Douglas: I’m just a bit reluctant, sitting here at home, to point the finger at the entire SBC disaster relief operation and yell “hypocrites.” There are probably 100+ Disaster Relief units in the south right now. This was some guy and some volunteers at one. And, according to the original article, they distributed the water after some hesitation.

We receive a lot of donations here at OBI. If there were donated water in beer bottles, there would be some reluctance to give it to our students and staff. I understand the problem here, trust me.

All I’ve attempted to do here is provide our non-SBC readers with the correct information about the SBC. You used the words “SBC agencies” and that is not correct. It’s like me constantly being told that the PCUSA ordains homosexuals. I appreciate the truth on that issue, and in the same way, neither the SBC, its agencies not the vast majority of its relief workers made the mistake originally noted, nor is there a policy that compelled the mistake. There are habits and feelings. All you’ve said about the mistake itself is true enough, and I don’t begrudge you saying it.

Joel: Sorry….double posting is a confession I do forget some posts. My apologies.

That Kozol article is SO 3 weeks ago, Michael. ;-) But it is a must read (still).

Serious question on the water-for-beer “scandal”: even if the original product had been in the cans, would anyone have noticed the difference?

Total Truth: I basically agree with Michael’s take. The final part of it was worth reading, but the first 3/4 I found unoriginal and unhelpful. For a book purportedly concerned with truth, I don’t recall any investigation or elaboration of her notion of truth, save for 3 pages in the introduction. But all you get there is Schaeffer’s two-storey model (roll eyes), “mental maps” (meh), and a denial that conservative Christianity is a power grab in the public sphere. It’s a good book for Challies’ list of 5.

The Pascal quote is great. It rings with the kind of honesty that I found watching The Ister, a documentary of sorts that follows the Danube river from its mouth to its source. Along the way a few philosophers expound on Heideggerian themes of technology, politics, death, and the meaning of human existence. Really great stuff.

They refuse to hand out needed water because it came from a beer company.

I don’t care if other water was available. What they did (placing their legalisms above other’s basic needs) is hypocrisy. If you can prove wrong on that score, I’ll admit I made a mistake. Not before.

And so what if there is no official SBC ban on alcohol? What have you and Reformissionary & Co. been discussing the last two months about this issue? These were Southern Baptists doing this, not Episcopalians, and we all know what the SBC does and says about alcohol. Even Reformissionary’s title for his post makes the connection. So why shouldn’t I?

And I am not attacking the charity work of the SBC in general in this mess, but saying that this particular action (which really frosts my shorts, in case you didn’t notice) did not occur in a vacuum, and it is a prime example of where the SBC needs to clean up its act. Own up to the fact that the SBC culture does NOTHING to bar this sort of nonsense!

I have two requests.

One is that you read Kozol’s essay on the inequities of American education.

The second is that this not become a debate about the abolition of public schools. I simply do not want to have that discussion. If you want to suggest how private schools can and will deal with this situation, then type away, but if you simply want to say “More evidence public schools suck,” save your trouble.

I’ve always understood the inequities of public education. (I live in Ky. Eastern Ky vs Lexington suburbs. Puh-leeze.) I see it in cities like Louisville and Lexington, though I know they are trying.

I believe America will have and must have community based schools, but what Kozol describes is unacceptable. It should be unacceptable to those who believe in public education and those who believe in private education.

But I will challenge my Christian friends to answer the rational conclusion that much Christian private educate is an exercise in segregation.

Read, think and comment.

“I believe the questions that we should be asking about justice and injustice in America are not chiefly programmatic, technical or scientific. They are theological. But I disagree with those who think we should be asking questions of theology primarily to those who live in poverty. I think we need to ask these questions of ourselves.” -Jonathan Kozol

Thanks, Kathy.

Tommy: I find the very title Total Truth irritating. The hubris of it makes me nervous. Can anyone really corner Total Truth?

The Frappr thingy doesn’t seem to work for me. I’ve entered my name and location a couple times but thare’s still no marker north of the 49th parallel. Is it an anti-Canuck bias? (JN)

Blaise Pascal:

I do not know who put me in the world, nor what the world is, nor what I am myself. I am in a terrible ignorance about everything. I do not know what my body is, or my senses, or my soul, or even that part of me which thinks what I am saying, which reflects on itself and everything but knows itself no better than anything else. I see the terrifying spaces of the universe enclosing me, and I find myself attached to one corner of this expanse without knowing why I have been placed here rather than there, or why the life alloted me should be assigned to this moment [rather] than to another in all the eternity that preceded and will follow me. I see only infinity on every side, enclosing me like an atom or a shadow that vanishes in an instant.

Tommy: I read it. I didn’t like it much. I have refused to say much about it, though, because TRs are really big into it. Parts of it- the last third- are good. The early section just kept losing me, particularly in using a Schaeferian model without a single word of criticism. Also, I felt the book was setting up YEC more than ID. Frankly, Joel has poisoned me on the idea of Worldview in everything but an apologetic sense, and Pearcey’s book is much more of a “worldview as a way to build a Christian version of everything.”

Aaron: Good word. I am going to delete my original post. It’s not fair that the good work of so many be mischaracterized by one stupid move. Thanks for the chastening, brother.

Did anyone in here ever read the “Total Truth” book by Pearcey? I heard she’s off on Aquinas and Greek philosophy in general, and I’m not really interested in the ID stuff. Just wondering if anyone thought it was worth reading the worldview sections just to see what so many people are reading and repeating?

A story comes out that SBC folks don’t want to pass out water made from a beer company. Big deal. The situation was they probably had a bunch of regular bottled water they preferred to pass out instead of the other. You might not agree with their convictions but you could respect them. Eventually they did pass out the water and I am fairly sure they would not have withheld water from people who really needed it.

I have been on the ground here in the disaster area for more than 7 weeks. Hands down SBC is awesome at disaster relief. No other denomination touches what we do as Baptists in this area. The Red Cross gets a lot of credit for what SBC does.

I have been extremely proud of what the SBC has done in this situation. Catholics are coming to our churches telling our members that the doors of their churches have been closed and they will be coming to the local Baptist church now. Catholic charities is giving money to some of our disaster relief groups and churches because they do not know what to do. Not many people understand our structure but it is this structure that allows us to do so much good. I have seen the gospel in action from our folks these last two months.
I am not trying to minimize what others have done or what people have given just pointing out that SBC volunteers have been doing a lot of God glorifying work.

Douglas: You might benefit from hypothesizing the exact opposite of every statement you make, to see if it really makes as much sense as you think it does. Leaving the ridiculous political junk alone, try this:

“This [jumping to the wrong conclusions] would not have happened if it were not for [Douglas’s negative attitude regarding the SBC and unwillingness to admit mistakes]. This incident is a symptom of that greater problem, cast in ugly clarity. This should be taken for what it is—a wake-up call regarding his attitude toward this whole business.”

Actually, come to think of it, that pretty much works! Now try it with all terrorism arguments, only substitute “Christian” for “Muslim.”

I actually linked the wrong “Wretched Urgency” essay. What I wanted was “Wretched Urgency II: My Not So Guilty Pleasures.” I wanted this Screwtape quote:

He’s a hedonist at heart. All those fasts and vigils and stakes and crosses are only a facade. Or only like foam on the sea shore. Out at sea, out in His sea, there is pleasure, and more pleasure. He makes no secret of it; at His right hand are “pleasures for evermore”....He’s vulgar, Wormwood. He has a bourgeois mind. He has filled His world with pleasures. There are things for humans to do all day long without His minding in the least- sleeping, washing, eating, drinking, making love, playing, praying, working. Everything has to be twisted before it’s any us to us. We fight under cruel disadvantages. Nothing is naturally on our side.

Douglas: The SBC doesn’t really have much in the way of “official policies regarding alcohol and participation in alcohol related businesses.” The Baptist Faith and Message is silent on the subject. The old church covenant that stated teetotalism was not an official SBC document. Individual SBC entities have policies, but those are not mandated by the SBC. They do reflect a broad evangelical culture that extends far beyond just the SBC. I am not trying to get the people who did this stupid thing off the hook. McCoy is right. This is what you get when you emphasize trivial things, but I want my non-SBC readers to be clear that there was no SBC agency order to not use this water and it is not the official policy of the SBC that you have to be a teetotaler to be a Christian. Evangelical teetotalism prevails in the SBC because it prevails in much of the Bible belt south.

This probably would not have happened (or it would have been much less damaging) if it were not for the SBC’s culture and official policies regarding alcohol and participation in alcohol related businesses. This incident is a symptom of that greater problem, cast in ugly clarity. This should be taken for what it is – a wake-up call regarding their attitudes toward this whole business.

Douglas: That post is the very definition of Wretched Urgency. The “feed the poor” line can be said at every wedding, at every party, at every holiday. I want absolutely nothing to do with a kind of Christ who can’t turn the water into wine so the party will go on. Yes, we ought to be more serious, less trivial and less worldly. But this rant has lost the kind of happiness that God built into the world. Read GOD’S Instructions for celebrations in the same Old Testament that said always remember the poor. Dead end. Jesus was accused of being a drunkard and a glutton because he knew how to have a good time. Compassion for the poor doesn’t flow out of my announcement that the candy money is going to missions. Compassion for the poor flows out of the joy in God that wants to extend that joy to others. It doesn’t come from dread, guilt and the kind of militant intensity that negates everything. I mean, why are we blogging? Why do we pay for server space? Why buy a book? Did I really need to spend $5 to go to a high school football game last night. And the money I will spend on my daughter’s wedding? Let’s get serious.

We used to have a pastor here who castigated all of us for spending any money on Christmas because Jesus wouldn’t. He would give it all to missions. No one ever made me want to become a Shinto quite like that guy.

As I said, if compassion doesn’t come from knowing and following Christ, but comes from a kind of Christian Marxism, I want a different religion. I drive past poverty that is third world just to go to the grocery. I could take my grocery money, and my car and give it to a hundred people who live within 2 miles of my house. Instead, I plan my giving; I give in a way that reflects my faith and my joy. Life is too short to be eaten up with guilt and anger over Halloween candy.

Sorry for the rant, but I am simply tired of the idea that anyone who can say “Let’s give the money to the poor instead” has the high ground of the Good News.

Moderator: This is the same story linked earlier. Please note that it is not “SBC agencies.” The individuals running the relief sites down there are volunteers with all kinds of independence. There was no order from theSBC or the NAMB to not use the water. In fact, if you chase the story, it appears the water was used eventually. The outrage of the story is the values of the people who originally refused to use the water, but that was not the policy of an SBC agency or of the SBC.- MS

I found this outrageous account at Reformissionary today.

This just kills me. I mean, it blows my mind.

During Katrina, as some of you may be aware, Anheuser-Busch shifted production on some of their lines from beer to water, to provide drinking water to the hurricane victims. Well, guess what? It turns out that some SBC agencies refused to distribute it, because it came from an alcolol company.

“The pastor didn’t want to hand out the Budweiser cans to people and that’s his prerogative and I back him 100-percent,” said SBC volunteer John Cook.

The SBC felt it was inappropriate to give the donation out, and they weren’t happy when NBC2 wanted to know why.

“Why do you want to make that the issue? That’s not the issue. The issue is that we’re here trying to help people,” Cook said.

Talk about straining out gnats and swallowing camels! (Matthew 23:23-24)

You would think that, if Paul felt that eating meat sacrificed to idols was OK in normal circumstances (I Corinthians 8), he would certainly have approved of the free distribution of idol meat in a time of famine, wouldn’t he? I would LOVE to see the SBC explain this little bit of pharisaical hypocrisy!

I’ll be waiting right here for it. I won’t leave till I get it.

Here’s a new twist in the Halloween debate – why give candy to rich kids when you can feed the poor instead?

Here’s something we need in the BHT bookstore: The Serrated Edge Study Bible. Very funny.

Thomas. Muntzer.

While looking for a Luther quote, I came across this page: The Protestant Reformers were frauds.

Luther’s Table Talk. This is fun to browse and I don’t know anything that takes you into the mind of a great figure of history like this. It reveals much of the personality and opinions of Luther.

Just got back from Universal Studios. May have some cool pics to show later on.

Jack: My view on these matters is probably going to seem paradoxical to some. I think that Christians must think theologically about all matters – including secular politics. Therefore, I do theologically critique both Statism and the PoL. However, I also think that we cannot expect non-Christians to ultimately accept our critiques, because they are theological and non-Christians are by nature to one degree or another hostile to God. Some deny we should even bother to think about the wider culture, as it’s all evil (separatists) – some think that we can convince the wider culture about selected chunks of “Judeo-Christian” morality and political theory. I deny both. I think we must recognize the flaws of the wider culture, and accept that the only way we can change things is by minor local increments, by being the Church. And that is my biggest beef with your usage of the PoL – you bring Christian assumptions to it that a non-Christian could (rightly, in their vantage point) brush off as meaningless “theological” intrusions. “Do unto others as you would have them do to you”? Sez who? If I’m my own master, and I can get away with it, why should I care about others? Without God, there is no reason to do so. Period, end of story.

Jim asks, “If you have the power to prevent evil from happening, and you fail to exercise that power, are you in any sense culpable?”

Abso-rippin’-lutely. The problems are in drawing the line of where your rightful sphere of preventive influence, and what level of evil constitutes a rightful provocation. Did Israel, say, have the “right” to frag Iraq’s nuclear reactor back in the early 80’s? That did prevent Saddam from gaining atomic weapons. And that was my point in the entire discussion this week – the stakes are very high, the amount of warning one could get in a situation like this is small to nil, and the preventive measures required might not fit into some people’s ideas of moral perfection in war and politics. There is another possible reason for the “squeamishness” regarding moral decision-making that you noted – there are often situations where every choice is wrong in some sense of “absolute moral principles”. We live in a fallen world, and that’s just the way it is.

Just want to make you aware of Theopedia, which is now on the permanent sidebar.

Rolling Stone interviews Bono, and he’s making more sense all the time.

It’s Hell House Time!

Don’t forget our frapper page. We’ll get it up on the sidebar soon. There’s a lurker page, too, I think.

Mark Horne on Church Landmines.

Mclaren’s Seven Layers of the Emergent Conversation.(Don’t read it, Josh. You’re just pissed that Lutherans don’t have a layered conversation.) (jn)

Years ago, we had a very close family member who was musically gifted. Her family encouraged her music, and all through high school she was successful. Eventually she was named the best high school performer on her instrument in four states. But when it came time to go to college, her parents insisted she lay aside her music and pursue business. She obeyed, and flunked out in less than a year, never finished, but has continued playing her instrument, though with much less success than she would have enjoyed.

This really affected me, and I promised myself that I would encourage my kids to follow what they love. As long as they have a plan and are responsible, I will do what I can to support them. I don’t know if Clay will work in churches, or schools or the business or something else. I do know that the only thing that will bring him joy in college is the pursuit of singing and some skills that can be used in the music business. So we will see. I don’t like that “you need to prepare for a job” approach to college, because my judgement is that twenty-somethings are pursuing their heart and not their financial future. My job is to see if we can find ways to get the two together somehow.

Dagnabbit, Michael, I start feeling OK about joining an SBC church, and you keep pointing out boneheaded Baptists!

Actually, I think our church is OK. I am discovering that the SBC is just about as loose as a denomination can be, at least right now it is. If a church doesn’t want to join in goofy resolutions, it doesn’t have to.

Re Clay and music: Not that he is waiting for my advice, but I was a professional musician and guitar teacher for several years. I had to switch careers when I got married and wanted to support a family, but I’d tell him go for it. He may find a niche where he can make his mark and a good living, or else he’ll eventually go for something more lucrative and be thankful for the years he got to spend focusing on what he is passionate about.

Clay will be majoring in voice. If he teaches, it will be choir. I think he would like to direct a choir in an Episcopal church.

Brandon:

Re: Josh’s post

Or you could end up like me with a B.A. in Music (not Music Ed, not Performance, just… Music…) and a minor in Radio/Television/Film and end up working at Starbucks because you’re just do dang burned out at your instrument to do anything useful with it. I still love my trumpets but four years of required marching band was about two or three too many, even when you’re at the same school and at the same time as LaDanian Tomlinson.

Michael: I’m glad Clay will have something besides an instrument as his bread an butter. I’m speaking from experience.

Brandon: Clay is going to EKU (where his KEES scholarships and other Ky scholarships will plug in) and pursue a degree in Music with the emphasis in Music Merchandising. That means he will get the B.A. in music (and is quite happy with the prospects of teaching in public schools or working in a small church) but will also do work on the technical and business side of the university. His goal is to work in the music business. My policy is to encourage my kids in whatever they want to do. At this time last year we were headed to Calvin with a degree in Film Studies. Clay’s grades are good not great, so IU isn’t an option. Plus, it’s….like….IU.

Jack: You’re a libertarian anarchist. I dare not take advice from you :-)

leif rigney: Please e-mail me if you remember where I did the LOVELACE WEDDING. It is VERY important.

Douglas: If you have the power to prevent evil from happening, and you fail to exercise that power, are you in any sense culpable? That’s the essential question that “the US is not the world’s policeman” willfully ignores. In a situation where there is no serious threat of retaliation against a unilateral action taken by the US, if you are president, and you see something that is wrong, do you use your power to fix it? You may disagree with the current president’s assessment of “evil”, but if you had the job, you’d have the same problem. Witness the fictitious female US president who invades Nigeria to prevent the execution of sharia judgment.

I don’t necessarily think that unilateral action is justified. I just think that those who wish the US to act with “restraint” in such circumstances need to be more forthcoming with their reasons for that restraint. I strongly suspect the reason they aren’t forthcoming is that many of us don’t like the particular choices that leadership applies “evil” to – and that’s true for both sides of the aisle. I think we’re uncomfortable with a president acting on his moral choices, or even speaking in the language of moral choices. The discomfort is not just because we disagree with them, but more because we don’t like having it pointed out that we ignore those moral choices on a daily basis.

Conservatives disapproved of Clinton’s intervention in Haiti, and some of their objections were worth considering, but their disapproval betrayed the fact that many of us were perfectly willing to allow Haiti to implode into open civil war, and have many people die as a result, than do anything about it – in the name of sovereignty, or whatever. Liberals disapprove of Bush’s invasion of Iraq, and again there are valid reasons to question the decision to intervene, but far too many of us were willing to allow the abuses that went on under Saddam Hussein to continue indefinitely, as long as nobody drove any more airplanes into our offices. (The leaders of Syria, who are at least as guilty of atrocities as the Iraq regime was, are at this moment hoping that that same indifference will prevail in their case. They have good reason to believe it will.)

We all need to be honest and admit that for much of the recent past, a good part of the reason the US didn’t intervene (or why we weren’t more successful in interventions, in places like Vietnam and Korea) is that we were restrained by the threat that the situation would escalate into a full-out war between rival superpowers. Today, that threat is muted. What holds us back now? International law? Some set of universal moral principles? What should hold us back, and what should justify us when we act?

Michael: Since I’m probably one of the few guys in this bar who actually HAS a music degree, (from this prestigious university, no less), let me encourage you to encourage Clay to get a degree that is actually worth something, like – I dunno – sociology or psychology or maybe 8th Century Albanian Literature.

Michael: It occured to me that if Clay is thinking of doing music as a degree, he needs to at least think of applying to the Indiana University School of Music. It’s the top music program that a public university can offer. My wife graduated from it, and I can tell you, it is incredibly rigorous. Music students at IU are among the most overworked on campus, but they do well and have a leg up on everyone else. For evidence, may I give Joshua Bell, an IUSOM grad, as well as Angela Brown, who, if you watched it, sang “How Great Thou Art” at the national day of mourning for Hurricane Katrina.

Of course, going to IU might be hard for hardcore UK fans to fathom, but just some brotherly advice. And, of course, I’ll buy beer for him and all his freshman friends (jn).

Alex asks “I thought it might be cool to be a Truly Reformed this Halloween (ain’t that a scary thing), but I can’t figure how to dress. Any ideas?”

Personally, I’d find one of the few elect people in the world and go as him.

Dale: You’re right, Jurisdiction is a vital part of just war theory. Thanks for the qualification – it is important.

Douglas: I think your attention is focused on realms theological whilst I am thinking in terms political. If you mean, “most people are self-absorbed all the time”, then I agree with you. But as a statement of the dominant political philosophy of the day, I still assert that we live in a country of State Worshippers.

The Philosophy of Liberty states that I am obligated to acknowledge the individual sovereignty of all selves, not merely my own self. My rights are limited by the rights of other selves.

In contrast, State-Worshippers assert the primacy of their own individual rights over that of other selves. The only limit to their rights is the limit of their power. They come together and form common-interest groups and corporately appropriate the property of other selves, steal the time of other selves and take the lives of other selves. More »« Less

Why don’t you just wear Perkins’ chain around your neck?

(Anybody gets that and I’ll give you…well, nothing.)

I thought it might be cool to be a Truly Reformed this Halloween (ain’t that a scary thing), but I can’t figure how to dress. Any ideas?

Should I wear sleeves displaying passages from WGT Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology? Should I put tulips in my hair? Should I carry a wax replica of the iMonk’s head on a pike?

Scott: I hate to say this but I think A MAJOR NEWS AGENCY HAS TOUCHED UP YOUR FRAPPER PICTURES TO MAKE YOU LOOK DEMONIC!!!

Actually, you only look half demonic, (one eye) whereas your wife (I assume she’s your wife?) looks completely demonic.

My son Justin is due to graduate from Clarkson this spring with a Bachelor’s in Technical Communications. Until this week his plan was to go on to grad school and eventually obtain a Ph.D and enter the world of academia.

He’s decided he doesn’t want that, and is looking at Medical School.

“thud”

Obviously conflicting emotions are arising here. My son the Doctor? Sure, I can live with that. He’s got the grades (3.8ish). I have no doubt if he sticks with it he can be successful.

My worry is that he decides that this isn’t for him, after he’s racked up 100K in debt. He will graduate Clarkson debt free. But he’ll have to take at least one year and enter a pre-med program.

So wisdom for him is what I’m hoping for. He’s got a good head on his shoulders and I generally trust his judgement, so I’m not losing sleep over this, but it was quite a shock.

Leif: Since you brought up Halloween, I guess it’s confession time. I’m going as Homer Simpson this year… pretty detailed self-made costume. Woo-hoo.

Michael: I know the pain you’re feeling now that baseball is over. Well, I know it mostly from watching it while I giddily hop around and shout “yay” in celebration that the Most Boring Sport on Earth is over with for another 6 months, and has been replaced by a finer sport: Professional and College Football.

But then, I DO tend to be a heartless weener…

OK, one more time, from the top…

If you are telling me that I live in a culture where the choices presented to me are “Worship God” or “Worship Yourself”, I’ll take Door Number One. (At least, I know that’s supposed to be the right answer.)

The choice offered by the Church is “worship God”. In the wider culture, you get any number of idols offered, the two biggest in our day being the State and the Self.

But I live in a world where State Worship is so ubiquitous that it is accepted without question.

And worship of Self is not? What is the tone and message of every advertisement? The implied topic of every self-help book? The very underpining of Enlightenment rationality? The Self as Master of My Fate, Captain of My Soul.

Which political philosophy is more likely to result in a community that harnesses the strength of the strong in defense of the weak, state worship or the philosophy of liberty?

Acutally, neither, because neither really deals with the root issue, Sin. What about the Philosophy of Liberty, taken “as is” in the aphorisms I originally quoted, gives any impetus to self-sacrifice? To a sense of duty and obligation to the community?

The Philosophy of Liberty is the political outworking of Classical Economics. It recognizes the essentially self-centered nature of man and provides a philosophical context for that selfishness while simultaneously addressing the thoroughly Godly characteristic of defending the weak from the strong.

Ever read Peter Kreeft’s Socratic dialogue books? He shows in one instance how “classical capitalist economics” is, in point of fact, based on greed. I suppose that is “recognizing the self-centered nature of man”, but the “simultaneous addressing of defending the weak” is where I begin to lose their train of thought. Whatever moderating influence there is in that philosophy, is not native to it.

The Philosophy of Liberty addresses the inate selfishness of man and says “You have a right to your own time, property and life, but you do NOT have a right to mine.”

More like “plays up to it” in my eyes.

I have little patience with superlative claims for any philosophy or system of economics. Statism is flawed, though based on some right insights about the vital importance of community. The PoL is flawed, though based on some right insights about the dignity of the individual. And the scary thing is, our society manages to overdo both. I guess I’m getting cynical in my old age, but from my vantage point every human system of government and economics is gonna break at some point. We’re fallen, and therefore it’s just going to happen, no matter how many checks & balances you try to build into the plans. Capitalism may work for a bit longer than socialism; individualized liberty may promulgate a bit less evil than collectivism, but sooner or later the inherent flaws in each will catch up to it, and it will crumble.

The only thing that will survive until the End is the Church. And even that is simply a manifestation of God’s mercy, and not anything inherent in us.

Dan Edelen links the current IMonk piece. Thanks Dan!

Sacred Sandwich has a new sponsor.

Do reformed bloggers ever get tired of talking about the same ten subjects?

I recently subscribed to First Things and Touchstone. I’m on my third issue of each. Both are excellent magazines that you ought to be reading.

Baseball is over. This is a huge thing for me. Really a problem. You have no idea how much my MLB.com Gameday audio helps me around here. A game will put me right to sleep at night. Keeps my mind of other “stuff.” How long till Spring Training? If the Reds aren’t sold, I think I am going to follow someone else this year. (If it weren’t for TV that would be a solid decision.)

Lots of grown-up stuff happening on campus. Two staff families are caring for aging parents. Another staff family has an unborn child that’s not going to make it. Real life is everywhere. I hate that some of us are supposed to make other people think about heaven instead of earth. That seems wrong.

Clay has tried out for All-State choir today, and he felt that he did well. If he makes it, it will be a tremendous encouragement to him in his vocational journey. He’s being photographed tomorrow for senior superlatives (“Most Dramatic”) and he’s going for the Johnny Cash look.

leif: I have the same reaction about Halloween, and we hardly celebrate at all. I appreciate those who speak for themselves, and we’ve made a lot of progress at OBI, but I don’t like the superstitiousness of so much of the opposition to it, and I don’t like the inability to see the paralells with the days of the week, etc.

We went to our first meeting of the local homeschool fellowship. The speaker had written an article that said it is a sin to send your daughter to college. I think I will now drink my beer and then knock myself unconscious with the bottle.

http://www.frappr.com/boarsheadtavern

Is that all I have to do?

MOD: I don’t know. I didn’t spend any time looking at it :-)

Put some pictures up people!

Would someone volunteer to set us up a BHT Frapper Map....and then email the addy to Kurt to add to the sidebar?

So, my mom E-mails me tonight and tells me that the local Church of Christ preacher is saying that “the founder of Methodism was against musical instruments in churchand he preached against it.” I’m fairly certain that I’ve read more books without pictures than this guy, not to mention that I’ve read far more Wesley, too, and I’ve never come across this information. Of course, he routinely makes the Methodist church the antagonist of his sermons. Also, Mom noted that one gentleman, a man I respected a great deal, said that we aren’t to choose the type of worship—only God could choose and it doesn’t matter what we want.

My question is twofold:
1) How is the gospel being proclaimed while you are busy telling everyone why the other churches suck?
2) If God chooses the way we worship, why would he choose a style that only 20th century Americans would recognize (and only a handful of them at that)?

I wonder if when Jesus said “True worshippers will worship in spirit and in truth” he meant “spirit” to be “tone deaf a capella” and “truth” to be “I’m F@#$%$ better than you and your baptism sucks!!!!!!”

Probably not.

(1st post with my new Powerbook)

Jack wrote “Just War Theory derives from the thoroughly Christian idea of the strong exerting themselves in defense of the weak. Such an idea is impossible under a philosophy that treats the State as God.”

Jack, I would make one modification, and that has to do with jurisdiction/authority. “Might doesn’t make right”.

Up until recently, one thing that every just war theorist discussed was the jurisdiction to intervene. Just because something we disagree with is happening doesn’t mean that we have the authority to intervene. One method of granting that authority is having a treaty between two countries.

My bottom line: God has not called the USA to be the policemen of the world.

No, it’s not impetigo.

I have a sickness when it comes to Christians bashing Halloween. For some reason, I always get upset by it. It’s weird; I can hear Christians bash lots of things I don’t think are sinful, and I just shrug or make fun or laugh or roll my eyes.

But Halloween. That one gets my goat. My reactions range from anger (for instance at people I have known who try to cram their conviction down everyone else’s throat) to plain old frustration (such as at Mr. Edelen’s argument or Bonnie’s). I can’t help it: I read Edelen’s article and I can’t help but think, “How silly!”

I suppose some would say it’s just the Hody Spitit convicting me, but I don’t think that’s it. I don’t know what it is.

But while I try to find out, I have compiled a Halloween Manifesto. To whit:

I think trick-or-treating is not begging, since it is expected at Halloween. If I sent my kids out with bags on March 12th, it would be weird.

I think scary stuff at Halloween is great. The scarier the better: spooky sound effects tapes, gaudy bloody heads at Halloween Express, fake electric chairs, corpses hanging from trees, zombies, Bill Clinton masks, devil suits, fake blood, fake gaping wounds, all of it. Any attempt to sanitize it so it’s more palatable is just silly. It’s make-believe!

I think walking door-to-door with your kid as he/she “begs” for candy is one of the most fun, memorable things you can do as a family. The cool night air, the voices of other kids in the background, dimly-viewed flocks of people crossing the street up ahead in vaguely familiar costumes, cars driving at 2 or 3 to avoid hitting any kids, the smell of wood burning: it’s all memory-rich stuff. And watching your kid as the door opens and they stand there in all their costumed glory, that expectant look on their face as they wait for the adult to recognize their costume and exclaim over it or make a joke: priceless.

And I think people who don’t participate in Halloween for religious reasons are being scared off by one of the most ridiculous, pointless, legalistic, literalistic, and unimaginative false alarms of all time.

Douglas: You & are in violent agreement about the end state of self-worship. If you are telling me that I live in a culture where the choices presented to me are “Worship God” or “Worship Yourself”, I’ll take Door Number One. (At least, I know that’s supposed to be the right answer.)

But I live in a world where State Worship is so ubiquitous that it is accepted without question.

Are baseball players taking drugs? Get the STATE to to make them stop!
Do homosexuals want to marry? Get the STATE to “legalize” it!
Are adults ingesting substances that other adults don’t like? Get the STATE to make those subbstances illegal!
Is some single mother making a living as an unlicensed hair stylist? Get the STATE to stop her!
Is somebody driving their car without a government-issued identification? Get the STATE to impound their car! More »« Less

Dan Edelen gives his unique version of a non-crazy thumbs down on Halloween.

Kathleen Neilson recommends reading great books as a Christian discipline. (Let’s remember, btw, that the “book recommendation” thread is in response to Challie’s “Five Books For College Freshman” thread.)

Lurker Myron sends in this post on a college reading program:

I probably have a different perspective from most, in that I attended a Christian University and was a member of the University Scholars program. The reading required by the program certainly isn’t for everyone, and probably wouldn’t work as a general requirement for all students, but I am very appreciative of having gone through the history of Western Civilization by encountering all these source texts.

Here’s the list: http://www.spu.edu/acad/univ-scholars/books04.html

I just realized that tomorrow I leave for fall break and had not even told you guys anything about it! Just wanted to let you know that tomorrow Whitney, Lauren, and I (aka “The Prague Team”!) are leaving for Siena, Italy. We will be there for three nights, then in Florence, Italy for 2 nights. Then we spend the rest of the break, until Sunday, in Nice, France. That way we are getting to see Tuscany and the French Riveria! I am excited especially about Nice because it is close to Monaco/Monte Carlo and Cannes, and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s characters are always bashing around Monte Carlo! Keep us in your thoughts and prayers. I promise we will be safe and smart! Love, -Noel

Since when did we start recommending books?

Anyway…

Catch-22 by Joseph Heller. It’s hilarious, and somehow manages to make some serious points about the putative absurdity of human relationships.

Faith and Rationality, eds. Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff. This is a collection of essay on (you guessed it) faith and rationality. Al Plantinga’s piece “Reason and Belief in God” changed my whole philosophical/apologetical outlook.

Give War a Chance by P.J. O’Rourke. This book might be a bit dated (it was published in 1990), but it’s funny.

Worship, Community and the Triune God of Grace by James Torrance. What F and R did for me philosophically, this book did for me theologically.

Choke by Chuck Palahniuk. A biting satire of modern self-help culture, and, in general, the culture of therapy.

And yeah, I’m a freak.

Jack: From my vantage point, self-worship (the ultimate end of the “Philosophy of Liberty”) is no better than State-worship. Trading one idol for another, just because the other idol is not the idol du jour, is no real improvement.

“Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners.” – Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Ch. 5

Douglas: I agree with your criticism of the Philosophy of Liberty – We do not belong to ourselves, but to Christ. However…

...under the Philosophy of Liberty, I can choose to give myself to Christ. (Let’s leave the dead-horse theological issues of free-will aside for the moment while we talk political philosophy, okay?) That option is simply not available to me if the State is my God.

Just War Theory derives from the thoroughly Christian idea of the strong exerting themselves in defense of the weak. Such an idea is impossible under a philosophy that treats the State as God.

Either my life belongs to God, or it belongs to something else. In our world, “something else” means either “The State” or “Me”. Because the State declares, “Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me”, we must either bow down or resist. The Philosophy of Liberty is simply means of resistance and a step on the path toward Christ. Is it the end of the path? Of course not. But it is a step in the right direction.

Of course, let’s not forget that during that entire time of apostasy, there were always small pockets of Baptists, tracing all the way back to the early church, leaving a “trail of blood” behind. After all, the first real Baptist was indeed John the Baptist. JN

I would think it would go like this…
0 to 90 AD (When Revelation was written) True Church.
90 to 1972 AD Apostasy. Dang Catholics.
1972 AD My Church was founded.
2001 AD I went forward and prayed the sinner’s prayer.

