Andrew Tallman Show Topics

I remember reading a story last year about people in urban areas deliberately living off of the food they can find in dumpsters, not because they can’t afford better, but because it’s a sort of game and environmental exercise to them. Now, according to this fascinating story in the New York Times today, it seems people have recently started scavenging food from public places, such as fruit trees in parks or streets. Well, with all the vacant/foreclosed homes, there are a lot of unharvested vegetables and fruit, and some people are now taking to taking them from such private properties as well. So the question is whether any of this constitutes theft. The banks certainly wouldn’t permit it, but that might be for liability or paperwork reasons. It is private property, meaning that it is trespassing to pick it, and at least not their own. What might a cop do if he caught you in this situation? Isn’t it dumb to let it just go to waste? How might the principle of gleaning in the Bible be relevant here, if it is?

Theology topic: Why did the Gospel authors wait so long to write them down?

2011-07-26T15:22:00.000-07:00

If Jesus was crucified and resurrected around 33 AD, even the earliest dates proposed for authorship of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are two or three decades later (or more). Now, given the vital importance of these events and the immense centrality of these three accounts of the life of Jesus to Christians throughout history, it’s natural to ask why they waited so long to write their accounts. Waiting obviously invites the criticism that the events are less reliably recorded, and waiting seems to put things at the mercy of memories which dim over time. Even presuming the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit inspired the writers to be inerrant, doesn’t it still seem like a bizarre delay just from the perspective of how useful those texts could have been to the very early church during those decades? So why do you think God and the disciples waited so long to write the Gospels?

Ethics: Should we start thinking about social media the way we think about addictive substances?

2011-07-25T16:42:00.001-07:00

Everyone (I presume) has heard people refer to their digital device as a “crackberry.” This is meant to be a joke that disproves the reality, but when so many other smartphone users laugh a bit uncomfortably, the joke may be a little too apropos. According to a story in the New York Post today, several studies including a new one have revealed that people react to social media and Internet deprivation in ways very similar to how drug addicts respond to detox. I’ve been saying for years (following Marie Winn’s excellent book The Plug-In Drug) that technology like television is widely misunderstood for being primarily a matter of content rather than form. Social conservatives often lament the vulgarity of what’s on television, but almost no one ever laments the medium itself and its developmental impact on children and addiction-like use by adults. The question is whether we should start thinking of non-drug things in the same way we think about drugs. And in answering that question, it’s always useful to remember that at one time in history, cocaine and heroin were both legally available in some form to any customer. So, just because we don’t regulate something at the moment, that doesn’t mean later generations won’t think us fools for our blindness on such a matter.

~Do you ever use technology and then feel regret about it afterwards?
~Do you ever feel like you can’t stop using it or don’t really understand why you do use it so frequently?
~Is drunkenness a good paradigm for technology use? Is dependence?
~How careful should we be about new technology, especially when it seems to so suddenly become ubiquitous and seamlessly integrated into our lives?
~Is Twitter a drug? Is texting? Is facebook?
~Is the parallel with drugs strong enough to justify clear moral pronouncements?
~Are people being harmed in such a way that laws might even be passed for control…even beyond things like “don’t text and drive?”
~Is it only the action of texting that matters or is texting itself an intoxicant aside from its distraction effects?
~Does the fact that drugs cost a lot of money whereas much of modern technology is free affect your answers?
~Does the fact that drugs have direct and adverse biological effects compared to technology affect your answers?

Links
Addicts caught in the net (NY Post)

Wacky Topic: Christians are hateful.

2011-07-20T17:32:00.001-07:00

~Ask a homosexual what he thinks. For that matter, ask anyone who simply supports gays what they think.
~Ask someone who’s had an abortion what she thinks. For that matter, ask anyone who just supports the right to get one what they think.
~Ask someone who’s gotten a divorce what they think.
~Is it loving to tell someone they go to hell if they don’t think like you do?
~Wasn’t it Christians who waged war against the Muslims…because they were Muslims?
~Wasn’t it Irish Christians who waged war against other Irish Christians…because they were other Christians?
~Wasn’t it Spanish Christians who tortured all sorts of people…for being something besides what they were?
~Isn’t the core idea of Christianity that God hates you because you are a sinner?
~If hell is an eternal unending and excruciating torture, what would you label a God who ordains that if not hateful?

Links
Can Christians escape ‘hate’ label? (CP)

Programming Note

2011-07-19T19:14:00.000-07:00

Since the show is currently off the air, the only way to have something like a discussion is via this blog (or facebook). So, as I'm continuing to post topics, thoughts, and send out the email...I'm hoping you guys will accept this format in temporary lieu of a call-in show and have an online discussion to which I'll of course contribute. Deal? =)

Theology Topic: Is it a sin to be dissatisfied?

2011-07-19T19:09:00.001-07:00

The Bible tells us to be content in all things, right? But when you read the Bible, does it seem to you as if most of the great heroes of the faith wander around continually satisfied with everything as if Pollyanna really were the noblest of saints? Jesus is regularly furious with the religious leaders of His day. Paul isn’t shy at expressing his contempt for those who try to jeopardize what he’s done in preaching. And David, a man who is said to be after God’s own heart, expresses such depths of angst in the Psalms that it would be downright idiotic to call him satisfied, at least at those times. So are there times or circumstances in which it is acceptable to be dissatisfied? Are there objects of frustration that even obligate us to be dissatisfied with them? And if so, how are we as Christians to distinguish either the targets of our dissatisfaction or the expressive form of our reactions to those irritants from those of the people we all were before becoming Christian? In other words, if dissatisfaction per se isn’t the issue, how does Christian dissatisfaction differ from the non-Christian kind?

Ethics: Should Christian Lopez have returned Jeter's 3000th hit?

2011-07-18T17:41:00.000-07:00

Christian Lopez became instantly famous for being the guy who caught Derek Jeter’s milestone 3000^th hit because it was also a home run. But rather than keeping the ball and selling it for an estimated $250,000, Lopez immediately gave it back to the Yankees’ shortstop. In return, he received tickets to the rest of the home games for this year, a gift he said he didn’t need. “I just really wanted to give it back for everything the guy has done for us,” he said. “The experience is just priceless. It’s Jeter’s day, but I’m right there with him. It can’t get any better than that.” So what do you think? Was this a morally virtuous thing to do or a foolish one? Is it simply a matter of property rights? Would you have done the same thing? Does his explanation that he wanted to give Jeter a gift to show his appreciation seem to capture the entirety of the case? If Lopez owned a mortgage-free home and sold it to give the proceeds to Jeter to honor him, would you feel the same way? How much of your answer hinges on the fact that he was essentially lucky to catch the ball rather than truly meritorious in having earned it? How much of your answer depends on the fact that significant hits are routinely taken out of play for players when they do not leave the park? And do you think that Jeter did enough for Lopez in return for this quarter of a million dollar act of generosity? Should Jeter give him $250,000? Would your answer be different if Lopez turned out to be a Christian or if that fact somehow became a note in the incident?

Links:
He gave it back (Peter’s Boat)

CC--Christianese 25f: Christian Liberty (part 6 of 6)

2011-07-14T18:30:00.000-07:00

--As we learned previously, Christian liberty primarily proclaims God’s greatness in showing that it is our faith in His grace and not our performance that saves us. But it also has the practical benefit of allowing Christianity to take root in almost any cultural context and without all the conflict which comes from the ordinary cultural markers to which non-Christians attach themselves and their identity so strongly.
--But another big practical advantage of Christian liberty is that it preserves the unity of the faithful even amidst their tremendous potential for cultural diversity. If we are all God’s chosen people brought together by our common faith, what a testimony to God’s uniting power that we could all get along despite such differences when precisely those differences are such sources of division and discord apart from Him.
--See, normally, culture divides people. But in Christ, cultural differences can coexist without division. That’s why Christian churches properly embodying this are such a contradiction in expectations. Different socio-economic groups, different ages, and even different societies all come together and don’t merely endure each other. They cherish and serve and celebrate each other. That’s because they all equally realize that performing their cultural rules counts for nothing with God. Only faith in Christ does. Thus they are free to enjoy their own culture without haughtiness and to enjoy another’s culture without guilt. In other words, Christianity is the only true basis of real multiculturalism there is.
--And it was the violation of this unity in diversity of Christian liberty that made Paul chastise Peter publicly in the incident at Antioch.
--Temporarily forgetting (or denying) that Christ had united Jew and Gentile fully, Peter had chosen to eat only with fellow Jews rather than with the Gentiles and even as a Gentile as he had practiced elsewhere. This return to legalism and division made Paul immediately chastise him, for which he repented.
--Since we’ve been made at peace by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, we must never divide what Christ has joined by adding additional requirements to what Christ has done for us.
--I know people don’t think too much of it in this context, but when people become Christians (the official ceremony of which is baptism), we fellow Christians really take something like the marital vow with those people. “What God has joined [to Himself through Christ], let no man [with his additional rules] put asunder (separate).”

Celebrating 6 1/2 years of the ATS!

2011-07-13T15:58:00.000-07:00

How has the Andrew Tallman Show impacted you? What have you learned from the show? Share your thoughts here or at facebook.com/andrewtallmanshow. =)

In closing....

