Eliminating someone who sees and won't forget

Trying to unwind before bed last night called up Netflix and noticed “New Episodes” of Doctor Who. Woohoo! It was the episode about the “Silents” who have been among us for thousands of years but no human can ever remember them. That’s one of their powers.

This is a theme in Doctor Who episodes. There’s some alien or group of aliens up to no good – maybe cannibalize human beings to make themselves immortal – and nobody realizes it. Although often there is a point in the episode when suddenly everyone realizes what’s going on. In fact in many episodes it’s important to the alien/s that no one knows that they’re even there let alone knows what they are doing.

I think the last 3 weeks may have opened my eyes. There is something going on. I guess you could call it a conspiracy. And it’s been going on for a long time. I’ve been vaguely and occasionally aware of it. Again like Doctor Who. “Wait – what was that? Did I see something? Must be my imagination. There’s no aliens who want to suck our brains and enslave us. How silly!” But now I’m pretty sure. Because the ones in on the conspiracy are increasingly out of the shadows and in the open. Why? Because we have reached a point where victory is at hand because no one can stop them. Or because the population is waking up to what’s going on and there’s a real danger they can rise up and resist them and turn the tide. Or both.

What is this conspiracy? And who is on it? And what are they like – the conspirators and their knowing/unknowing agents?

See this is part of why I haven’t really recognized what’s going on. I see one movement over here. A group of people over there. And yet another push somewhere else toward some goal. And there doesn’t appear to be any clear connection between them. And maybe there isn’t. These different people and groups and movements might not be directly related. But I am beginning to recognize that they are connected.

Wright’s First Principle of Epistemology = In any given set of data, the anomalous elements contain the key to understanding the whole.

(In other words, it’s those things that don’t make sense and seem unrelated – they are the key to understanding what’s going on.)

Right now my best effort to describe the conspiracy is the effort to create a socialist utopia. A heaven on earth. Without God.

Let’s rewind a little shall we?

Anomalous element 1 = a podcast by Clark Carlton who is a professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech University on “Orthodoxy and Progressive Politics”. There’s a lot to summarize but he argues that “progressivism” (around 2:15) is:

The doctrine that humanity is moving ever onward toward some future goal… Ultimately the goal toward which progressivism is moving is equalitarianism… Now this goal of near universal human equality has considerable public policy implications since human beings are quite obviously not equal. This is where the progressive state comes in. Its overriding function is to help make people equal… Even nature herself can be overcome with the right amount of effort and technology.

I define the progressive this way. The progressive believes as a matter of doctrine that humanity is evolving culturally as well as physically. That this progress is an inherent good.    And that the telltale markers of human progress signify our liberation from natural distinctions and limitations. And that given the inherent goodness of progress man is fully justified in using political power to eradicate any and all obstacles blocking his path to utopia.

I think those two paragraphs just might explain the vast majority of what we see happening in the social, cultural, and especially political arenas.

Let me try to summarize the above into a few succinct points:

1. Humanity is progressing toward a goal.
2. That goal is equalitarianism. This means in part no differences or distinctions between human beings – including between male and female.
3. The state will help achieve this goal.
4. Nothing – and I cannot emphasize this point enough – absolutely nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of this goal.

What opened my eyes? What made me connect that shadow with this fleeting image with that strange breeze with this faint sound?

The Health and Human Services mandate to require all businesses and organizations to provide medical insurance plans that include free contraception including abortifacients. And that this applies to religious institutions and organizations for whom paying for contraception especially abortifacients is a violation of their conscience and convictions.

There is nothing else I can think of that the Obama administration has said or done that so openly proclaims what the ultimate goal is. Because this isn’t really about birth control. Birth control just happens to be a key lynch pin in advancing the greater agenda.

More on this anon. I have work to do. And teenagers to pick up from school.

One of my favorite examples of ancient art

This Thursday evening my children and I will fly to upstate New York to spend a week visiting with my mom as well as my sisters and brother and his family who all live in Minnesota. My mom lives on a farm outside a village in rural upstate New York and internet access means driving into town and hanging out at a coffee shop. *ahem means probably not gonna update this for a couple weeks*

Simply put the state of New York has legalized gay marriage. Much more importantly has done this (a) through the legislative process and (b) with a Republican dominated state Senate. To put it bluntly that is how it should be done. Rather than by judicial fiat that often presumes to override the collective will of the citizenry even when they have amended their state constitution. The executive branch does not make law. The judicial branch should not make law although one can understand why some argue in a way it does. That is the job of the legislative branch. As Gay Patriot comments:

Elected state legislatures, I have always contended, are the appropriate fora to decide such issues.

The process was often messy, the rhetoric regularly exaggerated, the understanding of marriage generally at odds with the history of the institution, but at least those who made the final decision were elected by the people of the various jurisdictions of the Empire State and thus answerable to them at the ballot box.

We may not have had (and indeed did not have) the type of civil discussion of the importance and meaning of marriage that would have helped strengthen the institution (and not just in New York), but the branch of government responsible for deciding whether the state should privilege same-sex unions as it has long privileged different-sex monogamous unions resolved the issue.

And Instapundit earlier notes:

I think it’s good that it was passed by the legislature rather than imposed by a court.

Let me pause for a moment and lay out some of my thoughts on this issue:

I am a traditionalist and am convinced the Bible is the primary authority for Christian teaching and practice. The Bible is pretty clear that (a) marriage is supposed to be between a man and woman and (b) same-sex intercourse – along with a whole bunch of other things – is not compatible with the way of life in Christ. Some Christians who have no objections to same-sex attraction/relations/intercourse openly concede this. One cannot interpret the Bible in such a way to make it somehow endorse or tolerate same-sex intercourse. The only option for Christians who disagree is to say the Bible is just plain wrong on the matter.

Ah but how does that play out in the public square? That is where traditionalist Christians must recognize the issue is more complicated. There are many things that are not compatible with the way of life in Christ. But are we arguing that all of things should be prohibited by the government and said prohibitions enforced by the power of the state?

I have a great deal of respect for The Other McCain and by extension those they quote. But I cannot agree with the blanket statement that marriage is a religious institution and therefore our only options are (i) recognizing it even the point of amending the United States Constitution or (ii) have it removed from the government entirely because of church-state separation and have the government then enforce legal contracts between two or more adults.

Is marriage a religious institution? You betcha. But so is the church no? So what does the government have to do with that?

My undergraduate and graduate studies focused mostly on the history and culture and languages and literature of Ancient West Asia aka the Ancient Near East. I have some familiarity with how marriage worked in the Ancient East Mediterranean around 3200-400 B.C.E. They had it. I have read some marriage contracts in the original languages. Even plaster casts of the original cuneiform tablets. They were not Christians. Most of them were not Hebrews/Israelites/Jews. (Strictly speaking one should not use the terms Jewish or Judaism until after the Babylonian Exile.) Most of them were not trying to follow the teachings of God in the Bible. The point is that marriage is a very widespread very ancient legal-social institution that does not appear to be linked to any one specific religion. Marriage was not so much divinely ordained committed relationship between man and woman as it was a legal contract. This is not to say that is all it was. That there was never love or affection or any sense that this was somehow endorsed by the gods. We have interesting examples of how husbands and wives in the ancient world were bound together by love and affection.

Now I will confess that ancient marriage is not my area of expertise. I know what I have seen read and studied. There may be scholars who focus on this that have more to say on the subject. Particularly with regard to marriage as religious not just legal. Indeed one might argue that religious versus legal is an artificial distinction when talking about ancient societies. But I have reason to believe that most ancient societies did not necessarily regard social-legal institutions as expressions of relationship with the gods. Consider the distinctive character of the Book of the Covenant in the book of Exodus 21-24.

