The Daily Detour

RZIM Oxford Summer School

It's hard to believe but we're essentially down to the last week of this 8-week experience. This week is considerably different in that it coincides with the RZIM Oxford Summer School (which includes about 110 other people from all over the world).

It's a jam-packed schedule, wall-to-wall from about 7:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. every day. So, I will be doing my best to stay on top of The Daily Detour.

Last night's opening session dealt with the idea of Truth and its inherent connection to morality--much of the same analysis that I've shared here. Included in that was a testimony from Tom Tarrants. He is currently the president of the C.S. Lewis Institute in Washington D.C. But in his former life, he was on the F.B.I.'s Top 10 Most Wanted list by age 23. He was a member of the Ku Klux Klan back in the 1960s and has quite a story to share of how he went from being a terrorist (bombing people's houses and such) to being confronted with Christ while serving a 35 year sentence in prison. He now mentors a number of political leaders in Washington whose names you would probably recognize. Powerful!

Tom will be with us throughout the week, and RZIM has arranged to allow each of the opportunity to spend some individual time with him. I'll let you know how that goes. Cheers!

Revisiting Daniel in the lion's den

Just a nice children's story? So I used to think. :) This past week our OCCA group has been spending considerable time in the book of Daniel. Under the tutelage of Dr. John Lennox, it has become clear to me how wrong I have been. Many of the stories that we may tend to politely dismissed as irrelevant to the older and wiser among us are anything but.

How many times have those of us who have spent time in church heard the story of Daniel in the lion's den? (If you aren't familiar with the story, you might consider going back and reading Daniel 6 in the Bible.) And yet, I have come to see it through a new lens of understanding.

This is not the time, nor the context, in which to unpack the depths of Daniel. But I did want to bring a few basic thoughts to your attention concerning this ancient example of civil disobedience.

Daniel found himself as the guest of honor at a private dinner with the Lion's Club because of his protest against the newly-passed law against praying to God. This is, in fact, the third protest in the book of Daniel (Dan. 1:3-16 - Daniel and his friends protest against the king's food; Dan. 3:1-30 - Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to bow in worship to the king's statue). And it is important to look beyond the surface of the story and thoughtfully consider the forces which precipitated this act of civil disobedience.

The point of contention here (and in the other pictures of protest) is essentially the clash of laws: The Medo-Persian law versus God's law. To which law did Daniel ultimately hold himself accountable? He chose to follow God and to undergo whatever consequences may result from it.

This same tension is seen in the New Testament when the apostle Peter and the other apostles were brought before the Jewish religious leaders and commanded not to speak again in the name of Jesus. In Acts 4, we see them take their stand against the command of the Sanhedrin and give their rationale for their actions: "Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God" (Acts 4:19-20, 5:29).

In our more modern context, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. likewise explains his own civil disobedience during the Civil Rights movement in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". In a response to four local pastors who wanted him to stop fighting segregation laws, he distinguished between just and unjust laws. Just laws, as he explained, find their origin in the character of God. We have, therefore, not just the option, but also the obligation, to resist unjust laws.

This raises the fundamental question, "What does this mean for Christians today?" My good friend and fellow OCCA colleague, Chris Brooks, puts this question more specifically. He writes, "...what things in our popular culture should we be protesting and in what way should we protest so that God can be most glorified?"

That is the question before us where it concerns Christian engagement in the public square. I posed the related question earlier this week about what role faith should have in culture. To take that idea further, I would suggest that Christians should have an active role in the prevailing issues confronting us today. To not stand up for anything assumes there is nothing worth standing for. The nature of the modern world, and our culture more specifically, does not leave us this option.

So the issue is not whether or not we should protest for righteousness and justice. It is the way in which we go about it. There are countless examples of Christians who have marred the Christian message because of their ill-conceived means and methods of protest. But let us not allow those poor examples of standing for the right keep us from engaging in this way. We would do well to follow the example of Daniel and his friends. It may surely require courage beyond our ability to endure. But our trust is not found in our own strength and wit. Our hope and solace ultimately finds its source in the power of God. 

