Christianity and Western Society

I've often wondered about how and why "western societies" were able to become so much more advanced than many of the surrounding cultures after the dark ages. Most historians in the west now tell us that it was European greed and exploitation that caused so many of the advances in science and industry that western societies enjoyed at the expense of other cultures.

I've often thought in terms of the Europeans taking advantage of more useful and plentiful natural resources than, say, those in Africa and the middle east at the time. But there are some interesting ideas outlined in this interview of Rodney Stark. Most of the story has to do with misconceptions about the Crusades, but I hadn't really thought about the impact of Christianity being the dominant religion in western society:

"Christianity was the basis of western civilization. When you look at western civilization and see what it has, it came from Christianity. The notion that somehow western science broke through against the resistance of religion is total nonsense. Without the religious background, there wouldn't be any science, because the fundamental notion that separated the West from everybody else was the notion that God is rational and created a rational universe, so there were rules out there to be discovered.

"Nobody else looked for the rules, because they didn't believe they were there to be found. They didn't believe that the world had been created in the same rational way. The marvelous thing is that these early Christian scientists, including Newton, believed God had created a rational world, went ahead and looked for the rules of that rational world -- and darned if they didn't find them. In an interesting sense, it was a scientific confirmation of the Christian religion."

With respect to Muslim societies, specifically, many of the aspects of their religious beliefs had the opposite impact on their development:

"On religious grounds, Muslim scientists would have faced many challenges. It was widely held theologically that the notion of physical law was blasphemous. The laws of science presumed to limit the power of Allah, and therefore they could not be true. Clocks and printing presses were prohibited for centuries on the grounds that they were somehow blasphemous.

"Implied in the notion of scientific law, Muslim theologians felt, was that Allah would not be free to do whatever he pleased, whenever he pleased. They did not imagine Allah as the Great Clockmaker. He does as he pleases. That creates two impediments. One is it basically declares science itself heretical. But second, and more important, it says that science is impossible. If the concept of scientific law is regarded as theologically contradictory, then there are no rules there to be found. So who is going to go looking for rules that do not exist?

"You have astrology all over the world, but scientific astronomy only really happened in Europe. You have alchemy all over the world, but it turned into chemistry only once -- in Europe. And so it goes. And that's why in the 15th and 16th centuries, the Europeans could sail around the world, when everyone else could only row around a "lake" like the Mediterranean.

"The most surprising discovery for Europe when the age of exploration began was not the discovery of the New World or the civilizations in the Americas. It was the fact that the whole rest of the world was so far behind them. They had rather assumed that China would be way ahead of them. But that wasn't the way it was."

Hope and Change

I've been a little burned out on politics lately, and after a discouraging election it's been difficult to find the motivation to blog. I'm thinking I'll switch gears a little bit and focus more on theology and maybe some local issues. I'll still be keeping an eye on the political world, as I believe that politics and public policy should be a major focus for Christians to put their faith into practice. As Obama's prospective presidency is shaping up to look more and more like a sick mutation of Clinton and Carter part two, there will no doubt be many opportunities to comment on his performance.

As I've said before, I sincerely hope he proves me wrong and does a good job of leading us through a difficult time. I'll support him when he makes the right decisions, and call him out when he doesn't. In the end, we are called to support and pray for our leaders, following their leadership whenever it does not directly contradict Scripture. Ligon Duncan has some good things to say about our situation on Reformation 21:

We ought to commit ourselves to pray for our new President, for his wife and family, for his administration, and for the nation. We will do this, not only because of the biblical command to pray for our rulers, but because of the second greatest commandment "Love your neighbor" and what better way to love your neighbor, than to pray for his well-being. Those with the greatest moral and political differences with the President-Elect ought to ask God to engender in them, by His Spirit, genuine neighbor-love for Mr. Obama...

We will pray that God would change President-Elect Obama's mind and heart on issues of crucial moral concern. May God change his heart and open his eyes to see abortion as the murder of the innocent unborn, to see marriage as an institution to be defended, and to see a host of issues in a new light. We must pray this from this day until the day he leaves office. God is sovereign, after all.

For those Christians who are more dismayed than overjoyed about the prospects of an Obama presidency, there should be a remembrance that as our President, Barack Obama will have God-given authority to govern us, and that we should view him as a servant of God (Rom. 13:1, 4) to whom we should be subject (Rom. 13:1, 5; 1 Pet. 2:13-14). Thus, again, we are to pray for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2). We are to thank God for Barack Obama (1 Tim. 2:1-2). We are to respect Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7). We are to honor Barack Obama (Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:17)...