2011-07-13T15:50:00.000-07:00

Well, as most of you know by now, the Andrew Tallman Show has experienced a brief interruption in service. After 6½ years on air (to the day), KPXQ decided to eliminate the local programming position after the broadcast on Friday, July 8th. This was not in any way a result of management’s dissatisfaction with me or my show, and we are parting on very good terms. I know this came as a big surprise, and for many of you this has already caused sadness, frustration, disappointment, and maybe even anger. I understand. But I don’t want you to think of it this way.

Instead, I hope you’ll join me in being grateful that we had this amazing opportunity for so long together. Seriously, for those of you who have been around long enough, you remember the early days of the show when we actually counted the days of “The Great Experiment.” Part of the reason for that was that I was never really sure this thing would work, let alone work anywhere near as well as it did. It was abundantly obvious from the start that God brought me here to give me this opportunity, and it has been equally obvious since Friday that God has seen fit to take it away for the moment.

I am absolutely grateful to Him for letting me do something I loved so much with such fantastic people and such an amazing audience for so long. And I’m completely grateful to Salem Communications for cooperating with Him in making this possible, and John Timm for having been my mentor and benefactor for most of that time. Moreover, I got to do it with you, the most amazing and intelligent talk radio audience in the world!

I do not know what the future holds for me, or even where it will take place. But for years now God has been telling me that the next thing He has planned for me is even better than I can imagine. “I dunno, Lord. I can imagine quite a lot.” But I’m the kind of person who will never leave a good thing (or even a mediocre thing) unless I have to. And this job was a very good thing. So the only way God could get me into something else was to force me out of this situation.

That’s why I’m very much looking at this as if it’s Christmas morning, and I’m going downstairs to open the big present from my Daddy. I have no idea what it’ll be, but I can’t wait to find out and start playing with it. He’s really good at giving gifts, I’ve learned. So, in the meantime, I’m going to continue writing and posting materials on the websites. I may try to figure out how to do some Internet radio or podcasting also. And I will try to send out the email as frequently as I can, hopefully every day still. But aside from thanking you for your loyalty and asking for your prayers, I have an idea for how to end this portion of story in a neat way.

One of the show topics we never quite got around to doing was on the question, “How has the Andrew Tallman Show impacted you?” or “What have you learned from the Andrew Tallman Show?” So, as a way of celebrating (eulogizing?) this fun and fascinating thing we did together, I’d really love it if each of you would post something on the blog or facebook (or email it to me, and I will do so for you) in answer to that question. That would not only be very encouraging to me to read, but it would also (I hope) give all of you a chance to say your goodbyes (at least for now) to the show.

And trust me when I say that as sad as this is, I’ve actually never been happier in my life because of how amazing God has been prior to and during the last few days. On top of it all, I haven’t seen my family in 6 weeks (they come back tonight!). If you know anything about me, you can only imagine how tough that was all by itself, and then to have to deal with this development while deprived of them, too…. Nevertheless, God has been more than enough source of comfort and joy for me, which has already been a gift I can barely comprehend. He truly is far more amazing than any of us ever realizes!

So post your farewell thoughts. Keep in touch. And may God richly bless you all even more than He has me.

PS My new email address is tallmanuniversity (at) yahoo.com.

PPS I know some of you will feel like contacting KPXQ about all of this (Jim Ryan is the General Manager: jryan (at) salemphx.com or (602) 955-9600 x1202). But if you do, I hope you’ll express to him your sincere gratitude for having the show as long as we did. Please don’t be angry. God is in charge of this situation, and that would mean you’re angry at Him. Be as grateful as I am, okay? And keep in mind that Jim Ryan is God’s servant, too. Remember, we show by how we handle unpleasant events whether our trust is really in Christ or only in favorable circumstances. Always strive to bring Glory to Him in everything, including how you respond to this.

CC--Christianese 25e: Christian Liberty (part 5 of 6)

2011-07-08T17:27:00.001-07:00

--The only thing that God requires is our faith in Christ, which faith will always lead us also to live according to love and within the boundaries of the Ten Commandments. Thus, Christian liberty is the freedom for Christians to do whatever the Holy Spirit working inside of them permits or to avoid whatever He prohibits within these extremely broad limits.
--Aside from proclaiming the Gospel (see part 4), this vital doctrine has two major practical advantages, both of which fit the global scope of God’s Salvation project.
--First, it gives us all the latitude we need to work within and reach other cultures not like our own. Precisely because the culture-style of a Christian is almost infinitely flexible, we can adapt to and preach the Gospel in almost any context. This gives us the great advantage of not having to force people in that cultural context to leave everything they have ever known to follow Christ.
--In the past, one of the greatest barriers to evangelizing in foreign cultures has been the idea that not only must they become Christians but they must become Western Christians. This mean that converts not only had to accept Christ, but they had to become aliens to their own culture, which made them immediately adrift personally and ineffective evangelically with their own people.
--But the doctrine of Christian liberty, properly understood, would allow them plenty of latitude in being Christian with their native context and seeing how to fulfill all the incomplete strands of it through Christ rather than forcing them to abandon it as if the entire thing must be changed to conform to God’s will.
--This kind of cultural fascism has really hindered the spread of the Gospel, and it just plain fails to grasp this core doctrine. Such missionaries wind up being Judaizers all over again without even realizing it.
--I’ll explain the other advantage next time.

An ingenious plan to reform unemployment benefits.

2011-07-08T16:48:00.000-07:00

In addition to this plan from Todd Buccholz, which I love for all sorts of reasons, what about this: while someone gets unemployment pay, they have to volunteer at a charity for some fairly minimal amount of time per week, say 15 hours? If all these people are without jobs, at least they could be creating value by helping charitable causes, right?

What is Sharia Law, really?

2011-07-07T15:55:00.000-07:00

As what can only be described as the most-commonly-used-without-really-understanding-what-it-means word in current political discourse, Sharia is a fascinating cultural-linguistic phenomenon. But since it is in use and since the vast majority of people think they know what it means (perhaps just a euphemism for beheading unburqua’d women or Muslims who defect), I thought it might be worth our while to investigate and better understand precisely what Sharia is and what it is not. For instance, here are some questions I have:

--Are there varieties of Sharia?
--Are there degrees of implementation of Sharia?
--Do Sharia-based societies all look the same?
--To what degree is Sharia compatible with our Constitution?
--To what degree is Sharia compatible with Biblical concepts?
--Do we need to be worried about Sharia here in America?

Resources:
Sharia (Wikipedia)
Sharia Law (CFR)
Ten reasons Sharia is bad for anyone (American Thinker)
Sharia Law (BBC)
The myth of Sharia Law in America (Amy Sullivan)

CC--Christianese 25d: Christian Liberty (part 4 of 5)

2011-07-07T15:22:00.000-07:00

--So why is Christian liberty so important?
--Well, precisely because we live in a culture in which human freedom is worshipped and the liberty to do whatever we want is considered such an inviolable right (perhaps even unalienable), the most common misunderstanding about Christian liberty is that it is for the purpose of protecting people in their freedom.
--The reality couldn’t be farther from this.
--Remember that the purpose of all creation, all humanity, and each Christian life is to glorify God. So how does letting individual Christians decide whether to drink alcohol or whether to participate in Halloween or whether to listen to secular music fit with this objective?
--It’s simple. By declaring that none of these things in general defines or accomplishes our status with God, we are forced instead to remind people (both ourselves and outsiders) that the entire work of salvation is accomplished by faith in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit.
--The principle is that we are all saved by faith, and therefore we must not build barriers amongst ourselves on the basis of anything other than this.
--And so someone from the outside comes in and says, “How can it be that followers of the same God might be so different? One believes in democracy and one in monarchy. One listens to country music and the other to rock and roll. One abstains from all alcohol and the other consumes it in moderation. One is circumcised and the other is not. One dresses up for church and the other goes in shorts. How can all the followers of the same God be so wildly different?”
--This question (which Christian liberty is intended to provoke!) leads immediately to the real issue: our common faith in Christ and in Christ alone. The very diversity of Christians points directly to the Glory of God in that His work and His work alone saves and unites us. Anything else added on top of this creates a false Gospel mixing His accomplishment with our own.
--In this way, Christian liberty is absolutely not a matter of making individual Christians happy. It’s entirely a matter of reaffirming and proclaiming the Grace of God alone.
--But there’s one radically important additional reason for Christian liberty which I’ll explain about tomorrow.

Casey Anthony trial/verdict

2011-07-07T15:18:00.001-07:00

Let me start by saying I know nothing, seriously nothing, about this case or this trial. What I do know is that people have been tremendously gripped by it, and they have tried their very best to get me interested. But I have declined. Much as I did with the Michael Jackson and the Natalie Holloway cases, I chose to ignore it all. And now, with the acquittal of Casey, I know why I do so. The people who were following this case so avidly are aghast, horrified, and (generally speaking) disgusted or even depressed. In other words, they are not enjoying much peace at the moment. I won’t go so far as to say they’ve done something wrong. Instead, I just want to note that I have none of these issues. I don’t find crime fascinating, and I generally trust that our legal system gets most things right. This woman will forever be believed to be a child-murderer, even though the jury found her not guilty, similar to the historical case of Lizzie Borden. The real questions I hope people will ask themselves now are:

--Does investing my time and effort and energy into cases like this usually pay off well?
--Has my effort to follow and maintain my opinions about this case brought me closer to God or other people?
--If I worry a lot about wrongfully incarcerating or even executing innocent people, does this example of how our system goes out of its way to not convict people reassure me?
--Am I aware of all the ways I have been manipulated by visual media to care about and be horrified by this case and this verdict?
--When I see Casey Anthony’s picture, do I react to it as a Christian should?

