"Since the goal of the virtuous way of life was the very thing we have been seeking, and this goal has been found in what we have said, it is time for you, noble friend, to look at that example and, by transferring to your own life what is contemplated through spiritual interpretation of the things spoken literally, to be known by God and to become his friend. This is true perfection, not to avoid a wicked life because like slaves we servilely fear punishment, nor to do good because we hope for rewards, as if cashing in on the virtuous life by some business-like and contractual arrangement. On the contrary, disregarding all those things for which we hope and which been reserved by promise, we regard falling from God's friendship as the only thing dreadful and we consider becoming God's friend the only thing worthy of honor and desire. This, as I have said, is the perfection of life."
St. Gregory of Nyssa,
The Life of Moses, Book 2, # 320
Monday, March 24, 2008
Why the Super Bowl never gets canceled
The easy answer is this: the Super Bowl is popular.
This is a no-brainer. Any network executive who tried to cancel the telecast of the Super Bowl would be out of a job faster than Eliot Spitzer.
Which leaves us wondering: why did the LCMS radio station KFUO cancel the popular (arguably the best-known and most popular program on the station, and confessionally Lutheran, to boot) program Issues, Etc.?
I don't know why this was done. There are lots of theories floating around, and there's lots of people angry about it.
It's always possible that there are completely benign reasons for this cancellation. But it's an awfully odd combination of circumstances.
Which leads me to a few questions. Questions which need to be answered before actions are taken.
The first is to ask ourselves what the LCMS is. If the LCMS is the church, then we must stick with it no matter what. If the LCMS is not the church (and almost everyone in the LCMS would argue that it's not the church) then the LCMS is nothing more than a tool.
Tools are neither good nor bad. They are just something that we use to accomplish something. A hammer is a tool. A computer is a tool. A car is a tool. And a human association -- such as the LCMS -- is a tool.
If Issues, Etc. was canceled because it was a confessionally Lutheran program, then it's certainly worth fighting for the program. But if this is true, it might also be worth pondering why an individual or pastor should remain in the LCMS.
The LCMS is a tool. It might be a tool we love. It might be a tool we have fond memories of. It might be a tool that worked well in the past. But if the LCMS has come to hinder rather than further the gospel, why would we stay within that fellowship?
A group that cancels a program because the program is confessionally Lutheran is not a confessionally Lutheran church body. I'm not saying this is why the program was canceled; I don't know. But if we find that to be true, confessionals need to realize that they are a minority within a heterodox church group.
Some argue that they will stay until they are kicked out. More power to them. But know for sure that no pastor or congregation will be kicked out. Ever. Confessionals in the LCMS are a minority. An occasionally noisy minority, but a minority nonetheless. And as such, the various factions that make up the majority of the LCMS don't care if confessionals whine sometimes. Just as long as confessionals keep putting money in the pot, the others don't give a rip what we believe.
Leaving the LCMS is not a big deal. It's not leaving the church. In the big scheme of things, it's no different than quitting the Rotary Club. Making an idol out of the LCMS is not only wrong, it's stupid, pointless, and hinders the gospel.
This is a no-brainer. Any network executive who tried to cancel the telecast of the Super Bowl would be out of a job faster than Eliot Spitzer.
Which leaves us wondering: why did the LCMS radio station KFUO cancel the popular (arguably the best-known and most popular program on the station, and confessionally Lutheran, to boot) program Issues, Etc.?
I don't know why this was done. There are lots of theories floating around, and there's lots of people angry about it.
It's always possible that there are completely benign reasons for this cancellation. But it's an awfully odd combination of circumstances.
Which leads me to a few questions. Questions which need to be answered before actions are taken.
The first is to ask ourselves what the LCMS is. If the LCMS is the church, then we must stick with it no matter what. If the LCMS is not the church (and almost everyone in the LCMS would argue that it's not the church) then the LCMS is nothing more than a tool.
Tools are neither good nor bad. They are just something that we use to accomplish something. A hammer is a tool. A computer is a tool. A car is a tool. And a human association -- such as the LCMS -- is a tool.
If Issues, Etc. was canceled because it was a confessionally Lutheran program, then it's certainly worth fighting for the program. But if this is true, it might also be worth pondering why an individual or pastor should remain in the LCMS.
The LCMS is a tool. It might be a tool we love. It might be a tool we have fond memories of. It might be a tool that worked well in the past. But if the LCMS has come to hinder rather than further the gospel, why would we stay within that fellowship?
A group that cancels a program because the program is confessionally Lutheran is not a confessionally Lutheran church body. I'm not saying this is why the program was canceled; I don't know. But if we find that to be true, confessionals need to realize that they are a minority within a heterodox church group.
Some argue that they will stay until they are kicked out. More power to them. But know for sure that no pastor or congregation will be kicked out. Ever. Confessionals in the LCMS are a minority. An occasionally noisy minority, but a minority nonetheless. And as such, the various factions that make up the majority of the LCMS don't care if confessionals whine sometimes. Just as long as confessionals keep putting money in the pot, the others don't give a rip what we believe.
Leaving the LCMS is not a big deal. It's not leaving the church. In the big scheme of things, it's no different than quitting the Rotary Club. Making an idol out of the LCMS is not only wrong, it's stupid, pointless, and hinders the gospel.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Ascension Day hymns
A few years ago, I was listening to a lecture by the late Pastor Kenneth Korby. In the course of talking about confession and absolution, he mentioned something that has intrigued ever since: the downgrading of Ascension day in our lives.
He used the example of the ever-decreasing number of Ascension day hymns in LCMS hymnals.
There are 12 Ascension day hymns in The Lutheran Hymnal.
In the 1982 Lutheran Worship, there are 6.
In Lutheran Service Book, there are 5.
I'm not sure what this means. I suspect it's related to the post-Vatican II changes that occurred in the Roman churches (quickly picked up by most Lutheran church bodies) which changed the season of Easter. Easter used to extend the 40 days from Easter Sunday to Ascension. Now the Easter season is officially 50 days in most Western churches, from Easter Sunday to Pentecost.
This changes Ascension from being the end of a season to being a place in the season, a sort of speed bump on the way to Pentecost.
But I wonder if this whole change tells us something more profound about the way we think about Christ. Ascension to the early Christians was a realization that we live by faith, not by sight, that Christ is no longer among us as a visible-to-the-eyes presence, but that we trust in Him by faith, and that we hear Him, rather than seeing Him.
Has that changed? Have we subtly (in the West) moved to a more triumphal type of faith, a Pentecost faith, rather than an Ascension faith? I'm not sure. I'd appreciate any insights from those more learned than myself.
But the changes in the hymnal are not accidental. They signal something to us. What they signal, I'm not totally certain. But there is a change. The change may be benign. But it's important to recognize the change, and understand it, and not follow blindly to what is perhaps a newer theology than we realize.
He used the example of the ever-decreasing number of Ascension day hymns in LCMS hymnals.
