PlaidBerry

Announcement:

2005-07-25T21:46:00.000-06:00

(drumroll...)

Please note that PlaidBerry is going on hiatus in order to roll out something bigger and better. Thanks to all my faithful readers for listening, concurring, and/or telling me to get a clue. Now please go check out a whole new kind of adventure in blogging at eternalrevolution.com. It's the bomb, baby. The party officially starts August 1.

Go see what it's all about and... Get Spiritualized.

Emergent Stereotypes

2005-07-18T17:43:00.000-06:00

Adam at Boar's Head Tavern does something I've been meaning to do for a while now. He tries to interject a little balance amidst all the madness over the Emergent Church. He states:

I get most annoyed when people absolutely hate it or absolutely love it... People who label the EC as a seeker-driven postmodern marketing campaign filled with gay-loving liberals who don't believe in absolute truth should really do themselves a favor and get their heads out of the sand. People who think the EC is the most wonderful thing that has happened to Christianity and praise God for giving us Postmodernity as the antibiotics to a dying culture really don't have a clue as to what they are talking about... The EC is not all bad and it is not all good.

I'd like to write a little on the subject myself, but for the time being, suffice to say that the hysteria (particularly by emergent-bashers) is getting a little old. Especially when most critics seem to understand little more about it than what they've read in excerpts from Brian McLaren's books or perused over at Emergent Village. McLaren is no more the sole voice of the EC than Rick Warren is for evangelicalism.

So, like, chill. And realize the Emergent folks are asking some pertinent questions. Perhaps people should be less quick to criticize the EC and realize that maybe - just maybe - their own denominations may not be completely flawless either.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-07-15T13:09:00.000-06:00

By now, I would hope you know to turn to PlaidBerry for all the latest celebrity gossip. Do you find that you just cannot get enough pop culture? Is your insatiable appetite for all the latest on the lifestyles of the rich and famous not quite fulfilled by the plethora of ‘entertainment’ news in the form of magazines, TV shows, and websites? I feel your pain.

Here is Bill Simmons’ nice summary of a recent Cruise interview:

Tom Cruise takes his unique brand of crazy Down Under. I suggest skipping to right around the 8:40 mark, when Cruise starts icily responding to normal questions about Nicole Kidman, culminating with him telling the interviewer to "put your manners back in." Tom Cruise, ladies and gentlemen -- parent to the world.

I’m certainly not the first one to make this observation, but James Lileks is a great writer… He’s funny, yet always seems to work in some very insightful observations. Here is what he had to say today:

I would like to have a cabin… I would love to smell the ancestral perfume of the lakes – dead fish and weeds – and listen to the sounds of the country. The gutteral sigh of a powerboat motor throttling down, the soft thunk of the boat hitting the dock, the gentle plosh of the tackle falling in the water, the sudden scream of the drunk neighbor getting his hand caught between dock and boat.

But the days of a little humble shack furnished with thift-store stuff chosen for its ability to withstand mold – well, they’re over. Now you buy a lot on Lake Lelac, tear down the cabin that’s already there, build a luxurious house with all the modern appointments, then drive home. You visit it once a week, like a beloved relative who’s doing time. During the week you stare at the ceiling, convinced someone is breaking in the cabin and stealing the fixtures.

Oh, You Gotta Hear This...

2005-07-15T07:55:00.000-06:00

I listened to this tape from ABC News released in 1999 and now I'm really confused. It talks about an "alliance" between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It also mentions clear links between Iraq and Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. (Hat tip: Instapundit)

But, clearly, Iraq was a "distraction" from the war on terror, right? I thought it was common knowledge that there was "no link" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, much less between Hussein and bin Laden? Could you liberals please explain to me what's going on here? Because, you know, it's not just this tape. There are also pesky articles like this one looming around.

Seriously, someone explain this. Perhaps it's another vast right wing conspiracy?

2005-07-14T08:00:00.000-06:00

Any Pittsburgh Steeler fans out there will really appreciate this article. Only in 'the burgh' my friends.

The Christian Carnival is up at ticking time blog. Byron does a nice job using a baseball theme in putting it together.

Off the Deep(ak) End

2005-07-12T17:01:00.000-06:00

Good news for all those who have suffered immensely this past week in the wake of the London bombings. Deepak Chopra is here to save the day. Like superman, he's arrived on the scene just in time to disburse a message of peace. (He really likes that word.) Here's Deepak's sage advice (and it really was written in response to the terrorist attack in London):

Millions of people are ready to join in harmonious interaction with Nature -- and with our own complex inner nature -- to create a world of peace, harmony, laughter and love. Let us strengthen our intention to create that critical mass of peace consciousness. Every tear can be a drop of nourishment for the new world that wants to be born and is making itself known little by little, every day. Each one of us can help create this critical mass by becoming the embodiment of peace conciousness through peace practices:

Being Peace
Thinking Peace
Feeling Peace
Speaking Peace
Acting Peace
Creating Peace
Sharing Peace
Celebrating Peace.

I honestly could not make up something this good. Someone out there must actually be listening to this guy though. I mean I think he actually sells a decent number of books. Maybe he's hypnotizing people by taking like this (you know, with the constant repetition and all). I'm sure I could find some hippies up the road in Boulder, CO, who see eye to eye with this new age guru, but how about bin Laden? Any Al-Qaeda members converted to Israeli lovers yet from these get-happy therapy sessions?

Actually, I'm thinking this guy is destined to explode soon. It's kinda like that Seinfeld episode with Kramer and George's dad doing the "Serenity Now" bit...

UPDATE: Well here's one guy who's learned quite a lot from Deepak apparently:

So far, I've learned so much from Deepak Chopra! Like, when faced with one act of terror, simply equate it to an act of non-terror!

...Seriously, I mean, how bad is terrorism, when you compare that to our country's indifference to the homeless? Or the way we avert our eyes from passive smoking? Or gas-guzzling SUVs? What about peanuts on airplanes?

Wisdom of the Robed Ones

2005-07-11T20:28:00.000-06:00

"If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers." - Abraham Lincoln

Unfortunately, we've had to find out the hard way that Abe was right about this. So now that the will of the people in many facets of life has been overruled, we should turn to the question of how our 'Supreme' rulers are doing. Mark Steyn gives a nice summary of recent court decisions, including the following:

Last week, in two rulings, the Supreme Court decided that (a) displays of the Ten Commandments are constitutional and (b) displays of the Ten Commandments are unconstitutional.

Read the rest of the article. This would be really funny if it were not for the fact that it's actually happening.

My Big Problem With “Progressive” Christianity

2005-07-10T22:07:00.000-06:00

For the last several months I've felt a sort of calm, a sense of peacefulness for the most part. It's been very nice... and it's ending. Cue the resurgence of that one big issue. The one that keeps me up at night at times once it re-enters my mind and I begin (reluctantly) to engage it once again.

The issue to which I am referring is the big A-bomb. It's enough to desecrate any semblance of a rational conversation, dialogue, or even a relationship. That issue is, of course, abortion. Exaggeration? Well, perhaps, but then again maybe not. If we are to talk of a difference in worldview between God-fearing folks and secularists, this issue encapsulates it. (Read Francis Schaeffer's Christian Manifesto for an elaboration of this vast dichotomy in underlying beliefs.)

Okay so far - just very different worldviews. I don't like it, but I understand it. But when followers of Christ begin debating the abortion issue, I do not get it… at all. (Understand I'm not referring to exceptions in rare instances such as rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life.)

Generally, I am a big fan of the lively debate of issues. But I also know that we can twist ourselves in knots at any given moment with tortured logic or random scriptural referencing. And the idea that Christians are advocating abortion rights amounts to a most bizarre twist on the religion I believe. I’m sorry if my saying this angers some people, but I honestly can't fathom being a believer in Christ and equivocating on this issue.

So what's wrong with me and other pro-lifers (oh, I meant 'anti-choice women haters')? Well, Public Theologian explains with his post at the Christian Alliance For Progress Blog. It turns out that we are “very conservative Christians, who have grown up with a very limited perspective both historically and biblically”. Gee, thanks for the kind description.

Now I want to say that I would not bother to address this issue if I did not respect some of the leading proponents. Public Theologian seems to be consistent in his ideology, backs up his opinions through scripture, and typically comes from a sound intellectual basis. As well, the other bloggers at CAP are generally pretty fair-minded folks with whom I may disagree often but still can respect... until we get to this issue.

There are all sorts of arguments I could make to defend the rights of an unborn child, and especially when we get in to theological reasoning. If you believe in God, the miracle of birth and creation, and God's will, what sort of arrogance do we need to espouse to believe in our having "veto power" over the decision of who gets to live or die?

But setting that whole realm aside for the purpose of this post, I think Info Theory asked the two biggest questions that need to be addressed in the abortion debate:

1. In our democratic society, do all persons have equal intrinsic rights (we are especially concerned here with the right to life--the most fundamental of all rights)?

2. When is a person a person?

Assuming most folks are not yet morally callous enough to answer "no" to question number one, I'd like to consider the second question.

When is a person a person? Can a mother flush a baby down a toilet or throw it in the trash immediately after it is born? No? Okay. What about an hour before it is born? Doesn't happen? Yes it does. Okay, well assuming you answered 'no' to those questions. Then when is it okay? Day 40? Day 52.5? But why quibble? Think of the horrible life the baby would have... the inconvenience to the mother... besides, how do I have the right to say anything anyway?

Please don't make me puke. If it's human life - a person - I have a right (indeed an obligation) to care. Hopefully, we as a society are not so far down the road to ruin that we don't even care about the answer to the question of whether we are systematically ending person-hood out of reasons of inconvenience.

Of course, this issue is a huge deal right now because of pending Supreme Court nominations. And it's the one issue I would have hoped Christians could rally around (assuming the term means something more than appeasement or something other than just acquiesing to cultural relativism).

Some good news: There may be signs that pro-abortion activists losing their resolve. Femisting.com fears that to be the case. Pro-choice activist groups “need young people to replenish their aging ranks”. Anyone else find this statement rather ironic? (Hat tip: Bush vs. Choice Blog)

I understand that we can't solve this issue by simply passing laws. We need to change people's hearts. But we should not be okay with having laws that condone the disregard for human life. There are ramifications to this disposability of life sort of mindset... and they're not good.

George Allen... Remember That Name

2005-07-08T14:01:00.000-06:00

Did you just read a semi-rant against politics on this blog? Uh, well, my attention span is kinda short and has consequently drifted back into the political realm. Rest assured, however, that I'm still sick of it though and I meant every word I said.

But after reading an article by George Will, I'm reminded about the man I think could be the next President. (HT: Stones Cry Out) That would be Senator George Allen from Virgina. I initially made this prediction several months ago.

If he runs in 2008, he will win the Republican nomination. If he wins the Republican nomination, he has a very good chance of being elected President (I think, I hope, fingers crossed...) The thought of President Hillary is already sending chills up my spine. This guy is the best hope for the GOP. Just listen to him talk some time.

The Charm of a Quirky Movie Maker

2005-07-08T12:01:00.000-06:00

I've been pondering recently what it is that I like so much about filmmaker Wes Anderson. In particular, this curiousity has risen in regard to some folks who "don't get it" when they watch his movies. How to explain the phenomenon to these people? Hmmm... Well, fortunately Dignan has taken on this task and done a good job of articulating the genius behind such hipster/cult classics as Bottle Rocket, Rushmore, Royal Tennenbaums, and The Life Aquatic. Take a look at his explanation.

A Word About Politics

2005-07-07T11:16:00.000-06:00

I'm sick of politics. Now, understand, I'm not apathetic or uninterested in political thought. To the contrary, I have always held a natural proclivity for it. When I was ten years old, I'd frequently go over to my great uncle Paul's house to discuss/argue politics with him. And I relished those discussions. He was a life-long Democrat, but also a reasonable fellow and could see why I held Reagan in such high regard.

I was constantly irked by the legions of my unionized relatives in the old steel town I grew up in (Pittsburgh) who blamed Reagan for the loss of jobs in the city. It was such a copout. My ideology was already formed at a young age - even if I could not articulate it at the time. In short, I believed in individual responsibility over a victim-mindset. And I still do. As such, it is the core reason I continue to consider myself a conservative.

But things get complicated, and as a result, I am a much more bleeding heart conservative than most. Anyway, my point is that things are complicated. Very few issues are black and white. Yet we have "teams" in politics. We have the good guys who are affiliated with your respective team - be it D or R. It's so silly because the issues the teams espouse do not necessarily flow logically. Yet people are so beholden to their respective teams that they do not let the inherent inconsistencies get in the way of good, old fashioned partisanship.

For example, why on earth should I not care about the earth just because I care about the lives of unborn children? I'm a capitalist, but there should be limits placed upon the free markets. Drilling in Alaska is not a solution to our country's oil problems. It's a stop gap, we need a solution. We need to do whatever it takes to ween ourselves off of oil dependence. And in a hurry.

We do not need an Amendment to keep people from burning the flag. If someone wants to burn a flag, I say go for it. In fact, put that person on TV burning the stars and stripes, and watch the poll numbers go up in favor of the war, trade, or whatever issue that traitor is opposing. Make more movies I hate like Farenheit 911. Please continue to speak your mind, Mr. Moore, and thank you for your help in getting moderates to move in droves to vote for Mr. Bush.

I've been doing some reading in various airports recently in the midst of a considerable travel schedule. Amongst the reading was an interesting article in The Economist magazine about giving aid to Africa. Now, in general, I like less government, not more. And I am much more inclined to support private efforts to help people than I am bloated, bureaucratic ones. But it's not that easy.

There are ten million children orphaned by AIDS in Africa. There is a genocide going on in the Sudan right now that some estimates show has cost the lives of upwards of one quarter million innocent people. Worldwide, there are more than a billion people who lack access to clean drinking water.

Oh, but I'm sorry, I forgot that I'm a conservative so therefore I don't care about these issues. I'm tired of it. (The sad thing is as long as Democrats fail to value the lives of unborn children, I'll continue to vote Republican.) My point is not to suggest that my viewpoints on these issues are the right ones, but rather that they are all over the map and I don't understand why this is the exception rather than the rule. Afterall, we are human beings with minds and not sheep. The blatant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty that results from blind partisanship gets to be a bit too much for me to take.

Group Blogs - The Essence of Cool

2005-06-30T22:25:00.000-06:00

The Eternal Revolution is coming! It's a blog collaborative I'm starting up that will be affiliated with my church. It will be officially unveiled sometime this summer. Stay tuned. This is also part of the reason my blogging on this site has been fairly light as of late.

Speaking of collaborative blogging start-ups, Bonnie, a friend of PlaidBerry, and six other women have launched a new effort entitled, Intellectuelle. It seems Marla Swoffer has spearheaded this effort. I've only recently discovered Marla's own blog, but I'm already giving it high marks for her references to both C.S. Lewis AND Seinfeld. These ladies will undoubtedly have some interesting things to say.

Lastly, I should note that Dignan has brought in a few other characters from the Bottle Rocket cast to join in the blogging fun. Suffice to say I will be keeping a keen eye on Mr. Henry's trickery over there. Bird Dog to Scarecrow...

Oh, and on more a random note, I'd highly recommend checking out the new White Stripes disc. It's some good ole' fashioned rock and roll for summer. Peace.

A Void or A Vision?

2005-06-28T21:26:00.000-06:00

The human state is, in a sense, a thing of tremendous comedic material. Or maybe it’s just me that I find hilarious – in an ironic and sad sort of way. I’m becoming more aware of the fact that I’m constantly distracted. The exact moment I gain awareness of some nugget of Truth, it vanishes and in returns some lame navel-gazing strain of thought. It is very annoying.

I deeply yearn, if only for a moment, to concentrate on something greater than me or anything directly related to my small little world. There is enormous peace and enlightenment in those fleeting moments of spiritual awakening. What I’m really talking about is the hope of coming to grips with the implications of the Greatest Story Ever Told and realizing that it is… true.

The best writer in the world could never recreate a story that reaches the glorious magnitude of the one told of Jesus Christ. (I would hope that even my atheist readers – though interpreting the story as a myth - would acknowledge this.) It is the tale of a thoroughly innocent man being subjected to one of the cruelest forms of execution ever devised.

Now, think of the most generous and kind person you know. This sort of person, at times anyway, thinks and cares of a world outside him/herself. Now, imagine a person not only thinking and caring for others to such an extent, but dying for them. And the sacrificial death would be intended not only for those of the friend variety, but also for those who mocked, laughed, and spat upon the man while he was dying.

Imagine the thought of loving someone in a way that is completely disconnected from your own interests. No matter what that person did or said, you would return the favor with a reaction dictated by nothing but love. No conditions or stipulations. The only strings attached are used to tie a huge bow on this divine gift of love.

During those precious, albeit fleeting, moments when I look to a cross on my wall or in the sanctuary and my tiny brain really, truly grasps the reality of the sacrifice made, I can barely contain my emotion and amazement. It is the story that we all long for internally. It fills an omnipresent God-shaped void in existence in every single human being.

This audacious tale of Christ is the only answer to the odd, nagging guilt that can linger in me from time to time. When I realize it is not about me or my own efforts thanks to an unmerited mercy and sacrifice made on my behalf, I am about to burst at the seems in a spirit of thanksgiving.

So, here’s THE question... the question that every believer should be asking him/herself and every non-believer should be wondering:

Why is it that the most prevalent ‘vision’ of Christianity and the Kingdom of God is defined by what it is not? I’m imagining myself as a non-believer now: I think of all of the best experiences I’ve had and then imagine Christianity as no more than a set of rules which would have prohibited me to partake in a large portion of them. I'm thinking, “Uh, sorry, holy rollers, keep your message to yourself. Don’t cramp my style.”

How did it come to this? Look, I’m not saying there are not rules and morals we need to live by. But the rules are not the point. The point is the greatest sacrifice ever made and the corresponding unconditional love that, when truly understood, results in an enormous paradigm shift in the mind of the believer.

At that point, there is a reciprocated desire for obedience and discipline that will swell up in us. We actually want to obey due to the gratitude for the love shown to us. You can catch a glimpse of it in the eyes of a little boy looking at his father respectfully and gratefully and seeking to please him. The same is true – though exponentially more so – to us looking to the heavenly Father.

Jared at Thinklings Blog wisely counseled:

…we should be calling the lost into something, not just away from something. My hope is we are inviting the lost into an alternate reality, into a kingdom life that buzzes and hums with God’s active presence and abundant grace and love.

Exactly. Now if you need to be told where to send your kids to school, there are plenty of self-righteous legalists more than happy to oblige. Jollyblogger, Rev-Ed, and Internet Monk have all recently and astutely pointed out (infuriating) examples of pious attempts at control mongering and/or petty rule making.

I’d rather have a vision. Or, more specifically, I want to hone in on those ever-rare moments of spiritual revelation that can occur when I get my mind off of myself. Then I want to turn around and present that thrilling Truth to people who need to hear it. The story is the Paradigm Shifter.

The secret needs to get out. Amazing grace needs to flood this superficial culture to stop the downward spiral. Everyone needs to know of one man who came in the name of love. Lives depend on it.

Doubting China’s Inevitable World Takeover?

2005-06-22T13:00:00.000-06:00

In the financial world, as far as big-picture thinking goes, China is on the top of nearly everyone's mind. I have to admit I’ve begun falling into the mindset that China’s takeover of the world (at least economically) in the 21st Century is a foregone conclusion. Now, it may very well occur, but there is an interesting case to be made that the Communists controlling that country will not allow it to happen.

Anyone who wants proof as to why Mark Steyn is one of the greatest writers alive should read his commentary on China. In it, he states:

If you're a resource-poor nation (as China is), long-term prosperity comes from liberating the creative energies of your people - and Beijing still has no interest in that. If a blogger attempts to use the words "freedom" or "democracy" or "Taiwan independence" on Microsoft's new Chinese internet portal, he gets the message: "This item contains forbidden speech. Please delete the forbidden speech."

How pathetic is that? Not just for the Microsoft-spined Corporation, which should be ashamed of itself, but for the Chinese government, which pretends to be a world power but is terrified of words. Does "Commie wimps" count as forbidden speech, too?

...Anti-Americans betting on Beijing will find the China shop is in the end mostly a lot of bull.

Case in point: RConversation reports the latest stifling of free (blogging) speech in China, with some help from U.S. technology.

Dehumanization

2005-06-21T23:49:00.000-06:00

I have just discovered some fascinating insights/theories into the nature of Hell by N.T. Wright. Like most of his eternal pontifications, Wright focuses largely on the earthly realm rather than postulating on the post-mortem. In essence, he is describing a veritable "Hell on Earth".

In Following Jesus, Wright predicates his theory on the Biblically-based assumption that we are all made in the image of God. From there he goes on to clarify that this fact should not be treated as a right or a mere possession. Instead it is a gift which he likens to a musical instrument bequeathed to us by a parent or grandparent. He surmises:

...the way to keep the wonderful instrument in tune is to play it - to play it for all its worth; to practice reflecting the image of God, which you do through worship, and love and service to one another, rejoicing with the joyful and weeping with the mourners. You do it, in other words, by following Jesus.

Then Wright turns to consider the alternative behavior. At this point, his observation becomes really intriguing and the consequences are frightening:

But if we worship other gods - and the other gods are powerful and active in our world right now - then all we can expect is for the image to atrophy. The instrument will go out of tune.

...if it is possible, as I've suggested, for human beings to choose to live more and more out of tune with the divine intention, to reflect the image of God less and less, there is nothing to stop them finally ceasing to bear that image, and so to be, as it were, beings who were once human but are not now.

Those who persistently refuse to follow Jesus, the true image of God, will by their own choice become less and less like him, that is, less and less truly human. We sometimes say, even of living people, that they have become inhuman, or that they have turned into monsters. Drugs can do that to people; so can drink. So can jealousy. So can unemployment. So can homelessness, or lovelessness. (Emphasis Mine)

So what are the root causes that can lead people down the path to becoming dehumanized? It seems to me there are two primary sources to blame: distractions and laziness.

Echoing a theme from C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters, Don Miller in Blue Like Jazz opines:

I believe that the greatest trick of the devil is not to get us into some sort of evil but rather have us wasting time. This is why the devil tries so hard to get Christians to be religious. If he can sink a man's mind into habit, he will prevent his heart from engaging God.

In The Road Less Traveled, M. Scott Peck suggests an equally plausible culprit for man's sin nature (or the Great Dehumanizer as it were): entropy. He states:

In debating the wisdom of a proposed course of action, human beings routinely fail to obtain God's side of the issue... We make this failure because we are lazy. It is work to hold these internal debates. And if we take them seriously, we usually find ourselves being urged to take the more difficult path, the path of more effort rather than less.

To conduct the debate is to open ourselves to suffering and struggle. Each and every one of us, more or less frequently, will hold back from this work, will also seek to avoid this painful step.

Why should we even consider such a gloomy scenario as the potential annihilation of our own humanity? I'll revert back to Wright for this answer.

As Christians, we look for the marriage of heaven and earth, not their separation; and in that light we must look with Christian realism at the possibility of a different, and disastrous, marriage, which has become all too real a possibility in our own day: a marriage of hell and earth.

This leads me to consider one of the main things I like about Wright's sermons and writings, which is well articulated by Asbell at The Thinklings Blog:

I find Wright to be refreshing in his insistence that Christianity is not about what happens to your soul after you die. Life's not about just hanging in there until death so you can get your post-mortem reward. I never find Jesus saying "do or believe such and such so that you will go to heaven when you die." He says, "give up your life now and follow me; live a life that truly means something." Followers of Jesus are to live in light of heaven, not merely in anticipation of it.

Little Roger Eberts

2005-06-20T08:00:00.000-06:00

Question: Are we emulating entertainment critics or the life of Christ?

There is a phenomenon that I find to be ever more striking and apparent. Everyone has some sort of opinion to offer. Whether it’s about Michael Jackson or Martha Stewart in pop culture or Joel Osteen or Rick Warren in Christian circles, we are inundated with opinions. We are all critics. I’m not sure how or why this is happening. Although I’d speculate that it is always easier to point the finger than it is to express or live out a proactive vision.

Now, I’m not saying we do not need critical thought. It serves a valuable purpose and a necessary counterpoint to (perceived) inaccuracies and/or injustices going on. However, it seems to me that when backbiting and criticism are being stepped up, certain principles that many of us would hope to live by and exert are falling by the way side.

First and foremost, understand that I have a big proclivity toward criticism so this is a rebuke of my own behavior as much as anyone else’s. But I’m beginning to acknowledge that I have many more questions than answers.

Sometimes I feel like a schizophrenic in my spiritual journey. By that I mean, I strongly believe in core Christian doctrine such as stated in the Apostle’s Creed and the like, but it is when we step out into the periphery that I admit to bouncing all over the place.

My question, though, is what is wrong with that? Why should it be necessary for me (or anyone else) to have an opinion on what style of worship is best, the appropriate extent of liturgy in church, or what translation of the Bible must be used? But more importantly, why should I feel the need to set those parameters for others?

Theology is important and rigorous intellectual theorizing has its place. However, I for one do not want to morph into a little Roger Ebert in the pew and allow my mind to become obscured from the truly big ideas that have the power to change lives.

There are a few parameters and core values that are actually really important. These include the principles of grace, forgiveness, and redemption offered through Christ. As the song asserts, “There is power, power, wonder-working power in the blood.”

That truth is enough to crush the huge burdens of guilt, shame, and anger to which all of us, by our very nature, are beholden. Of course, if we are too caught up in analyzing the minutia of the worship style involved, we will likely the miss the amazing message of these lyrics altogether. And what a huge omission that would be for not only our own souls but also for those who desperately need to hear it and have not yet had the opportunity.

