Exploding on the Scene

Okay, this is just for fun.

I was standing on my front porch the other day, surveying the driveway, and trying to figure out a mystery. Here and there, scattered at random, were a particular type of seed. My first thought was that these were pebbles, but they were all identical in size, smooth surfaced, and all the same color. No, these were seeds. So, the mystery: Why are they scattered around my driveway?

I was mentally running through hypotheses. Kids had come through and tossed them. No, that didn't make any sense. Maybe a bird had dropped them. No, too many for that. A drive by fruiting? That wasn't even reasonably funny, let alone practical.

Suddenly there was a POP! A couple of these mystery seeds came dancing across the driveway. Well, now I knew their direction. But exploding seeds? The mystery was afoot. I hunted around the yard and the neighbor's yard. Various possibilities presented themselves, but I finally found the explosive culprit.

The plant is native to South and Central America, but it is very popular here. We call it the Mexican Bird of Paradise, but those who know better tell me it's the Red Bird of Paradise or the Caesalpinia pulcherrima. Yeah, you probably already knew that. Or not.

The desert here is full of the standard fare -- cactus, brush, desert trees and the like -- but we also have some beautiful blooms, and this Bird of Paradise is one of them. When they're done, they form seed pods, like so many of the plants here in the desert. These pods contain several seeds. They ripen, then dry out, and then, as I have just discovered, explode, scattering their seed ... quite literally.

I thought it was fascinating, a marvelous design. They are very happy here in the desert and grow prolifically. They bloom multiple times and add their beauty to the desert landscape more than once a year. And now I know ... the rest of the story.

A Brief Picture Gallery

And now for something completely different ...

Just thought I'd share a few of my recent photos from home.

The dreaded "Sonoran Parakeet". Obviously not a wild bird, but it's the second such "out of state" visitor.

This was the stunning view at sunset from our backyard.

Witness the awesome Arizona monsoon. At irregular intervals without much predictability we'll get these massive downpours. Indeed, this one, just a couple miles north of us, never actually got to us.

Postmodern Politics

In the words of Taggart (Slim Pickens) from Blazing Saddles, "I am depressed." Perhaps it is blind optimism on my part. Maybe I just hoped that the country's fathers were wrong when they suggested that the average citizen wasn't intelligent enough to be trusted to vote on important matters. Or maybe it's not about intelligence at all. Maybe it's the times in which we live. But I had hoped for something better. I had hoped for some reasoning on the part of the voting public. I didn't get it.

It has been argued that we live in a "postmodern" world. What does that mean? Well, modernism placed a heavy emphasis on rationality and logic. Postmodernism questions whether that exists at all. Postmodernism rejects traditional structures and truth, opting instead for relativism and what is called "non-binary truth". "Binary truth" is the idea that something is either true or false. Postmodernism rejects that and prefers "true for you, but not for me" thinking. That semi-trailer hurdling toward you at 60 miles per hour doesn't have to be a threat if you don't believe it to be. Okay, that doesn't work, but you get the idea. Or not.

I don't know about the rest of the country, but Arizona cast its postmodern vote yesterday. I'm disappointed that many of the issues I cared about failed, but that's not the point here. I'm talking about ... insanity. In general, this can be seen when people are in favor of protecting trees but defend murdering babies. Here in Arizona it's just like that. Let me illustrate.

Arizonans voted to ban smoking and then passed a measure that would charge smokers to pay for early childhood education. They voted to protect cows and pigs, but not to protect marriage. That's not merely mistaken in my estimation; that's crazy. That's contradictory. That's ... postmodern voting.

We had two ballot measures to block smoking in public buildings. One, 201, would forbid it in all public places and included a 2 cent per pack tax on cigarettes (a projected $5 million a year) to pay for enforcement. The other, 206, would forbid it in all public places ... except for the bar in which the owner opted to allow it. No additional taxes were called for. Voters opted for 201, adding 2 cents to every pack of cigarettes (I guess cigar and pipe smokers aren't involved?) and blocking individual bar owners from allowing adults to smoke in their establishments. Okay. Fine. So be it. But we also had Proposition 203 on the ballot. This one wants to take control of our children from birth to 5 years old and mold them ... to the government's standard. They want to pay for this by charging smokers 80 cents per pack of cigarettes. (Doing the math, if 2 cents per pack was projected to raise $5 million for non-smoking enforcement, then this tax would raise $200 million a year to control our children.) Now, assuming that Arizonans have approved the concept -- take our children and teach them -- then they also are working against their own best interests by passing smoking bans. "We want you smokers to pay for this plan we have to take away children and have the government teach them, but we don't want you smokers to actually smoke anywhere, and we hope to diminish your smoking by boosting your cost by more than 20% per pack. So there!"

You may (or may not) recall that I spent some time discussing Proposition 107 here, here, and here. I didn't mention Proposition 204. Proposition 204 was aimed at making farm animals comfortable. They argued that some animals like pigs and cows were raised in cramped spaces and they should be allowed to be more comfortable. Well, Prop 204 passed, but Prop 107 lost by a margin of 48.5% for to 51.5% against. We need to protect farm animals, but marriage is of no importance.

I'm not stating that lightly. The outcome is deceptive, and I suspect it will come back later to bite us. Polls suggested that a proposition to ban homosexual marriage would have been approved by 75% of the voters. Arizonans didn't shoot down Prop 107 because they want to legalize homosexual marriage. None of the "No on Prop 107" arguments were predicated on "legalize homosexual marriage" or the like. No! The push against Prop 107 came from the second line in the proposition that said, in essence, "We do not have to recognize as married anyone who is not married." The proposition suggested that marriage has its privileges, and those who are unwilling to marry shouldn't expect those privileges. Arizona said, "No!" This was indeed a referendum on whether or not we should protect marriage. It wasn't merely protecting marriage against homosexual incursion; it was protecting marriage from those who have equated non-marriage with marriage. And marriage lost.

On the other hand, it's not that Arizona is consistently "pro-environment" or any such thing. They didn't vote to protect animals because they want to protect the environment. No! We had not one but two competing measures that would have preserved land. Proposition 105 would have saved about 400,000 acres from builders, and Proposition 106 would have saved about 700,000 acres. Both failed. So we need to protect cows and pigs, but the wilds and marriage ... they're on their own. Oh, and by the way, hand over your kids. Don't worry, the smokers we've just banned will pay for it.

Even in voting for offices Arizonans were schizophrenic. All the pundits have said that this was a referendum on President Bush -- that Americans were going to vote out Republicans. (They weren't intending to vote in Democrats; they just wanted to fire the existing party. You know, ABS.) So what did Arizona do? Well, they kept some of their Republicans and they fired some of their Republicans. They didn't even give a clear statement on that.

I anticipated the passage of Prop 204 protecting animals and the failure of Prop 107 protecting marriage. I had already written a post bemoaning that sad state of affairs. I deleted it. That was opinion. This is insanity. There is no rationale, no reason behind what many Arizona voters have decided to do. Too much of Arizona, like most of America I suspect, has passed into postmodern politics. There is no right or wrong, no reason, no logic. They voted with their hearts. "Save the piggies." "Save the children." "Keep those nasty smokers away." And unfortunately it appears that they left their heads in some dark closet somewhere.

