1

On your last two points (Anglicans and Baptists), there is another thread to be woven in this, and that is the roles of moral emphasis, doctrine, and outreach.

The first is moral emphasis, since morality will dictate doctrine. As the definition of sin become less distinct, the need for salvation becomes less distinct, and the elements required for salvation become unimportant. If sin consists only intolerence and the occasional mass murder (Nazi, not Islamic), then what is the need for a Savior who is perfect, Diety, and miraculous? The expansion of tolerence to other religions, the "religious equivalent" argument, further reduces the need for Christ. Tolerence for other religions expands to include the social morality of Western culture, and morality becomes the welfare state and public education. The end result is a sinless society with no need for God, particularly the Judeao-Christian God. Christian denominations that take that direction increasingly abandon any Biblical basis for their religious life. (Yesterday I read that the Bishop of London said that it is now a sin to drive an SUV.)

Baptists (of which I am also one of Southern persuasion) have maintained a pretty consistent moral tone over the last fifty, and perhaps 100 years. That moral tone also happens to connect with a large segment of society that is not Baptist, as evidenced by public opposition to gay marriage, abortion, etc. There is an interesting phenomenon that takes place daily. People rebel and reject, and advocate abandonment of traditional life. Then they have children and realize that their moral anarchy was a load of crap and that children, their children, need to be protected from that crap. And they move back to a more Biblical based morality. And many of these people start looking for a church. (See paragraph on outreach. When these people are invited to attend a church, some of them actually go to church.)

Morality is also tied to our political life. Even those who advocate government sponsorship of immorality do so for the highest moral reasons of tolerence. However, most people understand that morality includes sexual morality and the consequences of sexual morality: pregnancy, abortion, disease, family instability. I suspect that many people who publically favor "tolerence" do so to avoid arguments and fights, and vote in a much less tolerent manner than they might voice at work.

The final aspect of Baptist growth is outreach. We do socially unacceptable things like tell others about Christ and the need for salvation. People who agree with the moral view of Baptists (or Pentacostals, or conservative Bible churches, etc.) are more likely to see the truth of the doctrine. After all, sin is opposition to God as well as destructive to society. Maybe a Baptist who is right about sin is also right about God and doctrine. Perhaps the invitation to attend church with that same Baptist is a good thing. So these people attend Baptist churches, and Baptists continue to grow.

I think these things have more to do with the growth of Southern Baptists than a decentralized church government, with one caveat. A church with a centralized governing body can be more easily hijacked at the top than a decentralized church. The Episcopal/Anglicans are an example of a church that was hijacked at the top. IMHO, Methodists seem headed in that direction. The Lutherans continue to struggle at times (bless that Missouri Valley bunch). Presbyterians head for the brink occasionally, most recently on the issue of support for Israel. The Baptists split on doctrinal and moral issues, but since we are decentalized, no one is quite sure what that meant.

2

Aye, it's worse than that Joe. Rushdoony wrote the Introduction to Dooyeweerd's 1960 edition of In the Twilight of Western Thought.

3

In the interests of lowering the bar let's add the term "domesticated rats" to the title. Your point is clearly made since anyone at the local level would be more concerned with the balance of rodents to felines than simply getting rid of the cats. But then, they probably have an entire bureaucracy set up to deal with rats--Vector Control they call it in my little town.

4

Just about every country in NJ has a mosquitto commission. My father-in-law, many many years ago, had a slight claim to fame because he was called to testify about the dubious antics one of the countries commissions took.

5

Scott,

That's a fine straw man you've built there.

Who here in the U.S. doesn't condemn mass murder committed by Muslims? Who here in the U.S. thinks there's a category of sin and that the only acts within it are Nazi genocide and intolerance?

I'd guess that the number of people who fit the first is extraordinarily small. I'd guess that the number who fit both is precisely 0.

6

Actually, Franklin, the mass murder tag was offered as hyperbole, not as any meaningful discussion point. If you are really trying to start a spat here, you are truly reaching.

My point is that church government has less to do with church growth than the issues I listed. If the Presbyterians remained true to Calvinist doctrine, preached salvation by the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, and made a serious outreach effort, they would probably be the dominant denomination. These are the elements of success for a church.

7

Presbyterians, please don't interpret my last post as saying that you are not true to Calvanist doctrine or don't preach salvation. Not trying to start a fight with Presbyterians. However, a stronger evangelism effort wouldn't hurt.

8

Scott,

I had assumed that this was a sober discussion of issues in which all were prepared to take responsibility for the literal significance of their words. I'm afraid that if I have to make guesses about just what you meant, and correct for your hyperbole, I'll be in the dark about what you really do mean to say.

9

Franklin -

Perhaps you have not followed the Episcopalian meltdown very well. I would have said that "... there's a category of sin and that the only acts within it are Nazi genocide and intolerance" sums up liberal religion very well, if intolerance stands for homophobia, racism, and sexism. Also, it seems that I have often heard terrorism outright apologized for on the basis of injustice.
These tend to be liberal religion spokespeople, academics, and Reuters.

What the proportion of Americans who hold these beliefs is, I don't know. Even if it were less than 1%, that still represents millions. I'm inclined to think that people who blabber for a living disproportionately hold these beliefs and go on record as saying such. The Internet is the great repository where every ridiculous statement goes to live forever and ever.

Also, you seem to be angered by this statement - why? I think we're discussing liberal religion and not liberals or atheists.

10

Joe:
Bill Clinton stripped the presidency of its last vestige of dignity.

Yes, because jokingly looking under tables for "weapons of mass destruction" when people are still fighting and dying in a war largely justified on the premise that we "knew" he had them and "knew" where they were, is ever so dignified. But hey, at least he didn't play a musical instrument, right?

I'll not defend Clinton's marital indiscretions, but to pretend that they stripped all dignity from the office is excessive hyperbole, even for you. To mention them in the same breath as playing the saxophone -- the horror! -- is ludicrous.

As for Gingrich, I've been wrong before, but I don't think he's got a snowball's chance. He's got next to zero credibility on family values, which as you love to point out is one of the most important voting factors for the ever-more-important evangelical crowd. His primary opponents would eviscerate him on this (and his squandering of the "Republican Revolution") long before the general.

I agree that McCain has little chance. He's not popular enough with the GOP base to win in a primary, I don't think, even though he's been increasingly trying to pander to that base of late.

Frankly, I haven't got a clue who will win the nom, for either party.

11

Also, I think you're too quick to dismiss Schumer's allegation. A "theocrat" is defined as a "believer in theocracy," which in turn is defined as "a government ruled by or subject to religious authority." Given that the arguments of those who oppose ESCR are almost entirely religious in nature, aren't these people arguing that religious belief ought to dictate public policy? In other words, aren't they arguing from theocratic grounds?

If one starts from the extremely restrictive definition that holds that it's only theocracy if the government is run by some formal church, then you might be able to argue against Schumer's remark. But on the whole, and given the popular understanding of what "theocracy" means, I think the shoe fits.

12

Tgirsch But hey, at least he didn't play a musical instrument, right?

It’s not that he played the saxophone (though Clinton comes across as more of a band geek than a jazz player) it was that he was so blatantly pandering by doing it on a third rate talk show. It was just lame.

I'll not defend Clinton's marital indiscretions, but to pretend that they stripped all dignity from the office is excessive hyperbole, even for you.

Okay, maybe not all. There is still the chance, though, that Hillary could get elected and he could carry out the last of the dignity just as he did the WH furniture. ; )

His primary opponents would eviscerate him on this (and his squandering of the "Republican Revolution") long before the general.

I completely agree. Newt against everyone else makes everyone else look good. Newt against Rudy makes Newt look good. Newt only comes out ahead if it comes down to him and the Mayor.

Frankly, I haven't got a clue who will win the nom, for either party.

Republicans? Who knows. Democrats? Clinton. Because she will do what it takes to get back to the WH.

Given that the arguments of those who oppose ESCR are almost entirely religious in nature, aren't these people arguing that religious belief ought to dictate public policy?

You have got to be kidding me! Those who oppose ESCR are the ones with science on their side. What do the pro-ESCR arguments rely on? Denial of personhood (a religious—not scientific--concept ) and wishful thinking posing as science. There is no scientific evidence that shows that ESCR will be even half as useful or successful as the ESCR hypesters would have you believe. None.

The pro-ESCR camp is relying on the scientific ignorance of the public. As MIT researcher James Sherley says, “Figuring out how to use human embryonic stem cells directly by transplantation into patients is tantamount to solving the cancer problem.” It won’t be done. And the reason they hype cures instead of “basic research” is because despite the millions that have been sunk into it, the research has been a failure.

If one starts from the extremely restrictive definition that holds that it's only theocracy if the government is run by some formal church, then you might be able to argue against Schumer's remark. But on the whole, and given the popular understanding of what "theocracy" means, I think the shoe fits.

In other words, if we let the idiots dumb down the meaning of words and allow them to mean whatever the heck they want them too, then yeah, we are headed toward a “theocracy.”

By this definition, America was a theocracy from the day Columbus landed until about 1972.

13

I agree that the "growing divide in beliefs" will have a significant impact, particularly on mainline Protestantism.

Is it the growing divide in beliefs, or threatened splitting? This growing divide has already been occurring in mainline Protestantism, with increasing numbers of “subsets” developing within certain denominations, whether formally recognized or not.

Interesting comments though on growth. A real split might actually help the traditional/orthodox/evangelical (don’t know what to call it...) side of these denominations grow. Not sure what that would do for the denomination itself, though. Which "side" would represent the actual denomination?

I guess I don't see how decentralization would fly.

14

Joe,

You say that the concept of a person is religious in nature. I don't follow. Personhood, roughly, is the capacity to take an interest in one's own well-being coupled to a capacity to so direct one's activities that they will tend to realize that well-being. For we human beings, this can be explained in terms of the presence of certain brain structures. What is there in this that's religious in nature?

Scott,

You say: "Perhaps you have not followed the Episcopalian meltdown very well. I would have said that "... there's a category of sin and that the only acts within it are Nazi genocide and intolerance" sums up liberal religion very well, if intolerance stands for homophobia, racism, and sexism. Also, it seems that I have often heard terrorism outright apologized for on the basis of injustice."

I assume that you've put hyperbole to the side and now say precisely what you mean.

I say again: this is straw man. Liberal religion holds that murder is not a sin? That rape is not a sin? That to lie is not a sin? That environmental destruction is not a sin? That hatred, envy and spite are not sins?

Of course not. To all advocates of a liberal Christianity, these and many more besides are sins.

I simply do not believe that you've often heard terrorism excused because of injustices perpetrated against them. Perhaps you've heard condemnation of both terrorism and U.S. injustices from liberal Christians. Perhaps you've heard of a certain, unhinged professor who attempted such an excuse of terrorism. But you have not often heard liberal Christians take the side of the terrorists, for they have not done it. Nor have you heard secular liberals do it often.

It seems that the mental representation you've built up of liberal Christianity bears little resemblance to the reality. Until it comes more in line with that reality, debate with you will prove fruitless.

15

Joe:
[I]t was that he was so blatantly pandering by doing it on a third rate talk show. It was just lame.

Pandering of this sort is as old as American politics. They only thing new here is who Clinton was pandering to -- young people, especially African Americans. And far from being "lame," it worked for him.

Frankly, given a choice between that and a VP who tells someone to go f--k himself on the Senate floor, I'll take the sax, thank you.

Newt against Rudy makes Newt look good.

I'm not even sure about that much.

Democrats? Clinton.

I'm not so sure about that. She's an awfully polarizing figure, even within the Democratic party. She lacks her husband's charisma. And she's been actively moving to the right for the last year or so -- which could help her in the general, but won't score her any points come primary time.

Those who oppose ESCR are the ones with science on their side.

That's rich! If scientists used the definition of "science on your side" that you're going with here, where "it hasn't worked yet, therefore it cannot work," we'd still be using stone tools.

Denial of personhood (a religious—not scientific--concept )

I've always known you believe personhood is meaningless without religion, but it's still refreshing to see you admit it.

But to equate a blastocyst with a human life, as ESCR opponents do, is not only scientifically inaccurate, it devalues and demeans human life.

And the reason they hype cures instead of “basic research” is because despite the millions that have been sunk into it, the research has been a failure.

No, the reason they hype cures is because that's what they're working toward. They mail fail, and they may succeed, but the only way to guarantee failure is to stop them from trying.

Frankly, however, I'm surprised you're emphasizing the failure aspect of this, because it has nothing at all to do with your position on it. Even if the probability of success were 99.9%, you would still oppose the research. I know your continued insistence that it "cannot work" is intended to win support for your side from those who don't necessarily agree with you on the moral grounds; unfortunately, most scientists don't share your pessimism.

[I]f we let the idiots dumb down the meaning of words and allow them to mean whatever the heck they want them too [sic]

People in glass houses. That's a telling statement from a guy who can't differentiate among to/too/two. :)

But seriously, I don't think Schumer's use of "theocracy" here is out of line. Ask the majority of ESCR opponents if they think America ought to be (or already is) a "Christian Nation," and I'd bet they'll overwhelmingly answer "yes." Ask them if things that Christianity explicitly forbids ought to also be illegal (because God forbids them), and again, most will answer "yes." This differs from your rigid definition of theocracy only in that they wouldn't necessarily have the government answering to some specific church.

That distinction, to me, isn't important enough to invalidate the use of the term "theocrat" in Schumer's context. Frankly, if there's a better word to use, I don't know what it is. Perhaps you can suggest one. What would you call someone who wants to make God's law (as s/he sees it) the law of the land?

16

It’s not that he played the saxophone (though Clinton comes across as more of a band geek than a jazz player) it was that he was so blatantly pandering by doing it on a third rate talk show. It was just lame.

So how exactly would Clinton have played the saxophone in a non-pandering manner on a third rate talk show? Or is any sax playing on a talk show automatically pandering? Doesn't William F Buckley play the harpsicord or something like that? Was he pandering when he did that on the old Carson show? Keep in mind that like Clinton, Buckley once did run for office.

17

Doesn't William F Buckley play the harpsicord or something like that? Was he pandering when he did that on the old Carson show?

Who would he have been pandering to? I don't imagine there are too many votes to be mined in the wealthy, white, conservative, North-eastern patrician, harpsichord fan lobby.

18

There's a saxophone lobby dedicated to electing sax playing politicians? Talk about niche politics!

19

Out of curiosity, if, say, George Bush attends a ball game is that pandering to baseball fans?

20

"Personhood, roughly, is the capacity to take an interest in one's own well-being coupled to a capacity to so direct one's activities that they will tend to realize that well-being. For we human beings, this can be explained in terms of the presence of certain brain structures. What is there in this that's religious in nature?"

You just cut a huge swath through humanity with that definition. Ever been in a nursing home, a NICU?

21

sonspot:

I think you're misunderstanding the definition, then. Very, very few (if any) people in nursing homes would fail to meet that definition of personhood. What's important is that the capacity exists, not that it's being used at any given time. Even people who are senile still have some capacity to take interest in their own well-being, even if that capacity is greatly diminished.

22

tqirsh: "Even people who are senile still have some capacity to take interest in their own well-being, even if that capacity is greatly diminished."

This statement simply isn't true. Neither for the advanced Alheimer's patient or the 25 week old premature infant. But let us set that aside for now. Capacity, in the way you are using it, infers potential. If potential for self interest is the line that must be crossed to become "human" surely a fetus would meet that definition.

23

sonspot:
Capacity, in the way you are using it, infers potential.

Not at all. You're misunderstanding the way I'm using "capacity." If the part of the brain that handles those higher function exists, and is alive, then the capacity is there, period. If it doesn't, or it isn't, then it is not.

But you are correct that at the extreme end of life, the capacity can be irreparably lost, and that in this case it isn't substantially different, from a moral and ethical perspective, from a fetus. This is why, in some cases at least, euthanasia is not necessarily immoral in the extreme later stages of life.

In any case, there's no potential at all. It's either there, or it's not. The sleep analogy is a poor one, because the capacity exists, but is latent. In an early-term fetus or a brain-dead human, the capacity itself simply does not exist. Does this help you see where I'm coming from?

Put another way, even an extremely senile person is at least physiologically capable of experiencing things like suffering. A brain-dead human, or a fetus with no higher brain function, is not. If the being is not physiologically capable of suffering, then there's noone to harm, and thus no moral harm done in killing that being.

24

But let us set that aside for now. Capacity, in the way you are using it, infers potential. If potential for self interest is the line that must be crossed to become "human" surely a fetus would meet that definition.

Speaking a foreign language was a good analogy that was used before. I have the potential to learn French. I have the capacity to speak English even though I'm not speaking English at the moment (I am writing it though).

When using capacity in the 'potential' sense, a long series of things have to happen. I'd have to start practicing French, start memorizing words, buying self help tapes, enrolling in a class and so on. When talking about my capcity to speak English, all the necessities have already been done and I only have choose to use it, nothing more.

25

Hi all! What do you think about conflict in Israel?