Archive for the ‘Logic and Reason’ Category

« Older Entries

Why the Episcopal Church obsession over property?

Friday, March 19th, 2010

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

  1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
  2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
  3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been there many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those nasty traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait they do because the rector’s wife was associate pastor so I guess they do believe in women priests. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in ministry and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in nearby East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

Posted in Anglicanism, Ecclesiology, Law and Justice, Logic and Reason, News, Same-sex | 1 Comment »

Spare us the lame and contradictory (liberal) excuses!

Friday, February 19th, 2010

[This new version of WordPress the "insert media" function does not work. Sorry no illustrations until that gets fixed.]

Man – National Review Online was just swimming with powerful articles this morning. Where to start?

Charles Krauthammer on whether America truly is “ungovernable”. How much have we heard lately about how the “system” is broken? How the federal government is “structurally dysfunctional”?

He reminds us of which recent presidents were quite able to govern and get stuff done even when Congress was controlled by the opposition party.

It turned out that the country’s problems were not problems of structure but of leadership. Reagan and Clinton had it. Carter didn’t. Under a president with extensive executive experience, good political skills, and an ideological compass in tune with the public’s, the country was indeed governable.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. Krauthammer could also have mentioned George W. Bush and such legislation as “No Child Left Behind” and the Medicare prescription coverage (whether one cares for those two pieces of legislation or not). The Senate is not broken. America is not ungovernable. The problem is not the system. The problem is poor leadership. The system is working perfectly fine.

I also have (such as when listening to National Public Radio) lately heard much kvetching about filibusters and cloture. We cannot believe 41 senators can stop the government! There are two problems with recent calls from the left to change the Senate rules.

The first is the hypocrisy. There are some who defended filibusters when George W. Bush was in office who now call for ending them.

The second is the danger. There are some who call for ending filibusters (or changing the rules for cloture) that no doubt would sing a different tune if the Republicans were in charge and wanted to do something like oh I don’t know privatize Social Security.

(And while we are it note that on other occasions the president brags about how much he and the Congress have accomplished. Look at all the acts that have passed! The only time he complains about how the “system is not working” is when he is talking about the one thing that matters more to him than anything else that he just cannot seem to get. Radically restructuring one sixth of the American economy.)

One of the things that frosts my mug is people who keep changing the rules to suit themselves. And who want to have their cake and eat it too.

Check out also the delightful “Pick an Excuse, Any Excuse” by Jonah Goldberg. During the last few months he has become one of my favorite commentators. One thing that stands out about him is his sense of fairness. He often defends or gives credit to the “opposition” when appropriate. Not one of those “we are always right and they are always wrong” people.

In a nutshell his article explores how when you listen to Democrats these days none of their problems are their fault. Oh wait. One thing is their fault. They have failed to communicate clearly enough to the American people.

That sounds reasonable doesn’t it? “If we just explain what we want to do well enough then everyone will support these policies”. But think about it that for a moment. These people who are so educated and brilliant that they know what is best for us do not know how to explain something adequately.

Well, that’s not entirely right. The Obama administration admits one mistake — and one mistake only. It didn’t explain itself better. In both his State of the Union address and interviews, Obama insisted he got all the policies right. It’s just that the reportedly greatest orator in the history of the republic couldn’t quite make himself clear enough.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online. This is similar to the constant “the reason everything is still so awful despite the trillions we have spend is the mess Bush left us”. Which again sounds reasonable. But as Anglican Curmudgeon pointed out a while back implies that they are completely unable to make any difference. “Elect us so we can fix this mess”. And later “the mess is not fixed because someone else made it”.

Speaking of mugs and frost. Why devote space on this website to discuss this? Because as mentioned before one of my “buttons” is when people insult my intelligence. When they say things so stupid so lame so contradictory so contrary to logic and fact and they think I am stupid enough to buy it.

Oh yes. Speaking of. That is precisely what many liberals think. We are we resisting the Obamessiah? We are we resisting a radical restructuring of the American economy? Why we are resisting radical changes to the relationship between the American people and their government? Because we are stupid.