Obeying the Impossible

Is it just me, or does anyone else see a series of impossible commands given to us in the Bible?

Let's start with the most obvious.

"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And He said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets" (Matt. 22:37-40).

There! Simple as that. You keep these two, simple laws and you've kept all of them. But do we even have the slightest clue how to "love the Lord your God with all your heart"?

How about this one? "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). Oh, good. Another simple command. Nothing less than absolute perfection. Easy, right?

Now, we can try to mitigate it. "Well, He didn't actually mean perfect. He meant 'complete'" or "He meant that we would be made perfect" or some such. But it seems to me that the more you look at the commands of Scripture, the more you see a series of impossible commands.

It's not that they're impossible in and of themselves. That's not what I mean. I just mean "impossible" in the sense that none of us ever fully obey them. We suffer from what Paul calls "the flesh", "sin that dwells within me" (Rom. 7:14, 20). Being imperfect beings, we will obey imperfectly despite all of our best intentions.

So what's the point? The point is that we don't spend time looking at the impossible. Instead, we reach for the "impossible". Recently I wrote a post entitled "I Love My Wife". In that post I spoke of a love for my wife that exceeds human capabilities. That love is one of those "impossible commands": "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church" (Eph. 5:25). One easy response is "I do not think it is possible for a human being to be able to unconditionally love another person." And I'd have to confess I think this is true.

However, are we going to look at what is possible, or are we going to reach for the impossible? Are we going to conclude, "It can't be done" and so not try, or are we going to boast in our weakness so the power of Christ can dwell in us (2 Cor. 12:9)?

It is true, I think. We have a lot of commands that are indeed outside of our human capacity to obey. That doesn't absolve us from obeying them or at least trying. And when you find that you have, if only on occasion, actually done the impossible, oh, what joy that brings the soul ... knowing you have been in the presence of the one with Whom all things are possible.

When Murder is Okay

When is it okay to murder a human being? Most of society would say, "Never", but they don't seem to actually think that's true. And I'm just not getting it.

During World War II, a famous Nazi doctor by the name of Josef Mengele earned the nickname "the Angel of Death". He, of course, didn't see himself that way. He was merely a doctor, working for the good of his country and his people. Dr. Mengele used men, women, and children from the Nazi death camps for his experiments. He put them in pressure chambers, froze them to death, performed surgeries without anesthesia, tested isolation endurance, experimented with blood transfusions, injected them with lethal bacteria, and removed organs and limbs. But it was all right, because he was simply trying to figure out ways to save soldiers in the field or test the human ability to withstand conditions or further the field of medical science. How effective were the German incendiary weapons? Try them out on some of their Jewish prisoners. How high can a pilot fly? Put some prisoners in low-pressure chambers and find out when they die. How do you treat the soldiers on the Russian front who have been subjected to extreme cold? Freeze some prisoners and experiment. Can we make drinkable water out of salt water? Try it out and then give it to some prisoners. How effective are the malaria immunizations? How do you treat victims of a gas attack? Simply inflict the problem on some of your millions of prisoners and then see if you can treat them. All in the name of science.

Well, we know better than that. Mengele was a monster. The world knows that. You can't torture and kill little children even for the advancement of medicine. Or can you?

Peter Singer is a philosophy professor specializing in bioethics. On one hand, Dr. Singer is an avid animal rights advocate. He argues against "speciesism", the belief that humans are more valuable than animals. He thinks they should have equal rights with humans, another animal species. On the other hand, he advocates that humans shouldn't have any more rights than animals. The upshot of his view is this: If it furthers the welfare of others, it is acceptable to use humans to experiment on and even kill in the experimentation. He advocates using not only embryonic stem cells, but the disabled, very young, or very old for this advancement of medicine.

Singer's ideas suffer from many problems, perhaps, but they don't have the problem that most like him have: inconsistency. Singer is clearly wrong, but he is consistent. The standard "pro-choice" activist doesn't have that to commend him.

In a commercial against the incumbent senator here, his opponent bemoans the fact that John Kyl wants to make abortion illegal. He assures us, "I support a woman's right to make her own medical decisions." And the point is missed entirely. It's not a "medical decision" to murder an unborn child. In Missouri and here in Arizona, political ads are hitting the airways about how it's wrong to block embryonic stem cell research. Some of these ads are catching some real press. But they're not answering the question: When is it okay to murder a human being? Is Mengele right? Is it okay if it advances medicine? Is Singer right? The majority may approve of infanticide in the case of the unborn, but they're not answering the question. Why stop at the unborn? What makes their lives less valuable? Singer holds that the right to life is tied to one's ability to feel pain and participate in planning your own future. Animals, then, cannot be killed for food because they feel pain and live their lives. But the severely disabled can't participate in the planning of their future, so they can be used for medical research. On what possible basis can the "pro-choice" side disagree with Dr. Singer? Why is "birth" the artificial line drawn to say "You can kill them prior to this event in their lives, but not after"? When is it okay to murder a human being?

Signs and Wonders

"If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, and if he says, 'Let us go after other gods,' which you have not known, 'and let us serve them,' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut. 13:1-3).

Did you get that? It is quite amazing when you pay attention to all it says.

We start with a "prophet". We are to test this "prophet". How are we to test this "prophet"? This "prophet" offers a sign or a wonder. The test, one would think, is "Does this sign or wonder actually occur?" If so, this is a prophet, and if not, it is a false prophet. But that's not what it says. In the case offered by God in this passage, the sign or wonder actually happens. The test is not the sign or wonder; the test is their words. If they deviate from a prime attention on following God, they are a false prophet.

Perhaps more mind boggling is the "for" statement - the "cause" offered here: "For the LORD your God is testing you." Who? God Himself is offering this test!

We see this actually occurring in our world today. "Christians" come on the scene with "signs and wonders". They claim healings or special power, and they actually appear to do it. I'm not talking about charlatans, false signs and wonders, but apparently real miracles. God says, "What they do is not good enough. Pay attention to what they say."

Popular Christianity, however, tells us to "back off", so to speak. If they are doing magnificent signs, we are told that we are not to put forth our hand against the Lord's anointed. "Maybe you think their theology is wrong, but clearly they are right because they are doing these miracles." And God replies, "The LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul."

Signs and wonders are not the true test of a prophet -- one who speaks God's words. The words they speak are the true test. Don't be mislead by miracles; they may be a lie, a test, to see if it is signs and wonders you love, or God Himself.

I Love My Wife

I do. I love my wife. I have it stated plainly right there on my page. I love my wife. She sometimes says, "I don't know why." And I can't really answer.

Some guys love their wives because they're beautiful. I happen to find my wife quite attractive. There are times I find myself just staring at her thinking, "Wow!" But I don't love her because she's beautiful. Beauty is fleeting. If she were to lose what I find beautiful about her today, it wouldn't budge my love for her one iota.

Some guys love their wives because they are "good in bed". Personally, I could not be more satisfied sexually than I am with my wife. But sexual appetites and abilities vary, and if I loved my wife for that, it would be a precarious love. I don't love her for that.

