Some nice sunset pictures from this evening.

George Bush and the End Times, Next on Fox!

This is scary stuff! I first discovered this on Rod Dreher's Crunchy Con blog. Apparently, all of the paranoid fantasies among those on the left about George Bush's religious beliefs might have some basis in reality. Now, since this story comes from alternet, which is a well known liberal website, it might be easy to dismiss it as typical partisan ranting. But the combination of the accounts from Chirac and academic essay seems to give it some more credibility. But of course, since this account comes from "French" sources, we can automatically discount it. After all, who needs to think, we can always just hate the French! In any case, all I can say is that I am so glad he is not president anymore!

Over the Rhine: Who'm I Kiddin' But Me (adventures in embedding videos)

Over the Rhine playing Who'm I Kiddin' But Me? at Calvin College seemed like a good choice for testing out embed issues.

Why the god of the gaps must die

Each time a new scientific discovery is made that had previously been considered the domain of mystery or even miracle, the god of the gaps gets smaller and smaller. Since this particular god is nothing like the God of the Judeo-Christian scriptures, I couldn't be happier to witness its very timely demise.

This god needs to die.

Ironically, at least for those who seem to be most concerned to defend the biblical witness against any encroachment on its authority, the most anti-scientific believers have posited a god that is only the god of the supernatural, the miraculous, and the spiritual, but gets short shrift when anything is found to be just natural. This attitude belies an inherently gnostic impulse that relegates the physical to an inferior status to the spiritual. We see this in popular Christianity, with its various programs that promise miraculous results if you just follow this ten point/seven spiritual laws, etc. secret formula. In other words, if you're truly spiritual, then you'll do this and not do that.

In this plastic Jesus version of spirituality, we have a cosmic bellhop who must answer to our whims because we figured out His formula. This false god, one we've made in our own faulty image; while doing our bidding, quickly shrinks down to our size, unable to ever deal with anything biggier than us. Thus to argue from a god of the gaps perspective is to always fight from a defensive posture. Therefore, to equate Christianity with this particular dogma is to make Christianity a defensive posture always on its heels, always fighting to hold onto less and less of the pie.

However, if the God of Christianity is the one actually described in scripture, then we see there a God who is not just the God of the spiritual, the miraculous and the supernatural; but the God of the entire universe. This God is present in the minute details of genetics as well as the vast distances between galaxies. This God is slowly but surely discovered through the scientific enterprise as we grow in our knowledge of physical processes, whether through discovering the grandeur of evolutionary biology, or the vast reaches stretching over billions of light years across space and time. This vision offers us, at least to my mind, a much more majestic God, a Lord over all creation, Who is seen and unseen, known and unknown, completely sovereign and completely immanent, distinct, yet found whenever we open our eyes and ears and all of our senses.

I need a big God. Scripture gives us that God. The god of the gaps gives us instead an anemic little godling that can't even keep its small piece of the pie from being eaten up by simple human reason. And as I said above, that god needs to die. Or better yet, we need to know that this "god" never really lived to begin with. The sooner we know this, the better off we are.

Christianity and Evolution

Over the years, as a Christian, I've struggled with what it means to be a faithful Christian while also believing that the scientific endeavors as expressed by the disciplines of biology and cosmology are largely accurate in their assessment of the physical reality. Cosmology looks at the "macro" picture and sees an exceedingly ancient (13.7byo) universe, vast and beautiful, born of a big bang that has given rise to everything we now see. Biology, to a large (!) extent, has looked at the "micro" picture, and given us amazing insights to the origin of species through genetics and the somewhat larger (4.3byo) discipline of geology. The more I read, the more I am convinced of the Truth of evolutionary biology and cosmology. Yeah, I used a capital T when I spelled truth. I believe it's that true. Are there areas left that haven't been understood, even investigated? Absolutely! Is it possible that further discoveries may change how we understand our origins as a species? Of course. Is it in any way likely that these forthcoming discoveries will show us to be ontologically distinct (genetically speaking) from all of the creatures that have existed on earth from the beginning of single celled life? Not in the least. Does that have any impact on my faith as a Christian? Not in the least.

Are there tensions in my having accepted this position? Of course there are. The big issue of the historicity of Adam and Eve come up. The issue of when natural death came about also poses problems. But to acknowledge that the view of Theistic Evolution (the "official term" that I espouse) has tensions with the biblical text is not to close the door on its strength as an option. Each view, whether, theistic evolution, or Intelligent Design, or Young Earth Creationism, or Materialist (atheistic) Evolutionism, have their own tensions. Every opponent can point to the weak points in a view and say that this therefore "proves" that their view is false.

