The Augustinian Democrat

Paul Simon, the God Chronicler by Accident

2012-01-11T02:04:00.000-05:00

An amazing interview with Paul Simon about the role of religion and especially Christian themes in his music over the years. Thank you Cathleen Falsani for an extraordinary insight into a truly great artist.

Watch Paul Simon on PBS. See more from Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly.

An Obscure Birth

2011-12-26T05:22:00.000-05:00

I find it beyond strange that here I sit, two millenia later, commemorating the birth of a child in a backwater district of an ancient empire. The person of Jesus of Nazareth is known to us through the canonical writings of the New Testament and not much else. Just yesterday I had a mythicist approach me about whether he (Jesus) even existed. I haven't responded, mostly because I consider that kind of conspiratorial thinking to be rather ridiculous. And most conspiracists are also rather immune to reason and rational argumentation. But this obscure birth, in a backwater part of a vast empire, is intriguing nonetheless. The Jewish New Testament documents tell us about his advent, both through the gospel accounts, as well as the letters of Paul and other later followers. What's interesting in all of this is that the sequence of the New Testament isn't the same as the sequence of the writing of the New Testament writings.

My own evolution of belief has gone from the simple belief come from reading the text "as it is" to reading it through the lens of more recent critical scholarship. But this hasn't lessened my faith as much as refined it. As a child I read the text of scripture "as is" or so I thought. I didn't know back then that I had, in fact, imbibed assumptions which weren't necessarily of scriptural origins. I also didn't know that my own reading of the scriptural text was shaped by my cultural context. In other words, I didn't realize, like so many today, that "my" view isn't the same as unexpurgated "truth." That realization is both humbling and illuminating.

The Jesus of history was a Jew who was born and raised in an occupied Israel/Palestine, and who was intimately confronted with an occupying force who forced his people to decide between fidelity to their faith and obedience to a foreign power. He was, as best as what can tell, raised in the environment of being a political and religious refugee. He had a mother who understood herself to have borne into the world a prophet of Israel, possibly the Messiah. His role and identity was always contested, even among his closest followers and family.

This is part of what especially intrigues me in my reading of the New Testament texts. There's a self critical element in the writing that is very different than anything else I've read among the other ANE texts which I've read and translated. As I've mentioned about the Hebrew writings also known as the OT, what I'm struck by is the utter humanity and reality shown in the protagonists behavior. The "heroes" of the Bible are all "very" human. When I read their stories, I read my own. Thus I see truth expressed. Strangely enough, that's why I believe the Bible to be true.

Santa's Little Slave Laborers

2011-12-05T20:19:00.000-05:00

When you buy cheap toys, this is where they come from. These are your slaves working for you.

The Butterfly Circus

2011-11-17T01:10:00.000-05:00

An extraordinary short film that brings home to me the idea of the Gospel of Misfit Toys that I've seen in a few churches I've been fortunate enough to be a part of over the years. It's not about the hurt, but the healing. But we don't ignore the hurt, but through that hurt, and beyond it, we find true healing.

Penn State and Tribalism as per Ira Socol

2011-11-10T23:59:00.000-05:00

My dear friend Ira David Socol has written an extraordinary essay about the absolutely awful story that has come out of Penn State. A state of affairs that has effectively ruined the entire career of Joe Paterno, cost him his job and so much more, as well at the president of the school losing his job. But of course, and much more importantly, the young boys who were violated, and no one till now decided their well being was more important than the reputation of the school and its athletic program.

Ira makes the all too necessary point that we live in a culture of tribalism which elevates our local allegiances to such an extent that we effectively end up deifying them at the expense of what it means to be human. His essay reminds me of one I wrote years ago concerning culpability and complicity. This terrible situation should serve as a sobering reminder to look into the mirror when we're so quick to judge and condemn others for such flagrant abuses of power. In what ways are we just as guilty of "looking the other way" when injustices of any sort are happening before our very eyes? If you want to read a deeply considered response to this terrible situation, please consider reading Ira's important input.

Why The Insurgency Must Be Crushed

2011-10-13T00:39:00.004-04:00

We have intelligence from our operatives that an insurgent leader is planning an assault on one of our outposts. I don’t think it’s even necessary to explain why this is such a serious issue. His followers already have a history of terrorist violence against the lawfully established authorities, including suicide attacks. Any person or group willing to engage in such barbarous behavior must be met with an unyielding stance. To give them an inch is to open the door to chaos. We must not let this happen. Our nation is one predicated on law and we must stand fast and firm against these lawless forces who would upend everything the civilized world stands for. Again, I don’t think it’s even necessary to say that we’ve offered a civilizing influence throughout the world, and that every nation we’ve freed has seen a marked increase, not just of commerce, but also of personal freedom. These terrorists would bring us back to a savage past driven by ancient prejudices and apocalyptic madness. Remember, it is for the sake of freedom and peace that we are involved in this great struggle against unreasoning extremism.
Thankfully we have a member of his inner group on our side. In a few days we’ll meet up with his entourage on the outskirts of the city. It’s there that we’ll make the arrest if possible.

(several days later)

Surprisingly enough we were able to make the arrest with only minor resistance from the terrorist group. Good intelligence (and the occasional bribe) is always helpful! Thankfully we were able to separate the leader from the rest of his followers and we were able to take him into custody. We now have him in confinement and have been interrogating him about any information he might have regarding other terrorists or terror plots in the works. The fact that we’ve already disrupted his own terror plot against our outpost is a good sign of the progress we’re making in making our nation safe from our enemies. Remember friends, this group and all those who ally themselves with them see our freedoms and hate us for it.

(the next day)

It seems these apocalyptic fanatics are so mind numbingly convinced of their convictions that no amount of interrogation can break through their deep seated delusions. But at least we were able to get him to admit to treason against the lawful authorities. We also have records of his previous speeches where he spoke of the violence he would visit on those who oppose his rule if he were to attain power. Thank God we were able to get to him before he ever got to the point of garnering popular support on a large scale. In public he’s quite charismatic, but in the cell he’s not so intimidating! The hell he would unleash on civilized society if he were to gain power is something every self respecting member of society would agree is unspeakable. Again, we need to remind ourselves of why we’re fighting this terrible evil. This fanatic is a perfect “exhibit A.”

(two days later)

Today we had the trial, fair by international standards (though some bleeding hearts quibbled). We had numerous witnesses, both from within his own terrorist group, and among those who personally heard him speak of his plans for terrorist violence. The cowardice of his own group abandoning him for their own skins speaks volumes about the immoral basis for their base desires. We saw a few besotted souls speak out for his apocalyptic vision who also hate our freedoms, but they were in the extreme minority. The public, who generally knows better, knew that we were doing the right thing in putting this dangerous malefactor to death. The sooner people recognize that the better off we all are. There’s nothing to worry about my Lord. He’s just another rebel that’s been dealt with.

Your faithful servant to my Lord and Savior Caesar,

Pontius Pilate

Caesar Is Not Lord.

2011-09-20T01:26:00.000-04:00

Vengeance is mine sayeth the imperialist, and the current iteration of that deadly reality is American. In reading international news sources, which I've done since childhood, I'm struck at how military intervention for "national interests" has become nearly ubiquitous across the planet. It seems every empire has arrogated unto itself the prerogative that belongs only to God when it comes to final judgement, life or death.

This is not a uniquely American behavior by the way, it's been true of every great empire across human history. But these last hundred years have seen US being the military top of the hill. And like every other empire, we gladly fabricate an appropriate mythology to fit our place in the political pantheon seemingly sensing that we are somehow uniquely immortal, unlike every other empire which has passed before us.

Caesar is not Lord.

The Christian as Insider and Outsider

2011-09-14T01:35:00.000-04:00

The Christian is always the insider on the outside and the outsider on the inside.

The Christian is the insider on the outside because they are always engaged in the affairs of this world, since they are called by Christ to be in the world, and yet not of it. For a Christian to be involved in the intimate details of our common life, both private and public, yet without succumbing to the ever present idolatrous temptations from all sides, means they must have a concrete reference point from which to judge rightly the circumstances they find themselves in. And the concrete reference point is the very life and ministry of Christ Jesus.

It isn't some objective principle above and beyond the vagaries of history, as though that could give us any insight into what to do in the here and now. No. The Christian is guided in what they can and must do by the radical particularity of Christ's ministry to those directly in his midst. His kingdom spread as far, and only as far, as the sound of his voice and the touch of his hand. This is why he told his disciples the kingdom of God was in their midst.

The Christian is also never fully identified with the environment they find themselves in. The Christian is always a dual citizen, a citizen of whatever earthly city they are a part of, but also a citizen, indeed their primary citizenship, of a heavenly city called forth by God himself founded on Christ as the Cornerstone of a heavenly temple being built in the gritty details of our life here on earth.

The Christian is also always the outsider on the inside, because, while they are indeed residents of a heavenly city, they are also flesh and bone, blood and sweat, living breathing wounds and sins. The Christian recognizes within themselves every impulse, every desire, every hope and fear, of every person in their midst within earshot, eyesight, and physical touch. And again this understanding must be held, not by relying on some theoretical understanding of their corporate and individual creatureliness and fallenness, but with a tangible, indeed visceral SENSE of how this exists and is played out in their own day to day life.

And likewise the concrete reference point for the Christian to be able to get an accurate sense of this reality comes to them through the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The Christian sees and begins to understand the reality of their own beauty, sorrow, wounds, sins in their majestic broken tapestry only by looking upon the particular hands, feet, eyes, limbs, minds, pulses of those directly touched by Christ the Lord. Thus the Christian sees each wound, each cry, each laugh, each hidden sigh as uniquely belonging to the one owning these experiences as they do themselves, knowing that Christ's word and touch heals and reproves each according to their need.

As Christ has done for us, we are called to do for one another.

Dragonflies and 9/11

2011-09-12T01:25:00.001-04:00

Early this Sunday afternoon I went for a walk on campus. I went to the top of the hill behind our building and sat on a bench and read for a few minutes as the sun shone down. I put my head down and laid there for a few more minutes, all the while listening to the sounds of nature buzz around me. I sat back up and noticed an aircraft flying overhead. I was reminded that ten years ago in the days following 9/11 I saw and heard no aircraft flying anywhere since they had all been grounded from coast to coast. The sight and sound of an aircraft has become normal again these ten years later. It was an odd feeling to realize that.

I got up from the bench and walked on the grass looking at the dragonflies darting around my feet. These supremely beautiful creatures used to scare me so much as a small child, partly because of their name, and partly because of their fearsome look. But now as I spy them from mere feet or even inches away I notice that these amazingly aerodynamic creatures with their nearly transparent wings flit from blade of grass to blade of grass nibbling away as they survey the vast expanse of a field so seemingly small to me.

I wander towards the edge of the hill to a group of trees and find them clapping their leaves as the breeze flutters through. What they were applauding I don't know, except to say that they seemed happy as the bees and bugs and birds all intertwined in the majesty of nature right before my eyes. A bumblebee, seemingly clumsy, navigated a spiders web and flew effortlessly through an opening in the web from one flower to the next. A nest of wasps or hornets crawled out from under an overhang on a concrete pillar on the hill as they make ready for cooler weather so close at hand.

Each of these beautiful creatures make their way whether as flora, fauna, insect, bird, human, all bound together in a much larger web of intertwined life. The quietness of this respite from the rampant noisiness I far too often give myself over to reminds me that there are sounds and sights that transcend us. But these sights and sounds are also a part of us at our core. The breeze blows and dragonflies take flight from blade of grass to blade of grass and feed on the field before them. As it rested on a blade of grass I could see the blades beneath it through its shimmery wings. I can hear the breeze as well and wonder where it will carry me to next.

The King Jesus Gospel

2011-08-22T15:31:00.000-04:00

Scot McKnight is one of my favorite Christian teachers out there right now. His blog, Jesus Creed, is one I visit almost daily, where he's posting about theology, science, popular culture, or whatever. His Anabaptist ethical impulse is one I share deeply and he's not afraid to ask the difficult questions of faith. I look forward to reading his newest book.

Evolution Vs. Creationism Song

2011-08-17T22:04:00.001-04:00

hat tip to Steve Douglas via G+

Tisha B'av and Ritualizing Loss

2011-08-09T21:57:00.000-04:00

Today commemorates the destruction of the first and second temples in Jerusalem as well as other severe losses in Jewish history, most notably of course the shoah or European holocaust. During the service of Tisha B'av, the rabbi reads through the book of Lamentations in Hebrew, and if you're in a non orthodox synagogue, he'll (or she'll) also read through it in English. Tisha B'av is a holy day that isn't "celebrated" just as Yom Kippur isn't "celebrated" since both are considered deeply solemn days. In other words, you don't say to a Jew "happy Tisha B'av" or "happy Yom Kippur" since these days aren't meant to be happy but painful and necessary reminders of our sinfulness before a holy God and of a deeply broken world in desperate need of God's shalom.

As a Christian Tisha B'av is also personally important to me, since I experienced my own deep loss and sorrow 13 years ago last month with the unexpected death of a woman I loved very much and who also loved me. And then two weeks later I attended the Tisha B'av service with her family at their synagogue. Listening to the rabbi read through Lamentations as the prophet wails over the destruction of his beloved city and holy temple struck home with all of us that day as we too wailed over a much closer tragic loss of one so beloved.

Any religion or spirituality worth its salt so to speak knows how to ritualize loss and pain. To be human is to, at some point in your life, experience unexpected loss or pain. And even when it's expected, that doesn't make it any less painful; just a differently experienced pain. Judaism has Tisha B'av, Christianity has Lent and Good Friday, and I'm sure many of the other world religions have their ritualizations of loss as well. And that's how it should be. As an evangelical Christian in America, I often wonder at the total lack of a serious sense of this part of our spiritual and physical reality in American evangelical circles. I consider myself very fortunate to have discovered the book of Job as a child as well as Ecclesiastes. Having grown up in a pretty disfunctional family environment these dark but honest books of the bible gave me a voice I didn't always have for myself in my own words. It asked the questions I could only murmur. It also had the honesty to not answer those questions to my satisfaction. Any god who offers up a happy clappy or neat little theodicy isn't a god I want to deal with. As unsatisfying as not getting a clear answer is, I'll take that over an all too easy answer that I know instinctively isn't true.

In the days and weeks (and yes, even years) after my deep loss and sorrow, my only word to God was "why?" I still don't have an answer to that question that satisfies me, and I hope I never get it. But I am glad that there is a God who honors that question by including it in his word, thus giving me the freedom to ask it with a brutal honesty knowing that God's big enough to take it and even absorb it into himself. I want a God who understands grief and sorrow and pain and anger at wrongful loss. I want a God who knows what it is to ask in a dying breathe "Why have you forsaken me?" This is a God who I can understand, even if only dimly, because I know that this God can understand me.

In Memory of Senator Mark Hatfield

2011-08-08T01:04:00.000-04:00

A wonderful testimony of the impact of Senator Mark Hatfield's life and ministry as a public servant. He exemplifies what it truly means to be a Christian statesman. He made being a "politician" something to be an honor and not a term of reprobation. We desperately need more leaders like him today, now more than ever.

International Corporatism Vs Being Human

2011-08-01T01:28:00.000-04:00

The more I read the more I realize we've entered an era of International Corporatism. The largest corporations are larger and much more powerful than most if not all nation states. What is your citizenship? To whom or to what do you belong? Are you a human being or a product, being bought and sold?

Here's an appropriate piece about seeing beyond the old left/right dichotomy.

And here's another piece about Breaking the Spell of Money.

The Rhetoric of Identity (and how to Identify that Rhetoric)

2011-07-28T23:31:00.000-04:00

The answer to our country's problems isn't to return to some mythical past when all was well and everything was right (or left) in the world. The New Deal, the Great Society, the Reagan Revolution, Compassionate Conservatism, or even more recently, Yes We Can, are all but dim reflections of their times, broken as they are, each in their own way.

