The Daily Detour

More on the crusade against the "Tebow Super Bowl ad"

Yesterday, I posted on the much-talked-about Tim Tebow ad that was broadcast during last night's Super Bowl. The Washington Post has an article that amusingly reacts to the ad controversy...that wasn't. They link to the counter ad put together by Planned Parenthood. This ad, put out prior to the Super Bowl to try to preempt the deeply offensive Focus on the Family ad, shows former professional football player, Sean James, and Olympic gold-medalist, Al Joyner, talking about why joined Planned Parenthood in putting out the ad to counter the message of the Tebows. While they offer the obligatory comment about respecting Mrs. Tebow's decision, they want to protect every woman's right to choose.

Interestingly, Al Joyner states in the ad, "I want my daughter to live in a world where everyone's decisions are respected." This is ironic coming from Planned Parenthood, given the fact that their over-reaction to Pam Tebow's decision seems to promote anything but "a world where everyone's decisions are respected."

We saw this same irony in the vitriolic reaction by Planned Parenthood and other feminist organizations to Sarah Palin's decisions concerning her career and her choice to not terminate her disabled child, Trig. It seems to me that if we truly respected everyone's decisions, then these women and these ads like the Tebow ad would, at the very least, be non-issues. Or, at most, those women's groups who supposedly suggest that women's choices should be respected, would actually applaud the courageous decisions that such women make.

The truth is, we have come to place in our culture where the most strident advocates of tolerance have become increasingly intolerant of those opinions, perspectives, and choices that do not conform to their own. That is the nature of what I have described here often as "the tyranny of tolerance".

The other truth is that these women's groups have revealed their true colors where the choices of conservative women are concerned. They say they want to protect women's right to make decisions for their lives, but the truth is, they don't--if those women are making choices that they disagree with. This hypocrisy undermines the credibility of their pro-women message. And it is a hypocrisy that is obvious to everyone but those who have been blinded by it.

UPDATE: Politics Daily and the Daily Finance talk about the perfectly clever pump fake by Tebow & Co. Score one for the pro-life team in this round.

Finding God in Haiti's tragedy

As you know by now, Haiti was hit by a major earthquake earlier this week. Since then, President Obama has been very committed to ensuring that American forces and relief agencies are working overtime on the frontlines in providing the necessary aid to this devastated area. As the relief efforts continue, the early projections are that over 50,000 people may have lost their lives.

Many of us may know people who have been affected by this tragedy. I personally have friends who live and/or have been working down in Haiti. I've had the privilege of ministering down there in 1988 and 1998 as a part of the Free Methodist Church. During that most recent trip in '98, I worked alongside Jack and Jeanne Acheson-Munos. They have since gone back to Haiti as full-time missionaries, to work along with our other close friends, Greg and Gail Ennis (with whom we just had dinner last Friday evening).

During the most recent update I received from the Free Methodist World Missions Department, it was reported that Jack Munos was stuck under the rubble for over six hours. He has suffered multiple broken bones and has since been flown to Guantanamo Bay for surgery and on to Miami. Unfortunately, Jeanne (pictured here) has yet to be found, as are a few other FM missionaries. The situation is dire.

This is just one of the countless stories of both American citizens and Haitian nationals who have been affected by this catastrophe. And the inevitable question is, "Where is God in all of this?" Reconciling natural disasters with the notion of a loving God is difficult at best. We can blame it all on God, or simply chalk it up to the natural order of things, depending on our beliefs. As much as we may want to blame God, it is difficult to know how to deal with these kinds of unbelievable tragedies without God.

I was listening to Dennis Miller's radio program today where they were discussing these very issues. He admitted that he was struggling with this question as well. A caller from Arkansas called in and made the point that we often talk about these kinds of things as being "an act of God." He suggested that we should instead be acknowledging that this kind of tragedy is an act of nature. An act of God, on the other hand, is how we respond to this tragedy. Interestingly, the caller's perspective seemed to resonate with Dennis and he acknowledged that "it gave him a toehold" for beginning to reconcile where God is in a place like Haiti.

There will be ample time to conjecture, and many people have already begun their analysis into the meaning of this tragedy. For now, it is imperative that those of us who are inclined to pray, continue to lift up all of those affected by the earthquake. And all of us can look for ways to offer assistance in what will be a massive relief effort.

UPDATE: One of our TDD readers passed along this information about how you can help: Compassion International, United Methodist Committee on Relief, former President Bill Clinton's foundation, and this article over at FOX News provides some of the means of support. Thanks for the heads-up, Emily. Also, here is a link to the Free Methodist World Missions.

Tiger Woods' conversion to Christianity

Brit Hume, commentator on FOX News, just became a national news story for his brief comment on "FOX News Sunday" yesterday that Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity from Buddhism if he hopes to recover from the crisis he has made for himself. Here is the actual text of Hume's comments:

"Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it's a tragic situation for him. I think he's lost his family, it's not clear to me if he'll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal -- the extent to which he can recover -- seems to me to depend on his faith. He's said to be a Buddhist; I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.'"

It's interesting how much attention Hume's comments have received for his momentary foray into the religious realm. Many people are responding--some very unfavorably--to what he said. On the one hand, it seems as if people feel as though he committed some kind of unforgivable sin by passing any kind of judgement on someone or something. In addition, however, there are a number of people who have extrapolated various interpretations out of what Hume said, seeming to jump to conclusions that he may (or may not) have been implying with his comments.

Beyond all of that, I would suggest that there is another way to evaluate his comments. It seems as I read back over them (and saw the exchange on video) that he is simply making a passing observation about a key theological distinction between Buddhism and Christianity. And it's that distinction that I would draw your attention to.

As Hume said, "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith." The key question is, "Is he correct in his assessement on that point?"

In fact, he is, because one of the fundamental beliefs of Buddhism is that there is no concept of "sin". As such, then, if there is no sin, then there is no need for forgiveness or redemption. This is one of the major hurdles that Buddhism faces when set against the backdrop of evil in the world. If there is no sin, then we have lost the ability to judge evil and condemn it accordingly.

People will certainly argue about whether or not Buddhism or Christianity (or whatever belief system) is right for Tiger Woods. And they will often cite the inconsistencies lived out by professing Christians as evidence for dismissing the merits of Christianity. As I pointed out in my talk yesterday, however, there are a great many people who claim to be Christians, but claiming something doesn't necessarily make it true. Our actions must back up our words.

Are Christians perfect? Hardly. But that is all the more reason why we need the ability to ask for forgiveness and find the redemption that will ultimately be found in the one who perfectly saves...Jesus Christ. A point that Brit Hume was trying to make in a genuine effort to point Tiger toward the help that he so obviously needs.

UPDATE: As the "controversy" heats up, Brit Hume stands by his comments. On a side note, it's ironic how quickly people assume that someone is proselytizing when the subject of religion comes up...a subject which has become one of the forbidden topics of conversation in the public square of this "tolerant" society.

Tis' the season for "Reason's Greetings"

Last Christmas, a number of related atheist groups made international headlines with an orchestrated campaign that ran ads on billboards and buses running in cities like London, Chicago, Washington D.C., and even here in Indiana. It began what is apparently becoming an annual tradition.

There is now an additional campaign taking place in certain cities across the country. Slogans like "Heathen's Greetings" and "Yes, Virginia, there is no God." are finding their way onto billboards, sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

I happpened to run across this very interesting transcript of an interview between Laura Ingraham and Annie Laurie Gaylor, one of the co-presidents of the organization. Ms. Ingraham was guest-hosting Bill O'Reilly's show. I did not see the actual interview (because my computer is starting to walk down the green mile) but reading the interview raises some issues to light that are worth considering.

In general, I don't have a huge problem with self-described "freethinkers" buying ads of this nature. I don't necessarily agree with their premise, but I do wholeheartedly believe that the freedom of speech guaranteed by our Constitution extends to all citizens of the United States, especially those with whom I may disagree. That is what makes the governing system in our republic so unique and enviable, is that we have the right to speak up. (And ironically, as I've pointed out here before, that even includes those who bash our Founding Fathers--the ones who ensured that right to speak up.) Such is the essential nature of this wonderful country of ours, and that is a freedom that should be vigilantly protected.

My only real issue with these kinds of efforts by the skeptic community is that they seem more than a bit antagonistic toward those who don't share their beliefs. And I don't always understand why that needs to be the case. It seems to me that there can be (and should be) room for all of us at the table.

