The entire Bible is a about communication. God desires to communicate with his creatures. He created them to communicate with him. When that communication is interrupted by rebellion and sin he immediately sets in motion a process to restore the broken communication. He loves so deeply that he is willing to become the bridge across the broken expanse between humanity and himself. The bridge is formed from his own body and sacrifice.

Ronald Hawkins

Thanks Russell for turning our attention to Real Live Preacher. What wonderful reading! In particular his life story moved me deeply. When I got to the part about his ministry to Jenny I was on the verge of tears. Really. When I was done reading I went for a long walk with the dog. I started thinking of the Jennys in my life. Of Cheryl, who died leaving a husband and little girl. Of Wayne who died in what had been my house, leaving his newlywed bride and unborn daughter. Of Natalie, who died leaving two needy teenagers. They, like Jenny, died knowing that they “would not be there for their children. Would not drop them off at kindergarten, would not see baseball games, would not help her daughter pick out her first bra. No weddings, no grandkids. Nothing.” I thought of others who are struggling with cancer now. That 12 year old boy. That mother of two. That father of four with an estranged son and precious little time to make things right. Such things sent the Real Live Preacher guy into a crisis of faith, a “dark night of the soul”. I had my own little crisis of faith as I walked the dog, as I stood on our cloister like pedestrian bridge , watched the white water of the Kicking Horse River flow beneath my feet, and reflected.

I believe in prayer. I believe that God hears it and responds to it. And yet I must agree with RLP when he writes “I started noticing something. When the doctors said someone was going to die, they did. When they said 10% chance of survival, about 9 out of 10 died. The odds ran pretty much as predicted by the doctors. I mean, is this praying doing ANYTHING? I’m sophisticated enough to understand the value of human contact, but prayer is supposed to affect the outcome, right?” I need that kind of stark honesty from time to time.

I was spared (God be praised!) from a dark night of the soul. As the tough questions swirled in my head I found my faith strengthened. I sang the creed (the dog doesn’t mind my singing voice!)

I believe in God the Father Almighty maker of heaven and earth (and, last night, of the most glorious full moon over the Rockies).

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. AMEN.

I further became resolved to be more attentive to prayer, even though I find RLP’s observation above to be essentially correct and true to life. Faithfulness requires that I pray, not that I analyse the “results” of prayer from my own finite perspective.

Finally I was reminded again of the words of C.S. Lewis “I believe in Christ like I believe in the sun. Not because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” How very true! Life and death, sickness and health, faithful dogs and full moons and rocky mountains only make sense to me, are only truly “seen”, in the light of God, Christ, and the Gospel. I will walk through these things, good and bad, in fellowship with Him. And long for the day when “He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

Charles Carlsen, commenting on Carter’s DNC speech, drops this gem on the SBC:

... the Southern Baptist Convention is hell bent on an organized crusade to discredit Islam as a religion built on hatred and bent on the destruction of Christendom. This amazing campaign of unbridled hated (for there is no other word that fits) is now being extended to the grade school level children in some Southern Baptist Churches.  We have first hand testimony that anti-Islamic hate films are being used in day camps (Vacation Bible School) to indoctrinate third grade children and younger.  The literature is produced by affiliates of the Southern Baptist Convention…

I really loved reading everyone’s QotD answers. I’d like to agree with everyone and add three things.

1. I believe in crying every time you take of your hat to sing the national anthem.

2. I believe that watching a sunset from the seat of a canoe is one of God’s greatest gifts.

3. I believe that I’ve fallen in love with Robert Capon, here’s (part of) why.

Come then; leap upon these mountains, skip upon these hills and heights of earth. The road to Heaven does not run from the world but through it. The longest Session of all is no discontinuation of these sessions here, but a lifting of them all by priestly love. It is a place for men, not ghosts—for the risen gorgeousness of the New Earth and for the glorious earthiness of the True Jerusalem.

Eat well then. Between our love and His Priesthood, He makes all things new. Our Last Home will be home indeed.

Michael, a 51% electoral majority does not necessarily reflect that 51% of the American people have endorsed the candidate. Two factors contribute to this reality: there have been historic disconnects between electoral and popular majorities; and there is so much “opting out” among the voting populace, partly because of disillusionment with the two-party system, that in reality 51% of the ~35% of the poplulation that actually votes places the presidential candidate into power.

I agree that everyone that can vote, should vote, regardless of any disillusionment they may feel, or whether or not it’s a choosing of “the lessor of two evils”; our country is founded on the power of compromise and balance. One of my heroes is Teddy Roosevelt, who though a very committed Republican, did at one time choose to accept the candidacy of another party. The effects of that choice are of course mixed and debatable, but one effect was that compromise was necessary to reunite the Bull Moose Party with the Republican party. Yes, they lost an election to the Democratic party, but that election made the Republican party alter it’s course, through compromise.

Compromise is not a four-letter-word.

The demise of reading is the demise of a kind of thinking, a kind of common culture, and eventually, a kind of civilization. I believe this. I FEAR the chronic non-readers, especially males. If enough readers/thinkers remain, a culture can cohere and survive, but the demise of civilization will occur/is occuring when images create emotion create violence and the majority can be lulled to sleep or roused to violence without thinking. I truly, truly fear what Will is describing.

Next to this, I fear people who….

...only read theology,
think video games are somehow significant narratives,
know celebrity culture better than they know anything else,
have contempt for common sense morality,
see politics as the creation of utopia at any cost,
believe their prejudices against those who THINK differently than they do are justified.

When we were discussing the two-party system, one of my thoughts was that we need to realize what a good thing it is that a candidate must accumulate an electoral majority (or 51% of the vote for most offices) before they can “rule.” I fear multi-party systems because they allow those who despise majority rule to come to power with far less than a majority, and then impose their minority views on the majority.

