An Inflated Sense of Importance

More on Ted Haggard

2006-11-11T11:50:00.000-08:00

A couple more observations on the fall of Ted Haggard:

After Tuesday the focus on the Haggard scandal seems to have shifted from, "how might this effect the election?" to "why the Christian view of sex is repressive 'soul murder.'"

First, it it interesting to me that so many writing on this topic are quick to peg Mr. Haggard as a repressed homosexual rather than the more fluid category of bi-sexual. "Repressed homosexual" might be appropriate for those Catholic priests we sometimes hear about, but hardly appropriate for a married father with five children.

The concept of "fluid sexuality" accords well with both Christian and classic pagan perspectives - they differ only on the question of morality. But sexual fluidity is a concept that is at odds with the prevalent view in our culture, which is heavily influenced by philosophical and scientific materialism. The reigning philosophy on sex is that orientation must be hard-wired into our genes because it (and everything else) must be reduced to physical causes. Bi-sexuality fits uncomfortably in this philosophical mold.

The second thing that interests me is that everything I have read (including Christian articles) assume that Ted is genuine in his Christian beliefs. No one has questioned whether Ted's hypocrisy goes deeper than his behavior.

So I will go ahead and be the first. His flat denial of everything, then his very limited admission, and finally his full fledged confession, is not the mark of a Christian but of a fraud. A Christian repents when exposed as being in sin. But Ted was trying to get away with as much as possible, and "confessing" only to what could be proved.

Ted belonges to the Pentecostal sect of Christianity, which professes belief in the continuation of prophecy and all kinds of miracles, signs and wonders. This faith survives on highly emotional events and apocryphal stories. Ted may have entered the ministry with good intentions, but I believe his faith was shaken somewhere along the way. The emotional events appear very different when you plan them rather than simply attend them. For ministers, a certain amount of "professionalism" is inevitable. More importantly, at some point it must have troubled him that he never witnessed any objective miracles of the Spirit. (Think: Benny Hinn and others have no shortage of miracle stories - legs sprouting on amputees, dead people being resurrected. But when have you ever witnessed obvious miracles on their shows? And where are the cameras when all the "real" stuff happens?). Ted has also told his share of "prophecies" that failed to come to pass.

When Pentecostal ministers become disillusioned on the miraculous, one of two things happen: they abandon Pentecostalism or they abandon Christianity. If a minister looses faith in his sect he can change. If he looses his faith all together, his options for secular employment may not be very promising. If one is highly trained as a minister and not for other types of work, and if one also happens to be very successfull as a church leader, then it would not make much sense to switch careers. If something like this happened to Ted it is likely that he would continue doing what he knows how to do.

The bottom line for me, though, is that I didn't need a scandal to know that Mr. Haggard was a fraud.

Ted Haggard is not the Evangelical Pope

2006-11-04T11:39:00.000-08:00

I am fascinated by the story that broke recently regarding Ted Haggard. Rev. Haggard pastors the 14,000 member New Life Church in CO Springs, but more significantly he is the President of the 30 million member National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). He stands accused by a gay prostitute who claims that Ted hired him once a month for the last three years for sex and that Ted snorts Crystal Meth. Ted denies the sex allegations but admits that he purchased meth from his accuser during a moment of weakness and temptation but did not use it. For my money Ted is guilty of all the allegations though there are reasons to doubt the accuser’s story.

But my interest in this story is without personal investment. Although I am an evangelical Christian, Ted's apostasy is not very important to me. I also doubt this scandal will have any broad ramifications outside the membership of his New Life congregation. But the media are billing this story as one that will rock the evangelical world and (they hope with bated breath) stymie evangelical turnout at the polls. I think they are wrong.

The media constantly misunderstands the nature of evangelicalism. They think it is some sort of organized movement or a church. It isn't. It is impossible to give a succinct definition of an evangelical or define the boundaries of evangelicalism. Historians and theologians have friendly debates on how understand what it is to be "evangelical." It is not like a church with a recognized structure, leaders, and confessions. There is no board of directors that decides who is "in" and who is "out." Evangelicals do not carry a membership card.

I understand the term Evangelical to mean what "Protestant" used to mean: "non Catholic, Christian." Except in the 20s and 30s the Protestants had to distinguish themselves from the mainline Protestant churches that no longer believed in Christianity, but refused to relinquish the name. The title of "fundamentalist" stuck for a while and later gave way to "evangelical." So today Evangelical means "non Catholic, non modernist, Christian."

Since the media believes that evangelicalism is an organized movement they misunderstand the nature of the NAE. They think that the NAE is the evangelical version of the Vatican. They assume that whatever the NAE does carries weight for the 30 million evangelical Christians it represents. In reality the NAE is a paper organization without authority or influence. Most Christians do not even know whether or not their church belongs to the NAE, nor do they care. The NAE exists primarily for the media. They exist so that Ted can tell the reporter "evangelicals believe in Jesus, the Bible, and being born again."

Reporters assume that Ted is the spiritual leader of 10% of the nation, but before this scandal broke most Christians outside CO Springs did not know who Ted Haggard was and those that did know of him would not know him from Adam if it were not for the occasional interview with Barbara Walters or her equivalent.

I do hope Evangelicals learn something from this scandal, however. Not the general truth that it is unwise to put your trust in men, or that all are sinners - we know that already. Rather my hope is that we learn the truth that bad theology leads to bad living.

Ted is a wacky, far left field, nut job, Charismaniac. He is, to put it plainly, a heretic. His teaching on many, many things is far a field of the Bible and of anything that resembles Protestant/Evangelical teaching. It does not surprise me in the least that this man would lead a double life. What surprises me is that he was president of the NAE. I would be surprised even if they allowed him to be a member of their 30 million organization.

His strange ideas of demons, "strongholds" and spiritual warfare resembles Scientology more than Christianity. His free market Gospel, and over-the-top Christian America patriotism is idolatrous. And his Christianity-as-commodity (repeat with worship services featuring light shows and fog machines) shows extremely bad judgment (and taste). He denies that salvation is only through Christ. Jesus is not the only way to heaven, he told Barbara Walters, just the only way you may be certain. He is also the author of a gimmicky "Christian" diet book.

The fact is that in Pentecostal circles the number of ministers and members that are exposed as leading double lives is remarkable. For example, Pentecostal Christians are the most opposed to any use of alcohol and yet have the highest rate of alcoholics. I am not saying that no orthodox Christians lead double lives, but it is far less frequent.

How to Fix the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, part 4

2006-07-15T09:22:00.000-07:00

For a while I thought I was cured of my I.S.S.I. The reasons for John Nevin’s hibernation are several: my involvement in a new hobby, time spent with my baby daughter, seriously exploring the possibility of relocating with a new job, and my regular work duties. A final reason is the present series on fixing the OPC. I did not intend for this to be a religious, and much less a churchly blog. As I began to think of the ailments of the OPC and their cure, the number of posts in my mind greatly expanded beyond what I had the desire to write. The desire to blog about anything else fled as well. Perhaps it may be best to get these posts out of my system and move on.

4. Re-calibrate the center
The fourth ailment plaguing much of the Reformed community in general, and the OPC in particular, is a confusion regarding the center of Reformed Theology. Most Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike are under the false impression that Calvinist theology regards the absolute sovereignty of God as the core of its theology. It is the zentral dogma (say with German accent) that holds all other doctrines within its orbit. This reduces “Calvinism” to the “five points” that find confessional expression in the Cannons of the Synod of Dort.

In the first place this truncated and deformed Calvinism promotes confusion as to what ought to serve as the basis of unity for Reformed Churches. Recently I heard David Bahnsen argue for greater tolerance of Theonomy (see part 2, “real scary politics”) on the grounds that we all believe in the sovereignty of God as our starting point. But I believe I have more common ground with an evangelical Arminian who practices “pilgrim politics” and preaches the way of the cross, rather than the theonomic theology of glory.

Those in the so-called “Federal Vision” movement (see part 3, “teach salvation clearly) are a little different. They typically argue that “covenant” is the central idea. The problem is that they argue for an understanding of “covenant” that is fundamentally opposed to the classically Reformed scheme of covenant theology. But they consider themselves to be “Reformed” because they believe in predestination. Again, I have more in common with an evangelical Arminian who preaches justification by faith alone rather than those who preach works-righteousness, which has more in common with Romanism than the Protestant Reformation. Theonomy and Federal Vision are two errors that rob the church of Divine power and their leaven infects the whole lump of dough.

The basis of unity for all Christians is the Bible. But because of false teachers who twist Scripture, church bodies find it necessary to draw up creeds and confessions that clarify the system of teaching found in Scripture. American Presbyterians use the Westminster Confession of faith and catechisms to clarify the system of doctrine. Significantly, God’s sovereignty is one small aspect of the confession and catechisms. At the same time the Westminster confession presents a radically different understanding of the significance of the Law of Moses and the role of the state than Theonomy, and a radically different understanding of Law and Gospel, the covenant of works and grace, justification, sanctification and baptism than is taught by the Federal Vision.

In the second place, truncated “Calvinism” has proved problematic for assimilating new church members. Books and booklets that defend T.U.L.I.P multiply like rabbits. When reading these books, one can hardly be blamed for thinking that T.U.L.I.P = Reformed Theology. I believe for this reason, many pockets of evangelicalism think of “Calvinism” as something of a movement. It is one of the many choices offered in the mega-church buffet. For a long time there have been Calvinistic Baptists. But now there are so-called Charismatic-Calvinists, Dispensational-Calvinists, Emergent (post-modern) Calvinists and perhaps anything else you can think of. All of this is perfectly consistent if Calvinism means “belief in predestination.” But these predestinarians are content to remain in their broadly evangelical churches because, after all, predestination is just one (minor) doctrine amid many other (more) important Christian teachings. And such persons are perfectly right to maintain fellowship in their present churches. On the other hand, those who break fellowship with their church merely because they disagree with their pastor’s interpretation of Ephesians 1 or Romans 9 can hardly be praised. Such persons often have stern temperaments and are unwilling to bend for anything. It is not long before they discover areas of disagreement with their new Calvinist pastor and become a thorn in his side as they were a thorn in the side of their previous minister.

