Gullible

I found out yesterday, in Marilyn vos Savant's Parade magazine column (she's the smartest person in the world, which is why she has the Parade column), that the word "gullible," which everyone uses and knows the meaning of, does not actually exist. It's not even in the dictionary.

The meaning of "Illustrious"

Re: the immediate post below. I don't really know what the word "illustrious" means. I prefer to think of it as a popular, well-liked and well-loved, lightening rod. That is the meaning in which it was used.

Credible, Not Verifiable

This is the sixth in a series of essays - but the first since I started this blog - at The Partial Observer in which the illustrious pastor in the Evangelical Covenant Church, Everett Wilson, argues against logical "proofs" against the existence of God. Links to the previous essays are provided in this essay.

Here Under This Roof

From Fr. Jim Tucker's homily yesterday:

One of the saddest things I ever hear is when someone comes to confession for the first time in many years and starts off by telling me that he's basically a really good person and doesn't really have many sins. I have a pile of my own after 24 hours, yet there are people who think they are immaculate after 24 years. If you don't have any sins, why do you need a Savior? It's in the midst of the falls and failings of your life that you will experience the saving power of Christ.

Here today, under the roof of this church, we have every sort of sinner imaginable. Let me be more specific. We have thieves and robbers. We have people who have killed and wounded other people, we have people who have belonged to gangs and some who still belong. We have liars, cheats, and sharp-tongued old gossips. Bad mothers, fathers who don't support their families, children who are rebellious and disobedient. The proud and arrogant and selfish. Pharisees and hypocrites. The irreligious, the superstitious, people who dabble in brujerías and the occult. People who don't pray, who don't come to Mass, who have received the Host while in mortal sin. Right here today we have adulterers, who betray their spouses. Those who, like the Samaritan woman, are cohabiting with people who aren't really their spouses. Those who are impure with people of the opposite sex, those who are impure with people of the same sex, and those who are impure by themselves. Lazy people, greedy people, stingy people, those who won't help their neighbors.

That's who's at Mass today, with your priest in the front of the line.

Who Decides?

The great Pontificator quotes the great Robert George on issues of sex and abortion.

But even if George's ethical claims are valid, what is the point, ultimately? With the understanding I have of the State, I simply will not and can not trust it with outlawing private (though perhaps religiously-based) judgments on end-of-pregnancy or end-of-life procedures. Whether or not any or all artificial means to preserve, or end, life are valid, the claims of the State are always, categorically, invalid. The fetus, and the helpless and infirm - the lives in question - are not even members of civil society, only "parasites" on it (i.e., they consume without producing). An outside authority, the State, would place burdens on us to protect "life" as the state interprets it at the time.

The reality is, the life and death of human life, in their states of helplessness that are beyond the reach of the State, are the matter of families, an institution older than the State. A more libertarian state would stay away from the ethically "difficult" questions, leaving to families, not the State, whether an individual should continue to artificially live or die.

In a more just, Christian society, perhaps the State would better protect such helpless humans. But anyone looking for a Bush or a Clinton, or some ideal state Governor, to provide the right balance, is a fool. Politicians are dishonest bigots. That's why they are politicians: they are categorically incapable of discering right from wrong. To trust them with preserving life is to empower them to order death.

Don't trust the State, not on economics, not on morals, not on life/death issues, not on anything. Any Church or Sect that advocates such a thing is on a suicide course.

Killer Robots

Yesterday, I saw the Sci-Fi channel's abuse of the former Leonard Nimoy's series title "In Search Of" when it scraped to to the bottom of the barrel. It brought up the spector of Artificial Intelligence, of the machines that would devour us (such as in the Terminator and Matrix movies).

The machines will kill us, was the message of the program. It suggested we would create unfeeling warrior machines who (they don't say how) who will figure out that they can rebel against the design of their programmers and see fit to kill their creators. Nothing was said about nanotechnology, however. About microscopic robots who would theoretically be able to kill viruses and germs affecting our bodies and brains. One way to think about this is that nanobots may make us immortal; another is that they will turn all of us into machines. But nothing was said about any of that. Instead of suggesting the promises of nanotechnology with the dire prospect of nanobots taking control of our minds, the program left us with the far more ridiculous scenario of robot-warriors killing us.

