The Mad Parson

Move

2008-01-16T13:24:00.000-05:00

The British call it "shifting". I've moved the Mad Parson over to Northminster's website. You can find it here.

Narcissus and his mirror

2007-02-01T17:39:00.000-05:00

Sheesh. This is pretty incendiary stuff. And that, in and of itself, doesn't bother me. I actually tend to like incendiary, when it makes a salient point. What I don't like is incendiary for the point of being incendiary. Unfortunately, Mr Arkin falls into the latter category. First, he makes a critical error in both this column and its predecessor column: Divorcing the military from the American people. He makes the statement that the American people are supporting the military, but the military isn't supporting the American people. Mr Arkin, the military ARE the American people. Not the sum of it, no, but not something other than it, either. When the military is considered as something other than the American people, which Mr Arkin has consistently done, then they are almost automatically better-than (which is how Mr Arkin accuses them of acting) or lesser-than, (which is how Mr Arkin himself treats them via his condescension). Second, the idea that the military is "hiding behind the Constitution" removes his column from the realm of the serious and puts it in the land of the farcical. All of us, from the myriad persons who commented on his blog to the kid who wears offensive statement T-shirts to school to the incalculable journalists writing everyday in their respective--not respectful--publications, hide behind the Constitution. We have certain rights--a noteworthy one to you, Mr Arkin, being the freedom of speech--and the Constitution protects those rights. Third, the article does a great disservice to dialogue on the War in Iraq. Our combat in Iraq is pretty definitively either right or wrong. If it's right, than Mr Arkin is off the mark in a myriad of ways. But even if it's wrong, Mr Arkin shows himself completely unable to do what liberals say they are doing: Support the troops without supporting the war. Mr Arkin has written poorly thought out comments on the subject--poor thought often being the risk of writing on a blog, with its immediacy and lack of an editor, or, in my case, Guinness--and as soon as someone points out his error, he screams "Censorship! Squashing of dissent! Right wing jackboot intolerance!" (by the way, Mr Arkin, how does the comfort of that Constitution protection feel right about now, anyway?), and goes on a sanctimonious diatribe against those idiot kids in the military, the evil Administration that's deployed them, and all the mindless fascists who support a plan that anyone with the brain of a pterodactyl can see is a guaranteed failure. Well, so much for reasoned dialogue. What we need in our public square is someone who can stand in the crossfire and offer thoughtful commentary on what is wrong with this war and do so without ostracizing ANY of the opinions offered, except those which are obviously simply vitriol (like Mr Arkin's, for example). The conservatives have trouble hearing dissent without treating it an unpatriotic. But the liberals have trouble hearing dissent, period. They have decided who is mainstream and rational, and who is not. The military is not part of the American people. The conservatives are out of the mainstream. Only the demographic that agrees with Mr Arkin is spared the invective of Mr Arkin. Pity, that. For there is where America is closest to fascism.

2007-01-24T20:25:00.000-05:00

Like Rumsfeld's second tour in Defense, my blog server picked a great time for glitches. Anyhoo.

All in all, too little, too late, in my estimation, concerning the State of the Union. The time for firing Rummy and sending in the cavalry was two years ago, not two months. I appreciate Mr Bush's courtesies, and his management of the economy (read: tax cuts); however, I remain unconvinced on the Iraq front, and the talk about global warming and federally-subsidized health care accounts are a bit much.

Mr Webb was simply philistine. He is far too taken with himself, and I am quite frankly embarrassed that he is the junior senator from Virginia. The Commonwealth deserves better, as do the poor viewers that had to endure him last night. First, he use of the English language is a tad boorish. How many metaphors did he mix, anyway? Second, he was flat wrong in his assessments. How can a senator indicate that the economy is going poorly when the middle class is larger than ever before, stocks continue to rise, inflation to continues to be in check, unemployment is at record lows, and tax revenues are at record highs? What's wrong with that picture? And, too, the statement that most of the military is against the war seems off to me. A majority of Congress is against the war; a majority of the populace is against the war; a majority of me is against the war. But there is no evidence--at least not any that I have seen or that Mr Webb referenced--to indicate the majority of the military is against the war. People are ill at Mr Bush for lying--no need to replicate the error, Mr Webb.

Something There Is That Doesn't Love A Wall

2007-01-23T21:28:00.000-05:00

Hard to reconcile 'compassionate conversativism' with the whole immigration wall thing, but I do like the temporary worker thing. At least it's not complete, um, stonewalling. I would prefer amnesty, though. . . .

Mr Schwarzenegger's--I mean, Mr Bush's--Health Plan

2007-01-23T21:26:00.000-05:00

How is this different from nationalized (read: socialized) health care? And who decides who is poor enough or sick enough?

Still Not Bad for the First Time

2007-01-23T21:25:00.000-05:00

The Madame Speaker keeps licking her lips--what's up with that? Still, she's doing pretty well for being under this scrutiny the first time. Mrs Clinton, however, looks like she has recently visited the hair salon from hell. . . .

Surge versus State

2007-01-23T21:22:00.000-05:00

So far, Mr Bush is doing far better with this speech than he did with the 'surge' speech. With the former, he looked tired and addled. So far, he looks confident and prepared. The nod to the Madame Speaker was a very nice touch. The Democrats have been playing nice, too; it's almost as if the two sides are trying to outdo the other.

The State of the Union

2007-01-23T21:17:00.000-05:00

I still get chills up my spine when the Sergeant at Arms announces: "The President of the United States!"

America Needs a 'Beast'!

2007-01-09T18:21:00.000-05:00

Ha, ha! Yes! I take away two things from this unraveling: First, the sheer joy of knowing that Arsenal's young line is in form. That bodes quite well for the future. Sure, a lot of that is import, and the transfer window gives, and the transfer window takes away. Nonetheless, at its foundation, the Gunner side is playing great football right now. "One-nil to the Gunners!"

The second thing I take away from this is how young the side is, not only for Arsenal, but for some of the Liverpool side, as well. Contrast that with MLS. Recently, Freddie Adu--theoretically, the American version of Theo Walcott--worked out with Manchester United. Sir Alex was unimpressed. Europe has a culture of breeding young footballers that we don't have. You see it in this tie. We can somewhat imagine an eighteen-year-old playing NBA (because we've seen it in Kobe Bryant and LeBron James), and it happens in MLB. But (true) football is a physical and demanding sport, especially at the pace it is played in the Premiership (and the Carling Cup tie today was a conflict of Premiership sides). Who can think of eighteen-year-olds playing in the starting lineup of an NFL team and being competitive? If 'soccer' is ever going to catch on here, the MLS style and structure won't get it; we will have to rethink our expectations for our kids. Now, we expect everyone to go through college. In the future, perhaps we will give our kids the leniency to go to college, trade school, work--or football academy. . . .

I Prefer A Foil, Thank You, Or At Least An Epee

2007-01-08T12:18:00.000-05:00

Statements like this one, it seems to me, fail two tests. One is the theology test. This attitude stems from the natural theology tack that what is revealed is what is intended. In other words, what we see is the way things ought to be. It doesn't take long to dispel that notion, however, for surely no one of any grace would say that Down's sydrome is that way things ought to be. Burkitt's lymphona are not the way things ought to be. The Darfur genocide is not the way things ought to be (if I can stretch a bit outside of genetics). The question should be asked: If homosexuality occurs in animals, is that a good thing, or is that a deviation? Assuming that simply because a trait shows up in animals is a good thing strikes me as naive, at best. After all, if this assertion is correct that male whales "penis fence" and only infrequently mate with females, perhaps that is why we now need bumper stickers that read "Save the Whales".

A second, and corollary, test that is failed is the common sense test. If homosexuality is so wonderfully natural, why doesn't the anus self-lubricate for penile penetration like the vagina does? It just doesn't make sense. I'm sure that this somehow makes me homophobic, but I simply don't find compelling evidence here that homosexuality is a good thing. It may be a natural thing, although on this mark I still remain unconvinced. But nature is fallen just as we humans are. Pointing out that something exists in nature doesn't make it a good thing. Thoughtful reflection, if not a casual observance, bear this out.

Fifty Minutes With Reality

2006-12-07T11:14:00.000-05:00

Patient: "We're going to stay the course."

Shrink: "But it's obvious that's not working."

Patient: "It will. We work for equality for all. We are inspired by hope."

Shrink: "Your tactics are unconstitutional."

Patient: "My lawyers assure me I'm on firm ground."

Shrink: "Folks are starting to think you are out of touch with the average person."

Patient: "Look, I have a vision. We are going to keep our eyes fixed on the horizon. And everyone's going. If you're not for us, you're against us."

Shrink: "The voices of opposition are growing louder."

Patient: "Egghh. They don't know what I know. They don't have all the information. This is a tough job. I make tough decisions. '[T]his kind of work is hard and slow going.' But, the people picked me to lead, and that's what I'm going to do."

Shrink: "You are having a hard time facing reality: Your tactics are unconstitutional, the opposition is growing, and your plan isn't working!"

Patient: "BUT I'M THE STATED CLERK!"

Shrink: "Orderly!"

2006-11-27T15:44:00.000-05:00

This is a great question, to be sure, although I didn't mean for my comments to indicate there needs to be reform from the 'top-down'. A great deal of change needs to be made at the top, in my estimation, but I think the movement for that will need to come from the bottom in a groundswell fashion.

The main suggestion I have is to guarantee your congregation has a vigorous elder training process in place. My experience is that most Sessions presently function only to conduct church business: We have an agenda that reports committee activity, we move funds from one line item to another, we approve the minister's time away, and we attempt to do it in the shortest amount of time possible. Precious little attention is given to theology and worship, which is interesting to me, because in the Book of Order, the ordination questions for ministers (G-14.0405b) and elders (G-14.0207) are the same. In other words, elders are to know their theology and polity, and be active in higher governing bodies. The presbytery in which I serve, Presbytery of the Peaks, recently had a reading and hearing on an overture from one of our member churches concerning the 217th GA AI. Almost invariably, when an elder commented, s/he would offer some variation on this disclaimer: "I'm just a regular person in the pew,
but. . . ." The vote of an elder at presbytery, synod, and General Assembly gatherings carries just as much weight as the vote of a minister. If we make sure our elders are sharp in theology and polity and active in governing body affairs, I think that will make a world of difference.

In addition to the obvious perennials of the Book of Order, the Book of Confessions, and the Holy Bible, some helpful resources for elder training include: Presbyterian Polity for Church Officers by Joan Gray and Joyce Tucker (ISBN 0664500188); Making Disciples, Making Leaders: A Manual for Developing Church Officers by Steven Eason (ISBN 0664502636); the Book of Confessions: Study Edition (ISBN 0664500129) and Christian Doctrine: Revised Edition by Shirley Guthrie (ISBN 0664253687).

2006-11-14T16:47:00.000-05:00

It seems to me that there is a triangulatory injury that occurs whenever a split happens: A couple get divorced because they can't stand each other, but it's the children who are penalized the most; a corporation splits over leadership issues at the top, but it's the average consumers and shareholders who pay the price; a congregation divides over--what else?!--whether to play praise choruses or traditional anthems ( :) ), and the neighborhood losing a vital witness loses out. Those in our midst who chatter about leaving are perhaps missing this pivotal point. If substantial churches pull out of the PCUSA--hey, with such close polarization, even if the numbers aren't substantial--they will not affect the 'progressive' leadership; indeed, they will embolden and benefit those who are liberal-leaning. No, such a departure will only hurt those Biblically faithful women and men who are called by God to stay and labor where He has put them. Evangelical churches leaving the denomination will only further dilute the voice and vote that the evangelical caucuses possess, thereby tipping the scales in liberal favor. The evangelicals have had the votes heretofore; if churches leave, that will no longer be the case. So, if there is a departure, the separatists will not injure the PCUSA structure, they will injure most those brothers and sisters with whom they agree the most. Indeed, leaving isn't the answer. Reforming the denomination--beginning at the top--is.

