FSM

My wife happened upon an interesting article in Sunday's Denver Post. She alerted my attention to it when she asked me if I knew anything about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I was intrigued. Apparently, it all started in May of 2005, when the Kansas State School Board was discussing whether or not to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in science class. Oregon State grad student Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the board, proclaiming that if they taught Kansas kids ID, then they should by all means teach his alternative ID theory that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. He even included a picture of the Monster, or FSM to his friends. He also pinned the cause of global warming on the dwindling number of pirates in the letter, which I actually thought was pretty funny. He has since established a "church" and the FSM has followers called "Pastafarians". All in all, in perusing the FSM website, I think that Henderson has actually done a fairly creative job with it. And I do find the FSM pretty good-looking, for a deity.

Of course, as amusing as it is, there is but one small problem. Unfortunately, that problem is the entire foundation of the argument. Here it goes:

1. There is no scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Did you miss it? Here, let me try this again:

1. There is no naturalistic scientific evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Let's try it one more time, just for fun:

1. Science, which (since around 1850) by definition only allows for completely natural causes in a closed system and therefore disregards the very idea of an Intelligent Designer a priori, finds no evidence for an Intelligent Designer.
2. Therefore, Intelligent Design is not science.

Anybody else have a problem with this logic? I see this very much as the attempt "to have one's cake and eat it, too". Science has cordoned off any talk of the supernatural because of its philosophical presuppositions of naturalism--which, by the way, are not scientifically verifiable. Anyone who decides to cross this arbitrary line (scientifically speaking) is condemned as a heretic who is despoiling the virgin Truth that is Science.

Does this mean that I want kids in public schools everywhere learning about the universe by reading Genesis 1-3? Not really. I'm not so sure I want the church to team up with the government to begin with; after all, what kind of track record does the government have going for it at this point? What I would like to see is kids (and adults) everywhere thinking critically about what they are told. Does the idea of naturalism make sense? Are the arguments I am presented logically coherent, and do they reflect what I see in real life? Or more broadly, does the naturalistic worldview equate to reality (or any other worldview, for that matter)?

If one thinks critically and interacts intellectually with what one is told, what is the harm in learning about evolution, whether one believes it or not? Perhaps we Christians especially have been fighting the wrong battle all along.

Commentaries, Community and Craig Blomberg

Today in class my professor, the well-known and well-respected Dr. Craig Blomberg, asked a pretty good question. We were discussing 1 Peter 3:18-22, a passage in which Peter discusses Christ preaching to the spirits in prison during the time of Noah. In exegeting this text correctly, one must look at the cultural knowledge of the story of Noah and the Flood in Asia 2000 years ago, dig into syntax of the passage in the original Greek and have an understanding of 1 Enoch, an inter-Testamental apochryphal text. Even with that knowledge, it’s still a very difficult passage. If I am a typical churchgoer, what am I to do? How can I interpret the text correctly without all of this superfluous, archaic knowledge readily at hand? This was the question posed by Dr. Blomberg.

After some thought and class discussion, however, I took issue with the question itself. The issue I have with it is its use of the first-person singular pronoun “I”. How can “I” interpret the text correctly? What do “I” do? There is a time and place for personal reflection and study of scripture, but there is also a time and place for community discussion. In cases like 1 Peter 3:18-22, a community discussion is vital to understanding and edification. This in and of itself is not very earth-shattering, but then it hit me: Christian commentary authors are part of the community of believers, too. As are archaeologists, textual critics, and any other type of scholar you care to mention. We are not all going to know the ins and outs of 1 Enoch or unearth ancient coins bearing Noah’s image, but because there are followers of Christ who know and do these things, we should thankfully engage them as fellow members of the community and learn from them by reading what they have to say.

Taken this way, a good commentary becomes much more than a dry book of boring facts and trivial details; it becomes an active dialogue with a brother or sister in Christ. It furthers the community that we (and the world) desperately need.

Love Addict - Family Force 5

My pastor recently told me about RadioU, a radio station that streams actual, good Christian music online. Here in Denver, there is a dearth of such music, which I largely believed to be mythical since the demise of dc Talk and good Audio Adrenaline. (For non-Christian readers out there, those two bands used to rock!) Anyway, RadioU has pleasantly proved me wrong. There is good Christian music out there, after all. Let me give you an example.

Family Force 5 is a band out of Atlanta, Georgia. They are comprised of three brothers, sons of 80s musician Jerome Olds (anybody actually know who this is? I sure don't), and two of their friends (presumably brought in because Family Force 3 just doesn't cut it). I am not sure how to describe their music, other than...awesome. Why do I like them?

