It is a sad day for Georgia Bulldog fans as UGA VI, the winningest mascot of the Georgia Bulldog football team has passed away from congestive heart failure. I am an Atlanta, GA native and have been a lifelong Georgia fan. Here, UGA is keeping cool while participating in blackout day.
Glenn Beck has an excellent commentary in which he ruminates over the candidate for which he will vote this November. I found myself in agreement with much of what he said. One of his main purposes was to, first of all, differentiate a conservative from a republican (or for that matter a democrat). Secondly, he wanted to define just what is a conservative. I classify myself as conservative and found that his list of what a conservative believes was essentially right on. I reproduce it the core values of a conservative here:
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights do not include housing, healthcare or Hummers.
A conservative believes that our inalienable rights DO include the pursuit of happiness. That means it is guaranteed to no one.
A conservative believes that those who pursue happiness and find it have a right to not be penalized for that success.
A conservative believes that there are no protections against the hardship and heartache of failure. We believe that the right to fail is just as important as the chance to succeed and that those who do fail learn essential lessons that will help them the next time around.
A conservative believes in personal responsibility and accepts the consequences for his or her words and actions.
A conservative believes that real compassion can’t be found in any government program.
A conservative believes that each of us has a duty to take care of our neighbors. It was private individuals, companies and congregations that sent water, blankets and supplies to New Orleans far before the government ever set foot there.
A conservative believes that family is the cornerstone of our society and that people have a right to manage their family any way they see fit, so long as it’s not criminal. We are far more attuned to our family’s needs than some faceless, soulless government program.
A conservative believes that people have a right to worship the God of their understanding. We also believe that people do not have the right to jam their version of God (or no God) down anybody else’s throat.
A conservative believes that people go to the movies to be entertained and to church to be preached to, not the other way around.
A conservative believes that debt creates unhealthy relationships. Everyone, from the government on down, should live within their means and strive for financial independence.
A conservative believes that a child’s education is the responsibility of the parents, not the government.
A conservative believes that every human being has a right to life, from conception to death.
A conservative believes in the smallest government you can get without anarchy. We know our history: The larger a government gets, the harder it will fall.
This is a subject that has been on my mind for some time. I have not, as of yet, felt comfortable commenting on the meetings which have been ongoing in Lakeland, Florida for the past several weeks. I have been a resident of Lakeland for 5 years now. I work at the Lakeland Regional Medical Center as an emergency physician and have met in the emergency department a number of those who have travelled from across the U.S. and around the world to be a part of the “Lakeland Revival.”
I am probably as qualified as any to speak on the subject. First, I trusted Christ as a teenager in a Pentecostal church and served as a Pentecostal pastor for 14 years. Second, I live in Lakeland. Third, I have a number of friends and acquaintances from around the country who have come to Lakeland for the meetings. I’ve talked with them and some have stayed in my home. Finally, I’ve attended the meetings myself.
I’m actually quite troubled by the “Lakeland Revival,” as it has come to be known around the world. This “move of the Spirit” has been compared to past “revivals” such as the Toronto Blessing and the Brownsville Revival. First, I’ll state where I think some critics of the “revival” have erred.
1. Todd Bentley, of Fresh Fire Ministries, the leader of the revival is not your stereotypical preacher. He exhibits large amounts of tattoos and piercings, dresses like a biker and has a troubled background. None of that in itself discredits what is taking placed in Lakeland. These things might make one approach with a little more skepticism, but has no direct bearing on whether these meetings are of God or not.
2. I do not think that Bentley’s antics are demonically motivated. He is not under the power of Satan. Furthermore, the people that attend these meetings (at least the one’s I know) are sincere Christians who love God with all their heart and are truly hungry for God’s active presence in their lives and ministries. They are not subject to demonic influences, as some have suggested.
So, what’s wrong with the “Lakeland Revival?”
