As a Christian and a conservative, I believe we have reached a crossroads where we need to seriously reconsider our approach to cultural engagement. The swift undercurrent of moral decay continues to take most Christians by surprise while our pragmatic approach to morality rooted in tradition and dependent on consensus forces us down the slippery slope of relativism. As much as we want to protect our freedom of speech, have we really had all that much to say? As much as we want to protect the right to life, have we been focused more on the right than the life created in the image of God? And in all of our efforts to defend traditional marriage, have we capitulated to non-biblical perspectives in our appeal to the safety of tradition instead of a risky appeal to Scripture? An explicitly Christian worldview has not been welcome in the marketplace of ideas for some time. As a result, believers have caved to society’s demands for a secularized message under the guise of “public language,” an attempt to give the appearance that morality can be dislodged from its worldview foundations. This enterprise has been anything but successful. Yet Christian conservatives continue to clamor for moral revival in pluralistic setting that might, for only a short time, reflect certain values consistent with Scripture. The problem with this conception of moral revival is that it is about as effective as yo-yo dieting.
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
September 7, 2010
August 13, 2010
Glenn Beck & the Faith Factor
Joe Carter at First Things recently challenged Beck's view that issues like abortion and same-sex marriage shouldn't guide our public discussion as much as they do. Yet, Beck regularly insists we need to be moral in our day to day dealings: don't lie, cheat or steal. Have a strong work ethic, dont be lazy. Oh, and get back to your church, temple, synagogue or mosque. "Find God" so society can return to it's previous version of normal.
February 22, 2010
What Not to Wear: Conforming to the Image of God
You aren't suppose to wear horizontal stripes or high-waisted pants with certain body shapes. And you definitely need to get rid of those 1980's shoulder pads. Agree or not, this is some of the wisdom imparted by cable-tv fashionistas Clinton and Stacy whose aim is to help everyday women look their best according to their own body type and life context. In order to be on the show, one has to be willing to let Clinton and Stacy go through their closet, allowing them to critically assess and even dispose of those items that do anything other than truly flatter the person. The bottom line is that there just some things one ought not to wear. How true this is for our lives as followers of Jesus. Some traits we possess or actions we pursue simply do not correspond to a Christian wardrobe.
Colossians 3 (ESV) states:
We are called, as God's chosen ones, to not only avoid the ways of our former life, but to be deliberate about putting on those truths that conform to what it means to be Christlike. The example in Jesus shows us compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience in its ultimate form, all grounded in His perfect love. As we seek to understand the purity of those characteristics as practiced by Christ, we know that our spiritual wardrobe is growing more beautiful - as we grow closer to Christ and become more conformed to his image.
To take this illustration a step further, do you find yourself in an accountability relationship such that you are willing to let someone enter your spiritual closet and tell you what not to wear? Though redeemed, we still struggle with the old nature that prevents us from always being honest with ourselves. We are so willing to be self-deceived. This is my challenge to you today - as you are committed to growing in your relationship with God, grow in your relationship with another woman of faith and be for each what we generally prefer not to be for ourselves. But above all, put on love.
Colossians 3 (ESV) states:
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is yourlife appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
Put to death therefore what is earthly in you:sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming.In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge after the image of its creator. Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,free; but Christ is all, and in all.
Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.
We are called, as God's chosen ones, to not only avoid the ways of our former life, but to be deliberate about putting on those truths that conform to what it means to be Christlike. The example in Jesus shows us compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience in its ultimate form, all grounded in His perfect love. As we seek to understand the purity of those characteristics as practiced by Christ, we know that our spiritual wardrobe is growing more beautiful - as we grow closer to Christ and become more conformed to his image.
To take this illustration a step further, do you find yourself in an accountability relationship such that you are willing to let someone enter your spiritual closet and tell you what not to wear? Though redeemed, we still struggle with the old nature that prevents us from always being honest with ourselves. We are so willing to be self-deceived. This is my challenge to you today - as you are committed to growing in your relationship with God, grow in your relationship with another woman of faith and be for each what we generally prefer not to be for ourselves. But above all, put on love.
October 23, 2009
Evangelicalism, Ethics, & Eggshells
Teaching ethics in a local junior college is a great opportunity to impact minds in my community. A somewhat ancillary discussion we have had in class is the usage of moral and ethical–terms with no meaningful distinction, though sometimes associated with different quadrants of society (e.g. business & ethics, religion & morality). Within evangelicalism, we similarly have our own usage for these terms, adding to the list Christian living and growing in Christ, among others.
continue reading...
continue reading...
September 19, 2009
September 9, 2009
Critical Thinking for Faithful Living
What follows is the core content of a public talk and group study currently under development and to be presented on November 14 at The Orchard Church. Let me know if you are interested in attending!
Critical Thinking for Faithful Living
Christians can find studies on virtually any topic, ranging from the individual books in the Bible, themes and topics found in scripture, as well as general Christian living topics that might include finance, modesty, and parenting. As well, many books and studies are available that offer an analysis of contemporary culture or on the topic of apologetics—defending the faith—a sub-discipline of systematic theology. Still, scores of other books can be found on the central doctrines of the Church.
No single study can take care of every intellectual need. But for the most part, most studies presuppose the ability to effectively reason through the theme or topic. This may be a fact for many people, but it should not to be an element of study taken for granted. The purpose of this study is to address some significant areas of thinking that relate to how we understand the intersection of our faith with world around us. As Christians, we spend a lot of time considering what we believe and why we believe it, a necessary pursuit for every follower of Jesus. But at the same time, there is often a tendency to develop or allow some habits of the mind to go unexamined, some habits that may render us unable to properly assess ideas, actions, and systems of thought in the world around us and in our own personal lives.
