Current Readings

Generally I am reading about 5 books at a time. But I am on the cusp of finishing 4 of my current readings, which is quite an unusual occurence for me to do all at once. And occasionally, for the sake of good conversation and idea exchange, I like to share with others what I'm reading. Recently it has been:

Agatha Christie's famous novel, "Murder on the Orient Express." I'd never read a Christie novel before. But since I was such a fan of Sherlock Holmes and Father Brown, I thought it would serve me well to delve into Christie. It's rare when you've read as much mystery as I have to be stunned by any ending, but let's just say Christie shocked me at the end of this one.

J. Gresham Machen's classic work counters the bankrupt thought of liberal theology. If Jesus is merely an example, and the Bible is merely theology, why are liberal "Christians" still meeting in church? What would be the point? Machen handles the arguments as well in the 1920s as Christians ever have.

Continuing my Chesterton binge, I love that Chesterton has a book entitled Heretics and Orthodoxy. This book doesn't seem to have an overarching theme, with the exception that in short chapters Chesterton addresses a different contemporary of his and shows how the Christian worldview argues against their claims. This isn't one of his more popular works, but it's just as relevant. To ignore history and history's intellectual giants is to ignore how people continue to make the same intellectual mistakes today.

More in line with my profession, I thought I'd take up the reading from one in my theological tradition. I found D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones to be refreshing and a giant in the stream of preaching, which includes all the streams back to the Reformation. This book is more important than most of the recent works on Christian communication.

So, what books have you been reading? What suggestions would you have for me?

The Mask of Self-Worship

It is often the man who hates ritual in his religion that is most ritualistic in his daily life. He wears the same clothes everyday, prefers the same food, and has the same morning routine. At its core, he is a person of ritual in the things that do not matter. But for the things that do, he shuns ritual and the wisdom passed down through the ages.

On the contrary, the man who prefers solemnity and seriousness in his religion is often the same man cheers loudly for his sports team on tv or in person. He is the man who jeers in adulation of others. He is the man the celebrates the simple things of life. And yet he has trouble being exuberant for the things most worth celebrating.

What these ironies reveal is not as much a comment on religion, but more a comment on self. We often lift ourselves most highly in our religion. Instead of worshipping the object of religion (in my view, Jesus is the source, means, and end of worship), we worship the trappings of religion. Instead of worshipping the Creator, we worship created things. And we worship the self and its desires most. Those seeds of pride are dangerous to the soul.

The danger to others comes when we make that self-worship mandatory for them. "How dare they celebrate during worship with loud guitars!" OR "They have such a stodgy form of worship that is outdated. I wish they'd get with the picture!" The very seeds of religion become judgmentalism. Religion becomes something ascetic and something we earn, instead of something given, received, celebrated, and appreciated.

Human Depravity and Government Part 2

Upon reading my last post, I confess I was a bit dissatisfied with the connection I made between human depravity and the structure of the federal government. I made a good connection, but I didn't tease it out. So here's another take.

First, what if our government believed in and relied on the inherent goodness of people? If this were true, we'd have no reason for much of the laws we have. Why would we need to write more laws if everyone obeyed them without negative consequence? We wouldn't. Think of all the laws we wouldn't need: all criminal law, federal laws regarding immigration and gun control, and the government wouldn't tax people at all because out of their goodness they'd give to the big government cause. Of course this absurd.

Second, has there been any government in the modern era of the nation-state who exemplified the inherent goodness of humanity? Even communist governments founded upon the ideal of absolute equality always denigrated into totalitarian states bent on conforming people to the will of the state/party. It frankly, on top of being immoral, is impractial to structure a government based on human goodness.

Does this mean I believe humans don't have the capacity for good? No, it does not. Humans are also made in God's image (Gen. 1). But social and governmental standards are different than individual and personal ethics. I believe there are many decent, law-abiding citizens. But we must assume the depravity of humanity as a first principle in government.

So can the government be an instrument of that good? No it cannot. The government can only be an instrument of coercion. The government asks for taxes and goes to war. Even these modes of the government are established by the Christian thought (Romans 13). The government, by the very nature of its entity, cannot be an agent of compassion. Even in welfare, medicaid, or health insurance (seemingly compassionate acts of government), the government must get that money from somewhere and it must force its laws upon the populace. Note: the government can only be about force, then. Acts of compassion convolute the role of government and misconstrue the first principle of government: humans are deprave and therefore governments tend to abuse even attempted compassion.

So what's the good news? The good news is that we can be involved in a wonderful, albeit broken, democracy in this era of the United States. This means, from a Christian perspective, that we can and should be involved in the reform of government at every level. And should we decide to run for office, we should be very cautious about the role our own depravity can play as it hungers for power, fame, and success. They are universal human temptations after all.

In sum, be wary of any glowing or enlightened terms about the goodness of government. It's not a moral entity, it cannot be good or bad. It is only an agent of coercion, so let's make sure we give the coercion definite boundaries.

Human Depravity and the Role of Government

"The depravity of man is one Christian doctrine that is empirically provable." G.K. Chesterton

"They love him now, but they're all gonna hate him in 4 years, or 8." The old guy who watched Obama's inauguration with me

The government doesn't work. Old people are skeptical and hardened. Young people, particularly those who voted for Obama, are disillusioned. No wonder voting in national elections is always low, so the refrain goes. Conservatives are excited, because they can stall Obama and the Democrat's legislative agenda. Liberals are disappointed, constantly noting the disfunction of government. A brief survey of the landscape:

From a Time article, the cover story on broken government:

This revulsion toward the nation's capital is understandable. But it makes the problem worse. From health care to energy to the deficit, addressing the U.S.'s big challenges requires vigorous government action. When government doesn't take that action, it loses people's faith. And without public faith, government action is harder still. Call it Washington's vicious circle. Breaking this circle of public mistrust and government failure requires progress on solving big problems, which requires more cooperation between the parties.

From the Weekly Standard, regarding Evan Bayh's resignation:

Tough Choosers [like Bayh] always insist that the problems of the present era are unprecedented. The past, in contrast to the fallen world we face now, was idyllic, and the golden age always ended the day before yesterday. Bayh fondly recollected the years when his father Birch Bayh worked as a senator, in the 1970s, a prelapsarian era when legislators “worked together” and “got things done.” The voters at the time saw it differently. At the end of Birch Bayh’s third term, they voted him and 11 of his colleagues out of office in a mass turnover that was truly unprecedented—a kind of electoral upchuck. If the Senate was getting things done in the 1970s, they were evidently the wrong things.

And from Charles Krauthammer with the Washington Post:

The rage at the machine has produced the usual litany of systemic explanations. Special interests are too powerful. The Senate filibuster stymies social progress. A burdensome constitutional order prevents innovation... The better thinkers, bewildered and furious that their president has not gotten his way, have developed a sudden disdain for our inherently incremental constitutional system. Yet, what's new about any of these supposedly ruinous structural impediments? Special interests blocking policy changes? They have been around since the beginning of the republic -- and since the beginning of the republic, strong presidents, like the two Roosevelts, have rallied the citizenry and overcome them.

So where does this landscape leave us? I confess that it leaves me satisfied. And not because the Obama agenda is being stalled. I am satisfied because I live in a country that demands citizen participation (unlike communist China). I am satisfied that I live in a country where minority views are heard (unlike utilitarian social democracies who only value the most, not the least). I am satisfied that I live in a country that respects the spirit of human enterprise, while also not trusting the human spirit too much.

And that's where I leave you. The Founding Fathers believed in human depravity, so they set up a government not absent of power, but one where power was necessarily shared and split. The separation of powers meant that each branch of government- executive, legislative, and judicial- had certain checks on the others to prohibit rampant abuse of power and waste.

Thus, the problem isn't that the government can't get anything done. That's actually good, and it was designed that way on purpose. The problem is when one branch of the government assumes too much power and expects it. And that's exactly what the executive branch of the US Federal government is. Disillusionment with the goodness of humanity and the charisma of leaders is good for the soul.

More Chesterton

I haven't lacked inspiration for new posts lately, I've just lacked time. But in either instance, one must still keep the mind going. So I just found this, courtesy of the American Chesterton Society. It pretty much sums up why you should read G.K. Chesterton. The highlight:

This absent-minded, overgrown elf of a man, who laughed at his own jokes and amused children at birthday parties by catching buns in his mouth, this was the man who wrote a book called The Everlasting Man, which led a young atheist named C.S. Lewis to become a Christian. This was the man who wrote a novel called The Napoleon of Notting Hill, which inspired Michael Collins to lead a movement for Irish Independence. This was the man who wrote an essay in the Illustrated London News that inspired Mohandas Gandhi to lead a movement to end British colonial rule in India...

Chesterton debated many of the celebrated intellectuals of his time:
George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow. According to contemporary accounts, Chesterton usually emerged as the winner of these contests, however, the world has immortalized his opponents and forgotten Chesterton, and now we hear only one side of the argument, and we are enduring the legacies of socialism, relativism, materialism, and skepticism. Ironically,
all of his opponents regarded Chesterton with the greatest affection. And George Bernard Shaw said: "The world is not thankful enough for Chesterton."

Lloyd-Jones on Church History

"The modern man is very ignorant of history; he does not know that the hospitals originally came through the Church. It was Christian people who first, out of a sense of compassion for suffering and illness, began to do something about even physical diseases and illnesses. The first hospitals were founded by Christian people. The same thing is true of education; it was the Church that first saw this need and proceeded to do something about it. The same is true of Poor Law Relief and the mitigation of the sufferings of people who were enduring poverty. I argue that it is the Church that has really done this. Your trades unions and other such movements, you will find, if you go back to their beginnings, have almost invariably had Christian origins."

D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, 1969

I found it interesting in this book on preaching by a Welshman that he comments on two major issues that we now consider to be the role of the government. Almost unthinkingly many Americans consider healthcare and education to be the role of the government. And not just any government: the federal government. I then began to wonder where most U.S. Senators got their degrees: from public universities or private ones? I then began to wonder about the U.S. Senate's healthcare plan, and how Americans pay for it. I haven't done this research, so someone could enlighten me here.

My point is that, implicitly, we all recognize that institutions with an investment in their own success do in fact do a better job fulfilling their purpose than institutions protected by government, which has no vested interest in its success.

Furthermore, Christian institutions have always done a better job at healthcare and education when removed from the influence of federal government. Let us not forget that the Establishment and Free Exercise (I refuse to say "separation of church and state" because the term has lost all meaning and has no Constitutional significance anyhow) of the 1st Amendment was written so that the government would stay out of influence in religious affairs.

That includes all areas of religious affairs, such as education and healthcare. Currently, states such as California have tried to outlaw homeschooling while the U.S. Senate plan will mandate that all Americans must buy health insurance.

So I've cloaked my argument in religious terms. I believe that these actions by the State are breaches of the first amendment, and thus my free exercise of religious belief. In short, these attempts by the government are unconstitutional. Besides, the Church, when unconstrained by the largesse of the Federal Government, does it better anyways.

Entralled by Beauty

Beauty itself is one of the few things that truly lasts. As humans are created in God's image, we cannot help but be creators ourselves. And we are at our finest when we are making something beautiful.

Furthermore, Christians have the strongest and best explanation of why some things are beautiful and others are not. To experience beauty is a unique human experience, and other worldviews have a hard time explaining why something is beautiful.

Beauty in science was born out of a Christian worldview: the idea that the world was created by an organized Creator who is rational and put things in their place. Because of this view, Christians believed the world was orderly, testable, rational, and that science could thus flourish in repeatable experiments. Naturalism, which results in chaos, and pantheim, which results in an impersonal uncertainty, could not have started the beauty of science.

Beauty in art was also, to some extent, born out of a Christian worldview. But in this vein humans have always created art, since our very beginnings. But the best art, the most beautiful art, is born out of a Christian worldview. Painting, dance, sculpture, music, and architecture are all at their finest when considering a Creator God. But the only reason I wrote all that was not so that you could disagree or agree, really. Normally that's what this blog is about.

Sometimes it's better just to enter in to the beauty. So I give you Bach: one of my favorite composers.

Why Conviction is Better than Blah

Check out this video poem by Taylor Mali.

Typography from Ronnie Bruce on Vimeo.

His articulation of the inarticulation of the masses is why I find myself increasingly drawn towards conviction as opposed to trendiness. It's why I grew out of Donald Miller and grew towards G.K. Chesterton (despite the fact that he regularly lambastes my own theological- Calvinist- views). It's why I have little room for Rob Bell and all of his "likes" on his Nooma videos, but I have all the room in the world for Tim Keller. It's why I have little tolerance for postmodernism and post-partisanship and pragmatism.

We all believe something. So let's stop lying to ourselves.

Book Standards

Let's face it, there are a lot of bad books out there. So many books vie for our attention, and so many books are written in so many fields of human knowledge. How is one to decide what kind of books he or she should read? I have a few thoughts.

Does it add to the field of human knowledge? Far too many books are recapitulations or hack reproductions of better works. If it doesn't enlarge the field of human knowledge, then it probably isn't worth reading. Generally, if an older book is still around, then it's probably worth reading because time is a good judge. It isn't a perfect judge, though.

Does some other writer say it better or represent a certain viewpoint better? While this is related to the last one, it is slightly different in it's application. To read Nietzche is a better pursuit than a current postmodernist. To read C.S. Lewis is better than reading almost all current books on Christian living (I'm looking at you, Brian McLaren and Donald Miller).

Does a book represent its worldview well? A book might proffer a worldview with which I disagree, but I won't waste my time on any book that doesn't represent some of the best that worldview has to offer.

Is the writing beautiful? Beauty is always a standard. Don't let postmodernism fool you into thinking that all art or writing is equally beautiful. The Brothers Karamazov is still considered one of the best novels ever. Go into Barnes and Noble today and you won't find any Dostoyevskys. I'm reminded of the scene from the first National Treasure when Nicolas Cage's character reads the Declaration of Independence in the National Archives. He reads an elegant section (but isn't all of it elegant?) and proclaims, "Nobody talks like that anymore."

Is it trite, meaningless, or reduced to pop psychology? If it is, don't read it. I'd put most political tomes in this category. In general, stay away from Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Al Franken, or most modern political tomes. They are narcissistic and not serious. Want to deal with serious political philosophy? Read John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, John Rawls, Alexis De Toqueville, William F. Buckley, and many others. Also, most leadership and self-help books fall into the category of pop psychology. Avoid these at all costs.

Is it narcissistic and overly (auto)-biographical? If it is, don't read it. This category relates to my last question as well as to the question on a book's worldview. Too much focus on the self is more a matter of pride than worldview. Biography is important, but it does not have to be narcissistic.

So, would you add anything else to this list? Would you disagree with anything I wrote? I'm curious to hear from you.

Misled by Moderation in Politics

I've recounted this exchange on this blog before, but it bears repeating.

Upon Obama's historic election in November 2008, a brilliant and earnest colleague asked a group of fellow pastors and me, "Do you think Obama's election proves a rush to liberalism for generations to come?" I spoke up first, "No, Obama got elected by appearing as a moderate, despite his statist views, and the country is largely reacting to the incompetence of the Bush years. This country is still, by and large, a conservative one."

I realize that I painted with a broad brush there, and conservatism must be qualified. Perhaps I was a little right and wrong.

I think I was right about the reaction to Bush. Obama's measurables- the ones that matter- are significantly down after a torrid start in Presidential politics. Furthermore, his "likability" is always higher than his "what do you really think about his policies?" category. On a side note, why does the first question even matter? (see my post on Neil Postman's book for the answer). In short, Obama's ideas are just not popular, which means that liberalism isn't popular.

But I think I was wrong about the influence of conservatism. After a year of Obama's governance followed by recent reactionary elections, I think I am convinced that much of America is in the uninformed mushy middle of nothingness in American politics. Christie's election to the New Jersey governorship, Brown's election of Ted Kennedy's old seat in Massachusetts (?!), and other "conservative" victories across the country in the past few months are evidence.

How could the American public elect one of the most liberal Presidents ever (liberals would likely dispute this claim) and then a year later the more liberal parts of the country are electing Republicans? What can account for such inconsistencies in the American public?

First suggestion: Americans don't read. They had plenty of opportunities to read Obama's plan. He's doing exactly what he said he'd do on the economy, healthcare, Palestine, and so many other issues. How can you be displeased with someone you voted for when that information was known beforehand?

Second suggestion: Americans don't have real commitments and values. We follow what is in vogue. One minute large government liberalism looks appealing because people don't have jobs, homes, or healthcare. "Wouldn't that be awesome if someone else paid for it?" Another minute we realize our civil liberties are at stake. "I don't want the government to force my hand in the commerce of health insurance."

Third suggestion: We idolize people instead of values because the television. When was the last time the more ugly candidate won in a Presidential election? Also, Scott Brown is certainly more telegenic than Martha Coakley. In sum, we are attracted to charisma, but we don't wrestle with the substance until someone starts governing.

Our inconsististies in voting is probably a result of all of the above. Political commentators would call this American voting ethic "pragmatism," and pundits on each side rush to claim the word. I even heard Dennis Prager say yesterday on his radio show that Americans vote for what works, and "we clearly know that this Administration isn't working." Obama has rushed to have the word placed upon him as well and Time Magazine couldn't be happier to oblige.

But I could not disagree more with whatever we call pragmatism. While I do think unregulated markets create more wealth than regulated markets do, that should not be our determinant in casting a vote. What we need is principle and ideals in social and economic policy, and there are too many unprincipled people out there. For instance:

Do you believe that a human life is really at stake in the womb? If you do, then you should create protections in government for human life. If you do not, then kill at will, by all means.

Do you really believe a smaller government (governments by their nature cannot be efficient, so let's stop using that word) is better to create individual and civil liberties or not? If you do, then you'll always be suspicious of a government's claims that it can do more than it really can. If you don't, then create utopia already.

Do you really believe that wealth can be built and not merely shared or re-distributed?

Do you believe that government can protect some things that are inherent rights to exist, such as the Bill of Rights? Does the Bill of Rights assume that both the Draft and abortion should be illegal?

Do you belief that luxuries and quality-of-life issues should truly be handled by the government? Is healthcare really a right?

While public policy is always nuanced, the answers to these simple questions really moves us in one of two directions. Moderation is not a virtue, then. It simply is a substitute for an uninformed or unprincipled electorate.

I say we have that debate from the core of our convictions. Let's have that debate between the utilitarian views of liberalism and the life and individual liberty ethic of conservatism. Let's have that debate between free-market capitalism and socialism. Maybe then we'll be able to answer, from a philosophical standpoint, the role of the government in commerce. Maybe then we'll see the virtue in some political positions and the evil in others.

All you people in the middle stay out of the way.