This week at the White House’s state dinner, President Obama toated India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh with a well-chosen Indian proverb:

The most beautiful things in the universe

are the starry heavens above us

and the feeling of duty within us.

There is profound truth here. God put his beauty and majesty in the skies to awe us, to help us see our place in the bigger picture, and to draw us to him. As Psalm 19 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God.”

God also made us humans with a sense of duty, implying undying values, right and wrong, and a sense of morality and conscience deep within us. As Genesis 1 says, “Male and female he created them. . .in the image of God he created them.”

For these universal truths that God has made known to all peoples and cultures, let us give thanks.

As reported by the Washington Post, the above is the title of a PowerPoint presentation given in June 0f 2007 to medical personnel at Walter Reed Hospital by the Army psychiatrist, Major Nidal M. Hasan, who last week murdered thirteen of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.

When news of this terrorist atrocity first broke, the news media instantly jumped to the conclusion that Hasan’s heinous act arose out of a personal crisis, that the pressure of counseling soldiers who had seen terrible things in Iraq and Afghanistan unbalanced him, that he was a loser in life and was unhappy in love — and that it had nothing to do with Islam or Islamic terrorism.

Then, over the past several days, a very different picture has emerged. Hasan made over twenty contacts with Anwar al Awliki, an Islamic religious leader (now living in Yemen) who inspired two of the 9/11 terrorist bombers; Hasan aggressively preached to patients about Islam instead of doing his medical duties; Hasan compared the 9/11 suicide bombers to a soldier who falls on a hand grenade to save his buddies; and he otherwise made his “Islamist” views known.

And in the PowerPoint mentioned above, Hasan gave a history lesson on the Koranic worldview. Using verses from the Koran (and the example of Muhammad), he made the following points:

• [Slide 11, describing  fatwas, or supposedly authoritative religious rulings, on Muslims’ participation in the U.S. military] (a) “Fatwa [ by] U.S. [Muslim] clerics [are] vague and ambiguous — [suggesting that they are] under duress?” (b) “Non U.S. [Muslim] Scholars issued a Fatwa clearly stating no [to Muslims joining the U.S. military.” (c) “It’s getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.”
• [Slide 12] “Whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell,” as the Koran says in surah (chapter) 4:93.
• [Slide 23] Calls Jews “apes,” “pigs,” and “despised and hated,” as the Koran does in surahs 2:65; 5:60 and 7:166.
• [Slide 35, on the “Jihad-rule of Abrogation”] Describes how the earlier “peaceful” and “self-defense” verses in the Koran were superceded by later “offensive fighting” verses. This slide also mentions, as evidence, that at one point the Islamic Empire stretched from Morocco to China.
• [Slides 42-44] Quotes “verses of the sword” from the Koran: surah 9:05, 1:53, and 9:29.
• [Slide 45] Cites two highly respected Muslim hadith authorities, al-Bukhaari (#2222) and Muslim (#155), on “Offensive Islam [In] the Future” — in which Jesus is supposed to come at the end of the world to “break the cross” (meaning, destroy all churches), “kill the pigs” (meaning, eliminate the Jews), “and abolish the jizyeh” (meaning, to be finished with the Koranic tax imposed on unbelievers in Muslim territories because there are no unbelievers left).
• [Slide 48] “If Muslim groups can convince Muslims that they are fighting for [Allah] against injustices of the ‘infidels; ie: enemies of Islam [i.e., the U.S.!], then Muslims can become a very potent enemy, ie: suicide bombing, etc.”
• [Slide 48] Cites the jihadi slogan: “We love death more than you love life!”
• [Slide 49, the conclusions slide] Hasan’s slideshow ends with these points: (a) “[Allah] expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell.” (b) “Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising), but [Allah] is not.” (c) Hasan puts the following words into a compromising Muslim’s mouth: “I love the Koran and being a Muslim, but I don’t want to live under Islamic rule.” (d) “Fighting to establish an Islamic State to please God, even by force, is condoned by the Islam.” (e) “Muslim soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly. . .”
• [Slide 13] Cites as “adverse events” Hasan Akbar’s grenade-throwing against other U.S. soldiers; Waseef Ali Hassoun’s dessertion in Iraq; and Abdullah William Webster’s refusal to deploy — foreshadowing Hasan’s own future murderous rampage.
• [Slide 50] To avoid future “adverse events,” the Department of Defense “should allow Muslisms [sic] Soldiers the option of being released as ‘Conscientious objectors.’” In other words, Muslim soldiers who have voluntarily signed on with the military should be treated like pacifist Quakers; they should released from active military duty.