Where is all the above going? That we have the remarkable situation in the United States (and elsewhere) where clergy (of whatever religion) act as agents of the government when they perform marriages. If I perform a wedding and sign the certificate then those two people are legally married even if they never appear before a judge or justice of the peace. I have to say – well maybe I don’t but I say it anyway – “with the authority I have as a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ and from the state of Louisiana“. Do you see that? I have the power to enact(?) a significant legal contract/relationship between two people that must be recognized by the state.

My tentative point of view at this time is that the issue of gay marriage is so sticky partly because the Christian church along with other religious communities have allowed marriage as a religious institution to become confused and entangled with marriage as a social-legal institution.

I vaguely recall a couple years ago when Gay Patriot – along with others – argued that perhaps the Christian church needs to pull out of the legal marriage business. Allow marriage to be a social-legal institution. License then civil ceremony then certificate and so on. And then there can be a religious ceremony that enacts this new relationship as a recognized institution within that religious community. I could be wrong. But that is where I lean right now.

This may help clarify some of the controversy surrounding so-called gay marriage. And clarify some of the true motives of those who advocate or oppose gay marriage. So many Christians object to it. Therefore they think it should not be allowed by the state. Do you see the leap/jump there?

Now that does not mean there is no reason for that leap/jump. Some might reason “God – revealing himself and his will through Scripture – would have marriage be between a man and woman for life (except for certain unusual/extreme circumstances). God – ditto – would also warn us to eschew same-sex relations/intercourse. We understand that this is not (necessarily) a Christian society. We understand not everyone is Christian. Therefore why should we expect everyone to obey what we are convinced reflects the revealed purposes of God for humanity? Well there are plenty of other things God endorses or condemns that are allowed/permitted in our society. Nobody complains about those laws we already have that happen to agree with biblical law. Nobody complains well the Bible says do not steal so we can’t have any laws against theft. Nobody says well the Bible tells us to show compassion to the poor so we better stop that because separate of church and state ya know. So the revealed purposes of God alert us to what leads to a peaceful just society and those things that lead to disorder and injustice. That being so we may be able to articulate we these things are good for society and those things are not in ways that people of other religions or not religion can understand and support. One is reminded of the less well known but vitally important Socratic dialogue Euthyphro. Perhaps we can say these things are not good not just because God says they aren’t. God says these things are not good because they aren’t. Or in the language of Socrates that which is holy is loved by the gods because it is holy (Euthyphro 12). And thus so-called secular society for its own good reasons may decide that there should be such a legal institution called marriage and that these are its limits and requirements. Because that is what so-called secular society regards as the best most stable most healthy way to order and structure itself. In other words no to gay marriage – not because of God allegedly says but because we just don’t think it’s a good idea. How many examples of gay marriage do we find in the ancient world? Why did ancient societies – most of whom were not Christian/Jewish – do marriage this way and not that way?”

Oh dear I may have neatly refuted myself. Well maybe not. But you get the idea. In a nutshell those who oppose gay marriage for religious reasons might want to find ways to articular their case that do not depend solely or primarily on divine revelation. And we might need to separate marriage as legal institution from marriage as religious institution. I could be wrong. Neither is a hill for me to die on. I am not firmly convinced of either. But this is where I stand tentatively at this time.

And if any of those excellent friends at Gay Patriot stop by (c) they have articulated reasonable and principled arguments in favor of committed same-sex marriage and (d) the above paragraphs imply the possibility of non-religious arguments in favor of same-sex marriage do they not?

Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic does however express grave concerns about the religious exemption language in the New York State law. This should not be overlooked. Because what good is it to say “okay hey separation of church and state and all that so let’s separate marriage as religious from marriage as legal institution” – perhaps in order to disarm and neutralize people who object chiefly on religious grounds – and then turn around and force religious communities to endorse/celebrate/tolerate/enact gay marriage because of the law? That’s a neat trick. Rather like how this administration disarms Americans by saying “it’s not a tax” and then argues “this is a tax” before federal courts. “It’s not a religious matter” in order to get gay marriage and then the government turns around and makes it a religious matter.

By the way in 16(?) years of ordained ministry not once have I preached a sermon about same-sex relations or abortion or stem-cell research. On only a few occasions have I expressed my views on these subjects in private conversation/correspondence. So who really focuses on these issues hmm?

And also by the way would commend to you an excellent post “Stray Thoughts on Gay Marriage” at Ace of Spades HQ. Which outlines how to a large extent gay marriage has been achieved by dishonest (and inconsistent even contradictory) arguments. That’s not to say Ace has any particular beef with gay rights as such. But like Ace I happen to believe that the means to a just end must also be just. I don’t like it when people deceive and manipulate to get what they want. Even if I happen to agree with that goal.

Back to New York because this is really the main point I would like to make.

James Taranto makes some particularly brilliant points in his recently piece “Dire Straits”. He reminds us that one year ago New York State became the last state to enact no fault divorce. Think about that. And then think about what gay marriage advocates think they just won. But this is not really or primarily about gay marriage. Therein lies his brilliant point.

Deroy Murdock made a good point some years back when he observed, in a column posted at NRO, that “social conservatives who blow their stacks over homosexual matrimony’s supposed threat to traditional marriage tomorrow should focus on the far greater damage that heterosexuals are wreaking on that venerable institution today.”

Murdock should have written “have wreaked for decades,” because the developments we note all long predate any serious consideration of the idea of same-sex marriage. …

Thus for the foreseeable future, civil marriage is likely to retain its character as little more than a financial arrangement. To be sure, many individual marriages are deeply committed relationships. But under a regime that permits either spouse to opt out of the commitment at will, the legal recognition of marriage is mere symbolism.

Boom. It’s like getting upset that water is getting into your house when for decades you haven’t done anything to maintain the roof and walls. People are upset about gay marriage when they should have been paying more attention to marriage.

What is marriage? Why bother getting married instead of living together? And – this is where many Christian friends will disagree with me – it’s not enough to say “this is what God ordained”. One would like to think even God ordains things for a good reason. Can we articulate those reasons? And articulate those reasons in ways that both people within and people outside our religious communities can understand and appreciate? We/some/they say gay marriage is such a terrible thing that will result in the collapse of healthy stable social order. Well maybe. But have we explained why we should have marriage to begin with?

Christians have not failed to make the case against gay marriage. They failed to make the case for marriage.

An old friend/classmate from Great Britain posted a link to a recent article by Jonathan Dudley entitled “My Take: Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?”.

I thought “ho hum another article/piece/post on the subject” and made the mistake of reading it.

My friend should put on his English teacher hat and evaluate the article as a piece of writing. Can one identify a thesis? crux? clear conclusion? What exactly is the position Dudley is attempting to defend? Do his arguments support his conclusion insofar as one can identify it? What other conclusions would his arguments support? How relevant is the evidence he brings to bear on the discussion? Even if you agree with him this is not a very good article.

Let me put it this way. Let us assume for the sake of argument that same-sex relations are entirely compatible with the Christian way of life. If so the piece by Dudley is a poor attempt to defend that conclusion.

An aside. Did a search to see who has rebutted and/or responded to Dudley. Surprisingly the only people who take note of his work are those who already agree with him. And it’s not like there’s a shortage of more traditional Christian scholars who are afraid to take on the position(s) he takes. This suggests (a) that this recent piece simply has not attracted much attention yet and/or (b) that those who normally would respond do not think this piece is worth their while.

Also found it odd that Dudley is often described as a Bible expert or scholar. Compared to the average American sure. But compared to thousands of people who would disagree with him and who have studied and taught and published more? In fairness to Dudley he is probably not running around touting himself as a Bible expert/scholar as much as those who wish to use his writing to bolster their own views.

He’s been to seminary and apparently did very well. Meaning no disrespect at all to his real accomplishments as a student and a writer so what? Been there done bought the t-shirt.

