POTUS or President of the NCAA?

Is the President of the United States – the leader of the free world;  the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world (which is currently engaged in two wars); the man currently presiding over an economic downturn…

…providing color commentary for a college basketball game?

Benjamin Franklin, when asked what the Constitutional Convention had achieved in Philadelphia, responded:

“A republic, if you can keep it.”

Wave bye-bye.  Between the increasinly bureaucratic and centralized federal government, and the bastardization and trivialization of the Chief Executive, we most certainly are not keeping it.

This is preposterous.  Can you imagine Winston Churchill calling a cricket match?  George Washington sitting next to John Madden in the booth?  Abe Lincoln putting on headphones to talk about the Braves?

We got exactly what we you voted for.

Barthian Snow

As the snow falls down here in North Carolina, I’m chewing on the theological equivalent of beef jerky: Karl Barth, Dogmatics II.2.  From my slight exposure, I love Barth.  I dig his project.  I dig the postliberals that follow his lead.  I love the ‘third way’ between beyond liberal and fundamentalist theology (having occupied both previously).  But I don’t know how to make Barth ‘fit’ into my overarching theological framework.

I went to a Methodist seminary, studied under some folks who are supposed to be the best Methodist thinkers in the world, and I got a lot of good Wesleyan theology.  But I also studied with brilliant and persuasive people who were, to one degree or another, Barthians.  I identify with both camps.  In January I began reading a small bit of Dogmatics II.2 each morning as my devotional reading (one of my mentors recommended reading Barth at a pace of 5 pages a day, which I track in a box to the right).  And while I think I am in the process of converging, I’m not sure I can be a consistent Wesleyan and like Barth so darn much (the reverse is also true).  I by and large can’t stand Calvin and his descendants – especially puritans like Jonathan Edwards and his modern day descendants like John Piper.  I’m a Wesleyan because I believe God is all about grace – and I loathe the notion that a loving God would/could condemn people before the foundation of the world.

But Barth did this strange and wonderful thing with Calvin – he made the election about Jesus! With the insight that the election of Israel was for the sake of the whole (as the Bible attests), he turns the whole project on its head.  Election is now, in his words, an election of grace.  In my pure Wesleyan days, this idea would be nonsensical.  But my oh my, is he convincing.  Perhaps it is because all my Wesleyan theology never taught me to deal with the concept of election in any way other than approbation – mocking TULIP and the like – and perhaps it is because he is more systematic than the practical Wesley ever had the chance to be.  But I’m beginning to think that, on the whole, we Protestants have vastly overestimated the importance of our response to God.  Yes – it matters; yes, the proper and good response to the love and mercy of God is repentance, new life, and holiness (something Wesleyans share with the Orthodox).  But surely, all of this is accomplished only through Jesus, God’s elect, who reconciled the world to Himself.  In short, we’ve given ourselves too much credit for our salvation.  Jesus is the point of all of this – Jesus has saved us!  We just have to get on board with that reality (but our “getting on board” doesn’t make it so).

I’d love some feedback on why, if, and how exactly I am wrong.  I have a long ways to go – from both ends – to reconcile my Wesleyan and my Barthian sides.  But it’s a work in progress.

Now, a little of why I love Barth:

Between God and man there stands the person of Jesus Christ, Himself God and Himself man, and so mediating between the two.  In Him God reveals Himself to man.  In Him man sees and knows God.  In Him God stands before man and man stands before God, as is the eternal will of God, and the eternal ordination of man in accordance with this will.  In Him God’s plan for man is disclosed, God’s judgment on man fulfilled, God’s deliverance of man accomplished, God’s gift to man present in fullness, God’s claim and promise to man declared.  In Him God has joined Himself to man.  And so man exists for his sake. (Dogmatics II.2, 94)

I am not breaking any ground in reflecting that what makes Barth great it his insistence that Christ is the center not only of theology, of Christian reflection, prayer, thought, and worship – but of the whole of reality.  In a world that is so ‘me’ centered – so vulgar – so arrogant – so obsessed with the experience of selfhood – it is a real joy to read something directed to the holy and wholly Other – God in Christ, electing God and elected man.

At the end of the day, life really isn’t about me.  Or you.  Thanks be to God!

In other news: For the second time in a decade, I must ask: what in the hell does the federal government have to do with sports?

The State of the Change We Believe In

“Change has not come fast enough,” President Obama just said.

Of course, it is assumed that this necessitates more action, not less – more spending, not less – more legislation, not less.  And of course the President is now calling for getting past our partisanship, now that his party can’t railroad things through the Senate.  And it seems no government official, liberal or “conservative,” never asks if our needs – the change we are so desperate for – can or should come from government power.

A fee for the big banks?  Ah, there’s the rub.  If the government is nice enough to rescue you, it is nice enough to impose extra penalties on you for success.  Who says we have a free market?

“We cut taxes…we cut taxes…”  Where will those tax cuts go when nationalized health care goes through?

Well, the Commander-in-Chief of hopey-change – or changey-hope, has his work cut out for him.  Just like the House chamber tonight, only about half of us are applauding…and that number is shrinking.

P.S. Did Uncle Joe and Nancy Pelosi coordinate their purple attire? Perhaps they feel they are in the presence of royalty.  But with court jesters like that, who needs good ideas?

P.P.S. Job growth will occur when the government steps back, not when it decides to legislate it.  Small business owners, like my parents, are by and large too smart to fall for strategies from leftists who truly do not appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit.  The entrepreneurs are the ones bearing the tax burden to create the “change” for which these people yearn.

P.P.S. “They need our help.” Yes.  But you will help the most by stepping away.

P.P.P.S.  Nuclear power plants?  I like it!  Did Al Gore just die inside?

Scott Brown and (slow) change we can believe in…

The election of Scott Brown to the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat is being seen, and I believe rightly so, as at least a partial referendum on President Obama’s first year.  Obama and his PR machine have chalked up the recent setback – and dwindling approval ratings – to not getting the message across. For a President that is more media-savvy and media-beloved than any in recent memory, this seems ludicrous.  President Obama’s problem is not that people don’t *get* the message – but rather, precisely the opposite.  (How could we not get the message with THIS LEVEL of media exposure??)

Obama was elected on the promise of “hope” in some degree of “change” that he would bring to the White House.  He rode a wave of (especially) youth support to a victory (not a landslide, though) over John McCain.  The Republicans, in my view, rightly paid for many years of not living up to their own beliefs with George W. Bush, especially in fiscal matters – and of course, W’s woeful public persona.  Personally, I liked the man and still do, but his public attributes fit Texas much more than the international scene.

And so, Obama was elected to get us back “on course.”  “The world” was so happy that Americans agreed with them on the Presidency of George W. Bush, that they hurried to give Obama unearned accolades (the dynamite-prize for peace, in particular).  What change would come?

Hard to tell, so far.  The radical, anti-war left has been unhappy with his ratcheting up of the war in Afghanistan.  Many of the young supporters that were so hyped up during the campaign have retreated to their dorm rooms, back to listening to their iPods and watching ghastly excuses for entertainment like ‘Jersey Shore’.  And an attempt at hurrying through sweeping legistation that would dramatically (and permanently!) alter the entire American health care sector has gone, by any measure, less than smoothly.

And now, with Scott Brown’s election, there is chance that it may not work at all.  Why the turnabout?  I think this change in our medical system is, for better or worse, inevitable.  But I fervently believe that the Obama administration has attempted too much, too fast (not unlike W trying to get Social Security “fixed” immediately after his reelection).  Winning roughly 60% of voters to your cause does not give you the mandate, whoever you are, to rush through such major changes.

Obama’s election has woken up a sleeping Right.  Conservatives, unfortunately, tend to criticize better than they govern.  Yes, there are extremes, and they are sometimes deplorable (on both sides).  I believe, though, that we are seeing that Americans are, as is often said, a center-right country.  Being by and large moderately conservative, though, does not mean we are opposed to all change.  Conservatives seek to do precisely that – conserve – not cement.  We believe that a government does its best work when it goes slow.  Incidentally, this is why the Constitution was set up with so many checks and balances, and such flexibility.  Ours is a great system because it is highly adaptable but not in short periods of time.  So, President Obama, perhaps we want your change. It is hard to tell at the moment.  But you can be sure of this: we are in no hurry.  If your program is indeed what’s best for us, take your time with it.  I am not one of your supporters, but I hope that those who are will insist on this: take it slow.

A historical aside:

Why do conservatives prefer slow change? Quite frankly, because we generally trust what is, what is known, what has been practiced and found true, more than what might be preferable around the corner.  Edmund Burke, writing just as the French Revolution was entering its darkest days, wrote the following:

…we think that no discoveries are to be made, in morality; nor many in the great principles of government, nor in the ideas of liberty, which were understood long before we were born, altogether as well as they will be after the grave has heaped its mould upon our presumption, and the silent tomb shall have imposed its law on our pert loquacity.

God and Haiti

The problem with the title of this post, like the vast majority of late-modern attempts to question God’s existence or goodness on the basis of this or that tragedy, is that it assumes God and tragedy ‘x’ are on equal terms.  Somehow we’ve gotten the impression we can rise above our prejudices and theoretically judge God from some neutral or equal vantage point and render a verdict.  Of course, setting up that question that way is to already render a verdict – against God, and in favor of our own bastardized “reason.”  This is called “the problem of evil,” and as posed, it is no wonder why it has baffled so many people.  Of course, few bother to ask whether this is the way that anyone – let alone faithful Christians – can or ought to approach that issue.  [Edit: For a great example of "traditional" theodicy, check out this post]

Scripture nowhere tries to rationalize suffering the way that we are obsessed with.  In fact, in Job, the example of the protagonist’s talkative friends teaches us that it is precisely the rationalizers, those who try to render tragedy intelligble, whose voice is really the voice of the tempter.   Christians ought not to be in the businesses of trying to pay evil the compliment of rationality.  Eastern Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart wrote the following about the Tsunami, words that are even more true now amidst the horrors of Haiti’s tribulation:

[Ours] is, after all, a religion of salvation; [our] faith is in a God who has come to rescue his creation from the absurdity of sin and the emptiness of death…for while Christ takes the suffering of his creatures up into his own, it is not because he or they had need of suffering, but because he would not abandon his creatures to the grave.  And while we know that the victory over evil and death has been won, we also know it is a victory yet to come, and that creation therefore, as Paul says, groans in expectation of the glory that will be revealed.  Until then, the world remains a place of struggle between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, life and death; and in such a world, our portion is charity. (In the Aftermath, p. 116)

Our portion is love.  Not reasoning, not questioning – our response to evil, the way to overcome it, is the way of Jesus – suffering love.  Here is a prayer I used in worship this morning, from the General Board of Discipleship worship website:

A Prayer for Haiti by Dr. Pamela Lightsey

O God, we have been stunned once again by an event
Which seems so unnatural and yet is called “natural disaster.”

We have no words to answer the “why” which we feel,
No wisdom to explain away the unexplainable areas of life.

Keep us from attributing this event as a heavenly reprimand,
Or from a certain haughtiness that tempts the distant soul.

Give us to be compassionate and gentle, servants to those in need.
Remind us of your gracious love in the midst of sorrow,
And your ability to work miracles when hope is faint.

We pray for those who suffer in Haiti even now
And for those who await rescue.
For relatives, for the children,
For mothers and fathers,
Sisters and brothers,
Grandparents, aunts and cousins.
For the survivors who question what more they might have done.
And for those who must keep on keeping on, in spite of.
For the leaders,
For those who bring aid
And those who await news.
Strengthen and encourage them we pray.

Now unto you, O God, we take the burdens of this hour and place them in your divine care.
For all you do and are doing, seen and unseen, we give thee thanks, Eternal God of All Creation.
Amen.

Fail of the day: theologians and the economy

My generation coined a great phrase: the “epic fail.” Though it is not intellectual enough, I can think of no better way to put a theological affirmation by NC Triangle-area theologians relating to recent economic trends; link to statement here - link to Christian Century story here.

This won’t be an exhaustive examination of the statement, but just a run down of what annoys me the most.  There is a particular focus on what they see as “unbiblical” usury practices.  Is America now Israel?  I can see how the norms of Mosaic law *may* be important for contemporary Christians and Jews, but do they really think Bank of America is going to care about the year of Jubilee?

Most interestingly, the statement wastes a lot of ink telling us that usury is condemned left, right, and sideways in the Bible, and then go on to say it should only be limited to 10 percent! If usury is an affront to God, why allow it at all?  Of course, the same logic says “abortion is horrible, but a million a year is acceptable.”  (To be precise, it is 45 million legal abortions since 1973)

I had classes with several of the signatories.  I only bring this up because the writing in this statement is so basic, so insufferably banal that I shutter to think what grade it would have garnered in one of their seminars.  Here’s an example:

To get out of the current mess, we will need an economic reform which acknowledges our mutual dependence and obligations and turns aside from the way of selfish individualism and competition for status and conspicuous wealth. What kind of an economic recovery leaves giant banks standing while the average worker’s life gets harder and harder? It is not an economic recovery when billions can bail out executive jobs but nothing can bail out the rest of the jobs. There is not justice when everyone’s tax dollars can pay off banks’ bad debts, but the average taxpaying citizens are left on their own to drown in their debts. Debt relief for millionaires and homelessness for working people—that’s not the kind of economy we believe in.

Ugh.  This is the result of dozens of of PHDs working together? Not encouraging.  Bad writing; bad economics; bad theology.

Further questions: What do professional theologians know about the “average worker” (if there is such a thing)?  How much debt are the students at their respective seminaries going to incur getting their education??

Oh, and economic justice?  Whose justice?

As economist Thomas Sowell writes,

One of the few subjects on which we all seem to agree is the need for justice.  But our agreement is only seeming because we mean such different things by the same word.  Whatever moral principle each of us believes in, we call justice.  This is especially so today, when so many advocate what they call “social justice” [or "economic justice"]  – often with great passion, but with no definition. (The Quest for Cosmic Justice, p. 3)

Jesus also told us that the poor will always be with us.  Some no doubt due to systemic injustices; some to misfortune; some to prodigality and/or laziness.  Yes, some interest rates are remarkably high.  But no one forces you to take out a loan.  I’ve torn up many credit cards over the years, especially during college.  Yes, Christians should be concerned for the poor.  Is the best way to do this picketing huge multinational banks? Doubtful.  Should theologians be writing our economic policies?

Perhaps – but not until Christ returns in glory.

The Ekklesia Project on Obama’s Nobel Speech

A little late, but if you haven’t seen Ekklesia’s response to Obama’s speech it is worth a gander.  Nothing too shocking here, of course.  Keep the church and the world separate, in every practical sense.  Obama isn’t explicitly Christian enough…yada yada yada.  Oddly, though, for all the ekklesiastical (hehe) outrage that the pacifist camp has at his (however timid) invocation of the Just War tradition, no one seems bothered by the fact that pacifist grand-poobah Stanley Hauerwas himself voted for Obama.  (A fact I have on good authority from someone who was in a classroom where Dr. Hauerwas admitted it).

Check out the Ekklesia Project’s page here.  My response to Hauerwas’ article with follow shortly.