Critical Thinking for Faithful Living seeks to address some of ways in which we approach scripture, theology, and how we understand the nature of truth. Do we grant ourselves authority as the final arbiter of truth? Do we see logical fallacies in our own reasoning and/or in the arguments of others? Are those contradictions in the Bible? Are not faith and reason as separate as church and state? These questions are an example of what we will consider in this study.
As we disciple others in the faith, we must do them an important service—teaching them how to think as well as what to think. Of course, we can point new believers to the passages that point to Jesus’ deity, to his resurrection, or any other pertinent fact in scripture. But how they process and reconcile this information with what they have been taught prior to conversion or simply with what they are currently exposed to is as relevant as this new information itself. Each one of us comes to the table with a set of ideas or beliefs about Christianity or religion in general that frame the way we interpret or think about the newest ideas that enter our mind. By the power of the Holy Spirit and the willingness of our minds, every thought must be taken captive to the obedience of Christ (1 Cor 10:5).
1. The Great Divorce – the heart & the head
2. Thinking vs. Feeling
April 30, 2009
Humanist Ethics & Arrogance
In her post, Is Humanism Arrogant?, Terri Murray offers an undergraduate level textbook recitation of divine command theory, attributing the position to Christian "theocrats", theologians and otherwise, who engage in a worldview analysis that draws the conclusion that humanist ethical theory represents arrogance because it ultimately lacks any epistemic foundation. Oh yeah, she never explained the reasoning of these "theocrats."
Terri fails in this post, not because she created a strawman--yes, there is much more to Christian ethics than divine command theory--not because she doesn't answer the "theocrat" according to the strawman she set up in the first place, but because she never actually offers an explanation for how humanists "understand" ethics. Frankly, I'm not even sure what "understand" means, unless she is referring to how they ground ethics. If this is the case, she might have better expressed it as an accounting of ethics. So how do humanists account for ethics?
Every worldview has a self-sufficient. In biblical Christianity, the self-sufficient is the God of Scripture. In humanism, the self-sufficient is man who, through the use of reason, locates right and wrong, the ethical and unethical. But in the history of humanity, man has proven that the use of reason never yields the same conclusions among all men. Reason fails. Science is not ethics, science is a descriptive discipline, ethics is a prescriptive discipline. Science can never speak for ethics, it can only offer choices to ethics. Humanism fails the test for objective ethics, and with relativism as that which remains, humanist ethics can never speak for everyone, nor would it ever try to. The fact remains, humanism simply cannot account for right and wrong, because humanism cannot escape relativism. And that's why the charge of arrogance hovers over humanist ethics.
Terri fails in this post, not because she created a strawman--yes, there is much more to Christian ethics than divine command theory--not because she doesn't answer the "theocrat" according to the strawman she set up in the first place, but because she never actually offers an explanation for how humanists "understand" ethics. Frankly, I'm not even sure what "understand" means, unless she is referring to how they ground ethics. If this is the case, she might have better expressed it as an accounting of ethics. So how do humanists account for ethics?
Every worldview has a self-sufficient. In biblical Christianity, the self-sufficient is the God of Scripture. In humanism, the self-sufficient is man who, through the use of reason, locates right and wrong, the ethical and unethical. But in the history of humanity, man has proven that the use of reason never yields the same conclusions among all men. Reason fails. Science is not ethics, science is a descriptive discipline, ethics is a prescriptive discipline. Science can never speak for ethics, it can only offer choices to ethics. Humanism fails the test for objective ethics, and with relativism as that which remains, humanist ethics can never speak for everyone, nor would it ever try to. The fact remains, humanism simply cannot account for right and wrong, because humanism cannot escape relativism. And that's why the charge of arrogance hovers over humanist ethics.
October 26, 2008
Women's Ministry: Why Ethics Matters
At the risk of being misunderstood, it seems to me that Christians often needlessly spiritualize how we fulfill the call to glorify God.(1) Let me explain. There are times when we say that we are praying about matters when what we are really doing is avoiding a reasoned decision because that might be less than spiritual, or too human. And sometimes when we talk about matters of right and wrong, we avoid injecting any sound ethical principles and, instead, tell our brother or sister that their situation is between them and God. To be fair, there are times that these might be the most appropriate statements to make, but it goes against the teachings of scripture to de-legitimize the role of the mind or the pursuit of the holy life. Our Christian walk cannot be reduced to a Holy Spirit intuition or a lack of ethical reasoning.
The theologian L. H. Marshall puts forth this idea that for Christian living, the Holy Spirit functions as a spontaneous power that mystically causes people to know right from wrong. He said,
1. If you are confused after reading this essay, please contact me for clarification. sarahflashing@gmail.com2. L.H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics (1947), p. 220.3. G.E. Ladd, A New Testament Theology (2002), p. 563.