Some husbands love their wives "because of who she is". That seems more "substantial", more "balanced". But, truth be told, "who she is" can change. Ask any husband whose wife has gone through a hysterectomy or menopause. Most men are aware that even healthy young women change who they are for a brief time once a month. Then there are strokes and other health issues that might change who they are. While it seems better to love your wife for who she is, even that can be precarious. I love who my wife is, but I don't love her for who she is.

There are lots of reasons men may love their wives and I have a lot of good reasons to love my wife. I think she is beautiful. I am fully satisfied with her. We are amazingly compatible. (Being compatible with me is nothing short of a miracle.) She is a good person, and she treats me very well. There are lots of good reasons that I should love her, but I don't love her for any of those reasons. Why, then, do I love my wife? I can't say. It's not mine. I'm not the source. I love my wife for reasons beyond me or her. And I don't think I'm wrong or crazy for doing so.

²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; ²⁶ that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, ²⁷ that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she should be holy and blameless. ²⁸ So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies (Eph. 5:25-28).

Christ didn't love the Church for her beauty, the satisfaction she provides, or "just for herself"; He loved the Church for Himself. Further, I don't love myself for any of those reasons; I love me just because I am. If I am to love my wife as Christ loved the Church, if I am to love my wife as I love myself, then it's nice to have lots of reasons, but none of them are the ultimate reason that I love my wife. None of them are. Ultimately that means that there is nothing she can do to alter the fact that I love my wife.

Election and Foreknowledge (Part 2)

What is the foreknowledge according to which God chooses (1 Peter 1:1-2)?

Adam Clarke says it is those whom God knows will persevere to the end.

Albert Barnes says, "It may mean that God foreknew all the events which would ever occur, and that he saw reasons why they should be selected rather than others; or that he foreknew all that could be made to bear on their salvation; or that he foreknew all that he would himself do to secure their salvation; or that he foreknew them as having been designated by his own eternal counsels; or that he foreknew all that could be accomplished by their instrumentality; or that he saw that they would believe; but it should not be assumed that the word means necessarily any one of these things."

David Guzik says, "This foreknowledge includes prior knowledge of our response to the gospel, but is not solely dependent on it."

Jameison-Faussett-Brown says "God's foreknowledge is not the perception of any ground of action out of Himself."

The People's New Testament says, "Their election and salvation was in accordance with God's predetermined purpose to save men through the gospel."

John Wesley says, "True predestination, or fore-appointment of God is, 1. He that believeth shall be saved from the guilt and power of sin. 2. He that endureth to the end shall be saved eternally. 3. They who receive the precious gift of faith, thereby become the sons of God; and, being sons, they shall receive the Spirit of holiness to walk as Christ also walked." (Wesley, then, affirms a general "predestination" that is dependent entirely on "He that believeth", "He that endureth", and "They who receive".)

All of this to say ... there is a vast difference of opinion among learned men of God.

John Gill says it is "the sovereign grace, good will, and pleasure of God, or the everlasting love of God the Father, which is the cause of, and has given birth to the act of election, is meant by foreknowledge, joined with affection, delight, and approbation; knowledge, and foreknowledge, as ascribed to the divine Being, often signify such things." Now, perhaps we ought not trust Mr. Gill, as he is definitely of the Reformed type. So we ask Jameison-Faussett-Brown again. They go on to say, "The Hebrew and Greek 'know' include approval and acknowledging as one's own." This coincides with Gill's premise, that "foreknow" doesn't mean prescience -- merely knowing in advance -- but includes the concept of loving in advance. Is this possibly in mind here?

In Jesus's High Priestly prayer, He offers this definition of eternal life: "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (John 17:3). Interesting that knowing God is the definition of eternal life. Elsewhere, Jesus makes this startling, even frightening statement:

"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you ...'" (Matt. 7:22-23).

Now, this is odd. "I never knew you." Isn't He omniscient? Doesn't He know everyone? Apparently, then, in biblical terms there is "to know" and there is "to know". One is purely knowledge, and the other is ... a relationship.

I would submit, then, that this is what is in mind in 1 Peter 1 as well as Rom. 8:29. If God chose us based on His foreknowledge of our choice of Him, it would cause serious problems. It would violate Rom. 9:16. It would make God a "respecter of persons" in that He chooses people based on something about them rather than according to His own purpose (Rom. 9:11). This cannot be the "foreknowledge" according to which we are chosen. The "foreknowledge" upon which Election is based is not knowledge of something outside of God, but God's personal, prior relationship with His elect. As such, before we are born God is preparing our paths. As we come into the world, He has already set in motion all that is required so that, at the right time, those who were chosen become truly His. Therefore, the "foreknowledge" according to which we are chosen is the special, sovereign love He places on us in advance, "from the foundation of the world".

Election and Foreknowledge (Part 1)

The doctrine of Election is biblical. You cannot avoid it. It starts back in the Old Testament with folks like Enoch, Noah, and Abraham. It carries through the New Testament with endless references to "the chosen" or "the elect" and the like. To claim that it isn't in there at all is to approach Scripture with your eyes closed ... a rather poor approach. The question isn't "Does the Bible contain the doctrine of Election?" Yes, it does. The question instead is "What is the biblical doctrine of Election?"

The Reformed group has a fairly well-known response: God chooses whom He will save apart from the chosen one's choices or actions. It's a unilateral choice. Fine. Another group mediates the whole concept away by saying, "The chosen are not individuals, but simply a group of people, the individuals of which aren't clear." That's somewhat popular, but not very logical. It ignores the fact that 1) God is omniscient, and 2) groups are made up of individuals. But far and away the most popular answer is this: God chooses whom He will save based on His foreknowledge of who will choose Him. This answer seems to make people feel better. It allows God's choice to occur "before the foundation of the world" (Eph. 1:4) while still predicating it on ... our choice. It seems to protect God from choosing not to save some (the dreaded "double predestination" problem). And besides, there is clear biblical backing for this. Paul says, "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29). Here it seems that "those whom He foreknew" precedes His predestining. Even more explicit, it seems, is Peter:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood (1 Peter 1:1-2).

Well, it doesn't get much clearer than that, does it? We are "chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." Clearly God's choosing is based on His foreknowledge. To deny this would be foolish.

It is undeniable. God chooses based on His foreknowledge. It is explicit. One of the basic rules of interpreting Scripture is always interpret the implicit from the explicit. This is explicit. People are "are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." What is problematic, however, is the conclusion that is being made regarding "foreknowledge". You see, the assumption being made isn't in regards to the existence and premise of God's foreknowledge, but what He foreknows upon which He bases His choice. The assumption is that God chooses based on His foreknowledge of our choice of Him. However, that is not explicit here. All that is explicit is that God chooses according to His foreknowledge, and it doesn't say what is foreknown or even what is meant by "foreknowledge".

Allow me a moment to illustrate the problem. Paul says, "For those whom He foreknew He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers" (Rom. 8:29). So, whom does God foreknow? Well, if "foreknowledge" is simply prescience -- knowing in advance -- then "those whom He foreknew" would encompass everyone. God has prior knowledge of all human beings. The inexorable logic, then, of Paul's statement would be that God, knowing everyone in advance, has predestined the same (everyone) to be conformed to the image of His Son. Now, that's a fine defense for Universalism, but we aren't buying that one. That cannot be what Paul intended. See the problem? What "foreknowledge" is and what is intended by the term in reference to being the chosen is not as clear as what you might think at first blush.