But even this explanation amounts to dodging blame. It’s still code for “you stupid Americans, why can’t you understand I’m right and you’re wrong?”

That’s certainly how Joe Klein, Obama’s de facto press flack at Time magazine, sees things. In a piece titled “Too Dumb to Thrive,” Klein argues that Americans are too stupid to understand how totally awesome the stimulus was. (Time’s Peter Beinart makes a similar argument in a debate with me for Bloggingheads.tv.) What’s funny about this is that if nearly two-thirds of Americans are idiots, that means roughly half of Obama’s voters were idiots, too. His election was once the epitome of American wisdom. Now it seems he was elected despite the stupidity of his supporters.

Some adamantly refuse to accept the possibility that we do get it. The problem is that we do not want it. And the “you are too stupid to realize that what we are doing is for your own good” line may reveal the quintessence of what some call “progressivism”.

Posted in Logic and Reason, Media, News, Politics, Rhetoric | No Comments »

Charles Krauthammer on election of Scott Brown (or) "It couldn't have anything to do with his platform!"

Friday, January 22nd, 2010

What astonishes me about the election of Scott Brown to the United States Senate – from Massachusetts of all states that Democratic stronghold – is the lengths to which the left (aka “liberals” although a case can be made that conservatives of a libertarian stripe are the true liberals) is to explain this as having anything other to do with what is obvious and evident.

“The people could not possibly have made a semi-informed semi-rational decision. The people could not possibly have voted for Brown because they agreed more with his campaign platform”.

Oh no. It is because he is a man (in a state that recently had a woman governor who was the first to give birth while in office). It is because he is good looking (true – so what do we do with other Massachusetts politicians?) It is because of a generalized fear and anger. It is because Coakley ran a weak campaign (which is true – have to give them that). It is because Brown ran a brilliant campaign (which is also true – have to give them that as well). It is because people turn against incumbents in poor economic times. It is because. It is because. It absolutely could not be because Scott Brown said he would work to lower taxes and stop runaway government spending and growth and stop Obamacare. It could not be because of the issues Scott Brown actually ran on. It could not possibly be because even in heavily Democratic Massachusetts the people are concerned about the direction of this nation under President Barack Obama and (this part is also important) Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

It amazes me how supposedly intelligent people can be so dismissive of what is right in front of their eyes.

They can disagree with Brown. They can say “the people of Massachusetts are wrong”. But to say they had no earthly idea what they were doing? That it was a completely uninformed and irrational vote?

Here is the colossal problem with that kind of thinking. So… what about the election of Barack Obama?

Which is why I was careful to say “semi-informed and semi-rational”. The election of Barack Obama does indeed demonstrate that the American electorate is not always motivated by logic and evidence.

And for the president to say the people of Massachusetts were still voting against eight years of George Bush?!? Wow. What breathtaking power he has! It is like some Christians who blame everything on Satan.

Charles Krauthammer again applies his ruthless rationality to the left’s efforts to deny the meaning of Brown’s election.

You would think lefties could discern a proletarian vanguard when they see one [referring to the tea party movement and town halls]. Yet they kept denying the reality of the rising opposition to Obama’s social-democratic agenda when summer turned to fall and Virginia and New Jersey turned Republican in the year’s two gubernatorial elections.

…

Democratic cocooners will tell themselves that Coakley was a terrible candidate who even managed to dis Curt Schilling. True, Brown had Schilling. But Coakley had Obama. When the bloody sock beats the presidential seal — of a man who had them swooning only a year ago — something is going on beyond personality.

That something is substance — political ideas and legislative agendas. Democrats, if they wish, can write off their Massachusetts humiliation to high unemployment, to Coakley, or, the current favorite among sophisticates, to generalized anger. That implies an inchoate, unthinking lashing-out at whoever happens to be in power — even at your liberal betters who are forcing on you an agenda that you can’t even see is in your own interest.

Democrats must so rationalize, otherwise they must take democracy seriously, and ask themselves: If the people really don’t want it, could they possibly have a point?

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Dear God – the people couldn’t possibly disagree with our agenda could they?!?

