Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Rewriting the Manhattan Declaration

Recently I've become involved with an effort to form a reasoned and faithful counter-statement to the Manhattan Declaration. I am aware that my actions will likely draw the ire and/or disdain of many of my Christian sisters and brothers; however, I believe the Declaration is an incomplete and potentially dangerous document which supports a narrow ideological objective. It is culturally conservative but barely 'evangelical' -- that is, in the original sense of the word.

The Manhattan Declaration is not good news. While it contains elements of the gospel, it is an incomplete gospel. As you read on, I urge you to follow the advice of the elder John in his first epistle, chapter 4, verse 1:

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The remainder of this post is as follows:
  1. Text which I posted to a discussion board on the 'Manhattan Refutation' Facebook group, which takes the approach of rewriting the 'Life' section of the Manhattan Declaration to bring it in line with a full rejection of the 'culture of death' and affirmation of life. I'm reproducing the text of what I wrote here, so it is available to a much wider audience, and so it can be reviewed for comment and challenge by those who are not comfortable associating with the 'Manhattan Refutation'.
  2. Links to resources and pages, including the actual Manhattan Declaration itself.


AFFIRMING LIFE

Here is what I’ve been mulling over … is it possible to take the very words of the Manhattan Declaration and redeem them by transforming them into a much fuller inclusion of the Kingdom of God that Christ calls us into?

I am not satisfied with my effort so far. However, I am posting here my down-and-dirty first attempt to transform the ‘Life’ section of the MD so that everyone else can get a better idea of the approach I’m suggesting we consider.

The ‘Life’ section was the first section of the MD that was glaringly ‘sinful by omission’. In other posts, I alluded to the fact that I believed the MD’s biggest failures were in what it omitted. The ‘Life’ section is a prime example. The authors rightly focused on the problem with the ‘culture of death’ but like most ‘Pro Life’ believers I’ve encountered, they are only ‘Pro’ the Life of a limited group of individuals.

Somehow, it’s still OK to promote a culture of death when it comes to our cultural and political enemies; it’s still OK to promote a culture of death by filling our minds with violent and murderous ‘entertainment’; it’s still ok to promote a culture of death by seeking military solutions to diplomatic problems and by subjecting our enemies to torture and violence that we justify as necessary so we can have enough intelligence (stupidity?) to preemptively execute them before they execute us.

I realize that many people will disagree with the above very politically (and evangelically) incorrect statements I’ve made, and I apologize in advance for my part in anything that has offended. However, I do not believe that any of us should apologize for the offense of the Cross.

That said, here is a modified writing of (most of) the ‘Life’ section of the Manhattan Declaration. If you read it in parallel with the MD, you’ll notice that a lot of the language did not need to be changed at all, and still matches the MD word-for-word.

----

Life

A culture of death inevitably cheapens life in all its stages and conditions by promoting the belief that lives that are imperfect, immature and inconvenient, or which are abhorrent to our own moral sensibilities, are discardable. This death-culture is woven into our society’s consciousness so insidiously that many who genuinely and authentically vie for the sanctity of life remain totally unaware of its broad influence, and instead focus on only a few ‘litmus test’ issues such as abortion and euthanasia. As Christians, we assert that all life is sacred and that no life is discardable – not even the lives of those we consider our enemies. We call the culture of death into the light so that all its tentacles may be exposed. A culture of death takes root in any cheapening of life, and is particularly revealed in how we, as a society, choose to use our freedoms. We have failed to choose wisely, and have allowed or actively participated in discretionary ‘entertainment’ that promotes obsession with crime, militarism, murder and other types of violence and abuse. We have casually accepted these as appropriate and acceptable forms of entertainment, whether the ‘passive’ entertainment of movies and television, or the active, ‘behavioral rehearsing’ entertainment of shoot-to-kill video games, and have failed to use the blessings of liberty to engage in activities that promote life, reconciliation, and healing …

…. Eugenic notions such as the doctrine of lebensunwertes Leben (“life unworthy of life”) were first advanced in the 1920s by intellectuals in the elite salons of America and Europe. Long buried in ignominy after the horrors of the mid-20th century, they have returned from the grave. The only difference is that now the doctrines of the eugenicists are dressed up in the language of “defending our homeland” and “preserving the foundational unit of society.” Waging wars and fostering homophobic hatred are just a few examples of cleverly disguised methods to achieve the extinction of groups of people deemed “unworthy of life”. We will be united and untiring in our efforts to roll back the license to kill that began with the authorization of hatred against those who are demonized as political and cultural enemies…

…We will work, as we have always worked, to bring assistance, comfort, and care to those in need and to those who have been victimized by hatred and war, even as we stand resolutely against the corrupt and degrading notion that it can somehow be in the best interests of anyone to submit to the deliberate killing of people we choose to demonize as ‘enemies’. Our message is, and ever shall be, that the just, humane, and truly Christian answer to violence and evil is for all of us to love and care for all of God’s children, whether friends or enemies, remaining fully aware that Christ died for us, even while we ourselves were still God’s enemies.

