Benazir Bhutto 1953-2007 - R.I.P.

What a tragedy for the people of Pakistan! Physically striking, very intelligent, visionary. We've always been impressed by this woman, not perfect, but certainly brave and pro-West. The future in Pakistan is very unclear in her absence; she was irreplaceable.

UPDATE: Not every one was so fond of Ms. Bhutto. Read a critical op/ed piece here.

"Santa Died for your Mastercard!"

Do you get it? I think I do, and his point is well made. (See the story at FOXNews here.)

My wife told me today she struggles with materialism more at this time of year than any other.

I think we all do.

49 Years!

My parents celebrated 49 years of marriage on December 20th. Wow. Congratulations, Mom and Dad! What a rarity in this day and age. We all wish we could have been in your area to help you celebrate.

Romney and the "Cult" of Mormonism

I've read some panicked Christians asking the question, "Do you really want as president someone who is in a cult?" I think this issue needs to be addressed a bit. Here are my thoughts on the matter.

The word "cult" can be used in several senses.

1. "Cult" as "religious practice." The word can be used to describe any religious observance, and is not used pejoratively. This is what we mean when we talk about the "cult" of Ancient Israel; we simply mean the "religious practices" of Mosaic religion, i.e., the traditions in the Pentateuch.

2. "Cult" as "non-orthodox, sectarian religious belief and practice." When used in this way, "cult" refers to Jehovah's Witnesses and the like. The beliefs and practices of these "cults" are heterodox vis-a-vis orthodox Christianity.

3. "Cult" as brain-washing, kidnapping, weird sex, religious nut-cases. I think of David Berg and "The Family of God International," Victor Paul Wierwille and "The Way International," or David Koresh, and the like. These still exist, and we need to watch for them, but we also need to be careful with our terminology.

Now, I am no expert on Mormonism, but I know a little. I may be wrong on a few things, and will gladly admit so if someone wants to point it out. Mormonism is certainly a cult; the question is which kind of cult? I suppose we could use definition #1 to describe it, but that wouldn't mean very much. Definition #2 works much better. Mormonism is a pseudo-Christian religion that shares very little teaching at all with traditional, orthodox Christianity. My biggest problem with Mormonism, and its myriad of missionaries, is the deception. Mormonism uses many of the same terms of orthodox Christianity but attaches to these terms vastly different definitions. There is certainly internal pressure on a Mormon to remain in Mormonism, but the same is true in Christianity. Nevertheless, people are free to leave, if they so choose, even if it may take a deep emotional and social toll on a person.

The "polygamy" of Mormonism is apparently largely a thing of the past, though we hear of it still going on in secret. One gets the idea, though - at least I do - that the impetus for Mormon polygamy is not a raw sexual urge for multiple partners but a theology based on birthing "spirit children."

So, although I in no way want to downplay the heterodoxy of Mormonism, I think we need to be careful about using the term "cult" to define it. We may be treating people as we ourselves would not want to be treated, and we may be using emotive language to scare people and discredit others. I think it is much wiser to explain clearly that Mormonism has about as much in common with orthodox Christianity as Hinduism does. Mormonism is a different religion than Christianity.

"Malcolm Quotes" #2

Here's another installment. Lewis writes to "Malcolm":

Broaden your mind, Malcolm, broaden your mind! It takes all sorts to make a world; or a church. This may be even truer of a church. If grace perfects nature it must expand all our natures into the full richness of the diversity which God intended when He made them, and heaven will display far more variety than hell. (Letter II)

I'll never forget the "cognitive dissonance" I experienced when I first arrived in England for a year of Bible training. I immediately mixed it up with all sorts of European Christians, some of whom even (gasp!) baptized babies! Having been raised in a "believer only" baptismal tradition, it was difficult to accept when I found out that these people were clearly brothers and sisters in the faith. "The church must be bigger than I thought," I said to myself. I learned to hang out with Christians who had a pint of beer with their lunch, or smoked cigars, or...baptized babies!

I wonder if I have completely learned this lesson. Of course, there are theological convictions that I will never, NEVER jettison, but sometimes I wonder if our denominational differences are rooted more in tempermental differences than theological. In other words, I wonder if our denominational differences (dare I say, our "denominational richness"?) are almost necessary to display the full panoply of God's richness.

Now calm down, my baptist brethren. I'm not at all suggesting a doctrinal relativism; I'm suggesting a packaging relativism. Is the ONLY way to do a God-glorifying worship service to have three hymns (or choruses), an offering, and a sermon? Is it really wrong to repeat the Lord's Prayer every Sunday, along with the Apostle's Creed, or Nicene Creed?

I'm very comfortable in my Southern Baptist situation (though that is not the tradition in which I was raised); I'm just trying to be a "Christian," in the fullest historical sense of that word, or as F.F. Bruce once said, "I want to be an un-hyphenated Christian," as opposed to "Baptist Christian," or "Lutheran Christian," etc.

How to Write a Movie Review

A secret fantasy of mine is to become a movie critic. I would love it if a newspaper would hire me - part-time, of course - to go watch movies and write reviews of them. Here's a site telling a person how to write a movie review. Here's a summary:
1. Watch the movie.
2. Give your opinion.
3. Who is your audience?
4. Give an outline of the movie.
5. Who are the actors?
6. Describe the structure of the movie?
7. Describe the cinematography and lighting.
8. Comment on any music in the movie.
9. Read, read, read your review!

"Malcolm Quotes" #1

I'm going to record a bunch of quotes from C.S. Lewis's Prayer: Letters to Malcolm (I bought my copy in England; in the US, I think it was published under the title, Letters to Malcolm, Chiefly on Prayer) that I've been reading. I'll write the quote, then make some comments on it. Here's the first one.

