Better Hour Gatherings

Better Hour Gatherings

Be a part of restoring the fabric of society, one conversation at a time.

Pigfesting Lectures At Society of Classical Learning

Join The Great Conversation

Enlightened culture is born of enlightened people. Enlightened people are the result of enlightened
conversations, many of which happen around meal tables. As Aquinas put it, “culture is the sum of conversations.” The PigFest Society (see www.pigfestsociety.org) is a regular gathering of an eclectic group of people around a hosted table. PigFesters gather to indulge in great food and great conversation about the important issues of the day, and to sharpen their respective abilities to engage and enhance their communities. These gatherings offered the opportunity to change the minds of others, to improve one’s own thinking, and to collaborate around worthwhile ideas and initiatives. The conversations from these gatherings have literally changed our world. Come learn more about how to be involved (and how to get your students involved) in the Great Conversation.

Society of Classical Learning
SUMMER CONFERENCE 2008
Charleston, South Carolina
Francis Marion Hotel
June 26th through June 28th

Lectures on Pigfesting

Jim VanEerden
The Rhetoric Pigfest Defined (Part I)
Friday, June 27th, 9:00 to 9:50 am
Rutledge Room

Jim VanEerden
The Rhetoric Pigfest Enjoyed (Part II)

Friday, June 27th, 10:00 to 10:50 am
Rutledge Room

Conference Schedule

Northern Virginia Pigfest

NOVA PigFest

The feast had been set before us. Dishes filled with delicious pasta and fresh salads with every color of vegetable known to man. The hosts were gracious and the company was warm. This would be the start of a wonderful evening.

Once the first morsels had been eaten, the first proposition was put forward. "The democratic platform is inconsistent with a biblical worldview." The ensuing conversation centered on the specific areas within the democratic platform such as support for homosexual activism and the abortion movement. A few minutes into discussion on the topic as a question was posed that cut top the heart of the issue; "Is there a political platform that is consistent with a biblical worldview?" And this is was the rub. The consensus among the group at the end of the allotted 15 minutes was that there was not a political platform that was wholly consistent with a biblical worldview.

Of course, in today's context, it is rare to discuss hot-button issues of the day for 2-hours without mentioning the war in Iraq. The next proposition that was posited was "George W. Bush made a mistake when he got us involved in Iraq." The group briefly explored the basis for the involvement including a critique of Christian leadership that had consulted the administration on the plans for war. Also, the group discussed the administrations reasoning and intentions. The flawed intelligence was brought to light and decisions that are made with flawed presuppositions are often bound to fail. Lastly, the question of duty was raised and whether we are obligated to assist a people that are ruled by a brutal dictator who claims to have the means to destroy life.

The next proposition that was offered stated that "it is detrimental to a society to be tolerant especially in the public square." The initiator on this discussion contended that too much has been given up in the name of "tolerance." Tolerance was defined as the acceptance of a multitude of beliefs without critique. An insightful comment was made regarding the power context in which tolerance takes place. It is within the power context that certain powerful people are able to set the agenda. The conversation ended with agreement around the need to make articulate well-reasoned arguments that may not be viewed as being "tolerant."

A few more topics were discussed including free-will vs. predetermination, the effects of a self-serving American society and the process (or lack thereof) of Christian sanctification. The first NOVA PigFest was a great success with 10 people attending and there are plans being laid to have another in the near future.

Notes from the Feb 2008 Pigfest

The discussion was spirited and the propositions were thought provoking. Last night's Pigfest really has me thinking.

Proposition One : "Consistent pro-lifers ought to refuse any treatment that comes from stem cells taken from human embryos, even if they or their children would die by refusing treatment."

Proposition Two : "Everyone in society should be required to submit DNA samples at birth to be maintained in a national DNA database. This will help crime fighting and make for a safer society."

Proposition Three : "It is morally acceptable for McCain supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton in Virginia's open primary on Tuesday if they think Hillary is the weaker Democratic candidate."

