Political Theater At Its Crassest

Obama has asked Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his (His?) inauguration in January, and if I'm reading the reports correctly, Rick Warren has agreed to this. Without any other information but what I already know, this lowers my opinion of both men.

Rick Warren, as most of you probably know, is ostensibly an evangelical pastor of a very large megachurch in Southern California, and author of The Purpose Driven Life, a well-reputed and oft-studied (at least at evangelical churches) book based on Christian principles. Most recently, he was the host of the Saddleback Debate Forum, at which John McCain and Barack Obama were both asked the same set of questions, separate from each other, and put on the spot for direct answers.

Anywho, Rick Warren is, to his credit, outspoken against both gay marriage and abortion. The former actually surprises me a little, as it seems that opposition to gay marriage is the first to suffer from defenestration when erstwhile evangelicals want to "cross the aisle", so to speak (Ted Haggard, call your office). But my one major complaint about Pastor Warren, up until now, is that he has given the appearance that he enjoys (and seeks) the limelight just a little bit too much. This latest incident only strengthens that assessment. And Barack Hussein Obama, as we all know, is about as far-left on abortion as one can be without actually performing them in front of an audience at birthdays and bar-mitzvahs free of charge. His stance on gay marriage is a bit more "nuanced", as the left likes to describe inconsistent and electorally-motivated stances. But nevertheless, it's safe to say that the Big Gay Homo Community has a sympathetic ear in our president-elect.

What do they have in common? Well, Pastor Warren is very much a "bleeding heart evangelical" -- which may not be a bad thing, really -- in the sense that he prioritizes certain issues that orthodox conservatives tend not to: HIV/AIDS in Africa (as opposed to the bathhouses of San Francisco), the environment, the poor, etc. All of these things we are called as Christians to support, so I can't fault him for that (I think I could write a whole post on this, and perhaps I will). So I think each man perceives a kindred spirit in the other, but perhaps for erroneous reasons.

But again, it is yet another manifestation of the Obama Temptation to be okay with this. Because, again, it all boils down to support for the man, as opposed to support for the office. Rick Warren is in no way obligated to perform the invocation for Obama. But by agreeing to do so, he effectively affixes his imprimatur to the Obama Presidency, as if to say "Hey, Evangelical Christians, it's okay to like this guy".

And, please forgive me, Lord, if I am wrong, but I can't help but believe that this is the exact reason for Obama's choice. He says "hey, Bible-thumping fundies, I picked your #1 celebrity to do my inauguration, so you can trust me!" And many, many gullible dupes, who go to church every Sunday and vote Republican only because their gut (and maybe pastor) tells them to, but lack the skills for critical self-reflection and investigation of the actual issues, will internalize that message, and Obama will have his loyal "bipartisan" army.

Maybe I'm wrong. I am, quite literally, praying that I am. Maybe Pastor Warren had a great heart-to-heart with Obama, and Obama has now seen the light on abortion. Maybe this is a shot across the bow, Obama declaring that his true sympathies now lay (lie? I never get that right) on the right sight of the aisle with regard to genuinely moral issues. If that were the case, as I've said before, it would devastate the two-party system, because it would probably flip a supermajority of the Right's base of "values voters" (ooh, another whole post -- the ramifications and subsequent axial tilt/paradigm shift of such a split!). Alternately, maybe Rick Warren views this as an opportunity to sermonize and rebuke from "the belly of the beast", so to speak. Maybe he will give a rousing, revivalist invocation that will sear the souls of all who hear it, and enrage everyone on the left for decades to come. Either one of those would be an excellent outcome.

But my gut tells me that it's two powerful men seeking to exploit each other. Please, God, let my gut be wrong.

If We All Had Grace Like This...

The primary living "victim" of the F-18 crash in southern California (victim by way of having his wife, two children, and mother-in-law perish because of the crash), a man named Don Yun Yoon, has already forgiven the pilot and, from the article,

"I pray for him not to suffer for this action," Yoon said at a news conference, according to The Los Angeles Times. "I know he's one of our treasures for our country."

It came as no surprise to me when I read that blurb that Mr. Yoon is a Christian, and certainly, this is just about the greatest witness to the grace of Jesus Christ that I have observed in a very long time. This is particularly underscored by the fact that I have spent the last two weeks during my daily readings on the book of Job. Indeed, while Job, a righteous man who lost his family, his wealth, his living, and his health, most notably never curses God, he certainly spends a great deal of time questioning Him, and even doubting Him. But the whole point of the book is to demonstrate not God's caprice, but the way in which God may be glorified by both the success and the suffering of even His most faithful servants.

If Mr. Yoon can have the grace to forgive, and not even blame the pilot for this tragedy, then few of us can ever find cause to resent our fellow man. God bless you, Mr. Yoon, and may His Spirit grant you comfort and peace in the coming days. Amen.

When Liberals "Do" Religion

Mark Hemingway over at the Corner posts a link to a Newsweek article by "Newsweek's Religion Reporter Lisa Miller", on the supposed "Religious Case for Gay Marriage". Just from that alone, one could probably expect great things, but oh, it gets better. From the aforementioned Newsweek piece:

Let's try for a minute to take the religious conservatives at their word and define marriage as the Bible does. Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists. The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. "It is better to marry than to burn with passion," says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Mr. Hemingway does an excellent job of destroying the little blurb about Jesus in there, and you should click on the first link if you're curious (long story short: how can marriage between a man and a woman be meaningless, Biblically speaking, if the ultimate metaphor for the Christian church is as the Bride of Christ?).

But it's the references to the patriarchs and kings that really chap my hide. This is frequently a tactic of liberals who have no understanding of Scripture whatsoever, or even really religion in general: that they point to something in the Bible that paints our religious forebears in a negative light, and use this to discredit Christianity as a whole. And the target is always Christianity. Somehow the black marks don't impugn their Jewish friends; and never will you see a quote done up by some MSM "Religion Expert" from, say, the Koran, painting Mohamed (Propeller Beanies Upon Him) as the violent pedophile that he was.

My particularly favorite example of this tactic comes not from some MSM source, but from a book of historic quotations that we were expected to use in my highschool freshman English course for a writing assignment. Apropos of nothing, it provides the following quote in a section with the heading "happiness": "Happy the one who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock! -- The Bible". That's right. Didn't even provide chapter and verse. Just "The Bible." Wow! The Bible says we should all go out and smash our children against rocks! This must be religious justification for abortion, right? (Aside: even the most jaded abortion proponent would never use this approach, as it gives up the lie that abortion is, indeed, murder, which would just give rise to all sorts of uncomfortable comparisons between heroic abortionists and craven babykilling military personnel). Never mind that this quote, from Psalm 137, is a scathing indictment of the people of Babylon (about whom the Psalmist believes the verse applies).

Perhaps the example I've cited is an extreme one, meant only to malign the reputation of Scripture, and subsequently its adherents. But the tactic is the same in the article I've linked. The Bible, indeed, records that Abraham slept with his servant when his wife seemed infertile. And his action was immediately rebuked by God, and spawned millennia of trouble for his descendants. Solomon's relationship with his hundreds of wives was presented in a negative light. David's biggest sin involved his relations with women, in particular Bathsheba and her husband Uriah, for which David was mightily chastised, not even being permitted to build the temple for his God as a result.