The theologian L. H. Marshall puts forth this idea that for Christian living, the Holy Spirit functions as a spontaneous power that mystically causes people to know right from wrong. He said,
The Spirit of God in action in a man’s heart was an adequate ethical guide, and that a man under the sway of the Spirit knew from within what the will of God was and was enabled both to will and to do… (2)This view not only confuses the entity referred to as the heart (the mind), but it under-estimates the impact of unconscious and conscious beliefs we retain. As well, it ignores the deceitful nature of the heart (Jer 17:9). But the New Testament theologian G.E. Ladd writes,
It is striking that Paul does not appeal to the Spirit as a direct source of moral enlightenment. Paul is conscious that the Holy Spirit reveals the things of God (1 Cor 2:10), but this does not mean that Paul feels himself to be independent of the Old Testament and the teaching of Jesus.(3)Ladd shows how Paul’s letters communicate the reality, that new life comes from the Spirit, but that we are commanded to actually participate in this by walking by the Spirit (Gal 5:25).To bring more clarification to this topic, consider the distinction that is made between law and grace. Paul never insisted that principles of conduct went away with the Law and that the Holy Spirit would provide an answer for every dilemma we face. For redemptive purposes, Christ fulfilled the requirements of the Law yet he also provided a summary for it’s ethical requirements in Matt 22:37-29 in the Great Commandment. Ethical reflection toward a life that pleases God was never replaced with a mystical, abstract approach to living. We are always expected to obey, though our salvation doesn’t depend upon our always succeeding. Yet any ability to obey—to please God—is found in our new nature accounted for through the regenerative work of the Spirit.For men and women, many of the decisions we face in today’s world are not to be answered with specifics contained in Scripture. Technology, economics, and entertainment leave us wringing our hands sometimes, not entirely clear on how to think Christianly about these areas. But Ephesians 5:10 calls each of us to discern what is pleasing to God—not to guess, hope, or feel….but to discern. Chapters 2-5 in Paul’s letter to the church at Ephesus focus largely on how we participate—ethical reflection—in pursuit of the holy life. This is a very practical, tangible section of scripture rooted in solid teachings on salvation and God in contrast to our sinfulness. The letter concludes with application in marriage and family. But this is hardly exhaustive in content, and many other areas of our every day living call us to reflect on our walk.In considering the many perspectives that women in particular face in today’s world, decisions from reproductive technologies and birth control to careers, relationships and matters of the family, room needs to exist for deliberate ethical reflection, grounded in a firm foundation the acknowledges the supremacy of God. The ability to move from Scripture into the specific areas of life that are in question is the process of doing theology. Knowing what the Bible says in its context is the first step, but bringing it to bear on every square inch of your life is where it all becomes real.
1. If you are confused after reading this essay, please contact me for clarification. sarahflashing@gmail.com2. L.H. Marshall, The Challenge of NT Ethics (1947), p. 220.3. G.E. Ladd, A New Testament Theology (2002), p. 563.
September 14, 2008
Relationship with Jesus vs. List of Rules: An Unfair False Dichotomy
Have you ever heard or read the statement that the Christian faith isn't a list of rules to be followed, it's a relationship with Jesus? I've been hearing it a lot recently and I think it deserves a bit more nuance than what it seems to be receiving.
Where we begin is in understanding what exactly Christianity is. It is the one true religion. It is a system of thought based on the activity of the Triune godhead throughout history. It is the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consumation. It is about Jesus, God incarnate, who satisfied the demand of justice by paying the price for our sins. Christianity is the story of love of the Creator for his creation, and creation's love in return.
What Christianity is not is merely a set of do's and don'ts that provide a framework for salvation. Our faith is a gift from God, not something we receive for good behavior. We don't find our election dependent upon anything we do, and our salvation is not maintained by certain acts of obedience. But does this mean that "do's and don'ts" aren't a part of living our our faith? This is where I take issue with casually stating that Christianity isn't about following a list of rules, because in fact, the Christian life is all about loving God so much that we seek to reflect his goodness in all areas of our life with loving acts of obedience. By de-emphasizing rules, we over-emphasize an easy-believism that says it doesn't matter what one does from day to day, as long as they love God and are sincere. This doesn't seem dangerous? To say that Christianity isn't about a list of rules is to create a straw man argument. But for the younger people and younger believers who hears this, what they really hears is that we need not struggle with the ethical issues of our day.
As we prepare members of the community of faith to live in this world, we find that we are preparing them to encounter another set of moral precepts. Sripture tells us to avoid any resemblance of evil and to live our life in such a way that we bring glory to God. So how is it that we can have a relationship with Christ without our faith having a relationship to every day do's and don'ts? It is impossible to pursue a biblical faith--our relationship with God--without thinking Christianly about our every day activities. When we encounter dilemmas in life that the Bible speaks nothing about specifically, we have to reflect on biblical principles to determine the next step. But to say bluntly that Christianity isn't about a list of rules undermines a significant amount of scripture that emphasizes obedience and the pursuit of sinlessness. Perhaps, it over emphasizes a positional perfection over an ongoing sanctification. I think we need to use more care in how we communite this "relationship with God" that is becoming more and more abstract as we move further and further away from discussing ethics and morality among the community of believers.
Where we begin is in understanding what exactly Christianity is. It is the one true religion. It is a system of thought based on the activity of the Triune godhead throughout history. It is the story of creation, fall, redemption, and consumation. It is about Jesus, God incarnate, who satisfied the demand of justice by paying the price for our sins. Christianity is the story of love of the Creator for his creation, and creation's love in return.
What Christianity is not is merely a set of do's and don'ts that provide a framework for salvation. Our faith is a gift from God, not something we receive for good behavior. We don't find our election dependent upon anything we do, and our salvation is not maintained by certain acts of obedience. But does this mean that "do's and don'ts" aren't a part of living our our faith? This is where I take issue with casually stating that Christianity isn't about following a list of rules, because in fact, the Christian life is all about loving God so much that we seek to reflect his goodness in all areas of our life with loving acts of obedience. By de-emphasizing rules, we over-emphasize an easy-believism that says it doesn't matter what one does from day to day, as long as they love God and are sincere. This doesn't seem dangerous? To say that Christianity isn't about a list of rules is to create a straw man argument. But for the younger people and younger believers who hears this, what they really hears is that we need not struggle with the ethical issues of our day.
