A Secular Faith

A SECULAR FAITH:

WHY CHRISTIANITY FAVORS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

By Darryl Hart

Darryl Hart has written an unusual book. It is unusual primarily because he argues for a secular viewpoint regarding governance, yet from a conservative protestant perspective. Typically, most advocates of governing from a secular basis have themselves come from a non-religious, or even an anti-religious perspective. Hart’s twist is that he is a religious conservative, and argues his thesis for a secular politics from his theological orthodoxy, not from any underlying liberalism.

In writing his book, Hart is concerned to protect the orthodoxy of basic Christian teaching and practice from the corrupting influence brought about by politicizing the faith, whether from the left or the right. In the Preface, as well as in the Introduction, Hart presents his argument that Christianity is essentially an apolitical faith, and that any attempts to use it for political ends “fundamentally distort the Christian religion because it is essentially an otherworldly faith.” (p.16). Thus Hart offers up what he calls a “Christian secularist” alternative to “values evangelicals” on the one hand and “legal secularists” on the other.

In chapter 1, “City on a Hill,” Hart recounts the famous sermon of John Winthrop aboard the Arbella called “A Model of Christian Charity” and shows how influential that sermon has been to America’s self conception since then. Yet, more importantly, Hart points out that Winthrop’s understanding of the Puritan experiment in America was “an effort to perpetuate Christendom” (p.38); a concept that Hart clearly is glad to see as a past tense reality.

In chapter 2, “Whose Freedom, Which Liberty?” Hart describes in great detail the work of John Witherspoon, the only minister to sign the Declaration of Independence. I had always understood Witherspoon to be one of the most orthodox Christians among the founders of the nation, yet I had not realized how politicized, and thus distorted, Christian teaching had already become, even with him. He basically argued that ““the temporal and eternal happiness of us and our society,” depended on political autonomy” and that “true religion, that is, Protestant Christianity, flourished only where civil magistrates protected civil liberties” (p.51).

Witherspoon also argued that not only did ‘true religion’ only flourish under civil liberties, but that ‘true religion’ itself was responsible for those very liberties. Hart goes on to describe how this unproved assumption permeated American Christian thinking from Witherspoon, and his “Christian republicanism,” through to the Social Gospel era, even to the modern “Christian Right” and their conservative allies. Later on in the same chapter, Hart points out that the Westminster Assembly, which produced the famous Confession of the same name, met during deeply politically charged times. Yet in the parts of that confession that would seemingly have the most political importance, in those parts that spoke of Christian liberty, “the Westminster divines paid no attention to politics.” (p.62). And as he says on the next page, “this freedom had nothing to do with politics because it was as much the privilege of the “martyr at the stake, the slave in his chains, the prisoner in his dungeon, as well as the king upon the throne.”” (p.63). Basically, for Hart, a Christian is free because of Christ, not because of any civil liberties he may or may not enjoy. Amen to that!

In the next chapter, “For Goodness’ Sake,” Hart illustrates the moralism that many, if not most, of the founders infused into public schooling and how they used Christian language to legitimate that political purpose. Yet it was a Christian language that was gutted of any particular doctrinal content, leaving only the ethical behavior, so that better citizens might be produced. Yet biblical and historical Christianity has always held that true Christian faith must have the doctrinal underpinning in order to make any sense of the ethical behavior. As Hart says,

What is remarkable is that more Protestants did not see the problem, and that present-day Protestants who advocate religion in public schools do not understand the way in which their religion is abused when used only for its ethical norms while neglecting the centrality of its redemptive message. One plausible explanation for the disparity is that the believers who desire a common morality for public institutions like schools are actually better republicans than they are Christians. (p.93)

In “Under God” Hart has two main points. The first one is that America is no more “under God” than any other nation, in the sense that God is “over” every nation, whether they acknowledge Him or not. Our saying so or not changes that reality not one whit. He then goes on to describe the development of the redefined “kingdom of God” theology that shaped America’s “Christian” identity between the Civil War and World War I. A theology that, in Hart’s estimation, was “fundamentally flawed.” (p.116). Essentially, the state’s purpose is justice and the church’s purpose is mercy. And “[t]o confuse the two is to misconstrue the bad cop (the state) and the good cop (the church).” (p.122). And both Christian liberals and conservatives have “to answer the question of whether in fact God or liberal democracy is Lord.” (p.122).

Hart follows up with “The People’s Faith,” which describes the democratic impulse in America’s religious life, best described by its anti-creedalism and its anti-clericalism. This also left American Protestantism deeply anti-Catholic and led to the chronic “Americanist” controversies. But primarily, Hart is concerned to point out how a “democratized” Christianity presented itself as the necessary ingredient for a successful democracy. This interplay is described and challenged by Hart, as well as by such luminaries as J.Gresham Machen and Stanley Hauerwas. In other words, just because American Christianity got “democratized” doesn’t mean that democracy “needs” Christianity.

In “Impersonal Politics,” John F. Kennedy’s Roman Catholicism, and Al Smith’s before him, was seen as being too influential for many American Protestants. Since the constitution made clear that no religious test could be required for serving in any public office, these candidates had to prove that they were not “too” Catholic. Oh, how times have changed! Now, every candidate for elected office, especially the presidency, has to prove how their faith has impacted their policy decision-making, or else they are seen as suspect. More interestingly, Hart brings out how American Christians have given themselves over to a view of the self that is not necessarily biblical, but may in fact be more informed by modern therapeutic concepts and political ideologies.

Hart advocates a Christian life that is better understood as a “hyphenated” existence, segmented by parallel commitments that don’t necessarily always overlap. Hart also brings up the apparently contradictory advice given in the two scriptures of Luke 16:13 and Matthew 22:21, where believers are alternately told to not serve two masters and to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. His answer to this dilemma is strikingly similar to what John Piper says in his recent book, “What Jesus Demands From The World.” Basically, “by serving Caesar, Christians may better serve Christ.” (p.174).

In “The Tie That Divides” Hart gives a broad overview of the work of the Protestant ecumenical movement in the twentieth century through the Federal, then National Council of Churches, which sought to further “christianize” America through social action and influence. All the while radically watering down the doctrinal content of the Christian message in order to make the appeal as broad as possible. He also shows the similarity of the National Association of Evangelicals to the earlier ecumenism, in that they also sought to set aside divisive theological issues among “conservative” Protestants so as to better influence and impact the greater culture. Hart more than adequately points out the fundamental difficulty of giving up theological distinctives in order to “redeem” the culture.

In “The Dilemma of Compassionate Conservatism” Hart enters into the current period of values politics. Here, Hart argues his most contentious view, that the pursuit of “Christian politics” is a fool’s errand. He recounts the developments over the last thirty or so years of the re-entry of the fundamentalist and evangelical fold back into politics, after having self-segregated themselves to pursue the saving of souls to the exclusion of the culture wars. Hart’s description of the difficulties inherent in president Bush’s Faith Based Initiative is well put when he says,

the issue of federal funding for religious charitable organizations begged a fundamental question in pursuit of the legal one. Instead of asking whether the constitution permitted such entanglement of religion and politics, Bush, DiLulio, and others weighing in should have been asking whether the teachings of Bush’s favorite philosopher were compatible with the essential logic of the faith-based initiative. (pp.212-213)

Later in the same chapter, Hart describes the efforts of evangelical progressives such as Jim Wallis and Ron Sider to reintegrate “evangelical” beliefs into public policy as early as the seventies. How that re-engagement first showed itself in the Christian Right of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. And then the ultimate irony of how “[n]ot until George W. Bush’s election in 2000 and his faith-based initiative did the largest and oldest institutional guardian of the evangelical movement adopt a social agenda comparable to the 1973 Chicago Declaration of the evangelical left.” (p.225).

