Even after my last post, some of you are probably still convinced that conservatives, on the whole, have less-than-pure motives. This seems so obvious to you that you still feel no need to explore and understand the reasons behind our beliefs and actions. Let me then offer a less politically charged illustration from everyday life that might motivate you to change your mind…
There is a strange movement afoot among women in both secular and Christian circles. A few brave women have started asking the question, “What if men aren't horribly inept creatures after all? What if they actually have reasons for the things that they do? And what if those reasons are actually valid and good?” These women have discovered to their amazement that it was their own misunderstanding of the motives and purposes of men that led them to believe men were selfish oafs. In fact, the men did have the best interest of others in mind but were merely pursuing the good from a masculine direction–a direction that was unfamiliar, and therefore unrecognized, by the women. Only now can these women appreciate what men have to offer.
I was reminded of this as I thought about the anger I hear from liberals toward conservatives. The complaints seem to be very similar to complaints of women against men–conservatives don't want to help people, they don't care, etc. I think just as women have misunderstood men, liberals are misunderstanding conservatives. Conservatives merely have different ideas about what will help people and how to go about it. Should the government collect money from us to give to others, or should we give on our own? Will more programs be the long-term solution for the issues of our day, or is it better for people in the long run to develop a personal sense of responsibility for their future? Should people be protected by law from being offended (as in the case of “under God” in the pledge), or should they develop and strengthen their character by being around things with which they disagree?
As with women and men, it's a nurture and protection perspective versus one that values growth in personal strength and responsibility. As with women and men, liberals assume that conservatives are selfish oafs. And as with women and men, it's the liberals' misinterpretation of conservative motives that prevents them from appreciating the perspective conservatives have to offer and engaging them in productive discourse.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics 
4 Comments »
March 24, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
closeAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
If you haven't already, please update your links to direct to www.ateamblog.com. We'll be switching to a new blog host soon and www.ateamblog.com will point you to the right place.
Take a trip over to Doug TenNapel. He is the creative genius behind such novelties as Earthworm Jim and Creature Tech (as well the better Five Iron Frenzy album covers). He's started blogging regularly and is quite the pro. While I don't agree with every point in his latest post, “Fan Mail”, he says so many things I wish I could say (but can't without comming off as hateful or arrogant). Also see “Cookie Ethics.”
Curt Schilling recently spoke with Marvin Olasky about making his faith known during last season's playoffs. It's about time I have a new favorite ballplayer. Friday he'll ptich against his first major league team, the Twins, since his surgery. Only 9 days until regular season!
Yesterday Baptist Press News slammed the Emergent Church. Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason has refuted McLaren's claims that Emergent is more of a conversation than a movement.
Dr. Edmund Clowney passed away on Palm Sunday. Justin Taylor has posted a list of Dr. Clowney's great works.
I just discovered Victor Reppert's blog. He wrote a great book on C.S. Lewis's Argument from Reason. Unfortunately he misunderstands Calvinism, but many do.
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts 1 Comment »
There’s something about Air America that has been disturbing me more and more lately. Chuck Colson puts his finger on the problem here. Why do non-conservatives assume that conservatives are mindless bigots driven by fear and hate, fooled into taking orders from certain higher-ups who tell us what to do?
This is what I constantly hear on Air America–I am not exaggerating. This seems uncharitable at best and bigoted itself at worst. Now follow the results of promoting this view of conservatives: conservatives are scary and irrational, therefore the way to deal with them is not by trying to understand their positions (which are, of course, not reasonable) but by convincing as many people as possible of their evil.
The result of this assumption on Air America is a nearly complete lack of addressing the actual arguments conservatives put forth for their positions. Instead, I hear many emotional appeals pleading with people to understand how dangerous and scary we are and arguments against our supposed motives: “Conservatives really hold this position because they’re greedy (or power-hungry, or arrogant, or have a need to feel superior, etc., etc.), and that’s wrong! So don’t be a conservative!”
I could repeat all of the above, exchanging the word “conservatives” for “Christians,” for I hear nearly as much against them on Air America.
For those who would argue that conservative radio is no different, please understand I’m not saying that every conservative talk show host is reasonable, but can you point to any liberal equivalent to Dennis Prager on Air America? On the whole, I hear much more sincere addressing of ideas on the conservative side. This is because we think your arguments are worth addressing, and we respect you enough as people to do it. We think you’re wrong, not evil, so discussion is the natural direction to take.
A word to my liberal friends: maybe we have good reasons for the positions we hold. And maybe, just maybe, we actually believe those reasons out of principle and because we want the best for our society. And isn’t there just the slightest chance that we actually care about people? Until you accept this and begin to charitably engage our arguments, the quality of political discourse will fall lower and lower until it becomes nothing but power moves to shut the other down (as is already the case at many Universities and with many judges.) A group has only two options for getting its point across: reason (through discussion and argument) and power. I implore you to not abandon reason.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics 1 Comment »
March 23, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
In the Introduction to Essential Truths of the Christian Faith R.C. Sproul says, “I often startle my seminary students by saying that theological errors are sins.” (pXIX) It’s understandable that such a claim is shocking to some. However, through most of church history certain ideas were considered sinful- they’ve been called heresies.
Heresy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is a “theological or religious opinion or doctrine maintained in opposition, or held to be contrary, to the ‘catholic’ or orthodox doctrine of the Christian Church, or, by extension, to that of any church, creed, or religious system, considered as orthodox. By extension, [heresy is an] opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative.” This doesn’t really help, since many communities with theological differences don’t accuse one another of heresy; instead they form different denominations. So obviously not every difference in doctrine is considered heresy.
Heresy typically refers to some belief that brings into question the salvation of the holder (if God had truly regenerated the holder they would believe correctly). But where is the line drawn between a difference of opinion and damnable theology? There have of course been differences of opinion of what constitutes heresy. I prefer to relegate it to two areas- God and and salvation as revealed in Scripture. If some one believe Jesus is not a member of the Trinity, for instance, they end up worshipping an entirely different God than the God of the Bible.
It’s likely that we all believe a little heresy; none of us have it all together. Certainly some beliefs are wrong, but do certain wrong beliefs also have moral imports? It’s not likely a sin to believe Star Wars: Episode 1 was a good movie (although clearly mistaken), however, is believing the one must be baptised to be saved sinful or that some works are necessary for salvation?
In regards to heresy, I think it is a term too long forgotten which should be resurrected. The Church of England is considering bringing it back, which I discussed here: Heresy Trials Lead to Revival. Why? God gave us boundaries through His Word for proper thinking, feeling, and practice. When we fail to adhere to those boundaries we end up with things like this: Bishop Sorry for Denying Gay's Funeral Rites. I don’t think the Bishop should have denied the funeral rights, but it is his confusion on the issue which is a result from the boundaries of God’s Word being lost in a political agenda.
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology No Comments »
Dennis Prager made a great point this week by reading excerpts from a presidential address. The speech begins with a prayer to God and then continues:
We sense with all our faculties that forces of good and evil are massed and armed and opposed as rarely before in history.
This fact defines the meaning of this day. We are summoned by this honored and historic ceremony to witness more than the act of one citizen swearing his oath of service, in the presence of God. We are called as a people to give testimony in the sight of the world to our faith that the future shall belong to the free….
How far have we come in man's long pilgrimage from darkness toward light? Are we nearing the light–a day of freedom and of peace for all mankind? Or are the shadows of another night closing in upon us?…
At such a time in history, we who are free must proclaim anew our faith. This faith is the abiding creed of our fathers. It is our faith in the deathless dignity of man, governed by eternal moral and natural laws.
This faith defines our full view of life. It establishes, beyond debate, those gifts of the Creator that are man's inalienable rights, and that make all men equal in His sight….
Freedom is pitted against slavery; lightness against the dark. The faith we hold belongs not to us alone but to the free of all the world.
This speech contains many of the elements for which President Bush is constantly criticized–stark contrasts such as “good and evil,” “darkness and light,” and “freedom and slavery,” a basing of our society on a Creator, and a sense of purpose and mission for the United States to spread freedom throughout the world. The President's critics find these things very fanatical and scary.