Major Hasan didn’t just make all this stuff up. He’s applying a recognized and widely-used form of Islamic jurisprudence to answer a question that is framed in this way: Should Muslims fight for the (unjust) U.S. military against fellow Muslim believers in other countries?

After 9/11, for Hasan to voice or teach any of the points above should have raised red flags. Together, they should have been recognized as very, very dangerous signs. But the Army did nothing effective to intervene. It’s good that President Obama is calling for a full investigation into why these warning signs were ignored and how they can be heeded in the future.

One reason for the failure is political correctness. We’re afraid say or do anything that might offend selected groups, especially Muslims.

Another is that far many Americans are ignorant of or in denial about the “Koranic World View” as described by Major Hasan. For example, in their opinion article “Zero Tolerance” (L.A. Times, 11/12/2009) Judith Miller (of the Manhattan Institute and a Fox News contributor) and David Samuels (a contributing editor of Harper’s Magazine) say:

We are at war, whether we like it or not, with Islamic heretics who argue that their own beliefs supersede traditional Islamic law and that traitors to Islam as they define it should be killed.

Miller and Samuels are very smart people, but in this sentence the authors’ wishful thinking is showing. Tens of millions of Muslims worldwide would laugh in derision at their analysis, knowing that (a) Muhammad spread Islam partly by preaching, and when that didn’t work by intimidation, terror and the sword; (b) Muhammad’s methods are codified and made normative in the Koran; and (c) Muhammad’s immediate followers followed Muhammad’s example. Unfortunately, using violence to spread Islam is very much a part of Islamic tradition — not “heretical,” as Miller and Samuels claim.

Thankfully, many Muslims are law-abiding citizens who have no desire to bring grief to others. Thankfully, many Muslim groups have disavowed Major Hasan’s actions in particular, and using violence in general, to spread their religion. And thankfully, there are Muslims in the U.S. military who are loyal to the U.S. and their units — who see their own role as combatting ruthless extremists and bringing a measure of freedom and justice to Iraq and Afghanistan.  But to make this choice for non-violence can be extraordinarily difficult for them because they find themselves in conflict with a significant portion of their fellow religionists who believe the traditional Koranic worldview legitimates the use of terror and the sword to subjugate non-Muslims and to enforce Islamic rule.

Re: Nev Pierce’s article “Science, emotion clash in ‘Creation’” in the Calendar section of the Los Angeles Times (Sunday, Sept. 6, 2009).*

The new film ‘Creation’ — a drama about the intensely human story of Charles and Emma Darwin torn apart by the death of a daughter and the theory of evolution — will open the Toronto International Film Festival this coming Thursday.

Festival co-producer Cameron Bailey says,

“We just thought ‘Creation’ was a film that spoke to our times. That tension between faith and reason was something we began to see in a number of films, and it crystallized beautifully here, especially in that debate between a husband and wife who happen to see the world in completely different ways. It’s still pressing.”

Indeed. Worldviews-in-conflict are certainly enduringly relevant.

Paul Bettany (the doctor in “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World”), the actor who plays Charles Darwin, calls Darwin

“a fascinating human being…there is this family in crisis. The husband and wife are becoming aliented becase of this dreadful loss they’ve gone through. And it also happens to be about Darwin, who is the the process of killing off God…”

Aye, here’s the rub. Must we be forced to choose between God and science? between love and truth? between faith and reason? Is this an either-or question?