Indeed, Scripture makes it clear that God's ideal is one man and one woman, united for life. Deviations from that ideal, which Scripture records in great plenitude, always result in suffering and punishment in one way or another. But this is indicative of what happens when, as my title indicates, liberals try to "do" religion -- they invariably get it wrong, often in innocuous ways, but more frequently in ways that conveniently support some absurd position that is in actuality antithetical to the very message of the Bible.

From the Social Gospel to Black Liberation Theology (which is a very short distance indeed), from bizarre contortions of scripture to justify everything under the sun from abortion to euthanasia, from gun control to gay marriage, liberals who have no grasp on actual meaning make themselves look foolish (except of course to other liberals, who routinely mistake the foolishness for wisdom) whenever they do this. What appear to me like simple and straightforward narratives of disobedience to God followed by stern reproof are taken by these fools as license to all sorts of absurd and immoral behavior. And thus, I am able to understand passages like this one in perhaps even a broader context than originally intended:

FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,
WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES,
OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SEE WITH THEIR EYES,
HEAR WITH THEIR EARS,
AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,
AND I WOULD HEAL THEM.'

That's from Matthew 13:15, quoting Isaiah 6:10, with regard to Isaiah's predictions of the Messiah, and Israel's subsequent rejection of Him. But somehow, I think it applies here as well -- people have, either through conscious decision or lifestyle choice, closed their eyes and ears to obvious truths, and instead gain precisely the opposite conclusion than that which was intended from God's Word.

Silly liberals. Please, just stop trying to "do" religion. You're only making it worse for yourselves.

To Name or Not To Name

I've been agonizing over a particularly sticky issue regarding my own morning "quiet time" with God lately. Namely (to pardon the pun): naming Him.

I'm currently reading through the Bible in haphazard fashion via the English Standard Version, which does a reasonable job of combining the formal equivalence of the NASB (my old standard) that I love so well with the more lyrical qualities of, say, the KJV. Anywho, like virtually all modern, widely-read English Biblical translations, the word "LORD", in all caps, typically in a different font, appears very often when God is referred to in the Old Testament. Whenever LORD appears in that manner, it means that the original Hebrew indicates the Tetragrammaton, YHWH, the name of God. Turns out, even in their oldest scriptures, the most the ancient Israelites could bring themselves to do was spell out the consonants, always omitting the vowels of that particular word. As a result, there is some debate as to how the name of God should be pronounced, although the vast majority of scholarship has settled on "Yahweh" (for which Wikipedia has a very enlightening article, as it happens).

The best reason I can determine for this YHWH --> LORD substitution is deference to traditional Jewish sensibilities. Apparently, naming God, even in Scripture, runs the risk of breaking the third commandment (second for the bloody Papists in the audience), taking the Lord's name in vain. And frankly, and with all due respect to any Jewish readers (let's face it, my lackluster recent blogging has probably reduced my audience to me, Sam, and a coupla Mazurs, so I'm probably not offending anyone), this is simply not a good enough reason to quite literally deface the entirety of Old Testament scriptures. As a result, I've been training myself to reflexively say "Yahweh" whenever I see "LORD" in the text. As a practice, it's one I recommend, as it has helped me to gain a better feel for God as a specific and personal God, not some nebulous all-powerful Force or something equally undefined.

But I'm not sure if I'm fully justified in this practice. The New Testament, written in Greek, makes heavy use of quotations from the OT, most typically taken directly from the Greek Septuagint version thereof. As a result, neither YHWH or any Greek equivalent ever appears in the NT -- rather, what we see whenever the corresponding passages containing YHWH in the OT are quoted is rendered in the Greek as κυριος, kurios, or Lord. Believing as I do that the NT was as equally inspired by God as the OT, it must be the case then that this construction itself, too, was inspired by God. What I am forced to question, then, is whether God Himself, rather than the Jewish scribes, felt that His name was too sacred to be further rendered and/or pronounced in Scripture.

I do not believe that to be the case, although I cannot rationalize this belief. After all, if He did not want His name known, He would not have inspired the authors of the OT to write it so frequently. So until God shows me otherwise, I will continue to read Yahweh where others read LORD.

Incidentally, of all the various Bible translations in my house (can't have too many!), only one, in which I have spent virtually no time at all, ever renders the Hebrew YHWH as Yahweh -- the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Not exactly a "big league" translation. But useful, although it only does so in scant few places, primarily in Exodus.

When Celebrities Make Good

All of us have heroes. Anyone who says he has no heroes is either lying or a very spectacular narcissist for whom his only hero is himself. And for must of us, some of those heroes happen to be "celebrities", in one way or another. Now I don't just mean "celebrity" in the rock star/hollywood sense, but in the more fundamental sense of the root word, as in someone whose very existence we collectively celebrate.

And of course, as often happens, because those celebrities are in the public eye, they often fall from grace. It might be a politician embroiled in a scandal, or an actor/musician who says/does something remarkably stupid, or sports figure who commits a crime. But what about those celebrities who we see as personal heroes, fearing all the while that we'll learn something about them we find distasteful, some sort of "deal breaker", about whom we then discover even greater things, perhaps unrelated to what made them our heroes in the first place? Such things rarely happen.

Of course, I wouldn't be writing this if it had not happened to me. One of my own personal heroes, for a variety of reasons, is Food Network host Alton Brown, of the show Good Eats. Never seen his show? If you like food, or you like science, you're missing out in a big way. The gist of it, for the uninformed, is that, in each episode, Mr. Brown takes a particular food topic -- possibly a single ingredient, possibly a certain type of dish, or even a method of cooking -- and delves not only into how to cook this particular dish, or how to perform that particular task with utmost care and precision, but also, the exact nitty-gritty science of why the methods he describes are the correct methods. I'm talking physics and chemistry here, not just vague generalizations, including prop models of molecules and chemical reactions. And he does it all with a cheesy irreverence and sense of humor that prevents the show from every being boring to even the most uninitiated viewer.

Since I am a fairly hard-core "foodie", and a big science nerd as well, you can understand how I appreciate such a program, now in its eighth-ish season (too lazy to do a check here). We (Mrs. Red Shirt and I) even own his books, I'm Just Here For The Food, its imaginatively-titled sequel, I'm Just Here for More Food, and the nigh-indispensable Gear For Kitchen. I suppose the only criticism one could level at Mr. Brown is "get a grip, man!" as he tends to be a bit over-the-top in exactitude, but it's all for his art, clearly (one is reminded of the old Phil-Hartman-portrayed "Anal Retentive Chef" SNL skit). But he occasionally adds caveats pointing this out, so all is forgiven.

Anywho. Just last night Mrs. Red Shirt and I were watching his episode on Omelettes (only 10 easy steps to the perfect omelette!). A discussion between us about nitwit celebrities came up, in the wake of the British host of the MTV VMA show the previous night begging us to vote for Barack Obama and ridiculing our "retarded cowboy president" (and you all know how much I value the American political opinions of foreign celebrities!). One of us pointed out that one thing we appreciated about Alton Brown, who happened to be a celebrity, was that he didn't foist extraneous opinions on the audience, sticking to his subject matter of expertise. I followed that up by saying something to the effect of "Yeah, I assume he's probably a liberal twit, since he's on TV. But he treats the audience with respect, so it wouldn't bother me if he was."

