Another Blog Post on Evolution and Robots

To be honest I am quite fatigued from the endless bantering within the Christian community regarding the "E" word. The hardcore and exacting conservatives maintaining their literal interpretation of the Genesis count have wore me out, and the more liberal and enlightened faction with their esoteric and at times haughty disdain for anything traditional have equally worn me out with their esoteric apology for evolution's compatibility with scripture. I am just sick of hearing it all, sick of reading post after post on blog after blog, and sick of yet another embarrassing and public contribution to divisive notoriety of the Church.

Everyone has an opinion, including myself. Some lean one way yet have not made up their minds, including myself. Some attempt to remain aloof, including myself.

I am less hesitant to maintain a stolid outlook when robots, in all their finite wisdom, conclude and convince the idea that God himself is yet another creative byproduct of evolution. According to the article linked to above, religion can be explained two ways that are as polarized of opinions as the Creationism and Evolution in the Christian community (pardon the convenience; I am not suggesting all scientists are not Christians). One camp believes that religion is a remaining by-product of an area of the brain that developed for purposes other than religion. The purpose no longer exists, but the byproduct remains. Others view that religion itself was the adaptation itself and was necessary for the benefit of our forefathers.

James Dow, a evolutionary anthropologist, wrote a computer program, which is free for download, to compute whether God could possibly fit as an evolutionary process in and of itself. Dow plugged the idea of proselytizing into the program with the assumption that it is a genetic trait. Under normal circumstances, a desire to communicate the unreal would lead to the doom of a race, but when Dow plugged in an assumption that non-believers would be attracted to the pathological communicants of the imaginary.

I am left wondering whether Dow would view me, a believer, as evolutionary enhancement, or a dysfunctional anomaly? As a believer I cannot accept this theory regardless of where I fall on the spectrum that has Evolution and Creationism as either end. If, according my world view, God and the grace He offers is necessary for the eternal salvation of His creation, men who had not yet evolved to an understanding of His existence were unjustly doomed to perdition.

It's an interesting theory despite the fact that a man was dependent upon his computerized creation to arrive at it. What do you think?

*This post's information was obtained from Religion Is A Product of Evolution, Software Suggests from www.newscientist.com

The United Methodist Genreal Conference and the Next Christendom

In his 2004 work, The Next Christendom, Philip Jenkins compellingly argued that while God may not be dead, as Nietzsche said, he is moving on. Number crunching statistics that are far more obvious than they are mathematical, Jenkins noted the decline and liberalization of Christianity in northern more occidental nations, notably the U.K. and less notably the U.S., and the growth of a more orthodox/conservative brand of Christianity in the South.

Agree with Jenkins or not, based off the recent General Conference of the United Methodist, Edgar Cayce might as well have penned The Next Christendom.

The United methodists are rapidly becoming less American, if they ever were. Slightly under 8 million members of the UM reside in the US, while 3.5 million and growing live overseas. In fact, 1 million members call the Democratic Republic of Congo home, all faithful Sunday attenders, nearly matching Sunday attendance of American adherents.

At this year's UM General Conference, 30% of the delegates were from outside of the US, many from Africa, up 10% from just four years ago. While in forty years, the UM has lost over 3 milion members in the US, membership is growing exponentially in the Southern Hemisphere. And how do they vote?

Just a couple of weeks ago the United Methodist General Conference voted against the practice of homosexuality as a practice incompatible with the teachings of Christianity 517 to 416, a narrow margin in light of tradition. Without the outspokenly conservative presence of 192 African delegates the United Methodist may have made the headlines just a few days ago.

So, according to Jenkins, within 40 years, the roles may be reversed, and with The UM General Conference as a case study he may be right. Perhaps when I am 68 an African United Methodist Missionary for Christ may be imposing his world view upon my apostate neighborhood, much to the disdain of southern anthropologists.

What do you think?

The Confines of Governement and Christian Civic Responsibility

Ivan came across a great post today that inspired him to overcome his apathy and write on subject that has been a splinter under his flesh for the past year or so. Up front, Ivan must enter the confessional and state that he is far from being an expert on politics (and just about everything else), so please do not quote him like King James.

Before going further, it would be helpful (but not necessary) to read the aforementioned post, HERE.

The topic, which will be spread out over at least two posts, of which may not be sequential, has to do with the issue of poverty/social welfare, the role of government, and the Christian civil response. Ivan will barely scratch the surface.