Entertainment Review - 1st Edition

2005-06-16T13:27:00.000-06:00

Summer is a fantastic time for hiking, camping, swimming, concert-going, all sorts of things except, as it turns out, blogging for me thus far. I’m thinking that perhaps my efforts may begin to morph into more of an entertainment review of sorts at least during these warmer, sunnier months. So here is the first edition of the PlaidBerry Entertainment Review:

Alison Krauss concert mini-review. Ah, Blue Grass on the Red Rocks. Summer has officially arrived in Colorado. I hadn’t really planned on going to this one until a day before this show. Even as the music started, my thoughts drifted to the Wilco concert I will be seeing there on Friday night. But low expectations can make for a very pleasant surprise as it did last night.

Alison Krauss has a lovely voice and I knew that going in, but I did not anticipate an amazing encore comprised of three fantastic a cappella songs. Also, I had not expected the immensely talented band that tours with her, including the voice behind “The Man of Constant Sorrows” (hint: it’s not George Clooney). Banjo, steel guitar, and violin - under the moon and stars and big red rocks… To any friend who was not there, it begged the question: O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Buy this CD:

That would be Coldplay’s new one called “X&Y”. British rock is where it’s at.

Go see this movie - right away:

Cinderella Man.

Any movie with Russell Crowe in the lead role is basically a must-see at this point. And this one, in particular, has a really redeeming message to it. Good stuff.

A Shout Out to My Taggers

2005-06-14T22:45:00.000-06:00

Hey, it’s great to know I’m tag-worthy. Thanks to both Lance and Bonnie for tagging me with the following questions.

Total number of books owned, ever: I dunno, a couple hundred I guess.

Last book I bought: I just recently bought two from Amazon. The first is called Putting Amazing Back Into Grace and was written by Michael Horton. I made it about half way through this one, and I think that’s about as far as I will get. It turns out Mr. Horton’s definition of grace is completely predicated upon a belief in predestination. Bummer. My other recent purchase is Following Jesus by N.T. Wright. Wright is upsetting some self-righteous religious folks so I took that as a good sign. So far, I dig the book. It’s got some interesting ideas in it. I’m not real well versed in Wright’s work yet, but he seems to be a thought-provoking writer.

Last book I read: Blue Like Jazz by Don Miller. I guess Don most closely fits the postmodern, emergent church type. His politics are left of mine, but nonetheless I would highly recommend this one. While I found it quite easy to read, it really affected me in a positive way. It is written in a refreshing and honest narrative style and it rejuvenated me spiritually while reading it.

Five books that mean a lot to me:

1) Mere Christianity: I read this one about three years ago shortly after moving out to Colorado. I was lost. My faith was entering a crisis. Actually, it had been moving in that direction for a while. Skeptical arguments against Christianity started to weigh on me, and I was becoming unsure as to the intellectual strength of my faith. My worldview was about to crumble… Enter C.S. Lewis. Exit doubt.

2) Orthodoxy: I’m not even sure how I wound up reading a book written more than one hundred years ago with such a dry name. I think I picked it up solely based on the reference to it by C.S. Lewis. Man, this book is anything but dry. Chesterton is hilarious. I mean, like, so witty I actually laughed out loud reading certain sections. I’ve also read Everlasting Man (which is also very good), but I’ve got to say Orthodoxy is the real masterpiece.

3) What’s So Amazing About Grace: Philip Yancey really won me over big time with this one. Grace is such a mind-blowing concept, and Yancey really brings it to fruition in this gem. It is destined to be a milestone. I thought that when I first read it and I’m even more convinced of that now.

4) Jesus Among Other Gods: I like Ravi Zacharias and this one is his best in my opinion. The title is pretty much self-explanatory. Not a thorough apologetic exposition by any means, but a great little book containing strong reasoning and great emotional appeal.

5) When Character Was King – A Story of Ronald Reagan: Peggy Noonan is a fantastic writer. I marvel at her ability to articulate such smart, big ideas in such an effortless manner. So when I saw she had written a biographical portrait of my one of my favorite Presidents, I had little doubt it would be a keeper. But reading about the life of this incredible man created a sense of awe beyond what I had anticipated. Reagan was the embodiment of authenticity and character. And those traits are perfectly captured in this portrayal by the Gipper’s former speechwriter.

I’m not one to pass these sorts of things on. So I’m very sorry if that disrupts the flow here. However, I found this little exercise to be quite instructive and introspective and would encourage readers out there to take part.

Postmodern Medicine - Take Two

2005-06-10T17:30:00.000-06:00

As I continue to probe into the whole realm of postmodernism, my head begins to spin ever faster, and I find myself even more confused than normal. However, I find it to be a huge help to bear in mind the distinction that needs to be made between postmodern culture and postmodern epistemology. (Thanks to David at Through a Glass Darkly for reminding me of this recently.)

As for postmodern culture, it seems to stress authenticity in place of the all too common pre-packaged church marketing schemes. I like that. Andrew at Tall Skinny Kiwi pointed out a fine article by David Posthuma entitled, Postmodern Ministry Takes Us Back to The Bible. As a member of what he deems the “echo-boomer” generation, I think the following assessment really does resonant:

If you ask most church leaders what trait most typifies the Echo-Boomer generation (ages 15 – 33), the likely response will be that the current generation does not believe in absolute truth…that the young adult decides for themselves what is true. Repeatedly, I have heard church leaders regale against the current relativistic generation because they tend to perceive such young adults as de-valuing Scripture. I believe this perception is inaccurate.

It is very true that today’s young adult wants to judge for themselves what is true…and this includes the process of knowing God. The Echo-Boomer has no love for the know-it-all pastor who tells the congregation what to believe and how to live. At the same time, the Echo-Boomer displays little long-term appreciation for topical talks we label as “Seeker Services”.

They know intrinsically that God is much more complex than these feather-weight talks convey. The Echo-Boomer, above all things seeks authenticity. They are marketing savvy. They can smell a packaged presentation a mile away…they have trained themselves to disbelieve any thing that does not display true authenticity.

It is when we turn to the epistemological discourse that I get a little leery of the potential ramifications of postmodernism. Catez has an interesting interview with Nancy Pearcy in which Nancy makes the following observation:

…postmodernism is growing ever more subjective and relativistic, reducing truth to private, individual experience ("true for me, but not true for you").

She then goes on to say:

As Christians, our goal should be to reject this dichotomy altogether. All truth is God's truth, in every area or field. God has created a multi-dimensional world with many forms of truth - scientific truth, religious truth, moral truth, mathematical truth, artistic truth, and so on. That's why the title of my book declares that Christianity is Total Truth.

I’m thinking she’s right here. As with pretty much anything, it is a matter of finding the right balance. Postmodernism can lead to radical subjectivism, while modernism can lead to radical idolatry. I suspect we want to avoid them both.

UPDATE: iMonk has some interesting thoughts on postmodernism. Most of it echoes and elaborates on the points I was making. But he also asks a very interesting question to which I've yet to hear a good answer:

It strikes me as particularly strange that the defenders of true Christianity don't see their tacit defense of modernism as more than a little troubling. How can these critics condemn "postmodernism" without embracing the errors of modernity?

Pomo everywhere - Tim Challies, in a new post, equates postmodernism with relativism. I can see how so many people are conflating the two, but again I think it's oversimplified, particularly when considering postmodernism also has a cultural context. Additionally, by so adamantly rejecting postmodernism, are we to assume that Tim is thereby embracing modernism (as iMonk was asking above)?

Well, now we may have an answer to that. Take a look at this thoughtful and well-articulated response to the question iMonk posed above.

Who's the Next C.S. Lewis?

2005-06-08T23:30:00.000-06:00

As I sampled some fine Colorado microbrews with my friends earlier this evening, the conversation turned to contemplating great thinkers. We named some deceased geniuses and asked where are these caliber of folks now? From a Christian perspective, this list of most recent innovators would include the likes of C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, and perhaps Tolkien.

At first blush, I was tempted to say that there are none. Folks of this intellectual caliber and insight just don't exist anymore... But I'm rethinking that. Let's suppose that type of individual exists right now - would we know it? I doubt it. There is something about the visionary that makes his/her thought process incompatible with present thinking.

Suffice to say, I do not believe the great innovator of spiritual thought currently is Tim LaHayne or Rick Warren. The type of thinker to which I'm referring is revolutionary. And revolutionaries, by their very nature, are not going to be easily received into mainsteam culture. If there is a modern day C. S. Lewis in our midst, I would not be surprised if that person is either being widely deemed a heretic or drawing reactions of complete bewilderment.

Therefore, my curiosity rises when I hear of someone who is causing a bit of a stir amongst the flock. So this leads me to a natural interest in the "Emergent Conversation". Some of its prominent leaders are certainly saying some things that are making people uncomfortable. A spirituality that is predicated upon thousands of years of tradition should be expected to be uncomfortable with new/different/hard questions being asked. And it should be skeptical.

Am I equating leaders of the Emergent Church with Lewis? No. Actually, I have no idea who may fill the enormous shoes of such a great thinker in the future. Rather, I'm merely contemplating the characteristics that may be found in such an innovator. It is probably someone who is pushing the boundaries of Christian thought and encouraging us to engage the culture in new and different ways.

The problem is that it could become difficult to some of us less educated spiritual thinkers to delineate between a true revolutionary of Christian thought and a false prophet. There clearly needs to be a mutually agreed upon foundation. It is crucial to start by considering what comprises the components of a Christian worldview.

Phil at The Spirit Formed Life explained from personal experience how losing a foundation can be detrimental. But if we are able to identify a clear set of foundational principles, then true heresy will be easier to identify (and we will be less obsessed with disagreement among peripheral issues as well). Along these lines, John at Locusts and Honey brings up some valid reasons for caution regarding McLaren's New Kind of Christian.

Unfortunately, I am still a neophyte when it comes to this whole emergent conversation. However, it does seem as if the hysteria and the negative stereotyping of the entire movement is a bit overdone and oversimplified. Go ahead and call McLaren out on some relativist tendencies, but don't rush to condemn the entire Emergent Church as heretical.

Now if we put the responsibility on ourselves to revolutionize our own thinking, we should consider the following. How can we ask difficult questions, think in new ways, but still maintain the foundations of our faith?

I am sure that Christians in Southeast Asia and Africa have some very different perspectives on our shared religion than those of us in the United States and Western Europe. When we can begin to integrate some of the best ideas and are able to acknowledge the shortcomings of our own cultural filters, we will be on our way to truely maturing spiritually.

Top Ten Excuses For John Kerry's Bad Grades

2005-06-07T18:55:00.000-06:00

Had Senator Kerry not projected such a love for his own intellect, I could care less about this sort of trivial story.

But considering that a huge part of his campaign was designed to smear his opponent’s intelligence while propping up his own, I find it fairly amusing when coupled with the fact that Bush had a higher IQ score as well. The truth is such an inconvenient thing sometimes.

So, without further ado, here are the Top Ten Excuses for John Kerry’s Lousy Grades at Yale:

10) His professors lacked sufficient nuance in their grading.

9) He earned an ‘A’ in poli-sci before he got a ‘D’.

8) Hey, he did pretty well in French (no, seriously).

7) Four years of college and no “global test”… How did that happen?

6) It was the Swift Boat Vets! They fabricated the whole thing. Ask anyone who was on the boat, uh sorry, in the class with him…

5) The lies of the evil Sith Lord, Karl Rove, and his evil Republican minions know no bounds.

4) Okay, so maybe he’s not as smart as portrayed, but he’s electable. Er, I mean…

3) Clearly the grades were flip-flopped with someone else in his class.

2) French academies have higher standards.

1) Two words: Extracurricular activities. As they say in the ‘hood, he was a ‘playa’. (Please refer to the picture below.) Need I say more?

But isn’t writing lame jokes about John Kerry passé at this point? Well, sure, but is there really anything interesting going on in politics right now? I’m sorry but debating the fines points of filibustering judicial nominees is just not doing it for me. So, in the meantime, why not poke fun at haughty, French-looking former Presidential candidates?

Potential Pitfalls of Literal Interpretation

2005-06-06T00:36:00.000-06:00

First of all, I want to make it clear from the beginning here that I believe in the inerrancy of scripture. However, this belief does not necessitate acknowledging that all scripture must be construed in an absolutely literal manner. In my opinion, allowing for some texts (particularly Genesis 1-11) to be interpreted metaphorically does not alter or lessen the meaning whatsoever. For instance, doing so does not, in any way, invalidate the story of the Origin Sin and the Fall of Man.

This topic is of concern to me for three reasons. First of all, I get frustrated when I see certain believers apply some sort of litmus test to gauge the sincerity of one’s beliefs by suggesting that if you do not believe in the literal interpretation of everything in the Bible, you are not a true believer.

This viewpoint is missing, or at least not acknowledging, any sort of nuance. By this I mean, you can believe in a metaphorical interpretation without diluting or refuting the meaning of Biblical passages. I believe along the same lines as C.S. Lewis, when he suggested the following in Miracles:

For me the Christian doctrines which are ‘metaphorical’ – or which have become metaphorical with the increase of abstract thought – mean something which is just as ‘supernatural’ or shocking after we have removed the ancient imagery as it was before.

My second concern is as follows: There are potentially adverse consequences to the “thought life” of Christians when they hold strictly to an absolutely literal interpretation. This is where many of the narrow-minded accusations originate from the secular world. For instance, if you believe the earth is 8,000 years old. Period. No questions asked. Then, it is likely you will find yourself on the defensive against nearly all scientists, anthropologists, geologists, etc. An “us against them” mentality inevitably arises.

It is also not surprising that an anti-intellectual mindset develops from this belief. I don’t think Christianity and science and the intellect should be at war with one another. Rather the scriptures, science, and nature are to be mutually dependent on each other.

Lastly, and most importantly, I fear that many Christians may experience a crisis of faith and actually turn away from Christianity due to firm, absolute beliefs in literal interpretation. When presented with vast evidence supporting at least some semblance of evolutionary theory or an “old earth” theory or questions revolving around the existence of dinosaurs, many people begin to question their faith.

This results in the combative attitude toward science that is so prevalent in much of Western Christianity. Do some or many scientists have an agenda that seeks to eradicate Christianity or go to war against it? Sure. And we, as believers, have every right to become indignant and defensive about that. But it does not follow that we should then come to view science itself as the enemy of Christianity.

In this vein, Blake Kennedy makes some very interesting points in a recent post entitled, “Easy Answers, Simplistic Thinking”. In it, he states:

I believe it is imperative for Christian leaders to present that there are differing worldviews who disagree with us in good faith. When we see, time and time again, the attack on the character, motives, or abilities of those who disagree, we are setting our people up for a fall. Eventually they will learn that the issues are not as cut-and-dried as the Church often portrays them, and the results to their faith can be catastrophic. (Emphasis Mine)

The question often arises from more fundamentalist types of believers as to why they should even consider the possibility for any sort of allegorical interpretation. I would say the primary danger in not doing so is that it could lead to crisis of faith.

I am not saying that an entirely literal, word-for-word interpretation is not possible. Rather I am suggesting that my own intellectual capacity is such that I could never fathom the creation of the world. And therefore it is certainly not something that I would want to stake my faith upon. God is so much more enormous and mysterious that any of us can grasp that I wonder how so many in the Western Christian church have come to believe that they can put him in a neat little theological box.

Now I notice I keep coming back to the need for humility. It's due to the fact that we really should never reach a point where we start to think we have it all figured out. The divinity is not a puzzle that we should be able to “solve” – at least not in this lifetime.

Unfortunately, it seems that many Christians don’t like the idea of so many unknown elements and, therefore, shy away from asking hard questions. Oftentimes the hard questions do not have any clear answers. But I don’t think that’s a bad thing. In fact, I would consider the confrontation of such questions to be an essential step in maturing spiritually.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-06-02T22:23:00.000-06:00

Happy Friday Y'all (or 'yunz' as they say back in Pittsburgh). Here’s some stuff that requires very little thought:

Carnival of Comedy #6 is up over at IMAO.

Now for some sad news for a very dear "friend" of the United States: Chirac at 24% Popularity Rating. It's heartbreaking really, but I’m guessing these photos haven’t helped him:

VERY funny: Top 10 UN Slogans

And finally, Star Wars III “Review”.

A Grab Bag of Goodies

2005-06-01T18:09:00.000-06:00

The Christian Carnival is up at A Physicist’s Perspective.

Blog Business World is hosting the new Carnival of the Vanities.

In a haphazard journey across the blogging frontier, I found the following nuggets of gold:

1) Coyote Blog asks a good question (one that I’ve been wondering myself): “Why Do So Many Libertarians Blog?” He offers a few interesting theories as to why that might be so. This one in particular seemed to makes sense:

For a good libertarian, chaos is beautiful, and certainly the blogosphere qualifies as chaotic. The Internet today is perhaps the single most libertarian institution on the planet. It is utterly without heirarchy, being essentially just one layer deep and a billion URL's wide. Even those who try to impose order, such as Google, do so with no mandate beyond their utility to individual users.

2) As an corollary to the liberitarian theme, Blind Mind’s Eye has some interesting thoughts on how Christianity and libertarianism could be compatible.

3) Sophistpundit warns us to Never Trust The Party! He states:

I don't understand people who align themselves so closely with either the Democrats or the Republicans. Believe what you want to believe about right and wrong and how the country should be run, but why tack yourself to a particular party?

It’s a good point, and I don’t understand it either. As the U.S. has become more and more partisan, many people have seemingly begun to align themselves more with a particular party. Such blind allegiance always leads to hypocrisy or intellectual dishonesty.

4) Rev-Ed at Attention Span attributes insufficient prayer life and spiritual knowledge to a fear of commitment. He compares it to some folks’ fears of marriage (and the consequential loss of freedom). I found this to be an interesting analogy that I’m guessing is appropriate for, ahem, uh, you know some (throat clearing) single guys in particular (gulp).

5) Bill at Wallo World has an interesting post about the power of words. In it, he points to a hypocrisy that has long since bothered me as well:

I’m often struck by an ironic dichotomy in the entertainment industry: on the one hand, the producers of some “serious” film or book or song will vocalize their hopes that their words might “change something,” but when something faces criticism for the possible harm it might produce it is defended as “just” words, or “just” a story. I don’t think you can have it both ways.

6) & 7) View From The Pew and Messy Christian both have good posts about Christian stereotypes and caricatures–both why these perceptions exist and how best to counteract them.

Postmodern Medicine

2005-05-31T19:56:00.000-06:00

Postmodernism is quite a curious thing. People love it. People hate it. It’s a relativistic evil embraced by liberals. No wait – it’s the new weapon of right-wingers. Well, actually, it does not even exist. Or maybe it does… Either way, Joe Carter makes a good point when he states:

I can’t recall ever meeting a true postmodernist. I don’t think I’ve ever met two people who could define the term in the same way. Ask a philosopher, an artist, an English major, an emergent church leader, and the pizza delivery girl how postmodernism differs from modernity. Assuming they can do more than stare blankly in befuddlement at the question, the responses will likely be at complete variance from one another.

So if no one can even define the term or, at least, no two people can agree on a definition, why is it stirring up so much emotion? Why is it posited as either the epitome of the new cool or the beginning of the end of Western Civilization?

(You may be expecting me to answer my own questions right now, but holding true to PoMo form, I am merely posing provocative questions with no intention of answering them. It’s kind of fun actually. Call me a deconstructionist PoMo poseur.)

Now I am not suggesting we rush to embrace this new cultural trend. Actually, I sympathize with blogger Matt Martinson who pleads, "Please make it stop." However, it does bother me that the doomsayers appear to be either advocating a victim mentality (sort of like what Lance warned about) or embracing a completely defeatist view of our culture. Some are even equating post modernism with post Christendom.

A good first step would be to get the terminology down first, particularly as it may apply to spiritual beliefs. And I think someone like emergent wannabe gets it right when he says:

Postmodern culture is not something we should ignore, oppose, or embrace; rather it is simply another culture that we should seek to redeem and transform by the power of the gospel...

Fortunately, my God is bigger than all of this brouhaha. I’d also add a word of caution to PoMo enthusiasts:

If you’re searching for the miracles of postmodern medicine, you’ll likely end up with nothing more than some sort of voodoo.

And finally, in the midst of all this meandering, I'll end with some lyrics I found to be appropriate (from Gomez):

The operation’s on
Movin’ forward
Don’t know where we’re going
But we’re on our way
So raise the alarm
Movin’ forward
We don’t know where we’re going
But we’re on our way

Bumper Sticker Ideology III

2005-05-30T09:50:00.000-06:00

In a previous post, I surmised that there exists an alternate reality called Bizarro World. Its inhabitants are a curious breed. Many (though not all) of which we would commonly refer to as "hippies".

Perhaps due to the influence of too many mind-altering drugs, they maintain a rather warped sense of reality yet often fancy themselves as being very "deep".

The results of their intense intellectualizing often results in sloganeering which transcends (many would say ignores) real world complications. Very often such folks can be distinguished by pieces of plastic that encapsulate their enlightened worldviews.

For some reason, conspiracy theories run rampant amongst the aforementioned crowd. The conspiracy is often the product of a brilliantly orchestrated campaign of evil doers ranging from President Bush (of course) to royal families in the Middle East to corporate fatcats in the oil industry to military commanders and so on. See Exhibit A below for a common theme that emerges:

I know it's sheer speculation, but perhaps it's something in the doughnuts?

So just how bad can it get? Well, here is prime example of the end product of such dementia:

Go ahead, snicker if you must, but remember these people do exist and should be approached with extreme caution.

Coalitions of the Willing

2005-05-27T12:05:00.000-06:00

A couple days ago, I criticized the methodology and language espoused by the culture warriors. As an alternative I suggested the need for “implementation of proactive, compassionate visions involving attempts to understand differing viewpoints”. Of course, the danger in laying out broad, sweeping statements like this is that they may be taken as “pie-in-the-sky” sort of sentiments without any real-life application.

So as a necessary adjunct to what I was advocating, I will point to two recent commentaries that outline more specific plans for achieving common goals by broadening the existing alliances rather than narrowing them. First, at Winds of Change, Joe Katzman suggests the following framework for conservative evangelicals to achieve their goals. (Link via Dignan)

I could envision a moral, proper, and winning program built around 2 pillars: (1) Insistence on genuine tolerance for and balanced public portrayals of the religious lifestyle; plus (2) A battle to define and drive a broad set of common values in concert with interested coalition partners, without requiring common beliefs or the achievement of salvation by members.

This dovetails nicely into an excellent column by David Brooks from yesterday’s New York Times (emailed to me by a friend). In it, Brooks asserts that the war on poverty is one cause in particular that can be fought effectively only by transcending the “war” mentality and, instead, agreeing upon common beliefs.

…we can have a culture war in this country, or we can have a war on poverty, but we can't have both. That is to say, liberals and conservatives can go on bashing each other for being godless hedonists and primitive theocrats, or they can set those differences off to one side and work together to help the needy.

The natural alliance for antipoverty measures at home and abroad is between liberals and evangelical Christians. These are the only two groups that are really hyped up about these problems and willing to devote time and money to ameliorating them. If liberals and evangelicals don't get together on antipoverty measures, then there will be no majority for them and they won't get done.

That sounds about right to me.

2005-05-26T17:01:00.000-06:00

The festivities of the blogosphere are underway at the following carnivals. If you're interested in reading some new blogs over the holiday weekend, there's plenty to test out here.

You can check out the most recent Christian Carnival at Technogypsy.

The granddaddy of the blogging carnivals is up over at Alarming News: Carnival of the Vanities #140.

For some lighter reading, take a look at the fifth edition of the Carnival of Comedy.

Also, I have (belatedly) updated my "links" or blogroll. I'd suggest checking out the last dozen, which are newly added and all worthy of reading on a regular basis.

The Culture Wars: Rules of Engagement

2005-05-25T12:56:00.000-06:00

I’ll say right upfront that I have mixed feelings on the so-called “Culture Wars”. On the one hand, I think the divide is very real and the struggle between “secularists” and “traditionalists” is an extremely important one. (To that end, I am of the belief that Democrats are losing the culture wars and will continue to do so as long as they fail to repudiate those on the far left who are hostile toward Christianity and traditional values.) On the other hand, I am weary of the ramifications of espousing military analogies to represent the causes of the Church.

We need to ask ourselves “what is the primary goal?” If the objective is to win – period - then, yes, I believe that waging a “war” is the best way to fire up the troops and accomplish the mission of achieving political victories (at least in the short term). But if the primary mission is to change hearts and minds, then the war analogies are perhaps the worst possible method. Rather than eschewing labels and opening a dialogue, we would be reinforcing the stereotypes and further entrenching the armies on both sides.

Another issue to keep in mind is that not even all Christians are in agreement with conservative policies. So this is where it gets tricky. As Expat Teacher points out: “I can still be a committed Christian and vote for a Democrat”.

He makes a valid differentiation between principle and policy by providing examples wherein agreement on a general (Christian) principle can still result in different policies being advocated to achieve them. While I would hope that there are certain things that are repulsive to every Christian, I can also sympathise with a divergence when it comes to determining which specific policy approaches best address our primary concerns.

His blogging partner, gurufrisbee, asked this question, which I would consider to be a necessary corollary: “…is there a theologically sound way to determine which issues are more important than others or perhaps which issues are the ones to focus on and compare for selection purposes?”

To that end, a blog like Evangelical Update is performing a great service in trying to moderate the discussion and really get to know all sides of the debate. It is billed as “a website for lefties who want to understand Christian Evangelicals”. It seems to me that any hope for a true transformation of morality in the U.S. lies in the implementation of proactive, compassionate visions involving attempts to understand differing viewpoints rather than offering only reactionary condemnations of opposing worldviews and, subsequently, declaring “war” on them.

Catez at AllThings2All points out an astute observation by Nancy Pearcey, in which she addresses the disillusionment felt by many evangelicals regarding the political realm:

This heightened activism has yielded good results in many areas of public life, yet the impact remains far less than most had hoped. Why? Because evangelicals often put all their eggs in one basket: They leaped into political activism as the quickest, surest way to make a difference in the public arena - failing to realize that politics tends to reflect culture, not the other way around.(emphasis mine)

In an excellent post from a while back, JollyBlogger offered some important insights as to how we should go about trying to answer the question above:

Culture warriors tend to think in binary terms. There are two kinds of people - those who fight the culture wars and those who don't. I say there is a third way - influencing the culture from the inside, rather than fighting it from the outside.

