Stand to Reason Blog

Men in a Women's Restroom?

This is sure to cause a stir in Colorado. Governor Bill Ritter signed into law SB200. According to the Denver Post, this bill "bans discrimination based on…sexual orientation - including transgender people - in places of public accommodation."

"Places of public accommodation" includes restrooms and locker rooms. And "sexual orientation" not only refers to transgendered persons but also people who perceive themselves to be a different gender than their biological sex. In other words, anyone who claims they’re “of the female gender” can use the women’s restroom.

The women’s bathroom line is already long. This will only it make it worse.

Showing Up

There's a good discussion over at the LTI blog about a Christian campus group that said in the paper that their members would probably not attend a major abortion debate sponsored by the university (their weekly meeting conflicted).  The campus group purportedly has over 1,000 members (~5% of the total population at that university), so this pronouncement in print likely had more than a minor impact on the turnout for the event. 

We can all recognize that weekly meetings and commitments are important, and there may be other factors we don't know about, but the folks at LTI Blog saw it as representative of the church's general lack of involvement in pro-life activities.  I agree.

I have one thing to add to the discussion.  Christian leaders sometimes have legitimate reasons for thinking pro-life activities are controversial and that some pro-life leaders are frustrating to be around and that some pro-life advocates represent Christ poorly.  (Though these criticisms in no way applied to Scott's stellar performance at the debate.)

But when Christians shun pro-life activities on campus for these reasons, they fail to see that even a bad Christian example is a good dialogue tool.  Outreach activities, even controversial ones, motivate people to stop and care about deeper issues.  And in an age of iPods and cell phones, THAT is the toughest job we have with abortion nowadays.  How can we get people to stop and care and talk? 

What the Christian group failed to grasp with the Klusendorf-Strossen debate was that the debate provided a great outreach opportunity.  People showed up early and the lobby was full of energy...and some stayed late and engaged the speakers (and each other) in dialogue about human value.

What if the Christian group had said in the meeting the week before:

"God cares so much about the unborn that we're going to cancel our weekly meeting next week and all go to the debate.  Make no mistake.  We are having a meeting.  But it's an outreach meeting.  Invite a friend who doesn't know Christ and use this as an opportunity to talk about things Christ cares about.  Take them out for coffee afterwards."

 

Even better, what if they had provided training for how to use the debate as a dialogue tool...not to force the conversation to Christ, but to give that conversation a chance to emerge?

If either of these things had been done, the leaders would have effectively trained the students to understand two points:

1. God cares about the unborn (and their parents) enough to disrupt even our "Christian" activities with the issue.

2. God redeems messy things like campus exhibits and debates through Christians who refuse to waste their time complaining* when they can be engaging the lost in dialogue (and representing Christ well in the process).

Whatever other messages the leadership communicated that week, they at least reinforced this one: when it comes to outreach opportunities, there's no need to show up.

*Note: Of course this doesn't mean that we should add offense or controversy to the Christian message just for the sake of drawing a crowd, but if someone else is doing it, I'm going to make use of the opportunity to talk with someone who has stopped to listen.

Is This "Tolerance"?

Canada is running amok with politically correct "tolerance."  Certain opinions can't be expressed because they offend others.  Thus a human rights commission that bypasses the usual legal system can rule on citizen's comments and mete out punishment.  Criticisms and objections to Islam and homosexuality so far have been restricted.  Now a campus group is ruling that pro-life views can't be expressed.  People are free to express their views, as long as they don't express the wrong ones.

I guess one way to win the discussion is to rule the other point of view off limits.

In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.

Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it "within a pro-choice realm," and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.

"You have to recognize that a woman has a choice over her own body," Ms. Massa said. "We think that these pro-life, these anti-choice groups, they're sexist in nature ... The way that they speak about women who decide to have abortions is demoralizing. They call them murderers, all of them do ... Is this an issue of free speech? No, this is an issue of women's rights."

This Headline Is Worth a Chuckle or Two

I couldn't help but chuckle at this story and especially its headline: "Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests." Software suggests? I didn't realize software was so smart.

This software (aka programmer) assumes that religious people pass on unreal information (belief in God, the afterlife, etc.). In most evolutionary scenarios people who communicate unreal information go extinct. But the reproductive success of religious groups has outpaced that of non-believers. The programmer’s explanation is that people who pass on unreal information attract people who pass on real information, making religious people flourish.