But neither is the answer to ignore all of these previous attempts to make things better. The rhetoric of each of these political and cultural movements were aspirational, even if rather transparently manipulative. But it's in this strange confluence of aspiration and manipulation that we need to analyse where we've come from and how we've gotten into the predicament we're now in.

Why do these rhetorical appeals work? In the ten Presidential campaigns I personally remember, along with many other campaigns for various products being sold to us, we've been sold an identity, a sense of who we are and our place in the great movement of history. We're told that if we join this campaign or buy this product, we'll find our true meaning and purpose for our lives. But if we don't come alongside this great movement of history and instead choose to go down another path, we're consigning ourselves not only to insignificance, but we're separating ourselves from the common identity that exists among our family and friends (or so the ad and campaign execs say).

And who wants that? In some way or another we all want to belong. It's a part of our being human that we join ourselves to various groups so that we can identify ourselves as a part of some larger whole. Even the lone wolf exults in their identity as a lone wolf because of the pre-existing myth of the lone wolf. Myths don't exist in a vacuum. They always serve a purpose.

But the question before us today is this: in light of the fact that we're being told that if we don't do....(pick your side)...all hell will break lose economically, politically, and possibly even cosmically, how can we step back and analyse the rhetoric being used and how it's being used so as to conflate the aspirational with the manipulative? In other words, how are we being bullshitted?

The classic bullshitter knows how to combine flattery with fear of failure, and hope with a sense of impending doom. Juxtaposing each in such a way that the victim...um customer...um voter has their emotions massaged to work up the response the purveyor wants from them. Either a vote, a sale, or a believer. Any will do. As long as they give their feasance to them. Or more importantly, to the ideal.

Can we cut through the deep rhetoric? Can we see beyond the silly semantics of salesmen telling us what we need before we know it ourselves? Can we recognize that all of this exists in us too as we see others behaving this way? Can we recognize ourselves as the bullshitter in chief before we accuse those we don't like of being the chief bullshitter?

You see, this is the Augustinian side of me coming out. It makes me a Christian skeptic, especially of myself. And I think it's my democratic side coming out too; in that I'm pretty sure we all have this in us. I could be wrong of course. But I doubt it. Only time will tell. And time seems to be telling.

Enemies

2011-07-23T23:58:00.000-04:00

I'm not your enemy I'm not your foe
you are, you are, please don't you know?
I'm not the one chasing you down the road
chasing me like an unclean toad.
We disagree, is that such a crime
it's not murder, just give me time.
I see the glint of the barrel in your eye
why must we judge before we even try?
Fire at will if it be thy will
but if it be thy will I will be still.

You're not my enemy you're not my foe
I am I am, please don't I know?
You're not the one being chased down the road
chasing you like an unclean toad.
We disagree, is that such a crime
it's not murder, just give me time.
You see the glint of the barrel in my eye
why must we judge before we even try?
Fire at will if it be thy will
but if it be thy will I will be still.

Singing Prophetically Against Rupert Murdoch (Why Scouses Rule)

2011-07-14T03:10:00.001-04:00

BILLY BRAGG - NEVER BUY THE SUN from Billy Bragg on Vimeo.

An amazing song written and performed by Billy Bragg about the Rupert Murdoch scandal in the UK, which could easily spill over into the US if it turns out his minions hacked into 9/11 victims cells, which considering their prior track record, seems entirely likely. The lyrics of the song are well worth listening to, even if you're not a Scouser (from Liverpool), since they speak to issues of powerful media enterprises and giving in to our more base instincts. The line where he speaks of us buying into "tell alls" and how that makes us partly culpable is very telling.

To Consolidate Blogs or Not, That is the Question

2011-07-13T22:58:00.002-04:00

I'm thinking about importing all of my blogs into my main blog, which at this point is The Augustinian Democrat, and just have separate headings depending on the topic, whether it's science, theology, conspiracy theories, poetry, etc. Sound good? Yes? No?

Doonesbury on Teaching Evolution in Louisiana

2011-07-13T20:22:00.001-04:00

Here's the original link to Sunday's comic strip.

(I had posted the original cartoon here, but the width interfered with seeing the side bar links, so I recommend visiting the link above to see the cartoon. It's well worth it)

Very Nicely Done Cartoon Version of Evolutionary Theory.

2011-07-04T22:44:00.000-04:00

Here's a great cartoon rendering of the theory of evolution that I found just now from reading Jimpithecus's science and religion blog. In a blog post on June 25 which I only saw today, he links to a great cartoon from another blog explaining the theory of evolution, but in cartoon form, from Darryl Cunningham. Very nicely done indeed.

The American Revolution for Ideologues

2011-07-04T21:00:00.000-04:00

Since this week is the annual celebration of America's independence from Britain on July 4th, I'm seeing the usual assortment of essays from the left and the right, from the religious and the irreligious, all with their particular axes to grind to "prove" their view of America's history is the "right" view. And since we now live in the era of twenty four hour "news" or to put it more accurately "infotainment" we're seeing these competing narratives getting airtime because they're attention grabbers. And attention grabbers get ratings. And ratings bring in advertising revenue. And advertising revenue helps companies sell more goods and services to consumers. And these companies sell us these goods to satisfy our felt needs. And we know what these needs are by watching twenty four hour news and entertainment.

Ah yes, the circle of life.

I have friends across the spectrum both ideologically and religiously, from the hardcore right to the far left; from fundamentalist Christians to dyed in the wool atheists. Black, white, Asian, Latino, multi-ethnic, straight, gay, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and friends from every continent except Antarctica. But in this special time of year, when patriotism flourishes and the reaction against it also flourishes, passions flourish no matter what or why. It's very similar to the various other contentious debates we so love to argue and divide over: Creationism/evolution, climate change, gender roles, sexuality, Yankees/Red Sox, etc...

So at this time of the year, the two biggest controversies are over the founding of the United States and how much religion played a role, in particular evangelical Christianity, and in a related issue, whether it's appropriate for modern evangelical Christians to be "patriotic" and celebrate America's Independence Day. Let me say from the outset that I'm not going to give my own ex cathedra declaration as to what is the eternal and always correct answer to these contentious issues. Read what I've written elsewhere to figure that out. I've certainly touched on both topics more than a few times. Instead, here I'm more interested in how each side has played the game of what the founders had to say about religion either privately or publicly and as it related to its role in governance, and how evangelical Christians should relate to their country as Christians.

I've noticed four views that seem to have predominated when it comes to this issue:

1) The "Christian America" view, which sees the founding era as being guided by orthodox/evangelical Christian views and which also believes that the US was specifically founded upon these beliefs and therefore should return to them in order to be blessed by God once again. The late Rev. D. James Kennedy, most Reconstructionist/theonomist Presbyterians, and most well known now, David Barton of Wallbuilders, all represent this perspective.

2) The alternative Christian view that the founders were a bunch of deists at best, and atheists in some cases, and therefore the US was not founded on Christian principles, but instead on Enlightenment ideals. This view is most often espoused by Anabaptists as well as some of the more conservative liturgical churches, such as Missouri Synod Lutherans, some fundamentalist separatist Christians, and many quite liberal Christian denominations. This view certainly has its strange bedfellow thing going on to say the least.

3) The strong secularist perspective that says, similar to the Christians above, that the founders were anything but Christian, and were deeply driven by Enlightenment concepts in their political thinking, and most importantly, in their drafting of our founding documents. But for these secularists this is of course a good thing. Some of the Christians above would agree, such as the Danbury Baptists, because of the freedom of conscience the Bill of Rights gives. Whereas some other Christians see Enlightenment thinking as being antithetical to basic Christian orthodoxy.

4) A less common viewpoint in this spectrum are the secularists who do acknowledge the role of religion in the founding period, and in the subsequent years following the revolution (not to mention the preceding Puritan era), but who see this presence as something to be expunged from American life, since "religion poisons everything" as some are wont to say. The New Atheists (TM) seem to be split between these two camps on this point, since some prefer having religion around to have as an appropriate boogey man to posit every national sin upon.

What makes all four of these competing narratives appealing is that they can each claim historical facts for their perspective. However, precisely because all four can do that, all four are also deeply mythological in their understanding of American history. Views one and three both share an American-Exceptionalism viewpoint, but obviously from very different philosophical/metaphysical bases.

Views two and four both lean towards an anti American-Exceptionalism view, since they both emphasize the historic wrongs done by the US from the Puritan era to today (though liberal Christianity in the late 1800's to WWI held deeply to American-Exceptionalism during the progressive era, and some still do).

In any case though, the reality of the role of religion in America's founding as a Republic is complex enough that each of these views have been able to rise up. So in each of them we see a little bit of truth (some more than others to be sure), but a good deal more myth in their narrative telling of America's origins ideologically and theologically. I'm sure I've oversimplified some of these issues in putting this together. If so, please call me out and explain where I've gone wrong. For further info on this topic, I highly recommend you visit some of the links on my right sidebar under the heading "Religion and Culture" where they deal with this topic in depth and quite well if I do say so myself.

Dark Girls

2011-05-28T19:37:00.000-04:00

A preview of an upcoming documentary called Dark Girls about how skin color is judged both by other ethnicities and within the black community as well. Intrablack racism is a direct consequence of slavery and the institutional racism that America has had since its beginning. A very painful topic, but one which needs to be addressed.

Dark Girls: Preview from Bradinn French on Vimeo.

Katharine Hayhoe: Evangelical Christian, Climate Scientist

2011-05-26T20:28:00.000-04:00

A wonderful post at Biologos about a climate change scientist who is also an evangelical Christian. Please be sure to watch all three videos at the link. This video needs to go viral and shatter the false dichotomy between faith and science so prevalent in the popular media.

Happy Scientifically Accurate Mothers Day!

2011-05-08T16:12:00.000-04:00

An excellent interview with Francis Collins about Science and Faith

2011-05-08T00:35:00.000-04:00

Here's the link to the full video of Francis Collins talking about the Human Genome Project, but in this link, he also speaks about the relationship of faith and science. Well worth checking out.

Some excellent Websites dealing with Conspiracy Theories

2011-05-05T05:05:00.000-04:00

Here's a round up of a few websites I've discovered that deal primarily or at least occasionally with the issue of conspiracy theories.

Mind Hacks is a mind science website that post frequently on issues relating to cognition. Always entertaining, very insightful, and sometimes hilarious.

A website I only discovered this evening because of a facebook friend Paul Kimball, who writes quite often about the paranormal and UFOs, is called Skeptico. It doesn't primarily deal with conpsiracy theories, but it does touch on that kind of thinking in many of its posts, so it's definitely worth checking. I look forward to reading/listening to more in the days ahead. Looks fascinating.

There's also the always good factcheck.org website that deals primarily with political issues, and of course one of their biggest fact checks has been about President Obama's birth certificate. Consistently good stuff here.

And then there's the more general fact checking website known as Snopes, which also has a great track record of exposing some truly bizarre conspiracy theories. They cover political, scientific, and just about every other cultural expression of bad thinking and crazy logic and amazing hoaxes.

And of course my favorite blog dealing with conspiracy issues has got to be Muertos, which has written extensively on the bizarre conspiracy theories associated with the Zeitgesit Movement, and it's spin off movement, the Venus Project. Thankfully it seem these crazy movements seem to be splitting apart amidst internal squabbling.

If you know of any other good websites dedicated to exploring conspiracy theories and their adherents and the psychology/sociology behind them, I'd very much appreciate the feedback. In a world filled with 9/11 Truthers, Obama Birthers, and now bin Laden Deathers, we need more than ever to work at helping those who are reality impaired and deeply fact aversive.

Sharing and Bearing the Economic Burden

2011-04-30T04:04:00.000-04:00

What is economic security?
What is economic insecurity?
What causes both?
Do we understand these issues and the causations behind them?

We are living, as Americans, as well as citizens of other country's, in an environment of economic instability which pits one against another like we've seen all too many times before. Left against right, religious against irreligious, white versus black, or any other ethnicity, and of course, the rich versus the poor. But these various partisan contrasts are all too convenient distractions and diversions from deeper issues driving our economic lives.

If we stand still for a moment (admittedly very difficult to do in this hyperactive internet culture we live in) and look for a moment at some wise voices from our past, just as our former President Dwight David Eisenhower, in his farewell address to the nation in 1961, where he spoke of the danger of the Military Industrial Complex, we'll hear a deeply needed wisdom we desperately need today.

But while he spoke of a military/economic threat from within in this speech, he also was working from a framework that assumed a certain baseline that we now no longer see assumed. For instance, in Ike's day, the income tax was extremely graduated. The top earners paid over 90% of their income to the feds, and as the income went down, the tax rate also went down. And yet, strangely enough, this was for many considered to be a "golden era" of America's economic prowess.

Was this era as "golden" as some would have it be? No. As in anything the picture is of course more complicated. But we should remember that this "golden" period was also the time when unions were also at their strongest, both public and private. At that decisive time, both corporations, government, and the power of workers through their unions were much more evenly divided. This division of power exemplified perfectly the political philosophy so well expressed by our founders in the Federalist Papers which I so highly regard.

But an issue which the American founders didn't fully consider (understandably so) was the full expression of the industrial revolution combined with legal corporatism as understood by the US Supreme Court. This legal issue of corporate "personhood" (please check out the amazing DVD "The Corporation") is, to this day, an unresolved question of what it means to be a "person" under the US Constitution.

Till we deal with this issue both politically and legally and constitutionally, the problem of sharing and bearing the economic burden will not be dealt with adequately. Either we are all equal under the law or we are living under a Huxleyan world where some are more equal than others.

Terrain

2011-04-27T01:37:00.000-04:00

Would you want to live in a world of only plains? Or maybe a world filled with only mountains? Or even a world filled with only cities? Or only small towns? Or only the ocean? Would you want to live in a world with only vast stretches of desert? And of course we can extend this image to other areas of life: Would you want to only taste sweet foods? Only spicy foods? Only salty foods? Would you want to live in a world filled with only extroverts? Or introverts?

And here it starts getting trickier. Should we want to live in a world filled with only Christians? Muslims? Jews? Atheists? Liberals? Conservatives? Post-Modernists? Libertarians? And then what about those within our particular "camp" who still disagree? Shall we only live in a world filled with our particular "vision" of atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc, etc, etc.

We have a very natural human tendency to want to shape the rest of reality to our own already set beliefs and behaviors (can we say confirmation bias?). Thus we also tend to want the rest of reality to reflect our own sensibilities. We can do this either by outright rejecting any competing claim to the epistemological terrain or by reframing (and usually distorting) those competing narratives so that they end up suiting our own desires. I know this tendency well, since I've engaged in it on a regular basis myself.

I've lived in a number of different "terrains" both physically and ideologically and spiritually and emotionally. If I only ever saw a city landscape, I'd either get bored with it or see it as the only possible reality. And my all too natural instinct would be to either deify it or demonize it. In that sense, I guess I'm extremely grateful that though I did grown up in NYC, I also grew up on the south shore of Staten Island, which was and is still quite wooded and rural. So while we climbed trees and traversed many wooded paths, we also were a stone's throw from the concrete canyon of Lower Manhattan.

I often only half jokingly say we were the Beverly Hillbilly's of NYC.

But along with being culturally rural so close to a city environment, my family was also quite politically liberal in a very conservative neighborhood. We learned early on that not being in sync with the political majority held it own costs.

Another beautiful benefit of my very broken family was that we knew and interacted with those different than us. I was exposed to friendships with Jews, blacks, Latinos, Asians, the developmentally disabled, the homeless, etc. from early childhood. Though, in the midst of our own brokenness, it was always tempting to retreat into an interior reality blocked off from outside experience, experience, and I believe God, gave me a sense what it's like to walk in other people's shoes.

So again I appeal to my conservative friends to get to know and learn from liberal friends. And likewise, my liberal friends need to truly listen to what conservatives have to say and why. And on another spectrum, my atheist friends need to know more religious folks, so that you don't only see the caricatures presented by the supposedly "new" atheists. And of course, my religious friends also need to know, as in actually know, those who don't share your own convictions, and listen with a spirit of generosity to those who deeply differ.