If you need reminding what that would be like, read this excerpt from Hugh Hewitt’s interview with NOW’s Kate Michelman, (courtesy of the Dawn Treader) and enjoy her views of court imposed gay marriage. She KNOWS that the majority of the country is against it, and judicial activism is an acceptable solution for her.

All the Democrats don’t buy Michael Moore’s poison. NDOL is a web project of the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist group started by Clinton. If this were the voice of the Democratic party, where would we be? I have to agree with someone who said the one measure of success is when your enemies adopt your beliefs. By that measure, conservatism has been successful.

As a person who grew up in a family dominated by mental illness, I read with interest this story of Sean Astin’s childhood with mom Patty Duke.

Why is it easier for me to think of things I DON’T believe in than things I DO believe in? Am I the only one?

The Real Live Preacher piece on the Bible is really wonderful, and I don’t have to agree with every word to say that. I’m sure there are recovering fundamentalists all over the place who could benefit from those thoughts. I can imagine the incident that must have prompted this sad and gentle rant, and the result is a beautiful description of a much larger idea of the Bible than the rationalists and the scholastics and the creationists and the fundamentalists and the nouthetic types. So large, in fact, that it goes well outside the boundaries of anyone’s ability to creedalize it.

I appreciate it when we can say, in short order, “This is what the Bible is all about, and this is what it’s NOT.” That’s the best kind of confessional language. I appreciate the fact that someone who doesn’t believe in a “magic book” idea of hocus pocus inspiration could express some of what we struggle to say. It’s hard to say more about the Bible than the literalist, because he is so determined to insist that you are saying less. Inspiration is about Christ, not about all the literary attachments and accumulations in the book that brings him to us. The wonder of the Bible is that such HUGE things are in such SMALL words, and that at the end of the day, the things in the Bible are larger than anything we can say or think. So why are we fighting about those words?

Another good Os Guinness quote.

“It is ironic that, although fundamentalists are implacably opposed to liberalism, their extreme reaction shows the same weakness. They, too, stress the leap of faith and make irrationality almost a principle, dismissing the serious questions of seeking modern men as intellectual smoke-screens or diversions to conceal deeper personal problems. All this masks a desperate intellectual insecurity, barely disguised by the surrounding hedge of taboos to preserve purity. The strident intolerance of much guilt-driven evangelism betrays the same insecurity. In these circles, much that is taught has to be unlearned in the wider school of life, and it is not surprising that universities are littered with dropouts from such groups. Their non-rational, subjective faith is cruelly punctured by varsity-level questions, and many manage to survive only by resorting to a severely schizophrenic faith which they hold to be true religiously but not intellectually, historically, or scientifically. ”

In one of the better speeches in a baseball movie…...”Well, I believe in the soul… the xxxx…the xxxxx… the small of a woman’s back… the hangin’ curveball… high fiber… good scotch… that the novels of Susan Sontag are self-indulgent overrated crap… I believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. I believe there ought to be a Constitutional amendment outlawing Astroturf and the designated hitter. I believe in the sweet spot, xxxx xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx, opening your presents Christmas morning rather than Christmas Eve, and I believe in long, slow, deep, soft, wet kisses that last three days. Goodnight.” -Crash Davis, “Bull Durham”

What do YOU believe in?

``I just can’t sit here and listen to someone that does not believe in a supreme being,’’

Would that include God? :-/

Russell: Things would be different.

Special forces actions in Afghanistan. No war in Iraq. A few missiles at Bin Laden. A lot of ranting around the U.N. A lot of press conferences talking about intelligence and how we are going to use technology to stop terror. A conference or two on terror. We would have heard less from Michael Moore. There were have been some sort of major scandal in the Executive branch by now, probably campiagn finance related. Likely Asian.

The economy would be about the same, as would most everything else. Bush wouldn’t be running again. The GOP would be tearing itself apart between it’s moderate and conservative wing. I probably wouldn’t have started Internet Monk.

This is a pity. I have no doubt that the risks of litigation are a major factor in the district’s decision to tear down the beautiful cabin that these young people had been building and maintaining. I hate it when lawyers squelch creativity, effort and fun just because somebody might get hurt and somebody might get sued.

Hypothetical Scenario: Its November 2000, and after multitudes of recounts, instead of Bush being the Presidential winner in every recount, Gore is, but only by 531 votes. How would the last four years have been different? How would the upcoming election be different? How would the “right” deal with a “stolen election”?

Real Live Preacher is at it again.

Just for the record, I don’t generally recommend the books of Dallas Willard. I’m not on his case, I just don’t hear the grace of God in the Gospel in those books. I’m open to being corrected.

FYI, I just got a sudden flood of virus emails with the spoofed return addresses of other BHT members. As I’m almost sure you all know, don’t open attachments even if you think you know the person sending it.

In case anyone was keeping score on books to read to follow iMonk’s recommendation regarding Pomoz, check Donald Miller and Dallas Willard.

I can think of a couple of alternatives to the two-party system that would work much, much better, but yeah, it’s what we have and it isn’t going to change. I made the mistake last time around of voting for a third party. I don’t exactly regret it, but even though my state’s electoral college votes were never in question, I’m pretty tired of hearing about the popular vote!

Of course, historically speaking, we’ve always had a two-party system but they haven’t always been the Republicans and Democrats. That means that occasionally a third party can knock another one out. I don’ t see that happening again, because the two names are well enough known that the parties may morph, but the names will stay the same.

So, yeah, primaries are where it is at. It is why I’m still a registered Republican, even though I vote independently. I feel more confident about my ability to influence the Republicans than I do the Democrats, primarily because of abortion.

I think my next IM essay is being born.

Why do we have two parties?

Well, one of them will get more than 50% of the vote, and they get to govern (so to speak).

When you have three, probably more than 60% of the people will vote against the winning party. Imagine if Perot had scored 37% of the vote. Wouldn’t that have been wonderful. Four years of Perot and 63% of the public didn’t vote for him.