Wacky Wednesday--Monarchy Is Right

2011-07-06T17:47:00.001-07:00

CC--Christianese 25d: Christian Liberty (part 3 of 5)

2011-07-06T17:41:00.000-07:00

--The essence of the idea behind Christian liberty is very simple. We are saved by faith in Jesus Christ and by the works which He did to merit the approval of God and thereby our salvation. And therefore, obedience to any other rules neither saves you nor does their violation jeopardize your salvation.
--But what then is to be done with all the rules in the Old Testament? And how do we avoid saying that Christians can do anything at all, no matter how evil?
--Well, Christian scholars have generally resolved this question by classifying the Old Testament commands into three main categories, civil, ceremonial, and moral.
--Civil laws would be related to the constitution of the political structure of ancient Israel.
--Ceremonial laws would be related to the priestly and sacrificial system of the religious structure of ancient Israel.
--The moral commands would be all the rules about human conduct, and these would divide into two major categories.
--First are the moral rules that predated the commands given to Moses and therefore were never limited merely to ancient Israel. Except for the Sabbath which is its own interesting topic, Christians generally consider the Ten Commandments to capture and summarize these.
--Second are the moral rules created uniquely for ancient Israel, such as regards mixing fabrics or the Kosher dietary rules. These were only ever meant for Jews.
--So the civil, ceremonial, and uniquely Jewish moral rules all went away at the Resurrection of Christ.
--What remains then is primarily the Ten Commandments, which always have and always will morally obligate all people, including Christians.
--But every other matter, such as the consumption of alcohol, celebrating particular days, listening to music, the use of medicine, the eating of various foods, what clothes to wear, etc. would be essentially matters of individual judgment.
--And not only are people adamantly free in these areas, but they are so free that it is a grave sin to try to restrict them or judge them for it. Nevertheless, in that freedom, they are supposed to be wise and loving in consideration of people who are still learning to live out this freedom in Christ.

Dominc Strauss-Kahn case

2011-07-06T17:40:00.000-07:00

It’s a wonderful thing that we live in a culture which does not bow before the rich and powerful and is willing to investigate them, but it is also a dangerous bias to immediately believe any allegation against the rich and powerful. The wealthy deserve justice and the presumption of innocence, too.

Revelations undermining DSK case (NYT)
Judge releases DSK house arrest (MSNBC)
DSK case (Wikipedia)

Is “Judeo-Christian” a coherent term?

2011-07-05T18:10:00.000-07:00

This term has been used widely in America since the 1940s, and is often used today by both conservative Christians and conservative Jews to represent the shared moral and cultural project of Jews and Christians in America and elsewhere. Dennis Prager, most notably, wrote a series of columns (around 20 of them in all) talking about the concept. But there are some fairly substantial differences, even incompatibilities, between Jews and Christians regarding God, Jesus, Salvation, and even ordinary morality. So is this term really a useful or coherent one?

Resources:
Judeo-Christian (Wikipedia)

CC--Christianese 25b: Christian Liberty (part 2 of ?)

2011-07-05T16:38:00.001-07:00

--As we noted yesterday, the concept of Christian liberty has been a part of our faith from the very beginning, when the Church leaders had to reconcile the holiness requirements of Judaism with the new influx of Gentiles into the faith.
--Some of the Jewish converts wanted Christians to live according to all these laws, arguing that God doesn’t change the rules in the middle of the game. And this is understandable because those practices had become the key identifying trademarks of Jewish identity. Giving such things up is not easy at all.
--But Gentile converts neither knew these practices nor saw the point of them, arguing not only that God was clearly declaring their irrelevance in accepting them with the Holy Spirit and arguing that faith in Christ rather than obedience to the law is the core of the Gospel.
--So the big question arose over how both Jewish and Gentile Christians ought to live their lives together and the pronouncement of the New Testament authors and the early Church Council at Jerusalem was simple.
--The only requirement of Christians was to obey those moral rules which come from the fundamental principles of God’s Nature and Character, such as financial generosity and sexual monogamy. These might generally be called the “rules of love.”
--In contrast Christians do not need to obey any of the ceremonial, sacrificial, or dietary restrictions or the holy days in the Old Testament because they were uniquely for the Jews to identify them as God’s people. These might generally be called the “rules of holiness.”
--Nevertheless, since Jews and Gentiles must get along, both sides must be generous to each other, Jews working to not be offended at what Gentiles do in freedom, and Gentiles not provoking Jews by flaunting their liberty in front of them.
--Thus love became the guiding principle, not particular regulations. And this freedom to live in love is what we call Christian liberty.

Background check app for iPhone and Android?

2011-07-05T16:32:00.001-07:00

Are we seriously this paranoid about other people? I’ll learn what I need to know about them the old fashioned way…talking to them.

Holiday Topic: The Declaration of Independence

2011-07-04T17:15:00.000-07:00

As perhaps the most famous political document in history (certainly in United States history), the Declaration of Independence has influenced or had an impact on the entire world ever since it was written, even in those places where its principles have been rejected. So, in addition to reading it on the air today (as I did for everything other than the itemized list of infractions this afternoon), I thought we could talk about what in it is so substantial and fascinating. Moreover, the particular question I have is what part(s) of it you find most compelling. Also, are there any parts or lines that bother you or with which you don’t fully agree?

CC--Christianese 25a: Christian Liberty (part 1 of ?)

2011-07-04T17:05:00.001-07:00

--The idea of Christian liberty is as simple as it is revolutionary in the history of religious thought.
--You see, every religion gives guidelines for human behavior and the expectation that people would live up to them in order to be pleasing to God (or the gods).
--In this sense, there is a code of conduct by which every member of that religious community can look at others to see whether they are living as they should.
--In Judaism, this scorecard is given in the Old Testament and commonly referred to as “The Law” or the commandments of God given to Moses, normally counted as 613 of them regulating everything from food to clothing to sex to money and social justice.
--So when the Jewish Messiah, Jesus, came, died and was resurrected, creating the Christian Church, one of the major areas of conflict for His followers was the question of how many (if any) of these rules still applied to Christians.
--It was obvious to everyone in this discussion that the fundamental rules of love still applied to them all, thus the sexual and financial principles of the Old Testament still governed behavior because they flowed from the very Nature and Character of God. But what about the ceremonial, sacrificial, and dietary restrictions as well as the holy days?
--This was a real crisis for the early Church because Jews were so accustomed to defining their very identity by these markers and Gentiles had no idea of any of them. Moreover, God had clearly accepted the Gentiles in spite of their “unholiness” in these areas.
--So what was the decision?
--At the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), the leaders of the early Church came up with a simple principle. Jews must not judge Gentiles if they do not care about such things and must not isolate from them over such matters. And Gentiles must not judge Jews if they still hang onto some of them, but should not flaunt their freedom in front of “weak” Jews who find such things too disturbing to endure. In other words, both sides must behave out of love for the other in all things.

The Declaration of Independence

2011-07-04T14:57:00.000-07:00

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

CC--Christianese 24e: Glory/Glorify (part 5 of 5)

2011-07-01T16:55:00.000-07:00

--Yesterday, I posed a challenge regarding our duty to glorify God in every way. I said that maybe the way we should glorify God was by being good press agents, embellishing His good deeds and spinning His less appealing ones. Whether in the Bible or in the world, maybe we would do well to give God a better image than people might otherwise form of Him. And if that’s true “out there,” it’s also true “in here,” with regard to my own moral growth. Shouldn’t I hide my flaws and fake as much virtue as possible so as to make God look better by all this wonder He’s going to get credit for doing in my life?
--As immediately horrible as all this sounds, the truth is that Christians of all sorts buy into precisely this mistake, whether it’s in the way they deal with the Bible, the way they talk about God in this world, or the way they present themselves to others through evangelism or personal lifestyle.
--So what are the three big problems with such “fake glorification?
--Well, first, it’s lying. And since we serve a God whose core character is Truth, that’s immediately a problem.
--Second, it’s very dangerous precisely because anyone lured into Christianity on the basis of such exaggerated claims (whether about God or about your own life) will be disillusioned by the reality once he discovers it for himself.
--But the most important problem is the third one. And this problem absolutely runs rampant among Christians. We secretly think God isn’t good enough. And so we feel we have to embellish either our accounts of Him or our lives in following Him. But if God finds His deeds and our imperfect lives suitably glorifying for His purposes, on what grounds would we disagree? Instead of secretly nurturing the idea that God isn’t good enough either “out there” or “in here,” we should start from the premise that He is perfect and then stop trying to do anything other than tell the truth as we know and experience it.
--Only then will we be glorifying the actual God as He actually is.

