Just to lay out my expectations, I expect to hear more calls for increased spending, I expect a greater push for government planning, and I expect a continued ignorance from this President concerning the importance of the individual citizen when it comes to economic activity. Remember, Obama's defining speech on political philosophy was his "Only Government" speech.
Okay here we go:
9:11 and the Pres gets going. Intro is always a waste of our time and moment for politicians to reflect on their self-importance.
9:15 shameless calls for cooperation from the most partisan "Hey, I won" Pres. Uh Oh! Regent Libs will have a fit with Obama referencing the USA as "the light of the world"
9:19 amazing, this pres is blaming american innovation for the decline in the economy!!
9:21 okay, Obama is talking the free enterprise talk.
9:23 here we go...only the government provides what is necessary to make innovation happen. Sputnik moment? More spending on 'investments'. Government is now the arbiter of innovation?
9:26 Ah yes, the big villain oil! Ethereal goal of "clean energy." Yes Mr Pres, but will people be allowed to run with their ideas or will the government demand they conform to bureaucratic rules and red tape.
9:30 Amen on education reform! Let's start teaching the kids again and allow parents to choose the better school without the Unions.
9:32 Platitudes on education. Become a teacher!!
9:34 No university should not be for everyone because that is forcing your ideals on other people. There is a reason that the trades are filled with immigrants.
9:36 Wow, I never expected this Pres to support Colonialism.
9:38 How about we attract new businesses from within. And WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO THE $828 BILLION IN STIMULUS FOR 'SHOVEL READY' JOBS ON AMERICA'S INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS.
9:42 Yeah, flush the tax code and stop hating companies that provide jobs, create wealth, and fight poverty by making profits.
9:44 Unnecessary burdens from government... that's exactly what I am hearing from this Pres.
9:47 No we are demanding a government that stops its spending madness now. You call for a 3% spending cut over 10 years... pathetic!!!
9:52 Why should social security not be tied to the whims of the Stock Market but it should be tied to the whims of the Govenment?
9:55 another web site that gives us government transparency...kinda like the bills being online for 5 days before you sign them? or the website with the details of stimulus funds being spent in zip codes that did not even exist? Vetoing earmarks?!! You?! My ass!
10:03 South Sudan...15 years and millions dead too late.
10:09 Paying lip service now to America. Obama does not believe this, just read his books and listen to Rev Wright.
10:11 The miners were rescued and it was not the government that did it, it was a man with an idea and an opportunity. this is all rubbish now, the Pres does not believe a word of this and that is why no one is applauding. The left wing is not having any of this and the right wing knows the Pres is not to be trusted when talking about free enterprise and American Entrepreneurship.
Conclusion:
A poor showing for this Pres. He did not talk of a new direction nor did he recognize the Nov elections. He drew battle lines and retrenched himself in his policies of government importance and largess. He will fight for entrenched government and so his last 10 minutes of free enterprise cheer-leading was nothing but lip-service. When you call several private industries your enemies in the same speech, you do not mitigate uncertainty.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Me-ology
What is meology? It is the study of me and everything that I am entitled to have. In its legal setting, meology tries to figure out how the law should be applied to others whilst I receive a pass. In its religious connotation, it refers to the efforts to conform God to my vision of what he should be. It pervades every aspect of our entitlement culture and has its greatest following in the Millennium Generation. Argumentation for meology usually concerns some form of fairness...of course it is unfair if my definition of fairness is not applied to the argument.
For this post, let us look at defining God in my image. How can I do that? It is simple. The Postmodern mindset has the reader being the chief translator of the message being conveyed and for our purposes, that means the Bible. So, If I don't like certain passages of the Bible, I can take a wink and a nod at the page and try to find something that is, let us say, more appealing to my sensibilities.
