My Day as a Lobbyist

I spent the better half of Super Tuesday lobbying state legislators. I have to admit, I felt dirty. It was sort of sprung on me. Another pastor friend of mine and I went down to Pierre for Pastor’s Day put on by a group loosely affiliated with Focus on the Family (name of the actual group withheld to protect the pseudo-innocent). It was advertised to us as a chance to tour the capital, meet with some lawmakers, and pray for them and talk with them. Then we were to have a nice lunch where lawmakers would come and talk to us, and it was sort of understood that there would be some sort of recruiting speech as well. Well, it turned out the ‘meet and pray for the legislatures’ was actually a lobby these two bills for us. The one I was given, I didn’t even really agree with. It had to do with restricting ‘Adult Content’ business. I feel that is more of a local matter and the state government should not bother trying to zone municipalities. So, I walked around with a few guys and was shown the lobbying ropes, but I never said anything. I did meet one of my representatives and one state senator. I discovered that lobbyists are treated like bothersome flies by most legislators, and with good reason. We wandered around the floor of the House and Senate bothering people while they looked like they were trying to work. I did end up having a few good conversations. I just did my own thing after a while. I did ask a few legislators if there was a way I could uphold them in prayer, specific needs, that sort of thing. I thanked a few of them and that seemed to get the best response. And I got to talk with one Pro-Life Democrat who knew someone in Herreid. We chatted for some time until the professional lobbyist saw us together and made my friendly conversation a dirty lobby-like one. Still the legislator wanted his picture taken with me and my friend. The rest of the day did go about as expected, but it was an eye opening look into political life and the work of lobbyist. I came away with a few lessons.

1. Lobbying is a lot like bribery. A saw lots of gift bags from different groups.
2. Lobbying is a lot of intimidation. The professional lobbyists are ignored, so they bring in ‘constituents’ like me and try to make it look like I am not with him, but just a concerned citizen. Our badges said ‘Pastor’ so that it looked like I was representing not just myself, but a lot of other voters too.
3. Legislators have to hide to do real work. I saw a lot of them do this. And a few would stop the group I was with after the first sentence or so because they had already been talked to twice that day. I bet it gets annoying.
4. There are lots of lobbyists. I saw at least a large group of Midwife lobbyists and I met the Planned Parenthood lobbyist leader, or was shown whom she was without being allowed to speak to her. I also saw ‘Blue tag lobbyists’ those are the lobbyists from the government. They often lobby themselves. Yes, my taxpayer dollars pay for the Depratment of Education to come lobby the Legislature about taking over preschools around the state.
5. Theocrats love the government no matter how much they pretend they don’t. This organization was a Theo-conservative organization. They wanted the government to require lots of things in bills that supported their worldview. They had no problem with the government coming in and taking away a bookstore owner’s right to sell smut within a certain distance of about everything in a city. Yet, they were upset about a bill that would take away the right of a Pharmacist to not sell RU486 and other contraception. Their view of government is a bit contradictory. If you are wondering about the Republican Party dilemma, Theo-conservatves are the reason the Republican Party is moving left.
6. Lobbying without knowing what you are talking about is ridiculous. We were given large sheets of paper to discuss things about each bill. Try talking to a legislator sometime having to look down at a sheet of paper to get your talking points, not to mention the name of the bill. I bet a lot of people laughed at us all day.

Those are my early thoughts about a day of being a dirty no good lobbyist. I did get a lot free books and got to see government up close and tour the capital without a tour guide. All in all, I guess it was worth the day trip.

Primaries

I simply find the Republican Primaries fascinating this year. You see a lot of people pulling the pragmatic argument out for John McCain. You hear Rush Limbaugh make the Idealist argument, which now only applies to Mitt Romney. And you hear people on Meet the Press giggle with joy about McCain downing the Republican establishment. It is not all that dissimilar an argument from the Church Growth movement about do you make people Christian so they will join the church or do you get people to join the church and hope they become Christians later. I am unable to get enough of this much for same reason you have to slow down to watch trains wreck.

Long time readers of this blog will know that I prefer the Idealist argument made by Mr. Limbaugh. However, after listening to Limbaugh rant today I still do not think he has it right. Limbaugh blames John McCain for wanting to pull the party to the left, and so did a lot his callers. However, I do not believe that is the case. The blame rests mostly on President Bush and a little on Limbaugh/conservatives himself/themselves. Let me explain.

People are up in arms about the perceived left-ward stance of ‘Maverick’ John McCain. They point to Campaign Finance Reform, they point to McCain’s stance on Amnesty, and they often point to other things like his environmentalism on display after his endorsement by Gov. Terminator in California. Opposition to tax cuts also makes the list, but I will deal with that in a minute. When you look at all of the above things (tax cuts excluded) John McCain is no more to blame than George Bush. Bush signed into law Campaign Finance Reform. Bush promoted Amnesty. Bush had liberal Republicans like Arnold and Rudy Guiliani speak at the Republican Convention in 2004. That was the glimpse of the future of the Republican Party, and commentators like Limbaugh missed it. Or at least they did not make enough of a fuss. It makes no sense to fight against McCain and accept President Bush. President Bush was elected in 2000 on a more conservative platform, although he told Republican it would be a modified Conservatism by the simply title ‘Compassionate Conservative’. He passed things like No Child Left Behind and then went completely away from his conservative roots after 9/11. 2004 saw everyone stand by their Commander-in-Chief, and they overlooked the non-conservative nature of his governing. He tried to push Harriet Meyers as a Supreme Court Justice and tried to push Amnesty for illegals. His short lived attempt to revamp Social Security did not receive the same sort of effort put into adding Prescription Drugs to Medicare.

The only difference between George Bush and John McCain is tax cuts. McCain has a stronger belief in a balanced budget than does President Bush, but neither actually believes the government should shrink. Not at all. They fundamentally believe that the government ought to have your money to fill its needs first, then maybe you can have some back. That is what not voting for tax cuts until the budget is balanced means. Government first, tax payer second. The conservative revolt ought to be a revolt against Bush, but for some reason it is completely directed at John McCain. They are two peas in a pod.

The other thing that I do not think is getting enough attention is Congress. Lots of people talk about the 2006 victory for the Democrats. Some, Rush included, chalk that up to the Conservative base being upset. To some degree I believe that is true, but what no one really ever mentions is that this is the effect of having a liberal Republican heading up the party as the Conservative Revolution of 1994 expired. Many people were stepping down because they promised in 1994 to only serve 12 years. Bill Frist is a good example. He was the majority leader, but had served his time. Senator Frist is not the most conservative of men, but he is just the first example off of the top of my head. True conservatives were not able to be recruited because the leadership of the Republican Party was not conservative. They pulled funding from winnable seats like Representative J.D. Hayworth in Arizona because he stood for being conservative. You won’t find any conservatives running this time either and very winnable seats like South Dakota’s Senate seat occupied by Tim Johnson will go without a challenge because what conservative can follow John McCain as a standard bearer. Again this fact has been passed on by powerful leaders like Rush Limbaugh. He broke the immigration bill when it was in the legislature, but he seems slow to speak out on the liberalization of the Republican Party under President Bush. Now he wants a return to conservative roots rather than follow Bush’s example with McCain. It is too late now. The only option conservatives have is a new party.

The Deeper Debate about Westminster Theological Seminary

There is a debate raging on-line about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary. Some are worried that those who favor the more liberal direction of Biblical Theology and lean toward Shepherd and the Federal Vision are concerned that their voices may be silenced. They have started a Save Our Seminary website with all the details. Others like Rev. Lane Keister are concerned that the conservative voices are being silenced in favor of the Biblical Theology department and their innovations. Basically they are concerned for the exact opposite reasons as the Save Our Seminary group. This could be a new front in the war about Federal Vision-like theology, but it is really a strange battleground, one that has me thinking about seminaries in general.