I had a great AP English teacher my senior year in high school, and we were introduced to the “conversation” way of looking at things, though she never actually called it that. Our first semester we had to read (some of it was Summer reading): The Book of Job, Voltaire’s Candide, The Metamorphosis, Angela’s Ashes, Hamlet, and Song of Solomon by Toni Morrison. We discussed, and wrote about, what each work had to say about good/evil, suffering, God, and man.

I would like to see evangelical college undergrads read a church history. It doesn’t matter which one. Young evangelicals are literally clueless about why they are what they are, and they think that the greatest victory of the church was CCM or something. To thoughtfully read a church history would give them some sense of the “conversations” the church has had within herself, and has had with the world. In high school here’s what I knew about church history:

AD35-250 The True Church 250- The Roman Corruption of the Church 1000- The corrupted church splits over icons or something 1500- Luther and Calvin reform the church 1776- God begins America 1999- I go to the altar

Everyone deserves to know more than that, but unfortunately I go to a college that is full of evangelicals who don’t.

I don’t think “Fruity Tales” would go over well in the Christian bookstores.

Douglas wrote, “Don’t you don’t remember my “King George and the Ducky” rant?

Indeed! That’s why I said I wasn’t picking on you with that comment.

The sentiment I expressed? That’s a reaction to other people who I’ve heard say that seeing King David as a fruit doesn’t bother them but Aragon does.

Oh, and by the way: why isn’t it called “Fruity Tales” since most of the critters therein are actually fruits and not vegetables.

How has Chesterton not gotten on any lists here? “Orthodoxy” is much more required reading than “Mere Christianity”. Not only is Chesterton funnier, he’s a better writer and has a bigger intellect. Comparing Chesterton to Lewis is like comparing Sun and Moon.

(By the way, I hate the banner quote. It might be true, but why can’t we be idealistic?)

Dale: Don’t you don’t remember my “King George and the Ducky” rant?

Annie: if you read only anthologies, that’s not good, but mixing anthologies with whole works is OK. (Incidentally, that’s the approach my Philosophy class in seminary took.) And even an anthology is better than just reading what somebody else says some philosopher said…

I don’t have five just yet, but I would add:

Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis: A standard text book of Christian apologetics for 40 years, Lewis demonstrates candor and eloquence about subjects that never cease to confront the mind while deciphering the litany of incompatible ideas one inevitably encounters in college. Balancing general theism, ethics, and Christian practices of faith, Lewis will leave his mark on the impressionable mind that will last for years to come.

The Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis: A remarkable work in rhetoric exposing the cleverness of deceit that artfully lifts the mind out of naivety. Lewis masterfully employs his indubitable wit and irony in the one-sided fictional correspondence between an experienced demon and junior tempter. Matters of good an evil are dealt with intelligently avoiding pitfalls of absolutism and relativism, and everyday ideologies are shown to be defective and abused.

Provocations by Soren Kierkegaard: This is an edited collection of SK’s spiritual writings that is rewarding to read on almost every level. Like the popularity of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil among secular students, Provocations is to the Christian looking for similarly accessible philosophical nuggets that give relevant commentary on faith, life, and absurdity.

Challies list is so ridiculous, I may never go back to his blog again. Amen Joel and Michael.

Plato. Aquinas. Calvin. Kierkegaard. Nietzche. Try that and see what comes out on the other side.

Me. :-)

An awareness of the breadth of human thought and an ability to think critically about issues rather than just react.

If you made me read Challies list as my scholastic introduction I wouldn’t want to have anything to do with the intellectual world either.

Question for the educators here – My undergrad degree included a great deal of anthologies, lots and lots of them. Kaufman’s three part philosophy anthology which had 20-80 pages of exerpts from every major philosopher (almost half of one volume was plato), had to read lots of “History of philosophy” by Copleston , which I still pull out to read in bed after Joel makes me realize how much I don’t know, Norton’s anthologies of western and english lit – included many complete works like king lear, etc. . .

Is such a “anthology” approach a disadvantage? I really appreciated the breadth of exposure I had, enough to give me somewhat of a intellectual “map” and inspire later interest in reading those I had just touched on before. Of course, entire works were about half of my reading as well, which is important for at least learning how to fully develop and complete and argument or work of literature.

Michael, I’m sure you already know this, but those same students you see also come to college. I admit to some naivety about that when I left Oneida to teach college—I think I really secretly assumed that the students I encountered would have undergone some radical insight between high school and college. Not so. It is so disheartening to try to teach students how to write an argumentative paper. But I refuse to give in and offer them some fluffy “Ten Ways to Change Someone’s Mind” or something. I forcefeed them rhetoric (while trying to make it as pleasant and engaging as possible), and it actually sticks to some of them.

And although I can’t speak to the Christianity of my students, the glimpses I get (like when we debate prayer in school or posting of 10 Cs) are not encouraging in terms of any introspection or real thought.

Here’s what I see among “serious” Christian kids from evangelical churches and families:

1) They have no concept of the intellectual life. Not of its joys or its pleasures.
2) They are shallow, abhoring serious reading and avoiding reading in general.
3) They write and speak poorly.
4) They are, to use a Washington Post phrase, “easily led” by pseudo-intellectuals and intellectual lightweights.
5) They think YEC is major league intellectual warfare.
6) They think minor league apologetics destroys challenges to Christian belief.
7) They have little sense of vocation, and are inclined to “missions” (but not to any vocation in missions,) youth ministry and Christian music.
8) They are addicted to entertainment, and absorb the norms of the culture without any serious Biblical engagement with what they see.
9) They think emotionally, and can thus be scarily hateful to those they disagree with.
10) They are naively conservative, thinking of politics almost completely in terms of abortion, school prayer, etc.

IOWs…Alex is a freak. (jn)

I can introduce you to hundreds of these students. And I can’t really blame them, because they have so few models of anything else. When they bump into a Ravi Z, it’s a major discovery. And if they become Calvinists, well….you all know that story.

About Lord of the Beans, Douglas writes “Lord of
the Beans is released on Saturday. Where’s my Cuisinart?”