Director John Amiel (”Sommersby,” “Entrapment”) says,

“It’s sad to me that Darwin is considered controversial anywhere, any more than the ideas of Newton or Galileo…I believe that some people will find things to object to, and I hope that some people will be provoked to think harder and deeper about the ideas that are in the film.”

Indeed. Thinking harder and deeper is a good thing. Let’s do that…

For director Amiel, just as Newton and Galileo threw off centuries-old, conventional, religious-based thinking about the cosmos with heliocentrism, so with Darwin.

But there’s a big difference. Newton and Galileo’s theories didn’t attack God himself.

• Galileo: “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” Quoted in Des MacHale, Wisdom (London, 2002).
• “Newton saw a montheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.” Source: Wikipedia (not bombproof, I realize, but when pressed for time, usually a nice shortcut).

However, Darwin’s theory has been used to attack centuries-old, conventional, religious-based thinking about God being responsible for creation itself — in other words, universal truths about God that are completely independent of recent/ancient time, conventional/unconventional styles, or religious/quasi-religious beliefs.

To use a poker analogy, with Newton and Galileo, much less was at stake. It’s relatively easy to make the adjustment from believing in a geocentric universe to a heliocentric one and still have plenty of room for a Divine Creator. But with evolution, the stakes have been raised infinitely: Does Nature alone account for the world as we know it — without any participation from a Divine hand? Some evolutionists, like atheist Richard Dawkins, say Yes. Others, like evangelical Christian and Human Genome head Francis Collins, say No.

So, contra producer Amiel, I don’t think it’s sad that Darwin’s theory is controversial. I expect it because people have different worldview starting-points.

Because different worldview interpretations impinge on Darwinism, controversial Darwinism is and controversial Darwinism will remain.

Thinking harder and deeper about these things, and helping others think through them, is why I wrote The Late Great Ape Debate.

* Note: On the Los Angeles Times’ website, the title for the article has been changed to “‘Creation’ tells of Charles Darwin’s war between science and love.”

Let me preface this post by saying that, by in large, I have enjoyed Woody Allen’s body of work. Like the rest of you, I’ve laughed and laughed at his take on the human condition.

However, his most recent film, “Whatever Works,” is full of bigotry. There’s Smart vs. “Dumb” bigotry, Big City vs. Small Town bigotry, and Northern Snobbishness vs. Supposed-Southern-Lack-of-Culture bigotry.

Oh yes. There’s the mean-spirited bigotry of atheism vs. a shallow, sallow portrait of Christianity. And since that last kind of bigotry directly relates to worldviews, I’d like to expand on it.

Larry David, who stars, gives monologues on his philosophy of life during much of the movie. It’s a message of the meaninglessness of life, the absolute indifference of the universe to human aspirations, and of trying to carve some happiness by “whatever works” for you, so long as it doesn’t hurt anybody. David delivers almost all of these monologues with a smile on his face, as if he’s evangelizing for his worldview. This smile, oddly incongruous, belies his character’s contempt for anybody who doesn’t think like him.

Now, I understand that a lot of humor is based upon stereotypes and perceived stereotypes. I don’t have a problem with that.

And it’s true, there’s a lot in “Jesusland” that’s ripe for ridicule. I don’t have a problem with that.

However, this film is a dishonest pillorying of a “straw man.” The “Christianity” it portrays is a complete farce, hypocritical to the core.

Now I’m not trying to say there aren’t Christian hypocrites, blowhards, flame-throwers and the like. But there are also people who’s lives have been radically altered — for good — by an encounter with Jesus. It would have been nice if the film had allowed just a smidgeon of nuance in this area.

But it didn’t. Instead, it just serves up fundamentalist atheism.

I’m not urging anyone to boycott this movie. This is just a heads-up on the bigotry side of things. If you can stomach it, it will help you understand the mindset of the atheistic/naturalistic/materialistic/this-world-is-all-there-is worldview.

