Too Hot to Handle: Generation Z and Unbelief

In which our regular writers toss around subjects a little more volatile than usual.

In this article in The Atlantic, Larry Taunton tells the story of Phil, a young atheist whose reasons for his unbelief sound surprisingly unlike those of the New Atheists.

To me they sound uncomfortably close to home.

Phil had been president of his Methodist church youth group, and loved the Bible studies led by Jim, their youth leader. Jim didn’t dodge the tough chapters or questions. He couldn’t answer every question, but he made the Bible come alive for Phil.

Church ‘Problematics’ (Part 2)

Last Thursday we considered a newly-coined word: “problematics” (and its relatives “problematize” and “problematization”). Social Justice advocates are transforming both secular institutions and churches by showing us we have problems. These problems are all related to racism or discrimination of some sort, and they are invariably systemic.

For the Social Justice advocate, it is not a question of whether we are racist, but in what particular ways. In making this assumption, they neatly sidestep the obligation to prove their case, hoping we will make it right along with them.

On the Way to the Tower

Six years ago, I wrote a post reconsidering the meaning of the Tower of Siloam story in Luke 13. You’ll remember eighteen Jews were killed when it fell, and the Lord used this then-current event as a teaching moment, warning his audience, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

What dawned on me at the time was that the standard “Get saved or you’ll suffer eternal judgment” message we generally hear preached from this passage in evangelical circles doesn’t do justice to the Lord’s original purpose in referencing that sad tale. It is at best a remote application rather than a faithful exposition of the Lord’s intended meaning.

The Offspring Question

In yesterday’s Anonymous Asks post, I promised to delve a little deeper into the wording of God’s covenant with Abraham. In Genesis 15, the Lord promised Abraham’s offspring a significant parcel of territory delimited by two rivers, the Euphrates and the “river of Egypt”, and further specified in terms of land occupied by ten nations of the day. Yesterday’s post explored what, if anything, that covenant means for modern Israel.

I’d like to back it up just a little further and look at that word “offspring”. Who exactly was the Lord referring to?

Anonymous Asks (395)

“Does Israel have a divine right to ‘much of the Middle East’?”

The shifting borders of modern Israel generate endless public debate. Last Friday, Tucker Carlson referenced a passage from Genesis in an interview with US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. He asked the ambassador if Israel “had a right” to territory outside its current borders. Huckabee responded, “It would be fine if they took it all.”

From the standpoint of American interests, Huckabee was probably correct. But it was a bit of a foot-in-mouth moment. You can’t say that out loud these days. As usual, the media foamed at the mouth. Politico reported the exchange here.

AI Reads the New Testament

From time to time these days you will come across online opinion pieces warning about the perils of AI. This is hardly surprising with any technology in its infancy, but artificial intelligence raises hackles more than most innovations for the simple reason that the average person doesn’t understand it. No matter how many times you explain to some users that they are looking at the results of algorithms, not the natural responses of an independent personality, they talk about AI “interactions” as if they have some higher meaning.

I put it down to the failure of Western educational systems over the last forty years to teach math comprehensibly. People who understand the basics of computer programming know AI is all ones and zeroes. People who don’t, don’t.