Which American President are You Like?

Ha! I answered 78% like Theodore Roosevelt (Ronald Reagan was a close second at 72%). I was LEAST like Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson, and FDR.

Take the quiz here.

Political Comments as of Mid-February

Well, I am surprised by several things. First, I am amazed that Huckabee has lasted as long as he has. I would have listed him as one of the first to go, but he has stayed the course. I am surprised at the level of support he enjoys, despite being a former clergyman. Perhaps this is an indication of how weak the choices are. For so many Repubs to give him their support, they must be trying to say something.

Second, I'm surprised at how tough a time Hillary is having. I thought she would be a shoe-in among the Dems, and in fact, would prefer her to BO (see below). Maybe it was just a matter of time until people wisened up about her.

Third, I am surprised that McCain is our man. I really thought Romney was the best qualified and that he would win the nomination. I am quite lukewarm about Mac; he has stuck his finger in the eye of the Republican party so many times that I am not eager to reward him with a national nomination. He is a departure from the legacy of Reagan, and will take the party to the left, no question.

Fourth, I am surprised at, and a bit concerned about, the level of support for BO. He certainly seems like a nice man, but many of his policies are simply non-starters. His radical pro-abortion position is unthinkable, but his policy to withdraw US troops immediately from Iraq is insane. It would be like Harry Truman deciding the war in Europe "isn't worth American lives" and starting to pull "our boys" out of Europe in the summer of 1945. BO seems to me naive about the conflict in the Middle East. Even if he wins the presidency, I suspect those who know better than he does will have a serious sit-down heart-to-heart with him and he will begin to "see the light." "We can end a war" is perhaps the most naive thing I've heard a politician say in years. I also suspect many will be voting for him BECAUSE he's AfAm, not because they agree with, or even know, his policies.

I'm concerned about the level of hysteria in his supporters. The pictures of his rallies are filled with glassy-eyed, almost mesmerized, young people. I am worried about that, for several reasons: first, people who follow like this are easily manipulated; second, I'm afraid they will be deeply disappointed when he gets into office (and I suspect he will), and they discover he's human, can't deliver on all his promises, and the world continues to be filled with evil.

I suspect anyone who attempts to criticise him will be labeled as a racist, which is sad. This will inhibit any serious discussion of his views. This is not going to be a pleasant election cycle.

I wonder: if it is wrong to vote AGAINST someone because of their race/skin color (and it is, in my opinion), is it OK to vote FOR someone because of their race/skin color?

Evangelical Monastics?

Here's how an article starts in the Boston Globe about the rise of monasticism among evangelicals:

S.G. PRESTON IS a Knight of Prayer. Each morning at his Vancouver, Wash., home, he wakes up and prays one of the 50-odd psalms he has committed to memory, sometimes donning a Kelly green monk's habit. In Durham, N.C., Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and fellow members of Rutba House gather for common meals as well as morning and evening prayer based on the Benedictine divine office. Zach Roberts, founder of the Dogwood Abbey in Winston-Salem, meets regularly with a Trappist monk to talk about how to contemplate God. Roman Catholic monastic traditions loom large in their daily routines - yet all three men are evangelical Protestants.

Read the rest here.

I have to confess, I resonate with some of this. I, too, am sick of the consumer, pop-culture, me-centered religion of so many evangelical protestants. Hence my recent interest in the Book of Common Prayer. I think it is a mistake to downplay the theological differences that will forever separate Evangelicals from Catholics (like papal authority, prayers to, or 'veneration' of, saints, transubstantiation, purgatory, the contents of the Biblical canon, the role of 'good works,' to name just a few); however, there is much that we (Evangelicals) can learn from the passionate devotion to Christ (not Mary!) of Catholic mystics. Most evangelical protestants would do well to learn something about a life of devotion to someone/ something other than their own thinly disguised, middle-class materialism.

