Sorry Paul, it’s really like a drug

On Wes Elsberry’s blog, there is a fascinating transcript of John Buell’s testimony vis-à-vis the Dover case. I had never read nor heard about it before. Forget about the larger picture of the Dover trial and just read it with this line of thought. Buell is the President of the Foundation for Thought and Ethics. That is the outfit behind the publication of The Design of Life and Of Pandas and People. The latter, of course, was front stage at the Dover trial, and now, sadly, is probably best known for the fact that it has introduced the transitional fossil cdesign proponentsists into the vernacular. Sigh. Perhaps it is well and good that when Christians set out to deceive, we are not very competent. At least that’s something.

Anyway, Buell’s testimony, under cross examination, reveals this about FTE’s raison d'etre:

• The FTE provides documentation to the IRS indicating that its primary exempt purpose is promoting and publishing textbooks presenting a Christian perspective.
  
  
• That the FTE was incorporated with goals both religious and educational, and FTE seeks to make known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible.
  
  
• The and FTE fundraising document states that “The Foundation for Thought and Ethics has been established to introduce Biblical perspective into the mainstream of America’s humanistic society, confronting the secular thought of modern man with the truth of God’s word.”
  
  
• In a letter, written after the publishing Pandas, Buell wrote: “Our commitment is to see the monopoly of naturalistic curriculum in the schools broken. Presently school curriculum reflects a deep hostility to traditional Christian views and values, and indoctrinates students to this mindset through subtle but persuasive arguments.”
  
  
• Buell, in trying to find a legitimate publishing house for Pandas, projects an explosive market for Pandas, should it come to pass that the Supreme Court would permit state mandated teaching of creationism in public schools. (The Supreme Court, by the way, did not.)

Now, I would say that while none of this is really my cup of tea, I have no problem, except a nebulous unsavory feeling, with FTE as described by the bulleted list above. I guess I would characterize FTE, as described above, as well-intentioned but misguided.

No, the problem with FTE and John Buell is that (read the testimony) he runs away, as fast as he can, from the description above. Why? So that he can pretend that Pandas and its proponents and its publishing are all about science, and nothing about religion. No sir, no religion here. The unintentional religious talk is blamed on, among other things, lawyers using standard boilerplate.

That, in a nutshell, is what I hate so much about the ID movement. The “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” tactic. It’s wrong because it necessarily presupposes that the world is stupid. And it is especially wrong because it disavows (though not sincerely—and I couldn’t say if that is better or worse) its noble goal of spreading the gospel.

Atheists Behaving Stupidly

I know that I often present a split personality in my blog posts. On theological matters I am conservative to the core. By that I mean that I both accept and defend both biblical infallibility and inerrancy. I am also about 95% Reformed by the measure of, say, the Westminster Confession. But when it comes to political matters I am lunatic fringe in the other direction—alienating some of my Christian friends. I am strongly in favor of separation of church and state (being a Baptist I recall how we invented it, having fared poorly under both Catholic and Presbyterian theocracies.) I don't get riled up by political issues. Does a state want to make gay marriage legal? I don't care, arguing that the New Testament gives us no charge to make Christian morals the law of the land—only the law of our hearts and the guidelines for our behavior. "In God We Trust" on the coinage? "One nation under God" in the Pledge? I could not care less—it's probably better to remove the lie. Evolution vs. ID? The former is science even though a) it doesn't have all the answers and b) it is certainly wrong in the sense that further research will result in some of its present teachings requiring modification, while the latter (ID) isn't—so teach the former in science class. War on Christmas? What do I care if a clerk in a store says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas? We are not even told to celebrate Christ's birth—but even as we do, it does not call for a habitual echoing of a phrase—instead it should be about a solemn, thankful, and yes joyful remembrance, among Christians, of the first advent. The new atheists? While I am disappointed that their leaders present such infantile arguments—they are generally on the level of Ann Coulter articles—they are rabble-rousing and choir-preaching rather than informative, educational, challenging, thought-provoking or enlightening-- I generally applaud the fact that they are making atheism more acceptable. After all, they cannot detract from the number saved, so the only effect they can have, if any, is to make atheists come out of the closet. Since I see only negative potential of atheists claiming (from peer and societal pressure) to be Christians, I think this is ultimately a good thing.

