Digging Deep

September 7, 2010

Qua’ran (Koran) Burning by U.S. Church Planned

Filed under: Craig Smith, Faith & Culture — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — Craig Smith @ 8:28 AM

Terry Jones, pastor of Dove World Outreach Church in Gainesville, FL appears to be going forward with plans to host a “burn a Koran” day on Sept. 11, in spite of international outrage. If there’s anything that might dissuade him from hosting the event, it will probably be the concern that his church’s actions might cause problems for American troops serving in the Middle East. As usual, the press coverage of this incident has muddied the waters considerably, making it difficult to see what’s really at stake.

On the one hand, my gut reaction to Jones’ plan is frustration: does he really think this is an effective or even legitimate way to demonstrate the truth of Christianity? Make no mistake about it, I do NOT endorse this kind of action. On the other hand, the criticisms leveled at Jones in the national press hardly constitute rational discourse. Most of them boil down to “I thought Christian were supposed to love everyone?! How can you be so hate-filled?”

I support Jones’ willingness to take a stand against the teachings of Islam and against the current culture of unwillingness to think critically about religious truth-claims. I just don’t support the way he’s going about it and, to some extent, I’m embarrassed that he and I are on the same team. I don’t know him, so I can’t say if he’s as hate-filled as many people in the media are saying, but his interest in a public burning of the Qua’ran is hard to square with the idea of a pastor who’s filled with the love of Christ.

Don’t misunderstand me: I’m not saying that being loving means ignoring the truth. In fact, to my mind, ignoring the truth about Islam vs. Christianity (and yes, it is a vs. thing) isn’t loving at all. If I know someone’s headed into a minefield, love compels me to point out what I know will be the result of their path.

But, if anything, the controversy that Jones has stirred up is having the opposite effect of what he intended. Rather than causing people to consider the false and inflammatory (no pun intended) teachings of the Qua’ran, which led some radical Muslim groups to execute the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., the current fiasco seems to be giving Islam a white-wash. Prominent imams are being quoted in international media as saying that Jones is simply ignorant and that the Qua’ran “has some of the most beautiful passages about Christ Jesus throughout, as well as Moses, Abraham and all of the prophets he reads about and says he follows in the Bible” (Plemon el-Amin of Atlanta, quoted on CNN). So there you have it: Christianity and Islam are basically the same thing and only the ignorant fail to see that.

Of course, no honest Muslim actually thinks that Christianity and Islam are compatible. Informed and thoughtful Muslims, like informed and thoughtful Christians, know that the fundamental teachings of the two faiths are contradictory. For instance, Islam rejects the Bible as being hopelessly corrupted and untrustworthy. Islam also explicitly denies the Trinity, the crucifixion/resurrection of Jesus and the notion of salvation by faith, all foundational, indispensable doctrines of Christianity. For its part, Christianity denies the inspiration of the Qua’ran, Muhammad’s status as a genuine prophet and Islam’s soteriology (doctrine of salvation). Since the two faiths clearly contradict on these key issues, they are not compatible worldviews. In such a case, one of three things must be true: 1) Christianity is right and Islam is wrong, 2) Islam is right and Christianity is wrong or 3) both are wrong. This is simple, everyday common sense, but it is utterly missing from the current conversation in the national media.

Also missing are important but inconvenient truths. For instance, Muslim groups have burned Bibles in the recent past yet these events went virtually un-remarked upon in the U.S. media (for a recent example, check out http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/285123/christians_in_gaza_fear_for_their_lives.html?cat=9). More importantly, they went un-denounced by the governments in which those events took place. Yet the U.S. government does not hesitate to denounce similar actions by its own citizens because otherwise this might enrage Muslims around the world. Ironically, the U.S. government doesn’t hesitate to consider building a Muslim Mosque near the site of the 9/11 attacks in spite of the outrage of its own citizens, more than 70% of whom believe the plan is an insult to the victims of the attacks.

As usual, the whole thing’s a big mess and with the media stirring the pot, it’s unlikely that the truth will ever emerge from the mud clearly enough to get a fair hearing.

August 23, 2010

Filed under: Angels & Demons, Craig Smith, Faith & Culture, New Age — Tags: , , — Craig Smith @ 9:32 AM

One of the interesting things about being a pastor and Christian speaker, especially one involved with an organization like Shepherd Project, is that I get asked all kinds of fascinating questions.  Here’s an answer I sent off this morning to a woman asking for information about “The Shining Ones” that a friend has recently gotten interested in:

As I understand it, the “shining ones” are beings/persons thought to appear in many ancient cultures, often associated with mystical knowledge or key historical developments in culture.  As the story goes – mostly in New Age books and websites –  these beings have been guiding human development for millenia…and maybe even are the ancestors of the first human beings.