Furthermore, if predestination is a poor rallying point for Christians in other churches, it is far worse for evangelism. In the movie Hardcore, the director Paul Schrader has the character Jake Van Horn, a pious Dutch Calvinist elder attempt to witness to a prostitute in a Las Vegas Airport. He explains to Niki that his church is “a group that believes in TULIP” and proceeds, nervously, to define the doctrines of total depravity, unconditional predestination, limited atonement, and the perseverance of the saints. He completely fails to connect with Niki and leaves her confused and not very interested in what he has to say. Jake concluded, “Well, I admit it’s a little confusing when you look at it from the outside. You have to try to look at it from the inside.” But it is our job to communicate salvation in Jesus Christ to those that are “outside.” I have repeated Jake’s error more than once. I will never forget what my roommate said to me during my freshman year of college. His response was nearly identical to that of Niki’s. “If God has it all worked out, then I don’t need to worry about it.” It was clear to me that I did not communicate at all what I wished to communicate. This young man was completely without the background to know where I was coming from.

The genius of Reformed Theology is that it encompasses the panoply of Scriptural teaching. It does not rest upon one central dogma but gives proper weight and emphasis to the entire system of Biblical teaching. When one reads John Calvin’s Institutes we do not find a fixation on Predestination. He deals with the many related topics (such as providence, free will, effectual calling and perseverance) throughout his work, but discusses predestination-proper in a short section after his exposition of Christian prayer. If Calvin had a preoccupation, it was with Jesus Christ as the mediator of God’s grace and that we are united to Christ through faith alone, which results in both our justification and sanctification. Furthermore, belief in predestination was in no way unique to John Calvin or the Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic sect of the Jansenists (such as Pascal) could affirm each of the so-called five points of T.U.L.I.P. and yet remained opposed to the Reformation.

The Cannons of the Synod of Dort gives a detailed exposition of five points to clarify Reformed teaching against the error of the Remonstrants. It was a strictly reactionary document and not a confession of faith. On the other hand, Reformed symbols such as the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms lay out accurately the proper scope and shape of Reformed Theology.

Finally, there is an organizing rubric for the content of Scripture in Reformed Theology. It is not a central doctrine, but an “architectonic principle” as Warfield argued. It is Scripture’s own organizing principle. The central theme of the Bible and of Reformed Theology is Covenant - with a special focus on Jesus Christ as the guarantor and grantee of God’s grace. I have written too much already. In my next post I want to explore how Covenant shapes all of theology and practice and how it gives Reformed Churches something truly unique to offer.

More later…

A Bad Example of Direct Marketing

2006-04-05T14:40:00.000-07:00

Though I am not in marketing professionally it has applications to my business and is a subject I am interested in. A short time ago I read Greg Stielstra’s book, Pyro Marketing. Greg claims that his method was largely responsible for the success of Warren’s Purpose Driven Life and Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I followed this book up with The Grapevine: the new art of word of mouth marketing. Both books are great. Stielstra’s ideas are more interesting (though his continual use of pyro principles from the life of Jesus to help you sell whatever you sell seemed a tad trite, and perhaps blasphemous). But The Grapevine convinced my wife to become a BzzAgent, which means she gets cool free stuff like Atkins bars so she can tell other people what she thinks of them and she earns points based on how many people she can “Bzz” with the product. She could probably get points for the mention in this blog. (Go out and buy Atkins bars. They are really good).

Both marketing gurus emphasize the importance of giving people an experience with your product. This is a far more powerful marketing tool than mass marketing. They are absolutely correct, but this can go horribly wrong too.

The DHL man showed up at the door to my office with a package. I was not expecting anything but when I saw the package I knew what it was. It was the new, rather expensive, phone head set that I didn’t want; sent by the good folks at Hello Direct. The DHL guy noticed my lack of enthusiasm with the product. “Would you like to refuse it?” he asked. “Um, I suppose I do. I have no use for it and I am not going to buy it.” The other day I got a call from some pushy telemarketer wanting to send me this headset for a free 30-day no risk trial. I told him that I wasn’t interested in his product but he wouldn’t take no for an answer. After I made sure that I would not be charged to return the item I reluctantly let him send me the headset as long as he was clear that I would send it right back to him.

The funny part of the story is that the DHL guy then said, “Yeah, I have been sending back loads of these things today. Nobody else wanted them either. This company better not stick us for the freight!”

I am sure this product would be useful for many who are in my line of work, but just not to me. These folks at Hello Direct need to do better work at identifying their Perfect Target Customer for their direct marketing campaign to succeed.

How to fix the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, part 3

2006-03-13T19:27:00.000-08:00

Calvinists tend to be rigorous in their development of Biblical doctrine. Historically we have been precise but now I think we tend to be sloppy. This is illustrated particularly well by the influence Norman Shepherd has on some in our denomination. Norm also illustrates the need for the OPC to:

3. Teach salvation clearly
Norm was a systematic theology professor at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1963 to 1982. In the seventies controversy emerged over Norm’s teaching on Justification. Students were alleging that he was teaching that faith and works were dual instruments of justification, therefore denying that we are justified by faith alone. I think that ultimately Norm teaches that Christians are justified by their works, but he is too sophisticated to put the matter so simply (If you are interested in what he teaches, just Google him to access the plethora of evaluations and primary source material). Heretics rarely teach obvious falsehood; their teaching would not be persuasive if they did. And Reformed heretics are smarter than other heretics. Whatever one might say about Norm’s teaching on justification, it is not simple or clear.

Norm’s “sophisticated” (or muddled) understanding of justification was responsible for the drawn out controversy at Westminster and in his presbytery. When Norm finally was dismissed from the faculty it was not technically because his teaching was heretical, but that it lacked clarity. 1/3 of the faculty was convinced Norm was orthodox and that he should stay. 1/3 thought he was a heretic and should go. 1/3 recognized that his teaching was ambiguous and served to divide Reformed Christians rather than unite them. In 82 Norm left the OPC and joined the predominately Dutch Christian Reformed Church.

More recently our General Assembly tried and acquitted an elder that seems to teach Norm’s views. Like the earlier Shepherd controversy, this trial provided plenty of muddy waters. This prompted entire presbyteries to request clarification and the GA commissioned a committee to study the issue and to critique deficient views of justification. This is encouraging and I have confidence that the committee’s work will be a significant force to push our denomination back in the right direction.

But what in the world is going on here? This is a crucial pastoral issue. Any church that cannot give a clear and simple answer on how one is saved, particularly how we are justified before God, is one step away from the grave. A church needs a real clear message to proclaim to the world. What is required of us? Faith only? Good works? If so, what works and how many? A combination of faith and works? Any distinctions that are made need to clarify the issue, not confuse it.

Our confession of faith makes careful distinctions, but speaks clearly. God justifies sinners “not be infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins and by accounting and accepting them as righteous. It is not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone that they are justified. It is not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other act of Christian obedience to them, as their righteousness, but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ to them who receive and rest on him and his righteousness by faith. Men do not have this faith of themselves: it is the gift of God”

“Faith – receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness – is the only instrument of justification; but it is not the only grace in the person justified, but is always accompanied by all other saving graces. Justifying faith is not dead, but works by love” (WCF 11.1-2).

The Bible also speaks clearly. “For by grace you have been saved through faith… not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9); “We hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Rom. 3:28); “the law is not of faith” (Gal 3:12); “In order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ” (Phil. 3:8-9); God has “forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross” (Col. 2:13-14); “He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy” (Tit 3:5); “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). It is that simple.

The neo-Darwinian Ruse

2006-03-07T17:37:00.000-08:00

I am nearly through my third day of the stomach flu, so I haven't been able to get much work done. I did notice an interesting editorial on Intelligent Design published in a local paper in some cow-poke town in WI, named Shawano. It was written by a local minister, Joshua Martin, who serves in the same denomination I am a member of. He suggests that scientists snowjob the courts and schoolboards by convincing them that Darwinism adheres to the brute-facts of nature while Intelligent Design represents the wishful thinking of religious fundamentalists. But they themselves recognize that neo-Darwinianism rests upon philosophical materialism rather than brute-facts. It is an ambitious thesis to argue in less than 1,000 words; it is not exactly a Philip Johnson essay, and since he leans heavily on Michael Ruse, a snappier title might have been, "The neo-Darwinian Ruse." Since it is a short article I thought I would post the whole thing.

The Evolving Debate on Intelligent Design

If neither philosophy nor religion belongs in a science class room, then why is there a legal push in some states to allow Intelligent Design to be taught alongside of Darwinian evolution as a competing theory of the origin of life? Intelligent Design is the claim that our world exhibits specified complexity that in principle cannot be explained through Darwinian mechanisms—and that the most probable explanation is that our universe was designed rather than the product of chance.

Some parents are concerned. They believe Darwinism is more philosophy than science. The courts and the school boards are not convinced: they are confident that Darwinism is just science.

But the “fact of evolution” is merely the public relations story that the elite scientists tell the public. Among themselves they are more ready to admit the philosophical underpinnings. Genetics professor Richard Lewontin wrote, “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some if its constructs… because we have a prior commitment to materialism. …for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”

The religious (or anti-religious) fervor of Darwin’s popularizers have convinced Philosopher of Science Michael Ruse that his fellow Darwinists are pursuing the wrong strategy. He argues that it is all too obvious that Darwinism has functioned as a secular religion offering a competing vision on origins and the meaning of life.

In 1981, Ruse was the key expert witness in a case in which an Arkansas judge ruled that creationism was religion disguised as science. The Supreme Court upheld the decision in 1987. At the time Ruse believed that science was the great un-philosophy and that the scientific theory of evolution, since it relied only on the facts, was immune from any philosophical or religious critiques.

