2008 May archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for May, 2008

Links: LP Presidential Race, Christians Protesting Marriage?

Published by Colin May 30, 2008 in Current Events. 11 Comments

Pragmatism and purity butt heads at the Libertarian Party convention: “The purists don’t want a political party as much as they want a church,” [Richard Burke] said. “They need a place to worship.” Read the article: Who Isn’t Trying to Take Over the Libertarian Party? We’re being talked about again.

Maybe The Gospel Of Judas isn’t what we thought it was?

How My Mother’s Fanatical Feminist View Tore Us Apart - a revelation from Rebecca Walker, whose mother wrote the famous feminist book The Color Purple.

Student researching al-Qaida tactics held for six days

Home prices dropped 14% last quarter.

Here’s a not-so-hypothetical question: when California law redefines marriage to include gay couples, should Christians stop getting marriage licenses from the government? The new and improved definition of marriage is detestable to God. “Would getting such a license be an example of Christians signing up to participate in an institution that is fundamentally, in its very definition, ungodly?”

Mike Huckabee blasts libertarianism:

Republicans need to be Republicans. The greatest threat to classic Republicanism is not liberalism; it’s this new brand of libertarianism, which is social liberalism and economic conservatism, but it’s a heartless, callous, soulless type of economic conservatism because it says “look, we want to cut taxes and eliminate government. If it means that elderly people don’t get their Medicare drugs, so be it. If it means little kids go without education and healthcare, so be it.” Well, that might be a quote pure economic conservative message, but it’s not an American message. It doesn’t fly. People aren’t going to buy that, because that’s not the way we are as a people. That’s not historic Republicanism. Historic Republicanism does not hate government; it’s just there to be as little of it as there can be. But they also recognize that government has to be paid for.

In response, Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis issued the following statement:

Huckabee is right that Libertarianism is a threat to Republicanism. The Republican Party, with the help of people like Sen. John McCain, has done nothing but increase the scope and power of government while throwing fiscal responsibility to the wind. It’s the ‘compassionate conservatism’ touted by people like Huckabee, McCain and President Bush that has caused a soaring national debt and a society where prisons are overflowing because of Republican ‘compassion.’ Libertarianism is unquestionably the American message because libertarianism is the only political message that empowers the American people by giving them more control over their lives and their wallets. Huckabee proves once again that there is very little difference in the messages of Republicans and Democrats, and shows that McCain and Obama might as well be running in the same political party.

More on Huckabee and his nonsense on Monday.

The Broken Window Applied to Disaster Cleanup

Published by Colin May 29, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

If there is one lesson - one economic concept that should be grasped above all others, it is the Broken Window Fallacy. If this fallacy were more widely understood, perhaps the public would begin to stop demanding more government programs, wars, price and wage controls and socialism in general. Here is the entire story, from that masterpiece Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt:

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’s shop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $50 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have$50 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever- widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be not unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $50 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $50 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

This fallacy has been most recently used to support the ideas that disasters (both man-made and natural) are actually good for the economy.

One close to my home is the New Carissa disaster and cleanup - where a freighter ran aground in Coos Bay, Oregon in 1999. The financial losses were substantial along with environmental damage as well. There have been several costly attempts by government to take care of the wreckage, but it still resides on the public beach. But this disaster is a “boon” to the economy according to the journalists in the Pacific Northwest:

Titan Maritime, the company charged by the state of Oregon to remove the wreckage of the New Carissa, has found Coos Bay to be a bountiful site when it comes to repairing ships.

[Engineering Director Phil Reed’s] first stop was Sause Bros. Ocean Towing Co., where crews repaired and repainted the boom on Titan’s “Big Red” crane. President Dale Sause said his company was busy at the time the barges first got here. Sause Bros. couldn’t do a lot of work for Titan but had no problem pointing Reed in the right direction. Sause referred him to welders, electricians and people who could sandblast and paint.As one connection led to another, Reed found himself a very busy man. His cellphone rang all day.

