Screwing for Virginity

R.S.V.P.: A Letter from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the American People

2006-11-30T16:24:00.000-06:00

Message of H.E. Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
To the American People
In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful
O, Almighty God, bestow upon humanity the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers.

Noble Americans,
Were we not faced with the activities of the US administration in this part of the world and the negative ramifications of those activities on the daily lives of our peoples, coupled with the many wars and calamities caused by the US administration as well as the tragic consequences of US interference in other countries; Were the American people not God-fearing, truth-loving, and justice-seeking, while the US administration actively conceals the truth and impedes any objective portrayal of current realities; And if we did not share a common responsibility to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity; Then, there would have been little urgency to have a dialogue with you.
While Divine providence has placed Iran and the United States geographically far apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit, which proclaim the dignity and exalted worth of all human beings, have brought our two great nations of Iran and the United States closer together. Both our nations are God-fearing, truth-loving and justice-seeking, and both seek dignity, respect and perfection.
Both greatly value and readily embrace the promotion of human ideals such as compassion, empathy, respect for the rights of human beings, securing justice and equity, and defending the innocent and the weak against oppressors and bullies.
We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need. We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples’ rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings. We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty. The pure human essence of the two great nations of Iran and the United States testify to the veracity of these statements.
Noble Americans,
Our nation has always extended its hand of friendship to all other nations of the world. Hundreds of thousands of my Iranian compatriots are living amongst you in friendship and peace, and are contributing positively to your society. Our people have been in contact with you over the past many years and have maintained these contacts despite the unnecessary restrictions of US authorities. As mentioned, we have common concerns, face similar challenges, and are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world.
We, like you, are aggrieved by the ever-worsening pain and misery of the Palestinian people. Persistent aggressions by the Zionists are making life more and more difficult for the rightful owners of the land of Palestine. In broad daylight, in front of cameras and before the eyes of the world, they are bombarding innocent defenseless civilians, bulldozing houses, firing machine guns at students in the streets and alleys, and subjecting their families to endless grief. No day goes by without a new crime.
Palestinian mothers, just like Iranian and American mothers, love their children, and are painfully bereaved by the imprisonment, wounding and murder of their children. What mother wouldn’t?
For 60 years, the Zionist regime has driven millions of the inhabitants of Palestine out of their homes. Many of these refugees have died in the Diaspora and in refugee camps. Their children have spent their youth in these camps and are aging while still in the hope of returning to homeland.
You know well that the US administration has persistently provided blind and blanket support to the Zionist regime, has emboldened it to continue its crimes, and has prevented the UN Security Council from condemning it. Who can deny such broken promises and grave injustices towards humanity by the US administration?
Governments are there to serve their own people. No people wants to side with or support any oppressors. But regrettably, the US administration disregards even its own public opinion and remains in the forefront of supporting the trampling of the rights of the Palestinian people.
Let’s take a look at Iraq. Since the commencement of the US military presence in Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been killed, maimed or displaced. Terrorism in Iraq has grown exponentially. With the presence of the US military in Iraq, nothing has been done to rebuild the ruins, to restore the infrastructure or to alleviate poverty. The US Government used the pretext of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but later it became clear that that was just a lie and a deception.
Although Saddam was overthrown and people are happy about his departure, the pain and suffering of the Iraqi people has persisted and has even been aggravated.
In Iraq, about one hundred and fifty thousand American soldiers, separated from their families and loved ones, are operating under the command of the current US administration. A substantial number of them have been killed or wounded and their presence in Iraq has tarnished the image of the American people and government.
Their mothers and relatives have, on numerous occasions, displayed their discontent with the presence of their sons and daughters in a land thousands of miles away from US shores. American soldiers often wonder why they have been sent to Iraq.
I consider it extremely unlikely that you, the American people, consent to the billions of dollars of annual expenditure from your treasury for this military misadventure.
Noble Americans,
You have heard that the US administration is kidnapping its presumed opponents from across the globe and arbitrarily holding them without trial or any international supervision in horrendous prisons that it has established in various parts of the world. God knows who these detainees actually are, and what terrible fate awaits them.
You have certainly heard the sad stories of the Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib prisons. The US administration attempts to justify them through its proclaimed “war on terror.” But every one knows that such behavior, in fact, offends global public opinion, exacerbates resentment and thereby spreads terrorism, and tarnishes the US image and its credibility among nations.
The US administration’s illegal and immoral behavior is not even confined to outside its borders. You are witnessing daily that under the pretext of “the war on terror,” civil liberties in the United States are being increasingly curtailed. Even the privacy of individuals is fast losing its meaning. Judicial due process and fundamental rights are trampled upon. Private phones are tapped, suspects are arbitrarily arrested, sometimes beaten in the streets, or even shot to death. I have no doubt that the American people do not approve of this behavior and indeed deplore it.
The US administration does not accept accountability before any organization, institution or council. The US administration has undermined the credibility of international organizations, particularly the United Nations and its Security Council. But, I do not intend to address all the challenges and calamities in this message.
The legitimacy, power and influence of a government do not emanate from its arsenals of tanks, fighter aircrafts, missiles or nuclear weapons. Legitimacy and influence reside in sound logic, quest for justice and compassion and empathy for all humanity. The global position of the United States is in all probability weakened because the administration has continued to resort to force, to conceal the truth, and to mislead the American people about its policies and practices. Undoubtedly, the American people are not satisfied with this behavior and they showed their discontent in the recent elections. I hope that in the wake of the mid-term elections, the administration of President Bush will have heard and will heed the message of the American people.
My questions are the following:
Is there not a better approach to governance?
Is it not possible to put wealth and power in the service of peace, stability, prosperity and the happiness of all peoples through a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all nations, instead of aggression and war?
We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent. But, can terrorism be contained and eradicated through war, destruction and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocents?
If that were possible, then why has the problem not been resolved? The sad experience of invading Iraq is before us all.
What has blind support for the Zionists by the US administration brought for the American people? It is regrettable that for the US administration, the interests of these occupiers supersedes the interests of the American people and of the other nations of the world.
What have the Zionists done for the American people that the US administration considers itself obliged to blindly support these infamous aggressors? Is it not because they have imposed themselves on a substantial portion of the banking, financial, cultural and media sectors?
I recommend that in a demonstration of respect for the American people and for humanity, the right of Palestinians to live in their own homeland should be recognized so that millions of Palestinian refugees can return to their homes and the future of all of Palestine and its form of government be determined in a referendum. This will benefit everyone.
Now that Iraq has a Constitution and an independent Assembly and Government, would it not be more beneficial to bring the US officers and soldiers home, and to spend the astronomical US military expenditures in Iraq for the welfare and prosperity of the American people? As you know very well, many victims of Katrina continue to suffer, and countless Americans continue to live in poverty and homelessness.
I’d also like to say a word to the winners of the recent elections in the US: The United States has had many administrations; some who have left a positive legacy, and others that are neither remembered fondly by the American people nor by other nations.
Now that you control an important branch of the US Government, you will also be held to account by the people and by history
If the US Government meets the current domestic and external challenges with an approach based on truth and Justice, it can remedy some of the past afflictions and alleviate some of the global resentment and hatred of America. But if the approach remains the same, it would not be unexpected that the American people would similarly reject the new electoral winners, although the recent elections, rather than reflecting a victory, in reality point to the failure of the current administration’s policies. These issues had been extensively dealt with in my letter to President Bush earlier this year.
To sum up:
It is possible to govern based on an approach that is distinctly different from one of coercion, force and injustice.
It is possible to sincerely serve and promote common human values, and honesty and compassion.
It is possible to provide welfare and prosperity without tension, threats, imposition or war.
It is possible to lead the world towards the aspired perfection by adhering to unity, monotheism, morality and spirituality and drawing upon the teachings of the Divine Prophets.
Then, the American people, who are God-fearing and followers of Divine religions, will overcome every difficulty.
What I stated represents some of my anxieties and concerns.
I am confident that you, the American people, will play an instrumental role in the establishment of justice and spirituality throughout the world. The promises of the Almighty and His prophets will certainly be realized, Justice and Truth will prevail and all nations will live a true life in a climate replete with love, compassion and fraternity.
The US governing establishment, the authorities and the powerful should not choose irreversible paths. As all prophets have taught us, injustice and transgression will eventually bring about decline and demise. Today, the path of return to faith and spirituality is open and unimpeded.
We should all heed the Divine Word of the Holy Qur’an:
“But those who repent, have faith and do good may receive Salvation. Your Lord, alone, creates and chooses as He will, and others have no part in His choice; Glorified is God and Exalted above any partners they ascribe to Him.” (28:67-68)
I pray to the Almighty to bless the Iranian and American nations and indeed all nations of the world with dignity and success.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
President of the Islamic Republic of Iran
29 November 2006

