Intellectuelle   Current Events

This week I received a copy of the study guide for Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Edition) which is due to be released shortly. What I especially enjoy about it is that she has introduced new material in the form of recent events (e.g. Ron Reagan speaking on ESCr and cloning at the DNC). For each chapter of the book, she provides new material and examples showing the conflict between worldviews in the areas of bioethics, origins, and even the church and Christian higher ed. On page 485, Nancy takes the reader back to chapter 1 where she discusses how its possible "to be Christian in our beliefs yet secular in the way we live." She provides even more content to that discussion:

The vast majority of Christian colleges and universities perpetuate the sacred/secular divide, according to a study by Robert Benne (Quality of the Soul, 2001). He calls it an 'add-on' approach because it treats Christianity as something added on to the curriculum-through chapel, Bible studies, and prayer groups-while the course content is esentially the same as any secular university. These colleges define themselves as Christian because of their ethos and atmosphere, not because they teach a distinctive vision of the world.

The upshot is that many of our churches and schools are turning out young people who are Christian in their religious life but secular in their mental life-who unthinkingly absorb secular worldviews.

I couldn't help but to be personally impacted by this additional example. Recently, I've been faced with people in my life who wear their faith on their sleeve yet act in ways that are usually less than Christian. It's this behavior that shows how the Church has been secularized and why Total Truth is an important tool for Christian worldview education today.

Total Truth: Liberating Christianity from Its Cultural Captivity (Study Guide Ed.)

Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will be glad to hear from me. I�ve created a revolutionary birth certificate that may help him out.

Gov. Romney is taking some heat from gay rights advocates for refusing to change the �Father� and �Mother� blanks on birth certificates to �Parent A� and �Parent B� blanks. (HT: Kathleen Parker�s article on townhall.com.)

Birth certificates used to be simple, providing basic information about a baby�s birth: the place of birth, the date and time of birth, medical information, the father�s name, the mother�s name, etc. Easy stuff. That was then, this is now.

Would a "New and Improved Birth Certificate" have helped this situation?

Would it have made the parties involved even more aware of the complexities of the consequences of their choices?

Update: After reading the article more closely (there's an idea) the answer to my question is no. I don't think it would have mattered. Here's an overview of the facts per the article:

• 58 year old man, Stephen F. Melinger, enters into a surrogacy contract with a woman via a company.
• Midway through the pregnancy, Melinger says he may not be the biological dad so he has to apply for adoption. 
• At some point, the surrogate mom  signed a consent form saying she was the biological mom. 
• The question of an egg donor has been raised because the surrogate mom is black and Melinger is white. The babies are white. However, his race doesn't matter if his sperm wasn't used.
• To further complicate things, the babies are now in foster care because Melinger's abilitry to care for them is being questioned.

In light of this, my idea of a new "birth" certificate wouldn't matter.  Maybe they need a "conception" certificate to certify the conception. I know it sounds ridiculous and intrusive, but while attorneys and courts try to unravel this mess, two babies are waiting for a home.

(HT: "When is Surrogacy Simple?" from feminine genius via Charmaine Yoest.)

An article on the August 17th New York Times described a situation that is unheard of today. In fact, when I first read it, I thought "Naaaaaaaaaaa...no way, that didn't happen." But in fact, it did.

This is what happened. A 19 year old, Ryan Cushing, was charged with assault for "tossing a turkey through a car windshield last fall." The driver of that car suffered severe injuries and was forced to undergo many hours of surgery to rebuild the broken bones in her face.

To make a long story short, the victim, Ms. Ruvolo, insisted that the prosecutors show mercy by granting a plea bargain. What could have been up to 25 years in prison is 6 months in jail and five years probation.

Some are attributing her compassion to a religious motivation. The article suggests that her "impulse may have been entirely secular." But I disagree that there can be a "secular rationale" for showing grace and mercy. Understanding man as having been created in the image of God explains why man acts in ways that are reflective of God's character.

Now that I know about it, I can't let this day slip by without wishing Joe a happy 36th. I'm still trying to get over the shock of him not being the older, wiser, wise-cracking man that I thought he was. Well, actually, I guess that still fits.

Frances Newton will be executed in two weeks for a crime she probably did not commit.  She's been on death row for 18 years for the murder of her husband and two children--she will be the first black woman to be killed by the state of Texas since the Civil War.  The New York Times just reported on new evidence that might help exonerate her.  Just six months prior to her incarceration, she became a Christian and that is what has sustained her.  Here are excerpts from a recent interview:

Terry: I know from the very beginning that you have always declared your innocence. How have you kept your heart from being bitter? Seventeen years is a long time.

Frances: Yes, but I�ve prayed that I wouldn�t become bitter, that I wouldn�t remain angry, that I would just give all of it to God and let Him handle it. There have been moments where I felt myself going that way, and I have people around me who will help me... The Holy Spirit reminds me too.

Terry: When you�re alone, how do you occupy your thoughts positively?

Frances: I put the Word of God in my heart, and I�ll sing songs. I�ll quote Scripture. I�ll remember stories of the Bible, and I�ll try to think of those things. I just finished reading Joseph, a man of integrity and forgiveness by Chuck Swindoll. I was so moved by his story, because here he was, had been sold in slavery, put in prison, yet he had no bitterness in him. When I can read that, I pray, "Lord, help me not to have bitterness."

...

Terry: I know that there are a lot of people who have prayed and walked through this with you and a lot of people who are still praying for you. You came within a couple of hours of execution. How did you prepare yourself for that? That�s a place of total surrender, Frances.

Frances: It is, and I thought, Lord, if it is today, I�m going to be glad to be with You. As Christians, that�s our goal. We talk about heaven, and we sing about heaven. Now I might be going to heaven right now. It�s like our faith. Is our faith going to stay strong just when things are going okay, but when we have struggles and things are bad� what about our faith then? If our faith is strong and our faith is what we say it is, it�s going to be strong even in the bad times. It may weaken a little, and I have been weak at times, but it�s there and because God is in it, He makes Himself strong. He keeps us strong.

