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.

Being pro-life under a pro-choice president

Barack Obama has already re-opened the funding for international aid to groups that fund contraception and abortion services. Bush had cut that off during his years after Clinton had funded them during his. The seesaw continues. Of much greater concern is FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act), which Obama has promised to sign if the congress passes the bill. That would effectively nationalize abortion policy in such a way that states would be unable to effectively limit any abortions at any stage or for any reason.

I consider myself to be pro-life. Yet I voted for Obama. My decision to vote for him is based on many issues, economic, environmental, military, and more, in which I believe he offers a better direction than do the Republicans. Over all, I believe that his policies will be better for America than would the policies of McCain, even though I highly respect McCain and even voted for him back in 2000 in the Republican primary. This go round I was very disappointed by McCain's choice of Palin and his swinging to the right on issues he is typically more moderate on.

How can someone work on pro-life issues during these upcoming years under Obama? First of all, work on the ground. Help women who need help in carrying their pregnancy through to term. Volunteer or donate to a local Crisis Pregnancy Center. And if president Obama does sign FOCA into law, work to have it overturned as unconstitutional. Nationalizing/federalizing a policy that has tradionally been seen as a state issue may well be challengable as unconstitutional. And work to get state and federal candidates elected who are pro-life, whether they're Republican, Democratic or Independent.

Remember, there are many folks out there who are sympathetic to the pro-life cause, even if they're more "progressive" than is usually found in pro-life circles. There are pro-life Democrats. Click on the link to the right for their site. They're doing great work, and they defy the usual ideological divide. Read what Nat Hentoff has to say. He's a left wing Jewish athiest who's pro-life, and strongly so! See why he believes so strongly in protecting the unborn, it could help broaden the appeal to those beyond the religious right.

Lastly, work for small victories. Look around you. See if there's someone who needs help who might otherwise be left aside and left alone. Help the poor, the sick, the old, the alone, the scared girl not knowing what to do now that she's pregnant. Let her know she's not alone and that there is help. If we focus our energy in this way during the next few years (and I would hope permanently!), the pro-life movement will do what electoral politics has not been able to do in the last 35 or so years. I hope that this is what it will mean to be pro-life in the time before us.

A Theology of Gaza

How do we approach the current conflict between Israel and Gaza in light of what scripture says? As I have already mentioned in my previous post, I grew up being fervently pro-Israel. This sentiment was based in part on a particular theology that saw the birth of the modern nation state of Israel as being a fulfillment of prophecy, thus necessitating Christians' and Americas' unqualified support. I also leaned towards Israel in part because of personal affection for many Jewish friends as well as my own reaction against anti-Semitic beliefs held by some in my family. I still wince when I hear antisemitic terms or ideas used in casual conversation, just as much as I do when I hear casual racism as well. Thankfully, my mother was very good in reminding me that Jesus is Jewish and that all of his followers were too. That shaped and continues to shape my understanding of my faith.

However, as regards my understanding of what scripture says concerning who God "blesses" and why, I have sharply changed my own understanding concerning America and Israel. The underlying assumption behind many Christians, especially American Christians, is that God has established a "special" relationship with America, because of its being a "Christian" nation. And likewise God has miraculously brought about the rebirth of Israel. This dual belief sees America's well-being as being contingent to its relationship with modern Israel. The assumption is that modern Israel is coterminus with ancient Israel, and that both are to be allied with if anyone would hope to be "blessed" by God.

But what if these assumptions concerning Israel, both modern and ancient, and America as a "Christian" nation, are wrong? As might be expected by what I've already written, I do believe they are wrong. The basis for my rejection of these views comes from key scriptural passages that speak directly to who God says are his people. In the Old Testament God clearly worked through the tribal framework of the Israelites. Although even then the text makes clear that God worked salvifically through non-Israelites as well. But we see much more clearly in the New Testament that Christ Jesus is the center-point of all history. All of the Old Testament promises point forwards to Christ. All of the New Testament (and subsequent history) points back to Christ. He is the lens through which all of history must be seen. Nationality, race, class, sex, and any separating distinction, are all relegated to unimportance in light of our identity in Christ.

