February 02, 2005
Hugh on Dennis Miller Last Night
Driving home yesterday I caught the last few minutes of Hugh Hewitt's radio broadcast. He encouraged his listeners to watch him flog Blog on Dennis Miller's show that evening, so I clicked on the tube when I got home to check it out. Miller's intro was very shaky and a bit R-rated, but Hugh did a fine job with his segment.
If you haven't purchased your copy of Blog, please do. The book will help you understand better what this project is all about. (Disclosure: Hugh flogs the old SCO a couple of times, but that's not why I'm encouraging you to buy his book. Buy and read the book because it's good and will teach you a few things about the new media!)
Posted by Rick at 10:35 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
More on the Intellectual Evangelical
Mark addressed my post below, and I think he makes a strong case that while there is room for improvement, things aren't nearly as bad as they seem. But allow me to flesh out my own idea a little bit. I'm thankful for men like Ravi Zacharias and Lee Strobel, but in terms of intellectual conservatism - in the tradition of Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Norman Podhoretz and George Will - where are we as evangelicals? I'm not trying to throw stones; I'm twenty-three and still trying to read my way through the conservative canon, to say nothing of the Western canon as a whole.
I said in my original post at Matt Crash! that I felt blogs and Dobson-esque social activism can be a good thing (though not neccesarily). I stand by that, but I wonder if, in addition to our great theologians, apologists and philosophers, evangelicals will ever have a Bill Buckley or a Norman Podhoretz?
(Note: I originally attributed Mark's post to Jim, but have since made a correction. Also note the comments section in my post below that Rick and our pal DaddyPundit have reminded me that the Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland is also an evangelical. I stand corrected.)
Posted by Matt at 08:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Christian Carnival
This week's Christian Carnival is up at Wittenberg Gate. Dory has done her usual excellent job:
We have the honor of hosting the Christian Carnival here at Wittenberg Gate this week. Forty-one Christian bloggers of a large variety of denominations and perspectives have contributed their best writing of the week for your reading pleasure and edification. We hope you will use this opportunity to broaden your reading among the Christian blogs.I have sorted the posts into broad categories and then listed the categories alphabetically. Within each category, they are listed in the order they arrived in my email inbox. In this case promptness has its rewards!
Posted by Mark at 08:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Archeologicalist Accidentally Supports Biblical History
A Canadian archeologist Russell Adams “unearthed information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later,” reports the Globe and Mail (subscription required for full story) (h/t: Considerettes)
The article says: “The findings mean that those scholars convinced that the Hebrew Old Testament is at best a compendium of revisionist, fragmented history, mixed with folklore and theology, and at worst a piece of outright propaganda, likely will have to apply the brakes to their thinking. Because, if the little bit of the Old Testament's narrative that Prof. Adams and his colleagues have looked at is true, other bits could be true as well.”
As the years pass, proof of the veracity of the Bible increases rather than decreases.
More from the article:
Professor Adams's interest is in Bronze Age and Iron Age copper production. He never intended to walk into archeology's vicious debate over the historical accuracy of the Old Testament -- a conflict likened by one historian to a pack of feral canines at each other's throats.
Yet by coincidence, Prof. Adams of Hamilton's McMaster University says, he and an international team of colleagues fit into place a significant piece of the puzzle of human history in the Middle East -- unearthing information that points to the existence of the Bible's vilified Kingdom of Edom at precisely the time the Bible says it existed, and contradicting widespread academic belief that it did not come into being until 200 years later.
References to the Kingdom of Edom -- almost none of them complimentary -- are woven through the Old Testament. It existed in what is today southern Jordan, next door to Israel, and the relationship between the biblical Edomites and Israelites was one of unrelenting hostility and warfare.
The team led by Prof. Adams, Thomas Levy of the University of California at San Diego and Mohammad Najjar of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities was investigating copper mining and smelting at a site called Khirbat en-Nahas, by far the largest copper-production site in the region.
They applied high-precision radiocarbon-dating methods to some of their finds, and as they say in the British journal Antiquities, "The results were spectacular."
They firmly established that occupation of the site began in the 11th century BC and a monumental fortress was built in the 10th century BC, supporting the argument for existence of an Edomite state at least 200 years earlier than had been assumed.