There are 12 Ascension day hymns in The Lutheran Hymnal.
In the 1982 Lutheran Worship, there are 6.
In Lutheran Service Book, there are 5.
I'm not sure what this means. I suspect it's related to the post-Vatican II changes that occurred in the Roman churches (quickly picked up by most Lutheran church bodies) which changed the season of Easter. Easter used to extend the 40 days from Easter Sunday to Ascension. Now the Easter season is officially 50 days in most Western churches, from Easter Sunday to Pentecost.
This changes Ascension from being the end of a season to being a place in the season, a sort of speed bump on the way to Pentecost.
But I wonder if this whole change tells us something more profound about the way we think about Christ. Ascension to the early Christians was a realization that we live by faith, not by sight, that Christ is no longer among us as a visible-to-the-eyes presence, but that we trust in Him by faith, and that we hear Him, rather than seeing Him.
Has that changed? Have we subtly (in the West) moved to a more triumphal type of faith, a Pentecost faith, rather than an Ascension faith? I'm not sure. I'd appreciate any insights from those more learned than myself.
But the changes in the hymnal are not accidental. They signal something to us. What they signal, I'm not totally certain. But there is a change. The change may be benign. But it's important to recognize the change, and understand it, and not follow blindly to what is perhaps a newer theology than we realize.
Holy Saturday
On this day, we quietly remember Christ in the tomb.
We, too, will lie in the tomb. It is a sobering thought to remember that in the midst of all our doings, in the midst of all our work, in the midst of all our trials, that it will end in a grave.
But the grave is not the end. And that is the message of Easter, of course, which we anticipate tomorrow in the midst of remembering our Savior lying in the tomb.
We wait in faith for the Resurrection. The disciples who mourned the death of Jesus almost 2,000 years ago waited in faith, as well. He had promised them that He would rise on the third day.
We know that He rose. What we are sometimes tempted to doubt is whether we will rise. Whether the grave is our end. It is not. Christ rose, the first fruits of all of creation. We will lie in the grave. But it is not the end.
We, too, will lie in the tomb. It is a sobering thought to remember that in the midst of all our doings, in the midst of all our work, in the midst of all our trials, that it will end in a grave.
But the grave is not the end. And that is the message of Easter, of course, which we anticipate tomorrow in the midst of remembering our Savior lying in the tomb.
We wait in faith for the Resurrection. The disciples who mourned the death of Jesus almost 2,000 years ago waited in faith, as well. He had promised them that He would rise on the third day.
We know that He rose. What we are sometimes tempted to doubt is whether we will rise. Whether the grave is our end. It is not. Christ rose, the first fruits of all of creation. We will lie in the grave. But it is not the end.
Friday, March 21, 2008
How John McCain threatens the pro-life cause
Given that Sen. John McCain is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, conservatives, constitutionalists and pro-lifers are given a dismal choice in November. The probable nominee for the Democratic party is Sen. Barack Obama, who is unashamedly pro-abortion. What is not being talked about in conservative circles is that so is John McCain. I would not presume to suggest how people should vote under these circumstances, but given that the McCain campaign will be trying to persuade people that John McCain is pro-life, the following article bears re-reading.
This is not new: it was originally published in 2000, in response to John McCain's campaign that year. But nothing of substance has changed. John McCain is pro-abortion. Pro-life voters who delude themselves into thinking that McCain is their man will find themselves shocked at what would come out of the White House in the unlikely event of a McCain victory.
By Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee
"(February 20, 2000) — The presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain (R-Az.) has posed a significant threat to future advances by the pro-life movement.
Earlier this month, the Board of Directors of the National Right to Life Committee — made up of an elected delegate from each state NRLC affiliate — overwhelmingly voted to endorse George W. Bush. That vote recognized Bush's strong pro-life credentials. It also reflected the recognition among many knowledgeable observers that if elected president, McCain would be unlikely to use the office's powers to advance the pro-life cause.
In earlier stages of his presidential campaign, McCain made little effort to conceal his disrespect for the pro-life movement. For example, during an appearance on the Don Imus radio show on November 23, McCain referred disparagingly to "otherwise intelligent people who say that that's the only issue that will determine their vote."
But after his victory in the New Hampshire primary on February 1, McCain began working hard to appeal to pro-life voters in South Carolina and other states.
In response to criticism from NRLC and its affiliates, McCain has relied on two main defenses. First, he declares that his "17-year voting record" in Congress proves that he is "pro-life." Second, he charges that NRLC's criticisms are motivated entirely by opposition to his so-called "campaign finance reform" proposals" — a bill that, as McCain characterizes it, would hurt NRLC's "business." This second defense is basically a diversionary tactic, intended to evade close scrutiny of the inadequacies of McCain's pro-life positions.
Roe v. Wade
McCain joined the House in 1983, and became a senator in 1987. During his 17 years in Congress, McCain has usually voted anti-abortion — but for a presidential candidate, that is not the only important data. After all, Al Gore had an 84% pro-life voting record as a member of the House of Representatives (1977-84), but he embraced the entire pro-abortion agenda once he reached the Senate and began to run for president. John McCain is not Al Gore — but the clearest warnings about what a McCain presidency might entail are found in things that McCain has said and done over the past year, since he started running for President in earnest.
One example is what McCain said when he met with the editorial board of the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle on August 19, 1999:
"I'd love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
This was no more mere inartful wording. Rather, McCain actually offered a rationale for opposing repeal of Roe — that it would "force" many women to have dangerous illegal abortions. This, of course, is a very familiar argument, voiced often by politicians who support the continuation of legal abortion. In short, McCain embraced the "necessary evil" thinking of the pro-abortion movement.
When ABC's Sam Donaldson recently asked McCain about his statement to the Chronicle, McCain said that he "misspoke." But McCain has yet to explain why he argued as he did to the newspaper's editors. Did he believe what he said? And if he did, has he changed his mind, and if so, why?
On the January 18 Jane Chastain's radio show, Cyndi Mosteller, who serves as "National Policy Advisor for Family & Cultural Issues" for the McCain campaign, was asked about McCain's statement to the Chronicle. Mosteller replied that McCain had "made a mistake" under hard questioning by the newspaper editors. "They ate his lunch," she said, adding, "They were getting on him. And he said [to Mosteller], 'I was not strong when I needed to be strong.'"
In reality, however, McCain repeated similar arguments in at least three other interviews. At a campaign event, he said, "I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, because doing so would endanger the lives of women," World magazine reported on August 21. In a written release dated August 22, McCain said, "If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations." And on Cable News Network on August 22, McCain said, "We all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe versus Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."
McCain also wrote, "I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro- choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country." [emphasis added]
These statements tracked the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement. The pro-life movement does not believe that there is a "need" to kill unborn children, or that restoring legal protection to unborn children will "force" anyone to violate the law.