So, for me at least, I choose to walk a path that includes mountains and plains, oceans and rivers, cities and towns, liberals and conservatives, atheists and believers. It doesn't mean I deny a particular sense and sensibility of reality. But it does mean that, even though we may deeply disagree, I will listen to you, because you do have something good and important to say to me.

So in this spirit, let's talk. Truly and truthfully.

Tim Keller on Civility

2011-04-26T17:35:00.002-04:00

Art and Science from Leonard Shlain

2011-04-21T00:58:00.000-04:00

President Obama on the Resurrection

2011-04-20T19:36:00.002-04:00

What Do We Mean By Economic Rights?

2011-04-18T02:52:00.000-04:00

How should we consider the ethics of economics? Ask an economic
"conservative" what they mean by "economic rights" and ask an
economic "liberal" the same question (at least in the American
context), and you'll get an affirmative answer from both. Yet
both will mean deeply different things in their seemingly identical answers.
To the "conservative", "economic rights" means individual liberty
in our individual interactions with other individual actors.
To the "liberal" this same term means something quite different.
To the modern liberal, to speak of economic rights is to speak of a baseline of equality that presupposes commonalities that sees social systems as being as much involved as individual actors.

Since I speak as both a conservative and liberal in different respects, in so much as I'm deeply conservative in my anthropology (seeing us a deeply fallen species), but also deeply liberal in so far as I see us as deeply bound together as one species recognizing that we are united, tied together, ultimately envisaged as all human, ultimately equal.

In light of this disparate reality, let's explore how we can move forward. We can differ in all of this without becoming disparaging?

James McGrath and Conspiracy Science

2011-04-13T19:57:00.000-04:00

James McGrath has a fascinating piece about the interrelationship between those who believe in Young Earth Creationism, Intelligent Design, and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The mindset that drives belief in nonsense science, such as Intelligent Design or Young Earth Creationism, or the anti-Semitic "Protocols" conspiracy theory, seem to all derive from a desire to easily explain the complexity of the world through either arcane conspiracy theories or overly simplistic narratives that use cherry picked parts of history or science in order to preserve a preconceived notion, whether anti-scientific, anti-Semitic, or racist.

This isn't to say that the destructive force of each of these is identical. Those who believe in YEC or ID aren't typically inclined towards violent imaginations or actions, while many who buy into the "Protocols" do harbor a deep seated hatred towards a specific group (in this case Jews). But the consequences of this kind of thinking is to perpetuate a way of seeing the world that is deeply at odds with how it actually works. Real history and real science, while never perfect, have nonetheless given us a reasonable assessment of the role of specific factors in how the world works.

In both cases, whether in science or in history, these conspiratorial ways of seeing reality betray a deep hostility and fear of complexity. In the case of anti-Semites, they fear/hate Jews and project their fears and all of the world's woes onto an easily identified group, and ironically see them as both preternaturally intelligent and demonically evil, even though historically Jews have been consistently the out group no matter where they live outside of Israel, and have suffered terribly because of that.

In the case of science, the YEC or ID perspectives both posit a mechanism that sees any allowance of naturalistic causes to speciation, especially homo sapiens, as being inherently anti-Christian. And beyond this, there is the argument that modern evolutionary (and for some, astronomical) science is a cabal of academic insiders bent on keeping up scientific orthodoxy even in the light of contrary findings which supposedly subvert the basics of Darwin's theory. But this view is once again a conspiratorial way of seeing how science is done.

Both of these camps consistently fail to understand how proper historiography or scientific research is done. Ultimately it's a rather concrete and static understanding of historical and scientific investigation which is deeply Manichean and won't allow either any gray between the black and white, or an apprehensible reality, whether religious, scientific, or historical, between total comprehension or complete agnosticism. It seems reality is lived in the not quite satisfying middle ground of knowing enough to make sense of most of life.

On Being Called "Queer"

2011-04-13T00:53:00.000-04:00

I told a short story tonight at school about being called queer when I was in elementary school back in NYC. When I was growing up on Staten Island I lived in a neighborhood that was very conservative, but my family was quite liberal. So while all the other boys in school had short hair or even crew cuts, I had long hair and had a denim jacket with various peace patches and environmental patches on it.

Needless to say, I got beat up a lot.

I generally didn't like hanging out with the boys in school because they were overall pretty stupid, so I preferred hanging out with the girls. First off they treated me better and secondly I was raised by women more than men so I "got" women/girls better. I was also painfully shy and deeply introverted. Whether in school or at home I preferred living in my own thoughts more often than not. That, and the disfunctionality of my family made me very fearful of any outsiders, and many times insiders.

But my family, for all its faults, knew language. My mother was a poet and my father, though largely absent, was an English professor. So in that regard I understood from a very early age what words mean. So when the day came in fourth or fifth grade when a fellow student thought he was dealing me a death blow of linguistic accusation by calling me queer I realized that he had bit off more than he could chew.

I'm sure he made the accusation in order to cut me down. I have no idea what his own story is; whether he had been called names himself by fellow students or even in his own family. Maybe so or maybe not. It may have been as much the social ethos of the era that allowed kids and adults to call someone a name in order to other them so as to avoid dealing with difference in their midst. But nevertheless, he felt it was appropriate to call me queer in order to shame and embarrass me.

Now I don't remember how I knew this. But somehow in that moment I remembered that queer, while in the context of what this child was calling me, was meant as an insult, I also remembered that the term had a more neutral meaning that didn't necessarily have a negative connotation.

So I asked him if he knew what the term meant. It was obvious he didn't really know. So I told him. I told him that queer meant that something or someone was different than the norm, the standard, the accepted way. And considering the state of the norm, the standard, and the accepted way, being queer to me was quite a compliment.

So I thanked him for the compliment.

He didn't try insulting me anymore.

As I mentioned earlier tonight, I didn't have the muscles to fight off bullies. So I did get beat up on a regular basis. But I did have words to defend myself, and so I used them to the best of my ability. As I grew older I learned how to use my words to keep me safe or defend me. Now, as an adult, I have to be careful in how I use my words today. As it's often been said, that which saves you as a child can kill you as an adult. So in that regard I must be careful to use my words very carefully.

Other boys had their muscles as their weapons. I had my words. Both can be deadly if used in wrong ways. We each used them to protect ourselves when young. And if we're not careful we can just as easily use them to do violence to others today.

I turned a phrase intended to hurt into one that became a compliment. But it was a selfish pursuit. Appropriate in its context, but dangerous as a template for later use. Just as using your fists to fight off an attacker is appropriate, that lesson can end up becoming a continuation of the cycle of violence if not checked and understood rightly.

So with words used to protect can just as easily become words that coerce and manipulate.

It seems language is a queer thing.

Moving Forward Politically

2011-04-06T03:02:00.000-04:00

We live in tumultuous times. Gee, what a surprise! The partisans of the doctrinaire certainties tell us that absolute certitude is the only way. My friends on the left, who are many, tell me that anything from a "conservative" perspective is automatically wrong. And likewise, my friends from the right, who are also many, tell me that anything from the left is automatically wrong.

I understand this impulse. I do. It's all too easy to see reality in starkly black and white terms. Us/them, either/or, all or nothing possibilities. However, when we engage in this behavior, we allow ourselves to become captive to a construct that ends up imprisoning us to the frameworks presented to us. It doesn't have to be that way. Each of us can make a choice to break out of this false dichotomy.

Here's how:

Make friends with people who disagree with you. Listen to opposing voices. Consider opinions based on different assumptions than yours. If you're liberal, make a conservative friend and do the hard work of listening to them. If you're conservative, make a liberal friend and do the same. If you're secular, make friends with a person of faith and listen to what they say and how it guides their life. And likewise, if you're religious (like me), make friends with a secular person, whether an agnostic or an atheist, and take the time to listen to what they say and why they say it.

Wisdom exists beyond our own shores. Sights can be seen beyond our own horizons. Are all views equal? No. I'm not a thorough going relativist. I believe in basic human equality against those who argue otherwise. So some arguments must be engaged forthrightly.

But even in this, we must acknowledge our common humanity among those with whom we deeply disagree. In the days ahead, we must seek truth, engage truthfully, and engage firmly with those we seek to both convince and learn from.

The Strangeness of the Isaiah 6 calling

2011-04-04T02:58:00.000-04:00

I've read Isaiah 6 more than a few times over the years. It's a very popular passage for those who sense a calling from God towards ministry. The part that always gets mentioned is the "here am I, send me" part. I love that part too. I really do. But like with so many other passages of scripture, when we read a part apart from the context that surrounds it, we end up doing violence to what God intended in these discrete words.

So in the interest of discretion, let's consider the whole passage as God and his prophet intended:

Isaiah 6:1-13 (ESV)

In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said:

Holy, holy, holy is the LORD of hosts;

the whole earth is full of his glory!

And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!"

Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin atoned for." And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me." And he said, "Go, and say to this people:

'Keep on hearing, but do not understand;

keep on seeing, but do not perceive.'

make the heart of this people dull,

and their ears heavy,

and blind their eyes;

lest they see with their eyes,

and hear with their ears,

and understand with their hearts,

and turn and be healed."

Then I said, "How long, O Lord?"

And he said:

"Until cities lie waste

without inhabitant,

and houses without people,

and the land is a desolate waste,

and the LORD removes people far away,

and the forsaken places are many in the midst of the land.

And though a tenth remain in it,

it will be burned again,

like a terebinth or an oak,

whose stump remains

when it is felled."

The holy seed is the stump.

Does this sound like the kind of call you want? Tell the people you're called to preach to do exactly opposite of what they're willing to hear? God calls you and guarantee's failure from the outset? Or at least failure by "normal" standards? Yet it seems this is God's way, strangely enough. God never calls his disciples to follow the path of popularity. God never calls his followers to sing the song that resonates with the majority. He offends the popular opinion.

So if someone is actually called in this way, they're gonna be confronted with all of the idolatries that befall their people, whether political or religious. And it's pretty much the case that anyone truly called of God is gonna be hated by the vested interests, both political and religious. For those of us concerned with the things of God, this is something worth considering, today, and in the days ahead.

Darwin Pushed to the Margins in HS science classes

2011-03-26T12:29:00.000-04:00

An excellent but also disturbing interview from Rod Dreher with Eric Plutzer about why American High School teachers are so reluctant to teach evolutionary science in their classrooms. Here's one paragraph to get a sense of the article, but read the whole thing. It offers a convincing explanation as to why our HS science curriculum is so mediocre.

Given that only a relative few high school students will continue on to do college-level work in biology, much less become professional biologists, why do you see this as a serious problem?
We see two distinct issues here. The first is that students are being cheated out of a sound science education. All nations are increasingly confronted with important policy choices that are informed by science: Should we mandate vaccines for all school children? Should we take costly steps to reduce carbon emissions? How can we most effectively reduce the incidence of chronic diseases? For ordinary citizens to play a meaningful role in democracies tackling these issues, they need to be excellent critical thinkers concerning science. They should not blindly accept scientific findings, whether they come from academia, government or industry. But neither should they believe that scientific debates are simply clashes of opinion and values. A healthy appreciation of the nature of science, the persuasiveness of replication, and respect for the necessary expertise is also essential. When teachers tell their students that they can have their own opinions about the validity of evolutionary biology, they are sending a dangerous message to our future citizens.

I do wish Big Questions Online (BQO) would post more, but they're rather dormant since last summer. But at least when they do post something new, it's usually quite good.

DREAM PARABLE

2011-03-20T15:40:00.000-04:00

When I was a teenager, I had a dream. The dream has stayed with me ever since. In the dream, I was alternately placed “on the ground” in the southern regions of Israel; specifically the Negev desert, and looking down from above at a symbolic representation of the entire Middle East. The dream progressed towards greater conflict, switching back and forth, from the immediate experience on the ground to the overhead view. In the initial stages of the dream, I was engaged in dialogue with those around me who represented opposing sides in the growing conflict. As to whether these were Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims, I’m not sure. Though it certainly would make the most sense, and at the time it’s what I understood the dream to be about. As I was pressed upon by the opposing sides, I was being asked to choose one over the other. Initially, I listened to their arguments, desiring to make the wisest choice.

As the dream progressed I would find myself looking down upon the region, as if I were situated hundreds of miles above, looking down upon the area as from a satellite. Yet in looking down upon the whole region, I saw it in a symbolic way. The whole area was symbolically represented by a wide swath of a very thin film. It was as if it represented a huge number of people, since it consisted of the vast majority of the Middle Eastern area, wide, but shallow, with only a few, small areas represented by a different symbolism. This other symbolism consisted of small isolated groupings that occupied only small areas, yet which were quite deep (or tall, depending upon the perspective).

In the dream, it was clear that these different images represented varying degrees of spiritual understanding. Thus, for the vast majority of the people in the region, the symbolism was of a spiritually shallow existence, not understanding the things of God. They were, as least symbolically, the most distant from God. Thus, those who were represented by the small, tall areas represented those who were deeper in their understanding of God.

Yet, even with this, I was not comfortable in the dream aligning myself with either side. As the dream progressed, I found myself being pressed from all sides to choose one side or another. On the ground I found the contesting sides becoming more vehement with each passing moment. They were also pressing in on me, becoming more insistent that I choose. As this scene played out, I would find myself looking down upon the scene from high above. Alternately, I would see, whether in my face or from high above, the contesting camps vying for my allegiance.

As the dream became more intense, with each side growing more violent, I was struggling with what choices I should make. As the vantage point shifted, I found myself wavering in my opinion. Initially, I was inclined towards those in the minority, since they represented those who were more spiritually mature and closer to God. These small groupings were spread out over the whole region, even if they only represented a very small percentage of the overall population. Some were in Iraq, more were in Lebanon; still others were in Syria and Egypt. More clusters of these “deeper” ones were situated in various parts of Israel. Yet, small clusters of these people were also spread out over the whole region, stretching out to Iraq and Iran in the east, south to Ethiopia, and west to Egypt and Libya. Yet most of this area was symbolically represented with the vast majority as geographically and numerically wide, yet spiritually shallow.

As the dream moved along, I found myself in the midst of the now warring parties, pulling at me to choose one or the other. My resolve was straining at its limits, trying my best to choose wisely. I began to wonder if it might be better to go with the majority, since they held the numerical advantage. But I knew that they were much farther away from God than the others were. Yet even the minority were not where they should be spiritually. As the dream wound to a close, I was being buffeted on all sides, with the warring parties each pulling at me to side with them. This dream, which had been interesting up to this point, was now becoming a nightmare. As I struggled with what choice to make, and was despairing of what to do, confused and uncertain of what was right or wrong, I cried out to God.

At this point in the dream, I was caught up to the same vantage point as before. But unlike the previous times during the dream, this time I wasn’t alone. I found myself amongst innumerable other people who had also been caught up to this heavenly vantage point. In the dream, what had up to this point become a nightmare, had now become a joyous experience of deliverance. Where I was situated, looking down upon the earth below, was not a disembodied state of floating on clouds, but was still quite physical, yet different than the state I was in below. Whereas before this being “caught up” I had been confused and fearful, I now felt safe and secure. I also now knew that I had been presented with a false choice during the conflict down below. Even during this trial, whether I was on the ground or was seeing it from above in symbolic form, I was not able to see clearly enough to remain steady.

While I was being accosted from all sides seeking my loyalty, I knew intuitively that neither side had an accurate understanding of the truth, even if one was in fact closer than the other. Yet as I became embroiled in the conflict, I began to waver in my own understanding as well. This inner sense told me that I could not in good conscience align myself with either side’s views or actions. Yet I found myself being tempted, both from the external pressures and my own desires; desires that were more concerned with being thought highly of by those around me, and the desire to be on the “winning” side.

In that sense then, I was delivered in at least two different ways; one, from the combatants surrounding me; two, from my own tendency to acquiesce to the impulses that are strongest at the moment. My deliverance then was both external and internal, and because of Who delivered me, my deliverance was also eternal!