Westminster Theological Seminary is an independent seminary. It serves many denominations, but it is not under any of them. Yes, it has a long-standing tradition and yes it does have a lot of control in the OPC, but it is not under any one denomination. This is not uncommon as most seminaries today operate as independent non-profit organizations including for self-disclosure’s sake the one from which I graduated. There is a long standing debate, especially in my own denomination, about whether or not it is appropriate for an organization that is outside of the church be allowed to train ministers to serve inside the church. And if the Bible gives the job of training men to the church, can the church then give it to these outside groups? We can argue some other time about whether or not seminaries are the way to go or whether or not the apprenticeship model is better. The question before us today is whether any of these people complaining about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary have a right to complain or should they have expected change and drift from an independent organization?

I do believe that independent seminaries will change and cannot be expected to stay faithful to creeds or even their own original vision statements because they are organizations not under any real authority. It is not a church. One can do a lot of things to pretend a seminary is a church in and of itself. Some have chapels and other worship like activities, but that does not make it the church. It is true that most seminaries would consider their authority to be the church, but in reality it is the Board of Directors. And a Board of Directors is a lot of things, but it is not a church court. It is also shabby for oversight. Most directors do not live in the same area as the actual seminary and may not make every meeting. It may be that the Directors are cobbled together to try and spread the influence of the seminary around to other spots rather than to limit the seminary, to check the seminary, and to oversee the seminary. The President might have some sort of oversight, but the faculty usually has free reign over minds that have come not to oversee, but to be taught and learn. In a local congregation a minister preaches and teaches his congregation that hopefully has an attitude of coming to learn, but he is also preaching and teaching to elders who have oversight or at least a standing to bring complaints before an appropriate body.

Historically Westminster Theological Seminary has already seen trouble with this line between church and institution. It occurred with Rev. Norman Shepherd’s problems there back in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Shepherd was investigated by the seminary several times, but the church not so much. Then Shepherd was fired from WTS for not adhering to the Westminster Standards, but he remained a minister in good standing in the OPC. That was about to change when he transferred to the Christian Reformed Church. But the point here is that a man was suspected of teaching heretical doctrine in his class and the discipline stayed within the bounds of the seminary and did not go directly to the church courts. Years later because the workings of a Board of Trustees is not the same as the workings of a church court, the teacher is removed. Now he is in the unenviable position of being fired for unorthodox statements, but is considered orthodox by his denomination. It is just one example of many that could be referenced of trouble that comes from independent seminaries.

There are other reasons that independent seminaries will drift away from their standards other than the complete lack of oversight and authority. Namely the fact that seminaries are academic institutions by nature, and the fact that they are businesses that make more money the broader they become.

This controversy about the direction of Westminster Theological Seminary is an interesting one. However, it is only a symptom of a greater problem. Maybe this new uprising at WTS will lead to a bigger discussion.

PCA and FV Update

Perhaps you have already heard but Rev. Steve Wilkins and his entire church have left the PCA and are seeking union with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CRE). This is not surprising per se as the CRE is the final destination for all FV men or at least it will be.

It is a little bit of a surprise that Rev. Wilson seems to call it a victory. He is quite happy about the church joining his denomination, but a few months ago he seemed excited about the PCA being exposed by having this process done out in the open. The PCA did seem to encourage the strategy finally employed by Rev Wilkins in their ‘Leave or else’ declaration. Both sides decided in the end to avoid a fight, and what exactly happens now is up in the air. Does the PCA continue to prosecute the Louisiana Presbytery? Will other members of that presbytery flee to the arms of the CRE? Will the PCA turn its attention to others like Rev. Leithart? The issue is not dead, but it is ducked for another year or so.

Another interesting post is the one at Reformed Catholicism. Read the interaction in the comments especially response #9 from Rev. Sandlin. Sandlin has a very large rebuke for the CRE.

I have been reading one of my Christmas gifts lately. It is An Emergent Manifesto of Hope. This book is a collection of essays by leaders in the Emergent Church movement. It is an attempt to drive home their viewpoint and their goals to those who are unfamiliar with the Emergent Church. I will be blogging about some of the individual chapters because there is so much in this book worthy of blog posts al there own. However, one thing is standing out and coming across as an underlying and unifying factor in the Emergent movement. One theme continually pops up that unites these very different men and different theologies. Well, two themes if you count ‘missional’ as a theme, but really what is ‘missional’ and what does that mean seems to be different for each writer, but another post for another time.

The main unifying factor seems to be an open rebellion against the Religious Right. And by that I mean a rebellion against those religious leaders who jumped into the political arena like Jerry Fawell, Pat Robertson, and Dr. Dobson, but also the more theological leaders like Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins. This is one of the reason these people like to call themselves ‘post evangelical’. The word evangelical is as much a political word today as it is a religious one. These people do not like the politics of the ‘evangelical movement’ and its leaders and have rejected the whole system. Listen to the words of Brian McLaren:

Here in the United States we see large sectors of the Christian community associated with American hyperconfidence, white privilege, institutional racism, civil religion, neocolonialism, and nationalistic militarism – often fortified by a privatized faith in a privatized nationalistic/tribal god. (pg. 148)

Other writers make similar comments. In fact, Tony Jones specifically mentions the hope of the Emergent Village being something that can counter the work of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins (pg.130). These men and women really seem to be the next step in evolution of the Liberals and their Social Gospel from the early part of the 20th Century. Then the Social Gospel took over and the message was changed from one of salvation to one of helping the needy. However the Social Gospel took over the institutional churches and made few other changes besides the message. Thus, people sang the same sort of songs, sat in the same pews, and worshipped in the same manner while hearing the social gospel message. The Emergent Church wants a return to the social gospel of liberalism, but they are also throwing off the system itself. Why keep the same old trappings? Why not throw off all vestiges of that old authoritarian system and find a new way more in keeping with the message? This group is on board with Progressive/Democratic politics and it is angry at the Republican domination of the Evangelical message.

While I can agree that Evangelical as a political term is a bad thing and the mixing of the Republican Party with Christianity as is done by Robertson and others is a serious error, I do not agree with the radical solution. There is of course a middle ground, the ground always held by the church. Preaching Christ and Him crucified along with being living sacrifices of thanksgiving. I am against the ‘Republican Party will save us’ mentality that pervades so many, I am equally appalled at the ‘throw everything overboard and hope the Democrats can save us’ mentality taken by the Emergent church as well.

Battle for the Soul of the Republican Primary

Fred Thomson is right, this primary season is a battle for the soul of the Republican Party. And since I am not a Republican, I can view this war for the soul of the party from a distance and analyze what I see.

First, there is always talk of the Reagan Coalition that really helped the Republicans start winning Presidential elections. That coalition grafted into the Republican Party Libertarians, PaleoConservatives, and Theoconservatives. What it also did was place some of the budding NeoConservatives in a places of power in the administration. Thus, Reagan held together a large coalition of people. President Bush the Older continued that tradition by trying not to change much, but his appointments show a growing power for the NeoConservatives, who were not making much hay on the campaign trial, but doing a good deal of work in the backrooms of the White House. The Republican Revolution of 1992 was primarily a PaleoConservative Revolution with great help from the TheoConservatives and the Libertarians. The 1996 race for the White House ended in disaster for PaleoCon Bob Dole and with the fall of Newt, another PaleoCon thinker the Neocons forged a new alliance with the TheoCons to take the White House with President Bush the Younger. As Younger President Bush continued his term in office the NeoCons showed complete control leading to great disenchantment from the Libertarians first, the PaleoCons second, and finally even the TheoCons are getting nervous.

