The Shield Prayer of Saint Patrick

The Shield Prayer of Saint Patrick

I bind to myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity,
By invocation of the same,
The Three in One and One in Three.
The virtue of the Incarnation of Christ with His Baptism,
The virtue of His crucifixion with His burial,
The virtue of His Resurrection with His Ascension,
The virtue of His coming on the Judgment Day.
I bind to myself today
The virtue of the love of seraphim,
In the obedience of angels,
In the hope of resurrection unto reward,
In prayers of Patriarchs,
In predictions of Prophets,
In preaching of Apostles,
In deeds of the righteous.
I bind to myself today
The power of Heaven,
The light of the sun,
The brightness of the moon,
The splendor of fire,
The flashing of lightning,
The swiftness of wind,
The depth of sea.
I bind to myself today
God’s Power to guide me,
God’s Might to uphold me,
God’s Wisdom to teach me,
God’s Eye to watch over me,
God’s Ear to hear me,
God’s Word to give me speech,
God’s Hand to guide me,
God’s Way to lie before me,
God’s Shield to shelter me,
God’s Host to secure me,
Against the snares of demons,
Against the seductions of vices,
Against the lusts that war within,
Against everyone who intends injury to me,
Whether far or near,
Whether few or with many.
In every place and in all hours,
Against their fierce hostility,
I bind to me these holy powers.
Against all Satan’s spells and wiles,
Which may assail my body and my soul,
Against every hostile merciless power
Against the incantations of false prophets,
Against the wizard’s evil craft,
Against every heresy,
Against the deceits of idolatry,
Christ, protect me today.
Christ with me, Christ before me,
Christ behind me, Christ within me,
Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ at my right, Christ at my left,
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks to me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.
I bind to myself today
The strong Name of the Trinity;
By invocation of the same.
The Three in One, and One in Three,
Of Whom all nature hath creation,
Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:
Praise to the Lord of my salvation,
Salvation is of Christ the Lord.
Will Changing the Rules of Grammar Eliminate Racism?

Will Changing the Rules of Grammar Eliminate Racism?

The University of Washington made news headlines with their Tacoma Writing Center’s “Statement on Antiracist and Social Justice Work in the Writing Center.”  Headlines declared, “College Writing Center Declares American Grammar A ‘Racist,’ ‘Unjust Language Structure’,”  “College teaches American grammar is ‘racist’,” and “College writing center: Proper grammar perpetuates ‘racist,’ ‘unjust language structure.”

In part, the reaction is against quotes from the UW statement like the following;

The racist conditions of our society are not simply a matter of bias or prejudice that some people hold. In fact, most racism, for instance, is not accomplished through intent. Racism is the normal condition of things. Racism is pervasive. It is in the systems, structures, rules, languages, expectations, and guidelines that make up our classes, school, and society. For example, linguistic and writing research has shown clearly for many decades that there is no inherent “standard” of English. Language is constantly changing. These two facts make it very difficult to justify placing people in hierarchies or restricting opportunities and privileges because of the way people communicate in particular versions of English.


Furthermore, by acknowledging and critiquing the systemic racism that forms parts of UWT and the languages and literacies expected in it, students and writing center consultants can cultivate a more socially just future for everyone. Just avoiding racism is not enough because it means we are doing nothing to stop racism at large, and it amounts to allowing racism to continue.

Some of the key commitments are outlined in their paper,

  • emphasize the importance of rhetorical situations over grammatical “correctness” in the production of texts
  • provide students ways to be more aware of grammar as a rhetorical set of choices with various consequences;
  • challenge conventional word choices and writing explanations;

The UWT statement concludes,

We also realize that racism is connected to other forms of social injustice, such as classism, sexism, heteronormative assumptions, etc., in similar ways. We promise further to do our best to compassionately address these issues as they pertain to student writing as well.

The director of the UWT writing center, Dr. Asao Inoue, and John Burkhardt have defended the writing center statement as important for changing the systemic structures of racism that now define the University of Washington’s Tacoma campus, all of academia, and Western society as a whole.

The Center works to raise awareness that language is part of a larger system than can unintentionally perpetuate racial and social inequities. The term “racism” in this context is not about people behaving badly; it is about helping students understand language as part of a larger cultural system.

