Rob Bell and the Two-Day-Old Fish

During a recent trip to Denver, Pastor Rob Bell made a brief stop at Denver Seminary. The seminary wanted to take such a rare opportunity to have a dialog with such an influential person in the Christian community. I wasn't able to go to the event, but I did get to listen to it online.

Now, I've written a little bit about Mr. Bell before, but having admittedly not read any of his books, I tried to be tentative and give him the benefit of the doubt. However, listening to him speak for 90 minutes was instructive, and I think I'm beginning to have a bit better understanding of his beliefs. I'm not going to go into everything I thought as I listened to the recording, but two things stood out to me:

1. Bell mentioned Jesus a lot, but not once did he mention the cross. (To be fair, he did mention "the resurrected Christ" once in passing, as he was making another point.) Bell's book is titled Love Wins; what bigger victory has love than the cross of Christ? Interestingly, whereas the Gospels devote 25% of their material to the events of the Passion Week, Bell did not see fit to mention the cross at all. In addition, he talked a great deal about his goal to share the hope he has with as many as he can. Yet after 90 minutes, I was not sure what his hope was actually in, other than "Jesus"--a concept he never bothered to define. Again, peddling a book called Love Wins, I find this remarkable.
2. Bell seems to give higher priority to experience than revelation. When asked to defend certain beliefs or statements, he was quick to move to personal stories as a means of justification. Yes, he knows a great deal about the Bible (whatever he might be, he is certainly not stupid), but his interpretation of scripture seemed to be obtained through the grid of experience, rather than interpreting experience through the grid of revelation. In other words, when experience and divine revelation collide, for Bell, experience always trumps.

The more I learn about Rob Bell, the more leery I am of his message. Like a two-day-old fish, something just smells funny. But I encourage you, if you have the time, to listen to the recording and come to your own conclusions.

Popularity Wins?

Rob Bell is coming out with a new book, Love Wins. If you haven't heard, many people are accusing him of endorsing universalism, the idea that everyone will eventually get to heaven. Others are defending him, saying that, like any good teacher, he is just raising the question. I'm not going to comment on this issue, but being familiar in general with his teachings and having seen a number of his videos, including the promo for Love Wins, I have another concern. I cannot say if this is correct or incorrect, but it's just how things seem to me.

It seems to me that Rob Bell wants to be "the popular kid." Allow me to explain: His videos are always on the cutting edge of culture. His teachings seem to stress themes like God's love, right actions and social justice--each with an emphasis on this life--but not so much themes like God's judgment in the life to come. (If he did stress the latter, well, there would be no uproar right now.) The clothes he wears look like they all came from the latest Gap catalog. And to top it off, he's kind of got that "I'm better than you" smirk on his face all the time. Now, I'm not saying that any of those things are necessarily bad--they all have their place. (Okay, maybe the last one is a bit irritating.) There's nothing wrong with making an engaging video. Striving for love, justice and righteousness in this life is important. And I really don't care much what anybody wears or how they choose to look, so long as there is a godly character beneath the surface. But taking his appearance as a whole, the themes he stresses (and doesn't) in his teaching, and given the enormous response his works have received, it seems as if he's more concerned with being (or staying) popular than being true to the faith.*

One Facebook comment I ran across about the Love Wins brouhaha lamented, "The real problem is that many 'biblical' pastors are out of touch with our culture and lack the skills that Bell has to reach a postmodern society." I can't deny that some pastors are out-of-touch with reality and the culture. But many more are engaging the culture around them--their neighborhood, their city, their county--and are faithfully doing so, without the popularity of a Rob Bell.

The bottom line is, God calls pastors to be faithful, not popular. If they do happen to be popular, then so much the better, but faithfulness always trumps popularity. In Bell's case, if he really is espousing universalism in his book, then it would seem that he is seeking the world's acceptance more than God's. (What better way to get people to like you than to state as God's spokesman that you can do whatever you want and you'll still get to go to heaven?) My own concern is that he has allowed the postmodern culture into his heart too much, and that he is too concerned with what people think of him (masked as "engaging the postmodern culture") than where he stands in relation to Truth. I hope for Bell's sake that I am greatly mistaken.

*Let me be clear: I am not trying to be mean to the guy. I'm not accusing him of heresy. I'm not even commenting about the clothes he chooses to wear. All I'm saying is that, for me, all outward appearances suggest that popularity is his main goal.

P.S.: In fairness to Mr. Bell, I am including links to two reviews of Love Wins, one pro and one con. If you are interested, I would encourage you to read them (or even the book itself!) and come to your own conclusions on this controversy.

"Pro" review: http://www.gregboyd.org/blog/rob-bell-is-not-a-universalist-and-i-actually-read-love-wins/
"Con" review: http://www.challies.com/book-reviews/love-wins-a-review-of-rob-bells-new-book

Report: Everything Harmful to Everyone

PRAGUE - An international committee of top scientists released a long-anticipated report on Wednesday regarding the dangers of everything for everyone. According to the report, which is the culmination of years of study, everything on the planet is potentially threatening to any person, given the right set of circumstances.

“We spent years in the lab testing everything we could think of,” said top scientist and report author Dr. Miles Ferguson. “Lab tests confirmed that even an innocuous substance like water, when heated to above 212 degrees, could cause steam that can burn a person’s hand or other body parts.” The report recommends that people strictly limit their interaction with water, and that pregnant women should avoid it altogether. Other items that the five-year study found potentially dangerous were child car seats—a review of data revealed that 3 children had sustained slight injuries due to malfunctioning seat belts in the last 10 years—, banana peels—which test confirmed might cause an injurious fall if discarded on a smooth floor—, and all known flora and fauna—due to the risk for allergies, bites and scratches, and goring and trampling, in the case of mega-fauna. The report states, “We recommend that all persons avoid interaction with all animals, including wild, domesticated and feral, and plants, especially grasses, due to the inherent risk of associating with them, which may lead to harmful side effects or even death in some cases.”

Additionally, the report noted that many of the ins and outs of daily life are, in fact, potentially dangerous. Food-storage containers, for example, were determined to be particularly unsafe. “Plastic containers sometimes contain harmful chemicals,” stated Ferguson, “which might increase your risk for getting stomach cancer, and glass containers can break, resulting in razor-sharp shards.” Exercise, too, was found to be a risk-taking endeavor; one team discovered that many thousands of people had been injured or died during a workout. Furthermore, as many people exercise outdoors, this leads to an increase in the risk of skin cancer. Team lead Dr. Paul Daniels said, “Although we recognize the health benefits of moderate exercise, we feel these are outweighed by the possibility of melanoma, muscle strains, joint sprains and heart failure. It’s best just to avoid it.” But if you think avoiding exercise means more time for television, guess again. The study found that when rats were subjected to viewing television for more than 18 hours a day, their risk for eye cancer elevated by an almost statistically significant amount.