Without doubt and whatever our particular views may be, we face hard days ahead. Realistically, we must all expect to be frustrated and disappointed. Some now may feel defeated and discouraged. While others may all-too-soon find their audacious hopes unfounded and unrealized. We must all keep ever in mind that it is God who raises up leaders and nations, and it is God who pulls them down, and who judges both nations and rulers. We must not act or think like unbelievers, or as those who do not trust God.

100

Apparently, this is my 100th post since stepping into the blogging realm. I hate to be so gloomy at such a milestone, but things are not looking good for conservatives. Most of the folks "in the know" within conservative circles are preparing for a very bad day on November 4. John McCain remains the only hope for salvaging something from what looks more and more like an impending electoral slaughter. And even his chances have been severely hindered by the current economic mess.

I was pretty optimistic a month ago, with the race virtually tied in a political climate that should have provided any competent Democrat with an easy victory. The economic crisis has changed all that. Never mind that it was Democrats who got us into this mess in the first place. Americans are too apathetic and ignorant to bother finding out the real causes for this crisis. The GOP was in charge, so it must be their fault. Unfortunately, it looks like this ignorance may help to put those people in place who can do the most harm in such a situation.

Some are now talking about a 60 vote, filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Even Saxby may now be in trouble. If this does occur, we're in deep horse manure - especially with Barry McSocialism in the White House, ready to sign whatever take-from-the-rich-and-give-to-the-poor plan Reid and Pelosi can come up with. It's all very depressing to be honest. Thankfully, we have some assurance that we're not really at the mercy of the ignorant masses:

"Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him. It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to men of understanding." Daniel 2:20,21

Who knows...a lot can happen in 3 weeks time. If John McCain can come out swinging in this last debate, challenging Obama on all of his lies and distortions, he can go a long way towards energizing his base, if nothing else. But if not, we can rest in the fact that God has proven in the past that His will can be accomplished by, or in spite of, even the worst of leaders.

Besides, Rush was at his most entertaining when America had its last bad president. If nothing else, the inevitable resurgence of conservatism after the Carter-like performance we are sure to get from Obama shows, once again, the idiocy of liberalism, will make it all worth while.

Dirty Campaign Tricks

I learned a new term today - astroturfing - and apparently David Axelrod's name is synonymous with this lame tactic. Here we see yet another attempt by the Obama campaign to manufacture support from evangelical Christians. Conservative blogs across the net are experiencing an upswing in "Concerned Conservative Christians" who are suddenly spouting Obama campaign talking points.

Fortunately, it's easy to spot these morons. They almost always give themselves away by acting out the caricature of conservative Christians they have in their own mind.

And now, a PR firm with connections to the Obama campaign has been posting professionally made videos on YouTube, pretending that they're the result of a new "grassroots movement." They know they've been caught, and are already taking the videos down. Fortunately, the folks on our side made back-ups.

Seriously guys. This is pathetic.

Wishful Thinking

More proof that Obama is the political messiah that his worshippers think him to be:

He is apparently going to demonstrate that he is able to create, from nothing, a brand new species of supporter for his faltering campaign. How will he accomplish this unprecedented feat? Easy. By producing thousands of yard signs, bumper stickers, and buttons, appropriately labelled for said species of supporter. Think of it as a new take on "If you build it, they will come."

Get your "Believers for Barack" campaign paraphernalia, and become a part of Barry's newest experiment in wishful thinking. Check out the link to the campaign email, encouraging "people of all faith backgrounds" to become a Believer for Barack. In other words, it doesn't matter what you are a believer in, just that you believe something....which pretty much includes everyone on this planet. And now you know why he's the messiah.

Church & Statism

R.C. Sproul, one of my favorite modern theologians, has an excellent article in his latest version of Tabletalk Magazine about why Christians should be opposed to the ever growing size and supremacy of government. It's long been clear that this nation has moved beyond mere "separation of church and state", into a complete separation of government from God. Most today would probably argue that this is as it should be, but it certainly is not what was intended by the founding fathers.

"...initially both the church and the state were seen as entities ordained by God and subject to His governance. In that sense, the state was considered to be an entity that was “under God.” What has happened in the past few decades is the obfuscation of this original distinction between church and state, so that today the language we hear of separation of church and state, when carefully exegeted, communicates the idea of the separation of the state from God. In this sense, it’s not merely that the state declares independence from the church, it also declares independence from God and presumes itself to rule with autonomy.