9/11: In Memoriam

2006-09-11T11:02:00.000-05:00

Prior to the commencement of his presidency, George W. Bush’s campaign slogan was “Bringing America Together”. Apparently, according to the Republican Party in general, and Bush in particular, the grand old U.S. of A. was experiencing crises of national identity. Whether there was an internal conflict of Us/Them in the United States or not, Bush’s dreams were answered at the precise moment that two planes crashed into the national monument known as the World Trade Center, five years ago. The “crises of national identity found its provisional resolution by displacing the internal conflict of Us/Them on an external screen.” (Richard Kearney) The body politic known as the United States was (re)united on September 11, 2001, just like the separatist Puritans and the non-religious adventurers were united under the Mayflower Compact or like how frontiersmen put there differences aside while expanding America’s borders westward. This time, however, “we” were not arriving to the New World on the Mayflower or pushing the frontier further west in stagecoaches or covered wagons and uniting against the savage “Indians”, instead, “they” were the savages arriving on airplanes, crashing into buildings, nevertheless, again we united against “them”. Our crises of national identity, our differences were put behind us; America had been brought together against “them”; against savage terrorists. We were once again the United States of America.
However, it was indeed a “provisional resolution”. Between the attack upon the World Trade Center and today, five years later, we have seen the Bush administration declare preemptive war on Iraq, declare an endless “war on terrorism”, curtail civil rights, defy laws, resort to overwhelming force, and other actions, like these, that are “ready products of fear and hasty thought.” (Wendell Berry) Again we are experiencing crises of national identity; Americans are no longer united over the issues of war in Iraq (how is this connected to 9/11 again?), war in Afghanistan, or war on terrorism. Words like “freedom” are evoked to reunite the body politic, because who is against “freedom”? Terrorists. This administration is fighting for “freedom” against those who are against “freedom”, so if you are against this administrations actions, you are against “freedom” (you are no better than a terrorist) because this administration is fighting for “freedom”. This logic disintegrates public dialogue into ad hominem arguments, words like “freedom” disintegrate into rhetoric of self-righteousness and self-justification, and critical self-appraisal is thrown out with the bathwater. We are implored to remember the victims aboard the planes and in the towers who died on this fateful day, but these are just disguised calls to revenge and resentment, to increase military funding (recall Eisenhower’s warning against the military-industrial complex), to give our endless support to the thriving bureaucracy, in order to stamp out these “embittered few”, these “thousands of trained terrorists” so “innocents” who died on 9/11 and others will not have died in vain (The National Security Strategy). But will retaliating in immature and dangerous ways, will the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of “innocents” in Iraq and Afghanistan, will the deaths of thousands of American, Canadian, English, Iraq, and Afghan soldiers, will the severed head of Osama bin-Laden, save the victims deaths from banality? It doesn’t look like America’s typical unoriginal and uncreative response of war and violence will save or is saving the victims death from be(com)ing trivial. Perhaps it is now, five years out, to start thinking of different ways to handle the crises that 9/11 has placed in our laps. When should we start forgiving? When is it right to remember and when is it right to forget? How much should we remember and how much should we forget? Is this a time and place (like Northern Ireland, Bosnia, or Rwanda) where we should take note of Nietzsche’s call to “actively forget the past” in order to surmount revenge and resentment? To rework Adorno’s question about Auschwitz (which he later retracted), “Is poetry possible after 9/11?” Or is this a time and place (like Auschwitz) in which “it is essential to remember the past in order to honour our ‘debt to the dead’ and try to insure that it never happens again” (Kearney)? If we are to remember the past, if we are to narrate the events of half a decade ago, how do we do so without “losing the unique character of unspeakable horror” (Kearney)? Let’s not follow the easy path of many Christians, both conservative and liberal, and create or subscribe to some Master Narrative that attempts to explain it away. 9/11 did not happen because God called down destruction on America because of homosexuals, or gay marriage, or whatever. We must avoid “banalising” it “by reducing it to voyeuristic spectacle or kitsh” (Kearney) or a commodity of the culture industry (a real and present danger with the appearance of numerous emotive 9/11 films).
Either way, we must take seriously both the September 11th attack on the Twin Towers and the dissent of the populace concerning the subsequent actions taken by the Bush administration in order to make occasion for strenuous self-appraisal. First, what has the United States done to stimulate such an attack? Could it be that we are trespassers in the Islamic holy land, not just Mecca, but the whole Saudi Arabian peninsula? Could it be because of the untrammeled spread of the global market leaving the Islamic people maimed in its path? Second, why are citizens dissenting? Obviously, some people aren’t pleased with the way this administration is handling things. Instead of hijacking, raping, and using religious vocabulary to justify your actions and arrogantly proclaiming the superiority of your stance while ignoring the critique, why not actually engage the critique and confront the disagreement? How could there possibly be a quandary if your stance and actions are divinely sanctioned? Displacing internal conflict onto an external screen is only a temporary cover-up for crises of national identity, attention cannot be diverted ad infinitum from the internal conflicts (though an endless war on terror was a creative attempt), eventually these crises will have to be dealt with.
If America is to be brought together, let it be brought together not by identifying outside enemies like America did in the 20th century with communists, fascists, Cubans, Iraqis, Vietcong, or North Koreans nor by trivializing the deaths of victims by using their deaths as a method to continually fuel the military-industrial machine to satiate our perceived need for revenge. Perhaps, it is time to think of new ways to “bring America together”. But first it is time to think of new descriptions as to what is meant by “America”, both ideally and in actual performance, or whether or not America should be “brought together” at all.

Rex Rogers on Crime and Sin

2006-06-05T19:57:00.000-05:00

This is a post I made on the CU Discussion Board which produced almost no response. I thought I'd adjust it a bit and put it on the blog to get some discussion going. There are a host of sticky issues under the surface here (i.e., natural law theories and the debates that surround them), but I'll just post my initial thoughts and see where things go.

------
At a chapel earlier this semester, Rex Rogers addressed two tensions which, in his view, characterize Christian life in modern America. I'm interested to hear what people think about his ideas. I'll briefly summarize his main points for those who weren't able to make it.

The first tension he addressed, drawing from John 17, is found in the Christian's call to be "in" but not "of" the world. This is well-trodded ground, so I'm grateful he spent more time on the second, more interesting tension. The substance of his second tension can be captured in a question: what does it mean to be a Christian in a pluralistic society? In other words, how are we to be Christians in a society which is not (and, by the way, never was) Christian? In light of this, what does a faithful engagement with the political sphere look like? Toward the end of chapel, he suggested it might be fruitful to begin by distinguishing between sin and crime. He spent a regrettably short amount of time fleshing out this distinction, but I'll try to explain what he meant. Sins include those things expressly forbidden in Scripture. His examples were adultery and obscene language. Crimes, I believe, include those things which, regardless of their status as sins, are outlawed by the government. Examples include anything that is illegal from murder to public nudity. He said we must recognize that not all sinful things are (or should be) crimes and vice versa. So simply because the Bible says something is wrong does not necessarily mean it should therefore be legislated against. He used adultery as an example.

So I'd like to know what people think of this. Here are a few questions to initiate discussion. Feel free to address these or add any other thoughts you might have.

1) Is it useful, as he suggests, to distinguish between crime and sin? If not all crimes are sinful (i.e., wrong according to the Bible), by what standard are they judged wrong?
2) How does the Crime/Sin paradigm help us address especially thorny issues like homosexuality? If homosexuality is a sin, should it also be a crime? What about adultery (which he said should not be outlawed)?
3) If you disagree with the Crime/Sin paradigm, what framework have you found helpful for thinking about the legislation of morality?

Though Rex recently fired our beloved Mike Rohwer, this should not affect your evaluation of his ideas...just his character. Oops...where'd that come from?

Join Me in Telling Congress: Compassion, not Criminalization in Immigration Reform!

2006-04-30T13:11:00.000-05:00

Over the years, the energy, hope, and cultural diversity of
immigrants have shaped the nation we are proud to call home
today. Yet recent months have seen the amplification of voices
increasingly hostile to America's vital immigrant population.
Congress is currently engaged in a high-stakes debate over how
to reform our broken immigration system. Today I wrote an e-mail
asking my senators to support justice and compassion - not
criminalization - in pending immigration reform legislation.

"The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen
among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were
aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God" (Leviticus
19:34).

Last December, the House of Representatives passed the Border
Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act
of 2005 (H.R. 4437). Many of the provisions of this punitive and
enforcement-focused bill are patently hostile to the alien among
us. On March 27, however, the Senate Judiciary Committee
approved an improved bill. The measure, passed 12-6, contains
many provisions supported by the faith community and other
advocates: It provides a pathway to citizenship for undocumented
immigrants currently in the country; establishes a guest worker
program that can lead to citizenship; and establishes a new
temporary work program for undocumented agricultural workers. In
addition, the committee's bill differs from H.R. 4437 in that it
would not establish penalties for humanitarian and church groups
helping undocumented immigrants or criminalize undocumented
immigrants for being in the U.S. The Judiciary Committee bill is
a step forward in the debate.

As discussion of immigration reform moves to the full Senate, we
urge lawmakers to oppose punitive , enforcement-only measures
like those in H.R. 4437. Such measures not only run contrary to
the biblical mandate to welcome the stranger among us; they are
chillingly anti-work, anti-family, and anti-community, and they
will only exacerbate the problems of our fractured immigration
system. The Senate Judiciary Committee's bill has a better
approach than H.R. 4437.

Let's help, not hurt, our neighbors who are pursuing the
American dream of security, freedom, and opportunity. Send an
e-mail urging your senators to promote just and compassionate
immigration reform.

"I was a stranger and you welcomed me" (Matthew 25:35).

When Jesus was asked, "Who is my neighbor?" his answer was clear
and compelling in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke
10:29-37). As his followers, we are called to tend to the
suffering stranger in our midst, our Jericho road. Let's help,
not hurt, our neighbors pursuing the American dream of security,
freedom, and opportunity.

Click here to take action today

***********************************
Powered by GetActive Software, Inc.
Relationship Management for Member Organizations (tm)

Songs about Jesus you'll probably never sing in church

2006-02-10T11:43:00.000-06:00

Ryan's recent Mind over Media project got me thinking about media criticism from a Christian perspective. Check out the discussions over there.

In the meantime, I'd like us to discuss these two songs about Jesus. My COR 100 class discussed these freshman year, and I'd like to see how our ideas differ. Listen to both songs if you can. I've linked to a free download of the first, but I could only find a 30-second sample of the second.

"American Jesus"
by Bad Religion
Download MP3

I don't need to be a global citizen,
'Cuz I'm blessed by nationality.
I'm a member of a growing populace,
We enforce our popularity.
There are things that seem to pull us under and,
There are things that drag us down.
But there's a power and a vital presence,
It's lurking all around.

We've got the American Jesus,
See him on the interstate.
We've got the American Jesus,
He helped build the President's estate.

I feel sorry for the Earth's population,
'Cuz so few live in the U.S.A.
At least the foreigners can copy our morality,
They can visit but they cannot stay.
Only precious few can garner our prosperity,
It makes us walk with renewed confidence.
We got a place to go when we die,
And the architect resides right here.

We've got the American Jesus,
Bolstering national faith.
We've got the American Jesus,
Overwhelming millions every day.