In more recent utterances, including appearances in South Carolina, McCain has said that he favors the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and that he believes that states ought to make abortion illegal (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But pro-lifers would be foolish to ignore the evidence of McCain's real inner thinking provided by his earlier statements. It is noteworthy that during McCain's 17 years in Congress, he never had an opportunity to vote on Roe v. Wade until October 21, 1999, when the Senate voted on a resolution-style amendment by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v. Wade. McCain skipped the vote to make an extra campaign appearance in New Hampshire, as documented in a local newspaper. The amendment passed narrowly.
Others Agree
NRLC is hardly alone in recognizing that Bush and McCain would handle the abortion issue very differently as president. Bush has been endorsed by the most prominent pro-life leaders in Congress, including Congressman Henry Hyde, Congressman Chris Smith, and Congressman Charles Canady. "I'm convinced of Gov. Bush's commitment to the pro-life cause," said Hyde, who has criticized McCain for advocating weakening of the Republican Party's pro-life platform plank.
Pro-abortion leaders also see a big difference. Following McCain's win in the New Hampshire primary, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition said that based on exit polls, "pro-choice Republicans overwhelmingly preferred McCain above all the other candidates."
Moreover, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) funded TV ads in New Hampshire attacking Bush for nearly a year before the New Hampshire primary, but never a single ad criticizing McCain.
McCain Winks on Abortion
A revealing observation was made on February 8 by Steven Brill, editor of the magazine Brill's Content, which covers the news media.
Speaking on the Fox News Channel program "The Edge", Brill said two reporters covering the McCain campaign told him, 'You know, he really doesn't feel that strongly about abortion and about — he isn't really as pro-gun as he lets on in the campaign. He has to do that because it's a Republican primary, but he's kind of let us know that he's not that hard-edged on those subjects.'"
Brill went on, "The point I'm making is that he was given permission, at least by these two guys [journalists], to pander. One of them actually said, 'At least when McCain panders he sort of lets us know he's doing it, and he kind of winks and kind of enjoys it, so he's a good guy.' Well, he's not letting the rest of the country know he's pandering."
In the same vein, liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote on December 15, "McCain's people whisper, Don't worry. He's not really so anti-abortion."
Voting Record
McCain served in the House of Representatives from 1983-86 and in the Senate from 1987 to date. Throughout that period, McCain did not initiate pro-life amendments or otherwise take an activist role, but he did vote pro-life with a few exceptions. The most important exception was on the issue of federal funding of experimentation using body parts of aborted babies.
This question — usually referred to in the press as the "fetal tissue" issue — became a matter of major controversy during the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration blocked the use of federal funds for certain experimentation utilizing tissue taken from aborted babies.
In a January 7, 1992 letter to Arizona Right to Life, McCain promised to support President Bush's ban on federal funding of such abortion- dependent research. "I have no intention of supporting the use of fetal tissue resulting from artificially-induced abortions for research purposes," McCain wrote.
A few months later, however, McCain began voting to overturn Bush's pro-life policy — a drive that succeeded after President Clinton took office.
The issue surfaced again in 1997, during consideration of a bill to expand federally sponsored research into Parkinson's disease, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.). Pro-life Senator Dan Coats (R- In.) offered an amendment to prevent the use of the newly authorized funds for abortion-dependent fetal tissue research, but McCain prevailed in defeating the amendment, 60-35. (Sept. 4, 1997, Senate rollcall Vote No. 215.) Recently, McCain has falsely implied that only four senators disagreed with his position on the issue.
[A detailed memorandum documenting McCain's statements and votes on the fetal-tissue issue is available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/McCainrecordbodyparts.html]
Warren Rudman
On January 15, McCain said that if elected president, he might appoint former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) — his close advisor and the co- chairman of the national McCain campaign — as U.S. attorney general. As a senator, Rudman voted to preserve Roe v. Wade, and was an active opponent of other pro-life efforts legislative efforts.
The attorney general is the cabinet officer who most often serves as a president's key advisor on Supreme Court appointments, and who oversees the positions taken by an administration on issues before the Supreme Court.
Rudman voted to confirm anti-Roe v. Wade Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, but later wrote in his 1996 memoirs, "If my vote had been the deciding one, I would have voted against Thomas, no matter what the consequences."
Rudman has been harshly critical of the pro-life movement and of Christian conservatives. He wrote, "If someone had told me in the 1960s that one day I would serve in a Republican Party that opposed abortion rights — which the Supreme Court had endorsed — advocated prayer in the schools, and talked about government-inspired 'family values,' I would have thought he was crazy."
Also, "Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right" — a group that he identified as rife with "antiabortion zealots" and "bigots," among other undesirables.
In a February 15 debate in South Carolina, Bush confronted McCain regarding Rudman, noting that Rudman had described the Christian Coalition as "bigots." Bush asked McCain, "I know you don't believe that, do you?" But McCain refused the invitation to repudiate Rudman's words, responding instead, "George, he's entitled to his opinion on that issue."
Moderator Larry King also invited McCain to "disclaim what Rudman said," but McCain did not respond.
Subsequently, Rudman told Manchester Union-Leader reporter John DiStaso that "he most certainly did call the Christian Coalition bigots," and "he included leaders of other conservative groups in the description, to boot." (Union-Leader, Sept. 17)
When, in the February 15 debate, Bush said that "every child, born and unborn, should be protected in law," McCain immediately attacked Bush for his opposition to adding exceptions for rape and incest to the pro-life plank in the Republican platform.
Free Speech About Political Figures
NRLC has certainly made no secret of its strong opposition to certain key components of McCain's "campaign finance reform" proposals, which would cripple the ability of NRLC and other pro-life groups to communicate with the public about the positions and actions of those who hold or seek federal office.
In some recent communications, McCain has emphasized that the latest version of his bill, introduced last October, did not contain the provisions restricting commentary on politicians by issue-oriented groups such as NRLC. However, at the time McCain made it clear that he was proposing a "stripped-down " bill only for tactical reasons, to try to overcome a filibuster for bill opponents — not because he'd changed his mind. Indeed, when Senate Democrats forced a vote on the House-passed Shays-Meehan bill which contains sweeping restrictions on political free speech by independent groups McCain voted for it. (Oct. 19, 1999)
As recently as December 22, McCain told the Associated Press, 'If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads.'"
This is not new: it was originally published in 2000, in response to John McCain's campaign that year. But nothing of substance has changed. John McCain is pro-abortion. Pro-life voters who delude themselves into thinking that McCain is their man will find themselves shocked at what would come out of the White House in the unlikely event of a McCain victory.
By Douglas Johnson, Legislative Director, National Right to Life Committee
"(February 20, 2000) — The presidential candidacy of Senator John McCain (R-Az.) has posed a significant threat to future advances by the pro-life movement.