I felt the same way about the Peter Jennings program on UFO's. It left out too much of the work of physicists and partical physicists. I'm not a scientist, and barely understand any of these things. So why, in a popular telecast, would a major network leave such glaring omissions out? The chance of intelligent life existing anywhere besides here is virtually zero. But that doesn't leave out space-time anomalies and alternative universes as explanations for UFOs.

It is almost like commerical or popular science "info-tainment" programming doesn't acknowledge that we can connect the dots. The mysteries in today's television show were largely solved in your television show I saw a year ago, which you neglected to mention in today's show. UFO's, intelligent design, string theory, demon possession, haunted houses - they're all related, or they're all mythical.

Home Alone in the Universe?

Peter Jennings's ABC special last night on UFO's made me think of this article I read three years ago in First Things. The program was severely lacking because it didn't seriously raise the questions raised by this article about the sheer unlikehood of intelligent life anywhere.

I tend to think of UFO sightings, if and when legitimate, appearences from other universes, what a friend called "shadows" from other dimensions, or, perhaps like ghosts and haunted houses (again, if and when legit), anomalies and tears in the space-time continuum. I mean, when "an angel of the Lord appeared and said, "Do Not Be Afraid," what could he have been (again, if and when this is legit) but a being primarily residing in some other universe?

Perhaps the real answers lie in the ancient Sumerian texts, which apparently resemble much of Genesis except that the Godhead was an alien race. Some day I'd like to learn more about that.

Anglican Ultimatum

The country supposedly run by fundamentalist crazies is on the verge of getting kicked out of the Anglican Communion for being too liberal.

A Catholic Theology of Suffering

Father Jim Tucker has responded to my post on suffering. Much appreciated, and very good points. My preterist eschatological perspective leads me to believe that suffering, like curses, will eventually be eradicated from the earth. I do not wish to imply that Christians are somehow exempt from suffering today. And bodily suffering - both voluntary (such as fasting) and involuntary - can bring us closer to Jesus. I just emphasize that such things are not permanent fixtures in the New Heaven and New Earth.

There is no "L" in TULIP

Are some men lost, or are all men saved? Doug goes the "some men lost" route, but on the same logic of anti-Calvinists.

After I become more convinced of the post-millennial interpretation, I asked an a-millennial pastor why he thought Calvinist predestination was an unfair, stacked deck, whereas Christ coming back at any time was somehow "fair" for those who had not yet believed at whatever time He did come. I didn't receive a satisfactory answer.

I think as Doug implies here, this is where the real rubber meets the road. Either everyone's saved, or only some are saved. Those who think they are opposing the Calvinist formulation on moral grounds are engaging in logical fallacy, unless they believe that everyone is saved.

Personally, I'm not leaving that option out. But lots of Christians who oppose "predestination" still adhere to there own version of "limited atonement." Either way, it comes down to God creating us with the "free will" to accept or reject Him. Which means it was always up to God all along.

Douglas Wilson writes:

We must begin by rejecting a term that is commonly applied to this doctrine. The rejected term is that of limited atonement. It should be rejected for two reasons. One is that it is misleading with regard to the teaching of the Bible, and the other is that it misrepresents the debate. One of the most obvious features of the atonement in Scripture is its universality. Consequently, a phrase which appears to deny that universality on the surface is not useful. Secondly, every Christian who holds to the reality of eternal judgment believes (in some sense) in a limited atonement. The debate is over what aspect is limited -- efficacy or extent.
***
The debate centers on the meaning of the word for in the phrase, "Jesus died for sinners." One position is that Jesus died to give a chance to sinners. The biblical position is that Jesus died instead of sinners.
***

Christ Died For . . .
These are our basic options. Christ died for:
1. All sins of all men
2. All sins of some men
3. Some sins of all men
4. Some sins of some men
If we opt for #3 or #4, then we have to say that no one is saved, because all have some sins to account for. If we say that #1 is the case, then the question is why some men are lost. Because they do not believe. Is this unbelief a sin, or not? If not, why are they condemned for it? If so, then did Jesus die for it? If so, then why are they not saved? If not, then Jesus did not die for all sins -- leaving us with #2.