By the time Ruse debated Intelligent Design advocate Philip Johnson in 1992, his mind changed. He remains as convinced of Darwinism as he ever was, but he readily recognizes that evolutionary theory is supported by philosophical underpinnings that go beyond the mere facts.
In 1993, at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Ruse was part of the symposium, “The New Antievolutionism.” This was his advice to his fellow Darwinists who, like him, had an interest in keeping Intelligent Design out of the classrooms and out of academia: “I realize that when one is dealing with people, say, at the school level…certain sorts of arguments are appropriate. But those of us who are academics…I think that we should recognize…the science side has certain metaphysical assumptions built into doing science, which—it may not be a good thing to admit in a court of law—but I think that in honesty that we should recognize….evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.”

In interviews for his new book, The Evolution-Creation Struggle, Ruse advocates refraining from the more obvious religious implications of Darwinism to give it a more credible air of neutrality. “I don't think that modern evolutionary theory is necessarily religious” he tells the journalist. He is bothered by what scientists such as W.D. Hamilton are doing to the cause when he argues that Darwinism implies that we should kill infants that are disabled in order to keep their genes out of the gene pool. “I do say, somewhat cryptically” continues Ruse, “that the religion of evolutionism may be more troublesome than it's worth. But one of the things I'm trying to do… is to pull back from moral evaluation.”

This “pull back” is not from the philosophy of materialism. It is a pull back primarily from the way Darwinism is presented to the masses. “I don't have any more belief than Dawkins,” he says. “But I do think it matters that he is making it very difficult for those of us who care about evolution to put forward a reasonable face to the reasonable portion [of the public] in the middle.”

This strategy enables Ruse and his colleagues to argue before school boards and judges that they are merely doing science and that competing theories should be kept out of public education. For this reason Ruse defends Darwinist Christians, but also takes comfort that the true philosophy of Darwinism keeps the “Divine Foot” away from the door.

Ruse recognizes the personal sacrifice that scientists must make for taking a stand on Design. “William Dembski [the mathematician and philosopher who is among the I.D. movement's intellectual stars] is a very bright guy who should have been able to get a very good job, and he's reduced to going off to some theological tin pot college in Tennessee or something [actually, the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.].”

This prejudice in the scientific community is unfortunate, but for Ruse the alternative is worse. Ruse complains, “It's awful. If Bush gets one or two more Supreme Court Justices, we'll have Intelligent Design in the classroom.”

Is this so bad? Scientists who believe in design claim that design in nature can be empirically detected, and have developed sophisticated criteria for doing so. The force of their argument does not arise from the complexity that scientists are not yet able to explain, but from the specified complexity that they can explain.

Public schools are not yet allowed to teach the arguments for design. But you can be informed on the controversy and follow the evidence where it leads. But when you have climbed the summit of scientific evidence you might just find a band of theologians at the top who have been sitting there the whole time.

When Eugene Replaces God

2006-03-06T13:07:00.000-08:00

I woke up Sunday morning with the stomach flu. I cannot remember the last time I was that miserable. I did not keep down any liquids yesterday, and today I have eaten some cereal, chicken broth and Ginger Ail.

I sprawled out on the couch and drifted in and out of consciousness as one program succeeded another. Suddenly my dreams were assaulted with horrifyingly cheesy music. I woke up and noticed it was the televised service of one of our state's megachurches. "O, good." I thought. "This is what I have been waiting for." I don't have much opportunity to attend other churches - especially ones quite different from my own.

The music began clearly written for solo work, and I don't think the sea of people even attempted to sing. The song quickly got to the chorus and remained there for about seven minutes. The only words were something like, "God is our friend" x4, "he calls us friend" x1. Anyone who argues the merits of this "contemporary" song over the "traditional" hymns of the faith cannot really be serious. I am all for new hymnody, but music like that shows that the Protestant faith of these evangelical churches has been subverted by a soft mysticism.

The music portion of the show was mercifully cut short and their preacher took the stage. The first ten minutes of his sermon consisted of rambling thoughts - each one disconnected from the rest and hardly ever completing a sentence. But then he actually got started. He read from Eugene Peterson’s paraphrase of the Bible, which is called The Message.

The Message is what most of these megachurch and mega-wannabe's read from as their Bible. What is curious about The Message Bible is the looseness (and dreadful inaccuracy) of the paraphrase. It might be better to think of The Message as a really weird and sometimes esoteric commentary on the Bible written in tacky Boomer slang.

It was at once horrifying and gratifying to hear the preacher tacitly admit that he was not actually preaching from the Bible. As he was illustrating one of his points he said, "What Eugene is saying here is..." When quoting the Bible a preacher might say, "God says" or "the Bible says" or "the Apostle Paul says." A liberal preacher might say "deutero-Isaiah says." But "Eugene says"?!?

All you megachurch leaders that are regular readers of my blog (stop laughing imaginary reader!): is it really helpful to preach the word of Eugene rather than the Word of God? Rick, is God's message so incomprehensible that you must filter it through Eugene's Message?

You pastors need a renewed appreciation for the Word of God. It is the Word of God, rather than the word of Eugene that is "living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart" (Heb 4:12). God has promised that his word will "not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it" (Isa. 55:11).

How to Fix the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, part 2

2006-03-04T20:07:00.000-08:00

I suggested that the problems of the OPC can be divided into two categories: sinful and stupid. Although it can be hard to tell sometimes where stupid ends and sinful begins, it is perhaps best to begin with that which strikes me as particularly sinful.

2. Abandon real scary politics
Second, the OPC needs to abandon real scary politics. I am referring, of course, to what is known as Theonomy or Reconstruction. I want to be clear that there are only a few of our churches are theonomic, and that theonomic politics are NOT the politics of the church as a whole. Nevertheless, a few theonomists are a few too many.

For my imaginary readers who do not have a clue as to what I am talking about, theonomy refers to a political theory that believes the civil sanctions in the Law of Moses are perpetual moral laws that are binding on all nations. The most fundamental implication of this theory is that societies ought not to tolerate diversity of religion, and in many circumstances ought to punish such diversity with capital punishment.

Now before you get too alarmed at the revolutionary implications of this theory you may rest assured that the theonomic movement is not at present a revolutionary movement. Most of them are far too bookish to be revolutionaries. If you ever meet a theonomist they will try to assure you that they do not want to impose God’s law on society. It must be embraced nice and democratic-like. This would be, however, little comfort for the minority in society that did not vote to embrace theocracy.

And before you shout, “I knew that this is what the Christian right was after from the beginning:” no it isn’t. With all the regrettable talk about “Christian America” all they are fighting for is a return old fashioned values and civil religion that was prominent in American society before the rise of the counterculture in the late 60s. Rest assured that the theonomic movement will never, in the foreseeable future, be an influential force in American politics. Not only is it far too small in general, but theonomists bitterly divide against one another. It turns out that the theory sounds so simple, but when you get down to applying Moses today it gets really complicated. Who would have thought?

The majority of the OPC has adopted a complacent attitude toward our theonomic members. We have treated it like a fun issue to debate rather than a serious disease. This is partly because we tend toward insularity, and we do not spend much time thinking about our church’s image – how we are perceived by the community of those we wish to reach with the love of Christ. Our complacent attitude also arises from a general lack of clear thinking about the relation of God’s law and public policy.

There has been so much ink spilled on the topic of theonomy that one would have to have an incredible INFLATED SENSE OF IMPORTANCE to imagine that he could abolish the foundation of theonomic thought in a few short paragraphs.

So here it goes…

Major premise: The Bible teaches that the civil magistrate “is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Rom. 13:4).

Minor premise: Jesus also taught the following: “If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. The one who rejects me and does not receive me words has a judge; the word that I have spoken will judge him on the last day” (John 12:47-48).

Conclusion: therefore it follows that God’s servants ought not to render temporal judgments and wrath against those whom God is postponing judgment until the last day (see also Rom. 2:5).

Game over. There is no rebuttal.

God has commanded civil magistrates to judge murderers, thieves, and other criminals, but has forbidden them to judge heretics. The belief system of heretics will condemn them at the final judgment, but the civil magistrate is simply not a competent judge of religious controversies. The book of Acts illustrates this truth. Again and again the pagan pluralistic government of Rome upheld the religious freedom of Christians, while the theocratic Jews had Christian leaders beaten, arrested and sometimes killed. And as long as the Empire was consistently pluralistic, Christians had nothing to fear. Martyrdom followed when Rome overstepped its bounds by judging sectarian religious questions.

Christians ought to categorically oppose not only the abuses of the Crusades, and the Inquisition, but also the whole system of Christendom, which concept has been unfortunately resurrected by the theonomists.

Christians believe that the unbelieving world is the mission field of the church. Like Christ we are called not to execute judgment on those who reject Jesus’ teaching, but to announce to them the Gospel of salvation and persuade them to come to Christ. But the theonomist believes that God has given to the state a contradictory mandate: bomb the mission field and turn it into a battle field.

Theonomy represents real scary politics and the message of theonomy is in contradiction to the Gospel of Christ, who rebuked James and John for their desire to call down fire on those who rejected the Messiah. Their request, like theonomic politics, jumped the escatological gun.

Moreover, while there are many good and otherwise normal people who subscribe to theonomic political theory, theonomy tends to attract those that are slightly conspiratorial and paranoid, legalistic, highly insular, and generally weird. And I believe that this conspiratorial, legalistic, insular and weird mindset coupled with really scary politics contributes to a general anemic ministry in many of our churches.

I think that if we present our case for pluralistic politics clearly and cogently that we can persuade many who are of the theonomic persuasion. But those that remain stubborn we need to run out on a rail!

More later.

How to Fix the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, part 1

2006-03-04T12:42:00.000-08:00

1. Admit there is a problem

In order to fix something it must be broken. I suspect that this is something that most ministers and members in the OPC are not willing to admit.

There are many good things about the OPC, and I myself am a proud member. The denomination has existed for seventy years now and it still has the highest regard for Holy Scripture as the inspired and infallible Word of God and the only rule for faith and life. The church strives toward unity in doctrine and its leaders take seriously the Westminster Confession and Catechisms as accurately summarizing the system of doctrine found in the Bible.

