Dangerous Mood - Keb' Mo'

This installment of Culture Corner was an obvious choice.  I had been trying to profile a song by this particular artist for a while, but I couldn't decide on which one.  As soon as I heard "Dangerous Mood", though, I knew this was the song to introduce Keb' Mo' to the Tiger.

Keb' Mo' exemplifies the slow, southern blues style pioneered by Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, and pretty much everyone Kenny Wayne Shepherd visited back in 2004.  His skills on the guitar are amazing.  He doesn't have the sheer speed a la Chris Duarte, but every note he plays is filled with emotion--his guitar tells its own story, lyrics notwithstanding.  He also brings a deep, soulful voice to his masterful guitar playing.  He has that one-two knock-out punch that most of us only dream of possessing.  

And remember, if you enjoy this song half as much as I do, then I had twice as much fun as you.

The Big Bad Wolf

The best Christmas present I ever received was given to me by my wife last year.* It was the book Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. (Why yes, I am a nerd; how could you tell?) It is a great introduction to philosophy by two of the best Christian thinkers today. One of the best features of the book is that each chapter contains a reference list of additional, more in-depth resources. As I was perusing these bibliographies last night, I came across http://www.philcristi.org. This is the website for the Evangelical Philosophical Society (EPS), which is "an organization of professional scholars devoted to pursuing philosophical excellence in both the church and the academy." I have not had the chance to perform and in-depth review of this website, but I have linked to it on this blog for that purpose. I have managed to read one particular article, however, which I felt was definitely blog-worthy. It is an article entitled "The Big Bad Wolf, Theism and the Foundations of Intelligent Design: A Review of Richard Dawkins', The God Delusion" by Peter S. Williams.

Although I have not read Dawkin's book, it is obvious that Williams has, and meticulously. In his lengthy review (15 pages, but I would urge you, if interested, to read all of it), Williams dissects Dawkin's arguments for atheism and naturalism and against theism and the Intelligent Design theory. Williams gives a very fair critique. Not only does he point out areas of weakness, but he also points out areas in which Dawkins is right on the money. Probably the most interesting point found in the review is Dawkin's support of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory. Of course, Dawkins does not agree with it, but he does state that if an intelligent designer did leave marks of design in the universe, such marks would be subject to scientific scrutiny in theory, if not in fact. Dawkins also correctly notes that certain scientific disciplines such as archaeology already employ the concepts of Intelligent Design--the problem comes when those concepts are introduced into biology. Williams rightly praises Dawkins for this understanding, while also critiquing him for poisoning the well by "tendentiously talking about 'Phillip E. Johnson who leads the creationist charge against Darwinism in America' and 'creationist Michael Behe.'"

Williams goes on to discuss many other aspects of the book, and for time's sake I cannot repeat them all here. His review is, however, a great read for one interested in understanding better the philosophy that lies behind modern science.

*I expect to receive a much better present this year, though.

Dihydrogen Monoxide - Penn and Teller

My mom forwarded this video to me this past week. I immediately knew that I had to post it, since it so accurately describes my own view on "saving the environment". Penn and Teller's adept social commentary shows the dangers of 1) being so consumed by a cause that the ends justify the means and 2) not educating oneself properly.

I actually did this same thing back in college. I posted a petition outside my dorm room as a joke, and I even got a few signatures--including the RD, who signed his name along with a message instructing me to take it down. (I'm pretty sure he thought it was funny, though.)

Enjoy!

Come Alive - Foo Fighters

When Jesus had crossed over again in the boat to the other side, a large crowd gathered around Him; and so He stayed by the seashore. One of the synagogue officials named Jairus came up, and on seeing Him, fell at His feet and implored Him earnestly, saying, "My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and lay Your hands on her, so that she will get well and live." And He went off with him; and a large crowd was following Him and pressing in on Him...

...They came from the house of the synagogue official, saying, "Your daughter has died; why trouble the Teacher anymore?" But Jesus, overhearing what was being spoken, said to the synagogue official, "Do not be afraid any longer, only believe." And He allowed no one to accompany Him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James. They came to the house of the synagogue official; and He saw a commotion, and people loudly weeping and wailing. And entering in, He said to them, "Why make a commotion and weep? The child has not died, but is asleep." They began laughing at Him. But putting them all out, He took along the child's father and mother and His own companions, and entered the room where the child was. Taking the child by the hand, He said to her, "Talitha kum!" (which translated means, "Little girl, I say to you, get up!"). Immediately the girl got up and began to walk, for she was twelve years old. And immediately they were completely astounded.

Change? Ya Got Change, Mister?

I am fairly apolitical, but even rather apathetic souls like me notice politics every now and again, whether we want to or not. In case you forgot, there is a presidential election this fall, and I live in Denver, home to the 2008 Democratic Convention. So I pretty much can't escape politics, no matter how hard I try. (And I try hard.) So since I can't escape it, I will write a rare blog on the subject.

My curiosity was piqued when I heard on the radio that a few days ago, both Obama and McCain gave campaign speeches, in which they used the word "change" a combined 57 times. As I recall from past elections, this is not atypical. Every candidate wants "change". My amorphous curiosity began to formulate into a thought as a result of a discussion I had in class this morning on the difference between change and transformation. Change can be good or bad, directed or undirected. Change is inevitable. In some sense, it just is. Transformation, however, involves change for a purpose. It is based on values; it is always directed. Transformation doesn't just happen.

This put the current election "change propaganda" into a bit clearer light for me. Both major candidates want change. What do they want to change? Does Obama want to paint the White House pink? Does McCain want to raise taxes on llama sales? I'm sure you politics junkies out there know much more than I do, but I submit that the only major change either candidate wants is to have the word "President" before his name and not Bush's. Do they really want change, or will they keep 99% of the status quo, because the status quo brought them into power and keeps them there?

