A Formal Apology

To all you Christian Democrats out there...and I don't mean the Germans who voted for Angela Merkle...

Sorry for calling you incoherent in your morals. I don't think that was wise or nice. I tend to be opinionated, as you all know, and sometimes I forget about all the people you read this, beyond maybe my brothers and sisters, who I don't mind occasionally offending. I think it is important to show grace and love, and I just wanted to raise some thoughts for you to think about, that is, to re-examine the issue of abortion in relation to other issues.

Cool? Cool?

New Feature

I am introducing a new feature here at The Blog. Or should I say, the Blog.

The Emergent Translator

Because Emergent speak (or emergespeak) is so often impenetrable to the non-fluent speaker, I thought it would benefit the whole church if I invented a handy-dandy translator, so that my beloved readers could decipher what lies at the heart of the "emerging conversation."

In fact, let's try that very word:

"Emerging conversation"

(dramatic pause)

выходить беседа

Oops, I'm sorry that was the Russian translator.

Here we go:

::::Emerging Conversation::::

Translation: A form of interaction that places more value on the expression of ideas, and the invention of ideas, than on the truth which underlies these ideas, striving to be self-expressive rather than conforming to anything outside of self.

Hmmm...the translator is a little wordy. I think it is trying to be too polite. Let's try that again, the less polite version.

::::Emerging Conversation::::

Translation: Truth doesn't matter, but my random ideas do!

That's a bit more concise. But certainly ruder. Let's try it with a bit longer work. This is by one Brian McLaren.

::::You mentioned Islam, this is one of our critical challenges, how do we act as Christians toward members of other religions? We know how to persecute, we know how to ignore, we know how to convert. But what about people who don't want to be converted, and can't be ignored, and we say we shouldn't persecute—how should we relate to them? That's such an obvious and important question.::::

Translation: Evangelizing amongst Muslims is hard, and you can't make me do it!

Ah, the translator. So useful don't you think?

Final Political Thoughts

1. Darrel Hammond as Jesse Jackson, commenting on the Bradley effect:

"I hope this phenomenon [pause] does not become an obamanon."

This is not really a thought, just something I found to be hilarious. Here is the clip.

2. Christians who vote for Obama, I will not question your devotion to God, but I will question the coherency of your moral thinking. I know the desire to seem all eager, and questioning, and be called the "new evangelical vote" or whatever. But in the end, I think abortion should trump other considerations. It is (or should be) black and white. One candidate will immediately expand abortion overseas, oppose any legislation that limits abortion in any way, and appoint justices that will support and expand abortion here at home. Is abortion the ending of life? Then vote accordingly.

3. That being said, please, please, no more alignment of churches, pastors, organizations, etc. with patriotism. View the church as global!

4. Nothing is more noxious and hateful in my ears than the opposition to immigration in this country. And it is disgusting that Christians have played such a large role in it.

There you have it. No more thoughts for me on that issue. I wanted to link to this excellent critique of the Nooma videos, for those of you who are interested. I think it is even-handed and fair (much more so than I have been).

Enjoy!

Yes, yes, I agree with all my siblings. (well...not sure on David's thoughts quite yet...which seem to be the first page of a manifesto)

But also, I would vote pro-life. I know the response must be varied, must be filled with love, Adrienne, I loved your blog post. I agree, I agree, and politics are stupid and ugly often, and this election especially is ugly and disheartening. I am saying we should do more, more, more, yes.

But I am also saying that we should not do less than vote for a candidate who is likely to put judges on the Supreme Court who, if not overturning Roe V. Wade, may allow states to ban abortion, or create stricter laws on parental consent, etc. I am saying yes, the election is multi-faceted. But that I think that our morals should demand (if we believe that abortion does indeed end life) that we vote for the presidential candidate most likely to have a real effect on abortion. Obama's rhetoric is the deceptive rhetoric, because it paints him as moderate on the issue when in fact he is the most radical.

Also, he will immediately reinstate overseas funding for abortion. When Obama becomes president, the money you pay in taxes will go to help women get abortions! He is against crisis pregnancy centers! He is for late-term abortion. And he will almost certainly put a new justice on the Supreme Court. Stephens is 88. Ginsberg is 74. Scalia is in his 70s.

So while I'm saying we should certainly, certainly do more in this issue, and that the church should certainly modify its approach from a purely political approach that alienates moderates and casts women who choose abortion as villains...we should not do less than vote for the candidate who is most likely to reduce the incidence of abortion.

Replying

A few thoughts in response to Jane (none in response to David. I'm not sure how to deal with the information that my brother is currently shopping his vote.)

1. I agree that Christians ethic should be consistently pro-life. I tried to make that clear. All I'm saying is that if you believe that abortion ends life, then there are far far far far more deaths from abortions world-wide than from any other cause. Therefore priorities are clearly on abortion! Obama is at the most extreme end of the abortion debate.

2. Presidents, McCain or otherwise, cannot repeal Roe v. Wade. But the next presidential candidate may nominate two Supreme Court Justices. Even more moderate Democrats tend to nominate extremely liberal justices (Clinton and Ginsberg). Obama has shown himself to be one of the more liberal members of the Senate.

3. I agree that Republicans in general have manipulated Christians. I think the mixing of politics and religion that happens in many churches, or more precisely, religion and patriotism, is gross.

4. But abortion man! I can't get around it. I tend to think small-government, free trade, etc. anyways, so I lean to the right I guess. But even if I didn't (read: even if I was like Rob Bell), I don't think there is any justification for voting for a proven pro-abortion candidate. I think justifying it is not really thinking it through. Do you believe that abortion is murder? Yes or no. If yes, then, what are you doing about it, really?

5. Finally, fighting for the reduction of abortion is incoherent, really. I think this is the number one justification that Christians use for voting for a Democrat. That even though this person is pro-abortion, they are trying to reduce the incidence of it. This, I think, is the real manipulation, because it is so easy to say. Even Hilary said this.

6. Ultimately, I think Rob Bell and his cohorts need to take their thoughts captive and figure out what they are really going for here. I think it is pretty clear. They want to be able to vote Democratic. My whole generation does. Heck, sometimes I do too. It would be great to be chilling with some of my hip liberal friends and tell them I voted for Obama, or even better, wear an Obama t-shirt or something (although, I'm thinking of wearing one ironically). Now, this is not a very strong urge, generally, mainly because I find much of the ideology behind large government repellent.

Rob Bell, my Hero

Not to beat a dead horse, but there is one more point I want to make, and it might be relevant (haha) coming right before our election.

Here is Rob Bell, from the same interview...

In your book you say, "To preserve prosperity at the expense of the powerless is to miss the heart of God." In what ways do you believe the church in America has "preserved prosperity" at others' expense?

The Church has missed the heart of God by speaking out against abortion while keeping silent about war. Both are forms of violence used to preserve prosperity. Abortion is prenatal war against the powerless child. War is postnatal abortion that destroys innocent life. The kingdom is life for the fetus and life for the civilian. The church embodies this life in a world of expedient and preemptive killing.

--------

To be fair, I cut out half of his answer, in which he talks about not wanting to generalize.

Setting aside all issues of style and prose, let us analyze the comparison.

Abortion = prenatal war
War = postnatal abortion

Let's accept his comparison, which assumes that all wars are being fought for exclusively selfish purposes, to "preserve prosperity" as he puts it. I think this is a gross simplification, but it must be acknowledged that often times wars are unjust and fought for unjust means.

The Church should speak out against injustice.

His argument is that the Church has spoken out loudly against abortion, but has not spoken out against the war. This assumes that one specific war, Iraq, was fought exclusively to "preserve prosperity." Again, this is a vast simplification, and might not be true. And even if the motives of those who fought the war were indeed to "preserve prosperity," we should analyze the effect of the war on its own grounds.

I am not defending Iraq.

So, we should speak out against injustice. Presumably, we should speak out against injustice in proportion to the injustice that is being done, yes? Well, let's examine the injustice of the Iraq war in comparison with abortion, and decide where are priorities should be.

Number of civilian killed in the 5 and half years since the war began

~90,000 (according to the Iraq Body Count website, a liberal website, which I mention only to assure you that I am using the most extreme statistics I can find)

Number of abortions over the same five and half year period

~7,535,000 (in America alone)

Perhaps we should expand worldwide, since Barack Obama has said that one of his first acts as president would be to re-enact funding for abortions worldwide. President Bush's first act as president was to halt this funding.

~231,000,000

What? Really?

So tell me, where should the church be raising its voice? Think about that, all you hip Christians, filing to the polls to vote for Barack Obama, and justifying it by the absurd equalities drawn by the good Mr. Bell. Let us speak out against war, injustice, etc! Yes! But please, please, don't think you can be coherent in your morals by supporting Obama BECAUSE HE IS AGAINST THE WAR. Even if it were entirely unjust war!

Whenever I read stuff like this from our emergents and their hangers ons, what I really hear is, "I want an excuse to vote like Democratic and not be a terrible Republican conservative stereotype like my uptight parents." Also, "maybe all my hipster friends that I'm incarnationally relating to will think I'm cool."

