Category: Uncategorized

Sober dove Alan Bock isn’t sure whether we’re seeing the beginning of a grass-roots anti-war movement that “looks like America”:

As a war opponent from the beginning, I have mixed feelings. Ms. Sheehan has not confined herself to doubting the war’s wisdom, but has unburdened herself of an array of remarks ranging from personal insults of the president and his family to offhand remarks about Israel and Palestine. It’s understandable that one might want to put an array of issues before the public when you have the chance to have your views magnified by the amplifiers of the media. But I think she would have been more effective if she had stuck stubbornly to a single question: “I just want to know what core American interest was served by my son’s death.”

There’s a constituency for comments like saying a protest is “for all our brave souls (American or Iraqi) who have been murdered by the Bush crime family,” which Mrs. Sheehan is widely reported to have said. There are unquestionably Americans who take delights in hearing someone call the president “that lying bastard” or “that maniac.” There’s a frisson in comments to the effect that without the Internet America “would already be a fascist state.” Plenty of people get their intellectual rocks off hearing comments like “You tell me the truth. You tell me that my son died for oil. You tell me that my son died to make your friends rich. You tell me my son died to spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East.”

In terms of influencing the larger body politic, however, such remarks are not likely to persuade. They might even repel people who are coming to doubt the wisdom of the war in Iraq but are not even close to hating their country, their government or even their president.

None of this takes anything away from the fact that it was Cindy Sheehan, not you or I, who actually took the initiative to go to Crawford. Nor does it justify some of the more scurrilous and personal attacks on her that have come from the War Party from the beginning of her vigil. Indeed, it is impressive that at least several hundred other antiwar Americans, of varying political persuasions, have joined her there. It is encouraging that they have held prayer meetings, demonstrating that like most Americans, they are respectful of religion.

I suspect, however, that the fact that the predominant tone coming from Camp Casey has been embittered-left – which may be how it has been filtered through the media and not reflective of a wider variety of views on the road to the Bush estate – might have been helpful in the short run but not perhaps in the long run. We need at least some faces of the antiwar movement to be people whose deep love of America and respect for her institutions and the promise she still holds of expanding freedom the right way practically oozes from their pores, so there can be no doubt they are patriots. We need people in suits and ties as well as dungarees and bandanas. We need an antiwar movement that looks like America to begin to have a real impact on American policy.

Heavy metal may be the Next Big Thing for kitsch-crazed hipsters according to this Slate article. Well, some of us never stopped loving metal! Though, I admit my tastes run more to 80’s thrash at its peak (early Metallica, Anthrax, etc.), punk-metal fusion (Suicidal Tendencies, D.R.I.), and “classic” stuff like Iron Maiden, with an occasional dip into early 90’s Pantera.

However, allow me to plug the great new album from punk-metal pioneers Corrosion of Conformity. It seamlessly fuses Sabbath-influenced Southern sludge with a thrash element that in places rivals Slayer in their prime (and without all the satanic imagery!).

When it is said that God is the ground of nature’s existence and order, God is not being used to fill a gap in a scientific explanation that concerns the connections between members of the universe. Rather to speak of God as the ground of nature’s existence and order is to address questions concerning the existence of the universe itself and why it has the particular set of members and connections it has. Because these questions are about the universe as a whole, they are beyond the limits of scientific explanations.

[…]

Christianity does not claim that the order of the universe is such that we ought to infer that nature is designed. However great or little its complexity, nature’s order is intended by God. Since Darwin’s theory of natural selection more or less explained how very complex forms of life arise from much simpler forms, we have not been inclined to move toward the idea of design, however great the complexity is. But scientific procedures and assumptions which do not regard nature’s order as intended, do not contradict the Christian claim that the order of the universe is intended by God. It is the Lordship of God over nature, not nature’s complexity, which is the basis of the claim. God as the source of nature’s order gives us no specific information about the relation between its members.