“Driving cars, eating, sleeping, paying bills, yard work, duct tape and even nature itself were all found to be potentially dangerous, and in some cases, fatal,” said Lewis Johnston, co-author of the nearly 5,000-page report. “We recommend that in order to negate all safety and health risks, persons should do nothing and be nowhere 100% of the time. Total abstinence and non-existence is the only way to ensure your safety and health will remain secure.”

Happy Earth Day!

In honor of Earth Day yesterday, I thought I would post some of my own ideas on the environment, or more particularly, on the environmental movement. While I do think stewardship of the earth is an important aspect of mankind's work--in fact, a divine command given to us in the Garden of Eden--I take issue with the environmental movement as a whole. It strikes me as a movement striving toward an earthly, man-made (and carbon-free) Utopia that is attempting to force the rest of us into submission in order to achieve that goal. It has moved from promoting healthy human interactions with our environment to a battle for political power, based on an anti-biblical worldview.

Therefore, I present to you the changes I would like to see in the environmental movement:

• Drop the "salvation" language. If I switch to a hybrid car or turn my lights off for an hour once a year, it is not going to "save the earth." There are billions of people in the non-West who are more than making up for me in the "Global Warming" game. Plus, since there are problems with climate data dating back to 1960 (see next), we must question the underlying proposition that the earth is heating up due to human causes in the first place.
• Admit that there's a problem with the data. With the recent Climategate scandal, we now know that much of the data that the UN (via the IPCC) is using to determine whether or not the earth is heating up was deliberately altered. Unfortunately, the original 40+ years' worth of data has been "lost," so we will never know what the real temperature data is. And even if we did have the original data, the manner in which it was collected has also been shown to be suspect.
• Stop using the environment as a motivator. Yes, the environment is important. Yes, bettering the environment for its own sake is a noble cause. But most people aren't going to get motivated and make radically life-altering choices because of "the environment." If you really want people to be environmentally friendly, make it cheaper than the alternative and stress this fact ad nauseum. The caveat here is that it has to be cheaper in the short-term; as a consumer, if I'm buying an electric car, for instance, I'd better be able to come out ahead financially in 2-3 years' time--not 10.
• Let the free market "do its thing." When cars came out, the government did not have to enact legislation to force people to switch from horses. The car was a better mode of transportation that was affordable to most people, so most people sold their horses and bought cars. The same could be said for ice boxes and electric refrigerators, land lines and cell phones. When consumer demand is high enough, someone will come up with an affordable product to sell--and that includes "eco-friendly" products.
• Quit the scare mongering and guilt trips. Fear and guilt are poor motivators. We all want clean air and water, and we all want to preserve forests for future generations. Making me feel like a jerk because I don't use Denver's inadequate public-transit system, or telling me that if I don't act in wild and financially irresponsible ways, the earth will be destroyed before my kids grow up, well, that's just irritating. How about some positive reinforcement every now and then?

Happy Earth Day, everyone!

Pro-Choice is Anti-Woman

Below I have posted an excerpt from the Constructive Curmudgeon. The entire article is worth reading, regardless of your position on the role of women in the church, but I think all sides in the debate can agree with this:

11. To be “pro-choice” is to be anti-woman. This truth was seen clearly by early feminists, but it is lost to the view of modern feminists. Nineteenth-century feminists sought to hold men accountable to moral standards for sexual behavior, and opposed abortion in part because it allowed men to escape their responsibilities. Modern feminists, however, have leveled the moral landscape by advocating sexual promiscuity for women as well as men—which has created a demand for the “quick fix” of abortion. Because abortion is now seen as the woman’s “choice,” pregnancy and parenthood are also seen as the woman’s choice. This puts the entire responsibility for children upon the mother, and relieves the father of any obligation to care for his offspring—which hardly works in favor of women’s social freedom and equality. The fundamental assumption of the abortion agenda is that women are not “equal” as women (a condition that can involve pregnancy); they must have the opportunity to be made “equal” (i.e., not pregnant) through invasive surgery, whenever the “man’s world” in which they live, and to which they must adapt, requires it. In advocating abortion rights, modern feminism betrays the premise of any liberation movement (namely, belief in the equal rights of all human beings) by denying the rights of preborn humans.

Cognitive Dissonance

When it comes to abortion, the government "has no right to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (i.e. the decision to kill an unborn person).

When it comes to health care, the government "has the right duty to interfere with such a personal, private decision" (in the form of a mandate to purchase health insurance).

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over.

Myth of the Modern Man

As many people come to the Bible, they bring with them a peculiar bias. It's one they probably don't even realize they have. Nevertheless, it's the starting point for a train of thought that casts doubt on the accuracy of Scripture and can lead one far from the path of God. I call it the Myth of the Modern Man.

It goes like this: Our modern society has mastered electricity, the combustible engine, canned foods, computer technology, the Internet, satellite television and many other advanced technologies. We've figured out human psychology to the extent that we've got it all documented in the DSM. We've mapped the human genome and can trace our DNA ancestry back hundreds of thousands of years. We no longer hunt and gather, engage in bartering or fight each other with pointy sticks (most of us, anyway). We are so much more advanced technologically and sociologically than other previous peoples that it follows that we must be vastly smarter than they were, too.

From this foundation proceeds the idea that the Bible just can't be right. After all, people back then thought that the gods controlled the weather and demons caused epilepsy. Since we who are vastly superior intellectually know those things can't be true, we have no reason to trust them to have gotten anything else right, either. Everyone knows that people don't get swallowed up by a fish and then vomited out three days later. There might have been a king named David, but most of what is written about him is legend, you see. Jesus may have been a nice guy, but he didn't really rise from the dead--these things just don't happen! Even though we are removed from the events of the Bible by many thousands of years more than the original authors, we second-guess them from our Modern throne and say, "But of course it didn't really happen like that."

