And let there be broccoli too.

In the hunting for a clue category, at Levellers Mr Westmoreland-White writes:

However, there is zero justification for Christians to be willing to kill other human beings (persons made in God’s image; persons for whom Christ died) “in defence of their country” or anything else. To kill is to betray the gospel.

and in a comment:

To say that, however, is not to say that Christians involved in, say, WWII were not trying to do the best they could with what seemed to them to be limited options. Most of them never heard of Christian pacifism, never mind organized nonviolent direct action.

Or in might be better said, to suppose that “Christian pacifism” or “organized nonviolent direct action” would have mollified Hitler and stopped the Nazi war machine is errant nonsense. Now in the 9th century,  Constantinople was besieged by the Rus and her army was afield resisting Islamic armies. They believed that their rescue was owed to the robe of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) affecting a miracle to save them. Somehow I doubt a pious miracle is the solution Mr Westmorland-White depends on to replace the armed resistance against Nazi aggression. Actually, the problem is, I very much doubt there is any reasonable pacifistic non-violent suggestions on offer for how Nazi and Hitler might have been confronted or that he will suggest one. Read the rest of this entry

I don’t know if discussions of this sort occur on this blog, as I’m a new contributor. Should I offer more like this? Whaddya think?

Blog neighbor Jewish Atheist in a “interview/meme” offers this:

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

Without God, I can’t see how we have free will. It appears that we have free will, therefore God must exist. Curiously, nobody seems to make this argument except me, on Opposite Day.

My refutation is that we actually don’t have free will. This has disturbing implications, which I have not yet come to terms with.

Not to stab the theistic argument in the foot, but there are a few short remarks I’d like to make here, some of which I’ve touched on before, but perhaps restatement will bring out some interesting details and conversation:

• A deterministic universe exhibits simple free will in the following way. Consider a baby (classical relativistic) universe/close system which consists of a experimental  Feigenbaum mapping (google it), tuned past simple period doubling and to the onset of the chaos. In this situation, the mapping acts as a bit shift, x_n+1 = Fraction(2 * x_n). Initial conditions become amplified by a factor of two every iteration. However, soon over time the Planck distance will intervene, that is the bit shift will probe distances unspecifiable in the initial system, for to specify the system to that accuracy would require probing length scales/energies which would form a black hole … and thus cannot be specified. The system will not “fail” but will exhibit free will, that is the system is “free” and unconstrained by initial (unsettable/undefinable) conditions to take whatever value it wishes. In fact, ever after that point, the system is “free”.
• Suggesting that initial conditions of our universe sets the behavior today, besides the difficulty/impossibility of setting those conditions suffers from a dimensional problem. If the Universe is D+1 dimensional (D=3+1 or 10 … doesn’t matter for this argument), then the “boundary” at T=0 is D a D-dimensional phase space. To line up the bank shot so that Beethoven will, while deaf, compose the Ninth Symphony (or whatever other work of art you find transcendent or inspired genius) that requires setting the conditions and a space (the evolving Universe) of dimension D+1. Fine tuning/accuracy is required to “finesse” the evolution on a large, if not infinite, time axis.
• Another issue facing the fine tuning hypothesis, is the current “best understanding” physics gives about the early Universe, to whit inflation. Small quantum (or thermal) fluctuations present at the onset of the inflationary regime (when space-time is “e-folding” or exponentially expanding) are largely flattened out, those fluctuations survive as galaxies and galaxy clusters today, and form the large scale structure of the visible universe. Setting up the Beethoven bank shot has to survive inflation.
• One way additional way to isolate the free will problem, is genius. That is, I contend genius requires free will. Genius exists. Therefore free will does. To counter that, one must explain how genius can exist without free will. JA, repeatedly contends, without proof, that free will cannot exist in a deterministic system, I disagree. However, on my side I contend that genius, especially as demonstrated in “transcendent” art, cannot exist without free will. The “bank shot” for a deterministic system to create it is too far fetched.

