Sunday, May 24, 2009
Humility: The Heart of Righteousness (from Christianity That Counts)
Without humility, Christ will be scarcely detectable in our lives. No matter what our gifts may be--teaching, preaching, writing, organizing, counseling, leading--and no matter how expertly we exhibit them, they are hauntingly hollow without humility. Without humility, others may hear of Christ from us, but they will not see him in us. He will remain more of a rumor than a reality. If we want Christ to become a public reality in us, we should seek to understand just what humility is and how to cultivate it.
Things valuable and rare, such as money and precious stones, are often counterfeited, and so humility is counterfeited by inept imitators. Someone who publicly bemoans his inadequacies with predictable regularity, is probably not humble. He is, rather, disgusted with himself and seeking to have others build him up. Nor is the one who is forever solemn and glum a good candidate for humility, because humility does not consist in perpetually pondering the somber and unpleasant. Such a dour soul is probably too wrapped up in melancholy to be meek.
We could expose other impostors of humility. But although counterfeits should be unmasked, they can provide no solid food for humility; one can avoid poison and still not know what makes for manna. The manna of humility can be understood as based on two doctrinal pillars known to us all: that we are creatures of the Creator, and redeemed by Christ the Redeemer.
Humility is a condition of the heart in which a person is disposed to receive all good things as a bestowal of grace. The humble refuse to take credit where it is not due, and recognize that "every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights" (James 1:18). Humility is based on our relationship with God. We are humble before God as a result of apprehending who God is in relation to who we are.
HUMILITY AS CREATURES
Humility is rooted not only in our being rescued from sin by the Savior; it is equally rooted in our position as creatures of the Creator. We are not the source of our own existence nor of any good that greets us. All is a gift from Another--the thunderous rush of the surging waves of the ocean, the luminous smile of a wife or husband, a good night's sleep, a moonlit night, a child's laughter. All is received by mere mortals. Adam and Eve in all their unfallen splendor owed worship and thanksgiving to their Maker. As do we.
It is a short step from thanksgiving to humility; conversely, it is quite a strain to be thankful and prideful at one sitting. Thanksgiving lifts us out of ourselves and into the graces of another where we find joy in the recognition of goodness bestowed. We are the recipients, not the Benefactor. As Andrew Murray put it: "But as God is the ever-present, ever-active One, who upholdeth all things by the word of his power, and in whom all things exist, the relation of the creature to God could only be one of unceasing, absolute, universal dependence."
While a reflection on this dependence naturally triggers thanksgiving and worship, pride is rooted in ingratitude and claims for itself what it can never merit. The book of Acts tells of the pride of Herod who, after an ostentatious public address, was lauded by his subjects as a god: "Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died" (Acts 12:21-23). Although God rarely judges so quickly, pride itself eats away at those who are intent on promoting themselves. Pride deems that no promotion is ever good enough, no accomplishment satisfactory, and no victory final. When we try to fill ourselves with ourselves we remain empty--if noisy. As Pascal put it regarding our need for grace, "this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object; in other words by God himself."
SAVED BY HUMILITY
Humility is not only the appropriate response of dependent creatures, it is the Christian's invaluable inheritance in Christ. Our salvation was achieved through humility and for humility. Humility was the very instrument of redemption. Christ did not consider equality with God something to be grasped; instead, he humbled himself in order to serve us and his Father by leaving the perfection of heaven and dying on the cross to set us free from sin (Phil. 2:5-11). It may be difficult to fathom how God Incarnate could be humble, but this is only because our vision of humility is clouded. The humility of Christ is rooted in his servant heart. He came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for fallen people (Mk. 10:45).
The measure of Christ's earthly greatness was his obedience to the Father for our sake. He did not seek his own glory, although he deserved it; and he did not insist on his own will, although he could have commanded legions of angels to save him from the cross. Instead of demanding that the disciples kiss his feet, he washed theirs. Instead of slapping Judas at the last supper, he kissed him. Instead of silencing his opponents by summoning fire from heaven, he loved his enemies--even on the cross, asking his Father to forgive them.
Seen in this light we can better understand what Jesus meant when he said, "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30). This is Jesus' explanation of how we can receive his humility. His is the yoke of humility because he above all others was meek before his Father in heaven. And it is this humility that he offers to those who take up his yoke. We will miss the heart of this verse (as I did for years!) unless we see that Jesus both exemplifies and offers humility. Humility is a primary benefit of salvation. If we understand the terms of our salvation, our only response can be humility. One who is redeemed by the grace of God has no cause for boasting. As Paul announced, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9).
Pride is excluded in principle from first to last. As Jeremiah said, "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness" (Jer. 9:23-24).
If we understand the gospel and know who we are in Christ, we can trust the kindness of God himself instead of pridefully seeking the flattery and approval of others. We are free to be humble in Christ because we are completely at peace with him through his crucifixion and resurrection. We can rest even while we work because we are justified by faith, not works. We are free to serve God and others because we know that Christ will meet our needs out of the riches of his love. Pride is eliminated when we remember that "those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again" (2 Cor. 5:15).
DETECTING PRIDE
If humility involves knowing who we are as creatures of the Creator and as sinners rescued by the Redeemer, can humility be cultivated in such a way that Christ will be seen in us? Seeking humility is a delicate matter. We should guard against praying for humility in order to be seen as humble, for this is merely pride feigning humility for pride's sake. We can't pray for humility as we would pray for a pay raise at work. We must dig deeper because humility involves a fundamental adjustment of our inner being in accordance with the truths of the gospel. Let's consider several steps for detecting the pride that precludes humility.
First, we should beseech God to lay bare our offensive pride, as David did when he prayed, "Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me and lead me in the way everlasting" (Psa. 139:23-24). We may need to turn our prayers from requests for material blessings to requests for the spiritual blessing of humility. This is eminently reasonable since nothing can truly be enjoyed without humility; pride is far too petty and protective to enjoy anything. Building the kingdom of self is a dirty and dispiriting business. Finding humility in the Spirit glorifies God and brings life and peace.
