The Monday Tour 1/30/06

Habakkuk's Watchpost gets the hat tip for getting me to Lee Irons and his wife Misty (although I do not know how I got there from there). Lee wrote "What I Believe About Homosexuality" after Misty wrote an article for his website, Upper Register on "A Conservative Christian Case for Civil Same-Sex Marriage". Misty's website is Musings on Christianity, Homosexuality, and the Bible. Both believe as I do that homosexuality is a sin, but not a choice. Both support, as I do, Christians supporting civil unions for gays.

Other than the theological examination of homosexuality, it is interesting that both were attacked by Christian Reconstructionists within the Reformed Church. There is some interesting theological stuff buried in all the papers for those into that kind of thing; and for those who might want Biblical grounding against Reconstructionism.
----------
Catez Stevens has said a lot about post-modernism and Christianity. Here is some more: "Who is the Postmodern Person?" with links to other stuff she and others have said. A post-modern smorgasbord.
----------
There is lots on the turn against al Qaeda in Iraq. First, hat tip to Baghdadee for sending me to "Anti-Qaeda protest in Iraq, local anger mounts"
----------
For those that took the heresy quiz and want to know both what the heresies were, and the questions that won you the award: "Heresy Quiz Answers". (HT: Best of the Godblogs)
----------
As usual, interesting stuff at Iraq the Model.

• "Is there a place for democracy in the Middle East?"
• "Iraqi tribes in Anbar arrest 270 Arab and foreign al-Qaeda members!" There is some evidence that the tribal leaders/militias are going to promise they will keep Anbar under control if the US troops are replaced by Iraqi police.
• "America's patience is running out, the UIA rejects pressures." on the continuing process to form a government in Iraq

----------
Jordan's View has "Fundamentalism: Not Necessarily a Bad Word". This might give some folk who like the word "fundie" a little bit of nuance and perspective.
----------
I haven't read it yet but here is a foreign policy speech by Hillary Clinton at Princeton. It comes linked by a send-up by Matthew Goggins: Hillary Clinton and the late Hugh Thompson.
----------
Joe Carter warns President Bush about "Persia, the People, and the Polls"
----------
The View From Her has this view of "Feminists and the Church".

God designed men and women to complement each other. Both feminists and the church miss the importance of this. Feminists miss it because they irrationally insist we're exactly the same. The church misses it because while acknowledging differences, it simply excludes half of them. We insist on running the church with only half of the human qualities God created. And, much like labor unions, it makes the church appear irrelevant in today's culture.

For a bonus, find the "not a good gift" gift idea on her blog.
----------
There was a little look at John Kerry and Daily Kos at Volokh Conspiracy. A little conservative analysis of liberal strategy is always interesting.
----------
One of the liberal members of the Supreme Court talking about the Establishment Clause: "Judicial musings". Hat tip to WorldMagBlog.

Read more!

Christian Carnival CVI (106) is up

Actually two of my posts are there. "Loving Our Neighbor as Ourselves" and " 'The End of the Spear', gays, and Christ".

It is called the "Saint Issac of Syria Edition" . Technogypsy from the introduction:

While lacking orders like the Dominicans, Cistercian, or Franciscans, the Eastern Church does have an extensive collection of texts on the monastic life from the Saying of the Desert Fathers to the Ladder of Divine Ascent to the Philokalia (Love of the Beautiful) to the Arena. St. Benedict, being from before the schism of the churches, is considered part of this. In this wide collection of works that are both records and guides to a soul's striving for the Presence of God and the Gift of Pure Prayer, the Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac of Syria are considered a fundamental, or maybe even the fundamental text. It has been said that "A page a day makes a monk." Today, in a world in many ways different from the silence of the Desert, St. Isaac's advice is still good, even for us who do not or can not flee the world to seek what the early Celtic Church called the green martyrdom. So this week's entries are grouped by some of the pearls from St. Isaac's work with commentary from his homilies. Since I've actually read all the posts and sometimes other stuff on the blogs, I tried to match up as best I could...and I tried not to get distracted

About Christian Carnival:

Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!

The Monday Tour 1/23/06

Hannah IM thinks Avoiding Controversy is a Joke . Hannah is an Intellectuelle - a group blog I love.

The church she attended in Incheon is worth reading about.
----------
I am not even trying to pick something out here. A permanent carnival:

----------
I do not get to point out my friends at Habakkuk's Watchpost very often because, frankly, they are mostly too weird for me. However, they get the Hat tip for this Heresy Quiz. I was 100% Chalcedon compliant. Of course that was the first time I took the test, the second time I was a heretic. I am going downhill.
----------
A couple of important things from Iraq the Model:

• The Final Results of the Iraqi elections
• While Iraq needs months to form the new government, Iraqi militants turn against al-Qaeda. Six Iraqi militant organizations have joined forces against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Hopefully, instead of the repeated "Iraq has become the training base of terrorism" it has become the burial ground for Al Qaeda.

----------
Wink at Parableman asks "Did Jesus Commit Suicide?". Good question.
----------
The Cluebat of the Week at the Carnival of the Clueless is Russian Liberal and Democratic Party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky for his response to Condoleezza Rice's criticism of a Russian - Ukrainian gas agreement. Now, this is really over-the-top:

“If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear,” Zhirinovsky ranted on. “Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied."

“Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men’s attention,” he added. “Such women are very rough. … They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere.”

Reminds me of Dan Ackroyd talking to Jane Curtain on Saturday Night Live.
----------
For a theist vs atheist smackdown started at Evangelical Outpost by Joe Carter: Alice, Atheists, and the Ability to Believe Impossible Things.

I am not sure that could be complete without PZ Meyers and McEmbryos

Once you get past atheism, you will need to know How to Pick a Preacher. I prefer steak BTW.
----------
Jan at The View From Her has Of Men and Women.
----------
Hopefully, no further proof will be necessary: UF requirement for partner benefits: You must have sex and sign an affidavit to that effect (HT: WorldMagBlog)

Good politics, or a Democrat self-destructing: Taking a hack at Christians.
----------
Ok, that is enough for a week.