…Jerry Wharton, the owner of Wardrobe Cleaners in Coos Bay, and his employees will deal with a mountain of crew members’ laundry — more than 250 pounds per week. The pile is certain to grow as additional workers arrive.”To me, it’s amazing,” Reed said. “On this one little strip we’ve found 99 percent of what we need.”

Perhaps we should crash several other boats on the Coos Bay coast and really get the economy going!

Review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Part I

Published by Thainamu May 28, 2008 in Book Reviews. 11 Comments

The Language of God: a scientist presents evidence for belief
by Francis S. Collins
Free Press, Simon and Schuster
2006, 295 pages
Amazon link

Part 1 of 4 - Introduction and the Chasm Between Science and Faith

Most of you have probably heard of Francis Collins. If you haven’t heard of him as a evangelical Christian who believes in evolution, at least you’ve heard of him as the head of the Human Genome Project. His list of degrees, accomplishments and publications is impressive from a purely secular view, but his story of how he came to faith as an adult and how he relates faith to the study of human genetics is impressive too. The title of his book comes from a speech given by then President Bill Clinton on June 26, 2000 when it was announced that the first draft of the human genome had been assembled. Clinton said,

Today we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God’s most divine and sacred gift.

Chapter 1 of this book is Collins’s autobiographic tale of how he came to faith. Collins’s parents were homeschooling free thinkers. Growing up only vaguely aware of the idea of God, he began college as a lazy agnostic (”In fact, my assertion of ‘I don’t know’ was really more along the lines of ‘I don’t want to know.’” p.16) and gradually became a full-fledged atheist while studying physical chemistry at Yale. After taking a course in biochemistry he got excited about studying medicine and found a way to combine his love of mathematics with his new interest in medicine by studying genetics. At the age of 26, a patient asked him about his religious beliefs. This question haunted him until he felt compelled to make a full investigation into religion, fully expecting to find no rational reasons to believe and thus to reaffirm his atheism. He dug into a survey of the world’s religions and eventually made a visit to a local Methodist preacher who gave him a copy of CS Lewis’s Mere Christianity.

Lewis’s point that struck closest home to Collins was the discussion of right and wrong and the moral law. Collins returns to this idea often throughout his book–that man has something inside of him that knows there is a right and a wrong. (One negative reviewer pointed out that Collins should have mentioned that recent ideas in evolutionary biology claim this perhaps universal idea of the existence of right and wrong is just one more thing evolution has brought the human race.) It was the realization that the moral law points to a God and that this God is holy which soon led to his conversion:

I had started this journey of intellectual exploration to confirm my atheism. That now lay in ruins as the argument from the Moral Law (and many other issues) forced me to admit the plausibility of the God hypothesis. Agnosticism, which had seemed like a safe second-place haven, now loomed like the great cop-out it often is. Faith in God now seemed more rational than disbelief. (p.30)

Chapter 2 was written for skeptics. Collins gives a brief and very readable explanation about how he worked through each of these four rather common objections we hear from unbelievers:

Isn’t the idea of God just wishful thinking?
What about the horrible things have been done in the name of God and religion?
How could a loving God allow so much suffering in the world?
How can a rational person believe in miracles?

Next week: Part 2 of 4 - The great questions of human existence

Oh No, It’s Magic… Or Maybe Not.

Published by Bryan May 27, 2008 in General, Religion and Theology. 11 Comments

Usually the first objection that is brought up when a person who holds to a memorialist position learns that I hold to the view that some kind of sanctifying grace is imparted to a participant in the Lord’s Supper is that I’m believing in magical elements. To quote a commentator on a previous thread, where I introduced this idea:

The Bible does NOT teach that magic rituals obtain grace, but rather that faith is rewarded with grace.

I believe there are two reasons that this, and similar responses I’ve heard from many people, occur. The first, and one I will only touch on here, is that it comes from a lingering rejection of the Roman Catholic Church. Having “grown up” in Baptist churches, where the memorialist position was the norm, all other positions were pretty much lumped together as being the Roman Catholic view, or at least on the way to it. I don’t believe this was done intentionally, by most, but was done simply for lack of knowledge on other traditions in general and lack of thought on the Lord’s Supper particularly.

