And, I think we’ll include it in our new membership rules. There would be no need for house church escape-ism if everyone just behaved themselves.

Well, it is here. ;-)

Parents with babies don’t get to go out on new year’s eve, and mothers of babies don’t get to stay awake till midnight, so I’ve been seeing in the new year alone – well, alone except for Jools Holland and his Hootenanny (a now-immovable fixture in the new year TV schedules).

Eddie “Knock on Wood” Floyd has still got it, y’know. Floyd, the septuagenarian who saw in the new year, knocked spots off the sexagenarian who saw out the old year: Sir Paul…

I’m also seeing in the new year with a pleasant glass of the bourbon that Joel bought me after our youngest was born in September. Cheers, Joel!

As for Rowan Williams: I used to be very “anti” him, but I’ve really come round to him. Alas, he’s the ABC who was left with the Anglican parcel when the music stopped, so he’ll be remembered as the incumbent who saw the Anglican Communion disintegrate around him. But I’m repeatedly struck by how he is clearly a spiritual leader of world significance, in contrast to his immediate predecessor.

As a spiritual figure, I think he’ll come to be seen as the most important ABC since William Temple. As a leader of the church in the “political” sense, he got thrown a hospital pass, and sadly that’s what he’ll be remembered for.

A Rowan Williams’ message on the environment from earlier this month. I’m not in anyone’s camp on global warming, but I like the way he approaches this topic. I find it an impressive example of Williams’ grasp of issues in a classically Christian way.

Same with this talk on AIDS.

Great Olan Mills photos. Put your drink down. This is seriously funny. I doubt that Steve and Joe approved that one, but it is as hilarious as ever.

Hey, I said, take it with a grain of salt, but nope, you’re not allowed to preach a clinker on Christmas. It’s got to be gospel, spot-on, and unemcumbered. It’s not time to talk about the environment, or the Iraq war, or abortion, or positive thinking pyscho babble, what have you.

One reason Osteen sells lots of books, is that his communication savy is incredible. It would be a good exercise to compare Osteen’s Christmas to the Bishop Rowan and see who said more that the non-Christian could understand.

NOW THAT I HAVE THE TEXT of Rowan’s sermon, I completely retract and recant any suggestion he is on the same playing field as a self help speaker like Osteen…..

MOD: All penance here is the same. Attend Watch Night services at a real church.

On the word of an avowed atheist who calls Williams a New Ager, and with the obvious knowledge that anyone can preach a clunker, you are announcing that Osteen > Williams, even though you haven’t read the sermon.

Is that correct?

Let me suggest you go to Williams’ web site and read a few things, then decide if he’s “new age” because he has a theology that includes ecology. Here’s the end of his printed Christmas sermon.

The birth of Jesus, in which that power which holds the universe together in coherence takes shape in history as a single human body and soul, is an event of cosmic importance. It announces that creation as a whole has found its purpose and meaning, and that the flowing together of all things for the joyful transfiguration of our humanity is at last made visible on earth.

WARNING:  ON REFLECTION, this was a stupid post…. SORRY!

According to this Atheist, Brendan O’Neill, a columnist at Spiked, Rowan Williams used his Christmas sermon to give out ethical advice, not to preach the gospel. If this is true, then Joel Osteen is superior to Williams. Perhaps the text of this is available somewhere? I remember the last bit of journalism on Williams was very unfair, so take this with a grain of salt until we get a second witness….

In his Christmas sermon, delivered at Canterbury Cathedral, Dr Williams finally completed his journey from old-world Christianity to trendy New Ageism. His sermon was indistinguishable from those delivered (not just at Christmas but for life) by the heads of Greenpeace or Friends of the Earth. Williams did not speak about Christian morality; in fact, he didn’t utter the m-word at all. He said little about men’s responsibility to love one another and God, the two Commandments Jesus Christ said we should live by. Instead he talked about our role as janitors on planet Earth, who must stop plundering the ‘warehouse of natural resources’ and ensure that we clean up after ourselves.

Velveeta is not entirely unlike cheese.  Miracle Whip is, as its name implies, a heavenly spread.  Pickles are a bonus.

Velveeta (whatever that is), Miracle Whip and dill pickles: Bill, are you pregnant? (jn)

There.  I said it.  I don’t care who knows it.

I spent many, many childhood lunchtimes scarfing down Velveeta and Miracle Whip sandwiches.  Sometimes I added dill pickles if I wanted to be radical.

Joel: thanks for responding. Hope your cold improves quickly. I would be very interested in reading your dissertation intro – my email address is in the sidebar.

...this notion that quantum mechanics proves that “consciousness” determines the outcomes of physical reality is utter rubbish…

Quite. But my understanding of MWI is that, for better or worse, it is an attempt to remove the need for the involvement of “consciousness”, “measurement”, “observation” etc, in contrast to the Copenhagen interpretation.

