Matthew Elmore-Calling All Navigators!

A customer at my store (thank you so much!) gave me a CD of a musician from Hudsonville, just up the road from Holland, named Matthew Elmore. The CD is called Calling All Navigators! His vocal style is reminiscent of Josh Garrels and to some extent Phil Ochs, an old sixties protest singer I've always enjoyed. In one of his songs his raw vocals remind me of Keith Green and his unapologetic passion. The final song, Rescue Me, Almighty God, could easily become a new hymn classic. It reminds me of the theological richness found in the hymns of William Cowper and Augustus Toplady. Needless to say, I look forward to hearing more from this gifted young musician. As I said yesterday at work, sometimes we get our best theology from the poets and musicians. This is an example of just that.

The "controversial" Derek Webb

Derek Webb is a Christian musician who used to sing lead vocals with Caedmon's Call back in the 90's until 2003, when he left to pursue a solo career. It's since then that he has gotten the label of "controversial", since his lyrics have included what some consider to be mild profanity and have also touched on political/social issues in a confrontational way. What is it about Derek Webb that makes him so controversial? Is it just the "strong" language that he occasionally uses in his songs? Is it the hot button issues that he tackles in his songs? Well, the answer to these questions is yes, and more. Derek has written what I consider to be the most theologically mature lyrics in Christian music in recent years. There are others who also write theologically accurate lyrics, to be sure, such as Michael Card and Fernando Ortega. But Derek takes these theological insights and lets them loose on politics and culture. It's in this that he's gotten himself in trouble. You see, Derek Webb is speaking with what is sometimes called the "prophetic voice", a voice that is never popular, because it speaks to the idolatries of God's community, the church. Whether it's Wedding Dress calling us whores chasing after other lovers besides God, Saint and Sinner saying that we're a damned mess before being united with Christ, or King and a Kingdom, where he says that one of two great lies he's heard was that Jesus Christ was a white middle class Republican, Derek hits the American Evangelical church where it hurts. He hits them where they have chosen to elevate these cultural issues above the call of the gospel. Derek makes clear in his music that we are all guilty, himself included. In one song from his first solo album, he says that he's a dangerous crusader, turning over tables, but he's starting in his own living room. This is what a real prophetic voice does. Many, who would like to be seen as prophetic voices, whether on the left or the right, simply use their accusative voice to make their own side sound better. That's not a prophetic voice in the biblical sense, that's just another partisan trying to sway the vote. A true prophetic voice will point out his own log before mentioning the splinter in any one else's eye. His new album, Stockholm Syndrome is more of the same true prophetic voice. The "controversial" song on this album is What Matters More, where he uses scandalous words like damn and shit. What seems to be lost in the midst of the controversy is what the song is actually about. Derek Webb is an important artist, not just for his social commentary, but for the fact that his commentary comes from his Christian convictions. Maybe the true controversy is what the American evangelical church has become.

Raspberries!

Regina Spektor's Laughing At

Regina Spektor has a new album called Far and it's fabulous. Her voice has even more range than before, and her nuance and control is stronger than ever. The song I'm most interested in, the one featured on her website front page, is Laughing At. The song basically declares that no one's laughing at God when bad things happen. It then also declares that God can be funny, even hilarious. I know that Spektor is a Russian Jew, but I have no idea of what her own views are of religion/spirituality. I have to admit that my favorite part of the song is when she rips on those who offer a god more like a Genie, Houdini, Jimminy Cricket or Santa Claus then the One who actually exists. In this she seems to intuitively know that these gods are just our selfish wishes externalized. God is not our cosmic bell hop, rushing to feed our glutinous appetites. But who/what is the god of Regina Spektor? Since her songs are pretty post-modern, what we get are the questions, but not the answers. I am curious though.

