I try not to rant on my blog, if I can help it. Sometimes I read something and it frustrates me and I'll wait to blog on it so I can think on it a little more (hopefully reducing the chance that I'll write something I regret).

Other times I'll hear or read about something and not blog on it for whatever reason and it will eventually catch up to me and I can't help myself.

Such is the case with the idea of Christians needing to think for themselves. I'm all for the idea and applaud original thinking and the promotion of wisdom. Typically, however this particular assault is not on Christians who simply don't make the effort to utilize wisdom or think originally; it's on Christians. Period. Most of the time it doesn't end there but extends to anyone of any sort of religious persuasion (or any other persuasion deemed superstitious by that community that lauds its own achievements on material grounds conveniently ignoring the non-physical [oops] processes and philosophical underpinnings of its own enterprise).

I understand that Jesus warned that the "world will hate you" and for us to remember that "it hated [Jesus] first" and to "bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse". So I'll not curse these people for persecuting Christians. I used to curse Christians worse than many of these people do so I can't really judge.

What I will fault them for, however is poor use of their own logic and academic arrogance that seemingly everyone but themselves is aware of except for those who take them at their word... which sounds an awful lot like taking a pastor's word for it, don't you think? After all, are the 'laypeople' really testing these theories and examining the peer-reviews and testing hypotheses or swallowing the textbook synopsis that seems to say: 'Trust us; we've done the research so you don't have to'?

Do I really expect people to run tests to prove everything the scientists say? Of course not. Do I expect a little humility on their part? You bet. After all, these are the very same people who demand a rigorous logic at work in all we do, or at least enough to hand-wave at anything that smacks of meta-physical flavor. You'd think That Community would want to educate its adherents a little more so they wouldn't make these kinds of illogical statements, which sounds an awful lot like the same objection leveled at churches.

The so-called 'free-thinkers' are misnomer-ed like few are. I understand that they feel the title is quasi-justified on the grounds that they feel they are free from a particular tradition of thought or organized worldview system, but they aren't free. In fact, by their own evolutionary standards this is not possible. The social make-up doesn't allow for it. We are automatically bound to whatever social structure we are raised in and will develop according to that structure. Free-thinking is only free within certain bounds. It's like 'free-will'; you aren't totally free to do whatever you like. For example: fly. Not on a plane or anything else, just flap your arms and achieve lift-off and then glide somewhere far away. You aren't 'free' to do that because it's not something you're capable of doing. Likewise the 'free-thinkers' are not free to think however they like but must take all of the simple ideas thus far acquired and coordinate the compound ideas formed into structured thought, just like everyone else.

Now, the advancement is surely in the various ways the compound ideas are ordered; however, even those are bound by the simple ideas and rules for the coordination of compound ideas. This is why we know what 'nonsense' is: it is non-sense because there is no sense to it and it communicates nothing. Regardless of object, there is only so much communicable to each other, which brings me to my next point.

Those who loftily decry the stupidity of us superstitious folk (who are apparently extant only in the deep South where we still all ride horses to school and cling to religion because our accents force us to), have not been taught enough about their own logic. I doubt very many of them could give you sufficient ground as to why they accept the laws of logic that they do. Or why we should all think logically. Or what kinds of scientific tests could be run to demonstrate that only testable things are worth accepting. Or how testable these statements are. Or how it is they are able to think for themselves without ever having read anything written by someone else or talked to anyone else or been influence by someone else's ideas. Or how exhaustively they've researched the claims they make. Or how many things that they believe have been verified to the degree of certitude they demand of others. Or why they accept what the Discovery Channel or History Channel or National Geographic or science textbook says on...(ahem)...faith.

Inevitably someone will misread this post. I will here make a couple of statements and if you've thought the point of this post was in contradiction to these statements, then you've misread the post.

I believe that God used processes that have moved His creation along in the manner loosely described by evolution.
I believe science is good (I've often been tempted to get a second degree in Biology because I love it so much--the Krebs Cycle excites me).
I believe scientists are good and useful contributors to society.
I love the North.
I believe that logic useful and good.
I believe in truth.
I don't think we have to operate in such a way that everything must be tested and verified in order for us to be justified in thinking that it's true.
I'm comfortable with the fact that I believe in things that are not scientifically testable, logically verifiable, or reduced to material processes because at least I admit it.

