After a long awaited delay, InterHigh Monthly XI is finally here!  We are proud to have Worldview Academy’s Bill Jack to be our speaker.  Come join us as we listen to Bill Jack speak on worldview topics over two sessions.

Bill Jack, faculty advisor for Worldview Academy, spent ten years as an educator in the public schools. We was a national representative for the Caleb Campaign, and a contributing editor for Issues & Answers. He has appeared on national radio and television programs. Students nationwide have learned from Bill at conference sponsored by the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI), and Answers in Genesis. He is the producer of several videos including “Simple Tools for Brain Surgery.” Bill and his wife, Tabby live in Colorado with their children.

Date: May 21, 2011 (Saturday)

Time: 5-9PM (Dinner is provided)

Location: 2000 North Loop Rd., Alameda, CA (Gracepoint Church)

Costs: Free!

Matt Newton and Tim Morgan rode in Matt’s Ford Tempo, traveling the L.A.-area freeways to rescue a friend with car trouble. It was an early November evening, just dark enough to need headlights.

“All of a sudden, there was a crash,” Tim said. “We were sliding down the freeway. It was like a movie scene. Glass was flying. Tires squealed. The whole thing probably lasted only five seconds, but it seemed longer. When the car came to a stop, I was O.K., but I couldn’t get out. I looked over at Matt, who was driving. His face was gory, like a big piece of hamburger meat.”

Headlights revealed–too late–an unhitched 22-foot trailer stretched across two lanes of 57 Freeway. Matt’s swerve didn’t clear the trailer, and it came crashing down on the car, crushing his face and arm. A witness called 911. “No one’s moving in the car,” he said. “Get here soon. This is horrible.” Thirty critical minutes ticked by as rescue workers cut through the mangled metal to pull Matt and Tim out of the wreckage. When they did, Matt wasn’t breathing.

Click the Link to find out how Matt Newton could one day say: “Life is beautiful”.

Let us know in the comments what you think.

A while back on BreakPoint, I talked about a teenager who attended a worldview training camp run by Summit Ministries. The young man complained, tongue in cheek, that worldview training had “ruined” movie watching for him. He could not longer watch films without automatically searching for the worldview messages.

That’s great news: The whole point of worldview training is to “ruin” attempts to convince teenagers that any worldview conforms to reality better than Christianity does.

See the rest of the article here: Worldview Training for Children

As promised, this is Part 2! See Part 1 if you haven’t:
“Manhattan Declaration: Freedom of Speech or Expression? Part I”

I had a chance to read some of the blog comments discussing the Manhattan Declaration exclusion. I was quite frustrated at some of the invalid accusations, illogical arguments, and how many often spoke out of emotion rather than fact. But I was also quite delighted to find commentors who used sound logic to refute some of the critical bashing directed towards Christians and those in defense of the Manhattan Declaration. Not all of these are done with tact and could be written better, but it does give us a sense of confidence that sound logic is always more persuasive and compelling. Also it is encouraging to know that despite the differing values of our culture, we can be persuasive and compelling as long as we are willing to put the work of thinking things through and develop our minds.

Hope you find these intellectually stimulating…
Note that all the names were replaced with “users”.
I’ve bolded a few good statements.

Here are some comments groups excerpted :

Intolerant of the Intolerant

User A: “Bigotry? Self-righteousness? Did you even bother to read what they’re saying? This group simply feels strongly about how marriage and family should be defined and they are trying to connect with people that agree with them and are trying to promote their message. Bigotry and hatred have nothing to do with this. If someone feels that homosexuality is wrong, they absolutely have a right to believe that and this is in NO WAY “hatred” or “bigotry.” it’s called an “opinion” and in this free country… each person has a right to his or her opinion. It saddens me that people who throw around words like “tolerance” choose to be intolerant of people who have beliefs different from their own. Only someone woefully undereducated would suggest that “believing that homosexuality is a sin” is equal to “showing hatred toward homosexuals.” I would suggest such people look up words like “hatred” and “bigotry” in the dictionary before attempting to use them.”

User B: “so, you’re saying that the tolerant are intolerant since they are not tolerant of intolerance – interesting point . . .”

User C: “No hes saying that you can’t call yourself tolerant, then try to impose your opinion on everyone, and throw a sissy fit and call people self-righteous bigots just because they don’t share the same opinion as you.”