Of course, not knowing whether he was a genuine liberal twit or not wouldn't stand, so I hopped on that most trusted and respected source of all celebrity biographical information, Wikipedia, and pointed by browser (seriously, how did "pointing one's browser" make its way into our lexicon, anyhow? It makes no sense!) to Alton Brown's entry. In the text, under "Personal Life", what do my eyes behold?

Brown is a born-again Christian and a member of Johnson Ferry Baptist Church in Marietta, Georgia.

. Didst mine eyes deceive me? Fortunately, the entry contained a reference after this factoid, which led to a 2007 article in "Atlanta Magazine" featuring an interview with "AB", as he is sometimes known. Buried down at the bottom of the article, which is totally worth a read to any fan of his:

In 1992, Brown says, he found God, or maybe God found him, but he blundered away until he became a born-again Christian. "The single biggest life-changing thing for me is I just got baptized last year. Everything else pales in comparison to acceptance of Christianity. That's number one." He keeps a Bible in his dressing room now, not to show he's pious but because he needs the help. "At Johnson Ferry Baptist Church, baptism is a full-immersion thing, and we joke that the water didn't spit me back out."

Although he was on the cover of the August 2006 issue of the inspirational magazine Guideposts for a story about the connection between food and faith, Brown is not about to start a career as a celebrity proselytizer. "I keep praying I'll be able to do my job and I'll be useful," he says.

Wow. Not only is one of my biggest heroes "Christian" in some sense, but he's an authentic, born-again Christian (a Baptist, no less!), full of the newness of life in Christ. That explains why he hadn't offended my oh-so-delicate sensibilities! He's One Of Us! I was actually excited by this revelation, so much so that I even had a difficult time sleeping (well, the tea I had had right before bedtime probably contributed to that just as much, but still).

So yeah, I'm pretty jazzed about that.

A Priesthood of One

In my daily Bible readings, I'm currently going through the book of Hebrews. As Hebrews could be considered one of the more weighty and controversial of the books of the New Testament in terms of its dense theological pronouncements (up there with Romans and James in my own estimation), it's certainly no small task to make one's way through it (I'm very much a one-book-at-a-time, all-the-way-through-it kind of Scriptural reader). Anywho, today I read from chapter 7, which discusses Christ as a high priest from the order of Melchizedek (in short, a non-Levitical King/Priest ordained directly by God rather than by birthright). What stood out to me was the following passage:

[23] The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, [24] but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. [25] Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

It struck me that, as Christians, we are differentiated from the Jews in that we have no need of a formal priesthood to intercede for us or provide access to God, because Christ fulfills this role wholly and perfectly in a way that the human High Priest only incompletely did for the Jews. Now, don't misread what I'm saying to be a knock at formal orders of clergy per se -- there is certainly Biblical precedent for some kind of hierarchy and dedicated Church leadership. Perhaps referring to it as a "priesthood" is part of the problem, however, given the context of these verses. Human beings yearn for human shepherding, which is comprised in part by teaching, comforting, leading, training, etc.; and I believe that is the role fulfilled by pastors, priests, deacons, bishops, and other clergy members across all denominations. But only Christ alone provides us with unfettered access to God the Father, and in a way that is far more glorious than any human ever could.

Economics and the Holy Spirit

I was just sitting there watching my two-and-a-half-year-old daughter veeery slowly eat dinner, regretting having given her a lollipop about half an hour before her meal, and the thought struck me how well my daughter understands the economics of incentives. Sure, it's easy enough for even the smallest child to grasp the concept of reward, and act to earn that reward. But she already earned her reward in this case, apropos of nothing. Thus, she was no longer motivated to eat a good dinner, because she had nothing to gain from it (well, except tasty chili-cheese mashed potatoes, but apparently that's not her cup o' tea). Had I only showed her the sucker and told her that it would be given to her after she ate a good dinner, she would have eaten much faster.

What does this have to do with the Holy Spirit? Well, everything. We as Christians have received a free gift of eternal life from God through Christ Jesus. It is not the result of works or deeds which we have done in righteousness; Scripture is clear on this matter. Thus, our motivation for doing good and living moral lives is gone; we have received and been guaranteed our reward simply by faith in Jesus Christ. Sure, we are told to do good works, repeatedly and at great length. But because of this guarantee, there is no explicit incentive to do good. Both the carrot and the stick are removed; we already have eternal life, and Hell no longer awaits us.

Sure, there are groups among the Body of Christ who perhaps make too much of certain passages of Scripture, but now is not the time for that particular debate. Still others assert (and this I would vehemently debate to my last breath) that indeed our good deeds, our moral lives are indeed what save us; this is a debate that has unfortunately reared its head throughout the Church's history. But let us take it for a given that Scripture does indeed teach that eternal life is a free gift, and move on.

So stripped of all incentives, Christians by and large ought to be an indolent, loutish lot, right? After all, all they have to do is hurry up and die, and eternal bliss is theirs. Well, apparently the research is in, and this is not so. Now the article linked there, and the corresponding book by Arthur Brooks, focus more on the political divide, but let us make the assumption (which the liberal and secular left do on a daily basis, so why can't we?) that "conservative and religious" correlates quite highly with "orthodox Christian". I'd have to read the book itself to really see how it breaks down along specific religious lines, but since there are only so many hours in the day, I'll just say it's a safe assumption.

Thus, normal, human, natural incentives are stripped away from the Christian, and yet he continues to do good. Therefore, there must be some inhuman force at work in the life of the Christian that compels him to do good, not for a reward, but as an end unto itself. This force, of course, is the Holy Spirit, statistically writ large across Christian culture in comparison with others.

And this brings the argument of grace-based salvation full circle: if we include works as a necessary act for salvation, we can attribute man's good works to his own interal desire for eternal life; on the other hand, if the incentive for doing those works is taken away, the motivation to do good works is based solely on the indwelling and outpouring of the Holy Spirit. In the former, man is glorified along with God; in the latter, the glory belongs to God alone.

Great, now I feel all Calviny again. But I'm really more of an Arminianist, I swear!

post script: The Wee One, sure as the day is long, didn't finish her dinner. When is that age of spiritual accountability again?

Thoughts from the Wilderness

Author's note: this post was written about a week ago while I was sitting offline at the airport. Please excuse the lateness in my getting around to posting it.

I'm sitting here in the Seattle Tacoma International airport, reading from the Gospel according to Matthew, and I've just finished the following passage:

[4:1]Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. [2]And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. [3]And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." [4]But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.'"

[5]Then the devil took Him into the holy city and had Him stand on the pinnacle of the temple [6]and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down, for it is written, 'He will command His angels concerning You'; and 'On their hands they will bear You up, so that You will not strike Your foot against stone.'" [7]Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'You shall not put the LORD your God to the test.'"

[8]Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world [9]and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." [10]Then Jesus said to him, "Go Satan, for it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and serve Him only.'" [11]Then the devil left Him, and behold, angels came and began to minister to Him.

It is important to note that immediately (vs. 12, in fact) following this dialogue, Jesus Christ begins His earthly ministry. What struck me as particularly noteworthy about this passage was the nature of the three temptations that Satan offered Jesus. First (v. 3), Satan appeals to Christ's physical needs and desires: make food, and eat it. Christ, of course, rebuffs this temptation through the use of Scripture. Second, Satan appeals to Christ's intellect: logically, Scripture says this, so you're set. Again, the judicious application of Scripture provides the way of escape from this temptation. Finally, Satan makes an appeal to Jesus' pride and glorious nature: follow me and the Earth can be yours. And finally, Scripture once again comes through in a pinch.

