Some critics of Intelligent Design conflate the movement with creationism. Of course forms of Intelligent Design can be creationist, but arguably others (like that of Aristotle on some readings of the philosopher) are not. I am both a creationist and one who believes there exists evidence for Intelligent Design in nature. (more…)

There are shows that died before their time, such as Firefly. There were certainly shows that suffered from a lack of love and budget cuts, see the third season of Star Trek: The Only Non-Derivative Version.  (more…)

One thing critics of ancient cultures often miss is how easy “freedom” and “liberty” were to achieve in the ancient world and how hard order was to maintain.

One could curse the king easily in the ancient world with almost no chance the king would ever hear of it! Any society was just a few bad harvests from chaos.

Ancient cultures tended to develop rules, for good reasons, that emphasized justice and good order, because in those times order was harder to maintain.

Technology helped the central power . . . and has made order easier to maintain. I would argue it has made it too easy! As a result modern thinkers began to emphasize keeping the central government out of our lives. The king could do things in a modern context that ancient kings could do in theory . . . but never in practice!

So one reason “liberty” is less emphasized in any ancient text is that “order” was often a bigger priority . . . and harder to abuse.

This is a brief response to my critics, mostly Frank Turk.

I think the heart of our disagreement is the Bible and how to read it. I think the Bible is true and binding on a Christian. If it says a thing, we must do it.

Sadly, reading a book is not as easy as one might think. The Bible was written to a particular people and time . . . and has to be contextualized to be understood. When it comes to salvation, the news is good: we get it. “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ” and we are saved.

Even then, of course, understanding what it means to “believe” can be difficult!

When the Bible gives economic advice, things get trickier. For many of us the advice to own goats for milk would be counterproductive. We don’t get our clothes from lambs. Most of us have no problem with this, we contextualize the advice.

Proverbs warns about being lazy, but the signs of laziness in a farm based culture are not exactly the same as those in “word” based culture like our own. You can do a good bit of work from bed in our day!

My view of the forms of government described in the Bible follows this pattern. The Bible gives us no sanctified form of government for this life. The government God established on Mount Sinai was for that people, at that place, at that time. Some laws were as shadows for the rest of us (dietary laws) to teach deeper theological truths and have no relevance to me today. (I can eat ham!) Other laws were the best that could be sustained in poor and nomadic cultures. Our much richer and non-nomadic culture can, for example, establish prisons.

(more…)

The Constitution of 1789 and republican values.

Ronald Reagan and tax cuts.

Orthodoxy and icons.

Some things go together naturally and pizza and NFL play-off football are two naturals. Over the course of my life no pizza was more guaranteed to disappoint than Domino’s. It was as fake as Ben Nelson’s hair. If you saw the box at a pizza party, you went for any other football party food, even the stale chips in a plastic bowl. The crust was the box. The sauce was canned. The cheese was not.

Eating Domino’s pizza was akin to watching the Detroit Lions. Sometimes you just had to do it, but other than the mockery there was nothing good about it.

Recently, in the most effective series of ads since Chuck Norris teamed with Mick Huckabee, Domino’s promised to redo their pizza. My family and I gave them a chance and they deserved it.

We ate many sauce and crust combos, but focused on the bargain basement single topping pizza that Domino’s promotes.

The basic crust is garlic-y and tasty. It was very popular in my house, though one of my children did not like the dusting on the bottom. The rest of the house felt it added a nice texture. Right to the edge of the crust, it was tasty.

The sauces we tried were all good, the basic sauce now tastes like it contains real tomatoes and herbs. The barbecue sauce was particularly good with chicken.

The toppings were generous and good.

The price, especially with coupons, was excellent. You can feed a big group for a few dollars a person.

In short, Domino’s went from “never order” to our current default pizza for the playoffs.

This post may have nothing to do with the gospel, but it has everything to do with the well examined life.

If this pastor says “Allah” everyone knows he is a Christian!

Not to be simple minded, but since Christians in the Middle East have been using “Allah” for centuries before there was Islam (what other word could they have used?), why are we worried about its use here?

Is this a bit like being worried that English speakers are not worshipping Jesus, because there is no “J” in ancient Greek?