I plan to visit a local Trappist monastery in (of all places!) Moncks Corner, SC, in the next few weeks, now that I'm on my sabbatical. (I'll be sure to report on that here at HOTI.) I have no problem admitting that we have much to learn from other branches of Christianity, but we should not lose sight of the fact that, by God's grace, we also have much to teach others.

BO Most Liberal Senator?

National Journal has ranked the most liberal senator: Barak Obama. Read about it here.

"Culture Warrior"

Here's the link to a great blog posting by Dr. J.P. Moreland on political leftists. It explains so much about how those on the political left think about themselves and the world. I encourage you to read it.
It starts:

On September 9, 2004 I was reading the Seattle Times before boarding my flight back to California. The lead editorial caught my eye: “A Nation Divided” by Joel Kotkin claimed that America is more divided than any time since the Civil War. And, while the division is not primarily political, it becomes fiercely evident when national elections role around as they did in the fall of 2004.

Philly Cheese Steak Thickburger

Here is a comparison between a new "Philly Cheese Steak Thickburger," the advertised on TV and the reality; my son and I each bought one the other evening while we watched football. Which would you rather eat? Hmmmm.
















Yup, just like the picture on TV, isn't it? Actually, it tasted pretty good, which tells me it is a good concept, but quite poor on the delivery. I could barely find the "Philly Cheese Steak" part of the burger. All in all, disappointing.

Blogging is Hard!

I am discovering that it is very hard to write consistently in a blog if there are in the same house three teenagers who use the computer constantly. Yeah, very difficult.

Barack Obama and Abortion

How pro-choice (pro-abortion) is Barack Obama? Read it here.

Republican Debate in Myrtle Beach

What is it like to attend a presidential debate?

I had opportunity to attend the Republican presidential debates last night. What was it like? I'm glad you asked.

We left Columbia at about 3:00pm and arrived in Myrtle Beach at about 5:30pm. We found some great parking near the convention center and because someone in our group had made some arrangements with a representative of the Huckabee campaign, we got our tickets quickly.

The Huckabee supporters outside were pretty enthusiastic, wearing "Fair Tax" t-shirts. The Romney supporters were pretty vocal as well. The "Ron Paul" blimp circled overhead. Yeah - the guy's got a blimp! I heard one person yelling "Rudy! Rudy!" A lone voice in the wilderness. I confess, the atmosphere was exciting.

We grabbed a bite to eat at Fuddrucker's and were in the building by about 7:00pm. We sat in the upper section, to the left, with a great view, about 50-70 yards away from the candidates.

There were no cell phones, cameras, food/drink, or bags allowed in the convention hall, and we had to go through a metal detector upon entering the center. I was struck by how many young people there were there!

At about 8:00pm, Brian Wilson of FOXNews came out on stage and got our attention. He started working the crowd, talking about how much fun it has been in SC. This jazzed up the home-team and really lightened the atmosphere. I was impressed by Wilson's persona; very warm and jovial but still professional. He instructed us about the evening: no cell phones! and if anyone accidentally has one, TURN IT OFF! He told us that during commercial breaks, no one is to approach the stage (and he alluded to the burly men stationed nearby), and during the debate itself, we are not to express our opinion. "We want you to have opinions; we just want you to keep them to yourselves." He came out again at 8:20pm.

At 8:45pm, Wilson again marched out on stage. He introduced Carl Cameron, the "Energizer Bunny of Campaign Coverage," Wendell Goler, Chris Wallace, and Brit Hume. These guys are like Rock stars. The applause increased each time, with Brit getting the big one. The atmosphere was almost carnival-like. When Brit Hume got his ovation, Carl Cameron started doing that bowing gesture and people laughed. Carl was clearly having fun. Chris and Brit struck me as a bit more "business only."

At about 8:55pm, Sean Hannity appeared about 20 yards away from us to our left. He had a gym bag over his shoulder, and he quietly greeted people as he looked over the venue.

Before the televised portion began, Wilson introduced the candidates themselves. As each name was called, their supporters burst into thunderous applause. In my opinion, Guiliani, Huckabee and McCain got the biggest, though we were sitting very near a large group of college age Rudy supporters, so maybe my perception of that applause was not accurate.

McCain - the shortest - Guiliani, and Paul are all quite short. Huckabee is average. I always thought Romney was tall, but Thompson was clearly the tallest of the lot.

At about this time, the media camera people were released into the event, and, my goodness, they looked like a bunch of lemmings. They all ran down the aisle, took photographs like crazy, then suddenly left. It's a good thing: they really clogged the aisles.

When the televised coverage began, things got serious. FOXNews had put up two big jumbo-trons in the auditorium, so we could actually see what "the viewers at home" were seeing as well. This was nice, but it was on only for about 2/3 of the time.

For the most part, I'll skip extensive comment on the actual debate. My faithful readers can consult blogs and news sites for summaries of all that. But I'll make a few comments:

Romney went first. He seemed nervous and talked very fast, dumping loads of information and detail in his first answer. All in all, I thought he did fine. By process of elimination, he is my "frontrunner," so I think I was expecting more from him. His answers were always smooth and competent, almost to the point that I don't remember them.

McCain championed his reputation for being a maverick. He said, "I won't win Miss Congeniality." His answers on economic issues seemed confused. He was strongest on national security. He seemed uncomfortable before a camera. He was not an option for me, but my opinion of him improved in the debate. I would make him my third choice.

Huckabee is likeable, LIKEABLE, much more than I had expected. In my mind, he made up the most ground for me personally. He has a way of making his well-rehearsed answers sound very off-the-cuff and spontaneous. Most of the candidates tried to label him a liberal, which he was not always good at refuting.

Guiliani is a non-factor. For a whole host of reasons, he is not an option for me. His emphases were "I am strong on national security and I am a hard-core economic conservative." He did not mention social issues at all.

Ron Paul is ...well, weird, and I mean WEIRD. He made a few good points - and his supporters are almost rabid in their devotion - but I never knew what was going to come out of his mouth. He said some pretty crazy things, making much of the auditorium laugh. Sometimes when Paul was answering a question, FOXNews would split screen and show the facial expressions of the other candidates, and those expressions ranged from amusement to puzzlement to disgust. If Paul's rumored racism isn't enough, this debate eliminated him as a candidate for me. His function in this race is as an unelectable candidate who raises other issues and forces the others to address those issues. I actually began to feel bad for the guy. Carl Cameron's question, "Do you have any electability, sir?" seemed almost disrespectful, and elicited awkward chuckling from the audience. When he was answering questions, I heard in my mind the old Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the others; one of these things is not the same."

In my opinion, Thompson came across as old, angry, and tired. Like a chicken on a junebug, he went after Huckabee, big time. That was as feisty as it got, I think, except for the gang-tackling of Ron Paul, whenever he got the ball. I noticed that Fred looked very tired, almost like he was enduring the debate. He seemed to be reading most of his comments; he drank a lot of water; and he shifted from one foot to another, even lifting up his legs, like a person does when they are tired of standing. He seemed to want to take a break. Many are saying he had a good night; I don't see it that way. He still acts like someone who just doesn't really want the job.

During commercial breaks, people would get up, walk around, and stretch; the candidates disappeared into the crown down in front, maybe to sit down. I don't think Guiliani ever sat down, though; that guy's got energy. Shortly before we went back on the air, an announcer would say, "Candidates, please return to your podiums!" Sometimes one of them would barely make it, and have to run up the stage to their mic. Rudy seemed especially prone to this.

