Creating Jobs Out of Thin Air--The Empty Promises of Politicians
If you’re like me, you’re getting tired of politicians and all their so-called "plans" to add new jobs to the workforce. In my home state of Michigan, two unimpressive candidates are both trying to woo voters with their respective "plans" to "bring jobs to Michigan." There is almost never an explanation of what these "plans" are and what exactly they entail; all we know is that there is some secret plan that will be enacted upon the respective candidate’s election that will bring economic utopia to their constituents.
The talk of Governor Granholm’s "plan" is all the more interesting considering Michigan has lost thousands of jobs in the past four years under her Democratic administration. Yet she now wants voters to believe that she’s just been holding back these past four years only so she can enact her secret "plan" upon being reelected (and in her recent State of the State address she promised that everyone would be "blown away" with awe five years from now).
There is a problem, however, in giving politicians too much credit or even too much blame for the economy. In Granholm’s case, while she hasn’t objectively been a very good governor, much of Michigan’s job woes are a result of the state having a hard time adjusting to the new economy. Much of Michigan still wants to work in an economy that resembles the 1930’s instead of 2006. But instead of leading Michigan through a needed economic transition, politicians from both parties instead want to wave around their Magic Job Wand, promising that they can somehow "create jobs" out of thin air. Not only do their respective "plans" not make any sense, they are cruel in the fact that they give people false hope.
Read the rest.....
And check out the posts on heaven below.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Babies and Heaven Pt. 1
One thing that Evangelicals are very serious about is sharing the gospel and spreading the Christian faith. If it was up to the average Evangelical, every person would pray the "sinner's prayer" before they die and "accept Jesus into their hearts" and be "born again." In reality, this means much more than just parroting a prayer or even warming up a pew every so often on Sunday mornings, but babies and children are at a natural disadvantage in even doing those simple things. Infants cannot talk, of course, and even young children lack the intellectual development to understand the meaning behind "asking Jesus into their hearts" and what it truly means to become a Christian. What then of babies and small children (and the mentally disabled) who are simply unable to knowingly convert to the Christian faith? Here are the normal approaches to this problem:
1. The so-called "Age of Accountability." This is the most common answer from Evangelicals today. The Age of Accountability assumes that there is a certain point where a child comes to a knowledge of saving faith. But before that, they are not held accountable, in the strictest sense of the word, for their sins and are automatically saved and sent to heaven if they die.
This sounds good, and it very well may be true, but the problem is this position doesn't have much Biblical support. There is nothing explicitly in Scripture, and maybe even implicitly, that spell out an Age of Accountability doctrine. A usual reference point is 2 Samuel 12 after David learns that his infant son has died. David says, "I will return to him, but he will not return to me." Many think that this is a statement from David that he had hope that he would see his son in heaven one day. That may be, but against that is the fact that the Israelites probably had no developed doctrine of heaven at this time. Even Jews 800 years after David in the intertestamental period differed on the idea of the afterlife.
The books of I and II Maccabees highlight this. I Maccabees doesn't appear to have an afterlife doctrine attached to it while II Maccabees does. Another option in David's statement is that he was simply remarking that he would join his child in death eventually someday. But it's not a slam-dunk case that there was no primitive idea of the afterlife and that David wasn't referring to it. Probably a better prooftext for this doctrine would be the Synoptic sayings of Jesus where he says, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." But the primary meaning of these verses might not be intending to say all kids go to heaven (even if that is the reality).
Other problems is that there is no definite age anywhere stated for an Age of Accountability so it logically must be different for each child. The more we rationalize this doctrine the more it crosses into speculation. Let's say an 8 year old does not have the intellectual capacity to truly understand, but a day or two later, does, though the gospel is not presented to him or her and he dies without having an opportunity to demonstrate faith. Does this 8 year old then get sent to hell? Then the issue becomes not so much age of accountability but the opportunity to respond.
2. Predestination. Calvinists don't struggle with this as much since many believe that the matter is set in regards to who is saved and who isn't. Therefore, the little child who didn't have a chance to respond to the gospel may or may not have been a part of the "elect" (saved). This still raises some other questions as to whether a fully grown adult who is not able to respond to to gospel can be part of a non-professing elect group. This would seem to run counter to most standard Calvinist teaching, but I'll leave it to them to argue these points amongst themselves. But even if you assume a predestinarian approach-- if you don't argue that all dead kids were amongst the predestined elect, you still deal with dead little kids going to hell.
3. Out of luck infants/children. Since children are descendants of Adam, they are sinners. If they are not able to profess Christ as their Savior, they unfortunately go to hell. Since they are born sinners, they suffer justly in hell since they are descended from the Adamic race. The positive here is that it takes very (Very!) seriously the doctrine of original sin and the need to make Christ the Lord of one's life. The very obvious downside is that it makes babies and little kids fry for the sin of being born. You can theologize all you want about all humans being sinful, a proposition I don't disagree with. It does, however, seem extremely odd for God to send stillborn infants, or the three week old victim of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, to hell to suffer for an eternity. I've actually had some hyper-Calvinists call me a "humanist" on account of this objection. Yes, I know God's thoughts are not my thoughts and his ways are not my ways, but eternal punishment for babies because they were unable to say the "sinner's prayer" or because they weren't part of the "elect" is understandably seen as barbaric by 99.9% of human beings.
4. Children of saved parents are OK, but children of unsaved parents are out of luck. Under this view, children who have at least one Christian parent are covered by grace, but those who do not have Christian parent(s) are not, and thus aren't saved. For the latter group, see objections above and below. For the former group, you have the other problems of kids being saved outside the gospel, in the strictest sense of the concept.
5. We just don't know. A fourth option is just professing ignorance. Since they Scriptures aren't more clear on the issue, then we should just leave it to the realm of mystery, like so many other issues, in the hands of a loving and just God. This is appealing on the grounds of Scriptural purity. The drawback is its absolutely no comfort to parents who are grieving the loss of a little one. A smart parent can discern whether or not their pastor is implicitly opening the door to the possibility their dead child is suffering in hell for eternity. It also goes back to justice related issues in point three above.
Some questions in response to all this:
A. If infants and small children indeed do not need to formally "ask Jesus into their hearts" to be saved, how exactly does this affect our doctrine of original sin? Can this be expanded to older adults who are in ignorance of the Scriptures?
B. If this can be expanded to those who are ignorant of the Scriptures, then why preach Christ at all?
After all, if they don't have the knowledge, they can't be held responsible and most these people in the 10/40 window we worry about will be OK in the end after all. This is problematic because these sentiments run directly contrary to the missionary commands of Scripture, the fact that people without Christ are "without excuse," and the clear Scriptural instructions for non-believers to put their faith in Christ. Though if we open the door to exceptions to this rule, does the whole system come crashing down?
C. Can God be a just God if infants and small children are suffering in hell for eternity, including little kids who have both knowingly and unknowingly committed sins? (Even children who don't have the intellectual capacity to understand all this theological stuff know they are disobedient when they refuse to listen to their parents, talk back, etc).
Is it really "secular humanism" or "reasoning from emotion" to have a problem with this? Certainly God can do whatever He wants, but making little babies suffer in hell (regardless of their "age" or state of being in eternity--we'll raise that issue in Pt. 2) seems barbaric and could easily be argued is against God's nature. Or is it...?
My own personal position is that little infants/children/mentally disabled are most likely not suffering in hell. I think the Age of Accountability doctrine is pretty sketchy and has its problems, but is less problematic than the other positions and has some Scriptures that can be loosely applies. So I could accept it in modified form. It does make me nervous to say that one need not profess Christ to be saved. I think it's key to say that everybody is saved through Christ and because of God's mercy. I don't think it's impossible for this to happen without the other person knowing/being capable to believe. The other option is that we say in every single case and circumstance that one needs to always and everywhere verbalize a set of propositional statements to be saved. This in my view is too man-centered (so here I sound like some Calvinists or Molinists). I do think it's important not to ultimately base our doctrines off of emotionalism or our own ideas. But I don't think God will burn an infant anymore than I think He would come down and rape a woman--both acts just seem outside the character of God, and I see nothing in Jesus that suggests He showed partiality to only certain children and not others. Most importantly, it's not a Scriptural impossibility that the intellectually undeveloped are automatically covered by God's grace.
But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think of the central question at hand (What happens to dead infants/children) and the several questions I've raised in response to our responses to this question?
One thing that Evangelicals are very serious about is sharing the gospel and spreading the Christian faith. If it was up to the average Evangelical, every person would pray the "sinner's prayer" before they die and "accept Jesus into their hearts" and be "born again." In reality, this means much more than just parroting a prayer or even warming up a pew every so often on Sunday mornings, but babies and children are at a natural disadvantage in even doing those simple things. Infants cannot talk, of course, and even young children lack the intellectual development to understand the meaning behind "asking Jesus into their hearts" and what it truly means to become a Christian. What then of babies and small children (and the mentally disabled) who are simply unable to knowingly convert to the Christian faith? Here are the normal approaches to this problem:
1. The so-called "Age of Accountability." This is the most common answer from Evangelicals today. The Age of Accountability assumes that there is a certain point where a child comes to a knowledge of saving faith. But before that, they are not held accountable, in the strictest sense of the word, for their sins and are automatically saved and sent to heaven if they die.
This sounds good, and it very well may be true, but the problem is this position doesn't have much Biblical support. There is nothing explicitly in Scripture, and maybe even implicitly, that spell out an Age of Accountability doctrine. A usual reference point is 2 Samuel 12 after David learns that his infant son has died. David says, "I will return to him, but he will not return to me." Many think that this is a statement from David that he had hope that he would see his son in heaven one day. That may be, but against that is the fact that the Israelites probably had no developed doctrine of heaven at this time. Even Jews 800 years after David in the intertestamental period differed on the idea of the afterlife.
The books of I and II Maccabees highlight this. I Maccabees doesn't appear to have an afterlife doctrine attached to it while II Maccabees does. Another option in David's statement is that he was simply remarking that he would join his child in death eventually someday. But it's not a slam-dunk case that there was no primitive idea of the afterlife and that David wasn't referring to it. Probably a better prooftext for this doctrine would be the Synoptic sayings of Jesus where he says, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." But the primary meaning of these verses might not be intending to say all kids go to heaven (even if that is the reality).
Other problems is that there is no definite age anywhere stated for an Age of Accountability so it logically must be different for each child. The more we rationalize this doctrine the more it crosses into speculation. Let's say an 8 year old does not have the intellectual capacity to truly understand, but a day or two later, does, though the gospel is not presented to him or her and he dies without having an opportunity to demonstrate faith. Does this 8 year old then get sent to hell? Then the issue becomes not so much age of accountability but the opportunity to respond.
2. Predestination. Calvinists don't struggle with this as much since many believe that the matter is set in regards to who is saved and who isn't. Therefore, the little child who didn't have a chance to respond to the gospel may or may not have been a part of the "elect" (saved). This still raises some other questions as to whether a fully grown adult who is not able to respond to to gospel can be part of a non-professing elect group. This would seem to run counter to most standard Calvinist teaching, but I'll leave it to them to argue these points amongst themselves. But even if you assume a predestinarian approach-- if you don't argue that all dead kids were amongst the predestined elect, you still deal with dead little kids going to hell.
3. Out of luck infants/children. Since children are descendants of Adam, they are sinners. If they are not able to profess Christ as their Savior, they unfortunately go to hell. Since they are born sinners, they suffer justly in hell since they are descended from the Adamic race. The positive here is that it takes very (Very!) seriously the doctrine of original sin and the need to make Christ the Lord of one's life. The very obvious downside is that it makes babies and little kids fry for the sin of being born. You can theologize all you want about all humans being sinful, a proposition I don't disagree with. It does, however, seem extremely odd for God to send stillborn infants, or the three week old victim of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, to hell to suffer for an eternity. I've actually had some hyper-Calvinists call me a "humanist" on account of this objection. Yes, I know God's thoughts are not my thoughts and his ways are not my ways, but eternal punishment for babies because they were unable to say the "sinner's prayer" or because they weren't part of the "elect" is understandably seen as barbaric by 99.9% of human beings.
4. Children of saved parents are OK, but children of unsaved parents are out of luck. Under this view, children who have at least one Christian parent are covered by grace, but those who do not have Christian parent(s) are not, and thus aren't saved. For the latter group, see objections above and below. For the former group, you have the other problems of kids being saved outside the gospel, in the strictest sense of the concept.
5. We just don't know. A fourth option is just professing ignorance. Since they Scriptures aren't more clear on the issue, then we should just leave it to the realm of mystery, like so many other issues, in the hands of a loving and just God. This is appealing on the grounds of Scriptural purity. The drawback is its absolutely no comfort to parents who are grieving the loss of a little one. A smart parent can discern whether or not their pastor is implicitly opening the door to the possibility their dead child is suffering in hell for eternity. It also goes back to justice related issues in point three above.
Some questions in response to all this:
A. If infants and small children indeed do not need to formally "ask Jesus into their hearts" to be saved, how exactly does this affect our doctrine of original sin? Can this be expanded to older adults who are in ignorance of the Scriptures?
B. If this can be expanded to those who are ignorant of the Scriptures, then why preach Christ at all?
After all, if they don't have the knowledge, they can't be held responsible and most these people in the 10/40 window we worry about will be OK in the end after all. This is problematic because these sentiments run directly contrary to the missionary commands of Scripture, the fact that people without Christ are "without excuse," and the clear Scriptural instructions for non-believers to put their faith in Christ. Though if we open the door to exceptions to this rule, does the whole system come crashing down?
C. Can God be a just God if infants and small children are suffering in hell for eternity, including little kids who have both knowingly and unknowingly committed sins? (Even children who don't have the intellectual capacity to understand all this theological stuff know they are disobedient when they refuse to listen to their parents, talk back, etc).
Is it really "secular humanism" or "reasoning from emotion" to have a problem with this? Certainly God can do whatever He wants, but making little babies suffer in hell (regardless of their "age" or state of being in eternity--we'll raise that issue in Pt. 2) seems barbaric and could easily be argued is against God's nature. Or is it...?
My own personal position is that little infants/children/mentally disabled are most likely not suffering in hell. I think the Age of Accountability doctrine is pretty sketchy and has its problems, but is less problematic than the other positions and has some Scriptures that can be loosely applies. So I could accept it in modified form. It does make me nervous to say that one need not profess Christ to be saved. I think it's key to say that everybody is saved through Christ and because of God's mercy. I don't think it's impossible for this to happen without the other person knowing/being capable to believe. The other option is that we say in every single case and circumstance that one needs to always and everywhere verbalize a set of propositional statements to be saved. This in my view is too man-centered (so here I sound like some Calvinists or Molinists). I do think it's important not to ultimately base our doctrines off of emotionalism or our own ideas. But I don't think God will burn an infant anymore than I think He would come down and rape a woman--both acts just seem outside the character of God, and I see nothing in Jesus that suggests He showed partiality to only certain children and not others. Most importantly, it's not a Scriptural impossibility that the intellectually undeveloped are automatically covered by God's grace.
But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think of the central question at hand (What happens to dead infants/children) and the several questions I've raised in response to our responses to this question?
Sunday, October 22, 2006
How Much Continuity Is There Between Life on Earth and Life In Heaven?
The Bible tells us much more about life in this world than life in the next. Jesus tells the repentant thief on the cross, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Lk. 23:43). Jesus tells his disciples that in his father's house that there are "many rooms" and that he goes to prepare a place for us (Jn. 14:2). Paul says that to be away from the body is to be with the Lord and that the latter was more desirable than the former (I Cor. 5:1-10). And like Christ, Christians too have the hope for behind raised from the dead and receiving a resurrected body. This body will presumably be much better than our present one, and the resurrection will take place at the end of time as we know it when Christ is put over everything and death is defeated (I Cor. 15). The last two chapters give a picture of the eternal state, describing it in highly symbolic and beautiful terms where humans would dwell directly amongst God forever. At this time God "will wipe every term from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away (Rev. 21:3-4).
All this sounds great, but I often wonder how much continuity there will be between this life and the next. There's a lot of questions I wish I could have the answers to. I know how I'd respond to most of the following questions, but a great deal of our responses to the below is speculation. I'm interested in hearing your responses to the following questions:
1. Assuming the traditional paradigm of an intermediate state before the resurrection ("going to heaven"), what exactly does life as a disembodied spirit entail?
2. If there is indeed an intermediate state will we still have tears, mourning or pain since the resurrection has not yet occurred?
3. How will there be no mourning or pain in the afterlife if a good number of our family and friends are not with us? Not only are they not with us, they are apparently suffering in hell for eternity. I once posed this question to another minister from another denomination to get his opinion and his response was that we basically would not remember anyone from this life who was not in heaven with us. That seems problematic on a few different fronts. In what sense am I really "me" if I can no longer remember significant people who were a major part of my life? Let's say I am the only Christian in my social circle, just what is my identity in heaven if I have no memory of anyone from here?
4. Whether we regard final sanctification taking place at physical death or the resurrection, does this mean that there is no possibility for raised humans to sin? Are departed saints incapable of sinning? If so, does that pose a problem to free will? If angels were able to fall in ages past, why not raised humans?
5. What does life in eternity look like? The common response is that we will be glorifying God for eternity. Doing what? Is eternity one massive and glorified church service? Are there any things we enjoy doing on earth that we will enjoy in heaven? How much continuity is there in the "fun factor"?
6. Christ showed his disciples the nails in His hands to prove that He was resurrected. Does the risen Savior still have holes in His hands or did He simply use that as a proof that He was raised? If He still indeed has holes in His hands, does this mean the Christian who died in a car crash will enter eternity somewhat disfigured? That seems a bit odd (If we say He still does have holes in His hands, we could ask how much continuity is there between Christ's resurrected body and ours?).
7. Christ's body was missing from the tomb. This was necessary to prove the resurrection to the disciples. Will our bones literally be raised and removed from their tombs at the time of resurrection? Since most of our body is decayed into the earth, consumed by worms which themselves have been consumed by other things, will the atoms from our dead bodies somehow miraculously reconstitute? What about the cremated person who had their ashes spread in an ocean. Will their ashes come back together and be transformed into their resurrected bodies, or do our dead remains play little role in the resurrection?
8. Are there levels of glorification in heaven? The Bible talks about people receiving different "crowns" and rewards in heaven. If the glorified state is tiered in some fashion, what does heaven look like for the person who "will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames" (I Cor. 3:14) and a slain martyr who contended for the faith (See Revelation).
9. Will we be able to walk through walls like Christ? How do we understand space, time, the laws of physics and nature in the New Heavens and New Earth?
10. Overall, in what sense in the "me" in heaven the "me" here on earth, especially if my social circle is drastically altered, there is no more potential for sin, and much of what I'm used to in tis life (social structures, entertainment, physical makeup, etc, etc) is not continuous in the next?
11. Some verses suggest that we will be able to eat and drink in heaven. Will I still have a digestive system? What exactly am I "made" of in a resurrected body? Can I still trip and get hurt? Can my skin burn? Jesus' body was clearly not just an illusion. Our "spiritual body" will have substance but just what exactly does that all imply?
12. If there is "no marriage or giving in marriage" in heaven, then how exactly will I relate to my wife with who is my closest friend ever? The common response is that social structures will be totally different and that we will be so close to all of our fellow believers that marriage will not be necessary. From your limited earthly perspective, does that cut it for you right now? The Church has made an almost idol of the family and marriage. Hard to imagine that the moment I die suddenly earthly family, marriage and the normal social bonds I'm used to, (and which are so necessary to a healthy society), become basically outdated if we follow the traditional models. But what do you say?
We could go on. Here is your chance to add your speculation to any of these questions or issues.
The Bible tells us much more about life in this world than life in the next. Jesus tells the repentant thief on the cross, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise" (Lk. 23:43). Jesus tells his disciples that in his father's house that there are "many rooms" and that he goes to prepare a place for us (Jn. 14:2). Paul says that to be away from the body is to be with the Lord and that the latter was more desirable than the former (I Cor. 5:1-10). And like Christ, Christians too have the hope for behind raised from the dead and receiving a resurrected body. This body will presumably be much better than our present one, and the resurrection will take place at the end of time as we know it when Christ is put over everything and death is defeated (I Cor. 15). The last two chapters give a picture of the eternal state, describing it in highly symbolic and beautiful terms where humans would dwell directly amongst God forever. At this time God "will wipe every term from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away (Rev. 21:3-4).
All this sounds great, but I often wonder how much continuity there will be between this life and the next. There's a lot of questions I wish I could have the answers to. I know how I'd respond to most of the following questions, but a great deal of our responses to the below is speculation. I'm interested in hearing your responses to the following questions:
1. Assuming the traditional paradigm of an intermediate state before the resurrection ("going to heaven"), what exactly does life as a disembodied spirit entail?
2. If there is indeed an intermediate state will we still have tears, mourning or pain since the resurrection has not yet occurred?
3. How will there be no mourning or pain in the afterlife if a good number of our family and friends are not with us? Not only are they not with us, they are apparently suffering in hell for eternity. I once posed this question to another minister from another denomination to get his opinion and his response was that we basically would not remember anyone from this life who was not in heaven with us. That seems problematic on a few different fronts. In what sense am I really "me" if I can no longer remember significant people who were a major part of my life? Let's say I am the only Christian in my social circle, just what is my identity in heaven if I have no memory of anyone from here?
4. Whether we regard final sanctification taking place at physical death or the resurrection, does this mean that there is no possibility for raised humans to sin? Are departed saints incapable of sinning? If so, does that pose a problem to free will? If angels were able to fall in ages past, why not raised humans?
5. What does life in eternity look like? The common response is that we will be glorifying God for eternity. Doing what? Is eternity one massive and glorified church service? Are there any things we enjoy doing on earth that we will enjoy in heaven? How much continuity is there in the "fun factor"?
6. Christ showed his disciples the nails in His hands to prove that He was resurrected. Does the risen Savior still have holes in His hands or did He simply use that as a proof that He was raised? If He still indeed has holes in His hands, does this mean the Christian who died in a car crash will enter eternity somewhat disfigured? That seems a bit odd (If we say He still does have holes in His hands, we could ask how much continuity is there between Christ's resurrected body and ours?).
7. Christ's body was missing from the tomb. This was necessary to prove the resurrection to the disciples. Will our bones literally be raised and removed from their tombs at the time of resurrection? Since most of our body is decayed into the earth, consumed by worms which themselves have been consumed by other things, will the atoms from our dead bodies somehow miraculously reconstitute? What about the cremated person who had their ashes spread in an ocean. Will their ashes come back together and be transformed into their resurrected bodies, or do our dead remains play little role in the resurrection?
8. Are there levels of glorification in heaven? The Bible talks about people receiving different "crowns" and rewards in heaven. If the glorified state is tiered in some fashion, what does heaven look like for the person who "will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames" (I Cor. 3:14) and a slain martyr who contended for the faith (See Revelation).
9. Will we be able to walk through walls like Christ? How do we understand space, time, the laws of physics and nature in the New Heavens and New Earth?
10. Overall, in what sense in the "me" in heaven the "me" here on earth, especially if my social circle is drastically altered, there is no more potential for sin, and much of what I'm used to in tis life (social structures, entertainment, physical makeup, etc, etc) is not continuous in the next?
11. Some verses suggest that we will be able to eat and drink in heaven. Will I still have a digestive system? What exactly am I "made" of in a resurrected body? Can I still trip and get hurt? Can my skin burn? Jesus' body was clearly not just an illusion. Our "spiritual body" will have substance but just what exactly does that all imply?
12. If there is "no marriage or giving in marriage" in heaven, then how exactly will I relate to my wife with who is my closest friend ever? The common response is that social structures will be totally different and that we will be so close to all of our fellow believers that marriage will not be necessary. From your limited earthly perspective, does that cut it for you right now? The Church has made an almost idol of the family and marriage. Hard to imagine that the moment I die suddenly earthly family, marriage and the normal social bonds I'm used to, (and which are so necessary to a healthy society), become basically outdated if we follow the traditional models. But what do you say?
We could go on. Here is your chance to add your speculation to any of these questions or issues.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Global Government, The "New World Order," Massive Government Conspiracies, and Other Paranoid Nonsense
Like all libertarians and traditional conservatives, I am concerned about the growth and power of government. There are certainly some in positions of power that are doing their best to erode away our national sovereignty through various means. Likewise, managed bureaucratic trade agreements masquerade as "free trade." The rise of the "global war on terrorism" has also clamped down on freedom in an ironic attempt to defend freedom.
Many conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are expecting the rise of a "New World Order" or some sort of one-world government. Pessimistic secular conservatives and libertarians see it as the inevitable result of growing government influence around the world. Some pessimistic religious conservatives and libertarians believe such an event is ordained to occur based on Bible prophecy. Accepting the fact that there are global elites who probably do want to see something resembling a "global government" of sorts, are we truly in danger of seeing one any time soon? Most likely the answer is no.
And here's why...
By the way, in case it comes up, I'm aware that the first President Bush and others have used the phrase "New World Order." But in context they were hardly talking about bowing down to the United Nations or other conspiratorial claptrap. What they were talking about, was the drastic changes in geopolitical regions, shifting balance of powers and what would result from them.
Again, this doesn't mean that all their ideas were good in response, but it neither meant global government elites are planning to confiscate all our guns, ban the worship of Jesus, and have us all salute the UN flag each morning. Those things are confined to the minds of people who think the Left Behind novels are good theology or secularists who think the JFK film was accurate history.
Like all libertarians and traditional conservatives, I am concerned about the growth and power of government. There are certainly some in positions of power that are doing their best to erode away our national sovereignty through various means. Likewise, managed bureaucratic trade agreements masquerade as "free trade." The rise of the "global war on terrorism" has also clamped down on freedom in an ironic attempt to defend freedom.
Many conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are expecting the rise of a "New World Order" or some sort of one-world government. Pessimistic secular conservatives and libertarians see it as the inevitable result of growing government influence around the world. Some pessimistic religious conservatives and libertarians believe such an event is ordained to occur based on Bible prophecy. Accepting the fact that there are global elites who probably do want to see something resembling a "global government" of sorts, are we truly in danger of seeing one any time soon? Most likely the answer is no.
And here's why...
By the way, in case it comes up, I'm aware that the first President Bush and others have used the phrase "New World Order." But in context they were hardly talking about bowing down to the United Nations or other conspiratorial claptrap. What they were talking about, was the drastic changes in geopolitical regions, shifting balance of powers and what would result from them.
Again, this doesn't mean that all their ideas were good in response, but it neither meant global government elites are planning to confiscate all our guns, ban the worship of Jesus, and have us all salute the UN flag each morning. Those things are confined to the minds of people who think the Left Behind novels are good theology or secularists who think the JFK film was accurate history.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Is Entertainment Wrong in Churches?
Plenty of Evangelicals, myself included, have long been harping on the superficiality of modern Evangelicalism. There certainly is a lack of substance, education, challenge, spirituality, etc in much of the popular Protestant movement. Churches that have engaged in "entertainment" have come under particular ire by the naysayers. I myself have been critical of worship services that feature wanna-be pop star worship leaders, RockaJesus worship songs (or praise choruses with seemingly neverending repetition), pastors who build their ministries on cults of personality, fluffy sermons, etc, etc.
But is it really bad to be "entertained" in an absolute sense while worshipping God and/or in church? If by "entertaining" we are conjuring ideas of fluffy and superficial worship that appeals primarily to the emotions or feel good whims of congregants, then the answer is yes. Though if we are talking about a joyful, vibrant and appealing church and church service, then no, entertainment is not all that bad. Indeed it is necessary.
Christians should not think of their relationship with God or corporate worship at church or wherever else as boring and cumbersome. This is in fact the popular image that many non-Christians have of "church" and Christianity and why they avoid it. This is partly responsible for the rise of "seeker friendly" churches that seek to draw people in with non-threatening and non-traditional means. There is indeed some problems with this, but the seeker-friendly folks do have some things going for them. They at least take seriously the changing trends of culture and meeting people where they are at.
The choice should not be between a rigid and boring ministry that does not appeal whatsoever to modern senses or a cotton candy type church that is light on substance. I think we should probably stop saying "entertainment" is the problem. The problem is a lack of substance in many churches. If a church can use non-traditional means to bring people in but still produce well-rounded disciples, what then is the problem? Sure, many modern praise songs are horrible, but there are some that are very good. The best of old and new should be utilized in regards to any area of practical ministry to reach and connect with people in the best ways possible.
For instance, I know many traditionalists that think a drama sketch has no place being in a worship service. I would agree that many skits I've read geared towards churches have been horrible. But I've also seen some that were much more powerful and memorable than most sermons I've sat through and were much more effective in resonating with the people whom were trying to be reached. How is this a bad thing, other than it does not fit the narrow intellectual box many Christians put themselves in?
For my own tastes, there's things that I appreciate about various stands of church thought and practice. On some things, I think the traditional high-church Protestants have something to teach the low-church movements. I see value in liturgicalism in some ways and can understand why a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would have a hard time feeling like they were "in church" in a Protestant enviornment, at least at first. At the same time, I obviously have very significant disagreements with Catholic and Orthodox theology let alone their practical approach to doing church. I also have some issues with high-church Protestant practical ministry as well.
That said, I'm obviously not a full-blown "progressive" in every area of doing ministry. In my own view, those who are blending traditions and styles are being the most holistic and effective. Whatever approach is taken, we should not act like the process and day to day practice should be boring and not appeal to the senses whatsoever.
I'll say it again, entertainment is good, as long as it contains substance and does justice to the joy that the Christian life should be reflecting. There's a problem when college football games and the latest reality TV show brings more joy and excitement to believers than their own faith. Churches and church leaders share the blame for creating this enviornment. Time to get with the program, folks.
Plenty of Evangelicals, myself included, have long been harping on the superficiality of modern Evangelicalism. There certainly is a lack of substance, education, challenge, spirituality, etc in much of the popular Protestant movement. Churches that have engaged in "entertainment" have come under particular ire by the naysayers. I myself have been critical of worship services that feature wanna-be pop star worship leaders, RockaJesus worship songs (or praise choruses with seemingly neverending repetition), pastors who build their ministries on cults of personality, fluffy sermons, etc, etc.