1. They sing and play with emotion. It's almost like they're passionate about God! (Don't tell K-LOVE!)
2. They know their audience. They interact with the culture while retaining their core message.
3. They prominently feature the guitar. (Yes, as everyone knows, I adhere to Phil Keaggy's philosophy: Love one woman...many guitars.)

See for yourself.



Awesome. And really weird. Just my cup of tea!

Death of a Fellow Runner

This morning, Ryan Shay, who was one of America's top distance runners, died during the U.S. Olympic Trials Marathon in New York. It is believed that he suffered a heart attack at around the five-mile mark. He was transported to a nearby hospital where he was pronounced dead.

This is a sad day for the sport. Though I am not running at present, I did used to be one of the better runners out there. In fact, I ran against him in 2003 at the U.S. Championships Half-Marathon in Kansas City. Well, he won the race, while I barely cracked the top 20. Nevertheless, runners share a special bond, and my heart goes out to Ryan and his wife. Runners are a special breed, and he will be missed.

Rockies vs. Catwoman

The Rockies have really been putting a cramp in my style. I would wager that the city of Denver is suffering a serious productivity problem. Do you know how hard it is to get anything done when the ultimate underdog team is in the World Series, and they're from your town? It's definitely Rocktober around here. Here's an example why.

Brian Fuentes was the Rockies' ace closer for the first half of the season. He went to the All-Star game in July. Things were looking great for him. Then he got hurt. He had a strained lateral that caused him to blow four straight saves. He was put on the DL and replaced by Manny Corpas, who now has done equally well as Fuentes. Fuentes healed his injury, but was relegated to set-up man. He could have taken the low road and labeled himself a victim, but he did not. Instead, this is what he said:

"I do it for my teammates. I played with these guys all year. Whining about not closing isn't going to help the situation. You only worry about the things you have control over, and that's not one of the things I had control over...Manny is our closer right now, and I'm going to help get the ball to him. It's not about egos. You've got to check your ego at the door. That's basically what it boils down to."

This attitude well represents all of the Rockies. One of the least-paid teams in the league, these guys are selfless team players who care about each other and working together. How can you not like this team?

Contrast the Rockies with Halle Barry. Barry recently stated that she faces barriers in Hollywood because she is black (For the record, her mother is English, her father African-American):

"It doesn't matter that I have an Oscar, an Emmy, a Golden Globe and a Silver (Berlin) Bear...I shouldn't have had to try so hard to be considered. I should have to stop convincing studios I am right for it -- it should be on my acting merit."

I shouldn't have to try so hard to be considered. What a ridiculous thing to say for someone with the following resume:
1. Cheerleader, honor society member, editor of the school newspaper, class president and prom queen at Bedford High School
2. Winner of Miss Ohio USA and Miss Teen All-American (she only placed 6th at Miss World)
3. WInner of the Academy Award for best actress
4. Named the sexiest woman in the world by FHM magazine
5. Has a star on Hollywood's Walk of Fame

I'm guessing she's not short on cash, either. Does she still perceive a measure of discrimination because of her skin color? Perhaps. And maybe some ignorant people do treat her with less respect because she is black. (They ought to treat her with less respect because she starred in "Catwoman". Just kidding.) To complain about it while sitting in your multi-million-dollar home, living a life that few people will ever know? This is the height of the victim mentality. Does she have to figure out how to make ends meet month after month like most people? Does she have to fight tooth-and-nail to land an entry-level job because people she doesn't know and will never see say she's not qualified (like I, a white male, had to do)? How many coupons does she use at the grocery store every week? Does she even go to the grocery store? I am sorry that Halle is discriminated against in Hollywood. Discrimination because of color is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Perhaps, however, she should look at all of the blessings in her life, fall on her knees and thank God.

But I'd rather hang out with Brian Fuentes, anyway. Go Rockies!

Martin Luther in His Own Words

"I could use two secretaries. I do almost nothing during the day but write letters. I am a conventual preacher, reader at meals, parochial preacher, director of studies, overseer of eleven monasteries, superintendent of the fish pond at Litzkau, referee of the squabble at Torgau, lecturer on Paul, collector of material for a commentary on the Psalms, and then, as I said, I am overwhelmed with letters. I rarely have full time for the canonical hours and for saying mass, not to mention my own temptations with the world, the flesh, and the Devil. You see how lazy I am."

(Replying to Sylvester Prierias, who drafted a reply to Luther’s 95 theses on behalf of the pope)
"I am sorry now that I despised Teztel. Ridiculous as he was, he was more acute than you. You cite no Scripture. You give no reasons…You call me a leper because I mingle truth with error. I am glad you admit there is some truth."