What does Moore want? Moore wants 300 parties so his “Worship Michael Moore’s Pimpled Butt” Party can win with 3% of the vote, cobble together a coalition and rule the country.

Oop. Ack.

The diversity is for the PRIMARIES. The diversity is worked out IN BETWEEN ELECTIONS. The process within the parties. The election recognizes that the diversity of the country CAN’T be matched with a diversity in the politcal system. This isn’t 500 channels of cable TV guys. This isn’t “everybody gets exactly what they want.” This is important stuff.

You have to be DISAPPOINTED in politics. If you’re not, something is wrong. The two-party system is the way we keep from shooting at each other. It’s war without guns. Think about it. Look at what happens in countries with 3000 political parties. I can’t believe someone thinks this is a good direction to go in.

I know the money and the media make the two party system suck, but when our political system can’t produce concensus around a majority, we are cooked.

For several years, I was on a church staff that utilized the Myers-Briggs extensively. The associate pastor- who is now a very successful pastoral counselor- felt it would be very helpful in resolving conflicts, working together, etc. We had a lot of fun with the tests, and I enjoyed the workshops and retreats where we used the material. I would be wrong to say that the material wasn’t helpful. It was. I definately worked better with some of my fellow staff by knowing the information in the profile. They didn’t have to tell me all their quirks and preferences. Myers-Briggs did, and was fairly on target 90% of the time.

What I didn’t like- and don’t like about the evaluative/diagnostic shorthand of psychology in general- is it seemed to promote a kind of callous fatalism toward matters that really ought to change. OK. It was good to know that I was an only child who thought the world revolved around me. But I didn’t just need to be understood. I needed to change. I needed the fellowship of my co-workers to assist me in changing. Understanding the basic “map” of my personality isn’t a reason to defend anger, pettiness, laziness and self-centeredness. It didn’t need determinism packaged as a fun little acronym. I needed hope.

I mean, imagine if we all knew one another’s Myers-Brigg’s profiles around here. It would be helpful. But frankly, I’d rather know- sorry Phillip-your story. What you love. What you fear. What memories mean the most to you. I would especially want to know your conception of the future, and your dreams for getting there. What are your treasures? What makes life worth living for you? Is a Myers-Briggs ID really more important than knowing about Kent’s canoe? Or Jim’s joy in working with his hands? It depends on what you really want to know about a person. The map or the possibilities.

One note: As Kent knows from his background, those of us who work with psychiatric and psychological assessments of students must deal with an arsenal of psychological terminology: BD, ODD, ADD, ADHD, OCD, PTSD. I once had a kid run all these off to me- ALL of them- followed by the sentence- ”...and I have to be in a special room.” Then he beamed like a Cheshire cat.

Useless? No. Predictive? Sometimes. Descriptive of the real person? Only in the broadest of ways. Write this down. What I “am” is significantly impacted by WHERE I am and WHO is relating to me, and HOW they are relating to me. We change. We grow in the mirrors of communities, friendships, families and relationships. All the acronyms in the world cannot take away the fact that I am a person, created by God, en-souled, incarnated in time and place, and responsive to my environment as well as my genetics/biology/past.

Tell me I can change. It takes time and new input. It takes pain and learning, but I can change. So don’t label me with your letters. Let me discover who I am as I hurdle forward toward my destination in God. Respect my journey. If you must label me, do it on the notes you throw away in the morning. Let’s see what I CAN be, not just what others say I MUST BE.

Et tu, Russell? Don’t cancel the appointment, diagnosis is only about 10% of the solution.

Jim, I know that I took the Meyers-Briggs sometime past, I’ll ask my wife to look up the results. I agree that that ODD (or any diagnosis for that matter) is not defininative in regards to describing the “whole person”, this one though fits me more often than not.

What I’m working toward with my counselor is balance, I’m too often led by my out -of-control emotions that tend toward irrationality…leads me to anger more often than not. We’re working on bringing those emotions under the control of my rational mind, taking the time to think about what I’m feeling and to discern why I’m emoting the way I do.

Michael, I agree (per your comment on this post) that often fundamentalists stress the rational over “other aspects”, at least at the leadership level. I believe that many rank-and-file fundies disengage their minds in deference to the “popes”.

However in my post I didn’t focus on that aspect of fundamentalism, I was agreeing that sometimes I decide what to believe in opposition to people I’m struggling with, were you perhaps targeting Phillip’s post with your comment?

Philip: Although anti-anti-intellectualism (AAI) can include fundies I have found that the group also includes neo-evangelicals and the non-denominations (imagine that). I think many people have a sour taste of theology because it sadly can lead to a dogmatic instead of a heartfelt response. As the local rabid Calvinist, I should know :P I am also learning, thanks to the BHT, that one matches the level (if possible) of the other person. Jesus spoke differently to the educated than the lay. He also demanded those in positions of authority to know what the heck they were talking about.

ODD? Never heard of it. Sounds like liberalism. (am I jn’ing? :P) I’m an ISTP as the MB test came up.

Kent, re: My manifestation of oppositional defiance is fueled by emotional criteria, whether I perceive an individual, group, or theology to be “loving” or not, i recommend that you take the Myers-Briggs test. It will help you to see how deep this goes. Note that I don’t necessarily believe in ODD, or that it’s fundamentally wrong to act on emotions always. (If I didn’t act on emotions occasionally, I wouldn’t be married…)

F0r G0d $0 l0v3d t3h w0rld, th@t h3 g@v3 hi$ 0nly b3g0tt3n $0n, th@t wh0$03v3r b3li3v3th in hi|v| $h0uld n0t p3ri$h, but h@v3 3v3rl@$ting lif3. J0hn 3:16

Amen.

Thanks Kent. Now I can cancel my counseling appt. and just diagnose my own problems. Whew, that’ll save some money. (JN)

ODD sounds like “Two Year Old” behaviour. My son fits all of these categories. Do they have drugs to fix that?

U2’s new album, according to some buzz, could be some shizzle.

