An interesting newspaper headline caught my eye this morning on my daily commute regarding a family court ruling where the Judge ordered that a five year old boy be enrolled in a ‘religiously neutral’ school. The case came about as the two – divorced – parents involved could not come to an agreement as to how the boy was to be raised. As the brief article describes it, the mother is a ‘church-goer’ and wants her son to be sent to a (presumably) Christian school, while the father is a self-described humanist who is adamantly opposed.

It is an unfortunate dilemma (all custody cases are) as the court was essentially asked to adjudicate between two conflicting convictions. The articles I could find on the case were limited in depth and presented mainly the arguments put forth by the father – perhaps to skew the story in his favor? – so it is on his points that I will respond to individually below.

The father states:

“I now have strong humanist views, but do not hold religious beliefs. In fact, I have become opposed to religious dogma and organised religion.”

Or it could just be that, given this case is just one of the consequences of a divorce involving children (which typically are not cordial affairs), he is more interested in just opposing his ex-wife’s wishes. As a side note, it would be interesting to know if the opposing views within the marriage toward Christianity had any part to play in the parent’s separation, especially considering the ex-husband’s terse humanist convictions.

“I oppose religious dogmas being thrust on young minds.”

But apparently it is quite ok for the father to thrust his humanist dogmas on his own son. Presumably, he believes that his position is one of neutrality, but in reality there is no such position. There is simply a religious position and a non-religious (or anti-religious) position and the father obviously favors the latter.

He also weights the debate by assuming that all religious ‘teaching’ is not teaching at all, but a form of brain-washing. He assumes too much; he is actually trying, in effect, to thrust his religiously ‘neutral’ dogma onto his son by name-calling his ex-wife’s preference out of the debate. There is no real substance here.

“I have seen the evidence of people who profess to be Christian and then act in a manner which can best be described as un-Christian.”

Obviously, the father knows of Christians who aren’t Christians. (I wonder if he thought that argument through?) I would be interested in knowing by what standard he judges who is a Christian and who is not, but we are not privvy to this information. In any case, while it may be true that some people who profess to be Christians aren’t in practice, it does not mean that Christianity as a religion is a bad thing. That he raises this as a line of argument tells me that he is fearful of his son turning into a religious hypocrite. A fair enough fear, easily countered – I dare say – by: 1) understanding what Christianity deems is appropriate behavior, and; 2) working with his ex-wife to ensure his son taught accordingly, especially since he is unintentionally implying that proper Christians have favorable behaviors. But I’d simply wager he does not have interest in working with his ex on this – paint me skeptical.

I think the Judge, Magistrate Stewart Brown, thought he was likewise taking a “cautious approach” when he ruled that the boy be enrolled in a non-religious school. In actuality it was a ruling in favor of the father’s position which, as I’ve argued, is not at all neutral. The mother now needs to prayerfully work harder on instructing her son regarding her Christian faith – frankly, that’s not a bad thing (even if the ruling went her way she should be doing this anyway as that is an appropriate Christian behaviour) and I’d encourage her to do so.

Read the full article below and do share your thoughts.

References:

• Judge forced to decide for parents warring over son’s religion

Scott Klusendorf, of the Life Training Institute, is arguably one of the world’s premier pro-life apologists, persuasively arguing for, and training others to defend, the sanctity of human life – especially the unborn.

When asked what a layperson can do to be a part of this mission, he suggests two foundational things that are “necessary, but not sufficient.”^[1] In other words, this is pro-life apologetics training 101.

1. READ. Read a lot! Get informed. The reason you need to become an aggressive reader is to build a knowledge foundation from which you can draw the raw material you need to engage people on this issue. It also builds confidence. When you know you have read the literature that is out there from many of the most important thinkers, then you’ll know that if you get asked a question, you won’t be caught totally off guard.

2. TEACH and EQUIP others to defend the inherent value of all human life. Some of you will notice that this is not dissimilar to the Christian commission, which requires us, after coming to place our trust in Christ, to become more informed about the basics of Christianity, and then to go out into the world to tell others and to train those who respond to do the same.

Read the rest of this entry

And you thought that postmodernism could not touch the field of mathematics. Well it has! As I discovered in Nancy Pearcey’s Book “Total Truth”:

These days’ philosophers no longer regard mathematics as a body of truths. The dominant philosophy of mathematics treats it as a social construction like a game. There are arbitrary rules, neither are true or false, they are just the way we choose to play the game.