The OPC has great evangelistic zeal. It is active in planting new churches at home and abroad at a remarkable rate. Even where there are only two or three families in an area that would like to start an OPC, the Home Missions committees will try to make it happen. Many ministers work for remarkably low wages to begin these fledgling churches and others labor in churches where the membership has remained consistently below fifty.

The teaching in OP churches is well above average. The denomination is blessed with educated ministers who are skilled preachers. The elders are typically well educated and are also “apt to teach.”

Our members are also committed. They are well educated in Scripture and take their Christian faith seriously. They are both passionate about what they believe and articulate. They share their beliefs with their friends. They give faithfully to the church so that there is no need for “pledge drives” or other coercive methods of raising funds.

Any Christian church that possesses these qualities ought to be bursting at the seams. There lies the problem: the OPC is pathetically small. Our mission works falter; our established works plateau. The largest churches loose distinctive OP qualities and leave the denomination.

The prevailing thesis is that our churches are small because we are faithful. If we accommodated to the culture the way the other churches do then we would be big and influential like they are. If we followed the lead of other churches to become “the church of what’s happening next” our churches would also be flooded with people – but it would be only so much chaff among a bit of wheat.

Paul Wooly was one of the original faculty members of Westminster Theological Seminary and a founding minister in the OPC. He argued that this new church could either have “many members and much money and read about itself in the newspapers” or it could advance “a growing revival of the preaching, teaching and application of the biblical and Reformed faith” but it cannot have both. This comment embodies the corporate spirit of the OPC. But I am no longer confident that Wooly was correct in arguing that Biblical faithfulness and evangelistic effectiveness are mutually excusive.

It was Jesus who taught that the fields are ripe for the harvest and to pray to the Lord to send out more workers to bring it in. If churches are failing to bring in this harvest it must be because the harvesters are doing something wrong. The Bible describes faithful Christians as garnering the general respect of the community because of their love and concern for others and humble godliness.

Now I don’t have any postmillennial golden dreams about the progress of Christianity. Jesus also taught that this present age will continue to be as the days of Noah – they are characterized by a lack of true religion. “A servant is not greater than his master,” Jesus warned, “If they hated me they will hate you as well.”

These two strands of teaching may seem to contradict, but we see how they are perfectly held together in the life of the early church. The book of Acts records that the Christian church was remarkably effective and that it enjoyed a positive reputation with large numbers of those in the community. But it was precisely this popularity that enraged many others and fueled the persecution of that same church.

In America the OPC is neither respected nor ridiculed by the larger culture. It is too small to attract any attention. Contrast this with the reputation of the Southern Baptists. They are the largest protestant denomination in the U.S. They are known and respected enough to have a behemoth membership. But they are constantly singled out for ridicule. They are known for their positions against women clergy, homosexuality, abortion and the like. They are also ridiculed for having a literal (= serious) understanding of the Bible. The OPC has taken similar stands on these and other issues, but we are left alone because we are irrelevant.

If you are a member of the OPC you might exclaim, “Southern Baptists? They are Arminian, they are Dispensational, they are Congregational: very democratic and American beliefs!” True enough, but don’t miss the point. Their reputation is built upon their countercultural stances rather than their cultural ones. Furthermore, studies of American church life show that it is the theologically conservative (= more countercultural) churches that are growing and the liberal (=culturally accommodating) mainline churches that are shrinking.

I am persuaded that Reformed Theology is the hope of the world and that it is Christianity’s best kept secret. I am stubbornly optimistic that Reformed churches such as the OPC offer the kind of teaching that most Christians long for. They just don’t know it exists.

I believe, therefore, that the first step in fixing the OPC is to admit that we have a problem. We are not the “only perfect church.” We are not even close. Our problems are deep and serious. Some are sinful; others are merely stupid.

Stay tuned for more.

Cracking Up Over "Free Speech"

2006-01-28T13:46:00.000-08:00

Two weeks ago the suburban circuit court judge in Germantown, MD, John Debelius III, ruled that mooning - yes, mooning - is protected as free speech. The defense lawyer James Maxwell said to reporters after he won his case (I am not making this up!) "With hard work, we cracked the case, no buts about it."

This got me thinking.

This really comes as no surprise since politicians like Ted Kennedy have been speaking out of their rear for years.

What a vivid illustration to the Iraqis on what freedom looks like.

Though I am sure some of them would tell you that freedom stinks.

That speech better be free, because no one will pay to hear that noise.

I only wish the judge made that ruling last month before I was arrested.

Indigo Insanity

2006-01-28T09:30:00.000-08:00

Are you aware of the great evolutionary shift that has taken place? There is a new breed of children today called Indigo Children. They are so called because of the alleged indigo aura that surrounds them, which aura can be seen by those with psychic abilities. These children supposedly have heightened psychic abilities and many believe that they are here to redeem mankind. One web site boasts that "we are on the brink of a global awakening, and that the Indigo Children are here to show us our highest potential."

Today the Indigo Documentary Movie opens across the United States. Last night I saw a story about Indigo Children on our local news. Like the documentary, the news story told a tale of children who had exceptional artistic, musical and even academic gifts. Their giftedness was attributed to their "indigo life-force." They were also described as having heightened intuition, sometimes having visions and conversations with angels, and sometimes remembering their past lives. They are "old" and "wise beyond their years."

This story was sufficient to get my attention and so I turned to the internet to get more information on Indigos. But quite a different story is told on the Indigo web sites. Our evolutionary saviors seem to be characterized more by behavior disorders than enlightened spirituality. Are your children Indigo? Here is a list of behaviors that characterize the children of the New Age:

· They come into the world with a feeling of royalty (and often act like it)
· They have a feeling of "deserving to be here," and are surprised when others don't share that.
· Self-worth is not a big issue. They often tell the parents "who they are."
· They have difficulty with absolute authority (authority without explanation or choice).
· They simply will not do certain things; for example, waiting in line is difficult for them.
· They get frustrated with systems that are ritually oriented and don't require creative thought.
· They often see better ways of doing things, both at home and in school, which makes them seem like "system busters" (nonconforming to any system).
· They seem antisocial unless they are with their own kind. If there are no others of like consciousness around them, they often turn inward, feeling like no other human understands them. School is often extremely difficult for them socially.
· They will not respond to "guilt" discipline ("Wait till your father gets home and finds out what you did").
· They are not shy in letting you know what they need.

No, I am not making this up. It is also not clear to me how narcissistic and undisciplined children will save our society rather than destroy it. But I suppose when you combine evolutionary dogma with New Age metaphysics, you wind up with some strange ideas.

I am certain you will not be surprised to learn that Indigos are frequently diagnosed with ADD or ADHD, which one New Age practitioner says should be defined as, "Attention Derived from a Higher Dimension." I found that the web is littered with support groups, special diets, and parenting advice for the parents of Indigos.

Oh, and one more thing: These New Age parents believe that upwards of 80% of children born after 1994 are indigo and the percentage is steadily increasing.

Of course, what is really going on here is that our society has produced a generation of really bad parents. It is, in fact, psychological child abuse. I do not claim that ADHD is nurture rather than nature - Psychologists estimate that ADD and ADHD affects about 3% of the population, not 80%. And it may be that some "Indigos" are ADD or bi-polar, but the evidence suggests that their behavior is nurtured by crummy parenting more than anything else.

But there is a new breed of children that is not receiving as much media attention. Because I have no psychic powers I cannot tell you the color of their aura and so I don't know what to call them. Their character traits are not new to history, but they have not characterized the children in our society for about 150 years. This second new breed of children are recognized by the following behaviors (this is necessarily anecdotal rather than scientific):

· They are as comfortable conversing with adults and the elderly as they are with their peers.
· They completely bypass the awkward stage of adolescence and transition seamlessly from childhood to adulthood.
· They have a love for learning, particularly for history.
· They are academically advanced.
· They are more rational than emotional.
· They are exceptionally obedient to their parents.
· From the age of three they are able to sit quietly through church with the adults.

If you see a child that exhibits these qualities you can be nearly certain that they are home-schooled. These home-schooling parents are particularly those who follow a Classical method of education outlined by the Trivium method, and who also provide solid Christian instruction.

It seems to me that it is the latter breed of new children that are more likely to save our society than the former.

When Bad Theology Leads to Bad Policy

2006-01-06T13:29:00.000-08:00

Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria are urging other settlers to secede from the nation of

Israel

to become their own autonomous state – the Jewish equivalent to the Palestinian Authority. They feel disenfranchised by Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza in pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This movement is spearheaded by the Jewish Initiative headed by Yekutel Ben Yaacov.

The new Jewish Authority would reject the modern pluralistic approach taken by the current Israeli government and would live according to the laws of Moses.

Sharon was known as a hawk and staunch defender of Israel against Palestinian terrorist aggression. He is no dovish, passive and accommodating leader with naïve views regarding alleged virtues of pacifism, nor does he deny the depth of evil that has consumed the Islamist-fascists. But he knows that disengagement from Gaza is the best strategy for pursuing peace at the moment.

Sharon’s Zionist opponents take a more ideological view. For them, boarders are more important than peace. For them, clinging onto the land-locked territory is more important than the practical concern of how effectively they can defend themselves against the Palestinians (they have plenty of guns but what else?) They believe that the settlements belong to Jews by Divine right and where God has spoken, political expediency is irrelevant.

Many American Christians agree. The “Christian” heretic Pat Robertson announced that Sharon’s stroke is God’s judgment upon him for dividing up God’s land.

Now I think one can argue that this sort of ideology is unfruitful in achieving political objectives, but it is also just bad theology. According to the Bible, the holiness of the land is determined by God’s presence and not somehow intrinsic in the land itself. The holiness of the land was marked by the tabernacle/temple, the priesthood, and (after the judges) the Davidic king. Moreover, the holiness of the land was maintained by obedience to the Torah.

Because of Israel and Judah’s disobedience they were cast out of the land and sent into captivity. In captivity God instructed them not to take the land back by force or through political means, rather they were to, “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare… and I will restore your fortunes and will gather you from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you” (Jer. 29:7, 14).