He's the farmer's barren fields, (In God)
The force the army wields, (We trust)
Expressions on the faces of the starving millions, (Because He's one of us)
The power of the man, (Break down)
He's the fuel that drives the Klan, (Cave in)
He's the motive and the conscience of the murderer, (We can redeem your sins)
He's the preacher on T.V., (Strong heart)
The false sincerity, (Clear mind)
The form letter that's written by the big computers, (And infinitely kind)
The nuclear bombs, (You lose)
The kids with no moms, (We win)
And I'm fearful that he's inside me... (He is our champion)

We've got the American Jesus
See him on the interstate
We've got the American Jesus
Exercising his authority
We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering national faith
We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

One nation, under God...

"Under Bridges"
by Brave Saint Saturn
30-second sample

Yesterday while walking,
Beneath an overpass,
I saw the figure of Jesus,
Standing barefoot on broken glass.
His beard was graying,
The smell of urine filled the air,
Asking if I had some change,
Anything that I could spare.

Emaciated,
His shaking fists balled up,
Influenza and pneumonia,
Begging God to take his cup.
So different from his pictures,
Breathing air through yellowed tubes,
Jesus Christ, dying of AIDS,
Can look right through you.

And all have hated,
Crucified and walked away,
The Savior of the prostitutes,
Drunkards, rapists, and the gays.

Under bridges,
With hands raised,
From the ghettos they praise his name.
Broke and crippled in the dark of night,
Raise your voices to Jesus Christ,
Hallelujah.

I'll ask some conversation starter questions if I need to. For now feel free to take the conversation in whatever direction you wish.

Roots (Disc 1 &2)

2006-01-30T16:02:00.000-06:00

I'm very interested in the shaping and forming of the current theologies that bounce around this blogsite. How are conclusions reached? On what basis do we cling to what we cling to? Obviously none of us claim to have it figured out, but we all would rely on fundamental beliefs to form opinions that shape our actions. The journey in getting there is what I'd like to focus on for a bit, not the theologies themselves at all.

I believe that a lot of the theologies here have roots in some sort of bad experience, and grow from a reaction to never become like something bad that has been seen/heard. Jeff (Nutshell) touched on it in his last few posts, but I don't believe that he is unique in this. The way I see it is this: We see beliefs as not 1 to 1 correlation with action, but pretty closely linked. So therefore, if the action (end result) is not what is desired, the problem can be traced to the belief system that their actions are based upon. If we can change the belief system to being one that would bring about the desired actions, then it is a more successful theology. is this correct, everybody?

I'm wondering if theology is supposed to have this goal in mind when choosing to believe it or not. If action is an outpouring of what is inside, then wouldn't truth be the standard of whether or not the theology is successful? Or is truth such a mystery to us that we should focus more on the result of our actions, and tweak our theologies to line up w/ that? If what someone believes is true, than the outpouring of that truth in their life should prove the theology successful, right?

Do we believe what we believe because we are afraid of where a different path may lead us? Please help me understand thought patterns when it comes to this issue.

Tell the truth about torture, Mr. President

2006-01-29T17:25:00.000-06:00

Loyal SfV readers,

I am writing today to ask you to take one simple action to stop torture. Please join me in signing the "Tell the truth about torture, Mr. President" petition.

Numerous allegations of torture committed by agents of the United States government have been reported since President Bush declared the "war on terror" in 2001. It's time for the torture to end.

Please join me in demanding the truth about torture and accountability for past acts, so that torture in our names never happens again.

Follow This Link to visit the website.

Howard Zinn lecture at UCSB

2006-01-24T11:25:00.000-06:00

On December 19, 2005, playwright and historian Howard Zinn delivered the lecture "Embracing Humanity: Truth in a Time of War" to a sold-out audience at University of California, Santa Barbara. In this lecture, Zinn explores the myth of "just war" and also speaks to America's claim to have God on its side.

If you have access to UCTV, the lecture is replaying the following times (you'll have to convert to your time zones yourselves:

1/24/2006, 1:00 PM pacific time zone
1/25/2006, 5:00 PM pacific time zone
1/25/2006, 8:00 PM pacific time zone
1/26/2006, 6:00 AM pacific time zone
1/27/2006, 3:00 AM pacific time zone
1/28/2006, 12:00 AM pacific time zone
1/29/2006, 12:00 AM pacific time zone

You can also watch the lecture with RealPlayer at the UCTV website.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

Obedience and Morality

2006-01-20T11:36:00.000-06:00

In my last post, I said that obedience precedes morality, so Old Testament soldiers were above reproach, because they were acting in obedience to God (Gabe has offered another theory, which I find interesting, but am not yet willing to accept). By this, I am getting at what Kierkegaard (or was it Dick Van Paten) says in Fear and Trembling, under the pseudonym Johannes de Silentio.

Morality is a human construct. I agree with Ryan that it comes from God, in that we interact with his commands to develop a working morality. I realize that seems revaltive, and it is, but I don't mean to say anything goes. Today most Christians consider polygamy to be immoral, but in King David's time, that was not so, and God never seems to condemn it. Also consider what Jesus said about divorce in Matthew 5.31: ""It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery." Jesus quotes Deuteronomy 24.1, and then says that though this was once the morality by which God's people lived (so much so that it was canonized), now that is not the case.

So while we as Christians must live by a morality that is always subject to God's Word, as people of faith, we must be open to God's direct command to do something that violates that morality. Kierkegaard's example is of Abram's experience when God tells him to sacrifice his son. This violates morality and even seems to go against God's promises to Abram, but because God commands, Abram obeys and is upheld as a model of faith in Hebrews 11. Other examples occur in the lives of Jephthah, Enoch, and Peter.

To apply this to what I've said about life and death in previous posts, nothing in the New Testament supports a morality that allows for war or the death penalty. When Christians accept them, as American Christians freely do, they are appealing to a standard of morality outside of the Bible. While valid sources of authority exist outside of Scripture, the text is our standard, and in this case, war and other sorts of violence violate a morality based on the teachings of the Prince of Peace.

God is not limited to our morality. If he commands something that violates our morality, then we must obey. How to determine whether he has is a tricky subject and for another post (or multi-volume set of books).

I'm a little rusty on my Kierkegaard so if someone else can explain it better, please do so. Also, as a caveat, I am not as individualistic as Kierkegaard, which should be apparent from previous posts, so please don't build any existential strawmen. Thanks.

Mea Culpa

2006-01-14T23:38:00.000-06:00

Sorry! Sorry! Sorry!

I thought enabling comment moderation meant that I could delete spam and ignorance (such as Dave's comments under Double Standard) from Blogger Dashboard, not that I had to approve comments. Thanks to whomever called me on it. I hate that.

The problem has been resolved and the comments posted. Now lurkers are without excuse.

I thought the comment activity had declined...

Raising a double standard

2006-01-14T14:45:00.000-06:00

American Christians have a disturbing double standard regarding sex and violence. When issues of homosexuality and promiscuity arise, the religious right comes out in opposition, and yet a man who was governor of a state that led the nation in execution and who calls himself "a war president" is considered a godly leader.

This double standard is not limited to the political realm either; it extends to entertainment. Read some of the discussion boards over at the Internet Movie Database (IMDb). Under movies that are marketed as violent, graphic action films, you'll find parents asking about the sexual content to determine whether taking their children would be appropriate.

Whence comes this double standard? Is it biblical, or is it culturally constructed? Let's compare the two and find out.

The settling of America is generally credited to the Puritans who came over from England seeking religious freedom. Puritans were Calvinists who opposed the king of England's appointment of Armenian clergy. As strict Calvinists, they believed that salvation was purely a matter of predestination, and therefore, no one could know if they were in the kingdom or not, but obviously those who were saved would live a certain way, and the Puritans developed lists of model behavior that could determine who was in and who was out. The effects of these lists is still felt in the more legalistic Protestant traditions.

America's political identity was forged in a much more violent way. The war that granted independence from England was violent, but as it resulted in freedom (for land-owning white men, but that's another post), it is hailed as the source of the freedoms we enjoy today, which is why pacifists are often met with the preposterous "argument," "If you think violence is wrong, why don't you leave and go to Afghanistan" (as if the Taliban ruled in a peaceful way).

This double heritage seems to be the root of America's double standard rather than the Bible, which, if anything, seems to have a reversed standard. Consider David, a man after God's own heart. The battles that men such as David and Joshua fought are often the basis for Christian just-war theory (when Christians are at all concerned with justice). But look what happens when David wants to build the temple.

1 Chronicles 22.7-10
David said to Solomon: "My son, I had it in my heart to build a house for the Name of the LORD my God. But this word of the LORD came to me: 'You have shed much blood and have fought many wars. You are not to build a house for my Name, because you have shed much blood on the earth in my sight. But you will have a son who will be a man of peace and rest, and I will give him rest from all his enemies on every side. His name will be Solomon, and I will grant Israel peace and quiet during his reign. He is the one who will build a house for my Name. He will be my son, and I will be his father. And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever.'

David was not allowed to build the temple because he was a man of war. The task fell to Solomon, and if David were the George W. Of his day, Solomon was the Wilt Chamberlain. He had 1000 wives and concubines, which, to a king, were usually nothing more than sexual conquests offered by nations seeking favor. Somehow, violence disqualified a king from building the house of God, yet sexual activity did not.

The American double standard is not universal to God's people; it is the result of America's strange heritage of violence and Puritanism. It is a cultural construct, which is not necessarily a problem, unless it leads to anti-Christian behavior, which in this case, I believe it does.

As Christians, we are to put others above ourselves to look out for their wellbeing above our own, even to the point of dying for those who are still our enemies. The American attitude, sadly shared by many nominal Christians, is the exact opposite; we look out for ourselves and kill our enemies. We condone behavior that results in tremendous loss of life, often of innocents, women, and children, yet we become outraged over sins that do not affect us.

I recently heard that a Christian man I greatly respect claimed that God hates homosexuals because they had so aligned themselves with sin, which God hates, that they are indistinguishable from it in God's eyes. This attitude is exactly that of the Pharisees who identified tax-collectors and prostitutes as sinners. This was not Jesus' attitude. He befriended them, and he loved them. God loves sinners, even homosexuals. But nowhere does Christ use violence against another, even when his life and the life of his loved ones was at stake. The Pharisees, meanwhile, had sold-out to Rome, one of the most violent empires in history.