I get it now. Even if you don’t communicate real information, it’s still possible to thrive. You simply attract people who give you real information and this gives you a social evolutionary advantage.

I wonder…is that how evolutionists evolved and thrived? They communicated unreal information and attracted anti-evolutionists to give them real information. Now if I can just write some software that simulates this and get some news coverage, the headline will read: “Evolution is a product of religion, software suggests.”

The Abortion Debate: Are You Listening?

I attended an abortion debate between Nadine Strossen (head of the ACLU) and Scott Klusendorf (President of Life Training Institute) at Cal Poly last week. Since they had debated a couple of times before, I knew Nadine was familiar with Scott's arguments, and I looked forward to hearing her address those arguments. Unfortunately, it didn't quite turn out that way.

Scott was an excellent spokesman for the pro-life position, speaking with compassion (acknowledging the difficult situations women face), warmth, and clarity. His opening statement was straightforward and logical: Any hardship a woman faces in an unwanted pregnancy should take precedence over the life of the fetus only if the fetus is not a human being (i.e., if we would not allow a woman to kill her human toddler to ease certain hardships, neither should we allow her to kill her human fetus for those reasons). The scientific testimony from embryology textbooks explains that a fetus is a living human from the time of conception. The four differences between an unborn and a born human (size, level of development, location, and degree of dependency) are irrelevant characteristics when determining the rights of human beings. Therefore, the life of the unborn (innocent human beings) cannot be taken without adequate justification (i.e., for any reasons other than to save the life of the mother).

Nadine gave her opening statement before Scott. She remained civil and even friendly except for a few moments of tension and should be commended for that.  However, even though she knew what was coming, she didn't try to head Scott off at the pass. In order to refute his arguments, she needed to address the one question she knew Scott would focus on: Is the unborn a human being? She needed to either offer evidence that a fetus is not a human being or grant that it is a living human and then give reasons why it should not have the same rights as a toddler. She didn't touch either of those subjects. Instead, she simply asserted that the unborn is "potential" human life without giving us reasons to believe this is so and then focused on the hardships of women, the dangers of illegal abortions, and the need for women to have reproductive control in order to have equal participation with men in their workplaces and communities (all of which Scott conceded should be paramount concerns--but only if the fetus is not a human being). Her case relied on the authority of past judicial decisions and on religious authorities who believe that not only is abortion moral but that sometimes women have a religious duty to choose abortion. (Since she accused pro-lifers of trying to "mandate a religious code," I found it especially ironic that she was the only one in the debate who made religious arguments, apparently desiring to mandate the religious code of those clergymen who think that abortion should be legal.)

Here is my frustration: Not only did Nadine ignore the arguments that Scott did make, she also seemed to be refuting what is commonly (and wrongly) believed to be the main pro-life argument (i.e., our religion says that abortion is wrong, therefore it should be illegal) even though Scott never brought the Bible or any other religious authority into the discussion. I've seen this happen on the STR blog, as well. We've been accused of having "only religious arguments" even though our clearly stated position relies only on science, logic, and the accepted--and even legally mandated--view in this country of equal rights. If even after a few debates the head of the ACLU isn't listening, what is it going to take?

See the Traveling Emergent Show

When I disagree with someone, I always like to hear straight from them what they teach and believe whenever possible rather than merely reading about them (although reading analyses written by others is also helpful).  I recommend this approach as a way to avoid misunderstandings, to pinpoint where they're coming from and why, and to focus your own analysis and critique (and sometimes even agreement) more accurately and effectively. 

In light of that, I want to let you know about "The Church Basement Roadshow: A Rollin' Gospel Revival" that will likely be coming to a church near you (tour dates are posted here):

Three authors/friends/public speakers hit the road for a summer, barnstorming churches around the country in a cross between an old time tent revival and the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.  Speaking at churches large and small, Tony [Jones], Doug [Pagitt], and Mark [Scandrette] will present a 90-minute show (including a 20-minute intermission) that will combine humor and passion, speaking and video, preaching and dialogue. Audiences will be entertained, to be sure, but, more importantly, they will be given a vision of an alternative Christianity, one that is woefully lacking in today’s world—this alternative is a Christianity of adventurous theology, passionate faithfulness, postmodern wit, and unrelenting concern for the justice and peace that God offers.