Well, just to show that I am not always on the side of the bad guys, I will tell you that I think the atheists fighting the Utah Crosses are just as dumb as rocks.

I can sense, regardless of my position, the significance of debates on prayer in public schools, or ID in the science curriculum, or gay marriage, or abortion rights. These are substantive issues, and I can understand how many people on both sides want to dive into the debate and make a difference.

The Utah Cross case is not. The atheists fighting the crosses are engaged in nit-picking, and nit-picking tends to make the pickers look dumb and ultimately to hurt their cause.

The crosses are not an infringement of the separation of church and state. They are privately funded memorials for State Troopers who were killed in the line of duty. They were placed, with permission, on state land. They certainly do not establish any religion. They do not evangelize or proselytize. They are a modest acknowledgment of service, and therapeutic for the families left behind. A reasonable use of small patches of state land—not harmful to anyone except the hypersensitive but beneficial to some. And the cross, while a symbol of Christianity (though not of Mormonism, the religion of the majority of the troopers being memorialized), is also a universally recognized symbol of something else: someone died. More accurately, someone died and we want to take note of the fact. When I see a cross on the side of the road, I do not immediately think of Jesus, or the Crucifixion—I think: somebody died, right there, as the result of a car crash.

This is a stupid fight for the atheists. It is a waste of political capital. It is analogous to the anti-evolution stickers placed in text books—a fight over a non-substantive issue that isn't worth the consequence of seriously pissing people off. It's just a vulgar display of power. This doesn't matter, but we might just pull it off, so let's try. Dumb. Really dumb. In small matters it is always better to compromise, to take the high road, to be gracious, to be accommodating. The proponents of text book stickers didn't understand that, and their intellectual cousins, the atheists fighting the Utah crosses, don't either.

The Design of a Bad Idea

The newly released ID book, The Design of Life, exemplifies everything that is wrong with ID.

1. It claims to be science, but it is, as is all ID, entangled with religion. It would be much better if it admitted to be apologetics that was of a science bent. That is, ID should not falsely claim to be science when in fact it is religiously motivated—it should embrace that which it seeks to hide. There is, I'm sure we all recall, an apostolic lesson about not being embarrassed about the gospel.
   


2. It is essentially a vanity publication, and is being released with great fanfare and a Benny-Hinn-like request for money. Science does not work that way. I hope Christians with money to give will consider giving it to charity or missions rather than to this exercise in egotism. (And they should not forget that one author is a member of a heretical cult, the Moonies. He should be evangelized, not applauded as a culture warrior.)
   




3. The authors, who are leading ID proponents, make the sort of claims that should not accompany the release of scientific literature. William Dembski, yet again, declares victory by fiat: "The Design of Life shows why the better arguments and stronger evidence are now on the intelligent design side." And Jonathan Wells argues by philosophical assertion: "The Design of Life shows why it is no longer possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Darwinist." These guys simply never learn the lesson: ixnay the yperbole-hay, it's not helpful. Not at all. If you have a theory, as you claim, then do the research, and publish the results.
   

What's new here? Nothing. This is not science. It is, at best, a misguided missile in the culture wars. At worst, it is an attempt at a money making venture.

Still in flux--updates

After a month and a half in Virginia, we finally found a house. We close a week from today.

We had an offer and tentative agreement on one several weeks ago, but the sellers declined to make some small repairs that we requested, so we walked. Someone forgot to tell them it is a buyer's market. For rejecting our request to make repairs that would likely cost less than one of their mortgage payments, they lost the sale, and in the current housing economy the house could stay on the market for months. I think they interpreted our offer to close in two weeks (the house is empty) to mean that we were desperate to move in and would not walk.

Although staying longer in our month-to-month furnished townhouse was both annoying and expensive, we are much happier with the house that we found. The sellers of this house (it is also empty—almost every house we saw was empty because people are not selling in this market unless they are relocated) were very accommodating in agreeing to make the modest repairs resulting from the inspection.

I'll be a relatively close neighbor to one of my favorite Christian bloggers, Tom Gilson.

We are enjoying our new-old church—the one we attended before moving to New Hampshire in early 2002. However, we have not rejoined as of yet. The church is very small (about 40 people in the pews) and is searching for a pastor. I am waiting to see who they hire—although I am not at all certain that's the right thing to do.