What is particularly exciting about their find is that it implies the existence of an Edomite state at the time the Bible says King David and his son Solomon ruled over a powerful united kingdom of Israel and Judah.
Posted by Jim at 06:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Radio Free Blog
Check out the streaming audio radio program over at Homespun Blogger Radio. It's their fourth program, and it is very well done. This week it includes the following segments:
* Jay Dean (The Radical Centrist) shows how California politics could be made more responsive to the voters.
* Andrew Ian Dodge (Dodgeblogium) has advice for British libertarians who are trying to regain a foothold.
* Derek Gilbert (Weapon of Mass Distraction) observes that in the evolution / creation debate, certain news organizations and certain bloggers are ignoring discoveries that don't conform to their positions.
To listen, click here.
Posted by Jim at 05:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Spiritual Lion in Winter: Pope Rushed to Hospital
Pope John Paul II, 84, who was rushed to the hospital last night with breathing problems, is by far the most influential spiritual leader of our time, perhaps the individual most responsible for the collapse of communism, and an unparalleled conservative force in the church and world. Catholic Online reports on the Pope’s health crisis.
It is difficult to imagine a pontiff of such intellectual, spiritual, and even political expansiveness and strength succeeding him. Christians of all traditions should pray for this spiritual lion in winter, that he might continue to lead, in his words, “the great springtime of the human spirit.”
Posted by Jim at 05:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
True Confession
I only recognize 13 names on Time Magazine's list of the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America. (I guess I'd better read the article and find out who the rest of them are.) But I do know that at least two of these evangelicals are Catholics.
Posted by Drew at 01:22 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Facilitating the Growth of the Evangelical Mind
In The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind, historian and Professor Mark Noll wrote that:
The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind. An extraordinary range of virtues is found among the sprawling throngs of evangelical Protestants in North America, . . . . Notwithstanding all their other virtues, however, American evangelicals are not exemplary for their thinking, and they have not been so for several generations. Despite dynamic success at a popular level, modern American evangelicals have failed notably in sustaining serious intellectual life. (1994 ed., Page 1)
In reflecting on the ten-year anniversary of the book in First Things recently, Professor Noll reconsidered his conclusions and wrote that:
[O]n the whole, The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind still seems to me correct in its descriptions and evaluations. What is true throughout the Christian world is true for American Christians: we who are in pietistic, generically evangelical, Baptist, fundamentalist, Restorationist, holiness, "Bible church," megachurch, or Pentecostal traditions face special difficulties when putting the mind to use. Taken together, American evangelicals display many virtues and do many things well, but built-in barriers to careful and constructive thinking remain substantial.
Professor Noll provides examples of improvements, and offers suggestions for additional action, but his conclusion remains, although he ends on a hopeful note:
Evangelicals of several types are beginning to learn the lessons taught by such exemplars. As they do so, many are becoming more serious Christian thinkers. To embrace the energy of American evangelicalism, but also to move beyond the eccentricities of American evangelicalism into the spacious domains of self-critical, patient, rooted, and productive Christian tradition, remains the great challenge for the evangelical mind.
(If you are interested in further reading, First Things held a symposium on Noll's book in 1995.)
Our own Matt, in a post at Matt Crash, offers similar thoughts with respect to evangelical political thought:
I've talked before about how I'm bothered that the major conservative publications don't have many writers from the red states. Nor do they have many evangelicals. In fact, I can only think of two - Hugh Hewitt and Fred Barnes, both at the Weekly Standard. Hugh's talked a lot about influence, and Joe Carter's doing a great job gathering traffic for the God-blogs, but we should not limit ourselves to the blogosphere. There will always be a place for conservative publications like the Standard, NR and Commentary. At what point will evangelicals make a concerted effort to be a full-fledged part of intellectual conservatism? Not just the blogs or social activism of the Dobson variety. Both of these things are good. Indeed, they have become crucial to party mobilization. Yet, if as they claim, evangelicals have something to offer conservatism (and I believe we do), then we should seek to become a part of all aspects of the movement. Are we trying?
