Berea Reformed Evangelical Church

Well, I am (perhaps naively) hoping that I was wrong in my previous post. Having now seen the way so many African-Americans are responding to Obama’s victory Tuesday, my hope is that, at the very least, his election really does mark a big turnaround in race-relations in this country. It is hard for either the racial majority or minority to maintain the same spirit of suspicion and opposition with a minority suddenly in the White House. I can’t count how many African-Americans they’ve showed on television saying things along the lines of “Now I feel for the first time like anything is possible in this country,” etc. Well, if that spirit holds up, and if there isn’t some backlash uprising of a new KKK or something from disgruntled whites (not. likely.), then this at least could be a very, very good thing. I am, in all sincerity, happy for those who are feeling so plugged in and hopeful about our nation’s future for the first time because of Tuesday’s events.

I hope that Obama is close to as good as his supporters think he is going to be, and that he is nowhere nearly as bad for the country as his critics (myself included) worry he is going to be.

There are two race issues that I’m leaving to the side of my plate, folded into a napkin because I got tired of chewing them. Accordingly, I am not talking about white racists who are allegedly refusing to vote for Obama because he is non-pure-white (-whatever-that-means). I’m not going to talk about it, but then I do need to check and make sure that it is still tastefully hidden in my napkin, and not sticking out for other restaraunt patrons to see (we have PEOPLE whose job is to clean this napkin later, but in the meantime I don’t want anyone to know that my saliva is not an industrial-grade solvent, capable of mastisizing even the toughest of beefs and scrap metals (Admit no weakness!).) So, anyway, white racists no doubt continue to exist, though their numbers as far as political weight is concerned are likely overinflated by media pundi(<overstrike>n</overstrike>)ts [seriously, what is up with this attempt to gerundize (in Latin!) this word lately?] who simply cannot believe, absolutely shocked I tell you, that if you drag a camera through a crowd waiting to get into a political rally, sheer statistical randomness should predict that there will be some unstable and/or angry souls with close to zero social awareness skills who are actually proud to do something incredibly stupid for Cletus and LuLu back home. (I’m awn the teevee! Look at mah Obama monkey!) So that the “other side” (in this case, liberals/progressives) does not get the wrong idea, let me repeat my earlier expressed view that racism is very, very bad. And let me also acknowledge that it continues to haunt us today, which is obvious in the race issue I am going to discuss in a minute. But the notion that there is an army of blatant “single issue” anti-black voters that is actually making the difference in the states that dare not lean towards Obama at this point, is absurd.

The other piece of gristled steak growing cold beside my dessert fork is the phenomenon of black voters voting FOR Obama because he is black. Again, that this is happening is 1 million SHU on the hot peppers of certainty scale, but it also is completely unsurprisingly and, frankly, completely understandable. To anger the “conservative” readers for a moment, I think that if any particular group of people has faced official alienation for anything longer than, say, a month, then the urge to support <I>any</I> political candidate in that group is going to be very high among its members. The arbitrariness of the decision against any sane measure of actual political leadership, is unfortunate, but it is a downstream effect of the arbitrariness of the original racism. This is a sociological analysis, regardless of what any conservative/libertarian ideal might say about a person’s obligation to rise above such shallow considerations and forge their own path and vote for who is right “on the issues” (whatever that means). My own guess is that, if you’ve been on the wrong side of any arbitrarily-tiered social system, then the lingering effects of that arbitrariness IS an “issue” for you, and this should surprise, disturb, or shock absolutely no one. So, if you are truly angry that black voters are going to turn out in overwhelming support of Obama on November 4, then you need to blame the white cultural and political leaders who instituted, perpetuated, and lingered at reforming the racist system in the first place. If you oppress, then victims of said oppression might have grandkids who don’t vote in ways that your grandkids will like…

But now that that is all out of the way, it’s time to point out the REAL race issue with Obama. And this one is likely to have a genuine effect on the election, and it is genuinely disturbing, in my own opinions. White people, particularly of middle- to upper- class pedigree, are going to vote in record numbers for a Democrat on November 4, and they are going to do it largely because he is black and wouldn’t that be nice. (So nice to get a black fella in there for a change).

