Like son, like father. My blogging time has suffered serious setbacks over the last couple of weeks. I have started my classes at Biola in pursuit of my Masters in Christian Apologetics. The reading load is intense. It provides a lot of bloggable material, the only problem is in finding the time to write. I hope to post a little more frequently than I have recently once I become acclimated to the new demands on my schedule. Thanks for understanding.
I haven’t posted in a few days, besides yesterday’s poetry, and so I thought I’d give give a few excuses :-). Last week I had a Philosophy of Music essay due, a Hebrew exam, and a Philosophy of Mind(/Action) exam which all kept me somewhat busy. The good news is that I did exceedingly well in all of them. I also was busy practicing and performing with one of my friends at one of the festivities on campus here for Middle East peace month. He played guitar and I played mandolin on an instrumental rendition of a Jewish tune, Shalom Aleichem. It went pretty well, although our nerves got the best of us on a couple occasions. You can see a video here, along with a video of him playing a very beautiful Coptic (Egyptian Christian) hymn with a singer friend of his.
Another thing that has been keeping me very busy the last few days is God’s answer to one of my long-time prayers to use my intellectual gifts in the church. I was invited to give a small-group seminar on the reliability of the gospels (look for my notes to be posted soon) at an upcoming high school retreat. I have virtually no public speaking experience (at least for more than 15 minutes or so), so I’m extremely excited and yet anxious about this opportunity, which will hopefully open other doors for further speaking engagements. The seminar is this coming weekend, so I’m going to be busy planning for the next couple days and then more frequent posts should resume for me (I’ll still try to squeeze some in between now and then).
One more great thing happened for me today that I just have to share. The philosophy department here at FSU, though already cramped and tiny, is having half of its library speace removed to build a computer lab and so they were giving away (for free!) about half of their books. I missed the first day so most of the best stuff was gone, but I still got a box full of good stuff (including Richard Bube’s The Encounter between Christianity and Science, The Pocket Aquinas, Tennant’s Philosophical Theology, and a couple intro books to Logic and Political Philosophy). I also celebrate today my first Valentine’s Day as a married man, and the 4 year, 11 month anniversary of when my wife and I first started dating. Life is good.
Spit in my face you Jews, and pierce my side,
Buffet, and scoff, scourge, and crucify me,
For I have sinned, and sinned, and only he
Who could do no iniquity hath died:
But by my death can not be satisfied
My sins, which pass the Jews’ impiety:
They killed once an inglorious man, but I
Crucify him daily, being now glorified.
Oh let me, then, his strange love still admire:
Kings pardon, but he bore our punishment.
And Jacob came clothed in vile harsh attire
But to supplant, and with gainful intent:
God clothed himself in vile man’s flesh, that so
He might be weak enough to suffer woe.
There are two reasons that C.S. Lewis may be the most famous (and dare I say effective) Christian apologist of all time (excepting, of course, Jesus and the writers of the Bible): his ability to talk about complex philosophical and theological topics in language that everyone can understand, and his uncanny wit. Although he was of course extremely intelligent and naturally gifted with these characteristics, I believe they are things all apologists should attempt to emulate.
One example of what I mean, from Lewis’ explanation of Christ’s uniqueness among other religious leaders:
There is no half-way house and there is no parallel in other religions. If you had gone to Buddha and asked him ‘Are you the son of Bramah?’ he would have said, ‘My son, you are still in the vale of illusion.’ If you had gone to Socrates and asked, ‘Are you Zeus?’ he would have laughed at you. If you had gone to Mohommed and asked, ‘Are you Allah?’ he would first have rent his clothes and then cut your head off. If you had asked Confucius, ‘Are you Heaven?’ I think he would have probably replied, ‘Remarks which are not in accordance with nature are in bad taste.’ The idea of a great moral teacher saying what Christ said is out of the question. In my opinion, the only person who can say that sort of thing is either God or a complete lunatic…if you think you are a poached egg, when you are looking for a piece of toast to suit you, you may be sane, but if you think you are God, there is no chance for you…He was never regarded as a mere moral teacher…He produced mainly three effects - Hatred - Terror - Adoration. There was no trace of people expressing mild approval.
