The Best Book I’ve Ever Read…
December 31, 2008
besides the Bible, of course, may very well be a book entitled Idols for Destruction: The Conflict of Christian Faith and American Culture, by Herbert Schlossberg. Next time you run into an evangelical lefty, or for that matter a lefty of any stripe, a good question to ask would be, “so what do you think of Idols for Destruction?” If he gives you a blank look, or protests that he’s never read it, politely ask him to cease his speaking until he reads the book.
And the good news is that it can be found and read, in its entirety, online. Here’s the link; go and read!
God’s Politics? I Don’t Think So…
December 30, 2008
Every now and then, it’s good to read a book that, going in, you expect to disagree with in large measure. For instance, though I’ve not bought any of the books written by the new “militant atheists”—and don’t intend to—I’ve perused some of their arguments, particularly those of Sam Harris in Letter to a Christian Nation. I don’t find his reasoning particularly compelling, from what I’ve read, but it is good from time to time to read such. And so my reading over Christmas vacation was Jim Wallis’ God’s Politics. Now, I don’t mean to lump Jim, a professed evangelical Christian, in with an atheist like Harris; I certainly agree with Jim Wallis on the “big ticket” items of life (salvation in Christ being at the very top of the list, of course). But Wallis is a Democrat, and takes a decidedly liberal position on political questions of the day. I confess up front that I know I’m a tough cookie in such matters; my positions have not been taken without considerable thought, and so I don’t generally vacillate a whole lot. That said, I want to be open-minded; I didn’t start out as the libertarian I’ve pretty much become, but rather have arrived at this political stance after rethinking a whole lot of things; I can even date the genesis of this political conversion to a conversation with my friend Wade in the car on the way to PromiseKeepers 1994 in Indianapolis—but I digress. I wanted to read Wallis’ book in order to give him a fair hearing, because I don’t think he’s a stupid man, and because say what you will about him, I believe he is quite genuine in his concern for people, a concern motivated by his commitment to Christ. What would God’s Politicshave to teach me? How might it change my perspective? And just as importantly, could Wallis begin to give me some level of intellectual and spiritual justification for changing my thinking politically?
And so I dug in. And it wasn’t easy, frankly, because—how do I say this gently—Jim Wallis isn’t a particularly good writer, maybe on the level of Sean Hannity, ability-wise, which isn’t saying a whole lot. The first five-six chapters of the book give one the feeling that he wrote each chapter individually, at times far removed from each other, and then promptly forgot what he’d previously written. He repeats himself over and over again to the point of distraction; how many times does he feel it necessary to explain that he really, really believes that Saddam Hussein had to be removed from power? Does he write to convince us, or to convince himself? It’s hard to tell, and hard to read as well.
Finally, after taking several chapters to repeat his standard evangelical leftie boilerplate, he tackles the war in Iraq. This is probably the best part of his book, because he does make a reasonable case that this war was unnecessary (I concur) and counterproductive in the “war on terror” (again, I concur). I believe that history will not be terribly kind to George W. Bush—and that’s before the president’s ridiculous rush to involve the government in American business to an unconstitutional and unprecedented degree. Though I’m not terribly sure that the solutions that Wallis favors—he’s a big believer in multinational solutions, and puts a lot more faith in the UN than I believe is warranted—will work, it’s nonetheless true, particularly in retrospect, that the Iraq war was a mistake.
The part of the book that interested me most, though, was his take on domestic issues, poverty in particular. Could Wallis provide intellectual justification for big government approaches to solving the problem?
In a word, no. Rather than engaging in a discussion of the actual effectiveness of Wallis’ favored big-government solutions, Wallis’ approach is to simply assume that the Democrat/liberal/big government/throw more money at the problem solution is the right one, without much of any attempt at justifying his conclusions. For instance, though he doesn’t mention it a great deal, Wallis treats as a given the fact that the minimum wage is too low in America, and that it needs to be raised to provide a “living wage”. This, of course, is just the problem: it’s rather simple economics to demonstrate that the minimum wage (i.e., artificially tinkering with market) does harm to the very people it purports to help. “Regulation” of the market is a good thing to Jim Wallis, and problems come when the government isn’t providing hawk-like oversight. It either doesn’t occur to Wallis that part of “God’s politics” ought to include intellectual justification for his positions, or Wallis has his blinders on to such a degree that he’s not even willing to consider any alternative to what he’s been immersed in all his life.