Again everyone has different opinions on what is tolerant, not tolerant, acceptable, not acceptable. If someone thinks homosexuality is a sin, that doesn’t mean they’re intolerant, just like one isn’t intolerant if they think murder is a sin.”

Non-Existence of God is a Fact! Really?

User A: “Apple can do what it wants – it’s their app store.
However, would they do the same if this were an Atheist group promoting their belief system?”

User B: “Atheism is NOT a belief system. The non-existence of God is a fact, unless proven otherwise…”

User C: “That is not a true statement…you cannot prove beyond doubt that there is not a God, just like a Christian cannot prove beyond doubt that there is a God. That IS why it’s called Faith. Which, by the way, we all have. We all have faith in SOMETHING…not everything in life is empirical and provable…”

User D (in response to User B): “Wrong. That is flawed logic. You’ve been reading too much Stephen Hawking. The non-existence of anyone cannot be considered fact unless proven otherwise. If that was the case, I do not exist unless I can prove to everyone that I do. The possibility of someone’s existence must be weighed equally and proven either way, there is no default.

If I met someone named John Sanders, and I know that was his name, I know for a fact that he exists, however I cannot prove to anyone that he exists. Opinion, perspective, and limited knowledge (which is what we all have) cannot define fact.”

Immoral vs. Hate Mongering

User A: “Look at their response “We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct.”.

Their wording states that they consider homosexuality “immoral conduct”. If you call a group of people “immoral”, to me that is hate-mongering.

BTW, I am a heterosexual married male with a young son, of one-time Christian belief. If he determines that he is gay, I will continue to love him, and stand with him in all things. I would never consider him “immoral” because of it.”

User B: “The word immoral means unchaste. These people view homosexual practice the same way they view unchastity or infidelity. There is a basic difference in fundamental beliefs here that will never be breached. If someone is cheating on his wife, by my beliefs, that is immoral. If someone cheats on a test, that is dishonest by my beliefs. That is simply defining and describing. That is not hate-mongering. In face, your tone is more hateful than that of the paragraph in the article.

The belief that there is a right and a wrong is widespread, although there are differences in specifics. Believing that some things are simply wrong, or immoral, does not exclude the possibility to love and respect people. The perspective of morality (right and wrong) laid out in the Bible has been around for thousands of years – right and wrong do not change. The United States was built on that concept, and only recently has it come under very heavy attack. Regardless of the opinion of society, it stands firm.

If your son is a kleptomaniac, will you support him stealing things? Or will you still love him and help him understand that stealing is wrong and that desire should be resisted? That is the law of the land. Homosexual behavior is against the law of God, and those who believe in that law should not be attacked for respectfully supporting it.”

User C: “Nonsense…
‘Immoral’ means “we’re better than you” to these types.
Its time to stop pretending that these attitudes are harmless.
These people are a direct cause of the epidemic of gay teen suicides, and are nothing but hate speech, which is NOT protected. Particularly on a private forum such as the app store.”

User D: “GQB, you have that completely wrong. Did you read the excerpt? You say:

‘Immoral’ means “we’re better than you” to these types.

but in the quoted passage, they say:

We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives.

How do you read “we’re better than you” when given the words “We, no less than they, are sinners”? Looks like a direct incompatibility between the logic you are trying to impose here, and the actual words they used. Or more likely a reading comprehension problem on your part.”

User E: “Stealing is against the law. Would I still love my son? Yes. And I would stand by him before, during and after any punishment that was instituted.

Homosexuality is not against the law. It is in the law of your god.

Should the extreme followers of Islam, that are calling for Jihad and the killing of non-believers, be allowed an App in the App Store espousing such? To their god, it is law, or at least allowable. To the law of the land, it is not.”

User D (in response to User E):

“Homosexuality is not against the law. It is in the law of your god.”

Exactly, so why don’t you respect the beliefs of others?

“Should the extreme followers of Islam, that are calling for Jihad and the killing of non-believers, be allowed an App in the App Store espousing such?”

They’re condoning violence and hate, so no. Read their defense:
“We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity;”

“Equal dignity”

They respect your belief, and still believe you are a human being of equal dignity, they just believe what you do is wrong. Me and you may disagree with them but that doesn’t give us the right treat them with any less dignity than they deserve, and they deserve their right to free speech. In a way they are more tolerant of gays, than you are of them.”