One of harsher criticisms of his article is the reductionism. He only focuses on explicit condemnations of same-sex relations. In one place – Romans 1. And characterizes the nature of Paul’s argument in the most simplistic terms. “Argument from nature”. That’s it? No attempt to delve into the entire biblical and theological background to Romans 1? No attempt to analyze possible differences between (his characterization of) Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 11? To what extent does Dudley engage the small libraries of scholarship on (1) Romans (2) sexual ethics in the New Testament (3) the issue of same-sex relations in the Bible and in Christian tradition let alone (4) the theological-anthropological framework in which Christian tradition addresses same-sex relations? To what extent has Dudley attempted to wrestle with the work of scholars like Robert Gagnon?

In fairness to Jonathan Dudley perhaps he has done so at length elsewhere. Just not here. Often when one writes an article/post there are time and space limitations. “I wrote a 50 page paper refuting 12 books on the subject. But I’ve got an anatomy exam next week and this article can’t be more than 500 words so this’ll have to do”.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Found another couple pieces/interviews and unfortunately so far it looks like variations of the “shellfish argument”. The Bible condemns x and it also condemns eating crawfish. No one worries about eating crawfish so why should we worry about x? A bright 7 year old might point out that x includes such things as bestiality or incest or defrauding the poor of their wages and so on and so on. This is why the title of the recent piece “The Bible condemns a lot of things why focus on?” is amazingly stupid. In fairness someone else such as an editor almost certainly assigned that title.)

One thing that strikes me as just a bit odd is how he conflates the issue of same-sex relations with the issue of gay marriage. I know that plenty of people do that but one must be careful to distinguish issues that are related but distinct. I dare suggest that one can favor gay marriage and think same-sex relations are incompatible with the Christian way of life. And one can oppose gay marriage and have no problem with same-sex relations. One must distinguish between how is a disciple of Jesus Christ the son of God supposed to live? and what kinds of family structures should society – which includes people who are not Christian – permit or encourage? In case dear readers are curious I lean towards the former position. There are plenty of things that are not compatible with the Christian way of life that perhaps society and government should not attempt to regulate.

Okay so the Christian church has had varying attitudes toward marriage and celibacy during its first 1500 years. What does that have to do with the specific issue at hand today? Was the Christian church against marriage during that time? No? So how is that piece of evidence (which we will take at face value for the moment) relevant to the issue at hand? This is another serious flaw with Dudley’s argumentation. Not “that is wrong” but “even if that’s correct so what?”

Let us also assume that modern evangelical Christians take many stances that would have been considered heresy a few hundred years ago.

Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin has noted that today’s “pro-family” activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered “heresy” for most of the church’s history.

Dare we ask how well so-called progressive Christianity would have been regarded for most of the church’s history? Is Dudley arguing that what evangelical Christians promote is just as much “heresy” as what modern liberal-progressive Christians promote? If x is flawed how does that help y?

I think Dudley reveals his larger agenda when he brings in abortion. Wait a second. Are we talking about same-sex relations? and/or same-sex marriage? and/or abortion?

Again Dudley muddles the issue. He argues that the church has not historically and traditionally supported the idea that life begins at conception. Okay. Without doing further research am inclined to agree with that. I mean gee whiz how long have we known about conception? But that’s not the same as saying the church has always thought elective abortion is just fine. The church historically and traditionally has opposed elective abortion – am unaware of any evidence to the contrary – but not because of some particular view about human conception. So Augustine had some doubts about when the body has a soul. Does that mean he favored terminating pregnancies? Evidence x does not lead to conclusion y.

(Added 2011/06/22 - Have often noticed that progressive/liberal Christians group these stances together. Let me put it this way. My views on same-sex relations and abortion are pretty traditional. But I have no problems with evolutionary theory and many evangelicals would be horrified by my views on hell or the “security of the believer” or atonement theory. Am not “all or nothing” when it comes to these issues. And yet nearly every time I see progressive/liberal Christians defend elective abortion in the same breath as same-sex-relations-are-just-fine. As if they go together. Indeed are inseparable. Still struggling to understand quite why this is so. Can anyone anywhere point to an example of someone who says “elective abortion is unjust but same-sex relations are perfectly fine for Christians”?)

Dudley points out that evangelical Christians take stances against same-sex marriage and elective abortion – claiming that the Bible supports them in this – but can be pretty loose about other issues that the Bible clearly addresses such as divorce.

Okay. Fair enough. The church is arguably inconsistent. Although it is odd that when discussing divorces Dudley focuses on what Jesus teaches and ignores what Paul says. Whereas when discussing same-sex relations focuses solely on Paul. There is an apparent inconsistency in his methodology.

But this is where Dudley’s conclusion? position? thesis? is clearest and strongest. If there is any worthwhile value to be found in his writing it is this:

Evangelical Christians need to come to terms with two problems with positions they commonly take on moral-social issues. First – they claim that the position they take is “traditional/historical” when it might not be. [Rw - Okay this one is weaker and more debatable.] Second – they oppose these things that they think the Bible condemns but they are very tolerant of those things that others claim the Bible also condemns.

Evangelical Christians need (1) to improve how they understand and articulate the positions they take and (2) to be more consistent(?) with regard to what issues they care about.

Now this is not to get into the issue of just whether they are truly inconsistent or not. It depends on how one interprets Scripture does it not? Oh man there’s that common liberal refrain. Progressive/liberal Christians would say “you are wrong with regard to what the Bible says about sex and marriage and abortion and wrong with regard to what the Bible says about money and war and justice”. Dudley accuses evangelicals of explaining away Scriptures that deal with divorce. Dare we ask if progressives/liberals explain away Scriptures that deal with sex and procreation and marriage?

I would say yup. See my critique of Wright Knust:

These two examples illustrate what may be a problem with Wright Knust’s methodology. Which is what I call Heads I win, Tales you lose. Yes the Bible is often ambiguous and not entirely consistent. But what we see is when the text is ambiguous Wright Knust consistently chooses the reading that most undermines traditional Christian teaching on sexuality and marriage. If there is the remotest chance that a text could be read in such a way as to endorse something other than sexual-relations-within-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. And if there is a remote chance that a text can be read in such as way that it does not warn against sexual-relations-outside-heterosexual-marriage then that is how we choose to read it. Clear texts are no longer clear. And ambiguous texts are no longer ambiguous.

Dudley raises a good point about consistency and hermeneutics. But that point cuts both ways.

Gee whiz maybe evangelical Christians should heed Dudley and start opposing liberalization of divorce.

By the way this raises the question of exactly what Dudley is attempting to accomplish. Okay let us assume that evangelical Christians are inconsistent. They oppose x y and z but are lenient on p d and q which the Bible also condemns. What then? Is the goal to help the Christian church be more consistent? more faithful to what the Bible teaches? What exactly does Dudley want Christians to do? It would seem consistency and better understanding of tradition/history are not his true or ultimate concerns. Speaking of charades and honesty.

One last thing. Jonathan Dudley needs a mirror.

Whether the topic is hair length, celibacy, when life begins, or divorce, time and again, the leaders most opposed to gay marriage have demonstrated an incredible willingness to consider nuances and complicating considerations when their own interests are at stake.

See he actually makes a good point. How often are we just advancing our interests rather than what the Bible and/or Christian faith and tradition really teach? We need to ask ourselves that question. But what about progressive/liberal Christians?

Let me wax harsh for a moment. This was the part that struck me as downright offensive.

On the other hand, it’s not at all difficult for a community of Christian leaders, who are almost exclusively white, heterosexual men, to advocate interpretations that can be very impractical for a historically oppressed minority to which they do not belong – homosexuals.

Where to start? Dudley ignores and dismisses how many Christians who are neither white nor male? And he better not respond “yeah but those women and non-white Christians are just repeating what others tell them” which to be perfectly blunt is sexist and racist. As if women are not capable of forming their own opinions regardless of what men tell them. As if Christians of color are not capable. (That last sentence is exactly what many liberal Episcopalians often argue. I have seen it and have had people say it to my face.)