Posted in Healthcare, Logic and Reason, Politics | No Comments »

The politics of salvation (or) "You are not merely wrong but evil"

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Friedrich von Hayek

A post about overheated rhetoric against “conservatives”. Link to a new post at Gay Patriot about “Why Do Some on Left Demonize Dissent”? A comment to that post by the author of the exceptional essay “Hayekian ignorance as cognitive affront” by Thinking Out Loud.

If one is engaged in the politics of salvation, then a sense of being a member of a cognitive elite, one with clearly greater moral and intellectual understanding is also a natural part of the package. The politics of salvation have a long history, and not a happy one. Hardly surprising, since the cause is so “obviously” so morally urgent, so morally trumping, that no dispute of its fundamental premises can be permitted. Indeed, to do so turns you into an enemy of salvation.

It is, after all, quite noticeable that the adherents of “conspicuous compassion” and “social tolerance” can be very uncompassionate, and very intolerant, towards those of the “wrong” opinions; that the adherents of “the Gospel of Love” can be quite keen on the rhetoric of hate; and that the adherents of “Allah the merciful and compassionate” can be quite merciless. But if one possesses the realm of righteousness up to the boundaries of morality, then the intensity of one’s rejection of those beyond those boundaries displays one’s commitment to righteousness by one’s damning of its enemies. Expressing cathartic hatred becomes a moral act—but not one that is a comfortable conjunction with Hayekian cognitive humility.

Lest I suggest the false impression that the author advocates what some consider “conservatism” – clearly a warning is in store for everybody on all points along the social-political spectrum. Including for Christian conservatives yes?

Hayek’s analysis enjoins a certain causal humility. What its supporters would regard as social realism. Though there are perfectly legitimate debates about what can be done effectively in any instance, Hayek’s analysis is a powerful support to a somewhat limited view of what is possible in public policy. This can sit badly with a strong sense of moral urgency about the ordering of society. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing at Thinking Out Loud (Lorenzo Warby). H/T Gay Patriot.

Posted in Education, Logic and Reason, Rhetoric | No Comments »

Hillbuzz – "Thank you President and Mrs Bush"

Thursday, November 12th, 2009

**I have no photo to post or link of George and Laura Bush visiting the families at Fort Hood – because they did not want press coverage. Think about that.***

First – although I voted for President Bush toward the end of his presidency the relentless attacks on him were beginning to rub off on me. What a stumbling bumbling twit of a president so many thought he was. And no the bank bailout and automobile company bailout just before he left office did not help one bit.

Second – many are beginning to appreciate him far more. Not only because of the contrast with the current president. But because the anti-Bush fog generated by the mainstream media and the cultural-political elite is beginning to wear off.

Before Obama was elected I was also beginning to appreciate Bill Clinton more. Oh yeah the character flaws and scandals and he was not conservative. But remember welfare reform? Remember balanced budgets?

Circulating the blogosphere has been this remarkable post by self-described “gay Hillary guys” at Hillbuzz “Thank you former President George W Bush and former First Lady Laura Bush”:

Well, we told you before how much the current president, Dr. Utopia, made us realize just how wrong we were about Bush.  We shudder to think what Dr. Utopia would have done post-9/11.  He would have not gone there with a bullhorn and struck that right tone.  More likely than not, he would have been his usual fey, apologetic self and waxed professorially about how evil America is and how justified Muslims are for attacking us, with a sidebar on how good the attacks were because they would humble us.

Honestly, we don’t think President Gore would have been much better that day.  The world needed George W. Bush, his bullhorn, and his indominable spirit that day…and we will forever be grateful to this man for that.

As we will always be grateful for what George and Laura Bush did this week, with no media attention, when they very quietly went to Ft. Hood and met personally with the families of the victims of this terrorist attack.

FOR HOURS.

The Bushes went and met privately with these families for HOURS, hugging them, holding them, comforting them.

If there are any of you out there with any connection at all to the Bushes, we implore you to give them our thanks…you tell them that a bunch of gay Hillary guys in Boystown, Chicago were wrong about the Bushes…and are deeply, deeply sorry for any jokes we told about them in the past, any bad thoughts we had about these good, good people.

….