Influencing the culture from the inside means that, rather than positioning ourselves as outsiders at war with the culture, we do the hard work necessary to earn a hearing in the "marketplace of ideas."...we've got to excel in school, this means we've got to write books and articles that thoughtfully engage the issues of the day, rather than screeds which merely denounce.

This means we go and sit down and talk to "secularists," "liberals," "atheists," "homosexuals," rather than always talking at them from afar. This means that, instead of merely criticizing the "secular news media" and Hollywood, we become broadcasters and actors and producers ourselves. This means that we become politicians who learn the finer points of rhetoric and political science that can somehow enable us to cast a vision that sounds more like a vision for the common good of all, than just a vision to protect our own rights.

A recent USA Today Editorial made an assessment worth pondering:

As religious leaders become more involved in politics, they risk making religion more a vehicle for exerting power over non-believers than for persuading skeptics to join the faith. (Hat tip: Whymrhymer)

Certainly, there are no easy answers and I definitely don't mean to be dismissive of culture warriors who care passionately about the moral direction of this country. But some of these concerns should at least give us pause to question the effectiveness of the tactics and language currently being pursued.

Bumper Sticker Ideology II

2005-05-24T11:30:00.000-06:00

The U.S. Presidential election has long since passed, but I'm still seeing a whole lot of fantastic bumper stickers around town. Being that I live in the city, I am not particularly surprised to be surrounded by Bush hater stickers. A while back, they even inspired me to write this post: Bumper Sticker Ideology. These slogans are all pretty amusing, but this is my personal favorite:

I just don't get the point of these things. Did this actually sway someone's vote? Do they figure that some uninformed voter is finally going to see the light and say, "I had no idea his family values are missles, what a terrible man!" I'm all for keeping things simple, but if you can summarize the thrust of your political ideology into one phrase, you may want to consider broadening the range of your ideas and political dialogue a bit... Just a thought.

Religion On My Sleeve?

2005-05-23T07:30:00.000-06:00

(I actually wrote this 3 months ago - on the first day I started this blog. I'm thinking not many people had read it back then, so I figured I'd recycle it.)

Religion on My Sleeve... Yeah, you got a problem wit dat?

Look, I know this old cliche can mean a lot of different things to different people. I'm musing now in the context of the whining type of gripe that infers that you should just shut up rather than speak your mind on anything "religious".

But why should we stifle open dialogue when it comes to this topic? Do the people that say this have something much more interesting to discuss, like, say the details surrounding the most recent episode of their favorite reality TV show? This topic strikes a nerve with me because, in fact, I think the typical level of discussion in our culture is increasingly dumbed-down so I consider it very counterproductive to discourage the discussion of ideas - particularly big, spiritual ones that have potentially eternal ramifications.

I'm looking at it this way...If you just saw a really good movie or heard a great new CD, you're going to tell people, right? And why? Because it's human nature to share interesting and enlightening experiences. In fact, you could argue that your enjoyment is not fulfilled until you express it with a friend or relative. You could also correctly mention that you want others to partake in the same uplifting or rewarding experience that you did.

Now, assume you have a life-altering experience with the Holiest of Holies, the Creator, the Alpha and Omega... Do you think you'd want to share it? Do you think it would have an impact on your worldview and your decision making process? I'm sorry but I don't see the wisdom in relegating something of this magnitude to a separate and isolated entity - put into its own box not to be touched except for Sunday mornings.

Keeping It Real

2005-05-21T21:46:00.000-06:00

"And I must be an acrobat to talk like this and act like that." - "Acrobat" by U2 from Achtung Baby

Polls of non-believers have consistently shown a wide dichotomy between their feelings toward Christians and their thoughts about Christ. By and large, non-believers have a favorable impression of Jesus Christ while they typically express varying degrees of disdain toward Christians. The hypocrisy issue undoubtedly plays a large part in this.

To which a Christian could justifiably assert that his flaws (and those of all of mankind) are the very reason for needing a Savior. But I think this rebuttal lets us believers off the hook too easily. I suspect there is more to the "hypocrisy" sentiment, which should provide us with more than a little reason for introspection.

Growing up I was surrounded with a church community that did not show any sort of vulnerability in its spiritual journey (as far as I can recall anyway). To a kid, there was a sense that these people had it all together. To an adult, the reality reveals itself as more like a false sort of piety and assuredness.

Until a couple months ago, I never once heard a pastor (from the pulpit) admit to any sort of real weakness or express doubt in his spiritual walk. Congregants responded accordingly, perhaps fearing they may go to Hell for confessing a crisis of faith. Or maybe they just thought it would weaken the message of salvation by admitting to some doubts and frustration with their faith.

Beyond the fact that this attitude is very unhealthy to one's own spirituality, I think it is off-putting to non-believers. It seems disingenuous and phony to outsiders and as such it lays the groundwork for calls of hypocrisy when the inevitable failures and sins manifest themselves. People don't want a sales pitch from a self-righteous Christian. They want honesty - in all its dirty, ugly glory. It is through our own brutally honest tales of brokenness and weakness that the Truth and strength of Christ will resonate.

In Orthodoxy, G.K. Chesterton made an intriguing and shocking observation:

Christianity alone has felt that God, to be wholly God, must have been a rebel as well as a king. Alone of all creeds; Christianity has added courage to the virtues of the Creator. For, the only courage worth calling courage must necessarily mean that the soul passes a breaking point - and does not break.

In the garden Satan tempted man: and in a garden God tempted God...Then the world shook and the sun was wiped out of heaven, it was not at the crucifixion, but at the cry from the cross: the cry which confessed that God had forsaken God... They (nonbelievers) will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist.

When I first read those words, I was a little angry with Mr. Chesterton for writing such things about my Lord. It seemed to border on blasphemy at first blush. But now I wonder if he was in fact getting to the essence of Christianity by confronting those seemingly unfathomable words of Christ rather than sweeping them under the rug or explaining them away.

Mark 15:34 - "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"

It's in this sort of blunt questioning and soul searching that we may truly deepen our understanding of this glorious, personal, and yet mysterious God of the Trinity. And in the process of so doing I suspect some folks may just happen to catch a glimpse of Christ in us.

This is a Savior, afterall, who shared in the human experience, including even those times of isolation, sadness, and temptation. If our Lord did not shy away from expressing his subjection to such hardships, why should we? Personally, I think that accusations of hypocrisy will melt away once we become truly genuine and vulnerable.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-05-19T12:14:00.000-06:00

Frank at IMAO offers some Useful Tips for a Cordial Political Discussion. Here's a sample:

DO make sure not to get caught up arguing minutia.
DON'T burn the other person's house down over a small disagreement on a fact. Yes, insurance will probably cover it, but he'll be less likely to listen to what else you say.

Bill Simmons speculates as to what happened to John Travolta’s career post-Pulp Fiction:

…I think Scientologists killed the real Travolta and replaced him with a cyborg. So when you see him in these older movies, it's enjoyable because you realize just how bizarre he is now. Like seeing Michael Jackson's "Off The Wall" video or something.

On the research front: New "Drunk Pill" On The Horizon.

This alcohol-related story is actually true: Drunk Man Steals Krispy Kreme Truck

I'm guessing he was a hippie.

And just in case you needed some more reasons as to why hippies rule, check out tons of (unintentionally) funny stuff over at Groovy Hippie Links.

This item may not be as humorous for those who don't work in the investment industry: GM, Ford Offer Alternative Names for 'Junk Bonds' Here's an excerpt:

In a teleconference with institutional investors, they made a vigorous pitch for buying what they called "quality-checked" or "certified pre-owned" bonds.

Who is the Religious Right Anyway?

2005-05-17T20:18:00.000-06:00

I have a confession to make: I may be part of the dreaded Religious Right. Mind you, I have no idea what that term means. However, from the connotation of the words alone, I must consider the possibility that the shoe may indeed fit. Afterall, religion – specifically Christianity - is a very important component of my life, and I lean to the right politically.

Now I don’t see anything particularly horrifying about the aforementioned self-description. As far as I can deduce, I do not deserve to be burned at the stake for it. However, judging by the prevailing tone of many left-wing websites, I should be one removed nativity scene away from strapping a bomb to my chest right now.

In their rhetoric, there is absolutely no difference between Islamic fundamentalists who commit terrorism and “the Religious Right” in the United States. Of course, this is absurd, but as long as there is no clear defining of terminology and the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are out front-and-center in the evangelical community, the lambasting will continue.

In an intriguing new post at Stones Cry Out, Matt makes a good observation regarding the need to provide a clear delineation between the media darlings of evangelicalism and its true scholars. In the article, Matt is looking specifically at a post by Al Mohler in which Mohler references and briefly assesses an attack on the Religious Right by Vanity Fair columnist Christopher Hitchens. Matt states:

While I do not fully agree with Hitchens, it is disappointing that Mohler cannot understand the differences between Robertson and (Catholic scholar Richard) Neuhaus. Until such distinctions can be made and articulated, it is unlikely that the evangelical influence on politics will progress beyond a grass roots campaign.

My concerns are graver. I’m worried that the evangelical community will increasingly be denigrated as lunatics, hypocrites, fundies, and even fascists. In short, I’m worried that it will be in the hands of those on the left to “set the record straight”.

Matt’s right about Mohler needing a little bit of nuance as well. As much as I hate to hear my God derided as a “possibly mythical Nazarene” and my own beliefs condescendingly being addressed, Hitchens is smart, witty, and makes points that need to be addressed and countered. So what does Mohler do? He merely reinforces Hitchens’ characterizations of Christians as “shallow and demagogic” by providing only a few snide and dismissive comments in rebuttal.

Why not take the opportunity to make the case as to how Islamic fundamentalism is very different from the aims of the Religious Right? He could have explained how evangelicals are not advocating a theocracy, but rather are embracing our secular democracy and seeking to strengthen it by trying to move back toward a moral framework that more closely reflects the Judeo-Christian values inherent in the government created by our founding fathers.

Matt pinpoints the problem when he asserts, "The lack of evangelical presence within the conservative intellectual world is no accident, and I am eager to explore the reasons behind this development."

I wish him good luck in this exploration and it’s a topic I’d also consider worthy of exploration. As for the current state of demagoguery, I will take some comfort in knowing that not all atheists are hostile towards Christianity. John Ray wisely states: “If you are secure in your own beliefs you don't need to denigrate the beliefs of others.”

That’s true. I just really hope evangelicals can more clearly spell out those beliefs before these ridiculous labels – and their vague, slanderous connotations - begin to stick. That will involve formulating actual arguments rather than embracing an attitude of mere flippancy. Otherwise, we are no different than the name-callers who need so badly to be disavowed.

UPDATE: Dignan, a blogger I admire a lot for his humility and fairness, has alerted me to a post that will shed some light on my question here. It's a fascinating look at the formation and progression of the whole religious right movement from an "insider's" point of view.

For a more detailed assessment of the argument Hitchens made against the "religious right" and James Taranto's counter to it, plow your way over to The Paragraph Farmer.

The Darfur Collection

2005-05-16T16:33:00.000-06:00

Catez Stevens at AllThings2All has posted a diverse array of blog entries regarding the Genocide going on in Darfur. For those who are looking for some introductory information as to the nature of the atrocities currently taking place there, I'd highly recommend first checking out this earlier post by Catez. Kudos to her for putting this together. So now let's all turn our disgust into action by trying to do something to help end this terrible humanitarian crisis.

Some estimates put the total death toll in Darfur as high as 400,000 with another 10,000 dying every month. Those of us in the USA in particular tend to feel isolated and cut off from such atrocites, but our responsibilities here should be no less than if it were happening across the street. The commandment to love and show compassion for our "neighbor" has been illustrated to supercede any geographic or ethnic boundaries.

Luke 10:30-36 (Jesus in response to the question "And who is my neighbor?")

A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side.

But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, "Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you."

So which of these three do you think was the neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?

Our Lord gives each one of us a pretty clear choice here: Mercy or Apathy? Unfortunately, there has been a whole lot of the latter thus far.

A Cultural Creative

2005-05-16T08:00:00.000-06:00

That's the first I've heard of this term, but judging from the definition I suppose it makes sense... If you want to do a little spiritual self-examination, you can check this out:

You scored as Cultural Creative. Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational.

Cultural Creative

69%

Romanticist

56%

Fundamentalist

50%

Postmodernist

38%

Idealist

38%

Existentialist

31%

Modernist

25%

Materialist

13%

What is Your World View?
created with QuizFarm.com

Link found via Living Room.

A Little Humility Goes a Long Way

2005-05-14T17:55:00.000-06:00

In my last post, I critiqued the types of approaches toward non-believers that I consider to be ineffective. This post by Messy Christian captures the essence of the tone which I think we would be well advised to repudiate. In it she states:

I have seen in the blogosphere, people who crusade for doctrinal "rightness" or purity so much that they've become unbalanced. Their posts are heavy on the finer points of theology, but no matter how elegant the argument, they usually drive me away because of their smug tone and lack of love for the brethren who disagree with them. (emphasis mine)

So how do we transition from diagnosing such ineffective approaches to the hard part of prescribing productive methods? As a starting point to this dialogue, I would point to a post from Wendy at Just A Little Bit Odd. Although she is specifically discussing issues surrounding the (mis)treatment of homosexuals by Christians, this assertion gets to the heart of what is required to effectively present the gospel in general:

In order to gain a more sympathetic hearing for the gospel, we must first demonstrate love for the sinner. The key word here is demonstrate. I ask you, who is a homosexual more likely to listen to? A pastor closeted in a study? A small group of people yelling on a sidewalk? Or a volunteer laboring in an AIDs clinic? It’s hard to not like someone who is helping you or serving you in some way. It’s even harder not to listen to what they have to say at that point.

From the starting point of the advice rendered above, I would suggest that it is crucial to honestly engage the issues of non-believers. What complaints do they have against Christianity and are some of them valid? Any honest assessment would acknowledge the validity of at least some of their issues.

Darren at ProBlogger points out an interesting idea:

I once heard of a debate between a Christian group and a Pagan group…Each side was told to prepare arguments against their own religion/faith perspective. The Christians had to say what they didn’t like about Christianity, what they felt uncomfortable with and had to deconstruct and poke holes in their own framework for thinking. The Pagans had to do the same for paganism.

The result was fascinating - rather than the two groups coming away with reinforced hatred of and anger towards the other the event was incredibly constructive. Both groups found that they learned not only a lot about the other group - but about their own perspective.

(Hat tip: Classical Values)

Now that sounds like an effective means for fostering productive dialogue. I really would be interested in seeing a similar dialogue open up between Christians and non-Christians now, since it seems to me the blogosphere offers the perfect medium for facilitating just such an interaction. I’d be curious to know if anyone else thinks it practical or worthwhile for this sort of conversation to evolve online. Call it a Carnival of Spiritual Examination or something like that…

Of course, the foremost prerequisites for making any sort of progress in such a dialogue would be humility and consideration for the opposing viewpoint. It is in this vain, that Ales Rarus wisely urges us to heed these words from St. Clement of Alexandria, a father of the early church:

Be thoughtful in all your talk, and give back a useful answer, adapting the utterance to the hearer's need… Take care never to speak what you have not weighed and pondered beforehand; nor interject your own words on the spur of the moment and in the midst of another's; for you must listen and converse in turn, with set times for speech and for silence.

Now lest anyone fear I am suggesting abdicating the core convictions of Christianity, I will refer back to a sentiment that Jollyblogger had astutely pointed out a while back:

I think we Christians are often unwilling to listen sympathetically to our opponents. When I say ‘sympathetically’ I mean that we try to understand them as they understand themselves, not that we agree with their views.

The Bloke from In the Outer summarized it quite well in a recent post. He offers this as a concluding sentiment:

My hope is that we wake up and drop the critical spirit and start extending grace to each other. I pray that we realize that the more we shed voices of dissension the more ineffective the total work of the gospel is.

Amen. If we are to be at all serious about accurately portraying the love of Christ, it’s high time we all cool it with the arrogance.

UPDATE: John at Blogotional is also touching on the 'humility' theme. Check out his recent post for some further insights on the aforementioned subject.

William at Beyond the Rim has some really interesting thoughts to share regarding humility from a more personal perspective. I really liked this quote:

For me, God is using the Internet, the blogosphere, and other writers and commenters to remind me that while he has given me something unique to say, it is just one note in the Symphony of Redemption and while I need to play it well and true, it is only a very small part of a very large piece of music.

Shaking the Foundations of a Fragile Faith

2005-05-12T21:24:00.000-06:00

I recently came across a great post by Lance at Ragged Edges, which was a reaction to an essay entitled Why I am Not a Christian from Leighton at Welcome to the Grind.

Leighton’s argument was well presented and respectful of those of us who do have a faith in Christianity. It was not until I started to read the (extensive) commentary to this post that I began to get frustrated. People began to issue a rebuttal by quoting scripture and telling him they would “pray that your eyes will be open.” One person condescendingly noted that he knew “the real reason” why the author was asking such questions in that the spirit was leading him…

I don’t doubt that people who make such arguments generally have good intentions, but I consider that sort of retort to be very counterproductive. Why not have some respect for people’s intellectuality and concerns by listening and then responding thoughtfully?

Quoting random Bible verses is of no persuasive value whatsoever to a person who does not believe in the authority of scripture in the first place. And the tactic of threatening them with the idea of eternal damnation is probably not going to fare much better. Yet, as I was linking my way through the blogosphere on this topic, I stumbled across another example of the strong-arm approach to Christian apologetics detailed above. In this case, Vincent instructs us to:

…reject such pretended humility, unfaithful spirituality, and asinine pseudo-scholarship in exchange for an approach to apologetics that is biblical, which is one that says, ‘We are right, and we are sure that we are right. You are wrong, and we are sure that you are wrong.'

Somehow he is arguing that this approach is actually humble. While I believe a person can, and should, have strong convictions, it is at best questionable to assert such a supreme certainty of one’s rightness in interpreting all scripture. Additionally, this type of attitude is disrespectful of those on the other side of the debate and, as such, it would seemingly never be effectively persuasive.

This is where Lance, in writing about the need for a Humble Dogma, really zeroed in on the issue:

What Christians often lose sight of is the fact that it really is ok when others hold beliefs contrary to what we hold to be True. In other words, if what I believe in is true, the fact that another doesn't hold the same belief doesn't make it any less true. I think the internal drive of many to convert (change through coercion by guilt, shame, and namecalling) is often born of an undiagnosed insecurity in one's own belief.

That last sentence really struck a chord with me. A few years ago the foundations of my faith nearly crumbled under the façade of a seemingly sturdy and long held spiritual belief system that I refused to question and examine. Fortunately, I did hone up to my own skepticism and the need for a solid intellectual understanding of Christianity as a prerequisite for a strong faith.

Consequently, I learned through a healthy, honest process of questioning and learning, that it is natural to have doubts and it is good to ask questions. I really cannot figure out why it seems so many Christians are determined to suppress all doubts rather than deal with them. Those who continually restrain their doubts are in danger of erecting a faith that amounts to no more than a house of cards.

I would not be at all surprised if the bullying/know-it-all tactics of “persuasion” utilized by some Christians is really masking an untested and insecure faith. Whatever the reason for it, I find myself cringing when I hear Bible verses quoted to justify a “head-in-the-sand,” anti-intellectual line of thought (ex: “I will destroy the wise…”) as a rebuttal to the arguments of non-believers.

It is assuredly a balancing act to maintain strong convictions while still remaining humble both in discussion and in the plethora of areas in which we do not have definite answers. I really hope the trend of justifying ignorance through scripture is fading. Otherwise, Christianity is going to suffer as a result.

So how should we be responding in such dialogues? Well, I intend to offer some less critical, more proactive thoughts soon, but for now I’ve found a couple good thoughts to consider. Along the lines of a need for humility, Phil at The Spirit Formed Life offers some good advice by suggesting that “We Need to Get Over Ourselves”.

Gaunilo asked a good question on his blog last week that is appropriate to this discussion: “Do we take seriously the responsibility of love for the body of Christ, respect for the other, and seek to embody the virtues of humility, civility, and sensitivity?”

Children Playing With Nuclear Dominoes

2005-05-11T17:08:00.000-06:00

For anyone who wants a clear and concise explanation for how nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea can be halted, see Thomas Friedman’s article in today’s New York Times. (Link via The Corner)

Here’s the thrust of it:

North Korea's nuclear program could be stopped tomorrow by the country that provides roughly half of North Korea's energy and one-third of its food supplies - and that is China.

All China has to say to Kim Jong Il is: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors under international inspection, or we will turn off your lights, cut off your heat and put your whole country on a diet. Have we made ourselves clear?" One thing we know about China - it knows how to play hardball when it wants to, and if China played hardball that way with North Korea, the proliferation threat from Pyongyang would be over.

Ditto Europe vis-à-vis Iran. If the European Union said to the Iranians: "You will shut down your nuclear weapons program and put all your reactors and related facilities under international inspection or you will face a total economic boycott from Europe. Which part of this sentence don't you understand?" Trust me, that is the kind of explicit threat that would get Tehran's attention. Short of that, the Iranians will dicker over their nuclear carpets forever.

So why haven't China and the E.U. said these things? …Mr. Mandelbaum said, "the Chinese and the Europeans are all for combating nuclear proliferation - just not enough actually to do something about it.".

Gee, I wonder whom it is that China and the EU rely on to be mature enough to actually confront such an explosive (pun intended) issue? Again quoting Johns Hopkins foreign policy professor Michael Mandelbaum, the article states:

The Chinese and the Europeans "each assume that in the end, the U.S. will deter both the North Koreans and the Iranians anyway, so why worry," Mr. Mandelbaum said.

It must be nice to be able to sit back and continually criticize the world’s only major power willing to step up and try to actually do something about these issues. Makes me wonder whether the term “World’s Babysitter” would be more appropriate than the “World’s Policemen”?

The problem is, as Friedman explains, the U.S. does not have sufficient leverage to effectively diffuse these situations apart from staging an actual confrontation. And unfortunately, there are horrifying ramifications of not taking action soon against the nuclear proliferation. Here’s his sobering conclusion:

This is not a joke. If North Korea and Iran both go nuclear, that step may trigger a major realignment of geopolitics - the likes of which has not been seen since the end of the cold war. If North Korea sets off a nuclear test, how long will Japan continue relying on the U.S. for its nuclear shield?

And what will South Korea and Taiwan do? And if Japan or South Korea goes nuclear, how may an anxious China react? And if Shiite Iran becomes a nuclear power - in tandem with Iraq's being run by Shiites - the Sunni Arab world will go nuts, not to mention the Israelis. Will Saudi Arabia then feel compelled to acquire a nuclear deterrent? Will Egypt?

We're talking nuclear dominoes.

Hey, Wait a Minute…

2005-05-10T12:01:00.000-06:00

This isn’t supposed to be happening. Apparently, a massive number of residents of the former Soviet Union have not heard what all the “tolerant” and “open-minded” people across the globe have long since understood. This cowboy President is not to be tolerated nor should anything he says even be considered, not to mention cheered. Here’s the scoop:

Arms are raised in the air, everyone cheers and chants, and Freedom Square turns into a sea of Georgian and American flags. At first glance you may think you’re witnessing the Republican National Convention all over again. But if you saw President Bush speak just now, you would know that he was winning the hearts and ears of a crowd of jubilant Georgians.

Someone please inform those 100,000+ ecstatic Georgians that America is the source of all evil and injustice around the world. And, of course, they need to understand that the U.S. leader is the very symbol of Everything That is Wrong With the World.

Stop the madness before the worldview of all self-appointed intelligentsia and sophisticates across the Western world comes crumbling down into their respective café lattes. So many scholarly people could not possibly be proven wrong by this cavalier renegade who cannot even enunciate his words properly and goes by the name of Dubya.

Unfortunately, the Enlightened Ones are no longer able to perform their role as gatekeepers as they did in the old media age. Much like the Communist propagandists of yore, they have lost power to determine what stories the common folk will hear and in what context they are to be presented.

Now, apparently, it’s now up to Yoko Ono to set the world straight. Imagine all the people living in oppression, er I mean, peace if only they would listen to this woman… Uh, but I digress. (Hat tip: littlegreenfootballs)

In the age of ever more freely flowing information, the Michael Moores of the world will have to work even harder to convince the peons to believe their cherished conspiracy theories. You see, unfortunately, this freedom thing really does appear to be on the march and some people are actually happy about it.

UPDATE: I feel it necessary to add a caveat and caution to my praises of freely flowing information. There are times when we would expect the media to use discretion in withholding the release of certain specific details that may put U.S. national security at risk. Unfortunately, as Winds of Change points out, this is not always the case as is witnessed by a story in the New York Times today.

the editors of the New York Times feel that breaking a titillating story about sensitive CIA operations is much more important than national security…

Bono Rocks

2005-05-09T17:27:00.000-06:00

I’ve often wondered about the spiritual beliefs of the charismatic lead singer of U2. Well, it now seems much of that mystery has been cleared up by the superstar himself in the new book, Bono: In Conversation with Michka Assayas.

I stumbled upon several excerpts from the book posted by Michael from Kicking at the Darkness. (Hat tip: U2 Sermons)

Now, I know there are some haters out there, and I too have grown weary at times of Bono's self indulgent attitude and in-your-face political rants. But he also has a whole lot of smart and interesting things to say. And, as I suspected, Bono gets it right on the things that matter most. Here’s a sampling:

Assayas: Christ has his rank among the world’s great thinkers. But Son of God, isn’t that farfetched?

Bono: No, it’s not farfetched to me. Look the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn’t allow you that. He doesn’t let you off that hook.

