Justin Taylor recently posted a brief, yet valuable, insight on prayer:

Today he posted a response by David Powlison (someone who should be blogging regularly). Dr. Powlison argues that our specific times of devotional prayer should not be characterized as "quite times." I recommend reading the entire post, but I also wish to highlight here a criticism he made regarding popular prayer practices:

Last night, Ben Stein came to Biola Univeristy to promote his new film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.  In the film, Ben Stein invenstigates the employment termination of several University science professors due to their doubts about Darwinism and support of Intelligent Design.  Find out more about the film here. 

Recently, Dr. R. C. Sproul interviewed Ben Stein about the new film on his radio show, Renewing Your Mind. 

Listen to Part One.

Listen to Part Two. 

Here is the conclusion of my interview with Stephen Wagner concerning his book, Common Ground Without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. Part 1 can be read here.

How has the media affected our perception of abortion in America?

The media has led us to believe that most people are pro-choice.  In my experience, most people are much more nuanced than that.  Many see themselves as not fitting into either the pro-choice or pro-life camps.  If forced by an opinion poll, they’ll choose, but if given the chance to explain, they are conflicted.  Others just haven’t thought much about abortion and many are just confused.

In addition, the media gives us the sense that we’re always discussing abortion.  That’s the most detrimental thing, because I think it turns people off to creating real, productive dialogue.  One might say, “If everyone’s always discussing it, why do I need to weigh in?  Aren’t people tired of the topic?”  Some people are tired of the topic.  But not because we’ve really done it justice. 

I think the media treatment of abortion has also led people to believe that the abortion debate is dominated by angry activists.  Although these activists may be the most vocal and the most concerned, the most productive abortion debate happens around dinner tables, on college campuses, and at the coffee house.  Abortion isn’t just a theoretical issue people debate.  It’s about real decisions people are making today.  And those decisions are either well-informed or poorly-informed.  If we create a better dialogue as a culture, I think the benefit is women and men making better decisions about abortion.

Order from STR Amazon

One of your final chapters offers questions for pro-choice advocates to ask pro-lifers. You claim "they encourage us to examine our inner attitudes and external personas." (p100) What is it about the typical pro-life attitude that needs to be confronted? Pro-life activists frequently make claims they can’t defend and lack tact in their discussion of pro-choice concerns.  Chapter 11 focuses on common pro-choice concerns and asks, aren’t these concerns “human” concerns?  Can’t we agree with the pro-choice advocate on her concern for the poor and the difficult circumstances of unplanned pregnancy?

Pro-choice advocates may see much of the book as coming from a pro-life perspective (it’s inevitable, since I am pro-life).  I attempted in this chapter to adopt the pro-choice perspective and look critically at pro-life arguments and tactics through pro-choice eyes.  I do this as a matter of course in my conversations, so it was a natural component to include in a book about trying to agree with the other side.

At Stand to Reason's website you've provided study guides for both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them clarify the arguments for their position. Doesn't helping pro-choice advocates improve their arguments work against the pro-life cause?

The study guides encourage both sides first to clarify their own arguments and then to look at the best arguments on the other side.  This is the healthiest way to engage in dialogue about our beliefs with ourselves and with others.  So, I see both study guides as a service to both pro-choice and pro-life advocates to help them think more clearly.  I don’t see how helping pro-choice advocates think more clearly can possibly harm the pro-life cause.  It’s just goodwill to encourage them to look at their own position first.  Perhaps the fact that I’m tired of hearing arguments like “you’re a man, so shut up” also motivates me but I genuinely want to help the pro-choice advocate think more deeply about their position.    

I’m not afraid of pro-choice arguments.  The truth about abortion and the unborn will win the day, if it’s looked at carefully.  So, I say, evaluate the strongest reasons on both sides of the debate.  There’s no danger in that.  Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates should do this.  Far from harming the pro-life cause, these guides get people thinking critically about their beliefs. 

I suppose it’s possible that some pro-choice advocates will become more convinced of their beliefs, because they find in the guide intellectually sophisticated ways of expressing those beliefs.  But if they’re truly open to reconsidering their pro-choice position, they’ll honestly look also at the best arguments for the pro-life position, as I’ve suggested in the guide.  Then it’s the pro-life community’s responsibility to make sure our arguments are truly persuasive.  And if our best arguments don’t persuade, they might not be very good after all.  Yet, our arguments are very good and persuasive…to the open heart. 

Underneath it all, there’s more here than the arguments.  When pro-choice advocates reject our best arguments, I suspect it’s the emotional and spiritual aspects of the person that are making it difficult for them to change their minds.  Seeking common ground in the conversation gives more opportunity for those emotional and spiritual elements to breathe and gives each of us space to attend to them.

Order from STR Amazon

Stephen Wagner speaks to and trains a variety of audiences on pro-life and bioethics issues as part of the ministry of Stand to Reason. His new book, Common Ground Without Compromise: 25 Questions to Create Dialogue on Abortion, challenges advocates on both sides of the abortion issue to have more respectful and fruitful conversations. Though the book is available on Amazon, we encourage you to support Steve's work at Stand to Reason by ordering through their website. The conclusion of the interview will be posted on Thursday.

As the title indicates, the point of your book is to build common ground between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. Many people on both sides of the issue simply want to persuade their opponents- why should they be interested in finding common ground?

I don’t see a person who disagrees with me primarily as a sort of potential convert.  I see her as a human being.  Human beings deserve to be treated with respect; they deserve to be heard.  It’s troubling that some Christians take the Great Commission as a directive to think of non-Christians as “gospel fodder,” people who are only valuable if converted.  Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason coined that term and I’ve found it helpful in my thinking about the abortion debate.  I am a pro-life advocate, but I don’t see the pro-choice advocate simply as a future notch in my pro-life belt. 

Now, is it important to persuade people of the pro-life position?  I believe the pro-life position is true, and surely it’s vital to help people come to see it as true.  But if I don’t come with an attitude of listening and appreciating this human being as a fellow truth seeker, I’ll miss the forest for the trees…or the human for the ideas.  Since persuasion is important, though, common ground is all the more important.  It’s diplomatic common sense.  Take the pro-life volunteers I trained for a recent outreach in Arizona.  As we shared stories of our interactions, many of the volunteers shared about how common ground helped them move the dialogue forward to discuss disagreements in a productive way.  In the book I picture common ground as the fuel in a car.  You’ll need it at the beginning of a conversation.  And you’ll need to refuel with common ground along the way in order to keep the conversation moving.

Early on in the book you state, "I believe that you and I are both seeking truth, so we have at least one item of common ground." (p17) I suspect that some pro-lifers won't like this because that they believe pro-choicers are more interested in convenience than truth. Why should we believe people we disagree with are interested in seeking truth? Do you honestly believe every person you talk with is seeking truth?

Anyone who’s spent even a few hours talking to college students, or people of any age for that matter, knows that many people value convenience or pleasure or entertainment more than the search for truth.  That’s uncontroversial and I’d be a fool to claim otherwise.  I think it’s also uncontroversial, though, that every human seeks truth on some level.  You can be just as certain that the college student who seems to only care about sex or entertainment also cares deep in his soul about knowing what’s true.  No one wakes up in the morning and says, “I’d really like to find someone who will deceive me today.”  People care about not being deceived, and conversely, they care about knowing the truth.  Our job, as those who believe there’s truth about abortion, is to help people bring their innate love for truth to the surface, so they can fix their conscious gaze on it and evaluate their beliefs.

You spend most of your time in the book exploring 25 questions you believe will help build common ground. Why are questions so important in this endeavor?

It’s interesting that you would use a question to ask why questions are so important! 

Questions are the only way that dialogue happens.  It’s the way we signal to others that we want to hear their opinion.  It’s also one way to signal that we are positioning ourselves as partners rather than enemies (although this also requires asking the question with a certain kind of attitude).  I framed the content of the book in a series of questions because I wanted to help the reader see in a tangible way how to start a conversation and how to keep it productive.  Asking people what they think and why is much more likely to help them change their minds than telling them they are wrong.

The first question you pose in an effort to build common ground is "What do you think about late-term abortion?" You cite a 2003 Gallup poll that suggests "68% of Americans oppose abortion in the second trimester and 84% oppose it in the third trimester." (p39) Why do you think these polls statistics are so high?

Your question is a great one…to ask anyone we’re in dialogue with.  “If you are against late-term abortion, or think it should be illegal…why?”  I think responses to that question are varied.  Many people just think the unborn is a baby at this point.  Some people think the fetus in the second or third trimester looks like older human beings.  Essentially, “It looks like me, so I’m repulsed by killing it.”  Others cite the fact that the fetus likely has higher cortical activity in the late second and third trimester.  So, this question gets us quickly back to the main issue in the abortion debate: Is the unborn a human being who has the same rights as the rest of us?  Many say “yes” in the last half of the pregnancy.

You note that we often hear this common sentiment presented in the media: "The majority of Americans are 'pro-choice' and oppose restrictions on abortion." (p62) Do you believe there is a 'pro-choice' bias in the media?

I’m not sure I’d put it that way.  I think the media’s treatment of the abortion issue shows a “pro-shallow” bias and a “pro-controversy” bias.  People in the media usually have only seconds to communicate ideas and must use sound bites.  Plus, on television, a simplistic representation of extremes plays better than complex dialogue.   So, it’s easy to report poll results, but thorough analysis takes too long.  Neil Postman was right when he criticized the television medium as being intrinsically an entertainment medium that makes it difficult to get accurate facts.  People in the media could minimize this liability, though, by only publicizing polls that ask specific questions about specific abortions at specific times in pregnancy.  Only then can we really understand what people think.

But the fault is not all the media’s.  Pollsters typically serve up polls that ask very vague questions about whether people are for or against abortion, pro-life or pro-choice, for or against Roe v. Wade.  As I explain in the book, the polls rarely define what all of these terms and court decisions mean, so the poll results actually portray an inaccurate picture of public opinion.  But when the media publicizes this inaccurate picture, it becomes a part of our collective consciousness about public opinion on abortion.  We come to believe that what the media reported is “just the way it is.” 

The most serious problem with polls and the media, though, is not the polls or the media.  It’s us, the viewers.  If many of us believe these shallow and inaccurate public opinion polls, it’s our own fault.  We should be more careful.

Almighty God, we beseech thee graciously to behold this thy family, for which our Lord Jesus Christ was contented to be betrayed, and given up into the hands of wicked men, and to suffer death upon the cross.

Almighty and everlasting God, by whose spirit the whole body of the church is governed and sanctified: receive our supplications and prayers, which we offer before thee for all estates of men in thy holy church, that every member of the same, in his vocation and ministry, may truly and godly serve thee, through our Lord and savior Jesus Christ.

O Merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live:  Have mercy upon all unbelievers, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites,  and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end, Amen.

I just couldn't resist.  For someone who grew up reading Calvin & Hobbes comics and is now a philosophy/theology nerd...this is priceless. 

Prints are available from the artist.

You probably heard about the Berkeley City Council passing a motion declaring the Marine recruiters in their city "uninvited and unwelcome intruders" and about Code Pink's aggressive, ongoing protest against those recruiters, which includes carrying a banner with the words "No military predators in our town," calling the recruiters traitors, and physically blocking anyone trying to enter the recruitment center (as the police stand by, remaining "neutral").

But yesterday, I was told about a story you might not have heard.  Eamon Kelley, a Marine who was present at the continuing protest last week, witnessed an incident he described in an email to a friend:

While we were at the protest in Berkeley from 12 to 4 p.m., a white Volvo drove by and a man spat upon Code Pink.  They chased him down the street and got into a verbal altercation.  The police were NOWHERE in sight.  That’s not the best part, ready for this?  Medea Benjamin [co-founder of Code Pink] yelled, and I quote, “Marines!” She actually yelled for our help because this man had stepped out of his car.  I even asked her if she was yelling Police and she told me, “I said Marines” then put her arm around my friend Allen (the Marine Vet).  Ironic?

As I was listening to my roommate tell me about this, I admit I was hoping for some juicy justice in which the Marines said sadly, "I'm sorry, we've decided you were right.  You don't need us, and we should go away.  Good luck with your problems, there."  Nobody can deny that's exactly what they deserved.  But my snickers of anticipation were silenced when I heard there was no witty comeback from the Marines.  Apparently, they helped her.

 

The whole story ended up making me weep.  I wept at the strength, and mercy, and goodness of men who would risk their own safety to help a person who hated them, mocked them, picketed them, and demanded angrily that they leave town.  How, how were they able to do this in the face of such bitter and stark unfairness? 

I wept because I then saw the face of Jesus in these men--a beautiful, powerful, deeply humbling mercy towards me, His enemy.  In a new and biting way, I saw what I deserved, and the mercy of His self-sacrifice was suddenly beyond imagining.

I wept because I didn't see Him in me.  Lately, in dealing with those who mock the truth, I've been acting more like the spitting passerby who hated the protesters and wanted to punish them than the Marines who steadfastly persevered in serving them.  Oh, Lord, help me!  I don't know how to love people like that.  I can't love people like that. 

I wept for the people of this world who continue to scream at Jesus to leave them alone, stubbornly suffering the daily consequences of a life lived without Him.  There will be an end to God's patience, and the full, righteous, deserved justice will come.

 

May God have mercy on us all.

During a "town hall" style meeting this past Sunday at Hocking College in Nelsonville, Ohio, Senator Obama was asked to reconcile his social policies (which many evangelicals are attracted to) with his positions on same-sex unions and abortion.  The questioner didn't specifically refer to those two issues by name, but called them "litmus test" issues for many Christian voters.  This was Obama's response on abortion:


This sounds like a very sensible strategy, but like most liberal responses in the past decade on this issue, it completely misses the point.  Obama readily admits that abortion is a "tragedy", but he doesn't say why.  Is it a tragedy because the unborn child is a human person and abortion would constitute murder?  If so, what could someone's pastor or doctor possibly say to change that?  In the end, Obama's answer amounts to little more than evasive rhetoric. 

And his response on same-sex marriage:

This is, by far, the most interesting political statement I've ever heard.  A Presidential candidate engaged in bad theology. 

The obvious question to ask here is what the Sermon on the Mount has to do with same-sex unions?  The report at crosswalk.com suggests some possibilities:  perhaps he's referring to the Golden Rule, or maybe Jesus' oft-quoted command not to judge.  In any event, the better question to ask is what's so "obscure" about the passage in Romans?  It's the very first chapter of what most evangelicals would consider to be Paul's most important epistle.  Not only that, but the passage in question is extremely clear in its condemnation of homosexuality as unnatural and sinful.

Now, I actually find myself in agreement with Obama on a few points.  C. S. Lewis said in Mere Christianity that Christians shouldn't be trying outlaw divorce by legislation.  The church is clear on its position, he said, and we would know who was really a follower of Christ and who wasn't by their conduct, so there was no point in trying to force people to obey Christian morality.  After all, he went on, we wouldn't like it very much if the "Mohammadans" came in and tried to outlaw alcohol! 

These comments by Lewis should be, at the very least, thought provoking, if not downright controversial (he was talking about divorce, but there is an obvious application to gay marriage lurking around the corner).  I'm not entirely sure I agree with him.  But there is at least a ring of truth there.  And the same goes for Obama.  I may not support gay marriage, but there does seem to be something wrong with not allowing a gay person to visit his/her significant other in the hospital, simply because they're gay.  And it will only hurt our witness to the gay community if we persist in denying them such rights. 

Obama is certainly unique as a liberal candidate in his simultaneous support of same-sex "unions" and opposition to same-sex "marriage."  There is definately something seductive about this position to the evangelical community.  The only question I still have is whether or not this is a distinction without a difference.  What are we really protecting if the only difference is the name? 

(Warning:  Spoilers ahead, touching on the last couple seasons.  If you don't watch Lost, turn off your computer now and go rent Season One!)

I've mentioned before that I've always been interested in stories that involve time travel of some sort, so I've enjoyed the direction Lost began to take last season.  But there's something different about this series.  Normally, the type of time travel described in a story will fall into one of two categories:  1) The people who go back in time change things, thereby creating a new future or even a new parallel universe (e.g., Back to the Future), or 2) The people go back in time, but the actions they take there don't change anything in the future because it was always the case that their actions in the past led up to the future they've always known.  That is, time is set--all of history already happened, and they already acted as a part of it (e.g., the ending of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure). 

The time travel in Lost, on the other hand, describes a third kind of time--one governed by Providence or fate.  Certain characters go back in time and can change things (history is still fluid, as it is in Type 1), but no matter what they do, they can't ultimately thwart the purpose of God or fate (just who is in charge remains to be seen).  So, Desmond can keep changing the future by repeatedly saving one of the characters from death, but eventually, the death of that character will be accomplished by the one who is governing the flow of history, moving it in a precise direction for a purpose.

It would seem, at first glance, that J.J. Abrams (the creator of Lost) believes in God or some sort of designer.  But, as with his other work (e.g., Alias), he creates a scenario that I suspect reflects a kind of battle going on in his own head:  Some characters see intelligent design and/or evidence of the supernatural in what's happening, and some see only naturalistic explanations.  In Lost, that inner-Abrams battle is characterized as "faith" vs. "science," Locke vs. Jack, purpose vs. random circumstances.  What's interesting is that you're never quite sure which side will win, or even which side should win.

It's as if Abrams wants the supernatural to be true, but he can never quite get there because he loves science and can't see a way to bring the two into harmony--and even though he feels a pull towards the supernatural, he's a little suspicious of the people who embrace it.  They seem somewhat...unstable.  So he keeps the two perspectives (supernatural and natural) existing side by side, almost as two separate stories, with each pretending the other doesn't exist--never touching, except to occasionally butt heads.

Sounds like Abrams's ideas are a good reflection of what our culture has done with religion and rationality (which they wrongly equate with naturalism), and it's a sad, compartmentalized way to live.  The two can be brought together; we can live as whole, integrated people who embrace God and rationality because they embrace each other in an integrated, whole reality.  "Live together, die alone," right?  Someone send this man a copy of Total Truth.

One only need flip a few chapters ahead in Matthew to Jesus' trial and death before the head scratching begins.  How exactly is Jesus' burden light?  Easy??  And just one chapter back (and again in chapter 16) Jesus tells his disciples that they must take up their crosses in order to follow him (not an image that evokes thoughts of ease and lightness!).

And if we turn to Acts things get even worse.  The Apostles spend the majority of their lives suffering for the cause of Christ.  Many of them are executed (some in unpleasant ways).  All things considered, their lives appeared to get much harder after Pentecost, not easier. 

It light of all this, it seems very unlikely that Jesus means to suggest that following Him will be a walk on the beach.  Enjoying the best life now is never something that Jesus Himself nor His closest followers ever had in mind (unless by "best life" you mean "a life of sacrifice devoted to furthering the Kingdom and always looking forward to the life yet to come").

But consider Jesus' words from a slightly different angle.  He is calling out to all those who are "weary" and "heavy laden."  It's doubtful that Jesus only has in mind those who do physical labor for a living.  More likely, He is calling out to all men.  And what is it that burdens all men? 

Sin.

Jesus is offering freedom.  Freedom from sin.  It is one of the many paradoxes of Scripture that we are to become "slaves" to God in order to be "free."  By taking Jesus' yoke upon ourselves, we throw off the yoke of sin.  And it is sin that weighs us down.  It is sin that makes us always weary, always burdened.

Compared to sin, Jesus is freedom.  Sin is heavy, Jesus is light.