Speaking about the liturgy of the Church of England, Lewis writes:

And it [the liturgy] enables us to do these things best -- if you like, it 'works' best -- when, through long familiarity, we don't have to think about it. As long as you notice, and have to count, the steps, you are not yet dancing but only learning to dance. A good shoe is a shoe you don't notice. Good reading becomes possible when you need not consciously think about eyes, or light, or print, or spelling. The perfect church service would be one we were almost unaware of; our attention would have been on God. (Letter I)

This introduced me to the idea of a church service as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Our worship services should be just that: worship services, not concerts, performances or club meetings. The problem is that very few churches, it seems to me, make a conscious effort to do this. We are very - sometimes VERY - focused on keeping people entertained, keeping them coming back, keeping them happy, or whatever. In this sense, I'm afraid many of our worship services are functionally atheistic; if God wasn't there, I'm terrified to admit that many of us wouldn't notice. He simply isn't the focus.

[I should be careful to explain that when I say "our worship services," I'm not necessarily referring to the church where my family happens to be attending right now in our lives. In fact, our worship pastor works hard at getting people in touch with God, at making people aware that we are to be encountering God during these services.]

I've internalized Lewis's idea here and applied it to worship leaders and so-called "worship bands." I think very few people who are "worship leaders" are really gifted at it; they too often need to be the center of attention. "Worship bands" too often try to dominate the worship. More often than not, "less is more." Recently at the school where I teach, we had a break from the usual rock group worship band, and instead, a small ensemble of singers stood on risers and sung some accapella numbers. I was surprised at my response; I got all teared up. In thinking about it later, I realized that what moved me was the beauty of the music. Rock bands are rarely beautiful, though they are often loud.

I've also started to think that worship leading is a spiritual gift. Perhaps we should work harder at identifying people who have this gift, instead of anointing anybody who has a "worship band" as a "worship leader."

Here's my personal dilemma: I am from a "low church" worship tradition, but that tradition doesn't seem to be giving me the intellectual / spiritual food to sustain my worship of God on Sundays. I find myself thinking about many things other than God. The service is "predictable," as Lewis wants, but the forms of worship that sustain the intellect don't seem to be present. On the other hand, the "high church worship" churches I know of are usually theologically liberal, so I can't very comfortably change churches.

As a compromise, I've been attending a local episcopal church on Sunday mornings, one that has a service late enough that I can still teach SS at my church and attend most of the worship service; I slip out of our service early and drive quickly to this other church where there is very traditional Anglican worship. I'm not quite comfortable enough with the liturgy to "not notice it," but I'm getting there. Besides that, the beauty of the worship is very compelling.

In any case, Lewis, many years ago, introduced me to the idea that our worship services are not only (though they are partly) for preaching, but also for worship, and they do that best when we aren'y always wondering what is coming next. But, for my part, I also need some intellectual fodder (which the BCP provides) and beauty.

World View Competition

Rick Warren wrote a short article for CT in which he lists the six world views we Christians are up against. Read the article here. I'll list them briefly.

1. The One with the Most Toys Wins - Materialism
2. I've Got to Think of Me First - the "Me Generation"
3. Do What Feels Good - Hedonism
4. Whatever Works for You - Relativism
5. God Doesn't Exist - Naturalism/Atheism
6. You Are Your Own God - Humanism

I would add, at least, a seventh, "Spirituality," a nebulous movement that allows people to think they are "spiritual" as long as they have some kind of transcendent reality in their lives.

Anglicans who deeply influence(d) me

In thinking about and studying the BCP recently, and attending an Episcopal Church for the last few Sundays, I began to realize just how much of my own spiritual development I owe to men from the Church of England. Here's a list of a few:

J.I. Packer

John R.W. Stott

John Wesley

George Whitefield

N.T. Wright

C.S. Lewis (a layman)

Bishop J.B. Lightfoot

I'll include others as they come to mind.

Take the "Theological Worldview" Quiz

I am a "Reformed Evangelical." Click here to take the quiz.

Here are my results:

What's your theological worldview?
You scored as a Reformed Evangelical
You are a Reformed Evangelical. You take the Bible very seriously because it is God's Word. You most likely hold to TULIP and are sceptical about the possibilities of universal atonement or resistible grace. The most important thing the Church can do is make sure people hear how they can go to heaven when they die.
Reformed Evangelical 79%
Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan 71%
Fundamentalist 64%
Neo orthodox 54%
Emergent/Postmodern 54%
Charismatic/Pentecostal 46%
Classical Liberal 39%
Modern Liberal 18%
Roman Catholic 14%

Some cool maps

Check out these two cool maps at the blog "strange maps." One is a fictional map of the "island" on "Lost." The other is a satellite picture of North and South Korea; what a difference! The site is worth visiting in general.

Romney's Race to Lose

I agree more and more with this idea. Read Patrick Ruffini's post at Townhall.com. I think Romney acts more presidential than all of them combined, and he doesn't suffer from the liberalism of Guiliani, the rogue-ness of McCain, the laziness of Thompson, or the kookiness of Huckabee. Yes, he has made some flip-flops, but no Republican could be elected in MA without making some serious lurches to the center. He has great business sense, he's got a great family, and he gets things done. His big problem is his Mormonism, which, despite Huckabee, I hope will shrink as an issue. Huckabee is a theological/social conservative and an economic liberal; Romney is conservative (or fairly so) on all three fronts. I would rather have in the WH a general conservative I disagreed with theologically than an evangelical I disagreed with economically.

However, this is no endorsement...at least not yet.

Another Good Weekend!

Cleveland 8; Buffalo 0.

Jacksonville 29; Pittsburgh 22.

Records:

Cleveland = 9-5

Pittsburgh = 9-5

Hmmmmmmm.

"Those Were the Days!"

My sabbatical started yesterday, kind of, last official day of the semester and all, but I have a box of hermeneutics final projects awaiting my attention, plus a myriad of grading details. My "sabbatical" isn't official until I've entered final grades.

In any case, as many of you know, I've been studying The Book of Common Prayer for several months now, and have even begun attending an Episcopal church on Sunday mornings (after I teach SS and attend "our" morning service). I have much to think and write about on that score, but not now.

Last night I picked up a copy of C.S. Lewis's Prayer: Letters to Malcolm, which I haven't read for at least 15 years, but which I remember being a very stimulating read, the last of Lewis's books. I remember him writing a bit about Anglicanism, so I thought I would indulge myself.

(I've pasted in a copy of my favorite picture of Lewis, him lighting up. He couldn't have taught where I teach!)