1. The Revival is extremely focused on the experiential and seems mostly unconcerned with the fundamentals of the Christian faith. There is not an emphasis on doctrinal correctness. The night I attended, the first thing I heard when I walked in the doors, was the worship leader mis(quoting) scripture: “The Scripture says that God dances in heaven over one sinner who repents!” While the main point of that statement is true (God is happy when one repents), the quote immediately made me question the commitment to doctrinal accuracy. Now, I’m not against enjoying the presence of God. I enjoyed the extended time of singing and praise. The problem is that “spirit” seems emphasized to the detriment of “truth.”
2. The tactics of Bentley are unscriptural and plain weird. For some examples of what goes on, see this youtube video. On that video he boasts of following God’s leading to kick people in the face, to punch them in the stomach (knocking their teeth out) and body slamming them in order to produce healing. The night I attended I watched him (under God’s direction) approach a gentleman and knee him in the stomach, knocking him to the ground. These antics do not in any way resemble anything I see in the ministry of Jesus or in the Acts of the Apostles. Does this mean all this is demonic? No. There is a third category - human lunacy and goofiness.
Perhaps, my greatest grievance with all of this is its impact on non-Christians. As one who is interested in the Christian apologetic enterprise, I am concerned that this complicates the task. The already signficant barriers to some accepting the faith have been multiplied by such foolishness. While Bentley prophesies of the coming worldwide move of God, “revivals” such as this in Lakeland, present a caricature of true Christianity easily dismissed by unbelievers. Much damage is ultimately done to the cause of the Gospel. The Gospel is offensive enough to many. We need not add additional offense unnecessarily.
The supposed large number of healings also concerns me. I’ve been in hundreds of services where the sick have been prayed for and in a number of dedicated “healing services.” Most of the healings are of the kind that are unconfirmable (except upon the testimony of the “healed”). I have yet to see a physically crippled individual with obvious physical deformities (or mental) healed despite the large number of healings which purportedly takes place. Let me clearly state: I am not a cessationist. I see no reason to believe that God has stopped working miracles in our day. On the other hand, I see nothing which makes me think such meetings as the Lakeland Revival are similar to that which took place in the New Testament. I must also state that it is possible, even probable, that some are healed in such meetings. That does not place God’s stamp of approval on the meetings themselves, however. It might be that God heals some folks in spite of, and not because of, the antics of those involved. I am quite concerned that non-Christians see through this facade of “healing” and are turned off to the Gospel of Christ. This becomes a hindrance to true revival and evangelism, rather than promoting it.
Additionally, the time and expenses that are invested (I won’t quite say “wasted”) by those who fly in from all over the world could be much better spent elsewhere. A great deal of time was spent prophesying about the coming revival all over the world (and how God told Bentley he was a big part in it) in the meeting I attended. As a former Pentecostal, I’ve heard these prophecies since my first week as a Christian. We need to spend less time looking for a new move of the Spirit and more time preaching, teaching, and doing what we already know from the Bible.
I have gone on longer than usual and there is much more I could say. I thought I should say something since I am close to action and have personally attended the meeting. Stand to Reason has recently posted several blog posts (here, here, and here) on their website regarding this “revival.” They are insightful and helpful, offering more legitimate criticism of the Lakeland Revival. Greg Koukl also spent time discussing this issue on his most recent radio show. Koukl also has an article adressing the Toronto Blessing called New Movement of the Spirit - So What?, which is applicable and offers wisdom when considering such meetings as the Lakeland Revival.
So, what is Tony Blair up to since leaving his position as Prime Minister of Great Britain? A recent article in Time, Tony Blair’s Leap of Faith, provides some details. It appears he has dedicated the rest of his life to promoting the importance of religious belief in society and encouraging those of different faiths to work together to achieve common goals. The article explains:
“Faith is part of our future,” Blair says, “and faith and the values it brings with it are an essential part of making globalization work.” For Blair, the goal is to rescue faith from the twin challenges of irrelevance—the idea that religion is no more than an interesting aspect of history—and extremism. Blair and those working with him think religion is key to the global agenda. “You can’t hope to understand what’s happening in the world if you don’t know that religion is a very important force in people’s lives,” says Ruth Turner, 37, formerly a top aide to Blair in 10 Downing Street, who will head the foundation. “You can’t make the world work properly unless you understand that, while not everyone will believe in God or have a spiritual life, a lot of people will.” Blair, she says, has been thinking about these issues “for decades and decades and decades.” Over time, says Blair of the foundation’s work, “this is how I want to spend the rest of my life.”