Proposition Four : "Marijuana should be legalized for use in relieving pain in terminally ill patients."

Re: prop one.

Several pro lifers present disagreed with this proposition. They felt that if the stem cells had already been harvested, then the human embryo was already dead. If the human embryo was already dead, then it would be morally acceptable to use its body parts ( stem cells ) to help the living. They opposed destroying any new human embryos so that stem cells could be extracted.

I was uncomfortable with that rejoinder. I agreed with the original proposition. Though it would be a horrific decision to let my son or daughter die if a cure was available from a dead human embryo, I think it would be wrong to accept the treatment on the principle of respect for human dignity. It shows a lack of respect for the dignity of the individual to harvest their organs without their prior consent. We would never approve of this with victims of the tornado tragedy in Tennessee, for instance. We would never approve of harvesting Timothy McVeigh's organs after his execution if he he did not consent to it. Why then would we approve of it for human embryos?

This raises new questions about consent. What if parents of the human embryo gave consent to have its body parts harvested? We ran out of time to iron this out.

Bottom line, if a human embryo is a member of the human family, and an image bearer of God, then we ought not treat it like an organ supply factory. The principle of justice says that we defend the defenseless and give voice to the voice less. The weakest human beings in our family are the smallest. In a utilitarian society, they will be preyed upon for their body parts.

Re: prop two

DNA is king in our culture. Once you present the DNA evidence, case closed. It was an excellent proposition to get us thinking about whether that was a good thing or not.

We place our trust in the government and the Bible tells us to submit to their authority. They are our authority and given the power of the sword to restrain evil. Yet, human depravity is real. Our constitution with its checks and balances is predicated on the principle that power corrupts. Both of these truths cause tension. While DNA is like a finger print, and few would object to a finger print database, DNA has the potential to be used to predict things ( alcoholism, anger, etc ). If you have ever seen the movie Gattaca, you know exactly what I am talking about. Remember the scene where the guy goes in for an interview and the hiring manager simply hands him a swab for cells from his mouth. No interview. Just a DNA swab. Having a national DNA database could really give the Federal government an immense amount of power.

The group was uncomfortable with this suggestion though they clearly see the benefits in crime fighting or in paternity cases etc.

I think the prominence given DNA is a bad thing. It takes away from the notion of testimony and other types of evidence, and tempts us to not use the other means of determining a person's guilt - namely, eye witnesses and human reasoning. Remember, DNA samples, like finger prints, can be planted.

Re: prop three

Cross over voting, also known as mischief voting, has largely been a Republican concern in Virginia. Virginia, like 20 other states, has an open primary system. This means anyone can go into a booth and vote for any candidate they want. I could vote for Hillary or Barack, no questions asked.

Why on earth would one do this?

Well, if I thought McCain stood a better chance of defeating Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, then it certainly would be nice to see Hillary Clinton win the Democratic nomination. Besides, McCain has this thing wrapped up. Why vote for Huckabee at this point?

The ultimate irony here is that Republicans have been trying for years to change Virginia from an open primary to a closed primary. Anger runs deep among Republicans because they remember when John Warner ( a virtual RINO ), took advantage of the open primary system to get re-elected when angry conservatives were trying to get rid of him. Republicans have sought to introduce measures to make voters be bound by loyalty oaths. In other words, you make a promise to support the person you voted for. Democrats opposed this idea. The Republicans have always lost this issue and the primaries remain open.

Now, the shoe is on the other foot. The Dems have a horse race on their hands with Hillary versus Obama. The Republican primary is over. McCain won. Now Republicans can use their votes however they want.

This proposition had virtually no resistance. Everyone agreed that we all have a right to vote our conscience. If our conscience is okay with cross over voting, then so be it. A vote for Hillary (if you are convinced she is the weaker candidate) improves McCain's chances of winning. Ultimately, that is what we are trying to accomplish by using our voice in the voter's booth.

Re: prop four.