This tendency in the current environment gives too much voice to the culture warrior impulse that seems to be the zeitgeist de jour, whether theistic or atheistic. None of us actually engages the strengths of our antagonists arguments. We each look to their weakest point and take advantage of that in order to score easy points; hoping against hope that no one is noticing that we're acting like a magician using sleight of hand in order to distract attention away from the very issues that cause us most concern.

As usual, I'm concerned that we should give each other the benefit of the doubt. We should each allow that we might not have the corner on the truth. We should listen. I mean really listen, to each other. Even if we disagree. Especially if we disagree.

Who knows, we might actually learn something!

How the left can save capitalism

Regulation. It's actually much simpler than we think. We were a country that thrived after the second world war in part due to the regulation that reined in the worst impulses that would exert themselves if left unchecked. Regulated capitalism is a tremendous engine for growth. Remember the fifties? No, of course not! You're too young. Well, you see, Dwight David Eisenhower was president back then. He was the great WWII hero we elected as president to usher in the American century. He was a Republican (nowadays a RINO). But he also believed in the basic premises of the New Deal, which said that Americans should not have to be subject to the vagaries of the economic cycles unprotected by a social contract overseen by a responsive government. Anyone espousing anything similar to what he took for granted (such as a much more graduated income tax up to 90%) would be called a socialist nowadays. And yet a certain segment of our population looks back to that era as the "good old days" to be restored. Even Richard Nixon would be called a borderline communist now for advocating a nation minimum income; a policy he publicly affirmed in the early seventies. As a conservative Republican! Oh, how times have changed.

If we look to the changes in credit card regulations in the late seventies under Jimmy Carter (sorry to say), we see the beginning of the end of our economic vitality. I use the term "vitality" carefully because we see it as a term that effuses growth and life in itself, and yet vitality is anything but what we've seen in the time since the birth of the modern credit card. We certainly saw an explosion of spending, and the growth that came from that. But to call that vitality is to confuse categories. What we saw were several 'bubbles" popping up over the course of three decades that gave us the appearance of economic growth predicated on money being made on money through an e-economy that would somehow bring magical profits (the 1990's) to an un-real estate economy that presupposed an always increasing property value (the 2008/2009 debacle) to a belief that collateralized debt obligations were a good idea up to the last few months.

In each of these areas, their very existence owes to the power of financial institutions being able to "contribute" to congressional members, and thus able to contribute to the writing of the laws related to financial affairs. And surprise of surprise, investment bankers and their congressional allies brought about sweeping changes from those that had been established during the Great Depression. And what were those regulations that had been established during the Great Depression? The regulations that Roosevelt enacted were established in direct response to the excesses that had brought the depression about. Insider dealing, officials being former bankers, and bankers being former officials. Sound familiar? It should. Lord Acton was right when he said that power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's true of government. But it's also true of the private interests which seek their own power.

Again, being an augustinian democrat helps me to see that every human institution is effected by our common corruption. Nothing is exempt.

On the subjectiivity of knowledge

"That which is received is received in the manner in which it is received by the receiver." St. Thomas Aquinas.

Courtesy of a Sally Rogers comment via a Rod Dreher (aka, Crunchy Con) blog entry "Culture and the knowability of truth."

Biologos

Francis Collins, the author of "the Language of God" has come out with a new venture, a website called Biologos which provides answers to those interested in the intersection of faith and science. I was pleased to see right at the top of his recommended reading list "Creation or Evolution: Do We Have to Choose?" by Denis Alexander. This is, I believe, the best book out there on the topic. Alexander delves into the science deeply enough that it helps to have some scientific know-how, but you don't have to have a PhD to understand it. Other books recently have been written by Christian defenders of evolutionary biology, but many of them, while strong on the science, have been weak on the theology. This is where Alexander stands out. His theology is exceptional. He deals with the thorniest issues in a straight forward way that affirms a very high view of scripture while still being scientifically sound. It's good to see more Christians coming out and declaring that Christianity can indeed be a "reasonable" faith.

More voices on torture

It seems that the torture memos have garnered quite a reaction from across the political spectrum. Some have decried their release, saying that this has made our country less safe. Yeah, nobody knew we were torturing until these memos came out. Right. Others have seen this decision as a cleansing act. Others, even if they're opposed to torture, not so much. I don't know if a "truth commission" is in order, but I do believe that if we're a nation of law then we need to let the law speak. It seems pretty clear that what we as a country engaged in over the last several years constitutes a legally defined war crime. Although it is interesting that even our adherence to that treaty was under attack during the Bush years. Gee, why would they want to change that law? But I digress. The whole reason I'm writing this is because of the several voices raised against torture from religious and conservative voices. Rod Dreher has done a yeoman's job of showing that (my personal favorite) there are conservatives and Christians (the best by far) out there who oppose torture. The truly sad thing is that he even felt the need to do so. I could easily link to hundreds of more left leaning essays concerning the same topic, but of course, they're biased. They hated Bush. They hate traditional values. Therefore they can't be listened to on any topic. But what if our enemies on the left are right sometimes? What if the right is sometimes wrong? Maybe that's where being a Christian comes in handy.

