This will not do.

I won't beat around the bush; I am not persecuted. I may have unpopular views. I may have made certain sacrifices on account of what I think I am supposed to do, but I have a pretty comfortable life by the world's standards. I can attend the church of my choice. My job is not in any danger. I have a lot of freedom to start just about any type of ministry I'd like at my church. My life is not in any danger because of what I believe or say. I have never been physically threatened for saying I follow Jesus. And because of this it seems all I can say is I follow Jesus. What evidence is there that the love of Jesus that so threatens the powers of the world is in me? What is there other than my words?
Is this why statements of faith are so important to churches? It is so difficult to see what we believe by our actions we have to spell it out. Is this the age of the Church's suburban exile?

Absolutely

Greg Koukl is sort of a doyen of the contemporary Christian apologetics crowd. He wouldn't know me from anyone, but I had a brief and interesting interaction with him. A friend of mine and I went to listen to him speak about relativism which is often the straw man for everything Christians of a culturally conservative stripe fear. He and others interested in the current strain of apologetics use an approach wherein, through a series of leading questions and statements, they get people to come to the conclusion that since the 60's we have been in the grip of a misanthropic nihilism they call moral relativism. What does that even mean? Well, they conveniently describe this moral relativism on their terms in ways that do have pretty scary implications: in moral relativism there are no standards beyond individual desires or preferences and no one is qualified to evaluate any action or value. In, at least Koukl's estimation, this has led to every modern evil. No one is in a place to judge anything so nothing is out of bounds. That's why bad things happen. Hopefully someone would reject this premise and then be in the market for a better idea. Hopefully that idea is Christianity. Now if that's not the purpose of the Word becoming flesh, I don't know what is.
But the interaction, that's what I wanted to write about. Okay, so during the Q&A portion of his pitch I ask him about the value of apologetics in general, especially in light of scripture. I wonder if it really is a Biblical value to present Christianity as just another product in the marketplace of ideas. I wonder if that's what life in Christ is all about. Then I ask him what specifically is an absolute Biblical value. That's a tough one. Lying and stealing, those aren't universally condemned in the Bible. Killing, even killing babies, sometimes okay. He doesn't have an answer to that specifically but talks about absolute truth in general. I want to know how we know what to do in a specific situation if it's not in the Bible and listening to the Holy Spirit can be a very subjective way of knowing the truth. Anyway, long story short, I approach Koukl at the end of the evening to tell him I wasn't trying to be a jerk, sometimes it just happens and I really want to know what he thinks of those questions I raised. He is visibly uncomfortable and starts trying to ignore me. I say I think it's important that we not neglect the stuff I raised even if (big if) it's important to present the philosophical competitiveness of Christianity. I say I wanted him to acknowledge that belief in God isn't just an intellectual assent to a particular premise and he says, "Okay, you baited me." What?! I baited him? My questions were just a rhetorical ploy to get him to say something? He thought I was just engaged in some logical nonsense. Maybe if you're immersed in that type of culture that's what you expect, but that's not what I was after. I really want to know what he thinks the praxis of this thinking is. I want to know what he says absolute truth is. I want to know that by truth he means more than a never-changing universal list of do's and dont's accompanied by a convenient way of identifying people by their crimes. He couldn't tell me that.
Whatever.
Some friends of ours were expecting a child and had to choose today between the life of their child and the mother. That's not just a conundrum found in ethics books. That's real life. What's the absolute rule there? What label do we apply to them?

The Future Is Now

When I was a kid I was promised that by the year 2000 we would have cities that floated above the weather and flying "smart" cars that could whisk me to my friends' homes with a simple verbal command. I would have a domestic robot, I would eat all of my meals in pill form, and medicine would be able to cure everything. Where is all that? You'd think it was a lot closer to reality considering all the movies and literature that warn us of artificially intelligent robots rebelling against their carbon based masters, institutional eugenics, bureaucratic hyper-surveillance, and other warnings of technology gone mad.

What we do have is a climate changing because of our technological activities, Southern California traffic that is worse than ever, the fattest populace in history, and pharmaceutical R&D devoted to giving 90 year old men longer and firmer erections. C'mon I want to ride in a flying bus.