Basically, what this book seems to do is to suggest that Democrat policies are on target except on pro-life issues (and there, he still comes off as though the issue isn’t as big a deal as I believe it to be), and that they just need to moderate their tone on some things, to be more genial, etc. Wallis demonstrates a woeful ignorance of fundamental economics—something that seems to be to be endemic to most all liberal-types—and throws around the standard liberal buzzwords (“social justice”, to name one particularly vacuous one) and such rather than engage in vigorous examination of the issues at hand. I can’t say I’m surprised. This is what I find to be true on a large scale for liberal apologists: there are code words and buzz words and mantras ad nauseum; there is plenty of emotion and lots of feeling; there are red herrings galore, question-begging a-plenty, guilt-by-association and logical leaps by the bucketload. But substantive debate? Arguments that stand up to the light of reason and reality? Proven solutions rather than surface-level, emotion-driven plays upon our passions? Nah, I don’t find much of that, and God’s Politics is just another book in this long line.
Jim Wallis is a guy with a big heart, and one can appreciate his passion for a better world. I admire that greatly, and find myself challenged by his example. Nonetheless, God’s Politics isn’t a particularly impressive book, and I find myself continuing to wonder of the “evangelical left”, “is there one among you who can develop an intellectually-satisfying defense of your positions?” Guess I’ll have to keep looking…
Really, Don’t Thank ME…
December 30, 2008
Chrysler, fresh from getting the unconstitutional, ridiculous, W-is-losing-it-fast bailout, has the gall to take out full page ads to “thank America” for the money.
Well how’s this, Chrysler (and GM): since you’ve taken the government’s money, you won’t be needing a dime of mine. Here’s one American who will not even consider purchasing a car from these automakers until they’ve paid back every last dime of the bailout.
And for the record, I consider that to be the most patriotic thing I can do.
Why Obey the Law (ANY Law) in California?
December 26, 2008
That may well soon be the question. Typical liberal Jerry Brown “reasoning” has now caused the California Attorney General (hasn’t this man held just about every position there is to hold in the Loon State? He’s been governor, mayor of Oakland, now AG, and I’m sure I’m missing something) to reverse field and determine that he will petition the Supreme Court of California to overturn the legal, duly determined Proposition 8 passed by California voters, which declares simply that marriage is between one man and one woman.
Duh.
But of course, in our zany society, in which some think they are smarter than thousands of years of recorded history and can make marriage a malleable, define-it-as-you-please institution, there are people who hold the preposterous position that two people of the same sex ought to be considered to be married to each other. Further, they ground this belief in the idea that it somehow denies fundamental human rights to individuals if they are not allowed this privilege. Here’s how Jerry puts it: “The amendment-initiative process does not encompass a power to abrogate fundamental constitutional rights without a compelling justification,” he wrote. “Proposition 8 lacks such a justification.”
Baloney.
Nobody’s “rights” are being trampled at all. My long-term readers will recognize that I’ve long advocated that people who identify themselves as homosexual ought to be treated equally before the law. It’s not the state’s business if you want your “partner” at your bedside when you’re sick, or who you want to leave your money to when you die. I supported “don’t ask, don’t tell” when hardly anyone on the “conservative” side of the equation did (of course, that’s not good enough now; another issue altogether). But such rights can be—indeed, ought to be—secured by other means rather than the fundamental altering of the definition of the institution of marriage.
Which is what this is.
But there’s a further question regarding Prop 8, and these efforts to overturn the will of the people: if, after going through constitutional process provided legally for the residents of California, a small group of liberal do-gooders determines to nonetheless void this decision, why should anyone in California regard any law in that state worthy of respect and obedience? To overturn Prop 8 would be to establish lawlessness as the coin of the realm; the law would no longer be worthy of respect, in my opinion (and readers, don’t go Romans 13 on me at this point; just hear me out).
