One last word about Baseball

I cannot help myself, I must comment on baseball as it comes to a close for 2008. First the Tampa Bay Rays. This team lost the World Series, but has a real chance to make a dynasty. I am a little excited to see this team continue. They have lots of young players who are already producing at the major league level. What is even more interesting is that they have some of them already signed to long term deals. This team is built to last. Look out Yankees and Red Sox. The favorite to win the East next year is the Rays with only the Twins looking competitive with this team in AL.

Second, the Phillies avoided the dubious distinction of being the biggest team of underachievers ever. That title still belongs to the Atlanta Braves throughout the 90’s. The Phillies were supposed to be great going back 4 or 5 years, but Pat Burrell always disappointed. Think about it. The Phillies had the last two NL MVP’s, yet they still were losers. Don’t count on them this next year because the Phillies depend on the Mets imploding, which they will not do next year. The Phils will miss the playoffs next year as Howard continues to get worse and worse. I would strike out less at the major league level and that is saying something.

Third, and most importantly, the Pirates are going to be great. I can see the .500 mark for 09. Yes, they will be playing the Rays for the 2010 World Series title. Just go ahead and get used to the newest and best rivalry in baseball the Pirates versus the Rays. In 2010 the Pirates will have a load of offensive talent as top prospect McCutchen will be starting in the majors in the outfield. That will probably be the debut year for Jose Tabata as well, who was the lynch pin in the deal made with the Yankees this year. Pedro Alvarez, the top pick in this year’s draft, is scheduled to make his debut at third in 2010. The two pitching prospects we got from the Yankees showed signs of life this year and the one from the Red Sox will be ready by 2010. We drafted three middle infielders in the 2008 draft. One of them will be ready to take over short if Brian Bixler turns out to be a dud. If for some reason Pierce does not fit in at first, then Jamie Romak (aquired from the Braves in 2006) will probably be ready to add his bat to the line up.
Add to that line up the fact that we will be getting more for Jack Wilson and hopefully Adam LaRoche this next year. If Neil Walker looks good at third and Pedro Alvarez makes his way up as fast as expected, then we might could get rid of Andy LaRoche as well for prospects. The Pirates have four major league quality catchers, which means we could probably part with one of those for a stretch drive helper in 2010, and that will be enough to put us over the top. Surely enough pitching will show up in order to make the Pirates a contender in the years to come.

Look out world, the Pirates are back. I for one could not be happier.

Calvinist Rap from Young Restless and Reformed

The RCUS requires examinations in the History of Philosophy before you can be licensed to preach. I think we maybe the only denomination that does this. It is not always taken as seriously as it ought, but we still do it. I wish more would because philosophy cannot be avoided. The area of music is one place where I think it comes out quite clearly. Take the next interesting point in the book Young Restless and Reformed is in the chapter discussing a few Calvinist Rappers. They have started their own Christian Music label for Reformed Theology and the Hip-Hop (new name for Rap) sat down and talked with the author of the book. One of the artist defended Christian Hip-Hop as a superior musical method because of the large word count compared to pop or country. Then the book went into a slight discussion of Hip-Hop in the culture at large. Hip-Hop is now mainstream and it is listened to in suburban areas as much as suburban areas. The artist explained why.

There’s something about hip-hop that is similar to the rock music of the 1960’s and 1970’s. It is able to capture the hearts of the listener as the artist communicates a similar experience. So when a Tupac [Shakur] is talking about what’s going on in his hood, millions of youth say, ‘Yes, that’s like me. I identify with that.’”

The book author went on to speak about the raw honest of hip-hop, but I think the quote above is loaded with things to think about and ponder. I really enjoy the analogy between hip-hop today and the 1960’s and 70’s rock. It gives us much to think about.

First the question should be put forward, why do youth today identify so much with hip-hop/rap songs when they do not live in Tupac’s hood? What is it about an artist who was shot 5 times in 1994, probably had something to do with a murder of a fellow rapper one year to the day later, was in prison for abuse, and then was killed in a drive by shooting after assaulting a gang member earlier that night? The person supposedly responsible for his shooting, a fellow rapper, was murdered later. What on earth is it that connects with kids who are not part of gangs and do not live this lifestyle? That question would seem to be very important. Is it really just being honest and “authentic”? The answer I believe, and so does the above quote, is related to the popularity of rock in 60’s and 70’s. The 60’s and 70’s were of course huge for the rock industry as bands like Led Zepplin, Beatles, Grateful Dead, the Doors, and people such as Jimmie Hendrix were amazingly popular. They clearly influenced their culture at events like Woodstock and with their songs. What was it about this music that people connected too?