One thing that may in fact be right around the corner, though, are those great unitard body-suits everyone in the future seems to wear. Here's why: I am brown and I live, work, and go to school in areas that are predominantly not brown.* In Southern California as a whole, I don't really stand out, but there are a lot places I go that are pretty lily. Despite efforts against it, there are plenty of brown people like me- moving about freely, interacting with others, making use of social institutions and public places just like anyone else would. It's quite a challenge to stop that. Especially when the man makes it easier by running transportation infrastructure from the brown neighborhoods to the not brown for economic reasons. For example, with minimal English or other resources, I can drive or take a bus directly from Duarte to San Marino or from Azusa to Glendora. It's tough to check every bus passenger, making sure they are going to mow someone's lawn or babysit. And forget about checking every driver; even with profiling, they can't get everyone. Because of that freedom of movement, I sometimes don't fit, especially when I grow my beard out. Now, I'm a pretty smart guy but I could not say for sure that I would not run if some domestic security forces started yelling in my general direction waving assault weapons because of my profile. And could I really blame anyone if I was shot in the head 5 times because of that. I mean, how could anyone possibly know that I am not strapped with explosives. And if I hadn't shaved in a while, do you think the US domestic security forces would remember that, just like in England, more terrorist acts have been committed by white males than brown? I am practically asking to be stopped and interrogated, if not shot, by moving about as freely and brown as I do.

The solution: all weather, form fitting, brightly colored body suits. This isn't a solution that needs to be imposed either. I would bet donuts to dollars that if this option were made publicly available, after the first couple of regrettable shootings, the market would take care of everything. It would be difficult to hide explosives and weapons. Identification tags could go directly on the back and chest. Who wouldn't rather wear an orange unitard than a body bag?


* Make sure you always use predominately and predominantly correctly.

I Could Also Do Some Yardwork...*

So I'm stalling. I'm supposed to be translating a bunch of theological texts from German to English in preparation for a test and I'm thinking I should really write a post for my blog.

German to English. It's not a labor I particularly think is fruitful. It isn't the "Why do I have to read a bunch of old dead white guys?" argument. I value the contributions of a lot of dead white people. But a.) everything that I have to translate is already available in my native tongue and b.) most Christians are no longer European or tied to the Western philosophical traditions that frame Enlightenment Colonial Christianity (in that regard Barth is an old dead white guy that is very valuable).

Okay so I understand there is a value to my being able to do it. That's fine. And I am not one of those who thinks there's an inherent value to not doing things the way they've been done before or simply because someone is a straight white Christian male they have nothing valuable to say, but things are changing. The average Christian is a deeper shade of brown, poor and does not necessarily use a Western lens to interpret scripture and traditions or equate Euro-American hegemony with Christianity. This isn't necessarily what is being demanded when one is expected to be competent in English, German, and French (it may be, but it isn't necessarily so), but the time is coming when it will be a quaint affectation to quote Luther, Calvin or other state church apologists. Anyway, I'm just wasting time. I have more important things to do and this is just my way of procrastinating (from the Latin pro, meaning for, and cras meaning tomorrow).

In any case, perhaps after the final act of the Great Islamo-Christian War, the remnant of the Church that is left will not be as tied to the Enlightenment model of Christianity. Won't that be nice?

You know, I think I'll ponder that idea a bit more later.

*This headline is a very good joke.

Is There A Car Magnet For This?

There's an article in today's LA Times about the war in Iraq being "on track." You could see it here too. Remember that this was about the threat of chemical and nuclear weapons, no regime change, no wait terrorism? Remember predictions that claimed US forces would be done and home in maybe 3 months- 6 at the most, that coalition forces would enter and be welcomed as liberators, that oil money would pay for the war? Remember those things? Remember the actual decision to send in military without the necessary body and vehicle armor, remember the decision to disband the Iraqi army and leave them unemployed? All part of the plan. Right on track. Nothing at all wrong with this picture.

So 2000 (and counting) dead coalition forces are "on track." Over 20,000 Iraqis killed are all part of the plan. These are real people. There are real consequences to the decisions that have been made by this administration that we have chosen.

We are participants.

Nigh? What's Nigh?

So I'm watching Hal Lindsey's crazy armageddon news show tonight and finding out how exactly the current research and proposed investment in tactical nuclear weapons will play out during "the end times." It turns out that rather than being a bad thing, tactical nuclear weapons are cute and one more step in the right direction if we are trying to bring about the end of the world and the coming of Jesus. It turns out the Bible specifically and unequivocally mentions these types of weapons will be used in the great final battle between good and evil.