How does this relate directly to the events in Gaza? If Christ is the center of all of history, and all identities are driven by their relationship to him, then that defines the modern state of Israel as well as Gaza. It also defines America in the same way. Scripture declares that God will bless the "seed of Abraham" and he will bless those who bless him and curse those who curse him. Contrary to many Christians who believe that this scripture refers to the modern nation state of Israel, scripture unambiguously states that the "seed" spoken of is none other than Christ himself and no one else. That then means that Israel, America, Palestine, Gaza, etc., are to be seen as normal nations judged in their relationship to Christ. In that light, they all fall under the judgment of being unrighteous because of their unbelief in Christ. Therefore, the only "covenanted" nation is the church. And the church is made up of "every nation, tribe, and tongue."

This means that Israel's invasion of Gaza and indescriminate bombing is to judged by normal international law. Likewise, Hamas is to be treated according to their words and actions as well. In other words, we should look at the whole of the picture, complicated as it is, and judge according to the reason God has given us all.

They all have blood on their hands. But so do we.

The Island of Misfit Toys as Church

The island of misfit toys is a place for those who don't "fit in" in any other place. Whenever I would watch the cartoon when I was a child, that part of the cartoon was always my favorite part. It was the place where all the "rejects" were accepted. I like that. As an adult I've spent many years looking for a church that reflected something of that sensibility. In some ways, when I read the New Testament and even the Old Testament, I see a reflection of that "ideal" in how God chooses his people.

Hardly a day goes by that I don't end up speaking to or meeting someone who is an outcast, a misfit, someone who doesn't play well with others and so on. In almost every case, I find that they have felt, and more often than not, have actually experienced, being rejected by various churches because of their oddballness. Sometimes it's their own fault. Sometimes they really are difficult people. Sometimes they're not very good at "boundaries." Sometimes they make those around them feel uncomfortable just by their presence. Believe me, I've seen it and felt it myself.

So what.

Even if this were always true, which it clearly isn't, according to God's way of choosing, none of this is any reason for exclusion. We, if we are to call ourselves "the church," do not have the right to operate according to our comfort zone. In fact, God's way of choosing is explicit in it's basis. It is based entirely and only on his will and desire, apart from any merit in our part. As a matter of fact, whether it's the Israelites in the Old Testament as a people group, or it's individual believers in the New Testament, any time God chooses, it's in spite of us every single time.

Therefore, if we are to entertain any "ecclesiology" at all, it's to be an ecclesiology of inclusion. An immediate objection can be heard already. Doesn't this kind of approach to "doing church" lead to chaos? What about church discipline? Let's look at how Paul handled that pristine first century church in the lovely town of Corinth. After all, don't we all want to be just like the New Testament church instead of having to settle for what's available today?

The hands of God

When the poorest of the poor
have called upon you,
have we been there?

They call upon your name
knowing you will deliver.
Do they know that you have called
us who are called by you
to deliver you
to them?

Israel and Gaza

As I write this, Israel is invading Gaza. This is being done in order to end the missile firings of Hamas into southern Israel. American media is essentially parroting Israeli propaganda. If you watch American news outlets, especially Fox News, then Hamas is the only evil actor involved in this tragedy. Israel is only doing what it can to "survive" against a vast and intractable enemy. I have yet to see any mention of why for every 1 Israeli killed by Hamas rockets, over 100 Gazans have been killed. Is that considered to be a reasonable ratio? So much for an eye for en eye. It might be assumed that I'm somehow anti-Israel by the comments I've made already. Maybe I'm somehow an apologist for Hamas. The truth is, I grew up fervently pro-Israel. I was baptized by a Jewish Christian in NYC when I was 21 years old. I long held that Israel's founding as a modern state in 1948 was borderline miraculous and "clearly" portended the beginning of the end times. I was one of those Christian Zionists the secular left always talks about. Needless to say, I no longer consider myself to be a Christian Zionist, at least as far as the term is currently understood. I have friends who are Israeli Jews and Palestinian Christians. I mourn for all those caught in the middle. I mourn how the dynamics of this long conflict have shaped each people's attitudes towards each other. I mourn that both sides have chosen at each stage of the conflict to listen to the most radical expressions from their own midst. One side has brought the matches. The other side has brought the gasoline. And each wants to "prove" that it's all the other side's fault for why everyone is burning. God have mercy on us all.