As for the agnosticism of most physicists: that again is true (most scientists are as unphilosophical about their trade as this lawyer is about his), though I’m not sure what that proves about the validity or otherwise of MWI. Again, while I find MWI either incredible or disturbing or both, I have some sympathy with the argument someone made that at least Everett was concerned to produce a physics that actually explained the world, rather than joining the rest of physics in a retreat into a formalism that “worked” but without any apparent link with reality.

That said, it would seem that the best summary of MWI would be: “In order to explain reality, it became necessary to destroy it”. (jn)

Jim: what you say makes sense as regards US law, though I have no idea whether you are legally correct. In the UK, though, we are far less enlightened, and ripping CDs is an unambiguous infringement of copyright. Like I care. (jn)

sigh

The ministry where I work was giving away orange sherbert, Velveeta cheese and boneless, skinless chicken breasts today. It’s good to be part of this family.

The Comedic Family Tree of Jerry Seinfeld. I enjoyed most of these comics growing up.

Critical engagement with Piper here and here. How can these things be?

David Head has some good discipleship pursuits for the New Year.

These words from a pro-Osteen commenter at IM. Wow.

Who cares if he preaches the Bible messages or not. Perhaps the gospel’s messages are too old and stale and need a new interpretation; after all God hasn’t spoken again. I like to hear Osteen’s messages of hope and hard work because he propels you to look inside yourself and fix things up; don’t wait for God to do it for you; take charge, take responsibility and move on. The Gospels appeal to the poor or anyone that is not satisfy with life because they offer hope, but I never see Bill Gates, Warren Buffet or the like needing or looking for gospel messages. I like Osteen’s new hope. I don’t have to feel guilty for wanting something better for my family or myself. Osteen is not preaching envy and jealousy, but hard work and desire to conquer the barriers to carry you or me to the next level. It’s a new message of giving our gift “purpose” here on earth. Don’t wait for resurrection or eternal life, give it now. We don’t have any warranties that we’ll make it to the “eternal life” if any. Personally, I’m tired of others having what I desire and need the most while waiting for “things to get better with eternal life.” God left us his words; it’s up to us to make them work for as long as we need them. We shut down God every time we divert from our true purpose – the gift He sent us to experiment (sic) LIFE. Live and allow others to live – help others to live as well. Fill HIS purpose and you will feel GOD inside you like never before.

the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer

If the material is protected by copyright, the RIAA’s attorney is either simply dead wrong legally, or the article misinterpretes his argument. The only way that the owner of a work can pull this sort of thing off is by explicitly not copyrighting the work, and instead releasing it under a licensing agreement – like the shrink wrap licenses on software products.

If you own a published copyrighted work of any kind, you have a right – inherent in the copyright itself – to make copies of the work for “archival” purposes. It’s illegal to share those copies with others (although I presume it would be hard to enforce it if the man kept his originals in storage and ‘lent’ his archival copies), and it’s illegal to use them for commercial purposes, but there’s nothing directly wrong with copying a CD to your computer.

I suspect quite strongly that the argument is being misunderstood, although it’s possible that Schwartz is simply grandstanding with an argument that he knows won’t hold up under legal scrutiny in an attempt to either garner press attention or bully the plaintif. Either way, the article confusing and alarmist. An argument in a lawsuit is not a legal precident; it’s essentially the product of a creative writing session.

Blogged with Flock

A philosopher’s job fair?  Were representatives from Denny’s there?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.  I majored in philosophy in college and we told jokes like that on ourselves all the time. ;-)

Back from our philosopher’s “job fair” and I’ve exhausted myself into a cold, but I’ll briefly respond John. The various interpretations of quantum mechanics arise mainly from the measurement problem (which is the subject of my dissertation) and trying to beat some conceptual sense into a formalism that includes concepts like ‘measure’ or ‘observe’ in its fundamental axioms. The MWI is a way to preserve the Schrodinger dynamics without the “collapse” of the wave function—all possible outcomes are realized. I think the MWI is total fantasy. In my encounters with physicists, most do not believe MWI is true. Most seem to be agnostic about quantum ontology and are content to just “do science” with it because the formalism as is—inconsistent though it may be—works. The physicists who are interested in the foundations of physics (which means that they think ontology matters) tend to look at Bohm’s interpretation as the most likely true one.

The introduction to my dissertation examines the ways in which quantum mechanical interpretations have been seized upon in popular culture and why I think that interest has more to do with socio-historical factors than scientific ones. In particular, this notion that quantum mechanics proves that “consciousness” determines the outcomes of physical reality is utter rubbish and only shows that we spiritually-starved Western humans will gobble up any fantasy that promises that we are the masters of our own destiny. I argue that quantum mechanics is indeed mysterious, but that fabricating a mysticism out of it is cheap and too easy. If you’d like a copy of the intro, shoot me an email.

I’m still hoping that Joel will pass by and comment on my “many worlds” blathering from yesterday. My fellow Brit-theo-blogger Phil Walker (a physicist and MWI-sceptic) emailed me with some thoughts on the subject, including drawing my attention to his post highlighting how a “god” who can see all possible outcomes for the universe – the uncollapsed wave function of all quantum possibilities – cannot be the God who has acted decisively in history to produce one outcome.

I did find a page with FAQs about the many-worlds interpretation, but it got blocked by the internet filter on the computer system at work:

Access to the site hedweb.com is being denied because it is currently listed in the drugs category…

Well, you can see where the confusion would arise, can’t you? (sw)

If Bloomberg wants to spend a few million to get less than 5% of the vote, he’s welcome to do so.

Well, he might get lucky and find that the BBC awards him victory in Pennsylvania (like they did, all too briefly, with Ross Perot in 1992). (jn)

Joe Carter has a Thirty-three Things full of end of the year lists. Lots of interesting stuff.

This one is of interest to Biblical studies.

If Bloomberg wants to spend a few million to get less than 5% of the vote, he’s welcome to do so. That 5% will come from Democrats. Bloomberg’s record in NYC is a collection of Nanny State laws that won’t play at all in the South or West. Besides, in a debate the man will be demolished. You can’t buy the ability to articulate.

On the “Solemnity of Mary”: sigh This is the sort of thing that really sets me back. You have no idea how hard I am working on the right attitude toward Roman Catholicism, but here you have the addition of ANOTHER Marian feast right in the middle of Christmas, AS IF WE NEEDED ANOTHER ONE.

January 1 – Solemnity of Mary
January 8 – Our Lady of Prompt Succor
February 2 – Presentation of the Lord
February 11- Our Lady of Lourdes
March 25 – Annunciation
May 31 – Visitation
June 27 – Our Mother of Perpetual Help
July 16 – Our Lady of Mount Carmel
August 15 – Assumption
August 22 – Queenship of Mary
September 8 – Birth of Mary
September 12 – The Most Holy Name of Mary
September 15 – Our Lady of Sorrows
September 24 – Our Lady of Walsingham, England
October 7 – Our Lady of the Rosary
October 8 – Our Lady of Good Remedy
November 21 – Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary
December 8 – Immaculate Conception
December 12 – Our Lady of Guadalupe

While I’m on the subject, an RC church near here advertises itself as a place where “you can get to know Jesus, his Father, his Mother and the Holy Spirit.” Sorry, but that sentence has some major problems, and anyone who can’t admit it is being less than truthful. No church should claim that you can “get to know” Mary in the way you can come to “know” Jesus. Criminy.

All in all, it’s simply this little bit of gymnastics all over again: “If we are the true church, and you can believe that, then you can swallow all our mistakes, too, under the label “infallibility.” If that’s making it reasonable to consider reunion, I’m an aardvark.

President Bloomberg, anyone?

This superb critical comment on Sydney Anglicanism has a lot to say to evangelicals further afield. Hands up if any of this rings true with your own church experience (I’ll be typing this one-handed, with my other hand raised firmly aloft): middle-class, culturally limited, inability to engage with unfamiliar modes of thought, simplistic evangelistic techniques, failure to listen to what cultural phenomena (e.g. the Da Vinci Code) may be saying to/about the church, failure to minister to groups such as Sydney’s large gay population, a simplistic and ill-informed attitude towards Islam, church growth fuelled largely by transfers from other congregations rather than by conversions of non-Christians, and all this in the face of a society in which there are deeply-rooted reasons (read: capitalism) why the church has little relevance for most people.

(HT: Craig.)

Michael: the sad thing about turning 1 January into a Solemnity of the BVM – as if there weren’t already enough of those (jn) – is that it distracts attention from the day’s previous theme: lying in bed till noon with a monstrous hangover the circumcision of Christ.

Other churches have also edged away from the icky physicality of “the feast of the circumcision” by re-titling it “the naming of Christ”, but celebrating 1 January as the feast of the circumcision is a Good Thing because (a) it reminds us that Jesus was truly human in general and Jewish in particular, and (b) it is the first time on which Jesus shed his blood for the sake of those he came to save, taking upon himself the burden of the law.

This is yet another example of Rome faffing about with the church calendar for no good reason (another is shifting the dates of the feast of the Epiphany and Ascension Day), and a reminder that if you want to find the western catholic tradition today, you need to look somewhere else other than Rome. (Hint, hint…) (jn)

As for the RIAA: sigh. They probably have a point in terms of the strict legal position. Certainly in the UK, there is no legal exemption from copyright allowing people to make copies of CDs for use on their iPods or PCs. But that’s really just because the law hasn’t caught up with changes in technology, and a recent government-commissioned report in the UK recommended introducing a “format-shifting” right allowing people to do this.