Read more!

"The End of the Spear", gays, and Christ.

I received this email today which I am passing on along with the answer I gave:

On Friday, January 13th, I wrote an article detailing my concerns about the decision by Every Tribe Entertainment to cast an activist for the gay agenda in a leading role in the movie, "The End of the Spear." (You can access the original article here). Gauging the amount of email that I have received and the number of visitors to my blog, the issue seemed to touch a nerve. I also asked pastors who were equally concerned to add their name to a letter that I was sending to Mart Green, the CEO of ETE. The letter expressed disappointment over the decision and asked them to somehow rectify the situation. I sent the letter on Wednesday, January 18th, with the names of over one hundred pastors attached.

On Friday I received a call from Mart Green and Jim Hanon, the director of the film. We had a cordial conversation. I brought up my two primary concerns with the movie: the casting of a gay activist and the lack of the Gospel message in the movie. (I will hold off on reporting what they said about the Gospel message until I publish an article on Wednesday regarding that entire topic.)

On the casting issue, I asked them several key questions. My first question was directed to Mart Green. "Do you feel that what you did in casting a gay activist in this role was wrong?" I received a quick "no." I moved on.

I wanted to clear up a discrepancy between Chad Allen's and ETE's versions of the casting decision. The public perception has been that ETE was unaware of Allen's homosexuality until after he was already on board. This is an important point to many. A representative from a large, pro-family organization even called me on Friday afternoon to make sure that I was aware of this. WorldNetDaily interviewed ETE President Bill Ewing, who said that "he was not even aware of Allen's homosexuality, let alone his activism, when the actor was chosen for the part." Baptist Press reported in an article last Thursday that "the producers have said they were not aware of Chad Allen's homosexuality when they gave him the role of Steve Saint in the film but decided to stick with him once they were told of his sexual practices." It's obvious that ETE would like people to know that they were unaware of Allen's homosexuality and his activism. This is significant, because if they were truly unaware, then perhaps, the reasoning goes, they should be forgiven for not doing their homework and we should all move on.

Mart Green and Jim Hanon clarified the process for me. According to them, they had offered him the role but had not signed the contract with him when they learned of his gay lifestyle. In spite of that, they still proceeded with the signing of the contract. Now, you may be thinking, "To not offer him the job at that point would amount to discrimination." You're probably right.

But it doesn't matter.

They would do it all again even with prior knowledge of Allen's activist agenda.

I asked the question to Mart, "If you knew before the casting process began what you know now, would you still have hired Chad Allen?" I rephrased it just so they knew what I was getting at. If you were to do another movie just like 'The End of the Spear' and you were fully aware of Allen's activism, would you hire him?" Mart responded that he would like both Jim Hanon and himself to answer the question. Jim Hanon said, "Yes." And then I heard him say something like "We are going to open up the door to anyone who wants to act unlike you, Jason, who wants to be exclusive." I asked Mart Green what he would do. He responded, "I would stand behind my director."

That's it. We no longer have a company who was sloppy with their research and made an error in judgment. We have a film-making company that presents itself as Christian who sees absolutely nothing wrong with casting one of Hollywood's most popular gay activists in the role of an evangelical missionary martyr.

I told him that I believed he would lose the support of much of the evangelical community if they knew this. He disagreed. He mentioned that Jerry Falwell and Ted Haggard are behind the movie, as well as many others.

I mentioned this conversation to the man who called me from the pro-family organization. His words summed up my thoughts, "That's not good."

Would you do the following?

1. Email this information to as many Christians as you know.
2. Email Mart Green and let him know how you feel -- mgreen@everytribe.com.
3. Contact pro-family organizations and church leaders and ask them to contact Mart Green and express their concerns. Perhaps they can talk to him. From all I have read, Mart is a good Christian man with a desire to please the Lord.

Some people have questioned my motivations in writing on this and continuing to write on it. I am doing so because I believe it is important. The loss of discernment is evident in all corners of evangelicalism, and there comes a time when people need to say something.

Jason Janz

And my response

Brother,

Actually, I will not. I will link my position on homosexuality just to show you I am not totally "apostate" on this issue (that was sarcasm). Frankly, I think the conservative Christian community makes far too much of the sin of homosexuality; and gay marriage. It is not the worst sin, or the even the worst sexual sin; nor is gay marriage the worst threat to God's institution of marriage. I will go with pride; adultery; and men, particularly, not loving our spouses as Christ loved us for those awards.

We live in a secular society where some people simply do not believe what we believe. Christians being so adamant over a negative issue, rather than, say, being fired up over doing something for the "least of these" only makes us appear moralistic and legalistic - neither of which Christ was. He probably would have eaten with tax collectors, sinners, and gays were He here today. Would you be asking Him why He did so?

In homosexuality, we are talking about people who from their earliest sexual memory were generally attracted to the same sex. I agree with you that this is not God's design. However, whatever "nurture" got them to this point from their earliest sexual memory is not going to be counteracted by our ostracism and persecution. It is going to be counteracted by Christ's love; and Christ living in them - which as His representatives we are too show and bring them too.

Or in this case not show and drive them from. Would we be equally concerned if the actor had been divorced once; and it was he that had committed the adultery that ended the first marriage. I sincerely doubt it.

I will end with Romans 1:28 - 2:3, right after the strongest denunciation of homosexuality in the New Testament:

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?

I think the laundry list of sins attached right after homosexuality (notice where "haters of God" is. Think the list is in order of importance?) and Paul's admonition not to judge because we have all done these things is something those who believe homosexuality is sin should keep well in mind

In Christ,
John Howell

Read more!