Terry: When asked what His name was, God gave the term, �I Am�� tell them that I Am because He is everything that we need. What attributes of God have meant the most to you while you�ve been in here?

Frances: His constancy. He is so consistent. That has meant the most to me because in the environment, so much changes all the time. If you allow yourself to get bothered by the change, then you�re not stable. But God is so stable, and if you keep yourself in Him, that stability is going to come off on you, too.

Terry: How do you want people to pray for you?

Frances: Pray that I would keep my focus on the Lord, no matter what.

***

The Committee to Free Frances Newton has more information about the case and a form letter it will email to government officials if you sign up (it takes less than a minute).  Here's a portion of what it says:

"The dubious motive, unrealistic timeline, the police's refusal to follow important leads, and most of all, her incompetent counsel, all point to the compelling evidence that proves Frances Newton is innocent. She has been on death row for 18 years, and you have already granted her a 120- day stay. But on the basis of new evidence, Frances needs to finally have her day in court. We plead to you in good conscience to STOP THE EXECUTION OF FRANCES NEWTON."

***

I found this story by accident while on what I thought would be a brief googling adventure with and about God.  That's how I know he led me to it.  I'd tell you the phrase I typed in but it may be part of a future post, and I don't want to spoil it while I'm still exploring the meaning.

This also ties in with something else I wanted to blog about.  A few weeks ago I found The Innocence Project which has stories that will break and bless your heart.  They are a non-profit student-operated legal clinic whose mission is to free wrongfully convicted inmates who can be exonerated by DNA testing (which wasn't available when they were originally tried).  Many have been incarcerated for over two decades, some are now senior citizens who were young men ripped from their families because they were poor or uneducated (usually both) and unable to get fair representation.

NOTE:  Please do not argue whether capital punishment is scriptural here, but you are welcome to do it on this post.  Just be sure to read through the comments before adding anything.

One important thing I've learned in my first weeks at college is the distinct advantage of having a professor who will forward you articles of interest that provide the ever-welcome opportunity for productive procrastination. So when an article called "Developing a Discipline: The Recent Study of Western Church History in the People's Republic of China" pops up in my inbox, you'd better believe that a textbook reading about Archaic Era ceramics techniques is going to be demoted in priority.

The article, from the July edition of the Journal of Ecclesiastical History, explores the development of academic preoccupation with church history in post-Marxist China. Following the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), during which the privilege of practicing and studying traditional forms of culture (such as religion) was taken away, Deng Xiaoping stepped in with his policy of "reform and opening" in 1978. Several factors contributed to the revival of Christianity as a topic for scholarly study and the gradual departure from the Marxist theory of religion as the "opium of the masses." The prohibition on unregulated spiritual activities was lifted; Buddhism and Protestantism, interesting bedfellows, led in the subsequent revival of religious practice; intellectuals took notice, and the Chinese interest in western church history was born.

The Pacific Fertility Center of San Francisco intends to recruit women to donate eggs for cloning and embryonic stem cell research for the South Korea-based World Stem Cell Foundation, which announced this week that it is opening a satellite operation in the San Francisco Bay area.

According to the Fertility Center's Dr. Philip Chenette, "women are fascinated by by the chance to help." Of course they are interested in the chance to help. The alternative response to the request would be "no, I'm not interested in helping people who are dying of diseases that research might prove to benefit."

Cloning and embryonic stem cell research depends upon the willingness of women to risk their own health and even their lives in order to produce eggs for research that they are told will help save lives (while, obviously, destroying lives - another issue for another blog entry). What real choice does a woman have to say "no" to such a request? The liberal side of our culture says that a woman has a right to make choices about her own body, but that real choices are often obscured by oppression, coercion, and power-mongering. Doesn't anyone else see how this project is exactly that and amounts to a pure objectification of women? The feminist outcry is barely a whisper at this point.

The selection of Katherine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church has caused cheers and jeers for exactly the same reasons. Many celebrating her selection applaud the first female to head TEC and her pro-homosexual theology. Those are the reasons I�m concerned, along with many Episcopalians. She�s getting a lot of press and it�s very telling how the story is covered.

Some see it as a womens� rights issue. Newsweek Magazine (Periscope July 3, 2006) reported her appointment as progress for women: �Women make up 61 percent of all Americans who attend religious congregations, but they still struggle for their place in some denominations�.But there are indications that times are changing�.The stained-glass ceiling �has certainly been punctured.�� On a news program I saw, one panelist declared, �There aren�t two sides to this. There�s only one: Women pastors.�

Her appointment is seem by some as progress for the pro-homosexual rights movement in the church. She supports the selection of openly homosexual Bishop Robinson and the Newark, N.J. nomination of a homosexual for bishop. This coverage, too, seems more political than religious. The point should be what the Bible teaches, not what seems good to us in 2006.

I’m referring to Chautauqua Institution, a center for the arts and learning situated on Chautauqua Lake in western NY, where I work during the summer. Chautauqua began as a sort of educational retreat for Methodist Sunday school teachers in the late 1800s and is today a prime thinking (and relatively well-off) person’s vacation spot. A gated community requiring paid admission for nine weeks every summer, Chautauqua offers a plethora of high-level events ranging from symphony, opera, ballet, and theater productions to lectures by such figures as (this year) Al Gore, Tony Campolo, Richard Schickel, Michael York, and Arthur Sulzberger Jr.

There was a write-up in Sunday’s Buffalo News (article unavailable online without a subscription) on “Citizen Sulzberger,” who will be speaking on “Citizenship, Democracy and Journalism: An Essential Partnership” at the Chautauqua Ampitheater this Thursday July 13. Said Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the New York Times, regarding the controversy over reporting information that could potentially threaten national security:

Whenever we find ourselves under conditions of wartime, this country falls back in that balance between civil liberties and security. Not mediocre presidents, either – Lincoln, right? Habeas corpus. John Adams and the Sedition Acts. Woodrow Wilson and imprisoning political opponents. Franklin Roosevelt and Japanese Americans.

...There is a context here, and you can’t view today’s events outside that context. You have to deal with them as they come, and that’s unpleasant sometimes, but it does help, it helps me at least, to know others have been down this path.

One of America�s 10 Most Wanted Ralph "Bucky" Phillips is now in police custody. After an intensive manhunt not far from where I live, Phillips is on his way to Buffalo, NY for arraignment. Throughout the day today, we listened and watched for media updates as police helicopters went by outside. Phillips finally gave himself up around 8:00pm tonight, after New York State and Pennsylvania police forces and SWAT teams closed in upon him near a local golf course.

It was interesting to watch the media coverage. Some news crews were ahead of others with �breaking news,� depending upon their location. We wondered whether they were all staying where police had told them to. Some were quick to confirm that Phillips had been captured; others were more cautious to proclaim the news until confirmation came from police sources, or from the AP. Earlier in the day, reporters on the scene were asked to describe the terrain where Phillips was thought to be contained. The descriptions differed. (A local could�ve described it accurately!). Even some area stations� anchors didn�t have the location quite right. Ah, communication...

Technological advantages as well as differences in skill were evident between local and national coverage too, as is to be expected. And local teams interviewed, for example, the New York State Police Superintendent, while Katie Couric interviewed a US Marshal. Though the coverage overall was great, also evident were limitations of communication and of perspective, regardless of whether the journalism was done well or not.

Well, we�re all breathing a sigh of relief. But Phillips is still alive. That means there�s still time to pray for his soul.

I've had a blogger's block for about a week now because I knew I needed to write about Andrew Sullivan's editorial in last week's Time Magazine. The magazine has been sitting, marked up with my comments, on my desk for over a week. It's not how to respond to it, but the sheer volume of problems in three pages to respond to. It's such a mess of bad facts and bad thinking I find it discouraging. But it's quite typical of a lot of criticisms of Christians that amount to warnings about how dangerous we are. Part of the genesis of these kinds of claims is the terrorism motivated by Islamic fundamentalism. They equate those fundamentalists to Christian fundamentalists. J.P. Moreland has pointed out quite memorably that it's not that someone is zealous or fundamentalist, it's what they are zealous about that is the problem. Zealous Christianity leads to living out Biblical principles, a very good thing. Zealous radical Islam leads to killing innocent people, a very evil thing.

Sullivan was a guest on a radio show earlier this week talking about his book, The Conservative Soul, that has the same thesis as this magazine piece. He began by defining the Christian fundamentalists he's talking about: Fundamentalists are those people who think they know the truth about everything. Now, who's that? There may be a few of these people around, but they're hardly worth writing an article, much less a magazine article about. I don't know anyone who would fit this description. Do you? Who is he talking about? Yet that's the kind of ridiculous overstatement and characterization typical of Sullivan's piece and others who are writing about the same thing lately.

Sullivan uses the now familiar distinction of claiming to know lower "t" truth and capital "T" truth. The former kind of knowledge is supposedly more modest and less offensive, while the former is arrogant and absolute leading to all kinds of problems in the world. Not surprisingly, Sullivan goes on several paragraphs later in the article to tell us what the truth of things are and what "true faith" is. He sure talks like he's telling us about the way things really are, not just his perspective, because he's appealing to others to abandon their arrogance and embrace the doubt that will end all our conflict. Sullivan sounds pretty sure of his view when I read his article, but you see, that's okay with me. I'm interested in hearing his ideas and having a lively disagreement with the goal of persuading each other when we disagree. He sounds just as sure as the Christians he's critiquing, but that's juts fine. We can hardly escape the conviction that our own beliefs are correct. There is no such thing as the false distinction between "t" and "T" truth. That claims purports to be the way things are - "T" truth. We're all in that same boat, it's just that some of the passengers want to take pot shots at the others, which is really how I perceive Sullivan's criticisms.

He's afraid what will become of freedom in our country because of the threat from the Christian fundamentalists who believe in "T" truth. He believes these kinds of Christians are a new and growing phenomenon. Actually, Christians who believe they are correct and would love others to become part of the family, too, have been the norm in our country for over 300 years - the same 300 years that have been characterized by the most freedom of any society in history. Christians of this kind have been the majority in our country from the beginning, yet never have launched the kinds of witch hunts and pogroms Sullivan warns us of. If anything, this kind of Christianity is on the wane in our pluralistic society.

On the increase is the kind of Christianity Sullivan promotes that embraces doubt. He claims this is the kind of religion Jesus and Paul taught, but his exegesis is questionable. What it is is the kind of religion that allows someone the appearance of religiosity, the veneer of moral justification, without the accountability to the Bible and God to actually live out what is expected of us to be truly good people.

Sullivan offers us a false choice between omniscience or skepticism. His argument allows nothing in between so he opts for embracing skepticism. However, omniscience isn't the alternative and I don't know anyone who expects that it is. Rather, the alternative is a careful, responsible search for the only kind of truth there is (lower or capital, the way the world really is). If you believe something, it means you think it's true. Confidence is another kind of feature of our beliefs that can grow or decline with the justification we have for our beliefs. And we can spend our lives trying to increase our stock of true beliefs. That's what a virtuous believer looks like, not someone who had given up.

Sullivan begins the conclusion to his piece by writing about his virtuous grandmother who was a devout Catholic. To make his point, though, he imputes to her the kind of doubt and skepticism of his own religious beliefs based on no reason that he gives us. It's rather touching; but it's also deceitful and disrespectful of his grandmother. The Catholicism of his grandmother's time and the people of her generation were more characteristic of the Christians he's taking to task in his article. It's highly unlikely that his grandmother would have agreed with her grandson, absent any reason Sullivan has neglected to include.