However, as the linked article points out, what the RIAA are doing is trying to protect a defunct business model against reality, torching any remaining credibility in the process. To talk about ripping a CD you have bought onto the iPod you own as “stealing only one copy” is pathetic, and businesses that treat 99% of their customers as criminals are businesses that are on their way to the knacker’s yard. (Except where the business in question is a brothel, a “fence” or a drug dealer, of course…)

And as for the constant propaganda and rhetoric about “stealing” and “theft”: for the fifteen-millionth time, copyright infringement is NOT stealing. Anyone still labouring under that misapprehension is advised to check out this video, which gives an amusing, accurate and balanced account of the true position.

And remember: it’ll be books next.

Eugene Peterson on Christmas. I don’t have to say it, do I? (Did I mention I get to be with him for 2 days in Feb?)

The RIAA are a bunch of….well, I can’t come up with enough bad names to call them…at least those that won’t get censored.

I hope more artists take the approach that Radiohead did this last year…offering their latest release to download for whatever people wanted to pay, even if it was nothing. It reminded me of the late Christian artist Keith Green who, much to the consternation of his record company, Sparrow Records, offered one of his albums to people for whatever they wanted to pay, even if they couldn’t afford to pay a dime. Hopefully the artists will take control and keep their fans in mind (unlike Metallica), and the RIAA will eventually go down to rot and burn in hell.

I’ve been looking at how much emphasis Mary receives in the RC version of the Christian calendar, and the justifications for adding such days. For example, Jan 1 is a Marian feast, recently added by Pope Paul VI.

Several of you are going to jail.

In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer…The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

I’ve just been watching a fascinating documentary about Mark Oliver Everett (lead singer with Eels) setting out to discover more about his late father, Hugh Everett III, who devised the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The documentary’s called Parallel Worlds, Parallel Lives and is well-worth looking out for.

But my question is this: the many-worlds interpretation has become increasingly respectable/fashionable over recent decades. If – and as I understand it, this is still very much a matter of “if” – it becomes widely accepted as an understanding of how the universe works, how are Christians to respond to this?

A lot of nonsense is talked about the many-worlds interpretation, I’m sure – especially when discrete, conscious, human decisions are over-emphasised as the main driver for “splitting” (a mistake the documentary makes). However, given that a (and I emphasise a) salvation-historical narrative is central to Christianity, how do we reconcile that notion of a single, historical narrative of divine action with one in which any notion of a single “privileged” narrative of events is abolished in favour of a superposition of a seemingly-infinite number of possible states?

If all this is too much of a head-trip (and I know it is for me), you can just mosey over to the Eels website and download their album “Blinking Lights and Other Revelations”. Great (double-)album, 33 tracks, $9.99. I’ve had it on near-continuous rotation since Thursday.

The small clinic at Kaival Hospital matches infertile couples with local women, cares for the women during pregnancy and delivery, and counsels them afterward. Anand’s surrogate mothers, pioneers in the growing field of outsourced pregnancies, have given birth to roughly 40 babies.

Blogged with Flock

Wow.  HT indeed.

Mark, Jason: in principle, I agree with you, and with the linked article. In practice: I do most of my music listening on, erm, my iPod in, erk, the car, and frankly a “wide dynamic range” just doesn’t work when you’re clogging down the M25 at 70 mph. (Or, more likely, crawling down the M25 at 10 mph. But the point still stands. (jn))

But at least this is an area in which, for once, the church has been leading the way for centuries. Most congregations wouldn’t recognise a dynamic marking if it bit them. Altogether now (at the top of our voices): “AND IN THE GARDEN SEEE-CRET-LEEEEEE!” (jn)

Mark, the Rolling Stone article is so sad but so true. It’s not happening only in recorded music, either. Several of our church have had sound board training from a studio that works with a lot of church groups in the Twin Cities area. Whether intentional or not, it seems that the overriding lesson we learn there (and that I try to respectfully ignore) is that everything should be balanced to one volume level and separated into its own frequency range.

On one hand, I get the frequency separation. It keeps things from building on top of each other, most often resulting in muddy mid-range problems. On the other hand, the concept of dynamic range is totally lost. I don’t want to sound like I’m knocking one of our best sound guys, but I totally lost him once in a discussion where I told him that one of the things that separates the good musicians from the ones who just reproduce notes is that they play with dynamics. There’s a reason musical scores have notes for pianissimo and forte, and not everything a mezzo-forte.

With good sound people, we should be able to sound check at our loudest levels and have them set our line, then go from there to play, but if we do that, then everyone who knows how to play sensitively gets lost under the piano. This is what happens when live sound is mixed for even loudness instead of ensemble balance.

Matthew: I agree with a lot of what you’re saying there. I’m not saying any of the things I mentioned (church membership, church buildings, educated pastors etc) are bad things. Ditto (to pick up on your point about modalism etc.) creeds and confessions of faith, which are also often scorned by those seeking a more spontaneous, de-institutionalised version of the faith. On the contrary, the experience of the church through the ages has been that these things are necessary to avoid the shipwreck of congregations, denominations or individual believers.

However, when a recognition of the practical necessity and wisdom of such things hardens into a belief that you don’t have the True Church™ without them, then that is where you have a problem. As a matter of ecclesiology – of answering the question, “where is the church to be found?” – then “saints + gospel + sacraments” is all you need. But that’s not to say that’s the only question that needs to be asked. “How is the church to be run most effectively?” is still a valid and important question; just a different question.

Doug Wilson says no way to Huckabee.

Noel (my daughter) is selling more of my library. There are some real bargains on the Anchor Bible Dictionary and The New International Commentary on the New Testament set.

Check out the links at ebay and Half.com to see all the books I’m selling,

How about some 2008 Predictions? More »« Less

Here’s a good article on why modern pop recordings usually don’t sound as good as older ones.

Alan Jacobs writes wistfully of the demise of Anglicanism.

John, who is going to administer the sacraments? I’m not even talking about the ritual that you as a Lutheran or me as a Methodist are used to. Who is going to be the one to take someone into the waters of baptism and baptize them? Who is going to tell the story of the Last Supper, break the bread and pass the cup? Even if they take turns, who decides whose turn is next?

I’m very sympathetic to what Brant is doing, but I see nothing romantic about the inevitable necessity for some type of leadership/authority. I noticed that someone commented that the idea of an eldership was something Paul gave the church and that they want to be like the church before that. Great, but before that the apostles were the leaders and authority. Some day someone in the group is going to defend modalism or Arianism. What are they going to do then? Doesn’t someone need to say, “Hey, that doesn’t jive with a Trinitarian understanding of God.”? Who has the authority to say that?

From the comments in Brant Hansen’s “we quit church” post:

Brant, you have described a gathering of Christians who meet regularly here, but at least from what I have read, you simply have not described the Biblical understanding of a local church. No authoritative teaching (“sermons” is one word for such teaching) from appointed elders? No formal church membership (that is, as indicated from 1 Corintians 5)? No practice for formal exclusion from the church, after following the Biblically mandated processes (again, 1 Cor. 5)? Then, there is simply no church, at least not in the Biblical understanding of the word.

What a depressing (and vaguely fascistic) vision of the church: “authority + formal membership + excommunication”.

Give me the ecclesiology of the Augsburg Confession (and the Thirty-Nine Articles) any day: the church as “saints + gospel + sacraments”. If you have Christians gathered together, hearing the gospel proclaimed to them (which is the true essence of preaching, rather than the fetish for “authority” displayed by some Christians), baptising and receiving the Lord’s Supper together: there is the true church, regardless of whether you also have a membership database installed on the pastor’s PC, a formal excommunication process, a specially-constructed building, a seminary degree certificate on the pastor’s office wall, or any other trappings of “churchly” existence.

A Brant Hansen Christmas Cartoon.

If you haven’t read his latest epistle describing what’s happened after he gave up what we usually call church, you ought to. Esp the comments. People who call ME post-evangelical….ha ha ha.

This sort of rhetoric is going to work for Obama. Hillary shopping at Target is impossible. Now Bill trolling for moms at Target….that’s imaginable.

[name deleted] has a good post on Athanasius and “tradition.”

Oh good grief. “My daddy died in Iraq” is the newest con.

The Exorcism Squad is back.

A new Lutheran blog recommended.

You should have Poetry Foundation on your blogroll, and you should subscribe to the podcasts.

Baptist Theologian Fisher Humphries reviews B16s book on Jesus.

“Loving God and Neighbor Together” is the Christian response to the the Muslim “Common Word Between Us.”

I think I’m going to have to read the Howard book on Catholicism. I’ve been spared the apologists in my area, and my good RCC friends and I respect each other’s Christianity. It’s always good, though, when there’s something that helps people understand each other’s terms and perspective. The worst theological arguments I’ve had are usually a result of not using terms the same way.

I dearly love my RCC friends and consider them brothers in Christ, but Rome has never been a temptation for me. The deal killers for me have always been Infallibility, Magisterium, Mary, and holding things other than scripture at the same level as scripture.

All ye oil consumed, didn’t ye know that a major source of US oil is The Great White North (mostly Alberta, and some Saskatchewan :) )? Currently the known reserves in Canada are second only to that of Saudi Arabia. So what’s the hullabaloo all about then?

It is very interesting to view the RCC from the Orthodox perspective. Then one does not only see the problematic innovations and additions, as well as the centralisation of power, but also the deep philosophical presuppoaitions that accompany these things. Tim Enloe’s deleted post at Ref Cath some weeks ago was actually brilliant in highlighting some of these things, and sparked a debate at Energetic Procession (maybe somebody already mentioned that – I forget). Of course, they go further to a critical analysis of all of the Western Tradition, but it is helpful nonetheless. I’ve also discovered to my interest that the Protestant Tradition that the Orthodox are least antagonistic/most complimentary of is Lutheranism … ;)

Jason: It’s rather remarkable when you consider what progress could be made with the deletion of Rome’s claim to infallibility. It’s also remarkable how essential infallibility is to the entire Roman Catholic case. And, of course, it’s quite appealing to Protestants who have just had enough of hearing voice after voice, author after author, preacher after preacher, on and on and on, all contradicting one another. The relative calm (and I say relative because Howard has searing words for many liberal Catholic bishops and theologians) in the RCC is remarkably attractive.

Face it. No one joins the RCC for preaching or Bible teaching. Howard makes it plain that to be a Catholic is to be the church, the people of God and to participate in all that God is giving to his people by virtue of the sacramental system. Protestants get lots of things right, but when it comes down to it, what Jesus Christ is giving the world is given by way of the RCC, and only overflows secondarily to those related to, but not in communion with, the true church.

It seems to me that the loser here is the Holy Spirit. If I understand Howard correctly, the Catholic view is that the Holy Spirit is almost- almost- exclusively tied to the RCC as an infallible institution and as a dispenser or sacraments. The work of the HS outside the RCC is vaguer than vague. Of course, don’t we all see the appeal of that? TBN is full of people who say they have the Spirit, but it looks mostly like they are crazy, among other things. To say that the HS works in communion with Apostolic succession and through the sacraments of the church- which do not include preaching or the reading of scripture per se apart from mass- is to locate the work of the Spirit in unmistakable ways.

Of course, it’s right there- the freedom of the Holy Spirit to bring people into Christ, establish and gift the church, empower the church for the Gospel, etc- that I feel the most distant from the claims of the RCC, and no amount of good language about the Spirit’s work in Protestantism is going to solve these problems. Christ isn’t building up the church. Christ is building the Roman Catholic church, and the Spirit’s work outside of the bounds of the institution must be referenced to the institution eventually to be valid. I thought both Kreeft and Howard made this plain in ways that are very helpful.

Those of us who had been gloomily awaiting the demise of Thomas’ Endlessly Rocking blog can now relax: his wife talked some sense into him, finally. (sw)

Michael: “I’m left with the irony that the RCC has held on to everything i believe is of value, but added to those things critical- not insignificant- additions that I believe are wrong. The RCC is the church, but it’s contention to be the only church on earth while the rest of us are separated from her- and the many things she has added to tradition and doctrine in the name of infallibility- is a deal breaker for me.”

The contention that a group is the “one true church” based on some addition or faulty interpretation must be the error that defines the ditches in Western Christianity between which the Church lies. (I may be wrong, but I think my analogy breaks down when I add Eastern churches into the mix.)

Phillip: That was a far better way of saying what I was rambling about yesterday.

Jim: That people who hold political opinions that differ from mine are wrong is a given. That does not, however, mean that some of them can’t also be crazy!

People so misunderstand the idea of ad hominem attacks. It makes me sad.
I hate politics and which candidate I loathe the least isn’t something I come to the BHT to contemplate. There are excellent reasons—deal-killers, really—for me to reject every single candidate in the race, and I don’t think that’s ever happened this early in the race before. Maybe I’m just being more realistic this time around.

I’m almost finished with Thomas Howard’s book On Being Catholic. It’s part of a small library of materials sent to me by RC friends in hopes of clearing up my misunderstandings and/or bringing me into the fold.

On Being Catholic is the single most helpful book on the subject that I’ve read- and I’ve read quite a few. It’s extremely personable and well-written. It’s not written in the tone of the polemical, but is quite devotional and “warm.” Howard is a fine writer, easily comparable to a Lewis or a Chesterton in many ways. (He’s also Elizabeth Elliot’s brother, for those who didn’t know.)

Howard chooses an array of topics of common interest to those observing Catholic practice and looks at each one from the standpoint of “being” Catholic, i.e. how do Catholics themselves look at this. So there is some apologia, but not much argumentation. In many ways, Howard seems to say that instead of arguing, why not just stand in the shoes of a Catholic believer and see how the same thing looks. More »« Less

Joel, I hear ya, but I’m not convinced that Iraq’s production capabilities for oil would really amount to all that much for the US. Saudi Arabia produces a lot, as does Russia, several places in South America, etc. For that matter, we pump a lot of it out of the ground. I agree that getting it doesn’t equate to cheap prices directly, but there is some effect. I understand that refineries are producing at max, and we haven’t built a new one in a gazillion years, though one group is trying to get one going near my home town. Even so, I’m not only not opposed, but actively in favor of developing as many other means of energy production as possible. I’m a big fan of solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and yes – NUCLEAR power. Between nuclear energy and even hydrogen (if the technology gets good enough) it would be better in the long run. I’d miss the idea of burning rubber in a sweet muscle car, but perhaps they could even stick around in a specialty market if not every bloody other thing wanted to run on oil-based fuels.

