I have three political principals, which I think are arguably “Christian” but can also be translated into secular speak:
I believe in Natural Law, that is, that people have intuitive access to the true nature of right and wrong, and our laws and policies should be shaped by this intuition about this Law.
I believe the positive law (the laws actually written down by our legislatures and judges) is a teacher and shapes the souls of people, leading them toward what is good and bad, right and wrong, and so the law should be made with it's teaching role in mind.
I believe coercive force should be used in the restraining evil and protecting the innocent.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
The Lord’s role and ours
This set of verses confused me a bit, although it appears to revolve around the typical scriptural paradox of our role vs. God's:
Proverb 10:4: “Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.”
Psalm 127:1-2: “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it…It is vain for you to rise up early, to retire late, to eat the bread of painful labors; for He gives to His beloved even in his sleep.”
One seems to emphasize the role of human effort; the other seems to minimize it.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on reconciling these verses.
This set of verses confused me a bit, although it appears to revolve around the typical scriptural paradox of our role vs. God's:
Proverb 10:4: “Poor is he who works with a negligent hand, but the hand of the diligent makes rich.”
Psalm 127:1-2: “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it…It is vain for you to rise up early, to retire late, to eat the bread of painful labors; for He gives to His beloved even in his sleep.”
One seems to emphasize the role of human effort; the other seems to minimize it.
I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on reconciling these verses.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Gospel about Sin and Death
We have escaped like a bird
out of the fowler's snare;
the snare has been broken,
and we have escaped.
(Psalm 124:7)
This verse captures what I believe the Gospel says about sin, death, and us. Not only have we escaped, but the “snare” is broken, so we can’t get back into it again.
Also, I love that the Gospel can be found in the Hebrew scriptures.
We have escaped like a bird
out of the fowler's snare;
the snare has been broken,
and we have escaped.
(Psalm 124:7)
This verse captures what I believe the Gospel says about sin, death, and us. Not only have we escaped, but the “snare” is broken, so we can’t get back into it again.
Also, I love that the Gospel can be found in the Hebrew scriptures.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
"Emerging" versus "Emergent"
Although some emergent thinkers such as Brian McLaren and many Evangelical scholars such as D. A. Carson use "emerging" and "emergent" as synonyms, a large number of participants in the emerging church movement maintain a distinction between them. "Emergent" is sometimes more closely associated with Emergent Village. Those participants in the movement who assert this distinction believe "emergents" and "emergent village" to be a part of the emerging church movement but prefer to use the term "emerging church" to refer to the movement as a whole while using the term "emergent" in a more limited way, referring to Brian McLaren and emergent village. Many of those within the emerging church movement who do not closely identify with emergent village tend to avoid that organization's interest in radical theological reformulation and focus more on new ways of "doing church" and expressing their spirituality. Mark Driscoll, an early leader associated with the emerging church conversation, now distances himself from the "emergent thread." In a short video clip, he summarizes some of his concerns. Some observers consider the "emergent stream" to be one major part within the larger emerging church movement. This may be attributed to the stronger voice of the 'emergent' stream found in the US which contrasts the more subtle and diverse development of the movement in the UK, Australia and New Zealand over a longer period of time. As a result of the above factors, the use of correct vocabulary to describe a given participant in this movement can occasionally be awkward, confusing, or controversial.
-- In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake. -- Mark Driscoll[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church#.22Emerging.22_versus_.22Emergent.22
Although some emergent thinkers such as Brian McLaren and many Evangelical scholars such as D. A. Carson use "emerging" and "emergent" as synonyms, a large number of participants in the emerging church movement maintain a distinction between them. "Emergent" is sometimes more closely associated with Emergent Village. Those participants in the movement who assert this distinction believe "emergents" and "emergent village" to be a part of the emerging church movement but prefer to use the term "emerging church" to refer to the movement as a whole while using the term "emergent" in a more limited way, referring to Brian McLaren and emergent village. Many of those within the emerging church movement who do not closely identify with emergent village tend to avoid that organization's interest in radical theological reformulation and focus more on new ways of "doing church" and expressing their spirituality. Mark Driscoll, an early leader associated with the emerging church conversation, now distances himself from the "emergent thread." In a short video clip, he summarizes some of his concerns. Some observers consider the "emergent stream" to be one major part within the larger emerging church movement. This may be attributed to the stronger voice of the 'emergent' stream found in the US which contrasts the more subtle and diverse development of the movement in the UK, Australia and New Zealand over a longer period of time. As a result of the above factors, the use of correct vocabulary to describe a given participant in this movement can occasionally be awkward, confusing, or controversial.
-- In the mid-1990s I was part of what is now known as the Emerging Church and spent some time traveling the country to speak on the emerging church in the emerging culture on a team put together by Leadership Network called the Young Leader Network. But, I eventually had to distance myself from the Emergent stream of the network because friends like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt began pushing a theological agenda that greatly troubled me. Examples include referring to God as a chick, questioning God's sovereignty over and knowledge of the future, denial of the substitutionary atonement at the cross, a low view of Scripture, and denial of hell which is one hell of a mistake. -- Mark Driscoll[8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emerging_church#.22Emerging.22_versus_.22Emergent.22
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Sen. Obama, for U.S. Poet Laureate
I’m concerned Obama has ceded too much ground in his recent description of his idea of being president as “one who has vision, not one who manages the bureaucracy.” Last night, Sen. Clinton saw this opening and said, ‘no, you need someone to run the gov’t, and that’s me.’ Obama then talked about how he’s not that organized, and can’t find all his papers, but he has good people who do that for him. But this just made him sound like the absent minded professor – brilliant, sure, but competent to run the country – he’s not competent to find his check book! It concerns me for his campaign, and it even concerns me a little bit as to whether he’s actually “ready,” in Clinton’s terms.
He needs to reassert his competence to run the show, not just “inspire people.” If I’d been him, I’d have said, “Hillary would make a great manager, and when I’m President, I’ll certainly appoint her to my cabinet.”
If I were Hillary, I would have promised that when I’m president, I’ll make Barack the U.S. Poet Laureate.
I’m concerned Obama has ceded too much ground in his recent description of his idea of being president as “one who has vision, not one who manages the bureaucracy.” Last night, Sen. Clinton saw this opening and said, ‘no, you need someone to run the gov’t, and that’s me.’ Obama then talked about how he’s not that organized, and can’t find all his papers, but he has good people who do that for him. But this just made him sound like the absent minded professor – brilliant, sure, but competent to run the country – he’s not competent to find his check book! It concerns me for his campaign, and it even concerns me a little bit as to whether he’s actually “ready,” in Clinton’s terms.
He needs to reassert his competence to run the show, not just “inspire people.” If I’d been him, I’d have said, “Hillary would make a great manager, and when I’m President, I’ll certainly appoint her to my cabinet.”
If I were Hillary, I would have promised that when I’m president, I’ll make Barack the U.S. Poet Laureate.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
News Flash: Libertarians sane, interesting, ZC says
It occurs to me, assisted by the e-mail of a friend, that calling Libertarians insane or boring was unnecessary and unedifying. I could have more graciously and accurately said, ‘I disagree with some of the premises held by Libertarians,’ which would have conveyed everything I wanted without needlessly insulting people.
So, for that failing, forgive me.
It also occurs to me that social and political debate has a tendency to turn a bit nasty in a way that makes me wonder if it’s right and meet for one trying to practice the Golden Rule to engage in the sport.
It occurs to me, assisted by the e-mail of a friend, that calling Libertarians insane or boring was unnecessary and unedifying. I could have more graciously and accurately said, ‘I disagree with some of the premises held by Libertarians,’ which would have conveyed everything I wanted without needlessly insulting people.
So, for that failing, forgive me.
It also occurs to me that social and political debate has a tendency to turn a bit nasty in a way that makes me wonder if it’s right and meet for one trying to practice the Golden Rule to engage in the sport.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Is God cursing you for something bad you did?
In Genesis 42, Jacob’s sons have traveled to Egypt to purchase grain. They encounter Joseph who is now Pharaoh’s chief administrator, though they don’t know it’s him. Joseph sends them back with grain, but also returns their money to their sacks that they had given him as a purchase price. When the brothers discover this they’re aghast:
“What is this God has done to us?” (v. 28)
This is funny because Joseph did it, not God. But the brothers assume God is punishing them for having sold Joseph into slavery. Joseph later clarifies that God’s purpose in the whole affair was to save Egypt from starvation during the famine.
Isn’t this how we often react? Something negative happens, and we think ‘God is cursing us … probably for that bad thing we did,’ when in reality God is actually working for salvation.
It doesn’t appear that Joseph’s brothers are every punished by God for what they did to Joseph.
In Genesis 42, Jacob’s sons have traveled to Egypt to purchase grain. They encounter Joseph who is now Pharaoh’s chief administrator, though they don’t know it’s him. Joseph sends them back with grain, but also returns their money to their sacks that they had given him as a purchase price. When the brothers discover this they’re aghast:
“What is this God has done to us?” (v. 28)
This is funny because Joseph did it, not God. But the brothers assume God is punishing them for having sold Joseph into slavery. Joseph later clarifies that God’s purpose in the whole affair was to save Egypt from starvation during the famine.
Isn’t this how we often react? Something negative happens, and we think ‘God is cursing us … probably for that bad thing we did,’ when in reality God is actually working for salvation.
It doesn’t appear that Joseph’s brothers are every punished by God for what they did to Joseph.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Libertarianism is either boring or insane
A decent synopsis of the Libertarian position is that you should be free to do whatever you want, so long as your freedom doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others.
This notion is used to explain why as many laws as possible should be abolished, drug laws are a typical example. Libs contrast themselves against people who want government to do more regulating of our lives.
Libertarians are okay with minimal government basically to maintain some basic infrastructure, military, and boundaries between your freedom impinging upon mine – but this is exactly why their position is non-sense.
They claim that the difference between themselves and other parties is that they want to free people from the strictures of unnecessary laws. But no one believes in implementing superfluous laws. The question among reasonable people is how much regulation is necessary, and most Libs agree some regulation is necessary. So most of them are not saying anything very interesting, theoretically. They're just Republicans; they're not a Revolution.
The only actual position a Libertarian could hold that would be theoretically interesting or meaningfully different than a Republican or Democrat would be if he proposed we abolish all laws, that is, we implement anarchy. And, that would be crazy.
Libertarianism has the speciousness of conspiracy theory. And like conspiracy theory, it’s ultimately either crazy for what it actually thinks or tedious for thinking it’s saying something interesting.
A decent synopsis of the Libertarian position is that you should be free to do whatever you want, so long as your freedom doesn’t impinge on the freedom of others.
This notion is used to explain why as many laws as possible should be abolished, drug laws are a typical example. Libs contrast themselves against people who want government to do more regulating of our lives.
Libertarians are okay with minimal government basically to maintain some basic infrastructure, military, and boundaries between your freedom impinging upon mine – but this is exactly why their position is non-sense.
They claim that the difference between themselves and other parties is that they want to free people from the strictures of unnecessary laws. But no one believes in implementing superfluous laws. The question among reasonable people is how much regulation is necessary, and most Libs agree some regulation is necessary. So most of them are not saying anything very interesting, theoretically. They're just Republicans; they're not a Revolution.
The only actual position a Libertarian could hold that would be theoretically interesting or meaningfully different than a Republican or Democrat would be if he proposed we abolish all laws, that is, we implement anarchy. And, that would be crazy.
Libertarianism has the speciousness of conspiracy theory. And like conspiracy theory, it’s ultimately either crazy for what it actually thinks or tedious for thinking it’s saying something interesting.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
Obama vs. McCain
To me these are the two candidates I’d most like to see become president, but I’m torn over who I’d prefer if it came down to the two of them in the general.
I’ve liked Obama for a long time, and I’ve even given him money, which is something I’ve never done for any pol before. Basically, I just like his personality, and I honestly could imagine him making a huge difference to the U.S. political scene and to the world. But, I don’t really love any of his policy positions—and I hate one of them, namely ‘pro-choice.’ This may sound lofty, but I could actually imagine him creating a political scene where it was more possible for our nation to become pro-life just by putting an end to the hard-core partisanship that we’ve currently got.
Meanwhile, you can’t help but respect John McCain for his history of service and independence. If there’s one thing you could do to fix U.S. politics, it would be campaign finance reform, and he’s been a leader on this front for a long time. Further, he’s anti-Roe v. Wade. Conservatives made a major and costly investment in the Bush Administration, and the only really good thing to come out of it was getting a few judges on the Supreme Court who might overrule Roe. But if we stop short now, it won’t happen—and we’re actually pretty close. A McCain presidency just might do it. And another issue is Iraq: I’m in the Colin Powell camp here, “you break it, you buy it.” And we definitely broke it, but now we’re actually making progress fixing it because of the Surge. McCain is a candidate, despite tremendous popular opposition (which speaks to his courage and character), who has committed to seeing through what we started in Iraq. I didn’t agree with going into Iraq, but since we did I think it’s our responsibility to stick it out.
So, I have a lot more concrete reasons to vote for McCain – but I really, really want to see an Obama presidency.
To me these are the two candidates I’d most like to see become president, but I’m torn over who I’d prefer if it came down to the two of them in the general.
I’ve liked Obama for a long time, and I’ve even given him money, which is something I’ve never done for any pol before. Basically, I just like his personality, and I honestly could imagine him making a huge difference to the U.S. political scene and to the world. But, I don’t really love any of his policy positions—and I hate one of them, namely ‘pro-choice.’ This may sound lofty, but I could actually imagine him creating a political scene where it was more possible for our nation to become pro-life just by putting an end to the hard-core partisanship that we’ve currently got.
Meanwhile, you can’t help but respect John McCain for his history of service and independence. If there’s one thing you could do to fix U.S. politics, it would be campaign finance reform, and he’s been a leader on this front for a long time. Further, he’s anti-Roe v. Wade. Conservatives made a major and costly investment in the Bush Administration, and the only really good thing to come out of it was getting a few judges on the Supreme Court who might overrule Roe. But if we stop short now, it won’t happen—and we’re actually pretty close. A McCain presidency just might do it. And another issue is Iraq: I’m in the Colin Powell camp here, “you break it, you buy it.” And we definitely broke it, but now we’re actually making progress fixing it because of the Surge. McCain is a candidate, despite tremendous popular opposition (which speaks to his courage and character), who has committed to seeing through what we started in Iraq. I didn’t agree with going into Iraq, but since we did I think it’s our responsibility to stick it out.
So, I have a lot more concrete reasons to vote for McCain – but I really, really want to see an Obama presidency.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Interview with Sen. Obama
This morning I caught a bit of an interview with Sen. Obama. He briefly discussed what he prays each night and said that he asks ‘for the safety of his family, the forgiveness for his screw-ups, and that he be an instrument of God’s will.’
Good prayers, I think.
He elaborated a bit about praying to be used by God saying 'you've got to have a bit of megalomania to think you should be the president of the United States. But, still, it's got to be about more than you ... a bigger purpose.'
I really like this level of self-awareness and vision that he has.
This morning I caught a bit of an interview with Sen. Obama. He briefly discussed what he prays each night and said that he asks ‘for the safety of his family, the forgiveness for his screw-ups, and that he be an instrument of God’s will.’
Good prayers, I think.
He elaborated a bit about praying to be used by God saying 'you've got to have a bit of megalomania to think you should be the president of the United States. But, still, it's got to be about more than you ... a bigger purpose.'
I really like this level of self-awareness and vision that he has.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
I’m continuing to focus on God’s role in bringing about my spiritual development, as opposed to my own effort. I used to say “God has done his part, so I need to do mine.” I don’t think this was exactly wrong, but I think it may have caused me to miss how much it’s really about God’s actions primarily.
Here’s a portion of Psalm 119 that really emphasizes God as the effecient cause of our spiritual advancement:
33 Teach me, O LORD, the way of Your statutes,
And I shall observe it to the end.
34 Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law
And keep it with all my heart.
35Make me walk in the path of Your commandments,
For I delight in it.
36Incline my heart to Your testimonies
And not to dishonest gain.
37Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity,
And revive me in Your ways.
38Establish Your word to Your servant,
As that which produces reverence for You.
39Turn away my reproach which I dread,
For Your ordinances are good.
40Behold, I long for Your precepts;
Revive me through Your righteousness.
Here’s a portion of Psalm 119 that really emphasizes God as the effecient cause of our spiritual advancement:
33 Teach me, O LORD, the way of Your statutes,
And I shall observe it to the end.
34 Give me understanding, that I may observe Your law
And keep it with all my heart.
35Make me walk in the path of Your commandments,
For I delight in it.
36Incline my heart to Your testimonies
And not to dishonest gain.
37Turn away my eyes from looking at vanity,
And revive me in Your ways.
38Establish Your word to Your servant,
As that which produces reverence for You.
39Turn away my reproach which I dread,
For Your ordinances are good.
40Behold, I long for Your precepts;
Revive me through Your righteousness.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
This guy just cracks me up:
"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he watched his father, the late Michigan governor George Romney, in a 1960s civil rights march in Michigan with Martin Luther King Jr.
On Wednesday, Romney's campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-20-romney-mlk_N.htm
Hey, well no one claimed Gov. Romney's words were inerrant.
"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has said he watched his father, the late Michigan governor George Romney, in a 1960s civil rights march in Michigan with Martin Luther King Jr.
On Wednesday, Romney's campaign said his recollections of watching his father, an ardent civil rights supporter, march with King were meant to be figurative."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2007-12-20-romney-mlk_N.htm
Hey, well no one claimed Gov. Romney's words were inerrant.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Bible teaches a number of forms of submission to human authority: children to parents, wives to husbands, citizens to governments, church-goers to church leader, and even (yikes) slaves to masters. However, the primary virtue of submission isn’t submission itself. The primary virtue of submission is faith.
By submitting to an authority above you, you’re not saying “this is great because we all know the authorities above us are never wrong.” No, what you’re saying—if you’re submitting in the biblical sense—is that “I believe that although someone is above me, ultimately God is above them.”
Often, people’s complaints about the Bible’s teachings on submission focus on the fact that the person in authority is often wrong about something in relation to the person under that person’s authority. However, this isn’t the point. The point isn’t primarily about the particular authority and the person under authority, rather it’s about God’s ultimate sovereignty over all things. So, in fact, the Bible suggests that there is particular blessing for submitting to an authority that is in the wrong because then it is most clear that you are putting your faith in God’s authority that will ultimately redress that wrong (there are exceptions such as Nazis and abusive spouses); whereas if one takes matters into their own hands and rebels against authority, he or she is trusting in themselves rather than God.
By submitting to an authority above you, you’re not saying “this is great because we all know the authorities above us are never wrong.” No, what you’re saying—if you’re submitting in the biblical sense—is that “I believe that although someone is above me, ultimately God is above them.”
Often, people’s complaints about the Bible’s teachings on submission focus on the fact that the person in authority is often wrong about something in relation to the person under that person’s authority. However, this isn’t the point. The point isn’t primarily about the particular authority and the person under authority, rather it’s about God’s ultimate sovereignty over all things. So, in fact, the Bible suggests that there is particular blessing for submitting to an authority that is in the wrong because then it is most clear that you are putting your faith in God’s authority that will ultimately redress that wrong (there are exceptions such as Nazis and abusive spouses); whereas if one takes matters into their own hands and rebels against authority, he or she is trusting in themselves rather than God.
Monday, December 10, 2007
The mark of human corruption: not sex but violence
When I think of human beings’ wickedness, I doubt I’m the only one who often thinks of sexual sin. But at the Flood, the problem was not sex, but violence. “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.” (Genesis 6:13). This seems to be a punishment that fits the crime.
When I think of human beings’ wickedness, I doubt I’m the only one who often thinks of sexual sin. But at the Flood, the problem was not sex, but violence. “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.” (Genesis 6:13). This seems to be a punishment that fits the crime.
The Psychological Approach to the Presidential Election
Here's my current primary criterion for the President: I have to like his personality.
By this, I mean that his personality must be suited to how I believe he'll perform in the job, not necessarily that I think he'd tell the best anecdotes at a dinner party.
I contrast this against strictly voting for someone based on an abstract alignment of his or her policy positions with mine.
The reason for this is philosophical. I believe in two contested philosophical positions: 1) I believe in Natural Law, and 2) I believe it the meaningful (if not perfect) ascertainability of Natural Law. As this applies to a President, what I believe is that most policy questions have right answers in an absolute (if approximate) sense. And so I believe the right kind of personality should be able to get to the right answers most of the time, or at least more often than the wrong type of personality.
However, what I have seen is that most politicians have personalities poorly suited for this process I've outlined of getting to the right answers. For example, President Bush has shown a strong tendency to be stubborn, unwilling to make thoughtful inquiry into matters, and unwilling listen to positions that contradict his own. I think a reasonable relationship can be seen between this and our entrance into the Iraq war (details of this are abundant, and I won't outline them here) (also, compare this to what I don't mean by personality, as it appears that President Bush would make a fairly amiable dinner guest).
This I why I currently prefer in order Sen. Obama, and then probably either Sen. Biden or Sen. McCain. (btw: can we perhaps refer to these men and women who are running for leader of the free world by their titles, giving them they honor they are due, as opposed to by their first names?). I've seen all of these men display remarkable candor and thoughtfulness, which for me are marks of good personalities for the pursuit of getting right answers to hard questions.
(update: I just reviewed Gov. Huckabees proposals for healthcare and taxes, and basically they strike me as ludicrous to the point he's fallen off my list of good candidate...so policy is relevant to disproving a certain candidate's ability to get to the right answers)
This isn't to say policy positions play no role in my thinking, but, for example, my currently policy positions are actually fairly well aligned with Gov. Romney's. However, Gov. Romney has shown me so far a lack of candor and thoughtfulness, not to mention notable changes of policy positions over the years that are consistent with his reputation for self-serving expediency, and so I don't trust him to implement policies I agree with. I voted for President Bush in 2000 based on our shared pro-life position (which he has stuck to); however I've learned during his tenure that issues will arise during a presidency that are outside the scope of the policy positions the candidate took during the election season--when the unknown arises, I want a certain type of person there to meet that challenge. And further, the fact that a person articulates a desire to bring about a certain policy has only a tenuous relationship with whether that policy will be implemented due to numerous circumstances outside that person's control.
Another factor which has some bearing on the issue is a candidate's experience. The best prior job I can imagine to prepare a person for being president is possibly the vice presidency. But the Vice President isn't running, and it's not clear to me that any senator, governor or former First Lady has a clear leg up on the other candidate in terms of relevant prior experience.
So, that's why my primary reason for favoring certain candidates is their personality which I perceive as thoughtful and truthful.
Go ahead and tell me if you think this is crazy. I'm sure at least one of you does.
Here's my current primary criterion for the President: I have to like his personality.
By this, I mean that his personality must be suited to how I believe he'll perform in the job, not necessarily that I think he'd tell the best anecdotes at a dinner party.
I contrast this against strictly voting for someone based on an abstract alignment of his or her policy positions with mine.
The reason for this is philosophical. I believe in two contested philosophical positions: 1) I believe in Natural Law, and 2) I believe it the meaningful (if not perfect) ascertainability of Natural Law. As this applies to a President, what I believe is that most policy questions have right answers in an absolute (if approximate) sense. And so I believe the right kind of personality should be able to get to the right answers most of the time, or at least more often than the wrong type of personality.
However, what I have seen is that most politicians have personalities poorly suited for this process I've outlined of getting to the right answers. For example, President Bush has shown a strong tendency to be stubborn, unwilling to make thoughtful inquiry into matters, and unwilling listen to positions that contradict his own. I think a reasonable relationship can be seen between this and our entrance into the Iraq war (details of this are abundant, and I won't outline them here) (also, compare this to what I don't mean by personality, as it appears that President Bush would make a fairly amiable dinner guest).
This I why I currently prefer in order Sen. Obama, and then probably either Sen. Biden or Sen. McCain. (btw: can we perhaps refer to these men and women who are running for leader of the free world by their titles, giving them they honor they are due, as opposed to by their first names?). I've seen all of these men display remarkable candor and thoughtfulness, which for me are marks of good personalities for the pursuit of getting right answers to hard questions.
(update: I just reviewed Gov. Huckabees proposals for healthcare and taxes, and basically they strike me as ludicrous to the point he's fallen off my list of good candidate...so policy is relevant to disproving a certain candidate's ability to get to the right answers)
This isn't to say policy positions play no role in my thinking, but, for example, my currently policy positions are actually fairly well aligned with Gov. Romney's. However, Gov. Romney has shown me so far a lack of candor and thoughtfulness, not to mention notable changes of policy positions over the years that are consistent with his reputation for self-serving expediency, and so I don't trust him to implement policies I agree with. I voted for President Bush in 2000 based on our shared pro-life position (which he has stuck to); however I've learned during his tenure that issues will arise during a presidency that are outside the scope of the policy positions the candidate took during the election season--when the unknown arises, I want a certain type of person there to meet that challenge. And further, the fact that a person articulates a desire to bring about a certain policy has only a tenuous relationship with whether that policy will be implemented due to numerous circumstances outside that person's control.
Another factor which has some bearing on the issue is a candidate's experience. The best prior job I can imagine to prepare a person for being president is possibly the vice presidency. But the Vice President isn't running, and it's not clear to me that any senator, governor or former First Lady has a clear leg up on the other candidate in terms of relevant prior experience.
So, that's why my primary reason for favoring certain candidates is their personality which I perceive as thoughtful and truthful.
Go ahead and tell me if you think this is crazy. I'm sure at least one of you does.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
How Paul interpreted Scripture
In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas are teaching in Pisidian Antioch, which is in present day Turkey (I think). Paul has an interesting moment in his sermon where he interprets Psalm 16:10, which says 'You will not let your Holy One see decay.'
Originally, this Psalm appears to be written by David while he flees Saul's persecution, and it seems like the natural, original interpretation would have been that David believed God wouldn't let Saul kill him.
However, in Acts, Paul puts a different spin on it. He notes that despite this verse, David did in fact die, and presumably decay. But having come to believe in the Gospel, Paul argues that Psalm 16:10 in fact refers to the resurrected Christ, who in fact, unlike David, did not decay because of his resurrection.
I can imagine an interesting thought process behind this. I can imagine a younger Paul (Saul) sitting in his Bible classes reading Psalm 16:10 and asking Gamaliel (a famous rabbi Paul is said to have learned from) "yeah, but didn't David actually decay? So what does this psalm mean?" and I can imagine Gamaliel responding, "well, here decay actually means death at the hands of Saul." Maybe Paul accepts this at the time as the only logical interpretation; maybe he thinks 'well, that's an odd way to write the verse, but okay...'
But then years later after Paul comes to believe in the Gospel, he says, "Oh, now I get what Psalm 16:10 really meant: it refers to the resurrected Jesus Christ."
A recent post suggested that often Scripture doesn't err, but we err in our understanding it. That's probably right. I'm also encouraged by Paul's reinterpretation of the Psalm because sometimes I read the Psalms and Scripture generally and wonder if I completely believe what's being said. For example, Psalm 103 describes God as one "who heals all your diseases." But if I read this to simply mean God restores bodily health, I don't fully believe it because while sometimes that's arguably true, other times it's demonstrably false. So in what way is this true? Well, I'm not sure--but I wouldn't be surprised if the answer came from the same place as Paul's interpretation of Psalm 16:10: God heals all our diseases in the resurrected Christ.
So, I'm encouraged both by the possibility that there are greater and stunningly literal interpretations of Scripture that I may one day learn, and also by the notion that all the Scripture is fulfilled in Christ.
In Acts 13, Paul and Barnabas are teaching in Pisidian Antioch, which is in present day Turkey (I think). Paul has an interesting moment in his sermon where he interprets Psalm 16:10, which says 'You will not let your Holy One see decay.'
Originally, this Psalm appears to be written by David while he flees Saul's persecution, and it seems like the natural, original interpretation would have been that David believed God wouldn't let Saul kill him.
However, in Acts, Paul puts a different spin on it. He notes that despite this verse, David did in fact die, and presumably decay. But having come to believe in the Gospel, Paul argues that Psalm 16:10 in fact refers to the resurrected Christ, who in fact, unlike David, did not decay because of his resurrection.
I can imagine an interesting thought process behind this. I can imagine a younger Paul (Saul) sitting in his Bible classes reading Psalm 16:10 and asking Gamaliel (a famous rabbi Paul is said to have learned from) "yeah, but didn't David actually decay? So what does this psalm mean?" and I can imagine Gamaliel responding, "well, here decay actually means death at the hands of Saul." Maybe Paul accepts this at the time as the only logical interpretation; maybe he thinks 'well, that's an odd way to write the verse, but okay...'
But then years later after Paul comes to believe in the Gospel, he says, "Oh, now I get what Psalm 16:10 really meant: it refers to the resurrected Jesus Christ."
A recent post suggested that often Scripture doesn't err, but we err in our understanding it. That's probably right. I'm also encouraged by Paul's reinterpretation of the Psalm because sometimes I read the Psalms and Scripture generally and wonder if I completely believe what's being said. For example, Psalm 103 describes God as one "who heals all your diseases." But if I read this to simply mean God restores bodily health, I don't fully believe it because while sometimes that's arguably true, other times it's demonstrably false. So in what way is this true? Well, I'm not sure--but I wouldn't be surprised if the answer came from the same place as Paul's interpretation of Psalm 16:10: God heals all our diseases in the resurrected Christ.
So, I'm encouraged both by the possibility that there are greater and stunningly literal interpretations of Scripture that I may one day learn, and also by the notion that all the Scripture is fulfilled in Christ.
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Incoherent Gov. Romney:
From Romney, my second least favorite candidate (behind Edwards):
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315486,00.html
This is just incoherent. The "very religious test" the founders prohibited in the constitution is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Asking a candidate to discuss how his religious beliefs might affect his execution of his constitutional duties as president does not violate the first amendment, Gov. Romney.
Also, this quote just affirms for me what I think of Romney: 1) he's not being forthcoming, that is he doesn't want to answer questions about his faith because he knows it will hurts his candidacy if he told the truth or 2) he's not very thoughtful and doesn't understand these issues very well. Both of these personality traits disqualify him for me. We've had enough of that weak sauce for the past eight years.
In the words of my favorite political figure, Bradley Whitford: "He's a hairdo!"
From Romney, my second least favorite candidate (behind Edwards):
"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315486,00.html
This is just incoherent. The "very religious test" the founders prohibited in the constitution is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Asking a candidate to discuss how his religious beliefs might affect his execution of his constitutional duties as president does not violate the first amendment, Gov. Romney.
Also, this quote just affirms for me what I think of Romney: 1) he's not being forthcoming, that is he doesn't want to answer questions about his faith because he knows it will hurts his candidacy if he told the truth or 2) he's not very thoughtful and doesn't understand these issues very well. Both of these personality traits disqualify him for me. We've had enough of that weak sauce for the past eight years.
In the words of my favorite political figure, Bradley Whitford: "He's a hairdo!"
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