The whole idea of a nation under God has been challenged again and again, and we have seen the exponential growth of government in our land, particularly the federal government, so that the government now virtually engulfs all of life...Where we have seen the largest measure of the loss of liberty is with respect to the function of the church. Though the church is still somewhat tolerated in America (in a way it was not tolerated in Mao’s Red China and under Stalin), it is tolerated only when it remains outside of the public square. In other words, the church has been relegated to a status not unlike that given to the native Americans, where the tribes were allowed to continue to exist as long as they functioned safely on a reservation, outside of any significant influence on the government. So although the church has not been banished completely by the statism that has emerged in America, it has been effectively banished from the public square.

Throughout the history of the Christian church, Christianity has always stood over against all forms of statism. Statism is the natural and ultimate enemy to Christianity because it involves a usurpation of the reign of God."

Nanny-Statism has become the norm in America, and liberals would have it become all-encompassing. Let the government take care of your every need. Who needs freedom anyway? It's time we put a stop to this nonsense, and start taking care of ourselves and our neighbors. If Christians will stand up and do a better job of taking care of each other and those in need, we wouldn't have any reason to let the government do it (or try to do it...badly). God is our provider - not government.

The Saddleback Forum

First of all, let me say that my fears about the Saddleback forum were for the most part unrealized. I think, all things considered, that was about as good as we could have expected from this kind of event. I want to say that I'm proud of Rick Warren for not avoiding the issue of abortion, and Obama's answer to the abortion question was very revealing for any pro-life voter.

Warren: "At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?"

Obama: "Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade...[several minutes of posturing and dancing around any actual answer to the question]...I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe V. Wade and come to that conclusion not because I am pro-abortion, but because ultimately I don't think women make these decisions casually...[bold-faced lie about making the Democrat Party platform less radical on abortion and typical liberal drivel about keeping abortion 'rare']..."

Thank you, Pastor Warren, for forcing the Obamessiah into revealing his atypical, ultra-liberal-wanting-to-win-a-national-election abortion stance: "I am personally against abortion, but don't have the courage to stand against it." What if William Wilberforce had taken the same approach to slavery? Obama's answer to this question reveals how out of touch he is with the evengelical community on a very important issue.

More on Saddleback

I've really been trying to reserve judgement for the much anticipated Saddleback forum until after it takes place. For those of us who have been hoping and praying that Rick Warren would use this high-profile event to advance the Kingdom will not have our confidence boosted by this news.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama camp insisted on Faith In Public Life being included in the process as a condition for his participation. They certainly represent his version of Christianity. I'm really trying to give Warren the benefit of the doubt here, but I'm becoming less optimistic by the day.

Evangelicals & Politics

There is a very interesting study out by the Barna Group concerning voters and their presidential candidate preferences. I recommend that you read the entire study, as it gives some very good insight into why people are supporting their candidate of choice. But the most interesting aspect of the study is the fact that the Barna Group shows McCain with a huge lead (61%-17%) over Obama among evangelicals. Now this certainly doesn't play into the narrative we've been getting from many media outlets over the last few months. I've read countless articles about Obama's supposedly strong support among "evangelicals", but as this study points out, very few surveys bother to determine whether their subjects are truly evangelical.

One of the most frequently reported on groups of voters is evangelicals. Most media polls use a simplistic approach to defining evangelicals, asking survey respondents if they consider themselves to be evangelical. Barna Group surveys, on the other hand, ask a series of nine questions about a person’s religious beliefs in order to determine if they are an evangelical. The differences between the two approaches are staggering.

Using the common approach of allowing people to self-identify as evangelicals, 40% of adults classify themselves as such. Among them, 83% are likely to vote in November. Among the self-reported evangelicals who are likely to vote, John McCain holds a narrow 39% to 37% lead over Sen. Obama. Nearly one-quarter of this segment (23%) is still undecided about who they will vote for.

Using the Barna approach of studying people’s core religious beliefs produces a very different outcome. Just 8% of the adult population qualifies as evangelical based on their answers to the nine belief questions. Among that segment, a significantly higher proportion (90%) is likely to vote in November, and Sen. McCain holds a huge lead (61%-17%) over the Democratic nominee. Overall, just 14% of this group remains undecided regarding their candidate of choice.

This certainly ties in to something I wrote about several weeks ago, when I noted a Pew survey which showed that nearly 60% of evangelicals believed that "many religions lead to eternal life." So, if only 8% of the adult population in this country qualifies for Barna's standard of evangelicalism, what kind of standards are they using?

