"Norms that are 'normed' by Scripture"

A Lutheran friend responded to another post on the Creeds by asking "Are you familiar with the Lutheran confessional idea of the creeds as "true expositions" of the Bible and "norma normata" (that is, norms of faith that are themselves "normed" by Scripture?)" I wasn't, but the concept is appealing. Michael Spencer, a Southern Baptist, advocates "The Creeds" as an appropriate part of the "Evangelical Liturgy":

A hymn I grew up singing said that “My faith has found a resting place, not in device or creed.” A frequent accusation made against Baptist conservatives during the conservative resurgence was that they were “imposing creedalism” on the Southern Baptist Convention.

A rule of thumb for denominational conflict: before making an accusation, make sure that the matter under discussion is actually a bad thing.

A second rule of thumb, particularly for any Baptist moderates or evangelical liberals left with the impression that “creedalism” remains an effective taunt: be sure that you don’t find yourself defending the disease and ridiculing health (or medicine, in this case.)

My Southern Baptist Convention gives no acknowledgment of the existence of the entire creedal history of the church. When Robert Webber told me that the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds were mine as a Baptist, I immediately looked around to see if the Papal armies were camped outside. ....

...[W]e cannot unilaterally devalue the creeds or our Protestant/evangelical connection to them. To do so is to, eventually, leave the impression that every congregation and every Christian is re-inventing the “wheel” of the Christian faith out of their own resources. This ahistorical, individualized version of evangelicalism tell significant lies regarding Christian community and Christian origins.

We do not place our faith in creeds but in Christ. As Rich Mullins said, however, “I did not make it; No, it is making me.” Such historical anchors are “making us,” if we access the rich theological and historical stories they tell. [more]

The Evangelical Liturgy 15: The Creeds | internetmonk.com

"A fantasist...who helped build a hell on earth"

A hero still to some who view him as the purer road to the as yet unrealized communist utopia — sort of an early "Che" — Trotsky actually only looks good in comparison to Stalin, and had he been given the chance, he might have been worse. From John Gray's review of Robert Service's Trotsky: A Biography:

Trotsky has always been something of an icon for the intelligentsia, and it is not hard to see why. He fitted the perception that dissenting intellectuals like to have of themselves. Highly cultured, locked in struggle with a repressive establishment, a gifted writer who was also a man of action, he seemed to embody the ideal of truth speaking to power. The manner of his death solidified this perception, which has shaped accounts of his life ever since. ....

This has never been a terribly plausible view of the man who welcomed the ruthless crushing of the Kronstadt workers and sailors when they demanded a more pluralist system of government in 1921, and who defended the systematic use of terror against opponents of the Soviet state until his dying day. Introducing a system of hostage-taking in the Civil War and consistently supporting the trial and execution of dissidents (Mensheviks, Social Revolutionaries, liberal Kadets, nationalists and others), Trotsky never hesitated to endorse repression against those who stood in the way of communist power. This much has long been clear, but the full extent of Trotsky's role in building Soviet totalitarianism has not been detailed — until now.

Rigorously researched, covering Trotsky's education and upbringing, his life as an émigré before the revolution, his time as a military leader, his losing battle with Stalin, his women, his life as an exile and his assassination, Robert Service's new biography discloses a man very different from the one celebrated by bien pensants. ....

.... Inhumanly ruthless in his dealings with non-Bolsheviks and at the same time thoroughly inept in his relations with Stalin, Trotsky was too vain and self-deceiving to merit the status of tragic hero accorded him by Western admirers. Undoubtedly he was courageous, and it can hardly be denied that he was a key player in some of the formative conflicts of the last century. But in the end it is impossible to see him as other than an absurd figure, a fantasist seeking to found a paradise who helped build a hell on earth. Had Trotsky prevailed in his struggle with Stalin, would the world today be in better shape - or would it actually be worse? It is a question Robert Service does not answer. But he has given us the best biography of Trotsky to date, and there seems little reason why anyone should write another. [more]

Literary Review - John Gray on Trotsky by Robert Service

"Idols are not bad things..."

Tim Keller on why he wrote Counterfeit Gods: The Empty Promises of Money, Sex, and Power, and the Only Hope that Matters:

"Idols are not bad things but, really,
good things turned into ultimate things."
Tim Keller
Thanks to Alex Chediak for the reference.

YouTube - Counterfeit Gods

Sinners and hypocrites

R.C. Sproul responds to "Is the Church Full of Hypocrites?":

.... Though no Christian achieves the full measure of sanctification in this life, that we all struggle with ongoing sin does not justly yield the verdict of hypocrisy. A hypocrite is someone who does things he claims he does not do. Outside observers of the Christian church see people who profess to be Christians and observe that they sin. Since they see sin in the lives of Christians, they rush to the judgment that therefore these people are hypocrites. If a person claims to be without sin and then demonstrates sin, surely that person is a hypocrite. But for a Christian simply to demonstrate that he is a sinner does not convict him of hypocrisy.