So I’m actually recommending this movie! It just might help viewers see how people like Woody Allen and Larry David view Christians. It’s not pretty; but it is instructive. And hopefully it will give you some empathy for people with that belief system.

Sally Stuart’s Christian Writer’s Marketplace blogspot reports today (Monday, June 22, 2009) that evangelical, catholic and charismatic Anglicans are uniting as a new denomination, the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA).

Some history: The Anglican Church (the Church of England) started with King Henry VIII. The king needed an heir, his queen couldn’t give him a son, so he decided he needed a new wife. Unfortunately for that plan, the Catholic clergy wouldn’t comply. So in the Act of Supremacy, Henry declared himself the head of the state church in England. Problem solved! Sort of.

Theologically, the Anglican Church was birthed in tolerance and compromise (compromise can be a good thing!). It was Catholic in forms and liturgy and Protestant in doctrine. Wherever Englishmen sailed around the world, clergy and missionaries planted Anglican churches, both for Englishmen and for the people of the lands where the British flag flew.

For awhile Anglican churches dotted the landscape of the American colonies. The crown wanted to establish a state church in the colonies — the Anglican Church — as the one and only state-sponsored religion. This was the European model, followed by almost all the European countries. In the end, the colonies revoled against usurptation of their religious freedom (and against taxes without representation!). We fought and won the Revolutionary War and established a country with no state church, but with freedom of religion (and conscience).

This forced Anglicans in the new United States to make some changes. They had to gave up their aspirations to be a state church (with all the perks of state patronage). They also got a new name that woudn’t sound like they were trying to sneak in a state church; they called themselves The Protestant Episcopal Church (later shortened to The Episcopal Church).

In case you’re wondering, “Episcopal” means having bishops oversea geographical areas, as opposed to each congregation being its own boss.

Vigorous Anglican churches were established in Africa, Asia and South America and have been growing well for generations. As a result, the Anglican Communion (the fellowship of Anglican churches, with the Archbishop of Canterbury as their titular head) is an ethnically diverse, vibrant community indeed.

But in the United States, for the past few decades the Episcopal Church (also part of the worldwide Anglican Communion) has been getting more and more “liberal” and less and less tolerant of historic Christian understandings. As a result, “conservative” groups have been leaving the Episcopal Church, each with its own particular reason for leaving.

The reasons have varied: scriptural authority; women’s ordination; homosexuality; ordaining homosexuals. Sometimes the churches left alone, sometimes in groups; sometimes to establish new denominations, sometimes to recruit theologically orthodox bishops from Africa or Asia because their own bishops were so hostile to their concerns.

The churches that left ECUSA would say that they stayed true to the original Anglican idea, but the ECUSA left them.

Until recently, these groups have been unable to unite. However, the new ACNA denomination is setting aside differences that have splintered them in the past. Soon it hopes to eventually have its own bishop and be recognized as a legitimate partner in the world-wide Anglican communion.

Some worldviews thinking: If you look at things from a worldviews perspective, it’s clear that the controversies facing the ECUSA are far bigger than whatever the hot-button doctrinal issues grab the headlines. For some time, major figures in the ECUSA, like Bishop John Spong, have been publicly denying every point in the Apostles’ Creed, starting with (incredibly enough) the existence of God!

In other words, if your starting point is anti-theism (as with Spong), nothing else that’s uniquely Christian (like Christ dying for our sins) will make any sense. Spong’s religion (whatever it is) has all the Christian trimmings (liturgy, robes, words), but denies the heart of biblical worldview — and the heart of the gospel.

Science or God? Evolution or creation? Is it an either-or proposition?

Very often it has been either-or as played out in the culture wars.

However, in this 150th anniversary year of Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species, National Public Radio has done some interesting work.

Under “Darwin Finds Some Followers In The Pulpits” by Barbara Bradley Hagerty (2/11/2009)the author follows the controversy as it is playing out:

• in The Evolution Weekend, in which clergy sign a statement affirm that believe in science and God don’t have to be contradictory, or self-contradictory;
• in Jewish responses to The Evolution Weekend; and
• among Bible Belt oilfield workers who go to conservative, Bible-believing churches and who are confronted with geologic timescales every day in their oil exploration and production.