But let us think about this for a moment. It is somehow in the interest of white male heterosexuals to interpret Scripture and Christian tradition this way. Really? How? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation. How exactly does a white male heterosexual benefit if he says “the Bible says no same-sex relations”? or for that matter “the Bible says no sleeping around with gorgeous women you are not married to”? or for that matter “no destroying an unborn child because you do not want her to be born”? or for that matter a host of other things?

Probably Dudley and/or others would offer some deconstructionist/theory-based scholarship or the like to demonstrate that yeah somehow such people do benefit. But I do not see it. Never have. Would it not be easier to say “well heck have sex with whomever or whatever you want”? Would it not be easier to say “child with Down’s Syndrome? abort it and don’t feel any guilt about it”?

If I embraced the whole progressive/liberal Christian panoply in many ways life would be easier. If nothing else would receive more approval and praise from the surrounding culture. The opposite of 1 Peter. But so far as I can tell the ones who truly benefit(?!?) are those who say “no no no the Bible and Christian tradition do not really restrain us so much from doing whatever we feel like doing”.

Dudley talks about “own interests” (see below). But how are more restrictive interpretations in our “own interests”? The opposite – that progressive/liberal Christians have their own desires in mind – appears more likely to be the case.

Dudley concludes his piece:

The [evangelical] community gave me many fond memories and sound values but it also taught me to take the very human perspectives of its leaders and attribute them to God.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.

He makes a leap here in these last paragraphs. I don’t think he has truly proven that opposition to same-sex relations or gay marriage or abortion are the very human perspectives of its leaders or not the Bible’s values. He might be right. But he has not really proven this. All he has done so far is raise good questions – good and fair questions – about tradition and consistency.

Set that aside for the moment. Dare we ask about the very human perspectives of the leaders of progressive-liberal Christianity? Do they never attribute those to God? Do they never engage in charade? Are they always honest with themselves and others? Are they always defending the Bible’s values? Do they never use the Bible to defend their own?

Based on a quick and dirty internet search Jonathan Dudley is a fine young man who is now studying medicine and already doing some wonderful things for people with regard to medical care. Glory to God for this. (And of course evangelical Christians do many of the exact same things and more.) I would respectfully ask the good doctor(-in-training) to examine himself as well.

Addendum:

Where are Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christianity in this discussion? It’s all very well to pick on evangelical Christians and their flaws. But traditional Christianity is much more than evangelical Christians in America. How might Roman Catholic or Orthodox Christians contribute to this discussion? Dare we find out?

Update 2011/06/22 - Our excellent friend Opinionated Catholic kindly links here but more importantly offers a few excellent points of his own. Note especially the problems with how Dudley deals with history/tradition particularly with regard to the Jovian controversy. Hate to say it but it looks like Dudley just mangles if not downright misrepresents the historical record. This is a serious problem that forces me to re-evaluate my estimation of Dudley as a student/scholar/writer. I often disagree with what someone writes but can respect the quality of their thinking/scholarship. But poor scholarship is just not acceptable even in defense of a position with which one happens to agree.

This raises the issue of why are progressives/liberals promoting this young man’s work when it does not hold up well to scrutiny? The question almost answers itself. “Look! A Christian and Bible scholar who agrees with us!” One is reminded of 1 Kings 22.

Update 07/12/2011:

I chose not to respond any further to the comments offered because (a) my policy has always been there is a point at which one needs to just let people have their say otherwise the back-and-forth will continue forever and (b) although some decent points were raised (seriously) they were buried in so much {could not think of a diplomatic way to say it} I decided they did not merit any further response.

Therefore I commend both the post and the replies-to-objections made by Josh Gelatt. He clearly has more familiarity with (a) history of philosophy and theology and (b) some of the biblical/textual issues than I and his response to Dudley (and his would-be defenders) is much better than the poor offering above. Which recommendation calls into question the rhetorically clever but empty claim that my post is “best but still bad”.

Where Gelatt writes from a Reformed Baptist point of view let me also mention “A Critique of Jonathan Dudley’s ‘Take’” by Joe Hargrave at Non Nobis. He writes from a firmly Catholic point of view. Like the Opinionated Catholic – who *ahem* is not a Louisiana Tech undergraduate – he also suggests that the article by Dudley (along with Protestant replies thereto) demonstrates a serious problem with Protestantism and its emphasis on sola scriptura. In other words the debate over same-sex relations is a very Protestant debate. I am inclined to agree. Although I would argue that one does not have to be a Roman Catholic to see problems with the piece by Dudley.

Another Protestant response is “A Response to Jonathan Dudley” at Know It’s True.

Update 2011/08/21:

Despite (1) let people have their say and (2) some comments might not merit response – I was curious about the comment that Robert Gagnon recognizes the problem of argument from nature in Romans 1 regarding same-sex relations but regarding long hair for women in 1 Corinthians 11. Not exactly. Yes Gagnon recognizes the similarity between Paul’s argumentation in both pericopes (the relevant pages are 373-384) but does not conclude it represents a problem the way Jonathan Dudley presents. One can disagree with Gagnon’s analysis and conclusions but it is not accurate to imply Gagnon agrees with Dudley on this point.

Remember Tucson? How heated political rhetoric was somehow responsible for the shootings? How even mentioning targeting could give someone ideas? Remember the fine (seriously) words President Obama spoke at the memorial service?

Charles Krauthammer once again helps us understand better how President Obama operates in “Demagoguery 101″.

The El Paso speech is notable not for breaking any new ground on immigration, but for perfectly illustrating Obama’s political style: the professorial, almost therapeutic, invitation to civil discourse, wrapped around the basest of rhetorical devices — charges of malice compounded with accusations of bad faith.

This.

And while politicians may often distort or misrepresent the facts one does not often catch them making statement that are one hundred percent verifiably false. Jim Geraughty calls out President Obama for managing achieve a new high score for outright falsehood.

CBS’s Mark Knoller, covering a town hall on the economy with the president this morning, reports: “President Obama blames high unemployment rate on ‘huge layoffs of government workers’ at federal, state and local levels.”

This is completely wrong. Extremely and mind-bogglingly wrong. Epically wrong.

…

Again, the numbers are stable, and even indicate that local government employment is increasing, not decreasing.

Obama is not even a little bit right. Will anyone call him out on this?

Good question.

For the record am not accusing him of lying because that requires being able to divine what someone is thinking. We can be generous and suggest lazy ignorance combined with a desire to say whatever in order to score political points with a particular audience.

You can tell a lot about a person by the pronouns they {sic} use.

Victor Davis Hanson invites us to notice something about the speech our president gave after Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan:

The problem of first-personalizing national security is twofold. One, it is not consistent. Good news is reported by Obama in terms of “I”; bad news is delivered as “reset,” “the previous administration,” “in the past”: All good things abroad are due to Obama himself; all bad things are still the blowback from George W. Bush.

Ace of Spades HQ takes this a step further and compares the heavy use of the first person singular pronoun with a speech then President Bush gave after the capture of Saddam Hussein.

President Bush’s speech is completely outwardly directed. He speaks of the momentous occasion and gives all credit to the military and the intelligence community. There is no attempt to highlight his part in the story. Quite a contrast.

I know the above seems harsh. But we need to be clear about the nature of this administration.

“Left alone [Melkor/Morgoth] could only have gone raging on till all was levelled again into a formless chaos” – J. R. R. Tolkien (Morgoth’s Ring, 396)

“The spirit in revolt consequently acquires a hatred of being, a frenzy to destroy, a thirst for an impossible nothingness” -Vladimir Lossky (Orthodox Theology, 82)

“Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” – Romans 5:12 (Revised Standard Version)

The apostle Paul says it simply and clearly. How did death enter the world? Through sin. And how did sin enter the world? Through Adam.

(Not Eve. Which is interesting. And sheds some light on how Paul uses the Old Testament.)

So is death punishment from God for sin? In my opinion no. Although death puts a limit on human rebellion. It is one thing to have a free personal being in revolt against God. It is entirely another if that free personal being in revolt against God is immortal and/or indestructible. Consider Balor from the Space:1999 episode “End of Eternity”.