As an example to this, I was talking with a friends dad the other day who use to be a pastor in The Christian And Missionary Alliance (Not to put either the dad [who I enjoy talking with] or the CMA [which I am attending a church of and enjoying it very much at the moment] down but only to illustrate the issue) and the fact that I think grace is imparted in the supper came up. His first reaction was to call it a Catholic view and begin to discuss what is wrong transubstantiation. The fact that I didn’t mention the topic of Christ’s presence, but only wished to talk about what happens in the Lord’s Supper didn’t seem to matter. It was a deviation from the memorialist position and therefore must be Catholic and include the whole of the Catholic teaching. This is of course absurd, but it happens often. The only way to combat this is education on the fact that protestants have historically had varying views on the Lord’s Supper and not everything different is Catholic. Of course a better understanding of what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches and why would also help.

The second reason that any grace position is rejected as magic, and I think the more pervasive one, is that the vast majority of people today have in their minds a radical separation between the spiritual and physical world. We can chalk this dichotomy up to gnosticism or enlightenment philosophers, but the fact is that it’s there and it’s undeniable. The idea that God would use an object to give grace, seems so very strange to many because of this.

Today’s average Protestant Christian has simply accepted the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and never actually looked to see what it means. It has therefore morphed into something much closer to a doctrine that says “justification by faith in faith alone” eliminating any physical connection and bringing in the nebulous idea that it is faith the saves a person and not something or someone. When pressed on it, every protestant worth their salt will respond that it is Christ that saves, but in the abstract, the fact that He was a physical person whose action we put faith in to accomplish what scripture promises putting faith in Him will, is not considered. The physical actions of Christ are often overlooked on account of faith. We are not saved by faith, but saved by a person who in faith we trust in to do what He promised.

To bring this a bit away from the abstract, we could ask the question: If Christ did not go to the cross, commit a physical action, would salvation still be open to people even if they had faith? The answer I think is no, Christ needed to go to the cross, and He needed to be raised again or else our faith would be in nothing.

This is all well and good you say, but that was Christ committing a physical action, your speaking of us performing a physical action of receive grace. Isn’t that works salvation?

Works is the funny thing in Protestant theology. I was once asked long, long ago, how I could say I didn’t believe works saved and then say that faith was needed to be saved. Wasn’t faith a work? The question perplexed me for a while, I was a very new believer, but the answer is quite simple; faith may be a work, but it is one that is done not by our own power but by God’s (Ephesians 2:8).

The Protestant argument against works is, or at least should be, that the person is trying to save themselves. They are doing works of their own power to get a spiritual result. They think that by doing something they are storing up merit that counts towards them in heaven. These are not views I want to put forward as what happens in the Lord’s Supper at all.

When I say sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s Supper I mean that God uses the elements of it to give us grace. It’s the avenue which He sends His grace to us through. There is no inherent quality in the bread and wine that gives grace to any eater of it, but God sends His grace through it to those who take it in faith. As we saw earlier God uses the physical Christ to bring saving grace to us, and we see other examples in scripture of Him using physical objects to bring grace to people.

Consider Numbers 21:9:

So Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on a pole. And if a serpent bit anyone, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.

There are several questions to ask with a passage like this. Was it a work for the people to look at the snake? Did they heal themselves? Was it the snake that healed, or was it God? Of course we will say it was not a work, that God healed them and it wasn’t the snake that did but God working through the physical object. The same questions should be asked with Mark 8:23-25 where Christ used physical objects to heal a man of his blindness.

None of this is proof, or even an argument, that sanctifying grace is given in the Lord’s supper, thats not the point here. The point is to give the person pause who rejects that view out of hand because it comes across as magic. God can, and does, use physical means to distribute His grace. He did it with Christ, with the serpents on the pole, and with mud and spit. The absolute dichotomy between physical and spiritual is not one found in scripture. Our God works in mysterious ways, and through mysterious objects, and we should embrace that!

