The Salty Peanut Gallery

Speaker of the House “Miss America” Nancy Pelosi has been quoting scripture lately in defense of her agenda on such things as the environment and the budget. She’s been citing a passage that she says comes from the book of Isaiah. However, the particular passage in question has left many Bible scholars scratching their heads. The problem is that the passage doesn’t actually exist in the Bible.

In her recent Earth Day press release, Speaker Pelosi said, “The Bible tells us in the Old Testament, ‘To minister to the needs of God’s creation is an act of worship. To ignore those needs is to dishonor the God who made us.’”

Huh?

Speaker Pelosi is reported to have used this passage about a half a dozen times going back at least to 2005. “It’s hard to know where something like that gets started,” says apologist Dr. Raymond Bohlin, president of Probe Ministries. “But it’s unfortunate that she’s referring to it as a scripture quotation because it’s not.” Bohlin believes Pelosi and others are trying to demonstrate “a sort of Christian caring and compassionate view to things.”

First of all, let me go on record as saying that I believe without a doubt mankind and particularly the believer in Christ has been given the responsibility for the stewardship of God’s creation. We should do everything we can to maintain and care for it. While I might agree on some level at least to the concept Pelosi and others may be trying to advance, that of caring for creation, the ends do not justify the means. It is completely unnecessary to fabricate a lie in order to further the truth. Truth has no need of manipulation.

The fact is that when God created man He entrusted him with dominion over every living thing (Genesis 1:26-28) and commissioned him with tending and keeping His creation (Genesis 2:15). Additionally in the New Testament we are encouraged to act as good stewards of the gifts in which God has blessed us (1 Peter 4:10). If the Speaker of the House was seriously interested in making the truth of God’s word the basis for her political agenda she might have at least made some attempt to accurately annunciate it. Sadly, her only reason for referencing scripture is for the purpose of manufacturing sound bites that would play to a religious constituency. Apparently she doesn’t think Christians are bright enough to look behind the current to see her political ploy for what it really is, nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Obviously she was wrong.

As you know we’ve been having a simulblog debate with our good friend Byron over at The No Kool Aid Zone on a Christian worldview of politics. I’ve offered up my views on the subject. Bob Robinson is an area director with the Coalition for Christian Outreach, a leading campus ministry in the tradition of “worldview discipleship” that flows from the Dutch Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper. Bob had this to say as he weighed in on the discussion:

Kuyper offered the seminal articulation of the Christian Worldview. It was articulated as “Creation / Fall / Redemption.” Everything in a Christian Worldview should flow out of this - That God created the world a certain way (with order, justice, and Shalom peace) God gave the mandate (before the Fall) to take what God has given us and create our culture. Human beings have rebelled against God’s will and therefore we have disorder, injustice, and sin. Our selfishness twists the Cultural Mandate. God’s plan is to get humanity on the right track again trough the redemption that comes through Jesus Christ.

I am not my own. I am to honor God with my body. This is certainly true in sexual ethics. But is it true across the board? Law began with that first story of murder in Genesis. Cain was wrong to think that he was not his brother’s keeper. Our understanding of civil law must have at its starting point not individual rights but the common good.

Now we’re getting somewhere. This is a line of thinking that definitely needs further exploring. Here is Byron’s response:

I’d like to draw the distinction between a Christian worldview, which gives us as believers the lens through which to view the world, and the appropriate role of civil government, a government which serves all people in its citizenry. I again affirm the Lordship of Christ over all of life, but some of the things that are being offered sound more like a theocratic approach to government than anything else. And by the way, I’m not up on my John Locke, so forgive me.

If “conservative” is shorthand for “what we’re doing now, plus restricting abortion”, say, then it’s just not very compelling to me, and while it might be preferred by many, can’t really be called, properly, the legislative enactment of a “Christian worldview”. And slice it how you will, that’s effectively what I hear my conservative friends saying. I’ve offered a consistent approach. It might be the wrong one — I’m reminded of the quote by Emerson that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds”, a quote I like for several reasons, not the least of which is that I think “hobgoblin” is a cool word — but at least it’s consistent. My contention is that if we were to start from scratch in articulating a Christian worldview vis a vis government, and got down to the question, “what things should be restricted in a government run on Christian principles”, we might not come up with my list, but I’m darn sure we’d not come up with “the status quo plus restricting abortion — oh, yeah, and the lottery”.

In my opinion, “I may be wrong but conservatives are more wrong,” isn’t much of an argument. When it comes to formulating a Christian worldview of politics maybe “starting from scratch” isn’t such a bad idea. As I recall everyone doing what is right in his own eyes (i.e. libertarianism) is a system that’s already been tried and I’m pretty sure it’s never really worked out all that well. Rather than trying to justify the wisdom of human reasoning wouldn’t it make better sense to begin with the wisdom of God and use that as the standard for our politics? If a Christian worldview is so “vitally important to living the Christian life” then shouldn’t we begin with principles found in God’s word?