This dream has stayed with me for many years now. It is obviously very symbolic, so it shouldn’t be interpreted in a literalistic fashion. Yet in its symbolism, it can be just as easy to leap to fantastic conjectures. Is the dream prophetic of events soon to come? Will the “final” battle in Israel occur in my lifetime? Because I had this dream when I was a teenager (around 1980), I struggled with these questions, especially because I grew up reading and listening to many end times teachers who often said that we were living in the final years of the present age. Is the dream merely the product of undigested food, doing its work while I sleep? Or is it the nocturnal expression of my day time stresses, only set in apocalyptic imagery, both because of my religious tradition, and my tendency, along with many other people, to see myself as being in the center of a great drama?

Any of these are certainly viable possibilities. Although I doubt it is primarily due to undigested food, I nonetheless have to fully acknowledge that it is an expression of my own inner workings. Yet even in saying this, I don’t discount the possibility that it may pertain to events beyond myself. And even if it does (or doesn’t) have to do with any eschatological issues per se, it still serves quite well as a dream parable of sorts of what Christians are to do when confronted by competing claims to allegiance. In this sense, no matter what other meaning(s) the dream may have, it can serve as a symbolic representation of universal principles that can keep us on track. Ultimately, staying on track means relying on God (and His word) through all trials and tribulations, and not giving in to the impulse to go along with the flow or jettison principled means in order to get to some supposedly “good” end. The final lesson I’ve come away with over the years from this dream is that we are always presented in this world with false dichotomies, choices that appear, at least initially, to be the only ones. Yet with discernment, and careful consideration, many, if not most times, we find that the right choice is one we’re not told about by those seeking our loyalty. This aspect of the dream I am certain is true. Don’t settle!

Which God Will It Be? (the Rob Bell, Greg Boyd, Tim Challies edition)

2011-03-11T02:57:00.000-05:00

In recent weeks I've been reading the accounts of various theological debates, primarily between the Emergent crowd and what's often called the Neo-Reformed crowd. It all started when a pre-release video was put out to hawk Rob Bell's new book "God Wins" along with snippets from his soon to be released book. From these meager (though not to some) resources many deigned to presume that Rob had "proved" himself a "universalist" though the term never occurs in either the video blurb or in the parts of his book that have been released. That's not to say he doesn't hold to universalism. He may. But the evidence wasn't in yet. The book was released in "pre-publish" form to several people so that they could review it, both those who would be favorably disposed and those who differ deeply with Rob's views, whatever they may be. And now we're finally beginning to see reviews from those who have actually "read" the book. And for me, this is just as interesting.

Both Greg Boyd and Tim Challies were given pre-releases of Rob's new book and have posted their reviews. For those not in the know, these two guys are as theologically polar opposite as you can pretty much get, at least within the Protestant Christian world. Greg Boyd is extremely Arminian in this theology to the point that he advocates a view that's called "Open Theism" which posits that God may not "know" every detail of the future, all in order to preserve a view of human freedom called "libertarian free will." The idea behind this view is that in order for God to be "good" human agency must be uninterrupted, thus even God's perfect foreknowledge would impede that freedom. Therefore, since that "freedom" is essential to us being morally responsible, and in order to maintain God's goodness, his own knowledge must itself be contingent to our "free will" actions. (within Free-Will Theism or Open Theism there are degrees. Some are ontological Open Theists (God "cannot" know the future), which I consider to be open heresy, whereas others, such as Boyd, I consider to be excessively kenotic (God's self emptying prerogative seen in Christ's incarnation) but nonetheless within the pale of orthodoxy [barely])

Tim Challies, on the other hand is a well known figure among the Neo-Reformed. The vast majority of the critiques of Rob's new book have come from this crowd, The Neo-Reformed are Calvinistic in their soteriology/salvation theology as well as in their anthropology/doctrine of humanity. By the way, as a confession of my own views, I'm quite Reformed and Augustinian about both the human condition and God's sovereignty. But what does it mean to be "Reformed" or "Calvinistic" or even "Augustinian" in our theology, whether about God Himself or about us as humans?

A quick definition of terms might help here. To "be" Reformed is to emphasize certain attributes of God as being preeminent, in particular his sovereignty and holiness, and among many Reformed folks, his wrath. It's also to emphasize the utter devastation to the human condition that occurred at the "fall," the event that forever changed us, not only in our natural state, but also in our relationship with a transcendent and holy God. Since I'm basically a Calvinist myself, I should make clear one thing that's often been misconstrued. To be "totally depraved" is not to be as bad as we can possibly be, but to be thoroughly and completely infected by sin in every part, even if only in the slightest way. I often use the illustration of a glass of water being tainted by a drop of poison. Whether it's one drop or the whole glass, it's deadly either way. This is the conception of the holiness of God in this vision. In both reviews I noticed how their theological perspectives shaped and eventually determined their reading of Rob's words.

Yet.... Yet....

This little kerfuffle which has garnered so much attention amongst Evangelicals and has even reached the New York Times, betrays, at least for me, a certain theological myopia that has ignored a much larger and richer Christian picture. The "four great Christian traditions" of Christianity seen in Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Reformation Christianity, and Anabaptist/Independent Christianity (inclusive of the Pentecostal/Charismatic movements) each have a vision of God's character at their center driving their ethical impulses.

I look back to Paul's description of the divisiveness in the Corinthian church which Paul describes so vividly in chapter 1 of 1st Corinthians. He starts out by commending them, as he typically did to whatever church to which he wrote. But just after that he confronts them on their factionalism. Some of them were following after him. Some were following after Cephas, otherwise known as Peter. Others were siding with Apollos. And some were even saying that they just followed Jesus. Paul criticized "every one of these" factions as being untrue to the gospel message.

It seems that the Corinthians were as prone to seeing God "on our own terms" as we are now. I'll admit that my analysis if this passage may be as much eisegesis as exegetical, but when I see Paul's description, I can't help but notice this four-fold division that fits rather neatly with the divisions of church history.

The initial separation (1054AD) was between East and West; between the Orthodox East with the Catholic West. As I see it, this represents the Petrine and Apolilnian split. This split was a combination of theology and ecclesiology combining with sinful impulses on both sides. Later we saw the split between Petrine and Pauline understandings of Christianity in the Protestant Reformation, also with sinful and holy impulses driving each side. But what's really surprising is that the followers of Jesus were criticized as well. In other words, each of these views was seen as being separatist, not allowing that God might speak through a slightly different voice.
It seems that Paul says that God speaks through through a multitude of voices, yet ultimately with one voice.

So in light of this dim light, can we see forward toward an ecumenical light? Can we be Christan in a ;large sense? Can we be Christians in that large sense and still be Christians?

Subverting Global Myths Review Intro

2011-03-04T22:41:00.002-05:00

I just finished Vinoth Ramachandra's magisterial book "Subverting Global Myths" and I was going to start reading Stephen Prothero's new book "God Is Not One" but decided that it was more important to reread Vinoth's book in order to better appreciate the details and nuance that Vinoth brought out in his book and to let me put together a more detailed review. I still want to read Stephen's new book forthwith, but it'll have to wait till I unpack what Vinoth is saying in his tome.

In chapter one, Vinoth deals with the "myths of terrorism"

In chapter two he deals with the "myths of religious violence"

In chapter three he deals with the "myths of human rights"

In chapter four he deals with the "myths of multiculturalism"

In chapter five he deals with the "myths of science"

In chapter six he deals with the "myths of postcolonialism"

In the days ahead, I'll explore how these various myths have shaped our understanding, whether as modern Westerners (as I am) or as those reacting against the latest onslaught of intellectual hegemony. As Vinoth Ramachandra has pointed out, in light of his own (and my own) Christian understanding, each of these perspectives is shaped by the particular shape, and dare I say, distortion of whatever culture we happen to live in, combined with our own inherent self centeredness, also known within the Christian tradition as "sin."

Thus, each of these situations described represent both individual and corporate/collective brokenness/sin or a deep fracture from the reality that actually exists. As I've already said in other venues, Vinoth challenges both the left/right divide as well as the religious/secular divide. Every ideology and idolatry will be confronted.

Rob Bell or Dieter? You decide.

2011-03-02T00:58:00.000-05:00

And the Psychosis Grows Deeper With Each Passing Day

2011-02-23T02:14:00.000-05:00

Glenn Beck seems to be tottering on the edge of oblivion with this latest rant about the Middle East. It's truly hard to keep up with all of the "players" in his conspiratorial nightmare or wet dream. This may explain why he's now losing a third of his viewership from this time last year. And thankfully some conservatives are finally speaking out against his wild rantings. That's not to say they still don't have their own issues. They certainly do. But gladly bizarre conspiracy theories isn't one of them. Honestly, watching Glenn's latest full on vent has me wondering if he's one step away from a window ledge. I have enjoyed poking fun at his bizarreness but he really does seem to be on the edge of a total mental breakdown. What was fun to watch is becoming instead scary.

Teaching Kids About Science in Church

2011-02-15T01:48:00.000-05:00

There's a good post today at the Internet Monk about how best to teach preteen kids in church about faith/science issues. Unfortunately (or maybe not!) the gentleman in question has only a half hour to introduce the subject to his class this coming week.

Here's the conundrum Ben is in:

Dear Chaplain Mike,
On Friday, I’ve got 30 minutes to talk to a group of 11-13 year-olds about ‘creation and evolution’.
They haven’t studied anything about either at school, and in the context of the church they go to, there isn’t a great deal of pressure for me to push things either way.
I’m a bit stumped about where to even start: creation/evolution, religion/science, Genesis/Gilgamesh?!
I may just be able to ask them questions and improvise from there, but I’d quite like a backup plan…
I’d be interested to know what advice Internet Monk readers might have.
Regards,
Ben S

Here's what I recommended in the thread below:

Ditto on what Paul says above. I would also use a simple illustration of how a word or a phrase can have different meanings depending the context within which it is used as a way of showing that some of the biblical terms in early Genesis don’t necessarily have to be seen as meaning “one” thing. Though this is short notice, I would highly recommend the book by Sigmund Brouwer called “Who Made the Moon?” It’s subtitled “A Father Explores How Faith and Science Agree” and it is fantastic for parents of younger and even preteen kids inquiring about faith/science issues. It’s also accurate without being overly technical, since it is meant to be accessible to both a non-scientist parent and the child.
Also a very important point when teaching and dialoguing with the kids. Listen to them! Respect their questions. And please don’t answer if you don’t know. They have a finely tuned BS detector that, I promise, will go off if you try to answer without knowing what you’re talking about. If they stump ya, admit it and tell them, if it’s at all possible, that you’ll look into their question more and get back to them on it. They’ll respect that honesty more than any false bravado. It might also be a good thing to point out a handful of devout Christians who have also been world renowned scientists, whether in biology, astronomy, chemistry, genetics, etc., so that they know that real people can and do live in both worlds without having to give up either. I pray it goes well for him!

What would you do in this situation? With such a short time to introduce something so big to a crowd as scary as 11-13 year olds who have no background about science, what would you want their "first impression" of science to be as it relates to the Christian faith? Again, check out the Internet Monk thread as more people respond. It should be fun and interesting.

The God of the Gaps is not God

2011-02-14T03:57:00.000-05:00

I may like to shop at The Gap, but I sure don't want to worship a God of the Gaps. And this essay gives a helpful explanation why.

Something Inside My Head

2011-02-13T19:14:00.001-05:00

I just found this amazing link at Mind Hacks about a song called Something Inside My Head and the lyrics are here.

What Parable, Myth, Fable, Best Describes Your Life?

2011-02-12T00:19:00.001-05:00

Is it the parable of the Prodigal Son, the myth of Sisyphus, the Ugly Duckling? What story resonates as being close to your own story? What tale tells your tale?

All Things Bright and Beautiful...

2011-02-08T00:45:00.000-05:00

Hehe. Couldn't resist.

Evolution Made Us All from Ben Hillman on Vimeo.

Do You Believe The Bible To Be 100% Factual/Truth?

2011-02-07T00:48:00.001-05:00

I wrote this just a bit earlier in response to a friend's Facebook question:

Do You Believe The Bible To Be 100% Factual/Truth?

I used to be very strongly in the "inerrantist" camp regarding the absolute accuracy of scripture. That isn't to say I read the text in a wooden literalistic way. Even back then I understood that scripture was made up of many different genres of writing. In fact I even decided against going to a seminary several years ago because they didn't hold to inerrancy, and eventually came out to Gordon Conwell partly just for that reason, since they do officially hold to inerrancy. But ironically enough since I've been out here, I've moved steadily aways from the notion of inerrancy for several reasons.

First off, it's one of those doctrines that dies the death of a thousand qualifications. The reason there are so many qualifications is precisely because without them inerrancy would be obviously wrong.

And secondly, whenever there are textual variants among the manuscripts, which there are many, both OT and NT, it's argued that the doctrine of inerrancy is concerning the "autographs" and not any of the manuscripts we now have. But of course there are no autographs around to test this out by. It's therefore unfalsifiable.

And lastly, my interest in science and biology, cosmology, genetics, etc., has forced me to come to terms with trying to reconcile my faith with the modern scientific consensus concerning origins. Now I've never been a "young earth" type to begin with, and grew up on Carl Sagan's Cosmos, so I've never really struggled with accepting modern science. But for a long time I didn't really take the time to see how these two "books" (scripture and nature) of God's revelation related to each other.

So I don't think it's necessary to read scripture like it's a modern science textbook. That's a modernist and frankly fundamentalist way of looking at the text that does it a great injustice. Even within scripture we see different authors reinterpreting previously inspired texts in surprisingly "spiritual" and "metaphorical" ways. And in the early church some of the treatments were really out there at times, and it was considered OK because scripture was seen to be alive, fluid and flexible, precisely because is was "God-breathed."

Anyway thanks man for posting the question. It helps me to process my own thinking right now on where I'm at and where I'm "evolving" in my Christian understanding.

Being Human

2011-01-05T00:46:00.000-05:00

Why do human beings so often see themselves as being radically separate from the rest of the "natural" world? I've seen this among both religious and secular people. Are the simple tools of primates or birds or raccoons or beavers less "natural" because they used natural materials for secondary goods? If all of that is still is considered "natural", why isn't all of human behavior likewise considered natural? What's at work here? I suspect this may have more to do with psychology than with theology or science.

Drowning Lake, Baptism, Death, Water

2011-01-02T23:51:00.000-05:00

Scene 1: Drowning Lake
I almost drowned in this lake when I was around seven years old. It's just down the street from where I grew up on Staten Island and we always called it the Dismal Swamp, though in this picture it's quite pretty. A group of us were hanging out at the lake and I was standing on the outside of the railing alongside the road at the edge of the lake when I slipped on the rock I was standing on and went completely under the water. I didn't know how to swim (I still don't) and so I had to be pulled out of the water by someone else. I think it was one of my siblings, though I'm not sure. All I know is that it terrified me and left me phobic about water for many years after this traumatic event occurred.

My fear of water made taking baths a constant ordeal and I didn't take a shower till I was a teenager because having water even touch my face seized me with terror even years later. If my face went under water in any circumstance I was panic stricken. It took my cousin Betsy in North Carolina to finally get me to overcome my fear and step into a shower for the first time. I think the only reason she could get me to take such a drastic step (to me at least) was because I had a serious crush on her.

Scene 2: Baptism
When I was twenty one years old in the summer of 1986 I was baptized in the Atlantic Ocean at New Dorp Beach by a Messianic Rabbi/Pastor as jellyfish floated menacingly nearby. My heart was pounding, not only because of the spectacle of being publicly baptized in a rather crowded venue, but because being forcibly submerged under water three times in a row (Father,Son and Holy Spirit, remember?) scared me to death. It's a good thing I didn't know about the jelly fish floating nearby till only after the baptism or I never would have gone through with it. Even now I only half jokingly tell my baptism story as being nearly a baptism of fire if I'd been stung. But my fear of water was overcome by my sense of calling to be identified with Christ's death and resurrection, symbolized by baptism.

