Why is America so great? Why listen to me when you can read this excellent blogpost from Cameron Buettel, an Austrailian living in Denmark. I originally read this post on Gene Veith's blog. On the other hand, you might check out this previous blogpost.
Here are two articles concerning our capitalist system that should be read by everybody. Both have great imortance to economic conservatives such as myself. In "Greed is not Good and it is not Capitalism" the author refers to the sterotype that capitalism makes a virtue of greed rather than a system that recognizes greed as part of the makeup of human nature and seeks to minimize its impact. Unfortunately some conservatives have bought into the sterotype and equate capitalism and greed because they are ignorant of Capitalism's historic tenents. The second article is a review of a biography of Ayn Rand. Some Conservatives are looking to her philosophy as an antidote to Obama policies. Unfortunately Rand's brand of economics resembles Libertarianism rather than Conservatism in that Libertarians favor unfettered economic and personal freedom (including sexual freedom, many libertarians fought California's Proposition 8) while true conservatives favor free market activity and human freedom guided by our Constitutional system. Rand's, and Libertarian philosophy rejects religious faith.
A "politically correct" controversy that has failed to ignite.
Here is an example of intellectual disdain for Evangelical political activity from INSIDE the Church. I normally enjoy reading this blog and have linked to it for a long time. This is not this blogger's best moment.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Friday Night Frozen Dinner And An Intellectual: "The Politics Of Jesus" by John Howard Yoder. Part IV
Last night I finished John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus." It was torture. Normally when I write a negative book review, I try to be charitible. My initial emotions of dislike rarely make it to the completed blog post. Yet "The Politics of Jesus" is one of the worst books I have read in years. The only reason I stuck with it is that it is considered a classic in some Christians' minds. Reading the final three chapters, I got tired of his imposition of his views on the Biblical text. To repeat my criticisms would waste time; Parts I and II will provide you with criticisms that apply to the book as a whole. My upcoming Friday evenings will cover "The State and the New Testament" by one of Yoder's teachers and "Christ the Meaning of History" by an author cited by Yoder. I didn't know their connections before planning my reading. If no review of these books appear here it is because I decided to move on. After I finish with these two books, I am going to review four short books by N.T. Wright.
Recent Articles Of Interest
On the House Church Movement in China.
Two great articles from Dr. Claude Mariottini's blog. (I have had difficulty creating a link to his blog.) The first concerns whether B.C.E. and C.E. should replace B.C. and A.D. as the standard terms of dating historical and archeological artifacts. The second concerns how we can learn from the ancient Jews in giving thanks for our meals.
Gene Veith's blog links to an Anglican's post as to why Conservative Anglicans should not join the Catholic Church.
A great response to Open Theism on the Wesleyan Arminian blog.
A great response to Atheism's charge that belief in God is responsible for all the world's evils at Arminian Today. Atheist Christopher Hitchens writes of his experience debating Christian apologists. Interesting reading.
Two great articles from Dr. Claude Mariottini's blog. (I have had difficulty creating a link to his blog.) The first concerns whether B.C.E. and C.E. should replace B.C. and A.D. as the standard terms of dating historical and archeological artifacts. The second concerns how we can learn from the ancient Jews in giving thanks for our meals.
Gene Veith's blog links to an Anglican's post as to why Conservative Anglicans should not join the Catholic Church.
A great response to Open Theism on the Wesleyan Arminian blog.
A great response to Atheism's charge that belief in God is responsible for all the world's evils at Arminian Today. Atheist Christopher Hitchens writes of his experience debating Christian apologists. Interesting reading.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Pro Life And Other Cultural News Of Interest
Some good news on the pro life front.
A Judge's ruling that should be read by all pro choicers.
You have heard about the Director of a Planned Parenthood clinic who resigned after witnessing an abortion procedure and changing her mind concerning abortion? It appears that the clinic is now suing her.
A link to first hand testimony concerning the evils of China's One child/family policy from a Christian.
The beliefs of all Christian health care providers are under assault.
Those pushing an agenda forcing the public at large to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle are active here and overseas. Now Evangelical Colleges are struggling with the issue.
A Judge's ruling that should be read by all pro choicers.