I really think Bob is on the right track. Here are a few thoughts to consider:

If it weren’t for sin there would be no need for rule of law. It is sin that creates the need for law and order.

All authority of earthly governments originates from the sovereignty of God. Man would have no authority over his fellow man unless it were expressly given to him by God.

Therefore, because of sin it is God who has established the authority of government.

So with that mind, what civil laws do you think would be in keeping with God’s holy standard of law and order? Maybe if we were to begin by answering that question we might be a little closer to having the proper lens through which to view our politics.

For more about the Kuyperian Worldview, see Bob’s website, Friend of Kuyper.

by John Piper

There are saving works that God will only do through small churches and ordinary people, not through large churches and more sophisticated people.

The Lord said to Gideon, “The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’” (Judges 7:2)

Beware of missing your appointed fruit by envying bigger trees.

by Joe Carter of the evangelical outpost

Part I
#1 By remaining completely ignorant about ID while knocking down strawman versions of the theory.

#2 By claiming that ID is stealth creationism.

#3 By resorting to “science of the gaps” arguments. (Don’t understand how something occurred? Claim God did it. Case closed.)

#4 By claiming that ID isn’t science since it’s not published peer-reviewed literature…and then refusing to allow publications of ID papers in peer-reviewed journals.

#5 By making claims that natural selection/sexual selection is responsible for all behaviors and biological features.

Part II
#6 By invoking design in non-design explanations.

#7 By claiming that the criticism of ID has nothing to do with a prejudice against theism — and then having the most vocal critics of ID be anti-religious atheists.

Part III
#8 By separating origins of life science from evolutionary explanations.

#9 By resorting to ad hominems instead of arguments (e.g., claiming that advocates of ID are ignorant, liars, creationists, etc.).

#10 By not being able to believe their own theory.

There’s lots of buzz out there over the Ben Stein documentary that’s proving to be the little engine that could. In ‘Expelled’ Explodes into Top 10 Box Office, Christian Post correspondent Alexander J. Sheffrin writes:

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” the pro-intelligent design documentary featuring actor Ben Stein, made history this weekend as it propelled full speed into the top 10 box office. It opened as the widest and one of the most commercially successful releases for any documentary film.

In an impressive opening weekend, the film debuted at No. 9 at the box office, earning a respectable $3.2 million while only appearing on 1,052 screens.

Michael Foust of the Baptist Press in Land: ‘Expelled’ a must-see movie reports that Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is giving the film a “thumbs up”

“Expelled is a wonderful movie,” Land said on the April 17 broadcast of “For Faith and Family” in which he interviewed Stein. “I think it should be required viewing for anyone who wants to understand what is going on and what is at stake in the debate over worldviews in this society. This is one of these times when you can vote with your pocketbook. You can vote with your economic franchise, and Hollywood will listen when they see the dollar signs,” he said.

But not everyone is so enthusiastic. In Expelled Critics: So Bored They Can’t See Straight, Martin Cothran of Evolution News & Views has this to say:

“Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” is effective in its presentation of its views. It is by turns funny, ominous, clever, illuminating, and entertaining, which is more than you can say about some of the reviews of this movie which are merely hostile. Apparently their strategy is to convince people that the movie is not very good, something they have spilled a lot of ink trying to do.

The negative reviews of Expelled are primarily written by people who disagree with the film’s central contention, just as the positive reviews are largely from people who agree with it. When it comes to a film like this, there is little room for objectivity. Darwinists aren’t going to give this film a positive review any more than a conservative would give a positive review to a Michael Moore film. If you agree with it you like it, if you don’t you don’t. It’s pretty simple.

Should Christians seek to impose their moral values on civil laws? Joe Carter over at “the evangelical outpost” thinks we should. In a piece entitled “Rainbows and Electric Chairs: A Christian View on Capital Punishment” he addresses “the moral legitimacy of state-imposed death. Are there any legitimate reasons for supporting the death penalty?”

“Personally,” he writes, “I believe that the Bible not only should be our primary guide on such questions but that it also provides sufficient answers.” He then goes on to define for us how Christian morality should rightly be the basis for civil government.

As a Christian I believe that many human institutions, including civil government, are divinely ordained and delegated a certain degree of authority and responsibility. While ultimately under God’s control, civil government is given a degree of sovereignty over certain spheres of human existence. One of the most important areas which government is ordained is in dispensing justice.

While no government is able to carry out this task perfectly, the more it conforms its view of justice with God’s moral law the more legitimate its authority and the more just the state will be.

Did you catch that? This is essentially the point I have previously been trying to make. Apart from divine wisdom man is incapable of discerning right from wrong. As the keepers of the secrets of God, believers have the necessary wisdom to enable society to craft just laws. Without the influence of Christian morality society has no basis for righteousness and justice.

In light of the Supreme Court debate earlier this week over whether or not the rape of children should be punishable by execution, Carter goes on to establish a biblical mandate for capital punishment.