Scene 3: Death
It was July 27, 1998 and I had worked at Project Hospitality that day on nearly no sleep because I had spent the previous night till 5am with Gwenn who lived next door to me in our apartment building. We had talked, wept, held each other, ands struggled through a long night of trying to figure out who she wanted to be. I had my own struggle of loving her more than anyone I had ever known, and yet knowing that she was involved with someone else. And yet we loved each other deeply in our own way. In some ways deeper than even her other relationships. We saw into each other's souls.

Well, when I came home from work I found police cars swarmed around our apartment building. As I walked around the side to walk up the three flights of stairs cops were along the whole way, each looking at me with eyes of suspicion. When I got to the top steps, halfway between my apartment and hers, with her door open and cops standing guard, I asked what was going on to no avail till Gwenn's father heard my voice and cried out that she's dead. She's dead. She had drowned in their back yard in-ground pool just a little bit earlier. Her mom had discovered her in the pool. Apparently she had taken her car to their house but had run out of gas on the way (her gas gauge was broken) so she had to walk about a mile to the house in high heat and high humidity. All while wearing her dancing outfit underneath her outer clothes because she was a dancer and had planned on going to dance class that day. When she got to the house, she couldn't get the front door lock to work. We know this because her key was still in the lock after she was found. She then went around back to get in through the back door, but that was locked as well. She must have sat at the edge of the pool to cool off. Apparently the coolness of the water combined with her exertion from the long walk and heat retaining outfit she was wearing was enough to cause her to faint. She fell into the water and drowned.

When I was driven to their house, she was still there. I collapsed once in the front driveway, but made it to the back and saw her lying, stiff, at the side of the pool, covered to protect her dignity. I staggered towards her lifeless body and knelt down beside her and touched her hair. She still had the most beautiful hair in the world. In the days that followed, hazy as they were, I sat Shiva with her family, attended the funeral, which was a traditional orthodox funeral. I was allowed to see her even though I'm a goy, because her family saw me as family. She had clay tablets on her eyes from Israel so that in the resurrection she'll see Israel first. I gave her my Star of David necklace that lies with her to this day because she held it that last night in her hands as I wore it and told me how much she liked it. I knew it had to be with her as a piece of me since when she died a part of me died too. And I wanted to be with her, even in burial.

These three scenes, all involving water, have deeply shaped me. To this day water exercises a primordial power over me. It both terrifies me and enchants me. In my darker moments of depression, when Darkness Itself stares me in the face, water beckons, both as friend and foe. Feared enemy and comforting friend. This September I wrote a poem where water played a vital if only a seemingly supporting role:

Dancing on the Cliff

When depression and addiction
do their deadly dance
the waves beckon below
as the melancholy music plays.

In each others grip
we dance and twirl and spin about
laughing and crying
ourselves to death.

The fog horn blows
and the train whistle sings
as the night descends
and the dance begins.

The wind blows in our hair
and sings a tune blue and true.
A lulling tune that grips us tight
and sees the pebbles fall below.

The ocean below roars
and sings its own song
low and deep forever
lapping at my heels.

And we dance and dance again
to a tune that plays every day.
I know the tune all too well
in its sultry slippery notes.

Cold soil against my feet
warm my soul and keep
me grounded knowing that
the Earth is my friend.

So we dance
and twirl about
in a moonlit sky
as waves and wind blow.

So we dance
and twirl about
in a moonlit sky
as waves and wind blow.

Pebbles and rocks
call out to each other
as our steps intermingle
with ocean spray.

So water still plays its part in my life, even today.It rises up and calls my name over and over again, beckoning me both to death and life. These liquid demons need to be redeemed by a drowning savior.

My Top 10 Blogs

2011-01-01T22:12:00.005-05:00

Internet Monk
The Internet Monk is the brain child of the late Michael Spencer and has been consistently one of my favorite theological blogs out there. Since Michael's passing this past spring from cancer, several other folks have stepped in to carry on the mantle of navigating the Post-Evangelical Wilderness. So far they'r doing an excellent job.

Biologos
Biologos was founded by Dr. Francis Collins in 2007 in order to help Christians become more familiar with and therefore more comfortable with modern science, especially biological evolution. This has become my go to site for issues of faith and science.

Jesus Creed
Scot McKnight, the author of Jesus Creed, has become my favorite theologian. His blog deals primarily with theological issues, but he isn't afraid to address politics, war, science (frequently), movies, you name it. Always thought provoking.

Vinoth Ramachandra
Vinoth Ramachandra is the new kid on the block when it comes to blogging. But he has quickly distinguished himself by his trenchant critiques of imperialism, consumerism, materialism, and all from an evangelical Christian perspective. I suspect it's because he sees these issues from his perspective as a Sri Lankan who recognizes the idolatries of the left and right, the secular materialist and the violent fundamentalist. Well worth reading!

Little Green Footballs
Charles Johnson, the proprietor of Little Green Footballs, is a jazz musician, computer programmer, and all around news and politics junkie (just like me, minus the jazz and computer parts). If you want to learn about news concerning the rise of the far right, science issues, especially evolution and global warming, or fabulous music clips, LGF is the place to hang.

Mind Hacks
Mind Hacks is a wonderfully entertaining and fascinating blog all about cognitive science. It's enlightening, funny, bizarre, and always worth checking out.

South Jerusalem
South Jerusalem is a blog written by Gershom Gorenberg and Haim Watzman that deal with Israeli politics from a progressive though religious perspective. Consistently good analysis of what's going on in Israel.

Through A Glass Darkly
Through A Glass Darkly is a wonderful blog written by a friend of mine, David Opderbeck, that deals primarily with issues of faith and science, especially evolutionary science.

Andrew Sullivan
The Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan is consistently enjoyable reading even if I don't agree with him all of the time. It's also one of the most prolific blogs out there, posting numerous times every day. Always worth checking out.

The Way of Improvement Leads Home
The Way of Improvement Leads Home is also a new blog that I've only recently started following. But it has wowed me with its handling of issues of America's founding and the role of religion, always a very contentious and thorny issue. They are one of the few sites I've seen that's actually "fair and balanced" when it comes to this issue!

Obviously there could be many more, and these are listed in no particular order, so don't assume primacy by the order listed.

What would you list as your favorite blogs?

(edit)
Exploring Our Matrix
Here's one that I intended to include all along, but mixed it up with another blog above. This is the one written by my friend James McGrath, which like David's blog above, also deals extensively with faith and science issues. Always worth the read! (hopefully this is my last edit on this post!)

Don't Drink the Kool Aid.

2010-12-30T19:46:00.000-05:00

Isaac Asimov on the Relativity of Wrong

2010-12-28T01:04:00.000-05:00

Here's the original link.

h/t to James McGrath.

Isaac Asimov - The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 14 No. 1, Fall 1989

The Relativity of Wrong

pg.. 35-44

I RECEIVED a letter the other day. It was handwritten in crabbed penmanship so that it was very difficult to read. Nevertheless, I tried to make it out just in case it might prove to be important. In the first sentence, the writer told me he was majoring in English literature, but felt he needed to teach me science. (I sighed a bit, for I knew very few English Lit majors who are equipped to teach me science, but I am very aware of the vast state of my ignorance and I am prepared to learn as much as I can from anyone, so I read on.)

It seemed that in one of my innumerable essays, I had expressed a certain gladness at living in a century in which we finally got the basis of the universe straight.

I didn't go into detail in the matter, but what I meant was that we now know the basic rules governing the universe, together with the gravitational interrelationships of its gross components, as shown in the theory of relativity worked out between 1905 and 1916. We also know the basic rules governing the subatomic particles and their interrelationships, since these are very neatly described by the quantum theory worked out between 1900 and 1930. What's more, we have found that the galaxies and clusters of galaxies are the basic units of the physical universe, as discovered between 1920 and 1930.

These are all twentieth-century discoveries, you see.

The young specialist in English Lit, having quoted me, went on to lecture me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong. The young man then quoted with approval what Socrates had said on learning that the Delphic oracle had proclaimed him the wisest man in Greece. "If I am the wisest man," said Socrates, "it is because I alone know that I know nothing." the implication was that I was very foolish because I was under the impression I knew a great deal.

My answer to him was, "John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that "right" and "wrong" are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong.

However, I don't think that's so. It seems to me that right and wrong are fuzzy concepts, and I will devote this essay to an explanation of why I think so.

...When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree? Let's take an example.

In the early days of civilization, the general feeling was that the earth was flat. This was not because people were stupid, or because they were intent on believing silly things. They felt it was flat on the basis of sound evidence. It was not just a matter of "That's how it looks," because the earth does not look flat. It looks chaotically bumpy, with hills, valleys, ravines, cliffs, and so on.

Of course there are plains where, over limited areas, the earth's surface does look fairly flat. One of those plains is in the Tigris-Euphrates area, where the first historical civilization (one with writing) developed, that of the Sumerians.

Perhaps it was the appearance of the plain that persuaded the clever Sumerians to accept the generalization that the earth was flat; that if you somehow evened out all the elevations and depressions, you would be left with flatness. Contributing to the notion may have been the fact that stretches of water (ponds and lakes) looked pretty flat on quiet days.

Another way of looking at it is to ask what is the "curvature" of the earth's surface Over a considerable length, how much does the surface deviate (on the average) from perfect flatness. The flat-earth theory would make it seem that the surface doesn't deviate from flatness at all, that its curvature is 0 to the mile.

Nowadays, of course, we are taught that the flat-earth theory is wrong; that it is all wrong, terribly wrong, absolutely. But it isn't. The curvature of the earth is nearly 0 per mile, so that although the flat-earth theory is wrong, it happens to be nearly right. That's why the theory lasted so long.

There were reasons, to be sure, to find the flat-earth theory unsatisfactory and, about 350 B.C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle summarized them. First, certain stars disappeared beyond the Southern Hemisphere as one traveled north, and beyond the Northern Hemisphere as one traveled south. Second, the earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse was always the arc of a circle. Third, here on the earth itself, ships disappeared beyond the horizon hull-first in whatever direction they were traveling.

All three observations could not be reasonably explained if the earth's surface were flat, but could be explained by assuming the earth to be a sphere.

What's more, Aristotle believed that all solid matter tended to move toward a common center, and if solid matter did this, it would end up as a sphere. A given volume of matter is, on the average, closer to a common center if it is a sphere than if it is any other shape whatever.

About a century after Aristotle, the Greek philosopher Eratosthenes noted that the sun cast a shadow of different lengths at different latitudes (all the shadows would be the same length if the earth's surface were flat). From the difference in shadow length, he calculated the size of the earthly sphere and it turned out to be 25,000 miles in circumference.

The curvature of such a sphere is about 0.000126 per mile, a quantity very close to 0 per mile, as you can see, and one not easily measured by the techniques at the disposal of the ancients. The tiny difference between 0 and 0.000126 accounts for the fact that it took so long to pass from the flat earth to the spherical earth.

Mind you, even a tiny difference, such as that between 0 and 0.000126, can be extremely important. That difference mounts up. The earth cannot be mapped over large areas with any accuracy at all if the difference isn't taken into account and if the earth isn't considered a sphere rather than a flat surface. Long ocean voyages can't be undertaken with any reasonable way of locating one's own position in the ocean unless the earth is considered spherical rather than flat.

Furthermore, the flat earth presupposes the possibility of an infinite earth, or of the existence of an "end" to the surface. The spherical earth, however, postulates an earth that is both endless and yet finite, and it is the latter postulate that is consistent with all later findings.

So, although the flat-earth theory is only slightly wrong and is a credit to its inventors, all things considered, it is wrong enough to be discarded in favor of the spherical-earth theory.

And yet is the earth a sphere?

No, it is not a sphere; not in the strict mathematical sense. A sphere has certain mathematical properties&emdash;for instance, all diameters (that is, all straight lines that pass from one point on its surface, through the center, to another point on its surface) have the same length.

That, however, is not true of the earth. Various diameters of the earth differ in length.

What gave people the notion the earth wasn't a true sphere? To begin with, the sun and the moon have outlines that are perfect circles within the limits of measurement in the early days of the telescope. This is consistent with the supposition that the sun and the moon are perfectly spherical in shape.

However, when Jupiter and Saturn were observed by the first telescopic observers, it became quickly apparent that the outlines of those planets were not circles, but distinct eclipses. That meant that Jupiter and Saturn were not true spheres.

Isaac Newton, toward the end of the seventeenth century, showed that a massive body would form a sphere under the pull of gravitational forces (exactly as Aristotle had argued), but only if it were not rotating. If it were rotating, a centrifugal effect would be set up that would lift the body's substance against gravity, and this effect would be greater the closer to the equator you progressed. The effect would also be greater the more rapidly a spherical object rotated, and Jupiter and Saturn rotated very rapidly indeed.

The earth rotated much more slowly than Jupiter or Saturn so the effect should be smaller, but it should still be there. Actual measurements of the curvature of the earth were carried out in the eighteenth century and Newton was proved correct.

The earth has an equatorial bulge, in other words. It is flattened at the poles. It is an "oblate spheroid" rather than a sphere. This means that the various diameters of the earth differ in length. The longest diameters are any of those that stretch from one point on the equator to an opposite point on the equator. This "equatorial diameter" is 12,755 kilometers (7,927 miles). The shortest diameter is from the North Pole to the South Pole and this "polar diameter" is 12,711 kilometers (7,900 miles).

The difference between the longest and shortest diameters is 44 kilometers (27 miles), and that means that the "oblateness" of the earth (its departure from true sphericity) is 44/12755, or 0.0034. This amounts to l/3 of 1 percent.

To put it another way, on a flat surface, curvature is 0 per mile everywhere. On the earth's spherical surface, curvature is 0.000126 per mile everywhere (or 8 inches per mile). On the earth's oblate spheroidal surface, the curvature varies from 7.973 inches to the mile to 8.027 inches to the mile.

The correction in going from spherical to oblate spheroidal is much smaller than going from flat to spherical. Therefore, although the notion of the earth as a sphere is wrong, strictly speaking, it is not as wrong as the notion of the earth as flat.

Even the oblate-spheroidal notion of the earth is wrong, strictly speaking. In 1958, when the satellite Vanguard I was put into orbit about the earth, it was able to measure the local gravitational pull of the earth--and therefore its shape--with unprecedented precision. It turned out that the equatorial bulge south of the equator was slightly bulgier than the bulge north of the equator, and that the South Pole sea level was slightly nearer the center of the earth than the North Pole sea level was.

There seemed no other way of describing this than by saying the earth was pear-shaped, and at once many people decided that the earth was nothing like a sphere but was shaped like a Bartlett pear dangling in space. Actually, the pearlike deviation from oblate-spheroid perfect was a matter of yards rather than miles, and the adjustment of curvature was in the millionths of an inch per mile.

In short, my English Lit friend, living in a mental world of absolute rights and wrongs, may be imagining that because all theories are wrong, the earth may be thought spherical now, but cubical next century, and a hollow icosahedron the next, and a doughnut shape the one after.

What actually happens is that once scientists get hold of a good concept they gradually refine and extend it with greater and greater subtlety as their instruments of measurement improve. Theories are not so much wrong as incomplete.

This can be pointed out in many cases other than just the shape of the earth. Even when a new theory seems to represent a revolution, it usually arises out of small refinements. If something more than a small refinement were needed, then the old theory would never have endured.

Copernicus switched from an earth-centered planetary system to a sun-centered one. In doing so, he switched from something that was obvious to something that was apparently ridiculous. However, it was a matter of finding better ways of calculating the motion of the planets in the sky, and eventually the geocentric theory was just left behind. It was precisely because the old theory gave results that were fairly good by the measurement standards of the time that kept it in being so long.

Again, it is because the geological formations of the earth change so slowly and the living things upon it evolve so slowly that it seemed reasonable at first to suppose that there was no change and that the earth and life always existed as they do today. If that were so, it would make no difference whether the earth and life were billions of years old or thousands. Thousands were easier to grasp.