Rather the first human beings in Genesis 2-3 were not immortal. At least not yet. Perhaps if Adam and Eve had chosen for God and not against they would have been permitted to eat of the tree of life.

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” — 23 therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. (RSV)

It is only after the man knows good and evil – has arrogated unto himself the authority to decide what is good and evil? – that God decides it is necessary to send the human beings out of the garden so that they cannot eat from the tree of life and live for ever. Death is a response/consequence of the revolt.

There is another way to look at this. Consider the psychology of evil. If God is the source of life and we choose against God there is a sense in which we have chosen death. Sin is inherently a movement toward death. Again not so much in terms of punishment. But (a) result/consequence and (b) direction away from God who is the source of life.

Why is this important? Because lately I have begun to notice more clearly the relationship between sin and death. By which I mean how much of what we recognize as sin somehow a movement toward death? How much of what we recognize as sin is destructive or self-destructive or even both? I am beginning to wonder if we can discern a pattern.

Now here is where I might step on some toes. Including my own. Because I would rather not discuss Christian theology and politics together in the same post.

I have been struggling to understand why generally speaking certain social-political-cultural views and practices seem to cluster. For example why people who reject the Christian faith – notice how I phrased that not merely faithful members of other religions – are so obsessed with sex. By which I mean it seems to terribly important that people not constrain or restrain themselves in any way. Do it when you want with whom you want. And while they are at it who needs that oppressive institution known as marriage?

(Most of my undergraduate and graduate studies focused on ancient West Asian aka Near/Middle Eastern civilizations such as the Sumerians Akkadians Egyptians Hebrews and so on. I have read and/or collated dozens of ancient marriage contracts. My point being that for thousands of years people who were not Christian or Jewish have thought the legal-cultural institution known as marriage is a great thing.)

And on top of that sex without producing children. So everybody needs to use contraception. And when contraception fails – or was never used – legal elective abortion.

Now do not misunderstand me. I acknowledge that some Christians support and some atheists oppose legal elective abortion. And many Christians have no problems with birth control. And I am not saying anything for or against either of these – neither am I judging anyone who supports or has done either of these. But the hard cold biological fact is that the primary function of sexual intercourse is reproduction – or if you will the creation of new life.

So one the one hand we have people who adamantly oppose any – or at least most surely they would draw the line somewhere – restraints on sexual behavior. On an activity whose original primary function is (a) to create new life and/or (b) to overcome death. (On the latter aspect see Orthodox Theology by Vladimir Lossky p ???.)

And on the other hand they want to make sure that this activity never – or rarely – results in the creation of new life. Either by prevention the creation of new life – contraception. Or by destroying the preborn life that this activity creates – elective abortion.

(For the record there is a reason my wife and I have two children. Without going into detail yes we have used different methods of birth control.)

What prompted me to make this mental connection(?) is something Tony Rossi wrote recently about the movie and more importantly the novel Children of Men by P D James:

Recalling the evolution of the infertility problem, Theo says, “We thought that we knew the reasons — that the fall was deliberate, a result of more liberal attitudes to birth control and abortion, the postponement of pregnancy by professional women, the wish of families for a higher standard of living . . . Most of us thought the fall was desirable, even necessary. We were polluting the planet with our numbers . . . When Omega came it came with dramatic suddenness and was received with incredulity.”

Described in these terms, the story seems like an all too plausible scenario. In a society that has largely divorced sex from procreation, no one ever followed that attitude about reproductive choice to its logical if unlikely conclusion. Now, Omega has arrived and the despair is overwhelming.

There is a marked increase in suicides by middle-aged people who would “bear the brunt of an ageing and decaying society’s humiliating but insistent needs.” Also, every reminder of children (schools, toys, playgrounds) has been removed from the public landscape “except for the dolls, which have become for some half-demented women a substitute for children.”

People’s attitudes toward sex have also changed in an unexpected way. Theo says, “Sex has become among the least important of man’s sensory pleasures. One might have imagined that with the fear of pregnancy permanently removed, and the unerotic paraphernalia of pills, rubber and ovulation arithmetic no longer necessary, sex would be freed for new and imaginative delights. The opposite has happened. Even those men and women who would normally have no wish to breed apparently need the assurance that they could have a child if they wished. Sex totally divorced from procreation has become almost meaninglessly acrobatic.” (emphasis added)

According to P D James in The Children of Men what is the logical conclusion of unrestrained sex without procreation? Death. And despair.

Drugs and other addictions. Consider the misery and destruction caused by people who grow/make and sell drugs. Consider the self-destructive nature of drug use and alcohol addiction. Is that significant aspect of modern life largely an attempt to achieve non-existence?

Violence and oppression. What is Moammar Gadaffi doing right now if not attempting to destroy those he cannot control? Communism – in the Soviet Union in China in Cambodia and elsewhere – has killed more human beings that any religion.

And this is where I might really cross a line or two.

Why does the political-cultural left seem to ally itself with radical Islam? Could it be the movement toward death is something they share in common?

The recent turmoil in Wisconsin. Which of course is only an opening skirmish in the period of soft civil war which the United States may be entering. I understand not wanting to lose money and benefits. Been there done that myself and members of my family. But what we have is an entirely unsustainable trend. Spending/committing more and more money we simply do not and will not have. So why not tax the rich? Well first of all if we appropriate every dollar made by the rich – defined how exactly? – we still would not have enough for the obligations facing us. Second many of the rich would change their behavior and make it more difficult to take their money. Third of all eventually we would run out of money period. Total economic collapse. Anarchy. Chaos. Greece anyone?

There is a sense in which one group that lives off another group – fairly or unfairly or both – may eventually kill its host. Even our current political and economic policies are – when you scratch beneath the surface – taking us inevitably toward death.

I am greatly distressed by the apparent movement toward mob rule in Wisconsin. Do these protesters stop and wonder what would happen if everyone behaved the way they do and took that behavior and rhetoric to their logical conclusions? Can you imagine? Can they imagine?

Well we should care about the poor right? Yes indeed. And keep transferring money to them right? Perhaps it matters how we do that. Because consider the circumstances in which millions of poor African-Americans – and others – live in many of our cities. Are they not surrounded by the threat the fear the reality of death?

Let me conclude with a few qualifying remarks.

First this is a work in progress. I could be wrong. I could be very wrong about some or much or all of the above. But I am attempting to figure out the pattern that unites things I observe that otherwise do not seem to make sense.

Wright’s First Rule of Epistemology.

In any given set of data the anomalous elements are the key to understanding the whole.

Second I want to be careful about how this applies to the conscious motivations of real people. I am sure most people are not consciously trying to destroy themselves or other people. What I suggest is that even when we do not consciously realize it sinful behavior might at some level be an attempt to embrace death/deny life.

Which leads to third I am sure many people who (a) are not Christians and/or (b) are atheists are consciously(?) trying to embrace and nurture life. I am sure many people who are doctors who research new medicines who develop new technologies – or who just plain work to pay the bills and take care of their families you know? – as far as they are aware are trying to live and preserve life.

H/T The Anchoress for the Children of Men article

Health Care Summit

It is with some reluctance I post anything relating to the recent shootings in Tucson Arizona. But will attempt to be as positive as possible.

Let me try to get the negative out of the way first. Yes some very foolish and ghoulish people have quickly been trying to use the incident to score political points in order to shame and silence political opponents. They have been well answered and refuted by many much better writers.

But there have been several – also on the left end of the political spectrum – who have so far done an excellent job of warning against the impulse to exploit the Tucson shootings for political gain.

• President Obama. Well said and well done sir. Thank you.
• Rachel Maddow.
• Jon Stewart.
• Howard Kurtz.
• Barbara Walters.
• The New Republic.
• Jake Schafer.

And many others I am sure.

Let me share something. There are plenty of public and political figures whose views I cannot stand. But the last thing in the world I want is for any harm to come to them.

