#232 The Point of Apocalyptic

I really like the following quote from John Howard Yoder about the point that apocalyptic makes. I found it on Halden Dorge's blog.

“The point that apocalyptic makes is not only that people who wear crowns and who claim to foster justice by the swords are not as strong as they think - true as that is: we still sing, ’O where are Kings and Empires now of old that went and came?’ It is that people who bear crosses are working with the grain of the universe. One does not come to that belief by reducing social process to mechanical and statistical models, nor by winning some of one’s battles for the control of one’s own corner of the fallen world. One comes to it by sharing the life of those who sing about the Resurrection of the slain Lamb.”

– John Howard Yoder, “Armaments and Eschatology.” Studies in Christian Ethics 1:43 (1988): 58.

But I question whether apocalyptic literature is really ever trying to actually make that point, or is that merely a point we can take from apocalyptic. I've had the same thought before regarding typology and preaching. Regarding typology, did historical events ever occur simply as lessons to future generations or are future generations just pressing them into service for what may be perfectly noble and effectual purposes? In other words, was, and/or is, God trying make points by using real people?

Regarding preaching, pastors are understandably under great pressure. They asked to produce an hour long sermon each week, whether they feel inspired or not, in addition to all their other duties. Even so, I've heard countless sermons that seem to use certain biblical stories over and over again to prove a variety of different points that the original authors may or may not have intended. I'm personally not interested in the lessons about interpersonal relationships and personality types that we can draw from the Mary and Martha stories. Admit it, you've heard the Mary and Martha self-help sermons that I'm talking about hundreds of times if you've spent any time in the church.

My point about both of these is simply this: we don't need the Bible to illustrate our points. We need to determine the points that the authors themselves were trying to make. So is Yoder right about the point that apocalyptic makes? I'm genuinely interested in the question and would love to see the Biblical, literary, historical-critical, rhetorical evidence, if it indeed exists. Otherwise, Yoder is guilty of the Mary-and-Marthizing.

The medieval theological academy had a concept of four senses in which we can interpret scripture. There was the literal sense in which the original authors would've intended it. There was the allegorical sense concerning the fulfillment of the Old Testament history in Christ. There was the tropological sense concerning how we should live our lives. And there was the anagogical sense concerning the ultimate end of history. The latter three sense have been grouped together and called the spiritual sense as compared to the literal sense. So it's clear that Yoder clearly has the tropological and anagogical sense in mind at the very least. And that's all well and good if it makes for a nice sermon, forceful argument, or artistic illustration. But it seems to me that the spiritual senses only matter in as much as they are true literally, i.e. that that was the authors original intent for the story. Or when God is acting within a story, the spiritual sense only matters if that is what God literally meant to convey by his action.

Another way my point can be illustrated is in the distinction between usefulness and faithfulness to the text. A given preacher can use a Biblical story to make a point that is faithful to the original actor (God) and the original writer while at the same time being useful for preaching, teaching, and building up. After all, doesn't the Bible say that all Scripture is useful for these kinds of things? But another preacher can use a Biblical story to make a point that while not faithful to the original meaning of God's action or intent of the author, could nonetheless be useful for the point he is trying to convey.

Which preacher is Yoder in the quote above?

#231 Interesting Links XXVII

I like this exposition of the opening lines of the declaration of independence.

A one, two, three part reflection on homosexuality and the church.

An article on the use of the theories of John Rawls by libertarians.

Halden Dorge on deriving an ethic of love from the apocalyptic eschatology contained in the Johannine writings.

Here's the link to the apparently must-see documentary "Torturing Democracy."

Brant Pitre points out a rabbinic tradition that says that all sacrifices will cease but the thank offering. The Greek word for this is where we derive the term Eucharist from. So he raises the following question: "Did Jesus see the Last Supper as the eschatological sacrifice which would replace all the other sacrifices in the Age to Come?" He mentions that his forthcoming book will address this question, so that will be one to look out for.

Have you ever seen an advertisement for a product on TV and swear that you invented it in your head years ago? I thought of the idea of the bacon alarm clock years ago out of necessity, because it is the only thing that can consistently make me rise out of bed, rather than just merely awake from slumber. And here it is: The Wake 'n' Bacon Alarm Clock.

Every so often Ben Witherington addresses the "Reformed" mindset as articulated by John Piper, et. al. Here he addresses the concept of theological certainty. Here's Ben Myers with a similar critique of Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Schreiner.

I posted my thoughts once on the idea of the church as a meal. Here are some good resources from Michael Bird on how the Eucharist came to be separated from a communal meal idea in history.