How do we make sense of the actions of muslims throughout the world? How can we account for the daily suicide bombings in which innocent people are slaughtered? How do we understand the recent violence and destruction wrought by Muslims in response to the Danish Mohammed cartoons?
I have come to realize that Muslims base their ethics on different principles than do Christians. There are similarities, however. They both embrace transcendent , universal, morality. Dr. R. Scott Smith, of Biola University, states:
Islamic ethics definitely upholds that ethics transcend us and are based in Allah’s will. They are objectively true in that they are not human products, and they apply universally. And, we can have moral knowledge, which is found in revelation and the Traditions of Mohammed.
Earlier, I posted a blog on Euthyphro’s dilemma, which I think is useful to clarify the difference in Christian ethics vs. Islamic ethics. Euthyphro offered two possibilities for explaining what makes something right and moral. First, Does God command what he commands based on standards of right and wrong that are outside of him? Or, is what is right and wrong based simply on God’s command? The first diminishes the standing of God since he is subject and bound to something outside of himself, the second leads to theological subjectivism, or ethical voluntarism (e.g. God could command us to rape and murder and that would be moral based on His command).
I answered this question from a Christian perspective previously. It is a false dilemma. A third option exists. God’s commands proceed and grow necessarily from his character. His commands are based on his moral goodness. They are what they are based on the nature of God.
The Muslims, however, seem to choose the second horn. (I generalize somewhat, here. There are certain Muslims who would not accept this view presented without qualification. However, I do think this accurately presents the prevailing view of ethics in the Islamic world.) Muslims believe that whatever God commands is what is right and moral. Smith references the statement of an islamic traditionalist, Ghazali:
Ghazali draws the consistent conclusion from ethical voluntarism that Allah could “make children and insane people suffer and not compensate them†for He is not under any necessity to do so; necessity as defined does not apply to Him.
Smith summarizes the Islamic view of ethics thusly:
By basing what is right solely on what Allah wills, Islamic ethics become an ethic of action (doing the will of Allah). Virtue is not so critical, although acts of obedience should be done by Allah’s power. Virtues are not ends in themselves; rather, the end of Islamic ethics is obedience. The beginning is submission, and then Allah’s servants may be empowered to obey.
Muslims place great emphasis on the sovereignty of God. Their views on ethics proceed from this understanding. We understand what is right and wrong only by the command of God (revelation). We cannot understand morality and ethics by human reason. This has important implications for how we deal with Islamic fundamentalists. Attempting to reason with them is futile. Reason is useless in understanding what action is morally right. What God commands is morally right! If God commands the killing of innocent people, it is right. Negotiating with Islamic fundamentalists is useless. There is no negotiating with the will of Allah.
According to Geisler and Saleeb, in Answering Islam:
For the Muslim, the seemingly contradictory actions of God are not problematic. The divine will is an ultimate beyond which neither reason nor revelation can go…He does not do things because they are right; rather, they are right because he does them. In short, God is arbitrary about what is right and wrong. He does not have to do good. For example, God does not have to be merciful; he could be mean if he wanted to be. He does not have to be loving at all; he could hate, if he chose to do so.
Mark Roberts has an excellent post today regarding what it means to pray in Jesus’ name. Many regard the words as some sort of magic phrase which makes their prayer effective. But, whatever we do in Jesus’ name, we are doing it by his authority. We are declaring that we are not doing or saying whatever it is that we are doing or saying on our own authority. It is not because we are deserving. It is not because we are powerful, or strong, or righteous. It is because of Christ and what He has done. It is because of His authority and authorization to do so. Here is a pertinent paragraph:
In the Gospel of John, Jesus teaches His disciples to pray “in his name”: “And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (John 14:13-14). Yet Jesus doesn’t mean that we must say “in Jesus’s name” at the end of every prayer, though this is surely a fine thing to do as long as we don’t think of “in Jesus’s name” as magic words. To pray in Jesus’s name is to pray under His authorization. It means to approach God through Jesus and to seek, not our own will, but the will of Jesus our Lord.