That brings us to this year’s historic run for the White House. Each candidate really represents a different slice of the pie and a different attempt to forge bonds between the four separate groups.

Mitt Romney – Romney tries to be the complete package and is making overtures toward the TheoCons, but he is not really their man. Romney is stuck somewhere in the middle. He is trying to forge an alliance with the PaleoCons, TheoCons, and NeoCons. He is promising less government spending for the Paleo branch, he is promising anti-abortion activism for the TheoCons, and a continued foreign policy laid out by the NeoCons. His attempts at this have so far fallen a bit flat, but he is the best at naturally appealing to al groups.

John McCain – McCain has a long career as a NeoCon. He has some PaleoCon tendencies such as a hatred of wasteful spending, but his willingness to increase government in education, Medicare, and restrict freedoms in campaign reform shows he is really the establishment NeoCon candidate. The reason he is not fully supported by the NeoCons is his constant criticism of how the first true NeoCon administration ran things has hurt him. The PaleoCons and Libertarians are not behind him because of the above reasons as well as opposition to tax cuts. The TheoCons are not with him because of how he insulted them when he lost South Carolina in 2000.

Rudy Guiliani – He is purely a NeoCon candidate and was counting on big support from the White House and from 911. He has no credentials as a PaleoCon, Libertarian, or TheoCon. His presence in the race has also hurt McCain. Although Guiliani really angers the TheoCons by hjs open support of abortion.

Mike Huckabee – Huckabee is a smooth talker, but his version of the Republican Party contains only NeoCons and TheoCons. He has completely abandoned the PaleoCon and Libertarian wing of the party. President Bush always kept up a veneer of tax cuts to try and placate the PaleoCons, but Huckabee has never done that. The other difference between Huckabee’s version of the Republican Party and the President Bush/John McCain version of the party is that Huckabee will invert the power structure. Huckabee wishes to keep a coalition of NeoCons and TheoCons, but would put the TheoCons in the driver seat of the party for the first time.

Fred Thomson – Fred is the best attempt to keep alive the old Reagan Coalition. Unlike Romney, Fred keeps trying to bring in Libertarians and has a smaller place for the NeoCons and TheoCons, although he clearly tries to keep them by not renouncing President Bush’s foreign policy. Instead of giving the TheoCons what they want in Federal Amendments he actually tries to appeal to the forgotten Libertarian wing of the party by rejecting the need for such amendments. His pro-life stance may not be enough to make TheoCons happy and the NeoCons do not want to be replaced in the driver seat by a PaleoCon such as Thomson. Thus, his attempt to keep the Reagan Coalition alive is almost dead.

Ducan Hunter – Hunter is an old fashion PaleoCon who does not try to keep the NeoCons in his alliance. Hunter has the pro-life positions to satisfy the TheoCons, and although he is not advocating a withdrawal from Iraq focus his foreign policy more on economics and returns to the threat of Communism as a main talking point. Hunter is an old fashion PaleoCon who barely tries to reach out to anyone else. His view of the party is solidly PaleoCon.

Ron Paul – Ron Paul is the attempt by the Libertarians to gain footing again in the Republican Party. Paul’s positions are considered extreme today because they are solidly libertarian. He does appeal to PaleoCons as well, but stands more in the Libertarian position than the Paleo. He out right rejects the NeoCons as true conservatives and will not give the federal government to the TheoCons. Paul’s version of the Republican party is Libertarianism in control with PaleoCons sitting shotgun.

Thus, this race is real interesting when seen as a fight for the future and soul of the Party. Will it stay with the Reagan Coalition, is that even possible? Will it become the party of TheoCons? Will the Libertarians win, or will they run off and make Paul a third party candidate? It is an extremely interesting primary season on the Republican side. The question on the Democratic side is whether or not they will hide their Progressivism behind nice rhetoric or not? That is the only thing going on the Democratic side.

12 Principles of Protestant Catholicity: A Response

I would like to draw attention to a post over at the new Evangelical Catholicity blog that is very helpful in understanding the mission and thinking of the modern ‘catholicity movement’ for lack of a better term. This post by Mr. Bonomo has 12 principles for Protestant Catholicity. I find them honest and the post is a great starting point for discussion regarding Protestant Catholicity. I hope that this response will be seen as an attempt to further that discussion by asking some refining questions and making a few comments on each of the 12 Principles.