Freedom of Speech Goes Both ways

User A: “I am in total agreement with the pulling of this APP. As a heterosexual male, married, with children, a Christian church goer, and of course a flyfisherman, this drivel is not for my Mac,iPad,iPhone nor household. The wording is just tooooooooooooooo judgmental in tone and verse. My App store should not be a place for bigotry, self-righteousness, nor religious litmus testing.”

User B: “Sounds a whole lot like you are being a bigot and self-righteous towards those who are bigots and self-righteous.”

User C: “Yeah buddy, tolerance goes both ways. While I support gay marriage I also support free speech, one of the principles our nation was founded on. Who are you, apple, or anyone to determine what people should and should not be allowed to read on a platform as large as iOS? If you don’t want the app, fine, DON’T DOWNLOAD IT, I won’t be either, but by not respecting the views of others, your just as intolerant of others opinions as this App is. Read what they said “We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity.” Sounds like your the self-righteous bigot for thinking your opinion should be imposed on everyone, and those who disagree should be silenced…”

User D: “I agree. As a gay Hispanic male, there are things out there that are highly offensive to me and are aimed at me for either being gay or Hispanic. Regardless of that, I respect their right to free speech. All speech. In doing so, we gaurantee that it lives on.”

User E: “Their defense:
“we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity”

They may belief what you do is immoral, but they respect your decision as a human being of equal dignity.

Your argument:
“My App store should not be a place for bigotry, self-righteousness, nor religious litmus testing.”

YOUR app store? Who’s self-righteous again? Tolerance goes both ways, and your the bigot if you think they should be denied they’re first amendment right just for disagreeing with you.”

User F: “I don’t see what they are saying as bigoted. I might not agree with them but there is a big difference between not agreeing and bigotry. That seems to be the card that the gay community plays: if you don’t agree with me, you are bigoted. Nonsense. Nobody is requiring anyone to get or read the app. I never even heard of it till now. Once Apple starts censoring, where will it end? Not good when Apple caves in to special interest groups – it shows Apple’s “bigotry.””

Burden of Proof is on the Believer?

User A: “by your logic, there is an invisible naked man under your bed at this very second. I mean, you have to prove that he’s not there, right? And there is also a teapot orbiting Mars. After all, no-one has proven that there is NO teapot orbiting Mars!

You will quickly understand that the correct way to go about this, is for people to prove the existence of the person/thing they think exists, instead of proving that it does not exist. I mean, how do you prove that there are no UFOs? Or Loch Ness monster? Sure, your could comb the lake for the next ten years, but people could still say that “Nessie is just really good at hiding”. You can’t really prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the believers.

Besides, we are all atheists. Some of us just go one god further.”

User B:
“User A:
There are gaps in your logic. Here are a few of the issues:

1. We’re not talking about Russell’s teapot or any other being among beings. All Christians (and Muslims and Jews) agree that God is the very source and sustenance of being. Thus, the comparison to a teapot orbiting Mars is silly and non analogous and a straw man argument. Want to see what professional contemporary philosophers think of Russell’s teapot? Do a search for “Maverick Philosopher teapot” or “Ed Feser teapot”

2. We’re not all “atheist” in regards to Zeus, Poseiden or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I’m a Christian in regards to each of them. It’s not that I have beliefs about their non-existence (positive atheism in their regard), but that I have Christian beliefs that rule out their possibility, just as your atheistic worldview rules out their possibility without you ever considering the evidence or lack thereof.

3. Those claiming that atheism is not a belief system need to catch up on their science The cognitive science of religion has made leaps over the past few years, including showing rather clearly that we all have metaphysical beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a god. You may want to see the work of Justin Barrett in this regard. We all have belief structures related to these topics, and these belief structures form worldviews that affect our ethical decisions, metaphysical assumptions and all sorts of daily decisions. Beliefs concerning the existence of a god factor into all sorts of other beliefs that you have, and form your belief system. Claiming that atheism is merely the “lack of belief” in a god does divert defending the burden of proof for their metaphysical claims, but goes against our growing scientific knowledge of cognitive belief structures.

Your comment parrots typical cliches that have become far too common after Dawkins TGD, but I would suggest you keep searching for better answers and dont become satisfied with (bad) cliches. Study, research and consider all of the options. Personally, this led me away from agnosticism into Christian faith (with the help of the Holy Spirit), but you may not end up where I am. Regardless, keep an open mind and keep seeking the truth.”