A Catholic voice on living a sustainable life

A good friend of mine emailed me an essay written just today about being environmentally attuned, advocating eating locally through organic farmers, and looking at where our clothing is made before we buy it. A typical arugula eating lefty? Not in the least! The author is a traditional Catholic who recognizes that we live in an enchanted world, and that this means that everything natural is of value, because Yahweh, the God of the universe, is the Creator of it all. I look forward to seeing what else he has to say.

A video I shot during last night's storm

Who is Dennis Petersen, and what is Young Earth Creationism (YEC)?

Last week I asked an online friend, James Kidder, who runs a website called Science and Religion: A View from an Evolutionary Creationist/Theistic Evolutionist, if he knew who Dennis Petersen was. I was quite pleasantly surprised when he responded with a full essay on his blog with details including a review of the text in question from fellow YEC's (young earth creationists) that is surprisingly critical. Please check out his essay in response to my question and check out what else he has to say. His voice represents a much needed antidote to what is usually thought to be the "Christian" view on all issues scientific, and especially anything regarding evolution. Thankfully, as my sidebar attests, there are several Christian voices out there now that are doing yeoman work of showing that scientific literacy and Christian orthodoxy do not need to be mutually exclusive.

The combination of the YEC book, Jim's response, and the question concerning the Creation Museum that came up at church today makes me realize that an avenue of communication needs to be established within the theologically conservative community concerning what it means to be Christian in light of scientific advances, in particular as they relate to evolution and cosmology. My biggest concern is for those Christians who adhere to traditional orthodox Christianity, of which I'm one, but who have also rejected almost completely modern science when it comes to biology and cosmology, of which I'm not.

Many of my Christian friends are concerned to raise their children in the faith so that they will pass on that faith for many generations to come. I agree with that wholeheartedly. Yet part of what it seems to mean when the "faith" is described includes YEC belief. I understand the impulse. To take doctrine seriously and in detail is to go against the grain in almost every way. Our culture, whether secular or even Christian, is consumed with the desire to avoid anything that divides. We seem to be guided by a public theology that says, along with Rodney King, Can't we all just get along? Pragmatism rules the day. Relativism relagates anything distinctive and exclusive as irrelevant or even a threat. Thus the temptation is to avoid any controversy by avoiding anything precise, anything exact.

Here we find an irony that connects, in a healthy way, the disciplines of orthodox Christianity and the scientific enterprise. Both require precision and exactness. Both disdain flabby logic and rationales from emotionalism. They also share a common thread of questioning the assumptions of a stale orthodoxy that loses its vitality as the environment changes. They both deal with the details on the ground as they are. In both cases, the institutional forces usually strike out at these "heretics" in their midst, whether scientific or religious. They upset the norms as they have been understood for ages. It is my contention that to be an orthodox Christian does not neccessitiate being a Young Earth Creationist. In fact, to be faithful to the God who has revealed Himself through the word of Scripture and the final Word, Christ Himself, is to honor the achievements of scientsts, both Christian and non-Christian, who have made amazing discoveries of our natural world. The God of the universe, who is the Word Incarnate, and Who is Reason Incarnate, rules the universe according to His own nature. God is coherent. Thus the natural world is coherent. Thus even fallen human reason is capable of understanding aspects of this creation as it searches it out diligently.

I drive a car every day to work. The reason I am able to drive a car is that multiple people working in multiple places worked together to put that car together. So far it works enough for me to get where I want to go. But where did those people working together get the idea to put this car together so that I can drive it? The car was designed by engineers working with materials and formulas. (BTW, I'm not going where you think I'm going. I don't buy into ID) The materials and formulas are themselves the product of the scientific enterprise, which came out of the enlightenment, sometimes called the scientific revolution. Some of the people involved were Christian. Many were not. However, the modern industrial economy we experience is a direct result of their scientific and theoretical work in years past. We do all of what we do and live the way we do because of the work of men and women who labored in laboratories and worked on theorems that have borne fruit both intellectually and economically.