—Diogenes Allen

Is the designer of Intelligent Design the God of the Bible? John Garvey doesn’t think so:

The problem with the God rejected by Darwinian atheists and the God of those who believe in intelligent design is that neither is particularly biblical. (By the way, I think it is fair of those who believe in intelligent design to complain that they are not, as some allege, a wedge into the schools that will lead eventually to teaching biblical literalism. This is not, in fact, part of their argument, and the intelligent designer they posit has little to do with the God of the Bible.) The intelligent designer seen by both camps–rejected by one, accepted by the other–is essentially the God of the deists, a generally benign designer compelled to create the best of all possible worlds, a world in which profound flaws and seemingly mad design would be unthinkable. If intelligent design were science, if it could be supported by fact and not what amounts to aesthetic speculation, it might be a good argument for a Gnostic demiurge, a deranged creator-god. Yes, the intricacy of the eye and the elegance of flagella are amazing and the details beautiful. But a designer with his, her, or its hand in at this clockwork level could surely do something to prevent anencephalic babies or Alzheimer’s disease. What about all the apparently useless parts of the DNA strand? Couldn’t praying mantises have been designed with a way to mate that didn’t require the female to devour the head of the male during intercourse? I’ve seen a mother hamster devouring her young with blank eyes, preferable to grief, I guess, under the circumstances. The designer’s eye is upon the sparrow, the mantis, the mother hamster eating her young, the brainless baby.

[…]

The God of the Bible is responsible for the world, but it is a world that has been wounded beyond comprehension by sin and evil. The whole of creation, Paul insists in the eighth chapter of Romans, groans as it waits for its true completion in God. When we study this creation we study something infinitely more mysterious–and torn and unfinished–than a well-designed machine; it is something at once wonderful and perishing and cannot be reduced to what science can see and tell us, either about randomness or design. The God of the Bible is not the prime mover of Greek philosophy or the benign provider of the deists. He appears in the burning bush and will not give his name. He wrestles with Jacob (who is Israel, the one who “contends with God”). This God has no handle–not designer, planner, nor architect, except as a fleeting metaphor. This God is unknowable, silent, suddenly appearing, interfering when unwanted and absent when wanted, always elusive–and this tricky one is responsible for the universe. In Jesus Christ we are invited to call this God our Father, a father whose son was crucified to begin the release of the universe from the bondage Paul tells us about, inviting us to await a goodness that is only dawning, and certainly can’t be seen clearly under a microscope.

I incline to the view that the existence and order of the universe leaves the question of God an open one. It doesn’t compel belief, but it allows for it. The God of the Bible is not an inference, but a personal reality that is encountered.

Ramesh Ponnuru, proving that conservatism hasn’t totally lost its soul, has an article cautioning against loosening the restraints on the means by which we fight wars. Conservative pundits like Max Boot and Mark Steyn have been citing anguish over the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (as well as the bombings of Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) as evidence that we’ve become pantywaist pacifists in our conduct of war (never mind that “smart” bombs are nowhere near so smart as to guarantee no “collateral damage”).

Mr. Ponnuru, however, rightly points out that there are limits to how much collateral damage is morally acceptable, and that intentionally targeting civilians constitutes crossing a bright moral line. He wonders if those who defend the bombings of World War II can logically rule out targeting civilians in our current “global struggle against violent extremism.”

Looks that way, anyway. From Beliefnet:

The nation’s largest Lutheran church on Friday upheld a policy that frowns on blessing same-sex unions, but left the door open for pastors to provide “faithful pastoral care” to all parishioners as they see fit.Delegates from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted 670-323 to uphold a 1993 statement that says gay unions have no basis in Scripture and cannot be an “official action” of the church.

Yet, at the same time, the church said it would trust local churches to “discern ways to provide faithful pastoral care” to all parishioners, which would include gay and lesbian Lutherans.

The church’s unofficial policy remains the guidance offered by church bishops in 1993 that they find no basis in Scripture or tradition “for the establishment of an official ceremony of this church for the blessing of a homosexual relationship.”

Delegates narrowly rejected, 491-484, language that referred specifically to “same-sex couples.” Instead, pastors are called to provide care “for all to whom they minister.”

Read the rest here.

Despite the fact that increasing numbers of Americans (and disproportionate numbers of Democratic voters, one suspects) are disenchanted with the war in Iraq, the Democratic leadership remains steadfastly hawkish. The names most frequently mentioned as possiblities in ’08 (Clinton, Biden, etc.) are invariably national security hawks who continue to support the war. Why is this so?