Second amendment is under the gun

Okay, forgive the play on words. (Cheesy, I admit, but I couldn't help it. It was begging to be said. :) But there has been some interesting developments in 2nd Amendment legislation. Just this week the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to reject a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia. They determined that the 32-year old ban on handguns was unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

According to the news coverage, this ruling is particularly significant because the Supreme Court has not conclusively weighed in on the 2nd Amendment since its ratification in 1791.

The context for support of the use of handguns, as outlined in the majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, was primarily for use in self-defense.

Naturally, both sides in the public square debate weighed in favor of their respective opinions:

"I consider this the opening salvo in a step-by-step process of providing relief for law-abiding Americans everywhere that have been deprived of this freedom," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association.

And Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., a leading gun control advocate in the Senate, responded,

"I believe the people of this great country will be less safe because of it [the Court ruling]."

Regardless of where you stand on this particular issue, it does raise the overarching question of constitutional interpretation. There are many conservatives who view the Constitution as a firm document which requires strict interpretation as to the framers intent. Conversely, there are many within the more liberal bent who see the Constitution as a "living document", more easily subject to change based on the ever-evolving realities of contemporary society.

The fact is that both camps recognize that the Constitution is always open to change. That is evidenced, after all, by the very existence of amendments and the amendment process. The key consideration, however, is how do we go about changing to the Constitution? Additionally, what is the role of judges in that process? Are they meant interpret the Constitution or redefine it? The answer to this question sheds light on the underlying worldviews of those involved, and more importantly, carries significant consequences for generations to come. (On a related note, this issue should help us recognize why the upcoming presidential election isn't only about determing who occupies the Oval Office. There is much more to it than that.) 

Is Islam filling the moral vaccuum?

About a month ago, a leading bishop in the Church of England suggested that with the decline of Christianity in contemporary British culture, radical Islam is threatening to fill the void. According to The Times news article,

The Bishop of Rochester, the Right Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, claims that the Church dissolved its influence over the country’s morals during the social and sexual revolution of the 1960s. He said that the waning influence of Christianity had created a lack of principles that was allowing radical Islam to push its “comprehensive” claims.

The article goes on to say,

Marxism had been shown to be a “nonsense”, he added. “We are now, however, confronted by another equally serious ideology, that of radical Islamism, which also claims to be comprehensive in scope. It remains the case, however, that many of the beliefs and values which we need to deal with the present situation are rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition.”

As one would imagine, a leading Muslim disagreed with Bishop Nazir-Ali's assessment. The Bishop does raise an interesting question though that affects not only British culture, but our own American culture as well:

The question is not ‘should faith have a role in public life?’ — but what kind of role?

This is an important question indeed. Despite atheist author, Sam Harris' wishes to the contrary, I don't foresee the end of faith coming any time soon. Given that reality, we must consider what role religion can/should play in a culture. With that brings the inevitable question of how we deal with opposing religious belief systems? This is, in fact, the very "clash of civilizations" in which we find ourselves. (This clash between religious worldviews is not a new topic here at The Daily Detour. Nor will this be the last we touch on it. I keep bringing it to our minds in an attempt to maintain a certain vigilance concerning these very real concerns.)

As I wrote in a recent post, there are those who would advocate for a more pluralistic society in which every viewpoint has equal validity. That philosophy contains some inherent difficulties to be sure. But it is important to consider then, "How do we maintain unity in diversity?" That is the question which is put before us, whether we want to answer it or not.

My visit to The Kilns

Yesterday evening I had the special privilege of going up to Headington in Oxford to visit The Kilns, the former home of C.S. Lewis. It is where he lived for the last 30+ years of his life.

Nathan Betts, one of the people who currently works for Ravi Zacharias' ZacTrust office here in Oxford, very graciously gave a group of us from the OCCA program a private tour. He is one of a small group of people who are actually able to live in Lewis' home.

We were able to walk through each room and see a variety of pictures and "artifacts" from the time when Lewis lived there with his brother, Warnie and his wife, Joy. The house was purchased a number of years ago by the California-based C.S. Lewis Foundation. They have refurbished the house and made it possible for different students, scholars, and others to live in various rooms in the home.

