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.