Several things: First, I was surprised at how much of my thinking about church/prayer was influenced by just the first letter or two in that book. Sometimes when we read things, we internalize major points, then forget where we got those ideas. Someone once said, "Creativity is the art of forgetting your sources." True enough in my case.

Second, having read a letter or two last night, then a few more this morning, I began to recall affectionately how "internal" my life used to be, how "reflective." I used to spend my weekends, and even weeknights, reading in quiet and then conversing with friends about what I/we had been reading.

How life has changed! Now my life consists of "putting out fires," and the "immediate." No wonder I don't listen to classical music anymore; it takes TIME! Oh, well, "complain, complain, complain," right? I'm not sure these are complaints, just observations. Life has brought new blessings, talking with Matthew about girls at his High School, having lunch from McDonald's with Andrew while sitting in the Jeep: all great things, just very different than reading C.S. Lewis.

Third, have we lost the art of correspondence? Do emails really count? I know, I know - Letters to Malcolm is a fictional correspondence, but still, people really did used to write intentional, well-thought letters like this. Even I did! Again - back in college - I used to write deep, reflective letters to a small cadre of friends. I can remember how I used to watch the mail with eagerness (I just saw the mail truck stop at our house), and how my heart would leap in excitement at the sight of a letter from ole so-and-so. I would go somewhere in the sunny cool breeze, sit on bench and read with joy the continuation of our literary conversation. Could I recognize all the literary allusions (was that Milton or Donne)? Who could quote from Luther, Calvin, and Lewis the fastest? Could I recall the Biblical references without looking them up? I could picture the particular friend in question saying what he/she had written, and I would laugh. And of course, those letters were handwritten. Sometimes there would be smudges of mud, a blade of grass or two, a coffee stain, a smeared drop of blood from where the author had cut herself trimming hedges or had raked his knuckles while laying brick (remember those college jobs?). Sometimes the handwriting would clearly be different because the letter had been started, then stopped, then resumed at a later date. All that is lost on emails and blogs.

I must be getting old.

I'm Melito of Sardis!

What to know which Church Father you are? Go to the quiz and find out. I'm Melito of Sardis, I guess (though I actually have no idea what that means!).

I'm "Chalcedon Compliant!"

Are you a heretic? Check out the quiz here. I scored 100% Chalcedonian! See?

You scored as a Chalcedon compliant
You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.
Chalcedon compliant 100%
Donatism 50%
Monophysitism 50%
Pelagianism 33%
Nestorianism 17%
Modalism 17%
Apollanarian 17%
Adoptionist 8%
Albigensianism 0%
Monarchianism 0%
Arianism 0%
Gnosticism 0%
Docetism 0%
Socinianism 0%

Why So Much Religion?

Well, here's my theory on why there is so much "religion" in the Republican party primaries: No one has inspired us enough to get us excited about the big issues. We aren't happy with anyone, so we have started looking for things that make us feel "comfortable." I don't want a Christian in the White House at all costs; I want a Christian person (male or female) who is skilled at running the country according to conservative principles. Because we can't rally around someone who we know will do the latter, we are instead looking for the former only. Actually, I would accept someone Catholic, Jewish, Christian-general, Buddhist, etc. if I knew that person would run the country with sound Republican ideals. All this talk of "religion" is a distraction, and the Dems are happy about it. They would love it if we descended into a theological debate.

Just for the record: I still don't think Mike Huckabee will be a factor. If the GOP nominated a theologically conservative former Southern Baptist pastor as the general election nominee, it will be SUICIDE. It is a two man race: Guliani/Romney.

1/2 lb. Jalapeno Cheddar Double Melt

UPDATE: I got a picture of one!

Here it is. A picture of the 1/2 lb Jalapeno Cheddar Double Melt, from a certain fast food chain. Just thought ya'll would be interested in how one looks in real life. My son, Matthew, and I were disappointed a weekend or two ago when we purchased a certain well-advertised sandwich (not the one featured here) from a certain fast food chain. We were majorly turned on by the picture on the TV screen, but were sorely disappointed by the reality. The actual burgers we got were pitiful! So, we thought from now on we would take a picture of our burgers and compare them with the advertised pictures. Unfortunately, this particular fast food chain (whose burger is featured here) blocked my attempt to copy a picture of this particular burger from its website. To be honest, this one was not so bad, and it was rather tasty to boot.

Not A Bad Weekend!

Cleveland Browns, 24; New York Jets, 15
Pittsburgh Steelers, 13; New England Patriots, 34
All in all, not a bad weekend!

Crutchfield Family Christmas List

OK, Mom and Dad, here it is:

AJ:
PlayStation Games
1. Marvel Ultimate Alliance
2. Bionicle Heroes
3. Transformers
4. Godzilla Unleashed

DVDs
1. Transformers – the Movie
2. Spiderman 3 – the Movie

Other things:
1. Electric trooper clone blaster (a gun)
2. Optimus Prime (a transformer action figure)
3. Ant Farm

AE:
Movies
1. Meet the Robinsons
2. Pride & Prejudice (A&E version)
3. X-Men movies
4. Bourne movies
5. Hidalgo
6. Gladiator
Books
1. Devotionals
2. Journals
3. Art Books
CDs
1. “Say It” by Britt Nicole
2. The Village Soundtrack
3. Bianca Ryan (self-titled)
Other
1. Gel Pens
2. Necklaces (I don’t do bracelets…)
3. Clothes (Fuzzy toe socks! Colorful gloves!)
4. Digital Camera
5. Snow
6. Mad Gab
7. Big, stuffed horse
8. Starbucks Gift Card

MD:
cd- End of Silence, by Red
MP3 or IPod
Money
Dvd-Rudy

DJ:
Money
Digital camera
cd-Toby Mac, “Portable Sounds”

DM:
Hot pads
Pajama pants
Wool socks

JC:
A cool letter opener
Dvd-Chariots of Fire
A cheap flask (so I can carry water in my pocket)
New leather belt
Flip or razor phone
money

Andy's Poison Ivy

Here's our little chipmunk, and this is not the worst he's looked. Hopefully, the swelling will start to go down soon.