The surrounding area is very different than what I had anticipated, my expectations being based on a variety pictures and descriptions I have come across in the past. Originally, Lewis owned the surrounding property, including the nearby lake (where he used to swim regularly) and the wild garden (which provided much of the inspiration for the landscape scenery in The Chronicles of Narnia). Thus, much of it was fields back in the 1940-1960's. Over the years, however, other houses have cropped up, creating a kind of suburb flavor in whose midst one finds The Kilns.

Despite those visual adjustments, the visit was particularly meaningful to me as one who has had a very high esteem for C.S. Lewis over the years. He has had considerable influence over my thinking. And to be able to walk through the rooms and envision Lewis writing at his desk, or chatting in the front room with J.R.R. Tolkien was a rich experience indeed. (In fact, in the newly-built library which was originally the garage, they have the original sign from The Eagle and the Child pub hanging on the wall, as well as, the marriage certificate for Lewis and Joy Gresham, and other things.)

As we were riding the bus to The Kilns we passed a bus stop with a poster advertising the upcoming Narnia movie, Prince Caspian. It was one of those brief instances where the thread from past to present captured my mind. The legacy of C.S. Lewis has lived far beyond his writings, and presumably, his expectations. The experience was a rare privilege for me. 

All roads lead to Rome?

Apparently, that's what many people believe... but not about Rome per se. Instead, this pluralistic assumption is about how to get to heaven. According to a recent survey conducted in the United States, there were some very interesting findings, including the fact that many people presume to be very tolerant of differing religious beliefs. As the article points out, "America remains a nation of believers, but a new survey finds most Americans don't feel their religion is the only way to eternal life — even if their faith tradition teaches otherwise."

The article goes on to say,

The findings, revealed Monday in a survey of 35,000 adults, can either be taken as a positive sign of growing religious tolerance, or disturbing evidence that Americans dismiss or don't know fundamental teachings of their own faiths.

Interestingly, this survey touches on the central idea of the major essay I just completed for the OCCA course here in Oxford. We were given three options for the essay--three objections to the Christian faith--one of which we were to write a 10-20 minute talk in response to it. I chose the third objection, "All viewpoints are just as good, so why should I choose yours?" We were to respond to this objection directly, as well as, provide the rationale for why we went the route we did.

The essence of my argument was that tolerance cannot happen within a relative context. In fact, true tolerance can only happen within the foundational framework of Truth. Tolerance is dependent upon Truth. If there is no standard by which we can say anything is wrong, then there is also no standard by which we can say anything is right. Everything loses all true moral value, becoming amoral. And then where are we? Everything is meaningless, and we have sown the seeds for eventual moral chaos (because there are no moral absolutes by which we can judge evil and pursue justice). (For more on this whole idea, you can read my final essay here.)

At a religious level, it nice to think that as long as someone demonstrates sincere belief, the object of that belief doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, logic (namely, the Law of Non-Contradictions) among other things does not allow for that idea. Belief in something cannot happen in a vacuum. It is defined by its context.

Religiously, for example, Christianity is built on the idea of salvation by grace, not by good works (Ephesian 2:8-9). It comes from a Creator God who loves us and is "not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9). Jesus as God is the conduit of salvation (John 14:6).

On the contrary, Islam is a religious worldview based on good works. Muslims expend considerable energy seeking favor, and hopefully salvation, through their good behavior. Salvation is not by grace; it is by effort. And even after a lifetime of devotion, Muslims are never fully convinced that they have achieved paradise (unless they sacrifice themselves in holy jihad, which accounts for the growing number of terrorist attacks). Salvation only comes through Allah's will, which is arbitrary at best. And Jesus is not God, but merely a prophet.

So, who's right? Is salvation by grace or good works? What is the true nature of God? What is the status of Jesus--is he God or man? Is he the only way to salvation, or are there others? Granted, it is possible that neither of these two religious belief systems in particular may actually be right in their understanding of the world and salvation. But, the point here is, they both can't be right. Logical common sense doesn't allow for that possibility.

So, is it that Americans have finally gotten it right and are now demonstrating proper tolerance toward other religious beliefs? Or, do we simply "dismiss or don't know fundamental teachings of [our] own faith"? The truth is, in an attempt to embrace the former, we have become the latter--a nation of the religiously ignorant. And if all roads do lead to heaven, then various religious distinctives no longer matter. So why believe anything at all?