Michael Barber interacts with Mark Goodacre's work on dating the gospels.

#230 The Unknown God

I'm currently reading a collection of essays called Nicene Christianity: The Future for a New Ecumenism, edited by Christopher Seitz, which includes articles by Colin Gunton, Robert Jenson, William Abraham, John Webster, Susan Wood, Carl Braaten, Alan Torrance, etc. I'm only two chapters in but have already come across a few choice morsels. Each essay takes a one particular statement in the Nicene Creed and exposits its meaning with a view towards its use in the unity of the church. Emphasis below is always mine, by the way.

The first essay, by Seitz, examines the phrase, "maker of heaven and earth," specifcally its roots in Old Testament theology. He recounts Paul's encounter with the Athenians inscription the unknown god in Acts 17:

"... Paul was stipulating that the Lord of heaven and earth was not the summation of all the other gods (a high god) or an alternative with a more compelling account of creation (a better god), but was an unknown and unknowable god, without his speaking or sending, without his self-declaration."

He points to Isaiah's (chapter 45) mention of God who hides himself and again references Paul's proclamation. This all reminds me of Paul's own writing in Romans 10:17 that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word." Is Paul, in Acts 17 and Romans 10 contradicting his own concept of human knowledge of God's eternal power and divine nature through what has been made? Or is there a more subtle difference in Paul's language or arguments between these passages? Or is Seitz stretching Acts 17 and Isaiah 45 further than they were intended to go? Answering those questions would make for an interesting essay topic.

Jenson, in a essay I found elsewhere on the internet seems to be on board with Seitz's view when he says,

"The one-word epithets in the creeds—in the Nicene creed, holy, lordly and life-giving—are little help in identifying the Spirit among the spirits, since while most of the world's spirits are pretty plainly unholy, mean and deadly, a good many can plausibly claim to be holy, lordly, and life giving. Only 'who proceeds from the Father' and 'who spoke by the prophets' serve to pick out the Spirit from the welter."

In other words, Jenson is grounding the identity of Jesus, the identity of the one true god, in the Old Testament concepts and proclamation of Israel's god, the maker of heaven and earth. Seitz goes on to say that, "The God of the Old Testament has fully identified himself with Jesus Christ." I think this was evidenced most clearly in the resurrection. I would add to that and say that the reverse is also true: Jesus Christ has fully identified himself with the God of the Old Testament. One need only perform a cursory glance at the gospels to glean this fact. This all sounds reasonable enough, but as I said above, what of Paul's own conflicting statements?

#229 Christian Kids and Evolution

Now that I have a child of my own, I have had to start thinking about how to go about introducing him to the idea of evolution as it stands in tension to traditional concepts of creation and nature. But it's drivel like this that made Christian kids like me not bother to give evolution the time of day:

"Scientists say the fossil, dubbed "Ida," is a transitional species, living around the time the primate lineage split into two groups: A line that would eventually produce humans, primates and monkeys, and another that would give rise to lemurs and other primates."

This quote was taken from a article describing the recently reported discovery (which actually happened back in the 80s) of a 47 million year-old fossil. Now I have no problem believing this is a 47 million year-old fossil. What I do have a problem with, and have always had a problem with, is the mass degree of extrapolation from the evidence that takes place amongst evolutionary biologists/paleontologists. The degree of speculation taken as fact is astonishing and mirrors the mindset of our fundamentalist brothers and sisters. The speculation in the quote above relates specifically to lineage and the descent of modern day forms of life, but the imagination of so-called scientists is not limited to questions of lineage. I know this from watching plenty of hours of the Discovery Channel and public broadcasting as a child. This imaginative speculation clothed in the language of fact caused me to write-off the whole concept of evolution as a child and not have any desire to give it a time of day. If scientists wish to reach out to those who they consider the ignorant and sheltered, they had better learn not only to speak in a more credible way, but to focus on what is knowable directly from science, while avoiding debatable historical reconstruction.

#228 I Can Do All Things

A funny thing happened as I read a familiar passage of Paul's letter to the Philippians. I saw chapter four, verse thirteen in context for the first time in my life.

"I can do all things through Him who strengthens me."

Paul's words here have become not only a popular Christian slogan worthy of adorning t-shirts and bumper stickers, but a core foundation for the Christian self-help industry. Our traditional interpretation has said that Paul's "all things" are "great things" that we can do for God.

But it was only in reading what comes immediately before that it became clear to me that "all things," for Paul, was not about "moving mountains." It was only in reading Phillipians backwards that I saw that it was not about accomplishing great feats in a life set on fire for Christ. It was not a mission statement for any quest to change the world nor a confidence booster for those bent on such a quest. Rather, "all things" refers not only to great and glorious things, but also trials, tribulations, and the very ordinary suffering of life.