Loving Our Neighbor as Ourselves

This is number twelve (12) in the "Back to Basics Series": this link leads to an index post that will direct you to the rest of the series. The first six mainly had to do with the ministry of the Holy Spirit, in our lives and the ways the Spirit enables us to live out the Great Commandment. The seventh examined why love is the Great Command. Now, Carl examines the Great Commandment itself in detail.

Once again, the "Jesus Creed":

Mark 12:30 " 'and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’ "[Deuteronomy 6:5] 31 "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' [Leviticus 19:18]. There is no other commandment greater than these."

• Loving God with all our heart means to love God first; and to relate to all things through our first love for God.
• Loving God with all of our soul means to love God with a real and passionate love - a whole-life love.
• Loving God with all of our mind is to give ourselves to a determined pursuit of truth; bring our mind under the lordship of Christ; and to pursue having a mind that is "on fire" with the truth about God.
• Loving God with all of our strength is to see every ability as a means to express love for God; and to live as a dependent “receiver” and a consistent “giver” of what God gives to me God.

That is the "This is the great and foremost commandment. The second is like it":

How to Love Our Neighbor as Ourselves
Carl Palmer, Pastor-Teacher; Mark 12:31; December 11, 2005

This is going to be our focus in the New Year - how to love our neighbors as our self. Our love for ourselves is to be our measure for loving others. Jesus assumed something here: that we love ourselves. Carl points out that there are a few people in our church who are counselors and when this comes up they all do the same thing - because there is a danger here. Those counselors talk to so many people who honestly do not love themselves.

In fact some people hate themselves. Therefore, people at this point stumble over this because they really do think of themselves badly. These counselors spend time with these folk trying to convince them that God deeply loves them; and that they have value and worth because of God's love for them. Really, everyone's value and worth is because of God's immense love for us. Incidentally, being created in God's image and His love for us are the reasons why it is alright for us to love ourselves in the right way. There is no judgment in loving yourself.

When scripture talks about loving ourselves this is not about feeling good about ourselves. Our problem is that we relate the word "love" to the word "feeling". We think they are equivalent and they are not. Love often involves feeling; but many times love is more about commitment - some of us are married and we know that. We sometimes do not feel good about our spouses but we are committed to them. If the feelings then come - praise God. Some people when the "feeling" of love is gone from their marriage want to end that marriage. God has a different concept of the word "love".

One of the primary ways we love ourselves is that we just "take care of me". Even the people who think badly about themselves - perhaps they have been abused or told they are worthless - have some of this normative relationship with themselves. Every single day:

• If we are hungry, we get something to eat;
• If we need clothes, we put them on.
• If we have a need, we try to meet them (go shopping for ourselves, etc)
• If someone treats us badly, we feel bad and think that is unfair and we try to fix it as best we can.

because we are thinking about ourselves. We just do this naturally: we walk around and we are the center of the universe. Psychologically and mentally, that is natural. When we walked into the church today (or our job, etc) we were the center: everything happened around us or at least that is what our consciousness said.

Jesus wants us to learn from this love for ourselves:

• When we start to feel hungry, realize other people are hungry.
• When you need to put clothes on, realize others need clothes
• When we have a need, realize that others have needs
• If we feel wronged because we have been treated badly, realize others also have been wronged and feel badly
• If we are warm in our house with a roof on it, realize that others have no houses or roofs

Realize this, and then perhaps do something about it.

God wants us to simply learn how much we are concerned about ourselves; and to learn from that that what we feel others feel! Do a little self-analysis: go through the day and note how much you think about yourself. It is not wrong that we think about ourselves throughout the day - it is human. It is extending that same concern to others that God wants.

A person who understands that others have feelings just like theirs is a different person. They are great to be around: they actually care about you. For instance, they are not just waiting for you to stop talking so they can start - they are really listening to you.

Matthew 7:12 "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

Some call this the "Golden Rule": in everything take the initiative (act!) and do for others as you would want them to do for you. If everybody lived like that, this would be one different planet.

Our love for people is evidence we truly love God. This is one of the primary ways we know this.

1 John 3:14 "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death" [Shakti: here is that destruction/renewal thing again]

We know we have been truly converted because we love our brothers. If you want to know about loving others read 1 John. He comes after this again and again: that we receive love from God, it passes through us, and we love people because of this in a new way. Jesus said:

John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."

"Love one another" is repeated three times in this command - this is one of the primary way we know we are Jesus' disciples. Christians have gotten away from this a little bit. Now many Christians think the way we show we are disciples of Jesus is by

• what we say;
• our persuasive ability;
• our ability to argue someone down; or
• our stuffing the Bible down someone's throat.

Witnessing has now become a primarily verbal thing; and the world needs love. Carl wants to tell us that a primary attraction to Jesus is God's people loving each other - that is what Jesus meant. This is so much more attractive than verbal arguments. Now when someone needs an answer we need to be able to tell the truth. We do use our minds; and we do pursue truth - but what is attractive to others is that we love each other.

So, it is primarily in showing love for people that love for God is confirmed as real. One of our problems is that we do not know if our love for God is real. We think it is; and one of the things that will help us is if we become persuaded that our own love for God is real. How do we know that? If we have doubts about our love for Jesus, one of the ways God will put certainty in our life is if we love people.

1 John 4:20 If someone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 21 And this commandment we have from Him, that the one who loves God should love his brother also.

John is real clear here: you cannot really love an unseen God if you cannot love a seen brother or sister. Jesus said it like this:

Matthew 5:44 "But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. [Carl stopped here - I cannot] 46 "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 "If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Jesus tells us to even love our enemies so that we can be "sons of our Father" - because that is what Jesus does. How do you know the sons and daughters of God? They love enemies. One of the primary evidences of our love for God is that we love our brother, our sister, our neighbor, and our enemy - because God does. This begins to become powerful; life-changing; and even radical.

Notice the order: First love God - then love people. The first commandment is not love people, it is love God. The order is important because we live in a world where people say things like "He's not very religious, but he loves people - so certainly he is going to heaven". This is actually a difficult statement to respond to. You respond by pointing out the commandment: first God, then people. Loving people may impress people but it doesn't impress God that much.