Romney on Religion in America

Governor Mitt Romney gave a speech today on faith and politics. Here's the text (thanks to Hugh Hewitt's website), and here's a link to Romney's website where you can watch the whole speech. I watched the speech and followed along at the same time. I was impressed. Romney has a great stage presence, and looks and sounds very presidential. I'm not endorsing him, but he seems to have many of the qualities I look for in a leader. For the first time in a long time, I felt proud to be a Republican. I thought he was almost Reaganesque. Well done. I notice that CNN has not listed it among its headlines. I think I know what that means.

UPDATE:

Check out all the responses to Romney's speech listed on Hugh Hewitt's site and Justin Taylor's site.

The Problem with Huckabee

Alright, you Huckabee fans, get ready. Read about the problem with our Baptist pastor candidate. Read it here. He's been getting all sorts of warm reviews from the Main Stream Media (MSM); that should be a warning. Anytime the MSM treats an ordained conservative minister as a serious candidate for President, that is a problem. I suspect it is because they would LOVE to have Hillary (or anyone for that matter!) run against Huckabee as the Republican candidate. They know what apparently many conservative Christians don't: Huckabee is unelectable. And even if he is, the MSM knows he's a liberal on most other main issues but except abortion and gay rights. I'm neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, but I still think, in the end, he won't be a factor, and he would be "Jimmy Carter" like if he gets elected.

Olasky on Christian Politics

Read this essay here by Marvin Olasky on the nature of the Christian in politics.

Interesting Column

See this interesting column by Stanley Fish, on God and evil.

I'm still working on midterms. I promise I'll be back.

Interview with Dinesh D'Souza

See here an interesting interview with Dinesh D'Souza, author of _What's So Great About Christianity?_.

My Parents Are Here!

My parents arrived yesterday from the Cleveland area. They brought "my" Jeep back, so I can now resume my driving in cool. Sorry Hermeneutics students, no grading will get done this weekend!

Sorry, I Couldn't Resist!

I understand the intent, but this sign is ambiguous. It is unfortunately true way, way, too often.

I'm a History / Lit Geek!

My Final Word on "A Common Word"

Having read over the entire letter, I have just a few final comments. The big problem with the document is not what it says, but what it doesn't say. Sure, there are points of contact between Christianity and Islam (and Judaism, and, for that matter, Hinduism, Taoism, Buddhism, etc.). The document, "A Common Word," attempts to highlight points of unity while leaving completely unaddressed the points of disunity. The points of unity are not what is causing all the problems in the world right now; rather, it is the violent intolerance of a growing segment of Islam.

What if the imams came out with "A Common Word" among themselves that totally renounced violence in the name of God/Islam? What if they totally condemned all terrorism, and specifically Islamic terrorism? What if they embraced religious freedom that included not just the freedom of Christians to leave Christianity and convert to Islam but also the freedom of Muslims to leave Islam and convert to Christianity? Friends of mine who are well-informed about Islam tell me that these are the real issues. Until dialogue on these issues begins, all discussion of what is "common" hides the real problems.

For more discussion, see the Acton Institute.

The "OHIO CURSE" Lives On

The Indians couldn't close the deal, though they were up 3-1 in the series. As any Cleveland fan, I have learned how to insulate my heart and not hope for anything, because Cleveland teams, at least since the '50's, always disappoint.
Good News: PITTSBURGH LOST ON THE LAST PLAY OF THEIR GAME AGAINST THE DENVER BRONCOS! I was watching both games simultaneously, and I was comforted by seeing Pittsburg walking off the field in stunned silence. That is always, always, a sweet feeling.

INDIANS 7 / RED SOX 3

Go Tribe! One more to go and we'll be in the World Series!

Speaking of which - I pity the team that wins the American League Championship. Why? They will have to face the Colorado Rockies. This team seems to be a baseball juggernaut.

Indians 4 / Red Sox 2

Go Tribe!

The Indians lead the series 2 games to 1.

Joel Osteen on 60 Minutes

60 Minutes had a piece on Joel Osteen last night. I actually thought it was pretty good. The reporter did a good job, asking tough questions in a non-confrontational way. I learned a lot about Osteen. I don't like his brand of teaching - way too slick for me, too car-saleman-like. Nevertheless, I find it hard, personally, to condemn him, although I would make quite a few changes if he asked me about his ministry. Some of the reaction to Osteen has been pretty harsh. However, when you listen to the drivel preached in most churches today - and I mean evangelical churches! - I can understand why people flock to someone who says something they can use in their lives. If evangelicals want to rage against Osteen, they should look in the mirror; that's the problem. What think ya'll?

From My Hebrew Class

To know me is to love me!

Thanks for the picture, Julie!

The New (Old?) Face of Atheism

Little known facts about Christopher Hitchens.

"He showed up drunk to an exclusive NY dinner club meeting (hosting by
David Horowitz), proceeded to make anti-Semitic remarks, insulted a member of
the club (a priest, who also happened to be a 9/11 hero), and had to be
physically restrained twice as he flew into rages aimed at said priest."

Read about it here, and here.

Browns 41 ; Dolphins 31

We're back to 500! The Browns have beaten the poor, hapless Miami Dolphins.

Game 2: Indians 13 / Red Sox 6 (in 11 innings)

Much better! Now they're home to Cleveland to see if they can finish the job.

HOLLYWOOD'S TOP 12 CHRISTIANS?

I didn't know there were 12 Christians in Hollywood! (Just kidding.) According to beliefnet, here's the list (and here's the article from FOXNews). I wish there was a bigger Christian presence in Hollywood, but I suspect it is hard work to stick to one's faith in that godless industry. For those who keep it real, I tip my hat. See some video here.

1. Mel Gibson 40% - despite all his problems (which I definitely DON'T like, e.g., his DUI, his arrogance, his womanizing, his anti-Semitism - all of these are serious problems, in my opinion), I still like him. For "Braveheart" and "The Passion of the Christ," I shall be eternally grateful.

2. Tyler Perry 14% - African-American director, writer, producer, actor

3. Patricia Heaton 4% - outspoken former Catholic, now an evangelical Protestant; was Raymond's wife on "Everybody Loves Raymond." I like both her acting and what she stands for publically. Involved with "Feminists for Life," a pro-life organization.

4. Denzel Washington 24% - We all know this dude, the king of cool. I love his movies. Didn't know he claimed to be a Chrstian.

5. Ralph Winter 2% - lots of movie credits (search for him at IMDB); producer of "The Screwtape Letters," (in pre-production)

6. Angela Bassett 2% - famous African-American actress; didn't know she claims to be a Christian

7. Martin Sheen 7% - we know this guy; I think of him as your typical Hollywood wacko, know-nothing, liberal nut-case.

8. Martha Williamson 4% - wrote teleplays for "Touched By An Angel"

9. Kristin Chenoweth 0% - actress; was in "The Pink Panther" with Steve Martin; some of the images I found of her on Google stretched the definition of "Christian;" I admit though, I can see why people think she's hot. Didn't know she claims to be a Christian, though.

10. Philip Anschutz 3% - he made "Holes," "Because of Winn-Dixie," and "A Sound of Thunder;" also purchased rights to Narnia books; attends an Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC)

11. Howard Kazanjian - Executive producer for "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and producer of "Return of the Jedi"

12. Scott Derrickson - director of "The Exorcism of Emily Rose"

I'm embarrassed to admit that I didn't know who most of these people were!

RED SOX 10 / INDIANS 3

A painful thing to watch.

Part III of "A Common Word"

The third part of this letter from Muslim imams to Christians is entitled "Come to A Common Word Between Us and You." It is essentially an invitation to Christians to embrace Muslims as fellow worshipers of the same god and as fellow believers. This is the application of Parts I and II. The argument seems to be as follows: Christianity and Islam both call believers to love God. Christianity and Islam both call believers to love their neighbours. Therefore, Christianity and Islam should embrace each other as equals and be respectful of each other's religions. (See a discussion with the head of CAIR here.)

Let me quote some portions of the letter and then make some observations and/or ask questions.

Under the first heading in Part III, the writers say:

Whilst Islam and Christianity are obviously different religions - and whilst there is no minimising some of the formal differences - it is clear that the Two Greatest Commandments are an area of common ground adn a link between the Qur'an the Torah and the New Testament.

What are these "formal differences?" The writers have made no reference to these, and I am curious as to what they think of the differences.


Immediately after this, the writers say the following:

What prefaces the Two Commandments in the Torah and the New Testament, and what they arise out of, is the Unity of God - that there is only one God....Thus the Unity of God, love of Him, and love of the neighbour form a common ground upon which Islam and Christianity (and Judaism) are founded (:13).

I am becoming concerned about this phrase "Unity of God," which occurs throughout the letter. What exactly is meant by this? I know Muslims have a very hard time with the concept of the Trinity. Is all this letter a failure to recognize this? Is all this really a call to reject Trinitarianism, a fundamental teaching of Christianity?

On page 14, the writers launch into a most strange invitation. They write:

"Muslims, Christians and Jews should be free to each follow what God commanded them, and not have 'to prostrate before kings and the like'; for God says elsewhere in the Holy Qur'an: Let there be no compulsion in religion....(Al-Baqarah, 2:256)."

This puzzles me. Muslims are inviting Christians not to use compulsion in religion? What is so strange about this is that this is almost the definition of religious practice in America! Does the same practice prevail in Iran? in Pakistan? in Saudi Arabia? Muslim nations all!

The writers also say this:

As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them -- so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes...

I don't understand the issue here. Where in the world are Christians waging war against Muslims? Although there are many Christians in the United States, American is not an official Christian nation. They cannot be referring to the war in Iraq, can they? Even if American were Christian, the war is not being waged against Muslims on account of their religion, but on account of certain terrorist commitments. Clearly this acceptance quoted above is conditional, subject to much interpretation. I suspect the whole statement here is misleading.

Finally, the writers say this:

Together they [Christians and Muslims] make up more than 55% of the world's population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake.

I find this curious for a couple of reasons. First, where is the all the war going on? Iraq is a small place, compared to the Islamic world in general, and besides, a secular government is at war with a group of terrorists. It is not Christians at war with Muslims; to claim otherwise is simply wrong. Second, the only place Muslims and Christians are intertwined is predominantly Christian nations. In Muslim nations, Christians find it hard to exist, let alone worship and thrive.

In my opinion, the bottom line is this: if Muslims are not willing to talk about the differences between Christianity and Islam, no dialogue can go forward. To try to smooth over the differences by highlighting some similarities is no way to move forward. This letter does not help the current state of discussion between Christians and Muslims.

Part II of "A Common Word"

Part II is much shorter than Part I, only just over 1 page. The point of Part II is to show that both Islam and Christianity endorse love of neighbour.

"None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself," says Muhammad.

Quotes from Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Leviticus 19 are quoted to prove the point that Christianity is in agreement.

I have no problem with what the letter says, but I do have some questions. Does "love of neighbour" include freedom? Does it include equality? If so, then why doesn't Islam grant these things to Christians and other non-Muslims under Muslim rule?

Part I of "A Common Word"

I've made my way through Part I of the letter from Muslim scholars called "A Common Word." The topic of Part I is "Love of God," and consists of long quotes from and discussion of koranic passages that deal with the duty of loving God with total devotion, then a brief discussion of Biblical passages that echo this sentiment. They make a big deal of the following saying of Muhammad:

"The best that I have said - myself, and the prophets that came before me -
is: 'there is no god but God, He Alone, He hath no associate, His is the
sovereignty and His is the praise and He hath power over all things."

The letter then makes the following points:

1. This "blessed saying" of Muhammad is very similar to several passages from the Bible, as in the Shema' and as in Jesus's discussion with the young lawyer of the greatest commandment.

2. In both the Koran and in the Bible, this statement of ultimate love for God is restated in several ways and in several passages. The letter states:

Moreover, we also do know...that both formulas have another remarkable
parallel: the way they arise in a number of slightly differing versions and
forms in different contexts, all of which, nevertheless, emphasize the primacy
of total love and devotion to God.

Some observations:

1. They spend much more time on the Koranic passages than on the Bible. I guess this is to be expected, since they are Muslims. I began to wonder though if this whole letter is an attempt to expose as many Christians as possible to passages from the Koran that sound very "Biblical." The end result would be that many uninformed Christians will come away from reading the letter thinking that perhaps there is not all that much difference between the Judeo-Christian tradition and the Islamic tradition. I'm no Islamic scholar, but that doesn't sound right to me. I suspect Muhammad said a lot more than "Love God."

2. When they quote from the Bible, their discussion is pretty accurate. They make mention of Hebrew words and Greek words. I did not feel that they had misrepresented what Scripture says.

3. They seem to acknowledge that perhaps Muhammad got a lot of what he said from the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament. What they say is this:

That is to say, in other words, that the Prophet Muhammad was perhaps,
through inspiration, restating and alluding to the Bible's First
Commandment.

Some reaction.

1. So far, I don't understand why what they are saying is significant. Is this simply an attempt to downplay the great differences between Muslims and Christians? Is it a surprise to anyone that both Christianity and Islam call on their followers to love God?

2. I'm suspicious. What is the agenda here?

3. I'm much more concerned about what they did NOT say that about what they did say. In other words, I realize there is some surface overlap between what Christianity and Islam teach, but I also know that there are huge differences.

Well, I need to go for now, but I'll keep working on this.

Thoughts on the Republican Presidential Candidates

Here are some thoughts about the various candidates for president the Republicans are putting forward. My knowledge of these guys is not exhaustive, so I confess freely that I'm simply giving my gut reaction to who these guys are and what they stand for. I can't say I'm thrilled with any of them. I was proud of Ronald Reagan; I was happy with George Bush 41; I was satisfied with George Bush 43. I wish we had a Reagan, someone who inspired confidence and leadership.

Mitt Romney - the problem here is his Mormonism. Politically, I agree with most of what I've heard. He went a bit soft on abortion when governor - understandable, but that doesn't make it right. I suspect it went against his convictions, but he was willing to "go soft" in order to get elected. Not a nice trait. But the big thing will be that, with a Romney administration, Mormons will FLOOD into Washington, and there will be a huge stamp of "legitimacy" stamped upon Mormonism in general. All in all, I would vote for him if he's the nominee, and I think he is electable. He has a presidential aire about him, but I wish he wasn't a Mormon.

Note: here's the link to a memo from Mark DeMoss, asking evangelicals to vote for Romney:

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/62b0dd8d-fc86-4669-a254-7288402a7573

Rudy Guliani - the problems are legion here. Socially, he is no better than a Democrat. Pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, etc. His private life is also a mess. His pluses are that he is hard on security and he is probably electable. He would make many Democrats feel comfortable voting for a Republican because he's liberal on so many issues but hard on terrorism and security. I would say he is very electable. However, the conservatives will not vote for him, I suspect. I'm pretty sure I couldn't, even if it meant (gulp) Hillary in the WH. I'm also afraid that if he is nominated and wins, the secular Republican power brokers will realize they don't need the "evangelical vote," and our pro-life stand will be compromised. We may even lose the pro-life plank of the party platform. We simply cannot allow this to happen.

Here's a particularly powerful anti-Guliani post:

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/004009.html

John McCain - tough on defense/terrorism, but wishy-washy on so much, and weird to boot. I don't think he'll be a factor.

Tom Tancredo - single issue candidate: immigration. He's good on that particular issue, but he simply doesn't have the appeal to lead and win.

Ron Paul - don't know much about him. His followers seem a bit loony. Some of his positions are solid, but I don't think he'll be a factor.

Fred Thompson - I had high hopes for this guy, but he has not missed an opportunity to disappoint. He seems to lack energy, vision, and public charisma. I don't think he'll be a factor.

Mike Huckabee - an ordained pastor has no chance of ever being elected President of the United States. Forget it. His last name doesn't help; "President Huckabee?" No way, he's unelectable. Sounds like somebody from "Mayberry RFD," which doesn't bother me at all, but I think it would bother the rest of the country. Not a factor.

Sam Brownback - I don't like his last name either. Seems to hold good positions on many issues, but again, I don't think he's a factor.

Duncan Hunter - never heard of him.

Some discussions on the web:

Where do they stand?

A discussion on Wikipedia is here.

Bottom Line: I think it will be Guliani or Romney. Of these two, I would much prefer Romney.

I'm sad there is no one who inspires me, no one who makes me proud to be a Republican, like Reagan did. Even both Bushes were more inspiring than this lot. We may be in trouble.

Mastermind of First Twin Towers Attack Claims to have Converted to Christianity

Yes, that's right. Ramzi Yousef claims to have converted to Christianity while in solitary confinement in a federal prison in Colorado. I don't believe it for a minute. Read about it here. The "60 Minutes" report Drudge refers to sounds very interesting. It will air this Sunday, 10/14, 7:30-9:00pm.

The Letter Itself: Contents

Although it runs 29 pages, the letter itself is much shorter. Here is a description of its contents:

The addressees: page 1

Summary and Abridgement: pages 2-3

"A Common Word Between Us and You": pages 4-16

(I) Love of God (pages 4-10)

Love of God in Islam

Love of God as the First and Greatest Commandment in the Bible

(II) Love of Neighbour (pages 11-12)

Love of Neighbour in Islam

Love of the Neighbour in the Bible

(III) Come to A Common Word Between Us and You

A Common Word

Come to a Common Word!

Between Us and You

Notes (which contain much discussion): pages 17-21

List of Signatories: pages 22-29

Muslim Clerics Call For Peace

This is still a developing story, but apparently an international group of Muslim clerics has written a letter to Christians calling for peace. I haven't yet read the letter, but I've posted below a link to it. In any case, this will be, it seems to me, an important moment in the interaction between Islam and Christianity/The West. Here are links to the article:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416235-details/Muslims+tell+Christians%3A+

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301116,00.html


Here is the link to The Cambridge Inter-Faith Programme, which sponsored the letter:
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/

Here's the link to the letter itself (29 pages!):
http://www.divinity.cam.ac.uk/cip/documents/COMMONWORDFINAL091007_000.pdf

I hope to have some response to this letter soon.

Ken Burns's "The War"

Last night we finished watching Ken Burns's new documentary series called "The War." My fascination with that era of history continues unabated; I could have watched 20 more hours of it. There is so much from that time that is meaningful for me personally, even though I wasn't born until 20 years later (1963).

Generally speaking, I liked this series, though I didn't think it matched his series on "The Civil War." I was regularly moved to tears watching that series, and he seemed to do something there that had never been done. I felt a connection with those people - both North and South - that I had never felt before, and I'm someone who is interested in that era. I felt like there was something magisterial, something masterpiece-like about that series, and as I watched it I harbored doubts that he would ever be able to get out from under the shadow that that presentation would cast over all his future work. His other series - on jazz music and baseball, I think - held no interest for me and I ignored them. However, I wouldn't miss "The War" for anything! (His next series is on the national parks!)

I certainly learned things, and several times I was moved emotionally, but I didn't think the series as a whole matched his work on "The Civil War" or other pieces of work on this time of history, like "World at War," "Band of Brothers," and the like. I don't think I'll buy it, though I'm tempted to look at the book, and I would love the cd of music!

Moving from the documentary series itself to what the series covered, I have several comments.

1. With breath-taking awe, I am still deeply moved by the magnitude of the struggle that was WWII. When we see what was at stake, and how much effort had to be expended, the entire struggle terrifies and inspires me. How did the world get to such a point? Why would men attempt such evil schemes? Why do people cause so much suffering? I look back at the mid-20th century in the same way I look at a rattlesnake at the zoo. I am simultaneously drawn toward it and repelled by it.

2. Because of the magnitude of the struggle, I can begin to understand the profound confidence that post-war generation had. They had faced the greatest evil of all time and had won. What could possibly challenge or threaten them now? I can only imagine the levels of confidence, self-assuredness, and deep appreciation for what is good in a culture. It is dizzying. Massive, national "high-fives" all around!

3. I am staggered by the kinds of loss(es) our culture endured. Five thousand here, 18, 000 there, 4,500 again - these numbers were peppered throughout the series. What must it have been like to lose so many people? And I can't help but contrast these kinds of losses with the meagre losses we have faced so far in Iraq/Afghanistan. Now, of course, I don't mean to minimize any single individual's death in our contemporary conflict, and I know our military families are making great sacrifices; I don't mean to deny any of this. But when you look at what our culture endured - at what the American "body politic" absorbed - I can't help but appreciate more what that generation did, and I can't help but disrespect the hollow, whining voices of protest today. We are at war; men will die; but we must win. Our collective memory is too much of Vietnam and too little of Normandy.

4. Massive evil movements inflict inevitable and irreparable damage on the world; it happened once (actually, many times!) and will happen again. In fact, I think it is happened right now. Certain "things have been set in motion that cannot be undone," I think is how Gandolf put it. When Hitler began to move, and was not stopped, there were certain things that were simply going to have to be done, and I think the same is true today. The march of militant Islam, unchecked by governments and nations, consistent accomodation, temporary peaces - "Peace in our time!" - will demand a definitive rebuttal, culturally, intellectually, and maybe even militarily. Maybe that is why I am so fascinated by the WWII era; it looks so much like our own.

5. I knew about the internment camps for Japanese Americans, but I had minimized their evil, either intentionally or in error. But I could not escape from the shame and embarrassment the discussion of these camps roused; I was grieved. I can understand the motivation that led to these camps, but cannot agree with it. The character of the Japanese American community I saw throughout this whole sordid affair challenged me. Despite being so deeply wronged, many Japanese Americans served so selflessly and fought so bravely. They won my respect.

Well, there is so much more I could say, but this post is already too long. One more thought: I long once again for a strong, robust, confident, morally clear America.

Meet the kid who is allergic to everything!

As many of you know, my family - including me - suffer from all sorts of food allergies. But, check out this poor kid! Read about him here. Tyler Savage is his name, and he can only eat chicken, carrots, grapes, potatoes and apples.

I feel for you, Bro!

Mother Teresa - "Come Be My Light" - Introduction

I've been trying to read Mother Teresa's "Come Be My Light," a collection and discussion of her letters, but with all the great stuff going on, like PBS's "The War," my son's football game, other kids activities, and my chest infection last week, I just haven't had time or strength.

I finally have a few moments which I hope to spend by beginning my discussion of this important book.

Mother Teresa's "mission statement," says the book is:

If I ever become a Saint -- I will surely be one of 'darkness.' I will continually be absent from Heaven -- to light the light of those in darkness on earth" (:1).

The book is an exploration of Mother Teresa's interior life (:2), not a theological study. The author/compiler Brian Kolodiejchuk focuses on three important aspects of her life. 1) A private vow she made while a nun; 2) mystical experiences prior to the founding of the Missionaries of Charity; 3) her experience of many years of spiritual darkness.

The book is structured around these three aspects. First (chapters 1-2), we read of her initial devotion to Jesus and her internal life. Second (chapters 3-7), we read of her "call within a call," i.e., after her devotion to missionary work, she received, she believed, from Christ a more narrow call, namely to found a new mission. This time of her life was apparently characterized by experiences of particular inspiration (I haven't read these chapters yet). Finally (chapters 8-13), we will read of what it cost Mother Teresa to obey this "call within a call."

Some Random Comments:

1) Brian K. (:4) mentions Malcolm Muggeridge's observation that Mother Teresa glowed with a kind of "luminosity," yet at the same time, suffering intense spiritual darkness privately. I find it amazing that this follower of Jesus did not understand that her public perception did not match her own internal experience. I wonder if there is some kind of spiritual principle at work here. Does God hide from a believer the aroma of Christ that s/he might be spreading? Is there something that would perhaps detract from the glory that redowns to Christ if the believer had a clear understanding of how her/his life testifies to God's grace? If so, perhaps we should be slower to doubt God's work in our lives.

2) I was struck by one statement she makes in a letter to her spiritual director. She asks for all the documents she had given to him in which she had expressed her deepest thoughts. She writes, "I want the work to remain only His" (:5). I admire this passion to bring credit to God alone.

3) A final issue to think about, at least, is the ethics of publishing the letters and documents of someone who had no desire to have them published, and in fact, specifically requested that they NOT be published. It is true that some people who attempt to look "humble" are in fact not so humble; Mother Teresa's life certainly argues against that interpretation. Others are genuinely humble, but don't understand that their exprience(s) could benefit many, many other believers. Those in authority in Mother Teresa's case decided something else: she belonged to the Church, not just to herself. I wonder if she would have agreed. Do YOU agree? In what sense do we as individual believers "belong to the Church?" How would we live differently if we really believed that?

ALL IN ALL, NOT A BAD WEEKEND!

OSU Buckeyes, 30; Minnesota Gophers, 7.

USC Gamecocks, 38; Miss State Bulldogs, 21.

Cleveland Browns, 27; Baltimore Ravens, 13.

Perhaps sweetest of all:

AZ Cardinals, 21; PITTSBURG STEELERS, 14.

I am such a happy man when the Steelers lose!

More on the Jena 6

Joe Carter, over at The Evangelical Outpost, has posted a list of primary documents dealing with the whole Jena 6 situation, i.e., various witness statements and court documents. Here's the link. This is very helpful. Both Joe and I agree that the MSM reporters are not doing their jobs. However, Joe posted a pretty opinionated piece earlier in the week. Read it here. One of my big concerns is that when we "white folk" look like we are unwilling to admit the presence of racism, we lose credibility. We have to take claims of racism seriously. On the other hand, we need AA leaders to realize that not every accusation of racism is legitimate. Let's not react with emotion; let's get the facts and put them together. Joe's post helps us do that, but he is pretty much only addressing the issue of the guilt of one of the black guys; Joe has not put together a "narrative of events," including how many of these recent events are directly linked. We're still waiting for that.

Wright Gets It Wrong

Read this analysis of Bishop N.T. Wright's perspective on global terrorism, especially w/re:to the US led coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. For all his positive contributions to Biblical studies, he stumbles badly, in my opinion, on this issue. Read it here.

Ken Burns's "The War"

I'm so enjoying Ken Burns's documentary on PBS this week called, "The War." Not quite up to the standard of his "The Civil War," but certainly well done. The focus is not so much on the historical details of how the war was prosecuted, etc., but on the impact the war had on families, cities, and culture here at home. I cried last night when we found out that Babe Ciarlo was killed in Italy. I also had no idea how extensive the internment camps for Japanese Americans were; in once sense, I can understand the concern, but I felt ashamed of our country. So many of those people loved their country and were willing to fight for it. Hinds sight certainly is clear, isn't it? The whole period was such an emotional time, yet our country seemed to rally together in a common cause against evil. Why can't we do that again? Is it not clear that we are fighting evil? Do we lack the will power? Do we simply not want to be inconvenienced?

Tonight's episode: "Pride of Our Nation" - about, among other things, D-Day.

Ahmadinejad

It was a bad idea to invite this guy to Colombia University. However, maybe some good things came out of it, like people began to see how kookie he is. I think the president of the university really stepped in it. First, he made an ill-advised invitation. Then, after he started getting flak for it, he tried to redeem himself by subjecting the leader of Iran to a 15-minute verbal harangue. I felt embarrassed for ole Mahmoud, despite what I think of him. It was simply in poor taste to invite someone to be a guest of honor then not treat him like one. It was, IMHO, more of a reflection on the inability of President Lee Bollinger to admit the mistake. I think Mahmoud was right to say that in Iran they don't insult guests of honor.

The Jena 6

The Jena 6

I'm a bit sick of people spouting off on this issue without full knowledge of the facts. Racism is too sensitive an issue to use heated language when it is perhaps not necessary. From what I've heard, these are the facts: 1) there is a "Whites Only Tree" in Jena (what is up with that? Hello?); 2) some black guys purposely sat under it (I would too, if the "Whites Only" thing is serious); 3) some white kids hung nooses from the tree in response (not a very funny gesture, in my opinion), and did get in trouble for it, but not very severe trouble; 4) some black kids beat some white kid to within an inch of his life and got in serious trouble.

Understandably, some people are getting pretty worked up about this, but reactions based on insufficient information are not helpful. In an ideal world, our MSM reporters would get the information right and inform the public. Unfortunately, I think most reporters have an agenda and hear/see/report what fits with that agenda.

I wonder: are all these events linked? Was there some other reason the white kid was beaten? What really happened to the white kids? Was there an attempt to deal justly with all these various situations? Were blacks and whites involved at every level of decision making about consequences/legal issues? There may very well be some bad racial stuff going on here, but we need to be very careful not to inflame things when that is not called for.

I'm Sick!

For the last week or so, I've been battling a cold that turned into an upper respiratory infection. Yesterday I went to the doctor and got some serious medication. Already, within 24 hours, I am beginning to feel better. I have some things to post about, but it will have to wait another day or two. Thanks to my readers (all 10 of them!) for their patience.

Birthday Money!

OK, so how did I spend that birthday money? Although my birthday is in July, I only recently got around to spending it. Here's what I bought:

1. _The Sand Pebbles_ (dvd)

I've already written about this movie - awesome!

2. _10th Anniversary_, the Statler Brothers (cd)

I'm an "uber-fan" of the Statlers, especially their older stuff, with Lew Dewitt in the group. Not many cds left from that time (1969-1982).

3. _The Drama of Scripture: Finding Our Place in the Biblical Story_, by Craig G. Bartholomew and Michael W. Goheen.

A great book dealing with the "drama of redemption." I had a copy of this book, and read it, but then gave it away to a student. Excellent preparation for teaching "Progress of Redemption" (someday).

4. _Mother Teresa: Come Be My Light: The Private Writings of the "Saint of Calcutta"_, by Mother Teresa and Brian Kolodiejchuk.

I plan to read this through, do some comparing of Mother Teresa with Amy Carmichael, and hopefully write a few meaningful posts on the subject.