Christianity and torture.

In the past week we've seen Shepard Smith express his own feelings on the issue of "torture", a term that apparently doesn't have any meaning anymore. "Waterboarding" is something that doesn't count anymore as "torture" since we now do it. Even though we prosecuted those who did it (exactly what we recently did) after WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and certain southern American cities in 1983, to say that "waterboarding" is "torture" is to be, somehow, unamerican.

I ask one question: Is it Christian?

Can we as Christians affirm a policy, a behavior, that directly contradicts what our Lord and Savior has called us to? Maybe it's OK for the pagans around us to do it. Maybe we can "outsource" this policy to them so we don't feel so guilty. Maybe we can elect a leadership that will do for us what we're not quite willing to do ourselves. After all, if "they" do it, then we're not "really" guilty.

Yeah....right.

I know the answer to this question. You know the answer to this question. That's not the question. The question is this: Can we be faithful to Christ while giving support to what our Bible says is murder? Can we be good citizens while giving support to what our Constitution strictly forbids? Can we go along with "effective" policies that make us our enemy?

The ends justifying the means leaves us real mean.

Christ Jesus calls us to something better. Pragmatism leaves us all acting as monsters, the resurrection allows us to serve and suffer.
Please let us live in the light of the resurrection. It's in this light that we can let go of our own petty and provincial powers; powers that convince us that violence is the only answer.

God help us to see a better day.

Easter Sunday

Well, I finally finished the Daniel Tammet book "Embracing the Wide Sky." The author is autistic, more specifically he has Aspergers syndrome, which I am pretty familiar with. His writing is lucid and clear, which isn't surprising of course, since he values logic and clear thinking so much. I could see some of his autism coming through the pages as I read through the book. It's those parts of the book I enjoyed the most. I felt I could "see" him in those parts more than in the other parts. When I worked with the developmentally disabled years ago, I always preferred working with those with autism spectrum disorders (I don't like "disorder", I prefer differently ordered), since I think I thought a little like them myself. I could see a little of what they saw and thus interact with them more appropriately. I hope they liked it too. I know they helped me see better.
After I finished his book I watched Cadillac Records with Beyonce Knowles. I wanted to watch it primarily because of her being in it, but it turns out she doesn't even show up in the movie until halfway through. That's not to say that the movie is any worse for that. All of the characters are strong from beginning to end, not least of all hers, where she plays the legenary Etta James. If you can get past the cussin', which infuses the movie like heaping spoonfuls of sugar in an AA's bitter coffee, and the sexual stuff, which is fairly limited, then you'll find a story bound up in many stories that is the blues. I loved it. It was about the music. It was about race. It was about hope and despair. It's raw. That's why it's good.
So now I'm listening to the Grateful Dead while writing this because of an article in today's New York Times about them reuniting for a tour as the Dead (sans the Grateful). They included links to popular Dead sites that feature their best music, and as a former(?) Deadhead, I couldn't resist checking them out. Needless to say I ended up downloading five shows from May of 77', which is considered by most to be their peak of concert performances.
Ironic that I'm listening to the Dead on the day that commemorates the resurrection of Christ. I guess that's the not yet intruding on the already. Thank God for the already.

Christos aneste

Am I held by that which I hold?
Do I live by a life given?
Can I trust in words
spoken in ages past.
I live in tomorrow.
I live in the hope
of what will be.
Predicated on words already spoken,
in ages past.

Can I trust that
ancient
words
just might be true?

Can I trust
that God
has actually spoken
to them
and to
me.

According to accounts
involving Paul
formally known as
Saul.,
can we say these accounts are
true?

It seems we can.
My faith is not in vain.
I have a hope
beyond my corpse.

Wisdom and Foolishness

Knowledge without wisdom is just as foolish as ignorance without wisdom. Either way, in the end you play the fool.

God

Lately, I feel like I'm reading about God at best. Thankfully I see His work at work at my work on nearly a daily basis. But in my own time I find that He is an academic exercise, a topic among many to be perused . I want Him, God, to be at the center of who I am. He isn't. At least that's how I feel. Right now I'm reading "A Scandalous Freedom" by Steve Brown. When I'm reminded of what God has done through Christ, fully, then I get a glimpse of what God has won for me, and His glory. I need those glimpses. I don't know why I never seem to really believe in His provision. And yet He provides.

A "healthy" populism?

