These people from the Amazon have never come in contact with the modern world. The researcher in the video says they are the last free people in the world. Probably in some sense that is true, but are they truly free?
On Sex and the Bible
Posted February 9, 2011 by MattCategories: Sex
Al Mohler with an interesting response to Lisa Miller’s Newsweek article What the Bible Really Says about Sex. Here are a few snippets of his response:
Lisa Miller summarizes the arguments of Coogan and Knust by explaining that they are each attempting “to steal the conversation about sex and the Bible back from the religious right.” Putting the two books together, Miller explains that they argue along these lines: first, that “the Bible is an ancient text, inapplicable in its particulars to the modern world.” Second, that “sex in the Bible is sometimes hidden.” Third, that “that which is forbidden is also allowed.” And fourth, that “accepted interpretations are sometimes wrong.”
Well, one immediate problem with this set of arguments is that they are themselves contradictory. Is the Bible itself wrong, or just its interpretations? If the Bible is just an ancient text, which is not relevant in its particulars for the modern world, why argue over its interpretation?
Lisa Miller notes that “Coogan and Knust are hardly the first scholars to offer alternative readings of the Bible’s teachings on sex.” As a matter of fact, almost all of the arguments made in these books have been around for the past thirty years. Miller argues that it is the populism of these books that sets them apart. “With provocative titles and mainstream publishing houses, they obviously hope to sell books,” she explains. “But their greater cause is a fight against ‘official’ interpretations.”
In response to that, Lisa Miller quotes me: “That’s why Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that citadel of Christian conservatism, concludes that one’s Bible reading must be overseen by the proper authorities.” I enjoyed my conversation with Ms. Miller, but my point was not that the church needs “proper authorities,” but that just any interpretation of the Bible will not do. The authority in this issue is that of the Bible itself. Those who read it as bearing the very authority of God will read the Bible quite differently than those who see it as a human book conditioned and warped by human frailty and fallibility.
The most important point I made to Lisa Miller is that revisionist interpreters of the Bible are playing a dishonest game. Consider the audacity of their claim: they claim that no one has rightly understood the Bible for over two thousand years. No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual — at least not until recent decades. The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?
Source: Mohler, A. (2011). What the Bible Really Says about Sex… Really? Retrieved from http://www.albertmohler.com/2011/02/09/what-the-bible-really-says-about-sex-really/
On the King’s Speech
Posted February 3, 2011 by MattCategories: Speech-Language Pathology
Being a Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP), I was very interested in seeing the movie The King’s Speech. Below is the film’s trailer.
HERE is a movie depicting the real King George speaking before a crowd. You’ll notice his stuttering is mostly characterized by blocks.
What I was most interested in were the ethical issues in the movie. First, King George’s therapist, Lionel Logue, promises to cure him. He obviously did this to instill confidence and hope in his new patient who had seen therapist after therapist without relief. One could be anachronistic and read modern professional ethical standards back into this period , but it is best to remember that this a period piece and thus different standards were in place. The movie does remind us how things have changed for the better as the American Speech Language Hearing Association’s (ASHA) Code of Ethics states “Individuals shall not guarantee the results of any treatment or procedure, directly or by implication…”. To make such a guarantee in this age could possible open a therapist up to litigation.
The second ethical issue that intrigued me was how Lionel Logue kept the king’s confidentiality. He never revealed he was treating the King of England, not even to his wife. How many therapists could keep a secret like that? The king’s identity is only revealed after he visits Mr. Logue in his home. Logue would have been praised for keeping this modern day ethical standard: “Individuals shall not reveal, without authorization, any professional or personal information about identified persons served professionally” (ASHA Code of Ethics).
Overall, I found it a realistic portrayal of stuttering therapy practices in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. Though the film might not be useful for teaching modern day stuttering therapy practices, it is very useful in thinking through at least these two ethical issues. Some SLPs might dislike Mr. Logue’s skills in patient rapport, but perhaps we need a little more bravado in the field and less fear of being sued. Logue reminds me of the late Charles Van Riper (see picture).
On Apologetics
Posted February 2, 2011 by MattCategories: Apologetics
Anthony Bradley from WORLD Magazine with some thoughts re: apologetics through the centuries:
Is apologetics really that simple? In some ways, yes. We are called to give a reason for the hope that we have in Christ (1 Peter 3:15). We are stating what unites us as Christians today, yesterday, and forever. The defense of the faith in the second century is not all that different from what we need to communicate today. Like Irenaeus, our job is analyze the prevailing religions and philosophies of our day, point out the errors of those views—with gentleness and respect—and tell the same story that Christians have been telling for centuries: The incarnate Son of God has come to save sinners and redeem his world. We should never underestimate the power of that confession. That was Irenaeus’ story and I’m sticking to it.
Source: Bradley, A. (2011). Defending Christianity through the centuries. WORLD Magazine online.
Free Audio Book
Posted February 1, 2011 by MattCategories: Books
Have a long commute and want a good book to listen to? Christianaudio.com is offering Russell Moore’s Adopted for Life for FREE! You can download it HERE.
Here’s some thoughts from Tim Challies: “It might be easy to write off a book like this one, assuming that it only has relevance to families who are actually considering adopting a child. But Moore’s ambition goes beyond asking young families to adopt orphaned children. “In this book I want to call us all to consider how encouraging adoption–whether we adopt or whether we help others adopt–can help us peer into the ancient mystery of our faith in Christ and can help us restore the fracturing unity and the atrophied mission of our congregation.” As Moore explains, “The gospel of Jesus Christ means our families and churches ought to be at the forefront of the adoption of orphans close to home and around the world.” It is the gospel that calls us to adopt but it is also the gospel that teaches us how to understand adoption. In fact, “as we become more adoption-friendly, we’ll be better able to understand the gospel.” And so this book is for anyone and everyone.”
On “The Bitters”
Posted January 26, 2011 by MattCategories: Christianity
WORLD Magazine’s Antony Bradley on Christian twenty-somethings (he calls them “The Bitters”). Do you agree with his assessment?
The Bitters, who tend to gravitate toward Christian hipster culture, are on a mission to expose the “conservative conspiracy” wherever they can find it (or create it) under the guise of “healthy critique.” Bitters define themselves by what they are not. If their parents are Republicans they become staunch Democrats. If their parents are in a conservative church, Bitters will find a more liberal church. Bitters choose “the left” because it’s not “the right.” There is no greater sin for Bitters than sounding like you might be “conservative.” The great irony is that Bitters still want connection to their formerly conservative communities. If you’re really “done” with something you don’t waste time attacking it; you just ignore it and leave it alone. I could be wrong about the Bitters. I hope so. But what I do see is a group of 20-somethings wasting their time on a quest that will never deliver the revolution that it promises. You are what you are, not what you are not.
Source: Anthony Bradley, Evangelicalism’s bitter 20-somethings, WORLD Magazine, 1/26/11
Deus Tecum 