The popular Jesus is the soft and fluffy Jesus. We don't like judgment, so we conveniently leave out Jesus condemning sin (and people!) because that's too mean. We don't like to think that God would be condemning especially to people who don't receive the message of Jesus. When in reality, there is something we hold close and don't want to be judged for. This stems from a week view on repentance and an inflated view of human identity. I find it amazing that in Mark, arguably the first written Gospel, Jesus' first words are judgmental. "The Kingdom of God is near, repent...." Oh Dear! How do we change this? Simple, just focus on the second portion of the statement. "...Believe the Good News!" Huzzah to that! No repentance, just grace and faith.
I think we are all guilty of this to some degree. Most of us struggle with what we don't like in the Bible in a mature manner. We let the tension guide our understanding of who God has revealed himself to be. However, it is the immature thinker who cannot handle the tension and starts to excuse it as contradiction or unreasonable. Worse, it is the meologian who devises a whole new vision of God and revelation to suit his or her sensibilities. It is the height of self-focus to believe that God conforms to our needs. It also speaks to an ingratitude that has lost the vision of a gracious God revealing himself to humanity, saving humanity from its sin, and including humanity in His Kingdom.
One thing about the story of God's salvation in the world that I have observed concerns His highlighting of our ignorance and the revealing of what is true concerning who God is. Throughout the Bible, people have diminished certain aspects of God and elevated others. Sadly, this aspect of human nature has continued in the Church. If the Kings of Israel and Judah were meologists, why am I surprised to find the same thing today? I just don't like the fact that judgment (there is that bad word again) usually followed in the footsteps of the apostate Kings.
For this post, let us look at defining God in my image. How can I do that? It is simple. The Postmodern mindset has the reader being the chief translator of the message being conveyed and for our purposes, that means the Bible. So, If I don't like certain passages of the Bible, I can take a wink and a nod at the page and try to find something that is, let us say, more appealing to my sensibilities.
The popular Jesus is the soft and fluffy Jesus. We don't like judgment, so we conveniently leave out Jesus condemning sin (and people!) because that's too mean. We don't like to think that God would be condemning especially to people who don't receive the message of Jesus. When in reality, there is something we hold close and don't want to be judged for. This stems from a week view on repentance and an inflated view of human identity. I find it amazing that in Mark, arguably the first written Gospel, Jesus' first words are judgmental. "The Kingdom of God is near, repent...." Oh Dear! How do we change this? Simple, just focus on the second portion of the statement. "...Believe the Good News!" Huzzah to that! No repentance, just grace and faith.
I think we are all guilty of this to some degree. Most of us struggle with what we don't like in the Bible in a mature manner. We let the tension guide our understanding of who God has revealed himself to be. However, it is the immature thinker who cannot handle the tension and starts to excuse it as contradiction or unreasonable. Worse, it is the meologian who devises a whole new vision of God and revelation to suit his or her sensibilities. It is the height of self-focus to believe that God conforms to our needs. It also speaks to an ingratitude that has lost the vision of a gracious God revealing himself to humanity, saving humanity from its sin, and including humanity in His Kingdom.
One thing about the story of God's salvation in the world that I have observed concerns His highlighting of our ignorance and the revealing of what is true concerning who God is. Throughout the Bible, people have diminished certain aspects of God and elevated others. Sadly, this aspect of human nature has continued in the Church. If the Kings of Israel and Judah were meologists, why am I surprised to find the same thing today? I just don't like the fact that judgment (there is that bad word again) usually followed in the footsteps of the apostate Kings.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Cheap Gospel of the West
I find in my anecdotal observations of Western Society and Culture that liberal enlightenment philosophy has worked itself out to a significant degree in common Christian Theology. I have been asking myself for a few years why there is so much emphasis on salvation through the distribution of material goods. Liberation Theology and Word Faith theology are naked purveyors of materialism. Social Justice theory and Comfort-and-Happiness-Suburban-Christian belief systems depend on what we have in the house and available to us in service. In both of these examples the not-having or the having of material goods is the focus.