I would argue that the connection in both instances is rebellion. Youth today may not want to go hang out with gangsters or be “Cop Killers” (the title of a popular rap song by Iced Tea), but they do like the idea of rebelling against society. The same was true in the 60’s and 70’s. As one movie puts it, the soul of rock-n-roll is “sticking it to the man”. The phrase “sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll” came about because of the rampant sex and drugs in rock-n-roll. It was not hidden. In fact, many of the rockers of the time died from drug related problems such as Jimmie Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Janis Joplin. Others like Freddy Mercury died from sexually transmitted diseases. During the 60’s and 70’s rock-n-roll was how you supported the cultural revolution. Since then it has become absorbed into the culture so that we hear it in the back ground of commercials selling us cars (which started in the 80’s by the way), and new forms of rebellious music had to be found such as punk rock and now hip-hop. Rock clearly rebelled against existing social norms and pushed an agenda of anti-war, pro-drug, pro-sex, and thus obviously anti-Christian messages. Hip-hop today pushes rebellious messages. Drugs and sex are no longer as rebellious as they were so we see pro-violence (especially against authority figures), pro-crime, pro-swearing, as well as pro-drug and pro-sex messages. One might could even argue the format of rap being a spoken rather than singing genre is a rebellion against what music really is. One of the early trademarks of rap was scratching records, a very unnatural sound and one that is not music strictly speaking.

Here is where the philosophy comes into play. Marshal McLuhan has put forth the idea that the medium is the message. Neil Postman follows that same line of thinking although softening it a bit. The point being that the medium that conveys the message at least affects the message whether you want it to or not. That the medium of music massages our senses in specific ways and carries with it inherent factors affecting the message. If I might go a step further in appropriating the McLuhan/Postman philosophy (appropriately I hope), I would argue the same is true of different genre’s of music. That rap has a connotation that is carried innately in the genre itself, as does rock, country, etc. If you don’t think so try thinking about it like this. If you take the words of the Star Spangled Banner and put them in a rap, do feel the same about it as if it were sung normally at a ballgame? If not why not? The words are the same. .R. Kelly turned the anthem into a pop song, but was booed for it. And if we are talking about the anthem I have to link to Jimi Hendrix and his guitar solo. Only the 30 second discussion at the end is related to what we are talking about.

So, I think it worth discussing whether or not the gospel can be presented in a rap song. If the genre screams rebellion to moral absolutes and norms, if that is part of the connotation delivered with the genre, is it then appropriate to use it to promote the gospel? I have to admit I don’t think I have thought it through enough. But, it is something that should be a discussion. If what people connect to in rap is rebellion, just like they may have to rock in the 60’s, is this an appropriate place for gospel presentation? Can one present the gospel if the medium itself undermines that message? Perhaps McLuhan and Postman’s ideas are wrong? Perhaps I have misused them here. I hope you all will weigh in on it. However, I think it is a discussion that ought to be had more and more. One cannot just assume, as the Calvinist Rapper in the book does, that as long as the words are right the deed is right.

Reasons Journalism is Dead

The one thing that we can all take away from this campaign is that the national media is worthless and the American public is doomed because the media outlets are all corrupt and lazy. Let me just give you a few examples.
1. Voter Fraud. People have clamored about the possibility of voter fraud in Ohio. The liberal media denying it and mocking Fox News (which is the conservative media). The conservative media simply whines about Supreme Court decisions that did not go there way and give accusations by implication. However, some college kids went out, did real journalism, and proved it.
2. Barak Obama was a registered socialist. Yes, you hear McCain claim he is a socialist, and you hear Keith Olbermann deny it, but it is true. Obama was actually a registered member of the socialist party in America. World Net Daily has the proof. Too bad no one thought to research Barak Obama when he was running for office.
3. The Polls. The polls are all fake. Look at this daily tracking poll that has Barak Obama up 8%. That seems like a commanding lead. However, take a look at the methodology. Rasmussen Reports interviews 8% more Democrats than Republicans. This is to account for voter turn out, which is based on polling but is a guess. In other words, if the Republicans turn out for this election in record numbers like Rasmussen expects the Democrats to do, then we are tied. Remember that methodology when you look at some state by state races like Nevada. If the Democrat swell does not appear or the Republicans also view this election as historic, then McCain wins that state by 3%. It is more than enough to give every toss-up state to McCain easily, and it is enough to keep Colorado, and flip New Hampshire for McCain.