2006-11-09T23:02:00.000-05:00

The 1983 reunion between the UPCUSA and the PCUS was, among many other things, a train-wreck collision of two different organizational philosophies: One was the UPCUSA--the Northern Presbyterian church--which had a "top down" philosophy. In this philosophy, the congregations existed to facilitate the ministry and work of the presbytery. The presbytery set the goals and tenor of the church's work, and the congregations were expected to support it. The Southern Presbyterian church had a "bottom up" philosophy: The presbytery existed to support and facilitate the work of the congregations. The congregations--in a connectional and communal nature--set the missional vision of the presbytery and the presbytery structure was expected to support and facilitate that vision.

What is occurring with the fidelity/chastity clause and the A.I. is a classic elaboration of how these models conflict on a national level. The PCUS philosophy has held sway thus far: The presbyteries have voted on the issue multiple times, and in doing so, have set the vision for the General Assembly and have expected the General Assembly to support and facilitate that vision. The A.I., on the other hand, is emblematic of the UPCUSA model, as the General Assembly has made a decision that the presbyteries may or may not agree with, and the General Assembly is expecting presbyteries to move forward in support of that vision. One of the questions standing before us now (and has perhaps been unanswered twenty-plus years into the reunion) is: Which model holds sway with us? Does the denominational structure support the lower governing bodies? Or do the lower governing bodies support the denominational structure? How we answer that question may take us a long way in figuring out how this thing will end. . . .

The Kerryization of the Church

2006-11-07T16:45:00.000-05:00

John Kerry has come under a ton of fire (does he get a Purple Heart for this?) for his now infamous comment about kids getting stuck in Iraq if they don't get a good education. Much commentary has been uttered about the slip, and some of it revolves around Mr Kerry's tactics as a politician: Mr Kerry was also widely criticized (a trend is developing here) for not responding to the Swift Boat ads quickly enough and forcefully enough in the 2004 Presidential campaign. That error is thought, in many circles, to be the misstep that foundered the ship of his candidacy. Once Republicans decried Mr Kerry's 'botched joke', he wasn't going to make the same mistake twice; instead, he fought back immediately and forcefully, with language that was borderline inflammatory. The commentary (which I am not linking because there is so much of it) is that Mr Kerry is always fighting the previous battle. He should have come out fast and hard with the Swifties and didn't. He should have apologized quickly for the 'stuck in Iraq' thing, but he applied the lesson learned of the last battle. Mr Kerry seems to always be one step behind--fighting the battle already waged and learning its lessons one engagement too late.

I wonder if the PCUSA hasn't suffered a Kerryization. Many Presbyterians were on the wrong side of slavery and Civil Rights issues. We learned those lessons--some of us a little late. Now, we seem to be of the mind that we are not going to make the same mistake twice. Having caught on to those progressive movements late in the day, we are now quickly embracing any progressive idea that comes along, lest we be proven wrong, yet again. We are still fighting the previous battle. The problem is that progressivism is not a consistent good. (What is!?) Some progressive causes are thoroughly Biblical--focus on the poor would be one example. Some are not Biblical--abortion comes to mind. The traditional agenda stands under the same criticism. Supporting the Civil Rights movement (and now racial reconciliation) is a strength of the progressives and is to be lauded and followed. Fighting against abortion is a strength of the traditionalists and is to be lauded and followed. Chasing after every action that is progressive because we're stuck in the prior contest is theological suicide. Or political, if you're John Kerry.

2006-11-01T16:50:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking about the idea that liberals and conservatives both claim to be following Christ, but yet have such differing ideas as to what that means (or even who he is!). I have come to suspect that discipleship to Christ is more a statement of words, and less a set of behaviors. So many confess one God, but emulate another. (Disclaimer: I probably do this, too. It's just that I want to emulate Bono.) The liberals seem to me the closet Gnostics, who have a special and better grasp of faith than the rest of us: "If you only got it like we get it, you would support our cause!" The liberals act like they understand Christ and his work in a truer sense than their opponents. But if the liberals are Gnostics, then the conservatives must be Deists. The right-wingers act as though God has put everything down in a rulebook--also known as the Bible--and that's the end of it. Much like the Eternal Watchmaker who made the watch and then set it off to run in his absence. (This is not far afield of, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!") This idea is devoid, I think, of the relational and sacrificial aspects of ministry. This is painting with a broad brush, to be sure, but the liberals are Gnostics, the conservatives are Deists, and those who follow Christ are. . .well. . .where are they?!

2006-11-01T16:49:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the absence. I was away a fortnight for study leave and vacation, then I returned to a funeral and catch-up.

2006-10-05T17:30:00.000-04:00

This post, I think, is certainly well-intentioned, especially there at the end. And Mr Sizemore is certainly correct that the PCUSA is not the "Church"--it is quite obviously not the fullness of the Body of Christ. But the PCUSA doesn't have to be the Church Universal in order for leaving it to be the wrong tack to take. Mr Sizemore makes this point himself, although he certainly doesn't mean to. He is referencing a prior article which used the example of Jeremiah in its argument to stay in the PCUSA, and he replies, "While [the] reference to Jeremiah has standing, I would suggest that for this discussion a more modern and relevant example be considered. A better example might be the story of Jesus throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. Wrong and bad things were happening in his Father's house, and Jesus took action! Could the same sort of things be going on now, both by the denomination and its members?"

Now, the first problem is to think that the example of Christ is more relevant than the example of Jeremiah. One of Calvin's significant contributions was to re-elevate the Old Testament to the standing of the New Testament. We do not ascribe to a deuterocanon; Jeremiah is not less relevant than Christ. But the second error is in the use of the story, which is quite telling. Jesus doesn't leave! He runs the other guys out! In fact, Christ is quite persistent in his ministry to the Jews, reaching out to them time and time and time again, even as some of them attack him, even as he challenges some of them, and even as some of them abandon him. IN FACT, Jesus dies for those very same folks, imploring his Father to forgive them their murder. So, if Mr Sizemore feels that this text is the relevant one, we are left with two options: 1) Run them out of our denomination. Take action! Or, 2) keep ministering to them again and again until the point of dying for them.

Yet another issue is the flippant use of the word 'apostate'. Mr Sizemore says we need to be careful calling folks 'schismatics', but he is rather quick to label the PCUSA 'apostate'. I wonder: How would the writer feel about the Corinthian church? Would they be apostate? They certainly believed in boundless love, especially as it concerned guys and their mothers-in-law. Should Paul have washed his hands of them? After all, they were not "the Church"--they were only a part of it. In labeling the denomination apostate and permitted some to leave from it, do we run the risk of, as Augustine put it, separating the wheat from the chaff, when that is rightly Christ's job? (Note that translated Augustine doesn't say we are separated from the Body of Christ, but instead separated from the unity of Christ.)

And that is the fundamental problem with all this talk of leaving: It is so very egocentric. We decide when the denomination has become apostate. We decide who is Christian and who is not. We decide which straw breaks the camel's back. We decide what to do with properties and assets. Perhaps we would be better off laboring and worshipping and loving in precisely the place our Father has put us. Jesus did.

Women's Rights Are For All Women

2006-10-04T09:36:00.000-04:00

This is an interesting article. Two comments are noteworthy: In one, a pre-law woman says that she wants something bigger for herself and she isn't going to let anything stop her. Her comment is an accurate portrayal of the way the abortion dialogue (!) is framed: Mother against child (or woman against biological matter, if that is how you prefer to see it). The assumption is that a conflict exists between the goals and rights of the mother on the one hand and the goals and rights of the fetus. This issue is incredibly complicated--including what we expect from our men and how we define life and how we treat women--but suffice it to say that this conflict is created, not inherent. It is created by the territorial and agenda-driven tactics of the two opposing sides: The liberals, in order to gain ground, have staked their claim to the care of women. Women have rights (autonomy, for instance) and goals (a career, perhaps), and abortion reaffirms those rights and enables those goals. To deny a woman an abortion is to deny her rights and obtrude her goals. The conservatives have staked their ground in like manner: The fetus has rights (the right to life, followed by liberty, followed by the pursuit of happiness) and, presumably, goals (being born comes to mind). To abort the fetus is to deny its rights and obtrude (with finality) its goals. Both arguments have a level of merit to them, but the politicizing of the two major players in an abortion (mother and fetus) has created the conflict noted above, and to the benefit of neither player, as far as I can tell.

Which is why a second comment in the article is noteworthy. A mother of a five-year-old had an abortion because the fetus was diagnosed with Down's syndrome. The mother reports that it was the most difficult decision she's ever made, and I doubt she is hyperbolizing. She also reports that pro-abortion groups do not acknowledge the emotional angst that goes along with an abortion. Here's where the created conflict falls apart: The left demonizes the right for wanting to subjugate women, while the right demonizes the left for wanting to kill babies. Neither side is affirming the crisis that the woman herself is in. My wife and I used to support Bethany Christian Services (and we probably still should), and at one point I remember looking over some intriguing information as to what happens to the woman post-abortion. I don't recall the numbers exactly, but I want to say that something like 70% of women post-abortion have dreams of their child calling out to them for help, and something like 40% of them buy stuffed animals or dolls and give them a baby's name and attempt to care for them. These are not signs of a healthy procedure or process. Bumper stickers may pithily state "Abortions Kill Babies", but the nasty little secret is that abortions deal quite an emotional and mental blow to the woman in question.

So, make abortions illegal? If that's how you want to spend your time and energy; however, I will say that most people who want to argue over doctrine and law do so because they don't want to interact with the individuals who stand in the center of the issue. Homosexuals are argued about, for instance, instead of being held responsible for their behavior and welcomed regardless in grace. If the church was doing her job--if the church was showing the grace of Christ to these women before they engaged in extramarital sex, or even after they got pregnant--perhaps the women at the center of this issue would feel empowered by that gracious community to abstain from sex before the issue ever arose, or to raise the baby supported by that community, or at least to carry the child to term and let someone else adopt the little tike. In other words, if the church were really doing her job, you wouldn't need to make abortion illegal. If women experienced that kind of grace, love, acceptance, and support, you wouldn't be able to force them to have abortions.

UPDATE: Here is a thoughtful piece on the subject. I like Ms Parker's nod to feminism. I have always found it curious--as a person who loves women but is not one myself--the feminist stance toward abortion so very curious. If the guesstimates are close, that somewhere around four millions abortions occur in America every year--then how can feminists support that? How is removing two million women a year from the population advancing the cause of women?

2006-09-22T12:44:00.000-04:00

Hmmm. Maybe when you stop butchering artists for supporting women's rights? Or perhaps when you stop killing people over doodling? Could it be when you no longer support eradicating another race? Or when you quit blowing up children, perhaps?

2006-09-22T11:07:00.000-04:00

This seems to me to one of the more productive ways of handling the confusion. The Orthodox Church's position on ecumenism is that they know where grace is; they don't know where grace isn't. It seems to me helpful to focus on where grace is. That is not to say that we don't look for ways to share and spread that grace--not at all. In fact, one of the difficulties of our denomination presently is that we have lost the missionary zeal we once had. This strategy simply shores up where we know grace is and it advertises that grace is HERE! Pontificating, on the other hand, about where grace isn't, and then divorcing ourselves from party's that we esteem to be arid of grace, strikes me as neither productive nor faithful.

