In this next installment of our Fosterburg Church Faith Infiltration, we’re going to find out why Dr. Charles Jackson thinks the heathen rage. If you want to read about other Faith Infiltrations we have done, click the Faith infiltration category at the bottom of this post.

I expected this presentation to be kind of like Dr. Brad Harrub’s presentation on “Atheist’s Attack on America.” Dr. Jackson opened his presentation by saying that he would talk for about 20 minutes and then have people ask questions – he wanted the congregation to ask tough questions and not softball him – to him, people should not be afraid to question the Bible, because if one is afraid, he said, then there is a little dark hole in your faith. He told the congregation not to be afraid to stump him, as he would not be embarrassed by hard questions. He also joked, “I don’t know everything… it just seems that way.”

He began his presentation:

“We’ve just proved there is a god. We’ve just proved that evolution isn’t true, so why do people still continue to not believe in a god? What is the logic – what is going on – Why are people evolutionists and atheists?”

Wow, this guy proved there is a god and disproved the foundations of biology in a one hour presentation at a church? These are questions philosophers and scientists have been debating forever, I am so sorry that I missed this historical moment.

So here we go, here’s why we rage:

He quoted Darwin as saying, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” The quote, displayed in a powerpoint, was cited as being from Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p.2.

Dr. Jackson, you really should not quote this uncritically without checking the source, it undermines your credibility.  Here is an explanation of the correct source, as well as additional information showing that this is a clear example of quote-mining.

Moving on, he told the congregation that Richard Dawkins wrote in the New York Times in 1989 that “It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).”

True, he did write that. But do you know what he wrote after that? This…

“If that gives you offense, I’m sorry. You are probably not stupid, insane or wicked; and ignorance is no crime in a country with strong local traditions of interference in the freedom of biology educators to teach the central theorem of their subject. I recently toured East Coast radio stations, doing phone-ins. I came away optimistic. I had expected hostile barracking from creationists with closed minds. Instead, what I found was genuine curiosity and honest interest. I got sincere questions from intelligent people who really wanted to know because they had literally no education in evolution.”

“I don’t think it is too melodramatic to say that civilization is at war. It is a war against religious bigotry. In Britain recently our newspapers have shown crowds of fundamentalists (they happen to be Muslim rather than Christian, but in this context the distinction is of no importance) baying for the death of the distinguished novelist Salman Rushdie, displaying his effigy with its eyes put out and publicly burning his books. The truly appalling thing all such people have in common, whether they are incited to murder by ayatollahs or to less violent observances by television evangelists, is that they know, for certain, that their particular brand of revealed truth is absolute and needs no reasoned defense. In Iran I don’t suppose evolution is even an issue, but in the United States a case can be made that it is right there on the front line.”

“If you feel even vaguely in the mood to stand up and be counted, evolution is a pretty good issue on which to take your stand. It is an excellent standard-bearer for reason and the gentle virtues of civilization. This is because the more you read, quietly and soberly, the evidence for evolution, the more powerful will you discover that evidence to be. You are as safe taking your stand on the fact of evolution as you would be on the fact that the earth goes round the sun. But the latter is not — any longer — at stake in the war against fundamentalism. Evolution is on the front line because it is an important issue disputed by fundamentalists, and you can be completely confident that you can easily prove them wrong.

Dr Jackson’s response was, “This is not an example of being open minded. This is not how scientists talk. I am living proof that he’s wrong. The inventor of the MRI is a creationist. There are 10,000 creationists in the science field. Okay and we’re not ignorant either. I mentioned to you I have four college degrees. All in science and education. So I am certainly not uneducated. If anything I am overeducated. I am a lifetime member of MENSA.”

Okay, so Dawkins wrote in a review of a book that evolution was an obvious fact in the same way that it is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. If Dr. Jackson has a problem with him making this outright claim to fact, then he is a hypocrite. He did the very same thing at the beginning of his talk, stating as fact that he proved there was a god and that he proved evolution was not true.

It is unfortunate happenstance that Dawkins’ leaves out the fact that he, like myself, finds the truth of evolution (and the sun) to be provisional and based on probability, rather than absolute fact. Alas, sometimes people are forced to edit out these nuances when under the pressure of character limitations, as one would be in a newspaper clipping. So perhaps Dr. Jackson has a problem with calling a-evolutionists ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked. Dawkins later clarifies that most people are probably not stupid, insane or wicked (and surely, there are some stupid people who deny evolution, and some insane people who deny evolution, and some wicked people who deny evolution) but ignorant – and by that he obviously means ignorant of evolution, given that it is taught more by the people who deny it than the people who accept it.