That is just a sample of the stuff that has made me a little upset. Journalism is officially dead. It makes one long for the days of Yellow Journalism. Even that would be an improvement over what we have today.

2008 Election Prediction

I guess I will try my hand at guessing the election again. I do think that Barak Obama will win, but I do not think it will be by the landslide that most predict. In fact, I think at the end of the day the Republicans will have done much better than most pollsters and TV guys will admit. Obama will win because he will flip Iowa and Virginia and maybe Colorado. That is more than enough. However some people are predicting Obama getting 350 electoral votes, and even Rasmussen thinks Obama will pull in 300. I think that is silly. Don’t forget Obama always polled higher in the primaries than he preformed and the polls are all weighted for a heavy democratic turn out. I think the Republicans will turn out more than the polls say they will. I will admit that I am rooting for a 269 to 269 tie. How often does that happen? Then it will be interesting to see what the House does. Will they stick with their parties or their states? The best thing that could happen for Republicans is for the House to stick with their parties. Democrats have majorities in states that will go for McCain such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina. Fun for everyone.

Why then will it still be a decent night for the Republicans? Because I am not sure they are going to get blown out of the other races where people think they might. I do not think the Dems will reach 60 in the Senate and the House will be very interesting. That is what I will be watching on election night. To reach 60 the Democrats need to beat Elizabeth Dole in North Carolina and that is going to be tough. She is gaining and they are basically tied. Turn out on the East Coast will be high for the Republicans. The Dems need to beat Gordon Smith in Oregon who is one point ahead, but the West Coast may have a lower turnout for Republicans as the doom and gloom sets in. So let us just give both of those to the Dems for the fun of it. They will not win in Texas or either one in Mississippi nor will they pull of the upset in Kentucky keeping the Dems at 59 at best. To get to 59 they need not only Dole and Smith, but they need to defeat Coleman. Now Coleman is down in the polls by about 4 to Franken, but if you look at the local polls you see that Al Franken only gets 41% of the vote while an independent gets 17%. That number needs to hold for Franken to beat Coleman. If people desert the independent, Coleman has a chance to win as it seems more likely for Republicans to leave the independent than the Democrats who are anti-Franken voters.

The House is going to be fun because this is where Obama hurts the Democrats the most. He is running on a message of change, so incumbant Democrats might fall victim. Add to that the huge sums of money going to Obama, which is at the expense of giving to the DNCC and local House candidates, and that could spell trouble. Even giants like John Murtha are barely outraising no name Republican opponents. Don’t forget to mention that Murtha just called his district “racist” in the paper, and that race could be interesting. But the Dems have high hopes because of the large number of open seats. Republicans retired in large numbers this year. AL-02, AZ-01, CA-04, FL-15, IL-11, MN-03, NJ-03, NJ-07, NM-01, NY-03, NY-25, NY-26, OH-15, OH-16, and VA-11 (OR-05 and AL-05 are also open but were held by Democrats). Add to that list close races in 2006 like Chris Shays in CT-04 and Musgrave in CO-04 as well as Gerlach in PA-06. This makes a lot of Democrats hopeful of a really big landslide. Add in a few coattail victories they think they can have a large majority in the House.

However, 2006 was really a rebuke for many Democrats. They should have picked up more ground in Ohio in 2006 and they won lots of seats that will be hard to defend this year. FL-16 where Mark Foley, the homosexual intern predator was defeated, but the district remain mainly Republican. Add to that the Democrat Mahoney got caught having sex with employees of his own and the Republicans ought to take back this seat. TX-22 was the Delay district and the Republican lost in 2006 because the courts made Delay keep his name on the ballot. Lampson will lose a seat for the Dems here. OH-22 was the Bob Ney district and Congressman Space who benefited from that will probably lose this time as well. Lesser known scandals such as the one where the Republican Sweeney in NY-20 beat his wife and Congressman Sheerwood beat his mistress in PA-10, which cost them the election, should also be reversed. Plus, Republicans can hope to defeat Childers in MS-01. Childers won a special election in May over the same opponent, but Republican excitement is up a great deal since then and the turn out at the polls will be larger. There are plenty of rematches from 2006 as well that Republicans might could pick up since the anti-war sentiment is not as big. Plus the Republicans will put money into AZ-05 and AZ-08 which they did not in 2006 because the Republican candidates were against Bush’s immigration bill. The Dems are not going to sweep through those open seats like they would hope. Not to mention they need to defend some of their southern seats that are trending Republican. Seats like GA-08, GA-12, KS-02, LA-06, and TX-23.
It should make for an entertaining night of election coverage, and hopefully this will lead to a real conservative revolution. Either way, my hope is in nothing less than Jesus Christ’s righteousness.