The American double standard that so many Christians uphold is not only culturally formed, it is anti-biblical and is more similar to Christ's enemies than his followers.

The Reason for the Season

2005-12-27T17:36:00.000-06:00

I'm sure you've all heard the phrase, "Jesus is the reason for the season," and most of us probably give lip service in support of the sentiment if not the pithy phrasing, but this year, I've begun to wonder if that is true.

I watched several Christmas specials this month on the origins of various traditions surrounding Christmas, and I realized that most of them have little if anything to do with the birth of Christ and more to do with the pagan rituals that were already being celebrated at the end of the year, for example, the Roman Saturnalia, the northern European Yule, and the pagan Winter Solstice. The Saturnalia, the festival to honor the god Saturn, the father of Jupiter, was celebrated from December 17 to the 23rd. Since Saturn was the god of farming, evergreen trees were cut down and displayed in his honor, and families exchanged gifts. Yule is a sabbat that was celebrated by Germanic pagans to commemorate the winter solstice, and the celebration included eating ham, hanging boughs of holly and misteltoe, and of course the burning of the Yule log.

Obviously most of us are not paying homage to Saturn or any pagan deity when we engage in such activities. They've become traditions associated with the season, and as they bring people together and cause joy, I say God bless them. But they have nothing to do with Jesus. Neither does Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, Frosty the Snowman, Garfield, Scrooge, or the Grinch, and it just wouldn't be Christmas without them.

What do we as Christians do with them then? Do they get in the way of the true meaning of the season? Or, as I'm beginning to think, should we just admit that Jesus is not entirely the reason for the season and get on with the party?

I'm not advocating taking Christ out of Christmas or ignoring an opportunity to celebrate his birth. In fact, Christine and I are resolving this next year to follow the Church calendar and commemorate Advent as it has traditionally been observed and to celebrate Christmas Day as the beginning of the festivities, not the end. But within that, we will probably eat ham, decorate a Christmas tree, and maybe do some kissing under the mistletoe, and while doing so, probably think about Baby Jesus very little.

I guess what I really want to say is that for those of us in the Kingdom of God, Jesus is the reason we can enjoy anything, so let's recognize that and not feel guilty for indulging in excess and enjoying the giving and receiving of gifts. Let's enjoy the liturgy as well as the revelry and not feel as if one is more important than the other.

So now, as Herb says, "Let's Wassail!"

The Thought Police Strike Again

2005-12-19T20:42:00.000-06:00

Evan 24/7, nee Evan Is Handsome, is no more, the victim of Evangelical anti-intellectualism. Check out Evan's new blog, The Developing Diversity.

Gays Are Gross?

2005-12-04T14:34:00.000-06:00

Sometimes I think that I have become too tolerant and that I should take more of a hardline stance against sin, but then I read something like this and I'm reminded why I choose to err on the side of tolerance.

My mom reads a blog called Thinklings, and when they are discussing a topic she knows I'd find interesting, she sends me a link. I have since added the link to my favorites, and I check in every once in a while. When I've posted, however, I've been disappointed by the responses. But when I followed a link to this post about the upcoming movie Brokeback Mountain, I had to speak up.

The author predicts that the film will be a box-office failure because of what he calls "the yuck factor." He writes, "For all of our modern cultural 'enlightenment,' and despite the pervasiveness of gay characters and stories all over American media, and regardless of the success of shows like 'Will & Grace' and 'Queer Eye,' by and large Americans -- blue state, red state, Christian and non -- innately find homosexuality repulsive."

This is an insightful and probably accurate insight into modern American sensibilities. But not content to describe the cultural attitudes he observes, the author claims that they are objective universal feelings. "It's part of our makeup. It's biological, it's conscience-born, it's part of the imago dei. It's part of a "moral aesthetic" most everyone bears latent. To be blunt, we know anal sex is gross, and we especially know anal sex between men is repulsive."

I wanted to comment, but the author had disabled comments because he was receiving many personal attacks, so I commented on the blog. This is how the conversation progressed (or degressed, as you will see).

Me: It’s part of the imago dei to find sinners gross?

Response: No. It’s a reflection of the imago dei to find someone shoving something up your butt gross. Comprendes?

Me: These words of Jesus seem especially appropriate here.
“What goes into a man’s mouth does not make him ‘unclean,’ but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him ‘unclean.’”
Jesus seems much more repulsed by those who judge others with a holier-than-thou mentality than by the homosexuality that was rampant in Rome in the first century.

At this point a homosexual man shared his story, and another blogger told him that his problem was with God.

Me: When God’s representatives on earth act like their sin doesn’t stink, I think it’s safe to say that they are part of the problem. But nice try attempting to deflect the problem onto God.

Response: Buddy, no one here’s done that. If you actually read the Cinema Veritas thread, you’d see that I call myself a “lying, thieving, lustful moron.” I cop to my own sins and say that I expect to find people with same-sex attraction in heaven because if God can let someone like me in, he’s gotta let a whole lot of others in too.
In fact, if you bothered to read that thread, you’d see that out of all of the people talking there, the only who admitted their sin is ME.
You can make this about judgment if you want, about condemnation if you want. That’s so ho-hum.
You’ve registered your perturbation. If you’ve got nothing else, move along.
Btw, in response to that post, I’ve received dozens of insulting comments, deleted lots of profane condemnation of me and accusations against my manhood/sexuality/parents, and now that they’re following me over into my other blogs, I’m having to stay on top of vulgar troll-droppings on Mysterium Tremendum and Shizuka Blog. In one of the blogs from which these folks are coming, they’re discussing in a comment thread how best to flood my e-mail inbox with gay p()rn.
So if you’re looking to talk to people about controlling their anger and judgment and lashing out, I suggest you’re looking in the wrong direction.

Me: I did actually read your post, but I did not muddle through the hundred+ replies, as I’m sure many did not. In the actual post, all you do is point the finger.
I’m not flooding your mailbox with porn or questioning your own sexual orientation or parentage. I’m saying that your post seems to take the culturally formed opinions of you and yours and not only claim they are universals, but to arrogantly equate them with the imago dei while the tone of your post runs completely counter to the attitude of the true embodiment of the imago dei, Jesus Christ, who never accused sinners of being gross. But you seem to think you’re above reproach, so I will, as you said, move along.
And if anything is ho-hum, it’s Christian gay bashing.

I didn't really move along, and since his reply is addressed to me, I apparently wasn't expected to.

Response: Yes, Buddy, as we all know, Jesus never preached against sin.
Every time you comment here it’s on stuff that irks you, about stuff you think you need to correct us on. Sort of a pot/kettle, plank/speck situation, if you ask me. I’ve already acknowledged my own failings and do so often in this space and in my others. I never said I’m speaking from a place of personal perfection. Of the two of us, only one is acting like he’s the one who’s above reproach, and it’s not me.
In any event, thanks for moving on.

I know I can be offensive when addressing smug Christians who think they have everything figured out, and I don't apologize for that. I see it as part of following Christ, who was incredibly offensive when addressing the Pharisees. But I thought I was restrained here, and I don't understand the backlash.

But what I even more don't understand is how someone could, in the name of embodying the imago dei, act in a way that is so un-Christlike and respond so defensively when called on it. I never denied that Jesus preached against sinners, and I never defended homosexuality. But Christ never called homosexuals disgusting or degenerate, and I see no basis for Christians to do so.

So so if I'm a kettle, call me black, and if I have a plank in my eye, point it out, I have always invited it, but don't expect me to be silent when people who claim to be following Christ behave like those he preached against.

White House plans to veto bill that would ban torture of US prisoners

2005-11-14T22:28:00.000-06:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051114/ap_on_go_co/mccain_torture_4

"Evil and the Crucified God"

2005-11-05T12:27:00.000-06:00

Let's continue our discussion of N.T. Wright's lecture series, "Evil and the Justice of God," with "Lecture 3: Evil and the Crucified God." Review the archives for discussion of the previous lectures.

Discussion Questions:

How does Wright articulate the problem of evil in a different way from the modern logical problem of evil? What does Wright do with those questions? If we accept what Wright is saying, what do we do with the modern logic problems?

Did Jesus have to die? Did he come to earth in order to die?

Is the church currently living out Christ's victory in the cross, or is it contributing to the problem?

What would a truly Christian political structure look like?

Abolish the Death Penalty

2005-10-30T10:05:00.000-06:00

From Amnesty International

The Death Penalty Costs More
"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least several tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis."
-- Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, Sept. 9, 1999

Recent Cost Studies

A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000).
(December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit)

The estimated costs for the death penalty in New York since 1995 (when it was reinstated): $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death. To date, no executions have been carried out.
(The Times Union, Sept. 22, 2003)

In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment.
(2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research)

The greatest costs associated with the death penalty occur prior to and during trial, not in post-conviction proceedings. Even if all post-conviction proceedings (appeals) were abolished, the death penalty would still be more expensive than alternative sentences.

Trials in which the prosecutor is seeking a death sentence have two separate and distinct phases: conviction (guilt/innocence) and sentencing. Special motions and extra time for jury selection typically precede such trials.

More investigative costs are generally incurred in capital cases, particularly by the prosecution.
When death penalty trials result in a verdict less than death or are reversed, taxpayers first incur all the extra costs of capital pretrial and trial proceedings and must then also pay either for the cost of incarcerating the prisoner for life or the costs of a retrial (which often leads to a life sentence).

The death penalty diverts resources from genuine crime control measures. Spending money on the death penalty system means:

Reducing the resources available for crime prevention, mental health treatment, education and rehabilitation, meaningful victims’ services, and drug treatment programs.

Taking it away from existing components of the criminal justice system, such as prosecutions of drug crimes, domestic violence, and child abuse.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/cost.html

"Overturning the Gospels"

2005-09-15T16:12:00.000-05:00

Katrina has reminded us that Christian morality should be about responding to the wretched and loving the unlovable—not about other people’s sex lives.

WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Melinda Henneberger
Newsweek

Updated: 6:40 p.m. ET Sept. 14, 2005

Sept. 14, 2005 - There was a great piece in Harper's last month, "The Christian Paradox: How a Faithful Nation Gets Jesus Wrong'' by Bill McKibben, about how three out of four Americans believe the Bible teaches this: "God helps those who help themselves.'' The Gospel according to Mark? Luke? Actually, it was Ben Franklin who came up with these words to live by.