For myself, I would contend free will does not require God. Semiotic content in the Universe however does. If our words have meaning, God exists. 🙂

Dan Trabue, liberal God-blogger at Payne Hollow, notes some Scriptural references on relations between the sexes. His conclusion:

Now, this is not a topic that I’ve studied a lot, but just from what I’ve read, I’m willing to accept that the Bible is a document of its patriarchal, pre-modern times and realize that, yes, back then, women weren’t treated right. But even in that context, we see hints of God’s more egalitarian ways shining through. In Christ, there is no “male” or “female,” we see Jesus talking to and treating women as equals, we see women leadership in OT and NT stories.

So, my answer to the larger question – is God sexist? – an absolute No. But the Bible does tell stories that reflect the mores of the day. As long as we don’t try to take those sexist/misogynistic attitudes as literally applying to how we interact as humans today (ie, women remain silent in church, the man is the “head” or master of women, selling our daughters, etc), and embrace the God-given liberty and equality for all, then I think we’re okay.

Now, I’m not going to jump on his “not a topic I’ve studied a lot, but …”  which should throw up red flags. It is a good question how the verses he quotes support his conclusions. However, it might be interesting to note some history. Read the rest of this entry

Bertrand de Jouvenel in Sovereignty notes has an effective, if reflexive, definition on political authority. A person has the authority to request those things which those to whom the request is directed feel is in his authority to request. In this manner, an “authoritarian” regime is one, paradoxically, which lacks authority. It must substitute force and terror and other methods because it lacks the authority to do what it commands. A master/slave relationship is unjust only if the slave rejects the authority of the master. In a monastic setting, the authority (freely granted) to the abbot by those in his care would in another setting seem more servile than much of the Slavery seen in the old south. However, because that authority is freely granted it is just. In that regard, one might regard coercion as the sign a government is going off the rails. The more coercion, the more imperfect the union.

The general principle that decides whether a government is exceeding its authority or restricting too much the liberty of its people therefore is measured by the amount of coercion required to enforce its decisions and not by an analysis outside of the culture and context of that particular action.

In St. Silouan the Athonite, St. Silouan teaches that following traditions of freedom, equality, hierarchy, and love as demonstrated by the Trinity (for example read the opening chapters of John Zizioulas Communion and Otherness and On Being and Communion), that the correct way for the authority, such as an abbot or staretz (spiritual advisor) is to give his command once, and if it is not obeyed offer no reprimand or repeat the command.

Parents however, cannot apply that rule in the same way. Children need repetition. As the saying goes, “The problem with children is that they are so darn immature!” In part this as well goes for men in society. Government lies somewhere between the monastery and the family regarding the need for repetition and the assumption of maturity of its members. Society cannot put a stop sign at an intersection and leave it up for just a week and leave it at that. We need reminding of the regulations and rules that society needs to operate smoothly. Additionally as generations pass and peoples come in and out of our society the customs and regulations must need be repeated.

The political process then is a exercise in walking the line, minimizing coercion in a way that maximizes human flourishing by locating and utilizing the authority that is generated naturally in human intercourse. From these simple observations a few general principles might be extracted:

• Authority, as it is generated by human contact and connection, can be strongest if generated locally, that is personally.
• Permission to do a thing is not approval. Government or its representatives can firmly condemn abortion, adultery, and so on. The point is that saying a thing is harmful to flourishing is not the same as coercing one to stop.
• The sign of better governance is not abstract review of its principals but a review of how much coercion is required to keep it in order.

Recently, Jason Kuznicki reconsidered the same-sex marriage question, and his considerations as always are well worth considering. Like abortion, eugenics (Downs abortions for example) and euthanasia these are matters on which Christian tradition frowns. But … how does the Christian traditions and theology noted above as well as Jouvenel’s ideas on authority instruct us to order policy?

Marriage, as noted toward the end of his essay, is an institution which has grown up in community, fostering, encouraging, family to aid in the raising of the next generation (and the care the prior). In that mode, it would be permitted for a state to maintain a statement of the need to support the nuclear stable family. It is not optimal for the state to either enforce denial of same sex marriage to Boysville, New Hampshire or on the other hand to insist that it be part of the community in Evangeliste, Kansas. It is however, likely that those small communities can generate the authority to enforce policies which from an outsiders perspective are far more encompassing, but from within the community are however within the limits of freely granted authority.

