Politics: Foley's Folly

The release of emails and instant messages containing lurid communications between U.S. Rep. Mark Foley and certain male Senate pages, and Foley's subsequent resignation have been big news. Foley's actions are certainly disturbing and merit national scorn. Thankfully, there have not been any reports of sexual relations between Foley and any of the pages (yet?) but his actions that have been reported are still reprehensible and a breach of trust making his resignation the only appropriate response. Criminal prosecution may be soon to follow, and I wouldn't be surprised if additional facts continue to come out, since it appears that each day produces new revelations.

So, what is likely to be the fallout from the Foley scandal? Well, there are three obvious potential effects: 1) Foley's seat will go to the Democratic candidate Tim Mahoney; 2) Dennis Hastert will be forced to resign as House Speaker; 3) The scandal flips other congressional races nationally to Democrats, perhaps resulting in a Democratic house majority.

Regarding the first question, I fully expect Tim Mahoney to defeat substitute candidate Joe Negron (even though Negron is a solid candidate in my opinion). I think that local voters will want to punish Foley and the Republican party for this scandal, making it very difficult for Negron to win. Plus, Foley's name will appear on the ballot as required by Florida law, and I can't imagine a majority of the voters putting a check by that guy's name.

The second question is whether Dennis Hastert will be forced to resign his speakership. The key issue here is whether Hastert knew, or should have suspected, that Foley was having inappropriate contact with congressional pages. If so, he needs to resign. I am inclined to think that Hastert probably should have had his suspicions raised when he was notified about some of Foley's messages. His excuse that he was asked by the page's family not to go public is insufficient simply because he owed it to the rest of the pages to make sure that nothing shady was going on. However, I do not think Hastert will resign unless it can be shown that he knew about the more salacious instant messages (which is unlikely) because of the political ramifications of such an act. It would be a tacit admission of guilt and serve to admit that the entire Republican leadership is somehow culpable for Foley's act. This would be incredibly damaging politically, and thus I don't see it happening. As for my personal thoughts, I think Hastert failed to show strong leadership and wisdom and also acted calculatingly for purposes of avoiding a scandal. Even if he does not resign before the election, I think the Republicans should seek a new minority leader after the elections.

The third question is whether this will be a tipping point that results in the Democrats taking back the House of Representatives. I think that it will result in just that. This scandal is going to depress Evangelical turnout sufficiently in some close races, and I wouldn't be surprised if a decent number of Republican voters decide to punish the party and vote for a Democratic candidate. Plus, moderate swing voters will also be rightly appalled by the scandal and be more likely to vote for a Democratic candidate in the voting booth. In the end, it will be impossible to know if the Foley scandal will be what tips the House to the Democrats, but if it happens rest assured that the whole episode certainly didn't help Republican candidates.

Sports: MLB Division Series (1st Round) Playoff Predictions

Baseball's regular season has ended, and the playoffs will begin this Tuesday with Division Series games in each league. The Division series features four different matchups of best of five series, with the winners advancing to the League Championship Series to play for the right to be in the World Series. This year, the American League has almost all of the premier teams in baseball, while the National League is the weakest that I can remember it. However, I expect the various matchups in each league's playoffs to be very competitive because in the AL nothing but quality baseball clubs will be competing, while in the NL nothing but flawed and mediocre clubs will do battle. Here is what I think will happen in the first round Division Series games.

American League
Oakland A's over Minnesota Twins (3 games to 2): The Twins won the Central Division while the A's won the Western Divsion. The majority of commentators are picking the Twins because they played very well down the stretch of the regular season, they have home-field advantage, and Johan Santana (perhaps baseball's best pitcher) could potentially pitch 2 of the 5 games in the series. However, I think Oakland will win the series because of their superior starting pitching depth. Barry Zito is capable of beating Santana if he is on his game, and I just have a feeling that since public opinion is that Santana is close to unbeatable at home, he probably will do just that in these playoffs (he is good, but no one is unbeatable). After Santana, the Twins have two rookies who will start for them on the mound along with Brad Radke, who is an excellent veteran pitcher but is pitching with a stress fracture in his shoulder. I like the chances of a rested Rich Harden, Dan Haren, and Joe Blanton winning those matchups. In the end, I think that the teams split the first four games, and that Johan Santana pitches well in game 5 but doesn't figure in the decision as the A's win late and advance to the ALCS.

New York Yankees over Detroit Tigers (3 games to 2): The Tigers struggled down the stretch and ended up settling for the wildcard and having to face the high-powered Yankees in the first round. Despite their struggles, I think Detroit has an excellent chance to win this series, but that they will fall just short. The Yankees hitting is the best in baseball with guys like Abreu, Jeter, A. Rodriguez, Matsui, Sheffield, Damon, Giambi and more capable of touching up almost any pitcher for runs. The Tigers have some good pitchers, but they are young and guys like Verlander and Bonderman appeared to tire down the stretch. I think the Yankees will make the Tigers starters throw plenty of pitches and wear them down. However, the Yanks' pitching is hardly a sure thing as Mussina is solid, but R. Johnson and J. Wright have been inconsistent and C.M. Wang will be tasting his first bit of major MLB playoff pressure. Both squads have good bullpens, with the Tigers stronger at middle relief (Zumaya) and the Yankees stronger at closer (Rivera). That being the case, the team that gets to the other team's starting pitcher for some runs will be the one that wins this series. Given the Yankees firepower, I think they are in a little better position to do just that.

National League
Cardinals over Padres (3 games to 2): Pretty much everyone is counting out the Cardinals after they almost blew a 7 game lead with 12 to play to the Astros. However, the National League is incredibly weak this year, and the Cards probably have the best hitter in the playoffs with Albert Pujols and the best pitcher in Carpenter, which in my mind makes them dangerous. The Padres are considered the team with the strongest pitching, but it is far from dominating after Jake Peavy, as aging starters David Wells, and Woody Williams will join Chris Young will match up against Jason Marquis, Jeff Suppan, and Anthony Reyes. Those games could go either way in my opinion, particularly since the Padres have had trouble scoring runs all year. The Cardinals bullpen is certainly weak, but I am not sure if San Diego can take advantage of that fact since its two biggest name hitters, Brian Giles and Mike Piazza, are past their prime. In a fairly close matchup, it is always wise to look for a difference-maker, and I think that Albert Pujols is going to put his team on his back and carry them to a hard-fought series win.

Dodgers over Mets (3 games to 1): The Mets were the only National League team to register a legitimately good season, winning 97 games and running away with the Eastern Divsion title. Thus, they are the World Series favorite in the NL. The Mets are far from a perfect team, though, as they have serious problems in their starting rotation. With Pedro Martinez missing, they have an aged starting rotation consisting of Orlando Hernandez, Tom Glavine, and Steve Trachsel, none of whom were dominating this year. The four starter is a true rookie, John Maine. The Dodgers have the superior rotation with Brad Penny, Derek Lowe, Greg Maddux and rookie H.C. Kuo. The Mets have the better hitters with guys like Carlos Delgado, David Wright, Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran swinging the bats, but the fact they haven't played a meaningful game for months worries me. That and their potentially disastrous rotation. El Duque Hernandez is going to start game one for the Mets, and I think he has run out of smoke and mirrors and will lose that one. After that, the Dodgers will have the momentum and the New York pressure will get to a Mets team filled with guys who have no playoff experience. The result will be the biggest upset of this year's postseason.

Christianity: Thoughts on the Beatitudes Part 1

Attempting to define what the good life is and how to live it was the primary pursuit of the great philosopher Socrates. Put another way, the quest is to determine what is the proper way to live life. This weekend I was reminded of the importance of this question at a beach retreat at St. George Island. Jim Divine, the pastor of Watermark Church in Tallahassee, was the retreat speaker. The Beatitudes were the focus of Pastor Divine's comments during the first session.

The Beatitudes are Jesus' declaration of the personal virtues, actions, and patterns of life that, when present in a life result in a person being blessed. The term blessed in the greek means "large or long" and "happy", so the term appears to mean that the greatest degree of happiness goes to the person who does each of these things. The next question then is what does it mean to be prounced to have "great happiness." Happiness is contingent on how a person's life is being led and the circumstances of that life. This is not to decry happiness, for it is God's will that our happiness be contingent on our circumstances. For instance, the happiness that is experienced in heaven is contingent on the circumstance of our being in the presence of God. Different circumstances and different actions lead to different types of happiness and different reasons why a person is happy.

Here, Jesus is speaking of the greatest happiness, and thus the virtues and actions listed here are those that lead to the greatest happiness. Because God is good, the happiness that is being spoken of here is a happiness that stems from goodness, for the greatest happiness cannot be contrary to the nature of God, who is good. If happiness is good, then the greatest happiness is found in the person of God. Thus the greatest happiness for each of us stems from the character and characteristics of God and being in the circumstance of being in right relation to God. This encompasses all areas of life, and all good things: being loved by and the love of God, love of and being loved by family and friends, enjoyment of God's creation, and much more. Thus, the teaching that Jesus is giving regards those virtues and characters of life that, when enacted in all spheres of life, lead to the greatest degree of happiness.