You have heard about the Director of a Planned Parenthood clinic who resigned after witnessing an abortion procedure and changing her mind concerning abortion? It appears that the clinic is now suing her.
A link to first hand testimony concerning the evils of China's One child/family policy from a Christian.
The beliefs of all Christian health care providers are under assault.
Those pushing an agenda forcing the public at large to accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle are active here and overseas. Now Evangelical Colleges are struggling with the issue.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Audio Impressions
Ronald Reagan on National (Socialized) Health Care. Though he was speaking in the early 60's, his arguments will never be out of date.
Dallas Willard speaking on being a morally responsible skeptic. Dr. Willard points out that in our age the beginning premise in secular and religious matters is unbelief, in any discussion knowledge and certainty are looked down upon. (See a previous blogpost on this issue of certainty, http://therighthandoffellowship.blogspot.com/2007/04/me-smug-moi.html ) Disbelief is now considered a virtue. This makes it more difficult for leaders to guide institutions. Yet Willard asserts that to disbelieve without knowledge or inquiry is just as consequential to all of us as to believe. Therefore, those who reject knowledge and certainty must justify their unbelief as much as others are called upon to justify their belief. To give an example not given in Willard's talk, the African country of Zambia had a famine a few years back. The US developed grain to grow in Zambia's soil, but one person in France put it out that the grain was actually poisoned so to kill off Africans. Despite the assurances of the US government, the government of Zambia chose not to believe the Western super-power. The result is people died. Unbelief is just as consequential as belief. The talk can be heard here.
Athiest Christopher Hitchens debates Dinesh D'Souza and Frank Tureck. Hitchens offers up no new arguements for his atheism (click the tab for Audio Impressions to listen to his previous debate with Tureck.) His arguements consist of blaming belief in God for all the misery the world has experienced. Tureck is able to argue from the scientific evidence that God does indeed exist while Hitchens mainly ignores the evidence. D'Souza is a good debater, yet I think Tureck was more effective in his exchange with Hitchens. D'Souza does not have the background that Tureck has in studying the scientific data. Tureck is also effective in his use of Scripture. The debate with D'Souza can be heard here, the one with Tureck, here. (The link for the Tureck debate is not available. Therefore, go to the Apologetics315 website; you will find the Tureck debate on 9/18/09. The D'Souza debate will be found on 10/14/09.)
Dallas Willard speaking on being a morally responsible skeptic. Dr. Willard points out that in our age the beginning premise in secular and religious matters is unbelief, in any discussion knowledge and certainty are looked down upon. (See a previous blogpost on this issue of certainty, http://therighthandoffellowship.blogspot.com/2007/04/me-smug-moi.html ) Disbelief is now considered a virtue. This makes it more difficult for leaders to guide institutions. Yet Willard asserts that to disbelieve without knowledge or inquiry is just as consequential to all of us as to believe. Therefore, those who reject knowledge and certainty must justify their unbelief as much as others are called upon to justify their belief. To give an example not given in Willard's talk, the African country of Zambia had a famine a few years back. The US developed grain to grow in Zambia's soil, but one person in France put it out that the grain was actually poisoned so to kill off Africans. Despite the assurances of the US government, the government of Zambia chose not to believe the Western super-power. The result is people died. Unbelief is just as consequential as belief. The talk can be heard here.
Athiest Christopher Hitchens debates Dinesh D'Souza and Frank Tureck. Hitchens offers up no new arguements for his atheism (click the tab for Audio Impressions to listen to his previous debate with Tureck.) His arguements consist of blaming belief in God for all the misery the world has experienced. Tureck is able to argue from the scientific evidence that God does indeed exist while Hitchens mainly ignores the evidence. D'Souza is a good debater, yet I think Tureck was more effective in his exchange with Hitchens. D'Souza does not have the background that Tureck has in studying the scientific data. Tureck is also effective in his use of Scripture. The debate with D'Souza can be heard here, the one with Tureck, here. (The link for the Tureck debate is not available. Therefore, go to the Apologetics315 website; you will find the Tureck debate on 9/18/09. The D'Souza debate will be found on 10/14/09.)