The church of Acts in this 21st century?

Not where I live...

This morning I went to St. Aldates for church. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to attend there as frequently on Sundays, given my travels to Hungary, the States and other places during these past 6 weeks, but I always enjoy going and find myself challenged each time.

This morning's sermon centered on the persecution of the apostle Stephen and the rest of the New Testament church, which we read about in the book of Acts. The pastor was emphasizing the qualities of perseverance and unwavering commitment to Christ in that 1st century church. He quoted the following from 30 Years that Changed the World, a book by Michael Green (one of our OCCA professors):

You cannot defeat men like this. Tell them to keep quiet, and they disobey you. Throw them in prison, and they convert the jailer. Whip them, and they rejoice to be allowed to suffer for Christ. Stone them to within an inch of their lives in one city, and they carry on with just the same message in the next. Kill them, and others arise to take their place. Endurance like that simply has to win in the long run. But we do no see enough of it in our Western church. (p. 64)

I pass this along as a means of encouragement and challenge to all of us. Why is it that Christians have been willing to suffer excruciating torture and death for their faith? Some may call it the delusions of a mis-guided fanatics (i.e. We see certain modern examples in the suicides of Islamic jihadists, though to be sure, their deaths are voluntary.) I would venture to suggest that it is because of the Truth of the Christian worldview, as embodied in the life and example of Christ Himself. The apostles, all of whom suffered martyrs deaths, had seen the resurrection of Christ. They could not dispute the evidence, and the Truth of what Jesus had been saying all along came to bear in their lives.

Chuck Colson has made a certain observation, particularly through the lens of his own Watergate experience. He asserts that men and women will go to their deaths for what they believe is true (even if it is not). However, they will not make the same commitment for what they know is false.

Regardless of whether or not the legacy of persecution of Christians warrants a reconsideration of its veracity, those who have died for their faith certainly deserve our honor and respect. And given the nature of conflicts today, those of us who are Christians may be asked to make similar sacrifices. 

NOTE: The picture above is of a stone cross laid in the middle of Broad Street in Oxford. Every time the street is repaired or repaved, this stone cross is left untouched. For it was on this very spot that Bishops Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley, and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer were burned at the stake for their faith (Latimer and Ridley on October 16, 1555 and Cranmer on March 21, 1556). I pass it with sacred respect as I walk to/from Blackwell's bookstore every week. It stands as a stark reminder of the cost that has been paid for believing in the Christian faith. In fact, it was Hugh Latimer who challenged Ridley as the flames rose, saying, "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle, by God's grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out."

The prodigal wallet has come home!

As you know, I lost my wallet sometime Tuesday night and have been searching hither and yon for it ever since. Good news--it had been turned into the Bicester police station!

One of the amazing things about this development is that everything was still intact. My credit cards were there (and had been unused). A pre-paid bus pass was still there, as was a phone card, and even a Nero coffee card. The point being, that the opportunities for exploitation were many, and yet, some anonymous soul returned the wallet with everything in it. As you can imagine, I'm greatly relieved.

I do have to share one of the lessons I've learned. As I was searching for it, I was continually praying, while also exhausting every available possibility for where it might be. The days were passing one by one, and with each day, my optimism was beginning to wane. I still continued to pray about it, trusting that God knew exactly where it was, and praying that it and I would cross paths again if He so chose. But I must confess, by yesterday afternoon, I had gone down to the Oxford police station and filed a report, and while I was walking back to Wycliffe Hall, I had begun to give up hope. My final option was to check with the Bicester Police Station, which I had a friend do yesterday afternoon (though at that time, I was unaware that it had been returned).

When I shared the good news with Jean, she was overjoyed. She said that they had been praying about it all week, but she acknowledged that they too had begun to reconcile themselves to the seemingly-inevitably conclusion that it was gone. Everyone had begun to give up as well, that is, everyone but Caleb. She told me that he had faithfully prayed about it last night and even today. And as he was praying before bed, all of adults in the room were cringing a bit, that his little heart and his fledgling faith might be crumbled when it didn't turn up.