The Sun's strange quietness

2011-07-01T16:53:00.000-07:00

Would solar lull snuff climate action? (NYT)

Sun’s strange lull explained (2009!) (Space.com)

Should kids be allowed to buy violent video games?

2011-06-30T17:48:00.000-07:00

In a 7-2 decision which followed no well-established ideological lines, the Supreme Court this week upheld lower courts in striking down the California law barring the sale of violent video games to minors. As always, the questions here come in two broad categories. First, was this law a good one? Second, was this law a Constitutional one? Since I do not play any of the modern video games, I am a bit out of my depth here, and so I’ll be looking for expert commentary from those of you more familiar with the games at issue in this case.

Resources:
Read the opinion
Justices reject video game ban for children (NYT)
Supreme Court strikes video game ban (Fox News)
Supremes have ruled, now games have a duty (NYT)
It’s perverse, but it’s also pretend (NYT)

CC--Christianese 24d: Glory/Glorify (part 4 of 5)

2011-06-30T17:45:00.001-07:00

--As we have noticed, we glorify God when we proclaim His deeds and when we embody His transformative power in our own lives.
--But this raises a rather devious possibility. Wouldn’t we do well to glorify God if we perhaps could exaggerate or even lie about good things He has done and if we could on our own power live lives even more exemplary than whatever He has empowered us to live?
--See, it’s all fine and well that God has done some good things, but maybe we should claim more than that as a way of making Him look even better? And it seems that God at least permits if not actively causes some bad things that don’t seem to glorify Him all that well, so shouldn’t we perhaps hide or pass over those? Especially the Bible, with all sorts of difficult things, invites us maybe to ignore or avoid such embarrassments.
--And if this is true of the things we tell others about God or His Book, isn’t it just as true in the way we live our lives? I mean it sounds nice to let God’s Spirit transform my heart and behavior, but who has time for that? In the meanwhile, people are looking at me and seeing that I don’t live up to my own standards. So perhaps I should step in and make up the difference by my own effort. And what about my residual sins and flaws? Shouldn’t I cover those over so that no one will see what a splotchy job God is doing to tidy me up? Wouldn’t that glorify God better?
--The same for my marriage. The same for my church. The same for my children. The same for my health and wealth and ideas and everything else. Don’t I best serve God by seeming to be the perfect advertisement? That’s very appealing to the lost, right?
--Well, obviously, there are three big problems with this all-too-common way of thinking. And I’ll explain about them tomorrow.

Workplace dress codes

2011-06-30T17:44:00.001-07:00

Are we really this ungrateful for the opportunity to earn a living with the capital someone else has invested in us?

Wacky Wednesday--God is a narcissist

2011-06-29T17:32:00.000-07:00

CC--Christianese 24c: Glory/Glorify (part 3 of 4)

2011-06-29T17:12:00.001-07:00

--Glorify is a simple word which simply means to bring credit or honor (glory) to someone who deserves it, to make them look good, so to speak.
--Naturally, there are two main ways to glorify someone: First, by pointing to and proclaiming what is already truly great about them. Second, by doing good things yourself and then letting people know that you only did it because of that other person.
--So, you might have a mentor and then either you could describe his greatness and accomplishments to others or you could show that he imparted greatness to you in your own accomplishments.
--Since our purpose in life is to Glorify God, we do this by both telling people what is amazing and true of Him and by showing them how He has transformed us by the things we do in His service as His people.
--On the one hand, God is “out there” in the things He has done and is doing in history and today. When we share these things with people, we bring glory (honor, credit, reputation, esteem) to God.
--But if the greatest single thing God ever did was the Gospel, and the proof of this is what it does in us as God comes to indwell us, then our own lives become a living example of the glory of God as the Holy Spirit lives us and brings His own light to shine forth through our lives to others.
--If we say we love God, and we show such a life, we glorify Him, fulfilling our purpose in existing. If we fail to do this yet claim to be His, we sinfully bring disrepute and dishonor (or deglorify Him, so to speak) to other people, much as if we refuse to give Him credit for things He has done.
--Our duty, then is to continually tell the truth about God and to show that it is true in us by letting God act through us Himself.
--That’s what it means to glorify God.

The Looming Tower

2011-06-29T17:10:00.000-07:00

I’m reading “The Looming Tower” by Lawrence Wright, and today I’m sharing some of the insights gained from this fantastically informative book on the history of Islamic terrorism, Al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.

Should Christians circumcise their sons?

2011-06-28T17:21:00.000-07:00

As you have probably heard, the city of San Francisco has put a proposition on their November ballots that would ban infant circumcision in the city. This would surely be struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional, given the longstanding religious practice of many groups. But it does present an interesting opportunity to ask the question of whether Christians should be circumcising their infant boys. Does circumcision contribute to salvation in any way? Are Christians obligated to practice it to be fully pleasing to God? Jesus was circumcised, after all, wasn’t He? We’ll talk about it.

Bible References: Genesis 1710-14, Exodus 4:24-26, Deut 10:12-22, Jer 4:4, 1 Sam 17:26, 1 Sam 18:24-28, Acts 11:17, Acts 15:1-31, Acts 16:1-5, 1 Cor 7:17-20, Gal 2:1-5, Gal 5:1-11, Gal 6:11-16, Eph 2:11, Col 2:9-13, Phil 3:1-3

Circumcision (Wikipedia)
Female genital cutting (Wikipeia)
Should Christians practice circumcision? (Got Questions)
Should a Christian be circumcised? (Hebrew 4 Christians)
Circumcision and the Christian parent (No Harm)

CC--Christianese 24b: Glory/Glorify (part 2 of 4)

2011-06-28T17:16:00.001-07:00

--As I explained yesterday, the Glory of God isn’t merely all His various perfect attributes or excellences, it is the very significance or weight of God.
--And whenever one encounters His Glory as it really is, it produces far more than a mere impulse to worship that which is so much better than you are. It has a demolishing effect, reducing your own opinion of yourself so dramatically that you feel worthless and insignificant in His presence. When you meet your favorite athlete, you are in awe of his superiority. When you meet God, you are devastated.
--This sudden existential catastrophe comes from having vastly underestimated God’s Glory and from having simultaneously vastly overestimated your own. Even though we all know God is more than we are of everything, we still all suffer from the erroneous tendency to put Him and us on the same scale or into the same category even to be compared to each other.
--It’s as if you had the ability to blow up a firecracker, and so you find yourself about to enter the presence of God thinking that He has the ability to blow up a stick of dynamite or even a bundle of sticks. So you anticipate standing back a few hundred feet just to be safe, only to discover that God’s Glory is on the order of a 100 megaton nuclear explosion, the sort of thing for which 200 feet makes no difference at all.
--And being so unprepared for this level of distinction, you are completely ruined by it.
--That’s why whenever God’s Glory appears to people, whether in the Temple at Jerusalem or on Mount Sinai or on the Mount of Transfiguration, it is a crushing, overwhelming, terrifying, unraveling sort of experience.
--And even when other things are brought into this proximity, if they survive, they then become even so transformed by carrying just the residual effects of this encounter that the ordinary person can’t even tell the difference (like with Moses needing to wear a veil after Sinai or with John the author of Revelation wrongly thinking that “glorified” Christians are really God Himself), again like something that’s been irradiated by a nuclear explosion becomes a source of dangerous radiation.
--Glory, then is the aesthetic beauty, rational, moral, and relational perfection, historical reputation, and existential and metaphysical significance of God all combined together.

Drop-side cribs illegal to sell as of today.

2011-06-28T17:14:00.000-07:00

New safety standards on drop-side cribs (Consumer Affairs)

Parents debate drop-side cribs after recalls (MSNBC)

CPSC issues warning on cribs (CPSC)

Is the drop-side crib ban a legal taking? (Overlawyered)

Ethics: Does Blood Kinship Matter?

2011-06-27T17:49:00.001-07:00

Just as we were ending a show recently, someone called to ask a question about the relationship between natural or biological parenting and adoption. The brunt of the question was whether there is anything “more real” about blood relationships than about those made voluntarily and legally. Knowing that we were out of time, I avoided the question because the implications are significant and because it warrants a much more extended treatment. So tonight on the show, I thought we could talk through the question and try to figure out whether parent/child relationships are entirely a matter of what we do (meaning that adoptive and biological are the same, depending for their status on behavior) or if there is also some component of natural or blood connection (meaning that there is some fundamental difference between adoptive and biological parents based on essence or ontology).

CC--Christianese 24a: Glory/Glorify (part 1 of 4)

2011-06-27T17:36:00.000-07:00

--The word glory has a pretty simple meaning, glory is the characteristic of being excellent or outstanding in some quality. We might say that the sunset was glorious or that the recital was glorious or that the glory for the victory went to some key agent in the activity.
--Naturally, since God is the perfect Being, He is uniquely excellent in every way possible. Thus, the glory of God is simply His perfection or wonderfulness as shown through His character and actions.
--But to say it this way understates the importance of the concept.
--We know from the Bible that when people came into proximity or contact with God’s Glory, they were always affected by it tremendously. And the primary way they responded was with a sense of not only their own badness or worthlessness (being very much not excellent, one might say), but also of their own insignificance.
--They weren’t just full of admiration for some high-performing individual they finally got to meet in person. They were undone, even ruined by the encounter.
--You see, one way of talking about Glory is as the catch-all for goodness. But God isn’t merely a very good being, He is Being itself. And so, His very essence or nature is significance itself, what modern authors (following C.S. Lewis) refer to as having weight or gravity (a word which nicely captures both seriousness and weight. God matters more than anything else, to such a degree that God is “mattering” itself. Nothing matters apart from Him (both in the sense of existing as matter and in having significance).
--Thus, the Glory of God is the sense that if we are like planets or small particles in space, He is not merely the Sun but the grandest and most impressive sun possible.