The inverted logic goes something like this: All hypocrites are sinners. John is a sinner; therefore, John is a hypocrite. Anyone who knows the laws of logic knows that this syllogism is not valid. If we would simply change the charge from "the church is full of hypocrites" to "the church is full of sinners," we would be quick to plead guilty. The church is the only institution I know of that requires an admission of being a sinner in order to be a member. The church is filled with sinners because the church is the place where sinners who confess their sins come to find redemption from their sins. So in this sense, simply because the church is filled with sinners does not justify the conclusion that the church is filled with hypocrites. Again, all hypocrisy is sin, but not all sin is the sin of hypocrisy. ....

But...

....We often are embarrassed by our failures to reach these high goals and are inclined to pretend that we have reached a higher plateau of righteousness than we've actually attained. When we do that, we put on the mask of the hypocrite and come under the judgment of God for that particular sin. When we find ourselves enmeshed in this type of pretense, an alarm bell should go off in our brains that we need to rush back to the cross and to Christ and to understand where our true righteousness resides. .... [more]

Thanks to Justin Taylor for the reference.

Is the Church Full of Hypocrites? | Ligonier Ministries

Absolute liberty ends with absolute tyranny

Russell Kirk didn't care for libertarianism "...[N]ow and again one reads of two camps of alleged conservatives: 'traditionalist conservatives and libertarian conservatives.' This is as if a newspaperman were to classify Christians as 'Protestant Christians and Muslim Christians.' A libertarian conservative is as rare a bird as a Jewish Nazi."

In "Social Conservatives, Libertarians, and Russell Kirk," Joe Carter excerpts large portions of an essay Kirk wrote for Modern Age in 1981, pointing out that "no one, after reading the entire piece, should walk away calling themselves a 'libertarian conservative.' As Kirk says, the two are incompatible." Kirk's essay can be found here as a pdf. Here is a portion of that essay [largely different from Carter's selection] that contrasts the beliefs of conservatives and libertarians, and I think makes clear the religious basis of the former:

1. The great line of division in modem politics — as Eric Voegelin reminds us — is not between totalitarians on the one hand and liberals (or libertarians) on the other; rather, it lies between all those who believe in some sort of transcendent moral order, on one side, and on the other side all those who take this ephemeral existence of ours for the be-all and end-all — to be devoted chiefly to producing and consuming. In this discrimination between the sheep and the goats, the libertarians must be classified with the goats—that is, as utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct. In effect, they are converts to Marx’s dialectical materialism; so conservatives draw back from them on the first principle of all.
2. In any society, order is the first need of all. Liberty and justice may be established only after order is tolerably secure. But the libertarians give primacy to an abstract liberty. Conservatives, knowing that "liberty inheres in some sensible object," are aware that true freedom can be found only within the framework of a social order, such as the constitutional order of these United States. In exalting an absolute and indefinable "liberty" at the expense of order, the libertarians imperil the very freedoms they praise.
3. What binds society together? The libertarians reply that the cement of society (so far as they will endure any binding at all) is self-interest, closely joined to the nexus of cash payment. But the conservatives declare that society is a community of souls, joining the dead, the living, and those yet unborn; and that it coheres through what Aristotle called friendship and Christians call love of neighbor.
4. Libertarians (like anarchists and Marxists) generally believe that human nature is good, though damaged by certain social institutions. Conservatives, on the contrary, hold that "in Adam’s fall we sinned all": human nature, though compounded of both good and evil, is irremediably flawed; so the perfection of society is impossible, all human beings being imperfect. Thus the libertarian pursues his illusory way to Utopia, and the conservative knows that for the path to Avernus.
5. The libertarian takes the state for the great oppressor. But the conservative finds that the state is ordained of God. In Burke’s phrases, "He who gave us our nature to be perfected by our virtue, willed also the necessary means of its perfection. He willed therefore the state. He willed its connexion with the source and original archtype of all perfection." Without the state, man’s condition is poor, nasty, brutish, and short—as Augustine argued, many centuries before Hobbes. The libertarians confound the state with government. But government—as Burke continued—"is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human wants." Among the more important of those human wants is "a sufficient restraint upon their passions. Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individual, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can be done only by a power out of themselves; and not, in the exercise of its function, subject to that will and to those passions which it is its office to bridle and subdue." In short, a primary function of government is restraint; and that is anathema to libertarians, though an article of faith to conservatives.
6. The libertarian thinks that this world is chiefly a stage for the swaggering ego; the conservative finds himself instead a pilgrim in a realm of mystery and wonder, where duty, discipline, and sacrifice are required—and where the reward is that love which passeth all understanding. The conservative regards the libertarian as impious, in the sense of the old Roman pietas: that is, the libertarian does not venerate ancient beliefs and customs, or the natural world, or his country, or the immortal spark in his fellow men. The cosmos of the libertarian is an arid loveless realm, a "round prison." "I am, and none else beside me," says the libertarian. "We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet," replies the conservative, in the phrases of Marcus Aurelius.