But when careful observation showed that the earth and life were changing at a rate that was very tiny but not zero, then it became clear that the earth and life had to be very old. Modern geology came into being, and so did the notion of biological evolution.

If the rate of change were more rapid, geology and evolution would have reached their modern state in ancient times. It is only because the difference between the rate of change in a static universe and the rate of change in an evolutionary one is that between zero and very nearly zero that the creationists can continue propagating their folly.

Since the refinements in theory grow smaller and smaller, even quite ancient theories must have been sufficiently right to allow advances to be made; advances that were not wiped out by subsequent refinements.

The Greeks introduced the notion of latitude and longitude, for instance, and made reasonable maps of the Mediterranean basin even without taking sphericity into account, and we still use latitude and longitude today.

The Sumerians were probably the first to establish the principle that planetary movements in the sky exhibit regularity and can be predicted, and they proceeded to work out ways of doing so even though they assumed the earth to be the center of the universe. Their measurements have been enormously refined but the principle remains.

Naturally, the theories we now have might be considered wrong in the simplistic sense of my English Lit correspondent, but in a much truer and subtler sense, they need only be considered incomplete.

New Hawaii Governor Will Work to Disprove "Birther" Controversy, and Some Further Thoughts on the Dangerous Intersection of Conspiratorial Thinking and Extremism

2010-12-24T17:37:00.000-05:00

The newly elected Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, is planning on doing all he can to counteract the continuing "birther" controversy among anti-Obama conspiracy theorists. He knew the Obama's when Barack was only an infant, so he knows from personal experience that he was born there and not in Kenya (or in Indonesia, Mars, Alpha Centauri). The facts, as the article makes clear, have already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the President was in fact born here in the U.S. on August 4, 1961 in Hawaii. But as anyone knows when dealing with a conspiracy theorist, "facts" don't really matter. Birthers, like any other conspiracists, are basically gnostic in how they see the world. They, and the few like them, have the "special" knowledge that explains how the world "really" works.

This is a type of Euclidean model of seeing and understanding history. It worked within a very small framework, but as we've grown in our understanding of the larger world, it became more and more distorted because of several basic flaws in its understanding of how the world really works. Eventually, it leads to wildly distorted theories having to constantly adjust "facts" so that the system can stay intact. Eventually as well, the person or group that holds to these basically flawed premises, either go mad or reject this understanding for something that actually coheres with reality more accurately. In other words, these conspiracy theorists need to have their own Copernican Revolution in their thinking. The world doesn't revolve around us, we revolve around it.

Likewise, this mindset is also driven by a deep seated fear and anxiety (often legitimate in unstable times), combined with a narcissistic and egocentric impulse which desperately needs a scapegoat so as to place blame on the "other" whoever that "other" may be. These people also tend to strongly believe the myth of their own innate innocence. This Myth of Innocence, cannot accept that they are ever guilty of wrong doing, whether as individuals or as a group. Therefore they see the world in sharply dichotomous terms, us/them, black/white, good/evil, etc. This Manichean mindset combined with the aforementioned Gnostic impulse makes for a powerful ideological and intellectual witches brew. It both shuts our any competing truth claims as being part of the vast conspiracy and reinforces the most extreme sentiments within the "in" group.

When conspiratorial thinking is combined with extremist thinking (they often do exist together, though not necessarily. There are numerous "mainstream" conspiracy theorists out there) this potentially deadly dance between these two impulses can lead to violence. Of course we've seen far too many examples already of that deadly dynamic at work, whether among radical Islamists, Christian Nationalists, Jewish Ultra-nationalists, or fringe groups/cults. For those who don't buy into these conspiracy theories, but who have friends or family who do, it's important to both share with them the relevant facts and sources, but also to listen to the concerns of the person who does buy into these theories. As mentioned above, the fear and anxiety driving these notions is often legitimate, caused by actual hardship in their lives and the lives of many around them. This combination of gently but firmly confronting them with facts and real knowledge while listening in a respectful way to their real concerns may be what it takes to walk them back from this dualistic and ultimately self destructive mentality.

But if a person or a group does go over the tipping point, the tactic does need to change. Those who are closest can and should continue to persuade them away from this mindset, but when conspiratorial thinking is combined with extremism it's also appropriate to observe more intentionally those who are thinking and acting this way. Just as a person who descends for neurosis into psychosis needs closer oversight and maybe even intervention, so groups of people likewise need to be monitored more closely and if need be, intercepted before violence breaks out. Now admittedly this very act of monitoring and intercepting will only reinforce the conspiratorial thinking of these people and groups. To some degree that's unavoidable and shouldn't deter public officials or even concerned friends/family from doing so.

Again, if a family member or friend comes to believe they're the Prophet Elijah and begins walking into heavy traffic convinced they're invincible, we don't stand by for fear of reinforcing their psychosis. We call the police or an ambulance so that they won't do themselves or anyone else any harm, even if in doing this we incur the wrath of that family member or friend. So likewise we must be diligent in confronting conspiracy theories not founded in reality, but fear and simplistic thinking. And we must do the same when it comes to extremist thinking, especially when it combines with conspiratorial thinking, since this combination has proven to be so dangerous time and time again.

In the New York Times' article above, it ends on the hopeful note of "letting the facts speak for themselves." I wish I could be so hopeful that letting the "facts speak for themselves" will be enough. Facts are obviously important, but we must take into account that humans are also just as driven by their passions as by their intellect. To the degree we don't take this into consideration our analysis and therefore our engagement will be inadequate at best, and may end up reinforcing the very dynamic we want to minimize.

A Stunning Video of Last Night's Lunar Eclipse

2010-12-21T17:10:00.000-05:00

Winter Solstice Lunar Eclipse from William Castleman on Vimeo.

And the moon shall turn to blood...

A Wonderful Conversation Between Robert George and Cornel West

2010-12-16T20:04:00.000-05:00

Can we speak to each other beyond our ideological divide? Here, in this BlogginheadsTV conversation between Robert George, a conservative Catholic, and Cornel West, a progressive Baptist, both professors at Princeton University, we see a wonderful possibility of civility and mutual respect even though they sharply disagree with the means to the end of human flourishing. One of the commonalities between them is their Christian faith, which includes a serious assessment of human brokenness, thus leading to a level of humility regarding all systems, whether public or private. Listening to their dialogue, a rare thing in our contentious and divisive ideological environment, spoke to me and my own convictions as few other dialogues have.

What is the Evolutionary Benefit of Art?

2010-12-16T16:51:00.000-05:00

Is art only a more highly developed offshoot of our drive to procreate? In other words, is art a nice accident of our cognitive abilities being a desired feature for mating purposes? And on a more basic level, is art or any other human behavior always and only predicated on propagation of the species? Is everything always about sex?

Rethinking Our Philosophy of Education

2010-12-12T22:26:00.003-05:00

An excellent talk given about how modern compulsory public education came into being based upon both enlightenment notions and right at the advent of the industrial revolution, thus resulting in factory education.

An Invitation to Justice

2010-12-10T16:03:00.000-05:00

An Invitation to Justice from The Justice Conference on Vimeo.

I found this at Joel Hunter's personal website and thought it was worth sharing.

Virtual Virtue

2010-12-09T22:51:00.000-05:00

The internet is an interesting place. It’s a treasure trove of information and disinformation, fact checking and wild conspiracy theories, reasoned debate and all out flame wars. The technological advances we see before our eyes with its instant information and equally instant gratification offer both great opportunity and great temptation. My ability to research a topic has immeasurably increased since the advent of the online, but I’ve also been assaulted with the trivial at levels beyond imagination.

The internet is the human condition writ large in all its glory, depravity and absurdity.

If we’re to entertain our better angels in our online encounters, I suggest that we should consider a few moral guidelines to help us on the way:

Would you say what you’ve just typed to your own child, your parents, your closest friend?

Ah, but this person isn’t any of these. They’re my ideological, theological, political, etc., opponent. It’s my responsibility to show them what’s right and how wrong they are. I can’t help it if they’re stupid, insane, or evil. That’s their problem, not mine. I just have to tell them what’s true.

Ah. What’s true. Yes. Such an easy concept to come to complete certainty about. But there’s one little problem. What if your interlocutor feels the same way? Which certainty holds sway?

I am a creature of the internet if any person is. I’m officially an addict of facebook (just ask my friends) after having resisted it for some time. I tweet at will. I blog incessantly. I post on political, scientific and theological blogs daily, often on controversial issues. And as I’ve dived into the deep of the internet I’ve seen behavior that has been shocking, to say the least, and not least of all, my own. We live in the age of opinion, the era of arrogance, the pontification of the personal. And I’ve seen my own worst impulses of self affirmation at other’s expense expressed in all its inglorious permutations.

Above I asked if you would be willing to say to a loved one what you type in an online discussion. Now I want to ask one more question:

Can you (I) be wrong?

I have my beliefs. Anyone who knows me knows that. Whether it’s about religion, politics, science, or even art and literature or music, I have my strong opinions. But I have also changed my views on several subjects, both political and religious, and even on the truly important stuff like music and sports! If we can change our views on an issue that’s important to us, this ought to remind us that what we know is always moderated and quite often distorted by our cultural environment, whether at the personal level of our own families, or at the larger level of our ethnic or national or religious allegiances. As I said in my previous post about the Politics of Brokenness, if we acknowledge our part in the larger brokenness that exists, then there is some hope that we can speak across the divide that confronts us both politically and religiously, but also even within ourselves.

So it’s not if we can do this. We already know it can be done. Others have paved the way before us: Gandhi, Day, King, etc. The question that confronts us is whether we’re willing to do so.
Are we willing to act in a spirit of generosity even in the face of those who are not generous?
Are we willing to admit that what we believe is tenuous, subject to change, and thus allow that our debater might have something good to say?

Ben Witherington on Jesus and Money

2010-12-09T18:30:00.000-05:00

Jesus and Money from CPX on Vimeo.

An excellent interview with theologian Ben Witherington III concerning scripture's view of our relationship to money and economics.

Valley of Dark Shadows

2010-12-05T02:29:00.000-05:00

Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil.

The Psalmist states this quite clearly. He will walk through the valley of the shadow of death. The promise isn't that we'll be kept from that valley, but that in our journey through that valley we will be comforted by the presence of God. And yet, as I walk through my own valley of dark shadows, I do fear evil. Not the external evil of some demonic force "out there" but of the evil within me. I fear my self sabotage, my self destructive impulses that are consistently more clever than my rationality or even my faith. With one hand I dig trenches under my own foundations and with the other I try to shore them back up. Meanwhile the valley descends and keeps getting darker. I know valleys don't go on forever, but when you're in the middle of one, it can sure feel that way. And feeling can be more powerful than any rational understanding. I will believe against my feelings that God's presence and care are with me. It's my only hope.

Evolutionary Christianity

2010-12-04T20:21:00.000-05:00

A series of discussions/interviews will be occurring starting today (in fact, right now) through to Epiphany on the issues related to Christian faith and evolution at the site Evolutionary Christianity. The speakers run the gamut from orthodox evangelicals such as John Polkinghorne and Dennis Lamoureux to theological liberals like John Shelby Spong. Therefore each needs to be considered critically, but I am looking forward to hearing the range of views over the next several weeks. If you're interested in the relationship of faith and science, especially evolutionary science, this should prove to be quite valuable.

Politics of Brokenness

2010-12-01T21:53:00.000-05:00

A broken lens, a vision obscured. Political senses sensing that differences will always exist in the political realm. The founders of the American Republic seem to have understood this reality. They knew that we, in our broken human condition, needed to have a political and governmental structure that restrained our more base instincts of seeking power over others. But they also seem to have understood that any structure will fail if the public it's supposed to govern is itself unwilling or unable to abide by any normative standards. As broken as the American public has always been (like every other culture of course), in its early years they seemed to agree at a basic level on a common moral framework that would guide their actions. That seems no longer to be the case. It's every man, woman and child for themselves. We've entered an age of absolute certainty of our own self righteous certitude and of an equally certain sense that anyone we call "other" is our moral opposite, devoid of any sense of humanity if not humanity itself. This mindset, or rather lack of "mind" set, seems to pervade our partisan divide day and night in our political "miscourse" which sees any opposition as treasonous.

If I'm always right, and you disagree with me on any issue, then you're not only wrong, you're hateful, evil, insane, deluded, or any other term of reprobation that comes to mind. That allows me to ignore anything you might have to say or the rationale behind your reasoning to be entertained as legitimate. On the other hand if we operate from a vantage point of brokenness on our own part, acknowledging that we don't know it all, and that others who disagree may actually offer valuable insights, then a valuable cross fertilizing dialog may actually occur.

This Politics of Brokenness, I believe, is our best way forward in finding both common cause and bridging the divide between divisive differences of ideology and religious differences. Is this a Utopian dream devoid of any real world application? It isn't. We need only look back to previous examples of others who have worked from this same broken vantage point to see that it can work in the real world. Gandhi, King, Wilberforce, Day all serve as exemplars of idealists who also understood that we live in a realist world. Yet they affected transformative changes by their idealistic actions.

We must not forget that idealism can transform realism.

What will the Politics of Brokenness look like for our generation? I can promise you that it will NOT look like the old left/right divide that we've seen for several generations now. Back in the day, Jesus was confronted by his own political divide and dualistic choice; the Sadducees and the Pharisees. He rejected both as inadequate. We should do the same. The Kingdom of God transcends any Manichean politics which falsely divides the motives of us versus them.

The Top Ten Racial Conspiracy Theories

2010-12-01T14:05:00.000-05:00

A great, if deeply disturbing piece from The Root on The Top Ten Racial Conspiracy Theories. Most of the conspiracy theories are false, a few are true, but as with any conspiracy theory, we must maintain our critical thinking.

Eastern Versus Western Understandings of Anthropological Brokenness

2010-11-22T00:05:00.001-05:00

As this blog attests, I'm an Augustinian. Yet I've been challenged in this assertion by an Eastern Orthodox friend and the writings of some EO writers such as Hart, etc. Each has asserted in eloquent and convincing ways for the deep brokenness of humanity, but from very different starting points. What would be some good critical texts available in English that address the division and vision of each side? I know that we (I) are deeply shaped by our cultural confluence, and that affects our perception of every issue, even our basic identity.

I certainly affirm, in my deep uncertainty, my Christian convictions, doubtful as they are. Primarily because I see myself so clearly in the gospel. A Saviour saving those so clearly needing to be saved rings true to me. I seem myself in the Publican and the Sinner. I see myself in the Brother who ran away and in the one who stayed. Every parabolic expression of this spiritual reality tells my story. Scripture is brutally honest. That's what spoke to me even as a child. When I read Job and Ecclesiates I recognized the words.

But how do we understand our brokenness? What was it that "broke" us?

A fascinating interview about the impact of science fiction on how we see the environment

2010-11-16T22:45:00.000-05:00

Herding Cats and Conspiracy Theories

2010-11-14T21:11:00.000-05:00

An excellent essay about how conspiracy theorists get academia and experts so wrong. I just discovered this blog today, called Muertos's Blog, and I must say I'm impressed so far. I look forward to checking it out more. Even with what I've read today, I know I'll be going back for more. Oh, and a hat tip to James McGrath for the link.

Beck versus Soros: Day Two

2010-11-10T22:52:00.000-05:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

What's fascinating and obviously scary about Glenn Beck's fanatical conspiratorial rantings is NOT how many times he lies or distorts. That's a long list in its own right. No. What's fascinating and scary is how reminiscent this all is. On night one of the conspirator's wet dream Glenn gave us numerous antisemitic memes (oh, but Glenn's not an antisemite! He LOVES Israel.) such as Soros' Jewish background, referencing antisemitic attacks against him, classic imagery and terms that serve as convenient dog whistles to those who "know" what's "really" going on.