Christ says: No. I’m not saying I’m a teacher, don’t call me teacher. I’m not saying I’m a prophet. I’m saying: “I’m the Messiah.” I’m saying: “I’m God incarnate.” And people say: No, no please, just be a prophet. A prophet we can take. You’re a bit eccentric. We’ve had John the baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don’t mention the “M” word! Because, you know, we’re gonna have to crucify you.

And He goes: No, no. I know you’re expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I’m the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he’s gonna keep saying this. So what you’re left with is: either Christ was who He said He is- the Messiah- or a complete nutcase. I mean, we’re talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we’ve been talking about earlier (Islamic fundamentalists).

This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had “King of the Jews” on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: Ok, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I’m not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over a half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nut case, for me, that’s farfetched… (204-205)

Did you catch that? Bono is co-opting C.S. Lewis’s "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord" argument from Mere Christianity. This is truly music to my ears. Preach on, Bono. I Will Follow.

Eternal Sunshine of a Heavenly Kind

2005-05-08T23:43:00.000-06:00

Having recently finished reading The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis and gotten most of the way through Wayne Martindale’s Examination of Lewis’s thoughts on Heaven, it occurred to me how greatly we have come to misunderstand Heaven. As a consequence of literally interpreting symbolic representations of streets paved with gold, crowns, and harps, we often think of Heaven as an isolated, cold, and distant place.

That interpretation could not be further from the version of Heaven that Lewis describes. Steve at Ragamuffin Ramblings tells how C.S. Lewis’s depiction of Heaven in the Great Divorce provided a sense of hope and real truth to him:

But it was the image of Heaven that really got me - that Heaven would be like Earth, but more real. The image of people newly arrived from "the grey town" as ghosts, insubstantial and needing to be "thickened up" with the love and knowledge of God, was a riveting understanding of Heaven that I'd never heard before - but one I fell in love with instantly.

The Great Divorce is wonderfully illuminating because it portrays Heaven as a sort of fulfillment of our lives here on earth and not as a completely detached entity. It theorizes as to how, once we arrive in Heaven, we will look back and realize we were always in it. Though we did not have eyes to see.

In The Weight of Glory, Lewis describes how we occassionally will catch a glimpse of God’s true glory and the afterlife through various means:

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing.

Lewis shows Heaven to be the fulfillment of human potential, dreams, and desires. It is in Heaven that we blossom into fully differentiated personalities. This is in complete contrast to the thought of angelic type clones in Heaven monotonously floating through space and perhaps even becoming bored with their plight.

From his C.S. Lewis Encyclopedia entry on Heaven, Colin Duriez sums it up as follows: Heaven is founded upon the paradox that the more we abandon ourselves to Christ, the more fully ourselves we become.

Many of us may also have a concern about becoming perfect. We may fret that perfection implies too great a restriction on us, in not allowing us to “be ourselves”.

Wayne Martindale suggests just the opposite in stating that we will find true freedom in Heaven:

When we are in Heaven, like these pilgrims, we can act on every impulse because every impulse will be good and right. No need to second-guess or hold back or check our feelings. There will be no need to watch our backs or guard our emotions against hurt from others because they will all be perfected in love, too. That will be true freedom, and that is the right way to think of perfection.

I have to wonder why this is the first time I am learning of this enlightened and intriguing idea of Heaven. Lewis’s portrayals are not inconsistent with scripture, and it is vital for us to have a deeper visualization of the eternal life, even if it is "fictionalized" in an imaginative way.

Andrew at TallSkinnyKiwi asks an interesting question: "Does the Church Believe in Heaven?" I think he may be on to something there.

So what is the practical ramification of all of this eternal probing? C.S. Lewis offers us an interesting thought as to how this should affect our interaction with others:

There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal… it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit – immortal horrors or everlasting splendors. This does not mean that we are to be perpetually solemn. We must play. But our merriment must be of that kind which exists between people who have, from the outset, taken each other seriously – no flippancy, no superiority, no presumption.

UPDATE: For further consideration on this topic, I'd suggest reading JollyBlogger's Review of Wayne Martindale's book (referenced above). While JollyBlogger expresses some theological qualms about Lewis's heavenly depictions, his conclusion is what matters most: He will engage your imagination and make you long for heaven. I actually can't think of any authors who have done it better. For that reason alone, the book is well worth reading.

"Never Again"

2005-05-05T17:20:00.000-06:00

Genocide - The deliberate killing of people based on their ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, or (sometimes) politics, as well as other deliberate actions leading to the physical elimination of any of the above categories.

Since February 2003, the Sudanese Government, using Arab "Janjaweed" militias, its air force, and organized starvation, has killed more than 400,000, displaced almost 3 million, and continues to kill at least 15,000 Darfurians each month. The UN Secretary-General has called it "little short of hell on earth." (Source: Genocide Intervention Fund)

I want to step out of the realm of theoretical discussion for a moment and talk reality. I watched Hotel Rwanda last night, and I was devastated. Not only was I crushed because the world let this happen in the first place, but even worse is that we didn’t learn from what happened there ten years ago.

The sick atrocities documented in that film may as well have been a news bulletin. If any news programs actually bothered to report the atrocities going on in Darfur right now, that is.

From the Human Rights Watch:

"On mission along the border of Chad and Darfur, Human Rights Watch researchers gave children notebooks and crayons to keep them occupied while they spoke with the children’s parents. Without any instruction or guidance, the children drew scenes from their experiences of the war in Darfur: the attacks by the Janjaweed, the bombings by Sudanese government forces, the shootings, the burning of entire villages, and the flight to Chad."

Look here to see the children’s photos. The phrase “scarred for life” seems apropos.

Which brings to mind the “Not in My Backyard” sloganeering in America. Apparently, the corollary to that is that if it is not occurring in our backyards (or in a country in which we have a strategic interest), we pretty much do not care.

I know many will say the U.S. should not be the “policemen of the world.” And to some extent, I’ll buy into that. But at some point, we have an obligation to get angry and morally indignant enough to rise up and say “enough is enough” and take action. And call it what it is: Genocide. Catchy slogans do not absolve us from taking responsibility and intervening in order to stop the slaughter of innocent people.

In particular, I would assert that anyone who calls him/herself a Christian has a responsibility to speak up on this matter. But it can’t stop there. Unfortunately, words do not always resolve real-life conflicts. The answer is not pacifism.

We need Reagan-esque leadership on this human rights debacle. Reagan had immense influence because there was meaning behind his words. Jimmy Carter could have commanded Mr. Gorbachev to “Tear Down this Wall,” and the Soviets would have laughed. Reagan may have been ridiculed, but he was no joke. There was always a real, nasty threat of consequence behind his words.

Taking a strong, principled stance is necessary at times. And leaders need to lead, particularly in the face of genocide. That’s why I’m deeply disappointed to learn about the Bush's administration's recent policies, or lack thereof, on this issue.

The U.N. bureaucrats in their blue hats and diplomatic niceties and political correctness are not going to solve this problem. Morally depraved murderers do not answer to the smurfs. At least, Kofi Annan is starting to own up to how impotent his organization has become…

Sometimes there is good reason to be mad as hell. Sometimes, we need to care about the plight of those outside of our own secluded worlds; our safe little bubbles here in the states. Unfortunately, too many people (whether they admit it or not) could give a crap about Africa. It’s the forgotten continent.

There does seem to be a glimmer of hope that NATO will finally get involved here - if France does not prevent it. As for this bleeding heart conservative, I will cling to the possibility that someone cares enough to actually do something.

And to all those people who look at hideous massacres of the past and, with a false and blind sense of assurance, say “Never Again,” WAKE UP.

UPDATE: One thing I failed to point out in the post above is the sad irony that we are recognizing Holocaust Remembrance Day this weekend. Passion of the Present notes these thoughts from a survivor of a Nazi concentration camp now ruminating on the situation in Darfur:

"My heart goes out to these human beings who are being attacked because of who they are. It brings back awful memories of the attacks on the Jews during the Holocaust just because of who they were.

Virtually every day, soldiers of the government of Sudan and its allied militias rape, burn villages and kill people of so-called "African" ethnic groups because of their identity. Families that have done nothing wrong bear the weight of the violence."

How many people do not even know what is going on in the Sudan, and yet are dismissively asserting that they are glad "this will never happen again"?

Take a Link Around

2005-05-04T11:55:00.000-06:00

For a plethora of diverse and intriguing thoughts from around the blogging universe, check out these two roundups, both broken down nicely by category:

Carnival of the Vanities is up at Fresh Politics.

And Kentucky Packrat is hosting the new Christian Carnival.

Accuse me of shameless self-promotion if you must, but the Evangelical Outpost has presented awards for the recent Blog Symposium. I have previously linked to the top two and would highly recommend checking them out.

If you want to catch up with some of the dialogue ‘round here of late, Gaunilo has mapped out the whole conversational thread. Also, he poses some very pertinent questions to both liberals/progressives and conservatives. For anyone who’s interested in doing more than just paying lip service to the need for engaging in dialogue with the other side, it’s worth checking out.

Chrenkoff on "Why life as a top Al Qaeda operative is not good for your health and well-being, not to mention your skin"

The Problem With Springsteen

2005-05-03T20:58:00.000-06:00

From what I remember, Bruce Springsteen approached the status of being a god to me early on. I don’t really feel guilty about that, since a child of two can hardly be expected to understand the repercussions of idolatry. I’m not sure, but I think my first words may have even been “Blinded By the Light”. (If my mom’s reading, she can hopefully confirm this.)

At any rate, I'm a music fanatic. As such, I am of the belief that music, in those certain surreal moments, can provide us with our closest glimpses of the afterlife. And Springsteen jumpstarted my own musical journey. Greetings From Asbury Park remains a treasure to me. Born to Run was no small feat either. But then, somewhere shortly thereafter the Boss, or shall I say the man-who-would-become the Boss, lost his way.

(As an aside, I’m not trying to demean everything the guy has done thereafter. Born in the USA provided a vivid, mid-80’s soundtrack for my childhood. I may be a music snob, but I can still admit to liking “Glory Days” and “Dancing in the Dark”. But do they rise to the caliber of “Thunder Road” or “Lost in the Flood”? Puh-leeze.)

A new article at Slate.com does a great job of detailing the change in the Springsteen persona. He went from “a scrawny little dirtbag from the shore” to “a majestic American simpleton with a generic heartland twang”.

At the time, I was too young to perceive the dumbing-down of Springsteen that was transpiring, but now it seems obvious. It also seems to have been calculated, as the article detailed. The Boss wanted to live up to a caricature of himself that was emerging so he transformed into “Joe Sixpack from the Heartland”. But the truth was bound to surface and it has, of course. And it hurts.

Look, here’s the deal. I would never expect Thom Yorke’s political beliefs to align with mine. I’m not naïve, and I don’t even mind that the politics of 90% of the musicians I admire most are to the left of mine. The difference is they didn’t put on a façade in the first place. Radiohead never pretended to patronize people who live in Flitwick, England, or Arkansas, for that matter.

Honestly, I could care less as to the nature of Wilco’s politics or even whether they choose to spout them off in concert. As long as I get to see them at Red Rocks Ampitheatre on June 17th, my summer will be complete. The point is I’m not being a whiner about musicians and their politics in general. I am expressing a certain beef I have with Bruce Springsteen, his politics, and his fabricated self-image.

I don’t want Bruce the Anti-War Protestor (and neither does "the Heartland" for that matter). I want Bruce the Entertainer. I want Bruce the fun-loving, frolicking dirt-bag from the Jersey Shore, not the Bruce who’s droning the blues in a Tunnel of Love.

Where the hell did the socially conscience political activist come from? Who is this guy? And why was he campaigning last fall with the French-looking stiff from Massachusetts? Some people have never liked Bruce. I did, however, and that’s why I feel betrayed… by a not-so-Brilliant Disguise.

Some may chalk it up to “enlightenment”. I attribute it to That Thing I Hate Most. Phoniness.

Come Together, Right Now... Electronically

2005-05-02T21:53:00.000-06:00

I recently began reading a book by Donald Miller called “Blue Like Jazz”. I really started to like the book. Miller writes from an amusing, episodic type narrative and his writing is engaging and provides some great moments of insight. Unfortunately, lines like this have already gotten in the way of my ability to enjoy it:

I felt like, by going to this particular church, I was a pawn for the Republicans. Meanwhile, the Republicans did not give a crap about the causes of Christ.

When I encounter this sort of over-reaching generalization, I lose patience and interest pretty quickly. It called to my attention once again the fact that this type of divisive, and even vitriolic, language is all too pervasive. In fact, a couple folks have even named their blog after the page of the book (132) where Don Miller’s quote above is found.

Ironically, I point out this blog, because it seems the authors really are willing to engage in constructive dialogue. My point is that, even amongst the best intentioned of us, this type of rhetoric creeps into the fray and kills any chance of productive dialogue almost instantaneously. And I can understand why someone like Dignan, who has been attempting to facilitate just such a dialogue, has become frustrated.

Speaking of best intentions, I need to remove the wooden plank from my own eye. In this post, I started out intending to engage the other side in a dialogue, which has begun to happen. However, shortly after suggesting we all need to “transcend the labels,” I began to apply… well, ah, labels.

I vented about moral relativist liberals as I repudiated what I assumed they believe. Now, regardless of the accuracy of the association or the strength of the argument, I immediately built up walls within the parties involved in the conversation at that point.

As an independent thinking (and left-leaning) friend of mine recently told me, my case in a recent post was fairly persuasive until the instant that I reverted back to using the “liberal” label. Immediately, at such point, she switched from an open, receptive posture to a defensive one.

Particularly among those who share the Christian faith, I believe it is crucial to expand the dialogue beyond those with whom we agree politically. Regardless of our views, it is crucial to understand why it is that those who share our faith have a very different worldview. Rather than arrogantly asserting our own beliefs and demeaning the intelligence or morality of those with whom we disagree, why don’t we try to determine the root of our disagreements?

In discussing the differences between liberals and conservatives in Christianity, Rev-Ed at Attention Span gets it right when he states:

The clash of worldviews is a major weakness in the Church today… The expanse becomes a small crack when our common love of Jesus Christ is taken into consideration, but there is still that crack which needs repair.

I would submit that both sides, by and large, have the best of intentions. The reason the blood boils and the tempers flair is that people are very passionate about their beliefs and about trying to change the world for the better. Regardless of whether I agree with them on the means of doing so, I respect such people a whole lot more than I do apathetic folks.

Blogs are a great means by which to promote and facilitate a constructive dialogue. Unfortunately, the blogosphere currently has an incredibly short attention span. Perhaps it is due to a condition that David Wayne terms “information paralysis” or “paranalysis” as Marla Swoffer calls it.

However you describe it, the abundance of information amounts to an intense, never-ending streaming distraction. As a result, there are few instances where we effectively continue a dialogue on a singular topic to the point that it really becomes fruitful. However, I do have an anecdotal reason for optimism in this new technological experiment in conversation.

Anyone who has followed the conversational thread between this blog and several other bloggers over the last week will see that it can be done. As we have meandered from one link to another, we move from an initial idea to an elaboration to denunciation to reconciliation and so forth.

Through an explosive banter of ideas, I hope we can all come to a truce in the mindlessly bitter partisanship. The alternative is not a viable option:

“Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls.” (Luke 11:17)

Where My Dogs At?

2005-05-02T07:54:00.000-06:00

Well, it looks like a lot of them are in lock down on bad behavior. For a little taste of the ghetto to start the week, Check this out. (HT: Lileks)

Here’s a sample:

Dobee Red is a red Doberman Pinscher. Known to all the dogs for his style and extreme love for the bling bling and ladies in life. He is a true playa…Dobe red now arranges conjugal visits for the other dogs...for a price.

There’s plenty more where that came from. It makes me what The Blogging Cat would think of all this?

Word.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-04-30T18:07:00.000-06:00

Whew, it's been getting heavy around here of late, so here's a little reprieve from the extensive pontificating.

What do Quentin Tarantino and the Papacy have in common? Find out by checking out this Scene from Pope Fiction. Here’s a sampling:

Vincent: You know what the funniest thing about Vatican City is?
Jules: What?
Vincent: It's the little differences. Like, they got the same sh*t they got everywhere else, but it's a little different.
Jules: Examples?
Vincent: Like they got a army and everything, but even though they're in Italy, it's called the Swiss Guard.

I found this among a list of “Tips for Insulting a Person”:

Finally, remember all those names you used to call people in grade school? They can still be effective, if for no other reason than they are so obviously foolish. Honestly, how do you respond when a 35 year old mother of 4 calls you a ‘dummy’ or ‘potty-face’. You can’t; those are devastating insults, only to be used when you see no other option.

“How to Blog Like a Rock Star” by Ambra Nykol. (HT: Joe Carter at EO) and now it's Rock Star Part II. (Hat tip: Instapundit) Here's a sample:

Complaining about how you wish more people would visit your website is the antithesis of cool. Keep that stuff to yourself. Don't rant about it on your weblog. That is what nerds do.

Bill Simmons at espn.com amusingly trashes the new movie “Fever Pitch”. Some women may not fully “appreciate” his humor, but here’s a sampling:

Here's a news flash for you: If that was really me in the movie and I had season tickets right next to the Red Sox dugout, not only would I have never considered giving them up for a girl ... there's a 99.9 percent chance that I would have died single. And that, my friends, is the difference between a chick flick and real life. Final Grade: B-plus (as a chick flick), D-plus (as a movie)

Also, be sure to check out his “10 generic themes that invariably show up in any chick flick” in the same article.

And finally, The Onion reports: “Family Feud Continues Years After Game Show Appearance”.

The World's Most Dangerous Idea (Part 2)

2005-04-29T07:55:00.000-06:00

I now turn to the truly interesting and important part of this discussion… Why moral relativism is either a self-refuting theory or the world’s most dangerous idea.

First though, I want to address the specific commentary from Dave and Gaunilo. I did not mean to insinuate that the only code of moral truth is found in the Bible. Actually, basic guiding principles against lying and killing and in support of patriotism and “the Golden Rule” exist in a nearly all ethical systems, world religions, and cultures. This is consistent with a belief in a natural law.

Also, I am not repudiating the need to appeal to one’s own conscience. However, the fact that we should appeal to our own conscience and reasoning does not preclude the existence of a universal moral code. For instance, if Jeffrey Dahmar’s morality allowed him to cannibalize his neighbor, we should be able to unequivocally assert that his actions were wrong and should be condemned. If there exists no universal code of morality, then we have no grounds to say his “morality” is any less than ours.

A moral relativist could, in turn, argue that he is not an individual relativist, but a cultural relativist and our culture does not condone Dahmar’s actions. Fair enough. But the foundations of this philosophy deteriorate as well under scrutiny. For there can be no ethical “progress” in a society if morality is no more than a reflection of people’s tastes, preferences, and origins.

Can anybody reasonably deny that the abolition of slavery in the U.S. was an example of true moral progress? Yet, if we follow cultural relativism to its logical end, there can be no such thing as moral improvement. After all, what basis do we have to use as inspiration for improvement? If there is no universal standard by which to measure, there is no greater good to which we should aspire.

Now we move on to a favorite topic of everyone on the left – tolerance. Firstly, in my own defense (though I can’t speak for all conservatives), I have never alleged that liberals themselves have no moral code or principles. Rather, I have suggested that most liberals deny the existence of any objective moral code.

Also, my recognition that there exists such a thing as universal truth does not mean I am telling anyone what to do. One is a belief. The other is an order or instruction. It’s a leap to jump from one to the other and label me intolerant on the basis of merely espousing a belief.

Now, more to the point, what does relative morality have to say in regard to tolerance? The proposition that we ought to tolerate the views of others insinuates an underlying universal code of morality. An aspiration toward tolerance presupposes that there is something inherently good about being tolerant and open-minded. But if there is no objective standard, a core belief of liberalism is diluted and is, in fact, rendered to be without substance.

I will even take it a step further and assert that moral relativism can promote close-mindedness. If there is no moral truth to be discovered outside of one’s own logic and reasoning, what can be gained by engaging in dialogue with others? Why bother even listening to other people? What’s to be gained? Look inside and you will find all you need to know according to the slippery slope of a worldview that is relative morality.

G.K. Chesterton says it well in Orthodoxy:

The new rebel is a sceptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never really be a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Are you disgusted by the genocide going on in Darfur? Did the world's failure to stop the disaster in Rwanda in '94 sicken you? Well, I'm afraid relativism is of no help here. There can be no basis for denunciation of such acts... After all, who are we to say our moral philosophies and practices are better than theirs? I don't think we need such "humility" in the face of human rights atrocities.

Where's the outrage? It began to dissipate around the same time relativism began to rear its ugly head. Societies can only be held accountable for their moral failings if there exists a standard by which to measure.

UPDATE: Since this is a theme that I feel warrants further elaboration, I want to provide links to some others on the topic:

Neil at the Ethical Werewolf elaborates upon the types of contradictions that abound for those that espouse relativism. He also provides a good rationale for why it is important to be informed on the matter:

Our views on the nature of moral concepts have big consequences for the theory of what's right and wrong. So we'd do well to clarify them and make sure they're what they ought to be.

Jeannine at Sharing Life makes a good case for remaining grounded in truth and avoiding altering our beliefs to fit the ever-changing whims of the culture:

The truth that God has revealed to us cannot be given up. This is not understandable to a world that believes in relativism, to which the concept of an absolute truth is absolutely alien.

Sean, a student at Harvard, expounds upon the deteriorating moral situation and break down of common sense from the vantagepoint of one trapped inside the confines of what he deems the “dictatorship of relativism”.

Doug Powell also takes his best effort at debunking the premises of moral relativism here. (Hat tip: JPE)

From a different perspective, JPE suggests that relativism is a scapegoat that diverts us from addressing the real issue which could better be characterized as "moral particularism". According to him, I am merely a pawn in money making game called the “relativism industry”. Makes me feel like some sort of lobbyist…

The World's Most Dangerous Idea (Part 1)

2005-04-28T20:37:00.000-06:00

The gauntlet has been thrown down. In response, I intend to defend the merits of moral absolutism and, subsequently, demonstrate how the core principles of liberalism are undermined by its own driving philosophy of moral relativism.

But first: Why is this discussion even relevant? More than any other single factor, I would contend that the relativist/absolutist moral dichotomy is at the root of the red/blue state cultural divide. Whether it is explicitly stated or lingering just beneath the surface, this issue is at the heart of the conflicting worldviews with which our nation and the world are now struggling.

On that note, I’ll begin my own feeble attempt to debunk the principles of a relative moralistic philosophy.

First, though, I’d like to refer Dave at The Grace Pages (along with other relativists) to the related commentary of a most distinguished member of his own Anglican Church, C.S. Lewis. Lewis articulates a solid case against moral relativism in The Abolition of Man. I’ve noted the contributions of both Lewis and G.K. Chesterton to this subject in a previous post. But I digress.

So as to avoid confusion, I want to start by defining both. Moral relativism is the belief that there are no absolutes or objective right and wrong concerning questions of morality. Instead, morality is a function of personal preferences and/or one’s cultural or ethnic orientation.

By contrast, moral absolutism is the belief in objective and universal moral standards (also called natural law), generally assumed to be derived from a higher power. Adherents to such a philosophy believe that the concept of truth exists naturally. It is not a matter of something being true “for someone” to the exclusion of someone else. It is either true or it is not.

I took the time to explain this because it is my primary intention to distinguish between the two and show why I feel logic and inherent reason are on the side of a belief in absolute morality. After reading Dave’s response to my last post, I’m concerned that we were both misrepresenting each other and I want to avoid spirally further into a semantic quagmire. While I believe most liberals adhere to a relativist philosophy (either implicitly or explicitly), I do not mean to apply that stereotype to all on the left.

First though, are liberals justified in their accusations of arrogance, narrow-mindedness against conservatives? Well, in many cases the answer is yes and I would attribute it to a misapplication of the moral absolutist philosophy. Few situations could be more frustrating that trying to have a discussion with someone who espouses a “completely black-and-white” mindset and who assumes to be on the right side of all issues.

Those who selectively quote random Bible versus in response to complicated moral questions and situations and act as if that settles the issue can be very frustrating. I readily admit that some who share my ideology use moral absolutism to justify an over-simplified, arrogant, and sometimes judgmental, worldview. Such behavior, however, does not invalidate the existence of an objective moral code.

By espousing a belief in absolute morality, I am not suggesting that the Bible has an answer to every theoretical situation and philosophical question in existence. Moreover, we need not oversimplify every moral scenario in order to believe in the existence of objective truth and morality. Life is complicated and many situations require a nuanced approach. But the question is do we have a starting point or standard of measure at the core of the debate or is everything subjective?

Also, the existence of exceptions to objective standards does not invalidate the concept of a natural law. For instance, is lying justifiable in situations that could save a life? The answer can be yes without completely undermining the belief in an objective moral code. Only a proponent of Kantian extreme absolutist philosophy would argue that lying is wrong under every possible circumstance.

Refutation of Relativism to follow. For now I give up due to a breakdown of blogger service...

Words V. Actions – Bridging the Gap

2005-04-27T17:01:00.000-06:00

Terry Mattingly at Get Religion has found an interesting news item that has not received nearly the amount of news coverage it warrants…

Through a new idea called the "95/10 Initiative", a group called Democrats for Life is suggesting a way to reduce the number of abortions by 95% in the next 10 years. Who knows what kind of validity there is to those numbers, but at least it seems to be a step in the right direction.

As Terry points out, it will be interesting to see if there is any truth behind Clintonesque assertions of the hope to make abortion “safe, legal, and rare”.

(Kris at Anywhere But Here points to a good example that calls into question the sincerity of such assertions. Parableman’s archived ruminations on this subject also point out the disingenuous nature of leftist claims supposedly aspiring to make abortion “rare".)

My guess is that further conversation about this topic will be muted or, if the proposal begins to gain some traction, pro-choice Dems will find some minor point of contention that will allow them to oppose the idea. Afterall, abortion is big business in this country, as Joe Carter points out, and the lobbyists are not going down without a fight on this.