A cursory examination of architectural and artistic history sheds light on the Myth of the Modern Man, however. The great pyramids, for example, are very large and intricate structures that are extremely precise in their layout. They still rank among the wonders of the world. They were made by humans long ago without the aide of computers, machines or even metal tools. Try making a pyramid using only your brain and a stone hammer--not so easy, is it? Much the same can be said for Stonehenge and many of the buildings erected by early peoples of the Americas. Machu Picchu's architects created an intricate system to provide the location with water from a nearby spring, and they devised an underground drainage system to prevent the torrential rains from washing the whole place off the mountaintop--a system which has been working quite well for the last 600 years. Artistically speaking, I will never forget an example I saw at a museum in Kansas City a few years ago. Archaeologists had found a piece of jade which had been fashioned into a 6" cube and had a 1" hole drilled through its center. Jade is a material that is harder than diamonds, yet someone thousands of years ago was able to drill a hole through six inches of the stuff (for merely aesthetic reasons, nonetheless!). To this day, no one knows how the feat was accomplished.

The examples go on and on, but the point is clear: Earlier peoples were just as smart and ingenuous as we are. They mastered the materials of their day (stone, iron, etc) and created wonderful and lasting works without the aid of our modern contrivances. They created such fundamental things as writing and philosophy, which are the building blocks of our own society. Their only tools were whatever they could find around them and their wits, and they used them skillfully. These were smart people. And if they were able to do all of this, does it not follow that they could perceive events just as well as we? And is not the corollary also true that they could sniff out a fishy story just as well as we?

And yet, unlike us, the early biblical writers did believe the stories they heard and documented. The stories made sense to them; something about them rang true. Maybe they even had a grandfather who told them what it was like to serve King David. Maybe they were well aware of a type of aquatic animal that could swallow a man whole. Maybe they knew some of the 500 people who saw the resurrected Christ with their own eyes. Maybe things did happen differently and for different reasons in another time and another place.

So the next time you are tempted to read the Bible and ask, "Did it really happen like that?" think about living without the benefits of modern technology. How long would you last? How observant would you have to be to completely sustain yourself and your family using only what you could hunt, trade or grow from the land? How long would you last in such an environment if you believed everything anybody told you? The answers to these questions might persuade you that those folks might have indeed known and recorded what really happened.

C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy: A Review

The words "philology" and "exciting" are seldom used in the same sentence. In fact, one would imagine that a trilogy of books whose protagonist was a philologist would be tedious and downright boring. If the author of that trio of novels were C.S. Lewis, however, one could not be farther from the truth!

I speak of C.S. Lewis' epic Space Trilogy, which I just completed reading. The hero in all three books (Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra and That Hideous Strength) is Dr. Elwin Ransom, who begins the series (in Out of the Silent Planet) as a mild-mannered linguist. While on a walking trip in Europe, he stumbles upon two scientists (named Devine and Weston) who end up kidnapping him and forcing him onto a spaceship headed to Malacanrda, a distant planet. Ransom soon learns that he is to be handed over to the Sorn, whoever that might be, and in all likelihood, killed, upon their arrival to the planet. In a daring move, Ransom escapes his human captors soon after they touch down and must survive on his own in a distant world. He meets several races of sentient beings along the way, befriending them and learning their language. He eventually finds himself face-to-face with the spiritual being (called an eldil) who protects the planet and, well, to say any more would spoil the story!

The saga continues with Perelandra. Ransom, who, along with his original captors, travels back to Earth at the end of the first book, is now summoned by an eldil to travel to another planet, Perelandra. Once on the planet, he meets a green woman who he learns is that world's "Eve." Furthermore, "Eve" has been separated from her "Adam," and Ransom teams up with her to look for him. By a stroke of luck (if one believes in that sort of thing), the language Ransom learned on Malacandra turns out to be Old Solar, the same tongue spoken by the green woman. Ransom does not succeed at finding the green woman's husband, but he does succeed at finding Weston, who has traveled there from earth in his spaceship. But this is not the same Weston he knew before. This Weston now takes on the role of the Serpent, trying to trick "Eve" into disobeying the command of the great Maleldil. Ransom realizes it was for this that he has been summoned to Perelandra, and so he does battle against Weston--a gripping tale that comprises most of the second half of the book. To tell more, again, would ruin this story for you. Let it suffice to say that Ransom does make it back to Earth again.

The final book, That Hideous Strength, continues Ransom's story, but in a most different way. This story is set on our own planet--Britain, in fact--and it centers on a "sinister technocratic organization" that has great plans for the human race. The organization, called the National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.), is most intent on purchasing Bragdon Wood from the local college who owns it. The woods are thought to be the burial place of Merlin the Magician, whom N.I.C.E. wants to resurrect and use for their own evil ends. Ransom, now the Director of a small band of men, women and animals, must determine what exactly N.I.C.E. is up to, which he accomplishes with the help of a clairvoyant woman named Jane, and put a stop to it. Ransom finds additional help to do this in some unexpected (and some quite expected) quarters.

Overall, the trilogy was a delight to read and hard to put down. Although Lewis mentions that each book may be read alone, the true beauty of his story can only be seen by reading them all consecutively. Lewis' ability to write both fiction and nonfiction is, of course, extraordinary, and the Space Trilogy is as equally good as the Chronicles of Narnia. (It is important to note, however, that the former is written for adults, and the latter for children. The Trilogy is definitely a tougher read.) A few things stood out to me as I read that are worthy of mention. First, I found his take on myth to be fascinating. He contends (at least in these books) that ancient myths are not mere fables but are in fact usually rooted in history. Furthermore, things may have happened very differently thousands of years ago than they do now. One thinks of the plethora of flood myths found in ancient civilizations around the world--is this evidence that a global flood really did occur? Lewis might have thought so. Second, Lewis' ability to create evil characters is almost diabolical itself. These characters (Weston in the second book, and quite a few characters in the third) are evil for the sake of being evil. Especially frightening is Weston in Perelandra, who uses intellectual arguments, school-boy taunts and everything in between for his vile tools. In him is no appreciation for anything for its own value, but only for how it might advance his evil ends. There were times when I literally had the "heebie jeebies" as I read. Finally, That Hideous Strength is Lewis' attempt to put the ideas of The Abolition of Man into novel format. This leads the reader to realize that this story is not mere fiction; it embodies what could happen to a society that embraces total moral relativism. In that vein, one could construe this book as a prophecy--what the future might hold for us.

If you have not read C.S. Lewis' Space Trilogy, I highly encourage you to do so. As fiction, it makes for lighter reading than his other books, but one sees some of the same themes. It is also a captivating read--you'll find yourself sacrificing sleep, because you just can't put the books down! And finally, it may awaken a desire to read some of his other works, all of which are worth the effort.

Why 19th-Century Britain Challenges Me

Sometimes inspiration comes from the most unexpected places. I received the latest issue of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS) in early December and saw an article entitled "Literacy and Biblical Knowledge: The Victorian Age and Our Own." Interesting, I thought. I'll get to learn some history. Instead, I learned about myself.

