2008 July archive at Zeal For Truth

Loading Newer »

Less

Archive for July, 2008

Iraq’s Yellowcake Uranium

Published by Kenneth Martens July 31, 2008 in Current Events. 4 Comments

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” - President George W. Bush, January 28, 2003

Have you heard the news reports about the 550 tons of yellowcake uranium ore found in Iraq? No? Well, that’s because the mainstream media has decided not to report the story. With the big to-do about the Niger document forgeries a few years back, you’d think any story about yellowcake uranium ore would be big news, but that’s because you’re not a reporter or a network executive.

In case you missed it, Iraq did buy uranium ore from Niger–in 1981. [Source] That uranium has been sitting around in storage for over a decade. It was inspected by the UN weapons inspectors. Everybody knew about it. (This makes me wonder: if Iraq had 550 tons of this stuff, why would Saddam want to buy more from Niger? Maybe he forgot he already had some.)

The current story is that the 550 tons of uranium ore have been shipped to Canada. The US military had been guarding it since the invasion, and had been keeping its existence a secret lest terrorists try to steal it. (Wait, why terrorists would want to steal yellowcake uranium ore? Does Osama bin Laden have a gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment facility hidden in a cave in Afghanistan?)

Don’t be Fooled
So now you know about Iraq’s yellowcake. You know that Iraq bought the yellowcake from Niger in 1981. You know that this yellowcake is not the yellowcake alluded to in Bush’s speeches in the runup to the 2003 invasion. This ore was already in storage and being watched by UN inspectors. You won’t be fooled by articles like this one at Coloradoan.com that claim this yellowcake uranium justifies the invasion.

The News Reports
The news outlets almost completely ignored this story, but you can find a few articles online.

CNN - 500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says
AP at Yahoo News - US removes uranium from Iraq

The Free Market Prevents Monopolies

Published by Colin July 30, 2008 in Essays and Politics. 5 Comments

Perhaps the moment where I was convinced of the validity of capitalism as a completely sustainable and self-regulating system was reading this article by former colleague of Ayn Rand Nathaniel Branden. My largest objection to the unfettered, and unregulated free-market, had been my concern that the greed and selfishness that capitalism uses for public benefit would eventually create a monopolistic society with large companies unable to be stopped. But as Branded wrote:

The question is often asked: What if a large, rich company kept buying out its smaller competitors or kept forcing them out of business by means of undercutting prices and selling at a loss—would it not be able to gain control of a given field and then start charging high prices and be free to stagnate with no fear of competition? The answer is: No, it would not be able to do it. If a company assumed heavy losses in order to drive out competitors then began to charge high prices to regain what it had lost, this would serve as an incentive for new competitors to enter the field and take advantage of the high profitability, without any losses to recoup. The new competitors would force prices down to the market level. The large company would have either to abandon its attempt to establish monopoly prices—or else go bankrupt fighting off the competitors its own polices would attract.

There are many other remedies the free market has to bring about equilibrium - and shift market power away from large companies: defection.

Imagine for a moment that you are working for a widget company which, because of innovation in production, enjoys a 90% share of the market. You are getting paid $200,000 a year and you basically run the widget making system. If those above you begin to profit at a greater and greater margin than your work profits, then at some point you will decide it is worth the risk to defect and either start your own widget company or join the 10% competitor.

Many innovations in industry have come about because of this market-made incentive. In fact, Google is about to face new competition from within their own ranks:

[Anna] Patterson instead intends to upstage Google, which she quit in 2006 to develop a more comprehensive and efficient way to scour the Internet… Cuil had kept a low profile while Patterson, her husband, Tom Costello, and two other former Google engineers - Russell Power and Louis Monier - searched for better ways to search. …Patterson believes that’s at least three times the size of Google’s index, although there is no way to know for certain. Google stopped publicly quantifying its index’s breadth nearly three years ago when the catalog spanned 8.2 billion Web pages.

As Google grew larger, and made more and more money (by fulfilling customers wants and need at a better price and with better quality) their threat from competition also grew. That’s right, as a company comes closer and closer to monopoly, they will have a harder and harder time maintaining it - just the opposite of what many who support anti-monopoly legislation proclaim.