The Shifting Sands of Emergent Beliefs

Like I said in the last post. There were some things in the Young Restless and Reformed book that made you stop and think. This quote from Tony Jones Emergent leader at Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis is one of them.

“I know conservatism works in the face of globalization. I don’t know if postmodernism works, but I really hope it does. All postmodernism means is living on the shifting sand, as opposed to looking for some foundation. But some of us would say, ‘The people who say they stand on the sure foundation – it’s not as sure as they think it is. We all live on the slippery slope.” Pg. 142 of Young Restless and Reformed

Wow.
Let me say it takes guts and a lot of stupidity to quote the bible and admit you stand on the side the Bible says is the wrong place. I have never in my life heard some reference the Parable of the Wise man who built his House upon the Rock and directly state that the Shifting Sand is really the place to stand. My jaw literally hit the floor. But, let us try to move past the brazen rejection of a parable of Jesus if we can. Let us pray that he did that for shock value. I do think the substance of what he says is also important.

This really is the fundamental point of being Emergent. It is a complete and total acceptance of Post Modernism. All the other details are up for debate. The Emergent Church likes to begin by rejecting things, such as traditional worship, traditional readings of Scripture, traditional values and voting, etc. However, the one thing they accept up front is Post Modernism. Take an article from Precipice Magazine. The author rejects the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and denies that the Bible speaks of itself in this manner. Of course a Post Modernist who believes all life is based on “shifting sand” would need to deny such bedrock principles, but notice how he aims his guns in this article. He refers to the those who accept infallibility as “fundamentalists/foundationalists”. From that point on he only uses the term Foundationalists. For those of you not familiar foundationalism is a philosophic theory of knowledge. It has become a favorite kick toy these days. What Emergent men want to attack is not so much theology as it is knowledge itself. They hate the idea of having properly basic beliefs and building other beliefs on top of those beliefs. Such a practice reeks of surety and that is a no-no in Post Modernism. You can see it color everything they do (as it should if you attack knowledge). Just look at the article discussing the debate hosted by Rick Warren. What really turned the reviewer off was certainty.

Which brings me back to the quote. I know the Emergent church believes they are emerging from the collapsed Christian mindset, but it is much more likely that they are simply wandering off the biblical reservation. The Bible speaks of certainty all the time. In fact, it demands it. I do not need to quote again the wisdom of building on the rock. James 1:6-8 talks of not wavering and how the double-minded are unstable in all their ways. Psalm 119:113 the psalmist hates the double-minded, and more importantly double-mindedneses is contrasted with law. His word does not fade but rather endures forever (I Peter 1:25). Ephesians 4:11-13 even speaks of not being tossed about by every wind of doctrine. Being tossed about is a bad thing. These are just the obvious ones. We could look at other examples such as Matthew 16 where Jesus asks the disciples who the world thinks he is, and they give a great post modern answer since it includes several possibilities. Yet, that is rejected and then Jesus asks who they think he is and Peter gives the correct answer, a certain answer. Or one could look at Jesus’s discussion with Pilate in John where Pilate says “What is truth?” (very post modern) and then allows the murder of an innocent man. The idea that the world is shifting sand is dangerous and deadly. It is clearly against the Bible.

All of this leads me to one last quote from the book by Emergent leader Doug Pagitt. He states:

“I think much of our difference comes from the fact that in many ways we are telling different stories of Christianity.” Quoted from Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives on same page as above in Young Restless and Reformed.

We are indeed giving fundamentally different stories. That cannot be stressed enough.

Young, Restless and Reformed: A Review

It has been a while since I have done a book review. So I thought I would review Young, Restless, and Reformed by Colin Hansen. This book was very interesting. The premise of the book is that a young Christianity Today writer was intrigued by the fact that his friends were Calvinistic in their theology when demographically they should be part of the Emergent Church movement. So, he decided to travel around and see if this was an exception or part of a growing trend. The book is a fascinating look at the great success that the Reformed movement is having in America today.

That being said, I do have some quibbles with the book. The first is the loose use of the term "Reformed". He generally applies it to anyone who wants it. He briefly mentions the criticism of men like Michael Horton who draw a difference between Reformed and Calvinisitic, especially when it comes to the infant baptism issues. The criticism gets little play and is not really interacted with much. It is a valid point especially considering my next quibble.

The book focuses almost exclusively on those who are non-traditional Reformed. Most of those featured were Baptists (like John Piper and Al Mohler). Charasmatic Calvinists were featured, Emergent Calvinists are in this book. However, very few of the people shown in the book were Presbyterians or Reformed in the Dutch or German traditions. This is part of the great interest the book provides. Look at all the traditions that are featuring prominent Calvinists now. But, one or two should have been traditional Reformed in the mold of the PCA, OPC, or something. Ligon Duncan is in the book several times, but is never really featured. He is more in the book because of his cooperation with these more non-traditional reformed types.

The third quibble is that he does not tie it all together in the end. I hate the way movies today end without real closure. They give you the resolution of the plot, but fail to deliver any follow up or falling action to get technical. I felt the same way about this book. He interviewed all of these people, Calvinist leaders of today, but I could have used one chapter at the end to hear the author’s final thoughts. Even the very brief epilogue just served as a brief interview with yet another Calvinist. I prefer the wrap up. Admittedly that may be a minor point, but it bugged me.

I would also like to point out one thing that is also a negative or a positive depending on how you look at it. This book could not be read in one sitting despite being only 156 pages. It could not be read in a sitting because of how often something was said in the book that made you stop and think. Often it would be something said from the interview, and there would be no follow up on the comment. However, it would just smack me in the face and I would have to put the book down and ponder it for the rest of the day. That is great, but it is also bad. The book should follow up on great thoughts. It really fell outside of what Hansen was doing, so I just had to stop.

Because of this I will be blogging on the many things that made me stop and go "hmmmmm" over the next several days. I do recommend this book to people who are church planting as an encouraging book that Calvinism and Reformed Theology can win people in today’s culture. I would recommend this book to people who want a broader view of the Reformed landscape in today’s culture. I would recommend this book to people who just want a read that engages the mind. A good book worth a look

Debate Recap

It is pretty clear that we are going to have a socialist president no matter who wins in November. I can feel my wallet getting lighter already.

However the real problem with the debate was that it was completely slanted toward Obama. No questions about abortion? Guns? Religion? Justices? Same Sex Marriage? In other words no social issues. Do we really think out of the thousands of questions submitted to Mr. Brokaw not a single one touched these issues. Not even stem cell research? Come on. The reason they were left out is because everyone of those issues hurt Obama. The Democrats refer to them as 'wedge issues' and they feel that they drive evangelicals to the polls and they lose when that happens. So the press is avoiding them. It is hard to imagine.

The real thing I learned is that the League of Women Voters needs to take over the debate formats again. This Commission on Presidential Debates is a joke.

Vice Presidential Stupidity

I have to say that VP debates are always boring and seldom important. Who really cares who wins? Yet, this one was the most disturbing of all because they actually debated the VP’s role, and I was horrified to find out that no one reads the Constitution. No pundit, no candidate, and apparently no Senators.

I could be mistaken because I did not read a transcript, but I did ask the three other people in the room of Biden really said that “Article 1 of the Constitution shows the Vice President to be a member of the Executive.” No commentator challenged that statement (at least that I heard). If you want to debate that the VP is part of the executive, fine, you would be wrong, but you can at least do it. What worried me the most is that Article 1 of the Constitution is about the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. That is Article 2. I am not a lawyer, but I caught that mistake. Apparently no one in the media cares that Joe Biden does not know Constitution 101. No wonder Washington D.C. is a mess.

What was almost as bad an not knowing the Constitution is the assertion that all the VP can do is cast a vote in case of the tie. This is also not true. The Vice President is the President of the Senate (see Article 1 of the Constitution). Cheney has done some stupid stuff. But, bad advice to the President should still fall on the President’s lap since he made those decisions. That is hardly something inherently wrong about the VP slot. Biden is of course wrong again when he states the only power is the tie breaker vote. That is his only voting power, but the President of the Senate can preside over the Senate at any time. John C. Calhoun presided over the Senate a lot while VP. He clearly viewed the VP slot seriously and he stood at his post in the Senate often. As the President of the Senate he has the power to gavel down (or not gavel down) things in speeches as inappropriate. He used that power liberally to attack and tear down the Jackson administration. Cheney has never done anything like that. Both candidates showed a thoughtless view of the VP slot. It was very disappointing. The Constitution is clear the President is the Chief Executive and the Vice President is the Chief of the Legislative branch (and the Chief Justice being the Chief of the Judicial). A little knowledge and taking of the VP slot seriously would go a long way with me. To bad no one does anymore.