The author, Timothy Larsen, discusses the basic attitude of 19th-century Britain concerning the Bible and the reading thereof, and then compares them to 21st-century America. What he found is alarming.

Victorian Age Britain:

• "Even the scientist T.H. Huxley, the original agnostic who wrote polemical works attacking the Scriptures, insisted on 'the use of the Bible as an instrument of popular education.'"
• Catherine Booth, founder of the Salvation Army, had read the Bible in its entirety eight times by the age of twelve.
• Florence Nightingale, who denied that the Bible was special revelation, nevertheless "read it earnestly every day, both by herself and aloud to her servants."
• "Obviously figures such as [the ones mentioned above] represent best practice, but the point is that Victorians across the denominational and theological spectrum agreed that this [voracious and regular (read: daily) Bible reading] was best practice, and there was a mass culture of aspiring to attain it across the traditions."

Current Day America:

• In 2004, the National Endowment for the Arts discovered that 43.4% of adults had not read a single book (much less the Bible!) in the entire previous year.
• "Most Americans now cannot name the first book of the Bible and half cannot name even one of the four Gospels."
• And finally, a personal quotation from me: "What percentage of people think that the axiom 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' was originated by Abraham Lincoln?" (Hint: Read Mark 3)

The article really hit home for me. It made me think about my own Bible reading habits. What I realized was that while I am academically familiar with scripture, having studied it in the classroom for many years, I was not as personally familiar with it as I should be. Even my own Bible reading was focused on studying various biblical books, and really diving deep. While this is a good habit, and one which I have not dropped, I was neglecting the broad, surveying reading that allows familiarity over time (and a more developed matrix for those deep dives). It is important to note, this was not an exercise in self-guilt, but rather a realization that I could be doing better. (Also, I didn't like the idea of being upstaged by a twelve-year-old girl!)

Because of this article, I have changed my own personal reading habits. I now carve out time to read the Bible every day, with the goal of reading it through multiple times this year (a feat accomplished by reading just 15-20 minutes a day). I still keep up on my other reading, too, but now I am prioritizing differently. I'm finding that I look forward to it, too. I'm beginning to engage with the story lines and connect with the characters. In short, I'm enjoying it.*

I would encourage you, then, to dust off that Bible and read it--purposefully, chapters and books at a time, not randomly, verses here and there--not as a guilt-ridden duty, but as a joyous opportunity. Don't try to understand everything the first time through, either, but remember that with discipline, you will have many more opportunities to increase your understanding. With this mindset, you just might be unexpectedly surprised. I know I have been.

*And I'm watching less TV--and added bonus!

American Express on How to Get out of Debt

My wife and I are...how do I say this...pursuing aggressive financial goals. Jessica is a stay-at-home mother, which means the mouth-to-job ratio is 3:1. At the same time, we're working to pay off debt accrued during the first few years of our marriage, and we are trying to pay it off at a torrid pace. This makes for a difficult position. We have had to learn to live well below our means and embrace a very simple lifestyle. I will spare you the boring details, but I would be willing to bet that most Americans would not sacrifice as much as we have. But then, perhaps most Americans don't have the singularly focused drive that we do, either.

Some people do have what it takes, though, and American Express found a few who fit the bill for a radio ad I heard tonight. They found five women who joined together to pay off a combined $50,000 in debt. Good for them, I thought. But in the ad they were extolling the virtues of having an AmEx credit card. With an AmEx card, they said, you can pay off your debt, still live the extravagant lifestyle you want and be able to "buy the things that you deserve." I could not believe what I was hearing! Here are these ladies who somehow managed to pay off a huge amount of debt and learn nothing while doing it. There was obviously no lasting lifestyle change. There was obviously very little thought as to why they were in debt to begin with. When the money they got to promote AmEx runs out, I would expect them to go right back into the hole--thus very likely paying back their patrons with interest.

I'm not saying that the approach my wife and I are taking to eliminate debt is the apex of human ingenuity, but we are at least trying to embody Proverbs 30:8, "Give me neither poverty nor riches." We understand that, much like trying to dig yourself out of a hole, using a credit card will in no way lower your debt. We understand that extravagant spending on a middle-class paycheck is foolish. (Remember Dave Ramsey's quote: "Don't try to keep up with the Joneses--they're broke, too!") And we certainly understand that on this earth we deserve nothing more than a handful of basic, God-given rights--nothing that can be purchased with a credit card.

As for us, we will continue to live the simple life, enjoying simple pleasures. We will pay off our debt and never return to it. We will continue to learn of the pleasures of faith and family that no amount of money could ever buy. And we will kindly show American Express what they can do with their precious plastic card.

The Conservative Bible Project

I'm not even sure where to begin on this one. If you haven't figured out yet, I am definitely a political conservative. You might even think that I have some wacky views (I do), but this is just plain bizarre.

I'm referring to the Conservative Bible Project (CBP). Run by a man named Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis Schafly), the CBP "is a project to render God's word into modern English while removing liberal distortions." Schlafly argues that professors are an incredibly liberal bunch (politically, not theologically), and since they are doing all of the Bible translating, then of course our English translations are filled with liberal propagandist translations. And of what are these sins against the original text comprised? The CBP lists 10 guidelines upon which a "fully conservative translation" of the Bible should rest, and which no English translation today meets. I will list them exactly as they are presented on the CBP website and offer up some commentary in red after each guideline.

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

This has to do with versions translating "fishers of men" as "fishers of people" and using "laborer" rather than "volunteer." Never mind that "men" in the Greek New Testament usually refers to males and females both, or that the word for "laborer" comes from the root word meaning "to work," not "to volunteer." And apparently paraphrases (e.g. The Message) and word-for-word translations (e.g. NASB) are inherently liberal...somehow.

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)

Okay, I get that there has been a backlash against gender inclusive language, and some people don't like it. That's fine. There is certainly room for debate on that issue. However, I'm not sure what "other feminist distortions" they are talking about, nor have I ever heard of the NIV deleting references to unborn children. Granted, I only have a master's degree in biblical studies. Maybe someone with more gravitas could enlighten me?

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

The fact of the matter is, if you want to write something that most people will understand, you have to write at around an eighth-grade level. In any case, that's more formal education than the biblical writers had, and they come across as pretty erudite.

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent;[4] Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

I don't even know what they are talking about on this one.

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

So ancient Israelites sought the will of God by going to Vegas? Seriously. The Roman guards did gamble for Jesus' clothes by casting lots, but lots were cast for other reasons than attempting to make a quick denarius or two--see Jonah 1:7, for example.