One of the first questions we need to ask is:  are these “shining ones” really common in the materials we have from ancient cultures.  Answer:  no, not really.  At least not unless you follow the rather weak logic of “discovery” followed by those who advance these bizarre ideas.

The first stage of “shining ones” discovery depends on the fact that some ancient religious texts – mostly Near Eastern Ones to the best of my knowledge – speak of “shining ones”.  The most popular references are in the Egyptian Book of the Dead where you apparently get lines like:  “behold oh ye shining ones, ye men and ye gods.”  I’m no expert in ancient Egyptian theology, but based on the context my guess is that these are references to Egyptian nobility who were thought to be both human and divine.  Other direct references of which I am aware involve statements like “Follow then the shining ones, the wise, the awakened, the loving, for they know how to work and forbear” attributed to Buddha. Here the reference to “shining ones” is clearly a euphemism for human beings who have attained “enlightenment” (no pun intended…but it’s pretty funny anway!).

Most other references are not direct but involve depictions of persons or beings who “shine” or “glow”.  This is the second stage of “shining ones” discovery.  Using the reasoning that any depiction or description of light associated with someone is actually a reference to the “shining ones”, they are “found” in religious texts and ancient art which depict rays of light surrounding or emanating from a figure.  Since this is a nearly universal means of depicting power, purity and divine blessing, such pictures are common in religious texts and visual art from most cultures throughout history.  Thus the “shining ones” are now “found” in nearly every human culture in history.

 The third stage of “shining ones” discovery involves reading this kind of thing back into other texts even where the depictions are less “obvious.”  For instance, some people try to make the term Elohim from the Hebrew Scriptures into references to these “shining ones” rather than to God.  Similarly, angels are re-interpreted as references to “shining ones.”

 The human connection to the “shining ones” is not really clear to me.  It seems that some people think they are aliens who guided human development.  Others think they are the ancestors of humans, either pointing to our alien origins or, in the case of those who believe the “shining ones” are supernatural creatures, to our inherent divinity.  In the end, the whole thing depends on two things 1)  Man’s need to be connected to something greater than ourselves and 2) Our fondness for conspiracy theories…in this case, the conspiracy is that all the religions of the world have tricked us into misunderstanding our true origins:  either we are descended from divine beings or we are descended from extraterrestrials.

July 21, 2010

New Airbender Movie Review

Filed under: Faith & Culture, Movies, Stacey Tuttle — admin @ 8:37 AM

Check out the new resource for using the moving The Last Airbender as an entry point for conversations about spiritual truth.  Article is here.

May 3, 2010

The Word: Understanding & Trusting the Bible in an Age of Skepticism

Filed under: Apologetics, Biblical Studies, Christian Living, Christian speakers, Craig Smith, Faith & Culture — Tags: , , , , , , — admin @ 12:45 PM

Video interview with Dr. Craig Smith, Christian speaker and author of the new book, The Word:  Understanding & Trusting the Bible in an Age of Skepticism.


You can buy a copy of the book at any of the following locations:

Shepherd Project Resource Store

Amazon

Barnes & Noble

April 30, 2010

National Day of Prayer

Filed under: Christian Living, Craig Smith, Faith & Culture — Tags: — Craig Smith @ 7:46 AM

Although I honestly doubt that much will come of this absurd ruling by the Wisconsin judge that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutionial, I’d like to recommend Jim Daley’s article to you:

(http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/jim_daly/2010/04/a_day_of_prayer_for_judicial_common_sense.html)

April 7, 2010

Irony (and not the Alanis Morissette kind)

Filed under: Christian Living, Craig Smith, Faith & Culture, Philosophy, Postmodernism — Tags: , , , , — Craig Smith @ 4:52 PM

D.A. Carson said something in a book that I read recently that continues to echo in my head.  Describing the post-modern emphasis on tolerance, Carson made the point that tolerance presupposes disagreement.  In other words, you can’t “tolerate” something unless you happen to think it’s wrong.  We don’t “tolerate” those things that we agree with.  We “tolerate” those things that we disagree with by conceeding that, though we disagree with them, they have the right to exist.  Summarizing the beliefs of the French philosopher Voltaire, his biographer Evelyn Beatrice Hall penned the famous quote:  “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”  This is “tolerance”, an ideal on which much of the American notion of freedom is based.  Unfortunately, it becomes nonsense in the modern understanding of tolerance.

