What I'm Giving Up For Lent

'Tis the season of Lent, when Christians who observe it give up something normal to their lives, patterned after Christ's 40 days in the wilderness without food. This is the 40 day period prior to the Resurrection (Easter). I've recently been reminded of Lent from the many blogs and websites I visit. Many discussions are going on about Lent, and many tell what they are giving up.

This year, I've chosen to give up the same thing for Lent as I do every year. In fact, it's become a tradition for me. I am so disciplined in giving up this thing that it has become second nature to me, even to the point that I'm not even conscious about giving it up!

This year, as every year, I'm giving up the observance of Lent.

Women: Keep Silent So You May Speak In Church

This interesting (and very short) article from Peter Leithart, via the Foolish Sage at Sacred Journey, puts Paul's instruction to women to keep silence in the churches in a new historical light for me.

Confessions of A Closet Blogger (Part 2)

Thanks to Gene for the comment on part 1. I fully intend to keep on blogging, but it's just a matter of how many people I feel comfortable letting know about it. It's funny that I said what I did just this week in part 1, because today after church, I went to speak to the pastor about something, and one of my good friends that knows about my blog was talking to him. They were talking something about translating things from Old English into today's English because many of the words no longer have the same meaning. I'm not sure what type of materials they were talking about, but I added my own smart comment and said that was another reason to oppose post-modernism today. They laughed and my pastor make a crack about making the words mean whatever the user wants, then my friend laughed and said, "yeah, like on your blog!" I don't think the pastor caught the comment, and turned to me and asked my what I wanted to say. Close call. Should I care? Okay, I'm self-conscious.

One reason I enjoy the blogging world so much is that it brings the idea of community to individuals that would have no other outlet. With respect to the philosophical idea of the One and the Many, I'm a believer that (and this is my view of the Holy Trinity) neither the One or the Many are more important than the other. Community isn't more important than the individuals that make up a community, and vice versa. Both are equally necessary. Communism is an example of a political system that emphasises the One to an unhealthy extreme, and reduces the individual to insignificant. Radical Anarchy emphasizes the individual to the exclusion of the community, so it's every man for himself, and chaos is a result. This goes for One and Many, community and individual, parts to the whole, etc.

In my church circles, I feel like I have no room for theological growth. Most people seem to be content with the limited theological lunch in a box we've been fed for that mid-day hour. Our doctrine is limited to a second-hand pseudo-Reformed type of theology. Our main sources aren't the Reformers themselves, nor necessarily the Puritans themselves, but popular distillers of this theology. We're heavily influenced by John MacArthur, RC Sproul, John Piper and the like. Slightly deeper theology comes from maybe DA Carson, JI Packer, or traditional sources like JC Ryle, Arthur Pink and a tad from some Puritans, and Martin Luther and John Calvin are sometimes quoted.

Most of our church growth (I joined 11 years ago with 60 people, now we're at almost 500) has come not from conversions due to our ministry, but from sheep transfer from other churches. We get soooo many people come in through our doors that say things like, "we've been to a different church every Sunday for years and you're the first church that uses the bible." Or, bad teaching or the adoption of heresy or some other ill have been introduced into their church and they can't take it any longer. One church up the road shut its doors in '99 because the pastor took his family, armed and with canned food, to live in a bunker in Montana awaiting the collapse of our government due to Y2K. We gained a couple of families there. As a result (and our pastor admits this) it's like having to train people in some of the most basic beliefs of Christianity all the time. So much time is spent bottle feeding and changing theological diapers in our growing sheep nursery, that it's hard for adults to grow. Many people don't want to talk about things beyond the basics, so I feel the need to turn elsewhere.

That's why I love the internet community so much. Theology has for so long been in the hands of the elite (the church), that the common man (the individuals) have had no say in developing the Christian belief system. But individuals are just as important as the community, so I've learned and been stretched so much by what I've read from other individuals - including many non-Christians - things that I never could have considered if I were content to live in the box that the theological ruling class has created for us to live in. The elites have been in control for so long, they've effectively eliminated the possibility for individuals with the hunger to grow to do so. But I feel the internet, as digital technology, has changed this. I'm thankful to God for this.

The Elite, The Humble, and Two Types of Government

Two recent posts I made (here and here) regarding authoritarian elites and the governing of others looked at some points Vache Folle made about evil and stupid people. Now, he wrangles with a way to disqualify evil and stupid people from serving in high office (here). People can be combinations of good or evil, and clever or stupid, resulting in four possible combinations. By eliminating those who are both evil and stupid, a quarter of the pool is cut off, so the results will be greatly enhanced.

James Leroy Wilson adds his ideas (here) of why he thinks authoritarian elites still believe in big government, despite the obvious. It's a matter of having the "right people" in control, even if it means risking losing control to your opponents, because they know they'll regain control at some point in the future.

Now the ruling elites believe they are above everybody else because of their ideas. They are arrogant. But humble people who might serve in some type of government have other people believe in them because of the observable deeds and character they have shown over a long period of time. These two types of leaders are quite opposites of each other.

It is interesting that Christian leadership in the bible is defined in terms of qualitative character traits of any prospective leader. Morally corrupt and even morally ordinary people are disqualified. How their lives have been viewed by others, and how they match up against God's standards, are the criteria for leadership. Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner recently did a series of in-depth posts (here, here, here and here) on leadership qualifications and how to avoid the wrong people. The Biblical form of leadership is very non-authoritarian, as Jesus makes plain in Matthew 20:25-28. But, as Wilson points out, this doesn't stop Christian conservatives from wanting to control others through the civil government.

This brings me to two types of government. One type of government is the type that most of human history is familiar with. This is the type that Jesus rebukes in the above passage, the government of overlording of other people. The other type, which I have written about extensively on this blog, is one which is limited in its scope to the punishment of evildoers for only a limited number of crimes, and in terms of punishments that God has already laid down. The Gentile form of government, which we have adopted in this country, is one where the elites dictate what can go in our toothpaste, whether one can smoke on another's property even with his permission, how parents can discipline their children, and every other aspect of life imaginable. One is a government of freedom, the other of slavery. In communist countries, the only way out from the poverty caused by government overlording is to become a member of the party, and to lord it over others. It is similar in our country.

Confessions of A Closet Blogger (Part 1)

I've been blogging for nearly two years now. Anybody with access to the web has access to my blog sites. But there's a sense in which I'm a closet blogger. From The Pew is essentially about theology, but I haven't told many of my friends about it. My pastor doesn't know, nor does more than three people in my church of about 500. My wife is a regular reader, and my two best friends at church occasionally drop in, and a few former members. My dad is aware, but isn't a regular. Outside of that, several I know also look at my baseball blog.

I think the reason is that the basic premise of my blog is that I'm questioning the status quo of religion - and the circles of which I'm most familiar are my own. For some reason there's a fear I have of making waves, but also there's an excitement about it. I've struggled with letting my pastor know, for example, because quite frankly much of what I write might be at odds with my own church's beliefs. My theology has developed in part apart from my church's formal means. But then my pastor knows I'm not a yes man because I've had many, many discussions with him about doctrines and church policies that I've either questioned or rejected. He has yet to start formal discipline against me because he is generally a graceful man who sees my wranglings with things that aren't really essentials to the faith. My wife and my two friends are people who have no problem with me questioning long-held beliefs; they are that way too.

I know there are the doctrinal purists and authoritarians and behavioral overlords who would have a coronary at knowing somebody like me was blogging about the things that I do. I would be interpreted as a heretic and as somebody who was divisive and schismatic. So much for them. I'm torn between letting somebody know in a casual conversation about my blog, or keeping it my business only. Should I be afraid, or no?

The Absolute Necessity of Centralized Government

Two posts ago I quoted Vache Folle's take on authoritarian elitism as proposed by George F. Will. To quote VF again:

I read Will’s “Statecraft as Soulcraft”, and I resent that I will never get back the hours I spent doing so. The basic premise is that most folks are evil and stupid and must be ruled over strictly by the small minority of worthy elites. These elites should, as part of statecraft, cultivate in their subjects desirable ways of thinking and moral values, the “soulcraft” part. This requires a pretty substantial apparatus for propagandizing and surveillance of the riff raff.

First, I agree with the authoritarians that people are evil and stupid; this is self-evident. My life is a testimony, as is the life of everybody around me. If people weren't evil and stupid, they wouldn't need anybody to govern them. Anybody, then, who would think that people are evil and stupid, and in need of governing by others who are not evil and stupid, are evil and stupid for thinking of such a thing, if in fact people aren't evil and stupid. Their evil stupidity proves that people are evil and stupid.

But, like my previous quote of VF, any human governors of evil and stupid people will be evil and stupid themselves. To think themselves as better than evil and stupid people, that is, without being evil and stupid, will only lend themselves to doing things that are far more evil and stupid than the evil and stupid people that they govern, because they would refuse to believe their own actions as evil and stupid. If evil and stupid people are left to govern themselves, they can mostly only affect themselves and those around them. If I back over my neighbor's garbage can on my way to work, then cuss him out because I am wrong and don't want to admit it, nobody in Jackass, South Dakota will be affected. But when people in government are evil and stupid, their actions affect everybody. They are far more damaging to society than common evil and stupid people. If a president signs into law something that allows the government to search everybody at an airport, millions of people's lives are screwed, businesses are destroyed, well, you get the idea.