These concepts add to what students are learning about English and writing and help them understand they have choices in how they use language. They provide students with tools for how language can be applied effectively in different contexts.

Critics at The Daily Caller have observed, “The Tacoma Writing Center’s prioritization of social justice over grammar resembles previous concerted efforts to legitimize incorrect speech, such as Ebonics, “inventive spelling,” and “whole language.”” This connection to previous movements is important as it reminds us that this statement from UW was not made in a vacuum. Recently, a portrait of William Shakespeare was removed by students from the University of Pennsylvania and replaced by with a portrait of Audre Lorde who describes herself as a “Black feminist, lesbian, poet, mother, [and] warrior.” UPenn English Chair Jed Esty has since written an email to English majors stating, “We invite everyone to join us in the task of critical thinking about the changing nature of authorship, the history of language, and the political life of symbols.”

Will changing the rules of grammar eliminate racism? No, and to be fair, I don’t think that is precisely what is being argued by UWT. That may be an implied point, but not what they are trying to say. What they are arguing is much deeper. These statements above taken together reflect a larger movement in academia that has long embraced linguistic deconstruction through a postmodernist lens. For those unfamiliar, Ravi Zacharias has described postmodernism as a movement against truth, meaning, and certainty that rejects the idea of a meta-narrative (e.g. a Christian worldview) based on an epistemology that holds to the limitless instability of words. Zaharias’ last words are key to understanding what is happening at UW, UPenn and all across Western academia.

First, it is a movement to deconstruct the referential use of language and erode any reasonable foundation for coherence in the traditions of Western civilization (e.g. democracy rule of law, marriage, economics, etc…). The ‘limitless instability of language’ is a primal truth in the postmodern language convention which seeks to redefine language based on cultural context, rhetorical situations, and situational choice. In the case of UW, the goal is quite simple. if one wants to eliminate systemic racism, one must redefine the very meaning of words and the structures of grammar so that any foundation for truth, meaning, and certainly within the American context can be eliminated and replaced with a new egalitarian system.

Second, it is a post-structuralist movement that, lacking any meta-narrative, concludes characteristics like individual identity and moral values have no intrinsic value. Values are not objective and absolute but instead determined by relativistic conditions within a culture. The reason racism exists, so the argument goes, is because the structures, institutions, and language of society have fostered it. This is in some form an adaptation of Descartes’s idea theory of perception applied to how one defines the very nature of being.

The “self” is a bundle of social roles, such as being a wife, a mother, a graduate student, an insurance salesperson, and these roles are created by the linguistic practices associated with them. For the postmodernist, consciousness and the self are social, not individual.

Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-09-20). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (p. 148). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

The problem with the UW statement goes far deeper than a rejection of objective rules of grammar. The ad-hoc post-modern worldview that undergirds this statement is ultimately a rejection of any inherent meaning in words which in turn leads to a wholly transient morality and ties human dignity to the whims of society.

Here is a description of post-modern philosophy in contrast to philosophical realism that should help process the thought behind this movement to reinvent grammar.

Philosophically, metaphysical realism includes a commitment to (1) the existence of a theory-independent or language-independent reality, (2) the notion that there is one way the world really is and (3) the notion that the basic laws of logic (identity, noncontradiction, excluded middle) apply to reality. Postmodernism involves an antirealist rejection of these realist commitments. According to postmodernism, “reality” is a social construction. Language creates reality, and what is real for one linguistic group may be unreal for another.

Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-09-20). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (p. 145). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

Thus, for these deconstructionist reformers, the Christian meta-narrative of the human sin nature, the need for redemption, and the hope of restoration through the salvation of Jesus Christ is seen as one more system to be deconstructed before any real progress can be made.

These are just a few of my initial observations, but certainly incomplete. So let me ask:

  • What problems do you see?
  • What ideas do you have for engaging the minds of those who accept these ideas?

Gender ID is not Subjective

Gender ID is not subjective. It is not defined by culture or by perception, it is defined by the objective reality of God’s creative purpose for your life… and that is a good thing!

The best science affirms what we know from the creation account in Genesis. The American College of Pediatrics updated their scientific conclusion that transgenderism is harmful to children. They conclude:

The American College of Pediatricians urges healthcare professionals, educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.