As we prepare members of the community of faith to live in this world, we find that we are preparing them to encounter another set of moral precepts. Sripture tells us to avoid any resemblance of evil and to live our life in such a way that we bring glory to God. So how is it that we can have a relationship with Christ without our faith having a relationship to every day do's and don'ts? It is impossible to pursue a biblical faith--our relationship with God--without thinking Christianly about our every day activities. When we encounter dilemmas in life that the Bible speaks nothing about specifically, we have to reflect on biblical principles to determine the next step. But to say bluntly that Christianity isn't about a list of rules undermines a significant amount of scripture that emphasizes obedience and the pursuit of sinlessness. Perhaps, it over emphasizes a positional perfection over an ongoing sanctification. I think we need to use more care in how we communite this "relationship with God" that is becoming more and more abstract as we move further and further away from discussing ethics and morality among the community of believers.
March 27, 2008
Reviving Evangelical Ethics: Book Review
As an ethicist and cultural critic, I enjoy engaging all kinds of ideas because I take seriously the biblical injunction to 'take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.'People face an onslaught of challenges in todays world that necessitate biblical reflection such that their decisions are most glorifying to God. This isn't to imply that the bible contains every answer for ever dilemma we face. It does, however, provide us with principles and rules through which we can consider other matters that aren't specifically mentioned in the Bible.
So I find myself baffled, when with little explanation, I hear it taught that "Christianity isn't a set of rules," that it's about a relationship with God. You probably think at this point that I'm a moron, that I would actually question such a statement. Of course, I accept and embrace that Christianity is about the relationship I have with God, but this isn't to the exclusion of considering ways of right living and a pursuit of God that seeks to glorify him in our lives, lives that are a sequence of actions. I fear we confuse people when we speak of it in any other way.
Often when we consider the overall nature of the bible, we think of the old testament as containing the Law and plethora of unachievable expectations in the form of rules and regulations. Then as grace enters the picture through the loving sacrifice of Jesus, we see the fulfillment of the Law in Christ. The tendency to not see grace in the old testament and see no place for rules in the new testament leaves a believer missing a lot of what the Bible was intended to communicate to its readers.
In her book, Reviving Evangelical Ethics, Wyndy Corbin Reuschling hones in on the topic of ethics and its relationship to the Christian life. She states,
Righteousness or justification is not just 'being made right with God;' it connotes living right with God, fulfilling moral obligations consonant with a new orientation and perspective. To think of being declared righteous' without any accompanying commitment to actually act righteously is not what the biblical writers had in mind in their instructions on the Christian life. (p. 110)Our ontological status, our state of being righteous, gives great hope to the individual that their eternal future is secure in Christ. But as we unpack what it means to live for Christ, we discover the important element of sanctification and our participation in that process, sinful creatures seeking to live the moral life. Frankly, its clear by looking at our daily activities that we are constantly up against ethical quandries. So how is it that Christianity isn't about rules?
Obviously becoming a Christian isn't dependent upon doing something that puts you in a position of acceptability before God. In that sense, Christianity is not about a set of rules. And of course, living the Christian life is about constantly seeing God's grace manifest in ways unimaginable. We see God's hand care for his children in ways that demonstrates his graciousness. But this isn't to the exclusion of expected ways of living and being.
Reuschling does a great job speaking to the misuses of the Bible and the danger associated with seeing Scripture is merely a set of categorical imperatives. She states,
My concern with this deontological approach is twofold. One is that it actually undermines scripture as revelation, since it limits scripture to little more than a book of revealed rules. Two, this view limits scripture's effectiveness in shaping our moral lives if the primary question posed is "What ought I do?"...For all the emphasis that evangelicals place on the authority of the Bible, a deontological perspective may reduce and diminish the Bible's importance as a source for moral guidance because it restricts ethics to just following principles, rules, and commands, and the Bible to a mere instrument.....Moral formation requires more than just the ability to follow principles and rules. We need the requisit discernment, practical wisdom, and virtues.....The scriptures shape and direct our moral sensibilities, vision, and capacities in many ways. (p. 69-70)Here she has effectively assisted the church in stating that being a Christian isn't about following a set of rules, but she does not suggest that their are no rules. The Bible is limited if we posit that it is merely a book of rules. Clearly, it contains directives and, as God's spoken Word, it develops us as His followers. What that means is that as we are becoming closer to God in our sanctification, we are gaining wisdom that assists us in our decision-making. As our worldview comes together coherently, we are able to consider whatever comes our direction because we are reflecting on what we know about God and what he has given to us in scripture.
There is much more to be taken from this book, I've merely touched upon some things that I've been considering about ethics as it relates to the lives of women in the church. I believe this will be a helpful book to students of ethics. This book is due to be released in April by Brazos Press, and I obviously encourage you to check it out.
March 15, 2008
Politicizing the Pulpit: Obama's Credibility and Wright's Ordination In Question
We haven't known much about Obama, but this week we learned that he has a serious credibility problem.
No doubt Trinity UCC on Chicago's south side has been doing some marvelous practical ministry in the inner city, and I'm unaware of any attempt by media to invalidate this work. The UCC is trying to spin this story another direction. The character of Jeremiah Wright is altogether another issue, and while the United Church of Christ is a denomination that leans way to the left, it would serve them well to consider their ordination policies and revoke the ordination of Jeremiah Wright and renounce his teachings. Wright's comments reveal a racist posture that doesn't assist in healing racial divisions, rather it exploits them. Wright, in making these inflammatory statements and in propagating black theology, has brought the issue of racial divides back into the limelight even while Obama pledges to be post-racial.
Are we really suppose to believe that Obama, who regards Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor and allowed him to be a member of his campaign, has been mostly unaware of Wright's views and the content of his sermons? I cannot be convinced that this is the case, given his 2 decades of membership at this church. Either Obama and his family rarely attend church and his membership and involvement is strictly on paper, or he has chosen to support the teachings of this movement. So what kind of change can we really expect from Obama given his willingness to look away from the words and character of this spiritual mentor of his? Seems like politics as usual to me.
Out of the mouth of a pastor especially, these statements bring shame to the nature and role of the church is and Wright's role in the office of pastor:
"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that."
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
This isn't a matter of a fallacious guilt by association, Jeremiah Wright has served as a pastor and spiritual mentor to Obama, and if Obama was unaware of the views taught during these 20 years, his ability to assess people must be called into question. At this time, Obama needs to resign his membership at Trinity in order for any evangelical to begin taking him seriously as an honest, thinking person who also happens to profess being a Christian. I realize the counter-arguments to this appeal, that Obama is running for President, not Chief Executive Theologian. But since his church has politicized the pulpit and his pastor was a member of his campaign team, and because Obama has been running his campaign on a spiritual platform, speaking freely about his faith and the role of it in his life, he owes it to himself and to his campaign to pursue a life of integrity....that can't happen with a continued association with a church that has yet to renounce the teachings of Jeremiah Wright and a congregation who was noticeably enthralled by this message of hate. The whole issue speaks to Obama's judgment and character.
Pastors, as we understand the office in Scripture, are not dictators. They are accountable to the elders whom they work with in the church and to the congregation. We are called to be Bereans, people who are always studying the Scriptures and testing the teachings of our leadership against the testimony of Scripture. The Bereans of Trinity UCC need to step up......if there are any.
It seems inevitable that we are going to have a democrat in the White House in 2009. If it is going to be Obama, I would hope that he would give us a better idea of what to expect out of him - or perhaps he has and we really need to worry about his integrity and real (in)ability to lead. At this point, it looks like politics as usual, but even worse as he uses his faith as a way to shroud his views. At least with Hillary, what you see is what you get, at least moreso than with Obama.
No doubt Trinity UCC on Chicago's south side has been doing some marvelous practical ministry in the inner city, and I'm unaware of any attempt by media to invalidate this work. The UCC is trying to spin this story another direction. The character of Jeremiah Wright is altogether another issue, and while the United Church of Christ is a denomination that leans way to the left, it would serve them well to consider their ordination policies and revoke the ordination of Jeremiah Wright and renounce his teachings. Wright's comments reveal a racist posture that doesn't assist in healing racial divisions, rather it exploits them. Wright, in making these inflammatory statements and in propagating black theology, has brought the issue of racial divides back into the limelight even while Obama pledges to be post-racial.
Are we really suppose to believe that Obama, who regards Jeremiah Wright as a spiritual mentor and allowed him to be a member of his campaign, has been mostly unaware of Wright's views and the content of his sermons? I cannot be convinced that this is the case, given his 2 decades of membership at this church. Either Obama and his family rarely attend church and his membership and involvement is strictly on paper, or he has chosen to support the teachings of this movement. So what kind of change can we really expect from Obama given his willingness to look away from the words and character of this spiritual mentor of his? Seems like politics as usual to me.
Out of the mouth of a pastor especially, these statements bring shame to the nature and role of the church is and Wright's role in the office of pastor:
"Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."
"Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that."
"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans, and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
This isn't a matter of a fallacious guilt by association, Jeremiah Wright has served as a pastor and spiritual mentor to Obama, and if Obama was unaware of the views taught during these 20 years, his ability to assess people must be called into question. At this time, Obama needs to resign his membership at Trinity in order for any evangelical to begin taking him seriously as an honest, thinking person who also happens to profess being a Christian. I realize the counter-arguments to this appeal, that Obama is running for President, not Chief Executive Theologian. But since his church has politicized the pulpit and his pastor was a member of his campaign team, and because Obama has been running his campaign on a spiritual platform, speaking freely about his faith and the role of it in his life, he owes it to himself and to his campaign to pursue a life of integrity....that can't happen with a continued association with a church that has yet to renounce the teachings of Jeremiah Wright and a congregation who was noticeably enthralled by this message of hate. The whole issue speaks to Obama's judgment and character.
Pastors, as we understand the office in Scripture, are not dictators. They are accountable to the elders whom they work with in the church and to the congregation. We are called to be Bereans, people who are always studying the Scriptures and testing the teachings of our leadership against the testimony of Scripture. The Bereans of Trinity UCC need to step up......if there are any.
It seems inevitable that we are going to have a democrat in the White House in 2009. If it is going to be Obama, I would hope that he would give us a better idea of what to expect out of him - or perhaps he has and we really need to worry about his integrity and real (in)ability to lead. At this point, it looks like politics as usual, but even worse as he uses his faith as a way to shroud his views. At least with Hillary, what you see is what you get, at least moreso than with Obama.
February 24, 2008
Obama's Public Religion
I never cared to read Obama’s Audacity of Hope
, but I recommend you do as it is helpful in understanding the nature of his political aspirations.
Negative Campaigning & Partisan Politics
For those of you fearful of being accused of “negative” or unnecessary “partisan politics,” check this out. Obama hopes that the weight of such accusations are stronger than your own convictions. He writes,
Perhaps my greatest bit of good fortune during my own Senate campaign was that no candidate ran a negative TV ad about me. This had to do with the odd circumstances of my Senate race, and not an absence of material with which to work. After all, I had been in the state legislature for seven years, and had cast thousands of sometimes difficult votes.” (chapter 4, page 132)
This “good fortune” is unfortunate, but seems to be continuing.