Dr. Jackson went on to say, “and now I am going to use scripture to go through so we can understand “why do the heathen rage?” why are there atheists, why are there evolutionists, what’s going on. As usual, the scripture actually answers the question. I’ve also got some actual quotes from atheists. I’m not making fun of their beliefs but telling you why.” He then presented this comic:

Translation: we’re atheists so we can be wicked.

Oh, so it’s wrong/close minded/unscientific for Dawkins to come out and suggest that one of the reasons people deny evolution is because of their wickedness, but then your first talking point about why people are atheists is a suggestion that they are atheists because they are wicked? If it’s wrong for Dawkins to suggest it, it’s also wrong for Dr. Jackson to suggest it. I don’t often say things this bluntly but – that’s hypocritical, Dr. Jackson.

He quoted Darwin again, “A man who has no assured and ever-present belief in the existence of a personal God, or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.

Apparently this quote is supposed to mean that atheism/evolution leads to immorality. Dr. Jackson, quote-mining undermines your credibility. Darwin meant just the opposite, a fact that is clear when you quote the whole thing.

“I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.”

“A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God or of a future existence with retribution and reward, can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones. A dog acts in this manner, but he does so blindly. A man, on the other hand, looks forwards and backwards, and compares his various feelings, desires and recollections. He then finds, in accordance with the verdict of all the wisest men that the highest satisfaction is derived from following certain impulses, namely the social instincts. If he acts for the good of others, he will receive the approbation of his fellow men and gain the love of those with whom he lives ; and this latter gain undoubtedly is the highest pleasure on this earth. By degrees it will become intolerable to him to obey his sensuous passions rather than his higher impulses, which when rendered habitual may be almost called instincts. His reason may occasionally tell him to act in opposition to the opinion of others, whose approbation he will then not receive ; but he will still have the solid satisfaction of knowing that he has followed his innermost guide or conscience.–As for myself I believe that I have acted rightly in steadily following and devoting my life to science. I feel no remorse from having committed any great sin, but have often and often regretted that I have not done more direct good to my fellow creatures. My sole and poor excuse is much ill-health and my mental constitution, which makes it extremely difficult for me to turn from one subject or occupation to another. I can imagine with high satisfaction giving up my whole time to philanthropy, but not a portion of it; though this would have been a far better Line of conduct.”

One of the reasons I rage is because of nasty stuff like this – quotes taken out of context and clearly mined and then extrapolated to instill fear and hatred for an entire group of people because of differences in belief. I rage because I value honesty, compassion and integrity, and quote-mining is none of those.

Moving on, Dr. Jackson quoted “Darwin’s great great grandson” as saying, ““I don’t believe in God: how could I, given my great great grandfather’s theories? But perhaps I would feel happier if I did. Just because I have rejected conventional religion, it does not mean there isn’t a void to be filled.” Darwin’s gg-grandson is Randall Keynes. Apparently this quote is taken from some unnamed article in the UK Sunday Times on November 12^th, 2000. I can’t find this article, and the only source of this quote appears to be at this creationism website.  It’s a very interesting “fact file” they have there.

He told his congregation that many people who believe in evolution are not atheists, but that if you are an atheist then there is nothing left for you to believe but evolution.

Why the false dichotomy doc? I could come up with all sorts of theories as to why there is diversity in life that is neither evolution via natural selection nor appeals to any kind of god. Like creationism, none of them stand up to the scientific method and/or falsifiability, nor do they have a mechanism:

1. The Quantum Change Theory: organisms can change their population using quantum energy fields by the collective act of willing themselves to adapt so that they can survive.
2. The Spontaneous Generation Theory: animals just spontaneously generate acausally.
3. The Observation Theory: organisms only exist because we have the capacity to observe them. Our observation of animals directly causes their diversity in a giant universal circle of looking.
4. The Always Theory: diverse organisms have always existed in the universe.
5. Exogenesis: the building blocks of life were sprinkled on earth by a space hurricane
6. The 747 Theory: a huge storm assembled the organisms.
7. The Atom theory: The spontaneous splitting of atoms forms new organisms.
8. The Rain Theory: organisms fall from the sky when it rains.
9. The Ghost Theory: all organisms arise from the single splitting of one soul into countless souls.
10. The Pheonix Theory: organisms that die catch on fire and then out of their ashes, new organisms arise.