As to the overall state of the evangelical mind, and evangelical religious thought in particular, I don't quite share Professor Noll's pessimistic current evaluation. The periodicals First Things, Touchstone, and Christianity Today and the audio journal Mars Hill Audio provide substantive intellectual content on matters religious, social, political and artistic. (I recognize that, with the exception of Christianity Today, none of these can be termed exclusively evangelical, but I believe each has a strong evangelical following.) Authors such as Ravi Zacharias, Lee Strobel, Norman Geisler, Walter Elwell, Alister McGrath and Chuck Colson are providing solid books on faith. In addition, many evangelical studens are going to solid institutions of higher learning and forming their minds.
Unfortunately, though, for every Ravi Zacharias, there is a Benny Hin, for every Alister McGrath, a Joel Osteen. Bad theology and sloppy thinking abound in the evangelical world, not just on the internet, but in Christian bookstores that cater to evangelicals--the Left Behind series being a prominent fiction example, and at evangelical churches.
Evangelicals, then, have their share of intellectual heavyweights, but at the everyman level, there is much work to be done.
Where is this going? I think that evangelical blogs can help in this task, both with the issues that Professor Noll identifies, and with the issues that Matt identifies. Blogs are a good medium for addressing specific topics and many evangelical bloggers are already providing great content on important issues. For examples, see the sites listed in our blogroll at the left (not all are evangelical but a number are). In addition, check out Jollyblogger, Adrian Warnock, Wittenberg Gate, Allthings2all, and any of the blogs in the Decablog not included in our blogroll or above.
One goal of this blog is to aid in this effort. We are all dedicated to facilitating the growth of the evangelical mind. Obviously this cannot be done in a systematic way through a blog. It is done topically. However, working together with journals, books and solid Christian schools, blogs, including this one, can aid in the reformation of the evangelical mind.
For those of you who are either Christians from other traditions, or who are not believers, please note that this blog is for you too. We offer an evangelical perspective on the world, particularly religion, politics, social issues, arts, and sports. However, we are here to engage the world. This is not intended to be an evangelical echo chamber. Please interact with us. If you don't like evangelicals, tell us why. If you don't like Christians, tell us why. If you're not an evangelical but think we have an interesting take on an issue, let us know that as well. Come now, let us reason together.
In any event, this is what motivates me, and I think, to a certain extent, the others. We want to improve the state of the evangelical mind, and we want to engage the world, from an evangelical perspective. We need your help to do it.
Posted by Mark at 12:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 01, 2005
The Conservative Evangelical Mind
About a week ago I posted the following link over at Matt Crash! In the post, I discuss the lack of evangelical involvement in intellectual conservatism. Think about this for a moment. The major conservative publications are National Review, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the American Spectator and perhaps the New Criterion. I can think two evangelicals working for those publications: Fred Barnes and Hugh Hewitt. That's it. No one else. This is rather disheartening.
Evangelicals with a conservative bent should ask themselves why we have found ourselves in this predicament. It can easily be fixed, mind you, but here at our new venue, I hope to call attention to this issue. I don't mean to imply that the our friends at these publications - be they Catholic, Orthodox, Hebrew or otherwise - are in any way bad. Indeed this is not the case. Yet if evangelicals want to maintain the influence we constantly discuss, then it's imperative that we train our minds to become part of the vibrant intellectuall spirit of conservatism.
Posted by Matt at 10:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Moyers has a Meltdown
A couple bloggers alerted me to this recent essay by Bill Moyers which was published in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. In it, Moyers asserts that those crazy Christians are planning to destroy the environment in order to hasten the end of the world and the return of Christ. He's completely convinced of this premise and I don't even know where to begin with this exercise in moonbattery.
But I'll try.
The whole piece is a minefield of stereotyping and bigotry. All that's missing is Moyers presenting a "final solultion" for dealing with Christians. If Moyers was someone the general populace actually listened to, I'd be worried. Moyers is just a pale ghost trying to frighten people with his hysterical moanings, and you can see right through him if you bother to look. But it is worrying enough that the Star Tribune should print this anti-Christian rallying cry.
(Just for fun, count the number of times Moyers presents opinions as facts throughout the piece.)
For the first time in our history, ideology and theology hold a monopoly of power in Washington.
What Moyers means is not just that there are Christians holding elected office (and that's scary enough for Moyers) but that there are elected officials that are (gasp!) backed by Christians! This is enough to cause Moyers to wet himself in panic.
Theology asserts propositions that cannot be proven true; ideologues hold stoutly to a worldview despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality.