All in all, there were a few good moments in the debate, but nothing earth-shattering. I went into the event a reluctant Romney supporter. I arrive there by process of elimination. Thompson is a tired, old crank who doesn't want the job anyway; Guiliani is simply not an option; Paul is weird. These guys were never in the running. McCain has some strong points, but he is old, not very appealing publically, and has done so much to hurt the Republican agenda in the past that I would be reluctant to support him. Huckabee certainly shares my values and he's a very likeable guy, but he is liberal on many economic issues, and I think his pastoral ministry experience is a liability. If he gets the nomination, I think he will galvanize the opposition from the left. Their hatred for evangelicals is very deep, and they would demonize him in ways we haven't even thought of yet. I think even moderates would be frightened away from voting for him. We're left with Romney. He did nothing to hurt himself last night, but he didn't help himself either. I guess I'm still a reluctant Romney supporter.

After the debate was over, I hurried up front to try to meet some of the candidates. I saw Carl Cameron chatting with people, but most of the candidates had left. I came within about 15 feet of Fred Thompson and about 10 feet of Mike Huckabee, who stayed the longest, chatting with people, and signing lots of event programs. He looked "pastoral," not "presidential." There's a difference. As we walked out of the center, we heard one lady say that Huckabee was "too churchy" for her. I think that says it well. As we walked back to the car, I saw a guy holding a sign that read, "Mormons NOT for Romney!" I had to laugh at that.

We left the convention center at about 11:30pm and arrived back in Columbia at about 2:00am. All in all, I enjoyed the event and it was fun to see such a thing from the "inside."

Ron Paul Unleashed?

Drudge has linked to some disturbing news about Ron Paul. Many Conservatives - especially Christians - have jumped on the Ron Paul bandwagon. See the incriminating quotes here and here. As for me, I never really liked him; despite the fact that he has some good positions on certain issues, he just seemed to me to be a little too much over the top. If all this is true, it is better that it comes out now than in the General Election.

Blog Series on "Kingdom of God"

Scot McKnight, professor of NT at North Park Seminary in Chicago (and one of my professors when he and I were at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School), is planning on writing a series of blogs on "Kingdom of God" in the NT. He begins January 7th, and he plans to look at every occurrence of the term in the NT. I'm looking forward to this, though I don't expect to agree with everything he says. Here's the link to his site; keep your eye on it.

New Year's at the Beach

We spent New Year's Eve at the beach again this year, courtesy of my parents. All eight of us stayed at a beach front hotel on Myrtle Beach. Here are some pictures:

Here we are at church. On Sunday, we attended church services at All Saints Church in Pawley's Island. I didn't know this, but this church left the Episcopal Church and became a "mission church" of the Bishop of Rwanda. It is a church of the AMiA (Anglican Mission in the Americas), and in fact, AMiA is headquartered there. Anyway, this is a picture of us outside the church building.

Here's a picture of Diane and me taking a walk along the beach. Somebody gave Amy the camera and she began shooting pictures constantly. In fact, though, she really got some good shots.

Here I am walking along the beach. I'm not much of a summer weather person, especially at the beach; but walking along the beach in cool/cold weather, feeling the cold water numb my bare feet, watching the sea gulls and dolphins and pelicans, hearing the surf -- all this I enjoy deeply and in fact find it very relaxing and focusing. Of course, I like walking with the rest of the family, but walking alone is especially re-creative.

Here are Amy and Andrew walking along the beach. We found more jellyfish this time that any other. They make for hazardous beach walks late at night!

See you next year at the beach!

Attack on Huckabee

Here's a very painful letter attacking Mike Huckabee as presidential candidate, written by an Arkansas evangelical. Very damaging. The author lists "7 key reasons I cannot in good conscience support Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee for President." The author doesn't even list my biggest reason for not supporting Huckabee: Americans will not elect a former conservative pastor to be their president. This is why the Democrats love him and want him to get the nomination.

UPDATE:


Here's a post from Joe Carter at "Evangelical Outpost," supportive of Huckabee and critical of Romney. This, from a guy who was nuts about Thompson. He's got lots of good ideas on his blog, but I don't trust his political instincts. I agree, rather, with Rush, who describes Huckabee as a really nice guy but not a conservative.

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.