…A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the born and unborn, the abled and ‘disabled’, the dependent and ‘independent’, the ‘straight’, the ‘gay’, the ‘saint’ and ‘sinner’, citizens of our own nation, and citizens of other nations, whether enemy or friend. What the Bible and the light of reason make clear, we must make clear. We must be willing to defend, even at risk and cost to ourselves and our institutions, the lives of our brothers and sisters at every stage of development and in every condition, political status, and moral standing before God and humanity…

…Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged; oppression and discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation; the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the entertainment industry and the movements for military-assisted homicide, homophobia, and disregard of the suffering of those at the bottom of society both domestically and internationally to preserve our own nation’s economic benefit. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances…

----



RESOURCES

The Manhattan Refutation Facebook Group
While we readily affirm the preamble of the Manhattan Declaration, which states "Christians are heirs of a 2,000 year tradition of proclaiming God’s word, seeking justice in our societies, resisting tyranny, and reaching out with compassion to the poor, oppressed and suffering," we find that the the Declaration is in keeping with other, more unfortunate Christian traditions; those of marginalizing those who differ from the perceived "norm" and pronouncing judgment upon others.

The original cursory 'refutation' posted by the Progressive Christian Alliance:

The Manhattan Declaration
See http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/ for the official site by the proponents of the statement. I highly recommend you download the complete document and read it carefully and against the light of the full witness of Scripture, and then wrestle with God concerning what your response should be.


In closing, I leave you with 1 John 4:19-21:

We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen. And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother.






Thursday, June 25, 2009

What the LINK tells us...

The Link


An incredible 95 percent complete fossil of a 47-million-year-old human ancestor has been discovered and, after two years of secret study, an international team of scientists has revealed it to the world. The fossil’s remarkable state of preservation allows an unprecedented glimpse into early human evolution.


from:
http://boards.history.com/category/The-Link/520000027



Unprecedented glimpse indeed! But if anything, it is a glimpse into how primitive our 'Science' is becoming. Read on.



What Ida Tells Us


According to the program, THIS is What Ida Tells us:





video also available at the history channel website -
http://www.history.com/content/the-link/watch-video?bcpid=23297146001&bclid=23711371001&bctid=23722127001


As Dr. Hurum states in the video (emphasis mine),
"Dis jumble of characters is, is very very exciting...and you see all these characters in the same skeleton, and you need to try to explain evolution in a new way, the early evolution of primates in a new way, because it's there, you cannot take them away"
I can't agree more with Dr. Hurum on the fact that we need to "try to explain evolution in a new way". Facts are facts, and "Ida" has observable and remarkable characteristics. Science deals with facts, and facts are the basis for supporting, and for falsifying, scientific Laws, Theories, and Hypotheses.

A NEW WAY to explain evolution

As far as explaining evolution in a new way, the producers of the program do not leave us hanging. On this point they turn to Dr. Don Johanson, who indeed explains evolution in a new way...one that has NOTHING to do with Science. To save myself extra work, I'll just reproduce my observations as written in my comment on a LinkedIn discussion board.

If you're LinkedIn, see the entire discussion at:
Find out what "The Link" on the History Channel wasn't telling you.

'The Link' was very entertaining and well-produced, but in my opinion, clearly unscientific and a depressing example of how 'mindless' our culture can be. It told a pretty good story, but in the end I saw nothing in the facts reported that resulted in the conclusions the program made. Much speculation, but no empirical science.

The most blatant and saddening example of the collapse of the scientific method in this program (and perhaps in general?) came near the end of the program, where Dr. Don Johansen (of 'Lucy' fame) takes the pulpit bemoaning how "Today" there's so much controversy about evolution. He says:

"...lots of people don't want to ACCEPT evolution...a lot of people say 'I don't believe in evolution.' And I say to them, 'I don't believe in evolution either.' And they go, 'Wh...what do you mean?' I said, 'ANY MORE THAN I BELIEVE IN GRAVITY. It's a fact.