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

No translation I have read does this. People have decided to interpret such passages in ways that deny or downplay the reality of Hell and Satan, but the words are still in the text.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

I'm going to go out on a limb on this one and say that none of Jesus' parables is first and foremost about establishing a free market system. There may be elements of his parables that do support the free market, but these should be drawn out in exegesis, not during translation.

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

There are indeed passages of scripture that were added by early scribes. These are clearly indicated as such in modern translations. They are kept in the text due to their historical importance. See John 7:53-8:11.

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

I don't have a clue as to what they are talking about here.

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

Liberal wordiness? I'm beginning to think this is a practical joke. Oh, and a word about "Lord" is in order. Lord is ba'al in Hebrew and kurios in Greek. LORD is a gloss of Yahweh, which is God's name. Jehovah is a later corruption of Yahweh. Lord God is a gloss of Yahweh Elohim, "Yahweh God" in Hebrew. Given the several different Greek and Hebrew terms, using the single English term "Lord" for each of these would be...an unnecessary ambiguity.

The bottom line is, this seems to be a group of people trying to make the Bible support a particular political view--modern American conservatism. I think also that the CBP is confusing what the text says with how people have interpreted the text. In any event, I have serious suspicions about this project or any other that attempts to conform the Word of God to their own preconceived notions. Last I checked, the opposite should be true.

Open Letter to President Obama on Climate Change

Here is the text of a letter to the editor (in the form of an open letter to the President) that I submitted to the Denver Post last week. It hasn't been posted yet, which I am assuming means it won't be posted at all. But that's why I have a blog!

---------------------

President Obama,

It has recently come to light that climate data provided to the U.N. by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the British Climate Research Unit (CRU) is suspect. The CRU, whose data is used by the IPCC, uses ice cores, tree rings, corals and thermometers to determine global climate conditions. Since 1960, thermometers have shown a steep rise in temperatures, while ice cores, tree rings and corals have not. The CRU has responded to these divergent data by only using thermometer data for this time period. In other words, they discarded the data that did not fit their hypothesis (anthropogenic global warming). Not only is this extremely poor science, it calls into question the very method the CRU is using to determine global temperatures.

Mr. President, I urge you not to agree to any global policy decisions in Copenhagen until reliable climate data can be obtained.

Respectfully yours,

The Reality of Reality TV

James Wolcott over at Vanity Fair has written a dead-on article about the various ways in which reality television is a cancer on society. Rather than recount his argument, it's better just to read it for yourself. What I like is that he separates bad TV from TV in general. I'm not a great fan of the medium, but I do like to watch good movies, and I enjoy documentaries, shows on nature and cooking, and even the occasional sporting event. I think these are good and proper uses of TV, when exercised in moderation. But let's face it: There is nothing redeeming about reality TV.

The Case for Intelligent Design

Toastmasters is great. No topic is off-limits when it comes to giving a speech. I'm currently working through a manual on persuasive speaking. One of the projects in this manual is to give a speech on a controversial and generally unpopular topic. This helps one learn the skill of addressing the opposition. I gave that speech last Tuesday, and I gave it on the most controversial and unpopular topic I could think of: Intelligent Design. I've posted the transcript of that speech below and added slides where appropriate. Feel free to agree or disagree with anything and everything I said, but please do keep in mind, it was a seven-minute speech by an admitted amateur, not a full-orbed scientific or theological treatise. But I do hope that at least it will provide some food for thought. Enjoy!

Charles Darwin published his seminal work, The Origin of Species, in November of 1859--exactly 150 years ago this month. And for those last 150 years, the theory of evolution has been the accepted scientific theory of the development of life. By evolution I mean the idea that all life has evolved from a single ancestor through slight, natural and undirected modifications. This idea has become the foundation for the scientific outlook on life. In recent years, however, a small group of scientists and others has challenged the idea of evolution and proposed a different outlook than Darwin's Origin of Species. They propose that some aspects of nature are best explained not as the product of blind, material forces but as the product of intelligence. You may have heard of their theory--it's called Intelligent Design.

As you can imagine, challenging the scientific consensus of evolution is not an easy task. Challenging the group kind of makes one unpopular by definition, which often results in one having to overcome many obstacles. One of the biggest obstacles Intelligent Design theorists have to overcome is confusion. There is much confusion about what Intelligent Design is and what it is not. Today I would like to clear the air regarding Intelligent Design by explaining to you what it is and what it is not. As I go through this explanation, I hope to persuade you to accept or at least consider the idea that Intelligent Design should be seen as a valid scientific theory.

Let's talk about what Intelligent Design is.

Intelligent Design can be defined as "the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the product of intelligence. It rests on two pillars: (1) that the activity of intelligent agents is sometimes detectible and (2) that nature may exhibit evidence of intelligent activity." In other words, the basic idea is that there are things in nature that certainly look as if they have been designed for a purpose--and both evolutionists and Intelligent Design proponents will agree to this. The eye has been constructed for the purpose of sight. DNA contains information for the purpose of building cells. The tail of a bacteria, called a flagellum, contains all the same basic parts as an outboard motor, both of whose purpose is propulsion. But while evolution says that these things only appear to be designed, Intelligent Design says that they really are designed. But this raises the question, how would we know if things in nature are designed or not?

Intelligent Design simply proposes that the natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry, should make use of the same methods that are already used in anthropology, archeology, and forensic science. For instance, say you're in South Dakota and you come upon this sight:

Would you conclude that this rock façade was designed or created by forces of nature? Okay, now say you're walking on the beach in Hawaii and you find some marks in the sand that look like this:

Is this formed from natural forces, or is it designed? Now, how did we decide these cases? What was it about them that told us these are examples of design and not just natural phenomena? Well, there are many answers, but they all boil down to two criteria. And these criteria are currently used by anthropologists and archaeologists all the time.

The two criteria are specificity and complexity. Something is specific when it conforms to a pattern. For example, this little guy (the smiley face) is easily identified as a smiley face--that formation of various lines forms a recognized pattern. This squiggly line, however, does not. It's not specific to anything. On the flip side, complexity is something that is not likely to happen by chance. Thus the sentence, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times," is complex--a random typing of letters on a typewriter will not likely form that arrangement of letters. The word "cat," however, is not complex--it could fairly easily be found in a random string of letters. The end result is that Intelligent Design maintains that specificity plus complexity equals design.

Let's go back to Mt. Rushmore. It's specific--its shape conforms to the faces of four former presidents. It's complex--there are myriad angles in the rock surface have to be very precise. The same goes for the writing in the sand. It conforms to a known pattern--an English word and two numbers, in this case, and it's complex--it's unlikely that a piece of driftwood would wash ashore and leave those markings behind. So, specificity plus complexity leads us to conclude design.