Another inevitability is that some reading this will think that I'm attacking all of this or that group (i.e. evolutionists, free-thinkers, scientists, &c.) but I'm not. I personally know a few who are very consistent and understand the weaknesses in their own system and thus do not apply those kinds of standards to those who are convinced of metaphysical realities; they have other reasons for rejecting those realities and that's fine. I'm not attacking their unbelief: what I'm attacking is the arrogance of those who place demands on others that they themselves cannot bear and turn a blind-eye to the glaring difficulties with such demands because those difficulties would affect their own systems. In this way I am defending science because it demands humility by its very nature. Postmodernism has made much headway in calling for true humility in philosophical circles (which was present in some aspects and disciplines but not to the degree necessary). It is time for science to do the same. Yes, religion has a bloody history, which has nothing to do with knowing Jesus, but let's not get stupid and pretend that only religious people have caused the world's problems. Let's also not pretend that secular assaults on religious people are not harmless because physical contact isn't involved (a cue many could take from Robert M. Price, who readily admits he has no desire to talk everyone out of their religion, which doesn't entirely make up for his battle against religious apologists but is still very commendable and demonstrates God's grace toward humanity working even through those who do not want to be partakers of that grace), the kind of language used, the videos on You Tube, the books written, the patronizing head-pats, the verbal abuse, the all-out commitment to getting rid of religion, and the demeaning and de-humanizing of those who are religious are all small steps from physical abuse and can even inflict more damage. Perhaps if honesty is the target then these might admit they are simply weeding out the weak members of the species (if there was a 'god-gene' we needed a long time ago but stopped using, right?) in order to make more room for the Advanced Ones who are better evolved and thus no longer needing reli... sorry: supersition to live maximally. But no one says this.

Let's not conveniently ignore that, historically, true Christians whose lives have been truly changed by Jesus Christ have contributed significantly to the world. I find it sad that over the last ten years of Jesus changing my life and shaping my heart to be a more loving person (that I didn't want to be, by the way) who strives to put others first (which I am still resisting) and works to forgive and love enemies (which is incredibly hard but done by the power of the Holy Spirit) I can be attacked for what I believe. This is an odd thing indeed. 'Who cares what good Christians have done? We'll attack their beliefs. People who have called themselves Christians have done bad things so that means they are all bad'. That's a logical fallacy but apparently logic goes out the window when... um...you want to believe what you want to believe. Or does that only apply to religious people?

I'm well aware that I just lost half of those who read this blog; 1/4 who are Christians thinking that Derrida and postmodernism are the antichrist, and 1/4 who are not familiar with anything in the title.

I will be brief here because too much explanation on a blog can be exhausting and boring and because simple things are often more memorable.

In John D. Caputo's book "What Would Jesus Deconstruct?" (which will help any reader of Brian McLaren understand where the junk he gets it from), Caputo makes several good points and is a great place to start in understanding Derrida and deconstruction (See: "Deconstruction In A Nutshell: A Conversation With Jacques Derrida" by John D. Caputo). The book is helpful in several regards, though one gets the sense that only the Christian right are wrong and the Christian left are rather perfect since he only attacks the former, and quite frequently so. I agree with much of what he says there but it's still annoying. It's like going to a concert of a band that is highly political: sure this stuff informs your music but I didn't come to hear you talk politics; I came to hear music.

In this book Caputo gives an excellent summary of Derrida's commentary on 'gift-giving'. What Derrida points out is that in giving a gift, something is expected in return in some way. A 'thank-you' or some other expression of gratitude is expected. Further, the recipient is now, as we say, 'indebted to their kindness' meaning he will look for ways to repay somehow; not immediately, but in due time--say a birthday or Christmas present--and the gift-giver will in some way expect something in return. Derrida says that this means that a gift is impossible but that we should always give anyway. That is, a true gift is an impossible thing because as we have just seen, an economy arises out of the act of giving and receiving. Economics are not what we consider gift-like. If I see something in a store that my wife would like, I don't bring it to her and expect her to repay me right away. But I might hope she'll do the same the next time she is out and sees something I would like. There is a form of exchange, a form of economy. But we give with the impossible idea of a pure gift in mind because that is what makes the quasi-gift possible to begin with.

This is all good and well but Caputo turns his attention to the atonement, which is the ultimate gift. It is here that his deconstructive theory informs his theology, not Scripture. He counts repentance a form of exchange, which thus makes the atonement not a pure gift, but a form of exchange because repentance is 'expected'. He even uses the example of the prodigal son to make his point: the son returns home and his father does not count loss or demand repentance but warmly receives him. I read further to see if Caputo catches the problem with his assessment but he does not; he forgets what makes that warm welcome possible: the return. The whole idea is that the son actually returns and seeks forgiveness, which is what repentance is. There is no warm welcome without the return.