"Born again Christians" are defined as people who said they have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior. Respondents are not asked to describe themselves as "born again."

"Evangelicals" meet the born again criteria (described above) plus seven other conditions. Those include saying their faith is very important in their life today; believing they have a personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs about Christ with non-Christians; believing that Satan exists; believing that eternal salvation is possible only through grace, not works; believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; asserting that the Bible is accurate in all that it teaches; and describing God as the all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect deity who created the universe and still rules it today. Being classified as an evangelical is not dependent upon church attendance or the denominational affiliation of the church attended. Respondents were not asked to describe themselves as "evangelical."

Non-evangelical born again Christians meet the born again criteria described above, but not the evangelical criteria.

Nearly half the people in this country think of themselves as Christians. But if only 8% can qualify as evangelical by meeting the very basic requirements listed above, which pretty much represent the basic definition of Christianity, we're in bigger trouble than I thought.

Rick Warren Goes to Washington

Okay, so it's more like Washington comes to Rick Warren, but you get the idea. I wrote a while back about the two presidential candidates' upcoming appearance at Saddleback. In that post, I wondered whether Rick Warren would have the courage to ask difficult questions of the two candidates, especially concerning Obama's stance on abortion. Well, it looks like I'm not the only one wondering about these things.

Hunter has posted an open letter to Rick Warren over at Redstate, challenging him to force Obama to explain his support for partial birth abortions, his efforts to defeat the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, and his support for abortion on demand in general. I realize that the Saddleback forum is supposed to focus on other things like poverty and HIV/AIDS, issues that Warren has been championing within the church for years. But I would have to argue that the issue of infant murder within our own nation is of more importance right now.

In fact, as I pointed out in my previous post, Rick Warren openly encouraged pastors and other leaders to support President Bush in 2004 for this and other reasons. I'm a little confused as to why he doesn't seem to be taking the same stand in this election.

Of course, I'd also love to see Pastor Warren challenge Obama on his embrace of liberal theology and the social gospel, asking questions that would reveal his selective affinity for the red letters over those other inconvenient "obscure passages", but that would probably be asking too much.

Presidential Politics & The Church

Rick Warren, author of the hugely popular "The Purpose Driven Life" and pastor of the influential Saddleback Church in California, has been stepping into the world of politics more and more lately. In an effort to encourage both his church, and the church as a whole, to be more involved in surrounding culture and society, he has established the P.E.A.C.E Plan. This plan is described as a "50 year strategy to mobilize millions of local churches around the world to address five global problems: spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease and illiteracy." Last November, the church hosted a Global Summit on AIDS and The Church at which Hillary Clinton gave an address, and the church is involved in numerous programs which encourage churches and members to address the problems they see throughout our society.

In another attempt to engage his flock, and other believers around the world, in this very important election, Saddleback will be the host of a Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion on August 16. Both John McCain and Barack Obama have accepted the invitation to speak at the event, and I will be extremely interested to see how this plays out. I certainly agree that the church needs to be more involved in helping to solve the problems that plague our society, and I realize that the church, as a whole, has not done enough to address these problems up to now. I also wish that our churches would become more involved in the political process. The more liberal mainstream denominations have been politically active for years, and I think it's high time the more orthodox believers stopped withdrawing from society and started changing it for The Kingdom.

I want to believe that Pastor Warren has the right intentions, I know that he wants to see the Gospel advanced, but he seems to be edging ever closer toward programs for social change, and developing the marketing scheme for his ministries, at the expense of preaching truth from Scripture. My concern is that this particular foray into presidential politics will end up like the AIDS forum back in November, at which Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation, and lavish praise from Rick Warren himself after presenting a speech that was at best an endorsement of the Social Gospel - which is no Gospel at all. This is the danger when a church begins to focus too much on social change, and not enough on the Gospel. We need to find a happy medium, but recognize that social change should come as a result of a saving knowledge of Christ, through a church that is focused on the Great Commission. I sincerely hope that Mr. Warren will engage Barack Obama and John McCain on the issues that concern Christian voters, including abortion, but I'm not optimistic. Pastor Warren has done a great deal in raising awareness about AIDS and poverty around the globe, but lately says very little about this particular plague, which claims the lives of over a million children every year IN THIS COUNTRY.