Michael Elliott’s article treats Blair’s Christian faith with respect and reveals just how deep his commitment to that faith is. (Blair converted to Catholicism from Anglicanism seveal months ago.) He has recently launched the Tony Blair Faith Foundation in order:
… to promote respect and understanding between the major religions;
… to make the case for faith as a force for good;
… and to encourage inter-faith initiatives to tackle global poverty and conflict.
In his speech given to launch the foundation he explained that his efforts will extend to the six leading faiths (Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh and Jewish) to, among other things, mobilize against such world problems as Malaria.
Time goes on in explaining Blair’s faith, which he rediscovered as Oxford as a student in the 1970’s:
Blair is deeply religious—the most openly devout political leader of Britain since William Ewart Gladstone more than 100 years ago. He handles questions about religion deftly. He doesn’t back down. His longtime press secretary and consigliere, Alastair Campbell, remembers Blair in 1996 at a school in Scotland where a gunman had killed 16 children and a teacher. In a bloodstained classroom, Campbell asked Blair, “What does your God make of this?” Blair, says Campbell, stopped and replied, “Just because man is bad, it does not mean that God is not good.” There was, says Campbell, a force, a sense of conviction in Blair.
There is much good in the article, and I’ll close with one last quote about Blair:
He is convinced, he told me, that in the rich world, “without spiritual values, there is an emptiness that cannot be filled by material goods and wealth.” He understands that faith is what gives meaning to the lives of billions, and he passionately believes that the world would be a better place if people of faith harnessed their talents together in aid of the common good.
The Gallup’s 2008 Values and Beliefs survey has recently ranked the attitudes of modern Americans on the moral acceptability of 16 ethical issues. The most morally acceptable issue: Divorce, with 70% of those interviewed saying that it is morally acceptable. This represents an all-time high.
Before I comment on this number, let me note that this lofty (or lowly) ranking for divorce in terms of moral acceptability might not be entirely accurate. Divorce is not quite so cut and dried for evangelicals in that the Bible does provide moral grounds for divorce in certain situations. So, many evangelicals might feel that divorce is always a bad, unfortunate occurrence, but might not be immoral in itself. This would not be the case for other ethical issues evaluated (such as premarital sex). So, the number of evangelicals who think divorce is morally acceptable in this survey may be inflated. By the way, 55% of respondents for whom religion was very important felt divorce was morally acceptable (65% of Protestants and 75% of Roman Catholics).
Nonetheless, evangelicals have been often quick to point out the immorality of homosexual behavior and pre-marital sexual relations, but perhaps have failed to effectively assert the immorality of divorce. Certainly, the high number of divorces in contemporary American has created all sorts of private and public ills.
Perhaps, that 70% view divorce as morally acceptable is directly related to the fact that 91% view extramarital affairs as immoral. In fact, the New Testament indicatea that adultery is a morally acceptable ground for divorce.
The most concerning information to come from this survey is the trend in those who find divorce is morally acceptable. Since 2001, that number has gradually increased from 59% to the now record high of 70%. Those for whom religion is very important the increase has been from 47% to 55%; for Protestants 53-65%; for Roman Catholics 60-75%. This trend cannot be easily explained away by the fact that some of these feel there are morally acceptable bibical grounds for divorce.
So, while Christians must care for and support those who are injured by divorce (perhaps, the children most of all), we must do a better job of explaining the moral unacceptability of divorce.
The Defending the Faith Lecture Series will kick-off on Tuesday, May 27, at 7:30 pm at Biola University. The Case for Christ DVD by Lee Stobel, based on his best-selling book, will be launched that evening. All who attend get a free copy of the DVD. If you’re in the area, plan on attending. Register here.