What? You don't see that clearly outlined in any part of the Bible you're familiar with? Well maybe that's because you are actually familiar with the Bible. Suppose you're not though, or suppose you're paranoid or don't understand the nature and role of Biblical prophecy. Then you might be singing a different tune.

If you don't know who Hal Lindsey is you should be very thankful. Odds are though that your life has been touched by him. Ever seen an "In case of rapture..." bumper sticker? Has anybody ever tried to scare you into heaven? Ever have your Wednesday evening TV viewing ruined by some NBC executive's decision to show Revelations the mini-series? Well he's part of the picture that made all that possible. Well, I guess I am overstating the influence Hal Lindsey has had. Really, he's just representative of a particular type of theology. You know what it is, the one that at least some 65 million people have been exposed to, the one that many may imagine represents the Christian conception of the future and the role of the church via the Left Behind Series.

The Bible does have things to say about the future and the way good overcomes evil. The thing is, this view of the "last things" propagated by the likes of La Haye, Lindsey, et al is well outside the historic perspective of the church and scripture and the Hebrew prophetic tradition. This is just a blog so I'm trying to avoid getting into a long wonky post about the philosophy and origins behind this eschatology but I don't want to be too glib about it either. This is a big deal.

There is a fatalism in Lindsey's approach to the news. And even though he and others from that camp would advocate a certain political perspective, it is pointless because the future is out of our hands. Not only are all human decisions and goals tentative and contingent, they are ultimately completely corrupt so we shouldn't do anything but wait for the end. The emphasis is on the maintenance of the remnant that will be saved. The church's purpose is not to make the world better via our actions- rather it is to restrain personal evil until we're whisked off to heaven before a tribulation. This has not been the historic position of the church nor is it true to the purpose of prophecy.

God and humanity interact towards a future that is unfolding. That's a pretty loaded thing to say but look at an OT prophet like Amos. The purpose of the word of God coming to him was so that people could be warned of the coming judgment as a result of their actions. There is present the possibility of different outcomes and the possibility of God's mind changing. There is a particular social ethic that is demanded, there is a point to moral activity in the political arena (this requires a very specific definition of politics). The Kingdom of God means something.

Of course apocalyptic literature is in the Bible but its role is different from the prophecy that speaks of the relational interaction between God and humanity. Jesus himself does speak of apocalyptic things but not in a way that eliminates the role of the people of God. Even in Jesus' apocalyptic speeches, he highlights the participatory role of his people. Their role is not to stand idly by while the War Pigs have their way. There is the implication that we will be actively engaged in the Gospel which invariably will lead to conflict- not the kind of conflict that comes from demanding the 10 Commandments be displayed in public places but the kind that comes from demanding justice flow like water and righteousness like a stream, the kind that comes from pitting the world's power brokers against the powerless, the kind that, like Jesus said, gets you beaten and killed.

We don't rejoice because we stand on the sidelines and watch things get worse. We don't take delight in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, human policies that lead to genocide, war, famine, and the rapid spread of disease. We don't hope for things to get worse and point at our actions that increase injustice and poverty and say, "See, the end is coming." We rejoice because we have the power to say this is wrong and do something about it.

A Release Party Is In Order

I have only told one other person about this. If you're reading this, and you're not this other person, I can't imagine what your search criteria were. Although I haven't yet "gone public" with this I have a comment on one of the posts from this one other person. Isn't that something?
Anyway, I've been waiting to tell others about this until I could demonstrate to myself an ability to write regularly. I guess part of it was also a way to minimize any criticism or negative feedback. I think I'm pretty great in my head and I don't know how I would take any news to the contrary. Or maybe worse, I won't get any feedback at all. So now the plan is to tell people and let the chips fall where they may.