I hope that was helpful. Reading the back and forth discussions can really give us a better sense of what is a good way (or bad way) to approach a debate. I hope you found it intellectually stimulating as well as encouraging.

• Did you find any arguments good? bad?
• What stood out to you?
• What is your stance on this matter?

Let us know your thoughts on the matter below

Near the end of last year, Apple pulled an app called the Manhattan Declaration from the iTunes store after 7,000 signature was gathered saying the content was anti-gay and hate-mongering. The Manhattan Declaration is a 4000+ word statement of beliefs signed by 400,000+ people calling people to a Christian conscience.

A spokesperson for the Christian Organization tried to appeal the decision with the following statement:

“We’re making the argument that if [Jobs] would take a look at the Manhattan Declaration himself, he’d see it’s not written with any rancor. It’s written on a very even keel,” said Farmer. “It’s just appealing to things that people want to come together on, that millions of Americans agree on.”

Here is an excerpt from the Manhattan Declaration:

“We acknowledge that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorous conduct and relationships, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct. We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity; and we pay tribute to the men and women who strive, often with little assistance, to resist the temptation to yield to desires that they, no less than we, regard as wayward. We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives.”

Comment from Breakpoint about the Changing Definition of “Freedom of Speech”

“I remember the days when the term “freedom of speech” referred to, well, actual speech.

Of course, it’s come to mean “freedom of expression.” That is to say, an artist can claim a constitutionally protected right to display a picture of a crucifix in a jar of urine. Or pornographers can claim free speech by peddling obscene pictures over the internet or in a magazine.

Such expression is, of course, protected by law. We don’t even argue about it anymore. But while restrictions on expression are vanishing, how is it that restrictions on actual speech in the public square are increasing?

One obvious case in point is Apple’s decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration app from its iTunes app store. Apple has decided that the document, which uses civil and biblical language to declare that marriage should be reserved to one man and one woman, constitutes the equivalent of hate speech.

We do not live in a truly free, liberal democracy when a major corporation like Apple, which controls so much of the information flow in our society, can seek to control the great moral debates of our age by simply denying access to one side of the debate.

It’s true, if government seeks to censor, say, a newspaper or a magazine, all kinds of lawsuits are sure to follow. But private censorship of free speech can be just as deadly; even more so. And this, I fear, is what is happening in American life today.

Now, in banning the Manhattan Declaration app, Apple decided to bend to the wishes of a small but very vocal group of homosexual-rights activists. But don’t think those activists will stop at the Manhattan Declaration. They are on the lookout for any organization that dares to oppose so-called “same-sex marriage.” Just last week, homosexual bloggers squawked that the Pennsylvania Family Institute was sponsoring what they called an “anti-gay,” “anti-equality” conference; and worse yet, that a prominent food chain, Chick-fil-A, was a co-sponsor. Of course, the conference was no such thing. The conference’s title is “The Art of Marriage, Getting to God’s Design.”

I happen to know the founder of Chick-fil-A-Truett Cathy-a wonderful, outstanding Christian businessman. Why should they be bashed for supporting a good thing-promoting healthy marriages?

More and more, the forces of political correctness and intolerance are seeking to ban Christian beliefs and Christian speech from the public square. And they are targeting corporations and the media to enforce stringent sanctions against what they deem to be politically incorrect speech.

And that’s why we’re not going to give up on defending our right to speak freely and civilly to the important moral, ethical, and political issues facing our society. As I talk about on today’s Two Minute Warning, we must embrace the Christian virtue of perseverance. Because we are in for a long, hard struggle. And the forces of political correctness are counting on Christians to back down, give up, retreat to the pews or the monasteries. Well I, for one refuse to do that…”

Power of Sound Logic & Argument

In part 2 of this post (coming soon), I’ve excerpted numerous back and forth debates on this issue from various commenters from different blogs. The arguments are interesting to read as we get a good snapshot of how people tend to attack without facts or basis and simply appeal to emotion. Fortunately there are also commenters who do use logic and reason as they refute some of the critical bashing directed towards Christians and other believers. I find it to be intellectually stimulating and even delightful. So stay tuned.

Meanwhile.

• What is your opinion on this matter?
• Do you think the Manhatten Declaration should be considered hate language?
• Do you think corporations have the right to keep them out?
• Is it a matter of Freedom of Speech or is it not?
• Did you know “commentor” is not a word. It’s “commenter”.