"The thing is,'' McKibben writes, "not only is Franklin's wisdom not biblical; it's counterbiblical. Few ideas could be further from the gospel message, with its radical summons to love of neighbor. On this essential matter, most Americans—most American Christians—are simply wrong, as if 75 percent of American scientists believed that Newton proved gravity causes apples to fly up.''

Now, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we have seen—and been unable to look away from— the direct result of this self-deception.

And if such tell-me-I'm-dreaming scenes as rats feeding on corpses in the streets—American streets—isn't enough to make us rethink the public-policy implications of turning the Gospel on its head in this way, then truly, God help us.

We as a nation—a proudly, increasingly loudly Christian nation—have somehow convinced ourselves that the selfish choice is usually the moral one, too. (What a deal!) You know how this works: It's wrong to help poor people because "handouts'' reward dependency and thus hurt more than they help. So, do the right thing—that is, walk right on by—and by all means hang on to your hard-earned cash.

Thus do we deny the working poor a living wage, resent welfare recipients expected to live on a few hundred dollars a month, object to the whopping .16 percent of our GNP that goes to foreign aid—and still manage to feel virtuous about all of the above.

Which is how "Christian'' morality got to be all about other people's sex lives—and incredibly easy lifting compared to what Jesus actually asks of us. Defending traditional marriage? A breeze. Living in one? Less so. Telling gay people what they can't do? Piece o' cake. But responding to the wretched? Loving the unlovable? Forgiving the ever-so-occasionally annoying people you actually know? Hard work, as our president would say, and rather more of a stretch.

A lot of us are angry at our public officials just now, and rightly so. But we are complicit, too; top to bottom, we picked this government, which has certainly met our low expectations.

The Bush administration made deep and then still deeper cuts in antipoverty programs, and we liked that. (The genius of the whole Republican program, in fact, is that it not only offers tax cuts and morality, but tax cuts as morality. Americans do, I think, want to feel they are doing the right thing, and when I hear an opponent of abortion rights say, "I'm voting for the most vulnerable, the unborn,'' I have to respect that. Of course, we also like tax breaks and cheap gas and cranking the thermostat up and down—so when Republicans play to both our better angels and our less altruistic ones, it's not that tough a sell.)

But have Democrats loudly decried the inhumanity—or even the hidden, deferred costs of the Bush cuts in services to the most vulnerable among the already born? Heavens, no, with a handful of exceptions, such as former vice-presidential nominee John Edwards, who spoke every single day of his campaign—and ever since—about our responsibilities toward those struggling just to get by in the "other America.''Most party leaders are still busy emulating Bill Clinton, who felt their pain and cut their benefits—and made his fellow Dems ashamed to show any hint of a "bleeding heart.'' Clinton's imitators haven't his skills, though, so his bloodless, Republican Lite legacy has been a political as well as moral disaster.

That's not, of course, because voters give a hoot about poverty, but because along with the defining moral strength of its commitment to the underclass went most of the party's self-confidence, and all of its fervor.

Incredibly, they even ceded the discussion of compassion to President Bush, a man who has always struck me as empathy-free—to an odd extent, really, as we saw again last week when he cracked jokes about his carousing days on his first trip to the Gulf Coast.

Immediately after the disaster, Bush quickly intervened—to make it possible for refiners to produce dirtier gasoline. He has since zapped working people on the Gulf Coast all over again by suspending the 1931 law that requires employers to pay the prevailing wage to workers on all federally financed projects.

Others in his party have expressed concern about all the freebies evacuees will be enjoying: "How do you separate the needy from those who just want a $2,000 handout?'' Alaska Gov. Frank Murkowski asked—by way of explaining why debit cards for Katrina victims were a bad idea.

So far, though, I'd love to be wrong, I see no reason to think the president's sinking poll numbers will persuade him that there's more to (pro-)life than opposing abortion.

I still dare to hope Democrats may yet remember why they are Democrats, though. And that would be a real come-to-Jesus moment.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9342324/site/newsweek/

Another parody

2005-09-14T23:01:00.000-05:00

Rewriting familiar songs to criticize current events is a great tradition. Here is Mark Twain's "The Battle Hymn of the Republic: Updated," written "in 1901 by Mark Twain, as a parody of American imperialism, in the wake of the Philippine-American War. It is written in the same tune and cadence as the original Battle Hymn of the Republic." Over a century later, some of the lyrics are just as poignant as when they were written. I particularly enjoyed the fourth line of the fifth stanza. Now I'll have something I agree with to sing at July 4th services.

Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger's wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on.

I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps--
His night is marching on.

I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
"As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!"

We have legalized the strumpet and are guarding her retreat;*
Greed is seeking out commercial souls before his judgement seat;
O, be swift, ye clods, to answer him! be jubilant my feet!
Our god is marching on!

In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom--and for others' goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich--
Our god is marching on.

* NOTE: In Manila the Government has placed a certain industry under the protection of our flag.

Wikipedia

Let's play a game

2005-09-11T20:43:00.000-05:00

Who's up for a round of Modern philosophy of religion?

Resolve these seemingly incompossible propositions:

1. God exists and is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.
2. Evil exists.

Consider:

a. A perfectly good being would always eliminate evil so far as it could.
b. An omniscient being would know about all evils.
c. There are no limits to what an omnipotent being can do.

Possible strategies:

The Best of All Possible Worlds Defense
Free Will Defense
Soul-Making Theodicy
Abandonment of Proposition 1

Play begins to the dealers left.

2005-08-16T12:29:00.000-05:00

I will never kill Iraqi innocents,
support pre-emptive violence,
submit to unjust government.
I did not elect George Bush as president
For I’m in the Lord’s army (Yes sir!)

I’m in the Lord’s army (Yes sir!)
I’m in the Lord’s army (Yes sir!)

I will never kill Iraqi innocents,
support pre-emptive violence,
submit to unjust government.
I did not elect George Bush as president
For I’m in the Lord’s army (Yes sir!)

What is it good for?

2005-08-13T11:22:00.000-05:00

"[I]t is fair to say that the vast majority of Christians are pacifist in an important sense: most Christians today and through history presume against violence. The just war theory as put forward by its leading interpreters places the burden of doubt on those who resort to violence" (Clapp 111).

Rodney Clapp, in his book A Peculiar People, makes this profound statement about the history of the Church's stance on war, but I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Do most Christians today presume against violence? I hope so, but that hasn't been my experience.

When I suggest, whether on this blog or at the Christian college I attended, that war is not acceptable for Christians, many Christians accuse me of cowardice instead of the sympathetic understanding that the Church desires peace.

Considerations of what makes a war just seem to be absent from the reasoning of most non-pacifist Christians I've encountered. If I cannot convince them from Scripture that war is wrong in all circumstances (which I cannot and will not attempt to do), then they will whole-heartedly back any war that the United States declares (especially if a Republican is the current president).

So I'm interested to hear from those who do not consider themselves pacifists, what are the criteria for a just war? Must we accept war as a matter of course, or are there unjust wars that we should oppose? I fear that many will not think beyond, "Unjust war is when the US is attacked; just war is when it attack others." Please try.

Clapp, Rodney. A Peculiar People: The Church As Culture in a Post-Christian Society. InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove, 1996.

Sadly Insightful

2005-08-08T22:35:00.000-05:00

Insightfully Sad?

Patriotism and Place: A Repetition

2005-07-25T19:17:00.000-05:00

Patriotism, as “love for and devotion to one’s country,” has (re)emerged with extensive vigor in the post-9/11 American way-of-life. This (re)emergence is perhaps most evident in the “patriotic” display of bumper stickers, car magnets, the flag, passionate reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance and singing of the National Anthem, and the unquestioning allegiance to the nation, including governmental actions and national ideals. In light of this newfound patriotic fervor, the question must be posed: Is this authentic patriotism?

Etymologically, “patriotism" comes from the Greek word pater, meaning “father.” Patrios and patris are the root words of “patriotism”; patrios is the “love of one’s fathers” and patris is the Greek word for “fatherland.” Therefore, etymologically, “patriotism” is the “love of the land of one’s father.”

Praxiologically, people could be considered patriotic by definition, generally, up until the 19th and 20th century, because they tended to remain “bound to one place for the entirety of their lives.”[1] In the Old World, patriotism was the loyalty to and love for a particular soil and a particular way-of-life which was distinct ethnically, religiously, politically, linguistically, culturally, etc. In other words, patriotism was the ethical connection to a particular place.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, philosophical developments dating back as far as Aristotle coupled with new technology such as the airplane, automobile, radio, television, the internet, etc. began to affect Western praxis. People no longer remained bound to one place. They instead moved around for a change of scenery, occupational prestige, financial progress, and a multitude of other reasons. At this point patriotism ceased to be the love for a particular land and a particular way of life and instead dissolved into an abstract, nationalistic "love of and devotion to one's country."

"Love of and devotion to one's country" devoid of an ethical connection with a particular place necessarily leads to abuse and exploitation of the land, people, and local communities. This love of country is an abstract "love." Love, however, is never abstract. It is impossible to love a country the size of America, because one lacks the intimate knowledge necessary for love and good care. Therefore, we can only love America in as much as we love our particular place. We can only live responsibly as Americans by living responsibly in some small part of it, or else this abstract "love" will only lead to further destruction of the land, people, and local communities existing in particular places.

This (re)vision or (re)appropriation is a repetition of patriotism as the “love of one’s father’s land” but understands that an ethical connection with particular land necessarily works its way through the interconnection of place and includes all other aspects that affect the land; quantitative, spatial, kinematic, physical, organic, psychic, analytical, cultural/historical/formative, lingual, social, economic, aesthetic, juridical, ethical, and pistic. “True patriotism” as Wendell Berry calls it, is the “love for one’s land” [2], but it is more complex and necessarily includes all other aspects of a place. Therefore, patriotism can be (re)defined as the “love for one’s place.”