"If I let go of an object it's going to fall to the ground. No matter how many times we do this experiment, it's going to fall to the ground. So gravity is a LAW. It's a FACT. It's an OBSERVABLE thing.

"And it's the same thing with Evolution."

I nearly FELL OFF THE COUCH when I watched him say this. How can someone who's been a Scientist his entire career, and who has the credentials and CV including his discovery of Australopithecus Afarensis, be so WRONG (or deceptive?) regarding the difference between Scientific Law, Fact, and theory?

The certainty of Evolution is the same as certain
ty about Gravity?????? Is he NUTS?????? I can observe one species changing into another just like I can observe an object fall when I let go of it? What?????

If such blatant disregard for logic and scientific method--supported by excellent production and an entertaining story--is the norm, it's no wonder that American education falls so far behind in Science achievement.

Maybe we no longer have any idea what Science really is!!!!


The DEVIL is in the details

I respect Science and true Scientific Method; I respect Biblical Criticism, Hermeneutics; I respect a careful, reasoned, and humble approach to all questions of origins.

Watching this program, sadly, has brought me down to a very low opinion of Western culture's ability to use their minds as God (or evolutionary advantage?) intended.

I had hoped that any reasonable person -- Christian or not -- would be able to watch 'The Link', see through the hype, and draw one's own reasoned conclusions from the facts. But I'm not convinced. Since I'm biased towards God (he's on my side anyway), I'm going to now present CONCLUSIVE evidence that 'The Link' was clearly the work of SATAN and ALL CHRISTIANS should RUN AWAY from it AS FAR AS POSSIBLE!!!!

When I viewed the History Channel's discussion summary this morning, here's what I saw:

666 - the NUMBER OF THE BEAST.


Therefore, 'The Link' is obviously the work of Satan. Remember, he can deceive even the VERY ELECT! STAY AWAY!!

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Is All Adversity Bearable with God?

We are all very familiar with the promise in 1 Cor 10:13 that God "will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear" (NIV).

We usually understand this like Eugene Peterson's 'The Message' puts it:

"God will never let you down; he'll never let you be pushed past your limit; he'll always be there to help you come through it."

I think we, and Peterson, interpret the verse incorrectly.

Here's some ideas to consider:
The greek word used means 'temptation' or 'test': http://concordance.biblos.com/peirasmo_.htm

The root word is 'peirazo', which means (according to http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/3986.htm):

"a putting to proof (by experiment (of good), experience (of evil), solicitation, discipline or provocation); by implication, adversity -- temptation"

In Short, WHAT PAUL SAYS:
God does not overwhelm us with unbearable adversity, temptation, the death of our children, etc. WHEN HIS PURPOSE IN TESTING US is to 'prove out' our faith.

WHAT PAUL DOES NOT SAY:
"All evil/adversity/etc. that befalls us is part of God's will, design, and purpose for us, and it is all for the purpose of testing and building our faith, and through all of it God will provide a way out and the strength to bear it".

We LIKE the verse to mean what Paul does not say. Even Eugene Peterson wants it to say that.

But I believe Paul's objective is to assure us of God's goodness and his character in the tests and temptations that he WILLS (causes or preferentially allows) to come our way.

Paul does NOT say that all S&!T that dumps on us is from God and/or is what God REALLY wants to happen to us...and he does NOT say that all S&!T is bearable and for our benefit.

SO IN SHORT: we can trust that if God puts us to the test, it is for our benefit.

We also are afforded the right--by this verse, at least--to trust that evil which befalls us and DOES crush us beyond what we can bear is NOT from God and does not speak one ounce about his goodness, his love for us, and his character.

Sin, death, and corruption have real, powerful, and gratuitous effects. God is in the business of redemption, for sure, but to make pollyanna claims that we are ordained to have supernatural Atlas-like world-bearing strength underneath every single possible imaginable (and even unimaginable) burden of adversity that drops upon us is NOT supported by this verse.

Such pollyannaism certainly does not seem to be supported by human experience, and, I would wager, is not really supported by other Biblical texts when carefully read.

However, I am not a professional exegete or theologian, so please feel free to present evidence to the contrary. It is much better to stand corrected than to fall in ignorance.