Here I am

What should I say as the "real" me? It's strange since my other online incarnations are also "me" even if I don't use my birth name. This Christmas season has me thinking about what I want to do in the upcoming year. As usual I want to learn a foreign language. In particular, I still want to learn Russian. But my list of languages include Chinese, Arabic, and one I took for one year in Junior high, French.
If I want to be able to do any of this, I know that I need to be more disciplined in my daily life. Part of that discipline is ratcheting down the busyness which is totally nonproductive. Number one in that arena is television. I keep saying that I want to disconnect my cable TV. And yet it still stays on. It steals both my time and my money. And the number one accomplice is me. The old Pauline conundrum still stands true, "I do what I don't want to do, and I don't do what I want to do. Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
Just earlier today I finished for the second time Henri Nouwen's newly published book, "The Selfless Way of Christ: Downward Mobility and the Spiritual Life" even though Nouwen died over ten years ago, and this particular book was actually written nearly thirty years ago. I've enjoyed Nouwen's writings for almost fifteen years now, since being introduced to his seminal works "The Wounded Healer" and "The Return of the Prodigal Son."
In this latest work, Nouwen describes the true spiritual life as one which is marked by "downward mobility" in contrast to the usual call of upward mobility, which our modern American culture esteems so highly. He addresses three temptations which confronted Jesus and which confront us today: the temptation of relevancy, the temptation of being spectacular, and the temptation of power. He goes into just enough detail in each of these temptations to bring home what these temptations might look like in our own lives.
Thankfully, in the final chapter (there are only three in the book) he describes the three disciplines that can bring about spiritual health and maturity. They are the discipline of the church, the book, and the heart. In the discipline of the church, he points out how important it is to be in community in order to grow into the image of Christ. We learn that all of life is sacramental, and since the church is charged with administering the sacraments, all of life is administered, as it were, through our communal fellowship in the church. Thus we cannot be truly mature Christians if we live our lives as "lone-ranger" Christians. The term is an oxymoron.
Secondly, Nouwen points us to the discipline of the Book, by which he means the Word, first in Christ Jesus, but then in the written word of scripture. The Word of God, as seen in the words of scripture, is the lens through which we see everything. All of life is interpreted by this Word.
Finally, we have the discipline of the heart. Nouwen describes this discipline as being found through contemplative prayer. And he helpfully points out that this particualr discipline is the most most difficult, since it is so easily given up. It is also the most secretive. It is this very secretive aspect of contemplative prayer that makes it so easy to ignore. But it is only when we enter into naked communion with God in secret do we begin to see ourselves as God sees us. We begin to see our deepest needs, our deepest weaknesses, our resentments, our desires. When we are laid bare by direct communion with God we are paradoxically brought low enough to sees others in a new light. We begin to see others as being in need in exactly the same way we are. The particular puzzle pieces may be arranged in a somewhat different order. But it's still the same puzzle. When we are exposed to that in our own life, we can begin to see that in others.
Then we are able to be born, live, suffer, die, and be resurrected again, and be Christ to those around us as Christ has been to us.

CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, etc.

What does it mean to be a Christian in an environment that emphasizes crisis over content? We have an economic crisis that threatens millions of people, not just Americans, who are at risk of becoming working class instead of middle class. Meanwhile, millions more are at risk of starving because the food, the basic staples of life, have become too expensive for them to buy. These people, no less valuable than the millions of those suddenly put at risk of downsizing from luxuries to necessities, are not rising up. They are not suddenly seeing their electronics being taken away from them. They are not seeing one less night of eating out. They are not seeing discomfort being counted as a loss of a basic human right. These people, these people who never have known anything better, aren't strong enough to rise up. The ones who are strong enough to rise up are those who have been trained to believe that the comforts that come from a system that says that they deserve it more than any other, must contend at best, and battle to the death if need be, those who are their competitors. Thus, the poorest of the poor must be demonized and dehumanized in order to allow their becoming "collateral damage" without an overwhelming sense of guilt. Most revolutions have been waged by those who have manipulated those who already had, so that they thought some other group was angling to get "their' goods. Divide and conquer is a tried and true technique from time immemorial.

Case in point: It's those Romans subjugating our homeland! It's those Jews threatening our empire's peace. It's those 'dirty' Italians (make sure to to emphasize the "eye" in 'I'talian) listening to their marching orders from the Vatican. And remember, the Irish were subhuman in English eyes until they came to America and got to be "white" for the first time in competition with blacks. Nowadays, it's Arabs (please make sure to pronounce the "A" in Arab!) as the convenient scapegoat. As long as we have someone, anyone, to see as the "other" we can avoid looking too closely at ourselves and what we've done or not done.