Further along in this same chapter Hart becomes clearer in his own affinities regarding Christian involvement in public affairs when he mentions the impact of Calvin College and Seminary and their influence from Abraham Kuyper, who ultimately believed that “all of life is religious” (p.229). Hart’s critique of this perspective becomes obvious when he says, “The idea that the affairs of civil society or public policy are part of a cosmic contest between the forces of good and evil nurtures a zero-sum approach to government that leaves little room for compromise and raises questions about what to do with nonbelievers and idolatry.” and even more troubling, that “the most God-honoring state would at least be one that tolerates only the true faith, with theocracy being a distinct possibility.” (p.229).

Next, Hart offers a view that is better understood as Lutheran than Reformed when he argues for a “two kingdom” approach to the church’s interaction with civil society. He also parts company with many of his Presbyterian brethren when he argues for a much more discontinuous view regarding the church and Israel in the Old and New Testaments. Hart’s no dispensationalist, but he clearly repudiates, without even having to directly say so, the theonomist and reconstructionist view, which sees almost total continuity between the covenants and the church and Israel.

The traditional Lutheran two kingdom theology sees the church being responsible for spiritual needs and the state being responsible for the physical, temporal realm. The other distinctive that is seen much more clearly in Lutheran thought, is that they emphasize the theology of the cross, which takes more seriously the value of redemptive suffering, over the theology of glory typically seen in Reformed circles, which tends towards identifying the church with Israel “entering and inheriting the land” during this age. This mindset naturally leads to a “dominionist” attitude that sees the use of statecraft and its’ leverage as being a necessary component of “bringing in” the kingdom of God.

Finally, in “A Secular Faith,” the final chapter, Hart offers up his defense of the “Christian secularist” approach to the church’s appropriate interaction with the larger culture. He argues that not only did the reformation secularize the West, leading ultimately to the disestablishment of the church in the French and American revolutions, but that Christianity (and even earlier, Judaism) were/are inherently secularizing religions. Since Judaism posits a transcendent God that cannot be manipulated magically by its adherents, and Christianity cleaves even further the sacred/secular divide through the teachings of Christ and the apostles, contra the monistic political/religious construct of Islam, and Protestant Christianity has deepened that secular impulse, we, as American Protestant Christians, should welcome living hyphenated lives that can be “in, but not of” the world around us. As Hart says at the end, dare to be a Daniel! Since “This Daniel, the assimilated and devout prophet, may be the best model for American Christians wanting to know how to participate meaningfully in public life.” (p.256).

Darryl Hart has written an unusual book. But it’s also an important book for anyone concerned to be faithful to Christ and his call to our lives as Christians. Whether you agree with everything Hart says or not is less important than acknowledging the importance of how our interaction with American politics has impacted our witness as Christians, whether individually or as a church. If Hart is largely right, then we need to reconsider where we spend our energy. Are we going to run around, seeing who we can get elected into various offices in order to bring about certain legislation that we see as being more “Christian” or “evangelical,” or are we going to get to the work that Christ and his designated heirs commanded us to do?

And if there is a concern that Hart is advocating a type of Christian quietism that reverts back to the self-segregation that typified an earlier American fundamentalism, he points out that “with a properly high estimate of the created order, human nature, and the relative importance of civil society for maintaining order and restraining evil (at least), Christians may fruitfully participate in public life not as a site of redemption but as an essential part of their humanity.” (p.257). In other words, “secular politics is thoroughly compatible with orthodox Christianity.” (p.257). As a thoroughly political person who is also trying to be faithful to my Christian calling, this is music to my ears!

My Review of End Time Delusions

END TIME DELUSIONS:

The Rapture, the Antichrist, Israel, and the End of the World

by Steve Wohlberg

I read this book anticipating that I would find myself agreeing with much of what was written within its pages. Since I knew that the author, Steve Wohlberg, is very critical of popular end time views popularized by such novels as Left Behind, I knew that I would at least agree with much of his critique. His style of writing is very engaging and easy enough to understand and he has a flair for turning a phrase. This makes the book a quick read for those interested in delving into end time issues. The book itself is broken down into four sections that deal with what he believes are delusions concerning the rapture, the seven year tribulation, the Antichrist, and Israel.

In the first section dealing with the rapture, Wohlberg does a very good job of showing scripturally that the ‘rapture’ is neither pre-tribulational or secret/invisible. He follows in the tradition of many classical Protestant writers who have taught that Christ’s church will be ‘caught up’ to be with the Lord upon Christ’s glorious appearing and not seven years earlier in a secret rapture. He also points out that the doctrine of the pre-tribulational rapture did not come about until the 1830’s under the teaching of John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren. It was through the study notes of the famous Scofield Bible that Dispensationalism, which teaches the radical separation of the church and Israel and the pre-tribulational rapture, became the dominant eschatology in America. As far as section one is concerned, Wohlberg is standing with historic Protestant teaching concerning the end times. So far so good.

In section two, dealing with the doctrine of the seven year tribulation, Wohlberg again critiques the traditional Dispensational view of the prophecy of Daniel 9, which has posited that there is a break between the 69th and the 70th weeks which constitute the ‘church age’ we live in today. Again, he adequately illustrates that church teaching has historically held that all 70 weeks dealt with the period leading up to the first advent of Christ and the destruction of the second temple by Titus’s Roman army in 67-70 AD.

Again, so far so good.

In the third section, dealing with the issue of the Antichrist, Wohlberg starts off in the first four chapters pointing out what scripture teaches concerning the Antichrist, and again stands with historic church teaching (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox) on that issue, contrary to modern Dispensational teaching. In chapter 11, Wohlberg argues emphatically that the Antichrist cannot be an individual person, but must be a kingdom, based on his connecting the 2^nd Thessalonians passage describing the man of sin with the Daniel passage describing the 4^th beast. While this may be an accurate interpretation, it is an issue many sincere, godly, and theologically orthodox Christian teachers have come to different conclusions about. Thus being dogmatic about this can bring unnecessary division among those who would otherwise agree on more fundamental issues of faith.

It is in several of the subsequent chapters that Wohlberg begins to express views that differ significantly, not only with traditional Dispensational teaching concerning the Antichrist and its interpretation of John’s Revelation, but also with historic church teaching concerning eschatology and even the incarnation of Christ.

