The Raven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theological Indeterminacy and the Ultimate

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

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

My options are:

anti theism

atheism

agnosticism

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

pantheism

polytheism

Christianity

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

What motivates conspiratorial thinking?

Atheists say it's the religious.

The right says it's the left.

The left says it's the right.

The religious say it's the atheists.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whither Christian essentials?

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Beginning

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

Economic and Moral Microcosm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know, because I've done it.

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

Can we emulate this?

Will we emulate this?

Grand Strategy with Charles Hill

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



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

Lily Pond Flowers

A nice meditative moment of contemplating Lily Pond Flowers.

A Facebook Exchange About Why I Call Myself An Augustinian Democrat

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

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

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

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

Did Neanderthals Possess the imago dei?

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

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

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

What connection between Glenn Beck and right wing violence?

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

 Continue reading...

Joel Hunter: Why the Origins Debate Matters for the Church

Big Bang, Big Boom

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

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

Glenn Beck: Prophet of God?

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

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

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Yahweh or No Way - The Blues Brothers & Glenn Beck
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

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

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Prophet Glenn Beck - Father Guido Sarducci
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Fox News

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

Part 1:




Part 2:



Part 3:



Part 4:



Part 5:



Part 6:



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

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

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

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

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

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

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