If we accept Moyers' definitions, then this makes Moyers himself both a theologian and an ideologue, as we shall see.
When ideology and theology couple, their offspring are not always bad but they are always blind. And there is the danger: voters and politicians alike, oblivious to the facts.
The biggest danger comes from loony old columnists who are just plain oblivious. But I digress.
Remember James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first secretary of the interior? My favorite online environmental journal, the ever-engaging Grist, reminded us recently of how James Watt told the U.S. Congress that protecting natural resources was unimportant in light of the imminent return of Jesus Christ. In public testimony he said, "after the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
Here's the column in Grist to which Moyers refers. It's another helping of fearmongering over creeping fundamentalism. I was planning to blog about it last week, but never got around to it. Thank you Bill Moyers for the reminder that you're not alone in your bigotry.
Beltway elites snickered. The press corps didn't know what he was talking about. But James Watt was serious. So were his compatriots out across the country. They are the people who believe the Bible is literally true - one-third of the American electorate, if a recent Gallup poll is accurate. In this past election several million good and decent citizens went to the polls believing in the rapture index.That's right - the rapture index. Google it and you will find that the best-selling books in America today are the 12 volumes of the "Left Behind" series written by the Christian fundamentalist and religious-right warrior Timothy LaHaye. These true believers subscribe to a fantastical theology concocted in the 19th century by a couple of immigrant preachers who took disparate passages from the Bible and wove them into a narrative that has captivated the imagination of millions of Americans.
Moyers acts as if he's just discovered a heretofore unknown people group. I must congratulate him on being able to fool PBS into employing him as a societal commentator for many years without ever letting on how ignorant he is of American society.
By the way, here's the Rapture Index. It looks to be a sort of Eschatological Atomic Clock. Moyers would have you believe that millions of Americans check this website regularly to find out how close we are to Christ's return. And that they destroy the enviroment to move the index ahead.
The Rapture Index looks to be the work of two people.
Its outline is rather simple, if bizarre (the British writer George Monbiot recently did a brilliant dissection of it and I am indebted to him for adding to my own understanding): Once Israel has occupied the rest of its "biblical lands," legions of the antichrist will attack it, triggering a final showdown in the valley of Armageddon.As the Jews who have not been converted are burned, the messiah will return for the rapture. True believers will be lifted out of their clothes and transported to Heaven, where, seated next to the right hand of God, they will watch their political and religious opponents suffer plagues of boils, sores, locusts and frogs during the several years of tribulation that follow.
I'm not making this up.
Yes, Bill. That's one of many different beliefs about how the world will end. If you were honest you point out to your readers that there are other ways of interpreting the Revelation. Your only excuse is that you're just plain ignorant or too lazy to do any research into end-times beliefs. Which label would you prefer: dishonest or ignorant? There are no other options.
By the way, here's George Moonbat's Monbiot's article to which Moyers refers. It's yet another screed about those religious people who are "bonkers" and who apparently set George Bush's middle east policy.
Like Monbiot, I've read the literature. I've reported on these people, following some of them from Texas to the West Bank. They are sincere, serious and polite as they tell you they feel called to help bring the rapture on as fulfillment of biblical prophecy. That's why they have declared solidarity with Israel and the Jewish settlements and backed up their support with money and volunteers. It's why the invasion of Iraq for them was a warm-up act, predicted in the Book of Revelations where four angels "which are bound in the great river Euphrates will be released to slay the third part of man." A war with Islam in the Middle East is not something to be feared but welcomed - an essential conflagration on the road to redemption.
Pet peeve: Bill, it's the book of Revelation. Not Revelations. There's just one Revelation, okay? I'd think a guy as smart as you, employed for years by PBS, would know that.
Anyway, note how Bill the armchair anthropologist speaks about "these people." It shouldn't surprise anyone that he singles out Texas. You know, . . . because George Bush is one of them! Booga booga booga! Hide the children!
The last time I Googled it, the rapture index stood at 144 - just one point below the critical threshold when the whole thing will blow, the son of God will return, the righteous will enter Heaven and sinners will be condemned to eternal hellfire.
Bill is also pretty ignorant of Google. Bill, here's a hint: you can find support for just about anything on the internet, and Google will happily guide you to the strangest things. Google is pretty cool that way. But just because you find it on the internet, Bill, does not mean that millions of Americans believe it. You can find my blog with Google, but that doesn't mean millions of Americans agree with me about everything written there. (Although they should, shouldn't they?)
