Gregory Scott

What Shapes Your Worldview

I’m a trial lawyer, and I once had a jury trial where one of the defendants was, as we say in the legal field, pro se, which is latin for “He aint got no attorney.” Halfway through the trial he’d fired his lawyer and insisted on representing himself. He then started acting like a lawyer, or so he thought.

I think he had watched a lot of television because when he asked the witness a question and I objected, he asked the judge “for a little latitude.” He was shocked when the judge said “No.” I think he was shocked because on television the judge always says, “Ok, but very little” or “Ok, but you’re on a short leash, counselor” or some other witty response. But the judge always gives a little latitude. It makes for good television.

Now this may surprise you, but no real trial attorney asks for “latitude”; nor does a real trial attorney try to make a point by asking a question he knows is objectionable and quickly chirping “withdrawn” before the judge can rule against him. If an attorney did that he would be laughed out of court because real trial lawyers know all that stuff is just television. It’s not reality.

More than we realize, television shapes our worldview. When television bombards you with shows portraying sex before marriage, outside of marriage and on first dates as normal behavior, it cannot help but make you think you are weird if you act differently. What you are seeing, however, is not reality, but a writer’s fiction.

Jesus said, “Take care what you listen to.” (Mark 4:24). How closely you listen to Truth will determine how effectively you incorporate it into your life, and how critically you “listen” to the television will determine how it affects the way you view the world. So, listen critically or don’t listen at all. GS

Why It Matters If You Think President Obama Is Muslim

I trust if you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know I don’t think Republicans or Democrats have cornered the market on Truth. I blogged once on the basis for justice in the kingdom of God as a an example of how humanistic both political parties are. I say this as a preface to what I want to say in this post, so you’ll understand my goal here is not to be an apologist for President Obama.

Yet, I continue to read with surprise polls showing nearly 30% of white Evangelicals in the United States believe President Obama is a Muslim. As a Christian, whose desire is to see the kingdom of God advance in the earth, I’m concerned so many Christians have embraced this belief.

If you want clarity on the matter, read Stephen Mansfield’s book, The Faith of Barack Obama. I’ve met Stephen Mansfield. I spent an afternoon last summer touring Washington D.C. with him, and I discussed the book with him (which I had previously read). He’s a New York Times best-selling author and a born-again, Bible-believing Christian. If you have any doubts about his motives, I suggest you read his New York Times bestseller, The Faith of George W. Bush.

To put it bluntly, he’s one of us, and his book shows President Obama is clearly not a Muslim. This conclusion is not based on Stephen Mansfield’s opinion but on a reading of the undisputed facts of President Obama’s life. I won’t repeat those facts here because that’s not the purpose of this post. I’m more concerned here with the effect of this widespread misconception because there are two things that can result from it, and both are bad.

First, by continuing to proclaim President Obama is a Muslim in the face of facts clearly showing he is not, Christians lose credibility in the eyes of the world. It’s ok if the world thinks Christians are foolish for believing in Jesus, His crucifixion and resurrection. It’s not ok for them to think we are foolish because we believe the world is flat. It’s not ok because it’s the destiny of Christians to lead the world, and the world will not follow people who don’t know up from down.

Second, continuing to proclaim President Obama is a Muslim can only have the effect of alienating him from the Evangelical world. Do you think President Obama will want to hear anything from Christians who say he is lying about being a Christian?

It’s something to think about. GS

Book Burning And Terrorism

Perhaps you’ve read about the pastor who plans on publicly burning a Quran on September 11, 2010. Unfortunately, he’s received much media attention, including his 15 minutes of fame on CNN.

I wish, if the pastor really felt the need to burn a Quran, he would have done so privately because his pyromanic plan neither advances the cause of the kingdom of God nor impedes the advance of Islam. What it does is reveal something about the pastor.

Does the pastor think any Muslim will reject Islam because he burned their book? I don’t think he’s that dumb. So, he’s not doing this for Muslims.

Book burning in the Bible happened when the Ephesians, once converted to Chrisitianity, rejected their pagan practices and brought their books together to burn, demonstrating their renunciation of their former belief. (Acts 19:18-19). In other words, Biblical book-burning–if there is such a thing–is for the benefit of the person who owns the book.

I don’t think the pastor is a Muslim or has recently been one, so I must conclude he is not toasting the Muslim text as a public manifestation of his decision to break with a former belief.