Wohlberg adheres to an eschatological viewpoint called ‘historicism’ which sees the majority of John’s Revelation being a rough timeline of church history until Christ’s return at the end of the age. Many of the Protestant reformers and many well-respected Protestant teachers up to today have held to historicism or variants of it. Many of my favorite teachers and theologians held to that view. I do not. It is, to this day, a minority viewpoint among Protestants, even among those who do not hold to Dispensationalism. Historicism has always been strongly anti-Catholic, since it sees the Roman Catholic Church as the apostate ‘Whore of Babylon’ described in Revelation. Strangely enough, Wohlberg quotes Dave Hunt, a fellow anti-Catholic as a trustworthy source concerning the Catholic church, even though Hunt holds strongly to traditional Dispensationalism, a viewpoint Wohlberg later on describes as being a false teaching and a product of demonic ‘frogs’ sent to delude Christians! Apparently, Hunt is still trustworthy enough to speak on all things Roman Catholic, even though he is also a purveyor (according to Wohlberg’s own arguments) of demonic deception through his Dispensationalism. Strange indeed.

Again, while historicism is one of several Protestant viewpoints concerning how best to interpret Revelation, Wohlberg takes what ‘could’ be interpreted a certain way and makes it into what ‘must’ be interpreted that way. The net result of this method is that if anyone takes another viewpoint from his, they are misled at best, probably deluded, and maybe even under the influence of demonic powers. This lack of humility in interpreting the text of scripture leads to a type of Protestant popery itself. Wohlberg, unfortunately is guilty of an arrogant assumption that his reading of scripture is the ‘plain’ and ‘obvious’ reading, uncontaminated by any influences of culture, ideology, or personal interest. Later on, I will show that Wohlberg himself has been influenced greatly by teachings that he does not acknowledge, yet which have deeply shaped his theology. But more on that later.

The most troubling aspect of Wohlberg’s book has to do with his Christology. In his zeal to be as anti-Catholic as possible, he ends up doing fundamental damage to the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ. In chapter 18, “The I.D. of Antichrist”, Wohlberg brings up the key passages from John’s letters concerning the Antichrist. Passages stating that the spirit of Antichrist is shown by those who deny Christ as having come ‘in the flesh’. Wohlberg then goes on to explain what denying that Christ has come in the flesh means. It is here that he gets into heretically deep waters.

On page 106, Wohlberg says:

Here’s a key question: What kind of flesh did Jesus become when He fused with humanity? Paul answered with the utmost clarity: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same” (Hebrews 2:14 KJV, emphasis added). Don’t miss it. Paul said Jesus took “the same” flesh as “the children” have. “The children” doesn’t apply to Adam and Eve, for they were never babies but were created directly by God in the Garden of Eden. Rather, “the children” applies to their descendants after sin entered the world, that is, to fallen humanity. (all emphasis in original)

Also on page 106, Wohlberg then goes on to explain what “the flesh” is.

“”The flesh” is a biblical expression which describes our basic human nature as it has been affected by sin. Paul said, “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells…” (Romans 7:18). In other words, the flesh itself is bad. It’s our enemy. It’s like a nasty cesspool that often stinks and seeks to drag us down. “The flesh” is the channel through which satan works to tempt us and lead us into actual sin.”

Here, Wohlberg seems to be stating that the term “flesh” can only mean our sinful/bad/fallen nature, and that it cannot have any other meaning. However, the passages that speak of Christ coming “in the flesh” use that language not to connote Christ’s supposed sharing of our fallen status, but of being fully “physically” human. In particular, the apostle John wrote what he did precisely because he was dealing with those who denied that Christ had actually come in the flesh. These proto-Gnostics were saying that Christ only “appeared” to have come in the flesh, since, in their eyes, the flesh was inherently evil, and therefore could not inherit salvation. The essence of the spirit of antichrist was twofold: that Christ had not “really” come in the flesh, and that God had not ‘incarnated’ Himself through Christ Jesus. In other words, Christ’s deity was also denied. There is nothing in John’s letters or his gospel that imply in any way that Christ possessed a ‘fallen’ nature like ours. To be fair to Wohlberg, he does make clear that Christ never sinned. Yet even what he has affirmed is far beyond what scripture itself states concerning Christ’s nature in the incarnation.

In the following chapter, entitled “Battle of the Isms”, Wohlberg argues that the Roman Catholic Church, through two Jesuit priests, has conspired to divert the church’s attention to antichrists in the distant past and the distant future. He presents this in such a way as to give the impression that these views, “Preterism” and “Futurism” only came about from their writings. Yet many other writers have illustrated quite well that these views have existed throughout most, if not all, of church history, far pre-dating these two Jesuit authors. Thus, his conspiracy theory ends up falling rather flat in light of the easily found church views on the antichrist. In the next chapter, called “Faith of our Fathers” Wohlberg gives a stirring account of the martyrdoms of John Wycliffe and John Huss. The “Faith of our Fathers” is an apt phrase for Wohlberg to use, since it gives a clue to his own views, which I will bring up after the next section.

In the fourth section called “Israel Delusions” Wohlberg starts out quite well. In the first several chapters, he points out many of the problems inherent in the popular “modern Israel is a signpost to the end times” viewpoint we see so often on “Christian” TV and radio. Yet in his final few chapters, Wohlberg becomes more fanciful in his interpretations of biblical texts and more dogmatic in his ascertains of the clarity of these texts; texts in apocalyptic literature such as Revelation and Daniel and Ezekiel that have always been notoriously difficult to understand, even for the most serious and devout students of scripture.

The last three chapters of Wohlberg’s book reach the final crescendo of what he believes the real “end time delusion” really is. It is in these chapters that his influences begin to come out more readily. Several times during the reading of the book I had an inkling of something more going on than meets the eye when it came to where Steve Wohlberg was coming from in his views. The first clue came from his strong defense of historicism. Again, even though it was the majority report among the early Protestant reformers, his argument for that view raised some red flags for me. Then came his view of Christ’s incarnation that obviously rang some very disturbing bells. It took till the end section, and his argument that the ten commandments would be the dividing line between true believers and the apostate church, to have the rest of the pieces fall into place to help me to realize that he did indeed hold to a consistent viewpoint, but that it had to do with a lot more than just end time issues.

What finally nailed it down for me in fully understanding where Wohlberg was coming from was his own writings on his website that he mentions in the book. On his website, not only does he advocate for the views he expresses in the book, but he also argues for soul sleep, conditional immortality, a non-literal and non-eternal hell, and for full observance of the seventh day Sabbath.

Throughout his book, Wohlberg gives clues to these viewpoints rather indirectly. But he never once acknowledges his own inspiration for these views. He presents his book as the sincere search for biblical truth that’s willing to look beyond what is popularly taught in modern churches. What he does not share, and this raises concerns over his straight-forwardness, is that in every major divergent view, he squares perfectly with Seventh Day Adventists. Many of his references in the book come from Adventist sources, though the names are not well known outside of Adventist circles. In fact, if you do an internet search of his name, you can find that he pastors an Adventist church in California. Yet, even this fact, which most authors are more than happy to include in their biography, is missing from his book. The fact that Wohlberg advocates for every major Adventist viewpoint, yet never acknowledges that in his book, or even on his website, brings out a major feature of Seventh Day Adventist behavior that has plagued them for many years. Adventists have frequently been rightly criticized for not being up front about their identity when they present themselves or their teachings to the general public. Since Steve Wohlberg is himself an Adventist pastor, this criticism holds true for him as well.

