The Underground Youth Ministry

Here is another clip of classic Dr. William Lane Craig.

Taken from his debate with Dr. Garrett Hardin, the clip below showcases Dr. Craig’s expert treatment of Scientific Naturalism—that is, the claim that the natural world is all that there is.

In the first four minutes, Dr. Craig treats the following question: What reasons are there to believe that Naturalism is true?  He then moves on to: What reasons are there to believe Christianity is true?

As Dr. Craig makes abundantly clear, Scientific Naturalism is a self-refuting world view.  In brief, the Naturalist makes the following assertion: We can only believe that which is scientifically proven.  The problem with this, however, is that this very sentence cannot be scientifically proven.

When someone figures out how to take that sentence and throw it in a test tube, let me know.

Enjoy this clip of classic Craig!

This Sunday, the Colts and the Saints will battle for the triumphant title of Superbowl Champions.

However, the battle which will be waged on the playing field is currently being left behind in the media battle surrounding the advertisement featuring Tim Tebow and his mother.

Planned Parenthood recently joined the fray with the following video:

The message of this advertisement cannot be called surprising.  Indeed, these ideas are unfortunately the common fare of our culture.  But, in spite of the soft music in the background, the message contained within this short clip is anything but pleasant.

Toward the middle, Joyner notes, “I want my daughter to live in a world where everyone’s decisions are respected.”  This is said within the general context of allowing a woman to choose whether or not to abort her pre-born child.

My response: I do not want my daughters to live in a world where everyone’s decisions are respected.  Someone may decide to rape her.  Am I to stand nonchalantly on the sidewalk, pat the rapist on the back and so, “Go ahead!  I respect your decision”?

The problem here is, of course, that common act of confusing preference claims with moral claims.

Should everyone’s ability to choose between chocolate and vanilla ice cream be honored?  Yes.

Should we respect every man’s decision to kill his wife or allow her to live?  No.

What is the difference?  One is a claim of preference, the other an issue of morality.  Apples and oranges.

Let us try to imagine a world where everyone’s decisions are respected—regardless of their classification as matters of morality or preference.  Such a thought is nothing short of horrifying, for it would be worse than mere anarchy.  For, not only would there be a lack of organization, but men would be rendered impotent as evil reigns around them.

Yes, everyone would be free to choose their spouse, education, and job in such a world.  But, that is not where the decisions would end.  They would also be forced to give their spouse away to the first man who decides he wants her instead.  They would be forced to allow all thieves to pillage and plunder their homes and the homes of their friends.  They would be forced to watch their daughters kidnapped by the most perverted of men.

Evil would run free.

And, in all of this men would be powerless—because respecting everyone’s decisions, as conveyed in the Planned Parenthood message of “my body, my choice,” means they would not intervene.

Could it be that there is a better way?  Could it be that some choices simply are never right?

What about the genocide of the Jews?  The enslavement of the Black man?

In many things I am decidedly pro-choice: careers, cars, music, hairstyles, spouse, etc.

But, in other things, I am vehemently anti-choice: genocide, murder, etc.

And, therefore, I respect the rights of all Americans to choose whether to root for the Colts or the Saints this Sunday.

But, if someone were to decide to shoot one of the players, not only would I be opposed to their choice but also if it would be somehow within my power to stop them, I would do so.

A world where everyone’s decisions are respected and never impeded?  I pray not.

The following was posted on Dr. Alveda King’s Facebook profile on January 18th, the day we honor the birth of her uncle, the American hero: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. Alveda King, Pastoral Associate of Priests for Life and niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., released the following comments today on the celebration of her Uncle’s life.

“Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of a Beloved Community where all are treated with respect and dignity,” said Dr. King. “He fought against society’s exclusion of people who were treated as less than human because of their appearance. Today, we are compelled to continue Uncle Martin’s fight by standing up for those who are treated as less than human because of their helplessness and inconvenience.

“The unborn are as much a part of the Beloved Community as are newborns, infants, teenagers, adults, and the elderly. Too many of us speak of tolerance and inclusion, yet refuse to tolerate or include the weakest and most innocent among us in the human family. As we celebrate the life of Uncle Martin, let us renew our hearts and commit our lives to treating each other, whatever our race, status, or stage of life, as we would want to be treated. Let us let each other live.”

…you vote on something like “You Know You’re an Undergrounder” only to have the results lost in a pile on Seth’s desk for a year.

Okay, seriously.  Here are the top 15:

15.  …your friends wonder where you learned what exegesis and eisegesis mean.

14.  …the teaching really is your favorite part of youth group.

13.  …you feel safer at night knowing the Underground mafia is on the patrol.

12.  …you know what the “huh” game is, and aren’t afraid to admit it.

11.  …you’ve unwrapped a frozen duck in the white elephant exhange.

10.  …you find it amusing to wave at people while wearing “Billy Bob”s on long trips.

9.   …you’ve had off brand diet coke and stale cookies for more than three YG weeks in a row.

8.   …you know Undergrounders are the best free runners.