Earlier this month, the Board of Directors of the National Right to Life Committee — made up of an elected delegate from each state NRLC affiliate — overwhelmingly voted to endorse George W. Bush. That vote recognized Bush's strong pro-life credentials. It also reflected the recognition among many knowledgeable observers that if elected president, McCain would be unlikely to use the office's powers to advance the pro-life cause.
In earlier stages of his presidential campaign, McCain made little effort to conceal his disrespect for the pro-life movement. For example, during an appearance on the Don Imus radio show on November 23, McCain referred disparagingly to "otherwise intelligent people who say that that's the only issue that will determine their vote."
But after his victory in the New Hampshire primary on February 1, McCain began working hard to appeal to pro-life voters in South Carolina and other states.
In response to criticism from NRLC and its affiliates, McCain has relied on two main defenses. First, he declares that his "17-year voting record" in Congress proves that he is "pro-life." Second, he charges that NRLC's criticisms are motivated entirely by opposition to his so-called "campaign finance reform" proposals" — a bill that, as McCain characterizes it, would hurt NRLC's "business." This second defense is basically a diversionary tactic, intended to evade close scrutiny of the inadequacies of McCain's pro-life positions.
Roe v. Wade
McCain joined the House in 1983, and became a senator in 1987. During his 17 years in Congress, McCain has usually voted anti-abortion — but for a presidential candidate, that is not the only important data. After all, Al Gore had an 84% pro-life voting record as a member of the House of Representatives (1977-84), but he embraced the entire pro-abortion agenda once he reached the Senate and began to run for president. John McCain is not Al Gore — but the clearest warnings about what a McCain presidency might entail are found in things that McCain has said and done over the past year, since he started running for President in earnest.
One example is what McCain said when he met with the editorial board of the very liberal San Francisco Chronicle on August 19, 1999:
"I'd love to see a point where it (Roe v. Wade) is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
This was no more mere inartful wording. Rather, McCain actually offered a rationale for opposing repeal of Roe — that it would "force" many women to have dangerous illegal abortions. This, of course, is a very familiar argument, voiced often by politicians who support the continuation of legal abortion. In short, McCain embraced the "necessary evil" thinking of the pro-abortion movement.
When ABC's Sam Donaldson recently asked McCain about his statement to the Chronicle, McCain said that he "misspoke." But McCain has yet to explain why he argued as he did to the newspaper's editors. Did he believe what he said? And if he did, has he changed his mind, and if so, why?
On the January 18 Jane Chastain's radio show, Cyndi Mosteller, who serves as "National Policy Advisor for Family & Cultural Issues" for the McCain campaign, was asked about McCain's statement to the Chronicle. Mosteller replied that McCain had "made a mistake" under hard questioning by the newspaper editors. "They ate his lunch," she said, adding, "They were getting on him. And he said [to Mosteller], 'I was not strong when I needed to be strong.'"
In reality, however, McCain repeated similar arguments in at least three other interviews. At a campaign event, he said, "I would not seek to overturn Roe v. Wade tomorrow, because doing so would endanger the lives of women," World magazine reported on August 21. In a written release dated August 22, McCain said, "If Roe v. Wade were repealed tomorrow, it would force thousands of young women to undergo dangerous and illegal operations." And on Cable News Network on August 22, McCain said, "We all know, and it's obvious, that if we repeal Roe versus Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women would be performing illegal and dangerous operations."
McCain also wrote, "I will continue to work with both pro-life and pro- choice Americans so that we can eliminate the need for abortions to be performed in this country." [emphasis added]
These statements tracked the rhetoric of the pro-abortion movement. The pro-life movement does not believe that there is a "need" to kill unborn children, or that restoring legal protection to unborn children will "force" anyone to violate the law.
In more recent utterances, including appearances in South Carolina, McCain has said that he favors the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and that he believes that states ought to make abortion illegal (except to save the life of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest). But pro-lifers would be foolish to ignore the evidence of McCain's real inner thinking provided by his earlier statements. It is noteworthy that during McCain's 17 years in Congress, he never had an opportunity to vote on Roe v. Wade until October 21, 1999, when the Senate voted on a resolution-style amendment by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to endorse Roe v. Wade. McCain skipped the vote to make an extra campaign appearance in New Hampshire, as documented in a local newspaper. The amendment passed narrowly.
Others Agree
NRLC is hardly alone in recognizing that Bush and McCain would handle the abortion issue very differently as president. Bush has been endorsed by the most prominent pro-life leaders in Congress, including Congressman Henry Hyde, Congressman Chris Smith, and Congressman Charles Canady. "I'm convinced of Gov. Bush's commitment to the pro-life cause," said Hyde, who has criticized McCain for advocating weakening of the Republican Party's pro-life platform plank.
Pro-abortion leaders also see a big difference. Following McCain's win in the New Hampshire primary, the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition said that based on exit polls, "pro-choice Republicans overwhelmingly preferred McCain above all the other candidates."
Moreover, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL) funded TV ads in New Hampshire attacking Bush for nearly a year before the New Hampshire primary, but never a single ad criticizing McCain.
McCain Winks on Abortion
A revealing observation was made on February 8 by Steven Brill, editor of the magazine Brill's Content, which covers the news media.
Speaking on the Fox News Channel program "The Edge", Brill said two reporters covering the McCain campaign told him, 'You know, he really doesn't feel that strongly about abortion and about — he isn't really as pro-gun as he lets on in the campaign. He has to do that because it's a Republican primary, but he's kind of let us know that he's not that hard-edged on those subjects.'"
Brill went on, "The point I'm making is that he was given permission, at least by these two guys [journalists], to pander. One of them actually said, 'At least when McCain panders he sort of lets us know he's doing it, and he kind of winks and kind of enjoys it, so he's a good guy.' Well, he's not letting the rest of the country know he's pandering."
In the same vein, liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen wrote on December 15, "McCain's people whisper, Don't worry. He's not really so anti-abortion."
Voting Record
McCain served in the House of Representatives from 1983-86 and in the Senate from 1987 to date. Throughout that period, McCain did not initiate pro-life amendments or otherwise take an activist role, but he did vote pro-life with a few exceptions. The most important exception was on the issue of federal funding of experimentation using body parts of aborted babies.
This question — usually referred to in the press as the "fetal tissue" issue — became a matter of major controversy during the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration blocked the use of federal funds for certain experimentation utilizing tissue taken from aborted babies.
In a January 7, 1992 letter to Arizona Right to Life, McCain promised to support President Bush's ban on federal funding of such abortion- dependent research. "I have no intention of supporting the use of fetal tissue resulting from artificially-induced abortions for research purposes," McCain wrote.
A few months later, however, McCain began voting to overturn Bush's pro-life policy — a drive that succeeded after President Clinton took office.
The issue surfaced again in 1997, during consideration of a bill to expand federally sponsored research into Parkinson's disease, sponsored by McCain and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Mn.). Pro-life Senator Dan Coats (R- In.) offered an amendment to prevent the use of the newly authorized funds for abortion-dependent fetal tissue research, but McCain prevailed in defeating the amendment, 60-35. (Sept. 4, 1997, Senate rollcall Vote No. 215.) Recently, McCain has falsely implied that only four senators disagreed with his position on the issue.