Perhaps it's because in many ways the non-religious among us feel as though they have been hurt, offended, or even attacked by the religious devotees. I don't know. But it is interesting to see the reaction by many skeptics toward what they see as the dogmatic nature of Christianity while simultaneously turning a blind eye to their own dogma--dogma about a different set of beliefs, but dogma nonetheless. Isn't the goal to try to be less dogmatic, while still leaving room to hold firmly to those convictions that we believe in? For the Christian, it separates what I call the "non-negotiable" beliefs from the "negotiable" beliefs. And the non-negotiables represent what C.S. Lewis termed "mere" Christianity.

Regardless, I find this particular exchange beneficial in a couple of immediate ways. First of all, it proves very illuminating concerning many of the feelings about, and arguments against, Christianity that many skeptics have. For those Christians who are serious about trying to reach out to their neighbors, the comments made by Ms. Gaylor are essentially what many (if not most) skeptics feel about Christians and Christianity (TDD skeptic readers: please do weigh in here and correct me if this is not the case). The arguments presented by skeptics are not merely theoretical attempts to stir the pot. Real, rational people have staked their lives and future on their sincere beliefs about these things. And they should be respected for that.

Secondly, the exchange here, and the corresponding ad campaign that it highlights, provide a great opportunity to have substantive dialogue about these kinds of issues. (I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Ms. Ingraham or Ms. Gaylor were engaged in that effort, though perhaps the attempt was being made by one side or the other at times.) But we all can certainly seek to explore and understand our differences of belief. And we can thoughtfully engage in the exchange of ideas as we pursue what we all are seeking--the Truth. That is, after all, the reason for any season.

UPDATE: Stephanie Simon over at The Wall Street Journal wrote this interesting article about last year's atheist ad campaign.

What happens to the terrorists?

A while ago I introduced a new category detailing the bumber sticker battles taking place on our highways everyday. It's been some time since I've shared a bumper sticker, but this one caught my attention on Wednesday:

God's job is to forgive terrorists. Our job is to arrange the meeting.

This bumper sticker message begs the question, "Should God forgive unrepentant terrorists?" 

Should we do away with Christianity?

If you follow the line of reasoning of militant atheists like Sam Harris and his "end of faith" thesis, then the answer is "Yes!" In fact, I was listening to the Dennis Miller radio show last Friday. I caught part of his interview with atheist author Christopher Hitchens and Pastor Douglas Wilson. They spent that part of the program debating the fundamental question, "Is Christianity good for the world?" It is a question that they debate in more detail in their new documentary, "Collision".

So, what do you think--Is Christianity good for the world or not? Why? 

How are you celebrating "Blasphemy Day"?

(TDD Warning: One of the following links related to this post contains some language and content that may be inappropriate for any of our younger TDD readers. Please use necessary discretion.)

Apparently, today is officially Blasphemy Day, according to the group of secularists who seek to defy God. This effort reminds me of the similar initiative back in May 2007 when atheists were engaging in the "Blasphemy Challenge", videotaping themselves committing the unpardonable sin by blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

I am struck by a couple of things when reflecting on this movement. First of all, as with any of these efforts to blaspheme God, the sheer arrogance demonstrated by those who participate is simultaneously offensive and tragic. But at the same time, it is to be expected. Man's pride versus God's primacy has been the struggle since the beginning of human history. And if there is no God, then we ourselves become our own gods--a prideful position indeed. As long as there is no God, then there are no consequences other than potentially offending those who belief otherwise. But what if all of these mis-guided folks are wrong? Just because the number of people who choose not to believe in God is growing in this country doesn't necessarily mean that He doesn't exist.

Secondly, I find it ironic in this tolerant age that the ridicule of religion is so dismissively tolerated. It's trendy to be a skeptic, and yet, it's offensive to be a Christian. Surprisely, I agree with Paul Kurtz, the emeritus chair of the Center for Inquiry, the organization that sponsored the Blasphemy Day event. He blasted the leadership of the CFI for Blasphemy Day. As he wrote in a blistering essay,

"The right to publish dissenting critiques of religion should be accepted as basic to freedom of expression. But for CFI itself to sponsor the lampooning of Christianity by encouraging anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant, or any other anti-religious cartoons goes beyond the bounds of civilized discourse in pluralistic society.