This article discusses how a “strategic class” of government officials, analysts, think-tankers, and journalists reinforce a hawkish stance and put any kind of dovish or principled position of opposition to the war beyond the pale of “respectable” discourse.

In his article on the Atonement Gerhard Forde makes some of the more common charges against Anselm’s theory of the Atonement (or at least certain “Anselmian”type theories). Whether Forde intends his criticisms to apply to Anselm himself or just some of the cruder later versions of his theory isn’t entirely clear. I’ve defended Anselm on this before, but I think one of the persistent confusions surrounding his views have to do with the notion that God’s “honor” has been offended by sin and must be “satisfied” in order for him to forgive our sins. This can lead us to think of God as some petty tyrant who demands his pound of flesh before he can be gracious.

However, in Anselm’s scheme “honor” should not be thought of as a mere subjective “feeling” of being offended on God’s part. Anselm certainly didn’t have such a crude anthropomorphic view of God. Nor, I would suggest, does it refer to a set of rules that are somehow “external” to God which require satisfaction before sins can be forgiven. I think it’s more helpful to think of God’s honor and his justice in relation to his purposes for his creation (as Anselm does).

Anselm says:

Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change. But as the individual creature preserves, naturally or by reason, the condition belonging, and, as it were, allotted to him, he is said to obey and honor God; and to this, rational nature, which possesses intelligence, is especially bound. And when the being chooses what he ought, he honors God; not by bestowing anything upon him, but because he brings himself freely under God’s will and disposal, and maintains his own condition in the universe, and the beauty of the universe itself, as far as in him lies. But when he does not choose what he ought, he dishonors God, as far as the being himself is concerned, because he does not submit himself freely to God’s disposal. And he disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God. (Cur Deus Homo, Bk. I, Ch. XV)

God’s problem with sin is that it threatens to derail his intentions for his creation, which is loving communion between God and his creatures. God’s “honor” – which is also his grace – will not allow his purposes to be defeated by sin and refuses to leave us mired in our sin:

Do you not perceive, from what we have said above, that it is necessary for some men to attain to felicity? For, if it is unfitting for God to elevate man with any stain upon him, to that for which he made him free from all stain, lest it should seem that God had repented of his good intent, or was unable to accomplish his designs; far more is it impossible, on account of the same unfitness, that no man should be exalted to that state for which he was made. Therefore, a satisfaction such as we have above proved necessary for sin, must be found apart from the Christian faith, which no reason can show; or else we must accept the Christian doctrine. For what is clearly made out by absolute reasoning ought by no means to be questioned, even though the method of it be not understood. (Bk. I, Ch. XXV)

How does he do this? By sending the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity into the world to assume human flesh. Through the course of his life of faithful obedience to the Father, the Son does what we might call a “repair job” on human nature. It’s important to note that Anselm doesn’t think that it is merely Christ’s death on the cross which satisfies God, as though God needed some kind of human sacrifice. Rather it’s Christ’s entire life that “satisfies” God by getting the human project back on track. His death is the inevitable result of his life of obedience, because a perfect life lived in a world of sin cannot be tolerated (Forde’s “the order by which we run things here.”). Christ’s living a life of perfect faithful obedience, even unto death on a cross, is what atones for the sins of humanity and is vindicated by God in the Resurrection. The beauty of this perfect life offered up blots out the stain of sin which threatened to disrupt God’s creation.

As George Lindbeck puts it:

The two main ways of understanding this vicarious sacrifice of Christ as victim are, to retrace familiar paths, Anselm’s satisfaction theory, and, on the other hand, a punitive or penal substitution view. This substitutionary understanding was in part an offshoot of Anselm’s work, despite his strong opposition to it. Anselm emphatically insisted that it would be contrary to God’s justice for the innocent Jesus to bear the punishment that sinners deserve. Rather, the Son’s loving obedience in becoming man (and inevitably being murdered in a world as wicked as ours) infinitely outweighs or compensates for the damage, grave though this be, that our sinfulness has inflicted on God’s good creation. God cannot punish those who flee to Christ for mercy, because that would spoil the Christ-wrought beauty now irradiating the universe and making it a far, far better place than it would ever have been without Christ’s coming and inevitable death. (Lindbeck, “Atonement & the Hermeneutics of Intratextual Social Embodiment” in The Nature of Confession: Evangelicals & Postliberals in Conversation, Lindbeck, Okholm, and Phillips, eds., p. 233)