Caputo might have been better served by the parable of the lost sheep whom the Good Shepherd finds and brings back; but the point of that parable is a different one than the prodigal son. In the prodigal son, the son already has a relationship with his father and is given his inheritance, which should sound very familiar because those who are saved are considered as "co-heirs with Christ", which means we receive our inheritance after we are saved; Caputo would have to make the son out to be a lost person who has received this inheritance in advance somehow. In the parable of the lost sheep, the Shepherd seeks the sheep out to bring him back to the fold where he expects him to stay. He doesn't simply leave him lost. If Caputo is right and forgiveness of sin is just that and no repentance is expected, then why seek the sheep? Just forgive it and leave it lost to do its own thing. Or why did the son come back?

Caputo undermines his own idea of God as something wholly other or impossible that puts us into play and is not mastered by us. He takes the word that God has given (a gift!) and makes an exchange with it by calculating his own loss in accepting the atonement, which limits his own perspective of who should be saved and thus puts his words in God's mouth through Derrida's discussion of the gift, which makes perfect sense in a world populated by people who are incapable of pure gift-giving, but not for a God who is actually capable of pure gift-giving. The impossible may make the possible really possible for us, but if God is the impossible and acting out of His own impossibility, then we have no judgement of that which we literally cannot fathom; we can only act in the possible, which Caputo admits is limited.

None of this is intended to say that we must repent before we are forgiven; rather, Scripture indicates that forgiveness itself means the gift of repentance (Ephesian 2.8-9). Faith (Trust) is a gift, lest we boast. We have nothing to boast of in any exchange; rather, that which is required of us is also given to us (a double-gift!) and that which we use to repay comes from the gift-giver Himself. Not to mention the fact that everything belongs to God and there is nothing we could repay Him with in the first place. This is where a discussion of the economics of the gift break down when we try to apply it to God. As many boxes in which to put God the modernists, Enlightenment thinkers, Platonists, Socratics, and whoever else made, those who react against these projects (or deconstruct them) fall into the same trap because we are all sinners in need of that atonement and repentance outside of forgiveness would certainly be a "filthy rag", which is to say our economics would never work.

A very popular idea among Christians and non-Christians alike is that of being a 'blind follower'--or some derivation thereof--of Jesus. Both sides attack the idea often sharing similar arguments about reason and science, etc. While I won't deny that Christians need to think about their faith carefully--I wouldn't have gotten a Philosophy degree if I didn't--I want to take a look at this idea from a different angle in order to see if straw men are being set up and to see if those who are the objects of such derogatory comments are settling for these straw men.

Typically what is being communicated by someone calling another person a 'blind follower' is that they take everything at face value and question nothing. They just follow along and do what they're told. Non-christians often point to logic and history and science as indicators that those who follow Jesus, according to the Bible, do so in a sort of 'blind' way, ignoring the empirical data that calls the facts of Scripture into question, as well as the ethical and moral issues associated with being a Christian in today's world.

The Christian who takes aim at these followers shares a common bond with them but is typically frustrated at the job many Christians do in the public square that make us seem rather ignorant. The charge is often to become involved in some kind of apologetical study in order to be more informed. I think this is a great idea and though all Christians aren't intellectually minded to the same degree, we can all be more informed about what we believe and should stretch ourselves to be able to provide a defense for the hope that is in us.

So what am I taking issue with? Well... the 'blind' part and the 'following' part put together. This idea seems to ignore way too much Scripture as well as real experience. Here's what I mean: when was the last time you met someone who followed every single thing in Scripture? I'll answer that for you. Never. You never have. Next question: when was the last time you met someone who thought every single word was immediately relevant right here and now? I'll be kind and answer for you again. Never. My point is that Scripture teaches that we are all born into sin and thus resist God's truth. We will never, ever reach a point where we both completely agree with (to the extent that we actually live in that belief) everything in Scripture, nor be in a place where we are actually capable of doing so (this side of the new heavens and new earth, of course).

The idea of a 'blind follower' isn't Biblical and it doesn't take into consideration what being a Christian really looks like. If there really were 'blind followers' then Jesus never would have had to come. You might be able to find an instance where someone is capable of living Biblically in some areas, but not all. And some of those he might do so unintentionally, in which case we couldn't really say he was being "obedient".

All of us resist to some degree or another. Christians still resist the truth of Scripture, which is why we also get the moniker 'hypocrite'. A hypocritical blind follower would be a pretty impossible thing indeed. Don't take the bait on this one; let that person know that you resist because of sin and that Jesus came for that very reason.