That is because God looks at the heart and knows we love people for all kinds of reasons: we want to feel good about ourselves; we feel it is ethical and right; or perhaps it is a way of earning something. All of those ways are rejected by God as ways of being right in his sight. So, it is not primarily love of man first; but love of God first.

Again, you must ask the question: "Why does God have to be loved first?". The answer to that is that God deserves exclusive place. He is worthy of that place because it is truth and consistent with reality. So, to reject that is to reject what is true and real. One day this is going to be crystal clear: God is going to obliterate all human systems and we are going to be left with God.

It will be clear then but now God wants us to live by faith and understand what He says to us and accept it as true. What God says to us is that He is our Creator, our Sustainer, our Savior, and the One we will spend eternity with - and He deserves first place in our lives. God tells us we do not get right with Him by loving people; but by responding to the truth in faith and obedience.

God also knows that we cannot adequately love people without Him. Carl wants to say that humanitarians do great things: they can sacrifice; they do sacrifice; and they are wonderful, ethical, moral people. Sometimes Christians are mystified by that because some unbelievers are more loving than we are. This is personally convicting to Carl; and it makes him think about what motivates them.

Carl knows in himself, and knows that it is true, that he cannot fully and adequately love someone without God in him. Without the love of God in him he is primarily going to think of them as a "body" and not in an eternal way at all. He will be concerned with their food and shelter, as we should be, but not with their eternal salvation. If you deeply love somebody, you cannot just be concerned about their physical nature - you have to be concerned with their life. You have to be concerned with their whole life; including that part that is going to go right on through the doorway of death and into eternity. If you really love someone you have to be concerned with this part of their life. Sometimes what people most desperately need is not the physical stuff at all; but giving the physical things opens up their heart to the truth about Jesus.

They need Jesus; and food, shelter, clothing, etc - all the things we need and want because we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. If we want to go to heaven; to have our sins forgiven; and to be clean before God - if this is want we want for ourselves - then we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. That is the motivation for witnessing; and for evangelism. Evangelism has never been about compulsion or guilt - it has always been about love.

When we love people - because we love God – we can give to them out of what God gives to us! As Carl said last week: we are receivers of God's love so that we can be givers of God's love: God gives us everything that He expects us to give to our neighbor. If God wants us to give money, or time, or food, or affection, or service, or whatever to our neighbor then we will receive it from God; it will pass through our life; and we will send it on to others.

It works in reverse. If someone is mean and nasty to you it passes into to your heart. If you leave it there you will be grow into a nasty old person. So, you receive nastiness, it passes through your life, and then you send your burdens on to God. We get blessings from God that pass through our life and on to others; and problems from the world pass through our life (hopefully for a short period of time) and are given to God.

We demonstrate our love for God by our love for people. We often talk about returning to God the love He has given us; and people will even talk about blessing God or ministering to God. We, in doing this, are certainly not meeting a need of God - He has none. What we are doing is giving to God what He rightfully deserves. However, God has no needs - He is perfect and complete - so what He says to us is that one (if not the primary) way we are going to love God is when we take what He has given us and, instead of giving it back to Him, we meet the needs in the lives of others. God desires that because He loves our neighbors. We show love for God by listening to Him; and obeying Him; and then be used by God to meet the needs of other people.

That is authentic love. Authentic love acts. Authentic love does something. Real love for God can only be expressed in certain ways. Carl says so many of us (including him) have reached the place that is too mental; and love is not mental. Love is not even primarily an emotional thing. You know someone is a great lover by what they do. You can not know their thoughts; or feel their emotions - it is what they do that reveals what they feel and think.

Jesus showed us how to love God: He obeyed His Father’s will and acted in sacrificial love for people. Jesus acted and gave His life. We must show our love in the same way. We are not to die on cross, but Jesus said we had a cross that we were to take up and follow Him. Something about our lives then will be sacrificial and giving; and we must understand that love is not primarily mental or emotional - but active and doing. Love acts.

Love shows up. Love doesn't just think about them. Love doesn't just feel for them. Love shows up:

• when someone across the room is hurting
• when someone is in the hospital
• when someone's home has been devastated

Love showed up 2000 years ago, and because of that everything is different. So what do we do:

We love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength. And we love our neighbor as ourselves

That is what Jesus did; and is still doing. Here are the questions:

• Have you received God's love?
• Do you see His love at work in you?
• Do others receive the love of God through you?

Read more!

Christian Carnival CV (105) is up

at Dunmoose the Ageless. Dunmoose's introduction

Welcome to the Christian Carnival, hosted here by Dunmoose the Ageless. I am Brother URL, and I will be your guide. The theme this time around will be the Rule of St. Benedict.

The Rule is arguably the second most influential book in the history of western civilization, behind only the Bible itself. There are hundreds of editions and translations available, and literally thousands of commentaries. It has a torturously convoluted textual history and, as a result, the closest there is to a Critical Edition is RB 1980: The Rule of St. Benedict in Latin and English with Notes. There are several sections to the Rule. Just for fun, I thought I would try to associate each entry in this week's Carnival with the different sections of the Rule. It consists of a prologue and 73 chapters.

The Prologue presents Jesus' call to to the specialized life of monastic life. Light along the Journey presents What it takes to Follow Jesus. This speaks of the more general calling that all Christians have; to holiness, obedience, humility, and "metanoia".

About Christian Carnival:

Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!

Methodological Naturalism

This post was inspired by this post and discussion. The spark to that discussion was a class taught on "Design" under a philosophy title in a California high school - and the lawsuit that proceeded.

This was a badly-framed class. Discovery Institute asked the teacher to please not continue to use the words "Intelligent Design" if she was going to teach some jumble of young earth creationism and pieces of ID.