Links: Polygamy

Published by Colin May 23, 2008 in General and Current Events. 11 Comments

A Texas court says the State of Texas Had No Right to keep the children of a polygamist mormon sect in a raid a month ago. I was shocked (well maybe not) to see yesterday that 60% in CNN’s online poll asking whether Texas Police were correct to go in guns-blazing and steal away the children agreed with the court. This, despite that fact that there was merely one anonymous phone call (which has since not been verified) which claimed that there was abuse going on. What that means in principle is that 60% of those who responded to the poll think it is perfectly legitimate for police with zero evidence to go in, arrest people and steal their children.

In another recent Poll, 75% of British Columbians say they want polygamists prosecuted. But polygamy, which is biblically abhorrent and a sin, is also a free and victimless arrangement between consenting adults. There is no crime to prosecute - no one is hurt by voluntarily agreeing to be a part of a polygamous relationship. The only crime that is proven right now is kidnapping by the state authorities.

More Politics
Fat people cause global warming. Step away from the Doritos, fatty.

What is at stake in this election? Barack Obama gives an “impassioned defense of partial-birth abortion.” Watch the video clip

Churchy Links
What you think you can’t say at church

Jeremiah 31 and Covenant Membership

Misc Links
Frogamander Discovered

We’re being talked about.

Read movies and watch books: zfter Chris R’s 2008 summer reading group.

Christian singer, Steven Curtis Chapman, lost one of his princesses yesterday.

The Next American Civil War

Published by Kenneth Martens May 21, 2008 in Politics and Book Reviews. 34 Comments

Empire cover art Empire, by Orson Scott Card
Tor Books, 2006
352 pages
Amazon.com link

Spoiler warning: This article discusses plot details about Orson Scott Card’s novel Empire. If you intend to read the book and don’t wish to know too much about what happens, you may wish to skip this article.

What will spark the next American civil war? That was the question posed to science fiction writer Orson Scott Card by Donald Mustard of Chair Entertainment. Chair wanted to develop a game based around an American civil war, and asked Card to figure out how that war might happen. Card gave it a shot. The result was Empire, a thriller novel published in 2006.

The Blue and the Red
Card looked at America. He found no divisions that have “the geographic clarity of the Mason-Dixon line.” But civil wars need no boundaries. The greatest division in America today is liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, blue states vs. red states. That’s the conflict that flares into a shooting war in Empire.

But, as Card knows, blue states aren’t really blue and red states aren’t really red. The divide only grows distinct when we compare urban centers to the rural areas. Urban blue, rural red. With this kind of geographical dispersal throughout the United States, a shooting war isn’t likely to happen spontaneously. No, it requires a conspiracy.

The Conspiracy
Here’s how it happens in Empire. A liberal billionaire (think George Soros) secretly finances a private military. He bides his time, waiting to overthrow the US government. Meanwhile, a disaffected Army general plans his own right-wing coup. When unknown terrorists assassinate the President and Vice-President, the general seizes the opportunity; but his move is premature and the coup fails. In response, the liberal militia invades and occupies New York City, declares the US government to be illegitimate, and claims to be the only true government of the people. To avoid civilian casualties, the new US President (formerly Speaker of the House, as per the rules of succession) opts not to send the US military into New York City. The nation endures a tense standoff between the revolutionary forces and the US government; every day that the standoff continues, more liberal states and cities pass resolutions recognizing the rebellion as the legitimate government of the US.

Could it really happen?
Card’s basic premise is that the left-right divide in America is sufficient to lead to civil war. But is this realistic? I think not. Even Card recognizes that the average American isn’t radical enough to wish his political enemies dead. Most Republican don’t think that Democrats are evil, and vice versa. That plays out in Empire. The only significant violence is caused by the private militia that invades New York City. There is no massive violence and bloodshed between Americans. The rest of the nation sits around waiting to see what happens; a few city councils and state governments pass resolutions, but nobody takes up arms. Republicans don’t murder their Democratic neighbors. Liberals don’t lynch conservatives. In the end, after the rebellion collapses, the Republicans and Democrats even get together and–in a show of bipartisanship–nominate the same man for President.