[A detailed memorandum documenting McCain's statements and votes on the fetal-tissue issue is available at www.nrlc.org/Whatsnew/McCainrecordbodyparts.html]
Warren Rudman
On January 15, McCain said that if elected president, he might appoint former Senator Warren Rudman (R-NH) — his close advisor and the co- chairman of the national McCain campaign — as U.S. attorney general. As a senator, Rudman voted to preserve Roe v. Wade, and was an active opponent of other pro-life efforts legislative efforts.
The attorney general is the cabinet officer who most often serves as a president's key advisor on Supreme Court appointments, and who oversees the positions taken by an administration on issues before the Supreme Court.
Rudman voted to confirm anti-Roe v. Wade Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, but later wrote in his 1996 memoirs, "If my vote had been the deciding one, I would have voted against Thomas, no matter what the consequences."
Rudman has been harshly critical of the pro-life movement and of Christian conservatives. He wrote, "If someone had told me in the 1960s that one day I would serve in a Republican Party that opposed abortion rights — which the Supreme Court had endorsed — advocated prayer in the schools, and talked about government-inspired 'family values,' I would have thought he was crazy."
Also, "Politically speaking, the Republican Party is making a terrible mistake if it appears to ally itself with the Christian right" — a group that he identified as rife with "antiabortion zealots" and "bigots," among other undesirables.
In a February 15 debate in South Carolina, Bush confronted McCain regarding Rudman, noting that Rudman had described the Christian Coalition as "bigots." Bush asked McCain, "I know you don't believe that, do you?" But McCain refused the invitation to repudiate Rudman's words, responding instead, "George, he's entitled to his opinion on that issue."
Moderator Larry King also invited McCain to "disclaim what Rudman said," but McCain did not respond.
Subsequently, Rudman told Manchester Union-Leader reporter John DiStaso that "he most certainly did call the Christian Coalition bigots," and "he included leaders of other conservative groups in the description, to boot." (Union-Leader, Sept. 17)
When, in the February 15 debate, Bush said that "every child, born and unborn, should be protected in law," McCain immediately attacked Bush for his opposition to adding exceptions for rape and incest to the pro-life plank in the Republican platform.
Free Speech About Political Figures
NRLC has certainly made no secret of its strong opposition to certain key components of McCain's "campaign finance reform" proposals, which would cripple the ability of NRLC and other pro-life groups to communicate with the public about the positions and actions of those who hold or seek federal office.
In some recent communications, McCain has emphasized that the latest version of his bill, introduced last October, did not contain the provisions restricting commentary on politicians by issue-oriented groups such as NRLC. However, at the time McCain made it clear that he was proposing a "stripped-down " bill only for tactical reasons, to try to overcome a filibuster for bill opponents — not because he'd changed his mind. Indeed, when Senate Democrats forced a vote on the House-passed Shays-Meehan bill which contains sweeping restrictions on political free speech by independent groups McCain voted for it. (Oct. 19, 1999)
As recently as December 22, McCain told the Associated Press, 'If I could think of a way constitutionally, I would ban negative ads.'"
Judging candidates by their church
First, a caveat: even though I'm dealing with an issue around Sen. Barack Obama, this is not about electoral politics.
What I am seeking to explore is the nature of public forgiveness, acceptance, and renunciation.
Sen. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago. Trinity is a congregation of the UCC, and proclaims that it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian." The congregation's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has come under attack in recent days for various public statements he has made. He has equated Zionism as racism. He charged that the 9/11 events were caused by America's violent policies, and later charged that the events were retribution for America's racism. He has also charged that the AIDS syndrome is a man-made affliction, specifically that it is caused by a virus which was invented by the US government.
Sen. Obama has made what I think is a good speech on the question of race in America. In that speech, he spoke about Pastor Wright's assertions and said that Wright represented an older generation's views on race in America. Obama went on to say that he while he disavowed Wright's statements, he could no more sever his relationship with Wright than he could sever his relationship with black America.
I'm going to suspect that Sen. Obama views Wright as a spiritual father. It was Wright who led Obama to his Christian faith, and Wright who married Barack and Michelle Obama. He baptized Sen. Obama's 2 children.
Given this history, we are wrong to demand that Sen. Obama denounce Pastor Wright. We may disagree with Wright's assertions -- Sen. Obama says he often does -- but I think that most white Americans operate on a different plane as far as churchly relationships. Black Americans -- probably because of a shared history of dealing with the consequences of slavery in America -- tend to operate on a more laissez-faire level of acceptance of differences and even eccentricity. I think that sometimes this brings a more ready forgiveness.
But I also suspect that Sen. Obama sees no need to forgive Wright. I suspect he views him as a sometimes flawed individual who is nevertheless his spiritual father. And given Sen. Obama's complicated physical father, we might cut the senator a bit of slack.
The US Constitution provides that no "religious test" may be required of a candidate. Which doesn't mean that we as individual voters can't prefer one or another variety of religious expression in those we vote for. But politics is complicated. Religious faith is complicated, too. And sometimes individuals belong to a church group which doesn't fully express their own faith. I don't know if this is the case with Sen. Obama. But the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's relationship with Barack Obama may be more complicated than the network sound bites would lead us to believe.
What I am seeking to explore is the nature of public forgiveness, acceptance, and renunciation.
Sen. Obama is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago. Trinity is a congregation of the UCC, and proclaims that it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian." The congregation's pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has come under attack in recent days for various public statements he has made. He has equated Zionism as racism. He charged that the 9/11 events were caused by America's violent policies, and later charged that the events were retribution for America's racism. He has also charged that the AIDS syndrome is a man-made affliction, specifically that it is caused by a virus which was invented by the US government.
Sen. Obama has made what I think is a good speech on the question of race in America. In that speech, he spoke about Pastor Wright's assertions and said that Wright represented an older generation's views on race in America. Obama went on to say that he while he disavowed Wright's statements, he could no more sever his relationship with Wright than he could sever his relationship with black America.
I'm going to suspect that Sen. Obama views Wright as a spiritual father. It was Wright who led Obama to his Christian faith, and Wright who married Barack and Michelle Obama. He baptized Sen. Obama's 2 children.
Given this history, we are wrong to demand that Sen. Obama denounce Pastor Wright. We may disagree with Wright's assertions -- Sen. Obama says he often does -- but I think that most white Americans operate on a different plane as far as churchly relationships. Black Americans -- probably because of a shared history of dealing with the consequences of slavery in America -- tend to operate on a more laissez-faire level of acceptance of differences and even eccentricity. I think that sometimes this brings a more ready forgiveness.