Responding to NBC’s “Under God” omission.

2011-06-27T17:34:00.001-07:00

NBC Apologizes for pledge gaffe (Wash Post)

Christian groups demand explanation from NBC (CP)

NBC tribute cuts “Under God” from pledge (ACLJ)

ACLJ and thousands send protest letter to NBC (ACLJ)

Manhattan Declaration accepts the apology (MD)

Catholic Register chastises MD (NCR)

Manhattan Declaration response (MD)

CC--Christianese 23c: Blasphemy (part 3 of 3)

2011-06-24T17:45:00.000-07:00

--Do phrases like “Oh my God!” and “Oh God!” constitute blasphemy?
--Before we can answer that, let’s start with something easier. Is it blasphemous to even utter the name of God?
--For some people, Jews in particular, blasphemy would include even using the name of God (Yahweh or Jehovah) out loud, possibly even using the substitute term “God” itself. And this is why you’ll notice in some Jewish literature the construction “G-d” or some oblique referent like “Ha-Shem” which means “The Name.”
--The reason for this is that humans can almost never be pure enough to say God’s name without dishonoring and profaning it. So, rather than taking that risk, they simply don’t say it at all.
--For Christians, however, merely uttering God or any of God’s names or titles (Elohim, Yahweh, Jesus, Adonai, etc.) isn’t considered blasphemous precisely because He permits us as His children to say His names.
--But if one utters the names disrespectfully or irreverently, that is handling God’s name improperly or vainly. And the most common form of this is cursing which uses God’s Name to express dissatisfaction as a swear.
--The reason this particular form of cursing is blasphemy is easily seen by the fact that one could express the same content with any of a number of alternate and truly profane terms relating to bodily functions. Thus, the blasphemy comes from equating God’s Name with such vulgarities by substitution.
--But is “Oh, my God!” in this category? Well, it depends on who is saying it and how they do so.
--If a Christian says this as an appeal to God in a moment of great significance, it’s honoring God. If a non-believer says it as a form of semi-sarcastic tsk-tsk, such trivializing is at least semi-blasphemous. In other words, the expression in itself isn’t blasphemous so much as the tone of voice, the context, and the question of whether it serves to bring honor and weight to God’s name or the opposite. Also, precisely because Christians have a more familiar and informal relationship with God as His children, we are generally more liberal about references to Him, at least when made by our fellow family members.

Obama blames technology for unemployment

2011-06-24T16:09:00.001-07:00

President Obama’s profound but tragically common misunderstanding of the relationship between technology, jobs, and prosperity.

Obama vs the ATMs, why technology doesn’t destroy jobs (WSJ)

Current Events

2011-06-23T17:32:00.000-07:00

Arabs and Democracy (Journal of Democracy)
Literacy rates in Arab States (UNESCO)
Senegal, Islam, Democracy, Sexy (European blog)
Defend Muslims, defend America (NYT)
Rand and Rubio (NYT)
FCC restricts its own power (WSJ)
Obama vs ATMs, why technology doesn’t destroy jobs (WSJ)
Global warming and global governance (Forbes)
Yasmin, Yaz blamed for two teen deaths (AP)
Obama accelerates withdrawl timeline (NYT)
Timeline: major events in

Afghanistan

war (NYT)
Troop levels in Afghanistan/Iraq graph (NYT)

CC--Christianese 23b: Blasphemy (part 2 of 3)

2011-06-23T16:11:00.001-07:00

--As we discussed yesterday, blasphemy is any use of language to dishonor or defame God. And the reason it’s so awful is in part because God is so deserving of honor and respect and in part because language is such a unique and precious divine gift give to express this glory. Hence using that gift to attack the Giver is a supreme perversion.
--Thus, the most serious forms of blasphemy would involve willful and deliberate verbal defamations of God.
--For example, someone who denounces God or reviles Him would be engaging in blasphemy. This might entail saying God is not good or that He does not exist, or that he is not Almighty or something of this sort.
--But someone who claims God has done something terrible or who denies the glorious things He has done would also be engaged in blasphemy. And since the single greatest thing God has done in human history is the Gospel, that means that denying the Gospel or its goodness or that God did it out of love for us by denying the Resurrection or the Deity of Christ, etc. would all be forms of blasphemy.
--Equally, many of the things said by the Westboro Cult are blasphemous precisely because they bring disrepute upon God falsely attributing to Him evil things. When people who claim to be acting in God’s Name or on His behalf say what is contrary to His Nature, they blaspheme Him by sullying His reputation.
--In short, anything which lies about God or makes Him sound less worthy than He is would be blasphemy. Detracting from or denying His due weight, reputation, acclaim, or praise.
--And this raises the question of whether phrases like “Oh, my God!” constitute blasphemy. I’ll answer that tomorrow.

Clara Luper (May 3, 1923 – June 8, 2011)

2011-06-23T16:01:00.000-07:00

Clara Luper, schoolteacher, civil rights activist, and leader of the first nationally recognized anti-segregation sit-in in Oklahoma City 1958, recently died June 8. In 1972 she ran unsuccessfully for election to the United States Senate. When asked by the press if she, a black woman, could represent white people, she responded: “Of course, I can represent white people, black people, red people, yellow people, brown people, and polka dot people. You see, I have lived long enough to know that people are people.”

An interview with Clara Luper
Wikipedia page on Clara Luper

Wacky Wednesday--Laziness Is A Virtue

2011-06-22T17:46:00.000-07:00

Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.

--Laziness isn’t a character condition it’s the discernment that something isn’t important.
--Far from being boring, idleness offers a creative time for dreams, thoughts and conversations that is to be relished and fostered.
--Through leisure, the mind is free to wander and invent. My best ideas have come from times of relaxation and reflection. You can’t rush good philosophy.
--Our fast paced life prevents us from hearing God, who moves at a much slower pace.
--Work interferes with family time, to the acknowledged detriment of many families.
--Over-productive people are insufferably active, demanding, and unhappy. They can’t rest in the peace of God, and they don’t know how to be still and are personally insecure about their worth and identity unless producing
--We work so that we can have better things that we can’t enjoy because we’re supposed to be working so that we can have better things that we can’t enjoy because we’re supposed to be working so that we can have better things that we can’t enjoy because…
--If it doesn’t generate income, our American culture treats it as irrelevant. This means that art, poetry, dance, beholding nature, and loads of other very healthy things for your soul get lost in the competition for income.
--We have put such a premium on work as meaningful that loads of women leave their true calling as mothers to go find fulfillment in the market economy.
--Think of the first question we always want to know about someone: what does he DO? As in, is he productive or is he a bum? And think of how odd it would be for someone to say, “I do nothing of that sort.” Oh, you mean you’re unemployed? No, I’m not seeking a job. I don’t play that game.
--There was no toil in Eden. It was after the fall that man was cursed to work. Shouldn’t we be redeemed from the curse?
--In heaven, we won’t do work. Heaven will look a lot more like lounging at the beach than it will look like working at the mill.
--Be still and know that I am God presupposes that you can stand being still.
--God will provide, the lilies don’t toil or turn, you can’t add one cubit to your stature, God knows your needs. Matthew 6:24-34
--Consider the case study of Martha and Mary!
--It’s extremely odd to say on the one hand that you can’t earn heaven but to then turn around and say it’s a grave moral sin to not be working and productive!
--“Labor-saving” technology by definition means “laziness-enabling” technology.

Resources:
Laziness Quotes
Bible Verses About Laziness at InTouch.org
In Defense Of Laziness by Hal Cranmer at Mises.org
In Praise Of Idleness by Bertrand Russell
Quitting The Paint Factory: On The Virtues Of Idleness by Mark Slouka
Idling: Why It's Important Not To Be Busy All The Time by Mortimer J. Adler
The Ideas Of Work And Leisure (5 parts, click on link at end to continue) by Mortimer J. Adler
How To Be Idle book by Tom Hodgkinson
An Interview With Tom Hodgkinson (Katie Renz, MotherJones.com)
American Idle: It Takes Hard Work To Master (Craig Wilson, USA Today)
Selling The Work Ethic book by Sharon Beder
Protestant Work Ethic defined at Wikipedia
History Of The Work Ethic by Roger B. Hill
The Myth Of Laziness book (about underachieving students) by Mel Levine

CC--Christianese 23a: Blasphemy (part 1 of 2)

2011-06-22T17:05:00.000-07:00

--Blasphemy is one of those words that a lot of people use (perhaps most often in jest with a stern tone of voice mocking someone who might use it seriously), but still have trouble defining with any degree of precision.
--In general, blasphemy is dishonoring God with language, thereby denying Him His justly deserved reputation as God the Perfect Being. Blasphemy is anti-God slander when spoken or anti-God libel when printed.
--Since God not only is the giver of language but even the embodiment of language (“The Word was with God and the Word was God,” John 1), such a violation of language is particularly acute. Moreover, since one of the key unique attributes God shares with man is the capacity for language, turning this common glory mechanism into a form of debasement is a true perversion. We should be bringing honor and prestige and weight to God with His gift of language, and not the opposite.
--And that’s the point of the Third Commandment: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” Precisely because God is the greatest Good in the universe, and our language is a fundamental way in which we express this to Him and about Him to others, misuse of language in this way is contrary to the very purpose of our lives and all of Creation.
--That’s why blasphemy is such a serious crime.
--And understanding the seriousness of blasphemy, we have to be very careful that we don’t trivialize it in the way we define it, for instance by saying that minor inadvertent profanities are full-fledged examples of it.