So I’m finally getting around to reading up on the “Auburn Avenue” stuff, after all this time. One aspect of the hoopla seems to be Wilson’s description of “objective faith.” Doug Wilson is saying that even heretics are Christians. Bishop Spong, if baptized, is a Christian—a member of the Covenant. Arius was a Christian. Pelagius was a Christian. And people are getting upset.

I understand why people get upset by this. I certainly react when hearing that various people who deny even the divinity of Christ could be called “Christians.” And yet. And yet what is the alternative? Salvation by right belief? Is there another alternative? If someone starts off okay but reads a bit too much from the Jesus Seminar folks, does he lose his salvation? How can we know the moment at which that happens? More »« Less

Phillip, I strongly empathize with your post about “anti-anti-intellectualism”, I often find that the reasons I choose to believe something have more to do with “oppositional defiance” than with intellectual integrity. Currently I’m seeing it manifest itself in my responses to Luther, Lutherans and Lutheranism (the religion of my youth). My manifestation of oppositional defiance is fueled by emotional criteria, whether I perceive an individual, group, or theology to be “loving” or not.

Our pastoral counselor is helping me to find balance between my emotions and my intellect, which he assures me is a vital aspect of attaining emotional maturity (which frustratingly implies that I’m not there yet).

Thus saith Mr. Sandlin: “So, God expects us to vote responsibly and thoughtfully for the electable candidate that most accurately reflects Christian conviction.”

That’s quite a jump from one guy’s opinion to what God expects. I mean, he makes some good points, but does he really think God is saying “You idiot, that person is not electable!” I think he crossed a bit of a line there. I don’t even see anywhere in the Bible where God talks about voting at all, so it’s a little presumptuous to say “God expects” this and that when there’s no record of it.

Is it really inherently better having a two-party system than a three, four, or five party system like Canada or the UK? I actually found myself agreeing with Michael Moore (!) when he said last night on the Tonight Show that two parties don’t cover the diverse spectrum of political belief in America. A viable third party might shake things up a little. But how do you make it viable?

Michael: I was talking with one of my brothers last night, and I realized that some of the views I now hold, or am in the process of acquiring, are the result of anti-anti-intellectualism, which seems tenuous ground.

That is, there are several issues on which I’ve taken a stand precisely because the most anti-intellectual people I know (I’ll call them “fundies,” as an oversimplification) hold the other view. This seems horrible to me, and yet, well, when I actually do apply a lot of thought, I seem to come up with the same answer. Is it odd that I’ve found the views of the fundies to be a nearly-reliable bellwether for deciding something?

I’ll, uh, avoid listing any examples, so I don’t stir things up too much. Thanks.

Andrew Sandlin has been inside my head, stolen all my good ideas, and written this piece on why conservatives need to lose the third party politics and vote for Bush. There are some excellent examples of good reasoning in this piece, particularly on why cultural change needs to precede political change.

If the phrase “objectivity of the covenant” has ever puzzled you (in the Auburn Avenue business), then this illustration from Douglas Wilson should be helpful.

A new addition to the Paul Page is “A Covenantal View of the Atonement.” I got a fairly critical mail today from someone who didn’t care for the transactionalism essay, but this piece does a nice job of talking about how the sacrificial theme fits into a larger, more mediatorial, non-transactional view of the atonement.

There is another way to explain the concept of atonement that more closely fits the Pauline explanation of Jesus’ death and resurrection and yet supports the Anabaptist view of redemption and the transformed life. The Gospels, read through the lens of a covenantal relationship between God and God’s people, suggests that Jesus’ passion was neither substitutionary nor exemplary, but mediatorial. Jesus was the great mediator of a promissory covenant that had existed for all time between humankind and God. This covenant was not fulfilled by the law, but by the gracious fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham before the law was given.

...God is faithful to God’s covenant promises, Paul explained. God’s covenant is not a conditional contract bilaterally concluded by two parties. It is a unilateral commitment or promise on God’s part to act toward God’s chosen covenant partner with overwhelming kindness and generosity. God made a commitment to fulfill this gracious purpose at any cost. Thus when God exercises saving mercy toward sinful people, God is simply fulfilling the covenant promise. Jesus is God faithfully carrying out just what divine love had pledged to do. Paul’s argument to the Jewish and Gentile believers was this: by dying, Jesus bore all the curses due to the transgressions under the first covenant. In the resurrection, God fulfilled the covenant promises to restore all people to a right relationship with God and each other. With this simple argument, Paul bridged the scriptural gulf between the Jew and the Gentile, vindicating the rights of the Gentiles under the concept of justification apart from the Law.

Michael, I sadly concur regarding abortion legislation in the US. Our culture is too enmeshed in convenience and very distant from personal responsibility.

I’m a “prayer leader” for our local CPC, so often our counselors are confronted with the fact that the girls they are working with have no concept that there is “life” growing inside of them. Part of the intake process is to ascertain the level of the client’s contact with the “church”; they often relate how stunned they are to discover that there’s very little difference between the perceptions of the girls brought up in the “church” versus those brought up outside the “church”.

Love, compassion, relationship, education all work. Legislation is an important aspect of the fight against abortion, but not the cornerstone. Jesus didn’t come to bring legislation…

An interesting aside is that when you’re hired by a hospital as a treatment provider you are asked to list all of the procedures that you are unwilling to take part in. Nobody on the unit I worked on was willing to take part in abortions, or in our case, advising patients to have abortions. It seems to me that this indicates that health care professionals have a lot of clout regarding this issue.

Gentlemen:

America will always have abortions. There will never be a constituional amendment banning them. There will never be a Supreme Court that will ban them entirely. There will never be a majority of Americans who will support a law to ban abortion in every case, in every circumstance.

Our strategy has to be 1) change hearts and minds so fewer are sought 2) regulate and limit so fewer procedures are legal and allowed 3) regulate and limit so that the cost, legal risk and social stigma discourages anyone from seeking/doing the procedure.

