"Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can insult people's most cherished beliefs." Actually, that's precisely what "freedom of speech" means. If only the most inoffensive opinions are protected, what's the point?

This is an interesting quote... What do you all think about it?   I personally think that (1) the cartoons would have been completely inappropriate/unloving for Christians to produce/print, because we are interested in sharing the good news about Christ with the Muslims (but of course the editors/artists probably weren't Christians, so there's a limit to the extent we should expect them to act like Christians), but also that (2) the quote above is correct in that "free speech" is no longer "free" if it must be censored any time it offends someone.

Does "freedom of speech" mean that I "can" insult people?  Yes...  but SHOULD I insult people?  Of course not.  Those who have been saved by Christ Jesus have been set free "for freedom"!   Here's what the Bible says to those of us who are saved through faith in Christ -

For you were called to freedom, brethren; only do not turn your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Very interesting interview with Ninian Smart. I heard about him in the latest Faith and Philosophy journal, in the article called "Natural Theology and Religious Diversity" by Harold Netland. Lots of interesting questions and thoughts. We'll have to chat about them some time.

In the meantime, I am extremely thankful to God for the academic milestone that occurred this week.

Interesting article about beauty...  although I think he delves too much into philosophical speculation, and not enough into scripture.  In fact, I sometimes wonder if Edwards and Augustine (whom he quotes) do the same thing.

And now I may be accused of the very same thing, as I propose something (which, nonetheless, is, I think, at the very least "countenanced" by Scripture) - about a related topic/question - "What is art?"

Most people consider Rembrandt's, Da Vinci's, Michaelangelo's work to be "art."  A relatively smaller number consider Marcel Duchamp's work to be "art".  And a much smaller (though growing) number of people consider Marina Abramovic's work to be "art."

And if someone tries to tell one of Abramovic's fans that her work is "not art," they'd better be prepared for a rabidly indignant excoriation in which one is informed that one has no right to impose one's own aesthetic standards on other people.

So here's my thought on this (though it's probably not original)...  the question ought not to be "What is art?"  but rather, "What is good art?"

I.e., related to Mohler's article referenced above, there exists morality in this world, based on God's ultimate/transcendent standard.   Art that reinforces/corroborates/gives-glory-to/affirms God's own standards of truth, morality, beauty, and that promotes worship of God Himself, is "good" art, and ought to be supported.

By "supported," I mean not only that we should buy/listen-to/watch/absorb this "good art," but also that we should actively seek to have this art promoted in the world around us.  We ought to seek to reduce the prevalence of pornography in our nation/world (though carefully, so as to avoid censoring other things like the Bible itself).  We ought to lobby public art museums to sponsor good art.

If someone tells me that I'm "imposing", I can reply, "Well yes, actually, that is part of my job description, to be "salt of the earth" and "light of the world."  And if you are telling me that I 'ought not' to do this, then you're imposing your morality on me.  May I ask what moral basis you have for doing so?"

So that's some of my thoughts on the matter.  Here are a few corollaries...

Are Thomas Kincaid's paintings "good art?"   There is a fierce reaction among Christian youth, I've found, that decries the "plain, simple, beautiful, sugary" in favor of the "stinging, shocking, noir, acidic."   It seems that there is definitely plenty of wiggle-room for "taste", within the morality provided by God's word... e.g. many different types of music recorded in the Psalms, all of which presumably are glorifying to God.   And sometimes the "shocking" is powerful good art!  E.g. many of Jesus' parables... very shocking in their original cultural context.  But never shocking in morally-wrong ways... only in against-the-grain-of-the-culture-but-with-the-grain-of-God's-Law ways.

Next, does art have to be "purposefully good" to be considered good art?  If a sweet old christian lady writes a poem and accidentally uses a phrase that is vulgar in youth-talk, does that make it bad art?  Or if a hard-core secular band writes a dark/nihilistic song that unwittingly/accidentally opens thousands of peoples' eyes/hearts to the message of the gospel of Christ, does that make it good art?  There would seem to be a two dimensional gradient (at the very least!)... both "morality" and "skillfulness"...  the best art is both moral (affirming the truth, glorifying God, explicitly or implicitly) and also skillful (i.e. baby Johnny's stick figures with "God is good" scribbled above may not deserve a place in the world art museums, though of course God Himself may be delighted with Johnny's motives and final product).

A final gradient is the actual lifestyle of the artist... some of the world's finest "art" has been produced by men and women with very low moral standards...  should that factor in to our own valuation of what "good art" is?  I think so... not exclusively, certainly, but it is certainly a factor.

"Soli Deo Gloria."   His glory is all that really matters... we're just passing through this earth briefly.  What, of all our works and words, will last through eternity?

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.... For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come. Through Him then, let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips that give thanks to His name.

I have a question for those of you who read my blog... and a semi-challenge.

Do you have any enemies?

In what sense?  Are there any people that consider you their enemy?  Do you have certain people in mind that you have decided to "strongly oppose" even while praying for them and show them as much love as you possibly can?  Are there any less-concrete entities that you would definitely identify yourself as "fighting against" in this world?  Or do you support everyone and everything?