For what it's worth, I'd never heard of the "rapture index" until Moyers brought it up, and I mark myself as one of those "crazy" Christians Bill claims follows the index like a pillar of fire. (Note to Bill: that's an Old Testament allusion. You may have heard of the Old Testament. It's in the same Bible where you find the book of Revelation.)
Here's more from the armchair anthropologist again:
One of their texts is a high school history book, "America's Providential History." You'll find there these words: "The secular or socialist has a limited-resource mentality and views the world as a pie . . . that needs to be cut up so everyone can get a piece." However, "[t]he Christian knows that the potential in God is unlimited and that there is no shortage of resources in God's earth . . . while many secularists view the world as overpopulated, Christians know that God has made the earth sufficiently large with plenty of resources to accommodate all of the people."No wonder Karl Rove goes around the White House whistling that militant hymn, "Onward Christian Soldiers." He turned out millions of the foot soldiers on Nov. 2, including many who have made the apocalypse a powerful driving force in modern American politics.
It is hard for the journalist to report a story like this with any credibility.
You said it, Bill. I didn't.
Ask yourself: what is the point of Moyers piece? Or to put it another way, as a piece of persuasive writing, of what is this essay trying to persuade people? What is Moyers' solution to this problem? He closes his rant with these words:
The news is not good these days. I can tell you, though, that as a journalist I know the news is never the end of the story. The news can be the truth that sets us free - not only to feel but to fight for the future we want. And the will to fight is the antidote to despair, the cure for cynicism, and the answer to those faces looking back at me from those photographs on my desk. What we need is what the ancient Israelites called hochma - the science of the heart ... the capacity to see, to feel and then to act as if the future depended on you.Believe me, it does.
So what does he mean when he calls on his readers to fight and to act because the future depends on them? What, exactly, does he want his readers to do to preserve the future? The most obvious answer is that he wants them to fight and to act against those people who he sees as enemies of the future -- Christians. And how are they to act against the enemies? Moyers doesn't say. He leaves that up to his readers. Maybe violence is the answer. Maybe they're supposed to enact laws to ensure that Christians are not allowed to hold elected office. Maybe internment camps and such. I don't know, but Bill irresponsibly sounds the alarm anyway.
Ask yourself how this would play if Bill had used the same language to warn everyone that Muslim believers posed a threat to the future. Would the Star-Tribune run it?
Posted by Drew at 06:02 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Clinton(s) 2008
There should be no doubt that Hillary is running for higher office. Hillary Rodham's recent statements aimed to paint her as a centrist by seeking common ground on abortion make it clear that she is gunning for the presidency in 2008.
But is Bill also running for higher office? I've wondered before, but Kofi Annan's announcement today makes me think that something is up.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan has selected former President Clinton to be the U.N. point man for tsunami reconstruction and ensure that the world doesn't forget the needs of those devastated by the Dec. 26 disaster, a U.N. diplomat said Tuesday.
President Clinton is an excellent candidate for this job. The relief effort will be well managed under his leadership. But forgive me for being a bit cynical when it comes to the Clintons: Could this be just the opportunity for Bill to launch his campaign for UN Secretary General? I'll bet the thought has at least crossed his mind.
Dick Morris once wrote that "Bill and Hillary Clinton have one central idea in their uncluttered, ambitious minds: Hillary in 2008."
Dick's analysis here may not be is correct; after all, Morris thought the SBV Ads would "backfire"). But what if he is correct and Bill is obsessed with the idea of Hillary as President?
As UN Secretary General, Bill Clinton could use the bully pulpit to confront President Bush on global policy like no other person could. And, let's face it folks, he is much better on that bully pulpit than our dear W. He could hammer conservative politics and, with the MSM having heart palpitations over his return to the spotlight, his message would be carried into every American home, every day.
But, what if Bill's candidacy for UN Secretary General is some type of move to preempt Hillary's candidacy? Can anyone imagine having one Clinton run the United States, while the other Clinton ran the world (so to speak)? And, if Clinton were to wear the 5-star Blue Helmet, do you think he would give up the power that comes with that helmet so that Hillary could run for President?