Why multiply these profound differences? Those I have expressed already will suffice to demonstrate the utter incompatibility of the two positions. If one were to content himself simply with contrasting the beliefs of conservatives and libertarians as to the nature of liberty, still we could arrive at no compromise. There is the liberty of the wolf, John Adams wrote to John Taylor; and there is the liberty of civilized man. The conservative will not tolerate ravening liberty; with Dostoevski, he knows that those who commence with absolute liberty will end with absolute tyranny. .... [more]

I am grateful to Carter for leading me back to Kirk. The discovery of Kirk as a teenager — first in the pages of National Review and then in his books, especially The Conservative Mind — was my introduction to political philosophy. His work led me to many others, including Burke.

Social Conservatives, Libertarians, and Russell Kirk » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

An image

The Shroud of Turin is the one religious relic that has intrigued me over the years, not as an object of reverence, but because of the possibility it could be authentic. Might there be an actual image of Jesus as well as evidence for His execution and possibly even the resurrection which had been preserved until a time when science could authenticate it? I should have known better — controversy about this sort of thing never ends and there is never enough evidence to erase all doubt. Nevertheless, the seemingly inexplicable nature of the image, the things a medieval artist would have been unlikely to know like the wounds on the wrists rather than the palms and the similarity to actual Roman methods of crucifixion, made the possibilities of the Shroud extremely interesting.

Now new doubts have been raised by an Italian scientist, financed by atheists, who claims to have replicated the image using techniques available in the Middle Ages. And the controversy continues:

.... The Shroud of Turin is considered by many to bear an image of the face of Jesus Christ. Made of herring bone linen, the shroud is nearly four feet by 14 feet and bears faint brown discolorations forming the negative image of a crucified man.

The shroud’s positive image, revealed by modern photography, shows the outline of a bearded man. While skeptics contend that the shroud is a medieval forgery, scientists have been unable to explain how the image appeared on the cloth.

Garlaschelli and his team, who were funded by an Italian association of atheists and agnostics, created their image by placing the linen over a volunteer before rubbing it with a pigment called ochre with traces of acid.

The linen was then “aged” by heating it in an oven and washing it with water. Reuters reports that the team then added blood stains, burn holes and water stains to finalize their product. ....

But scientists who have spent a great deal of time examining the Shroud immediately raised questions about this attempt to replicate it.

[Dr. John] Jackson led a team of 30 researchers in 1978 who determined that the shroud was not painted, dyed or stained. He explained to CNA that based off the Reuters report as well as photos of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet, it appeared that it doesn’t exactly match the Shroud of Turin.

Dr. Jackson first questioned the technique used by Garlaschelli’s team, taking issue with the method of adding blood after aging the cloth. Jackson explained that he has conducted "two independent observations that argue that the blood features on the shroud" show "that the blood was on it first, then the body image came second." ....

Another area concern for the scientists is the three dimensionality of the shroud.

Propp explained that while Garlaschelli’s cloth does have some aspects of light and dark to create a three-dimensional perspective, "it’s nowhere near as sophisticated as the shroud" and that "it misses out on the accuracy and subtleties that are in the actual image."

Dr. Jackson from the Turin Shroud Center also touched on the same point, saying, "The shroud’s image intensity varies with" the distances in between the cloth and the body. While he admitted that the images of Garlaschelli’s shroud on the internet look authentic, when taken from a 3-D perspective, "it’s really rather grotesque."

"The hands are embedded into the body and the legs have unnatural looking lumps and bumps," he explained. ....

One English-speaking expert explained that the blood used on the Shroud of Turin is not whole blood. "They didn't just go out and kill a goat and paint the blood on the cloth. The blood chemistry is very specific," he said explaining that the blood is from "actual wounds."

He added that most of the blood on the shroud flowed after death. "The side wound and the blood that puddles across the small of the back are post-mortem blood flows," he said, adding that blood flowing after death "shows a clear separation of blood and serum." ....

The Catholic Church has not taken an official position on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. (more)

Experts question scientist’s claim of reproducing Shroud of Turin

Spiritual narcissism

In an excerpt from her book In the Beginning, God, Marva Dawn asks what would happen if we read Scripture as being about Someone other than ourselves:

The Bible is all about God. That might seem an overly obvious point with which to begin a book on character formation, but, if we consider the matter seriously, we discover that we often read the Bible imagining it is about ourselves.

One way to ponder this is to contemplate the underlying question we usually bring to the Bible. Often we ask ourselves as we read, “How does this apply to me?” or “How will I live out this text?” Less nobly, we might be subconsciously asking, “How can this text make me feel good?” or “How can I use this passage to support my own ideas?” (since we sometimes read other books or journals that way). Notice that the focus has shifted away from God to us.

What would happen if instead we first asked such questions as these: “What is God doing in this text?” or “What is God revealing about one or all of the Triune Persons in this passage?” It might seem like a small matter, but it is actually an enormous shift in perspective. It is the move from self-improvement to adoration. ....