Let us know your thoughts below

The book, titled The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism describes the kinds of questions newcomers—mostly highly-educated twenty-somethings—fire at Keller:

• Why would a good God allow suffering?
• Hasn’t science disproved Christianity?
• Why would a loving God send people to hell?
• And isn’t it arrogant for Christians to claim that their faith is the only route to God?”

If you’re interested in finding out more click here to read the aticle from Break Point by Chuck Colson.

Renowned British journalist Malcolm Muggeridge once said that all news is nothing more than new people experiencing old things. Things may appear new, but that hardly means they really are new. So, is there really anything new about the “New Atheists”? Surprisingly, none of the New Atheists have uncovered any fresh scientific, philosophical, or historical truths that undermine Christianity. It’s all old news. In fact, most of their arguments are recycled from older atheists such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud.

Ironically, one of the reasons the New Atheists have lashed out so aggressively is because atheism is losing the rational higher ground. In the 1960s it may have seemed acceptable to argue that religious faith is blind. The cover of a 1966 Time magazine story captured the prevailing attitude of the time: “Is God Dead?” Yet, as philosopher William Lane Craig has observed in a cover story for Christianity Today, news of God’s death was premature. In fact, says Craig, “atheism, though perhaps still the dominant viewpoint at the American university, is a philosophy in retreat.” This trend was powerfully portrayed by the recent conversion of Antony Flew, one of the most influential atheists over the past five decades. In his book Why There Is A God, Flew cites the burgeoning scientific evidence for a divine intelligence as the prime reason for his change of mind.

Click here to read more.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen! This is the southbound train to San Jose, and this is the Davis stop. We have a packed train today, so please find a seat as soon as possible.

Yes—it sure was crowded indeed, and with three bags and not enough hands, as well as three boys whom I had to keep an eye on, it was a nightmare trying to find seats last Friday on the Amtrak train.

Finally, we found seats at the end of the train and I found myself facing a pleasant looking lady with a binder, backpack, and Greek salad sprawled out about her.

“I’m sorry, but may I sit here?”

“Oh of course!”

And she hastened to make room for me in the seat beside her. After a few seconds, a conversation quickly snow balled and introductions were soon made. I learned that she was a UC Davis student who was traveling home to visit her younger sister for her birthday, and I explained that I was traveling to the Bay Area for my youth group and that my dad was a pastor. Fifteen minutes after leaving Davis, I realized that we were still talking at about 100 miles an hour, and we discovered that we were both extreme extroverts. One topic led to another, until I felt led to ask her:

“May I ask what religion your family practices?”

“Oh, my family is Greek Orthodox, but we’re not very devout even though my whole family has been baptized.”

Our conversation continued to unravel, and we began expounding on the topic of religion, and I found that she had many questions regarding Christianity and life. She began by asking,

“What do you think of the creation of the world? Do you believe in evolution? Or the Big Bang theory? Or a mixture of both?”

“Well, there are two different types of evolution argued by scientists—macro-evolution and micro-evolution. I do not believe in macro-evolution, which is the evolution of entire species forming from another species, like humans from monkeys. However, I believe in micro-evolution, which is the change of characteristics within a given species. I do believe that God the Creator created everything. I do not believe that everything came into existence on accident.”

“Now upon what basis do you believe that?”

“Well, let’s say everything did come from a single amino acid, as many evolutionists claim. Where did that single amino acid come from? It had to have come from somewhere! Furthermore, the factors of which life can exist, for example, the placement of our solar system within the spirals of our galaxy, or the placement of our planet Earth within just our solar system, is so perfectly set for sustaining life that there is no way it could have come about by chance. There are so many different factors that even if one was slightly changed, life could not exist. The number is so great that it is 1 followed by so many zeroes it could cover entire sets of encyclopedias!”

“Yes, that is true…”

“I honestly think that it takes greater faith to believe that life is all an accident and is meaningless than to have faith in a God who created everything and is orchestrating everything behind the scenes.”

“Now that is an interesting statement! Wow….” And here I could just see the clog works of her mind churning and she seemed to be lost in thought. After a few moments, she turned to me again and said,

“So you think that everything is done for a reason? You think God has everything planned? Because then why did God create bad?!? And isn’t God just controlling us like puppets, then?”

“No, God did not create bad.”

“He did—he created Satan, didn’t he?”