Beyond all that, even if oil is a nice byproduct of a “successful” Iraq mission, it isn’t the only reason to have gone there, right or wrong, which is why I get irritated when it’s trotted out as the one and only reason for blowing things up over there. That said, I do come at all this from a point of view that says launching a conventional military force at an ideology (terrorism) is a screwy strategy at best, with the most likely outcome being lots of pain and suffering.

Bill, I’m with you on the “you break it you own it” idea. It’s too bad we broke it in the first place, but now that it is, we better try damn hard to make it better, even if it is most likely a fools errand.

(See, this is why I don’t like politics. I try to be a good conservative, but sometimes my “team” does things that make me feel like the weird uncle in the family, and the thought of going to the other side makes my stomach churn. I used to have a profile somewhere that described my politics as too conservative to be libertarian, too libertarian to be conservative, and too Christian to be either. It’s a poor description, but it’s as close as I could get.)

Greetings from Jollyblogger-land. I’m overlooking Baltimore’s delightful inner harbor as I blog about how the APA stole Christmas. At 4:00 am this morning, I got up for a 5:20 am flight from Kentucky, which, if measured in geological time, was eons ago. I arrived at the conference and immediately stood in registration lines until my knees buckled. Enjoyed a 3-hr philosophy of physics seminar featuring Sheldon Goldstein. I appreciated Tim Maudlin’s effort to have an actual physicist interact with philosophers.

Thankfully, I do have a few interviews lined up whilst here (tho’, it should be pointed out, not with Calvin, which sent me a PFO letter and is not granting on-site interviews, not that I’m bitter about it at all).

(*) APA = American Philosophical Association

Jason, but it is about the oil. I don’t understand why conservatives recoil from that. Our economy (and the global free market) must have dependable oil production, refinement, and distribution. Because of the economic foundations of our society, it simply is not permissible to allow groups or unstable leaders and regimes to screw around with it. No one, not president, prime minister, emir, priest, or king, can violate the fundamental Laws of Nature. If they do, they must atone. What else can account for the expenditure of trillions of dollars on the war in Iraq, except what is needful to enforce the Law of Nature? (I should point out that it’s not to secure Iraq’s production and refinement of oil, but to sheriff and stabilize the main oil-producing region of the world; Iraq’s contribution to the world’s oil will come later). So no, it’s not about lining the pockets of Exxon, Chevron and Texaco (although record quarterly profits in the billions of $US are certainly a “nice” side effect, at least for Exxon, Chevron and Texaco). Why on earth would you expect securing the production and distribution of oil to result in cheap gas? That is not the point of having a secure flow of hydrocarbons to their point of use. A small part of that includes instant availability of fuel for your personal vehicles. The market “knows” that it is more important to you that that fuel be there when you want it than the price you pay for it (up to a point). Everyone will complain about the price of gas, but no one will change their life over it as long as they don’t have to wait for it in things like rationing lines or at service stations with empty tanks.

Our entire “civilized” economies require enormous quantities of energy to fuel. No energy, no free market. No free market, no “freedom.” No “freedom,” chaos. Conservatives should be unapologetic about going to war for oil, because the only thing conservative political theory abhors more than chaos in the supply of energy for the economic engine is that you might change your life. Just to be clear, I mean ‘should’ in the sentence above in the sense of “for the sake of logical consistency.” The question of right, of moral legitimacy, is an entirely different matter. It only muddies things up when conservatives conflate their fundamental political principles—realpolitik—with ethical justifications based on right, duty, virtue, or some other transcendent value. I mean it’s fine to weave a nice mythology around it for decoration, but don’t start actually believing your mythology or, like our current President, you end up with clouded judgment and make very bad decisions.

Only a slight (jn) through all that. :-)

Jason: I’m not sure it’s all about oil either.  But the “where’s the cheap gas” argument only refutes the “all about oil” argument if we were actually capable of rebuilding the Iraqi infrastructure to the point where they could produce it.  We can’t, or at least haven’t been able to yet.  I’m sure oil was at least one of our objectives.  But like all the other objectives, we just haven’t met them, and may never meet them.

I’m not really a “get out of Iraq immediately” advocate.  I think if you break it you own it.  We quite literally broke the country of Iraq.  I think it would be irresponsible to leave it broken.  The problem is that this administration is either unable and/or unwilling to fix it.

I don’t know why I’m doing this, as I am utterly tired of political discussion, but I have to throw this one out there for the populist argument lovers.