Why?

Well first of all for the simple reason that they are human beings.

Also because one of the things that makes America great is we debate issues and then vote. Not a single shot was fired when power was transferred from George Bush to Barack Obama or from Nancy Pelosi to John Boehner. That is how political and social change is supposed to happen in the United States. In an orderly and peaceful manner.

There is a third reason. I can probably speak for most if not all classical liberals aka “conservatives” when I say we do not want to see political opponents hurt or killed. What we want is for our ideas to prevail and for their ideas to be defeated and discredited. What we want is for a majority of fellow Americans to think “man President Obama’s vision for remaking America is the pits” and/or “wow the best way to prosperity and security is through limited Constitutional governance”.

Violence against politicians does nothing to help persuade the American people that one way of governance is better than another. We can be more specific. Does any rational person seriously think shooting a member of Congress will help repeal ObamaCare? If anything it turns political opponents into martyrs and creates an environment in which out of respect no one wants to vote against what the dead/injured politician(s) support(s).

At the risk of waxing negative let me address the “heated rhetoric” rhetoric.

When some say the Tucson shootings were caused by “vitriolic rhetoric and hate speech” we need to stop and think for a moment.

On what basis do some describe some political speech as vitriolic/heated/hateful/violent? I submit that the only thing that is truly vitriolic/hateful/heated about the political speech in question is that the person complaining about it simply says so.* Disagreeing strongly with a politician or a political party or the government currently in power is not in and of itself vitriolic or violent or hateful.

*(I am aware that some dear readers will try to bring up examples. I would ask first how hard one has to look to find any examples of genuinely excessive political speech that says “this person is evil / this person needs to die / we need to take arms and overthrow this government”. Strong principled disagreement is not hate.)

Also how is current political speech somehow worse than in previous generations? Remember the 1960′s and early 1970′s?

But that is a secondary point – to say “oh yeah? you did it first and worse!” The primary point is this.

What classical liberals aka “conservatives” want is for their ideas about good governance to prevail – to persuade the voting majority of Americans that individual liberty and limited government are superior to leftist governance and statism. Social chaos and political violence do nothing to advance this goal.

Supporters of full inclusion for gays and lesbians in The United Methodist Church drape the central table in black cloth during a demonstration on the floor of the 2008 United Methodist General Conference

Was perusing Lectionary Homiletics for December as part of my weekly sermon preparation. Noticed how many contributions are from Ed McNulty. Wonder who that is? Do a search. Come across a website that might tell me more. Turns out to be the blog of a very liberal Presbyterian minister who serves a congregation in a town located in northeast Tennessee. Hey wait a minute. I recognize that town. That’s where my wife was born and grew up! And we even visited that church once around Christmas. Even then recall we thought it was a good and interesting experience but we probably would not go back next time we were in town.

Took a few minutes to look over this pastor’s blog. Curious about where he comes from. What his basic views are.

Look – I went to Baptist Theological Seminary of Richmond which is across the street from Union Theological Seminary / Presbyterian School of Christian Education. Cross-registered and took several classes at the historic Presbyterian seminary. Regularly attended their chapel services. Had plenty of Presbyterian friends. Yeah many of them were pretty liberal.

They had nothing on this guy in Tennessee. Compared to him they are staunch traditionalists.

The point is not to knock this active and passionate Presbyterian pastor who happens to serve in my wife’s home town. Just giving some background.

Among his other big causes – which include 9/11 trutherism for which I have little respect or patience along with Peak Oil an issue with which I do have some sympathy – is equality in the Christian church for Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender(?) persons. Fair enough. That is his prerogative.

(In this post I will not specify his name or congregation or URL of his blog. Not out of contempt or disrespect. But because this is not personal - this is not about him but about something he wrote and what it represents. Plus this is one of those times where I would rather not invite conflict.)

Among other things he shares his response to a questionnaire regarding Amendment 10A which has something to do with changing the rules about ordination to Christian ministry in the P(resbyterian)C(hurch)-USA:

How would you respond to those that say that if we pass 10a individuals and congregations will leave the PC(USA)? That question fosters co-dependence and bullying. We need to treat people like adults and expect adult behavior. If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy. Some even have been defrocked. You do the right thing and let the chips fall. I think once the church passes 10a we will become stronger. We certainly will be more in the spirit of Jesus.

This response is the one that jumped out at me the most. Try to follow the reasoning and then I will address the larger implications.

1. People say they will leave if we make this change? That is a form of co-dependence and bullying.

There is some truth to this. People at University Baptist Church occasionally play the “don’t do this or I will leave” card and it can be a form of emotional blackmail. Although this is a difference between “don’t make this change in the time and style of Sunday morning worship” and “don’t make this change in whether or not we ordain people in same-sex relationships to the Christian ministry”.

2. If people really have that much of a problem with this change then they will leave. No one is forcing them to stay or go.

Well that is not entirely true is it? If you belong to an institution or organization because of what it stands for and it makes what you regard as a fundamental change that you believe turns its entire purpose upside down then there is a sense in which yes you are being forced to leave because to stay is a violation of your conscience yes? How many liberals or rather leftists said they would leave the United States if George Bush was re-elected president? Gee why did they say that? Were they being forced to leave? In one sense no – no one was putting a gun to their head. But in other sense yes – because to them it means “I can no longer in good conscience remain a citizen of this nation”. How can someone who presents himself as so liberal and open-minded and understanding and all that good stuff not understand something so basic? That people are forced to leave because to stay represents a violation of their basic convictions? And this pastor cannot say “oh come now that’s no violation of your Christian convictions” because whether that is so or not is not the point. The point is how these persons and congregations view the proposed change.

This above is the most significant part of this pastor’s argument and we will return to it.

3. So we lose some people and churches. Yeah but have we not lost people and churches because of the current policy?

Well first of all consider the Episcopal Church. Have they lost more or gained more what with the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop? Are same-sex couples suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to be baptized? Are people who think same-sex relationships are morally neutral suddenly flocking to the Episcopal Church and asking to become members? No? Yeah sure a few people are attracted to liberal churches and liberal denominations. But far more leave and/or never seek to join because they are either repulsed or just plain uninterested.

And while we are at it just how many people and churches have they lost because of the current policy? Care to throw out a number with some hard evidence behind it? Or is he just blowing rhetorical smoke?

But that is a weak argument. Ultimately one should do something because it is right not because it is popular. This pastor is aware of that. Well – sometimes. In fact he plays both the we’ll gain more than we lose and the we just need to do the right thing cards in the same paragraph.

We do have to grant one point. If by we’ll be stronger he means that the Presbyterian Church (USA) will no longer be conflicted because of this issue then yes that is probably correct. After the dust settles and many people and churches leave then yes they will have tremendous unity on this otherwise divisive issue. They will be known for their stand and people will join them or not.

Now back to that very significant statement If folks cannot in good conscience stay in the church, then I guess they will go. No one is forcing them to stay or to go. However, many people have already left the church because of our discriminatory policy.

This is the painfully obvious point and question.

If the church stands for something that goes against their conscience and convictions and therefore people will be free to leave… and the church currently stands for something that they think is fundamentally wrong… then why don’t they leave?

Why do you seek to radically change this organization/institution to suit your convictions? Why not join some other organization/institution? Why not form your own?

If you do not care for the terms of your marital relationship why does the other person have to leave and you get to keep the house?

Ah… perhaps therein lies the answer.

It is easier to take something that someone else created – not to deny that you may have helped along the way – and change it. That it is to create something new and different that reflects your desires.

See – generations of Presbyterians have lived and given and served and died to help create this denomination. Because of what it stands for. And if change it such that these people think it is radically different – no longer traditional biblical Presbyterian Christianity – then that bothers them very much indeed. They do not want to give up what they built – and yes I recognize that liberals in some sense helped build this house and we can debate the difference that makes or not – to people who want to change it into something they regard as fundamentally different in character and purpose.