Here is the passage leading up and into 4:13. I have left the wording exactly the same as it is the text, but I've added divisions so as to outline the way in which I think Paul's thought is working. with the emphasis and bullet divisions all mine:

"But I rejoiced in the Lord greatly, that now at last you have revived your concern for me; indeed you were concerned before, but you lacked opportunity. Not that I speak from want; for I have learned to be content:

...in whatever circumstances I am:

• I know how to get along with humble means, and I also know how to live in prosperity.

...in any and every circumstance

• I have learned the secret of being filled and going hungry, both of having abundance and suffering need."

So Paul's actual emphasis is on contentment in the face of humility, hunger, and suffering in the same degree as we exhibit in times of prosperity, fulfillment, and abundance. "All things" is "whatever circumstance." It is "any and every circumstance." Through faith in the promise of God, the promise of future resurrection of the body through Jesus Christ, Paul can be content in all things. Paul is not offering a mystical religion that offers extraordinary powers to those who believe. He is not offering a quick-fix. It is not a manifesto of escape from challenges. It is a reckoning with challenges. Continuing to read Phillipians backwards yields this abbreviated version of 3:8-14:

"... I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, and may be found in Him... that I may know Him, and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed to His death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already attained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in... forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus."

#227 To Live Is to Suffer

I've started reading through Pope Leo XIII's 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum and found it to be a very libertarian, conservative, and theologically profound letter. All three of those things make it right up my alley. Here are two passages that share a common theme.

First, in paragraph 18, an acknowledgement of reality:

"In like manner, the other pains and hardships of life will have no end or cessation on earth; for the consequences of sin are bitter and hard to bear, and they must accompany man so long as life lasts. To suffer and to endure, therefore, is the lot of humanity; let them strive as they may, no strength and no artifice will ever succeed in banishing from human life the ills and troubles which beset it. If any there are who pretend differently - who hold out to a hard-pressed people the boon of freedom from pain and trouble, an undisturbed repose, and constant enjoyment - they delude the people and impose upon them, and their lying promises will only one day bring forth evils worse than the present. Nothing is more useful than to look upon the world as it really is, and at the same time to seek elsewhere, as We have said, for the solace to its troubles."

Then, in paragraph 21, a call to act not only in spite of suffering, but to use suffering to defeat suffering:

"As for riches and the other things which men call good and desirable, whether we have them in abundance, or are lacking in them-so far as eternal happiness is concerned - it makes no difference; the only important thing is to use them aright. Jesus Christ, when He redeemed us with plentiful redemption, took not away the pains and sorrows which in such large proportion are woven together in the web of our mortal life. He transformed them into motives of virtue and occasions of merit; and no man can hope for eternal reward unless he follow in the blood-stained footprints of his Saviour. 'If we suffer with Him, we shall also reign with Him.' Christ's labors and sufferings, accepted of His own free will, have marvelously sweetened all suffering and all labor. And not only by His example, but by His grace and by the hope held forth of everlasting recompense, has He made pain and grief more easy to endure; 'for that which is at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory.'"

So suffering is a fact and an opportunity. This reminds me of one verse that tends to ring in my head more often than most others:

"Mourn with those that mourn." --Romans 12:15

#226 The Homeland of Peace

"It is one thing from a wooded summit to catch a glimpse of the homeland of peace and not to find a way to it, but vainly to attempt a journey along an impracticable route surrounded by the ambushes and assaults of fugitive deserters with their chief, 'the lion and the dragon' (Ps. 90:13). It is another thing to hold on to the way that leads there, defended by the protection of the heavenly emperor. There no deserters from the heavenly army lie waiting to attack. For this way they hate like a torture."

-- Augustine, Confessions, Book VII xxi (27)

#225 Our Struggle Against the Powers

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms... pray... pray... pray"

-- A much abbreviated quotation from Ephesians 6:12-20

#224 Calvin on Cheney

I had to post this if for nothing else than for the great picture. If you're unaware of the Scottish Prebyterian Samuel Rutherford, and his concept of Lex Rex, then you should certainly look into him at some point in your life of being an American citizen. Considering it doing your due diligence as a patriot and lover of freedom.


The article is from David Neff, an editor at Christianity today, and may surprise some people. I have been constantly surprised each day over the past week or two as I've been reading through Pulitzer Prize winner Charlie Savage's Takeover. The guys knows his shit and documents it well. We're used to assuming that for Calvin, all governments were ordained by God, regardless of whether they govern justly or not. But Neff corrects this notion, pointing to Calvin himself:

"...what about the unfaithful political leader? Calvin wrote that 'dictatorships and unjust authorities are not governments ordained by God.' They are no longer 'God's ministers' if they 'practice blasphemous tyranny.'"