2006-09-20T14:11:00.000-04:00

In one of his addresses, President Kennedy said that the Chinese word for 'crisis' involves two characters; the first character means 'danger' and the second means 'opportunity'. Certainly that is where the PCUSA finds itself. There are two reasons (among others) that I think the PUP report and its ensuing and accepted recommendations may be an opportunity for the denomination. One is theological: What we often see as death, God intends for life (see: Cross of Jesus Christ). The second is more specific: We need a thorough going reformation of our ordination process. That reformation has already begun with occurrences such as this one. This is only the start, but it's a good start. In my Presbytery (Peaks, in southwestern Virginia), CPM and COM will be looking over a motion by a Session to have these same types of discussions. Whether one supports or opposes gay ordination, the process has certainly become something of a joke. (Hey, after all, I got in!) Difficult conversations about theology and process concerning ordination is much overdue; perhaps this is just the kickstart we need.

On another, and briefer, note: If you want to leave so bad, what's keeping you?

2006-09-19T13:30:00.000-04:00

Articles like this one miss the point. Perhaps the former "Pope's Rottweiler" was speaking more as professor when he should have been speaking more as Holy See. But that's not the fundamental issue here. The fact of the matter is that Benedict is right. Al-Qaeda, Hizbollah, Hamas, and the myriad loose-knit groups that mimic them are proving that Benedict--and Paleologus from whom the comment originally comes--are spot on: At least a significant faction of the Muslim faith is seeking to propagate itself through the sword. The proof is the devastating intolerance shown even when violence isn't originally the issue. The Muslim response to Danish cartoons, for example, or the murder of Theo Van Gogh show a movement that refuses liberal ideas or religious freedoms. One can argue, as Dionne apparently does, that the Pope made a misstep and put his foot in his mouth. But to do so is to put a Band-Aid on a scratch and simultaneously avoid treating a gaping gash. Clumsy or not, the Pope is correct in his use of the reference. And that's a reality Dionne and everyone else is going to have to grapple with sooner or later.

UPDATE: Do the Muslim extremists understand that they are helping rehabilitate the Pope's image?

ANOTHER UPDATE: I should have gone here first!

2006-09-19T11:30:00.000-04:00

This piece is pretty interesting, although I think Mr Miller takes a more generous view of separatism than I do. I have often thought of the marriage analogy in reflecting on the current state of our denomination, and I am a bit befuddled by the whole 'gracious separation' language. Many of us of counseled couples who are kicking around the 'd' word; many of us have also, in one capacity or another suffered a divorce in our family. How many couples who separate ever get back together? How many couples start talking about divorce without actually doing it? Not many. Once a spouse begins valuing divorce as an option, it is well-nigh a done deal. There is great scene in movie "The River Wild" where Meryl Streep's character is having marital woes. Her father is blind and a difficult man, and Streep asks her mother how she has made the marriage work all this time. Her mother's answer was simple: Divorce was never an option. The question is not whether we can make the PCUSA work or not--that, I think, is largely left to God. The question for us is faithfulness. Will we consider divorce an option? Will we fight over the house and checking accounts in a bitter dispute? Because divorce is always the death of something: The death of a covenant, the death of a network of relationships, the death of a hope and a promise, the death of a child's confidence in family and self (and God!). Is that what we want? What is so bad that going through a divorce is a better option? Instead of engaging in the self-fulfilling prophecy of divorce/secession/separatism/schism/whatever you want to call it, maybe we should spent more energy on bleeding for those that Jesus bleeds for.

Gunners and Devils

2006-09-19T08:00:00.000-04:00

This was a fantastic weekend in Premiership football. I had the opportunity--with my new television and cable service--to watch a number of matches on the Fox Soccer Channel. Far and away, the best match was the one everyone thought would be the highlight: Arsenal at Manchester United. The Red Devils were at home and with a perfect record, thus far. The Gunners were on the road and struggling, even to the point of losing to sides such as Manchester City. To add insult to injury, two starters were injured for Arsene Wenger's club, including Thierry Henry.

The match started out at a furious pace. Watching Cristiano Ronaldo's footwork was a joy. Wayne Rooney wasn't much of a factor, especially as his corner kicks didn't seem to find their target, but Man U was quick and crisp, nonetheless, with speedy dribbling and precise passing. Early on, Gilberto took a penalty kick for the Gunners, but slipped at the strike and put the ball right at the keeper. Keeping may be the story of this match as Tomasz Kuszczak and Jens Lehmann both had amazing saves, one of which was the German blocking a point blank Cristiano Ronaldo strike with his face. Although the Gunners matched the Devils' pace and precision passing, they could never manage to do anything with it in the penalty box. They almost seemed more focused on getting the ball into the box instead of into the net.

But with five minutes left in the match, Emmanuel Adebayor, who had a substitute standing at the line ready to come in for him, punched the ball off the outside of his right foot past Kuszczak and into the net. Three minutes of overage time was not enough for Manchester United to secure the equalizer, and they left a Premiership match for the first time this season without three points and indeed, without any points. This is the kind of match that could turn it around for the Gunners. I have the match recorded and, just like a favorite movie, I plan to watch it again and again and again and again. . . .

2006-09-14T14:44:00.000-04:00

The comments attached to this post hint at something that needs to be stated outright: We need (and the PUP report really didn't supply us with one) a well-articulated theology of ordination that enables us to faithfully reform our present process. The key examination now is not for ordination; it is for candidacy. Once a candidate, the rest of the process is more or less a rubber stamping procedure for the individual in question. Yet, the floor examination of an inquirer for candidacy is surficial at best, precisely because the individual is, as yet, only an inquirer. When I was certified ready to receive a call, I was told by the Exams committee of the Presbytery into which I was going that the examination of the floor of the Presbytery is simply for us to keep alive a venue for common theological discussion! Not to see if the candidate is fit for ordination. Not to see if the match between minister and congregation is a good one. Not to see if the candidate holds to Reformed theology and polity. Common theological discussion. I fear my anecdotal experience is the rule, not the exception. Ordination for Elders is a corollary problem. Many churches ordain as Elders those who will show up to the stated meetings and chair a committee, as opposed to those who are spiritually fit for office. It is no wonder, then, that ordained office is perceived as something to which anyone can aspire.

Part of the gay ordination debate results from confusion over being and behavior; some the debate, however, is the result of an ordination process that is so watered down, that one caucus can hardly be faulted for asking, "Why not us, too?" The Epistle lesson for this Sunday from the Lectionary is from James (3:1): "Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers [and sisters], for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness." When ordination is seen as a responsibility to be taken seriously instead of a right to be administered commonly, we will see our parishes flourish, and we will see the end of many of our most vitriolic debates. When Christ was crucified, the disciples were downcast and thought the crucifixion to be the end; what appeared to the human eye to be defeat, however, was in truth our Father's plan to garner victory over sin and death. The General Assembly AI--and all of this subsequent confusion and wrangling--appears to be a defeat. I am confident, however, that our Father means it for a victory we cannot as yet see. A thorough theologizing and reformation of our ordination process may be just that type of victory.

2006-09-13T10:36:00.000-04:00

This MLP post is disingenuous at best, and I hardly see how the group thinks it will advance their cause. First, it is a bit duplicitous to argue that a conservative Session has elevated the "fidelity/chastity clause" to become, in my words, a super-essential. That clause only exists in response to pushes for gay ordination. And it is that clause in particular that has been targeted myriad times by the gay ordination caucus for removal from the Constitution. The idea that we can gauge our character by that on which we concentrate is indubitably correct in the abstract; however, when one group asserts its cause on another and then indicts that group for being 'narrow' or 'anti'-whatever based upon an elevated response, then the argument falls apart. I can't put broccoli on the dinner table every night and then accuse my daughters of being anti-vegetable when they finally revolt.

But second, and more importantly, is the issue of saying that the "fidelity/chastity clause" is "anti-gay". Such a statement is deceitful at the worst and only confused at the best. A significant problem in the sexuality debate--whether in culture or church or families or wherever--is the metonymizing of one aspect of a person's behavior for the entire personhood of that individual. No one in informal environs introduces me as a heterosexual, a poet, a beertaster, or a gardener. I am perhaps introduced as a friend or a relative, but those are not ascriptions of behavior; those are ascriptions of relationship. In the sexuality debates, however, one behavior is blown up into the entirety of an individual's personhood. One is not a member of the homosexual community--they are gay or they are lesbian. Such confusion makes it possible for the gay advocacy community to liken itself to the women's suffrage and Civil Rights movements. If one behavior is metonymized into personhood, then it makes sense to proclaim solidarity with those who fought for equality in gender and race. Such confusion also makes it possible to silence critics. If being gay is an ontological statement, then opponents of gay advocacy cannot criticize the behavior without attacking the person. But being gay is not an ontological statement; it is a behavior. This is not even an evaluation of whether it is a helpful or harmful behavior; for whatever reason, the behavior exists, but it is just that--a behavior. The sexuality conversations will move forward much more productively when behavior is no longer confused with being, and when articles such as this one discontinue their demonization of opponents based upon such confusion.

Fifty Minutes With the Stated Clerk

2006-09-12T11:19:00.000-04:00

Shrink: "So, you're feeling alright, then?"

Stated Clerk: "Sure. I feel great."

Shrink: "The denominational confusion and dissonance isn't taking a toll?"

Stated Clerk: "What confusion?"

Shrink: "All the confusion over ordination standards."

Stated Clerk: "I don't see confusion on that issue."

Shrink: "Well, come on. I mean, one of your Presbyteries just ordained a dog."

Stated Clerk: "We're an inclusive church."

Shrink: "All the dog did during its examination on the Presbytery floor was bark!"

Stated Clerk: "To expect a certain answer from the ordinand would be subscriptionism."

Shrink: "How is the mutt going to carry out his parish duties?"

Stated Clerk: "Please don't use gender exclusive language. It's oppressive."

Shrink: (Sigh) "How will the canine carry out the canine's parish duties?"

Stated Clerk: "A ministry of presence. How else?"

Shrink: "So none of this troubles you?"

Stated Clerk: "What troubles me is having ordaining bodies that narrowly interpret the Constitution to mean what the language says it means and then to attempt to heavy-handedly apply that meaning to process. I fear we have many amongst us who think that the Constitution guides our process, instead of the other way around."

Shrink: "We're getting off the subject here--but how can you have any guidance or common mission if the process is paramount?"

Stated Clerk: "Ask the dog."

Shrink: "!"

2006-09-08T11:12:00.000-04:00

Part of my sermon study each week is to read over what various Church Fathers wrote on a given text. The Gospel Lesson this week is Mark 7: 24-37 and I was fascinated to find the following thoughts from Augustine on Christ's response to the Syrophoenician woman:

Some people, intent on severe disciplinary precepts, admonish us to rebuke the restless and not to give what is holy to dogs, to consider a despiser of the church as a heathen, to cut off from the unified structure of the body the member who causes scandal. These may so disturb the peace of the church that they try prematurely to separate out the wheat from the chaff before the proper time, and blinded by this pretext they themselves then become separated from the unity of Christ.

"[T]hey try prematurely to separate out the wheat from the chaff before the proper time"! Certainly, the separatists in our midst stand under this indictment. Having decided that the General Assembly's actions concerning Recommendation Five of the PUP Report is a departure from Scripture--which it certainly may be, by the way--the schismatics declare that the holy things of God shall not be given to the dogs, but to the children. If Augustine is correct, their separation, regardless of the purity of their faith or motive, may very well have an unintended consequence--separating themselves from the unity of Christ.

2006-09-07T13:59:00.000-04:00

Some of the conservative PCUSA congregations are mulling or enacting separation from the denomination due to what is perceived as a drift from Biblical standards and truth. In a nutshell, such schism is neither mandated nor allowed by Scripture, so such congregations seek to respond to a wrong with yet another wrong. Unhelpful, to say the least.