Theological Tuesday: What troubles you the most about Christianity?

2011-06-21T17:17:00.001-07:00

People who do not accept Christianity are of course usually quite ready to give you their reasons for rejecting the faith. However, many of the reasons they give for either never becoming Christian or for leaving Christianity are things which we Christians also experience. So, tonight, I though it might be useful simply to talk about the things that bother us or trouble us or even embarrass us about our own faith. I think you’ll find that we all have these thoughts. And I think you’ll also find that we stick around in spite of having them, not because we don’t have them.

CC--Christianese 22d: Sola Scriptura (part 4 of 4)

2011-06-21T17:09:00.001-07:00

--The doctrine of Protestantism that the Bible is the only and ultimate source of authority for all Christians is the main thing which divide Catholics and Protestants. Other issues come from this one and are also major, but this is the original or main one.
--We know that Sola Scriptura already does divide Catholics and Protestants, but we still have the question of which things rise to this level? At what point do we divide?
--The Immaculate Conception of Mary is not taught by the Bible. Is that worth dividing over? Mandatory celibacy for priests is not taught in the Bible. What about that? Justification by faith alone is taught by the Bible. Should we disunite over this?
--We obviously can’t divide over everything, but when does something rise to the level of being worth dividing over, and who gets to decide?
--The real question being raised by the objection to Sola Scriptura is whether anybody at all can just pick up the Bible and get things right or whether there should be some caution about this radical individualism of doctrine. And that’s a really good question to consider. But doing so doesn’t lead to the other extreme of believing there must be one and only one official Christian church whose teachings are binding on all followers of Christ without any way to dispute them.
--Since even Catholics are usually willing to admit that the Catholic Church itself has benefitted tremendously from the challenges Protestantism has raised about its practices and dogmas, it would seem that some of these sources of fracture have been useful even to Catholicism.
--Still, it should be observed that one of the admirable qualities of the Catholic Church has been its historic ability to maintain doctrinal unity while still tolerating quite a variety of groups within its walls.
--So, although Protestants embrace the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, we also recognize that whenever fallible humans read the Bible, especially ones who do not have extensive training in how to read such a complex text or much experience in Christian life, they are sometimes going to come to different or even mistaken conclusions. And if this is the danger of Protestantism, it is merely the counterpart to the danger of Catholicism in which there are no robust protections against the adoption of errors or extra-Biblical doctrines. And the reason is simple. Even the Catholic Magisterium is composed of fallible humans as well.
--Just as having a single Bible doesn’t guarantee perfection of unity in the church, neither does having a single Bible and a single interpretative authority. We’re all humans, and that’s going to always be a problem.

Justice Kennedy affirms federalism

2011-06-21T15:54:00.000-07:00

Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court in Bond v. United States, June 16, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

“Federalism is more than an exercise in setting the boundary between different institutions of government for their own integrity. . . . Federalism also protects the liberty of all persons within a State by ensuring that laws enacted in excess of delegated governmental power cannot direct or control their actions. . . . By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power. When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, that liberty is at stake. . . . The limitations that federalism entails are not therefore a matter of rights belonging only to the States. States are not the sole intended beneficiaries of federalism. . . . An individual has a direct interest in objecting to laws that upset the constitutional balance between the National Government and the States when the enforcement of those laws causes injury that is concrete, particular, and redressable. Fidelity to principles of federalism is not for the States alone to vindicate.”

Great stuff there! And from an unanimous Court, no less!

See, when the designers of the Constitution formed our framework, they didn’t just have in mind the need to protect the States against the Federal Government, but also that the entire relationship of the States to the Federal Government would be crafted in such a way as to ultimately protect the individuals, us. And one of the ways we are protected is by the States each having a high degree of freedom to craft the conditions within their own domain so that there may be variety and competition between them for our presence. That way, if I like what New Mexico is doing and dislike what Arizona is doing, I can move to New Mexico. But the more the Federal Government sets policy for everyone in the U.S., this individual State liberty is reduced and the options available for us citizens are thereby eliminated. That’s just one way in which keeping the Federal Government within its Constitutional bounds protects us as individuals.

Ethics: Arizona’s Abortion Consent Act

2011-06-20T17:13:00.000-07:00

In 2009, the Arizona Legislature passed the Arizona Abortion Consent Act and Governor Brewer signed it into law. It has four primary effects:

1. Non-physicians may not perform surgical abortions
2. Women seeking abortion must receive information about alternatives and health risks at least 24 hours prior to the procedure.
3. Health care workers who object to abortion on conscience must be protected
4. Minors seeking abortion must provide notarized parental consent to receive one.

Planned Parenthood immediately filed a lawsuit against it on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, and an injunction against it was put into place. Since then, the case has been argued, most recently last week in the AZ Court of Appeals. Tonight on the show, I’ll have Cathy Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy on the air to talk about the bill and the legal developments as well as other issues CAP is working with recently. Your questions and comments are, as always, highly encouraged.

Resources:
Planned Parenthood v Horne resource page (ADF)
Arizona Abortion Consent Act resource page (CAP)
Arizona Abortion Consent Act (HB 2564)
Executive summary of AACA (CAP)
Doctors’ letter in support of AACA (ADF)
Planned Parenthood files lawsuit vs AACA (PP AZ)
PP’s response to CAP editorial (PP AZ)
Bills threaten abortion care (PP AZ)
PP playing games again, CAP responds (CAP)

CC--Christianese 22c: Sola Scriptura (part 3 of ?)

2011-06-20T16:52:00.000-07:00

--On Friday, I raised the objection against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura that the rampant doctrinal disunity among Protestants seems to argue against our shared belief that the Bible and only the Bible is sufficient to guide us into the kind of harmonious community Christians are supposed to create.
--So, does Protestant disunity discount the doctrine of Sola Scriptura?
--First of all, I think it’s entirely fair to admit that the fractured nature of Protestantism is lamentable and embarrassing for Protestants. The question is whether abandoning Sola Scriptura would solve it, and I don’t think so.
--Second of all, we should be more clear about how “rampant” the disunity really is. Although there is certainly lots of disagreement among Protestants, agreement about the basic tenets of Christianity (justification by faith, the Trinity, e.g.) is actually pretty good, particularly among those who actually profess Sola Scriptura. Liberal Christians may disagree wildly with conservatives, but most liberals do not hold to this doctrine, which conservatives think is precisely their problem.
--Moreover, it’s also fair to notice that although Catholicism as an official entity holds a very clear doctrinal position on almost everything, the constituents of the Catholic Church very often do not share or live these views.
--Thus, Catholic unity and Protestant disunity can both easily be overstated.
--But then, even though disunity is indeed a serious problem, the question is what price unity justifies? If the Bible is the very Word of God, but the Catholic Church (or any other Christian authority) is wrong about it, what should be done? Should unity trump error? It would seem like the answer to that would depend entirely on the significance of the error and not at all on whether the Bible is the final authority on the question itself.

2+3+4PM Keeping kids safe from playground burns

2011-06-20T16:50:00.001-07:00

Since the weather is finally starting to catch up to us here in Phoenix, I thought it was particularly useful to remind all you parents about the danger of playground equipment that’s been in the sun. Now, obviously, anything that’s metal (such as railings or slides) is going to be quite dangerous, but even the high-density plastic stuff can reach temperatures as high as 130-150 with continuous sun exposure. Combined with the higher sensitivity of younger children’s skin, this can cause first and even second-degere burns. In fact, I’ve seen some pretty awful pictures of even a third-degree burn to a kids’ feet. So a kid might be crying and you won’t even realize it unless you’ve thought about this ahead of time, and it’s the youngest kids who don’t know enough even to get off the surface and so stay there being burned by it.

The general recommendation whenever you go to a playground (or even your back yard) is to check to see whether you can hold your hand on the surface while counting slowly to 5 without it becoming painful. Although shaded play areas are common in Phoenix, even structures in the shade can sometimes become too hot, so just pay attention. Obviously, the earlier in the day or later in the afternoon when the sun isn’t as direct are a little better. Mostly it’s just a matter of common sense and becoming aware of a possible danger you might not have considered, just like hot sand with bare feet. But one thing to keep in mind is that this story is actually from Virginia, not even written with the Valley’s unique heat issues in mind, and if they’re worried about this stuff….