Let's look at a few more examples.

DNA is formed as a large chain of four chemical bases: A, G, C and T. The sequence of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism. So do we have specified complexity here? You bet. DNA is specific--it always and only uses A, G, C and T--this is the DNA alphabet, as it were. It's also complex--how likely is it, for instance, that the 3 billion letters in a human DNA chain would have come about in just the right order through blind natural forces? Not very.

Another example is something called the bacterial flagellum. It's the tail of a bacteria, which serves to propel it to where it wants to go. As you can see, it has various parts--rings, a motor, a filament, a hook. Again, we see specificity--the flagellum has striking similarities to what we recognize as an outboard motor. It also has complexity. It is so complex, in fact, that if you were to remove any single part, the entire flagellum would cease to be functional. Thus we have specificity, complexity and therefore design.

These are the basics of Intelligent Design. If something is specific and complex, one can safely infer that that thing was designed. Now that we know what Intelligent Design is, let's talk about what it isn't. There are two main misconceptions about Intelligent Design:

The first of which is that Intelligent Design is "creationism in disguise." Creationism, however, begins with a religious text (Gen 1-2, for example) and tries to reconcile known facts of the natural world to that text. Intelligent Design does not in any way use any religious text in its arguments, and proponents of Intelligent Design come from many different religious backgrounds. So while it is true that Intelligent Design is complementary to creationism, it is not the same thing as creationism as the term is widely understood.*

Another common assertion about Intelligent Design is that it is an argument from ignorance--it's often called a "God of the gaps" theory. In other words, since we don't know how something could have evolved, well, God must have done it. But thankfully, this is not actually the case. Rather, Intelligent Design relies on something called inference to the best explanation--something that we all use every day. Given all of the facts at our disposal, if something appears to be designed (based on our criteria of specificity and complexity), it makes more sense to conclude that it is designed than to conclude that it got that way through natural means.

We have seen that Intelligent Design is a theory that looks for elements in nature that are best explained not by chance but by design. It seeks to do this using the widely accepted and testable criteria of specificity and complexity. It is not creationism, nor is it an argument from ignorance. Rather, it is a scientifically viable theory.

At this point, I concluded with a brief Q&A session in which I also mentioned the following resources:

*In the Q&A time afterward, I discussed that ID could be called creationism in a wide sense--it does argue for a Designer/Creator, after all--but the narrower sense of the term as I describe above is the one meant when this accusation is leveled.

The Forgotten Depression

Thanks to ChrisB for a link to an excellent article on the economic depression and recovery that occurred in 1920-21. It's a somewhat lengthy piece, but if you are at all cognizant of and/or concerned about the current stimulus efforts, it is well worth reading in its entirety.

Warren Harding and the Forgotten Depression of 1920

Discipline

Discipline. Now there's a word for you. Who wants to be disciplined? The very word connotes a lack of spontaneity that sucks the life out of you. And discipline won't get you on television. Think about it. Who are the sports players who get a majority of the media's attention? The ones who aren't disciplined; the ones who do dumb and provocative things (like Plaxico Burress, who recently shot himself in the leg). Who gets to be on reality shows? Typically only complete imbeciles make for "good TV" nowadays, and the less they can control themselves, the better. And why are there so many home foreclosures out there? Among other reasons, many people weren't disciplined enough to only buy as much house as they could afford.

Discipline. My family's recent income adjustment (taking the form of a 10-month-old boy) has made us become much more disciplined financially. As a result, we have a strict monthly budget that we follow, and if we want to make a major purchase, we have to figure out a way to save up the money for it. Instant material gratification is all but gone at our house. We have chosen to be disciplined financially to allow for my wife to stay home and raise Brodie and to better our financial position at the same time. Let me tell you, that requires lots of discipline!

Discipline. One of the distinctive features of Denver Seminary is their mentoring program. All students are required to do a number of learning contracts in which the goal is to become better in an area of spiritual formation or at a ministry skill. Students are required to write out a needs assessment, a goal statement, and at least six specific actions to take to achieve the goal. Students then meet with mentors and small groups for accountability.

Discipline. I used to be a competitive runner. I ran some pretty respectable times and placed in some pretty tough races. To get to that point, though, required running, on average, 8-10 miles per day, every day, whether I wanted to or not, year-round. There were countless days where I was tired, or weather conditions were extreme, or I simply didn't want to run. But I did anyway.

Even though living a disciplined life isn't always fun and usually very hard, it is also very rewarding. I think about our financial discipline. Through it, God is teaching us how to rely on him and helping us to reevaluate what we really need and what we can live without. And you know what? We are just as happy now as ever. When I performed what seemed like countless learning contracts, it was those disciplined times the Spirit used to lay a strong spiritual foundation in my life (one that has been put to the test on many occasions!). I was able to be highly competitive as a runner solely because I put in the countless miles of hard work to get there, and I have some great memories and experiences because of it.

In short, the best and strongest parts in my life are due to discipline. Through dedicated, structured, purposeful and hard work, God has allowed me to achieve some pretty impressive things, and I truly think my family and I have a great life due to the fact that we have learned to be disciplined. But I never wanted to be on TV anyway.

The Shack: A Book Review

I like to tell people that I read boring books. They’re not actually boring, of course (far from it); they’re just highly specialized. Let’s face it, when one has (paid a lot of money for) a master’s degree in biblical studies, it’s only natural that he will keep up on the subject. So I read “boring” commentaries, histories, and the like. Very rarely do I read modern-day fiction. Every now and again I will pick up a blockbuster novel, though, usually because I’m curious about why it is circulating so well. This was the case with the latest “must read”—The Shack by William P. Young.

After a long wait, I finally got a copy from the city library last week and got started reading. I had heard various friends talk about it, and I had read various book reviews, often with very different takes. Very interesting, I thought. What will my take be? I worked my way quickly through the novel, which I found to be an easy and pleasant read. I don’t really have much to compare it to in this genre, but I felt that the book was fairly well-written and the plot was very creative. It was definitely a page-turner, and reading it was enjoyable. Furthermore, it is obvious that Young is using his own story as the basis for the novel. In the novel, Mack (the protagonist) must face the grief and pain of his daughter’s murder head-on. The liner notes say that something horrible happened to Young not once but twice in his life, and whatever they were, he pulled from those experiences deeply in crafting his novel. Consequently, his description of theodicy is excellent. He goes to great lengths explaining how God can be good and sovereign and yet still allow evil to occur. He rightly points out that although God uses evil actions by humans to further his own plans, he does not require those actions to achieve his plans. He also correctly states that God may allow for bad things to happen for reasons that are incomprehensible to us fallen humans, but are good reasons nonetheless. Young’s portrait of a man struggling with the reality of evil and the goodness of God is a masterpiece, and he should be commended for it.