Dr. Jackson quoted Thomas Nagel, saying that the following quote offers excellent insight into how atheists think: “I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Seemingly, the connection that Dr. Jackson wants his congregation to make here is that Thomas Nagel wants there to be no god so he can go on being wicked.

Thomas Nagel also said, “it is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist,” in the same essay from which the original quote is quothed. In other words, what he wants and what is real are two different things. Don’t you want there to be a god, Dr. Jackson?

Okay, this has gotten long enough for now – stay tuned for more!

It’s 2010, and the American Family Association has released one of their Action Alerts, this one related to the LGBT Day of Silence.

The Day of Silence:

Brings attention to anti-LGBT name-calling, bullying and harassment in schools. Each year the event has grown, and now hundreds of thousands of students participate to encourage schools and classmates to address the problem of anti-LGBT behavior. Founded in 1996, the Day of Silence has become the largest single student-led action towards creating safer schools for all, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.

What happens during the Day of Silence is that students choose to take a vow of silence during the day in solidarity toward their fellow LGBT classmates, friends, family, and others.

The AFA does not like this. They released an Action Alert that linked (multiple times, in case you miss it the first time) to this website, the DOS Walkout. From the website’s first words:

The Day of Silence, which is sponsored by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), fast approaches. This year it will take place in most public schools on April 16. On this day, thousands of public high schools and increasing numbers of middle schools will allow students to remain silent throughout an entire day-even during instructional time-to promote GLSEN’s socio-political goals and its controversial, unproven, and destructive theories on the nature and morality of homosexuality.

Parents must actively oppose this hijacking of the classroom for political purposes. Please join the national effort to restore to public education a proper understanding of the role of government-subsidized schools. Please help de-politicize the learning environment by calling your child out of school if your child’s school allows students to remain silent during instructional time on the Day of Silence.

Sorry DOS Walkout supporters, but you have your information wrong even in your first paragraph. The LGBT  Day of Silence website specifically addresses the issue of being silent during instructional time:

You DO have a right to participate in Day of Silence and other expressions of your opinion at a public school during non-instructional time: the breaks between classes, before and after the school day, lunchtime, and any other free times during your day. You do NOT have a right to remain silent during class time if a teacher asks you to speak. We recommend that you talk to your teachers ahead of time, tell them what you plan to do, and ask them if it would be okay for you to communicate on that day in writing.

Is it really controversial and destructive to want to end bullying, name-calling, and harassment?  The GSLEN mission is to make schools safer, ensure that members of school communities are respected regardless of their gender or sexual identity, and promote educational achievement. How is any of this “unproven?”

The AFA also encourages parents to oppose the LGBT DOS “propaganda” because they consider it “hijacking” for political purposes and calls for their parents to write to schools and pull their children out of school so that school boards are aware of their opposition.

Back in October, I wrote this post about the many Christian organizations who were in support of the pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity. The pro-life DOSS is a day in which school-aged children remain silent for the day and hand out pro-life fliers in solidarity with “children who never get a voice.”

I have a huge problem with hypocrisy.

The Friendly Atheist commented that he had not heard a single Christian group condemn the pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity, yet other Christian groups are condemning the LGBT Day of Silence because “School administrators err when they allow the classroom to be disrupted and politicized by granting students permission to remain silent throughout an entire day.” The .pdf of the reasons why the LGBT Day of Silence are being opposed reads pretty blatantly: you’re oppressing us by trying to stop us from oppressing others.

Guess what. If it is wrong to “allow” students to remain silent for the LGBT Day of Silence because of politicizing, then it is equally wrong to “allow” students to remain silent during the pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity.

Clearly, the problem is not politicizing, otherwise the AFA and all of the other organization that oppose the LGBT DOS would also oppose the pro-life DOSS.