I came across this poem today and couldn’t help but notice how timely a prayer it is:
O God of earth and altar,
Bow down and hear our cry,
Our earthly rulers falter,
Our people drift and die;
The walls of gold entomb us,
The swords of scorn divide,
Take not thy thunder from us,
But take away our pride.From all that terror teaches,
From lies of tongue and pen,
From all the easy speeches
That comfort cruel men,
From sale and profanation
Of honour and the sword,
From sleep and from damnation,
Deliver us, good Lord.Tie in a living tether
The prince and priest and thrall,
Bind all our lives together,
Smite us and save us all;
In ire and exultation
Aflame with faith, and free,
Lift up a living nation,
A single sword to thee.
I just found out that Dr. Stevens, of the Christian Medical Association will be debating Judy Waxman of the National Women’s Law Center on Helthcare Right of Conscience. This will take place tomorrow, Saturday, Feb 4, at 1:20 p.m. EST on the Tony Snow program on Fox News.
A January 30 Washington Post article deals with the topic of “conscience rights”, that is the right of a health care provider not to provide requested care which conflicts with one’s personal beliefs. This area of concern will only be magnified as time goes on. There have long been issues with abortion, and there have been various laws adressing the matter. Now, we also deal with the morning-after pill and physician-assisted suicide. There are also issues surrounding in-vitro fertilization and embryonic stem-cell research. Numerous states are considering laws dealing with the rights of conscience of health care providers. An excerpt from the article states:
Most states have long had laws to protect doctors and nurses who do not want to perform abortions from being fired, disciplined or sued, or from facing other legal action. Conflicts over other health care workers emerged after the morning-after pill was approved and pharmacists began refusing to fill prescriptions for it. As a result, some lost their jobs, were reprimanded or were sanctioned by state licensing boards.
The head of the Christian Medical Association had this to say:
“This goes to the core of what it means to be an American. Conscience is the most sacred of all property. Doctors, dentists, nurses and other health care workers should not be forced to violate their consciences.”
Of course, advocates for abortion rights, family planning, AIDS prevention, the right to die, and gays and lesbians are up in arms. The article points out that health care workers have been fired, transferred, or passed over for promotions for not providing a service which they felt was immoral. As Francis J. Manion of the American Center for Law & Justice said:
“The right to not be required to do something that violates your core beliefs is fundamental in our society.”
The Christian Medical Association’s Ethical Statement on Healthcare Right of Conscience is found here. Here is the portion relating to health care providers:
The Healthcare Professional’s Right of Conscience
All healthcare professionals have the right to refuse to participate in situations or procedures that they believe to be morally wrong and/or harmful to the patient or others. In such circumstances, healthcare professionals have an obligation to ensure that the patient’s records are transferred to the healthcare professional of the patient’s choice.
I began reading Our Father Abraham: The Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin Wilson last week and something he said in the first chapter really caught my eye. Although he is explicitly trying to convince Christians to understand and respect their Hebraic roots, what he says applies to biblical literacy in general:
…many Christians seem to have little knowledge about their biblical roots. They have never really penetrated the inner world of biblical thought. Christians can converse intelligently about the lastest automobiles, fashions, music, and sports, but too few give evidence of a deep understanding of their spiritual heritage. At best, their grounding in biblical soil is both shallow and shaky. Hence, they usually embrace an uncritical conformity to the prevailing spirit of today’s world…God’s people are called to be different from the world, through the “renewing of the mind” (Rom. 12:2)…Thus a Christian mind is one in the process of being renewed according to divinely revealed thought patterns and values.
His point, I take it, is that Paul’s exhortation not to be conformed to this world implies that we should be conformed to another worldview - that expressed by the biblical writers. The problem with this is that to understand the worldview of the biblical writers requires using one’s mind, first of all to familiarize oneself with what the writers said, and second of all, to familiarize oneself with their context and what they were trying to get across. Is it any wonder that as Christians stopped using their minds and became less biblically literate, they became (and are becoming) more and more like the world?