I am writing my senior thesis on Patriotism and Place. It is tentatively entitled "A (Re)Vision of Patriotism: The Necessity of Ethical Connection with a Particular Place. Any insights are welcome and would be of great assistance.

[1] John Inge, A Christian Theology of Place, 6.
[2] Wendell Berry, “A Citizen’s Response to ‘The National Security Strategy of the United States of America’”, Citizenship Papers, 5.

Salva Side Note Segue

2005-07-19T19:30:00.000-05:00

Jeff has asked me to answer these questions: "What is salvation? How does it relate to sin and the concepts of heaven/hell? Addititionally, how does it effect our concrete suffering currently?"

Well, let me start by trying to answer the first part: Salvation is a saving force that frees one from the consequences of sin and evil. I would say that "the force" would be from God, since we are talking about a biblical view on salvation. I would also call the force "grace." I don't think it is something we can achieve, but rather receive. Receiving is only possible through the belief in Jesus.

Second part: I don't believe that if one recieves salvation, they are no longer going to commit sins. Just that the eternal consequences of those sins has been abolished. That would lead to the heaven/hell aspect. If one has received God's salvation, I believe that when their physical body dies their spirit will be accepted into heaven as a result of Jesus' sacrifice and the following salvation. If one goes to hell, it is evidence that they did not "accept" this salvation.

As it pertains to our current state, salvation in the eternal sense does not eliminate any consequences of sin on earth. One could not argue that because they are "saved," that they can steal and they will not be punished.

Salvation is not simply a word to describe eternal matters, it is just the most common biblical usage.

Jeff, I'm not sure if this is my views on salvation or just the answers to your questions. But if I think of more, I'll include them in the comments. Feel free to interact

Was Christ Hellbound?

2005-06-29T17:09:00.000-05:00

On the cross, Jesus cries out "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which is a quote from Psalm 22. There are lots of prophecies that we take from this same Psalm that we relate directly to Christ (cast lots for my garments and what not). David is talking in the first person in this Psalm, and people relate his words in this passage to that of the promised deliver, Jesus.
I've been told that Jesus was crying out because God had actually forsaken him. When I finish the passage, it goes on to say that in the end, God had never left Him and was always listening.
I've been told that Jesus "became sin" and therefore was banished from God's sight and sent to hell. This is such a loaded concept that it raises questions on a few different levels. The most difficult for me to understand is the separation of the trinity if it is even possible to divide them or for one to forsake the other. That's just hard for me to understand, but I'd accept it as true if I felt that was definitely what happened here. It might have, there are other scriptures like in Peter that suggest that Jesus was ministering to people in hell after He died. I suppose that I would have 2 questions. Did Jesus go to hell? And did God forsake Him?
My answer to the first question would be a hazy yes, since I'm not sure how this happened or why, but scripture seems to lean that way. My arguments against it would be that Jesus died as a sin sacrifice, He himself was not a sinner that needed to suffer the eternal separation from God as a result. Or is that what the Bible means that He "became sin" or took away the sins of the world? Many people believe that while He was dying on the cross He actually physically took on our sins, which to me would mean that He became a liar, murderer, thief, etc. Others hold to Christ paying our sin debt, and having to suffer the consequences of God's justice. To those who claim this, wouldn't Jesus' rising from hell and going to heaven sort of negate God's justice in that scenario?
As to God forsaking Him, I would love to know what you all think about it, but I would say that He didn't. Mostly because of the Psalm itself that He's quoting, but also because of hell and our views concerning it. Some claim that it's separation from God. Yet David writes that if he makes his bed in hell, God is there. There's so much here to think about, I realize that the comments could go in any direction, and that's cool. I just want to know if anybody else has thought about this and would like to share their thoughts.

The New Problem of Evil: Part 2

2005-06-14T13:34:00.000-05:00

I'm really enjoying where the conversation is going. Let's move on to lecture two and continue the discussion below. Be sure to review the previous comments before posting.

Lecture 2. What Can God Do About Evil? Unjust World, Unjust God?

The New Problem of Evil

2005-06-04T20:28:00.000-05:00

[There are] three things in particular which I see as characterizing the new problem of evil. First, we ignore evil when it doesn’t hit us in the face. Second, we are surprised by evil when it does. Third, we react in immature and dangerous ways as a result.
-N.T. Wright

The problem of evil is an issue that all philosophies must face, and we have done so here a few times as well. N.T. Wright, the archbishop of Durham, gave a series of lectures called "Evil and the Justice of God." They are all available on the N.T. Wright Page (link to the right). I propose that we all read and discuss them together. We'll begin with Lecture 1: Evil is Still a Four-Letter Word. Use this thread for comments on Lecture 1, and as we progress, I'll create new threads for each lecture.

I've tried to do this at one of my other blogs, and it has not gone well, so I may be a bit overzealous. But we've always had good conversation here, so I'm not too worried.

Pacifism under attack

2005-06-03T16:05:00.000-05:00

I know that we get a lot of non-sequiters here at SfV, but see if you can follow this thread at my friend Brian's blog.
http://oxfordbound.blogspot.com/2005/05/you-could-die-today.html#comments

Harmony or Homogeneity?

2005-05-24T18:15:00.000-05:00

Wow, has it really been three months?

I've been thinking a lot lately about the variety of beliefs Christians have. I love discussing philosophical and theological issues with a variety of people, and I find that I enjoy the conversation more when someone disagrees with me. That's only true when it's an actual conversation, however, and not someone telling me I need to agree with them or I will go to hell.

I have had great conversations with both Ryan and Racie about predestination (they choose to believe in it), and I've loved the comments I've received on this blog. Sadly, many Christians are not able to enjoy conversing with brothers and sisters who have different beliefs. Look at all the church splits, denominational feuds, and even wars that occur because one group believes something that another doesn't. Is this how the body of Christ is supposed to function? I say no, and that has led me down an interesting train of thought, and I would like to invite your thoughts.

What if we're not supposed to all believe the same thing? What if the truth of Creation is too big to be contained in every individual human brain? I know that this conflicts with Protestant individualism which insists that Christianity is the individual alone before God and the individual is capable of believing all the right things. But what if that's not the case? What if the body needs certain people to believe in predestination and others to believe in free will? What if it's necessary for certain denominations to emphasize the Holy Spirit and others to emphasize God's unity? What if instead of opposing one another, differing denominations saw themselves as complements to the others?

I know that many will consider me relativistic (which, let's face it, I am), but consider this: what's more important, what we believe or what we do? I would argue that within Christian thought, ethics is primary. Why don't people get nearly so upset about wrong action as they do about wrong belief? Some may say that wrong belief leads to wrong action, but I disagree. Does right belief lead to right action? I can think of several people who have their theology all figured out, but who are absolute bastards. Likewise, simply because someone believes differently than we do does not mean that they will necessarily do things that we would consider sinful. If a person is in fact doing something wrong, then perhaps they should reevaluate their beliefs, but I don't think it follows that wrong beliefs lead to wrong action.

I know that my thoughts don't flow perfectly, but that's because I'm still trying to work it all out. I'd appreciate any thoughts you might have.

Wrestling with Pacifism

2005-02-13T03:42:00.000-06:00

I don't think there's a pacifist in the world who, in discussing the convictions s/he has no doubt painfully wrestled with, has not been asked, usually by a smug conservative who mistakes hyperbole for rational argumentation, "Well, what if someone broke into your house and was going to kill your spouse and children? Are you saying you wouldn't kill him to protect your family?"

I've been considering this question a lot lately, especially now that I have a wife and we're in an unfamiliar place; I suddenly feel much more protective. I still hate the question, first of all because, as I have said before, I don't believe in developing a normative ethic based on my actions while under extreme stress. But now I have two other reasons.

The second reason is that this scenario has nothing to do with modern warfare. So, yes, I would be willing to defend my family against an intruder, but if you want to make that correspond to war, the question needs to be phrased thusly: "If someone broke into your home to kill your spouse and children, would you kill him? And to follow up, would you find out where he lived and blow it up? Would you find out where his kids went to school and blow it up? Would you then find where all the people who look like him gather and use all of the resources at your disposal, including your children's college funds and your savings to destroy them, bankrupting yourself in the process with the dim gleam of hope that after ruining all the people who had a hand in breaking into your house, they will pay off your debt?" My answer to that question is, "No." Which is why I still call myself a pacifist. (To phrase the question in order to make it correspond precisely with this current "War on Terror" would be so absurd as to be laughable, and since I want to keep this conversation serious, I made generalizations.)

Third, the original question ignores any thought of a solution. Most people who ask it consider war to be the solution to international aggression. Does that mean that they think killing burglars is the solution to crime? Sadly, I think many of them do. But it isn't. Poverty, homelessness, racism, and greed seem to be root issues which lead to burglary, and these issues need to be addressed in order to find a solution. Likewise, similar issues need to be addressed to prevent international aggression (here's a novel idea, maybe the U.S. should stop being the aggressor!). So while I would kill a burglar to protect my family, I recognize that it is not a solution, so I still oppose the death penalty.

Convictions are difficult to live with, and mine are ever being reevaluated. I may be too violent for some pacifists, and I know that I am too peaceable for just war theorists (and those who throw considerations of justice out the window tied to a grenade). So let's recognize that we are all on the same journey of trying to figure out how to live justly and love mercy and not be so cock-sure as to think we can destroy another person's convictions with a catch-phrase.

In that light, please understand that I don't imagine that I have disproved just-war theory. It also is a conviction, and I know many people who have wrestled with it and remain just-war theorists. I am merely defending my conviction against a poorly wrought attack.

Please use the following comments section for further wrestling.

Farewell (for now)

2004-12-16T18:06:00.000-06:00

In a couple of weeks, my wife and I will be leaving for Oxford University. I don't imagine I'll have much time for posting (but I shall try). Until I am, I trust Ryan and Chris will be able to generate enough topics of conversation.

If you'd like to track our progress, check out my new weblog at http://oxfordblues.blogspot.com

"Evil" - Author Unknown

2004-11-29T07:27:00.000-06:00

(Administrator's Note - This post is by Ryan who is having trouble posting on his own. Address all questions, comments, concerns, misunderstandings, and straw men toward him - Buddy)

I would like to raise some issues to explore concerning the magical origin of evil. It's a difficult concept to wrap our minds around, but the conclusions most Christians come to feel inaccurate or incomplete to me. So dig with me and tell me what you find.