If I were to matriculate with this subject in mind, my thesis would be such:
Here is the rub, I agree with the good that has come out of the Enlightenment. Capitalism has become the greatest engine at reducing poverty and famine the world has ever seen. The advances in health care are amazing and my parents would be long dead without them. The human capacity to understand our creation has gone a long way to sustaining the a world population of 7 billion. However, we will never solve the evils of this world. Each of these advances has been perverted and used for evil and no matter how hard we try to manipulate the systems of exchange and control, the reality remains that somewhere someone will abuse another person for gain...regardless of their station in life. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said it best when locked in the Soviet gulag, "It was lying on that bed of straw in that small cell that I discovered the line between good and evil runs through everyone's heart." (paraphrased).
Back to the material gospel, as much as the conservative and liberal wings of the Church say they do not agree, both have bought into the material gospel. The Social Justice crowd cannot speak of anything but the distribution of materials. Their bitterness and anger is evident in their writings and their speeches. They use the the prophetic tradition to teach the hatred of certain classes of people. Wait, there's more! The self-reliant crowd in the Church is to quick to point out how materially well-off they are, so they should not be bothered with the pleas of the poor because our Western Democracies give opportunity to those who are willing to work. A good life is measured by how much material you can provide for your family.
I think that there is an anti-supernatural bias living below the surface of our congregations. "Man's Effort" has become the focus of the the West and the Church has bought into it. Of course we will hear of God's work in someone's life, but I cannot help but question what that really means. In J.I. Packer's words the Gospel means, "God saving people." If we really believe that then we must see salvation as primarily spiritual and the biggest gift of salvation is not the material goodies of a plush western life. No the biggest gift is the Holy Spirit of God for the Jew and the Gentile, the slave and free, the male and female, the rich and poor.
Salvation is clearly a supernatural event, the gifting of the Holy Spirit. This is the line of demarcation. Instead of fussing over who has what bobble, Christian's should be wondering how we translate this supernatural event into the natural world in which we live. In the polite society of the chattering classes or in a group where the biggest toy wins, that is the truly hard part because the door has been slammed shut on the supernatural. How do we move away from the rubric of materialism that our societies base themselves upon and seek God's Kingdom when we make our decisions? How does the Church regain her composure away from the material and help believers understand the Holy Spirit?
If I were to matriculate with this subject in mind, my thesis would be such:
With its focus on the workings of the material world, the Enlightenment of the West sought to de-mythologize culture. With its focus on anti-supernaturalism, materialism grew in stature and was under-girded by man's increasing ability to manipulate his environment. With the growth of industry and agriculture, man no longer needed a provider. With the increase in knowledge of the human body, man no longer needed a healer. With the growth in abilities to manipulate the elements, man no longer needed a creator. With the assumption that soon the evils of the world would be solved as knowledge increased, man no longer needed a savior....Or something like that with less antagonistic rhetoric.
Here is the rub, I agree with the good that has come out of the Enlightenment. Capitalism has become the greatest engine at reducing poverty and famine the world has ever seen. The advances in health care are amazing and my parents would be long dead without them. The human capacity to understand our creation has gone a long way to sustaining the a world population of 7 billion. However, we will never solve the evils of this world. Each of these advances has been perverted and used for evil and no matter how hard we try to manipulate the systems of exchange and control, the reality remains that somewhere someone will abuse another person for gain...regardless of their station in life. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said it best when locked in the Soviet gulag, "It was lying on that bed of straw in that small cell that I discovered the line between good and evil runs through everyone's heart." (paraphrased).
Back to the material gospel, as much as the conservative and liberal wings of the Church say they do not agree, both have bought into the material gospel. The Social Justice crowd cannot speak of anything but the distribution of materials. Their bitterness and anger is evident in their writings and their speeches. They use the the prophetic tradition to teach the hatred of certain classes of people. Wait, there's more! The self-reliant crowd in the Church is to quick to point out how materially well-off they are, so they should not be bothered with the pleas of the poor because our Western Democracies give opportunity to those who are willing to work. A good life is measured by how much material you can provide for your family.
I think that there is an anti-supernatural bias living below the surface of our congregations. "Man's Effort" has become the focus of the the West and the Church has bought into it. Of course we will hear of God's work in someone's life, but I cannot help but question what that really means. In J.I. Packer's words the Gospel means, "God saving people." If we really believe that then we must see salvation as primarily spiritual and the biggest gift of salvation is not the material goodies of a plush western life. No the biggest gift is the Holy Spirit of God for the Jew and the Gentile, the slave and free, the male and female, the rich and poor.
Salvation is clearly a supernatural event, the gifting of the Holy Spirit. This is the line of demarcation. Instead of fussing over who has what bobble, Christian's should be wondering how we translate this supernatural event into the natural world in which we live. In the polite society of the chattering classes or in a group where the biggest toy wins, that is the truly hard part because the door has been slammed shut on the supernatural. How do we move away from the rubric of materialism that our societies base themselves upon and seek God's Kingdom when we make our decisions? How does the Church regain her composure away from the material and help believers understand the Holy Spirit?
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Our Theology of Love...Is it in the Bible?
Of course love is in the Bible! I just used the title as a rhetorical tool similar to those edgy questions the less orthodox theologians like to use. For them, it is not always about good theology but questioning everything. For example, Trinitarian Theology is a target b/c "Trinity" is not found in the Bible. However, I do find it curious that the resurgence of Abelardian atonement theory seems to be used as a tools to rubbish other parts of God's character.
Indeed, the Apostle John says, "God is love" (1John4:8b, 1 John4:16b). Before you let the warm-fuzzies sink in, there is much context to be sorted through in that same passage. First, this letter is written against the Gnostics who are claiming special revelation and hidden truth concerning God. This part of 1 John declares God's revelation to be evident, unveiled for all to see. Finally, the Apostle is giving assurance to those under attack from the Gnostics. What you do is the sign that God is working in your life because God has given His Spirit, so do not fear those who say they have a special knowledge of things godly.
Crammed between the two God-is-Love statements above is this passage, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1John4:10). Oh Dear! How is whipping and beating and hanging your Son on a Cross love?
To my point: Jesus never claims to be Love. One would think that God himself would plainly reveal such a salient aspect to His character. Jesus said: I am the Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Gate, the Good Shepherd, the Resurrection and the Life, the Way the Truth and the Life, and the Vine. Jesus also called God Good and Holy. Jesus refers to the Father as a King full of power and glory. Where Jesus most directly addressed love in in the Great Commandment and the second: Love God and Love neighbor.
If I am to look upon the Cross and see only a divine example of how to live my life, then I walk away from that setting intellectually discourage because I am presented with and incoherent picture that does not reflect the full story of the Bible. I am forced to ignore much of the Old Testament, I must now think of the Letter to the Hebrews as extra-biblical, and 1John4:10 must be redacted from in between the two God-is Love statements that surround it. So, I am left in a conundrum. Either my emotional response to the violence of the Cross must be placated by denying that sin is the ultimate problem of this world. Or I must be intellectually curious and explore further what Jesus means when he says, "Only God is Good."
I think the philosophical underpinning of this overemphasis on Abelardian thought is tolerance. Our society, ironically, condemns intolerance. Everything is permissible except for declaring something impermissible. We want God to do the same. There is no judgment on the cross because then we must start wondering why God would be judgmental. So, God is not judging from the cross, his is shouting his love for us, desiring our attention. For when we see this love on the cross, we will seek to change and follow that example of good living in Jesus Christ.
This sounds somewhat good because there is real truth there. God does display love on the cross, although it does not come in the form of tolerance. The love on the cross is God himself meeting the full penalty of law under the curse...death. That God would subject himself to evil for the sake of relationship with his people is love. The atonement is more than affective it is also effective. I am glad that I understand God's judgment upon and intolerance of sin, for I can understand the great cost of salvation. It is with affection that I love God because the judgment upon and the atonement for sin has provided for intimacy with God that was lost in sin. The indwelling Spirit is the only reason that I do good because, "Only God is Good." Without the cross there is no Spirit, without the Spirit there is not Good, without Good we cannot properly love.