Today’s easy access and dissemination of information makes coercion harder if not impossible to hide (especially in the long term). A lot of coercion present in society could be removed by granting to the local community, where authority is strongest, those things which affect the community. That community can then grant to higher structures, city, county or state, the authority to regulate relations with other communities. Likewise states to the federal level. What needs to be watched for is local communities governments resorting to undue coercion to enforce their requests especially on subsets of their community.

However that seems a easier line to walk than finding a non-coercive way of finding a federal or state level statement on marriage that  both Boysville and Evangeliste will swallow.

(Note: I’m thinking out loud here, hoping that commeters will help me solidify my thoughts with more coherence. )

First the good news:

"We’ve got confirmed reports of groups of Muslim convert believers doubling in size in the last six months," Carl Moeller, president of Open Doors USA, said.

Paul Marshall, a senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute, agreed. Marshall said Iran has been experiencing a youth backlash against Islam, Middle East Newsline reported.

"There are indications that with the deep unpopularity of the regime that people are turning away from Islam," Marshall said in an interview with the U.S. television network Fox.

Now the bad news:

On May 11, Moeller said, at least eight people were arrested in Shiraz on charges of abandoning the Islamic faith. Such a crime was punishable by up to life in prison.

One suspected organizer of Christian activity in Shiraz was identified as Mojtaba Hussein. The 21-year-old Hussein, believed to have organized house churches, remained in prison after his colleagues were released.

"He [Hussein] may not be willing to give up the names of other Muslim converts," Moeller said. "He may not be willing to recant his faith himself."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has proposed a law that would impose capital punishment on any Muslim who leaves his faith. Christian activists said many young Muslims, dismayed by the abuses of the Islamic regime, have been interested in Christianity and other religions.

"Seeing Muslims converting to Christianity is directly threatening to an Islamic regime," Moeller said.

The irony, of course, as demonstrated here, is that the bad news is helping the good news come about.  But then, that’s the paradox of persecution.  No one wishes persecution on those Christians, and we pray for its end, but at the same time that persecution is opening the eyes of many. 

Jesus asked in Gethsemane that, if there was any way other than suffering and dying to redeem mankind, He’d prefer that, but ultimately  "may your will be done".  I think that should be our prayer for Iranian Christians; please let this persecution pass, but may Your will be done. 

[tags]Iran,Christianity,Carl Moeller,Open Doors USA,Mojtaba Hussein,Mahmoud Ahmadinejad,Islam,Shiraz,Christian persecution[/tags]

Could be, according to archaeologists.

Archaeologists in Jordan have unearthed what they claim is the world’s first church, dating back almost 2,000 years, The Jordan Times reported on Tuesday.

"We have uncovered what we believe to be the first church in the world, dating from 33 AD to 70 AD," the head of Jordan’s Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies, Abdul Qader al-Husan, said.

He said it was uncovered under Saint Georgeous Church, which itself dates back to 230 AD, in Rihab in northern Jordan near the Syrian border.

"We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians — the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ," Husan said.

These Christians, who are described in a mosaic as "the 70 beloved by God and Divine," are said to have fled persecution in Jerusalem and founded churches in northern Jordan, Husan added.

He cited historical sources which suggest they both lived and practised religious rituals in the underground church and only left it after Christianity was embraced by Roman rulers.

[tags]Jordan,Christianity,Rihab Centre for Archaeological Studies,Abdul Qader al-Husan,archaeology[/tags]

That is the Question.

In last night’s post, I proposed that the movement away from the liturgical calendar was a motion towards the secular. There were two comments, as I had cross-posted that at the two blogs on which I’m active, and got one from each.

Mr Trabue asks for clarification:

I know you said “arguably,” but I was wondering how exactly you see a move away from a liturgical calendar as being in any way a move towards secularization?