These were God’s instructions to the exiles in 597 B.C. They were to seek the welfare of the secular state in which they lived and at the appointed time God by his power would again gather his people in their own nation. Jewish theologians rightly understand that in 70 A.D. the Jewish people were again exiled when the Roman army under Titus destroyed the Jerusalem Temple. From the perspective of a Jewish theology Israel will again be established by God when the Messiah comes, and at that time there will be universal peace and the boarders of Israel will expand to encompass the whole globe and the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the water covers the seas.

From the perspective of a Jewish Biblical theology this type of Zionism is a secular bastardization of Judaism. It desires a holiness of land without corresponding holiness of people, and without the presence of God mediated through the temple, the priesthood and the Messiah-king. Now I fully support the right of the Jewish people to have their own state, but I support this right for secular reasons rather than any supposed Divine right to a piece of property.

From a Christian perspective this Zionism has even less merit. Jesus taught that those who followed him were true Children of Abraham (John 8:37) and that the temple would be destroyed as an act of God’s judgment (Luke 21:20-24). The Kingdom of God would not be identified with a plot of land, but it is rather internalized (Luke 17:20-21; John 18:36).

Moreover, the significance of the Holy Land was to serve as an earthly foretaste of heaven so that the faithful would look not to the land, but “for the city which has [heavenly] foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb. 11:10). In this new age the purpose of the land has been fulfilled and there is no longer any value to worshiping God at Jerusalem, for now we worship God “in Spirit and in truth” (John 4:21-24). Christians are now the true Israel and receive the blessings and promises previously reserved for that nation (1 Peter 2:4-10; Eph 2:12-19; Heb 8:8-12; Phil 3:3; Rom 2:28-29; 9:6-8; Gal 3:29 and many others).

There is no theological justification for Jews to claim any Divine right to the disputed territories, nor should Christians be sympathetic to these claims. I believe we should remain vigorously pro-Israel, but Yekutel’s group, Jewish Initiative, and their call for secession is hardly acting in Israel’s best interest.

The Real Lessons of the Abramoff Scandal

2006-01-05T09:41:00.000-08:00

"Super lobbyist" Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty on Monday to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud. He is an influence peddler who is charged with schemes to provide campaign contributions and other fringe benefits in exchange for legislative favors. What are the lessons we learn from the exposure of such corruption in congress?

Some say that this teaches us nothing. Abramoff is no "supper lobbyist" but rather a "supper crook" who has tarnished the "honorable profession" of lobying. But far too many politicians are implicated by his actions to view this behavior as anomalous. Most see this scandal as symptomatic of something larger, and I tend to agree. But symptomatic of what?

Some see Abramoff as symptomatic of Republican corruption. Ron, from Real Art, argues that Abramoff is a problem principally for conservatives. "Well, okay, if "bipartisan" means a ratio of like 20 to 1, which it doesn't. This is a Republican scandal, and any Democrats stupid enough to be involved should get what they deserve."

Sorry Ron, but this is really stupid. There is no evidence that Republicans have a corner on corruption. Now it may be that since they are the party in power that they tend more toward corruption, as the Democrats were similarly corrupted when they were in power. But even this does not describe what is going on.

First, it is the Republican justice department that is going after Abramoff. When this same sort of influence-peddling was going on in the Clinton Administration Janet Reno saw it has her job to shield slick-Willie and others from any investigation.

Second, and more importantly, Abramoff is not a conservative lobbyist. I don't know who Jack votes for, but he has spread plenty of money on both sides of the isle. And the proportion is not 20 to 1. In fact the Washington Times reported that nearly all Senate Dems have received money from Abramoff. While the media are crowing about this the politicians from both parties are watching quietly while loosening their collars.

My sense is that most see this as a bi-partisan issue. "What this shows" they say "is the importance of campaign finance reform and the need for further lobby finance reform." I am not a fan of the McCain /Feingold campaign finance reform. I agree with those who argue that it is a violation of the 1st amendment and I don't think it gets to the root of the problem. It treats the symptom, and not very effectively at that!

By the way, Abramoff was primarily a lobbyist for Indian casino interests. McCain - the virtuous crusader against all political corruption - sits on the board of Senate Indian Affairs Committee. But one thing you may not be aware of is that Indian interests are exempt from McCain's campaign finance bill.

What the Abramoff scandal actually teaches us is that our Federal Government has gotten entirely too big for our own good and has extended its reach way too far. "Money is the root of all kinds of evil" and wherever there are loads of cash spread around there is likely to be corruption. I do not believe that lobbying is a noble profession; I think it is an unfortunate one. Government should not be ruled by special interests, but the interests of all the people. But the government has protruded its nose into our business to such an extent that it becomes necessary for special interest groups and corporations to protect their interests. If we were to repeal our meddlesome government there would be little need for lobbyists to protect our special interests. It is a novel idea called freedom.

Now I am not one of those conservatives that believe that government is essentially evil, or that smaller is always better. Some governmental regulation is helpful and necessary. I do not oppose the government regulating safety standards for coal mines, for instance. The beauty of the free market, however, is that it is largely self regulating. People demand quality and the market must adjust to meet this demand.

Jack Abramoff might or might not be personally a Republican. The Abramoff scandal is not left or right wing. It is a bi-partisan scandal. But the scandal is symptomatic of big-government. Though this problem affects both parties, ideologically it is a leftist problem. And, as such, Abramoff illustrates the slide of our great democracy into a corrupted socialist state.

Best Network Entertainment of 2005

2006-01-01T13:41:00.000-08:00

#1: 24

24 is unquestionably the coolest thing on television since it first appeared four seasons ago. Everything else seems pallid by comparison. It is a non stop nail biting, heart pounding adrenaline rush.

It is also a fine piece of neocon propaganda (mostly). In 24 the greatest threat to American security is bureaucracy that prevents our intelligence agencies from doing their job. The only thing that stands in the way of America becoming a mass grave site is the willingness of Jack Bower and a few of his most trusted CTU associates to take whatever measure is necessary to stop the threat (they would even eavesdrop without warrants if they had to!).

The most powerful political statement in season four happened when the buffoons from "Amnesty Global" barged into CTU headquarters to protect the rights of a known terrorist whose associates were moments away from reigning down nuclear fire on American soil. The immanent holocaust did not concern the bureaucrats. Their only concern was to uphold due process regardless of the cost in lives, and the dovish and spineless president pro-tem (the former VP) supported them. Thankfully Jack kidnapped the villain, extracted the necessary information from him and saved all our hides in the nick of time.

The question whether torture is ever acceptable is currently at the forefront of our national discussion. 24 contributes a controversial and unequivocal answer to this question. When the temporary commander and chief gets it through his thick head that by taking a righteous stand on torture he was consigning millions Americans to their death he reversed himself and allowed CTU to do their job.

I would like to say that I do not support any torture sanctioned by our government. It is inhumane and morally repugnant. And besides, it is just bad policy. I remain greatly distressed to learn of any credible reports that our law-enforcement agencies or military torture terrorists or other criminals.

But I am very much looking forward to season five.

#2: The Apprentice

The second coolest show on television is Donald's Apprentice. I hate reality shows in general but this one is a notable exception. Contestants do not survive by forming alliances and stabbing others in the back. It does not promise quick cash, but rather a challenging career. Popularity doesn't matter. Knowledge alone doesn't matter. Loads of hard work, ingenuity and teamwork are needed for success and are rewarded.

The Apprentice showcases the noble side of business - not only in terms of serving others by providing valuable products or services but also the inter-relationship of business and charity.

It highlights the ugly side too. Occasionally teams or team members resort to unscrupulous business tactics to win the game. Moreover, one of the two jobs offered to the winner usually involves building a casino for Donald. Casinos are not good for America and I would not oppose their total shut-down (including Vegas). Oh well. These aspects are unfortunate but over all I have to give props to Donald for making business cool.

Capitalism, Virtue and all that Jazz

2005-12-26T11:01:00.000-08:00

Making music

Yesterday, as my father and I were watching a DVD of an Al Di Meola concert, he asked me what the definition of Jazz music is. I told him that it had to do with the ability for all the musicians to make beautiful music while improvising at the same time. “But how can they play together if they are all improvising?” he asked. “Well,” I said, “they have basic parameters that they abide by. They play their music off lead sheets. A lead sheet lays out the meter, and the chord patters. The melodic theme and any other parts where the band must play in unison are written out in detail. This tells the musician all he needs to know. With minimal guidance the musician is able to pursue his own unique style, which blends with the unique style of the other band members.” Perhaps this is why Jazz is America’s unique musical genre.

Jazz and Capitalism

As I said this I was struck with the parallel between Jazz music and the American market economy. The philosophy that drove Adam Smith and that which drives Jazz music is similar.

Adam Smith (1723-1790) is best known for his four volume work, The Wealth of Nations. He defends the notion that “rational self-interest in a free-market economy leads to economic well-being.” According to Smith, the most efficient way to create wealth is when everyone pursues their own economic interests.

Critics of Smith accuse him as an advocate of ruthless individualism. It is sometimes true that the economic good of the individual does not work out for the good of the society. Moreover, it is occasionally true that the economic good is not the moral good. Similarly, when musicians only play their own thing, only cacophony is created.

Smith did not believe in complete moral and economic autonomy. His first work was The Theory of Moral Sentiments, which concentrated on ethics and charity. Smith assumed that one’s “self-interests” must be within the bounds of a shared set of virtues and moral absolutes. Nationally shared values make up the “lead sheet” that enables the musicians to make music together while improvising their own tune. He was somewhat naïve in this respect because he did not anticipate the moral relativism that characterizes much of our society today.

Freedom and Responsibility

There is therefore a principle that freedom is limited by responsibility. Infants have little if any freedom because they have no responsibility, while adults have greater responsibility but have greater freedom. It also follows that as the moral fabric of our society erodes our freedoms will erode as well.

Gun control can serve as an illustration. The founding fathers envisioned a well armed and harmless society. The right to bear arms is actually the right to self-defense and the right of the people to overthrow tyrannical governments. It is the right to protect our liberty. But today gun control is necessary. Many even desire to do away with this right because our society has bread a culture of violence.