1. The Centrality of Jesus Christ – I do not have any disagreement with this one. I do question the need to add the phrase ‘and not mere speculation about him’, but I agree with the point. We are unified only in Jesus Christ, He alone is our center.
2. The Essential Unity of the Church – Again, I have no objections here. Another good point.
3. The Diversity of the Church – Here again I agree. However there is a problem. That problem is in how one defines ‘secondary matters’. I agree that secondary matters should be left up to the individual and should not bar union and unity with fellow believers. I also know of no one who does not agree with that statement. The problem lies in defining ‘secondary matters’.
4. The Supremacy of Historic Creedal Orthodoxy – Here I must depart for a moment. The argument here is that the original historic creeds of the Apostle’s, Nicene, and Chalcedonian creeds should be the basis for unity. I suppose this is the attempt to define what is an essential and what is a secondary matter of faith. I have two main objections: one historical and one theological. The historical objection is that those creeds were not meant to serve that purpose ever. The Apostle’s Creed was originally a baptismal creed and the other two were written in response to specific heresies, not as a source of unity. Plus, which Nicene Creed are we talking about. Do we include the Filoque clause that teaches the Spirit proceeds from the Son or not? This is a serious matter to the Eastern Orthodox church. This, in my opinion , is forcing something on these creeds that they were not made to do, namely be the definition of the essentials of the Christian faith. My theological objection is that I do not believe these creeds sufficiently cover the basics of Christianity. Paul makes clear in Galatians 1:8-9 that the gospel is essential and those who reject it or pervert it are to be accursed. That book goes on to talk about the gospel and deals mainly with justification by faith, a subject not covered in any of those three creeds. Thus, if I am to be faithful to Paul’s words, I need more than those historic trio of creeds.
5. The Heinousness of Schism – Here I will claim ignorance. The claim is made by Mr. Bonomo that division in the body of Christ is as bad as propositional heresy. This I have not thought over enough to comment upon. I also would like to investigate the idea of schism without some sort of underlying sin and/or heresy being involved. Is it possible for a schism to occur without some deeper issue being involved? I prefer to ask for more time to study this issue before I agree or disagree with this one.
6. The Hope for Inter-Confessional Unity – To this one I must strongly object. Mr. Bonomo argues “All Christians ought to hope for a day when believers in Christ from all the various orthodox confessional traditions can exist in one visible Body while yet retaining their confessional identities. This may seem impossible from our perspective, but with God all things are possible.” What I do not understand is why? Why cannot I hope for a day when people from various confessional traditions exist in one Body and share the same confession? I believe that Baptist churches are Christian churches. However, why would I ever hope to have a church where some people believed in baptizing children and some did not? Why should we not hope for a day when Baptists give up their position and join in agreement with the Heidelberg Catechism? As Mr. Bonomo says, ‘with God all things are possible’. I do not think that visible unity should come at such an obvious theological disunity. Can real unity be based on so little? I don’t think so.
7. The Catholicity of the Reformation – Here we are reminded that the Reformation was a movement within the catholic Church. Now, if ‘catholic’ here means ‘universal’ or ‘historic’, then I am in agreement. If it is meant ‘Roman Catholic”, then I disagree. I do not believe the Reformation was really a movement within the Roman Catholic Church. Luther burned the papal bulls, which is just revolutionary as it was reformatory. Others left their monastic vows being convinced they were completely wrong. Other disobeyed their bishops and ran the churches according to the Word of God rather than the word of the bishops. There were plenty of reform movements within the Roman Church. See the Cluniacs for example. They never rejected the fundamentals of their church such as the primacy of Rome, and they were successful reform movements. The Reformation was not like that at all.
8. Non-Protestant Communions are Christian Churches – Again this I believe is wrong. Perhaps this one goes back to my earlier disagreement about the nature of the essentials of the gospel. However, I do not believe that the Eastern Orthodoxy nor the Roman Catholic have valid ministries of the word or sacraments. While some in those churches may trust Jesus Christ for their salvation and be saved, it does not validate the system of those churches just as God speaking through Balaam’s donkey does not validate taking advice from farm animals.
9. Sola Scriptura not Solo Scriptura – Here I would like to see some clarification. Things that concern me in this section are the tendecy to talk about the Church as an institution and not as people. If the Scripture is given to the Church for Her to interpret, how is that different from saying that Scripture is given to the people of God for them to interpret? Are we saying that only the professionals of the Church have the right to make applications and interpretations from the Scripture? Are we saying that the Church is something different than the people of God called out from the world? This phrase also concerns me, "The Scriptures are for the Church, to be interpreted and expounded upon within the context of the church’s life, as she is led along by the working of the Spirit to reveal to her the glorious truths contained therein." Here it seems like one is arguing for theological development throughout time, but it is unclear especially when considered next to the claim that we should hold historic truths in reverence. I would like this phrase parsed out more. I am against the idea that new truths within the word will be revealed that previous generations could never have known or understood. I am not against the idea that new technologies will lead to new applications of age-old truth.
10. The Need for an Apologetic for Our Times – An apologetic for unity is not a bad idea, but this list is a search for exactly what that means. Also I see the verses listed where unity is commended, but there are also verses where disunity is commended. ‘What fellowship does Christ have with Belial?’ or that Jesus came to ‘divide mother and daughter, brother and sister’ or that the Word is ‘sharper than a two-edged sword able to divide bone and marrow’. The Word is a sword and swords cleave not unite. I wish that would be taken into consideration more in any future apologetic for unity.
11. The Need for a Proper Christian Epistemology – I am all in favor of sound Christian Epistemology. I do not consider myself a follower of Enlightenment thought nor do I think I am a Foundationalists. These are popular critiques right now. However, what confuses me is this phrase, "From a proper Christian perspective, truth ought to be conceived irreducibly as an incarnate, crucified, resurrected, divine Person, through faith in whom all of our seeking of understanding must be mediated." What exactly does that mean? Is this a denial that truth is propositional? Is it stating truth is only relational? What exactly is in view here?
12. Moving Past a Hermeneutic of Suspicion – I can agree with this. We need not always think the worst of one another. Christian brothers and sisters ought to be given benefit of the doubt at all times and that Reformed People can find great biblical insights in the words of a Baptist minister or a Presbyterian pastor. It should be pointed out that part of the disagreement here is over who exactly should be considered Christian and that debate has impact in this section, but I can agree that too often people glory in controversy.

I hope that this post furthers and prompts much discussion. I will try to make sure and send a trackback to the Evangelical Catholicity blog in an attempt to have a fruitful discussion about some of these principles. I look forward to any comments.

I think that there is a story that is not getting discussed enough on TV, and it is about politics. I found extremely interesting the major polling malfunction prior to the New Hampshire Primary. Almost every poll had Hillary Clinton losing by at least seven and usually double digits. The Clinton camp itself seemed assured of defeat. Yet, Clinton won by 2 to 3 percentage points. A stunning turn around. What exactly happened? There are several theories.

Rasmussen puts forth several theories. They are the standard theories that more independents went to John McCain and the Republican Primary rather than the Democratic one which hurt Obama. This article also claims that they saw the upswing in support for Hilary in their Monday Night polling where she was only behind by seven rather than double digits. Yet, this is still a massive swing of 9% points in less than 24 hours.

The New York Times prefers to go with the standard story that women came out in droves because of the tears shed by the usually calculating Mrs. Clinton. The Cable news pundits seem to think this is the case as well. However, if this is true it is more of a reason to revoke a woman’s right to vote rather than cheer a political miracle. It paints all women as those who cannot resist a sob story. I know a lot of women who don’t think like that, and so I find this a hard to believe explanation as well.

I have still not yet really found a credible reason for this malfunction of not just one poll, but all major pollsters in America. Every single one. Zogby, Rasmussen, Gallup, and countless more local polls. The best reasons have not been mentioned by major media except in the crawl lines at the bottom of the screen, if then.

One is that anyone can vote in New Hampshire even those who live in Vermont or New York or any place at all. The rules are non-existent and meant to be so. I admit I heard this fact from Rush Limbaugh, but that does not mean it is not true. What makes me wonder why more people are not talking about this factor is that I heard Joe Scarbrough of MSNBC comment on how Hilary Clinton was in big trouble because he attended a rally she held the night before the elections and over half of the cars in the lot were from out of state. That sounded like nice reporting by Joe, but now it turns out all of those people could have stayed around and voted. Did Clinton use a law to here advantage? Did New Hampshire get out voted by Clinton workers from New York? Someone ought to at least ask.

The biggest thing that the news is not covering is the allegations of fraud that were immediate. Not surprisingly Ron Paul supporters started the fury, and have some actually admitted cases of deception under their belt. However, the fury increased when it looked as if those places that used a voting machine or optical vote reader to count the votes favored Hilary and all hand counted placed favored Obama. As one can see this is not a new controversy with these machines or New Hampshire HBO, Lou Dobbs, and You Tube have all talked before about how easy it is to hack into these machines and even shown someone do it. Thus, the silence of the media is amazing. I think it is because it is sparked by bloggers and the media hates bloggers. Thankfully, Congressmen Kucinch asked for a recount and it has been authorized. There are sane reasons out there that this fraud is probably wrong, but I still think it would have gotten more press. Plus, the reason given just leads us back to what happened to make all of the polls so wrong.

At any rate, I am interested to hear how the recount goes. I am surprised that people have not spent more time looking into it. My distrust of government tells me that this could have been rigged. My distrust of pollsters tells me they probably just make stuff up to put in their polls. Over all I would just like to see some real journalism by someone. Somebody ask some real questions, please.

Movie Review - I am Legend

It has been a while since I have reviewed anything. So, I will try to catch up on the books later, but I wanted to talk about some good things to watch. Since the writers are on strike TV is more depressing than exciting right now. There are really only two good shows on TV anyway. Heroes with their wonderful characters and rich imagery, and LOST which follows the same wonderful pattern. Heroes for example has people with names like Nathan, Peter, Noah, and Adam. Although in the last episode Nathan appeared to die, he dies serving as a prophet. Peter is very much the foundation, a rock so to speak. Adam may well be the first hero, although a hero who has fallen, and Noah is trying to save his family. The tension between a higher purpose and outright Darwinism is also fun to watch. LOST is very similar with characters with deep philosophical names like Russeau, Locke, and Hugo. In fact almost every name has significance in LOST and the real greatness of the show is the battle of these ideals. It also has some nice allusions like a man trying to return his love named Penelope, and Benjamin and Jacob serving as the Biblical allusions. It is a very good show. However, while LOST still has shows left, it does not appear that either will get a full season under their belt with the writers going on strike because of good old fashion greed. Thus, we must turn to movies.
And movies are seldom very good these days. Oddly the best are usually comic book remakes or stories from history. Original work in Hollywood usually turns out to be garbage. However, I am Legend starring Will Smith was a refreshing breath of fresh air. The acting was solid, not great but solid. More importantly the story was deep and fantastic. The lesson was a good moral, and the story was ripe with great biblical allusions. I don’t want to ruin too much of the story, but the disease that has ravaged mankind serves as a wonderful image for sin, and the story then becomes a search for salvation. It is a good story that does get explicit about God near the end. And surprisingly for a Hollywood movie it ends with a positive message about God. Not a great or deep message, but one that says He exists and He is working even in the darkest moments. I enjoyed the movie that was suspenseful, dramatic, exciting, and entertaining. I give it two thumbs up.