After God destroyed mankind with a flood, he established a covenant with Noah, his family, and (most importantly for us) his descendants. Along with the promise that He would never destroy the earth by water again, God included this moral command:

This verse not only provides a moral norm for capital punishment but delegates the responsibility to mankind (i.e., government) and limits it to a particular crime (murder). This sets a very narrow range of applicability. The rape of a child is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. But in the absence of a clear Biblical mandate to expand the penalty beyond murder, I do not believe we can justify including child-rape under the crimes that deserve death.

Carter is careful to conclude, “While I think the position outlined in this post is a Christian view on the death penalty, I do not want to be so bold as to say that it must be the position on this issue.”

Opening nationwide April 18th in theaters only.

Coming to a theater near you.

As a spin-off to our little bioethics debate our good friend Byron at The No Kool Aid Zone has written some Thoughts on a “Christian Worldview”, Part I. (Presumably there are more to come. Byron Simpsonization courtesy of Webbiedude Paul.)

A Christian worldveiw is something Byron considers “vitally important to living the Christian life.” He defines it as “the outworking of Romans 12:2, the ‘transformation’ that Paul tells us takes place as our minds are ‘renewed’ to think according, not to our natural inclinations, but the Bible’s teaching, which often runs very counter to our natural predilections.” No argument here. “But here’s what’s come up in a couple of posts recently,” he writes. “How does that Christian worldview demand that we interact with others, and how does it demand we interact with law?”

With that thought in mind Byron suggests this principle:

Submitted: When a given course of action impinges upon the legitimate human rights of another, no individual ought to be free to perform that action. However, when a given course of action does not harm the well-being (defined narrowly, by the way, meaning “real harm”, and not this touchy-feely nonsense promoted by the PC crowd) or infringe upon the rights of another, a person should be, before the law, free to engage in that action, even if it doesn’t morally pass muster for the Christian.

Translation: Should Christians seek to impose their moral values on civil laws? Here are some biblical principles to consider.

We know that man is spiritually depraved. “There is none righteous.” “There is none who does good.” This suggests two things. Apart from divine wisdom man is incapable of discerning right from wrong. Apart from divine intervention man is incapable of inhibiting his inevitable demise.

We also know that as followers of Jesus Christ “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” we are urged to “shine as lights in the world”, be “the salt of the earth”, and “love your neighbor”. This suggests some things as well. First, if we truly love someone we will not stand idly by and allow them to destroy themselves. We will take measures to try and inhibit or avert their destruction. Second, as the keepers of the secrets of God, believers have the necessary wisdom to enable society to craft just laws that will protect its citizens and to some degree inhibit moral degradation. The bottom line is this. Without the influence of Christian morality society has no basis for righteousness and justice and will ultimately crumble. History has proven this to be true.

So then from a Christian worldview to what degree should a just government interfere in the private lives of its citizen, to not only provide protection from one another, but to also provide protection from themselves? Is it wrong for example for motorcycle riders to be required to wear a helmet? Should seatbelts and child safety seats be required by law? These are instances in which the law intervenes to protect citizens from themselves resulting in thousands of saved lives. The libertarian would say that these laws are unjust, but how does that square with the wisdom of God?

Something else to consider. A given course of action may not directly harm the well-being or infringe upon the rights of another, but it may still be indirectly harmful in the moral decay that it brings to society. I would argue that this is the biblical basis for at least some of the specific restrictions conservatives would back, but that libertarians would not (i.e. prostitution, marijuana, drugs, etc.). I’m not saying it’s consistent, so please don’t use the alcohol and tobacco argument. I’m simply saying that I believe there is a biblical basis for implementing restrictions on actions that cause personal harm and contribute to moral decay.

Men Are Just Happier People - What do you expect from such simple creatures?

* Your last name stays put.
* The garage is all yours.
* Wedding plans take care of themselves.
* Chocolate is just another snack.
* You can be President.
* You can never be pregnant.
* Car mechanics tell you the truth.
* The world is your urinal.
* You never have to drive to another gas station restroom because this one is just too icky.
* You don’t have to stop and think of which way to turn a nut on a bolt.
* Same work, more pay.
* Wrinkles add character.
* Wedding dress $5000. Tux rental-$100.
* The occasional well-rendered belch is practically expected.
* New shoes don’t cut, blister, or mangle your feet.
* One mood all the time.
* Phone conversations are over in 30 seconds flat.
* You know stuff about tanks.
* A five-day vacation requires only one suitcase.
* You can open all your own jars.
* You get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
* If someone forgets to invite you, he or she can still be your friend.
* Your underwear is $8.95 for a three-pack.
* Three pairs of shoes are more than enough.
* You are unable to see wrinkles in your clothes.
* Everything on your face stays its original color.
* The same hairstyle lasts for years, maybe decades.
* You only have to shave your face and neck.
* You can play with toys all your life.
* Your belly usually hides your big hips.
* One wallet and one pair of shoes — one color for all seasons.
* You can wear shorts no matter how your legs look.
* You can “do” your nails with a pocket knife.
* You have freedom of choice concerning growing a mustache.
* You can do Christmas shopping for 25 relatives on December 24 in 25 minutes.

No wonder men are happier.