Neither left nor right
If the left-right divide is the biggest problem in America today, the nation is strong. Is there anything that could flare into civil war in America? I can’t think of anything. Do you have any ideas?

The Absolute Nature of Evil

Published by Colin May 20, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 16 Comments

I find it sad how relativism as become the philosophy du jour in the Church, let alone much of the world. It is not acceptable to call good “good” and evil “evil,” rather it is now insisted that many good and bad actions are subjectively approaching moral and ethical neutrality in order to compromise with the world in which we live.

But evil, at least as the bible lays it out, is not on a sliding scale. While it is in the nature of humanity (we seem to be disposed to subjectivism by design) to rank evil through multiple shades of gray - God has clearly placed only two options on the scale. Option one is “good” - which is absolute moral perfection. Jesus made it quite clear what good is:

Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God (Luke 18:18-19).

Only God is good - and that from Jesus - who was God in the flesh. God is morally pure and perfect, and thus we have option one being absolute moral perfection.

Option two is “evil” - which, logically, is what is not good (if there are only good and evil).

The Christian Attitude
Christians are not to have any part of evil - which is an absolute. This means:

we are not to compromise with evil
we are not to ally with evil
we are not to use evil (even to bring about “good” ends)
we are not to support evil
we are not to tolerate evil
we are not to ignore evil

Amos (5:15) puts it very succinctly: “Hate evil, love good.” Evil is not to be tolerated. For example, we know that murder, rape, homosexuality, fornication, theft and drug-use are evil but so is lying, gossip, slander, pride and idolatry. These things are not “less” evil because evil is absolute. It is not divisible into smaller parts or denominations. Moreover, these things are not to be tolerated or ignored. They are to be exposed and fought with good.

But even more tempting than toleration of evil, is to compromise or even collaborate with it. For example, in politics we hear “the lesser of two evils” - this is a logically impossible phrase. There is no man or woman running who is “less” evil than the other. If we are accountable for our vote and we use it to vote for evil, then we are not vindicated. That is like standing before God and saying, “well God, instead of murdering people, I only lied to them. Well done, right?”

This is how moral subjectivity breeds self-righteousness. Ethical pragmatism replaces moral perfection as a standard of Christian virtue. Thus an absolute measure like the bible is no longer adequate, but instead men are measured relative other men and other laws (currently secular law).

The Temptation to Compromise
The Christian mission is also compromised by alliances with evil. Man is no longer seen to need conversion by a perfect and holy God, but instead to be reformed by conformity to society, governments, churches and secular philosophies. If either evil choices can be removed (through law), discouraged (through society), ignored (through churches) or even justified (through philosophy) - then man has no need of a perfect God to save him.

It is then perfectly natural for Christians to lose their zeal for evangelism and replace it with one of these idols. Perhaps the Christian must now be political and seek to legislate morality through secular governments. Or maybe he must practice ostracism or inclusion, forming cliques and hierarchies to propagate Christianity. Perhaps the answer is to advocate a life with endless church activities, programs and duties in order to leave no room for evil (which has never been dealt with). Or evil should simply be accepted, even grafted in through humanistic philosophy.

In my life, I have found that the more time and focus I have for evangelism, the less interested I am in those distractions. It should not be surprising that obedience to God’s design for our lifestyle yields good fruit and disobedience leads to the opposite.

Christians have no ambiguity with regard to evil:

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isaiah 5:20)

We are not to conform to the relativism of the world, but to hold good and evil as moral absolutes. Moreover, we are not merely to think this way - but to live out this truth in obedience to a holy and perfect God.

Why the Republicans are Losing

Published by Colin May 19, 2008 in Current Events. 9 Comments

We had a link last week about the Republicans looking like they are going to go belly up. They seem in complete disarray about why this is happening. But is it so hard for the Republicans to figure out what went wrong? Let me take a stab at it.