Do they? Here’s a list of the Day of Silence opposers:
Abiding Truth Ministries , American Family Association, AFA Michigan, AFA Pennsylvania, Americans for Truth, Association of Maryland Families, Campaign for Children and Families, Capitol Resource Institute, Citizens for Community Values, Coalition of Conscience, Community Issues Council, Concerned Women for America of Illinois, CWA of California, CWA of Washington, Culture Campaign, Don Feder, Don Feder Associates, Faith2Action, Faith, Family & Freedom Alliance, Illinois Family Institute, Indiana Voice, Informing Christians, Liberty Counsel Action, Liberty Counsel, Maine Family Policy Council, MassResistance, Mission: America, Montana Family Foundation, and Movie Guide.

I searched every single one of these Day Of Silence-opposing websites to see if they has anything to say about the Day of Silent Solidarity. Curiously, none of them wrote even one iota about it.  The only thing I can find is a dead link where the AFA appear to have posted a news headline about how terrible it was that schools might try to censor students during the pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity.

The message I am getting is that one should censor students for saying things you don’t agree with, but what about students who say something you do agree with? If your organization is going to oppose the LGBT Day of Silence, then it should also oppose the pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity.

If the LGBT DSS is propaganda, then so is the pro-life DOSS.

The other day I was discussing health care reform with someone who insisted that the new healthcare bill made into law March 23^rd in the USA was the equivalent of “taxing people for breathing” and that even a person who lived out in the woods and had no job would be sent a bill from the IRS, fining them for not having healthcare. This seemed like a lot of hyperbole to me. When I asked this person for a citation, their response was to tell me to, “go Google ‘Obamacare’.”

Okay! A Google search for “Obamacare individual mandate” reveals that either everybody opposes health care reform or that the people who oppose healthcare reform are more likely than those who support health care reform to refer to it as ‘Obamacare’.  My guess is that it is the latter. One of the first links is this one, a column by the Philadelphia Inquirer columnist. His first sentence reads:

For the first time in American history, the federal government has decided that every man, woman, and child must do more than simply mind their own business. Upon the threat of fine, each American now must go out and buy health insurance.

Since when does the federal government let Americans “simply mind their own business?” It doesn’t. It regulates everything from the labeling on your cigarettes to which gender you can marry. We can really just go ahead and delete that entire first sentence, as it is obviously hyperbole.  Maybe the next sentence will be better:

Upon the threat of fine, each American now must go out and buy health insurance.

If I wanted to be really literal, I could say that this isn’t true because Americans can certainly buy health insurance without “going out,” but I am not quite that crazy. Must each American buy health insurance now that Health Care Reform has passed? I honestly wasn’t sure, but I wasn’t about to take any secondhand source at their word, no matter how fair and balanced they claimed to be. I wanted to read the actual text. I want the truth, not the mouthing-off of some pundit on Google.

The problem with this is that many of the primary news sources do not refer to the bill by name. Instead, they refer to health care reform in somewhat vague terms such as “health care package” or “health reform package.” As such, I actually spent about half an hour digging through H.R.3200, an old health care bill, before I realized that that bill was not passed on March 23^rd. It took me awhile to figure out that the reason news sources were referring to health care reform as a “package” is because it is not one bill but several.

The website opencongress.org has the full text of all bills that go through congress in a searchable, linkable format. The main bill that was made into law on March 23^rd is called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and is referred to as H.R.3590. A separate reconciliation bill made some changes to H.R.3590. The reconciliation bill is H.R.4872. there were also a few resolutions: H.Res.1203 and H.Res1225.  All of the Fox News radio pundits and other republicans were screaming about how evil it was for the democrats to use reconciliation to pass this bill, which I find hilariously hypocritical because they used reconciliation when they were in power.

It’s not true that every American must buy health insurance. As with just about anything, there are exemptions. The Individual mandate ONLY applies to taxpaying Americans. If you did not earn income, you’re not a taxpayer, and so the idea that the IRS will fine you even if you have never had a job is not true. You can claim a religious exemption, something I personally find questionable. There is an exemption for individuals who cannot accord insurance coverage, defined as health insurance coverage that costs more than 8% of one’s income. You are exempt if you are under 100% of the poverty line.  You are exempt if you have hardships.

People have tried to compare the individual mandate to purchase health insurance to the state mandate to purchase car insurance. There are some similarities, but the analogy is certainly not airtight. Car insurance is similar to health insurance in that provided one meets certain conditions; one is required to purchase both. In the case of car insurance, one is required to purchase car insurance if one owns and drives a car on public roads. In the case of health insurance, one is required to purchase health insurance if one is deemed to be able to afford to do so. Unlike health insurance though, one cannot abstain from purchasing car insurance if one cannot afford it, people don’t get subsidies for car insurance, and people can’t claim a religious exemption from purchasing car insurance.