This offshoot of Google will be three times the size of its brother company, and possibly obtain even more profit. All of this to the benefit of consumers who can basically sit back and watch while the dollars stay in their pocket (from cheaper prices) and the products are made in greater abundance and with a higher quality.

Capitalism, if left to its own devices, with no regulation from government, will constantly move towards balance and fairness in business transactions. That even includes one of the greatest spectres invented to promote government intervention: monopolies.

The Libertarian Paradox

Published by Constitutional Conservati July 28, 2008 in Religion. 32 Comments

Is Libertarian philosophy Biblical? The contention generally arises from Libertarian Christians promoting prostitution and drugs (or other un-Godly actions), according to Libertarian philosophy. Does a Biblical motive exist for such a position? Or the contrary? The question is:

… which biblical imperatives justify that moral laws against sins (such as lying, adultery, and drug use) be automatically codified into secular laws in governments of men? For extra credit: why should sins such as drugs and prostitution be illegal, but sins such as lying, breaking the Sabbath and stumbling a brother not be punished by secular courts and police?

It’s going to take a bit to get to the answer as suitable groundwork must be laid. The question (and answer) isn’t actually the interesting part of this issue as it will turn out.

The Libertarian Problem
Libertarianism is liberal on foreign policy and social policy, while conservative fiscally. We’ll discuss motives in a bit, but for now just note Libertarians may not agree with the left’s motives, but they do agree on actions (legal drugs, and so on). On foreign policy, it’s because the Democrats aren’t far enough left which disturbs some Libertarians.

Libertarianism and Christianity — a combination rejected decades ago as it’s just not possible to justify promoting certain actions while ignoring others — Liberal social policy is anathema to Conservatives. But what is promote? Some argue doing nothing is not promotion, others argue doing nothing is. The reality is simple — if you’re a senator, and a bill comes across your desk about issue “x”, you are either supporting it or not by your vote. In the case of Libertarian morals, by actively opposing certain laws, they de-facto promote the activity.

It’s just not possible as a senator to be neutral. It’s either for or against. Just as some say “I don’t really want to think about Jesus, so I’m not saying no, I’m just neutral” — you must make a decision, either for or against. Avoiding the issue just means a decision will be made without your action, but that won’t remove your responsibility.

Obviously Libertarians disagree.

Nebo
The base nature of Libertarianism is self-contradicting. It’s not possible to state “Government can’t legislate morality”, just as “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars (Titus 1:12 KJV)” is also self-contradicting. Morality is just right and wrong, good and bad. You can’t drive 90mph on the freeway because someone thought it’s bad — that’s a moral judgment. The only thing government can legislate is morality.

Thus, when a Libertarian states Government can’t legislate morality, they’re really promoting anarchy — if moral laws can’t be made, no laws can be made, as they’re all some idea of right and wrong.

It’s entertaining to watch the verbal twister played by Libertarians when this basic self-contradiction is pointed out. Most people (Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans and Democrats) at some point admit their position isn’t totally logical and consistent, but that’s the way they want it anyway. That’s honest.

But some worship knowledge and intellectualism — it’s their god. Ancient Babylon had their god of knowledge (Nebo) and it remains today in intellectual circles to those who worship logic, knowledge and intellectualism. It’s what Paul encountered in Athens in Acts 17 as the Greeks desired to argue about something new (what it was didn’t really matter). The idol may not exist anymore, but satan doesn’t change tactics much, he just adapts them to current times. Man is just as susceptible to the worship of Nebo today as in Babylon.

And that’s why some fight vigorously to defend an absurdity — they’re worshipers of Nebo, and a worse fate than hell is for them to admit their hallowed intellectualism and logic is really a house of cards, built on sand, as the tide comes in.

Motives, Actions, Results

COLIN: Prostitution and drugs are not libertarian ideals. But freedom is - which would include the freedom to chose both good and evil.

Let’s consider three concepts surrounding actions. You are motivated to do something, you act, and a certain result is obtained (pre-action, action, post-action).

Results (post-action) are God’s problem, so that’s all that needs to be said.