Finally, “End Time Delusions” seems like an unusually appropriate title, considering Steve Wohlberg’s own background and views. As much as I agree with much of his critique of popular end time teachings, he ends up representing another fundamentally flawed perspective. Not only on end time issues, which are certainly important, but on even more important doctrines concerning our Christian life and even touching on how we view Christ’s incarnation. It’s ironic that if we are living in the end times, his own book could then be classified as an “end times deception” in its own right. Sad, but I believe, unfortunately true.

The Gnostic Empire Struck!

Sunday night I read NT Wright's "Judas and the Gospel of Jesus." It started me off with a belly laugh in the preface, and ended with me jumping up at one in the morning saying amen to my cat (who I'm sure thought I was nuts). Here's what he said that has me so geeked:

Of course, those who propogate today's left-wing neo-Gnosticism will say that they are implacably opposed, among other things, to the kind of "classic Christianity" represented by today's American right, including those responsible for current U.S. foreign policy. But here is the rub. The American religious right, though it has indeed got its finger on some elements of classic Christianity, is itself heavily compromised down very similar lines to what we might call the American religious left. The type of Christianity which has become popular in the last two centuries on both sides of the Atlantic, in fact, has steadily eroded its grip on the great New Testament and early Christian themes such as resurrection, and has embraced not only an individualism where what most truly matters is "my" soul, its state and its salvation, but also a future hope which is worryingly similar to that of Gnosticism. "Going to heaven when you die"--or, indeed, escaping death and going to heaven by means of a "rapture" instead--is the name of the game for millions of such Christians. And when you tell people, as I often do, that the New Testament isn't very interested in "going to heaven," but far more with a new bodily life at some future stage later on, and with the anticipation of the future bodily life in holiness and justice in the present, they look at you strangely, as if you were trying to inculcate a new heresy. "Conservative" post-Enlightenment Western Christianity and "liberal" post-Enlightenment Western Christianity begin to look as if they are simply the right and left wings of the same essentially wrongheaded movement.

N.T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus, pp. 141-142.

He hits the nail on the head with what he writes here! He reiterates what Meic Pearse says in "Why the Rest hates the West" and what James Kurth says in his "Protestant Deformation" piece. I hope the Lord gives these men, and others like them, a megaphone to speak this truth to the worldwide Christian church, and maybe even the American church. After all, miracles still happen!

Meteor shower

Tonight is a meteor shower. In ancient times, meteor showers portended major changes in empires. Kings were being born. Empires were falling. Last night I read part of the Iraq Study Group report. On the micro level it has a lot of accurate details, yet it's underlying assumptions leave it ultimately unable to adequately deal with the reality on the ground, either in Iraq, or here in America. Tonight I listened to last Sunday's sermon by Rob Bell of Mars Hill Bible Church in Grandville, just up the road a bit. He's doing a series called "peacemakers". Last Sunday he talked about the war in Iraq, but also about the larger issues of 'terror' and such. He presented a lot of facts and figures about demographics, especially about 'us' in America and the rest of the world. It's amazing how much we 'consume'. America is dying of consumption. A new king is born. An empire is fallen. Our king calls us to follow him. But his way is the way of the cross. Will we/I follow him? Can a victor be found in a bloodied, bruised, broken body? Do I dare trust that power? Do I dare not? I should go out and watch the stars fall to the earth.

A prayer of perspective

If we complain of any lack in our Christian liberties here in America because of some action by a judge or some governmental agency, let us remind ourselves that we as Christians, because of who we are in Christ, have a liberty that can never be taken away by anyone else, no matter what threatenings may be brought our way.
We must remember that the starving prisoner who will die in only hours in a pitch black cell possesses more liberty and is a freer man than the middle class Christian who complains bitterly over some perceived injustice, however slight, done against him.
Let us pray for a greater freedom that no external circumstance can affect. And if need be, let us pray that God would mercifully strip us of all that hinders our perceiving Him.

We submit to Caesar to acknowledge the supreme Lordship of Jesus

All our earthly allegiances are not only warranted and limited by the supreme authority of God, but are also shaped by that authority. In other words, even the duty we properly render to Caesar is rendered differently because Caesar is not absolute. We render obedience to Caesar where we can, not because he is Lord, but because our Lord Jesus bids us to. In other words, all our obedience to Caesar dethrones Caesar by expressing the Lordship of Jesus. We view all our serving of Caesar as serving his owner and Lord, Jesus. There is, therefore, no whiff of worship toward Caesar. He is stripped of his claim to divinity in the very act of submitting to his laws. Even our submission is therefore seditious toward rulers with pretensions of deity.

John Piper, page 330, from Demand #44, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's as an act of rendering to God what is God's, from What Jesus Demands from the World

My Enemies Are Men Like Me by Derek Webb

My Enemies Are Men Like Me

(vs. 1)
i have come to give you life
and to show you how to live it
i have come to make things right
to heal their ears and show you how to forgive them

(pre-chorus)
because i would rather die
i would rather die
i would rather die
than to take your life

(chorus)
how can i kill the ones i’m supposed to love
my enemies are men like me
i will protest the sword if it’s not wielded well
my enemies are men like me

(vs. 2)
peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication
it’s like telling someone murder is wrong
and then showing them by way of execution

(pre-chorus)

(chorus)

(bridge)
when justice is bought and sold just like weapons of war
the ones who always pay are the poorest of the poor

(choru

What is a War Crime?

Does the percentage of women and children define what constitutes a war crime? How many times can civilians be the primary target before we finally acknowledge that civilians really are the target? This sequence of events bears an eerie resemblance to what began WWI. Each side decides it has to act either preemptively or to excalate the violence in response to some perceived threat. We are all becoming blind. Can we, as Americans, claim no blood on our hands when we overnight hundreds of bombs to the Israeli's, even lying to intersecting countries about our cargo? Will we be shocked to learn that we are culpable? Too many questions. Not enough answers.

Well tomorrow turned into three days later!

So much for my keeping a daily journal of my CBA experiences! It's amazing how busy it is here. By the time the vening roles around, all you want to do is turn in for the night, which is what I've done. So, sorry for not living up to the promise of providing daily updates of my "wild" times at CBA. These three days (M-T-W) of special sessions, wandering the floor visiting various ministries and publishers, hearing amazing musical acts, and establishing contacts, has been a whirlwind to say the least! I actually kept notes the first two days, but then realized that I should just enjoy the experience of meeting and greeting and learning what I can while I'm here. While I am obviously pleased at meeting several authors and musicians that I've enjoyed for some time, I've gotten the most enjoyment by meeting those artists/writers that are new to me. On Monday at lunch, they had a new artsit luncheon, in which several young, up and coming artists were spotlighted. The coolest thing was sitting next to the rhythm guitarist of a relatively new band called "DecembeRadio." Man was this guy nice! And it turns out he grew up only a few miles form where my mom was born and raised. He even told me about Gassaway, West Virginia before I brought it up! Nobody's ever heard of that town except my family! But he played there and told me a great story of how a near tornado ripped the tarp off of a trailer they were playing on and his guitar's next got snapped. But the townspeople took up an offering and more than paid back the cost his guitar! Cool hunh? Later, the next day, he made it a point to tap me on the shoulder on the floor of the convention center to say hi, even though I hadn't seen him. Very cool. I told him, next time he and his band were in town, that they HAD to stop by Baker. I also suggested that they play at Hope, since their music rocked (think Christian version of Lynnyrd Skynnerd). Last night we all went to an outdoor concert nearby in town featuring Bebo Norman (much better this time), I think the acoustics of the inside venue were not very friendly to anything electric. Once he, and the others, were outside, they sounded great. I was especially excited to hear Jars of Clay, since I've liked them from the beginning. They didn't dissapoint! They played several hymns at the end of their set, but boy was it not your old hymns of yesteryear! These great hymns were revamped and on fire! Everyone was on their feet (me included) for their last several songs. I was toast by the end of the evening, but it was a good toast.