It will also be interesting to see how the right wing responds. For instance, what is the chance Dr. Dobson would ever rally the troops in a compromise that involves teaching comprehensive sex-ed in schools? (Oh my, what is that - a pig flying outside my window…)

Why can’t grown-ups find mature solutions to issues of life and death? I would submit it comes down to one of two possibilities. Either they are captive to special interests (see NOW or NARAL on the left) or they are beholden to noble ideals that negate the possibility of finding attainable compromises (see the right clinging to “abstinence-only” education even at the expense of human lives).

In an ideal world, we would conduct research to find an optimal solution that all reasonable parties could agree upon (in other words, what actually has the highest success ratio in reducing the number of abortions) and just do it. Period. For this reason, I think Democrats for Life are on the right track.

Jason at Antioch Road is calling for someone (Bush in particular) to “stand up and lead” on the abortion issue. That’s a request that needs to be heeded and is long overdue. Now that it appears someone is leading, I would be curious as to how he (and others on the right) feel Bush should respond to the Dems for Life initiative.

Over on the left, I’m also curious as to how Publius at Legal Fiction would react to this initiative. In a recent post, he stated: “For instance, progressives and conservatives could surely agree on the value of promoting adoption programs and sex education to reduce the number of abortions…” 'Surely', eh? Methinks not. Here’s an example of some folks from your own party putting some impetus behind those words: What say you, Publius?

We’ll see if anyone else wants to follow suit in offering or endorsing some sort of practical solution. Of course, that would involve an actual conversation between the opposing sides to find a workable compromise. Okay, now I’m actually making myself laugh. Sorry for the delusional suggestion. The children can now resume with the partisan name-calling and finger pointing. I need a drink.

UPDATE: Jason at Antioch Road has posted a reply that states his position on the 95-10 Intiative.

Of Babies and Bathwater

2005-04-25T21:38:00.000-06:00

I want to take issue with the blurring of two ideologies/belief systems – Conservative Christianity and Christian Fundamentalism. While the fundamentalist is a conservative Christian, a conservative Christian is not necessarily a fundamentalist. I have observed that most backlashes purportedly against those on the right of the political spectrum in general are actually targeted against a subset of the right, Christian fundamentalists.

There is good reason for this and I sympathize with much of the frustration targeted at fundamentalists. Fundamentalists, much like the Pharisees of the New Testament, are often much more concerned with obeying the letter of the law than they are with the principles of grace that Christ espoused and displayed so prevalently.

The self-righteous legalism and hypocritical condescension of these folks has deterred legions of people from ever even hearing the message of Christianity. Also, fundamentalists are often sufficiently preoccupied with the end of the world and their own path to eternity to the extent that they often neglect the crucial need to live out the gospel of grace by example here on earth.

So the backlash against fundamentalism is not at all surprising and is largely justified. However, I would submit that in many corners the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. We need to be careful not to throw out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Focusing on grace, to the exclusion of any real core moral convictions, can result in a watered down sort of spirituality.

The result of a complete refutation of all aspects of fundamentalism is a foundation built on sand. In the name of pseudo-humility, everyone lives by his or her own sense of right and wrong and there is no common moral code. This is a dangerous road to tread for it leads to a steady corrosion of morality. Kevin at Short Attention Span offers some interesting insights on this subject.

On the other hand, the anti-scientific, anti-intellectual strain all too common among fundamentalists is antithetical to the type of conservatism I would advocate. Unfortunately, some do not differentiate the above characteristics of fundamentalists from the broader categories of conservatives and evangelicals. Here is an example of this blurring of the lines by the blogger Gaunilo:

It's simply wrong-headed to reject the findings of modern thought or science because a literalistic hermeneutic would interpret the scriptures a particular way… Christianity today is a laughingstock in the culture because it arrogantly has decided that on the basis of a religious text it is competent to judge matters of science that it knows nothing about.

I don’t disagree with this sentiment, but I disagree with the author’s conclusion that this should serve as a refutation of conservative Christianity.

The problem here lies in a false choice that is all too often offered. Are you a judgmental, hypocritical zealot of the "religious right" or an open-minded, loving, grace-filled liberal Christian? There is a lot to learn from those on the left (particularly in areas of compassion), and it is not my intention to paint with too broad a brush.

However, the left tends to lose its way because, as G.K. Chesterton put it, they are humble in the wrong area. From the perspective of many on the left, they are humble because “they have no right to tell others what is right and wrong”. Dave at Grace Pages takes that argument a step further by alleging “slander” against those who believe in an inherent sort of moral code:

To be blunt, I think this is something of a myth constructed by conservative Christians, among others. What they're really saying when they accuse someone of having no moral standards is that they do not share the same moral standards. It really amounts to slander: You don't share my agenda; therefore you have no principles.

I would assert that it is not “my” agenda or principles for which I am advocating, but rather God-given truths and principles which we abandon at our own peril. Liberal arguments against an absolute moral code sound modest and unassuming, but in reality, the proponents of relative morality are egotistical in espousing the assumption that man, not God, determines ultimate truth. Under such a scenario, man’s intellect and emotion hold the keys to ultimate discernment of truth. I would argue that is the most arrogant of worldviews.

Instead, I’d assert that the answer – the reasonable middle ground if you will – lies in an open-minded sort of conservatism. We should strive for a broadening of perspective without watering down our core beliefs. Assuming a divine inspiration of Scripture need not imply the need to blindly adhere to a completely literal interpretation. Quarrels over doctrinal differences should not overshadow common belief in the core principles of the Apostle’s Creed.

Balance. We need to find it. Demagoguing the other side will accomplish nothing.

UPDATE: Dave at The Grace Pages has issued a seething repudiation of my commentary above (or at least loosely based on my commentary). A word of caution: For those of you entering a blog entitled "The Grace Pages" expecting, oh I dunno, grace?, you may want to brace yourselves. No seriously, he makes a thorough and intelligent rebuttal, albeit in an overly sensitive manner. "An insult to (your) character." Really, Dave? I was excited at the prospect of beginning some real dialogue. I can assure you no personal affront was intended. Anyway, I can "take it on the chin," but I will need a separate post to return the favor. To be continued...

For a more specific dilineation of the differences between fundamentalists and evangelicals I would recommend checking out Blake Kennedy's post.

For some specific examples of characteristics that might be attributable to fundamentalists, see Parableman's post on "Defining Fundamentalism," which was prompted by Blake's post. One thing that I seem to be in disagreement with Jeremy on is the notion that not all Fundamentalists are Evangelicals. It would seem to me that Fundamentalists would also be Evangelicals, but perhaps I am just not aware of situations in which this would not be the case. However, I would clearly agree that not all Evangelicals are Fundamentalists, hence the reason for this post in trying to avoid the blurring of the lines between the two.

Escaping From the Echo Chamber

2005-04-21T22:20:00.000-06:00

This is my emancipation proclamation. I've grown weary of the philosophical walls surrounding me. And I suspect I'm not the only one...

As I was reading Joe Carter's advice about how bloggers can set themselves apart and enhance their value, I came across an interesting recommendation that he made:

Read Outside the Circle -- Conservative bloggers read The Corner, liberal bloggers read Salon.com, Christian bloggers read Christianity Today, libertarian bloggers read Reason, and everyone reads the New York Times. So why point out the material they already know about?

Your blog's target audience is either reading the same magazines and newspaper's that you do or they will follow the links to the thousands of other blogs who found the story first. Find what other people aren't reading.

It's a great point. I thought about it in the slightly different context of how much more impact we can have if we step outside our own walls. Regardless of your ideology, the thought of stepping out of the comfort zone to listen and engage the other side is intriguing. How many of us intentionally and consistently seek out conversation or understanding from the other side of the debate? Preaching to the choir rarely broadens our own perspective or has significant impact on anyone else's.

With this "broadening" ideal in mind, I came across an ever-so-rare example of actual, civilized dialogue between a conservative and a liberal. They both discussed their Christian faiths at a blog called the Faithful Progressive. It is a good example of a self-described "progressive" trying to grasp - both for himself and his readers - the thinking of a conservative Christian that may not fit the typical charicatures. I'd suggest reading their exchange. Jollyblogger has also followed Joe's advice, in reading and assessing David Schimke's views on the differences between progressives and conservatives.

In this spirit, I've decided to make a concerted effort to begin reading blogs from the left side of the political spectrum, specifically Christian ones. I know that none of these folks asked for my opinion of their writing, but I'm going to give it anyway - from what I hope is a sincere and open-minded perspective.

One particular blog - Father Jake Stops the World - caught my attention. He seems fair-minded and makes some interesting points about God's not being a Republican or Democrat, and the need to look at the whole spectrum of issues at stake politically. But then, similar to Jim Wallis, he makes some sweeping (left-leaning) assertions with seemingly no thought as to the other side of the debate. Here's an example:

What will convince me to support a candidate are actions that give evidence of a consistent life ethic that includes not just discussion of abortion and euthanasia, but also of the thousands of innocent Iraqis who have died due to the American invasion and those on death row who will be murdered in the name of the state.

Why does he point out "thousands of innocent Iraqis dying," but fails to mention hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis tortured, raped, or killed by Saddam Hussein's vicious totalitarian regime. Does that not factor into the equation at all? Surely, he does not think that situation would have remedied itself on its own or that Hussein would have turned over a new leaf. Captain Ed has more about it here. There are many arguments against the war that make a lot of sense, but this one seems a bit disingenuous.

In another post of his, with which I completely agreed, Father Jake talked of the need to shut out all of the distractions surrounding us in order to grow spiritually:

Let's try to shut out some of the noise in our lives, and listen for the voice of our Good Shepherd, who will revive our souls, and guide us along right pathways.

Now, for sure, there are good reasons to be weary of reading blogs from the other side. For conservatives, here’s one of them. In it, 'DarkSyd' states:

And outside of dozens of (Bible) verses… which seem to condone, justify, or apologize, for infanticide and the destruction of fetuses… in certain rare circumstances by God's followers, at his behest, or by the Almighty Himself, there are only a couple which directly comment on the status of unborn children. Neither of which do the anti-choicers much good.

Uh, whatever. If we need to pinpoint scripture that will “directly comment on the status of unborn children,” we have entered a truly pathetic state of morality. It does not seem like much of a leap of logic to contend that the Creator of life would not authorize, much less encourage, us to destroy life after its conception at a time of our own choosing.

There is plenty of deception out there that can tie us into knots intellectually, thereby justifying all sorts of wrongdoing. So I want to make clear I’m not advocating a journey to the dark side of the moon(bats). What I am suggesting is finding reasonable voices on the other side of the political spectrum in which to engage a dialogue. So come on along. Mystify your friends. Mortify your opponents. Transcend the labels. Join the voyage.

UPDATE: Not surprisingly, Catez at All Things to All "gets it". She writes:

I know about demonising the opposition. I know about passionately believing in an agenda and pushing aside the conscience pangs on issues because it means losing ground or losing face. I know how liberating it is to not have to live like that anymore.

Liberation. That's what I'm talkin' about.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-04-20T17:24:00.000-06:00

I don’t really understand how people actually enjoy listening to country music, but Joe at Evangelical Outpost has an explanation that makes some sense:

Kids who grow up listening to rock or rap often believe that country musicians only sing about how the dog died, the truck broke down, and their woman ran off. That is, of course, a fairly accurate assessment of country music. But by the time you hit forty you’ll have had your share of dead dogs, dead batteries, and dead-end relationships. You’ll find that you can relate to this music better than you can songs about drinking champagne while driving in your Rolls and getting shot at by rival East Coast rappers.

Ace of Spades offers up Top Ten Changes the New Pope Will Enact to Make Christianity More Acceptable to Liberals

Oxblog offers this take on the New Pope:

Personally I was hoping for a cuddly Italian liberal. But a conservative German with the nickname 'the enforcer' was probably my second choice.

Scrappleface gives us a heads up on this late breaking development:

Vatican Spins Off U.S. Catholic Church (2004-04-20) -- In one of his first official moves, Pope Benedict XVI today announced that the Vatican would "spin off" the U.S. division of the Roman Catholic church, but retain a 49-percent stake in the new entity, called R.C. Lite.

Carnivals, Politics, and Quirky Movie Trivia

2005-04-20T12:58:00.000-06:00

The 66th Christian Carnival is up at Pseudo-Polymath.

You can find the 135th Carnival of the Vanities over at Conservative Dialysis.

I just discovered this site, entitled Dignan’s 75 Year Plan. I feel compelled to give a shout out to anyone who names his blog after an obscure reference from an even more obscure (but very funny) movie. For those of you who don’t know, Dignan is the name of Owen Wilson’s character in Wes Anderson’s directorial debut movie, Bottle Rocket. It’s no Royal Tenenbaums or Rushmore, but it certainly has some hilarious moments.

Anyway, Dignan points out something in his post “Agreeing to Disagree” that reinforces a point I was trying to make here about the degeneration of political discourse in this country. This section in particular is interesting:

I was talking with two work colleagues and told them that our disagreement was about methods but not about goals. They vehemently disagreed and said that Republicans and anyone that supports them are evil. End of discussion.
I think that some people have tried to counter this phenomena by moderating their beliefs. While that is an admirable move, I think the issue is that we should be moderating our rhetoric.

Right. Along these same lines, Brad at 21st Century Reformation makes a good point as to why politics can be harmful to your spiritual health:

…Christians need to remain humble and civil in all political discourse. This is my reluctance. Politics is simply not very gracious and to me spirituality is so much about being humble and gracious.

Politics seems to manifest itself as the opposite of grace. As the lines between politics and religion blur, I get worried as to the nature of the messages that are being sent.

Discerning the Truth or Just Blowing (White) Smoke?

2005-04-19T17:03:00.000-06:00

It’s the End of the World as we know it.

Or at least that is what I’ve gathered after reading Andrew Sullivan’s recent post regarding the selection of the new Pope. Now I wouldn’t expect a leading gay rights advocate such as Sullivan to be a huge supporter of Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), but this takes it a step further. Andrew portrays “the Grand Inquisitor” as the vessel of impending doom for all of Western Civilization.

I’m not a Catholic, but as a Christian I have much interest in this subject. Without question, the Pope has an enormous influence on cultural issues around the world. I also have quite a bit of respect for the typically thoughtful and articulate (if sometimes erratic) Sullivan. So naturally I am intrigued. What should we think of the new development?

Since Sullivan asserts that “it would be hard to overstate the radicalism of this decision,” I am curious as to the nature of the purported “radicalism” in question. Here is a quote from Ratzinger that Andrew uses to substantiate his critique:

Having a clear faith, based on the Creed of the Church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism. Whereas, relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching', looks like the only attitude (acceptable) to today's standards. We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires.

At the risk of also being labeled a throwback from the Inquisition, I have to say I agree with the rhetorical thrust of the new Pope’s assertion here. I am relieved to notice that the newly elected Pope is concerned with the problem of moral relativism infiltrating our collective worldviews. Indeed, the fact that he does not seem at all anxious to acquiesce to the wishy-washy humanism currently enveloping our culture is a very good sign. (I’ve recently noted my own concerns with a drift toward relativism here.)

Outside of perhaps his invocation of the term ‘fundamentalism’ (and his apparent endorsement of it), I don’t see how this attitude could be considered at all incompatible with the belief system he is now representing. It’s almost as if Sullivan is completely appalled that the new Pope is (gasp!) Catholic. (You can look to Professor Bainbridge for a not-so-charitable view of Sullivan’s appraisal of the papacy.)

Sullivan’s prediction is as follows:

For American Catholics, I foresee an accelerating exodus. But that, remember, is the plan. The Ratzingerians want to empty the pews in America and start over.

First of all, I’m not at all convinced of the existence of such a “plan” or conspiracy if you will. However, even if that is the case, so be it. If Ratzinger’s firm, conservative adherence to doctrine accounts for a mass exodus from the American Catholic church, then that will reveal much more about the sorry state of affairs for Catholicism in this country than it will the new Pope.

“Teach us what we want to hear, what is popular, or politically correct – regardless of consistency with Biblical principles - or we will leave the church.” If that has truly become the mantra of the masses, then by all means empty the pews and start over. Keeping the pews filled with lukewarm believers, pacified by a new doctrine void of any real principle and foundation, will lead to an inevitable collapse.

Christ himself, while not at all judgmental toward any individuals, certainly stood fastidiously against the popular whims of the culture when they strayed from absolute morality. In the words of G. K. Chesterton, “A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”

But I just can’t end with a ringing endorsement of the new Pope whom I admittedly know little about. A huge achievement for Pope John Paul II was his successful effort to bridge the historic divide between Catholics and Protestants. I hope that is the case with the new Pope, but this line from Reuters news gives me reason to pause:

In a document in 2000, he branded other Christian churches as deficient -- shocking Anglicans, Lutherans and other Protestants in ecumenical dialogue with Rome for years.

Considering the lack of specifics to back up that claim, I am not inclined to assess much credence to that quote. Unfortunately, a more trusted source echoes that concern. Regarding Ratzinger, Jeremy at Parableman states, "he's the one who insisted to John Paul II that he not sign the Joint Agreement with the Lutherans..." Not a good sign.

In an article in Christianity Today entitled “Pope ‘Broadened the Way” for Evangelicals and Catholics,” Methodist theologian Tom Oden summarized the key reasons for success in bridging the gap within the Christian community.

John Paul II was a strong, moral voice at a time when evangelicals were beginning to wake up to the fact that while we do, indeed, have many differences with Roman Catholics—on Scripture, sacrament, penitential practice, and many other things—we have many common and shared values, and, in some profound ways, shared doctrine. We share the same New Testament, the same canonical Scripture. We share the same confession, the same Nicene Creed, the same Apostle's Creed, and so forth.

Amen. It remains to be seen if his successor will follow the same path. I sure hope so.

UPDATE: Joe at The Moderate Voice has a great round up of opinions regarding Pope Benedict XVI.

How to Describe a Great New Band

2005-04-17T13:50:00.000-06:00

One of the challenges of listening to music that (practically) no one has heard of is in trying to accurately describe what it sounds like in a quick and understandable fashion.

As some friends and I headed up to Boulder for a concert on Friday night, we brainstormed to create an effective formula for describing new bands in such a way. It's very simple actually. Evoke the sounds of two different bands and add a location to the description. The hard part for me is in avoiding the temptation to name another obscure band in the comparison.

So here is my depiction of three bands I've been listening to lately - starting with the guys I just saw live on Friday night:

1) Drive By Truckers - Imagine Pearl Jam growing up in rural Alabama listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd. (Recommended Album for southern-fried rock neophytes: Decoration Day)

2) Bloc Party - The Cure meets Blur at a supercharged British dance party. (Recommended Album for novices to the new wave of old school 80's dance rock: Silent Alarm)

3) Old 97's - The Kinks meet (early) Wilco at a backyard summer barbeque. (Recommended Album for new recruits to the alt-country scene: Too Far to Care)

There is actually a lot of good new music out there. You just wouldn't know it by listening to Top 40 stations. (My apologies to Brittany and Nelly fans.)

B-Ball's Back!

2005-04-16T11:48:00.000-06:00

It was not too long ago that I couldn't have cared less about NBA basketball. Somewhere around the time Michael Jordan retired (the first time), I really lost interest. At such point, to me, pro basketball slipped into a slump of blandness. Or worse, it seemed a club of spoiled primadonnas who cared more about padding their own personal stats than winning games and having allegiance to their teams.

But now, something's changing and I'm pretty excited about it. It's almost beckoning back to those glorious Larry Bird/Magic Johnson days of yore. And I'm not just saying that because the Denver Nuggets are in the midst of an unbelievable turnaround this season. (Currently on a ten game winning streak, they are hitting their stride at exactly the right time.)

Finally, there is formidable competition between the East and the West, as well as some really exciting guys to watch. And these young guys actually have class. Lebron James is barely 20 years old and this kid is amazing. He's immensely talented, mature, and fairly humble for someone who is already drawing comparisons to the legendary MJ. In a similar camp, though I'd tone down the hyperbolic praise for him just a tad, is Dwayne Wade. He's a cool, smart kid with some big time skillz.

This also happens to be one of the first years in recent memory that anyone really cares about the MVP award. Bill Simmons offers up some of his patented wit on the subject here. Among his highlights from the top 3 contenders:

3) Dirk Nowitzki - "One of the biggest surprises of the season: Dirk Nowitzki developing a nasty streak. Who knew? Has there ever been a tougher European player? Actually, let's rephrase that – has there ever been a TOUGH European player? ... Having a cocky, snarling 7-foot German guy with 25-foot range has to rank among the highlights of the season. Who's more fun to root against than Dirk Nowitzki?"

2) Allen Iverson - "I mean, this has been going on for like 10 years – he keeps getting knocked down, keeps getting up, keeps ripping teams' hearts out. Throw in his insanely intense interviews and he's a solid No. 2 choice. Plus, he's the new Clubber Lang – I don't think he's cracked a smile in six years."

1) Shaquille O'Neal - "Try to follow this equation:
A. The Lakers won 57 games last year ... they're headed for 35 wins this year.
B. The Heat won 42 games last year ... they're headed for 62 wins this year.
I'm no John Hollinger, but even I can add that up: That's a 42-game swing, not to mention the balance of power shifting to the East. And yes, that should have been enough to win Shaq another MVP."

I do think Simmons is crazy, however, for not putting Steve Nash in his top three. In fact, I'd have to agree with Marc Stein that Nash should win the top award. But just the fact that I even care about who wins the NBA MVP this year is good enough for me. Afterall, we've still got a bit of a wait until football season starts back up...

Stepping Down From the Pedestal

2005-04-14T21:04:00.000-06:00

David Wayne has written a fascinating post in a new series called "Forgotten Factors in the Downfall of Nations." In it, he warns evangelicals that by focusing in on a couple pet issues – homosexuality in particular – deeper matters might be missed:

If we load up on one or two issues we may be missing other issues which are just as significant in God's sight… most of the more legislatively-minded evangelicals will admit that their pet issues are not the only issues, just the most important.

But that is where I wonder. It seems the case can be made that the sexual immorality of Sodom grew out of its arrogance and materialism. Or maybe hedonism is a better word… Hedonism can express itself in a craving for sex or in cravings for food, houses, nicer cars and other things. This is why I wonder if the immorality of Sodom wasn't a symptom of a deeper sin for which they were judged.

I think this raises a larger issue, and one in which everyone should take heed. Whether in political debate, theological ruminations, or just everyday life, we should be careful not to put ourselves on a pedestal thinking that we could not possibly sink so low as others. (That's not to say we should not have convictions even if they are not popular, but it is the particular emphasis with which I take issue.)

I can think of many instances where I've heard condemnation of homosexuality from the pulpit, but I don't really recall any that specifically railed against materialism. I'd imagine that one is a particularly tough sell in 21st century American culture. One of Jonathan Edwards' resolutions may be particularly instructive here:

(Be) Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

Tough words to live by. Sometimes the things we least want to hear are the things we most need to hear.

Drifting Into The Void...

2005-04-13T23:58:00.000-06:00

Joe Carter at The Evangelical Outpost has opened a symposium on “Judeo-Christian Values in an Ethically Pluralistic Society" with the current entries listed here. The idea has intrigued me sufficiently to prompt the writing of the following essay. For purposes of this post, I equate an ethically pluralistic society with the assumption that all moral values are equally true, or what is considered moral relativism.

Do you ever wonder what happened to common sense? How has this old fashioned concept (not so long ago taken for granted) found its way on the road to extinction? It all comes back to the theory of moral relativism. Once we forgo the existence of absolute morality or natural law and replace it with relative morality, by definition we lose all commonality of principle and logic.

Relativism starts out seductively, with a seemingly innocuous premise that each person should judge what is right or wrong according to his/her own personal sense of morality. Particularly in our current postmodern world, there is a sense that truth is subjective. Many have espoused a view along the lines of “my own values are not necessarily right for everyone.” It sounds humble and unassuming enough, but G.K. Chesterton succinctly pointed out the danger with this line of reasoning:

What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place… A man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. The part he doubts is exactly the part he ought not to doubt – the Divine Reason.

It is often suggested that “we can’t legislate morality”. But the laws of the land are designed to do precisely that. They codify the agreed upon standards of public morality. (To clarify, I often agree with the sentiment against “legislating morality”. We really can only alter the root cause of these problems by changing hearts not by enacting more laws. However such laws are crucial in establishing order and providing safety for the public.)

So what if we have no more absolute standards of morality? As that deteriorates into a relativism driven by individual attitudes and feelings, it is not surprising that the general populace will become more and more hostile towards attempts to revert back to absolute law. Example: “Who are you to tell me how to act? It feels right to me, even if you don’t agree…”

To effectively address such questions, we need to be able to articulate the negative ramifications of plunging headlong into the depths of the abyss that is moral relativism. Practically speaking, what is so wrong with a relativist code of conduct (assuming that such a thing is even possible)? This is where it becomes crucial to point out that by eschewing minimum standards of behavior, we run the very real risk of digressing into a state of anarchy. This can be done by following the relativist model to its logical ends.

Some would say “I believe abortion is wrong, but I don’t feel like I have the right to tell anyone else what to do.” The question then becomes, “How do you then feel about a woman who kills her baby after she gives birth? Would you be okay with saying that is wrong? At what point does it become your right to tell her and why? Based on what?”

If everything is arbitrary - in the absence of any objective standards of right and wrong – it is merely an imposition of your own feelings upon another. No matter how heinous the crime, there can be no basis for outrage in such a world.

Once the effects of the relativist philosophy are brought to a personal level, few people would adhere to its viability. For instance, you may believe it’s wrong to drink and drive, but what if I have no problem doing it? What right do you have to tell me I can’t do that?

Any tendency toward a wishy-washy, feel-good type of morality dissipates immediately when it’s your spouse killed in a drunk driving accident or your daughter who is buying drugs from the junkie down the street or your son who is killed by a terrorist. When outrage and reality hit home, any previous notion of “relativism” is gone. Suddenly, there is right and wrong, good and evil – no questions asked.

