Collins' theism and the fear that it would hinder his commitment to science in his new job.  The fourth paragraph of the NYT reads:

First, there is the God issue. Dr. Collins believes in him. Passionately. And he preaches about his belief in churches and a best-selling book. For some presidential appointees, that might not be a problem, but many scientists view such outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia.

The NYT actually considers claims linking religion to dementia as worthy of mention.  It's one thing to report on the objections evoked by his nomination, but that they would print this slur is a sober illustration of the hostility to Christianity, in particular, in the public square.

Pluralism Gone Wrong

I was looking up something my mom could send friends for for an anniversary present and found this featured edible arrangement.  Show pluralistic respect for your Muslim friend by sending an arrangement of decadent fruit for Ramadan.

Wait.  Isn't Ramadan a fast?  Seems someone in the marketing department didn't quite understand this Islamic observance.

The fast is broken at sunset, so perhaps the arrangement is meant to be eaten then.  But say it arrives at noon.  It's sitting there all day tempting the observant Muslim with hours left to his fast, the fruit going bad in the heat.  It just doesn't seem fitting for the Ramadan observance.  Wouldn't it seem odd to send an edible arrangement to a Christian for Lent, even now when many Christians don't fast or give up anything anymore.  It's just not consonant with the purpose and tone of the observance.

Essentially, this is an example of a shallow recognition of religious pluralism:  treating all religions as basically the same, and not understanding the differences and distinctions among religions that really do matter. Sure, their motive is to sell something, but it's really not all that different from the modern pluralism that requires abandoning religious differences for polite agreement for the sake of a fake unity.  It doesn't show respect for a religion to ignore its distinctives.

Wet Blanket Believers

I wish I could've hung out with Thomas Aquinas.  He must've been a riot.  The name may conjure stuffy intellectual images but it shouldn't.  In his Summa Theologica, he draws our attention to an oft-ignored virtue: wit.

“Jokes and plays are words and gestures that are not instructive but merely seek to give lively pleasure. We should enjoy them. They are governed by the virtue of witty gaiety to which Aristotle refers (Ethics II28aI) and which we call pleasantness. A ready-witted man is quick with repartee and turns speech and action to light relief.”

I could totally see Thomas throwing down some sarcastic barbs at fellow members of the Domincan Order. Later Aquinas says:

“It is against reason to be burdensome to others, showing no amusement and acting as a wet blanket. Those without a sense of fun, who never say anything ridiculous, and are cantankerous with those who do, these are vicious, and are called grumpy and rude.”

Unfortunately, we've got too many "wet blanket" Christians who need to lighten up a bit.  Are there serious concerns in today's culture?  Of course.  But we've gotta make sure we're dying on the right hills, over the right issues.  And even amidst our serious work, we should be playful, humorous, and comical. 

I've been hanging out with some atheists in Berkeley over the last few years.  We have them come hang with our groups of young people and basically lay down their arguments against God.  Serious stuff.  If what they say is true, it's time to abandon the faith.  However, as these atheists have become my friends, I just try to be myself, which oftentimes tends toward humor and sarcasm.  And my atheist friends appreciate it.

For instance, before they speak to our group, I'll hand them a bottle of water, so they don't suffer from a parched mouth.  But as I hand it to them, I'll say something like, "Be careful.  The water might burn a bit as it goes down.  It's holy water, after all."  They laugh.  I laugh.  It lightens the mood.  They see I don't hate them (because you typically don't joke around with people you dislike).  And I'm pretty sure they'd never characterize me as "grumpy" or "rude."  

So Christian, remember to lighten up a bit more and laugh often.  Indeed, you and I ought to experience more joy and laughter than anyone else.  And that may speak much louder to our non-believing friends than many of the things we could say with our lips.  

Radio Guest Sunday

Greg's guest in the third hour of Sunday's show will be Bobby Maddex, senior editor of Salvo Magazine.  Salvo is an intelligent, funny, irreverent Christian worldview magazine that is engaging deep issues where Christianity and culture intersect. 

Blasting holes in scientific naturalism, marveling at the intricate design of the universe, and promoting life in a culture of death;

Critiquing art, music, film, television, and literature, interrupting mass media influence, and questioning the sanity of our consumerist lifestyle;

Countering destructive ideologies, replacing revisionist fictions with undeniable facts, and paring away political correctness;

Debunking the cultural myths that have undercut human dignity, all but destroyed the notions of virtue and morality, and slowly eroded our appetite for transcendence;

Recovering the one worldview that actually works.

We'll talk to one of the creative, intellectual people behind this magazine.