To go into all the authors I met this week would take a separate post in itself. But suffice it say that I have been seriously geeked. To paraphrase Roberto Clemente, Crossway has been vedy, vedy good to me! I even met John Piper's son. It's a good thing I was saying nice things about him (not hard to do if you know me)! Last night we had the chance to hear severeal Nelson aurhotrs speak at a heavy hors deurve (I can't spell that stupid word!) get together. Max Lucado led in prayer throughout the night. Now I know why he's so well loved. He truly has a pastor's heart. We were all impressed by his gentle godliness. FOr me, the pleasant surprise of the evening was getting to know authors that I knew "of", but didn't really know. They each shared some apsect of themselves that really brought their humanity. Phil Visscher, of VeggieTale fame, shared quite openly of his rise to success and then subsequent fall, and of what he's doing now. Truly a testament to grace. He even thanks God for his trials, since they led him closer to Christ. Mark Buchanan spoke eloquently of being careful not to be too busy or to "push" when God would have us recline as Lazarus did. His illustration of Lazarus being a witness of Christ's power, simply by reclining (and breathing!) at the table with Christ, spoke deeply to how we can best reveal Christ to those around us. We don't need to push when God says relax. Amen! But most of all, I was impressed by Erwin McManus, who spoke of his emigrating to America from El Salvador during their war in the eighties. Afterward, I spoke with him and admitted that while I knew of him, I didn't know anything about him. But that now I knew much more of who he is, and that that would help me immeasurably in helping my own customers in referring them to his books. I look forward to reading what he's written. Well, as y'all can imagine, I met numerous other folks, and it was all cool and I was in official "geek" mode. But what I found most exciting was meeting some of the vendors who were there (some for the first time themselves!) to share what they could of Christ's work in them. That was cool. I got some info, and am hoping that we might be able to work together in the future. The two that jump out at me are soem young men who market shirts and other clothing accessories, but with a message that I think will really resonate with young people, especially the disaffected. I am really excited about them. Also, there was a couple from Palestine who were selling Rosewood carvings of the holy family and other Christian and Jewish themes; all produced in Bethlehem! Oops, it's almost dinner! So I gotta run. I'll probably write when I'm back in Holland. Peace!

CBA: Day 1

Well, today was our first full day at CBA. We started by crashing the Parable morning worship service, which had Chip Ingram as the speaker/preacher. They also had an Aussie group that I can't recall right now doing the music. At first we couldn't understand a word they were saying, and it wasn't because of the accents. It was just too loud. But thankfully the rest of the music was singable by everyone there and was quite good. Chip spoke on wearing the full armor of God as retailers, since we are much of the Christian world's "gatekeepers." It was actually quite convicting to hear what he had to say. He was very straight forward about the various temptations that can afflict those who work commercially in the Christian world, whether in retail or not. Later we went to a backstage reception hosted by one of our vendors. Ho hum. We had already eaten really good Italian food earlier, so the snacks didn't appeal to us. Although the Australian chocolate/mint iced tea was a little strange. But it tasted OK. Later on we joined some others from G.R. Baker for an early evening concert called Worship Now! How Great is Our God. That had a combination of speakers and performers such as, Jared Anderson, Billy Smiley (founder of White Heart), Scott Wesley Brown, author Philip Yancey speaking on prayer, and Christopher Parkening, an amazing classical guitarist. While Smiley and Brown did a great job teaming up on some traditional hymns (which was a big surprise, considering their backgrounds), Parkening stole this show with a rendition of an Italian (?) composer, who wrote the piece while living in Turkey, and so it had a distinctly Middly Eastern taste and sound. He truly is a master guitarist. Since I had grown up on Andre Segovia, and knew good classical guitar, I wondered if he really was as good as had been said. Well he is, undoubtedly so! You could hear a pin drop while he was playing, he had the crowd mesmerized by his virtuosity.

After a short break, we heard several more artists perform for the balance of the evening. The young new artist Ana Laura hailing from South Texas had a sweet, if somewhat nervous manner that was quite endearing, and her voice was reminicient of an early Jaci Velasquez. Her range was nice and her stage presence was impressive. She's definitely going to grow into her voice quite well at this rate. I look forward to hearing more from her. Leigh Nash also performed and I was very interested to see what she had to offer, since I had seen her years ago when she was still with Sixpence None The Richer when they visited Hope College. She still possesses her naturally quirky demeanor that is almost pixie like. And her voice is as good as ever. Her vocalization is simply hypnotic, and left me transfixed. I can't wait to hear her entire first solo effort when it hits the stores. What I found amazing is that she managed to perform the entire time while on fire engine red stiletto heels. Amazing! Bebo Norman came on at the end, and I had seen him speak earlier in the day at the backstage thing. And so I was eagerly expecting a really good show, but was fairly disappointed. It mainly had to do with the fact that most of what he sang could not be understood, so while the musical aspect was fine, the inability to ascertain the lyrical content was annoying.

Now before Bebo came on the end of the music for the night, there was one group that I was also looking forward to, and that was the Tex/Mex/Rock group Salvador. They actually got people on their feet (without having to ask them!) for all of their songs. They were very funny, they played loud, and they had a ball. And it showed. By far, they were the highlight of the evening for me. Next time they're in West Michigan, I'm getting a ticket. They rocked!

Finally, at just before 10pm, we had two new movies previewed for us: Charlotte's Web, starring Dakota Fanning doing a live action role, and many other stars doing CGI voice over roles. It looks like a very sweet rendition of the children's classic, and I believe it's due to release this Christmas. If for no other reason, go see the movie for Dakota Fanning. That girl knows how to act! I've never seen her do anything bad movie wise. Then the other movie that was previewed was the film adaptation of William Wilberforce's life work, which was to abolish the slave trade in the UK back in the late eighteen hundreds. The eight minute clip we saw was brilliant, and it's due to release in February of next year, which will be the bicentennial of his getting the legislation passed that outlawed slavery in the British Empire. Wilberforce has always been a hero of mine. What's wonderful about this film is that it shows that it was Wilberforce's orthodox Christian (quite Calvinistic) faith that motivated him towards his life's work. Afterwards, they asked those in attendance to sign a petition to continue the work he began two centuries ago, since we still have slave trade going on now, involving millions of people, men, women, and children. That was a sobering, but good, way to end a long day.