“Yes he did, but he did not create bad. He created Satan, but Satan chose to do bad. God creates good things that turn bad. God created us humans to do good, but he also gave us free will and the choice to make out own decisions, which was his ultimate proclamation of love. He didn’t strap us to chairs and tell us what to do. So no, he is not controlling us. Hence the reason why evil continues to exist in the world.”

“Then what do you think is the purpose of life? Why did God even create us if we’re not going to even do what he intended? What is the purpose of going through all the suffering of this world? Why do we have to?”

“Well, let’s say we were all perfect creatures, and we were all just with God in heaven for all eternity, without ever experiencing life here on earth. We didn’t do anything wrong, and we all lived in harmony and glory. God would not have the chance to show us how great his love is for us—we would have no opportunity to come to him, to have a relationship with him, because we wouldn’t need him at all. I believe the purpose of life is to come closer to him through a relationship.”

“Then if God really does love us, why does he allow suffering?” She shared with me how one of her younger sisters had gone through a serious disease several years back which had almost caused her to lose her sister, and the question of her sister’s suffering had troubled her for so long.

“Well, through suffering, we are able to come closer to God. If everything was going fine and dandy, how would we grow closer to him? It is through suffering and pain, we are able to grow and get closer to him. Just as in relationships, hard times evoke the strongest points in relationships in which both grow, so does suffering bring us closer to God. Now, God does not wish pain and suffering upon us. But, he allows it to happen, because he wants what is best for us.”

“Yeah, that is true…” And she explained to me how she realized even within her own family and within her own sister’s life, there had been so much growth and strength which grew from that hard time. She grew silent for a time, and after a few moments turned to me once again and said,

“So then if God knew all this…all this evil was going to happen in the world, then why didn’t he just send Jesus into the world before? Why did he wait so long?”

“Well, God is a merciful God, and in the Old Testament you can see how many times he tried over and over again to bring his people back through prophets like Jonah did for Ninevah. God knew all along that Jesus was going to have to come and save us from our sins, but he still wanted to give us a chance. But, in his perfect timing and will, his plan unfolded.”

“So you think there is a reason for everything? You really think there has been a plan all along? Because I have a really hard time believing that all things—all aspects of life past and present relate together.”

“Yes, I do. I think we all have an omnipotent, omniscient, and loving God who has a master plan in which we all fit.”

“Yeah, I guess….like I think this talk with you was planned. See, I just barely missed the earlier train…by one minute. If I had made it onto that train, I wouldn’t be here right now talking to you…” she chuckled, “Maybe he wanted me to talk to you today…”

Wow! Hearing her say that blew my own mind away! The fact was I had almost gone on the next later train to the Bay Area, and if I had, I would not be sitting there in Car 1 of the southbound train talking to this precious soul. And it hit me so afresh that, wow, God really does have a reason for everything!

By that time, we had reached her final destination, and as she prepared to leave, I gave her a resource which I myself found very helpful—a lecture by Rob Bell called “Everything Is Spiritual” which I hoped would help her understand the supremacy and sovereignty of God in our world and how much he desires that in our lives. As she left the train, I silently prayed for this precious creation of God to open her heart and engage in a personal relationship with the Creator God of the universe who loved her so much!

As I sat back and breathed deeply after such a long conversation (well over an hour!), I was so thankful for the kind of training I have received through Interhigh and other worldview and apologetics training!! I also could not helping thinking what a great God we serve—a God who can use even the young to further His Kingdom and who is a faithful God in control of all things.

Soli Deo gloria!

“We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.” 2 Corinthians 10:5

It’s a short story about Chris who went to a worldview training camp and suddenly saw movies in a new light! It’s a fast read but very interesting! Hope it encourages you to pursue more worldview training!

Here is an excerpt:

“A few years ago, a teenager named Chris attended a worldview training program run by Summit Ministries. He learned a great deal and had a great time. But by the end of the intensive, two-week program, he was exhausted.

As Chris wrote to John Stonestreet, executive director of Summit, “I had never had to think so hard…before in my life! So I decided I was just going to veg out for the next few days.”

When some friends invited Chris to a movie, he thought it would be a good way to relax and recover from all that hard thinking. They went to see the latest version of War of the Worlds.

But the film wasn’t the mental vacation Chris expected it to be. As he explained in his letter, “Mr. Stonestreet, I tried to veg out during the movie, but I just couldn’t. I am watching it and thinking, ‘Wait a minute, that’s secular humanism, and wait a minute, that’s not true. And, what do they mean by that, and how do they know that’s true!’”

