What is a Spiritual Discipline?
Labels: Bible, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, Thinking Christianly
This page has moved to a new address.
"Helping the Next Generation Think Christianly About All of life"
Labels: Bible, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, Thinking Christianly
Labels: Movies, Parents, Pop Culture, Students, Youth Pastors
Labels: Economics, Environmental Ethics, Ethics, Philosophy
Labels: Ethics, pro-all-of-life, Sanctity of Life, Thinking Christianly
“…if I want to fully experience the love of Jesus, I must receive one of his most important gifts he sends me—his teaching. I must invite Jesus to be the personal Teacher of my life. I must trust that he is right—about everything. And that therefore where I disagree with him I must either be wrong or not yet understand what it was he was saying. I must allow Jesus to teach me how to live.”—John Ortberg
Psalm 25:4-5
"Show me the right path, O Lord; point out the road for me to follow. Lead me by your truth and teach me, for you are the God who saves me. All day long I put my hope in you."
Labels: Christianity, Jesus Christ, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, Wisdom
Labels: Spiritual Formation, Spirituality, Truth, Wisdom
Labels: Ethics, human rights, pro-all-of-life, Sanctity of Life
Labels: Bible, Cultural Observations, Ethics, Pop Culture, Purity, Sexuality
Labels: Cultural Observations, Ethics, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality
Even the most cursory look at the world's cultures will indicate the religious fervor that characterizes humanity. The only observers who seem shocked by this universal phenomenon are the secularists and the prophets of secularization theory who were absolutely certain that religious faith and religious fervor would disappear in the modern world.
Needless to say, it hasn't turned out that way. The theory of secularization is a shadow of its former self. Leading proponents like Peter Berger of Boston University now acknowledge that the secularization thesis was not an accurate predictor of the fate of religious belief in the modern world. The modern world is not secularized. Indeed, many of the most heated conflicts around the world today involve conflicting faiths. As Berger has commented, it turns out that a few European nations and the American intellectual elites are the exceptions, rather than the rule.
And yet, the intellectual elites are not so secular as they believe themselves to be. As it happens, their religion may not be theistic, but it is a religion all the same.
That fact is confirmed in a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Stephen T. Asma, a professor of philosophy at Columbia College Chicago, argues that the new religion of many secular folk is ecology. As Asma explains, many secular types suffer from "green guilt."
In "Green Guilt," he writes:
Now the secular world still has to make sense out of its own invisible, psychological drama-in particular, its feelings of guilt and indignation. Environmentalism, as a substitute for religion, has come to the rescue. Nietzsche's argument about an ideal God and guilt can be replicated in a new form: We need a belief in a pristine environment because we need to be cruel to ourselves as inferior beings, and we need that because we have these aggressive instincts that cannot be let out.
Asma rightly notes that Friedrich Nietzsche, the nihilist who famously declared that God is dead, understood that religion was not dead at all. He "was the first to notice that religious emotions, like guilt and indignation, are still with us, even if we're not religious."
These "religious emotions," including guilt, explain why so many..."(for the rest of article)Labels: Christianity, Environmental Ethics, Evangelical, Global Issues, Global Warming, Spirituality, Theology
Labels: Cultural Observations, Pluralism, Podcast, Thinking Christianly
“You received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, “Abba, Father.” For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory.”—Romans 8:15-17 NLT
Labels: adoption, Christianity, Compassion and Justice, God, good news, Love
Labels: Christianity, Compassion and Justice, Global Issues
Through his experience with the Na’vi, Jake’s loyalty begins to change. He becomes a true Na’vi, which raises the question: which side will Jake choose? Avatar really tells the same story as movies such as The Last Samurai, Brother Bear, and Dances with Wolves—where a foreigner has preconceptions about an “alien” culture, yet upon spending time with them and learning their ways, realizes that his new “home” is truly the more benevolent, and that his original ways were really inhumane.
From the perspective of a 3-D film experience, Avatar is truly remarkable. I completely forgot that I was wearing glasses for most of the film! This is a huge step beyond the 3-D glasses with red and blue lenses (anyone remember Jaws 3?). The scenery on Pandora is nothing short of breathtaking. There are floating mountains, beautiful water falls, fascinating creatures, and luminescent plants that react to touch (Heaven?). Even though I think the film has potential to cause considerable spiritual confusion, I can’t help but give Cameron credit for his storytelling and creativity. Now, on to the worldview analysis…
ANTI-CAPITALISM
Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi) plays a slimy, sleazy, flippant corporate “pig” only interested in the monetary bottom-line. His character is reminiscent of Paul Reiser from Aliens. He has no concern for the life on Pandora and is gladly willing to destroy them to obtain unabtanium unless a diplomatic solution can be reached. At one point Parker says to Grace, “What do they want? We’ve tried money and education, but nothing works.” The inference is clear: these nature-loving creatures don’t want anything that Western corporate capitalist culture has to offer. In fact, it’s the capitalists who need to learn a lesson from the Na’vi.
It might be possible to chalk this character up as a criticism of corporate greed rather than a criticism of capitalism per se. However, I’m just not convinced because this portrayal seems to go along too consistently with the anti-capitalist fervor that has been resonating in our culture recently. It’s certainly ironic that Avatar has a central character negatively portraying (and stereotyping) capitalists when it’s already grossed over 1 billion dollars! But this is a minor theme in the movie.
PANTHEISTIC SPIRITUALITY
It would be virtually impossible to miss the not-so-subtle pantheism that pervades the entire film. The Na’vi are spiritually connected to their entire world, including the plants and animals. Their home is a humongous tree, which is clearly representative of the idea of Mother Earth. The Na’vi are so connected to nature that they say of prayer of gratitude, and sometimes even cry, when they kill an animal for food. The audience is given a virtual lesson in pantheism while Neytiri mentors Jake into their way of life. A pantheistic explanation is given for EVERY aspect of life including what they eat, how they pray, how they worship the planet, and how they relate to each other. Avatar is filled with rituals that are overseen by a Shaman (there is a scene of tree worship that is so realistic my wife almost walked out. In her words, it was demonic).
The pantheistic worldview doesn’t simply play a background role to make the film plausible, like the Force does in Star Wars. Rather, pantheistic spirituality is literally preached to the audience through the characters and their interactions.
But there is a subtle difference that sets it apart from other pantheistic movies (such as Lion King, Pocahontas, or Star Wars).
SCIENTIFIC NATURALISM
While Avatar clearly portrays pantheistic spirituality in a positive light, I think it may be subtly subverting it with a naturalistic worldview. The naturalist in the film is clearly Grace Augustine (whose name is taken from St. Augustine who wrote, “The City of God”). She is the scientist who is constantly looking for a natural explanation for their spiritual behavior. While the Na’vi talk in spiritual terms (they describe “seeing” as looking into a person’s depth), there does seem to be a physical explanation lurking beneath all their behavior. Below the ground are cords that connect all the trees on the planet, like a giant network of computers. To “connect” with the animals, the Na’vi have to physically connect their hair to the animals’ manes. And to hear from their ancestors, they have to physically connect to the trees, not unlike connecting to the Internet. This is significantly different from the Star Wars films, for example, in which Luke, Yoda, and Darth Vader are capable of manipulating reality from a distance.
So, what is the moral of the story? Here’s my take: People ought to forsake greedy Western capitalism and embrace pantheistic spirituality, even though such practices have a perfectly natural explanation.
There is much more that could be discussed about in this film (e.g., environmentalism, or the way it portrays the military). I had great discussions in my classes this past week and have had many discussions with other young people as well. Even though this movie will likely cause considerable spiritual confusion, it provides a great opportunity for parents and youth workers to engage young people in worldview conversations....."(Read the rest on his blog)
You buy your tickets and concessions, and you walk into the theater. Celluloid images flash at twenty-four frames per second, and the hypnotic sequence of moving pictures coaxes you to suspend disbelief and be entertained by the implausible.
Unfortunately, many often suspend their beliefs as well, succumbing to subtle lessons in how to behave, think and even perceive reality. Do you find yourself hoping that a sister will succeed in seducing her sibling's husband, that a thief will get away with his crime, that a serial killer will escape judgment? Do you, too, laugh at the bumbling priest and seethe at the intolerant and abusive evangelist? Do you embrace worldviews that infect your faith and then wonder, after your head is clear, whether your faith can survive the infection?
In this thoroughly revised and updated edition of his popular book, Brian Godawa guides you through the place of redemption in film, the tricks screenwriters use to communicate their messages, and the mental and spiritual discipline required for watching movies. Hollywood Worldviews helps you enter a dialogue with Hollywood that leads to a happier ending, one that keeps you aware of your culture and awake to your faith."
Labels: Cultural Observations, Faith, Movies, New Age, Pop Culture, Spirituality, Thinking Christianly
Something has to give, and often it does––to disastrous consequences.
Expanding on principles from Dr. Richard Swenson’s best-selling books Margin and The Overload Syndrome, this book consists of 180 daily readings to help restore balance to hectic, modern lives. Each reading serves as a practical assignment––a helpful "prescription"––to eliminate unneeded frustrations, reflect on what’s really important, and start winning the war with our time.
Labels: Bible, Discipleship, Spiritual Disciplines, Spiritual Formation, Time, Wisdom
"This doesn’t mean that we need to welcome real bigotry into our public discourse. But what Hume said wasn’t bigoted: Indeed, his claim about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity was perfectly defensible. Christians believe in a personal God who forgives sins. Buddhists, as a rule, do not. And it’s at least plausible that Tiger Woods might welcome the possibility that there’s Someone out there capable of forgiving him, even if Elin Nordegren and his corporate sponsors never do."
"When liberal democracy was forged, in the wake of Western Europe’s religious wars, this sort of peaceful theological debate is exactly what it promised to deliver. And the differences between religions are worth debating. Theology has consequences: It shapes lives, families, nations, cultures, wars; it can change people, save them from themselves, and sometimes warp or even destroy them.
If we tiptoe politely around this reality, then we betray every teacher, guru and philosopher — including Jesus of Nazareth and the Buddha both — who ever sought to resolve the most human of all problems: How then should we live?
It’s reasonable to doubt that a cable news analyst has the right answer to this question. But the debate that Brit Hume kicked off a week ago is still worth having. Indeed, it’s the most important one there is." (read the whole article)
Labels: Apologetics, Evangelical, Evangelism, Faith, Faith and Politics, Gospel, Pop Culture, social media, Truth, truthiness
Christian: The cosmological argument is strong evidence that God exists. If the universe was made, it needs a maker; if it was created, it needs a creator. That creator is God.
Skeptic: Ah, but this merely raises the question “Who made God?” which Richard Dawkins himself asks in The God Delusion.* It just pushes the question back one step further.
Christian: This seems to me to be a category error; it confuses the uncreated creator with His created creation. God doesn’t need a maker because God was never made; He was and is eternally existing.
Skeptic: That’s special pleading at best, hypocritical at worst. Why is it okay for God to be “eternal, uncreated” but not the universe?
Christian: Because we have good reasons, both philosophical and scientific, that the universe is not eternal, whereas no such reasons exist to believe that God is so. God is not subject to the same limitations of the material world He created. The cosmological argument proposes not that everything requires a cause, but whatever begins to exist requires a cause; if God did not begin to exist (since there is no reason to believe He did, unlike the universe) He requires no cause.
Skeptic: Even if we agree that the universe is not eternal, why must its cause be God? Why not some other explanation?
Christian: Whatever created both time and space must transcend both time and space. Also, there are numerous other attributes which can be discerned about whatever created the universe that imply a personal entity (that is, it possesses volition among other things). So the creator of the universe is an entity which is beyond time and space yet still possesses certain attributes and is personal. This sounds to me a lot like God.
* In The God Delusion Dawkins is attempting to apply the question as a defeater to the design argument (p.109), not the cosmological argument (which Dawkins shockingly dismisses in less than a page). I’ve personally heard it applied more often to the cosmological argument, at least in the realm of Internet banter."
(This conversation is from www.Whyfaith.com)
Labels: Apologetics, Existence of God, Faith, Philosophy, Science
Professor Gershon Galil of the University of Haifa deciphered the ancient writing, basing his interpretation on the use of verbs and content particular to the Hebrew language. It turned out to be "a social statement, relating to slaves, widows and orphans," Galil explained in a statement from the University.
The inscription is the earliest example of Hebrew writing found, which stands in opposition to the dating of the composition of the Bible in current research; prior to this discovery, it was not believed that the Bible or parts of it could have been written this long ago.
According to Israeli newspaper Haaretz, current theory holds that the Bible could not..." (More)Labels: Apologetics, Archaeology, Bible, History, Old Testament
Labels: Brain, Pop Culture, Sexuality, Spiritual Formation, Thinking Christianly
Wikipedia sprouted in the fertile soil of freedom and possibility that characterized the early days of the Internet. Andrew Lih tells the story in The Wikipedia Revolution (2009). Wales, a principal of the technology company Bomis, perceived the potential demand for an online encyclopedia and launched his new venture to fill that need. Nupedia was soon abandoned because it was the result of conventional thinking—a traditional encyclopedia model applied to the Internet. When this dawned on Wales and Sanger, the resulting creative spark ignited the Wikipedia revolution. Putting an encyclopedia on the Web should mean not merely a change in the location of encyclopedia content, they realized: the new technology could instead transform the entire process of content production and publication. This was the insight that set Wikipedia apart and soon attracted millions of people across the world to its community.
The Wikipedia experiment was an exercise in entrepreneurship, and demonstrates that the impetus for life-enhancing innovation is not merely monetary success. Wales and Sanger were motivated by a desire to promote learning and empower people. In their view, the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge should be democratic: let anyone with access to a computer participate in the process.
Traditionally, the collection and presentation of the world’s accumulated knowledge in the encyclopedia format was a jealously guarded prerogative of the gatekeepers of established publishing and academic institutions. This method had its advantages: consistency, careful review processes, and adherence to accepted standards of scholarship.
It also had its drawbacks. The updating and release of new material necessarily occurred at a glacial pace. Originality and dissent were frowned upon and non-mainstream perspectives could only find their way to print slowly, if at all. There were intrinsic limitations of scale and scope, put in place by the economics of the editorial and print process: only major topics deemed to be of interest to large numbers of people could justify the resources put into covering any given entry.
The philosophy of its founders shaped Wikipedia and supplied its unique sensibility, overturning the conventional constraints of established encyclopedias. Most critically, Wales and Sanger possessed a fundamental faith in humanity. Wikipedia is not about technology, Wales wrote in the foreword to Lih’s book, “it’s about people… it’s about trusting people, it’s about encouraging people to do good.” Detractors believed that permitting open editing of web content, or “crowdsourcing,” would result in chaos. Bias, error, and distortion would be rife. How could the anonymous interaction of the Web, they wondered, result in reliably accurate information on a wide range of topics?
But Wikipedia’s bet on the potential of free human interaction in an online community paid off. By 2008, it boasted more than 2 million articles in English, and millions more in some 250 other languages. By almost any measure it was a spectacular success.
The model pioneered by Wikipedia is not flawless. One might..." For more...Labels: Cultural Observations, Economics, freedom, technology
Labels: Bible, Christianity, New Atheism, Problem of Evil, Religion, Science
My point is this. Maybe in a moment of candor, Brit was being deeply honest with Tiger. Simply expressing what / who he has found that has changed his life?"I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I'm not claiming it's impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died, I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it's a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you're not really living it."
Labels: Christianity, Evangelical, Faith and Politics, Tiger Woods
Confusion abounds concerning what ID (Intelligent Design) is and isn’t. So, we must be careful to clearly define it. The media, for the most part gets it wrong by calling ID a form of Creationism (we will discuss the difference below). And opponents of ID label it Creationism for rhetorical reasons so as to paint ID with the same ignorance brush as those who still believe the earth is flat. So instead of engaging with the scientific evidence marshaled by ID scientists and philosophers,[i] DE (proponents of Darwinian Evolution) resorts to name calling and institutional bullying. To get at the truth, here are some definitions straight from leading ID proponents.
William Dembski argues that the basic claim of ID is that “there exist natural systems that cannot be adequately explained in terms of undirected natural causes and that exhibit features which in any other circumstance we would attribute to design.” For example, imagine you are driving through the mountains and all of the sudden you come across a rock face that demands your attention—it is different than the others. Whereas wind and erosion can account for the random appearances of most of the mountains you have seen that day, it cannot account for the four shapes embedded in this rock face. Why not? Because there is a recognizable pattern of intelligence that went in to the formation of this mountain. This becomes obvious by the fact that there are four specific shapes / patterns matching the faces of four former presidents of the United States (Mt. Rushmore). The natural inference here is not to the blind and unguided natural processes of wind and erosion but rather to design.
Consider another example from the science of Archaeology.[ii] When archeologists excavate sites and sift through dirt, how do they distinguish between authentic artifacts and rocks? Answer: they look for marks of design or what Dembski calls Specified Complexity (highly improbable patterns). Now what happens when scientists apply this same principle to biology at a molecular level? Michael Behe did just that and observed that some systems (e.g., Bacterial Flagellum) cannot be accounted for by blind natural selection.[iii] In fact, he concluded from his research that the most probable inference for the origin of irreducibly complex systems is design. A system is irreducibly complex if “it consists of several interrelated parts for which removing even one part destroys the system’s function.” If this concept is still a little fuzzy think of a mouse trap. What is necessary for a mouse trap to work is its having all the parts (wood, spring, cheese, latch etc.) working together. But it is not as though a block of cheese catches some mice, so adding a spring would catch more, then adding a block of wood would catch even more. The point is that the individual components serve no function by themselves. It is only when they function together as a whole do you get a beneficial function. Charles Darwin in 1859 admitted that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not have possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” That is quite a statement! Dembski pinpoints the crucial issue, “the point is whether nature (conceived as a closed system of blind, unbroken natural causes) can generate specified [or irreducible] complexity in the sense of originating it when previously there was none.” After one hundred and fifty years, it does not seem that it can. So by Darwin’s own admission, his theory is breaking down. It should also be noted that as we learn more and more about the complexity of the cell and DNA, the problem is only going to get worse for DE.
It is imperative to recognize that ID is not making a claim based on religious presuppositions. On the contrary, scientists have observed the relevant data and inferred design as the best explanation. Gaps exist in the understanding of molecular biology that DE has no way of bridging according to their theory. ID does have an explanation. As noted above, DE is stuck with the problem of where information comes from and how it is transferred (See Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell). ID has an explanation for this, inferred from the data, as well. These systems and organisms appear designed because they are designed. Now to be sure, ID research has religious implications but it is not religious in nature. It does not claim to say who this designer is or what he is like—that is a question for Theology and Philosophy of Religion to debate. ID is not Creationism in sheep’s clothing adorned with fancy vocabulary.
[i] I include philosophers as well, because it is actually impossible to separate scientific inquiry from philosophical assumptions.
[ii] We could also talk about cryptology or the SETI project (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence—regardless of what you think about this, these scientists are assuming that intelligence can be recognized—like a series of prime numbers 1,3,13 etc. [see the movie Contact]). So if Scientists know what does and doesn’t count as intelligence, then why the hesitance to apply that understanding to what they observe in biology?
[iii] Michael J. Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996).
Labels: Creation, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science
Labels: Bible, Creation, Darwinian Evolution, Evangelical, Faith, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, Philosophy, Science
Labels: Bible, Christianity, Spirituality, Thinking Christianly, Wisdom