Totalitarian or even socialist governments, like prison, are suitable for those without virtue or self-control, while democracy can only effectively govern a virtuous society. The more our morals erode the less we will be able to maintain our freedoms.

After Virture

But virtue cannot be merely determined by the majority, or by the ruling or the educated elite. It must have an absolute source. But when God is out of the picture there is no universally accepted source of public morality. The consequence of this is that, as Arthur Leff (a prof at Yale Law School) points out, all authority is “the grand sez who.” There is no compelling reason to feel obligated to obey the commands of another. Everyone desires the freedom to play their own song. Cacophony is created and freedom cannot be maintained.

From Vampires to Christ

2005-12-22T10:18:00.000-08:00

The cover story for the Dec 3rd issue of World magazine featured novelist Anne Rice, famous for her lurid tales of vampires and witches. I assume that many of those who are not personally acquainted with her work have still seen the movie adaptation, Interview with a Vampire, starring (among others) Cruse and Pitt.

Apparently Rice has found her way back to the Christian faith and has given up writing about the undead Lestat and has taken up writing about the undead Jesus Christ. He new book, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt tells the story of a seven year old Jesus of Nazareth as he comes to terms with his identity as the Messiah, the Son of God.

Rice wrote that she began her research with the "skeptical critics" beginning with the Enlightenment scholars. "I expected to discover that their arguments would be frighteningly strong, and that Christianity was, at heart, a kind of fraud." She was surprised and pleased to discover "that the skeptics were wrong, perpetrators and victims of some of the worst scholarship she'd ever see, build with poor research and reasoning on a foundation that presumed the Gospels weren't true." Rice continues to consume scholarly books on the New Testament and is even beginning to learn Greek. Way to go Anne!

Here is what I am wondering: wouldn't it be fun if Anne Rice would debate Gospels critizism and Christianity with Dan Brown, of Da Vinci Code fame? Two celebrity novelists could really bring all of that stuffy scholarship into the light of day. I doubt, though, that Dan is man enough to face any scrutiny for his hair brained conspiracy theories.

I asked Anne what she thought of this idea and this was her response: “That is a fun idea. But I'll tell you, there is so little to Dan Brown's ridiculous notions that there's almost nothing to debate. … So I fear the debate would become a laugh fest on my part. … The way I see it, the Da Vinci Code phenomenon is a credit to Jesus Christ who keeps making news no matter what people do or say.”

Heaven, Genes and Nonsense

2005-12-20T19:43:00.000-08:00

In Barbara Walter's special on heaven there are perhaps two dozen things that I would like to critique. I told myself that I would not watch it because I knew that all the inane stupidity would just make me upset. I watched it anyway and I was not disappointed. As I thought about the program Barb pulled together I thought I would share some thoughts on the atheist response to heaven and religion, specifically the comments from Dr. Dean Hamer. I have partially followed Dean's career, so I happen to know some things about him.

Dr. Dean Hamer, a molecular biologist, has recently published his book, The God Gene, which gained the attention of Barbara Walters. Dr. Hamer is a reputable geneticist but he is also the author of, The Science of Desire, a book that received an avalanche of media attention back in 95 and announced the "discovery" of the homosexual gene. Desire was based on his peer reviewed study published in Scientific American (93). Though not as widely publicized, Hamer's "discovery" was falsified in 99 when his colleges repeated the study on a larger scale and failed to duplicate his results.

Unlike Desire, his latest book The God Gene is based on his unpublished study that has yet to be peer reviewed, much less duplicated by other studies. This leads a reviewer in Scientific American to wonder, "Given the fate of Hamer's so-called gay gene, it is strange to see him so impatient to trumpet the discovery of his God gene."

Hamer's personal interests, doubtless, have something to do with it. Hamer is both openly homosexual and an atheist. In his own thinking a gay-gene would mean that homosexual behavior is as normal for him as heterosexual behavior is for others. For Hamer, a God-gene means that the perplexing and universal phenomenon of religion can be explained by brain chemistry, and does not necessarily correspond to an external, metaphysical reality. This argument is nothing new. It is a slight variation of the psychological argument used by Freud, Marx and others: that religion is merely wish fulfillment.

Hamer understands that brain chemistry cannot tell us whether God exists. After all, God may have created this desire in the human being so that we may seek for him and perhaps find him. But in his view, the human "God-sense" is an adaptive trait, preserved through mindless natural selection, which helps our race cope with the difficulties of life and our imminent death. Hamer believes that in fact everything can be explained by natural causes - since nature is all there is. This means that we are nothing more than "a bunch of chemical reactions running around in a bag."

The major shortfall in his study is that he identified the God-sense through a set of survey questions developed by Washington University psychiatrist Robert Cloninger, which he designed to detect a personality trait he calls "personal transcendence." A typical question asks if you ever have a "clear, deep feeling of oneness with all that exists." I am a Christian and I consider myself very religious, but I could answer affirmatively to only one out of twenty questions. According to Cloninger's survey I have the personality of an atheist. I am a highly skeptical person and resistant to spiritual awareness. But nearly all of the questions are appropriate to identify only those with a monist world-view, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and other forms of Pantheism. The only exception to this rule was a question concerning miracles, which, as a Christian, I affirm. Even here, I affirm the Biblical miracles, but I deny that they continue today as a matter of course. My belief in miracles is intellectual rather than emotional. Perhaps Hamer should have consulted a theologian first, and discovered what we mean by "God."

A further difficulty is that the survey questions ask chiefly about mental sensations one might have, and it is obvious that mental sensations will have physical causes. Physical sensations, however, are not the cause of our beliefs, but the result. Extreme fear and excitement produce many of the same physical effects in our body, such as the surge of adrenaline. Mistaking adrenaline secretion as the cause of fear or excitement is like mistaking serotonin for happiness.

Finally, Hamer's belief that we are only a bag of chemical reactions must apply equally to our thoughts as well as to our emotions. We may think we are thinking, but really these thoughts are merely brain bile. If there is no God then nobody designed my brain for thinking. There is no such thing as "reason" at all; only blind, irrational chance. If this is true then there is no reason to think our reasoning is true and therefore no reason to believe our reasons.

Polls spin opposite stories

2005-12-19T20:02:00.000-08:00

Today, ABC News and the Washington Post reported that “Iraqi Elections, Economic Gains Lift President From Career Lows” According to their poll Bush’s overall approval rating has surged eight percentage points since November 2 to 47%, and a majority of 56% approve of his handling the war on terror. The analysts at ABC attribute this surge primarily to the recent elections in Iraq.

What is curious is that today CNN also reported that according to their poll had Bush’s approval rating standing at 41%. The headline was, “President Bush's approval ratings do not appear to have changed significantly, despite a number of recent speeches … and [Iraq’s] historic elections on Thursday.”

Both polls sampled 1,003 individuals and claimed a 3% margin of error. I am not claiming evidence of media bias. If both polls are in error 3% in the opposite direction then Bush’s real approval rating stands at 44%, though it would be nice to see how these different polls worded their questions.

But this does illustrate the fact that we should listen to polling data with a grain of salt. In this case journalists were able to spin two opposite stories based on two reputable polls conducted on the same subject.

There is no right to privacy

2005-12-18T14:58:00.000-08:00

Busted

By now perhaps everyone has heard the ground breaking story first published by the New York Times, which exposed our President for authorizing the NAS to monitor international calls of those with known terrorist links before obtaining a court warrant (warrants were still obtained for terrorist communications from within the US). Bush confessed that he has authorized these actions over thirty times and that the congress was also briefed. He then reprimanded the NYT for publishing classified information that threatened America’s national security. For this reason the NYT had sat on this story for a year, but then determined that with a few minor deletions it would be acceptable to publish.

For many this story confirms long standing fears that certain provisions in the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. Those who hate the Patriot Act preach apocalyptically about our government trampling our “right of privacy” and freely reference Orwell, Hoover and, of course, Hitler. The Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) also filibustered the vote to reauthorize the 16 sunset provisions of the Patriot Act, which includes the government's authority to wiretap, and many in Congress are demanding an investigation.

But seriously: what is the big deal? If you want to talk about rights, we have a right to be free of terrorism and our president has the duty to protect our right to life. Is it not reasonable to monitor the international conversations of those with known links to Al Qaeda? I think this is reasonable especially since there is no “right to privacy.”

Not in the Constitution

No, there isn’t a “right to privacy” in the constitution. “But what about the fourth amendment?” you say. The fourth amendment is “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The fourth amendment does not address privacy but one’s right of mastery over one’s own possessions.

In 1965 Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in relation to a Connecticut law banning birth control, “various guarantees [in the constitution] create zones of privacy.” Justice Potter Stewart wrote in a dissenting opinion, “With all deference, I can find no such general right of privacy in the Bill of Rights, in any other part of the Constitution, or in any case ever before decided by this Court.” Though Justices have different opinions, the "right to privacy" interpretation has never been officially settled by a court.

For this reason leftists like blogger Susan Shelly explains the history of “why there is no constitutional right to privacy, and how to get one.” That is, the American people would have to amend the Constitution.

But does not the fourth amendment clearly condemn this warrantless spying of the NSA? I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this matter is judicially undecided, but I believe such activity is perfectly within the boundaries of the constitution. In the Olmstead Case (1928) the Supreme Court determined that eavesdroping did not violate of the fourth amendment. Chief Justice Taft argued that, “First, inasmuch as the Amendment was designed to protect one's property interest in his premises, there was no search so long as there was no physical trespass on premises owned or controlled by a defendant. Second… the interception of a conversation could not qualify as a seizure, for the Amendment referred only to the seizure of tangible items.” A lot of water has gone under the legal bridge since then, but I think this opinion is spot on.

The real culprits

I believe that the real question is whether the NYT compromised national security by publishing that article and whether or not they should be held accountable for their actions.