Unfortunately, the more liberal factions in our denomination stand no better. Articles like this one only add fuel to the proverbial fire. First, the language in the intro would have us to believe that the pro-gay ordination folks are simply interested in "equality", while their opponents are heavy-handed and legalistic. When any group asserts that it's side is wholly with merit while the other side is malevolent, something is amiss. Second, the Presbyterian Coalition is described as being "anti-LGBT", which is unfair and incorrect. Indeed, one finds the language of grace extended to the other side of the debate much more often among Coalition and Presbyterians for Renewal writers than More Light, Covenant Network, or, to be fair, Presbyterian Layman writers. I am reminded of the Rev'd Will D. Campbell who was simultaneously chaplain of the Klan and supportive of the Civil Rights movement. He once remarked that while he was not pro-Klan, he was pro-Klansman. The same can be said here: It is possible to be pro-gay, while not being pro-gay ordination. Such a distinction would be helpful to both sides, to be sure.

But the third problem with this article, and with many others like it, is that it assumes that inclusion mandates ordination. In other words, a person who cannot be ordained is inherently not welcome. This conviction is, to borrow the pun from the article, "un-tenet-able", and this above and beyond the gay ordination argument. We don't ordinarily ordain young children, yet they are welcome. We don't ordinarily ordain alcoholics or adulterers, yet they are welcome. We shouldn't ordain the self-righteous and proudly indignant (although we often do), yet they are still welcome. In fact, there are plenty of people who are fine, devout, hard working, and faithful; yet, for whatever reason, they are not chosen for leadership. A person can be lay and still be whole in her or his personhood. Perhaps this is a conviction we have lost in the past decades as anyone who will volunteer for the job is made an Elder. But ordination is not a flippant thing, and it is not available to everyone. As a corollary, those who are not ordained should not receive their lack of ordination as a commentary on their faith or personhood, for it isn't.

As long as articles like this one--on both sides of the argument--paint with too broad a brush and impugn those who don't agree, we will tend for schism, with trouble ahead for all.

Or, As They Call It In Britain, 'Shifting'

2006-08-31T09:14:00.000-04:00

We are moving into a new house presently, so whatever idiocies are committed by the denominational powers-that-be AND their adversaries will escape comment here. I am confident the PCUSA will still be standing when I finish moving on the other side of Labor Day. (Okay, I'm hopeful it will still be standing. [Alright, already, maybe it won't be! Sheesh. . . .])

Two Wrongs (Part Two)

2006-08-29T16:29:00.000-04:00

Posts like this upset me almost as much as the posts that say harmful behavior is okay and the Constitution needn't really be followed. I suppose I should remain silent, since this minister has done this for far longer than I have and, truth be told, probably far better. But this position of leaving the denomination seems to me to suffer the same problem the pro-homosexual movement suffers: Egocentricism. The homosexual community says that this is the way God made them and their experience validates God's presence in their life and Scripture is to be largely interpreted through that experience. Such a position is egocentric; anthropology dictates theology, instead of the other way around. Or, to put it differently, what the person feels and does is the primary piece of evidence in theologizing. The conservative separatists would seem to evade this charge, since the main reason they are leaving is that the denomination has abandoned God's will as it is made known to us through Scripture. But not so fast. That sounds good, but it takes God out of the picture: The congregation decides what the sufferable level of abandonment is; the congregation decides what that leaving is appropriate; the congregation decides which mandates of Scripture can be violated and which must be observed. Or, again in other words, why was it okay to stay with the denomination when it advocated abortion, but suddenly permitted gay ordination is the last proverbial straw? If conservative congregations are so passionate about obeying God's Word, why didn't they leave over the right to life? I fear that such groups have not sufficiently entertained the idea that God has them in the PCUSA for a reason. (Yes, I know, they will say that they prayed over it and cried over it and this is where the Spirit is leading them and so on and so forth. But that's precisely what churches said in the antebellum South when they supported slavery.)

And, too, the congregation has decided that it need not adhere to part of our Constitution, just as those who wish to ordain gays and lesbians have decided that they need not adhere to part of the Constitution. The more this drama goes on, the more the two sides seem cut from the same proverbial cloth.

In the end, God places us in marriages; he places us in congregations; he places us in denominations; he places us in specific workplaces. Perhaps we should leave the places God has put us only when our faithfulness means that we are booted out, and even then, only with fear and trembling.

It's Better To Give Than To Receive

2006-08-24T17:22:00.000-04:00

The property issues in our denomination show the lesser side of both positions. While the rhetoric of "jackboots" and "fascist" in reference to the PCUSA higher-ups is overblown, it does make the home office and some of the Presbytery offices look heavy-handed when they seek to pre-emptively put congregations in their place as regards property. On the other side, congregations that want to separate and take their property with them look quite similar to a spouse who wants to divorce and take the house (there's a reason for this similarity, by the way). Overall, I wonder if both sides aren't forgetting something crucial: The denomination says the property is the PCUSA's and the congregation merely holds it in trust. The congregation says the property belongs to the congregation because that is who paid for it and built it.

Both are wrong. God owns the property. Whether it is the denomination holding it in trust or the congregation, the property belongs to God. I am surprised that a denomination which has always held stewardship dear has forgotten this basic truth. Perhaps if we were reminded that we are simply managing what is rightfully God's, our attitudes and actions concerning property would be changed. Perhaps we (Presbytery, congregation, both) would be more willing to turn the other cheek, to give our shirt to one who has taken our cloak. In other words, perhaps we would spend less time searching through the law codes and more time living out the Scriptures.

A Postmodern Moment

2006-08-23T21:02:00.000-04:00

The denial of the Stated Clerk and the Moderator of the New Wineskins Initiative's request for a moratorium on action against congregations that wish to sever with their properties is proof that the Authoritative Interpretation of the 217th General Assembly concerning Recommendation 5 of the PUP Report is bad policy, bad theology, bad everything. The Stated Clerk has written previously in an Advisory Opinion that governing bodies have leniency in the application of the Fidelity/Chastity Clause. Here, however, he writes (along with the Moderator): "The 212^th General Assembly (2000) made it explicitly clear that even the General Assembly lacks authority to declare a moratorium on upholding the provisions of the Constitution." Yet, that's exactly what the 217th General Assembly did. When it voted the Authoritative Interpretation concerning Recommendation 5, it declared a de facto moratorium on upholding the fidelity/chastity clause of the Constitution. By giving governing bodies the leniency to 'scruple', the General Assembly exercised authority to declare a moratorium, the very thing the Stated Clerk (via the 212th GA) states it cannot do.

We are presently in a potential Constitutional crisis. My prayer is that we maintain dialogue and fellowship until the 218th General Assembly rights this wrong. That's the only way the potential crisis will be prevented from becoming kinetic.

Misplaced Ambitions

2006-08-21T23:09:00.000-04:00

If Kirk of the Hills is Fort Sumter, then the evangelicals are in just as bad shape as the liberals. The Civil War was about rights--states' rights. One of the comments at the end of Mr Brown's blog entry proposes this being more like the Boston Tea Party, which was about representation (or lack thereof). In other words, both these conflicts were about power and who has it and who doesn't. The evangelicals are upset because they don't have it; that is the bottom line. Much can be pontificated about holiness and Biblicism and whatnot, but as long as the votes were going their way, the conservatives hung around. One vote (out of how many?) doesn't go their way, and all of a sudden, schism is in the air.

There is another dynamic afoot: Pride. Some of the comments (such as the one about mass insurrection and the Boston Tea Party in the linked post above) sound almost gleeful at the prospect of secession. For some, there is a spirit of 'taking it to the enemy' and making them pay for what they have done. In others, there is a sense of arrogance, as though we are the next Luthers and Calvins, standing up for righteousness and taking our place in history. There was an incident a few years ago where some PCUSA ministers tacked some 'theses' onto the door of the headquarters in Louisville. How obnoxious. As though they stood with those great men who risked their lives for reform.

Ah, yes. There's that word again: Reform. Luther and Calvin had to be thrown out. They pushed, not for secession, but for reform. They were called to reform the Roman church and the Roman church threw them out. Would we be Luthers and Calvins? Then we will press for the reform of the PCUSA until the PCUSA throws us out. Anything less is a schism, if not from the PCUSA, then from our Reformed heritage and from the testimony of Scripture.

What Happened to "Love Thy Enemy"?

2006-08-18T13:51:00.000-04:00

I admit frustration and confusing at posts and comments like these: Even though we probably agree theologically on the big issues, I often wonder if we're reading the same Bible. To say that we have a life-giving message, but we are no longer going to share it with those on the "sinking ship" is scandalous. I wonder what Christ thinks of those on the "sinking ship". I guess that is my difficulty with limited atonement: On the surface it reinforces God's sovereignty, but it ends up just being used in arguments like this one to justify disconnection. "We are not required to work and worship with them any longer", one might easily say, "since they are not of the elect." Certainly that attitude prevails, and it is grievous. Where would we be if our Lord adopted that stance?

Give It Up

2006-08-17T16:14:00.000-04:00

The recent spate of articles and opinions on Presbyterian property are pretty much depressing. I can't imagine how bad it looks to the world for Christians to wrangle in such fashion. (Although it does add gravity to our confession of being sinners. At least we have that part right.) Perhaps the root of this conflict is in our lack of humility. I have yet to read anything that Mark Tammen or Parker Williamson has written since the 217th General Assembly that approximates humility. Humility and sacrifice are closely woven. Paul indicates that we should have the same attitude as Christ himself, who, even though he was God, didn't grasp the power of being God, but humbled himself to the point of dying on a cross. Humility, then, is bound up in giving something up for the good of someone else. What if, instead of trying to outdo one another in being right, we tried to outdo one another in humility and sacrifice? What if a congregation tried to leave the PCUSA, and the Presbytery blessed the congregation and sent them on their way with their property and Session intact, just to have the congregation try to leave the (entrusted) property to the Presbytery? What if they tried to "out-generosity" each other? Surely, two things would happen: First, the world would certainly see Christians differently than the world and differently than we now look. But second, it would change the tone (and probably the substance, too) of our discussions. Perhaps we should give it a try. Who knows what Christ might do with it.

Knowing Is Half the Battle

2006-08-16T09:55:00.000-04:00

Ned Lamont's philosophy of governance has much to recommend it on the surface: First, the idea of an entreprenurial lawmaker is an attractive one; in fact, the notion of an MBA President is one of the dynamics that elected Mr Bush. I suspect most folks want the government to be accountable and responsible (although not enough to actually hold politicians accountable and make them responsible). Second, the conviction that something new can be done in Iraq is a welcome one. A recent poll cited that a majority of persons polled wanted the Iraq War to be handled differently--which is different than saying they want a pull-out. So Mr Lamont's assurance that taking a new tack is neither "extreme" nor "weak" is helpful.

But Mr Lamont doesn't answer two questions that are begged by his piece: First, how does a resurgence of the Democrats' desire to raise the minimum wage reconcile with his vision of an entreprenurial leadership? Raising the minimum wage either increases prices or reduces productivity (with the latter being the more likely). With increased prices or diminished output, there is a suppression on the economy which affects the Treasury's revenue streams. It is difficult to think of an entreprenurial Senator making a solid case for policy which is bad for business and bad for the public. Second, what does he propose to do in Iraq? Even if we support his plea for a change in course, that is only half the argument. The other half is what we change course toward. Does Mr Lamont want a full withdrawal? Partial withdrawal? Timetable? More troops in exchange for an earlier pullout guarantee? A switch to mobile Special Forces instead of entrenched infantry? It little helps the crew to steer from Scylla into Charybdis. In order to bring his vision to fruition, Mr Lamont will need to tell us a little more than what he wants to do. He'll have to tell us how he plans to do it.