7.   …you expect to feel springs poking you in the rear every time you sit on a couch.

6.   …you’ve broken a couch in the youth room or turned on the fire alarm by mistake.

5.   …when every other sentence is debated by at least three people.

4.   …you only get to see half of the power point for musical worship.

3.   …being a hero means sitting in the front row.

2.   …you’ve been to so many political protests that you hear “So does war!” in your dreams at night.

1.   …Nate has threatened to kick you in the throat.

There you have it.

Here’s a preview of what’s to come as we rewind 2009…

While gathering research for the regular gathering of The Underground last week (for a lesson on The Problem of Pain), I ran across a slew of song lyrics declaring the “death” of God.  Some championed the crowning of humanism, others wallowed in a melancholy of meaninglessness.  Most, however, seemed to have a common subtext: “God hasn’t worked for me, and so He must be fantasy.”

Consider the following lyrics from the group known as The Germs, taken from a song fittingly titled “No God”:

I’ve read every book in the Bible Story
And all it ever brought me was another worry
Don’t want God, give me a jury,
See, there’s no God to make up my mind–
No God givin me time.

I peered in every window where I saw a cross
But I could never see just what they saw
In that piece of plaster on the wall
See, there’s no God to fear–
No God to hear your cries.

From the first words of the song, we see the complaint that God just didn’t “work” for the songwriter.  He tried reading the entire Bible, but it brought naught but grief.  How could something so useless be so important?

He continues by painting the Church as a group of daydreamers infusing their own fantasies into impotent pieces of stone.  He seems to allow that they find some hope or satisfaction in crosses or other symbols.  But, he can’t help but declare that these symbols really are just plaster and plastic.  The hopes of the Church are merely empty hopes, after all.

Reading these words, I became frustrated by this (yet another) portrayal of the Church as wishful thinkers.  This seems to rise from a broader idea which is a common thread of our society—the belief that religion is only good insofar as it is useful.  After all, the songwriter himself seems to suggest that he would believe if only religion actually made him happier, if only it actually worked for him.

When religion seems to work—like when we want sweet stories at Christmastime—we find large swaths of our nation bending the knee.  However, when we face the bleak reality of painful life, many reject any notion of a deity.  All along, the drum inspiring the rhythm of our lives is too often one of utility—does it actually work to believe?

This has led to a confusing mishmash of messages.  In the college classrooms, God is declared fantasy while at the same time we read words like “hope,” “faith,” and “believe” printed on post-modern wall hangings, plastered on billboards, and even used in political campaigns.  What matters is not in whom you believe but the simple fact that you believe.

Perhaps this is why atheist professors under whom I’ve studied did not denounce my belief (or perhaps it was simple civility).  They thought I believed in fantasy, but they knew I drew joy from this and so they allowed me to remain in my delusion.

In similar fashion, our culture simultaneously declares that God is not real and affirms those who believe in Him.  “He is not real,” we hear, “but if it helps you to believe, go ahead and believe anyway.”  Everyone knows the forbidden truth—that there is no God—but they only whisper this in the presence of believers lest their faith be diminished.

Let me be blunt.  Belief in God does not always work—if “work” is to be defined as making me feel good, as stockpiling my money, or by some other superficial state.  Indeed, reading, such as in Romans, of the depth of our sin makes me feel grief more often than mirth.

Why, then, do I believe?  Why do I keep coming back to this warehouse known as Trinity Evangelical Church?  Why do I read the pages before me known as The Bible?

If I do so only because it works for me right now, then sooner or later I’ll be singing the words to “No God” by the Germs.

Instead, I bend my knee in submission to God not because I like to, not because I have some innate desire for servitude, not because the food is good, but because I am persuaded that it is true.

The evidence for God’s existence must be judged as such—on its own apart from our wishes—and we must go where the evidence leads. 

And that is true whether it works for you or not.

In this footage from the 80s, Dr. William Lane Craig dismantles fallacies which continue to plague Christian apologists to this day.

Dr. Atkins’ argument herein boils down (basically) to the following:

1.  Science can account for everything.

2.  Those who believe in God do so because they desperately want to in spite of the fact that science can account for all things.

3.  Therefore, God must be a human convention.

Dr. Craig proceeds to unpack the fallacies buried herein: 1. Details of the origination of a belief do not disprove the belief itself, and 2. Science cannot truly account for everything.

Indeed, Dr. Craig lists 5 items which cannot be proven by science but which are nevertheless accepted by rational people: logic & mathematics, metaphysical truths, ethics, aesthetic judgments, and science itself.

Dr. Craig’s winsome manner is once again matched with utter clarity and great skill as he expertly dismantles Dr. Atkins’ claims.

It causes one to wonder why we continue to battle the bankruptcy of scientific naturalism when the refutation is so clear.  Our culture often sounds the horn of naturalism with its claim that the only things we know to be true are those we prove via test tubes or our five senses.

Ask someone to prove that claim with their five senses or which test tube gave them this conclusion, and the fallacies become rather clear.  Scientific naturalism fails.