I have no idea. But, I think it's safe to say that the Clintons are up to something.
UPDATE: Former Senator Jessie Helms weighs in:
"I'm sure you might agree that putting a left-wing, undisciplined and ethically challenged former President of the United States into a position of such power would be a tragic mistake," wrote the 83-year-old Republican, who left office in 2003 after five terms.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Tuesday. It contains a petition asking President Bush to "rebuke all efforts by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and every other liberal in Congress to push for Bill Clinton to become Secretary-General of the United Nations."
Is the first shot in a long drawn out war? Or is Senator Helms just ranting?
There was another line in the Helms article that caught my attention:
"Clinton has said nothing publicly about wanting to lead the U.N" (emphasis added). Hmmmm...
Posted by Rick at 03:07 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack
Is the "Governator" No Longer Invincible?
The headline of this AP story screams: "Once-Invincible 'Governator' Dips in Polls."
A new survey by the Public Policy Institute of California shows that while 60 percent of the state's residents still approve of the job he is doing, he has lost considerable ground among Democrats and Independents, who together form the vast majority of the state's voters.Well...not exactly.
The PPIC poll compared the Governor's January 2005 job approval rating to his January 2004 approval rating. Exhibit 1 compares the data for both years by party and for all Californians.
The single-tail p-values for the change in the proportion of those who “Approve” from 2004 to 2005 were as follows: Dem (.10), Rep (.28), Ind (.30), Californians (.26). Statistically, the Governor's "Approval" rating did not change from 2004 to 2005, even amongst the surveyed Democrats. Although, the survey indicates that Californians shifted from not knowing if they approved or disapproved of the Governor's performance in 2004 to expressing firm disapproval of his job performance in 2005. As noted in the PPIC report, this shift was largest amongst Democrats and Independents.
What do you think could account for this marked shift in opinion of the Governor amongst Democrats, Independents, and even some Republicans?
I suggest that much of the shift can be attributed to the PPIC survey design and administration.
In this year's survey, the job approval question was #22. I suggest that questions #19 or #21, which preceded the approval rating question, provided information that may have "pushed" Californians (Dem. and Ind. in particular) from "Do Not Know" in 2004 to "Disapprove" in 2005.
These questions informed the survey respondents that the Governor's budget includes "withholding money from K to 12 public education," "reducing certain health and human services and general government spending," and asked "how concerned" Californians were about the effects of the Governor's proposed "spending reductions."
In 2004, surveyed voters were asked to make value judgments based on their prior knowledge of the issues. The survey questionnaire did not provide the type of preamble, like it did most prominently in questions #19 and #21 of the 2005 survey.
If the article suggests that in 2004 Arnold was "Invincible," this survey does not indicate an Achilles Heal for the Governator. Given the preamble of questions #19 and #21 in the survey, why did the Governor's "Approval" rating remain unchanged across party lines? Now there's the story!
Posted by Rick at 10:06 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Is this thing on?
Good morning, blogosphere! So here we are at the new Stones Cry Out super-duper megablog. Thanks for joining us.
I would love to start my first post here with some profound insight into the ways of the world, but alas, after a night at the symphony I woke up late and it's cold and rainy and well...I've got nothing.
My colleagues Rick, Jim, Mark and Drew are already bringing the content. I shall return later, but until then check out Al Mohler's thoughts on the Iraqi election.
Sidenote: I wonder how many GWB supporters paid attention to the Iraqi election returns? I'm not questioning anyone's support of the President, but if someone is not a political junkie, it might be easy to overlook what happened. I know a lot of war supporters looked on the whole matter as a security issue, and the liberation itself was not as important. I hope the emphasis can be placed now on self-determination for the Iraqis, and that our countrymen who cheered Saddam's capture can also cheer the self-liberation of the Iraqi people. The tip of my right finger is stained with ink in support of their cause.
Posted by Matt at 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
VIRTUES THAT TRANSCEND POLITICAL IDEOLOGY
The great danger of the emphasis on moral values in the recent election and continuing public debate is that they have narrowed the view to public policies related to same-sex marriage and abortion. By defining these two enormously important issues as the nexus of morality, we may have safely acceded much daily moral initiative to others--since most us are neither gay nor inclined or able to abort.