See ya tomorrow!

Godly Sorrow

THE BLESSED BEAUTY OF GODLY SORROW

Lord, thank you for producing in me a sorrow that leads to repentance. Thank you for giving to me a sorrow that clings to you for comfort. Your enlightening rays convict me of my wickedness, yet do not leave me in my despair. Your word, which reveals the darkness of my heart, also shows clearly the wonders of your love. You bring me down, only showing what is obviously true, in order to lift me up to where you are.

Lord, may I never tire of your convicting word! May you find every crevice of my inmost being and expose it to the light of your new day. Cleanse me of my dross, which is found in every ounce of my being. Lord, you who are too pure to look upon impurity, yet seek out my darkest corners, all to wash them white as snow. May I never lose sight of your blood! Your own blood pays the price of my own sin. Lord, how can I comprehend it? Blessed mystery! You are righteous. Nothing less than full payment would satisfy your holy requirements. Blessed be your mercy and everlasting kindness. How can I possibly comprehend your great love towards us, your enemies? Lord, so many times I have sorrowed as the world, not seeking after your righteous comfort, but looking only inward to my own dark soul. Yet you sought me out, knowing my need better than myself. Your love for yourself is seen best in my highest good. Blessed be your name!

Crunchy Cons

A Crunchy Con Manifesto

By Rod Dreher

1. We are conservatives who stand outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, we can see things that matter more clearly.

2. Modern conservatism has become too focused on money, power, and the accumulation of stuff, and insufficiently concerned with the content of our individual and social character.

3. Big business deserves as much skepticism as big government.

4. Culture is more important than politics and economics.

5. A conservatism that does not practice restraint, humility, and good stewardship—especially of the natural world—is not fundamentally conservative.

6. Small, Local, Old, and Particular are almost always better than Big, Global, New, and Abstract.

7. Beauty is more important than efficiency.

8. The relentlessness of media-driven pop culture deadens our senses to authentic truth, beauty, and wisdom.

9. We share Russell Kirk’s conviction that “the institution most essential to conserve is the family.”

10. Politics and economics won’t save us; if our culture is to be saved at all, it will be by faithfully living by the Permanent Things, conserving these ancient moral truths in the choices we make in our everyday lives.

Assorted issues

It's easier to just jump to my other site and then you can post here (you don't have to be signed up to post here).

Travis

A friend and coworker, Travis, passed away this morning from his battle with cancer. We all knew that it was near, hours or days away. I still don't think I've really processed it. I've kind of gone through today on autopilot. Travis has been an incredible witness of courage, gentleness, selflessness, good humor, and too many other wonderful qualities to mention here. It's amazing how much can happen in such a young life. It's sad of course to know that I'll not see him again this side of eternity. But he spent his last days encouraging others while they were trying to encourage him. That's a hint of the kind of person Travis is. Anyway, I just needed to work some of this out.

Some Romans Seven Questions

This weekend, our pastor continued his preaching series through Romans, and we've recently passed through Romans seven. He had begun preaching through Romans eight, but since his treatment of seven has caused some discussion among the members, he went back and clarified his thoughts on what Paul was saying, especially in the "I do what I don't want to and don't do what I want to" section. I've always held to that section describing the inner battle that exists among God's people, that is, among those truly called. I know that many people believe that this section is talking about Paul's pre-conversion experience of trying to be a "law-keeper." And while I can certainly agree that it does well describe the inability of anyone to obey the perfect standards of God's holy law, the first person, present tense langauge of the passage in question seems to imply that Paul is describing his current experiences and not his (or unregenerate Israel's) past attempts to be "right" with God.
The understandable concern, and I agree with the concern, is that we need to not use this passage as an excuse to say, "Oh, I'm just struggling with obedience, but I'm really a believer." Our lawless/antinomian impulse is always strong, but so is our legalistic impulse, and it seems that we all seem to be able to use certain passages to buttress our preconceived notions of what we think Scripture ought to say about the "normal" Christian life. I'm inclined towards this passage because I do struggle with sin daily. Thus it gives me comfort. But I also admit that I can easily rely on this passage to excuse my sin. But though this is clearly the case, even if I'm guilty of this sin, it doesn't necessarily negate the truth of that view of this passage. The "struggling believer" interpretation of Romans seven may well be the right interpretation, even if it is misused. Likewise, just because I abhor legalism, doesn't mean that the other option is not possible either. It may well be true that it is describing the unregenerate. It may as well be true that to be Christian is to be transformed in such a way that this passage cannot be an accurate description of the daily Christian walk. I'm certainly open to the arguments on either side. My personal weaknesses should not determine how I read the text. If I do that, I end up standing in judgment over Scripture, instead of the other way around. Scripture itself declares in no uncertain terms that it stands in judgment upon us (Hebrews 4:12, 2 Timothy 3:14-15), and can make us wise unto salvation.
So, in light of this reality, we must do the leg work of balancing out the various passages about who we are in Christ. Yes, we are new creations. Yes, our old man/woman has been declared dead. Yet we are also told to continually put to death our old man. So, while he is "declared" dead, he still kicks around so long as we live in our current body. Like the kingdom of God itself, which is an already/not yet reality, we seem to also inhabit an already/not yet state in our being new in Christ. Maybe a visual/graphic expression may be of some help in better understanding this:

old man--------------------------------------------------

Conversion-old man dying/new man growing-death/resurrection

----------------------------------------------------new man

It is in this intervening period of life between our conversion and our final resurrection that we inhabit this duality of the old and new both existing in us, though with the old dying away (being put to death) and the new growing into fullness (putting "on" the new man).
Our pastor is understandably concerned to bring out that we have at our disposal so much more than what we realize in Christ through His Spirit indwelling us. CS Lewis made the point well when he said that our problem is not that we ask for too much, but that we are far too easily satisfied and ask for far too little.
While I still believe that Romans seven is talking about the believing Paul (and thus us in Christ as well), it is not describing the life of a "defeated" Christian. It may well be describing the transitional/sporadic period of what a believer experiences upon trying to measure up to God's perfect standard in their own strength, apart from His power through the Spirit of Christ. Paul, in his heightened conscience, may well be describing what Isaiah described in Isaiah six when he was confronted with the awful holiness of God. This isn't a description of an unbeliever, or even of a defeated believer, but is the natural expression of a moment of realization of God's utter holiness and righteousness. It provokes awe and fear and self loathing, yet with the end result of being reconciled with this same God, thus ending in inexpressible joy. And in fact, that is exactly how Paul ends that section of Romans. Thanking God through Jesus Christ our Lord! This both gives hope to every believer and warns against a cavalier attitude about Who God is and what He requires. Were it not for grace!

Some essay ideas

I started thinking early this morning about an essay about self-hating people and their psychological makeup and how that characteristic may effect larger groupings when it becomes the predominant mindset. How does the self-hating mindset affect a larger culture when that mindset becomes predominant? Can it lead to a cultural decline or even collapse? Can it inversely lead to a cultural revival because of a questioning of basic assumptions?