As an Evangelical blog of record, I suppose someone must say it here:

Pat Robertson’s statements on Haiti are bad theology, bad philosophy, bad history, and bad pastorally.

It is tempting not to pile on in the case of a fellow believer who is older, does a great deal of good through charity, and has a long habit of saying this sort of thing. Robertson, however, remains a public figure and there is some chance that ill-informed Christians might take his view seriously.

Robertson has proposed a bad theology, because he too easily equates any natural or man made disaster with Gods’ will. The Lord Jesus points out that God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust. As Saint Augustine points out when some Roman era pagan Pat Robertson’s blamed Christians for the fall of Rome, God’s providence and will are not easy to see.

Even some seeming blessings can be curses.

He specifically addressed the issue of whether natural disaster are because the victims are somehow worse than others when he said (Luke 13):

¹There were some present at that very time who told him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. ²And he answered them, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered in this way? ³No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. ⁴Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? ⁵No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”

All of us are broken and will die. Nobody is safe and nobody should take their righteousness for granted.

Even if we grant that sometimes a prophet in the Bible (Amos) could, by divine revelation, equate a natural disaster with God’s judgment this should be done carefully. This kind of insight is available to few of us and Robertson has not demonstrated a track record (prophetic accuracy) that meets the Biblical standard for accuracy (Deuteronomy 18):

²¹And if you say in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the LORD has not spoken?’— ²² when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.

All of this ignores the philosophical questions revolving around whether one government leader two hundred years ago could actually sell a country to Satan. (Assuming such a thing could happen.) Who gave him that right? On what was that right based? Was he an anointed king in the Biblical sense? Did the thousands of believers in Haiti at that time consent? Does Satan really have the power to own an entire nation, containing millions of believers in an out of government, for centuries based on one man’s deal?

This is dubious philosophy of religion and bad theology.

Even if we grant that Robertson was merely speculating on the causes of the disaster, he would do well to base his arguments on better history. The tale he recounts is likely false.

Robertson has been inhuman in two ways.

First, even if he were right, he has picked a horrid time to pontificate. When my friend is suffering from cancer, even if it is his fault, it is the wrong time to remind him that I told him he should have stopped smoking. It is ugly and useless.

Heal the sick, bury the dead, feed the hungry and then deal with root spiritual causes. Safe to say every nation, and Haiti is surely one, has made philosophical and practical decisions that help cause tragedy. We can talk about that when the people of Haiti have been helped by the Church.

Second, even if his theology were sound, he has stated it in such a way and at such a time that it will be misunderstood and will be mocked. He has pronounced a “truth” that (he must concede) would be hard for our culture to hear in a way and at a time that brings that “truth” into derision.

If Robertson were right in his theology and philosophy, his timing has fed his pearls to swine on a silver platter.

Recently Robertson faced major health problems and rightly asked for our prayers. It would have been wrong to be facile and associate his problems with sin. Robertson should grant the people of Haiti the same treatment that he demanded in the case of his illness.

Compassion, prayer, help, and charity.

(*I have a follow up post on the issue of torture responding to critics, but thought this an inappropriate time for that topic. I will do so later.)

Frank Turk is not (to say the least) persuaded by my arguments against torture. Generally he thinks I am not Christian in my reasoning.

He gives us two reasons for this. (more…)

I am thankful for Jeremy Pierce’s thoughtful reply to my posts on torture. You can find it here.

If I do nothing else, perhaps my opposition to torture in this space will provoke more posts such as this one. In that case, my posts will have served a good purpose and perhaps merit the praise that Holmes gave Watson:

“Really, Watson, you excel yourself,” said Holmes, pushing back his chair and lighting a cigarette. “I am bound to say that in all the accounts which you have been so good as to give of my own small achievements you have habitually underrated your own abilities. It may be that you are not yourself luminous, but you are a conductor of light. Some people without possessing genius have a remarkable power of stimulating it. I confess, my dear fellow, that I am very much in your debt.” (more…)

What is the role of government?

What is justice?

Hard questions, but a man should pray what he believes and I weekly pray the following:

We beseech thee also, so to direct and dispose the hearts of all Christian Rulers, that they may truly and impartially administer justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue. (more…)

A gentleman can be trusted with power, but a cad cannot be trusted even when he appears powerless. It is an essential attribute of American conservatives that often telling a gentleman from a cad is hard.