This country is not cleanly divided into three roughly equal blocks of people wearing blue, red and gray clothes. The political spectrum is as unique as each individual, but come election day, we normally have two to three broad categories with which to align ourselves. If republicans are are going to lose so badly this November, it’s because their own policies have either become so dogmatic that they represent only a small group of people, or they have become so broad that they don’t really stand for anything.

Republicans did quite well in the 1980’s with Reagan and in Congress in 1994 when Newt made some Reagan-like promises. The rhetoric and the actions of those republicans in power (well, at least some of the actions) were soundly conservative. Especially more conservative than those of a long line of republicans (perhaps even before the progressive era at the turn of the century).

It’s not rocket science on how to get elected in America - as I suspect that despite the idealistic appeal of big programs from the left, Americans more or less want officials that show professional and personal restraint. We want responsible and wise authority. As Sideshow Bob said:

Your guilty conscience may force you to vote Democratic, but deep down inside you secretly long for a cold-hearted Republican to lower taxes, brutalize criminals, and rule you like a king.

Regardless of democratic or republican affiliation, most politicians seem to get elected by promoting 1) fiscal responsibility 2) reducing (or at least promising to) the size and scope of the federal government 3) freer-markets and free-enterprise 4) civil liberties 5) religious values as character virtues rather than state or public ones (freedom of religion) 6) a strong defensive military policy.

It is clear that in order to win, Republicans must simply embrace those roots (which have now all but withered up) which used to define them as conservative. When Nixon did these things (such as détante) he was popular. When he did not (character) - he left his office in disgrace. Bush Sr. got elected on the promises of Reagan and proceeded to abandon his conservative pledges (no new taxes), and he was booted out. Bill Clinton, in many ways, ran and maintained office with (compared to Bush I) conservative policies and rhetoric - especially regarding trade, spending cuts and fiscal responsibility. Clinton’s major failure however, was character (Whitewater, Lewinski). Even this most recent democratic congress was elected to end our aggressive military policy and irresponsible spending.

So now this modern crop of the GOP (and the democrats as well, just not as badly) has alienated most Americans by adhering to the exact opposite of these values: 1) fiscal recklessness 2) massively expanding the federal government 3) more socialism and protectionism 4) obstructing civil liberties 5) making personal integrity and character into empty, neutered and impersonal public virtues 6) preemptive war and a belligerent military policy.

The GOP have merely embraced a”conservative-values statism.” They have applied the evils of big government in an ends-justifies-the-means claim to bring about “conservative” ends. In other words: conservative ends by socialist means. Is anyone surprised that this kind of disingenuous policy has failed?

Links: Seattle Supersonics Relocation Fiasco, Bob Barr and World-Screwing Books

Published by Colin May 16, 2008 in General. 2 Comments

The other side of government financed sports: Oklahoma City demands $150 million if Seattle Supersonics don’t relocate.

Former Congressman Bob Barr is seeking the Libertarian nomination for President. (LA Times article) Barr was a Republican during his time in office but joined the Libertarian Party a couple of years ago.

Agitated? Irritable? Hostile? Aggressive? Impulsive? Restless? The press is having a field day with this latest Republican screw-up.

Time Magazine is arguing for the US military to invade Burma to force aid upon the population.

The Silver Lining in High Commodity Prices

Unreal Tournament 2004 (and global warming) is the solution to world hunger.

If global warming continues, then we might lose the coastal cities to flooding. But that’s a price I’m willing to pay. Only twits live on the coast. (Not you, if you live on the coast; I’m talking about other twits.) But it will open up Greenland and Siberia and Canada to farming opportunities. Granted, I don’t think Canadians know how to farm. But we can probably give them hoes and tell them it’s “summer hockey”.

10 Books That Screwed Up the World: And 5 Others That Didn’t Help

What’s so odd about religious colleges? A Wall Street Journal columnist praises Wheaton for holding to its principles. “Wheaton’s ways are not my ways. Yet there is something refreshing about an institution willing to stand up for its convictions rather than trim its sails to the prevailing winds.”