"Luther once, when asked how he envisaged the appearance of the apostle Paul, answered with an affectionate guffaw, 'I think he was a scrawny shrimp like [Philip] Melanchthon.'"

(In a debate with John Eck)
ECK: Are you the only one that knows anything? Except for you is all the Church in error?
LUTHER: I answer that God once spoke through the mouth of an ass.

(Reply to the papal bull against Luther)
"They show their ignorance and bad conscience by inventing the adverb 'respectively.' My articles are called 'respectively some heretical, some erroneous, some scandalous,' which is as much to say, 'We don’t know which are which.' O meticulous ignorance! I wish to be instructed, not respectively, but absolutely and certainly. I demand that they show absolutely, not respectively, distinctly and not confusedly, certainly and not probably, clearly and not obscurely, point by point and not in a lump, just what is heretical. Let them show where I am a heretic, or dry up their spittle."

"I was wrong, I admit it, when I said that indulgences were 'the pious defrauding of the faithful.' I recant and I say, 'Indulgences are the most impious frauds and imposters of the most rascally pontiffs, by which they deceive the souls and destroy the goods of the faithful.'”

"I was wrong. I retract the statement that certain articles of [the heretic] John Hus are evangelical. I say now, 'Not some but all the articles of John Hus were condemned by Antichrist [i.e. the pope] and his apostles in the synagogue of Satan.' And to your face, most holy Vicar of God, I say freely that all the condemned articles of John Hus are evangelical and Christian, and yours are downright impious and diabolical."

"Workers with brawn are prone to despise workers with brain, such as city secretaries and school teachers. The soldier boasts that it is hard work to ride in armor and endure heat, frost, dust, and thirst. But I’d like to see a horseman who could sit the whole day and look into a book. It is no great trick to hang two legs over a horse. They say writing is just pushing a feather, but I notice that they hang swords on their hips and feathers in high honor on their hats. Writing occupies not just the fist or the foot while the rest of the body can be singing or jesting, but the whole man. As for school teaching, it is so strenuous that no one ought to be bound to it for more than ten years."

You Say Po-tay-to, I Say Po-tah-to

First of all, let me apologize for the drought of posts recently. After a year off, I returned to seminary three weeks ago. I am working full-time and taking six hours of credit, so I am a little busier than I was a month ago. I will endeavor to post more frequently (it is a good escape from my academic rigors), but it will likely be less than before. And now, on to the post...

I have always disliked the abuse of the idea that the difference between two words is "mere semantics". Certainly, there are times where any number of synonyms will do the job quite nicely (i.e. there is overlap in their semantic maps). Also, in casual conversation, trivial emails, etc, there is no need to be precise all the time. On the contrary, there are times that every "jot and tittle" plays an important role and must be precise. (And I would add, in any type of writing where one wants to be taken seriously, one should strive for precision.) For example, take the following sentences:

God causes sin.
God allows sin.
God orders sin.

This debate came up in a discussion in one of my classes. One participant indicated that he felt that causing and allowing were basically the same thing in this context--using one or the other for theological reasons was "mere semantics". This, I feel, is not the case. The sentence, "God causes sin," implies that God is the originator of sin. "God allows sin," implies that God does not originate it, but at the same time He does not stop it from happening. The third sentence, "God orders sin," implies that God does not originate it, but He allows it so that it might accomplish His purposes. Each of these three sentences, then, carries with it different theologies proper and hamartiologies, and a simple dismissal on the grounds of "mere semantics" is not acceptable. To quote a famous radio talk-show host, "Words mean things."

This is not meant to belittle anyone who isn't anal-retentive about English like I am. I understand that not all people have a "bad grammar" sensor that plagues them every day, and that's okay. What this post is meant for is to dispel the notion that because you have formed a certain opinion about something, any slight change in wording of the proposition is "mere semantics" and can safely be ignored. This is most definitely true with respect to the Bible. If you don't believe me, pick up an academic commentary sometime. In an inspired book, one must allow for the possibility that one word may indeed make or break a certain theology. A famous example is John 1:1. Most of us read it, "The Word was God," but Jehovah's Witnesses will tell you it says, "The Word was a God." This is a drastic difference--all because of a one-letter word! (By the way, the former translation is preferable because of the rules of Greek grammar.)

Semantics is an often abused word. It is in the same position as the word "academic", which in the vernacular of our day often means "insignificant". I would urge you to help the little guy out--pay attention to him once in a while. Do a word study. Take the time to think critically about a proposition (or even a preposition). It may not be "mere semantics" after all.