good speakers

Has speaking well become the new standard for the pulpit or political office. One person commenting on a presidential candidate mentioned that people listen to him because he speaks well. That would be in contrast to the current president who mispronounces words. Another president was called "the great communicator" but his critics complained that he his speech was deceitful. What about the meaning of words? Words mean something or they mean nothing. We could have shades of Orwell's "1984" or "Animal Farm."

But I see churches wanted great communicators for all generations in a congregation. Many of these churches would love to have the Apostle Paul as their preacher, or would they? Paul admits that he was not a trained speaker, that he had difficulty in public speaking, that he wasn't anything to look at because of some physical disability, and add to that are the facts that he stirred up trouble everywhere he went and was arrested several times. I'm sure some congregations would want to stay away from such a person.

I'm all for clear communication if we are saying what needs to be said. But no matter how you look at it, communicating is difficult, even with people who are intimately familiar with one another. Just consider a husband and wife or parents and children. When a preacher speaks, people hear words and translation them out of their own experiences and definitions. As such, some things can be misunderstood and wrong impressions left. That is why we need to sit down and talk with one another and clarify what we are saying.

Sadly, however, some just want to be entertained by find sounding words. The prophet Ezekiel was told by God that the people of his day loved to hear him speak but will not put his words into practice (see Ezekiel 33:30ff). I fear that too many want a good speaker who says nothing or means something different from what the words he uses mean.

Be careful what you wish for.

free speech

Did you know that in Canada there is something called the human rights commission. It is currently proscuting a columnist named Mark Stein because he wrote something that some Islamists took as being against Islam. They have also convicted a preacher for speaking out against homosexuality and find him several thousand dollars, told him to apologize and not to speak against it again.

Nothing like that would happen here, would it? Well, New Mexico has a human rights commission who has tried a photographer for refusing to photograph and commitment ceremony between two homosexuals. Virginia also has a human rights commission who tried a video copier for refusing to copy homosexual material. New Jersey civil rights organization has removed the tax exempt status of a church for refusing to allow a homosexual couple to use their property for a commitment ceremony.

Maybe we shouldn't be concerned but then again. There are those who wish to restrict speech on college campuses by speech codes. Some politicians desire to bring back the "fairness doctrine" so that talk radio, which would include Christian radio, would have to be balance between both sides. Why are they afraid of free speech?

I find that those who make the loudest noise about rights being taken away under the current administration have no problem taking away, or supporting such things as human rights commissions, to stop speech that is politically incorrect. Judges overrule the people who vote for propositions, others make laws in contrast to the Constitution, yet are support by those who claim that our rights are being removed.

This reminds me of George Orwell's two books, "1984" and "Animal Farm." One commend from the latter is that all are equal but some are more equal than others. Or like the character in Alice in Wonderland, words are what he determines them to be. Words mean something or nothing. If nothing, then how can we trust what anyone says.

As Christians, if we call something a sin because the Bible does, will we be fined, tried, told to be quiet, even imprisoned for our beliefs? I think this is something to think about, especially as the next national election is coming up. For fine soundly words we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. Gaining back lost freedom might be more difficult than we think.

free speech

free speech

Expelled the Movie

EXPELLED: THE MOVIE
“For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).
Ben Stein is a political commentator, actor, and speech writer for former presidents. He was approached by a couple of producers to become active in this movie. It is about the conflict in the scientific community between Darwinian evolution and Intelligent Design. People who have spoken about Intelligent Design have been “expelled” from various universities such as Iowa State, George Mason and Baylor, from writing about in newspapers, and from the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.
The movie opens with the building of the Berlin Wall in Germany at the beginning of the Cold War. The comparison is that the Communists in East Germany wanted to keep out Western ideas especially of that of freedom. Our nation was founded on the idea of freedom, freedom of speech and as Mr. Stein says, of inquiry. He and his team interview various experts, both atheists and Intelligent Design.
Among the most famous atheist is Richard Dawkins. He is the most arrogant of the group though others see God as myth, and see those who do not accept their views as ignorant. Dawkins admits at the end of the movie that he might believe in some sense of intelligent design, from another source in the universe. One scientist thinks that one legitimate view of the beginning of things was some molecules riding on ice crystals of some kind.
Mr. Stein interviews a number of Intelligent Design advocates some who have been expelled. We find that there are a number who come from various beliefs; they are not all Christian. They state that their view as been misrepresented in both the media and other areas. Included in the interviews are a number of Christian and Jewish scientists who believe in God.
One can see that in this movie both sides are presented as Mr. Stein travels throughout the United States and France, Germany and Britain exploring the conflict. What we learn from the movie is that a wall has been built by the powers that be in the elite scientific community that is attempting to stop all discussion. One lesson learned is that the worldview of the scientist effects his view of science. It appears that because Darwinian evolution is the accepted view, no questioning is allowed. Interestingly enough, it was Darwin who “rocked the boat” as it were when he presented his views back in the 1800s.
Throughout the movie Mr. Stein asks why not have this discussion? One explained it this way. Imagine a wall going through your brain or yard. Only one side of your brain has an acceptable view and the other an unacceptable view. Everything on the acceptable side can be spoken while the other side cannot even be mentioned. Go back to the Berlin Wall.
There is interesting dialogue throughout the movie, explanations on the basic level, and astonishing comments. Ideas have consequences. The last part of the movie explores this and has brought about controversy. One comment that caught my attention was something to the effect that these things always have the same beginning. The eugenics movement in the early part of the 20th Century, based on Darwinian evolution, sought to eliminate those who were inferior, or who were an expense on families or nations. Some fifty thousand Americans were sterilized because of this view. Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, held this view. Today it continues with abortion (an unwanted baby who the mother cannot care for), euthanasia (the elimination of the sick and aged), and now infancide (the killing of born babies if not pleasing to parents). Sex selection in some areas of the world has lead to the aborting of baby girls, for in these cultures, baby boys are more valuable. This will lead to unintended consequences down the road.
Finally, Mr. Stein, a Jew, goes to Germany, where the Darwinian philosophy was part of the murder of millions of people, including six million Jews, in the Nazi concentration camps. The two people he interviews state that Darwinism was an very influential on Hitler and various Nazi scientists. For Stein, this was an emotional and moving moment. He asked the author of a book about Hitler and Darwinism what he thought about this. The author stated that Hitler carried his views to the extreme, that he thought Hitler thought that he was moving evolution along. The author also stated that there was no doubt that Hitler was evil.
Mr. Stein concludes by asking what can we do? This movie is a beginning and I would suggest that as many go see it as possible. Keep in mind, it is a documentary. I know that some good books have been written about Intelligent Design, some by believers and some not. Philip Johnson, a lawyer, has lead the charge in this area from a Christian perspective and his books are worth reading. I’m not much into detail science but if an elite group can force experts in various scientific fields to keep quiet, what can happening in other fields? This is all part of what has been called the cultural war.
For more information on this movie you can go to http://www.expelledthemovie.com/
One additional note. Some of the excuses used by those who expelled people from their teaching positions are excuses I have heard as a preacher. I think that we are in danger of building a wall, if we haven’t already, to try to prevent discussions on various topics. Traditional positions are being defended as law and any who question that are considered “outsiders” and some are attempting to “expel” them. I have written more on this in the next bulletin.

Red Letter Christians

I finished reading Tony Campolo's new book, Red Letter Christians. I like Tony. I have seen and heard him on tape: he is funny and at times challenging. One of the best books that I read on the meaning of various philosophers came from a book of his about thirty years ago. Tony admits at the end of his new book that he is a conservative Christians, but there is no doubt that he is a political liberal.

The purpose of the book is to discuss various issues. He states that he wants to leave Rome (that is, government) and go to Jerusalem (Jesus), as I understood it. While that is a worthy goal, he rarely left Rome. In fact most of his time is spent discussing what politicians and government can do about various social issues.

First, let me say that if you want a good understanding of the religious left, this is a good book to read, especially if you do not listen to talk radio. There are a number of good ideas in the book, some challenging points that he makes, and some points on issues that need to be dealt with. For instance, on the subject of crime, he suggests that those involved in non-violent crime consider repentance, and eventually pay restitution to the victim, something Chuck Colson and Prison Fellowship have advocated for years. He does make some good suggestions.

However, he spends too much time telling us that government is the answer to problems, especially where the church can and does a better job. I think that he has bought into the stereotype that conservative Christians are hard-hearted. When we consider who responded to the disasters involved Karina and the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, I think that the religious left needs to take another look at its rhetoric. See also Arthur Brooks book "Who Really Cares?"

The second thing that bothered me was is use or lack thereof of scripture. He tells us that Palestine belongs to both the Jews and Palestinians because both are children of Abraham, using Genesis 15. Both Isaac and Ishmael are sons of Abraham. The only problem is that God chose Isaac, the special son, to develop His plan that led to the cross. One could argue over the politics of the Middle East, but this isn't the best use of scripture.

Another thing he does is to ignore scriptures that do not fit his views. In talking about the death penalty, he stated that he is totally prolife. He opposes the death penalty and sees it as a means to destroy a person created in God's image. He quotes Old Testament texts that he sees as extreme and New Testament texts about forgiveness and loving one's enemy. Justice is foremost in his mind on a number of issues. Two things: one, he mentions people create in God's image but does not refer to Genesis 9:6 at all where God states that anyone who murders should be killed because he shed innocent blood, a person created in God's image. Two, he says nothing about the justice for the victim and his family.

He admits that those nearer to people who are being help can do a better job, yet he complains that the government budget spends too much on other things such as military spending. He really doesn't inact with the role of government from Rom. 13.

I'm glad I read the book. As I said, he made important points about issues we need to be concerned with. However, as typical of many, a selective history is not good for understanding what Christians have done throughout history, though not perfectly.

I am convinced that we really have difficulty separating our religion and politics, and that we are influenced by both. I think Campolo hasn't recognized this, even though he claims to be a conservative. Some of his views are not necessarily in the conservative perspective. As a conservative, however, we need to be careful that our views do not cloud our judgment either.

Review of What's So Great About Christianity

Dinesh D'Souza's new book, What's So Great About Christianity is a good read. He challenges atheists at their strongest attacks with clarity and illustrations that are understandable. He explores the criticisms about Christianity such as the Crusades and Inquisitions and offers a historical perspective we often do not see. He talks about Darwinism and the effects on historical events in the 20Th Century. He looks at Galileo and other scientists and seeks of God in the past, explaining their belief in God.

All in all, it is a good book worth having so as to balance out the arguments often referred to in the media.