Medical marijuana is legal in several states, but not legal at the Federal level. We had a physician present at the Pigfest who vouched for the fact that much more powerful drugs than marijuana are legal medically. Example, cocaine can be prescribed in certain circumstances. Given this fact, it seems inconsistent that marijuana not be given this same status as long as it is closely monitored. Terminally ill patients suffer from a great deal of pain, and this would ease it.

Our discussion got a little metaphysical. What is pain? Is it just physical? Could depression be considered a form of pain? Would God approve of narcotics as a form of a release from pain? Does God want us to be pain free?

It seems heart less to say no to some forms of pain relief, but I do not believe God approves of us disconnecting from reality in order to escape pain. I think there is purpose in pain and it is part of our existence and part of God's plan. Pain is not always bad. Certainly it is okay to alleviate pain. But getting so doped up that you live in an alternate reality 24 hours a day seems too extreme. The distance between approving this, and approving suicide for patients in pain, is miniscule. In other words, why not simply approve of suicide as a form of pain relief? It is the ultimate disconnect from this reality, right?

That is where I think the use of narcotics from 24-7 pain relief would lead us.

Notes From The Salem Pigfest

It was a night of conviviality and engaging conversation in Salem, Virginia.

Here is a recap of the propositions.

"While watching television clearly requires discernment, it is good for Christians to watch some television to be more effective ambassadors and missionaries to this culture."

"Given the heinous and long term damaging effects of sexual molestation to its victims and to society, and given that statistics show that molesters will continue to molest, convicted molesters should undergo mandatory court-ordered castration."

"Those in the church tend to treat the sins of those outside the church as if a sin scale existed. Instead of focusing on condemning some sins as worse than others, those in the church should spend their time sharing the gospel with unbelievers."

"When Christians practice civil disobedience they should behave more like Christ than the world."

"Christians have misunderstood the teaching to be fruitful and multiply to the detriment of practicing adoption. Adoption is a beautiful picture of the gospel and Christians should lead the way in adopting children into their homes."

The quality and high level of discussion at this Pigfest was remarkable given that each person was a Pigfest first-timer. All of the participants were Christians and everyone knew this ahead of time. Hence, four out of five of the propositions were directed at those in the church. As this Salem Pigfest grows and diversifies, I suspect that the propositions will branch out toward society as a whole.

This Pigfest further reinforced in my mind how hungry people are in our culture for conversation. The twelve of us talked non-stop for two and half hours. The time for an evening spent in conversation is back!

New Pigfest Starting In Salem Virginia!

New PigFests are springing up. The Salem PigFest will start on November 30th.

If you live in Salem, Virginia and are interesting in coming, please post a comment.

We would love to have some Roanoke College students attend.

Sorry

Sorry.

The Pigfest posting has been slow.

The good news is that we are getting ready to crank it up again.

If you live in or near Roanoke, VA, please post a comment so I can invite you to participate.

Easter Pigfest Northern Virginia

Easter Pigfest 2007

Last Thursday, Truth and Grace Ventures hosted what was, to our knowledge, the first Pigfest held in Northern Virginia during this century. What is a Pigfest, you ask? A Pigfest is a regular gathering of people around one table for sharing of great food and thoughtful, intentional, moderated conversation about important issues of the day. Our conversation, consistent with Pigfest tradition, was guided by our guests. Each attendee came prepared to advance and outline a defense for one truth proposition falling within the area of religion, history, government, economics, philosophy or popular culture. The discussion of each proposition – this was a friendly dialogue, not a knock-down, drag-out debate – was limited to 15 minutes.

Our group was comprised of 15 dedicated followers of Jesus Christ. Our collective purpose was to stretch our understanding and practice of discipleship. Too commonly, we Christians are careless and casual about recognizing how biblical truth is integrated with all of life. While we may strive to lead lives marked by Christian ethics, spirituality and practice, too often we fail to think christianly. If we do manage to think christianly, too often such an approach is applied to an artificially narrow set of subjects or concerns. The goal of our first Pigfest, accordingly, was to gather Christians to explore truth and to practice thinking christianly about a variety of topics.