As few as possible, in a culture that will never ban all of them in every circumstance.

That’s what we’re all about, if we want to save lives in America.

Michael: Perhaps an over-simplification but wouldn’t the conservative mindset reflect individual rights for those of age and representation for minors. Seems that the liberal’s preferred government model would focus on group rights while individual rights become secondary. Perhaps I am bias too. I figure if you work, you get paid whatever you agreed to. Jesus said something about I’m sure.

Side note: The anti-abortion issue must be handled differently by Christians then the way I have seen it handled. Similar to smoking, reduce the total amount of this legal activity through education, not legislation. Show smiling children, babies, the cute ones, show them growing up and then show a woman who looks from the park bench as she tries to imagine her child playing with the happy child. Why not agree to be “pro-choice” and suggest the best choice for everyone is another smile on this earth.

Had a friend call last night, a guy who is something of a political operative for the GOP in another state. We discussed how the idealism of conservatives is so much more complicated than the idealism of liberals. Many will vote for Kerry even though he is hardly specific on issues. But most conservatives that care will have a 50 point check-list that must be duplicated in the beliefs of the candidate.

On abortion, conservatives need to understand that losing means more abortions. Compromise means fewer. That’s distasteful, but moral and necessary.

I wish there were no abortions. Short of that, I want fewer. I want procedures banned. Age limits raised. Permission of family included. I want doctors to be scared of legal fallout. I’d regulate it in any way I could.

If we say we can only support the most pro-life of candidates, then we won’t see those things happen. We will see more abortions.

So I can consider Obama. I can consider a lot of people and positions short of the ideal.

But that’s me. I’m clearly in need of medication most of the time.

MIchael: Yeah, I’d like to see a more conservative view on abortion, but his position is still more conservative than the rhetoric of, say, Kerry. On most of the other issues, I’m relatively impressed. The guy is a Democrat, not a Republican, but he seems very moderate on most issues and, more importantly, willing to buck the “norm.”

On your guest, I think you should serve something with brandy, then offer them cigars. Be sure to offer one to the women as well—legalists just love that, for some reason.

Tomorrow night, I’m having my evening pastor and his family over for dinner. He’s to bring his own cigars. My main concern is whether or not their kids will like what we’re serving. We have hot dogs as a backup plan. Which reminds me: I ended up putting my wife and kids on that HSA insurance plan I described before, but keeping myself on the company-paid copay plan. It’s a decent plan, just expensive, but free for me alone. And besides, now I don’t have to answer questions about whether or not I’ve smoked any tobacco products in the last 12 months. The answer is “Yes, but…,” for which there is no checkbox.

Are you aware that about 99% of the pointing into the crowd that goes on at really big political events is staged and phony? Kerry and Clinton vow for the title in this. Kerry is really awful about it.

Russell: I notice the book can be had for $0.01 on the “used” page. That’s pretty expensive.

We’ve having total strangers over to eat dessert tonight. It makes me nervous. I never know what they are going to be thinking about ___________________ (fill in the blank with dozens of things legalists freak out about.) Don’t know if they are conservative or liberal. (I’m guessing liberal.) Am sure they’ve heard lots of bad things about me. (BTW- I used to go to a Paranoids Anonymous Meeting, but I quit because they were talking about me.) Plus, there’s that warm feeling I get know most people just hate overweight people on sight. So I’ll try to inhale a lot.

In case anyone is wondering what Michael would like for a gift, I’ll bet this would um… illicit a response.

I have a lot of questions about Obama. One is how much his speech reflects his values. If Obama is mouthing a focus-group developed script, or is an in-house attempt to derail the Sharpton train in the Democratic party, then I’m not impressed. But if he really has the courage to go against the grain, I’m open.

What are his views on abortion? I expect him to be pro-choice, but how pro-choice is he? Are there variations in his views from the views of other black leaders who are basically advocating the killing off of their own people to please rich, liberal whites?

Did he mean what he said about the military? How will he vote on military issues?

What’s his view of the moral issues in Iraq? If he disagrees with Bush’s strategy, what are his views on Saddam’s atrocities? Does he agree with Kerry that terrorism can be contained through “law enforcement” efforts?

How far in the pocket of the teacher’s unions will he be? The teacher’s unions aren’t solving education problems, but perpetuating them, especially in African-American communities. Can he speak to the problems in public education? Can he find the courage to go with the values of the African-American communities of America and allow school choice?

How does he feel about the place of faith in the public square? Does his use of religious rhetoric extend to a repudiation of extreme separationist views? President Clinton was a positive President on the issue of faith in the public square, but he was going against a lot of John Edwards types in doing so. Can Obama do the same?

I’ll be tracking this guy carefully. He moved that part of me that grew up in a Democratic household, loved Jack Kennedy and went to college on Dad’s disability check.

I’m not jumping in there with you, Phillip. (Especially since you won’t name the sins I want to know about :-) But we’ll see.

I’ll say this here and now, and again as often as I’m asked: I will vote for Barack Obama whenever he runs for anything in a jurisdiction in which I can vote.

Is this a wise statement to make? Probably not. But it annoys all the right sorts of people, and I truly mean it, so I’ll make it anyway.

Peggy Noonan on Obama:

When Barack Obama began his speech everyone watching thought: A star is born. Talk about famous overnight. His Bill Cosby-esque line—”the slander that a black youth with a book is acting white”—was right for the times, which is to say in line with common wisdom, and when he spoke of blue states where “we worship an awesome God,” he was not just hitting a note but using the authentic language of American evangelism. When you first see him he is a plain man of irregular features and jug ears. But when he begins to speak his features blend into harmony and handsomeness. This kind of thing only happens if you have magic. At one point the C-Span cameras went to an unhappy looking Jesse Jackson in the stands. He looked like he was thinking, “I don’t remember passing a torch.” But it was passed.