When it comes to the question of how evil came into the world, we all can say that it's a slight mystery at best. But when it comes to authorship or responsibility, most Christians would rest on the statement "God cannot be the author of evil." This might make you sleep better, but to me it just makes me ask more questions, b/c I believe I am trying to serve the God and author of all things.

Col. 1:16 says that by Him all things were created. I Timothy 4:4 says that everything God created is good. This would lead people to the question: "If God created everything, and it's all good, then where does evil fit into a good creation?" There are a few things that are typically spoken in response to this, and I respect what is said, I just want to talk about it for a bit.

First, people would say that God created everything good, but that the fall of man brought evil (and death) into the perfect creation. Now, let's go to Genesis and see how God says things occurred. Before the fall, we see God creating the garden and at its center he placed the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Okay, so evil being an option already exists before man sinned, whether or not it was carried out yet or not. Some could argue that the serpent brought evil into the world, but that's a different discussion that I'd like to hold off on for just a moment. All the scripture really tells us here is that evil was within the realm of possibility in God's perfectly created garden. In fact, it was at the very heart of it.

Second, more abstract thinking Christian minds (C.S. Lewis) would say that evil is not a physically created thing, it is merely a lack (or perversion) of good. So therefore, nobody could've created it, b/c it's not something that is creatable. Now, let's go back to Genesis, even closer to the beginning. First, there is only God, who is good. No separate force of evil working and scheming against Him, like dualism would have you believe. So before God started creating, there was no evil within the realm of possibility. Now, the concept that evil isn't a created thing makes sense to me, even though I wouldn't stand by it. If He can create a tree that gives off the knowledge of good and evil, I would say it's possible for Him to create anything, even things that aren't physical. But, I tend to agree with the stance that evil wasn't created the way God created everything else; He didn't create evil on the 8th day or anything like that. But I would say that it's clear that evil is a by-product of His creating.

Did God not know that evil was brought into existence by His creating? Or did he maybe just "allow" evil to be there, and then try to use it for His glory? I would hold strongly to the fact that He did know, and that it was His desire for that option to be there. He looked out at His creation, including the tree of knowledge of good and evil and He said "It is good." Ok, meaning what? It means to me that God thinks that humans’ having an option to do evil is better than us not having it. I have further thoughts and speculations as to why God wants the option for us, but I would like us to focus first on WHAT happened, then we will get to why. Not ask why He would do it that way and try to cram what happened into our view of WHY we think things should be done. I welcome and encourage all thoughts on this.

Ryan

Elton John does not want to hurt your family!

2004-10-25T08:25:00.000-05:00

Over the past several weeks I have heard of several rallies both local and around the country masquerading as pro-family gatherings when they seem to have one specific MO – to oppose same-sex unions. As a Christian, I am pro-family, but my homophobic brothers and sisters have yet to convince me that same-sex unions are the enormous crisis the Family Research Council would have us believe they are.

“But homosexuality is a sin,” they say, “so we should oppose it, right?” OK, well, greed is a sin, but I don’t see many American Christians rallying against capitalism or attempting to force the government to institute a cap on how much money a person can make.

Why are we attacking homosexuality and not greed? Perhaps because it’s easier to take on a handful of poets, musicians, and actors than the structure that governs our country and allows us to participate in the sins we like. Condemning the immorality of the minority while condoning (and often participating in) the immorality of the majority is hypocrisy, which Christ condemned vehemently even though he did not say word one about homosexuality.

And even if it is immoral, is the purpose of government really to prevent people from sinning? I get the impression from the Bible that that is the job of the Holy Spirit who works through the church. Has the church become so ineffective that it needs to pawn off its responsibilities on another institution?

I have read articles, listened to ads, and read Tony Perkins’ Washington Updates that appear in my e-mail on an almost daily basis (why did I sign up and how do I turn it off?), and nowhere have I seen any compelling evidence that same-sex unions would be bad for society. I have heard people say that if we don’t define marriage, then eventually anything goes: polygamy, bestiality, incest. This “slippery slope” argument seems utterly groundless. If I am shown that a significant number of Swedish men are now lobbying for the right to marry several male Göinge goat siblings, I will retract that statement.

“But what if I end up living next door to a homosexual couple?” Then you may have to be neighborly to someone you don’t like. If the Samaritan could do it, certainly people empowered by the Holy Spirit should be able to.

“But I don’t want to raise my children in a society that supports homosexuality.” If your household is run in such a way that society has more influence on your children’s morality than you and your spouse, then you are the one who should not be allowed to marry and have a family.

The worst rhetoric I have heard is the comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah. I have a hard time making a connection between the guy who wrote “Hakuna Matata” and an angry group of gang rapists. Are they saying that same sex unions will lead to homosexual rape? In that case we’d better outlaw heterosexual unions in order to stop heterosexual rape.

I also struggle to comprehend why college students are so involved in these rallies (at least those who attend conservative Christian universities). How are single heterosexuals promoting the family better than “married” homosexuals?

Most of the homophobic rhetoric from Christians includes a call to love homosexuals but offers no practical ways to love. Might giving tax benefits to same-sex couples be a way of showing love?

If Christians were truly concerned about immorality, then they would be so busy removing specks from their own eyes that same-sex unions would not even be an issue.

I'm still alive

2004-10-13T08:38:00.000-05:00

I know I haven't posted in a while, but I have not forgotten. Look for something new by the end of the week.

Also, let's rebel against the trend of only discussing what is new and novel. Some good ideas have been brought up under some previous posts. Feel free to jump in and comment.

Can Creation Be Redeemed?

2004-09-07T20:11:00.000-05:00

Why is the renewal of Creation important? Does not II Peter 3:10 say, “the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up”?[1] Aren't we merely waiting to be liberated from this fallen world?

The Textus Receptus[2] uses the verb, transliterated "katakaesetai" as the Greek word for “burned up” in verse 10, and this is used in all Bible Translation of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, including the King James Version in 1611. The Textus Receptus translation was soon rejected, due to the discovery and publication of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, both uncial manuscripts of the fourth century. In these texts, the verb used in this verse is, transliterated "heuresthesetai", “will be found”. This changes the meaning of this “fire”[3] or “fervent heat”[4] spoke of in verse ten. If the end is that the “earth and everything in it” will be found, then the means, the “fire”, is a purifying fire not a destructive fire. This “fire”, then, has the same purpose as the Flood of Genesis, to destroy evil while preserving good. This text in II Peter “stresses…the permanence of the created earth, despite the coming judgement."[5]

[1] King James Version. Emphasis Mine.
[2] “Received Text”. First published in 1516.
[3] NIV
[4] KJV
[5] Wolters, Albert M. “Worldview and Textual Criticism in 2 Peter 3:10”. Westminster Theological Journal. 49.2. 1987. 405-413. More on the topic of II Peter 3:10 can be found in this article.

"Safe? 'Course he isn't safe."

2004-09-02T09:17:00.000-05:00

This post is part of an ongoing conversation with my good friend and chess superior Ryan. The conversation began early this summer and came up again under the “Peace and Profanity” post. The conversation began with the question, “Does God suffer?” and if so, what does that say about the doctrine of immutability. And if God is changeable, how do we trust him? These are my thoughts as they exist now.

I don’t know that I would say that God changes his attributes, but I do think he changes his mind. This doesn’t make him inconstant, but it does challenge the notion of his immutability. I like to look at three judgments in the Torah. First God’s telling Noah he is going to destroy the world, then telling Abraham he’s going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, finally telling Moses he’s going to destroy the Hebrews. In the first instance, Noah says nothing. In the second, Abraham tries to bargain, but gives up. In the third case, Moses convinces God to change his course of action.

The two previous judgments show that when God has his mind set to something, he carries it out. But the final judgment suggests to me that God could (possibly) have been persuaded not to carry through on the previous judgments as well. At any rate, atop Sinai, God resolves to destroy his people, and Moses convinces him to change his mind.

The case has been made that this is anthropomorphic language. But consider what that is saying. I understand anthropomorphic language in common speech such as “long arm of the law” because I have previous experience of what the law is and know that the arm is metaphorical. To say that in scripture, references to God’s changing his mind are anthropomorphic is to claim previous knowledge of who God really is and reading his word through that lens. As Christians, our understanding of God must come from the story he tells us about himself. If the narrative says God changed his mind, I have to accept that he did.

The doctrine of immutability also becomes problematic when considering the incarnation. For all of eternity up to that point, God has not been human. At the conception of Jesus, however, he suddenly is. To make sense of this story, I have to believe that God can change, not only in form but also in nature.

The most significant change, as I see it, is God’s ability now to sympathize with the human race. In the Old Testament, God is not a sympathetic God. If we understand sympathy as Aristotle and Richard Kearney do, to sympathize means to put yourself in another's place and consider what they must be experiencing. Consider this image from Tolkien (I owe the following to conversations with my wife). The character Gollum is a pitiable character, and this pity is what leads to the success of the mission. But some characters, specifically Sam and Faramir, are unable to pity him and wish either to destroy him, or at the very least banish him from Frodo’s presence. But when Sam has the opportunity to kill him, he doesn’t. Why? Because Sam has now worn the ring himself and understands the power it has over Gollum. He is now able to put himself in Gollum’s place – to sympathize. This is the ability or, I suppose you could say, the attribute that God acquired when he became human.

Which leads to the question of whether something exists that can change God, to which I would say yes. God is in relationship with his creation, and part of relationship is vulnerability (which itself gets at the question of whether God can suffer). Throughout scripture, God interacts with humans, who sometimes anger him, sometimes call forth love from him, and sometimes hurt him. Depending on how his creatures respond to him, he changes how he relates to them. He seems to be learning what courses of action are effective (covenant) and which are less so (destroying the world in his wrath).