Interesting article: http://www.sulekha.com/expressions/column.asp?cid=305819

Note that I do NOT 'endorse' the article at all... rather, I think that it is deeply flawed.  But anyway, here's part of the concluding paragraph from the article (with my comments below) :

"The liberal adherents of all religions are now at the crossroads of a crucial choice. They can either remain silent and permit their fundamentalist minorities to fan the flames of religious conflicts, or speak out against them and insist on religious tolerance as the only legitimate road to a peaceful world."
1. First, I think that the author is correct in this.  Liberals are indeed facing this choice.
(Although I think it is interesting that he lumps 'fundamentalist Christianity,' which is involved in 'proselytization' simpy by means of telling other people about Jesus and encouraging them gently to consider His claims, together with with Al Qaeda, which is involved in killing civilians from nations that do not implement Islamic  Sharia law in a 'proselytization' by means of violence.  The author simply groups both of these together as "proselytizers.")
2. Second, I find it amusing and oxymoronic that the author recommends the use of intolerance in the name of tolerance, in the typical blind postmodern way.  He says that liberals should "insist on religious tolerance as the only legitimate road".
Notice that strident word, "insist", and that other annoyingly exclusive word, "only."

I.e., playing the point of view of the author, "You MUST tolerate all other religions and cease trying to persuade other people that they're wrong.  If you behave otherwise, then YOU ARE WRONG, and I will have to INSIST that you stop, and mayhap, USE FORCE against you to ensure that you LEAVE ME ALONE (and leave others alone).

Unfortunately, this posturing reeks of noxious postmodern hypocrisy.
3. Finally, my personal opinion/prediction is that the world will indeed choose the 'non-proselytization' approach... The whole world will unite under one religion in the not-too-distant future, but that "one religion" will basically be composed of ALL of the former religions, with the one essential clause that "nobody shall be considered wrong if they believe differently" - the so-called (oxymoronic) "militant tolerance" that the article's author espouses.  The 'new world religion' will be a collage of all the old ones (except for Christianity).

What about Islam?  That remains a fascinating question, because it would seem that Muslims (~a whole billion of them) are also passionately monotheistic and proselytizistic...  I am guessing that either Islam will split (one part becoming liberal and 'tolerant', and the other part uncompromising), or that some great world leader/prophet-figure will arise, manage to convince the vast majority of Muslims that he is Jesus Christ returned as the Quran predicted, and unite all the Muslims under the new world religion.
(two other interesting slightly-related articles: http://www.hinducounciluk.org/artdetails?rec=82  and  http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/JR/Future/index.htm [ the appendix is cool ])

Here is an incredible article... penned by a man who, along the lines of Martin Luther King Junior and other courageous men, stood up to injustice and paid the price for it.   Powerful.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/livenotbylies.html

"The atheist who's selling Jesus"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0%2C5744%2C16654819%25255E28737%2C00.html

Incredible article, go read it for yourself.  Here are some quotes:

1. "Jesus is played not as the son of God but a tough-talking no-nonsense philosopher who makes life easier and, incidentally, eternal."

2. "The problem we detected from our research was that a lot of Australians see Christianity as being for losers."

3. "Surely it's a stretch to separate the son of God from religion? "Jesus wasn't about religion, when you read him," Kinnaird insists. "I'm a self-confessed atheist brought up in a religious school. Rereading the Bible, Jesus is quoted as making the explicit point that people who consider themselves pious but don't behave in a way that's consistent with piety are the least worthy." And often the ritual and trappings of the church just get in the way of the message, he says.
"It's interesting, isn't it? When you strip away the superficial and get to the core essence of what a brand's all about - I mean, that's what you find in the church - [it's] a relatively small body of ideas." "

4. "Despite the problems, the social climate may be moving in the church's favour and the time is ripe for trying to reclaim some of the spirituality market."

Wow.

Responses:
1. This teaching is a lot easier to sell than "Jesus, Son of God".  And of course, He was indeed tough-talking and no-nonsense.  But...

2. Precisely... though the definition of "losers" is problematic... does it mean, "people who cannot have fun," or "people who see themselves as hopelessly lost sinners in the hands of an angry Creator?"  Those categories are NOT mutually exclusive, thanks to God's grace...

3. Besides the fact that the church is NOT a "brand" <choke gag cough>, it only makes sense to strip away all non-essential "rituals" and "trappings" and "superficial" paraphernalia.  Like a newlywed couple would dispense with the tablecloths and wall-decorations from their wedding and reception.  But would they ever throw away their wedding rings? (communion)  Would they dispense with their wedding vows? (baptism)

4. I think this highly educated atheist is correct in this assessment, in the following way: the entire "Western" world (including Australia... ha ha) is in the process of an enormous worldview shift from modernism to postmodernism: from "science" to "spirituality".  It is coming back into vogue to be "spiritual" or "agnostic," going out of vogue to be "rabidly atheist," and becoming mandatory to be "tolerant."

But it is just as hateful as ever to be a true disciple of Jesus Christ.