The "theory" of evolution is no different. It's a theory just like Einstein's theory of relativity. And it's had just as much practical effect. Einstein gave us nuclear power (and weapons) and a much deeper understanding of the universe. Sounds pretty practical to me. The theory of evolution, especially in light of modern genetics, has given us an incredible tool to be able to understand the natural processes of mammals, both human and many other. The practical impact of this of course is medicine. How we treat diseases is directly related to our evolutionary relationship to every other species on earth. I can't think of anything more practical than that.

In thinking about this, my thought is that I would like to see a paper written to Christian parents of children concerning their educational future. If you are a Christian parent, and you want your child to glorify God as fully as possible, then you should want your child to be as scientifically literate as possible. If you are are a Christian parent who wants to homeschool your child (a position I'm sympathetic to), please consider how your child's faith will be effected when they enter higher education. Many lose their faith because they see the scientific evidence and then think it means that Christianity must not be true.

Christianity and science are not enemies. In fact, the coherence of science, I believe, is predicated upon the nature of God, Who is coherent and is Reason Incarnate.

Here's a cool thunderstorm video from Monday night.

A new blog I just found by Gershom Gorenberg called southjerusalem

I was reading Foreign Policy's online magazine and saw that they had an article by Gershom Gorenberg and knew I needed to read what he had to write. My previous experience with Gorenberg was his masterful work, The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount. In his FP piece, he was laying out why Bibi Netanyahu needs to be careful in his upcoming speech this weekend in Tel Aviv concerning the settlement issue. In a nutshell, "natural growth" ain't what we think it is. Gershom's vision for an Israeli/Palestinian future is idealistic to be sure. But even if we acknowledge every past hurt, there has to be a time when we decide to move forward. I'll be honest, I'm not hopeful for the near future, but that doesn't mean we stop working for a better future with those willing to work with us. It may not be our generation that gets to enjoy the benefit of lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians (although I hope it is), but we can at least do the work of planting the seeds of peaceful coexistence between two peoples so different and yet so similar.

What is an oblique mitzvah?

An oblique mitzvah is a good work done, if you will, from a sideways glance. It's almost an inadvertent good deed. It's not quite intentional. An oblique mitzvah manages a moral act in the midst of an immoral situation; a situation I might add, that emanates from within. I think when we engage in oblique mitzvahs, we illustrate the goodness of God. The Creator's goodness is shown in a dirty, messy situation. The term came about when I picked up a call today at work and it turned out to be a telemarketer. Instead of hanging up, which is what I (and everyone else) normally do, I set the cordless phone on the counter and let the recorded voice continue its spiel. It's at that moment that I realized that by putting the phone aside without hanging up that I was keeping one phone line busy at that telemarketing company, and thus they were unable to make another call to someone else at that moment. The whole event lasted maybe a minute. It won't go down in the annals of human history as a transformative moment. It won't even go down in my own life's history as being a game changer. But, for one moment, I kept a company that's most likely a scam operation, from harassing someone else. That, my friends, is an oblique mitzvah.

Grateful

I am grateful for faithful friends. I'm reminded that this is how God usually speaks to my deepest needs.

A good article from Christianity Today

Christianity Today has an article about the relationship between the radical fringe and the mainstream of the pro-life movement. The fringe, both on the left and the right, end up effecting the mainstream, again on the left and right, in such a way that they both speak what the other is unable or unwilling to say. Obviously, the violent expressions that both extremes occasionally act out cannot be sanctioned, but they do effectively express concerns that the center is usually unwilling to entertain. In any case, it's a delicate balance. Both the right and the left should consider what their respective voices at the fringes have to say without giving in to the violent impulses that too often drive their actions.

Some nice sunset pictures from this evening.

George Bush and the End Times, Next on Fox!

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

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

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

Why the god of the gaps must die

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

This god needs to die.

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

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

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

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

Christianity and Evolution

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

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

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

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

Who knows, we might actually learn something!

How the left can save capitalism

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

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

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

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

On the subjectiivity of knowledge

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

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

Biologos

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