Motives and actions, however, are your responsibility (and under your control), and accountable to God. By allowing prostitution, your motive may be good (liberty), but your actions aren’t. And half right is totally wrong.

This repeatedly comes up by people equating motives and actions. They are different. If you have good intentions you can’t justify poor actions (gee, to solve world hunger, if we have enough abortions we’ll have less people, and the food can feed more). Good motive, poor action. (Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal”, for example, even though satire)

Similarly, you can have poor motives, but good actions. It doesn’t matter why a senator supports your law, as long as he votes for it — he could give his support due to a back room deal, but that has no effect on the inherit nature of the legislation as good or bad (that’s classic politics). Nobody cares in 20 years why a law was passed — we have to live with the action, not the motive; motive is irrelevant to politics (save that it causes action).

Actions differ from motives. Politics concerns itself with actions and results (motives only because they cause action), God deals with actions and motives (and handles the results Himself). For the Christian, it’s important to consider both actions and motives. For the politician, only actions impact society.
Continue reading ‘The Libertarian Paradox’

Links: Internet reg’s for the Children, Terrorist Sunscreen

Published by Colin July 25, 2008 in Current Events. 1 Comment

Every week, our users put together the news, interviews, articles, videos and media that they have found important, interesting and informative. We post it every Friday. Here are the links for this week:

A US federal court overturns the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) that requires adult websites to verify the age of their visitors. COPA is a bill passed after the previous anti-obscenity law, the Communications Decency Act (CDA), was struck down by the Supreme Court. Maybe Congress thought the court didn’t really mean it the first time. COPA should not be confused with the Child Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) which requires all websites to verify that their registered users are at least 13 years old. COPPA is still in full force.

The Yankees have decided to save us all from blowing up. In order to achieve this, they have banned sunscreen at Yankee Stadium. Instead, they now sell their own “terrorist safe tubes” for $5 a pop in-house. Who know the War on Terrorism could be so marketable?

A look back at Jesse Jackson’s True Colors: “Unsavory business has been par for the course for Jackson’s career.”

A US appeals court has thrown out the $500,000 fine for Janet Jackson’s Superbowl wardrobe malfunction. The judges ruled that the FCC “arbitrarily and capriciously” violated its own policy in levying the fine. Reuters article

The U.S.A. is no longer the world’s fattest nation - Australia is.

The Anglican Issues
Monday’s Lambeth Conference News

Tuesday’s Lambeth Conference

Wednesday’s Lambeth Conference

Lambeth Conference Thursday

Other Links
Rick Mansfield writes about the The Rise of the New Living Translation. The NIV still dominates sales but it is becoming increasingly dated. The TNIV has been largely rejected by the Christian community, leaving no clear successor to the NIV. The NLT has become a “major contender for the spot of top English translation” despite (or because of) flying “under the radar.”

Apollo 14 Astronaut Claims Aliens Have Made Contact

Praise and Worship: What it Isn’t and What it Is

Published by Chris A July 24, 2008 in Religion and Theology. 35 Comments

In a Word, Silly
Last Sunday while I am at my church that I love very much, I noticed myself singing one of those unscriptural “praise and worship” songs. Disappointed with myself for singing something to God that was – well, stupid – I decided to refrain my tongue from lyrical heresy and instead focused on what my relationship with God is really like.

For Christians not familiar with praise and worship is in the popular vernacular, it is basically what “contemporary” Christians sing instead of hymns. If and when contemporary believers sing the old hymns, the tempo is usually changed so that one barely recognizes it as the original song. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not opposed to either brand of music and really see value in both insomuch as they are scriptural in their approach and actually magnify God. It’s just that some of these new songs are downright corny. I can scarcely sing them without laughing, thinking to myself, “Am I actually going to sing this song to the Creator of the universe?” Here’s an excerpt from a popular one:

A grateful heart I give
A thankful prayer I pray
A wild dance I dance before You
A loud song I sing
A huge bell I ring…

