In light of E's sharing, I thought this was interesting regarding trust vs. fear..

Fear of Living

The late Henry Fairlie once wrote about what he called Americans' "fear of living," that is, their exaggerated and, at times, crippling, sense of danger and risk associated life's normal activities.

What Fairlie wrote twenty years ago (he died in 1990) is, if anything, triply true now. I thought of him while reading "Let Kids Outdoors" by L.J. Williamson in yesterday's Los Angeles Times. As someone who literally grew up on the streets, not because I didn't have a home but because you couldn't play stickball in your living room (no one had family rooms where and when I grew up), I nodded in agreement when Williamson wrote,

Our hyper-anxiety about the safety of children is creating a society in which any outdoor activity that doesn't take place under the supervision of a coach or a "psychomotor activities" mandate from the state is too risky to attempt.

An example: My son's school has a written rule that students in grades K-4 may not ride their bicycles to school. My son and I cheerfully ignore this restriction; I think school rules belong on campus, not off. As we ride together each day, I remember the Huffy Sweet 'n' Sassy I rode to school when I was a kid. Hot pink, with a flowered wicker basket, it stood out among the other bikes parked in the crowded racks, its tall orange safety flag flapping in the breeze.

Now my bike was a stringray with a banana seat but I can make the requisite imaginative leap.

Why the concern? Do you have to ask? It's the fear that around every corner, behind every bush and inside every storm drain, there's a sexual predator waiting to spirit your child away and turn her (if she's white, blond and blue-eyed) into the next obsession on cable news.

It doesn't matter that "statistics show that rates of child abduction and sexual abuse have marched steadily downward since the early 1990s" and that your child stands a better chance of being struck by lightning, eaten by a bull shark or maybe even being struck by frozen airline urine (okay I added that one but I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers turned out to be true) than being the victim of a sexual predator. What matters is that "I fear, therefore I'm good."

The irony of course is that in protecting our kids from imaginary dangers we expose them to real ones:

Meanwhile, as rates of child abduction and abuse move down, rates of Type II diabetes, hypertension and other obesity-related ailments in children move up . . .

In 1972, 87% of children who lived within a mile of school walked or biked daily; today, just 13% of children get to school under their own power, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In a significant parallel, before 1980, only 5% of children were obese; today that figure has tripled, says the CDC.

If, like my idol Allen Thornburgh, you're armed with the necessary requisite multivariate statistical models and decide to say "no" to the fear, you face the problem pointed out by Kevin Drum: "people think you're a bad parent." As Atrios rightly notes, people's neurotic obsessions become cultural norms, the violation of which are met with opprobrium and, under easily imaginable circumstances, treated as neglect.

All of this leaves in mind of something from, of all places, the book of Leviticus: "As for those of you who are left, I will make their hearts so fearful in the lands of their enemies that the sound of a windblown leaf will put them to flight. They will run as though fleeing from the sword, and they will fall, even though no one is pursuing them."
Fri, Mar 30, 2007 7:44

Kudos to E. for being brave enough to face the crowd and share something God is teaching her. Kudos to C. for considering the next session. Just keep in mind it won't be next week, since club will not meet next week for Easter break!

If you do not currently take part in speech and/or debate, do you or your parents need to reconsider it's value to your education?

Arguing with Grace
A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics

March 22, 2007

Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.

Sometimes I think it would be great to live in a world based on pure logic. The best argument would always win the day. People would understand that right and wrong are objective concepts, not just vague notions based on feelings. We could make a rational case for Christianity, and people would automatically accept it. Life would be a lot less complicated.

But for better or for worse, that's not how things work.

That's why James Sire wrote his new book, A Little Primer on Humble Apologetics. We have talked about Sire before on this program. His other books, including The Universe Next Door and Why Good Arguments Often Fail, have sold hundreds of thousands of copies. As a former college professor and a frequent speaker on campuses, Sire brings a message especially relevant to intellectuals—both seekers and skeptics.