Two Wrongs

2006-08-09T12:45:00.000-04:00

The Layman's reporting of Prospect Hill Presbytery's actions against Riverside Church is singularly unhelpful to any type of discussion or reconciliation, as are some of the statements and attitudes reported. Mr Adams asserts in his article that the Moderator issued "threats" against the church, but he does not state what those threats were and neither does he source the threats. We have only his word to go on here, and, given my Calvinist conviction of man's depravity, that's not enough, I'm afraid. There are statements made in a reply, which is included in full at the end of the article. Are those the threats? I certainly hope not, since the statements made are simply decent and in good order polity process. If Mr Adams doesn't like the process, that's fine, too; but if these are the "threats" alluded to, then that's a cat of a different color. Another significant disappointment is the minister's conviction: ". . .we are going to thrive, while they die. . . ." I am hard put to see the Christian character therein. Our side (whatever side that may be) thriving while the other side dies is hardly the way of the cross. Paul seems to think that we should have the same attitude as Christ Jesus who, even though he is equal to God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but instead humbled himself, and died for us--even a death on a cross! "We thrive, they die" is far removed from that humility, I fear. The minister's conviction that "no further fellowship with [PCUSA] can be had in Christian conviction" is also lacking in Biblical understanding and behavior. What sin didn't exist in the Corinthian church? Paul didn't wash his hands of that fellowship. What sin doesn't exist in each and every one of us? Christ doesn't wash his hands of our fellowship. Indeed, Christ's grace is perfected in our weakness. Would that Riverside's grace were perfected in Prospect Hill's weakness, but we see that is not the case. Would that the Layman's grace were perfected in the PCUSA's weakness, but we see that is not the case. When our brokenness is at its worst, God gets more involved, not less. May we each and all do likewise.

Lieberman Ole!

2006-08-09T12:21:00.000-04:00

There are many analyses of the Lieberman loss that are thorough and provocative; however, I do think that there is a good dynamic and a bad that haven't been mentioned. The good dynamic is the dynamic of more choice: The Connecticut voters now have three options instead of two. I am all for breaking the stranglehold on power that our two-party system now has. Even if it is only one race in one state, I am glad for the opportunity. The bad dynamic is that hatred and vitriol win the day in this race. This is becoming more and more prevalent with the left wing these days. A casual stroll through MyDD or Daily Kos will unearth some hideous and malevolent convictions. Too bad those convictions won last night. Among the many prognostications as to what this means for the 2006 and 2008 elections, some people will garner from it a sad lesson: Hate wins.

Lay Your Burden Down

2006-08-03T08:57:00.000-04:00

I think these thoughts on the Mel Gibson fiasco are about right. I also find it ironic that so much sturm und drang surrounds Gibson's anti-Semitism, while many of the same critics want Israel to step back and allow Hizbollah to take soldiers without retribution. There is also something else afoot here that bears mentioning, and that is Mr Gibson's confession. Of course, much commentary revolves recently--not around poverty or housing issues--but whether Mr Gibson's apology is sincere or whether he is simply playing the PR game. For my money, it doesn't really matter. Yes, it matters to Mr Gibson personally, since the cancer of hatred will still eat away at his spirit. And, yes, it may matter on some level to members of the Jewish community who have been taken advantage of before and who prefer not to fall again for a polished ruse. But the bigger picture is that there is a confession and it, at least, sounds authentic. There is an admission, a plea for help, and a request for relationship with the injured party. I don't think publicists know how to write something that sounds like the 51st Psalm, but even if it is contrived, it gives the public an example of good confession, and the public sorely needs it. Think of other opportunities that have gone wasted: Bill Clinton torturing the meaning of the word 'is'; George Bush talking around bad intelligence; Cynthia McKinney blaming her violence on the Capitol Police. Confession is not popular these days in America; it is seen as weakness. But which is more courageous--to avoid the truth or to take it head on? There is a part of Mr Gibson that is horrid--but I am glad it was brought to light--both for his good and for the confessional example it gives us.

Definitions

2006-08-02T20:24:00.000-04:00

There is so much energy surround the General Assembly's vote on Recommendation Five, replete with over-the-top rhetoric on the left and schism-in-the-making on the right. One thing I have missed is the definition of terms in the gay ordination debate. The biggest one may be "inclusion". The fulcrum of the dialogue--if one can attach such a gracious label--is over inclusion of gays and lesbians. But the question I haven't heard asked (and perhaps I just missed it) is: Does inclusion necessitate leadership? In other words, can a person be included in an organization without having access to its leadership structure? My gut reaction is to say, "Yes". Are our children not included because they aren't allowed positions of spiritual leadership? What about those who are simply too stressed out, for whatever reasons, to take on the mantle of leadership? Are they wholly excluded? I think that the fault of the conservatives is that they do not take seriously how unwelcome members of the homosexual community have been made. I think that the fault of the liberals is to assume that the situation is demarcated in stark either-or terms: Either we get leadership posts, or the church is bigoted and exclusive. Neither position is helpful or correct, and both positions would have benefited from a rigorous conversation on the terms.

It's Usually Children

2006-07-18T12:53:00.000-04:00

I'm not an expert in international affairs (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but my guess is that nearly everyone involved in the current Middle East uproar thinks it's a win for them: Israel because they hope to eradicate Hizbollah and have an excuse to get to Iran and her fledgling nuclear programme; Iran, because they are hoping for an opportunity to wipe Israel off the map and it takes the microscope off their nuclear ambitions; Hizbollah and Hamas, because it shows the international community (they think) that they have always been right about Israel's disregard for Arab lives. Lebanon knows it's not a win for them, but it might not be a total loss, either, if this can be used to get rid of Hizbollah without starting another civil war and if the international community sends guns and money to strengthen the government. So, not even a total loss there. The children, however, are a different story. They always lose.

Quick Picks

2006-06-30T11:03:00.000-04:00

Germany vs. Ukraine
England vs. Brazil

(more later. . . .)

Sixteen Overview

2006-06-23T21:36:00.000-04:00

The second round of the world's Beautiful Game tournament is finally set. Alas and alack, the American side is going home, but after watching all three matches, one can only conclude that our side should be going home. Over the three matches, Team USA were slow on the pitch, made poor defensive decisions, almost refused to shoot on goal, blamed refs (which was somewhat justifiable), and had a coach who made questionable lineup and subbing decisions (Eddie Johnson! Hello!?). Alright. Not much to say more.

Except taking a shot at the second round. I only see three-and-a-half teams that at this point show promise enough to take it all: Germany, Argentina, and Spain, with Brazil being the half. If they continue to play like they did against Japan, then they are a legitimate threat. If they play in the next round like they did against Croatia and Australia, they may return to Brasilia sooner rather than later. It was good to see Ronaldo get two goals, with one of them being a gorgeous header off perfect service. For these four, Germany has shown the most promise. When Oliver Kahn is your second string goalie, and you have the range of Michael Ballack AND the precision of Miroslav Klose at your disposal, you are in good shape. At this point, I have Germany taking it all. That may change after the next round, but I doubt it. England has the talent pool to play better than they have thus far, but with Michael Owen out, and with there being little cohesion up front, AND with Wayne Rooney still getting his legs under him, I suspect they will beat Ecuador, and perhaps even Portugal, but that's the very best that it gets.

Argentina/Mexico: Argentina
Germany/Sweden: Germany
Portugal/Netherlands: Portugal
England/Ecuador: England (Ingerland!)
Italy/Australia: Italy
Switzerland/Ukraine: Switzerland
Brazil/Ghana: Ghana (Just kidding! Brazil.)
Spain/France: Spain

Hydra and the Sword

2006-06-08T22:35:00.000-04:00

A lot of hypothesizing is being done about what will happen next, now that al-Zarqawi is rather thankfully no longer a player in this grand drama. Some of the speculation is that it is now time to withdraw the troops (which I personally think is a bit premature and opportunistic); another is that trust may be deepened between Sunni and Shia; another is that violence will escalate; another still is that this is all a diversionary stunt. I think what's interesting and helpful about this development is what it does to the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. First, I don't think al-Zarqawi is easily replaced. For evil or for good, some individuals possess a je ne se quois that is not easily replicated. If you remove Bill Gates from the Microsoft equation, then the results are altered. I imagine the same will be true of al-Zarqawi. Whatever the terrorist movement does from here, it will not be the same. Second, while the movement is notorious for its cell division and the difficulties that brings in tracking and defusing the movement, this development can't help but breed questions in the leadership. And if second guessing foments at the head, it invariably works its way through the body--cell structure or no. Between the 'irreplaceability' of the leader and the distrust at the top, the overall consequence is a slowing of movement--and that is nothing but good for our side.

Something That Matters

2006-05-30T19:54:00.000-04:00

I'm a pretty big fan of Ben Stein's, partially because of his wit, partially because of his powerful mind, and partially just because I'd really like to win his money. And his thoughts on Memorial Day are shocking in the way that really strong, black coffee is shocking. It's a bit of a jolt to the system. But Ben makes a crucial misstep on this one by way of discussing his time with those who have lost loved ones in the Iraq war: "I spoke briefly and talked about how the loved ones missing from this dinner were the only people doing meaningful work in the world today as far as I could tell." A holiday that carries as overwhelming and often conflicting emotions as Memorial Day often ebbs toward the hyperbole in an effort to capture what really can't be captured. Perhaps it is that tendency to the dramatic that has ailed our usually spot on writer. But the bold women and men in uniform who are willing--and unfortunately sometimes called upon--to lay down their lives in the defense of liberty simply can't be the only ones doing meaningful work. If they were, there would be no true reason for them to do it. In other words, if teachers, ministers, physicians, rec league soccer coaches, Boys' and Girls' Club volunteers, and a whole host of others were not engaged in equally meaningful work, what would be the point of defending them? It is because there is so much worthy of protecting, so many that are doing truly valuable work, that these incredible soldiers march, sail, and fly into harm's way. That doesn't diminish their valor--it increases it.

Bad Parent! Go To Your Room.

2005-12-09T17:57:00.000-05:00

I hope the pendulum is swinging. Modern parenting doesn't even rise to the level of passable babysitting these days, much less effective responsible-citizen-in-training preparation. I suspect that part of this problem is that many parents--lodged firmly in a culture of immediacy, hypermaterialism, and instant gratification--haven't gotten too awful far past their own adolescences. Not having spent the necessary time drawing their own boundaries, they are ill-equipped to help Junior establish his. Take for example, the book The Teen Code, written by a teenager, in which parents are advised that teens are going to drink, smoke, experiment, and copulate, so just deal with it. Examples in the book abound of parents who simply surrender to their children so as not to be found unlikable by their progeny or unenlightened by their peers. But another problem is the institutionalization of devastating developmental theories. The idea that the little dears are born sparkling clean and free of error has resulted in policies that assume if something is wrong, it must be the parents' fault. The answer is to give the child more freedom and more autonomy and everything will work out fine--this despite the fact that if you push pre-adolescent autonomy to its logical conclusion, the tike will be lucky to find food in a dumpster and shelter in a cardboard box. The idea started out innocuously enough: Aquinas thought the the mind was born tabula rasa and ready for information to be imprinted upon it. Locke applied that societally and politically, and then it found it's way into Freud's psychoanalysis. Mental reception to ideas transmogrified into innocence. Compare that to Calvin's notion of utter depravity, where the rugrat is born sinful to the bone. Anyone who has raised their delightful offspring knows, at least on an intuitive level, the truthfulness of Calvin over the idealism of modern experts. The institutionalization of this misguided approach is shown in out-of-control Social Services departments that remove children from the home simply because the parents are having trouble paying the electric bill, as recently happened in Raleigh, North Carolina. Or state statutes that allow minors to get an abortion without parental consent, even though Mum and Dad would have to sign off on getting a cavity filled, much less getting that much desired Express credit card.

So yes, parents do need to get a backbone and actually develop their children. But this idea that children should be given more autonomy needs to challenged on an institutional level, as well as a personal one.