A huge bell I ring? I can’t even type that without wanting to reduce myself to embarrassing hilarity! Look, I’m not against thankful prayer or even dancing wildly. Heck, I’m not even against ringing huge bells if that’s your thing. But if I’m going to sing a song to the Lord and mean it, I can’t honestly sing stuff like this. It just brings up too many images of The Gong Show or Sanford and Son with Redd Foxx calling someone “big dummy” or Aunt Esther calling him a “heathen” or a “fish-eyed fool.” Then it isn’t long before my mind wanders even further and I’m singing the Welcome Back Kotter them song again – definitely not conducive to worshipping God. And just so we’re clear I believe in rejoicing “with joy unspeakable and full of glory” (1 Peter 1:8). I just see a major difference between the joy of the Lord, and the comedy that results from letting my quirky imagination run wild when I sing cheesy churchy songs. I mean you might expect kids to sing songs like this (maybe), but when we are singing the adult equivalent of If the devil doesn’t like it he can sit on a tack (ouch!), I think we really have to evaluate what we are singing to God here.

Some Basic Standards
I don’t presume to be the world’s foremost authority on praise and worship, but I think the following guidelines would help us.

Worship songs should be scriptural. Technically it is not even praise to sing about our relationship to God. But if we are going to sing that, it just makes sense that such songs should reflect ideas consistent with the Bible.
Worship songs should be more truth than emotion. The truth never changes, but feelings are fickle. We may not always relate to the emotion the songwriter may have experienced when he wrote the song, but we should all be able to relate to a number of things related to our salvation for which we can be thankful.
Worship songs should ideally seek to minister to God rather than simply minister about Him or our relationship with Him. I don’t mean to say that there is no place for singing about Him, but that should not be the greatest emphasis.
If a song is going to sing about God or our relationship with Him rather than directly to Him, it should not minister condemnation. Condemning songs are NOT praise or worship! God is not impressed, and in fact is rather insulted, by songs that tell us how worthless we are. People who are justified by faith in Jesus Christ cannot be worthless. God never made a worthless new creation.
Praise and worship is not entertainment. Dance teams, streamers, and the like should probably be voluntarily retired. Dance as a way to praise is not unbiblical, but when it is choreographed as a means of entertainment it isn’t praise. If this kind of action demands your attention as a spectator, it isn’t praise.

Biblical Praise and Worship
Aside from what is commonly known as “praise and worship” there is a such praise and worship from a biblical point of view. What is praise? Here is a basic dictionary definition: the offering of grateful homage in words or song, as an act of worship. Beyond this basic agreed upon meaning, Hebrews 13:15 gives us a good description.

Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

We could paraphrase this by saying praise is verbal thanksgiving to God done through Christ. However, I think we could even extend the definition of praise to include other instruments besides the human voice. Psalm 150:1-5 expands the definition for us.

1 Praise the LORD.
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.

2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.

3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,

4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,

5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.

Praise as a Lifestyle
I think to most Christians, praise is something done in church on Sunday morning. Certainly corporate praise is biblical, but God never intended that praise should be limited to a weekly exercise. Let’s examine Hebrews 13:5 again.

Therefore by Him let us continually offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips, giving thanks to His name.

Notice the word continually. Praise to God should be continual. How can one do that? The answer is in the opening phrase of this verse: Therefore by Him… Many of us have conditioned ourselves to think of this sacrifice as something hard to do continually. Why? Because we have failed to realize that we do it by the power of Christ and not sheer human will. I think a little more meddling will help to illustrate this fact. Let’s look at more of the lyrics to the song I quoted earlier.

But I will not forget you
You are my god, my king
With a thankful heart I bring my offering

(Okay so far, but watch out because here it comes)

And my sacrifices are not what you can give
But what I alone can give to you…

I don’t think most people realize it, but believing and singing this will absolutely cripple a person. The “I alone” phrase is particularly troubling to me. You may think that I am being too critical here, but I have to ask - why the emphasis on independence here? Someone may ask, “But aren’t we supposed to offer ourselves as a sacrifice to God?” Yes, but even this we do not do apart from the awareness of God’s mercy. Consider Romans 12:1:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God—this is your spiritualact of worship.

Rather than saying “in view of God’s mercy” the King James and New King James versions render it, “by the mercies of God.” So for us to say that we are offering a sacrifice to God in and of ourselves is just false. It is only because of His grace and mercy that we have been reconciled in the first place. Our approach to God in all respects is based on this principle. Have we who begun in the Spirit perfected by the flesh? I think not.