Some men start as gentlemen, but become cads. Some (thank God) of us start as cads, but become gentlemen.

As a result we don’t trust too much power being given to anybody without maximum transparency. (more…)

One small point:

It has been claimed that to be opposed to torture and not be a pacifist is inconsistent.

Opposition to torture must be (merely) a form of pacifism.

I have shown this is false. A man may oppose torture (or the mutilation of corpses) on the grounds that torture is a form of blasphemy. Killing is acceptable (in some circumstances), but not torture. This reasoning is not based on squeamishness or pacifism, but reverence.

One may be unpersuaded by the argument, but it means that all opposition to torture (namely traditional Christian opposition) is grounded in pacifism.

I will point out, however, that war itself is not an ideal state for a Christian. All Christians wish for peace, though not at any price. No Christian (who is being consistent) wishes for any man to be tortured by any other man.

Frank Turk suggested the Roman model for government . . . and there is much to be said in favor of Rome.  With the Founding Fathers of this Republic, true patriots should model our governance more on Cicero or the Republic than on Nero or the Empire!

Here is Cicero on torture:

Traditional Christians oppose torture based on their understanding of Divine Revelation and centuries of experience learning the corrosive effects torture has on the society that justifies its use. (more…)

Things are hard and the message of Advent, the days before Christmas, is not to cheer up, but to look up. The redemption of all people is coming, but it is coming on God’s timing.

That frustrates me and I suspect I am not the only one. (more…)

Mr. Ben Nelson is a jolly old United States Senator for Nebraska. He was fighting for principle in opposing abortion funding in the health care reform moving through Congress.

Now he is backing health care reform without the language he originally demanded.

It would be easy to caricature Senator Nelson’s move unfairly. Some will say he is a Judas for betraying his ideals for money, but this is wrong. Judas personally benefited from his betrayal, while Senator Nelson merely got graft for his entire state.

Mr. Nelson will not get thirty pieces of silver . . . every Nebraskan will. Each one of them can share in the betrayal of their ideals, because Mr. Nelson has graciously made sure benefits will go to each one of them.

Judas compromised only his integrity, but Nelson has given the voters of Nebraska a chance to compromise the integrity of an entire state. Will they take the benefit at the cost of their values?

Is this comparison fair to a man like good old Ben Nelson? After all Ben Nelson is a modest man, a retiring man, a man eager to represent the values of Nebraska. Is there a more charitable read on his actions?

After all  Mr. Nelson meant to do good. Comparing Nelson to Judas must surely be as overblown and overly partisan as comparing him to Benedict Arnold. Arnold betrayed the United States for money, but Mr. Nelson will only vote for a mess of a bill for money.

After all, the bill is not so bad that it will not do some good. The good-old Senator was trying to do a noble deed by extending health care to millions, not cause the death of the Messiah or betraying his oath of office! It is by his intentions we should judge him, not by the results. He meant well and that is all we should expect of our elected officials.

Heaven knows Judas and Benedict Arnold did not mean to do good by their evil actions. Call Mr. Nelson incompetent and venal, but never call him a traitor.

Let us not be inflexible in our evaluation of Mr. Nelson. Of course to get the good things, he had to allow Nebraskan tax dollars to go to abortion, give money and favors to wealthy donors to his campaigns, and expand the scope of government.

Mr. Nelson simply has done what so many parents have to do every Christmas. He has compromised what he wishes he could do so to do some good. He is giving some Nebraska children a gift of health care and to do so had to fund the death of other Nebraskan children.

Many would have dodged this hard decision, but not Senator Nelson. Having paraded his convictions that no children should die using tax money, he was forced to bend a bit and kill a few by indirect means in order to help some.

This is a profile in flexibility.

Senator Ben Nelson, if all turns out as he wishes, will be able to celebrate Christmas this year knowing that he gained graft for his state, passed a bill his constituents did not want, all the while standing at the center of the media spot light. This is the job a Democratic senator is elected to do and he did it.

Some will mock him, others misunderstand him, but Mr. Nelson is merely celebrating Christmas in his own way: the season when a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed and an order went out from Herod for the government slaughter of innocents.