Month: December 2006

Categories
Justice

Year-End Giving: Justice

If you are thinking about year-end charitable giving, let me highlight one organization that I think exemplifies Kingdom values: International Justice Mission. IJM works to bring freedom and justice to child slaves, sex workers, and other exploited people around the world. I read IJM founder Gary Haugen’s book, Good News About Injustice, in an airport a number of years ago and it brought tears to my eyes. The IJM website also has other great resources on injustice around the world.

Categories
Spirituality

New Years' Resolutions Prayers

Now that Christmas is over — I can’t believe it! — it’s time for New Years’ resolutions. I’m not so big on resolutions, which depend on my own resolve. Here instead are some hopes, goals and prayers:

My fundamental prayer for the new year is that I would become more like Jesus. Ok, stop rolling your eyes. I mean it. I want to be deep, rich, and masterful at loving God and loving others. I want to see those who are cursed be blessed; those who are imprisoned be set free; those who are afraid be calmed; those who are mourning be comforted. I want to see cycles of oppression broken, conflicts resolved into peace, lost sheep found.

In his beautiful little book Living the Sermon on the Mount, Glen Stassen asks, “What greater meaning in life can there be to participate, even in a little way, like a mustard seed, in the deliverance that God brings in Jesus?” (LTSM at 44). Stassen notes that “[l]iving the Sermon on the Mount is the way of grace. It is the way of Jesus. It is the way of the breakthrough of the reign of God.” (LTSM at 184) This is how I want to live in the coming year.

Here, then, are some specific things I’ve been thinking and praying about as ways in which I think the reign of God hopefully can continually break through in and through me:

Continue reading “New Years' Resolutions Prayers”
Categories
Spirituality

Christmas Wonder

In church this morning, our pastor had some kids read from the accounts of Jesus’ birth in the Bible, and then asked them some questions about what they had read. One girl read the angel’s words to Mary in Mark chapter 1: “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.”

“How do you think Mary felt when she heard those words from an angel?”, the pastor asked the girl. The girl was a bit awestruck at the fact that she was standing in front of hundreds of people, being asked a question by the pastor. She couldn’t respond, and stood there quietly. “I think you’re right,” the pastor said, “Mary was probably amazed!”

What a wonderful moment! The king of kings and lord of lords, the eternal logos, the maker of heaven and earth, emptying himself of privilege to become one of us, to redeem us. We are right to be awed and amazed. And then, as Mary did, to sing with joy:

“for the Mighty One has done great things for me—
holy is his name.
His mercy extends to those who fear him,
from generation to generation.” (Mark 1:49-50)

Merry Christmas!

Categories
Uncategorized

Today I participated in a blogger’s conference call graciously hosted by Joe Carter of the Family Research Council. The guests were Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley and Anthony Picarello of the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. The discussion centered on an Iowa District Court’s decision finding Prison Fellowship’s Innerchange Initiative, an anti-recidivism program, unconstitutional.

I should note that I greatly admire Prison Fellowship and its Innerchange program. This is exactly the sort of thing the Chuch is supposed to do in the world. From what I know of the Beckett Fund, I admire their religious liberty work as well. I’m an ardent advocate of religious liberty. In this particular instance, however, it seems to me that Prison Fellowship’s strategy was misguided and that the arguments the Beckett Fund is making slice the salami pretty thin.

Early and Picarello highlighted the troublesome aspects of the Iowa court’s ruling: the court unnecessarily traipsed into a definition of “evangelical” Christianity based on the testimony of one expert witness (who isn’t an evangelical), and levied an absurdly large restitution award against IFI. I think they are correct about these aspects of the opinion.

Early and Picarello also argued that the court’s opinion could be read to eliminate any federal funding for the activities of any person whose personal convictions are fundamentally religious. I think this is a major stretch. I discussed the case at some length when it was first decided. In my view, Prison Fellowship was trying to have it both ways in this instance. On the one hand, they base their program on the belief that true and deep change only happens through acceptance of Christ; on the other, they argued in court that there are “secular” aspects of the program that are separable from these particularly religious and evangelical ones and therefore appropriately subject to federal funding.