The Personal Effects of Real Praise
Praising God should affect us in a number of positive ways. Not only should our praise bless God, but it should also bless us. The word magnify is often used in the Bible in connection with praising God. Of course this word means to cause to seem greater or more important. So when we are magnifying the Lord we are enlarging our capacity to see God as greater than any adverse circumstances we may encounter, and generally brings us into a greater consciousness of God’s presence.

Many people run into a problem and immediately begin to magnify the problem; it becomes the sole object of their attention to the extent that it robs them of the one sent to indwell them and counsel them on the matter. Although He hasn’t left them or forsaken them, they feel as though He has because they have actually robbed themselves of God consciousness by focusing on “the wind and the waves”. Paul and Silas had a perfect opportunity to do this in Acts 5 when they were beaten and thrown into prison, but instead they took a different approach.

But about midnightPaul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them (Acts 16:25).

Paul and Silas knew that things never can get so bad that you cannot praise God. In fact, the worse things get, the more we should praise him. We’re not praising him because of our trouble but in spite of it. Paul knew very well the power of praise, instructing the Ephesians to cultivate a lifestyle of thanksgiving while conveying to them how to maintain consciousness of the Holy Spirit.

Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:18-20).

Where Do We Go From Here
First of all, we should acknowledge that many people are ignorant about praise. You may fit into that category. I know I once did, and still don’t claim to know everything about it. People only know what they’ve learned, and someone probably (ignorantly) taught them that singing unbelieving songs was somehow praise. I feel that many songs are being sung from a pre-Christ perspective, not a righteous perspective. This is the result of not knowing one’s identity in Christ. Personally, I refuse to sing songs like this – not because I’m being rebellious or defiant – but because I understand that the purpose of singing songs is to praise God. If it isn’t accomplishing that, then what good is it? However, it doesn’t help the situation to try and make the worship leader appear to be wrong or to criticize him personally.

The best thing Christians can do is to begin to cultivate a life of praise themselves. Begin your day by saying, “I will bless the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth” (Psalm 34:1). In this way, they will never be unfulfilled by any songs your church sings that are weak, and you’ll never have to rely on your worship leader to uplift you by selecting the right songs.

I’ll be honest, there are some “worship” songs that I absolutely detest, but I’m not upset at people for singing them. Nor will it affect my fellowship with God one way or the other. I think it is perfectly right to judge songs that exalt human experience and feelings above the knowledge of God; we just shouldn’t judge people, especially when their actions result from legitimate ignorance. If you have knowledge they don’t have, that just makes you more responsible to act on what you know; it certainly doesn’t make us better than others who do not know.

You can try to educate fellow believers about what worship actually is, but without the proper approach this could blow up in your face. People can be very sensitive about these things, and if you come off as judgemental it could really do damage to your relationships. And it probably isn’t worth that. Forums such as these are non-confrontational and can function as a teaching tool or as a place for civil (well, most of the time) discussion and debate, but people participate voluntarily. People can read it or not read it. And even if someone strongly disagrees, we will probably never meet face-to-face.

Stupid Political Questions I: Energy and Environment

Published by Colin July 23, 2008 in General, Politics and Philosophy. 7 Comments

Is there such a thing as a stupid question? Normally, I would say “no.” However, I think politicians have managed to whittle us into a few questions where any good choices have been removed. With pollster-like (warning: language) precision, even the questions themselves have been shaped to lead to a certain answer:

Should the government subsidize nuclear power or ban it?
Obviously with the high gas prices, politicians and pundits are scrambling to do something to “fix” the problem. As if one commodity price is responsible for indicating the solvency of a massive and complex economy.

Nuclear power is one of the more controversial solutions and the politicians have secured a false choice in the matter. Many on the left have argued that the government needs to continue and even increase regulations that effectively ban nuclear energy. But the right has proposed government intervention as well. While they might deregulate nuclear power, they also want politicians to guarantee loans and minimize the risk by government fiat.

Both these solutions are stupid. The left would rather bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the verdict has already been reached on nuclear power. But nuclear power can operate on the marketplace and live or die by how well it competes with other energy. Well, unless the right succeeds in minimizing the legitimate environmental and safety risks. In the same way that subsidizing flood insurance in New Orleans is disastrous, so is subsidizing nuclear power.

The question should include the option of letting the market decide. If property owners want to risk a nuclear plant, then let them - it’s their property. If it isn’t safe, then people won’t buy it, live near it and one problem will cost an irresponsible company billions in legitimate lawsuits, damage and infrastructure.

Should we fix global warming with more regulations or “market-based” cap and trade schemes?
I will come right out and say that this is a stupid question because it presumes that global warming is man-made and is also “a problem.” There is plenty of debate about both of these issues - but that, of course, doesn’t stop governments on all levels from using it as an excuse to enrich themselves and expand their power.

Many right-wingers have embraced the “cap and trade” scheme to “marketize” pollution. That is - they have set up new taxes and tariffs on pollution and called it a “market.” Sounds like Mitt Romney’s “market-based” government healthcare. Cap and trade is about as market-based as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

But the left, naturally concerned mostly with polls, is jumping on the fear bandwagon - making witch hunts out of virtually any industry that has anything to do with carbon. They demonize everything from SUVs to plastic bags. They call sceptics “deniers” - the similar connotation to holocaust deniers is probably deliberate.

Increasing government involvement in environmental regulations going to do two things:

stall or prevent the market from developing cleaner, more efficient energy technologies which are far more effective at curbing pollution
creating tragedy of the commons scenarios, where resources over-used all the more and the environment becomes even more polluted than it otherwise would be

The real question should ask a) is global warming actually a man-made phenomenon that has anything to do with emissions and b) is global warming actually going to cause terrible catastrophic effects. Until we know the nature of the problem, we have no right to start running around “solving” it.

Next time: Stupid Foreign Policy Questions

The Importance Of The Christian Story

Published by Bryan July 22, 2008 in Essays, Religion, Philosophy and Theology. 9 Comments

Cultures are identified by their stories, and the Church is a culture. It follows that they Church too is defined by her story. But what is that story?

-Peter J. Leithart, Against Christianity

If you were to spend some time in a Christian Church today, would you be able to discover what their story is from the preaching you hear? More often then not, Christian preaching disregards the story. This happens in one of two ways:

First, the story is told, but only as a means to draw out abstract theoretical considerations. What happened is therefore of far less importance then the abstractions that can be drawn out of it an universally applied to the Church.

Second, the story is not told, and instead what is offered as preaching is not anything drawn from the Christian story, but from the stories of the world around us. Pop psychology, self-help, and the latest in cultural trends become the message delivered to the people.

Is it any surprise then that we have a generation of Christians who either are full of only theoretical knowledge, or Christians who are nothing other then moralists? But these two things are only the way the story is disregarded, we should before going any further, answer Dr. Leithart’s question about what our story is.

The answer should be obvious, and every Christian knows it, they just simply don’t understand what it means. The story, the Church’s story, is our history. Beginning in the beginning, through the Old and New Testaments, through the early Church, the medieval period, the Reformation, the revivals, and right to today. Unfortunately, the Church has not only forgotten it’s history, but has actively sought to at best limit the importance given to it, and at worse repudiate it. All that is allowed to be discussed as the history of the church is what can be found in the scriptures from the death of Christ onwards.

The Old Testament is nice for children’s stories that offer good morals (which shows just how little these stories are stripped of what they actually say and are made into abstracts), but is really the history of the Jews. After the New Testament the Church began to go bad very fast so we can learn very little from it. The Reformation was a great period in Church history, but lets keep with the slogans we have inherited from it and understand them outside of any context. Revivals are great, but let us not study the First Great Awakening. I once read some of “Sinners In The Hands Of An Angry God” and it’s obviously not what the Church needs today. No, lets keep with what we have today, let us remember no more past Billy Graham. We have the truth, and it’s unchangeable so why worry about the past anyway?

This view has set the Church adrift. We are swept along with whatever currents come our way because although we may have a a solid ground under the waves in the form of scripture, we have no way to anchor to it anymore.

Stories have the ability to anchor to something. They connect us, and bind us to something, yet more then that they conform us to it. By reading the Church’s stories, we learn what it is to live the life of someone following after God. Although abstract theological knowledge has it’s place, it cannot, in practice, conform us to anything. We may learn what we are to do in general, but stories show us, in specific instances, how God’s people in the past dealt with how to live out their faith.

Christians today can deal in the abstraction, in the theoretical, but put them into flesh and blood situations and they no longer know what to do. No one has trained them how to act as Christians, how to follow after Christ in practice. That is the job of stories, they show us what we can be, what we should be. They show the failures we may have, and the successes that are possible.

More then that, if the Church has lost it’s own stories, it must seek new ones out. Every culture, every institution, needs something to conform to; it needs stories to remember who it is. The Church, in giving up it’s own stories, has embraced the world’s stories. Secular humanism is the story that has crept into the Church. Our stories allowed us to speak to all issues of society; politics, medicine, finance, religion…etc. Today, with the stories we appropriated into the church we can speak only on religion.

This is the tragedy of modernity for the Church. We’ve embraced the story of it, and by doing so have relegated us to observer, occasional commentator, but mostly leftover appendage trying to find something, anything but our own story, to rally around. The Church must re-discover it’s history, it’s story. It needs to look again at the Old Testament, and take seriously the people and stories in it. It needs to look at it’s glorious, and sometimes not-so-glorious, history and rally around it. Hold it up as what it means to follow after Christ, learn from it, and use it as boundaries to keep us walking on the same path we have for all of history.

The Church must become radical again. We must cast off the philosophical positions that was not just pushed on us, but often readily embraced. We need to begin once again work out the implications of the gospel (that is the announcement that Jesus is Lord, that He has begun to set up His Kingdom and will allow no rival one) and begin to apply it to all areas of our lives. Only then will the world take note of the Church, only then will the world will realize the power of Christ, only then will the world see the threat that the Church posses to it.

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part IV

Published by Colin July 21, 2008 in Religion, Politics and Philosophy. 5 Comments

Over the past year, especially because of the effect of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy, many honest questions (and many baseless accusations) have been flying around about libertarianism, foreign policy and Christianity. I wanted to take the time to answer a few of these questions from my own perspective.

The first two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. The third argued that libertarian foreign policy is compatible with biblical mandates. Finally, I would like to summarize some criticism from left, right and Christian.

Despite the fact that the Democrats and Christian libertarians have different reasons for supporting a decreased military presence in Iraq, doesn’t the similar result justify grouping them?

Perhaps we should look at a more absurd scenario to judge this principle. My neighbour has a car I like and I offer him $10,000 for it - which he accepts. But what if I steal it instead? Both result in me getting the car from my neighborur. However, one is moral and one is not.

The democrats have no principled opposition to aggression in foreign policy. They are driven entirely by polls (with a few exceptions). Many libertarian Christians, on the other hand, do not support war out of steadfast philosophical opposition to aggression.

I basically agree with these views, but they are not pragmatic. These are merely “theories” which work on paper but cannot happen in real life.

I think the term “theory” is potentially misapplied here. This is not a “theory” in the positivistic sense- where it needs to be “tested” in order to be proved true or false empirically. But the Christian libertarian foreign policy is an a priori argument based on human action and biblical truth. Neither of these foundations require empirical results in order to be verified.

But the more important concern is with the pragmatism of compromising with something one knows to be wrong to achieve a “right” end. Christianity requires us to give the results to God, and walk in faith and obedience. We are not be bend God’s truth to accommodate our political goals - but rather to trust in his sovereignty and obey his gospel. It may not be pragmatic for a soldier to disobey his commanders asking him to kill civilians - but what is the Christian thing to do? It may not be pragmatic for a tax collector to repent and refuse to steal from others - but it is right.

These are the tough decisions for Christians to make because they require us to put our faith into action, despite what our senses and reason tell us. But this does not exempt us from our duty to obey.

Links: Unlawful Photos and Anglicanism

Published by Colin July 18, 2008 in Current Events. 3 Comments

Tennessee man arrested for taking an “unlawful” picture of a cop.