And, we should add, by the power of the Holy Spirit we come to participate in that life, through worship, prayer, the sacraments, and the new obedience. This is Luther’s “happy exchange” whereby we participate in Christ’s righteousness, and he assumes our sin. God is “satisfied” because his purpose for creation has been restored once and for all (though only to be fully revealed at the end of the age).

I think this account is true to the spirit of Anselm’s account (though perhaps departing from the letter in some places), and also offers a reply to Forde’s important question why it was necessary for the Son to come and die. If God’s purpose is to get the human project back on track, it may be that the only way to do that is for there to be an actual human life that we can participate in which has been restored to the intentions God has for humanity.

Also, it may offer a more satisfying approach to sanctification. Forde has often been criticized for being weak on sanctification, since he so strongly emphasizes God’s free and unconditional pardon of sins. But perhaps the notion of participation offers a way of understanding how we come to live a new life without qualifying God’s grace as the source of that new life.

Good article from Roberto Rivera on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings (via Thunderstruck).

While relatively few Americans can bring themselves to say that the deliberate targeting of non-combatants during World War II, regardless of the physics involved, was immoral, our commitment to jus in bello has grown to make the avoidance of “collateral damage” official policy. At least until another hard, less asymmetrical, case comes along. Then it’s likely that the same utilitarian calculus used to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Tokyo, Kobe, Nagoya, and Osaka don’t seem to require any justification) will be difficult to resist.

This is neither critical nor cynical. It’s a reminder of what Scripture and Sacred Tradition teaches: while we may reside and even thrive in the Earthly City, our citizenship is elsewhere. The two cities aren’t identical, and their requirements won’t always coincide. As Augustine famously put it, “Two cities, then, have been created by two loves: that is, the earthly by love of self extending even to contempt of God, and the heavenly by love of God extending to contempt of self.” For citizens of the City of God, suffering injustice rather than risk committing one is part of “contempt of self.” The other city can’t begin to imagine such a trade-off. Not because it’s contemptuous of God—although it is—but out of simple self-preservation. (If this sounds a bit theoretical, recall that just the other day, a congressman suggested bombing Mecca in response to a terrorist attack. If this idea made sense to you, welcome to the City of Man.) Love of self and its emphasis on self-preservation is why utilitarianism is the City of Man’s default position, in war as in peace.

So, while we are not exempt from the “obligations necessary for national defense,” those obligations aren’t open-ended. The “evaluation” of whether the criteria of the Just War doctrine have been met may belong “to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good,” but that doesn’t mean that they’re always right or that, once they’ve spoken, we must shut up. If that happens, then something a lot more important than workers will be absent from our society: its conscience.

It’s not always recognized how radical the implications of just war theory can be. You have to allow for the possibility that it may not be possible to win without acting unjustly. I think this is part of the reason that just war theory is never really going to sit well in a secular state; for a secular government survival is always the overriding concern. Not so for a Christian. Which is why it’s distressing to see Christians try to justify the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent men, women, and children in order to save our skins. How much of a testimony is that to our faith in the One who has conquered death?

The Churchwide Assembly just voted overwhelmingly to approve a recommendation to enter into “interim eucharistic sharing” with the UMC, which is short of the “full communion” we enjoy with other churches (go here for more info).

The difference is explained thusly elsewhere:

With an interim commitment, congregations and judicatories of both churches will be encouraged to study theological documents, participate jointly in Holy Communion and explore new opportunities for shared ministry. Eventually, the two churches may achieve a relationship of full communion, which would allow for clergy of one church body to serve in congregations of the other church and would create opportunities for joint ministry.

Doing my part to further understanding between Lutherans and Methodists, I recently picked up a copy of John Wesley’s A Plain Man’s Guide to Holiness (a.k.a. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection).