Friday, January 22, 2021

Ministry of Truth Daily Update - 22 Jan 2021 - Unity

Unity

Purge dissenting opinions to achieve uniformity of thought.

more info:

Newspeak Dictionary Recent A-L M-Z FAQ

Thursday, January 21, 2021

Ministry of Truth Daily Update - 21 Jan 2021 - Mostly Peaceful

Mostly Peaceful

Violence, riots, and destruction for Ministry of Truth's "just causes" in coordination with the Ministry of Peace.

More info:

https://store.dailywire.com/products/fiery-but-mostly-peaceful-the-2020-riots-and-the-gaslighting-of-america-by-julio-rosas?srsltid=AfmBOopPdclerZ2VFjBD1XVP82SQjlM8tnpr1Zc84_csrCpV6GM8ngWi

Newspeak Dictionary Recent A-L M-Z FAQ

Thursday, January 14, 2021

Critical Race Theory Incompatibility with the Christian Worldview

Concerns about Critical Theory

It should be of concern that some Christians are supporting or promoting the viewpoint of Critical Race Theory (CT) or the Social Justice Gospel (SJG). CT is antithetical to the Christian worldview and to the values of Western civilization. While the Christian worldview sees us as all equally valuable, yet flawed, this liberal secular worldview sees us divided between oppressed and oppressors. As we'll see below, at the core of CT is a false, unbiblical worldview that is far more divisive than it is healing.

Recently I ran across some videos by Emmanuel Acho, like Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black Man (and others). Listening to his talks, he is clearly espousing CT and SJG. Christian leaders should not be promoting his message or demands. I cannot go there in good conscience and in fidelity to scripture. We need to be very skeptical of Christian leaders who, perhaps unwittingly, endorse this perspective.

Below are some thoughts on why this should not be embraced by Christian leaders, followed by several links from valued Christian teachers, leaders, and apologists who give serious warnings about the dangers of embracing CT, especially in the church.

At the outset, here are some CT and SJG terms that should be red flags. When you see or hear these terms, at a minimum, you should ask them to clarify what they mean. For instance, don't assume that terms like "justice" have the same meaning in CT as biblical justice.

white privilege
antiracism
acknowledging your white privilege
oppressed vs. oppressor language
intersectionality
microaggressions
lived experience / my truth
hegemonic power
heteronormativity / cisgender privilege
social justice (without clarifying what is meant)
cultural supremacy
patriarchy
forced apologies for the actions of others or for your assumed prejudices based on your social class

CT is the foundation for much of the progressive religion and SJG. It is amazing how much of this is creeping into the Church, since the liberal worldview it uses is profoundly secular, seeking to divide people along oppressed/oppressor lines instead of unifying in Christ. Please note:

The Bible teaches that it is wrong for a Christian to have feelings of superiority (Phil. 2).
Believers are told not to make class distinctions between various people (James 2).
Paul teaches the spiritual equality of all people in Christ (Gal. 3:28; Col. 3:11).

If a definition of "justice" makes distinctions between people, especially in the Church, based principally on classes they belong to (e.g. race, sexual identity, wealth/social status, historical oppressed/oppressor groups, or other intersectionality), then it is not compatible with the Christian worldview and hence cannot be biblical justice. It is a sin to make racial distinctions and divisions within the Church, and should not be tolerated by leaders or faithful followers of Jesus. Digging up past wrongs done by others harms unity in the Body of Christ. Demanding reparations or apologies from people who had no part in them is truly unjust. Ironically, we have seen CT proponents and protestors use their power to attack and "cancel" anyone who disagrees with them or who won't bow to their demands. No one should be obligated to apologize to someone else for that person's misperception of grievances or anecdotal experiences.

CT is easily understood if you take the time to read their own words. Please take the time to get informed on this. I've provided several links below to facilitate this. CT has a worldview that gets the nature of humanity, sin, and salvation wrong. When you try to use the world's tools to fix spiritual problems, bad things typically happen. The view of reality as fundamentally based on the struggle between oppressors and the oppressed doesn't match the way the world actually is. If you start with faulty premises, you build a philosophical house of cards.

There are a lot of unfounded cultural claims in CT, such as:

Racist contamination of all social/governmental structures
The founding documents and principles of America are corrupt because of slavery and the bad character of the founders
The majority of police officers are racists and intent on killing blacks

These SJG narratives, and more, are factually false and we should not support, endorse, or perpetuate them just because someone makes the claim or is passionate about it. Rather we should ask, "What is the real agenda being pushed?" It clearly is not reconciliation, since division is at its core. We should resist these movements and never promote them. We should stand against efforts to tear down our social mores, distort our history, and remake our governmental structures.

Consequences of Embracing Critical Theory

Impacts

Effect on the Gospel and the Church, impact on reaching our culture, compromise, emotional vs. rational reasons
Societal changes in morals and standards - moral relativism, social justice = equal outcomes, retribution, and reparations for past "wrongs"
Government - unequal enforcement, fiscal responsibility, liberty, redistribution, loss of freedoms (religious, conscience, constitutional)
Silencing of opposing speach and ideas, lack of true tolerance

CT/SJG is fundamentally antithetical to Christian faith in terms of identity, power, and liberation

Emphasizes emotion or argument

hear their story
shared experiences as justification - doesn't get to truth (truth vs. facts)

Fundamental assumptions (worldview)

power dynamics (oppressors/oppressed)
your identity comes from your group (division)
unity comes from sharing oppression/experiences
struggle for liberation from all forms of oppression is highest virtue (moral duty to fight for liberation)

It is okay to silence (or use threats and violence against) someone if they are the oppressor or from the wrong group
Self-refuting when applied to its own oppressions of oppressors.
Opposed to Christian worldview - its view of identity is not compatible with what the Biblical worldview holds:

Human beings created in the image of God (all are equal value and dignity),
All are sinners (united in rebellion against God - cannot claim one is better than the other),
United in Christ (divisions are broken down, demoted in importance)

Nature and Power - CT sees power as naturally oppressive, while the Bible holds abuse of power to be the problem
CT - Liberation is the ultimate good, but for Christians, God's moral commandments are binding

Critiques and Warnings against CT, Progressive Christianity, and the Social Justice Gospel

Neil Shenvi

Tweeted on 1/12/21, "As more and more prominent evangelical pastors like Tim Keller, John Piper, and Carl Trueman state openly that various forms of critical theory are incompatible with Christianity, dismissing all criticism as the screeching of 'fundamentalists' will become harder and harder"

https://shenviapologetics.com/how-to-preach-against-critical-race-theory

"As a man living in a patriarchal culture, Jesus possessed 'male privilege.' Yet he was wholly without sin, guilt, or moral complicity. Therefore, possessing privilege does not entail sin, guilt, or moral complicity."

"If you think that the poison of 'whiteness' has infected not only your theology but your ability to interpret the Bible properly, on what basis will you object when people tell you that you're wrong about the doctrine of penal substitution, or the Trinity, or the deity of Christ?"

Intro to Critical Theory https://shenviapologetics.com/intro-to-critical-theory/

Social Justice, Critical Theory, and Christianity: Are They Compatible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E33aunwGQQ4

Alisa Childers

See my review of her book, Another Gospel. Her focus is mainly on progressive Christianity, which overlaps this topic in many ways. "Progressive Christianity is not simply a shift in the Christian view of social issues….It's an entirely different religion -- with another Jesus -- and another gospel."

Race Injustice and the gospel of critical theory - Alisa Childers podcast https://www.alisachilders.com/blog/race-injustice-and-the-gospel-of-critical-theory-with-monique-duson-the-alisa-childers-podcast-72

"Confused about the accusation of America’s “systemic racism”? You may be surprised to learn that an entire worldview is in play here, one you need to understand before you can properly assess the charges. It’s called Critical Race Theory--or just Critical Theory--and here are two videos that provide you with a helpful introduction to CRT and how it compares to the Christian worldview."

https://www.str.org/w/thinking-critically-about-critical-race-theory

Frank Turek ("I don't have enough faith to be an atheist", CrossExamined.org)

https://afr.net/podcasts/cross-examined/2020/june/the-cure-for-racism-with-j-warner-wallace/

William Lane Craig (Reasonable Faith)

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/the-dangers-of-critical-theory/

J. Warner Wallace (Cold Case Christianity)

Bridging the thin blue line pt-5 (the one common sin that contributes most to the racial divide) https://coldcasechristianity.com/videos/bridging-the-thin-blue-line-pt-5-the-one-common-sin-that-contributes-most-to-the-racial-divide-video/

Natasha Crain (Christian Mom Thoughts)

5 Ways Christians are Getting Swept into a Secular Worldview in This Cultural Moment
https://natashacrain.com/5-ways-christians-are-getting-swept-into-a-secular-worldview-in-this-cultural-moment

Breakpoint (John Stonestreet)

Why CRT is problematic for Christians
https://www.breakpoint.org/bp-qa-my-church-teaches-crt/

John MacArthur

Critical Race Theory, A Sickness that cannot be allowed to continue
https://www.dailywire.com/news/macarthur-a-sickness-that-cannot-be-allowed-to-continue

Other Secular and Misc. Sources

Eight Big Reasons Critical Race Theory Is Terrible for Dealing with Racism

https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/reasons-critical-race-theory-terrible-dealing-racism/

Glenn Beck STEP BY STEP: Here's how you can use FACTS & logic to argue against critical (race) theory

https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/step-by-step-heres-how-you-can-use-facts-logic-to-argue-against-critical-race-theory

Ben Shapiro - Debunking "Systemic Racism Explained"

https://www.facebook.com/officialbenshapiro/videos/574290026843566

CA Teacher information - "How to talk about Race Packet"

This is eye-opening and in their own words.

https://roar-assets-auto.rbl.ms/documents/7004/Howtotalkabout%20race.pdf

Sunday, December 27, 2020

Should Christians be Patriotic?

What does it mean to be patriotic, and is this something that Christians can or should embrace?

Patriotism is love for, or loyalty to, one's country. We are not citizens of all nations, but of our nation! We are "one nation, under God." and as the Boy Scout oath says, "On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country..." The term, "American Christian," is an adjective followed by a noun. We are Christians first, and Americans second. We have a duty to live as dual citizens of the "City of God and the City of Man" (St. Augustine), and should keep that goal in the foreground as we live our lives and witness to our country. Our true home is not here, but as we journey through life, we are called to be salt and light to our family, community, country, and world.

It wasn't that long ago that most American Christians were proudly patriotic, but recent cultural and progressive changes have greatly influenced the Church. There is now a secular progressive movement that not only decries patriotism, but in fact demonizes our country's founding principles, structure, and values. In fact, some younger believers and pastors have been influenced by theologically liberal interpretations of biblical teachings about how justice relates to the relationship between church and state. As our civilization has moved away from our shared theistic worldview, we have seen major decay in our moral societal fabric. I've discussed this at length here.

The United States was founded on Christian principles and religious freedom. The Christian worldview grounded our founding. In reference to the people of Israel, the psalmist wrote "Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord..." Time and again we see that moral behavior by a corporate nation can be favored or rewarded by God, and immoral behavior punished. God has blessed us for that faithfulness. But in the last 50 years, or so, we've radically abandoned that worldview. There is wholesale rebellion against God and his principles in the hearts of people and in the societal mores.

To be proud in something, it should be in reference to some accomplishment of virtue that can be celebrated. It should exhibit some act or trait worthy of praise and honor. Without these, it can just be called arrogance. So, are there reasons to be proud of our country? Taken as a whole, we can be proud of the good our country has done and continues to do. We are proud of the world leadership our country has displayed against evil, even when it was not in our best interests to do so. We can be proud of the innovative technological advancements our free capitalistic markets allow us to create. We can be grateful to live in a country founded upon sound moral principles. Frankly it is faulty thinking to assume the worst of our country and to claim that it represents the distorted picture claimed by progressives. Is America a defective nation needing redemption or is it a shining light on the hill? We don't celebrate the faults. What rational person would? That is why we can, and should, respect the historic characters of our nation for what they accomplished that was noble, and not for their character flaws.

It is okay to be proud of the things that are good and noble. Are you proud of your family? We want to praise them when they do virtuous things and we want the best for them. The same can be said of our fellow citizens. We can have pride in Judeo-Christian culture, as a whole. One lie told today by the relativists is that all cultures are of equal value. This clearly cannot be the case, since they often have mutually exclusive values and truth claims. Once again, we celebrate what is noble and praiseworthy, such as bravery and self-sacrifice, but not things like greed and selfishness, even though both can be found in any group of people.

Does a flag displayed by a church give a bad message?

Would a reasonable person be offended by a Swiss flag if visiting a church in Switzerland? Would we interpret that to mean that Christianity is married to the Swiss society? Would we misunderstand that they are claiming the superiority of Swiss Christians over all others? Of course not! This should be no more the case than if we have a banner in the sanctuary with the name of our city or local congregation. If that is considered offensive and misunderstood, then perhaps the problem is with the "offended" party? These icons symbolize our association with a community of people in which we are jointly embedded. In fact, Paul was proud of being a Roman citizen and also an Israelite from the tribe of Benjamin. He didn't deny his national identity, even though he clearly said that we are all viewed as equal in Christ.

So what about public endorsements or displays in or by churches? Is is objectively "wrong" to have patriotic displays or events? Is it allowed to honor military service men/women in a church service? Is it morally objectionable for Christians to identify also as citizens of their nation or community? Can a Christian in good conscience say the Pledge of Allegiance? On what basis would such claims be valid? If it is objectively the wrong thing to do, then it is wrong for all. But if it is just preference or personal conviction, then that is different!

It does makes sense to consider the reasons for such identification or promotion. Churches, and their leaders, should be clear about the purpose behind their choices, doctrine, and actions. For instance, why does a congregation display a flag in church? What are their reasons? What are the reasons to make a change at this point in time? One would hope that it is not because of caving in to current cultural demands or perceptions. I really have a hard time thinking that many churches are promoting white nationalism or some sort of nationalized Christianity. I suspect that many do it out of respect for the sacrifices made to keep the freedoms that we have, including the freedom of worship and expression. We rightly should thank God for our country and the freedoms we have here. We should recognize the peace, health, safety, relative prosperity, and freedom it has brought to many here and throughout the world. There is a big difference between giving thanks for a nation and worshipping the nation.

‘I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for all people—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.’ (1 Tim 2:1-2)

The song "America the Beautiful" is a inspirational example of the praiseworthy aspects of our country and its heritage. It praises sacrifice, liberation, pioneers, courage, nobleness, beauty, awesome vistas, patriot dreams, and goodness. These we celebrate, not the failings or mistakes. The flag can serve as a reminder that God is at work in both kingdoms, that we should pray for our country and leaders, of our duty as citizens of this nation, and appreciation for those who served and currently serve in the defense of our freedoms.

Some thoughts about symbols and activities that could "offend" people in the church might be in order here. We do need to be sensitive to the spiritual walk of others, since not everyone is at the same level of maturity. We need to consider the discussion Paul gives about the "weaker brother" in Romans 14 and 1 Cor. 8. On the other hand, this has to be balanced with opportunities to teach, explain, and grow disciples. We don't always do that by acceding to the lowest common denominator. For instance, what if a small minority of people or a visitor finds the American flag to be offensive? Does that immediately mean that it needs to be taken down? As followers of Jesus we should not easily take offense and should be quick to forgive perceived offenses.

Before we answer that, let's take the roof off. For example, if there is one vegan man in the congregation who wants to attend the men's breakfast, but feels he can't fellowship because they have promoted it with "BACON", should it be banned (or potlucks with meat for that matter)? If some people think that the Christmas tree is a pagan symbol and has no place in the church building, then what? Taken to the extreme, we clearly see the flaws in a one-side reaction. This is closely related to the rotten core of the left's cancel culture of today. We need to model real tolerance, and teach by example when needed. Sometimes this can be done publicly, while sometimes we need to take people aside and have more personal discussions.

It is claimed by some that displaying a flag promotes flag worship, or at least confusion about what we worship. This is a very simplistic view that few reasonable people would really conclude from seeing a flag in church. At a minimum, they should not assume the worst motives for the display. Does a flag display harm our ability to reach non-Americans or illegal immigrants? Maybe, but in the same way that a guilty person may feel uncomfortable in a small group with a police officer. Again, unless there is evidence to the contrary, imputing poor motives to the church is the wrong thing to do. Well, doesn't this put needless obstacles to the worship of those visiting from other countries, whether as citizens or immigrants? Not anymore than we would feel in another country. It seems like the right attitude to have is to respect your host country and their traditions. None of these objections hold up as valid, reasonable objectives to displaying an American flag in a Christian church in the United States.

George Washington said “While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.” We might do well to take his advice, instead of the opinions of progressive Millennials. While Christian duties are a higher calling, it does not have to conflict with patriotic character as well.

______________________

Note on Flag Etiquette - "When used on a speaker’s platform, the flag, if displayed flat, should be displayed above and behind the speaker. When displayed from a staff in a church or public auditorium, the flag of the United States of America, should hold the position of superior prominence, in advance of the audience, and in the position of honor at the clergyman’s or speaker’s right as he faces the audience. Prior to the Flag Code changes in 1976, the display procedure was somewhat different. Now the staffed flag should always be placed to the right of the speaker without regard to a platform or floor level."

Monday, December 21, 2020

What We Gained in 2020

In a previous post I discussed some of the losses we had during this last year. For some perspective, let's take a look at what we might have learned or gained from our experiences this last year.

Gain of more family time. Our family has a phrase "Forced Family Time" or FFT, and it is now really that.
Gain of an appreciation for the freedom of assembly and worship. We miss the physical gathering together and personal contact.
Gain of time for spiritual reflection and connection. In times of crisis, many people turn to God and His people for comfort and support, as they realize their own failings and limitations. Christianity never was meant to be for the Lone Ranger, but rather it is a community of believers who have love (ἀγάπη, agapē) for each other.
Gain of opportunities to serve others. No matter who you are, there most likely are others that you can reach out to. We can lend a hand up, or give a shoulder (virtual or not) to cry on.
Gain of more free time to work on projects. Fewer excuses to Get-R-Done.
Gain of more reading and learning time. Time to learn and grow. Time to get lost into both old and new books.
Gain of remote connections. Communicating through Zoom, MS Teams , or others to maintain social and professional contact.
Gain of perspective on what is really important. The important things of life are not material. Rather they are spiritual and relational.
Gain of confidence. We found that we can survive, through the help of God and others. We learned that it is okay to depend on others and to be a lifeline for those that need it.
Gain of solidarity. The knowledge of who will stand by you when things get tough, and who won't, is enlightening. We found out who was willing to do the right things, instead of the expedient ones. We saw who was willing to deny or condone corruption to gain power and control.
Gain of creativity motivation. They say "necessity is the mother of invention." Well, we saw some creative ways to deal with challenges. And we saw some ridiculous solutions too.
Gain of laughter. We saw people responding to challenges in interesting and creative ways that were often "too" out of the box.
Gain of alternative news and social media platforms. We now have sources that don't censor or "fact check" information like Facebook, Twitter, and the main stream media. Parler, MeWe, Gab, NewsMax, BlazeTV, DailyWire, and others provide options for those fed up with the outright bias and social engineering of these other platforms.
Gain of worldview differentiation. We clearly observed the differences between the worldviews and methods of liberals vs. conservatives. We witnessed riots vs. peaceful protests. We saw obvious fraud and illegal stacking the deck in elections vs. legally challenging suspect and invalid election results. Some supported ensuring illegal votes to be counted from ineligible voters, mailing ballots out indiscriminately, and intentionally hiding vote counting processes -- thereby enabling fraud. Others worked to prevent corruption in elections and to prevent it in future ones. One side embraces Machiavellian ethics, where the ends justify the means, while the other side wants integrity and accountability, where only legitimate votes count.
Gain of lowered expenses due to lower auto use. Less commute and travel for some. But more local exploring and adventures.
Gain of more time from reduced commute to work. Now it is just walking into my office with my coffee. Though I do miss my drive-time musings, talk shows, and podcasts.
Gain of appreciation for a full pantry and toilet paper stock. It was amazing to see runs on grocery supplies and transient shortages of basics.
Gain of time to catch up on streaming services. Binging Netflix, or catching up on our favorite shows, provided some escape. It was great to have both the Mandalorian and Star Trek Discovery pay nostalgic homage to the original movies and series.
Gain of a Civil War victory. OSU over U of O. Go Beavs!
Gain of astronomical treats. We got a rare conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn to form a "Christmas Star" on the 2020 Winter Solstice. Don't forget the Comet NEOWISE also.
Gain of gratitude for the miracles of modern medicine and science. Thankfulness for a rapid development of treatments and vaccines for COVID-19. Blessed for skilled doctors that served our family this year and gave us all more time together.

As we leave 2020 behind and move to 2021, I pray that we can soberly mourn what we lost, and embrace and rejoice in what we gained.

Wednesday, December 16, 2020

What We Lost in 2020

The year 2020 has been a hard one, perhaps the hardest most of us have ever experienced. In looking back at this year, there are several things that we have lost or that have been severely damaged. It is yet to be seen if these are permanent.

Loss of life. Probably the first thing that comes to mind is the pandemic caused by a novel virus that originated in China. The deaths due to COVID-19 have cast a shadow on this year. The reactions to it ranged from panic and fear to isolation and anger, as people tried to deal with all the ramifications of a widespread, unknown, and silent disease.
Loss of connections and physical touch. We had isolation of those in the hospitals and care facilities. We avoid handshakes and hugs, which were replaced with elbow bumps and virtual high 5's. When walking down the street or passing someone in a store, we can see the worry and fear of physical contact or even close proximity.
Loss of jobs, dreams, and opportunities to pursue happiness. We've experience unequally applied lockdowns and unjustified persecution of people desperate to preserve their small businesses, while the government favored others. People have lost livelihoods, savings, and homes. Private businesses lost jobs and income, while government employees got paid for not working. Riots and violence against innocent people and businesses destroyed lives and dreams.
Loss of homes due to wildfires. Across the county, we lost many homes, lives, and forests to out of control fires. Whether from decades of forest mismanagement, from climate changes, or just bad luck, the devastation is real. While we can rebuild, it is tragic.
Loss of confidence in the integrity of the election process. Illegal changes in violation of the constitution were allowed to stand. Voting process changes were quickly made that were ill-conceived and that lacked standard safeguards against fraud. When there was obvious fraud, especially in large Democrat controlled swing state cities, courts would not hear or rule on the merits of these challenges. State leaders either are complicit in changing procedures or are unwilling to stand up to the suspicious activity. There is widespread anger and dismay at the perceived loss of integrity in the electoral system where cheating is allowed to stand. We've lost the illusion of fair elections and the ability to address wrongs when uncovered in a timely enough manner to make a difference.
Loss of a media that values truth over agendas. We have seen coverups and lack of real investigative reporting. We got distortions and biased reporting. We had social media platforms do active and biased censoring of controversial opinions and thoughts. Few believe in the independence and fairness of the "fact-checkers." Dictionaries redefine words to fit "woke" agendas. They hid information damaging to preferred political groups, while spreading distortions of records and doing one-sided negative reporting. There is a lack of integrity or apparent interest in discovering the truth. Frequent attacks are made on undercover reporters who find uncomfortable fraud or embarrassing statements and/or activities.
Loss of trust of experts. Several times, the "experts" have made proclamations and then within weeks or months changed their claims. It is becoming obvious that calls to "follow the science" are not necessarily that, but instead are ploys to shut up opposition to their agenda. While there are secure scientific facts in some areas, there are also disputed assertions that are not beyond challenge by rational, informed people.
Loss of freedoms. In a short period of time, we have lost the freedom of association, to travel, to gather in worship, or to even have family holiday events. Mandates were made to force mask wearing and other shutdowns without good scientific justifications. There has been persecution of religious activities and non-enforcement of regulations for preferred political gatherings and riots.
Loss of consent of the governed. The power of the people to be willingly governed with their consent was damaged. Instead, because of fear or lack of will, we allowed "Emergency" declarations and mandates to be issued, often in violation of state laws and constitutions, or far in excess of the lawful limits. When these were challenged, the partisan courts failed to act. State legislative representatives failed to reign in the governors' and mayors' abuse of power.
Loss of respect for political leaders. Many pushed draconian measures, but then were caught doing the same activities themselves. Privileged attitudes show their disdain for the masses. We saw corruption of leaders in government and the "justice" department.
Loss of quality education. Educational experiences have suffered, as online learning has not worked for many. In-person classes have been inconsistently scheduled and then dropped, causing disruptions for many families. Recent college graduates have struggled to find jobs in the pandemic economy, but still face student loan repayments in the near future.
Loss of equal protection under the law. Unequal enforcement and application of laws has become apparent, particularly during the violent protests and riots. Conservative groups and individuals were singled out, while mass unlawfulness was condoned, ignored, or failed to be prosecuted. Voter ballots were subjected to different validation standards based on politics. Loss of respect for authority follows when this kind of injustice is seen.
Loss of Unity. In 2020, America is more divided than ever politically, morally, and philosophically. In many ways, there is little common ground left. Belief in the basic goodness of the fundamental principles of the founding of our nation and culture, or even objective moral grounding of our society, is no longer shared. There is a widening of the divide between conservatives and progressive liberals based on greatly divergent views of morality and goals.
Loss of respect for laws and law enforcement. Active calls for abolishing or defunding the police abound. There have been attacks and murders of police and pro-police supporters. Leftist protestors have consistently called for killing police, have falsely claimed that police purposefully kill blacks, and often even assault officers. Even public figures attack their integrity.
Loss of political balance. We see it within the Democrat party, as it has increasingly become more socialist and radically anti-traditional values and institutions. Loss of unity also showed within the Republican party, as it became polarized between Trump supporters believing in pro-American policies, and the "deep state", entrenched establishment, and never-Trumpers actively seeking to undermine his agenda. Power struggles rule the day.
Loss of real tolerance. Cancel culture and restrictions of free speech now reign. Social media claims disinformation and/or selectively filters content and reach because of disputed claims. There is widespread disgust/dismay at the so-called "justice" movement by many. We jail those politically opposed, but free criminals in the name of saving them from COVID-19. We hear calls to abolish or reduce penalties for violent criminals, yet mourn the executions of murderers. We have legalized or decriminalized drugs, both hard and popular, but we don't tolerate those who disagree. True tolerance allows differences of opinions to be held, debated, and challenged. The new tolerance demonizes and attacks those who disagree.
Loss of the joy of gathering together and watching sports. Because of pandemic overreactions, we cancelled many events and placed ridiculous restrictions on players practicing and interacting with each other. We had "bubbles" and limited schedules. We had coaches forced to wear masks, but not the players. We had empty stadiums filled with cardboard cutouts and canned crowd noise. Seems more like the Truman Show than real life.
Loss of entertainment quality and quantity. Delayed or cancelled TV/movie production caused a shortage of new content. Many movies were delayed being released in theaters because they couldn't make enough money with mostly empty theaters either. Ironically, people are tempted to have too much screen time and have less healthy activity. While not new, almost every show now has to push political, social, and immoral agendas down our throats.
Loss of biological common sense. There is less safety, modesty, fairness, and common sense about biology in sports competition and in locker rooms. Court rulings demanded that men who self-identify as women be allowed to compete against biological women and to have equal access to women's locker rooms. Many women lost scholarship opportunities and were denied the ability to compete on a level playing field. In the locker room, we lost the right to innocence and the normalcy of not having opposite sex people see one naked.
Loss of sports as an escape. Another sports loss was when we had to choose between enjoying a game or being forced to watch players disrespect our country and flag. In the name of a Marxist political movement, they openly displayed banners, wore slogans, and showed disdain for our country. The protests are based on the false premise that America is a fatally flawed, racist country and that our core institutions need to be destroyed and remade in their utopian vision of human nature. Can't we just enjoy some entertainment without having an agenda thrown in our face?
Loss of hope. Probably one of the biggest losses for many this year was a loss of hope. Hope that eventually this will pass. Hope that we will get back to normal and not have to accept a "new" normal. Hope that none of their loved ones will be lost because of a disease or to die alone. Hope that our nation will not be radically changed forever. Suicides are up. Abuse is up. Drug and alcohol use is up. We are less healthy and more stressed.

So is there hope? I believe there is, but it is not to be found in secular philosophies, social engineering, or nontheistic worldviews. Ultimately it is found in the Christian faith. But we can't give up either and the fight needs to go on, even when it looks bleak. Evil wins when good people refuse to stand up and fight against it. We are called to be both Salt and Light in the world. We are called to be in the world, but not of it. We can't do that by refusing to play our part.

Thursday, November 12, 2020

Book Review - Thinking About Evolution

Thinking About Evolution: 25 questions Christians want answered
By AJ Roberts, Fuz Rana, Sue Dykes, and Mark Perez

The multidisciplinary team of authors brings clarity on exactly what evolution is, and what it is not. They examine which aspects of evolution are on sound footing, and where there are legitimate grounds to be skeptical of the evolutionary paradigm. With expertise in molecular biology, biochemistry, paleoanthropology, Christian apologetics, and analytical philosophy, they present a creation model view of interpreting the evidence, comparing and contrasting the scope and explanatory power of this model to current evolutionary models of the origin and development of life on the earth.

I appreciate that the book starts out with a clear definition of Old-Earth Creationism (OEC), sometimes called Progressive Creationism, as clarity is always valuable and helps to head off misunderstandings and straw man arguments. Reasons to Believe's (RTB) insistence on harmony between Creation and Scripture, or Science and Faith, is biblical and warranted. It reflects the Creator's character and his revelation to humanity.

The book includes enough detail on the various subjects to highlight the salient issues at play. The authors appear to be fair in their evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the various topics. While they are overall skeptical of the ability of evolution to account for the full diversity and history of life on Earth, they provide balanced expert analysis based on their research experience and training.

The authors put forth a very important observation: that data, and even science itself, explains nothing, but that it is scientists who explain things! These explanations are based on interpretations of the evidence, prior knowledge and observations, worldviews and presuppositions, and even the nature of reality. While facts are things that are true, it may not always be possible to demonstrate with certainty that something is true, even if it is. Theories and scientific paradigms are put forward by scientists to explain the data and are meant to be tested. However, it is a dangerous thing to protect certain ideas from being challenged freely (e.g. the modern Theory of Evolution), even if widely accepted. There is a trend in our society to silence dissent instead of promoting open discussion and not tolerate disagreement.

Another takeaway from the book was that it is critical to define terms like "evolution", "information", or "transitional forms." For instance, there are several different kinds of naturalistic evolution, each with different levels of empirical support and each based on differing levels of inference. These include chemical evolution, microevolution, microbial evolution, speciation, and macroevolution. It is a mistake to conflate the different definitions and then make blanket statements about the truth or falsehood of the subject.

The question/answer format is very useful, as it encourages its use as a reference for those seeking thoughtful answers. It lends itself readily for small group discussions, as well. While each topic could easily take up several chapters, the pertinent content is provided, objections are addressed, and references are included for further study.

A valuable side panel in the book discussed different types of reasoning. These include deductive, inductive, abductive, and defeasible reasoning, and the levels of certainty that we can get from each type. The latter two types may not be as familiar. Abductive reasoning, also known as inference to the best explanation, is often used by researchers or detectives during investigations. Defeasible reasoning, or belief revision, is used to amend conclusions, models, explanations, or beliefs when new evidence is given.

The authors make the point that while most scientists today accept evolution, they still have disagreements over the underlying mechanisms proposed. In this context, they provide an interesting quote by Thomas Huxley, “In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." Huxley disagreed strongly with Darwin on the mechanisms, but still supported the concepts.

One important question asked in the book, "Is such bulldogged tenacity in clinging to evolution due to the science or to something else?" I think it is fair to conclude that philosophical naturalism and other worldview considerations are at play. Science has limits and is not the sole source of truth, so we must integrate experiences, philosophy, and reason, with scientific studies, to get a comprehensive perspective on reality. Truth is what corresponds to reality!

So, is evolution compatible with Christianity? The authors conclude "No!" For example, they ask, "If evolutionary mechanisms can explain everything in biology, what role would there have been for a Creator to play?" They question that if we were created by unguided, naturalistic processes, then in what way are we special or distinct from other animals? What purpose is there to life if we are the products of mindless processes? In what way can we justify the dignity and worth of the individual humans? Giving up a historical Adam and Eve as the first humans, directly created by God, seems to be too high a theological price and undermines many core Christian doctrines.

This quote gets to the heart of the authors' perspective, "To claim as Crick once did that nature was not designed but rather evolved asserts a belief, not a fact. Those who repeat an assertion of apparent-but-not-real design do not know whether the assertion is true or not. They are not better scientists than those who claim design; they are worse philosophers." The appearance of design in biological systems is overwhelmingly obvious, so why must there actually be no teleology or design, and hence a Designer? The authors believe it is not only justified and rational to believe in a Designer, but that such a conclusion is actually the best explanation of the data.

In contrast, I found it very interesting (and surprising) that in the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) there is currently serious discussion of agency being involved in the process. Agency implies teleology or design. They are suggesting that since natural selection alone appears to be insufficient to drive the observed changes, that somehow the cell actually acts as an agent in preserving changes that could be useful in the future! This is provocative to say the least.

This book is thought provoking and a great overview of the current state of evolutionary theory. I commend it to anyone who has struggled with integrating their faith with current scientific discoveries. It is not, and never has been, an either or proposition!

Thinking About Evolution - Publisher Site

Amazon