Conservative President Nominates Conservative Judge

Holy Crap! The most ideological administration in history has nominated a conservative for the Supreme Court. That's so unexpected. That is so weird. The president who believed a defeat in the popular vote the first time around gave him a mandate to do whatever he pleased and a narrow margin of victory the second time earned him political capital to gut Social Security has selected a judge so conservative the Washington Monument makes him uncomfortable... Hmm... no how about- He's so conservative he covers his kids' eyes whenever a train goes into a tunnel. No... how about- He's so conservative he spearheaded an effort to have all the squirrels removed from Virginia because he did not approve of their putting nuts in their mouths. Yes, I think that's the one.
The fact is, as conservative power brokers put it, elections have outcomes. That may simply be a euphemism for "to the victor go the spoils" but it's true enough. This is not only to say the friends of this administration have profited well, but that they get to be the decision makers too. How is that a surprise?
What is surprising is that is front page news. Both the LA and NY times saw fit to make this above the fold front page banner news. Maybe it's not surprising since a good deal of the stories that deserve attention right now highlight the laziness and culpability of contemporary investigatory journalism. Without a mainstream press willing to swallow any load of garbage in the name of access perhaps Iraq would have been a tougher sell to the American public and Valerie Plame would still be a covert operative. Without a profit driven media perhaps we would know and do more about AIDS and genocide in Africa, the regionally destabilizing aspects of CAFTA, and literally who knows what else.
The administration is at least being honest to itself by acting in accordance to their ideology and by staying on message (avoiding questions not about Roberts) during press conferences. Maybe the media are too. Maybe I am mistaken in thinking it's all anything more than theatrics. Maybe, whatever the name, it's all just Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood but with more wrinkles and uglier talking heads. If that's the case, let me be among those to say, "I am sorry."

Babe Ruth Was a Fat Alcoholic Wasn't He?

I don't like baseball. It bores me. I have little regard for the athleticism required. There is little creativity necessary to do well at any given position. Style of play and strategy are limited and a lot of players are fat. I don't say baseball is not a sport, it's just a lame one. This however doesn't stop people from looking for meaning and purpose in it. Connected to that, there seems to be a correlation between how philosophical one gets about baseball and how wrong they are; George Will immediately comes to mind. They are wrong because they are looking for parallels in something that is flawed from the beginning. That is, if baseball is a template of reference for how one approaches life then you end with a result similar to the model.To wit, be fat, boring, unimaginative, scratch your crotch every 5 minutes, spit wherever you feel like, stand around a lot, and emphasize those aspects of life (the game) that have little substantive value but are good for image (homeruns). Even if I did like baseball, I don't know that I would think it a good reference for how one should approach life. Considering the traits above though, it probably is that many people do actually live baseball as a model.
I say this because I happen to enjoy soccer and I am going to be a bit philosophical about it.
I am going to see Real Madrid beat LA tomorrow. This isn't to say I want LA to lose, or that Madrid will easily roll over the Galaxy. Only that, you know how somethings will be before they are, but still, you play on because there are more important things at stake.
I have every hope it will be a great match. LA has every reason to play to win and they do very well at home. Madrid, though still in their pre-season, definitely do not want to lose to an MLS team and even while using a relatively new playing style have an unparalleled offensive ability. Still, LA will likely lose; but, even in losing, LA has the chance to prove that their starting lineup can compete with the best Europe has to offer.
More generically, isn't this game a better approach? In the face of such incredible opposition every Galaxy player on the field matters at each moment of play. It is not a game where batter and pitcher square off and then temporarily put a ball and half the participants into the game. The whole field is action and with the right strategy and each player's head in the game a team like LA can minimize the advantages of an opponent like Real Madrid.
Perhaps playing well regardless of the opposition is not unique to soccer but an aspect of sports in general. But more specific to soccer are the elements of the game that make it such a joy to watch and its fans so zealous: the creativity, strategy, importance of each player at once in cooperation with excellent individuals, and the athleticism. It is a great metaphor for how life can be, how life should be.
Not to put too fine a point on it, soccer is better than baseball because soccer makes the world a better place. Every baseball player clubs baby seals and sells crack to pregnant women in the off season. Most soccer players have advanced medical degrees and work with Doctors Without Borders. Those that don't teach literacy classes in mulitple languages, even between games. The Biblical parable of sheep and goats can be paraphrased to be about soccer players and baseball players respectively. The lake of fire is a baseball diamond while the giant-cube heaven described in Revelation is a scoccer stadium. The jersey numbers of all players on a baseball team, when added together, always add up to 666. Really, or maybe I'm just saying this as a reminder to not take it too seriously.

Take That Hippies

One objection I have heard to the war in Iraq is that it is an unwise use of resources. The argument goes if the US were to face another, more potent and traditional enemy elsewhere while bogged down in Iraq, say China, it would be difficult to offer a substantial defense. It's not a question of US military ability; it is a reality of logistics.