In contemporary parlance, “tolerance” means something like:  all ideas are equal and no idea is inherently more right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate, than any other.  While it is true that this notion might reduce conflict (why fight about an idea that is no more or less meaningfull than any other?), it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, “tolerant.”  This might be “accepting” or even “inclusive”, but it is not “tolerant.”

Ironically, it seems to me that genuine “tolerance” – i.e. the willingness to listen to and even support the right to speak of those with whom you disagree – is more respectful than the contemporary perversion of it.  Which is more respectful of someone, to say “talk all you want because nothing you say can actually mean anything to anyone but you” or “let me hear what you think so that I can evaluate whether or not you’re on to something”?  The latter presupposes that someone might have something to say which is meaningful and significant while the former presupposes that letting this person speak won’t make any difference anyway.

I was just coming back from speaking at an event and I sat next to a college philosophy major who believed that there was no truth and that no ideas actually described things the way they actually are.  This is a nonsense position, of course, since if someone says “No idea can actually be true [i.e. describe things the way they actually are]” then they are proposing an idea that they believe actually describes things the way they are, but that’s another issue entirely.  This student and I talked for several hours, but as we were landing I looked her in the eye and I said, “You know, I think you’re wrong.  But here’s the thing:  I’ve been listening to you because I think your ideas matter.  I think you’re very bright and because I think it’s at least possible that your ideas are actually right, I think you’re worth listening to.  Having heard you out, I happen to disagree with you, but ironically, my disagreement is actually a kind of respect.  By thinking that your ideas matter, I think you matter.  But if your ideas don’t actually mean anything, if they can’t possibly match up with the ways things actually are…then your ideas are meaningless and, by extension, so are you.  But I don’t think that.  I think your ideas matter and, by extension, I think you matter.  I think you’re wrong, but I only bother saying that because I think you – and your ideas – count.”

Of course, I’m sure I sound more eloquent here  than it came out live, but that’s essentially what I said.  How did she respond?  She teared up and raced off the plane so fast that I saw her go back later to get her bags that she’d left in the overhead bin.  I pray God continues to work on her obviously broken heart.

But do you see what I mean?  Tolerance, at least in the modern sense, isn’t respectful.  It’s disrespectful.  Ironically, genuine tolerance…the kind that presupposes disagreement…is far more respectful of persons than the modern version could ever hope to be.

February 12, 2010

Leap Year: What would YOU grab?

Filed under: Christian Living, Faith & Culture, Movies — Tags: , — Stacey Tuttle @ 10:01 AM

Review by: Stacey Tuttle

 The pivotal question in Leap Year is when Declan asks Anna if her house was burning and she had 60 seconds, what would she grab.  Interestingly, we don’t ever know Anna’s answer to that question.  However, her search for an answer changes how she has evaluated the men in her life.  She watches as her fiancé, Jeremy, scrambles to grab electronics – cell phone, iPod, computer, camera, etc. – thinking there is a possible fire in the building.  Certainly, we understand to a point – it’s hard to replace a phone or computer – all the work and files and contacts, etc.  But it was all centered around possessions and work and accomplishments.  This is starkly contrasted with Declan who said he would grab a ring, significant in that it was a family heirloom and had belonged to his mother.  Declan was sentimental and put little stock in name brands and titles.  Anna had to choose: did she want to spend her life with a man who would be married to his job and possessions, or to a man who would be married to her and his family?  One guy might make better money, but the other was nearly guaranteed to take better care of her.  One would know her taste in shoes, the other would know her heart. 

It’s a simple question, but can reveal so much about a person.  It’s a great question to ask – whether it’s in response to Leap Year or just in casual conversation – if you only had a few minutes, the house is going down in flames, what would you grab?  See what matters most to the people around you.  It can lead to some great discussions about their priorities and what fulfills them (or what they think fulfills them!).  It’s a great question to ask for a natural segue from your culture into areas of faith.