Yesterday the interim pastor told a story of a friend of his in the construction business. This friend, it seems, likes to share the gospel on construction sites. After he does so, he has to go somewhere private, where he weeps. The cause of his weeping? He can't believe that God would use him as a messenger. That was a convicting message for me. I understand, intellectually, that we preach the gospel because we are commanded to and also because it is an unspeakable privilege. But, unlike this man, I never feel as if it is a privilege. I always feel more like it is an intellectual challenge. I would really like to feel the weight of what I am doing emotionally.

Anthony Flew? *Yawn*.

Can someone please explain the excited hubbub among my fellow Christians concerning Anthony Flew? The “famous atheist” converted, it is alleged, from atheism to deism.

Big deal. That’s like being traded from the 0-8 Miami Dolphins to the 0-8 St. Louis Rams.

Folks, deism (at least among those who, like Flew, have surely heard the gospel) is no better than atheism.

There is nothing here to celebrate. Nothing.

Fellow Christian Physicists...

Here is an announcement for a faculty position at Union University in Tennessee.

Not many deserve a serious fisking more than

the regrettable Joel Osteen and his hideous prosperity gospel.

The always reliable Michael Horton is up to the task.

HT: Craig.

UPDATE: Tim Challies also posted an excellent (as always) review of Osteen's latest.

Flip sides of the same, dumb argument

• The Finnish school shooter was motivated by Natural Selection. See how the theory of evolution inevitably leads to murder?
  
• All the 9/11 hijackers were Young Earth Creationists. See how Young Earth Creationism leads to terrorism?

The truth is simple. Bad people will co-opt whatever is convenient to rationalize their evil. End of story.

Beliefs have consequences. But the tragic results of a gross distortion or misapplication of a theory, ideology, or religion is far short of a proof of the culpability of the underlying beliefs. Sincere people believed, incorrectly, that Christianity endorsed slavery. That’s not an indictment of Christianity, it’s the fault of those who did not, willfully or ignorantly, get it right.

New Profs: Tenure won’t matter!

Heretical nutcase Harold Camping is at it again. Camping, the president and co-founder of the Family Radio Network has, among other theological monstrosities, declared the end of the church age. Camping has sent notice that The Spirit has, by God, been formally withdrawn from all churches, save his own radio ministry. Camping’s model: leave your church, join a like-minded local group, and gather ‘round the radio on Sunday to listen to the sole remaining orthodox ministry—and more importantly the sole ministry still in God’s favor: Harold Camping’s.

He is also famous for predicting the end of the earth and the Second Coming in 1994. We can, I suspect, agree that his prediction was wrong.

But wait, there’s more! He has a relatively new book of which I wasn’t aware until I saw it discussed on Ed Brayton’s blog. The book, published in 2005, is: Time Has an End: A Biblical History of the World 11,013 B.C. – 2011 A.D.

The title is a spoiler. Camping admits (“oops, my bad!”) that he was wrong with his 1994 prediction. The real end will come in 2011! Camping writes:

About thirteen years ago, I wrote the book entitled 1994?. In it, I set forth a great amount of information derived solely from the Bible that suggested very strongly that there was a high likelihood that the world would come to an end sometime in the year A.D. 1994. Of course, the world did not end, and now, eleven years later, the world is still here.

However, during the past eleven years, God has been opening up to many who are studying the Bible considerable additional information which relates to the unfolding of God's salvation plan. When this additional information was integrated into the information which was set forth in the book 1994?, we knew that indeed the year 1994 was an extremely important year.

Moreover, we will discover that now, as we understand the Bible, it was the year 1994 in which Christ came a second time to begin the completion of the evangelization of His true people. We also have found considerable evidence that there is a high likelihood that the year 2011 will be the year in which the end will come. Nothing has changed in God's program. The Bible has simply made correction on our course toward truth!

Well, alrighty then!

Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic?

Well that depends, of course, on what you mean by anti-Semitic. The New Testament does not advocate any sort of mistreatment of Jews. However, it is quite clear that (normatively speaking) Jews, like anyone else, must come to know Christ to be saved. And nowhere does it demand a special view toward the modern state of Israel. If you are a Christian, base your support (or lack thereof) for Israel on your politics. Do not base it on erroneous interpretations of prophecy. Supporting Israel because she is the lone democracy in the region is defensible. Supporting Israel because her enemies tend to hate us is defensible. Supporting Israel because the bible tells us to is just plain wrong.