This is not a defense of that class. This post was cross-posted at Street Prophets

Many political arguments become simply impossible because the philosophical differences are never examined - or sometimes even questioned. The "Intelligent Design" argument is one of those. As someone who "hangs with" creationists all the time - I know as well as anyone that Intelligent Design theory is not really a friend of Genesis. At all. Never.

Of course, no one in this debate is allowing facts to cloud the issue. The standard attack on anyone questioning whether there is truly empirical proof of Darwinism is that they are creationist. That is of course, nonsense. However, this is really not the issue for people of faith. The issue is our view of the world, and truth - and what assumptions we make philosophically. Once we understand a correct philosophical view of the world and its reality - then a lot of issues, including Intelligent Design, become clearer.

Now, of course "progressives" and their "reactionary opponents" are not generally looking for a discussion taken to a higher level - they are looking to grind the others into dirt. So actually reading the opposition says as well as your friends is not nearly as good as just reading what your respected friends say about the opposition. As Richard Dawkins says, and most attackers of Intelligent Design or creationism act like:

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

That has become the tone of the debate. Why would anyone who wasn't "ignorant, stupid, or insane" read someone who obviously is.

That, of course, is anti-intellectual and unscientific - and is reactionary whether you call yourself "progressive", "liberal", "conservative" or whatever. One of my favorite lines from my old radical days is Mao Tse Tung's "No investigation, no right to speak" So, let's investigate a little Philosophy of Science. The underlying premise of the Richard Dawkins of the world is that all scientific inquiry must be based on methodological naturalism. If it isn't, it just isn't science. Obviously, I will leave it to the defenders of this particular philosophy to post their favs for me to read - and I will. In addition to ISCID, I have TalkOrigins in my favorites. I kinda think you should read both sides. So, for those who actually would like to read some critique's of this particular view of what science can and cannot include:

• "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism", Phillip Johnson
• Almost anything on this list, by Alvin Plantinga is of interest; but in this case start with: "Methodological Naturalism? Part 1"; and "Part 2"
• This is interesting: Demski explaining to theologians the nature of the argument: "What every theologian should know about creation, evolution and design", by William Demski

Obviously, other better critiques of methodological naturalism would be good also. This diary is attempting to create a philosophical discussion - a worldview discussion - which is critical to people of faith (notice I have not said Christians, or meant Christians) knowing how to interact with a secular world from a faith base.

Read more!

Christian Carnival CIV (104) is up

at Random Responses. The introduction by Doulos Christos:

I always admire the time and effort that most hosts of the carnival take in putting together the posts for the week into creative categories. Ah yes, I admire them, but emulate them? Nah! Since the whole reason behind this blog is to allow me to randomly respond to what strikes me, I have decide to let someone (something) else decide the way this week's Carnival is listed. So I went over to Random.org and entered the chronologically received posts into the random sequencer and voila Christian Carnival 104...

About Christian Carnival:

Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival:

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!

Loving God With All Our Strength

This is number eleven (11) in the "Back to Basics Series": this link leads to an index post that will direct you to the rest of the series. The first six mainly had to do with the ministry of the Holy Spirit, in our lives and the ways the Spirit enables us to live out the Great Commandment. The seventh examined why love is the Great Command. Now, Carl examines the Great Commandment itself in detail.

Once again, the "Jesus Creed":

Mark 12:30 " 'and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength’ "[Deuteronomy 6:5] 31 "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself' [Leviticus 19:18]. There is no other commandment greater than these."

• Loving God with all our heart means to love God first; and to relate to all things through our "first love" for God.
• Loving God with all of our soul means to love God with a real and passionate love - a whole-life love.
• Loving God with all of our mind is to give ourselves to a determined pursuit of truth; bring our mind under the lordship of Christ; and to pursue having a mind that is "on fire" with the truth about God.

Now, we will look at:

How to Love God With All Your Strength
Carl Palmer, Pastor-Teacher; Mark 12:30; December 4, 2005

This is perhaps the easiest one to understand. Heart, soul, and mind have to do with interior things: what is on the inside of us. Strength has to do with the exterior: what is on the outside of us.

Strength is about what we can do - it is about our abilities, capacities, capabilities, and powers. It is about skills, resources, money, desires, etc. It is about our S.H.A.P.E.:

• Spiritual gifts
• Heart passion
• Aptitudes and skills
• Personality
• Experiences

So strength is about the outward expression of our heart, soul and mind; and our capacity in wherever we go and whatever we do to love Jesus. Jesus is again starting on the inside of us and working His way out. Religion tends to work the other way: if we can get someone to conform to a particular behavior - usually a "don't" list - then we can move the heart, soul and mind eventually.

Most of us realized at an early age that that doesn't work. Conforming our behavior on the outside to look religious doesn't change the heart, my soul, or my mind. In fact, there is an argument going on in our mind about whether this is the religion is even real; and it sets us up for hypocrisy. Many of us do become little hypocrites: running around doing stuff on the outside when there is no change in the heart, soul and/or mind. So God says to love Him first in the heart - the center of your being; then with a whole-life whole soul love; and then get on fire for God in your mind. Then, your strength will truly be devoted to loving God. Inward first - moving out.

When you put all this together you realize that God is to be loved with our whole being and life. There is no part of us is not covered by heart, soul, mind and strength. Our God is jealous - He wants us all. The question is: does He deserve it all? That is where we are. The next question for us will be: will we give it all? God is saying to us that all that we are; all that we have; all that we capable of; everything we can do; everything that is important to us; and everything God gives to us must be used in love of God. It is an amazing command. We can not think deeply about loving God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength and walk away thinking we can just give God part of us. It is time in our life to end partial, half-hearted Christianity. We need to finally have some success at loving God with our all. How is that expressed?

How Do We Love God With All Our Strength

First, by seeing every ability we have as a means to express love for God. Loving with "all our strength" becomes devoting our capacity to God instead of being devoted to our personal wishes. That doesn't mean we do not do stuff for ourselves - and in fact the next part of the command is to love our neighbor as our self. What it means is that we devote what we do for ourselves to God.

We must make sure that we have no other Gods (not loves) in our life. This of course takes us back to loving God with all of our heart - everything else is secondary to Him. Our whole heart is given to God in love; and He then gives us the ability to love others. Now we go to our jobs in love for God; school in love for God; we are at home in love for God - every part of our life is lived in love for God. Simple tasks, and complicated tasks, are all to be an expression of our love for God. If you are asking "how can I go to work in love for God" then that is the question you need to be asking God about: "Lord, show me how to work as an expression of my ove for You."

Ephesians 6:5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free.

God has not said that there are parts of our life that are off-limits: parts that are secular and parts that are spiritual. What God wants is every part of us. Again, every ability we have is a means of expressing our love for God. When we finally make this a conviction, a choice, an understanding, and a lifestyle - then everything about life changes. We drive our car, do our jobs, play sports, and interact with our families - all in love for God.

Second, we love God with all our strength by choosing to live daily life as a dependent and grateful “receiver” of God’s grace - and as a cheerful and consistent "giver" of what He gives to us. If we do not get this we are in significant trouble as a follower of Jesus Christ. If we do get it, this concept will change our whole life - it will just liberate us. Carl is deeply indebted to a man named Graham Cooke for teaching him this truth; and helping Carl to see this in this way.

The Bible says that everything we have we get from God. The Bible then goes on to say that God wants us to give. Now this is the key: Everything that God requires of us to give God will give to us. God has not required, ever, that we give anything that He has not given to us. God never will. Again:

• We are receivers: everything we have we received from God
• We are to be givers: everything God requires of us God will give to us

Another way to look at it: God is always the initiator and we are the responders. God will always speak first. Now, some of you are thinking "Does the Bible really teach this?":

Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Isaiah 55:8 "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. 9 "For {as} the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts. 10 For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; 11 So will My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It will not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding {in the matter} for which I sent it."

We are to love God with all our heart, soul and mind - and Carl asks us here to engage our mind. God uses an illustration from nature here: His rain does not come down to earth without accomplishing what God wants it to accomplish: watering the earth and making it produce food. It goes back to God through evaporation. God now shifts to His word: it too comes down from heaven (like the rain); it also accomplishes God's purposes; and when it returns to God it will not return empty. It returns through praise, worship and adoration. So, with rain as well as God's word, earth gives back to heaven what heaven gave to earth. This is a principle of God's creation.

Some of us have, or have had, very small children. At Christmas (or birthdays, etc) they want to give their parents a gift. Parents then give money to their children (or help them make something) - and then help them wrap it - so that they may give us a gift. We bless them so that they may experience the joy of giving. Again, just like God and us, we give our children the means to give us what we want from them. God is no different: whatever He demands of us He will give us.

The neat thing is that God gets all the glory in this system. Once we have realized that this is going on, we know that nothing God demands of us is ever impossible. We may, or someone else may, put demands on us that are impossible - but God will not. This principle is throughout the word of God:

1 John 4:19 We love, because He first loved us.

James 1:17 Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow. 18 In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.

"First fruits" is Old Testament language. Jews gave the first, and best, part of their harvest back to God in appreciation and in recognition that all they had came from God. God is saying that His word has brought forth His people (us) and blessed us so that we can be the first part of His harvest: the first fruits. Again, we do not give anything to God that He did not first give to us.

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? [Isaiah 40:13f] 35 Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? [Who is God in debt to?; Job 40:11] 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

You might know that the first 11 chapters of Romans are an incredible teaching about salvation: what it is and how it works. Chapters 9, 10, and 11 are really deep water about the sovereignty, wisdom, and power of God. Carl suggests that if you just want some good brain cramps (Carl said headaches) trying to unravel some mind-boggling stuff - read chapters 9-11 of Romans. Paul transitions at the beginning of chapter 12 to application: how do you live then based on what was taught in the first 11 chapters. The verses above were called a doxology - a song of praise - before Paul told us in chapter 12 to offer our bodies as a living sacrifice.

Philippians 4:13 I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.

When we begin to understand that our Christian life is through Him - everything changes. Carl says that for so many years of his Christian life he thought it was through Carl: that he somehow had to receive all these commands and then do it himself. This is what Jesus talked about in John 15 when He talked about the vine and the branches - everything was from God and through Christ. Again, everything God desires of us He has given to us. The question then becomes for us: "What has God given to me and what is my strength - what do I hold in my hand?" Next: "What is God giving me now?" Then: "What will God give me in the future?"

If we can begin to see ourselves as receivers of what God wants us to have, and give - then life will change. Receive and give should be a way of life. We are all uniquely gifted by God so that we can all be givers of different things for His glory. Each of us then has to figure out, uniquely, what God has given us and what God wants us to give from that blessing.

Jesus modeled this for us:

Mark 10: 45 "For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner." [Read the rest of this chapter]

Carl has meddled in our personal lives, and now he is going to meddle one more way. He was trying to think of one last illustration at the close of this sermon that everyone would get. What one thing did Jesus talk about more than anything else? Money.

Carl knows you love it when preachers talk about money (not!); but here it comes anyway. Money is part of your strength. It is certainly not all of your strength, and probably not even the main part. If you do not like preachers talking about money, then Carl gives you permission to substitute time (or service, kindness, skill, talent, or whatever). Carl, though, is thinking about money.

What is the will of God for us regarding money? When you search the scripture you find in the Old Testament that Israel was supposed to give the "first fruits" and they were supposed to give 10%. The purpose of that was to demonstrate to God that they loved Him; and it was a discipline to teach them that everything belonged to God. They received from God, held on to it, and then quickly gave the first part to God.

Moving to the New Testament, Carl believes it teaches that Christians cannot do less. If we have reached a place where we think that living under grace rather than the Judaic system means we can give less - Carl thinks we have made a mistake. He thinks 10% is the minimum - a very good place to start.