February 10, 2010

One Little Bug

Filed under: Apologetics, Faith & Culture, Susan Rieske — Tags: — Susan Rieske @ 8:29 PM

Some conversations I’ve been having lately have sent my thoughts drifting in the direction of science. In particular, I’ve been thinking about one little bug: the Bombardier beetle. Okay, even if you don’t like bugs, hang with me for a few minutes, for this little bug is a fascinating creature. What makes it so fascinating is how it defends itself, which is what gives the beetle its name (notice the bomb in Bombardier). How this happens is the fascinating part. I’ll do my best to explain this simply for you, especially if you are not a science person. Here it goes…

Two chemicals, good old hydrogen peroxide and another chemical called hydroquinone, are produced and stored in the beetle’s abdomen. When threatened by an enemy, these two chemicals enter into a mixing chamber where they combine with enzymes, and a violent chemical reaction begins. The fluid boils, gases are released, and an enormous amount of pressure builds up. At the same time, the valves from the explosion chamber close to protect the bug’s internal organs. In less than a fraction of a second from when this process begins, the boiling, smelly poison shoots out in a series of explosions and often the fluid is able to be aimed in several directions to hit the bug’s enemy. The enemy is scorched. The bug is saved. And that, in a nutshell, is how it’s done.

The whole process is pretty amazing, isn’t it? But why is this little bug significant enough to be written about on a Christian speaker’s blog? Well, this little beetle is discussed in a number of Christian circles because it points to a creator at work in the universe. In fact, this little beetle with a brain smaller than a pea has made quite a stir among the big brains in the scientific community.

Why? Well as many have argued, a system like this could not have come about by a series of small changes without a designer, as many evolutionists claim. This complete system of the two separate chemicals, the well insulated thick-walled mixing chamber, the valves to protect the beetle, and all the other tiny little details must be in place for the defense mechanism to work properly. If one single little part is missing or defective, it will not work. Not to mention, it must work well enough so the beetle doesn’t become a suicide bomber! In fact, if this process was developed through a series of random mutations and other small changes, somewhere along the way, the beetle would have become toast. And dead bugs don’t evolve. Thus, we see how difficult it is to explain how a gradual process like evolution is going to produce this little beetle. How could this system ever have worked unless it came into existence at once and fully? For those who refuse to believe that there is an intelligent designer in the universe responsible for life, they have to grapple with this small but mighty bombardier.

In my science background, I have been taught the arguments of those who believe that we came into being through random evolution. I have studied the responses of evolutionists to the detailed complexity found in nature, including that of the Bombardier beetle. But none of them satisfy and many of them seem quite far-fetched. Greater minds than mine will state the same. But the more I study the complexities of nature, the more I am convinced that the most believable theory is that they come from a complex creator…a great intelligent designer. Moreover, these complexities, including those of this little bug, display God’s creative power that should draw us to him. As the Bible says, “…since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

This is our God: the great Creator who is able to perfectly arrange all these tiny parts in the belly of a beetle to create an amazing little creature. Astounding. And the implications for our daily, seemingly mundane little lives? Well, just think about it.

February 1, 2010

Superstitions

Filed under: Craig Smith, Faith & Culture, Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , — Craig Smith @ 12:41 PM

Just recently I was asked an intriguing question:  what is the difference between a religious belief and a superstition?  Having given it a fair amount of thought, I’ve realized that the question is quite difficult. 

At the moment, my working definition of a religious belief is as follows:  any belief which has reference to a supernatural entity or object. 

A superstition, on the other hand, I’m leaning towards defining this way:  a false belief in supernatural causation. 

Defined this way, superstitions are a small subcategory of the larger category of religious beliefs.  Superstitions are always false since they assume causality where none exists; e.g. walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror do not actually cause bad luck.  They are religious since they assume the existence of supernatural forces.

Superstitions are always related to causation.  That is, they assume that a supernatural force has caused something to happen.  A religious belief, on the other hand, may or may not have anything to do with causation.  For instance, a Deist who believes that God created the world and then stepped back to watch it work, believes in the existence of a supernatural being (God), but does not believe that this God intervenes in the world.  Thus, apart from the initial creative act, the deistic belief in God does not entail any belief in causation, but since it posits a supernatural entity (God), it is still religious.

Religious beliefs can be true or false, of course, but superstitions are always false.  I suppose to be proper we should talk about true religious beliefs and false religious beliefs and understand that superstitions are actually a subcategory of false religious beliefs.  Thus the belief that God is not a Trinity is a false religious belief (because He is) but not a superstition.  The belief that an angel gets her wings every time a bell rings is a superstition because it is a false religious belief related to causation.

As I see it, we cannot always tell if a belief is strictly superstitious or merely religious in the more general sense.  Some things will fit easily into either category but others we will not be able to pigeonhole so neatly, given our finite knowledge.

Thoughts?

Powered by WordPress