An excerpt of each of their key statements assert the following:

1. Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively – not genetic markers of a disorder.

2. No one is born with a gender. Everyone is born with a biological sex. Gender (an awareness and sense of oneself as male or female) is a sociological and psychological concept; not an objective biological one.

3. A person’s belief that he or she is something they are not is, at best, a sign of confused thinking.

4. Puberty is not a disease and puberty-blocking hormones can be dangerous. Reversible or not, puberty- blocking hormones induce a state of disease – the absence of puberty – and inhibit growth and fertility in a previously biologically healthy child.

5. According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.

6. Pre-pubertal children who use puberty blockers to impersonate the opposite sex will require cross-sex hormones in late adolescence. This combination leads to permanent sterility. These children will never be able to conceive any genetically related children even via artificial reproductive technology. In addition, cross-sex hormones (testosterone and estrogen) are associated with dangerous health risks including but not limited to cardiac disease, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, diabetes, and cancer.

7. Rates of suicide are nearly twenty times greater among adults who use cross-sex hormones and undergo sex reassignment surgery, even in Sweden which is among the most LGBTQ – affirming countries.

8. Conditioning children into believing a lifetime of chemical and surgical impersonation of the opposite sex is normal and healthful is child abuse.

Their final affirmation is quite clear.

The bottom line is this:  Our opponents advocate a new scientifically baseless standard of care for children with a psychological condition (GD) that would otherwise resolve after puberty for the vast majority of patients concerned.  Specifically, they advise:  affirmation of children’s thoughts which are contrary to physical reality; the chemical castration of these children prior to puberty with GnRH agonists (puberty blockers which cause infertility, stunted growth, low bone density, and an unknown impact upon their brain development), and, finally, the permanent sterilization of these children prior to age 18 via cross-sex hormones.

[SERMON] Sex & Creation — Genesis 2

The Sunday Conversation at Reunion Church led by Joe Miller, Elder — Genesis 2. The message is titled, “Sex & Creation.”

Here are the questions we discussed at our tables.

1 Why is there so much confusion today about “gender identity”?
2 Why do you think so many people and cultures struggle with seeing men and women as equal?
3. How can the Creation story help us resolve our confusion?

Here is a summary of the main points that jumped out to me.

1. Male & Female TOGETHER reflect the Goodness of God. (e.g. Our “gender” ID is objective, not subjective.)
2. Male & Female TOGETHER reflect the creative power of God. (e.g. A triune God is reflected in the triune nature of conception).
3. Male & Female TOGETHER fulfill God’s Divine purpose (e.g. We must care for all creation).
What have we wrought?

What have we wrought?

Is God real? Is faith in God delusional? Ravi Zacharias argues three approaches to fashioning a reasonable worldview; Total Objectivity/Transcendence, Total Determinism, and Semi-Transcendence. Only the latter is the hope of producing a systemic coherent scientific and religious worldview. Following are some quotes to consider.

