...stop spending the local, state and national treasuries on interventions every time Britney has a meltdown.

No, Michael, we didn’t.  As it turns out, Dr. Elders was on another flight but sitting in the same waiting area I was.  I wish I had been on her flight.  I was supposed to be in Orlando at 12:30 p.m. but didn’t actually get here until 7:30.  I just ate dinner and before that all I had to eat since 3:30 a.m. was one donut and 4 bags of peanuts.

I also barely missed a flight with a Journey cover band whose drummer needed Angus to break his voicebox.

I made up a fun game called “Gay or German”.  You have to pick a dude to decide whether or not he’s gay or German.  Could have gone either way.

Why Obama will get the votes of most of the BHT.

I want to gift a book to a group of dedicated workers who completed three years serving on a building committee which has come to a blessed and exciting end (we move in 4 weeks).  I want a timeless classic, hard back, perhaps a reference book that I can paste an inscription inside and sign.  I’m willing to spend up to $30-40 bucks if it’s worthwhile.  Email me with ideas or post something if you can….

As part of the training for my new job, I attended my first A. A. meeting last night. I knew that the serenity prayer is used frequently, but I wasn’t aware that the Lord’s Prayer continues to be said at some meetings. One cannot help making comparisons between such a meeting and church. The “lead” was long and not particularly gripping. However, individual members stand and offer their gratitude to the speaker and mention parts that were particularly meaningful or what they learned from the presentation. This seems to be a considerable improvement over “Nice sermon, pastor.”

One needs a reason not to be Catholic? Uh, let’s see how this works: one needs a reason not to be buddhist.

Actually, no. Just saying so doesn’t make it true.

Few subjects are as guaranteed to provoke a response from Josh as African sexuality, and I think we’re not allowed to talk about the “eal-Ray esence-Pray.” To be as fair to Josh as possible, he’s almost as prone to respond when the subject is American sexuality. Not quite, though.

Rodney Trotter at Reformation 21 says Protestants are running out of reasons to be Protestants:

I think the attraction of Rome is in large part generated by the fact that one needs a reason not to be Catholic, and that the classic Protestant reasons for not being so have largely vanished—three of the key issues for Luther in the Reformation (as for others) were perspicuity of scripture, justification by grace through faith, and the interconnection of these two in the matter of authority. Given that contemporary evangelical Protestantism has largely abandoned the first two, with clear implications for the third, there is no real reason for many to remain Protestant.

I have a rather different take. It’s the same reason I’m not a Lutheran or Orthodox:

God has not brought me to the place in life where I desire to be a Roman Catholic. My path in life, taken as a whole, has not taken me to Rome. It has taken me to an appreciation of Rome (and, unfortunately, to the place where “convert apologists” are too interested in me), but that appreciation is not the path into the RCC. God’s sovereignty has brought me to where I am and made me the person that I am, and that person has no desire to be a Roman Catholic. (But that person grants Roman Catholics the full validity of their own journey.)

I think the point is that GENERAL REVELATION, what can be known apart from special revelation, obligates the conscience to “do unto others”.  I would not reference God, but simply refer to conscience which convicts the able bodied person who can swim to save the person who is drowning in front of them.   

Good point, and good for us who believe in God. These verses would lie at the root of Christian activism in government. They could still take it down the path of “get out of our way and let us do it” vs. “here’s our money so you can take care of it.” But what do you do with a populist position that doesn’t acknowledge God or care about His complaints against the nations like we do? We can fall back on “the Bible says,” but that’s a hard line to argue against someone who won’t recognize it as having any authority. (Uh oh, let’s not go down that road…)

I’m all questions and no answers today. 8-)

In Amos, and many other O.T. Prophetic passages, God condemns the nations for not helping the needy.  He charges Israel with their religious idolatry and for not being loyal to Him, but the nations are charged with sins that are widely acknowledged by people who do not profess faith.

It seems to me that nations are obligated before God to seek to intervene and help other nations in times of need.  It also seems quite Biblical if you read Deuteronomy for instance, that nations have to enact special legislation for the poor and under-privileged, orphans, widows, single moms, etc. .

Interesting thoughts, Randy. To take another look at Joel’s question (and wander off on a tangent):

“How much does it have to change before the U.S. is morally obligated to get off its wallet?”

To answer this, you have to ask yourself a political theory question: Is the state the same thing as a person, and what moral obligations does the state have vs. persons?

How you answer this tends to get to the heart of the arguments we have around here all the time on issues of government policy and [insert here: social justice issues, environment, etc.]

Some think the role of the state is to take care of everything, so quit being a whining, greedy jerk and “pay your fair share.” Those of a religious bent who hold this view say that since we are God-fearing folk, and God cares about those poor folks over there, then we over here are obligated to take care of them. Those of a non-religious bent tend to be the type who love power and control over others. All of this has the implication that if you don’t step in line with the state, then you hate whoever happens to be the beneficiary of the state’s purse.

Others think that the state’s only role is to protect her people and maintain that which all use (more or less) equally. Those people who believe they are morally obligated to help others are free to self-organize and share freely from their wealth to do so. The implication here is that any state-mandated coercion of their money is wrong on the grounds that the state may support something they don’t believe is their responsibility. When it does, it takes away from what they are freely able to give. The implication here is that those who push the state agenda on them are bleeding heart libs who want to take all your money away and waste it when the people can better decide for themselves how to spend.