My first insight (undoubtedly an unoriginal one) was the apparent necessity for Christ to overcome His fragile, temptation-prone human Self before truly beginning His ministry. He did this by defying the physical needs of the body, the "rational" intellectual pursuits to which man is prone, and the desire for earthly glory in the place of glory in the hereafter. In fact, in Matthew's Gospel, it's our first glimpse of Christ in action. Very telling indeed.

Secondly, this occurs immediately after Christ's baptism at the hands of John the Baptist (3:13-17). This demonstrates the very Christian notion that justification precedes sanctification, in that Christ was baptized and declared "good" by God the Father prior to His rejection of typical human failure. A common stumbling block to those who might otherwise seek Christ's love is a sense of unworthiness that must somehow be overcome prior to conversion rather than after (one of Satan's most powerful tools, no doubt). This demonstrates the fallacy of that thinking.

Finally, and perhaps this is a bit of a stretch, but it appears to me that this might be prefiguring the three aspects of the Trinity. First is the physical, human aspect, which is the Christ made manifest in the flesh. Second is the intellectual side, which I see as the Holy Spirit: that aspect of God who inspired men (lit. "God-breathed", from the Greek πνευμα, breath, also spirit, as in Holy Spirit, Αγια Πνευμα) to use their intellects to create Scripture and great, God-glorifying works. Third, there is the idea of the greater Glory, rulership of Heaven and Earth, and that Glory comes from the Father alone. Thus Satan attempts to co-opt or subvert each aspect of the Trinity, each of which Christ perfectly deflects in turn.

Oh, and since He used Scripture and Scripture alone to accomplish this, score one more point for sola Scriptura. Booyah!

This post was cross-posted at Mazurland.

In Praise of Mystery

I am, if not first, then at least foremost a man of science and reason. It pervades everything I do, particularly considering that Science (or at least its go-getting and more useful older brother Engineering) is what I get paid to do for a living. Even in pursuit of my faith, it informs my thoughts, my theology, and my walk with God, as long-time readers of mine can attest to. Given a few simple axioms, I should be able to justify virtually everything in my system of beliefs, and when I cannot, those beliefs ought to be subject to further scrutiny and potential revision.

One of my own bolder statements regarding the nature of God is that I believe it is perfectly reasonable that nearly all of the miracles described in the Old Testament might be explicable as natural occurrences. Moses’ parting of the Red Sea may very well have been due to a freak, but not impossible, shifting of currents coinciding with some sort of tectonic event. The fall of the walls of Jericho may have been the result of a perfectly-timed earthquake. At least nine of the ten plagues that struck Egypt very well could have rational explanations as well (aside: if Scripture reveals that the Angel of the Lord really did pass over the houses of Israel, then, well, by God, I believe it. So plague number ten gets the proverbial asterisk). I have the sometimes-annoying tendency (particularly to the wife) to view God as, in some part, the Great Engineer. Far from the Deist view of an impersonal God Who created the universe and let it proceed randomly from there, I believe my God is so great that He could create a universe tailored down to the last subatomic particle such that every event He needs to occur would occur right on cue – so from the beginning of Time, He very well knew that the choices made freely by His people would put them, for example, at the shores of the Red Sea with the Pharaoh’s army at their backs at precisely the moment when an earthquake would cause the waters to part long enough for a massive group of people to cross, and then immediately close in on the pursuing force. This diminishes neither the free will of His people (I don’t want to digress into an argument about free will, so suffice it to say that knowing the outcome of an event a priori is not the same thing as causing that outcome to happen) nor the miraculous nature of the event itself (if one ascribes to the view of the miraculous as something which, when quantified as the ratio of the serendipity of an event to its probability of occurring, results in a very large number – but more importantly, to any engineer who has ever managed a project large or small, expecting something to occur as planned with any precision after any significant amount of time has elapsed is foolhardy at best).

Of course, there are a few things within the realm of Christian belief that simply are inexplicable or unknowable. Chief among these is none other than Jesus Christ Himself. This is the first thing with which I always qualify my “every miracle is a planned coincidence” thesis. Jesus Christ, being both God and man, cannot be considered in any way a “natural convenience”. He is, was, and always will be, and was thus a direct, divine intervention into the affairs of man – according to my thesis, the direct, divine intervention, through which mankind has been redeemed and reconciled with God. And this is the Great Mystery – that which is unknowable by us, but only to be accepted on faith.

And far from frustrating me as a “man of science”, the Great Mystery that is Jesus Christ fills me with incredible joy. Accepting Him as an unknowable mystery unburdens my meager and grasping intellect, and uplifts my spiritual self. Knowing (as well as anyone “knows” anything by faith, at least) that I can never rationalize or explain His existence, His life and His death, as a product of the well-designed natural world gives me and the entire world hope that we are not, in the long run, subject to the forces that wear us down, and that we have the actual and miraculous prospect of eternal life ahead of us in Jesus Christ our Lord. And I praise God for that Mystery by which we are all saved.

This is not to say that we can not in any way know Christ. Quite the contrary, through God’s revealed will in Scripture, and through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, we can know Christ quite intimately. Part of the mystery of the Christian faith has, in fact, been revealed to us as followers of Christ, in part in the form of a fuller and more complete understanding of Old Testament Scriptures and God’s promises in light of Christ’s role as the fulfillment of millennia of prophecy. This is, in fact, the very essence of a religious “mystery”: the revelation of previously unknown or unknowable things from the Priest (in this case, our High Priest Jesus Christ) to the Initiate (a new believer in Christ).

Still, though, there are those intangibles which cannot be fully understood by us mortals, because God has not chosen to fully elucidate it through Divine Revelation. Take, for instance, the Trinity: a cornerstone of orthodox Christian belief which professes the triune nature of God as three Persons in one God. Much is made by dissenters over the fact that Scripture never uses the word “trinity” (or whatever the Greek/Hebrew analog might be, at least); nevertheless, it repeatedly and (to my own mind at least) clearly establishes divine coexistence of a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit as the One True God. And yet I do not believe that anyone can truly understand precisely what this entails until we go to meet our Heavenly Father and all is made clear.

Similarly, the dual nature of Christ as fully man and fully God is something scholars still spend endless hours and pages of writing debating and parsing from scripture and philosophy: the point being that even the best and most brilliant among us still don’t know. It’s not that it’s a mystery because we haven’t yet figured it out; rather, we haven’t figured it out yet because it is a Mystery. Therefore, we must take on faith and faith alone that Jesus Christ did indeed come in the form of a man (I’m speaking inexactly here, so please don’t parse that statement too deeply) and yet still retained His Godhood. The entire birth, life, and death of Jesus Christ is suffused with similar Mysteries, and He is glorified because of it. It is these Mysteries that separate Christ from the rest of Scripture, and what define Him as the unique and singular turning point in God’s relationship with man.

This post was written at Washington-Dulles International Airport and somewhere above the continental United States, and has been cross-posted at Mazurland.

Obama and Wright

I haven't said much about the whole Barack Hussein Obama/Rev. Wright thing here; others out there in the blogosphere are doing a vastly more thorough job than I could ever hope to do (just peruse The Corner, The Campaign Spot, Hugh Hewitt, or a whole host of other blogs for a small sampling). But here's the big kicker for me: as previously noted many times over, Obama has had 20 years with this pastor, and plenty of time to reject his radical preaching, and yet he has not. Currently, there are calls for him to publicly "disown" Rev. Wright in what could be the Mother of All Sister Souljah Moments. Some are saying this could be effective in repairing his downward-spiraling campaign.