While Kyle points to Zwingli (and do visit as the whole comment is worthwhile)

It has to do with the puritan movement in England, but I forget exactly the argument. I think there was something to do with a radical misapplication of the principle of sola scriptura, so you’ll need to ask Zwingli. If they banned musical instruments because they weren’t mentioned in the New Testament (though actually they are), can you wonder that they also eliminated scheduled holidays?

[…]My personality is such that I’d rather every day were the same – I hate keeping track of dates. But I’ve sort of resigned myself to celebrating holidays, since everyone around me insists on doing it. If I ignore them for no good reason, what am I communicating? But it seems to me that, if we’re going to start celebrating holidays, we might as well celebrate all of them. I suppose we will eventually.

My attempted clarification and further remarks can be found below the fold. Read the rest of this entry

The 12th Carnival of Christian Reconciliation will be held my home blog at Pseudo-Polymath.
For submission guidelines see this post. The carnival submission will be due by Midnight EST Friday June 20th, although technically I’ll probably do most of the work putting the carnival together over the weekend so the real “cut-off” will be some undetermined time on Sunday. It might be important to note that this carnival accepts multiple entries from each person. See the details on posting guidelines at the above link. The Question/Topic-of-the-Month for this month is:

In St. John Cassian’s Conferences Abba Moses teaches that our thoughts come from three sources, the Holy Spirit, Satan, or ourselves. He then teaches discernment is perhaps the most important Christian virtue, to separate those three in our minds and subsequently our actions. Our Church has split from one into so very many over the almost two millennia since Christ’s resurrection. Some have suggested that perhaps the prevalence and predominance of division in our church is a sign that it is God’s will that the Church be divided. But is this so?

In analogy to Abba Moses’ instruction, one might propose that the origins of any one of these divisions arises from the work or activities of the Spirit, Satan, or Man. One would expect that the latter two are the ones which, if one supports ecumenical movement, should be the ones we actively oppose. How should we discern the difference between these, if indeed that is even a thing we should attempt? Is the motive behind the division a thing which we should discern as we try to heal that same division?  Is such a discernment (or claims to the same) today even useful?

This year, Eastern and Western liturgical calendars were about as far apart as they can be, the Western Easter was in March and won’t be that early calendrically for over a hundred years, while the Eastern Pascha was in May. Next week … the East celebrates the ending of its Paschal season (and to be honest with the feast of the Ascencion just past much of the Paschal liturgical changes have been removed). Pentecost begins “ordinary time”, marking the days between Pentecost and the Nativity fast (although at least 2 “minor” fasts exist between Pentecost and Easter).

Liturgical time is a reflection of the non-secular nature of Church. Secular, coming from the Latin, saeculum has to do with marking time. Liturgical markings of time, the liturgical season strikes a “fork” into our daily time-bound lives grounding us periodic reminders and connections to the timeless. The secular “holidays” that come closest to this like the major sports finals seasons, right now we have the NBA playoffs and coming up the Summer Olympic games, NHL, MLB and NFL as well as many other sports all have their “holidays”. These games are in one way notably unlike liturgical holy days (holi-days) in that typically our “games” are numbered but specifically and purposefully, liturgical holidays are not. There is good reason why Pascha this year is not the 1975th Paschal/Easter celebration. Pascha/Easter is a connection, via liturgy, a forging of a connection to the original Eucharist and the historical resurrection of our Lord, as well as to the eschatological Pascha out of or beyond time. It is a communing with God and our Theosis outside of time.

I’m curious, some Protestant churches have abandoned essentially all but Easter and the Nativity from their set liturgical calendar. The Protestant Reformation was a rejection of many practices in the Roman church that deemed to have  mislayed the essence of the Christian faith and were drawing the laity away from their calling and a distraction. I’m curious. If you belong to a church which does not follow a full liturgical calendar, marking Nativity, Epiphany, Lent, Annunciation, Pascha, Ascension and Pentecost in your season as well as the myriad of lesser feasts (for example coming up “next” in the Orthodox calendar at the end of June is the St. Peter and St. Paul fast and feast). Why? What was the reason for that move, a move arguably toward a secularization of Church?

In the prior post, I queried for a resource (hopefully online) for the 14th oration of St. Gregory the Theologian, which is on poverty. In a book that I am reading about St. Gregory, John McGuckin’s St. Gregory of Nazainzus: An Intellectual Biography, heightens my interest in this. One of the things Mr McGuckin relates in his book is that in this particular oration St. Gregory calls for what he terms Byzantine “city-monasticism” that is monastic cenoboetic (communal) communities, which are not withdrawn from the world, but which served to staff hospitals and other philanthropic institutions.

American in particular is a barren desert when one considers its monastic presence.  Could encouraging young and old to a commitment to serve in such a community work? Would it not be a good thing?

The poverty paradox present in Christian ethics is obvious to any casual onlooker, and was brought up in an earlier post. In that post I hinted that I’d offer my resolution to the paradox later, this is that later “resolution.”

Christian tradition, Scripture, and praxis all value rejection of material things and the ascetic embrace of poverty. At the same time however, the Christian virtue of charity calls the faithful to assist those in need. But why, the state of being poor is a state to value. Should the Christian not instead, envy the downtrodden and those without means? To summarize:

• In Luke’s version of the beatitudes, Jesus notes, “Blessed are the poor, for they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.” A blessing is not to denote a bad thing. One isn’t blessed for having a condition if that condition is morally or materially thought bad.
• In Romans 5, St. Paul notes that we should “celebrate our suffering”, for suffering ties to hope of salvation and leads to endurance and character and other good things. Suffering is a thing then, that should be celebrated, in fact sought.
• Death, seen by the pagan and unbeliever as a thing to fear. But for the Christian death “has no sting” and as the Orthodox Paschal troparion (short hymn) sings, “Christ is risen from the dead, trampling death by death and to those in the tombs restoring life.” Poverty and lack of resource leads to an early death … which is a thing not to fear, and has no sting. So … why bother helping those who are in need? Why help the dying, after all it’s no big deal. Right?

In an earlier discussion on Liberation Theology and its ties to Marxism here at Stones Cry Out (a group blog which has graciously permitted me to join), I was asked in a comment thread/discussion what, if anything, was evil about Marxism. In that discussion I had tied much of the evil inherent in Marxism to Leninism, noting Zizek a prominent Leninist political theorist and philosopher crafted a syllogism. That syllogism was Lenin is to Marxism as St. Paul is to Christianity. This I took as a teaching of what Lenin means to Marxism, not the reverse.

But … there is indeed evil (or at least moral error) inherent Marxism and it is the same evil that is found in poverty and why the Christian responds vigorously against it.

For poverty is indeed a blessed thing. It is indeed a thing to which the best and greatest of our fellowship embrace, live, and dwell. From St. Antony,St. Mary of Egypt, St. John Cassian (who brought monasticism to the West), and other in the first millennial ascetics, the entire Eastern and Western monastic traditions, to the modern ascetics such as more famously the Mother Theresa of Calcutta. However there is an essential difference between their embrace of poverty and the Haitian or African child and family eating fried mud because they have no other food. The problem is one of choice. Poverty is a blessed good and a thing to aspire to if you choose it. Choice is the ultimate and crucial difference between poverty as virtue and why we aid those who are afflicted by this particular virtue when it is not of their choosing.

That too is the essential problem with Liberation theology and its embrace of Marxism. Marxism and Christian cenobitic communities both embrace renouncing private property and sharing and sharing alike. However, Christian communal communities are joined by choice. Marxism is a political system which imposes, like poverty in Zaire or today in Myanmar/Burma itself on those it afflicts with no regard to choice.

It is not for nothing that Genesis is a crucially important book. The eden stories of early Genesis teach well that God values our free will. We ignore that at our peril.

"You’re fired."

The firebrand pastor of St. Sabina parish was removed from his duties there Tuesday, according to a statement released by the Archdiocese of Chicago.

In the statement, Cardinal Francis George says he asked the Rev. Michael Pfleger, 59, to "take leave for a couple of weeks from his pastoral duties." The statement said Pfleger "does not believe this to be the right step at this time." "While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests," George said.

Are we to take it that this is the very first time Rev. Pfleger has spewed this kind of vitriol?  Kinda’ doubt it.  Just like Obama’s recent leaving of Trinity UCC, this seems more like a case of being unable to avoid ignoring the issue once it hit the national stage. 

What a hassle, those internets.

[tags]Rev. Michael Pfleger,Barack Obama,Cardinal Francis George,Catholicism,St. Sabina[/tags]

Speaking about one’s religion is both a free speech and religious freedom issue.  Both are being chipped away at in England.

A police community support officer ordered two Christian preachers to stop handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham.

The evangelists say they were threatened with arrest for committing a "hate crime" and were told they risked being beaten up if they returned. The incident will fuel fears that "no-go areas" for Christians are emerging in British towns and cities, as the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, claimed in The Sunday Telegraph this year.

The Bishop’s charges were denied vehemently, but it turns out he was right.

The "police community support officer" who accused them of the crime threatened to arrest them.

A police community support officer (PCSO) interrupted the conversation and began questioning the ministers about their beliefs.

They said when the officer realised they were American, although both have lived in Britain for many years, he launched a tirade against President Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Cunningham said: "I told him that this had nothing to do with the gospel we were preaching but he became very aggressive.

"He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message. He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station."

The police department wouldn’t apologize, and just gave the PCSO training in hate crime and communication.  One would have hoped this training would have come before putting hit out on the street.

Unmentioned in the Telegraph article but picked up by the Daily Mail; the PCSO himself was Muslim.  In addition, there was a threat of violence, and the actual constable on site backed up the PCSO

The community officer is also said to have told the two men: ‘You have been warned. If you come back here and get beat up, well, you have been warned.’

A police constable who was present during the incident in the Alum Rock area of Birmingham is also alleged to have told the preachers not to return to the district.

Presumably, this is not a Jihadi, just a (literal) Muslim-on-the-street (PCSOs are not official police officers) saying that Christians talking about their faith in a Muslim area are, in general, going to get beat up, in a "that’s just the way it is" attitude.  If this is the kind of "law enforcement" that the police themselves are backing up, I fear for the freedoms in Britain.

[tags]England,freedom of religion,freedom of speech,Islam,Christianity[/tags]

Christian thinking has a strange relationship with poverty. There is at the one hand a strong a call for charity,  to aid the poor, the opressed, and those in need. On the other hand, there is:

And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples, and said:
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied.

via Luke 6. And Romans 5:

More than that, we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,  and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

So, imagine for a moment, that the dreams of the world economists is bears fruit. That by intelligent policy the world leaders managed to thread the needle between freedom and social networking/support and as well come up with a workable plan and solve the “bottom billion” problem and poverty world-wide is solved. Everyone on the planet by dint of management of resource and economic management is now wealthy. Poverty is no more.

Then … no more will anyone be able to rejoice in his suffering … and have endurance, character and thereby hope (see Benedict on Hope).  Everyone will be as shallow and hedonistic as the average American, without the tempering of either latent Puritan or religion to guide them. Oh, joy.

Furthermore, how should we interpret “blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” … Does that urge us to aid the poor and help them to become wealthy like us … thereby of course causing them to lose the kingdom of God (for there reward will then be in the here and now). Or does is more likely mean that we should not ourselves run the treadmill seeking salvation, ease, and happiness via material things.

So what is the way clear of this apparent paradox, that we are to help the poor … but that being poor is in and of itself a good thing. I have some thoughts … but I’m going to leave them for a later time.

Comments?

From a theological perspective at least. Heresy? Via the corner.

GG: Do you believe in sin?
OBAMA: Yes.
GG: What is sin?
OBAMA: Being out of alignment with my values.

I can’t imagine a way to spin that as reasonable in or out of context. Sin is being out of line with Obama’s values?

Well, in the light that for the liberal/progressive hypocrisy is the only sin … that makes sense. That is, the only error one can make is not “being true to oneself” or acting differently than one the values one believes in.

However … that isn’t what sin is.