Recently, there have been numerous articles written arguing for what has been called a "healthy" populism. Several essays have been written by Rod Dreher, AKA crunchy con, where he says we need a new, healthy, populism. Also, the new Newsweek, has as their cover story, the various voices of the new populism. Since, in this current climate of economic and cultural uncertainty, we seem to be seeing a resurgence of populism. What exactly "is" populism?

At least in the American context, populism has expressed itself traditionally in left/right manifestations which, although obviously different in their political expressions, is nonetheless a fundamentally reactionary expression that seeks to find its heart and soul in finding an enemy with which it can say, "they" are the enemy. It must never be me. Populism is always and only the voice of the people in reaction to the current circumstances, but in such a way that never allows that the guilt may lie within. It's those greedy capitalists! It's those dirty Jews! It's those filthy...(fill in the blank)!

Populism, at least so far as it has been expressed so far, sees the voice of the people as the voice of God. You know, vox populi, vox dei. The only problem with the voice of the people is that they are human. And if you're a Christian, as I am, then you are constrained by the assumption that every human is fallen, and thus not to be trusted as the final voice, whether individually or collectively. Only God's voice is ultimately authoritative. And even then our apprehension is tentative, in that we see through a glass darkly.

So far, of the populisms I've seen so far, whether of the left or right variety, they all contain within themselves the inherent weakness of assuming that "the people" have an innate wisdom that is greater than the powers that be. Populism assumes that the "common man" has a grasp of common sense that doesn't exist among the privileged classes. The upper, privileged classes have become corrupt by their laziness brought upon by their expectation of always being in a place of power. In large measure this is true. Those who have enjoyed the benefits of power have acted as though this is their natural right, never to be overturned. But even with this reality being true, it doesn't mean that those on the bad end of the privilege standard are by nature better.

The Christian view is that every human being is effected, infected if you will, by an internal conflictedness that seeks its own short-term gain, over and against anyone else, and many times even against its own long-term interests. Even though many of the founders of the US were not Christian, they nonetheless understood (esp. Madison) that human nature was such that government needed to be constrained by a divided structure in order to avoid the temptation of one part exercising tyranny over all others, whether as a majority or a minority.

Populism has always assumed that the voice of the "people" is sacrosanct. But as Christians, we know that any crowd that calls out "hosanna!" can in no time cry out "crucify him!" The American founders knew this, and we should too.

Precipice

The world,
and by that I mean
God's plans,
is bigger than,
downfalls
pitfalls
recessions
and
depressions,
individual and collective.
Thank God.

Precipice is an edge
we always
stand upon.
Whether economic,
moral
spiritual
or political.

Always we stand
or fall
depending on
the ground upon
which we stand.

Is it strong?
Is it sound?
Does it stand beneath me?
and ultimately,
does it stand
above
me?

Tom Friedman and Bibi

Tom Friedman just called Bibi Netinyahu the LePen of Israel. Ouch! I don't know if I would go that far, but the fact that he would even consider including in his government Lieberman (not ours!) is a very bad sign for the future. Lieberman is most definitely a LePen type. He's Meir Kahane reincarnated.

Soon to be high speed!

By this time next week I should high speed at home! This will allow me to upload my videos from the shows I record at jude3 or elsewhere. It will also allow me to write online more often. It's funny how being online helps in my creative process, since it seems that having the items I'm interested in right before me allows me to multitask and process whatever topic I'm obsessing about. It should be fun.

Inspiration and Incarnation

I'm nearing the end of a book called Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns. He wrote it in 2005 and it has since gotten him fired from Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia because it supposedly violates their standards concerning the inerrancy of scripture. His views expressed in the book may well violate their standards at the seminary. I don't know. But if they do then Westminster should reevaluate their view concerning scripture and how we've gotten it. So far Enns has addressed many of the most difficult issues that confront evangelicals when it comes to the Old Testament and its "diversity" both regarding the recording of historical events as well as to issues strictly theological. I can see why this book got him in trouble. But I can also see why he had to write what he has. He's being honest with the information before him. I hope some school, seminary or not, has the wisdom to offer him a position. He will make any school better.

Discovering Josh Garrels

Last week a customer came in and was looking for music and in the process of talking music stuff I mentioned Derek Webb as an artist who spoke/sang with a prophetic voice. The customer then asked if I had heard of Josh Garrels. I told him I hadn't. He bought his stuff and left. Less than a minute later he came back in with a CD of Josh's and left it with me to listen to until his special order came in (an ESV Study Bible. Cool!). Well, since that night I've become thoroughly hooked on Josh's music, listening to him just about every day, whether the CD or through his website. His style is really unique, with a combination of folk, reggae, rap, all sung in his high alto voice. Amazing.