One of the messages we hear from Obama is that the focus on what divides conservatives and liberals are really small and incidental issues, and that they should be abandoned for the sake of unity. The notion that taking a firm stand on conservative convictions amounts to nothing more than partisan politics is condescending and philosophically fraudulent because it seems that the issues he thinks ought to be abandoned are those that typify conservatism—I don’t see any concessions coming from him.
Obama’s Postmodern View of Truth
A look at his childhood reveals how he has come to understand truth, and that his political views are really an extension of his religious views, thus his religious beliefs are clearly being communicated in the public square. Speaking of his mother, he says that
In her mind, a working knowledge of the world’s great religions was a necessary part of any well-rounded education. (p. 203)
She’s not entirely wrong, but to what end does this knowledge serve in her mind? We should understand the teachings of other religions, but not embrace them all as equally valid.
He continues,
In our household, the Bible, the Koran, and the Bhagavad Gita sat on the shelf alongside books of Greek and Norse and African mythology. On Easter or Christmas day, my mother might drag me to church, just as she dragged me to the Buddhist temple, the Chinese New Year celebration, the Shinto shrine, and the ancient Hawaiian burial sites. But I was made to understand that such religious samplings required no sustained commitment on my part…Religion was an expression of human culture, she would explain, not its wellspring, just one of the many ways…(p. 204)
And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I’ve ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct…Without the help of religious texts…she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school; honesty empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice, and scorned those who were indifferent to both. (p. 205)Christianity is not just about values, nor is it about “personal values,” it is about ultimate truth. This obviously escapes him as he clearly emulates this state of “spiritually awakened” he attributes to his mother. Kindness, honesty, and hard work values that can be seen in the day-to-day life of an atheist. These behaviors should be seen in all believers (fruit), but the presence of these does not make one a Christian.
But it was my mother’s fundamental faith—in the goodness of people and the ultimate value of this brief life we’ve each been given—that channeled those ambitions. (p. 206)
Obama knows that this sort of religiosity is empty as he states that the dilemma his mother faced was passed on to him—that he had “no community or shared traditions in which to ground [his] most deeply held beliefs.” But Obama never really convinces himself—or me—that he has fully embraced orthodox Christianity. I’m not suggesting that he might not be a believer (nor am I suggesting that he is), but he offers several statements that suggest his system of belief outright rejects the historic Christian faith.
Almost by definition, faith and reason operate in different domains and involved different paths to discerning truth. Reason—and science—involves the accumulation of knowledge based on realities that we can all apprehend. Religion, by contrast is based on truths that are not provable through ordinary human understanding—the ‘belief in things not seen.’ When science teachers insist on keeping creationism or intelligent design out of their classrooms, they are not asserting that scientific knowledge is superior to religious insight. They are simply insisting that each path to knowledge involves different rules and that those rules are not interchangeable. (p. 219)This is almost unfair to Obama because the flaws here are so many and so obvious. His argument suggests that science doesn’t start with presuppositions or pre-understanding. The truth is, science does not operate in a vacuum, outside of the influence of personal bias—and brute facts simply do not exist. Obama’s political philosophy is clearly seen in this statement as he falls into a Rawlsian trap, that moral assertions in the public square can never be grounded in religious reasons because of the pluralistic nature of our society. For religious reasons to have a bearing in the public square is to infringe on the freedom of nonreligious persons according to Rawls. This is where secularism gets some of its philosophical footing, as if it is religiously neutral, as if it is even possible for any idea or philosophy to be religiously neutral. Religious neutrality is a myth and reasons asserted by anyone in the public sphere eventually find their way back to a religion or worldview.
Another statement that impugns Obama on his claim to Christianity is his postmodern hermeneutic that pits certain passages of Scripture against others. It’s reminiscent of a feminist hermeneutic in that he is filtering the biblical text through his experience. Pitting verse against verse, he states,
I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union…nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount. (p. 222)
Its unclear how he determines that the Romans passage is “obscure” or how the Sermon of the Mount is to be understood in isolation of Romans or any other area of Scripture. But it is clear that Obama, despite his great spiritual notoriety, is no theologian.
Finally, Obama’s view of Scripture is best understood in his own words.
When I read the Bible, I do so with the belief that it is not a static text but the Living Word and that I must be continually open to new revelations… (p. 224)
This statement is clearly problematic. While we may refer to Jesus as the Living Word, we must accept the Scriptures as unchanging in meaning and intent, though we as fallible humans may not always understand what read. We cannot confuse our inability to always discern the meaning of the text with God revealing new meanings unrelated to the text. The Bible was written by men in time and space with specific messages, not with ambiguous and every-changing purposes. To be generous, it’s unclear exactly how far Obama wants to take his method of interpreting Scripture, but it is safe to say that he has kept the door open for interpreting Scripture according to experience. His is a faith of values and experience, not of knowledge.
Concluding Remarks
The hype over Obama in the last year has been about nothing—literally. His campaign could be an episode of Seinfeld. He’s gone to great lengths to be not only the candidate of change, but the candidate of charisma….so shallow that it might actually work to win the general election. This is more of an indictment on the American voters than it is on Obama, unfortunately. But realize that he is equally a product of this shallow society. What are the dangers for America if he is to become the most powerful leader in the world? An increase in access to birth control, fewer parental rights, tighter restrictions on religious expression, higher taxes, naïve foreign relations that put America at risk……
November 5, 2007
Biotechnology and the Human Good: Book Review
As human life and dignity continues to face unrelenting assault from the influences of secularism in our culture, I am thankful to know that this book is available. Biotechnology and the Human Good brings biotechnology where it belongs - in the realm of worldview and philosophy.