This must mean he is flaming the Quran for other Christians or non-Islamic, non-Christians. But what benefit does he think non-Christians will get from that? If they are non-Christians, they will not have a better opinion of Christianity as a result of the pastor’s conflagration.

And I can’t imagine he thinks he is benefiting Christians by scorching the Muslim script. The only thing I can think is he is trying to inflame them against Islam and Muslims. If this is the point, and regardless, it will probably be the result, then the pastor’s incendiary impulse is seriously misguided.

The best explanation of terrorism is that it’s “a response to powerlessness.” In other words, those who feel powerlessness to obtain what they desire within the normal and accepted means of society resort to terrorism.

Burning a Quran I suspect arises from a similar impulse. Feeling impotent to respond in any other way, the pastor responds with a public warming of the Islamic writ.

I’m not calling the pastor a terrorist or suggesting what he is doing is terrorism. I do suspect both acts arise from the same feeling of powerlessness. And while both may give their instigator a momentary feeling of power, both are equally ineffective to achieve their desired results.

What do you think? Is what he’s planning to do a good idea? GS

On An Islamic Center Near Ground Zero

Over the past few weeks, I’ve watched with interest the controversy surrounding the plans to build an Islamic center and mosque near ground zero in Manhattan. It’s clear Americans don’t like it. Even those who recognize the relevance of the First Amendment and argue for the right of Muslims to build a mosque there don’t like it.

As a result, the more nuanced opinion at this point in the debate has become, “They have a right to build a mosque there, but I think it’s sensitive for them to do so.”

I think American opposition to Muslim plans near ground zero is more visceral and less intellectual than people let on. In their gut, Americans recognize the brashness of Muslims building a proselytizing base just a few blocks from where Muslim terrorists killed 2700 Americans. They recognize it as a symbol of aggressive Islamic expansion, and that’s a symbol they find offensive.

The problem is an increasingly secularized America is impotent to respond to the spread of Islam. You don’t reply to Islam by extolling the virtues of pluralism and freedom of religion. Muslims don’t convert from Islam to Democratic Capitalism. Democratic Capitalism doesn’t offer meaning in life, instruction on how to treat my wife or raise my kids, or a comprehensive worldview.

Yes, Muslims have a right to build a mosque a few blocks from Ground Zero. And, yes, it’s insensitive that they are doing so, but so what? Making accusations of insensitivity against a faith that has, for 1,400 years, thrived on violent religious imperialism is like accusing Hitler of bad manners.

Islam, like paganism, will eventually burn out, but it won’t happen by merely offering Muslims American citizenship unless we also offer them citizenship in the kingdom of God. GS

Of Economics And Eschatologies

In the 1990s it seemed everybody was getting rich. The money flowed easily and the stock market was up and to the right. Americans spent themselves into debt believing they would alway have a job and their wages would continue to increase.

Peoples’ attitudes are quite different today. People are saving money again at the highest rates we’ve seen in years. They are also getting out of debt. They expect money to be tight, jobs uncertain and the stock market unfriendly well into the future.

The difference between the attitude of people in the 1990s and in 2010 is not driven by their understanding of economic theory or history.

It’s something more embarrassingly simple: people assume the way things are are they way they will continue to be.

In the 1990s when things were good, people believed they would continue to be that way. In 2010, things are bad economically, so people assume they will continue that way.

What’s true in economics is true in eschatology. People tend to believe that the way things are is the way they will always be.

I recently read, George Marsden’s book on Jonathan Edwards. Jonathan Edwards, perhaps the greatest American theologian, lived and preached during The Great Awakening, the greatest revival in American history. Edwards’s experience in seeing so many people come to the Lord led him to believe he was at the beginning of an era that would culminate in the millennial peace. Instead, twenty-five years later, America was embroiled in a war for her independence.

Today, with moral standards on the decline and Christianity’s influence seemingly waning, people have increasingly adopted a pessimistic eschatology. This is why Tim LaHaye’s and Hal Lindsey’s books have been so popular. They ring true to people who attempt to predict the future by merely projecting the present.

Now, think back to the 1990s with me. What if you had saved money throughout the 1990’s, not because of any particular view of the future but because thrift is a Biblical command? Where might you be financially today?

And what if Christians, rather than withdrawing from the world because they perceived the culture as being on an irreversible decline, had continued to lead the culture as the salt and light King Jesus commanded? Where might our culture be today? GS