But allowing evil and stupid people to govern themselves isn't a bed of roses either. Six billion people are bound to have conflicts. Every day. So, if you're honest, you'll admit that they really do need to be governed by somebody else. These governors, then, would have to be in control of everybody else without anybody slipping through the cracks. This government would have to be totalist. And these governors would have to act in tandem so as to not set up different rules in different places, and to make sure rules wouldn't conflict with each other. This government would also have to be centralized for this to occur. But how can the complexity of interaction of all our lives be governed by mere men? These governors would need to know each one of us to know how we best and least interact with others. They would need to know how any law they pass would affect everybody both now and in the entirety of the future before they even passed those laws, and they would have to know how all their laws would interact with each other all through time. They would also have to know everything about every problem before it occurs in order to know how and when to pass all these laws.

In short, governors would have to be all-knowing, all-powerful and everywhere at the same time to make sure laws would work, and also to make sure that their laws would be followed. But, you know something? Only God fits this description. He knew all about the entire future of the world when He wrote His laws, and only He can carry all this out.

In conclusion, evil and stupid people must be governed and that government must be centralized. But the only way this can happen is if God is the governor and His laws are the ones used. A government of men by men's laws is impossible. The bible lays out self-government according to God's law as the way we should live. This is why I'm a Christian Libertarian.

Centralized Government: A Necessity?

On the heels of my last post about Vache Folle's blog, I'd like to continue the line of thinking and explore the idea of centralized government. Next... on From The Pew.

Authoritarian Wankers

Nevermind hitting the nail on the head, Vache Folle uses a pneumatic hammer in nailing this one. His latest post is about George F. Will, but this quote covers the bases:

The authoritarian elitist position has at its core a paradox. If humans are naturally evil and stupid, then their human rulers will probably be evil and stupid as well. Accordingly, any government constructed by humans will inevitably be the fruit of evildoing and stupidity and not a check thereon.

How true this is. Too bad this mindset is alive and well in the church as well.

I like George F. Will's writing... when he writes about baseball.

On Catholics Converting to Protestantism

I have a Reformed, Calvinist, Protestant background, and still reside within those circles. There are many former Roman Catholics there. And this brings me to how those Catholics became Protestants. Much in the Protestant belief system holds that Roman Catholicism is actually not a part of true Christianity, and it holds to at least a distorted gospel, if not a false one. Many therefore view Catholics as not true Christians, and they're all still dead in their sins.

In looking at these former Catholics turned Protestant, a pattern is evident. They aren't former Catholic true believers who have changed in their view of theology toward Protestantism. They are former unbelievers, who just happened to live their lives in a Catholic context. They were dead sinners with a hollow shell of religion that happened to be Catholicism. (Great numbers of Protestants fit this same description, I might add.) Their conversion wasn't to Protestantism, per se, but to life in Christ. It just so happens that those who had a great effect on their salvation were Protestants. Protestants who teach that Catholics aren't true believers. So these former Catholics now view themselves as having been unbelievers, not because they were simply unbelievers, but because they were Catholic. They explain their former sin in terms of what they now view as the false religion of Catholicism.

They are now zealous in trying to convert their family and friends to Christ, not realizing that some of them might be true believers who don't really have a reason to convert to Protestantism. Not sure if I got my point across here, but maybe I'll have a better mental day in the future.

No Thanks, We're Catholic

During my early days as a Christian, I was often engaged with my church in door-to-door activities, whether the goal was evangelism or invitations to special Easter or Christmas programs where the gospel would be preached. We listened to many different responses from those who opened their doors. The most common response - although not at all the majority of responses - was this one: "No thanks, we're Catholic," and the door was closed.

Being good Protestants, we believed Catholics were hard-hearted toward the "true" gospel, believed in salvation by works, and were so mired in their religion of tradition and saint worship that they were as lost as lost could be. We took the closing of the door after their four word reply as yet another rejection of the gospel in their hard-heartedness. If these people could only get a glimpse of Judgment Day.

Over the years, I've greatly softened my view of the spiritual condition of those outside the Reformed, Protestant, Calvinistic tradition. I still hold to many of the distinctives - as a matter of doctrine - but no longer view salvation as being dependent on an intellectual, gnostic type of affirmation of these distinctives. I've come across many believers from other traditions who I think love the Lord just as much as I think that I do, and am now ashamed at my anathematizing of them.

Maybe those four words were just their efficient way of politely saying, "Oh, brother, here come those nutty evangelicals again."

Fine February Days

We've had a few unseasonably warm days here in mid-February this week. Just when all the hyper-spastic talk of global warming during the record cold, freezing weather we've had (along with the record energy bills) gave us enough to laugh at, we've had some warm weather come along. Today was t-shirt and shorts weather, as the last few days have reached the 70's.

Our five year old had a field day, quite literally, as the lady bugs were out in full force in the back yard. He filled his bug box with grass and the little orange creatures. The jungle grew about 6" this week, thanks to rain earlier in the week, after I mowed about a third of the back yard. The deepest is about 18". Last year at this time, it was about 6 feet deep because of all the rain. We've not only had a freezing winter, we've had little rain.

We did a small, belated family celebration of our youngest's second birthday. Last month's flu episodes were the party poopers. Our niece had a special thing going, so my folks got to babysit our nephew, but they were already invited over, so they brought him along. It was fun to see all the boys play outside and do what boys could do in a back yard. No girls allowed today. Except for grandma.

When Gangs Work Better Than the Police

A number of years ago, some friends of mine from the Los Angeles area moved into a neighborhood just south of LA proper. Not unlike many areas, it was a mix of good neighborhoods and bad. Bad neighborhoods would have new groups of housing built on undeveloped pieces of land (called "infill" projects) and wealthier people would move in. After they moved in they found out that their neighborhood was part of a certain street gang's turf. For a small "fee" the gang would protect their neighborhood from crime. Those in the neighborhood took the gang up on their offer. And it worked.

Much of a street gang's criminal activity would be aimed at other rival street gangs themselves and not at ordinary citizens living within their turf. Drugs would be a source of income as well. Ordinary criminals knew where gangs' turf boundaries were, and avoided them due to fear. They preferred working in normal neighborhoods merely patrolled by local police, because they knew police were a relatively ineffective bureaucracy. Gangs were far more efficient and effective at curbing ordinary crime within their own neighborhoods. And since the gangs took ownership of their own neighborhoods, they generally left the ordinary people alone to live their lives.

So the small fee took care of far more than any police presence, and they lived without burglary or auto theft. (See also this similar post at Blessed Economist)

Jesus Stuck In My Molars - Update

My original post, "Jesus Stuck in My Molars", received a bit more attention in the form of comments and feedback than I'm used to. Other bloggers commented on it, and one of their posts received a comment again. Several agreed with me, or could sympathize in some way, while one comment at Northern Gleaner had a concern that I was making secular humor out of the sacred. While I would disagree with this assessment, I can understand how this conclusion is reached.

First of all, in my mind I'm not ridiculing something sacred - the Lord's Supper. I am taking a lighthearted look at man's feeble interpretation of it. First, the facts of life. Most churches I've attended have had crackers so small - and they're mostly dry - that mixed with my saliva they become glue balls that quite literally get stuck in my molars. I don't have a sensation of anything passing down my throat as if I'm eating something. And quite literally, the small thimble of juice won't wash it down. These are factual observances. If we are supposed to be eating and drinking in the observation of this sacrament (as ordained by Jesus Himself), then why are so many of the usual sensations of eating and drinking missing in the way we carry it out? Food has taste, texture, aftertaste, reaction with the stomach and bowels, all for a reason. God intended it that way. He created it that way to give us yet one more way we can realize Him in this life, to notice, to worship and to give thanksgiving.

Now, if we're supposed to love and worship the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength - in short our whole being - does this include the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell? We modern evangelicals have no problem with worship with sight (reading the Scriptures with our eyes) or hearing (listening to the Word or to preaching or teaching), but the other three have fallen off the delivery truck. Many historical Christian traditions have made much of all five in worship. Incense was commanded of God in Israel's worship, as was roasting animal meat as a soothing aroma in God's nostrils. In churches that use real wine in communion, often the smell of wine will fill the building and can be an aid to worship. Can we eat food in worship like we can view creation in worship? If not, why not? Much of our thinking has been affected by pietism, fundamentalism and be-goodism to the extent that using incense, wine, real objects that can be touched, etc, is viewed inherently as idolatry. We deem ourselves as more righteous than God's creation, as if we are above it.

Also, there are many different interpretations of communion in history, with relation to the presence of Christ in the elements, as this post at McIntyre's Tavern quite ably shows. If Christ is indeed present in the elements, as Gene Redlin argues in his blog, then why don't/can't we hold that presence in high regard with respect to all our senses from which we worship? I've read Gene enough to know that he's often slighted by Christian traditionalists for his "way-out" Charismatic views on things, and I just can't shake off his description of communion as being a much fuller representation of Christ, His church and our partaking than most of these traditions hold in practice. Why, if we as a body partake in communion, together, as many of the more traditional segments of Christianity hold, do they insist that we do so in quiet, for such a short time span and without interaction with the other members in the body? It's almost if we're left alone to individually commune with God, with the only visible sense of community being the simultaneous act of others communing with God individually. This seems to reflect more of the radical individualism label than the view that Gene holds that is often targeted with the same label. This reductionism lends to a more symbolic view, and reality is sacrificed on the altar of "true spirituality." Should there really be more to it?

A New Baseball Season

Jesus created baseball. I know this because my bible tells me so. Okay, this is true in a sense, but I know I can enjoy baseball because it is part of God's creation. Since I'm writing this after midnight, I can say that it is later today that pitchers and catchers report to Spring Training. For the Giants, that is. The A's report on Friday.

One reason that I like baseball (and I've only recently discovered this) is that is has a good parallel with the nature of God Himself in the Trinity. God is both One God, and three persons at the same time, with neither expression being more important than the other. Baseball, more than other team sports, is nearly as well defined in the same way. One team, and nine individual persons at the same time. Individual performance (and the statistics that explain it to us) are just as important as the team as a whole; neither is dominant. The whole is made up of its parts and the parts make up the whole.

Here's to an enjoyable season. As a Giants fan, I've got a few extra perks built in for 2007. We have the All-Star Game, and Barry Bonds is poised to break Aaron's all time home run record. Now if they can only win a World Series...

Another Blog I Visit

The last time I listed blogs I visit, Bruce "The Hungarian Luddite" had dropped off my radar screen, so I didn't include him. He reappeared at another domain name and now his blog is called, "The World According to Bruce." He's an ordained minister who has pastored many congregations, attended zillions of different churches, has a zeal for righteousness, knows a bit about suffering, and whether I agree with him or not, is a good read and very thought provoking. He's iron that sharpens my iron.

[Update 12/27/08: Bruce has changed his website and can now be found here.]

Jesus Stuck in My Molars

We took communion today. If I have a few complaints about it (hopefully not complaints against God here), I could list one as our calling it the Lord's "Supper." The wafers/crackers/whatever you call them are so small that they get stuck in my molars. Then, with only a thimble of liquid to wash it down, it never gets washed down. Suppers have lots of food. So do "Tables" as in the Lord's Table. "Communion" indicates interaction with another/others, and this would seem to be of a more prolonged nature. The wafer takes a few seconds to chew, and the thimble is gone in less time than that. Then we go home. I'm not an expert in the term "Eucharist" so I can't speak to that word.

If the Supper was a continuation of the Passover feast, and the Corinthian church used enough bread and wine for some to be filled and others to be drunk, how did we end up with such small portions? And if it is a "communion," just who are we communing with? Are we, as separate individuals, simultaneously communing with God? Or are we supposed to be communing with each other to some degree while we feast, and is this an aspect of us collectively communing with God? I've heard some people refer to our tradition sarcastically as "the Lord's snack" because of the small portions and short eating time, but I've had many snacks that were bigger and longer than that. You can't eat just one, after all, just like the commercial says. Our rite even belittles the term "snack."

Okay, my personal preference would be to have a meal with all in attendance, which includes larger portions of bread and wine, but personal preferences aside, I'm wondering if this wouldn't give us a better sense of Jesus and what He did. I'm going to lay my heart open here and be transparent. The wafer followed by the thimble leads me to ask, "this is Jesus?" Shouldn't we make better use of our senses? Shouldn't Jesus' body be something we can savor, feel, contemplate, agonize over? Shouldn't His blood have more substance? I think we can do a better job than this...for Christ's sake.

Reformed Gnostics

I'm convinced that far too much is made of the doctrine of "justification by faith alone" in our Reformed churches. I'm not disagreeing with the doctrine, just think it's misplaced. Now by "Reformed" I am including not only Reformed churches, but also churches that hold to Reformed soteriology, such as dispensationalists who hold to the five points of Calvinism, Reformed Baptist lite, and sovereign grace Baptists who also hold to the five points. So much is made of it, that many view this doctrine as central to both salvation and the New Testament itself.

I've heard the following statements from the pulpit: "The doctrine of justification by faith alone is the central message of the New Testament", and "Calvinism is the bible." But justification by faith alone is mentioned in the bible, even if you include references, only a handful of times. And what does Calvinism say about digital recording technology, art, astronomy or farming? I'm persuaded that the Lordship of Christ is the central message of the NT. Also, in my judgment, the knowledge of this doctrine is at least as important as being justified by faith in the first place. So it is preached and taught ad infinitum.

Historically, it is merely the central argument between the Protestant reformers and the Roman Catholic church with regard to the doctrine of salvation. Since our culture today isn't ruled by the medieval Catholic church, I'm convinced that our message falls on deaf ears because our culture doesn't know what we're talking about. Then we view this as our culture rejecting the gospel. Other Christians from traditions other than Reformed Calvinistic ones, who may be completely justified in God's sight, but who don't understand their own justification the same way we do, are then held with suspicion.

Because the knowledge of the doctrine of justification by faith alone is given so much importance, I think it has taken on a gnostic form. We have faith, not so much in Christ, but in our knowledge of this doctrine. But since faith without works is dead, we have worked it out so that our works consist of being able to parrot this doctrine to others. Showing off our knowledge is works enough for the kingdom, and we go on our merry, blissful way.

New Blogger Forced On Me

Okay, I held out as long as I could. I avoided the new Blogger which is specifically attached to a Google account. Prompts, choices and "aw, c'mon" have been ignored, bypassed and run around. Until tonight. It gave me no choice. I had to accept terms of agreement even to log on. I tried an old trick, in which I "logged on" in the comment section of another Blogger account so that when logging into Blogger from an additional internet window, I bypassed the login procedure to directly to my posting dashboard. Even this was not allowed. I was trapped.

So, now I'm on the new Blogger against my will. But I'm not complaining too loudly here. I just was too lazy to spend two seconds longer than usual to do the task. It screws up the works of some third party software I use through my site, but I know the remedy, and it'll probably take as long to fix that as it is in writing this post.

Now I can add labels to my posts. I wonder if that can be done retroactively, so I can catalogue all of my posts under labels to make it easier for my fans to love me and my similar posts. Let's just see how the new Blogger works. It might be easier, as they claim, but it always takes up-front labor on my part. Now to dive in...

Dr. Lenny Goes to Vegas - or Should Have

Dr. Lenny at The Zone made an unbelievable - and eerily close - prediction of the Superbowl. Here it is.

Giving the Finger to Boston

Commentary

A popular cartoon character has caused mass hysteria in the city of Boston. Public officials are angered to the point of insanity. Or maybe past that point. Two regular dudes, named Bill and Ted (or are they Gomer and Goober?) are accused of being mass terrorists. The public officials are screaming for "restitution" for all the money it is going to cost to cover their own decision to be major spazzes. They are indignant that some people just don't have the obvious sensitivity to life here in the "post-911 world." Members of the public are outraged, too.

Is anybody getting the obvious here, or is everybody a victim of mass brainwashing? Okay, the advertising campaign was on the "extreme" side, and maybe they violated some trespassing laws. But does anybody really believe that the advertisers came anything close to a campaign of terrorism? How could anybody be so fanatically hyper-freakoutish to paralyze a city due to their own fear of, well, nothing? Yes, we live in a post-911 world, but what these public officials don't quite get is that they're the ones who have created it. Fearmongering, panic stricken Chicken Little's are what they are. They've created the panic by scaring the living hell out of America for every little thing out of the ordinary. They're the ones yelling "FIRE!" in the crowded theater because somebody is holding a candle.

"The wicked flee when no one is pursuing," Proverbs 28:1

The Fall Results In The Power State

When Adam was created by God and placed in the Garden of Eden, his task was to rule over the earth (i.e. dominion) according to God's rules. But man rebelled against God, and in doing so became his own god, and in his sin he has desired to rule over other men ever since. Since God rules over His creatures, any rebellion against God usurps God's authority, therefore man must rule over God's creatures in God's place.

Mark Rushdoony, in "Faith for All of Life" magazine (no link), writes in an article entitled "Don't Pray for the Peace of Babylon" the following:

Man's quest of autonomy, or self-rule by his own truth and word rather than that of God, tends to result in one of two manifestations. The individual may become anarchistic, seeking his "own rules" and his "own thing." The individual autonomous man, however, is either irrelevant or a nuisance to collective man, and so humanism's autonomy has always tended toward statism. The real autonomy is thus of the state, not individuals, which illustrates the Biblical teaching that man's rebellion against God represents an enslavement to sin. The moral reality of slavery to sin is manifested in the institutional enslavement of men to the highest collective voice of mankind, the state.

As a moral rebel, man perverts the things of God. Since man is not god, but only a creature, all he can do as a rebel is counterfeit the Creator's reality. Man was made to have dominion over creation (Gen. 1:28), for instance, but his moral rebellion in Genesis 3 means that all his attempts at dominion without God end in manifestations of his sin. The sinful lust for power rather than godly dominion stems from the original sin of desiring to be as gods. Man's constant grasp for power is manifested in aggression and exploitation. Power-hungry men create a power-hungry state as the utilitarian means of controlling others.

Christians do this when they lobby government to control others or when they vote for politicians who promise the same. Taxes, minimum wage laws, anti-smoking laws, and all other regulations of any kind are affronts to private property and property owners. Man, even sinful Christian man, is not content to let God rule this earth, but asserts his own godhood in ruling over others. May God grant us all repentance.

Adoptive Dad, Adoptive God

I am an adoptive father of two young boys, five and two. The bible speaks of God's children as being adopted by God. In reflecting on my relationship with my sons, I think I've gained an insight into our relationship with God that I wouldn't have if I had never adopted any children.

Most children are natural, biological children. My wife is pregnant, so we hope to have a biological child four or five months from now. Most naturally born children are born to their parents without the intent to bear that specific child at that specific time. For a lack of a better term, the birth is "accidental" to what caused the birth, namely the union between a man and woman. That is to say, child bearing is not the primary purpose of the sexual union. God did not say, "man needs somebody to bear children for him," He said, "it is not good that man be alone." In addition, many acts of intimacy may result in few or no children at all, and there is no control over each one as to whether children will result, and children may not even be on the mind of the parents at the time.

In our adoptions, on the other hand, each child was a direct, one-to-one correlation of our decision to adopt them. We want this specific child to be a part of our family. This child already exists, and we can love him ahead of time, and even know who he is.

Our children being so young, they have a limited capacity to understand their adoptions. Our oldest was adopted before he turned two. Our youngest was adopted at birth, and at just two years old, he has no clue at all. We've decided to be open and up front toward our children about their adoptions. God is that way with us. But the ability for young children to understand that they lived with another family before ours, or that they grew in another mommy's tummy and not our mommy's tummy (the mommy they know), is limited, and sometimes funny. Our oldest had said some fairly funny things in repeating his adoption story back at various times. In terms of adult thinking, these things are wrong, but we know he's only a child, so we have mercy and take it with a light hearted attitude.

But our ability to understand God's adopting of us can also be limited. We can have skewed ideas about our adoption into God's family, and where we were beforehand. We can say things about God as our Father that aren't quite right, or maybe even very wrong. But does that make us any less children of God? Hopefully as we grow in our Christian lives, we will gain a much better understanding. When my children don't comprehend their adoptions, are they any less my children? Of course not. I still love them even if they say goofy things about it. I think I've learned to be more forgiving about other Christians who don't understand things the way I do, in part because I understand adoption more fully because I am an adoptive father.

Letter on Creation, Dualism and the Weaker Brother

Andrew Sandlin's reply to a letter written to him is posted on his blog. This letter ties the doctrine of creation to Christian liberty in a way that I couldn't have said so myself in such simple terms. He points out that dualism throws a roadblock down in our understanding of Christian liberty. Read it here.

Pregnancy/Illness Update

We found out today that the bun in the oven is a boy. This should give us enough time to plan to buy blue things, not pink. Since my last update, both of our boys came down with the other flu. So we hit for the flu cycle in our family twice. Not only that, but since then, our littlest got an ear infection. Now to think of baby boy names.

Other Blogs I Visit

Aside from the four blogs I visit - and read daily - I visit many others each day, but are not quite as engaged. Ron McKenzie's Blessed Economist is now a daily read, and he posts things about general righteousness and how the bible applies to daily life. Many things economic - because economics faces each of us all day, every day. Keith Darrell's In Athens is another daily click, although he doesn't post every day. He's mostly commenting on Christian ideas and some politics. McCovey Chronicles is a SF Giants baseball blog with plenty of sarcasm. LewRockwell.com for libertarian ideology and musings. Gene Redlin's Northern Gleaner is a daily click. He's conservative with a charismatic bent, and a believer in the continuation of the gifts. He's not afraid to speak his mind, and is a good read. TB Vick's Shadows of Divine Things is mostly theology and philosophy and is food for thought on church issues. Team Pyro for the MacArthurite, Spurgeonesque Calvinism of Phil Johnson and group. A good place to get into some arguments, so I need to exercise control. Got into one with Frank Turk over whether U2 qualifies as a Christian group. I started out agreeing with him on a related topic, but well, you know. Keith Ghormley, The Presbyteer, has a cool banner on his site. He's a Presbyterian pastor from Nebraska who has some great photography. An Anglican touch at Of Priests & Paramedics. Dr. Lenny and alter ego Lemme Howdt at The Zone. He's a real scientist, and poet, and baseball fan. Chalcedon's blog for a reconstructionist bent. At Reformed Catholicism, Kevin Johnson and others wrestle with issues that pertain to the unity of the church and how various traditions help or hinder this.

Other more minor blogs are in my favorites list, but I'm not yet at the point I want to write about them. Some are offshoots of my regulars, some are anarchists, monarchists, methodists, pastors and assorted others that I may have found interesting at one time or other.

No Sooner I Post, Then Find This

No sooner I posted my last post about marijuana, I clicked on Independent Country, like less than a minute later, and JLW's latest post linked to this article about the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case, and we quoted the same bible verse, Genesis 1:29. Just too bizarre.

What To Do When Dope-Smoking Liberal Pinko Commie Leftist Radical Berkeley Wackos Are More Biblical Than You and You're a Conservative (Part 2)

Read part 1 here.

I spent five years of my life in Berkeley, California. Yes, the place famous for riots and demonstrations in the 60's, hippies, tie-dyed t-shirts and Grateful Dead concerts. I went to school for three years at the University of California, Berkeley, then lived in Berkeley after school for another two. During that time, the city council passed a city ordinance declaring that the Berkeley Police Department wouldn't arrest anybody who was found in possession of marijuana in an amount small enough to be considered for "personal use."

As a conservative kid from the suburbs (engineering major), my friends and I were incredulous at such a proposition. This also made national headlines. Marijuana was, after all, against the law, and the city of Berkeley was saying that it would ignore state law, which was against the moral law of obeying state law. I was raised within a culture that put state law above everything else (including God's law). Politicians, even though they were idiots, somehow were gods when legislating, and disobeying state law in any sense was tantamount to hating God or something.

But now, looking back on those wild times, I've come to a completely different conclusion regarding marijuana, Berkeley and conservative suburban culture. In the Bible, God tells the whole human race through Adam,

"Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food" and it was so. Genesis 1:29-30

Well, not only does marijuana fit this list, but so does opium and cocoa leaves. God plainly gave these things to man to use, so who is man to disagree? Even though I was a conservative "law abiding citizen", dope-smoking liberal pinko commie leftist radical Berkeley wackos, whether they knew it or not, held to a more biblical position than I did. So, now, I have no choice but to believe the bible. I've found so many of these things that I can no longer call myself a conservative.

Slavery and Your Credit Rating

"The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower becomes the lender's slave." Proverbs 22:7

Here we see the wisdom of Solomon. The borrower becomes a slave to the lender. In today's economy, one's credit rating (a.k.a. credit score) is simply one's slave rating. Your credit score doesn't tell how much of a slave you are, you're already a slave. It simply tells how good a slave you are. Pay back all your borrowing on time, with lots of borrowing!, and your score will be high. Others will look at you. The higher the score, the more likely you are to be a good slave to them. They like slavery.

Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 2)

In Part 1, I made the statement that in terms of human government, I am an anarchist. But Jesus said in Matthew 28 that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him. So all authority in the earth among men is derivative from and delegated by Christ. So, overall, I'm not an anarchist, just relative to man. Overall, I'm a monarchist, but this term is used in a relative way, too. Christ is the Monarch. No man or men have claim, in part or in whole, to God's monarchy.

So with respect to man, I believe in anarchy, with respect to God, I believe in monarchy.

Hugo Chavez Is A Racist

Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez told US officials to "go to hell, gringos." The term "gringo" is a derogatory racial slur in the Spanish language with reference to caucasians. Mr. Chavez should ungergo sensivity training immediately while on temporary leave of absence as communist dictator. The 700 Club offers such training.

As for US officials going to hell, St. Peter and Lucifer are negotiating as we speak.

Sick, Sick, Sick

Just as I'm planning on finally going back to work - this afternoon - the pregnant Mrs. Scott is coming down with my latest version of the flu, the chest cold/fever variety. Hopefully the baby will fly under the radar...

Anarchy, Monarchy and Democracy (Part 1)

These are terms for sure to evoke strong emotions in debating the subject of politics. We all have views of these forms of "government", whether indoctrinated by our culture or reached by our own self-education. Dictionary definitions carry baggage not present in the basic meanings of each word.

The basic meanings of each word are as follows:
anarchy: an = no, arhcy = ruler - no ruler
monarchy: mon = one, archy = ruler - one ruler
democracy: dem = man, ocracy = rule - man rule

Typically, these terms are used politically,with respect to human government. So, anarchy would be the lack of civil government, monarchy would be rule by one individual, such as a king, and democracy is taken most to mean government by a majority of the people.

But democracy is simply tyranny of the majority. If 51% of the people believe a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. This is life in America today. Monarchy is tyranny of an individual. If the ruling individual believes a thing, no matter how corrupt or immoral, it goes. Anarchy, although it can have its own problems, is free from these two forms of tyranny, and I'll talk later about these.

In terms of human civil government, I'm an anarchist.

Twisted Sister Performs "Oh Come All Ye Faithful"

In a previous post, I mentioned Twisted Sister's performance on Craig Ferguson. I found the video on YouTube here.

What To Do When Dope-Smoking Liberal Pinko Commie Leftist Radical Berkeley Wackos Are More Biblical Than You and You're a Conservative (Part 1)

Change your beliefs.

Sick Again - and Again

Family update - Since my last prego update, many things have happened. Not only did my mom come down with the flu, but so did my sister-in-law. Our little one became so dehydrated from diarrhea that Mrs. Scott had another all night ER visit. Now I've got another version of the flu/cold. I had a fever with both head and chest cold and headache hit me in a short time and it put me in bed. I just had my first food in two days. My fever broke, but I've still got a nasty cold. My dad got hit with the stomach flu so severely that he collapsed and broke a toe. Can't wait for summer.

During all this, people in our church have been wonderful in providing meals in Mrs. Scott's pregnant stead.

The Westminster Confession Of Faith And Full Subscription To It

Some people, Presbyterian ministers included, are full subscriptionists to The Westminster Confession of Faith. That is, they hold to the teachings of this document, often by oath, and will not depart from it in terms of beliefs. I'd like to look at this idea with respect to the WCF itself. To quote WCF 20.2:

God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also. (Source: CRTA)

Now voluntary subscriptionism to this document is not contrary to it; for if one agrees with the WCF he is free to subscribe to it. But mandatory subscriptionism (i.e. the church requiring it of its members) seems to me to be a direct contradiction of WCF 20.2, because man's conscience is free from the doctrines of the men who wrote the WCF. Does this make sense?

Blogs I Read Daily

I read quite a number of blogs and other websites regularly. I've found that reading views I've never heard or from people I don't always agree with is good for sharpening my own beliefs. I'd like to share the sites I visit most. For quite a while now, four blogs have been absolute daily readings and those authors' views and comments have helped shape not only my beliefs but my way of thinking, while not necessarily agreeing with them. I am thankful to these four just for being in the blogoshpere. Andrew Sandlin, John Armstrong, James Leroy Wilson and Vache Folle.

Andrew Sandlin (blog, CCL ministry site). He is a church elder/pastor in Santa Cruz, CA, and writes extensively on Christianity's place in culture. I hold many shared views in theology, and have gained much insight into our place in God's kingdom. I sense in him a deep concern for how Christianity works in our world. I've corresponded with him a number of times and have met him personally at one of his conferences. We don't see eye to eye on the role of the US in the war on terror or on certain things regarding George Bush, but I'll take our agreements in theology anyday. He's not afraid to ask tough questions or rock the boat, or criticize views of even his allies.

John Armstrong. He's a former pastor and an itinerant preacher and conference speaker. My church used to have affiliation with him in theological circles. I met Dr. Armstrong almost 10 years ago. After quite some time without hearing about him, I re-discovered him through of all places, Andrew Sandlin's blog. He has a great heart for the unity of the church and has been a great example to follow for how I need my attitude changed toward Christians of other traditions. His love for baseball probably equals my own. I've corresponded with him on occasion.

James Leroy Wilson (Independent Country). James is... I'm not even sure what James does, but he brings a libertarian angle to things that has been for me a constant check to my previously held conservative ideas. James is refreshing because he hasn't become a libertarian broken record, and isn't afraid at all to call other libertarians to the mat on certain issues. He doesn't have a one track mind when it comes to politics, and his wide variety of topics and several other websites makes him constantly interesting. The next time I'm knowingly within a hundred miles of him, I'll try to buy him lunch.

Vache Folle (St George Blog). I don't know his real name, but do I need to? He's a character from the keyboard; a libertarian/anarchist in an (correct me if I'm wrong) at least somewhat Reformed church context, originally from the deep South now living in New York as an attorney. He practices laughing at himself, and others, and is constantly engaging in slapstick sociology. He loathes mindless, sheepist conformism, and knows well his place on the Bristol Stool Chart.

I'll write more about other sites I visit a bit later.

Pharisees and Politicians

Ron McKenzie at Blessed Economist recently ran a series of posts that showed the close parallels between today's politicians and the Pharisees of Jesus' day. He applies Jesus' scathing condemnation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23, point by point, to modern politicians. The implications are frightening. He has condensed his entire series into a single, relatively short, piece. Read it here.

What I'm Reading Right Now

I'm currently reading RJ Rushdoony's The One and The Many. This is a study in how the one relates to the many, or unity & diversity, community & individuality, church & individual believer, in short the whole to its parts in every area of thought and life. Rushdoony's observation is that all of human history shows man's natural tendency is to favor one of the two extremes as ultimate. Thus, destruction and meaningless are the result.

But he posits that in the Holy Trinity, neither the One God nor the Three Persons of God are ultimate, but are equally necessary. Since creation and man's world are reflections of the Trinity, we are to pattern our lives, our businesses, our culture after the Trinity. Neither the tyranny of the individual nor the tyranny of the community will result. Freedom is maximized.

Okay, I'm only on page 10 or so right now, so the second paragraph is my guess as to what he'll say. I believe it already. I am an avid Trinitarian, which is why I believe I'm also a Christian libertarian, a communal individualist and a biblical anarchist. More to come on how I define these terms and how they play out in everyday life and into the kingdom future.

Posthumous Scoreboard: Ford Praise, Nixon Villification

Gerald Ford's recent death, complete with stories of his controversial pardoning of Richard Nixon, evoked memories for me of the time Nixon died. Nixon's death brought about, on one occasion, the most venomous, hate-filled tongue thrashing of another human being I've ever heard in my life. And oddly enough this was triggered by, of all things, the routine operation of a baseball scoreboard. Read about it here at From The Bleachers, my baseball blog.

Another Prego Update

We had an appointment with a specialist, and he determined that the recent problem is not as dangerous as we feared, and Mrs. Scott was taken off complete bed rest in favor of just taking it easy. He determined that some known high risk fears probably won't come into play for the rest of the pregnancy. We're thankful for that. But we're still day to day. In the mean time, though, all four of us have come down with the stomach flu, our five year old first on Thursday, then the three rest of us yesterday. Our soon-to-be two year old had his first experience with tossing his cookies (he never spit up when he was a baby), and I'm sure it freaked him out. We spent last night changing jammies, bed sheets, sofa linens and the like, and gave our washer and drier a good workout. My mom and several others were over to help out during our emergency room visit and for the next two days. My mom now has the flu, but the others haven't succumbed. I hope we can laugh at all this sometime in the future.

Prego Update

Complications arose in Mrs. Scott's pregnancy yesterday and she's been sentenced to bed rest for an indefinite time period. Symptoms resembling previous miscarriages landed us in the ER for, like, nine hours. Quite a day, to say the least. But the baby seems to be fine, and had a heart rate of 153 beats per minute - faster than disco music. John Travolta eat your heart out. I'll be doing different things at home now, so I don't know how this will affect my blogging. Stay tuned for the answer.

New Year's Resolution: No Resolutions

This year, I'm going to continue my long-standing tradition of making no New Year's resolutions. Since I have no resolutions, other than resolving to make no resolutions, I cannot fail; I will succeed. I have succeeded in my resolutions ever since I have resolved to not resolve. I feel better about myself and have incentive to encourage others. As soon as I hit the "Publish Post" button, I'm heading over to the fridge to celebrate the New Year by drinking my favorite beverage - a beer.

Well, actually it's an ale, but generalizations are acceptable many times. Happy New Year!

Happy Pew Year

Happy New Year, everybody! From the Pew.

Saddam Execution Caught on Camera Phone

Saddam Hussein's execution by hanging was apparently caught with a camera phone by one of the witnesses and was downloaded to the internet shortly after. I found a link to this and viewed it a dozen times or so. It isn't very graphic as the video and sound quality of camera phones aren't great anyway, and the academy award nominee didn't hold the phone very steady. But you can see him drop through the floor, and a bit later below the platform you can see his head and the noose. I can't be quite sure whether he is swinging by the noose or if the camera is swinging by the arm of the camera person. At the end it's dark and what appears to be a camera flash shows him hanging by the noose. You might be a bit more motion sick from the unsteadiness of the camera than from watching somebody die.

I'll do my postmodern, radical individualist, nosy blogger's duty and post the link. Ultra-squeamish and self-righteous need not click thru. Principled abstainers also.

http://www.esnips.com/doc/ab3231bb-11c7-46b4-ab50-a2556e1c524f/Saddam-Hussein-execution-by-hanging

My wife and I were wondering if somehow his hanging would be staged or concealed and he might still be alive in some tropical resort somewhere. Maybe one of his decoy doubles was hanged and he's really with Hitler, Elvis and Jim Morrison drinking a pina colada.

Ecclesiology: Should We Walk By Faith Or By Sight?

Andrew Sandlin will shortly be releasing a new book titled, "Un-Inventing the Church: Toward a Modest Ecclesiology." Since I'm not an avid book reader, I'm usually not very excited about new books. This is an exception. I made a comment on his blog about the upcoming book, and I will expand on it in this post. I wrote:

The relationship of Christ to church - as head to body - is foundational to the NT. In my view, one of ecclesiology’s foundational problems is wrangling with the question of the authority with respect to pastor, pastor-teacher, elder, priest, presbyter, bishop, cardinal, pope, etc, in how they relate to the church. Are they members of the body just like everybody else, with special ministerial duties, or are they members of the head, with magisterial duties? Are they servants or are they overlords? A combination of the two?

Answering this question is a must if we are to "do church" according to God's will. Both ideas have been with us throughout church history, and are with us today. If church leaders are members of the body, then they have the same standing before Christ that everybody else does. They have gifts that are employed for the purpose of helping God's sheep. They are imperfect and make mistakes. They need humility just like everybody else. They themselves can be the recipients of exhortation, admonition, rebuke and correction from those who are not leaders.

If church leaders are members of the head, that is Christ, then because Christ is perfect, there will be aspects of church leadership - what they believe, what they say, what they decide, what they instruct - that will be infallible, perfect, binding, final and beyond either criticism or appeal.

I stand on the former view. Church leaders have duties that are ministerial, not magisterial. They are servants, not overlords. This is also very important for the argument that the church holds the keys to the kingdom. Does the church use the keys to open the door for those God would have go in, or does it use the keys to open to only those who it says can go in? Does it get to decide who is in the kingdom?

With regard to "church discipline" in Matthew 18, Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, whatever you shall bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." Many use this argument to say that whatever the church decides, Christ has already decided in heaven. They're right. But some would believe that because of their view of authority within the church, that the church is correct. But Jesus never said the church would always be correct. If the church excommunicates somebody, it could very well be that the individual is not in sin, but the church is, and that Jesus already decided for that individual not to remain a part of a sinning church. The blind man in John 9 would be an example. So would Martin Luther.

I think one reason for the view of magisterial duties for leaders is that some people simply cannot fathom the idea that the church's head is in heaven and cannot be seen. He rules His people through His word; He is in control and we walk according to faith. But they need to see the authority in the flesh, so they embody it in an institutional concept of the church.

Should we walk by faith, knowing that Christ rules actively, or should we walk by sight by requiring a human ecclesial political structure?

Mis-Reading The Ninth Commandment

"Thou shalt not bear false witness" - The Ninth Commandment - Exodus 20:16

Many, many Christians would agree with the above statement. It is from God, after all, and should be obeyed. It is applied to life in so many different ways. It is used by preachers, teachers, parents, friends, authors, commentators and many Christians in general to remind us to always tell the truth. As Christians we should be truthful in our speech. In fact, it is sometimes used to tell us not to conceal part of the truth either.

But, do you see anything wrong with the above quote from Scripture? Astute grammarians might rightly note that I left out the period at the end of the quote. The quote above is a complete sentence after all. But I left out the period for a reason. The reason is because the above is only a part of the Ninth Commandment. It is a truncated version, and sadly, far too much of our popular theology comes from this taking away from God's Word. Taking away from God's Word is prohibited. So let me now quote the Ninth Commandment in its entirety:

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Notice the difference? God does not give us a blanket prohibition of bearing false witness, merely the bearing of false witness against our neighbor to his harm. I've heard many debates amongst Christians as to whether it is ever okay for a Christian (or anybody for that matter) to ever utter something that isn't perfectly true. Even when instances of believers telling lies in the bible are brought up, then further backing that up with God's blessings upon them for lying as a part of faith, many Christians can't see the righteousness of the situation.

Rahab lied to save the skin of the spies, and is set forth as an example of faith. Yet many Christians, completely indoctrinated with a false view of the Ninth Commandment, still label her action as sin. Oh, yes, they say, God used her sin in accomplishing His purposes, but even that never grants us the authority to sin. The Hebrew midwives lied to the Egyptians to save the lives of newborn babies. God pronounced His blessings upon them! But why?

There's something our popular theology is missing. Let me ask this question: if somebody wants a piece of truthful information from us in order to commit an act of evil, is it our responsibility to give them that truth? Or what if not answering at all or giving wavering body language tips that person off to the answer? Is it still our responsibility to not lie? Well, of course not. If telling a lie or "untruth" thwarts evil intentions of others, have we sinned? If God's own words of blessings in the bible aren't enough to help us answer this question, nothing else will.

Then there are the things that are nobody else's business. Even close Christian friends, sometimes. We have no responsibility to inform anybody else of anything that will lead to evil. Jesus instructed us to be as wise as serpents and as harmless as doves, and there's a reason He chose to use the serpent in His instruction.

The Most Reformed of All

Different Protestant denominations have had varying degrees of departure from the theology and practice of the medieval Roman Catholic church toward "pure Christianity," which would be a completed Reformation. I'd like to look at various denominations to show how far they've turned from Rome (in ascending order), and will give their progress in percentages.

First, the Roman Catholic church. They're still unreformed so the progress looks like this:

Roman Catholic score: 100% Catholic - 0% Christian.

Next, Anglican and Episcopalian. These folks recognized the Reformation to some degree, but still retained quite a few Roman distinctives like infant baptism, priestly robes, liturgy and church hierarchy. The only difference between these two churches is English accent vs. American accent.

Anglican and Episcopalian score: 75% Catholic - 25% Christian

Next, Lutheran. Some of the same as Anglicans and Episcopalian, but they've come a bit further, especially in pseudo-Reformed theology.

Lutheran score: 50% Catholic - 50% Christian

Next, Presbyterian. They've done away with the half-baked Catholic views of Lutheranism on communion, but still sprinkle babies, and sometimes wear robes and have stained glass.

Presbyterian score: 26% Catholic - 74% Christian

Next, Christian Reformed. They basically hold the same thing as Presbyterianism, but just slightly lighter on the church hierarchy.

Christian Reformed score: 25% Catholic - 75% Christian

Last, Baptist. These folks have shed every thread of Catholicism. No baby baptism, no preachers wearing robes, no stained glass, no bread turning into Jesus just because a priest says so, no demon alcohol, no church hierarchy whatsoever. Just me, Jesus and my bible. And my quiet time. The greatest deviation from Rome there is.

Baptist score: 0% Catholic - 100% Republican

Thus we have a complete picture of church life in America today. PTL and you betcha.

Christmas' Economic and Moral Lessons

Lew Rockwell posts this gem about the reality of the Christmas story. It's truly a shame that the realities in which biblical characters lived are rarely mentioned in our church culture, whether from the pulpit, Sunday school or general reading. And sometimes sentimental legends are tacked on to the story. Rockwell, for example, rebuffs the idea of Joseph and Mary traveling from inn to inn.

I can think of a few more. I've always had the picture painted for me that Jesus was poor. Dirt poor. You know, "birds have nests and foxes have holes, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head." An extension of this is the idea that self-inflicted poverty is some kind of Christian virtue. It's odd that we tend to think of Him as poor. After all, he received gold, frankincense and myrrh. From nobility and royalty, no less. A number of times I've heard that contrary to popular opinion shaped by our Christmas stories there would have been far more than three travelers that sought the newborn King. Ancient customs would tip us off that there would have been a delegation of dozens or maybe even hundreds. Historical realities of this nature are only slightly helpful, however, because the more important implications are ignored.

Ancient customs would also direct us to believe that royalty in search of a newborn king would have showered Him with gifts. The amount of gold and spices would have been unfathomable to the average person. In contemporary vernacular, Jesus would have been an instant millionaire. Dirty, rotten, filthy, stinking rich. Just read the chronicle books to discover how kings, like David and Solomon and their peers, treated each other. Ever wonder where that vial of perfume came from that was applied to His feet with that woman's hair? The disciples were indignant at the waste and my center margin notes tell me that it would have been worth a year's wages. That's about 40 G's today, blue-collarly speaking. My revised view of Jesus as being rich sheds new light on how I view Him and His attitudes about people around Him, and has changed how I view my own life.

Another one is Joseph's and Mary's travel to Bethlehem. I've also had a picture painted for me that they were these wonderful, righteous believers who showed their Christian virtue of obedience to the government, floating over the roads a few feet off the ground, with halos and angelic choirs singing in the background, the sun's rays beaming through the clouds. Nonsense. They were terrified people who didn't want their lives turned into a much greater hell by tyrants. I've heard that the road from Nazareth to Bethlehem was long and grueling. This is the last place I'd want to escort a pregnant woman. It was no afternoon cruise down the PCH listening to the Beach Boys. My wife is pregnant and it's enough just getting her to church and back.

God is merciful, political tyrants are not. God's general requirement for worship in the OT was to bring an offering to Jerusalem. If you lived too far away, God would set up a more convenient place. Kinda like FedEx does with their express drop-off boxes. Convenient for the ones you're dealing with. But it seems from the bible that each person was mandated to travel to the city of family origin to register. I stated above that Joseph and Mary didn't obey because it was supposedly the right thing to do, but because they probably feared for their lives. I'm fairly sure of this because only a little while later, Herod tried to murder their son, and did murder many other children.

I've often wondered that if in eternity God would show us a video history of history. If we really knew what life was like, what Paul's face looked like, how tall Noah was, etc, would we be shocked? I'm sure we would be surprised.

One Foggy Christmas Eve

As part of family tradition, we spend Christmas Eve with my wife's family near Sacramento. It's not quite an hour and a half drive. We have dinner in the early evening and with kids we try to leave by 9pm. I need a coffee to make it home that late, so I've taken to getting a Starbuck's frapuccino for the drive.

All day, and night, the weather was great. Temps in the 30's to low 40's and foggy. Not foggy enough to cause driving hazards, but enough to know it's foggy. On the way home, a train passed by on the tracks which run parallel to the freeway, about 50 yards away. It was off on the right side, headed for Sac, and its lights pierced through the fog. This effect created a silhouette of the train, and the combination was surreal. It was a wonderful sight and feeling and it's too bad everybody else was asleep. I love fog.

Christmas Music

It's a shame that some of the best hymns of the faith are reserved for only one twelfth of the year. Christmas in July, anyone?

Twisted Sister Adores Jesus

I just saw a very inspiring piece of music on TV - and NO, I'm not making this up! - 80's hair metal band "Twisted Sister" just performed a thrashing version of "O Come All Ye Faithful" on The Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson. It was done in the same vein as their greatest hit, "We're Not Going To Take It." As they performed it, I couldn't help but notice how much the two melodies have in common. And they didn't twist any words, but stayed true to the lyrics, and it was quite obvious that no parody or sarcasm were intended. So hearing Dee Snider belt out, with convincing enthusiasm, "O come let us adore Him, Christ the Lord!" gave me a rush.

Many times in the bible God says that all of creation will praise Him. Jesus claimed that even the stones would cry out if the children didn't. I have no idea if Dee or any other members of the band are Christians, but if they can sing such a great piece of music with heart and energy, I can really enjoy it. Thanks, Dee and Co.

Backblog

I guess a backlog of blogging ideas could be a "backblog." I have so much I want to write about, but little time. A career, a family with another one on the way, long commute, etc, has delayed some things. I'd really like to continue at a faster pace on my "Re-Thinking Romans 13" series, and start my "Re-Thinking Church Membership" series. I also want to post regarding rent control, carpool lanes, privacy, the "regulative principal of worship," and do much more at my baseball blog. Christmas vacation?

Blogroll Addition: Blessed Economist

It's not too common when I run across a blogsite where I agree with most of the theology, economics and politics written about by the author. Many of the sites on my blogroll contain some things I don't agree with, or things I haven't thought through, or contain many other types of topics.

So I am adding the Blessed Economist to my links section. It's refreshing to hear his views with such an uncomplicated process from presupposition to conclusion, without a 1000 page volume to tread water through. I found him through Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner.

Post-Modern Christmas Gifts

All the great stuff our culture has brought us in the last ten years, "extreme" anything, "reality" TV shows, etc, are all very interesting. In light of this, here's a list of what I think would make good Christmas presents.

• Extreme Anatomy Barbie
• On DVD: "Winnie The Pooh Goes to Vegas"
• Desperate Housewives Action Figures
• Survivor, Berkeley - Home Version

Merry Christmas!

The Player To Be Named Later

12 weeks along...

I Am "Personal Quiet Time" Challenged - or - The Tyranny of The Personal Quiet Time Mongers

I just came across this at Chalcedon's blog section of their website. I'm thankful to see such a critique of one of pietistic Protestantism's sacred cows, the "personal quiet time." It is pointed out that the personal quiet time is nowhere commanded in Scripture, nor even shown as an example, yet it is put forth as one of the top barometers of spiritual life. I can testify to this fact quite readily. Just last night in our "home group" bible study, several people talked about struggling with keeping up their quiet time, and one claimed to realize that our acceptance with God is not based upon our works so even when she missed her personal quiet time, she could still know she was accepted by God.

A couple of months ago at an initial meeting for a men's ministry, a questionnaire was given out to determine how our lives were lived. All kinds of questions were asked, and many were the wrong questions, and therefore unanswerable, so "wrong" answers were guaranteed to come from me. Many were scaled answers rated from zero to 10. One of the most important was about "personal quiet time." I answered with a zero, and wrote my own note that said I don't believe that a "personal quite time" as taught by evangelicals was necessary for the Christian life.

Don't get me wrong. If somebody has this type of discipline, then fine. Good for them. But I don't. I pray, I read the bible, and God knows I sit quietly for periods of time, but it doesn't mesh like I've been taught at all. But it's held over people's heads as a form of guilt manipulation. I'm glad I've discovered this and now I rejoice that I'm spared this tyranny.

I'm A Radical Individualist Shot Down In Flames

Commenters at ReformedCatholicism.com, in reaction to Kevin Johnson's posting a snip of one of my blog posts, skewered me for mis-using Luther's priesthood of believers doctrine among other things. My attempt to show Protestantism's duplication of many of medieval Rome's despised errors also brought about some pretty wild speculations, warnings and general goofiness on behalf of the commenters. I learned quite a bit about myself that I doubt my wife even knows.

I have a misconception of Luther's doctrine (comments #1 and #3), am headed for "house church" theology (#2), wrote a troubling post, have some kind of problem attitude, and am implied as being a radical individualist (#3), but the spirit of my post is what is important (thanks for noticing, Kevin! [Edit. Kevin was the poster]) (#5), am attributed - incorrectly - with saying that every [Protestant] pastor has begun to speak "ex cathedra" (#6), in combating the error of the tyranny of the community I have introduced the opposite error of tyranny of the individual (#7) haven't thought things through to their conclusions (#7), am alledged - incorrectly - with saying that the highest authority in existence is the individual (#8) - (which would of course make me God), and by extension "walk[s] with all the glory of a Metropolitan, each one with his own, custom-made, paper mache mitre stapled to his hair." (#8), and another commenter (#10) agrees whole-heartedly with comments 6 and 7.

Whoa, am I messed up! One commenter (#3) believes that my understanding "of of the point of the Reformation relative to the private individual is, though quite a common one held by Protestants, historically and theologically inaccurate." Now, he may have a point here. I admit that my understanding of Luther here is solely based upon what I have learned from my churches and accepted literature. So, maybe I should go outside of my community and, in the spirit of radical individualism, learn for myself about what Luther really believed. But of course, as these commenters proved, such an attitude is destructive, so maybe I'll just hold to what my churches have taught me and stand by everything I said in my post.

Power and Corruption

It is often said that power corrupts. But is this really true? Does power corrupt, or, conversely, does corruption seek power? Maybe we've all looked at this from the wrong angle. Maybe power simply reveals a hidden and already existent corruption.

Lyrical Revelations

Being that rock music's lyrics are hard to understand, only on occasion - maybe once a year - do some muddled lyrics in a familiar song suddenly become clear to me. It's usually when I merely hear the song but am not concentrating on the words.

Well, today I had a major revelation of lyrics. Four times in the space of an hour I had lyric revelations, three times in one song in the space of ten minutes, and one time in another song. The first song was "Rock and Roll Band" on the self-titled debut album from Boston. This is probably my favorite album of all time, or at least one of the top three, and I've heard it a million times over the last 30 years. My first revelation came while I was concentrating on my project at work and had some tunes on. The other two came while I was double checking the first; I was concentrating on only the words I thought I had revealed, so I was merely hearing the other words. Of course this is exactly when I hear words for the first time.

The revelations were in order in the following lyric string: 1) car radio, 2) man, 3) Rhode, in "Playin' for a week in Rhode Island - A man came to the stage one night - He smoked a big cigar - Drove a Cadillac car - And said, Boys, I think this bands outta-sight - Sign a record company contract - You know I've got great expectations - When I hear you on the car radio - You're goin' to be a sensation!" Thanks to this link from lyrics.duble.com. The words "car radio" and "man" I had no idea what they said, but for 30 freaking years I heard "playing for a week in LONG Island," wondering why Boston was in New York before they made it big. Now the fourth revelation I can't remember, but I'll be listening again.

Adoptive Parents Are Suspected Terrorists

Shortly after we adopted our youngest child almost two years ago, my wife and I discovered that, thanks to the Patriot Act and various other regulations created by Homeland Security, adoptive parents are now suspected terrorists. We were put on a no-obtaining-of-documents list, similar to the no-fly lists we hear about in the news. We were prohibited from directly obtaining official documents for our very own child, even after the adoption was complete. The only workaround was to secure the services of an attorney that could lobby on our behalf to obtain any necessary documents.

Long ago I decided that I would do the utmost I could to live my entire life without ever using the services of a lawyer. So much for that. I compromised on my principles and decided that keeping my son was more important.

Then, after we received the paperwork from the state, we were required to immediately return the paperwork to the state so that they could confirm that the documents were legitimate before they returned them to us. Yes, you read it right. All this screwed up our taxes and tied up thousands of dollars of our own money for quite some time, with some still being tied up.

How interesting that the political party in control of both houses and the white house when the Patriot Act was passed claims to be the "Pro-Family" party. Well, I'd like to thank them again publicly for being so pro-family to us. I already thanked them in private on November 7th.

Dead Blogging Weekend

My blogroll of favorite sites (more than the ones just shown on my blog links) were extremely quiet this Thanksgiving weekend. Out of the dozens, I think only two had any posts at all. Maybe everybody was with family, out of town, half sussed, totally sussed, away from the computer or maybe something else altogether. I hope everybody enjoyed their time. Happy belated Thanksgiving.

Counting the Cost of the "War On Terror"

"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost, to see if he has enough to complete it? Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation, and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him, saying, 'This man began to build and was not able to finish.' Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and take counsel whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks terms of peace." Luke 14:28-32.

Gene Redlin at Northern Gleaner posted a short piece that links to a lengthy, detailed defense (by Orson Scott Card) of Bush's noble "war on terror", and asks opponents of the war to read the article and consider how Christians can sincerely support it. Then, if we still disagree, he wants to hear opinions as to why. I've read the article several times and, contra Gene, am more convinced of the wrongness of the war as a result of reading the article. Here's why.

I'm not going to deal with the morality of a generic war on terror, or even other potential wars or types of wars against it in Iraq and Afghanistan, but of the Bush war specifically. The above passage from the bible is one that Jesus used in reference to counting the cost of being one of His disciples. But since He used obvious earthly principles as applications to spiritual realities, they are valid here as well. Much is made in this article of necessary support of the war from both Congress and the American people. The lack of or withdrawal of support will doom the whole effort, and the end result will be worse than what we started with. I don't disagree with that at all. It also points to our kicking ass in Germany and Japan in WWII because of an unwavering commitment, and the result is two free, economic superpowers that benefit the world. It also points to our wavering in Vietnam and the first Gulf war and the eventual withdrawals resulted not only in defeat, but of defeat of our allies:

As happened in South Vietnam. The negotiated peace was more or less holding after American withdrawal. But then a Democratic Congress refused to authorize any further support for the South Vietnamese government. No more armaments. No more budget.

In other words, we forcibly disarmed our allies, while their enemies continued to be supplied by the great Communist powers. The message was clear: Those who rely on America are fools. We didn't even have the decency to arrange for the evacuation of the people who had trusted us and risked the most in supporting what they thought was our mutual cause.

We did it again, this time in the Muslim world, in 1991, when Bush Senior encouraged a revolt against Saddam. He meant for the senior military officers to get rid of him in a coup; instead, the common people in the Shiite south rose up against Saddam.

Bush Senior did nothing as Saddam moved in and slaughtered them. [Emphasis mine]

With a Democratic takeover of both houses, and a promise to do what it takes to withdraw our troops, and severely waning support from the American people, we stand just two years away from also a possible Democrat as president. Also, as the article points out, a war on terror could last for decades and in many more countries than just Iraq and Afghanistan. Now for the rub. Wasn't all this part of the Bush administration's counting of the cost of the war on terror? If not, why not? Conservatives are as of this election year criticizing the Democrats as a party that would purposely sabotage this war effort, severely compromise America's future and leave it ripe for future attacks from terrorists. Would Democrats do this just to gain a political twisting of the knife in the Elephant's side? Of course they would. They're Democrats. And Republicans have not only known this for decades, but they remind us every chance they get.

Yet the Bush administration counted them in as supporters in the war on terror. Every last Republican on Capitol Hill and every Democrat save one supported this initially. So did about 90% of the American people. But was his memory so short as to what happened to his father? One simple broken promise on taxes brought about a monumental crash of support for Bush the First. If he had only kept this one simple promise, the world may never have heard about Bill - or Hillary - Clinton.

If the Democrats are so untrustworthy and the American people are so fickle and have such an instant gratification, video game mentality, then how could they be counted on for continued support in such a war? If this current war strategy is going to be successful, it will need full-blown, unwavering, committed bipartisan and popular support for several decades. I can't think of a single thing in American political history that has enjoyed such support, so why would anybody think something would suddenly attain to this lofty necessity? Yet Bush pledged this support - no, he promised this support - but in reality, because of our political system, he had only a maximum of two years political support from both houses, only six years of his own oversight, and only enough popular support to last until tomorrow's headlines. In short, Bush relied on America in counting the long term cost of such a war. And as I highlighted from the article, (notice the irony here), "those who rely on America are fools." He promised something that was impossible to deliver.

This brings me to address the foolishness of a military solution to terrorism. We kicked ass in WWII because Hitler and Japan were engaged in a military conquest of the world. We also had a stake in it as a nation because both countries declared war against us first. Fire could be fought with fire. Vietnam, Korea and the Gulf are somewhat different because we had no direct defensive reason to win a military war, even though it could still be possible. But this current "war" waged by the "terrorists" isn't the same kind of war. It needs to be fought in a completely different way. It's funny how conservative supporters of this war continually warn of a misunderstanding of what radical Islam and terrorism are about and how they operate, but fall back on a military solution.

Another puzzling thing about conservative support for this war is how they fail to see it as just another form of a government welfare program. The people are coercively taxed to help some underprivileged group of people somewhere else. Instead of the poor living in inner city ghettos or trailer parks, they're in some other country. Soldiers are the equivalent of social workers. And the "exporting of freedom" is merely a transfer of freedom. The freedom of Iraqis increases while ours decreases through draconian "der Homelander Sekkurity" nonsense. We have enough problems with freedom in our own country. Concentrating on freedom in the Middle East is the political equivalent of removing the dust speck from somebody else's eye while ignoring the national forest in our own.

Even if all the principles behind such a war on terror were morally right, the guaranteed folly in carrying it out the way that it is currently is morally wrong. And all the backlash against American citizens abroad and increased hostility, etc, will be the responsibility of the one who really didn't count the cost as he should have in the first place.

Salvation By Law and Teenage Drinking

James Leroy Wilson, in a post at DownsizeDC.org, comments on a House Bill to stop teenage drinking and says this:

We do not mean to downplay the seriousness of teenage alcohol abuse. But that’s different from teenage drinking. Where alcohol is prohibited, it becomes more alluring to young people who want the freedoms adults have. Moreover, because they’re prohibited even in adult company and with adult supervision, drinking is more likely to get out of hand. The law prevents parents and other adults from teaching kids to drink responsibly. Countries in Western Europe that are more permissive toward teenage drinking have far fewer incidents of abuse and of alcohol-related accidents and deaths.

A deskmate of mine at work was born and raised in Eastern Europe under communism before immigrating here after the iron curtain fell. He says it was common for children, not yet even teenagers, to be sent to the store by their parents to buy beer and cigarettes.

In the bible, children (of any age) are instructed to "honor thy father and mother" and "obey your parents." Here in America, the government says, "thou shalt not obey your parents." Like spaghetti? Any good spaghetti sauce recipe I know includes red wine as an ingredient. It won't be intoxicating to anybody because the alcohol will be cooked down. Send your 20 yr/11 month old to the store to pick up dinner... Oops, my mistake. That would be a crime! Shame on me and my kid. And how many responsible married couples aren't yet 21 and can't buy the proper ingredients for dinner?

We live in a society full of self-righteous people who don't bat an eyelash at adding to God's word. Jesus reserved the highest condemnation for such people. Yet politicians are especially prone to this nonsense. And just how successful are our drinking age laws? In my experience, liberals have always pointed out that we are considered adults, have the right to vote and be drafted and killed in the military at 18, but can't drink until 21. They're right. Like Wilson pointed out, laws prevent kids from being trained in responsible behavior. It's at 18 that most kids leave home for college. Guess what age group is the most prone to alcohol problems? It's the 18-21 age group - college underclassmen!

As is always the case, laws that make taboo things that God doesn't result in the greatest problems and in the greatest abuse of the behavior that is the object of control. It is especially problematic when professing Christians get involved. History shows us that a bunch of church ladies created Al Capone through prohibition legislation.

Some things never change. Two thousand years after Jesus warned against the leaven of the Pharisees, we still have Pharisees among us, and it seems they will continue to add to God's word right up until Jesus declares to them, "I never knew you."