Where did the Bible Come From?

Father Jim Tucker again:

Growing up in the Bible Belt, I often wanted to pull my hair out when someone would ask me (for the umpteenth time), "Is your church Bible-based?" How could my Church be "Bible-based" if she was born before the New Testament was finished and lived for centuries before the first Bible was put together? The Bible doesn't give us the Church: the Church gives us the Bible.

The Pontificator is exploring this question today.

The End-Game of Life on Earth

From Fr. Jim Tucker's homily:

Consider, too, the passion and crucifixion that await Christ. So, it's logical what St Peter says:

Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias."It is good for us to be here." Really, they don't want to leave. Who would?

There are two chief temptations, I think, when we begin to realize how much sorrow and pain there is in the world. The first temptation is to think of the world as an extension of hell. Disfigured, ruined, worthless, without any joy or happiness. And since the world is putrid, one flees from contact with it, abandoning it to the sinners. Forget the poor, forget social justice, forget attempts to make the world a better place. They surrender and wait for death.

The second temptation is more subtle. It's the notion that we can have perfection in this world. It's the mistaken idea that paradise can be built on this earth. We see this error in utopian political movements, such as Communism, which promise heaven on earth, since they've long since ceased to believe in heaven in heaven. It's the same error that we sometimes hear on the radio or television when a preacher offers people happiness to people if they learn to pray a certain way or read the right scriptures or give the proper amount in alms. If you believe firmly enough in God, they say, God will give you a Mercedes, a big house, the perfect family, and immunity from sorrow. What a lie. Jesus never once promised us perfect happiness in this world. He did promise us a cross, though. If we want perfection, we're only going to find it in the next life. This second temptation is what the three disciples felt there on Tabor, the temptation to remain upon the mountain of glory rather than to go back down to suffer in Jerusalem.

As I see it, the two greatest proofs for the Christian faith are the eyewitness testimony of the apostles to the risen Jesus, and the fulfilment of their prophesies in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70.

"Blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe."

Easier said than done. The apostles knew what they saw - the risen Lord. We have not seen him, yet we have to believe. My problem with Fr. Tucker's formulation, and you see it all the time with evangelical pietists, is that it doesn't really explain the middle ground between "the earth is hell" and "the earth should be perfect."

I do not believe that suffering is the fate of the flesh. The flesh is good, and deep down, we all know it, and enjoy it. We might not experience "perfection" in this life, but we can live life joyously. Indeed, I suspect that is what drove the apostles. In a different, Objectivist context, Robert Ringer in the book Looking Out For #1 described happiness as "feeling good." The apostles suffered, because they had seen and believed. I do not think our fate is to suffer. That's a perpetually defeatist attitude: this life sucks, let's look forward to the next. It almost makes one feel guilty for liking it here, for enjoying life. But I'm not sure if it wasn't enjoying life as we know it that is at the heart of Christ's message.

Why work for ideals such as "social justice" if perfection is only in the next life? Is a "suffer" gospel even valid? It turns the entire ethical system upside down: to do something productive and profitable makes you a sinner, to do nothing but wait until the next life makes you a saint.

Yes, Fr. Tucker advocates social justice and a host of other social goods. But ultimately, it doesn't add up. Our fate is not to enjoy life as God made it, but to suffer - as if Jesus's sufferings were insufficient.

This is why my faith, today, lies in post-millennial, conservative Presbyterian formulations. God doesn't want us to suffer, God wants us to be participants in the restoration of Paradise on Earth. Perhaps this is offensive and wrong. On the other hand, I am completely ill-equipped to evangelize - win friends and neighbors over to Christ - based on a Gospel of suffering and defeat.

Name Change

I've changed the name of this blog from "Kingdom Works" to "The Kingdom Works." It's a huge difference, and I feel a lot better with the change. It takes advantage of the dual meaning of "works": "the air conditioner works"; "Shakespeare's works."