Clash of the Titans

2005-12-05T21:42:00.000-05:00

All the talk is about two undefeated teams, both with brilliant coaches, the only real Heisman shots, unbelievable quarterbacks, dominating running backs, and double-digit winning streaks. We've heard the metaphor-murdering sports pundits pontificate (can sports anchors say "pontificate"?) about containing Vince Young or containing Reggie Bush or containing LenDale White or SC's experience or the Longhorns' heart or blah, blah, blah, blah. They're all missing the point. The real drama here is cosmopolitan SC against ten-gallon hat Texas. Effete Los Angelos battling hardscrabble Austin. Yes, it's Pelosi-Land versus Bush-World. Once again, we see the bitter feud between liberals and conservatives, this time played out on the gridiron. All the angst of the challenged 2000 election, all the second-guessing of the 2004 election will be superceded by the political prognosticators and cultural shamans searching the plays and scores of the game for clues as to how the 2006 election will be decided. Just as in the ancient days, when two sides picked their finest warrior to wage conflict on their behalf, with the gods granting victory to the chosen side, these collegiate gladiators will clash on a field representing much more than sport. The future of the next election cycle, the possibility of Mideast democracy, the accessiblity of the working class to the ownership class will be foreordained on January 4th--in the combat of modern football heroes.

Yeah, you're right. Maybe it is just a game.

Just Like Heaven

2005-10-23T17:52:00.000-04:00

My latest piece on Home in Henderson is up.

A Fiery Scylla Or A Frozen Charybdis

2005-10-14T21:37:00.000-04:00

Modern Science, in all its worshipful glory, likes to think that Boorish Religion is spoiling the world. Modern Science (a brief pause here for reverential humming) also likes to think that the World is speeding toward a global warming-induced purgatory. But, if the World is going to end in a blaze of glory, how is Boorish Religion the culprit? Boorish Religion has done some dastardly deeds, but it can't be indicted for The Iceberg-Melting, New-York-City-Drowning, Rita-And-Katrina-Causing, El-Nino-Forming Apocalypse. Or, to put it another way, those tree-hugging Druids committed some real doozies, but producing carbon gases wasn't one of them. So which is it? If Boorish Religion will be the end of us, please stop preaching about the greenhouse gases bit. If we are all going like polluting moths to the atmospheric flame, get off the back of Boorish Religion--it makes plenty of mistakes all its own, you know. Modern Science has a lot of good work to do (such as improving the pasteurization process for keeping draft beer fresher longer, to cite one example). So stop giving Boorish Religion the cold shoulder (oops!). There's more important stuff afoot.

The New Lynching

2005-03-02T16:41:00.000-05:00

Although African-Americans account for around twelve percent of the national population, African-Americans account for nearly thirty-five percent of abortions. The Black leadership is often quoting national population percentages versus incarceration percentages to assert that the judicial system is racially biased. I agree; working in the urban African-American setting, attending court with some of my parishioners, and interviewing officers of the court--attorneys, judges, and others, I wholeheartedly believe the judicial system carries within its institutionalized veins the virus of prejudice. Why, then, does the Black leadership not decry abortion as an affront to the African-American community, especially when three-fourths of abortion clinics are strategically placed next to minority communities and the founder of Planned Parenthood advocated abortions for Blacks to completely stop their procreation? Because they'd lose their position with the Democratic leadership, that's why. The Democratic Party has made it clear that only a passion for unlimited, publicly funded abortions will punch the ticket upwards for aspiring Democrats. While such pandering is an obvious part of American politics, it is dismaying in general and downright sickening in the specific, when the specific in this case is the cost of many million tikes who haven't had a shot at eating a Happy Meal, wearing Osh Kosh B'Gosh, or annoying the hell out of their parents in the Wal-Mart toy aisle. Another tragic dynamic here is that the Black leadership is quiet on abortion in order to maintain their position within the Democratic Party, even though the platform of the Party is deadly to the community the Black leadership espouses to represent. Which is an irony too bitter for even me to chuckle. The Democratic Party is eroding away partially because it is killing off in the present those who would support it in the future.

I Can't Complain

2005-03-01T20:27:00.000-05:00

Although some are concerned about today's Supreme Court ruling against death penalty sentences for minors, I, for one, am glad for it overall. The representation that this is European thinking valued over American thinking doesn't hold as much water as it might seem. Justice Kennedy, in writing for the majority, also cites the thirty states who already do not allow such a ruling, and he notes the extreme paucity of cases in those states that do allow such a ruling. He also adds that the majority age of eighteen is set for just this sort of thing--assessment of culpability. Justice Scalia, in dissent, is worried that the Court is becoming the sole arbiter of morality. This is the one aspect of the ruling that bugs me. I would prefer the Supreme Court to stay out of it altogether and let the states do the heavy lifting. Where I stick is Justice Kennedy's arguments on popular opinion. If he feels so strongly about popular opinion, throw the case back to the states and let each state's populace voice its opinion. But, hey, I'm a state's righter through and through. Nonetheless, I'm happy with the results of today's actions, if not the process. Although abortion operates on grander scale, both practices propagate a culture of death and need to be abolished. Today's ruling is a thankful step in that direction.

He Should Know

2005-02-18T08:25:00.000-05:00

Sec Annan says Darfur looks like "hell on earth". But it doesn't, you know, meet the threshold of "genocide". Sheesh. No wonder the numbers are down.

UPDATE: More here.

You Can Get Pregnant By Not Having Sex!

2005-02-16T21:18:00.000-05:00

Well, that's not exactly what Kristof is saying. But the logic is just as tortured. His fundamental argument seems to be that kids are going to have sex no matter what you do, so at least educate them as to how to do so safely. This argument, though, is flawed in its assumptions. First, kids are not going to have sex no matter what you do. If they were, they percentage of kids having sex before age eighteen would be one hundred, not sixty. Second, there's really no such thing as safe sex, except for two virgins losing it to each other and staying monogamous. Sorry, Nick, but that's just the facts.

The breakdown here is in interpreting the problem. Kristof and the Left want to erase consequence. You see this in affirmative action (guaranteeing result regardless of ability), gay marriage (granting "rights" regardless of whether the behavior is harmful), and budgetary issues (spending money with no accountability as to its usage) to name a few. My conviction is that if we remove the option of abortion as birth control, expect our kids to remain abstinent until marriage and monogamous afterward, and enforce the idea that actions have consequences (those consequences often waking up at 2am for a bottle), then most kids wouldn't have sex.

But then, I guess I'd never make it in a Blue State, either.

"Grace. She Takes The Blame, She Covers The Shame. . ."

2005-02-15T19:48:00.000-05:00

Sorry. You never know when a U2 song is going to burst forth around here.

Nonetheless, the Peerless Scribe of Orthodoxy, politics, and British "tubes" has moved to her new site: This Side Of Glory. Change the blogrolls, update your favorites lists, brush up your address books, and tag your site feeds; this blog is going to be a bigger doozy than a possum dancing between two John Deere tractors.

(Oh, God, I've been listening to too much Dan Rather. . . .)

So Advance, Already.

2005-02-14T21:34:00.000-05:00

I served as the chaplain at my NAACP chapter's annual banquet Saturday night (which simply means I offered prayers of invocation, blessing, and benediction). Due to my service in an African-American church, I am very involved with the NAACP, working on voter registration drives and chairing the Religious Affairs committee. (Hey, I received an award at the banquet! A white minister with an NAACP award. Who'd a thunk it?) The other members assume I am a liberal and I have said nothing to dissuade them of the idea; this, of course, gives me a great deal more currency, so that when I say something positive about the current Administration, they hear it as one of their own, instead of automatically categorizing me as the opposition. (And, truth be told, I'm not always in line with this Administration, myself.)

Anyway. . .the speaker (whose name I will not use) for the banquet is a member of the national leadership. She was quite a good speaker--eloquent at times, colloquial at others; forceful in her passion and kind in her temperament; careful in her study of historical events, although misguided (in my opinion) in her interpretation. But what struck me was how the speech (and the banquet, and my chapter in general) used racism. The speaker told the story of a nearby man who was struck by a car while walking by the road; EMS arrived on the scene and pronounced him dead before providing care. The man was put in a body bag and sent to the morgue, whereupon the coroner examined the body and discovered the man still alive. You guessed it: The victim was black and both EMTs were white. Now the EMTs did not come close to giving Standard of Care. They were grossly negligent in every way. But no evidence exists to suggest they were willfully negligent due to race. The evidence that exists is that they were complete idiots and need to be knocked down to cleaning chamberpots.

But the speaker used this episode to draw lines between the white establishment and the black oppressed. And the incident was discussed in terms of resistance and civil rights. The tone of the thoughts that were offered was of complete struggle. This tone was reinforced today when I received my copy through the post of the NAACP magazine, "The Crisis". I was starting to think that at any minute the Supreme Court was going to revoke universal suffrage, or something. (The victim, by the way, was equally protected by the regulations in place; the morons just didn't abide by said regulations.) Perhaps I am being too harsh, but the idea kept occurring to me as I listened to the speaker and others who offered reflections that the NAACP is still reacting to events as though this is 1967. The NAACP, it seems to me, can't move forward to meet new challenges, because it is structurally and philosophically required to depend on the existence of racial oppression in order to validate its existence and vision. It is hard to completely combat prejudice when some of the leadership depend upon it to survice. The NAACP does many wonderful things; its inclusion of me has been exemplary, for instance. Its support of African-Americans attending college, its fight against the death penalty, and its constant call for reform of the judicial system are all noteworthy. But right now, it is archaic in its organization and focus, in my humble estimation. I hope it reforms itself quickly and begins attending to the problems that are eating at the African-American community like a cancer. I hope that will happen for the good of the NAACP, and for the good of the community in general.

UPDATE: Of course, this would qualify as a new direction.

UPDATE: Jean notes that the EMS thing sounds like an urban myth. Yes, it does. Unfortunately, though, this one is true. Here's one of the local pieces on it.

Or At Least I Hope So

2005-02-10T18:27:00.000-05:00

After reading Entertainment Weekly's article on Green Day and their latest album "American Idiot", I, being a lover of punk (although not as up on it as I once was), ran out to the store and bought a copy. Rock on! The album is fresh and creative, and it has songs that just scream out of the speakers. My favorite thus far is "St. Jimmy", which has all the raw guitar riffs you might expect from the Ramones or the Clash.

The article, though, noted something interesting. The lead singer, Billie Joe Armstrong, says in the interview, "U2 started out more or less as a punk band and wound up one of the biggest bands in the world. I think it's okay to want that." Yes, Billie, it is. But when Bono was your age [32], he was already fronting one of the biggest bands in the world. I think a major reason was the difference between hope and despair. Green Day's music is loud, raucous, and well written; in addition, some important things are being said, such as the analysis of media in "American Idiot" or civic religiosity in the "Jesus of Suburbia" suite. After the analysis is done, however, the listener is left feeling, well, a little like the band members, who say in one of the songs that they need a shot of Novacaine. U2, however, constantly vacillate between crisis and hope. What starts off as dilemma ends in embrace. Perhaps that's why "The Passion of the Christ" sold more tickets than "Fahrenheit 9/11 (among other reasons); perhaps that's why a hopeful George W. Bush beat a dour John F. Kerry (among other reasons); perhaps that's why it's so hard to stomp Christmas out of the public sphere. We seem to understand that we need hope. And we apparently reward those who traffic in it.

Killing Social Security

2005-02-04T02:40:00.000-05:00

One of the (many) reasons the Democratic Party is foundering is because it has tacked away from fundamental moral principles. Instead of having a moral goal, around which it draws like-minded constituencies, the Democratic Party is a patchwork quilt of special interests that often oppose one another's agendas. Tree huggers and Big Labor. African-Americans and pro-gays. Abortionists and the AARP.