But even Sire understands that there are drawbacks and limitations to verbal apologetics. As he points out, even Jesus' arguments for faith in Himself failed to persuade many—and we are never going to think up better arguments than Jesus had. The people and the situations we encounter are far too complex to be dealt with by pure logic alone. Christian apologists also have to address the preconceptions and emotions of our listeners.

"The path to belief is mysterious," as Sire puts it. "Sometimes facts and reasons stare us in the face. We can see them, even agree with them. Yet we turn away and don't act as if we knew them at all."

And that means that Christian apologetics has to broaden and adapt itself: to become a discipline that involves the heart and soul as well as the mind, the personal as well as the intellectual. That's why Sire takes his own simple definition of apologetics—"simply the presentation of a case for biblical truth"—and expands it into what he calls "a richer, more relational and more humble definition." This is what he comes up with: "Christian apologetics lays before the watching world such a winsome embodiment of the Christian faith that for any and all who are willing to observe there will be an intellectually and emotionally credible witness to its fundamental truth."

What does that mean in practice? It means not just arguing the truth of the Christian faith, but living that truth every day. It means that instead of lashing out in response to attacks and insults, we bear them patiently and respond with Christ-like grace and love. Instead of going for the jugular in a conversation or debate with a nonbeliever, we listen and answer with respect. Instead of thinking we have all the answers, we are ready to be corrected and to learn.

When have we ever needed such an attitude more than we do right now? In the times in which we live, anger and spite are more and more taking the place of rational discussions. If we hope to convince the world that Christ has truth and hope to offer, this is the way we must do it—as Sire says, with "a reliance not on the cleverness . . . of argument but on the power of God to will and to do his good pleasure."

Hm.. I guess this might be worth talking about..

Outlawing Conscience

Homosexual Practice Trumps Religious Belief

March 20, 2007

You may think the day would never come when preaching the Gospel would be illegal in a Western country—when governments would restrict what Christians can teach.

You would be wrong. The persecution against the Church has taken a decisive turn in the cradle of civil liberty—the United Kingdom (UK). And it will happen in America, also, if we do not wake up to the danger.

In London last month, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended regulations that would make it illegal for private, religious schools to teach that homosexual conduct is immoral. The committee claimed the regulations are needed to combat discrimination against homosexuals.

And we know about this. Last summer, the British government closed down our IFI unit because we teach that sex should be limited to heterosexual marriage. And if these regulations violate the rights of Christians—what does the government say? "Too bad."

Luke Gormally, a fellow at London's Linacre Centre, a Christian bioethics institute, put it this way: "The Committee could not be clearer in saying that they believe the freedom to live a practicing homosexual lifestyle trumps the freedom to live a religious lifestyle."

The committee explicitly said that no exemption should be made for Christian schools. So, unbelievable though it sounds, Gormally notes, when it comes to sexual morality, the committee would make it illegal for Christian schools "to teach that Christianity and its principles are 'objectively true.'"

Christian schools will not be alone in seeing their religious freedom stripped away. If this law passes, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for ministers to share the Bible's teachings on sexual morality. Property owners who do not want, for moral reasons, to rent property to homosexuals will be breaking the law. So will Christian printers who refuse to print pro-gay literature.

Last Thursday, a House of Commons committee met to decide on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Many MPs protested the Blair government's refusal to allow a full debate in the House of Commons. And despite repeated appeals for a postponement, the chairperson insisted on taking an immediate vote: The regulations were upheld.

Now, the Blair government is attempting to rush the law through both houses of Parliament before opponents have time to organize. The vote will take place on Wednesday.

On that day, many Christians will be found at a prayer vigil in Old Palace Yard near the entrance to the House of Lords. We need to be praying with them, because it is going to take a miracle to keep this law from passing.

We must also realize that we are going to face this same kind of persecution if same-sex "marriage" is legalized in America. It's already begun, especially in Massachusetts, where same-sex "marriage" was imposed by judges. For instance, a federal judge recently decreed that Christian parents cannot opt their kindergarteners out of public school classes that normalize homosexuality. And last year Catholic Charities shut down its adoption agencies rather than agree to send innocent children into homosexual homes.