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Friday Night Frozen Dinner And An Intellectual: "The Politics Of Jesus" by John Howard Yoder. Part III
I'm going to go easier on John Howard Yoder's "The Politics of Jesus" this week. Much of the criticisms I could make of last Friday night's reading would be repititious. However, in the three chapters I read last Friday evening, Yoder articulates some theological positions worthy of our attention.
The first position is his view of worldly powers, particularly what Paul labeled as "principalities and powers" and "thrones and dominions." While in a footnote Yoder acknowledges that these could refer to evil supernatural forces, he focuses primarily upon social and political structures as what Paul was speaking of here. While we could legitimately contest Yoder's emphasis, he's not entirely off the mark here. In Yoder's considering of social structures as powers, he states that while these are fallen, they were originally part of God's plan for humanity before sin marred His creation; society, history, even nature itself would have been impossible without a regulatory system provided by power structures. Now these structures seek to seperate us from the love of God and subject Man to servitude. (Still, God in His providential sovereignty manages these structures for the good.) Yoder cites William Stringfellow's "Free in Obedience" as influencing his views on this subject. An example from Stringfellow's book as to how these structures operate to enslave: you are an up and coming employee in a major business concern, the boss summons you for a private conference, he tells you that while the firm values your work, having too many children could be a hindrance to advancement. It would not be out of bounds to attribute such pressure as the work of principalities or powers. Yoder is not off the mark to include the pressure to control, even to enslave, as included in the Enemy's plan to enslave God's highest creation, Man. Yoder criticizes some Christian traditions, such as the Lutheren tradition, which views all rebellion against these social and political structures as rebellion against God and God's order. Instead of starting with Romans 13 when considering submission to authority, Yoder claims that the real starting point in considering submission is Philippians 2, in which Paul states that Christ on His own accord submitted to the Father in taking on the form of a man and dying for our sins. All submission is voluntary: the wife submits voluntarily to the husband, the slave to the master. Those that submit for the sake of Christ do so voluntarily, as free moral agents of equal worth to those who are submitted to. The Christian response to tyannical powers is defensive, to refuse to be seduced by them. It is Jesus who defeats the powers. I suppose this is the origin of Yoder's theology of Christian pacifism. I will include the scriptures Yoder cites on my study blog.
Yoder began "The Politics of Jesus" with a critique of those who believe that Jesus' orginal teachings had no bearing on contemporary social ethics. Those who think thus believe Jesus believed the world would soon end. When His followers realized this was not so, they had to borrow from another ethical systems, such as Stoicism. However, Yoder does a masterful job in demonstrating the incompatibility of Stoic and Christian morality. Stoicism urges Man to live up to his own nature; it addresses Man in his own dignity. Furthermore, it aims its message at the dominant men in society, not those occupying the lowest rung. The New Testament writers were the first to address the lowliest of society as free moral agents with a responsible ministry to the world. The submission of wives, children and slaves was their moral choice with the purpose of witnessing to God. Their submission was their choice, not a matter of fate. In Stoicism there is no heart change, no expectation of reward. Stoicism assumes that the man of society whom it addresses will always act right once he is aware of the right action to take.
In an earlier review, I noted that I know people who highly respect Yoder and "The Politics of Jesus" and that I found the book a disappointment. I suspect that it is the arguements put forth in what I read last Friday night that produces their enthusiasm. Taken out of context of the entire book, there is great merit in what Yoder writes in this section. Unfortunately, when I read the book as a whole, I cannot endorse it.
I have sixty more pages to read.
