Monthly Archives: June 2011

Case against abortion by a 5th grader

[HT LifeSiteNews]


Book review: Not God’s Type by Holly Ordway

Most testimonies I’ve heard or read (including mine to a large degree) are rather dry and uninviting. They contain little more than a historical account of someone’s life. Rarely do we come across a testimony whose author manages to invite us into their journey and share with us the experience of their internal turmoil which ultimately led to their conversion.

Holly Ordway manages to do just that.

Throughout her book, Not God’s Type, A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith, Holly provides us with a clear and well reasoned account of the events and relevant facts which led to her conversion. Holly also manages to give us a glimpse into her personal spiritual development by interludes which function as sort of a flash-forward from the main storyline.

I had heard part of Holly’s story before when she gave a condensed version in William Lane Craig’s Defender’s Sunday School class (link, audio). But as they say about most movies, the book is much better.

Holly’s journey is unique in that her conversion occurs as a result of a primarily intellectual pursuit as opposed to emotional. Not that Holly is a Vulcan, she shares candidly how her emotions worked against her throughout the process of her conversion. However in spite of herself, Holly describes how she came to carefully and honestly evaluate the information presented to her and how that evaluation led her to the most logical conclusion, accepting of Jesus Christ as her Lord and savior.

Holly’s account is a great example for anyone with non-Christian friends, and that should be all of us, of what to do and what to avoid when seeking to share our faith. Holly also issues a clear challenge to her fellow brothers and sisters to train and prepare for the rare opportunity we may have with our non-Christian friends to make a case for Christ.


Pining for a perfect world

Everyone wants to live in a perfect world.

That’s not a really surprising statement. What separates us, however, is whether we think a perfect world is attainable given the current state of affairs and whether we think it is possible  to bring about a perfect world.

How we answer these crucial questions is what defines our political outlook.

Big government advocates, for instance, think a perfect world is obtainable through the right policies. In the past these policies were based purely on theory (a la Karl Marx) but in more recent times these policies are being based on statistical averages. Modern proponents of big government are fond of making the case based on scientific research and strong appeals to game theory as a solution to the tragedy of the commons. In short, a perfect world is possible if we limit the non-optimal decisions of others.

This view sells. Its a sound theory. It is possible to bring about the most optimal set of circumstances through the application of something like the Nash equilibrium. However it fails to account for one crucial fact. The fact that complete and flawless knowledge of all the relevant facts is required in order to make the calculations accurate. Big government proponents either fail to factor in the uniqueness of individuals or else they boldly assert that individuals are obligated to conform to the community’s desires. The recipe for a perfect plan calls for perfection.

This inconvenient truth is where big government advocates often find their lofty ideals being dashed on the shores of reality.

There are no individual humans or group of humans who have acquired the omniscience required in order to concoct such a perfect plan in order to bring about a perfect world.

And its this reality that leads people to advocate for a realistic system designed not to bring about a perfect world, but a just one.

Small government supporters rightly recognize the problem inherent in designing a perfect society. So rather than try they prefer to uphold the individuals right to chart their own course through the ocean of life. Small government advocates believe in the principle that more people come up with better solutions to problems than a small group of people do. Small government supporters also believe that it is wrong for others to try and force their view of what constitutes a perfect world on others.