...[T]he very essence of sin is narcissism, but that tendency to be “inward-turned” or “curved in on oneself” (as Martin Luther described it) is especially aggravated by our present culture. .... [the rest of Chapter 1]

Thanks to The Gospel Coalition Blog for the reference.

Marva Dawn, In the Beginning, God

Knights Templar

Medievalist Régine Pernoud corrects the historical record about the military monastic order, the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, the Knights Templar, who have figured greatly in the fictional mythologies of both their detractors and those who claim to be their heirs. Insight Scoop presents The Templars, newly published by Ignatius Press.

For centuries, historians and novelists have portrayed the Knights Templar as avaricious and power-hungry villains. Who were these medieval monastic knights, whose exploits were the stuff of legend even in their own day? Were these elite crusaders corrupted by their conquests, which amassed them such power and wealth as to become the envy of kings?

Indignant at the discrepancies between the fantasies, on which “writers on history of every kind and hue have indulged themselves without restraint”, and the available evidence, Régine Pernoud draws a different portrait of these Christian warriors. From their origins as defenders of pilgrims to the Holy Land to their dramatic finish as heretics burned at the stake, Pernoud offers a concise but thorough account of the Templars’ contribution to Christendom.

From the Foreword by Piers Paul Read:

"From Walter Scott’s Ivanhoe to Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, the portrayal of the Templars is as false as it is absurd. This distortion exasperated, and even enraged, the French historian Régine Peroud, who has already set right many of our misapprehensions about the Middle Ages. Now in The Templars she rehabilitates the devout Catholic knights, exposing 'the incredible crop of fanciful allegations attributing to the Templars every kind of esoteric rite and belief, from the most ancient to the most vulgar....' As she rightly points out, the truth is accessible in archives and libraries: it is not impossible to uncover the facts. The result is an excellent, unadorned history that is a pleasure to read."

Insight Scoop | The Ignatius Press Blog: New from Ignatius Press: "Chosen" and "The Templars"

When will I ever learn?

From Avalon Sunset, which also has "Whenever God Shines His Light":

When will I ever learn to live in God?
When will I ever learn?
He gives me everything I need and more
When will I ever learn?

You brought it to my attention that everything was made in God
Down through centuries of great writings and paintings
Everything lives in God

Seen through architecture of great cathedrals
Down through the history of time
Is and was in the beginning and evermore shall ever be

When will I ever learn to live in God?
When will I ever learn?
He gives me everything I need and more
When will I ever learn? ....

And up on the hillside it's quiet
Where the shepherd is tending his sheep
And over the mountains and the valleys
The countryside is so green.

Standing on the highest hill with a sense of wonder
You can see everything is made in God
Head back down the roadside and give thanks for it all.

When will I ever learn to live in God?
When will I ever learn?
He gives me everything I need and more
When will I ever learn?

"Guard rails to keep us on the right path"

In the previous post I excerpted from Trevin Wax's summary of the lecture Timothy George gave, "Baptists in Relation to Other Christians." This one I particularly liked because it addresses the issue of creedalism, but emphasizes the importance of creeds — a distinction, I fear, we do not always make, but should. Trevin Wax's outline of what Timothy George said:

Timothy George delivered a message from Jude. He made a case for rejecting creedalism, while emphasizing the value of creeds. He balanced the need for the faith (objective, divine revelation), my faith (subjective, personal trust) and the church’s faith (corporate, public witness to the gospel).

1. The faith.

• The essential message of Christianity. What God has done in Jesus Christ.
• Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed are expressions of the faith.
• We are against creeds that are above the Bible, irrevisable, or forced by civil sanction.
• So why do we need creeds? They are like guard rails to keep us on the right path.
• The faith has objective content and is divinely revealed by God.

2. My faith.

• The objective side of faith is not sufficient. We are to exercise saving, believing faith (trust).
• One of the primary traits of evangelicalism is personal conversion.
• Has the faith become your faith?

3. The Church’s Faith

• The faith and my faith taken in isolation from one another lead to dead ends.
• The Church’s faith is rooted in the objectivity of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.
• We need to recover the Baptist catechisms, because they teach us about the church’s faith.
• The church’s faith is meant to be sung as well as said, prayed as well as proclaimed.
• The church’s faith is public. It cannot be kept to ourselves.

Trevin Wax then provides some "memorable quotes" from the lecture:

• “No creed but the Bible” is a pretext for “neither creed, nor the Bible.”
• God give us creeds, but deliver us from creedalism!
• Dependence upon God is where the faith becomes my faith.
• As long as the faith remains detached, a mere system of doctrine kept at arm’s length, we are like Nicodemus, who discovers he must be born again.
• The faith without my faith leads to arid scholasticism, joyless, dead orthodoxy. My faith without the faith ends up in sloppy sentimentalism.
• Some people who hear about a Baptist Catechism think you might as well be talking about a pregnant Pope or a married bachelor.
• Ecclesiology is the new frontier of evangelical theology in the 21st century.