So, why would I question the conclusion that it references God's prior knowledge of our choice of Him? That's problematic for me because it contradicts Scripture. According to Rom. 9:16, "It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." If God chooses based on our choice of Him, then it does depend on human will. Here Paul is explicit: "It depends not on human will." God chooses "in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of his call" (Rom. 9:11). So while someone might imply that "foreknowledge" refers to "knowing in advance our choice of Him", Scripture explicitly denies it. Since we are going to interpret the implicit from the explicit, we will need to eliminate the most popular view.

What, then, is the foreknowledge according to which God chooses?

Have you seen this?

The Constitution Party ... maybe you haven't heard of them. You can find a complete document for their platform here. They're an interesting party.

Start with their Preamble:

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

You won't likely find that on the platform statement of the Democrats, the Republicans, the Green Party, or any other that you care to mention. And the rest is just as unfamiliar. They have a position on the Sanctity of Life, recognizing "pre-born children" as "a human being created in God's image." They call for major congressional reform, including such things as abolition of congress's pensions, a decentralization of power from Congress to States, and limitations on what can be tacked onto bills. They have serious ideas about reducing government expenditures, like "The government must not spend more than it takes in" and "Annual reductions have to be made without fail." On education they say, "All teaching is related to basic assumptions about God and man. Education as a whole, therefore, cannot be separated from religious faith." They have a strong anti-illegal immigration stance. Well, there's a lot there. You'll have to read it. Their primary thrusts are 1) you can't take God out of the government, and 2) we need to return to real, Constitutional government.

The Constitutional Party has been around since 1992. Amazingly, it "ranks third nationally amongst all US political parties in registered voters" (Constitution Party). They are primarily made up of ... here's your word-of-the-day ... paleoconservatives, anti-authoritarian, right leaning folks that stress tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity (Paleoconservatism). The party is on the ballot in 20 states.

One of the things I find interesting is their response to the question, "Why try?" I mean, what are the chances that this third party is going to make headway? They're not even in all 50 states. They've never had one of their candidates elected. Why do it? They have the most bizarre answer. "We're trusting God." You see, they figure that if God wants them to be elected, then they will be elected even against the odds. Now, that takes faith. Apart from the sheer practicality, if one believes in a sovereign God, then the answer is purely acceptable, and since when did practicality limit God?

I thought their survey was interesting. The list of questions was mildly interesting, but the results were more so. You can take the quick survey on their main page, and then see the results for yourself. If nothing else, they're worth looking into. I can't vote for them; they're not in my state. But it would be tempting to try.

ABS - The Current Platform

I've been mulling this over for some time. I saw it in the 2004 presidential race. It appears to be prevalent right now in the congressional races around here. It's the latest platform, and it seems to be quite popular.

I'll give it a name because no one else has. It's ABS -- "Any But Syndrome". When John Kerry ran against George Bush, I had no idea what John Kerry had to offer. It appeared as if his platform was "You don't want him for another 4 years; vote for Anybody But him." I've seen it in the current races here in Arizona. Jim Pederson is going against the incumbent John Kyl with the very same "You don't want him in Washington anymore; vote for me" without offering me reasons to vote for him. (Well, to be completely fair, he has given a few. He's in favor of abortion and intends to get elected to the Senate at which point, according to him, he will change Washington.) Over and over I'm seeing challengers who seem to be running solely on this "anybody but" syndrome. They don't offer us anything better. They just know we don't want more of what we've had. They could be offering us a fascist regime. It doesn't matter. Whatever it is, we want "anybody but" what we currently have.

[Edit to eliminate the offending part while still making the point]

It's not just me. I've seen this suggested by others. I drive down the street and see signs. "It's time for a change." A change to what? "No more business as usual." So what business do we change to? Commercials, billboards, mail flyers, so many seem to ask the same thing: "Do we want four more years of ____?" Painfully few ever say, "Here is what I propose instead." As an example, look at the recent brouhaha over John Kerry's remarks about the intelligence of our troops (or not). John Kerry is not running for office. George Bush is not running for office. John Kerry says that his remark was intended to insult George Bush. I have to ask, "WHY?"

So much do we despise the current government that any other government would be better. It doesn't matter what. Are they in favor of killing babies in the womb? Who cares? Do they intend to double your taxes? It doesn't matter. Are they on the side of open borders and automatic citizenship for illegal aliens? Don't ask; it isn't important. Would they like to remove God from the country? Stop asking questions! It isn't the issue. Anybody but is the issue.

Some time ago I asked "And then?". I wanted to know what those who are unhappy with the current situation wanted to do in its place. The best answer I have received to date is "Don't ask! We just want anything but what it is now!"

When the Clinton scandal hit the streets, there was an outcry about the character of the President. Those who complained were told, "Character doesn't matter." Now it seems that nothing matters except the removal of the status quo. This is progress?

The Case for Election

It's Election time, so I thought this would be good. Okay, not that kind of election. Way back in July, I made the Case for Predestination. In that piece, I suggested that predestination was much more than the common concept of Election. Instead, biblical predestination covered all that occurs. Well, you can read it for yourself.

I didn't offer at the time the case for Election, and having recently run across it (again), I thought I'd give it for your perusal.

The case is pretty simple, yet comprehensive. It's source is not Luther, Calvin, or even Augustine. It is the Bible. And it isn't a product of manipulation, but straightforward reading of the text. Here it is for you to see:

¹ I am telling the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, ² that I have great sorrow and unceasing grief in my heart. ³ For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, ⁴ who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption as sons and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the temple service and the promises, ⁵ whose are the fathers, and from whom is the Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.

⁶ But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; ⁷ neither are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "through Isaac your descendants will be named." ⁸ That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants. ⁹ For this is a word of promise: "At this time I will come, and Sarah shall have a son." ¹⁰ And not only this, but there was Rebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; ¹¹ for though the twins were not yet born, and had not done anything good or bad, in order that God's purpose according to His choice might stand, not because of works, but because of Him who calls, ¹² it was said to her, "The older will serve the younger." ¹³ Just as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

¹⁴ What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there? May it never be! ¹⁵ For He says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." ¹⁶ So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. ¹⁷ For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth." ¹⁸ So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

¹⁹ You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" ²⁰ On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? ²¹ Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use, and another for common use? ²² What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? ²³ And He did so in order that He might make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, ²⁴ even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles (Rom. 9:1-24).

Well, now, that pretty much settles it, doesn't it? Personally, I can't see how it doesn't, but I realize that for many Christians it still isn't clear. I don't know why. It's explicit. So let's look at this point by point.

Point 1: The topic. Israel. Paul has deep compassion for his "kinsmen according to the flesh" (v 3). If he could surrender his salvation to save them, he would. But his kinsmen according to the flesh is not the "Israel" ultimately in view. Paul speaks here of the Israel of promise, not flesh (v 8). This is the topic of the entire text. Who is "Israel"?