Heather Mac Donald, a scholar from the Manhattan Institute, has written numerous articles that present a convincing case that the “privocrats” have repeatedly undermined national security in their quest for the ideological abstraction of “privacy.” She argues that this is one of the chief reasons the F.B.I failed to “connect the dots” leading up to the attack on 9/11. If we continue to tie the hands of law enforcement there will continue to be those who loose their right to life so that others may protect their imaginary right of privacy.

Bush in the Bubble

2005-12-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

Argument by Innuendo

This week’s edition of Newsweek features the story on our president entitled, “Bush’s World: The Isolated President: Can He change?” I read the article eagerly to discover what sort of evidence the authors Thomas and Wolffe had on W. Instead what I found (and not to my surprise) were a few lame anecdotes and a lot of innuendo.

Bush’s alleged insularity boils down to mere disagreement over the war in Iraq. Newsweek journalists believe they see the world as it really is and are pulling their hair out wondering why Bush cannot see reality as they do. Commonplace were outrageous statements like, “What Bush actually hears and takes in, however, is not clear. And whether his advisers are quite as frank as they claim to be with the president is also questionable.” Even more outrageous is the amateurish psychoanalysis of the president, “He has long been mothered by strong women, including his mother and wife.”

It seems to me that argument by innuendo is Newsweek’s M.O. and that of a large number of journalists today. I think it might be because journalists may be trained in fact finding, and composition, but not necessarily in critical thinking. Perhaps advanced courses in logic should be required for journalism majors.

The Press Bubble

If our president keeps himself in a bubble, old media does more so. I suspect that there are few professions that are more politically insular than the old media. I think this is illustrated in the incessant negativity in reporting on the war. Yes, they should report the negative, but they should also report the great strides that we are making in Iraq. It is not “a debacle” or “a quagmire” and we are not loosing. I know a soldier who is in the thick of the action in Iraq. He has lost a number of friends who sacrificed their life for this cause. He told me, “Don’t believe what the media tells you. We are making great progress; we are doing great things, and the Iraqi people are grateful we are here.”

Newsweek and other media organizations are incredibly influential and many people swallow their rhetoric whole. Yet polls indicate that people are increasingly loosing their trust in the media. While the numbers I read were not nearly as bad as others I have heard, the Pew Research Center reported that 56% of Americans believe that the media is often inaccurate while 72% believe they favor one side of the ideological divide. The Harris Poll suggests that as many as 62% of the American public does not trust the press, while only 22% view the press favorably.

A Nation Divided

Thomas and Wolffe made much of Bush’s habit of speaking to prescreened audiences. This is an unfortunate commentary on American politics, but is George Bush’s extreme right-wing politics to blame? On the contrary, the Republican Party has been drifting decisively to the center. Bush is a neocon, which is a movement that has in many respects fused the traditional left-right divide. This is a fact traditional (paleo) conservatives are not too happy about.

But the irony is that the more the Republican Party moves toward the center the more hysterical the left becomes. I don’t know why, frankly, but it is an interesting thought to pursue.

Strategic Mistakes in the War on Christmas

2005-12-12T16:58:00.000-08:00

In this so-called "War on Christmas" that is supposedly being waged by the ACLU and the far left, why do both sides feel as if they are the subjects of radical intolerance? Here are some strategic tips for both sides of this "war" to help us through this contentious season.

Tips for the Christmas crusaders:

#1. Recognize that civil religion trivializes true religious piety. At its core, Christianity is a counter cultural religion ("This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith," 1 John 5:4). It does not make sense for Christianity to be culturally mandated. Christianity stands opposed to religious coercion. Jesus taught that at the present time he does not judge anyone for rejecting his teaching. They will be judged on the last day, but not before then (John 12:47-48). It follows that Jesus is displeased when any governments discriminate against or judge those of other religions.

Confusing religion with culture is largely responsible for the secularization of Christianity in the first place. It is as if Jesus and Santa Clause, a nativity scene and a Christmas tree, Silent Night and Jingle Bells have all been stuck into a cultural blender. The churchly and the cultural traditions of this holiday have been unnaturally blended together so that many cannot tell them apart.

#2. Recognize that any appeal to force via the Christmas loving majority is a fallacy. Don't you wish that Islamic countries were more tolerant of their Christian residents and granted them the freedom to refrain from observing Ramadan? One of the great things about American democracy is that we aspire to guard against a tyranny of the majority by protecting the freedoms of our marginal citizens.

#3. Do not go on the offensive by using the legal system to leverage public officials into recognizing that Jesus is the reason for the season. Jerry Falwell's legal organization, Liberty Counsel, threatened to sue the city of Boston after officials attempted to rename the traditional Christmas tree as a holiday tree. Honestly, this is at least as bad as anything the ACLU is doing.

#4. Focus on defending the rights of private citizens and organizations to celebrate the season as they see appropriate rather than protesting cities or public schools that would rather not have a Nativity.

#5. Don’t boycott retailers that choose to be inclusive during this Christmas/Chanukah/Kwanza season. As long as the government, ACLU or others are not compelling them to expunge any mention of Christmas in their marketing, then they should be free to market this holiday however they choose. After all, it is their business to tempt with covetousness peoples of all faiths.

#6. Above all, practice celebrating the true meaning of Christmas with your family and church. It is really hypocritical to push for a uniform cultural celebration of the birth of Christ while disregarding any churchly observation of this day.

The Associated Press reported on December 6th that many of our nation’s leading mega churches will not hold services on Christmas Sunday. Willow Creek Community Church is among those churches. They claimed that “Organizing services on a Christmas Sunday would not be the most effective use of staff and volunteer resources.” Apparently their constituency is so influenced by our consumerist culture that they are too busy with the cultural and secular celebration of Christmas to make time for a religious celebration of the holiday.

Tips for the Christmas grinches:

#1. Santa Clause, Christmas trees, and the colors green and red are not Christian symbols. They are secular and appropriate for public display.

#2. Anyone who is offended by a public display of a religion other than his/her own is terribly narcissistic and is not a worthy cause.

School choice, a bi-partisan issue

2005-12-09T15:53:00.000-08:00

Blackprof.com featured an excellent post by Shavar Jefferies entitled "The Absolute Necessity of School Choice." He approaches this issue as an African American who is fed up with failing schools in poor and predominately black neighborhoods. It is a broken system that is trapping poor urban black children in a cycle of poverty due to lack of opportunity. Jefferies writes in part:

It is in the light that I argue that school choice is an educational necessity for Black families. School choice empowers parents to decide where their child is educated, and thus radically democratizes the way in which public education is delivered. Rather than government making all choices for all parents - or, better yet, all poor parents (folk with money always have choices) -as to where their children are educated, school choice empowers parents not only to select the venue where education is delivered, but correlatively to influence meaningfully the substantive and pedagogical philosophies driving the kind of education provided in that venue. Choice fundamentally alters the political priorities of public schools, which - heaven, forbid - would actually have to perform effectively in order to convince parents to send their child to a public school.

In the current model, public schools have little incentive to respond meaningfully and systematically to the interests of Black parents, particularly poor Black parents, as these parents simply do not have the political capital to impact systematically the way in which public schools deliver education. A choice model, however, consistent with the most basic predicates of freedom and democracy, begins to grant poor people the opportunity to opt out of the public system if it continues miserably to fail their children. At the same time, it empowers Black parents to select educational models less contaminated by diminished conceptions of Black existential capacity -- a phenomenon James Baldwin warned us about forty years ago.

This is a slightly different angle than I approached this issue in an earlier post, but he is absolutely right. I am greatly encouraged to hear this kind of progressive thinking from the left and gives me hope that the issue of school choice can really be a bi-partisan issue. Perhaps in the near future this issue will gain broad traction in America.

Voting like a Postmodern

2005-12-07T16:21:00.000-08:00

MSNBC.com featured an interactive voting experiment called "Join the Mockracy" It is a non scientific experiment to see if new ways of voting succeed in electing a more diverse range of representatives who better reflect the interests of the public. There are no voting districts in the Mockracy and each citizen gets five votes instead of one. In the first senario you can spend them all on the same candidate or spread them out. In the second senario your five votes are ranked so that your five votes tier downward from "most like to win" to "I suppose this person would be ok." The top five candidates are elected as representatives.

It is a creative idea and it may have some advantages to it. What I found curious about this exercise was that the virtual candidates ran on atomized issues rather than platforms. In this world you have parties like "the tree huggers," "the tax breakers" the "children first," the "protect America" and others. This may indeed be the future of political parties in America and this may be the future of voting, but I find that this is a scary trend.

Political parties are based on platforms rather than issues because there is (or ought to be) an underlying political philosophy that carries certain implications for particular issues. There is an inner consistency or logic that works itself out in a party platform. I remember hearing a lecture by Dennis Prager delivered at Concordia University. He opened by encouraging us to think of why two highly educated and intelligent people could see virtually every issue of the day so differently from the other. Why do those who think the most about public policy fall down consistently on the right or on the left? What is that inner coherence that shapes a party platform? Dennis suggested that our political views are determined by our would-view and argued further that the most important question you must answer in order to distinguish between good and bad policy is, "are people basically good or basically not-good." Your answer to this question determines where you will fall down on the political divide.

Not many people think this way and this is a bad thing for democracy. Our older political philosophers understood the importance of sorting out first principles before attacking the particularities of policy. One of the problems today is that postmodern thinkers reject all metanarrative and as a consequence deny that there can be any overarching principles to guide political thinking. Therefore we are guided by whatever happens to be our likes or dislikes. We become a nation of special interests and single (conflicting) issues.

Richard Rorty, in his autobiographical essay "Wild Orchids and Trotsky," narrates his struggle to ground his Trotskyite passion for social justice and his love for wild orchids by pursuing a traditional philosophic pursuit for absolutes. Rorty came to believe that the quest for absolute truth was a wild goose chase and that the "whole idea of holding reality and justice in a single vision had been a mistake." He argued that only believe in God, "a surrogate parent who embodied love, power, and justice in equal measure," could provide the coherence that he sought, but he found himself unable to believe in such a God. In the end "there is no way to weave together one's personal equivalent of Trotsky and one's personal equivalent of my wild orchids," he writes. There is no accounting for taste. And according to Rorty's neopragmatism there is no accounting for one persons political preferences over the other. All that is left to guide us is personal preference and private interests. Some people care about the environment, others care about tax breaks, others care about schools. And there is nothing else to be said.