Simplistic characterizations? Yep. But how many of our arguments about social policy result in gravitating to one of these two positions? Those of us who follow Christ have our own issues to think about, without much regard for the state. (Except for that whole state church mess that Constantine got us into, of course.) Do we generally believe in helping those in need? I hope so. How do we do this? Some try to answer that through the options above. I tend to believe that’s a mistake, and that the church should do its own acts of mercy. But even that has its issues, since we’re all so busy anathematizing each other that we don’t actually band together to do good. Passing it off on some other institution, though, is a poor excuse for us failing to actually be the Church. I suppose this defaults to the second position, which may be why so many “conservative Christians” side with the more conservative option.

I’m quite sure I’m in over my head, but feel free to tear this up anyway. I only wonder if all this lies at the root of so many of our arguments.

Michael, in seminary I learned how to put a metal plate of armour up around my sin.  If someone confronts me or preaches or writes about a sin I know I am guilty of, but they misuse a text of scripture, I immediately deflect the searching spotlight to their mis-application of scripture, and viola! I escape with sin intact and no contrition, much less humbling at my sin.  In fact, I leave just proud of my discernment and exacting nature in parsing our the right hermeneutic. 

JN…. but with a lot of truth there….

Bob: I suppose if we are going to boil the text down and not let it breath, then sure. But “Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men” and several dozen other texts make it clear that the way to the Father is not faith in facts, but faith in Jesus Christ, the person, whose incarnation reveals the truth about God, us, life, etc. and calls us on the journey of discipleship Are people saved without following Jesus as the way? I don’t think Peterson what trying to do is exegete. I think he was trying to apply. God bless him, cause he nailed me.

Joel, regular wife-and-husband sex doesn’t spread AIDS.  Sexual promiscuity is barbarous and animalistic.  It’s a violation of our own nature.  Humans were not created for promiscuity. 

And if you can’t follow my point in asking you why you would single out Africans

Who brought up the topic of US intervention in Africa?  I don’t see how my joining in the conversation is equivalent to “singling out Africans.”  I thought that since the issue is our need to do something about AIDS in Africa, it was appropriate to talk about what actually causes AIDS in Africa and whether or not proposed plans will actually do anythign significant about the problem rather than going off on some unrelated tangent about how college males in the US think that life should resemble the filmography of San Fernando Valley.  Obviously, I was wrong, but my moral compass is so out of whack that I have no idea why.  Could explain to me the governing ethic that lies behind this charge?   Or is this some Foucault-type thing where the dominance of your will determines what I need to be talking about?

Also, why do you keep harbing on this “until their behavior changes” business?  Congratulations on wasting 175 words refuting a position that no one here actually ventured forward.  I simply want to know if proposed or current plans involve educating people with a goal to actually changing their behavior, or if it’s the blind philosophy of “medicine cures everything.”  Apparently, no one wants to discuss that.  They just want to villify me as though I said people have to change their behavior before receiving treatment.

 Which I didn’t.  Ever.  Not even once.  So stop acting like I did, because it’s getting old.

 As long as the name is good and it has a pious mission statement, I will gladly ignore actual results so that I feel better and can continue to pretend that I’m such a generous, loving, caring person.

Like the failed Kyoto Protocol?

I don’t disagree with the content of the masthead quote, but John 14:6 is not about Jesus being the WAY we live, but the WAY to the Father.  All due respect to Eugene Peterson, but I think he misuses that text. 

How much does it have to change before the U.S. is morally obligated to get off its wallet?

Joel asks a good question. When are we morally obligated to use our resources to help someone else? How much weight do we give to the reasons other people might need our help? Does the reason alter the obligation? I wonder if the New Testament has an answer to Joel’s question.

The Samaritan got off his wallet when there was someone in need, even though that someone was not in the Samaritan’s affinity group. His parabolic action was approved of by our Lord, who, indeed, wrote the story. I might infer that those who passed by the injured man had a moral obligation which they ignored.

One might also ask when enough is enough. We have given a great amount of resources to this problem. If it is getting better, we might wish to continue to help, or even have an obligation to. But if it isn’t, mightn’t the resources be better used elsewhere? There are other problems, some of more magnitude. It’s a hypothetical question; don’t skewer me, please.

The Samaritan paid for the lodging and medical care of the injured man. He did not reimburse the man for his other losses. Apparently he would have been under no moral obligation to do more than he did.

It seems to me—a chemist, not a philosopher or anything like one—that two things are needed to fight the problem of HIV/AIDS: information and drugs. We are off our wallet, providing those things, are we not? The other component must be provided by the population affected, acting on the information provided.

Thanks for the clarification, Bob. I knew you couldn’t just be making stuff up, and it just seemed odd to hear Africans singled out in that way. I think our African readers will appreciate knowing that you’ve actually spent time in Africa. I’d love to hear more about your experiences in Zimbabwe. How long did you teach there? Were you given a fair amount of latitude in your teaching? Did you ever feel threatened in your position?

Josh—

The rapid spread of AIDS across the continent. It’s not like the chief means of the spread of AIDS is a subject of ongoing research or something.