If anyone wasn’t listening when Dr. Craig was handling these arguments in 1988, it’s not too late to start in 2009.

Our great society is one of undying egotism.  Even Narcissus would be ashamed.

The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) recently visited the University of Minnesota.  After the display and debates had come and gone, the Opinions/Editorials Editor of the university newspaper, Jonathan Brown, chose to summarize it all in a piece entitled “Time to Abort an Exhausted Debate” with the following subtitle: extreme tuition rates should energize students more than abortion.

Brown notes that the GAP display includes images of aborted fetuses while also admitting that abortion is an important issue in contemporary politics.  However, he then dismisses all pro-life or pro-choice efforts as a waste.  He writes,

But to spend so much time and energy writing letters and columns to rehash a long-dead debate is wasteful. The most polarizing issue in America will always remain so as long as half the citizenry interprets abortion as a women’s rights issue and the other half interprets it as murder.

Am I wrong to interpret a selfish cord within this statement?  How could it ever be wasteful to exhaust one’s efforts for the needs of another?  Would we champion the good Samaritan had he simply passed by, considering any effort on behalf of the fallen man to be a needless use of his time?

Would Mr. Brown have issued the same response to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as he sat in his Birmingham jail?  The unjust segregation of Americans was certainly one of the most polarizing issues in our country.  Thus, one might have told Dr. King that it will simply always be such as long as one half of the citizenry believes African-Americans to be human persons while the other half does not.

Dr. King, though, would not have listened.

Journalist Brown goes on in his piece to make a plea for the energies of the abortion debate to be funneled into a better cause, that of tuition hikes:

Undergraduate tuition here will have increased 15% over two years while administration postures as if they’ve reduced it. Replace the pointless pro-life/pro-choice signs you waved last week with indictments of your blatantly unaffordable tuition.

Brown sees the pro-lifers as wasting their time when they could be debating something which will affect them personally.

Do we understand the mark of our culture being portrayed herein?

Pro-lifers are being asked to lay down their armor so that they can fight a battle for their own finances/comfort.  What if others had heeded the same advice?

What if Harriet Tubman had given up her efforts on the Underground Railroad in favor of fighting for better priced corn?

What if Corrie ten Boom had ceased hiding Jews in order to negotiate a better mortgage rate?

What if Christ himself had found equality with God indeed something to be grasped, had refused to become nothing and therefore had not humbled himself by dying on the cross to benefit others and not himself?

The great heroes of mankind are ones who denied personal comfort in order to ameliorate the lives of others.  The greatest heroism ever known is seen in the greatest sacrifice of all—that of Christ himself. 

These acts are great because of their selflessness.

We live in a time which has not only degraded humanity but also turned a deaf ear to all pleas to the contrary.  Not only are many Americans content to bankroll an industry being fed by the blood of our children, but we also see any debate on this front to be an unnecessary annoyance.

Because of this, extreme tuition rates unfortunately do often energize students more than the dismemberment of unborn human children. 

When will we stop looking longingly at our own reflection in the water and realize that there are greater things than ourselves taking place in this world?

For Mr. Brown’s entire piece, click here.

Highlights of Day 2:

All six missing suitcases arrived.

The toys purchased by Undergrounders facilitated even greater fellowship with the kids at Rancho Nuevo.

We completed many projects for the missionaries here in San Luis Potosi: exterior painting, screen replacements, etc.

We prepared care packages to give away to those living near the dump: packages with blankets and food for families, candy for the children.

More to come soon.

The Underground has arrived in Mexico, though the journey was not without excitement.

On Wednesday afternoon, two groups were trying to make their way to Houston for a connecting flight to Mexico–one from Indianapolis, the other group from Chicago—when word reached them that their flights had been delayed one hour.  As they only had thirty minutes to make the connection in Houston, this was not good news.

Both groups arrived with two minutes to make the connection (no exaggeration).  Running through the airport, they arrived at the gate after the plane was to depart.  Thankfully, the flight crew held the jet for the frazzled Undergrounders.

Upon arrival in Mexico, we discovered that six of our suitcases did not make the trip.  We are still waiting on those…

But, we are all currently enjoying authentic Mexican food, fellowship with Mexican teenagers who reside at the youth home, and great hospitality from our hosts. 

Spirits are high.  Many are trying to pick up some Spanish phrases.  And, today, we began to aid the VBS program at the city dump.  After the VBS lesson taught by Brigido, our host, we tried to build a rapport with the kids which will aid us in our fellowship with them over the next few days.

Some of the kids were shy, while others chatted away—seemingly unaware that the clueless Americans couldn’t understand a word.  Many of them, though, enjoyed throwing a ball to the teens or watching Wendell’s magic tricks.

Our work has just begun.  This evening, we purchased blankets which we will distribute tomorrow at the city dump.  And, tomorrow afternoon, we will begin the great task of painting the youth home in which we are staying.

Many of the teens have been amazed at the great differences between Indiana and San Luis Potosi.  The experience has already been a rich one—and it’s only just begun.