Update: OK. Now we’re on the same page. Basically.

PW: Now you say….Well, in my experience, many Calvinists say, in essence, “It doesn’t matter, we’re saved by grace, not works.”

Then you said…“There is in Calvinism, I think, a little too much reliance on the truth of “it’s not works,” to the point of really glorying in certain popular sins.”

The difference is rather obvious, isn’t it?

Now you are talking about the presumption of “once saved, always saved” which I’ve written an entire essay about. Perseverance is a necessity.

“Glorying in certain sins” is a different matter than presuming one is saved no matter what. I’ve been dogging you to tell me the “certain popular sins.” If that’s not an issue, then OK. But it was a pretty specific phrase, and it got my attention.

Finally, you said “Calvinism.” Not “some person’s understanding of Calvinism,” but Calvinism. So I cited the WCF. Not some person’s understanding.

So now that I know what you mean, I have no comment. I don’t know about your experience.

ALL: I used a poor choice of words earlier, and did not express what I meant to express. I said, “In Calvinism…” meaning “In the groups of people I’ve observed that attend churches that describe themselves as Calvinist” or some permutation thereof, and it was taken to mean “In the doctrines of Calvinism itself,” and that’s not what I meant.

Sorry about that, I take it back. :-)

Michael: Somehow, I’ve apparently given you the impression I’m talking about a certain group of people, or a particular denomination, or something. I don’t recall writing anything like that, so I’m not sure why you’re alarmed at my statement that there exist people in this world who take the understanding of grace as independent of our own works in the wrong direction. Are you saying that nobody has ever done that? I’m sure you’re not—so why are you still on this?

Tom asked how Piper’s quote (paraphrased, “Why doesn’t Paul say X?”) made sense in the light of Colossians 3 (paraphrased, Paul saying “X”). I mentioned that Piper’s quote reminds me that I’ve seen people who use what I first learned as a Baptist doctrine—eternal security—as an excuse for enjoying sin. I’ve seen more of it since I started hanging out with Calvinists more. I don’t meant that in the sense that I’m talking about people from my church, I mean that in the sense that since I’ve immersed myself into a study of Calvinism and surfing Calvinist sites and so on and so forth, I’ve come across it more often. Obviously, since before that any similar behavior would have been the result of some other misuse of Scripture.

In fact, I would say that we, as sinners, have a tendency to cling to our sin. Then we invent rationalizations for why. I have observed, with my own eyes and ears, people cite the Calvinist doctrines of grace (again, not exclusive to Calvinism, but commonly associated therewith) to tell me why I shouldn’t be concerned about their sin. Me, I come up with different excuses. That is all.

See, Russell, this is part of why I don’t buy the story-sharing crap, or that the BHT is a PX hangout. I give a personal statement, or tell a personal story, and suddenly I’m being grilled by Shintoist demanding dates and times and photographs!

Anyway, I defended Piper as much as I could without knowing the source for the quote, and Tom is probably still waiting for the context of the quote to complete the defense, but if you really can’t see the difference between the WCF and how real people live day-to-day in 2004, I’m not sure why you get upset at Angry Punk Lutherans who do the same. (Ouch, that one is not going to help, is it? Yes, I see a big difference. I’m kidding.)

I love the Credenda guys, and mentioned them to avoid naming names.

It’s really simple: Few of us (none of us?) are living up to the standard set by James, just to pick a short label for it. Really, it’s the standard set by Christ and backed up by Paul, too, but James is pragmatic and spells things out, so I’ll go with that. I don’t live up to it, you don’t live up to it. Sorry, you (speaking generally, think “y’all”) just don’t. So what do we do? Well, in my experience, many Calvinists say, in essence, “It doesn’t matter, we’re saved by grace, not works.” True, but misses the point, eh?

And that’s all I meant to say to Tom. It’s not a problem inherent to Calvinism, but quotes like Piper’s in the header tend to be misconstrued by people, um, like Tom!

Could Ted Kennedy possibly have been sober to have uttered this sentence: “The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George W. Bush?” Aside from trying to sound like Roosevelt, what was he thinking? Can you imagine John Kennedy saying such a thing in the face of 9-11?

From Lurker Ben:

Every seminary professor’s or pastor’s office would be wise to have this quote prominently displayed.

“What is truth? You can see where there is truth and where there isn’t, but I seem to have lost my sight, I see nothing. You boldly settle all important questions, but tell me, my dear boy, isn’t it because you are young and the questions of the world haven’t hurt you yet?” – Anton Chekhov, The Cherry Orchard (qtd. in The Wisdom Way of Knowing: Reclaiming an Ancient Tradition to Awaken the Heart. Bourgeault, Cynthia.)

I needed this quote about six years ago. Life has and is continuing to teach me this important truth.

Phillip, I know some of the Credenda/Agenda guys. My impression of them is they are more straight laced than the “holiness” groups I’m famililar with, but they don’t add to the Law things which the Bible never prohibits.

I am very interested to know what you’re talking about specifically though, because I am actually trying to stick to a church, and the one that seems good for me now is Christ Church.

PW: I’m going to ask again, what are the sins that some Calvinists “glory in?” And if the Wilsonites are bigger sinners than the average Calvinist, what are you talking about?

Are you talking about specific good works, i.e. feeding the poor, etc? I feel like I am being told the answer is around the next corner, but the road keeps curving.

Michael: You’re talking the WCF, and I’m talking about the people I see around me. I’m well aware that Calvinism doesn’t necessarily mean enjoying sin, but I’m sure you know as well as I do that there are many who mistake the doctrines of Grace as giving them, if not a free pass, then certainly less concern about sin than, say, James indicates we should have. Put another way, they pay a lot of attention to the bit where Paul criticizes those who say works are required for salvation, and not so much to the bit where Paul says that we must now practice various works, since we are saved.