Unfortunately, that is where my commendations for Mr. Young’s work stop. The Shack has serious theological issues and errors related to the Trinity, Christology, ecclesiology and personal eschatology. Let us look at each in turn.

Most of the negative reviews I read about the book focused on Young’s portrayal of the Trinity. I found that the book portrayed God’s three-in-oneness well, but not necessarily the three persons’ relationships with one another. At one point, Papa (representing God the Father) tells Mack that no hierarchy exists within the Trinity—each person is fully God, and each submits to the others. While it is true that there is no ontological hierarchy in the Godhead (or, in plain English, each person is indeed fully God, and there is one God), there does exist a functional hierarchy (a.k.a. functional subordination). In other words, the Father sends the Son; the Son creates through the Spirit; the Father does not submit to the Son, but the Son submits to the Father; and so on. Each person has a distinct role, and some roles are “above” or “below” others. Young seems to be confused about the manner in which the Father, Son and Spirit relate.

Young also has an incorrect Christology in some places. He does agree with the orthodox view that Jesus is fully man and fully God, but he maintains that Jesus never does anything out of his God nature. The miracles, the healings, the resurrection—all these point to Jesus acting as a man who is dependent upon God (the Father). The problem is that the Jesus of the Gospels didn’t act in that way. He healed the paralytic in Mark 2 to prove to the doubters in the room that he could forgive sins, something only God has the power to do. He also speaks at length in Matt 25 of his future judgment of the world. If at any time he is drawing on his divine powers, surely this is it! The reason the Jews wanted Jesus crucified, in fact, was because he acted as if he were truly God, with all the powers and privileges thereof. Thus Young has misunderstood what the kenosis (Jesus’ emptying himself in Phil. 2:6-8) was all about. Jesus as God did limit himself, but he didn’t pull the plug completely, as The Shack would have you believe.

Young also has some very postmodern, although very wrong, ideas about the nature of the church (ecclesiology). His Jesus states that he never created the church as an institution. Instead, the church is exclusively about relationships. Organized religion is something created by humans so that they can have power over other humans. While this may be true for some religions (and political structures, etc.), it is not true for the church. In speaking to Peter, Jesus did establish the institution of the church (Matt 16:18), and the organized church took root and grew under the leadership of the Spirit-filled apostles (cf. book of Acts; the Epistles). To be blunt, if Young is right, Paul is wrong! The church is not just about hanging out with a fellow believer at Starbucks, although this is an important aspect of it. The church is also about having an organized and regular meeting of believers. Closely related to this lax view of church is Young’s lax view of Christian duty—or lack thereof. In the book, Papa says that to be in a relationship with her has nothing to do with expectations or responsibilities, but rather expectancy and an ability to respond. But then what does one do with Jesus’ statement, “If you love me, you will obey what I command” (John 14:15)? Although salvation is not based on works, scripture is clear that once the Spirit indwells the believer and he is able to do good works, those works are very much expected out of him (e.g., John 15:2).

Young seems to have universalist tendencies when it comes to personal eschatology. In other words, although he doesn’t come right out and say it, he seems to indicate that everyone will one day be reconciled to God through Christ. Late in the book, there is a colorful, heavenly reunion between Mack and his abusive father. Shortly thereafter, Papa indicates that the man who killed Mack’s daughter may very well come to God as well. The two worst characters in the book end up reconciled to God, which insinuates that everyone else will, too. Young cites Rom 14:11, “Every knee will bow before me,” as scriptural support. But acknowledging that Jesus is God at the final judgment only serves to further condemn those who refused his Lordship in this life, as the second half of 11 implies (“so then, each of us will give an account of himself to God”). While I do not wish to underestimate God’s grace, unfortunately universalism is not compatible with biblical teaching.

In the end, William P. Young’s The Shack is a wonderful story about a man trying to reconcile the reality of unspeakable evil with the existence of a good God. In that respect, Young does a superb job. Unfortunately, along the way he commits grievous theological errors about the Trinity, Christ, the church and eschatology. Would I recommend this book? Yes, because there is much good content in it. But I would add the caveat, “Don’t believe everything you read.”

Christianity Without Church?

Why does organized religion matter? Isn't faith a private, personal, subjective thing, after all? It's a relationship with Jesus, so who cares about getting all gussied up and driving to a building every Sunday morning? This is the kind of thinking Kevin DeYoung examines in a Christianity Today interview about his new book, Why We Love the Church.

DeYoung points out that while the term church can refer to believers in general, two Christians meeting at Starbucks does not constitute a true church, i.e. a defined local community of believers. Why not? DeYoung says that the church as an institution has a structured litugry (teaching, singing, praying, ordinances) and offices (pastor/elder/bishop and deacon/deaconess). This is another important meaning of the word ekklesia. Coming together in a regular, organized manner is essential, he says, to have a lasting impact. (It's also commanded of us in Heb. 10:25.) Furthermore, he claims that many of those who care decrying the necessity of an organized church are, quite simply, immature in the faith. I tend to agree with this assessment. Organization, structure and even routine are extremely necessary for Christians. Let me explain.

Imagine that a group of Christians decided they were no longer going to celebrate Christmas by purchasing gifts, decorating, caroling, seeing family, etc. After all, December 25 isn't really Jesus' birthday, and we all just do the same things over and over again, year after year. Besides, what do any of those things have to do with one's relationship to Christ? They're just external trappings, so it is asserted. This, of course, is missing the point. All of those activities are part of the tradition of Christmas. Giving gifts reminds us of Christ's ultimate gift. Family get togethers provide a structured, planned time of fellowship with kin, something we need to stay connected to one another for a lifetime. And perhaps this is the only time each year when Luke 1-2 is read.

Tradition, organization and structure allow for remembering, learning and growth opportunities over the long term. There is certainly a place for spontaneous meetings over coffee, but this alone will not contribute to lasting growth. Fellowship, teaching, congregational singing and prayer are all part of the essential dynamic called the local church, the involvement in which is expected by all beleivers. One should question its necessity ony with great care.

A Concise History of Beards--Mine, Too!

Ever since I was 18, I have almost always sported a goatee or a full beard. Periods of clean-shavenness have been exceedingly rare and short-lived. I recently started thinking, why do I prefer having facial hair? An interesting question, one which I will answer shortly. Before I do, though, I thought I would share a brief pogonological comment or two. So here it is, ladies and gentlemen: A concise history of the beard in Western civilization.