Reagan as a Neo-Conservative?

It is the political season again. I always enjoy watching the politics, but I feel much more distance from it this year. This is for two reasons: politics is not the answer to real problems, and there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats.

That being said, I wanted to comment on Andrew Sandlin’s discussion about Republican candidates and the Reagan coalition. Rev. Sandlin has always been a bit more of a pragmatist than I have when it comes to politics, but this time I want to take issue with his historical reading of Reagan. Sandlin proclaims that only McCain and Giuliani are the only two people that can hold the Reagan coalition together. He says the most important point is a ‘muscular foreign policy’. This is what he believes Reagan had and that was what brought the Soviet Union down. He obviously thinks that only the supporters of President Bush have that ‘muscular foreign policy’. The question is whether or not the Neo-Conservative doctrine of pre-emptive strikes on countries that might pose a risk is the same as Reagan’s foreign policy?

The answer is clear. No. Not even close. While I can agree that Reagan had a muscular foreign policy, Reagan had no pre-emptive strikes. With the possible exception of Grenada, Reagan never once invaded a country to prevent war. He defeated the spread of the Soviet Union not by force as previous presidents had done, but by increased defense spending and helping our allies spend on defense. Reagan pushed the ‘Star Wars’ defense program and put defensive missiles in West Germany. But never did Reagan take us to war to end the Soviet Union. Not that he did not have his chances. Many forget the shooting of Korean Air 007. This flight included 60 plus American citizens, and was shot down by Russian aircraft. Reagan took economic action, but no military action. This stands in stark contrast to the foreign policy of President Bush and the neo-conservatives. It is in stark contrast to McCain who supports the Bush Doctrine and Mayor Rudy who also stands in line with the Bush Doctrine of ‘War that Prevents All Wars’.

In the end, I agree with Reagan’s muscular foreign policy. It was one based on a strong military and defense. It was based on calling a spade a spade or in this case an Evil Empire. It was also based on economics and economic pressure. Even beyond that it was based on optimism. Reagan never doubted that the USSR would be put in the dustbin of history and that its last chapters were being written. This is also a far cry from the rhetoric we hear from Neo-cons. Sandlin misrepresents the foreign policy of Buchanan and Paul (and perhaps the others I just don’t know them as well). They are not isolationists. Paul has specifically refuted this many times. He is simply not an interventionist. But he favors the Reagan approach of economic allies and trade and diplomacy all of which Reagan used to bring down the USSR.

If someone wants to defend the Neo-conservative view of foreign policy, fine. Do so. However, let us not pretend that Ronald Reagan is an example, at least not with regards to his policy toward the USSR. It just seems to historically inaccurate to swallow.

Ethics in the Computer Age

Something interesting is going on over at Barb’s blog. She has called Andy Webb (an anti-FV advocate) a tale-bearer and a gossip because he posted a link to a site that reproduced private emails from the Biblical Horizons email group (a pro-FV email group), which apparently includes some sort of confidentiality promise. The debate which carries over into a new post revolves mainly around whether or not it was right for a link to be given out since it spread things meant to be private. Was that gossip? Was it allowing someone who broke their word to be rewarded for his 9th commandment breaking? I am not that interested in the content of the exposed emails. I did read them, or most of them, but frankly found it boring and rather dull. What does interest me is the ethics of the situation. It got me to talking and to thinking, so I want to extend the discussion here into cyber space.

Is it wrong for someone to break a promise of confidentiality? Not just email lists but say working for the government or companies? Do circumstances make it a sin to stay silent? Is a whistle-blower a sinner?

Something that has not been brought up, but should be added to this discussion is the following question:

Is it right for Christians to sign confidentiality agreements? Is it a sin to require them?

Just a few questions that I hope people will respond. I would appreciate all thoughts.

Another Catholicity moment

I have long been critical of most things going on at Reformed Catholicism including its basic premise that an honest dialogue can exist between all groups such as Romanists and Reformed as one example. Denominations exist for the most part because of serous divisions that often go to the very nature of the gospsel. Take for example the differences between Calvinistic churches and Armenian churches. They disagree on at least the nature of man’s sin, whether faith is a work, Christ’s work on the cross and what that did, whether God controls all things, man’s role in salvation, and the security coming from salvation. These are fundamental. I am all for dialogue, but not dialogue that pretends such difference are not at the very heart of the Christian faith. Reformed Catholicism thought at first that such things and other controversial issues such as the role of Mary and Images could be discussed in a helpful non-divisive manner. They have been proven wrong as many writers have now split to form Evangelical Catholicity. The split seems to be because of a growing difference between writers like Kevin Johnson and the more Mercersburg oriented group like Jonathon Bonomo. This can be seen in heated exchanges about a wide range of topics in the comment sections.

This brings me to my point about Catholicity or Ecumenism. It is the dirty little secret of Catholicity. It is actually an intolerant movement and spews venom at those who disagree with their Ecumenical or ‘Peaceful’ goals. One only has to look at history to see that what happened between Evangelical and Reformed Catholicism happens every time a movement claims to be about Peace and Ecumenism. In my own personal denominations history one can look at the Peace Movement that tried to bring about reconciliation between the Mercersburg Party and the Old Reformed Party. Those who did not want to participate and still did things like bring people up on trial for heresies were branded as crazies. Just look at James I Good’s take on the German-Russian ‘Kohlbrueggians’ in his History of the RCUS 19th century. Good is a staunch Old Reformed Man, but he has nicer things to say about the Mercersburg group than the intolerant German-Russian group, which would eventually not follow the rest of the denomination into the merger with the Evangelical Lutheran church. The Presbyterian Church also serves as a wonderful example. For years the Princetonians had been fighting to get the Liberal who signed the Auburn Affirmation out of the church. They had some small success then in 1925 a Princeton Professor known for his ecumenical or a peace attitude was elected moderator: Professor Charles Erdman. It was under his leadership that the cause of biblical orthodox ground to a halt. He placated a group of ministers who denied the virgin birth by creating a committee to discover the problems within the church itself. That commission interviewed men like Machen, but rejected their view of the problem. The very next year the appointments of Princeton were held up and the institution was soon destroyed. It was under the guise of Peace that the ‘intolerant’ view of Princeton was eradicated. One could go back further in time to the Counciliar Movement and the Council of Pisa, which was supposed to settle the dispute between the Avingion and Roman Popes, but instead created a third pope. Ecumenism is not a peaceful movement. It never has been. The latest split in Catholicity blogs is just further proof of that.

A Response to the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Tim Challies is a well known and very good blogger. So, I hesitate to cross swords with this master, but he recently blogged something I felt compelled to debunk. It was a blog about Homeschooling as a self-fulfilling prophecy with regards to Public Schools. Mr. Challies was commenting on a new book by Al Mohler who calls for Christians to get an exit strategy from public schools, and then goes on to talk about how godless they are and give examples. Mr. Challies asks the question of whether or not withdrawing the godly from the schools will help with the problem of the schools being godless and wonders out loud if the homeschooling movement has helped create or at least worsen the problem they complain about.