It was nice to be able to have a lively exchange with Early and Picarello on the conference call (I hope I didn’t butt in too much). They are clearly both capable people. However, I don’t feel that they were able to answer my concerns in a satisfactory way. Picarello argued that the Iowa ruling could concievably extend to say, a schoolteacher who in a general way feels that teaching kids is a form of witness and ministry. Anything is possible, I suppose, but this seems highly unlikely, to say the least. The Iowa ruling deals with a specific program / ministry, the fundamental goal of which is to convert inmates to Christianity and encourage them in their Christian faith. That goal is implemented through explicity Christian evangelistic meetings and extensive Christian teaching. It isn’t just offering a “cup of cold water” or having a generally religious personal motivation for an otherwise routine activity like teaching high school English.

Early and Picarello also suggested that the Iowa ruling could apply not only to federally funded recidivism programs, but also to privately funded ones. This would indeed be a problem. I’m not sure I see how this is so, however. The court held that IFI was a “public actor,”and that “as providers of a state-funded treatment program, they are burdened with the same responsibilities of any state employee: to respect the civil rights of all persons, including the First Amendment’s prohibition on indoctrinating others in their form of religion.” (Opinion at 100, emphasis added).

I think the question here arises from the ancillary benefits provided to inmates who attend the program, and the court’s factual conclusion that there are no meaningful alternatives to IFI in that particular prison system. If prisoners get benefits such as early release, and there is no other non-religious alternative, a court might find an establishment clause problem. During the call, Picarello noted that the court simply got the facts wrong here; there were other meaningful alternatives. In any event, I’m having trouble seeing the more sweeping constitutional implications Picarello alludes to. This seems to me more like a factual question about this particular prison system, which the court may or may not have gotten right.

Thanks again to Joe Carter for setting up the call and to Mark Earley and Anthony Picarello for participating. As always, I welcome comments from folks with different perspectives. Am I getting this one wrong and overreacting to the “religious right” overtones?

Categories
Looking Glass

Through the Looking Glass — Christian History and other Blogs

I came across these interesting sites today:

Early Christian History — James Crossley, a prof at the University of Sheffield, England, discusses historical studies relating to early Christianity.

Paleojudaica – “a weblog on ancient Judaism and its context,” by James Davila, Lecturer in Early Jewish Studies, University of St. Andrews, Scotland.

Evangelical Textual Criticism — “a forum for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages to discuss its manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.”

Hypotyposeis — Biblical studies blog of Stephen Carlson.

Categories
Law and Policy

Cobb County Evolution Settlement

The Cobb County, Georgia School Board has settled a case concerning text book stickers with disclaimers about the theory of evolution. The Board agreed not to continue the sticker policy, which had already been abandoned.

I haven’t studied this case in any depth and don’t know the politics that led up to this settlement, so I’m only going to make a couple of provisional comments. My initial reaction is that I find some aspects of the Consent Order settling this case disturbing.

For example, paragraph 2(a) of the order enjoins the school board and its agents, employees, and successors from “making any disclaimers regarding evolution orally, in writing, or by any other means.” Paragraph 3 of the Order states that it is binding on the school board “and its officers and members in perpetuity, notwithstanding any changes to the Board’s membership that may result from further elections, appointments, vacancies, or other changes to the Board or its composition.” The trial court retains perpetual jurisdiction to enforce these provisions.

If this broad language is interpreted literally, depending on what “disclaimers” means in Paragraph 2(a), no teacher in Cobb County can ever criticize the theory of evolution in any way, nor can the citizens of Cobb County vote to adopt a policy that would allow teachers to criticize the theory of evolution in any way, even in a philosophy or history class.

When Kitzmiller was decided, I took lots of heat for arguing that, even if the end result was right (which I believe it was), the fact that a federal trial judge took it upon himself to provide a philosophical definition of “science” was bad for science as a discipline. This Consent Order seems to me like another step towards control over the philosophy of science by the federal trial courts. I can’t see how this is good for science or for democracy.

Footnote: I would note here two aspects of my initial thoughts on this that makes them provisional: (1) I’m not sure how a different judge or an appellate court a few years from now might interpret the term “disclaimers” in this Order. A court could give it a narrow interpretation that means only “officially endorsed statements of policy,” which makes the Order somewhat less problematic though still troubling; (2) In the event a court gave the term “disclaimers” a broad interpretation — or even if a more narrow interpretation were adopted — it seems to me that these provisions would be subject to a strong first amendment free speech challenge. A free speech challenge, however, would face some difficult procedural hurdles, since this is an Order entered by consent, which would make a challenge by a later-elected school board or its agents or employees difficult on grounds of claim or issue preclusion. (Claim and issue preclusion is a doctrine that says a party generally cannot relitigate claims or issues that were raised or could have been raised in an earlier proceeding).