But is it really bad to be "entertained" in an absolute sense while worshipping God and/or in church? If by "entertaining" we are conjuring ideas of fluffy and superficial worship that appeals primarily to the emotions or feel good whims of congregants, then the answer is yes. Though if we are talking about a joyful, vibrant and appealing church and church service, then no, entertainment is not all that bad. Indeed it is necessary.
Christians should not think of their relationship with God or corporate worship at church or wherever else as boring and cumbersome. This is in fact the popular image that many non-Christians have of "church" and Christianity and why they avoid it. This is partly responsible for the rise of "seeker friendly" churches that seek to draw people in with non-threatening and non-traditional means. There is indeed some problems with this, but the seeker-friendly folks do have some things going for them. They at least take seriously the changing trends of culture and meeting people where they are at.
The choice should not be between a rigid and boring ministry that does not appeal whatsoever to modern senses or a cotton candy type church that is light on substance. I think we should probably stop saying "entertainment" is the problem. The problem is a lack of substance in many churches. If a church can use non-traditional means to bring people in but still produce well-rounded disciples, what then is the problem? Sure, many modern praise songs are horrible, but there are some that are very good. The best of old and new should be utilized in regards to any area of practical ministry to reach and connect with people in the best ways possible.
For instance, I know many traditionalists that think a drama sketch has no place being in a worship service. I would agree that many skits I've read geared towards churches have been horrible. But I've also seen some that were much more powerful and memorable than most sermons I've sat through and were much more effective in resonating with the people whom were trying to be reached. How is this a bad thing, other than it does not fit the narrow intellectual box many Christians put themselves in?
For my own tastes, there's things that I appreciate about various stands of church thought and practice. On some things, I think the traditional high-church Protestants have something to teach the low-church movements. I see value in liturgicalism in some ways and can understand why a Catholic or Orthodox Christian would have a hard time feeling like they were "in church" in a Protestant enviornment, at least at first. At the same time, I obviously have very significant disagreements with Catholic and Orthodox theology let alone their practical approach to doing church. I also have some issues with high-church Protestant practical ministry as well.
That said, I'm obviously not a full-blown "progressive" in every area of doing ministry. In my own view, those who are blending traditions and styles are being the most holistic and effective. Whatever approach is taken, we should not act like the process and day to day practice should be boring and not appeal to the senses whatsoever.
I'll say it again, entertainment is good, as long as it contains substance and does justice to the joy that the Christian life should be reflecting. There's a problem when college football games and the latest reality TV show brings more joy and excitement to believers than their own faith. Churches and church leaders share the blame for creating this enviornment. Time to get with the program, folks.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
From Kosovo to Iraq
What a difference an administration makes
Be sure to check out my piece today on Antiwar.com about pro-war Republican flip-floppers
If you're an antiwar conservative or libertarian, remember when it was OK to oppose the war but support the troops? Remember when it was OK to "criticize your commander in chief during a time of war" without committing treason? Remember when you weren't accused of hating your country, God, and kittens for questioning the official reasons for going to war? Ah, the glorious old days in the spring of 1999.
Read the rest
Feel free to add your thoughts, and if you're new here, check out this week's earlier postings.
What a difference an administration makes
Be sure to check out my piece today on Antiwar.com about pro-war Republican flip-floppers
If you're an antiwar conservative or libertarian, remember when it was OK to oppose the war but support the troops? Remember when it was OK to "criticize your commander in chief during a time of war" without committing treason? Remember when you weren't accused of hating your country, God, and kittens for questioning the official reasons for going to war? Ah, the glorious old days in the spring of 1999.
Read the rest
Feel free to add your thoughts, and if you're new here, check out this week's earlier postings.
Profanity vs. Violence: What's Worse?
As a Christian with a holiness background, I'm not particularly fond of bad language or society's glorification of uninhibited sexuality and violence. I notice, however, that as a culture we tend to be very uneven in how we approach these particular vices. This is particularly true with moralistic Christian parents and individual Christians who are trying to live a holy life and reflect the standards of Christ.
What I mean is this: Society at large, and particularly conservative Christianity has a real problem with profanity and sex in the media (at least they do publicly), but they seem a little more willing to accept various other vices, particularly violence. For instance, most conservative Christians would not be caught dead with profane musical CD's in their car or CD players. These are rightly seen as bad forms of entertainment for Christians. Yet I know plenty of these same Christians that have no problem whatsoever with watching violent television programs or movies. You are much more likely to see a Christian wince at the utterance of an "F-word" than you will see them wince at some guy getting blown up or gunned down in a movie or TV show.
Christians are people too (believe it or not). They enjoy excitement like anyone else. Many of them enjoy a good action-adventure movie or TV drama. As long as it doesn't have swearing. Or at least too much of it. I know plenty of Christian parents that don't mind letting their little ones or young teens watch programming featuring fighting of some sorts and attitudes that hardly reflect Christ's standards of holy living. But these same people freak out over words of profanity.
Many Christian teenagers enjoy violent video games. Like the general population, they see it as just a fantasy world. They aren't really walking around a town killing real people, so all is well. Christian parents will let their kids play these games. Many won't be so tolerant though if the game features overt sexuality or profanity on the screen.
General society is just as unbalanced. Compare the unbridled rage that followed that day we all lost our national innocence (The Superbowl Halftime Show in 2004 where we were unintentionally exposed to Janet Jackson's breast) to the general acceptance of other arguably worse cultural influences that no longer make us flinch.
What causes all this disconnect? I suppose the general answer is that the violence on TV is fake but Janet's breast was real (or isn't it? I don't care to know). But simulated sex scenes in TV and movies where there is no or veiled nudity is not "real" either. The people aren't actually having sex, so no big deal, right? Of course not. Is having sex worse than killing people and randomly blowing up cars and buildings? We tolerate the latter, but certainly not the former (again, that's publicly. Many Americans, including many Christian Americans, I fear, are quietly hypocritical on issues of sexuality. In fact, this is a certainty given the success of sex as a marketing tool and the great profit that all things sexual bring).
Understand what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that since the standards are uneven that everything should just be celebrated now. I do think that people should at least strive for consistency and make some sense of why they do what they do and believe what they believe. I'm also not saying that everybody is hypocritical in these matters, though most people are uneven to some degree, certainly myself included. I'm more just wondering why there is the disconnect and many people including myself also have subscribed this sort of selective outrage .
The further problem is this and is worth exploring, if we are firmly consistent, are there any forms of media left that will be acceptable to the purists, sans Barney and other hokey forms of Christian alternative entertainment? The greater problem, particularly for Christians, may be that they are paying the price for abandoning the arts and have handed these realms (movies, TV, mainstream music) largely to the secularists. Apparently the Christian TV stations haven't yet figured out that movies and mainstream music are much more influential to the general public than televangelists and Gaither homecomings. Maybe it's time for a great many more Christians to receive the "calling" of the arts who will pursue high quality entertainment without selling out their virtues and morals if and when they ever make it into the mainstream.
As a Christian with a holiness background, I'm not particularly fond of bad language or society's glorification of uninhibited sexuality and violence. I notice, however, that as a culture we tend to be very uneven in how we approach these particular vices. This is particularly true with moralistic Christian parents and individual Christians who are trying to live a holy life and reflect the standards of Christ.
What I mean is this: Society at large, and particularly conservative Christianity has a real problem with profanity and sex in the media (at least they do publicly), but they seem a little more willing to accept various other vices, particularly violence. For instance, most conservative Christians would not be caught dead with profane musical CD's in their car or CD players. These are rightly seen as bad forms of entertainment for Christians. Yet I know plenty of these same Christians that have no problem whatsoever with watching violent television programs or movies. You are much more likely to see a Christian wince at the utterance of an "F-word" than you will see them wince at some guy getting blown up or gunned down in a movie or TV show.
Christians are people too (believe it or not). They enjoy excitement like anyone else. Many of them enjoy a good action-adventure movie or TV drama. As long as it doesn't have swearing. Or at least too much of it. I know plenty of Christian parents that don't mind letting their little ones or young teens watch programming featuring fighting of some sorts and attitudes that hardly reflect Christ's standards of holy living. But these same people freak out over words of profanity.
Many Christian teenagers enjoy violent video games. Like the general population, they see it as just a fantasy world. They aren't really walking around a town killing real people, so all is well. Christian parents will let their kids play these games. Many won't be so tolerant though if the game features overt sexuality or profanity on the screen.
General society is just as unbalanced. Compare the unbridled rage that followed that day we all lost our national innocence (The Superbowl Halftime Show in 2004 where we were unintentionally exposed to Janet Jackson's breast) to the general acceptance of other arguably worse cultural influences that no longer make us flinch.
What causes all this disconnect? I suppose the general answer is that the violence on TV is fake but Janet's breast was real (or isn't it? I don't care to know). But simulated sex scenes in TV and movies where there is no or veiled nudity is not "real" either. The people aren't actually having sex, so no big deal, right? Of course not. Is having sex worse than killing people and randomly blowing up cars and buildings? We tolerate the latter, but certainly not the former (again, that's publicly. Many Americans, including many Christian Americans, I fear, are quietly hypocritical on issues of sexuality. In fact, this is a certainty given the success of sex as a marketing tool and the great profit that all things sexual bring).
Understand what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that since the standards are uneven that everything should just be celebrated now. I do think that people should at least strive for consistency and make some sense of why they do what they do and believe what they believe. I'm also not saying that everybody is hypocritical in these matters, though most people are uneven to some degree, certainly myself included. I'm more just wondering why there is the disconnect and many people including myself also have subscribed this sort of selective outrage .
The further problem is this and is worth exploring, if we are firmly consistent, are there any forms of media left that will be acceptable to the purists, sans Barney and other hokey forms of Christian alternative entertainment? The greater problem, particularly for Christians, may be that they are paying the price for abandoning the arts and have handed these realms (movies, TV, mainstream music) largely to the secularists. Apparently the Christian TV stations haven't yet figured out that movies and mainstream music are much more influential to the general public than televangelists and Gaither homecomings. Maybe it's time for a great many more Christians to receive the "calling" of the arts who will pursue high quality entertainment without selling out their virtues and morals if and when they ever make it into the mainstream.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
The Differences Between Missionaries and Foreign Policy War Planners
Check out my latest piece over at LewRockwell.com. Excerpt:
A missionary never goes abroad without first learning the language (or at least getting a decent grasp on it) and knowing the group of people they will be living amongst. They do not go there and ask for the people to conform to their way of life. They go there and live amongst the people and adapt to their way of life. Often times they will run into cultural problems that run counter to their faith or some form of societal immorality. They definitely take a stand but in a pragmatic yet principled fashion that will sway people to their point of view without alienating them. As far as I know, no missionary is bombing people into submission or using force or arms to prompt conversions.
Compare the attitudes and approach of pragmatic missionaries and overzealous war planners. I am fairly confident that few neoconservatives understood Middle Eastern culture very well in the years they were salivating for an invasion of Iraq, and even today as they pontificate about the region and what needs to be done. I’m sure few if any have ever lived amongst the people, spoke their language, and have shared their customs.
None of that stopped the overly rosy post-war scenarios which envisioned a "cakewalk" in the words of one Rumsfeld subordinate from 2003. It also didn’t stop the predictions that Iraqis would be throwing roses at the feet of U.S. soldiers. As it actually played out, most officials were completely dumfounded with the aftermath of the war. Indeed, there is ample evidence that there was no real post-war plan for Iraq before and during the invasion. Apparently, the hope was that everything would just fall into place.
In the past few years the President and other officials have said over and over again that they never said it was going to be easy. They never really said it was going to be this difficult either. Certainly none of the war planners envisioned insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have gone this long and caused so much trouble. They were caught off guard and are still struggling for a strategy that spans beyond just "staying the course" and not to "cut and run."
Read The Rest Here
Feel free to leave your comments and responses.
Check out my latest piece over at LewRockwell.com. Excerpt:
A missionary never goes abroad without first learning the language (or at least getting a decent grasp on it) and knowing the group of people they will be living amongst. They do not go there and ask for the people to conform to their way of life. They go there and live amongst the people and adapt to their way of life. Often times they will run into cultural problems that run counter to their faith or some form of societal immorality. They definitely take a stand but in a pragmatic yet principled fashion that will sway people to their point of view without alienating them. As far as I know, no missionary is bombing people into submission or using force or arms to prompt conversions.
Compare the attitudes and approach of pragmatic missionaries and overzealous war planners. I am fairly confident that few neoconservatives understood Middle Eastern culture very well in the years they were salivating for an invasion of Iraq, and even today as they pontificate about the region and what needs to be done. I’m sure few if any have ever lived amongst the people, spoke their language, and have shared their customs.
None of that stopped the overly rosy post-war scenarios which envisioned a "cakewalk" in the words of one Rumsfeld subordinate from 2003. It also didn’t stop the predictions that Iraqis would be throwing roses at the feet of U.S. soldiers. As it actually played out, most officials were completely dumfounded with the aftermath of the war. Indeed, there is ample evidence that there was no real post-war plan for Iraq before and during the invasion. Apparently, the hope was that everything would just fall into place.
In the past few years the President and other officials have said over and over again that they never said it was going to be easy. They never really said it was going to be this difficult either. Certainly none of the war planners envisioned insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have gone this long and caused so much trouble. They were caught off guard and are still struggling for a strategy that spans beyond just "staying the course" and not to "cut and run."
Read The Rest Here
Feel free to leave your comments and responses.
Oh No, Not Another Blogger!
I'm going to experiment in keeping a regular blog. For years I've resisted it. At first and still I considered many casual bloggers too self-absorbed. I never was swayed by the idea that every thought, idea and daily activity of a writer was particularly interesting to the rest of the world. Blogging is now the thing to do. Just about everybody has one which makes me a bit resistant to add another one. In the past couple years there has been a proliferation of more serious and important blogs, but proportionally they are still few compared to the rest. Yesterday, Indiana Wesleyan University Professor Keith Drury interrupted his usual weekly postings for a non-column moment of silence because of the astounding number of blogs that continue to be created and the amount of noise and writing on the blogosphre.
Why then another one? Well, we will try this on a trial basis. If nobody reads it, I won't bother. I certainly won't bore anyone with the details of my daily activities or rambling disjointed thoughts. What I will do though is provide commentary and observations from a unique point of view that will hopefully be challenging and refreshing. For one thing, there are few vocal pastors out there in their mid-20's who are an active part of the changing ministry culture. Also, in an era of predictable Political Reverends on the left and right (mostly the right) hopefully I can offer some material here that wouldn't be viewed as the same old same old of tired evangelical screeds.
My influences are Anabaptism, Wesleyanism, paleo-libertarianism and paleo-conservatism with some respect for more traditional liberal Evangelicals who are concerned and involved with social action and the social gospel even though I disagree with some of their remedies. I have a number of concerns and interests I will attempt to regularly post on this blog:
I'm going to experiment in keeping a regular blog. For years I've resisted it. At first and still I considered many casual bloggers too self-absorbed. I never was swayed by the idea that every thought, idea and daily activity of a writer was particularly interesting to the rest of the world. Blogging is now the thing to do. Just about everybody has one which makes me a bit resistant to add another one. In the past couple years there has been a proliferation of more serious and important blogs, but proportionally they are still few compared to the rest. Yesterday, Indiana Wesleyan University Professor Keith Drury interrupted his usual weekly postings for a non-column moment of silence because of the astounding number of blogs that continue to be created and the amount of noise and writing on the blogosphre.
Why then another one? Well, we will try this on a trial basis. If nobody reads it, I won't bother. I certainly won't bore anyone with the details of my daily activities or rambling disjointed thoughts. What I will do though is provide commentary and observations from a unique point of view that will hopefully be challenging and refreshing. For one thing, there are few vocal pastors out there in their mid-20's who are an active part of the changing ministry culture. Also, in an era of predictable Political Reverends on the left and right (mostly the right) hopefully I can offer some material here that wouldn't be viewed as the same old same old of tired evangelical screeds.
My influences are Anabaptism, Wesleyanism, paleo-libertarianism and paleo-conservatism with some respect for more traditional liberal Evangelicals who are concerned and involved with social action and the social gospel even though I disagree with some of their remedies. I have a number of concerns and interests I will attempt to regularly post on this blog:
- I am concerned about the Welfare-Warfare state and the effect it has had on society, our nation, and global stability in general.
- I am concerned about the state and direction of conservative Evangelicalism which has become to closely wed with the political Right and neoconservative movement. But I also am also concerned about those whose response to this problem is pretending Jesus was a modern day liberal Democrat and if we create enough government programs and taxes that everything will be OK.
- I am extremely concerned about the influences of a backwards fundamentalism that has seduced various strands of more traditional conservative Protestant in its doctrine and practice.
- I am extremely concerned about the effects of dispensational theology on Evangelical and Fundamentalist worldviews, thought, and practice.
- I am concerned about the state of Christian ministry today that has substituted substance for style and struggles to connect with the culture in any meaningful way, at least on a large scale.
- I am concerned about the dumbing down of the Christian population in general which, on a whole, is basically Biblically illiterate, and has retreated into either societal escapism of some sorts (raptureism, false pietism) or chooses an equally problematic alternative of authoritarian partisan politicing and/or social crusades devoid of true Spirit empowerment.
Obviously, I am a "concerned" individual. But unlike the doom and gloomers who only can opine about everything that is wrong in the world and how it's all going to hell in a handbasket, I'm also an optimist. I'm an optimist because I know no matter what happens God is in charge. I also know that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church and that the Kingdom of God, the sphere of God's influence over all creation, will not decrease but will only increase throughout history until the return of Christ and the consummation of the present system as we know it. When that will happen, I certainly don't know, but I do know that potential for those in Christ, the potential of the Church, and that so much of this potential has yet to be tapped into. I know that until the day I die or the return of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, each day is an opportunity to make a difference. Even if that means making a small difference on here and making people think, it is a positive difference.
So we'll give this a try. It very well may fade into obscurity like so many blogs before it. Or maybe we can have some good dialogue, discussion and debate. The latter is my hope. We'll give it a whirl and see what happens. If you read it, I'll keep writing it. Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