Neither candidate will question the validity of an economy that requires a "working poor" class to survive. Neither candidate will abolish the IRS and mandate that congress stop spending $13,000 for a toilet seat. Neither candidate would say, "Welfare isn't working--so we're going to phase it out and get out of the way of charities and religious trying to help the less fortunate." Neither candidate will say, "America needs to repent of its sin and return to the God of the Bible." Whether you agree with the above statements or not (and I will not allow arguing over the specifics; they are merely examples with which I myself may or may not agree), these are examples of real change.

But why would these men really challenge the system that brought them this far?

Colorado Senate Bill 200

On Friday, Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) signed into law Senate Bill 200, which is a revision of a previous anti-discrimination law. Opponents of the bill, led by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, argued that it would allow for any transgender man to use the women’s restroom and vice versa at all public places (including schools), and that proprietors have no legal recourse. Furthermore, any proprietor who tries to prevent this behavior would find himself or herself sitting in jail for a year. I have to admit, legalizing such a specific law on who can use which bathrooms with such a stringent penalty seemed like an awfully silly thing to do. So I found the text of the law (hyperlinked above) and read it for myself.

What I found was interesting. The existing law made acts of discrimination with respect to housing practices, public places (not including churches), publication of written or other materials, and so on, illegal. A majority of what was changed was the addition of “sexual orientation” to the list of protected classes’ characteristics, which already included race, religion, ethnicity and the like. SB 200 basically says, “You can’t discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation.” I would wholeheartedly agree. Obviously, it is wrong to discriminate against anyone, and as a follower of Christ, why would I do that anyway?

The section about which Focus on the Family took issue was Section 6: Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, which reads in part (I have emboldened relevant text):

It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or
indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group,
because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital
status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of
public accommodation

From this reading, it does seem like Focus has a valid argument. If someone is transgendered, then he/she legally could use the bathroom he/she finds most applicable, right? Wrong. Take a look at part of Section 7: Penalty and Civil Liability (again, relevant text is emboldened):

Any person who violates any of the provisions of section 24-34-601 by denying to
any citizen, except for reasons applicable alike to all citizens of every
disability, race, creed, color, sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status,
national origin, or ancestry, and regardless of disability, race, creed, color,
sex, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full
enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in
said section enumerated or by aiding or inciting such denial, for every such
offense, shall forfeit and pay a sum of not less than fifty dollars nor more
than five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved

Apparently Dr. Dobson didn’t read this particular clause. With respect to the bathroom issue, I would think that the age-old gender division of bathrooms would be a perfect example of an exemption of this type. All citizens of the country understand that their bathroom choice in a public place is based on their physical “plumbing” as it were. That is how society functions, regardless of one’s creed, color, sexual orientation, etc. The intent of this law, therefore, was not to allow for crazy bathroom switching but to protect a group of people from discrimination.

Admittedly, I am not a lawyer. I could be mistaken with my interpretation. Maybe she-males are secretly plotting how they are going to infiltrate men’s restrooms around the state. I would encourage you, therefore, to read SB 200 yourself, and come to your own conclusions.

"Then Who Can Be Saved?"

I have begun the arduous task of preparing for my doctrinal oral examination next Spring. Basically, at Denver Seminary, in order to successfully complete the M.Div. program, one must write a somewhat lengthy paper summing up his or her theological beliefs and then defend those beliefs orally (and without notes) in front of a pair of professors. Fun, right? It is, however, an excellent chance to go back and think hard about the entire spectrum of theology and really nail down (at least for now) what I believe.

I am working through the topic of general revelation at present (that is, what God has revealed to us through nature, history, etc.), and the topic of salvation came up. Namely, can a person be accepted as a true believer if he or she has never heard of Jesus? Some would say, No, a person cannot be saved without a knowledge of Jesus. Faith comes by hearing, through a human instrument (Rom 10:9-14). One must confess that Jesus is Lord, and how can a person know that if it is not told to him or her? Others say, Yes, a person can be saved without such knowledge. They believe that, just like the saints of the Old Testament, if a person has faith in God to the extent that his or her knowledge will allow, then he or she can be saved in Christ, even without knowing the object of their salvation (Hebrews 11, the famous "by faith" chapter).

Now the debate is much more complex than what I have represented here, but my view is this: I would maintain that it is possible for a person, never having heard the name of Christ, to be saved. The linchpin of the argument for me is the Old Testament saints. They had faith and were justified by it. They knew that Messiah was to come, but they did not know who it would be. Likewise, a person in a currently "unreached" area of the world, if they had faith in God based on what had been revealed to him or her from nature, would have a similar faith as OT saints (admittedly, with a much lesser degree of knowledge). What about Paul's comments in Romans 10? It seems to me that Paul was primarily exhorting his readers to spreading the gospel and not making an exclusive theological claim. That being said, before you burn me as a heretic, hear me out. I did not say that such a route to salvation would be easy. I expect that it would be nearly impossible for a person to respond with saving faith to general revelation. However, in Matt 19, Jesus speaks about the rich getting into heaven being similar to a camel going through the eye of a needle. "Then who can be saved?" the disciples ask. He responds, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Likewise, it may be impossible by our reckoning for a person who has not heard of Christ to be saved. However, let's face it: As an American, I am rich, and I have faith in Christ. With God all things are possible.

One final caveat: I do believe that a person who has heard the name of Christ is now responsible to come under His lordship. Therefore, the preceding paragraphs are a moot point for many, if not a majority of, people today.

So now I pose the same question to you: Must a person hear the name of Christ proclaimed in order to be saved? I have given my argument briefly. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. You never know, with a good enough argument, you might even change my mind...