Oh we of little faith! The Bible tells us that God cares about the big things and the small things. It also tells us to have the faith of child. I couldn't agree more. I'm not sure at what point we go from the unquestioning faith of a child to the cynical skepticism of being an adult. Certainly, God doesn't always say "Yes" to our prayers, and it seems like He doesn't answer them. But I've begun to realize that those times when it doesn't seem like God is there and interested in our prayers doesn't mean He is absent. His reluctance to answer at times is much more about us than it is about him. It has taken a wallet and my son to help me remember that. Thanks, Caleb, for never giving up!

Miracles versus modern medicine

The hunt for the wallet continues, and as you can imagine, sorting out the details of that situation is taking considerable time. But while that is underway, I thought I'd pass along this article from over in the States about a teenager who died from a preventable disease.

This is nothing new. After all, we've talked in the past about the thousands of children around the world who die every day from preventable diseases. The key difference here is the faith factor. We often refer to the "miracle of modern medicine", but this situation is another case of a family who has refused medical treatment, believing instead that God will heal their children if they pray hard enough. In the case of this Oregon family, they have already been convicted on neglect charges regarding a small child who died last March of an equally-preventable condition. This latest death, however, may not result in criminal charges because Oregon has a legal provision which allows those 14 years and older to refuse medical treatment without consequence. The young man, Neil Beagley, was 16 years old.

Whenever I hear about these kinds of stories, I must confess, I'm filled with a mixture of censure toward the parents/guardians and empathetic sadness for them. And it always raises a couple of questions in my mind. On the one hand, where is the balance between believing in an all-powerful God who is able to perform the miraculous if/when He chooses, and a dependence upon, and reasonable utilization of, the medical capabilities currently within our abilities? Certainly, God, by definition, can perform miracles. But does He always choose to do so? Does He always need to do so? No, on both counts. If God has already provided the means of healing, why does He need to intervene miraculously? It seems that these kinds of tragic mis-interpretations of biblical mandates almost seem to border on blind faith.

On the other hand, I feel sadness toward these well-intentioned, but misguided religious devotees. In a sense I can appreciate their firm faith convictions. But at the same time, I wonder what these kinds of tragic consequences do to that faith? In this case, since this is the second time this has happened, it seems they go on believing. But at some point, will their faith be shaken? I hope it is to the degree that it brings them back to a biblically-grounded and more reasonable understanding of who God is and how He interacts with His world. 

From prince to pauper

You never know when, and how quickly, life will throw you a curve ball. Such is my life today.

I got up this morning and got ready to head out the door for class. It was then that I realized I couldn't find my wallet. Not good! I was on a tight timetable and was scrambling to ravage through all of my clothes, and bags looking for it, but to no avail.

I managed to make it to Wycliffe and one of the OCCA leaders called the bus station (It was on the bus last night when I last saw it). They had two wallets, but none had my name on them. It's been a very interesting situation to learn to adjust to my new status. This what I wrote to Jean about it:

Hey Babe,

Nice to talk with you a little bit today. I just wish it had been under much different circumstances. :( Losing this wallet really bums me out, but I think it's God's way of fostering a greater dependence on Him. I'm literally in a pretty helpless situation. (I can't even get in and out of the doors at Wycliffe Hall, let alone the library. I have very little cash with which to even use the bus, and I don't have the debit card in order to get more cash.) It's actually amazing how dependent I am on a little wallet (and how much I take it for granted). Can you imagine if you'd lost your purse or something? :) It's pretty rough right now, but I'm trusting that God will work it out...

...I hope you all are doing well. Thanks for the update on what's been happening in Minnesota. I was able to imagine it, having been there last weekend. I was talking with someone today about the very surreal nature of my trip back home. It was like someone just plucked me out of Oxford, threw me up in Minnesota for two days, and then put me right back into life here at Oxford. A strange experience indeed... but oh so worth it!

I love you. Please give my love to your Mom and Dad, and the boys. I'll be in touch as needed.

John

So, the search goes on... Once I get it sorted out, I'll be back in action. In the meantime, if you come to visit Oxford in the next few days, don't be surprised to see Yours Truly sitting on a bench with my tin cup, feeding the pigeons and begging for change.

I will leave you with this theological question: "Did God cause this (severly inconvenient) situation to happen?" Just something to chew on! Cheers!