It also considers the intense use of National Guardsmembers in Iraq. Their expressed purpose is to serve in the US proper. Remember how W. protected the skies of Texas from the Viet Cong? Well, what will we do should we need a large domestic mobilization of the Guard? What if we have a Summer riot? What if this extra wet winter leads to a super fueled fire season; Guardsmembers are regularly used during intense fire seasons. Where will they be? Forgetting the "what if's," why aren't they serving in the capacity of homeland defenders. It would be nice if they were securing ports, borders, and airports. It would be reassuring to know that the issue of homeland security included other than searching library patron lists and confiscating pointy things at the airport. Blah blah blah, whatever you say America-haters.

A Chinese general speaking of what would happen should the US and China engage in a conflict over something like Taiwanese independence, said large numbers of military personnel wouldn't be necessary because they would just use nuclear weapons. Ha! No troops needed at all.

So much for your very practical non-moralizing argument against war in Iraq you pinkos.

For 3 Transgressions And For 4

Commenting on the possibility of White House staff being involved in the outing of Valerie Plame, W. said anyone involved with breaking the law "would be taken care of." Given the consequences he's had to face for his shady financial dealings, his drug use, and his drunk driving, there is little wonder what W. means by this. [If] Karl Rove broke the law by intentionally revealing the identity of someone he knew was a CIA operative is that really so shocking? This White House has demonstrated there is little they won't do to maintain their strangle hold on power; attacking reputations, stealing elections, and endangering lives are all old standards for them so it is not difficult to imagine that a few times along the way a law here and there has been skirted. And they have been taken care of. They are far outside the realm of decency, far outside of the law, and well taken care of.
It's not just outing Valerie Plame and possibly putting her life at risk. That just seems to be a story with a little more media traction. More broadly this regime and the ethos it represents have been willing to cynically exploit life as a concept and lives specifically as a means for their own gain. Whether it's Plame, Schiavo, or each and every service person, civilian contractor, and bystander in Iraq, we see this clearly in this White House. They don't know how to do what is right. They devise ways to destroy people's lives. They are craftsmen of death.
Much of this is excused in the name of security, but how can any of us feel safe if they have made it clear no one else's life is worth anything to them except as a political expedient? How can we imagine anything is beyond the pale if they are willing to destroy lives as quickly as reputations?
And this is who we are. This is our choice. The lies, mortgaging the future, the cynicism, the death are not only tolerable, this is what some half of the voters chose for the nation.
But don't worry- it'll all be better if we can pray in public schools.

I'm listening to the official apologies given by the world's players for the international response to Serbian atrocities at Srebrenica and my contribution to the "never agains" is just as helpful as theirs.

Yancey vs. Dylan

You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed, you're gonna have to serve somebody. Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord, but you're gonna have to serve somebody.

Bob Dylan

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing there is a class preachers take in which they are taught to use some variation of the following phrase: "Now the original Greek word is ..." It immediately suggests scholarship and preparation while requiring very little, and congregations eat it up because they feel like they're getting some real Biblical insight without necessarily needing to do anything with it.

Phillip Yancey recently wrote an article for Christianity Today about authentic worship. Even though authentic is one of three words that Christians use that quickly makes me question the value of what I'm reading, (relevant and post-modern are the other two) it's not a bad article. He usually says something worth hearing and he typically says it well. In this article he makes the point that really worshipping God involves more than singing with your hands raised and repeating a chorus over and over. It's a good point to make, considering most congregations would be reluctant, at the very least, to hire a worship leader that didn't come with the requisite guitar and desire to tell people to get on their feet. He's right; worship is more than singing. There's a big "but" though.

Yancey uses the whole "original languages" bit to make his point. He says the primary Hebrew word for worship means "to bow down in reverence and submission." That's true. He also says that in the New Testament, the "the most common Greek word for worship means "to come forward to kiss.'" Okay, we can see where he's going with this: worshipping God requires an attitude of fear and intimacy. We have this convenient literary contrast, and making reference to the original Biblical languages gives the impression of scholarly authority as well. Put them together and that's a pretty good way to make a point about worship. Unless of course, it isn't. To take Yancey's point we may come away with the impression that we simply need to balance our bowing with a little kissing, or in context of what he writes- balancing our noise with a little silence, and that is what worship is about.

