Lefty Evangelicals, Obama, McCain and Election 2008 (Part 1)

In the grand contest between the Democrats and the Republicans it is clear that the evangelicals will count. As many have noted before, the evangelicals are not perceived as nearly as monolithic as voting block as they were in the last presidential election between George Bush and John Kerry. There is a new group within, outside of, and far to the left of those evangelicals that twice helped elect George W. Bush to office making their presence widely known. Simply the fact that this is perceived to be the case is a major shift in understanding of the issue by the politicos and talking heads of the world, especially those in Washington, DC. This group, or rather group of groups goes by many names. We will explore some of their leading figures and thoughts in postings to come, but before we get to that there are some other interesting observations to be made.

First, the evidence of this shift is partially shown in the wide acclaim and derision that many edges of this movement are getting from all sides. This is especially apparent in the coverage that the issue continues to get in the press, but also in other mediums such as books, blogs, comedy venues and face time spent by the campaigns on the issues. As we look at some of the leading figures we’ll address some of the reactions in specific venues to their actions. To make the point solid: Check out this link at Fox News . I despise Fox News for its bias, but the fact that they continue to give the issue such coverage is telling.

I have a thesis to defend in this. I think the left leaning evangelicals, or those recently associated with the movement but who have moved on to different monikers (emergent church, missional church, post evangelicals, mosaic church, urban church, progressive Christians, etc) or none at all, will prove crucial in the election. The candidates ignore this group at their peril.

What do you think?

Stay tuned…

Beauty (Part 1)

Here is a little beauty for you to enjoy.

Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Concord, Massachusetts

Transparency: Is it a Virtue?

This is an interesting question to me. Is there virtue in transparency? Is transparency a virtue? It occurs to me that transparency is a piece of truthfulness, thus an opaque person, action, or thought must bend the knee to transparency to be completely truthful. However, the opposite of being completely truthful is not necessarily deception or evil of any sort. Indeed, the better part of wisdom, grace, tact, mercy and sometimes even love is limited truthfulness.

Therefore, it seems to me that transparency is a quality that can be ascribed to a person, act or thought, but it is not virtue, or at least a cardinal virtue. Its status must be derivative or only descriptive not necessary.

On Apologetics (Part 2)

Last time in Apologetics (Part 1) I opened the ball of wax on this topic I mentioned my own struggles on the topic of keeping faith against some very strong arguments, but I did not delineate those arguments. Today we will try to get at some of them.

The Importance of Historicity

This issue has been made famous by the Jesus Seminar and books such as Josh McDowell’s Evidence that Demands a Verdict and More Evidence that demands a verdict. It is not my purpose to revisit those debates here. Although, I think it is worth saying that many of the points McDowell and others like him make are worth considering.

With that said, let me acknowledge, that the historicity of the Christian faith is crucially important. Without the physical resurrection of Christ, Christ is a liar, God is impotent and the Christians believe in a pure mythology of the imagination.

I don’t think this is overstating the case.

Let me restrict my comments on the topic to the pieces of the conversation I find most compelling, interesting and important.

The Deaths of the Apostles

I won’t go into establishing the existence of Jesus as a historical person, but I do think that the implications of the life and teachings of Jesus, as they effected others, are often overlooked as a serious support for the claim of the historicity of the Christian faith.

We get all dizzy in the gills when people start talking about stones at graves being there in the first place and then being rolled away by some glowing first century superhero in a wings-and-toga outfit while the mummy walks out and scares the day lights out of everyone—but there is more. We must not let these shiny objects give us myopia of the spiritual eye. We need to keep looking.

OK, so Jesus comes back to life and then moves on to the right hand of God, but what happens then?

Well, all hell breaks loose as all hell realizes it is about to be broken! If you think about it, that is the way of it, and that is the way that it went. Jesus’s disciples open up a can of whoopass on the World Order. Then, the World Order retaliates in kind. Love meets hate. Light meets dark in round two of the Global Smackdown Fest. Unfortunately, the disciples quickly come to the realization that they will be sorely pressed. Even worse, they realize that their followership of Jesus will lead them to a similar death, each and every one of them (with one exception).

These are grizzly deaths. Ugly. Cruel. Painful beyond belief (with the exception of John). Don’t miss that point. All of them croak in a manner so gruesome and vile that you would not be allowed to watch any of it on television. It would not be broadcast even in the middle of the night.

Ask yourself, why would these people risk, much less insist on these types of deaths?

Next time, we will look at a couple of these deaths and see why these particular deaths support claims for historical accuracy regarding the Christian tradition.

I’d love to hear your thoughts. Which of the disciples is the most interesting to you? Do you know how they died? Do you know who killed them? Do you know why they did? Do the deaths of the disciples inspire you in any way (isn’t that a bit creepy?)?

If you liked this post, perhaps you want to read Apologetics (Part 3)?

–

If you are not yet using a reader to follow this blog: Get yours here.

On Apologetics (Part 1)

It seems that there are many readers that might be interested in why Christians believe. As a Christian, I’d love to hear from other Christians. However, I’d also like to hear from atheists. Let’s have a discussion.

My Basis for Belief

As for myself, in plain english, I think God drew me to him, then touched me, that was enough to make me believe in him. After that, I continue to believe because there is this large body of people who seem to have had the same experience. After that, I believe because those same people seem to take the Hebrew and Christian scriptures seriously. These same writings reinforce my previous personal experience by lending a credible explanation for them, one I find more satisfying than others.

That really is the basis of it.

A Recent Renewal

For a few years now, I have become very uncomfortable with the above conclusions. The claims seem to extraordinary, and the evidence started to seem too thin. However, I have recently gained a more stable confidence in exactly what I just described for many reasons, even while having given up some ground to various objections to having faith.

I must admit, I find the New Atheists interesting and in some ways novel, but not compelling.

Open to New Arguements and Experiences

With that said, I remain open to an objection to faith sufficiently convincing to make me abandon it. After all, if God is—then all truth remains God’s—therefore there is nothing to fear from any sort of objection to the faith. God must get the better of the objection in the end, or we can all pack up our Bibles and go home; it would be all over except for the amens and halleluiahs.

Coming Up

I intend to discuss many of my most serious doubts here. I’ll offer them up eventually, but I’d like to hear from anyone actually listening to this. What makes you doubt the truth of your faith? For those of you who don’t believe in Christianity, what are your objections?

If you liked this post, you might also want to continue reading in the series: Apologetics (Part 2)

To subscribe to only mt theological posts: Click Here

Why We Bird

Beauty

I often have people ask me why I bird. For me the response is easy. I ask them why they like to look at flowers. The answer is the same. We like to look at flowers because we perceive them to be beautiful. We derive some enjoyment from their beauty, and this beauty motivates us to learn more about these flowers more fully to enjoy this beauty. It is the same with birds. It seems in even the smallest, brownest sparrow I see deep beauty reflected in form, function, habit, place found, and the appearance of each bird. However, I have found that this is just one of many motivations for people to get into birding. There are others. Those who enjoy this type of birding the most generally don’t care what they see at all. They are the same types who can sit and watch the same solitary bird for hours.

Competition

Perhaps the other most common motivation people sight is the “thrill of the chase.” It is a challenge on a grand scale for people to see how many species of bird they can observe in the world, their nation, state, county, backyard; or on or in any one day, month, year, rolling 12 month period, etc… Sometimes they even form teams and compete with one another. This is the competitive aspect to birding and I believe it is very close to a hunting instinct or some derivative thereof. Many people find this sort of birding a complete obsession. And, as with any addiction—beneficial or detrimental—those taken up with this aspect of birding can’t wait to get their next fix. I am not competitive. It is not really in my bones, so it is hard for me to enjoy this aspect of birding as much as others. Those who enjoy this type of birding are often fanatical about lists of birds of any sort. They also tend to enjoy formal competitions of any sort. Many of these birders are also compulsive posters to “Rare Bird Alerts” or other online birding venues. Many will drive hundreds of miles a day to hit as many different habitats as they can in order to see as many species as possible.

Collection

There is anther motivation for many that I think is related but distinct from the motivations sighted above. That motivation is same that all collectors feel. Often for pure bird collectors there is a sense of enjoyment out of ‘collecting’ the sightings of different birds for the pure enjoyment of knowing they have completed or are on their way to completing “a set.” I share this motivation. Like a kid who is over the moon about finally completing a set of baseball cards for a particular year, these birders are overcome with similar joy after finally seeing all the breeding birds in their county, or all the hawks of the United States, or even all different plumages of any one species. This joy is independent of what anyone else may or may not see. A person with this motivation for birding could care less if another has seen every single species in all their plumages in the entire world. It only matters what they have seen, and the joy in what they have seen and catalogued is also quite indifferent to the beauty of the thing being catalogued. It is human to want to recognize, categorize, systematize and name. In this sense, the hobby can be a very solitary affair, although this is not necessarily so. Those birders who enjoy this type of birding may also be fanatical about lists, enjoy driving hundreds of miles in a day to see as many species as possible, although they are less likely to join formal competitions or post notes at online venues.

Sociability

Then there are the social birders. This is rather straightforward. Many people like to bird because running into other birders is often, and I should say nearly always, a pleasure. They just tend to be friendly types who are eager to share their passion with others. Some of these people can truly become lifelong friends. It is no surprise that the hobby is full of people who were ‘dragged’ into the hobby by a spouse. Many of those people initially found no joy in the birds themselves, some of them still don’t, but have come to love it anyway, simply for the joy of getting to know others through the activity. Think of the card player who shows up every week only to loose miserably. They aren’t there for the cards, and that’s ok. So, if you are the type of birder who is completely bored or even feels a little lonely if you go out by yourself, you might recognize yourself as a ‘social birder’. Perhaps counter intuitively, some ‘social birders’ can be the most dedicated. They also tend to make great volunteers.

So friendly birders are the rule. If, by unlucky chance, you run into a misanthropic jerk of a birder—just let him/her be—and know that that you have seen a true rarity!

By Way of Explanation to Others

So, above I have named at least four different major motivations people have for birding. I am sure there are others. I name these for the benefit of those getting into birding, so that they may recognize the ‘types’ of birding they may enjoy the most. But, I also name them for those who just don’t ‘get it’ so that the hobby/obsession/time sink they may admire or object to might be more understandable to them. For that unlucky birder who has a spouse or family member who resent their hobby, explaining the motivations above may be helpful to those they love.

The Goal Restated

In short, the ‘point’ of birding can be varied and even not very easy to define. Like all things that some humans enjoy, there are often a complex of pleasures induced by the habit, some more prominent than others at any one time. So, the goal of birding can be an elusive one. However, if you try it and at any point you find yourself enjoying it. You can be sure you have reached the goal. Savor the moment and look forward to your next opportunity.