"I say, Buffy, did you see that a black man is actually running for President this year?" "Oh, let's vote for him, Hugh! It will be delightful!" Image HT: stuffwhitepeoplelike.com

Look. No amount of “white guilt” is going to make past oppressions better, nor is it really going to let you off the hook for feeling guilty about those past oppressions. If you really feel guilt over them, which you shouldn’t by the way, then you are going to have to do far more to feed the beast than simply pull the lever for a black candidate. Oh, we’ve put a black man in the White House now, so I can sleep at night about my upbringing and education and opportunities that were set up better than those of many of my black counterparts. Um, no, you can’t. If you’re really worried about the discrepancies in your own upbringing and opportunities compared to those of others, then you should tie one hand behind your back at work, refuse to put your college degree on your job applications, and deliberately an uneducated manner of speaking. But those things would actually, you know, hurt you socially and economically, so instead you’ll just vote for the Great Black Hope and feel like you’ve done your part.

This whole thing is a dead end, people. If you want to get past race, then you need to get PAST it. Stop thinking about it, stop making decisions based on it, etc. Stop worrying about whether this or that “looks racist,” etc. Just live, man, just live. If you yourself are not a racist, then start ACTING like a person for whom race simply does not matter one way or the other. If this takes you some time because you are yourself a person of a minority race and you have a history of trouble made for you by others because of it, then you are in a different position. But for the white liberal, oh so sweet and caring and just wanting to change the world for the better, then take the first little tiny step toward actually doing that and STOP caring about Obama’s race, one way or the other. No demons of racism past will be exorcised by electing him, for only God can deal adequately with those demons. Demons of the past are just like that.

And, by the way, Obama IS at least a quasi-socialist (though so is McCain, but less so), and his war on the wealthy and successful will be a disaster. But, by all means, go vote your conscience so you can (maybe? this time?) sleep better at night. Throw us all into a hole if it makes YOU feel better.

That is all. End transmission.

Time for some grump.

It’s odd that I have to say this, becuase I don’t want to give the impression that I can’t be pleased. Normally I’m all for politicians admitting openly that various sticky issues are “beyond their paygrade.” How many disasters have been inflicted on societies by governments that thought they were a-helpin’ when they were actually a-makin’ things worse? If only some of the leaders of those debacles had just plead ignorance like Barack Obama did a couple of weeks ago at Rick Warren’s church.

But, that said, I’m afraid that Obama has shown himself to be a moral moron, which is a shame for a man who is building his political career on a prophetic image. Why do I judge Obama so harshly for claiming that a topic is too cunning for his wiles, when that would usually be music to my ears? Because the particular topic Obama was addressing when he made that comment was abortion.

Folks, Douglas Wilson is right:  abortion is the big line on the moral eye chart. If you cannot read which direction the huge E’s are facing, then you lose all standing to lecture anyone about the fine prose you think you see in the lines further down the chart. If you can’t do 2+2, then you don’t get to teach the rest of us calculus.

Claiming to be the one to lead us into a new era of political discourse and governing philosophy, while always a pretentiously gitty thing to say, is even less palatable when you claim to be unable to discern whether it is okay to kill helpless human beings for the sake of convenience. Ah, sure, tough issue, that one. This sort of buck-passing (i.e., not in my job description) in the face of such deliberate wickedness does not make for kind comparisons.

To be fair, Obama didn’t actually say it was “beyond his paygrade” whether it is okay to kill innocent human beings, but rather that he cannot discern whether the fetus is, in fact, a human being.  This is the question that he simply will not be paid enough to know how to answer if he is president. This doesn’t really make it any better for him, though. In non-academic discussions of the abortion issue, pro-choice politicians and average joes seem to be hung up on this way of framing the debate:  who knows when life begins/when the fetus becomes a living human being? Such convenient skepticism is absurd. The jury is not out on this issue. Follow me here, or ask your parents to explain it to you if you’re having trouble:  when two humans have sexual intercourse, the natural result is (often) a new human. It’s not a baboon, or a post-it note for your fridge with an appointment date with the stork on it. Now, if only we knew when exactly this new human individual comes into existence? When do we go from two humans and their various parts (egg cells, sperm cells, fingers, toes, etc.) to three humans? Again, the jury is not out on this, either. It starts with a “c” and rhymes with “perception.”

Hmm...I'm not sure if the earth is round, how many days are in a year, or whether the product of human reproduction is itself human. But I do know how to fix the economy..

Okay, grumping over. For now.

file photo: Gary DeMar

A little update on my goings-on. I am a guest on this week’s Gary DeMar radio show. The topic of the show has to do with Christian culture and the “two kingdoms amillennialism” that is so popular with the (California (Escondido)) kids these days. Anyone who is interested can check it out.

Hear me deliver a stout “first time radio” performance. About as cliched as one would expect. In my head, I think thoughts like this: “Hmm, I wonder where exactly we’re going after that question. I wonder if I have time to give a more detailed answer, or if I should stick with a general one. Am I talking too fast? Wow, did I just say that Life Goes On was the high point of Christian popular culture?” In my mouth, words tumble around and fall out into the world. In my ears, I hear Gary DeMar say “Let’s move on…”

No, seriously, I didn't say any such thing.

But seriously, I think it went pretty well. I got to talk about Augustine’s City of God a bit, which is possibly the most misread book by Reformed people who claim to be following its author. Augustine explains to the pagans why Christianity is about to steal their lunch money, and modern Reformed folks claim it is about Christians being careful not to get too involved (insert obligatory “as Christians” here) in such worldly affairs as politics and culture. Boggles me mind, it does. Gary was a gracious host, as well. We may even do it again, which means (or does it?) that I must have done okay.

The show airs on about thirty stations, mostly at noon on Saturday, which means that my voice will be coating much of the southeastern United States (and beyond!) at one time. Pretty scary stuff, but the show also airs on the Sirius “Christian Talk” station at that time, which means that somewhere at 12:25 today a goth truck driver is going to accidentally wonder across culturally aggressive Christian talk with my voice delivering some of the blows. To whatever family of four is riding beside him when he begins cranking his air horn in a maniacal fit of emo rage, I apologize in advance. For those who prefer to get their crazy the old fashioned way–humbug on your infernal satellite machines!–the good folks at the American Vision website will make it available sometime on Monday.

*Update (Tuesday, 8/26/08): It is definitely up now. The August 23 show.

Tonight, I was at Wal-Mart and I was buying milk. As I usually look for the farthest-off expiration date, I was confronted with an interesting sight. All of the cartons had a “use by” date of 8/29/08, save one. The lone ranger’s date was 8/30/08. So I grabbed it.

Folks, this is huge. We are now within one milk carton of college football starting. (Georgia’s first game is on Saturday, 8/30/08, against Georgia Southern).

In a fortnight, it's best if this is all used up. But even if it's not, I'll be too happy to care.

There is nothing wrong with being shrewd managers of what we’ve been given. Indeed, Jesus’ own chosen example for a parable on this topic involves money—material wealth. So material wealth is included in the “nothing wrong.” Furthermore, not only is their ‘nothing wrong’ with trying to be efficient managers of what we’ve been given, but we are commanded to do so. We are called to husband God’s creation, to cultivate it, to get it to grow. This includes whatever God has in His providence deemed fit to give us—whether it be talents, money, or children. Take it, use it, and make it grow.

But prior to all is the gift. Before we make anything grow, before we set to the task of cultivating and efficiently managing, we must have the ‘raw materials’ given to us. This certainly has implications for our behavior—stealing is wrong, etc. But at an even deeper level, this has implications for our attitude towards wealth. To some God gives much, and to some He gives little. Either way, we are obligated to work with what has been given, to make it grow, to glorify God in the return. This is the meaning of the abundant life, a life spent growing. It has nothing to do with how much we start out with, or how much we finish with. Let God give as He sees fit. None of it is truly ‘ours’, except as it has been given. And it can be taken away.

Wealth should not be despised, nor should it be coveted. It simply should not be our concern. Let God give what He will, and live the abundant life of gladly accepting and growing that gift (and helping others to grow theirs).

So what about those in need? Encourage them. The “good life” is not something only available to men of leisure. Socrates and Plato are wrong here. The poor can live the abundant life, too; not because “suffering is illusory,” but because suffering is already defeated by the One who suffered. Death and suffering and hardship still take us, but they have no sting. These cannot enslave, cannot defeat, cannot destroy. They are still with us, among us, but we transcend them by living a life of abundance in any case.

This doesn’t mean that the naked should not be clothed or the hungry fed. (God forbid!) But it does mean that we must not conceive of our ministry to the community as simply “compassion for the poor” (perhaps chastened, a bit, by Nietzsche on this point, see The Gay Science iv.338). Compassion implies–beyond its unobjectionable etymology–that we take pity upon those who have so much less than us. But this is an inaccurate picture. We all have the same God. We all have everything. Make it grow.

The poor do not need pitiful compassion, any more than does Bill Gates. What they need is encouragement. Encouragement to live a life of beauty and joy in the midst of whatever hardships or blessing God chooses to give them. This is the kind of encouragement we all need, and which will allow anyone to transcend any hardship. This fulfills the law of Christ. Joy, not compassion.

This is the table of God’s favor. We have been invited to a great feast, and we have been given the appropriate clothes by the host Himself. Therefore, you are all welcome here. The only thing that is not welcome is your pride. There is no room for boasting at this table. For what do you have to boast about that wasn’t given to you by God? If you want to boast about something, then boast about the fact that you get to make merry with the living God. But of course we all get to boast about that together. We have all been equally blessed. So this is not a place for us to harbor resentments, or to try to make ourselves better than anyone else. Whatever it is that is so great about you, that’s not why God has let you in. But he HAS let you in, so let’s make merry! This is our new home and our new family. It feels like none of us belong here, because who are we to get to come eat with the King? Why has He looked kindly upon us? Why indeed? But the good news, brothers and sisters, is that He HAS looked kindly upon us. That’s why we are here. So relax, kick up your feet, laugh and sing with one another. Let your children play and enjoy the dinner entertainment. Raise your glasses in a toast and go back to your cottages full of good cheer. Come feast with the King of kings!

Overviewing 1 Corinthians

Last week we saw very briefly that Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians is about, more than anything else, the unity of the Body of Christ, the Church. As Christ’s body and as the new Temple of the Holy Spirit, we who are in covenant with God because we call on the name of Jesus Christ are one. This means that we are one with Christ through the covenant—all that is his is also ours. We are also one with one another; and this means also that what is true for one of us is in some sense so for our entire congregation. When one of us falls, we all must come alongside and give aid. When one of us triumphs, we all triumph. When one of us mourns, we all mourn. When a brother sins, you must correct him in gentleness and love, for he would do the same for you. At least that’s how it is supposed to work. continue reading » »

The following was originally from the old blog. I am putting it up here because I want our church to get off on the right foot out of the gate by publicly condemning (or at least having its pastor condemn) what is, Biblically, a grave evil.

—————–

I believe that in God’s world, as an objective matter of fact, racism rightly defined can never be true or right or good. God hates it. Yet I also believe that the truth is messy enough that it is often confused for error. One way in which this is really obvious is when someone in the contemporary American political context takes up a discussion of various “racially sensitive” topics. It is possible to be right, yet to look like a racist, depending on how the accuser defines “racism.” I have often been frustrated by this. And I have written in the past on such sensitive topics as the Civil War and the fact that were I transported back to 1861 in a time machine and forced to choose sides I would fight for the South. I have even written a bit on the plagiarism of Martin Luther King, Jr. So, despite the inherent problems in doing so, it’s not as though I have been afraid to walk the line between provocative contrarian opinion and racial animosity in the past. Further, I still hold these positions, and I insist vehemently that they are not racist. Far from it. continue reading » »

There are a number of things from my old blog that I’d like to bring over here, just to have them available as resources if nothing else. In particular, there’s the “Federal Vision” stuff. I tried to strike out on a different way of dialoguing about that controversy, and I think I was at least moderately successful at this. (Whether I REALLY want this blog to deal with those issues any more is something I haven’t quite figured out yet.)

There are also some other nuggets of theological and quasi-philosophical ruminations (as a trained philosopher, I know that my own ruminations are only quasi-philosophical). I’ll also, I imagine, dig out some quotations and things from other sources that I shared on the old blog. In other words, I believe in blog recycling.

The things I wrote on economics will probably stay behind. But that’s not to say that economic stuff won’t come up here.

Speaking of economic commentary, this is, in fact, not a symbol of inefficient self-congratulation: when you do it with a blog.

These self-referential “meta” blog posts are going to terminate soon, by the way. Getting them out of the way at the beginning.