The first position is his view of worldly powers, particularly what Paul labeled as "principalities and powers" and "thrones and dominions." While in a footnote Yoder acknowledges that these could refer to evil supernatural forces, he focuses primarily upon social and political structures as what Paul was speaking of here. While we could legitimately contest Yoder's emphasis, he's not entirely off the mark here. In Yoder's considering of social structures as powers, he states that while these are fallen, they were originally part of God's plan for humanity before sin marred His creation; society, history, even nature itself would have been impossible without a regulatory system provided by power structures. Now these structures seek to seperate us from the love of God and subject Man to servitude. (Still, God in His providential sovereignty manages these structures for the good.) Yoder cites William Stringfellow's "Free in Obedience" as influencing his views on this subject. An example from Stringfellow's book as to how these structures operate to enslave: you are an up and coming employee in a major business concern, the boss summons you for a private conference, he tells you that while the firm values your work, having too many children could be a hindrance to advancement. It would not be out of bounds to attribute such pressure as the work of principalities or powers. Yoder is not off the mark to include the pressure to control, even to enslave, as included in the Enemy's plan to enslave God's highest creation, Man. Yoder criticizes some Christian traditions, such as the Lutheren tradition, which views all rebellion against these social and political structures as rebellion against God and God's order. Instead of starting with Romans 13 when considering submission to authority, Yoder claims that the real starting point in considering submission is Philippians 2, in which Paul states that Christ on His own accord submitted to the Father in taking on the form of a man and dying for our sins. All submission is voluntary: the wife submits voluntarily to the husband, the slave to the master. Those that submit for the sake of Christ do so voluntarily, as free moral agents of equal worth to those who are submitted to. The Christian response to tyannical powers is defensive, to refuse to be seduced by them. It is Jesus who defeats the powers. I suppose this is the origin of Yoder's theology of Christian pacifism. I will include the scriptures Yoder cites on my study blog.
Yoder began "The Politics of Jesus" with a critique of those who believe that Jesus' orginal teachings had no bearing on contemporary social ethics. Those who think thus believe Jesus believed the world would soon end. When His followers realized this was not so, they had to borrow from another ethical systems, such as Stoicism. However, Yoder does a masterful job in demonstrating the incompatibility of Stoic and Christian morality. Stoicism urges Man to live up to his own nature; it addresses Man in his own dignity. Furthermore, it aims its message at the dominant men in society, not those occupying the lowest rung. The New Testament writers were the first to address the lowliest of society as free moral agents with a responsible ministry to the world. The submission of wives, children and slaves was their moral choice with the purpose of witnessing to God. Their submission was their choice, not a matter of fate. In Stoicism there is no heart change, no expectation of reward. Stoicism assumes that the man of society whom it addresses will always act right once he is aware of the right action to take.
In an earlier review, I noted that I know people who highly respect Yoder and "The Politics of Jesus" and that I found the book a disappointment. I suspect that it is the arguements put forth in what I read last Friday night that produces their enthusiasm. Taken out of context of the entire book, there is great merit in what Yoder writes in this section. Unfortunately, when I read the book as a whole, I cannot endorse it.
I have sixty more pages to read.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Roger E. Olson on Arminian Theology
I have not had a chance to read Professor Roger E. Olson's book "Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities" and so I was glad to stumble upon two interviews of Olson at wesleyanarminian.blogspot.com . In these interviews he deals with the misconceptions of Arminianism that are the result of ignorance or misrepresentation. He defends Arminianism against the charges that it is semi-pelagian; he correctly states that Arminians believe in total depravity, that humans are dead in trespass and sin and that the initiative in salvation is always God's. Olson rejects the view that Charles Finney, a semi-pelagian, was in fact an Arminian. The starting point for Arminianism is not free will but the character of God; it has been the charge of Arminians against Calvinism that Calvinism makes God the author of evil. Instead, God allows a reasoned involvement of Man, his highest creation, in history; God does not want us to be robots but be in a personal relationship with Him, a relationship that allows for disobedience on the part of man. The Calvinist understanding of Predestination is rejected by Arminianism in favor of the Biblical view that God predestines those who will believe for salvation. Arminianism does not inevitibly lead to Open Theism as Calvinsts charge, but it shares Calvinists' view that God is totally sovereign. In fact, according to Olson, the enemy of Calvinism is not Arminianism, but the enemy of both is full blown Pelagianism. Professor Olson does disagree with John Wesley on Wesley's view of Christian Perfection, so that distinguishes him from those such as I who hold to that understanding of Scripture. Olson describes himself as a Pietist and defends that venerable tradition from the charges that its adherents are "holier than thou" and anti-intellectual. He describes Pietism as experiencing God in prayer and service. You can hear these interviews here and here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