Point 2: Israel of promise. Israel is defined as the offspring of Isaac - the children of the promise (v 7). This fact is further illustrated in Isaac's two sons, Esau and Jacob. According to Paul, God makes His choice of who will be "Israel" on one factor and one factor alone: "God's purpose" (v 11). Paul is explicit that it is not based on something Jacob or Esau would or wouldn't do.

Let's examine, for a moment, the objections to what appears to me to be unavoidably clear in this passage. One popular conception is that the topic is Israel, not Gentiles, and therefore not applicable to us. I think that a simple reading of the passage makes it clear that it is precisely the Gentiles who are saved who are in view here. Chapter 11, in fact, speaks of the Gentiles being grafted into the tree. And Paul is absolutely clear here; he is not talking about "Israel" that is flesh, but spiritual Israel that includes the children of promise ... all believers. To write this off as "Israel, not Gentiles" is to completely void the chapter. The next popular conception is that, while Paul plainly states that God's choice of Jacob was not because of works, it actually was. You see, God knew in advance that Jacob would choose Him, and therefore God chose Jacob. This is a nice sidestep, but it is a sidestep. While Paul clearly states that it was not because of anything they did and unavoidably makes the point that God's reasoning is His own purpose, Christians will still argue this "foreknowledge" position, which simply nullifies Paul's point. "Sure, Paul, it wasn't for anything they did, but God knew what they would do." So it is not because of God's purpose, but because of their choices. There is another problem that these two arguments cause. If either is true -- the topic is physical Israel or God chooses who will be spiritual Israel based on our choices -- then the next two paragraphs are moot. You see, in verses 14-18, Paul answers the first obvious objection, and in verses 19-24 he answers the second obvious objection. However, there is nothing in the least objectionable in saying, "It doesn't apply to us" or "God chooses those who choose Him." If either of these were in mind in the first half of the chapter, then the last half is pointless.

Point 3: The first objection answered. It seems abundantly clear that Paul is making a statement here that will raise objections. He says that God chooses purely on the basis of His own purpose who will be His. If this is true, the first, most obvious objection is the very same one we who defend Election hear almost every time: "That's not fair!" And this is precisely the objection Paul addresses first: "What shall we say then? There is no injustice with God, is there?" (v 14). Allow me to distill Paul's response to "That's not fair!": God does whatever God wants, and we have no room to argue about it. Expanding this, Paul uses Pharaoh as an example. Scripture says repeatedly that God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Paul says that this was God's intent. He states confidently and without apology, "He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires" (v 18). If that runs against your grain, perhaps your grain is heading the wrong direction. Paul is absolutely clear, despite all our arguments to the contrary: "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (v 16). Try as we might, this is unavoidable. The popular conception of the world is that salvation is dependent on "the man who runs" -- what we do. Paul says, "No." The popular conception among evangelical Christians is that salvation depends on "the man who wills" -- our choice. You've all heard it. "Accept Jesus." "Choose Christ." While we are to choose Christ, Paul is stating directly that God's choice of who will be a part of spiritual Israel is not based on the individual's choice of Him. Period. To our "That's not fair", Paul says, "God is sovereign and does whatever He likes.'

Point 4: The second objection answered. Well, if God is sovereign and does whatever He likes, if His choice of who to save is not based on anything that we choose or do, then the next objection is quite obvious. "What's the point? If God is sovereign, how can we be held responsible?" This is exactly Paul's next objection answered. "You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?'" (v 19). Paul doesn't exactly reason with his readers at this point. He chastises them. "Who are you, O man, who answers back to God?" (v 20). Paul makes a startling claim here. He claims that God makes some people "for honorable use, and another for common use" (v 21). And that's His prerogative. He defines "honorable use" and "common use" in verse 23. The common use is "vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction", and the honorable use is "vessels of mercy". It is commonly missed, but Paul states boldly here that it is God's will to "demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known". Why are there bad people in the world? Because God's plan includes demonstrating His wrath. Why doesn't God prevent evil? Because God's plan includes demonstrating His wrath.

There is one other popular objection to this passage as I have explained it. It is the "group theory" approach. "Sure, sure," they will say, "All that you say about this is true. However, Paul is not speaking here of individuals, but of groups. God did not ordain individuals to be part of spiritual Israel; He simply ordained that there would be a spiritual Israel. Individuals are still 'elect' by their choice of Him." That's nice, I suppose, but it doesn't fit the passage. Paul starts not with a group, but with individuals -- Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Esau. Paul continues with individuals -- "the man who wills", Pharaoh. His references are all individual. The "vessels of wrath" are clearly individual people, as are his "vessels of mercy". The objections he addresses, in fact, are again nullified if this is a generalized "group", not a reference to individuals, because who objects to the notion that God ordains that there will be a group? Finally, this "group" is comprised of individuals. These are the individuals addressed in all the references to individuals. Paul is clear: "It does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy" (v 16). This is not group language, but individual language. Sure, God has ordained that there would be this group I'm calling "spiritual Israel", but Paul makes it abundantly clear that the individuals that comprise this group are chosen by God apart from anything in the individual for God's divine purposes, He is right in doing so, and we don't have the option of complaining about it. Ultimately, Paul says that the question is not "Why would God ordain to save some and not others?", but "Why would God ordain to save anyone at all???" Deal with that question first.

Free Will

I'll make this short because it's such a hot topic and I don't need to make anyone mad. I was just talking to a friend about "free will" and he asked a question I couldn't answer.

Let's define "free will" as "the ability to choose what I want without coercion." That's the simplest version I can think of. People will go to great lengths to defend that "free will". I am assured from many Christians that God would never intrude on Man's free will. To do so would be wrong. Pointing to a passage like Gen. 20:1-7, where God specifically tells someone, "I kept you from sinning" doesn't seem to phase them. Man's free will is sacrosanct. "God doesn't want robots." As if that is the basis for all biblical truth, the end-all of the conversation.

So then we read this from Paul:

¹⁵ I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. ¹⁶ Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. ¹⁷ So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. ¹⁸ For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. ¹⁹ For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. ²⁰ Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me (Rom. 7:15-20).

It begs the question, doesn't it? If Paul doesn't do what he wants to do, exactly how free is his will? If he does the things he hates, exactly how free is his will? Sure, it is "sin that dwells within me" that causes him to do what he doesn't want, but it is within him, not external. "So," my friend wanted to know, "exactly how free is free will?"

How Are We Known?

Let your reasonableness be known to everyone (Phil. 4:5).

That's the English Standard Version. The word there is "reasonableness". The King James uses the word "moderation". The Latin Vulgate uses "modesty". Syriac and Arabic versions say "meekness" or "humility". The New American Standard renders it "gentle spirit". Other translations use "forbearance". The Greek behind it is epieikes. The prefix, epi, is an intensifier, and the suffix, eikos, suggests "reasonable". Vine's says, "likely 'equitable, fair, moderate, forbearing, not insisting on the letter of the law;' it expresses that considerateness that looks 'humanely and reasonably at the facts of a case;' it is rendered 'gentle' in 1 Tim 3:3, RV (AV, 'patient'), in contrast to contentiousness; in Titus 3:2, 'gentle,' in association with meekness; in James 3:17, as a quality of the wisdom from above; in 1 Peter 2:18, in association with the good; for the RV rendering 'forbearance' in Philippians 4:5." So, let's run with that: "Considerateness that looks humanely and reasonably at the facts of a case."