Curiously enough, a senate amendment, S.Amdt.3553, the purpose of which was to “repeal the government takeover of health care,” failed, as did S.Amdt.3556, the purpose of which was to “reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists and for drugs intended to induce abortion.” Gee, all I can do is shake my head at that second amendment. Maybe you should prohibit federal funding of liver transplants for people convicted of manslaughter because they were driving drunk, too.

I would hardly call health care reform a “government takeover,” as if it is, then the government has pretty much taken over everything already – just look at how much agriculture is regulated and subsidized. The moral of the story is to consult the primary source material, read it for what it is, and compare it to the way the country works in general before labeling government action with scary buzzwords.

Politics simultaneously amuses and disgusts me.

Bonus link: American Dad is my hero for making this open letter to conservatives. Seriously.

Can someone please explain to me why registered sex offenders can practice (with limitations) as chiropractors, but physicians cannot?

Reader Miss Lou sent me this interesting article, saying, “Apparently if you are a sex offender in Minnesota, the state law says you can’t be a physician but you can be a chiropractor. He doesn’t even have to tell his patients!”

The long and the short of the article is that a chiropractor who engaged in egregious sex offenses on the clock, while practicing his trade, went to prison for 2 years, had his license revoked for 6 years, but was granted his license again – with limitations – so that he may continue to practice as a chiropractor.

This month, more than six years after revoking Fredin’s license for the felony convictions, the state Board of Chiropractic Examiners granted Fredin’s request to get his license back. To protect Fredin’s clients, the board said he cannot treat any female patients without someone else in the room. Fredin is working in Minneapolis, but he can’t treat patients until regulators approve his new location.

Why do I care? Well, because it seems that the regulations for chiropractors regarding registered sex offenders is much more lax then that of physicians and other medical care providers.

Under state law, many professionals — including dentists, psychologists and nurses — can’t be barred from practicing after a criminal conviction as long as they can show licensing boards they were rehabilitated.

I wish I had a complete list of those who can’t be barred.

However, there are no second chances at the state Board of Medical Practice, which regulates 22,000 health-care providers, including physicians, midwives and acupuncturists. In 1995, the Legislature passed a law requiring the board to yank the medical license of anyone convicted of a felony-level sexual offense.

Personally, I think that the standards of practice for chiropractic ought to be the same as the standards for any other medical profession. While I would contend that chiropractic is medicine, the field of chiropractic certainly acts like and in many cases is treated as such. I also wonder if these standards are limited to Minnesota or if one can find lax sex-offender standards for “medical” professionals in other states. Ah, to do research…

An interesting business was recently under discussion on Atheist Nexus and by our good friend The Nerd.  That business is a small coffee shop, the Java Divas.  Seriously, check out their site.  Attractive women selling coffee in skimpy, suggestive costumes.  The coffee even comes in large/medium/small cups identified by bra sizes.  Another interesting tidbit – the owner and operator/fellow scantily-clad server is also a woman.

So . . . thoughts?  Much conversation at the above-mentioned internet places has already revolved around the idea of objectification not being morally/socially good or bad in and of itself.  Clearly, I sometimes objectify Ziztur, and she sometimes objectifies me.  This clearly has no inherent sexism, for a large number of reasons.

The principle difference, pointed out several times already, is that the suggestively-clad women at Java Divas have nothing more than a financial relationship with the customers (presumably, at least in the vast majority of cases).  There is at least a possible element of the women in question being resigned, by their financial situation, to working that job under these conditions.

My question, not to sugar-coat it too much, but:  So the hell what?

I’m reminded of this incident (among others in other firefighting departments around the world) in which a woman or women came short of physical fitness requirements for the job the were doing or applying for.  This particular case dealt with a distance run, and I’ve seen other cases dealing primarily with the immense upper-body strength required to be a firefighter.  Basically, in a nutshell, by any reasonable standard, you have to be an utter hardass to be a firefighter.

Now, I’m certainly not going to say that gender bias and discrimination have never been a factor in firefighting; that would just be spectacularly ignorant.  However, it’s obvious to most people that these physical fitness standards are for the safety of the firefighters themselves and the safety of the public that they serve, and are not inherently gender-biased.