Neff's article is here.

Savage's book is here.

#223 What is Gluttony?

There is one sin that no one talks about. One sin that no one ever commits. One sin that we often consider more of a historic artifact peculiar to ancient culture than to our modern times of plenty. One sin to rule them all! No, the Lord of the Rings reference is getting a little carried away. Then again, the way to a man's heart is through his stomach. So maybe there is something to this. I'm talking about gluttony.

What is gluttony? Is it even possible to commit it anymore, I mean, more than nominally with a knowing laugh, of course? The reason it's come to mind lately is that I've gone from 2 incomes for 2 family members to 1 income for 3 family members in the past year and we've had to examine literally every expense. Now with the potential for deflation (the scariest word in all of economics) looming on the horizon, my already sharp emphasis on consumption is further enhanced.

And consumption is really a key word when it comes to thinking about gluttony, if as I asked before, there even is such a sin anymore. Is there? And if so, what's the point? What's the point of it being prohibited in an age of plenty?

The opposite of gluttony, though we don't often think of it this way, is fasting, of course. But strangely that contrast only came to my mind today for the first time. If you have trouble understanding the prohibition against gluttony, start with your understanding of fasting and work backwards. If you trouble understanding the purpose of fasting, start with gluttony and work backwards.

Both are at opposite ends on the spectrum of how we relate to food. One by indulgence, one by denial. Both are unsustainable. And yet sustainability, particularly my ability to sustain financing as much food intake as my stomach desired, was one of the driving forces that led me to start examining my actions in the first place.

And so to a certain degree, I feel that I'm fasting each time I don't give my stomach the full extent of what it desires. That unmet physiological/psychological need, is essentially a fast from the satisfaction that I've voluntarily foregone. In other words, it's a form of abstinence, a denial of self.

So instead of focusing on whether your committing gluttony or whether you ought to try fasting, examine instead your relation to food. For me, it was particularly helpful to do this in the context of my financial condition and the alternate uses of those dollars I was literally consuming. Who else or what else could consume those dollars were I not to consume so much of them? For you, there may be a context that hits closer to home.

#222 Juxtaposition

Next time you run across a prosperity gospel-type, give them a dose of historic Christianity.



God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

Thanks to Philip Sumpter for this illustration.

#221 Semantics and The Deity of Christ

Dan Wallace, director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts, announced a book he authored based on his doctoral dissertation regarding (from what I can tell) grammatical pointers to Christ's divinity. In summarizing his work, he says something I'd never thought about:

"The fact that the book came out after Gordon Fee’s Pauline Christology has afforded me the opportunity to interact with Fee’s arguments that “our great God and Savior” refer to the Father rather than the Son. I disagree with him on this, and argue that the epithet speaks of Jesus Christ."

I'd be really interested to see how this kind argument can be made, especially since Fee's book is on my radar anyway. Too bad the book is $55.96 on Amazon. Perhaps he'll blog about this dialogue with Fee in particular at some point.

#220 It's a Cold and It's a Broken Biblical Theology

The New York Times did a story today on Leonard Cohen's return to touring after 15 years away from the stage which included a "five-year stint in a Zen Buddhist monastery." Cohen is probably best known for having his song "Hallelujah" covered by Jeff Buckley and numerous others artists.

Poetry has always frustrated me because of it's often difficult to extract it's meaning and Cohen is a poet first and foremost, and a songwriter second. So the Times asked him straight up, and he responded as elusively as a poet would.

"About the meaning of those songs, Mr. Cohen is diffident and elusive. Many are, he acknowledges, 'muffled prayers,' but beyond that he is not eager to reveal much. 'It’s difficult to do the commentary on the prayer,' he said. 'I’m not a Talmudist, I’m more the little Jew who wrote the Bible,' a reference to a line in 'The Future,' a song he released in 1992. 'I feel it doesn’t serve the enterprise to really examine it from outside the moment.'

Here Cohen illustrates a concept that over the last five to seven years has revolutionized my personal view on what the Bible is and isn't. Though he writes the songs, he doesn't always understand their meaning. His phrase "muffled prayers" is reminiscent of Paul's recognition of human weakness affecting our ability to pray for what we ought to pray for. Therefore, Paul says, the Spirit intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express (Romans 8:26).