Before I get going on this critique, I should just let you know where I stand on homeschooling. I am homeschooling my kids, but I don’t consider myself a rabid homeschooler. I agree wholeheartedly with a recent report my denomination did on the subject. The Bible clearly places the parents responsible and accountable for their kids education. However, we can go no further in binding consciences than that. The parents are responsible, and if they see fit to delegate the act of educating to others, then it is biblically allowable. It does not remove responsibility or accountability, but it is not anti-Christian to send kids to public school, or private school, or a Christian school. It is about each parent making what they think is the best choice for their kids. For me, I choose homeschooling. You may want to choose something else.

Now, Mr. Challies makes this biblical suggestion about leaving kids in the public school. After mentioning that Canadian schools are not as bad off as American schools and thinking that might be because homeschooling is not as big in Canada, he goes to the bible for support of his reasoning.

I wonder sometimes about a “Genesis 18” principle. In Genesis 18 we read of Abraham interceding for Sodom and for his people in that city. “Then Abraham drew near and said, ‘Will you indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?’” Abraham asks God, pesters God even, whether God will preserve the city for the sake of the righteous. Will God preserve the city because His people are in it? God answers in the affirmative. And is it possible, I wonder, that the Canadian system has been preserved more than its American counterpart because God’s people have remained there? Perhaps this is a long shot; perhaps I am abusing the text and the principle it teaches; but I can’t help but wonder. Would we not expect God to preserve an institution where His people are present and are attempting to make inroads for His glory?

It is this argument that I think needs to be discussed because I do believe Mr. Challies is wrong on this point. Very wrong, in fact.

First, I do think he is misusing the passage a little and making it say something that I do not believe it is saying. In Genesis 18 God does agree that for 10 righteous souls he will not destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, but alas 10 righteous cannot be found. This passage, however, does not say that 10 righteous souls would prevent Sodom from being so sinful in the first place. It seems to me the principle of Genesis 18 is that God will be generous with mercy for the sake of the righteous. It does not say that God will allow 10 righteous to influence a corrupt system for the good.

Second, I think the passage actually goes on to teach exactly the opposite of what Mr. Challies argues. If we look we find Lot’s family living in a place of degenerate sinfulness. Does the passage show Lot influencing the city for good or does the passage show Lot being influenced by the city. Well, we see Lot offer his daughter in place of the angel visiting him. A morally questionable motive. We see Lot’s wife look back with longing in her heart for the sinful life of Sodom. We see Lot’s daughter sleeping with him after Lot is drunk. It seems to me that one of the principles of Genesis 18 is exactly what many homeschoolers are stating, ‘Bad company corrupts good morals.’ One cannot be immersed in Sodom and remain unscathed.

What makes Canadian schools have less anti-christian rage than American public schools? I don’t know. It could be that Canada is farther along in removing Christian influence from the society at large (see hate speech laws and other such things). Maybe the churches there are not as active in politics, or maybe the educational elite do not want to create a mass exodus of the system and thus do not push their anti-christian worldview. Who knows? I am just fairly sure there is a better explanation than Christians in the schools creates a better influence. At the very least that argument runs counter to Genesis 18 and other similar examples found in Scripture.

A Response to Mercersburg as an Inoculation against Rome

Every now and then something really astounding is published on the web and one just has to comment on it. Mark Horne has done just that with his post about an inoculation against Rome. Rev. Horne claims that Philip Schaff’s Principle of Protestantism is just that, a way to fight against Rome. Horne rightly points out that Schaff provides a defense of Justification by Faith and also attacks William Pusey, but Horne does not address the main point of the book. Schaff and Nevin, which Horne recommends at the end of the post, are the furthermost thing from an inoculation against Rome, rather they are smaller doses of Romanism.

Here are some important things to remember about Mercersburg, Schaff, and Nevin that show Rev. Horne to be wrong.

1. Schaff defends justification by faith alone with one hand and takes it away with the other. Remember the point of his book is to show that the principle of Protestantism is not justification by faith alone, but rather a principle of development. In fact, he argues that the next step is a reunion with Rome where doctrines like justification by faith alone are merged with elements from Roman worship, like the altar, that implicitly deny that very doctrine. Thus, one can truly question whether or not Schaff defends justification by faith alone in that book, or whether he holds to justification by faith only until the next development is ready, which is a question that must be asked of Schaff when one follows his reasoning on theological development.
2. Nevin seriously considered converting to Roman Catholicism. This is something that is admitted by Schaff himself of his close friend. I find Nevin hard to believe as an antidote to Romanism if he almost went over to it himself. A point ignored by D.G. Hart in his whitewash of Nevin.
3. Many students that sat under Schaff and Nevin converted to Romanism and credited Schaff and Nevin for their conversion.
4. Nevin openly admits that his theological system is a different one from the 16th century pulpit based system and they are at odds with one another.
5. These men were considered unreformed by a large segment of the Reformed world during their own day. The Dutch Reformed broke communion with the Reformed Church in the United States because of the teachings of Nevin and Schaff. Hodge clearly held that Nevin was not reformed on the sacraments, and many within their own denomination accused them of being unreformed on a variety of topics. Take Benjamin Schneck’s work entitled Mercersburg Theology: Inconsistent with Protestant and Reformed Doctrine. Or you could listen to Joseph Berg claim that Nevin was a Nestorian, or the Philadelphia Classis accuse Schaff of holding to a Roman-type view on a Middle State between life and death (which by the way he held and taught at Mercersburg). One could go on for hours.

At the very least, Mercersburg Theology is not a inoculation. At best it is non-reformed attempt to merge two incompatible views. At worst it is a train that leads right to the Tiber river. Let me correct that. At worst it is a recipe to view theology as unimportant. See the result of Mercersburg Theology in the United Churches of Christ.

A brief excursus on Roman and Reformed Unity

I just want to take a second to reflect on something that has been happening on Reformed Catholicism. The site has had a few dust ups about Roman Catholicism and especially the pope. Most of these seem to have been cause by Tim Enloe. One of the ironies of this dust up is that Mr. Enloe often holds to a much more Roman view on many issues, just not the pope apparently. The comments got pretty heated, and Mr. Enloe seems a little surprised that Romanists would comment in such a manner.

I mention this because it highlights my major problem with Reformed Catholicism. It is an oxy moron. It is nice to speak about a dialogue between the Romanist and the Protestants, but it is not possible in the manner they desire it. Protestants and Romanists cannot agree on the gospel. We cannot agree on justification by faith alone, what dialogue can happen? None. We cannot even agree upon what books are in the bible. What should one expect when one presents a critique, historical or otherwise, about the Pope, which like it or not, is the defining characteristic of Roman Catholicism. Just another issue Protestants are Romanists do not agree upon. The Bible is clear, ‘How can two walk together lest they be agreed?’ There is no agreement between Romanists and Protestants, especially Reformed believers. So, I am all in favor of a Roman – Reformed dialogue. I just think that if that dialogue does not start with a call to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, then no good is being done.

A Parting with Marvin Olasky

I respect Marvin Olasky. He is a great writer; and I enjoy his columns in World Magazine. Usually that is. I have come to discover that I have a great deal of difference with him when it comes to defining Conservativism. Marvin, of course, is the inventor of the phrase "Compassionate Conservative." He has been disappointed by President Bush, but a recent article in the Dec. 8th issue of World Magazine reveals that he is looking for more of the same in the 2008 candidates. Mr. Olasky comments on the YouTube debate, and in one sentence he brushes aside both Mitt Romney and Fred Thomson, leaving McCain hoping one of the other remaining candidates falter. Thus, Mr. Olasky narrows the potential field down to two men: Rudy Giuliani, the favorite of Fox News and Neo-Conservatives everywhere, and Mike Huckabee, the chosen one of the evangelicals and the heir apparent to Compassionate Conservativism. Olasky barely conceals his hope that Huckabee will win the nomination. He goes as far as to state, “He has the feeling of George W. Bush at his best but the speaking ability that Bush lacks.” Now I realize that this is a compliment coming from Olasky, but it is precisely what makes me worried. Mike Hucakbee is George Bush again, which means he is not conservative at all. Huckabee will spend money like it is going out of style. Huckabee seems ready to continue the foreign policy of pre-emptive wars. Rather than fighting "the war to end all wars," we will continue to fight "wars to prevent a war." I know the article is supposed to be a side bar, but I watched that YouTube debate, and I did not see such a clear cut victory for Huckabee or Giuiliani. Huckabee has no real plans, and is all charm, something that Tom Tancredo does a really good job of exposing. Tancredo is the only one who ever attacks Huckabee. Sadly, no one ever listens to him. In the end, I have had enough of Compassionate Conservatism, and with all due respect to Mr. Olasky, I disagree that the two least conservative people in the race are the two best hopes for the Republican Party. I encourage Mr. Olasky to listen again to Fred Thompson, maybe Mitt Romney, and even Ron Paul. They make a lot more sense than the "President Bush with a silver tongue" that he is betting on now.

Cultural Warfare - Politics

If you want another view inside the culture watching political news shows is a way to see at least a glimpse of it. If you are not watching Hardball with Chris Matthews don’t start now. However, Mr. Matthews is rabid in his denunciation of the Republican Party and the constant talk of religion, specifically Christianity. He goes so far as to claim that it is creating a religious test for office and thus is violating the Constitution. He says it with such venom that it is hard to mistake his real point: he hates the idea of Christians who make decisions based on the Bible. He had specific venom for the questioner in a YouTube debate who asked how literal people believe the Bible. He went so far as to claim that questioner was violating the Constitution. Now, everyone ought to know that the Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government. In other word, the government cannot create a requirement that everyone must conform to the Three Forms of Unity in order to serve. However, the Constitution says nothing about voters. The Voters can vote for someone because he is a Christian or because he holds to a similar view of the Bible they do, or he can vote for the guy with the best hair. It really doesn’t matter. But, Matthews is desperate to eradicate Christianity from government and daily life, so he has latched onto this silly idea of making Christianity unconstitutional, at least in candidates for office. Sadly, others are starting to follow his lead. Take Mitt Romney for example. He seems to be saying something similar, although with a lot less venom.

What does this tell you about the culture? Well, I think it again points to a real distrust and hatred for the founding traditions. Christianity is on the outs. For a while political commentators ignored Christianity and were able to dismiss it as ‘fringe’, but now they feel the need to eradicate it. Some go about it in a pseudo-acadmeic model as Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. His book, American Gospel, is an attempt to make people think Christianity had nothing to do with the history and the argument of the book is built more on the hope that no one knows anything at all about American history rather than any sort of proof, documentation, or argumentation. Other try to eradicate Christianity by trying to us the law to make it illegal. This is the Chris Matthews approach and the approach of the United States Supreme Court (see decision outlawing prayer and banning 10 Commandments). Still others go for the mocking dismissal. The unifying point is that a large portion of the culture has a hatred for Christianity, even more so recently than in times past.

Next time we will look at books and then head off to movies before wrapping this whole quick survey with how this is infiltrating the church.

Cultural Warfare - Comic Books

Every now and then it is good to check the temperature of the culture. Christianity should never change its message for the culture, but it should make sure it knows the culture so that it more effectively minister to its needs, as well as prepare for its attacks. There are lots of ways to get the feel for a culture, TV shows, movies, music, art, but in this installment, I want to examine the culture via the medium of comic books. Eventually I will wind this back to the church, but that is for a later post.

Why comic books? For a couple of reasons. One, comic books are for teenagers and kids. They affect the younger minds meaning that I believe they have a formative role. Two, Hollywood today is in decline. New movies rarely make the big bucks that people expect. The few exceptions are the movies made after comic books. This shows that comics do have a large following and it means that you can expect to see more and more comics make it to the films. Three, I grew up a comic book geek, so this stuff is interesting to me. Kind of sad, but at least I admit it.

I think it is important to get a brief history of comics because today’s culture is an anti-historical, death filled, culture. This is better illustrated with a brief overview. The Golden Age of Comics started in 1938 with the release of Superman. In this golden age several companies flourished and heroes like Green Lantern, Atom, Batman and Robin, Captain America, Captain Marvel, and the Flash were created. The heroes then were upstanding. They fought Nazis in WWII. They stood for ‘truth, justice, and the American way.’ The Golden Age ended in 1950 as many of the titles were cancelled. The Silver Age of Comics begins in 1956 when a new Flash is created. Sales go up and more heroes are created such as Spiderman, Thor, Iron Man, the X-men, Avengers, and Justice League of America. The heroes again were upstanding, but some had emotional conflicts and issues usually making them reluctant heroes or misunderstood heroes. Congress had established a Comics Code so that no gruesome or troublesome things could be depicted by comics. This was passed to prevent delinquency in children. The Silver Age ends when the code is lifted in 1971. The Bronze Age then begins where comics begin to try and be relevant to the culture and impact it for the greater good, but using real life troubles to do so. Deaths began to find their way into comics as a way to have superheroes grieve and make the villains seems worse. Although they never really killed the heroes, mainly they killed off lovers or family members. Fewer new heroes are introduced, but you see darker troubled heroes like Ghost Rider coming into existence and you see a large influx of minority heroes and comics dealing with drug use and racism. The Bronze Age ends in 1986 when the comic book industry turned yet another bit darker. This introduced the Dark Age. Books like Batman: the Dark Knight Returns and the Watchmen dealt with very dark topics and heroes became anti-heroes where they no longer worked with the law, but above it. People like Wolverine and the Punisher had no problem killing the bad guys. Again death in comics were on the rise, even killing heroes now as in 1988 Robin, Batman’s sidekick is killed by the Joker. By the way the villians during this period are often portrayed much more sympathetically. I personally believe the Dark Age ends in 2004. Obviously this new age is unable to be named at this point, but it is this new age, I want to discuss.

In 2004, a series was published called Identity Crisis where the major superheroes all agreed to erase a villain memory because he knew their secret identities and he raped the wife of one of their members. They of course covered up the rape as well. This is fairly graphic material and it was basically used to advance the action in a story line. During the seven issue series the formerly raped wife dies from an attack, the new Robin’s father dies in a hit, a few heroes die in battle, and in the end Wonder Woman, Superman, and Batman all take a year off to find out who they are. Feminists protested loudly, but the bad things keep coming. Comics today routinely kill off heroes, even long standing heroes. Captain America a Golden Age creation was recently killed off after leading a revolt against the American Government. A series is now running called Death of the New Gods, where all of the characters of a Golden Age comic pioneer are being killed off. Minor characters without titles of their own die regularly. Death tolls and other unspeakable acts happen all the time, and now almost no characters stands up for the ‘truth, justice, and the American way.’ Marvel Comics just wrapped up a summer series entitled Civil War where the bad guys were other Superheroes, not villains.