This is why we desperately need to be vigilant—especially our religious liberty groups. This is why, for example, we need to pass a federal marriage amendment. If we do nothing, we are going to be facing the same future that Christians in the UK are facing: a future in which preaching the truths of the Gospel is against the law.

Instead of movie directors acting like archaeologists and statisticians, let's be thankful that real remains of real people exist to support the foundation of our faith.

Last Updated: Thursday, 7 December 2006, 22:36 GMT

St Paul's tomb unearthed in Rome
By Christian Fraser
BBC News, Rome

St Paul's Outside the Walls is one of the largest churches in Rome

Archaeologists working for the Vatican have unearthed a sarcophagus containing what they believe are the remains of St Paul the Apostle.

The tomb dates back to at least AD390 and was found in a crypt under a basilica in Rome.

It has long been thought that the crypt contained the tomb of St Paul but the altar had hidden it.

St Paul was an influential early Christian who travelled widely in the Mediterranean area in the 1st Century.

Excavations at the site began in 2002 and were completed last month.

Ancient pilgrims

The basilica of St Paul's Outside the Walls is the largest church in Rome after St Peter's.

For the past three years, archaeologists have been excavating underneath the altar to remove two huge slabs of marble and now, for the first time in almost 1,700 years, the sarcophagus of St Paul is on public view.

The original inscription on the top reads: Paulo Apostolo Mart - Latin for "Paul Apostle Martyr".

The holes through which the ancient pilgrims would have pushed pieces of cloth to touch the relic are clearly visible.

"What we can see at the moment through a grating, a new grating that's been put there, is the side of the sarcophagus of Paul which seems to be white marble-like material," said Father Edmund Power, abbot of the nearby Benedictine monastery.

St Paul travelled widely through Asia Minor, Greece and Rome in the 1st Century.

His letters to the early churches, found in the Bible's New Testament, are arguably some of the most influential on Christian thinking.

St Paul is said to have been beheaded in AD65 by the Roman Emperor Nero.

His sarcophagus will be on public view for the foreseeable future but the church is yet to rule out the possibility that one day the interior itself will be opened and examined.

A tough system you are headed to..

----------------------------------------------
NEWS
----------------------------------------------
Christian Scholars Face Opposition When Studying Origins
from staff reports

SUMMARY: University faculties take a dim view of alternatives to evolution.

Christian students seeking to study human origins are facing discrimination at many colleges and universities. Experts say Darwin's Theory of Evolution has such a lock on faculty members, few Christians who take a different point of view are getting through advanced degree programs.

Last year, Bryan Leonard, an Ohio State University graduate student, was preparing to defend his doctoral dissertation on the merits of teaching alternatives to evolution. But his dissertation was pulled. University officials determined he was subjecting students in his research to something harmful.

Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group that defends teaching evolution in public schools, said Christians should just consider another field of study.

"There are vanishing numbers of conservative Christians working in evolutionary biology," she said. "You don't bring God into your work if you're a bookkeeper. You don't bring God into your work if you're a scientist."

John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research, said Leonard's experience is not an anomaly.

"There's a closed system there," he told Family News in Focus. "This issue of peer review and peer pressure -- it's real. Political correctness reigns on the campus, and Christianity is definitely not politically correct."

This is my hope for you guys in life.. To be equipped to hit home runs!

Not A Problem But An Opportunity

No, if you're a Christian you shouldn't run, whine, scream, or have a religious tantrum. Instead, you should be thanking the Discovery Channel for giving you the chance to step up to the plate and knock this soft ball out of the park.

Greg Koukl, Stand To Reason

Lots of Christians seem to be angry or dismissive about the Discovery Channel special The Lost Tomb Of Jesus. What a mistake. We ought to view it as an opportunity.

For example, a young friend of mine from church attends a public high school in our area. She told me that her history teacher handed out extra credit to anyone who watched the special. I asked her why her teacher gave the assignment. Her response:

Our teacher gave it to us because she said she loves controversy. She did make it extra credit, and said if we weren't allowed to watch it, she would give us something else to do. She made it clear, though, that she wasn't trying to change anyone's mind; it was just a history assignment.