Chris then joked, “I just wanted you to know that you ruined my movie!”

After the film ended, Chris and his friends went out for food and talked about the themes in the movie. His friends were astonished at how much Chris had gotten out of the film. As he told Stonestreet, “They kept asking me, ‘How did you see that? How do you know all that stuff?’ It was a great conversation. And I [learned] I can’t just turn this worldview thing off!”’….

Read the rest of the story here: Can’t Turn This Worldview Thing Off

I highly encourage you to make the most of this summer to participate in some kind of worldview training, if you have not done so already!

• Can you think of any other movies that made you go “wait a minute…” in terms of the worldview it presents?

If you’re like me when I was a teen, you have dreams of hang-gliding in the Grand Canyon or becoming a successful lawyer/musician/whatever. You probably have a list of things you really want to accomplish before you “kick the bucket” and die. But when my pastor pointed out how self-focused a lot of these bucket lists are, especially when this dying world needs salvation, I realized that my ultimate wish list was really selfish.  

In the video below, Francis Chan, pastor of Cornerstone Church, challenges Christians in America to pray the prayer of Agur in Proverbs 30:7-9:

⁷ “Two things I ask of you, O LORD;
do not refuse me before I die:

⁸ Keep falsehood and lies far from me;
give me neither poverty nor riches,
but give me only my daily bread.

⁹ Otherwise, I may have too much and disown you
and say, ‘Who is the LORD?’
Or I may become poor and steal,
and so dishonor the name of my God.

This prayer was like an ancient Hebrew bucket list! But instead of self-indulgent entertainment or a successful career, Agur was asking God for truth in his life and only his basic necessities, lest he dishonor God. I committed to making this noble bucket list my own: to desire no deception in my words and actions and to live with “just enough” to get by, for the sake of depending on God.

To “keep falsehood and lies far from me,” I have had to examine how I put up a lot of masks in front of people and pretend to be someone I’m not. This deception includes how I avoid admitting my sin, easily blame and criticize others, and consequently think I’m a pretty good person. Though these were deeply ingrained habits, as I prayed for this earnestly and meditated on the Bible, God has helped me to recognize my falsehood more readily and to turn from it by confessing to other Christians and taking responsibility for my sins. Through this practice, I have been able to experience forgiveness and peace from God.

To receive “neither poverty nor riches, but…only my daily bread,” I have had to take two stances. First, to avoid the poverty that would make me cut corners, steal, and dishonor God, I realized that I would have to work diligently in school and eventually at a job. I began to see the value of paying attention in class, doing my homework, and getting help when needed. I basically began to take my work and myself more seriously.

Second, to avoid the riches that would make me forget God, I realized that I would have to live with “just enough.” Although I still receive more than enough from my parents and friends, this principle means that I try to donate away what I don’t need in my wardrobe and I don’t buy more, unless absolutely necessary. It means that I stop thinking about how to accessorize and entertain myself and instead think about how to help out around the house, encourage my friends, and provide for the poor.

For example, I sold my iPod speaker set, which my dad had bought me before college, and donated the money to World Impact, an urban ministry to the poor in Oakland. It was hard to give up at first, but afterwards I was surprised at how much I didn’t miss it; instead, I was so grateful to be able to help others. Even in small ways, like using cheaper soaps instead of insisting on brand-name face wash, shampoo, conditioner, and body wash, my life has become more simple and I have become more content.

Also, I thought about how receiving “only my daily bread” also literally applies to how I should stop gorging on and indulging myself through food and just be content with a moderate amount of healthy food. Moderating my meals taught me self-control and made me less dependent on food for my happiness. In the process of de-luxurizing my life, I have sincerely become a happier person, less attached to material goods, less insecure about how I look, and more willing to stand apart from the norms of the world.

As I look back on my old bucket list, I praise God for sparing me from goals that definitely would not fulfill me and would probably instead bring regrets for pursuing my own desires at the expense of loving this world. At the end of my life, I want to say that I clung to the truth and depended on God for my needs and that, in turn, He provided a joyful and meaningful life beyond imagination! If you find yourself craving some exciting, worldly goal in your lifetime, I challenge you to join me in sincerely praying the prayer above as a biblical bucket list to last our lifetimes.