But the liberals want to take over change the denomination – and it is about much much more than same-sex relationships and one only has to read this pastor’s blog to recognize that the issue of same-sex relationships is the tip of a much larger theological and ideological iceberg – in ways that traditionalists cannot endure and say oh well no one’s forcing you to stay. So the traditionalists what? give up the churches and seminaries they helped to build? the organizations into which they poured their lives?

They have to leave the house and either move into some other house or starting building a new one from scratch.

Don’t believe me?

Look at the Episcopal Church once again. When Episcopal parishes say “we cannot live with the leadership and directions of this national church” they are not allowed to keep the buildings which they built and paid for (mostly or entirely – yes I am aware of how dioceses play a role in building up parishes). To the victors go the spoils. The losers have to start again.

So why don’t liberal Presbyterians just leave and form their own new denomination? Heck one can even let liberal Presbyterian congregations keep their facilities. Heck we can even let them keep a seminary or two. If they can keep them running.

No – what we see is these innovators would rather take over and co-opt something and change it to be more in line with their point(s) of view.

Melkor did not create the orcs. He could only take what Iluvatar created – men and elves – and change them into orcs. Melkor was not able to create anything original of his own.

Parasites do not produce or create so much as they co-opt other life for their own purposes. No I am not calling liberal Christians parasites. But I will dare suggest that this “we will start doing things you did not imagine when we first got married but you have to leave and we keep the house” attitude is a form of parasitism.

Honesty compels one to suggest some counterarguments.

a. We are not trying to turn our denomination into something different. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. (Diana Butler Bass makes this argument explicitly – although inconsistently because she often appeals to changes in current social and cultural attitudes.)

One must then ask “at what point in the history of the Presbyterian church did a majority of Presbyterian Christians hold these views on Christian faith and practice?”

b. We are trying to return it to its original nature and purpose. You are the ones who have been taking our denomination in a new and wrong direction.

This sounds like the same argument as #a and perhaps it is but it relates to the fundamentalist takeover / conservative resurgence (depends on one’s point of view) in the Southern Baptist Convention. See – liberals are not the only ones who attempt to radically change something. My intent is not to bash the Southern Baptist Convention nor to defame evangelical/conservative friends and brethren. In fact I have started to identify again – partly – with Southern Baptists over the last few years. My goal is to understand their point of view. Moderate Baptists believed that the conservative movement of the 1980′s that was pretty much accomplished by 1990 represented a departure from historic Baptist Christianity. Obviously more conservative Southern Baptists do not see it that way. They believed liberal-moderate denominational leaders and seminary professors were the ones who were beginning to drag the denomination in a wrong direction.

One important difference is that the Southern Baptist Convention by definition could not take buildings and facilities away from more moderate Baptist congregations. Oh we can complain about professors losing their jobs and takeover and radical transformation of denominational institutions and structures. And as a matter of fact moderate Baptists to a large extent did end up having to create something new pretty much from scratch. I know. I went to one such seminary and most of my professors had been forced or pressured into leaving their positions at Southern Baptist seminaries.

(While we are it at surely the reverse is also true – that some conservative Baptists have felt compelled to leave a moderate Baptist congregation.)

But let me reiterate what I think is a key point and a compelling question.

Why do people who represent a minority viewpoint seek to transform an organization/institution/denomination so that it is more in line with their distinct convictions – rather than just leave and start their own?

In fairness I must acknowledge that there may very well be – indeed I assume that there is – a good answer to that question. But I have not figured it out yet.

Came across a Los Angeles Times article criticizing a Tea Party coloring book for kids. Fair enough. More interesting are the comments. Most take issue with the criticisms. Only a few take issue with the Tea Party movement and/or the coloring book.

One of the persons who takes issue with the Tea Party movement comments:

The Tea Party “claims” to be for small government, yet many of the candidates that are currently running for office think nothing of promoting ideas in which the government has jurisdiction over our private affairs and sex lives. That isn’t smaller government to me.

This is a point others have made. “You conservatives claim you believe in freedom and smaller government. And yet you have no problem supporting laws against same-sex marriage or elective abortion. These are private matters. In a way you want an even more intrusive government”.

It is not a bad argument. There are a few responses.

Really? Which Tea Party candidates – and how many are there really? – are promoting such laws? It is true that many social conservatives are part of the Tea Party movement. But for the most part it seems that the Tea Party movement and Tea Party candidates are being careful to focus on a broader consensus regarding smaller government and less government spending.

The person quoted above surely exaggerates. Although there is at least one example. Joe Miller running for United States Senator from Alaska.

A stronger response is to point out that smaller government means smaller government. It does not mean less government on every single issue. Let me put it this way. A statist might want the government to control 50% of everything we say do and spend. A classic liberal might want the government to control 10% of everything we say do and spend.

But it is entirely possible for a classic liberal to believe the government should control some things that the statist thinks the government should not control. That does not mean the classic liberal contradicts herself when she advocates more liberty and less government. As long as overall there is a net increase in liberty and a net decrease in the size and scope of government. Ten percent of our lives is still much less than fifty percent of our lives. It is entirely possible for someone to say “the government should intervene in how we define marriage or family relationships or at what stage a human being deserves legal protection – but it should not intervene in how much money we make or where we go to school or what kind of health care we receive or what legal contracts we honor or what political and religious opinions we hold or express and so on and so on”.

Smaller government means exactly that. Small-er government.

This is why when some Christians err when they invoke the Second Law of Thermodynamics against the(?) theory of evolution.

Basically the argument goes like this.

Evolutionary theory states that things are becoming more organized and complex as organisms evolve naturally over time. But the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that the amount of order in a system decreases over time. There is no way that organisms could evolve without divine intervention.

There is a colossal problem with this common argument against evolutionary theory. It misunderstands and misapplies the Second law of Thermodynamics also known as the Law of Entropy.

So long as there is a net overall decrease in energy and order in the universe – it is entirely possible for there to be local instances of increased energy and order. Or as Professor Alan McNeil said to those of us studying biology at Cornell University “the Second Law of Thermodynamics is why we have to eat lunch”. Yes human beings are examples of order and organization. But we have to eat lunch. Something that is ordered and organized – food – must be destroyed in order for us to continue.

Not to mention the fact that we grow old and die. Even lunch cannot stave off the long term effects of the Law of Entropy.

Automobiles are examples of order and organization. But they use up large amounts of fuel. There is a net decrease in order in order to maintain a local instance of organization.

And yes this opens up a whole list of theological questions which will be raised in a future post.

(Yes I know this website is supposed to get away from politics. But this is huge. And deserves more attention that it will receive in the American media.)

Or is it the other way around? As Kenya so America?

Most Americans may not be aware of what happened yesterday in Kenya or its significance. By a 2-to-1 margin Kenyans decisively approved a new constitution. The new constitution represents a political – and possibly social – transformation of the East African republic. Is this a positive change? And what are the implications for the United States?

For the last few weeks I have been discussing this issue with a fine Christian brother who is active in my small congregation – a doctoral student from Kenya who follows political issues closely. He/we are astonished at how this new constitution has come to pass. And deeply concerned over what it represents.

Let me begin with some of the concerns insofar as I understand them.

Kenya has had Muslim family courts for a long time. Just as Kenya also has tribal courts. Fair enough. But the new constitution specifically recognizes the Muslim kadhi courts. There is a sense in which sharia has been enshrined in the new constitution. Kenya is ninety percent Christian and only ten percent Muslim. Certainly there is no objection to religious freedom for Muslims. Nor even to Muslim family courts as such. But for Islam (or more precisely sharia?) to be uniquely recognized and empowered by the new constitution is deeply troubling.

Abortion. There is a clause in the new constitution that many argue legalizes abortion. Something that many Christian and certainly Muslim Kenyans oppose.