I understand the need to make a point and how nice it is to juxtapose these words to reveal a God that spoke in the wind but also came in the flesh, who is at once transcendent and present. But if we're talking about worship that's not really all there is to it. Yancey says the most common NT Greek word for worship means to come and kiss. This is true, but by way of background, in the Old Testament this word is applied to leaders, it is directed to the temple, Samuel's shadow, the scriptures, and other "things." It refers to a general attitude of appropriate piety or regard so it is very common. It refers to an internal condition towards a particular object, in this case God. But it applies to a ton of stuff. So why's that matter?

Philip Yancey isn't wrong but Bob Dylan is right. We serve someone. We're supposed to serve God, and that has nothing to do with instruments, hymns, raising hands, closing eyes, blah blah blah. Well, it has very little to do with that. It has to do with who we are and how we live. That word, serve, is only properly applied in human relations with God. It is only right to serve God. We can and do serve other things, but that's idolatry (to use the churchy term).

Understanding worship as service is more helpful because it is active and contextual. Service requires me to do something other than show up on Sundays.. This word when used in the Bible doesn't just refer to cultic rituals but the entirety of life in service of God. It's the leaving the gleanings in your field for the poor, it's visiting the imprisoned, feeding the hungry, giving drinks to the thirsty, it's loving justice and mercy, it's actually doing the stuff Jesus says to do if I really want to follow him.

Or maybe it's not. Maybe, I'll just close my eyes extra hard, sway a little more and raise my hands higher tomorrow morning.

Really?

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have received their reward."
C'mon, seriously. I mean Jesus himself said that.

Blue Like Jazz Is Not The Worst Book I've Ever Read

Some time ago I eagerly picked up a copy of Donald Miller’s Blue Like Jazz because it had been recommended as an innovative and insightful work on Christian spirituality. A magazine I trusted suggested I would not only enjoy reading this book, but be led into a new and deeper understanding of my faith. I read it, and waited for the insight. I read the first few chapters unimpressed but open-minded. I passed the midpoint, hoping that this great revelation was just beyond the horizon. I finished the book happy there was nothing more to read, but wondering if I missed something. I offered it to a young friend to see what he thought. Nothing. So now you have the testimony of two believers, both from the twenty to thirty something age range for whom this book is intended: Blue Like Jazz isn’t very good.

But now I see young men on campus reading it. Now I read review after review in Christian circles hailing it as the key to a deeper relationship with Jesus, and my fear is “the world” will get wind of this. My fear is a sincerely curious person will read what is hailed as “the freshest and most honest look at Christian spirituality” and see the disconnect between what Christ is speaking into their heart and what is spoken from those pages. Just to be clear, there is nothing necessarily wrong with Miller’s book. He’s not advocating anything heretical or encouraging some perversion of the Gospel. There’s just not much there. If what is there really is “brilliant” then we’re in trouble because we don’t have much to say; what we do have to say isn’t all that insightful and shouldn’t take the two hundred plus pages Miller uses.

Not all Christians are willing pawns of the Republican Party; not all Christians are right-wing ideologues. We’re not all vapid bourgeois cogs in the machines of conspicuous consumption; not all of us have drunk the wine of her impure passion. Some people calling themselves Christians take seriously the call to love their neighbor in ways beyond trickling their wealth through the economy in pursuit of the most expensive SUV, the flattest TV, and the most wrinkle free skin. Not all Christians are legalistic automatons or repositories of rigid dogma. Not all Christians live their lives from Sunday to Sunday in quiet desperation. Some Christians are socially progressive, some Christians are poets, some Christians are artists. Some people know God is intimately and deeply in love with them. Some people know this is at the heart and starting point of life. I know because I lived in my Volkswagen Bus.
See how easy that was? Nothing too extraordinary, nothing really new, a good reminder of some things we forget, but I said it in less than 150 words.

The More Later

So by now anyone remotely interested in Evangelicals and politics is familiar with the Worldview Weekend people and the quiz you can take to tell how good of a Christian you are, but to recap:
As far as a ranking of thought goes:
Social and economic conservatives who adhere to the Westminster Confession* are best, although they get lumped into the category of social and economic conservatives who believe in some type of deity, but reject the reality of Jesus. That's probably as it should be.
Social and economic conservatives who reject the very idea of a God are good.
Social and economic progressives who are Christians are liars.
Social and economic progressives who are atheists are communists.
And anyone who believes that being a follower of Jesus transcends labels like conservative or liberal and requires a unique ethic modeled after Christ's sacrifice is completely off of their radar.