I am a registered Republican voter and have voted almost exclusively for Republican candidates in every major election for the last 32 years. ( The last time I probably did not was when I first was old enough to exercise my right to vote and cast my vote for Jimmy Carter in the ‘76 presidential election. My reasons for voting then was not quite so thoughtful or rational - He was from my home state of Georgia.) I have voted Republican, not out of some blind allegiance to a particular political party, but because the Republican candidates’ views on issues which are important to me most closely aligned with my views. If a Democrat’s views more closely aligned with mine I would have no touble voting Democrat. There are a number of issues which are important to me, and should be important to any evangelical voter. Among these, and perhaps the most important issue, is the candidate’s view of the sanctity of human life. I would find it difficult to justify voting for a candidate who supported abortion (not necessarily impossible, but difficult). I think, in the hierarchy of important issues, this one is near the top.
Charles J. Chaput, at First Things, had addressed this issue from a Catholic perspective in his post, Thoughts on “Roman Catholics for Obama ‘08.” Chaput, too, voted for Carter in 1976 (although Carter was “soft toward permissive abortion). Chaput, although he was able to rationalize his support for a pro-choice candidate at that time, now doubts that such support was, nor perhaps could be, justified. Optimistic that perhaps a second term with Carter would perhaps bring about a change on the issue of abortion, he campaigned for Carter in his bid for re-election. Reagan, a pro-life candidate, defeated Carter in his bid for a second term. Despite Reagan’s pro-life stance, Chaput is concerned that not more progress has been made in the important cause of protecting innocent human life:
In the years after the Carter loss, I began to notice that very few of the people, including Catholics, who claimed to be “personally opposed” to abortion really did anything about it. Nor did they intend to. For most, their personal opposition was little more than pious hand-wringing and a convenient excuse—exactly as it is today. In fact, I can’t name any pro-choice Catholic politician who has been active, in a sustained public way, in trying to discourage abortion and to protect unborn human life—not one. Some talk about it, and some may mean well, but there’s very little action. In the United States in 2008, abortion is an acceptable form of homicide.
He brings this all up in the context of the present election and the efforts of a group known as “Roman Catholics for Obama ‘08.” This group had quoted the following words from an article by Chaput in their campaigning efforts for Obama:
So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite—not because of—their pro-choice views.
Unfortunately, the article stopped the quote too soon. The very next sentences in the article read:
But [Catholics who support pro-choice candidates] also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life—which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
I think these are good words of advice for any evangelical considering supporting a candidate who is pro-choice. Chaput noted that:
Planned Parenthood of the Chicago area, as recently as February 2008, noted that Senator Barack Obama “has a 100 percent pro-choice voting record both in the U.S. Senate and the Illinois Senate.”
I was able to see the second installment in The Chronicles of Narnia series over the weekend, Prince Caspian, and enjoyed the movie as much as I did the first. I have come across a number of reviews of the film and have found them interesting and insightful. Bruce Edwards, at his C.S. Lewis blog, while not hating the movie, gives an overall less than glowing review here. He feels that the movie misses the mark of portraying the story C.S. Lewis presented in Prince Caspian:
Prince Caspian, thus, is about what happens next, what happens when the mystique and the mystery of life has been stripped away or treated contemptuously—about what happens when Aslan’s true nature and the Pevensie’s righteous reign are discarded or buried or ignored. A movie made of such poignant substance, could be transcendent, lyrical, mythopoeic, could be a wondrous standalone tale in itself—as the forgotten kings and queens of Narnia return not a moment too soon to help the noble but naive Prince Caspian learn his destiny and help true Narnians recover their birthright. Regrettably, that is not the movie Andrew Adamson and his crew have chosen to make.
Contrast that with this brief take by John Mark Reynolds, who states the movie is better than the first (even than the book):
Like a miracle, comes a gift to us from Disney and Walden Media. Prince Caspian, the weakest of the seven Narnia books, is a better film (as a film) than the first . . . and I really liked the first. This time the makers felt able to make changes as the plot was less well known (and less tightly structured).