John 15, 1 John 3 -
"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you."

As the world transitions from naturalism to supernaturalism, I think we will see a new Dark Ages, complete with full, high-visibility demonic activity and spiritual warfare, even in (and perhaps especially in) "the West."  (Interesting thought by RvL here)  Our enemy will not tolerate the possibility of a worldwide revival and turning-to-God after the spiritual thirst of the last 300 years of rationalism and materialism - instead, he will powerfully swing the worldview-pendulum hard the other way.

But our God, the Creator of the universe, will even more powerfully continue rescuing souls from destruction, and will soon even more powerfully make an utterly complete and astonishingly final end to our enemy's dominion.

In the meantime, our plan of action should be to memorize the Bible (because it will soon be taken from us by persecution), witness and plant gospel seeds whenever possible (looking to the future), invest our lives in mentoring the next generation of christians (because the world they will inherit will be so much more indescribably wicked than ours - 2 Tim. 3, Matt. 24:37), examine our doctrine extremely carefully (because false teachers will increase exponentially - Matt. 24:24), and most importantly, cultivate a deep, obedient, and trusting relationship with God Himself (nothing else will last - 1 Pet. 1:7).

"Behold, I am coming quickly."  -- Jesus Christ

Incredible quote... from the famous John Scopes... (80th anniversary of his trial coming up this September...)

“If you limit a teacher to only one side of anything, the whole country will eventually have only one thought. … I believe in teaching every aspect of every problem or theory.”

( from http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/240#more-240 )

Does artificial red food coloring fall under the category mentioned in I Timothy 4:4 ?

And finally - yet another utterly fascinating issue / article-to-examine:

(taken from  http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/072905/072905h.php , with my comments below)

A recent article by Cardinal Christoph Schönborn in The New York Times, asserting that “unguided, unplanned” evolution is inconsistent with Catholic faith, should be read with caution warn a number of Catholic scientists and theologians, including the head of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Most of the experts interviewed said the article can offer a useful alert if taken at a theological level. Evolution, they point out, has sometimes been invoked to justify atheism, as well as immanentism (that God is a vague life force) or deism (that God set the universe in motion and has nothing more to do with it).

To the extent Schönborn’s point is that Christianity cannot accept a universe without an active, personal God, they say, there’s little to dispute.

If taken as a scientific statement, on the other hand, these observers warn that Schönborn’s insistence on seeing “purpose and design” in nature could steer the Catholic church towards creationism in the bitter cultural debate, especially prominent in the United States, between evolution and intelligent design. Doing so, they say, risks overstepping the bounds of the church’s competence, as well as reopening a divide between science and the Catholic church that had seemed largely overcome.

The first and most important facet of this question is the nature of Truth.  Notice how the article said "...if taken at a theological level"  and compared that to "...if taken as a scientific statement."

This is pure postmodern propaganda - the claim that "religious truth" is on a "separate level" from "scientific truth", and that they can contradict each other without much problem at all.  Why are such contradictions not a problem, according to postmodernists?  Well, "religious truth" is merely a cultural paradigm, and should not be "dogmatically" foisted upon others in the world who hold different paradigms anyway, so if "religious truth" ever comes into conflict with real hard science, throw it out the window.

Needless to say, this sentiment is itself "a belief", and so it defeats itself even as it tries to propagate itself throughout the minds of the whole postmodern world.

Almost every word in the above excerpt deserves a multipage analysis, but let me try to focus on the key phrases.  Notice that the core concern is that of "overstepping the bounds of the church’s competence".

Let me be perfectly frank here.  All this verbiage is dancing around the real issue - whether the Bible is true or not.  When the Bible claims (using high-quality hermeneutics with ancient-cultural/authorial-intent understanding) that the world was created in six days directly by God (with no mention or contradictory scientific details to the "abiogenesis"/"common-ancestor"/"mutation-with-natural-selection" evolutionary hypothesis), the competency called into question is NOT that of "the Church," but that of the Bible, and the Author of the Bible.

(If anyone wants to argue with me over the thesis that "scientific" truth is actually on the exact same plane as so-called "religious" truth, go right ahead... I wish you luck in trying to do so without stultifying your own sentences.)

Finally, notice the complaints about "Schönborn’s insistence... the bitter cultural debate... [and] reopening a divide... that had seemed largely overcome."   Thousands, perhaps millions of loyal Roman Catholics have a problem with Schönborn’s insistence... his stubborn, unyielding insistence that the Bible does in fact contradict the majority conclusions of modern uniformitarian science.  What's the problem?  The problem is the strife... the "bitter debate"... the acrimony... the PAIN that comes along with disagreeing with people.  The PAIN of being a member of a minority community that the majority of scientists (who are the elite - the glorified as priests of secularism) will scoff at and mock.  "You believe in the Bible's account of man's origins?  You must be like the flat-earthers and believers in UFOs... You are pathetic... you are stupid."

And let's be honest, friends... this pain is quite real.  The debate now raging in the RCC since the new pope's ascension is very important, because millions of people are now reevaluating their priorities - whether to believe in the account given by men, or the account given by God.