Contempt of court? You’re darn straight. Guilty.
Because the entire legal process, should Jerry Brown get his way, will be rendered without validity in the state of California.
And that being the case, every person in the state should hope and pray that Jerry Brown doesn’t get his way.
Church Discipline in the News
December 26, 2008
By now you’ve no doubt heard of the case of Rebecca Hancock, the Florida woman whose determination to live in a sexually-immoral relationship has caused her Jacksonville church to exercise church discipline in her case. For some reason that honestly escapes me, this has become national news; not only did Fox News do a story on the case, but John Kasich, sitting in for Bill O’Reilly the other night, chose to bring on some lawyerette to give her (amusing) take on the whole situation. Given that this touches on some things close to my heart, I thought I’d give my take.
First, it is surely the prerogative—no, that’s not a strong enough word; the absolute responsibility—of a church to apply loving discipline to a church member such as Ms. Hancock who has decided to live in this way. A church unwilling to undertake such discipline in such an obvious case as this really forfeits the right to call itself a faithful New Testament church. Grace Community Church seems to be exercising its Scriptural responsibilities in quite a Christlike manner; here’s the letter (which FoxNews ridiculously calls an “extortion letter”, to its shame). Here’s Michael McKinley’s take, and here’s Greg Gilbert’s; both of them are dead-on.
Second, I find it interesting that she’d be willing to be interviewed for a Fox News story, admitting to her own sin, and then talk about the humiliation it would be for the church to publicly expose her sin with her own children sitting there in the church (the church has given her ‘til the first Sunday in January to repent, or her sins will be “made public”). Honestly, is there anybody in the church now who doesn’t know what she’s doing? Ms. Hancock, for her part, is clueless (see her quote that begins with, “I am a Christian”).
Third, the only real hitch in the giddyup, potentially, is the fact that Ms. Hancock resigned her membership in the church upon her discovery that the church was determined to take the Bible seriously and call her to account for her sin. The lawyerette who appeared with Kasich said, with Kasich nodding approval, that the fact that Ms. Hancock had resigned her membership would be cause for a lawsuit were the church to follow through on its determination to complete the discipline process. Actually, this is probably not an uncommon response to the discipline process; I’d imagine that a decent percentage of folks determined to avoid repentance attempt this step.
This is why, as we were writing our church’s guiding documents, we addressed this possibility in what we refer to as our “Relational Commitments”. In the section which deals with church discipline, anticipating just such a circumstance, we say,
“We realize that our natural human response to correction often is to hide or run away from accountability (Gen. 3:8-10). To avoid falling into this age-old trap and to strengthen our church’s ability to rescue us if we are caught in sin, we understand that leaving the church, when an active case of corrective discipline against us has been initiated, will not preclude the church from seeing the case through to completion. Although we are free to stop attending the church at any time, we agree that a withdrawal while discipline is pending will not be given effect until the church has fulfilled its God-given responsibilities to encourage our repentance and restoration, and to bring the disciplinary process to an orderly conclusion, as described in these Commitments (Matt. 18:12-14; Gal. 6:1; Heb. 13:17).
If an individual leaves the church while discipline is in effect or is being considered, and our leaders learn that he or she is attending another church, they may inform that church of the situation and ask its leaders to encourage the individual to repent and be reconciled to the Lord and to any people he or she has offended. This action is intended both to help the individual find freedom from his sin and to warn the other church about the harm that he or she might do to their members (see Matt. 18:12-14; Rom. 16:17; 1 Cor. 5:1-13; 3 John 1:9-10).”
Every member of Red Oak renews his/her commitment to membership each year; a signed, yearly commitment to live by the dictates of the Relational Commitments is a part of our process. I hope that Grace Community Church has just such a clause in its constitution as well; this would seem to protect the church as it fulfills its God-given responsibility.
By the way, in the event any of my readers should have interest in getting a copy of Red Oak’s Relational Commitments, I’ll be happy to send you a copy via email. They are based upon the work of PeaceMakers Ministries. Every church should have such documents in place.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