This is all pretty fascinating, partly because I just wrote a book on the creation-evolution controversy called The Late Great Ape Debate.

Say, I’m wondering: Do you have an opinion on all this that you’d like to share here on this blog?

Abortion is bad.

But the rhetoric of calling abortionists “murderers” leads to hatred, lawlessness, terrorism and murder — as shown by the recent assassination of Dr. George R. Tiller (in a church worship service) by a “pro-life” anti-abortionist.

It also plays into the worldview of those who believe that religion (particularly one-Godism) is inherently intolerant and naturally leads to violence.

The pro-life movement needs to take a long, hard look at itself and its rhetoric. It often claims to be working within the biblical worldview. But when abortion is equated with murder, as has not been uncommon in the pro-life movement, it creates a climate in which abortionists are dehumanized and demonized. Indirecly, it is incitement to terrorism.

Language is powerful. Rhetoric has consequences. Recognizing this truth must be part of responsibly working out the implications of a biblical worldview.

Everyone who is concerned for the biblical worldview should read Jon Meacham’s “The End of Christian America” (Newsweek, April 13, 2009 issue) and “Faith Isn’t Under Fire: The difference between Christianity and ‘Christian America’” (April 8, 2009).

While you’re at it,  you should read Tim Graham of the Media Research Center’s rebuttal in “Newsweek Editor Welcomes Easter with ‘The End of Christian America’” (April 5, 2009).

Meacham, the editor-in-chief of Newsweek Magazine, former Newsweek religion editor, considered this subject too important to leave to an underling.

Meacham is not arguing that Christianity itself is disintegrating in America; he’s arguing that the political idea of conservatives and many evangelicals of a “Christian America” — in which the government supports things like school prayer, outlaws abortion and mandates the teaching of creationism in public schools — is on the way out.

Meacham brings in polling, history and Christian thought into the aritcle. The germ of the article comes from a poll on American’s self-identified religious affiliations. Meacham has some insightful comments about the history of the term “post-Christian.” He talks about Augustine’s City of God and how the kingdoms of this world can never be equated with the kingdom of God. And he talks about the American experiment in which there is no firm “wall of separation” between church and state, but a continuous ebb and flow. He also reminds us that America’s founders valued freedom of conscience very highly.

Like I said, I think every Christian ought to read Meacham’s thoughtful article. And before anybody panics and thinks we’ve dropped off the edge, I’d like to remind us all that Christian faith itself arose in a polytheistic, pluralistic, relatively “tolerant” Greco-Roman milleu — and, despite waves of fierce persecution, did just fine in that environment.

So — what do you think of Meacham’s article?

Recently Ashley Judd has taken on Sarah Palin for encouraging the shooting of wolves in Alaska — from airplanes! She even offered a $150 bounty for the animals’ left foreleg, although a judge struck that decree down.

For background information, see Mark Benjamin’s article “Her deadly wolf program” at Salon.com and Ashley Judd’s video ad at Newsweek’s http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/09/08/sarah_palin_wolves.

From a biblical worldview standpoint, aerial shooting of wolves is atrocious. Whatever justification might be brought forth — such as wolves killing domestic animals and causing economic harm; or people have always hunted; or the right to bear firearms and use them hunting — must be subjugated to a higher and more authoritative mandate.

What is that mandate? Stewardship of the Earth. In the first chapter of Genesis, God places men and women, who are made “in God’s image,” as his agents or vice-regents on the Earth. He tells the man and the woman to rule over or take dominion over (Hebrew: mashal) the created order. By no means can that mean to rape and plunder the Earth with no concern or care for it.

A little later in Genesis (chapter 2), the man is told to “work” it (Hebrew: abad) the garden and to “tend,” “care for” or “watch over” (Hebrew: shamar) it. The Earth is our home, our “garden.” We need to work it, tend it, care for it, and watch over it. We can’t just unthinkingly trash it, pollute it, and subject it to harm.

