home | archives: February 2009

Welcome

FaithFusion offers blogs and columns on many topics: storytelling, society and culture, philosophy, religion, politics, science, and especially “deep doctrine magic” about all seven.

 

Features

 



Tags

 

Archives

 



 

Search

 



Updates



Follow me on Twitter
 



Recently read:
Nonfiction















 


Recently read:
Fiction







 



Attacking apologetics activists: uncouth, unloving, sometimes unwise

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 03:50 PM ET , Tuesday, Feb 24, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Science, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Cross Firings, Evangelism, Life Applications



How come some Christians, supposedly enlightened and set free from legalistic constructs, react more strongly to strong words from someone like Dr. Jonathan Sarfati or even Ann Coulter than they would do to those who enjoy strong language or drinks?

How come many Christians want to do better at very good things such as Showing Grace, Caring for the Poor, Being Authentic, Loving Liberals and Avoiding Legalism — but as soon as other Christ-followers come along with a different or harsher (even arguably un-Biblical) zeal or rhetorical style, they’re ready to give up and not show the same grace and caring to them?

I want to do better at tolerating my homosexual friends than Christians have in the past. I’m more enlightened, tolerant and Christlike. But you — ? Oh no, you’re a Legalist or a Mean Christian. I don’t want to be around you; you make us look bad, so get out of my face.

Methinks I see inconsistency.

These questions have arisen after my On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm and Dr. Sarfati column, slightly altered to post as a comment, brought responses and agreements on the Boundless blog — some incidental, some direct. Another comment of mine is now up over there, some of which I’ll adapt for the below material.

But my response here is not to those who questioned Dr. Sarfati’s seeming contention that because Jesus was sarcastic and even “mean” sometimes, then we’re allowed to be that way in all interactions with evolutionists or compromising Christians. I was among them myself.

Rather, I’m directly rebutting folks such as Nathan Zamprogno, who wrote a reply to me earlier today. He clearly spent a lot time on it, and I want to respond more directly and carefully.

I read all of what Nathan wrote. But I suspect he didn’t quite read all of what I wrote.

While he and I seem to agree on some of my points, he seemed to assume a false either/or dichotomy: that my questioning Sarfati’s style would mean I would also detest all them mean young-earth creationists. But actually, with this issue, I’m a both/and kind of man.

My reasons are threefold. By deciding that the often-harsher rhetoric of apologist activists such as Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is in effect intolerable, worse than putting up with secular sins, Christians are:

1. Sucking up to secularists,
2. Alienating our apologist brothers, and
3. Risking rejection of real truth.




On spiritual sophistry, sarcasm, and Dr. Sarfati

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 12:01 PM ET , Monday, Feb 23, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Science: Genesis, Rebuttals, Politics: The Left Wing, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings, Life Applications



More controversy is brewing on the Boundless webzine, the site for young adults that covers all manner of discipleship, worldview and lifestyle issues. Debate over there is nothing new. What is new is that it involves a true apologetics hero whose arguments, though sparkling with light and truth, also carry static shock that’s even rubbing fellow Christ-followers the wrong way.

Sarcastro, superhero-in-training who combats evil with “the razor-sharp sting of sarcasm”(from The Tick)
Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Biblical apologetics whizard extraordinaire, is a New Zealand native, chemist and spectroscopist. His Refuting books — two against Evolution and one against religious Compromise — are among the best to be found in any Biblical-creation library. For years he wrote great web-articles and especially rebuttals for the Answers in Genesis global ministry and website. Now — for reasons too complex and difficult to get into here — he’s part of Creation Ministries International, with most of his material imported over there.

More recently, Boundless has been publishing columns by him and other CMI staff. And Sarfati has also been getting into several blog discussions — and riling reactionary responses.

That’s not surprising. Skepticism will always assail someone who believes, and much more so proclaims, such ideas as: God created the world 6,000 years ago; science has limitations in proving origins beliefs and is never “objective”; the global flood of Genesis, not millions of years, is responsible for almost all fossils; evidence fits better with creationist presuppositions.

But Sarfati likes to get into politics, too, and as one friend of mine once said, he seems to know American politics and the Constitution better than most Americans. His style and criticisms are very reminiscent of Ann Coulter, another favorite conservative writer of mine (I’ll admit it).

In a recent comment, Sarfati generalized Leftists as “elitists who regard themselves as above the rules they foist on others,” and employed the use of amusing names for Liberals such as “Debtocrats” or “celebutards.” Other Boundless commentators blasted him back — some of them are left-leaning professing Christians — yet a few others, such as myself here, agreed with the content, yet questioned Sarfati’s style:

Just a few changes [. . .] to remove the name-calling and over-generalizing, would go a long way toward making the truth of the arguments even more poignant.

Dr. Sarfati, I would agree with you that in some situations, even Coulter-esque invective can be entertaining. But coming from a Christ-follower, the juvenile verbiage seems unnecessary. And I would even more strongly suggest that it is also un-Christlike.

Sir, I greatly respect your work for the apologetics and Scripture defense cause, but is [it] a more-powerful argument, and furthermore Scriptural, to “speak the truth in love”?

To that, and other objections, Sarfati noted,

How can following Christ's own challenge-riposte be “un-Christlike”? Have these critics actually even read what Christ said? There is nothing in the Bible demanding that we should be like [C]hrist only when He was gentle, but not when He used riposte.

It seems Sarfati’s response bears a more-direct and comprehensive answer. Dare I go up against one of my apologetics heroes and suggest he’s wrong? No, I dare not. Rather, I prefer coming alongside him as a Christian brother, and admirer, and hope only to suggest graciously a more balanced approach to dealing with folks, and especially professing Christians.




Burned 'Bridges'

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 11:44 AM ET , Monday, Feb 16, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Media



Any objection to Islam, or all Muslims, should not be based exclusively on this story from the New York state Buffalo News. Still, the eye-widening irony in this disgusting account shouldn't be missed.

Orchard Park police are investigating a particularly gruesome killing, the beheading of a woman, after her husband — an influential member of the local Muslim community — reported her death to police Thursday.

Police identified the victim as Aasiya Z. Hassan, 37. Detectives have charged her husband, Muzzammil Hassan, 44, with second-degree murder.

[. . .]

Muzzammil Hassan is the founder and chief executive officer of Bridges TV, which he launched in 2004, amid hopes that it would help portray Muslims in a more positive light.

“Bridges TV,” which “aims to foster a greater understanding among many cultures and diverse populations” (source) as of today on its homepage offers condolences, prayers and wishes that the victim's families' “right to privacy be respected.”



Krauthammer: Why so urgent?

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 10:22 AM ET , Friday, Feb 06, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Politics



So where now is all that fine-sounding campaign rhetoric about rejecting fearmongering and Partisan Business As Usual? asks Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post. It's gone, apparently, just as soon as it's time to give back to the special interests who helped get you elected:

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe.”

-- President Obama, Feb. 4.

Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared “we have chosen hope over fear.” Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.

For a bit the conservative columnist also mentions details about the Daschle debacle and a Treasury secretary who “doesn't understand” basic income-tax deduction himself. “An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position,” Krauthammer says, in an almost too-mild manner compared to the grandstanding and political pomposity of the new administration.

But then he gets back to the “stimulus” bill (a bill that carries the goal of “stimulating” not the U.S. economy, but Democrat party interest groups and government growth).

[M]ore damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.

It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus — and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

Such bait-and-switch games and fearmongering mark the new administration's automatic lurch to the left in matters more than just Social or Moral Issues.“ This is a moral issue, too. People's jobs and lives are at stake. And rather than letting the American economy mostly self-correct while ”stimulating“ business and consumer spending, bigger-government advocates are rewarding those who've spent money they don't have, and punishing those who have followed the rules and conserved their resources.

This punditry has been brought to you by one of those oft-stereotyped ”single issue" voters, who sees this administration leading the charge not only toward overtly anti-Christian causes such as Abortion, but accompanying agendas that oppose personal responsibility and the natural consequences of wastefulness.



‘I do not like that Shack of Mack!’

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 11:57 AM ET , Wednesday, Feb 04, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Deep Doctrine Magic: Christian Novels, Cross Firings, Divergent Church, Media: Books



I have read the Shack of Mack.
I have read this paperback.
I would not give it to my friends.
I might just spoil how it ends.

[. . .]

That Mack in Shack!
That Mack in Shack!
I do not like that Mack in Shack!

So continues a “Kids-Book Author”-style review of the runaway bestseller The Shack by blogger Fred Sanders — and by “runaway” I mean both in the book's sales and by its distance from orthodox Biblical truth.

It seems Sanders is also the author of four other forms of Shack reviews, from categories such as “The Naïve Believer,” “The Worried Theologian” and perhaps the most interesting — I think, along with Tim Challies — a review from “The Literary Snob.”

But I must be a snob, too, because I find myself unable to react in any other way to this terrible writing.

Instead of writing like his favorite authors, though, he simply asserts in his own sentences the effects that their writing has on him. The result is oppressive, as in the description of a tree that the character Mack crashes into: As he lies prone and looks up into the tree, it is said “to stand over him with a smug look mixed with disgust and not a little disappointment.” Take a moment right now, reader, to see if you can arrange your face into an expression that communicates smugness mixed with disgust and disappointment. You will find it “not a little” impossible, and you have greater expressive range than trees. This is typical of the way Young projects attitudes rather than actually describing anything.

[. . .]

Whatever religious readers may make of the theological Trinity in this book, the most heretical trinity is surely this trinity of the Foreword and the first chapter, wherein three personas speak to us in a single confused voice, crying out with a shrill faux-folksiness, “Please like me! Please like me! I’m ever so authentic!”

[. . .]

And the clichés became flesh, and they dwelt in the shack. Throughout this section, the worst narrative passages sound something like “By the time Mack woke up, Jesus already had the waffles a-cookin’, and the Holy Ghost had cracked a couple eggs.” That is not an actual quotation, but here is one: Papa, the woman who portrays God the Father, reflects on her tendency to love everybody by saying, “”Guess that’s jes’ the way I is.” And before the reader can finish rubbing his eyes in disbelief, three lines later Papa says “Sho’ nuff!” Though he comes perilously close, Young at least manages to keep his God character from saying “I don’t know nothin’ ’bout rulin’ no universe!”

Perhaps I really need to read this book at last, if for no other reason that the comic impact in both substance and style! After all, years ago one of the worst books I ever read proved to be the best in helping me learn what good writing does not include. (It was an end-times paperback called The Third Millennium that made the worst books of the Left Behind series look like Jane Eyre in terms of literary quality.)

(By the way, yes, it is legitimate to point out others' criticisms of a book I have not personally read — see, for instance, the third of four pieces I wrote about that last summer.)

Finally, the best of Sanders' fifth and last review form, “The Haiku Artist,” is probably the first and last three lines:

Eugene Peterson
Said it was good as Bunyan.
He must have meant Paul.

[. . .]

My copy was free
But I almost lost my mind
Inside of the Shack.




Substitute mediators and ‘CINOs’: a response to one Catholic

Avatar by Dr Ransom at 02:28 PM ET , Monday, Feb 02, 2009

Permalink
Categories: Columns, Rebuttals, Deep Doctrine Magic: Biblical Theology, Churchianity, Cross Firings



“Medieval Catholicism” was the topic of one column written by my brother on his own blog, offering many creative and comical observations of a cathedral he toured while in Washington, DC, for the pro-life march.

Among more-substantive critiques of Catholic over-veneration of tradition and saints and such, he offered a recurring and hilarious “Monty Python” reference (the first one to find them and mention them wins a prize, namely, in-comment bragging rights). And he made a comparison I'd never seen made before.

There were splendid and massive frescoes, paintings, displays, statutes and bas-relief carvings. There was a massive pipe organ towards the back. There were numerous vestibules off of the main chamber to give homage to the various and sundry saints and “Our Ladies” of the Catholic history. I nearly broke out into peals of laughter (I managed to channel it into muted chortling) because of the number of different saints and titles that were displayed, reminding me of the silly role-playing games with dozens of characters and +1 abilities.

[. . .]

When we first entered, my compatriots (whom I'd instructed to alert me in case I started violating any unwritten rules of etiquette) dipped into the bowls of water near the doors and made the sign of the cross. (“Nyeehh...what's up, doc?”) Later when on the bus, one of them flashed a small travel shampoo type bottle: “Holy water, anyone?” Now what do you say to that? “Uh, no thanks, I'm good!” What the heck is holy water, anyway? Water blessed by a priest? Why not just bless the whole globe and be done with it? Or are there spatial limits on a priest's +2 blessing-casting abilities? Can he bless a whole pallet of bottled water? That would make shipping a bit easier...

But then came a critical comment from a professing Catholic, who said he had found Dave's column on the Google Blog Search and just happened to stop by to attempt addressing his arguments. I don't think the critical comment-writer did too well. And though Dave will very likely write his own rebuttal, I hoped to do the same in the meantime. Here it is, though with some additions for clarity.

Ah yes. I figured you would be having the zealous Catholic apologists come after you over this one, Dave. ;-)

I note, Timothy, that you've bypassed Dave's tongue-in-cheek comparisons of Catholicism's “veneration of the saints” to role-playing game players with various fantastic abilities. Surely you can laugh along with this even a little, seeing how this can look to non-Catholics while also knowing that in Catholicism (as in Protestantism) even good things like respecting other saints can be overdone, even to superstitious extremes as you yourself pointed out?

As you have attempted with Dave, I now do with you, in offering a point-by-point rebuttal. As you have also claimed, I hope to adhere to Scripture, not just church traditions. However, I hope to avoid overcorrecting and dismissing all traditions entirely.


[Dave had written about one chanter in the march, “He ended his 'hail Mary' the exact same way each time...'blessed are you and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.' ”]

First, regarding the veneration of Mary, you somewhat subtly-sarcastically responded,

That would be Luke 1:42. Catholics are fond of memorizing and reciting scripture.

Hmm, the implication here is that Dave, or other non-Catholic Christ-followers, is not. Also, I didn’t read Dave objecting to a quote from the famous Magnificat. It was the “Hail Mary” part that he, other non-Catholic Christ-followers, and myself, see as at best questionable, at worst, anti-Biblical.

The arguments for and against the veneration of Mary are well-known and documented. If you were truly interested in the Protestant side, I have no doubt you would have already seen those. Suffice it to say, yes, informed Protestants take the “one mediator” stuff to mean that only Jesus can intercede on our behalf before the Father, not Mary, and not other saints (more on this later, regarding your bait-and-switch about 1 Timothy 2:5).

Praying to Mary, or in the name of Mary or another saint, is thus rendered illogical at best, and “over-veneration” at worst. These people are heroes of the faith, yet not omniscient like God. How can we know they will hear us anyway?

(In all fairness, Christians who declare that they “bind Satan” or some such nonsense seem to ignore the fact that the Devil is not omniscient, either. How would they know the devil even heard?)


“It seems that most of the March is, in fact, comprised of Catholics.”

Why is that? Don't non-Catholic Christians value the sanctity of human life and that only God alone has dominion over man?


Yes, the Catholic Church’s position on the evil of abortion is well-known, and commendable. I didn’t see any criticism of this fact. It was just a statement of fact, that most of the March seems to be comprised of Catholics. In your apparently hasty defense, did you miss the part in which Dave described his own involvement with the pro-life march?


“[H]alf of Catholics are registered Democrat, and voted for Barack Obama in numbers greater than for McCain.”

Yes, its sad that many Catholics are largely “cultural” Catholics and likely need help informing their consciences. Much catechesis is needed.

Fully agreed, and I will remark that it was not only “cultural Catholics,” but also “cultural Protestants” (Christians In Name Only, CINOs), or naïve Christians, or ill-informed Christians, who voted for a leader who is so clearly opposed to Judeo-Christian social and government morality.