Most importantly, our table that evening was blessed with a wonderful collection of traditional Lebanese dishes. Thank you, Christine, for feeding us! And thank you, Ryan and Jessica, for opening your home to so many indulgent appetites.

Our first presenter of the evening was our host, Ryan. He argued that no girl should date until the age of 20, and no father should let her. His reasons were many. (1) Men love darkness, and their natural state is one of inclination toward evil. (2) Teenagers typically struggle with the issue of acceptance. Emotions rather than wisdom tend to rule. Romantic intimacy is an addictive source of acceptance. Teens need time and space to develop wisdom and proper values. (3) For some, dating connotes what properly would be considered marriage behaviors. (4) Each person only has so much “mindshare.” Dating tends to crowd out the time and energy needed to develop a proper understanding of more important things, such as family. (5) God calls fathers to protect and raise their children consistent with His ways.

To my delight, Ryan was greeted with not hostility but a spirit of generous hospitality. And this is not because everyone agreed with the proposition – not even close. Some questioned the feasibility of implementing a rule against dating, particularly for a young woman of 18 or 19 who has moved out of the home. Others questioned the wisdom of seeking to prevent young people from learning how to relate in healthy ways with prospective spouses. Yet, all who joined the conversation seemed to agree that no father can effectively and productively implement such a law absent an established relationship of trust and love with his daughter. Absent such a relationship between father and daughter, and a generous measure of mercy available to the daughter, a rule against dating will tend to incite and invite the behavior it seeks to prevent.

Our second presenter, Kate, proposed that the Church should fight for legislation that abolishes government-recognized marriage. The Church would be the sole institution with the authority to grant marriages and to define marriage. The Church could protect the traditional notion of marriage, limiting it to the union of a man and a woman. Governments could continue to grant civil unions, domestic partnerships and the like, and to define them as the people see fit – perhaps extending them beyond one man-one woman arrangements. Governments also could confer tax and other legal benefits, traditionally associated with marriage, to state-recognized unions. As I understand Kate’s point, the hope would be that the debate over marriage and homosexuality would be diffused/disarmed; the Church would refocus on evangelism; the Church would gain a stronger voice in the present culture, as it focuses more on the gospel than leading the charge against the radical homosexual agenda.

Kate’s proposition definitely garnered strong support from those in our group who believe that poverty (and other ills) should rank higher on the Church’s social agenda than homosexuality. There was also strong opposition. As I suggested in my closing remarks, marriage is not a political construct devised by man, but the first of the social institutions created by the living God to advance his goodness in the world. If marriage had been devised by man, it might be wise and good to attempt to improve upon it. If marriage were just a human political institution, it might be wise and good for the Church to abandon its definition and administration to the political sphere. The experience of the last several decades do not provide much hope for society’s ability to improve marriage. With innovations like no-fault divorce, marriage has become more a contract-of-convenience than a lifelong covenant. As the institution of marriage has disintegrated, so has the fabric of our culture.

Kathryn offered the third proposition of the evening: a person cannot continue maturing in his/her walk with Christ absent the discipline of solitude. By solitude, Kathryn was referring to a disciplined effort to “flee, be silent and pray,” “three ways of preventing the world from shaping us in its image” (Henri Nouwen, The Way of the Heart). Seeking solitude was a regular practice of Jesus. What more reason do we need? He began his ministry by spending 40 days in the desert (Luke 4:1). He went to a lonely place and prayed before teaching and casting out demons in Galilee (Mark 1:35). He spent a night on a mountainside in prayer before choosing The Twleve and before the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:12). He spent the night in the garden at Gethsemane before His crucifixion. As a group, I believe we were of one mind that (1) solitude is an important discipline for creating space in which God may speak to and change us, but (2) we cannot allow this one important discipline to become an excuse for idleness or navel-gazing, both of which promise the fruit of self-deception.

Our fourth proposition, offered by Allison, was all Christians need to be active participants/members in a local church. Relying heavily on the writings of Paul and on her own experience, Allison urged that we cannot be the Body of Christ by ourselves, that the institutional church provides necessary clothing for the Body, and without it we are more vulnerable to the voices of the world. While a great – perhaps nearly unanimous – majority of people around the table agreed with the proposition, we were not left with a stale, unimportant discussion. There was definitely a current in the discussion in favor of the notion that a strong community of believers, living (close) together, seeking the Kingdom of God could obviate the need for association with any local church as commonly understood. Consider, for instance, the purported strength and beauty of house churches in places like China. There also was a sober recognition among many in the group that the local church, and our half-hearted participation in it, can serve as a paltry substitute for real discipleship. We can attend regularly, serve on a committee or two, teach Sunday School, and lull ourselves into believing that this is kingdom-living, that we are achieving all that Christ has in store for us in this age. There is also the concern that the local church can serve to sustain rather than break down barriers between classes or races. Wealthy folks bring donations of money and food; poor folks pick up food and other necessities; both groups leave feeling better off, but is something not lost from their failure to cultivate relationships with one another?

The final proposition of the evening belonged to Jennica. She argued that Christians should buy Fair Trade Certified coffee. Fair Trade principles seek to treat people throughout the supply chain with dignity and to care for the long-term well-being of the earth’s resources. Farmers in developing countries are provided a “minimum wage” that covers their expenses and thus helps to release them from cyclical poverty. The farmers, in turn, must pay their laborers fair wages and comply with labor regulations. Farmers also must comply with environmental regulations and use sustainable farming techniques such as crop rotation. Why should Christians, in particular, support Fair Trade Certified products? Because God commands us to seek justice, care for the poor and to be wise stewards of creation. Only one argument against Fair Trade Coffee gained any real traction with our group. Buying Fair Trade Coffee could act as a balm on the conscience of Christians, leading them to say in all self-righteousness, “I’ve done my part for the poor of the world. I buy Fair Trade Coffee.” So, should we encourage Christians to take this one small, faithful step, or should we encourage them to sacrifice much more of their comfort so that others may eat and live with dignity? The following day, my friend Jeff Clinton answered the question best: “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much” (Luke 16:10). Doing the little things well matters a great deal.

At the end of the evening, we all put our souvenir piggies (see picture above) into a hat for a drawing. At stake was a set of four theater tickets to see the heidi chronicles playing at Washington, DC’s Arena Stage. Congratulations to Bob and Gail! We expect a full report at the next Pigfest in July.

Alabama Pigfest April 2007

All worldviews, political slants, and nationalities are welcomed to our PigFest. They are more than just welcomed we seek them out to come and join us.

With 29 attending here are the topics we discussed this past week:

“The Don Imus debacle will serve as a watershed event to help re-establish the line between respectable news and journalism versus comedy and base entertainment.”

The overriding conclusion was that there has been a breakdown between what is considered legitimate news verses sensationalism for the sake of entertainment. For example, name one news agency that can seriously say that after the first day of coverage that the Anna Nicole story was still legitimate news. In an effort to have each story “top” the one before there are no restrictions as to what one might say about another person. Often times a considerable percent of a commentary is used to attack the character of the individual in opposition rather than focus on the issue at hand. Ann Coulter and Bill Maher could be described as some who use personal attacks to “win” an argument. In her article, “That’s Not Nice”, published in the Wall Street Journal on March 10, 2007, Peggy Noonan wrote, “Our country now puts less of an emphasis on public decorum, courtliness, self-discipline, decency. America no longer says, "That's not nice." It doesn't want to make value judgments on "good" and "bad." We have come to rely on censorship to maintain decorum. We are very good at letting people know that if they say something we don't like, we'll shame them and shun them, even ruin them.” I think she’s right and Don Imus is another recent example. We should demand more of people and rather than just rely on censorship let’s raise the bar for common decency and respect for the individual. Let’s encourage news organizations to have integrity when it comes to calling a story newsworthy and when it is commentary call it such. Let each argument, for or against, stand on its own merit, for truth has a way of making itself obvious to all.