But what hit me as powerful and important was his concept of the muffled pray-er vs. the comment-ator, the Talmudist vs. the "little Jew who wrote the Bible." Though we'd all say we know better, growing up in the church has caused us to become accustomed to thinking of the Scriptures as a sort of systematic theology text, a complete picture of all there is for man to know about God, and an internally consistent monograph guided by an invisible hand, as it were.

But what if the Bible is viewed rather simply as the accumulated reflections of a community who had direct interaction with the one true God? Without a doubt, a large portion of the Scriptures are a documentation of God's spoken words to this community. But what if instead of viewing the Bible primarily as God's word to us, we instead viewed it as the community's muffled prayer and response to him, and it's historical account of this interaction as a deposit for future generations and witness to the nations? Here the document itself is seen as a very human document, again, a muffled prayer. It is a desperate cry, a song, a old story told by parents and grandparents and finally put to papyrus, sage advice from a father, an existential crisis, a love story, a harsh rebuke, letters to fellow sojourners, and most importantly a witness to the Word of God personified, Jesus Christ. Together it is all of these things, but independently it is each of these things.

The implication here, of course, is a question that I've seen making the rounds on other blogs and is increasingly becoming the subject of scholarly book-length studies. The question is: To what extent can we construct a biblical theology considering the diversity of historical contexts, experiences, authors, and viewpoints contained therein? We often hear talk of Pauline theology, covenant theology, Old Testament theology, New Testament theology, and numerous others much smaller in scope. But how far can we go in contructing a grand theological system called "Biblical Theology?"

In an interview over at Ken Schenk's blog, Peter Enns defined biblical theology as "reading the Bible as a grand narrative of diverse and historically particularized episodes that achieves an eschatological coherence in Christ." For me, this raises the question of whether we should look at developing, at least in our own personal minds, an eschatological theology or studying the Bible's own apocalyptic theology, if that's even possible. But that's research for another day.

For now, it's a good start to simply ask: What if we began to see the writers of the Bible more as muffled pray-ers, than as comment-ators? More as little Jews than scholars of God. The comment-ator looks for grand meaning and application. The "little Jew" just utters muffled prayers.

To return to the Cohen article, you can see that it's hard to pin this guy down very easily on the religious map. One of the artists who has covered his songs says, “He has investigated a lot of deities and read all the sacred books, trying to understand in some way who wrote them as much as the subject matter itself. It’s for his own healing that he reaches for those places. If he has one great love, it is his search for God.” Wherever he stands, he can certainly put together some beautiful imagery. The article quotes one of his new songs as saying, "Tell me again when the filth of the butcher is washed in the blood of the lamb.” Depending on how you interpret that, the answer is either "at the cross," or it is the same question the souls under the altar in the book of Revelation keep asking God: "How long?" (Revelation 6:10)

#219 Stimulus Check

Rose Marie Berger had a great response to the stimulus checks that were issued last year, and I'm only getting around to posting it now. I don't agree with all of her politics so I've just copied the choicest morsels here.

She begins here letter to the U.S. Treasury:

"Dear Sir:

On May 9, 2008, I received an “economic stimulus payment” from you for the amount of $600.00. I’m concerned that I received this check in error. As I understand it, you are $9 trillion in debt... The money you gave to me was borrowed against your debt... If I have received this check in error, please let me know and I will return it to you immediately. Otherwise, I will assume that you are continuing a bad habit of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul.'

Sincerely Yours,

Taxpayer XXX-XX-1234
Rose M. Berger
Washington, D.C."

Berger seems to not have a problem with the spending so much as with what the money is being spent on. Though the sections I've pasted seem to criticize spending financed by debt in general, her real concern is for the poor, the homeless, and even endangered species.

I, on the other hand, take issue with returning cash to any voters (not to mention polar bears) who demand goods and services from the government and don't expect to have to pay the big bucks those services require. On the left, they ask for the welfare state. On the right, they want a very expensive war or two, and an overinflated defense budget. One is a statism of domestic control. The other is a statism of nationalistic hegemony. One vision is of the nanny state. The other is of big brother.

I've posted a chart before that shows that the vast majority of our spending goes toward three things: War (a service demanded by the Right, generally), Entitlements (a service demanded by the Left, generally), and Debt (the only way to fulfill the demands of both right and left given limited tax revenues).

These expenses are partially financed through tax revenues and partially financed by further borrowing, via the issuance of U.S. Treasury notes. When spending exceeds revenues, the excess, by definition, increases our national debt. The problem on both the left and right is that they want to have their cake and eat it too. Neither is willing to admit that what they demand is going to cost them and that they have to be willing to fork it over. And until both sides are willing to rethink their expensive ideologies, they're both going to keep taking it up the ass every April 15th.

#218 Interesting Links XXVI

Michael Spencer posts on stuff he was glad Jesus chose to deal with while he was here.

Halden Dorge on The Martyr vs. The Fighter

Miroslav Volf on divine judgement.

My state, Georgia, has passed, or at least tried to pass recently, some laws regarding baggy pants. I think that's retarded, and James Hanley helps point out why. Truly, one of the critical issues of our time.

The Hannity-Palin infomercial cracked me up. Clearly, Sean is not quite as skilled as Billy Mays (of Oxyclean fame) at selling a product. Then again, Mays had far superior and useful product to work with the Sean did. So we'll let him slide on that one.

Ben Witherington posts on the ideology of security, an article I haven't actually read yet. But the topic has been in my head for a couple of years now.

Jason Kuznicki points out some eerie similarities between fascist Italy of the early 20th century and modern America. As if there weren't enough already.

Interested in social change, but Jim Wallis and the like leave a bad taste in your mouth? Davey Henreckson points us to an article proposing the writings of John Howard as a critique and alternative.

A former hedge fund guy says goodbye to it all, and has some advice involving The Marijuana among other things.

You might be surprised at what Adam Smith had to say about "spreading the wealth."

#217 An American Liturgy

Looking back on what they call a "cacophonous year" in 2008, an editorial in Commonweal Online states that,

"Observing a 'moment of silence' in American public life is typically a way of accommodating prayer, or of filling the void left by its absence. Our busy society demonstrates its respect by ceasing activity and noise and holding still. Silence is our response when words fail us."

We see these kinds of moments take place on 9/11 every year at the times two towers fell and sometimes we see these pauses at sporting events or at public celebrations on national holidays.

In the same article entitled "Be Still," the editors point us to the Synod of Bishops on the Bible that met in Rome in October. The bishops task was to focus on how God's word should be received in the context of liturgy. The Synod resulted in 55 propositions to the bishop of Rome including "a call for wider 'use of silence' during the liturgy" particularly after the Word is preached.

They go on to say that "this silence... is an important part of the process of receiving, absorbing, and responding to God’s word." And the editorial is careful to remind us that this silence not simply be for the sake of one's own mind; it is to give us time to reflect on how to turn what we have heard into action, to bear fruit. They suggest that our liturgical moment of silence should be modeled on the stunned questioning of the Jews of the diaspora at Pentecost who simply said, "What should we do?"

This is probably where the silence of a church liturgy differs from the silence of an American liturgy. Typically, the moment of silence observed in public life is an external token of appreciation or respect for a deceased person, perhaps including a momentary reflection on one's own mortality. For the church, however, the moment of silence is an internal reckoning with the living Christ.

#216 Books of 2008

Following my albums of 2008 post, here is a list of all the books I read in 2008 ranked from favorite to least favorite. All in all, pretty good year for books with several I can recommend. Maybe I'm getting better at spotting the ones I will like. This year was a busy year for me with the birth of my son so I didn't quite make it to my goal of 24, but it was definitely a most worthy reason to fall short. Once again, suggestions and donations are welcome.

I - Recommended Reading

1. 1984 by George Orwell, 9 out of 10
2. The Law by Frederic Bastiat, 8 out of 10
3. Salvation on Sand Mountain: Snake Handling and Redemption in Southern Appalachia by Dennis Covington, 8 out of 10
4. The Mayor of Casterbridge by Thomas Hardy, 8 out of 10
5. Wilderness Navigation by Bob & Mike Burns, 7 out of 10
6. Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus, 7 out of 10
7. Paul and Palestinian Judaism by E.P. Sanders, 7 out of 10
8. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, 7 out of 10

II - “I’m going to put this out there, if you like it you can keep it, if not you can throw it back”

9. The Church History by Eusebius, 6 out of 10
10. The Light within Us by Albert, Schweitzer, 6 out of 10
11. The Iliad by Homer, 6 out of 10
12. Early Christian Fathers by Various, 6 out of 10
13. On the Incarnation by Athanasius, 6 out of 10
14. The Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan, 6 out of 10
15. The Odyssey by Homer, 6 out of 10
16. The Last Boom by James A. Clark & Michael T. Halbouty, 6 out of 10

III - Not worth the effort you will put in

17. Luckiest Man: The Life and Death of Lou Gehrig by Jonathan Eig, 5 out of 10
18. The Persians by Aescyhlus, 5 out of 10
19. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck, 5 out of 10
20. Medea by Euripides, 5 out of 10
21. The Faiths of the Founding Fathers by David L. Holmes, 4 out of 10
22. The Bacchants by Euripides, 4 out of 10
23. I and Thou by Martin Buber, 1 out of 10

#215 Albums of 2008

These albums didn’t come out in 2008 but this is the list of all the albums I bought or was given in 2008 ranked from favorite to least favorite. All things considered I did some catching up on older music and bands I'd heard things about along with some pretty piss-poor purchases as usual. I didn't really add much music to my collection this year mainly due to lack of money. So here’s my list for this year, and here’s to 2009! Suggestions and donations are welcome. Books of 2008 will be posted after the year ends when I finish my reading.