Second, we should note what things particularly disturb us and then ask, "Am I bothered because this is evil and offense to God or am I upset because my pride is hurt?" Am I more outraged at not having my good deed applauded than I am over the fact that my friend was cheated by an employer? If so, my pride outweighs my humility. Andrew Murray puts it strongly: "All sharp and hasty judgments and utterances, so often excused under the plea of being outright and honest; all manifestations of temper and touchiness and irritation; all feelings of bitterness and estrangement--have their root in nothing but pride, that ever seeks itself."
Third, whenever we blow our own horns, we fall into pride and make humility impossible. Everyone needs approval and encouragement, but no one should manipulate others in order to gain it. Boasting is a particular snare for those in public ministry where popular approval is so important. Instead of glorying in God's work through us and in us, a subtle shift occurs and we instead recite our deeds of righteousness in order to receive applause. But Proverbs says to "let another praise you, and not your own mouth; someone else, and not your own lips" (Prov. 27:2); it is not honorable to seek your own honor (Prov. 25:27). We disgrace God's ministry when we succumb to pride. But humility comes when our self-esteem is grounded in God's gracious estimation of us rather than in the varying opinions of others.
SEEKING HUMILITY
There are several ways that we can protect our hearts from pride and seek humility in the Spirit. First, in a culture enamored of self, we must be ever watchful not to let the world squeeze us into its psychological mold. The fountain of the spiritual life is humility, not self-love. In Christ we are free to recognize good qualities in ourselves and enjoy them as we offer them to God for his use, but exercises in self-congratulation are never edifying. As the spiritual advisor Fenelon put it, "True humility lies in seeing our own unworthiness and giving ourselves up to God, never doubting that He can work out the greatest results for and in us." We are best used for God's great purposes by realizing that he is great and and we are not. This refutes the advice of a self-absorbed society which desperately seeks to inflate a sinful and unforgiven self to acceptable proportions. Paul put it best when he said, "We have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us" (2 Cor. 4:7).
Second, we can study and meditate upon the lives and writings of great saints and heroes of the faith, both within and outside of the Scripture, who put flesh and bone on humility. Here we find that humility is not the enemy of greatness. Moses was called the meekest of men, but he was a world-changing instrument in God's hands. Paul was a humble bondservant of Christ, but bold to preach the gospel and risk all for God. As someone involved with the university, I find the example of Thomas Aquinas inspiring because I need to be watchful to avoid the competitiveness and intellectual pride that besets the academy. Aquinas was a great theologian and philosopher of the middle ages; yet one of his disciples wrote that he "owed his knowledge less to the effort of his mind than to the power of his prayer. Every time he wanted to study, discuss, teach, write, or dictate, he first had recourse to the privacy of prayer, weeping before God in order to discover the divine secrets." The great scholar was great only because he was humble. "Humility comes before honor" (Prov. 15:33).
Third, being open and accountable to another believer is essential to spiritual growth in humility. Humility is not a solitary project; it requires help from friends. My wife has on several occasions observed a sense of self-importance in my teaching and gently encouraged me to reform. I need to hear this--even though it stings--because the pain of correction is far better than the indulgence and deception of pride. Spouses and friends should prayerfully encourage each other to take up the yoke of Jesus in order to experience and express his restful humility.
HUMILITY IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE
Is the practice of Christian humility possible in the modern public square, the realm so often characterized by noisy, unprincipled, and power-mongering politicos who are more likely to believe that the earth inherits the meek than the meek inherit the earth?
Humility is not optional for Christians. The humility of Jesus secured a salvation which makes humility both possible and necessary. It is not simply one virtue among many, but the root of all righteousness--because only humility puts us in our rightful place before the Creator and Redeemer. And only humility puts us in the ethical position to represent our Master with authenticity. Empty vessels can be filled to overflowing with the Holy Spirit. Vessels brimming with pride can hold no grace. Blaise Pascal summarized the humble life when he said, "Do small things as if they were great, because of the majesty of Christ, who does them in us and lives our life, and great things as if they were small and easy, because of his almighty power." Amen.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Two New Book Reviews: Fear of Knowledge and Icarus Fallen


2. Jeremiah Heiser, a 2009 Master of Divinity graduate from Denver Seminary, has published a first-rate review of Icarus Fallen: The Search for Meaning in an Uncertain World by Chantal Delsol in Denver Journal.
Hurray For Liberty University (corrected)
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Go Ape, Young Man

Wednesday, May 20, 2009
The Return of the Perverse
Rapper Eminem, the scatological and misogynistic purveyor of all things crude, rude, and lewd, is, after a blessed five-year hiatus, back with another egregious recorded assemblage of acoustic excrement. What is almost worse is hearing critics defend this indefensible miscreant, as does a self-impressed and utterly unconvincing maven of the inappropriate on NPR. Yes, Emimimen raps (it isn't singing) of rape, murder, and more, our critic intones, but somehow this artistically gives voice to deep inner feelings. Does it really? Jack the Ripper and Ted Bundy gave their voice to these inner urges in their own ways as well. Jesus gave us the wise principle that to imagine evil deeds in one's heart is tantamount to performing them, and, as such, corrupts the soul. Better to listen to Jesus and shun the critic and his deformed loves.
You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brotherwill be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. . . . You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.--Matthew 5:21-22, 28-32.
Eminem's sneering, sulking, fuming, monotone rhymes are distilled ugliness aesthetically, however difficult they may be to perform. Many ugly and immoral things are hard to pull off, after all. A homicidal marksmen may be a very good shot. You know that advanced cultural bone rot has set in when the ravings of perversity and outright criminality are justified as art. The "criminal as artist" is another mode of taking the perverse to be the prophetic. There was much of this foolishness afoot in the 1960s through the writings of R.D. Laing and later through Foucault. Anomalies become trophies of bogus transcendence when objective moral law and genuine virtue is shunted aside. The repressed urges of sociopaths become dignified when excused and even praised by public (pseudo) intellectuals who cannot bring themselves to condemn anything that breaks one of the Ten Commandments (or all of them). Art fails to serve the good, the true, or the beautiful, and instead becomes a weapon to shock, outrage, and stoke the dark stirrings of the fallen self.