The Kingdom Works.

The Shroud of Turin Mystery Solved

Nathan Wilson, inspired by Father Brown mysteries, provides a compelling explanation. I am not kidding.

Hell is Eternal Blogging

The Pontificator, who has the greatest blog I've ever seen, on the danger of NOT submitting one's intellect before the altar.

The Demise of the Church of Sweden

An eyewitness account from an ordained pastor of 35 years:

Sweden was a Christian country, we lived in a Christian society. Or did we? A society which in my case meant a town governed by the Social Democrats and the Trade Unions, in a country in decades ruled jointly by Trade Unions and Social Democrats, who originally wanted a separation between Church and State, but later changed their mind and became the staunchest upholders of the State Church system in order to democratize" it from within by taking over the theological education, ruling the church from the inside by politically chosen local church boards, by politically nominated, chosen delegates to the Church Synod and electors for the election of bishops. And when the Church had been sucessfully domesticated, modernized and socialized, then the bonds between Church and State could be severed. This is also what eventually happened in 2000. It was more or less at shock to me when I learned that the parish, in which I was baptised, confirmed, in which I regularly attended the services and went to communion, was run by politcally chosen people, whom I seldom or never had seen worshipping in the congregation. There seemed to be not only the State Church and the Free Churches. Also, there seemed to be at least two, or perhaps even three, "churches" within the Church of Sweden: that of the politicians, that of the belongers and that of the believers.

One Sunday in the Spring of 1960 some churchgoers after the service told me that this was a black day, a day of grievance for the Church of Sweden. I did not know why, and when they told me that three ladies were being ordained priests that Sunday, I simply did not understand the point. So what! I knew that some of my High Church friends were against the ordination of women and told me that is would a disaster for the Church. The reform was presented as one of church order and not one of doctrine, and its aim was, as it was said by its advocates, to reach out to people alienated from the church. Only later did I realize what had really happened at the Sunday. Gradually, I also realized that those who took their Christian faith most seriously were those who opposed the novelty. The flavour and scent which I had learnt to recognize was simply more detectable around and among these people. As a student still in the Gymnasium, I attended Bible studies, in which ordinary parish priests occasionally stated their reasons for being against the reform. If I remember correctly, they predicted that in the long run there would not only be ordained women, but this reform would lead to a different view of the Word of God and hence God´s revelation. Now, they said, man was in command of the Bible, free to interpret it the way he, she or the spirit of the times wanted, and as a consequence of this, there would be a new understanding of the priesthood to begin with. They predicted that insolubility of marriage would wane with a new understanding of marriage and what it meant to be a man and a women, there would be a new way of looking at the Creation and the order given in it, a new way of understanding human sexuality, that same-sex relationships in the end would be accepted, and there would even be blessings of same-sex relationships, marriages, and as the crowning event: the understanding of God the Father would be replaced by God the Mother. It sounded like some dystopic theological science fiction. The priests, the names of whom I do not even remember, expressing these opinions were, of course, criticized by their more moderate colleagues: "You are surely painting the Devil on the wall!" In a retrospect of forty years, I cannot but admire the clearsightedness of these "pike-jawed faithpolicemen" - a common derogatory characterisation of these High Church or Traditionalist priests, routinely used by the man who was later to become the bishop, or as he rather preferred to call himself, Diocese director, of Stockholm. Ingemar Ström, who died recently. These priests, at that time there was quite a few of them, were with a saddening regularity chased through the columns of the local newspapers and tabloids, otherwise filled with tear-jerking accounts of how poor ordained women were being harassed by those reactionary, women hating, loveless dogmatic black-coats.

The High Price of Sectarianism

It's amazing how an Anglican bishop - N.T. Wright - can cause a mighty rift in the conservative presbyterian community. Or, perhaps, it's not all that amazing.

Maybe in the Adam Smith sense of the "division of labor" for the broader Church, the conservative presbyterians are stuck with the near-imposssible task of working out what the Bible actually says and means.

Becoming Catholic

From the "Clueless Christian" (Dr. Shari De Silva):

So I had to ask myself why I was so quick to defend the authority of Holy Scripture, and so unwilling to accept the authority of the Magisterium that seemed to have followed in a continuous fashion from the early Magisterium that wrote and compiled Holy Scripture. It seemed to me that the main reason I balked at swallowing this gnat, was that those who wrote Holy Scripture was safely dead, and that therefore I was free to interpret Holy Scripture according to the light of my intellect and reason. It seemed to me that I was upholding the authority of Scripture, in the same way many people uphold the authority of the US Constitution. Those who can gainsay any particular interpretation have long passed from this world, and therefore precisely what is “constitutional” can be debated with impunity. Acknowledging a living authority is a different matter, however. The living authority might well interpret Holy Scripture in a manner that I disagreed with. In other words, looking honestly into my own heart (and I speak for nobody other than myself) the main reason that I refused to acknowledge the authority of the Magisterium was because I was no better than the modern “gnostics” that I railed against in the Anglican church. They wished to submit themselves to Christ but to retain control over their hearts and loves. They did not wish Christ to transform their hearts or their sexuality. I wished to submit to Christ but to retain command of my mind and reason. I did not wish Christ to transform my mind. Like Eve before me, I preferred to have control over my knowledge of good and evil, rather than to trust in God’s provenance for me.

Looking at it from this point of view, I could come up with no honest reason to remain Protestant. So I became Catholic.

Can We Reach Immortality?

Ray Kurzweil thinks so, and he's probably smarter than you or me. I believe the promise of nanotechnology is breathtaking.

Nor am I troubled ethically or theologically by the concept. This is only the outgrowth of the "New Heaven and New Earth" created through Christ, isn't it?

Sort of an Introduction

This blog is to more or less keep tabs on interesting developments in Christendom, and in the spiritual world in general. Nothing is automatically out of the question here. On the other hand, nothing is automatically qualified to be worthy of mention.

The bias does tilt one way, however. I do not believe that liberalism can be reconciled with Christianity or any other religion. What I mean here is that the belief in a supernatural event, such as the resurrection of Jesus, makes it impossible to strongly disbelieve in any other Biblical miracle. "Yes, I believe that Jesus rose from the dead, but physics, chemistry, biology, and the fossil record prove that the natural world is billions of years old and that the human form evolved through a natural process."

The fallacy here is obvious: to believe that Jesus's reserruction is valid on faith, but that, say, a literal six-day creation is invalid because science disproves it, is to make a mockery of the entire canon called God's Word. Science as we know it obviously disproves Jesus's resurrection, just as easily as it disproves the six-day creation. It just isn't possible to logically assent to the miracles and resurrection of Jesus on the basis of faith in the canon of Scripture, yet turn around and say that Old Testament claims of creation and miracles can not be believed because they are scientifically unsound. Yes, there may be valid historical, linguistic, and theological grounds to believe one thing or another, but I will submit that if humanistic science is your only test, the claim of the divinity of Christ falls flat. Conversely, if you believe in the resurrection of Christ, you must concede at least the possibility of a six-day creation - the one isn't any less believable than the other.

The same is true for all religious belief. When the secularist/scientist gives an inch, the supernaturalist by all rights, by the very game the scientist plays, is entitled to take a mile.

Which means that Christians who seek scientific legitimacy,intellectual accountability, and cultural respect, are pursuing a fool's errand. Those who embrace the risen Lord but dismiss six-day creationists as close-minded fools, are at least as close-minded. It is only now that they are shocked - shocked - that they aren't getting the respect they feel they deserve. The culture, and the State, has passed them by. At least the "fundies," have consistency on their side; Christians who deem themselves liberal and scientific have nothing to offer the world. Conservative religions offer faith, paradox, and mystery; liberal religions offer faith and flagrant logical contradictions. No contest there.

I'm laying this out as a commentator, rather than as an advocate. This site is not about de-bunking religion and the supernatural, nor is it about affirming religion and the supernatural. It is about seeking clarity of thought, clarity of belief, clarity in faith.

How Cool!

I'm just glad this name wasn't already taken. I'll check back later with more details.