Once the obvious contradictions have been addressed, an alternative must be suggested and justified. Why is moral absolutism necessary and, how can it be justified intellectually as resting solidly on logical principles rather than merely personal preference. As Francis Schaeffer has pointed out, we need to first argue for the possibility of rational discourse on matters of faith. This is something that the modern and post-modern world has largely rejected.

Drawing from sources ranging from the Ten Commandments to the Book of Proverbs, Judeo-Christian values provide the basis for a moral code that can and should be used as a guide in legislating. I want to be clear that I am not advocating theocracy of any type, but rather the realization that values and reason are not mutually exclusive.

And, in fact, values are the foundation of reason. Without them, we are left to drift aimlessly through this life with nothing but randomness and anarchy surrounding us. Also, it is instructive to note that the world’s other major religions offer similar creeds to those found in Judeo-Christian texts. If we believe values and morals to be “absolute” and inherent in mankind, it only stands to reason that all religions would espouse similar core values. As such, it would behoove us to focus on such broad-based similarities in order to strenghthen attempts to reach a common ground legislatively.

So what’s the consequence of not dealing with this issue? C.S. Lewis theorizes in the Abolition of Man what happens to mankind once we stray from an absolute form of morality or what he refers to as the Tao:

Stepping outside the Tao, they have stepped into the void…. You cannot go “explaining away” for ever; you will find you have explained explanation itself away. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see. (Emphasis mine)

In Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton provides examples of how a moral relativist becomes a walking contradiction:

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is a waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. …In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics, he attacks morality for trampling on men. …By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.

Arbitrariness and randomness in the absence of a concrete moral code can lead to endless contradictions and complete upheaval of anything remotely resembling what has traditionally been considered common sense. In order to have hope of changing the situation for the better, we need to be aware of the grim reality that we are currently embarking on a dangerous course that is leading us into a great expanse of nothingness…

Puttin' the Overheated Politics On Ice...

2005-04-11T22:07:00.000-06:00

I’m noticing an odd paradox emerging in our “information age”. As we become increasingly bombarded with information, we are becoming less informed, but more opinionated. In order for news to really stand out in the midst of enormous competition, it must take a stand. Now I have no problem with editorializing, and in fact I often prefer it to “hard news”.

However, as the edges sharpen and the battle lines deepen, the audience becomes more entrenched in their opinions and hostility rises toward the other side. In turn, favorite opinion leaders are expected to follow suit. It’s a self-perpetuating pattern of anger. As the public discourse is infused with more vitriol, it becomes nearly impossible to have a conversation with someone on the other side.

Particularly evident on cable talk shows, there is no discussion anymore. The pattern is as follows:
1) To open segment, host hurls completely loaded soft ball question at guest
2) Guest #1 takes loaded question and runs with it, lobbing unfair characterization toward the other side
3) Guest #2 hurls back completely unsubstantiated insult
4) Guest #1 brings up valid point (I anxiously await response…)
5) Guest #2 ignores intriguing question introduced by guest #1, instead opting for character assassinations
6) More insults, yelling, frustrations ensue…

Everyone has plenty to say, but no one cares to listen. We’re now in a politically hyper-charged atmosphere where the other side is rendered completely unreasonable, hypocritical, dumb, or just plain evil – take your pick. The one thing no one has any need for right now is an actual, informed discussion.

I actually enjoy political dialogue, but instead we're stuck with diatribes. Under the best case scenario, they are disjointed, deaf monologues driven by anger and bias. But it could stem from a problem more sinister than blind, unwavering allegiance toward one’s political party. I fear we are often witnessing the blatant pandering to listeners, viewers, or readers.

I’m not six years old and I, for one, consider it an affront to my (admittedly limited) intelligence to think that I am being patronized. Is anyone else tired of the demeaning, condescending, and completely hypocritical attitudes yet?

Sean Hannity is continuous shocked – shocked – at the heinous rhetoric from Democrats. Do these people ever give Republicans credit? Ummm…pot, kettle, black.

Do you think – for one minute – that Rush Limbaugh would render Abu Graib a meaningless prank or simply the manifestation of a “need to blow off some steam” had it occurred under Clinton’s watch? UPDATE: JB at Balkinization points out how Rush Limbaugh joked about the exoneration of all top officers in the Abu Graib prison scandal. A torture scandal that reinforced the worst notions about the U.S. around the world treated as a source of comedy? Nice. (Hat tip: R. Johnson at De Sententia)

Do you believe that Michael Moore would be blowing off the Oil-for-Food Scandal if it were the U.S. (under President Bush) rather than the U.N. presiding over this enormous disaster? Are you kidding me? This story has the makings of a fantastic geopolitical conspiracy theory, with an indictment of big business to boot. Here’s a recap…

France and Russia illegally profiteer from oil proceeds intended to feed and medicate the Iraqi people, but instead lines the pockets of fat-cat politicians and businessmen. All of this primarily occurred in countries that just happened to spearhead opposition to a war effort intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power (which would of course put an end to the oil money slush funds). Ah… right story, wrong players. It’s a non-starter.

The bottom line is the state of the political "dialogue" in this country is an insult. We don't need to be spoon-fed partisan slant, and no political party should become our religion. We all really need to stop throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Listen and maybe, just maybe, we all would learn something. Because even Ralph Nader gets it right sometimes. A little less arrogance, a little more honesty, and a lot more empathy could go a long way… In a word: Chill.

UPDATE: In a recent post at Parableman, Jeremy Pierce brings up the need for a change in tactics in order to effectively engage in debate. I couldn't agree more with the thrust of his sentiments, particularly statements like these:

We must respect the viewpoints of those who disagree on fundamentals and seek to engage them in reason with the awareness of their differences... The most important task in reasoning with people who disagree with us is to listen to them. If we try to understand what they're saying, and we adjust our argument accordingly to deal with it, then we'll have a stronger argument.

It seems obvious enough, but rarely do we engage in this sort of rational, productive type of dialogue.

A Transcendent and Divine Sort of Detachment

2005-04-08T07:49:00.000-06:00

In the midst of “one of the largest Western religious gatherings of modern times,” I wonder exactly what it was about Pope John Paul II that was so appealing and so universally adored. Among his main attributes: Empathy? Sure. Compassion? Absolutely. What about indifference? Or detachment? Now before any Catholic readers denounce me as a heretic, please hear me out.

First of all, I’m not talking about indifference as an end in and of itself, but rather as a prerequisite to really, truly loving others. In the last chapter of his book The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis discusses the highest love or what he calls “charity”. He describes it as follows:

Divine Gift-love – Love Himself working in a man – is wholly disinterested and desires what is simply best for the beloved…. Divine Gift-love in the man enables him to love what is not naturally lovable; lepers, criminals, enemies, morons, the sulky, the superior, and the sneering.

There was no better example of this in recent times than the Pope’s visit with his would-be assassin in December 1983, two years after the attempted murder. Here's a portion of that story as reported by Time magazine January 9, 1984:

At times it looked almost as if the Pope were hearing the confession of Agca, a Turkish Muslim. At those moments, John Paul leaned forward from the waist in a priestly posture, his head bowed and forehead tightly clasped in his hand as the younger man spoke. For 21 minutes, the Pope sat with his would-be assassin. ...The two talked softly...

What was exchanged between the two men remains confidential. The Pope would only comment, ‘I spoke to him as a brother whom I have pardoned, and who has my complete trust.’

Thomas Merton expounds upon the theme of indifference in what is often deemed “Christian Asceticism”. In No Man is an Island, he asserts:

It is only when we are detached from created things that we can begin to value them as we really should. It is only when we are “indifferent” to them that we can really begin to love them.

The indifference of which I speak must, therefore, be an indifference not to things themselves but to their effects on our own lives.

The man who loves God more than himself is also able to love persons and things for the good that they possess in God. Such a man is indifferent to the impact of things in his own life.

Elaborating on this theme and applying it to the realm of prayer, Kathleen Norris speaks of detachment in Amazing Grace. While elucidating on the virtues of becoming “detached” in a sense, she astutely disavows any sense of apathy or forfeiture with which it could be confused:

This sort of detachment is neither passive nor remote but paradoxically is fully engaged with the world. It is not resignation, but a vigilance that allows a person to recognize that whatever comes is a gift from God. …It is the sort of prayer that can absorb all manner of pain, and transform it into hope.

Peggy Noonan recounts the Pope's monumental trips to Poland early in his papacy in this stirring tribute. Here are his own words from 1979 that served as a precursor to the end of Communism in Poland ten years hence:

You must be strong, my brothers and sisters! You must be strong with the strength that faith gives! You must be strong with the strength of faith! You must be faithful! You need this strength today more than any other period of our history. . . .

Speaking of strength, this man was strong precisely because he had a strong divine gift-love working through him and people could sense that. That is so very different from our natural type of need-love, which is driven more by considerations of the ramifications on our own lives than out of sheer concern for the plight of others.

It is counterintuitive, of course, to think that in order to provide an unconditional, divine sort of love, we first need to become indifferent. That indifference though is to ourselves and our own narrow desires. In essence, we should strive to love others for their own sake. Aspiring toward indifference… Who knew? The Pope, apparently.

UPDATE: For further contemplation on this subject, I'd recommend you check out the following essays:

John from Blogotional touches upon this theme in his recounting of "The Fourth Degree of Love: Love of Self for God's Sake" – from the writings of Bernard of Clairvaux:

In a manner of speaking, we lose ourselves as though we did not exist, utterly unconscious of ourselves and emptied of ourselves.

Ales Rarus points out some of the Pope's attributes and convictions in “A Legacy of Dignity”:

He fought tirelessly for the dignity of the poor, the downtrodden, the oppressed, and the unborn. …he taught us that even those whom the world had rejected had dignity as human beings.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-04-05T22:51:00.000-06:00

Because some stuff is too funny not to share. Here’s a roundup that’s equally offensive to those all across the political spectrum:

Jim Geraghty wonders “DO TERRORIST GROUPS HAVE MARKETING CONSULTANTS?”

Regarding one specific terrorist group of Kurdish separatists in Turkey, he asks:

How did "KONGRA-GEL" (Kurdistan People’s Congress) ever get past the focus groups? It sounds like a hair care product.

And then concludes:

The marginal good news here is that the more time a group spends sitting around debating its name, the less time they spend plotting to kill people.

Speaking of terrorism, the Onion presents The Fox News Terror Alert Van. (I especially like the “Honk if you see Terror Happening” message on the back of the van.) And here's the intro to the "story":

MURFREESBORO, TN—Touting itself as "the only channel with a terror-alert system designed to meet the specific needs of central Tennessee," Fox News affiliate WMFB-TV Channel 11 debuted its terror-alert van Monday.

I thought I noticed a bit of a familiar pattern emerging with Mr. Delay's positioning of himself into an easily mocked parody of… himself. Scrappleface has the scoop in this story titled, "Gingrich Sues Rep. DeLay for 'Demon' Infringement."

(2005-03-30) -- Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich today filed a lawsuit against current House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-TX, contending that Mr. DeLay has infringed on Mr. Gingrich's "brand and service marks by positioning himself as the number one target of the Democrat party."

Following a quote from Howard Dean at a recent speaking engagement in Tennessee, Mickey Kaus paraphrases the crux of Dean’s sentiment in trying to appease red state voters:

'There, there, you worried irrational people. My pollster's told me about you. We're on your side, however illogical your pathetic little fears!' ... From vilification to condescension. This is progress in the Democratic Party.

And lastly, some words of wisdom from Vanilla Ice regarding his place in history:

As for music and my place in it, maybe things are changing a little bit. I know this: a good song is deeper than a tattoo. It'll remind you of the car you're driving and the girl you're going around with and the streets you're cruising. It's better than a photo album. A song is a tattoo that you never lose. 'Ice, Ice Baby,' man, you'll remember that when you're 90.

'Ice Ice Baby' at age 90. Nice. Something to look forward to. Hopefully, I'll still be ready to belt out some karaoke in my old age. Rollin'...

2005-04-04T18:55:00.000-06:00

Breckenridge, CO

Ahh. Fresh Powder, Blue Skies, and Sunshine... The makings of a great spring skiing finale on the slopes in Colorado. I took this pic from Keystone resort over the weekend. It captures the slopes of Breckenridge resort and the surrounding mountains.

Alright, time to go check out the college hoops championship. Peace out.

Back to the Future

2005-04-03T00:58:00.000-07:00

(This is a hopeful vision of how future generations may recount the current state of affairs in the Church one hundred years from now…Thanks to Pseudo-Polymath for the inspiration for this idea.)

Looking back on the state of the church at the start of the 21st Century, we should really consider it a blessing to be where we are now. It’s easy to forget the severe trials and infighting the Church was experiencing 100 years ago…

It would be futile to attempt to pinpoint an exact moment or turning point for the Church. Instead, the turnaround is attributable to a combination of events that culminated in a spiritual renaissance and new birth for Christianity. What is indisputable now, with the aid of hindsight, was the necessity for a shake-up of the status quo and the resulting change to the shape of the church.

Before we look at the positive impetuses that encouraged the transformation, I’d like to briefly assess the primary dilemmas facing the Church circa 1960 – 2010. Keep in mind these are broad characterizations and certainly not indicative of the entire state of the faith at the time.

During the latter half of the 20th and early 21st centuries, it had evolved into very much of a spectator type of religion. Congregants wanted entertainment and they wanted to feel good. They came to church service (if they came at all) largely for a self-centered doctrine focused on their own wealth and health. The “spectator” mindset was also a result of the overall lifestyle at the time.

You may recall this was the era of “suburban sprawl” at its peak. As a result of frequently long commutes to work and church, there was often a sense of detachment. The spiritual experience was less an integral lifestyle component and more a “destination” given a 1-2 hour allotment on Sunday mornings and thereafter relegated conveniently to its appropriate box until next week.

But then something internal started to change. People became more engaged in their own spiritual formation. There were a number of contributing factors and surely there will be something I am neglecting to mention. The first factor credited for the transformation was the brutally honest critiques offered at the time. Without some trusted authoritative voices first addressing these shortfalls and the need for change, we would have had only more of the same.

One seminal work I’d point to is Mark Noll’s Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. Published in 1994, it provided a timely, thorough, and often disheartening examination of the status of the evangelical community at the time. The book spurred on an intense dialogue that, in turn, did much to facilitate the creation of a cohesive Christian worldview. In the process, he helped to repudiate the anti-intellectual leanings of the fundamentalist movement. The discussion of ideas, doubts, and theology was no longer dissuaded, but encouraged, and the intellectual framework for Christianity was strengthened as a result.

(Given what we know now and how far we’ve come, it’s hard to image the extensive dearth of Christian intellectual contributions in the 20th and early 21st centuries. Attributable largely to the fundamentalist boom during that same time period, an anti-intellectual, anti-scientific viewpoint dominated the evangelical Christian landscape. It was much more about reactionary disapproval than it was about proactive idea generation.)

So once the right questions were asked, where did the discussion actually take place? I would credit blogging, still in its early rudimentary form at the time, as being a significant impetus in empowering Christian thought. That emerging technological medium helped bring Christianity “out of the box” and into the realm of public discourse with relevant and doctrinally sound opinions.

The final factor to be credited for inspiring the change of heart in the Christian Church was the emergence of the “community-based” model that not only drew more outsiders into the church, but also strengthened the relationships and spirituality of those inside.

So how could you detect the transformation in terms of the nature of the Church?

Churches began to promote dialogue rather than monologue and participation rather than performance. Rather than spoon-feeding members, they encouraged spiritual development. Churches welcomed questions, avoided simplistic answers and verified the dimension of mystery in authentic spirituality.

Those were all important characteristics of the Church as it evolved into its current form. But perhaps the largest was in coming to grips with the importance of our Earthly mission. As believers, we finally came to realization that the resurrection of Christ signified the beginning of God's new project. It was not to take people away from earth to heaven, but to colonize earth with the life of heaven.

There was a fundamental change in terminology and attitude that took place. Instead of focusing on changing the culture, our Christian brethren focused on communities and changing hearts. This was a significant shift of focus away from the "effect" (culture) to actually dealing with the "cause" (community). No longer was it a "cultural war" we were waging. The battlefield was transformed into a mission field.

As such, the Church went out into the community to provide for people where they were, as opposed to sitting back and expecting folks to come to them. Whether it was helping to provide forums for dealing with alcohol and substance abuse, free tutoring for children and medical services for the elderly, or hosting of sports and leisure groups in the community, there was a huge outbreak of outreach.

While it is instructive to analyze the aforementioned darker periods of the Church, it is admittedly with a sigh of relief that I step back into our current situation. Whereby throngs of previously disillusioned citizens have come to know the Lord through the humble, loving examples set by their neighbors, co-workers, or random strangers.

The petty squabbles and infighting between over denominational differences have been largely vanquished by a desire for achieving the common good and aspiring to "Mere" Christianity. While we understand that doctrine is important, the example set forth by our actions and how we live is much more so. Having come to that realization, the Church and the Kingdom of God have thrived ever since.

Mega-Church Musings

2005-03-31T22:48:00.000-07:00

Wendy at Just a Little Bit Odd has an interesting post on the Mega-Church Theme. And I'm not just saying that because she quotes me throughout her post. It's interesting that this theme seems to come up so often now. I feel like I'm seeing it everywhere, but perhaps it's just because I'm paying more attention now. (You can read my thoughts on the subject here and here.)

At any rate, Wendy brought to my attention an article from the New York Times Magazine about a Mega Church called Radiant that was started in the town of Surprise, Arizona. Surprise was my reaction when I read a liberal publication that actually provided a fair treatment to an evangelical Christian subject matter.

Wendy does a good job of summarizing my views on the situation as well as adding some insightful comments of her own so I'll refrain from reiterating them all here and simply point you in that direction if you are interested in further exploring this topic.

Heaven and Hell

2005-03-31T22:29:00.000-07:00

I've just recently finished reading The Great Divorce by C. S. Lewis. It is redundant to say of any C. S. Lewis' writings, but of course, the book is sheer genius. It is an allegorical tale of a journey through Heaven and Hell. The writer recounts, in a first person narrative, the details of his journey.

It is essentially a meditation upon good and evil. An interesting, and unsettling, portion of the book ponders why and how seemingly "good people" are doomed to eternal damnation. One line in particular caught my attention:

Good beats upon the damned incessantly as sound waves beat on the ears of the deaf, but they cannot receive it. Their fists are clenched, their teeth are clenched, their eyes fast shut.

The book is chock full of fascinating metaphors, but it is beyond the scope of this post right now, except to point out that it is scary how thin the line is between good and evil as Lewis portrays it. It really comes down to pride issues on so many fronts. Again and again it comes back to the message that we need to humble ourselves in order to experience the eternal rewards. (For more ruminations on the Great Divorce, read the Pontifications Blog.)

UPDATE: I just took a look at Jollyblogger and thought I was reading my own blog for a second. Beat you to it by a couple days, David, but the conclusion is the same.

The Real Deal

2005-03-31T21:59:00.000-07:00

I could try to explain why I find Ronald Reagan to be such an amazing inspiration. However, any attempts to do so would be feeble in comparison to the words of those who actually knew him. There is no more articulate friend of Reagan than Peggy Noonan.

She has a glorious way with words and is always insightful and worth reading. I've recently finished When Character Was King (A Story of Ronald Reagan) and would highly recommend it to anyone seeking to learn more about one of the greatest presidents in this country's history.

There are two gripping quotes from those that knew Reagan well that, in my opinion, really capture his essence. The first is from Marion Jorgensen, a friend of the family:

...the key about Ronnie is this: I knew him as a movie actor, as a governor of the state of California, as President of the United States, and the thing about him is he never changed. He was humble. He had no sense of entitlement. It wasn't about him, ever.

Rush Limbaugh (me clearing throat...subject for another day) echoed that sentiment, in speaking of Reagan:

And what I finally figured out was there was no image creation. There was no image. There was just genuine Ronald Reagan, and that's what cut through all the noise.

And then there was this self-assessment from Reagan himself:

I never thought of myself as a great man, just a man committed to great ideas....There is no question I am an idealist, which is another way of saying that I am an American.

Peggy Noonan offered this moving tribute to Reagan last summer shortly after he passed away. I pray God can bless us with a leader of this caliber again some day...

Pipe Dreams of a Plastic Culture

2005-03-29T21:47:00.000-07:00

Grab life by the horns. Image is everything. Just a little nip here and a tuck there and you could be a superstar. Maybe even an American Idol. Be like Mike. Be Here Now. Enjoy the ride. Because you deserve it. I want my MTV. I want my Reality TV.

Love of celebrity, love of money, love of self... If this is The Real World, I'm in need of a permanent vacation. I'm not feeling the love here. I'm feeling alone in a prison of my own making. When do we say enough with the distractions?

You can have your stuff. I don't want it. You can have your money. It won't make me happy. You can take your petty, superficial concerns. Give me the real thing. I want to find meaning, significance, purpose. I want to really truly live and that means I must first die. Die to my own narrow desires and love of self.

Just tonight, I came across some words of wisdom from Thomas Merton (from Asian Journal in 1973) that are very applicable. It is ironic, and telling, that I should find solace in the words of a monk when trying to make sense of this largely fake and materialistic culture. In explaining the sense of relief that is felt when we decide to center our lives on God and not on ourselves, Merton states:

To live with the true consciousness of life centered on Another is to lose one's self-important seriousness and thus to live life as a "play" in union with a Cosmic Player.
It is He alone that one takes seriously. But to take Him seriously is to find joy and spontaneity in everything. For everything is gift and grace. In other words, to live selfishly is to bear life as an intolerable burden. To live selflessly is to live in joy.

Surrender now. Feel the weight of all the world lifting. Release. Just do it.

The Road to Irrelevancy

2005-03-28T13:04:00.000-07:00

I can’t say that I’m terribly surprised, but “The World According to Michael Moore” is now crumbling. Let’s call it a blogumentary in real-time…

4/14/2004: Michael Moore states:

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

2/3/2005: Khaleej Times Online: "Iraqi village takes up arms against insurgents, killing five" (Link via Arthur Chernoff)

MAHMUDIYAH, Iraq - Inhabitants of an Iraqi village killed five insurgents who attacked them for taking part in the country’s historic election, police said on Thursday.

3/22/2005: New York Times: “Ordinary Iraqis Wage a Successful Battle Against Insurgents”

Just before noon today, a carpenter named Dhia saw a troop of masked gunmen with grenades coming towards his shop and decided he had had enough. … In the fierce gun battle that followed, three of the insurgents were killed, and the rest fled just after the police arrived. Says Dhia, ‘…I am waiting for the rest of them to come and we will show them.’

3/28/2005: Washington Times: "Pentagon Begins to See Iraq Momentum Shift" (link via PowerLine)

A Pentagon official said the more that intelligence agencies analyze the insurgency, the clearer it becomes that a large part is criminal, not nationalistic.

As for the prediction that the Iraqi insurgents will win, well that's not seeming to pan out too well either... Lawrence Kaplan at the New Republic offers this assessment (Hat tip: Instapundit):

…over the past month, the news from Iraq has been unusually good. Depending on which military official you ask, insurgent attacks have dropped by either a third or nearly half. The number of Americans killed in action has declined. Civilians have begun killing terrorists.

So what exactly does the outspoken Mr. Moore do when a central tenant of his vitriolic screed has been so completely discredited? (crickets chirping) Actually, Moore may have provided us a foreshadowing of his response in this article:

Jeez, I think I'm right. The things I believe in, I believe strongly enough in them and I think I'm right. When I'm wrong, then I change my mind and I'm right again.

Well, come to think of it, honesty and humility never were his strong suits.

UPDATE: I suppose there is no better arbiter of the general mood within Iraq than the Iraqis themselves. So here's a new poll that - amazingly (me feigning disbelief) - has managed to slip under the radar of the New York Times and the rest of the MSM. Fortunately, Chrenkoff offers all the Iraqi news that's fit to blog.

For some people, it may help to have a visual in order to best understand just how the heroes of Moore's world are faring.

2005-03-27T19:55:00.000-07:00

Melt in a memory,
Slide in a solitude.
Not 'til I can read by the moon,
Am I going anywhere.
Not 'til I can read by the moon.

- "Fugitive Hotel" from Elbow's Cast of Thousands

Easter Sunset in Denver, Colorado

Sorry, too many pics, too little bandwidth. Sunset photos have been taken down for the time being.

A Need For Compassion

2005-03-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

"And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by our love..."

It's one of my favorite old hymns, and I pray to God it is true, but I suspect otherwise. Now before I delve into this issue, I want to take a step back and explain where I'm coming from in terms of my own worldview.

As a political conservative on most issues, particularly social ones, I am as concerned as I suspect most of you are regarding the coarsening of our culture. Abortion on-demand, an abundance of ultra-violent movies and videogames, and the attempts to remove God entirely from the public discourse and educational arena all play a crucial role in this.

In fact, the more I focus on it, the more angry and bitter I become. It instills in me a sense of outrage and even hostility toward the "secular left" who often promote this downward spiral through staunch support of the issues cited above.

However, while I believe we all have a duty to be politically engaged, I fear that politics has the potential to cause us to act and think in the exact opposite manner in which God has called us. We can become self-righteous and even hateful without realizing it. In essence, we risk becoming a modern day version of the Pharisees.

The following are some examples of how we can degenerate into hatefulness rather than love if we are not careful. This is from Randall Terry - former leader of Operation Rescue:

I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good ... if a Christian voted for Clinton, he sinned against God...

On the 700 Club on January 18, 1995, Pat Robertson suggested:

[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers. (Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost)

In an article from the Washington Post on 9/14/2001, the Rev. Jerry Falwell assigned blame for the 9/11 attacks, by asserting the following:

I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians... the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their face and say, "You helped this happen."

In an effort to make a point, I have admittedly cited extreme examples. But the sad reality is that the media, too, is always more than willing to cite these sorts of examples from Christians - over and over and over again.