But I must disagree. One of the things I have mentioned here in passing is that I have, in the past, had slight misgivings about my own pastor, who by all accounts is a fantastic and inspiring preacher (frankly, the most inspiring pastor I've ever had the privilege to listen to -- one day I'll have to post about my esteem for him). Part of this has to do with his occasional citing of questionable theologians and sources; another part is his subject matter, which is more oriented toward societal betterment through acting out Christ's teachings, rather than focusing on sin and its consequences. Now typically, many of these quotes are used not to score some theological point, but merely to illustrate a principle with anecdotal evidence. Likewise, I think it's my own background as a Southern Baptist congregant that has me missing the hellfire and dalmatians to which I was formerly so accustomed.

But my point is this: I am constantly on guard that a) my pastor, and by extension, my church, is teaching orthodox Christianity, and that b) the pastor is not using the pulpit as his own personal soapbox for advancing a political agenda that is contrary to my own views (after making sure that my own views are reconciled to Scriptural authority, of course). I filter everything I hear him say through these lenses. The minute I theoretically find that a line has been crossed, it would be my duty as the spiritual head of my household to move us to more appropriate place. I have a responsibility to ensure that the spiritual nourishment of my own family is not tainted milk, after all (Aside: I don't want to give the impression that I go to some hippie liberal church or anything. To date, my pastor has passed my scrutiny resoundingly).

Mr. Hussein-Obama has just such a responsibility with his own family, and doubly so as an aspiring, wannabe-shrewd politician. And in 20 years, either a) nothing impacted his ears that sounded so bombastic or radical as to require him to disassociate himself with such rhetoric, or b) he lacked the spiritual courage to stand up for his own personal and familial well-being upon hearing such fiery speechifyin'. And either way, that says a terrible lot about him that no "Sister Souljah Moment" can rectify.

Addendum: This is my 200th post! Not bad for 2.5 years of blogging... that's a post every 4.5 days or so, on average, just for you, my dear readers! And that doesn't even factor in my recent productivity elsewhere in the blogosphere...

The Restrainer Restraining No More?

My current daily Scriptural readings are from Revelation (those who call it "Revelations", please leave now), so the End of Days are, naturally, on my mind. Now, I'm of two minds when it comes to eschatology. The backwoods fundie in me (which, I confess, is no small part) is just waiting for the first signs of an impending astronomical encounter of meteoric proportions (and for the first crackpot to dub it "Wormwood"), and wouldn't be too terribly surprised to see a new and particularly nasty breed of insect in my lifetime. Meanwhile, my rationalist side keeps insisting in a Dawkins-esque tone that the entire book was simply a coded message relevant primarily to the First Century church about the Roman Empire (note: fortunately, my faith is strong enough that the obvious third way of "ravings of a madman in exile on a penal island" doesn't enter into it). My rationalist side can be a real jerk sometimes.

But this post isn't about Revelation or the prophetic words therein. Rather, it's about a somewhat uncharacteristic passage in an otherwise standard, if short, Epistle from Paul to the church in Thessaloniki. In whole, the passage reads:

1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God. 5 Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6 And you know what is restraining him now so that he may be revealed in his time. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. Only he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way. 8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will kill with the breath of his mouth and bring to nothing by the appearance of his coming. 9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, 10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, 12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Now, there's a whole treasure-trove of theological and eschatological gold in there, but what I really want to focus on are the parts I emphasized above. Before the coming of the "man of lawlessness" (generally viewed to be the Antichrist), some entity who restrains this lawlessness must be removed. Generally, I've always understood this to be the Holy Spirit as applied to humanity as a whole (keeping us from engaging our basest instincts on a regular basis) rather than just to believers.

Why does this come to my mind? Well, I frequently read stories in the news like this, in which an Austrian man kept his own daughter secretly imprisoned in his basement for 24 years, repeatedly subjecting her to the worst forms of sick abuse, or this, one of many sad stories of late in which a teacher treats the students under her care as her sexual playthings, and they keep appearing with increasing frequency. And like most sane people, I begin to wonder "why on earth would people do something like that? Why would they think it's okay to do it? Where would they even get that idea?". And then that passage pops into my mind.

What if this cycle of sick perversion is a manifestation of The Restrainer being removed? What if that safeguard instilled by God to keep us from complete moral, cultural, and societal destruction is being "phased out"? It would certainly go a long way in explaining why these genuine atrocities keep cropping up.

On the other hand, perhaps these sorts of things have been happening throughout human history. Perhaps the recent prevalence of them is merely a byproduct of the 24-hour news cycle. Cable News has got to fill every hour, so suddenly what was once relegated to the local police as a domestic situation, and heard about only through the local gossip-mills, now makes national and international headlines in an otherwise slow news day. After all, the last century featured some of the worst and unrestrained degradation ever seen by mankind, and we're still here.

Whatever the answer is, the backwoods fundie in me is keeping his eyes peeled for a man of lawlessness.

This post was cross-posted at Mazurland.

Obamessiah, Indeed

I found this quote over at Jim Geraghty's The Campaign Spot:

Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

This is particularly scary because, as an active member of an Evangelical, socially- and communitarily-involved church, I can aver that this is precisely the sort of language used to describe the life-changing transformation we should expect when we come to faith in Jesus Christ. If this trend continues, expect declarations that voting for Obama will be "dangerous", meant in a positive way.

There were complaints that, with Mike Huckabee, we would have been electing a "Pastor-in-Chief". With Obama, apparently, we're electing a Son-of-God-in-Chief.

At Long Last

It's a regular Blogapalooza at the Red Shirt HQ today! Turns out, high and wired on Robitussin last night until at least 3 a.m. (on the bright side, while I'm *this close* to collapsing on my desk, my cough is almost gone!), I had lots of time to think about blog posts and sort my thoughts. I've been promising a more comprehensive post about why I will definitely not support Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, and may very well not support him for President should he somehow, at this late hour, still secure the nomination. So, without further ado, here we go.

As I have mentioned before, it is indeed Mitt Romney's Mormonism that is the primary barrier to my support. I am not ashamed to admit this. As has been mentioned elsewhere (I forget where, or I'd link it), were Mitt Romney, say, an Episcopalian, he'd have my enthusiastic support at this point (err, well, maybe the ones that split off from the the apostate twits that ordained these theological cretins) -- although not prior to Fred Thompson's withdraw from the race. And that's saying something, since I consider that particular denomination to be at best nominally Christian. While his flip-flops are a serious weakness as the Last Scion of True Conservatism, they're not the fatal flaw to me that his faith is.