So, this disturbed (and rich) young man is again assaulting the public with more sneering, sickening, and soul-polluting expressions of his diseased self--even though he claims to be out of rehab. May God have mercy on him--and us.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Exhortation
In other words, "Take it to the streets," In Jesus’ name.
A Philosopher Worth Knowing About
Monday, May 18, 2009
Creator's Cafe
Humans are sub-creators under God. Made in God's image, we bring our inner world to bear on the outer world through, song, poetry, painting, architecture, gardens, novels, and more. Sadly, much of mass-produced postmodern life siphons the creativity out of our souls and bodies. Instead of making and experimenting, we consume and adjust our entertainment preferences, thinking that this is creative...when it is merely agile and over-agitated consumption.
But there is more--right here in Denver. Creator's Cafe is a place to hear live music performed by in-the-flesh human beings. It also displays art by local young people, struggling to find their way after severe trama. Tony Lombardo recently visited and wrote a review of this unique place and its redeeming concepts.
It is not to late. You can still create culture and welcome the creations of others--even with our iPod and cell phone off and your laptop closed. I hope to see you there.
Shift in Beliefs on Abortion
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Godless
Deepak Chopra: The Wrong Jesus
Narcissis and Me
and wrapped it with care,
and gave it to
Myself.
I was so pleased
with
Myself.
How kind,
how thoughtful,
to receive this...
and from Me,
Myself.
Then my gift
dissolved into a mirror.
I looked and saw
Myself,
and loved him fervently.
But then
Myself
dissolved
into a horror
with no honor
or valor
or virtue.
I smashed the mirror
and saw in its place a river
of others.
I jumped in
and lost
Myself
and found myself
in a torrent of Life,
not my own,
but yet
my true home.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Beware
Friday, May 15, 2009
Coltrane on Strings
The European Nightmare
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Muslims and the BBC
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Defining Decency Down
Christians are foolish to sing the praises of Miss California, Carrie Prejean, simply because she uttered some inarticulate opinions against same-sex marriage and speaks of God. To find a heroine in her is to define decency down, just as social science defined deviancy down decades ago (as Daniel Patrick Moynihan pointed out in a ground-breaking article in 1993).
This young woman is a beauty queen, both ensnared by and loving that sad and silly skin game. However, the category should not exist. American society has created an unreal and cruel standard for women to reach: the beauty queen--a woman known for curves and perfect skin, heavenly hair and preternatural teeth. They prance and pose and preen; the cameras churn and burn; the media salivates and speculates. My stomach turns. It is all sinful a waste of the short time we have on this fallen planet. Moreover, in addition to the intrinsic immodesty and vanity of the beauty queen persona, this woman apparently posed for even more indecent photographs. This model is no model (of character).
Carrie Prejean is no heroine. She does not deserve any more attention. To give it to her, whether you are James Dobson or Sean Hannity, reveals the paucity of both real virtue and Christian discernment today. We have defined decency down. Perhaps we should lift some prayers up.
Monday, May 11, 2009
For Shame
This reminds me of the comment by theologian and social critic Reinhold Niebuhr: Those who cannot see the moral distinction between the United States and the Soviet Union are not capable of any significant moral distinctions.
Saturday, May 09, 2009
Conceived but not Conceived as Conceived
unique,
alone,
but within
another.
Hidden,
silent,
without voice.
Unseen by
the unaided eye,
but not unfelt by the
hosting body.
Unprotected
by law.
Uncared for by over
one million...
one million...
hosts a year.
Domicile disturbed.
Body cut, burned, dismembered.
Corpse removed.
Or live birth,
left to die.
Another
Mother and father,
no longer.
It's over; taken care of.
Unburied, but not
unmourned or unremembered.
Silent, but the
flood of blood
cries out--
and is heard.
Francis Schaeffer
Thursday, May 07, 2009
Autobiographical, Bibliographical Remembrance

I was assigned this book in the spring of 1976 for a History of Modern Philosophy course at the University of Northern Colorado. Having cut my philosophical teeth on Nietzsche, Marx, and Freud, and being in the heady environment of the state university (albeit not a distinguished one), I had, in a protracted fit of post-adolescent pseudo-intellectualism, thrown of the light religion of my youth and was endeavoring to embrace atheism. Thank God, I would eventually fail in this Promethean task.
I wrote a short essay against SK for my class, but had not taken on this formidable volume, relying only on secondary sources. But then one night, after a bizarre dream that covertly indicated my alienation from God, I picked up the book and began reading--not at the beginning, but at a random place. Then the book began to read me. It explained my "despair" as form of rebellion against God. "Defiant despair" is what SK called it: despair that finds its meaning in being miserable in its rebellion against God. He called it the most "potentiated" (or full-bloodied) form of despair.
I saw myself in the dense and psychologically thick description. SK read my soul in Christian terms, and it disarmed and alarmed me. This marked a turning point; about a month later, I gave up this despair and instead embraced the Christian message. A few years later I taught through this demanding and rewarding book in a class at the University of Oregon--the only time I have done so in all my years of teaching.
I must part company with SK's rejection of rational apologetics (natural theology and historical evidences for Christianity); however, his divination of the soul, his art of uncovering the soul's escape mechanisms, his ability to bring one before God through this writing...is uncanny. Call it subjective apologetics. Call it brilliant.
Centennial Institute
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Curmudgeon on the Tube?!
Colson on Kemp: A Man of Virtue
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Contrast (for Allan Bloom)
have baffled and dazzled
with profound phrases,
given in slow stages,
requiring pages
and pages.
Pundits, politicians, and celebrities
now impress and depress
with idiotic inanities,
flashed in quick images,
requiring nothing
but stupidities.
Monday, May 04, 2009
The Death of Jack Kemp (link fixed)

National Right to Life has written a short eulogy to Mr. Kemp, who was staunchly pro-life. I had the honor of meeting Mr. Kemp in 1999 when I spoke for a Board retreat for Prison Fellowship. One morning, he greeted me in his gravely voice by saying, "Good morning, Doctor!" I got a kick out of that. He was an enjoyable person to talk with. His wife served on the Board of Prison Fellowship.