Abortionists and the AARP? Yup. Since Roe v. Wade, roughly forty million pregnancies have ended in elective abortion. That's forty million persons who are NOT paying Social Security taxes to shore up the Winnebago drivers who depend on them. Now, simply adding numbers to the roll won't itself save Social Security, but if forty million contributors were added to Roosevelt's Ponzi Scheme, it would certainly ease the strain on the system and open up more options for keeping is solvent. Once again, Democratic opportunism works against the party. One day they'll get the message: Morality pays. Literally.

Intro To Political Parties (101)

2005-02-02T23:14:00.000-05:00

Democrats: In the box--Michael Moore.

Republicans: In the box--Afghans and Iraqis who risked their lives to vote.

The State Of The Blog Address

2005-02-02T22:58:00.000-05:00

A few immediate responses to the SOTU address (from one who attended the Inaugural):

Which means nothing, actually. Nonetheless, with single malt scotch in hand, we proceed:

1) The only worry--partial privatization? I'm 33; either privatize all of it, or be honest and tell me I'm screwed!

2) Mr Bush believes in the push for liberty. I mean really believes it. Like Steve says, you can disagree with his policies, but you can't fault his honesty. I'd buy him a pint, but he doesn't drink. Mr Bush, that is. Steve actually drinks a lot, from what I understand. Oh, nevermind. . .

3) Is it just me, or does all that Democratic booing sound like British Parliament?

4) Okay, I'm not a sentimental guy, but when the mother of the fallen Marine hugged the daughter of the slaughtered Iraqi, I trembled.

5) My ten-year-old daughter wants to be President when she grows up. After this address, I think I know why.

6) Response: Please. No, really. Please. Stop. Talking.

7) The only way to make the SOTU better? If he'd held up a purple finger when he started. . .

UPDATE: PoliPundit agrees with me on the British Parliament connection. And in a delicious write up of the speech, Grace mentions it, too.

Jane's Addiction Does Africa

2005-02-01T22:22:00.000-05:00

A lot has been written about the U.N. report that says Sudan atrocities are not genocide. If that isn't a genocide, then what is, for God's sake? The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is that this actually opens the door for other countries to act in like manner without having to deal with the international repercussions of being genocidal. Or, to use a very difficult analogy, if a criminal sexually abuses a woman with an object that is not his genitalia, and that violent intrusion is ruled by a court as not being 'rape' because it involves a tool other than his anatomy, then it seems to me that a great number of sicko thugs now think to themselves, "Ha! A broomstick, and it's not rape!" Then, this becomes a ruling that actually exacerbates the problem and makes victims more vulnerable. The analogy is a tough one, to be sure, but when so many die, and when a theoretically governing body downplays it so pitifully, perhaps a shock is precisely what is needed. It's sure needed at the U.N.

Bears In Iraq

2005-01-30T18:40:00.000-05:00

Elections today; stocks tomorrow. Apparently, liberty abroad really is good for America.

UPDATE: As of 11:00am Monday, all the major indeces (or indexes, if you didn't like Latin) are up. My stock, by the way, is way up, which is really the only index I care about.

8,000,000:35

2005-01-30T17:40:00.000-05:00

That's the ration of Iraqis who have voted to those who sacrificed their lives on the altar of democracy. If you want killer Iraq-Vote blogging, visit InstaPundit (if you haven't already; if you have already, hey, visit again!), for a bevy of links and data.

The last time I was this excited about one day in history was 9 November 1989--when the Berlin Wall fell. I remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I got the news. (I got detention for running up and down my high school halls screaming "The Wall is down! Reagan won! Democracy rules!" No, Barbara Boxer was not the principal.) I had the feeling at the time that the world was changing, shifting right in front of my eyes, and for the better at that. I remember thinking that this simply must be the most incredible time to be alive, to witness first hand millions of people taking control over their own lives and lighting yet one more beacon of freedom (I wrote a lot of poetry in the twelfth grade, so I was given to blustery thoughts like that.) Funny, though: Fifteen years later, that's pretty much how I feel today.

Unheard Of

2005-01-27T21:20:00.000-05:00

Here's another angle you won't get in the MSM: The Church is urging people to vote as a religious duty. I can't help but think that this increases turnout, as Syriacs and Chaldeans don't take lightly the instruction of the Church. They don't make up a large percentage (although it's bigger than most Americans realize), so it may not make that much of a difference. Nonetheless, they are embracing their freedom, and that's huge.

"No One Is Fit To Be A Master, And No One Deserves To Be A Slave"

2005-01-22T11:51:00.000-05:00

Yes! On Thursday, the Princess (age ten, on the right), the Angel (age six, on the left), and I (behind the camera) traveled from North Carolina to Washington D.C. for the Inauguration. We left at four in the morning, we braved the cold and wind, we made acquaintances with kind persons from all over America, and we heard our President verbalize his vision for our great nation (and what a vision it is!). And we saw Washington: D.C. in January snow is third in beauty only to D.C. in Christmas dress and D.C. in full cherry tree bloom. While we saw the sights and visited the scenes you would normally see and visit in D.C., below are thoughts and pictures limited to the Inauguration ceremony itself. I've divided them up into separate posts for convenience: Speech, Money, Security, and Protests. The best part of the event? When, after the ceremony was over and everyone began walking off the Mall, the Angel looked at me confusedly, looked back at the Capitol, and said, "Dad, aren't we going to go talk to Mr Bush?" Classic. I hope you enjoy the posts. If you want to know something more, or if you suspect I've accidentally omitted something, let me know on the comment board.

Inauguration: Speech

2005-01-22T11:44:00.000-05:00

A lot has been said about the speech, so I won't add too much: First, as you can see by the picture below, it was not easy to actually see the President or the proceedings, and we had decent tickets. However, plenty of video screens were set up to telecast it, so we still got a good view. The crowd was very responsive, with numerous interruptions for cheering (myself included). The President didn't have a great cadence in his speech, but he never does, really. Sometimes he paused for too long; I suppose he thought a certain line might garner even more response when we were listening attentively for more. The speech was nonetheless remarkable; it was remarkable, not for any abilities of Ciceroan rhetoric, but for the grandeur of the ideas and the passion with which Mr Bush believes them. I don't know if that came through over TV or radio, but it definitely came through live--even via video screen. The President believes that every person should be--and can be--free. That's not unrealistic. It should be the American ideal; it is definitively the Christian goal.

Inauguration: Money

2005-01-22T11:29:00.000-05:00

The MSM has been touting the $11,900,000 that D.C. will shell out as an unfunded mandate. I'm sure the city won't recuperate all that money, but what isn't being said is all the money D.C. will get in revenue. Consider: D.C. receives nine percent taxation on off-premise liquor; ten percent on restaurant meals, on-premise liquor, and rental cars; and fourteen and a half percent on hotel rooms. That's not including alcoholic beverage taxes on distribution and taxes on cigarettes, and other taxes associated with tourism that I don't know about. Now, I saw quite a few people at the Inauguration (the high estimate is 750,000 and the low is 100,00). We all had to eat and sleep somewhere. (I, for one, certainly spent enough money to help out the municpality!) And plenty of people were paying those alcoholic beverage taxes. So while the city doesn't get money from the federal government to pay for the Inauguration, the federal government also doesn't receive the revenue generated by the festivities.

Cities routinely lose money on the Olympics, but they are always vying for a chance to host them. Why? My guess is because being the host generates goodwill which will continue to create tourism dollars well into the future. I imagine the same is true of the Inauguration. D.C. may lose immediate money, but it won't be the entire sum that the press is reporting, and they will indubitably get more of it back long into the future.

Inauguration: Protests

2005-01-22T11:22:00.000-05:00

Although I haven't had a chance to peruse the MSM accounts of the protests, I'm confident they found the most, er, interesting groups they could find. There were, in fact, conservative and liberal protesters nearly everywhere and most of them were a complete embarrassment to their cause. Three exceptions: One man who had a ticket for the Mall simply turned his back on Bush for the entirety of the proceedings. He was polite and respectful, speaking only when spoken to and insulting no one. There was a group of Socialists by the Judiciary Metro entrance (who obviously had no tickets) handing out literature. They were vocal, but not insulting or aggressive. This particular group also did not impugn Elephants or the President, but simply outlined the differences between Republicans and Socialists (of which there are a few). Four young adults beside the Rayburn Building held up a sign with the head of a partial birth abortion victim; they were handing out literature and were polite if passionate. Really, though, the sign did all the work for them.

The pro-lifers, back turner, and Socialists were, as I said, the exception. The photo below is of a group that carried signs saying, "Fear God", "Thank God For Tsunami", and "God Hates Fags". They were cursing conservatives and liberals alike. An unsavory group, to be sure. I am tempted to say that they were the only out of control right-wing group I saw, but their vitriol and hatred isn't really even right-wing. It's completely off the chart. One group of teenagers walking down Constitution carried signs saying "Worst President Ever". This, of course, had me wondering how many Presidents they remember. Woodrow Wilson, for example? They were deriding anyone who even marginally supports Bush. They reflected poorly on the left for their idiocy as well as for their argumentation (or lack thereof). One group on the Mall (past the checkpoints, with tickets) was walking through the crowd yelling, "Fuck Bush". The crowd around me began screaming for them to stop and I was honestly surprised that violence did not break out. This group was grossly outnumbered and their lack of respect only added to their reckless and puerile behavior.

It seems to me that the protesters broke down into two groups: The almost-frighteningly vocal liberal margin on the one hand, and the high school/college age protest-as-cool-thing-to-do crowd on the other hand. The "Worst President Ever" teens were in the second group. The group running through the Mall were in the first. I can handle the second. Everybody does something stupid when they're young (God knows I did), and so I don't worry so much about the kids. But the second group--the ones that impugn and insult and deride--are harmful to both the democratic process and the social fabric simultaneously. Why try to cause riot at your opponents' rightly one celebration? Why attempt conflict when every cop in America has you surrounded? These people, in my opinion, are dangerous on both the ideology level and the public safety level. Encourage the kids to be activists, for sure--that's why we have a two party system. But as long as the Democrats continue to abide a tyranny of the minority, they will continue to decline in numbers and power.

Inauguration: Security

2005-01-22T10:57:00.000-05:00

Due to the press reports about D.C. being in 'lockdown', I arrived expecting something along the lines of Polish martial law enacted. Nothing could be further from the truth. Admittedly, the law enforcement officials were omnipresent and deliberately conspicuous. But they were immensely polite and helpful, and, while they were armed, their arms were concealed. No M-16s or M-61s to be seen. In addition, I had to look for snipers to locate them, as indicated by the photo below. There were checkpoints at numerous locations, but the officers again were considerate and efficient. I was impressed by the demeanor of the officers, especially since a great many of them were imported (I talked to officers from as far away as Colorado). Mobility was limited, but security was nowhere near as daunting as I thought it would be. My daughters noticed the inconvenience of the multiple checkpoints, but nothing more. All in all, I thought the security was balanced. It was visible and restrictive enough for me to feel safe carrying my daughters to the event, while invisible and open enough for me not to feel like I was in the Gulag.

Which is why I think this piece from Kathleen Parker is asinine. Worse than the Guardia Civil? Worse than being interrogated in East Germany? Where was she? Now granted, I didn't get to go to any of the balls or dinners, so I can't speak to that. But I did walk all up and down Constitution and Independence and Third and everywhere else you could go with the ticket I had. I like to think that the inauguration is mainly for people like me--average Americans who want to somehow participate in and introduce their children to national civic life. That means freedom as well as safety . I found the level of security to provide both.

What, No Sushi?!

2005-01-18T17:05:00.000-05:00

The Sushi Doc updates us on. . .well, his boredom and homesickness. And the steady flow of troops coming in.