This weekend in particular I am reminded of Christ's words nearly 2000 years ago. As he hung there, dying on the cross, facing an injustice far worse than any of us could ever fathom, he spoke these words - which are almost inexplicable: "Father, forgive them for they do not know what they do."

In this vain, Jollyblogger wisely advises us to be careful of our thoughts and words regarding Michael Schiavo. The Upward Paradigm concurs as does Palm Tree Pundit. Parableman, too, offers some good advice regarding how we should approach those who do not share our beliefs when he states:

Christians have an obligation to reach out with the gospel. Starting instead with a political agenda based on particular sins tells people that we value labeling them in negative ways more than we value caring about them as people...

In What's So Amazing About Grace, Philip Yancey quotes Ron Sider who speculates:

Think of the impact if the first thing the homosexual community thought of when someone mentions evangelicals was that they were the people who lovingly ran the AIDS shelters and tenderly cared for them down to the last gasp. A little consistent wholesome modeling and costly servanthood are worth millions of true words harshly spoken.

The problem lying at the root of the deterioration of our values in this country is a hardening of the heart and a lack of compassion for the intrinsic value of life. Paradoxically, our political anger over the results stemming from this problem is only going to cause us to display this same type of hardened heart toward others.

Now more than ever, we need to heed Christ's words which call on us to act compassionately and lovingly toward our enemies. It is really the only option we have to be a lasting force of change for good in this world.

Suppressing Emotions So That Reason Can Prevail

2005-03-24T08:01:00.000-07:00

I've been extremely reluctant to write on the Terry Schiavo case primarily because there are countless others doing it - many of whom can articulate the debate enormously more effectively and articulately than I can. But I feel compelled to make an observation.

As seems to be the case with nearly everything these days, either partisan politics or emotions seem to drive people's arguments - on both sides of the political spectrum. Most of the time, this is just a frustrating phenomenon to observe, since it rarely advances the discussion or alters any opinions. However, in a life-or-death situation like Terry Schiavo's, it is truly heart-breaking.

What we need is a well-reasoned debate and that is, as usual, the one thing that's been largely missing with respect to this case. That's a travesty when a human life hangs in the balance. The ensuing emotional firestorm is understandable but not, ultimately, helpful. That was why it was especially refreshing to read the article this morning at the usually left-leaning Slate.

It is a reasonable, fair-minded assessment of the case and, subsequently, it is the best argument I've read so far as to why Congress was right to intervene on Terri Schiavo's behalf. It's just a shame there has not been more of this, since it is potentially quite persuasive. As Ms. Johnson puts it in her article:

My emotional response is powerful, but at bottom it's not important. It's no more important than anyone else's, not what matters. The things that ought to matter have become obscured in our communal clash of gut reactions.

Indeed.

What's in a Name?

2005-03-23T22:05:00.000-07:00

So now I turn to the oft-asked question, “How did you come up with the name PlaidBerry and what does it mean?”

PlaidBerry was the name I gave to a short-lived rock band I started during high school (FYI - I play guitar and write songs, though now only sporadically). It was an offshoot of the critically-acclaimed band Roadkill who hit it big with the underground juggernaut “If the Booze Don’t Getcha’ (the Music Will)”. Sorry, that last sentence is largely fabricated, but there are about five old friends out there who may find it mildly amusing. No more inside jokes – I promise.

Actually, PlaidBerry turned out to be not much of a band, but more of a concept for a band that didn’t quite materialize. So what did the name mean? Well, nothing much, it just sounded cool.

When it came to naming the blog, I had some inkling that it would now be applicable in a whole new dimension. Though I had no idea what exactly that meant – other than vague thoughts about spiritual fruit and the fact that I liked the visualization it provided. And that’s where C.S. Lewis, as he so often does, burst onto the scene to reveal insights to me as to what on earth I was thinking.

In Reflections On the Psalms, Lewis mentions Plato's discussions about the fate of goodness in an evil and misunderstanding world. He then speculates as to Plato's hypothetical reaction if he were to find out about the Passion story of Christ (an event that of course occurred after all of Plato's pontifications):

I see...so that was what I was really thinking about. Of course. That is what my words really meant, and I never knew it.

No doubt mine is a very liberal adaptation of this theory of "second meanings", but it fits. I had no idea what PlaidBerry meant initially, but now I do.

The following is a description of my primary aspiration with PlaidBerry. “Plaid” is a metaphor to represent the fabric of society and how we should aspire to comprehend all cultural issues from a consistent, interwoven spiritual perspective. Joe Carter articulates this goal well with this statement: "we have to become cultural missionaries, translating the components of our worldview in a way that can be understood by our opponents."

By so doing, we can expect to bear good “fruits” in the form of positive changes in the community around us. This post at Reasons Why does a good job of explaining what it means to bear good fruit/result/product and how to spot the fruit of a false prophet.

Too abstract for those of you left-brained folks? Sorry, but I like it better than the previous explanation of “I dunno”. (Disclaimer: There is also some stuff on this blog that has absolutely nothing to do with spirituality or the quest for any deeper meaning.)

And that is the tale of the PlaidBerry. Though the moral of this story is much bigger than the name. At some point, I believe that all the proverbial pieces of the puzzle will come together and it will all make sense. We should expect to feel a certain sense of "A-ha! So that's what I meant by that or that's why this happened to me". The key is to pay attention along the way so we don't miss these moments altogether.

How (Bitter)Sweet the Sound

2005-03-22T19:53:00.000-07:00

“I stood on the edge, tied to a noose, but you came along and you cut me loose.” - "Amsterdam" from Coldplay’s Rush of Blood to the Head

I have no idea what Chris Martin was thinking when he penned that lyric, but I know what it means to me. It eloquently conveys the message of redemption through the grace of God. As we approach Good Friday, my thoughts are more focused on the One who came to wash us clean. The One who died so that we could live. It’s the greatest story ever told. It has the power to change hearts and lives, and our world desperately needs to experience it - now more than ever.

It is fitting, I suppose, that as we move toward the holiday that celebrates the resurrection of life, that the public discourse has shifted its focus back onto the issue of life with the ensuing debate over the Terri Schiavo case. Our nation’s increasingly casual disregard for life is an immensely troubling trend that is expounded upon by this paragraph in an article at RealClearPolitics, which observes:

Our culture is loudly, messily working out its views on human life, which are not the same views we entertained as recently as 50 years ago. Our views back then were largely formed by a sense of religious duty or, at any rate, religious precedent. God had given life to mankind. It was no trifling gift.

Mark Steyn echoes this sentiment, adding some specifics:

As the New York Times reported the other day: “Babies born into what certain to be a brief life of grievous suffering should have their lives ended by physicians under strict guidelines, according to doctors in the Netherlands.

Much of that derives from the way abortion has redefined life – as a “choice”, an option.

So what should we do?

I think this sentiment from Blogotional points us in the right direction:

We have to reinsert Jesus into our society. We have to grasp again His essential ministry to fulfill the law. This will not be accomplished by forming Political Action Committees, making political donations, impeaching judges, or standing vigils. No, we can only fulfill the law when hearts in the nation are filled with the Holy Spirit, and this can only happen when they come to know the saving grace of Jesus Christ.

A terse definition of grace is unmerited pardon or forgiveness. Grace is the great equalizer. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” All of us need it, though none of us deserve it.

‘Twas Grace that taught my heart to fear
And Grace my fears relieved.
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.

Amazing Grace is a sweet, sweet sound indeed. It is the eternal source of hope amidst our own sadness.

2005-03-22T17:15:00.000-07:00

For anyone familiar with The Screwtape Letters by C. S. Lewis, this article is an interesting and creative adaptation of the themes of that book. Specifically, the author is speculating as to the mindset that Satan might be using to deceive us today. It is particularly timely with its insinuations as to how the coarsening of our culture is transpiring right before our eyes.

2005-03-22T11:58:00.000-07:00

Ah, I'm not really sure what to think of this. It's a Christian parody of Sir Mix-a-lot's "Baby Got Back." Sample lyric: "Well bless me, bless me and teach me about John Wesley..."

High marks for creativity, but I think I'm still a little traumatized...

Will Blogging Revitalize the Church?

2005-03-19T10:49:00.000-07:00

Tim Challies and David Wayne at JollyBlogger have recently taken issue with Hugh Hewitt’s characterization of blogging as the new Reformation. Perhaps Hugh’s analogy is a bit of overwrought hyperbole, but he may not be that far off either...

This is tangential to a front burner issue for me right now (as witnessed by recent posts here and here). And that is the growing trend in the evangelical world, evident in some mega-churches in particular, in disseminating a primary message that focuses more on self than it does on God. A corollary to this phenomenon is that it also tends to present a “dumbed-down” sort of theology.

From a pastor’s perspective, Todd Bolsinger at It Takes A Church seems to shed some light on one reason why this is happening:

When our congregants expect us to deliver sermons filled with strong exegesis, relevant examples and a joke or two all in 25 minutes or less. It is easy to develop the habit of reducing everything to the ridiculous. Pretty soon our theology is nothing more than slogans or acronyms or representative stories. And communicating the depths of crucial issues and doctrine go by the way side.

Maybe books like this have a value for some people, but at some point, in order to mature spiritually, we need to probe and dig deeper into issues. That’s where blogging comes in and why it may just evolve into a faith outlet of gargantuan importance. The future of a real discussion and dissection of IDEAS has arrived in the form of this new technological medium. What shape it eventually takes - be it videoblogging, podcasting, etc. - is not the issue.

As Bolsinger contends: "...by writing and linking and writing and linking, we can respond to the challenges posed by skeptics, not with the hue and cry of the hurt, but with the rapid, clear and sober answers that reveal the truth."

David at JollyBlogger contends that “blogging is not an idea, it is a technology.” This is a rare instance where I think he misses the point. It is the new technological medium that is facilitating a fundamental paradigm shift in how we exchange ideas. Without gatekeepers or lack of specific credentials halting people from freely distributing their thoughts, the world of faith may well be reformed in monumental ways.

21st Century Reformation suggests:

As this dialogue grows, through this new media, the ideas that will renew the church and renew the culture around us will incubate and eventually flower. The 21st Century reformation is not just happening in politics and media but in the church as well.

If you weren't invited to the party, have no fear. The party is over and the discussion has moved out into the street. The blogoshere is the open air pulpit of the 21st Century. The open air preachers have arrived.

“Open air pulpit” indeed. The barriers to being heard are now gone and that is huge. In the entire world, how many people are out there that now have the ability to offer amazing insights and perhaps offer ground-breaking advances in the realm of Christian philosophy?

Undoubtedly, the Christian community has much room for improvement in effectively utilizing this new technological medium. Joe Carter offers some good advice on how to accomplish this goal:

As the blogosphere matures it's influence will continue to expand. It will continue to shape ideas, set political agendas, and shape culture. Christians who believe that a Biblical worldview has something important to add to the conversation cannot afford to ignore this medium...
To be successful in this effort will require that we band together and help others whether their blogs are more popular or completely unknown. We need to link to and visit each other's blogs, provide encouragement, and praise excellence and quality wherever it is found.
UPDATE: After reading JollyBlogger's updated
post on this topic as well as his comment to my post, it may be that the fundamental disagreement here may be more about semantics than substance. Initially I understood he and Challies to be downplaying the potential effectiveness of utilizing this new technological medium, but perhaps it was more of a parsing of words.
In a new post on this topic, Challies states: "There is some disagreement as to whether Hewitt meant to say that blogging is the new Reformation or whether it will just be the medium that carries it."
That seems to be the case, but doesn't this just reinforce the value of blogging for advancing the discussion and further dissecting points of contention?
Another blogging pastor, Personal Trainor, weighs in with some Random Thoughts on Blogging. He states, "It makes me accessible to my congregation and them to me. I view it as a stream of consciousness into which they may plunge or not."
Joe Carter gathers some intriguing related thoughts on the subject from around the blogosphere. He seems to concur with this same theme, speculating, "Imagine what we might be able to accomplish if we were able to use our network and influence to shape the church as well as the world."

SuperSize Me...and My Church (Take 2)

2005-03-18T18:42:00.000-07:00

“It’s not about you.”

Think about those words for a minute. It is, of course, the exact opposite of nearly everything we’ve ever been taught to think. It’s all about us. It’s about success, money, fame, the car we drive, the house we live in, and having lots of stuff. Image is everything, right?

But yet those are the first four words of Rick Warren’s smashingly successful book, The Purpose-Driven Life, and they turn the essence of our entire culture on its head. To be honest, I’m no fan of the book. I tried reading it, but could not maintain any real interest.

But then, of course, it’s not about me or what I think. It’s about the 8 million people that bought it. And if only 8 of them really got the message of its opening line, then it may just be an essential book. (UPDATE: Not to get off point, but there is a case to be made for some legitimate theological problems with the book as pointed out by David at Jollyblogger.)

Peggy Noonan posts the transcript of Ashley’s Smith’s amazing story about someone now on his way to prison who seemingly just got something out of that book. In it, Peggy suggests,

Maybe we should be thinking: God loves all of us, every one of us most tenderly, even convicts, maybe especially convicts, who know what they are and hang their heads and one of whom, so long ago, looked up, and cried out to the man on the other cross, and received from him a promise of forgiveness and a promise that soon, very soon, they would stand together in a place without pain.

That’s the message of grace, and that is what Christianity is all about. What I’m wrestling with here is the classic question of whether the ends justify the means. Is it acceptable to initially subjugate the primary message of grace with a message of prosperity and self-improvement if that is merely a marketing tool to get back to grace? That is, afterall, what’s going on now in a whole lot of churches.

But then it strikes me that this is a false choice. Jesus proclaimed “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. Focus on that first part for a moment. Jesus states that he is THE way, not simply a way. According to Christ’s own words, there is no other way to get to where we need to be spiritually, and that would necessarily preclude the gospel of self-help. In fact, that is the polar opposite of how we are to get there, which is accomplished only by "dying" to one’s self.

Now, juxtapose Jesus’ famous self-description above with this remark from the pastor of the largest church in America as he is speaking of his church…

We don't have crosses up there. We believe in all that, but I like to take the barriers down that have kept people from coming.

He also said his goal is to "give people a boost for the week." (More detail over at Exultate Justi) Now, personally, I like Joel Osteen, the pastor of Lakewood Church in Houston who spoke those words. He seems to me to be a genuine and good-hearted man of God. But, alas, it’s not about me. Nor is it about Joel Osteen for that matter. It’s about God. And even people with their hearts in the right place can still get it wrong. And in this case, I can’t reconcile his words with Jesus being the way. It's the cross he doesn't have up there that is the way. (Hat tip: Evangelical Outpost)

Of course, the point is not to single out one pastor, but rather to consider this one example as a representation of a growing and increasingly influential movement endemic to the mega-churches in particular.

In this article, Philip Yancey discusses how the best preachers have challenged earth to be more like heaven. He fears that the opposite is happening now, "Famous preachers of modern times, especially those who speak on radio and television, emphasize success and 'health and wealth'."

In an interview for Christianity Today, pastor Eugene Peterson elaborates on this theme:

The minute we start advertising the faith in terms of benefits, we're just exacerbating the self problem. "With Christ, you're better, stronger, more likeable, you enjoy some ecstasy." But it's just more self. Instead, we want to get people bored with themselves so they can start looking at Jesus.

In The Four Loves, C. S. Lewis observes,

There remains some lingering idea of our own, our very own attractiveness. It is easy to acknowledge, but almost impossible to realize for long, that we are mirrors whose brightness, if we are bright, is wholly derived from the sun that shines upon us.

I am trying to reprogram my own thought process in order to reduce the self-absorbed mentality. I just hope that my church will help me in that endeavor and not hinder it. There's a need to make a conscious decision whether to kneel at the altar of God or Self. We can't have it both ways.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-03-16T20:25:00.000-07:00

Ahh, just a few hours away from the makings of a truly remarkable day:

It's the convergence of the official start of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (a.k.a. The Big Dance or March Madness) and St. Patty's Day. I think these two much-anticipated events occur simultaneously once every, like, 1000 years. I'll check on it, but I'm pretty sure the planets are aligned. Here's to Irish beer and college hoops!

St. Patrick's Day
In true holiday spirit, The Onion offers an Irish Heritage timeline. Among the highlights:
432 A.D. St. Patrick arrives in Ireland offering 25 cent chicken wings and 2-for-1 taps all night long
1487 A.D. In a decision still regretted today, Irish let a few British friends stay in Belfast
1951 A.D. Irish Spring, the two deodorant soap, becomes the first soap allowed on Irish soil

Million Dollar Baby vs. Rocky
Here's a little Q&A from SportsGuy at ESPN's Page 2:
Q: What's your take on the media comparing "Million Dollar Baby" to"Rocky"?
A: I think a better question would be, "Would you have liked 'Rocky' as much if Apollo sucker-punched him in their big fight, Stallone ended up a quadriplegic, and then Adrian pulled the plug on him and opened a coffee shop with Paulie?" (And the answer, obviously, is no. That reminds me ...)

Music
Time to reload the iPod? Here are 5 great bands you may never have heard:
1) Hem - melodic, soothing female vocals along the lines of SarahMaclachlan
2) Snow Patrol - layered, Brit-rock (actually Irish) at its finest, similar to Coldplay
3) Drive-By Truckers - southern rock revitalized, a beefed-up version of Lynyrd Skynyrd for the 21st century
4) Interpol - think 80's british electro-pop on the darker side, a little Depeche Mode but even more Joy Division
5) Gomez - jam rock type, great live show, 3 different guys sing, I'm at a loss for any adequate comparisons - sound like Pearl Jam at times with Eddie Vedder-ish vocals, but really all over the map

Also, check out the new Christian Carnival (#61) posted over at ChristWeb.

Cheers!

Super Size Me...And My Church

2005-03-14T22:20:00.000-07:00

Here’s a disclaimer to get out of the way upfront: I attend what presumably fits the mold of a “mega-church” in Denver, CO with 5,000-plus of my closest friends on any given Sunday. It has phenomenal music and what I believe to be good, Bible-based teaching. However, some of the criticisms floating around out there about the message of churches like mine do have some validity to them and I want to try to address that.

I think that examining one’s own religious environment is important – crucial even, according to the Apostle Paul. In I Corinthians 5:12-13, he writes, What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside.

There’s one primary critique which tends to ring true to me: That mega-churches tend to peddle the gospel of self-help rather than the gospel of grace.

The argument against these churches is that they tell people what they want to hear rather than the whole, undiluted truth based on Scripture. Any discussion of the Gospel - of the need for repentance or sometimes even salvation - is secondary. For the most part these pastors focus on issues like money, relationships, and prosperity.

Tertiary arguments against the mega-churches include the concern that they often feature a cookie-cutter type of sermon lacking in substantial theological basis. The fear is that these sermons are designed more to fill the pews than to offer any deeply convicting spiritual experience.

Joe Carter over at the Evangelical Outpost gives his thoughts on the subject and, more or less agrees with the above assessment. Money quote: If the megachurches continue to put their marketing campaign before the word of God they will distance themselves from the Church. I, for one, would rather stand alone in an empty church where the Gospel is heard than sit in a stadium where self-esteem is made an idol.

Because it hits so close to home for me being that my background is in large, non-denominational churches, it is difficult to objectively contemplate this subject. However, there is undeniably some truth to these criticisms. In particular, I get very uneasy about stuff like this:

Regarding the high-profile frequent guest of the mega-church tour circuit, Bishop T.D. Jakes, Carter writes: "As appears to be common among televangelists, Jakes has a taste for the high life. He lives in a 1.7 million mansion, flies on chartered jets, and sports a gargantuan diamond ring."

Couple this with the "prosperity gospel" so often preached at these churches and I have a hard time relating this materialistic-driven obsession to much of anything Christ had to offer us. From what I recall, Christ never appeared too concerned with enriching his followers or himself with material wealth. In fact, he may have even had a stern warning or two regarding the potential pitfalls that riches can bring about.

However, my own basis for analysis is predicated on a generally accepting attitude toward any church or denomination that preaches the fundamental gospel of Christianity. There are many different preferences in worship style and diverging opinions on many specific portions of doctrine. And I am naturally very averse to any atmosphere of in-fighting within Christian denominations. Providing a wide diversity of views, thereby making our religion accessible to more people - without compromising its core beliefs - is a good thing.

I do think that the root of much criticism stems from issues of jealousy and/or self-righteousness. We have to be especially cautious in questioning the motives of any man or woman of God. Nonetheless, the message itself and the medium used in communicating it is fair game and should be held to account for its accuracy and integrity in conveying Biblical Truths in a transparent manner, which should preclude the use of rose-colored glass.

UPDATE: Via a link from the Christian Carnival, I found this post from Wendy that examines some reasons why so many people are leaving the church. Some concerns similar to my own regarding the focus on materialism are cited. Some more stuff at Blogotional.

From a more personal perspective, Irene Q. relays some similar concerns regarding a huge growth project occurring in her own church.

Glass Half Empty?

2005-03-13T21:16:00.000-07:00

Then you should really consider filling it back up. Never know when you might need a drink.

I myself am a recovering pessimist. I have only recognized my own need for "recovery" because there is something about the pessimism I've seen in others that has been increasingly off-putting of late. There has been something about the pessimist - exactly what I have not quite been able to articulate - but something nonetheless apparent and sufficiently hideous that has brought about a desire for me to purge all traces of it from my being.

Then in re-reading the indispensable Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, the problem with the pessimist was revealed. Chesterton compares the pessimist to the "candid friend". And goes on to say that the problem with the candid friend is that he is not candid at all. He's holding something back and takes a dreary sort of pleasure in pointing out unpleasant things. Chesterton describes it as "a secret desire to hurt, not merely to help."

My issue here is with those folks who offer plenty of critique and nothing by way of recommendation. Zero proactive effort is taken to remedy the problem (as they see it) and no ideas are offered as an alternate solution. Of course, countless examples of this scenario abound, whether it be at home, work, church, etc.

In particular, I am irritated by the "anti-American American" types. Sometimes known as the "Blame America First" crowd (Ward Churchill and his inane philosophy is as good an example as any recently), they fancy themselves blessed with such extraordinary intellect that they can see what the rest of us mere mortals cannot. Specifically, that America is the great source of evil in the world. While they may not endorse the methods employed by Osama bin Laden, they can certainly empathize with his mindset.

Setting aside the fact that such a worldview is so completely devoid of any sort of grounding in reality, these people have a bigger problem. They live here. The vast majority have even reaped the benefits of living in the most prosperous and generous nation on earth.

Contrary to what their actions and remarks might suggest, they are not aliens dropped onto this planet solely for purposes of observation and vilification. No, the world and indeed the country they so denigrate is their own. Devoid of any sense of loyalty or patriotism, their faux indignation merely provides a convenient forum in which to display their worldly sophistication and intellectual superiority. Most assuredly, there is no love of country or genuine concern for fellow man dwelling at the heart of their disparaging repertoire of grievances. (Update: Look here for an example of those rooting against America - in their own words.)

Chesterton concludes, "The evil of the pessimist is, then, not that he chastises gods and men, but that he does not love what he chastises - he has not this primary and supernatural loyalty to things."

Chesterton wrote those words nearly 100 years ago and yet they are as relevant and insightful today as ever. There is something of an eternal nature to The Truth, in that it has a way of transcending time and place to shed light on a darkened world.

John 8:32: You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

"Darkened world?" Isn't that pessimistic you ask? No, just realistic. The question is do you have enough love for this place in which we live to try to change it? If not, you've become a pessimist of the worst sort.

UPDATE: Jeremy Pierce offers some ancillary remarks on this post. It is well worth reading as a necessary dissection of my thoughts. He makes a good point in a comment below as well that some people are gifted with the ability to discern the need for change:

"The other thing I'm really good at is finding flaws in people's arguments and objections to their views. I can't for the life of me construct my own views to replace those with, but the kind of philosophical thinking that I'm very good at is still important and needs to be done."

I agree that it is absolutely essential to have people with this ability. Without this sort of constructive criticism, positive change will never take place because it would not be diagnosed in the first place. To me, it is really all about the underlying intentions of the person making the criticism.

Get in the Ring (Round 2)

2005-03-10T23:21:00.000-07:00

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.~ William Provine

Well perhaps. It is undoubtedly cause for frustration and calls into question the integrity of those that push science primarily to advance a specific philosophical or theological agenda. However, too many times that seems to be used as a justification against evolution. The problem is that’s not an argument against the theory itself anymore than it is for unbelievers to argue that, because Christians are hypocritical or judgmental, the teachings of Christianity itself are invalid.

Again, just to reiterate, I’m not so much concerned with the conclusion(s) one reaches about the origins of the world and mankind as I am about the thought process behind it. Personally, I am an absolute believer in ‘creation’ and marvel constantly at God’s magnificent gifts to us in nature.

But, I’m also not resting the entire foundation of my faith on the idea the world is a mere eight or ten thousand years old. (Check out these two good arguments - one for and one against the validity of an "old-earth" theory.) How exactly the creation of the natural world came about may, in fact, be a bit too much for my tiny mind to grasp. As such, I'm not willing to arbitrarily discount any well researched opinions of the many intelligent, honest members of the scientific community.

Mark Noll goes to great lengths in his book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, to document the dangers to the thought life of Christians posed by the increasing influence of fundamentalism within Christianity in the twentieth century.

Noll states: By their all-or-nothing attitudes make it harder, rather than easier, to isolate the critical issues at the intersection of religion and science. The roar of battle between “creationists” and their “scientific” opponents drowns out the more patient, more careful voices.

It is after all not just scientists with which “creationists” are arguing, but also the vast majority of geologists and anthropologists that argue against a literal reading of Genesis. You nearly have to believe in a vast atheistic-evolutionary conspiracy to think that all these folks are lying in order to advance their worldview. Continuing on an adversarial course against science is not going to help the cause of Christianity in the least going forward.