Given the leftward slide toward authoritarianism, statism, and socialism, we need more men and women like Jack Kemp as political leaders. How Long, O Lord?
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Who, Me?
Believe me, it is not my idea. Can anyone explain this to me? Not that I take Facebook that seriously, of course. Somehow, I think the honor is not quite up there with giving the Gifford Lectures or winning the Templeton Award for Progress in Religion.
Dog, Meat, and Prayer
Art World

Saturday, May 02, 2009
The Dust of Death

I first read the book (in paperback) in about 1977, while getting my sea legs in apologetics and cultural criticism in the midst of the very secular University of Oregon, where I was a newly-converted undergraduate. We studied the book for a course taught by a Christian at the University. Guinness's assessment of Western culture was trenchant, deeply researched, and confident--not only challenging both the establishment and the counterculture, but offering a uniquely Christian way of being in the world. He did not shrink back, but stuck his neck out into the world of ideas. On that neck was a formidable and incisive intellect, one that I would benefit from for decades to come.
I mark this book (along with several others mentioned elsewhere on this blog) as giving me intellectual confidence as a Christian while I was immersed in the secular university. Guinness was interdisciplinary without being anything like dilettante--assessing his broad and deep subject matter historically, philosophically, sociologically, psychologically, and theologically. Guinness interrogates the likes of Herbert Marcuse, Sigmund Freud, Friederick Nietzsche, Jacques Ellul, Marshall McLuham, and many others. While he drew inspiration from Francis Schaeffer, Guinness was his own man, and took Schaeffer's critiques to a deeper levels and addressed topics not tackled by that great man.
Call me a book fetishist, but I relish this well-kept (but never read) edition of The Dust of Death, with the modern art on the front cover and the granular photograph of the young Englishman on the back. I plan to reread and re-appreciate it.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Border Closing! Reaganitus on the Loose
A strange and menancing contagion is rapidly crossing the border from Mexico to the US. Hundreds are infected! It is called conservatism. Those infected see no nimbus around Obama's head, get no chills at his teleprompted oratory, do not accept his spin as truth, are hostile to big government, see terrorism as a real threat, want lower taxes to stimulate the economic, and lionize Ronald Reagan. Some are calling it Reaganitus.
Do you think Obama would close off the border then? I'm sure there would be an Executive Order in short order. The consevative pandemic must be stopped!
Freedom for (not from) Terrorists
Obama does not understand terrorism, the reality of religious evil, or what a strong nation does in response to it. God help us.
If you want to understand why the Left cannot condemn terrorism, read David Horowitz, Unholy Alliance. Barack Obama is the most far-left President in the history of the Republic.
Ten Hours to Change Your Life
First Friday Art Walk in Denver
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
My Favorite Economist Explains the Economic Castrophe

In the spirit of bipartisanship, my newest book -- The Housing Boom and Bust -- shows how both Democrats and Republicans ruined both the housing markets and the financial markets.
http://onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=507054
Doug Groothuis on Intelligent Design at the State University
Monday, April 27, 2009
Standing by Principle
April 27, 2009
The Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
PresidentUniversity of Notre Dame
Dear Father Jenkins,
When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame's Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame's most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.
Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.
First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree.
This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops' express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions "should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles" and that such persons "should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution's freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.
Then I learned that "talking points" issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:
"President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal."
"We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about."
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame's decision--in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops--to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church's position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops' guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame's example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.
It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.
In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.
Yours Very Truly,
Mary Ann Glendon
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Marxism: Dead Wrong on Everything
"The Examined Life"--The Spectre of Nihilism
The film begins well with a tall and hunched over Cornell West philosophizing passionately in the back seat of a car. Ironically, the most animated character in the film is cooped up in a small car talking to the driver (the producer) and camera. West is the only philosopher to appear in three different segments.
Things go south rapidly as a dour, self-important, and nonsensical philosopher (who I had never heard of and have no interest in knowing about) named Avital Ronell. She serves up mounds of recycled postmodernism: there is no objective meaning; to think so makes one a fascist, serious people have a bad conscience (unlike Bush who kills people without regret and for no reason); and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseum. What a long ten minutes that was. Of course, if there is no objective meaning, nihilism follows. If nihilism is true, then anything goes...and why not be a fascist or anything else? Next.
Michael Hardt is interviewed while rowing a boat in a large pond. He, like many of the philosophers, seems uncomfortable. He speaks of yearning for "the revolution" and wondering how it might come about in America. Hardt co-authored Empire (2001) with Antonio Negri, a domestic terrorist who was in jail in Europe when the book was released. The book made a splash until 9/11 eclipsed it. Hardt is a warmed-over Marxist who doesn't believe there is an objective human nature; it is all determined by historical, social, economic forces. As soon as I heard this I thought, "What a recipe for totalitarianism!" And so it is. If there is no normative human nature, then there is no good life to discover and encourage. Therefore, "revolutionaries" who are whimsically upset with the present order--usually through resentment--can destroy as much as they want to bring about their constructed new model of humanity (which has no determinative nature). One wonders if Mr. Hardt has learned anything from history. Over a hundred million human beings were murdered in the Twentieth Century at the hands of "revolutionaries" of like mind. Utopia has been deferred once again. Perfection awaits the Messianic Eschaton. Those who labor to create heaven on earth will, given their false and futile philosophies (see Colossians 2:8), only kindle more hell and inspire more hellions such as themselves.
Peter Singer strolls through New York's opulence explaining his idea that developed nations owe the rest of the world far more help than they ever give. He clearly explains his ideas, which were first laid out in 1971 in an essay much anthologized and which I teach in my introduction to ethics courses. This should trouble our conscience, since so many suffer needlessly. But Singer disavows any religious motivations, saying we do not need religion to be moral. True, people may do good things and have legitimate moral concerns without religious belief. However, the deeper issue is whether we can find a coherent account of any objective morality or our knowledge of it or give an adequate motivation for living the moral life apart from God as the personal-infinite source of moral and the author of human nature made in his image. Singer has repudiated not only God, but many of the moral entailments that follow from theism. Humans as a species have no special moral standing, he asserts. He supports infanticide if the infant is killed before he or she reaches a sense of self-interest. One can also lose the right not to be killed if one loses certain functions; so, he supports active euthanasia--at least in principle. He continues to support his own senile mother. Singer also tolerates bestiality (if it is consensual...). Of course, the film does not mention these items. Nor does it mention that Singer is banned from speaking in Germany, since his ideas--that there are many human lives not worthy to be lived--are all too close to Nazi ideology.