He finishes with a typically self-contradictory statement after quoting German playwright Gotthold Lessing. Sullivan says, "That sentiment is true now as it was more than two centuries ago...." It sure sounds to me like he's telling us the "T" truth and has abandoned his doubt.

Greg Koukl talked about his on Stand to Reason's radio show) last Sunday.

I was going to write a post on the Ted Haggard situation and how Christians really aren’t allowed to be sinful, much less blatantly sinful, even though they all seem to agree that once we are saved we don’t become sinless, just forgiven, and hopefully less sinful. But it appears that it’s already been done and very well at that, so I will just refer you to Charlie Lehardy’s post on Scot McKnight’s.

Update: I'll confess, I'm a little baffled by the sudden outpouring of "oh yes, I'm such a horrible sinner" from various places in the Godblogosphere. What? Now all of a sudden everyone is willing to openly admit what terrible sinners they are? I am in no place to question anyone's sincerity, but I find it odd that that all of sudden lots of people are jumping on this bandwagon. If it's all truly sincere, though, be prepared for a huge and very welcome overhaul of evangelical Christendom!

Update no. 2: a great comment at Jollyblogger on the issue, by commenter slaveofone:

What I find incredible is that it took someone outside the church to bring light to and expose the darkness of someone inside the church...

What's going on at the level of the sheep if the shepherds are lost?

Have we become so enamored of good appearances that we have shunned that which might expose the dark, unseen places, letting them grow and fester among each other like a cancer in the body of Christ?

Has our faith become so powerless that it can do nothing among each other to work healing and affect good unless the very hand of Yahweh stretches out and points at someone saying "help my servant"?

This is not an isolated occurrence. Neither is Haggard's error solely his own. This is representative of a larger problem in us as a Christian body. Where were we when Haggard needed us? Where are you when I need you? Where am I when you need me? If there is sin, brokenness, trouble, injustice, need of love, whatever in one member of the body, it affects the whole. We are not automatons, separate and aloof. Our lives are healed and strengthened or weakened and destroyed because of each other.

(If you’re tired of this by now, read no further)

These comments are in response to the blogosphere mainly, or, more specifically, to the section of the blogosphere I read, because that is where most my observations have been made.

1) I’ve read statements to the effect that, without God’s saving grace we all deserve to go the way of the abject sinner, which is to say, we are all Ted Haggards in heart.

While I agree with the first part I don't believe the second part is true. I believe we do have some control over whether or not we succumb to our sinful tendencies, after we accept the truth of the gospel. I believe God makes available choices and means by which we can avoid some sin. Oftentimes, though, we turn from these. I know I do. I get lazy. I coddle myself, and this breeds a habit of spiritual laziness and bad habits of thought. The consequences of this usually serve as a warning, though, and I make some changes. I see the price that is or will be paid for my errors, and that is usually enough to wake me up. Sometimes it takes awhile, and the squeeze has to be pretty tight before I’ll do anything. But still, I thank God daily for His care of me (and those around me) in this way.

2) I read a statement to the effect that we cannot be prideful over Haggard’s fall because the only reason we’re at all saved or conquerors of our own disgraceful sin is because of God’s grace. We can’t say, “I’m not as bad as Haggard because I don’t sin that badly.”

I think there’s a fallacy here, and it is not that there are degrees of sin, but that we distinguish between degrees of sin wrongly. Yes, some sins are more outwardly destructive than others, but I know from personal experience that subtle sins – even those that look “good” on the outside – can have devastating consequences for both those who sin in this way and the ones whom these sins affect.

Also, if there is no reward for doing good; if the good is all of God and noneof us, then why are we told to run the race here on earth, looking to heaven and not to man, and to look for our reward in heaven? We will all be held accountable and rewarded according to our actions. I’m not looking forward to that, actually, because I fear I do and have done a lot more that’s not deserving of reward than I have done that is! Not that I’m trying to keep my own account, because that’s rather impossible and a waste of time. But I think that the credit God gets is that, without Him and all the means He makes available, we would be unable to conquer even the tiniest sin on our own. He made everything, anyway, which is why in Him we live and breathe and have our being. And we love because He first loved us.

Therefore, any bragging about what awful sinners we really are except for the grace of God – in essence bragging that we are as bad as Ted Haggard except for the grace of God – is of no use. Each of us is responsible for our own selves before God, so any sort of comparison is prideful. (And yes, I am guilty of this as well!) At the same time, any sin is that which separates us from God and brings down those around us and we are accountable for it.

We must also distinguish, perhaps, between salvation in Christ and perfection in salvation – what might be referred to as salvation as distinguished from sanctification. If it’s true that we have no choice over our own salvation, we certainly do have some choice concerning our own sanctification.

3) Many bloggers I’ve read have said that they’d never heard of Ted Haggard before, and one (can’t remember who) said that he believed that probably 95% of us haven’t.

I wonder, though, why that would be, and what it means. Does it mean that Haggard was really of no consequence? Or does it mean that, even in this Age of Information, we are still limited in our awareness by the spheres we live in? Can we help it that we live in such a limited awareness? Probably not. But I don’t think we should assume that we’re aware of more that’s important than we really are (I am guilty of this too), as much as we can help it...this again is pride. Whether pride in our own knowledge or in the technological capacities we have, it’s still pride – the pride of man.

If Haggard was not of consequence because of his erring theology (Pelagian, perhaps, whether he knew of it as that or not), yet he was of consequence because of his promulgation of errant theology, then he really is of consequence as a brother and leader and therefore deserves our loving aid and correction rather than our judgment for his errant theology.

4) Theology is very important, and is surely not taught as it should be. But I don’t think this means that it is not taught as much as it should be, for it is taught all the time! It just may not be labeled according to originator or system, or taught with any sense of organization. I’m not sure that this is necessary, anyway (for everyone, at least!). If we are to truly love our brothers and sisters both in Christ and in humanity, we must focus on people and not on theology as separate from them. If our theology does not inform a God-pleasing treatment of others, then what good is it?

In a recent BBC Newsnight interview, Madonna, dressed in black and sitting in a carefully staged set that would have been more appropriate in the Adam's Family mansion, defended her decision to begin adoption proceedings with baby David Banda.

One of the many accusations levelled at her in the media has been the idea that she picked out the child in much the same manner that one would choose a puppy in a pet shop. In the interview, she refuted this and describes how she first saw David as part of a documentary film that was being made relating to her Foundation. She went on to defend her decision to remove the baby from Malawi, despite the fact that he has a father and allegedly a Grandmother who visited him regularly. She denied any knowlege of a Grandmother and insisted that both a Malawian Government minister and the man who runs the orphanage told her that no-one visited the boy.

Quite apart from the all the obvious questions that this whole adoption debacle raises, one issue that remains unchallenged is the part the media played in this. The simple version of the story, as portrayed in the press, would have you believe that Madonna flew into Malawi astride a broomstick, picked out the child she liked the look of with complete disregard for his family and Malawian law. Not only that but she hoodwinked Malawian officals, the boys father and her adoring public into believing that she did this with the boys best interest at heart, something which couldn't possibly be true of someone like her.

But of course it's never that simple. Bastions of journalistic integrity such as the Guardian, The Times and others of similar ilk, would never dream of spinning such a story, they are only interested in exposing the truth. As well as the tireless pusuit of truth, they are of course concerned for the welfare of the child, something ably demonstrated by the way in which they, along with others, welcomed him with flash photography during his arrival at Heathrow Airport.

Ok, I'll dispense with the sarcasm, but I think it's interesting to note the scathing criticism Madonna has received over this issue, yet the adoption of a baby from Africa by Angelina Jolie last year was noted only by a few lines in the Guardian's 'in brief' section

OK, that's not really funny. Or maybe it is. Anyway, this post is about the new Christian Reconciliation Carnival, founded by Weekend Fisher.

I have noticed something interesting in certain parts of the Christian blogosphere. I have seen debates that degenerated into people trying to understand each others' positions. I have seen Christians praising members of other groups, a growing body of recognized common ground, and people with crossover appeal beyond their own group. Of course, I've seen nastiness and divisiveness too, but the opponents of nastiness and divisiveness are becoming bolder, more outspoken.

To that end, I'm proposing a Christian Reconciliation Carnival. It's intended as a "Road to Reconciliation" Carnival, a place where we do not expect too much of ourselves except humility, and a Carnival that is a cease-fire zone.

Amen. The carnival will happen monthly. There will be a Question and Answer section as well, to which questions can be submitted. (see guidelines here.) Oh, and the vanguard Carnival can be found here, at Heart, Mind, Soul, and Strength.

The host (and founder) does a little math:

...most current estimates show the Christian church divided into 20,000 to 30,000 different groups. If each theological difference causes a split, and each distinct group has a unique combination of beliefs, that works out to only about 15 actual differences. (2 to the 15th being 32,768.) Beyond that, there are far fewer major groups (maybe a dozen). Unfortunately all 15 of the same issues are probably still in the picture with the dozen groups.

Well, that's a bit over my head but I understand what he's she's getting at. And I can't tell you how encouraged I am by an effort like this -- it's definitely a step toward unity in the Body of Christ. (Can I hear an "amen"?)

HT: Pseudo-Polymath

Blasphemy- What is it? Who commits it? How can it be avoided?

We talk much of "scandal" but not much about its outcome, which, oftentimes, is blasphemy.

Following on the "love theme", and Bonnie's post with the example of William Wilberforce, I thought you all might be interested in the news item of renaming certain streets in Liverpool. It seems that the famous "Penny Lane" was named after a wealthy, locally well-known slaver, as are several other streets in the city. There is a good deal of background information in the article," 'Penny Lane' Revives Memories of Slavery"

It appears that

"Liverpool council member Barbara Mace last year proposed renaming streets associated with slavery, and was surprised to learn that Penny Lane was among them. After a lively controversy the proposal was withdrawn. "

The city council, which formally apologized in 1999, wants to recognize that part of its history in light of today's convictions regarding slavery and its tragic human toll, though the idea of changing street names does not seem to be the route they will follow.

There are reasons to revisit the history and think upon the struggle against slavery, however:

Anti-Slavery International, founded by the leaders of Britain's abolition movement, estimates that 12 million people are in some form of slavery today, as bonded laborers or in the sex trade.

Slavery is now illegal everywhere, said Beth Herzfeld of Anti-Slavery International, but "laws today are not being implemented."

"We have to not just reflect on the reality and horrors of the slave trade but to see that people power had a very important role in overthrowing the trade, and that people today still have a role to play," she said.

Another fact mentioned in the article is the role that the rising Quaker movement played:"abolitionists - a mass movement built on networks of Quakers, with Sharp, Wilberforce and Clarkson in prominent leadership roles. "

This underlines the importance of people allowing their faith to act out in the public forum as a force for good. The Quakers of that time were never primarily a social gospel movement, but one of sincere personal faith. It just isn't likely that a lively faith will be safely bottled up in "private religion" as it is "wished for" today. In quotes, because that is how I would personally express it.

It is not just a token or superficial effort to give attention to this, not just some PC hoop to jump through. The history and destiny of slavery, freedom, and our dual ideals of equality and the dignity of man are intertwined. The struggle is not yet over, and proper recognition of history helps to remind us.

Right Reason: Get with the program...or else

"Get with the program...or else" is how the present situation for a homeschooling family has become in Germany.

16-year-old homeschooled Melissa Busekros is unfortunate enough to have been "diagnosed" with it. Result: Melissa was dragged off by fifteen policemen to a psychiatric ward and now has been placed in foster care. ...the "resolution" in question would just mean Mr. and Mrs. Busekros could go their childless way without being further harassed. As things stand, they refused to give up all their children and are now themselves going to be "psychologically evaluated."