So, does what we give of our money illustrate our true love for God? Does our giving of our time illustrate our true love of God? Does our giving of our talents, gifts, and strengths illustrate our true love for God? That is for us to answer, each and every one, individually. We all have a ways to go until all of our hearts, souls, minds and strengths are directed toward loving God. This is what we must strive to perfect.

As we near the end of this teaching on the Great Commandment, and prepare to move into how we are going to put this Commandment into action, Carl wants to point out one more thing:

We will experience the most joyful and Christ-centered life by continuing to grow in loving God with all we have and all we are.

This is the "good life".

Read more!

My (Tear-jerker) Song of the Week

They all brought tears to my eyes at church this week - and none hit me so hard I just couldn't sing. So picking this weeks was tougher.

The sermon is what I am going to use to cap the Back to Basics Series. I have a feeling that Carl is not ever going to end the series really - so it has to stop somewhere. Carl gave a "New Years" sermon that answered question of what "new thing" the pastors and elders came up with programmatically to implement the Great Commandment as the core of our church. It may surprise you.

However, I am not going to do it until I finish the "Loving God with All Your Strength" and "Loving Your Neighbor As Yourself" diaries. The old hymn that served as Carl's prayer at the end of his teaching will be done now:

Be Thou My Vision
(click on title to hear a version of song)

Be Thou my Vision, O Lord of my heart;
Naught be all else to me, save that Thou art
Thou my best Thought, by day or by night,
Waking or sleeping, Thy presence my light.

Be Thou my Wisdom, and Thou my true Word;
I ever with Thee and Thou with me, Lord;
Thou my great Father, I Thy true son;
Thou in me dwelling, and I with Thee one.

Be Thou my battle Shield, Sword for the fight;
Be Thou my Dignity, Thou my Delight;
Thou my soul's Shelter, Thou my high Tower:
Raise Thou me heavenward, O Power of my power.

Riches I heed not, nor man's empty praise,
Thou mine Inheritance, now and always:
Thou and Thou only, first in my heart,
High King of Heaven, my Treasure Thou art.

High King of Heaven, my victory won,
May I reach Heaven's joys, O bright Heaven's Sun!
Heart of my own heart, whatever befall,
Still be my Vision, O Ruler of all.

This is my prayer today for myself.
Cross-posted from Street Prophets

Read more!

Christian Carnival CIII (103) is up

The introduction from Fr. Daniel Sparks at Miserere Mei:

Welcome to the 103rd Christian Carnival. With thirty-eight featured blog posts, a variety of topics are available for your perusal. Please take time to scroll down the list and find a few that interest you.

About Christian Carnival:

Contributing a Post to the Christian Carnival

The Christian Carnival is open to Christians of Protestant, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic convictions. One of the goals of this Carnival is to offer our readers to a broad range of Christian thought.

Posts need not be of a theological topic. Posts about home life, politics, or current events, for example, written from a Christian worldview are welcome.

Update: As the goal of this Carnival is to highlight Christian thought in the blogosphere, entries will be limited to blogs that share that goal. Blogs with content that is focused on a business, that has potentially offensive material Christians may not want to link to on their sites, or has no reference to distinctively Christian thought may not be included in this Carnival. There are other Carnivals that would be a more appropriate venue for that material. I realize that this will be a judgment call on the part of the Carnival administrator, and being human she may make mistakes. However, as the Christian Carnival is getting quite large, and it is sometimes questionable whether the entrants are seeking to promote Christian thought, I find this necessary.

Update: We also expect a level of discourse that is suitable for a Christian showcase. Thus entries may be refused if they engage in name-calling, ad hominem attacks, offensive language, or for any similar reason as judged by the administrator.

So, if you have a post in this framework - go here to find out more: Christian Carnival info.

Read more!

Natural Law

[Number one in a series. This was posted originally at Street Prophets - and that is where the comments are]

A few posts I have done, and a book I am reading, are going to spark a series on "natural law". Being introduced to natural law in the first Christian book (the first five chapters are the point here) after I came to Christ hasn't hurt my belief in it; and it is reinforced by the similarities in my views and those that do not believe in Christ - or even the God I believe in.

My reading list (for now) will be:

• The Abolition of Man, by C.S. Lewis. Budziszewski in the next book says this is the best book on the topic written in the 20th century. Its online, its free, its short - start here.
• What We Can't Not Know, by J. Budziszewski.

Natural law is important. First, on the moral side of the issue, it does away with the stupidity of Christians saying that atheists and such cannot be moral (or cannot truly love, etc) because they do not believe in God. Second, theologically, it explains Paul's comment in Romans 1:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of those who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21 for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools;

and this in 1 John 4:

7 Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. [There is no implication in this part of 1 John that this is limited to members of the Body of Christ. It is almost a checklist point to choose who to evangelize]

Finally, there is the legal application of natural law. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

But Aquinas is also a natural law legal theorist. On his view, a human law (i.e., that which is promulgated by human beings) is valid only insofar as its content conforms to the content of the natural law; as Aquinas puts the point: "[E]very human law has just so much of the nature of law as is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature, it is no longer a law but a perversion of law" (ST I-II, Q.95, A.II). To paraphrase Augustine's famous remark, an unjust law is really no law at all.

The idea that a norm that does not conform to the natural law cannot be legally valid is the defining thesis of conceptual naturalism. As William Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original" (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law.

I have no clue at this moment what the nature and timing of the posts will be; nor what points I am going to try to make. I ask your indulgence because I am really, in this, one of those people in whom a little knowledge will be dangerous. I am going to work this out as I read and write - and get bashed by the loving crowd. Bash gently please (or not - I told someone else to "toughen up" and I will too.)

Next: "Natural Law: It's Source and Discernment"

Read more!