Whatever you do, pay no attention to that person dying on your doorstep. And if you can, please ignore that person, that man, that woman and that child, who is in the gunsights of missiles guided perfectly in their direction. Their life doesn't matter. They're the enemy. All of these wars are being fought for you.




What are you (am I) going to do?

Chris Buckley

I feel sorry (but only in one way) for Chris Buckley. He tried thinking as an independent. He may be wrong. He may be right. Apparently, he may not think or dare express his thoughts outwardly. I grew up learning from his father and his urbane and insightful temperament. Chris, while quite obviously different from his father, nonetheless has inherited his father's penchant for independent thinking. Kudos to him! I respect that Chris Buckley has decided that thinking through the issues is more important than going along with the party line. As an heretical democrat and republican, I say, welcome to the ship of the politically damned. In the long haul, it's a good place to be.

Welcome to the new capitalism

Our government is considering the possibility of partially nationalizing our banking industry. Those on the far right would say this is because of the governmental impulses of those who would say that only our elected officials, those in government, can get the job done and save us, are actually totalitarian socialists who have, all these many years, awaited this moment in order to sway us towards their dark, nefarious ways. They would argue that these "forces" are working to keep god out of our schools, government, and whatever other public institution we seem to think belong by rights to us.
If Billo, Rush, Sean, or any of the other talking point right tell us these essentials to all that is right and good and true, then I can rest assured, and need not think beyond their pronouncements. If I dare come to a contradictory conclusion, then I risk being seen, and of course declared, an enemy of the people.
Nonetheless, as a Christian, I look at what is happening, and cannot help but wonder at whether we are seeing the dawn of a new darkness, a period of coercion and moral cowardice that generations forward will look at in disgust and derision.
Last night, we read a passage from Kings that described what Elijah went through when the vast majority of Israel was apostate and he felt completely alone. God assured him that there were others who had not bowed the knee to baal. There were literally thousands of others who, even though not seen, were faithful to the one true God and what he had declared. It was true then. It is true now.
The reality is, our government is fundamentally in bed with the corporate interests that have so spectacularly failed in recent days. This isn't socialism. This isn't even unfettered capitalism. It's the economic prostitution ring of government serving the interests of the corporate Johns that have paid their whores for their services.
Now we see these distraught "customers" stepping away from the one who has "serviced" their needs for so long.
Let the recriminations begin. They are well deserved.

Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt as examples

In light of the current situation, with our politicians seeking to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they can't be trusted, and our economic "leaders" on Wall Street and elsewhere doing everything in their power to once again prove that they can't be trusted; we need leadership, whether political or otherwise, that's willing to point out that a combination of public and private malfeasance has given us what we have today.

In years past, we have had leaders, imperfect as they were, who nonetheless understood that strong measures were necessary to overcome the excesses that they had to confront. In the case of Teddy Roosevelt, the great Republican president who gave us both our national parks and who broke the "trusts" that held a stranglehold on American commerce, he confronted moneyed interests by breaking up the "Robber Barons" that essentially gave America a new slavery as pernicious as the one we supposedly eradicated in the mid 1800's.

His answer to this economic tyranny was to establish an equally strong federal power that stood as an antagonist, correcting and controlling the most rapacious impulses that these corporate interests clearly exhibited in the years preceding his administration.

Was he jingoistic? Yes. Did he advocate for American imperialism? Yes. Are these wrong for someone claiming the mantle of "Christian"? Yes. Does this tarnish his legacy? Yes. Does this tarnish his legacy any more than any other president? No. He was an American president. That was his job. Nothing more. Nothing less. To the degree he "used" Christian terminology and imagery to advantage American interests over and against what Christ actually declared His mission for His church, every political leader (Roosevelt included) should be judged.

Nonetheless, was he wise in his dealings with business interests in the time in which he lived? Yes, he was. He understood that concentrated power (whether political or economic) uncorrected is inherently dangerous and leads inexorably to tyranny. He understood this as a Lincoln Republican. Modern Republicans do not seem to understand this anymore. They see corporate interests as being essentially good, in the way that modern liberals see governmental agencies under Democrats (of course!) as being essentially good.

Teddy Roosevelt knew better. He was a Republican in the Lincoln mold. He understood that each and every human was impacted by a duality of impulses, both positive and negative.

A generation later, his cousin, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was confronted with not only corporate malfeasance, but fascism and communism abroad, and the same at home, if left untended. The second Roosevelt decided, in his upper class way, to attend to working class needs. He recognized that democratic capitalism, if it was to survive in any way, needed to be regulated in a responsible way. He inaugurated public works programs to give millions work when nothing else was available. He established social security, which we now assume as a right.

These two examples of aristocratic leaders who nonetheless saw that the greater public good was best served by meeting the needs of the working class and those most at risk gives us an example for today. Sadly, in the last few days, we see nary an example so far of anyone who embodies that spirit. Maybe they're out there. I'm sure they are. But they aren't being heard. And now is when they need most to be heard.

Augustinian "democrat"?

In the first post I described in basic terms what I meant by Augustinian. And since that seems to lead inexorably towards some form of conservatism, and to which, of a type, I admit I hold to, this post is dedicated to explaining why I've chosen to use the ideologically loaded term "democrat." Obviously, in the modern American context, "democrat" usually means someone who holds to an ideology which presupposes a modernist and materialist viewpoint which automatically negates any religious and/or spiritual content guiding the various views which shape and impact public policy. It is in two directions that my concerns lie. On the left, my concern is that there is a reality of antagonism towards any religious belief, especially of those who espouse any type of orthodoxy, whether Christian, Jewish, or Muslim (I specify these three major religions because they are each monotheistic, thus exclusive (in their traditional form) in their truth claims). On the right, my concern is that there has been an assumption that to be "on God's side" is to be a conservative in the modern cultural context of America, which has meant, by and large, being a Republican. Yet, if we were to look first and foremost to what the writers of scripture wrote, both in the Hebrew writings (OT) and the New Testament writings, we would see a concern for issues that would both overlap and contradict both of the major political ideologies driving our modern political discourse. Modern liberals love the Hebrew prophets' concern for the poor and outcasts of society and they likewise love the moral imperative of Jesus' commands in his sermon on the mount. But if Jesus says he's the only way, then that's just not a passage we're going to preach on, or if we have to, then we'll need to redefine it so that "his way (of doing things) is the only way" therefore ordaining whatever political palliative we've declared sacrosanct. And by the way, this is true too of modern conservatives! They're just as theologically "liberal" as their cultural antagonists, even if they're much more culturally conservative in their policy pronouncements. Whenever we "use" Jesus for our political ends, we inevitably devalue his atoning work in order to emphasize his exemplary work. That's not to say that Christ as example is unimportant. It is. Eternally so! Yet many moral teachers have provided comparable examples of moral behavior for us to follow. That's why in popular "spirituality" Jesus is one of many avatars of ascended humans, such as Gandhi, Krishna, Mohammad, Moses, and so on, who have "shown the way" to ultimate reality. As an aside, the issue of working together with others from different religious traditions, even though disagreeing deeply on fundamental issues, is worth considering. But that's a separate discussion. The problem with focusing primarily on Jesus as example to the exclusion of his atoning work is that we evacuate any power from his example. If God is righteous, if God requires perfect obedience in order to be in right relationship with him, if God requires a sacrifice to pay for not being in right relationship with him, then God is one who would both require perfect obedience and a perfect sacrifice. Guess what? Jesus fills the bill. He obeys. He pays.
This whole concept is offensive to any modern ideologue. Any of them, whether liberal of conservative, will gladly take the moral teachings (up to a point). But the particularity of Christ will ALWAYS be offensive to anyone seeking to make Christ a means to an end and not the end of our means.
So, what does any of this have to do with being a small "d" democrat? After all, I'm writing this in order to defend the term over and against other competing terms that might go well with Augustinian. We've already seen how conservative might go well. Even liberal might work, depending upon which meaning you attach to the term, historical (better) or modern (worse) American.
When I think of the term democrat, I think of the meaning that adhered to the ancient Greeks; I think of the term as it applied to the earliest Americans, which saw in the term a breaking down of old hierarchical divisions inherited from old allegiances from the old country. The term democrat means that each person is equal before the law. The term democrat means that the old dividing walls of class hostility are removed. The term democrat means that each of us is seen as standing equally just and unjust before the bar of justice. The term democrat means that every human institution is equally infiltrated by human fallenness, whether individual (most favored by modern conservatives) or corporate (whether economic, through the owners of capital or union bosses, or government corruption).
Thus, in this understanding of democrat as well as Augustinian, my hope is to provide a prism which sheds a more accurate light of both our human condition and our commonality which that theological and anthropological reality declare.
I believe that this understanding has political and public policy consequences. That's why this site exists.