Beck has been steeped in far right conspiracy thinking for years now. His guiding light, if you will, is none other than Willard Cleon Skousen, a far right Mormon "historian" that even the Mormon church, not to mention mainstream conservatism, rejected as being so beyond the bounds that he laid in well deserved obscurity till Mr Beck decided to resurrect his bizarre notions and propel them to #1 on Amazon. To better understand Beck's conspiratorial milieu, especially with regard to his spouting off on Soros, Klousen is essential. It's a bizarre, if internally consistent, melange of far right anti-communism of the JBS variety combined with some very "peculiar" Mormon beliefs. Mormon beliefs not only about America's founding, but also about end time prognostications.

Anybody who knows me knows I enjoy poking fun at Beck. He is beyond outlandish and has even described himself as being a rodeo clown. But in the last year or two he has morphed into a surpassingly effective demagogue to millions of viewers who listen to his words as though he were a modern day prophet. As an aside, I'm not a fan of George Soros. I'm sure he does good stuff. But it's pretty evident that he's ruthless in his business dealings and has his own mega-maniacal ego that is larger than life. Yet, as powerful as he is, I'm pretty sure he's not the Prince of Darkness. Though I suspect Beck, in his own darker moments, thinks those very thoughts. I suspect that may betray more about Beck than anything he's analyzing.

Glenn Beck versus the "all powerful" George Soros.

2010-11-10T00:50:00.000-05:00

Part one:

Part two:

Part three:

Part four:

Part Five:

Part six:

Part seven:

Rachel Maddow on the Closed Loop Right Wing Media Conspiracy Machine

2010-11-09T18:09:00.002-05:00

The Raven

2010-10-31T12:22:00.000-04:00

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore,
While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,
As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.
`'Tis some visitor,' I muttered, `tapping at my chamber door -
Only this, and nothing more.'

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December,
And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.
Eagerly I wished the morrow; - vainly I had sought to borrow
From my books surcease of sorrow - sorrow for the lost Lenore -
For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Nameless here for evermore.

And the silken sad uncertain rustling of each purple curtain
Thrilled me - filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;
So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating
`'Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door -
Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door; -
This it is, and nothing more,'

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,
`Sir,' said I, `or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;
But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,
And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,
That I scarce was sure I heard you' - here I opened wide the door; -
Darkness there, and nothing more.

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,
Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;
But the silence was unbroken, and the darkness gave no token,
And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, `Lenore!'
This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, `Lenore!'
Merely this and nothing more.

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,
Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.
`Surely,' said I, `surely that is something at my window lattice;
Let me see then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore -
Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore; -
'Tis the wind and nothing more!'

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,
In there stepped a stately raven of the saintly days of yore.
Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;
But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door -
Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door -
Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,
By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,
`Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,' I said, `art sure no craven.
Ghastly grim and ancient raven wandering from the nightly shore -
Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night's Plutonian shore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,
Though its answer little meaning - little relevancy bore;
For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being
Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door -
Bird or beast above the sculptured bust above his chamber door,
With such name as `Nevermore.'

But the raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only,
That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.
Nothing further then he uttered - not a feather then he fluttered -
Till I scarcely more than muttered `Other friends have flown before -
On the morrow he will leave me, as my hopes have flown before.'
Then the bird said, `Nevermore.'

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,
`Doubtless,' said I, `what it utters is its only stock and store,
Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful disaster
Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore -
Till the dirges of his hope that melancholy burden bore
Of "Never-nevermore."'

But the raven still beguiling all my sad soul into smiling,
Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird and bust and door;
Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking
Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore -
What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore
Meant in croaking `Nevermore.'

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing
To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom's core;
This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining
On the cushion's velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o'er,
But whose velvet violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o'er,
She shall press, ah, nevermore!

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer
Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.
`Wretch,' I cried, `thy God hath lent thee - by these angels he has sent thee
Respite - respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore!
Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe, and forget this lost Lenore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil! -
Whether tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,
Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted -
On this home by horror haunted - tell me truly, I implore -
Is there - is there balm in Gilead? - tell me - tell me, I implore!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Prophet!' said I, `thing of evil! - prophet still, if bird or devil!
By that Heaven that bends above us - by that God we both adore -
Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,
It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels named Lenore -
Clasp a rare and radiant maiden, whom the angels named Lenore?'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

`Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!' I shrieked upstarting -
`Get thee back into the tempest and the Night's Plutonian shore!
Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!
Leave my loneliness unbroken! - quit the bust above my door!
Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!'
Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.'

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting
On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;
And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,
And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted - nevermore!

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD ORDER: Samuel Huntington Chapter 1 The New Era in World Politics

2010-10-29T17:16:00.000-04:00

Sam Huntington opens his Clash of Civilizations in chapter 1 on the heels of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain that had separated Communist East with Capitalist West for over a generation. The old Cold War dichotomy was dead, and it looked like the “free world” had won the final battle and we were headed toward an era of peace and prosperity, that if not quite the millennium, was seen by many Western academics as the “end of History” (Francis Fukuyama).

Huntington though, ever the realist, saw things differently. He recognized (I agree with him here) that the era of ideological divide was over; the era of intra-Western debate about forms of government or what economic model to follow, but that this wasn’t going to usher in some secular eschaton. In fact, what this collapse/victory did was open up the field to long suppressed senses of identity that had been smothered but never extinguished by the 20^th century’s ideological divide.

This dormant but not dead sense of identity regained prominence almost immediately in places like Yugoslavia, Chechnya, Rwanda, the Sudan, etc. where civil wars broke out often along tribal and religious affiliations. Now certainly there were these kinds of conflicts of “culture” during the Cold War era as well, and many thousands were killed and displaced because of them. But because these conflicts didn’t involve potentially world ending weapons of mass destruction, and the Cold War antagonists did, these “lesser” conflicts were relegated to back burner status.

Once this “new era” in world affairs occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, there were several ways of viewing the world that Huntington describes next.

Two Worlds: Us and Them. This other dichotomy replaced the Cold War us/them dichotomy along similar lines and has a simple elegance to it that’s very appealing; the modern democratic West versus the rest of the world. And yet its simplicity is also its downfall. The non-West is just not unified in the way the modern West is and so there’s no neat and simple contrast to posit.

184 States, more or less. This reflects the realist perspective that “States” are the main actors in world affairs and history. And while that is still largely true, it ends up being a less than satisfactory explanation for the complexity of world affairs, since we are faced with not just non-state actors, such as al Qaeda, Muslim Brotherhood, and the power of multinational corporations, and more traditional supra-national entities like NATO and the UN, not to mention civilizational identifying.

Shear Chaos. The end of the Cold War leaves a world in a state of geopolitical anarchy. This view, like the states view is close to reality, but also suffers from being too simplistic. It’s accurate in describing a world filled with violence and various states and other entities trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction. But it isn’t just a chaotic world, but one still reined in by competing impulses that restrict the most outlandish behaviors among world actors. Not always of course, but often enough that the world doesn’t descend into some Dante’ like inferno.

Finally in chapter 1, Huntington explains that while each of the paradigms described above have their strengths and weaknesses, his civilizational model better serves not only to describe the current post Cold War reality, but also can serve as a predictive tool in seeing how our near future may go. He follows that up with a list of events just from 1993 to illustrate his point of how the world is reorienting itself along civilizational lines. I was struck at how some of these conflicts described from 1993 were so similar to what we see today, both in Europe and here in the US.

In response to this initial analysis from Huntington concerning the post-Cold War reality, I find myself largely agreeing with him contra Fukuyama and other more idealistic thinkers. I wish I didn’t! I’d love to believe in a world where knowledge trumps passion. Where we see more of what unites us versus what divides us. But like the example he gave from the novel Dead Lagoon, we still live in a world governed to a large degree by sensing our identity by what we’re not as much as by what we are.

In a similar vein, I’ve recently been reading a book by Cass Sunstein called Going to Extremes, which argues along similar lines that extremism is driven by that same us/them dichotomy, a dichotomy which needs an enemy to be better able to define who our friends are and who we are. As Christians, can we surpass this basic human impulse more effectively in the face of international tensions, ethnic tensions, and yes, even religious tensions? As a Christian, I’m forced in a way to be both a hard-nosed realist, but also an eschatological optimist. And as a Reformed leaning Christian, my eschatology doesn’t have to wait for Jesus to come back for things to get better. But we can begin the new creation work now, even if we know it won’t its ultimate fulfillment until the eschaton.

Theological Indeterminacy and the Ultimate

2010-10-24T23:57:00.000-04:00

Is there an end to which we are determined? Is there a teleological purpose to our existence? Can we deduce where we came from and where we are headed based on empirical evidence? Can we get "oughts" from all of the "is's" before our eyes? I don't believe we can. So then, from what basis can we determine the ultimate purpose of existence? I accept Christianity as a true statement of reality, both historical and spiritual. And yet I know that the basis of my belief is not provable in a modern sense.

I'm grateful for the scientific revolution. I'm alive because of it. As someone born with several "defects" at birth I know that antibiotics and modern surgical techniques gave me a chance at life that others before me never had. And yet I also know that the same scientific revolution is driven by a sense that the world makes sense, and that sense was driven by a Christian sense of the coherence of God.

My options are:

anti theism

atheism

agnosticism

theisms of various types (Judaism, Islam, Unitarianism, etc)

pantheism

polytheism

Christianity

Why do I choose Christianity over all of these others? I will admit that several of these other options are appealing. I accept that atheism and agnosticism are both legitimate options intellectually. And as an avowed theist, both because of personal experience and philosophical reasons, I believe that the gamut of human experience has made clear that humanity has experienced realities beyond the normally explicable. And I also considered quite seriously Judaism as a teenager, primarily because of the ethical impulse.

I've not been attracted by anti-theism or by pantheism or polytheism since in each of them I'm struck by their lack of ethical centers. In each of them I find a poly-ethical reality that ultimately leaves everyone doing what's right in their own eyes. Maybe that's a bias that's shaped my perspective. I'm sure it has. But I suspect that this spiritual/religious perspective has allowed me to see various ethical systems as competing beliefs vying for a place at the public table.

Acknowledging the good points of philosophical atheists and agnostics moderates my theism quite a bit. I recognize that my convictions are held in light of equally held convictions by those who differ deeply from me. Yet I believe that the Christian message is a better one in the end.

Why?

I didn't grow up going to church. But I did watch the Billy Graham Crusades on TV whenever they were on. That's how I learned the Gospel. I also watched the various specials about the poor, starving children on TV, whether Christian or otherwise. I would cry and break open my piggy bank when watching them. Thankfully I was steeped in compassion by my parents and siblings, even though they were all very deeply broken. That brokenness itself served as a means of healing for me. I saw through them our common brokenness and the grace that could seep through.

When I later read through the New Testament I saw the same broken grace. It was in reading that that God made sense. The cross as God's way of speaking, self emptying love, tears down walls. That makes sense.

What motivates conspiratorial thinking?

2010-10-14T22:50:00.000-04:00

Atheists say it's the religious.

The right says it's the left.

The left says it's the right.

The religious say it's the atheists.

So what is it that motivates conspiratorial thinking and the (sometimes violent) actions that result? It seems that conspiratorial thinking has been a part of our human culture throughout history. We see it in ancient tomes all the way to modern texts that espouse an essentially equal viewpoint. "They" are behind what's happening. "They" whoever (or whatever) "they" may be, move and shape history to their nefarious ends. One commonality in every conspiracy theory is that the offended group is always innocent and the enemy is always evil. In this I see a common psychological defense against anxiety and fear. Whether it's the John Birch Society or radical Marxists, or nutters of any sort, they each betray a Manichean mindset that simply won't allow for anything in between their starkly black and white world. Complexity of reality is verboten to this mindset and like the Athenians in war with the Spartans, simply won't be allowed.

I understand the impulse. When a scenario ensues that threatens comforts and even basic necessities, it's very easy to give into arguments that posit some external enemy as the cause of all our problems. However, the sad truth is, I know myself a little too well. And if you're honest too, you'll admit it too. We're the enemy. We always have been. So if we admit this, what should we do? One thing is to say that we see things in a limited way.

One aspect of conspiratorial thinking that constantly confronts me is how "certain" it is. That alone tells me that it's a gnostic impulse that should be rejected by both the Christian community and any intellectual skeptics. If even the apostle Paul says we (including himself) see through a glass glass darkly, and post modern philosophers say the same in spades, how can we dare say that we have the "inside key" to how history turns?

So whether you're a skeptic or a Christian, I ask you to put your thinking cap on and consider each moment in history critically, with a mind to our own intellectual and moral limitations.

Being a Chrstian in the midst of a world of Violence and Clashing Civilizations

2010-09-24T23:27:00.000-04:00

Working that out will be more than a semester's work. It's a work that will occupy the rest of my life. But I am grateful that this is a passion that has gripped me.

Whither Christian essentials?

2010-09-23T21:26:00.000-04:00

What should Christians who accept evolutionary biology declare to be "essential" to an orthodox Christian faith? For me there are several essentials that if they were given up would evacuate the Christian faith of any meaning and substance. First off, that there is one eternal Creator God which created all that is, whether physical or spiritual. I would add that this creation was from nothing, otherwise known as ex nihilo. Yet I understand that other Christians differ on whether this belongs to the essential category. I put it there because of the nature of God being eternal and before all things, thus anything other-than-God must be created, and ultimately that means it came from nothing into being. Unless we hold to a kind of pantheism or panentheism which has the created world being part of God. My understanding of the biblical text is traditionally theistic whch sees a sharp divide between the creator and the creation.

Another essential to the faith for me is the centrality of Christ in salvation. Whether you hold to a strictly exclusive understanding of salvation (no one can be saved apart from a conscious faith in Christ as savior) or a more inclusive understanding (Christ is still the only way to the Father, but there are hidden Christians, or a second chance to choose Christ after death) is not my main concern. The biblical witness is clear that reconciliation with God is conditioned upon Christ's work on the cross and especially in his resurrection.

Which is a nice segue to another essential that if rejected leaves Christianity being nothing more than another moralistic philosophy that's essentially indistinguishable from other belief systems. Miracles. In particular the miracle of Jesus' virgin birth, his miracles throughout his ministry, and ultimately his resurrection from the dead. Paul, not to mention the other apostles, makes it clear that their faith was predicated on Christ rising from the dead and therefore defeating death itself. If this didn't happen then Christianity is just another ultimately meaningless philosophy, no better, no worse. Actually it would be worse, because it claims to be more and if that's not true, then it would be guilty of knowingly lying about one of the most essential questions in life: What happens after death?

And since I opened this with a reference to those who, like me, accept evolutionary biology as true, is belief in an historical Adam and Eve necessary to an orthodox faith? I happen to believe that they were historical people. But I don't believe they were the only humans around at that time. Thus I have no problem with the necessity of a thousand or more early humans to provide the genetic diversity that we see in the human genome. I see them as representative figures standing as federal heads over all of humanity, just in the same way that Christ is the federal head over all those who are under him. So I would say that Adam was historically real, first of all because the rest of the biblical writers assumed that to be so, especially Paul, but also because there is no reason to reject his historicity for scientific reasons if he's seen as a federal head as mentioned above. It's when he's seen as the sole progenitor of all humans that we run into serious scientific problems. Ironically that same literalistic reading of early Genesis also sees the same genetic bottleneck with Noah as Adam. because if the flood was worldwide (btw, I don't believe the flood was worldwide) and only Noah's family survived, then we're once again stuck with the same genetic problem as we saw with Adam. So Adam makes the cut in my scheme, though I'm not sure how essential he is to an orthodox faith. But at least in my reading, he's really important in light of what the rest of scripture says.

There are of course many other doctrinal issues, some more important than others, involved in the Christian faith, not to mention the myriad practical aspects to being a true Christian such as charity, mercy, purity of heart, etc. Christianity, while it is a cognitive faith, is so much more than that. And it isn't a true Christianity that is only cognitive without the moral life being lived out.

So is this enough? Are there other essentials that need to be included? Is it too much? What might you drop in my list as an unnecessary burden?

New Beginning

2010-09-23T00:07:00.000-04:00

A post after a long absence bespeaks a new beginning. The question is, what beginning will be renewed? The desire is peace, since that's my namesake. My hope is that my words will speak of a real peace and not of one which will only salve minor wounds when a gaping hole confronts us/me.