It also implies that we need to act toward the creation with some compassion and respect. We can’t act on the environment with reckless abandon or cruelty.

Psalm 24 says, “The Earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof.” What resources we use, we borrow from the Earth and, consequently, from God. Therefore, we must think about future generations, not just our own.

It follows, then, that Christians who claim they believe the biblical worldview must (in some sense) be environmentalists. That doesn’t mean we will agree on how to address every environmental issue. People will argue about how to rationally and prudently achieve stewardship goals.

But it does mean that we must take seriously the commission God has given humans to steward and take care of the land and the creatures in the Earth that populate the planet with us.

Unfortunately, shooting wolves from airplanes doesn’t qualify as compassionate or rational stewardship. Sarah Palin doesn’t understand this basic biblical worldview fact.

As Christians and as environmentalists, we need to be concerned about wildlife in general, including wolves specifically. Wolves are predators, but that doesn’t make them bad. They’re just acting according to their natures; they’re doing what wolves are designed to do.

(For example, do good research on the wolf population, rather than act prejudicially against them. If the good research shows that wolf population must be thinned out, at least give the wolves a fighting chance. Make the hunters put some boots on and get out of their vehicles. And outlaw hunting wolves from airplanes, for crying ut loud!)

I’m not suggesting that humans have no privileged place on this planet; as creatures made in the image of God, and as supposedly rational, we clearly do.

I’m also not suggesting that animal interests must always trump human interests (as they seem to with some environmentalists). However, we do need to consider that animal interests may very well coincide with our own.

I’m arguing for biblical stewardship, rational balance of interests and avoiding cruelty. That shouldn’t be too much to ask.

On February 25, 2009, in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, by unanimous ruling the United States Supreme Court decided that the placement of a monument to the Ten Commandments did not require the Pleasant Grove City to erect monuments to other religions.

The case arose because followers of the Summum religion have proposed that monuments inscribed with the Summum’s Seven Aphorisms be erected next to Ten Commandments monuments.

This raises two significant issues:

• Regarding worldviews, what is the Summum religion about? and
• Regarding the First Amendment of the Constitution, do all religions deserve absolute equality in the public sphere?

Let’s take the first issue first. The Summum religion was begun in 1975 by Claude “Corky” Nowell’s claimed encounter with “Summum (higher) individuals” who presented a body of knowledge to him about the nature of creation. Nowell subsequently changed his name to Summum Bonum Amon Ra. Summum Bonum is Latin for “highest good;” Amon Ra is in reference to the Egyptian sun god.

Nowell/Ra alleges that Summum’s Seven Aphorisms were a “higher law” revealed to Moses from a divine being (a Summum individual?) in the first tablet of laws. The Israelite people weren’t ready to receive them because their minds weren’t open, so Moses broke the tablet and then received a “lower law,” the Ten Commandments. The higher law then was only revealed to a few select individuals (elite knowers) who were able to comprehend it.

The Seven Aphorisms are:

1. SUMMUM is MIND; the universe is a mental creation.
2. As above, so below; as below, so above.
3. Nothing rests; everything moves; everything vibrates.
4. Everything is dual; everything has an opposing point; everything has its pair of opposites; like and unlike are the same; opposites are identical in nature, but different in degree; extremes bond; all truths are but partial truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled.
5. Everything flows out and in; everything has its season; all things rise and fall; the pendulum swing expresses itself in everything; the measure of the swing to the right is the measure of the swing to the left; rhythm compensates.
6. Every cause has its effect; every effect has its cause; everything happens according to Law; Chance is just a name for Law not recognized; there are many fields of causation, but nothing escapes the Law of Destiny.
7. Gender is in everything; everything has its masculine and feminine principles; Gender manifests on all levels.

This new religious sect melds wine, sexuality and meditation.

Here’s a little worldview quiz:

• Which religious/philosophical worldview does Summum represent?
• How does it compare and contrast with the biblical worldview?