Finally, I point you to this review by Amy Hall at the Stand to Reason blog. She like the movie overall, but had some specific issues with the film. One of these dealt with the question of how much God knows or can know. At one point Aslan asserts that there are some things even he cannot know… specifically counterfactuals (that is, what would happen if an alternative course of action was chosen by an individual, rather than the choice actually made). This line struck me as odd at the time as well and I wondered if anyone else caught it. Hall states:
The second change is even worse (being more explicit) and involves another of the ideas most memorable to me–one that recurs throughout the series. In the book, when Lucy realizes she’s failed to do something she should have–and could have–done, she asks Aslan what would have happened had she done what was right: “Please, Aslan! Am I not to know?” Aslan responds powerfully, “No. Nobody is ever told that.” Aslan has authority and perfect wisdom–rebelling against his command has consequences, and Lucy’s not doing what he had revealed for her to do causes new difficulties for everyone. But make no mistake, Aslan is quite aware of what would have happened had she obeyed. Compare this to the film version where Aslan’s response to Lucy’s plea is: “We can never know what would have happened.” We? Yikes! I’m not a fan of open-theist (open-lionist?) Aslan.
If you haven’t seen this enjoyable film, go see it for yourself.
David Brooks, in a N.Y. Times opinion piece The Neural Buddhists, anticipating a new direction in the supposed science vs. religion wars (I say supposed because science and religion need and should not be understood in such a way), thinks that a major shift in the culture wars is coming:
… My guess is that the atheism debate is going to be a sideshow. The cognitive revolution is not going to end up undermining faith in God, it’s going end up challenging faith in the Bible.
The latest developments in neuroscience and cognitive science, according to Brooks, will lead to a diminishing of the battles between theists and hard core mateiralists and an increased conflict between particular religious claims (such as those of Christians) and some “squishy” spirituality he descirbes as Neural Buddhism. Although he does not make it clear, he seems to indicate scientists are willing to admit that non-material entities are real and exist, but only if it is maintained that they arise from purely material entities:
The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development… Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.
This new spirituality is of course nothing like the God of Christian theism, which leads to Brooks’ assertion that a new form of cultural battle is forming between theists and science. This God of neuroscience…
… can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.
The battle with militant atheists will no longer be the central battle for Christians. Instead, they will have to battle this new-agey, eastern-like, transcendental unkowable entity which emerges from the brain’s neural network.
I’m not sure if Brooks is right or not. In one sense, it would be considered a small victory is non-physical entities are accepted into science’s ontology. On the other hand, the God which is allowed in is not significantly different than there being no God at all. If Christianity is faced with the task of defending its particular truth claims against such a vague deity, I am comfortable that it will be well equipped to meet the challenge. Christianity is unique among all world religions in that it is grounded in historical events, such as the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, which make or break its claim to truth. While this new development might be more troublesome to other religious traditions, not so with Christianity.
Major media outlets, including this CNN article, have commented on the recently constructed and released “Evangelical Manifesto.” This “manifesto” was created by a number of prominent evangelicals to address misunderstandings and concerns relating to the identity of evangelicals, as well as the cultural and political interactions of evangelicals in modern America. Warning: Do not rely on the major media outlets in making your judgment about the merits of this document! Read it for yourself. There is both a 20-page full version and a 6-page executive summary.
I must admit, I was skeptical. However, after reading both versions, I must say that I am in general agreement with most every point. I could certainly sign the manifesto as I feel it makes several important points. Mark Roberts, whose opinions I value and with whom I generally agree, has signed the manifesto and has provided the reasoning behind his decision here.
I will not comment in depth other than to highlight a paragraph of the document I appreciate. These are not representative of the entire document as multiple issues are adressed. I hope you are able to read the documents yourself as they are very instructive and remarkable concise considering all the issues covered.
Here’s an excerpt:
We therefore regard reason and faith as allies rather than enemies, and find no contradiction between head and heart, between being fully faithful on the one hand, and fully intellectually critical and contemporary on the other. Thus Evangelicals part company with reactionaries by being both reforming and innovative, but they also part company with modern progressives by challenging the ideal of the-newer-the-truer and the-latest-is-greatest and by conserving what is true and right and good. For Evangelicals, it is paradoxical though true that the surest way forward is always first to go back, a turning back that is the secret of all true revivals and reformations.