The Dilemma Part One: The American people (some of them) are broke. 35.9 million Americans live below the national poverty level. This includes about 12.9 million children. The stats hit close to home for Ivan. The county in which he resides is ranked the 26th most poverty stricken county in the US for those 18 and under. 3.5 percent of American households experience hunger. 46.6 million Americans are uninsured, with 15.9 percent lacking health coverage (sounds weird, but keep in mind the Fed has Medicaid in place). Since 1998 the uninsured rate was dropping, but since 2005 it has been rapidly rising. Even the insured feel the sting. Ivan currently owes over $1000.00 for an ER asthma breathing treatment for his wife that his "excellent" insurance company refuses to pay.

The Dilemma Part Two: The American Government is broke. America's affinity for limited government is waning, especially in recent times, due in part large to the Bush administration (please do not read into that as a rebuke, just a statement of fact). The bigger the Fed, that is, the more money is spends on things like war, social welfare, national financial security, etc., and thus the more money it needs. The demise of many large financial institutions has recently led to government bailouts with more on the horizon. Promises made to future retirees are soon to meet fruition, with an empty accounts on hand. To meet the promises of social security the Fed needs and implicit 15.8 trillion. To meet the promises of medicare the Fed needs an implicit 88.9 trillion. The national total US output is a mere 14 trillion. The bi-partisan solution is to raise taxes. Economist William Niskanen states that to meet current needs increased taxation will increase the national government from 20% GDP (gross domestic product) to 35% GDP, nearly doubling the Federal intake and size.

Thus said, the question Ivan ponders is this: How should gospel-conscientious Christian, who carries a burden for the poor and widowed, involve themselves politically. How should they interact socially? Politically? In a later post, Ivan hopes to offer some opinion.

Abortion and the Christian Vote

Greg Boyd writes an interesting piece on Christianity, politics, and abortion, with the purpose of providing insight on how the Christian can engage politically, with social tact, to achieve the most productive kingdom outcome. Boyd is extremely pragmatic, which is not always a bad thing, in my opinion, but I also know that the ends do not always justify the means, and pragmatism is a slippery slope into this fallacy.

I first read the article, Christians, Abortion, Politics, and the Kingdom of God, after reading a few reviews of Boyds work by another blogger. I wholeheartedly agree with boyd that Christians often go about politics in a happhazard manner, letting one key issue (in this case abortion) trump all others.

Boyd's solution in this article is to compromise, which isn't easy for him...as he states, he "abhors abortion." Here is Boyd's compromise:

With this compromise, Americans might be able to agree that all second and third trimester abortions should be outlawed. Moreover, with this compromise, Americans might be able to move beyond their polarized positions and rather work together to accomplish what the vast majority of Americans want: namely, a country in which abortions are as rare as possible and late term abortions non- existent. In my personal view, the best political approach to complex issues, such as abortion, is one that capitalizes on present agreements to resolve present conflicts. This of course requires people compromising on both sides to expand their area of agreements, but shrewd compromise is what politics has always been about. In my personal, humble, non-kingdom, political opinion, my proposal does this.

Boyd, while wishing that abortion did not merely exists, desires to minimize abortion, and at the same. What do you think? Is this too narrow? Does it limit the ability and goodness of God (God isn't powerful enough to completely end abortion). Certainly Jesus did say his followers would be despised because of him, and quite often, outspoken Christians are ostracized, ridiculed, and regarded as narrow minded hat mongers. But, keep in mind, Boyd is cautioning against forgetting the issues.

In a different piece, Boyd suggests that the underlying cause of abortion is poverty, and that perhaps a Christian voter should steer their vote toward a candidate that is focused on eliminating poverty. This toppling domino would thus eradicate abortion (ideally, pragmatically). I disagree. Statistically, abortion percentages and income climb together on a statistics chart (women with more money have more abortions).

So was boyd right? Would Jesus want us to compromise, keeping in mind that theory of such a compromise might lower the abortion rate in America? Or is Boyd altogether wrong...is pushing for the criminalization of abortion not only feesible, but the most critical plank in any candidates platform, more worthy than other issues like poverty, aids relief, etc. I personally give the American Christian Voter more credit than Boyd. I believe that the majority of Christian voters are not so singularly minded as they approach the poll booth.

Contact me via email for more stats on abortion and to dig deeper into my own personal opinions on the questions posed in this post.

It's That Time of Year

It seems that nobody knows what Christianity is about anymore. Everyone argues about best practices, relevancy, and doctrine.…and in many cases, I am right there with them. Both sides of Christianity (liberals and conservatives) are hurling subtle attacks at each other…and again, in many cases I am guilty. Maybe at times, I’m leading the pack.

As I read through the Psalms today, the contrite, broken spirit spoke volumes to me. I thought, “here, this wreck of a man, this adulterer, this humble sinner is who YHWH chose to lead a nation, this flawed man was the chosen progenitor of the Christ.

And this led me to think about the season of Lent, which is now upon us. My first taste of Lent was at Trinity Lutheran School in the 5th grade. The non-denominational church my parents attended traded tradition for relevancy, so I had missed out on this, besides the Pączki my Polish grandmother brought over on fat Tuesday.

In my opinion, the Lenten tradition, while bleeding of history and tradition is a beautiful reminder of what Christianity is about. Lent, in the words of Fr. William Saunders, “is a special time of prayer, penance, sacrifice and good works in preparation of the celebration of Easter.” St. Ireneaus, defender of Christianity against the Gnostic heresy, spoke highly of the practice in just 203 C.E.! (for more history on Lent, click here)

This year I am going to engage myself in the Season; something I have never done. Traditionally, Christians gave up food, so I too am following suit. After thought and prayer, I am giving up all forms of meat throughout the process, and I am going to focus on all aspect mentioned above by Saunders. I hope throughout this I will be reminded of why I choose the path I choose, and to be less of a Laodocean (see previous blog).

As I was driving home and reflecting these Lyrics floated out of my Nissan’s speakers: Love is not a victory march…It's a cold and it's a broken Hallelujah. If isolated from the rest of the song’s context I thought, “I want this to be my attitude this Lenten season, from start, and especially at completion”

Want to join me? What might you sacrifice?

Keeping it Weird

Occasionally I read something on a blog that is worth repeating, so keep reading for repetition.

I work for a non-profit Christian youth organization behind the scenes fundraising, planning, and keeping us legal. I have very little interaction with teens, which is good, because last time I spoke to a group of teens I realized I wasn't funny, didn't look to cool, and all my jokes brought waves and waves of laughter; errr, I mean awkward silence.

But I do enjoy spending time with teens in smaller, more relaxed settings like I did on Monday at a local High School. We sat in the room and planned for this spring semester. The conversation turned to how "weird" these kids felt being Christians in a largely non-Christian setting. I could relate! The kids said while they know their ultimate goal is to spread hope in Christ to their peers, they love meeting together on Mondays because they felt less alone...less weird.

I feel their pain! Our society is ever ostracizing Christianity. Sometimes, I understand why. From the mythologization of Christianity on the History Channel to Ned Flanders, the Media is telling Christianity is weird and marginal.

Monday night I read this great article (from the KC Star) by blogger Bill Tammeus. Please read it! I don't think Bill is saying more people are Christians than we think so Christianity must be right...I just think he is saying to the teens of Whitmer YFC, you are not alone...in fact, you are less alone than pop culture would have you believe (he has some numbers to back up his encouragement).

What it really comes down to for these kids (and myself) is their love for Christ. Peter Walker has some good thoughts on the simplicity of this subject. Their love for Christ with the support that comes from time spent with other believers results in a vibrant growing faith.

The Burden of Storytelling

Lately I have noticed an unfortunate recurrence of bad exegesis. It seems that no one takes the time to understand the orinigal meaning of biblical terminology and ideas, which is a shame, because after a couple thousand years of dutiful scholarship, it should be pretty easy. It is irritating to me when someone takes a biblical term, gives it a modern definition without looking into the original understanding and context in which the term/idea was written, and applies it to modern circumstances, whether it be cultural, political, or spiritual that may have not been circumstances remotely connected to the point the original author was trying to make at the time of writing.

L. Micheal White makes the point more elogquently than I ever

People tell stories and write them down in books [which] makes them
accessible to readers. In that sense they are a medium of communication to a
braoder audience. Communication is easier when author and audience come from a
shared cultural background and time; then it is much like hearing the story told
orally. Here the burden is on the storyteller to commmunicate in words
and ideas that the audience will find meaningful.