The oldest flint razors that have been discovered thus far date to around 30,000 BCE. This means that men living prior to this date had no choice but to walk around fully bearded, wearing the skins of saber-tooth tigers they killed themselves. After that, the history of facial hair gets a little fuzzy (no pun intended) for about 27,000 years. Enter the ancient Jews, Greeks and Romans. The Israelites, of course, all had beards, since Leviticus 19:27 forbid shaving (or so it was interpreted). Thus growing a beard was a God-honoring prospect, a profoundly pious act. The ancient Greeks also revered the beard, considering it a sign of wisdom and virility. The most famous Greek of all, Alexander the Great, changed the social norm when he commanded his armies to enter battle cleanly shaven. Why? The enemy could grab one's beard during hand-to-hand combat, putting oneself at extreme disadvantage! The Romans, too, preferred the clean-cut look (at least after 300 BCE, which is when the first barber reached Rome), considering facial hair to denote slovenliness.

After these ancient societies collapsed, Europe descended into the Dark Ages. Apparently pogonologists were in short supply, because I could find no information about beards during that time (can you believe it?). We can, however, pick up in our history of the beard in the Middle Ages. 15th-century Europe was a beardless society; the fad was reborn in the 16th century. At this time, the first association of beards and politics appears. Catherine the Great did her best to do away with beards, because to sport one was to protest the religious climate of the day. In fact, priests who had traditionally been clean-shaven as a show of their celibacy, grew out their beards (and got married) to send a message. This love affair with the beard was short-lived, however; by the 1600s, they were no longer in vogue. That this was the case can be seen in Peter I. He wanted to be like the West so much that in 1698 he forbade his fellow Russians to grow beards, and by 1705 he was exacting a 100-ruble tax on men who defied his orders.

Beards were by and large out of style from that point until the Civil War (thanks to a little help from men like Abraham Lincoln and Ambrose Burnside). The mantra of the day, of course, was "the bigger, the better." But the mighty beard took another downturn in WWI. Soldiers were required to shave, since a grizzly face would inhibit gas masks from sealing tightly. Also during that era, movies were becoming more and more popular, and of course, many flicks were about the war, featuring actors portraying soldiers--sans beard for authenticity's sake. Concurrently, major ad campaigns by razor companies emphasized the importance of a good, clean shave. Thus from 1920-1960, beards were virtually forbidden. The arrival of the Beatnik movement in the 50s led some members to grow beards just to be nonconformists. The hippies of the 60s picked up on the habit from them, but they used the beard/long-hair combination as a means of protest against the US government and the Vietnam War. By the 70s, however, this look had become mainstream and carried with it no political baggage. The 1980s saw a return to the hairless face, which persisted until the 2000s, where the trend has been to grow sideburns, goatees and pencil-thin beards.

The beard has been around as long as men have. Over the last 6,000 years or so, men have been shaving their faces and growing out their beards for various reasons--sometimes social, sometimes political, sometimes religious. The beard continually rises in and falls out of style, again, for myriad reasons.

With the prolific history of the beard now stated, I can answer my initial question: Why do I have one? For me, there is no social, religious or political reason. I think, rather, that it comes down to the issue of fatherhood. You see, I have never seen my dad without a full beard. (In fact, in 30+ years of marriage, neither has my mom!) My dad's beard is his most distinguising physical characteristic. I can't imagine him without it--nor do I want to. I suppose his genes allowed me to grow a beard in the first place, but there's more than reproductive biology at work here. Having facial hair just feels right. Being clean-shaven just feels wrong. I don't know how to explain it; I don't know why I feel this way. Perhaps I am trying to emulate him, but especially now as a father myself, I can't imagine taking a razor to my entire face. I can't imagine going through life with a smooth chin. It just ain't right.

For more information on the history of beards, check out the following links:

• The Troubled History of Beards - damninteresting.com
• Beard - Wikipedia
• A Brief History of Beards - The Brooklyn Rail
• Growing a Beard: The History and Philosophies Behind the Current Trend - Associated Content
• Beard: Encyclopedia II - experiencefestival.com

Karma: Garbage In, Garbage Out

Karma is ubiquitous in today's American culture. I hear this term bantered about on the radio, on TV and in conversations. For some reason that, quite honestly, escapes me, people actually believe in karma. I wish to show two reasons why the idea of karma is not viable.

Karma is the idea that moral actions are rewarded or punished through an impersonal system, whether it be some kind of law, or the universe itself, etc.* Let us note first of all that, in order to believe in good and bad actions as the inputs to the karmic system, one must hold to some standard of Good. After all, how can good behavior be rewarded--and more importantly, bad behavior be punished--if there is no standard on which to judge? Karma without the idea of the Good is like a capricious master, deciding your fate on a whim. This is hardly a fair scenario, and if karma isn't about fairness, then what is it about? But this idea of the Good must also be a universal standard, if the universe or a universal law is responsible for punishment and reward. Now, every good postmodernist knows that the first rule of postmodernism is "there are no moral absolutes." So the relativist who believes in karma (and I have yet to meet, see or hear a karma-espouser who is not a moral relativist) is faced with a contradiction--there both is and is not a universal standard of Good.

Now I myself do believe in a universal standard of Good. Should I therefore admit that karma is at least possible, given my worldview? Not quite. Karma runs into another issue when one recalls that it is believed to be an impersonal system: Put a good action into the system, get rewarded; put a bad action into the system, get punished. Here's the rub: How does an impersonal system differentiate between good and bad? Good and bad are moral categories, and only persons have an understanding of moral actions. If, for example, I were to use my computer to hack into Wal-Mart's customer database and steal all of their information, my computer would not stand in my way. It would not send me an email letting me know it disapproved of my actions because they were morally wrong. But were my wife to walk in while I was breaking into the database, she would immediately let me know that what I was doing was wrong. For her, the distinction would be immediate and obvious. For my computer, no distinction would ever be forthcoming. Karma is an impersonal agent, just like a computer. Therefore, karma is not able to know the difference between good and bad.

To reiterate, karma presupposes an absolute standard of Good, which contradicts postmodern moral theory, and it posits the existence of an impersonal agent that can differentiate between good and bad, which is another contradiction, since only persons understand this distinction. This leaves the believer in karma with an untenable assertion on two counts.

In other words, in postmodern America, karma simply cannot be.

*Let us put aside the fact that American karma is a bastardized version of the actual Hindu/Buddhist doctrine. I am only discussing the American version here.