The land commission. The new constitution establishes a land commission that can redistribute land that it finds has been acquired illegally. On the face of it this sounds like a good thing right? And perhaps it is. But it could be turned into a mechanism for grabbing and redistributing land in a kind of political spoils system. Has anyone heard of Zimbabwe?

Regionalism. If I understand it correctly the new constitution represents a huge shift of political power from the central government to a new(?) system of counties. Normally I would appreciate this sort of change because of my belief in federalism and decentralized government. But the concern is that this may balkanize Kenya into regions that have strong tribal and/or religious identities. “If you belong to such-and-such tribe you should not live here. You should move to that region over there”. (And to a certain extent this is what we saw happen in the aftermath of the 2007 election.) “If you are Christian you do not belong in this country unless you want to live under sharia“.

It is troubling that only a simple majority was needed to approve this new constitution. A radical transformation of the political structure of Kenya and all you need is 50.1%? Think about what is takes just to amend the United States Constitution. Significant changes require the support of a significant majority.

Put two of these concerns together and what you may have is Kenya becoming increasingly divided along tribal and religious lines.

I should note that this is one perspective. There may be many positive changes in the new constitution. And there are some - such as this AllAfrica writer – who would argue that the above concerns are invalid.

So why given these concerns did seventy percent of Kenyans – which mitigates the concern over the need for a simple majority – vote Yes?

The new constitution is in part a reaction to the violence of 2007. “If we have this new constitution that sort of thing will not happen again”. It may be that for many Kenyans the desire for change was stronger than their concern over particular problems with the draft constitution. Does that sound familiar?

(The above argument is dangerous because it resembles the dismissive “the people don’t know what they’re doing” rhetoric we also hear from the social-cultural-political elite in the United States.)

Another key argument by those in the Yes camp was that sure the draft constitution has problems. But let us pass it because of all the positive changes it will bring. And then we can revise and amend it later. Does that also sound familiar? “We need to pass this so we will know what’s in it”.

We must also note American involvement in this process. The Obama administration – through Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton and Ambassador Ranneberger – has taken an active role in encouraging if not pressuring Kenya to adopt the new constitution.

• Biden says new constitution would strengthen Kenya (article leans pro-Yes)
• Obama Administration Pressured Kenya to Adopt Constitution (articles leans strong pro-No)
• U.S. Envoy Tells Public to Decide Nation’s Fate (strange article – makes it sounds like Ranneberger takes no position at all)
• Clinton, Africa Experts Laud Kenya Constitution Reform Process (at least the American government admits openly what position they took)

It probably did not help the No movement that former president Moi spoke against the new constitution.

Is this simply reform? Or is this a quiet revolution? In which in the name of reform Kenyan society and politics have been fundamentally changed? Dare we ask who stands to benefit?

And is this what is happening in America? A quiet revolution? Dare we ask who stands to benefit from all the hundreds of billions of dollars spent and thousands of pages of legislation passed during the last eighteen months? And whether future generations will be able to undo whatever damage has been done to our society?

(ed – I almost did not publish this. Do not like to “pick an argument” with such a public figure and that is not my intent.)

Normally I do not pay much attention to what American religion scholar Diana Butler Bass writes. That is not a dig. She writes prolifically on issues not normally of interest to me.

She maintains an active blog at Beliefnet.com titled “Christianity for the Rest of Us”. It appeared on my mental radar screen because of a post a few weeks ago by Midwest Conservative Journal in which she criticizes strongly the Archbishop of Canterbury because he asked Presiding Bishop Katherine Jefferts Schori of the Episcopal Church to carry but not wear her mitre when she visited Southwark Cathedral. Among other things she writes:

In case the Church of England hasn’t noticed, this is why people are rejecting Christianity. It isn’t because some Christians chose women to lead their churches, ask questions about traditional renderings of theology and the Bible, doubt God’s existence, or want their gay and lesbian friends and relatives to be part of their church communities. Canterbury, please know that western people are rejecting Christianity because–as noted in a recent survey of young Americans–Christians are “out of touch with reality.”

Try to follow her reasoning here and in the rest of her post. Christianity is in decline in the West. Why? Because – and this is my characterization of her argument – Christianity in the West is more concerned with theology and practice than with a host of other issues.

She returns to this theme in her recent post concerning Anne Rice announcing her departure from Christianity but not Christ:

Second, Ms. Rice is rejecting Christianity because it is illiberal. For almost four decades, the standard narrative is that Christianity in the West is dying because it is too liberal, not conservative enough, not theologically or ethically demanding. Rice’s comment moves in the exact opposite direction. She’s rejecting the toxic admixture of conservative ideology and Jesus-faith. She has been aching for a faith that is open–and not “anti-” everything; a faith that demonstrates the love, kindness, and mercy of its founder, not the “quarrelsome” disputations of Jesus’ all-too-human followers. If Anne Rice is any indication, Americans are hankering for a new sort of liberal faith the actually resembles that which Jesus taught and embodied.

There is quite a problem here for churches. Conservative churches will, as they have been for several years now, continue to decline as their message of exclusion fails to address the most pointed questions of the day. However, the traditionally liberal churches can’t really grow because they are too caught up in “quarrelsome” disputations of the very issues that seekers like Ms. Rice want to move past.

This confirms my interpretation of her comments regarding the Archbishop of Canterbury versus(?) the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church.

• Christianity in the West is in decline.
• It is in decline because it is too conservative.
• Young Americans are looking for Christianity that is liberal.
• But liberal churches are not growing because they are still mired in ongoing quarrels with conservative Christians.

Granted this is a highly simplified presentation of the main points of her argument(?). We can elaborate on what Bass means by “conservative” and “liberal”.

My intent is not to trash talk or pick a fight with someone who is surely a better scholar than I will ever be. Nor especially to argue with her concerning the sociological issues. So much as to address some of the issues and the points she raises.

Decline(?)

Diana Butler Bass appears to argue that Christianity in the West is in decline because it is too conservative. But churches/denominations and congregations showing numerical growth generally are more conservative in their theology and practice. And traditionally liberal churches/denominations are losing members. That she can provide examples of thriving congregations that are center-to-left does not disprove the general pattern. And the single example of a famous mystery novelist is hardly enough evidence for Bass to generalize that Christianity in the West is in decline because it is not liberal enough.

Bass seems to argue that liberal churches/denominations cannot grow because they are still caught up in conflicts over theology and practice. Are we seriously being asked to believe there are no liberal churches/denominations that are mostly or completely past these disputations? At exactly what point should we be able to expect young Americans to begin coming (back?) in droves to liberal churches/denominations? If young Americans reject Christianity because Christians are “out of touch with reality” – too conservative that is – is there any evidence they are attracted to more liberal Christianity? Or will there always be some excuse/explanation for why liberal churches/denominations generally are more in decline than conservative churches/denominations?

So what?

Let us assume for the sake of argument that (1) young Americans and Europeans reject Christianity because it is too conservative and even that (2) they would be drawn in large numbers to Christianity if it reforms and becomes liberal. (By “conservative” and “liberal” I mean what Diana Butler Bass appears to mean by these terms.)

Why should the Christian church reform itself in order to meet the values and expectations of modern Western society? Did the Christian church reform itself to meet the values and expectations of Greek and Roman society? It may be that the received Christian faith that young Americans and Europeans reject is precisely what they need and to their own surprise may at times discover they want. The “we need to change in order to become more attractive to society” argument is not compelling.

Truth?

This in turn raises the question of Truth. What if Diana Butler Bass is asking Christianity to abandon Truth – however one understands that – in order to satisfy those who do not know or want it? In her defense however when she writes “Americans are hankering for a new sort of liberal faith the [sic] actually resembles that which Jesus taught and embodied” we can surmise Bass would argue that liberal Christianity – as she understands it – is in fact the Truth which conservative Christian churches/denominations have abandoned.

Good. Because then we can have an honest debate/discussion. About what Jesus taught and embodied. About the nature of the Christian faith. And about the purpose of the Christian gospel.