We are ever compensating for the doctrinal errors of our youth, and certainly we could use some more freedom and less legalism, but it can and does go too far. Is it “wrong?” In a sense, yes, in that I can hardly imagine Paul acting as the Credenda/Agenda guys do (and they’re aren’t who I had in mind, but are an extremely mild, non-sinful example, to avoid offense), but in a sense, no, since it doesn’t affect us soteriologically.

Funny, isn’t it, how the devotee of Shinto among us is usually the quickest to leap to the defense of the Calvinists…

Thanks Michael on the Hindu extremism. One of my holdovers from fundamentalism is painting “other” groups with the broad brush of its extremist elements. Sorry for that.

I think the original reason that was brought up, I think, is PX was said to be Hindu or Buddhist, and I wanted to know if someone really thinks PX’ers such as McLaren are promoting Buddhism. Maybe that was already addressed and I missed it.

Well said…

Election and predestination save no one. They are God’s blueprint, His intent of what He will carry out in redemptive history. Election has no saving power in itself. It is the Eternal Son who goes to accomplish our redemption and the Holy Spirit who applies it to the elect….

Obama went off text near the end to riff on the Democrats’ momentum, referring to “a wind at our backs” and then upping that to “a righteous wind at our backs.” It’s not biblical [though it is probably a reference to a religious Gaelic benediction…], but it sounds cool, so I’ll give him points for sounding spiritual and whipping people up without Bible-thumping. And that, really, is my point in highlighting all of these references from various speakers. Professions of personal piety often ring false with voters and are inappropriate unless the candidate intends to tell us how that relates to their ability to serve as public officials. Using powerful religious rhetoric to establish connections between secular political concerns and faith-based beliefs and priorities, however, is simply an effective strategy that helps Democrats more than it hurts them.

I’m listening to a lot of N.T. Wright these days, and this overview of Romans at Calvin Seminary several years ago is pretty plain. Stuff like “The Gospel is not how you get in, put what it means that you are in.” and so on. If you listen to this (mostly) and read my stuff on transactionalism and grace, you’ll see why I am basically positive on Wright’s contribution.

PW: Do we get to find out what “popular sins” Calvinists “glory in?” :-/ Drinking? Cigar smoking? Four letter words? Skipping Sunday night church?

WCF XV Repentance

I. Repentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached by every minister of the gospel, as well as that of faith in Christ.

II. By it a sinner, out of the sight and sense, not only of the danger, but also of the filthiness and odiousness of his sins, as contrary to the holy nature and righteous law of God, and upon the apprehension of his mercy in Christ to such as are penitent, so grieves for, and hates his sins, as to turn from them all unto God, purposing and endeavoring to walk with him in all the ways of his commandments.

III. Although repentance be not to be rested in as any satisfaction for sin, or any cause of the pardon thereof, which is the act of God’s free grace in Christ; yet is it of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it.

II. By this faith, a Christian believeth to be true whatesoever is revealed in the Word, for the authority of god himself speaking therein; and acteth differently, upon that which each particular passage thereof containeth; yielding obedience to the commands, trembling at the threatenings, and embracing the promises of God for this life, and that which is to come. But the principle acts of saving faith are, accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

How does that passage deny that the root of moral change is God’s grace in Christ, accessed through faith? i.e. verses 1-4 (your life is hidden in Christ) are the premise of the “therefore” in vs 5, and the “Christ in all” in verse 11 is the climax of that pargraph.

You’re reading the Piper quote as saying there is no “fight” for holiness. You don’t know Piper. His next book is about the “fight” for sanctification. “Future Grace” is the same. But he is always clear that the root, substance and hope of the fight for sanctification is grace, not law.

Tom: There is in Calvinism, I think, a little too much reliance on the truth of “it’s not works,” to the point of really glorying in certain popular sins. There is a lot of emphasis from Paul and James and Jesus about changing behavior that is often overlooked in (I believe) over-response to those who promote “salvation by works,” usually implicitly but sometimes even explicitly. If one must err in one direction or the other, clearly the one which preserves Biblical soteriology is preferred, even if it results in too much sin in the lives of believers.

BTW, I suspect Piper’s quote was about a specific passage he was exegeting at the time, and not intended as a commentary on Paul overall.

But still, it is worth noting that in Colossians, Paul is describing an “after” event. “If then you have been raised with Christ…” Not “In order to be raised with Christ…” “For you have died...”Not “For to die…” Soteriologically speaking, Piper’s statement is absolutely correct.

But whoever put up the quote will be better able to explain the context, which will either support my assumption or blow it out of the water.

Regarding the John Piper quote at the top today—How would he interpret Colossians 3:1-17 if it’s not saying the very thing that he says Paul doesn’t say?

Wow, I DID get quoted! This is a red-letter day for me. The only bad thing is that I misspelled “Philippi.”

The Democrats are talkin’ about Obama.

Russell: Wanted to respond to your comment about Hindu extremists.

A good approach for any Christian, in relating to other religions, is to not take the actions of extremists as typical or characteristic of the worldview. (We do have to note that extremists will always find justification for their actions in some interpretation, or to be more typical, in some authority figure.)

So there are Hindu extremists who want to murder Christians, but that is primarily a political/social extremism. If you debate a Hindu or converse with a Hindu, he won’t typically try and kill you any more than a Christian will try and forcibly convert a non-Christian in the manner of the conquistadors or the Crusaders.

How Hindus feel about the presence of missionaries is another thing. Recommending that Christians remain Christians and NOT try to convert others is consistent with Hinduism. Live and let live is a two way street in Hinduism. But it still doesn’t support violence.

And now, for a totally random, totally off topic post.

Well, everyone knows the Bhuddist hot dog stand where they can make you one with everything, yes?

Well, it’s right next to the Hassidic burger joint where you can have it Yahweh.

This bad joke was brought to you by the letters P and A and the numbers 26 and 30.

Alex, I made it all of the way through your post without Googling once.