My question is this:  How are the women at Java Divas, or any similar establishment, being objectified for their physical appearance any more than firefighters are being objectified for their physical strength?  For that matter, why does the criteria have to be physical?  If someone happens to have knowledge and/or experience of, for example, the insurance business, or of Occupational Therapy, and are hired for a job on that criteria, how is their employment not “objectifying” them on the basis of that knowledge?

So, what does it say about someone’s attitude towards women, their attitude towards sex, or their attitude towards what they think is women’s attitude towards sex (try saying that ten times fast . . .) when they basically claim that women aren’t capable of choosing for themselves what to do with their potential physical attractiveness?  Do these folks really worry about whether, to use just one example, firefighters (who after all are in much more physical danger on the job than baristas) are being exploited for their body strength, or are they basically, in effect, thinking, “Ah, well, they’re men; of course they can make a mature decision about their own employment.”?

Need I even mention that whatever “objectification” of the Java Divas employees that’s occurring pales in comparison to a stripper, porn star, or prostitute?  I think it’s obvious that an almost puritan or religious restriction on what women can and can’t do with their bodies is the more sexist attitude, not only because of it’s anti-sex overtones, but also because of it’s strong implication that those mentally weak wimminfolk just don’t have the emotional maturity to deal with people looking at their bodies.

What do you guys think?

This is part 2 of our Faith Infiltration of World View Community Church. Pt. 1 can be found here, and you can access all other Faith Infiltrations by clicking the “Faith Infiltration” label at the bottom of this page.

Nearly every weekend, Flimsy and I visit a church. We find a (typically St. Louis local) church in our area, drag ourselves out of bed in the morning, and do what we call “Faith Infiltration”. Then, we blog about our experiences, describing what the church is like from the perspective of nonbelievers. We make no apologies: we do not mock what we see or sugarcoat our experiences, but we also don’t pretend that one can truly understand what the church is like from a single visit. To date, we’ve been to 35 religious events, ranging from tiny Christian denominations with only 9 people in the whole building during a service, churches with a thousand people, the Church of Scientology, a Franklin Graham concert tour, and everything in-between.

After the worship service at World View Community Church, we asked to be directed to the multi-purpose room to view the video that was going to be shown.

The multi-purpose room of this church was sort of like a mini-sanctuary. My guess is that it was 20 feet wide by 30 feet long, outfitted with comfy chairs and rows of tables. Congregants milled about in this room, chatting with one-another or laying out notebooks and bibles so that they could take notes. It felt rather cavernous, given the tall, steeply sloped ceiling and comparably small floor space. At the front of the room was a projector and a clear plexiglass lectern. After a quick introduction, someone dimmed the lights and the DVD began.

We found ourselves watching section 6 (entitled: Social Capital) of “Dr.” Lance Wallnau’s 7 Mountain Mandate.

Allow me to first explain why I put the “Dr.” part of Wallnau’s name in quotes. This is not like when some people do things like put a bishops title “Bishop” in quotes because said bishop is openly gay and the individual writing about the bishop wants to show that he believes gay bishops somehow don’t count. If you put “Dr.” in front of your name, unless it is clearly satire then people will rightly assume that you have earned a doctoral degree from a university. To put “Dr.” in front of your name when you have not earned a doctoral degree from a university is giving yourself an unearned title. As an individual who actually has earned a doctoral degree from a university, I find this as repellent as an individual using the term “officer” in front of his name to gain access to spaces in which he otherwise would not be allowed. If you’re pro-life, imaging a person performing abortions as a “doctor” while never earning a medical degree.

I scoured the internet for information as to where Lance Wallnau earned his doctoral degree. I wanted to know if it was in business, politics, theology, etc. I could find no information about the university he graduated from or the degrees he had been conferred. I tried googling generally, and then tried these specific phrases in quotes: “Lance Wallnau graduated”, “Lance Wallnau earned”, “Lance Wallnau holds” etc, to see if I could find a byline indicated where he had graduated from. I checked his website. I can find no evidence that Wallnau has earned a doctoral degree from a university. This does not mean that he does not have one, only that I cannot find any information at all on the subject. I will offer no speculation as to why this is – you can form your own opinion.