Paul tells the saints in the Church at Philippi that this quality should be so obvious in them that everyone would know it. Everyone should recognize in believers a "reasonableness". In this sense, I like the translation "forbearance". Forbearance is "tolerance and restraint in the face of provocation." Note that this use of the word "tolerance" isn't the common use, where it suggests "agreement." Instead, it includes real "provocation". In other words, "I am encountering genuine provocation, but I will allow them to continue on without retaliating or defending." This is "forbearance". It is the idea behind "considerateness that looks humanely and reasonably at the facts of a case."

Christians in America are not known for their epieikes. As Americans, we are taught to defend our rights. We are taught to be vocal. We are encouraged not to be meek or moderate. As Christians in this post-modern world, we are taught not to be "reasonable", but to be "people of faith" -- anti-intellectuals. We don't "consider all sides" -- we're right and we know it. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Beyond that, the Bible promises that we won't be liked. We will, Jesus promised, be hated for His sake.

I'm not suggesting we should try to be liked. I'm not suggesting we should try to "get along". I'm suggesting something radical: Obey God. We are told, "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another" (John 13:35). Is our love for one another the attribute people know us by? We are commanded, "Let your reasonableness be known to everyone" (Phil. 4:5). Are we known as people who compassionately and reasonably consider all sides? Regardless of how we are known, is it true of us? I'm not asking us to be more likeable to the world. I'm asking us to follow the Master we claim to follow. I'm asking us to be so reasonable that everyone will know it.

Another Logical Fallacy

Another logical fallacy is called "Tu Quoque" (pronounced "two coke"). It is Latin for "You, too". And I am quite sure that you are all familiar with it, even if you aren't aware of it. The argument tries to deflect opposition by pointing the finger at the opponent. In its most crass form, you'll hear it on the playground. "You're stupid." "Oh, yeah? Well, your mother wears combat boots!" You see, the response doesn't address the claim; it simply points the finger at the opponent. We've heard this argument recently in the debate on torturing Islamic detainees. "It's wrong to torture prisoners." "No it's not! Look at how they treat our people!" It's the "two wrongs make a right" approach ... which is obviously wrong.

Teenagers seem to come armed with this argument. Mom: "You shouldn't have premarital sex." Daughter: "Did you have premarital sex?" Mom: "Yes." Daughter: "Then who are you to tell me not to?" You see, whether or not Mom ever committed the offense is not relevant to whether or not it is wrong.

I recently saw this approach over at H.H. Patriarch Anthony. The author takes Sean Hannity to task for his comments about Democrats. In his response to Mr. Hannity, these are the kinds of comebacks he offers:

Hannity claims that the Democrats have no plan for winning the war on terror. We have been fighting this war for 5 years now under Republican control and have yet to capture Osama Bin Laden or stop any significant terror plot ourselves. All the terror plots that have foiled since 9/11 have been stopped by other countries and most of the time the US was unaware of them until the arrest were already made.

I don't offer this in defense of Hannity or even to assault the author of the post, but to illustrate the logical fallacy. Nothing in this retort answers Hannity's claim that the Democrats have no plan for winning the war on terror. It may prove that the current plan (which, by the way, requires that it exists) isn't working, but it doesn't offer an alternative. It is the classic "Tu Quoque" error: "Oh yeah? Well, your plan isn't working, is it?" Maybe not, but the assertion that there is no alternative plan hasn't been answered.

As to border security, the only change to border security that the Bush administration has brought about in its six year history is to make it easier to cross the border. They have consistently failed to secure our borders then they blame it on the Democrats. Excuse me? Who controls both houses of Congress and the White House and has for the last six years? Even with all that power, the Republicans cannot secure our borders, thus making us less safe than before 9/11.

I've explained the error. Can you see it here? Hannity asserted that the Democrats don't have a better plan to defend the borders. This response doesn't offer a better plan, but simply says that the existing one isn't any better.

When it comes to the idea of raising taxes, the Democrats may very well do that. And while I would hate to let go of the lower tax rate, I would hate to know that my son would have to pay for my careless attitude toward the future. Under the Bush administration’s tax cuts, the deficit has doubled and tripled. We went from have a budget surplus under Clinton to a budget deficit under Bush. More people are unemployed now than under Clinton and in order to make their numbers look lower than Clinton’s, Bush made it more difficult to apply and receive unemployment benefits, thus lower the number of claims and making it look like he has lowered unemployment. But the fact of the matter is that unemployment may be higher than ever, but due to their creative bookkeeping we may never know the truth.

This one is a really good illustration of the "Tu Quoque" fallacy and here's why. The upshot of the fallacy is that it essentially says, "Yes, you're right." It doesn't refute the allegation; it simply points a finger back at the allegator. (Yeah, I know, no such word ... but it's fun making them up, isn't it? My "allegator" would be "one who alleges".) Hannity suggested that the Democrats would raise taxes and, in defense of Democrats, the author here ... agrees. The argument is not that Hannity was wrong, but that it's good to raise taxes. This argument is supported by pointing fingers at the current system. "Tu Quoque". "Oh, yeah? Well, you're no better!" (Interestingly, on June 20, 2005, the Christian Science Monitor reported that there was actually a decline in the deficit. It appears that the President's tax cuts are bringing in greater revenue. Oh, well, that's another discussion.)

Please, please, please note: I am not taking the author of this piece at H.H. Patriarch Anthony to task. I am not saying that the Democrats are wrong. I am not saying that the Republicans are right. I am not saying that Sean Hannity was right. I am not saying that President Bush is infallible, inerrant, or even right. I am simply pointing out that this type of argument is so very, very common, especially among Christians (we are so prone to point out faults rather than to offer valid arguments), and it is so very, very ... wrong. It does not address the issues. It does not answer the "What is right?" question. It does not offer answers. Worse, it simply confirms the allegations against your position. I am not disagreeing or agreeing over the political issues discussed, nor am I defending Hannity. I'm simply asking you, the reader, to take time to consider your defense of right and wrong.

Remember my premise: There is little as damaging to the truth as a bad argument offered in its defense.

A Logical Fallacy

It is entirely possible, when one is defending the truth, to use a poor argument to do it. This doesn't mean that the truth being defended is not true. It means the argument is poor. Unfortunately, a bad argument used to defend a real truth merely does damage to the credibility of the truth. I would like to address one of these bad arguments that I hear so often from Christians. Consider it a learning opportunity.

The logical fallacy is in the family of causal fallacies. We tend to mistakenly attribute cause to things that may or may not actually be the cause. The most common is the "post hoc" fallacy, short for "Post hoc ergo procter hoc". It's Latin for "After this, therefore because of this."

Here's how it goes. Event A occurs before Event B. We would then attribute the cause of Event B to Event A. However, without more than mere time as evidence, it's an improper argument. Let me give an obvious example -- an obviously bad example. "Fast food restaurants have really taken off since the 1960's. However, since they have become popular, the prison population has risen exponentially. Obviously, fast food restaurants makes people into criminals." You can see without blinking an eye that this is absolute nonsense.

So, let's see if you can see it as easily when I give you this extremely popular Christian argument. "In the early 1960's America outlawed prayer in school. Since then, morality in the United States has plummeted. Clearly the removal of school prayer has caused the decline of American morality." Yeah, I'm sure you've all heard that one. You may have used it yourself. You probably like it. Can you see that it is as wrong as my silly "fast food" example?

Now, understand, it could be that removing school prayer has damaged American morality, but simply listing it in time doesn't make the point. And, if you think about it, I'm not sure you want to argue that it did. I mean, do we believe that mandatory praying makes good people? I don't think so.

Let me offer a different theory (just for fun). On June 28, 1914, Gavrilo Princip assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand. This event precipitated a series of events that resulted in World War I. This "war to end all wars" decimated Germany. As the country slowly tried to recover from its massive wounds, a young, charismatic leader surfaced. He told them they were the master race and he would lead them to world domination. Before the end of the the 1930's, Adolf Hitler had launched his attack on Europe.

This war spread to the world, and America was soon fighting on two fronts. As a result, every able-bodied, patriotic American male joined up to defend his country. This left a unique world of an inordinate number of "single parent" families, which in turn brought about a new classification in American society -- the "teenager". Prior to World War II, you were either a child -- under the full responsibility and education of your parents -- or you were an adult, having finished being a child. But in this time of crisis, this particular class of people were too young to go to war, but too old to need direct supervision. Many of this new category of people ended up fatherless from the war, but all of them suffered years of a lack of education that being a child necessarily offers.

This generation of "teenagers" became the new parents of the 1950's. Stunted in their education, they tended to be less rigid, questioning authority more than their predecessors, less inculcated in tradition. Their children moved farther from these values and became the 60's generation, whose catch phrases included "Don't trust anyone over 30" and "Question authority". It was the generation that came from World War II that pushed prayer out of public school, and it was their offspring that enlarged this removal of God from the public square. Each subsequent generation has been a devolution of the previous one, adopting less and less of the prior values and moving ever so slowly away from America's roots in morality.

Why would I say that America had its roots in morality? First, we were started by people running from religious persecution. The Puritans are fabled for their moral values. Then, when this young nation adopted democracy, they were quite clear on the limitations. Our form of government only works when people are basically moral. When the masses determined that they could vote themselves money, it began the decline. "Entitlements" -- that's what they're called. The Puritan notion of working for the best of one's society ... that was poisoned ... sometime around 1914, I theorize.

Okay, it's a theory. Honestly, it's one of my little pet theories. It very well could be wrong. But one thing I know -- it more comprehensively addresses a far more complex question than does the answer "The elimination of school prayer has caused the moral decline of America." It is my suspicion that the elimination of school prayer was a symptom, not a cause. A nation dedicated to Christian values would have deflected that problem. Since we didn't, I have a hard time thinking that this event is the cause of American immorality. And since nations are not people, God is free to judge nations temporally. I don't think, when that day comes to America, that it will be because we eliminated school prayer. I think it goes a lot deeper than that.

The Emergent Church

Scott, over at Christian Telegram started a little, friendly discussion (in comments) about "Emergent" theology ... right after a post on postmodernism. (The two concepts are linked.) I suspect, however, that "the Emergent Church" theology isn't very well known yet. Perhaps it ought to be.

According to Wikipedia, "Proponents of the emerging church embrace the reality of postmodernism and seek to deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity in order to meaningfully engage with Western society which is pre-dominantly post-Christian." If that doesn't send off alarm bells in your head, perhaps you aren't paying attention.

First, "postmodernism" is all about "relative". The fundamental tenet of postmodernism is that all truth is relative and no truth is absolute. That is a problem when we have a God who claims to be absolute. Second, the phrase "deconstruct and reconstruct Christianity" ought to raise a serious problem. What went wrong with God's idea of Christianity? It worked in the past, but it doesn't work now? In what sense does biblical Christianity fail to "meaningfully engage with Western society"?

How does the Emergent Church movement go about deconstructing and reconstructing Christianity to make it more relevant to our society? Well, here are a few of their ideas.

- Missions are largely carried out by social activism. If you work to decrease poverty and meet people's felt needs, then you can better bring them to Christ.

- Theology isn't really important. It's better to share your personal narrative, your personal experience.

- Orthodoxy is generalized and ecumenical. Try not to make divisions over doctrine. Some encourage "dialogue with non-Christian religions and non-religious people." (One specifically listed who encourages this is Pastor Brian McLaren, the guy with whom I had some conversations earlier in my blog over the question of the poor. I wasn't aware of that at the time. He left saying, "This isn't the site for me." Is it that he encourages dialogue with non-Christian religions and non-religious people, but not so much with Christians who might disagree with his position?)

- The movement encourages a commitment to emulating Jesus' way of living, in particular his loving of God, neighbors and those normally considered enemies. (On the surface this would seem a good thing, but digging a little deeper, wasn't it changed hearts that Jesus was trying to obtain, not merely emulators?)

- The Bible is to be viewed with an open mind. There may be a plurality of interpretations, often determined by your own culture. This is contrasted with the primacy of the author's intent and cultural context.

One of the "beating drums" of this movement would be Schleiermacher's idea that "Experience unites; doctrine divides." This precisely plays into postmodernism. Truth isn't the issue; experience is. As such, how we experience God is of much higher importance than how we think of God. Everyone knows that these days. Make worship more "relevant". (Being in the presence of the Most High surrounded by other saints joining with the heavenly hosts to offer praise to God isn't really relevant if I don't feel warmly about it.) All that talk about "truth" and "the only way" is just alienating people. And "sin" ... that topic has to really be avoided. We don't want to hit that too hard at all because it just pushes people away. No, no, we need to conform more to the world's image. Our music should be more like theirs; our messages should be more appealing like theirs. We are competing with an entertainment glut and if we don't make it more experiential, well, it just won't work. At this point, truth is not the issue; survival is. So it's better if we just slough off the traditions of Scripture and the historical Church and work better in the direction of relevance and "feeling God".

Okay, I would say that from the churches around me that I see, I'm likely in a minority here, but I have a real problem with this type of approach. This "Emergent Church" concept is not merely sending off warning bells. I'm getting klaxons, flashing lights, and "Run, do not walk!" messages in my head. I'm seeing "vain philosophy, traditions of men, and elementary principles" (Col. 2:8) here and I am desperate to avoid captivity.

Ready Always to Make a Defense

Over at Ales Rarus, we get a post offering questions from an atheist buddy. Clearly the questions are intended to dispute Christianity. The claims:

1. "Countries with high levels of atheism are also the most charitable both in terms of the percentage of their wealth they devote to social welfare programs and the percentage they give in aid to the developing world."

2. Why is the United States alone among the developed Western nations both in its religion and its violent crime rates?

3. Why do the so-called 'red states,' where Christianity is more popular, have higher violent crime rates?

4. Why are the percentages of atheists in prison so low?

Where do these claims come from? On what are they based?

1. What makes a country one with "high levels of atheism"? Pick one. Define "high levels of atheism". Of course, for some reason the numbers don't seem to bear out the claim even if it can be defined. According to Johns Hopkins University, the United States ranks 3rd out of the top 34 countries in volunteering and giving as a function of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). In this study done in December, 2005, the United States ranked #1 in terms of giving. One has to ask where the claim comes from. It would appear that the claim is an outright fabrication.

2. The United States is alone among developed Western nations in its religion. I wonder why that would be true? Could it be that it was a nation founded on a religious premise? Could it be that the nation is rooted in religion? Indeed, this nation required a religious morality to become a great nation. (And if, as the atheist's assertions are trying to say, religion makes for bad people, why did this nation at its most religious succeed so well, along with lower crime rates and higher giving?) Note, however, that while the U. S. may be alone in its religion among Western nations, it is not alone in the world as far as entrenched religious beliefs. Thus, the question makes presumptions regarding the value of "developed Western nations". Moving on, there is the claim that the United States is alone in "violent crime rates". Now, according to CSDP.org, the claim is false. While the U. S. may lead in numbers of crimes reported, the "violent crime rate" isn't as high as other nations. Russia, for instance, weighed in with a 22% crime rate and South Africa had a 55% crime rate, while the U. S. had a 5% crime rate. And it should be obvious to the casual observer that documenting and proving such an allegation would be extremely difficult.

3. What makes "Christianity more popular" in the so-called "red states"? And on what is the claim that their violent crime rates are higher? According to the 2005 crime rate statistics, it appears that the "blue states" are equally dispersed in the rankings of violent crime rates. Of course, there are 22 "blue states" (if you include the District of Columbia) and 29 "red states", so does that affect the numbers any? It appears that this is a claim without defense. For instance, the District of Columbia ranks #1 in violent crime, Maryland as #5, Delaware as #7, and Michigan and Illinois as #11 and 12 respectively. Note that the difference in crime rate between South Carolina (#2) and Illinois (#12) is 761.1 per 100,000 to 551.5 per 100,000. The District of Columbia tops the list with 1459 per 100,000 while North Dakota (a "red state") bottoms out at 98.2 per 100,000. That ought to tell us something ... that "red state" and "blue state" are no indicators of 1) whether or not they are "Christian" or 2) who has the higher crime rate between the two.

4. On the percentage of atheists in prison: One site provides the suggested number of 0.2% atheists in the prison population (compared to 8-16% in the general population). I'm sure this site is unbiased, since it includes the comment, "Let's just deal with the nasty Christian types." I'm confident that there is no agenda being driven here, no axe to grind, no reason to skew numbers. The fact that nearly 20% gave no answer for their religious affiliations is surely nothing to notice. The fact that other similar studies offer different numbers really ought to be ignored. Or, am I making too many assumptions?

Bottom line, the arguments are just as wrong as the popular argument among Christians that American morality has declined since they eliminated school prayer. The variables are too vast, the truth statements too skewed, and any real causality is too distant to call these valid arguments. As an example, Barna reported that while 96% of Americans claim to believe in a god, the numbers decline radically from there. Some 75% call themselves "Christians", but only 15% go to church, and only 5% say that their beliefs make any difference in their lives. In fact, the same percentage that call themselves "Christians" also hold that there is no such thing as "absolute truth", a simple contradiction of logic. (There cannot be a God and no truth.) So while anti-theists are tossing these highly questionable arguments at us, we're not even admitting that the U. S. is a "Christian nation", since our definition of "Christian" is much more narrow than the more common, vague "if you call yourself one, you are". If we used Barna's 5%, it would appear that real Christians are in a severe minority in this country and would not be expected to have a major impact on the nation's crime rates, giving, or politics. So before we feel the need to toss out religion altogether, perhaps we ought to examine whether or not there is a valid argument for the causal implications of the objections offered.

The Halloween Debate

I guess it's that time again. You know, the annual debate about whether or not Christians should be involved with Halloween. Many churches offer alternatives to "trick or treat" and are careful not to call it anything "Halloweeny". You've seen them. "Harvest Festival" or the like. In most cases, wearing costumes is fine, but not anything "demonic" or "pagan". Some insist on biblical characters. (Go ahead ... find an "Abraham" costume at your local KMart.) Individuals take it farther. No decorations. At least no "demonic" things, like ghosts, skeletons, spiders, vampires, or some such. And then there are the origins of Halloween to consider. Lighted, carved pumpkins were put out to scare away evil spirits, so they're definitely wrong for Christians to use. Or is that accurate?

Halloween itself has its origins in Celtic fire festivals and druid religions. It was originally Samhain, the beginning of "the dark time" in ancient days. It was considered an "ambiguous" time for spirits who could, at this time, go between the world of the dead and the world of the living. The Roman Catholic Church couldn't get its people to stop celebrating it, so they modified it. Instead of a celebration of darkness, they called it "All Saints Day", a celebration of the saints who had gone before. Also called "All Hallows Eve", it was shortened to "Hallow E'en" and then to today's "Halloween". In America, the event wasn't observed before the late 1800's when Irish farmers immigrated to the U.S. Before that, the influence of Puritan tradition prevented its observation. (The Puritans didn't allow the celebration of Christmas, either.) So Americans really didn't get into Halloween until the 20th century.

The practice of "trick or treating" came from a middle ages practice in which poor people would go door to door and receive food in return for prayers for the dead on All Saints Day. The practice of wearing costumes didn't seem to become a practice until the 1930's in America. And the idea of "trick" -- the threat that "if you don't give me a treat, I'll do something bad" -- didn't seem to really occur anywhere prior to America's version of it, and not until the 1950's. In other countries, children would be required to do a trick such as sing a song, do a card trick, tell a joke, and other such things to receive their treat.

Here it is, thousands of years past anything that resembles the origins of so many of the ideas that are incorporated into today's Halloween. And I suppose it's a product of my poor upbringing, but I just don't get the reason for the debate. When I was growing up, we would wear costumes and go house to house and say, "Trick or treat", but it never occurred to us that "trick" indicated a prank. It was just what we said. Some of the "bad kids" would TP a house or throw eggs, but those were the fringes, not the mainstream. The costumes I remember most were certainly evil, I suppose. One year my brother and I built a robot costume out of boxes. Surely that's demonic. And my most memorable (because it was my most embarrassing) was the year I went as a sack of potatoes. Truly evil, I'm sure. I was never informed that Satan was most powerful on this particular evening. I was never taught that real witchcraft and evil spirits were the focus of this event. My poor parents seemed to think that witches were ultimately fictional and God ruled the universe, and they passed that uninformed idea on to me.

Should Christians allow their children to dress up as princesses and Spiderman and visit the neighborhood collecting candy and treats? My abysmal education would say, "Why not?", but you need to "vote your conscience". I'm not here to pass judgment on the servant of another. Whatever is not of faith for you is sin. As for me, the mere suggestion that Satan actually rules at some point in time is too terrifying to contemplate. I have to believe in a Sovereign God or life for me would be intolerable. Besides, I kind of like the idea that God can take something that supposedly belongs to Satan (like Samhain) and redeem it for something good.

Christian Right

Can there be any question at all? Scripture isn't ambiguous.

A wise man's heart directs him toward the right, but the foolish man's heart directs him toward the left (Eccl. 10:2).

Clearly it is unwise to be on the left, so "Christian" and "right" at least ought to be synonymous.