Dollar falls to record versus Euro.

Same-sex couples marrying in California could face prison time in Wisconsin

The New Authoritarianism: Singapore Model

Anglicanism
A clear picture of liberalism

Best analysis of GAFCON

Driscoll speaking about meeting J.I. Packer, and his view on homosexuality

Libertarianism, Christianity and Foreign Policy Q&A - Part III

Published by Colin July 17, 2008 in General. 19 Comments

The past two instalments explained why libertarian foreign policy is neither right wing or left wing. But that isn’t good enough - is it biblically compatible?

Is libertarian foreign policy biblical? / I’m all for leaving places like Iraq, but we broke it so we bought it. It would be unChristian of us not to be using our military to save the world from evil and promote democracy and freedom!

As has been stated several times by multiple members of this blog, the bible has virtually nothing to say about political philosophy. This is not a big “oopsie” by God - he clearly was very deliberate about what he wanted in there.

However, the bible is chalk-full of moral philosophy and higher principles. As for me, I believe this is because God doesn’t really want Christians thinking politically. What I mean by that is, that God wants us to be consistent, principled, moral people - like Christ - not wishy-washy consequentialists like Saul or Aaron. He doesn’t want us ignorant about the means we use to achieve our ends.

Libertarian foreign policy is defensive-only. It does not invade, aggress, occupy, challenge, bully, provoke, obtain vengeance or pursue lust for resources. Libertarian foreign policy does allow individuals, families and (if you think they are legitimate) states to protect their property and lives.

This is obviously very compatible with biblical morality, where we are given almost the exact same commands. Although libertarian foreign policy may not be radical enough! The bible also argues that we should be so adverse to violence that we allow ourselves to suffer, and to turn the other cheek. While this is an important argument, it is probably best to have it another day as it is quite a long rabbit trail.

Many Christians justify prolonged nation-building wars and occupations (such as Iraq) by clichés and popular proverbs such as:

We have to continue the surge, and let me explain why, Chris. When I was a little kid, if I went into a store with my mother, she had a simple rule for me: If I picked something off the shelf at the store and I broke it, I bought it. I learned I don’t pick something off the shelf I can’t afford to buy.

Well, what we did in Iraq, we essentially broke it. It’s our responsibility to do the best we can to try to fix it before we just turn away. Because something is a stake.

It is true that if you break someone’s property, you need to pay for it. However, it hardly follows that if you destroy someone’s infrastructure, kill tens of thousands of people, blow up their cultural and historical relics and induce a civil war by these actions you must continue to do so. The Christian thing to do would be to repent, that is to change your ways, and stop killing, wounding and destroying.

This is the kind of compromise that Christians have made to try and serve both country and God - but these two are often mutually exclusive:

…for the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20 NKJV).

The moral imperatives of the bible are not removed from Christians when they put on a uniform. If I went over to another country on my own, decided I wanted something, and killed the people who owned it - would I not be a murderer? Just because I have a flag behind me, and a uniform on does not change this. In the same way, if I defended by house from a robber, I would be justified - as would a group of people from an invading foreign army. Similarly, the bible doesn’t change just because a Christian is acting on behalf of a government:

Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality. But in every nation whoever fears Him and works righteousness is accepted by Him (Acts 10:34-35 NKJV).

Eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honour, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honour, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:7-11 NKJV).

A Christian should view foreigners and strangers with hospitality and compassion. Obviously if one of them tries to injure, kill or steal from you - you can defend yourself. But only then. Christianity is not a call to global paranoia - where every tanned-skinned person from the middle east is out to blow us up. Even if they are - as Christians, it is not our job to join a crusade against those who have not directly harmed us. We are not going to change these people by warring with them, but by evangelizing them. Again, the wise James:

Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. Yet you do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask amiss, that you may spend it on your pleasures. Adulterers and adulteresses! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God (James 4:1-4 NKJV).

A Christian view of foreigners and conflict is radically opposed to a secular view - especially to current foreign policy. This is the main reason why libertarian foreign policy and Christianity are compatible - libertarianism proclaims the freedom of men to practice what they will by voluntary consent. It allows and even encourages a Christian view of human relations.

Zeal For Truth