Economic and Moral Microcosm

2010-08-14T23:51:00.000-04:00

I am Greece. I am Spain. I am Portugal. I am the U.S. I am Ireland.

I, like each of these countries, have spent years spending like a drunken sailor, living far beyond my means. Peter and Paul aren't speaking with me anymore because I've spent so much time robbing one to pay the other. I've rotated my debt in order to keep on spending, hoping against hope, and any realistic assessment of reality, that somehow it would all work itself out in the end without me having to make drastic changes.

Well, reality does have a nasty habit of eventually catching up with our self imposed fantasies. And with each succeeding step of living in fantasy the cost grows higher and the climb back to level ground is steeper. If we're fortunate enough to have this reality stare us in the face early on, we can adjust our thinking and behavior accordingly and turn things around with a minimal amount of pain.

But if we have a reservoir of support available to us and a system which rewards conspicuous consumption through easy credit than the temptation is very strong to go along for the ride. I bought that lie. I bought the lie that I could buy whatever I wanted based on future earnings which would counteract my current excesses. I, along with my various creditors, believed that the road always rises and never falls. We now both know better.

We live in perilous times of great economic and social uncertainty and upheaval. I can't say what others should do but I know that I have a choice to make in response to my own situation. I have a moral obligation now just as much as I have had at every step of the way in this economic journey to indebtedness. I can either walk away and neglect my responsibility for my part in bringing this about and blame everyone around me for my woes, or I can own up to what I've done and not done and get to the dirty but ultimately noble business of cutting back to bare essentials and work harder to bring myself back up to level ground.

I have spent years being consumed by rampant consumerism and have found myself slowly dying of consumption. I'm therefore faced with very difficult choices brought about by all of my previous choices. But face them I must. The issue isn't whether I will make a choice, it's what choice will I make? Will I continue in this long slumber fed by the ever droning commercial narcotics streaming into my ears and eyes, burrowing deep into my very soul? Or will I awake from this deadly dream to a new day of harsh choices, but which I can at least be content to know that I will have dealt with reality on reality's terms?

A crisis at the right time be a true blessing if it awakens us to what is true and necessary.

Can We (I) Be Offensive for the Right Reasons and Not the Wrong Ones?

2010-08-10T21:43:00.000-04:00

I was reminded today at lunch in a conversation with a good friend that if I am a Christian, I must first and foremost be concerned with living out my Christian witness, both in word and deed. To focus on either to the exclusion of either is to short-circuit the gospel's power. Christ has called us to be His hands and feet, but He's also called us to be His mouth to a lost and dying world.

We must be concerned for people's physical well-being of course. But without the gospel understanding we're just helping them to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic. But likewise, if we proclaim the gospel, yet have no concern for people's physical well-being, we betray a cold and shallow understanding of the fullness of Christ's redemption.

Proclaiming the uniqueness of Christ will never be popular to this world, and we shouldn't try to make it so. We must be willing to take the heat for that bold and dangerous claim the He is the only way to the Father. So in this sense we must be willing to be offensive in the way the gospel message is offensive to those not wanting to hear their true condition.

But at the same time we must also beware not to be offensive for all the wrong reasons. Our attitude must reflect the humble servant attitude of Christ and the Apostles. In fact He specifically warned His followers not to act like the surrounding culture that lauds authority over others. Sadly the reality is that many Christian "leaders" have exhibited just that haughty attitude that Christ forbade.

I know, because I've done it.

Last night I started rereading the Gospel of Luke and was immediately struck by how he emphasizes how God works through the marginalized over and over again. That's the way of God's Kingdom. It turns the notion of kingdom on its head and has its nobles serving the peasants and laying their lives down for the sake of the peasants, instead of the other way around, which is what our wars are always about. The poor go to the front lines in order to protect the privileges of the wealthy. But in God's war, He goes to the front lines and sacrifices His life so that we, the poor and enslaved, may be liberated and raised up.

Can we emulate this?

Will we emulate this?

Grand Strategy with Charles Hill

2010-08-02T17:10:00.002-04:00

This is an absolutely fascinating interview with Charles Hill about his new book, Grand Strategy, where he lays out a huge narrative arc of political thinking, going all the way back to the ancient Greeks and how they conceptualized the world. He touches on Homer, Aeschylus, Thucydides, the Aeneid, the Treaty of Westphalia, and on and on. A wonderful tour de force of Western intellectual history.

This is just the first ten minutes of the interview. If you want to watch the whole interview, just click on the lower right part of the video and that will take you to the main page where you can watch it in its entirety.

Lily Pond Flowers

2010-08-01T01:08:00.000-04:00

A nice meditative moment of contemplating Lily Pond Flowers.

A Facebook Exchange About Why I Call Myself An Augustinian Democrat

2010-07-28T23:45:00.000-04:00

A while back a Thai friend of mine asked me why I call myself an Augustinian Democrat. This is my response to her:

I'm so sorry for taking so long to get back to you about your question. I don't mind answering at all. It's an unusual combination of terms to be sure. Typically if someone is Augustinian then they're more likely to be conservative in their theology and also their politics. I use the term Augustinian to describe my view of our fallen nature as humans and also to describe God's sovereign hand in all of our affairs. Therefore every human institution is broken by sin and in need of reform and restoration, whether private or public.

I use the term Democrat afterward to describe my belief in equality between all people, regardless of race, creed, sex, or culture. I'm pretty strongly egalitarian in my views. So in combining those two terms, Augustinian and Democrat, I'm affirming that every human institution is in need of reforming and oversight. Thus at times I'll end up sounding quite liberal on some (well, many really) issues, and will also be very conservative on others. As I say on a political blog I belong to, I hope I can transcend the left/right divide. And it's my Christian convictions that lead to this point.

I'm so glad you asked, because it helped me to better explain why I use that combination of terms to describe my political beliefs.

Did Neanderthals Possess the imago dei?

2010-07-28T16:58:00.000-04:00

I just read a fascinating piece about the relationship between early humans and Neanderthals at the Big Ideas blog. Realizing that early humans and Neanderthals "coexisted" and even interbred, made me wonder if we should consider them to also have the imago dei? This of course strays into a couple of different and tenuous areas of inquiry. One has to do with the fact that any interaction between the two groups would necessarily have to have occurred more than 20,000 years ago, when Neanderthals went extinct. That immediately pushes back at any literal reading of the creation narrative, which among young earth creationists, typically sees the earth as being less than 10,000 years old. It also raises the very basic but also notoriously difficult question of what does it even mean to possess the imago dei or the image of God? So if our ancient DNA was complementary enough so that we could interbreed with our Neanderthal cousins, a DNA difference that would need to be less than 3% for successful breeding to occur, can we legitimately say that we homo sapiens have the imago dei, but the Neanderthals didn't?

If Jesus looks just like your liberal beliefs, then it's not Jesus you're seeing.

2010-07-23T16:10:00.003-04:00

And likewise, if Jesus looks just like your conservative beliefs, then it's also not Jesus you're seeing.

What connection between Glenn Beck and right wing violence?

2010-07-21T18:30:00.000-04:00

The Tides Foundation, which prosecutors in California say was among the targets of the anti-government unemployed carpenter Byron Williams before he got into a chaotic shootout with several law enforcement officers Sunday, is also a favorite topic of Fox News host Glenn Beck.
Beginning in 2009 (and as recently as last week), Beck has repeatedly included the group -- along with ACORN, the SEIU and George Soros -- in his cabal of liberals and liberal organizations that are supposedly agents of President Obama's plan to spread Marxist and socialist ideas throughout the United States.
Of course, that doesn't mean that Beck necessarily inspired or influenced Williams' alleged plan to attack the Tides Foundation. But the group has been something of a whipping boy for Beck over the last year.

Joel Hunter: Why the Origins Debate Matters for the Church

2010-07-21T14:36:00.000-04:00

Big Bang, Big Boom

2010-07-09T21:48:00.000-04:00

BIG BANG BIG BOOM - the new wall-painted animation by BLU from blu on Vimeo.

A great stop action short giving an artist portrayal of how life started and may end. Brilliant and troubling.
ht/ Derek Webb, Charles Johnson

Glenn Beck: Prophet of God?

2010-06-24T19:12:00.000-04:00

Is God speaking directly to Glenn Beck? In this exclusive two part series, Stephen Colbert talks with Beck's secret Vatican insider, Father Guido Sarducci.

Part 1 introduces us to the topic after showing that the Vatican now loves the Blues Brothers:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Yahweh or No Way - The Blues Brothers & Glenn Beck

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Fox News

In part 2, Colbert blows the lid off of who Beck's secret Vatican contact is:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Prophet Glenn Beck - Father Guido Sarducci

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Fox News

Chris Matthews' Documentary on the Rise of the New Right.

2010-06-20T02:09:00.001-04:00

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

This is Chris Matthews' report about the rise of the modern Right and its roots. Most of what he reports is publicly known to anyone interested. As I've said in other venues, this should not surprise anyone.

This series should only make clear what has been clear to anyone that sees the evidence clearly.

What if Everyone Were Christian? Would it Make a Difference?

2010-06-10T00:46:00.000-04:00

An interesting thought occurred to me yesterday while I was in the shower (that happens a lot by the way), what would the world look like if everyone somehow were Christian? Obviously hypotheticals are always an iffy proposition, and this one is no different. But leaving aside the obviously severe improbability if not total impossibility of that prospect, assuming it were true, what would the world look like? Would it look better? Would people get along better? Would we have less conflict internationally? Or more? Or would it remain pretty much the same as it is now? Would economic inequality improve? Would we take better care of the natural world?

Another part of this hypothetical equation concerns the term "Christian" itself. How is it defined? I'm an evangelical Protestant, should that be the definition? What about Roman Catholics? What about the Orthodox? What about the mainline Protestant denominations? And then there are the various non-denominational Christian groups that have existed for centuries not attached to any liturgical tradition or ecclesial succession such as the aforementioned?

For the sake of argument, let's assume that if everyone were Christian they would exist within the current state of affairs within the larger Christian world, with all its diversity and divisiveness. And especially with that in mind, again, how would the world be different if that were the case? Would it be any different than it is currently? And if the answer comes even close to that conclusion, what does that say about the state of Christianity in the world?

I find this both a fascinating thought experiment and deeply troubling.

Civil War Monument

2010-05-31T22:06:00.002-04:00

A Civil War monument in my neighborhood. I've walked by it many times, but never bothered to actually read it till today. The statement at the bottom of the monument really struck me: One Country, One Flag. A thought we should consider in the current environment of such ideological divisiveness.

Laying it Down

2010-05-28T23:49:00.000-04:00

A sword was handed to me
and I took it up
and laid my life down
with many before me as well
with a story to tell
just like mine.

My friend my brother
my sister to my side
to serve and protect
leading and being led
into the valley of darkness
side by side we bled.

I left home, life, lover
to fight for and defend
those I love
sometimes it made sense
sometimes I
just did what I could
to live to see
another day
and help those
by my side
to do the same.

My uniform has colors
not sewn into the fabric
of who we are
colors seen by eyes
colored by blood
sweat grit and grime
that only those
by my side
can recognize.

Hold my hand
don't ever let me go
close my eyes
so that I won't see
what I've helped you
never to see.

If nothing else
if nothing more
remember me
your brother sister
son daughter friend lover
and even if you don't understand
please know I
did this for you.

Grateful

2010-05-20T01:20:00.002-04:00

Faithful friends are better than rain to a dry and parched land.

Jennifer Knapp's new album Letting Go

2010-05-12T01:49:00.001-04:00

Gravite

2010-05-04T21:41:00.000-04:00

Gravité from Renaud Hallée on Vimeo.

My Primordial Post! (at Evolving Christian blog)

2010-04-30T19:46:00.001-04:00

Rod Dreher has a good piece today about a new book that just came out called Science vs Religion. I haven't gotten this one yet myself, but I hope to and it sounds quite promising. These are exciting times to be a scientifically literate Christian. More resources are coming out every day and the evangelical church really needs to take notice if it hopes to have any future as a viable voice to the next generation.

Friday Night Cool: HD launch of Apollo 11. ht/ to Charles Johnson of LGF

2010-04-16T22:18:00.001-04:00

Apollo 11 Saturn V Launch (HD) Camera E-8 from Mark Gray on Vimeo.

So a nice Jewish dentist goes to a folk music show...

2010-04-10T21:57:00.000-04:00

Last night I attended a folk concert in Marblehead featuring a couple of folk singers I've enjoyed for over twenty years now. The coffee house, actually a Unitarian Universalist church, was packed and was overflowing. But thankfully I was allowed to sit up front because I was taking pictures and was videoing the show. So I got myself over there just behind the massive piano and got my various accoutrements together before the show began. As I set up I started talking to an older couple sitting right behind me in the second row of pews. We chatted for a few minutes before the show started and they seemed quite nice.

Then the show began. The artists before us sang their hits and a few lesser known tunes that meant something to them. All in all a wonderful first set. Then they took a 15 minute break between sets so they and us could all stretch our legs and maybe buy some CD's or whatnot. I had already bought what I wanted before the show had even begun, smart cookie that I am, so I had the luxury of being able to just hang out and hobnob. It was during this time that I got to talk more at length with the husband of the couple. I was so glad I did. He was a joy to talk to and had many a story to tell. Not just about the folk music scene of Boston, though he did have a treasure trove of that as well. But stories of his own life and of his meeting his wife and courting her in the fifties and getting married in 1960 and all of the pictures and video he had taken during that time. Still all stemmed from his seeing my own video equipment. He mentioned artists I knew all too well as well as several I had never heard of, though I'm sure they were all just as good. We even talked politics after he realized I was safe to share his opinion with! It was funny, because he almost said this in a hush. His wife, standing not too far off, didn't like him talking politics, since he got so worked up over it.

The second set began and it was as good if not better than the first one. They all sang old favorites that the crowd, including me, sang along with them. I dutifully continued to record the show for posterity's sake. Who's posterity I have no idea. I just know I love this kind of music and apparently others do too. So the set came to the end that it must with one encore for old time's sake. My equipment did its job, just barely. One battery gave out just before the end of the show. Then the other used up its memory as the last song ended. All in all, not a bad evening.

In the course of the conversation with my second row interlocutor, I found out that he is a retired dentist who is Jewish. We talked about my attempt to learn Hebrew this upcoming summer and the Hebrew his grandchildren had to learn for their Bar Mitzvahs. I shared that I'm a seminary student at Gordon Conwell Seminary who is theologically traditional in my beliefs, but who nonetheless is quite liberal in my social views. As I said earlier, all in all, a very nice evening. I hope I meet him again. He was a real blessing to me.

Michael Spencer 1956-2010

2010-04-06T00:29:00.000-04:00

Michael Spencer, also known as the Internet Monk, has passed away today; his body finally succumbing to cancer. His work as a writer in the last several years blessed thousands of fellow Christians with his raw honesty and truly prophetic voice which challenged a church he loved enough to confront. Please keep his wife Denise, his daughter Noel, his son Clay, and his son in law Ryan in your prayers. Michael's suffering has ended and he now stands before Christ our Lord, and the day will come when he stands again in the flesh. But it will be a renewed flesh that will never again see decay.

Let us remember back to when Christ arose from the dead, thus conquering death forever. When we look back to that day, we are reminded that in Him, we will also, though we die, also rise again. I am saddened at losing such a dear friend as Michael even though we never met in person. But my sadness is tempered by the knowledge of Christ's victory over death. Thus I know that death is but a temporary parting for those whose lives are hidden in Christ.

Yesterday we called out to each other christos aneste, alithos aneste! The day will come when we will call out to Michael with new eyes and with new mouths and with new ears Michael aneste, alithos aneste! And it will be a day of great rejoicing and of ultimate and total fulfillment of God's design and desire for this broken world. I long for that day when our lives will be revealed at the revelation of Christ.

Michael, rest in peace.