Many Christians believe that the founding of modern Israel was in fulfillment of prophecy. God, this argument goes, has unfulfilled promises made to the Jews. This is not true. The founding of Israel was, as all things are, ordained by God. He wasn't surprised by the development. But it does not complete any outstanding biblical prophecy. As for any unconditional promises remaining unfulfilled: that's the empty set. There were many promises that God made with the condition of obedience—those promises are null and void. But the unconditional promises were satisfied:

⁴³ So the LORD gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their forefathers, and they took possession of it and settled there. ⁴⁴ The LORD gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their forefathers. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the LORD handed all their enemies over to them. ⁴⁵ Not one of all the LORD's good promises to the house of Israel failed; every one was fulfilled. (Joshua 21:43-45)

Extreme pro-Israel Christians such as John Hagee, author of the hideous In Defense of Israel (which I may review at a later date) are simply and seriously mistaken. He claims that the bible calls Christians to do much more than pray for the state of Israel. He is right and wrong—the bible does call us to do much more, it calls us to proselytize, i.e., preach the gospel, to the Jews. He is wrong because proselytizing the Jews is the one thing he does not demand of his followers. He prefers to stand side-by-side with the political leadership of Israel to further Israel's political agenda. As stated earlier, this may be a defensible position based on your political views. But Hagee, and many other Christians, falsely claim the bible as their mandate.

Back to the question of anti-Semitism. Have you ever actually read what Paul (who everyone knows loved the Jews and even offered his own salvation if they could be saved) had to write about unconverted Jews? After being repeatedly attacked on his missionary journeys, Paul wrote:

 ¹³And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe. ¹⁴For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, ¹⁵who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men ¹⁶in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last. (1 Th. 2:13-16)

By any modern sensitivities—these words taken from scripture (and not out of context) would be considered anti-Semitic. Paul is literally calling the Jews "Christ killers."

(Aside: the wrath of God is no doubt reference to the impending end of the Jewish age in AD 70, when the Temple was desecrated and destroyed, over a million Jews killed, many enslaved, the rest mostly scattered—the end of Israel and of the sacrificial system. In my opinion, that was the last time you have any prophecy about God's wrath on a political entity—and it denoted the end of the transition period between the old and the new. God, according to my reading of scripture, no longer deals with nations but rather with those in his church and those not.)

Some extremely pro-Israel Christians also argue that taking the position that Jews cannot be saved without accepting Christ is also anti-Semitic. Well, it is not anti-Semitic; it is the proper position for Christians to take; although there is something important to remember.

What I mean is this: as people we can base our judgment only on the visible fruits of others. We are called to treat as Christians those proclaim acceptance of the power of Christ's shed blood to pay for their sins. And we are called to treat anyone who doesn't as an unbeliever. Because of our inability to do anything else, God has told us: pay attention to the externals and act accordingly—but the actual Book of Life is off limits. We will not bat a thousand using this approach.

Scripture, read carefully, tells us that nobody comes to the Father except by the Son. But while this is obviously strongly correlated with those who can present a testimony, in truth it is slightly different. Coming by the Son means presenting oneself before the Father cloaked in the righteousness of Christ. Could Christ offer the protection of His righteousness to some who don't follow the normative route to salvation? Who am I to say no? God will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy. I am instructed, in Matthew 7, to treat those who deny Christ as unbelievers and those who don't (and back up their claim with deeds) as believers. But conspicuously absent from that instruction is a guarantee that by this methodology I'll perfectly distinguish the saved from the lost.

With infants and the mentally handicapped we understand this intuitively. We all are Calvinists when it comes to dead babies. While it doesn't affect my actions toward them in any way, I have the same feeling about Jews, Moslems, (both of which should be proselytized) and the millions who never hear the gospel. If they don't convert, I don't expect that they are saved, and I don't treat them as if they are saved, but I do hold out a hope for any individual that in God's sovereign plan he will have mercy upon them, and I do remember that I have no say whatsoever when it comes to the question of who gets covered by the righteousness of Christ.