This is being taught to school children. A school curriculum developed at Michigan State University for grades 6-8 called “Connected Mathematical Project” says that students should learn that “mathematics is man-made, that it is arbitrary, and good solutions are arrived at by consensus among those who are considered expert”

In Minnesota, teachers are instructed to be tolerant of “multiple mathematical worldviews” in their Minnesota State Statues Governing the Licensing of Teachers, 106, 111. And in New Mexico a recent graduate of high school tells of how a mathematics teacher labelled him a “bigot” for thinking it was important to get the right answer. As long as students worked together in a group and achieved consensus, the teacher insisted, the outcome was acceptable.

If mathematics is arbitrary, then there are no wrong answers, just different perspectives. The simplest, most universal form of knowledge – mathematics – is subject to some radically different worldview interpretations.

If this is happening with mathematics how much more will postmodernism effect more complex fields, biology, economics, law and ethics.

[Simplified for brevity - not an exact quote]

Surely, only the terms used to token mathematics are arbitrary (numbers will be different as spoken / written in other languages), but the qualities that make one (1) or two (2) appear to be universal.

This is dangerous territory we now walk into if the postmodern philosophy of “There is no truth” is the guiding rule for society. I certainly want truth when it comes to the medicine that my doctor prescribes to me, the truth of traffic light operations and I would hope that my bank manager isn’t taken in by this relativistic approach to mathematics either.

The problem at the heart of this philosophy that “There is no truth”, is that this proposition is indefensible. It is, in and of itself, a truth statement and therefore invalidates itself. In other words, they want the statement “There is no truth” to be accepted as truth. If someone were to try to make that statement, then the response should always be “Really, is that true?”

How can you have a meaningful conversation with anyone who holds this view?

All this reminds me of “Values Clarification” which is also being taught to our school children (more universally than this philosophy of mathematics) where they are told that their values and ethics are to be decided by themselves, individually and as a group, and that it is by this moral code that they are to live their lives. The problem arises when they decide that it is ok to cheat on their school tests or that it is ok to hurt others to get what you want. It’s just not a philosophy that can find any traction in reality because, when they grow older and apply what they have learned, they discover that society can and will punish them via the law (a fine or incarceration), if their “values” don’t match those existing already in society.

“Do you believe God wants many people saved now?”

That was the question that confronted Tim Scheuer (pronounced ‘shire’) before he began his mission of evangelism in Airds – a commitment that eventually saw him resign his position as the National Director of The Church Army Australia as of February 2010.

At the Church Army 75th Anniversary Conference in 2009, Tim announced:

In late March this year I took the opportunity to spend three days with a Kiwi missionary that we’ll call Barney. Barney has spent the past 12 years serving in China in “Church Planting Movements”; seeing hundreds of small simple churches planted and thousands of people coming to Christ in relatively short periods of time.

The first thing Barney did when he stood up in front of the small group of leaders I was part of was to ask a question; “Do you believe God wants many people saved now?” And then he paused…

I sat there thinking, “If I say, ‘no’, it will be very hard to justify that ‘no’ from scripture. But, if I say ‘yes’… I sensed there would be more questions coming, confronting questions. At the same time I knew that what God was saying to me could not be brushed off by explaining to him that I was the National Director of Church Army Australia and that we were planting LMB’s, training local missionaries and running a good residential restoration programme. “Hey God, I’m a busy religious guy doing good things – off my back” was not going to wash…

http://www.churcharmy.com.au/downloads/Tims_Conf_Address.pdf

Read the rest of this entry

When Tim Scheuer^[1] decided to go into one of the worst socioeconomic communities in Western Sydney to reach the Least, the Last and the Lost,^[2] he did so in part to prove that the church planting movement – the likes of which saw Christianity go viral in China over the last 50 years – would not work in Australia. However, “In order to give it a fair shot,” thought Tim, “I will endeavour to train 1000 people,” and plant no less than 400 churches. Some litmus test! With that commitment made, and having met with his small outreach team at the local Anglican church for some pep-talks and prayer, Tim went out into the streets of Airds and began prayer walking.