Timothy George: Baptists in Relation to Other Christians : Kingdom People

Four hundred years of Baptists

Trevin Wax is attending and liveblogging a conference at Union University about "Southern Baptists, Evangelicals and the Future of Evangelicalism". All of the sessions are linked here. A few of the speakers and what Wax identifies as the "gist" of what each had to say:

• Ed Stetzer, president of LifeWay Research, "Denominationalism: Is There a Future?"

Ed Stetzer made a strong case for denominations. He believes denominations are valuable tools for churches on mission. Denominations will persist into the future because churches on fire for the Great Commission find they have to cooperate. The kind of denominations we hope to see in the future are theologically orthodox, methodologically diverse, and in service to local churches.

• Jim Patterson, Professor of Christian Studies at Union University, "Reflections on 400 Years of the Baptist Movement: Who We Are. What We Believe."

"Baptist history is messy, which means that you can’t reduce it to a single integrating theme (like “freedom” or even “distinctives”). Our history is interwoven with narratives of other groups and movements. We must avoid excessive pride and triumphalism when we commemorate our history. Our forebears were fallen, just like us.

• Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School, "Baptists and Their Relations with Other Christians."

Timothy George delivered a message from Jude. He made a case for rejecting creedalism, while emphasizing the value of creeds. He balanced the need for the faith (objective, divine revelation), my faith (subjective, personal trust) and the church’s faith (corporate, public witness to the gospel).

Trevin Wax provides notes expanding on each of his summaries. This is interesting material and Seventh Day Baptists can profit from it. I found Patterson's material on the historical experience of Southern Baptists often overlapping with or paralleling our own. There is also an audio link for the first lecture and may soon be for all. Once again, the page that links to all of the talks.

Ed Stetzer: Denominationalism – Is There a Future? : Kingdom People, Jim Patterson: Reflections on 400 Years of Baptist Movement : Kingdom People, Timothy George: Baptists in Relation to Other Christians : Kingdom People

Premillennialism

I readily confess that the controversies over end times don't ordinarily interest me very much. A good friend who has passed on and who, I am confident, now knows who is right [did I just take a position? - I don't know], used to say that he was "Promillennial." If the issues do interest you, a forum at Desiring God moderated by John Piper with Doug Wilson [Postmillennialism], Sam Storms [Amillennialism], and Jim Hamilton [Premillennialism] discussing, has inspired a number of bloggers to comment. Video and audio of the exchange is linked here and from the image below [about two hours long]. I intend to watch it. My knowledge of the issues will certainly benefit whether or not my interest increases.


Justin Taylor posted "What You Must Believe If You Are a Premillennialist" in response to the discussion:

If you watched or listened to the eschatology roundtable discussion at Desiring God, you heard Sam Storms make the case that when Christ returns, the NT is clear that a number of things will end at that time (sin, corruption, death) and a number of things will begin at that time (our physical resurrection, final judgment, new heavens and new earth). In other words, when Christ returns, it’s “curtains” on sin and death. But in Premillennialism, there are still a thousand years of sin and death and corruption. I don’t want to be insensitive to my Premillennial friends, but it struck me a few years ago that the Premillennial position seems relatively depressing: Christ returns–but death and sin and rebellion continue. Now I know that our feelings can’t determine our exegesis (i.e., Premillennialism seems depressing, therefore it can’t be true)–and yet at the same time I think I feel that way precisely because the consistent testimony of the NT leads one to confidently expect that judgment, resurrection, and the death of sin and physical death will all happen at the blessed and glorious return of Christ. I know others will disagree, but this strikes me as a fatal weakness of Premillennialism. (more)

Hamilton responds here.

Audio and Video for Eschatology Conversation :: Desiring God, What You Must Believe If You Are a Premillennialist – Justin Taylor

Health care reform and abortion

Abortion needn't have been an issue in the debate over health care reform, but it is. There are significant constituencies that would favor reform if they were guaranteed that, as the President promised, "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortion." If that were to be true, there would be no objection to including language in the bill to insure that fact. But there is objection as William McGurn explains. Bart Stupak, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan, can't persuade his party leaders to allow the question to come to a vote.

.... In his Notre Dame speech, President Barack Obama called for "open hearts" that would help us find "common ground" to "reduce the number of women seeking abortions." During his more recent address to a joint session of Congress, the president was even more specific about health-care reform, promising that "no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions."

That is just what Mr. Stupak is trying to do with an amendment to the health-care legislation would explicitly ban federal funding for abortion. Here's the problem: His own party won't let him bring it to the floor for a vote. It's a replay of earlier this year, when the leadership blocked a similar Stupak effort on a financial appropriations bill that ended up removing restrictions on D.C. taxpayer funding for abortion.

"The most frustrating thing is we go to the Rules Committee, they smile and say 'thank you,' and then we're left at the door," says Mr. Stupak. "At least give us a chance to let people debate and vote." ....