There are plenty of problems with the breakdown of categories given by the Worldviewers, but there are plenty of problems with the test as well. I doubt they care since they are mostly interested in getting folks to sign up for their re-educational seminars and material. Which really aren't meant to re-educate anyone at all. They're just jamborees and self-affirmations for gun nut, home-schooling, John Birch types. I took this quiz three times, registering with three different email accounts I took it once as myself, answering the questions honestly and failed to demonstrate I have a Biblical Worldview. Then I took the test another two times, once giving answers as if I were an ultraconservative atheist (to prepare for this I sniffed oven cleaner for about an hour), and again as Michael Reagan might (to prepare for this I imagined what it would be like if made a living off of my father's reputation even if he didn't love me, made me sleep on the couch when I went home to visit him, or completely ignored my revelations of childhood sexual abuse). I now receive their propaganda on a regular basis. This is odd to me. It seems it would be more of a mission to reach the real me than the fake ones who already buy into their garbage.

So I get a ton of crap in my inbox from radical clerics and fundamental Christianists as well as advertisements to invest in Gold. My guess is all the "enlarge your member " and "size matters" junk mail comes from them too. That's where I got this article on whether the American revolution was Biblically justified or not. Their short answer: Yes, because so many of the revolutionaries were Protestant church members and frequently made reference to a generic deity. The longer answer is summed up here:

The Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other Christian denominations during the American Revolution believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy. This passage does not mean they had to submit to every civil law. Note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the “Faith Hall of Fame” as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience—including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, Moses, etc.…
... Unless you are a thoroughgoing pacifist, there is no basis for saying the Founders sinned in defending themselves against King George’s troops and their terrorist tactics against the colonists. The Founders’ fight was not a  “military insurrection.” Our early leaders took seriously their standing before God and believed He could bless a war of defense but not a war of offense. They fought to protect their own lives and those of their family and friends.

Here's my problem with this, this argument is excrement.

Note they (Brannon Howse and David Barton) don't make the case that these people correctly interpreted Romans 13, only that a whole bunch of people interpreted a passage of scripture in a way that justified their chosen course of action (sounds like something a liberal would do if you ask me).

The thing is Romans 13 endorses every government by virtue of God's order. King George III was a legitimate authority, as is W (kinda'), as was Clinton, as was (here's a tough nut to crack) Idi Amin, Nixon, Stalin, Hitler, Nero, and on and on.
All of these people's power came form God. Even if you don't like the idea, it doesn't change the fact that God allowed it. It doesn't mean they were good, but that doesn't matter. Now they are right in saying that this doesn't mean we have to obey every law (obey is a better word choice than submit given the passage in question) but we are still under the authority of a ruler. This simply means if we chose to disobey a law, we are subject to whatever the government decides is an appropriate response; being pursued by chariots, thrown into a lion's den or a furnace, beheadings, being fed to lions, being burned at the stake, beatings in Roman or Southern jails, lynchings are all par for the course. And if we do choose to disobey, violence does not seem to be a color on our palette. We really should note their "Faith Hall of Fame"- not a violent insurrectionist in the bunch. Revolutionaries for sure, but not really the kind to trust in their chariots (or swords, or cavalry, or muskets, or galleons, or grenades, or machine guns, or jet fighters, or laser satellites, or nano assault weapons...) or in the multitude of their warriors.

Now, I'm no thoroughgoing pacifist and I am just as happy to blow stuff up on the 4th of July as the next guy (maybe even more so) but come on, the Revolutionary War was a whole lot of sin. Deal with it (I mean deal with it honestly and in the grace of God- not with these lies).

So Happy Freakin' Birthday, America you founded in sin, 229 year old cuss, you.

More On This Later

These days I accuse a lot of people of hating America. Mostly these accusations come about because someone is criticizing my language, behavior, appearance, smell, taste in movies or books, drinking habits, or whatever. I think my wife hates America more than anyone I know. She hates America because she hates my freedom.

In any case, in honor of the US's birthday I bit my tongue quite a bit and vowed to drive only if it was absolutley convenient.

But I Have Kept a Journal For a Long Time

I don't know that I could (or would) officially describe myself as a blogger, but to be honest, I am a bit chagrined to be this far behind the curve.