The Monday Tour: 1/2/06

For some looks at The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: The Narnia movie, take 3; Take 2; and Take 1. (HT: Intellectuelle)
----------
Saudi Arabia: Women Make Gains Despite Challenges.(HT: All Things Conservative)

The year 2005 began with a disappointment for Saudi women seeking greater roles in society, but it ended on a higher note of optimism for the years ahead.

----------
Okay, everybody relax, take a deep breath - because this will not make the left or the right happy. The Gallup Poll is out on the most admired man and woman of 2005. The winners: George Bush and Hillary Clinton. In a party affiliation split, George Bush came in second among Democrats. (HT: All Things Conservative)
----------
The Washington Post's quotations of the year: 'And Now, Quotations That Said It All . . .'. The winner again - George Bush with

"Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job."-- President Bush, during his first visit to the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina, commending then-FEMA head Michael Brown.

(HT: All Things Conservative)
----------
There is a whole raft of posts on the developing political situation in Iraq at Iraq the Model. Everything is up in the air.
----------
Predictions for 2005 from Evangelical Outpost. My favorite:

After being caught exiting a Motel-6 in Boise, ID, Ann Coulter and Al Franken will admit that they are secretly married.

----------
Early data challenge assumptions about Katrina victims:

"Four months after Hurricane Katrina, analyses of data suggest that some widely reported assumptions about the storm's victims were incorrect.... The victims weren't disproportionately poor.... they also weren't disproportionately African American....The one group that was disproportionately affected by the storm appears to have been older adults. People 60 and older account for only about 15 percent of the population in the New Orleans area, but the Knight Ridder database found that 74 percent of the dead were 60 or older. Nearly half were older than 75. Lack of transportation was assumed to be a key reason that many people stayed behind and died, but at many addresses where the dead were found, their cars remained in their driveways, flood-ruined symbols of fatal miscalculation."

(HT: WorldMagBlog)
----------
There is a Catholic carnival at Living Catholicism. (HT: WorldMagBlog)
----------
Until next week - enjoy

Read more!

The Natural Law Series

1. "Natural Law" at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets


2. "Natural Law: It's Source and Discernment" at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets


3. "Natural Law: What is Included" at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets


4. "Natural Law: Objections and C.S. Lewis's Tao" at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets


5. "Natural Law: The Four Witnesses" at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets


6. "Natural Law: The Five Furies of Conscience" at Brain Cramps and Street Prophets
7. "Natural Law: The Possible Future of Moral Right and Wrong"

Bibliography and other resources:

• Aquinas, Thomas: Summa Theologica (online)
• Budziszewski, J.:
  • "The Revenge of Conscience", First Things (online)
  • What We Can't Not Know
• Henry, Carl F.H.: "Natural Law and a Nihilistic Culture", First Things (online)
• Himma, Kenneth Einar: "Natural Law", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)
• Lewis, C.S.:
  • The Abolition of Man (online)
  • Mere Christianity (online)

Read more!

Toward a Definition of Theocracy: Part Deux

[Sorry Mike - just had to steal that "deux" thing].

Jefferson's idea was that religious influence which included belief in the miracles of Jesus was too much influence in the affairs of state. Which is not to say Jefferson considered such influence "theocratic," but he certainly considered it inappropriate in the American republic he envisioned. -- RMJ here

This seems like a good lead-in to talking about what separation meant to the founding fathers who created it.

Thomas Jefferson had three accomplishments placed on his tomb:

1. founding of the University of Virginia;
2. authoring the Declaration of Independence; and
3. authoring the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom

It is the last I am going to chat about.

This was passed in the Virginia Legislature in 1786 by the efforts of James Madison; and is generally credited to be the foundation of the Separation Doctrine championed by Madison ast the Constitutional Convention soon to come. Jefferson, BTW, was a member of neither body.

Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom

Whereas:

1. Almighty God has created the mind free;
2. that all attempts to influence it by earthly punishments or burdens:
• tend only to cause habits of hypocrisy and malice,
• are a departure from the plan of the God, who chose not to spread His plan by coercions on mind or body, as it was in his Almighty power to do;
3. that legislators and rulers (civil as well as clerical), in sinful presumption (being themselves but fallible and uninspired men):
• have assumed power over the faith of others,
• set up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others,
• have established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
4. that to compel a man to furnish money for the spread of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;
5. that even forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own creed:,
• is depriving him of the right of giving his aid to a particular teacher,
• whose morals he would make his pattern, and
• whose instruction he feels most influential to virtue, and
• withdraws from his favored teacher the aid that would be an added stimulus to the teacher's instruction of mankind;
6. that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;
7. that therefore making any citizen unable to assume public office unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him of those privileges and advantages to which he has a natural right;
8. that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honors those who will externally profess and conform to it;
9. that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation [to falsely profess and conform], yet neither are those innocent who tempt them to do this;
10. that to allow the judge to impinge his powers into the field of opinion, and to control the profession or spread of principles on belief in their incorrectness, is a dangerous myth, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because:
• the judge will make his opinions the rule, and
• approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they agree or disagree with his own;
11. that it is time enough for the purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when those principles lead to overt acts against peace and good order; and finally,
12. that
• Truth is great and will prevail if left alone
• Truth is the proper and ample opponent to error, and
• Truth has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless humans remove truth's natural weapons: free argument and debate, (since errors cease to be dangerous when they are freely contradicted):

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.

So, while it may be true that Jefferson himself believed us superstitious miracle-believers were fools - his political view was that we should be able to be freely fools in the political arena and that "Truth is great and will prevail if left alone" "unless humans remove truth's natural weapons: free argument and debate".

So, Jefferson's position, and I believe the Constitutions, is that anyone, in or out of office, should be able to express their "principles", religious or not. at any time - and no law should restrain that unless "those principles lead to overt acts against peace and good order".

So, President Bush is perfectly free to say that God told him to invade Iraq as long as arguing with that in the public arena is not stifled. To argue that he has no right to express his religious views because he is in public office, is to violate Jefferson's view of religious freedom.

Read more!