The Catholic Atheist

My God! I'm Going to Die.

2009-08-19T12:01:00.004-05:00

The Flaming Lips' song 'Do You Realize' has a quote that while at worst falls prey to emo-culture is at best the foundational statement of existentialism: "Do you realize that everyone you know someday will die."

I think about this amid the rancor and vitriol which is currently masquerading as a public discourse about health care reform in this country. This goes for both sides; conservatives and liberals.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh is saying that White House health care reform will 'kill grandma.' And, I really have little interest in that fight. What I find more interesting is that no one seems to realize that grandma, along with everyone else you know will someday die, including me.

Such a blunt proleptic prognosis is sobering. It also elucidates a grim reality about the ultimate efficiency of modern medicine, it always loses. The house, just like death, always wins. Christians may have a rejoinder, but that's another topic. No surgery, vaccine, or rehabilitation program will ever stave off the sting of death forever.

Heath care, no matter the delivery system, is a scarce good confronting an ever increasing need and never satiated demand. Health care 'rationing' seems an uncaring or even crass description of squaring the supply of it with the demand for it. But, it is the reality, and it must be faced.

Peter Singer wrote an editorial for the New York Times a few weeks ago that framed the issue of rationing quite well.

You have advanced kidney cancer. It will kill you, probably in the next year or two. A drug called Sutent slows the spread of the cancer and may give you an extra six months, but at a cost of $54,000. Is a few more months worth that much?

If you can afford it, you probably would pay that much, or more, to live longer, even if your quality of life wasn’t going to be good. But suppose it’s not you with the cancer but a stranger covered by your health-insurance fund. If the insurer provides this man — and everyone else like him — with Sutent, your premiums will increase. Do you still think the drug is a good value? Suppose the treatment cost a million dollars. Would it be worth it then? Ten million? Is there any limit to how much you would want your insurer to pay for a drug that adds six months to someone’s life? If there is any point at which you say, “No, an extra six months isn’t worth that much,” then you think that health care should be rationed.

Yet, Christians, rightly, may not find rationing a theologically, if not pastorally, acceptable. Stewardship, however, I think, offers a refreshing paradigm in understanding healthcare. Stewardship implies limitedness. It helps suggest that while healthcare is a good and is Good, that it cannot overcome death and must be understood in light of this fundamental limitation. After realizing that everyone we know will someday die, we then turn to the task of health care policy. This does not make the task easier, it will probably make it ever the more gripping and painful, but it may also offer a platform for real public discourse.

What do you think? I'm interested to know.

Sunday Morning "Worship Center"

2009-08-17T18:32:00.005-05:00

Driving back to Chicago, the rain falls stedily on the pavement of Interstate 55 North. On the left, a large building with a large fancy marquee was situated immediately beside an exit ramp. The marquee was not unlike so many other that spelled out the nightly specials for chain motels. This marquee, though, was not for a motel. Intead, above the scrolling electronic marquee the words, “Worship Center” brightly appeared. The same name appeared above the large double doors of the building… “Worship Center”. Christian in essense, no doubt, but what secularly banal, commerically marketed, and theologicall ambigious a place it must be, too.

A worship center, only pushes the question that God, too, is no different than any other consumable good. People consume religious experience on Sunday mornings, and this “Worship Center” provides such an experience. It’s not Church. It’s not the community of Christ, the Body of believers. It is simply a collection of people who want to do some worshipping on Sunday mornings… instead of say, yoga, or running, or drinking at a café.

In the blurring rain, the builing flees into the distance. I could almost see the marquee scrolling through a last damning message: Coming Soon! Drive-thru prayer window!

'Begotten, Not Documented'

2009-08-12T09:04:00.003-05:00

The 'birthers' are a pretty easy target. But, hey, what's one more pot-shot at a political movement built on thinly veiled racism?

Slate ran a Doonesbury cartoon yesterday that makes both political and theological points.

The title of the strip, "Begotten, Not Documented."

Christianity, the Downfall of America?

2009-08-11T18:57:00.003-05:00

The liberal leaning Slate asked its readers what will be the downfall of America. Rounding out the top five: Loose nukes, Peak oil, Antibiotic resistance, China unloading US treasury bonds, and Israel-Arab War.

Understanding that this poll is as unscientific as you can get, one of the findings, at least for Christians, should be a little surprising. Of the 144 scenarios that lead to the American apocalypse, both Christianity and Militant Islam made the list.

the surprise? Christianity was voted as more likely to cause the end of America than Militant Islam. Christianity ranked 35th while Militant Islam ranked 52nd. At first glance, this seems unlikely to me, but it gets even more unlikely when you read Slate's given reason for why Christianity may ultimately undermine the United States.

Just as, per Edward Gibbon, the rise of religion killed Rome's fighting spirit, increasing spirituality turns America into a nation of pacifists. We get attacked and don't fight back.

So, here's to hoping that Christianity leads to the end of America.

Questionable Wedding Theology

2009-07-25T19:01:00.008-05:00

Last weekend two of my dear friends, Andy and Emily, were married. It was a wonderful service: theological faithful and beautiful, too.

So, it was with horror that I came across a picture of the very antithesis of the wedding I witnessed just last weekend. The picture above, sigh, is both theological skewed and aesthetically disturbing. If you can't see, the picture is of a wedding couple, pouring two differently colored vials of sand into a single jar. The two colors - neon green and pink! - of course, do not mix into one, but like retro-colored water and oil stay separate in their own corners. So much for 'becoming one flesh'!

In many weddings, the couple, each taking a lit candle, light a unity candle. The unity, far from a crass amalgamation, is a sacramental transformation. One can not look at a unity candle and identify where one spouse ends and the other begins. That is the very notion of unity.

Plus, you can also see the couple were married outside; another theological taboo.

In addendum: this is why I left Indiana.

Abraham's Many Sons and Daughters

2009-07-12T19:16:00.003-05:00

Before kindergarten, I used to go to Kiddy Bible College. It was a religious day care where we would happily belt out religious songs. Everyone was fond of extolling, “Abraham had many sons, and many sons had father Abraham.” Indeed, how many, many sons and daughters.

Years later, when teaching World History to high schools students, I would often remind them that the three ‘great’ Western religions traced their roots to Abraham. Abraham fathered many sons and many religions, too.

Recently, I visited Columbia, South America with an interfaith group of college students and staff members. The trip moved me deeply, and forced me to reconsider the importance of interfaith dialogue, while at the same time, recommitted my fidelity to the Catholic Church. My theological studies created a religious myopia. For the past few years, I have been content with pondering the internal theological divisiveness, especially of the Protestant variety. I unconsciously eschewed much of the interfaith discussions that were going on. One, though, cannot do everything, and it may be that one needs to get one’s house in order before entering another’s.

Colombia, then, became a place to reacquaint myself with the issue of interfaith dialogue. I began to think in earnest about it when, one night during reflection, someone mentioned that each western religion had one person who acted as iconic figurehead for the religion itself: Judaism has Abraham, Christianity has Jesus, and Islam has Mohammad. This struck me as sentimentally beautifully, but ultimately incongruous. All three religions claim Abraham, and indeed, all claim Moses and Jesus, too. Further, and more importantly for Christians, Jesus was not some mere religious leader whose work pointed to the revelation of God. Jesus wasn’t the figurehead of Christianity, but the second person of the God-head. He was the incarnation of God on earth living alongside humanity. I have no doubt that this statement was to produce a sentiment of affinity, to evoke a feeling of religious solidarity. Yet, it is clear such good intention within interfaith dialogues can so easily rent violence to the particularity of each religions’ theology.

During the trip, I was deeply moved by one of the girls, Sunnah, a practicing Muslim. During a visit to a cathedral, we discussed the misconception of Mary being worshiped rather than venerated. It occurred to me while Jesus and Mohammed are so often paired together – as they were in the nightly reflection – it is, more properly, Mohammed and Mary that share so very much in common. Both are chosen to be the vehicles for God’s special revelation. Neither is considered divine, but both are understood to have an unparalleled importance and holiness. To equate Jesus and Mohammed may always seem a popular and helpful suggestion within interfaith circles, but theologically it can never properly situate and valuate the role of Christ in Christianity as properly the second person of the God-head. No, to do justice to the claimed divinity of Christ, one would have to equate Jesus with Allah, and of course, this too would rent violence to the particular Islamic claim that rejects the divinity of Christ, and the tri-partide nature of God.

D. Stephen Long recounted that because he lived in Skokie he would often have dinner with his neighbors who were invariably Jewish, and that during the evening conversations he would often suggest that when the Messiah came they would ask Him, rather avuncularly, “Is this your first or second visit?”

Islam, too, espouses Jesus will usher in the eschaton. So, to include Muslims, a second question should be posed, “And, are you a prophet or God?

A beautiful friend of mine was once crying with me beside her. She was distraught by how carelessly someone had talked about abortion. She said something so chillingly beautiful and true in that moment: “The most painful part of life is when you realize that your understanding of justice is someone else’s idea of injustice.”

And where does justice matter more than in faith? This is, I believe, where interfaith dialogue is so important, and also, so dangerous. Liberal theologians, like John Hicks for example, suggest such a synchronistic and collectivist religious pluralism that it emasculates the richness and undercuts the particularity of the very religions they are trying to honor.

To paraphrase Dr. Long, “I cannot agree to disagree with you. I simply disagree.”

This statement, while political and social unpalatable, is true candor. The statement does not placate, but rather vindicates the real difference spanning two perspectives. It honors the particularity. It honors the pain that resides in irreconcilable difference.

As mentioned in previous post, the late Pope John Paul II wrote, “Theology is not about a problem to be solved by a mystery to be elucidated. We can speak of this mystery with a humble confidence because of the life, death, and resurrection of the incarnate Word.” Interfaith discussion must always begin with this humble confidence. The humility honors the mystery of all religion and offers openness for new revelation, while it also unequivocally rejects the conservative ‘certainty’ that spews from so many religious zealots. The confidence indicates authenticity, the disposition that one must be true to oneself, while also rejecting the impossible ‘equality’ that liberals demand that in fact rents violence upon the particularity of the varying religions.

These two temperaments – humility and confidence – askew both baseless equality and myopic certainty in order to occupy a middle ground of fidelity.

Interfaith dialogues will end with disagreement; profound, angering, and saddening disagreement. Someone’s justice will inevitably tangle with someone else’s injustice. People will cry.

And yet, the alternatives – equality and certainty – offer either a meaningless pluralism through castrating religious truth claims or an unabashed absolutism that mandates a determinate understanding of the Truth, which, historically, quickly escalates into physical violence. Fidelity, in interfaith dialogue, doesn’t promise perfection, and that’s in fact why it’s so promising.

Estne Nihil Sanctum?

2009-07-07T09:07:00.006-05:00

I came across another example of insipid liberalism via the world wide web; a video game called, "Faith Fighters 2."

The game is simple. On the screen are ten or so religious figures: Buddha, Christ, God, Muhammad, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Roswell Alien, etc. These figures slowly become more and more transparent. By placing your cursor over them little hearts start to appear and they once again become opaque. If they disappear, any one of them, the game is over. The stated goal of the game is: "to give love and respect to all the religious entities on the screen." This is liberalism at its finest. It's so over the top in its liberalism that one must suspect that it's satirical (hence the Pastafarian, and alien).

Play Faith Fighter 2 here.

The original "Faith Fighters" was strewn with controversy. Most prominently, it featured the face of the Prophet Mohammad. The game now has a censored version. The game parodied Mortal Combat's 2-D fighting style. Legitimately, it's pretty offensive. This game drowns in a banal nihilism.

Play Faith Fighters 1 here.

So, what fate is worse? The banal, cynical nihilism or the maudlin, naive liberalism?

Christmas-Eve Atheist

2009-07-01T17:34:00.004-05:00

My ever present doubt continues to keep me grasping for a palatable label. The term Atheist has always, and unfairly, conjured image of angry, modernist rationalist or it suggests some morose and angst-ridden existentialist unhappily polishing off his third semester while majoring in philosophy.

The unadulterated term 'Atheist' will not do.

While in seminary, I used to say I was the only Calvinist who didn't believe I was part of the elect. That's pretty funny, I guess. But, it didn't actually communicate the salient issue: my lack of faith. And, well, besides, reformed theology is not my denominational cup of tea.

When I started this blog, I thought the term Catholic Atheist was reasonable. It suggested both an affinity for the Church, while also, and ultimately, a profound inability to claim fidelity to it. Later, I found a funny definition for a Catholic Atheist: Someone who does not believe in God, and Mary is His mother.

However, I finally found a term that works. I am a Christmas-Eve Atheist.

See, recently my friend Jimmy Cooper was talking about the movie "Angels and Demons" (don't see it). He mentioned that Tom Hanks is asked, in the movie, if he believes in God. He responds, "Faith is a gift I have not yet received." Jimmy recounted that the phrase reminded him of my struggle – stubbornness – with Christian faith.

So, I am a Christmas-Eve Atheist as faith is a gift I have not yet received. I came up with the Christmas-Eve part, and it works on two levels. The first is more superficial in that Christmas-Eve is the time before receiving gifts. The second, of course, is more theological. Christmas-Eve is, in a very ecclesial sense, the time when everyone is without Christ. It is time of expectation. The whole Advent season is a time of hopeful waiting.

In thinking about this, I think this may also be a term that can be used pastorally. It may be a way for seekers to discuss their lack of belief, and fervent desire to be part of the Church and life of faith. It makes me wonder how I would have responded if someone, earlier in my life, had identified me as a "Christmas-Eve Atheist".

Commencement Keynotes

2009-06-14T15:07:00.004-05:00

Many good friends have or are going to graduate this year. This is a half-hearted way to say congradulations to all of you - a snippet from Robertson Davies short story: "What Will the Age of Aquarius Bring?"

“The usually thing – the statistically normal thing – is for the speaker to tell the graduation class that they are going out into a world torn by dissent, racked by problems of unprecedented knottiness, and difficulty, and headed for the abyss of destruction unless the graduating class shoulders its burden and does something splendid to put everything right. The speaker generally admits that he is at the end of his tether: he is old, and broken on the wheel of Fate; his decrepitude and his wounds have been received in this great battle with the world’s problems. Nothing – absolutely nothing – is to be expected of him in the future. From his failing hands he throws the torch; he plants the task of setting the world right square on the graduating class. He says that he does it with confidence. But he is usually so gloom that one wonders how much his confidence is worth. Sometimes one gets the impression that immediately after Convocation he is going to home to die.”

Congradulations!

Catholic Marriage & Antecedent and Permanent Impotence

2009-06-10T08:28:00.002-05:00

My new roommate, Erin, and I were discussing the issue de jour: homosexual marriage. During the conversation, I mentioned how consummation was an imperative for the Sacrament of Marriage in the Roman Catholic Church. Meaning, for a marriage to be valid, the couple must have sex.

She then theologically stumped me: “What if you couldn’t have sex? What if you were a quadriplegic?”

Initially, I thought the Catholic Church would insist on consummation, and hence those unable to have sex would not be able to partake in a Catholic marriage. However, I was far from sure.

The next day, I was talking to my good friend Andy who suggested that maybe the consummation was an ethical suggestion, but not an absolute imperative; something akin to the ethical equation: ought equals must.

A little research, however, provided me with Roman Catholic Canon 1084 §1. It states that “antecedent and permanent impotence” is a diriment impediment. Simply put: if your junk don’t work, you can’t tie the knot. This fascinating little ordinance is found in Book IV, Part I, Title VII, Chapter III of the Roman Catholic Canon.

Of course, this is classical Catholic doctrine. Catholic marriage requires consummation. So, if one cannot commence the marriage through consummation, then the marriage is invalid. The Church is at least consistent.

There is, however, a question of formally granted dispensation. For instance, dispensation is now granted regularly for ‘mixed-marriages’ – meaning marriages between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian or Jew (thank you, Vatican II).

I suspect that most bishops would grant special dispensation to those who may have antecedent and permanent impotence, but I myself am confused by what the rationale might be. Canon 90, found in (Book I, Tit. IV, Chp. V) states, “One is not to be dispensed from an ecclesiastical law without a just and reasonable cause…” Of course, it is not clear what a just and reasonable cause may constitute, though.

However, if I were a bishop – and hell, I’m not even really Catholic – the decision would be easy. If I found two people who loved each other and wanted to marry – despite the sobering matrimonial-actuary tables and the reality of a spouse with antecedent and permanent impotence – I wouldn’t just grant dispensation, I would offer blessings.

Addendum: My friend Ramil, made an excellent point. How would a 'good' Catholic even known they had antecedent impotence. Premaritial sex by yourself or with a partner is off limits. Plausibly a good - if not a perhaps somewhat naive - Catholic could never have an erection before marriage and just assume that all the plumbing begins to work when you marry... Anyways, thanks Ramil for the thought.

Agnostic Prayers

2009-05-25T11:51:00.003-05:00

Two agonostic prayers from "Death Be Not Proud" and Vonnegut's "Slapstick".

Johnny Gunter's agnostic prayer "Death Be Not Proud"

Almighty God
forgive me for my agnositcism;
For I shall try to keep it gentle, not cynical,
nor a bad influence.

And O!
if thou art truly in heavens,
accept my gratitude
for all Thy gifts
and I shall try
to fight the good fight. Amen.

Kurt Vonnegut's suggestion for agnostic prayer from "Slapstick".

The old man is writing his authobiography. He begins with the words which my Uncle Al told me one time should be used by religious skeptics as a prelude to their nightly prayers.
These are the words: "To whom it may concern."

Liberalism’s Orthodoxy: Or Why We Should Defend Miss California

2009-04-30T20:29:00.005-05:00

Dr. Stephen Long wrote in his book, The Goodness of God, “Liberalism has now become a dogmatic form of orthodoxy incapable of change.” Indeed, consider this for a moment. Theological liberalism seems to have no room in the inn for its own virtue of tolerance, only canonized dogma: God must suffer to love, missiology is eschatology, biblical miracles are literary myths, newer is better, and of course women and homosexuals must be able to be ordained or the Church is both oppressively patriarchal and an apostate.

Indeed, liberal theology has indentified numerous inviolable theological planks, crafting, slowly, a dogmatic platform. It has becomes an ideology demanding capitulation to hold-outs who have not yet converted. Outside of theology, we see that secular liberalism demands this same type of iron-clad orthodoxy. Recently, if not also infamously, Miss California was asked if she supported the recent ruling in Vermont that allowed for same sex marriages. Before answering that she in fact did not agree with same sex marriages, she opined, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose.” Indeed, while Aquinas thought a democracy was only a moderate well functioning government, as it was slow to act toward the good, and could only be moderately assured to enact the good, it nevertheless, was also slow to enact evil. More importantly, where is the well-spring of tolerance for Miss California that liberals so often demand be extended to everyone (and everything) else. Instead, the reaction was indignation. A particularly – if not peculiarly – urbanized cry of, “she didn’t, did she?!” was heard round the blogosphere.

Of course, the reason for the intolerance was that she was intolerant. And only intolerance can be matched with more intolerance. Here we realize the impossibility of diversity (liberalism). That no political claim can equate to perfect tolerance. That all beliefs – even beliefs in tolerance – are ultimately divisive. Otherness (diversity, liberalism) only identifies by being separate. The problem of perfect liberalism also makes us equally realize the impossibility of unity. No taxonomy will be able to perfectly organize everyone (and everything) into a single category. This is the problem of relationships – and it is also the mystery of Trinity and the Incarnation. We are the same and we are different. Oliver O’Donovan offers the term ‘pluriformity’. It offers to explicate the paradoxical claim that we are all one and all other. We realize that particularity rents violence in its necessary act of exclusion, but our limitedness – our humanness – does not offer recourse. Pluriformity is an anthropology for understanding theology that need not capitulate to late modern liberalism (our difference unites us), or conservative theology (our correct belief unites us), but rather a way to recapture the theology of the Body of Christ as the body of believers that are both diverse and universe.

We live in the tension between diversity and unity. However, I think some of my friends would argue that perfect diversity and unity come under God. And, I hope, they are correct. But it is an eschatological hope. Fidelity may hold more promise than either equality (liberalism) or certainty (conservatism).

Woody Allen on God (aka Mr. Big)

2009-03-06T08:19:00.004-06:00

Last night I couldn't sleep so I pick up an old favorite: Woody Allen's Getting Even. It's one of my favorite books of short stories. Anyways, I reread Mr. Big; an over-the-top detective styled story with all the trappings of a Philosophy 101 class. It seemed particularly relevant as Allen takes a swipe at logical positivists!

Here's a taste:

"Well, she's lying. She's a teacher at Radcliffe. She was mixed up with a philosopher for a while."
"Pantheist?"
"No. Empiricist, as I remember. Bad guy. Completely rejected Hegel or any dialectical methodology."
"One of those."
"Yeah. He used to be a drummer with a jazz trio. Then he got hooked on Logical Positivism. When that didn't work, he tried Pragmatism. Last I heard he stole a lot of money to take a course in Schopenhauer at Columbia. The mob would like to find him - or get their hands on his textbooks so they can resell them."
"Take it from me, Kaiser. There's no one out there. It's a void. I couldn't pass all those bad checks or screw society the way I do if for one second I was able to recognize any authentic sense of Being. The universe is strictly phenomenological. Nothing's eternal. It's all meaningless."

Click here for the rest of Mr. Big.
Near the bottom of the page is a button, "Show full text"
9/10ths from the bottom of that page is the story, Mr. Big

If it's a symbol, to hell with it.

2009-02-28T20:46:00.011-06:00

“I was once, five or six years ago, taken by some friends to have dinner with Mary McCarthy and her husband, Mr. Broadwater… She departed the Church at the age of 15 and is a Big Intellectual…. Toward morning the conversation turned on the Eucharist, which I, being the Catholic, was obviously supposed to defend. Mrs. Broadwater said when she was a child and received the host, she thought of it as the Holy Ghost, He being the most portable person of the Trinity; now she thought of it as a symbol and implied that it was a pretty good one. I then said, in a very shaky voice, Well, if it’s a symbol, to hell with it. That was all the defense I was capable of but I realize now that this is all I will ever be able to say about it, outside of a story, except that it is the center of existence for me; all the rest of life is expendable.” - Flannery O'Connor

What a joy to read such a statement of faith. And isn't this the statement of faith said when one partakes in the Eucharist?
'The Body of Christ.'
'Amen.'

And the Eucharist and the the Resurrection are tied to together.
The real presence of the Eucharist is the parallel claim of the historical resurrection, which is of particular importance during the Lenten season. Both are declaration that God is not silent. That God works with and within the world. It proclaims that God's action are mediated through immediacy.

However, we are incredulous toward the Real. Instead we allow our post-modern sensibility to transfix us in the infinite regression of meaning through symbol and myth. And if this is true, Joseph Campbell is the false savior of our time. He offers a translation of meaning and existence through 'universal' symbols, but which can never answer the metaphysical. Such a project can only defer meaning, which is exactly what philosophers like Derrida would like us have to believe.

What is more troubling are those happy fools in theology who still wittingly align themselves with Tillichian and Bultmannian philosophy. No two theologians have done more theological damage in recent decades, as they have persuaded many that the Eucharist, the Virgin Birth, the miracles, the Resurrection are nothing more than mere symbols. Fantastic, helpful, 'meaningful' symbols, but symbols nonetheless. They are merely powerful earthly representation that help translate the world, but they don't represent the Real. They defer meaning. They merely translate. Tillich and Bultmann were crass logical positivists dressed in theologian garb.

A few months ago a few friends and I were discussing Borg. We decided that Borg’s resurrection was metaphorical. That deeply troubled a friend of mine. Days later he returned to me, and said Jason, you know why a metaphorical resurrection bothers me? He answered his own question, “Because I am not going to metaphorically die! I am going to actually, factually die! And I want a savior who actually saved me from sin and death!” Bultmann seems to be offering something similar, but instead of a metaphor, it’s a myth.

So, if it's only metaphor, if it's only myth, or if it's only symbol then to hell with it. To hell with a religion that is merely 'trying its best' to translate the world. To hell with a religion that can be construed into a spiritual 'preference'.

But, if it is the Eucharist that translates the meaning of the world, and not the world that dictates the meaning of the Eucharist, then perhaps the only word appropriate is 'amen'.

Sacrificial 'Ram': "The Wrestler" as the Story of Job

2008-12-26T18:43:00.008-06:00

"He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53:5

The new movie by Darren Aronofsky, "The Wrestler" is the beautiful and terrible story of an aging professional wrestler, Randy 'The Ram', played by Mickey Rourke. The hard-bodied and oafish Randy finds no comfort in the world outside the ring. He lives in a dilapidated trailer, has an estranged daughter and an demeaning side job at a local grocery store. He lives for the weekends when he can wrestler.

The movie is really a modern story of Job.

Of course, Randy doesn't fit the traditional Job-archetype. Through the movie you realize he is derelict, a delinquent father, a drug-user. He is not pious in any conventional sense.

Yet, he is unshakable in his faith. Not for God, but for wrestling.

The heart-aches, the heart-attacks, the poverty, and the alienation from friends and family are all endured. He is unflinching faithful to the religion and ritual of wrestling. And for his fidelity, what felicities does it bring him? None. His age relegates him to minor contests, his steroid use leaves him deformed, while still always true to profession.

During the movie, he begins a relationship with a stripper named Cassidy, played by the Marisa Tomei. She is the parallel to Randy; both live off the exploits of their flesh, and they are past the peak of their prime. While talking to Randy at a club she jokingly says, "You were pierced for our transgressions, you were crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace is upon you. You are the sacrificial Ram." And he is. You can almost here Randy 'the Ram' saying to the gods of Wrestling, 'Forgive them - the fans - for they know not what they make me do."

Also, see this article of "Job as Wrestler". Art immitating the Bible, and Bible immitating Art.

Spiritual, Non Religious?

2008-12-21T15:47:00.003-06:00

I was reading about F. Schleiermacher today. One of the few things we have in common is our discontent for what the Enlightenment did to theology.

A passage reminded me of the banal position of many in this generation, that of being 'spiritual, but not religious.'

He writes, "The emptiness of a rational religion consists in the fact that it is not a real religion at all, but an eclectic collection of dead fragments. It has not grown from a living intuition, but has been distilled from a dying form. It is attractive to many because, lacking any positive character, it offends no one. It creates discussions groups, but not churches; it rests on thought and not on feelings. It is not wonder that it appeals widely to the religiously indifferent, for it is an abstraction, and thus it stirs up on of the strong feelings aroused by concrete realities. Who can hate an abstraction? But then again, who can love one? (Makers of the Modern Theological Mind: Friedrich Schleiermacher, by C. W. Christian).

It makes me wonder... how many of our churches are already mere 'discussion groups.'

Cosmic Evangelizing: The Need to Shoot Bibles Into Space?

2008-12-01T16:43:00.009-06:00

After reading Sagan's Gifford Lectures, I turned anxiously to his novel Contact. The vastness of space and the seemingly inexhaustible amount material that comprise the comets, moons, planets, stars and black holes leaves one reeling. It is even a bit scary.

My good friend, The Monad, responded to my last post by writing,

"The question of what salvation would be on other planets is mind-boggling. I suppose if there is evil on those other planets than salvation is necessary...can Satan exercise dominion on other planets? What's to say that he can't? Then the question becomes one of soteriology. How does Jesus save? Is there something about the way in which Jesus brings salvation that is unique to this planet? We have no way of knowing."

The question indeed is of soteriology. If there is tripartite (mind, body and soul) life that is shackled by sin on other planets how are they saved? Are they saved?

My other good friend sees orthodox soteriology as being not only an anthropological but a cosmological panacea.

"The problems of finite-thinking have come about because of the belief that Christ's redemption ONLY applies to humans and not to rest of creation as well. Once we understand salvation as applying not to the salvation of souls but to the promise of the 'new heavens and new earth', the question about life on other planets and how they fit into the overall scheme of things, really is a moot point."

This answer isn't satisfying.

The value of reading Sagan is that we are challenged to strongly critique the entire anthrocentric enterprise. Christianity, wrongly or rightly, has a soteriology that is completely enthralled with the notion of humanity. Early Church history and controversy deal almost exclusively on the communicatio idiomatum.

Patristic thought may concede that Christ vindicated creation (universe and all), but they will stubbornly hold that specific salvation of humanity was only possible through the Incarnation.

St. Athanasius famously states, "He was made man, so that we might be made gods."

Poignantly, the soteriological question for St. Anselm was, Cur Deus Homo? or Why Did God Become Man?

Perhaps most provocative is St. Gregory of Nazianzus claim, "That which was not assumed is not healed; but that which is united to God is saved."

Extraterrestrials (a name for that itself is thoroughly anthropocentric) are not going to have a human nature. In that case, will their unassumed nature not be healed? If they are in every way like humans, except for having three eyes instead of two, will that third eye not be saved?

My friend writes,

"Sure the life, death and resurrection of the incarnate God happened in a remote corner of the universe, but that shouldn't limit its cosmic implications."

Well, of course it does!
The Gospel is the Good News. Thus, any good soteriology should be able to pass the scrutiny of the most important question for pastors: Is it preachable?
This is only conjecture, but Christian soteriology will probably not stir the soul of E.T.

On the other hand, if my good friend is right: God has vindicated all creation and creatures and promised a 'new heaven and earth' (or earths?). Then it seems that Evangelicals need to set new priorities. Forget Asia and Africa - there are as many as a billion worlds that need to know that God through Christ has given them new life! Evangelicals should become the biggest supporters of NASA, and begin a program to shoot bibles into space.

I'm not joking.

If one is convinced that Christ has undeniably, solely saved the fate of the entire cosmos one ought to feel an uncontrollable desire to rush headlong into the vast blackness of space only to hope to come across intelligent life and proclaim, "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again!"

A Serious Cosmological Theology

2008-11-22T13:00:00.010-06:00

Today I was reading the transcript of Carl Sagan's Gifford Lectures in the book, "The Varieties of Scientific Experience.” I think Sagan is thoroughly modern, eschewing all notion of faith or belief. However, he helpfully critiques the narrowness of Western-religion's cosmology.

He writes, "The number of external galaxies beyond the Milky Way is at least in the thousands of millions and perhaps in the hundreds of thousands of millions each of which contains a number of stars more or less comparable to that in our own galaxy. So if you multiple out how many stars that means, it is some number - let's see, ten to the... It's something like a one followed by twenty-three zeros, of which our Sun is but one. It is a useful calibration of our place in the universe. And this vast number of worlds, the enormous scale of the universe, in my view has been taken into account, even superficially, in virtually no religions and especially no Western religions." (27).

The immensity of the universe begs the question of the uniqueness of life. And if life is rare, but not unique, what of the arc of the salvific history espoused by Christianity? Does all life inevitably trace this story line? Thomas Paine wrote of this question, "From whence, then, could arise the solitary and strange conceit that the Almighty, who has millions of worlds equally dependent on his protection, should quit the care of all the rest, and come to die in our world because, they say, one man and one woman ate an apple? And on the other hand, are we to suppose that every world in the boundless creation has an Eve, an apple, a serpent and a redeemer?" While Process Theology has enumerable and intractable problems, the tradition has at least taken cosmology seriously. Michael Lodahl, and, of course, Alfred North Whitehead, come to mind. Though, this tradition then usually jettisons the salvific history, for an endless processing history, which seems to reform the very historic Christianity into just another universal (read, ahistoric) religion. In comparison, Radial Orthodoxy has not shown that they are open to accepting modern science. The reunification of faith and reason stops short of evolution. This is a strange demarcation line considering the Catholic Church, which strongly influences R.O., has long held that evolutions and faith are fully commensurable. More broadly, C.S. Lewis’ space trilogy seems to suggest that the chapters of history play out on all planets that inhabit life, and God, rather than abandoning all others for the sake of one, provides His Providence and, ultimately, Salvation, to all.

Perhaps more concerning is the finite-tenancy we have on the Earth. Sagan writes, "Some 5, 6, or 7 billion years from now, the Sun will become a red giant star and will engulf the orbits of Mercury and Venus and probably the Earth. The Earth then would be inside the Sun and some of the problems that face us on this particular day will appear, by comparison, modest. On the other hand, since it is 5,000 or more million years away, it is not our most pressing problem. But it is something to bear in mind. It has theological implications." (20).
Indeed, theological implications abound.

While addressing the important theological questions of ecological-stewardship, some attention should be given to cosmological-theology in general, and cosmological-stewardship in specific. More broadly, issues of eschatology, economy, and revelation all garner relevance in this endeavor.

To end, Sagan has some helpful thoughts: “In fact, a general problem with much of Western theology in my view is that the god portrayed is too small. It is a god of a tiny world and not a god of a galaxy, much les of a universe.” Here Sagan and I are in complete agreement. He continues, “I don’t propose that it is a virtue to revel in our limitations. But it’s important to understand how much we do not know. There is an enormous amount we do not know; there is a tiny amount that we do.” (30). Christians may respond that what they do know is that God’s creation is good – no matter how vast or how dark, or how empty it might seem to be.

Seminary as Univerisity and Univirsity

2008-11-11T19:49:00.010-06:00

Somehow my work has revolved around seminary education itself. In a sense, I have been dealing with meta-theological education. The nature, structure and desired end of seminary education are important questions rather than codified answers. The root of seminary comes from the Latin, sēminārium or even more simply sēmin, or seed. Thus, seminary is a place of planting and tending to seeds. So, seminary cultivates theological acumen, pastoral disposition and bold leadership. The etymology also reminds one of the many agrarian references in the Bible: the lilies of field, the tares among the wheat, the day laborers and on and on.

The construction of the modern university also intrigues me. This is especially the case considering the work of John Milbank. His interest to commence a Christian Enlightenment (making theology the master discourse, precisely because none can master it) is a reconstruction of the university. The project would be to invaginate the university. Instead of outward radiating, the myriad discourses would be constituted and affirmed inwardly by theology. An academic wheel, where the theology would be the center hub and the other sciences would act as spokes. This was the case not so long ago in the 17th century when theology was said to be the “queen of the sciences.” In 1810, Berlin University was founded and was to become the model for the modern university. Vociferous discussion took place as to if theology ought to be part of the new university structure. Friedrich Schleiermacher argued successfully for its inclusion, but theology was relegated as merely one discourse among many, and later, damnably, its whole dissected into discrete parts (Bible as literature, Theology as philosophy, Christian history as history, and Practical ministry and psychology and sociology).

The German, early 20th century model for the university became the indispensible archetype. The root of university is denoted in its project and structure. First, it comes from the word “universe” which derives from Latin. It consists of two words: uni (one) and vertere (to turn). Thus, the “universe” or the “university” is enveloping (or turning) everything into one thing. Yet, in trying to speak of everything usually says nothing.

So, let me suggest an idea. Let me play a language game. Instead of the seminary aspiring to become the university, let it rather be both a univerisity and a univirsity.

The univerisity is not concerned with everything, but rather concerned with a specific something that signifies everything. Thus, theological education centers around uni (one) veritas (truth). This truth is singular, particular and the master signifier. It is the master signifier because it is the first sign: the Word, Christ Jesus, the only Son of God. This particular truth initiates, situates and norms any further construction in theological education. The univerisity (one-truth) becomes a pronouncement as to the institutions’ originating genesis, productive synthesis, and culminating thesis. The fidelity to the Veritas becomes then the measure of the mission.

The seminary should also be the univirsity. In this sense, the name proclaims the Incarnation. That Jesus of Nazareth was Christ. Thus, it is the vir or, in Latin, the man, that creates this truth. This uni (one) vir (man) is then the entire construction of theological education, because He is the word (logos) of God (Theos). Thus, Robert Banks’ definition for theological education, “To Know God in Christ and to help others know God in Christ” is an appropriate one. Christ then properly becomes the theological and educative keystone.

In the 19th century, Christian theology was relegated to being just another subject among multiple subjects in the modern university. Since then, it has only continued to decline in importance and has been forcibly moved farther from the center, literally 'marginalized' to the periphery. DePaul University, the largest Catholic school in the country, doesn’t have a theology department, but only a “Religious Studies” department. Neither does Northwestern University, founded by Methodists and until the 1920’s were the ‘Fighting Methodist.” Christian theology isn’t even offered a special place among the varied world religions, even at universities that were founded as Christian institutions. So, what theological education needs is not a transformed university – as this project must be abandoned – but for seminaries and those few remaining theological departments to be univerisities and univirsities. Theological education must engage not with everything rolled into one, but more simply with one Truth and one Man found in the person of Christ.

Economic Blogging - The Bailout is about Main St. not Wall St.

2008-09-26T16:22:00.005-05:00

Two things: 1) The bailout is necessary 2) the bailout is about main street not Wall St.

Ok, so I stole the second one from Obama, but it makes the point well. This bailout is about the people - normal Americans.

To use an analogy, this financial problem is akin to cholesterol. You never knew you had a problem, until you had a heart attack.

Of course, right now business aren't closing. Wall St. looks flappable, but when is it not? No, the problem is credit, and credit is measured in the long, not the short. Giant financial institutions easily can look a bit evil and completely corrupt... well, that is, until you need to buy a house, a car or send a son or daughter off to college.

Credit is the life blood, and as a rule, institutions don't extend lines of credit when they are weighed down in debt. Unfortunately this is debt that won't be repayed or worse won't be repayed AND are overvalued.

So the bailout price is THE problem... the government can't pay too much because then you reward bad decisions (and the government will have less likelihood in turning a profit on this whole mess), however you also can't pay too little because then the institutions won't be able begin lending again (which is the whole point of this enterprise).

This is not about bailing out Wall St. I read some quote (from a Republican Congressman, no less) who said, "The plan does nothing for those millions of distressed homeowners." Well, he's right, it's not about them either. It's about credit. It's about making sure that when you get fired, and rehired two towns away you can go the bank and get a loan, and the interested buyer of your house can get a loan. It is about making sure that the young business start-up can get a loan so that in ten years they can make the new technological breakthrough that makes Microsoft look like Atari. Credit is the spinach of the US economy.

Every week thousands of jobs need to be created in this country just to keep the unemployment rate stable. Those jobs come from growth in businesses and new businesses. They require credit. We might not see it now, but let a few more of these giant firms fall, continue to let the credit market tighten and begin to watch unemployment soar, watch the dollar plummet (which for exporter is a good thing, but we're in import country, so you do the math), and let the hard times roll.

And if you didn't hear: Yes, Washington Mutual (lovingly, WaMu) was seized yesterday by federal treasury officials. It was the LARGEST FEDERAL SEIZURE IN HISTORY. The story wasn't even the headline for the New York Times today. This financial situation is very serious, and like cholesterol, if not checked, will entail equally as serious consequences.

Political Blogging - Palin as Politik

2008-09-18T13:45:00.003-05:00

The Chicago Tribune ran an op-ed on Biden Obama's VP choice under the title, "Obama Choice: Good Government, Bad Politics."

The news was awash in one statement: Obama was shoring up his foreign policy credentials. The choice signaled an Obama White House that was committed to responsible governance, but it was bad politics. Biden doesn't pick up a state. Biden doesn't motivate a certain voting block. Biden is good government and bad politics.

If there was ever a yin to one's yang, an up to one's down, an antithetical to Obama's thesis of good governance, it was McCain's choice of Sarah Palin. It was in good politics, but bad governance.

Recent polls are showing that the American people across the political spectrum see McCain's choice in such light.

The NewYorkTimes/CBS News Poll was released on September 18. One of the questions read: "Do you think Barack Obama chose Joe Biden as his running mate more because he is well qualified for the job or more because he thinks Joe Biden would help him win the election?

57% believed it was because he was "well qualified", 31% believed he was chosen because he would "help win" the election. The remaining polled thought it was either for both reasons, or had no opinion.

The same question was posed to McCain concerning the choice of Sarah Palin for the VP spot. Only 17% thought she was chosen because she was "well qualified", while 75% believed she was nominated because she would help him win.

Palin is mere politik.

Political Blogging - Intrade Helps Quell Fears

2008-09-17T15:15:00.005-05:00

The past couple weeks after the Republican National Convention have been filled with premonition and pandemonium. Governor Sarah Palin's meteoric rise to national stardom has left many liberals aghast at the possibility that while 'change' trumps experience, it apparently doesn't trump 'inexperience.'

Overnight the media began reporting that soccer and Wal-mart moms could finally relate to a politician, and found Palin to be "refreshing." This, I believe, highlights the two mutually exclusive myths of the United States. These two myths, which I have written about before, are espoused in individualism and egalitarianism. Palin has captured the nearly impossible middle-ground between the two. Perhaps, I will write more about Palin and the two myths later, but this post is merely to be a politically cathartic read. It is to remind us that voting totals do not elect Presidents; the Electoral College does (which Democrats so painfully learned about in 2000).

Recently, national polls have steadily moved toward a dead heat. Obama and McCain seemed poised toward yet another election that is 'too close to call.'

And yet, I don't think we need to worry. Check out intrade.com. The online predictions market has a new US 2008 presidential election tool. The current political map has Obama winning 273 to McCain's 265.

A slim margin to be sure, but the question is what state does McCain, can McCain, swing? RealClearPolitics currently names 11 swings states. Yet while all these states by RCP definition have polls that are within 4% difference, most these states are already considered “locked” by intrade.

For example: In Pennsylvania Obama garners 47.3% while McCain holds 45.7% support in the polls, with a difference of 1.6% in Obama's favor. Yet, on intrade Pennsylvania is being predicated as going for Obama with 68% certainty.

Also, for example, Florida is nearly a swing state. The average polling numbers to date are McCain 49.4%, Obama 44.4%. Yet intrade predicts McCain will carry the state with 70% certainty.

So what are the real swing states?
Anything that intrade has at 60% or lower.

The red states that intrade has at 60% or below are:
Nevada(5)
Virginia(13)
Ohio(20)

The blue state that intrade has at 60 or below are:
New Hampshire(4)
Colorado(9)

What does all this mean? There are more and bigger leaning-red swing states. Democrats: rest easy. (There will be canvassing to do soon).

Hermeneutics: Alice, the "Final" Four and Barth

2008-09-14T19:55:00.004-05:00

I am taking a requisite class in Hermeneutics, and I find myself surprisingly happy with the initial readings.

The class has opened with a delightful little read from David Jasper, "A Short Introduction to Hermeneutics". The book is really just a survey of, primarily, biblical hermeneutics, but branches to the issue writ large when appropriate. Jasper makes a persuasive case that hermeneutic shifts are leading indicators of theological shifts throughout Christian history.

During the work he betrays a predisposition to the reformation, and in doing so, he also given short shrift to Aquinas and Scholasticism. This would be my only grievance.

Yet, what was particularly appealing were the poems and excerpts that were craftily plotted throughout the chapters. Below I have recounted a few:

"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on. "I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least - at least I mean what I say - that's the same thing, you know." "Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why you might just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what I see!"
-Alice in Wonderland

"The letter shows us what God and our fathers did;
The allegory shows us where out faith is hid;
The moral meaning gives us rules of daily life;
The anagogy shows us where we end our strife." - Nicholas of Lyra

"Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read'st black where I read white." -William Blake

The last comes from Barth's "Commentary on the Letter to the Romans"
"The Historical-critical Method of Biblical investigation has its rightful place: It is concerned with the preparation of the intelligence - and this can never be superfluous. But, were I driven to choose between it and the venerable doctrine of Inspiration, I should without hesitation adopt the latter, which has a broader, deeper, more important justification. The doctrine of Inspiration is concerned with the labour of apprehending, without which not technical equipment, how ever complete, is of any use whatever."

Kant's Going to Hell for Proving God

2008-07-31T14:32:00.005-05:00

A devilishly precocious and beautiful friend of mine recently shamed me into reading Mikhail Bulgakov's "The Master and Margarita". It's a bright-colored tragedy, where wit is often a fatal character flaw.

Yet best of all, it claims that Kant is in hell for proving God.

"But, may I ask," resumed the guest [the devil] from abroad after a moment's troubled reflection, "what do you make of the proofs of God's existence, of which, as you know, there are five?"

"Alas!" answered Berlioz regretfully, "all of those proofs are worthless, and mankind has long since consigned them to oblivion. Surely you would agree that reason dictates that there can be no proof of God's existence."

"Bravo!" exclaimed the foreigner [the devil], "Bravo! You've said just what that restless old sage Immanuel said about this very same subject. But here's the rub: he completely demolished all five proofs, and then, in a seeming display of self-mockery, he constructed a sixth proof all his own!"

"Kant's proof," retorted the educated editor with a faint smile, "is also unconvincing. No wonder Schiller said that only slaves could be satisfied with Kant's arguments on this subject, while Strauss simple laughed at his proof."

As Beriloz was speaking, he thought, "But, who is he anyway? And how come his Russian is so good?"

"This guy Kant ought to get three years in Solovki for proofs like that," blurted out Ivan Nikolayevich, completely unexpectedly.

"Ivan!" whispered Berlioz in consternation.

"Precisely so, precisely so," he cried [the devil], and his green left eye, which was focused on Berlioz, sparkled. "That's the very place for him! As I told him that time at breakfast, 'As you please, professor, but you've contrived something totally absurd! True, it may be clever, but it's totally incomprehensible. People will laugh at you.'"

Berlioz's eyes popped. "At breakfast... with Kant? What kind non-sense is this?" he thought.

"However," continued the foreigner [the devil], unflustered by Berlioz's astonishment and turning to the poet, "he can't be sent to Solovki for the simple reason that for more than a hundred years now he's been somewhere far more remote than Solovki, and there's no way of getting him out of there, I assure you!"

So be wary Alvin Platinga, and all those fancying themselves able to proof God's existence positively.

Fides et Ratio: Part I

2008-07-19T16:15:00.005-05:00

The questions boils down to this: Is all belief mere opinion? Even more basic: Is there Truth?

It would be telling to see how Catholic and Protestant laity would answer the question. In a secular society that has only two holy words - Ego and Tolerance - 'Yes' is an incredulous and an audacious answer. Such an answer is blasphemy agaist the two holy words.

Truth for the Ego is enveloped and limited to the experiential - there is nothing past the phenomenological. Or in another way: there can be no metaphysics because there is nothing 'beyond' or 'past' physics. Personal experience is the irrefutable grounds of knowledge. So, meaning is made, not destined.

Tolerance is the natural disposition that follows from such a construction of Truth. It is atomized to the point that it is individualized. Universalism is only in particularity. The vicissitudes of life and myriad of cultures necessarily force each person to live a unique life. As each experience is different than so too is each conception of Truth. Overtime, people accept that Truth is nothing more than personal experience. Truth is amber-hardened opinion. The great motto of society becomes: We can agree to disagree.

This current malaise of secular culture that sees Truth as either dangerous, irrelevant, or relative is something to be regretted.

Though not all see Truth in such sinister and cynical ways. Radical Orthodoxy and Catholicism are both more than happy to say with conviction that the Word is Truth.

Pope John Paul II's Encyclical, "Fides and Ratio" (Faith and Reason) tried so show how the theological tradition of Scholasticism can correct current Christian relativism and cynicism. It opens with a beautiful line:

Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves (cf. Ex 33:18; Ps 27:8-9; 63:2-3; Jn 14:8; 1 Jn 3:2).

In my next post I'll discuss how the encyclical and Aquinas can help re-invigorate Christian belief, evangelism, and community, and most importantly move the Body of Christ past the debilitating stance that Truth is relative.

The Need for God

2008-07-10T17:14:00.005-05:00

"Now - here is my secret:
I tell it to you with an openness of heart that I doubt that I shall every achieve again, so I pray that you are in a quiet room as you hear these words. My secret is that I need God - that I am sick and can no longer make it alone. I need God to help me give, because I no longer seem to be capable of giving; to help me be kind, as I no longer seem capable of kindness; to help me love, as I seem beyond able to love."
-From Douglas Coupland's, Life after God

"Christianity is a crutch." That's what I used to say to other students in high school. I had a theological chip on my shoulder, and I wanted the world to know it. However, looking back, I see that to level such a claim is both entirely true, and completely fallacious. It just depends on where one is standing. Douglas Coupland's little paragraph gets at the ambiguity, and actually illumines quite well why there is a two fold need for God (and why its not a crutch, in one sense).

Robert Penn Warren wrote in All the King's Men, "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud. There is always something!" And indeed, there is always dirt to be found under the fingers. There is always something. After every absolution there is a new indulgence. To recognize sin must come after first recognizing God. Its a theological driven vision of the world. The path to a pre-existing morality that circumscribes theological particularity is a road toward Kantian ethics. Such a deontic ethic not snuffed out from the beginning, builds into its own self-validating perspective. Sin doesn't prove God. Sin is known only as Sin because of Scripture. In God's goodness He gave grace. To call grace a 'crutch' seems almost vulgar, but visually intuitive. Here, grace is not some helpful third-leg, but a life-source. Grace doesn't help, it saves.

The other reason people need God is because they don't have God. This was what Douglas Coupland meant when he wrote, "I need God." The book was entitled, "Life after God." But there is no such thing. There is no Life after God.

Bertrand Russel wrote a book entitled, "Why I'm Not a Christian." It's not a very good book. Its a collection of essays, and he basically levels one criticism on Christianity: not the divinity of Christ, not the cannibalistic notion of Eucharist, nor the misanthropic stance of being martyred for a cause. No, he thought that basically, Christianity was a philosophical crutch. Russel thought that God resembled a benevolent father-figure far too much for there to be any good to come of it. What he should have said was that he had read Feuerbach, and had agreed with him.

It reminds me of T.S. Eliot who, from his poem The Waste Land, wrote, "The world ends like this, not with a bang, but with a whimper." The man who was an ardent atheist most of his life found God in the end. He probably needed God, because he knew there was no life after God.

So Christianity is a crutch. Either because someone knows God, and knows sin is real, and needs grace from God. Or because someone does not know God - and knows there is no life after God - and for that reason needs God.

There is a popular little poem that has been going around in the past few years, it troubles me a bit.

Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourselves, Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you. We are all meant to shine, as children do. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in everyone. And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others.

In college, back in my youthful naivete that I someday, somewhere misplaced I did feel that way: My deepest doubt was that I was powerful beyond measure. Not anymore.

So, acknowledging sin and doubt is not a goal, but it can be a felix culpa. At times our legs will ache, we will groan from pain. We will want a crutch, and God will be there.

The Need for Scholasticism

2008-05-26T13:27:00.006-05:00

A new book asks, and is titled, "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" The series is comprised of 13 short essays published by the John Templeton Foundation. I read of this originally from the The Times, "Can Science and God Ever Get Along?" by Tim Hames.

The series promotes the supposition that faith and reason are inversely related subjects. Of the contributors only one contends that the relationships between faith and reason is something other than antagonistic, or at the very least divorced.

Certainly, I would rather have Christopher Hitchens crass answer, "No, but is should." Than the more dangerous excursus made by Jerome Groopman (a Harvard professor of Medicine). Groopman writes, "As a physician and researcher, I employ science to decipher human biology and treat disease. As a person of faith, I look to my religious tradition for the touchstones of a moral life."

He continues, "So, the question of obsolescence is miscast, because science and faith should exist in separate realms."

This is the folly of Christianity today.

If faith is simply another 'realm' of ones life, if it is merely another book section in Barnes and Noble, if it is only a moral hobby, than it will surely and sorely be misunderstood.

None of the religious leaders took to task the underlying supposition. That faith is not some mere and somewhat queer "feeling" that rests within someone. Though a few made overtures of how morality (and thus, perhaps God) may influence how we implement science, no one argued how reason is a necessary part of faith.

Of all the writers the most well spoken was Keith Miller, a professor at Brown University. He writes, “The categorical mistake of the atheist is to assume that God is natural and therefore within the realm of science to investigate and test. But God is not and cannot be part of nature. He is the answer to existence, not part of existence itself.”

That morality and science are distinct and separate is myth of modernity and the university. It makes for a Procrustean either/or that need not be. There is a need for Scholasticism. The Augustinian phrase, "faith seeking understanding" needs reasserted by the Church while at the same time coupled by the academe's adoptions of the phrase, "understanding seeking faith." There is a middle ground that is larger than the two margins.

So, my answer? Does science make belief in God obsolete? No, and it shouldn't.

Political Blogging - A Presumptive Nominee; Not So Presumptive

2008-05-06T23:24:00.002-05:00

I've never been so proud of being an Hooiser.

Two weeks ago I said that North Carolina would be the coup de grace for the Clinton campaign. Not so (though North Carolina did go for Obama by 14 points). Rather, it was Indiana, and the Obama strong-holds of Marion and Lake counties.

While writing, the Gary votes are being counted and reported, and the 20,000 vote lead Clinton holds to is slowly eroding. Monroe county absentee votes (mostly from faculty and students of IU) are still not reported, but will certainly break strong for Obama.

It has been reported that Clinton has cancelled all morning show interviews, and all other public appearances for tomorrow.

The Clinton campaign sent out a fund-raising email in the past hour, but didn't ask for more funds.

The show is over.
Tomorrow expect media spin that praises Obama's comeback, and at least 12 super-delegates pledging for Obama. The stories will be not if, but when Hillary drops out, and who will Obama choose for the V-P spot.

Political Blogging - The Hillary I Would Have Voted For

2008-04-30T12:27:00.002-05:00

In the next week I will return to topics concerning Rousseau and the movie Into the Wild, but right now I want to mention something positive about the Clinton campaign.

As I recently wrote my first negative post about Obama, I now am writing my first positive post on Clinton. In the past months Clinton has couched herself as the edgy, policy-egghead that cares more about winning than being right. Her campaign has continually taken the low-road (see the New York Times article), and unfairly and unduly polarized and racialized the nomination process. That said, I was quite moved - even inspired - by the recent ad Clinton has running in North Carolina. The ad features Maya Angelo reading an endorsement for Clinton, see it here.

The message is a shift from here criticism of Obama's 'Yes we can' to her pragmatic rejoinder, 'how we can.' This message offers no policy initiative, no 10-step solution; it offers, 'just words.' It is a brilliant ad. Yet, it is unlikely to assuage black voters to the extent that they will vote for Clinton, but who knows? Everytime Clinton has shown her emotional side it has followed with fanfare (and, too, some incredulity by pundits). Whatever follows, all loyal Democrats are praying that Clinton's campaign (and Obama's) have more ads that look like these, and less like the 3:00a.m. ads.

Political Blogging - What Tide Change?

2008-04-24T12:47:00.003-05:00

The MSM have to make stories dramatic, no matter how mundane they may actually be. Clinton's primary win on Tuesday has been cast by the media as an extraordinary story of a candidate who has been beaten, bruised and broken, but still won over the Keystone State. How heroic.

And yet, the possibility - the sensibility - of the Clinton campaign continues to lose credibility. Instead of the tidal change of support she purports, national polls show, for her, only erosion.

The link is to the Real Clear Politics tracking chart of the national averages for the Democratic race.

The Pope, Politics and Immigration

2008-04-22T11:07:00.004-05:00

The Pope's visit highlighted how different the secular and sacred are. The media seemed honestly perplexed at how to cover the event, most seemed to relegate the visit to the political (because the assertion of the self is always a will-to- power, right?). Some articles contrasted his dogmatic positions with his personal humility (as if piety and orthodoxy are inherently antithetical). Most of the news stories just didn't understand what to think of someone taking their faith seriously.

Of the offenders, none were worse than Lou Dobbs and Congressman Tancredo. An opinioned response in the Wall Street Journal, today, brilliantly illuminated and allayed the controversy:

That 'Insulting' Pope'
It's not everyday that a backbencher in Congress draws international attention by insulting the spiritual leader of one in four Americans. But Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigrant obsessive, wasn't about to miss his moment.

Pope Benedict XVI called on U.S. bishops last week to "continue to welcome the immigrants who join your ranks today, to share their joys and hope, to support them in their sorrows and trials and to help them flourish in their new home."

Mr. Tancredo's response was to accuse the pontiff of "faith-based marketing" and claim that "the pope's immigration comments may have less to do with spreading the gospel than they do about recruiting new members of the church." Mr. Tancredo - who sports T-shirt that read "America Is Full" - also cited a March 1 Wall Street Journal editorial to support this argument. The editorial concerned a new Pew servery on religion in the U.S. and noted that in recent decades the Catholic Church has been losing members among the native born but gaining them among the foreign born. "We'd encourage our friends on the right who want to limit immigration to consider the health of the Church," we wrote.

Our point, evidently missed by the Congressman, was that the U.S. Catholic Church has traditionally been an immigrant church, helping to settle and assimilated generations of Irish, Polish and Italian newcomers. The pope made a similar argument during his visit last week in separate remarks to U.S. educators. "Countless dedicated religious sisters, brothers, and priest together with selfless parents have, through Catholic schools, helped generations of immigrants to rise from poverty and take their place in mainstream society," he said.

To Lou Dobbs, another Tancredo-like compulsive, all of this amounted to the pope, "insulting our country." The CNN anchor said, "I really don't appreciate the bad manners of a guest to tell me in this country and my fellow citizens what to do." You know the restrictionists have gone head-first into the fever swamps when they denounce a Christian religious leaders for sounding like a Christian.
The pope welcomes immigrants because he's Catholic, not because they are. He isn't "marketing" his faith. He practicing it.

Political Blogging - Coup de Grace

2008-04-21T23:26:00.003-05:00

Unless Obama wins Pennsylvania, Clinton will not concede the race tomorrow. With all the money, support, and effort she has put into the Keystone-state, she's not going to win a battle and then turn around and surrender the war (that is without losing political face). She will either wait until Indiana, or more likely North Carolina.

Predictions:
Hillary Clinton wins Pennsylvania with less than a 15% margin. Thus, the blow-out necessary remains elusive, but the win is still present.

The Indiana primary provides a split ticket with a win for either campaign of less than 10%. Either way, Clinton remains in the race.

North Carolina is the coup de grace. It is the final and unforgettable bludgeon to the Clinton campaign, signaling the unstoppable force of Obama's victories.

Between PA and NC she begins to soften her tone, and strengthen her message that it is only Democrats that can turn this country around; on the night of the NC election she concedes early and presents herself as a loyal Democrat who has always seen McCain as the inevitable downfall of the US, and Obama as the only possible salve for such present despair.

Tomorrow: watch Obama lose, but only by small margins.
Clinton knows the final death blow is to come, but wait until the coup de grace: North Carolina; 65/35. Then she concedes. Convention wars be damned.

Political Blogging: Why I Want an Elitist for President

2008-04-15T12:17:00.004-05:00

America essentially paints itself in two opposing characteristic hues; equality and elitism. The two poles of American achievement call everyone to simultaneously be like everyone else, and to be the very best. This schizophrenia reaches fever pitch in presidential candidates; they are to be both your bar-buddy and political-science professor. They are to wax eloquently of the policy nuances that pervade tax-codes and foreign affairs, while also jovially discussing with blue-collar workers the chance the Cubs have of winning their first World Series in a hundred years.

We hold our presidential hopefuls to this paradoxical task because it begins with a fallacy. All children are cajoled to believe that they too can be President someday. What an awful lie. A society seemingly built on hyper-individualism and the spirit of manifest destiny also holds within it a deep sense of egalitarianism. Succinctly: "You can be whatever you want to be." This truth seems so palpable in childhood; one need only extend ones hands and grasp their desires. Though as the days linger on, we find our choices more confined, our dreams more elusive. Where we once dreamed of living abroad, we now settled for a vacation across state lines, and where once we hoped to become a lawyer we settle on being a paralegal. What makes this lifestyles so seemingly despicable is that it is so desperate from what was promised. This, to be sure, is the resounding critique of Ayn Rand's objectivism (and the myriad of self-help, and get-rich books); namely, that we are not autonomous, individualized creators of our own future. The human will cannot fashion itself into its own wanting; we are constrained by a myriad of factors in such endeavors. We both love and loath the idea that we are very nearly like everyone else.

And yet, there are those seemingly rare cases of stardom and celebrity: those intractably charismatic personalities and those captivating and enigmatic minds that seize our attention. Are not these elites? Without falling into idolatry, there is something admirable in recognizing greatness.

The critique against Barack Obama is that he is an elitist. The connotation being that he looks despairingly down upon blue-collar workers and rural America. Though such an outlook ought to be rejected, it is most likely not truly imbued in Obama. However, more importantly, Obama, Clinton, and McCain all (and rightfully) ought to embrace the denotation of being elitists; that they exceptional citizens, specially suited for the most powerful political position in the world. They are the elites of American society.

However, such overtures begin reactions to those allergic to non-egalitarian sentiments. Again, we want presidents who are an impossible both/and. Of course, Obama is an elitist, but so are Clinton and McCain. There exceptionalism is the very reason for their political success. They are exceptional, because they are exceptions. We are asking presidential candidates to do the impossible: to be the exceptional and concomitantly exceptionaless. I want a president who is an elitist, I want Obama.

Political Blogging: We are not the ones we have been waiting for....

2008-04-14T16:12:00.005-05:00

This blog will have done something it has yet to do: criticize Obama. Being a farm-hand and corn-reared son of Indiana you might think it begins with a little comment that has caused a maelstrom, but you'd wrong. Obama comments, though overly drawn and generalized, have a powerful resonance with me. Much of 'small-town' America has social mores that often remind me of the movie 'The Last Picture Show.' Religious zealotry and zionphobia scar many of those who live in rural, and often forgotten, America.

No, what is of concern is one line: "We are the ones we have been waiting for..."

The line by Obama (and was first the title of an Alice Walker book, and picked up by Jim Wallis' book "God's Politics") is featured prominently at the end of a new music video, "We Are the Ones."

Watch it here.

The video, powerful to be sure, changes nothing in my belief that Obama can assuage much of the political contentions that have created a riff in the American landscape, and also can begin to allay the world of its concerns of the United States. However, for all of this, Obama is not, nor are we, the Hope, but simply a hope.

John the Baptist always conceded that he was only announcing the arrival of someone greater than himself. Obama, though an incredibly inspiring individual, is not the one John was speaking of.

Perhaps its not even about Obama, but more about that one line. We are simply not the ones we have been waiting for... Or, at least more specifically, I am not who I hoped for. Such hope, is poor hope.

My first article on Obama caught the attention of another blog, Deep Furrows. The blogger used my article to show that Obama's followers write with a messianic flare in concern for Obama's presidential campaign. Though after arguing my rhetoric, she capitulated that I indeed was not crossing the line between a hope and the Hope, but nonetheless, I have grown sensitive to the critique.

My good friend Chris Marchland has kept me grounded, promising me, that no matter the political promises made, the status quo will remain the status quo. And to a large extent that is one of my hopes. In comparison to the other countries round the world, the United States is doing quite well. Change need not be radical, to be meaningful.

However, in a world still marred by sin and scarcity, no amount of hope will ever truly ascend human depravity, unless of course the One we have been waiting for arrives... ... and its not Barack Obama.

On Christ Assuming Both X and Y

2008-03-25T20:19:00.004-05:00

The Christological controversies in the first few centuries of Christianity often centered around ensuring that Christ was both fully divine and fully human. The reason, ostensibly, as to why it was important for Christ to have a complete human nature was the patristic quip, ‘That which is not assumed, is not sanctified.’ Of course, the early Fathers wanted all of humanity to be fully sanctified. Thus, wanted to make sure that Christology claimed that Christ was completely human (and divine).

But what about the female-ness of women? Was that assumed by the seemingly male Christ. Perhaps so. If women are homogametic sex (they have two X chromosomes) then Christ – being male – took on the heterogametic sex (having and X and Y chromosome) and thus women, too, were assumed, truly, as the X chromosome was assumed and thus sanctified in the male Christ.

Just a thought.

The Eighth Sacrament

2008-03-19T22:58:00.002-05:00

Holy Week is an emotional and spiritual roller-coaster. On Palm Sunday Christ is given a king’s welcome into the city of Jerusalem by Friday is he is crucified only then to find him risen again on Sunday!

However, beside the emotional torrent, Holy Week is also sacramental. The supper scene where Christ break bread and shares wine is part of the larger passion narrative. What has constituted a sacrament for the Catholic Church is reflected in its relations to Christ’s work on earth. Though my seminarian friends would contend with me, I agree that specific sacraments extend past Baptism and Eucharist and include Confirmation, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Ordination, and Marriage (I try in vain to persuade my Protestant friends that if they become Catholic they’ll get three times the sacraments and receive three times the grace!). The sacraments are to be outward signs of inward grace. However, why not an eighth sacrament: Foot-washing?

Usually a sacrament is rooted in the work of Christ. Foot-washing figures prominently in thirteenth chapter of the Gospel of John. It reads:

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

The imperative seems clear, be servants even if lords. Wash feet and be humbled.

For Catholics the rite is timidly embraced on Maundy Thursday services (today) participation is usually voluntary and is in variance depending on the church.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like idea of washing someone else feet. But that’s the point. It is to become humbled. I could think of few things more unpleasant than washing my neighbors’ feet.

Of course, the cross should humble us. It should shake us till we weep, and doesn’t the song, “I was there when they crucified my Lord” do that? And yet, sometimes the cross is too big, its too awing. It sometime seems to perfect, clean, theologized, detached, and abstract. So, while during those times, why not in worship, turn to our neighbors, and wash? It would be a reminder that God in Christ washed the apostles’ feet. The awkward, uncomfortable and tense feelings that would surely swell in both the washer and recipient would not be an emotion to overcome, but wallow in, just as the apostles were aghast at Christ’s action, and then in turn realize that they too would be asked to wash feet, and be humbled.

Should foot-washing really be a sacrament? I do not know, but I think it could have a powerful place in worship for conveying how we should only come to the altar table in humbleness. Surely, how one approaches the altar for Eucharist is how one approaches the Holy Week; humbled.

Augustine: God Is Not the World

2008-03-16T12:37:00.003-05:00

A passage by St. Augustine on why pantheism (and Sally McFague's theology) are blasphemy from his book City of God, Book IV Chapter 12.

Chapter 12. The theory that makes God the soul of the world, the body of God.

But here is another point. And it is one which no man of quick intelligence, in fact no man at all (for there is no need here of exceptional ability) can consider unmoved. Putting aside all contentious polemics, let us note carefully that if God is the Soul of the World and the world is to him as the body to the soul, if this God is, as it were in the bosom of nature and contains all things in himself, so that from his soul, which gives life to the whole of that mass, the life and soul of all living things is derived - according to the lot assigned at birth to each; if this is so, then nothing at all remains which is not a part of God. Can anyone fail to see the blasphemous and irreligious consequences? Anything which anyone treads underfoot would be a part of God! In the killing of any living creature, a part of God would be slaugtered! I shrink from uttering all the possibilities which come to mind; it would be impossible to mention them without shame."

Nyssa: Your God Is Too Small

2008-03-15T15:08:00.004-05:00

A passage by Gregory of Nyssa on the Abundance and Infinit nature of God (or why Process Theology will ontologize evil and make God complicit in suffering) from Life of Moses

II, 236. "He learns form what was said that the Divine is by its very nature infinite, enclosed by no boundary. If the Divine is perceived as though bounded by something, one must by all means consider along with that boundary what is beyond it. For certainly that which is bounded leaves off at some point, as air provides the boundary for all that flies and water for all that live in it. Therefore, fish are surrounded on every side by water, and birds by air. The limits of the boundaries which circumscribe the birds and the fish are obvious: The water is the limit to what swims and the air to what flies. In the same way, God, if he is conceived as bounded, would necessarily be surrounded by something in nature. It is only logical that what encompasses is much larger than what is contained."

II, 237. "Now it is agreed that the Divine is good in nature. But what is different in nature from the Good is surely something outside the Good. What is outside the Good is perceived to be evil in nature. But it was shown that what encompasses is much larger than what is encompassed. It most certainly follows, then, that those who think God is bounded conclude that he is in enclosed in evil.

On Peter Pan Discovering the Eucharist

2008-03-11T16:48:00.007-05:00

In Steven Spielberg’s 1991 movie classic “Hook”, a now grown Peter Pan, played by Robin Williams, returns to Neverland. Ensconced in his practical and mature demeanor he tries and fails to rekindle his connection with the Lost Boys.

During dinner, one night, the Lost Boys and Peter sit down to eat supper. Though the plates and baskets on the long table are empty the Lost Boys quickly begin, ostensible, to eat from the empty plates and drink from the empty cups. Peter looks on incredulously. The boys continue to merrily eat and drink. Finally, Peter and another Lost Boy begin to sling school-yard insults at each other; Peter finally begins to embrace a youthful vim and vigor. Peter as an afterthought to particularly pointed jab takes up a spoon and throws an imaginary pile of food onto the other Lost Boy, and to the surprise of Pan, he finds the boy covered in food.

At that moment a Lost Boy exclaims, “You’re doing it, Peter!” “Doing what?” asks Peter. The Lost Boy replies, “Using you imagination!”

The camera pans over the table, its contents are now transformed; no more are the plates and baskets empty, but are now filled with roasts, chesses, breads, pies, and exotic fruits. The empty table is now a royal banquet. A seeming cornucopia has appeared from nothing, and Peter with astonishment and haste begins to sample the many foods. The abundance of the table has no end, and in the excitement of the moment the food is used not just for sustenance, but also a way to express sheer joy, as the children and Peter soon after begin a food-fight.

The Lost Boys’ table is analogous to the Church’s altar at which the Eucharist is consecrated and given to and eaten by the faithful. The faithful are those who can imagine that such simply elements such as bread and wine are transubstantiated into the real and abundant presence of our Lord God. It is to believe that an empty table can become a royal banquet. To faithfully imagine such a possibility is not easy. Just like Peter who had to resign himself from the constraints of the world he so strongly believed in, so too must Christians. The moment of recognition caught him by surprise and with joy, just as it did the disciples who did not recognize that they were traveling with the Risen Christ to Emmaus. Not until the supper feast when the bread was broken did the disciples recognize that their companion was Christ (Luke 24:13-35).

The ecclesial table that seems empty to a passerby is a royal banquet to all Christians and this new sight comes from the faithful imagination of God’s people. Samuel Wells is right when he talks of the importance of Christian imagination. The Eucharist is the moment when Christians proclaim that in the midst of simply bread and wine is the eternal, sovereign and loving God who gave the world His only begotten Son.

And yet, the familial table may be scarce of food and drink. The consequences from famines and droughts are realities whose effects may be mollified, but never completely avoided. The fruits of the spirit are bountiful, but at times the empty stomach will go unfed and the parched tongue will stay dry. The ecclesial altar and the familial table do not hold the same promises. This is only to say we do not live in Neverland. That though the Kingdom of God has grown near it is not fully realized. This does not deny the importance of Christian imagination; instead it makes it even more important. More important because it is how one unlocks the Eucharist for what it truly is; the body and blood of Christ, shed for us and for all so that we may be forgiven of sins. The abundant forgiveness of God is a testament to the abundant love of God.

The foretaste of the Kingdom of God comes through the Eucharist. Just as for Peter Pan the way to find the real banquet was to first imagine it – to think as a child. The theological key to the Eucharist – the full abundance of God on earth – is faithful imagination. Certainly it should remind one of Luke 18:16, “But Jesus called the children to him and said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.’”

Political Blogging - End-game

2008-03-07T15:27:00.003-06:00

Jonthan Chait at the New Republic wrote the article "Go Already!" He writes:

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain--i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done"--but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.

Be afriad democrats, be very afraid.

Hillary Clinton is playing to the worst of political ballads. Simultaneously playing victim and victimizer, and throwing down the fear card. Her insistence on seating the Michigan and Florida delegation would be admirable if she has made them months before (in fairness, Obama's political maneuvering in connection to his promise to only use public funds for the general election is also, but not equally as, deplorable). Her now openly negative campaign will hurt Obama in the general election, and her future chances at running again in 2012.

Tuesday she netted nine delegates. On Wednesday three new super-delegates came out to support Obama. The only way she wins the nomination is by forcing the party to implode. If Clinton continues to assert herself there are only two end-games; Obama is nominated, but so haggard from the primary (especially in FL, PA, MI) that the general falls to McCain, or Clinton clinches the nomination, but disillusioned democrats and moderates pick the lesser of two evils and McCain wins in an electoral landslide.

The question is when will Gore, Richardson and Dean tell Clinton to get off the stage?

Atheism: Moral or Intellectual?

2008-02-21T13:25:00.006-06:00

My well intentioned mother recently sent me an article from Daily Encounter, entitled, "Is Atheism an Intellectual or a Moral Issue?" The article begins on a false dialectical premise; it is either ones heart, or ones mind that is hindering someone from finding God in Christ. This need not be the case.

This blog often seems to be more 'Catholic' than 'atheist', but it is not a misnomer. We have to be authentic to what we believe, not prideful, but honest. The reason the article was so painful to read is that it perpetuated two problematic, and popular, (mis)understandings of atheism.

1) Atheists are intellectually stubborn or myopic. If they were honest they would see the abundant and (obvious) proofs of God's existence. The article states:

The incredible vastness of the universe and its formation is staggering. To accept all of this as happening by chance would take a mountain more of faith than to believe it all happened by intelligent design by a divine creator. And still the atheist says there is no God.

Certainly, there is agnosticism that should pervade every human thought in connection to the creation of the world, be Christians or atheists, alike. Christians profess that God created the world ex nihilo. Though to profess and to comprehend are different intellectual claims. No one, but God, could comprehend in totality what it means to create something from nothing. This is why births are so fantastical, whence did this new life come from? Though biological it may be explicable, but perhaps not fully comprehendible. I am certainly in awe of the starry sky above me. So, the claim of atheism is not a pronouncement on creation, but an assertion against the existence of God – they are separate issues.

However, the larger issue is that atheism need not be about the intellectual quandaries that seem to have mesmerized Christians and non-Christians. So often you here atheists argue that God can not exist because of evil, or there is no historical evidence to prove that Jesus rose from the dead. Others argue that the Church, if God was real, would not be so corrupted. To point, many Christian theologians are constructing new theologies to try and better articulate answers to these ‘problems.’ Christians should be sympathetic to these concerns, but ultimately the Church (which used Scripture), I believe, has rather persuasive answers to these concerns; the Augustinian notion of evil, the Kierkegaardian 'leap to faith', and the doctrine of sin, respectively. These issues often perplex, worry and even at times estrange Christians from their faith. However, these intellectual concerns are not what necessarily lead people to atheism.

Perhaps we ought to turn to Thomas (from John 20:24-29):

24 Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it."
26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe." 28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

In Luke, two followers of Jesus, on their way to Emmaus talk of Jesus without recognizing him as their companion until the supper feast. Thus, my hope is that someday, while during the Eucharist I see, saying, 'My Lord and my God.' However, there is for some atheists an inexplicable nature in their disbelief. Personally, there is no 'reason' for my disbelief. I find Christianity persuasive, desirable, and admirable, but I still do not believe. Just as Thomas would have surely have wanted to believe Jesus had risen, he did not. Thus, atheism is not essentially driven by intellectual quandaries; it is not simply an 'intellectual issue'.

The article stated somewhat rightly, that, "If I say there is no God, I make myself the final voice of authority and therein usurp the role of God in my life. I become a god unto myself." This type of arrogant atheism is currently and unfortunately more the rule than the exception. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins come to mind. Often some believe that a type of 'reverent agnosticism' ought to be adopted. I rather think a type of reverent humility would be better. Agnosticism suggests that one doesn't know, humility suggests the possibility of error. Atheist, believe they know, but should always concede that they may be wrong, and for me, hope to be wrong.

2) The article suggested that atheists are taking a moralistic 'pass'. They know that if they accept Christ, they must also accept the responsibility to live a moral life. Thus, atheists have eschewed the Church so as to shirk their responsibilities to their fellow brothers and sisters. The article states:

In the end we ultimately believe what we choose to believe—often what is the most convenient for us. For instance, if I choose to believe in God, I know I am morally responsible. On the other hand, if I chose not to believe in God, I delude myself into thinking I am not morally responsible and can live as I please. For example, "Philosopher Mortimer Adler, one of the great intellectuals of the twentieth century, believed Christianity was true, but refused to accept it because it would interfere with his lifestyle. In time, he overcame that objection and became a Christian, which, given the evidence, was the only rational thing to do." I would dare to suggest that maybe, just maybe, his honesty led him in his choice to make a commitment of his life to God and become a Christian.

Perhaps some atheists have figured this crude calculus, I think most have not. To suppose that atheists have cleverly weighed their moralistic options, and chosen that religion is too high a cost seems ludicrous, or at least suspect. Many Christians blithely live immoral lives, and many atheists live meritoriously moral lives. I saw Jim Wallis give a lecture recently where he stated that, "Christians do not have a monopoly on morality." And he is right. But, Christianity does claim to have the true reason for why one must be moral.

Secular humanists have often supported important moral movements. Kurt Vonnegut - my favorite author - was a deeply moral person, and it was embodied in both in his books and his life. Secular humanists share many concerns that the Church shares, but it is in their reasons that they differ with Christianity so poignantly.

Thus, it would seem evident that atheism is not a moral issue, nor is it a intellectual issue. Though it may be for some, it is not exclusively these two.

So what is the issue of atheism?
Whence does disbelief come?

This saddens me, but I do not know. I have no 'reason' for being atheist, I simply am. It is not to be antagonist or stubborn. Yet, the lack of faith, makes me then turn and reexamine theological understandings of soteriology and grace.

If one posits that there is a prevenient grace, then why cannot can I not choose to accept it? If the grace is open and free to all why then do so many not grasp for it, especially those very many who want it?

Another possibility is that many (all?) atheists are just anonymous Christians. They understand the truth of God in a different, but still equally meaningful way. The way this is usually presented is not very satisfying. It seems to mitigate the absolute truth in Christ, while also usurping the real beliefs (or unbeliefs) that others hold toward God in general and Christianity in particular.

Another possibility is that Calvin’s double-predestination was correct. I do often joke to friends that I am the only Calvinist that believes I am not part of the elect. Yet, my Methodists friends usually grow concerned with such a suggestion. They critique that such a God seems to be a God not worth worship, a God that ostensibly arbitrarily predetermined the outcome and course of history and salvation.

Of course, none of these options (and there are more) seem to rectify my lack of faith, nor someone else’s. Humility must then finds its place.

Until the pronouncement of faith through revelation, "My Lord and my God" the issue of atheism is neither intellectually or morally situated. It simply is the situation.

Political Blogging - An Unstoppable Force Hits an Unmovable Object

2008-02-13T13:38:00.002-06:00

Up until yesterday the democratic presidential race has perfectly illustrated the paradoxical physics question: What happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object? Until yesterday Obama's political force could not be quelled and Clinton's entrenched political machine seemed to be unmovable. The Super-Tuesday contest two weeks ago proved as much, with each garnering about 49% of the popular vote.

Yet, as the dynamic always seems to overcome the static, the social law of inertia, so too has Barack Obama candidacy seems to have finally overcome the once seemingly intractable Clinton machine.

Last night Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia held their primaries - the so called Potomac primaries. Barack Obama won each all with wide margins; in D.C. he won 75% of the vote (arguably Clinton's home state of 8 years). And while the black voting blocks in each primary went overwhelmingly for Obama, he split the white and over 30 vote.

Hawaii and Wisconsin are next to hold their primaries. Obama is favored to win them both. Clinton's campaign has all but written off the rest of the country focusing only on Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania (a poll yesterday showed Clinton ahead in Ohio by 17pts). Just today Hillary Clinton released a negative television ad that tagged Obama as dodging a debate with her in Marquette. (Though pundits have pointed out that her desire to have more debates is partially driven by constrained ability to purchase ad buys because of her campaign's budget crunch).

Obama's force in unstoppable, at least right now. Super-delegates will slowly start backing Obama over Clinton (they would have already backed Clinton if they were going to; she's always been the known quantity in the race). There is still the chance that Hillary Clinton will demand at the convention the seating of Michigan and Florida delegations, and if that happens McCain will win the day and offer another chance for Republicans to laugh at the self-imploding politics of the left. Hopefully and likely, democratic leaders, not necessarily committed to Obama, have or are going to began to call Clinton and politely tell her to take down the tent and congratulate her on an excellent wage campaign. One can only wonder when Howard Dean and Al Gore give Clinton the call.

There are two end-games in this scenario.
The first is if Clinton heeds the democratic leadership and allows the unstoppable force to move into the general election and win the White House. This would be the case of Newton's second law of motion, the law of momentum to win out, and prove that the dynamic can overcome the static.

If she forces the issue of Michigan and Florida and fosters a riot at the convention she will prove Newton's second law of motion; that the two forces might just cancel each other out.

Either way, when the race is over we will have the answer to the age-old question: What happens when an unstoppable force hits an unmovable object? Seems to me the last eight primary races have already given us a hint at the answer.

In Defense of Rowan Williams: Are Brits Secularists, Xenophobics or Both?

2008-02-10T15:32:00.001-06:00

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has been assailed for comments concerning his view that the British legal system could accommodate the Islamic moral code called sharia.

The interview can be found in its entirety at the Archbishop's Website.

I had heard about the incident earlier in the week, but found the remarks rather unremarkable. He wasn't specifically lobbying for the implementation of such a legal system, he was only commenting on the homogenizing effect of a unified legal system and that such a legal augmentation wouldn't necessarily be antithetical to the current system, as it already capitulates to Judeo-Christian legal values.

The Archbishop can perhaps speak for himself:

Christopher Landau (CL) And your concern is that that is in some ways under threat; the ability of religious people to be true to their faith as well as true to their role as citizen in the secular state?

Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC) I think at the moment there's a great deal of confusion about this; a lot of what's been written whether it was about the Catholic church adoptions agencies last year, sometimes what's written about Jewish or Muslim communities; a lot of what's written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody; now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger.

CL And that is why Sharia should have its place?

ABC That is why there is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law.

As personally innocuous the statement seems, the response has become a shrill pitch. The TimesOnline writer, Minnette Marrin, wrote an article entitled (sincerely, and without ironic hyperbole intended) "Archbishop, You've Committed Treason." The always level headed Christopher Hitchens wrote a similarly spew-filled article from the Slate entitled, "To Hell with the Archbishop of Canterbury."

Most of Britain seems incensed by Williams' comments. However, the outcry signals clearly one of two possibilities; Brits are either thoroughgoing modern-secularists or xenophobic or both.

This deep disdain Brits seem to come from the fact that someone would have the audacity to put God before country.

Marrin rites boisterously;

In the midst of all this moral confusion and relativism, is the premier prelate in the land holding fast that which is good? Far from it. He is recommending multicultural legal cherry-picking, in which individuals would be free to choose the jurisdiction they preferred for certain matters. He even admits that his proposal introduces, “uncomfortably”, the idea of a market in the law, “a competition for loyalty”.

Yet, what Williams' is suggesting is not relativism, which is in fact what the common-law legal system creates; a legal amalgamation between precedence and innovation. The Archbishop is not suggesting relativism but an alternative legal system used to specifically eschew relativism and follow an unmitigated code of conduct.

The ubiquitous and universal legal system in the United States leads to strange outcomes, too. Dr. D. Stephen Long often muses that privately owned bars are barred from allowing patrons to smoke in their establishments, but that the Neo-Nazis are legally allowed to march yearly in the heavily Jewish suburb of Skokie.

Yet, what makes Marrin's article so revoltingly interesting was that her premise rested in the concern for the 'good'. Yet the case could be made that she has confused the good of the City of Man with the ultimate Good that rests in only in God. The jurisprudence of the city may at times reflect the will of God, but it can never univocally circumscribe the justice of God; as God's justice and God's mercy are never in competition, but in inclusive harmony with one another. The good found in civil justice can only be partial. Politics itself, as Dr. Brent Waters states, 'is the art of exclusion.'

Yet, if Brits were modern-secularists it would seem that plurality would be defended, if not merely treated with indifference; the suggestion taken as a suggestion as an odd erudite-driven argument from an academically minded religious leader. For modernists it should have been seen as just another idea in the marketplace of ideas. So, it might something more insidious than a bland modernism, perhaps just good-ol' fashioned xenophobia. England is touting the rallying cry for unification, and this may be well in good, but just as absolute diversity demands an infinite-regress that can never be satiated, so too does absolute unity demand a homogenization that leads to an erosion of particularity ultimately obliterating individual identity. Rowan Williams is thinking theologically, plurality is a reasonable compromise for a country that has multiple cultural milieus and mores. Of course, the call for unity can only be truly accomplished in the act of being Church acting as the body of Christ.

I end simply with the Bishop's own words, which are simply a call for the Augustinian act of faith seeking reason:

ABC People may be surprised but I hope that that surprise will be modified when they think about the general question of how the law and religious community, religious principle are best and fruitfully accommodated. What we don't want I think is either a stand-off where the law squares up to religious consciences over something like abortion or indeed by forcing a vote on some aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the commons as it were a secular discourse saying 'we have no room for conscientious objections'; we don't want that, we don't either I think want a situation where because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do, making them part of public process, people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes a way of intensifying oppression within a community and that happens; that happens. So how does the law engage critically and intelligently – the law of the land – with the custom, the imperatives, the principles of distinctive religious communities? It's a large question, much larger than the question about Islam and I think it's a question which the Church can quite reasonably be thinking about.

Political Blogging - Short Term Memory Loss: Why Obama Is Winning

2008-02-06T13:06:00.000-06:00

The only thing the Clinton campaign is spinning is the same thing they’ve been slinging; mud. The moderate, but clear, Obama win last night points to future money, super-delegate support and momentum.

For all this the news pundits, as a whole, have fallen under a spell of short term memory loss. This morning New York Times' headline read, "Obama, Clinton Trade victories." Really? Only two weeks ago I read an article that claimed that an Obama 'win' would mean winning 7-8 states; instead he won 14.

Just on Monday The Nation's John Nichols wrote, "An Obama Sweep? What Are the Possibilities?" He gave seven steps to an Obama sweep; Obama cleared five of seven of the hurdles.

1) Win 40% in New York (check)
2) Win either NJ or CT (won CT)
3) Win GA and AL (check and check)
4) Win 2/3 battle grounds MO, NM, AZ (won MO and AZ)
5) Win some toss-ups (won UT, DE or AK)
6) Win CA (lost)
7) Win MA (lost)

Just a few reminders that throughout the month of January Clinton was winning California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey and et. al by 15% or more.
The national polls showed a virtual dead-heat.

He won the states, he won the delegates, he won the money in January and the calendar favors him for the next month. Nebraska, Main and Washington are caucuses (he has won the last 7/8), and Maryland, Louisiana and D.C. all have large black populations.

Intrade was volatile yesterday, but after the dust has settled it shows Obama as the big winner. He now sits 52.4 to Clinton's 48.9. Remembering that I invested $1,000 (247 shares) before Nevada at 40.5, I now am up $293.

It also has just been reported that Clinton, strapped for on-hand cash, will self-finance her campaign to the tune of $5 million. An incredible turn of events considering she was touted as the best-financed presidential nominees just months ago.

Watch for a big endorsements to continue to shore up Obama's bid (Edwards? Gore?) and watch for money to now play an advantage for their campaign. Also watch for super-delegates to feel more safe in coming out and pledging for Obama.

Also, a must see the new video by I.Am.Will, "Yes We Can" which is a montage of Obama's victory speech placed to music and accompanied by a number of young stars.

Political Blogging - Obama's Fourth Win

2008-01-26T21:41:00.000-06:00

If delegates are what decide nominations then Barack Obama won his fourth straight showing last night in South Carolina garnering 25 of 45 unpledged state delegates. Though poised to win the state contest, few expected such a routing where Obama carried 55% of the popular vote compared to Clinton who claimed only half that much with 27%.

During the commotion of the South Carolina returns it was announced that Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late president John F. Kennedy, was endorsing Obama’s candidacy. The op-ed will run in the Sunday edition of the New York Times, movingly entitled, “A President Like My Father”.

Update: Ted Kennedy will be endorsing Barack Obama's campaign, making the announcement Monday in Washington D.C., before the State of the Union. The news comes even after MSNBC pundits perdicted that the very senior Senator would stay out of the race. Obama now has both senators from Massachusetts supporting his campaign. Senator John Kerry threw his support behing Obama three weeks ago. Massachusetts holds its primary on February 5th.

The Obama victory speech was much like his Iowa speech; stirring, inspiring and quintessentially, hopefully. Again consider that unpledged delegates are what win nominations this will be the fourth straight victory for Obama: who won in Iowa, tied in New Hampshire, won in Nevada and who has now swept South Carolina.

As Florida has no delegates, the next contests will be on February 5th where over twenty states will hold primaries.

With such momentum behind Barack Obama it is hard to foresee an end to the campaign even after the dishing out of super-Tuesday delegates. Will Edwards play the kingmaker?

Lastly, Governor Crist of Florida has endorsed McCain, seemingly sealing the deal for John McCain’s run in Florida where Mayor Giuliani pegged his presidential promises on winning. The endorsement also fueled speculation that Crist might be John McCain running-mate if he captures the nomination.

Political Blogging - Good Cop, Bad Cop, Bad Politics

2008-01-25T09:31:00.000-06:00

There is a bad moon arising. The continued good cop, bad cop routine by Hillary and Bill Clinton respectively adds up to only one thing, bad politics.

In the beginning of Hillary Clinton's race Bill Clinton was going to, naturally, be an advisor, and Hillary Clinton as running as first and foremost Hillary Clinton. Yet, as Barack Obama retorted during Monday night's debate, "I can’t tell who I’m running against sometimes." Bill's recent ubiquity is a problem, and undermines Hillary's original campaign promise. As the New York Times op-ed writer Gail Collins wrote yesterday, "Now, Bill’s role as Chief Attack Dog undermines all that. If he’s all over her campaign, he’s going to be all over her administration. Instead of the original promise of the thoroughly educated Hillary, we’re being offered the worst-case scenario — that the pair of them are going to return to Pennsylvania Avenue and recreate the old Clinton chaos."

In the past few primaries she has apologized for how her husband has acted, playing the innocent good cop, now all veils of naivety have fallen. The New York Times reporter Patrick Healy wrote, "Advisers to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton say they have concluded that Bill Clinton’s aggressive politicking against Senator Barack Obama is resonating with voters, and they intend to keep him on the campaign trail in a major role after the South Carolina primary." And this is in the primary! This isn't politics, this is professional wrestling, and it isn't change, it's exactly that type of push-polling Bush did to McCain in 2000 in South Carolina, its mud-trowing at its worst.

Yet, all are not silent. The recently minted radio attack ad aired by Clinton in South Carolina was pulled after only one day following a rancorous outcry by many who saw the ad as unduly misleading. All of this reminds one of the New Hampshire debate where Edwards stated, "Anytime you speak out powerfully for change the forces of status quo attack, every time." The dynamic interplay of the 'two-headed' monster is not what presidential politics should be about. In December I wrote "What's in a Poll" that 13% chose "Married to Bill Clinton" as the number positive personal quality in who they were supporting (i.e. Hillary). As I said before this is a staggeringly stupid reason. There is a reason for term-limits. And lest we again not forget that for the last 20 years the President of the United States has either been a 'Bush' or 'Clinton'. Democracy is about eroding dynasties and monarchies, not sustaining them.

The Clinton years were not much than the Bush years; in that they were typified by political partisanship that knew no end. Clinton has obviously and unequivocally chosen to run a caustic campaign. Her good cop, bad cop campaign style is only bad politics. If nominated she will run a general election campaign that will surely focus on winning nothing more than 50.0001% of the electorate; losers be damned.

Don't believe me? Read op-ed from the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan. She writes, "In Dillon, S.C., according to the Associated Press, on Thursday Mr. Clinton "predicted that many voters will be guided mainly by gender and race loyalties" and suggested his wife may lose Saturday's primary because black voters will side with Mr. Obama. Who is raising race as an issue? Bill Clinton knows. It's the press, and Mr. Obama. "Shame on you," Mr. Clinton said to a CNN reporter. The same day the Web site believed to be the backdoor of the Clinton war room unveiled a new name for the senator from Illinois: "Sticky Fingers Obama." Bill Clinton, with his trembly, red-faced rage, makes John McCain look young. His divisive and destructive daily comportment—this is a former president of the United States—is a civic embarrassment."

However, perhaps most telling of how far (too far) the Clintons have gone can be found in her home state, and party's paper, the New York Times. The weak worded and almost conciliatory Clinton endorsement by the Times reads, "The idea of the first African-American nominee of a major party also is exhilarating, and so is the prospect of the first woman nominee. “Firstness” is not a reason to choose. The times that false choice has been raised, more often by Mrs. Clinton, have tarnished the campaign." Further down the editorial board write, "As strongly as we back her candidacy, we urge Mrs. Clinton to take the lead in changing the tone of the campaign. It is not good for the country, the Democratic Party or for Mrs. Clinton, who is often tagged as divisive, in part because of bitter feeling about her husband’s administration and the so-called permanent campaign. (Indeed, Bill Clinton’s overheated comments are feeding those resentments, and could do long-term damage to her candidacy if he continues this way.)"

It is telling that Obama opened a 'truth squad' in South Carolina so as to ensure that Obama's positions are not distorted. The effort, led by former-senator Tom Daschle, was reported by "First Read" at MSNBC. All of this says one thing: the Clinton good cop, bad cop routine is just bad politics.

Update:
Read John Kerry's take on ex-president Bill Clinton's recent smears toward Barack Obama, as reported by the National Journal On Air.

Also, read the spoof article by the Onion that, as always, edges a little to close for comfort; humorously entitled, "Bill Clinton: 'Screw It, I'm Running.'" This article was cited by The New Republic blog written by Noam Scheiber who also things this is becoming Bill's rather than Hillary's race.

Finally, if I could write as well and elegant (and as informed) as professionals I would have written this piece in the National Review, penned by Peter Wehner. The article chronicles all the reason we should be truly appauled if just not confused by how the Clintons are acting (attaking).

To bastion the argument read Bob Herbert's op-ed printed in Saturday's New York Times. He writes, "The Clinton camp knows what it’s doing, and its slimy maneuvers have been working... What kind of people are the Clintons? What role will Bill Clinton play in a new Clinton White House? Can they look beyond winning to a wounded nation’s need for healing and unifying?" Indeed.

Global/Christian Idenity and Immigration Policy

2008-01-23T14:14:00.000-06:00

Political economy, especially global political economy, is an exciting mess.

My friend at the Mystical Atheistjust wrote an article on immigration and its effects economically and socially.

I hope to throw a few helpful and friendly rejoinders into the ring: 1) a discussion about global objectified human identity 2) the need for immigration control as it pertains to economics.

First, there is a concern that late-modern capitalism has, in its ability to dissipate and dissolve political sovereignty created neo-colonialization. Such that, colonialization in its almost defining role of dehumanizing local people, so too (some argue) capitalism had eroded the 'Real' subjectivity of peoples around the world; now being reduced to mere consumers and producers working in/for a capitalist machine that has stripped any discernable marks of authentic humanity.

Yet, this is not the case. This argument, and its cottage-industry ilk, posits a type of vague essential subjectivity for humanity. Yet, this ontology is not only vague but conspicuously weak in light that capitalism has ostensibly crippled it from its role in defining what it means to be man.

Further, let me suggest that the only ontology that can be historically sustained is one that can both fully envelope the character of humanity while at the same time express the transcendental nature of humanity, which of course is reality that humanity is both creature and made in God's image.

I have strayed from the conversation. The point to consider is that globalization has certainly eroded the 20th century's fascination with national identity. The nation state is a relatively new political concept and one that has had devastating consequences. All of this is to suggest that culture, language and geographic boundaries may never be able to suffice in constructing a harmonious identity - and certainly does not seem strong enough in creating a holistic identity that will lead to economic-parity of pay. Yet, perhaps, religious identity can; that we all share the same ontological grounding in the fact that we are all brothers and sisters in Christ. If interested the post-humanist literature is both fascinating and deeply, deeply troubling (and that is another one of the reasons I have yet to give up hope for faith).

2) There is a need for immigration control, and the reasons are counter-intuitive. The desire to open borders for labor (as we do now for capital) is an idea that has long been championed by truly staunch capitalists. The increased fluidity and liberation of capital has certainly helped development in the world (though has also led to gluts and dumps) around the world. Stiglitz in his new book states that if we are serious about free trade, then we should also be serious about being more amenable and open to more fluid and unrestrained immigratory/emigratory labor markets. This certainly seems the case in E.U. as one of its final economic unifying decisions was to open immigration between countries (though let's remember England).

Yet, for all the economic reasons that seem to scream for open labor markets, let us examine two concerns: 1) immigrant country infrastructure 2) emigrant country brain drain.

It seems the liberal bleeding-heart issue of the day is immigration; specifically, how ruthless it must to not allow immigrants into the United States and allow them to work towards the 'American Dream.' However, proponents should realized that capping the number of immigrants into the country is not necessarily a heartless policy nor a veiled attempt at keeping the population fair skinned. No, there are infrastructure concerns that must be considered. Cities inundated with high numbers of immigrants (especially illegal immigration) do not have the resources to properly deal with the unexpected, and often sudden increases in the population. These increases especially affect already crowded public schools that often may not have quality ESL transition teachers who can give the type of assistant many of these immigratory students will need. Often illegal immigrants lack the ability to procure health care leading to little if any preventive medical treatment and increased ER visits which are dramatically more expense, while the costs are left to the local hospital or local municipal government to cover. Finally, if labor was free to move into this country freely without restraint the labor market that was initially so (relatively) lucrative for them would fall. Increased cheap labor would lead to (inevitably) falling wages. Minimum wages might mitigate some of these effects, but such a glut of cheap labor would almost surely intensify the already potent incentive of black market labor.

However, this is not the worst. The worst is that opening the United States to world labor will emaciate the labor pools of other countries. The state of Indiana was concerned with what they dubbed the ‘brain drain’ in the late 1990’s. They were concerned with the high percentage of high school and college graduates that immediately left Indiana for employment in other states. I am one of those ‘brain drain’ students from Indiana. Michigan has talked of a similar problem, too. With unfettered boundaries for labor there is a risk the best and brightest of developing countries will flock to the United States or Europe eschewing more limited economic, educational, and occupational opportunities in their native countries. The global draw of the American university system has already begun such a process, one that could have unforeseen, but still devastating effects on developing countries that find themselves with a perpetual dearth of human capital.

Thus, there are – I think – convincing, if not counter-intuitive, reasons why immigration policies should continue to set limits on how many aliens are naturalized annually and how many visas are granted each year.

Finally, let us turn our eyes to Stiglitz (and who so unfortunately wrote an overly-apocalyptic op-ed for the New York Times today). In his more sober and somber moments, specifically in his book, “Making Globalization Work” he articulates that the problem with globalization is not that there is too much of it, but not enough. Pointedly, there has not been enough globalized-banking mechanisms nor globalized-political power. So, while the 1980’s and 1990’s innovation in telecommunications marketedly increased the ability of business to globalize, political institutions have been much, much more resistant to such a change. Inroads have been made, but usually political unification is the last step in the process, while economically driven trade agreements are the first. The development, if not strange development, of the EU is a text book example; it started out as trade agreement for steel and coal. Global political governance will certainly be able to set humanitarian and environmental standards, which are currently undermined by single national governances that have little control in forcing regulations on transnational corporations lest the businesses leave for a country that offers more amenable (less restrictive) policies on labor and the environment.

Ultimately, let us turn back to the presidential race as a way to find an end to my rambling. I cringe every time Barrack Obama (and Edwards and Clinton) that NAFTA was a mistake. I cringe every time my friends say the same. Truly free trade is fair trade. Continuing farm subsidizes is undermining the competitive advantage of South American countries, but the blue collar jobs that are moving across oceans are not coming back (unless transportations costs skyrocket), and the American citizens needs to accept our own competitive advantage which rests in a highly educated work force. As much as I love Obama he falls into the old and evil necessity of playing to the whims and wills of the American unions’ worries.

Why Christianity Need Not Fear Pullman

2008-01-19T18:11:00.001-06:00

Spoiler Alert for Book Three, The Amber Spyglass

The Golden Compass hath no existential despair like a Nietzschean essay. The weeping and gnashing of teeth that has followed the arrival of the new movie, based off Philip Pullman’s first book in the “His Dark Materials” trilogy, is an unnecessarily emotive response to a series of books that leaves the theological door wide open.

Yet, problems abound: dishonest, panentheism, and works righteousness are all championed.

Before coming to why the third book in the series, The Amber Spyglass actually opens up a lot of possibilities for theological reflection, the few serious problems should be considered.

The allegorical names of the two main characters, Lyra and Will are perhaps less virtuous than Bunyan would have chosen, more likely they would have been characters that would have tried to dissuade the good man Christian from continuing his journey to the Celestial City. Nevertheless, Lyra lies with conviction and regularity, and Will, in fact, personifies the human will. And these are certainly not qualities that I want my future children to cherish and revere.

Second, the whole series is founded on a Spinozian panentheism. As Pullman writes, “Dust is only a name for what happens when matter begins to understand itself. Matter love matter. It seeks more about itself, and Dust is formed” (31). A friend recently wrote a note on the Golden Compass and curiously entitled it, “God dwells within you, as you” which is from the neo-chic-spirituality book, Eat, Pray, Love by Liz Gilbert (191). And this is in fact quite close to what Pullman has in mind. This is the difference between form and substance. The insidious and disastrous move unassuming Christians can make is that we are part of God; that we, as it were, share in the substance of God – rather than the image of God. Pullman tries to persuade readers to this uncouth perspective. Christians, yet, are called to participate in God’s life and goodness, not animate and actualize God’s life. Gilbert’s silly spiritual self-help wants to obliterate all particularities slowly making ‘religion’ a type of bland mind-set that is created by a universalizing transcendent; the absolute worst of mysticism.

God does not dwell within us, as us. One of God’s gifts is the gift of agency, of particular identity. Christian identity is always formed by the Imago Dei, and certainly sustained by the power of the Holy Spirit, and reality constructed properly from the participating of the sacraments. In this way Christians participate in God’s life, but we are never God, and God is never us (at least in any univocal sense).

Third, Pullman at the end of his book argues for a type of works righteousness. The story argues that grace (funny word for an atheist to use) is freely given to children, but is lost as they become adults. They must work to receive back the grace that was lost in adulthood. Pullman renders ‘grace’ a skill to be honed. Though what grace is, where it comes from or why one must work for it as adult and why children are given it freely is never really explained. Looking closely he seems to almost equate grace with gaiety and frivolity: asking us to look over the Nietzschean precipice and naively smile at the dark nothingness, which Pullman asserts as something desirable. He writes, “When we’re alive, [the Church] told us that when we died we’d go to Heaven. And they said that Heaven was a place of joy and we would spend eternity in the company of saints and angels praising the Almighty, in a state of bliss. That’s what they said. And that’s what led some of us to give our lives, and others to spend years in solitary prayer, while all the joy of life was going to waste around us and we never knew” (320). Thus, Pullman demands the cheerful nihilism – the artistic taming of the horrible - that is the mantle of the postmodern man; Christians can only reject such a naïve proposition that leaves no room for the good news. Worse Pullman cannot see that a life devoted to God isn’t one that deprives one of joy. At the very end of the book the character Mary says definitely that there is, ‘no purpose’ in life, but that, ‘there is now!’ (491) – (at which time all the emo-bohemian-fundi-liberals rise to their feet and applaud, and if you listen closely the anthem of ‘Rent’ begins an encore, “No day, but today”). But for what? For the recognition that we all are hopelessly mired in immanence and materialism? No thank you. As Mrs. Coulter laments during the book, “I can’t bear the thought of oblivion. Anything than that. I used to think pain would be worse – to be tortured forever – I thought that must be worse… But as long as you were conscious, it would better, wouldn’t it? Better than feeling nothing, just going into the dark, everything going out forever and ever?” (380). And who could not resonate with such a thought. How precious is life that we’d rather endure the vicissitudes of immortality (no matter what they are) rather than renounce such a gift. But this doesn’t work for Pullman because after death there is only a universal consciousness; where all individualism is forever gone.

Yet, after all these concerns Pullman is postmodern and with that there is room for the post-secular… room to resurrect the metaphysical. And even Pullman recognizes the power of the Christian narrative and sees how necessary its appropriate is to make his own fanciful fiction function.

Mrs. Coulter at one point pontificates, “Well, where is God if he’s alive?” And why doesn’t he speak anymore? At the beginning of the world, God walked in the Garden and spoke with Adam and Eve. Then he began to withdraw, and he forbade Moses to look at his face. Later, in the time of Daniel, he was ages – he was the Ancient of Days. Where is he now? Is he still alive, at some inconceivable age, decrepit and demented, unable to think or act or speak and unable to die, a rotten hulk? And if that is his condition, wouldn’t it be the most merciful thing, the truest proof of out love for God, to seek him out and give him the gift of death?” (328). Later two angels say that the true creator withdrew from the worlds he made to consider the ‘deeper metaphysical questions.’ Which suggests that even the creator speculates on the existential… leaving room for the sublime, unknowable noumenal. Yet this Kantian outlook need not be where Christians draw the line. Tradition and Scripture point the epistemological event for Christianity – the incarnation. And as such the ineffable was given a historical name and the wholly other was made particular. The Christ event fully disclosed the transcendent God into the immanent world. What Pullman offers though is the possibility that God might exist – pointing to the fact that he’s really a postmodern agnostic. And much of knowing God is apophatic such that Christianity has always had a place for the agnostic it is just usually called the mysterious.

In the end of the book, in a particular touching passage, Mrs. Coulter adopts quite explicit Christian language. She says, “I told him (the antagonist) I was going to betray you, and betray Lyra, and he believed me because I was corrupt and full of wickedness; he looked so deep I felt sure he’s see the truth. But I lied too well. I was lying with every nerve and fiber and everything I’d ever done… I wanted him to find no good in me, and he didn’t. There is none. But I love Lyra. Where did this love come from? I don’t know; it came to me like a thief in the night, and now I love her so much my heart is bursting with it. All I could hope was that my crimes were so monstrous that the love was no bigger than a mustard seed in the shadow of them, and I wished I’d committed even greater ones to hide it more deeply still… But the mustard seed had taken root and was growing, and the little green shoot was splitting my heart wide open, and I was so afraid he’d see…” (405).

It is not surprising that humanity is capable of evil. What is surprising is the abundant capacity to love, even where and when love was absent before.

So often popular theologies are promulgated upon the question: ‘whence does evil come?’ How foolish it seems because the question that seems far, far more interesting and perplexing is: ‘whence does love come?” The question is raised by Pullman’s character, but Pullman doesn’t have answer except perhaps some bland Spinozian conscious substance. But the real answer is God, who truly showed His love through the creation of the world and incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Political Blogging - Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is

2008-01-17T17:16:00.001-06:00

I have not shied from my absolute resolve for Illinois Senator Barack Obama's campaign for democratic presidential nominee.

So assuming I had money, I would put it where my mouth was: in Intrade.

Right now (January 17, 2008 5:00pm cst) the Intrade price for Obama winning the democratic nomination is 40.5 (or $4.05 for each share). I'd put a $1,000 on Obama which buys about 247 shares of Obama stock.

I'd do this because he's going to rebound with two wins in Nevada and South Carolina. And his Intrade price will rebound.

So why wins in Nevada and South Carolina for Obama?
1) A federal judge today ruled against the suit that attempted to close the Stripe's nine at-large caucus sites. Adam Tanner reported the story for Reuters. This is a boon for Obama. Further, the attempt itself created intense ire among voters who saw it as an attempt by an embittered Clinton camp at disenfranchising low-income and service sector workers, and moreover probably solidified the culinary workers around Obama.

2) African American voters are beginning to break overwhelming for Obama. In Michigan nearly 70% of all black voted 'uncommitted' (essential a vote for Edwards or Obama). See the exit polls from CNN's Election Center 2008. If this number is even remotely close to what happens in South Carolina Obama will win by double-digits (yeah, yeah, I know you've heard this before).

3) The head to heads don't lie: Obama is the most electable candidate for the general election. Real Clear Politics has the numbers. Hillary Clinton might be 'change' for some liberals, but for most conservatives her 'negatives' are here to stay and they are at times higher than 50%. In the general head-to-head polling Obama does 2% better (than Clinton) aginst McCain, 7% better against Giuliani, 6.5% better against Mike Huckabee, 10% better against Romney, and 4.5% better against Thompson.

4) Finally, Obama is getting the endorsements: Claire McCaskill (IA), Patrick Leahy (VT) and Ben Nelson (NE). These are for the most part representatives from conservative leaning states, and reinforces the support that moderates have for Barack Obama.

The morning after the South Carolina race I'm going to 'sell' the stock at 8am cst.
I predict that his number will be 60%. This would yield about $481 in profit.

Who else wants to speculate? Predictions anyone?

Update: (January 19, 2008)
Hillary Clinton won Nevada, but it would be a bad time to sell. Barack Obama is at 32.2 right now (meaning I'm down $205). However, the Nevada race wasn't bad for Obama. If anything it reinforced two (well, three) things.
1) Black voters are now breaking for Obama; watch out for South Carolina.
2) Latino voters are still not ready to vote for a black candidate.
3) Clinton's cronyism is still going strong; late yesterday and earlier today she and Bill were ratcheting down expectations by ancedotally suggesting that there was union voter supression.

South Carolina will go to Obama. February 5th looks unnervingly wide open.

Update:
With Barack Obama winning South Carolina the Intrade stock jumped though not enough to make up the loss. Cashing in at the current rate of 38.0 the lost per share would have been $0.25 and with 247 shares totals a loss of $61.75.

Nevertheless, 5th is still wide open and watch to see how momentum plays.

Political Blogging - Clinton's New Role as Lady Macbeth

2008-01-13T12:28:00.001-06:00

The problem is you can't trust Clinton. Hillary Clinton. She wants it too bad, and you wonder what she's willing to do to get it. Meghan Daum's opinion article out of the Los Angeles Times argues just this. Like a Lady Macbeth wanting the throne for herself, you wonder the lengths she might go... and if she needs to divide the democratic party in the primaries, and more deeply entrench the two parties in the general to win election so be it.

This isn't personal anecdotally commentary. Just turn to Nevada to see what I'm talking about.

An article in today's Las Vegas Sun written by J. Patrick Coolican, David McGrath Schwartz, Michael Mishak reports that a lawsuit has been filed that would close 'at large' caucus sites located on the Strip. These at large sites were added to allow shift workers the opportunity to still participate in the January 19th caucus.

Certainly if the suit is upheld by the courts it would disenfranchise workers, and disproportionately culinary union workers who only days ago threw their support behind Barack Obama (as I wrote in Unions or Bust?).

So who would file such a suit? Clinton associates, no surprise. As the article reports:

The plaintiffs have ties, albeit indirect, to the Clinton campaign. Dan Hart, chief political consultant to the state teachers union, has run Reid’s campaigns in the past and is currently an unpaid adviser to him. Some of the activists were active backers of state Sen. Dina Titus’ failed 2006 bid for governor. Titus, a Democratic national committeewoman, has endorsed Clinton. She did not return a call seeking comment.

As The New York Times reported Saturday, the teachers union’s deputy executive director, Debbie Cahill, was a founding member of Clinton’s Nevada Women’s Leadership Council.

Clinton's campaign impishly responded, "[The suit] is not for us to decide. We just want the process to be fair."

Obama admonished the legal suit.

Yet, what make this all the worse. Is that Clinton herself admonished the Iowa caucus because it excluded some from participating in the process. After spending months and millions in Iowa, she left the state in third place. The next day she started spinning her loss, and what a cyclone it was.

David Yepsen, chief political writer for the Des Moines Register wrote:

Clinton's professed love for Iowa proved short-lived. By Friday, she and her staff were dissing Iowa's caucuses.
She told reporters in New Hampshire that "this is a new day. This is a new state. This is a primary election. You're not disenfranchised if you work at night. You're not disenfranchised if you're not in the state."

The at-large caucus sites on the Las Vegas Strip were added to help mitigate caucus disenfranchisement, which the Clinton campaign castigated Iowa for. Now, that Obama has the culinary workers endorsement the Clinton camp doesn’t seem to care if there is caucus disenfranchisement. When she began her presidential campaign she said, “I am in it to win it.” She forgot to add, “…whatever the cost.”

The day after Iowa Clinton made a statement that she was "the most innocent." Trust me, at night she washing her hands, stammering, "Out! Damn'd spot. Out!"

Update (Sunday, 3:51pm)
Clinton is now claiming that the racial concerns shared by numerous black leaders across the country were engineered by Barack Obama's campaign. The response came when Hillary stated (quoted from Poltico.com):

“Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done.”

Mr. Clinton stated around the same time that Senator Obama's campaign, "Is the biggest fairytale I've ever seen."

The next seeming gaffe came when State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said that Obama would have to do more than just 'shuck and jive' at news conferences.

Clinton went on Meet the Press (see video) with Tim Russert and made this comment:

"Clearly, we know from media reports that the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this,” she said. "It is such an unfair and unwarranted attempt to, you know, misinterpret and mischaracterize what I’ve said."

Obama responded, as reported by Fox News:

"I didn’t make the statement. I haven’t remarked on it and she, I think, offended some folks who felt that somehow diminished King’s role in bringing about the Civil Rights Act. She is free to explain that, but the notion that somehow this is our doing is ludicrous. I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat-out wrong,” Obama said.

There is sure to be political fallout over this development. It must be noted that I could not find a comment by Obama on the aforementioned statements by the Clinton or Cuomo.

Political Blogging - Unions or Bust?

2008-01-11T09:28:00.000-06:00

After writing yesterday that Obama received a big endorsement from local Culinary Union some question its importance even while controversy has erupted in Nevada over the issue.

A friend commented,

Though Obama might win Nevada because of the big union endorsement out of Nevada, but (sic) Clinton also has won her fair share of union endorsements.

Of course my friend is correct. The unions have fallen for Edwards and Clinton. Clinton has already captured a number of national union endorsements, including: the American Federation of Teachers, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers and others.

Yet this isn't roadblock, but a backdrop for Obama, placing into relief the type of political machine he has already overcome to win the most delegates in Iowa and tie in New Hampshire. This is how blogger David Swanson sees it, which was picked up by Democrats.com.

The culinary union, part of the national union Unite Here, endorsement for Barack Obama will carry with it get-out-the-vote foot-soldiers for the caucus, but also, and perhaps even more importantly a signal to Las Vegas, Nevada, and the rest of the country that this race is not a Democratic-crowning of previous First Lady Hillary Clinton.

With that said, political intrigue has engulfed the culinary union's endorsement. Reported by Jon Ralston from the Las Vegas Sun, Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen, who endorsed Clinton in November, whispered to Clinton, "I cannot emphasize to you enough, Senator, how the Hispanic workers in the Culinary are loyal to you. They are loyal to the Culinary, but they will vote for you." The Hispanic vote will be crucial for either candidate to win Nevada. However, what Clinton's yesterday door-to-door campaigning (in a heavily-populated culinary union neighborhood) tells us is that old-school politics are far from dead. The need for people on the ground to muscle and move the vote on caucus day is needed.

If Obama did so well in Iowa and New Hampshire without the union machines, one has to wonder what he can do with them in Nevada.

Update:
If you haven't heard Arizona Governor Napolitano has endorsed Barack Obama. This comes just a day after Senator John Kerry placed his support for Obama.

Political Bloggging - Kerry, Richardson and Unions

2008-01-10T08:51:00.000-06:00

Breaking news this morning and it cuts both ways for the two leading Democratic candidates. 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry will be endorsing Barack Obama in his bid for the presidency. MSNBC reported the Associated Press story only moments ago. The Massachusetts Senator is a welcomed addition to the union endorsements that Obama garnered yesterday and the night of the New Hampshire primary, where he lost to Clinton by 2%.

The other developing story is that Governor Bill Richardson is expected to be dropping out of the race. Richardson was, "a former congressman, secretary of Energy and U.N. ambassador, Richardson presented himself as an experienced problem-solver with impeccable international credentials" as reported by Nicholas Riccardi from the Los Angeles Times. In a race where it has been about change v. experience, he was the real beef. If he bows out of the race it might lead some to speculate if his votes will flow to Clinton, who has tried to precariously position herself as the candidate for both change and experience. No word yet if he'll endorse either candidate, but if he does expect Nevada to be shaken up. The endorsement by a Latino governor of a Southwestern state will surely influence a southwestern state primary. Or, does the fact that in Iowa Richardson's caucus-goers defected to Obama's camp on second and third rounds make the annoncement a boon for the Senator from Illinois?

Finally, don't forget Intrade.

Forgetting the fiasco of New Hampshire, Intrade is almost always right. Right now Obama is projected to win both Nevada (65% certain) and South Carolina (75% certain). No new polls yet out from Nevada, so most of this must be coming from union endorsements.

Political Blogging - Fallout

2008-01-09T08:57:00.000-06:00

As if waking after a blizzard to the new fallen snow this morning Americans are awaking to a new political landscape.

Of course this is a surprise. And just like snowfall, it is either a joy or for others a fallout. Not to overburden the analogy, but last nights outcome was if every meteorologist in the country had forecast sunny-skies and highs in low 50's only to find 3' feet of snow on the ground.

So what happened? Why did a 98% Intrade certainty begin to fire-sale around 10p.m. and close at 0% in remaining hours of the night. How did the Real Clear Politics tracking polls show Obama ahead by 8pts (-/+ 1% sampling error) and then come out down 3pts?

A few possibilities, and they fall into two camps: emotive and empirical.

Jonathan Alter at Newsweek has an article that traces the possible emotive reasons why Hillary won.

And though something stirred voters yesterday there is also a need to look at the numbers. Larry Ganger over at ABC News questions why the polls were wrong. The Republican polls were on target, but the Democratic race is unconventional. Ganger links two very interesting articles, one concerning name placement on ballots and the other on bi-racial contests. Both of the reasons don’t give a clear sense as to what happened last night.

Some hopeful news if the unexpected snowfall didn't bring you joy. Los Angeles Times
staff writer Peter Wallsten mentioned two reasons not to rule out Obama. One, he writes, "No longer was Clinton viewed as the most likely candidate to beat a Republican. In the [exit] poll, 44% percent said Obama was more likely to win the November election, compared to 35% who said that of Clinton." Second, last night a large Nevada union endorsed Obama, and there is speculation the culinary union will endorse Obama later today.

So where do we go from here?

Nevada and South Carolina: (our nation turns its lonely eyes toward you). Nevada will be a tough win for Obama, and South Carolina would be a very tough win for Clinton. Super Tuesday now becomes a fiasco for both the Republican and Democratic contenders. Watch to see if any of the candidates turn negative (The New York Times' Editorial Board is worried of this).

Update:
Steven Greenhouse just reported from the New York Times's The Caucus page that Obama will receive the Unite Here union endorsement. The union represents around 60,000 culinary casion workers in the much coveted state of Nevada.

Political Blogging - New Hampshire

2008-01-08T00:38:00.001-06:00

Already Barack Obama has opened a lead in New Hampshire. A little after midnight, Dixville Notch residents voted, which can be about read at CNN. The tally: Obama 7, Edwards 2, Richardson 1, Clinton 0.

Obama has not only sustained the momentum by winning Iowa's caucus five days ago, but has continued to increase the fervor. Since Iowa Obama overtook the Club 100 dinner where it became more rock concert than fundraiser, was endorsed by Bill Bradley, and was pitch-perfect during the Saturday nationally-televised debate. There is no Obama bandwagon, its more like a train.

The corresponding surge in the polls suggests only one outcome for Tuesday night; another victory speech by Obama. Intrade has Obama winning New Hampshire with 92% certainty. Money in the bank.

The question now is not if he'll win, but by how much. Let me wager. Real Clear Politics shows Obama ahead of Clinton by an average of almost 8 points. Since two days after Iowa, Obama has lead in every poll. Let me suggest that tomorrow Obama runs away with 40% of the vote. Clinton will come in second with 28%, Edward with 27% and 5% for Richardson. The independents are more interested in the Democratic race and will vie for Obama, (and even Edwards). Richardson's vote will dissipate.

Also:
The new (and very conservative) Op-ed writer for the New York Times, William Kristol, wrote against Obama, which is worth a laugh.

The always charming, but still neurotic and unbalanced fruitbakset of man, Christopher Hitchens, writing for the Slate, also wrote an anthema for Obama. He wanted to remind us that Obama was black, and discouragingly admonish us for all this white-guily driven non-sense. We can now add him to the growing list of pundits who still don't get what's going on.

Update: It doesn't seem to be only the right that doesn't get why Obama is pulling ahead. Gloria Steinem wrote an Op-ed for the New York Times arguing this election is just another example of sex being a bigger barrier than race in this country (think voting rights). She writes, "But what worries me is that he is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex." But Obama's race isn't what is unifying. Clinton's sex isn't what makes her divisive. What makes Obama a unifying figure is becuase he talks about partisan reconciliation and the end of primary-color politics (red, blue and swing-state-yellow). Clinton is divisive because she tows the party agenda, in her speech after Iowa all she could talk about was getting a Democrat into the White House.

So to recap: New Hampshire (predictions):
Obama - 40%
Clinton - 28%
Edwards - 27%
Richardson - 5%

Political Blogging - "Anti-Hillary" Runs Deep

2008-01-06T12:40:00.000-06:00

Until the Democratic National Committee has pledged a presidential nominee I will probably be writing few posts that pertain to theology.

So, while reading articles yesterday I came across a wildly errant statistic. A Blue Mass Group writer argued that youth support could be conveyed by the facebook groups that both laud and demonize the candidates.

The writer, you can read the article here, stated that the largest anti-Hillary facebook group was around 64,000. I wrote him to explain that the largest was actually almost 700,000 members. He revised his report soon after my notifying him:

"UPDATE: An alert reader corrects my report that the largest anti-Clinton group has 58,982 members. The largest anti-Clinton group, "Stop Hillary Clinton: (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary)," has 673,511 members -- the vast majority of them well under 44, based on their pictures."

Political Blogging - "West Wing" be Bested

2008-01-04T12:44:00.000-06:00

I am a West Wing junkie. I’ve seen every episode, at least twice. Love every character. Cherish every Bartlett speech. But much, much more than the liberal idealism it purports, West Wing is contagious because it promotes hopeful patriotism. After watching West Wing I am proud to be an American. And what a sentiment to truly hold to in such a day and age.

There is indelible speech in the second season that I thought would never be surpassed in real politics. In the scene President Bartlett begins to lament to a room of school teachers that a recent suicide bombing by a number of young American students. He explains that, “They were not born wanting to do this.” Below is the video.

President Bartlett's Speech

The message is of progress, of bettering education; it was of hope. As I said, I never thought I would ever hear a more stirring speech, until last night.

Last night Barack Obama won over women, won over young people, and won over independents; and in doing so won over Iowa. Last night Obama gave a victory speech that superseded any West Wing speech. It was a speech for a new generation, a new era in American politic. My political life has been defined by candidates who champion mediocrity and defend the status-quo. West Wing was the only supplement for what I and so many wanted in a President, in a government, and in a country. West Wing be bested; we now have a real American President: Barack Obama.

Barak Obama's Victory Speech

Gratus as an Ontological Proof - Part II

2008-01-03T14:55:00.002-06:00

Here is lengthy response from a reader (whom I always appreciate) concerning the November blog, "Gratus as an Ontological Proof." I have made rejoinders as necessary.

Hi, I found your blog through Emily's blog. I thought I'd jump in and stir the pot a bit.

First, there's no point in pretending I am an unbiased vacuum. So, to give you context of my reply, I am a Buddhist woman. As a Buddhist, I'm a non-theist, meaning that while I find the debate over God's existence a philosophically challenging and fascinating one, I hold that the existence or non-existence of God holds no relevance for the practice, definition and validity of a moral code. So for me, the existence of God boils down to a belief in an ultimate reality versus a nominal/relative one. All very fun, but not really a moral question.

Thanks for the response. Its always exciting to know that someone out their reads my blog, even if they categorical reject the ideas contained within it. Let me retort your response in order.

First, you state, “So for me, the existence of God boils down to a belief in an ultimately reality versus a nominal/relative one. All very fun, but not really a moral question.” It seems obvious in the rest of your response that you are central concerned with a moral code. Whence does the sense of gender equality come from; if simply a modern social more (and while also living in a nominal existence) what ought to direct someone to care about the sensibilities of women? Perhaps you do not want to be saddled with an epistemological locus for your morality, but there is a genesis. If this genesis is situated in culture, which is in flux, it seems that morality is nothing more than a way to get along or more ‘cruelly’ (as you say) a way for women to co-opt the control that has been historically annexed by patriarchy. If it is the latter, then feminism isn’t so much an ideology for women, but simply another socially constructed palliative for a more amiable society (nothing more meaningful than law stipulating that all must wear seat-belts). If it is the former then feminism is socially and inherently antagonistic, and men should not only not heed such an ideology, but explicitly reject and react against feminism. All of this is to suggest that your moral code is betrayed by your feminism. None of this is in chastisement, but simply to illustrate that this is indeed about morality; but we have placed the horse, before the cart. Let us continue.

The most important thing is how you are defining "God". Do you mean a moral arbiter of the Judeo-Christian/Muslim variety? Or the representation of ultimate reality, of an Ultimate Cause (Mr. Big Bang himself!), of the Aristotleian variety? By this one post, you seem to be advancing a more Aristotleian concept: God is the receiver of my gratitude/humility, he is the Cause of what I am grateful for. If I am feeling grateful for something, there must be a God. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Second, we must understand what we mean by God. But this too is premature. This discourse was not to describe God, but to posit God. Yet, your question should be answered, nonetheless. You ask; is the God I posit that of the Judeo-Christian/Muslim persuasion or more of the Aristotelian variety. Yet problems here abound. To begin, Judaism and Christianity differ in how God has dispensated how believers are to understand the law – or, how God is the moral arbiter. Further, many Christians theologians have appropriated the Aristotelian construction of God as the first mover. One ought read Aquinas’ Summa Theologica’s questions 1-13, which construct God as the fullness of the Aristotelian concepts of accidental categories. So, back to your question, the God of Christianity or Aristotle? The answer, Yes.

Let me advance my own interpretation of the priest's father, an interpretation shaped by my Buddhism and my feminism. To put it cruelly, I think the father's gratitude "for" his wife is more revealing of old-fashioned gender politics than any spiritual awakening (though, of course, the father took it as the latter - and one could argue that subjectivity and self-identification is the basis of most genuine spirituality anyway!). Yet as nice as a subjective "awakening to faith" is, it is naive to pretend that a man's culture, his internalized perceptions of gender and race and the Other, do not play a significant role in how he interprets reality. It is revealing that he jumps to the conclusion that he must be feeling gratitude to God, rather than, at least for a moment, questioning why he does not feel grateful to his wife (which would be more logical and certainly less self-centered).

Third, you miss the subtle points of the argument. He appreciated his wife, and thus was grateful for his wife. But you cannot be both grateful for an to the same thing, simultaneously for the same thing.

So, he was grateful for many things his wife did for him (companionship, fidelity, etc.), and thus grateful to his wife.

But he was also grateful for his wife. But then to whom could he credit for his faithful and loving wife?

To put it cruelly, it rings almost misogynistic to be thankful "for" your wife, as if she was a "gift from on high" and not just another person, an equal, just like you. It implies a sense of possession. The father certainly didn't consider his thoughts sexist and he probably thought he considered his wife an equal, yet there is such a thing as "color-blind racism" and no doubt "gender-blind sexism". There is something subtly offensive about his inability to feel gratitude "towards" the woman who chose to spend her life with him, who behaved in ways which were agreeable to him, etc. In my opinion, a more reasonable, more generous behavior would have been ultimate gratitude to his late wife. His refuge in the idea of a (no doubt gendered masculine) God "giving" him his wife seems to ring too much of oppressive gender politics rather than any philosophically sound awakening. It is also a bit selfish to be concerned about your own spiritual awakening rather than the passing of a loved one. It's psychologically predictable, it happens all the time when strong emotions are provoked, but it is, in the end, only about you - your new faith, your new religion, your God giving and taking things away from you. (I'm sorry for how callous this sounds.)

Your next paragraph has two larger issues to address: First, you suggest misogyny, and ‘sense of possession’ and charitably offer that it may have been a case of ‘gender-blind sexism.’ This must be rejected. I no nothing of the man and the relationship with his wife save this: it was Christian marriage. For that I must say that they were in possession of one another. Paul says that spouses ought to be subject to one another. This is the essence of the vow, the act of subjecting one another to one another. And it must said, that his wife was a good Catholic woman, and most certainly saw her husband as a ‘gift from on high,’ as she must have seen all humanity, which came from the goodness of God.

Secondly, I agree your argument sounds callous. How ought one be concerned with a passing loved one? You are concerned the husband was too selfish, (also, whence does your concern for selfishness come from, as morality is nothing but a passing fancy) but what could be less selfish than to reflect and realize the death of your wife has made clear the reality of true existence? What good can come to the dead from the wailing and gnashing of teeth? More accurately, he was being incredible other-centered. He was focused on his wife, her life, and his appreciation for her, and only then realizing his feelings, and in a moment of mindful acumen sees that his feelings point to a benevolent God. Who wouldn’t want their death to be such an epiphany for those they love?

After all that, I will admit that I'm nitpicking. The man probably did not consider himself sexist, was not sexist in any drastic way apart from the internalization of a patriarchal culture. Also, I understand that your point is that the ability to feel gratitude - that is, God is the Ultimate Cause of good in the world, the reality which we find pleasurable we can call "God" and feel grateful towards. A valid argument, but the example you chose was less than convincing.

P.S. Also revealing is the father's immediate assumption that he must be feeling gratitude to the gendered masculine, Christian God. I don't trust religion based purely on emotion, and I don't trust religious decisions taken in a moment of high emotion (such as after a trauma). Because then it is more often than not a retreat into the comforts of the normalized superstition. It is limited in its expression, it is driven by anxiety and fear, rather than a genuine probe into reality and morality.

The father did not suddenly exclaim, "Allah be praised!" He did not suddenly realize that God was in his wife, just like the Hassidism (or Philip Pullman) believes. Are these interpretations of God less valid? They certainly imply different things. The father was simply behaving within the confines of his culture. He believed that a Christian God had "given" him his wife - he jumped to the normative conclusion. How valid is a confined, ignorant faith driven by emotion?

I suppose you could say I'm playing the Devil's advocate now. (Nyuk nyuk nyuk.)

Finally, it was not immediately reveling at all what the father meant when he said there must be a God. Certainly, he probably was drawn to a Christian notion of God, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yet, even then this is not evidently (and certainly not Orthodox) a ‘gendered masculine’ God.

He may even in the future find Islam an appropriate religion, even Judaism. But Pullman’s conscious panentheism (which is by happenstance the next item for my blog) could not support the type of ontological theism argument that my post posits.

Yet, what must be finally retorted is your final contention, specifically the interrogative, “How valid is a confined, ignorant faith driven by emotion?” How valid indeed it must be asked. But first, how much more valid is an austere rationalism that makes a calculated analyses and parses every phrase? I doesn’t seem that the sober Enlightenment did anything but dissipated the natural passions to such an extent that faith was not only stifled, but snuffed out completely. Certainly, faith – at its best – seeks reason (Augustine), but reason, but emotion is not some perversion or pure absence of reason. Yet, more concretely emotional experiences often lead us to recognize who we love immanently, why would it surprise us that emotional experience could likewise lead us to recognize God? How often do others realize the importance of someone in their life after some emotional instance such as a birth, wedding, or funeral? Now, are these necessary? No, and need not be for religious conversion; Augustine’s conversion happened in solitude, while quietly sitting under a pear tree.

Ultimately, the thrust of my original argument was that gratitude is an almost surprising emotion that can make one pause to wonder how such a feeling arises. One answer is that it is the feeling for God, and the realization that we all are participating in the goodness of God. Such appreciation from gratitude may behoove one to consider how to behave – to live rightly - not out of a legalism, but out of appreciation for the goodness of creation and also salvation.

Theological Limericks

2007-12-19T22:14:00.002-06:00

Coming back to theology this week. I am sharing some of the limericks I wrote sometime last year for the poetry contest at Garrett.

Milbank
Milbank was writing a book on 'RO.'
Which hoped for a chruch long ago,
so, with the help of Aquinas,
and his wit and his slyness,
he changed the church status-quo.

Nietzche
There once was a man who praised God.
Thinking Him worthy to worship and laud,
but after hearing it said
that God was found dead,
He cast down his head and he bawled.

Long v. Young
(Young asked,)"Does God on His own ever suffer?"
(Long said,)"No! Oh my no! He's much tougher!"
But He's all passion and love?
No. Hes the power all of!
And oh how theology did suffer.

SIS
In researching a doctoral exegesis,
a girl wanted an original thesis,
but all the ideas had been done,
so she turned into a nun,
and began a spiritual askesis.

Khali
There once was a god named Khali.
Who's presence started a rally.
The students screamed, "burn!"
And the profs grew in concern,
so they baptized her as a finale.

What's in a Poll?

2007-12-10T23:35:00.000-06:00

A Justification to End Democracy

The recently released New York Times/CBS national poll was blandly covered by reporters suggesting that Democrats like their presidential candidates and Republicans don’t. A national poll wasn’t needed for anyone to know that.

However, there was something surprising that the poll revealed: Americans are dumb.

After downloading the entire poll and the historical trends that correspond to the polling it was quite clear Americans are stupid. I often try to shy away from the incendiary, but it just cannot be helped. Hopefully on a few examples can make this position clear:

1) Americans are inherently pessimistic (and oblivious) about the economy.

The national poll has for decades asked Americans: “Do you think the economy is getting better, getting worse, or staying about the same?” The most recent report was the most pessimistic since the oil supply crisis in the late seventies; only 5% believed the economy was getting better, 53% thought it getting worse, 40% it was staying the same. However, with the recent stocks fluctuations, the drop in the dollar (and strengthen Euro), and subprime mortgage bust this isn’t a woefully pessimistic outlook.

Yet, looking over the past thirty years a different picture emerges. In the past thirty years only a six times have over 30% of Americans responded that the economy was getting better!

However in the past thirty years there have been only five recessions (a recession being two consecutive quarters of stagnant GDP growth. The recession lasted a total of 17 quarters (since 1971) out of last 144 quarters (up to 2007, 09), according to the St. Louis' Federal Reserve Website. The economy, almost as a rule, is always getting better. This reminds me of some unfortunate souls in my classroom who swear that 'the capitalist machine' shall break down and begin rusting within the decade. Thank God we didn't allow the Central Bank reps to be electable positions.

This indicator (public perception of the economy) is even less helpful, because it is often called a ‘lagging’ indicator, meaning only after the (economic) fact does the public realize that there has been a shift in the economy (compared to inflation or interest rate changes, which are usually considered ‘leading’ indicators.

2) The second concern is in what is specifically drawing voters to candidates, for republicans and democrats alike.

Under the question: What specifically is it about [CANDIDATES NAME] that makes you want to support him/her. Then it is followed by a number of attributes or possibly relevant associations.

4% of democrats and 5% of all republicans who were polled, answered, “I like him/her.” Which of course is important if one is voting for a new friend into their life, but not so much for a president.

6% of democrats surveyed admirably answered, “smart/intelligent.’ However, another 13% of democrats answered, “Married to Bill Clinton.” Which is a staggeringly stupid answer; no matter how much someone liked Clinton’s two term presidency. Republicans dis not fare much better. Not even a single republican answered that “smart/intelligent” was a characteristic of a candidate that made them want to support them.

3) Americans are (or at least think they) are racist & sexist.

Some of the final questions gave me the jeepers (and reminded me of the time David Duke ran for office (now I'll get people googling "David Duke" into this site, which is even scarier). Because the polls suggest that Americans are ether racist and sexist, or just think most of the people they know are racist and sexist. Each scenario does not bode well for US citizens: they are either mostly bigots or mostly paranoid, or some large combination of both.

The first question reads, “Do you think most people you know would vote for a presidential candidate who is a woman, or not?
49 would, 40 would not, 12 dk/na.

The second question reads, “Do you think most people you know would vote for a presidential candidate who is black, or not?
60 would, 25 would not, 15 dk/na.

Besides the acute fear I feel that many of my friends may be secretly misogynists, these questions also place clearly into perspective how black men got the vote before women. The Amiercan electorate scare me.

So, besides the AP picking up the new tracking numbers and mundanely reporting that Huckabee’s support continues to steadily increase, they should have instead reported that Americans are both blind and stupid… and recommend they be politically muted.

Seminarians and the Good Samaritan

2007-12-05T12:55:00.001-06:00

My good parisian friend threw the ethical gauntlet down during a recent note. He spoke of the 1973 study by John Darley and Daniel Batson entitled, "From Jerusalem to Jericho: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior." The study was to see if seminarians, crudely if you will, 'practiced what they preached.'

Richard Beck's blog, "Experimental Theology" summarizes the study well.

The study involved seminarians preparing for the ministry. The seminarians were randomly split into two groups. The first group was asked to prepare a sermon on the parable of the Good Samaritan. The second group prepared a sermon on a non-helping religious subject. The seminarians were then scheduled to deliver this sermon at an appointed time and place.

Upon arriving at the place the seminarians were told that the location has been changed at the last minute and that they were to go to a new location. At this point, the seminarians were split into three groups. A third of the seminarians were put under strong time pressure, told that they needed to get to the new venue in a hurry (high hurry). A third was put under moderate time pressure (intermediate hurry). And finally, the third group was told that they could take their time getting to the new venue (low hurry). After this hurry manipulation the seminarians were pointed to the exit and directed to proceed to the next venue.

Now, along the route (an alleyway) to the next venue Darley and Batson had placed a person who showed signs of distress. Specifically, they were sitting slumped against the wall, head down and eyes closed. As the subject passed, the confederate would cough twice and groan. Basically, they showed signs of abdominal pain. As the seminarians passed the key variable was recorded: Would they stop to check on the groaning person?

The findings were less than what romantic seminarians and seminaries would like to find.

Of the 40 subjects, 16 (40%) offered some form of direct or indirect aid to the victim, 24 (60%) did not. The percentages of subjects who offered aid by situational variable were, for low hurry, 63% offered help, intermediate hurry 45%, and high hurry 10%; for helping-relevant message 53%, task-relevant message 29%.

What does this say of ethics? Nothing which shouldn't surprise us. Christians too feel constraints when confronted with deadlines. Christians too are sometimes unresponsive to concrete and tangible social problems.

As the study indicates that ethical choices might be strongly correlated to the context of the ethical decision, it should be no surprise that Christians should take seriously what type of environment they want to intentionally root themselves in. (Perhaps, Amish have something here)?

Also, I agree with my friend that ethics can often play a public role outside of individuated decision making. Christian ethicists have a great task in helping develop social policies and suggest the adoption or proscription of certain social mores.

I also agree with Richard Beck that it also is a clarion call for Christians to slow down: a chance to smell the roses while also considering the ethical quandaries that surround us. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the celebration of the Mass seems a perfect place to start.

Yet, for all of these other reasons, one principle reason Christians may not properly respond to morally atomized situations is that we live in a legal not virtue driven society. I hope to take up this issues after finals.

Gratus as an Ontological Proof

2007-11-24T14:33:00.001-06:00

In the spirit of the Thanksgiving season I would like to recount a story of how gratitude led a man to God.

The summer after finishing college I backpacked Europe and for a month stayed at the American Seminary at Katholic University, Belgium. A good priest friend of mine was spending the summer there in hopes of finishing his doctoral thesis.

One day, while talking, he shared of how his father found faith. His mother was devout her entire life, but had recently passed away. After the funeral the priest's father, who had always been agnostic, sat together with his family around the dinner table. His father then began to share that of all the feelings he was experiencing - grief, loss, pain, even anger - the most poignant was a sense of gratitude. He felt an unoverwhelming sense of gratitude for being able to share his life with his wife. Yet, this gratitude was not 'to' his wife, but 'for' his wife. And as gratitude is relational and always needs someone to be grateful to, he wondered what it meant that he felt gratitude 'for' his wife. Relenting to his own logic, he suggested that it must be God whom he is grateful to for his wife, and with that he had found God.

Hence, let me meagerly suggest - while well knowing the philosophical limitations - that the feeling of gratus can be an ontological proof for God's existence. For everything one is grateful 'for', but not 'to' let it be a meager insight to the possibility that something both greater and good must exist.

Thanks be to God.

Economics and Oikos: Christian Reflections on Polygamy

2007-11-14T19:36:00.002-06:00

After reading Augustine’s ‘On the Good of Marriage’ and listening to Dr. Brent Waters wax eloquently on the essay, the question of polygamy in Christianity began to loom. Maybe the topic is currently captivating because of Mitt Romney’s run for President and the anachronistic Mormon polygamy that he engenders, maybe I am fascinated with polygamy because I can barely fathom what monogamy means in society where more than half the marriages end in divorce, maybe I am simply fascinated with it because of a banal and sophomoric interest in the possibility of two wives, and all that might entail… but I digress.

Of all the myriad reasons for interest the real reason is economic.

In Gary Becker’s Treatise on the Family he made an interesting observation about polygamy namely societies that condone polygamy help women and children.

Considering that married women want children (an assumption), women will need resources to support their children and herself. Monogamous societies restrict the supply of possible husbands. As any limited commodity marriageable (monetarily supportive) husbands will be scarce for some women (typically those who are least likely to have qualities to find a spouse). These women may then find themselves making a hard decision: marry the dud who proposed to them, or make it on there own.

If they marry the ‘dud’ they face the possibility of lack of resources to have children or even simply sustain the two-unit family. Further, if they have children they risk not being able to properly provide for them.

If the women choose to live a single life she may have to forgo motherhood in sake of livelihood. Or, as so many women do these days, they have children outside of marriage harrowingly raising the children on their own and on their own salary.

Polygyny – having more than one wife – allows women to have more selection in choosing a husband. Ostensibly this increase in choice will lead to husbands who are better able to support their wives and desired children.

If monogamy falls more in the realm of Christian convention than creed than can the practice of polygyny be acceptable in Christian communities? In most cases the answer will probably be a roaring, ‘No!’ I am sure Christian feminists and moral traditionalists could come up with numerous reasons for why it is a preposterous idea even while conceding that it may, at times, help support destitute women. In the United States the notion could never be entertained, besides nuanced theological, sociological or political arguments (the tax-code would probably have to be augmented, too) it just seems down right un-American. So, perhaps the lasting (yet, still distressed) institution of monogamous marriage is a symbolic vanguard to a culture that is beleaguered by quantitatively squared cost-benefit analyses that seem to forever champion pareto efficiency regardless of the moral costs.

A Poem of Love

2007-10-16T14:49:00.000-05:00

As my life is still ebbing with little time for creative thought I simply share a beautiful poem by Pablo Neruda this week.

'The Question'

Love, a question
has destroyed you.
I have come back to you
from thorny uncertainty.
I want you straight as
the sword or the road.

But you insist
on keeping a nook
of shadow that I do not want.

My love,understand me,
I love all of you,from eyes to feet, to toenails,
inside,
all the brightness, which you kept.

It is I, my love,
who knocks at your door.
It is not the ghost, it is not
the one who once stopped
at your window.
I knock down the door:
I enter your life:
I come to live in your soul:
you cannot cope with me.

You must open door to door,
you must obey me,
you must open your eyes
so that I may search in them,
you must see how I walk
with heavy steps
along all the roads
that, blind, were waiting for me.

Do not fear,
I am yours,
but
I am not the passenger or the beggar,
I am your master,the one you were waiting for,
and now I enter
your life,
no more to leave it,
love, love, love,
but to stay.

A Prayer of Peace

2007-10-07T15:31:00.001-05:00

This week I share a poem and prayer entitled, "Peace" by Gerard Hopkins circa 1918.

When will you ever, Peace, wild wooddove, shy wings shut,
Your round me roaming end, and under be my boughs?
When, when, Peace, will you, Peace? I'll not play hypocrite
To own my heart: I yield you do come sometimes; but
That piecemeal peace is poor peace. What pure peace allows
Alarms of wars, the daunting wars, the death of it?

O Surely, reaving Peace, my Lord should leave in lieu
Some good! And so he does leave Patience exquisite,
That plumes to Peace thereafter. And when Peace here does house
He comes with work to do, he does not come to coo,
He comes to brood and sit.

Selling Kidneys: Part III - Autonomy

2007-09-30T12:20:00.001-05:00

Before exploring the ethical issues of autonomy bout up in selling kidneys it should be reminded that:
Part 1 argued that though alternative procurement methods are available all are insufficient in fulfilling the current lack of kidneys, and
Part 2 living, laparoscopic nephrectomies are adequately safe procedures.

The most common concern for vendor procurement models surrounds the obvious fact that most kidney vendors would be poor. Two concerns come to the fore: 1) vendors will not appreciate or understand the health risks associated with the procedure or 2) that payment will “economically coerce” the poor into the surgery out of necessity.

The first concern should be secondary if we assume that any vendor system would necessarily demand lifelong and comprehensive healthcare for vendors, as well, the practice of full disclosure of medical risks for those who agree to be living donors.

Thus the second fear should be centrally considered. It is perhaps the roadblock for the legal consent for the construction of a regulated kidney market. The concern rests in the understanding of autonomy. I submit three reasons for why autonomy is actually upheld, rather than undermined, when vendoring is permitted.

1) Coercion can only be properly rendered as external and intentional.
2) Laws prohibiting the sale of kidneys are paternalistic and inconsistent toward the poor.
3) The dangers associated with kidney transplantations are comparable to other acceptable occupations.

First, autonomy is defined by the absence of coercion. So to ensure that autonomy is upheld it must be shown that a kidney market will not coerce the poor into selling their kidneys. Coercion can be understood in many ways that are intricately catalogued by James Stacey Taylor in his book, Stakes and Kidneys. It should suffice here that coercion must be both external to the individual and intentional. One cannot coercive oneself, thus coercion is, ipso facto, always an external force. Moreover, the agent of coercion must have an intentionality in the action of coercion. Here the situation of poverty is both rested in the individuality of a person’s situation and has not intentional in colluding for control, thus autonomy cannot be limited by one’s economic situation. As Taylor states, “Given that the impoverished person would thus retain full control over their action even as they (desperately) sell a kidney there is nothing in their economic situation that bars them from being fully autonomous with respect to this sale” (53-59).

Also, if autonomy is understood as the ability to choose compared to coercion as the limit of choice then restricting kidney markets actually offer more autonomy because markets offers more choice.

Second, laws that prohibit the sale of kidneys are both paternalistic and inconsistent toward the poor. The issues concerning the poor as the primary population of vendors for market models need not be the case. Requirements for vending could easily stipulate a certain level of personal, yearly income or some similar financial qualification. However, this would lead to blatant paternalism of the poor. Peter Hoyer states, “A paternalistic attitude to [vendors] implied that they are poor, ignorant and endangering their health.” The issue becomes inconsistent when the same federal system that bars kidney sales out of concern for the poor that may be exploited by the medical community also do not offer sufficient options or programs to the poor to increase their standard of living so that they do not, out of desperation, desire to sell a kidney. Robert Vetch makes this point succinctly: markets are only permissible if one, the society has the economic ability to provide the basic necessities for all their citizens and two, if such a country does not ensure such a minimum standard of living. As he states, “If we are a society that deliberately and systematically turns its back on the poor, we must confess our indifference to the poor and life the prohibition on the one means they have to address their problems [lack of financial security] themselves.”

Third, there are comparative dangers found in completely acceptable occupations, which under the same principles should ethically justify kidney markets. Even the highest mortality rate for nephrectomies (.06%) is lower than for other generally accepted occupations, such as commercial fisherman, merchant seaman, tax drivers, construction workers, and those in armed forces. Thus the same principles that allow for the poor to enroll in the armed forces – a statistically dangerous occupation – would also imply consent to a regulated kidney markets, especially considering the fact that the advent of laparoscopic nephrectomies will further lower mortality rates.

Hopefully this post helped to illustrate why autonomy of even poor vendors would not be undermined by regulated kidney markets. However, the ethical issues surrounding beneficence, non-maleficence and equity must still be considered in later posts.

Random Questions of Heaven and Love

2007-09-28T20:11:00.001-05:00

A dear college friend recently posed two questions to me:
1) I want to know what you think heaven is?
2) How can you love God or others if you don't know that you are loved by God and others?

In answering the questions for my friend, I thought I would post the answers for anyone who reads this blog (which my advisors assures me is only myself) (Which would consequently make this a self-acknowledged schizophrenic sentence)).

I think the best way to answer these questions is anecdotally. I want to walk around their meaning so as to circumscribe an answer, but not actually articulate one.

1) I want to know what you think heaven is?
First, to ask what heaven is opens the metaphysical door to endless discourse. Could it be that heaven can be understood by its proximity to God – we can know of God, but we cannot comprehend God.

More concretely I would have to think that heaven has some type of materialism – or (paradoxically) at least a spiritual materialism. Augustine states, “When the body is made incorruptible, all the members and inwards parts which we now see assigned to their various necessary offices will join together in praising God; for there will then be no necessity, but only full, certain, secure and everlasting felicity” (CoG 22.30.1178). It seems such place for our bodily and communal worship would be heaven – a place too of physicality (Though I may have to reflect on this).

Another way I think about heaven is in purposely not thinking about. A good friend said to me once, “Jason, at some point theology becomes more important than just who gets into heaven and who goes to hell.” Christian teleology should be directed toward being nearer to God, and hoping for salvation in heaven only insofar as it allows one may nearer to God.

Also, the lines of ‘Amazing Grace’ have always been helpful in conceptualizing heaven: “When we've been there ten thousand years / bright shining as the sun / We've no less days to sing God's praise / then when we've first begun.” The boredom that can so quickly overcome us now will have no place in our insistent and eternal worship of the Triune God who’s pure Love and Goodness will forever enrapture our attention.

Dante’s Paradiso tried describe the divine scene in heaven and only found that words were inadequate for descriptions and ended with, “My will and my desire were turned by love / The love that moves the sun and the other stars.” This seems a fitting way to end my answer to what I think heaven is.

2) How can you love God or others if you don't know that you are loved by God and others?
This is unfortunate to say, and may sadden me to share it so explicitly, but this is the truth: I cannot love God or others, until I know and accept that God loves me. In Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus answers that the greatest command is to love God and neighbor. The second derives from the faith in the first. To not know God would be to exonerate the second imperative. To love is first to acknowledge that God loves. If one does not know God then one cannot, properly speaking, love.

Of course, I may be intimate with a lover, friends or family members – and even on occasion show deep compassion for a stranger. Yet, all this is not love.

Consider my grandmother. I ‘love’ her more than anyone else I have ever known. She is growing older and weaker each day. The way I ‘love’ her though is too direct, too intimate. There is no space for God. A Christian who loves through God’s love – a mediated love – concomitantly creates distance and irreducible collapses the difference between the loved and beloved. I cannot properly and absolutely love my grandmother because I am both not close enough and too close to my grandmother. This may seem impossible, but let me explain.

First, I am too close to my grandmother to love her. This is because I cannot see that my grandmother and I are not limited to the temporal life we share together. If one does not know God loves them then they cannot understand how to love one in a way that anticipates immortality. So I cannot love my grandmother because I am too close to her.

Second, I am not close enough to my grandmother to love her. This is because if I do not know God loves me I will only see my grandmother as simply my grandmother, and never my sister in Christ. Only by accepting such a radical siblinghood can I ever truly love my grandmother. Thus, I do not love my grandmother because I am not close enough to her.

So though it is sad, one cannot love until they know God loves them, and if they love God they must love their neighbor.

Thanks for the questions.

Oh the [In]humanity: A Theological Apology for Zombie Films

2007-09-26T13:15:00.001-05:00

Zombie movies often have a heavy veneer of superficiality. The Resident Evil movies, Grindhouse and Doom all make this point nicely. On the other hand, more 'refined' zombie flicks have given way to social commentary: Romero's Dawn of the Dead and 28 Days Later both fall into this category. These movies have often been used to question and critique 'mindless' consumerism, the breakdown of the family, and the ascension of the individual over society, among other issues.

Yet, theological reflection seems scant. I would submit that zombie movies in particular can be used as vehicles for theological reflection.

All of this came about when my beloved friend had an evening free from his wife to see the new Resident Evil 3: Extinction with me. As we are both theology students are discussion always are reduced to questions of God. Yet, my beloved friend and I seemed unable to respond to the movie theologically. So with some good ol' Samuel Well's "theological imagination" I came up with some ways Christians can begin to redeem the damned:

1) Immortality through worldly means is distortive and vain:
Through the consequence of sin we all must suffer death. As death looms over us with inevitability we seek immortality through worldly ends instead of Godly ones. Paul shares, "To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life" (Romans 2:7). The virus that causes the zombie outbreak in the Resident Evil trilogy was created to essentially create worldly immortality. However, it only leaves to a mere immortality, but not sanctification; a deformation, but not transformation. More than just medical means to extend the length of life there are a myriad of ways we try to vainly grasp immortality. Through fame, career, status we all seek out a means to an end that if extended to such a point or brought to their logically outcomes all still lead to death. Christianity does not deny the reality of death, but reassures us that Christ conquered death for all.

2) The consciousness of humanity permits the knowledge of Good and God:
Most horror movies and almost all zombie movies convey to the audience the intrinsic value of civility and humanity. The grotesque zombie places into relief the virtue of man. Even as humanity is still marred by sin, grace is given by God so that man may still know the Good. Zombies, I would argue, cannot know the Good, as they are soulless and consequently spiritless, unable to self-transcend, ergo unable to know the Goodness of God. This assumption that Zombie's do not have souls leads into the final point – and was also discussed in another blog.

3) Christian resurrection will not be zombie-like re-animation:
If zombie movies promise anything it is an illustration of what is to be rejected when a Christian considers the doctrine of bodily resurrection. Paul said, "But someone will ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come? Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sounds, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable body must put on imperishability and this mortal body must put on immortality." (I Corinthians, 15:35-38). The resurrection of the dead will not be grounded in a crass physicalsim, and cannot be separated from the mind. Zombie movies are a via negative for understanding the resurrection of the body.

The professed creed ends, "We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen." Thus the resurrection of body cannot be denied, but in what fashion it is raised makes all the difference. In Luke two disciples are walking on the road to Emmaus, and are joined by the risen Christ. Though they do not recognize Jesus until supper they do not confuse him for some walking dead. The zombie is relegated merely to this image of illustrative death. Thus, it entails all the horror of the anthropomorphized understanding of death – literally, death incarnate. Such a future bears little good news for the faithful, and thus zombie movies are properly in the genre of horror.

I would like to thank both my beloved friend and Coptic Christian for their insights into this issue, and without whom this post would have been impossible, or at least far far less insightful.

Does God Suffer? No!

2007-09-19T19:24:00.002-05:00

Today Fr. Thomas Weinandy lectured at Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary. He was the culminating speaker for the Forum for Evangelical Theology’s series on the question of God’s Sovereignty.

During last year’s presentations God’s sovereignty was critiqued through the lens of a number of traditions: Patristic, Calvinist, Moltmannian, Open Theist, Process, and Thomist.

Fr. Weinandy’s lecture was not especially surprising, but was “illustrating” – as he seems to hold a penchant for drawing diagrams of the divine. Nevertheless, God’s impassability was defended, evil was stopped before it could become ontologized, and the distinction between Creator and creation was upheld.

It would be unduly discursive if I were to simply describe the lecture in total, so I will simply touch on two – while scourging the theological and rhetorical power of three – issues in his lecture: 1) God’s immanent workings pointed to God’s wholly Otherness, and 2) God’s love is in absolute action, constantly.

First, God's transcendence can be found in how God immanently related to the world. As Weinandy stated, "Thus, while he is intimately present o and dynamically active within the created historical order, God has revealed, through his very presence and activity, that he exists in a manner that differs in kind and not merely in degree to that of everything else within the created historical order." The biblical theophanies and the sanctification of God's peoples are examples of such immanent workings of God that distinguish God the creator form creation.

Second, God's immutability supports God's ability to be love. Usually the contrary is argued that only a suffering God can love. However, Weinandy noted, "God is immutable or unchangeable in his love and goodness not because his love and goodness are static or inert. That would be a contradiction of terms. Love and goodness are, by their very nature, dynamic and active. To say that God's love is immutable is to say that God's love and goodness are eternally perfectly in act and no further act of love could make his love and goodness more perfectly in act.... the divine attribute of impassibility specifies that God's love and compassion are so ardent that no change could enhance the ardor of his love or compassion." He unfortunately went on to use the metaphor of God as the eternally perfect kisser who is always ready to lay a wet one on you; as I said unfortunate.

During the question and answer session Dr. Vaux asked if this wasn't 'whole-sale Greek metaphysics.' The Fr. responded, "This is whole-sale revelation! If I thought I started out with Greek philosophy and just added revelation, I would give up."

A good friend of mine noted that he loved how the whole lecture seemed to be a doxology, not an opportunity for the Fr. to show his knowledge per se, but a time to preach the truth of God: that God is all loving, all knowing, eternal and unchanging. And appropriately the lecture ended with, AMEN.

Pagan Gnosticism and Christian Revelation

2007-09-15T13:14:00.001-05:00

Augustine in his early and wayward years was a Gnostic. He allied to the common dualism between the enslaved material corpus and the liberated spirit. Later he would rightly turn to a God who made the heavens and the earth and saw both as good and a God who would make Himself truly man, scourging the docetic Christology of others, like Marcionites.

However, more than the penchant anti-materialism that defined the early Gnostics, there name sake also helped to define them: they believed themselves the bearer of gnosis – the bearers of secret knowledge.

And who doesn’t enjoy being the keeper of a secret?

However, this gnosis is what separates Christians from pagans. The knowledge Christians hold – that Christ is Lord – was never meant to be a secret. While paganism is gnostic, Christianity is revelational. The Great Commission is essentially to continue the revelation: preach, baptize and teach to the nations (Mt. 28.19-20).

There are then two sides to this Christian currency. On one hand being Christian is to share the gospel (to be revelatory), and on the other hand being Christian is to know that Christ revealed all (to reject gnosis).

Though Christianity is to be revelational it does not always succeed: sometimes not being honest about the knowledge it has and sometimes coveting the knowledge.

In a secularized society it is often not fashionable to share the knowledge of Christianity. Instead the knowledge is unduly (and heretically) bifurcated. Often Christians talk of ‘Jesus’ as a wise and worldly teacher in public, but stop at proclaiming his radical and salvific message. Personally, I muse at the number of times I have shared that I am an atheist to a Christian and their response is something resembling affirmation. To be Christian is to witness, not in partial, but in total.

Other times Christians seem to covet their knowledge, seeing the gospel more as secret than as revelation. My beloved friend wrote a sermon recently that feared as much: “I love the parable of the prodigal son, but it also scares me. It troubles me because it ends with the older son outside the party, refusing to come in. Sometimes I worry the church is like the older son, wanting to keep God all to themselves, wishing that God would not be so forgiving to those who don’t deserve it, questioning whether they really want to follow a God who throws such outrageous parties.” Perhaps the message is just too radical; we can’t fathom such audacious mercy. So, instead we covet the Father, believing the younger son gone for good.

However, it is not enough to simply share the revelational message – it is to rebuke those other teaching that believe in a secret knowledge that extends outside of the Word.

Paganism ultimately tries to give meaning to history – in a word, Astrology. Slavoj Zizek rejects this cosmic – if not still somewhat inscrutable – ordering. Thus, part of his resonance with Christianity is that both reject the secret ordering of the world that can only be gleamed (or, if you prefer decoded) by understandings of planetary alignments and seasonal happenings. Christians thus are called to render history intelligible as if a Janus Bifrons (note the irony of using pagan Gods as an example): always looking back to the incarnation as the beginning of history, but also looking toward the future and the promised Parousia, which will mark the end of history. Reinhold Niebuhr also makes this distinction warning that Christianity (and humanity at large) often tries to rationalize history as some slow march to a culmination that humanity itself wills. For the secular world this is embodied in the belief in technological progressivism, and for Christianity (as Niebuhr saw it) the Social gospel’s post-millennialism. Of course, both are to be rejected. As Mark reads, “But about the day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Beware, keep alert; for you do no know when the time will come” (Mark 13.32-33).

Moreover, there is a current trend in popular fiction that emulates Gnosticism, and which should be repudiated. Three books that exemplify this are: Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, Rhonda Byrne’s The Secret and Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist. Even the titles of these books suggest a gnosis, and promise that the secret can unlock some fulfillment that can come from outside the Church. The Secret and The Alchemist both uphold a dualism between the mind and body, as if purposing a peculiar anthropological ‘big-headed’ Apollinarianism – in that the body becomes only some vessel for the Mind, which need only take cue from the fanciful flight of Peter Pan and, “Think happy thoughts.” Yet this is at the same time to reject the materialism of the world in-and-of-itself while also rejecting the limits of materialism. Certainly, this is not a Christian message.

The Da Vinci Code can be differentiated. The other two books offer a gnosis extra ecclesiam Brown offers a gnosis intra ecclesiam. Thus nominal Christians don’t really have the knowledge of Christ and God, but rather a politically and patriarchal version. Only a few carefully selected persons – most who aren’t particularly religious – become the bearers of the secret. In the end however, Brown’s Christianity falls into worshipping the symbols and signs themselves, rather than Christianity that use the symbols and signs only as mediation that points to God. And most importantly the meaning of these symbols – such as the cross – is not masked to hide the importance behind it, but prominently displayed and proclaimed to all, so that all might know the knowledge.

Christian revelation that comes from Christ and continued by the Holy Spirit is not to be coveted, but to be shared. That Christ is Lord was never meant to be a secret. The implication of that gospel is that there is no other secrets to be found out. We are all equally welcome to know the good news and share it with others.

Jesus is Not 'Real'

2007-09-11T17:37:00.002-05:00

While driving on Interstate 70 outside of Columbus, Ohio I saw a number of Christian billboards lining the highway. One read, “Consider where you want to spend eternity! Repent!” Another read, “Avoid hell, repent. Jesus saves!” Wile I admonish both of these signs for using Christianity as an eternal hedge-bet (read Paschal) they did not disturb me as much as one black and white sign that said simply, “Jesus is Real.”

However, Jesus is not ‘real’.

Do not misunderstand me; this is not a sophomoric attack at the historical foundations of Christianity. Nor is it a rejection of the incarnational presence of Christ.

No, what makes the sloganized and simplified claim of ‘Jesus is Real’ so insipid is that it perpetuates the Enlightenment project that demands Cartesian certainty that begins with doubt and moves to belief only through reason. This leaves a Church that is merely empirical rather than confessional. Here, faith and reason are not only rent from one another but made antipodean – each placed against the other.

The God who gave his name as ‘I AM WHO I AM’ is not adequately – nor could be – properly understood by pure rationalism. All of this is part of the tired trek to fit God into an ontological equation. However, such rationalistic algebra will always fall short, unless we turn to the phrase from Ecclesiastes that states, “Only God is God.”

There is desire to make Jesus a magnificent historical quest, and at times there is a place for that. Certainly the particular and historical nature of the incarnation is a testament to the worldliness of the Christian message. However, the historical quest should also be held in tension with the spiritual quest. This quest shares the road with reason alongside faith.

Instead of the sign reading, ‘Jesus is Real’ it ought to read, “Christ is Lord.”

Why Not Catholic?

2007-09-06T13:06:00.001-05:00

I take the Creed seriously, or as seriously as an atheist can take such a thing. So, when it states, “I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church” I take that just as serious as the line “We believe in one God.”

So why aren’t creedal-confessing Christians Catholic?

An Episcopalian some what heatedly told a class of mine that he was in fact catholic, just not Roman Catholic. However, this ‘catholicity’ he affirmed is non-substantive. A ‘Catholic’ Church that is also apostolic must be one that is substantive and particular and rooted in a historical construction.

I met with Dr. Stephen Long during my first visit to Garrett-Evangelical. I had recently finished his book The Goodness of God. While reading it I was struck at how centrally and reverently he discussed the sacraments. While we talked in his office, I asked him, “Dr. Long why aren’t you a Catholic?” He saw three problems with being Catholic: the celibacy of the priesthood, the ordination of only men, and the fact that he was already an ordained minister of the United Methodist Church.

Of course, Dr. Long might be harboring a few other theological qualms with the Catholic Church, but probably not too many. I’ve heard him support the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception and he has published a paper on the need for the Papacy.

Dr. Long has also been critical of the Protestant church being defined by protest. He (and I) agrees that the joint declaration has answered most of the questions that originally created a schism within the Church. The Methodist Church in a resolution last year also agreed with the joint decalration. So, do most Protestant stay so for only three reasons: they want priests to marry, women to be ordained and because they happen to already be Protestant?

Besides the second issue, the other two do not hold theological purchase; and I would hesitantly suggest that even second need not justify a schism in the Church (while I would also suggest that the addition of the ‘filioque’ to Creed didn’t either).

Recently an editorial articlein the Christian Century made the point that the Pope’s declaration that Protestant churches are not, “churches in the proper sense” should not alarm Protestants. The editor went on to say that the Pope’s message was a technical statement not necessarily a moral one; rather, Rome simply meant that some Protestants don’t hold the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, fewer uphold bishop delineated apostolic succession and none recognize Papal authority.

The author then went on to write, “At the same time, most Protestants would affirm, with Augustine (and against the Donatists), that the church exists by God's grace, sometimes in spite of human efforts.” Of course, the invisible Church should be affirmed, but the author takes such a doctrine to its relativist-slipper-slope conclusion, “Ironically, in this sense [that they can witness to the pluriformity of the Spirit’s work in the world] Protestants can be more "catholic" than Catholics.” Yet isn’t this ecclesial carte-blanche exactly what has lead to the current state of undue liberalism?

A good friend of mine and Ph.D. candidate has remarked of this same problem with the word, ‘liberal evangelical.’ He criticizes that it often means those who want to claim the name evangelical, but while at the same time relegating its denotation so anyone can claim it. Similar, the author misses the point about what it means to be ‘catholic.’ It may be a nice or amusing sentiment to call Protestants ironically catholic, but in that very moment the term is robbed of any significance it began with. The Church must draw lines in the sands for the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus to be meaningful. If not, then all are anonymous Christians and humanity is to be silently conscripted into the ranks and rolls of the ‘catholic’ Church without exceptions – the final step of the Church become nothing more than a secularized humanism.

Brent Waters recently mused in a class lecture, “If you are going to be a heretic pick a good heresy... however, I wonder if a Protestant could even be a heretic these days.”

One things for sure, there’s not much stopping them from being Catholic.

Academic Freedom in Question: Part II

2007-08-30T21:54:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I wrote a post admonishing DePaul University’s decision to suspend Dr. Finkelstein from teaching classes this academic year. Today a good friend and fellow DePaul alumnus wrote a contrary article defending DePaul’s decision to deny Finkelstein tenure. I felt it important to call attention to some issues that must not go unchallenged.

First and foremost is the most recent action by DePaul to cancel Dr. Finkelstein’s classes and place him on administrative leave. Further, he was barred from his office which held his personal and professional effects. This indignity and improper process of dismissing a professor is the most unsavory of occasions that has arisen from this entire debacle. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has now twice written DePaul University sharing its concern over the university’s treatment toward Dr. Finkelstein.

As I count Dr. Finkelstein has four different to protest:
1) His denial of tenure.
2) His denial for an appeal of the tenure decision.
3) His placement on administrative leave (and effective cancellation of his classes).
4) His being banned from his personal office.

1 – Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s denial of tenure.
Rachel’s article most specifically addresses Dr. Finkelstein’s denial of tenure and her reasoning for the ‘apt’ decision. However, it should be noted how the process developed. First the political science department committee voted and arrived at a 9-3 for tenure vote. Second it went to the LA&S college tenure committee, which voted 5-0 for the tenure. Third, at the university level tenure committee however voted 2-4 against tenure. In sum he was overwhelmingly supported by the tenure committees 16-7.

Rachel’s argument for support of the denial of tenure primarily rests on the reasons given by the department committee minority opinion – written by the three opposing faculty. The article, "Academic Freedom On Trial, Peg Birmingham, a DePaul University professor, does a suburb job of showing the shallow and insipid claims those against Dr. Finkelstein’s scholarship are alleging.

Of course my own conviction of scholarly merit will hold little weight. However, on the radio show Democracy Now two Middle-East expert scholars praised Dr. Finkelstein’s work: "We speak to two world-renowned scholars in these fields: Raul Hilberg, considered the founder of Holocaust studies, and Avi Shlaim, a professor of international relations at Oxford University and an expert on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Shlaim calls Finkelstein a "very impressive, learned and careful scholar", while Hilberg praises Finkelstein's "acuity of vision and analytical power." Hilberg says: "It takes an enormous amount of courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him." His academic credentials far exceeded those of most political science professors that were tenured at DePaul and his international attention and praise are representative of such.

Of course, Dr. Finkelstein claim that DePaul University was third rate is simply accurate. As an alumnus of the school it takes a certain amount of humility to say this, but DePaul has for years been ranked as a third-tier school by the Princeton Review. The university has been committed to being a teaching institution and not a researching one (which again emphasizes that a professor with five published books has certainly published enough for tenure). It is simply stating factually and by category what DePaul University was and still is, a third-tier national university.

2 – His denial for an appeal of the tenure process decision.

Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s denial for an appeal of the tenure decision is also inconsistent with its faculty handbook. In a letter from the AAUP the president stated he was concerned with such a denial for appeal. He wrote, “Our concerns arise when you go on to assert that ‘there is simply no basis for any claim that the UBPT failed to uphold the standards and processes set forth in the Faculty Handbook.’” In our view, it is precisely that assertion as well as the question whether the administration similarly failed that bear on the claims by Professors Finkelstein and Larudee that impermissible considerations—involving violations of their academic freedom—contributed significantly to the adverse decisions in their cases.” This seems an undue stance by the university, signaled by the AAUP.

3 – His placement on administrative leave (and effective cancellation of his classes).

After being denied tenure Dr. Finkelstein, as is done with other professors who are denied tenure, was allowed one more year of teaching at DePaul. With rumors that the university might try to bar Finkelstein from teaching the next year it came at little surprise that the university placed him on administrative leave for the year and thus effectively canceling his classes. Another letter by the AAUP warned the university that this was uncharacteristic of the usually process afforded to professors. Dr. Finkelstein was rightly troubled by the development and claimed he would perform a sit-in and hunger strike if necessary so as to be afforded the right to teach.

4 – His being banned from his personal office.

The letter by Dean Suchar, which I shared yesterday, is the apex of this entire spectacle: a full blown circus with the dean miming as a teenaged angst ridden clown. There is little more that needs to be said on this issue.

Rachel has her reasons for suspecting Dr. Finkelstein’s fidelity to truth. Her particular and peculiar story is interesting, but not necessarily insightful enough for me to disregard the more than 1,000 pages of published work he has produced and been praised for. I would like to point out that some of her reservations in supporting Dr. Finkelstein’s work come from his ‘lack of empirical evidence’ in which I would respond where then is your evidence that besides a rather quirky personal anecdote? The empirical evidence you seem to castigate Finkelstein for lacking also seems lacking in your assertions.

It is no secret that Dr. Finkelstein does not play nice. However, that is not what his project is about – it was about truth. This in no way is to suggest this man a martyr, but he is at least a model.

I too have stories from Finkelstein and I will share them here:

The first is when taking a class on Utopias. While in class he recollected how his mother was called to testify, sometime in the 1990’s, against the woman who ran the concentration camp Dr. Finkelstein’s mother was sent to during WWII. Dr. Finkelstein traveled to Europe with his mother to support her during the emotionally grueling ordeal.

At the trial his mother testified against the head of the camp. The ex-Nazi was now an old woman, a hallow shell. She was a mere run-down ghost of what she once so unfortunately was.

After Finkelstein’s mother testified they walked back toward the hotel. Along the way they passed the very woman Finkelstein’s mother had just testified against – who was on bail. Finkelstein’s mother was so enraged by her presence she lost all control and demanded that Norman should attack the woman. She scolded him, “They treated us like dogs, Norman! Like dogs. Get her, Norman! Get her!”

Dr. Finkelstein stopped his lecture there. The entire room was enraptured. My retelling does it no justice. Then of course someone asked, “Well, what did you do?” And he said quite seriously, “I will never tell.” Then what commenced was the best classroom discussion on ethics I have ever had. .

Another time Dr. Finkelstein, on the last day of class on Utopias, asked each student if they believed that political utopias were someday possible for humanity. Of course there were a variety of answers most were of the type that you would expect from idealistic and optimistic undergraduates.

When it was my turn I answered that, no there was no chance for a political utopia. He stopped and mentioned how surprised he was that I would believe that. That moment and that exchange has stuck with me for years now. I always felt like I disappointed him, that I hadn’t gleaned the possibility and promise of humanity from the texts and fellow peers. However, if anything has proven my answer right it has been how Dr. Finkelstein has been treated by the ‘political’ process.

Academic Freedom In Question

2007-08-29T22:53:00.000-05:00

On Friday, August 25th Dr. Norman Finkelstein - who was recently denied tenure at DePaul University in Chicago - received this terse email from Dean Suchar:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof. Finkelstein - Professor Budde has informed me that you have asked for office space for your books. We do not have office space assigned to you for the coming academic year. I will look into whether we can make space available for you and either I or Professor Budde will get in touch with you next week with more information.

In the meantime, you will not have access to your old office space. To the extent that you left personal belongings in your old office space, we can discuss a plan for their return to you when I get in touch with you next week. You should not plan on moving into any office space tomorrow, as that option is not available to you.

I will contact you next week with more information.

Dr. Charles (Chuck) Suchar
Professor and Dean
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
DePaul University
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides this, Dr. Finkelstein was placed on administrative leave for the academic year, effectively canceling his classes, one ironically entitled 'Freedom and Empowerment.' This because the controversy of his denial of tenure and class cancellations go to the heart of the academe; academic freedom.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) - wrote DePaul's president after it was announced that Dr. Finkelstein's classes would be canceled. The letter warned that the school's conduct toward the professor was not in accordance with general procedures usually afforded to professors. The (AAUP) already voiced concern over DePaul's denial to allow Dr. Finkelstein to appeal the tenure decision (which consequently held a majority (9-3) recommendation by the departmental tenure committee and a unanimous (5-0) recommendation by the Personnel Committee for the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences though did not pass by marjority at the university committee level).

Most regretably, DePaul and Dr. Finkelstein will both lose face in this insipid and certainly uninspiring spectacle that bedazzles no one all while at the loss of academic freedom.

Further, DePaul in its debauched handling of the entire process has further strengthened Dr. Finkelstein's career thesis: that ultra-sensitive feelings towards Jews and specifically the state of Israel borne from Holocaust guilt has lead to the inability to criticize Israeli policy. DePaul has made him his own self-fulfilling prophecy.

I personally took classes from Dr. Finkelstein and it is a shame such a professor is asked to leave in such a manner. The sum of the academe is lessened by such a loss.

Should Seminaries Give Atheists Scholarships?

2007-08-28T16:34:00.002-05:00

It a strange thing to be sure that in this day of such rampant liberalism such a question is even given a moments ponder – should seminaries subsidize the cost of theological education of avowed atheists? It is an even stranger thing that such things happen – and they do happen.

The repercussions are of course that some hopeful Christians entering seminary are awarded less or even no scholarship monies. This could even lead a possible seminarian to conclude that they are not financially able to attend seminary.

There seem to me a few reasons one might argue for permitting seminaries the possibility in awarding atheists scholarships: 1) a call to diversity, 2) a hope of conversion and 3) a commitment to meritorious awarding.

A Call to Diversity

On one hand, one reason seminaries may justify funding atheists is in the desire to diversify the view and theological perspectives of their students. Brown v. Board of Education fell heavily on the reasoning that there was a psychological and sociological benefit to diversity itself. Theological schools could crassly want diversity for diversity’s sake, or a more refined belief that a plethora of perspectives lead ultimately to better theology. Even the Vatican Councils have a designated ‘devil’s advocate’ that is to play against the prevailing arguments of the day in an attempt to ensure that every conceivable viewpoint is considered.

On the other hand, what theological diversity is needed in the seminary? A denominationally aligned seminary already has an orthodoxy and theological perspective. Certainly, if anything is orthodox in Christian doctrine it is the belief that God exists. Theological education presupposes God’s existence; to ‘do’ theology is already to ‘speak of God.’ So what benefit would it be to have the antithetical perspective introduced in theological classrooms? Further, what assurance would there be that such a ‘token’ atheist would share his or her radically divergent perspective?

I say, there is need for theological diversity in seminaries. A dialogue between the Church, faculty and staff is needed to decide to what degree such diversity should be welcomed; nevertheless, atheists can never properly constitute a ‘theological perspective.’ They are quite literarily ‘a-theist’ in name: they are indifferent to God. Their speech about God is in silence, muted. Thus they can give no proper perspective of God. Their diversity would be a false one.

A Hope for Conversion

On one hand, some might argue that funding an atheist’s theological education could lead them to convert to Christianity. By being steeped in a Christian community, immersed in the history of Christianity and introduced to the Word an atheist would be more likely to be converted to the faith and thus it would be worthwhile to financially support an atheist in attending seminary.

On the other hand, seminary is not the place to convert atheists. Its mission is to primarily train the ministerial leadership of the Church. The monies the seminaries are allocated by patrons are earmarked for this mission, not for conversion and evangelism. Further, the seminary - though obviously a Christian environment - is not necessarily the most effective place to instruct someone on why and how to be a Christian. Thus, it would be both spiritually ineffective and financially improper to use the seminary for such ends.

I say, the seminary is part of the Church and has the same desire to see people turn to the belief in Christ; however it functions different than churches, focusing more on supporting vocations than fostering conversions. This should not be read as an attempt to bar atheists from seminaries who may want to use the institution as an avenue for faith, but rather as a proscription in allocating funds to such individuals for such projects.

A Commitment to Meritorious Awarding

On one hand it may be said that as seminaries are graduate institutions they should reward funding primarily – or perhaps solely – on merit; be it academic, leadership, or relevant experience. Academically, graduate schools must take into account the merit of students entering programs and with financial incentives attract students whom can continue to keep or raise the standard of academic excellence of the school. This also is the case for other meritorious considerations such as past careers and leadership experience. The fact that someone is an atheist need not impinge upon such considerations. Generally, it is the overall strength of the applicant rather than theological convictions that can best be quantified and objectified and thus judged. This both expedites the process while also offering the most reliably way to evaluate students. The financial awarding of scholarship by seminaries need not be different from other graduate schools that primarily if not simply consider the merit of the student while ignoring other such subjective qualities such having such and such political party affiliations or having or not having faith.

On the other hand, seminaries are more than mere graduate schools. It is more an accident than the essence of a seminary. And so, academic excellence, leadership ability and the like are a distant secondary to the most important commitment in the financial determination for seminaries: does the candidate have a viable vocation in leading the Church? Obviously, an atheist cannot answer in the affirmative. Though meritorious considerations should be made to those candidates who can answer positively it must be the first qualification that drives the second. The seminary is not a religious studies department - it is a religious studies department and much more. The seminary should care more about the sanctification of their candidates than their qualifications.

I say that seminaries are not equivalent to other graduate schools; they are qualitatively different, and in following so should the students be qualitatively different. Students that are funded by seminaries should be chosen by qualities that reflect their Christian life; atheists that do no have such a life cannot reflect such qualities.

It seems that though we should not bar atheists from seminaries such institutions should not fund them either. As an atheist who received – and accepted - a full-tuition scholarship and stipend from my institution it seems that perhaps I am making a hypocritical argument; but I do not believe so. I know that I do not believe the seminary should have offered me a scholarship and I am absolutely certain I should not have received such a generous one; however, my argument rested in the fact that I believe seminaries should not offer atheists scholarship, not if I believed it prudent for atheists to accept scholarships from seminaries.

Selling Kidneys: Part II - Living Kidney Tx

2007-08-26T13:50:00.001-05:00

We should agree that cadaveric donations cannot fully satiate the demand for kidneys (see Part I).

In a desire to explore all viable medical and ethical options to increase the number of kidney transplantation one should then turn to living kidney transplantations.

Surprisingly living transplantations came before cadaveric transplantations, usually between twins when immunosuppressant drugs were still only marginally effective or inexistent. For a while cadaveric donation (CD) became much more common then living donations (LD), but through the 1990's LD become an accepted medical procedure between family members or related living donors (RLD). Following this, emotionally-related living donations become acceptable. Thus, between 2001-2003 there were more LD than CD txs (See OPTN database). Though now there is an almost equal number between living and cadaveric donations.

Moreover, LD are usually preferable to CD txs because LD can be done preemptively, before a patient begins to undergo dialysis. This noticeably decreases the morbidity and mortality rates of the recipients who were pre-emptive. Further, the longer a patient is on dialysis the less effective the kidney transplantation will be in improving the quality and quantity of life.

Of course, during this time the LD operation (nephrectomy) became much safer, less invasive, and offered a quicker and less painful recovery time for the patient. Two reasons for this: 1) growing experience in the field from doctors who began to specialize in the procedure and 2) laparoscopic technology that bypassed the need for opening the abdominal cavity of the donating patient.

The procedure has become so safe that most hospitals now allow for non-direct donations or sometimes called 'good-Samaritan' donations. This is when the donor does not know the recipient. This is the type of donation I went through (see Donating a Kidney).

To say anecdotally that the procedure is safe does not likely reassure the modernist mind. So, cautiously and pessimistically the surgical mortality (death) rate is around <.005% or death in 1 in 20,000 cases. The chance of complication during surgery or the morbidity rate is a little higher, around <.007% (See OPTN).

It seems that this 'minor major' surgery is a relatively safe procedure. Living transplantations then might be a viable means to procuring more kidneys. The next post will then begin to look at the ethics surrounding living kidney procurement options – most specifically at direct financial incentive options.

Post Script
I want to thank my friend and blog-resident surgeon Jessica Clevenger for making sure I am not spoofing on any medical facts or jargon. Thank you.

Selling Kidneys: Part I - Cadaveric Options

2007-08-23T14:37:00.002-05:00

End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) has only two viable medical options to date: regular dialysis or kidney retransplantation. Dialysis is more expensive, less effective and limits certain lifestyles choices. Transplants, then, are a superior option to handling ESRD, but as it has already been said there is a severe shortage of kidneys. So three questions come to the fore: 1) What might increase the supply of kidneys? 2) Will that option be ethical? 3) Will that option be effective?

What might increase the supply of kidneys?

The good news is that there are a surprising number and a variety of ways to increase the number of transplantable kidneys. The bad news is that many of them are either questionably ethical or marginally effective or both.

One broad way to increase the kidney supply is to increase the number of cadaveric organ donations. Currently this country runs under an 'opt-in' system for cadaveric organ donation. In contrast Belgium, inter alia, runs on a 'opt-out' model, where everyone is presumed to be an organ donor unless they choose specifically and explicitly to not participate. Also, though no country is currently under a 'salvage' model it has been discussed by ethicists. Here citizen preference is completely disregarded - essentially the state has ownership of the body of deceased citizens for medical purposes: organ donation conscription. Of course, this final model has obvious ethical dilemmas.

There are two options with both ethical and effective promise.
1) Offer a 'required response' model. This is the blend between the 'opt-in' and 'opt-out' models. It would require citizens to make choice between being or not being an organ donor - most likely it would manifest as a question on yearly IRS tax forms. Polls have suggested that many people want or are willing to be organ donors, but have been deterred in the process to 'opt-in.' The hopes of this method would be to reduce the possible deterrence in becoming a organ donor, which is currently done through the DMV while registering/updating licenses. The downside of the model is that on its own it does introduce an incentive for donating.

2) The government offers a non-direct pecuniary incentive for those willing to be organ donors. This incentive could take many forms. Mostly likely it would be some type of premium reduction in the cost of health insurance (subsidized by the government or run through medicare), a one-time tax reduction, or subsidizing funeral costs. This would almost surely increase the number of donors, but there are ethical qualms about the introduction of any form of pecuniary incentives (this will be discussed at length - perhaps even ad nauseam - in future posts).

Both of these options are ethically innocuous enough to be at least conceivable options in the United States. However, the fact is they just won't be able to satiate the need for kidneys. (Though these measures should still be seriously considered because of the inability to do living transplantations on other organs, most poignantly hearts.

Even if some financial incentive is introduced to increase the number of citizens to enroll as organ donors it will not be able to adequately reduce the number of patients on the kidney waiting-list. Even if everyone was a donor there would likely still be need for kidneys because so few people die in a way compatible with donating.

So, while cadaveric options to increase the supply of organs may be a worthwhile venture, it will not be suitable to address the shortage for kidneys. That is why living kidney transplantations must be considered. In the next post I will address the medical issues surrounding living donation (LD) and what incentives might be introduced to increase such operations.

Donating a Kidney: Part III

2007-08-19T20:15:00.002-05:00

All is well. With the surgery behind me I can now look forward to the upcoming school year, which will be my twentieth year as a student (I have got to get a job).

Since last Tuesday I have been off medication, and my mobility has continued to increase daily. As you can see from the pictures below my incisions are quickly becoming scars. The two smaller incisions are exactly half an inch long and the exit incision is a little longer than three inches – the surgical doctor bragged before the surgery that she had very small hands.

After the leaving the hospital I haven’t heard from or anything about the recipient. Of course, Gift of Hope has my contact information and I could potentially be contacted at anytime; however, because I was always been ambivalent to meeting the recipient I am not disappointed.

In the next few weeks I am going to begin posting on why kidney markets are both viable and ethical means to addressing the acute shortage of kidneys. Much of research was done last year while I began to reflect on my decision to donate.

Family History

2007-08-18T20:43:00.001-05:00

Students from Northwestern used to chant, “This is the place of the destitute, Garrett Biblical Institute!” Could our student loans prove otherwise? More recently and more kindly, the students of our sister institution would distinguish Garrett-Evangelical from Seabury as “Jesus Tech East” and “Jesus Tech West,” respectively. That Garrett and Northwestern are sister institutions to one another should be remembered. Like real family members their presence is sometimes forgotten, they blend into each others’ normalcy of life. Each takes the other for granted.

Though the Northwestern charter was established earlier, Garrett started classes a few months before. For a brief time the charter members even considered the name, Northwestern Biblical Institute – clearly they made for the better decision. For years the two schools shared students, faculty, and trustees, and many recognized Garrett as meeting the needs of Northwestern’s theological department, though this may not be the case today.

As all family members, each is in debt to the other. And, so, over the years each institution has helped the other. During the great depression Northwestern saved Garrett from financial insolvency. In 1933 Garrett foreclosed on its properties, and during that time Northwestern, unbeknownst to the trustees or president, secured the properties and resold them back to Garrett far below their value. After the ordeal an article in the Garrett Tower stated, “No words can ever quite acknowledge the debt which Garrett owes to Northwestern University for the part it played in this reorganization. In the darkest day of all, that institution threw its vast resources back of its sister school and prevented the educational home from falling into unfriendly hands…. Without that friend Garrett would probably be a homeless institution.” Certainly, there is more than geographic proximity that binds these two institutions, there is a shared story.

In the 20’s, either sadly, or appropriately, Northwestern changed its mascot from the Fighting Methodists to the Wildcats. Of course, it may be argued that a more rich rivalry between Notre Dame and Northwestern could have been preserved without such a change. And yet, do names matter? Sisters often take their husbands’ names, but the familial relationship isn’t lost. Garrett, too, has changed its name over the years, and still its essence is preserved.

There is no political message hidden in this article, no impetus for action, only a gentle reminder that human memory is brief and institutional memory even more so. As there is always a value in reveling in the nostalgia of the family history, so too is it for the shared story of these two great institutions. Perhaps students from both schools would gain from recognizing the contributions of each to the other.

Where Have All the Crosses Gone

2007-08-18T20:40:00.001-05:00

I have jokingly referred to myself, on account of my persistent lack of faith, as the only Calvinist who is not part of the elect. This comment is quite innocuous coming from a greenhorn theologian like myself, however, I have recently been privy to a number of disturbing theological comments made by Garrett-Evangelical staff and faculty. Future seminarians beware.

Perhaps the most harmless statement occurred today. I asked a Biblical Studies professor to explain why I missed an entire letter grade on an essay question. Their response, “It was too theological.” I rejoined, “Isn’t good biblical studies ultimately good theology?” A pause, then the professors response, “Not in this class, I’m looking only for the context.” Harnack seems to have won the day, and the historical critical method lives on.

The second incident happened during light conversation with another faculty member a few days ago. While discussing a range of topics the professor jovially remarked that for him, the word “orthodoxy” is pejorative. His comment was made without malice, but struck me odd for a professor working in a seminary. Are there not Religious Studies departments for such minded professors?

The final was by far the most disturbing. A group of students recently wanted to display a cross in each classroom. The students presented the issue to one of the higher administrators at Garrett-Evangelical. The administrator showed great reluctance toward the idea, because, as was quoted back to me, “Some see it as a symbol of torture.” The predominant symbol of the Christian faith might offend people in the confines and corridors of a Christian seminary? Is Christianity so susceptible to Foucaultian deconstructionism that renders all action into inevitable power plays? How can one not witness if one cannot point back to the cross? And perhaps most importantly, as a good friend of mine offered, isn’t the cross ultimately an ironic symbol. Original a symbol of Roman oppression and torture, that through Christ was then appropriated as a sign of resurrection and eternal forgiveness? To see the cross as a symbol of torture is to stop reading the gospels at the dereliction of the cross.

Paula Cole wrote an unfortunate song entitled, “Where Have the Cowboys Gone?” This one hit wonder, inspires me to muse, where have all the crosses gone? Some seminarians should be downright furious and dumbfounded at such developments. And I would even suggest, take appropriate action.

Mormons in the House

2007-08-18T20:39:00.001-05:00

I have just finished reading the my seminary President's message that the school chapel will now temporarily house a congregation of LDS. Confused is too weak a word.

Personally, I am all for ecumenicalism... however, is this more accurately an interfaith situation? Comparing the Mormons to Baptists and Methodists is a stretch, no?

I am skeptical to this new development. However, I hope to hear opinions that will illuminate my reasoning. Yet, in the light of the fact that crosses might offend people, how is this any different? Opinions? Discuss

Rooting for Religion

2007-08-18T20:36:00.001-05:00

In Chicago it is not uncommon to see a Cubs fans clad in blue, white and red appareal screaming anathemas toward a White Sox fan. Within workplaces across Chicago this rivalry continues; co-workers mock one another for their misplaced allegiances. To suggest that both are essentially baseball franchise teams that have little difference except logo, roster, and stadium would be blasphemy. To be a White Sox fan is categorically different than being a Cubs fan, each would assert. It would surely be suggested that if you didn’t see a difference between the teams you necessarily couldn’t be a fan of either. And all of this sports hoopla and franchise worshiping is pretty common practice.

So, why can’t someone rout with the same fervor for their religion as they do for their baseball team?

This brings us to the Catholic Church. On July 7th Pope Benedict XVI authorized the use of Latin services. However, it is not the lingua franca issue that caused concern. Instead, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League protested the also reinstated Good Friday prayer calling for the conversion of Jews.

On July 10, the Pope restated language in a document issued in 2000 that essentially proclaimed the primacy of the Catholic Church and it the sole salvific mediator.

On Friday, the Cubs will be playing at home against Houston with nearly 40,000 loyal fans in attendance. All of them will be sharing two beliefs: More Cubs fans are good, and the Cubs are the best baseball team ever.

The Pope was merely suggesting a similar sentiment for his Church: More Catholics are good, and the Catholic Church is the best religion ever.

So what is so surprisingly about such developments?

Cubs and Sox fans would never agree to disagree as to which team is the best. It would be disloyal even to suggest another perspective was possible. So why can't one share the same fervor for their religion?

Donating a Kidney: Part II

2007-08-18T20:33:00.002-05:00

Two days ago my kidney was removed. Two hours after it was removed it began to filter blood and produce urine for a fifty-year old man who I have never met. We live in strange times.

My first post stated that my surgery was for Friday, but unexpected cadaveric donations came up and pushed my operations to Tuesday. Of course, one should be happy that more transplants took place and at the same time, cadaveric donations also inevitably signal death. A mixed of macabre and miracle; something thoroughly Christian in it all, too.

Of course the change in the surgery wasn’t a problem for me, because I had already taken two weeks off from work for recovery, but it meant my girlfriend Amanda would not be able to stay with me during my overnight stay at the hospital after the surgery. If I rescheduled I wouldn’t have time to heal before school started so the date was set for Tuesday, August 7, 2007.

The day before the surgery Amanda and I had a quiet day reading and cooking. I felt little stress, and was looking forward to my operation. In the evening I stopped eating solids and at midnight I stopped drinking liquids. It stormed most of the night, and though ominous I felt at peace with my decision. I awoke at 3:30 in the morning not being able to sleep any longer. At 4:30 we took showers, dried and dressed. We left at 5:15 and arrived at the Surgery Reception Desk at 6:00.

After signing a few medical forms I was escorted, with Amanda, to a pre-op room. There I was asked to exchange my clothes and bracelet (that I never take off) for a flimsy gown that made me feel pasty, weak, and emaciated. While I changed Amanda, who is a nurse, looked innocently at my medical records, and accidentally found that the recipient’s name, age, and gender. Later, she would tell me that she saw his family in the waiting room, being told that the retransplantation would begin.

Back in the pre-op room there was thirty minutes of doctors, nurses and attendants who kept asking the same ten or twenty questions; What is your name? Any medical allergies (yes, Keflex), Who are you donating you kidney to? Every time I answered the question by stating that I was a non-direct donor they would respond, “Oh, how, um, generous.” Then I was given an IV line and kissed Amanda goodbye. During the entirety of the procedure I felt qualm, sure about my decision, happy that my year of contemplation was coming to fruition. The last thing I remember was entering the machine-laden operation room and placed on the table, being strapped down and then… …

I awoke peacefully. There was almost no pain. The recovery room was loud and I sensed it was large though I couldn’t tell because of the curtains that surrounded me. My nurse, Kim was talked with in bursts of sentences; “How are you? Doing well? I am giving you a pain medication. You will get a private room soon.” Then I was alone. In front of me was a nurses’ station, and I continually and groggily kept smiling and waving at nurses and passers-by. Finally, Amanda came back to the recovery room. I proudly, if not dumbly, lifted my gown aside to show her three incisions. The larger one cut across my lower abdomen and was no less than five inches. My surgeon; doctor Baker came in to tell me that the operation went well. My kidney’s renal artery was naturally split in two (which isn’t uncommon) and she had needed to do some work to splice into one, but that that too had been successful.

A new nurse took over for Kim, her name was Faye. She had just been married in Israel, and through honed skills of deduction I surmised she was Jewish. We talked about Jews weddings, which after seeing one at the age of fourteen always found preferable to protestant, though not Catholic weddings. After arriving in recovery at around 10:00, I finally was wheeled to my hospital room at around 2:00 p.m. Still groggy, and beginning to feel some pain, I made a number of calls to family and friends to inform them that I was still alive.

In the early evening I began to reel. My friend Krista came to visit – bless her heart; and by bringing me flowers concurrently took a personal stand against gender stereotyping. Yet, as the anesthesia began to wear off I felt discomfort and pain. The anesthesia led to dry-mouth and nausea, and Krista had to watch me reject a lovely serving of apple-juice and Jell-O (She’s quite a good friend). That evening I had to ask for more pain medication because I couldn’t fall asleep. Around 4:00 a.m. I finally was able to rest.

The next day another friend, Ted, came to visit and by 1:00 in the afternoon I had taken a shower, eaten and was urinating normally. These were three goals before being discharged, and soon I was being driven to Indiana by my brother John. After arriving at Amanda’s house I promptly fell to sleep.

Today I have taken things slowly, as I shall do for the next three to four days. On Monday I have a check up, and will return to work on Tuesday if I continue to improve as expected. Ultimately, the experience was a positive one. In economics they call these types of transactions Pareto-efficient, meaning that all parties ended better off than how they started. Perhaps the old adage is true: It is better to give than to receive.

Donating a Kidney: Part I

2007-08-18T20:28:00.001-05:00

If you do yet not know I am donating a kidney. The surgery is this Friday.

This decision was borne from the brain-child of one Maryanna Ramirez (Maryanna, consequently, is the type of friend one thanks their lucky stars for: beside her infinite ability to forgive she has impeccable taste and a long history of promising and datable roommates). Maryanna almost a year ago mentioned that in the medical field there are ethical debates surrounding the permissibility of organ markets. She mentioned that genesis of such medical ethics came from a book by Richard Titmuss entitled, "The Gift Relationship." She also mentioned Sally Satel who currently write for the American Enterprise Institute and has written in favor of organ markets – specifically (if not exclusively) kidney markets.

Thus was my introduction to the world of kidneys. Now, Maryanna knew such an issue would fascinate me for three reasons: 1) it involved economics 2) it involved ethics 3) it was a generally contentious subject.

In the following weeks I read not only the Titmuss and Satel pieces, but everything else on living laparoscopic nephrectomies, which is the medical operation kidney donors undergo. After my initial foray into the world of organ donation two things became abundantly clear: there was a shortage of kidneys and I could relatively safely donate one of my kidneys.

First, lets talk about the shortage of kidneys. End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) is a catch-all medical condition for kidneys that are failing or not functioning to such an extant that dialysis or transplantation are necessary. Though cadaveric donation and living relative donations meet much of the demand for kidney transplantations about 4,000 kidneys annually are still needed. Dialysis is the only option for those waiting on the list or who have no option of being a recipient. Further, dialysis – though a wonderful medical invention – marketedly decreases life expectancy, quality of life, and in the long run costs more, on average, than transplantation. The number of ESRD patients who annually die waiting for a kidney is nearly the same as the number of US military deaths in Iraq in the past four years – around 3,600.

Second, a living laparoscopic nephrectomy is a relatively safe procedure. Besides the chance of death being effectively 0%, complications are exceedingly rare. The two hour long procedure consists of two half-inch incisions (for laparoscope and surgical tool) and one four to five inch incision (for kidney removal). Most post-operative pain is not due to the incision, but rather the carbon-dioxide gas used during the operation to literally inflate the chest cavity. A donor stays over night and discharged the next day. In one to two weeks of rest donors can return to work (required it involves no heavy-lifting) and in four to five weeks donors can return to rigorous exercise.

For these two reasons I decided a year ago that I would donate my kidney. On Friday that promised decision will become a reality. Per a friend’s request that I blog the process I am going to do just that. Thus, I will be updating the process throughout the week, and would love to take questions you may have.