Martha Nussbaum articulates her moral, political vision while walking and talking more briskly than anyone else. She can lecture on her feet quite well. She argues that we should move beyond social contract theory--with its emphasis on individuality, power, productivity, and danger--and embrace a "capability ethic" that includes and honors all people, however much or little they "contribute to society." (She says nothing about the unvalued unborn, who are aborted at the rate of over one million a year in the United States.) Nussbaum also likes the idea of "the nanny state," since this recognizes maternal values for politics. I am not sure what all the implications of Nussbaum's view may be, but "the nanny state" does not trouble me because it is maternal, but because it is statist. The state is not the family; neither is it the church. But for many secular thinkers (libertarians notwithstanding), the state becomes the only hope for justice, fairness, and even utopia (as mentioned earlier). As such, it becomes an idol.
Judith Butler (another postmodernist who has written on gender as socially constructed) and a disabled young woman move about the streets of San Francisco for the last long segment. The young woman speaks of her orientation to life and how the non-disabled need to respect and understand the plight of those different from themselves. I enjoyed her calm and insightful comments; but I was repulsed by Butler, whose demeanor was caustic and arrogant. Butler is a lesbian who has tried to evacuate herself of anything feminine. She has nearly succeeded, if appearances are to be trusted; but the fact that she is a woman who denies being a woman is rather unnerving. Christians should be compassionate on those who are not heterosexual, but those who claim that gender is constructed and that it fits no normative structure should be criticized. Butler says that "there is no normative morphology" (concerning disability) and no normative sexual behavior: we simply do different things with our bodies. She unhappily fills in the gaps with respect to homoerotic activities. She also takes a swipe at "creationists." No wonder, since she denies any transcendent moral authority.
The fallacy of Butler's approach is that physical disability is not on same order as non-heterosexual orientations: homosexuality, bi-sexuality, or transsexuality. Yes, they are all effects of the fall, the fragmentation of creation due to human sin (see Genesis 3). But the disabled person must live within their physical and/or mental limits, such as the young woman being confined to a wheel chair. The nonheterosexual may find sexual healing through the power of God if he or she becomes a Christian. There are many happy stories to this effect, and organizations such as Exodus International exist to offer such help. But a person does not need to act out of one's disordered and wounded sexual orientation--just as one prone to addiction need not engage in behaviors that put him at risk of addiction. But postmodernists such as Butler believe that human norms are entirely contingent and constructed; there is no normative pattern for human sexuality. If so, lesbianism (and just about anything else) is permissible--and should be honored. But, of course, it should be honored only if there is some objective moral truth to that effect. But given postmodernism, there is no such objective moral truth, since truth is constructed all the way down. Therefore, sexual behavior--and any response to it--is merely conventional and circumstantial. Imperatives and virtues in any objective or binding sense are nowhere to be found. Nihilism returns.
The film ends with West crammed into a car and articulating madly about tragedy and hope. He several times refers to himself as "a Christian," but never spells out what this means. He does say that we should transcend romanticism by recognizing that even our failures may be "gifts." I wish he would have developed that idea, but he did not. If life is truly a gift, then there is a Giver, who transcends our aims, ideas, and fallibilities. If so, the nihilism that haunts this film would be overcome by theism: a worldview that offers objective meaning, value, and morality; a metaphysic that gives all humans dignity and hope for redemption; a perspective that neither promises a political utopia nor gives up on history as linear and meaningful because it ultimately fulfills the purposes of the Triune God, who invaded it and changed it forever through the Incarnation.
If we examine life more deeply, we find at its center a Cross, a Lamb, and a Lion. Nihilism is overcome by the Nazarene.
Depravity in Denver
At the showing of "The Examined Life" yesterday (a full review may be coming), I had to withstand three cases of seemingly incidental depravity. The first two were part of the trailers for upcoming films: one about a homosexual prostitute another featured nude women out of nowhere. Yes, I closed my eyes. The film itself showed a philosopher rummaging around in a dump. He comes across some pornography and says, "You call this porn?" The audience laughed. I did not.
More and more aspects of American culture are sullied by the seamy, the seedy, the salacious, the scatological. As R. J. Rushdoony said years ago, when a culture forfeits the creation mandate under God to develop creation in a godly way, it devolves into the worship of sex (see Romans 1). These episodes were not incidental, but lamentable. They should be resisted by avoidance and substitution. There is plenty of goodness left in the world and in America. As Paul said, "Hold fast to the good. Avoid every form of evil."
Earth Day
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Not Again
This brings back the sad memory of Frank Schaeffer's similar effort, Crazy for God, which mostly concerned his parents, Francis and Edith. (Christopher at least had the decency to wait until both parents had died. Frank did not.) One biblical text comes quickly to mind: Honor your father and your mother. One might add: Even if not doing so might make for some nice book sales and premium excerpts in popular newspapers...
The Bible and Same-Sex Marriage
Recently in “Speak Out” (Rocky Mountain News, December 1, 2003) two local clergymen, one Jewish and one Christian, argued that nothing sacred is violated by same-sex marriages. To make their case they appealed to the Book of Genesis, which is understandable given its immense influence on world history. However, their arguments from Genesis are incomplete and questionable. The rest of the story should be considered. This essay does not address all the pertinent moral, social, and legal issues raised by same-sex unions, but is specifically a response to the claim that the Genesis text offers no moral argument against same-sex marriage.
The authors argue that their belief that humans are made in “the image and likeness of God” (as Genesis, chapter one, puts it) somehow gives dignity to same-sex marriage. But one should consider chapters two and three of the Genesis creation account as well. In chapter two, after God created the woman and man in the divine image, God sanctions marriage as follows: “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh” (verse 24). Anchored in this text, revered by both Judaism and Christianity, is the God-ordained institution of marriage. Marriage as such is both heterosexual and covenantal—and irrevocably so, because it is designed according to the perfect wisdom of the Creator. Given its divine origin, purpose, and meaning, marriage is not—according to the historic teachings of both the Jewish and Christian faiths—open to human amendment, reinvention, or negotiation.
The third chapter of Genesis narrates humanity’s tragic fall into rebellion against God’s authority and the sad consequences of sin’s subsequent invasion of God’s handiwork. We now dwell in a world east of Eden, where tears and pain besiege our work, families, and other relationships. It is from this estrangement from God and from one another that all our woes and weaknesses flow. While we retain the divine image and are not abandoned by the “God in search of man” (as Jewish philosopher and theologian Abraham Heschel put it), we groan in our bent world. Thus the Christian philosopher and novelist G.K. Chesterton quipped that original sin is one biblical doctrine that is empirically observable. The rest of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament echo these fundamental declarations of Genesis. For example, Jesus ratified the teaching of Genesis when he affirmed, “At the beginning the Creator made them male and female,” and then quoted the marriage passage from Genesis, chapter two, mentioned above (see The Gospel of Matthew, chapter nineteen, verses 4-5).
The clergymen argue that because heterosexual marriages can be abusive while same-sex unions can be loving, this implies that the gender of the marriage partners is not what makes a marriage sacred; therefore, same-sex marriage may be sacred also. This conclusion does not follow. The traditional religious claim that the gender of the marriage partners (male and female) is a necessary element of a “sacred” marriage does not entail that it is sufficient to make a marriage sacred. To put it another way, the normative biblical pattern for marriage is heterosexual monogamy. This arrangement of man and woman constitutes the minimum requirements for a marriage, according to the Bible. This is the divine institution of marriage.
However, heterosexual, monogamous relationships (the only bona fide marriage, biblically speaking) may be marred by self-centeredness, which can result in all kinds of abuse, neglect, and betrayal. In fact, from the biblical perspective, all human relationships are marred by human selfishness to some degree. As the Apostle Paul put it in The Book of Romans, chapter eight, because of the effects of human rebellion against God—as first narrated in Genesis chapter three—the whole universe “groans in travail” in anticipation of its culmination at the end of history. The matter at issue here, however, is whether the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures can be said to permit same-sex marriages as intrinsically ethical. If one appeals to the foundational chapters of the Bible, one finds good reason to bring this into question
"Well Done, Good and Faithful Servant"

Dr. Schwarz led the Christian Anti-Communism Crusade into the late 1990s (until he was in his mid-80s) and saw the fall of the Berlin Wall. His tireless teaching, debating, and writing was instrumental in West's triumph over the barbarism of Marxist totalitarianism. Ronald Reagan attended one of his seminars and was deeply impressed by his presentation, as was Phyllis Schlafly and other conservative luminaries of the past several decades. I myself began to read his monthly newsletter, books, and booklets a few years after I converted in 1976--still in the heat of the Cold War. His careful, clear, and relentlessly factual exposure of the worldwide evils of communism deeply shaped my views of foreign and domestic policy. But his work was not merely anti-communist; it was pro-Christian. He offered the gospel and a civilization built on Christian principles as the alternative to the acres of killing fields and massive gulags.
I never met Dr. Schwarz, but I did send him a paper I wrote on Lenin's doctrine of revolution for a graduate class in political philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He graciously responded with appreciation for my work. Coming from him, that was quite a compliment--and it was more significant to me than the grade I received from my (probably Marxist) professor --although that was not bad.
If you want to understand why Communism kills and why it will never succeed in any of its forms, please read Why Communism Kills. And remember that Communism is not dead; it is very much alive and killing in China, Cuba, and elsewhere. In fact, many of the core principles of Marxism are being deployed by Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress and Senate.
Groothuis on "Backbone Radio" (Podcast)
Architectural Lingua

Thursday, April 23, 2009
Get Lost in the Humanities
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Guiltless Home Theater
Here is novel concept: the home library.
Here is another: the home prayer room.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Kindle
Monday, April 20, 2009
Groothuis on "Backbone Radio" (Podcast)
Can He Take it With Him?
Former Broncos Coach Shanahan’s house is for sale. It has an indoor golf simulator, complete with 19th hole. Click the link below to tour, and check out the indoor practice facility. It is listed for $17 Million. If you put 20% down ($3.4mm) your monthly payment is about $90,000.00 and the taxes are $47,653.00 per year.
Denver Film Society: "The Examined Life"
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Doug Groothuis on "Backbone Radio"
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Franklin Jones, aka Da Free John, Adi Da, etc., is dead
During my years researching and writing on the New Age movement, I read a book or two by Jones and looked through others. The Spiritual Counterfeits Project prepared an excellent white paper about him. I remember that the prolific nondualistic author Ken Wilber (whose books I have reviewed over the years) enthusiastically endorsed Jones. Rob Bell endorses Wilber in Velvet Elvis, so one might go from Bell to Wilber to Jones, God forbid.
Why write about this nondualistic guru, a man who claimed to be greater than Jesus or Buddha, who was accused of all manner of crimes and misdemeanors? I do so because of a strange experience I had and the lesson I learned through it.
In the early 1980s while researching a book on the New Age movement,[1] I read a passage from an American guru named Da Free John (his name at the time) who claimed that those reading the book would feel his mystical presence and be lead onto his spiritual path, which was, essentially, pantheistic monism. Having been a Christian for seven years and having build up my Christian worldview philosophically during that time, I felt no pull intellectually in John’s direction. In fact, I was writing a book against that perspective. However, much to my surprise, I began to feel and kind of warmth or inner glow I had previously associated with the presence of the Holy Spirit experienced during some times of worship and group prayer.
Given the conceptual stability of my Christian worldview along with my knowledge of the deceptive experiences associated with some forms of mysticism, I rejected this phenomenon as being what John claimed it was and instead prayed with a few friends about it soon after the episode. The feelings left quickly. I did not take this experience as possessing any significant evidence for the worldview that this guru was advocating (nondualism of pantheism) because (1) the worldview itself is unconvincing and (2) an alternative nonveridical explanation for the experience was much more likely. That explanation was that the experience was likely demonically induced. As Christian, I did not have to accept this, given my standing in Christ (see 1 John 4:4; Colossians 2:14-15; Hebrews 2:14-15),
So, the death of his deceiver brings back a memory of his attempt to deceive his readers. By the grace of God, I was not one of them.
[1] Douglas Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986).
Welcome to my Nausea
In less than nine minutes, she spews so many wrong, illogical, and utterly arrogant and contemptuous and contemptible statements, that it is hard to know where to start. But here are a few:
1. Ad hominem. She assumes all or most of the protestors are racists. How does she know that? They are protesting high taxes. How is that a racial issue?
2. She claims that conservatives have malformed brains (and seems serious). So, we have pseudo-science dismissing protesting Americans as retarded. If so, then they are not morally accountable for their beliefs or actions and cannot be condemned morally as "racists."
3. She also condemns blacks who protested as suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome." Apparently, this is another disorder whereby blacks oddly do not hold left wing views. This, too, is some kind of pathology (for which, of course, there is no evidence); but if so, then these benighted urchens are similarly exempted from moral scrutiny, since they cannot help it. So, she cannot condemn them.
Well, I'm getting nauseous, so it is time to stop. This episode may be the apotheosis of debauched political commentary (if I may so dignify it). As an ironic comedian, Ms. Garfalo, is brilliant. But she wasn't trying to do that. She is, in fact, a parody of herself: a smug, hateful, sarcastic, contradictory ignoramus posing as someone with something worthwhile to say.
If this is what TV commentary often is, then I suggest you unplug, pick up a book or magazine, or actually talk to people you can talk back to--instead of ingesting this sad nonsense on any kind of regular basis.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Premillennialism and You!
Denver Seminary is pleased to host the International Conference on Historic PreMillennialism, April 23-25, 2009. The plenary speaker will be Dr. Craig Blomberg with sessions also provided by Dr. Sung Wook Chung, Dr. Bruce Demarest, Dr. Rick Hess, Dr. David Sang Bok Kim and Dr. Andrew Dearman. There is no charge for this conference but you must register online by April 20th. Please contact Melanie Eagar for more details - melanie.eagar@densen.edu.
Hiding That Religion
Here is more evidence that he wants to present a very secular image to the nation and the world. He will even censor the religious identity of institutions at which he speaks. Why did Georgetown invite him (the most pro-abortion president ever, and thus in fundamental violation of the Catholic religion)? Why did it hide their distinctive religious symbolism at his request?
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Cancellation
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Book Recommendations
Monday, April 13, 2009
My Status in the Universe
Classic Reviewer Rank: 1,654
It comes after 151 reviews of CDs, movies, and books. I have yet to weigh in on electrical appliances or protein powder.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Repent
Why is this kind of thing wrong? Wanting to see things like this is sinful curiosity. There is no need to see it; it intrudes on a person's privacy (would you want to be seen being attacked by a wild animal?); and seeing it tends to bring out debased feelings and urges. Of course, our entire culture is seized by sinful curiosity. Of this, we should all repent and attend, rather, to the things that matter most.
Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things--Philippians 4:8.
Distortions of Christianity: Radio Appearance
The Real Thing: "The Source of All Strength"

Visit The Ronald Reagan Foundation for more materials.
"The Examined Life"
I doubt I will agree with much that is said in the film, given the philosophers chosen to be interviewed, but it is rare that contemporary film tackles philosophy head on at all.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
The Real Turkey
Easter Life and the Facts of History
The four Gospels of the New Testament all report that Jesus predicted his death, burial, and resurrection. He was born to die. All of his wondrous teachings, healings, exorcisms, and transforming relationships with all manner of people—from fishermen to tax collectors to prostitutes to revolutionaries—would be incomplete without his crucifixion and resurrection. Shortly before his death, "Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priest and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life" (Matthew 16:21). Peter resisted this grim fact, but Jesus rebuked him. There was no other way (vs. 22-23). For, as Jesus had taught, he "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28).
And give his life he did, on an unspeakably cruel Roman cross—impaled for all to see before two common criminals. We call this day Good Friday because it was good for us; but it was dreadful for Jesus. Before I became a follower of Christ, I always associated this day with the Alaskan earthquake on Good Friday, 1964, one of the largest quakes ever in North America. I was there in Anchorage. After the death of Jesus, the earth quaked on the first Good Friday as well, heaving with a significance that far exceeds any geological upsurge in world history. As Jesus' disciple Matthew recounts: "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split" (Matthew 27:50-51). When the guards at the crucifixion experienced the earthquake and the other extraordinary phenomena, "they were terrified, and exclaimed, 'Surely he was the Son of God!'" (v. 54). Yet another miracle was waiting, waiting—as the dead Messiah was pried off his bloody cross, embalmed, and laid in a cold, dark tomb, guarded to the hilt by Roman guards.
All seemed to be lost. The one who had boldly claimed to be "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), the prophet who had announced that "God so loved the world that he sent his one and only son that whoever believes in him would not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16)—this man now had died. The man who had raised the dead was dead.
On the first day of the week, two women, both named Mary, came to visit the tomb of their master. They had stayed with him as he died; now they visited his tomb in grief. Yet instead of mourning a death, they celebrated a resurrection announced by an angel, who rolled back the stone sealing the tomb and charged them to look at its empty contents. He then told them to tell Jesus' disciples of the resurrection and to go to Galilee where they would see him. As they scurried away, Jesus himself met them, greeted them, and received their surprised worship (Matthew 27:8-9). He directed them, "Do not be afraid. Go tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" (v. 10).
The rest is history, and it changed history forever. The fact that women were the first witnesses to the resurrection puts the lie to the notion that the idea of Jesus' resurrection was concocted at a later point to add drama to his life. Women were not taken to be trustworthy witnesses in courts of law at that time (although Jesus always respected them). If someone had wanted to create a pious fraud, they never would have included the two Marys in their story. Moreover, all four Gospels testify to the factual reality of the resurrection. They were written by eyewitnesses (Matthew and John) or those who consulted eyewitnesses (Luke and Mark); they were people in the know, not writers of myths and legends (see Luke 1:1-4; 1 Peter 1:16).
After the resurrection, the gospel of the risen Jesus was quickly proclaimed in the very area where he was crucified. This upstart Jesus movement would have been easily refuted by someone producing the corpse of Christ, which both the Jewish establishment and the Roman government had a vested interest in doing, since this new movement threatened the religious and political status quo. But we have no historical record of any such thing having occurred. On the contrary, the Jesus movement grew and rapidly spread. Christian Jews changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, in honor of Jesus' resurrection. Pious Jews would never do such a thing on their own initiative, because it would set them against their own tradition and their countrymen. Nor would they have ceased offering the prescribed sacrifices their Scriptures required had not Jesus proven himself to be the final sacrifice for sin, the lamb of God (see John 1:29 and The Book of Hebrews). The resurrection best accounts for this change in their day of worship, their manner of worship, and the transformation at the core of their lives. Moreover, the two key rituals of the earliest church—communion and the baptism—both presuppose the historicity of the resurrection and both are very difficult to explain without it.
The Apostle Paul, a man revolutionized through an encounter with the risen Christ (Acts 9), taught that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Corinthians 15:14). Paul listed many witnesses of the risen Christ, some of whom were still living when he wrote (1 Corinthians 15:3-8), and confidently affirmed that "Christ has indeed been raised from the dead" (v. 20). He also proclaimed that Jesus "through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead" (Romans 1:4).
Easter is the core of Christian faith and life. Without the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, there is no gospel message, no future hope, and no new life in Christ. But with the resurrection at its center, Christianity stands unique and alone in the world. No other religion is based on the historical resurrection of its divine founder. When Jesus announced, "I am the resurrection and the life" (John 10:25), he meant it—and he demonstrated it. Let us, then, leave our dead ways and follow him today and into eternity.
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Obama on America

First of all, who is he to render judgment on such significant things and why does he feel the need to do so? It is a posture of ignorance and weakness, not of knowledge and courage. Obama certainly does not speak for me. Second, the question, "Is America a Christian nation?" does not cater to a simple Yes or No answer. Our heritage is deeply Christian. Christianity has shaped the law and culture of America more than any other religion. There has been very large numbers of self-identified Christians in the United States since the beginning. But America has never been and will never be--despite some overheated book titles from Bush's presidency--a theocracy. The First Amendment does not allow for it, and rightly so. Unlike the French Revolution, The American Revolution was not secular overthrow of a religious establishment. As historian Perry Miller noted, revolutionary fervor was generated largely by religious concerns. Moreover, several Supreme Court rulings have stated that America is "a Christian nation." They did not mean it is a theocracy or that nonChristians are not protected by the Constitution. Rather, they affirmed that the defining ethos of America has been Christian more than it has been anything else.
Abraham Lincoln, perhaps, put it best: We are "the almost chosen nation." By this, he meant that we are uniquely placed to bless our citizens and the world, but we cannot claim immunity from divine sanctions. To put it biblically, "to whom much is given, much is required."
But Obama denies American exceptionalism, denies our substantial Christian heritage, and apologizes to the world for on behalf of America. Yet America saved the Twentieth Century from totalitarianism, not once, but twice. The United States led the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II and without decades of American pressure, the West would not have won the Cold War either. Moreover, we saved Kuwait (a Muslim county) from Saddam. One could go on...
Obama is doing no less than attempting to uproot America from history, logic, and God himself. His own Christianity is privatized (at best) and largely meaningless with respect to his worldview and guiding principles, which are thoroughly secular and socialist.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Oh, Obama
A Letter to Bill O'Reilly from Jeremy Green on TM
Very often, I appreciate your take on contemporary culture. More often than not, I agree with you. However, I was disappointed to see your commending Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr regarding their charity concert. Of course, raising money for education programs directed toward at-risk kids is a noble cause. Nevertheless, not all education programs are created equal.
We would not commend as "patriotic" a program developed to teach proper firearms technique to kids at risk of gang involvement. Meditation in general, and TM specifically, are more akin to the gun class than a program designed to teach kids to cope by learning better study skills, the value of hard work, and the importance of facing reality with both eyes open.
If TM does indeed help young people cope with the stressors in their lives that pull them toward viciousness, it does so only by training these young people to escape their world by ignoring it--escaping by concentrating mantras leading to meaningless thought. We are both Christians. We confess that the world is broken due to sin, and God is reconciling it to himself through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. We are called to proclaim this good news to the world by engaging it, not by escaping from it. TM is therefore incompatible with Christianity.
TM is nothing more than Hindu religious practice. TM's Vedic roots lie in pantheism--all is god. Christianity confesses that there is one unique personal God, and we proclaim this God to the world. We call the world to repentance and submission to his throne. Thus, TM and Christianity proffer contradictory positions on the nature of ultimate reality: it cannot be that both "the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, revealed in the person of Jesus, is the source of a reality distinct from himself," and "god is the impersonal collective sum of all entities" are true statements. One must be false.
Given our mutual Christianity, we must follow Christ. But this is no blind faith. We have good evidence to believe that Christ was risen; thus, we have good reason to think that Christ is Lord and God. If this is so, then Vedic Hinduism is false and practicing TM is participating in the worship of a religion that has set itself up against the throne of the risen King.
One cannot be both a Christian and a practitioner of TM.
Given the truth of Christianity, one ought not to practice TM.
Therefore, one ought not support efforts to introduce TM to others.
Therefore, the extant Beatles are on the wrong side of truth.
As for coping methods: point kids toward the Prince of Peace. Show them how to face a fallen world through bearing the cross of Christ.
I hope these comments prove useful. They are intended as friendly fire.
Best,
Jeremy Green
Monday, April 06, 2009
New Word (Thanks to Jedd McFattter for this)

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating.The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.