In the next post in this series, I'll take a look at the first four of the beatitudes and analyze what each instruction entails, and nature of the blessing that corresponds to that virtue or action.

Fun Time: Women--Know Your Limits

A fantastic film from the Harry Enfield Show. I can't tell you how many times this has happened to me.

Arts and Entertainment: Emerging Into Arrogance

Touchstone Magazine has on its website an interesting book review of "Faith of My Fathers: Conversations with Three Generations of Pastors About Church, Ministry, and Culture" by Chris Seay. Actually, to call it is more of a takedown than a review, but given some of the examples cited in the review it was deserved. Seay is the pastor of an "emergent" church who has published an ongoing dialog with his father and grandfathers who are also pastors. I will let you read the article for yourself instead of describing it in-depth, but am compelled to note that the review shows that self-righteousness and arrogance can emerge in this new movement.

On the same website but on a different topic, there is also a fun article by William McClay, a Humanities Chair at U of Tennessee, about how trying to be "unique" and "liberated from social conventions"--to show I am the smartest or must urbane person in the room--has become a new social convention. Well worth reading. By the way, I just subscribed to the magazine.

News: Bob Woodward on Iraq--It's Much Worse Than You Think

Famed investigative political reporter Bob Woodward is about to release a new book critical of the Bush administration's conduct of the Iraq war. The book states that US troops are facing over 800 attacks per week in Iraq (one wonders how an "attack" is defined), and that most intelligence estimates indicate that the situation is likely to get worse. Of course, one cannot discuss the book intelligently until it is released. However, if Woodward makes a persuasive case that the war in Iraq is going poorly and the book is widely read and discussed, the real question will be what should be done in lieu of the current prosecution of the war.

Misc: Champ Car World Series Crash--She's OK

This Sunday I was watching the Champ Car World Series race when this horrendous crash occurred. Katherine Legge, the driver of the car at the Road America road race in Wisconson amazingly was just fine after the wreck. The crash occurred when part of the rear wing of her car flew off, causing the car to lose downforce. Legge was heading into an S curve at 160 mph when she started skidding and went into the wall at full force. If you watch the video, you'll see the car disintegrate (as designed to absorb impact) and the cockpit with Legge rolling over and over on the grass. If Legge had been hurt, I wouldn't post it, but since she is OK I don't see any harm in it. By the way, AJ Allmendinger ended up winning the race.

Here is footage of the crash as it was broadcast here in the USA:



Here is the best slow motion footage of the crash:

Politics: The Blame Game

With the midterm elections two months away, it appears that culpability for failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks is going to be a major issue. Bill Clinton went ballistic when Chris Wallace asked him whether his administration did enough to capture Osama Bin Laden, responding that he had tried and failed to get Bin Laden while the Bush administration effectively did not try and even ignored a comprehensive plan to get Bin Laden that the Clinton folks had left behind. This prompted a response from Condoleezza Rice that the Bush administration was at least as focused on terrorism as the Clinton administration had been, and that there was no comprehensive strategy left behind. It appears that both parties are going to try and pin 9/11 on the other, with Republicans attempting to make Democrats look feckless and weak, and Democrats attempting to make Republicans appear incompetent and unwise. The 9/11 Commission Report lays blame on both administrations for failing to prevent the attacks. Yet, in politics admitting to blame is generally considered political suicide, so that certainly won't happen.

In the end, most Americans I believe will blame both parties and both Clinton and Bush for the failure. The result will be that this issue will not be a particular winner for either side politically. The big question is whether the key foreign policy issue of this election is the war in Iraq, or prevention of future terrorism. If the electorate views the Iraq war as the key foreign policy issue, then Democrats will have an advantage. If the electorate is more concerned with preventing future terrorism, then the Republicans will be well served. Look to see which of these two issues (which are admittedly related) predominates over the next two months, as that will provide an indicator of how the national midterm elections will turn out.

Sports: Showing Fortitude

When watching sports, it is important to respect the displays of fortitude that we sometimes observe when athletes compete. This weekend, I had the pleasure of seeing two such displays. On Saturday, Notre Dame's football team was being dominated by Michigan State through much of the first half. This was occurring one week after ND had been humiliated by Michigan. As MSU was piling on the points in the first, ND could either give up their goals and effectively give up, or redouble their efforts to win the game. Notre Dame did the latter, and though their play improved late in the 2nd quarter, they were making little headway on the scoreboard, trailing by 16 after three quarters. The opportunity to be discouraged and doubt was apparent. The squad was playing better, but had not narrowed the defecit. Instead, Notre Dame continued to play hard and concentrate with the result being a stirring 40-37 comeback victory.

If Notre Dame was a profile in perserverance against doubt, Chris Simms' performance on Sunday in Tampa Bay's 26-24 loss to Carolina was an example of perserverance through physical pain and injury. After playing very poorly in two season-opening losses many people were doubting the ability and mental toughness of Simms. When Tampa Bay fell behind 17-0 in the first quarter, Simms could have folded, but instead his performance improved and he brought the Bucs back in the game. In the process, Simms took two vicious hits (one as he scored a touchdown, and another on an uncalled late hit on the next drive), one of which ruptured his spleen. Simms was unaware of what had happened to him. He continued to play after sitting out a few plays (for what appeared to be dehydration) and nearly led the Bucs to a win (Carolina won on a last second deep field goal). After the game, he was rushed to a Tampa hospital for an emergency surgery to remove his ruptured spleen. That Chris Simms continued to play is a testament to his competitive attitude and fortitude. The virtue of perserverance in difficult circumstances and amidst waves of doubt and even pain is one that each of us needs to cultivate. Though these sporting events were only games, they served as a reminder that sometimes perserverance is needed in order to do our duty, perform to the level we have been called, and hopefully accomplish our goals.

Christianity: Barna Group Study Shows Twentysomethings Leaving Church

Here is a disquieting article from The Barna Group that finds that most twentysomething Christians move away from the faith they practiced in their teenage years. According to the study 81% of teenagers say they've attended a church for at least 2 months in their teenage years. However, 61% of young adults who were significantly reached by a Christian community (likely through a youth group or similar ministry) during their teens are spiritually disengaged in their twenties. Only 20% who were churched as a teen remain spiritually active at age 29. Whether these folks generally come back to God in their 30's is being debated, but the fact remains that 3 out of 4 youths who the church reached in their teenage years walk away from the church in their college and early career years.

I'll leave it to each of you to interpret what this means about the Church's ministry, but I agree with the authors of the report that it appears to show that youth groups need to do a better job of discipling young Christians. I could hazard some opinions of some of the failures occuring in youth programs (lack of teaching youth how to think Christianly, segregating them from the church body and thus creating an unfamiliarity with the community of faith they will be in as they reach adulthood, not following up with them to help them join a college ministry). However, it would be unfair to lay the blame on youth groups. Additionally, many churches do a horrendous job of ministering to college students and young professionals, something that amounts to a catastrophic failure of discipleship. My friend Brian Cronin and others have also pointed to a yearning for community and friendships that are not being found in the church. This failure is greater than that of the youth groups, who by design cease their ministry after a high school graduation.

It can be argued that for most people, the two most significant choices in life are made in their twenties: (1) choice of education and career path (2) choice of a marriage partner or at least the type of person they want to marry. The Church, by failing to disciple and strongly reach out to men and women deciding these matters is proclaiming itself to be either irrelevant or disinterested regarding the core matters of a person's life. To quote the article: "These individuals are making significant life choices and determining the patterns and preferences of their spiritual reality while churches wait, generally in vain, for them to return after college or when the kids come. When and if young adults do return to churches, it is difficult to convince them that a passionate pursuit of Christ is anything more than a nice add-on to their cluttered lifestyle." No wonder these folks often consider Christianity an "add-on" to their lives--the body of Christ played no significant part in the major life decisions that formed much of who they are.

Funtime: Dog Lawyers

Clearly, there is a problem in America: dogs. Luckily, fellow lawyers are making sure that "man's best friend" is being held liable for his torts. I'll leave it to you to determine whether the real commerical or the fake one is funnier.

Arts & Entertainment: Megachurch Architecture

There isn't too much going on with regard to the arts that I am aware of, which is probably more of an indictment of me than anything. That being the case, I figured I'd share with you a pictoral survey of Megachurch architecture from Slate.com carried out by their architecture critic Witold Rybczynski. I found it to be quite educational, and I agree with his sense that much of the architecture fails to inspire the worshiper who enters them. Granted, it's not the most important thing about a church, but I do think it is helpful to a worshiper when a church evokes the grandeur of God.

Misc: Japanese Game Show

I believe that this was originally going to be the revamped format for the Scripps-Howard National Spelling Bee. I could be wrong. I note in passing that the Japanese are willing to subject themselves to treatment that is likely contrary to the Geneva Convention. At least this isn't disgusting like some of the game shows on US TV.

Hat tip to Jay Woodham who forwarded the video to me.