We hope someday to be able to thank George W. and Laura in person for all they’ve done, and continue to do.  They didn’t have to head to Ft. Hood.  That was not their responsibility.

The Obamas should have done that.

But didn’t.

Wouldn’t.

Thank goodness George W. is still on his watch, with wonderful Laura at his side.

We are blessed as a nation to have these two out there…just as we are blessed to have the Clintons on the job, traveling the world doing the good they do.

Read the whole thing at Hillbuzz. H/T Washington Rebel.

For reasons I do not fully understand the Fort Hood shootings – really a terrorist attack – have made me quite angry. Not so much that the attack happened. But (1) that it was allowed to happen despite the 10 kilometer high red flags Major Hasan was sending up at every opportunity why was this man still in the United States military?!? and (2) the breathtaking intellectual cowardice of so many who in a nutshell said “we must not jump to conclusions – but we know darn well what conclusion we must not jump to yes the only conclusion for which there are mountains of cold hard factual evidence”.

I care about people being able to handle the truth. And when people try to prevent me from handling the truth – I do not respond well.

Update (11/13/09): The British press is beginning to get what the American press will not.

(Do browse the comments. Note especially the fellow who blames nearly everything on former president Bush – fair enough he is entitled to that opinion – but including the drowning of New Orleans. Dang – Bush is responsible even for Katrina!?!)

Addendum (11/13/09): I stand by my remarks concerning President Obama – and would be willing to repeat them. But they have been removed because they were distracting.

Posted in Logic and Reason, Media, Politics, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Victor Davis Hanson – America's return to rationality?

Friday, October 23rd, 2009

Victor Hanson has over the last year become one of my favorite commentators. His articles exhibit a strong commitment to logic and reason – wherever that leads. That is precisely why since 2008 I have been deeply concerned for the future sanity and well-being of this nation. Not merely that we elected Barack Obama as president. Hanson explains well how and why that happened. But that our ability to think clearly and speak honestly appears to be in decline.

Let me put it this way. If the Obama Administration were up front and honest about its ideology and agenda – I would still oppose it. If people supported this administration but did so knowing full well and acknowledging openly its agenda and methodology – I would still disagree with them.

But I would do so with vastly more respect.

Witness this administration’s recent Nixonian attempts to marginalize and demonize anyone who questions or challenges it. “Fox is not a news organization”. But MSNBC and CNN are? And yet to their significant credit when the White House attempted to exclude Fox News from interviewing its “corporate pay czar” they said “we refuse to participate unless you include Fox”. Well done.

But there is hope. America is beginning to return to rationality. Victor Hanson begins:

For 30 months the nation has been in the grip of a certain Obama obsession, immune to countervailing facts, unwilling to face reality, and loath to break the spell. But like all trances, the fit is passing, and we the patient are beginning to appreciate how the stupor came upon us, why it lifted, and what its consequences have been.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Hanson concludes his piece with a choice – and a prophecy:

He could imitate Bill Clinton’s 1995 Dick Morris remake. In Obama’s case, that would mean, abroad, cutting out the now laughable apologies for his country, ceasing to court thugs like Ahmadinejad, Chávez, and Putin, keeping some distance from the U.N., and paying closer attention to our allies like Britain and Israel. At home, he could declare victory on his sidetracked agenda and then start over by holding spending in line, curbing the deficit, stopping the lunatic Van Jones–style czar appointments, courting the opposition, and tabling cap-and-trade. I think there is very little chance of any of the above, whatever voters may have thought during the campaign.

Or, instead, Obama could hold the pedal to the floor on the theory that, as a proven ideologue, he must move the country far left before the voters catch on and stop him in his tracks in November 2010. That would mean more of the “gorge the beast” effort to spend and borrow so much that taxes have to soar, and thus redistribution of income will be institutionalized for a generation. He would push liberal proposals no matter how narrow the margin in the Senate. He would keep demonizing Fox News. In Nixonian fashion he might continue to hit the stump, ratcheting up his current “they’re lying” message and energizing his left-wing base by catering to the unions, gays, minorities — and liberal Wall Street special interests.

If he chooses the former, he might well be a more successful version of Bill Clinton given that his appetites are far more in check.

