Follow the Yellow Brick Road to the New Website

Okay, so there's no yellow brick road. But as advertised yesterday, the Redemptive Angle has gone rogue, and rid itself of the google platform.

The link is here: The Redemptive Angle.

If you grab an RSS feed or any other type of feed from this old blogspot site, go ahead and follow the link and grab the new RSS feed. I think you will enjoy the new format.

Housekeeping

Hey friendly blog readers (God bless you, btw),

I've been inactive for a few weeks as I work out launching a new version of this blog. I'll be leaving the google platform and entering into my own new world. But before that happens, I may post here and there. I just wanted to keep you updated as to that status. The new site is very close to ready.

I just want you to know that I hope you'll continue to read and share what you read here as well.

Grace and peace,
Dave

Refugees and Stolen Stuff: A Picture in Contrast

So how much do luxuries really matter? Allow me to recount the ways it really doesn't.

Some friends of mine and I have been spending some time with a refugee family from Iraq, new to the U.S. for about 2 months now (I've spoken of this family before on this blog). on Sunday, they had 4 of us over to their house for lunch, and they wanted to take us on a picnic, Iraqi-food style. This family has a husband and wife plus 6 young and energetic daughters, so going anywhere isn't a simple task. As such, we decided we'd walk to the park a few blocks from their home.

But before we went to the park, we got to spend some time with the mom and eldest daughter. In all our communication problems (they don't speak much English), we were able to discern some of the horror stories they saw and heard while living in Baghdad. It was an eery and sobering experience to hear of the things they saw in Baghdad at the height of the war there. I never realized how international affairs really shape people on the ground. I never thought I'd create a friendship with those who knew those atrocities firsthand.

Once some other family members got ready, though, we headed off to the park. We spent hours there eating delicious food, kicking soccer balls, throwing frisbees, and watching the girls ride their bikes. These girls are so full of life one would have to be on death's doorstep not to be enlived along with them. It was a true joy and a delightful afternoon.

Eventually time came for parting as everyone grew tired. I said my goodbyes and walked off to my car. And when I got to my car, I realized my iPod was missing. I knew I had listened to music on the way to their house so I thought I had just misplaced it in a bag or it had fallen below a seat or something. But after ten solid minutes of searching my car, I came to the conclusion that my iPod was gone and likely stolen. I also remembered a very brief time when my car was unattended and I might not have locked it.

Though I was frustrated with myself for not being certain about the car being locked, I was never too angry. Do I think stealing is wrong? Absolutely. Your reading the words of a guy who gave lectures to his friends in high school about the wrongs of illegally downloaded music. But I never got angry. For some reason I couldn't.

My outgoing senior pastor (he's leaving for a new post and I wish him well) always commends to those he leads to read prayer requests of the persecuted Christian church worldwide (here or here). He suggests that American Christians practice this discipline first so that we can be mindful in prayer for Christians all over the world. Second, truly caring about persecuted Christians sometimes diminishes the petty difficulties in life.

And in that vein, that was the disposition of my heart yesterday. I did not consciously think, "I will not get angry." I just wasn't. I had just spent hours with a family who experienced unimaginable horrors (there are many stories I could share but choose not to for anonymity's sake; believe me, they are tough stories). My picture of suffering was incredibly limited when compared to theirs.

Perhaps this is why Jesus remarks:

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Mt. 5:10

I'm certainly not suggesting that I am righteous, nor am I suggesting that my friend's were persecuted because of righteousness. What I am suggesting is that experiencing, knowing, and caring for those in real persecution allows one to be more receptive to the character of Jesus. And this is a worthy pursuit in life.

Andy Rooney and Desire

One of my favorite TV personalities is Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes, mainly because he always has an interesting take on an aspect of culture that befits his curmudgeonly personality. He develops a popular view of human desire this week that I thought was worth responding to.

Rooney misses the same point on desire that I referenced with Tiger Woods last week. Desire isn't bad. Bad desire is bad. Selfish desire is bad. Unquenchable desire is bad. And these are the things that Rooney is talking about. A world with no desire, or with a desire-reduction pill, is a sad world not worthy of the beauty and deep emotion this world offers through its Creator.

On the other hand, Rooney's words are an apt rebuke of our culture, and indeed human nature, which is constantly craving deeper lusts. The very nature of sin draws us all in to be addicts, never having enough of whatever fix we need: ambition, fame, power, sex, or food. We are indeed living in a dark world that cries out for a solution.

Just not Rooney's solution. We are in need of something worth desiring. We are in need of an object of our desire that won't ask for unfulfilled desires. We are in need of an object of our desire that actually fills our desires, and then some. We are in need of a person, the only person or thing that can, rightly change our desires and give us good ones.

We are in need of Jesus.

Current Reading

Ideas run the world, and ideas are often found in books. You'll have to forgive me, but the following is another current list of book readings. Just trying to know the world's ideas.

Deep Church by Jim Belcher- This book is essentially a philosophy of Christian ministry for a local church that listens to the popular criticisms on current Church methodology but still seeks to maintain a deep orthodoxy. It's one of the best books I've read on the subject, and it articulates a view of my own profession that I align with most closely, more than any other book I've read.

Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman- The main thesis of this classic of the last 40 years is that capitalism creates more contexts for freedom- religious, economic, political- than does any other form of economy. Friedman essentially argues that a full-on socialistic democracy is a contradiction in terms. While much of the 20th century proves that empirically, Friedman makes compelling economic arguments.

The Complete Stories of Flannery O'Conner- I'm a southerner. One of my favorite books is To Kill a Mockingbird, which without question is also my favorite movie. There's something about reading southern novelists of the early 20th century that resonates with the places I'm from and my own extended family, which also haunts a large part of who I am. Where others deal analytically with the content of O'Conner or Faulkner, I very much feel what they write in an existential way. I'm loving my journey through O'Conner.

The Christ of the Covenants by O. Palmer Robertson- If one accepts the historicity and infallibility of the Old and New Testaments as inspired Scripture of God, then the inevitable question of the unity of the Scripture arises. While many people have many different views on how the Scripture is unified, I'm entering a historic Christian tradition that accepts a view of the unity of Scripture called Covenant Theology. From what I've heard, Robertson's treatment on this subject is some of the best. I'm about halfway through and am soaking it up.

So happy reading to you. My exhortation is to always be reading something you love, something that challenges you, and something old. Read fiction and non-fiction. Plum the depths of your religious or spiritual tradition. Read books that encourage you. And read books that have influenced the intellectual greats through the ages. I'm still very much a learner in this process and have so much more to read in the years to come.

Tiger Woods, Buddhism, and Desire

I am huge golf lover. I play it. I watch it. I read articles about it and follow it closely. I even got to go to the Masters in 2005 (the last time Tiger won) and almost got hit by Tiger's golf ball and made national tv (the proof is currently on a taped VHS). So naturally, I was glued to my television yesterday as I was watching the drama play out at the Masters. Tiger Woods, Phil Mickelson, and a host of other great golfers vied for the win that Phil ultimately achieved.

Given Tiger's indiscretions and public scrutiny, much of the commentary focused on Tiger even though he never led the tournament yesterday or at any point (he finished tied for 4th). Tiger started horribly yesterday, bogeying three of the first five holes (for non-golf lovers- he lost three strokes to par= the standard score). Tiger wasn't throwing his usual tantrums or lighting up the curse words early on, which is typical of him when he plays poorly. Also, though, when Tiger turned it around and started playing great, he wasn't fist-pumping and revving up the crowd either.

Why? Well, Tiger has talked about returning to his family roots of Buddhism so he can "center" himself on the golf course: not get too high or too low. In Buddhism, emotion and desire are bad and ultimately things to gain higher enlightment over. But the commentators didn't like that. One of them remarked, "Tiger without emotion is like Superman with kryptonite. He can't feed off his own energy, which he's so used to." (That's a rough paraphrase).

And the commentator hit on a Christian truth without knowing it. The Buddha, in his quest for the alleviation of suffering, mistakenly linked good and bad desires together, thus trying to achieve nirvana over all desire (since desire is the source of much suffering). But in Christianity, good desire is good, and bad desire is bad. And there are oh so many good things in this world to desire and appreciate: the beauty of azaleas in the spring in Augusta, enrapturing music that leads you to truly experience beauty, and even excellence in one's craft.

Lying behind it all is One who gives the desire and grants the possibility that those desires can be fulfilled. He also works against all the evil desires of the world to ultimately bring justice to it all.

That's comforting to me, and I hope it will be to Tiger Woods someday too.

Home

Do you love where you are from? I certainly know a lot of people who do. And I'm one of them.

When I was in graduate school a common question I got asked is if I'd return to Tennessee once I graduated. "Not necessarily. Don't know where the whims or plans of life will take me." I'm a planner, sure. But I wanted to be open to where I thought God wanted me. It seemed the reason that many people asked me this was because it was their own plan for their own life.

Mid-westerners wanted to go back to the corn fields and winds of the plain and farm states. Southerners wanted to go back to the hospitality and Bible-beltishness of the glorious South. Californians wanted to go back to the high-energy and diversity of the far west. Texans had their own weird Texas pride that I will never understand.

But then there were also tranplants- people that have always wanted to live and really live in Colorado. To them, the mountains would always be home no matter where they're from. And they wanted to stay here.

And lastly, there's those select transient few that are never really satisfied where they are because there are new and exciting adventures to be had. Colorado and mountains are great, but so are beaches and warm weather. Small towns offer a quaint charm but big cities also offer entertainment and non-stop excitement. There's always something new to experience that seems so elusive.

And no matter our disposition towards home we're still all seeking it. Home could be found in rest or excitement or both, but no matter who we are we are seeking home. We long for a nostalgia that's not entirely possible, or we long for an experience that cannot really be had. C.S Lewis, the classic Christian apologist, had this to say about our predicament:

"If I find in myself desires which nothing in this world can satisfy, the only logical explanation is that I was made for another world."

Those longings for home are real and they really point to something. Real home is found in Jesus Christ and his ultimate home in a new heaven and new earth, where all evils and sorrows cease forever. Justice will be had and evil dealt with (Revelation 21-22). Only perfect good will remain. And our longing for nostalgia will be realized. Our thirst for ever-increasing excitement will finally be quenched.

We will be home. Finally.

Sensibility in Politics

People love how their perceived by other people. We spend hours on facebook touching up our image. We posture around those we think influential in order to impress them by our social prowess. I'm no exception, though I'm trying everyday to ignore this human impulse to ever-increasing degrees. But one of the worst areas I see this is in politics. Apparently, we really care about how people perceive our political opinions (left-wingers and right-wingers who express their political opinions by multiple bumper stickers excluded). And the ultimate description of this temptation is one who thinks his or her political positions are sensible and moderate.

Perfect example: I have many friends who voted for Obama, even though they were conservative, because Obama postured towards moderates and they wanted to appear sensible, especially since the young adult trend was to view Republicans as non-centrist. Of course, the great irony in the 2008 election was that Obama was promoting a statist agenda openly (posturing be damned), and McCain had a 20 year voting record of centrism (which is why many Republicans didn't favor him).

Another example: Confused "conservatives" and "Republicans" favoring the healthcare bill that recently passed because "something had to be done." If they were true conservatives, however, they would have always favored less government control than more. And to a conservative, the status quo, while not a good option, is a better option than the bill just passed. So, news flash: if you agreed, by and large, with the bill that just passed, you are a liberal. And, by the terms laid out in the bill itself, it doesn't leave much room for you to be a moderate, either.

The wrong kind of sensibility, then, is to be on board with whatever any candidate says or promotes. I don't think it's ever wise to be overly enthusiastic about any one candidate (please see the entire history in 1 and 2 Kings- no ruler is perfect). The right kind of sensibility is to stand by your convictions.

It's much more sensible to know your political convictions, stand by them, and compromise on whom you have to vote for than to compromise your political convictions, and stand by an office-holder who is imperfect and promotes views that would not and could not align wholly with your own. Or, as a friend of mine put it: "Are you compromising principle to vote for the candidate or are you compromising the candidate to maintain (as much as possible) the principle? I suggest we do the latter.

Finally Weighing In on Governmental Healthcare

I have avoided the contents of the healthcare debate for months now. The reason is because my biggest goal on this blog is to think through current events through the lens of a Christian worldview. But I muzzled myself because I couldn't adequately define my views on healthcare in religious or philosophic language without repeating conservative talking points. While what I am about to write will sound conservative, please note that I am attempting to avoid political and economic arguments in favor of a philosophical argument.

The core of that argument is this: when the government has a stake in the costs of any industry, it must seek to control the costs of that industry. When the government has a stake in the cost of healthcare, it has a role in reducing the amount of costs it incurs upon itself. And when it does this, it is performing an evil function by playing god with people's health.

Facts: Medicaid (government-run health insurance for the poor) will increase by 1/3, effectively adding 15 million new people to the government insurance entitlement tab. The federal government will fund 100% of the new recipients of Medicaid until 2016. Medicare (government-run health insurance for the elderly) spending cuts decrease by $500 billion over the next decade.

Because the government has a stake in the cost of healthcare, this bill entrenches the idea that the poor are more valuable than the elderly. Though the plan will cost the government billions of dollars over the next few years, the bill still attempted some accounting measures and cost-cutting manuevers to help the bill be more passable. And Medicare funding got cut. All these old people are a drain on the system, you see.

Now I'm not trying to make an argument about the pros and cons of Medicare or Medicaid, on the face of it. I'm merely trying to point out the evils of utilitarian philosophy, which is the core of American liberalism. The utilitarian idea is that we must maximize the good for the most amount of people, which sounds nice, but is off at its core. By trying to evaluate the collective good, we must acknowledge that somebody has to be the decision-maker on who the most amount of people are and what that arbitrary good is. This, undoubtedly, is a precarious situation.

On the other hand, if one's fundamental commitment was that every human individual was special in his or her own right and worth keeping alive, then the role of government would be vastly different. But because the government has a stake in the costs, they are currently rationing the elderly out of the system. Furthermore, they provide financing for the elimination of the unborn. These are not slippery slope arguments. They are actually happening.

As an example, don't believe the rhetoric you hear about the Hyde amendment and Obama's executive order last week. Federal money is already used at home and abroad for abortion. All that's required is a simple accounting measure. Unless the sole operation of an organization is abortion, they can qualify for federal money under any number of federal programs. Planned parenthood, for instance, received money from the stimilus package last year. But because PP does other things besides abortions, they can be funded under this technicality. How was funding Planned Parenthood a part of stimilus money? "It reduces costs," justified Nancy Pelosi (see here). Yes, when you have less people and make it available for them to be killed, it does cost the government less in healthcare. Evil thinking. Evil action by the government.

And while capitalism cannot and can never be an unqualified good, it has always created more contexts for religious and life-existence freedom than has socialistic-trending governments. My argument is not that capitalism is better because it works (though that is true). My argument is that command economies- or commanded sectors of the economy like the US increasingly has with healthcare- mean that less freedom is possible.

When the government has a stake in the cost of the health of its constituents, it has a stake in limiting the amount of service that different people get. This is not a power the government should have, and it makes the trend of American liberalism, and the trend of the government's scope into healthcare, a very evil trend. Yes, I said evil.

The beauty and depravity of Humanity

I've recently made friends with an Iraqi refugee through various circumstances. He's lived in the United States for 22 days now. Naturally, he has many fears, cannot speak English yet, and earnestly wants to provide for his family. The second time we met, he told me of the unfortunate, scary, and life-threatening circumstances which caused him to leave Iraq.

On the third time I went to his house, I was there to teach him how to use the Denver bus system, which is ironic because I had to learn how to use the bus system first in order to do so. What does a white suburban with his own car have to learn about public transportation, after all? To learn, naturally, I went to the internet and read all about it. My Iraqi friend doesn't have a computer or the ability to speak English, so he was at a little disadvantage you might say in learning the bus system.

I showed up with pen and paper in hand, so as to progress in some kind of conversation since I know no other language than English. His wife had an Arabic-English dictionary, so between the two of us we got along fine. In the course of that conversation, I realized he already knew how to use the bus. He showed me his bus pass and knew where to get on and off the bus for various stops, including his English classes and the grocery store. My friend is incredibly smart and resilient, and so I have much to learn from him.

As we were talking, my friend, whom I had only met twice before, tried to say something very interesting. "Day-veed, I live you."

"Again?" I ask. "I live you," he says. I look at him with a confused face. He then proceeds to retreat into his mind, trying to recall what he is really trying to say. Then he hurries his hands back and forth in a waving manner, as if to say he is going to try to say it again. Then the lightbulb goes off on his face.

"I love you."

Then a lightbulb went off in my soul. And he shook my hand vigorously and hugged me from across the table. In that instant, my new friend was communicating his most powerful need.

For all the talk of social action in politics and non-profits - alleviating poverty, health care for all, housing for the homeless- my friend's greatest expressed need was for human affection and the longing for friendship in a strange land. My friend communicated something quite profound about human experience as well. Humans are capable of deep goodness and love and longing for pure things. Christianity explains this by saying that all of humanity is made in God's image (Gen. 1, Col. 3:10-11). And yet, something is also off about us.

My friend's greatest expressed need was for friendship, but his greatest actual need is for reconciliation and restoration in a relationship with the Creator God. And because all humans are off, because all of us are broken (Christians call this "sin"), we need God to breach the gap of our estranged relationship and give us his version of that restoration (Christians call this imputed "righteousness"). So humans are both beautiful and deprave. Blaise Pascal, Christian philosopher of generations ago, referred to the paradox of humanity as "deposed royalty."

So while my friend demonstrated strong and meaningful emotions, he has a deeper need still. And for that matter, so do I.

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.