My objection to his faith takes on two complementary forms: objections to his theology, and objections from my own theology. First, his theology. Mormon theology, as I've said before, is, at best, a wacky leap of faith. At worst, it defies reason in ways the author of this never could have anticipated. The Book of Mormon provides a historical record of North and South America that science, history, and archaeology consistently refute in virtually every detail; meanwhile, those things presented most directly as historical in Scripture rather than allegorical are consistently being affirmed and verified by the same. At the same time, it insults my faith by attempting to insinuate itself both as "just another Christian denomination" and "the only True Faith". Never mind that it was founded by a man who, as a matter of historical record, was a charlatan evangelist of the very worst sort (far be it from me to not acknowledge that God uses the weak and sinful to great purpose, a la King David, but at least he sinned and repented -- Joseph Smith seems to have displayed a rather consistent pattern of behavior). I could go on, but it's not my intent to deconstruct Mormonism here, merely to demonstrate that belief in something so patently absurd (and let me anticipate some objections to my own Christian faith along these same lines -- there is a vast difference between unfalsifiable and actually proven false) speaks volumes about a person's character -- or lack thereof. I have critically approached my own faith through study and reason and come out stronger for it. Do Mormons do this? Can Mormons do this?

Second, my own Christian theology raises objections, I believe, to voting for Mitt Romney, solely on the basis of his Mormonism. Let me first state: I know from Scripture that all Government is established and ordained by God. Additionally, God is clearly not averse to using the non-faithful in positions of great power to further His Divine Will, both as corrective measures to His people (think Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian captivity of Jews) or as opportunities to build His Kingdom on Earth and glorify Himself and His people (e.g., Artaxerxes commissioning and funding Nehemiah to oversee the reconstruction of the Jerusalem wall). Thus, if God, in His infinite Wisdom, chose to place Mitt Romney at the head of this erstwhile "Christian Nation", He would have done so for a reason. I would (admittedly, somewhat grudgingly) assent to his (and His) leadership, albeit bracing for whatever calamity might be about to befall us, albeit with a Godly hope for the future.

Nevertheless, Scripture provides, I believe, guidance in this regard. 2 Corinthians 6:14 (ESV), for instance, states, "Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?" A vote for a presidential candidate is an endorsement of that individual, and it forms an association between voter and candidate. If it did not, why the "Don't blame me, I voted for the other guy" bumper stickers? Thus, we are effectively "yoking" ourselves to those for whom we vote, for better or worse. Therefore, there is some moral responsibility on us, as Christians, for whom we support to be our leaders. Additionally, it's almost as if some omniscient Being anticipated Mormonism (and/or Islam, admittedly) when He inspired Paul to write "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!" (NASB)

Furthermore, consider the Holy Spirit. Each of us, as Christians, received the Holy Spirit as a gift from God upon confession of Jesus Christ as Lord (or at least, arguably, from Baptism). The Holy Spirit serves as Comforter, Counselor, Protector, Helper, and a host of other, Scripturally described roles. Granted, many nominal Christians who indeed play host to the Holy Spirit fail to heed Its guidance, but because of his Mormon faith, Mitt Romney cannot do so. To elect a leader of this country, and to invest in him such great power, while he lacks the intimate connection with God that could, and should, guide his every move, would again be morally irresponsible for Christians.

Next, as I have previously described, it is becoming increasingly important to me to "seek first His Kingdom and His Righteousness" in all things. That being the case, I cannot justify to myself a vote for a Mormon candidate, and then imagine standing before the Throne of God saying "Lord, I thought I was doing Your Will when I cast my lot for a man who repudiated your Holy Word by means of his own faith".

Finally, let me address that shameful line "We're electing the President, not the Pastor", or its many variations. That's a trite, drive-by slander used exclusively by either Romney supporters or Huckabee detractors in a quick, effortless attempt to embarrass critics into submission, and has no merit whatsoever -- particularly when expressed by those who maintain their own Christian faith. Of course we're not electing a pastor. Nobody has suggested otherwise; and I defy anyone to find a living soul who would actually want the President of the United States to weigh in on their faith in some official capacity! Nevertheless, as I have already stated above, I want my President to be guided by those Judeo-Christian principles that have made our country great thus far, and I want him to seek God's face, His blessing, and His wisdom in any decision he might make that might affect me in even the most insignificant manner.

To conclude, I believe I have made my case for why I cannot vote for Mitt Romney. Please note that none of the preceding discussion gives any particular guidance on whom to vote for: after all, Huck, McCain, Hillary, and Obama are all ostensibly Christian. To all my Christian readers who may be Romney supporters: consider what I have said, look up any referenced scriptures for yourself, and come to your own conclusions. Pray about it (what, you don't think God will give you wisdom when you ask for it faithfully?). I'm willing and eager to be corrected in any of my own theological conclusions, and I certainly don't mean to offend anyone based solely on their own policy preferences. If you're a Romney supporter now or even from the beginning, I don't think any less of you as a person or as a Christ follower. To any Mormon readers I might have, however unlikely that might be: if I have offended you, I genuinely hope it is on a spiritual level and not a personal one. If the latter, I sincerely apologize. If the former, I hope it spurs you on to action. Critically investigate your own faith and its origins, and contrast that with the faith in Christ as presented in the Christian Scriptures.

Whew. That took a lot more effort than I thought it might. No wonder I procrastinated for so long. But there you have it. And thanks for reading this far. May God bless you and grant you wisdom in all your future political decisions. And may He grant me a good night's sleep tonight, sans Robitussin. Amen.

Scriptural Though of the Day

As I said here, I've been spending, or at least trying to spend, more time in the Scriptures lately. So from time to time I'll try to post any particular bits that struck a chord with me. Today I was reading from Paul's second letter to the Corinthians, chapter 5. In particular, the following stirred my mind.

2 Corinthians 5:7-12 (ESV):

7But we have this treasure in jars of clay, to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us. 8We are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not driven to despair; 9persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; 10always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. 11For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. 12So death is at work in us, but life in you.

Initially this struck me for two somewhat superficial reasons. One, because this is the passage from which the popular Christian band Jars of Clay takes their name, and two, verse 9 is used in the bridge of a song we frequently sing during worship services at church, "Trading My Sorrows" (in fact, the previous chapter has two other passages from songs we frequently sing -- popular book!).

However, I began to actually think about the meaning of that. "Jars of clay" are, of course, our fragile human bodies, through which God enacts His great works ("this treasure" being the gift of the knowledge of the glory of Christ Jesus, from preceding verses). The various punishments listed in verse 9 certainly indicate that the life of a Christ-follower is not an easy one; however, there is great peace in the fact that none of it is permanent, or terminal.

Whenever I read verses dealing with the expected persecutions of believers, I feel a twinge of both panic, that, as a believer, I can expect this around any corner, and regret, that I am not yet so fully living out my faith that I am experiencing these things. It is a strange apparent paradox of the Christian faith that we count both persecution, and freedom from it, as blessings from the Almighty. Perhaps our relative peace in this country is a reward for living, for the time being, as a "Christian nation", whatever that may mean; and rewards from God are always meant to be taken with great joy and not regret. On the other hand, there is wisdom in the maxim "If you don't cross paths with the devil every day, you're walking in the wrong direction".

What's Shaping My Thoughts

I read this article almost two months ago, and it has had a profound impact on my thinking, particularly about my faith and how it relates to my politics. Entitled "I'm Not A Conservative Christian", and written by Michael Spencer, who by all accounts is both a devout Christian and a committed conservative, it really draws a line between between this world and the Next, and what we seek as important in our short lives here. I think reading it largely sparked my blogging fatigue, since so much of my own blogging relates to politics (even the title of this blog relates to my own political orientation!). Now I don't agree with everything the writer argues in the piece, but it has certainly reframed and reoriented me to some extent. How far that extent goes, I don't know for sure, but in particular I've been ruminating over this bit today after re-reading it:

What does all this have to do with conservatism? Let me make an observation here. It will be blunt, and some of you may find it pious and preachy. If you wish, you may blame this one on my recent weekend with John Piper.

How many conservative Christians are listening to multiple hours of Rush Limbaugh every week? I wonder how many include a couple of hours of Fox News Channel's conservatives, Hannity and O'Reilly, on that menu. I wonder how many regularly listen to Marlin Maddux's "Point of View" program, or Pat Robertson's "700 Club." How many surf Newsmax.com, Conservative News Network or WorldNet Daily.com, the tabloids of conservative web journalism? If we were to take the total hours devoted to these--and many, many other--conservative information and opinion outlets, how would it compare to the amount of time spent under the teaching of scripture? How would it compare to time spent in acquiring a Biblical vision of God? Does the total amount of time spent by that same random evangelical in "the renewing of the mind" with the Word of God come even close to the amount of time spent seeing the world through the eyes of conservative pundits and journalists?

I note this not out of paranoid fantasy, but out of watching my friends immerse themselves in this new world of conservative media. Whether it is the Christian variety or the secular flavor, it doesn't matter. Millions who seldom open a Bible are spending hours under the "preaching" of the conservative political movement in America.

Now, to my credit, I recognized O'Reilly for what he was (an egocentric, bombastic populist, thanks for asking) after only a short two or three years of devoted viewing and stopped watching him, I've never been able to stand Hannity, and I haven't caught more than a few minutes of Rush since the eighth grade. As for websites, I prefer more highbrow fare like NRO, The Weekly Standard, RCP, and a whole host of blogs over the sensationalism of the ones he mentions. But still, I spend countless hours every week reading those, while I profess that my faith is more important to me than any political election, and only spend a short amount of time each morning in God's Word.

At any rate, all I'm trying to do is share what's been informing my thought processes as of late. Perhaps God will do great work in me, and it will show here on this blog. Or perhaps I'll only post grumbling complaints about Romney and McCain on a semi-weekly basis. I'm rooting for the former.

In Defense of the Icky

I'll be honest: despite being a hard-core arch-conservative on just about every issue, I find Ann Coulter to be unpleasant, and have never really read much of her stuff (I also fail to understand the physical attraction many conservative males feel for her -- ok, she's leggy (in an awkward way) and blonde (in an artificial way, I assume). She's also got a horseface and an adam's apple. Is that attractive?). She's a classic "bomb-thrower" for the Right, and frankly, I think the coarseness she brings to the table in her rhetoric far outweighs any benefits that might be gained from such an aggressive approach. Particularly insulting was her insistence after 9/11 that, of the perpetrators, "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." Invade their countries? Sure. Kill their leaders? Absolutely! Convert them to Christianity? Okay, Torquemada, you seem to have misunderstood the nature of faith in the same way the Islamofascists do -- faith cannot be coerced, and the only being that might arguably (if you're a Calvinist, which I am not), transitively convert anyone is the Holy Spirit.

And yet, in light of recent events, I find myself compelled to speak, however futilely, in her defense. The "crime"? On CNBC's "The Big Idea" with Donny Deutsch (who?), she declared, inter alia, that "it would be better if we were all Christian" (Donny's accusation, which Ann affirmed with a simple "yes", to be fair), that "we should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians" (same as before -- Donny's accusation, Ann's affirmation), and (here's the big bombshell) that Christians "just want Jews to be perfected" (her own words, this time).

Now, of course, liberals are incensed by all this, with cries of "Anti-Semitism" and "religious discrimination" and "offensive hate-speech" being leveled all around. First of all, before drawing any conclusions, take the time to read the entire transcript of this exchange, provided in the link above. It is clear from the fragmented back-and-forth of the talk-show format that Ann actually has a reasonably solid understanding of the theological relationship between Jews and Christians, at least according to a Dispensationalist outlook.

First, the notion that we would all be "better off" if we were all Christian: an adherent to any religion which preaches that it is the sole source of salvation must, logically, believe this, or quit the religion altogether. This is especially true with orthodox Christianity, in which our Founder declares "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light; no one comes to the Father but through Me." This, and many other scriptural sources, indicate that our very fundamental beliefs require us to profess that Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation. If salvation is a Good Thing, then how could the world possibly be worse off if everyone were saved? And for everyone to be saved, they must be Christ-followers.

As for the notion that we should "do away with Judaism": read Ann's comments about Christians being on the "fast track". It seems clear that she subscribes to a theology in which the Covenant between God and the Jews still holds; this view (and, frustratingly, the opposite view, that the first coming of Christ wholly superseded and obsolesced this covenant) is indeed supported scripturally. She merely points out, in her own uniquely blunt way, that Jews still must observe the entirety of the Mosaic Law in order to be made righteous, whereas Christians are made righteous simply by faith in Jesus Christ, "like Federal Express", as she says (she doesn't even delve into a logical discussion that such required obedience to Mosaic law is, technically, currently impossible so long as the Dome of the Rock stands where the Temple is supposed to be, but I digress...).

Finally, the one thing she is a little bit guilty of is speaking "Christianese" to an aggressively secular audience, when she declares that Jews should be "perfected" by becoming Christians. A non-Christianese-speaker would probably assume this means that she views herself, solely by virtue of her Christianity, as "perfect", in a secular sense -- blameless, flawless, etc. Even some Jewish conservatives take it this way, incorrectly. The "perfection" of Judaism, here, refers only to its completion, that is, the arrival of the Messiah for the salvation of all manking, Jewish and Gentile. Jews are made complete by taking their faith to its logical, consistent, and scriptural end in Christ Jesus. Us Gentiles merely get to "opt in" at the eleventh hour.

You know, if she had not spent the last several years cultivating a persona in which liberals can tell that they are meant to take offense at her merely by determining whether or not her lips are moving, this wouldn't be an issue. This message is no different than the message presented by any orthodox Christian in the last 2000 years. Then again, sometimes the Truth is the most offensive thing to say.

Sunday Meditation

Blogging is light for now -- I'm out in scenic Western Washington right now, to test some stuff for work. I'm reading a series of long posts by one of my favorite "God-bloggers", Dr. Mark D. Roberts, an evangelical Presbyterian pastor in Irvine, CA. Anywho, I came across this gem of a passage that addresses something that I agree with strongly, even as I struggle with it in my own Christian walk (bold mine):

Notice that we live out the good news in concert with speaking about that good news. I have heard many Christians say something like this: “Oh, I’m not comfortable talking about my faith. I just try to live it out, so that people will see God in me.” These folk are absolutely right about the importance of living their faith. Jesus says we are the light of the world, people whose good deeds should shine out so others will praise God (Matt 5:14-16). But we are called to live our faith as a demonstration of our message, not as a replacement for delivering it. Enactment alone won’t communicate the good news of what God has done in Christ. If, for example, you are exceptionally kind at work, but never mention why, your colleagues will probably think you’re an exceptionally kind human being. Who gets the glory? You do, not God! Only by doing and telling will people be able to praise God for His work in you. It’s not enough simply to live with Christian values but never talk about the source of those values.

If you care at all about defending and living out your faith in Christ, you could do much worse than to spend a long time browsing his blog.

The Shame Won't Wash Off

I feel so... ugh... I really don't want to talk about it. I actually find myself vehemently agreeing with none other than "Wonkette" blogger-turned Time editor Ana Marie Cox, against her conservative detractors at both NewsBusters and The Corner... and to make matters worse, the statement I agree with was said on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, and to which he apparently gave his tacit agreement as well!