I’m no fan of what the US presence in Iraq has become. I believe there are arguments to be made for doing something over there, as there are arguments to stay the hell out. But for my conservative lovin’ peeps out there, I have to call BS on the “it’s all about oil” argument. If our presence in Iraq is all about oil, then someone please tell me where the cheap gas is, because I haven’t found it. And don’t go telling me it’s all about lining the pockets of a few oil company execs in Texas, either. The only groups I see making any kind of money off the situation are ammo producers and construction companies.

For the record, I think the idealistic arguments for going over there have been worn out by a poorly articulated strategy that puts our military people in a crappy position. It’s time to figure out a way to come home that doesn’t involve letting the whole region devolve into a bigger killing field than the one we replaced. That’s not so simple as some political junkie on the campaign trail telling us how much faster they can bring home our troops than the next goof who wants the president’s chair.

As for the presidential race, I’ll participate, but not without wishing a pox on all their houses. Christ have mercy on us all.

My favorite line of 2007:

The narrative of atheism pretty much sucks.

Ron Paul is saying what many want to hear? About the constitution, and our borders, and smaller government, and protect our country?

Gee….I guess he’s right. I need to go with a straight talker like Huckabee. “Let’s take America back for Christ.” “Quarantine AIDS patients.” etc.

I agree that there are people out there who hate us (the US).  I’m positive that there are many more of those people than when Bush took office.  I agree with Bob that we missed an opportunity to elect someone better than Bush.  I have my opinions about the field of candidates for the next election.  Some I like better than others.  Some I dislike a great deal.  I cannot imagine a single one of them, Republican or Democrat or third party,  that I would not support if they were running against Bush.  That some people (as I read in a blog comment recently) consider Bush as perhaps our greatest president ever makes me despair of our species.
Ron Paul may be a little too idealistic.  But the rest only offer various degrees of status quo.

Bob, I could response by arguing that it’s hard to tell what’s more insane: to believe that our presence in the middle east has any more altruistic motivation than a desperate attempt to protect foreign oil interests, or to believe that we will have any meaningful, measurable success in that endeavor.

I could respond that way, but I wont. Unlike Armstrong, I don’t hold that those who hold differing opinions are crazy. I just think they are wrong. Unfortunately, in some cases, they are also often mean-spirited and disingenuous; they fear that they cannot defend their position, so they vilify their opposition as ‘crazy.’ It’s not that I’ve forgotten that there are forces out to destroy the US, Bob. It’s that I no longer can accept that the Bush doctrine – which, put baldly, is “give those who hate us some other place to fight us rather than the streets of our own cities,” is effective.

In Iraq, we are now engaging people who, by and large, would never have the resources or opportunity to pull off hostile acts against us within our borders. We are doing so at the considerable risk and expense of ignoring those of our enemies who have proven that they have both the will and the resources to hurt us at home. We have deployed our vast, powerful military forces on a mission which no longer primarily involves killing people and breaking things. We are trying to perform delicate dentistry using a jack hammer. It doesn’t work.

   John Armstrong, as usual, makes a lot of sense. 

 We want peace but we do not understand that it comes at the price of vigilance. We tend to take our eye off the ball unless we are actually being attacked directly, as on 9/11. So most of us do not understand why Iraq and Iran really matter that much to America and the world. The media, and the liberal elites, tell us we are just meddling in a place that we ought to abandon as soon as possible. And now we even have a Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul, who is just wacky enough to promote such a crazy idea.

 Walter Russell Mead rightly concludes: “The next American president, regardless of party and regardless of his or her views about the wisdom of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, will necessarily make the security of the Persian Gulf states one of America’s very highest international priorities.”

I hope he is right. This is, in my estimation, the most important issue before us in the coming presidential election. I think that whoever is chosen will likely be forced to stay this course or face a world that devolves into chaos rather quickly. I just wish more Americans understood these hard realities. The inane perspective of many on this issue is frightening and disturbing, none more so than those who rally around a candidate like Congressman Ron Paul. 

So long as we are a nation of free speech we will have people like Ron Paul saying what many apparently want to hear.

Get me an application.

Priests fighting in Bethlehem? That’s just sad.

Welcome to the light, Michael.

Capitol Hill Baptist (Mark Dever) interns being silly 

Benazir Bhutto is dead.

Update: the comments on this Karachi blog give a flavour of the mood in Pakistan at this moment.

I scored 79% Evangelical/Wesleyan Holiness, 68% Reformed Evangelical. which makes me 147% Evangelical, plus I get an extra 53% for being an Evangelical Free Church pastor which makes me twice the evangelical you are. (jn)

Recently I told my kids in morning devotions that when they left home and looked for a church they weren’t to look just for a Bible church, but for a Gospel church.  That’s my definition of evangelical.

John, I can’t comment extensively as I’m without Internet and thus left to use my iPhone which doesn’t lend itself to quick typing. You are right about the pietists. Wesley’s primary teacher of justification was a Moravian, Peter Bohler. Wesley even made a trip to Germany to spend time with the Moravians.