Indeed, the Apostle John says, "God is love" (1John4:8b, 1 John4:16b). Before you let the warm-fuzzies sink in, there is much context to be sorted through in that same passage. First, this letter is written against the Gnostics who are claiming special revelation and hidden truth concerning God. This part of 1 John declares God's revelation to be evident, unveiled for all to see. Finally, the Apostle is giving assurance to those under attack from the Gnostics. What you do is the sign that God is working in your life because God has given His Spirit, so do not fear those who say they have a special knowledge of things godly.
Crammed between the two God-is-Love statements above is this passage, "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." (1John4:10). Oh Dear! How is whipping and beating and hanging your Son on a Cross love?
To my point: Jesus never claims to be Love. One would think that God himself would plainly reveal such a salient aspect to His character. Jesus said: I am the Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Gate, the Good Shepherd, the Resurrection and the Life, the Way the Truth and the Life, and the Vine. Jesus also called God Good and Holy. Jesus refers to the Father as a King full of power and glory. Where Jesus most directly addressed love in in the Great Commandment and the second: Love God and Love neighbor.
If I am to look upon the Cross and see only a divine example of how to live my life, then I walk away from that setting intellectually discourage because I am presented with and incoherent picture that does not reflect the full story of the Bible. I am forced to ignore much of the Old Testament, I must now think of the Letter to the Hebrews as extra-biblical, and 1John4:10 must be redacted from in between the two God-is Love statements that surround it. So, I am left in a conundrum. Either my emotional response to the violence of the Cross must be placated by denying that sin is the ultimate problem of this world. Or I must be intellectually curious and explore further what Jesus means when he says, "Only God is Good."
I think the philosophical underpinning of this overemphasis on Abelardian thought is tolerance. Our society, ironically, condemns intolerance. Everything is permissible except for declaring something impermissible. We want God to do the same. There is no judgment on the cross because then we must start wondering why God would be judgmental. So, God is not judging from the cross, his is shouting his love for us, desiring our attention. For when we see this love on the cross, we will seek to change and follow that example of good living in Jesus Christ.
This sounds somewhat good because there is real truth there. God does display love on the cross, although it does not come in the form of tolerance. The love on the cross is God himself meeting the full penalty of law under the curse...death. That God would subject himself to evil for the sake of relationship with his people is love. The atonement is more than affective it is also effective. I am glad that I understand God's judgment upon and intolerance of sin, for I can understand the great cost of salvation. It is with affection that I love God because the judgment upon and the atonement for sin has provided for intimacy with God that was lost in sin. The indwelling Spirit is the only reason that I do good because, "Only God is Good." Without the cross there is no Spirit, without the Spirit there is not Good, without Good we cannot properly love.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Government Goons
Here is a way to cut the budget, it is time for the TSA to be disbanded. Department of Homeland Security was by far Bush's worst policy. Here is the problem. Psychologically, when you randomly select someone for enhanced screening and there is the presumption of guilt by the state. Those individuals must now subject themselves to humiliation and violation (hereinafter violence). If the individual refuses, violence is threatened by the state. If you continue to refuse violence is then perpetrated by the state. Ultimately, what individual can withstand the violence of the state?
The last video is from the movie Airplane 2. That was 25 years ago and very relevant for today.
The last video is from the movie Airplane 2. That was 25 years ago and very relevant for today.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Government Gone Wild
As we settle into year 3 of our economic troubles, it seems that the federal government continues its decadent lifestyle. A new survey finds that the richest counties in America center around Washington DC.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Only One Person in This Crowd of Our Intellectual Superiors
This video is great. At the Stewart/Colbert rally for the Democrats, this fellow has a great idea to test the indoctrination level of the attendees. At least one person understood the question. As I cannot adjust the size of the video, you will see the full screen if you watch it on YouTube.
(HT Proteinwisdom)
(HT Proteinwisdom)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