But was this given by President Bush? No. It was given by President Eisenhower without controversy in 1953. Read the full text here, and then look through other past inaugural addresses by following the links here. Once you have done so, ask yourself, is it really President Bush who has careened out of control? Or is it those on the Left who have moved so far away from the mainstream of our country that such a speech, if given today, would completely horrify them? Now, whether President Bush is right or wrong is a separate issue. Just please don't misunderstand who the radicals are in this situation.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Main Page, Politics No Comments »
March 18, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
In discussion of an earlier post I pointed out my concern for churches who divide social action from the teaching of the Gospel (and really all of the other functions of the church). Today a friend handed me an article clipped from Daily Breeze, March 12, 2005. The article details the active ministry of the Church of the Beach Cities in Manhattan Beach, CA. Here’s some excerpts:
Beach cities ministry organizes walk-a-thon to help others
The list of potential beneficiaries is long, and it continues to grow: the homeless; youth programs; prison outreach programs; convalescent homes; unwed mothers; drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs; domestic and international disaster relief; and people with HIV and AIDS.
The church also plans to set up a holiday fund to help needy families during Thanksgiving and Christmas, provide free car and home repair for those who can't afford it and provide free counseling, parenting classes and marriage enhancement seminars…
“It's our responsibility to provide youth programs and activities that will encourage and keep them away from drinking and drugs…If this is successful, just think of what a great example we'll be to other communities out there.”
“This has nothing to do with being a Christian; you don't even need to believe in God to participate in this,” he said. “If you love people and you're willing to help those in need, that's all that matters.”
As I stated earlier, I think social action is a good thing. What I’m opposed to is social action in lieu of the Gospel and every other purpose of the church. This is a prime example of divorcing social action from everything in such a way that the group is no longer church- it is a non-profit charity/relief organization.
Upon visiting the church’s website I found that one of their missions is “to educate God’s people.” Unfortunately no where do they tell us what they’re teaching, who God is, etc. The only thing we can find out from the website is that they believe in God. From what the site says, this church may not even be Christian.
From the “About Us” page- “Do you think attending church should be enjoyable and relevant? Well, we have great news for you! Church of the Beach Cities is a new church designed to meet your needs. We are a group of friendly people who have discovered the joy of living the Christian Life!”
What happened to the church being designed to reflect Christ and the Word of God? It all got lost in an over emphasis on personal experience.
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 1 Comment »
March 17, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
Who do you call when you need an actor with no personality and is as dry as a desert? The one and only Keanu Reeves. Welcome to Bill & Ted’s excellent adventure into demonology. Reeves plays John Constantine, an exorcist who apparently has nothing better to do than keep demons from crossing over into our world. All we ever find out about him is he’s been able to see demons since he was a kid and he’s died for two minutes. To this extent, the character is as flat as Reeves; a perfect fit.
According to the story, demons and angels made a deal not to cross over to our “plain,” but all of the sudden the demons want to break the deal. Constantine crosses paths with Angela Dodson (Rachel Weisz) whose sister recently committed suicide and Angela suspects foul play. The two team up to take on the demons, and a very odd angel. To her credit, Rachel Weisz does the best anyone probably could do in this role. To Reeves credit, his lack of emotion seems to work somehow as it did in the first Matrix.
One way I judge entertainment value in a film is how I feel and think after ward. If the film has done a good job of making the world real and inviting me in, it’s done its job well. The quintessential film to use as an example- The Truman Show. For the next month I couldn’t help but feel like my life was a show just like Truman’s. This is a rare quality. Though I loved Gladiator, I never felt like I was Maximus. For Constantine, I did feel like kicking some demon afterward. The plot was at times hard to follow; the “twist” (if that’s appropriate) I still don’t quite get. While it was certainly not of Oscar quality, and neither were any of the performances, it still had some decent entertainment value.
The theology seemed promising at first, but was ultimately a disaster. In an early scene the angel Gabriel tells Constantine that his works (exorcising demons) doesn’t cut it for salvation, and neither does simple knowledge. Instead, he needed to believe and trust in God. This bright spot in the theology is ruined by a works based ending and by God being mysteriously absent during the whole spiritual war.
I did have two favorite scenes- one early on when the “Alfred” type character arrives at Constantine’s apartment with some gadgets. During this scene a jazz song is played that Prager plays every morning. The song made the scene more enjoyable. The other was at the end. I can’t help but smile to see Reeves flips Lucifer off. Perhaps I’ll buy the DVD just for that… maybe not. Overall, it’s worth the $2.50 theater showing or rental, but I’m glad I didn’t pay $10 to see it. Grade: B-
Posted in Main Page, Movie Reviews, Roger's Posts No Comments »
An article on the impending removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube contains this paragraph:
“The $1 million received by her and her husband, Michael, in a medical malpractice case in 1993 is nearly gone, attorneys say, spent on her care and the husband's legal quest over the past seven years to stop her artificial feedings so she can die.”