There was another essay idea I had, but I've already forgotten it. So it'll have to wait until next time. Oh well. Time will tell.

Some interesting conversations

This past weekend, I spoke with several members of the congregation I belong to. One of the things I was struck by was the intellectual and ideological diversity that exists in our congregation. It certainly isn't the majority report in the church, but it nonetheless represents a significant minority that questions the status quo. Fox News isn't the final arbiter of what's true and accurate of reality. These fellow travellers theologically, if not all-together ideologically, nonetheless share a deep-seated uncertainty about what is presented to us for public consumption.

When I speak to fellow members of the church, I speak of the radical agenda of the neo-cons and their Jacobin (left wing) ideology. Yet among other members of the church, I speak of the hard right inclinations that exist among some on the "Christian Right". Inclinations that speak of bringing "America back to God". Yet, in all of this, I'm struck by the strange similarities that coexist between these two poles.

I'm still working out this interrelationship that sees its greatest commonality in the website: http://www.antiwar.com This website has furnished the fruitful ground of ideological growth from both left wing and right wing concepts. This site regularly provides a voice to those from those two ideological perspectives. The main unifying factor seems to be a common opposition to current American policy in foreign affairs (and in many cases, domestic affairs). Typically, it's assumed that the underlying assumptions are ideologically and theologically opposed. Yet, I would argue that much of what constitutes the political discourse of today is predicated upon assumptions that limit the dialogue to very limited parameters. Both the left and the right views expressed on the antiwar site are an expression of essentially libertarian views. These libertarian views are largely built around a view of the human condition that assumes that we are sinners because we sin, not that we sin because we are sinners.

I know that this distinction may seem inconsequentual, but how we see our human condition is fundamental to accurately understanding our interactions with each other and with God. The view that we are sinners because we sin is essentially Pelagian, whereas the view that we sin because we are sinners (the Augustinian view) is based on a view of the fall that says we have all been radically infected by this moral virus; a virus that has passed down to every human being, no matter their social standing or class status.

Well, I have to get to training early the next morning for a new study Bible, so I better get going. I hope this little essay will help clarify where I'm at. As always, a work in progress.

Pray for the Gulf coast

This hurricane looks real bad. Obviously, the initial devestation will be felt in New Orleans, and the sorrounding areas, but if it's as bad as their saying, the after-effects may actually be worse. Even in these dark times, I still believe that God is wholly sovereign, and that His hand is guiding these events, right down to the millibars of the barometric pressure. It was intense watching the news today as the storm approaches. It was especially strange to see the lost souls who are staying behind and drowning their sorrows in the French Quarter the day before they may be drowned literally. Very strange. I also was struck by how many people are flocking to the Superdome, tens of thousands at last count, and almost to a person, obviously poor. The wealthy high-tailed it out of there in their Hummers, SUV's and whatall. These poor folks, the desparately poor, the old, the infirm, the homeless, the very young, all end up being left behind to face this terrible event. Thank God for the truly public servants who have stayed behind to help them. May God protect them all.

An essay I wrote a few months ago

I wrote this a few months ago, and have wondered about posting it ever since. Take it as a work in progress (what else is there?). In any event, here it is for what it's worth:

BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT

Why do I always assume the worst? Can I listen and actually allow that what you’re saying is honest, as you understand it? Can I believe you, even if I disagree? I live in a world where no one is given the benefit of the doubt. I read and listen to political and religious debates regularly. They both betray this attitude constantly. If I were to listen to others as they portray themselves, what would be threatened? Would I be at risk of losing an argument? Would I be at risk of maybe even changing my mind? Would I be at risk of losing what I hold dear? These are all real risks. Worthwhile risks. Am I to avoid all these things in order to avoid any risk?

Is it safe to question? Is it safe to question you? Is it safe to question me? What is my desire? I like to believe that it’s truth. Is it? Am I seeking after truth with a capital “T”? Is that what I’m seeking after? Or am I seeking after comfort? Am I searching for certainty so that I might be left to leisure in my thoughts and relationships? Is it really easier to be certain? It does, I suppose, provide a sort of temporary rest. But it’s a rest that isn’t steady. It’s a fitful rest, if there is such a thing. It’s a rest that constantly has to buttress the bulwarks of my assumptions. I want to be able to rest. I want to be able to sit for a while and not have to constantly fight for what I believe. But how do I confront from without when I struggle against more formidable foes from within?

Can I safely be generous? May I trust you to be honest with me? I have been wounded before. I have my calluses. They may be unseen. But they still exist. Bring me to you and let me trust you. I want to... I don’t want to. Help me to want to trust you. I also have my hidden sides. There are parts of me that I barely see, let alone reveal to others. Is this all part of what makes it so hard to trust the honesty of others? Do we instinctively attack in order to preempt what we suspect will be done to us? Is this preemption because we know that it’s our own desires that wage war against us inside? We see our own nefarious designs in others’ actions and attitudes, even if it isn’t their action or their attitude that we see, but ours. Are we afraid that our own instincts are going to betray us to others, betray that side of us that we try to keep hidden, well out of sight?

Not everyone is like this. I listen to those who believe differently than I do. I try at least. My interactions with these political and theological debates exist alongside my own struggles in all of my relationships. They are inseparable. I’ve seen the wreckage left behind by taking the worst sense and running with it. It’s usually done with the intention of scoring a momentary point, a tactical advantage; a battle skirmish won. It’s done out of fear, it’s done out of a sense of weakness. It’s done without thinking ahead to the consequences. It’s done with the hope that it will somehow lead to victory. It’s even done with the hope that it will lead to the truth. The truth. The truth. The truth gets slowly dimmed as tactics take precedence over honesty.

We don’t know all that can be known. This may sound like a silly statement. But we mostly act as if we are omniscient. We pretend that we can clearly see through to the heart of those we engage in debates with, as though we could see with an unspotted eye. We are proven wrong repeatedly, and then straightaway return to our strong delusional conviction that we can see clearly now. “She must have meant this.” “He obviously intended to…” and on and on. We assume that we can see into the motives. The very thing that we should acknowledge we know the least about is what we bravely state we know most clearly.

We shift in our stories. And each time it’s true to what our purpose is at the moment. If the passing moment brings with it new needs, the truth adjusts itself accordingly. It’s no less true, in that it serves to satisfy my temporary need of proving myself absolutely right. True truth may, in contrast to this bastardized version, be found in a simple acknowledgement of some doubt, even great doubt. But can I trust honesty? Can it be trusted to deliver the goods? Will I enjoy the benefits of the doubt? Actually, the “goods” are found in the honesty that allows the doubt to surface. That is the benefit of the doubt. We grow in that.

Yet, is that all there is? Is it enough to settle for doubt? Can doubt provide rest? Can doubt give me what I need? Is it ultimate? Honest doubt serves a better end than itself. It doesn’t serve to lead us to absolute certainty. That’s just foolish. The moment we find ourselves completely certain, we’ve lied to ourselves somewhere. It’s there. It may be tucked away somewhere in a corner, but it’s there. Usually it’s the corner we’ve just cut that we can find the lie.