But books
also preserve stories and thus make it possible for later generations of readers
to encounter not only a story of a bygone era but also the people who once told
and heard it. Here the medium of commmunication is more complex. Now,
the reader--not the storyteller--bears the burden.

If, after buying a car from a used car lot, I said to a friend, "Oh my God! It was a hip looking car, but it turned out to be a lemon," and my freind recorded my statement in his journal. Two thousand years later, my words are found in an excavation in my friends old basement. The discoverers, no matter what language they speak in 4008, might deduce that vehicles were used in worship (Oh my God), that my car physically resembled a body part (hip), and that it was all natural (lemon).

All this to say, as a protestant I have lived by Sola Scriptura and come to LOVE scripture. I hate seeing it taken lightly and used to communicate ideas it never intended to communicate. So from this day forward, every wednesday will be exegesis day for My Friend Ivan. I will start posting my translations, starting with the book of James with my footnotes every Wednesday. Hopefully some will interact with my thoughts, and hopefully I will brush up my out-of-practice Greek skills.

Zeitgeist the Movie

Conspiracy theories tickle my funny bone like you wouldn't believe. I would rather watch a lunatic spill his guts on what he personally witnessed at Roswell than offer a second of my time to the cast of any MTV program. I am critical but open minded when it comes to less popular interpretations of modern events.

Tonight Sandra and I watched Zeitgeist. Please do not read any further unless you can commit to two hours of free film. WATCH IT HERE.

My compliment to the producer: Parts one, two, and three are highly convincing.
My criticism to the producer: While I am sure a logical bridge exists in his/her mind between part I of the film and the other two parts (and I think I have crossed it), in the mind of the viewer there is MAJOR disconnect. It seems that one film served the purpose of conveying two passions; in reality two documentaries should have been produced.

Like I have said in previous posts, I am shy when it comes to personal opinion involving politics, thus, all I can say concerning my state of being following the viewing of this indie virtual film is, "nervous." While the narrator desires to polarize himself from anything slightly religious, as the film closes I can see him fitting not only into the category of "religious," but also, as the truest sense of the term is applied, "conservative." And that makes me question my own sense of belonging.

I am begging for feedback on this post. Watch the film...watch it again...take notes...email me or leave a comment! Please!

Dumb Faith and Anselm

Man has been searching for empirical evidence to validate the inner inclination of the existence of God for centuries. Many attempts have been made to create philosophical proofs by those for whom emotions are not enough, I would say the majority of which were constructed post-enlightenment.

I too have longed for such a proof…not necessarily for the benefit of my belief, but for the benefit of my pride. You see, I hate to be wrong. I hate to lose an argument. The one thing that weighs in most heavily on the course of my life, belief, cannot be adequately validated to another.

The first time I read Anselm of Canterbury’s ontological proof for God’s existence, I thought I had struck gold. Now, I see the holes in it, but do realize that it is perhaps the cleverest logical argument for God’s existence. In fact, this Archbishop of the Church is considered by many to be the founder of scholasticism. Anselm loved learning, and sought to please God not only by developing his heart and soul, but also his mind. According to legend, after Anselm finished his proof, he fell in prayer, thanking God for his mental faculties, and that though their exercise he had arrived at a greater understanding of that which he had already believed.

As I sit and ponder what evangelical Christianity has been relegated to…possibly as a result of educated demythologization of the Bible starting with Bultmann and carrying forward into the 20th century as the deconstructionism pervading western higher education instilled doubt not only in the population, but in churchgoers. As this doubt took hold, churches became nearly vacant. All throughout Europe one can see the skeletons of once were churches.

Especially in America, as seen in the fundamentalist movement, a disdain for higher education became apparent. Most often human nature, in my opinion, leads us to react to undesirable situations in a pendulum swing. Equating mass desertion of faith with scholasticism, the church has dumbed itself down. It is apparent in shallow content of modern worship music, in the uneven ratio of practical courses to theology/language courses in seminaries, to the Sunday “self help” sermons, and to the overwhelmingly pragmatic and emotional subjectivity of the mega church and emerging church movements.

It’s a shame, and I am prey to it. But I am encouraged by an ancient saint who realized that his mind, not just his emotive makeup, was created in the imaged of his God, and sought to glorify his God through its development.