Biotechnology and the Human Good (BHG) is coauthored by experts in the field of bioethics: C. Ben Mitchell, Edmund Pellegrino, Jean Bethke Elshtain, John F. Kilner, and Scott Rae. BHG provides discussion on the philosophical framework that structures the dominant worldviews in the bioethics arena: Christian theism, Philosophical Naturalism and Environmentalist Biocentrism. It then moves into a discussion on human dignity in relationship to biotechnology, considering various views in light of the critical assessment criteria comprehensiveness, consistency, and credibility. Comprehensiveness addresses the application of the concept of human dignity, that it "covers all people to whom the term appropriately applies." (p. 65). Consistency refers to the concept of human dignity being able to "withstand the critiques it levels at other approaches." (p. 65). Credibility speaks to the plausibility of the concept, that it "accords with what we know about the present and what we hope about the future." (p. 65).
Near the end of the book there lists presuppositions for engagement. They are:
1. We must begin with the affirmation of a creator of everything.
2. We also affirm that the biblical account is the best guide to understanding the nature, problems, and ends of human life.
3. As all human beings-regardless of age or level of development, health, disability, or status-are God's imagers, each is worthy of respect and protection.
4. Human beings are also distinct from human tissues.
5. Human beings were created for community and communion, with God and with one another.
6. The fundamental problem of humankind is not physical or mental inadequacy, but sin.
Finally, I want to share this quote from chapter seven as I believe it addresses a larger problem.
Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C.
ISBN: 1589011384
Biotechnology and the Human Good (BHG) is coauthored by experts in the field of bioethics: C. Ben Mitchell, Edmund Pellegrino, Jean Bethke Elshtain, John F. Kilner, and Scott Rae. BHG provides discussion on the philosophical framework that structures the dominant worldviews in the bioethics arena: Christian theism, Philosophical Naturalism and Environmentalist Biocentrism. It then moves into a discussion on human dignity in relationship to biotechnology, considering various views in light of the critical assessment criteria comprehensiveness, consistency, and credibility. Comprehensiveness addresses the application of the concept of human dignity, that it "covers all people to whom the term appropriately applies." (p. 65). Consistency refers to the concept of human dignity being able to "withstand the critiques it levels at other approaches." (p. 65). Credibility speaks to the plausibility of the concept, that it "accords with what we know about the present and what we hope about the future." (p. 65).
Near the end of the book there lists presuppositions for engagement. They are:
1. We must begin with the affirmation of a creator of everything.
2. We also affirm that the biblical account is the best guide to understanding the nature, problems, and ends of human life.
3. As all human beings-regardless of age or level of development, health, disability, or status-are God's imagers, each is worthy of respect and protection.
4. Human beings are also distinct from human tissues.
5. Human beings were created for community and communion, with God and with one another.
6. The fundamental problem of humankind is not physical or mental inadequacy, but sin.
Finally, I want to share this quote from chapter seven as I believe it addresses a larger problem.
The challenges presented by advancing technologies, particularly biotechnologies, are growing almost exponentially. Yet...we are theologically ill equipped to address these challenges wither individually or collectively. One of the major deficiencies lies in the fact that theology has too often become an arcane, academic discipline. We have forgotten...the Puritans, who understood that for theology to have meaning, it must permeate every aspect of life...The theological community must take up the issues we raise in this book and lift its sights from its own intradisciplinary conversations to an interdisciplinary engagement with medicine, philosophy, law, science, industry, and the lay community. For only in the context of a robust, practical theology of living can a workable theology of technology and biotechnology be developed.As members of the Christian community, we are barely having the conversation about biotechnology or bioethics in general in an intradisciplinary manner. As members of the Church, we need to educate and equip believers on these issues so that they are prepared to give an answer when they least expect they will need one. This is an excellent resource for the Church and for college/seminary students as they consider how to minister in contemporary culture.
Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C.
ISBN: 1589011384
August 2, 2007
Confronting Gropers
I was happy to read about Faith Hill's confrontation of the woman who groped her husband, Tim McGraw, at his concert last weekend. It reminded me of my own recent experience (details unimportant), and my assessment being that people must really believe that this is how things are - that it is appropriate to take what is not yours. And I think to a great extent, it is true that this is how the world is.....but an IS should not be confused with an OUGHT (ethics 101). Though this may be the way the world is, this isn't the way the world should be. Thanks, Faith, we should all follow your example.
May 31, 2007
Sectarian Secularism
Falwell's passing has initiated a plethora or news articles and commentary on the so called doctrine of the separation of church and state or the "wall of separation." A high degree of ignorance persists as it relates to understanding the difference between secularism and religious views. Actually, there is no difference. So what exactly is secularism? One helpful definition states that it is the view that matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. Well that just begs the question of what exactly a religious element is. A religious element could be a particular doctrine or practice of a particular religious sect, but as legislative activities pertain to what citizens should or should not do as a matter of making law, the influence of a religious element is moral and ethical. Coincidentally, the influence of secularism on the legislative process equally moral and ethical and is no less sectarian as a religious element. The debate about whether Christianity should have any role or voice in the public square is really misguided. This is really a debate about which set of moral and ethical guidelines should have dominance in the formation of laws and public life. It is in this sense that secularism is one of many worldviews that seeks to have an influence on issues like abortion, stem cell research, the nature of the family, etc. Just because you cannot find a Church of Secularism in the yellowpages to go worship at every week does not mean that they do not have an altar at which they worship - they indeed do. The god of secularism is the self, the self-appointed authority of what is supposedly right and good. Secularism is no less sectarian than any other worldview and we are long passed the point where this needs to be made clear.