I’ve had a similar reaction to the emotional excesses of the P/C movement, though because of my own addiction to emotion it took some time to make my move. I’m still not sure where I’ll land, but I’m enjoying the adventure (sans guilt and altar calls).

On P/C churches: my only real experience with this phenomenon was my brief flirtation with the local Vineyard congregation that a good friend of mine started attending after he left my church over some nasty politicking. I was initially attracted; this was due to a combination of factors. The girls there were really attractive and “spiritual,” and the pastor was quite earnest about his work.

The thing that finally soured my milk was my realization that most of the people (in my opinion) has what I call a “toxic faith.” Every week, the pastor would invite people up front so that they could “recommit” themselves to Jesus and “be real” for Jesus, whatever either of those two things meant. And every week the same people would go up, cry, hug and genuflect. One of them came back to me and said “boy, I’m high on Jesus now.” This guy used to drop LSD. And then it all clicked: Christianity had become the new drug of choice, and just like a drug, its effects were unsteady and sporadic, requiring a constant emotional experience in order to validate a person. It was what Bonhoeffer called “justifying the sin rather than the sinner.” So I was done with Vineyard from that point; soon thereafter I started imbibing the blue-collar Calvinism of Sproul, Packer, and became Reformed. You might see my adoption of a Reformed Christianity as a reaction to the excesses of P/C, which I understand is quite typical.

Speaking of girls, there is this one girl I have my eye on, but she’s leaving for college soon. Sniff. Alex’s romantic life falls down in the ditch once more.

Rich Lowry heard what I heard.

Does God make the same deals (Job 1:12, 2:6) with Satan regarding us as He did regarding Job?

Michael, regarding the QotD: I did not take that article to be racist. I perceived that it was the type of voter analysis stuff that generally bores me to pieces. I guess classifying people by race is interesting to some people. Wait…maybe it is racist…

On the fear of hell: I’m confused. If the authors are drawing the conclusion that a fear of hell is beneficial, or not beneficial, shouldn’t the statistics support that? The first chart shows that the poorest country had a 41% rate of belief, while the richest country had a 71% rate of belief. Conclusive, right?

Um, except that it turns out that the poorest country actually ranks sixth out of thirty-five countries. I repeat, there are 29 countries in which fewer people believe in hell and yet are better of financially. In addition, the country with the highest percentage of people who believe in hell is the fourth poorest! Heck, another $60 per person, and it is tied for third poorest.

Heck, I’ll pick all of the countries with less than $6000 per capita income and tell you where they rank on the belief-in-hell scale: #1, #6 (the poorest), #9, and #13. Out of a total of 35. Pretty heavy on the upper third of the list, if you ask me. But lest you draw some sort of correlation out of that, here are the ranks of the countries with $29,000 or more per capita income: #2 (that’s us, the richest!), #4, #22, #30, and #34. Whew – barely missed the bottom, there!

There’s another chart in the article which plots corruption vs wealth, and that seems to be a much tighter correlation, while the belief in hell figures seem to be completely unrelated. But then, even though I can count, I’m not an economist. Perhaps they used an RPN calculator or something.

Michael: It couldn’t be that you hate theology because of people who use it like a weapon and then diagnose you, poorly, on their way back to cage-phase Calvinism, could it? Don’t answer that.

When I heard people talking about Senator Clinton running for President in 2008 or 2012, I thought—Hey, the Republicans should run a black person for one of their candidates, veep or prez. If the Dems run Obama, the Repubs should, again, counter with either a woman or a black candidate of their own.

I just love the idea of (1) heavily-prejudiced “patriots” having to vote for a woman or black person and (2) having either a woman or a black person in the White House.

At the DNC convention last night, I listened closely to Barack Obama. What I heard ought to make a lot of conservatives very nervous. And deservedly so. This guy is a star in the making. No joke.

Let’s forget his foray into theology, an expected trip down the usual liberal lane that dominates the Black church in America. Conservative pundits who want to go after this guy are going to have to better than that. This was a formidable voice and story.

What I heard was the death knell of Jackson and Sharpton. If you didn’t hear the speech, find it and read it. It was not the usual merchants of misery speech. It was not the usual “keep ‘em on the plantation” speech. It was middle of the road, DLC type rhetoric. It was patriotic, citing many positive references to American history, founders and documents. It was positive and hopeful, not whining and critical. It directly addressed a lot of conservative issues and concerns, and without the usual stupidity.

It was inspired rhetoric from someone that had studied MLK’s rhetoric and used it well. He’s a superb speaker. Relaxed, intelligent, articulate. Winsome. Persuasive. The ideas were “old Democrat” rhetoric. Everyone in our family was impressed.

I was particularly aware that Obama is in the same cultural experience as many of my Aftican-American students who have African immigrant parents, but are American in their own culture. I feel like I understand those families, and the value they place on things that don’t matter in the Jackson-Sharpton version of America. Obama said so many things that conservatives can agree with, and in a voice that is, frankly, electric with authenticity and compelling rhetoric.

Let me guess: I love theology because I’m such a good listener that I always win my arguments, right? So how come I feel worthless for days and days too?

Today, for the very first time in the history of my career on the web, the negative mail outweighed the positive. Maybe it’s the beginning of a trend.

But there was one benefit of all this: my entire life was diagnosed in one fell swoop.

I think the real reason you hate theology is that you tend to fail to understand what someone is actually saying, drawing you into fights that result in you losing and feeling like worthless for days and days.

Just saw Bourne Supremacy. Excellent all the way around. Bought Hellboy, Major League and Mr. Ripley. And a new toaster. That’s cool.

A lurker sent along this link between religion and economic recovery.

Have you ever lost something and years later found it? I had such an experience this week.

In case you’re interested (you’re probably not) in a little more info on the testing thing that Kent prayed for, I finally blogged it.

Well gang, I’m leaving in the morning to spend a few days in and around Williamsburg, VA for vacation.

Any “must see” spots y’all would recommend within day-trip distance?