Of course, it's hardly news that Democrats find dealing with a pro-lifer in their midst tricky. What is astounding is the virtual silence from the chorus that thumped so loudly for Mr. Obama's words at Notre Dame. Presumably, Mr. Stupak is their man—a courageous and committed Democrat who wants health-care reform to pass. Yet the liberal religious folks who claim to be pro-life as well as pro-Obama have largely left Mr. Stupak standing alone. .... [more]

William McGurn: The Democrats' New Bob Casey Problem - WSJ.com

The problem of pleasure

From Faith & Reason at USA Today:

Famed atheist Richard Dawkins appeared on The Colbert Report Wednesday night promoting his new book on evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth.

His conversation with Stephen Colbert went something like this:

Dawkins: "You asked me for the evidence for evolution, where's the evidence for God?"

Colbert: "Reese's Peanut Butter Cups."

I'm inclined to agree with Colbert.

More, 10/7, from Gene Edward Veith:

The Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup post made me recall a C. S. Lewis quip, which together formed this thought:

If the problem of pain is a difficult philosophical and theological problem—how could a just God allow the existence of so much pain in the world?—surely there must also be an equally difficult problem of pleasure: How could a just God allow the existence of so much pleasure in the world? ....

Update, 10/7: the addition to the post from Veith inspired me to steal his title.

Dawkins vs. Colbert: Seeing God in PB and chocolate - Faith & Reason, The problem of pleasure — Cranach: The Blog of Veith

The right to be unoffended

Whatever the outcome of Salazar v. Buono, Albert Mohler argues, the one result most unacceptable to Christians is that the cross might be defined as a "secular symbol." From "The Cross of Christ is Not a Secular Symbol":

.... The story is a bit convoluted, but the issue at stake is a cross erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars at Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert. The VFW erected the cross in 1934 as a memorial to the dead of World War I. Sixty years later, that piece of property became part of the Mojave National Preserve, which is under the supervision of the National Park Service. That sets up a legal battle that arrives at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday. ....

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the National Park Service transferred the property on which the cross stands to private ownership. Nevertheless, lower courts have found that this does not represent a satisfactory solution in light of constitutional questions.

The case before the Supreme Court, Salazar v. Buono, raises very few new issues. For this reason, many observers expect that the Court's majority must intend to send a message as they rule on this case. If so, the Court could finally declare its unwillingness for the legal system to be used as a means of constantly challenging any religious symbolism on government property or under government supervision. If it does not rule in this direction, the stage could be set for an avalanche of legal claims against everything from the language on our coinage to the text of the Pledge of Allegiance. ....

In a brief submitted to the Court, lawyers for the American Center for Law & Justice made the following observation:

This case is only the most extreme example of a phenomenon that has plagued the federal courts for the past three decades. Ideologically motivated citizens and public interest groups search out alleged Establishment Clause violations, almost always in the form of a passive religious symbol or display of some sort, and make a federal case out of offense at the display. The basis for standing is typically that the religious display offends the sensibilities of the plaintiffs. The offense may be characterized as an affront to religious values, or as one in which plaintiffs feel stigmatized as political or community outsiders. But the sum and substance of the injury is that the display bothers the plaintiffs.

This raises one of the central constitutional questions faced by the Court: Is being offended or bothered by a display sufficient cause to be granted standing for a federal lawsuit? As numerous observers have recognized, the only claims accepted by the courts in this regard are those related to religious expression or symbolism. "Offended observer" status is a legal disaster. There is no end to the reasons why any citizen may be offended at any time by any display, language, or symbolism. If the Court does not put an end to this argument, the floodgates will be opened for a virtual flood of similar claims.

After all, the Mojave display is hardly unique in this respect. Far more visible is the Argonne Cross in Arlington National Cemetery, for example, or the Memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland. .... (more)

The current argument most dangerous to both our religious and free speech rights in this country is that anyone who is offended by what they see or hear is entitled to have the offensive object removed or the offending speaker shut up.

The picture is of the Argonne Cross in the Arlington National Cemetery commemorating those who died in that First World War battle.

The Cross of Christ is Not a Secular Symbol - AlbertMohler.com

Very nice

Mark Bertrand reviews the Allan Personal Size Reference ESV. I like it, especially the format, but also the very high quality of the binding — I own one of their earlier ESVs. This is not a volume that will fall apart. One of the nicest things about the format is that the references are on the inside margin, which means the text doesn't curve down into shadow.

From Bertrand's review:

Nineteen months ago, I posted a very thorough review of the then-new Personal Size Reference ESV from Crossway. I liked it a lot, but still had a couple of reservations. For one thing, the 7.4 point type was pretty small, with a column width that stretched a bit too far. On top of that, the only binding options were a sewn genuine leather cover and a glued TruTone. (Later, that changed, as Crossway offered sewn bindings with the TruTone covers.) ....