So the rapid spread of AIDS in Africa is not due to “regular” birds-and-bees sexual practices among Africans, coupled with lack of awareness about the existence and nature of the disease, but specifically because sex among Africans is “barbarous and animalistic.” Okay, sure. If all you want to say is that “people who engage in barbarous and animalistic sexual practices” = “people who do not practice the sexual morality commanded by the NT,” then I understand you, but think that might be the most unhelpful way that it is possible to classify the human race.

And if you can’t follow my point in asking you why you would single out Africans, then I’m not surprised that you took my remarks as implying that you approve of sexual ethics in America.

if your vision of “caring about AIDS” only includes patching people up with medicine after they get infected, you really don’t care all that much.

And who, excuse me, isn’t paying careful attention to words? When did I say that “caring about AIDS” only includes “patching people up?” Of course the root cause of the spread of AIDS is mainly due to sexual contact. Are you only going to approve of better education and sending medicines to Africa (and elsewhere) until their behavior changes? How much does it have to change before the U.S. is morally obligated to get off its wallet? What’s enough chastity to morally justify “patching people up?” You’re conflating two different issues and allowing an arbitrary standard of sufficiently modified behavior to govern your approval of using some of our country’s wealth to heal those who are already broken and suffering. So the millions of orphans this disease creates, those who had nothing to do with their parents’ sexual practices, are to be abandoned until Dr. Skinner gets done with the adult population. Please tell us what criteria must be met before we are permitted to begin to “patch people up?”

It appears that in your view, once something has an appropriately pious label affixed to it, it is intrinsically impious to ask whether or not the thing with the label is worthy of the title.

Yeah, flesh and blood, actual people aren’t nearly as important to me as a sweet label on a government program. As long as the name is good and it has a pious mission statement, I will gladly ignore actual results so that I feel better and can continue to pretend that I’m such a generous, loving, caring person.

Joel, first, I wrote that African sexual practices were no more immoral than American ones.  Nothing I wrote intended to give any other view.  And I repent, apologize, and offer acts of penance for any offense I might have given to anyone.  It was completely unintended and regrettable!

I taught the Bible in a Marxist government school in Zimbabwe (go figure that they had more freedom there than our American Public Schools).  I base my comments on my personal observation of my students, and of events  that happen there regularly and are issues for the Evangelical Church (widows being encouraged to be cleansed by having sex with the brother-in-law).  It’s not less moral, but it certainly manifests itself in different ways than are common here.  

All cultures are sexually screwed up.  There’s no naturally occuring culture that gets it right.  We need to be born again to even get on the road back to health.

On what do you base this “huge number?”

The rapid spread of AIDS across the continent. It’s not like the chief means of the spread of AIDS is a subject of ongoing research or something.

Is it any different or worse than what happens on college campuses in America?

Since you bring it up, I find the sexual mores of college students barbarous and animalistic.

Or what American p*rn*graphers produce and interweb users pour billions of dollars into?

The pornographic vision of sexuality is barbarous and animalistic.

Are you against treating HIV/AIDS in America as a matter of public health?

No, and I never said I was. Nor did I ever even remotely imply that I approve of pretty much anything regarding American culture. I thought philosophers were supposed to be really logical and pay careful attention to words. Or is this one of those pomo things where your reaction to my words gives them meaning rather than the words themselves? Everyone knows why AIDS spreads, and I am wondering if anyone is doing anything about the root cause. The way I see it, if your vision of “caring about AIDS” only includes patching people up with medicine after they get infected, you really don’t care all that much. You only care to the extent that you don’t have to feel like a mean ol’ busybody for trying to change people’s behavior. Crusades to supposedly fix problems that primarily revolve around going nuts over some document with a morally validating title in my opinion aren’t worth a whole lot more than the paper they’re printed on. That’s why I’m asking the questions of the Bush plan that I’m asking. I want to know if it’s a real plan, or if it’s a bunch of money thrown into a toilet with a pious label on it. It appears that in your view, once something has an appropriately pious label affixed to it, it is intrinsically impious to ask whether or not the thing with the label is worthy of the title.  I feel like I should start an “End World Hunger” campaign where the money is spent on shipping Milky Way bars to Romania, just to see if it would also win your support based on the label alone.

Well – the question of sexual mores have been at the forefront of SA politics for some time now, with the dept of Health trying the ABC method as successfully propagated in Uganda (Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condomise) in the fight against AIDS. SA’s big problem is a general collapse in societal moral values. Various governmental projects have been tried, and the jury is still out on the impact.

The problem is partly due to the breakdown of traditional cultural values, which would have produced some inhibitions. It is no different than the breakdown of morality in poor, ghetto or squatter camp areas amongst various cultures worldwide.

Traditionally, for instance, in the Nguni cultures of SA (Zulu, Seswati and others) there has been a high premium on virginity etc -with checks etc. The Umhlanga festival (the reed dance) is one such occasion where virginity is celebrated. In recent years the renaissance of this festival has been encouraged.

Sorry for posting about politics.  I really need deliverance from following this stuff way too much.  Someone please rebuke me and challenge me to go on a 40 day media fast for Lent, (which as an evangelical I really never follow)...

 The Talk Radio circuits treatment of McCain is shameful.  Why?

• Romney is no more a hard line conservative than McCain.  It’s not like there was a clearly loyal conservative opponent to McCain.  Guiliani was far more liberal in many ways.


• McCain may be mistaken on some positions, but he has been honest. 


• The criticisms against McCain lack credibility because comparitively they give these people a pass on the areas they are not conservative:  Guiliani, Bush, Reagan (on his 1986 Amnesty, tax increases, Sandra Day O’Connor, big spending)


• On immigration, McCain has promised to secure the borders first.  This is a big change in his position.  Talk radio should trumpet this change, celebrate it,  and hold him to it, but instead they ridicule him for it. 


• The amount of passionate vitriol against McCain by right wing talk radio types like Limbaugh, Ingraham, Hannity reveals something sick about this ideology.  I’m clearly moving away from calling myself a conservative because of it.  I also pledge to stop listening to them at all, even for entertainment.  They are toxic, self righteous, lack any sense of proportion.   Reminds me of certain branches of the Reformed Church…..   (shudder!, these people are almost as bad as right wing Christians!).... 

At times like these, I’d be very happy to see a President Obama…..

 

Bob, you wrote—

African Sexual morals are a difficult question because their culture has certain practices that would break out of the Christian paradigm. For example, it is very common in Africa that when a women’s husband dies (from Aids or anything) that his surviving brother is supposed to have sex with her to cleanse her of grief etc. There’s also a lot of incest.

Bob, I have friends from 5 or 6 African nations. Do you have evidence to back up these claims of practices being “very common” and there being “a lot” of incest? Because my African friends have no idea what you’re talking about. If there is some testimonial evidence behind these claims, I still think what you’ve written is careless and hurtful, though I’m sure not intentionally malicious. It might help to hear from The Scylding, our only African patron in the bar.

I don’t think it would be fair to judge these cultures as more “immoral” but there’s an awful lot of intercourse going on between unmarried couples.

Where is this not true? Yemen? Iran? Do you really think the percentage of people engaging in adultery is higher in Africa than in America? If not, why single out Africans?

“Practices that would break out of the Christian paradigm?” What culture without Christ has hope of living within “the Christian paradigm?” And what is our American/Western “Christian paradigm” but a dead husk, a form of godliness, with no power to restrain our cultural practices from “breaking out of the Christian paradigm?” I guess I just don’t track at all with this claim that African chastity is different, much less worse, than ours. Nor even if it were true what it would have to do with whether it is right to use our wealth, our technology, our time and our hands to care for the dying and treat the sick there.

Then again, there’s lots of stuff I don’t understand. College educated African men beat their college educated African wives just like some parents here spank their toddlers.

Evidence? Educated Africans engage in spouse abuse with a frequency like American parents spank their children? Huh? What is the point of singling out Africans (educated or otherwise, poor or otherwise) when you know that these things, including ethnicity, are no barriers to spouse abuse? This just floors me.

I should have spoken up about something Josh said earlier, too—

The barbarous, animalistic sexual morality of a huge number of men and women on that continent and the crushing poverty/religious strictures that turn many women to prostitution is not something one can end by the USSC simply saying “No, AIDS is not allowed according to the Constitution.”

On what do you base this “huge number?” What is “barbarous, animalistic sexual morality?” Is it any different or worse than what happens on college campuses in America? Or what American p*rn*graphers produce and interweb users pour billions of dollars into? Are you against treating HIV/AIDS in America as a matter of public health? Who is going to be in charge of saying when peoples’ mores have changed sufficiently to deserve care and treatment?

Phillip: A Clinton/Obama ticket is just about conceivable (though I’d be pretty surprised). Obama/Clinton would seem about as likely as McCain/Limbaugh. (jn)

I nominate Angus for best post of the year, and I’ll bet it stays in the top 5 at the worst.

By

Angus – I just nailed a 2×4 to my ABC – McNasty

 

Fellow combatants, lets talk about spiritual aloneness and the means by which you determine that you have achieved that state.

 

1. If you ask questions in Sunday school class that cause your peers to look at you with slack jawed awe and disdain – you might be alone.


2. If you question the theological perspective of your pastor and your wife gets angry with you – you might be alone.


3. If almost every event that takes place at your regularly attended worship service repulses you and appears to be self centered, mindless emotional/sentimental hogwash – you might be alone.


4. If your friends just look at you and shake their heads when you tell them that Joel Osteen is apostate – you might be alone.


5. If your prayer of Jabez prayer chant video has been running on a continuous loop for more than a year and you have not received your Benz – you might be alone.


6. If you find it repulsive to listen to a sermon on giving – you might be alone.


7. If the differences between the SBC and its influence in regional churches don’t seem any different than Rome being the central governing body for the RCC – you might be alone.


8. If you believe that church youth groups should be abolished along with all the “Captain Awesome” youth minister types – you might be alone.


9. If the presence of others is distracting to you during prayer – you might be alone


10. If you have the urge to stand up in the worship service of your choice and scream, “YOU PEOPLE ARE BLIND SHEEP” or “JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE A GREAT BAND YOU WON’T GO TO HEAVEN” or “ALTER CALLS ARE A PREDITORY BUSINESS PRACTICE” – you might be alone.

 

John: It ain’t over yet, but Romney is poorly positioned (calls himself the change candidate, but McCain has a known record of opposing Bush that Romney doesn’t, and folks really interested in change are voting Democrat anyway), so probably McCain, yes. Still, Romney’s spending money like water, so who knows?
McCain is and has been a conservative; what he’s “in trouble” for has less to do with conservatism and more to do with annoying the wrong people. He said rude (but true) things about Falwell and Robertson. That doesn’t make him unconservative. Honest people will see that McCain was right, and that both men spent at least some portion of their lives spreading hateful ideas. He’s disagreed with Bush over deficit spending. That doesn’t make him unconservative; it actually highlights how unconservative Bush often is. McCain’s biggest crime seems to be working with Democrats—something most of us claim to want (bipartisanship) but apparently dislike when we actually see it. Every candidate in the race talks about working with both parties to get things done, then most of them alienate every member of the other party with their next few sentences. McCain has shown he can actually work with both parties, but he has to make it through the primaries to demonstrate it. People claim that McCain isn’t a conservative so they don’t have to admit things about themselves.
The Democratic side is harder to predict at this point. So far the two haven’t gone after each other hard enough to rule out a Pres/Veep joint ticket, but even so, which will be which? It’s going to be a fun Tuesday, and almost certainly a fun three days in Denver.

I know most of you won’t care, but I’m about to board a plane with Jocelyn Elders (I’m too lazy to Google if I misspelled). I’ve never flown with a well known person.

MOD: So are you going to discuss masturbation? :-)

So, is it McCain, then? And is this the start of the cognitive dissonance process that will enable conservative Republicans to vote for him? (jn)

Founder of Cleanflicks arrested for sex with a 14 year old.

Jared W says this while discussing my claim that evangelicalism is the (living) dead: “I trust that in any event, true evangelicalism is still alive and growing…” The claim that there is a “true” evangelicalism is a common way to cope with the end of evangelicalism. It’s the “remnant” mindset that has always been part of Biblical faith. It’s a very good thing, but just realize what’s going on. The movement is over. Now some of the constituent parts- Reformed Baptists, TRs, Macarthurites, Conservative emergers, neo-dispensationalists, SBCers, Driscoll junkies- are all going to claim to be the “true” evangelicalism. Listen to a certain pyro and you’ll hear loud and clear that none of those other guys were ever “REAL” evangelicals anyway.

Reclaiming the Mind has a new bookstore. Purchases probably help Patton make his Porsche and pool payments. (Hey Michael…you ARE near Tulsa :-)

Looks like we’ve got a REAL football movie on the way.

Really don’t know how to feel about Wade and the IMB right now.

MOD: He was going to be removed anyway. I think he’s sparing the SBC some blood by leaving on his own.

I really do not think they would have wanted to do that.

Amen!

I wonder how many of us are in situations where we can’t walk some paths of appreciating Jesus without getting in trouble?

Michael: You’re not pathetic.

I would like to go to Ash Wednesday service as well but it’s complicated. I can’t go to the RCC because I live in a very small town. Within hours every one who cares would have heard that the Baptist pastor was at Sacred Heart for worship. With some of my people that would be the kiss of death. I would soon be looking for a job. I could go to the Lutheran church (and I might) but they would not commune me. I don’t mind the ashes of death on my head so long as I can taste the bread of life, too (Josh, John, Kletos: I am not trying to start anything).

Here’s a bit of advice if you’ll permit. We miss out on a lot of enjoyment because we know that the thing we enjoy must end. It’s silly. Everything ends. When I go skiing I seek to enjoy the day without thinking that the sun’s going down and the fun must soon end. I try to squeeze as much from the day as I can. So enjoy your preaching stint. The Lord will have other good stuff for you to do after Easter (there’s a sabbatical coming, yes?)

Bless you, brother.

A MacLean’s poll reveals that 91% of American respondents believe they would have a better standard of living in Canada.

There you have it, eh? (Your Mileage kilometreage may vary)

How pathetic am I?

I’m dreading Ash Wednesday because it’s the beginning of when evangelistic Roman Catholicism became an issue in my home, changing everything.

I’m preaching for 6-7 weeks at the PCUSA church in London, and it’s already depressing me that I’ll enjoy it so much, and will have to walk away from it.

I can’t find an Ash Wednesday service within an hour (except for the RCC. see above) and I don’t want to lead one myself, because in the end that amounts to just doing a service for my own sake, and I’m leading it instead of participating in it.

I’m getting so cynical on the idea of Christian fellowship that I sometimes wonder what is the point of saying I am a Christian. The conversation immediately goes to politics or creationism, and I just have to lie, mumble or eat.

I’m supposed to represent unity in my community, and there are about 2 people I can talk with about spiritual things with anything like complete honesty.

The internet just makes me aware of how lonely I am by reminding me that there are so many churches and Christians out there….somewhere.

Next time around, I’m going to be a Buddhist. They are much easier on fat people and you’re supposed to just stare at your own navel and make a humming noise, which I can do.

Seriously, spiritual alone-ness is drying me up. This has been the most brutal year imaginable from the standpoint of feeling I am part of relationships where Christ can be shared. Most of my Christian relationships are now in the “can’t talk about it” zone.

African Sexual morals are a difficult question because their culture has certain practices that woul break out of the Christian paradigm. For example, it is very common in Africa that when a women’s husband dies (from Aids or anything) that his surviving  brother is supposed to have sex with her to cleanse her of grief etc.  There’s also a lot of incest. 

I don’t think it would be fair to judge these cultures as more “immoral” but there’s an awful lot of intercourse going on between unmarried couples. 