We are living now, not in the delicious intoxication induced by the early successes of science, but in a rather grisly morning-after, when it has become apparent that what triumphant science has done hitherto is to improve the means for achieving unimproved or actually deteriorated ends.
Aldous (Leonard) HuxleyEnds and Means: an Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into Methods Employed for their Realization (1937), 310.
“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning – the Christian meaning, they insisted – of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”
Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means
Many of the most fundamental claims of science are against common sense and seem absurd on their face. Do physicists really expect me to accept without serious qualms that the pungent cheese that I had for lunch is really made up of tiny, tasteless, odorless, colorless packets of energy with nothing but empty space between them? Astronomers tell us without apparent embarrassment that they can see stellar events that occurred millions of years ago, whereas we all know that we see things as they happen. … Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
 Richard C. Lewontin, “Billions and Billions of Demons” in: The New York Review of Books, 9 January 1997, p. 31
“Has anyone provided proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. Have our sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as it is not religious thought? Close enough. Has rationalism and moral thought provided us with an understanding of what is good, what is right, and what is moral? Not close enough. Has secularism in the terrible 20th century been a force for good? Not even close, to being close. Is there a narrow and oppressive orthodoxy in the sciences? Close enough. Does anything in the sciences or their philosophy justify the claim that religious belief is irrational? Not even in the ball park. Is scientific atheism a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt? Dead on.”
David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions
“So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over–a weary, battered old brontosaurus–and became extinct.”
Malcolm Muggeridge, Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society
When a general principle is advanced, it collapses quickly into absurdity. Thus Sam Harris argues that “to believe that God exists is to believe that I stand in some relation to his existence such that his existence is itself the reason for my belief” (italics added). This sounds very much as if belief in God could only be justified if God were to call attention conspicuously to Himself, say by a dramatic waggling of the divine fingers.
If this is so, then by parity of reasoning again, one might argue that to believe that neutrinos have mass is to believe that I stand in some relationship to their mass such that their mass is itself the reason for my belief.
Just how are those neutrinos waggling their fingers?
A neutrino by itself cannot function as a reason for my belief. It is a subatomic particle, for heaven’s sake. What I believe is a proposition, and so an abstract entity—that neutrinos have mass. How could a subatomic particle enter into a relationship with the object of my belief? But neither can a neutrino be the cause of my belief. I have, after all, never seen a neutrino: not one of them has ever gotten me to believe in it. The neutrino, together with almost everything else, lies at the end of an immense inferential trail, a complicated set of judgments.
Believing as I do that neutrinos have mass—it is one of my oldest and most deeply held convictions—I believe what I do on the basis of the fundamental laws of physics and a congeries of computational schemes, algorithms, specialized programming languages, techniques for numerical integration, huge canned programs, computer graphics, interpolation methods, nifty shortcuts, and the best efforts by mathematicians and physicists to convert the data of various experiments into coherent patterns, artfully revealing symmetries and continuous narratives. The neutrino has nothing to do with it.
[In Semi-Transcendance] humanity is able to move outside of itself to a legitimate degree and what it ends up doing really in the ability to move out of itself to a legitimate degree it is then able to measure its pronouncements by external testing, external verification for correspondence and coherence. When you make a statement you can check it out correspondingly to be true. When you build a system, you can look at it as a systemically coherent worldview. This is the way it is in our courts of law. This is the way it ought to be in a scientific lab itself. When you make a statement it is measured against a referent. When you put together a system it ought to be coherent and brought together. Total Transcendence is logically, biologically, and ideologically impossible. Total Determinism is self-defeating. The Semi Transcendent way is the only way we are able to half rise outside of yourself make meaningful statements about reality and measure them up against the truth as they really correspond.
A Prayer for my President: Donald J. Trump

A Prayer for my President: Donald J. Trump

As I did with President Obama, today on inauguration day I am lifting up a prayer for my President Donald J. Trump. I must admit, these are words that I never imagined I would write. Like most Americans, I never thought Trump stood a chance of winning, but here we are in 2017 looking toward the unknown of the next four years.

Today, my biggest prayer is for healing. The rhetoric of the 2016 campaign was extremely divisive from leaders in both parties. In 2008, one of my biggest prayers was that Obama’s Presidency would increase racial unity in America. I wrote at that time,

Now, less than 50 years [after the civil rights movement of the 1960’s], we stand at the edge of a new era when the fullness of our constitutional promise that “All Men are created equal” will  be achieved.  On January 20th, 2009, Barack Obama will be sworn in is as the first non-white President of the United States of America.

To be certain, this does not mean the end of all racial problems.  As noted in the February 2001 article in Time, there are some who say “Obama Is Not Black Enough.”  For others, Obama is not white enough.  In a country of this size, with a great diversity of cultures, there will always be some racial hatred and bigotry.  But look how far we have come!

Sadly, the last 8 years our leaders have helped foment racial division, weakened traditional institutions of moral strength, and fractured many once strong relationships.

  • I pray against any leader who tries to advance the culture of fear as a way to keep their power and wealth.
  • To those who chose violent protest and riots as their path of dissent, I pray they would abandon these immoral tactics.
  • My prayer for President Trump is that he would elevate his rhetoric, lead with integrity, appoint godly people, and be a source for reconciliation in American politics.

1 Timothy 2:1–6 (ESV)

2 First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

Pin It on Pinterest