If democracy is going to work we need to return to uncovering first principles. We need individuals to unite in their interests for the public good. We need political parties that are platform driven rather than issue driven. But if we are going to search for absolutes we should try looking in the only place where they can be found.

Public vs. Government Education

2005-12-07T11:02:00.000-08:00

I have long baffled over the collective convulsions that many go through whenever the issue of school vouchers is brought to the foreground. People go into hysterics about alleged issues of church and state, quality of education and the underfunding of public schools. None of these fears are warranted, and, in fact, a voucher system is the only way the public can ensure a proper separation between church and state.

J.S. Mill is a wise voice from the past that is helpful in making this point. I find J.S. Mill to be an engaging and persuasive author. In his day he was part of the radical wing of the liberal party. When I compare his thought with liberalism today I can only exclaim, "oh, for that old time liberalism!" Ultimately I disagree with much of of his thought, but he is spot on with regards to his teaching on public vs. Government education. In his book, On Liberty, Mill writes in part,

Were the duty of enforcing universal education once admitted there would be an end to the difficulties about what the State should teach, and how it should teach, which now convert the subject into a mere battlefield for sects and parties, causing the time and labour which should have been spend in educating to be wasted in quarreling about education. If the government would make up its mind to require for every child a good education, it might save itself the trouble of providing one. It might leave to parents to obtain the education where and how they pleased, and content itself with helping to pay the school fees of the poorer classes of children, and defraying the entire school expenses of those who have no one else to pay for them. ... That the whole or any large part of the education of the people should be in State hands, I go as far as any one in deprecating. All that has been said of the importance of individuality of character, and diversity in opinions and modes of conduct, involves, as of the same unspeakable importance, diversity of education. A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government... it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body. ... All attempts by the State to bias the conclusions of its citizens on disputed subjects are evil; but in may very properly offer to ascertain and certify that a person possesses the knowledge requisite to make his conclusions, on any given subject (318, 319).

Education can never be neutral and sterilized of values. When government schools do not teach religion they are not thereby providing a "neutral" or unbiased education. The implicit message is that religious instruction does not count as real or important knowledge. The message is that "God is irrelevant to academics." Think also of the battles that go on today in our public schools over "diversity training," sex education, and the debate over Darwinist evolution and Intelligent Design. These conflicts force the hand of the state to support one ideology over the other. For instance, the state officially supports and requires the teaching of Darwinism, which theory is compatible only with philosophical naturalism, to the exclusion of teaching Intelligent Design, which claims that design can be empirically detected through specified or irreducible complexity.

The way out is to have public education for all children and for complete control of the parents to direct that education through the independant school (including home school) of their choice. It would be proper for governmental testing of the students to insure quality of education. There is nothing wrong with testing Christian children regarding the evidences for common decent, nor is it wrong to test agnostic children regarding the evidences for specified complexity. And we can also do away with all the petty quarrels regarding Christmas carrols, religious or anti-religious clubs and classroom prayer. In this way we would promote freedom and liberty of thought for all.

Musings over breakfast

2005-12-05T18:37:00.000-08:00

I ate Christopher eggs for breakfast this morning. It is a special low cholesterol egg. It contains 18 times more omega 3s than normal eggs (that is a good thing). Moreover, instead of 75% of your daily cholesterol per egg, Christopher eggs have only (!) 66%.

I adore modern technology! Just think, only a few years ago us label readers had to eat egg beaters and before that we drained the yoke and ate the whites. Progress is wonderful. How do they do it? Well, they actually feed the chickens a vegetarian diet. Who would have thought?

Seriously though: when the hell did chickens become carnivorous?

I understand that most chicken and beef farmers slip "protein pellets" into the food of their livestock. Bits of chicken for the cows and bits of cows for the chicken. This makes the cows fatter and adds extra cholesterol to chicken eggs. This they did presumably because many Americans were looking for a way to infuse more cholesterol into their diet.

Beef eating chickens perhaps points to a weak spot in unfettered capitalism. But Christopher eggs points to its strength. Because the market gives people what they want then the consumer has the ability to influence production. For good or ill the market is basically amoral. It provides a panoply of options and allows the consumer to be responsible for her own choices.

As a result of our poor health we are becoming more diet conscious. McDonald now offers many more healthful selections. Subway is now one of the largest fast-food chains in America. And you are still free to order Hardee's Thickburgers (without us, some guys would starve... And with us some guys may die before they are 35), and Ronald McDonald still sells double quarter pounders with cheese.

When the market place competes for the consumer's dollar then you win. And having the option to eat Christopher eggs makes me feel a whole lot better about adding avocado to my three egg, sausage and cheese omelet.

Narnia misogynist propaganda?

2005-12-05T13:49:00.000-08:00

It seems that some are distressed to see the advent of mainstream faith-driven films. Critics have made C.S. Lewis the target of of trumped up charges of misogyny, racism and other things, in the same way that Mad Mel was baselessly vilified for anti-semitism. I have glanced over several of these articles now and it is as if they were all written by the same person. The authors all latch onto Phil Pullman's rather lame critique of Lewis. Phil is a British children's novelist who really doesn't know much about writing for children. His own fantasy trilogy "His Dark Materials" is an angry and over-the-top allegory for atheism. In it some kids travel to the north poll where they kill God with a magic knife (really! And, yes, I have read them).

Among Phil's most oft repeated charges is that Lewis was a misogynist and a racist. What is the evidence of Lewis' misogyny? In "The Last Battle" Susan no longer believes that she ever really went to Narnia and is now "interested in nothing... Except nylons and lipstick and invitations."

Perhaps the writers of Desperate Housewives are also misogynists because of how they display the shallow materialism of their character Gabrielle Solis.

Isn't it better to see Lewis' purpose of Susan's apostasy as an outworking of the parable of the soils (Matt. 13) rather than an indictment of the female gender? In Jesus' parable the sower scatters seed. Some of it falls on good soil and some among thorns. The seed planted in the good soil represents those who hear the word of God and abide in it. The seed planted among the weeds represents those who receive the word of God for a time but become consumed by the cares of the world and forget about God. Susan was excluded from Narnia in the end not because she enjoyed fashion and social events, but because she preferred the vanities of the world over eternal things. Lewis could have just as easily made Edmund or Peter the apostate. He would have written something like, "Peter is interested in nothing anymore except career ambition and climbing the corporate ladder."

And Lewis' racism? In "The Horse and His Boy" he describes his fictional Calormene people as a dark skinned, turban wearing, scimitar wielding, brutal, autocratic nation. This makes Lewis clearly anti Arab, right? But Lewis does not depict the Calormen race in this way, but only the culture. In fact, in "The Last Battle" while Susan is excluded from paradise, a Calormene enters in who had during his life rejected Aslan and worshiped Tash! Interestingly enough the fellow's name was Emeth, which is Arabic for "truth."

Then there is the white Telmarine race that was responsible of silencing "the beasts and the trees and the fountains, and who killed and drove away the Dwarfs and Fauns, and are now trying to cover up even the memory of them" (Prince Caspian).

Despite the rantings of Pullman or other critics, this movie is going to be huge. The over blown allegations did not hurt The Passion, and it will hurt Narnia even less.

A Different Kind of Fasting

2005-12-04T11:17:00.000-08:00

I don't intend for this to be a religious blog except insofar as religion intersects with popular culture, but I will make an exception for posts on the Lord's Day.

This morning the minister preached from 1 Corinthians 7:1-16. It is a text of some interest because the Apostle Paul instructs the Corinthian church on the importance of a robust and passionate sex life within marriage. Paul's view is not exactly the one we commonly associate with the Puritan view, but it is nevertheless Biblical.

Each spouse must consider their body as belonging to the other and each must consider how to best please the other. It is wrong to withhold conjugal rights. One of the most important applications of this teaching is that we must learn to resolve disputes quickly. "Do not let the sun go down on your anger." If you were a legalist I suppose that this means you could hold a grudge all summer if you lived in Alaska, but then you could not get mad all winter! Paul's point, however, is that we should never be like Homer Simpson and say, "Marge, I understand if you want to sleep on the couch tonight."

The Apostle sees only one reason for withholding sex in marriage, and that is if the couple mutually foregoes intimacy (for a short time only) so they can devote themselves to prayer. So there you have it: Christian couples should either be praying or having sex!

Paul then teaches that couples may, if they choose, go on a sex fast. Christians usually think of fasting as abstaining from solid foods, but abstaining from nookey can be a fast as well. I suspect that Christians do not practice this kind of fast often because they can't tell their friends about it (wasn't it Jesus who said that we should not fast to "be seen by others"?). Evangelical superstars can declare to the world that they are going on a forty day fast and people will think that they are oh so spiritual. But if they announced that they were not going to get layed for forty days everybody would just think that they are losers.

One final thought: If Christians treated their "down time" as a time to be devoted to prayer, I suspect we would all be praying much more than we do!

An Inflated Sense of Importance

2005-12-03T14:07:00.000-08:00

About a year ago my wife and I were vacationing in California where we grew up. We had a great time catching up with old friends and over eating at all our favorite restaurants (there are no good restaurants where we now live). I especially enjoyed the "grown up" talk. I don't have much opportunity anymore to gab about philosophy, politics and culture.

Several of my friends had joined the blogosphere and encouraged me to do the same. I scoffed at the idea. "Blogging is for people with an inflated sense of importance and too much time on their hands" I said.

And yet...

The seed was planted. I began to realize that I have so many very important things to say and my opinions are all so very interesting. Throughout the day ideas would rush into my head and I thought "I need to blog about that." At first I thought I would share my brain the legitimate way by publishing op-ed articles in the paper. I have done that a few times, but I am too lazy to write well polished essays for the paper on any regular basis. And many thoughts are not newspaper material.

Now over a year later I am entering the blogosphere to share with one or two individuals my inflated sense of importance.