News: Paleologus Pope-pourri

Most everyone is aware of the controversy surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's address at the University of Regensburg of Sept. 12, 2006. Large numbers of Muslims have demanded an apology for a citation in the speech to the late 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel Paleologus who stated while in dialogue with an interlocutor, "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The speech goes on to quote Paleologus: "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats.... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...."

In order to accurately understand the controversy, the following questions must be answered:

(1) What is the argument that Pope Benedict XVI made in his speech?
(2) Is his argument true? (or at least logically valid and potentially true in light of scripture)
(3) What was his purpose in making this argument?
(4) What was his purpose in including the quote from Manuel Paleologus that many Muslims found offensive?
(5) Was it prudent for the Pope to give the address as a whole, and to include the offending Paleologus quote?

The answers to these questions will indicate whether Pope Benedict acted properly in making the presentation that he did at the University of Regensburg. We will know if what he said is true (or at least could be true, or is worth inquiry), what his intent was, and whether he acted prudently as a practical matter. If his argument is true or worthy of consideration, his intent was good, and he acted with wisdom in giving his speech, he has no culpability. If defects can be found in any of these matters, then some level of criticism is legitimate and some degree of repentence for whatever mistakes were made is appropriate. The first step in making this determination is to understand what exactly the Pope said in his speech.

1. What is the argument that Pope Benedict XVI made in his speech?

• The topic of the speech is whether, "acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature...a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?" Paleologus argued that not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. Further, to use violence to compel faith does not make sense because human "faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats" Benedict states that Paleologus is correct in his contention that acting unreasonably is contrary to God's nature, backing up his position with John chapter 1 which states that in the beginning was the "word", which is the term logos--a term that means also reason and the word. As such, God is a rational, creative being that seeks to communicate with His creation. Benedict argues that God is not only rational, but also good, and that the right exercise of reason reveals what is good, or virtue. The history of Christianity's engagement with Greek philosophy then is an occurance that enables man to know God more truly and deeply, and also to know what it means to act virtuously.
• Benedict next discusses some trends in theology that he finds toubling because they have the effect of separating to at least some respect the joining of faith and reason. Benedict mentions the view that God's freedom means that he could have acted contrary than how he has, and the possibility that God's transcendance and otherness are so exalted that our own reason and ability to determine what is good cannot be relied on as a mirror of God's nature. Benedict states that these trends were strong in the Protestant tradition of "sola scriptura" which he states sought to find faith in its original form as found in the Bible, thus devaluing the the position of reason in faith. Eventually, this led to thinkers like Kant stating that he needed to set reason aside in order to make room for faith. When faith is divorced from reason, it can lead to the view that God transcends our senses of what is good and true.
• Benedict states that the Roman Catholic Church "has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV)." Benedict is stating that man can relate to and understand God (imperfectly but with a degree of accuracy leading to understanding despite our human limitations). However, in modern times (the 19th and 20th centuries) reason has been limited to where many believe it can only present truth in a limited sphere of inquiry. First, "only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific....Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity." Secondly, this method automatically excludes the question of God, and leads to the implication that the question is unscientific." Benedict states that this reduces "the radius of science and reason", a reduction that should be questioned. This reduction of the spheres in which science and reason may operate has grave consequences. If theology conforms to this definition of "scientific" the result is a reduction of Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. Additionally, man ends up being reduced, "for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by "science" and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate." Put another way, under this system we choose our beliefs and ethics based primarily on our life experiences and our conscience, without giving necessary thought as to whether our beliefs are true. A community that is concerned with questions of God and ethics and learns from one another is not teneble since the core of religious and ethical beliefs consists of experiences and the subjective conscience which others do not share.
  
• The Pope concludes by stating that reason must not be limited to empirically verifiable matters, nor should faith be divorced from reason. Pope Benedict closes with why it is important that reason is married to faith: "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason...bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.

2. Is the Pope's argument true, or at least potentially true?

• At minimum, I believe that the Pope's argument is logically valid, although one might question his premises and the conclusion he draws. Whether each particular point he makes or example he draws in the speech is likely debatable and worthy of debate. Within the sphere of Christian theology and philosophy, his argument certainly appears to have merit. If God is a God of reason, and we are made in his image, then it is certainly possible that he wants us to use our reason as a tool of knowing Him more truly. Equally so, to the extent that a religion or worldview states that God is wholly separate from man and essentially unknowable, then a Christian should question that worldview, as the Christian God is one who took on flesh, dwelt among us, and reconciles us to God, and in fact dwells in those who are reconciled to God via the Holy Spirit. In the matter of morals, it is certainly worth investigating whether our reason means that we can in some sense comprehend the God who is good, and thus have an understanding of what the good is in our lives and what God truly desires. For these reasons, I believe that Pope Benedict acted properly in raising these issues.

3. What was the Pope's Purpose in making this speech?

• If the Pope sought to actively insult Muslims, or to cause violence, then he acted wrongly. However, the text of the speech and the argument as a whole do not point towards this as the overarching purpose of his address. Instead, the purpose was to address the interrelation of faith and reason; to state that God is both rational and good, and that in order to both know God and know what good is (and thus God's will) we must exercise our reason. He also states that what is considered rational cannot be limited to merely questions that can be empirically answered, for to do so means to fail to engage questions regarding the purpose of life. These purposes are good and noble, and thus one should not find the Pope guilty of an evil intent in making his speech.

(4) What was his purpose in including the quote from Manuel Paleologus that many Muslims found offensive?

• I think that the quotation of Paleologus was introduced for the purpose of giving a concrete historical example of the danger that results from relying on force and not reason in doing God's will and spreading His word. Certain segments of Islam, and the leadership of many Islamic countries have accepted the use of violence as being God's will. Pope Benedict could have taken a specific modern example out of saystatements of Bin Laden, but in doing so, his point may have been considered limited to him. However, he did not want to impugn all of modern Islam and its adherents. Thus, he drew a historical example that explained why Manuel Paleologus was debating issues of faith and reason. Throughout much of Paleologus' reign, he was occupied with defending the remnants of the Byzantine empire and Constantinople from Muslim attacks. (One begins to understand why the Emperor was hyperbolic regarding Islam.) To the extent that adherents of any religion, but here specifically Islam, use violence to spread the faith and do God's will, they bring things evil and inhuman. However, where Benedict failed in his speech is in failing to explain the context of Paleologus' quote being from a man who was constantly defending his city against Muslim attackers. Also, the Pope should have been clear that Paleologus' quote that Islam has only brought evil was false. However, to the extent that the sword is used to spread the faith (in the name of any religion) then this is contrary to God's will and does lead to things evil and inhuman.

(5) Was it prudent for the Pope to give the address as a whole, and to include the offending Paleologus quote?

• I believe that giving the address certainly was prudent and acceptable, but that the Pope's failure to fully explain the context of the Paleologus quote was not prudent. Thus, the clarification that the Pope made stating that the offending quote was not his belief, and his regret that he offended some Muslims was appropriate. The rest of the speech is nothing that should be apologized for, and in fact the offensive quote provides an example (when understood in historical context) of the very real issue of using violence rather than reason and love to spread religion.
  

Politics: Power of the Pump...And Maybe 9/11 Too

Gasoline prices are dropping, and whenever I pass a gas station and see that the prices have dropped further I grin slightly and think to myself some combination of "that's good" and "it's about time." Doing some very rough calculations, I note that in an average month I use around 40 gallons of gas, thus the drop in prices from the $3.15 level down to around $2.35 saves me around $30-$35 per month. Not an insubstantial amount, particularly for a person who receives a paltry salary from the Florida Senate. However, it is also fair to say that it is not a life-changing event, even for a person who uses twice the gasoline I do and may save up to $60 per month.

It is interesting to note that this week, President Bush's poll numbers appear to be on an upswing and currently stand at 44 percent. The poll numbers coincide not only with dropping gasoline prices but also with the national remembrance of the 9/11 attacks last weekend. I believe that both are factors in the upswing for Presidential support, but am inclined to think that in the November elections, gasoline prices may play a more important part in determining which party enjoys success, particularly if the numbers in the same survey showing an even split over whether the Iraq war was a mistake are not an aberration after the 9/11 remembrances. Service station signs are ubiquitous wherever a person goes, and driving along a road seeing sign after sign of drastically dropping prices after a previous surge in pricing is a constant repetitive statement that "things are improving." History proves that Americans generally vote their pocketbooks, all else being equal. Gas is the one commodity that almost every voter purchases, and it also has the most visible pricing signs of any item. Although larger economic issues, and foreign policy issues should be the primary issues of this election, do not underestimate the effect of gas prices on the result. If prices at the pump continue to drop over the next two months, those gas station price signs will send a subtle message to voters that causes them to think "things are getting better lately", a message that helps incumbents.

Sports: Slouching Towards Mediocrity

Clemson's 27-20 victory over FSU at Doak Campbell Stadium on Saturday was not surprising, other than the fact that Florida State remained close in a game in which it was largely outplayed. If not for a blocked extra point returned for a safety and a blocked field goal returned for a touchdown, the 'Noles would have found themselves down 17-0 at halftime, and likely would have lost by at least two touchdowns. Six years ago, an FSU loss at home to a good (but certainly not great) opponent at home would have been a shock. This year, it was expected, as most people I spoke with last week expected FSU to lose, including myself. A sort of malaise has hit the fans, who are resigned to the fact that Bobby Bowden will not remove his son Jeff from the Offensive Coordinator's job. I would not call it indifference, but most people have come to terms with the fact that FSU is no longer an elite program. This may not be a wholly bad thing, as there are more important matters in life. One positive is that circumventions of the Florida law that guards against nepotism in state hiring practices are now in public disfavor, as the wisdom of that statutory provision is demonstrated during most Saturdays during the fall.

The Blog is Back

Hello everyone, I have decided to make this blog active again, and plan to have a new post up each day of the week. Each day will have a new topic. Monday-Sports, Tuesday-Politics, Wednesday-News, Thursday-Wildcard, Friday-Arts and Entertainment, Saturday-Funtime, Sunday-Christianity. Feel free to comment, though I reserve the right to delete your comment if the language is salty or the content abhorrent. Thanks for checking things out and I hope to hear from you.

German Babies Hate George W. Bush.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Yahoo! News Photos

Much to the President's surprise, apparently.

Escalating Conflict Between Israel and Lebanon

CNN.com - Israel bombards Beirut�amid spiraling attacks - Jul 13, 2006

Bad news out of the middle east generally continues, as Israel is escalating a conflict with Lebanon/Syria due to some of the leaders of those countries being backers of Hezbollah. The conflict began to be exacerbated by each side retaliating for the other capturing prisoners, and has escalated with rocket attacks against Israeli sites and Israel not bombing the major airport in Beirut. This cannot lead anywhere good, quite frankly. A war is always to be avoided when possible, and I hope that people will pray that war will not be the result here, and that all parties involved will work toward a calming of hostilities.

CNN.com - Independence Day liftoff for Discovery - Jul 4, 2006

CNN.com - Independence Day liftoff for Discovery - Jul 4, 2006

It is certainly good news that the space shuttle launched successfully today. However, I continue to believe that if the United States believes that manned space flight is a worthwhile endeavour, it is well past time to focus on the creation of a new space vehicle. The space shuttle technology is from the 1970's, and as one commentator pointed out on ABC's World News Tonight yesterday, can you think of a single piece of equipment in your home that is from the 70's? I cannot.

March Madness

It is amazing the power of the little very low stakes competition at the office can do to people. Each of us has filled out an NCAA Tournament bracket, and all of a sudden everyone is obsessed with college basketball. As a big fan who watches a lot of games, it isn't a big deal to me, but put lunch on the line and all of a sudden some of the ladies in the office who would never watch a game or care are going nuts over games between teams they've never heard of. Which is great, of course. A little fun never hurt anyone. Did I mention that I am winning?

Movie Review: Syriana (*1/2 of 4: Poor to Fair)

Syriana, Stephen Gaghen's political thriller about the oil industry's interests in the Middle East, has one major problem. It is utterly boring. The movie's story is simplistic and without surprises. Various plotlines are introduced slowly over the first hour of the movie. Two oil companies plan to merge, but (of course) there have been payoffs along the way so the US government is investigating. The merging oil company downsizes, causing unemployment and leading young men to become Islamic martyrs. A kindharted crown prince of a middle eastern country wants to transform his country into a liberal, modern state, but the US wants to maintain control over the country's oil and wants him dead. There are more plotlines, but they are not particularly relevant. Everything that happens in these plotlines is perfectly predictable. Syriana is only considered complex or confusing because the various plotlines are revealed slowly in 5-10 minute snippets. So, you get a few minutes of corrupt oilmen planning their merger, then cut to the middle east and a CIA agent, then to the noble prince and so on, going back and forth throughout the movie.

Syriana fails because you know where everything is going. Will the noble crown prince be able to transform his middle eastern nation? Will the corrupt oil companies complete their merger? Well, given that this movie is clearly designed to be a "realistic portrayal" of the interplay between the oil industry and the middle east, you can easily guess. The acting in the movie is good, as George Clooney (CIA agent), Matt Damon (investment analyst), Alexander Siddig (Prince Nasir), and Mazhar Musin as the terrorist Nasim all portray their charaters with conviction. However, the direction and story fails them in the end, as the method of jumping back and forth among numerous plotlines fails to allow any of the characters to develop any complexity. So, when a political thriller is predictible, plodding, and doesn't intorducte any interesting or complex characters what you have, is a bad movie.

SNL Chronicles of Narnia Rap

This is quite humorous. I guess SNL still can turn out some funny material from time to time. (Nod to the website YouTube)

Indy Colts to meet their match

The Onion clearly has a very funny staff writer as part of their sports page. Click here for a hilarious article about the 12-0 Colts being forced to play the Harlem Globetrotters football squad.

The Best Christmas Special

USA Today has a wonderful article on the classic A Charlie Brown Christmas. The article details how many people were skeptical regarding the show's popularity when it was made and has interviews with many of the folks involved with its production. An early Christmas present from the folks at USA Today.

Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye!

No, this isn't my second Hariet Miers post in a row. Rather it is to bid farewell to another baseball season and a begrudging salute to the Chicago White Sox, who traditionally sing the song to opponents when a pitcher is removed or the Sox are victorious. The White Sox had a magical year where everything went well. All their starting pitchers were healthy throughout the season, and other than a fading Frank Thomas, most of the position players were healthy. In addition to being healthy, most everyone on the squad put up numbers that were at or above expectations. Credit goes to GM Kenny Williams who assembled a squad that had all the elements of a good team: a deep, quality starting pitching staff; live arms in the bullpen blending youth and experience; speed at the top of the lineup; plenty of home run power; excellent defense; execution of the fundamentals of the game; and an overall high level of athleticism on the squad. As a Cubs fan I can only hope that perhaps next year is our turn (The Red Sox had the third longest drought and won last year, the White Sox and the second longest and won this year). However, I am not counting on it unless the team gets another starter, middle relief help, and (most importantly) a leadoff hitter and some hitters at the top of the lineup who will consistently get on base for Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez. Yep, I'm already waiting 'till next year.

Pragmatic Politicians

The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has once again shown that politicians, including this White House, are generally pragmatists when it comes to the means by which they attempt to reach their goals. Ms. Miers is being marketed to Christians as an opponent of Roe v. Wade (I hope that she is) while at the same time others supportive of abortion are told that what she believes or her personal position does not necessarily provide proof on how she would render judgment in an abortion case. This is at odds with the obvious implication to Christians--that Ms. Miers' beliefs are an indicator of how she will decide a case. What does this mean? Well, the obvious--that a person had better listen to all the pronouncements that a politician makes upon a subject in attempting to discern what that person's position is on a matter. A good rule of thumb is that if a person is willing to say something to a group that he knows those listening will disagree with him on, then you have found that person's true position. If the person is unwilling to make the statement in front of certain audiences, then it is not among that person's deepest principles or beliefs.

Additionally, a politician is generally willing to state his core goals in front of any audience. For instance, George W. Bush is willing to state his policies regarding the War on Terror in unambiguous terms at any time. This indicates that this is a primary focus for him personally and his beliefs are deeply held. If President Bush soft pedaled his presentation for certain audiences or circumstances, then it would show that his position is either subject to change, or that certain of his statements on the matter are a means to a different end. The fact that this administration provides contrary arguments regarding the abortion issue with Ms. Miers is a strategic decision to get her confirmed to the court. Which indicates to me that in the Administration's eyes the abortion issue is not the primary reason why Harriet Miers should be on the court. Which is why when I watch her confirmation hearings, I am going to be looking for exactly why the administration wants her on the bench.

Return of the Web Log

After a two month hiatus brought on by a busy time at work, my blog will again be active and hopefully worth reading. I can promise you plenty of posts in the upcoming weeks. Whether that is a promise or a threat probably depends on how you view this blog!

Killearn DTS: Romans 15:14--16:27

In verse 14 of chapter 15, Paul begins winding down his letter to the church at Rome by paying the Christians in Rome the compliment of saying that they are full of goodness, complete in knowledge and competent to instruct one another. Wesley notes that they are full of goodness because of being born again in Christ and are complete in knowledge through long experience in the things of God. Paul states that he wrote boldly to the church at times in his letter because that is what God has called Paul to do—to be a minister of Jesus to the Gentiles and proclaim the gospel to them and thus aid in their becoming acceptable to God and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (v. 15-16). Calvin notes that in order to instruct someone with boldness and offer correction a person needs to be both kind and to have skill in offering useful advice. The latter is obviously necessary, for advice that consistently does not prosper a person will be quickly discarded. The former is necessary both because only a kind person will look to aid those around them, and kindness when giving the advice or correction will make the hearer more inclined to listen. Because of his calling to the Gentiles and the work God is performing in many of them through Christ and the Spirit, Paul glories in the person of Christ in his service to God. (v. 17). Paul’s focus on the person and works of Christ is so great that he wants only to speak of what Christ has done through Paul in leading the Gentiles to obey God by Paul’s works, often accompanied by signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. In obeying his calling, Paul traveled from Jerusalem to Illyricum (near present day Serbia) preaching the Gospel. (v. 18-19). Calvin points out that this passage shows that the purpose of signs and miracles is to serve as a display and testimony to the divine power of God and thus lead us to admire and adore God.

Paul declares that since being converted, his desire has always been to preach the gospel in areas where Christ was not known, so that he would not be building on the foundation of others. (v. 20). This desire is explained with a quote from Isa 52:15, which states that “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will not understand.” Thus it appears that Paul is not so much motivated by ambition, but rather to share the gospel with those who have not heard it. It is because of this desire, Paul explains, that he has often been hindered from visiting the church at Rome in person. (v. 22). However, now that he has fully proclaimed the gospel in that region, he plans to visit with the church at Rome on his way to Spain. (v. 23-24). However, Paul must first return to Jerusalem to present a gift from the churches at Macedonia and Achaia for the poor of the city. (v. 25-26). The believers in these gentile cities were happy to do it, as a way of repaying the Jews for the privilege God has given them to share in the spiritual heritage of the Jewish faith. (v. 27). Once this task is done, Paul will come and visit Rome in the full measure of the blessing of Christ. (v. 28-29). As Calvin notes, Paul is confident that his visit to the Romans will yield spiritual blessings to the church there.

Paul asks the Romans to join in his ministry by praying to God for him, that he will be rescued from unbelievers when he journeys back to Jerusalem, and that his service once there will be acceptable to the saints (believers) there. (v. 30-31). As Calvin notes, if Paul was willing to ask for the prayers of others to aid him, we would be stupid not to do the same in our lives. Paul asks for these prayers so that by God’s will he will come to Rome with joy and will join with the church there in being refreshed. (v. 32). Paul concludes his request for prayer with a quick prayer for the church at Rome, that God will be with them. (v. 33).

Paul concludes his letter with personal greetings that he asks will be passed along to individuals and households in Rome. He begins these by asking that the church receive Phoebe, a deaconess from the church in Cenchrea (port city near Corinth). He commends Phoebe to them, saying that she has been a great help to many people, including Paul himself and asks the church to help her if need be. (v. 1-2). Wesley and Calvin both state that it is Phoebe who is delivering this letter to the Romans. Paul asks for many people to be greeted, including a large number of women believers. Of note are Priscilla and Aquilla (husband and wife, see Acts 18:2), fellow tentmakers who risked their lives for Paul, and Andronicus and Junicas who were in prison with Paul. (v. 3-15). Paul states that all the churches of Christ send their greetings to the church at Rome. (v. 16).

Paul warns the Romans to watch out for persons who cause divisions and place obstacles that are contrary to the instruction in the gospel that they have learned. Paul is quite blunt that such persons are to be avoided because they do not serve the Lord Christ, but rather themselves and their appetites. The false teachers use smooth talk and flattery to deceive the minds of the naïve. (v. 17-18). Calvin is correct in noting that a false prophet can be identified by the fact they concern for themselves first and foremost, rather than for Christ and the good of others. Paul warned about false teachers numerous times, including in Galatians 1:8 and 1 Tim 1:3. Paul states that everyone has heard about the obedience to Christ shown by the saints at Rome, and that he is full of joy over their obedience. Nevertheless, he wants them to be wise about what is good and innocent about what is evil. (v. 19). Paul concludes with en exhortation that God will soon crush Stan under their feet and praying that the grace of “our Lord Jesus be with you.” (v. 20) He passes on greetings of others with him, including Timothy. (v. 21-24). Paul ends with a benediction of praise to God. God, who is able to establish the believer through the gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ. God, who has revealed the mystery of his purpose of redeeming mankind through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Who commanded that these events be prophesied for the purpose of bringing all nations to believe and obey God. That this only wise God be glorified forever through Jesus Christ. (v. 25-27).

Further Evidence Of The Need For A New Spacecraft

If the fact that the shuttle continues to have debris rain from it is not enough to convince you of the need for a new spacecraft (one is in development) and to scrap the shuttle ASAP, read how they plan to repair the bottom of the spacecraft:

(By PAM EASTON, Associated Press Writer)

NASA says the protruding material on Discovery's belly could cause dangerous overheating during re-entry and lead to another Columbia-type disaster.

The agency planned to put astronaut Stephen Robinson on the end of the space station's 58-foot robotic arm Wednesday for the improvised maneuver. Astronauts inside the station will maneuver the arm so Robinson can reach the shuttle's belly. Once there, he'll tug out the ceramic-fabric filler with his gloved hands.

If that doesn't work, he'll use a makeshift hacksaw to cut away the material, which is sticking out about an inch from two spots near Discovery's nose. The saw was improvised out of a blade, plastic ties, duct tape, Velcro and other items aboard the space station. "I am pretty comfortable with using tools very carefully," Robinson said early Tuesday during a crew news conference. "But no doubt about it, this is going to be a very delicate task. But as I say, a simple one." The protruding bits of gap filler are small — one is about the thickness of an index card and the other is the size of three index cards bonded together.

"There won't be any yanking going on at all," Robinson said. "It will be a gentle pull with my hand. If that doesn't work, I have some forceps. I will give it a slightly more than gentle pull. If that doesn't work, I saw it off with a hacksaw."

See the whole article here

Killearn DTS Romans 14:14--15:13

Verse 14 of chapter 14 is Paul's statement that he is convinced that as a Christian, no food is unclean in and of itself. However, if a person believes something to be unclean, then for that person it is. This was revealed to Peter in Acts 10, and Jesus had declared all foods clean (contrary to the old Jewish law) in Mark 7: 19-23. Jesus based His teaching on the moral fact that what a man thinks in his heart and his actions are what make him unclean--unable to be acceptable to God--not what a person eats. Paul continues in Romans by saying if a fellow Christian is distressed by the eating of food that person considers unclean, then it should not be eaten because it harms that fellow Christian. By harming others through the exercise of Christian freedom, what should be considered a good thing--freedom in Christ through the abolition of the law--may be considered evil because it ends up harming others. (v. 15-16) As Wesley somewhat humorously put it, we should not value our meat over he for whom Christ died. Paul explains both why Christ abolished the dietary laws of the Old Testament and why Christians should also consider the weaknesses of those around them when acting with regard to such matters in verses 17-18. "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit, because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men." Calvin points out that not only do we have freedom in Christ from the external rules of the law, but we also have freedom not to exercise our freedom if doing so would harm others. He additionally notes that Paul states that the kingdom of God consists of righteousness--the nature of which is what is in the heart--and then describes what freedom from the law and a relationship with God and Christ brings. Peace and joy through the Holy Spirit.

--What do you suppose are some of the possible reasons why God declared some foods to be unclean for His chosen people? Paul states that though all foods are clean for the Christian, if a person believes a food unclean, then it is unclean for that person. Why is that the case and what does this show regarding what type of obedience God finds important? Why is it important that our actions not be regarded as evil? What are some of the ways this teaching about the cleanliness of food could be abused? How would you counter an improper use of this teaching?

We are to make every effort to do what leads to peace among Christians and mutual edification, not destroying the good that God is doing in the church community for the sake of food. (v. 19-20). In the end, it is better to abstain from eating food or do other acts than to cause others to fall. (v. 21) Luther rightly points out that Christian freedom should be used to help, not harm the week. When the latter is done, it leads to dissension and despising of the Gospel. Perhaps this is because such acts are selfishly motivated, while using Christian freedom to help others is outwardly motivated. Whatever the Christian believes regarding such a matter should be a private matter between that person and God. It is true that the person who does not feel condemned by unnecessary scruples is blessed. However, if a person has scruples then he should not eat, because his act is not motivated by faith, and all that does not come from faith is sin. (v. 22-23).

--How should difficulties regarding scruples be resolved among Christians? Why does Paul say that all that does not come from faith is sin?

People who are strong in the faith and understand that the OT law has been abolished should bear with the failings of others and not please themselves. The goal should be to build up our neighboors. (v. 1-2). As Wesley and Calvin both explain, those who have greater discernment into the Lord are to exercise that discernment to help others. For even Christ did not please Himself with his life, similar to what is described in Psalm 69:9. (v. 3). Calvin explains that in the Psalm, the prophet states that his zeal for God is so great that when the ungodly insult God, hit hurts him. In a similar fashion, Christ took upon himself the work of God to the extent that He humbled himself to an amazing degree. The scriptures, such as the cite from Psalm 69:9 provides encouragement for Christians, so that we might have hope. (v. 4).

--What does it mean to be "strong" in the faith? How can those who are strong be identified? How is Christ's strength an example for us in helping others? How do the scriptures provide encouragement and hope?

Paul begins Rom 15: 5 with a prayer that God will give the church at Rome a spirit of unity, along with endurance and encouragement, as the church follows Christ. The purpose of this is for the church to glorify God. (v. 6). Christians are to accept on another, in the same way we have been accepted by Christ, in order to bring praise to God. (v. 7) Christ was sent to the Jews to testify to the truthfulness of God and the promises He made to the patriarchs, so that in the end the Gentiles would glorify God. (v. 8-9). Wesley points out that the name Jesus Christ refers both to the name Jesus--by which he is known to the Gentiles, and Christ--his office towards the Jewish people. When Jesus is refered to as Christ, then the author is emphasizing his being the Messiah. Likely it is done here to because Paul is emphasizing God's working through Christ throughout history which culminated in the Gospel being brought to the gentiles and the establishment of the church. Paul then quotes Old Testament scriptures showing that God desires the Gentiles to be in relationship with Him, and quotes the prophecy in Isaiah 11:10 that Christ would rise and that the Gentiles would put their hope in him. (v. 10-12). Paul's desire is that God will fill all with joy and peace as we trust in Him, so that we may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit. (15:13).

Time For New Space Vehicle

Given the fact that 2 Space Shuttles have blown up already, and that the billion dollars spent to "ensure the shuttle is safe" have not been able to even fix what appears to be the exact same problem that fatally wounded Columbia, it is time for the US to scrap the shuttle program and develop a new space vehicle. The shuttle's basic design is based on 1970's technology and given all the development in technology over the past 30 years, one would hope that a more effective, useful and safe orbiter could be developed. The development of a new orbiter would also be a boon to the aerospace industry, likely have military benefits and create thousands of jobs. Additionally, the development and creation of a new spacecraft with improved capabilities (perhaps by the creation of a vehicle that can perform the shuttle's current task of Earth orbit while also being adaptable for further travel) would create new interest in the space program and reinvigorate it, while also proving an inspiration for youngsters. Let's all pray that Discovery returns safely to Earth and then make this the last shuttle flight, focusing our efforts and monies on a new spacecraft for the 21st century.

Killearn DTS Romans 14: 9-13

DTS friends, I apologize for not posting this before heading up to KY. I typed it out and must have accidentally hit the save button, and not the button to post it. Here it is now, doing only half the job that L.G. did last week.

In verses 7 and 8, Paul states that no Christian lives unto himself or dies unto himself. We life for the Lord and at His pleasure, and when we die, we belong to the Lord. Because each person belongs to the Lord, Paul teaches earlier in chapter 14 that Christians should not judge or look down on other Christians if they have different beliefs on non-essential matters of the faith. In verse 9, Paul states that "for this end" Christ died and rose and lived again for the purpose that he might be the Lord of both the living and the dead. As Calvin puts it, Christ earned authority over us by paying the great price of death on a cross, and by showing his authority over death via His resurrection. Given the fact that we all belong to Christ, we should not judge or show contempt for our Christian brothers, for all stand before Christ's judgment seat as stated in Isaiah 45:23. (v. 10-11). Calvin states our judging our fellow Christians makes about as much sense as a criminal attempting to ascend to climb into the judge's chair and exercise his authority. In the end, each one of us gives an account of himself to God. (v. 12). For that reason, we should not judge one another but instead resolve the differences we have so that we do not create stumbling blocks to the faith of others. (v. 13).

Killearn DTS Romans 13: 8 Through 14: 8

Chapter 13 begins with Paul explaining that the Christian must submit himself to the governmental authorities and not believe that he is above the law. Generally, the government is established to maintain order in society and punish wrongdoers, and to the extent a government is properly exercising these functions (punishing evildoers and "commending" Christians and other in society for right actions) the Christian should not run afoul of it. After explaining to the church in Rome how to get along with the secular authorities, Paul gives advice on how to live among one another. The rest of Ch. 13 is perhaps best read as a continuation of the practical advice Paul gives in Ch. 12. In v. 8, Paul says that no debts among believers should be left outstanding, except the ongoing debt we have to love one another. It is in the continual payment of that debt that a person fulfills the Old Testament law, or at least as Calvin puts it, the aspects of the law contained in the 2nd half of the Ten Commandments and summarized by Jesus as "Love your neighbor as yourself." All the various commands of the law telling us not to commit adultery, murder, steal, covet, and the rest are summed up by the command of Leviticus 19:18, which Jesus quoted when telling us to love our neighbor. (v. 9). Wesley notes that Paul is saying that if we love those around us and seek their good, we will obey the various commandments of God. As Paul tells us in verse 10, love does no harm to its neighbor, therefore it is the fulfillment of the law.

--Why is it important not to leave debts outstanding? What barriers can not making a debt good build between people and what principles does it violate? What are the key aspects of the love Paul is speaking of that enable it to automatically conform to the various rules of the Bible? Does the fact that love is the fulfillment of the law indicate that a purpose of the OT law was to help people love on another?

Paul tells his readers to do this in light of the fact that salvation has drawn closer than when the believers first believed. Two possible interpretations can be made here. Traditionally, Paul's reference to salvation drawing closer is a reference to the fact that as time goes on, each person moves closer toward the salvation that only comes after death. Wesley and Calvin read the passage in this way. Some modern interpreters think that Paul believed in the imminent second coming of Christ. If this is so, it does not harm the interpretation of these verses, since here he is using the possibility of an imminent second coming as a motivator towards obeying the teachings in this letter. The Revelation tells us to always eagerly anticipate Christ's return to earth (Rev 22: 17-21) and thus Paul's attitude falls in line with the eager anticipation of Christ's return. In the end, the important point is to realize that life is fleeting, our salvation may be imminent, and thus we should act as living sacrifices for the God we follow. Paul states in verse 12 that since the night is almost over and the day almost here, we should put aside deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. Our life on earth is compared with the night, while the resurrection is the dawn of a new day. Wesley is worth quoting at length here. "[W]e are to awake out of sleep; to rise up and throw away our night clothes, fit only for darkness, and put on new; and being soldiers, we are to arm, and prepare for fight, for we are encompassed by so many enemies. The day dawns when we receive faith...[t]hen it is time to rise, to arm, to walk, to work, lest sleep steal upon us again. Final salvation, glory, is nearer to us now than when we first believed. It is continually advancing, flying forward upon the swiftest wings of time. And that which remains between the present hour and eternity is comparatively but a moment." Paul continues by telling the reader in v. 13 to behave decently, as a person would in the daytime. Thus, there should not be sexual immorality, drunkenness, debauchery, dissension, and jealousy. (v. 13). Instead, we are to clothe ourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ and not think about how to gratify the sinful nature. (v. 14).

--Does the teaching Paul gives in these verses remind of you of other teaching he made in other letters? If so, which ones?

After telling the Christian that he must offer himself as a living sacrifice to God and love his neighbor as himself, Paul begins a lengthy teaching on the importance of accepting those in the community of faith whose faith is weak. Christians must accept those around them whose faith is weaker than their own, and do so without passing judgment on that person with regard to disputable matters. (v. 1) It is important to understand from the context that will follow, Paul considers "weak faith" to be of the type that has unnecessary scruples regarding spiritual practices such as eating certain foods, holding certian holidays. It may seem counterintuitive to consider such things as a hallmark of a weak faith, but remember that Paul has spent much of the letter explaining why faith in Christ is sufficient for salvation, and that outward works and conformity to the Old Testament law accomplishes nothing. Paul is trying to get his readers to simplify their relationship with God. Believe in Jesus Christ, love God, love those around you. Everything else in the spiritual life will fall into place if these things are done. Therefore, if a person seemed to think that eating certain foods would make God angry (as in the Jewish religious code) then this is a sign that person has yet to attain the full faith necessary to put aside this old way of thinking and instead rely fully on Jesus Christ for salvation through faith. Returning to the text, Paul explains that one man may have faith that allows him to eat anything, while another man eats on vegetables for religious reasons. (v. 2). Neither man should look down on the other, for God has accepted each. (v. 3). We should not judge one other, for each Christian is the servant of God and thus serves Him. To his own master he will either stand or fall, and if that person is truly a Christian, he will stand for the Lord is able to make him stand. (v. 4).

--What are disputable matters in the church? What are indisputable matters? We are told not to judge others. What exactly does it mean to judge another person? Does that mean we cannot correct others? Why do you think that most everyone rebels strongly against the judgment of others? What picture of the sustaining grace of God do we get from verse 4?

Paul shows that he is assuming that the person who is "strong" or "weak" in the faith acts out of good motives. He is not defending the person who is rebelling against God and acting badly and yet wants those around him to accept his behavior because we are not allowed to judge. Rather, Paul states that the person who has scruples and the person that does not with regard to holy days or other issues should be fully convinced intellectually of the truthfulness of his belief (v. 5), and as Calvin states, be also convinced that his viewpoint is pleasing to God. The person who has scruples, and the person without them, should perform such acts unto the Lord as acts of worship and give thanks. (v. 6). Calvin makes a good point when he notes that Paul is telling the Christian to consider his acts before the tribunal of God, and thus if a person truly does so, it will restrain that person from acting sinfully or making mistakes of judgment. We must do our acts unto the Lord for no person lives only for himself alone, or even dies for himself alone. (v. 7). As C.S. Lewis put it, either God or the Devil will say "mine" to each thing in creation in the end. God is in the end sovreign over His creation. If we live, we live in submission to the Lord. And if we die, we die in submission to the Lord's wishes. For the same God created man and placed upon each man the curse of death. As such, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. (v. 8).

--If there are things you refrain from doing out of a belief that God does not want you to engage in that action, what are your reasons for this decision? Is there any potential value in having a church community where different people have different beliefs regarding non-essential matters? How should the fact that God is our sovreign (whether we live or die, we belong to him) affect the way we act?

Killearn DTS Romans 13: 1-7

The obedience that is due governmental authorities from a Christian is Paul's subject in Romans 13: 1-7. As Wesley points out, since the epistle is directed to the church at Rome--the seat of power--the question is especially pertinent to this church. Additionally, the Jewish people were chafing under Rome's rule, a situation that would eventually result in a Jewish rebellion that eventually was crushed and destroyed the Jerusalem temple in 70 A.D. The instructions are also important to all believers in the church as the Romans often suspected the Christians of being treasonous since they would not swear fealty to the Roman gods, but only to Christ alone. As such, Wesley states that the letter also serves as a public defense of the Christian religion that attempts to show that Christians are not formenting rebellion against the empire.

Paul begins (v. 1) by saying that all persons must be obedient to the higher powers. Two powers are mentioned. First, there is the supreme power of God. Second, God in his supreme power establishes the governmental authorities. Those that resist the governmental authorities therefore resisit the ordinance of God and are subject to punishment from God. With regard to the governmental authorities, Wesley states that the governmental authorities are subordinate to and their authority thus is worthy of Christian obedience. Calvin notes that all persons must be obedient to the authorities, and that all leaders have been placed in their position by God's hand. With regard to tyrannies and unjust ruleers, Calvin states such governments are disordered and thus not ordained by God.

--What does it mean that God establishes the governmental authorities? Does He establish all governmental authorities directly as part of His plan, or are some tyrannies allowed to exist but not actually established by God? Calvin states that tyrannies are not ordained by God. Do you agree? Explain your thoughts on the matter.

Paul continues by giving practical advice regarding the government, its useful, and the proper Christian response. Governments do not act against good works, but rather evil ones. Thus, the Christian who does good should not fear the government, which will look kindly upon those who are doing good within society. (v. 3). As such, the magistrate is a minister of God sent for our benefit if we do good, but a minister of wrath to us if we do evil who bears the sword not in vain. (v. 4). According to Calvin, governments are established for the public order and good, to provide safety to good people and restrain wickedness. Opposing this function is tantamount to opposing the good of humanity. Calvin also says that even a wicked magistrate should be obeyed, however, since such a person is sent as a punishment from God for our sins. Wesley says that Paul's instructions are generally true, but that some governments are exceptions to the teaching in verse 3. Both Wesley and Calvin state that verse 4 refers to capital punishment, which each believes God authorizes to be inflicted.

--If a government acts against good works and supports evil, would the Christian be freed from obeying it? Paul says the purpose of governmental authorities is to restrain evil and allow good to flourish. What other purposes, if any, are there? Do you agree with Calvin that wicked rulers are sent as a punishment from God? Does v. 4 authorize capital punishment?

The governmental authorities should be obeyed not only for practical reasons such as avoiding punishment, but also for conscience sake. (v. 5) The Christian is also to pay taxes for the public good. (v. 6). In the end, we should render the proper respect and actions to the governmental authorities by paying taxes and customs, and obeying and honoring those who have power. (v. 7). As Wesley states, obedience to God is important here. Calvin notes here in his commentary that the discourse Paul is giving applies only to legitigimate authorities and is inapplicable to tyrannies that try to rule over the consciences of men. Interestingly, Luther says that we are to be subject to the secular authorities for practical reasons, and that doing so does not make us virtuous in God's sight. Calvin states that obedience is an acceptable service to God.

--It appears that a Christian is required to pay taxes for the public good. Does this mean the IRS is God's holy instrument? What does this indicate about the authority of government to lvy taxes? Who do you agree with regard to the spiritual benefit of obedience to authority--Luther or Calvin? In the end, does this passage teach that Christians must be obedient to the governmental authorities regardless of their actions? Explain your answer. If you do not think so, state what acts of a government would cause it to forfeit its right to our obedience?

DTS for Sunday June 26th Cancelled

See you again in July with Romans 13

Air Force Academy Flies Past Religious Intolerance Charge

It is good to hear that that the US Air Force Academy was not found to be a hotbed of evangelical Christian intolerance by an investigating panel. One of the more egregious acts of a campus chaplain was to tell new cadets to be born again or risk the fires of Hell. While that may be a bit extreme and probably should be moderated, one would hope that our future military leaders can handle the occassional heavy handed tactic by clergy. Other "charges" by the report border on the ludicrous. Apparently some have complained that chaplains have had the gall to pressure cadets to "attend religious services and receive theological training." Shocking! A chaplain telling folks to go to church and learn about their religion. Wow, clearly these chaplains need to understand that all roads lead to God, not make any recommendations regarding the spiritual life since feeling that God loves you is what is important, and become well-mannered ministers of secularism. Of course, the chaplains and cadets at the academy should respect the various religious and non-religious viewpoints of others. At the same time, however, if the Air Force wants to have religious chaplains it needs to be willing to let those folks express their religious creeds to those around them, for as too many secularists forget, tolerance is a two-way street.

Klansman Reminder of Southern Church's Heritage

The manslaughter conviction of Edgar Ray Killen for the 1964 killings of three civil rights workers in Mississippi hopefully brings a measure of justice for the deaths of three young men (1 black and 2 white) who were murdered by a group of Klansmen for aiding the cause of ending segregation. In addition to his Klan membership, Killen was also an ordained Baptist minister. As most everyone is aware, many churches in the south during the civil rights era actively opposed the battle to end segregation. In a sad indictment of the Christian church of the time, Martin Luther King, Jr. had anticipated that white clergymen would see the rightness of the cause of black equality both under the law and in human hearts and that southern white churches would support his movement. However, many churches instead actively opposed the movement and never came en masse to effect change, leaving King disappointed and disillusioned. While few white churches in the south are actively racist today, the sins committed by Christians during the civil rights period continue to have long standing effects on the church today. Most churches remain racially segregated today, limiting the effectiveness the church has in enacting the social components of the gospel. And much of society looks at the moral stands that many theologically traditional southern churches take today against abortion, sexual immorality, and other issues and simply think that it is the same hateful, intolerant attitude of the 60's expressed in different ways. Granted, there are reasonable answers to this charge that I think are sufficient to rebut it, but the lesson to learn is that the wages of sin often are not only death, but last for generations thereafter.

Killearn DTS Romans 12: 9-21

After commenting on the use of spiritual gifts within the church, Paul provides rules of conduct or Christian living that are to be followed by believers. First, he writes that love must be sincere. Calvin notes that often many people put on a false face when dealing with others and that this must be put aside. Additionally, we are told to cling to those things that are good, and hate evil. (v. 9). Christians are to love one another with brotherly love, and honor one another above ourselves. (v. 10). Wesley gives the practical advice that we should consider what is good in others in evil in ourselves, which will lead us to do this. The Christian should not lack in zeal, but instead maintain his or her spiritual fervor (v. 11). Wesley and Calvin both apply this verse to our work in business. Paul then gives an exortation to be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, and faithful in prayer. Wesley and Calvin both say that the hope of eternal life is important in doing these things, and Wesley adds the hope of holiness. (v. 12) Christians should help fellow believers in need and practice hospitality. (v. 13). As Calvin notes, when we help those in need, we cannot expect a personal gain and thus such service helps to show the legitimacy of our love.

--Why is Paul concerned that Christians act in sincere love with one another? What is the brotherly love that Paul exorts us to? Is it difficult to maintain spiritual fervor, and how should we maintain it? What is the importance of hospitality?

Paul provides rules for living in harmony, some of which are difficult. He tells us to bless those who persecute us and not to curse. This, Calvin notes, is arduous and wholly opposed to the nature of man. (v. 14). We are also to rejoice with those who are rejoicing, and mourn with those in mourning. (v. 15). We are to live in harmony with one another and associate with people of low positions, not being conceited. (v. 16). The Christian is not to repay retaliate for evil with an evil act. Additionally, we are to attempt to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone. (v. 17). To the extent it is possible, Christians are to live in peace with those around us. (v. 18). Revenge should not be taken by the Christian, but instead the matter should be left to God, and we should treat our enemies kindly for it will often have the effect of showing him his bad behavior and tormenting him. (v. 19-20). To summarize, we are not to be overcome by evil, but rather overcome evil with good. (v. 21).

--How is it that we are to bless those that persecute us? Why is it important that we rejoice and mourn in community, and what does doing such things indicate about ourselves? Do our churches today associate with people of low position? What benefits do such association provide to individuals and communities? Why is it important to do the right thing in the eyes of everyone? What is "the extent possible" that Paul limits the requirement that Christians live in peace with those around them? Why should revenge be saved for God? Is Paul right that right kind actions against our enemies can torment them? When we retaliate in evil, how is it that we are thus overcome by evil? How is it that evil is overcome by good?

Wierd Scientology

With all the hulabaloo surrounding Tom Cruise's acting like a cheshire cat on methamphetamines while publicising his relationship with Katie Holmes, the religion/cult/scam of scientology has been in the news quite a bit. HERE is a link to a well known 1990 Time magazine cover story on the group. A good photo of the cover art can be found here. The Scientologists apparently sued over this one, but the US Supreme Court denied their petition. I don't think I'll be joining anytime soon. I don't have the money.

Killearn DTS Romans 12: 3-8

After proclaiming that every Christian is to present his or her body as a living sacrifice onto God (live a life dedicated towards God as His servant), Paul states that the Christian should "not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you." Calvin states that Paul is not here giving a general teaching promoting humility, though he does recommend it often throughout his epistles. In this passage, Paul is telling the members of the Church to accurately assess their own abilities and role in the community accurately, which involves having humility and discernment in being honest with one's self. This can be seen from the following verses (4-8) which talk about the various roles in the church.

In verses 4-8, Paul teaches that the church is a diverse community of people with different talents working in a unified fashion and serving as the body of Christ on Earth. Paul compares the church community to our own bodies, which have various different parts that each have a function, but are still all part of the same body. In much the same way, the people of the church form one body in wich each member belongs to the others. (v. 5). Because we are one body, we are to help one another. The members of the church body have different abilities that are gifts from God. As Calvin notes, accepting that different members of the community are more gifted in some areas than ourselves takes humility. The first gift Paul mentions is the gift of prophesy, which Wesley states is where "heavenly mysteries are revealed to men." Prophesy is to be undertaken in proportion to the person's faith. It is interesting that both Wesley and Calvin interpret this verse as referring to the exposition of scripture, with Calvin stating that it is being able to discern the will of God and not necessarily making predictions. (v. 6). Paul then mentions other gifts. A person who serves should do so. A person who can teach should serve the church by doing so. An encouraging person should act on that ability. A person who can help meet the needs of others should give generously. A leader should govern diligently. A person who shows mercy should do so cheerfully. (v. 7-8).

--What are the abilities that you have as a Christian? Weaknesses? How should you act upon your abilities? How should you act with regard to your weaknesses?

--What do each of the gifts mentioned here bring to a church and why are they important? What other gifts can you think of that are important?

Florida Voucher Program Before Supreme Court

Florida's Opportunity Scholarship school voucher program, which provides roughly a $4,000 yearly stipend to the parents of children who are attending failing public schools for the purpose of sending them to a private school, is being challenged before the Florida Supreme Court today. (SEE HERE) The program is of limited scope as only students who attend double F public schools are eligible to qualify. To date, only 741 students have taken advantage of vouchers. However, as Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas POINTS out, if the Opportunity Scholarship program is found unconstitutional other voucher programs such as the McKay Scholarship Program which serves over 12,000 students may also be found unconsitutional, along with the newly enacted pre-K program and perhaps the Bright Futures scholarship program.

The most likely ground for a finding of unconstitutionality is Art I, Sect. 3 of the Florida Constitution, which states that "[n]o revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or inderectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." It is likely that the state will defend the voucher program by drawing a distinction that the money is not going to aid the sectarian institutions (religious schools) but rather to aid students who control where the money is spent and are free to go to a non-religious private school. I would also expect the state to argue that since Art I, Sect. 3 begins with a statement prohibiting laws that establish religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion, this language should be considered the overarching purpose of the section and must be read in conjunction with the prohibition against state funds. Thus, the argument would be that the voucher program does not establish or prohibit the free exercise of religion, is not provided for the purpose of benefiting a sectarian instution, and thus is constitutionally permissible.

My job does not permit me to comment too strongly on an issue such as this, but let me say that I was struck by the large pro-voucher demonstration that I viewed outside my office window this morning. It had probably close to 2,000 people taking part, and racial minorities were the predominant protestors. To the extent that we continue to spend our money for new schools by placing them in affluent (largely white) neighborhoods, at some point we must provide access to high quality education for less affluent (and often more diverse) populations. Simply saying "public education is great and nothing is wrong" is not satisfactory. At least the protestors outside my window this morning don't think so. And I tend to agree with them.

Killearn DTS: Romans 12: 1-2

In the first 11 Chapters of Romans, Paul presents the reader with a historical and theological account of God's dealings with humanity. He explains why salvation is necessary, why it must be through grace, and how God is dealing with his chosen people of Israel now that the gospel of Jesus Christ has appeared. Beginning in Chapter 12, Paul changes tracks and gives practical, pastoral advice on why and how Christians are to live holy lives, and what it means to live a life of virtue and goodness. Chapter 12 begins with one of the most well known passages of scripture. Paul states that in light of the gospel of grace and all the kindness and mercy of God, we are to present our bodies as living sacrifices before God that are holy and pleasing to Him. Wesley notes that Paul says that it is because of God's mercy that we should offer our bodies as a living sacrifice, which is the converse of Romans 1: 8 where Paul says God is revealing his wrath against all forms of ungodliness. Calvin states that when Paul writes that we are to present our bodies as a living sacrifice to God, this refers to the whole person including the soul and spirit. Offering ourselves as a living sacrifice is the reasonable act of service that we are to present before God, says Calvin, and is a summary statement of how the Christian is supposed to live his or her life.

In addition to offering ourselves as living sacrifices, Paul tells us in v. 2 to not conform to the patterns of this world, but instead renew our minds in order that we may be able to discern that which is good, namely the will of God. As Calvin put it, our minds need to be renovated. Wesley adds that the good Paul is referring to that is the will of God are precepts of Christianity, or the rules for day to day living. God sets out before his people His will for how they are to live their lives, and the application of the rules in various contexts is a large part of what true wisdom entails.

--What type of living sacrifice does God find acceptable? What needs to be the condition of the sacrifice? What does it mean to offer ourselves as a living sacrifice? What aspects of the Christian's life should be offered?

--What are some of the patterns of this world that Paul refers to in v. 2? How is it that we are to renew our minds? What will this entail? What types of knowledge are we free to pursue under Christianity?

Movie Review: Cinderella Man (****)

Cinderella Man is an excellent movie, and likely will be the best major studio release from Hollywood this year. The movie tells the story of James J. Braddock, a heavyweight contender of the 1920's and 30's. The movie introduces us to Braddock (Russell Crowe) as an up and coming fighter who ends up with a shot at the light-heavyweight title in 1929, and who lives in comfort with his wife and family in their New Jersey home. However, Braddock is unable to win the title, later breaks his hand and eventually had his boxing license revoked after the Great Depression began. The combination of the economic collapse along with Braddock's inability to box forces the family to live in poverty, unable to afford food or pay electril bills during the New York winter. The Great Depression was a horribly difficult time for millions of Americans, and Cinderalla man succeds at showing us the poverty and desperation of the period. Despite the tough times, Braddock's wife Mae (Renee Zellwegger) lovingly stands by her man. Through some good fortune, Braddock re-emerges in 1934 and '35 as a top contender culminating in a title bout with heavyweight champion Max Baer. The film is directed by Ron Howard, who may have the honor of winning another best picture to go along with A Beautiful Mind.

Cinderella Man accomplishes a wonderful thing. It presents the moviegoer with a portrait of a kind and decent family man in James J. Braddock. Braddock is both a loving husband to his wife Mae and a doting father to their three children Jay, Rosemarie, and Howard. Russell Crowe is brilliant in his portrayal of the man, presenting us with a kind, morally upright man who has self-respect but not arrogance, and displays wisdom in his actions. Braddock understands the importance of loving and supporting his family, and when he stages his comeback, he is motivated by putting milk on his family's table. Braddock is a wonderful example of what a man and a father should be, something sorely missing from today's cynical movies that assume every moral, good man must have skeletons in his closet.

Cinderella Man is beautifully shot, well directed and features multiple outstanding acting jobs. In addition to Russell Crowe's outstanding portrayal of Braddock, Renee Zellwegger turns in a good performance as Mae Braddock, who loves her husband and family with all her heart, but like Adrian from Rocky, fears for her husband's life in the ring. Mae is a strong woman, but Zellwegger is at her best when displaying her love and affection for her husband. Paul Giamatti of Sideways fame portrays Braddock's wise-cracking manager Joe Gould, and he and Crowe present us with an excellent portrayal of male friendship and you can see genuine affection between the numerous wisecracks and barbs the two men share. Craig Bierko also does a nice job in his small role as the charismatic Max Baer.

The old cliche is "If you are going to see only one movie this year, see (insert movie here)." Well, insert "Cinderella Man" at the end of that sentence. It is a movie that is well acted, well shot, well written, dramatic, and carries positive messages about family and perserverance. It's a knockout.