Of course, this is an amazing twist of events in increasingly Muslim Europe. Not too different from our own reaction that the more fear the fanatical Islamists engender the more the conservative Christian communities pay for it- in freedoms, in prejudice, and now it seems, in persecution. Fear of fanatical Islam increases, and Christians who wish to homeschool find their daughter dragged to psych wards and their family attacked with the full force of the Social Services aligned with the State police force. Explain to me the logic of that conclusion, please.

Here is a matter for protest from all who value freedom, and who care about human rights.
The story of Melissa Busekros' plight.
Girl's plea to the international communitiy.
Related:

Michael Farris, cofounder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, has called for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the right of parents to educate their children at home, in light of such developments in Europe.

Ben Witherington relays the story of Jay McGinley, a 55-year-old former businessman who is on a hunger strike of sorts. McGinley, who goes by “Start Loving,” has camped outside the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. for over 53 days now, in protest of the horror in Darfur. He has left his family behind. On a semi-starvation diet, McGinley is quite weakened, though he continues to attempt to stand with his orange sign when someone comes by the embassy. At night he rests there, semi-upright, in a green sleeping bag. (Washington Post article on McGinley here, his blog is here.)

Witherington applauds McGinley’s efforts and defends his abandonment of his family by pointing to the apostles, and referring to Jesus’ words about leaving family in order to follow Him. However, Jesus’ detainment was and is about sacrifice of possessions, for His sake. I don't think he meant that everyone should abandon their family, nor leave it for an external cause. Nor did His requirements include voluntary starvation. Though I may be wrong, I can’t imagine that Jesus would require someone to voluntarily abandon those who depend upon him or her for their livelihood. (Not that McGinley’s family necessarily does; his children are grown and his wife probably either does or can support herself.) It’s about upholding Jesus’ name (Matthew 19:27-30).

What was it that Jesus said-- "Greater love has no man, than he lay down his life for his friends." Well Jay doesn't even know these folks in Darfur, but he knows they are his brothers and sisters.

A commenter, Bill in Boston, says this:

I admire Jay's devotion and willingness to sacrifice himself for this terribly important and just cause. It is long past time that our leadership, beginning with President Bush, take action to stop the slaughter in Sudan.

However, I am disturbed about Jay's methodology. It is clear that his fast has morphed into a hunger strike. I do not believe it is morally right to choose to destroy the temple of the Holy Spirit. Jesus chose to allow the human authorities of his day to carry out perverted justice against him, but this is not equivalent to committing suicide. Jesus did not take his own life, others directly took it.

Again, I do not write this to criticize Jay, who I am convinced is acting out of pure motives, but rather to point out that his approach isn't quite right.

According to the Post article, McGinley left a letter for Sudanese Ambassador John Ukec Lueth Ukec, asking him to soften his heart in exchange for McGinley’s life. Ukec’s response:

Loving is on public property and breaking no laws, and...[Ukec] has no official comment. "That doesn't mean we don't sympathize with his feelings," he said. "He is a human being and he has a right to protest. I'm sorry that he is very much misinformed. Otherwise several Darfuris would be with him.

"There are so many other ways to reduce the pain of others without inflicting pain on himself," the ambassador said, adding that he would be willing to give Loving a visa so that he could visit Darfur as a social worker. Loving could also witness the complexity of the situation in a place where, he said, securing a lasting peace has been complicated by infighting among rebel factions.

Told of the offer, Loving smiles and turns away. He reiterates that if others were to join him, they could fan out first to the Chinese Embassy, then to the Indian, and finally back to the White House, the better to cause enough commotion to plant the seed of action in President Bush's heart.

McGinley seems to be pinning a lot on the notion that Bush has great power to effect positive action in Darfur, which seems a bit naive. Not due to any fault of Bush’s.

And yes, Jesus asks us to lay down our lives, in a multitude of ways, but certainly not in situations where it is not clearly buying the life of others. I question where the attention McGinley commands is actually going – to those suffering in the Sudan, or the man suffering on the sidewalk by the embassy?

The dynamics of the situation are actually rather manipulative. I’ll try to illustrate: Let’s say there is an atrocity going on at some organization my friends are involved with. Certainly it wouldn’t be on the level of the situation in Darfur, but, let’s say it’s pretty bad. No one is doing, or able to do, anything about it in an effectual way. So let’s say I write a letter of protest to the leadership, and even picket outside, perhaps along with others. But still nothing gets done. So I commence a hunger strike. See what I mean? Should I really expect such action to move, in a healthy way, (or even reach), those who could remedy the situation?

What do you think?

update: Bill in Boston has left an excellent comment at Ben Witherington's post (#20, the last one as I type this) on suicide. He articulates the problems with Loving's reasoning far better than I could. Especially the paragraph that begins:

We cannot create an abstraction and call it reality. A hunger striker cannot deprive himself of food to the point of starvation and claim that others caused his death.

A brief comment on last week's incident at Virgina Tech:

Many are rightly stating that Cho Seung-hui's condition can not be brushed off merely as illness that proper intervention could've fixed. At the same time, it cannot be chalked completely up to evil in the heart of man, either.

I think the Fall of man had two results: the curse (creation's fall), and human evil. Illness and mistake are examples of fallenness. Evil takes advantage of fallenness and ruthlessly exploits it. This evil is both within and without.

In Cho's case there were certainly these three: illness, evil inflicted upon him, and evil within him. These things influence one another and may be intertwined but I don't think it can be said that any cause the others. It is erroneous to assume that evil itself causes illness, or that illness itself causes evil.

In the last few days I’ve been thinking a lot about Mr. Jay McGinley, who is on a hunger strike outside of the Sudanese embassy in Washington, D.C. McGinley has adopted the moniker “Start Loving” to represent his call that the world start loving those in Darfur. He pickets with signs in hopes of drawing attention to his actions so that others will join him, that Bush and others leaders will be compelled to do more to end the atrocities in Darfur.

I wrote about McGinley a few days ago. He has left comments on the post as well as at Ben Witherington’s post which I quoted in mine. He also writes at two blogs. Loving seems to assume that, if people aren’t joining his hunger strike, then they don’t love the people in Darfur as much as he does. He also presumes to know more about the intentions and lack of love of world leaders, including President Bush, than he could possibly know. But even if he were right about them, his bullying, even with pity (which is what his efforts really amount to, aside from misguided inspiration), will not change hearts. Bullying and coercion do not change hearts.

I mentioned Mr. Loving, and my post, and Witherington’s, and comments, to a few people at my church. Their reaction was not the same as mine. It is curious to me that it seems almost a violation to suggest that someone’s ostensible giving of themselves to a cause, to the death (even mine were I to do this) could be the wrong kind of giving to the wrong thing. But why? Why does this misunderstanding seem so prevalent? Is it because we love the idea of sacrifice and works over obedience and faith? Does it seem more heroic to suffer to the death for a large-scale atrocity than, for example, to slog, day after day, in faithfulness to an unfulfilling but necessary job, or care for children?

Loving says that he is taking the suffering of people in Darfur on himself by suffering himself, in a sort of Jesus-effect, but of course there was and is only one Jesus. The suffering we are supposed to take is on behalf of Jesus and the spiritual salvation of others, as well as in service to them that they may have well-being of, first, spiritual life, and second, bodily life. It is a direct action, not an indirect one done in the hope of getting others to take the direct action. Loving’s actions betray a subtle twist of logic but a twist nonetheless.

Though it’s hard to accept, the end result is that Loving is destroying himself. Himself. I can’t shake thoughts of this from my mind nor its effects from my heart, in part because it hits close to home. Many whom I have known and loved have done very self-destructive things. I will grieve this always. One of those people is me. More than he probably realizes, I can relate to what Loving is doing to his body because for many years I suffered with an eating disorder. That’s probably a shocking statement for a couple of reasons. But let me clarify that I am not saying that Loving has an eating disorder. But he is nonetheless destroying himself, as is someone who has an eating disorder, or is alcoholic, or trapped in some other serious addiction. Though Loving’s motivations and rationale may seem vastly different from what mine were, I wonder whether they have psychological and spiritual similarities.

In his blogging there are indications that Loving is addicted to the concept of heroism, perhaps in a misguiding attempt to actually save himself. This may seem like an audacious and presumptuous thing to say; I know virtually nothing of him. I have no idea what his past has been like. But I read what he says, and see what he is doing; he is not hiding it. While his zeal and discipline are certainly to be commended, like Paul’s before his conversion, they are terribly misguided. Virtuous traits are not truly virtuous unless applied for the right reasons to the right pursuits.

Loving conceives of himself as a saviour, as do any of us who shake our fists and cry out about an injustice or an offense. We imagine that, in speaking out, we are “saving” someone or something. We want to be effectual; we want our lives to have meaning and purpose. But we already have a Saviour. And we all need Him as badly as anyone or anything we may ever speak out against. It is in submission of our lives, our ambitions, our hopes, our energies, our drives, to Him, in true deference to the sacrifice that He made, that we find our true meaning and purpose, and effectiveness.

Mr. Loving, if you should come back here and read, I beg you to not to destroy yourself in vain. Pray and fast, write letters, go to Darfur and help out there. Donate money to relief programs already in place. Make use of the body you have been given. Don’t throw it away! Your suffering is accomplishing only self-destruction, not salvation for you or the people in Darfur. This may seem harsh, like a stone being hurled at you, your life, your efforts, and your hopes and dreams. But maybe these need to come down so that other, better ones may take their place. I am not saying this to hurt you. I wish for you to truly be saved, in every way.

In love,
Bonnie

...to the Catholic Church. This is creating quite a stir, as well it might. Beckwith has been a member of the Evangelical Theological Society for over 20 years, and was its president upon his very recent resignation.

Christianity Today reports on the situation and links to Beckwith’s discussion of his resignation at Right Reason, where he blogs. In his statement he says,

Although I firmly believe that I can sign the ETS doctrinal statement in good conscience, my high-profile presence in ETS will likely result in the sort of public conflict that occurred during the debate over the openness view of God and the attempt on the part of some members to oust believers in that view. Because, as I noted in my prior posting on this matter, that I deeply desire a public conversation among Christians about the relationship between Evangelicalism and the Great Tradition, a public debate about my membership status, with all the rancor and stress that typically goes with such disputes, would preempt and poison that important conversation. For this reason, I am resigning as a member of ETS.

ETS’s own statement, however, includes this:

...the Executive Committee recognizes Dr. Beckwith’s resignation as President and subsequent withdrawal from membership as appropriate in light of the purpose and doctrinal basis of the Evangelical Theological Society and in light of the requirements of wholehearted confessional agreement with the Roman Catholic Church.

And goes on to cite the Catholic Church’s “more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation” beyond Scripture and its acceptance of the Apocrypha as reason to accept Beckwith’s resignation.

This is the Doctrinal Basis for membership as stated on ETS' website:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

Recently I posted comments about civility in debate, intending to get around to discussing ways to handle disagreement. I planned to talk about this post at Founders.org in which Dr. Tom Ascol aired negative remarks about Jerry Falwell. His words were prompted by Falwell’s statement against limited atonement during an address to prospective Liberty University students about a month ago.

But then I got bogged down, because the more I tried to figure out what was really going on, the bigger the monster got. I found that concerns went back at least a year and included rancor over a proposed debate between Dr. Ergun Caner, president of Liberty Theological Seminary, and Dr. James White. (I still haven’t discovered whether the debate ever happened, but no matter.)

I was hoping to salvage a few points in order to make a post, but then learned that, as of today, Falwell is no longer with us. (Thanks to a link, I think in a comment at Founders, to Challies.) May peace be to his memory.

So, I will put this project on hold. And I have hopes that this event might temper the declamations of some on issues of controversy within the Southern Baptist Convention.

In Memoriam:
The Reverend Jerry Falwell
August 11, 1933 – May 15, 2007

Folks have been having a field day with this. I don’t know Stephen Colbert; I watch next to no TV. Maybe he deserved it:

(This link has the complete clip)

But whether he did or not, I can’t help but be embarrassed for him. I should be embarrassed for her too, though her response was brilliant.

Colbert, though clearly ill at ease, managed to save face, sort of, and for that he's to be commended. But why didn't he dump her? “‘Scuse me, lips are getting dry, where’s my water” or whatever. And then, “No, Ms. Fonda, your chair is over there.” (She'd probably have stayed after him; I wonder to what extent...)

What’s really unfortunate is that many are championing, or at least not minding, Fonda’s actions. There’s nothing worth applauding, though, when a woman uses her wiles this way, no matter what the reason. Whether the world is full of boorish brutes taking endless advantage of women (the “weaker” sex, right?) or not. Why does no one seem to mind when the tables are turned?

(Am I overreacting? Maybe.)

Let it be “on notice” that women are more aware of their sexual power than they let on, and need to use it every bit as respectfully as men are responsible to use theirs.

(Where is that straitjacket?)

I’m under too much stress with too little sleep, so I am in the perfect mood to discuss the state of mainstream journalism about religion as well as Tony Blair’s flirtation with the Church. Not that his flirtation with the Church hasn’t been going on for years, but still.

The article from the Times is appalling, starting with an appalling headline:

Blair will be welcomed into Catholic fold via his ‘baptism of desire’

Tony Blair is an Anglican, and no doubt already baptised in the normal way. Baptism of desire has nothing whatsoever to do with this.

Tony Blair will declare himself a Roman Catholic on leaving Downing Street, according to a priest close to him.

...a bongo bongo bongo bongocero...

On what would have been his 90th birthday, Lucie Arnaz raised a -r-r-r-r-r-r-rhumba-mamba tribute to her father, Desi Arnaz, at the Reg Lenna Theatre in downtown Jamestown, New York. This final event of Jamestown’s annual Luci-Desi Days, May 25-27, 2007, thumped out Desi’s greatest hits to some priceless home video footage of the Ball-Arnaz family.

Born in nearby Celoron, Lucie’s mother, Lucille Ball, never lost ties with the area, nor it with her. People come from all over the world to attend Luci-Desi Days and visit the Lucy-Desi Center, a first-class showcase of memorabilia and history of the “World’s First Couple of Comedy." The Center features re-creations of "I Love Lucy" sets plus Desi's bandstand from the Palace ballroom where he, his band, and guests would conga the night away.

Lucie's got her father’s rhythm and speedy wit; she's a great entertainer. Sings and looks great but doesn't act the diva at all. (Though she did get her 17-piece band, including her own rhythm section plus John Cross’ Babalu Band -- and my husband -- to wear arm ruffles!) In Sunday’s program, unique to the event (though it was too short! Just over an hour) she shared personal memories, video, and photo montages of her childhood, her wedding, and family life all woven together. While acknowledging that her dad wasn’t perfect (“he was impossible to live with”), Lucie nevertheless demonstrated her great love and respect (“but unconscionable to live without”). It was a great show.

Earlier that day, fans heard a preview during the dedication of the new Desi Arnaz bandshell in Celoron's Lucille Ball Memorial Park.

"Faith Adopts Key Role in 2008 Campaign", so goes the headlines, but one's faith has always mattered in the way leadership can be expected to face their decision making process.

Now, though, it is harder to ignore the consequences.

One point of interest within the articles is this one:

Giuliani didn't want to talk about his faith, either. ``The mayor's personal relationship with God is private and between him and God,'' his campaign told AP.

It may be difficult for Giuliani to keep a lid on discussions of his faith. Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI said he agreed with bishops who said Catholic politicians had excommunicated themselves by legalizing abortion in Mexico City.

Seven of the 18 candidates for president - four Democrats and three Republicans - are Catholic. Besides Giuliani, the four Democrats also support abortion rights.

It may bode the future for all of us: a time when adherence to the doctrines and stances of our faith might be expected to hold some real commitment. If the Pope and bishops get bolder in requiring leaders to choose between their faith and political expediency- or personal opinions, this could prove an interesting political season.

I don't know if I would say that ones faith has become more of the deciding factor in politics, I think it is just more in the limelight as contributing to how and why people vote as they do. I think it has always mattered.

Well, I'm a bit late to this, but David M. Howard, Jr., member and past president of the Evangelical Theological Society, comments on Francis Beckwith's "return to Rome" at the Wall Street Journal. (HT to Between Two Worlds) He explains the meaning of "the Bible alone" according to the ETS and why it precludes Beckwith's membership.

I'm interested in his statement that Beckwith's conversion "caught many off guard", and am intrigued that he calls it a "conversion" -- yes, it is a conversion, but given the context in which the term is generally used, this implies a life-or-death decision. Maybe I don't fully appreciate the differences between this side of 1517 and the other (as I've been told).

But anyway, Howard, Jr. is the nephew of Thomas Howard, whose conversion similar to Beckwith's in 1985 caused a similar reaction. The younger Howard notes what surely anyone realizes, that such a conversion is a long time in the making. (If it seems "sudden," it's because of compartmentalized thinking or artificial categorization, which may cause one to ignore or overlook certain "signs," or else shallow knowledge of the person -- my words, not his). He also notes common elements among those who convert from evangelicalism to Catholicism: they do so for aesthetic and theological reasons, and "have more in common theologically with evangelicals than with liberal Catholics."

He goes on, "and evangelicals themselves, in many respects, have more in common with traditional Catholics than with mainline Protestants." (Woohoo! It's not just me! Ahem. Sorry.) Howard, Jr., who is dean of the Center for Biblical and Theological Foundations at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN, affirms and encourages Evangelical-Catholic relations, and expresses his regret over the loss of Beckwith, his brother in Christ, as a colleague at ETS.