But I also suspect that Sen. Obama sees no need to forgive Wright. I suspect he views him as a sometimes flawed individual who is nevertheless his spiritual father. And given Sen. Obama's complicated physical father, we might cut the senator a bit of slack.
The US Constitution provides that no "religious test" may be required of a candidate. Which doesn't mean that we as individual voters can't prefer one or another variety of religious expression in those we vote for. But politics is complicated. Religious faith is complicated, too. And sometimes individuals belong to a church group which doesn't fully express their own faith. I don't know if this is the case with Sen. Obama. But the issue of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's relationship with Barack Obama may be more complicated than the network sound bites would lead us to believe.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Amazon review: Origen: An Exortation to Martyrdom, Prayer, and Selected Works
"Origen is not an easy thinker. Condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council for his differing views on the resurrection, the pre-existence of souls, and universalism, he was heavily influenced by Platonic and gnostic thought. However, his views were influential in the early church (anyone who has been condemned by an ecumenical council has certainly had influence) and he and his views likewise offer insights into a transitional period in the early church.
Since Origen is not easy to grasp, the preface and introduction in this volume are helpful for understanding what follows. The introduction is concise, well-written, and easy to follow.
Some volumes of early Fathers are daunting because the translation is less than helpful. This is not true for this volume. The English is well-turned out, easy to read, and clear.
Finally, the selection of works (An Exhortation to Martyrdom, On Prayer, On First Principles, Book IV, Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs, and Homily XXVII on Numbers) gives a good overview for the beginner. I am certainly a beginner, having never read any of Origen's works, but I felt that this volume gave me a beginning in understanding Origen's thought, influence, and life."
Since Origen is not easy to grasp, the preface and introduction in this volume are helpful for understanding what follows. The introduction is concise, well-written, and easy to follow.
Some volumes of early Fathers are daunting because the translation is less than helpful. This is not true for this volume. The English is well-turned out, easy to read, and clear.
Finally, the selection of works (An Exhortation to Martyrdom, On Prayer, On First Principles, Book IV, Prologue to the Commentary on the Song of Songs, and Homily XXVII on Numbers) gives a good overview for the beginner. I am certainly a beginner, having never read any of Origen's works, but I felt that this volume gave me a beginning in understanding Origen's thought, influence, and life."
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The nature of faith
"Faith which is based on something clearly evident is not faith; but faith believes
the possible in the impossible,
strength in weakness,
greatness in poverty."
St. Athanasius, Contra Apollinarem
the possible in the impossible,
strength in weakness,
greatness in poverty."
St. Athanasius, Contra Apollinarem
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Understanding passages that seem obscure
"Now we have made all these points first by way of a preface so as to stir up your minds, since the passage we have in hand is one that is hard to understand and seems unnecessary to read. But we cannot say of the Holy Spirit's writings that there is anything useless or unnecessary in them, however much they appear obscure to some. What we ought rather to do is to turn they eyes of our mind toward Him who ordered this to be written and to ask of Him their meaning. We must do this so that if there is weakness in our soul, He who heals all its infirmities (Ps. 103:3) may heal us, or so that if we are children in understanding, the Lord may be with us guarding His children and may nourish us and add to the measure of our age (cf. Eph. 4:13). For it is in our power to be able to attain both health from weakness and manhood from childhood. It is, then, our part to ask this of God. And it is God's to give to those who ask and to open to those who knock (cf. Mt. 7:7). Let this be enough by way of introduction."
Origen, Homily 27 on Numbers
Origen, Homily 27 on Numbers
Monday, March 10, 2008
Ignoring the hard Psalms
The question comes up as to why the entire psalter is not found in the LSB. (The entirety isn't found in the LW or the TLH, either).
The quick answer is that some of the Psalms are not used in the propers for any days, and so they aren't "needed," in that sense of the word.
What I would very much like to see is a fuller exploration of the Psalms in the praying life of the church. When they aren't in a worship book, it's a guarantee that those Psalms not printed won't be used. Most of us are lazy. If the Psalm isn't printed, we won't go to the bother of working it into a prayer life.
I'm troubled that those not appointed (and not printed) tend to be the more troublesome of the Psalms, especially the imprecatories. Psalm 83 is a good example.
1 Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God.
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.
3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.
4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:
6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes;
7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.
9 Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison:
10 Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna:
12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.
13 O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.
14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire;
15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.
16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
Most of us have trouble reading that -- much less praying it -- without gulping. But this is one of those hard passages of scripture that we need to deal with, wrestle with, "understand" (in the old sense of standing under it, of learning from it) it. If we are content to ignore portions of God's word, our understanding of God's revelation will be truncated. What's more, our ignoring the hard passages often indicates an insufficient appreciation of the reality of evil, and a mental inability of dealing with evil, especially with regard to our prayers.
God is love, and that God Who is love is likewise completely realistic about sin and the horror it has brought upon us. The hard Psalms tell us about that. We are the worse off for ignoring what they tell our Father.
The quick answer is that some of the Psalms are not used in the propers for any days, and so they aren't "needed," in that sense of the word.
What I would very much like to see is a fuller exploration of the Psalms in the praying life of the church. When they aren't in a worship book, it's a guarantee that those Psalms not printed won't be used. Most of us are lazy. If the Psalm isn't printed, we won't go to the bother of working it into a prayer life.
I'm troubled that those not appointed (and not printed) tend to be the more troublesome of the Psalms, especially the imprecatories. Psalm 83 is a good example.
1 Keep not thou silence, O God: hold not thy peace, and be not still, O God.
2 For, lo, thine enemies make a tumult: and they that hate thee have lifted up the head.
3 They have taken crafty counsel against thy people, and consulted against thy hidden ones.
4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
5 For they have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:
6 The tabernacles of Edom, and the Ishmaelites; of Moab, and the Hagarenes;
7 Gebal, and Ammon, and Amalek; the Philistines with the inhabitants of Tyre;
8 Assur also is joined with them: they have holpen the children of Lot. Selah.
9 Do unto them as unto the Midianites; as to Sisera, as to Jabin, at the brook of Kison:
10 Which perished at Endor: they became as dung for the earth.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb, and like Zeeb: yea, all their princes as Zebah, and as Zalmunna:
12 Who said, Let us take to ourselves the houses of God in possession.
13 O my God, make them like a wheel; as the stubble before the wind.
14 As the fire burneth a wood, and as the flame setteth the mountains on fire;
15 So persecute them with thy tempest, and make them afraid with thy storm.
16 Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD.
17 Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish:
18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
Most of us have trouble reading that -- much less praying it -- without gulping. But this is one of those hard passages of scripture that we need to deal with, wrestle with, "understand" (in the old sense of standing under it, of learning from it) it. If we are content to ignore portions of God's word, our understanding of God's revelation will be truncated. What's more, our ignoring the hard passages often indicates an insufficient appreciation of the reality of evil, and a mental inability of dealing with evil, especially with regard to our prayers.