Ad Fontes

2005-01-18T15:19:00.000-05:00

I don't know why I keep reading the AP wire--or anything promulgated by Boston, for that matter. At the risk of beating the media and religion horse to death, I'm linking this article on Dr King and the pro-gay movement. It seems to me that at least three things are of note here:

Martin Luther King, III is, like Jesse Jackson, whoring after liberal support, both financial and otherwise, in my humble estimation. He is not advancing his father's legacy; he is living off of it. When Trip King comes out against the liberals on an issue while still advocating the liberty advanced by his father, I'll start thinking he's his own man. Until then, I refuse to believe he is automatically the heir to Dr King simply because he shares the genetic and experiential material.
How biased can a piece be? Notice how opposition to gay marriage is assumed to be "homophobia". Funny, that. I have numerous friends who are gay. I'm not afraid of them. I'm not afraid of their lifestyle. I see neither them nor their behavior as an inherent threat to me or my family. I wish they would worship with me. I enjoy having them around. I oppose gay marriage. How to explain that, Ms Chu?
Dr King drew his vision up from the Bible. He followed the example of his namesake, Martin Luther, who himself followed the example of Desiderius Erasmus in proclaiming, "Ad fontes!"--"Back to the source!" Dr King had a vision of liberty and harmony because that's the vision of the Scriptures. He did not articulate an agenda and then quote the verses that seem to back him up. Where the Canon led, Dr King followed. I do wish he were still here. He would know, I think, how to uphold the Scriptural teaching of homosexuality as a sin while simultaneously welcoming them into our communities as equal partners and persons. He was that great a man. We could sure use him now.

Fifteen Minutes

2005-01-18T09:12:00.000-05:00

I've gotten recent plugs from three blogs--two well-known and one up-and-coming. Here, here, and here. While I'm happy about InstaPundit and PoliPundit mentions, my daughter's is the one that really puffs the chest out. :)

"You Have Heard It Said"

2005-01-18T08:19:00.000-05:00

This article in Ha'aretz (translation: The Land) is interesting. It certainly keeps with the 'eye for an eye' theme from the headline (taken from the Book of Exodus). And I suppose I understand to some small degree the desire, not for revenge, because that isn't what Mr Marcus is talking about--but justice. A balancing sort of justice that evens things out. You kill one of mine, I kill one of yours; there, now we're even and we can stop killing. Or so goes the thinking. The church's viewpoint is a wee bit different. It is just this passage from Exodus that Christ references when he says, "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist and evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." This is from Matthew five, at the beginning of which Christ says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God." The church's aim is not for a balanced justice, but for a peacemaking forgiveness.

So what to think about Iraq? Perhaps we should have just 'turned the other cheek'? I am no theological expert on pacifism and all of its variations (if you want someone who is, read the late John Howard Yoder, who was a pacifist, an incredibly sharp thinker, and a clear writer). But it seems to me that Einstein was right: Stuff is relative. I do see a possibility that we are waging a short-term war for a long-term freedom. In other words, peace is always the thing, but you sometimes must live in lesser peace for the hope of greater peace.

'Uterine Contents' Speak About Surviving Abortion

2005-01-17T15:37:00.000-05:00

While Planned Parenthood might consider fetii merely 'uterine contents', Ms Jessen, I think, would disagree. This is why abortion is the new civil rights movement.

Sons Of Slaves And Sons Of Slaveowners

2005-01-17T05:59:00.000-05:00

How can you tell we still haven't caught up to MLK's dream? The black communities honor MLK more than Christ Himself. The white communities don't honor him at all. Does that sound like integration to you?

UPDATE: Christine has a more optimistic view. That's right, to a degree. I'm a white guy pastoring a black church, so the discrepancies tend to always be right in front of my face, I guess. Also, there is a difference in generations. She's talking about six-year-olds; I'm talking about forty-year-olds. And in just those years lies a sea change (and a good one, at that).

A Sad Enjoyment

2005-01-15T01:29:00.000-05:00

The Sushi Doc is back to blogging about his deployment to Germany. Hey, pass the beer!

Let The Drive Begin!

2005-01-14T11:49:00.000-05:00

Gentleman, start your engine.

Over There, Over There

2005-01-13T19:15:00.000-05:00

Don't be fooled by his lack of posting: Capt. Sushi Doc has landed at Landstuhl, Germany to do his part!

Crack Surgical Team Saves Foot Of 'Uterine Contents'

2005-01-11T20:22:00.000-05:00

How ironic that just above an article referencing Planned Parenthood's bastardizing language to further impersonalize fetii is an article about an Australian in utero surgery that saved a baby's limb.

Random Musing

2005-01-10T23:33:00.000-05:00

How can merchants offer 'ice cold water'? If the water was ice cold, wouldn't it be ice?

A New Decade

2005-01-10T10:36:00.000-05:00

The Princess celebrated her tenth birthday yesterday by first dancing in church (we have a liturgical dance ministry) and then opening more presents than any kid should have (not really). When asked where she wanted to eat for dinner, she replied, "Macaroni Grill". (Sigh) At least I've raised a daughter with taste! I'm sure she'll update her blog after she finished her homework this afternoon.

Blogpaddle (in reverse)

2004-12-30T09:11:00.000-05:00

I'm off to South Carolina to see the Sushi Doc before he deploys to Germany. I should be back Monday. Until then, enjoy the archives, visit the sweet blogs on the blogroll, and leave a few comments. After all, Saturday's my birthday. . . .

Over There, Over There

2004-12-29T18:57:00.000-05:00

The Sushi Doc channels Marie Antoinette.

Maybe Next Year?

2004-12-27T13:09:00.000-05:00

I got most of what I wanted this year for Christmas. No, I'm not talking about stuff, things, packages. I did get a lot of great gifts from friends and relatives, but the thing I most enjoyed was a relaxing day in which I saw no one but my wife and daughters, played with them and their new games (almost all of which were oriented around either Harry Potter or learning chess), and ate a glorious dinner cooked by the Good Doctor. All in all, a fantastic day.

But I didn't get peace on earth. Neither did I get goodwill toward all people. I'm hoping that things like elections in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and (later in January) Iraq will be significant steps in that direction. Perhaps new leadership in the PLO will also help (although it could just as plausibly hurt). For sure, my new Christmas wish for 2005 is that it will find us much closer to peace than this year. The upshot: Watching my daughters drop tons of change into various Salvation Army kettles to help the poor, and then watching them on Christmas Day pick out animals to purchase for Heifer International to teach the poor husbandry, I did catch myself thinking that with children like these growing into compassionate and thoughtful adults, maybe peace can be on the horizon.

Very Bad News

2004-12-27T13:00:00.000-05:00

Although the phrase is overused, this is a tragedy of epic proportions. Glenn has a plethora of links describing the horror and impact. There's also more at RealClearPolitics, and you can donate to help the aid effore here. Tornadoes and mobile homes, tsunamis and non-industrialized countries, earthquakes and ghettoes--I wonder why the tragedies always seem to target the poor. . . ?

Merry Christmas

2004-12-25T18:56:00.000-05:00

May you each have this year the blessings of God the Father, the grace of God the Son, and the comfort of God the Holy Spirit. And may our nation and world this year receive the peace of Christ in all its fullness.

Peace On Earth, Goodwill Toward All

2004-12-19T19:18:00.000-05:00

The Parson, the Good Doctor, the Princess, and the Angel look forward to Christmas.

Raw Fish In Old Europe

2004-12-17T14:46:00.000-05:00

My brother has built his own blog for his deployment to Germany.

Going Where No Abortion Law Has Gone Before

2004-12-17T14:44:00.000-05:00

Don't tell the Good Doctor I'm blogging. I'm supposed to be in bed, but when I saw this through the codeine haze, I had to post it. It's a bigger blow to abortion than even Laci & Connor.

Weather #4

2004-12-15T07:09:00.000-05:00

". . .very foggy and increasingly colder. In economic news today, abolitionists were deeply saddened by the legalization of youth-slavery to the elderly. The AARP, when contacted, stated that the arrangement is not slavery, since slaves serve one master, while each individual worker is actually supporting multiple masters. Once the AARP issued its glowing statement, along with its number of registered voters, lawmakers in Washington applauded and promised more benefits. More at eleven."

Like Riding A Bike

2004-12-14T19:55:00.000-05:00

The Princess has built her own blog! Check it out here.

Fifty Minutes In Lafayette Park

2004-11-29T21:08:00.000-05:00

Shrink: "Okay, group, let's start by saying our names and why we're here. Dan, you want to go first?"

Dan Rather: "Uh, my name's Kenneth. And I'm, uh, I'm here in an observatory capacity. Courage."

Shrink: "Sure. Now, Dan--"

Dan Rather: "KENNETH!"

Shrink: "--Kenneth, our goal here is to be honest about what's going on with our lives. . ."

Dan Rather: "If there's something honest going on in my life, I'll be the first to break it. Honest."

Shrink: "Let's move on. George, you want to go next?"

George Soros: "My name is George Soros. I am simply here to see how my Open Society philanthropy is enabling groups like this one to expand freedom."

Shrink: "Um, okay, George. Would you like to talk about your recent developments in the American elections?"

George Soros: ". . ."

Dan Rather: "Oh, go on, George. Talk about the millions you lost--"

George Soros: "Shut up, Dan!"

Dan Rather: "KENNETH!"

Shrink: "John! Would you like to talk about how losing has affected you?"

John Edwards: "Heh, heh. You know, I have lost before, it's true. I remember playing tee ball and losing our first game. Heh. My dad was working four shifts a day at the mill and he missed the game. And as I came to bat in the last inning and it was obvious we weren't going to win, I thought to myself, 'No man should have to work so much that he can't watch his son lose.' America shouldn't be divided in two: The America that can take off work and watch their sons choke, and the America that can't afford health care because I've driven the rates sky high. That's why it's so important that every vote count and every vote be counted. And that's why I've only started to fight. This isn't--"

Shrink: "Thank you, okay, thank you. . ."

John Edwards: ". . .about me, it's about. . ."

Shrink: "Yes, thank you, John. Colin, it's your turn."

Colin Powell: "If I'd known it was going to be like this, I would've stayed in D.C. This is ten times worse than getting spanked by Rummy. . . ."

Shrink: "!"

Fifty Minutes In Georgetown

2004-11-19T15:40:00.000-05:00

Shrink: "But now that you're in the political minority, you're feeling stonewalled, is that it?"

Dionne: "Oh, I'm not in the minority. It's just that all those simple people have bought the lies of the Republican party, that's all. But I get it. I know what they're up to. They're thugs."

Shrink: "Like the terrorists are thugs?"

Dionne: "No, I didn't say that. It's more like the Mob. Conservatives really don't have ethics, they just want power. That's all--power."

Shrink: "Isn't that what all political institutions want? Power? Isn't that what it means to be in the process of polity?"

Dionne: "I thought you would get it; we want power for good. Those Republicans want power for power itself. They're oligarchs, Caesars, Stalins. THEY'RE KILLING OUR COUNTRY!"

Shrink: "Calm down, Dr. Dionne. Take a breath. Okay, now, if the Republicans were one person--all of the Conservatives rolled up into one--what would you say to him or her?"

Dionne: " 'Go back to the farm and let us make the decisions.' Yeah. That's it. 'Let us do the heavy lifting.' "

Shrink: "But in a democracy, don't the people on the farms get a say in the decisions?"

Dionne: "!"

Shrink: [Engaging telecom] "Nurse, call NIMH, please."

Salem, PA

2004-11-18T16:06:00.000-05:00

". . .and an unseasonably 107 degrees on Thursday. In politics, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) will chair the Senate Judiciary Committee after heated debate on previous comments. When Sen Specter was asked when he decided to move away from his pro-choice rhetoric, he said, 'I think it was when the guy dressed like Cotton Mathers lit the kindling at my feet.' Details at eleven."

Roe V. Science

2004-11-12T17:09:00.000-05:00

Anti-abortion. It's not just for fundies anymore.

Roe V. Peterson

2004-11-12T16:43:00.000-05:00

Scott Peterson was found guilty today of murdering his wife and aborting their son.