Categories
Spirituality

Seasoned with Salt and the Culture Wars

I’ve been having a little back and forth with Bill Dembski and some of his supporters on Uncommon Descent concerning a video mocking Judge Jones of Kitzmiller fame, for which Dembski provided voice over. The thread is worth a read, I think. To me, this sort of thing is quite disheartening. Here’s one comment I made on how I feel about it a bit down in the thread:

Bill Dembski asked: What have you done lately, dopderbeck, to jar Dawkins out of his dogmatic rampage?

I’m not sure I understand what Richard Dawkins has to do with showing respect to judges as required by Romans 13. In any event, search my blog, Through a Glass Darkly (http://www.davidopderbeck.com/throughaglass.html) and you will see that I’ve written many times in criticism of Dawkins and his brand of materialism. You can also find similar writing from me in the ASA email list archives and in other places. I don’t claim to be any great voice in this regard, but I’ve unashamedly and publicly explained my Christian faith many times.

Your references to OT prophets are misplaced because they specifically were appointed by God as prophets within the context of the theocratic state of Israel and its role among surrounding nations. For us in the Church today, Romans 13 is normative, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

The reference to Paul and the Judaizers is even further misplaced, as Paul was speaking there as an Apostle in the context of snuffing out a heresy within the Church. Again, Paul’s instruction to us with respect to secular governmental authorities is clear in Romans 13.

I’m a bit disheartened that you think this video could serve as a “means of grace” to Richard Dawkins. Do you really believe that? Is this really “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15)? Does it satisfy the standards of Col. 4:6: “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone”? How about Romans 12:14: “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” Or the entire teaching of Matthew 5?

I hope you take this rebuke in the spirit in which it’s offered, and not as a personal attack. Heaven knows, I have often failed to live up to the standards of Romans 12 and 13, Ephesians 4, Colossians 4, etc. As a brother in Christ, and a fellow academic who takes seriously the cultural mandate, I beseech you to think again about this method of discourse, and about the strategy of making personal attacks on a judge who wrote an opinion contrary to your views. I think you will agree with me that there is much, much more at stake here than one judge’s opinion in one case concerning one version of how to integrate science and faith.

Take the long view, the Kingdom perspective; play the part God gave you with humility and grace and let Him handle the ultimate results, for He secured the victory long ago on the cross. I can say at least that this is the ideal towards which I strive, though I often fail. But imagine what could happen if all us Christians who are concered about the culture humbled ourselves and began to pray for and love our enemies, to tell the truth truly in love, to live the Sermon on the Mount ethic taught by Jesus in Matthew 5 and echoed throughout the New Testament. Imagine if all the anger and ink and pixels we spill in culture “wars” were instead spent in sacrificial love and in patient, humble, careful and thorough explanation of the truth. Imagine if the Church were to be truly the Church. That’s the passionate cry of my heart.

Categories
Looking Glass Theology

Through the Looking Glass: The Greek Bible

Here is an awesome resource for understanding the New Testament in the original Greek: Zhubert.com. It will produce the Greek of any passage, along with a hyperlinked lexicon. Very cool.

Categories
Theology

The Apocalypse

ἀποκάλυψις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

“The apocalypse of Jesus Christ” . . . so begins the book of Revelation. I grew up in dipensational premillennial churches that focused heavily on Revelation. The view they took of Revelation is that it is a detailed description of future events, most of which concern a seven-year period of judgement after the Church is removed or “raptured” from the earth.

I never was terribly comfortable with this view, but only in the past year or so have I begun to study more deeply what Revelation is all about. My study began with The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, a good overview of the broad contours of eschatology. Now I’ve begun studying Revelation itself in detail, using Craig Keener’s NIV Application Commentary and Beale’s New International Greek Testament Commentary.

It’s refreshing and exciting to realize that Revelation doesn’t really fit so easily into the dispensational premillennial box. Beale’s background discussion is fascinating, and highlights that the various judgments are usually best understood as recapitulations of a broad theme rather than as successive events that will happen over a short time period. Beale summarizes the broad theme of Revelation as follows: “the sovereignty of God and Christ in redeeming and judging brings them glory, which is intended to motivate saints to worship God and reflect his glorious attributes through obedience to his word.” (Beale at .p 174.) Excellent.

Categories
Photo Blog

Photoblog — Jewels

Manhattan Jewelry Storefront

jewels.jpg