Don’t worry if you’re not familiar with that term. Neither was I, until Tim began describing his first experiences in Airds. It works something like this; Tim goes out into the streets of Airds, door-knocking and walking around the community looking to make connections with people. While he is doing this he is praying, “Oh God, pour out your Spirit, take me to persons of peace^[3], show yourself to these people. I’m looking for leaders to raise up here, I know they’re here, you’ve got them, you’ve been working in their hearts. Help me to find them and encourage them and win them and train them.” Praying. Walking. Ergo, prayer walking.

So on his first day in Airds Tim met a young man named Bobby. Within ten minutes Tim discovers that Bobby has been on the run from the police. He’s also been on methadone for the last eight years and has been using speed and drinking heavily with his brother, who he’d been staying with. Two nights prior, Bobby had tried to hang himself, but his brother found him and cut him down. “So you figured he was a person of peace?” jokes Steve Addison, in a June 2009 interview. “I thought he could be a good worker,” Tim replies.

Read the rest of this entry

Extract from Rachael J. Denhollander’s article “If the foundations be destroyed” inVol. 24(1) 2010 of the “Journal of Creation” publication.

The “beginning of the end” for teaching creation science or Intelligent Design (ID) in the public school classroom came in 1947, in Everson vs Board of Education, a case which, interestingly enough, addressed no issue of science at all, and was actually decided in favor of the more “conservative” client. What Everson did do, however, is completely reshape the understanding of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, ultimately providing the framework for banning creation science and ID in the classroom.

The Establishment Clause in the U.S. Constitution simply states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Thus, in every Establishment Clause challenge, the Plaintiff must prove two essential elements: 1) That the government is involved in religion, and 2) that such involvement has the effect of establishing a religion. Currently, there are a myriad of tests the court may apply in determining whether an establishment of religion has taken place, the most popular of which is known as the Lemon Test. The Lemon Test arose from the case Lemon vs Kurtzman, and requires a three-prong analysis which holds that the Establishment Clause has been violated if any of the following are true:

a) There is no valid secular purpose for the government’s action.

b) The primary effect of the action is not secular.

c) The government action fosters excessive entanglement with religion.

While other tests have occasionally been used or suggested, these have generally all been merely “revisions” of Lemon, rather than entirely new tests themselves. It is generally the Lemon test which has been used to rule out ID and creation science as unconstitutional, and it is Lemon which also finds its roots in the Court’s reshaping of history in Everson vs Board of Education.

Read the rest of this entry

Gary Habermas is one of the world’s leading scholars on the resurrection. His website and other published materials (such as his book, The Historical Jesus) are outstanding, being first class resources for anyone facing the “latest” regurgitated challenges to the resurrection and related topics.

But I recently discovered another reason to visit his website; the Historical Resurrection Quiz. The quiz is multiple-choice-based and focuses on the historical sources, challenges and arguments concerning the resurrection. The quiz is broken up into levels of various difficulty, requiring you to attain a particular level of knowledge before moving on the next (more challenging) level. All answers are scored and bonus questions at the end of each round is an opportunity to score more points. I found it to be both fun and educational.

Adam was watching me play the first time through and each time I got one wrong he would provide helpful encouragement such as, “Oh you got one wrong, you’re not a real Christian”. Despite his encouragement, I managed to get to level 8 before I had to stop, so I didn’t quite get to finish the quiz. The questions do get harder with each level, though there is some repetition and “dummy” answer options to help narrow down the choices.

Here are a few sample questions from the quiz:

• Why is the Minimal Facts approach effective?
• True or False: If Jesus did not rise from the dead, Christianity is false and we should live accordingly.
• What is the role of evidence in any investigation into Christianity?
• What is the principle of Enemy Attestation?
• What is the Jerusalem Factor argument for the empty tomb?
• What is the Minimal Facts method?
• The fact that Jesus’ disciples sincerely believed that he had risen from the dead and had appeared to them helps to eliminate at least two opposing theories. What are they?
• Regarding the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection, what distinguishes the disciples from Muslim terrorists, who also willingly suffered and died for their beliefs?
• Which two Apostolic Fathers report that the apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus’ resurrection?
• Nine ancient sources attest to the disciples’ claim to have seen the Jesus risen from the dead. These can easily be presented in three categories. What are they?
• How many sources attest to the willingness on the part of the original disciples to suffer and die for their beliefs?
• True or False: The willingness of the disciples to suffer and even die for their beliefs establishes the truth of their beliefs.

