Nothing says Prince of Peace like some slashed tires.
I fear to think that I could make this a regular feature – never search google news for the word “pastor,” you will only be saddened.
Archive for October, 2006
“Christians” behaving badly
Oct 31
The University of California system has been taking a look at the text books Christian schools are using and not accepting high school curricula based on ones it deems objectionable, now it is before the courts to see if it a case of religious discrimination.
The Bob Jones physics text, for example, teaches that “the only sure truths are found in God’s Word, which is settled forever in heaven. … The Bible, written by an omniscient God, can never be proved wrong.”
The higher education establishment seems to be firmly in UC’s corner.
Barmak Nassirian, spokesman for the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said universities must defer to academics to define the essence of their disciplines, not only in biology, chemistry and physics but also in the humanities and social sciences.
“You simply can’t bring a bundle of your particular views” to the university and demand that it “manufacture a degree,” he said. “We wouldn’t do this in engineering” if someone refused to concede, for example, the theory of gravity.
Not that Christian schools are doing this (there is some criticism of non-science texts, and their lack of content and perspective)… they simply could. Would they do this for students who went through a Muslim education abroad and then passed toefl?
For my two cents: Either the article presents this slightly skewed or something is fundamentally unsound with UC’s approach. I agree that the University should be able to expect a certain level of understanding when it comes to their incoming undergraduates, but I do not think that they are approaching this in the right way. If a textbook has factual errors that violate generally accepted standards in the academic community then by all means allow for students to demonstrate an understanding of these subjects that meets your requirements (whether God exists shouldn’t be used as such a determiner.) However, to blanket deny courses based up religious content and not scientific merit walks you to the dangerous precipice religious rights.
Tall Skinny Kiwi does a great job of pointing you to all the right places to go for information from this event, so I suggest you do so if you’re at all interested.
Understanding the dialogue allows us to define it, unfortunately folks with agendas have a bad habit of defining it before understanding it (a kind of name-it-and-claim-it for post-moderns.) I’ll be honest enough to say that I don’t quite get what “it” (emerging church) is, but I feel “it” and sense “it” in the conversations around me. The conversation is happening without definitions and that, perhaps, will bear the most fruit of all because it allows for God to be bigger than our definitions.
BTW: if you don’t already read TSK’s blog regularly and are interested at all in the emerging church, please check it out.
Enjoy the the biting satire of The Church You Know.
Further reading
Oct 26
Wow…
Oct 25
Just stumbled across a blog by a worker at Banner of Truth (one of my favorite publishers) and was blown away by this:
After only reading a few pages, I ran downstairs the staff here at Banner, “Did you know about this book?” I asked. I then read from our tribute to this author. “After he handed the package (the manuscript for this book) across the post-office counter, his wife Margaret, who was with him, suggested he might buy a new notebook to begin his next book. He paused before replying, ‘Margaret, I think I’ve said all I want to say.’ That evening he entered his eternal rest.” He was 83. Clearly, in the providence of God, this book was not to go undone!
I don’t really have much to say except, wow. There’s a couple of books I’ve been wanting to order from them, I’ll have to add this to the list! Read the post and check out the book.
Here is an interesting article from today’s Louisville Courier-Journal that talks about a Christian cost-sharing program to help people pay for medical expenses. The article appears a little short on information though.
The article quotes an official as saying:
“It looks so much like health insurance that we’re afraid the normal everyday citizen may replace their health insurance with this,” said Julie McPeak, executive director of the state Office of Insurance. “It’s important for us to pursue this to determine how it needs to be regulated, if at all.”
Which is exceptionally revealing if you stitch it together with this:
Kentucky is one of seven states that doesn’t require such organizations to operate under the regulations that govern insurance companies, the Web site says. But the organizations are required to publish a disclaimer saying the medical plan “is not issued by an insurance company nor is it offered through an insurance company.”
These two statements propel me to ask these questions:
- Is Kentucky negligent in its legal coverage of organizations like this?
- Is this company actively exploiting the lack of legal coverage in states like this?
I love the idea of a bunch of Christians getting together and helping each other out, it reminds me of the community action you see in Acts, however such an endeavor should be above reproach under both Christian and legal lights so that close inspection only seeks to point that party to Christ.
Dig deeper: Medi-Share’s disclaimer page
Drawing the line…
Oct 24
What exactly constitutes a violation of the first amendment? Does a student activities committee at a state school paying a “Christian” band to perform constitute a violation? Students at the University of Tennessee at Martin find themselves asking this question.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although I am leery to state any opinion of this matter, this is what I come up with:
- The band’s label is Sony BMG and not an actual religion (if they were sponsored by the Southern Baptists I would agree that that this is a violation) and as such, despite being “Christian,” makes their performance protected as speech. However, I think that despite being protected it is certainly legitimate to question the decision, especially if there is a doubt as to the motives (i.e. is “Christian” evangelism a greater priority than entertainment?)
What say you? I know I’ve got some folks in the legal profession out there so clear up my muddled understanding with your years of experience!
The quiet and settled atheism/agnosticism of my parents is being rocked by an anticrusade (since crusade comes from the french, I’m not quite sure what is word radical opposition of the cross) in the form of the atheist intellectual community. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone up on the news, Richard Dawkins is on a missionary journey and his letter is The God Delusion – and it is set on one thing: eliminating all religion. His reactions are witty, but frankly as unoriginal as any atheist claims are. Wired does good service into looking into this movement (from an areligious perspective.)
Church riot
Oct 22
Underage drinking, violence, an arrest… all at a Lutheran Church. It’s a sad story – but most stories that come up when I search the word “pastor” on google news are. Sounds like this church needs prayer, remember them when you pray today.
<--Church info