And so we have shortcuts. Shortcuts, of thought. Shortcuts, of need. Thinking selfishly. Settling for what should only lead us on to greater satisfactions. Stopgaps. Mental coat hangers wrapped around emotional mufflers, wheezing out its sickness. It holds the problem at bay until it can be dealt with later; all the while the problem is not tended to. The inner workings suffer as the corrosion takes its toll. We sit with our windows rolled up tight, not hearing the noise that disturbs all those around us. Always hoping that we can make it to the next destination, a destination that will somehow magically heal what ails us. And so we run.

Avoiding the inevitable. It’s like those dreams where the more you run, the more your feet get bogged down and the slower you go. It will catch up to you. Whatever “it” is. Admitting a doubt or two is also healthy here. It can lead to coming to terms with what’s been haunting you; what’s been lurking around the edges, like a beggar, trying not to be seen too much, but just enough to be fed. Willing to live in the periphery of existence, so as not to offend, but needing to be seen, needing to be seen as our peripheral vision.

These untended corners speak in moments of unintended quietness. A glimpse of a sight that leads to disquieting questions. We usually quickly resume the busyness that can cure us of reality. A busyness that instills its own hypnotic trance. Doubts can be the first glimmerings of awakening from this deep slumber. We begin to awaken from this catatonic state when we begin to question the assumptions buttressing our lifelong framework. This framework, which begins from nearly our first breath, shelters us from the storms of life. It provides a lens through which we can see the world and make sense of it. This framework, if it’s not based on the actual reality surrounding us, this reality inhering within us, can be deadly. Some frameworks mislead. They can picture unreality.

How often do we decide something quickly? Partly due to time pressures, the urgency of the moment, the sense that “something” must be done, or sometimes just intellectual laziness lets us settle for an answer. Then, when we’ve decided, it’s all or nothing. The Magisterium has spoken. Our pride has proclaimed “Truth” ex cathedra. May it never be contradicted! The hardness of this is like that cement that hardens around our ankles as we run from the beast that chases us in that dream. We slog. We slip the bonds of freedom and slowly sink into the sand that we thought was so solid.

Sand is nothing but rock broken into little pieces. Sometimes it can be broken up dramatically in one smashing moment. Usually it happens slowly, chipping away incrementally, imperceptively, like a background noise, scratching away at the edges. Hissing away as we try to ignore the static. The static irritates. It rankles our nerves. It unsettles our senses. Whether it’s the burr in the saddle, or the slightly off frequency signal, or the low-grade headache that lurks in the shadows, it breaks down anything solid under the pressure, little by little. Yet we build. We build and build, hoping that the fractures won’t be seen, least of all by us. If I close my eyes, nobody else will see it. Right? And so we slap on another coat. But the crack slips through. It’s amazing how much energy has to go into keeping up appearances.

But ironically, the structural defects themselves speak. Remember that hiss, that burr, that low-grade fever? They all stand alongside doubt. They speak when doubt is silenced. The balloon will bulge out when squeezed, no matter how hard we try to prevent it. That’s the strange thing about reality. The nature of nature is that it is inherently self-correcting. That’s not to say that irrevocable damage is never done. Sometimes it is. Too many times it is. But there are limits. Doubts are limits. Doubts are limits before they become too dangerous. They are the first symptoms. Doubts are, when we are healthy, our moral nerve endings, letting us know when the flame is coming too close.

Doubts can offer us a language of reconnection. Doubt can speak to the void of brokenness that pervades our interactions, interactions between people, lovers, friends, families, nations.

The word “doubt” and the word “brink” are rarely, if ever, found in the same sentence, and with good reason. It is when we have jettisoned doubt early on that we eventually find ourselves standing at the precipice, standing at the brink. One too many words spoken in an argument that never needed to begin. That fateful word said because of a pride kept hard. So many skirmishes won. So many wars lost. So many relationships…lost. A whole litany of words that hold painful meanings. All because doubt wasn’t allowed in. Interior debates cut short by mental partisans claiming territory, claiming words, claiming meanings, for their own. Nothing is allowed that might give an inch to any competing claim.

Doubt is a guest we rarely entertain. Doubt scares us too much. It raises questions. It puts assumptions to the test. It’s like a child who doesn’t know any better and says what is obvious, always to the embarrassment of those around it. Doubt doesn’t know decorum very well. It exposes. It reveals. It shames the shamers.

I want to be free. I want to be certain. I want to know what is true. Doubt stands in my way. Doubt stands before me like a guardian sentry, blocking my access to that which I desire above all else. Doubt refuses to give me entry to the space that will finally provide me the answers, the wisdom, the clarity. The day may come when I can stand in that place. Until then, I am thankful for doubt’s stubborn refusal to give up the fight and let me in. Doubt has given me an ear to hear the voices of others, voices that sometimes don’t agree with me.

It might be asked of me; are you denying any ability to know or believe anything? Aren’t you giving yourself over to excessive introspection, to the exclusion of external reality? These are fair questions, especially in light of what I’ve just written. Yet what I’m raising as a concern is not so much the question of whether we can know, but of what we do with what we do know, or think we know. I believe I can know. I even believe that I can know that I know. In fact, I would dare say that I know that I know. I’m no post-modernist, though they have a tremendous amount to say that deserves a good listening. There is true truth. I believe we can even know true truth. My problem with myself is that knowing true truth is not the same as knowing truth truthfully. I know all too well that I have never known truth truthfully, and it’s almost always been due to my own choosing not to. Even when it’s initially been due to nothing intentional, I respond with unfounded certainties, somehow hoping against hope to cover those loose ends up. That’s my concern. That’s who, I believe, we are.

Jennings, and etc.

As I mentioned on my other site, I realized that I missed Peter Jennings. He somehow spoke to a stability that transcended what we're experiencing right now. Anyway, for what's it's worth, I wish I could see Peter on tonight's news. It's emotional, I know. But I know that I could trust that he would "try" to get things right. And that's something.

Anyway, I recently finished the "Between Pacifism and Jihad" book, and was fairly dissappointed in it. I had hoped that it would provide a serious "Christian" perspective on just war and the problems that we face today. It turned out to be a defence of the "hyper-interventionist" policies that have become the "Christian" response to our international crises. It seems that this book is not much more than a dealing with the ghosts of the author's pacifistic past. This has colored the author's perspective in such a way that he cannot adequately deal with the current circumstances accurately.

The left will continually critique what we do, and sometimes from a good perspective, but ultimately from a fundamentally anti-christian perspective, so that we end up with a perspective that contradicts the basic Christian message of who God is and who we are. As y'all know, I am no more a fan of the right. Some of what they have to say is spot on. Yet they also contradict what Scripture has to say on other points.

The two new books that I'm reading right now are:

1. Dying to Win, by Robert Pape; a University of Chicago prof. who argues that we have seriously misunderstood the terrorist threat.

2.The War on Truth, by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed; a director of a well known peace institute in Brighton England. What impresses me most is his unwillingness to give in to the conspiratorial thinking that pervaded post-9/11 thinking; both from the right and the left.

Anyway, I hope y'all are doing well.

Irenicum