January 8, 2007
Federally Funded Destruction of Early Human Life
The Degette/Castle Bill, H.R. 3, will come before the House for consideration on January 11th. The purpose of this bill is to provide federal funding for embryo-destructive research. Once again, we are faced with the question of when human life begins....and we know the answer! Yes, there are alternatives to ESCR that can and are being pursued, though the pro-aborts in Washington and the academy are not the least bit interested in pursuing their large-scale funding for these other options. If there were not any alternatives to ESCR, our arguments would be primarily focused on the personhood of the embryo, a human being in the earliest stages. This is actually the basis for arguing for alternatives to ESCR, but as evangelical Christians in bioethics, we need to be much more explicit about this point. We also need to remind Americans that proponents of ESCR are not neutral participants in search of what is ethically permissible, the fact is they've separated ethical reflection from so-called scientific progress.
The pro-abort liberal establishment is a manipulative big-government corporate machine motivated by power and money, not by cures and compassion.
The pro-abort liberal establishment is a manipulative big-government corporate machine motivated by power and money, not by cures and compassion.
January 6, 2007
Can you say women will not be exploited? A Challenge to Supporters of ESCR/SCNT
I challenge you, supporters of embryonic stem cell research and somatic cell nuclear transfer (aka "therapeutic" cloning) to state clearly-so that women across the globe can year you-that women are not and will not be exploited and commodified by this research.
14th Annual International Conference on Bioethics
Call for Art - The Art of Medicine
14th Annual International Conference on Bioethics
Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity
July 12-14, 2007
The Art of Medicine
A new opportunity will be available at this year's conference, Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity. 
Artwork by conference attendees or friends of the Center may be submitted and will be displayed for the viewing of those attending the conference. The art may be in the form of paintings, drawings, photographs, poetry, sculptures, etc. Those presenting art must be in attendance at the conference. Please plan to deliver your artwork to the designated area no later than Noon on Friday, July 13, 2007. Artwork will be available for viewing during the days of the conference. Please retrieve your artwork no later than 5:30 PM Saturday. All artwork not retrieved will become the property of The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity. The Center reserves the right not to display artwork deemed inappropriate by Center staff. Please present a description of the art you will be displaying no later than May 31, 2007.
Please submit descriptions to:
James C. Moscato
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 USA
Call for Papers
14th Annual International Conference on Bioethics
Bioethics Nexus: The Future of Healthcare, Science, and Humanity
July 12-14, 2007
There will be opportunities to present a Professional Paper during which the speaker will address a profession-specific topic. Those papers addressing future issues related to the conference subject matter will receive first priority. There will be time allotted in each venue for participation by the attendees in a question and answer session. The reading of the paper should take 25-30 minutes with 10-15 minutes of Q&A to follow. The total time allotted will be 40 minutes.
Those wishing to present a paper must submit a synopsis of their paper by May 1, 2007. All those presenting a paper will receive a $50.00 discount toward the conference registration fee. Paper presenters will be expected to sign a permission form allowing their session to be audio recorded and distributed to those wishing to purchase a copy.
Please submit proposals to:
James C. Moscato
The Center for Bioethics & Human Dignity
2065 Half Day Road
Bannockburn, Illinois 60015 USA
First Female Speaker Leads Action that Exploits Women
Debate on a bill to fund embryonic stem cell research is set for Jan. 11 when the new session of Congress begins. Nancy Pelosi may go down in history as the first female Speaker of the House, but her legacy will also include her involvement in the exploitation of women. Embryonic stem cell research and so-called "therapeutic cloning" (Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer) will not go forward without the harvesting of eggs from women of reproductive age. As a woman who claims to be for women's rights, for "breaking the marble ceiling" it's hard to know for sure if she is all she claims to be. If Nancy Pelosi is really for women, she will pull the plug on somatic cell nuclear transfer and protect women from commodification.
I predict the next (manipulative) method for extracting eggs will be in the student loan division of the federal government....perhaps "Eggs for Education" or "Cures for College."
I'm looking forward to the Wednesday veto.
If you have any questions on the science and ethics of embryonic stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear transfer, human cloning, egg harvesting, drop me a note or contact The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
I predict the next (manipulative) method for extracting eggs will be in the student loan division of the federal government....perhaps "Eggs for Education" or "Cures for College."
I'm looking forward to the Wednesday veto.
If you have any questions on the science and ethics of embryonic stem cell research, somatic cell nuclear transfer, human cloning, egg harvesting, drop me a note or contact The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity.
January 4, 2007
"From the Kitchen to Congress"
In Nancy Pelosi's speech today, she thanked her family for encouraging her in her work, helping her to believe and actualize the move from "the kitchen to Congress." Now perhaps I'm reading way too much into her words, but her emphasis seems to have been placed on feminist issues...."breaking the marble ceiling." As to her comment about representing all American women, I can't help but wonder if her focus is entirely misplaced. I don't want her representation because of my gender but because of my humanity. I am a human first, what happened to representation for the people? I'm terribly bothered that the 3rd in line to the presidency (I doubt any further rise to power on her part would be 'accidental') seems to be more interested in the power and advancement of women.
And does Pelosi represent the woman who strives in her chosen career of homemaker? Extreme feminism in power.
And does Pelosi represent the woman who strives in her chosen career of homemaker? Extreme feminism in power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)