"One may disagree with contending religious beliefs, but to denigrate them by rude caricatures borders on hate speech. What would humanists and skeptics say if religious believers insulted them in the same way? We would protest the lack of respect for alternative views in a democratic society."

I couldn't agree more. We Christians certainly have contributed our fair share of civil disintegration, and we must humbly accept the times when we have dishonored the name of Christ. But the truth is, it is a human condition, not defined nor limited by religious devotion. And as much as atheists condemn Christians for their role in the disintegration of civil discourse, they too must look in the mirror and consider their own contributions to where we've come as a society on this issue.

Given the gradual devolution happening in our culture, it will not be surprising to see more of these kinds of efforts. The challenge for Christians is to continue to love others, even when it is not reciprocated.

Who's in charge...man or God?

As part of the teaching series that I'm in the midst of right now, I sent out a London Times article from back in 2003. The occasion was celebrating the 25th anniversary of the first test-tube baby, Louise Joy Brown. Robert Edwards, one of the original two-man team that was responsible for the in-vitro fertilization technology, was being interviewed to commemorate that milestone.

What was especially revealing in the article was the point of discussion for our class on worldviews--namely, the clash between science and God. It was encapsulated in Edwards' revelation:

“It was a fantastic achievement but it was about more than infertility,” says Edwards, who rarely gives interviews but, when he does, delights in speaking his mind. “It was also about issues like stem cells and the ethics of human conception. I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory.”

And what did he conclude? “It was us,” he smiles triumphantly.

Interestingly, the article also goes on to elaborate on this idea, even quoting him saying, "A child in your own image — just think of what it means to people. It’s fantastic."

No longer are we made in God's image. The "fantastic" reality is that we can create babies made in our own image. I'm reminded of Paul's comments in Romans 1 in which he wrote, "They...exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man...they worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator" (vv. 23, 25).

And so the clash between man and God lives on... It almost makes you wonder what God thinks of all of this. 

A refreshing display of sportmanship

Maybe you have already seen this story, but if not, I pass it along to you for some encouragement. The incident involves high school football player Matt Ziesel, a young player with Downs Syndrome who was part of the team but was never able to play. He was so enthusiastic that he suited up with pads and helmet every game, ready and willing to get into the game, but he only road the bench. Until this week. In a blow-out game, both teams worked to make it an unforgettable night for Matt.

On a related, more serious note, imagine if Matt's parents had followed the admonition of people like bioethicist Peter Singer and had eliminated people like Matt whose lives Singer has deemed as "not worth living". So many opportunities lost...

UPDATE: My apologies to any of you who clicked the link above and were taken to a Bonhoeffer book at Amazon. A technological oversight brought to my attention by one of our alert readers. The problem is corrected now and should take you to this very heart-warming story (and a link to the video of Matt's touchdown run).

Would you have killed Hitler?

As you presumably know, I've been teaching an 8 week series on Christian thinking and application at two different churches here in Indianapolis. As a part of the first week's lesson, I've included a case study about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and his role in an assassination attempt of Adolf Hitler. He is part of what I wrote in that controversial case study, along with some of the questions for your reflection.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was hanged on April 9, 1945 in the Flossenburn concentration camp, mere weeks before Allies liberated Nazi Germany. He was only 39 years old.

The crime for which Bonhoeffer was brutally executed was his participation in an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler.

...he was a Christian and  a pastor. In fact, he actually known less for his role in the assassination attempt on Hitler and more for his sermons and writing during the years he spent in both Germany and the United States. And it his book The Cost of Discipleship which secured his reputation as one of the leading voices in the twentieth century.

Questions to Consider:

1. Do you believe Dietrich Bonhoeffer--as a Christian and a pastor--should have been involved in an assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler?

2. How do you think his Christian faith affected his decision to participate? Should it have affected his decision?

3. Knowing what we know about Hitler's legacy, if you were in Bonhoeffer's place to do something to prevent it--even if it meant assassination--would you do it? Why/why not?

4. What might the Bible to say about Dietrich Bonhoeffer's situation?

These are not easy questions to answer. And it is easy for us who sit in the safe confines of suburbia to suggest what we would or wouldn't do in Bonhoeffer's situation. But these are important things to think about. So, what do you think?