To be fair, we did not get to see all of the segments of the DVD that were shown – the congregation was on section 6, so we missed the first parts. I also won’t pretend that the information in the DVD reflects the opinions of the congregants. The 7-mountain Mandate DVD is very obviously a recording of a live conference Wallnau gave at some point. He is situated on a stage, with a wireless microphone before an audience of nodding and notewriting individuals in business casual dress in what looks to be a conference center. Luckily for me, the visuals of the conference were not particularly necessary, and all of the audio from this is available for download, so I went ahead and downloaded Section 6: Social Capital to have as a reference while I wrote this, lest I forget anything that was said or report something inaccurately.

Wallnau opened section 6 by talking about the book Church Shift, and says:

“It’s unfortunate – in a way – that Christians don’t have a view of history that shows the interaction of intercession and prayer with the unfolding of world events. And Because we don’t have an oracle or a viewpoint or any reliable source, we tend to keep on disassociating from the world and just go into ‘panic praying’ – something bad happens, we all intercede. We don’t realize the Berlin wall came down because of intercession, the Soviet empire came down because of intercession, and that every piece of legitimate liberation of people and nations is a result of prayer. It’s never the result of the benevolence of the devil at work. So at some level, the Kingdom has been advancing and advancing and advancing.”

Well, I have yet to see any evidence for “the devil” and so I will agree with Wallnau that “the devil’s” benevolence is not the cause of the liberation of people and nations. I have also yet to see any evidence that intercessory prayer does anything at all to accomplish the liberation of people and nations. I could just as easily say, “I don’t have a reliable source, but people need to realize that every piece of legitimate liberation of people and nations is a result of the wonderful philosophy of secular humanism”. If one wants to make a claim of this magnitude, one needs to have substantial, falsifiable evidence to back it up. This statement made by Wallnau is also a false dichotomy: He sets up his point like this:

I could write a whole blog post on this, and I might, but let’s move on. The point of course is that all good stuff comes from Christianity, and that Wallnau’s god is working his magic everywhere, starting from a little church somewhere in the desert and growing from the few to the billion. But there is a problem: Christianity is at war.

Wallnau went on ask what the impact of 1.3 billion Christians would be on the world if they ever unified on shared principals. He said that Christianity would be the “largest, most dangerous bound together movement in the earth. When you consider the fact that in the United States – in spite of the exaggerated anxieties of Christians – the homosexual core is not larger than 5 to 6 percent of the adult male population or the adult population in the United States. You’d think it’s 15 or 20 percent and that’s just because they occupy high places of influence because Satan is strategic on where he puts influence. The Church is not.”

Wow. That’s pretty bigoted. Imagine if Wallnau had said blacks were occupying high places of influence because Satan is strategic in where he puts influence during the time before the abolition of slavery, when pastors and church leaders argued that slavery was ordained by their god. I don’t really see a difference. People who are gay want the same civil rights as everyone else, so instead of dismissing their cry for equal rights by claiming that their influence is Satanic, how about examining their “influence” on its merits without resorting to ad hominem? Moving on, Wallnau continues:

“There are spheres of influence that god has ordained for his glory that Satan has occupied, that god is about to retake. How many of you have been hearing about a transfer of wealth? … I think I know the reason. I have the key. If you want wealth – obscene, gobs of wealth, then what you do is you give god what he wants. … Henry Blackaby talks to 150 CEO’s on a Friday …and wrote the book Experiencing God… teaches is central to the transfer of wealth… I do training with 1500 CEO’s and I go to Blackaby… Here’s what Blackaby says: you want to experience god? You wanna have that glory, that breakout break through dimension on a sustained and progressive level? God is always at work…”

He goes on to say (in a rather disjointed way that does not lend well to quoting directly) that god is at work and that one should have a loving relationship with god so that god may reveal to him what god is up to. God is at work in your neighborhood and everywhere else and so your job is to show up wherever god is at while simultaneously being intimate in worship with god, because it is through this intimacy that god gives people an “invitation” to join him in his work. This, he says, is how we can be confident that if we enter into “warfare” we will surely win. Another way to have success at “warfare” is to not fight every cause, but focus on the causes you feel god has showed you. If you have an intimate enough relationship with Wallnau’s god, then his god will show up and help you get into the “strongholds” of Satan.

Okay, this post has gotten long enough. Tomorrow, I am going to blog about a particularly timely “stronghold” that Wallnau says god called him to get into. What I have here is more than enough for lengthy discussions.