But if, as is likely, he chooses the latter, he will polarize the country in a way not seen since 1968, set back racial relations to the 1960s, do to the reputation of big government what LBJ did from 1964 to 1968, and, in the manner of what Jimmy Carter wrought, turn voters off liberal foreign policy for a generation.

I am not optimistic about President Obama. But I am cautiously hopeful about the American electorate.

Posted in Logic and Reason, Media, Politics, Society and Culture | No Comments »

Metropolitan Opera performance of "Tosca" and blasphemy – confirmation please

Friday, September 18th, 2009

H/T Opinionated Catholic.

I discovered (that is came to appreciate and enjoy deeply) opera about 1 1/2 years ago. My daughter and I attended a simulcast of the Metropolitan Opera’s performance of “La Cenerentola” by Rossini last year and we both loved it. She could not get enough of the famous sextet “Siete voi?” and could not wait for me to borrow a recording and play it repeatedly in the car. We call it the “oompa loompa” song. It is the “oh poop” moment of shocking revelation in the opera.

Opinionated Catholic points us to What Does the Prayer Really Say? which in turn cites Patrick Madrid. Who heard on the radio that the Met has added to “Tosca” a scene where Baron Scarpia simulates a sexual act with a statue of the Virgin Mary (aka Our most glorious and blessed lady Theotokos aka Mary mother of Jesus).

I am willing to believe this is true. And if so would represent a deeply disturbing and offensive act on the part of the producer(s) of this performance. Probably – because what is the point of this alleged addition? Blasphemy? Or to show what a scumsucking carrion eater the Baron is? (Although one would still wish they had chosen a different way to get the point across.)

But increasingly I want to track this back for confirmation. Do we have specific information that comes from the Met that yes this is something they will do? Where did this come from?

And I may still jolly well attend. I mean heck we are talking about “Tosca”. By Puccini.

Update: Either my customary dyslexia kicked in or Patrick Madrid quickly added a specific reference to the Laura Ingraham show talking with Raymond Arroyo. My guess is I somehow brilliantly missed that. Need to check that out.

Second update: Well blankety bleep. I gotta pay money to listen to Laura Ingraham?!? No way. Searching for “Patrick Arroyo Tosca” yields nothing concrete. Only references to him but not what this fellow has to say himself. Houston – we have a dead end.

Posted in Fun and Geek Stuff, Logic and Reason, Opera | No Comments »

Those who "sleep" (or) Moebius syllogism?

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

A turning point(?) in my theological understanding of death was when during Introduction to Christian Mission my fine professor Isam Ballenger rather strongly state “the Christian faith does not teach the immortality of the soul – it teaches resurrection of the body” and during the same class “when we die we do not move in space so much as we move in time”.

What did he mean by this? Probably that we do not move (spatially) to some place commonly called heaven so much as we move temporally to the eschaton and the resurrection of the dead. But what happens to the “soul” (using that term imprecisely for now) between the moment of death and the resurrection? Does it go (spatially) to heaven? I submit this is how Christians normally think and talk.

“Where is grandpa?”

“Grandpa is in heaven with Jesus”.

The Bible does and does not seem to address the issue that way. Paul writes:

21 For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24 but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body. (Philippians 1 – NIV)

Death means to be with Christ. (Which does not necessarily resolve the question of spatially or temporally?)

Paul also frequently uses the language of sleep to describe those who have died (at least those who have died in union with Christ). Indeed in the context of describing the resurrection he writes:

Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed– 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.  (1 Corinthians 15 – NIV)

For reasons I cannot entirely explain I spend a lot of time thinking about this issue. Perhaps because I make such a big deal about the physical dimensions of salvation. That is our bodies will be changed – not thrown away forever. Salvation is not escape from material reality – it is the redemption of spiritual and material reality. This issue also touches on very basic issues of theological anthropology – who are we? and what does it mean to be human and created in the image and likeness of God? Of course as John Zizioulas demonstrates in his book Being as Communion there is a sense in which our understanding of anthropology may determine our ecclesiology and soteriology. (But then I am not a theologian and may be completely misunderstanding Zizioulas.)