I had one of those early Crossway Trutone editions and loved the format for the reasons Bertrand gave:

I love the Personal Reference ESV, but I understand if not everyone does. For me it delivers most of the goods — a readable, single-column setting with a clever approach to references and a relatively compact form factor. I’ve never enjoyed reading the poetry of the ESV more, and it’s never looked so good on the page before. All in all, I’m satisfied. Having said that, what I’m waiting on is a quality binding for the Personal Reference. It’s hard to commit fully until then.

At long last, the day has come. R. L. Allan is offering the Crossway-printed, sewn PSR text blocks bound in your choice of three leathers: black highland goatskin, brown highland goatskin, and a red goatskin Allan's has dubbed "Alhambra." Each comes with three ribbons, art-gilt (red under gold) page edges, and a semi-yapp cover. ....

Bertrand's review at Bible Design & Binding is of the format, binding, and quality of the book — not of the translation. That can be found elsewhere. But the English Standard Version has become my favored choice for reasons I have given previously.

I've ordered one of these. If you are also tempted, and can afford one, Bertrand provides the information about where they can be acquired:

As of this writing (October 5, 2009), the first wave of Allan's PSRs has been slightly delayed. Inventory should be available in Glasgow by the 19th, hitting the States on the 26th. Pre-orders have been strong, and those will ship first. As always, they're available for order at Bibles-Direct.co.uk (£90.00) and EvangelicalBible.com ($149.99).

The pictures are from Mark Bertrand's great site where he has posted many others as well as much more information.

Bible Design and Binding: R. L. Allan Personal Size Reference ESV in Black, Brown & Red Goatskin

"The deadly aesthetic sin of sentimentality"

Commenting on a report that the quality of Christian films is getting better, Gene Edward Veith notes that the film makers would profit from studying those who have actually affected people outside the Christian cultural ghetto:

.... OK, I’m glad the filmmakers are focusing on better quality. I salute you. But take some lessons from the past. I am currently teaching a course entitled “Major Christian Authors,” covering such authors as Dante, Spenser, Herbert, Bunyan, Hopkins, Chesterton, T.S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, Charles Williams, Graham Greene, Flannery O’Connor. NONE of them wrote about people’s personal problems. There is not one terminally ill orphan in the whole lot. No scenes about broken marriages or friends dying or sports teams winning the big game. These classic Christian authors—who actually did influence their cultures—saw Christianity as being rather more than a means of solving life’s problems, and none of them lapsed into the deadly aesthetic sin of SENTIMENTALITY.

These aesthetically more ambitious movies still have a soft-spot for sentimentality. Try making movies that do not attempt to make us cry. That means no diseases, no thrilling comebacks, no dying children. Try making movies that are exciting, or send our imaginations reeling, or that are funny. You will be surprised how well such stories can express and even explore the Christian faith.

Christian movies try to be better, but still. . . — Cranach: The Blog of Veith

“You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.”

Before I retired I was more than once approached by another teacher who was concerned about the response of a student to something in class that had contradicted his Christian understanding. Sometimes a student would come to me with that concern. I was approached because I was a known Christian. The biggest problem for bright, serious Christian students was the apparent conflict between what they were being taught and their understanding of the proper interpretation of Genesis. My advice for the students was, basically, to not "throw out the baby with the bath water" — that the issue isn't central to the faith and that there are orthodox Christians who have come to a variety of conclusions about how to reconcile what seems contradictory between science and the faith without dumping either.

Michael Spencer calls attention to this post by Tim Stafford, which includes some instances of the problem:

I have a young friend who studies geology. He was raised in a Christian home, but had doubts and questions about a committed faith. Several years ago, just out of high school, he got a summer job at a Christian conference ground. He made strong friends there and it seemed likely to me that this community of peers, committed Christians, would help him grow in faith.

However, many of these peers went on to a conservative Christian college. When they met up with my young friend in subsequent years they found it troubling that he was studying geology. Didn’t geology teach that the earth was millions of years old? That contradicted what they had learned about the Bible, so they began to urge my friend to get out of geology, a field that they believed a Christian could never agree with. They were stubbornly concerned and would not drop the subject. Eventually my young friend wearied of pointless discussions with people who knew nothing about geology. He let the friendships lapse.

Another friend of mine is an outstanding microbiologist. He became a Christian when we were both in college, and has maintained his faith while rising through the ranks of academic research. He and his family joined a conservative Bible church where they were nurtured and encouraged. My friend joined the music team, and was in a long-standing men’s fellowship that helped him through family crises. However, he never felt that his work was fully accepted. Like virtually all microbiologists, he considers evolution a given.

Seeking to bring his worlds together he led a church adult education class on the subject. He did his homework by reading and studying many of the Christian critiques of evolution, and he tried his best to lead a dispassionate discussion of the issues. The results didn’t satisfy him, though. The others in his class knew very little about biology and were not able to engage the science involved. More, many approached science with suspicion, as though it set out to oppose biblical truth. There did not seem to be any way to engage the issues in a way that my friend found useful. ....

A large number of evangelical Christians in America (not Europe) are stuck in an intellectual trap. They live and breathe in a world built on science, but they are fundamentally suspicious of science and think of it as an alien force. .... [more]

Spenser then goes on to tell the story of an exchange student:

Her name is Niki. (Not her real name.) She’s a Japanese student who lived with an American family for a year and attended a Christian school. She took a year of Bible. She attended worship and heard lots of preaching. The Gospel was explained to her many times. She was well liked and sociable.

A very smart girl. A great student, much advanced over the average American student. She made A’s in everything, including Bible.

She left America after graduation and went back to Japan.

She came to America an atheist and she returned to Japan an atheist, and very aware that she had rejected Christianity.

Before she left, she talked with one of her teachers.

"I am an atheist because I believe in evolution. When people here explained to me what they must believe as Christians, I always ask them about evolution, and they say 'You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.' So I cannot be a Christian, because I believe that evolution is true." ....

So Niki, who heard the Gospel message of God’s love, life and forgiveness in Jesus, also heard that non-Christian science mostly can’t be believed, most scientists are atheistic conspirators in a plot to eliminate God from our culture and real Christians renounce any belief in the conclusions of secular scientists and embrace Creationism.

Niki, who heard about Jesus for weeks and weeks in her Bible class, could not bring herself to believe in creationism, so she cannot be a Christian..... [more]

Evangelicals and Science « Timstafford's Blog, Niki Made Her Choice and, Apparently, So Did We | internetmonk.com

"A poor substitute"

Reviewing her recent book, The Case for God, Ross Douthat explains why Karen Armstrong's version of Christianity really won't do:

.... The casual reader...would be forgiven for thinking that the leading lights of premodern Christianity were essentially liberal Episcopalians avant la lettre.

In reality, these Christian sages were fiercely dogmatic by any modern standard. They were not fundamentalists, reading every line of Scripture literally, and they were, as Armstrong says, “inventive, fearless and confident in their interpretation of faith.” But their inventiveness was grounded in shared doctrines and constrained by shared assumptions. Their theology was reticent in its claims about the ultimate nature of God but very specific about how God had revealed himself on earth. It’s true that Augustine, for instance, did not interpret the early books of Genesis literally. But he certainly endorsed a literal reading of Jesus’ resurrection — and he wouldn’t have been much of a Christian theologian if he hadn’t. ....

This explains why liberal religion tends to be parasitic on more dogmatic forms of faith, which create and sustain the practices that the liberal believer picks and chooses from, reads symbolically and reinterprets for a more enlightened age. Such spiritual dilettant­ism has its charms, but it lacks the sturdy appeal of Western monotheism, which has always offered not only myth and ritual and symbolism (the pagans had those bases covered), but also scandalously literal claims — that the Jews really are God’s chosen people; that Christ really did rise from the dead; and that however much the author of the universe may surpass our understanding, we can live in hope that he loves the world enough to save it, and us, from the annihilating power of death.

Such literalism can be taken too far, and The Case for God argues, convincingly, that it needs to coexist with more mythic, mystic and philosophical forms of faith. Most people, though, are not mystics and philosophers, and they are hungry for myths that are not only resonant but true. Apophatic religion may be the most rigorous way to go in search of an elusive God. But for most believers, it will remain a poor substitute for the idea that God has come in search of us.

Book Review - 'The Case for God,' by Karen Armstrong - Review - NYTimes.com

Emerging adults

Reviewing Souls in Transition by Christian Smith, Naomi Schaefer Riley considers the positive social and educational impact religion seems to have on the young:

.... Religion, of course, does not make people smart—as Richard Dawkins and other atheists will tell you. But it does seem to save young adults from a vacuous and dispiriting moral relativism. The study's interviews with nonreligious or semi-religious "emerging adults" tend to show vague powers of moral reasoning and a vague inarticulateness. ....

Mr. Smith notes that the persistent use of "feel" instead of "think" or "argue" is "a shift in language use that expresses an essentially subjectivistic and emotivistic approach to moral reasoning and rational argument." He concludes that such young adults "are de facto doubtful that an indentifiable, objective, shared reality might exist across and around all people."

By contrast, young religious people have been made to think seriously and speak publicly about Big Questions from a young age. They do believe in a reality "out there" that can be studied and apprehended. Their answers to the study's questions are crisper and surer than those of their nonreligious counterparts. ....

.... Not only does religion concentrate the mind and help young people to think about moral questions, it also leads to positive social outcomes. Religious young people are more likely to give to charity, do volunteer work and become involved with social institutions (even nonreligious ones). They are less likely to smoke, drink and use drugs. They have a higher age of first sexual encounter and are less likely to feel depressed or to be overweight. They are less concerned with material possessions and more likely to go to college.

So why are most emerging adults so morally unmoored and religiously alienated? Mr. Smith suggests that religious institutions haven't done a very good job at educating kids in even the most basic tenets of their faiths. And religious parents often shirk their duties, too, perhaps believing the "cultural myth" that they have no influence over their children once they hit puberty. .... [more]

Book Review: "Souls in Transition" - WSJ.com