By the way, if you answered True for that last one, then you’re not a real Christian. ;)

This is a little too ironic to not share. Over at pastor Tim Guthrie’s blog, SBC Today, we find a response from him regarding the issue of Liberty University demoting Ergun Caner from the position of dean of LBTS to that of professor as a result of their investigation into the fabricated history Caner had erected about himself. (For those who are not aware, Guthrie had involved himself rather deeply in the controversy surrounding Caner and taking heat over it.) For several months Guthrie has been rightly cautioning people against the easy temptation of gossip and to reserve their judgment until all of the relevant evidence had been collected and sifted through and the Board of Trustees at Liberty University had weighed in on the matter. (We will ignore the dissonance of Guthrie not taking his own advice, nor will we comment about how he has conducted himself in the affair.)

What I want to do here is interact directly with Guthrie’s concluding thoughts, in his article oddly entitled “The Exoneration of Dr. Ergun Caner,” to critically analyze the various statements he made therein.

Read the rest of this entry

As reported by Ray Reed at The News & Advance a few hours ago, Liberty University has confirmed that Ergun Caner’s contract as dean of the seminary, which will expire 30 June 2010, will not be renewed for the next academic year. In an official statement from Liberty University, it was confirmed that Caner “will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.” Caner has been demoted to the faculty position of professor instead, which he has accepted.

The official statement reads in full:

After a thorough and exhaustive review of Dr. Ergun Caner’s public state-ments, a committee consisting of four members of Liberty University’s Board of Trustees has concluded that Dr. Caner has made factual statements that are self-contradictory.  However, the committee found no evidence to sug-gest that Dr. Caner was not a Muslim who converted to Christianity as a teenager, but, instead, found discrepancies related to matters such as dates, names and places of residence.  Dr. Caner has cooperated with the board committee and has apologized for the discrepancies and misstatements that led to this review.  Dr. Caner’s current contractual term as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary expires on June, 30, 2010.  Dr. Caner will no longer serve as Dean of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.  The univer-sity has offered, and Dr. Caner has accepted, an employment contract for the 2010-2011 academic year. Dr. Caner will remain on the faculty of Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary as a professor.

Read the rest of this entry

The religious aspect of science (often referred to as ‘Scientism’) is captured once again in a recent piece on the highly informative CreationSafaris website. It requires very little commentary from me at this stage, as I think the point is well made.

Can you be called scientifically literate if you deny that humans evolved from lower animals?  What if you deny the universe began with an explosion?  American students have typically scored low on those questions, leading to charges that they are scientifically illiterate compared to other countries in Europe and Asia.  But now, the National Science Board (NSB) decided to drop those hot-button questions in the 2010 edition of Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial compilation of the state of global science, on the grounds that they don’t accurately reflect students’ knowledge of science, but rather their beliefs.  The decision set off angry protests in certain quarters. …

… Joshua Rosenau of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) [called] it “intellectual malpractice” to discuss scientific literacy without mentioning evolution.  “It downplays the controversy,” he said. … Yudhijit Bhattacharjee said, “those struggling to keep evolution in the classroom say the omission could hurt their efforts.”

… NSB officials counter that their decision to drop the survey questions on evolution and the big bang from the 2010 edition was based on concerns about accuracy.  The questions were “flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because the responses conflated knowledge and beliefs,” says Louis Lanzerotti, an astrophysicist at the New Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark and chair of the board’s Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI) committee. …

… Bruer noted that 72% of Americans answered the question about humans evolving from earlier species correctly when the question was prefaced with the phrase, according to the theory of evolution.  This shows that the questions “reflect factors beyond unfamiliarity with basic elements of science.”  The controversy over Indicators thus boils down to the question whether a student needs to believe, rather than simply know, the facts of a theory to be considered scientifically literate. …

And here’s the point;

… If students have to believe rather than understand a scientific theory, then science has become a religion.  According to the radical Darwinists, a scientist could have a PhD, earn international honors in science, publish hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals, and save millions of lives, and yet, if a Darwin doubter (roster), could be judged scientifically illiterate. Do you want radicals like that influencing education policy?  Do you want them requiring recitation of a pledge of allegiance to Darwin?  Do you want them forcing science curricula to say that to understand science, you must believe that nothing banged and became everything by an unguided process?

Indeed, hasn’t this kind of expectation (this commitment to materialism and scientism) already been exposed with the treatment of scientists such as Richard Sternberg and Guillermo Gonzalez, not to mention many others?