Some thoughts on Doubt

How did we get to this place in the Church where doubt is somehow considered to be a vital part of faith, like some sort of litmus test for the sincerity of faith?

There is remarkable consistency in the writings of the Emergents on this issue. In fact, it is central to the Emergent experience of God. When language is not to be trusted and a multiplicity of experiences to be celebrated and considered, doubt about the rightness of one path, or even of one's own experience is necessary. When I read the Bible in one particular way, and others read it in another way, I am being humble when I doubt my own reading, or my own ideas and knowledge. Rather than setting my personal reading above others, I am in humility considering my own reading as one among many, therefore casting doubt on the whole body of knowledge that makes up my experience of God.

We can see how this is central to their idea of God and religion. How it strengthens their faith I do not know, other than in the conviction that there being no true experience of God, than what they have experienced is as legitimate as any other experience.

Now, I have thought for a while now that Rob Bell is not a full-out Emergent in the vein of Brian McClaren. He does believe in the core tenets of the Christian faith (except, of course, the most central of all, justification by grace through faith), and although he articulates this in the most mind-numbingly obnoxious way imaginable, he still believes and teaches them for the most part. He may be moving towards the Emergents, but he is not quite there. He is simple addicted to making ridiculous statements that sound sort of cool but in reality meaning nothing. Because many of the "cooler" sounding things are in the Emergent experience, he will often say things that seem to put him in that camp. Rob Bell is still rebelling against the stifling Christian Reformed atmosphere of his Central Michigan upbringing, and he is doing that by making insufferable comments that "repaint" the things he believes in ways that he thinks sounds kind of cool.

But anyways, what about doubt? Why is it so cool to consider doubt as something "our faith needs to survive?"

Answer: Christian maturity is often treated in the Scriptures, and especially in Paul, as a place of strong assurance, assurance of one's election, one's salvation, and the reality of the things revealed in the Scriptures. Thus Peter: Make every effort to make your calling and election sure. Paul: the full riches of complete understanding; I pray that you may be filled with all the knowledge of God...that you may have great endurance; examine yourself to see whether you are in the faith. John: I write these things to you, dear friends, that you may know that you have eternal life.

The Christian maturity of the Puritans and their descendants was one in which through prayer, suffering, experience, and life in general, the Christian arrives at a place of firm conviction and assurance. The Word, which is capable of clear interpretation, becomes real and present through the Spirit. This is not the work of a short time, but the labor of maturity, through the Church body, in which men are "made complete in Christ."

Now, this was the experience of many, taught by the giants of the faith on our continent. As the 20th century progressed, the ideal of Christian maturity remained, while the work that proceeded it was gradually forgotten. Thus, a generation of Christians spoke the language of assurance, while it remained absent in its inner experience. The result is predictable...hypocrisy, judgmental attitudes, self-righteousness, spectacular falls, etc. In addition, those who were taught they should have a assurance without knowing how to arrive at were left wondering if they're doubts left them disqualified as Christians.

There are shards of truth in our current understanding of doubt. Doubt is part of the Christian experience, especially as one matures. It should not surprise when we encounter doubt, nor should we shrink from confessing it to others. The choice to ignore doubt, or cover it up, often can lead to disastrous consequences for our faith.

That being said, we should not lose a Scriptural understanding of what doubt it is. Doubt attacks our faith, seeking to steal from our experience with God. It is a destroyer, a tool of Satan, and an enemy. Doubt is not a vital part of faith, but rather the opposite of faith. Faith is the assurance of things not seen, that which makes a reality of invisible realities. Doubt opposes all that in the believer.

One should be realistic about doubt, realizing that the assurance of faith comes with maturity and suffering. One should know how to deal with doubt, how to respond to it. But the idea that doubt is to be welcomed, celebrated, considered as a part of our faith, as if it were necessary, or as if it helped us in our growth, is simply unScriptural.

From my actual main man, John Owen

Try not to compare this post to the last one, because honestly, you'll just get depressed and wish that you lived in the 17th century, which is totally not what I'm going for here.

There are two ways of convincing unbelievers,--the one insisted on by the apostles and their followers, the other by some learned men since their days. The way principally insisted on by the apostles was, by preaching the word itself unto them in the evidence and demonstration of the Spirit; by the power whereof, manifesting the authority of God in it, they were convinced, and falling down acknowledged God to be in it of a truth. It is likely that in this their proposal of the gospel, the doctrine and truths contained in it, unto unvelievers, those of atheistical spirits would both deride them and it; and so, indeed, it came to pass, many esteeming themselves to be babblers and their doctrine to be arrant folly. But yet they desisted not from pursuing their work in the same way; whereunto God gave success. The other way is, to prove unto unbelievers that the Scripture is true and divine by rational arguments; wherein some learned persons have laboured, especially in these last ages, to very good purpose.