That comment? That, unequivocally, "Mitt Romney is not himself Christian".

So maybe Ms. Cox is not a theologian. Do I need a physicist to tell me that the sky is blue?

It really saddens me that political Christians, who may mean well, are watering down our Faith so much in their attempts to boost the fortunes of Mitt Romney in the 2008 Presidential campaign. We are called, as Christians, to "contend earnestly for the faith". The Apostle Paul himself constantly attempts to set his audience straight on theological matters in all his letters, clearly emphasizing that good theology a close second only to faith in Jesus Christ.

And yet "The Mormon Question" -- that is, are Mormons in spiritual fellowship with orthodox Christians? -- seems only to be an item of debate among two strikingly disparate groups -- liberal, largely apostate mainline theologians, and ostensibly "strong-conservative" Christian Mitt Romney supporters. Notice that Mormons themselves do not fit into either group -- to the best of my knowledge, the LDS Church views itself as "right" and genuine, orthodox Christianity as "wrong" and thus not have "disfellowshipped" themselves. But answering that Question is not my point here, so I will not attempt to do so.

The Left wants us to believe that we cannot dare to question someone's Patriotism, even when certain acts are blatantly aimed at hurting our country. Do Romney's supporters on the right now insist that we cannot dare question someone's Christianity?

No amount of scrubbing will help me feel clean over this sad state of affairs.

The Old Gods

Here is an interesting article at The American Thinker, by Timothy Birdnow, establishing a clear link between ancient paganism and the modern Environmentalism movement. While I think he goes a little too far in marking out the "sins" of the Christian Evangelical environmentalist movement (e.g., just being in the same movement as a pagan idolater does not make one an idolater as well), he does make some very interesting points. What piqued my interest most, however, was his take on the "old gods" of nature and how they are (metaphorically, I presume, as well as literally) resurgent in the false idols of Spiritism, Wicca, new-age Druidism, Secular Humanism, Materialism, Modernism, etc. He also interestingly ties this into the casting out of Legion by Jesus Christ, as though "Legion" either stood for, or quite literally was the collective essence of all these old gods.

Of course, being a big sci-fi/fantasy nerd myself, this immediately grabbed my attention as a very interesting prospect within the modern fantasy genre: what if the "old gods" were indeed real entities, only lying dormant due to lack of belief or the conquering power of Christ, but newly resurgent with the rise of secularism and the "return" to ancient pseudo-religions? The concept of a return of existence of old gods is hardly original; Neil Gaiman's American Gods was an excellent, entertaining yarn about that very concept (with a twist, in which "gods" were simply the "magical" product of collective faith, rather than pre-existent beings); similarly, Raymond Feist's Faerie Tale followed the same tack with respect to the "faerie folk" and its assorted pantheon. But what about attacking the subject matter from a Christian perspective? I think there is considerable potential on which to draw here. Frank Peretti's This Present Darkness and its sequel come close, wherein there is a very real, constant spiritual battle going on invisibly all around us, in which angels and demons quite literally war over our souls, wreaking real-world consequences which only seem natural in interpretation; however, in his books there is a distinct and impenetrable barrier between the spiritual world and the physical world.

There is certainly a Biblical basis for the assumption that the "old gods" did indeed correspond to real beings: 1 Corinthians 10 talks about food sacrificed to idols, and Paul makes this point in verse 20: "No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons." If you believe on faith that demons truly do exist (and I do, because my Bible says so, and gives me no indication that "demon" is always a metaphor for something else), then this verse indicates that, indeed, the false idols worshipped (at least in the first century AD, by the pagan Greeks in Corinth) do indeed have underlying them a demonic influence.

But back to the idea of a story: suppose these ancient spiritual entities were resurgent in their power. If they truly did have power over the earth (and we have every reason to believe this scripturally -- repeatedly the "ruler of this world" is mentioned in a supernatural context, as in John 12:21, as is, for example, in Ephesians 2:2, the "prince of the power of the air"), and this power could be used to the detriment of believers or of virtuous pagans who have never heard the Word of God, then what recourse could/would God take to empower His followers to combat this?

I don't have a fully-formed vision of that scenario, but it's definitely thought-provoking to me.

The Real Enemy

So apparently Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) pleaded guilty a couple of months ago to seeking out gay sex in an airport bathroom, even though it is only just now coming to light. His excuses for this are flimsier than Mitt Romney's theology (oh, zing!), and he should resign right now, regardless of the consequences to the GOP. But that's not what I want to talk about. Both Dean Barnett over at Hugh Hewitt's blog and David Freddoso over at the Corner raise the more important question: why do these things seem to "happen" to supposedly conservative politicians with greater frequency than to their Democratic counterparts?

Freddoso raises and then handily dismisses the possibility that liberal pols and their supporters are just "less repressed" and thus not discombobulated by such scandals of a prurient nature. I agree with him there. Barnett raises the spectre of self-loathing and a desire to be caught and "outed", but I don't think that comes close to answering the Why-the-GOP question. And of course there's always the "liberal media gives a free pass to non-GOP offenders" tack. While some of these notions have merit, I don't think they tell the full story.

The real answer, as is quite often the case, lies in looking at it from a spiritual perspective. As a Christian, I firmly believe not only in a Good and Perfect Creator who loves me and wants the best for me, but in an Enemy, whose primary goal, whatever its motivation may be, is to separate me from the Creator, with as much "collateral damage" as possible to those over whom I have influence. (Aside: far from taking the Manichaean point of view, I understand that the war is already over, for I have been irrevocably bought with Christ's blood. Too bad the Enemy isn't in on that little secret.)

So why then do "family values" politicians tend to be the "victims" of the worst, most depraved scandals of all? Is it because they're all secretly amoral hypocrites who are only using their stance to further their lust for power? No, that would be a silly thing to say. Rather, it is because of their stance that they become primary targets of the Enemy. Under the assumption that there is such a tempter, it only follows logically that it would focus its efforts on those through whom the most damage could be done -- namely, advocates of moral living. An old illustration that I've heard several preachers use is as follows: "if you don't cross paths with the Devil every day, you're probably heading in the wrong direction." If you're already focusing on an agenda that is anathema to the Creator's Divine Will, why would the Enemy divert its focus onto you? You're doing its job already!

This is not to say that I believe that all ostensibly socially-conservative politicians are 100% legitimate, honest, and forthright -- many people are already fallen before they rise to power. Many may already be struggling with private sins, and believe they have overcome them prior to their political careers, only to fall again. But in general, who is the juicier target? The advocate of sinful lifestyles, or the opponent of sinful lifestyles? Bring down the former, and no one is likely to be surprised or discouraged (umm, Barney Frank, anyone? Teddy Kennedy?). Bring down the latter, and you can destroy or diminish the faith of thousands.

So public advocates for moral living are the greatest targets of the Enemy. What, then, is to be done? Constant prayer is sometimes the only recourse, I believe. We as civilians cannot do much to hold them personally accountable at all times, but we can bathe them in prayer. When was the last time you prayed for your congressman, or your senators, or your pastor (assuming they are described by "advocates of moral living" -- never guaranteed to be the case)? If what I am saying is correct, and I believe it is, they are in need of more constant prayer than anyone else, for they are the closest to the edge of the Pit.