With the great rhetorical battles concentrating on these few values issues, a vast array of social issues and enormous areas of need are ignored. For our greatest need as a nation is not for value judgments on matters from which we are largely isolated, but personal virtue in private and public places.
The Political Illusion
We are inclined to seek government solutions to moral problems because we desperately wish that there would be sweeping institutional solutions to the gritty personal rebellion of our souls. As such, we make politics an overwhelming concern. Many of us have fallen prey to what Ellul called “the political illusion” that politics provides the antidote to all personal and societal ills.
While law can be a moral teacher, politics is hardly a school of the virtuous arts.
Worse, the political diversion of moral energies has given rise to a new kind of hypocrisy. It is now possible to consider ourselves morally exemplary simply because we adhere to an enlightened set of social principles. And we take pride in expounding on our enlightenment (particularly if it is well-linked).
Virtue is Not an Ideology
When we disengage a bit from the daily battles, we realize how petty, selfish, and downright cruel the political wars and public discourse can be. And it is obvious that the followers of Jesus Christ are not called primarily to the values of the right or left, but to the virtues of the kingdom of God. We easily forget in the midst of the fray, when the posts are flying, that there are Christian virtues that transcend ideology and trump politics.
While we may (and should) advocate and vote in accordance with a set of moral principles, this requires nothing of us personally. Being right politically doesn’t require us to lift a finger to help anyone. Political superiority still permits us to be ruthless in relationships with other people.
Because morality has been sublimated into ideology, we often feel that we have an adequate moral identity merely because we hold the “right” view on public policy matters--same-sex marriage, abortion, euthanasia. environmentalism, militarism, and many others. We may lead narrow, self-indulgent lives, obsessed with our physical health, financial affluence, political power, creature comforts, and personal growth, yet still feel a moral advantage over those who—despite lives more attuned to biblical principles—are ideologically unsound.
The Contrary Virtues
What are our ethical standards? What virtues are called for in public life and private practice? There are many historical perspectives on the virtuous life. Drawn both from classical Greek and from the early Christian church, there are a number of versions of the virtues. Listed here is what has been called the contrary virtues, derived from the epic poem “Battle for the Soul” by Prudentious (c.410). They are called contrary because they confront each of the Seven Deadly Sins.
Humility (against Pride)
Pride can run through everything we do. And the worst of it, as Dorothy Sayers warned, is that “the devilish strategy of Pride is that it attacks us not at our weakest points, but in our strongest. It is preeminently the sin of the noble mind.” Humility is a form of clear-sightedness. It is realism about ourselves, plus trust in God. Jesus addressed pride in his parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector in Luke 18:9-14. Jesus said: “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
Kindness (against Envy)
Kindness is often seen in the rough and tumble of public life as the soft retreat of weak minds. But it can be more accurately seen as the strong response to the temptation of an envious heart. Envy is a product of our age. Henry Fairlie writes in The Seven Deadly Sins Today:
“The idea that we are equal has been perverted into the idea that we are identical; and when we then find that we cannot all do and experience and enjoy the things that others do and experience and enjoy, we take our revenge and deny that they were worth doing and experiencing and enjoying in the first place. What we are unable to achieve, we will bring low. What requires talent and training and hard work, we will show can be accomplished without them.”
Kindness is an antidote to envy, for it is hard to have destructive envy for someone you are kind to, just as it is difficult to hate someone you pray for. The real solution to envy is deep satisfaction with what God has given and a deep understanding of our own unworthiness. Seeing ourselves in the light of God’s grace.
Abstinence (against Gluttony)
Americans are the fattest people in the world. Has there ever been a more obvious need for an entire nation to just say “no” from time to time.
A recent news item: “A recent assessment of obesity in the US found that more than a half of all adult Americans were overweight. About 54 million adults were classified as obese - that is people who are about 15 kilos or more over the healthy norm based on height - and hundreds of thousands of deaths each year were attributed to obesity-related diseases. Health groups say one of the biggest culprits for this growing epidemic is junk food, and that the best time to break the cycle between obesity and bad eating habits is when people are young.”
Chastity (against Lust)
Lust is the exaggerated sin of our time, not nearly as seriously as pride. It is a sin of the flesh, yet it can corrupt the spirit. While the chaste life is the result of victory over lust, the antidote is better stated as purity of heart. Whereas lust blinds and dissipates our strength, purity of heart can concentrate our strength and purpose. Kierkegaard wrote: “Purity of heart is to will one thing.” Thus to love God with a love that is pure, simple, and total is the counterpoint to lust. But such a strenuous ideal can crush us with disillusionment if it is not accompanied by grace and forgiveness, through which Jesus upsets moralistic expectations. As William F. May said, we need to remember that “the ancient Hebrew circumcised the penis; he did not amputate it. Jesus forgave the adulterous woman; he did not stone her.”
Patience (against Anger)
The New Testament uses the imagery of fruit to describe the virtues of the spirit-filled Christian. Galatians 5: 22-23 says “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control.” Bearing this fruit will certainly enable us to combat anger.
One devotional says: “It is through patience that we get a better understanding of the Creator, and our relationship with our Creator. It is through patience that we get a better understanding of the crosses that we bear day to day. The one that is without crosses, has ceased to be of notice, “For, whom the Lord loveth, he chasteneth and scoureth every one whom he receiveth. If you endureth chastening, God dealeth with you as sons, for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?" We may be called upon to bare not only our own crosses, but also those of others. If we would approach the Throne, we must come leaning on the arm of one we have helped. "Look not every man to his own things, but every man also on the things of others."
Liberality (against Greed)
Many of us compassionate conservatives properly cite government’s inability to deal with poverty of purse and spirit. We call for private institutions to address the needs of the poor, but too often it is an excuse for personal selfishness. Liberals call for more help for the struggling classes, but really mean requiring people wealthier than they are to pay for government programs that have proved abysmal failures.
Yet as liberal or conservative followers of Christ we are called to love mercy. To show personal compassion to those who have failed or faltered. To feed the hungry ourselves. We’ve turned good deeds over to government, to agencies, to experts, even to our churches, without personal responsibility. As such the acts that constitute the social morality of our time are being performed by paid professionals in large public institutions, private or governmental, not by those who respond to the call of God to personally take up the needs of others—not as ideology, but in gratitude.
Diligence (against Sloth)
We live in a lazy, victim society. We blame anything or anyone but ourselves for our problems, and expect the government to help us if anything goes wrong. In the meantime, don’t interrupt our favorite television shows! Notions such as diligence, discipline, and responsibility seem antiquated. Sloth is defined by the coach potato.
We succumb to the temptations of sloth--both physical laziness and spiritual dejection that has given up on the pursuit of God, the true, the good, and the beautiful--when we lose our purpose and yield to what Vaclav Havel calls Nothingness. Havel was political prisoner before becoming president of the Czech Republic. He wrote:
“The temptation of Nothingness is enormous and omnipresent, and it has more and more to reset its case on, more to appeal to. Against it, man stands along, weak and poorly armed, his position worse than ever before in history. And yet I am convinced that there is nothing in this vale of tears that, of itself, can rob man of hope, faith, and the meaning of life. He loses these things only when he himself falters, when he yields to the temptations of Nothingness.”
Diligence is purpose. It is the pursuit of God, and as such, the rejection of nothingness.
-----
We can only touch in this space on the many dimensions of the virtuous life. And we recognize the need to, as Os Guinness writes, “be on guard against the lurking danger of moralism—removing grace altogether and reducing the many dimensions of life to the single dimension of morality.”
But as he points out: “The forgotten classical tradition of the virtues and vices is fundamental to the renaissance of the ‘good society.’” For the passionate need of our time is not to revolutionize society, but personal virtue writ large.
Posted by Jim at 09:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Welcome to Stones Cry Out
Welcome to the new Stones Cry Out. We are grateful that you have stopped by. We have been working out a few kinks, but most are now fixed. Please let us know if something does not work properly.
Posted by Mark at 09:20 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
It Ain't About the Oil-Stop Talking Nonsense
Ok, I've heard enough of the "Iraq is All About Bush Controlling the Oil" nonsense. See Darn Floor's post for an example. To those who are purveying this lie, please do me just one favor: Provide one (only one now) fact supporting your statement. I don't need a number of them; one piece of evidence will do. If you can't provide the evidence, then stop saying it. Also, in two years (or perhaps less), when the oil production of Iraq is in the hands of Iraqis, would you do me the favor of copying me on your note of apology to the President?
Posted by Mark at 09:05 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack