- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (10/25)
- Next Post »Halloween Blogspotting
Recently Read
- 10/25/06
- 13
As I read books, I tend to jot down interesting or important quotes. I realized that I had collected a few of these recently and thought it would be interesting to share them with you. So here are four quotes from four books that caught my attention.
The first quote is from God's Bestseller, a biography of William Tyndale written by Brian Moynahan. The author, comments about Thomas More's bloodlust when considering heretics. More thought that, for too long, heretics (i.e. Protestants) had been "mollycoddled, allowed to escape through recantation and faggot-carrying, and in this the bishops and the church officers were 'almost more than lawful, in that they admitted him to such an abjuration as they did, and that they did not rather leave him to the secular arm.'" He goes to explain this curious phrase.
The little phrase, 'leave him to the secular arm' is very much less innocent than it seems. In legal terms, a prisoner was 'relaxed' after the Church had found him guilty of heresy. This did not involve a period of rest and relaxation for the unfortunate, of course, far from it. It meant that the Church authorities 'relaxed' their hold on him by transferring him to the secular authorities for execution. The ritual handing over was designed to preserve the principle that Ecclesia non novit sanguinem, the Church does not shed blood. It provided an ecclesiastical fig leaf, since laymen carried out the actual burning, but it was a singularly transparent one. No churchman exonerated the Pharisees for the death of Christ on the grounds that they had merely handed Jesus to Pilate for sentencing, and that Roman soldiers had performed the crucifixion.
The second quote is taken from Sam Harris' Letter to a Christian Nation, a book that is intended to be "a measured refutation of the beliefs that form the core of fundamentalist Christianity."
According to a recent Gallup poll, only 12 percent of Americans believe that life on earth has evolved through a natural process, without the interference of a deity. Thirty-one percent believe that evolution has been "guided by God." If our worldview were put to a vote, notions of "intelligent" design would defeat the science of biology by nearly three to one. This is troubling, as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design. But the current controversy over "intelligent design" should not blind us to the true scope of our religious bewilderment at the dawn of the twenty-first century. The same Gallup poll revealed that 53 percent of Americans are actually creationists. This means that despite a full century of scientific insights attesting to the antiquity of life and the greater antiquity of the earth, more than half of our neighbors believe that the entire cosmos was created six thousand years ago. This is, incidentally, about a thousand years after the Sumerians invented glue. Those with the power to elect our presidents and congressmen--and many who themselves get elected--believe that dinosaurs lived two by two upon Noah's ark, that light from distant galaxies was created en route to the earth, and that the first members of our species were fashioned out of dirt and divine breath, in a garden with a talking snake, but the hand of an invisible God.Among developed nations, America stands alone in these convictions. Our country now appears, as at no other time in her history, like a lumbering, bellicose, dim-witted giant. Anyone who cares about the fate of civilization would do well to recognize that the combination of great power and great stupidity is simply terrifying, even to one's friends.
Forty-four percent of the American population is convinced that Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead sometime in the next fifty years. According to the most common interpretation of biblical prophecy, Jesus will return only after things have gone horribly awry here on earth. It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen--the return of Christ. It should be blindingly obvious that beliefs of this sort will do little to help us create a durable future for ourselves--socially, economically, environmentally, or geopolitically. Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. The book you are about to read is my response to this emergency...
The third quote is only brief, but profound. It is drawn from David Wells' Above All Earthly Pow'rs.
This moment of tragedy and evil [the events of September 11] shone its own light on the Church and what we came to see was not a happy sight. For what has become conspicuous by its scarcity, and not least in the evangelical corner of it, is a spiritual gravitas, one which could match the depth of horrendous evil and address issues of such seriousness. Evangelicalism, now much absorbed by the arts and tricks of marketing, is simply not very serious anymore.
And finally, a quote from John Blanchard and Dan Lucarini's new book Can We Rock the Gospel, which attempts to expose rock music's impact on worship and evangelism. The book is premised on the view that rock music is dividing the church, destroying local congregations and turning Christian against Christian in arguments about musical styles. They ask, given rock music's well-earned "worldly reputation..."
Why do worship leaders, evangelists or church musicians work so hard to perfect the use of it? To accommodate this inconsistency, Christian rock apologists have had to construct a new faith system to offer religious cover to those who do so. This system requires adherence to one or more of the following credos:
- God created all music--therefore rock music was inspired by him.
- Although rock may have been corrupted by bad people, we have the power to redeem it for God.
- Music itself is neutral and amoral, and only the lyrics matter. Therefore, there is no such thing as "evil" or "good" music.
- The end justifies the means--if it brings someone to Christ, God can use it. If it brings me into God's presence during worship, it must be from God.
The lyrics of Christian rock songs may in and of themselves be respectful of God and Christian principles, but can anyone honestly say that these Christians have created a "new" song, or that their music compositions are inspired by God rather than by men? The evidence suggests otherwise and leads us to believe that Christian rockers are simply copying and imitating a music style that was created and inspired by men who in their lust for freedom--for sex, freedom to get high on drugs anytime they please, freedom to seek a god of some sort through altered states of consciousness, and freedom from any kind of authority--have rejected the God of the Bible.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Comments (13)
Blanchard and Lucarini create some impressive strawmen. Brian McLaren would be proud. ;-)
Harris utterly ignores the fact that American accomplishment happened while the beliefs he abhors held sway.
Wells points out the lack of gravitas, and Blanchard and Lucarini think they know why. They took School of Rock way too seriously.
Rock 'N Roll is a style of music based on sex and the flesh. The name Rock 'N Roll itself was a euphimism for sex. They're not creating strawmen, they're pointing out facts.
The pipe organ was invented by a Greek pagan named Ctesibius. Does that mean that organ music is no longer appropriate for church?
Hello, genetic fallacy.
The name Rock 'N Roll itself was a euphimism for sex.
So one unregenerate DJ's nomenclature fully invalidates the genre?
They're not creating strawmen, they're pointing out facts.
The authors state that "[t]his system requires adherence to one or more of the following credos". I won't even bother with the arrogance of believing that we are able to divine the thoughts and motives of other humans (particularly ones that we've never met).
Among the "credos" that (according to the authors) one must support to defend Christian rock is: "Although rock may have been corrupted by bad people, we have the power to redeem it for God." The implication is that God made something, man managed to wrestle it away from Him, but other men have the ability to get it back for Him, as though it was some toy that the neighborhood bully stole.
I've never heard such an odious position espoused, yet the authors assign it to their opposition. That is, by definition, a strawman.
I find the quote from Sam Harris' book tremendously grievous and shocking. A quick check at Amazon lists it as their #10 bestseller and it comes in at #6 on the New York Times. It is sad that so many people may be influenced by what seems to be a dark diatribe. Have you written a review or plan to write a more detailed review of this Tim?
"Have you written a review or plan to write a more detailed review of this Tim?"
I will review it once I read it. It's nice and short, so it shouldn't take long.
I would love to have my seventh grade earth science class go over Sam Harris's book. They could point out the fallacies in his arguments in a heartbeat. They are incredibly poor; I believe Phil Johnson could eat him for breakfast in a one on one debate. I always go back to Pascal's wager and, unfortunately, Mr. Harris will lose that one.
Harris' assertion of "countless examples of unintelligent design" brought two things to mind: 1) what are they?- everything my limited eyes have seen show remarkable complexity or wonderful simplicity for the task they were designed to complete and 2)I roguishly wondered if he was counting naturalists like himself among the unintelligent design examples. But then I was certain that he wasn't when he considered himself a responder(rescuer perhaps) to the American "emergency".
- "This is troubling, as nature offers no compelling evidence for an intelligent designer and countless examples of unintelligent design."
The stance I usually hear from evolutionists is that there is no design at all -because that means there is a Designer. So what you would expect him to say is that nature offers countless examples of random chance, or natural development, or something like that - I have NEVER heard anyone espouse a doctrine of UNintelligent design. That's ridiculous. That's like saying that there IS a Designer, but that his design is flawed and unintelligent. But no real scientist I've read or heard has ever said anything to that effect. The common denominator among evolotionists and creationists is that our world is endlessly complex and intricate. So to say that it was designed, but not intelligently, is... well, unintelligent.
Kyle
One example I've heard from opponents of intelligent design is something with the optical nerve. I'm not a doctor, so I don't know the details, but apparently the way it's routed to the brain doesn't seem very efficient, so they say it must have occured randomly, because a designer would have done it differently. It seems to me though, that eyesight is way more advanced than anything we've come up with. So, even though it appears inefficient to us, God did it the best way.
Not to mention that Darwin himself was completely floored by the complexity of the eye.
Kyle
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Lucini's argument 'guilty by association'? I may not have the distinctions of the different logical fallacies down, but that's the first thing that came to mind.