An Augustinian Democrat?

What does it mean to be an Augustinian Democrat? Since the term starts with Augustinian, I'll explain what that means and why I've chosen it as the modifier of democrat. To be Augustinian is to say something particular about at least two issues; first, about anthropology or the nature of the human condition, and second, it speaks a particular word about theology, or about who and what God is. To be Augustinian is to have a high regard for the 'awe'ful sovereignty of God, especially in His dealings with mankind. The human side of that equation concerns itself with understanding accurately what it means to be human in our current state. Saint Augustine understood humans to be magnificent creations in their original estate, yet subsequently fundamentally broken. As image bearers of God's own visage, we share moral qualities that elevate us to nearly god-like stature, yet because of our fall from innocence, we now inherit and perpetuate a sinful nature that is continually at odds, not only with God and His revealed will, but also with other humans, the rest of nature, and even ourselves. This diagnosis of our human predicament, both theologically and anthropolically, is, at first blush, a seemingly 'conservative' argument, and in once sense, of course, it is. This underlying anthropology is what lies behind many of my conclusions regarding public policy issues. Yet, this very anthropology, which is actually fundamentally theologically 'conservative' nonetheless leads me towards decisions that quite often appear to be 'liberal' or 'progressive' in the current cultural context. Part of the difficulty in describing these terms adequately is that even though the terminology may be the same, their meanings have changed substantially and may in fact mean something fundamentally different than what they did in different cultural contexts and what is now intended when used. To be 'conservative' theologically is something altogether different than to be conservative culturally or even ideologically. And even within these various domains of conservatism, the term means something different depending upon the time and place of its use. To be ideologically conservative in 1789 America (or England more so!) is something radically different than to be conservative in 2008 America. And of course, since we do live in present day America, even modern conservatism is a contested term, as to what content should adhere to being conservative, being fought out in various journals, blogs, and talk shows. For the sake of clarity, my 'conservatism' is theological more than cultural or ideological, and is born out of the Augustinian tradition exemplified by the Protestant reformers John Calvin and Martin Luther. If you look to their grid of theology and anthropology, you will see my starting point for how I reach my conclusions. Now, it should be added, that even they are fallible humans and are not deserving of uncritical obedience. Yet I believe that they got two key doctrines correct; God and man. The first consequence of this understanding was obviously on man's relationship with God. That's why I adhere so strongly to a reformational view on salvation. Because they got God and man right, they therefore understood much more clearly what was at stake in how we are to be right with God. It is in this area that I am the most conservative. I believe firmly that they got soteriology (salvation doctrine) right because they got anthropology (the doctrine of humankind) and theology (the doctrine fo God) right. The question now becomes, if these views of God and the human condition have impacted the view of salvation, could they impact other views as well? Here is where we enter the political domain. And it is here I hope to explicate what I mean by using the term 'democrat' and why I choose to use it. In the next post I hope to better explain that.

Sun Myung Moon

It seems that Sun Myung Moon was slightly injured in a helicopter accident (a hard landing) either earlier today or sometime yesterday. I've just been reading a book about him and his influence over American politics called "Bad Moon Rising" written by John Gorenfeld. He has also created a short documentary called "King of America" that is just wild. Anyone interested in being faithful to the call of Christ, especially as it relates to being a Christian in America here and now, should see this documentary and read his book.

Wounds

How many wounds must
I inflict,
before You
afflict me
with Your wounds?
You sear me with
Your hands and feet.
Your brow bleeds
onto me.
As You look down
from above.
I hate You.
You are killing me.
I know You must.
I know why.
I also know
that You love me.
And You're bleeding
into me.
So that I might
bleed too.

Into others,
just like me.

Why is this Your way?
Why must You suffer?
Why must You die?
Why must I?

I know.
You've already told me.
And all those before
and after me.

It's who You are.
It's what You do.
Thank You.