To which I replied:

Since your teacher likes controversy, tell her you would like to make a presentation in history class on why you believe the tomb of Christ was empty. Tell her that you are not trying to change anyone's mind, but you simply want to make a factual historical presentation.

I haven't heard back from my young friend yet, but knowing her, she will ask.

What an opportunity to talk to others about why we believe the tomb was empty. No need to get huffy.

Contrast that approach with another approach taken by a different Christian. This person didn't watch the show ostensibly because it was produced by James Cameron. I asked what if it had been produced by a reputable historian. The response:

I don't think I would have, if given the opportunity because the "evidence" as I have heard, is flimsy at best. Even an amateur historian like me can sniff bad research/archaeology. And, yes, my faith would have prevented me from watching something that is not true to my belief.

It is the last sentence that concerns me. Whining, getting angry, or burying our head in the sand is not an effective approach, in my opinion. When pitched a soft ball like this, take a big back swing, and like Greg Koukl suggests, knock it out of the park.

I fully anticipate the majority of you will watch 'Amazing Grace'. Below are worthwhile discussions to be had based on the movie.

I think one thing that gets missed in the analysis though is exposure at a young age. Exposure to the evil of sin. It is a point made throughout the movie, but something I will jump on here. The passion Wilberforce had was an extension of his conviction that slavery was evil/bad. He only had that because of his childhood pastor. So, maybe we lack people of Wilberforce's conviction because we lack people who are willing and able to convict.

Think about that. Think about how much more convinced you would be to fight an evil if you were not soiled by it, but knew it to be bad without reservation from someone who had been soiled by it.

Puts people into different camps.. Preachers would be ex-sinners. And those who have not experienced the pain of sin can be the advocates of ending sinful practices.

I see a little of the David Solomon thing here. Interesting..

Talk Amongst Yourselves

I'll give you a topic ... :-)

I'm organizing a discussion on the Clapham Community with my church this weekend, following a viewing of the new film Amazing Grace. Here are the questions we'll be using to further our discussion. I'm posting them here in case they can prompt discussion in your own circles.

1. When we talk about the Clapham Circle “we are talking about something that transcends mere geography and is, more than anything else, a tangled skein of friendships and families, all bound up together with an irenic but nonetheless passionate evangelical impulse to serve God, most notably by ending the horror of the slave trade” (Metaxas, Amazing Grace, 193). How do you think we could see our normal relationships of friendship, kinship, and church community transformed into relationships of shared mission and encouragement? How could you personally encourage more intentionality within these relationships?

2. Wilberforce remarked that his friends of the Clapham Circle had been indispensable to him in effectively serving in politics. (Belmonte, William Wilberforce: A Hero for Humanity, 139). How could we better encourage each other in our particular callings and in our ministry in this community?

3. If you are a part of a small group, how do you think these groups could function more like little Clapham Circles?

4. In the life of Wilberforce and other members of the Clapham Circle, it is clear that their stand took a great deal of personal courage. C.S. Lewis once remarked, “Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point, which means at the highest point of reality. A chastity or honesty or mercy which yields to danger will be chaste or honest or merciful only on conditions. Pilate was merciful till it became risky.” How can we embolden one another, encourage each other to risk for Jesus, and strengthen one another’s courage?

5. In Hebrews 12.1 we’re called to “run with endurance the race that is set before us.” Clearly, Wilberforce is an example of one who ran with endurance and perseverance, and these attributes were critically important in accomplishing his two great objects. What helped him to endure? How might these things help us run with endurance?

6. “Of the many societal problems Wilberforce might have thought needed his attention, slavery would have been the least visible of all, and by a wide margin. . . . Few British people ever saw the slightest hint of it. Only a tiny handful of the three million Africans who had been pressed into British slavery over the years ever set foot on British shores. . . .” (Metaxas, Amazing Grace, 78). What issues today do you think may likewise be in our cultural and moral blind spot?

7. Wilberforce wrote, "God Almighty has set before me two great objects, the suppression of the Slave Trade and the Reformation of Manners." By the latter he meant a moral reform. The Clapham Circle worked tirelessly for both. How could you and your church work toward moral reform in your area and in the world?