Then again, there’s lots of stuff I don’t understand.  College educated African men beat their college educated African wives just like some parents here spank their toddlers. 

Good point, Josh.  To be sure the AIDS crisis would be alleviated by chaster sexual mores (although I might question whether the sexual mores of Africans are really much worse than that of, say, Canadians or Americans). But I doubt we can solve a moral problem by throwing money at it. We can, however, use money to make a huge difference in the AIDS crisis, regardless of how the people got it in the first place.

[No fair changing your post]

God doesn’t crush Satan or destroy death.  He merely gives us a little help to improve a few things but leaves the deadly causes of sin untouched, so that its consequences continue to destroy us.

Hey, it’s liberal Christianity!

Reading about Catholic apologists always reminds me of the self-contradictory nature of referring to them to explain Catholic dogma for you.  By their own standards, their explanations aren’t infallible.  Why trust a Catholic apologist (who almost certainly used to be a Protestant) over a Jesuit professor of theology at a Catholic university?  Why trust his reading of Trent over your own?  If you want the real reason why Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception, it’s here.  Anything you hear from any other Catholic is just private opinion.

God wants to know how you got SIN in the first place and whether there’s any reason to believe that your baby won’t grow up and get it for the exact same reason you picked it up in the first place.

His saving help depends on satisfactory answers to these concerns.

“If you believe, then you will be saved” is a true statement, but it is only a statement about the gospel, not the gospel itself. “Your sins are forgiven on account of Christ” is gospel (or at least one way of expressing one part of the gospel).

I sent 52 books in 5 boxes to one customer today. Now that’s a book sale.

James Swan goes through the Catholic Answers’ reply to a question on Mary’s sinlessness, and convinces me once and for all: I much prefer my Catholics to SKIP THE BIBLE ENTIRELY IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, and not do this kind of thing. It’s truly frustrating to any kind of meaningful dialog. I mean…..c’mon. What do you see in the clouds, Johnny?

I’ve been listening to EWTN a lot- over the advice of some of my RC friends to not listen- and I’m going to have some things to say soon.

Josh: You wrote,

“If the promise is “If you have faith, then you will be saved,” then I must assess my own state of have faith as a prerequisite to taking hold of the promise as my own.”  

I believe the if/thens in the Bible, but the if/then you have extrapolated is precisely what I don’t believe anymore.  I don’t have to assess my own state of have faith.  I just have to have faith.  I agree with what John quoted from Cary…  

What faith says, fundamentally, is “God speaks the truth.” Only secondarily, and not fundamentally, faith may also say, “I believe.” But faith may also say, “My faith is weak” or “Lord, I believe, help my unbelief” or “I have sinned in my unbelief and denied my Lord, like Peter the apostle.”

Faith may confess its own unbelief. What it cannot do, if it is to remain faith at all, is stop clinging to the truth of God’s Word. For faith does not rely on faith, but on the Word of God.

Adam: God can be trusted because He saves everyone who believes on Him.  I don’t think denying universal atonement needs to cloud that issue at all.

I want to know how Mom got AIDS in the first place and whether there’s any reason to believe that her baby won’t grow up and get it for the exact same reason Mom picked it up in the first place.

But if there’s not an assurance problem at all, how can there be faith?

Joel, I’m afraid I don’t understand the question. Why does the existence of faith presuppose an assurance problem? Maybe you can explain what you’re getting at.

It’s revealing that we find Calvin linking the question of the extent of the atonement with that of the nature of the Lord’s Supper. From a Lutheran POV, I’d agree 100% that this is an appropriate link to make, while drawing the opposite conclusions, of course. (Though I’m not saying the two are necessarily linked, it being perfectly possible to believe in universal atonement and disbelieve the real presence, and vice versa.)

As Josh has pointed out, the Lutheran view of the extent of the atonement, our election/assurance and what happens in church on Sunday cannot be separated from one another. We derive our assurance from the unconditional promises that are declared to us in word and sacrament each week, but the only reason those promises can be declared unconditionally is because we can be sure that Christ died for each and every person within earshot.

Jesse, we have a brand new group on campus, the Orthodox Student Association, that provides a mid-day Moleban service once a week (two priests come to officiate). Almost everyone who attends is in the philosophy department :-)

After the final litany, one of the concluding petitions is “Most Holy Theotokos, save us.” I gave my friend, who is converting from Protestantism, an earful about that. Now I know it’s probably just a shorthand way of asking the Son to heed the intercessions of His mother on our behalf and to save us, but still.

Have a great Synaxis of the Three Hierarchs, by the way. Those are some awesome saints. Of course, in the Reformed world, every day is the Synaxis of the Three Hierarchs (Calvin, Zwingli and Knox).

As for your remarks about assurance, I don’t understand how it can be a non-starter. I do understand that the whole paradigm of salvation as a legal affair goes away, and so you don’t have the worry about standing in God’s law court and being declared in the right. But if there’s not an assurance problem at all, how can there be faith?

Mark, thanks for that link. It is very encouraging, and I am glad that when we contemplate 2m treated, 7m preventions, and 10m cared for, that these are not statistics, but flesh and blood people. The fact that no one noticed the significance of that mother and daughter last night just reinforces my belief that the movement that is called “pro-life” is far too narrow in its concerns.

Yet here is a supremely humane initiative—inconceivable to foreign policy realists—linked to U.S. security concerns. Bush rightly calls it “a reflection of our national interest and the calling of our conscience.”

It is good to hear a conservative appreciate how the additional $30 billion Bush has requested for PEPFAR is at the same time an investment in national security.

Josh, it is true that Calvin did not give a definititive view of the atonement in his writings, but I think Roger Nicole’s article makes a fair argument that he at least held a limited one in his mind and saw it implicit in his theology. One citation in the article reads:

In July 1861, Principal William Cunningham published in the British and Foreign Evangelical Review an article on “Calvin and Beza” in which he examined certain areas where it is claimed Beza differed from Calvin. One of these is the extent of the atonement, and Cunningham appears to be the first who referred to the following text of Calvin as reflecting a presumption of definite atonement. “I should like to know how the wicked can eat the flesh of Christ which was not crucified for them, and how they can drink the blood which was not shed to expiate their sins.”

This passage, found in a treatise on the Lord’s Supper destined to refute the fiery Lutheran Tilemann Heshusius, is rendered stronger by the fact that Heshusius, in good Lutheran fashion, did believe in universal atonement and therefore would not find Calvin’s argument persuasive at this point. But Calvin was so strongly oriented here that he appears to have forgotten that Heshusius would not share his presuppositions!

If Calvin believed in Universal Atonement, as Nicole notes, this argument against Heshusius would be very weak. No matter what you may think of my views on this, I still see the idea of not being able to know for certain that one is included in God’s promise and call of salvation faith-shattering. It is the result of a doctrine of election that deemed unconditional.

I suppose I’ll add my perspective on this issue.

I can’t remember ever being much worried about assurance during my brief Calvinist phase, but I definitely was during parts of my Charismatic years. Having drifted East since then, I found that I’ve stopped thinking about the issue, since the question doesn’t even arise in an Orthodox framework.

One of the things I value most about Orthodoxy is the teaching that salvation is not a boolean (true/false), but a scalar with no upper bound, because salvation is theosis: union with God. In that framework, “assurance” is a non-starter. It’s clear both that I’ve begun to be saved (because I’m united with Christ in baptism) and that I’m not yet completely saved (for reasons that should be obvious).

Re the discussion a few days ago on how Bush’s $30 billion in AIDS money would be spent, here’s one conservative’s view on how the existing program has done.

I’ve got to run and I won’t be back until late tonight.  Are there any other Calvinists left in here who can pinch hit for me?

EDIT: Thanks Josh, we posted simultaneously.

Adam, reading limited atonement into Calvin is questionable at best.  And to be fair, Calvin’s belief in election does come from texts.  Without wishing to rehash the tired debate, I would say that if I know anything, it’s that I’m too much of a sinner to be saved if God isn’t going to choose me on his own.  Perhaps you think that a God who saves of his own free will is untrustworthy, but I personally find my free will to be much, much less trustworthy than God’s.  Maybe you weren’t born with as much original sin as I was, so you don’t need God to do all the heavy lifting in your salvation.  As for me, I can’t think of a single part of salvation I can trust myself to take care of.
Obviously, I’m not on board with everything Calvin might say about election and assurance.  I find my assurance in what God does for me every Sunday, and Calvin always hedged his language about this.

The Calvin quote is interesting and I commend him for keeping Christ central in his theology on assurance. But the logic of his soteriology undermines him. Salvation is contingent upon God’s election which is not conditioned by any human action. Calls to look at Christ for salvation can only be general, and only an effectual call will eventually lead one to “pass the tests” of assurance.

The general/effectual call rubric leaves us with a duplicitous God who speaks out of both side of his mouth. He calls everyone to salvation but really he doesn’t. We are all supposed to look to Christ as loving Savior, but we cannot be sure he has in fact died for us. We are told that he wants to save all of us, but we are only assured of his desire for our souls if he has elected us unto salvation.  Here’s a question: how on earth do you trust the God of Calvinism?

Shea, I think what Dr Cary is referring to is that (arguably) for Calvin, the “promises of Christ” are if/then hypotheticals rather than personal declarations made to the sinner in, for example, baptism.  If the promise is “If you have faith, then you will be saved,” then I must assess my own state of have faith as a prerequisite to taking hold of the promise as my own.

The Calvin quote is from the section that Cary cited.  Institutes III.24.4-5

Shea: good quote. Do you have a reference for it?

I agree that a Lutheran approach to assurance is possible within a Calvinistic framework – at least within the “continental Reformed” model of (say) the Heidelberg Catechism, in contrast to the Puritan model of Westminster. Indeed, it was through the Heidelberg model of Christianity – mediated via the likes of Mike Horton – that I learnt the “Lutheran” approach in the first place.

I’m also not a big fan of the arguments based on the “logical conclusion” of a theological position, especially when that “logical conclusion” flat-out contradicts the expressly-stated position. However, I do think there is a valid question to be asked as to why that particular style of Calvinism has proved so unstable, so vulnerable to a more Puritan, Westminster-style approach (not only as regards assurance, but also as regards the sacraments – but let’s not go there (sw)). And I am tempted to answer that question by saying: because it attempts to have its cake and eat it, by attempting to maintain Lutheran conclusions while rejecting (or watering down) Lutheran principles.

Here’s a site that epitomizes all we have come to despise as “assurance peddling”.  (I found it linked on the website of the pastor whose nastiness is exposed on Brant’s blog.)