It's not so she can die, it's so she will die. Saying “so she can die” implies that she is in the process of death and is being sustained by a medical device. She is not, however, in the process of dying from any illness. She merely needs a feeding tube to receive food (this is because her husband won't allow her to have the therapy that could teach her to swallow).
Saying it's so she can die is similar to this: Imagine you're paralyzed and in a wheelchair. You live in a room where the food is kept too high for you to reach. Every day I come in, take the food down from the shelf, and give it to you. Then one day I decide my bringing you food is merely an extra measure keeping you alive, so I'll mercifully stop so you can die. You can see how the word “can” is ridiculous since there is no cause of death existing before my decision. Instead, it is my ceasing to give you the food that will be the very cause of your death.
This, like Terri's situation, is very different from an instance in which a person has a serious illness and refuses medical attention to prolong her life. In that case, the death would be a natural result of the illness. But Terri's only “illness” is mental retardation and a dependence on others to bring her food. For this, we will condemn her to death?
If you look through Terri's website, you will see that she is not lying unconscious. She is reacting to people and living her life even though she is severely mentally disabled. When her husband finally succeeds in denying her access to food, she won't die from any illness. She will die from starvation.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Ethics, Main Page No Comments »
“SAN FRANCISCO, March 14 – In a victory for city officials here, a state judge ruled on Monday that California's ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional, overturning a statewide proposition passed in 2000 that defined marriage as between a man and woman.”
The definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman applies equally to everyone. There is no person who is denied the right to enter into marriage as it has been defined. Therefore, this is not a civil rights issue.
Now, whether or not the current definition of marriage is a good one is an issue that can be debated openly. I think there are valid reasons to support the definition the way it stands. But it is certainly not unconstitutional merely to define marriage. If it is, then we had better strike from the constitution the definition (i.e., limitations) placed on the institution of the presidency. Is it my constitutional right to run for president even though I am under 35? What about those who are not native born?
The truth is that the definition of “the president” has been set for valid reasons to promote the good of our society. But if defining marriage denies people rights, then this presidential definition is even more discriminatory because some people are simply not allowed to enter into the presidency, whereas with marriage, no one is denied the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex if he or she wishes to do so.
Since the definition of marriage is not a civil rights issue, it is not for the judge to strike down the will of the people regarding the definition of marriage. The definition is for us to debate. We, the citizens of this country, must discuss and examine openly the reasons why marriage is defined the way it is. (Shouting people down and dismissing them as bigots is not discussion.) If the definition is truly arbitrary (as this judge believes) then changing it will not matter much; but if there are valid reasons beyond mere prejudice for our society to promote only opposite-sex marriage, then it is not wrong to define it as such. It is simply not right for one man to shut down the debate that should be entered into and decided on by all the people.
I strongly believe we need to treat homosexual people with love and kindness. They should be allowed to pledge themselves to each other as they wish (as they are allowed now). But I think this can and ought to be done without changing the institution of marriage.
Posted in Amy's Posts, Culture, Main Page, Politics 1 Comment »
March 16, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton
Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009).
Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (570)
On Friday, April 22 Dr. Gene Edward Veith will be participating in a three hour luncheon in Costa Mesa on the subject of his book, God at Work. For $20 ($10 for students) you'll receive lunch, Dr. Veith's book, Craig Parton's book The Defense Never Rests, and three hours with Dr. Veith. In her book, Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey mentions God at Work as an example of living the Christian worldview in a work environment. This is a great opportunity no one should pass up. http://www.surfoutsider.net/work
The White Horse Inn has posted part 2 of their discussion on the Emergent Church, as well as an interview with Brian McLaren. http://www.whitehorseinn.org/programnotes.htm
David Dockery and Brian McLaren have posted reflections on the life of Dr. Stanley Grenz.
For those interested in Mormonism, the website for my current class on the subject is www.voicethetruth.org. I'm posting the weekly handouts, articles, links, and quizes on the material we cover.
Moviefone has posted the trailer for Star Wars: Episode III. If this movie is anything like the trailer, it appears Lucas may redeem himself from the tragedies that were Episodes I & II.
A signed pre-release copy of McLaren's next book, The Last Word and the Word After That (due out 3/25/05), recently sold on eBay for $280.
Posted in Main Page, Miscellaneous, Roger's Posts No Comments »
content rss
Recent Comments