In the words of Pope John Paul II, Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish. (Letter to George Coyne June 1, 1988)

For further discussion on this topic, there is a Christianity and Science showcase coming up at AllThings2All Blog. (Hat tip: Jollyblogger) Update: Speaking of reconciling Christianity and Science, Nobel laureate Charles Townes has just received the 2005 Templeton Prize for a life's work in this capacity.

The Tipping Point

2005-03-07T22:32:00.000-07:00

I'm really starting to think that January 30, 2005 will be remembered as a watershed moment in history. The day 8 million Iraqis elected their own interim government seems to have set off a firestorm of huge geopolitical consequences in the Middle East. This could be the defining moment when the groundswell of desire for freedom erupted and spread throughout the region.

But don’t take my word for it…

Here is the transcript of an exchange between Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) and Katie Couric this morning on the Today Show. Or was that Karl Rove disguised as Bill Richardson? Actually, Richardson’s a fair-minded guy, but it is still fairly daunting to read his praise of Bush’s foreign policy. Here’s a portion of what he said:

I believe the Bush Administration deserves credit for putting pressure, and saying that authoritarian regimes have to go. …younger Arabs that are fueling this discontent throughout the Arab world, becoming pro-US, which is a good sign for the future.

Even Katie Couric gets in on the action:

A lot of foreign policy experts are hailing the Bush Administration's policies, and saying the Bush Doctrine, of spreading democracy throughout the world, there's clear evidence that it's working.

Not exactly the biggest fan of the administration’s foreign policy, Jon Stewart also made some intriguing observations on the Daily Show. There’s a partial transcript of his conversation last week with ex-Clinton aide Nancy Soderberg over at Wall Street Journal Online.

Stewart: Do you think that the people of Lebanon would have had, sort of, the courage of their conviction, having not seen--not only the invasion but the election which followed? It's almost as though that the Iraqi election has emboldened this crazy--something's going on over there. I'm smelling something…. I gotta say, I haven't seen results like this ever in that region.

Soderberg (reluctantly agreeing): Well, I think, you know, as a Democrat, you don't want anything nice to happen to the Republicans, and you don't want them to have progress. But as an American, you hope good things would happen. …I think it's moving in the right direction. I'll have to give them credit for that. We'll see.

There's a whole lot more of this sort of thing coming from even more unlikely sources including the New York Times editorial page. The point is that honest people all over the political spectrum are coming to a realization of the huge events unraveling before our eyes. The consequences of which could have a dramatically positive impact for all of us - or at least we can hope so.

Of course, this is not to say that everyone is now “getting it”. For more of the same, head-in-the-sand extreme left-wing nutjob commentary, check out democratic underground or daily kos. The moonbats over there do not disappoint.

2005-03-06T17:34:00.000-07:00

"Take this soul, stranded in some skin and bones, take this soul and make it sing."

- "Yahweh" from U2's How To Dismantle an Atom Bomb

Breckenridge, Colorado

Some Buffalo Soldiers Guarding the Foothills of the Colorado Rockies:

Genessee Park, Colorado

I've spent the last years Rocky Mountain Way...

And now that I've figured out the whole digital camera thing (a little behind the curve on that one I know), I can actually start to post some of this glorious scenery. I took the top two pics today on a snowshoe trip. I spotted the buffalo on the way home. Uh, the splendor of Colorado.

Get in the Ring (Christianity v. Science Round 1)

2005-03-05T10:10:00.000-07:00

It’s a big hot-button issue on both sides – the origin of mankind that is. The stakes are high and winner takes all. But does it have to be this way? Speaking from the viewpoint of a Christian, why is it that so many fellow believers view evolution (and the scientific community in general) as an assault on our core beliefs that is be rejected immediately and forcefully?

I have no specific expertise in scientific matters and so I am neither interested nor qualified to engage in a debate over the merits of evolution. My qualm here is not with those well-educated folks convinced of the validity of "Scientific Creationism" over evolution. But rather with those who are so casually dismissive of Evolutionary Theory, without really understanding it in the first place.

To advocate that Creation, not Evolution, is the answer because "that's what the Bible says" strikes me as being more than a bit overconfident and presumptuous of our own human capacity to interpret scripture. Do we really know that the earth was created in 6 days? Would it necessarily refute the story of creation in Genesis were it not so? If, say, each “day” were a billion years?

Christ used parables throughout his time on earth to teach eternal truths in a way that we could understand. I fail to see the rationale for such outrage over suggesting that perhaps some language in the Bible is meant to be interpreted metaphorically.

I think this stems from a belief by some that when something is meant “metaphorically,” it is hardly meant at all. In Miracles, C.S. Lewis disputes this claim. For me the Christian doctrines which are ‘metaphorical’…mean something which is just as ‘supernatural’ or shocking after we have removed the ancient imagery as it was before.

And that is precisely the point, I believe. It does not invalidate the inerrancy of Scripture to think that some passages are allegorical. Nor does it dilute the meanings or the ramifications of the Scriptural passages in any way. Mark Noll (in The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) points to the potential pitfalls a completely literal interpretation may facilitate:

The modern evangelical church is extremely sensitive about the discussion of scientific issues that bear on Genesis 1-11. Enough Christians are so afraid of what might turn up in such discussion that anyone who does try to explore the issues is in ecclesiastical jeopardy. The prevailing atmosphere of fear tends to squelch attempts to deal with these issues.

It occurs to me that Genesis and biology become opposed only when either:
1. A misguided scientist claims that biology impugns Genesis OR
2. A misguided Christian claims that Genesis impugns biology

It also occurs to me that this topic is such a thought-provoking one that it would take an entire book to do it justice rather than one mere posting here. At any rate, I’ll refrain from drifting off in a myriad of tangential directions at this point.

I Got The Ill Communication

2005-03-02T20:26:00.000-07:00

Has Scrappleface found a cure for liberal bias? Test it out – go belly up to the bar and watch some news. Money Quote: Our focus groups tell us that when you consume distilled spirits, that slant seems to straighten up and the spin reverses.

But... If this story is making sense to you, you may want to get back on the wagon.

Wow! How did I miss this award on Sunday night? Schwarzenegger Wins Oscar for 'Best Actor' for Role as 'The Governor' Here’s the scoop: The public is delighted by the way Schwarzenegger has blended his fictitious Hollywood super-hero persona, with the character he is portraying of an outraged citizen who decides to take on the evil power structure at the state capitol.

Well, he wasn’t nominated for an Academy Award, but it’s good to see Michael Moore is being given his props after all.

Stay tuned for a return to real news soon.

The Contenders

2005-03-01T22:33:00.000-07:00

The always amusing Mickey Kaus is continuing to try to figure out a way to get John Kerry out of the spotlight. The goal is to get Kerry off the stage to keep him from drowning out other Democrats who may otherwise have a chance to emerge as leaders. Read his most recent idea here.

He also observes, If she's smart, Hillary doesn't want Kerry out of the presidential race. Until January, 2008, he's her best friend--an easily-beatable foil who takes up precious media space that other, more formidable challengers might otherwise make good use of.

Now 2008's a long way off and I'm not inclined to speculate too much except to offer these two thoughts:

First, Hillary, while very polarizing is also very smart - as witnessed in her recent positioning toward the center on several key issues of late. Underestimate her at your own peril. She is absolutely the Democratic front runner as it stands and will likely be a very formidable candidate for President.

Secondly, I'm going to make a prediction in the Republican race which is wide open as of now. Senator George Allen from Virginia is going to be the man to beat. He's intelligent, articulate, and led the GOP to a huge win in the Senate last November. (He headed the National Republican Senatorial Committee in its candidate recruitment and fundraising efforts that led to the pickup of four seats for the GOP majority.) And not to worry about Senators not being able to win the White House, since he was Governor previously. Hugh Hewitt thinks the upcoming battle over Supreme Court nominees could propell Allen into the spotlight.

That's Allen v. Clinton in '08. Remember, you heard it here first.

The Times They Are a Changin'

2005-03-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

The blogosphere is buzzing with optimism about all the recent developments toward freedom in the Middle East. As it should be.

Cal Thomas declares, Twenty years after Ronald Reagan proclaimed freedom inevitable for what were then called "captive nations," freedom is on the march as perhaps never before. Read the rest of his article here.

There's more from Mark Steyn in his new column:

…for perhaps the most remarkable development, consider this report from Mohammed Ballas of Associated Press: "Palestinians expressed anger on Saturday at an overnight suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that killed four Israelis and threatened a fragile truce, a departure from former times when they welcomed attacks on their Israeli foes."

I’m not going to get into all of the details of everything happening now, but Gregory Djerejian gives a nice summary of all the recent progress in this post.

It’s an encouraging sign to see left-wing bloggers like Matthew Yglesias giving credit where credit is due for these developments. (He’s referring in particular to Mubarak’s surprise announcement over the weekend to open up elections in Egypt.)

Yes, it's but a tentative step and things could still all work out poorly, but still, this is a pretty unambiguous success for Bush's second term freedom kick….Give the man some props.

I’ve got a whole lot of respect for someone like Yglesias for saying something like this. Despite the inevitable backlash that will follow from his liberal readers, he’s honestly assessing the situation. Andrew’s talking about this subject as well…

I think even the fiercest critics of president Bush's handling of the post-liberation phase in Iraq will still be thrilled at what appears to me to be glacial but important shifts in the right direction in the region.

Let’s hope he’s right. More honest punditry like Yglesias’ could enable us to move past the name-calling and have an actual dialogue about how to best prevent the spread of terrorism. Which would be, you know, kinda important and all. Now, someone just needs to inform Ann Coulter of this new spirit of bipartisanship.

UPDATE: I've found another reason to support the spread of liberty abroad.

Walking the Thin Line

2005-02-28T20:44:00.000-07:00

"There is one vice of which no man in the world is free; which every one in the world loathes when he sees it in someone else; and of which hardly any people ever imagine that they are guilty themselves." So says C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. He is speaking of what he calls the 'great sin' which is pride or arrogance.

The opposite of pride is humility and that is the focal point of all Christianity. It's what distinguishes Christian philosophy from all others. We don't get what we deserve. And thank God for that. That's what grace is all about. 'Blessed are the poor in spirit'. Why? Because it's down-and-out folks who have hit rock bottom that can admit they can't make it on their own.

The worst sin is the one to which we are all easily susceptible. It's the reason Christ warned so frequently of the treachery that riches pose. If you are comfortable and successful, it may be tempting to grow to appreciate your own virtues and achievements.

Hopefully, you can see that if you've got that mentality, you have already succumbed to pridefulness. Even if you are a humble person, it can be easy to begin congratulating yourself on your own humility and become prideful of it. To me, this is scary stuff the more I think of it. It makes me realize the line between Heaven and Hell is not all that clear to us.

Amazing grace saved a wretch like me. The first step it would seem is to admit being unworthy in the sight of a completely holy and pure God. Admit to being a wretch, if you will, and seeing the pride in ourselves. If you fancy yourself a swell person all on your own, you're not going to make it to that first step.

So how do you imagine a truly humble person? C.S. Lewis speculates that it's not a smarmy type that goes around calling himself a nobody. But rather, "Probably all you will think about him is that he seemed a cheerful, intelligent chap who took a real interest in what you said to him."

Heated Rhetoric

2005-02-27T21:43:00.000-07:00

It's good to see the left-wing has recuperated from its vitriolic ways and has toned down its criticism of opposing political leaders. I'm sorry - that was a cheap shot. Both sides have their wacko contingencies to deal with. The fair thing to do would be to look at the inroads a major leader of Democratic Party has recently taken to really open the dialogue.

In case you missed it, the key sentiment Howard Dean expressed in that article was "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for." When I mentioned the need for anger in a recent post, this is not what I had in mind. The fact is, however, Dean really does look at conservatives as the real "evil" that must be defeated. More here.

And, how exactly, is this ever going to help them win elections? Wisely, some Dems are beginning to distance themselves from the anti-war superstar phenom that is Howard Dean. In particular, that CNN article notes: "Aides to other Kansas Democrats, including state Sen. Janice Lee and Kansas City Mayor Carol Marinovich, also declined to comment on Dean's visit." There are others mentioned in the article as well.

It's a "Stock Picker's Market"

2005-02-26T21:22:00.000-07:00

Yeah and I'm Warren Buffet.

For those who don't already know, I'm a financial planner. And sometimes the self-serving investment cliches become too amusing not to share. First, a little primer for folks not hip to the Wall Street "insider" scene: the big brokerages stand to profit the most when investors trade often and buy actively managed mutual funds. The opposing strategy would be to buy and hold passive funds - those that essentially just try to duplicate the performance of a major index like the S&P 500.

Both have their merits and I'm not taking sides in that debate - only pointing out the obvious motives for Wall Street to push the "stock picker's market" theory. Basically, they say, in a flat or down market, the seasoned stock pickers have a much better chance of beating the overall market. These mutual fund sales guys come into our office all the time to push their products. Invariably, we'll get the stock picker's market line.

Of course, now that we know it's a stock picker's market (because this sales guy with an obvious agenda told us so), we then need to find the cream of the crop stock picker and invest in his fund. And, well, whaddaya know? All of this company's funds have wonderful long term track records. How did they do it? Well, long term track records - by definition - are available only to funds that have been able to survive a long while by performing well. The funds that suck disappear. They have either been liquidated or merged into other funds.

The bottom line is the investment world is mostly smoke and mirrors. There are plenty of ways to spruce up a portfolio to make it look sophisticated or add a certain cache, but over time all investment vehicles tend to revert to the mean. It's a boring concept to have to accept, but it's true according to most studies and a lot of objective people who are typically reliable.

In the end, it's the basic advice that will serve you well. Diversify, buy and hold, and become less aggressive as your time frame for needing the money shortens. You can attribute to luck most any hot stock that serves to provide for cocktail party boasting.

On the Lighter Side...

2005-02-25T11:54:00.000-07:00

Bill Simmons, over at ESPN.com, is always worthwhile reading. Even if you’re not a big sports fan, you gotta like his wit. Here’s a nice take on the abundance of lackluster rap performances in general and, in particular, Nelly’s performance during NBA All-Star weekend in Denver:

If Nelly released a studio album called "Here are some new songs that I recorded with 10 people who aren't singers screaming in the background and overpowering my lyrics," would anyone buy it? Of course not. …why isn't this more of an outrage? …if you bought tickets to a U2 concert and Bono came out with nine buddies from Dublin who proceeded to ruin every song, wouldn't you ask for your money back? I don't get it.

Although I must take issue with him on this quote:

I think my favorite part about Denver was seeing some of the people who lived there -- you know, those laid-back guys you went to high school with, the ones who played hacky-sack, followed the Dead around, smoked tons of pot and took eight years to graduate from college. Now they're wandering around downtown wearing "Peace" T-shirts, sipping from a Jamba Juice and wondering how they can find the dude who stole their skis. I always liked these guys.

Whoa, hold on now! Number one, no one should ever associate Jamba Juice specifically with this crowd. And secondly, he’s clearly confusing Denverites with tree-huggers from Boulder who stumbled into town only to mistake the All-Star celebrity-fest with an acid flashback. As anyone here can attest to, Denver and Boulder are two very different worlds. (To be fair, he was very complimentary of the Mile High City otherwise.)

You Say You Want a Revolution

2005-02-24T20:00:00.000-07:00

Well you know...we all want to change the news. Or at least the way we get our news. Lots of people are still asking, "what's a blog?" If you really want a good explanation, you probably should ask this guy. Or better yet, read his book.

Blog - (n.) Short for Web log, a blog is a Web page that serves as a publicly accessible personal journal for an individual. Typically updated daily,blogs often reflect the personality of the author. (v.) To author a Web log.

It's cliche to say, but we are living in the age of information. It's everywhere, but who has the time or desire to sift through it all? You can stick with the nightly network newscasts, but do you really want the same old liberal "gate-keepers" determining for you what you do and don't get to hear? It's a bit outdated these days and the mainstream media establishment knows it and that's why they are getting ver-ry defensive these days.

That's where the "new media" comes in and blogs are a big part of it and getting bigger. The first blog appeared in around 1999 and now there are more than 4 million - discussing everything under the sun, from sports to politics to religion to business. The good ones are the ones you go back to everyday because they are reliable, trustworthy, and/or entertaining.

Blogs usually provide links to other websites so if you want to dig deeper into a story you can. Best of all, its all real time. No waiting until the paper comes out the next morning or the broadcast is aired on TV. And you can carefully select the handful that represent your own interests and that will provide you with the stories or views as you'd like them served up.

Even people that hate bloggers are now blogging to explain how much they dislike the whole thing. (hat tip: Jeff Jarvis)

Wanna start one up? Instapundit provides some links to help out.

Like it or not, this Revolution is spreading to all corners of the globe. Get in on the fun or risk getting left behind.

UPDATE: The Mudville Gazette has offers an instructional guide of sorts for new bloggers. It's a good summary of many essentials in starting a decent blog.

Bad News For Bush Haters

2005-02-24T19:00:00.000-07:00

Even the most strident opponent of the war in Iraq should be able to admit that some undeniably good results have come of it. So then the question becomes was it all worth it? And that's a tough one.

My gut says yes, but my honest answer is I don't know. Ask me again in one or two, or ten years. At such a point, historical hindsight will have been able to provide us with a pretty good idea as to how our Iraqi invasion has altered the Middle Eastern landscape.

All I know is right now there is plenty of reason for optimism, in my opinion. Caution: If you are a Bush-hater, please look no further as you may get ill or go into shock.

Exhibit A: Pro-Bush parade in Germany. Yikes!

Exhibit B: Bush-Reagan comparisons. Okay, I'm not buying this one. Look, back in the early to mid- 80's, Reagan was considered aloof and not very intelligent. He was portrayed as an arrogant cowboy with utter disregard for the sensitivities of the European intelligensia. He went around making big, brash statements with seemingly no appreciation for the nuances of foreign affairs. Surely, the Europeans have wised up since then and would not make the exact same mistake again, right?

Exhibit C: This guy certainly thinks things are looking up as well.

Michael Moore, where are you now? Okay, the first one to figure out the evil conspiracy theory tying together all of the aforementioned links wins.

Good News in the Middle East

2005-02-23T23:25:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post ran an interesting story today. David Ignatius writes:

The leader of this Lebanese intifada [for independence from Syria] is Walid Jumblatt, the patriarch of the Druze Muslim community and, until recently, a man who accommodated Syria's occupation. But something snapped for Jumblatt last year, when the Syrians overruled the Lebanese constitution and forced the reelection of their front man in Lebanon, President Emile Lahoud. The old slogans about Arab nationalism turned to ashes in Jumblatt's mouth, and he and Hariri openly began to defy Damascus...

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it." (hat tip Jim Geraghty)

Wow. This is very encouraging and we can only hope thoughts like it are, indeed, spreading rapidly throughout the region.

So what do all the America-hating Americans think of this? Is this the tipping point where bizarro world (mentioned below) begins to crumble? Afterall, how do you square 'Evil America' and its 'War-for-Oil' with outbreaks of hope, liberation, and prosperity in the Middle East as a direct result of our invasion? And Bush is a moron, right? This can't really be happening... Is it finally time for a new bumper sticker?

Bumper Sticker Ideology

2005-02-23T22:11:00.000-07:00

War...what is it good for?

Well, quite a bit actually. For starters, it ended slavery in America and the Holocaust in Europe. But let's not let such pesky facts get it in the way of a good slogan. People that pose these sorts of questions are driven solely by feelings. And war is the ultimate evil for the feel-good crowd. For a more thorough dissertation on the subject, look here.

This is part of a larger demographic that I'll call bizarro world. This 'place' is not defined so much geographically as it is by a mindset. It starts out innocently and logically enough. The underlying premise is that there is no ultimate truth in nature. No inherent right and wrong. No clearly defined good and evil. The inhabitants of this world would have you believe that these are subjective, not objective terms. So what we are left with is not an innate moral code but, rather, our feelings. And this is to be the true driver of all decision making.

The problem this leads to is the lack of what has, for many thousands of years hence, been known as common sense. If we have no commonality in any sort of morality, it stands to reason that bizarro world would offer no such "common" sense as a result. There are countless examples of this phenomenon, but recently I would cite the whole Ward Churchill fiasco. (See this for an update on the new hero of free speech. Of course this isn't about free speech at all. The guy can spew whatever sort of hatred he wants, but he doesn't have to get paid by the taxpayers of Colorado to do it.)

In the end, this bizarro world creates a downworld spiral despite the well-intentioned feelings of its inhabitants. So how can you tell if you are living in it now or know someone who is? The quickest indicator is a bumper sticker which basically sums up an entire in-grained philosophy. Examples: Bush is mean, anti-American, a terrorist, an idiot, fill-in-the-blank expletive OR a renouncement of war as a scheme to get oil or kill innocent Iraqi children.

Unfortunately, there is no rational debate in bizarro world and any real fair-minded dissention is strictly prohibited. Paradoxically, these are most often the folks that speak so highly of "tolerance" as a guiding principle. You know, kinda like the abundance of tolerance for non left-wing views found on college campuses.

American-Euro Relations

2005-02-23T09:46:00.000-07:00

There's some insightful commentary out there regarding the current state of relations with our comrades in Europe. Mark Steyn's most recent column is excellent as always, but I sure hope he's wrong. If he's right, it does not bode well at all for the future of our trans-atlantic relations. The following paragraph, though an amusing analogy, underlies a pretty dark message bourne out in the rest of his thoughts.

He states, "... in the broader sense vis-à-vis Europe, the administration is changing the tone precisely because it understands there can be no substance. And, if there's no substance that can be changed, what's to quarrel about? International relations are like ex-girlfriends: if you're still deluding yourself you can get her back, every encounter will perforce be fraught and turbulent; once you realise that's never gonna happen, you can meet for a quick decaf latte every six – make that 10 – months and do the whole hey-isn't-it-terrific-the-way-we're-able-to-be-such-great-friends routine because you couldn't care less. You can even make a few pleasant noises about her new romance (the so-called European Constitution) secure in the knowledge he's a total loser." (link via Instapundit)

Austin Bay disagrees here. He states that Steyn's argument only makes sense if you equate Europe with France. He cites the Ukraine and Poland as examples of countries that do not follow the Franco-German mold. He even goes so far as to suggest that France itself may be ripe for reform.

Not sure if I'm as hopeful about France. So then I wonder if the issue here is not one of semantics. If we distinguish 'Old (Western) Europe' from 'New (Eastern) Europe', do we then better understand the new paradigm of these relationships?

UPDATE: Here is some encouraging news, which may add some substance to my speculation above regarding the new paradigm in our European relations:

At last President George W Bush found some European fans yesterday. After three days of muted receptions, Mr Bush received a far cheerier welcome behind the old Iron Curtain as enthusiastic Slovaks applauded him for visiting them on the last stop of his tour across the continent.

Read the whole story.

A Need For Anger

2005-02-22T21:38:00.000-07:00

Thank God for C. S. Lewis. Were it not for his astounding insights and his remarkable ability to convey them, I (and countless other Christians) would be lost in the wilderness. One such example lies in the Psalms, a beautifully poetic Biblical book, but one that does present a formidable challenge to interpret and comprehend. I am referring specifically to the "angry" Psalms, and there are many of them. These are the verses that curse the enemy and convey a spirit of hatred. (think: "Wilt thou not slay the wicked oh Lord?")

If you assume all scripture is divinely inspired, how do square this type of sentiment with Christ's own words ("love thine enemies")? This is no easy task for small-minded gents like me. Here's where Lewis comes in. In the third chapter of "Reflections on the Psalms" he writes of the authors of the Psalms, "If the Jews cursed more bitterly than the Pagans this was, I think, at least in part because they took right and wrong more seriously." He also suggests, "the absence of anger, especially that sort of anger we call indignation, can...be a most alarming symptom. And the presence of indignation may be a good one."

Lewis does not absolve the Psalmists from their personal vindictiveness apparent in such writing. However, he does conclude - quite reasonably I believe - that these passages are useful in combating a wishy-washy mindset. "Against all this the ferocious parts of the Psalms serve as a reminder that there is in the world such a thing as wickedness and that it (if not its perpetrators) is hateful to God."

Now, more than ever in today's environment, I can see the importance of this message and the need to overcome apathy and take a stand.

Exhibit A: Hizballah: "Death to America"
Earlier today, top House Democrat Charles Rangel said it was bigotry to use the term “Islamic terrorism” to refer to groups like Hizballah, and questioned whether a worldwide Islamic terrorist movement even existed.
Hizballah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah would beg to differ, in speeches broadcast on Al Manar TV February 18 and 19: Death to America. (hattip: Charles Johnson)

Who, me, indignant? Angry? After reading that, you bet I am.

The Isolationist Dot Com Culture

2005-02-22T19:04:00.000-07:00

When we observe the increasingly polarized political climate, it is striking how insulated we've become as a culture - or rather as a set of many, many subcultures. We enter into the cozy echo chambers of our choosing, therein comforted by like-minded opinions expressed through the mediums of cable tv shows, blogs, radio shows, etc.

This is part of an unhealthy and growing trend, which is being further enabled and exacerbated by technological advances. And it extends beyond the scope of politics. Whether we are considering the internet or the iPod, we find ourselves in search of constant diversion and escape from "society" in the traditional sense. Our thought life is diminished when we fill our minds with selected diversions which comprise our very own customized worlds filled with only those views, interests, and people of our choosing.

In an illuminating article in the Times of London, Andrew Sullivan explains how "Americans are beginning to narrow their lives." As Sullivan puts it, "Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves - where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished. Atomisation by little white boxes and cell phones. Society without the social. Others who are chosen - not met at random. Human beings have never lived like this before."

So it is with acute sensitivity to the irony involved that I begin my own blogging adventure, or shall I call it my own little internet world. The goal here and what I hope to share with readers is the following: Attempt to delve into all types of thought out there, with the ultimate goal of extracting and assimilating nuggets of truth wherever they may be found.

The only requirement for consideration in the world of PlaidBerry is intellectual honesty. This is an attempt to open the dialogue and rebuild a small segment of an increasingly detached and isolated community, if you will. And so the journey begins.