CC--Christianese 22b: Sola Scriptura (part 2 of ?)

2011-06-17T16:56:00.001-07:00

--Sola Scriptura once again is one of the core doctrines of the Reformation which says that the Bible and only the Bible is to be the Christian’s authoritative guide for salvation and life.
--So why doesn’t everyone agree with it?
--Well, there a few main reasons.
--The first reason is somewhat obvious. Although many millions of people endorse the doctrine and take it very seriously, these same sincere Bible devotees nevertheless find themselves not all in agreement with each other about a terribly wide variety of issues.
--The Bible, it seems, is not clear enough (all on its own) to produce the kind of harmonious agreement which looks necessary for a single universal church to have. The multitude of doctrinal statements by Christians who all believe themselves to be taking the Bible as the inerrant Word of God and the even greater multitude of positions on much lesser issues besides the basics of salvation are indeed a problem to be taken seriously.
--Protestants simply don’t all agree with each other, even though they all claim to be taking the Bible as their only source of authority.
--The Catholic Church, by contrast, says that its own doctrinal unity comes from the fact that the Bible needs to be interpreted properly and that this is to be done by the leadership of the one true church.
--Quite contrary to what one would expect from a clear and authoritative single source of doctrinal guidance, devotion to the Bible and only the Bible seems to have produced exactly the kind of splintered disunity that the doctrine was meant to avoid. When there is no central authority protecting or guarding the doctrine against heresy and incompetence, with the power to excommunicate heretics and schismatics, well you get heresy and schism aplenty.
--So, how should Protestants respond to this objection? I’ll explain that on Monday.

2+3+4PM NC becomes third state to defund Planned Parenthood

2011-06-17T15:08:00.000-07:00

In what can only be described as a great victory for the pro-life movement, North Carolina has now become the third state (after Indiana and Kansas) to vote to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood. In this case, the legislature actually overrode a veto by the Governor to pass a budget which did not include the $434,000 which would otherwise have flowed to them through state family planning programs.

Even though by law the federal funds are not allowed to be used to perform abortions, the obvious effect of subsidizing one part of the organization with government money is that donations and other revenues can then be diverted to the abortion portion of the facility. Also, just as obviously, it’s a relatively difficult thing to say that money can even be so cleanly distinguished as that. Is a staff physician’s salary paid out of one set of funds when he merely counsels women on ordinary health issues and then paid by a separate check from a different set of funds when he is counseling on abortion or performing one? Is the heating bill distinct? But I digress. The part of this that people don’t ordinarily think about is that abortion isn’t the only controversial aspect of what Planned Parenthood does. Many Americans (more Catholic than not, but at least some Evangelicals, myself included) think that contraception itself is a morally noxious practice that should not be funded with taxpayer money.

But the infuriated reaction to these moves is what I have found so fascinating. See, the argument goes like th is: “Planned Parenthood provides many forms of health services to women, especially poor women. And if you cut off their funding because of just one of their activities, you are harming the women who come to them for other reasons.” This seems like a lucid argument until you simply invert the principle. “If you care so deeply about providing all these other services, then why not simply stop providing abortions so that you can retain the government support? It’s your own irrational commitment to performing these horrible operations that is really keeping you from the funding. So, instead of griping that the taxpayers are no longer being forced to subsidize the most notorious purveyor of a product they despise, perhaps you could simply stop purveying it and show your own commitment to women’s health issues.”

Imagine, for instance, that the local library started stocking X-rated DVDs and truly pornographic magazines and, in response, the relevant overseeing government entity decided to cut off their funding. Who would be the radicals in such a case: the elected officials who didn’t think that pornography (a legal product) should be subsidized by taxpayers or the librarians who seemed outraged at the end result of having their libraries defunded?

Various Current Events

2011-06-16T17:30:00.000-07:00

Politicians keeping golf at a distance (NYT)
President’s letter on the War Powers Act (Fox News)
Lawmakers sue to stop US role in Libya (Wash Times)
NC becomes third state to defund Planned Parenthood (Life News)
US births down third year in a row (Yahoo)
Tracy Morgan’s rant and apology (Huff Po)
Joan Rivers says Tracy shouldn’t have apologized (The Advocate)
CAP defends AZ abortion laws in court (CAP)
No easy answers on Catholic abuse (Wash Post)

CC--Christianese 22a: Sola Scriptura

2011-06-16T17:28:00.001-07:00

--Sola Scriptura is a Latin phrase which means, literally, only the Scriptures or only the Bible.
--And the idea of Sola Scriptura is very simple. The Bible and only the Bible is God’s authoritative, infallible self-revelation to humanity. Thus, the Bible and only the Bible should be used as the Christian’s guide to Christian faith and practice.
--This was one of the vital issues in the Reformation, the theological break-up and conflict between the Roman Catholic Church and the founders of Protestantism, often called “Reformers,” which began in 1517.
--And the reason it was such a huge issue is because the Reformers, in reading the Bible, were convinced that Roman Catholicism had abandoned or violated major Biblical doctrines. This alone was problematic. But they also were convinced that a major reason it had been done and gone so long unchecked is because Roman Catholicism had adopted a dual-authority viewpoint, giving the leaders of the church authority to interpret the Bible or even add to it.
--So they decided that the Bible should be the only source of authority, a standard by which every human belief or practice can be impartially judged and corrected or condemned.
--Sola Scriptura holds that the Bible tells us everything we need to know about God, His purposes for man, and how we should behave so as to be in accordance with His intentions for us. In other words, It tells us everything we need to know about faith and salvation.
--The doctrine of Sola Scriptura holds that the Bible itself is clear enough that any person can read it for himself and see the things necessary for faith and salvation clearly enough to live by them without the interpretation or mediation of anyone else such as a priest.

4PM French women not enduring harassment anymore.

2011-06-16T17:26:00.002-07:00

Ever since Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested for sexual assault against a hotel employee in May, the entire landscape of French culture has been impacted. According to a story in the London Independent, reports of sexual harassment by French women have increased by 600% since the incident. What was formerly a country that endured rampant casual sexual harassment is now one where the women are saying, “No more!” The watershed effect of seeing such a high-profile and renowned sexual predator brought to justice over his treatment of a common maid has inspired French women to speak out and pursue legal complaints against French men, especially coworkers, in droves. Many of the offenses are dated and beyond prosecution, but it shows that women there are feeling liberated to finally talk openly about these things. Interestingly, it wasn’t so much Strauss-Kahn’s behavior but “the dismissive and macho reactions of some of our male politicians,” said one former official. Now it’s neither all that surprising that French men are rude in general or sexually aggressive in particular, but it is wonderful to see French women no longer feeling the need to simply endure their abuse.

3PM Commuting causes divorce?

2011-06-16T17:26:00.001-07:00

We’ve all heard that fighting over money causes marital stress, and we’ve also heard that infidelities and even substance abuse are bad for marriage. But now a Swedish study of marriages and commute times has deciphered the real culprit behind marital breakups: too long of a commute! By comparing divorce rates with commute times in Sweden, they concluded that if either spouse has a commute time of more than 45 minutes, the chances of a breakup are 40% higher. One theory is that the man (say) takes a higher-paying job that requires him to be away from home for longer each day, and this displaces the housekeeping duties onto the woman, causing her stress and unhappiness. Another theory might be that men who commute are more stressed out by doing so and less good at “relationship stuff” when they return home. But overall, they believe that the extra time away strains the already weaker marriages to the breaking point. They did say that if it persists more than five years, the effects go away, presumably because the couples adapt. But I have a different theory. Only men who dislike their home lives accept jobs with longer commutes to being with. Men who really love their wives walk to work.

2PM Water inside the moon

2011-06-16T17:24:00.001-07:00

Alright, I know that I’m going to sound a bit catty in all of this, but I think the recent “revelation” that the interior of the moon is fully of underground water, just like earth is funny. Not funny because scientists like geochemist Erik Hauri are saying, “there’s something fundamental about the physics,” of the moon’s early years, “that we don’t understand.” But funny because I guess I had never before heard the story astronomers tell about how the moon got there. They think a meteor hit the earth and this sent a collection of chunks of the earth’s mass up into orbit which eventually coalesced into the moon. Seriously? The almost perfectly round moon from the almost perfectly round Earth at just the perfect distance for tides and all the importance they carry for life here? And with no remaining evidence of a sizable missing portion here? Look, I know I’m just a naïve creationist, but it just seems easier for me to believe that God put them there relatively as they both are. Plus, then I don’t have to explain why there’s water under the moon.

Wacky Wednesday--The Estate Tax is good

2011-06-15T17:24:00.000-07:00

USA

Today)
Should You Leave It All To The Children? (CNN)
Historical Perspective (Gary Robbins - Heritage Foundation)
Now Is (Still) Time To Repeal (William Beach - HF)
Economics Of Estate Tax (Joint Economic Committee of Congress)
Repeal: Costly Windfall For Wealthiest (CBPP.org)
Moral Case Against Death Tax (Edward McCaffery - Cato Institute)
Long Live Estate Tax (Bill Gates Sr., Chuck Collins - The Nation)
Debate Hinges On Money, Morality (Christian Science Monitor)
Latest News On The Estate Tax (FairEconomy.org)
United For A Fair Economy (FairEconomy.org)
Choking On The Silver Spoon (Bookmasters)

CC--Christianese 21c: Immaculate Conception (part 3 of 3)

2011-06-15T17:14:00.001-07:00

--As we’ve explained, Catholics believe that Jesus saved Mary from original sin at the moment of her conception, thus making her sinless and incapable of transmitting sin to Him when He was born.
--Protestants don’t necessarily reject this view. But we do think it’s speculative and unnecessary or even dangerous, not because of what it says about Mary, but because of what it says about the authority of the Bible.
--See, the Bible is uncommitted on this issue, which is probably the main reason that although belief in the Immaculate Conception of Mary was around for a very long time, belief in it wasn’t mandatory for Catholics until 1854 when Pope Pius IX classified it as a dogma, a belief all Catholics are obliged to believe. Even the Council of Trent (1563) had avoided settling the matter, declaring it optional and non-obligatory.
--But since Catholics believe in the ongoing ability of the Pope or the Magisterium to declare truths infallibly, they are sometimes obliged to believe things the Bible does not alone conclusively prove. And this is all the difference in the world between Protestants and Catholics.
--Whereas Protestants believe only in the authority of the Bible, Catholics believe in the unified authority of the Bible and the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Catholic Church, mainly the bishops under certain circumstances). In all fairness, Catholics do not think of this as two sources of authority. Instead, they believe the Magisterium and the Bible agree perfectly with each other.
--But for Protestants, Biblically uncertain matters like this one are matters of liberty, as the Council of Trent held.
--It’s also important to recognize that just because something is not in the Bible explicitly, that does not mean that it is wrong or even that it is wrong for a Christian to believe it. Protestants simply believe such things must not be held, well, dogmatically.
--This leads us quite nicely to our next topic: Sola Scriptura.

4PM A baby with a secret gender?

2011-06-15T17:13:00.002-07:00

In Canada, a very disturbing story has arisen about an extremely unorthodox set of parents have made a rather unprecedented decision: they aren’t telling anyone the actual gender of their third child. Not even the grandparents. They have previously done their best to allow their two older boys to be uninhibited by what they consider the artificial and stifling gender norms of society, and now they’re going one step further in trying to keep this third child’s gender a complete secret. But as the article in the Globe and Mail rightly points out, if the entire point is to remove gender as a meaningful category and make gender boundaries nonexistent, the very worst way to do that is by turning it into such an object of fixation by refusing to say what it is. They’ve actually turned it into the single most important thing about the child, precisely the thing that defines this child for the media attention and which will be its most enduring personal legacy. This goes beyond people being misguided about the nature of human sexuality and gender and just becomes farcically stupid.

3PM North Korea 2nd happiest place on earth?

2011-06-15T17:13:00.001-07:00

North Korea’s Chosun Central Television recently reported on a highly reliable, peer-reviewed, and academically rigorous international happiness survey reporting on the relative rates of happiness among various countries done by unknown researchers under unknown conditions at an unknown university,. The results? The North Korean survey China ranks as the happiest nation on earth, with a perfect 100 score! North Korea ranks second, barely ahead of the heaven-on-earth nations of Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela. The must unhappy place on earth? You guessed, it: the United States of America, coming in dead last in 203rd place…out of 194 countries. South Korea was moderately miserable by comparison, in only 152^nd position. As Time Magazine chides, “Some spots are just nowhere near as smiley as the Axis of Evil.” At first I was inclined to be skeptical, perhaps mocking, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Perhaps I have been brainwashed by all this technology and culture and food and not-being-put-in-prison for my faith I’ve been enjoying. Maybe it would be worth trying Cuba or Iran as my spot for a new vacation home. Anyone with me?

2PM Smurfs Stalinists and Nazis?

2011-06-15T17:12:00.001-07:00

A French novelist and professor of political science in France has written a 177 page analysis of the world of the Smurfs and come to the conclusion that this is a thinly disguised totalitarian society intended to homage Russian communism and anti-Semitism. Papa Smurf looks remarkably like Josef Stalin (and with a red hat, to boot!), while Brainy Smurf is Trotsky. The male-dominated propertyless society is constantly being threatened by the dark-haired, money-grubbing, hook-nosed sorcerer Gargamel, hardly a well-disguised amalgam of every Jewish stereotype. The funny thing about all this analysis is that most people seem to not have understood the author, Antoine Bueno, intended it as a satire. And satire it surely is, but not of the Smurfs. The satire is of all those people who like to fight over the “true and hidden meaning” behind what others simply accept at face value. Since not a single Smurf-watcher ever understood the Smurfs this way, it is irrelevant whether they CAN BE interpreted this way. And if I may be so bold as to speak for him, that was his point, proved all the more by those who are outraged by his pseudo-analysis.

Theological Tuesday: Should Churches Celebrate Pentecost?

2011-06-14T17:57:00.001-07:00

The liturgical calendar is the annual cycle of Christian season and holidays starting with Advent and ending at Pentecost. Originally a Catholic design intended to honor the major events of the New Testament, it is something which only some Protestants still follow, usually what are sometimes called “high church” or, more appropriately, “liturgical churches.” These include Lutherans, Anglicans (Episcopalians), Presbyterians, and Methodists. Others don’t honor it particularly at all. So the question is whether they should? Does your church do so? Do you think it’s strange that half (let’s say) of Christians structure their church calendars this way and half do not?

Resources:
Liturgical Calendar (Wikipedia)
Pentecost (Wikipedia)
Why some churches do and don’t celebrate Pentecost (CP)
Presbyterian sacred time (Patheos)

CC--Christianese 21b: Immaculat Conception (part 2 of 3)

2011-06-14T17:54:00.000-07:00

--The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is the Catholic teaching that Mary was protected against the stain of original sin at the moment of her conception by a special dispensation of God’s grace as a retroactive or pre-effectual result of the death and resurrection of her later-to-be-born Son Jesus Christ.
--The main reason for this belief is the idea that Jesus could not have been simply self-gracing and thereby protected from sin because the nature of the Gospel is other-directed. Therefore, the only way to preserve Him from sin was for His Salvation to come into being ahead of time in the conception of Mary, in essence performing for her in utero what Catholics believe happens for all people when they are baptized.
--Now there are some common errors that seem to go along with this doctrine, often espoused by Protestants who haven’t done enough investigation.
--For instance, some people say this doctrine denies that Mary needed salvation. Well, that’s quite a foolish criticism, actually, since the entire doctrine is about how Mary did both need and receive the pre-Incarnative grace earned by her Son. The doctrine depends on her needing this grace, not her having it already in herself.
--Another common error is the idea that one would need to believe in an infinite regress of immaculate conceptions to make this work. Again, the view is that this was a special and especially necessary one-time miraculous dispensation of God. According to Catholicism, Mary herself was not the product of a virgin birth, and this error is rejected by them.
--But what is instructive about this particular issue is how it reveals some of the deep differences between Catholics and Protestants, not so much about Mary per se, but about other matters. I’ll explain about that tomorrow.

4PM Two God gaps in US politics

2011-06-14T17:53:00.001-07:00

In a very interesting article summarizing some research being done for a forthcoming book on public opinion surveys, Tobin Grant explains that research shows (as well documented) that increased church attendance correlates with more conservative moral viewpoints and voting patterns. Thus, the widespread perception that if you go to church, you vote Republican. However, it turns out that there are actually two political trends here. On the one hand, attending church DOES tend to make people more conservative about some “personal holiness” issues like abortion and homosexuality. On the other hand, attending church ALSO seems to have the effect of making people more liberal on “social justice” issues like helping the poor and health care. What I find fascinating about this is that both are on a trajectory away from libertarianism, one in the moral realm and the other in the economic realm. But for me this also points to the real artificiality of the distinction between politically liberal and politically conservative Christians. We probably each have half of the right answer and should work together to promote BOTH personal holiness and social justice, much to the great chagrin of the libertarians, whose moral neo-anarchy we should eagerly reject.

3PM SBC pastors told to preach Christ, not selves

2011-06-14T17:52:00.000-07:00

At the annual convention of the Southern Baptist Convention being held this week at the Phoenix Convention Center, Bob Pitman on Sunday encouraged pastors to preach Christ rather than themselves. I thought this was a very interesting message, in part because it’s so right but in part because it seems to miss something important. On the one hand, Pitman is absolutely right that church should not be about the pastor, and it all too often leans in that direction. The reminder that he is not the Messiah is an important caution. But what I think he may have had in mind is the sort of preaching these days which salts Biblical exegesis with personal examples of how God has worked in the pastor’s own life. Far from being an error, I think this is a fantastic tool for showing the Gospel embodied in a life and for the pastor to allow his own crucified life to point to the greater glory of Christ at work in him. As long as this sort of personalized content is the salt of the sermon and not the meat and potatoes, it’s not only effective but Biblical. Our theology is always an embodied one, and the letters of the Bible and the Gospels continually show this. And if we are to overcome the weird bias that religion is not relevant to our daily lives, this is certainly one way to do that.