What is the point of all of this? The point of this little history lesson is to see the motif found in the culture. A few lessons can be learned. In the modern culture, death is good, it is acceptable, and it is not shocking. Another point is that one can be heroic while participating in murder, breaking laws, and other immoral behavior. In fact, heroism is now the same as vigilantism. A final point and one that is very important, things that are old and stand for the way things used to be are hated. Hated. Old characters are being killed off and then reinvented in a new way. Characters that cannot be killed off for financial reasons are being reinvented so that they no longer reflect the value system of the old days. This is what kids are reading and being taught via comic books. Obviously this has a great deal to do with the church, but before we get to that let us plumb the depths of a few other culture barometers.

Why I can't stand ESPN and the BCS

If any of you have not yet converted to I-AA football, your last chance this season is Friday. Appalachian State goes for its third straight title, a feat never before accomplished. They are taking on another traditional powerhouse and former champion, Delaware. Delaware has a QB that has NFL type talent, and they have overcome the tougher road to the final. Appy St. beat their first two opponents by a mere 4 points total, and then blew out Richmond. Appy St. did not have to play either of the undefeated teams in their bracket because they both lost early. Delaware on the other hand defeated numbers 1 ranked Northern Iowa and then took out number four Southern Illinois all after thumping instate rival Delaware St.

If for some reason that drama is not enough, then just think about what you are supposed to believe about the BCS system. This year there is only one undefeated team, Hawaii. Hawaii won the WAC, which last year sent undefeated Boise St. to the BCS and Boise promptly beat Oklahoma. Yet, this year we are supposed to believe than an undefeated Hawaii is not as good as a two loss LSU. Seriously, do you really believe that the SEC is such a good conference that losing twice makes you better than a team that did not lose at all? Come on. That is too much for me to handle. Plus, to add insult to injury, Tim Tebow won the Heisman Trophy. Let us just look at the stats.

QB#1 – 4174 yds. 38 TD, 112.9 rating
QB#2 – 3132yds. 29TD, 122.9 rating
QB#3 – 40424yds. 30TD, 102.4 rating

It is not that much of a contest when they are evaluated as quaterbacks. But in the interest of full disclosure let us make sure we note that
QB#1 – missed one whole game against Charleston Southern (a stat stuffer game) and played only two downs in a second game. Rushed for 65yds, and 8 TD.
QB#2 – rushed for 838yds, and 22TD.
QB#3 – rushed for –46yds, and 3TD.

Who deserves to be the Heisman? Well, maybe it might help to know that QB#1 did not lose a single game. QB#2 lost three games. QB#3 lost six games. In the end, Tim Tebow is QB#2 and won the Heisman? Why? He only scored five more TDs than Colt Brennan (QB#1), and with all of his yards combined did not gain as much as Brennan did passing alone. Tim Tebow did not even throw as many touch downs as Brian Brohm of Louisville (QB#3). Tebow got a lot of rushing touchdowns because Florida did not have a running game and close to the end zone they just gave the ball to Tebow. Yet, in my opinion the case gets worse. Look at these stats.

RB#1 – 2448 yds. 29TD, 188.3 yds per game
RB#2 – 1725yds. 15 TD, 143.8 yds per game
RB#3 – 1463yds, 14 TD, 121.9 yds per game.

Both RB 1 and 2 also caught one TD pass while #3 went empty on that stat although RB#3 rushed only four times in one of his teams blowout wins.

RB#2 is Darren McFadden who finished second in the voting for the Heisman. His team did not win the SEC title even in the West. RB#3 who has stats fairly similar to McFadden is Chris Wells of one loss Ohio State. And of course RB#1 is Kevin Smith of Central Florida who went for well over 2000 yards something even pros do not do and they have a longer season. Plus, UCF and Mr. Smith won their conference. Why did Smith and Brennan get the cold shoulder when it came time to hand out post season awards? Well, because ESPN would have you think that the BCS schools are just that much better than the other schools.

A two loss team in the championship, and two inferior players in the Heisman race. Enough is enough. Give me I-AA anytime.

More NT Wright and The Gospel of John

If I might follow up on my previous assertion that John’s gospel begins with the Second Person of the Trinity and then shows us Jesus taking flesh. I believe that John’s gospel is clearly the hardest for Bishop Wright’s position of absolutely no self-awareness of divinity within Jesus.

John begins with the famous passage, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God and the Word was with God.’ This has seldom been debated that it is referring to the fact the Word is the second person of the Trinity. He is both God and with God, a fine description of Nicaean Theology (or perhaps that is the other way around). That Word then takes flesh. Thus, I think implied at least is the idea that the Person of the Word is now the Person Jesus who is both God and flesh. However, I think John gets more explicit as the gospel goes on.

Now I am going to bypass all of the miracles done by Jesus and other non-human abilities such as seeing Nathanael under the fig tree. In many of these such as the one mentioned, we see Jesus being proclaimed to be the ‘Son of God’ and calling himself the ‘Son of Man’, and saying that he is Jacob’s ladder. All of these things cause problems for Bishop Wright’s opinion, but I have said that arguing over the titles deserves another series of posts on its own.

John shows in the teachings of Jesus that Jesus the Person is the Word who was in the beginning and with God, now made flesh. One example comes in John 6:33, ‘For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ Here Jesus specifically speaks of himself and says that he came down from heaven. Someone who is not aware of his divine nature, and only aware of a calling to do things God said he will do cannot make this statement. If Jesus is just a First Century Jew and unaware of any preexistent life as the Second Person of the Trinity, then he cannot claim to be he who came down from heaven.

Chapter 8 presents even more trouble with several statements. 8:23, ‘You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.’ Again, hard statements for a person without any awareness of his divinity. Wright would have to stretch these comments to make them not a literal above, but some sort of figurative meaning. Yet, this seems even more unlikely as we reach the climax of the debate in chapter 8. The most common verse to prove the divinity of Christ, and consequently the self-awareness of that divinity is John 8:58, ‘Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am’.’ Here Jesus claims he is the I AM just as God said to Moses in Exodus 3:14. I have not seen on-line Bishop Wright react to that particular verse, and I would be extremely interested to see how he explained it. But, I do not see how this is not Jesus showing his self-awareness that he is the Second Person of the Trinity. Verse 59 shows us that the Jewish leaders thought he was claiming to be God as they took up stones. So, even in the context of the chapter, it is taken to be a claim to divinity. Of course we cannot divorce John 8 from John 1, so we know exactly what Jesus is referring to, the fact that He is the Word who is God.

Of course chapter 8 ends with people rejecting Jesus as God, chapter 9 ends in the opposite manner with the healed blind man accepting Jesus as God. We see Jesus heal him at the beginning of the chapter, and the we follow the blind man through his trials, and finally Jesus finds the formerly blind man again. In 9:37, Jesus tells the man that Jesus is the Son of God, and in verse 38 the man responds with ‘Lord, I believe! And he worshipped him.’ Note particuarly the ending. The man worshipped Jesus. This is not to be done to a mere man. Someone who was a good first century Jew, but did not think himself God would have stopped the worship immediately. Thus by not stopping the worship, Jesus reveals he knows he is God, he is self-aware of his divinity. [Just as a side note, the man worships Jesus when Jesus tells him he is the Son of God, which seems to imply that Son of God contains it not just Messiahship, but divinity, which goes against Wright’s arguments.]

One could continue endlessly through John. There are many other ‘I am’ statements and the great confession of Thomas, ‘My lord and My God!’ in John 20:28. But I will stop for now. I would love to hear from anyone who knows how Wright reacts to some of the verses in John I have quoted. I think it would be educational. However, I do think these verses destructive to Wright’s Christology.