Back in 2004 Rick Warren openly encouraged other pastors and Christians to vote for George W. Bush, citing a number of issues that he deemed to be of extreme importance to believers, and claiming that "those of us who accept the Bible as God's Word" should get out the vote for Bush. This election, he seems to be trying to chart a more moderate course, and I can't understand his reasoning for this. Those issues haven't changed - they are still crucial to the direction of this nation - and the Biblical position on those issues remains the same as well. On August 17, the day after this Civil Forum, Pastor Warren will give a sermon entitled "Making Up Your Mind: Questions to Consider Before the Election." It will be very interesting to see what advice he gives to his flock after hearing what the candidates have to say.

Help Dr. Dobson

Dr. Dobson ticked me off many months ago when he stated that he wouldn't support John McCain in the general election. It was a childish reaction to the reality that we as Christians live in a democracy with many who don't think as we do, but I still have tremendous respect for what he has done to expand God's Kingdom. He has deservedly been nominated for inclusion in the Radio Hall of Fame, and needs our help. Few have had as much of an impact on radio as he has, and he continues to draw millions of listeners every day.

A group called Truth Wins Out is trying prevent him from being included based on the fact that they disagree with his ideology. That's right - a liberal group is trying to ban someone from inclusion in the hall of fame because he doesn't believe what they do. That champion of tolerance and diversity, the American Left, is discriminating against someone based on their religious beliefs. This only confirms what we all know to be true - tolerance and diversity of thought is only okay when it doesn't involve conservative Christians and their beliefs.

Go vote for Dr. Dobson today, and help defeat this hypocritical nonsense.

Obama and "Evangelicals"

Our favorite presidential candidate has formed a new organization to help himself appeal to "young evangelicals." The Joshua Generation will apparently focus on attracting people, well, like me...

well, he can try...

But there is a group of "evangelicals" who are backing the Obama in droves. The Emergent Church movement seems to love him. I've been doing a bit of research on this new movement, and I have to admit that it doesn't surprise me one bit that the Emergents are backing Barack. The Emergent movement seems to be just a re-packaging of early 20th century theological liberalism. This group is seeking to change Christianity and how it relates to the surrounding culture. We're too old-fashioned, and need to adapt to a "post-modern" society, dontcha-know. The bottom line is that it ends up watering down the one and only Truth of Scripture by placing it in a man-made box. And, once again, we end up with the Social Gospel:

Jesus came to show us all how to live, not "save us." I mean, like, save us from what? We're all, like, basically good, right? People don't want to hear all this stuff about needing a Saviour...we need to, like, totally relate to people on their level...find out how to meet their needs and make them feel good inside...and stuff.

Forget about doctrine, or defining what we believe in any way. That's all up to the individual, right? We're all enlightened by now, anyway. Evolution has taken it's course, and we don't need to believe those silly fairy-tales in the bible to get to heaven, or wherever...

It's no wonder so many of these folks can get past Obama's support for an abomination like abortion on demand, or his blasphemous "spiritual advisors" - not to mention his complete lack of anything like experience or qualification for the job. It's all about soaring rhetoric and hope/change you can believe in, after all. Tony Jones, one of the leading voices of the Emerging movement seems to be very proud of the fact that he's a "fiercely independent" voter. It sounds like the only thing his vote is independent of, is a Biblical worldview.

Evangelicals and the GOP

I thought this might make for a nice introductory post for my new blog. It seems that a certain branch of the GOP base may still harbor some resentment over the results of our primary:

"An element of the Christian community is not reconciled to McCain's candidacy but instead regards the prospective presidency of Barack Obama in the nature of a Biblical plague visited upon a sinful people. These militants look at former Baptist preacher Huckabee as "God's candidate" running for president in 2012. Whether they can be written off as merely a troublesome fringe group depends on Huckabee's course."

Now I'm no fan of Mike Huckabee*, but I have to say that if this ends up hurting the GOP in the November election, some within the establishment will have had it coming. The disdain for those of us who hold to the traditional Christian faith, and our past and future role in the party we helped propel into the majority, was widely evident among many of conservatism's most established names and publications. Much was written about this at the time, and most of us have since moved on, but it seems that there is a faction of hardcore former supporters who have resigned themselves to a necessary time in the wilderness. I would never advocate such a course, and though I am not necessarily excited about McCain as our nominee, I will support him fully as the infinitely superior alternative to either Democrat.

*While I can certainly understand Huckabee's appeal to fellow evangelicals, I consider myself to be an "across-the-board" conservative, and Huckabee's policy and rhetoric on fiscal issues seriously bothered me. The spin from his supporters never managed to convince me over his tax record as governor; and his populist ideas about using government to regulate CEO salaries, among other things, pretty much ended any ideas I had about supporting him early on.