I’m not picking on Douglas here, but I’ve heard this sentiment from others: where it bugs them that fictional character Aragorn is a veggie. But it doesn’t bug them that King David is.

OK, is it just me or is that not upside down?

The Republic (Plato) – encapsulation of Greek Platonic thought

Discourse on Method (Descartes) – the foundation of Enlightenment philosophy

Pensees (Pascal) – the original (and best) critique of Descartes & modernism

Twilight of the Idols (Nietzsche) – where the Enlightenment ended up

The Institutes of the Chrisitan Religion (Calvin) – what classic Protestantism really looks like

Any other ideas?

Challies says

Those are definitely interesting choices, but, with all due respect, I’m not sure it is an awfully effective list. Perhaps the occasional student who fancies himself a real intellectual and has a full scholarship would have time and inclination to read those titles. I would suggest, though, that very few students would make it through that list of books.

Hello Michael:

I’ve been a lurker a little while now of the BHT (and I, incidentally, am a member of Tates Creek Presbyterian Church in Lexington, KY where Joel is), and thought I’d mention something about your post on books for Christian college students/the Great Conversation.

First off, I whole-heartedly agree with what you are saying. In fact, I am incredibly thankful I never had any such “bunny” classes, thanks to a fantastic college education. I went to a very unique college, where there is only 1 major: Liberal Arts. (It breaks down into a double major in Philosophy and the History of Math & Science with double minors in Comparative and Classical Lit.) I heartily recommend checking out the curriculum of my alma mater: St. John’s College in Annapolis, MD and Santa Fe, NM ( www.sjca.edu and the reading list is found here: http://www.sjca.edu/asp/main.aspx?page=1302 ).

Interestingly, I would say that less than 15% of the student body is Christian. As for involvement in our 1 multi-denominational Christian Fellowship, that number went down to maybe 8-10%. This curriculum tends to attract agnostics, atheists, and skeptics more than anything else. Yet we all shared a common thread: the pursuit of truth. We all desired to learn how to think. We didn’t have grades; they were only given for the purpose of graduate school, and I never saw them until after I graduated (in May 2004). The focus was in writing and discussing, carrying on the Great Conversation about these texts. If you know of any high-schoolers who would have an appetite for this sort of learning, I’d encourage you to recommend this college. Expensive, yes. Worth it, absolutely. There need to be more sensitive Christian thinkers (and leaders) willing to engage the intellectual community…. (There is also a graduate program, but it is slightly “abridged.”)

Thought you might be interested!
Cheers!

Kristi

And Douglas, you can join my AP Eng IV Class anytime :-)

Michael: I concur. I took AP English in High School, and hated it. We were stuck in the middle of change – we still read the English “classics”, but we weren’t told what they signified or how they fit into the wider scheme of culture and thought. I only really understood my High School English after I took philosophy in seminary.

And another thing – second- and third-hand regurgitations of philosophy and theology (like How to Stay Christian in College) won’t do. Our Philosophy teacher insisted we wrestle with the original texts. We didn’t read what Gordo Clark thought was wrong about Nietzsche – we read Nietzsche.

And before you can even get to that point, we’ve got to teach kids how to read, and how to think. Basic stuff like how to follow arguments, how to spot fallacies, how to be critical (and *self-*critical) of our presuppositions. But if your concern is to “keep them on the reservation”, that might set some bad precendent, wouldn’t it?

Sigh

Those are definitely interesting choices, but, with all due respect, I’m not sure it is an awfully effective list. Perhaps the occasional student who fancies himself a real intellectual and has a full scholarship would have time and inclination to read those titles. I would suggest, though, that very few students would make it through that list of books. I would like to propose what I consider a more realistic list of five books.

One fundamental difference between White’s list (three cheers) and Challies’ (raspberry) is this: one list invites you to think; the other list tells you what to think.

Josh, nothing in particular. Just my lame attempt at humor.

Now if y’all will excuse me, I’ve got to get back to my documentary about Heidegger’s 1942 lecture course on H๖lderlin’s hymn ‘The Ister’.

Challies has a post on this Hugh Hewitt question, asked at his new Godblogthing:

“Please recommend the five books you would have a Christian college student read who was interested in deepening his or her faith but who also had all the time constraints and background education of most college kids today. (In other words, no Summa Theologica or Institutes.)”

I think it is interesting that Hewitt left off two books that would certainly have been considered undergrad reading for the last couple of centuries. The question raises an issue that I think needs to be addressed: Most college students know almost nothing about the world of ideas or the intellectual history of the West. Their “education” is a collection of feel-good courses and bunny classes. I know students who are paying $300 an hour for material available in better form from from Ligonier, and in some cases for classes like “Creative Ministries,” where you learn to perform skits.

Why not expect college students to read and write? Why not expect them to be acquainted with the Great Conversation? How much of the current tedious political atmosphere is the result of our paltry acquaintance with ideas and those who have wrestled with these questions before us?

Books for the Christian College Student: Plato. Aquinas. Calvin. Kierkegaard. Nietzche. Try that and see what comes out on the other side.

Josh, this looks like you missed a prime opportunity for you to complete your touring wardrobe.

Be sure and read the seller Q&A.

As I was assembling the links to the One Week Website Exchange, I found myself watching Jack’s bonus link, a Flash show on The Philosophy of Liberty. As I watched it, I found myself getting more and more irate. So, I’ll have to break the rule and start my commenting one week early.

Here are the aphorisms from the first few slides of the show…

The Philosophy of Liberty
Is based on the principle of self-ownership

No other person, or group of persons, owns your life
Nor do you won the lives of others

This is wrong, wrong, wrong – because of who we are as Christians.

The Philosophy of Christ
is based on the principle of Christ’s Cross

And not only Christ, but those whom He has placed in your life – your family, your church, your people – own your life too, and you own theirs

Jack, before you go making individual liberty the highes