Of course there is a sense in which I want to know “where is my grandfather? where is my dad?”

And Christians frequently make rather glib statements about those who have died that are intended to comfort. “Grandpa’s looking down at us and smiling”. “I’m sure your mom is celebrating in heaven with us”. “Our baby is now one of God’s angels in heaven”. “God needed your dad in heaven”. But some of these statements while arguably comforting – the last one is anything but makes no sense and turns God into a cosmic jerk – are thoughtless and theologically nonsense. I do not have much patience with people saying things that are meant to comfort or encourage – but have no legitimacy or grounding in the teachings of the Christian faith.

Truth works best. And it works best because it is true. (That right there has become one of my strongest convictions.)

Without addressing this issue thoroughly or properly there are some who believe in “soul sleep”. When a person dies their “soul” does not travel off to heaven (wherever that is). Rather the person sleeps until the resurrection. I remember when we spent the night in Birmingham Alabama and it seemed there was a convention in town. Turns out it was a major gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses. There was very well done (balanced and not critical) article in the paper the next day about this. And the article mentioned several distinctive points of their theology. Please do not be alarmed but I thought “dang – I agree with half of these”. And one of the points was “soul sleep”.

But we also have the clear teaching of the Bible that those who have died are somehow “with God”. So if they are asleep – how can they be “with God”?

I wonder if Protestant Christians have really thought through the significance of the story of the Transfiguration. I will use the account from Luke because of the extra remarkable detail it contains:

About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, 31 appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. (Luke 9)

Has the resurrection happened yet? No. Has the Passion happened yet? No. (This is important because we have two Old Testament figures with Christ. Christ has not yet descended into Hades. Of course how salvation touches on pre-Christ persons has always been a murky issue. And it does not help that Elijah never really died. And it is unclear if Moses died.) And yet here are these two people speaking with Jesus. They are somehow present. And – do notice this part! – they may be aware of what is happening in the world.

So if those who have died are “asleep” how can they also be present and aware of what is happening in the world? (And again – that this is Moses and Elijah complicates the question.)

What if those who die fall asleep – and are translated in time to the resurrection of the dead? Whereupon they live in eternity? Where time does not work the same way?

Our present cannot see those in eternity. But those in eternity can see us. (We are present to them but they are not present to us.) Sort of like a one way mirror. But instead of glass what separates us is time/eternity.

If x goes to y goes to z which can see x but x cannot see z… Presence and perception which only moves in one direction and never backwards. I tried to picture this in my mind and the closest analogy I came up with is a Moebius strip. Is this a Moebius syllogism?

Yeah I know. Pretty flimsy. Just thinking out loud.

Posted in Hebrew Bible, Logic and Reason, New Testament, Theology, Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Excuses that cannot bear the weight of facts

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

(This is the busiest time of the year for me. Might not be posting an whole lot until middle of October. Will try to put up at least one item per week.)

It is always someone else’s fault.

“This woman that you put here with me”.

“The snake tricked me and I ate”.

“This Hebrew slave”.

“I inherited a mess that George Bush created”.

A-yup. Always someone else’s fault. Could not possibly be their own.

I remember how often on Baptistlife.Com more politically conservative participants were scolded for blaming Republican or conservative losses on the “liberal media”. (Which was interesting given that while true to some extent they were far more ready to blame Republicans and conservatives for their own losses. But let us set that aside for the moment.) “Our guy won. Your guy lost. Deal with it. And stop making cheap excuses”. Got it.

So… how are things going for President Obama so far?

And now we hear about Faux News (instead of Fox News – oh the shock and horror of a single news channel that leans Right oh gosh oh my). About what George Bush left us. About the media being controlled by corporate interests (which is partly true but highly ironic given the leanings of big corporations). About conservative talk radio. About George Bush. About special interest groups trying to influence public policy (which is again partly true and again highly ironic). About George Bush. And so on.

John Pitney in his recent piece at National Review Online neatly torpedoes pretty much every cheap excuse that liberals and Democrats offer with hefty doses not even of argument but of hard cold facts. Democratic and politically liberal interests enjoy an advantage on nearly every front. Congressional majorities. Congressional rules and procedures designed largely to shut out and shut down the opposition. Party unity. Friendly media. Internet presence and promotion. Money – including from big corporations and powerful interest groups. Money – from individuals. Foundations and universities.

My favorite line of devastating logic is this:

More significant, polls show that most Americans have a low opinion of El Rushbo. So the “Limbaugh Did It” theory works only if he can mesmerize millions who dislike him and/or don’t even listen to him.

But if one sets aside the cheap excuses this the truth may look more like this:

With such a commanding position, President Obama and his party should be having an easy time. Indeed, they may still ram a bill through Congress. But the battle has been tougher than they expected. There are a couple of possible explanations. First, despite his talents as a candidate, President Obama is showing weakness and inexperience as a chief executive. Second, the health plan is so bad that even a mighty political operation has trouble pushing it across the finish line.

Read the whole thing at National Review Online.

Posted in Healthcare, Issues, Logic and Reason, Media, Politics, Propaganda | No Comments »

Charles Krauthammer – we *do* have a healthcare reform plan (you just don't like it)

Friday, August 7th, 2009

To me the healthcare reform debate is not just or even primarily about healthcare reform. It is about logic and rhetoric – about how people think and speak. I might completely disagree with your views on healthcare reform. But can you defend those views honestly? logically? I can respect that.

There are least two mantras one hears from the Obama Administration concerning opposition to his reform proposals.

  1. Those who disagree with him do so from ill motives (they are greedy or cruel or do not care about people and so on). In fact the president invokes this nearly every time anyone disagrees with him about anything.
  2. Those who criticize or oppose the healthcare reform plan currently on the table (a) just want to keep the status quo and (b) have no solution of their own.

Let me focus on the second one. It often goes hand-in-hand with the “well – we have to do something” argument which truly is a poor argument.

Driver: “My car won’t start”.

Mechanic: “It needs a new transmission”.

Driver: “I don’t know what the answer is – but I know that isn’t it”.

Mechanic: “Well – we have to do something“.

Actually – no. It is entirely acceptable and reasonable to say “I might not know exactly what the answer is – but I know what you propose is not it and will just make things worse”. Although I understand and sympathize with the common “oh yeah? do you have a better idea? then we will do this my way” argument  there are times when the only(?) idea on the table is obviously problematic.

Except in this case it is not the only idea on the table at all.

Charles Krauthammer reminds us – for the umpteenth time – that conservative and Republican and whatever critics of Obama-Pelosi-Reidcare have for a long time on numerous occasions proposed reforms. It is not that they (we?) want to keep the status quo and have no alternatives to propose. We do have a healthcare reform plan. The problem is that the president and Nancy Pelosi and the Decmoratic leadership do not like it.

In a nutshell this is what Krauthammer (along with many others) proposes:

  1. Tort reform. One of the biggest wastes of money in healthcare is extra and unnecessary tests just for the purpose of avoiding possible malpractice suits. And malpractice insurance is a significant chunk of what healthcare costs.
  2. Get rid of the link between health insurance and employment. More specifically (a) give to employees what their employer spends on health insurance and (b) tax that amount.
  3. Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.

I do not necessarily agree with all the details Krauthammer adds to #1. And frankly I do not like the idea of paying taxes on the total amount I-plus-my-employer spend on health or any other insurance – although I recognize that it makes a great deal of sense and is just plain fair. Finally I do not entirely understand #3 – I like the idea of competition and shopping around but surely a good federalist would want to say something about not all states being the same.

But here is the point:

But that’s a political problem of Obama’s own making. As is the Democratic Party’s indebtedness to the trial lawyers, which has taken malpractice reform totally off the table. But that doesn’t change the logic of my proposal. Go the Reagan-Bradley route. Offer sensible, simple, yet radical reform that strips away inefficiencies from the existing system before adding Obamacare’s new ones — arbitrary, politically driven, structural inventions whose consequence is certain financial ruin. [emphasis added]

Read the whole thing at Townhall. And no you do not have to register.

Posted in Healthcare, Logic and Reason, Media, Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries