« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »

November 29, 2004

The Word on the Street...

is that Pittsburgh's next alleycat will be December 18.

Other Things

We had a pleasant Thanksgiving holiday, spending time with both sides of the family. Cold weather seems to have descended on Pittsburgh, finally, as well. Saturday was a beautiful day, though, with crisp temperatures and lots of sunshine. It would have been a nice bouldering day, but family trumps climbing (most of the time), and so I just took a nice spin around the city to work the turkey and stuffing out of my system.

In rally news, Ford signed Skoda's Toni Gardemeister to replace Francois Duval. There is no official news from Markko Martin, but as I said before, he'll likely go to Peugeot. Colin McRae has taken himself out of the running at Skoda, and rumors are circulating that he and protege Kris Meeks may land in the second seat at Ford.

Also, we (along with Jen's family) took a trip to the Pittsburgh Children's Museum on Saturday. It seems most of the city had the same idea. It is a very neat place, but I think Seb was about 6 months too young to really appreciate it. There was some fun stuff for him, but nothing he couldn't have done at home.

November 26, 2004

I'll Stop When They Do

Fr Jape has another tirade against the criticism of single issue voters (SIVs). At first, I was a bit upset, and went so far as to write a quick entry at my in-laws house right after Thanksgiving lunch. But then I thought I wasn't really understanding the issue well enough. Perhaps I was being to critical of Fr. Jape and letting my distrust of all things Republican (and Democrat) cloud my thinking. In an effort to understand the issue at hand a bit better, I reread Jape's first entry on the subject. Let me make this comment first:

I think at least a slight majority of all evangelical Christians who voted for Bush this past election aren't really SIVs. That is, while they share the same ethusiasm for the SIV issues (abortion and gay marriage), they are truly on board with the current Republican/neo-conservative philosophy -- they believe in limited government, they may be members of the NRA, they believe in the free market. While the media would like to portray them as SIVs (or "moral issue" voters -- MIVs), they really aren't. If abortion wasn't such a political issue, they'd still be pulling the lever for George Bush.

That means that people like Dr. Eric Miller are truly in the minority. What Miller represents (and I've said this before) is truly a SIV. While his pro-life leanings led him to vote for George Bush, he didn't feel comfortable with that decision because he wasn't truly on board with the neo-conservative agenda. If abortion weren't a political issue, he would not have pulled the lever for Bush. In fact, if I read his essay correctly, he may have even voted for John Kerry. But now, finally, we're getting at the crux of my issue with this whole argument.

Most of the country only sees two answers.

Fr. Jape, Dr. Miller (to some extent), and Joel Betz fall into a typically Republican mindset -- if you're not for George Bush, you're obviously a Democrat. Conservatives do really prefer to see things as simply black and white issues -- you're with us or you're against us. I'm not advocating nuance here, but I am advocating, along with others, a better political choice. I am not, as Belz puts it, wobbling carelessly on the road. I am looking for a political group that isn't playing nice with a political party that is not, at it's very core, a Christian organization. Voting for George Bush because of moral issues, while noble and theologically defensible, is nothing more than, to paraphrase Matt, changing another flat tyre instead of sweeping the nails from the driveway. We aren't fixing the problem -- we're only stopping the bleeding.

November 24, 2004

On Theology

Fr. Jape's latest rambling, Against Theodicies and Theology examines the controversy at Huntington College over the dismissal of a theology professor for his views on Open Theism. He finishes on an interesting note:

Or, perhaps even better, theology could be left to the realm of farmers/soldiers/steelworkers, or anyone else of the sort who is daily engaged in the base realities of existence with little means of recourse other than the casting of their souls into the arms of either the Devil or our Lord. The discipline, I'm sure, would then achieve a level of clarity not before seen in our lifetimes.

November 23, 2004

Place, and Some Time to Think

I've been shifting gears mentally as of late, trying to wrap my head around various theories of Place, and how they fit into my theology. Some things I've been reading:

Practicing the Discipline of Place -- Caleb Stegall
About New Urbanism
Civic Art and the City of God -- Phillip Bess
Receiving Community: The Church and the Future of the New Urbanist Movement

I'm also reading Abraham Kuyper's lecture on Calvinism and Art for our church's next discussion group. My plate is full, to say the least. At least I've got four days off work.

November 19, 2004

Urbanism

There's an interesting disucssion taking shape on Gideon Strauss' site about urban renewal and the Church's place in it. I'm intrigued. I'd like to address a couple of other posts Gideon included.

First, one from Jon Barlow:

There are some beautiful old churches in the city of St. Louis that are just waiting for some enterprising congregation to renovate and occupy. But they are decaying, folks. Why did their congregations ever leave them? Why are we spreading out? Why waste these beautiful buildings and the crumbling neighborhoods surrounding them when we could all move in, renovate, and live together in community? How many of us are really moving out into the boondocks for good reasons?

Having been a member of a church growing up that had to deal with this very issue (a decaying church in a not-so-great neighborhood), I watched my parents and other leaders in the congregation try to deal with it. The biggest issue? The cost of maintaining such a church. Unless you're absolutely filling the church every Sunday, it is very difficult to generate the money needed. Sad but true. Now, the cathedral is owned by a Pentecostal church, but that congregation doesn't actually use the building -- they just own the land.

That said, Barlow's idea doesn't fall on entirely deaf ears. I think the Church as a whole has moved away from being both a spiritual and physical community. Our church is no different. Few people live within a few blocks of the church, and some travel quite a distance every Sunday. While we are working in the community, the building is still mostly quiet four or five days a week.

Gideon has two other links -- one to Jim Hart talking about urban redevelopment generally and another to Phillip Bess about the history of the Church in 17th century London. Hart's subject matter hits close to home for those us in Pittsburgh. Urban redevelopment has become a critical issue here, and we're watching it happen right now just down the street in "East Side" (the realtors' creation between Shadyside and East Liberty that's really just East Liberty). The issue in East Side is gentrification. Development is making East Liberty a more attractive place, and it is bringing more business to the area, but that development is doing little for the residents (I'm sure the Red Room Lounge is a great restaurant, but I'm guessing not many neighborhood residents are dining there). That's fine line I guess -- how do you revitalize a neighborhood without completely displacing the existing demographic? A question for the urban planners, I guess.

So back to Barlow's entry. That could be a unique opportunity for the Church -- the chance to revitalize a neighborhood without destroying its character or displacing its residents (there are plenty of empty buildings around Covenant Fellowship). Though it's hard not to view this sort of movement through political glasses (as in, this is obviously a conservative thing, since it's a group of individuals), it really goes beyond politics and into the realm of the Cultural Mandate as seen through Neocalvinist glasses -- accepting the responsibility of bringing about cultural change through action. We would be effecting change by doing, not simply telling.

Finally, a word on Bess' contribution to the discussion:

So here is my proposition: When we build, why cannot churches today play the part analogous to the London aristocrat? Instead of building a church and a parking lot on their six-to-ten-suburban acres, why not build a church, a public (not private) square, perhaps a school, and the beginnings of a mixed-use neighborhood? Why could not a church partner with a developer and use some of the proceeds from the development of its property to pay for part of the construction of its church building(s)? Why could not churches use this strategy to begin to integrate affordable housing and commercial buildings into suburbia as part of mixed-use neighborhoods? And who is to say that an initially random proliferation of such developments across suburbia — once the exemplary pattern is established — over time might not become, as it did in London, the very physical and spiritual centers so pointedly lacking in contemporary suburbia?

Suburbia is a sticky subject for me. I think there are "small towns" in the Pittsburgh area that would fit this sort of mold. These are towns that still have a vibrant local merchant community (one that hasn't been overtaken by chain retailers), and residents who live there because the town bridges the gap between urban and rural. Of course, many of these small towns already have active church communities....but modern suburbia is different. People are leaving the city for the suburbs to "get away" from the urban environment. Perhaps they don't like the diversity of culture (whether it is racial, economic, or intellectual), perhaps they don't like the education system, perhaps they don't like the "danger" of city living. And I believe that Bess' idea would only work in "small towns" because any community as he describes it would be completely isolated from the larger community in suburbia. Most residential neighborhoods would probably never allow a church to be built, and what good would a church community be in a commercialized area with little to no foot traffic?

November 18, 2004

A Change of Pace

After spending yesterday wrestling with the political applications of my faith and today talking with Joshua about reformed theology, I'm going to rest my mind a bit...

Since there are still some unanswered questions about what the WRC driver landscape will look like next season, I'll throw out my predictions of what the line-ups will look like come Monte Carlo in January.

Subaru
Petter Solberg
Mikko Hirvonen

No brainer.

Citroen
Sebastien Loeb
Francois Duval

I question Duval's move to a team that has only one year left in the WRC. It wasn't like the Focus was lacking pace, especially later in the season. My guess is that Duval just didn't get on well with M-Sport management.

Peugeot
Marcus Gronholm
Markko Martin

Again, why is Martin leaving Ford? And for another team that only has a year left? And to drive with Gronholm, who has never gotten along well with a teammate that can win rallies?

Ford
Janne Tuhino
Harri Rovanpera

Ford decided to stick around the WRC and what do they get? Both their drivers bolt for other teams. Tuhino has shown promise. Rovanpera would be a good at Ford -- he's skilled enough to win rallies, and with the performance of the Focus he could (finally) be a factor in the championship.

Skoda
Armin Schwarz
Colin McRae/Kris Meeks

A win-win for all involved. McRae has been testing the Fabia, and if he can work out a deal with team management to split the second works drive with his protege Meeks, this could work well for all involved. McRae is experienced enough to push the development of the Fabia, and Meeks provides an investment for the future.

Mitsubishi
Gilles Panizzi
Kristian Sohlberg

The new Lancer is finally ready for the championship, and Panizzi could return to his pre-2003 form and win a rally or two. Sohlberg was the better of the team's youths last season, and holds promise for the future.

November 17, 2004

Disclaimer

I've modified the Theocracy, the Religious Right, and the Rest of Us (see Gideon...permalinks!). My friend Joshua pointed out some faulty logic in my discussion of gay rights and employee rights. It seems some part of my brain went on holiday briefly, as re-reading the section, I have no idea what my point was, as it certainly wasn't what I had written. If the thought comes back to me, I'll update the entry.

This Is What I Was Getting At...

or at least I think so. This post is well worth reading. I nearly fell out of my chair when I read this:

First: there are, there have always been, there will always be, Christians whose beliefs lead them to be social conservatives and economic progressives. (For evidence, look here and here.) We exist, and we have no party to represent us. (The Democratic party once did, back in its working-class heyday, but respect for that kind of traditional authority has been declining ever since the 1970s.) What we need to do is work for the transformation of America’s political and party system, so that more venues can open up, and the death-grip which a warped, half-statist, half-libertarian, decidedly non-communitarian "conservatism" holds over "moral values" in America can finally be loosened. It may not happen in my lifetime, but it's something worth working for, and praying for. Second, and of greater relevance to this discussion: in the meantime, we need to continue to work towards making the Democratic party remember the lesson of Carter and Clinton, the lessons of respect.

That paragraph sums up everything I tried to write in the previous entry. What shocked me the most when I read it that was I wasn't expecting it. And please keep in mind the source -- Russell Fox is political science professor at Arkansas State, and he is very well-respected in the liberal blogging community (because of things like this entry), especially the folks over at Crooked Timber (which is also well-worth your time).

Doing It Right (at least partly)

Have you heard of Bob Riley, governor of Alabama? If you haven't, and you're not entirely happy with the attitude of the Religious Right (or the Moral Majority, or whatever they're called today), look him up. I may not completely agree with his stance on every issue, but he's showing a great deal of "progressive" Christian concern for social justice in his state. What's truly amazing is that despite his stances on abortion and adoption rights for gay couples, he is well respected by progressives because the same principles that guide his decisions on "moral" matters guide him on matters of social justice. Interestingly, the Christian Coalition of Alabama has opposed many of Riley's initiatives (including a proposal to remove racist language from the state constitution and relieving the tax burden on the state's poor). How ironic -- progressives support an anti-abortion, Republican governor for his work in social justice, while Christians fight against him.

Theocracy, the Religious Right, and the Rest of Us

Many, many thoughts have been percolating, and I'm going to try and get at least a few of them out there on the table, perhaps to be developed further at some point. First, I came across this on Salon, and thought this quote was rather telling:

Because Bush and his fundamentalist backers lack a knowledge of secular disciplines, they do not realize that they are well on their way to installing in our society the ruthless system of social Darwinism and labeling it "Christian." As in Herbert Spencer's ideology, so in Bush's policies: The financially fittest prosper at the expense of the weak. And ironically so, because social Darwinism is the opposite of Christian social teachings.

The irony isn't lost on me. The Religious Right has fought tooth and nail against scientific Darwinism, while embracing it by supporting the economic policies of the Republicans. While I might argue that not every one of the "financially fittest" prosper at the expense of the weak, I would agree that it is the exception rather than the rule. The Right tends to be so caught up in the "morality" issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) that they lose sight of the bigger picture of "immoral" behavior. Morality does not begin and end with abortion and homosexuality.

Joe Carter has an interesting insight into the roots of theocracy. The lesson in linguistic and etymology would be useful in correcting the misconceptions of the Left (and the media), and his criticisms of those misconceptions are right on. But I think he misses one of the key components of every "ignorant" stereotype: a grain of truth. No one group has done more to give Christians the proverbial black eye than other Christians. We are being judged by the deeds and misdeeds of Christians past -- just as we judge liberals and conservatives by their histories. Take a moment to examine the "leading" voices on the Christian Right, and you'll hear intolerance and bigotry in the name of Christ. When this is the public face of Christianity, we're in trouble. One of the comments to Joe's post is very telling:

The bigoted perspective of the left is very true and the left believes their bigorty is self evident truth. When I was in graduate school in education, I decided to hide my Christianity one semester. I played a little experiment. I wrote my papers well and impressed the teacher. She often read my papers in front of class and gave me very high marks. One time, she told me she even called a fellow teacher to share my paper with her over the phone. So at the end of the semester, I went up to the teacher. I asked her if she could guess my stance. Stance in this environment is like saying "which post-modern tribe am I from". She said, "Well, I know you are bright. I know you gradutated from Stanford. Hmm. I do not know." So I said, "Who are the most ignorant and backward minded people in our society." To this she responded, and I am not lying, "YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN ARE YOU." To this I said, "The only one you have ever met. I am here to expose your bigorty." After some discussion, she confessed she had never actually had a conversation with a born-again Christian before. I told her my entire intention of coming to speak with her is to help her realize that her bigorty against Christians is as real as a KKK person's bigorty against blacks.
She was stunned, and I must admit moved.
Yes, indeed, there is real bigotry out there, but we can win them over one by one.

Carter raises the ghost of Martin Luther King as an example of a Christian leader who has been embraced by the left. He quotes from Eugene Volokh's blog:

Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.

Interestingly, King and the specter of the civil rights movement are anathema to many on the right (both Christian and non-Christian). And Volokh also mentions labour unions. Employee rights? That's absolutely blasphemous. As much as the Left has a double standard for religious advocacy, so has the Right. Why? Because politics has trumped faith. Instead of jumping aboard the faith wagon and letting that dictate political views, members of the Religious Right are allowing politics to guide some matters of faith. tI also think it's a bit of logical leap to categorize the fight against gay marriage with the advocacy of civil and employee rights and opposition to the death penalty. As I've said before, if we're going to fight for a law banning gay marriage, laws banning pre-marital sex and adultery better be close behind. Not sure what I was thinking there, but it wasn't that!

So, what are we to do? Jim Hart has a good start, but he leaves out the most important piece -- the development of the theologically, scripturally-bounded Christian third party. Even if you choose to vote for a third party, as a Christian, you are still forced to pick and choose which articles of faith you might be willing to look past. Perhaps we even need several Christian third parties that pledge to work on redeeming specific parts of our government.

Good Times, Good Beer

A group of our climbing friends got together with us last night to celebrate Jen's birthday (and her survival of her first semester of graduate school) at the Sharp Edge. A good time was had by all. If there's anything I miss from our pre-Seb days, it's the frequency of getting together with folks to raise a pint, especially when it's a cask-conditioned Rogue Mocha Porter.

Also, a bit of World Rally news -- Francios Duval has signed with Citroen to drive the second works car behind Sebastien Loeb. With Markko Martin almost certainly going to Peugeot, it looks as if Ford will be hunting high and low for drivers for the upcoming season. The most interesting bit of all this is that both Martin and Duval could only sign one year deals with the PSA sister squads, since neither will be in the championship beyond 2005.

The remaining open seats for 2005 include the second Subaru (though at this point, Mikko Hirvonen should have little competition), both seats at Ford, the second seat at Mitsubishi (behind Gilles Panizzi, though it will probably be one of the team's youngsters who gets it), and the second seat at Skoda.

November 15, 2004

Wilco

Wired has an interview with Jeff Tweedy. Interesting stuff. I was once on the Wilco bandwagon, mostly because I felt I had to get on it since I was such an Uncle Tupelo fan, but I never really felt that strongly about Tweedy, and I always liked Jay Farrar's songs more. I've always been intrigued by the fact that Wilco are such critics' darlings (much the same way as Radiohead), and that people see Tweedy as the second coming of Brian Wilson. Sure, Tweedy writes good pop songs, but how does one really forge a new direction in pop writing?

A couple of interesting comments from Tweedy:

What if there was a movement to shut down libraries because book publishers and authors were up in arms over the idea that people are reading books for free? It would send a message that books are only for the elite who can afford them.

I guess my only question is, doesn't someone somewhere actually pay for the books in the library? I didn't think publishing houses just gave away thousands of books. But his point is well taken. Someone somewhere is purchasing the music -- why not let them share it?

I do, however, respect what Wilco did with Yankee Hotel Foxtrot:

Being dropped from Reprise in 2001. They weren't going to put out Yankee Hotel Foxtrot the way we'd created it. They wanted changes; we weren't willing to do that, so they rushed a contract through their legal department to let us go. It was the fastest I'd ever seen a record company work. Once they let us go, we were free to do with the album what we chose.

I think Tweedy made a decision that his art (however mediocre I think it is) was more important than the almighty buck. The band took a chance, and it ended up paying off for them. More bands need to give the proverbial finger to the larger record labels.

November 14, 2004

Rally Australia Recap

Rarely is Australia a rally of attrition, but this year's race wasn't typical. Only four factory cars made it to the finishing ramp (one of each of the four major makers), and one (Marcus Gronholm) crashed out not once but twice. In the end, Sebastien Loeb matched Didier Auriol's record of six rally wins in a season, though Loeb admitted he never pushed his pace, even when Gronholm was still in the rally and leading. Peugeot's Harri Rovanpera brought the second 307 home in second, Ford's Francois Duval in third, and Subaru's Mikko Hirvonen in fourth.

Now to the laundry list of the wounded. Carlos Sainz never made it to the start ramp, after a recce shunt earlier in the week. Ford's Markko Martin only lasted through the Thursday night super special, retiring with engine problems. Petter Solberg was looking quick on leg one, but a rock damaged his steering column and he was out. Finally, Marcus Gronholm crashed out on leg two, re-entered the rally on Sunday under the SupeRally rules (which is rare for the Finn), then crashed out again, much more spectacularly, on leg three, prompting a visit to the hospital. Solberg also re-entered the rally, and hauled in the majority of the scratch times, no small consolation for a poor end to the season.

The final championship standings look like this:

1. Sebastien Loeb
2. Petter Solberg
3. Markko Martin
4. Carlos Sainz
5. Marcus Gronholm
6. Francois Duval
7. Mikko Hirvonen
8. Harri Rovanpera

And the manufacturer's race ended like this:

1. Citroen
2. Ford
3. Subaru
4. Peugeot
5. Mitsubishi

And here are the storylines for the offseason:

Where will Francois Duval and Markko Martin end up?

Ford Motorsports waited nearly the entire season to announce they would compete in the WRC next year (and the following years). Both Duval and Martin were approached by other teams. Duval will likely stay at the Blue Oval next season, but Martin has been linked with Peugeot. Those plans could change, however, with Peugeot's announcement that 2005 will be their final season in the WRC.

Who will drive the second Citroen Xsara?

With Citroen, Peugeot's sister company, also pulling out of the WRC after 2005, it's expected that Citroen won't sign a single driver to team with Seb Loeb, but will fill the second seat with several, younger drivers that will share the car. The other question looming is whether or not Citroen will try to be competitive next season. The Xsara was the car to beat in 2004, but without a future, what sort of development will occur? No doubt both the Ford Focus and Subaru Impreza (both already quick) will improve in the offseason.

Will Mikko Hirvonen return for Subaru?

Team manager David Lapworth never gave a good answer to this question. While Hirvonen performed well in his first full factory drive, he was inconsistent. Likely, Lapworth will see how the offseason plays out with Martin and Duval, and then make his decision.

Can Peugeot be competitve?

The new 307 was an incredible disappointment this season, and without a future, will Peugeot try and fix the problems? No doubt Marcus Gronholm will push for a better car, even if the team doesn't.

Will Skoda and Mitsubishi be better?

Both teams ran limited schedules this season to focus on developing their new cars. And both teams showed good pace in the later season rallies. Gilles Panizzi returns to Mitsubishi next season, so he should be able to coax more speed out of the Lancer, and Mitsubishi should begin to look like a WRC contender. Skoda is considering signing Colin McRae for the upcoming season for a limited programme, and the Scot's experience would serve the development of the Fabia well.

November 11, 2004

Rally Australia Preview

On a lighter note, let's talk about the season ending Rally Australia. First, a couple of big pieces of news:

1. PSA, which owns both Peugeot and Citroen, announced that 2005 would be Citroen's and Peugeot's final year competing the WRC. Shocking news indeed, but this could open the door for Skoda and Mitsubishi to make real progress, as well allowing another manufacturer or two to enter the championship (Toyota? VW?).

2. Carlos Sainz announced he would retire at the end of the season. Unfortunately, due to a recce shunt in Australia, the retirement party started early, as his doctor's suggested that Sainz not compete in Oz.

About the only excitement heading into the rally was whether or not Petter Solberg could hang on to second place in the championship. Markko Martin came out of nowhere to win France and Spain, and he was only four points behind Solberg. Unfortunately, Martin ran into engine problems on the rally-opening Superspecial in Perth, his engine dropping to three cylinders on the short test. Martin isn't optimistic that his engineers will be able to diagnose the problem. Both Sebastien Loeb and Solberg are still gunning for win number six, but both Marcus Gronholm and Harri Rovanpera could compete if their 307s cooperate. I think Solberg will be tough to stop, since he has little to lose.

A Final Word, Perhaps

First, Keith has posted a response from Eric Miller about his article in the Post-Gazette.

That got me thinking, as did a lunchtime discussion we had at the office. And it got me reading. So I read this article on Christian Counterculture. This really hit home:

Instead of crusading and picketing against all of the perceived evils in our culture, believers would better glorify Christ by leading the way in concrete acts of kindness and love. Instead of complaining about our government's tendency to waste money on useless programs, believers should open their hearts and their purses to care for the poor and needy. Instead of blocking the doors to abortion clinics (or worse), they should open the doors of their homes to pregnant women who don't need a “Pro-life” lecture, but a clear presentation of the gospel and loving assistance in carrying their babies to term. Instead of fighting to have “prayer in the classrooms” of our public schools, believers should be spending more time in prayer themselves. Instead of suing for the right to display a nativity scene in the public square believers should be “using the, public square” to tell anyone who will listen about the grace of God in Jesus Christ. These are but a few of the practical ways believers can demonstrate the love of Christ instead of becoming objects of ridicule by constantly engaging in all of the negative rhetoric about how bad our society is.

I'm ready to give up political discourse, and I don't think that Christians should ignore the public square/political sphere. But obviously, we can't get too wrapped up the political game and lose sight of what we really fighting for.

The Commercialization of our Schools

Philadelphia School District to sell naming rights for new school for $5 million.

I'll just leave it at that.

Two Things

First, Crooked Timber is spreading the word about the gradual erosion of our system of government.

Second, via Keith, Comment has a series of articles comparing the blogosphere with European coffeehouses.

Jump aboard the meme train.

November 10, 2004

To Much To Say, Too Little Time

I was going to talk about Eric Miller's article regarding his choice for president, but Keith has already commented on that, and, for the most part, I agree with him.

Eli passed this along to me this morning, and it's pretty interesting.

I think what I really want to talk about is the "cultural war" that has suddenly been front-and-center lately (at least on the web). It goes a little something like this:

Democrats accuse "Christian evangelicals" of trying to Bible-cize our great country, and Republicans see Democrats as trying to drag this place back to Gomorrah. "Moral issue voters" came out and made their statement.

The truth isn't so simple. First, the number of church-going folk who voted was roughly the same as 2000. Chances are, their vote was generally the same as 2000 (from a Republican/Democrat perspective). What the left doesn't realize is that while it's easy to say this is a "religious" country, the definition of "religious" is not easy to pin down. I believe that 75% of the country believes in "God" but I don't believe that more than 45% actually understands what that means to their everyday lives. And even fewer of those people have Biblical basis to what they believe (other than God created the earth, and Jesus rose from the dead) to what they believe.

That said, there are plenty of "evangelical Christians" who believe the best way to bring about Christianity is through legislation. Some are outright theonomists, others are closeted. But their theonomy is woefully illogical and incomplete. Yes, they say, ban gay marriage and abortion. But whither are the calls for laws against adultery, fornication, and drunkeness? What about bringing back the Blue Laws? I guess theonomy has to start somewhere. But I still think these folks are a minority on the right. They may have loud voices (I'm thinking of the TV evangelists and the Christian Right), but they aren't the majority. The majority of the "moral issue voters" (I promise, that's the last time I'll use quotation marks) are God-fearing, but not necessarily God-knowing. Killing babies is wrong, and being gay is even worse. It's not about a well-reasoned belief -- it's about disgust. People are so thoroughly disgusted by gays that they had no choice but to get out and vote. And don't discount the collection of economic libertarians who still cling to a greater moral code and aren't quite social libertarians. Most of these folk know they'll never see a libertarian president in their lifetime, so the Republican candidate is their best choice, even if he is a big government, spend-spend neo-conservative.

All that said, let's talk about that cultural war again. Plenty of Christians (and I mean theologically grounded folk) believe in that legislation is an effective tool of evangelization. Some believe that the U.S. has always been a Christian nation (history and political theory be damned), and therefore our laws should reflect that. But there are those of us who believe things work the opposite way -- by redeeming the world through the things we do (either through our work, our relationships, our hobbies) we can work towards spreading the Gospel. So we may be fighting a cultural war as it were, but we are fighting it in the world instead of in the halls of Congress. It is a cultural war, in a sense, but not one to be fought with swords and laws. If anything, it's a counter-cultural movement trying to change the way people fundamentally look at Things.

But that doesn't make good politics (as most counter-cultural movements). And it doesn't make for good copy. The political handlers on both sides of the aisle want to toot the horn of cultural war because nothing less seems to rally the troops. The Democrats failed to get out the vote with the specter of the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, and Bush's apparent bungling of both. So now, instead of looking for answers through changes in the party, they are crying war. And the left is listening. It's not the Democrats fault -- blame those close-minded Christians (who, of course, do deserve some blame)! And the Republicans will be happy to play along. Obviously it's worked for them so far, and now, with many of the "moral" leaders of the party feeling the power, expect more in the future.

November 09, 2004

A Lesson in Dispensationalism

Everything you wanted to know about dispensationalism (and its connection to the political right) but were afraid to ask.

November 08, 2004

Slowness

There are a lot of things I'd like to comment on today:

Eric Miller's Single Issue Voter Apologetic

Keith Martel: Can I wear clogs with my kilt?

The Discussion of How Now Shall GWB Live?

Unfortunately, my brain is having trouble shifting out of low gear. We went to the New this weekend, and the climbing was good, but we left the crag far too late for people with an 18 month old son. More sleep would be greatly appreciated. Add to that the general physical fatique of climbing for two days, and of running in and out the crag at Summersville Lake (we left our climbing harnesses in the car -- duh), plus a windy ride to work, and I'd like to be at home, sitting around, doing nothing.

So, tune in tomorrow, and perhaps I can sort things out enough to comment on at least one of the above.

November 05, 2004

How Bush Won

How George Bush won the election

As a member (at least in appearance to people who don't know me, or read this site) of the "evangelical Christian" group, I want to respond to this:

Looking out across America, what's one of the largest groups of people with a single strongly-held set of beliefs? The evangelical Christians. They comprise a large portion of the US population and believe in God more strongly than most other groups believe in anything. The Bush camp used a coordinated campaign to speak directly to those people and put their strong belief in God in direct opposition to what the other side stood for: liberals want to kill innocent babies, allow gays to marry, and let non-Christians run the country/world. To an evangelical Christian, the fear that those things will happen is almost overwhelmingly unbearable. Based on that emotional appeal, they turned out in droves, voting for Bush in greater numbers than in 2000 and overwhelming the increased turnout on the other side of the aisle.

I am not one of these people. I guess I like to think of myself as being a little smarter than that, and a little more comfortable in my faith to think that way. First, I realize how our government is supposed to work. I understand that the country was founded on the idea of religious freedom (see Pilgrams, The). I also understand that being a single issue voter doesn't really work if you're a Christian, regardless of what anybody tells you. I realize that our current form of two party government will never, ever permit real, Biblical Christianity from having a material influence on the politics of this country.

That said, I agree with Kottke's basic premise:

And we're lazy about our beliefs and convictions and we let the Democratic and Republican Parties dictate the political agenda in America by pushing our emotional buttons. Red, blue, black, white, brown, yellow, purple, and retina-burning yellow-green...we all share the blame.

It's much easier, I like to joke, when someone else makes the important decisions for you. We like to claim that this place is a democracy, and "power to the people" and that, but when things fall to pieces, we don't see ourselves as being responsible. We can just point our fingers at our elected officials (or in the Democrats' case, the unelected officials). And we certainly don't want to think for ourselves. Christians fall into the trap with the abortion issue -- the "culture of life" that they want is a big lie -- think about then-governor George Bush mocking a death row inmate asking for a stay of execution -- or pehaps a conservative's lack of compassion for the poor. But that door swings both ways, and there are plenty of way Democrats do the same. Maybe the government should require a civics test before you vote...

Culture and Decency

Our Thursday night chit-chat group got together last night to discuss two articles from First Things:

Freedom and Decency

Church as Culture

I wrote about Freedom and Decency last week (scroll down), and after our discussion, I stand by most of my comments. One thing that we dove into, and were very critical of, was Hart's elitism. First, he believes only certain people are "properly trained" to decide what is and isn't decent. Second, he creates a line between "high art" and "low art." Ulysses, despite attempts in the United States to censor it, is acceptable to Hart because it is such a "great" piece of literature, but most forms of contemporary art don't pass his litmus test, and are therefore indecent. He really should just say what means -- he believes that high art is dying in the post-modern world and he doesn't like it.

The discussion about Church as Culture wasn't nearly as animated, primarily because of our reformed tendencies. Wilken advocates a distinctly Catholic perspective on the Chuch being visible in the world through cultural forms (his examples: language, architecture, and the calendar). The Reformation did it's best to destroy every one of those forms, and I don't we're anxious to re-embrace them. And, as one of us pointed out, these forms didn't do much to maintain the Church's presence in culture. But his point was well-taken -- there was a time when the Church was a driving cultural force (for good and bad). The question remains: how can the Church influence and shape culture in the post-modern world.

November 03, 2004

The Blame Game

Matt had a link to the Boing Boing post about Kerry's concession of the election, and I thought it was interesting for a couple of reasons:

1. Boing Boing had been quite silent today about the election, after numerous posts yesterday.
2. I think the bit they quoted from Dan Gilmour was right on the money. Let me share a bit:

People say there are two Americas. I think there are at least three.

One is Bush's America: an amalgam of the extreme Christian "conservatives," corporate interests and the builders of the burgeoning national-security state.

Another is the Democratic "left": wedded to the old, discredited politics in a time that demands creative thinking.

I suspect there's a third America: members of an increasingly radical middle that will become more obvious in the next few years, tolerant of those who are different and aware that the big problems of our times are being ignored -- or made worse -- by those in power today.

That third America needs a candidate. Or, maybe, a new party.

3. The last line of the post:

Presuming the elections were fairly conducted and accurately counted -- which remains a matter of some debate -- I'm going with the latter.

Enough of this, ok? First, Bush has a 7 digit lead in the popular vote. That's a heck of a lot of election fraud. Second, both sides engage in voter fraud, plain and simple. Why? Because the system is so screwed up. Here's one interesting story. And I'm sure there are tens of thousands of others on the web right now. Point is, Kerry lost not because Republicans rigged the election, but because he didn't get enough votes (again, if Republicans rigged this election and prevent MILLIONS of people from voting, and did it without raising all heck, that's sorta impressive).

But this just goes back to Dave Gilmour's point. A lot of people didn't vote. They didn't vote because they didn't like Bush, and they didn't like Kerry. And I think for many of them, there will never be a viable candidate for president. It's easier for Democrats to label these people as "lazy" or "undecided" or just blame the Republicans rather than realize there's something wrong with their party (see Sidney Blumenthal).

All that said, I'm not looking forward to another four years of George Bush, but that's how it is. We've got four years to fix the system.

Interesting Tidbit

Eleven states had same-sex union amendments on their ballots, and in every one of those states, the voters rejected allowing them. The most surprising? Oregon, typically a hotbed of civil liberties and left-leaning political opinions.

The Day After

Predictably, we don't have an "official" winner in the presidential race, but one candidate has a nice lead in the popular vote and just needs to win Ohio to seal his re-election. Of course, it won't be that simple, as officials in Ohio are saying it could take up to 11 days to count the absentee and provisional ballots in that state, and those could affect the outcome of the race.

Canada, be prepared for influx of immigrants -- mostly well-to-do folks and some academics.

The more interesting and influential races were for the House and Senate, and the Republicans will maintain their majority in both, in fact increasing it in the Senate. If you're not a conservative, this is the most troubling news.

I thought the political banter at work was unbearable before the election, but I have a feeling today I'll have to listen to lots of conservative gloating. Headphones are a wonderful thing.

I also don't look forward to the hand-wringing and sobbing from left-leaning websites. Please, get over it and move on.

November 02, 2004

On a Lighter Note

After days of heady (at least in my mind) posts, let's turn to some other topics on this election night....

First, a couple more words about the alleycat. The weather was really perfect for late October. Warm-ish, with a nice breeze, clear skies and a full moon. And riding the Jail Trail with the wind at your back under the moon while talking theology with a new friend is quite nice.

Second, the cooler weather means it is now wine season in our house. I'm finishing the last of the Brooklyn family case right now (just one bottle of Pilsner, in case you imagined me downing six or seven beers). I've been compiling a list of good, cheap wines to try, and we're anxious to get cracking.

Third, some World Rally News. Markko Martin won the Rallye Espana last weekend, taking advantage of Sebastien Loeb retiring with mechanical difficulties. Though the championship race is over, Martin still has a shot at overtaking Petter Solberg for second place, though Solberg can be expected to drive like a banshee next weekend in Australia. Both Loeb and Solberg will be gunning for their sixth rally win of the season. Ford also announced that they will continue their WRC programme for four more years, which is good news for the championship. Both Martin and Francois Duval have been shopping for new teams, however, so the roster may be quite different.

November 01, 2004

Christians and the Environment

A friend, who is involved with our little "church and culture" discussion group, mentioned he had just read an interesting article for another group he's involved with -- THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF OUR ECOLOGICAL CRISIS by Lynn White, Jr. This piece, written in 1967, places much of the blame for the ever-growing abuse of the environment on Christians. I'm not really going to comment much on the statements in the article, primarily because I think it needs several readings, and I don't have the time for it. But I say I don't entirely disagree with the premise. I'm not necessarily willing to blame all our environmental ills on Medevial Christians, but I will place some blame on contemporary Christians who read "dominion" in Genesis as "do whatever you please." Forming an entire theology of environmentalism (or lack thereof) from that single verse is problematic, simply because there so much evidence in the Bible that we are STEWARDS of Creation, and that all of Creation is a reflection of God, not just humanity. This site (mind the horrid design) has a laundry of passages talking about Creation and its relationship with God. I'm not lauding this as the be-all-end-all theology of Creation, but you can at least some Scriptural references and decide for yourself.

Parallelism

Yesterday, my father-in-law preached on Psalm 2 as it relates to our upcoming election. The basic idea? If you're a Christian, don't get so worked up about it. Don't forget who's behind the wheel of this thing. If the candidate you didn't support wins, it probably won't be enough to trigger the End Times.

And then, this morning, I find the same conclusion (albeit determined from a different philosophy and methodology) from an entirely source -- Christopher Hitchens.

Neither electoral outcome can alter that. It's absurd for liberals to talk as if Kristallnacht is impending with Bush, and it's unwise and indecent for Republicans to equate Kerry with capitulation. There's no-one to whom he can surrender, is there? I think that the nature of the jihadist enemy will decide things in the end.

I think he's on to something there (and, in a way, he's agreeing with some of Ralph Nader's arguments).

Also, The New Pantagruel has a fantastic roundtable discussion about the election.