More from my main man, Rob Bell

Excerpted from an interview in "Relevant" magazine, or as its known around my condo, "the magazine with the title that makes me want to shoot myself in the head."

As the title of the book suggests, Jesus Wants To Save Christians. In your opinion, what are the biggest things we need saving from?

Boredom. Which is really despair in its non-caffeinated form. And boxes. Where we live in fear and where we put those who unsettle us.

You describe the plan of God for the church to be a gift to the world. Many people today would say that the church is anything but. What are some crucial changes that our churches need to make to become a Eucharist that is broken and poured out for the world?

1. Master the art of doubt. Faith needs it to survive.

2. Surrender the compulsive need to constantly remind people that according to your worldview you're going to heaven forever when you die and they're going to burn in hell forever.

3. Celebrate the good and the true and the beautiful wherever and whenever you find it regardless of the label it wears or the person it comes from or the place you found it. All things are yours.

4. Remember that the tax collectors and prostitutes loved to feast with Jesus and the religious establishment gossiped about him and dissected his teachings and questioned his commitment to orthodoxy and eventually had him killed. There's a lesson for us there.
--------------------

Yes, thank goodness Jesus came to save us from non-caffeinated despair (if anyone can explain what the heck that means, I would be very grateful) and boxes. After all, who can forget Romans 3:23, "For all are in boxes and have fallen short by feeling bored."

And I agree. I have been compulsively feeling the need to impose my horrendous worldview on others. Why do I feel such a compelling need to tell others that according to my worldview I'm going to heaven and they are going to hell? It is really selfish of me, who possess every good thing in Christ by virtue of his death and have been commanded by him to go and make disciples of the nations, to impose my worldview on those who will shortly suffer eternal damnation if they do not repent. I really should be doing more to make them feel comfortable.

Also, I am glad that Rob Bell has informed me that my faith is in serious need of doubt. No wonder I have been feeling like my faith isn't going to survive...it is all because I haven't been doubting lately, or rather, that I haven't been doubting "artfully" enough. Yes, that is the problem. I need to doubt more artfully. I mean, it totally makes sense. After all, faith is "being sure of things not seen," and doubt is being unsure of things not seen, so it is really coherant that doubt and faith need each other to survive. Let me add some more advice while I'm add it:

5. Master the art of hating others. Love needs it to survive.

6. Master the art of eating unhealthy food. Eating healthy food needs it to survive.

7. Master the art of living at the bottom of the sea. Not being wet needs it to survive.

A poem

Title: Underground

Under water grottos, caverns

Filled with apes

That eat figs.

Stepping on the figs

That the apes

Eat, they crunch.

The apes howl, bare

Their fangs, dance . . .

--------------------

What do you think? Pretty good? Or pretty bad? If you said pretty bad, you'd be correct, that poem is awful.

But I didn't write it. Barack Obama wrote it, when he was an undergrad at Occidental College.

New Blog Announcement

I would like to announce a new blog that I will be updating, probably more often then this one. It is called The Puritan Reader and I will be writing short summaries of some of my readings in it.

www.puritanreader.blogspot.com

Thank you. This is also my old 24 Words blog. I changed the URL though.

The Reason of Faith, Pt. 1

So I'm reading a John Owen book called The Reason of Faith. In order to aid in retention and comprehension, I am going to take some notes and summarize as I go along...and as long as I am doing that, I thought I would post some of it on my blog. So, here goes.

Part I--What it is to infallibly believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God, and what is our reason for so doing.

1. We can divide our believing, or our faith, in to two parts; namely, what it is that we believe, and why it is that we believe it.

a) What we believe, or the material object of our faith, is the things revealed in the Scripture, declared unto us in propositions of truth.

Aside: Owen adds here, "for things must be proposed to us as truth, or we cannot believe them." One of the constant points of attack for the emerging church is the supposed Enlightenment propensity towards infallible propositions of truth. Propositional statements are very out of favor right now. But doesn't his small comment elegantly demolish all the opposition made to propositions of truth? When you read the accounts of the NT preaching of the gospel, whether by Jesus, Peter, or Paul, note that all speak propositions of truth. The propose truth to their hearers. This is not an Enlightenment development, but a characteristic of communication!

b) The reason why we do believe them is because they are proposed in the Scriptures.

In other words, we believe the truths of the Scripture because they are in the Scriptures. This may seem circular, but Owen likes to be thorough. "Christ's death, and burial, and resurrection, are the things proposed unto us to be believed, and so are the object of our faith; but the reason why we believe them is because they are declared in the Scriptures."

The reason for this thoroughness is that the answer to the two questions:

a) What do you believe? What is so.
b) Why do you believe this? Because it is so?

No, the proper answer to b) is Because it is revealed in the Scriptures.


2. We are searching for a faith that is divine and infallible because of the objective cause of the faith. In other words, not a faith based on human arguments or teachers. Many in the church have risen no further in their faith than this type...that is, a faith in the Scriptures based on other people's experiences.

3. Now, when I say an infallible faith, I don't mean "an inherent quality in the subject," as if I could infallibly believe. Rather, "that property of the assent of our minds unto divine truths that is differentiated from other types of assent." The nature of assent stems from the nature of the evidence from which the assent proceeds.

Now, a man cannot infallibly believe in that which is false, but a man can imperfectly believe that which is infallibly true, if he believes it to be true from a fallible grounds.

Hmmm...get it? Yeah, that is a bit of a tough one. What I am trying to say is that a man can believe in the truth for the wrong reason. For example, a man may believe the Scriptures because of tradition, or outward arguments. Since both of those things are fallible, his faith also is fallible. But if a man believes because of infallible evidence to the infallible truth, than his faith is infallible.

4. Therefore (and this is a very important statement, central to Owen's argument, and in fact, the reason more or less for this entire work)...

The authority and veracity of God in revealing the material object of our faith, or what it is our duty to believe (meaning, the things we believe in the Scripture), are the formal object and reason of our faith, from whence it ariseth and whereinto it is ultimately resolved.

In other words, the reason we believe that Jesus is the Son of God is because God has said it is so. If we believe on that ground, our faith is divine and infallible.

Here's how Owen lays it out: Our faith in the Scriptures is infallible with respect to the formal reason of it (divine revelation), and supernatural with respect unto the production of it in our minds by the Holy Spirit. (Owen calls this "the subjective efficiency of the Holy Ghost inspiring it in our minds.")

5. Just to confuse you more, if you weren't confused already, Owen goes on to say that the authority and truth of God, considered absolutely, are not the formal object of our faith, but rather, the authority and truth of God in that they are evidenced to us, or revealed to us.

6. Here Owen to some degree summarizes, using a series of questions. I will paraphrase to the best of my ability.

Statement: We do believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God.

A) Why do we do so?
---It is because of the authority of God commanding us to, and the truth of God testifying thereunto.

B) But how are our minds and consciences affected with the authority and truth of God, so that we believe them, which makes our faith divine and supernatural?
---It is only the divine, supernatural, and infallible revelation that he has made of this truth.

C) But what is this revelation, and where can we find it?
---Only in the Scriptures, which contains the entire revelation that God has made of himself, in everything that he would have us believe or do.

7. Then here is his final question. How, or on what grounds, do we believe the Scripture to be a divine revelation, or the very words of God which is truth divine and infallible?

Answer: It is solely on the evidence that the Spirit of God, in and by the Scripture itself, gives to us that it was given by the immediate inspiration from God.

---------------------

Some of my more philosophical readers may recognize that last bit. It has been developed into a rigorous philosophy in the 20th century under the title Reformed Epistemology. As such, it is a theory of knowledge (obvi) that is quite elegant. One of its best known advocates is a guy named Alvin Platinga. It has also been central to the recent revival of Christian philosophy and philosophers at many secular universities.

Another good quote

"Financial markets need governments to set rules for them; and when markets fail, governments are often best placed to get them going again. That’s pragmatism, not socialism. Helping bankers is not an end in itself. If the government could save the credit markets without bailing out the bankers, it should do so. But it cannot. Main Street needs Wall Street; and both need Washington. Politicians—and President George Bush is the most culpable among them—have failed to explain this."

An explanation of the bailout. I think people don't really understand how inter-connected every part of our economy is. And also, the growth of the last twenty years or so has lifted more people out of poverty than any government program ever has.

Check out this quote

"The debate was not the bad night that some had feared, but neither was it a turning point for the McCain camp."

This is from the New York Times and it was released about two hours after the Vice President debate had ended.

Similar statement: "Sharpsburg was not the bad loss that some (like Lincoln) had feared, but neither was it the turning point for the North."

After 140 years we can make this sort of decisive statement about the Civil War. Isn't it nice to have a media so prescient and clear-sighted that they can make these pronouncement mere hours after the events have occurred?