God is love, and that God Who is love is likewise completely realistic about sin and the horror it has brought upon us. The hard Psalms tell us about that. We are the worse off for ignoring what they tell our Father.
No time to think: leisure, thinking, and the information age
From Google Tech Talks, an important discussion about the role of true leisure with thinking and learning and growing.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The fulfilling of the Law
"Suppose, for example, a woman burns with love for a certain man and desires to be taken as his wife. Will she not do everything and rule all her emotions in such a way that she may learn how to please the one she affectionately loves, lest perhaps if she acts in anything against his will, that excellent man might refuse her as his wife and scorn her? Could that woman, who burns with her love of that man with all her heart, all her soul, and all her strength, commit either adultery when she knew he loved chastity, or murder when she knew he was gentle, or theft when she knew that generosity pleased him or desire anything else when she had all her desires bound up with her love of that man? This, then, is how in the perfection of loving affection every commandment is said to be summed up and the meaning of the Law and the prophets to depend upon it."
Origen
Commentary on the Song of Songs
Origen
Commentary on the Song of Songs
A psalm for a sudden and unexpected death
2 of my daughters are students at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. On March 5, the student body president, Eve Carson, was suddenly and violently killed. My daughters were obviously grieving, and thousands of others on that campus shared that grief.
When death comes, we grieve, we are numbed, and we often feel that we have no words for prayer. This is the beauty of the prayers given to us, both in the Bible, and by the Church.
Psalm 130 is one such appropriate prayer for such a time. Usually entitled De Profundis (Latin for the opening words of the Psalm, "out of the depths") this is a psalm for those times when words fail, and when we rely on the intercession of the Holy Spirit for things that cannot be spoken:
1 Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD.
2 Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.
3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
4 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.
5 I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
6 My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning.
7 Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.
8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.
When death comes, we grieve, we are numbed, and we often feel that we have no words for prayer. This is the beauty of the prayers given to us, both in the Bible, and by the Church.
Psalm 130 is one such appropriate prayer for such a time. Usually entitled De Profundis (Latin for the opening words of the Psalm, "out of the depths") this is a psalm for those times when words fail, and when we rely on the intercession of the Holy Spirit for things that cannot be spoken:
1 Out of the depths have I cried unto thee, O LORD.
2 Lord, hear my voice: let thine ears be attentive to the voice of my supplications.
3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?
4 But there is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared.
5 I wait for the LORD, my soul doth wait, and in his word do I hope.
6 My soul waiteth for the Lord more than they that watch for the morning: I say, more than they that watch for the morning.
7 Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption.
8 And he shall redeem Israel from all his iniquities.
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
What to do when ya have the flu
(Yeah, it rhymes : )
First, do not go pester your doctor. Or your chiropractor. Or anyone else. This is a virus. There's not a lot we can do. You'll only succeed in making your doctor about as miserable as you are.
Secondly, you won't feel like eating. And what you eat will taste lousy. I'm going to write a book called Lose 10 Pounds with Influenza! but until I do, consider it nature's way of shedding pounds for the summer. Only eat if you feel like it.
Third, you need fluids. Lots of them. Ignore what I said above about eating, and force yourself to drink lots of fluids. Lots of them. Water, of course. Probably better at room temperature, rather than cold. Broth, at the expense of our feathered friends. Maybe hot or room temperature tea. But lots of it. Probably at least a gallon a day of fluid.
Finally, sleep. We imagine (at least I do) that I'll get sick, and I'll have time to read. Wrong. I get sick, and anything more taxing than The Onion is beyond me. So sleep. A lot. And when you don't feel like sleeping, mindless TV is a great remedy. Enjoy stories about Paris Hilton. Or old movies. Or music videos. Just relax. You will feel better. I promise.
First, do not go pester your doctor. Or your chiropractor. Or anyone else. This is a virus. There's not a lot we can do. You'll only succeed in making your doctor about as miserable as you are.
Secondly, you won't feel like eating. And what you eat will taste lousy. I'm going to write a book called Lose 10 Pounds with Influenza! but until I do, consider it nature's way of shedding pounds for the summer. Only eat if you feel like it.
Third, you need fluids. Lots of them. Ignore what I said above about eating, and force yourself to drink lots of fluids. Lots of them. Water, of course. Probably better at room temperature, rather than cold. Broth, at the expense of our feathered friends. Maybe hot or room temperature tea. But lots of it. Probably at least a gallon a day of fluid.
Finally, sleep. We imagine (at least I do) that I'll get sick, and I'll have time to read. Wrong. I get sick, and anything more taxing than The Onion is beyond me. So sleep. A lot. And when you don't feel like sleeping, mindless TV is a great remedy. Enjoy stories about Paris Hilton. Or old movies. Or music videos. Just relax. You will feel better. I promise.
For those who have missed my writings for the last couple of days
I woke up on Monday, and knew things were not good.
You know what I mean? That achy, painful feeling that something's just not right.
But I've been at this game long enough to know what it was: flu.
(That's the distinguishing mark of the flu: aching muscles. Colds and other upper respiratory cruds will runny noses, headaches and similar irritations. But the aching muscles make you know what you've got).
Thus I have not been writing. But I'm back.
You know what I mean? That achy, painful feeling that something's just not right.
But I've been at this game long enough to know what it was: flu.
(That's the distinguishing mark of the flu: aching muscles. Colds and other upper respiratory cruds will runny noses, headaches and similar irritations. But the aching muscles make you know what you've got).
Thus I have not been writing. But I'm back.
Saturday, March 01, 2008
Gen. 3.15 and the death of Sheba
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the curse that was pronounced on them was followed by the blessed promise of the coming Savior in Gen. 3.15, the protoevangelion ("first gospel"):
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
So painters portraying the death of the Savior have often portrayed a serpent beneath the cross, crushed in the head. The beauty of Gen. 3.15 is that its theme keep recurring through the Old Testament, reminding us that through the sad days and times of our sin the Savior was coming, and that the Savior's work would be to destroy the serpent who holds us in the thrall of sin.
The first instance is when St. Jael assassinated the general Sisera. I've already pointed out (in this post) how Jael is like the Virgin Mary and how her actions foreshadow the work of the Savior. And here's another, similar, foreshadowing.
In 2 Samuel 20, Sheba, a man specifically said to be "a man of Belial" (a follower of the false Baal religion) leads a rebellion against God's anointed, King St. David. Sheba holes up in the city Abel, of Bethmaachah, and Joab besieges the city in an effort to squelch the rebellion. However the city is saved by the intervention of a "wise woman" (vs. 16) who pleads with Joab on behalf of the city, and exacts a promise from Joab to save the city if Sheba is delivered. The wise woman (who is likewise a picture of the church, as is the Virgin Mary) intervenes likewise with the men in the city, and Sheba's head is thrown over the wall.
Sheba here pictures Satan -- the adversary whose head is crushed by the Savior.
"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."