I agree that this takes away a certain degree of comfort which many of us are used to. But in response, I think of another Inkling. Consider this passage concerning Aslan from CS Lewis’ The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe:
"Ooh!” said Susan, “I’d thought he was a man. Is he--quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”
“That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, “if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else silly.”
“Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. “Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”

Our God is wild. As Lewis says elsewhere of Aslan, he is not a tame lion. But he is the king, and he is good. As his people, we need to accept that and believe he is who he says he is. We cannot define what we think God must be like and then demand that he live up to that description. We can trust in his goodness, his faithfulness, and his love, but in the presence of the covenant God of scripture, we must work out our own faith in fear and trembling.

Let's talk, damn you!

2004-08-24T19:36:00.000-05:00

In my Epistemology class last semester, we read the book Search for Community on a Withering Tradition, a collection of essays in which Kai Nielsen (an atheist) and Hendrik Hart (a Christian) discussed the arguments for God's existence. As I read it, the conversation consisted of Nielsen claiming that Hart's rational thinking should lead him to reject belief in God, while Hart claimed that all belief systems (including atheism) begin with faith statements, and so Nielsen should recognize faith as viable. In other words, the arguments ran, "I am right, and you agree with me."

Much discussion ensued over whether Christians could sit at the discussion table with atheists and vice versa. My conclusion was that they cannot, although conversation can exist among tables. For example, if Christians are sitting together discussing peace, atheists who are also discussing peace may contribute to the discussion.

I have since added this amendment to my understanding: Conversation cannot exist between two parties when one party believes that the other stands condemn for disagreeing. For example, a conversation between an atheist and a Christian over the existence of God is a pointless endeavor, because the Christian does not only believe that the atheist is wrong, but believes that she is "going to hell" for disbelief. They can discuss movies, ethics, food, literature, etc., but condemnation precludes conversation.

Unfortunately, this does not apply only to conversation among tables. I discovered this when a fellow Christian told me that I was on the "Highway to Hell" (no joke) for disagreeing with his political opinions. Certain Christians (especially conservative fundamentalists) cannot converse with anyone, even other Christians because they believe that unless you think like they do, you're going to hell.

I have welcomed input from people of other creeds, and I still do. I think other views are important to consider. But Dr. Joyce and I will never be able to have a conversation about whether God exists. At best, we can share our reasons and agree to disagree. While many Christians would accuse me of ignoring an opportunity to "witness," I recognize that evangelism is not a conversation. I do not believe that rational reasoning or convincing arguments change people's minds in those areas, so I won't attempt to overstep my bounds.

So if you find yourself condemning another person on this blog for a belief that differs from your own, don't get into it with them. Read their opinion, weigh it, and if you realize that you can engage in conversation, please do so. If not, agree to disagree and move on. As Matt Bonzo, my professor for Epistemology, said, "A time comes when one must rip his clothing, brush the dust off his feet, and cease to talk. Sadly, it is often a brother or sister who marginalizes us."

Let those who have ears hear.

Peace and Profanity

2004-08-04T19:33:00.000-05:00

I recently came under fire from a couple of students at the school I attend for using the title I have chosen for my post. I was told that it was not an appropriate title for something at a Christian university. These same students, however, have been staunch supporters of Bush and his "war on terror." This is an anecdotal example of a widespread hypocrisy among Christians who are offended by mild obscenity yet accept the large-scale slaughter of innocents as a necessary fact of life.

When I pointed this out, I was met with the statement, "Christians should be more offended by foul language than [by] violence."

What? Why? Because Jesus used violence but refrained from foul language? Hardly! Jesus is the Prince of Peace, not the Prince of Polite Discourse.

Jesus had no problem using offensive language to make his point heard. One of his favorite terms for the Pharisees was "brood of vipers." Brood means offspring. Vipers are unsavory creatures. The contemporary equivalent of this phrase should not be difficult to determine.

But Jesus never resorted to violence. In fact, he submitted to worse tortures than most American Christians can even imagine (even with Mel Gibson's help) without striking back. Yet his nominal followers are willing to resort to killing thousands simply to defend our "divine right" to plutonium.

But, my detractors say, Jesus told his followers to get swords! True. In order to fulfill a prophecy that hardly supports the use of violence. But when they used them, he made them put them away. This marks Jesus as unique among the Messiahs of his day. Every other Jew claiming to be the annointed one who would free Israel did so by the sword. Jesus said that violence was not an acceptable tool in building his kingdom. And his followers held to that for hundreds of years, until Constantine married the government and religion and convinced Christians that destroying the enemies of the Empire was God's will. And thus the Republican party was born. Just kidding.

If we claim to follow the Prince of Peace, then we must do so, recognizing that (excepting an entirely new revelation from God's own mouth) violence has no place in his kingdom. If we find oursleves more upset by profanity than genocide, then we need to ask ourselves what our standard for truth really is.

"What is truth?" Pilate asked.

2004-08-01T12:06:00.000-05:00

John 18:38

Pilate's question echos throughout history at the heart of every philosopher, theologian, artist, and student. The answer for the Christian appears easy; Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. But what does this mean?

The question is further clouded in our late modern context where fundamentalists insist on claiming modern concepts as their own. They claim that the Bible is "absolute truth" and that Christians must be "certain" of their salvation in order to offer rational reasons for the hope that we have.

As the people of God, we need to cast off the trappings of modern philosophy and redefine what we mean by truth. Let us first recognise that the Bible makes no claims of absolute truth. In fact, the Bible is not truth, and to claim that it is truth is to claim that it is less than it is.

In order for something to be true, it must be compared to a standard of truth. If I need a piece of wood to be a certain length, I subject it to the standard of a tape measure. If I need a certain amount of flour, I subject it to the measuring cup. If I need to define a word, I look it up in a dictionary. In these cases, I accept the authority of the ruler, the cup, and the book; these are my standards of truth.

To say that the Bible is truth implies that a standard exists to which I can subject it. Because I believe that the Bible is the word of God, I consider such a claim blasphemous. I and all those I call my sisters and brothers accept by faith that the word of God is the standard of truth and cannot be subject to any other standard.

So what does Jesus mean when he claims to be the truth? Exactly what he said when he began his ministry in Nazareth, "Today scripture is fulfilled." When Jesus is subjected to the word of God, he is revealed as truth. He perfectly embodies the word of God.

Notice the standard to which Jesus compares himslef as evidence of his identity - the word of God. In order to claim that he was absolute truth, he would have to appeal to an objective standard that would (or at least could) convince not only Jews but Romans, Greeks, and any others who might come along. But Jesus is not interested in objectivity. Instead he subjects himself to a particular story, a story that has formed him and in which in understands his role. Having accepted this story as the standard of truth, he compares himself to it to reveal himself as truth.

Thus to maintain the modern insistence on absolutes and objective certainty is to attempt something other than what Jesus did. To claim that the Bible is absolute truth is to subject it to reason, the god of modernity. This is idolatry.

So as a Christian, I have no access to absolutes or to objectivity. What I do have is a standard of truth and faith in the one who is the truth. I find the God of the Bible a much more satisfying subject of faith than the god of modernity.

2004-07-25T15:11:00.000-05:00

My beautiful wife Christine and I on our wedding day.

Story, Faith, and Mythology

2004-07-25T11:33:00.000-05:00

This past week I read Robert Fagles translation of The Odyssey and the NASB translation of the book of Genesis. Both present the mythology of different groups of people: the first, the ancient Greeks; the second, Jews and Christians. I noticed many similarities in both stories. In both, gods (or sons of God) procreate with human women, producing a race of superhumans. Both feature characters who combine the qualities of nobility and hamartia (which Aristotle calls "the tragic flaw", the Bible translates it "sin"). Each story forms the religious beliefs of its adherents. The most significant difference I noticed was that I believe in one story but not in the other.

But why?

What criteria do I have for accepting the mythology of Moses and rejecting that of Homer? If, as Kierkegaard says, faith begins where reason fails, rational reasons must exist for choosing to put faith in Genesis over The Odyssey. But what are they? Both are ancient texts. Both were written by a single author (presumably). Both are based on longstanding oral traditions within societies that took such storytelling very seriously. Also, a rational reason suggests a certain degree of objectivity. But how is this objectivity attained? Both of these stories frame the thinking of their adherents, so I can only evaluate The Odyssey from the point of view of a Christian. Likewise, an Achaean could only evaluate Genesis as such. Even if I were neither, I could only evaluate the stories from a story, whether it be as an atheistic, modern, American or an agnostic, French postmodernist. As long as we find ourselves within story (which I would argue is the context of all humans), we have no objective way to evaluate any story, including (nay, especially) our own.

Thus I feel more affinity for St. Augustine, who said, "I believe in order to understand." Any reason or rationale that I employ while making decisions, reading stories, or worshipping the God of my people is influenced by the faith story in which I believe. Because I accept Genesis as my story, I necessarily exclude The Odyssey from being part of my story.

But how, then, can I tell someone who adheres to another story that my story is true and hers is false?

Perhaps I cannot. Perhaps that is beyond my ability as a human being with no way to objectively evaluate my story and someone else's. And why should I want to? Sadly, this is how many of my fellow Christians have done what they call "evangelism." They arrogantly claim that what we have is absolute truth and everyone else is wrong. But this is inappropriate and often counterproductive. To evangelize is to spread the good news, not to convince others that we have rationally grasped the truth while others wallow in ignorance.

If the church is going to succeed in evangelizing in the 21st century, it must do so in a spirit of humility that recognizes the limits of rationale and reason as subject to our faith. The best we can do (and what we are called to do) is to live out the story in which we believe while inviting others to be part of it. Our story is the good news, and this story, not rational argumentation, is what we are called to proclaim.

Welcome to Screwing for Virginity

2004-07-22T19:00:00.000-05:00

I owe the title of this blog to the ethicist Stanley Hauerwas. At a seminar called Culture of Life sponsored by the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture, Hauerwas said, "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity." Although I do not believe the phrase to be an original quote on his part, he is the first I heard use it, and so I credit him.

The purpose of this blog is to allow for discourse which will lead to learning. I believe Kierkaard (or was it Dick VanPatten?) said that education is ignorance liquidation. In that spirit, my hope is that not only will new ideas be shared, but old, outdated ideas (such as the notion that war leads to peace) may be abandoned.

Comments from from any person of any gender, nationality, or creed will be welcomed so long as they are offered in a spirit of open-mindedness and humility.