“In light of the devastating massacre at Virginia Tech, we’re faced with the sad truth that evil exists at a profound level in our world. That being the case, God can’t possibly be both all loving and all powerful. He is either loving but not powerful enough to stop evil or powerful but not loving enough to stop evil.”

No one shied away from this one. There was a deep sense of sadness that everyone felt. (One person at our table asked that we stop for a moment of silence to remember the students and their families before the dinner began.) It was discussed as to whether or not people are more evil today than at any time in the past. The conclusion was, no. It was argued that human beings have a definite propensity to do evil and that time with improvements in education and technology haven’t lowered the propensity to do evil but rather just gives one the tools to be more efficient in carrying out the act. There was no conclusion as to whether God can be all loving and all powerful or if one attribute must negate the other. Just as there are things we do that an animal can’t comprehend (i.e. reading a newspaper or book.) there are things that involve God that we can’t understand because it is not in our scope of knowledge. One area of agreement was in the midst of evil, we can always find acts of love. One example remembered was the forgiveness and love shown by the Amish community towards those involved in the tragic murder of the Amish girls.

Other propositional truths debated included:

“We (the U.S.) have Military bases all over the world. Since the cold war is over, I believe we need to close the bases and send our troops either to Afghanistan or home.”

Both sides had equal representation.

“It is up to the wealthiest people of a society to insure that those who are disadvantaged are taken care of.”

Some argued that we do take care of the less fortunate through the taxes we pay to the government. Others argued that each person is directly responsible for helping the disadvantage. It was emphasized that those who are Christians are called to do so by Christ Himself.

Each one of these was discussed with the same persistence to uncover truth.

With cigar in hand, our last propositional truth offered; Second Hand Smoke (E.T.S. Environmental Tobacco Smoke):

It has been claimed that from 37,000 to 40,000 people die from smoking related disease caused by other people's smoke each year. Sounds terrible, doesn't it? Problem is ... It's Not True! Doesn't make sense, does it? Why would the government, knowing there is no association between lung cancer and ETS exposure, continue to scare the public into believing there is? The answer is simple: Money. If you knew the truth about ETS exposure, you would not voluntarily contribute your money to the government to continue funding their bogus studies. So, why do the government and the insurance industry make such a big deal about ETS when the research doesn't even support their claims? At the risk of repeating myself...it's because of money, control, and jurisdiction.

While no one really bought this argument neither did anyone put down his cigar.

While we take the evening’s topics seriously we also thoroughly enjoy the company of one another which makes each time we come together a memorable occasion.

Pigfest Report : March 23, 2007

We had seventeen guests to the Pigfest. It was a lively group. We indulged in food, fellowship and conversation. Numerous thought provoking propositions were presented.

Bethany was the first to present. Her proposition was that "one of the God-given duties of a wife is to civilize her husband." Next up was Rebecca, who presented "standardized tests are too closely tied to self-esteem; therefore, we either need a new way to measure intelligence or children should not be allowed to know how they score on standardized tests." This was followed by a proposition from Trey, who argued that "civilized societies ought to protect the free expression of art no matter how vulgar or distasteful we perceive the art to be." [note: Trey played Devil's advocate with this proposition. He did not actually believe vulgar art should be protected]. Next was Bill who defended the idea that "God used evolution to create man and evolution does not pose a threat to Christianity." Finally, Paul argued that "the threat from radical Islam makes the U.S. involvement in Iraq the correct response."

Several things made this Pigfest memorable. One, the tone was remarkably friendly even though there was disagreement. Two, the Devil's Rule was used often and effectively. Three, the physical layout worked well (more of a large round table format). Four, the staging of the food and passing of the platters was done well and was easier for Mrs. Dawntreader. Five, it was a long Pigfest (nearly two hours) but it did not go too long to the point of wearing thin.

Here were my summaries on each topic.