Vatican Says Aliens Could Exist

Be Ye Not Angry, Ever

Published by Sharon May 15, 2008 in Essays and Religion. 7 Comments

Can a Christian have righteous anger?

I didn’t think so. But recently, surprised to find some Christians disagreeing with me on this, I started thinking about why I didn’t think so. Please welcome these “5 Disagreers” (some from the real-life disagreement), who are going to help me talk it out for your evaluation pleasure.

Let’s take a look at one of the most common verses on the subject:

Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, ….” (Ephesians 4:26; all Scripture quotations are NASB)

Disagreer #1: “This verse is practically commanding us to be angry sometimes – or at least to avoid sinning when we’re angry. And there’s a time limit.”

That verse seems pretty clear, so we read on down through the “don’ts” that follow, such as do not steal, do not speak bad things, do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, till we hit verse 31 – “Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.” Wait, let me think about that. How do I reconcile being angry with putting all anger away from me?

It brings to mind other passages that contrast the old nature and the new nature: Galatians 5:16-23 and Colossians 3:5-11. Each devote nearly an entire verse to anger-related characteristics that should not be true of us: “strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions…” (Gal. 5:20); “anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth…” (Col. 3:8) It’s hard to go through these passages and think of cases of righteous slander, righteous immorality, righteous idolatry, righteous drunkenness… Why make an exception for anger?

Disagreer #2: “Well yes, obviously righteous anger doesn’t have much place among us as Christians. It’s only occasionally to be directed at unbelievers.”

Three problems with this: 1) Christians should be consistent 2) Hebrews 12:14 – “Pursue peace with all men, and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.” 3) Romans 12:18 – “If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.” That word “all” tends to mess up the fine science of exception-finding.

Disagreer #3: “Well, of course anger should never be directed at people, but instead at injustice in the world. We can channel that anger into good like doing something about injustice.”

Yes, that would be wonderful if it were practical or true. Unfortunately, 1) it is not very practical… it is very hard for us humans to only get mad at the idea of injustice or at a specific instance of injustice, instead of at the humans who are committing the injustice. 2) Can anger be used to do good? James 1:19-20: “…everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God.”

Disagreer #4 (changes tactics for a psychological punch): “Better to let it out than bottle it up.”

Excuse me? Since when did Christian living require choosing the lesser of two evils?

Disagreer #5: “Yeah, but we’re supposed to be like Jesus, and Jesus became angry.”

That’s true, he did become angry when he drove the sellers and moneychangers out of the temple, didn’t he? I looked up the passage in every Gospel – Matthew 21, Mark 11, Luke 19, John 2, searching in vain for some phrase such as “And when Jesus saw it he was moved with anger…” Oops, I couldn’t even find the word ‘anger’ or any of its relatives. Believe it or not, I was actually going to concede this point to Disagreer #5.

We can’t help but imagine Jesus being angry when he did that. And what about all the woes he pronounced on the Pharisees? How can anyone not be angry when he is calling people hypocrites and vipers and declaring, “how will you escape the sentence of hell?” (Matthew 22:29, 32).

Even if Jesus was angry at these times, let’s think about this. He knew the hearts of men even when He was a man (John 2:24-25). We, come to think of it, cannot actually see another’s heart. If Jesus was ever angry, somehow the epistle writers all forgot to remind us to imitate Jesus in His righteous anger, besides imitating Him in all the simple wimpy stuff – kindness, goodness, gentleness. Although, have you noticed? Sometimes it takes a lot more strength (from God) to be kind than to be righteously indignant.

I know we’re all human. Even though I cannot see any place for anger in my own life, I know it’s impossible to never feel the slightest anger or frustration, or ever speak another upset word. But can anyone make a positive case for righteous anger? It seems like the matter of vengeance. Vengeance cannot be inherently evil, because God says He will repay. If God can do it, it must not be evil. But then, we are not God.

“Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19).

Zeal For Truth