The New White Stripes Album Is The Good

Is it so necessary I see my thoughts laid out in a way that they may be discovered by someone else? Am I trying to replace my loved ones and acquaintances with a personified ether? Am I so narcissistic that I imagine my silly one-off thoughts are worth saving or sharing? I'll probably find it less and less necessary to think about that as time goes on and I become more and more comfortable with this forum- or as I become so self-absorbed I no longer care about those concerns. But rather than sort out any of those thoughts dig this:

I used to play soccer with some Muslim guys from Kuwait. In our pre-game routine, if anyone would say we were going to win, one of these Muslim teammates would invariably say, "Insha Allah." This simply means, "If Allah wills it." (I don't mean to imply by saying "simply" that there are not a number of theological implications to discern by that statement- only to say that's what it means). At first I thought that was a reasonable thing to express, especially since we weren't always very good and it could relieve a lot of pressure if I failed at my position. It just wasn't God's will that we win, oh well. And I figured allah just means god, so why not get in on this little prayer to remind myself that "the race is not always to the swift" blah blah blah and ultimately, no matter what I do or prepare, God's in control and we may not win.

But the details. I am not Muslim. Nor do I believe that Allah is a generic term for God, nor does Allah refer to the God that I know. We don't have the same god (aside: I think my God is better). While I know that God can do whatever God wants, or as has been said better before "can do all things, and that no purpose of [God] can be thwarted, " and in that sense I say,"I will do such and such if God lets me." I also know that God can be petitioned, convinced, and known, not just conceptually but in an ongoing and evolving relationship. So I stopped saying, or agreeing with the sentiment, "Insha Allah."

Anyway, I am not pretending to know all the nuances of Islam through that one phrase, but in it there is a sense of humanity being at the will of a god who is separate and whose desires are not known. That may or may not be the case in Islam. Whatever, in my case, I have a pretty good sense of what God wants. Although to be fair I also think any knowledge of God is at once a projection of the human ideas of God and desires as well as a revelation of what really is God. I may be missing a lot, but I do know that God is an actual entity engaged in a relationship with humanity collectively and with individuals.

I don't mean to be preachy; I just want to lay some groundwork. There is a generic concept of God, but that is not who I know to be God. I don't know God as simply an unnamed "other" or the sum of the unexplained phenomena beyond human comprehension. I believe that God is known by the revelation that is Jesus and the implications of that revelation are pretty revolutionary as far as life is concerned.

Anyway, a coworker of mine told me her god has a problem with the Indigo Girls. I happen to believe I was made in God's image so it would be cool to think that if God has a problem with girlie pseudo-folky college-rock, then I would too. And I do. It makes sense. If all of humanity is made in the image of God, pseudo-folky college-rock's existence as a genre is evidence of rebellion against that image. Further, anything I do or don't like is evidence of the nature of God. I like stuff because it is absolutely good; stuff that sucks is evil, to wit, The White Stripes new album is not just good, it is divine, they are the good. The Indigo Girls' music is evil. This knowledge of the good and bad is easy. I know what I do and don't like.

I don't really think that. And, anyway that's not what my coworker meant to say.

What my coworker was really trying to say is her god doesn't like lesbians. She said she is totally fine with the Indigo Girls musically, and if it were up to her she would like them, but because they try to spread their lesbian politics around her god won't let her. And as far their being people is concerned, she really wants to like them but, sorry, she's not allowed. It came about this way: The Indigo Girls came on the radio and she said something about really liking the Indigo Girls in the past. Someone else asked if she didn't like their style now or something like that and she said- No that's fine, but my god says homosexuality is wrong. Now what exactly that means can be debated but, like my Muslim teammates, I don't think she and I know the same God.

What she was describing then and at other times as god was something that remains external to her but reflects her desires- some type of rule by which she can negotiate the challenges and difficult questions of life while at the same time affirm what she has decided is good. She mentioned some Bible verses that had something to say about sexual behaviors and said it was necessary for her to adhere to the commands of these verses, but if challenged with very clear commands about poverty, war, life, etc... she has a way of explaining them away.

There's a lot there but long story short, this coworker worships conservatism. That's not unique or difficult to identify. I am surrounded by Christians who do that and anything I say about it here probably won't be new but that won't stop me from saying it. Maybe if I decide to share this site with anyone else I can get some feedback and some help in what I have kind of discovered to be my struggle: to just be a prophetic voice in my little congregation, to share a hope in the future and remind us of our responsibility now.