On the civilizing of husbands. Bethany clarified that civilizing meant "revealing blind spots" in the sense that a wife helps expose her husbands weaknesses. There is no doubt at all that this is true. But a wife should not view her role as being the Holy Spirit and the convictor of sin. Nor should a wife view her husband as a project. Nevertheless, it is clear that God uses marriage in a unique way to sanctify us husbands and expose our sin and therefore our great need of the daily redemptive work of Christ through the Holy Spirit.

On the standardized testing. Our culture is too tied to academic performance. Intelligence goes beyond book learning. Standardized tests don't always accurately measure intelligence -- some book smart kids test poorly. Self worth, furthermore, should not be based on one's ability to outperform others on tests. Therefore, I concur with Rebecca's second suggestion that test scores should be kept hidden from kids to prevent a boastful spirit (or a deflated spirit as the case may be). Clarification: by standardized tests, we are not talking about SATs. We are talking about National testing done in middle school.

On protecting art no matter how vulgar. While free speech is certainly an important property of civilized societies, we ought to have standards of decency. We certainly should not have to use tax dollars to pay for things like crosses in jars of urine which are ostensibly expressions of art. Whether we can truly legislate those standards of decency is a ticklish area. And defining what constitutes art turns out to be challenging. Nevertheless, civilized societies don't have to give in to relativism in order to be civilized. Standards can be set and enforced ... if not through laws, then through the moral ethos of a society.

On theistic evolution. For the record, I am not a theistic evolutionist. I think Genesis is real history and that God created animals in their own kinds as a special act of creation. I think Genesis teaches that human beings were created both male and female and completely distinct from the animals as a special act of creation on day 6. I totally understand the urge to try to blend evolution with Christianity in the manner of Dr. Francis Collins. However, true evolution is unguided, undirected and random ... not directed and controlled by God. Blending the two doesn't fit philosophically, nor is there any scripture supporting even a hint of evolutionary descent. I think it is disingenous to frame evolution as directed and controlled and more consistent to hold to a Richard Dawkinsish view of evolution.

As I moderated this discussion, I took it upon myself to draw out conversation rather than offer my own views. I did make the following challenge in my wrap up. If you are a theist, then you let God in the door. Once God is in play, then one cannot assume him away (i.e. make the deistic assumption that God receded into the background after kicking things off). God exists and He has spoken. One must take all of His revelation ( both creation and the revealed word ) and harmonize it because all truth is God's truth. God cannot lie. If there is a conflict, it is on our inability to interpret. Furthermore, there is no one position that is free from assumptions. No position has the "high ground" of being pure reason, logic and fact. As G.K. Chesterton points out, we are in a world filled with magic. The laws of physics do seem to work, but nobody knows why, where they came from, or if they will operate tomorrow.

On the U.S. war in Iraq. I supported the invasion of Iraq when it happened. I thought that some form of democracy in an Islamic country might be possible as long as the country practiced more of a cultural form of Islam. Like many, I have grown more skeptical of the possibility of a stable democracy in a flash point country like Iraq. But I agree with everyone at the Pigfest that a response to the threat of radical Islam is required. Sitting back in the U.S. and waiting to get hit again and again is foolish. Taking a Neville Chamberlain approach of appeasement of radical Islam is foolish as well. Being nice to jihadists won't make them like the U.S. and leave us alone. What is fueling Islam's anger toward us is a worldview rooted in a thousand years of history. What I think is really required is a change of worldview in a strategic Islamic country like Iran (or Saudi Arabia). And guess what, Iran is undergoing a worldview change on the inside from what I am told by missionaries. Anecdotal reports from Iran are encouraging. Victory in this struggle will probably come through the blood of Christian martyrs -- not Christian suicide bombers, but Christians who are willing to go and risk death by sharing the gospel of Christ to a country like Iran that is thirsty and ripe for Jesus Christ. Like in middle earth, look for victory to come through the most unlikely of heroes -- keep an eye on the hobbits ;-)