As for me and my house, I’m coming at last to the more settled conclusion that I don’t have to reject the logic of the five points of Calvinism to include all I’ve learned from Lutherans about assurance.  John H linked to an article from his blog by Philip Cary in which he makes this, as John might say (sw), “spot on” criticism of Calvinist teaching on assurance.

Disastrously, I am supposed to look inward. After all, even the unregenerate can do outward good works. So what the mainstream Calvinist tradition does is direct our attention to the fact—and of course it is a fact—that true faith bears fruits in sanctification of the heart. So if you are a good Calvinist, you are supposed to notice this—notice that you’re getting more inwardly sanctified, which gives you assurance of faith, i.e. assurance that you really do have true faith. I have to say, this strikes me as a disastrous theological and pastoral move. The result is: I am supposed to believe I am inwardly holy and righteous. Instead of looking at myself and finding a sinner—for as Luther rightly says, even the righteous man sins in all his good works—and thus being driven in repentance to take hold once again of the Gospel alone as the sole assurance of my salvation, I am supposed to look at my own heart and see something reassuring: I’ve made real spiritual progress, I’m becoming more inwardly holy and righteous.

Disastrous, indeed.  I’m totally with the Lutherans on this one.  But then I noticed this footnote in Cary’s article

On knowing you are predestined, i.e. elected by God for salvation, see Institutes 3:24.1-7. Calvin insists that our certainty of our own election depends on the promises of Christ, but the underlying logic requires in addition a reflective faith

But what if I choose to side with Calvin himself and not with Cary’s evaluation of what “the underlying logic requires”?  I think the disaster of the inward look is to be laid at the feet of the Puritans and the neo-Calvinists, but Calvin himself rocks hard on this.  Check it out—

But what proof have you of your election? When once this thought has taken possession of any individual, it keeps him perpetually miserable, subjects him to dire torment, or throws him into a state of complete stupor. I cannot wish a stronger proof of the depraved ideas, which men of this description form of predestination, than experience itself furnishes, since the mind cannot be infected by a more pestilential error than that which disturbs the conscience, and deprives it of peace and tranquillity in regard to God…

 First, if we seek for the paternal mercy and favor of God, we must turn our eyes to Christ, in whom alone the Father is well pleased (Mt. 3:17). When we seek for salvation, life, and a blessed immortality, to him also must we retake ourselves, since he alone is the fountain of life and the anchor of salvation, and the heir of the kingdom of heaven….But if we are elected in him, we cannot find the certainty of our election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we ought, and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our election. For since it is into his body that the Father has decreed to ingraft those whom from eternity he wished to be his, that he may regard as sons all whom he acknowledges to be his members, if we are in communion with Christ, we have proof sufficiently clear and strong that we are written in the Book of Life.

Can I get a witness?

Anyone here have an opinion on CREC?

Steve Wilkins and Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church have left the PCA.

Great idea, Bob!  I’d love to see Michael in a nehru jacket and some serious helmet…

Oh, nevermind.

I suggest the BHT incorporate, become a church, get tax exempt status, shamelessly appeal for funds, and start pay rolling all of us, with Michael getting the lion’s share…    jn

My idea for the 6th anniversary is that everyone who’s been here for more than a coupla years writes a contribution to a collaborative history of the BHT.

Apparently my ISP is having some issues with the server IM is on. If you’re an IM reader looking for what’s up, I’m just tapping my foot and whistling.

Scrubs fans, fellows and lurkers alike.

I want to know what your favorite Scrubs song is (forget the 80’s qualifier).

If you don’t know what Scrubs is, start watching (10pm Central on WGN out of Chicago—2 episodes every weeknight).

John H: I can’t get people to send me a regular pic of themselves to update the bio page. I can’t get them to send me bios! Good luck.

Scylding: No money spent on Lego is ever wasted. Are you familiar with the Brick Testament? It’s explicitness may offend some but I’m not easily shocked. I think it’s a really interesting use of Lego as a medium for Bible stories.

(Below: the Raising of Lazarus)

James White is going to debate Bart Ehrman. Almost makes me want to go on that cruise.

Tod Bolsinger: That saved a wretch like me.

John: Looks like you can get that iPhone soon.

I was intrigued at the description of O2’s plans. For £40, ($80) here the mid-range iPhone plan includes 900 minutes, which puts it right in line with the new O2 plans, though not the old ones. It’s slightly more complicated, however, by the fact that my 900 minutes are only consumed between 6am and 9pm Monday-Friday. All other calls are free. Also, any minutes I don’t use this month “roll over” so I can use them next month—up to a year. Oh yeah, and any time I call someone’s mobile # and they using the same company I do (which happens to be the largest mobile company in the U.S., so it’s relatively likely), that’s also free. In short, it’s hard for me to imagine ever being charged for extra minutes—and I use my iPhone for a one-hour radio show once a week!

I do only get 200 text messages, but I can get 1500 for $10 (£5) or unlimited for $20 (£10). Seems like—once again—you guys are getting gypped.

On the other hand, you get cheaper airfare than we do.

BTW – Lego turned 50 yesterday. Here’s to the best toys ever!

U2 have clearly seen the major increase in street-cred and all-round goodwill enjoyed by Metallica when the latter became RIAA shills in the Napster litigation (jn), and want a piece of the same action. Their man