This is a great opportunity to get a better grasp of the Emergent movement and meet some of the key players in person.

Free Event & DVD

Biola Defending the Faith Lecture Series Kick-off

Free Event: "The Case for Christ" Lee Strobel and other key Biola apologetics speakers
Tuesday, May 27, 7:30 p.m. at Biola

ONE FREE DVD will be give to every family in attendance!

Is there credible and persuasive evidence that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God? A seasoned journalist, Lee Strobel, had to find out for himself. As Strobel cross-examined expert after expert he discovered that the answer is "yes!" See clips from the DVD and hear from the experts first hand live at Biola!

Come and hear live in one night:
Lee Strobel
J.P. Moreland
Mike Erre
Craig Hazen

The Irrelevance of Relevance

Southern Baptist leaders have identified a correlation between their use of culturally relevant worship forms and the numerical growth of their congregations--though not, perhaps, the correlation you'd expect.  The Christian Post reports:

Many church leaders have been calling for change to respond to what many identify as a shift from modern to postmodern culture. And the latest statistics showing shrinking numbers has made that call even more urgent. But cultural relevance has led many churches to lose the holiness of God and a thirst to be like God, Patterson noted.

A prominent conservative Southern Baptist, Patterson said he is the first to admit that "dullness and 'Baptist tradition' were too often the rule in our churches." But the suggestion that churches must chase after culture in order to be effective in evangelistic efforts is "misguided," he said.

"The more attune to culture Southern Baptists have become and the more we have incorporated the world into our worship, the more our baptisms have dropped!" Patterson noted. (emphasis added)

This should hardly be surprising.  One obvious feature of "relevant" worship is that it actually narrows the appeal of the service.  To be increasingly relevant to one particular slice of demography is, of course, to be less relevant to another.  But more than that, it's difficult to afford much respect to an institution unsure of (or uncommitted to) its identity.  Worship that abandons historic forms in a self-conscious attempt to "speak the language" of culture can often come across as inauthentic or patronizing.  Perhaps that's why some evangelicals, observes Mark Galli in a recent CT article, are experiencing a renewed attraction to (gasp!) the liturgy:

This is one reason I thank God for the liturgy. The liturgy does not target any age or cultural subgroup. It does not even target this century. (It does not imagine, as we moderns and postmoderns are tempted to do, that this is the best of all possible ages, the most significant era of history.) Instead, the liturgy draws us into worship that transcends our time and place. Its earliest forms took shape in ancient Israel, and its subsequent development occurred in a variety of cultures and subcultures—Greco-Roman, North African, German, Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, and so on. It has been prayed meaningfully by bakers, housewives, tailors, teachers, philosophers, priests, monks, kings, and slaves. As such, it has not been shaped to meet a particular group's needs. It seeks only to enable people—people in general—to see God.

Nothing could be more relevant.

Common Ground

You can listen to Steve Wagner's interview with Kerby Anderson on Point of View radio.  (File to be posted soon.)  You can find Steve's book here.

Civility Is Better than Tolerance

Doug Groothuis writes a great synopsis of the thesis of Os Guinness's book The Case for Civility.  Guinness argues for engagement in the public square with civility.  And he also makes this important point (which got edited out of the Denver Post published version of the book review):

Unlike tolerance, civility, on the contrary, requires knowledge and courage. Guinness argues that civility is a higher virtue than mere tolerance, which easily devolves into apathy and indifference. Civility is not the fruit of relativism, which despairs of objective moral knowledge.

Civility is grounded in objective moral values, not relativism, which makes no moral judgments and has dictated the current sense of tolerance.  Civility takes notes of deeply held differences while maintaining respect and value for the person disagreed with.  It maintains moral values rather than sacrifices them.  It engages differences rather than avoids them.  It promotes discussion rather than suppresses it.

Unlike tolerance, civility requires knowledge and courage. Guinness argues that civility is a higher virtue than tolerance, which easily devolves into apathy and indifference. Guinness writes, "Truth and tough-minded debates about truth are the oxygen of a free society."

(HT:  The Christian Mind)