So painters portraying the death of the Savior have often portrayed a serpent beneath the cross, crushed in the head. The beauty of Gen. 3.15 is that its theme keep recurring through the Old Testament, reminding us that through the sad days and times of our sin the Savior was coming, and that the Savior's work would be to destroy the serpent who holds us in the thrall of sin.
The first instance is when St. Jael assassinated the general Sisera. I've already pointed out (in this post) how Jael is like the Virgin Mary and how her actions foreshadow the work of the Savior. And here's another, similar, foreshadowing.
In 2 Samuel 20, Sheba, a man specifically said to be "a man of Belial" (a follower of the false Baal religion) leads a rebellion against God's anointed, King St. David. Sheba holes up in the city Abel, of Bethmaachah, and Joab besieges the city in an effort to squelch the rebellion. However the city is saved by the intervention of a "wise woman" (vs. 16) who pleads with Joab on behalf of the city, and exacts a promise from Joab to save the city if Sheba is delivered. The wise woman (who is likewise a picture of the church, as is the Virgin Mary) intervenes likewise with the men in the city, and Sheba's head is thrown over the wall.
Sheba here pictures Satan -- the adversary whose head is crushed by the Savior.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
God's son: adopted and otherwise
The Greek text of John 3.16 calls Christ "monogenes" which has traditionally been rendered "only begotten son" (KJV, and those in that translation family) or "his one begotten Son" (Wycliffe's translation).
The force of monogenes is that Christ is the one "natural born" son of God. We, in turn, in the waters of Baptism become God's children, not by "natural birth," but by adoption. God graciously takes us who were born in sin, children of the devil, and adopts us into His own family.
In the last 50 years, it has been argued that people do not and cannot understand this argument, and that Christians who are otherwise intelligent cannot understand the force of the word "begotten." So we have a number of translations just ignoring the Greek text, and calling Christ "God's only son," or "his one and only son." (See examples at the end).
Which begs the question: if we are indeed the children of God (per Eph. 1.5, Romans 8.14-16, and Galatians 4.4-6) how can Christ be God's "only son"?
Of course, Christ is not God's only son: God has innumerable (Rev. 7.9) children, all of whom are really God's children. Really. Not imaginary, not honorary, but children of God.
All of which leads us to the question: why are we using translations which deliberately mis-translate John 3.16? The concept of "begottenness" isn't that complex to explain briefly. And ignoring "monogenes" confuses so much: the divine nature of Christ, the human nature of Christ, our nature as God's children, and the concept of adoption (both natural and spiritual).
The LCMS bit into the NIV virus for some 25 years, and has now bitten into the equally damaging ESV. All of which means that those who continue to use the ESV must carefully correct this and other errors that continue in our midst.
NIV: "his one and only Son" (footnote: "Or his only begotten Son")
NASB: "only begotten Son"
The Message: "his one and only Son"
Amplified: "His only begotten ([a]unique) Son"
New Living: "his one and only Son"
ESV: "his only Son"
CEV: "his only Son"
NKJV: "His only begotten Son"
New Century: "his one and only Son"
21st Century KJV: "His only begotten Son"
ASV: "his only begotten Son"
NIV--UK: "his one and only Son"
TNIV: "his one and only Son"
The force of monogenes is that Christ is the one "natural born" son of God. We, in turn, in the waters of Baptism become God's children, not by "natural birth," but by adoption. God graciously takes us who were born in sin, children of the devil, and adopts us into His own family.
In the last 50 years, it has been argued that people do not and cannot understand this argument, and that Christians who are otherwise intelligent cannot understand the force of the word "begotten." So we have a number of translations just ignoring the Greek text, and calling Christ "God's only son," or "his one and only son." (See examples at the end).
Which begs the question: if we are indeed the children of God (per Eph. 1.5, Romans 8.14-16, and Galatians 4.4-6) how can Christ be God's "only son"?
Of course, Christ is not God's only son: God has innumerable (Rev. 7.9) children, all of whom are really God's children. Really. Not imaginary, not honorary, but children of God.
All of which leads us to the question: why are we using translations which deliberately mis-translate John 3.16? The concept of "begottenness" isn't that complex to explain briefly. And ignoring "monogenes" confuses so much: the divine nature of Christ, the human nature of Christ, our nature as God's children, and the concept of adoption (both natural and spiritual).
The LCMS bit into the NIV virus for some 25 years, and has now bitten into the equally damaging ESV. All of which means that those who continue to use the ESV must carefully correct this and other errors that continue in our midst.
NIV: "his one and only Son" (footnote: "Or his only begotten Son")
NASB: "only begotten Son"
The Message: "his one and only Son"
Amplified: "His only begotten ([a]unique) Son"
New Living: "his one and only Son"
ESV: "his only Son"
CEV: "his only Son"
NKJV: "His only begotten Son"
New Century: "his one and only Son"
21st Century KJV: "His only begotten Son"
ASV: "his only begotten Son"
NIV--UK: "his one and only Son"
TNIV: "his one and only Son"
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The consequences of ideas: North Korea
Those who imagine that ideas have no consequences need to consider North Korea.
Pyongyang was once known as the "Jerusalem of the east." A center of vibrant Christianity in the early 20th century, Pyongyang is now the capital of the world's only remaining Stalinest regime, a brutal, cruel dictatorship which deals with its inhabitants with harsh, unremitting destruction. And the brunt of oppression lands on Christians there.
This video is not directed at the oppression of Christians, but it is a sobering reminder of what our brothers and sisters in North Korea live with (and die with) every day.
Pyongyang was once known as the "Jerusalem of the east." A center of vibrant Christianity in the early 20th century, Pyongyang is now the capital of the world's only remaining Stalinest regime, a brutal, cruel dictatorship which deals with its inhabitants with harsh, unremitting destruction. And the brunt of oppression lands on Christians there.
This video is not directed at the oppression of Christians, but it is a sobering reminder of what our brothers and sisters in North Korea live with (and die with) every day.
Turning cyberspace into sacred space
The internet has changed the lives of all of us. And no less our religious lives. An easy, quick, and mundane example is my use of a Bible concordance (used for finding a particular text when I can only think of a few words): I have a large, cumbersome and hard to read book edition. Or I can go to a site like Bible Gateway and search. You may have guessed that my book version gets used very seldom.
Some are doing things like cyber-Masses, and other such rites. I am very wary of such, mainly because Christ became incarnate and lived among us, and He didn't send a modem. But I am open to there being means of using the net that I'm not ready for yet. This is an interesting talk (from Youtube's Google Tech Talks) about the uses of the net for faiths, Christian and otherwise:
Some are doing things like cyber-Masses, and other such rites. I am very wary of such, mainly because Christ became incarnate and lived among us, and He didn't send a modem. But I am open to there being means of using the net that I'm not ready for yet. This is an interesting talk (from Youtube's Google Tech Talks) about the uses of the net for faiths, Christian and otherwise:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)