The Best
Glen Hansard & Marketa Irglova - Once Soundtrack
My Morning Jacket - Evil Urges
Wilco - Kicking Television: Live in Chicago
The Beatles - Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band

Good, Glad I Have, But Could've Done Without
The Beach Boys - Pet Sounds
The Beatles - Abbey Road

I Thought They'd Be Good, But I Won't Listen That Much, If At All
Elliot Smith - From A Basement On The Hill
Wyclef Jean - Carnival Vol II: Memoirs of an Immigrant

#214 The Torture Presidency

Andrew Sullivan has been highlighting different aspects of the newly released bipartisan Levin-McCain reported which just scratches the surface of the disgrace and evil that the Bush administration became in the face of fear. There's nothing wrong with fear itself. There is something wrong when you allow it to destroy your moral compass. Here's a quote:

"My own view is that the American conservative movement's embrace or defense of torture was the moment its intellectual collapse became irrecoverable. When conservatism abandoned core values of American decency in favor of pure force, exemplified by torture techniques designed by Communists and Nazis, then it ceased to be conservative in the sense that Burke or Hayek or Oakeshott or Kirk would begin to understand."

As he points out, the techniques authorized, encouraged, and even ordered by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the gang were originally developed by the Nazis and the Communist Chinese. In fact, the very phrase "enhanced interrogation" is taken from Gestapo guidelines used to interrogate "terrorists, Communists, Marxists, saboteurs, members of the resistance movement, members of the Bible researcher sect, parachute agents, asocial persons, Polish or Soviet persons who refuse to work, and idlers." What is the only thing that all of these groups have in common? They give The State and the citizens thereof reasons for fear. The proposed penalty for the same crime then was death.

The question, as it relates to the lordship of Christ, is where is the church in all this? Why do we only have the ability to call out the evil in and of others, like the Sudanese and Rwandan genocidaires, the Nazis, the homosexuals, lazy welfare recipients, panhandlers and the like? How can we begin to see it in the causes we support?

No end, not national security, not safety, not peace of mind, not success, not the loss of civilization as we know it, not the downfall of America at the hands of anyone justifies us in perpetrating evil, or at the very least indirectly supporting it many layers removed from the crime through voices, votes and standing idly by while our agents commit egregious acts. The church, and when I say church, I mean the individuals within it. Talk to your friends, do the job the media won't and reveal facts. The Senate report, issued with no dissents from the committee members of either party, was ignored by the media but is now public record for anyone who has an ear.

Let's hold Obama's feet to the fire as relentless critics. If he ignores the problem, he is as guilty as the two travelers who passed by the broken man on the road before the arrival of the Samaritan. In a twist on the generally accepted meaning of the parable, I say that the Samaritan is coming and his name is Jesus. Woe to those who pass by evil.

What gives me hope is what gave Albert Schweitzer hope when he wrote:

"At the present time when violence, clothed in life, dominates the world more cruelly that it ever has before, I still remain convinced that truth, love, peaceableness, meekness, and kindness are the violence which can master all other violence. The world will be theirs as soon as ever a sufficient number of men with purity of heart, with strength, and with perseverance think and live out the thoughts of love and truth, of meekness and peaceableness."

-- The Light Within Us, p. 22

I'm not going to link to Andrew because he has been prolific in writing on the subject and one would not capture the scope of what we've turned a blind eye to. Glen Greenwald and Scott Horton have also investigated extensively into the subject.

#213 Schweitzer on Solemnity

While reminiscing about growing up as a preacher's kid and missing hearing his father's sermons, Albert Schweitzer says the following,

"From the services in which I joined as a child I have taken with me into life a feeling for what is solemn, and a need for quiet self-recollection, without which I cannot realize the meaning of my life. I cannot, therefore, support the opinion of those who would not let children take part in grown-up people's services till they to some extent understand them. The important thing is not that they shall understand, but that they shall feel something of what is serious and solemn. The fact that the child sees his elders full of devotion, and has to feel something of their devotion himself, that is what gives the service its meaning for him."

-- Albert Schweitzer, The Light Within Us, p. 5

This feeling of solemnity, quiet, and devotion is why I really appreciate the first ten years of my life that I spent in the Catholic church.

#212 The Church During the Holocaust

.
As the saying goes history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
You might find the following two Wikipedia articles educational and
entertaining about the two wings of the Christian church in 1930s
Germany. I can't help but hear echoes on a small scale in every
generation, including our own.

First read about The German Christians (who were pro-Nazi and came to
power within the German Evangelical Church):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians

Then read The Confessing Church (the voice of opposition to the German
Christians who had taken power within the German Evangelical Church):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessing_Church
.

#211 Interesting Links XXV

Michael Spencer footnotes Matthew 11:28. It's humorous and makes you think at the same time.

Did John Locke (yes, "America's philosopher") anticipate Krister Stendahl and the New Perspective on Paul by more than 300 years? It appears so.

John Hobbins has a suggestion for how to read the book of Proverbs. Hint: Proverbs, and the Bible for that matter, often states things the way they should be, not necessarily the way they are.

Ben Myers has a suggestion for how (not) to preach the parables. An excerpt:

"I still remember my own psychological response to these sermons. First, the parable would be told in all its starkness and simplicity: and I would feel my heart pounding in dread and anticipation at the challenge of Jesus’ words. Then, by the end of the sermon, all my fears would be alleviated – no need for alarm; God’s command isn’t so uncompromising; Jesus really demands nothing of me after all!"

For personal religious reasons, I will not say the Pledge of Allegiance. For other than religious reasons Alex Tabarrok thinks it's creepy. Gene Healy explains why. Further reason why I'll never say it or encourage my children to say it.

Now that I have a beloved son, this picture cracked me up:


An interactive map of U.S. troop levels around the world since 1960. We are pretty much everywhere.

For the record, Andrew Sullivan chronicles the 12 lies of Sarah Palin.

And I quote from the 2008 Republican Party platform:

"We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself."

Heh.

John Cleese of Monty Python fame writes a poem for Sean Hannity.

#210 Luther on Subjecting Ourselves to One Another

"A Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none. A Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all."

-- Martin Luther

#209 Conservatism as...

Conservatism as...

Pessimism/Contentment.

Satire/Cynicism.

Doubt/Skepticism.

#208 The Benedict Option

I've been obsessing a lot lately about what Rod Dreher has called The Benedict Option. Dreher's concept comes from his reading of the last lines in Alasdair MacIntyre's After Virtue. Here are those lines:

"It is always dangerous to draw too precise parallels between one historical period and another; and among the more misleading of such parallels are those which have been drawn between our own age ... and the epoch in which the Roman Empire declined into the Dark Ages. Nonetheless certain parallels there are. ... A crucial turning point in that earlier history occurred when men and women of good will turned aside from the task of shoring up the Roman imperium and ceased to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of that imperium. What they set themselves to achieve - often not recognizing fully what they were doing - was the construction of new forms of community within which the moral life could be sustained so that both morality and civility might survive the coming ages of barbarism and darkness. If my account of our moral condition is correct, we ought also to conclude that for some time now we too have reached that turning point. ... This time, however, the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers, they have already been governing us for quite some time. And it is our lack of consciousness of this that constitutes part of our predicament. We are not waiting for Godot, but for another - and doubtless very different - St. Benedict."

MacIntyre is referring to Benedict of Nursia who was the founder of what we now call the Benedictine monastic order. Dreher's closes his post by asking what it would look like today to take the Benedict option. So I've spent the last week intrigued by the concept and trying to figure out exactly what this would/could look like in my life. And as much as I feel pulled by the idea, I've also been asking myself what the point would be.

Scanning "the internets" using "the google" I've found that it can mean different things to different people. Some people take the agrarian route, a la Wendell Berry. And I also see that the basic concept has been practiced for years, including in the family I grew up in, by making the decision to homeschool. For others it can take the form of a communitarian-libertarianism, a la John Schwenkler. I know that sounds like an oxymoron, but the more you think about it in the context of the Benedict Option, the more it makes sense.

The key points in the MacIntyre quote, and I think key steps in taking the Benedict Option in any age are as follows:

First, Christians realized that moral community did not require maintainence of the empire and that at times, that maintenance actually interfered with the moral community.

Second, these Christians of good will forsook the task of "shoring up the imperium."

Third, these Christians set out to construct new forms of community.

I've already come to the realization in the first step and am now mentally wrestling with the implications taking the second step. It's the third step, the practical step, that's the most difficult for me to picture.