Stones Cry Out

February 20, 2006

Lamott's Leftism

At his Reformissionary site, Steve McCoy points to this morning's piece by Dr. Al Mohler concerning a pro-choice outburst by Christian author Anne Lamott. You can read Mohler's piece here. Also read Amy Welborn's take on the subject. It was Wellborn that first drew my attention to this issue. I should mention that Amy Welborn is a fine whose blog is a must for all things Catholic. I suspect it will become an invaluable resource once the DaVinci Code hits theatres.

At any rate, we've been discussing Dr. Mohler's comments on Steve's site. I think Lamott is important to consider for a few reasons. First, she is a telented writer. Second, she is a popular writer with something of a large following. Stop in the local Barnes and Noble and you'll find her books on display in the religion section, recieving the attention that might not be given to the works of A.W. Pink. Third, confessional writing of the sort she does is becoming increasingly popular in evangelical circles. Think of Don Miller and Lauren Winner.

I like confessional writing. I would love to be able to do some of my own work in that vein at some point in my life. And yet there must be a caution within this genre. Just like public testimonies in church, confessional writing is subjective. It may refer to Scripture, but ultimately it is the recounting of one person's experience. It can be a tremendous help in our walk with Christ, but it is no replacement for Scripture, first and foremost, and, second, for the deeper truths of the Word that are found in theological study.

In Mohler's piece, he offers a level of discernment towards Lamott. He cites a Christianity Today piece that says this about Lamott:

"Yet, deeper within her than her loud liberalism is a reality that has won her many evangelical readers: a zany ardor for Jesus. Lamott's fascination with all things Jesusy (a term she might as well have copyrighted) must be the reason why she is a mixed bag of hilariously antagonistic affections."

I commented at Reformissionary that Mohler may very well be troubled by more than Lamott's radical liberalism. (See the links below for more information on that - she is more than your garden variety working-class Democrat) It seems that Mohler is troubled by the idea that no one cares about her liberalism. I know I am. And what I mean by that is not that I wouldn't welcome her and befriend her. I would. I regard her as a believer in Christ. I respect her talents. Evaluating the beliefs of a public literary figure like Lamott is not the same as picking apart the stranger on the bus or the newcomer at church. Showing a certain degree of criticism for ideas and opinions that are offered up for public consumption is not, by definition, unfair and un-Christlike.

I reject the idea that we can endorse anything that claims the name of Christ. Can we offer it a seat at the table? Most certainly. But that is not the same thing as sending the product/writer/artist/preacher/program back into the world with our blessings. To sound emergent for a moment, I would love to dialogue with Lamott and her comrades (ha!), but I can't give them a full thumbs up. She is not privately voting for Ralph Nader. She is an active, proud leftist. It's one thing to vote for John Kerry; it's another to speak glowingly of Barbara Lee. And though some would suggest that Christians can vote for whomever they like, I tend to think the Lord is bothered by unapologetic support of the right to terminate a pregnancy. Anne Lamott may not be, but Mohler is not wrong to suggest that she is stepping outside the bounds of Christian tradition in so doing. I would again suggest that while God may not have a favorite political party, there are essentially two streams of political thought in this country and whatever its shortcomings, one is far more in line with the traditional ethics of orthodox christianity. The other finds a nice home in the traditions of the Enlightenment and existentialism. Such legacies cannot be denied.

For more on Lamott's ideas see the following:

Anne's interview with Powells.com

Her archive at Salon.com

In the Powell's interview above, Anne speaks of donating to Congresswoman Barbara Lee. Ms. Lee gave this speech at an anti-war rally in San Francisco in the Spring of 2003. The march was organized by the International Action Center. The IAC was founded by Ramsey Clark, the former U.S. attorney general now doing a little pro bono legal work for Saddam Hussein. (Clark also worked on behalf of that political prisoner, Slobodan Milosevic, but who's keeping count?) The IAC is also the sponsor of the leftist group ANSWER, which stands for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism. The IAC is part of the World Workers Party, a Stalinist organizaiton that is more than a little supportive of the regimes (not the citizens, mind you) of Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Nice, isn't it? I've said time and again that I find Dobson to be grating, Falwell midguided and Robertson embarassing, but I don't recall any of them working with this sort of crowd. Here's the Wikipedia skinny on the WWP. This is the splinter group that formed from the WWP.

Here's a good piece on the IAC and WWP from FrontPage Magazine. National Review also ran several articles on this topic. See here and here.

See here for my concerns about leftism in evangelical circles, particularly among artists and writers. My comments originally concerned Derek Webb, but I do not limit them to him alone. The anti-war organizations are of particular concern for me, and I would mention Webb's support for Sojourners and Miller's endorsement of Cornel West (scroll down), the Princeton professor who recently visited Venezuela in support of dictator and Castro buddy Hugo Chavez. A

gain, these folks are still my brothers and sisters in Christ. I would welcome them into my church without reservation. Indeed, I would welcome them into my home. I would not, however, agree with their views on these important matters. Likewise I will not be silent with the support of earnest believers leaves them with a public platform by which they can advance such views. We are all sinners, all of us fallen short of God's glory. I confess my own failings and note that I am not the final arbiter of truth in this world. Yet these disagreements deserve scrutiny for they affect serious issues in our world. We can disagree, to be sure, but the consequences might well force us to reconsider.

Posted by Matt at 10:28 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 16, 2006

Christian "Music"

Jeffrey Overstreet points to this really great post about the problems with Contemporary Christian Music.

Posted by Matt at 12:20 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

February 07, 2006

Christians and Movie Criticism

In talking with a friend the other night, the comment was made that the friend did not appreciate movies with a redemptive story. Note that I am not talking about movies about salvation, those that feature a tearfully repentant drunk kneeling at the altar of a country church. I instead think of many movies within the film noir canon, most of which show that we do indeed pay for our sins.

The topic was Woody Allen. I enjoy Woody Allen's films a great deal; Lori and I watched Annie Hall last night while I graded papers. There is an undeniable truth, however, in Allen's films; almost every one of his protaganists are egomaniacs of the highest order. A proper Christian evaluation of this tendency in Allen's films will note that while we are all sinners, fallen and depraved, behaviors have consequences. In Stardust Memories, Sandy Bates is neurotic and self-involved. He is a rather miserable character, and as a believer, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that such self-indulgence harmed Bates and the women with whom he was involved. Art doesn't have to have resolution, but it is an existential failure to suggest that art is complete without further commentary. Brokeback Mountain may be a very well-made movie, but it cannot be ignored that in pursuing their own fantasies, the protaganists harm their wives and children. Whatever one believes about homosexuality, it is terribly irresponsible to endorse the notion that abandoning one's commitment to one's family is acceptable in pursuit of adolescent lust.

It would be unfair and perhaps even bigoted to limit this criticism to a movie that deals with homosexuality. In fact, Brokeback Mountain is just the latest example. Yes, like Woody Allen, we are all sinners in need of forgiveness. And it is because of this truth that our own criticism should not ignore, nor it should unlovingly condemn, the truth that our sins have dire consequences for ourselves and for those around us.

Posted by Matt at 12:16 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 31, 2006

The Oscars

The Oscar nominations have been released. Let me say a few things.

To begin, I have not seen any of the movies. I plan to see Capote sometime next month when it shows at a small art theatre here in Tuscaloosa. The others I have not seen, though I would like to see all of them. Having said that, in an information age such as ours, I believe there is enough available by way of criticisms and reviews for me make some slight comments.

There will be a lot of clamoring that the Oscars no longer represent mainstream America. Indeed, it has already begun. I am sympathetic to this notion on a lot of levels. I do not expect most Americans to head off to the movies after a long week to watch the gay cowboy movie. I do not expect anyone with a firm grasp of history to be jumping at the prospect of watching George Clooney's naive interpretation of all that took place during the McCarthy era. Beyond that, I understand that for many folks, the movies are an escape. They want to laugh and cry, but rarely do they want to think. I am tempted to criticize this point, but life is hard sometimes. I won't fault anyone for wanting a fun movie to relax with on a Friday night.

And yet I find it increasingly disturbing that so many Americans champion movies for superficial reasons. A movie is not good because it is clean. It is not good because it makes you feel good and warm and fuzzy. It can be all of those things, but a lack of profanity or the promotion of a cheap emotional reaction does not necessarily make for good art. I do feel that good movies were left out: King Kong and Cinderella Man. (Don't think of suggesting the mediocre Narnia) I think most of the movies nominated for best picture are products of a liberal Hollywood but by all accounts, they are still art. They are pictures that must be engaged. They must be critiqued and challenged. And those with differing political viewpoints must be willing to create vibrant art that challanges that liberal status quo.

Complaining gets you nowhere. Powerful art will open doors that we cannot currently imagine.

Posted by Matt at 12:31 PM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

The Problem We Face

Powerful writing by Roger Kimball. A highlight:

"Whatever the wisdom of the position in the abstract (and I have my doubts about it), the resurgence of international terrorism, fueled by hate and devoted to death, renders it otiose. Last summer’s bombings in London were, as these things go, relatively low in casualties. But they were high in indiscriminateness. The people on those buses and subway cars were as innocent as innocent can be: just folks, moms and dads and children on their way to work or school or play, as uninterested, most of them, in politics or Islam as it is possible to be. And yet those home-grown Islamicists were happy to blow them to bits.

Here is the novelty: Our new enemies are not political enemies in any traditional sense, belligerent in the service of certain interests of their own. Their belligerence is focused rather on the very existence of an alternative to their vision of beatitude, namely on Western democracy and its commitment to individual freedom and economic prosperity. I return to Hussein Massawi: “We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you.”

In fact, the situation is even grimmer than Mr. Massawi suggests. For our new enemies are not simply bent on our destruction: they are pleased to compass their own destruction as a collateral benefit. This is one of those things that makes Islamofascism a particularly toxic form of totalitarianism. At least most Communists had some rudimentary attachment to the principle of self-preservation. In the face of such death-embracing fanaticism our only option is unremitting combat."

How does one articulate the point with further clarity? This is, as Norman Podhoretz says, World War IV. I do not suppose that we should create a rabble over each and every political moment, but I am increasingly frustrated with the lazy attitude that we - I point to myself, as well - possess. As a Christian certainly I have a higher calling to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever," and yet the incessant worries of the day not only override Christian virtue; they override common sense, as well. We are at war, and yet we act as though we are not.

It is not easy, I confess. World War II necessitated that we ration our food and buy war bonds. The immediate cause is not so dire, but one wishes that America - her churches and schools - were clearly aware of the threats we face from the madrasses of Pakistan, the mullahs of Iran, the deranged old man in charge of North Korea and the arrogant nationalists of China. These are important matters; one wishes that we all shared a sense of awareness and, indeed, of urgency.

Posted by Matt at 09:08 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

January 28, 2006

Theology's Consequences

After the West Virginia mining tragedy, Michael Spencer wrote a three part series on The Gospel for Appalachia. (Click here for part one, part two and part three) This is a very compelling read about the state of one of the nation's poorest regions, and Michael makes some strong suggestions about what Christians can do to help revive this region of the nation.

Michael makes a lot of commentary about the nature of the Church in Appalachia as it currently exists:

"Religion in Appalachia is devout, and it stands at the center of the culture. Its message is everywhere. No matter what the sign out front, most churches have the same message: Life is a battle between God and the devil. Hard times are to be expected. The Good Book and the good Lord are there for those who are believers. Satan, drugs and alcohol are there for the sinner. When a person comes to understand that death is near, and heaven is our only hope for happiness, then he will get saved. He will get right with God."

This sort of thinking reminds me of one of the central tenets of conservatism, both political and theological. It is this: ideas matter. The philosophical understandings of human nature are not always abstract concepts for the college classroom. They eventually find themselves in the halls of government; in Congress and the courts. The ideas of Rousseau profoundly influenced political liberalism just as Burke influenced conservatism. And those ideologies mark the two major political parties within the United States. Each party enacts legislation that can, more often than not, be traced directly back to the philosophical roots of their own ideologies.

In this regard, theology also matters. It has consequences beyond the personal beliefs of its adherents. This is what I seem to understand in Spencer's discussion of Appalachia. A theology that does not graciously and voluntarily eschew possessions, but instead suggests that desiring "stuff" is sinful on pretty much any level, will depress a local economy if the notion gains any significant traction over a period of years. A theology that suggests the Bible is all a man needs in terms of education will do very little promote serious education. Similarly, and this is as true in the inner city as it is in the mountain regions, any theology that looks at hard times as just part of life, with the believer bearing no ability (or responsibility) to change his or her condition in life, may indeed create believers without a strong work ethic.

I am not talking about believers, like Spencer, who voluntarily choose a life of ministry that brings less in terms of material wealth, nor am I talking about the Biblical command to value Christ above all our possessions. I am not suggesting that there is any replacement for a clear understanding of the Scriptures. And yet we see in our culture a small but significant number of believers who advocate, as nothing short of orthodoxy, the notion that money and education are almost always tools of the devil. That a hard life is just a common life and we can't change nothin' so we'll just cling to the Lord. These things do happen, but to suggest that the command to all believers is a life of poverty and ignorance is dangerous, offensive and, above all, unBiblical.

I once heard a very well-known Southern Baptist pastor suggest that kindergarten teachers should not be holding bakesales; college professors should be doing this instead. I cannot possibly remember what portion of the sermon necessitated such a comment, but I fear that a subtle point was reinforced to the congregation. The point being that the work of the elementary school teachers is more important. Therefore in a sense, it is suggested that college is not important. What an absurd thing to say in a world where educated Christians are needed more and more.

I do not want to suggest that I have all the answers to such matters, but I find Spencer's essays to be a clear example of the maxim that ideas have consequences, whether political or theological. Secular humanism has consequences. Existentialism has consequences. And theology that denounces money, in even the most innocent of circumstances, and education will lead to a culture that is economically depressed in a way that cannot be good for anyone involved.

Posted by Matt at 10:57 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 28, 2005

Derek Webb Mea Culpa

Let me offer something of a follow up to my post on Derek Webb. I think I was somewhat unfair in my discussion, so met me say a few things.

Let me first say that I feel, in retrospect, that my post was made in haste. It should have been fleshed out further with more links and quotes than I provided.

I have noticed in Derek's interviews a theme of social justice. I certainly share his heart on this matter, but I simply can’t go along with some the organizations he supports; namely, the ONE campaign and Sojourners, both of which linked on his website under the heading Social Justice. I take that sort of linking as open support of both the organizations and their underlying premises. I certainly think that Bono and the others behind ONE have good intentions, but debt relief and fair trade agreements have never proven to be an adequate means of relief, particularly in Africa where corrupt regimes, tribal practices and the threat of radical Islam loom large over any small gains that might be made.

I agree with Jim Wallis’ belief that the Kingdom of God is not limited to the GOP, but Wallis undermines his own point when he advocates, on practically every issue save abortion, a political program that is, at the very least, as leftwing as the Democratic Party, if not more liberal. This is not a new development, either. The Weekly Standard ran a piece recently noting that for all his talk, Wallis has always been a leftist. That’s fine and good, but I don’t think Wallis should be afraid to say as much, and he should certainly be willing to defend his position biblically.

It was my failure to address these points in my post, and I will offer a mea culpa shortly. My own reference to Derek’s political beliefs was based upon the links on his site and particularly with this interview in Relevant Magazine wherein he said:

“As a Christian if you are not pro-rich, pro-war then you re just not a Christian. And I think that we’ve got to blow all that apart, we’ve got to break all that, we’ve got to open that up and find out what the hell is going on. None of that makes any sense. It’s not even a consistent Christian worldview. There’s a lot of work to do in the way Christians think about politics and issues of social justice in this country and internationally. I think we’ve got to be people who know what’s happening in the world, who can apply Scripture to all of it.”

Please understand that I share his concerns, but I’ve read enough political literature to have an alarm go off when I hear “pro-rich, pro-war” used in a negative light. Combine that with his support of Sojourners, and yes, I think the logical assumption is that he believes the Wallis model for social welfare to be both competent and Biblical. I find it to be neither.

I do not feel that I was overly harsh in my language or my tone. I do feel that I jumped too far on this point: It is quite likely that Derek is turned off by the Dobsons and Falwells of the world. As I have said countless times on SCO, I am, too. It is also fair to assume that Derek is exploring the need for concern for the fatherless and the widow. Same here. It is possible that he is exploring the Wallis position because he is turned off by the other side and, frankly, who can blame him. Yet I believe, as many Christians have believed, that free markets, when combined with compassionate church and private sector, are the best solutions for ending poverty. I do question whether Derek has considered this or been presented with an articulate model. It is possible he has not been presented with such a model, and it is my failure to consider this for which I apologize. I fear that I was reading into his words something deeper than necessary, but I do find his support of Sojourners troubling.

I do worry about the growth of progressivism among Christians, particularly when I see people like Don Miller and Brian McLaren. Surely God is bigger than the GOP, but when Miller says that the MoveOn.Org and the ACLU are doing “God’s work” (I kid you not), I get more than uncomfortable. One, because I don’t find the statement to be true. Two, the results of that thinking are very unhealthy. Don has redone his website, so those links are no longer present, but I am telling the truth. I realize that there is a new conversation among young believers; I hope to become a part of it. Yet I am troubled that the politics of this conversation seem to be consistently drifting leftward, as though no one has noticed that damage that liberal economics has wrought upon Canada and Europe.

I hope this position makes sense. Though I often disagree with many of these writers (Miller, Lauren Winner, etc.) on theological, political and social matters, I like what they are doing in terms of addressing the new generation. I hope to somehow become a part of this conversation, because I remain worried about much of its implicit political direction.

Posted by Matt at 08:11 PM | Comments (29) | TrackBack

November 27, 2005

Quick Hits

Thanksgiving and homework have left me quite busy. I shall be back soon to further clarify my post on Derek Webb. In the meantime, here's a question, and I'm curious for some feedback.

Should you tell your children about Santa Claus?

Something tells me Professors Lewis and Tolkien would have no problem with such a thing.

Posted by Matt at 07:31 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 22, 2005

Derek Webb Interview

I'll post further thoughts on the idea of a separate Christian "culture" later, but for now check out this interview with Derek Webb. Part one is here, this is part two. I like Webb's music a great deal. I'm thankful for his voice and his creativity. I think he can say important things to the Church in this day of bad Christian t-shirts and cliches.

But...if his idea of "social justice" were ever inacted, it would be an unmitigated disaster. The Biblical call to mercy and compassion for the fatherless and the widow is not fulfilled by confiscatory taxes and the false notion that the federal, state or local government will solve our problems. It's a wrong idea. Moreso, it's a dangerous one.

And don't get me started on this naive premise of Christian pacifism with which he's flirting...

"[Pacifists are] the last and least excusable on the list of the enemies of society. They preach that if you see a man flogging a woman to death you must not hit him. I would much sooner let a leper come near a little boy than a man who preached such a thing." - G.K. Chesteron

Posted by Matt at 11:38 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 11, 2005

A Class Act

Tomorrow afternoon, at 2:30 pm central time, the mighty Alabama Crimson Tide takes on Josh Britton's LSU Tigers.

Win or lose, you're likely to see Alabama star linebacker DeMeco Ryans all over the field. (I'm hoping I see him dismantle LSU quarterback Jamarcus Russell, but that's just me). As it turns out, DeMeco is a pretty great guy.

Read this Ivan Maisel piece from ESPN.com for more.

Posted by Matt at 01:43 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

November 10, 2005

Derb on Torture

This pretty much sums up my thoughts. Liberal readers, fire away.

Posted by Matt at 11:32 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

November 08, 2005

Evangelicals and the Pill

Thought-provoking piece at Mere Comments by Russ Moore.

Posted by Matt at 07:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Evangelicals and the Environment

Scroll down to the second point of this post. Fr. Neuhaus is none too happy about the National Association of Evangelicals joining up with certain environmental groups.

Neither am I.

Posted by Matt at 10:44 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

November 07, 2005

Terrell Owens

In this entire mess, Owens has proven clearly and finally that he is a selfish brat. ESPN analyst and former Dallas Cowboys great Michael Irvin has demonstrated himself to be a clueless imbecile, incapable of distinguishing between day-to-day problems and the general problems with Owens' selfishness.

Posted by Matt at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Muslim Riots in France

For a good understanding of why Islamic youths are rioting in Paris, read this 2002 article by Theodore Dalrymple in City Journal.

(HT: Douglas Burtt a la BHT)

Posted by Matt at 06:52 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Pearce Lectures on Tolkien

Follow this link for mp3s of Joseph Pearce's lectures on Tolkien and myth at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is absolutely fantastic stuff if you love J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. Download it and burn it. This is a wonderful listen.

Towards the end of the second lecture, Pearce takes a question on the need for Christian literature. Pearce says that it is absolutely essential that Christians make good literature, but notes that in the present day he finds a lot of "good bad literature." This is literature that is morally good but artistically bad. Thank goodness that he is willing to speak truth in this matter; literature must not be forced. It must be natural; any theological merit must be the natural outgrowth of the artist's gift. It must not be a planned, programmed set of ideas to which the story must conform. Would that we had more voices like Pearce's noting that while there is a lot of morally good Christian art, literature, music and film, the majority of it is aesthetically repugnant. Our art must be something is appealling on its artistic merits, and we must let the theological chips fall where they may. Tolkien and Lewis understood this. So did Flannery O'Connor and Walkery Percy. Musicians like Sufjan Stevens, Over the Rhine, the Innocence Mission and Pedro the Lion get it. Let us pray that many others will come to do so, as well.

"When a book leaves your hands, it belongs to God. He may use it to save a few souls or to try a few others, but I think that for the writer to worry is to take over God's business."
-Flannery O'Connor

Posted by Matt at 06:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 03, 2005

NFL Question

Is it just me or has Marty Schottenheimer been wearing the same pair of glasses for the last two decades?

Posted by Matt at 04:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Poverty in America

My friend Glenn Lucke at Common Grounds Online sent me this post several days back concerning the nature of poverty in America. The writer of the post, David Lumpkins, feels that the Church is capable of dealing with poverty on these grounds:

"The sad irony is that the Church is uniquely capable of addressing the root causes of poverty in ways that can make a difference. That is because at its core, poverty in Americais not due to a deficit of resources. Poverty in America stems from the moral, spiritual and behavioral deficits in the lives of those ensnared in it. And to the extent that the Gospel represents Truth - that is, the true reality; the way the world really works, and the way that individuals work in that world created by God – then the Church has the best answers for those for whom the world doesn’t work."

That is a terribly controversial remark in some quarters, but I must admit that there is a fair amount of truth to it. I hear a lot of talk about poverty these days, but the solution is usually suggested in the form of government aid. I won't say that aid is always and forever bad, but government solutions rarely address any root causes of poverty. I should mention hear that sometimes poverty just happens in ways that cannot be explained, but let us not kid ourselves. In this day, when people choose to be sexually promiscuous and have children out of wedlock, powerty often results. I'm not saying that the government force people to wear cast iron chastity belts, but it should be obvious to anyone that on some fundamental level, behaviors have results.

The problem here is that it is difficult to make people act in a certain way. I think it is imperative for Christians to acknowledge that until some behaviors change, in America or in the third world, it will be difficult to change poverty. To pretend otherwise is naive and, dare I say, negligent.

Posted by Matt at 04:04 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

Culture Wars

Rod Dreher explains them pretty darn well.

Posted by Matt at 03:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 25, 2005

Answering My Critics

Allow me to make a post answering a few of the criticisms some readers have leveled towards my opposition to Harriet Miers.

First, one can call himself a conservative, but the title must have meaning. The basic conservative principles are laid out by Russell Kirk. You can find them here. Disagree if you like, but for over fifty years, Kirk has been regarded as the father of modern conservatism in America. If one wants to dispute these principles, he shall quickly find himself at odds with practically every conservative of note in this country. At that point, he might begin to ask himself if in fact he is a conservative. And he should seek to find some ideological allies, and with a quickness.

Second, yes, there are a few conservative leaders supporting the Miers nomination. Chief among them are Hugh Hewitt and Newt Gingrich. Hewitt’s argument boils down to loyalty to the President and a fear that the withdrawal of Miers will be politically damaging to the GOP. I don’t believe that to be the case in any event, but it should be noted that a GOP unified around anything resembling most of the Bush spending proposals would be a giant waste of resources. As for Gingrich, the man is entitled to his opinion and certainly he is a valuable conservative, but I don’t believe he’s right in this case. A lot of other folks take that position as well.

Of course one can be a conservative and hold differing opinions on certain matters. One reader cited Pat Buchanan, George F. Will, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Buckley. One would be hard to find many issues wherein Buckley, Will and Limbaugh disagree and as for Buchanan, it has been almost a decade since the conservative moment took him seriously. No informed person outside the mainstream media considers him to be a credible spokesman for the conservative movement.

I never claimed that respect for tradition is the only definition of conservatism. I did in fact asset that it is an attribute of conservatism, one of its most defining characteristics. One reader suggested that by my definition abortion and the New Deal are conservative, but this reasoning is absurd. Conservatism has been defined, for over two centuries, by the value of prescription, as Kirk notes in the passage linked above. When I cite Buckley or Will, it is not so that I might receive a conservative merit badge. It is because the ideological fathers of the movement that supported Goldwater, Reagan and Bush find fault with this nominee. After evaluating her myself, I join them in their disapproval.

If that makes no sense to our readers, there is no more I can say. I did not apologize for these ideas have proven to be valuable for generations, from Burke to Wordsworth to Kirk to Limbaugh. I will not recant them, for I find them to be worthy ideals. As an orthodox (small o) Christian, I find them easily compatible with Scripture. If anyone chooses to support the Miers nomination on grounds of party loyalty, so be it. I find that misguided but well-intentioned. I cannot support this, though I welcome any reader to defend her nomination on grounds that do not evoke the threat of lost Senate seats or a fractured party during the 2006 and 2008 elections. A Supreme Court vacancy must be regarded beyond the upcoming elections, and no President should be afforded loyalty for a campaign promise that has been muddled, if not outright broken.

Posted by Matt at 09:50 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Question of the Day

From Hugh Hewitt:

"
Question: Well into his second term, mired in scandal and obvious unending lies and deepening crisis, did any senior Democrat turn on Bill Clinton? One year into his second term, and days after a huge and historically significant election in Iraq and a month after yet another unfair savaging at the hands of the MSM over Katrina, George Bush surveys his allegedly supportive pundits and the GOP Senate majority that he made, and he finds what?

Is the GOP incapable of governing as a majority?"

Principle over party, Mr. Hewitt. We are conservatives first, Republicans second. George W. Bush alone did not make that Senate majority. One should not throw a party, insult the guests and then be surprised when they are offended, annoyed and, indeed, angered. Mr. Bush has done just that.

Posted by Matt at 01:43 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

October 24, 2005

My Miers Issues

Several readers seem confused about my opposition to the nomination of Harriet Miers, so let clarify. This post is based upon a comment I left in a previous post.

It's been suggested by readers that Harriet Miers has lots of support. From where? The editors of National Review and the Weekly Standard oppose her. Rush Limbaugh is not on board. Neither is Laura Ingraham. Robert Bork doesn't like the idea. The only serious voices that I know of are Ken Starr, Thomas Sowell and Hugh Hewitt. Miers' leading support comes from evangelicals. I'm not sure what Chuck Colson is thinking but don't tell me that James Dobson's opinion matters a whit. It doesn't. Does the man have a credible opinion on constitutional matters that don't involve abortion, gay rights or euthanasia? I mean no disrespect, but why should I care what Dobson or Jay Sekulow think more than I should care about what Rush Limbaugh or Will have to say? Oh, that's right. Dobson and Sekulow are evangelicals. Reckon I should just get in line.

As a grassroots leader, Dobson is second to none. I don't doubt his sincere concern for what have become known as "life issues." Because of their sheer numbers, evangelical often act like they own the market on these issues. The truth is that many people, of all religious backgrounds, take the conservatism position. Thus it is not incumbent upon evangelicals to only support one of their own in order to see their causes advanced. Conservative Catholics and Jews - even a few agnostics - share the same outlook on these matters. Likewise I know that, on the whole, folks like Limbaugh, Will, Krauthammer, Kristol, Frum, et al ad nauseum share the same outlook as evangelicals. It is not as though National Review opposes Miers because she is, supposedly, pro-life.

On the merits, I can't think of a good reason to support Meirs. She has questionable views of affirmative action. She has no paper trail to suggest she has a clear view of Constitutional matters. She rejected the Federalist Society as "partisan." She worships the ABA, a moderate organization at best. She started a lecture series at SMU that has been a revolving door off far-left feminist thought. I could go on but that should suffice.

I am not asking that she be an appelate court justice. I am not asking that she be a politician or a law professor. I am asking that a nominee publicly demonstrate, before their confirmation hearings, that they are, as the President promised his supporters, original constructionists in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. Thus far, I have no reason to believe that Harriet Miers meets that criteria.

I will quiet my opposition if she defends herself well in her confirmation hearings. Thus far, she's not doing well with the Senate's early questioning and, frankly, I think she should withdraw before the hearings start.

Posted by Matt at 09:56 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 23, 2005

Will v. Hewitt

In today's column, George F. Will continues, on conservative grounds, to oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. I join will in his opposition. I mean no ill will towards her; I just don't believe she's a decent candidate, and I think the President nominated her as an act of blind loyalty and lite affirmative action.

Hugh Hewitt takes particular exception to the following passage from Will's piece:

"Miers's advocates tried the incense defense: Miers is pious. But that is irrelevant to her aptitude for constitutional reasoning. The crude people who crudely invoked it probably were sending a crude signal to conservatives who, the invokers evidently believe, are so crudely obsessed with abortion that they have an anti-constitutional willingness to overturn Roe v. Wade with an unreasoned act of judicial willfulness as raw as the 1973 decision itself."

Says Hewitt:

"But so do his missiles about "crude" people. Who are they? James Dobson, Chuck Colson, Jay Sekulow, Lino Graglia, Ken Starr? Four out of five are evangelicals. Does Will equate evangelical faith with crudeness?...And what, exactly, does "crudely obsessed with abortion" mean? Rod Dreher of NationalReview.com's The Corner thought this Will column quite devastating to Miers' nomination supporters. Does Rod agree that seriousness about abortion is "crude?" Does K-Lo? Does William F. Buckley?"

I do not believe for a second that Will finds evangelical Christianity to be crude. Yet he knows - it could not be more plain - that some evangelical leaders are championing a nominee that is blatantly unequalified, and yet they champion her because she shares the same theological conviction and the same, dare I say it, obsession with abortion. In a particular sense, that is certainly a crude position.

Let me make myself clear: abortion is a national shame. It is a horrendous, terrible procedure. Roe v. Wade was a terrible judicial ruling, and scholars on the right and left concur on that point. However, the Supreme Court has other business besides overturning Roe. Those of us conservatives who oppose Meirs do not oppose her because she is an evangelical or because she is rumored to have pro-life positions. We oppose her because we know nothing about how she might proceed on Constitutional matters. And for evangelicals to suggest that Meirs' faith is a qualification is to thereby make faith a question of all nominees to the federal bench. In our Republic, this ought not be so.

Posted by Matt at 01:52 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 20, 2005

The Coburn Amendment

I'm on board. Anyone else?

Posted by Matt at 01:42 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Back to Basics

Peggy Noonan has a message for the President. Something we should all remember. Maybe someone should fax a copy of this over to Pat Robertson. Goodness knows he's not reading the Wall Street Journal.

HT: The Corner.

Posted by Matt at 10:05 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 18, 2005

Condi Comes Home

I'll be seeing Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretery Jack Straw on Friday. Even better, they're staying around to see the mighty Crimson Tide take on Tennessee.

Posted by Matt at 12:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 17, 2005

NR and Elitism

How shall we define elitism?

It was a topic of discussion today at National Review, thanks in part to (surprise, surprise) another stupid remark on the part of Howard Dean. The mention of merlot led to a mention of the movie Sideways, as Kathryn Jean Lopez declares that anyone who likes the movie must be an elitist. Rod Dreher, as usual, is a voice of reason in this moronic debate.

I've spent the last two week defending "elite" conservatism against the likes of Hugh Hewitt and James Dobson, but this is out of hand. National Review is the most important opinion magazine of the last fifty years, but a magazine that regularly features reviews of operas and symphonies should never, under any circumstance, call out someone else as an elitist. This sort of nonsense is what hurts Beltway conservatives.

I've not yet seen Sideways, but I'm sitting about ten feet away from a copy. I might watch it tomorrow. Who knows? The point is that liking an independent movie or disliking bad Starbucks coffee does not make you an elitist. Having taste is never a bad thing, whether it refers to coffee, music, movies or food. The word "elitist" carries with it a certain implication: you think you're better than the guy drinking Maxwell House. But that's not true. I don't think I'm better than the next guy just because I can enjoy a foreign film or jazz. It's just a choice on my part, a choice I make because I think that some movies are better than others. And if a movie recieves critical praise, I reaize two things: First, that sometimes critics are self-serving. Second, critical praise occurs, more often than not, for good reasons. It is almost objectively agreed upon that North By Northwest is a great movie, even better than the latest blockbuster. Even if that blockbuster is family friendly.

Why can't NR make this distinction?

Posted by Matt at 07:45 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Dobson Playin' Politics

Interesting read by John Fund. (HT: BHT)

Posted by Matt at 05:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 13, 2005

Absolutely Infuriating

This is absolute garbage. If some evangelical leader won't call out Robertson for this, then we have a serious problem on our hands. Is there no leader with enough integrity to publicly and kindly say that this man is a buffoon? Or does the rest of the evangelical leadership think this is correct?

Posted by Matt at 02:44 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

October 11, 2005

The Evangelical Crackup

John Podhoretz cites Hugh Hewitt's comments on the evangelical base. Hewitt seems to think at a GOP rejection of Meirs will lead to evangelicals abandoning the GOP.

I'll admit that's possible but if it happens, it's not that evangelicals who will be standing on principle.

I don't know how to make this any plainer. Conservatives who oppose Meirs are not in opposition to her faith. Period. If any of my SCO colleauges disagree, or if any readers can provide credible evidence to the contrary, I'm happy to see it. But the simple truth is that on the surface, Harriet Meirs is not a credible candidate. I don't care where she goes to church. I don't care if she taught Sunday School. I don't care if James Dobson likes her. I want to know what she thinks about the Constitution because there's more to being a Supreme Court justice than a woman's view of Roe v. Wade. If evangelical leaders can't understand this, then evangelicals aren't ready for primetime.

Here's a good Rich Lowry piece on the matter.

Posted by Matt at 06:01 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Conservatives and Evangelicals

Lo and behold, it looks like I'm not the only one who's tired of the "evangelical leadership."

See this letter and this letter at NRO.

Posted by Matt at 02:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 10, 2005

Jumping Off the Train

Reading this and everything else at the Corner this morning (keep a'scrollin'), it makes me wonder if Chuck Colson and Al Mohler want to jump off this bandwagon before it runs off a cliff.

If evangelical leaders aren't very, very careful, they're going to lose an enormous amount of credibility.

Posted by Matt at 11:28 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Fund On Meirs, Land

John Fund opposes Harriet Meirs, and nails Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention in the process:

"But it was Richard Land , president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who went so far as to paint Ms. Miers as virtually a tool of the man who has been her client for the past decade. "In Texas, we have two important values, courage and loyalty," he told a conference call of conservative leaders last Thursday. "If Harriet Miers didn't rule the way George W. Bush thought she would, he would see that as an act of betrayal and so would she." That is an argument in her favor. It sounds more like a blood oath than a dignified nomination process aimed at finding the most qualified individual possible."

(Hat Tip: Ramesh Ponnuru)

Someone is playing the evangelical leadership like a finely-tuned fiddle. The fact that no one else is offering enthusiastic support for Meirs should do more than raise eyebrows. This is downright embarrassing. Evangelical poltical action may have just jumped the shark.

Posted by Matt at 11:07 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Back on Top

For the first time in a long time, Penn State, Notre Dame and the mighty Crimson Tide of the University of Alabama are all ranked in the AP Top Ten.

Life is good.

Posted by Matt at 01:13 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Last Word on Meirs

This is my last comment on the Meirs nomination. I'll say more about the controversy and discussion within the conservative ranks later. For now, read this piece, especially this quote from Judge Robert Bork:

"It's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already...t's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."

What more do you want? Call him part of the Beltway elite, but if anyone is going to be fair in this thing, it's Robert Bork. If you value Jay Sekulow or James Dobson's opinion on Court matters more than Robert Bork, nothing will persuade you. Either way, the simple truth of the matter is that Judge Bork has been fighting in the trenches for this thing for a long, long time. His voice matters, and even if he's not an evangelical (the golden word these days, apparently), he speaks from a place of high importance.

The more I read the President's comments on this matter, the more I'm disappointed. It's not a stretch to say that this is a betrayal of the conservatives who put push into office. Let me repeat that: It has been conservatism that put W. in office. Evangelicals cast the votes, but had the conservative movement not laid the groundwork for this sort of the thing over the last five decades, evangelicals would not have the political firepower they have today. It's the truth, and it's a position I'll defend with vigor.

Posted by Matt at 12:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 06, 2005

Hillyer On Meirs

Nice post on NRO.

Folks, this isn't about elitism. I don't care where Meirs went to school. I don't care that she's not attending tonight's National Review dinner in NYC. She could be pro wrestling afficianado for all I care, and I would support her nomination if there were one shred of evidence to suggest that she has a proper understanding of the judiciary.

So far, there isn't, and these evangelical defenses of her aren't holding an ounce of water.

Posted by Matt at 02:00 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

W on the War

This is a masterful speech. Read it in its entirety.

Posted by Matt at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Getting In Line

I'll offer a larger rebuttal to Jim's piece later today, but I'll again cite David Frum. This morning's piece says a whole lot, including some thought on Ms. Meirs' view of stem cell issues.

While we're at it, could someone tell me one area where traditional conservatism and evangelicals are at a disagreement on legal matters? I'm having a hard time thinking of one.

Posted by Matt at 11:49 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

October 05, 2005

Reliable Votes

Here's an interesting letter sent to Jonah Goldberg.
The most interesting part:

"I get the impression that only reliable vote that many of those who are supporting Miers care about is on abortion. I have many issues that concern me as least as much or more than abortion. Where does Miers stand on federalism issues? What are her views of the commerce clause? How would she have voted on Kelo? Campaign finance reform? Has she even thought about any of this?"

Likewise I would ask have any of her defenders even thought about any of this? And don't tell me to trust the President, because he broke his trust on campaign finance reform, and his federalism is highly, highly suspect. What does Dr. Dobson think about the commerce clause?

Posted by Matt at 11:17 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

My Questions about Meirs

In relation to Jim's post below, let me offer a brief response as it appears that I am the anti-Meirs 'round these parts. I am thrilled that Ms. Meirs is a Christian, and I trust that her faith has been a source of strength for her and for those around her. But her faith alone says nothing about her qualifications for the nation's highest court. I am not asking that the nominee have any particular characteristic in terms of gender, race or religion. I simply want a candidate whose legal abilities are clearly and confidently articulated in their past work. There is nothing in Ms. Meirs' past work suggesting she has a clearly defined belief about what should be the nature of the executive, legislative or judicial branches. It is a dangerous thing to have her make up her mind about such matters while on the Court.

And as for the President's relationship with her, and his serious view of the court, I offer this from George F. Will:

"In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to insure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, ``I agree.'' Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, ``I do.'"

The rest of Will's column is here, and I would defy anyone to rebut his argument without citing "trust" of the President. If this is beltway elitism, then sign me up.

Posted by Matt at 09:45 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 04, 2005

All the Proof I Need...

Rod Dreher cites George F. Will's latest column, speaking against the Meirs nomination.

If George F. Will, Bill Kristol and the editors of National Review can't support her, then no serious conservative can, either.

Supreme Court nominations are not about trust.

Posted by Matt at 06:11 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Trusting Dubya

I'll admit it. I trust the President.

With that out of the way, and with all due respect to Jim and his well-written post, I have two words for anyone who'll support Harriet Miers simply because she's an evangelical:

Jimmy Carter

It may turn out that Ms. Miers reveals herself to be such a wonderful justice and original constructionist that James Madison and Edmund Burke both rise up to pat her on the back. But if she doesn't, evangelicals will have no one but themselves to blame.

I've suggested before that evangelicals - as a body of people - have not yet, with clarity and consistency, articulated any clear political ideology. Evangelical votes have centered on two things: gay rights and reproductive/life issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning). When these points are gone, where does the evangelical leadership stand? Is James Dobson going to have a Justice Sunday rally to fight the Court's outrageous ruling on eminent domain? I doubt it, though it can be easily established that abusing eminent domain is a grave evil. It seems as though the evangelical grassroots can be pacified on the grounds that Ms. Meirs is "one of us," but the problem is that when abortion and gay rights aren't on the table, how will evangelicals vote?

Yes, the President knows and trusts Ms. Meirs, but then again his own conservatism is often dubious, as witnessed by his reckless spending, his disaster-in-waiting immigration policy, his refusal to veto the campaign finance reform bill and his basic belief that government should help instead of get out of the way.

I trust the President, but I don't trust politicians. And the simple truth is that evangelicals who cannot explicitly identify themselves as conservatives have now fully established themselves as the biggest interest group in the country. I'm sure the President understands the importance of the Court, but for my money, I care more about a nominee's judicial philosophy than where she goes to Church. I'll take David Frum over Marvin Olasky any day of the week. And I'll take Ramesh Ponnuru. And Ronald A. Cass. And Randy Barnett. Then there's this: Jay Sekulow is a team player? Yuck. And Jonah nails the evangelical theory.

If Dobson thinks I'm going to support Meirs because she's an evangelical, then he is mistaken. And he's in serious danger of becoming the Jesse Jackson of the Christian Right.

We should know better.

Posted by Matt at 12:14 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 03, 2005

Boo on Miers

Hugh Hewitt says conservatives should trust the President's new pick for the Supreme Court. I like Hewitt's poker analogy, but frankly, I trust Mark Levin, Ramesh Ponurru and Rich Lowry more. And no, Hugh, I don't trust what appears to be another crony appointment.

Is there anything the President could do that would earn Hewitt's ire?

Posted by Matt at 11:44 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

October 01, 2005

Roll Tide!

Not a bad way to spend a Saturday afternoon.

And if you've never had the pleasure of spending a day at a rowdy college football game, might I suggest you read Warren St. John's delightful Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer. The book is a fun recounting of St. John's year following the Crimson Tide.

Incidentally, that year was 1999, the last time Alabama beat Florida. Twice. For the SEC title. The Tide lost in the Orange Bowl, but that sort of thing can be forgiven when you lose to a quarterback named Tom Brady.

Roll Tide, indeed.

Update: Ivan Maisel has more.

Posted by Matt at 09:57 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Charlie Weiss - Great Guy

This is just the most touching story I've read in a long time.

Then again, as an Alabama fan, I can't help but cringe just a little bit every time I hear about Notre Dame passing to the tight end while deep in their own territory.

Posted by Matt at 11:38 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 28, 2005

Derb on Dylan

John Derbyshire has a great piece on the new Martin Scorsese documentary about Bob Dylan.

Posted by Matt at 11:02 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Act Now

Note: This is no way intending to sound preachy; just some thoughts I've had.

I'm learning how to handle this delicate balance, to believe passionately in something and yet to accep that others believe in a different manner, though I may be vehemently convinced that they are wrong. Completely, objectively wrong. As a Christian, I believe in sovereignty but surely that doesn't mean that I don't care and believe that truth - objective truth - has a place in history, economics and the arts. And yet all around I see those with their heads in the clouds - blinders on the sides of their faces - pretending that nothing in this world is wrong. I can't accept that. I won't accept that.

I had a friend once who sang for a punk band. He was an agnostic to the best of my knowledge, though he may be an atheist. (Nick, do you know?) The band always played this one particular song about my friend's uneasy relationship with some Christian believers in his own life and before each time, he would say the song was about people "whose eyes are on the heavens while the world around them is burning like a hell." I thought then, as I do now, that such an analysis was unfair in a general sense, but all too often it was accurate in many specific cases. I, however, won't apologize for looking to Heaven. For when I see Heaven, I see the Cross. And though I see, ultimately, the most significant portrayal of love imaginable in the Cross of Christ, I believe, like Bonhoffer, that the call to believe in this Love is a call to follow, a call to die. This love is not merely sappy or sentimental. The call to come and die is a call to sacrifice and sometimes even, as Bonhoffer sorrowfully demonstrated, a call to fight.

I can't be silent about moral decay in my culture. I don't mean MTV. I don't mean Desperate Housewives or Sex and the City. I mean the state of moral apathy that crassly suggests that this nothing worth dying for, that there is nothing worth sacrifice, that every system of values - whether religious, cultural, social or economic - is valid, equal and good. That doesn't mean we should ever hate or disdain others. But it does mean that even in my desire as a believer to be humble and merciful, I should not feel guilty for believing in a sense of truth and justice, knowing that standards do in fact exist, and the defense of objective truth is a worthy pursuit.

As an example, and I say this as one who loves living in a college town, I suppose I am simply tired of seeing college students (even believers) live as though nothing matters outside their own world. There is suffering in this world. There is injustice in this world. Slavery still exists. There are ways in which we can demonstrate mercy to all kinds of people (first and foremost) and yes, in some cases, other living things. Religious freedom is endangered around the world. There is ample injustice in America, as well, though I would caution that trying to fix any economic problems in America or around the world, in, say, I don't know...Africa?, by tax and spend programs is like trying to fill a round hole with a square peg.

Posted by Matt at 10:56 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 27, 2005

Oh, Atlanta!

The Atlanta Braves just won their fourteenth straight division title.

Fourteen.

Here's a great piece about the best manager in baseball, Bobby Cox.

Go Braves!

Posted by Matt at 10:10 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

SCO Must Reads

Over at the BHT, Michael Spencer is speaking the plain truth about FEMA.

He also refers to this post by Tim Challies concerning the Ashley Smith/Brian Nichols/Purpose-Driven Life saga.

In the days after the Smith story broke, I was listening to a sports talk show that is very popular in the Deep South. Lots of callers were talking about their experience with the book. I heard a lot about purpose. I didn't hear much at all about the Gospel.

Just saying.

Posted by Matt at 04:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 26, 2005

Contrasting Views

Here's an editorial in last week's Crimson White, the student newspaper at the University of Alabama, my alma mater and current school. The piece was written by a Christian.

Here's a response in today's paper written by someone who is not a believer.

Discuss among yourselves.

Posted by Matt at 05:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 22, 2005

More on Worldviews

There's been a lot of said over the last few years about the Christian worldview, its positives and its excesses. Let me offer this piece as a means of detailing where I agree and where I disagree with the prevailing worldview and its implications. The catalyst for this was this piece by the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer. I'm not in total opposition to Spencer's viewpoint, but I want to offer my own slant on the topic.

To begin, let me offer this much: A great deal of the worldview thinking has gone overboard. I think the Worldview Weekend is lame. It goes to ridiculous lengths to endorse the GOP as God's Party. I'm not on board with that. I think Nancy Pearcey takes some absurd leaps when she tries to suggest that rock music is inappropriate for the Christian believer. While I respect Francis Schaeffer's work, I also think he drew some unnecessary philosophical lines that labeled lots of things as "dangerous" when they needn't be, i.e. anything influenced by Kirkegaard or Barth. I didn't say we had to agree with it, mind you, I'm just saying that those ideas aren't immediately dangerous in the way that Sartre or Camus are.

Having said that, and I hope to revisit my criticism of Pearcey soon enough, let me detail where I am on board with the notion that Biblical orthodoxy can lead to certain social, economic and political beliefs. It's true enough that there is no Scripture arguing for the creation of a capitalist state, but I can look at the Bible and see a basic endorsement of personal freedom, the right to private property, and the freedom to ply one's craft without any sort of major interference from an oppressive government. Scripture suggests that we should maintain communal bonds, caring for one another and those who cannot care for themselves. The New Testament doesn't go a long way in suggesting that we care for others by taxing ourselves and then practicing a generic redistribution of wealth. My point here is to suggest that some degree of free-market economics can easily be justified by Scripture. Can free market economics be abused? Absolutely, and I reject any idea that says the market rules above all. Christians in business and government must be fair and euitable in all their dealings.

Now as it relates to specific government proposals, of course the Bible doesn't offer an opinion on health care. But I can look at the problem of socialized health care and see that it leads to ridiculously high taxes, a lack of choice for the individial and, typically, a decrease in the quality of health care. That may not be explicitly Biblical, but it sure is common sense. We might call it natural law, no? And like Aquinas, I believe that natural law was instituted by God, and any government program that consistenly tries to kick against natural law and first principles just isn't going to work. And yes, we're fallen humans, so nothing is going to flourish forever, but there's a significant difference between an idea that has problems and an idea that is an unmitigated disaster.

So what then does the Christian think about tax policy and welfare? Specifically, I don't know that a believer could argue for the Reagan tax policy as opposed to the Bush policy. But given the intentions of the government, I do think one could make a case that the Reagan policy was better than the LBJ policy or that Margaret Thatcher's ideas were better than Tony Blair's. Why? Well, not to sound too pragmatic, but they worked. And I don't mean that God's on the side of the winner, but I mean that Thatcher and Reagan worked (while LBJ and Blair haven't) because they've adhered to first principles of natural law when developing their economic policies, believing that individuals and communities know best, that government should stay out of the way and that private charity is most effective. Is that the Christian position? I don't know. I don't want a sermon on it this Sunday, but at the same time, I don't want us to pretend that God hasn't laid down certain natural precepts that will lead to a smoother (not necessarily perfect - totally depravity and all that) flow in the economy. To suggest that a Christian can be for any old party is to suggest that those parties don't take a stance on these matters and that perhaps God doesn't either. That's just plain false.

If what I've endorsed sounds an awful lot like conservatism, well, so be it. The simple truth is that the major American conservatives of the last fifty years have, on the whole, been both orthodox Christians and Jews (with a few agnostic exceptions), meaning that they held to certains understandings of natural law that are easily extrapolated from Scripture. Likewise, a brief perusal of the Conservative Reader shows a fair number of Christians, Lewis, Eliot and Muggeridge included, within its ranks. If that makes some people uncomfortable, then so be it. I don't want the church to wave the banner for the Republican party, but on this aspect of politics, I'm generally persuaded that the traditionally conservative position is the more defensible one for the Christian tradition.

Consider this part one of a series. I will return, hopefully tonight or tomorrow, with my thoughts on where the Christian worldview is perhaps off on matters of art and where, despite some terrible Evangelical public relations, is still pretty much right on matters of family and marriage.

Posted by Matt at 12:42 PM | Comments (31) | TrackBack

September 21, 2005

LSU - Overrated?

With all due respect to Josh Britton, let me offer a suggestion:

LSU is, currently, the most overrated team in college football. Why? It's got a little something to do with the asinine preseason rankings. The poll voters have a tendency to keep preseason rankings in place until a top team loses. For example, the number one and two teams, USC and Texas, respectively, have not lost. Therefore they remain in their position. LSU had a preseason ranking of number three, thus they remain in that position.

There's just one problem. They've played one game. One. Yes, I know there was a hurricane, but they've only missed one game. Florida, Georgia, Florida State and Virginia Tech all have records of 3-0 with wins against quality opponents, but they won't move up the ranks until LSU loses. All this because of a lame preseason polling system.

Weak.

Posted by Matt at 12:30 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 20, 2005

Pat Robertson

Interesting stuff from Mere Comments.

I say let's give him the boot and be done with it.

Posted by Matt at 07:43 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sitting It Out

Rick's going to love this one.

I'm pretty sick of the spending and all this cronyism on the part of W is eight kinds of lame. So in next fall's national elections, I'm thinking very seriously of sitting out. Alabama has a Senator up for reelection; Jeff Sessions is a good man, but he may have to win without my vote. I've got a Democrat Congressman; I won't be voting for him, but I may not be voting for the GOP candidate, either.

If I sit one out, I'll be back on the team in 2008, but this nonsense has to end.

See Rod Dreher and the Michelle Malkin link that Rick referenced earlier.

Posted by Matt at 06:43 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Worldview Pros and Cons

A few nights ago at Matt Crash!, I linked to a post by Dr. Al Mohler on the topic of adults choosing to delay children. In a post today at the Boars Head Tavern, Michael Spencer took issue with the piece, saying:

"Finally, The topics that relate to the Christian worldview never cease to amaze me. I mean, I get it, but where we are going here? If you don't get married and have babies quick...what? God is offended? The culture goes to the dogs? I'm just unclear."

I'll have more to say about Spencer's most recent critique of the current issues at work within the dogmatic framework of the "Christian worldview," but I'm at a loss to see why he has a problem here. Let me begin by saying I share his concern that Mohler's blogging and online commentary is often too political. Frankly, there are many more commentators doing a much better job at dealing with cultural issues. On top of that, Mohler's "blog" is often little more than a collection of links or summaries of other articles. Likewise I share the feeling with other bloggers that Mohler does lots of scolding with little understanding. So my point here is not in defending Mohler, though like Spencer, I have a lot of respect for his work at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and within the theological community.

I've taken issue with Mohler before, most notably concerning the topic of delayed marriage. Yet I was not stating disagreement with Mohler's concern in this post and this one. I was then and am now bothered by his inability to understand the circumstances faced by my generation. To date, he has not yet shown a proper understanding. This might have something to do with always speaking at seminaries and Christian colleges, instead of talking to students at, for lack of a better term, secular institutions.

Having said that, I think Mohler is basically right about the dangers in delaying both marriage and childbirth. Yes, I know there are plenty of good Christian twentysomethings delaying both of these things for purposes of ministry. There are also lots of good Christian twentysomethings having fun being single and living like a nineteen year old. I know plenty of them; up until about a year ago, I was really looking forward to being one of them. I guess my question for folks like Spencer is this: even if "early" marriage isn't a biblical position (like, say, tithing) it is certainly a practice that nearly every society in human history has decided to undertake. If we decide that it's a point that we can adhere to at our own whim, we are conceding to drastic cultural change. Mohler would likely suggest, as I do, that Christians should be slow to accept such change. This change is the result of technological and industrial advances; should the Church give up this ground?

A secondary point I would emphasize is that Mohler's position on this matter is by no means limited to evangelical Christians. Conservative Catholics often hold this position in places like National Review and First Things. Nonevangelicals take up the argument in the Weekly Standard and Touchstone. Orthodox believers like John Mark Reynolds and Frederica Matthewes-Green do, as well. Stanley Kurtz has been making an essentially secular argument that says delaying marriage and children will ultimately be detrimental to our social order. So while folks like Al Mohler and James Dobson make an evangelical push - and again, I'm not entirely comfortable with their premises - there are many, many others who come to the same conclusions with slightly different arguments. These arguments are often more persuasive, in my opinion, but I worry that Spencer and others like him are ignoring important cultural matters because of an understandable problem with the way many evangelicals present the issue.

Posted by Matt at 12:34 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 13, 2005

Eagles - Falcons

What a great game in Atlanta. The remarch of the NFC Championship was just a fantastic contest; a great start to the swan song of ABC's Monday Night Football. Michael Vick played great. Atlanta's defense was brutal. DeAngelo Hall is becoming a phenom at cornerback. Just awesome.

I'm not much of an Eagles fan, by the way. Go Falcons.

Posted by Matt at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

College Football Talk

Saturday was a fun day of college football. This piece on ESPN.com discusses a busy day full of exciting football. As a graduate of the University of Alabama, and a strong fan of traditional football powerhouses, I particularly enjoyed this quip by former coach Lou Holtz:

"Notre Dame improves to 2-0, along with Alabama, Nebraska and Penn State -- four programs steeped in tradition that are trying to regain their places among college football's elite."

College football would be a much better place with such schools returning to glory, as opposed to johnny-come-latelys like Louisville.

Posted by Matt at 12:22 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 12, 2005

Katrina and Judgment

In relation to Tom's post citing the post at Theologica, I would refer readers to this portion:

"If it wasn't God's judgment, then what was it? It was a disaster - an unnatural disaster - caused by the fallen condition of the world. People, animals, and nature are other than they might have been because of the Fall. It is profitable to distinguish between "Sin" - a state or condition of people, nations, and nature - and "sins," which are specific manifestations of the reality of Sin. Hurricane Katrina was the result of Sin, but it was not a judgment on sins."

I'm willing, on a basic level, to believe that God stills lays out specific judgements on places, people or institutions. In a way, I'm open to the idea that God could use someone to warn about the destruction. That said, given New Orleans' location, it's an easy prediction to make, and I would be cautious of such a claim, especially if the words "tv preacher" are anywhere on the person's resume.

Yet even if we choose to believe that God specifically sent the hurricane as a judgement against Mississippi's casinos and New Orleans' voodoo, strip clubs, drug trade and gambling, it serves absolutely no purpose at this stage to make such commentary. There are people who are homeless, starving, thirsty and naked. These folks do not need armchair theologians suggesting that God leveled their home because He was angry about the Gold Room's presence in the French Quarter. Maybe that's why it happened. I don't know. God's ways are not my ways and there are a lot of things I don't understand. And it's precisely because I don't understand that I'm going to keep my mouth closed, and do nothing but help. Offer food or clothes or money or time or housing or something. Certainly I'll offer my prayers. And yes, we should remind the hurting that God is real. He is not silent, even in the midst of such tragedy. We might even, at a point in the future, suggest that however much fun New Orleans can be (and it can be very fun), the city would be better off without the rampant hedonism. Change will come to Tuscaloosa or San Francisco or New Orleans as the Holy Spirit changes hearts. We can open doors by our service and love; suggesting that God left thousands homeless doesn't help anyone, neither the suffering nor the church.

Posted by Matt at 09:21 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 11, 2005

A Busy September 11

It's September 11. That means three things.

First, it my mother's birthday. She is an incredible woman. Sweet, kind, gentle. She loves Jesus and taught me to do the same. She works hard and loves her family fiercely. She is also a terrific cook. I love you, Mom.

Second, it is the birthday of the greatest coach in college football history. He was the best and no one will ever be better. Here's a good Coach Bryant quote:

"I'm just a simple plow hand from Arkansas, but I have learned over the years how to hold a team together. How to lift some men up, how to calm others down, until finally they've got one heartbeat, together, a team." Bryant, when asked why he was so successful as a coach."

Today is also the anniversary of September 11. I don't know that I could ever discuss the tragedy and outrage of that day better than Christopher Hitchens. Read this essay here. Try this quote:

"This steely injunction is diluted by Ground Zero kitsch or by yellow-ribbon type events, which make the huge mistake of marking the event as a "tribute" of some sort to those who happened to die that day. One must be firm in insisting that these unfortunates, or rather their survivors, have no claim to ownership. They stand symbolically, as making the point that theocratic terrorism murders without distinction. But that's it. The time to commemorate the fallen is, or always has been, after the war is over. This war has barely begun. The printing of crayon daubs by upset schoolchildren and the tussle over who gets what from the compensation slush fund are strictly irrelevant and possibly distracting. Dry your eyes, sister. You, too, brother. Stiffen up."

I want to be careful here. I am not a warmonger, and I do not encourage wanton violence. I want to always maintain a Christ-like sense of charity and goodwill to my neighbors. And yet I hope with all sincerity that 9/11 never leaves our national conscience. It must always remain in our minds, not so that we harrass our neighbors, but so that we forever remain aware that there is evil in this world. Sometimes that evil must be defeated by strength of arms. Our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are not in vain. The fight for freedom against religious hatred in Iran is not in vain. These struggles, if made successful, will bear fruit - freedom for the citizens of those beleagured nations and security for our own. We must defend ourselves and we must, as much as we can, strive to provide freedom to millions who cannot defend themselves in nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea and the former Soviet states. I pray that our leaders exercise our power judiciously, but I pray that have the courage to use it when necessary. And I will always pray that the Church remain vigilant in spreading the Gospel, making known the glory of Christ and His supremacy in all things, demonstrating kindness and mercy to all men.

Posted by Matt at 10:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 09, 2005

The Conservative Voice

Mr. Buckley speaks on Katrina.

Posted by Matt at 11:25 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Some Thoughts on FEMA

Over at the Corner, Rod Dreher says this and this.

I really don't know what to say. The cronyism can't be excused. I'll hold the administration responsible, but put in context, I don't expect much more from any politician. Speaking to Rick's main concern, Christian or not, the President is in charge of a bureaucracy. I don't care who is in charge ,bureaucracies always have problems. I've got to believe that we can develop ways of dealing with disasters without giving the federal government more power.

Speaking to Rick's concerns about conservatives being out of touch, well, despite this recent surge of Dobson-esque conservatism, conservatives have always aimed to stand athwart history. We yell stop, remember? If that phrase is foreign to any of our readers, then read nothing political that isn't named National Review. There are ways to help disaster relief without subverting the Constitution and setting precedent that will surely be abused in future years. The President did the right thing, and the blame game can wait.

And the truth of it all is that until the clean up is over, there's no sense in dishing out blame. We'll have plenty of time to do that. No matter how inept FEMA may (or may not) have been, it's important for any friend of the President to realize that Democrats in Congress, liberal activists and their media allies who will use any tragedy (natural or otherwise) to attack the President. If blame is to be assigned, let's find the culprits quietly and quickly. Let's have their heads and be done with it, but do it in a clean manner that doesn't shoot the GOP in the foot next fall.

Sound callous? I don't intend for it to be, but I also want to ensure that while justice is done, the Democrats don't find themselves back in power in 2006 and 2008. Nor do I want the Constitution unravelled to suit sketchy public opinion.

Posted by Matt at 07:15 PM | Comments (14) | TrackBack

September 08, 2005

Kids Need Moms

I just saw a commercial for ITT Technical Institute. The commercial was something of a testimonial, though it's anyone's guess about whether or not the story is real. The commercial revolves around a woman stating that she was a stay-at-home mom who wanted to give her kids everything they needed.

Let that sink in. She was a mother, at home for her children every day of the week, and she felt that her kids needed more. Now I understand that sometimes mothers need to work. My mom always has, and I still believe she's done a magnificent job raising me and my siblings. But let's not kid ourselves; there's an attitude in society that says kids need more gadgets, bells and whistles to be successful. But we don't. Not at all. We need our parents; moms and dads. We need extrended family. We need a neighborhood where we are safe and welcome. We don't have to have iPods and month-long vacations. I don't mean to sound harsh about this at all; families experience different things and I've grown up with my mom working. She has still been a wonderful mother and I love her very much. I'm just saying this idea in our society that kids need so much that both parents need to be out of the home...well, it's not healthy.

Posted by Matt at 08:45 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 07, 2005

ESPN Makes a Mistake

ESPN has fired Trev Alberts. What a boneheaded move. Trev has consistenly been one of the more entertaining components of the network's college football programming. Far more entertaining than the crazy Lee Corso.

Paul Finebaum has more.

Posted by Matt at 07:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 05, 2005

Should W Apologize?

In a post below, I said that the President should not bear responsibility for all that has taken place in New Orleans. In the comment section, my colleague Rick took issue. I posted a response, and I repost it here:

"Not buying it. Not for a minute. The buck stops with him, but if there's no apology from the city leadership in NOLA (which has been corrupt for generations), none from the state leadership in LA (which has likewise been corrupt), none from the congressional delegation, and if said apology would be further damage to his administration and his party, then W should under no circumstances take responsibility."

What do my colleagues and our readers think?

Posted by Matt at 09:50 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

It Ain't W's Fault

Next time you hear a talking (empty)head blather on about how the federal government is to blame for everything wrong in New Orleans, remember this post from Rich Lowry at the Corner. Here's a few highlights:

--“The mayor and the governor are negligent and incompetent. The administration has tried to smooth out the chain of command, but she won't do it. The constitution says that the governor is in charge of the Guard.” (The Washington Post wrote about this on Saturday--and KJL excerpted the relevant bit in here.)

--“None of those poor people were moved prior to the storm. They were told to go to the Superdome, but they had to walk there. Whose responsibility is that?”

-- “General Honore in one day got 20,000 people evacuated from the convention center with a ground and air evacuation. Have you heard about that in the media?”

and more:

--“There are no law enforcement problems in Mississippi. They have been acting there with the cooperation of the governor. In New Orleans, they don't have the same kind of cooperation from the governor or the mayor. It's not as stream-lined or as effective as it could be.”

--“The New Orleans police disintegrated. The national response plan calls for state and local to be the first on the scene. But the catastrophe wiped out the whole local infrastructure and the emergency communications. 80% of the police disintegrated and they are just not beginning to re-constitute.”

note: DHS = Department of Homeland Security

Posted by Matt at 05:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

God-bloggers on Katrina

For a really amazing interview concerning the Christan response to the disaster in New Orleans, go toRadioblogger and scroll down to the post entitled "God-bloggersr reaction to Katrina." I think a lot of people want to blame the hurricane on a lot of things, and I won't really disagree, but here's some wise words from Dr. Al Mohler:

"Oh, absolutely. It went both ways. Job's wife wanted him to curse God, and Job's friends wanted to curse Job. And in reality...you know, Hugh, we're facing some pretty difficult issues here, but there are a couple of things I would want to warn us against. I hear out there in talk land, and in the community, and even among some Christians, some of them are ready to say I know exactly why this storm hit New Orleans. It was because of A or B or C. You know, that's exactly what God told Job's friends not to speculate about. And at the same time, I hear other people saying look. God's not even involved in this. God couldn't prevent this. And so, let's just curse God. Well, we know that that's not right, either. God is right in the midst of this. He is the soveriegn God, Creator of the universe, and He is the one right now who is holding the world together by the power of His word."

Mohler also had this to say about the proper Christian response:

"Well, I think the first thing we have to do is to weep with those who weep. And this is not a tragedy that is over. It continues to unfold. And so right now, there are people who do not know where their wives and husbands and children are. They have no idea what their future might be. They have no idea if there's even a home to which they can return. Some of them already know they have lost loved ones, and some of them have not even been recovered, in terms of bodies. So there's an appropriate Christian response to weep with those who weep. And then we have to be there to do what we possibly can do. To feed the hungry and to clothe those who are naked, and to give water, and all these things, by the way, are not just metaphorical needs. These are dramatic, physical needs of the present. And then we as Christians have to be there to speak, not so much on behalf of God like Job's friends, but to speak as Christians. To speak of the hope that is within us, and to speak to those who right now have no hope."

I haven't done much to help, really. A little money to the North American Mission Board and Samaritan's Purse. Some clothes to the Red Cross. I'll probably drop off some food at some point. But I've got friends who've spent time working hand in hand with those that are hurting. I'm so thankful for their contribution, and immeasurably proud that those I count as friends are working to help those in need. It's something that warms my heart in a particular way; my loved ones dedicating their lives to the aid of others.

Posted by Matt at 01:03 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 02, 2005

The Clueless Andrew Sullivan

This may be about the stupidest thing I've heard in a long, long time. Here's the crucial part:

"After four years, they are still incompetent, unprepared, unable to have made the real changes that we need to have made. In the case of New Orleans, criminally negligent. People have died because of their inability to plan, to spend wisely, to set real priorities, to respond quickly. That goes for New Orleans. And it also applies to Iraq."

What a pathetic and ignorant statement. The city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana have had corrupt and incompetent governments for decades, and yet it's George W. Bush's fault that this happened. Say what you like about the administration's response - it could have been better but it hasn't been awful - but to suggest that the disaster itself is the fault of this administration is remarkably foolish. Sullivan should know better, but apparently he doesn't.

Now is not the time for analysis, whether from pundits or victims. Pundits don't know what they're talking about, and most evacuees aren't in a place of enough clarity to provide a serious opinion.

So Andrew, do us all a favor. Keep quiet.

Posted by Matt at 11:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

A Distraction from Tragedy

The best sports-talk show host in the South now has a blog.

Posted by Matt at 02:08 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Digging Deep

Powerful words about sports and tragedy from one of the best sportswriters in the South. Money quote to Alabama fans and to anyone else who has ears to ear:

"Alabama fans, and Alabamians at large, don’t need to be lectured. They don’t need to be reminded to help. I haven’t spoken with anyone this week without hearing expressions of concern and a willingness to contribute. Donations to the American Red Cross, which will be collecting on campus today, will be high.

My only suggestion would be this: When you see those images of Barry Krauss and George Teague and their Sugar Bowl heroics, remember where they were, and then emulate what they did, which was to dig deep, not for individual glory but for the good of an entire team."

Posted by Matt at 01:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

September 01, 2005

The Magic City

After reading this, I've never been more proud of my hometown of Birmingham.

Posted by Matt at 10:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Planned Parenthood's Outrage

What a horrendous thing to do.

Posted by Matt at 10:39 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Dr. Moore to RFK Jr. - Apologize

Russell Moore has a message for RFK Jr.

Posted by Matt at 08:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Speechless

Heartbreak and Hope.

And a map. Very interesting.

HT: The Corner

Posted by Matt at 08:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Thoughts on New Orleans

I was supposed to go to New Orleans this weekend. It was supposed to be a fun Labor Day weekend; lots of book and record shopping. Spicy food. Jazz. Coffee and chicory. Beignets. We opted not to go a few weeks back, as the costs of graduate school and the reality of brutal New Orleans weather sunk in. We would wait. We would visit New Orleans when the heat had slightly subsided, sometime in November. The wind would be crisp off the river, and we’d sit at Café DuMonde and sip café au lait like there was no tomorrow.

Right now, in New Orleans, there is no tomorrow.

New Orleans is not my home, but I was born there. My father was born there. His parents were born there. When my paternal grandmother’s grandparents arrived in America from Sicily, they settled in the Crescent City. My roots there run deep. My immediate family has not lived in the city for over twenty years, but my father can still show me around the Quarter, the Garden District and the outskirts in Metarie, all the places he knew as a youngster, walking to the movies with his cousins and rummaging through Grandpa’s grocery store.

Where are these places now? What filth and rubbish has washed through Grandma’s house? Is it even standing? Has some looter - pathetic despite his sorrowful lot in life - ransacked that home? I pray not. I don’t often speak or hear from my family in New Orleans; they’re distant relatives and it’s hard to stay in touch. I trust that they are safe. A good friend’s brother was out of town when Katrina laid out her wrath. He knows that his apartment was not flooded, but he wonders when he can return home and what will remain when he returns.

But what of the others? The countless men and women and children wandering the streets knee deep in a vile stew of waste and water, hungry, thirsty, dehydrated. The depraved thugs looting not for survival but for pleasure. The bullies parading the city with AK-47s and sawed-off shotguns. The city can be unforgiving at times, brutally violent and overwhelming dangerous in certain areas. Bourbon Street can be filthy enough in the heat and humidity. It can reek of booze and fried food and grease and sex and every possible form of human waste. I can only imagine the awful stench when those elements float around in circles for days on end.

And yet New Orleans is full of decent, kind people. Every city has its vices, to be sure, and some more than others, but I cannot believe that there are not still men of good will who will return to rebuild the Crescent City from this ruin. Still the problems here are deep. The government of the state of Louisiana has been incompetent and corrupt for decades. The city government in New Orleans is no better. Race relations are abysmal by all accounts and while each man is culpable for his own sin, surely the leadership of the region could have done something to alleviate the suffering in the eastern wards of the city. I don’t ascribe to the naive liberal notion that the wrong thing is better than nothing, but surely in all this time something could be done to fix the mess that New Orleans has often been.

Well, we can point fingers later. We can assign blame and hope to see a change somewhere down the line. Right now we can open our wallets and fall to our knees, trusting - somehow - in the sovereignty of God. I can’t explain it, but I can trust in it, knowing that our Lord will work through this mess for His purposes. The sun will shine the clearer. Not today, not tomorrow, perhaps not even six months from now. But we shall see New Orleans again. We shall hear her music. We shall drink her dark coffee and soak in her oppressive heat. She will rise again, and we shall greet her with a happy face.

Posted by Matt at 05:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 30, 2005

Katrina Update

My area of Alabama made it through Katrina with lots of power outages and debris but nothing too severe. I wish I could say the same for Mobile and the coastal regions of Mississippi and Louisiana. What a disaster. Whatever you can contribute, do so. Start here.

I'll say more later, after I've managed to process the images of the city of my birth, New Orleans, completely submerged in watery filth.

Posted by Matt at 03:54 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 26, 2005

Conservative Christianity

The idea of "conservative Christianity" has been aroudn for a while. It's always taken on the notion of Christians who happen to be conservative. For a long time there was never a strong correlation between evangelical Christianity and traditional conservatism; the basic media template suggested that Christians were conservative only on matters of "values" like abortion and gay rights. Nowadays you hear a lot of talk about a Judeo-Christian worldview, but I've always thought that sounded a lot like tradition conservative thought. Well, lo and behold, while reading the back cover to Russell Kirk's seminal The Conservative Mind, I noted this blurb from the syndicated columnist William Rusher:

"[In] this enormously influential book [Kirk] almost single-handedly rooted American conservatism in the right loam of the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, and thereby gave it the philosophical heft of a worldview. He also gave it its name... [This] country owes a huge amount of gratitude to Russell Kirk."

Interesting, no? I'd be curious to hear what left-leaning Christians like Jim Wallis have to say about the intellectual suggestion that traditional conservatism in, in fact, a de facto Christian ethic.

Posted by Matt at 02:22 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

The Relevant Church

Sitting in class yesterday, I noticed an open copy of the campus newspaper. There was an ad on the page promoting the "Contemporary Worship" service at an old church downtown. When I say old, I mean that the congregation has been there for well over a hundred years. It's an established church in an old South town, and that brings certain baggage - both good and bad - with it. At any rate, the church began a contemporary service a while back. The service, incidentally, takes place during the same time as "regular" worship, but it's completely separate. The church runs commercials on local television and as I just mentioned, there's advertisements in the campus newspaper and around the town.

My question in all of this is "why?" The advertisements might be fine for new students in town or even new families looking for a more contemporary setting within this denomination. But what about nonChristians? What about them? I'm not talking about nominal Christians raised in church who've wandered off the farm. I'm talking about those people - college students, young adults, even families - who don't attend church, don't put a lot of stock in Christian beliefs and just don't care. Their unbelief might stretch beyond apathy and into the area of antagonism. So why in the world would they care about Christianity masked in upbeat acoustic music? I'm pretty sure they wouldn't. I've never met an atheist over the age of fifteen whose opinion of Christ hinged upon the instruments used in church. Maybe this is a matter of straining at a gnat. I just think that this idea that non-Christians are going to accept Christ on the basis of a worship service's outward appearance is flawed. People will come to Christ based upon relationship, not cultural relevance.

Posted by Matt at 02:04 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

August 25, 2005

Back in the Saddle

I've been busy, but I'll be back in action soon. Here's a quick update, and I'll be blathering away over here shortly.

Posted by Matt at 12:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 28, 2005

Ah, Good News

This is nice, with a tip 'o the hat to the Corner.

Posted by Matt at 04:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More on One

Let me make one quick addendum to my earlier comments about the One campaign. I am thankful that there are Christian aid groups working with One, and I know that the campaign is attempting to do a great deal of humanitarian work. I think that idea is on the right track, but I just can't support any calls for "first-world" nations to relieve debt without also working to develop stable democracies and market economies. Otherwise, we've not solved any problems and we've likely made them worse.

Posted by Matt at 03:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 27, 2005

Why One Won't Work

A couple of weeks ago, Al Mohler posted this commentary on the One campaign.
He refers to an article by Christian ethicist Ben Mitchell, wherein Mitchell does something a lot of people seem unwilling to do; evaluate the economic realities of third world poverty. Mohler's piece is primarily a rehashing of Mitchell's argument, save for this closing line: "failure to identify the true causes of Third World poverty and thus advocate useful real solutions–like the ONE Campaign–is not just misguided, it is actually harmful. The wider public knows this to be true." Not to assume the worst about others, but if One doesn't get support (and that's hardly the case), it's not that the public has beter ideas. It's that the public doesn't care. And I'm pretty convinced of that, too. The average Joe on the street and perhaps even on the church pew, while acknowledging that their lives are busy, just doesn't care what goes in another part of the world, so long as they're safe and sound. Sound harsh? Did anyone care about women's rights in Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

I truly believe that the celebrities lending their support to One have their hearts in the right place. I believe Bono cares deeply for the people of Africa, as does Brad Pitt, Chris Martin, Tom Hanks, et al. Yet I also believe that there means of implementing change are flawed. Seriously flawed. The central tenet of the One campaign is the concept of debt relief. It's a concept that has been attempted for years, and despite all the evidence to the contrary, some people seem incapable of acknowledging that it just doesn't work. Just as there are laws of chemistry, physics and biology, there are also some basic economic laws. If there's a giant list of things that work, debt relief ain't on there.

It seems more and more Christians are developing an open, demonstrable concern for third-world poverty. This is a good thing. I share these sentiments and I'm heartened to see others make overtures towards caring for the suffering overseas. My faith in Christ compels me to care for the fatherless and the widow. Yet I am also called to do everything to the glory of God, a phrase that the Church has long understood to mean a call to excellence. Christ has not called us to mediocrity, whether in the arts or the sciences or our daily work. And when we're talking about alleviating the suffering of millions of people and accomplishing that task with billions of other people's dollars, then the burden to do the right thing is that much greater. The issue of poverty in the third-world goes beyond wanting to help. That's a prerequisite to "doing the right thing." To do the right thing, we must move beyond the idea that our concern even matters. If our concern is misdirected, or we feel that doing something, anything, is better than doing nothing, then we've deluded ourselves and harmed the people we sought to help.

Debt relief and education won't help a soul if the government that has been relieved of its debt doesn't stop borrowing money. It won't help if the governments are still corrupt, still cheating taxpayers, still refusing to allow a free press, private property, or freedom of religion. It won't help if there are no decent roads so that farmers can get to market or so that sick children can get to medicine. It won't change a thing as long as rape and prostitution run rampant. Debt relief won't help the suffering people of Zimbabwe when their government - unelected, I should add - has a systematic policy of forcing white farmers off their own land. Nothing will change in the Sudan so long as the Bashir government practices genocide. Nothing will change in South Africa so long as the government there regards AIDS as "an African problem," thereby suggesting that the rest of the world step off. We can't help Nigeria or Algeria or Libya so long as those countries are run by brutally oppressive Islamic regimes that harbor terrorists, treat women as second-class citizens and treat their dogs better than they treat homosexuals or adulterers. We can't help a country that refuses to allow some level of capitalism, wherein a man can ply his trade and farm his land without worrying about being killed on the way to the market. The One campaign might offer a temporary solution, but there is no long term hope for Africa without government reform that brings an end to widespread corruption, a change to a free market, free speech, free religion and democratic elections.

And lastly, as a Christian, it would be foolish of me to think that any serious change can come to Africa without a change of heart. I'm not above supporting non-religious aid groups. I have before and will likely continue to do so. But I must acknowledge that there is no peace and no truth outside of the cross of Christ. As much as I pray that Africa and other poverty-stricken regions of the world can find relief, I must acknolwedge that true relief is found only in Christ. I must also acknowledge that my intentions mean nothing if my plans don't work. A fisherman can want with all his heart to catch a fish, but if he is not fishing correctly, his longing is in vain. Likewise we must acknowledge that Christ's command to care for the less fortunate must mean more than tossing money at the problem and thinking that true change can come from the government and not from the heart. To pretend otherwise is extremely dangerous.

Posted by Matt at 10:40 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

July 22, 2005

Francis Schaeffer vs. Me

Biting off more than I can chew.

Scroll down to the bottom paragraphs.

But here's a question and I've seen it tossed around a bit on some other blogs: I realize Schaeffer is important to Christians, but does anyone else care? Were his ideas really that valuable, and can they stand on their own terms? I'm not criticizing...I'm just asking. Anyone have a thought?

Posted by Matt at 02:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 15, 2005

More on Animal Cruelty

George F. Will has been one of my favorite writers for nearly a decade. His work - intellectual but accessible - has been instrumental in confirming my conservative beliefs in the strength of local communities, respect for human life and small, but efficient government. Will does not idly take up a cause, so I find it encouraging that in a recent Newsweek column he took up the issuee of animal cruelty.

Based upon a recent column by Dominion author Matthew Scully, Will clearly restates Scully's initial query: why are we appalled at cruelty towards our pets but not towards billions and billions of livestock?

It's a reasonable question, even if one is a steak-chomping dog lover. The thinking continues in this post at Mere Comments. The theme in all of these pieces, particularly Will's, is this: what will you do with this knowledge that God's creatures have been abused, tortured, manipulated and barbarized at the altar of convenience and greed? I heard someone say once that it's difficult to turn away from this. I concur, and I've got three weeks of a meat-free diet to back that up. I know three weeks isn't a long time by any stretch, but I can't turn away. I may one day (soon, perhaps) develop a meat-consuming diet that is, by and large, free of the cruelty that takes place in factory farms. I draw a moral distinction between free-range beef and chicken and that of stockyards and factories, and it is indeed possible that may diet may eventually reflect that fact.

I said before, and I will reiterate. There are other concerns in the world; the defense of the unborn and the elderly, the fight against terrorism, the need to work against povery and discontent in the third world. As a Christian, my highest calling is the glory of God and I hope that through missions His name is made great throughout the world. Yet we are called to do what we can, as we can. And I can make small but noticeable changes in my own life, as a testimony to the justice that my faith establishes. God granted man dominion, to be sure, but we are not granted license to manipulate, to slash and burn, to rule however we please. Our faith calls us to something higher, and when faced with the bleak and sickening alternative, there is no turning back.

Here are two other good articles on animal cruelty, both written by conservatives: one by John Derbyshire, the other by sitcom writer Warren Bell.

(I should mention that one reason I keep posting links to pieces by conservatives is simply to dispell the myth that conservatives don't care about such things. Some don't, to be sure, but a lot of us do, and we find these beliefs to be a natural outgrowth of traditional conservative thought, which was itself born out of the Christian ethic that developed over the last two millenia. That's for a whole other post, however, so I'll hush now)

Posted by Matt at 08:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Some Thoughts on Narnia

I just walked into my apartment and turned on the television to see Jack Nicklaus walking off the 18th hole at St. Andrews after shooting a birdie. I follow the major tournaments but I'm not a golf connoisseur, and I still got partly choked up. Sheesh.

To speak on something completely unrelated, I'm halfway through The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I can't fully speak on the book yet, but I've noticed something of a theme in Lewis' tale. Here it is: When all four of the children first reach Narnia, Edmund is against Aslan. He is fearful, bitter and, indeed, angry. Why? He has a direct encounter with evil. The other children are excited about the thought of meeting Aslan. Their hearts are warmed by the very mention of his name.

I think C.S. Lewis is herein suggesting that though we come to God through Christ alone, we approach Him through two different means. One on hand, some of us might be driven to the Cross by guilt, anger or even shame. We know we have done some grave wrong, and we long to have that wrong made right. We know that we have some deep-seated resentment or bitterness, and we search for someone who will relieve us of such weight. Like Edmund (and Paul!), we are kicking against the goads. On the other hand, we are sometimes like Peter, Susan and Lucy. We come to the Cross out of a sense of wonder and amazement that the great King who made the whole world would love each of us as individuals. We are awed by the love and the mercy of the Cross.

I don't think that Lewis is arguing that we are without sin. Not by any means. I think he is simply discussing one of two things. First, he may just be acknowledging the two paradigms of the Christian life. At times in our life we are drawn to our Lord by the weight of sin and shame. At other times we come to Him out of a sense of joy and wonder, wholly amazed by His beauty and grace. The second possible argument that Lewis is establishing is simply the motive of our coming to the Cross. Of course we come to Christ by His grace alone, yet we are human and I believe that the Lord makes appeals to our personality. Some of us have life experiences that would send us to the Cross with a greater sense of our frailty, others come to it by simply seeing a glimpse of the Savior's majesty and there finding something worth chasing and pursuing with all our might.

Just some thoughts on Narnia and the King. Hope you like it.

I cross-post most of my pieces of this nature, but others like this can also be found at Matt Crash!

Posted by Matt at 06:31 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 14, 2005

Randomness on a Thursday Afternoon

Here's some tidbits.

- I'm excited that Tiger Woods is leading the British Open, and I hope Jack Nicklaus makes the cut for Sunday.

- I wish Patty Griffin, Van Morrison and Tom Waits would come play a show in my living room.

- This Valerie Plame business is much ado about nothing.

- Amy Wellborn had a nice thread about sad songs. I'll make a post on this later. In the meantime, do any readers wish to contribute?

Posted by Matt at 04:15 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 13, 2005

Crunchy Cons Unite!

I can't wait for this book.

I'll be sure to read it by candlelight while burning incense, listening to NPR and drinking a cup of organic, free-trade coffee with soy milk.

Posted by Matt at 04:09 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

July 12, 2005

The Call to Mercy

I remember reading about Matthew Scully's book Dominion not too long after it came out. (see this interview at National Review) At the time I was already interested in organic farming and I knew the health benefits of avoiding fast food and other less-than-savory aspects of our consumerist culture. I started buying health food when I could, and I spend a fair amount of time and money at the health food store not far from my apartment.

A month or so ago I gave a close friend a copy of Dominion as a birthday present. I recently ordered a copy for myself; it is now making its way to my mailbox. Scully is a vegetarian and while not an orthodox Christian, he makes a plea for Christian mercy upon animals. His premise is simple: God created the earth, He has given man the responsibility to care for it and that care must exhibit some level of compassion for all living things. Priorities must be granted, of course, and Scully acknowledges that compassion for the unborn and elderly takes a greater precedence over compassion for the cow and the chicken. His challenge extends beyond human care, however, in detailing the great abuses to which we subject animals, all in the name of comfort and convenience. A starving family of sharecroppers needed to kill a deer, but no American needs a Happy Meal full of chicken nuggets.

I would not argue that vegetarianism is a moral imperative. Scripture is quite clear that it is not. Yet I would argue that our current culture of greed and impatience has drawn our focus away from the mercy and respect that we should grant to the earth. I am not sure what diet changes I will make in my own life. I have been without meat for a little while now (and I do mean little), but I look around me and I am disturbed. God's creatures - less than human, but His creation nonetheless - has been abused, mistreated, genetically manipulated and commodified as though it were ours to commodify. I have no principled moral opposition to the consumption of meat, but I look around our world of fast food, barbecue and super-sized value meals and I know, as sure as I know it is a sin to lie, to lust and to steal, that we are doing something very, very wrong.

I realize these thoughts are jumbled. Grant me time to read, to think, to pray further and I hope that I can coalesce these ideas into something stronger. It is in no way my intention to be preachy, legalistic or judgmental on the matter of animals rights, and I know there are far graver concerns (terrorism, poverty, disease, etc). I still refuse to believe that this is an area wherein we can be indifferent, to think that our own comfort and convenience can justify the abuse of our Lord's creation.

Posted by Matt at 04:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 11, 2005

The Lead of Love

When I was seventeen I knew everything. Really, I did. My sad little faith had seen it all. I knew the apex of the Christian life, and I knew the very bottom. I was a pro at the whole thing. I was sorrowfully wrong, of course, but then again, I was seventeen. I wasn't going to hear otherwise.

One of my favorite bands when I started college was Caedmon's Call. Here was a band of twenty-somethings, about the age I'm at now, writing about the triumphs and tragedies, all in the context of the redemptive love of Christ. I thought it was wonderful then, and still do. But now it makes sense. I had sinned at seventeen, but I wasn't, at least in any tangible human terms, a colossal screw up. Consequently I wasn't fully comprehending the confession in song like "Shifting Sand":

"Sometimes I believe all the lies
So I can do the things I should despise
And everyday I am swayed
By whatever is on my mind

I hear it all depends on my faith
So I'm feeling precarious
The only problem I have with these mysteries
Is they're so mysterious

And like a consumer I've been thinking
If I could just get a bit more
More than my fifteen minutes of faith
Then I'd be secure

My faith is like shifting sand
Changed by every wave
My faith is like shifting sand
So I stand on grace"

And so it goes from there.

I thought that made sense when I was just out of high school, still living at home, dating the popular girl and completely devoid of any serious care or concern. Looking back now, knowing how far I've come and how far I've yet to journey, those words resonate so clearly. When I was younger I would have never dreamed I would find myself where I am today. I certainly would have never planned out the road that brought me here. It would seem so foreign, and in a way it still does. I think that's how God uses art to guide us in a sense. I was talking to a friend the other night and we both mentioned how - as teengagers - we would have never, ever imagined that our lives would have taken the turns they have. That we would have wandered from our faith in thought, if not outright deed. That in spite of our foolishness and our wayward hearts that our faithful Lord would leave all to find us again. That our Father would wait at the gate for the prodigals to return.

But He did, and He is still waiting. Such mercy causes me to sing with new hope and joy at the promise of restoration in this life and the next.

Posted by Matt at 11:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 09, 2005

Hurricane Dennis Is Growing Up and So Am I

There's a hurricane coming. I'm thankful I'm three hours from the coast, but Tuscaloosa is close enough to be affected by whatever is on its way. I've been told be on guard for falling trees, downed powerlines and Lord knows what else. I've got a flashlight and a few candles, and I hope that if things get rough around here, I'll be with friends.

The thing about a hurricane is that, while it can move in any direction, it's certain. It might hit Biloxi or Mobile or Pensecola or any lovely beach town in between. It might go astray and strike New Orleans or Panama City. But almost as surely as I'm sitting here, that storm will strike land tomorrow evening. Someone will die. Someone will lose their home. Someone's life will be turned completely upside down, and they will be left wondering why. I don't have a lot of answers to that sort of thing. I've read a lot but I just don't know much about theodicy. I'm trying to correct that but if a friend lost her home in a hurricane, I could only pray for wisdom as I sought to comfort.

But that's like a lot of life, isn't it? I know certain things in my life will surely happen. At some point I will be finished with school, I'll be finished with apartment life, I'll probably even have a family. Those things are on the horizon, but they're not here. And yet they'll come. It's no comfort to know that Hurricane Dennis is heading this way, but it is comfort to know that my future is not in my hands. That's good, because I mess things up. God doesn't, though. Sometimes I get in a certain mood and find a song that fits me perfectly. I found my Caedmon's Call records the other day. Remember "Table for Two?" Derek Webb wrote it, and if you've heard it you know what it's about. I take comfort in lines like this:

"Well this day's been crazy
But everything's happened on schedule,
from the rain and the cold
To the drink that I spilled on my shirt.
'Cause You knew how You'd save me
before I fell dead in the garden,
And You knew this day
long before You made me out of dirt

And You know the plans that You have for me
And You can't plan the end and not plan the means..."

Thank goodness.

Posted by Matt at 02:41 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 08, 2005

Sufjan Stevens

I've been listening to the new Sufjan Stevens record a lot lately. He's got this amazing ability to pinpoint the Truth without being overly preachy. The album is titled Illinois, with all the songs about, well, the state of Illinois. The one song that has packed the most punch thus far is a subtlely beautiful tune about the serial killer John Wayne Gacy.

Witness this:

And in my best behavior

I am really just like him

Look beneath the floor boards

For the secrets I have hid

That stings, and it stings deep. But it's true, is it not? When our Lord hung upon the cross, it was as much for my own white lies and quick glances at the waitress as it was for the sick murders committed by Gacy. It's a sobering thought. The Lord of all creation died for every angry word just as surely as he died for genocide. What a scandal. It's almost too much to believe, but I'm so grateful that, by grace, it's not. And I think, though it's difficult, that the more we understand our own depravity, the greater we can comprehend the joy of grace and forgiveness.

What a thrill.

Posted by Matt at 11:23 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 07, 2005

The Call to Detachment

I left work after lunch today, sick with something. I don't know what. I'm pretty sure I just ate something that didn't sit well with me. I came home and was in bed before two p.m. I didn't wake up until five-thirty, and if I were to crawl back into bed, I imagine that I would sleep until morning. Sometimes our bodies just say "Enough!" and slow down. It feels good to rest, to find comfort on a warm bed and sleep away a tired body. It's a simple thing, really, but a necessary one.

Simplicity reverberates with me lately. Reading Bonhoeffer my mind understands the idea of the simple life, a detachment from the cares of the world rooted in the willingness to forsake all and follow Christ. My mind grasps it but what of my heart? I have a nice apartment. I have a closet full of clothes and movies and records. Do I need these things? Have I placed more importance on such trivial things than is necessary?

It would be easy to think that this desire for seperation is something passing. That, unlike Hopkins' nun, it is not a permanent thing, only a phase of life that will be remembered with sighs and chuckles in a decade. I pray it is not so. The joy of walking away is too strong, too palpable to resist. I truly want simplicity in my life. I don't want that house in the suburbs. I don't want the BMW anymore. I really don't even care about the clothes or the jetset and the runways. I don't stand in criticism of those who have those things. I just want a life without attachment to the things that call me away from the Cross, that distract me from the call of One who knows better than I what is needed in my life. If I were only supplied with a family, a garden and a few close friends, that should be enough. The rest is hassle, unneeded and unwanted. There is noise and muddled confusion in the unncessary things. Let me shake it off and strive for something higher.

But it seems so foreign. A year or two ago, even as recent as six months, I wanted all those things I say I do not care about. Is this the work of God? Can I truly live this way, no longer consumed with petty desires of status, recognition and vanity? My own faith is so reluctant to suggest this is more than a phase but I hear the Call of something better. I can rest in that. Like Bono once sang, "I will follow." Yes, I surely will.

Posted by Matt at 06:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Southern Remembrance

This isn't London related, but here's a little piece I wrote about some time spent getting in touch with my roots in rural Alabama.

Check it out.

Posted by Matt at 03:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A Prayer for London

My own prayers go out to our friends in London and around England. I pray that the English will continue to demonstrate the same bulldog tenacity that stood against the Nazis, the IRA and every other two-bit Islamic bomb-thrower over the last twenty-five years.

I also pray that believers in England, though it is an increasingly post-Christian nation, find strength and encouragement for themselves and their countrymen in these uncertain times.

Posted by Matt at 09:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 05, 2005

The Leak

In a post below, Rick derides whomever leaked Valerie Plame to the press. Her position may or may not have been classified, but she was no field agent or spy. Ever since she was outed, she's been a liberal superstar and I have about as much sympathy for her as I do for Dan Rather.

Posted by Matt at 09:51 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 01, 2005

Party Time

Justice O'Connor has resigned. Now the party starts.

Here's a tip to Senate Republicans:

What you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.

That goes for you, too, Senators Graham, McCain, Warner, DeWine, Hagel, Snowe and Chaffee.

Posted by Matt at 10:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

the One problem

Al Mohler provides a pretty good takedown of the well-meaning, but flawed, One campaign.

He makes a mistake, however, on one crucial point:

"While Southern Baptists should fervently support and encourage truly effective means to address the distress of the poor, failure to identify the true causes of Third World poverty and thus advocate useful real solutions–like the ONE Campaign–is not just misguided, it is actually harmful. The wider public knows this to be true."

The wider public knows this to be true? I'm not buying it. Call me cynical, but I don't believe the wider public cares.

Here's a good article on the issue of Christian voting. A very nice counterargument to those who think that God is indifferent about whom we vote for. The author raises some strong points, points that I've never heard any liberals adequately address.

Nothing like starting a firestorm early in the day.

Posted by Matt at 09:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 30, 2005

Mohler on Hillary, Emergents

Via Steve McCoy comes this quote from Al Mohler concerning the new book on Senator Hillary Clinton:

We must not give ourselves permission to read a book that will encourage us to feel morally superior about ourselves, even as it poisons our hearts about someone seen as a threat to what we cherish.

That's a poignant quote, and well worth considering for the next three and a half years.

Mohler also has a two part series up on the Emergent Church (see here and here). Not everyone will like his conclusions but it's a fair analysis and worthy of consideration.

Edit: I spoke too soon. Scot McKnight, author of the Jesus Creed, thinks Mohler's view of the Emergent Church is far too simplistic. And he may well be right.

Posted by Matt at 09:14 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Robert P. George Interview

Here's a link to an article discussing an interview with a leading opponent of embryonic stem cell research. Robert P. George is a professor at Princeton and a member of the President's Council on Bioethics. Read the interview for yourself to get a better understanding of the ethics involved with creating embryos just for the purpose of experimentation. Here's the best quote:

We cannot say with certainty that embryonic cells will never prove therapeutically useful in treating other diseases, but as a matter of sheer fact not a single embryonic-stem-cell therapy is even in clinical trials. No one knows how to prevent tumor formation and other problems arising from the use of embryonic stem cells. No one knows whether these problems will be solved or solved before other research strategies render embryonic research obsolete. Like John Kerry, John Edwards, and Ron Reagan, Cuomo is elevating the hopes of suffering people and their families who are desperate for cures and eager to believe that if only embryonic-stem-cell research were federally funded they or their loved ones would be restored to health.

I realize this is something of a controversial topic, but George, who is a Christian, provides both a scientific and a moral basis for his opposition. I highly recommend the read, particularly if you've decided the embryonic research is going to be a cure-all for diseases and disabilities.

Posted by Matt at 09:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 25, 2005

Question of the Day

Martin Luther once said that there is no salvation apart from the church, implying that the Christian life is meant to be lived within the context of the Body of Christ.

Here's an idea, and I'm curious to know what my colleagues and our readers think: There is no democracy outside of the community.

What do you say?

Posted by Matt at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 24, 2005

The Iran Situation

Tomorrow Iran will have a runoff in its Presidential "election." I'm not sure how it's possible to have a runoff when the originial election was a sham from the get-go. This situation is so tragic and infuriating. The Iranians are desperate for freedom and the mainstream media hardly utters a peep. There's no ending the terrorism in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world, so long as the Islamo-facist nexus is based out of Tehran. There was a headline on MSN earlier today saying that some Al-Qaeda types have been found in Iran. No kidding. Michael Ledeen has been talking about this for close to four years.

Something needs to be done in Iran, though I realize it's a sticky situation for the Bush administration due to all the intangibles with the largely Sunni Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, to say nothing of Israel's interests in all of this. Still, the rights of the people of Iran and the safety of our nation is dependent upon the removal of the current power structure. In the meantime, the rest of us can continue to push for reform and draw attention to the crisis. And as a believer, I can continue to pray that any and all missionaries or small pockets of Christians in Iran (for they are no doubt present) will find strength and encouragement in their suffering, and eventually enjoy a nation where they can proclaim the name of Christ in peace and freedom.

See RegimeChangeIran for more.

Posted by Matt at 03:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

New All-Girl Group Blog

Intellectuelle, the new all-ladies group blog spearheaded by Marla Swoffer looks to be great.

Keep an eye on this one; launch date is soon.

Posted by Matt at 03:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 23, 2005

Miscellany

A few quick hits:

- Matt Crash! has a new look and content focus. Check it out if it's your thing.

- A big welcome to our new colleagues here at SCO.

- The SCOTUS decision today is really disheartening.

- Game 7 is pretty intense right now.

More later when I'm fully awake. Life's been busy.

Posted by Matt at 11:32 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 20, 2005

The Pope and Animals

Good stuff from Benedict XVI. Does this make the Pope a crunchy con?

Posted by Matt at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 15, 2005

The Problem of the Hannity Right

An e-mailer to Andrew Sullivan makes a very interesting point, well worth considering.

Let it always be known that I am a Kirk-Buckley-Reagan conservative, and never a Hannity conservative.

Posted by Matt at 05:36 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

An Important Matter

I noticed yesterday that we had someone reach SCO by doing a google search on the matter of baseball being better than football.

We thank all our readers for visiting this site, and we hope you continue to do so. Yet let it known from this day forward that while baseball is fine American game with many noble attributes, football is the greatest game ever invented by man. Within that framework, college football is superior to professional football. To that end, I cast my vote for the greatest American whose public life did not revolve around a political, religious or ideological position.

Posted by Matt at 11:32 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

A Nation of Wimps

Russell Moore points readers to a new article in the Wilson Quarterly discussing the epidemic of clingy parents in today's society. It's a good read, though I quibble with his first line:

"Ever see a college student walking about with a cell phone in hand, paid for by mom and dad back home? Ever see a ten year-old child with knee pads, elbow pads, and ankle pads riding a bicycle with a nervous mother walking behind him, waiting to catch him if he fall? Well, these may not be two entirely different things."

College students have cell phones because they're reliable. It's a nice form of communication. Every twentysomething walking around on a cell phone is not calling Mommy and Daddy and asking for permission to go to the movies. Then again, Moore's probably right that a lot of parents use cell phones to keep tabs on kids without letting them grow up on their own. So I guess we're both right.

Posted by Matt at 10:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Natalee Holloway

Certainly I can't offer any news in the Holloway case, but I would like to offer some perspective. Natalee is from Mountain Brook, a suburb of Birmingham, Alabama. Birmingham is my hometown, so I think have a little bit to say on the matter.

The thing that really irks me about the media coverage is that the attitude seems to be that "a bunch of kids from 'Bama went on a senior trip." Well, true enough. The thing is that Mountain Brook is a nice community. A very, very nice community. It's the wealthiest zip code in the state, as well as one of the oldest established communities in the Birmingham area. What difference does that make? I'm not sure. I know that it's likely that many of these kids had been to Aruba before. I don't know that for sure, but given the incomes of many in the area, it wouldn't surprise me.

Feel free to take this as rambling on my part, or maybe I'm going into defensive Southerner mode. I just got the feeling watching O'Reilly last night that the media thinks this is just a bunch of hillbilly bumpkins who went to the islands, and poor Natalee was a wide-eyed country girl wandering off the farm for the first time. I know that when Elizabeth Smart disappeared, the fact that she was from an upper-crust area was prominent. I don't know if Natalee's family is rich or not. I just think that some mention of the neighborhood's status might provide a little context to the story, as it's likely that many of the students and chaperones - and the parents back home - have had experience being outside the country.

Posted by Matt at 10:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 14, 2005

Iranian Protests

Michael Ledeen posts some inspiring pictures of protest in Iran from over the weekend. Check them out here at the Corner.

What's it going to take for American leadership, political or otherwise, to step up and back the Iranians? Where are the American bishops? Where are the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, who gather next week? What about the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America? They're meeting right now. Someone must make common cause with these dissidents, for their sake and for ours.

Posted by Matt at 02:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sean Hannity's Subjective "Journalism"

Andrew Sullivan nails it.

Posted by Matt at 11:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

S-E-X

Dating and sex at Matt Crash!

All of this is in regards to new books:

Real Sex by Lauren F. Winner and Sex and the Supremacy of Christ, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor.

Posted by Matt at 10:46 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Mohler and the Sith

In a recent blog post, Al Mohler does a nice takedown on Dick Staub's new book equating the Jedi teaching from the Star Wars trilogy to the teachings of Christ. The only curious remark in the whole post wasn't even related to Staub's book. Says Mohler: "The Revenge of the Sith is a gripping story, and the movie is propelled by generally strong acting performances."

Did Mohler see the same movie as the rest of us? Gripping story, I'll give you. Generally strong acting is another thing altogether. Ewan McGregor wasn't bad at all, but Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman were nothing short of awful.

Posted by Matt at 10:15 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

June 13, 2005

Christian Truth

FYI: there's a great article on Christian truth by Timothy George in the most recent issue of First Things.

Really fantastic.

Posted by Matt at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 08, 2005

Enough!

Enough! is a great pro-democracy Iranian blog. Lots of pictures of riots and protests. Very inspiring.

Faster, please.

The above link is thanks to Michael Ledeen. In today's NRO piece, Ledeen further pleads for Western support for democracy in the region. When will someone - President Bush, Tony Blair, John Howard, Silvo Berlusconi - stand up and join in solidarity with the protestors? Where are our Christian leaders? Instead of hand-wringing over the nefarious Hollywood, how about a movement in support of democracy in Iran? The Southern Baptist Convention begins in two weeks: will someone propose a resolution in support of the students and the democracy activists, or will there be more culture war talk?

If not, how long will the oppression and terror continue?

Faster. Faster. Faster!

Posted by Matt at 10:19 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 07, 2005

Senator Brownback

One of our readers has inquired about our thoughts concerning Kansas Senator Sam Brownback. I do not speak for my fellow bloggers, but here goes. On the whole, I like him. Brownback is a faithul conservative on economic and military issues. I am thankful for this. I love his support of human rights issues, particularly as it relates to the issue of genocide in Darfur. Brownback is a strong pro-life, pro-family advocate. For the most part, I have no quarrel with him. Indeed, I am thankful for his presence in the Senate and he has my support.

But.

Everytime I hear him talk of the Senate needing to get Hollywood to "clean up its act" or somesuch nonsense I am nervous and annoyed. I realize there is plenty of garbage in film and on television, but the Senate's job is elsewhere.

Posted by Matt at 02:05 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Aid and AIDS in Africa

Yesterday I referred our readers to some aid groups working to make a change in Africa. I reiterate my support for such causes, but Mere Comments offers us a careful reminder that tossing money at the problem has never worked. Something deeper must take place in Africa, and here is where Christian aid groups have something particular to offer.

On that same note, it was nice this morning to open up the new Coldplay record at find, in addition to links to OxFam and Amnesty International, a link to World Vision. Very nice, indeed.

Posted by Matt at 11:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Wayne on Wallis

Jollyblogger has a nice post concerning Chuck Chalberg's aggressive fisking of Jim Wallis's work.

Highly recommended.

Posted by Matt at 10:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 06, 2005

Worthy Causes

I'm not a huge fan of debt relief (because it doesn't work), but the ONE campaign seems alright to me.

iAbolish is also a good resource for anti-slavery activism.

Voice of the Martyrs covers Christian persecution.

Freedom House is doing great work, also.

Posted by Matt at 03:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Emergent Christians and the GOP

Steve McCoy at the invaluable Reformissionary blog points to this essay by several leading thinkers in the Emergent church movement. The PDF version of the document can be found here. It's an interesting and important read, but I must take issue with a passage between the eigth and ninth points that discusses the tendency of evangelicalism to move towards "specific views on on U.S. domestic, foreign, military or economic policy."

This is a red herring. Politically conservative believers have not arrived at their current position willy-nilly. Christ still loves those who vote Democrat or at least non-GOP, but it is foolish to suggest that believers can vote however they like and God is A-Ok with the whole deal. I would refer these Emergent leaders to the following articles from Touchstone magazine:

Voting as Christians

Voting for Pontius Pilate

The Godless Party

Political Orphans

Pratical Atheism (a must read!)

American Reservists

Posted by Matt at 03:38 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

NRO Doesn't Get It

Longtime NRO readers will remember the crunchy con debate from a few years back. In relation to the current trend of South Park conseratives, Kathryn Jean Lopez offered this last Friday:

"That episode reminded me why I don't like the term "South Park Conservative." It's the same reason I get annoyed at Rod Dreher's "Crunchy Con" thesis (as our friend Rod knows). Conservatives can eat organic and—shocking as it may be—can be pretty darn funny. Neither makes us anomalies. Conservatism is about ideas, but it's not a lock-step army, with dress and behavior codes. (I think Warren gets this right here.) If, in the end, "South Park Conservatives" and "Crunchy Cons" make more people realize conservatives are people too—i.e. most of red America—cool, fine. But my worry has always been these unnecessary labels and things just further ghettoize and stereotype. This goes back to why I get annoyed every time I see another "conservative beat" story by David Kirkpatrick in the NYTimes. We're not an alien species. Just cover politics, etc., and the Right will fit in in that beat.

When Lopez speaks of being "annoyed" at Dreher's premise, she's annoyed at something she doesn't understand. Dreher doesn't in favor of organic carrots just for the sake of being crunchy; he is making a conservative argument in favor of organic farming. (An argument I'm quite sympathetic to, by the way) He is saying that "crunchy con" rejection of mass culture has a conservative value. And as a red-stater he's doing all of this because in red state culture, for all its many strengths, going against the grain is frowned upon. Walk into a community center or church or diner in flyover country, a venue likely full of Bush voters, and tell them that as a conservative, you oppose corporate animal farms, prefer homeschooling and think that Maxwell House coffee tastes awful...well, you won't get an open hand shake after such a proclamation.

I hope that one day National Review will have an employee or two who is not stuck in Beltway or big-city Northeastern culture. Until then, the wide disconnect by populist Bush voters and high-minded conservative thinkers will only continue. This of us in the middle will just muddle through.

Posted by Matt at 02:26 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Question About Nancy Pearcey?

In regards to the post below concerning Nancy Pearcey's new book, I have a question. I read the book she wrote with Chuck Colson and in the section on culture, she made some comments suggesting that because of its emotional, deconcstructionist tendencies, rock music is, essentially, bad.

Am I misreading Pearcey? Is this a fair perception on my part? I'm curious to know what our readers think. Leave a comment or e-mail me at mattATstonescryout.org

Posted by Matt at 02:13 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 03, 2005

Wallis Gets Served

Chuck Chalberg absolutely nails Jim Wallis. Readers of SCO know that I'm no fan of Wallis, and Chalberg's dissection is honest, necessary and brutal.

Read about it here. (HT: Mere Comments)

Posted by Matt at 11:34 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 01, 2005

Deep Throat

Count me in with the likes of Chuck Colson and Pat Buchanan. W. Mark Felt is no hero; he should be indicted for divulging classified information.

Ben Stein has a fantastic piece up on the American Spectator, and David Frum is speaking out at NRO.

(HT: Rush)

Posted by Matt at 01:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Re: Failues

Concerning Jim's post on the President's failures, a few points:

- I whole-heartedly agree that the White House's immigration policy has thus far proven to be an unmitigated disaster. I realize that GWB is trying to be compassionate, but he's also being incredibly foolish. He stands to do great harm to his party, his country and his own legacy.

- On Darfur, Jay Nordlinger writes in the most recent issue of National Review that Americans can take comfort in the fact that their country is doing everything short of sending troops into the region. The situation in Darfur is not one that is conducive to massive troop movements, but we're doing what we can.

- Lastly, I've never been convinced that the bankruptcy bill was a bad thing. George Mason law professor Todd Zywicki certainly doesn't think so in this NRO piece from March. Quite frankly, I trust National Review more than I trust Dave Ramsey when it comes to this sort of thing.

Excluding immigration, I would argue that the President's greatest domestic blunder was the absurd enactment of steel tarriffs during his first term. A terrible decision.

Posted by Matt at 11:15 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 31, 2005

Romney's Problem

Like Mark, I'm a bit skeptical that Romney will even make it out of the GOP primaries. I still think our best hope will be for George Allen to take the lead, and for Bill Frist to know when to step down and realize that he doesn't have the Presidential It. That said, I still think Romney's Mormonism can be a very real problem, particularly in the Bible Belt. Southern evangelicals in particular have been instilled with a distrust of the Mormon faith. I don't blame them for this at all, as Mormonism is a very complex and, at times, secretive, religion that presents itself to be as normal as the Baptist church down the street. Romney's real problem is seeking support from Christians whose churches have held cult awareness seminars that prominently feature Mormonism.

I'm willing to split some hairs on the matter, but I just don't think your average Bible belt voter is going to be so kind.

Posted by Matt at 02:02 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Charlotte Simmons

I realize I'm a bit behind the times, but I'm enjoying Tom Wolfe's I Am Charlotte Simmons. That said, Charlotte Simmons may very well be the most obnoxious protaganists I've come across.

I'll have to go back and do some reading, but I seem to recall most conservative critics painted Charlotte in something of a sympathetic light. Hogwash. She is a sheltered little twit.

Posted by Matt at 12:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 30, 2005

Nice Memorial Day Tribute

Here's a good Memorial Day piece. Click on "Neal Vickers Essay."

Posted by Matt at 02:46 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 25, 2005

Christianity and Myth

In a reprinted Star Wars piece, Al Mohler quotes the great Carl F.H. Henry, who once said: "Judeo-Christian revelation has nothing in common with the category of myth."

Professors Tolkien and Lewis would likely take issue.

Posted by Matt at 12:04 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Quick Hits

The filibuter compromise was a very dumb, opportunistic move on the part of Senators McCain, Graham and Warner. I'll say more later, but I stridently disagree with my pro-compromise colleagues.

That said, as bad as the compromise is, it's no worse than American Idol, which may in fact be the worst show ever created.

Season finale of Lost tonight. Woohoo.

Posted by Matt at 11:39 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 22, 2005

Santorum's New Book

This looks interesting.

Posted by Matt at 03:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 18, 2005

New Lost!

There's a new episode of Lost tonight. Excellent.

Posted by Matt at 04:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Bono In Print

Thanks to comments like these at Looking Closer (a crucial site for Christians and culture), I can't wait to get a copy of Bono's new book.

And if anyone needs reminding, U2 is the best rock band of the last twenty-five years. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Posted by Matt at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 16, 2005

Mohler vs. Hitchens

This is the first in what I hope becomes an ongoing examination of the evangelical approach to conservatism. The lack of evangelical presence within the conservative intellectual world is no accident, and I am eager to explore the reasons behind this development. Reader comments, e-mail and trackbacks are encouraged and appreaciated.

Though the relevant pieces are a week or so old, two recent works by Christopher Hitchens and Al Mohler reveal some interesting viewpoints on the part of a leading evangelical. Though Hitchens was recently described by Hugh Hewitt as being “center-left,” Hitchens is one of the most difficult pundits to categorize. The patient reader finds much to chew on concerning his work, even if he does not agree with the author. Mohler, too, is confusing in his own way. A leader of the Southern Baptist Convention with heavily Reformed leanings, he is a fine scholar. He is conservative, generally speaking, but Mohler has yet to come out as a anything resembling a Buckley or Kirk-style conservative. The closest parallel that I can find is that of the brilliant Catholic Richard John Neuhaus, though Neuhaus’ work has for a long time been more specifically political.

It was Mohler who brought the matter of Hitchens’ view of religious conservatives to his own blog, referring to the juxtaposition of contrasting articles by Hitchens and James Taranto concerning religious conservatives that recently appeared in OpinionJournal. Hitchens’ piece clearly discusses his disagreement with, if not his disdain towards, Christianity. Nothing new there; Hitchens' atheism is well-documented. Hitchens goes on to demonstrate his opposition to a “shallow, demagogic and above all sectarian religiosity.” It is worth mentioning that the only evangelical leaders mentioned in his article are Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In his own analysis, Mohler would have done well to acknowledge this tidbit. Hitchens points towards two thinkers who have been influential in modern American conservatism: Ayn Rand and Leo Strauss. Both were non-religious if not atheistic, and Hitchens is acknowledging that conservatism has heretofore allowed such thinking into its tent. (Readers interested in the fumbling talk of Pat Robertson should follow this link to the Evangelical Outpost.)

Mohler’s disagreement with Hitchens is muddled, in my own view, simply because in many cases Mohler’s point is unclear. Hitchens cites Barry Goldwater as a model conservative, a point duly noted by Mohler. Would Mohler disagree with this? I should hope not, but if so, there’s a lot of conservative – many of whom are religious believers – who would jump to Hitchens’ and Goldwater’s defense. Whereas Hitchens merely denounces a particular religious approach to politics, Mohler claims that Hitchens seeks a Right willing to denounce all believers. This is nonsense. Hitchen’s citing of Rand and Strauss is simply a demonstration of the fact that conservatism, while rooted in a Judeo-Christian ethos, has never been an idea exclusive to those who profess Christ. The Christian Russell Kirk would agree with this, as he included the works of nonbelievers, Benjamin Franklin and John Locke, to name two, in The Portable Conservative Reader. Hitchens himself defended religious conservatives (in his own unique manner) in this post-election piece for Slate.

Dr. Mohler is a wise man, and I wish very much that all evangelical leaders possessed his level of knowledge. Yet at the risk of sounding like a certain boor from Massachusetts, I wish his own writing bore a trace of nuance. Hitchens may be philosophically at odds with the Christian faith, but does not suggest that Christians stay quiet in their churches while the atheists run the land. He does, however, disapprove of a certain political approach that is embodied in the Falwells, Robertsons and perhaps even Dobsons of the world. It is not likely that Hitchens would take such umbrage at the political work of Neuhaus or Chuck Colson. While I do not fully agree with Hitchens, it is disappointing that Mohler cannot understand the differences between Robertson and Neuhuas. Until such distinctions can be made and articulated, it is unlikely that the evangelical influence on politics will progress beyond a grass roots campaign.

Posted by Matt at 07:29 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

May 15, 2005

Cruncy Cons and Punk Rock

I was happy to learn that Rod Dreher's book on crunchy conservatism is pretty well finished. Though my current living situation, to say nothing of my bourgeouis, Vanity Fair-inspired proclivities, prevents me from being a full-fledged cruncy con, I share many sympathies with the movement. My refrigerator full of organic milk and Bolthouse Farms juice can back that up. But I did give my Birkenstocks to my little brother.

One area of crunchy conservatism that finds some common ground with the Left is the matter of land use and urban development. We're concerned that our towns and cities will become one big strip mall. I spent yesterday cruising around my hometown of Birmingham, Alabama, and I know of what I speak. Economic growth is a necessary thing, but heavens to Betsy - are we going to perish without that extra Blockbuster and Hallmark mini-mall? I doubt it very much. Here's hoping Dreher's book can kickstart a sensible conversation on the topic.

On a similar note, I've always found the urban-centered liberalism of the Washington, D.C. punk scene to be interesting. It's far less belligerent than what one hears from Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, though both of those men would find a home in the Beltway. Fugazi is a band that always stood for left-wing causes, but in a rational, debatable manner that this right-winger could always appreciate. I'm pretty bummed that the band is effectively no more, but thank goodness for the Evens. The Evens are Ian Mackaye of the legendary Fugazi, Embrace and Minor Threat and Amy Farina of the Warmers. (Anyone know if she's related to Geoff Farina of Karate?) The sound of their debut self-titled album is Fugazi-lite, quiet and minimalistic, with a greater emphasis on jazzy instrumentation and quirky harmonies. There's nothing that a Fugazi fan like myself can't enjoy, while at the same time, there's a sense of growth in Mackaye's work, both lyrically and musically.

The lyrics, as one would expect, are often politicaly in nature, but there's never a feeling of unresolved cynicisms. Ian Mackaye doesn't snarl; he asks questions. And I'm pretty sure he's willing to talk about an answer. Thank goodness for bands like the Evens, who consistently push the envelope of what rock music can be, and what it can ask and what it can dare to conclude. I hope the Evens are planning to tour, though I won't be surprised if they don't. Fugazi toured less and less as the years wore on, and I am thankful for having seen them late in their career, still full of passion and energy.

Posted by Matt at 04:13 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

May 12, 2005

Conservatism 101

Lest anyone be confused about the definition of conservative, Jonah Goldberg clears things up today. I concur with his analysis.

Likewise, read up on Ramesh Ponnuru's bout with Andrew Sullivan over the nature of conservatism.

And lastly, to clarify, I do not support gay marriage. I support the FMA though, like a lot of conservatives, with some degree of reluctance. I am simply saying that support of gay marriage is not enough to say someone is not a conservative. Like Mark said below, I believe we at SCO agree with our readers more than we disagree, but having said that, I plan to revisit this topic in light of recent articles by both Al Mohler and Christopher Hitchens.

Sounds fun, right?

Posted by Matt at 10:32 AM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

May 10, 2005

the Great Evangelical Misunderstanding

Al Mohler, President of Southern Theological Seminary in Louisville, has finally started a real blog. His Crosswalk blog is more column than blog, and this new blog is very thorough. NRO blog geeks like myself will realize that Mohler's style is more Stanley Kurtz than Jonah Goldberg. The biggest problem right now is that Mohler is not using permalinks. This is problematic, but check him out at any rate. Scroll down to the piece entitled "The Strange Case of David Brooks."

Here's a load question. Does Mohler - and by default, do evangelicals - understand what conservatism really is? Mohler's chief issue with Brooks is his defense of gay marriage. Brooks' position is one I find to be wanting, as do many other conservatives. (See National Review, the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, etc.) But Mohler seems to imply that any support for gay marriage is, de facto, an un-conservative position. By what standard? I don't agree with Brooks on this point, but I don't find his argument so outlandish that I'll put conservative in quotes when referring to him. By what standard does Mohler make this assertion?

Mohler then goes on to refer to Andrew Sullivan as a "homosexual "conservative." " (The first quotes are mine; the second set are Mohler's) To be such a well read scholar, Mohler should know that there's not a writer at any major conservative publication who considers Andrew Sullivan to be a rank and file conservative. Sullivan calls himself a conservative, but his political values could be - at best - described as a sort of Sheilaism. (Scroll down)

Mohler finally states, "Like the neo-conservatives with whom he has been closely associated, Brooks would require Christian believers to privilege the habits of democracy over the demands of revealed religion." That's a loaded statement if I've ever read one. Is that what neo-conservatives believe? That Christians value democracy over religion? Hmmmph. I must have missed that one. Maybe Bill Kristol will make mention of that one the next time he's on Brit Hume's show.

I repeat my question again. Does Mohler understand what conservatism means as a political and social ideology?

UPDATE: John Derbyshire proclaims conservatism dead. I'd say he's on to something, though I won't fully agree with him. He makes one very, very interesting observation. Thus sayeth the Derb:

There are two main strands of politically significant religiosity in this country: evangelical Protestants, and devout Roman Catholics. Evangelical Protestantism is theologically conservative by definition; but as NR's own Jeffrey Hart has noted, it is under no necessity to be conservative on any of the Burkean points, and historically has not been. (Try grading William Jennings Bryan on the Burke scale.) Evangelicanism is, in fact, too intellectually flimsy to sustain any coherent political position outside a narrow subset of "social issues."

I'm tempted to call that harsh, but is Derbyshire wrong? There's potential to prove him wrong, but other than Chuck Colson, are there any Evangelicals who can compete in the world of political ideas? I don't believe that evangelicalism is, on its face, "flimsy," but is it strong enough as a body of ideas, politically speaking, to compete on an intellectual level?

Posted by Matt at 10:41 AM | Comments (17) | TrackBack

May 09, 2005

Back in Action

Sorry I've been M.I.A. as of late. Things have been busy down in Dixie. Here's a brief run down of some very superficial things.

I'm reading this book. And this one.

I'm listening to this album. And this one. And both albums by this band.

Tonight I'm going to watch this movie.

I'm working on a post about this guy and this fellow, as well.

And I'm going to try to write about every one of these things in the next few weeks.

Keep me accountable to it.

Posted by Matt at 06:10 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

May 03, 2005

The GOP's Need

In reference to Mark's fine post below, to say the GOP needs a...um...spine is about the most polite way I could put it.

Hats off to my colleague for being more cordial that Bill Frist really deserves.

Posted by Matt at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 02, 2005

GOP Filibusters?

It's been suggested around the blogosphere that the Republicans in the Senate were responsible for filibustering some of President Clinton's judicial nominees. While it's true that some of Clinton's nominees were never confirmed, Mark Levin dispells the notion that delays are the same as filibusters.

I wonder why the GOP isn't doing a better job of countering this charge? The Republican Senators are in desperate need of a new PR guy. Well, they're in desperate need of a lot of things they don't have, but I suppose a PR dude tops the list.

Posted by Matt at 07:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 01, 2005

Jesusland

Like most everyone else, I resented all the Jesusland talk after the election. Nevertheless, it's likely the name has caught on in some cultural context. On the new Ben Folds record, Songs for Silverman, the song "Jesusland" offers a gentle yet poignant critique of red state America. Not entirely accurate, but worth considering.

Posted by Matt at 05:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Oh, Messy Life!

What a weekend. I believe it was sometime around one a.m. Saturday morning when I noticed that the temperature felt more like December than it did April, but I can be thankful that today it at least looks like spring. That wind is still pretty stiff, though I can safely classify today as gorgeous. That said, I am not like outside relaxing on a blanket like the dozens of people I just saw. Nope; I'm updating a blog that's read by roughly a few thousand people each week. You know how some people thank someone else for pushing them in the right direction in life? They thank that friend or roommate or teacher who forced them out of their comfort zone and now they've got this great life?

Well, let me tell you I have a great life but you know who I thank for getting me addicted to this blog business and keeping me indoors on the prettiest day this spring? Andrew Sullivan. Glenn Reynolds. Hugh Hewitt. Thanks, guys. When it's June and I'm pasty white with no tan and I'm desperately out of shape, I'll read a copy of Blog and drink a skinny hazelnut double espresso - to keep me blogging furiously into the wee small hours of the morning - in your collective honor.

There's a copy of Key Largo sitting on my entertainment center. I'm dying to get into it, but I've got exams and graduate school applications. I'll have to wait. Studies call. This is what we refer to as maturity. It wasn't so mature yesterday when I caroused around Tuscaloosa looking for eggs, orange juice and maple syrup. We wanted pancakes. We had pancakes. The pancakes were good. Just one caveat. We ate the pancakes at two-thirty in the afternoon. When I was leaving the supermarket with my maple syrup and orange juice, having already procured the eggs from the health food store, I saw Chick-Fil-A across the street. I was starving. I wanted a biscuit. I knew it would not spoil by appetite for pancakes but then it dawned on me that it was after one p.m. No more breakfast. There were families in the drive-thru ordered kids meals and fries as they made their way home from the mall. They were leaving the mall. I had yet to shower and these families were done shopping. What nerve they had, being responsible and waking up before noon. I couldn't believe it.

Ah well. I had my pancakes and they were most excellent. The Braves have won two in a row, the sun is shining in Dixie and I can still blast Interpol from the car and get a curious glance from the Jackie O sunglasses in the next car over at the red light.

Life is good.

Posted by Matt at 05:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 27, 2005

Instapundit's Worry

Andrew Sullivan notes that Glenn Reynolds is concerned over the GOP's direction. See the first point in the update. Also check out Glenn's post on the matter.

In all honesty, I don't think that Glenn's worries are unfounded. If nothing else, we must be aware of public perception. The GOP is running a very real risk of convincing the swing voters of this country that it is the party of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell. I don't for one second believe that to be the total truth, but if you're naive enough to be a swing voter, chances are you won't be sharp enough to tell the difference between George W. Bush and Pat Robertson.

Conversely, I think it is legitimate to worry that non-Christians, or at least the unchurched, may percieve that traditional evangelicals and, I suppose in some cases, Catholics, are the religion of the GOP. I doubt very seriously that Justice Sunday helped to dispell that notion. As with the GOP itself, I don't think it's an entirely fair stereotype. Nevertheless we must be aware of public perception, however skewed it might be.

Allow me to simplify. Even if you and I, as conservatives, understand that James Dobson isn't running the GOP ship, we're still in trouble if enough Americans believe that in fact is the case. The truth as you and I know it is just an anecdote if 50% of the electorate thinks the GOP is out to turn the whole country into a church. Likewise with the Church. I know good and well that Al Mohler cares more about the Gospel of Jesus Christ than about the programs of the Republican Party. I do my best to explain this to others when the topic comes up. But what about the guy down the street who can't tell the difference? If the lines are blurred too often, I think it's a serious concern that the church will lose its effectiveness as the Body of Christ.

Posted by Matt at 01:59 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 26, 2005

Devils and Dust

The Boss has a new record out.

Yawn.

As far as hackneyed, cliched and downright boring music goes, Bruce Springsteen is on his way to becoming a legend. I'll admit that Nebraska was an alright album, but why anyone takes a guy like Springsteen seriously is beyond me. I can think of a dozen American songwriters who have created and are creating music that is far more moving. Springsteen's politics are as outdated as a sky blue leisure suit, and as liberals go, Steve Earle has him beat in a landslide. Damien Jurado and Richard Buckner are better storytellers. Conor Oberst is probably as full of himself, but at the rate he's maturing, he'll have Springstreen outdone - in the area of songwriting - in twenty years. Bob Dylan and Merle Haggard are still writing powerful music, and that's to say nothing of Townes Van Zandt's output before his death in the late 1990s.

Look at it this way. Gram Parsons died at a very young age, but rock and country fans still recognize "Sin City," "Love Hurts" and "$1000 Wedding." Other than "Born to Run," "Thunder Road" and the terrible "Born in the USA," will anyone remember a Springsteen song in twenty years?

Posted by Matt at 08:53 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 25, 2005

Let's Get One Thing Straight

Whatever my disagreements with Justice Sunday, and they've been a'plenty around here, let me state emphatically that I do not believe America is becoming a theocracy. Why?

'Cause Michael Barone said so.

(HT: Elrond)

Posted by Matt at 07:22 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 24, 2005

The Filibuster: What If?

Very, very interesting comments regarding potential outcomes should the nuclear option be exercised.

From the American Scene. Once comments are working, give us your take. What do my SCO comrades think?

Posted by Matt at 03:22 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 21, 2005

Those Darn Twixters

On Tuesday Al Mohler reprinted his column decrying the Twixter phenomenon. I'll say now, as I said when the piece originally ran, that when Mohler is befuddled when this generation won't grow up, he wrongly assumes that they have been raised in a mature, responsible way. Witness this quote:

Looking at this from a biblical perspective, the most tragic aspect of this development is the fact that these young people are refusing to enter into the adult experience and adult responsibilities that is their Christian calling. The delay of marriage will exact an undeniable social toll in terms of delayed parenthood, even smaller families, and more self-centered parents. The experiences of marriage and raising children are important parts of learning the adult experience and finding one's way into the deep responsibilities and incalculable rewards of genuine adulthood.

Well my goodness. We talk about how un-Biblical this phenomenon is, yet is anyone looking in the mirror and taking Evangelicals to task? I don't want to be one of those blame-the-Church first people. Yet if we see a problem, we might want to look at how it came to be.

My responses can be found here, here and here. The post are in chronological order.

Posted by Matt at 08:47 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 19, 2005

Church and State

My colleague Jim, in a post below, has already demonstrated his concern that local, invidual churches become too involved in the national political process. I echo his concerns. I think there is a definite place for the local church to speak on community and even state issues; national politics is another matter. That said, I believe pastors and church leadership should speak out against the evils of abortion, pornography and other sins that are dangerous to both the soul and to society.

I disagree with our reader who commented "Some are conservative and some are liberal and I wish that they all would just shut up because I am sure that they do not represent God." Certainly God is not Rush Limbaugh, nor is He Howard Dean. But it is naivete at best, bad theology at worst to suggest that God does not have a position on some, though by no means all, political matters. As another reader commented, abortion has become a political issue and yet it would be foolish to suggest that this is an issue where God is silent.

Having said that, I want to offer some examination of the upcoming Family Research Council event.

To begin, I watched Senator Schumer make a royal imbecile of himself on This Week yesterday morning. His rhetoric was juvenile and embarrassing. Serious Democrats should reject his thinking, and it is to their political detriment if they do not. Hugh Hewitt has had much to say about Schumer's Orwellian contention that it is somehow unAmerican for the Family Research Council to hold this weekend's event.

While it may not be un-American, I would suggest that it is not the wisest course of action. Do not misunderstand me. I believe that what the Democrats are doing is unconstitutional. I defy any reader who opposes the FRC to defend the Democrat's unprecedented obstruction. I believe these cynical actions on the part of Harry Reid and his cohorts are a legitimate danger to the Republic. Yet I also believe that increased involvement of identifiable local churches, acting outside the political parameters found in parachurch organizations, are running a very legitimate risk of watering down the Gospel and turning away those who would seek to find Christ within the walls of the Church.

Hugh Hewitt has joined with other bloggers (see Powerline and Althouse) in defending both the right and rhetoric of the FRC. While I fully believe in the constitutionality of the FRC's action, and I would not go as far as the Washington Post and call its action slander, I would remind readers of the Jurassic Park maxim: Just because we can doesn't mean we should.

Hugh Hewitt is correct when he asserts - see the bottom of this post - that the leaders of the Religious Right have not overplayed their hand. Politically, this is true, but I wonder about the local communities. What does the local agnostic think when he sees a church that is, in his view, more concerned with judicial appointments, however important they are, than with the destitute of body, heart and, above all, spirit within his own community.

Ramesh Ponurru is an ardent defender of social conservatives. A staunch Catholic, Ponurru does not shy away from following his Church's teachings in his political involvement. Yet he gently rebukes the views of Hewitt and others in a post this evening. Here is the money quote:

I'm with the Post on this one. I think it is true that many Democrats are enforcing a viewpoint test for judicial office that has the effect of screening out Catholics and many evangelical Protestants who are faithful to their churches' teaching about abortion. And I think Republicans have every right to hold Democrats to account for it. But opposition to Catholicism and evangelical Protestantism is not the same thing as opposition to religion in general, and opposition to pro-life views is not the same thing as opposition to moral conviction, either. The FRC's line that Democrats are filibustering "people of faith" is an overreach. The claim it is making is untrue, and it is untrue in a way that makes the Democrats look worse--which makes it a slander in my book.

I said before that I won't go so far as to use the word slander. I will say that this is a political miscalculation made worse by the fact that this broadcast will not be in homes or community centers; it will be in the local church. As a conservative and an evangelical, I can't support this with a clear conscience.

Posted by Matt at 12:00 AM | Comments (31) | TrackBack

April 17, 2005

Comments Working

Comments and Trackbacks should be working. That means everyone reading needs to post comments now. Unless you work for one of those annoying sites that's messing up our comments. You don't post. We don't like that.

Now I'm going to buy a sandwich.

Posted by Matt at 07:30 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

So Apparently I'm...Kinda Gay?

The other day I noticed this post at Mere Comments concerning the new phenomenon known as the "man date." The post quotes a New York Times piece defining the man date as the following:

Simply defined a man date is two heterosexual men socializing without the crutch of business or sports. It is two guys meeting for the kind of outing a straight man might reasonably arrange with a woman. Dining together across a table without the aid of a television is a man date; eating at a bar is not. Taking a walk in the park together is a man date; going for a jog is not. Attending the movie Friday Night Lights is a man date, but going to see the [New York] Jets play is definitely not.

I can't even begin to describe how silly this whole thing is. It's a "date" when two guys go eat? Of course it's a date in that two guys might set a time to get together for lunch or dinner. But we all know what's meant. Date means romance. We can't help ourselves, can we? Is this just a gross sexualization of society? Is this the gay-ing of society? I'm not making a statement about gay culture on way or the other, but gay culture has been elevated to some obscene level of prestige that anytime a man acts like something other than a redneck neandrethal, then he's left the burly confines of heterosexuality and is now floating in the ambiguous sea between staight and gay.

Remember the metrosexual? Certainly there's an excess at work here (dudes wearing makeup? No thanks.), but why in heaven's name do journalists feel the need to slap a label on people with suck reckless care? A straight guy with taste in music or clothes is no longer just a straight man; he's a metrosexual. He's into girls but he now has some gay sensibility. As though only gay men can dress well or appreciate a well-decorated apartment. This "man date" business is no different; two men can't have dinner. They have to have a date. What silly, obnoxious rhetoric.

Heterosexuals aren't without blame in this phenomenon. All the old talk about how real men don't do this or do that is nonsense. I like hunting, fishing, football, golf, guns, explosions and red meat. That doesn't make me more straight than I am when I go to an art museum or listen to jazz records. It's just what I do. None of these things say a thing about our identities as straight men. Sensible people, gay or straight, should reject this immature talk. Men having dinner is what it is; it is not a date. A man keeping a clean apartment or shopping at Banana Republic is not a mark of sexuality one way or the other. People are people and these sorts of social stigmas aren't helping anyone.

Lastly, the Touchstone staff got the following comment from one of their own concerning the man date. Pretty hilarious stuff:

Most of my man dates never get beyond foreplay. We eat beef jerky, engage in some provocative box-score exchanges, and then share meaningful bench-press exploits . . . But we never actually arm wrestle. (Sigh.)

Posted by Matt at 03:57 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse

The End is all kinds of nigh. Thus reads the back cover of Jason Boyett's Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Field Manual for the End of the World. I wonder if the blurb is a nod to the graffiti in the London cathedral in the fantastic horror movie 28 Days Later, the graffiti reading "the end is really (expletive) nigh?" Just a question.

At any rate, Boyett's book is a timely one. End-times hype has been the rage among evangelicals for a decade now. There's a lot of confusion on the topic, and it's nice to have a, well, field guide to sort out the varying theologies. It's written with a gentle tongue in the cheek, if perhaps to lighten the mood, what with all the plagues and locusts and bloody oceans. I can't say I blame Boyett for his tone; I've always figured the the end of the world would sound look like downtown Birmingham at one a.m. and sound like this.

Therein lies the problem, I think. Eschatology, for all of its confusion and predictions, is important. There is a lot of misunderstanding on the topic, and thus, a great need for clarity. Boyett's book could offer more of it, but nonetheless I think this is a book worth reading.

The book is short (158 pages), divided into six chapters. The first chapter is a very helpful glossary, defining eschatological terms of which I previously had only a passing understanding. Chapters two and three provide a timeline of all manner of prophecies that every major (and a few minor) religions have offered up over the years concerning the apocaplype. The list is pretty extensive, covering a period of roughly four thousand years. Chapter four is a mildly funny look at various candidates for the role of the Anti-Christ. Nominees include, but are not limited to, Mikhail Gorbachv, Saddam Hussein and Bill Gates. Yes, there is the obligatory Windows joke. As their should be.

Chapter five takes a serious though brief look at eschatology. Here Boyett is at his strongest in examining five outlooks on the End Times, including perterism, postmillenialism, amillenialism and the two forms of premillenialism. This is clarifying writing, for a lot of us simply aren't very knowledgable about the various views on this topic. Chapter six concludes the book with a hodge-podge of information. The interview with apocalypse expert Paul Meier is intruiging. The chapter also features two lists of potential end of the world scenarioes, one courtesy of nature, the other of science. Lastly, Boyett tosses up a list of end times of words, mainly for cheesy pop culture phenomenons that deserve all the ridicule and cheap jokes we can muster. Think movies like Left Behind and Devil's Advocate.

One of the blurbs on the inside covers says that Pocket Guide... is "the full-on bathroom book of the century." Is that what Boyett wanted? If so, he has it. This is a fun read and, at times, a very interesting one. Part of me really enjoyed it, but at the same time, part of was thinking that this is a serious topic that should be handled seriously. For those like myself who have not been overly knowledgable about the plethora of opinions on the End Times, it would be nice to have a clear, concise work that explains the differing opinions among Christians. Boyett comes very, very close, but I would argue that he slightly misses the mark.

My final complaint is one I have made before. The book is published by the Relevant Media Group, a company dedicated to making an appeal to my generation, the young to mid twentysomethings. We're seekers, I'm told. They say we're looking for answers and we're not settling for what we've heard before. So they say. At any rate, if that is indeed true, if we are looking for answers, then we need serious answers. We don't need jokes. We don't need irony. Seinfeld is fine, but if you're going to talk to me about the End of the World, then please do so with a certain level of clarity. Church folks who've seen all the Evangelical hype might find it funny, and I'll admit that I do. The college kid who reads Relevant and was raised in church but isn't sure about Christ, however, may not need ironic jokes and cheap laughs. We need clarity, and while there's a bit of it here, I worry that there may not be enough.

Posted by Matt at 03:19 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Ol' Ball Coach Is Back

The greatest time of year starts at the end of August or the first of September. Not the fall semester, but the college football season. Sure, basketball is nice. Baseball is wonderful. Golf is good. But football is the sport of men. I've grown up in a state with one of the grandest college football traditions in America. The University of Alabama has not been at the top its game in recent years, but football is still the best game in town.

This fall readers can expect to hear me go on and on and on about the joy is that Saturday afternoon at Bryant-Denny Stadium. On Alabama's schedule this fall is South Carolina, an SEC team that Bama plays in a two year set only ever four or five years. The game is in Columbia, and I will not be in attendance due to the wedding of a very good friend. The game is important for one very big reason: the last time Alabama played a time by Steve Spurrier, the Tide was completely dominating as it won another SEC championship.

Steve Spurrier is cocky. He walks and talks with a proud Southern swagger. He runs his mouth and he runs up the score. He's flashy and showy and proud of himself. As an Alabama fan, I've grown to dislike the man simply because that's what we do, but I must say, despite every inclination to the contrary, I'm glad Steve Spurrier is back. The SEC will no longer be the boring place it has been the last few years. When Tommy Tubberville running his mouth is the most excitement you can get, things are in sad, sad shape. Here's to hoping the Ol' Ball Coach can begin rocking the boat, and soon.

Posted by Matt at 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 14, 2005

A Touch of Good News

Lord Elrond notes tomorrow's Washington Post story about Senator Frist's push for action. Frist has the support of Senators Allen and Santorum.

Frist, Santorum and Allen. Three men who want to be President.

I'll vote for Senator Allen.

'08 predictions aside, if these men want to activate change, they must act and act soon. The base is fed up with the delay, but I do believe that if a group of Senators act with strength and determination, they will be revered by conservatives for some time. Any Republican Senator with Presidential aspirations should think long and hard about this issue.

Posted by Matt at 10:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More On Judges

TenNapel has a seething post, and Captain's Quarters goes after the Moose. (HT: Lord Elrond)

Posted by Matt at 10:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What a Bunch of Wimps

Rush went on a tirade today about the GOP's capitulation in the Senate over the judicial issue. Hugh Hewitt has a similar report.

This is troubling on so many levels. What kind of wimps are in the Senate? The Republicans were not elected to sit on their hands and let a nobody like Harry Reid hold up important legislation and confirmations. This is nonsense.

Posted by Matt at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Day of Silence

Al Mohler on the Day of Silence.

I agree with him on all but two points. First, I'm not entirely convinced that the protest originated as a systematic attempt to promulgate a pro-gay agenda. I'm willing to believe that the protest is rooted in pro-gay ideology and a refutation of anti-gay bigotry that has, over time, trickled down into high schools. Mohler refers to the protests in high schools, but he never acknowledges that they are taking place in elementary schools. I am fully aware of attempts, in some areas, to push a pro-gay agenda on children in elementary schools (see "Heather Has Two Mommies"), but when dealing with high school students, let's not use words like "children" to conjur up images of defenseless toddlers. Christians should create an environment in the home and church that prepares junior high and high school students to deal with this sort of thing. If a fifteen year old Christian is defenseless against such arguments, whose fault is it? Here's a hint: it's not the school administrator. Having said that, high school is not the place to bombard students with a message of GLBT revelry. College electives? Maybe, but it has no place in high school cirriculum.

Secondly, and perhaps I'm grasping at straws here, but as Christians we should realize that there are young people who are very, very trouble and confused. The simple truth is that students who would call themselves gay or lesbian are often subjected to bullying and torment. This sort of thing should be refuted on all counts and we should exhibit gentleness and love to all people, though I agree with Mohler that our compassion to the lost should not lead us to accept a pro-gay agenda with open arms.

Posted by Matt at 11:51 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

File It Under "Awesome"

Fr. Neuhaus is blogging. Sort of. (Hat Tip: BHT)

Posted by Matt at 12:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 13, 2005

Levin Tries to Clear the Air

I'm not so sure it worked.

In this Corner post, Mark Levin tries to clear up the KKK issue with Dr. James Dobson. Levin makes a few good points when he notes the way the Supreme Court has consistenly been problematic. He veers off track, in my view, when he says that "it's time to engage on the substance." Indeed it is, which is why Dr. Dobson should have stayed on topic and avoided the rhetoric. Here's hoping he'll do likewise in the future.

Additionally, Jonah Goldberg cites an apparently typical reader e-mail on the topic. I just can't buy this line of thinking; excess on the Left does not excuse excess on the Right.

Like Jim, I have a lot of respect for Dr. Dobson's work. I believe, like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson before him, he needs to clarify his mission. Whatever Christians think of his position, Dobson is viewed by the media and general public as a Christian leader. Thus he is unable to engage in the sort of rhetoric that might, might be acceptable for a Rush Limbaugh or a Sean Hannity. I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't feel comfortable with those guys speaking like in such a manner, but at least they don't operate under the banner of the Evangelical community.

Posted by Matt at 06:58 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 12, 2005

Dobson Redux

I think I was pretty clear in my post on Dr. Dobson's recent remarks. I don't feel that I need to clarify anything, but I do want to flesh out a couple of ideas.

To begin with, Dr. Dobson and I are on the same team. We want the same thing: a judiciary that works within prescribed Constitutional boundaries. I don't bedgrudge him for his work in the area. In many ways, I'm thankful for it. I simply disapprove of some of his rhetoric.

In reference to some of the comments we have received below, I fully acknowledge that segments of the judiciary are completely and totally out of control. I can't make that any plainer. I am irate over the whole matter. I just believe that in the same way we castigate the left for such rhetoric, we on the right have no business using loaded words or references to things like the Ku Klux Klan. Even if Dobson is not trying to suggest that the judiciary is our present-day KKK, the phrase carries too much weight to be tossed around.

I said below that this sort of speculation might work around the coffee table. It might even work as a high-minded academic exercise, comparing the effects of a runaway judiciary with that of a tyrannical state. That's all well and good. I've engaged in that sort of talk more times than I can remember, and I'll no doubt do it again. I just don't believe that this sort of phrasing (see "God's people-hater") is necessary. If said in the heat of panel discussion on a television talk show a la Charlie Rose or the Capital Gang, I could understand. The quotes I have cited were done in a docile setting. I simply ask that our leaders, particularly those who have ascended through media attention and force of activism, mind their words. Anger has its place, but I just don't believe this sort of language is neccesary.

Lastly, a question. The Weekly Standard has been an astute conservative publication for over a decade. National Review is celebrating its fiftieth year. These publications have been fighting for a conservative judiciary, both in practice and in makeup, as long as this fight has existed. In the case of National Review, the fight was being waged decades before anyone had heard of the Religious Right. There are now and always have been Christians at both places; why is it that they have never resorted to such polarizing language? These folks aren't caving in on their convictions, and they're being effective without speaking in catch phrases and talking points. The Religious Right should aim to do likewise.

Posted by Matt at 06:23 PM | Comments (11) | TrackBack

Dobston's Timeout

Jeff Brokaw at Notes and Musings takes issue with my post below on Dr. James Dobson. I'll deal with his response in length later this afternoon, but for now let me address one question he poses:

Besides, with all the ridiculous, overheated rhetoric about the “Christian right” running the country and embarking on a fevered rush to take away our freedoms to surf for pr0n 24x7, aren’t Christians allowed to make some over the top statements once in a while, without being pilloried?

Around the coffeetable? Maybe. In public? Nope. No one's perfect, but we've got to be above this sort of thing. Wise as a serpent, gentle as a dove.

Posted by Matt at 11:33 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 11, 2005

Dobson Needs a Timeout

I take a backseat to no one in my crticism of the erratic Andrew Sullivan, but he has zeroed in on a quote by James Dobson that is simply inexcusable. I reiterate that I find Sullivan to be quite nauseating these days, but these are Dobson's own words:

I heard a minister the other day talking about the great injustice and evil of the men in white robes, the Ku Klux Klan, that roamed the country in the South and they did great wrong to civil rights to and to morality and now we have black-robed men.

This is absurd. I fully believe the judiciary to be out of control, but to compare it to the Ku Klux Klan is rhetorical nonsense. I might not be surprised if a Republican said this, though I would be disappointed. No serious intellectual conservative would say this. And lastly, for a Christian to make such an accusation is really low. This is where I have a problem with Dr. Dobson. He knows full well that he is speaking for millions of evangelicals, including those (like myself) who never fully agreed to his position of leadership. Nevertheless he has that authority, and I would argue that he is making very, very poor use of it. Until a wiser, more sane leader is willing to lovingly yet firmly criticize Dobson's rhetoric, evangelicals will be deserving of every overblown media stereotype.

I recieved an e-mail from a reader a few weeks ago questioning why I included Dobson as an evangelical leader in the vein of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. I never replied to the reader, and my apologies for that, but my reasoning is clear: In the public's eye, Dobson is a Christian leader the same as Falwell or Robertson. That he is not a minister or televangelist is beside the point.

As I said above, I have no use for this sort of rhetoric coming from a Republican or a movement conservative. But to come from a Christian is even worse. Dobson needs to make up his mind; either he speaks as man of faith or a Republican. Christians can be Republicans, no dobut, but to use political rhetoric while speaking as a leader of Christians is over the top. Calling Patrick Leahy, a sorry Senator, to be sure, a "God's people-hater" was bad enough. This new business is strike two. Here's hoping Dr. Dobson calls a timeout before we reach strike three.

And finally, if the judiciary is so evil, Dr. Dobson, where were you while Terri Schiavo was starving to death and only Jesse Jackson would stand by her side?

Posted by Matt at 06:27 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 10, 2005

Desert Island Discs

Christianity Today is polling readers for their Desert Island DVDs. (HT: Looking Closer)

I'm quite used to making out this list as it concerns music, but I've never done it with movies. Let's give it a go, shall we? Readers are welcome to respond.

Desert Island Discs, of course, refers to a list of discs, usually ten, that you would want if you were stranded on a desert island. Since this is my list, I'm taking my own rules. Follow along.

1. The entire Lord of the Rings trilogy. I'm counting this as one movie because it was filmed as one giant piece. Cheating? Maybe, but it's my list. Fight me for it.
2. Waking Life. An exhilirating animated romp through modern philosophy. Incredibly thought-provoking.
3. The Royal Tenebaums. My favorite of Wes Anderson's four films, a fine work depicting a charming tale of forgiveness and redemption.
4. Punch-Drunk Love. A graceful woman repairing a wounded heart.
5. North by Northwest. Perhaps the best of Hitchcock's films, a masterful acting job by Cary Grant and a brilliant script. And Eva Marie-Saint. Yowza.
6. Annie Hall. Cliched? Maybe, but it's funny, romantic and Woody Allen's not being too crazy. It's a can't miss.
7. O Brother! Where Art Thou? A wonderful story of sin and redemption, with a fine Southern soundtrack.
8. L.A. Confidential. The best modern noir. Russell Crowe's best performance ever, and I do mean EVAH.
9. Some random war or western movie with either John Wayne or Gary Cooper. The Longest Day? Maybe. Or High Noon, perhaps.
10. National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. Do I need to explain this?

So there we have it. I can assure you that this list will be completely different in a week, if not sooner. But for now, if I were forced off to a gulag with only ten movies, that's my list. Now, anyone want to help me refine that Number 9 into a definite choice?

Posted by Matt at 10:36 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Movin' On Up

Our friend the Anchoress have relocated. Do keep track of her; it's worth your while.

Posted by Matt at 04:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

MetaBloggism

A while back I was at an art show for a friend of mine at the Kentuck Gallery in nearby Northport, Alabama. I mentioned to her that she needed a blog for purposes of keeping friends and supporters up to date about her work. She recoiled at the idea, thinking that blogs were merely a political tool.

That provoked an interesting rhetoricial question for me to consider. Are blogs, like punk rock and hip hop, going to be forever viewed as a political medium?

What say our readers and colleagues?

Posted by Matt at 01:40 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

Me vs. PostModernism

I take on the new world.

Posted by Matt at 09:30 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 09, 2005

Brooks? Eh!

In reference to the David Brooks column Jim mentioned below, I think Brooks is making one greivous error: He's relying on polls to support his evidence. This is just shoddy. He uses polling data to support his argument that most Americans weren't comfortable with government intervention into the Terri Schiavo case. Has Brooks been under a rock the last three weeks? Every blogger sitting in his dorm room has noted that the MSM polls on the subject were pratically rigged.

Brooks should know better than to trust these polls.

That said, I think there is something to be said for his call to prudence. That doesn't mean backing away from a message, but as Brooks notes, it might mean reevaluating our methods. The GOP's first priority in the Senate should be confirming some judges. The House? Someone wiser than me will need to answer that, but I imagine some progressively conservative but tempered work on Social Security might be a good idea.

And yes, I know the comments aren't working. We're working on it.

Posted by Matt at 01:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 07, 2005

A Confident Man

Lord Elrond is a confident fellow.

I wish I could share in his enthusiasm. Frankly, and Rush has been speaking on this topic heavily all week, I'm pretty well convinced that the Congressional GOP is a fraternity of wusses. Nevertheless I am preparing a letter to send to my own Alabama Senators Shelby and Sessions, as well as Senator Bill "Please Please Please Let Me Be President" Frist. Once written and delivered, it shall be posted in this space.

I don't know how many times it has to be said, whether by Rush or Hannity or the writers at National Review or the Weekly Standard or every astute blogger sitting comfortably in his pajamas: Republicans win when we run on hard, focused conservative principles. We win when we play fair but very very tough.

As a great man once said, "There's no substitute for guts." I hope our GOP Senators remember that when it comes time to confirm these judges.

Posted by Matt at 11:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

God's Democrat?

Interesting piece on Jim Wallis in this week's Weekly Standard.

I've been arguing in this space for weeks that Wallis is a bonafide liberal on every issue save for abortion. This article pretty well backs up my assertion. I'll confess that I'm not bothered by Wallis' liberalism so much as I am his self-righteous tone in suggesting that he's just a humble Christian seeking a peaceful dialogue with the rest of the world. Nonsense. He is a classic post-Vietnam liberal in almost every sense of the word, and he should have the courage to say so.

On the topic, I saw Wallis on CSPAN2's After Words over the weekend. He was being interviewed by Randy Tate, formerly of the Christian Coalition. The interview was pleasant and fair, I must say. I can't find a transcript, but I remember being very, very unimpressed. I don't doubt Wallis' heart for the downtrodden, but when judging his abilities to navigate political turf, I am hardpressed to find someone more intellectually vacuous. No doubt this has something to do with his lack of followers.

Posted by Matt at 11:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Christian Art

I'm in the process of rereading Francis Schaeffer's works. Powerful stuff, and I wish that more evangelicals would take heed. Joe at the Evangelical Outpost is serious about digging in to the matter of Christians and visual arts. Worth reading, especially if you think Thomas Kinkade is making good art.

Posted by Matt at 12:42 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

April 06, 2005

Executing My New Powers as Name-Giver

I hereby dub Hugh Hewitt the Gandalf of the blogosphere. (And yes, I know he's quoting Galadriel, but work with me here)

And from here on out, Andrew Sullivan will be known as the Jan Brady of the blogosphere for the simple reason that he won't stop whining. Come on, Andrew. Cry me a river. Or maybe we should call him Justin Timberlake.

Any readers have an opinion?

Posted by Matt at 01:17 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

April 05, 2005

Newsflash: Socialism Doesn't Work

John Mark Reynolds explains why Christianity and socialism won't jive.

Posted by Matt at 09:50 PM | Comments (4)

Saul Bellow Has Died

Allow me to echo John J. Miller's comments concerning Saul Bellow. Like Miller, I am only familiar with a small amount of Bellow's work, namely, Seize the Day and the Actual. I know that many of Bellow's other works are monuments in post-World War II American literature. I highly recommend the above works, and I plan to dive into the other novels this summer.

My prayers go out to Bellow's family. (His son Adam is a noted editor, formerly of NR)

Posted by Matt at 09:41 PM | Comments (0)

Immigration

In response to Rick's query on immigration, I have some pretty basic views.

Immigration = good
Illegal immigration = bad

Look, we have laws in this country. I have a very, very hard time believing that it is unjust to suggest that someone make their presence known if they plan to cross our borders and stay here. On top of that, America is a big ship, but it is a ship nonetheless. We can only handle some many people. That's why there are limits to the number of immigrants we take every year. I realize life is difficult in Latin America. Let's work to correct the problems, but giving every poor farmer south of the Rio Grande carte blance to walk into Arizona and Texas is not a proper solution.

Posted by Matt at 09:59 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 04, 2005

Youth Culture

A few weeks ago I looked at the question of the decay of youth culture. I have not come to any definite conclusions, but I do think part of the answer lies in the zeitgeist; Francis Schaeffer's line of decay has finally seeped into popular culture and education. It is being fully realized. The nihilism found in much of popular culture is by no means new, but now, instead of being discussed in pubs and coffeehouses, it is seen on television and heard on radio with stunning regularity. It is no surprise that school shootings take place in such a climate, though it remains a terrible, awful tragedy.

Posted by Matt at 02:23 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

April 02, 2005

Ramblings

The Pope and Over the Rhine and a Southern spring.

Posted by Matt at 11:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Just Arrived...

Yesterday I recieved in the mail a copy of Jason Boyett's Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse: The Official Field Manual For The End Of The World. It's a somewhat satirical look at the end-times beliefs of Christians, and our subsequent interest in the subject. My brief perusing says this will be a fun read; a full review coming soon.

Posted by Matt at 11:38 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

April 01, 2005

Words on Mourning

Let me echo the sentiments of Dr. John Mark Reynolds concerning the seemingly inevitable death of Pope John Paul:

"I am no Roman and never shall be. However, this gallant knight, this friend of Reagan and the unborn, has been one of the greatest men to ever sit in Peter's chair.

God be with you brave defender of the right. Soon God will vouch safe to give you a vision of Himself unmediated by pain in that Undiscovered Country from which no man must return."

Posted by Matt at 06:49 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

You Might Say I'm Irritated

I've had a terribly long day. I've driven a few hundred miles, stomping through rural Alabama just to have some people sign some papers. I'm tired. I've been up since six a.m., and it's now early Friday morning. I want to be in bed, sound asleep listening to the rain pound the pavement outside my window.

I can't sleep. Not yet. I am simply too angry. I am still livid. I first heard of Terri Schiavo's death on the Glen Beck show this morning, sitting in my car. I was putting cream cheese on a bagel from Panera Bread Company. My coffee was starting to cool. It was rainy and grey and I was hungry.

Terri Schiavo was hungry. For two whole weeks. I've had a lot happen in my life since Terri's feeding tube was removed. I had friends coming into town that fateful afternoon, and my rooommate and his girlfriend and I were cleaning the apartment like crazy. The past two weeks have been a blur for me, but not for the Schindlers. In all I've done since that day, Terri's family has had to watch her starve to death. Time only flies when you're having fun. For the Schindlers and their loved ones, time has been, to paraphrase William Carlos Williams, a storm in which they have been lost for the last fifteen years.

I'm angry not just because the media blew it. Not just because these smart aleck namby-pampy know-it-alls at ABC, CNN, NBC, PBS, NPR or whatever acronym you can create decided that playing cute political games with the Republicans was more important than telling the ever-loving truth. It was more fun for Judy Woodruff to take a cheap shot at Jeb or George Bush than it was to tell the whole world that a bone scan revealed that Terri had multiple fractures throughout her body, while her loving husband blamed a therapist but never called for an investigation. I'm angry because some commentators are too cynical to understand that maybe, just once, other pundits really did care about Terri Schiavo. I'm angry because normally reasonable people cared nothing about the facts in the case. I'm angry because the polls were crooked, and since the media was lying through their rotten teeth, the public is still clueless about what really happened down in Florida. I'm angry because a suggestion that Christian political leaders like Jeb Bush owed something to a higher law were met with scoffing. I'm angry that we have come to worship at the alter of the judiciary, unquestioning anything said from a man or woman in a black robe. It's like a bad Lord of the Rings nightmare.

And I'm really, really, really angry that the best we could do - we who supported Terri's right to life and food and water and some blessed due process in our oh-so hallowed courts - was to send up Randall Terry and Jesse Jackson to defend her poor family. Every right-wing Christian leader in America, Catholic and Protestant, has used this tragedy as an opportunity to rail about a runaway judiciary and the perverted worldview that has affected our culture. Rightfully so, but where we these people? I may think them loons in every other aspect of their lives, but God bless Randall Terry and Jesse Jackson. Whatever faults we may find with these men, and Lord knows it may take a while to list them all out, at least they had the courage to step up to the plate. My prayers are with Jerry Falwell right now, but where was James Dobson? Where were Richard Land and Al Mohler and every other leader of the Southern Baptist Convention? I've been to the Southern Baptist Convention a number of times. I know what goes on, and I've applauded, and will continue to applaud the call to a Christian presence in our culture. Euthanasia has been decried at ever SBC meeting for twenty years. It will be mentioned again this summer, likely with Terri Schavio's name, but not one SBC leader could leave their office for a day or two and stand up for this woman. But I'm sure you'll all hear about it on Sunday. What about Richard John Neuhaus or John Piper or Ravi Zacharias? Where were the Catholic bishops who threatened to deny Communion to John Kerry? This is shameful. The Christian Right is ridiculed in the mainstream press, and while Terri's Fight is about more than PR, we should be embarrassed that we abandoned the Schindler family to be consoled by two of the more polarizing figures in American politics. Ralph Nader took the time to issue two press releases, but we can't find one - not one! - respectable and noted Christian leader to go stand with the Schindler family and say "we support you"? Shame on us!

We can't be content to show up at the polls every two years or call our Congressman or write out cute blog posts for our friends and family to gawk at. At some point the rubber must meet the road, and we must be willing to demonstrate that we care about these matters in a real, tangible way. A woman was murdered over the last two weeks, and our leaders took a walk.

There was an old Calvin and Hobbes comic strip wherein Calvin ponders the idea of modern, realistic superheroes. Hobbes coolly suggests that the heroes could attend council meetings and write letters to the editor. As Hobbes yells, "Quick! To the bat-fax!," Calvin begins to see the problem. The same is true of us. I rebuke all calls for violence and disorder, but until we are willing - as sane, rational Christians - to stand in the streets and rebuke the Fred Phelps of the world while we rebuke the perverse and maddening culture that starved Terri Schiavo to death, then we can blame no one but ourselves.

Posted by Matt at 01:58 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

March 31, 2005

Neuhaus on Colson

In the newest issue of First Things, Richard John Neuhaus' column, The Public Square, has a very kind blurb on Chuck Colson. The piece is not yet online, but if you're a reader of FT - and you should be! - you'll find the piece very refreshing.

Posted by Matt at 08:14 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

A Rumor of War

Instapundit notes the possibility of civil war in Venezuela.

This doesn't sound pretty.

Posted by Matt at 07:50 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 30, 2005

Jonah Says Chill

In the second of a three part series, Al Mohler examines the implications of the Terri Schiavo tragedy. Take a look at Question Four, wherein Mohler examines conservatism's future. I won't quote too much of the piece, because none of it really stands out. At the same time, it's worth a read. See this one small quote:

"Conservatives need to acknowledge the divisions in the conservative movement and the reality of conflict in conservative principles."

I realize Mohler's "blog" is more column than blog, but where has he been? This conversation has been going on for years. And it's been pretty intense throughout the blogosphere for the last two weeks. It took him this long to comment? I'm not sure his analysis is that on target, at any rate. Jonah Goldberg's syndicated column, without dealing with Mohler specifically, addresses such worry in a pretty clear fashion.

Speaking of syndicated columns, Deroy Murdock nails the argument that Terri's Fight is only for Christians.

Posted by Matt at 06:29 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Drunkard's Prayer

The new Over the Rhine album is, in a word, fantastic. I shall give a more in depth review of it later, after a few more listenings. My initial response is one of pure enjoyment; a husband and a wife have created something majestic and beautiful, addressing God and marriage and love with a delicacy that is stunning.

Posted by Matt at 09:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A Few More Thoughts...

I had said that I won't be posting anymore links on Terri Schiavo, but here's a couple more.

First, Rod Dreher on Jess Jackson's appearance:

"It strikes me as profoundly meaningful, and profoundly depressing, that Jesse Jackson -- Jesse Jackson, for crying out loud! -- made a point to go to the hospice and stand by the Schindlers and speak out for Terri's right to life, but not a single American Catholic bishop has done so."

Indeed. One could also substitute the words "evangelical leader" for "Catholic bishop," as well.

Also see Jay Nordlinger's NRO piece this morning:

"I am asked — by readers — whether I think the Bushes have done enough. The answer is no. I am further asked whether Governor Jeb should go for the (Bill) Bennett option: Do what it takes to feed Mrs. Schiavo, risk impeachment and jail. Yes. There is more to being an American — and more to being a leader — than following the edicts of judges."

Food for thought, no?

Posted by Matt at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 29, 2005

What Is the Religious Right?

Continuing with our discussion of the religious right, John Mark Reynolds offers his definition of the subject at hand:

A person is a member of the religious right if and only if he is a person who allows his religious knowledge to impact his decision making, he votes, he votes for Republicans, he does not privilege secular beliefs over religious beliefs as demanded by people with secular beliefs, and argues that some behavior at present favored by the majority of the editorial board of the LA Times is wrong and should not receive the approval and support of the state.

Interesting definition, and I wouldn't entirely disagree with it. It's a definition that I need to consider. In a post below, I took issue with some of the spokesmen of the religious right. In retrospect, a few of my comments were particularly strong, so let me offer a mea culpa. In my post I said, "I have very little use for the public face of the religious right, as identified in Dobson, Falwell and Robertson. I believe these leaders have outlived there usefulness as public spokesmen." To say I have "very little use" is perhaps stronger than I intended, particularly in light of Rev. Falwell's recent hospitalization. My prayers of with him and his family.

Still, I am unabashed in noting that I am uncomfortable with these men as figureheads. While I am thankful for their work over the last twenty-five years, I simply believe that at this stage in our society, these men have become ineffective as spokesman. Is it likely that nonbelievers, particularly those outside the red states, find these men convincing? I have a hard time believing it. James Dobson isn't doing anyone - the GOP or the Church - any favors by arguing with George Stephanopolous, and Jerry Falwell arguing with Al Sharpton is completely unnecessary. At some point, we as believers are going to have to decide if these men are effective public figures. In my own estimation, and feel free to correct me, that hour will be sooner rather than later. I say this with a great deal of hestitancy in light of Rev. Falwell's illness, but I am not speaking of him alone; he is part of the issue, not the root or even the center of it.

So where does that leave us? What is the proper marriage of faith and politics? Is it wrong to have Reynolds' stance where faith and theology informs political decision making? Is Rick Santorum wrong?

And here's my neverending quandry when it comes to public figures: Why is that I almost always feel comfortable with William F. Buckley, John Podhoretz, Hugh Hewitt and Rush Limbaugh? Why do I usually, though not always, feel comfortable with Al Mohler and Richard Land? And why do I rarely feel comfortable when I see James Dobson on my television?

Posted by Matt at 06:31 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Instapundit on the Religious Right

Glenn Reynolds is commenting on the Hugh Hewitt/Jeff Jarvis discussion on the religious right. He offers us all some sage advice:

On the other hand, here's some advice, very similar to advice I gave to the antiwar movement: If you don't want to be confused with a movement led by theocrats, don't let actual theocrats be seen as your spokesmen. It may be impossible to shut Randall Terry up -- though if I were Karl Rove, I would have tried really hard -- but he needs to be loudly and regularly denounced as a nut. Otherwise you're in the same boat as lefties who don't want to be identified with Ward Churchill, but happily use him when they want to draw a crowd.

Words of wisdom, methinks.

Posted by Matt at 06:28 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Foreign Affairs

Now for something we can all agree on. Instapundit points to two very interesting foreign issues.

First, Glenn notes an article reporting the difficulties facing the Iraqi resistance. Sounds good to me.

Second, Zimbabwe looks to be in the news soon. Elections are upcoming; see here and here.

Third, and completely unrelated, the new Over the Rhine record comes out today. I can't wait to break open my copy this afternoon.

Posted by Matt at 08:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 28, 2005

Two Easter Tales

Rod Dreher recounts a conversation from this Easter weekend. Yep; this is how things get done down in Dixie.

My own thoughts on Easter Sunday.

Posted by Matt at 11:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Christian Response

In my post below, I noted the Internet Monk's post on the Christian media response to Terri Schiavo. I noted the post because while I think Michael Spencer makes some good points, I simply believe the timing of the post was wrong. But Spencer has posed the questions, and they are questions that need examining.

I felt then, as I feel now, that this is too important an issue for us as believers to be distracted over the political bickering that is taking place. I also noted Hugh Hewitt's post below concerning the Christian right. Clearly there is some debate within the religious right, and I myself am not immune. I have very little use for the public face of the religious right, as identified in Dobson, Falwell and Robertson. I believe these leaders have outlived there usefulness as public spokesmen. Yet Spencer stops there. What about Hugh Hewitt, Bill Bennett and John Mark Reynolds? These are not knee-jerk reactionaries. Are they part of the same crowd that Spencer (correctly) cites as being problematic?

I didn't join the "Let Terri Live" crowd because of James Dobson or Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell. (Though I admit that Rush has been nothing short of flawless on this issue). I support the Schindler family because life should always, always be given the benefit of the doubt. I didn't do it because I was raised Southern Baptist or because I listen to Rush Limbaugh. I haven't been watching O'Reilly or Hannity & Colmes. I think Randall Terry is an embarrassment.

The point that Spencer seems to ignore, at least concerning the blogosphere, is that dozens of pundits not normally considered to be a part of the Christian right - Bill Kristol, Wesley J. Smith, Stanley Kurtz, John Podhoretz, John Leo, and Ralph Nader, for heaven's sake - have taken the side of Terri Schiavo's parents. Does that mean they're right? Not necessarily, but it should be a hint that the Dobsons and Falwells of the world aren't out there fighting this battle alone. I have no doubt at all that every Christian blogger who has shown even the slightest divergence from the standard religious right position in this case has recieved an inbox full of anger. I don't condone nasty e-mails and angry comment threads. I realize that many Christians, often uninformed on the matter, have the capacity to become belligerent. But I won't step away from the position that life must always be protected, and it is incumbent upon Christians to protect life. Not because it will win us points in the 700 Club, but because a stable, decent society depends on it. I'm not trying to defend or even establish the Southern Baptist America. Simply a just and decent society. It's what we've had in this nation for over two hundred years, but we're fools if we allow it to slip away.

Does salvation depend on this issue? No. No one will end up in hell because they sided with Michael Schiavo. Is James Dobson the final voice on the matter? Nope. Shall I say that there is a defacto Christian position on this? Not quite, at least not in the sense that one's salvation is revealed or denied in the issue. But as it concerns the taking of a life, the slow starvation (ten days and counting) of a woman, the precedent of an unfaithful husband determining his wife's fate against the rest of her family's wishes, the kangaroo court that has masqueraded for the last ten years...if a believer finds this fair and decent and just, be my guest. That position will be between the man and God, but I shall have no part of it.

Posted by Matt at 09:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

One Easter Thought...

The Apostle Paul suggests that if Christ is not risen from the grave, and if the Christian has no hope for the future, then we are a pitiable lot. Thank God this is not true, and that Christ indeed has risen! We have something in which to hope, and the powerful knowledge that, as Gandalf told Sam, every sad thing will be made untrue. What joyous knowledge.

Posted by Matt at 06:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Final Word

Al Mohler on Terri Schiavo.

This is likely the last I'll say on this matter for a while, because like Jay Nordlinger, I am: "I'm so appalled by it. I am still adjusting to the fact that I'm living in a country that will gladly starve a helpless woman to death."

I can't believe how odd this whole thing has become. I've read too much as of late by people with whom I typically agree suggesting things that I just can't stomach, things that aren't even dealing with the major issues at hand.

It's given me a headache, save for exposing one issue.

What is the religious right, and what do I, on a personal level, think of it? Hugh Hewitt's morning post addresses some of the issue, but it's worth continual evaluation.

More later, I reckon.

Posted by Matt at 06:15 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 25, 2005

Schindler's List

At Mere Comments, James M. Kushiner absolutely nails the crux of the matter. The media can be studied later. We can talk later about how we got here and the problems with marriage laws and medical ethics.

It is a day in which judgments are made, but they are not always as they appear. In the Terri Schiavo case, while it is about her, and her parents, it is also about much more. It is about a culture of death and a culture of life. Can a society that is expanding the "right to die" while at the same time restricting the "right to life" be anything other than a culture of death?

I think it is ultimately a contest between two views. One says that life is a Gift from God, the other that it is not and it is for us to decide by our own lights what to do with life. It is ours to manipulate, ours to end when we want to, ours to create for experimental purposes, in short there is no Divine mystery to Life before which we must in all humility bow.

Posted by Matt at 11:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

The Africa Crisis

Africa is a mess, and it needs our help. On that, we should all be able to agree. As a lifelong U2 fan, I've been sympathetic to Bono's concern for the continent, which in turn inspired another favorite band, the Innocence Mission, to record an album to benefit African relief.

A few weeks ago, I noted a Bono quote suggesting that American Christians are viewed as stingy by the rest of the world, even our fellow Christians. Now Fareed Zakaria has a column in Newsweek discussing America's Africa policy. John Miller took great offense to Zakaria's commentary. So did Ramesh Ponurru. And John Derbyshire. And Jonah Goldberg. And Nick Schulz.

Concerned readers should follow the Corner on this one. Bono, whose heart I believe to be in the right place, and others talk often about Africa and the need for help, but it is the American right that has offered the most innovation in recent years. The WHO and other organizations have been an abysmal failure as of late. While I support efforts to repair that damaged continent, we must be mindful that we are not led to feel guilty by those whose ideas are stale and worn.

Posted by Matt at 10:50 AM | Comments (0)

Hewitt on Sullivan

Andrew just got served, as the kids say.

Posted by Matt at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

What's Next for the Pro-Life Crowd?

Michael Spencer has put up a thought-provoking piece, questioning the media sensation surrounding Terri Schavo's gruesome situation. For the record, we're approaching seven days with no food or water. A painless death, indeed.

Witness this quote from Spencer's commentary:

It is at times like this that I realize how much of what we all "care about," is generated by our media of choice, and what it tends to focus on. In a very real way, our compassion is directed- perhaps manipulated- by the media we watch or read. Without demoting the importance or reality of any of the stories we focus on, I wonder if we've considered why we care, and more importantly, what we don't care about- and why?

(Emphasis is Spencer's)

There are fine points worth considering. We must not and should not abandon Terri's Fight. This case is important because it is the most notable of its kind to date; it is setting all sorts of precedents. But let's pay heed to Spencer's words. There are people suffering all around us. The inner cities of our country are just bad as they ever were; how can we change this? The Delta region of the Southeast, the Appalachian regions, the desert Southwest; all of these areas are full of poor and desperate people. Our own suburban neighborhoods are populated with folks whose lives are empty, having fallen victim to a debased consumerist culture.

How can we help? I don't pretend there are any answers; I'm setting in my nice apartment wearing nice clothes watching Sportscenter and listening to Cross Canadian Ragweed worrying about how my NCAA tournament bracket is busted. All I know is that there is a suffering world out there and I'm called to help, whether it's Terri Schiavo or a black kid from the inner city or a white kid from the mountains or a native American kid...we've got to do something.

Posted by Matt at 09:49 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Really Strange Bedfellows

Ralph Nader speaks out in favor of life for Terri Schiavo.

(Note: I had originally posted a sentence expressing my surprise at Nader's views. In retrospect it was a bit inappropriate. The line has been removed, and my apologies to Mr. Nader.)

Still, given that a lot of Nader voters have been fans of folks like Peter Singer, this is interesting.

Posted by Matt at 08:34 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 24, 2005

Douthat Speaking Some Truth

Ross Douthat tackles Andrew Sullivan and John Derbyshire. Boy, politics does make for strange bedfellows.

K.J. Lopez also notes a reader's anecdotal experiences with Terri's case, suggesting that as more facts are available, people begin to sympathize with Michael Schiavo. I will say this much. If he had reached a point of emotional despair, so be it. Let him date other women, but if that be the case, then he must be willing to waive all rights to Terri and her estate. The problem to me isn't so much that he is now with another woman. The problem is that he is with another woman, fathering children, and yet he still insists that he should be allowed to legally conduct himself as Terri's guardian. This is shameful behavior.

Posted by Matt at 06:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

A Few Quick Hits

Here's a few quick comments to start my morning.

- Jonathan Adler refers to a post that considers the possibility of a 7-5 decision in the 11th Circuit.

- Kathryn Jean Lopez has discovered the unrest in Kyrgyzstan. Sheesh, Rick was on that a week ago. Doesn't she read Stones Cry Out?

- Peggy Noonan notes that the "let Terri die" crowd is in love with death. I agree, but how can she this on hand and then blast the GOP for not doing enough to save her on the other? The public will know who is responsible for Terri's death. At the risk of sounding callous, I doubt very seriously that it is the Republicans who will suffer. Terri's supporters are doing everything they can; what else is there for us to do save Jeb Bush ordering in the Florida National Gaurd? (Rush was particularly eloquent on the death fixation yesterday. One of his better moments in recent months.)

- This is totally unrelated, but the new Over the Rhine record comes out Tuesday, and I am very happy about this.

Posted by Matt at 09:45 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 23, 2005

We've Made This Bed

Courtesy of our friend Michael Spencer at the Boar's Head Tavern comes this post by Joe Carter of the Evangelical Outpost. Joe rightly notes that the deterioration of marriage laws in America have brought us to the point that we now face. Terri Schiavo's plight would not likely be at this point if common law marriage statutes were still in place. I like Joe's take; Gay marriage should be of concern to us, but "it would take an army of homosexual rights activists several decades to do as much damage to the sacred institution as heterosexuals have done by tolerating no-fault divorce and the repeal of common law marriage."

Exactly.

I think about this often, particularly when I hear the James Dobsons and Jerry Falwells of the world decry the Godless judiciary. (Speaking of these men, can we not find a better spokesman than Pat Robertson? He was just Hannity & Colmes; it was cringe-inducing. Sean should know better.) Oh sure, the judicial branch of our country has gone nuts. I don't pretend otherwise. The whole issue brings me to a question: Where has the Church been the last fifty years of judicial activism? Oh, that's right. Cloistered away in our churches, making our own neat subculture of G-rated cartoons, bad music and pop psychology (see: Osteen, Joel). JP Moreland and Mark Noll warned us that the Evangelical mind was dangerously behind the rest of the world. That doesn't mean that the Church should take after the zeitgeist; these scholars simply asserted that the Church was not producing critical minds. To this end, I believe that the current judicial situation is the rotten fruit we've sown.

On the topic of bedmaking, Jeffrey Overstreet of Looking Closer has a fantastic post. (Some readers may recognize Overstreet as a frequent film critic for Christianity Today) Check out the comments section, where Overstreet poses an interesting question:

Perhaps most disturbing of all: How many of those actively protesting Terry's present crisis have ever gone out of their way to personally minister to someone in Terry's condition? It's so easy to jump on a political bandwagon and wave a flag or shout a slogan. But what about the long hours Terry spent before this crisis? How many were visiting her and contributing to her quality of life, influencing her desire to live, before it came to this? And how will protesters be involved after Terry is saved (if, indeed, she is)?

I would take issue with some of Overstreet's assertions. Terri Schiavo has not been alone in her disability. Her family has been by her side the whole time. While her church and other Christians - the rest of us, in truth - owe her a level of support and comfort, this is not a situation where the visits of random believers was necessary or perhaps even wanted. Yet Overstreet is posing a very important, provocative question.

What do we do then? Do we abandon this fight because we precipitated it by our inaction in previous decades? Heaven forbid. Negligence in an earlier age is no excuse for avoiding activism in the present day. The situation of Terri Schiavo is dire; we cannot help but speak up. If, as in Joe Carter's post linked to above, we have been silent in prior years, then our responsibility to help now is even more urgent. Once Terri's Fight is over, and I fear it may be over sooner rather than later, then we must understand how we can help prevent this sort of madness in the future. While we fight abortion, we must do all that we can to discourage sexual promiscuity and to minister to the unwed mothers in need of care and comfort. While we oppose gambling as a means of funding government programs, we must help find new and innovative ways to support education and the other necessary functions of our state governments.

I won't pretend that there are easy answers to these questions. All we can do from here on out is serve God, humbly and justly, and in all things honor and enjoy Him. We can't forget to include the life of mind, or else the intellectual realm of our society will be ruled and dictated by those who reject the supremacy of God in all things.

Posted by Matt at 09:25 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 22, 2005

What's Wrong With Youth Culture?

In the wake of yesterday's horrific school shooting, Hugh Hewitt is asking an important question. I'm only twenty-three; I think I know a fair amount about youth culture. I won't get into it tonight, because this is a lot think about. It's an idea I want to revisit over time, in hopes that we might come to some conclusions.

Posted by Matt at 10:43 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Provoking Thoughts

Courtesy of Mere Comments, I found this link to the New Pantagruel's editorial on what Terri Schiavo's parents can or should do.

Very thought-provoking. These ideas beg an important question. What do we do if cases like Terri's becomes common?

Posted by Matt at 10:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Robert P. George on Terri Schiavo (and more!)

Princeton professor Robert P. George is interviewed in today's NRO. An important read, with a great quote:

The other thing that Congress is being accused of is interfering in a family decision. Now look: Terri Schiavo has been abandoned by her husband. Michael Schiavo took a vow to be faithful to Terri "in sickness and in health, forsaking all others, 'til death do us part." But he has not been faithful; he has not forsaken all others. He has set himself up in a marriage in all-but-name with someone else, a woman with whom he already has two children. He has disrespected Terri and, indeed, forsaken her. Now he is seeking to bring about her death by starvation. Notice something wrong with this picture? Terri's parents and siblings, by contrast, have never abandoned her. They are prepared to shoulder all the burdens, including the financial burdens, of caring for her. They want to provide the therapy that many medical people who have observed Terri, whether at the bedside or by videotape, believe can help her. No one expects a full recovery, but it may be possible for her to make genuine progress. That possibility will be foreclosed, however, if she is killed by deliberate starvation before it can begin.

Over at the Boar's Head Tavern, Michael Spencer is expressing a few reservations. Concering Spencer's use of polling data, I refer you to Jim Geraghty's post about the political fallout of this case. Peggy Noonan fans take note, as well. Listening to local talk radio it's quite obvious that the media has been hugely successful in distorting this case. I would wager that the average American is unaware that Terris not in a coma, nor is in a conclusive state of permanent vegetation. I would also doubt that most people are unaware of Michael Schiavo's successful attempts at moving on with his life in the form of a new relationships and children.

It should be noted that conservative opinion on the Congressional bill has been mixed, but Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Andrew McCarthy and Ramesh Ponnuru have come down in favor. Jonathan Adler and Jonah Goldberg have slightly differing opinions. Does anyone else find it interesting that Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, overwhelmingly come down on the side of both life and intervention, while non-religious conservatives are more concerned with the issue of Congress' work? I think we must be cautious about our law-passing, but this situation seems alright. I'll admit I can't defend that point too much, but, frankly, I trust Mark Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru's legal opinions.

I had a bad day. But not that bad.

And finally, with a tip of the hat to the BHT, this article in Baptist Press is pretty doggone conclusive, in my humble opinion.

Posted by Matt at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Peggy Noonan and The Derb are Wrong

With all due respect to Ms. Noonan, her piece in last Friday's Opinion Journal is just plain wrong. Those who support Terri Schiavo know who is doing the obstructing and those who are working to aid the victim. Noonan's normally astute observations are simply off the mark.

Speaking of odd opinions among the normally astute, John Derbyshire must have been asleep on this issue. His Corner posts over the last two days have exhibited complete and utter confusion on the matter. In this posts he cites an "eloquent" letter from a reader who assumes that Michael Schiavo dearly loves his wife. Yeah, he loves Terri dearly. That's why he has had a common law wife and two children while Terri's been denied adequte medical care over the last ten yeras. This is complete and utter nonsense. I can't believe NRO isn't doing more to call Derbyshire on this, though I the rest of their coverage on this whole matter has been outstanding. Derb's praise of this letter is almost as disturbing as he ignorance of the issue.

Posted by Matt at 12:08 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

March 21, 2005

The Godless Party

My SCO colleague Rick had a nice post over the weekend concerning Democrat obstruction in the Terri Schiavo case. When Rick said that this sort of thing prevents him supporting the Democrats, I was reminded of Rod Dreher's Touchstone piece a few years back, The Godless Party.

The article generated a controversy. Editor S.M. Hutchens responded with this editoral on Practical Atheism. This quote gets to the crux of the whole issue:

One of the most common defenses for Democratic loyalties is to assert the moral equivalence of the two parties, to claim that their respective errors leave the Christian to vote for the one he thinks most Christian, or least unchristian. If the Democrats endorse abortion, sodomy, and the like, Republicans cut social programs for the poor. This is a plausible and attractive argument except for one thing. We know with certainty that abortion and sodomy are evil, but we do not know with any certainty whether any particular disbursement of funds for the poor is good or bad or mixed. Our faith directs us to give alms, quietly and generously, and to bless and care for the widows and the fatherless, but it also tells us that those who will not work shall not eat. Distinctions, often difficult ones, must be made in our policies between who should be marked as poor and who should not, and on how collective monies should be spent or not spent for their relief, the kind of distinctions that have historically marked differing party philosophies, and upon which Christians have historically had differences of opinion. A Christian may think the Democrats’ social, economic, or environmental programs are superior to the Republicans’, but he knows that the Democrats’ moral policies are aggressively ungodly.

I realize this will likely restart an argument I'm fond of having. So be it; this is a hill I'm willing to die on. If a believer wants to support Euro-style economics, fine. We can have that argument another day. And no, a person's salvation is not dependent upon this sort of thing. Still I fail to see how a Christian can support a party that is such a willing accomplice in the Culture of Death.

Posted by Matt at 11:31 AM | Comments (21)

March 20, 2005

Random Musings

Here's some scatter-brained thoughts on a Saturday night in Tuscaloosa.

Enjoy, and thank you.

Posted by Matt at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 17, 2005

Where's Your Anger?

There was a saying among gay rights and AIDS activists during the initial HIV outbreaks during the 1980s.

If you're not mad, you're not paying attention.

Conservatism tends to pride itself on its ability to remain calm and focused. We don't often make a loud ruckus; we work out our political salvation in the think tanks and classrooms. We are unlikely to take to the streets. That tendency was what always appealled to me concering liberalism. I was always intrigued by the willingness to protest publicly against a percieved injustice. Maybe it was my youthful interest in punk rock. I'm not sure. Not much gets me angry anymore, but to continue with the punk rock metaphor, the case of Terry Schiavo makes me want to reach for a microphone and scream at the world. Well, not the world so much as that vile husband of hers and the depraved Judge George W. Greer.

What a terrible situation. Should our outrage ever move beyond e-mails, phone calls and blogs? I don't suggest violence, but where are the protests? I am paying attention, and I am angry. This is not a living will or death with dignity and it's not even some form of euthanasia, however inexcusable that would be. This is murder, and we must call it so. If Terri Schiavo is killed, we should not hesitate to loudly and forcely call Michael Schiavo and George W. Greer what they are. Murderers.

For more information, read this old NRO article by Wesley J. Smith. Hugh Hewitt is talking some sense as well.

As adamantly as I oppose abortion and assisted suicide, I realize that practioners of such things often believe they are doing the right thing, the helpful thing. We should be strong in our opposition, but such issues have become entrenched to the point that we must now engage in dialogue. The days of calling abortion doctors murderers as part of routine discourse has passed, for better or for worse. Terri's Fight is altogether different, however; a life on the mend is soon to be extinguished.

Posted by Matt at 09:07 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

More on the Bankruptcy Bill

Rick noted below that Dave Ramsey is a harsh opponent of the recently passed bankruptcy bill. Yesterday I found this article on NRO in favor of the bill. So what gives? Do we have any bankruptcies experts in our audience? I'm all in favor of full disclosure on the part of the credit card companies and we all know that random events hurt finances. But I work in a law office and I know there are enough bankruptcies that some abuse must be taking place.

Where do we draw lines? Can our readers jump in with some expertise? I shall investigate as I can, and we appreciate any input we might recieve.

Posted by Matt at 10:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Quick Updates - Get Into It!

The important stuff first:

John Mark Reynolds dissects the disgusting words of Michael Schiavo. What a horrid, nasty man. There are words for a man like this, but my mom reads this site. I'll lay off for now.

Another Reynolds marvelous post about the lack of Christian involvement in the life of the mind. Important reading. I simply cannot endorse this enough. Hopefully I can do more on this over the weekend.

March Madness gets under way today. Any readers care to share their Final Four with us? I've got UNC, Duke, Wake Forest and Oklahoma State. Dare to opine? (p.s. Roll Tide!)

Posted by Matt at 10:22 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Harsh Words in the Culture War

Check out this post over at Mere Comments.

Heavy duty food for thought, particularly in light of some of the recent discussions on Christianity, liberalism and conservatism.

Posted by Matt at 01:11 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I Fully Support the Ceder Revolt

Three cheers for freedom, indeed. If this doesn't move you to support, not much will. (HT: In the Agora)

Posted by Matt at 12:40 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 16, 2005

The Constitutional Option

Rush really got on a roll today discussing how the GOP should handle the brewing battle over judicial nominees. See here, here and here. El Rushbo really hit his stride on this issue. Let's hope the Senate GOP is listening.

Posted by Matt at 06:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 15, 2005

What's Wrong With Kansas?

The new issue of First Things has a fine review of Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America.

Check it out here.

I should add that First Things has become a crucial read for Christians concerned with the world around them. Yes, there are seroius blogs to be read, but I have yet to find one as consistently important as this.

Posted by Matt at 10:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 14, 2005

Rick Warren Saves a Life

Unless you've been living under a rock, you've heard the story of the Atlanta woman who convinced judge-killer Brian Nichols to turn himself in. Apparently she was aided by The Purpose-Driven Life. I'm thankful the woman is safe and the killer is behind bars, but we can now expect to hear a whole lot about Rick Warren's book in the coming days. I would refer readers to the following posts as it concerns the PDL:

Tim Challies reviews Warren's new column in Ladies Home Journal.

Purpose Verses

The Internet Monk on Warren.

Posted by Matt at 06:55 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Re: Obscene Wealth

I was rather busy over the weekend, so it was not until this morning that I saw my colleague Rick's post on the "obscene" wealth of some Americans. Rick raises a few interesting points, and I would like to respond to them in this space.

I will quickly concede to the wisdom that to whom much is given much is expected. Yet I will refuse to attack any one person's level of wealth; what a man does with his money is between him and God, and perhaps his pastor. I will not suggest that one person has reached a limit to his or her wealth. That road has been travelled before. Whatever the abuses of some corporations, I find it treacherous to argue that one man is too rich on the basis of some abstract principle. Likewise do I repudiate the notion that Scripture forbids a certain level of wealth. Scripture clearly places guidelines in the lives of believers - do we even know the faith of these rich people? - but there is no salary cap in the life of the Christian.

Concerning the Walton family, readers of this site and of my personal blog will know that I have very little use for Wal-Mart. I find it ugly, crowded and rude. It is a place to be avoided, at least in the towns that I frequent. I find Wal-Mart's business tactics to be deplorable. For example, its use of emminent domain, sweetheart deals with local governments, undercutting of prices, etc. are rather obnoxious. As a free market conservative, I can oppose these policies. As a traditional conservative, I can oppose shopping at Wal-Mart and stores of its ilk on the grounds that superstores harm the community. Yes, there is a certain level of convenience that comes with these businesses, but there is a loss, as well. Local hardware stores, local record stores, local automotive stores...all of these establishments help mark a community in a way that Wal-Mart cannot. I grudgingly accept Wal-Mart's presence in my community, but I prefer to spend my dollars elsewhere as often as I can, in order to support those businesses that help make my community something special.

However, I think it's time to get over our assumptions that working at local stores is a paradise. I've worked at both a local grocery store and a local record store. The record store job was an absolute blast, mainly because I was a college kid working at a record store. The grocery store was...not so much. I was paid far less than a Wal-Mart employee of my own age, and my employers were strangely aloof about the lives of teenage employees during the late 1990s. My major comfort in working there was that it was still a relatively small business, which thankfully prevented from becoming another brick in the corporate wall. (By this I refer to my ability to ask for time off or call in sick)

Rick notes that Save Mart, a store with perhaps the most generic name ever, "has been serving local customers and providing solid paying jobs to the communities for years." Indeed, I have little doubt that local customers have been served, and I assume that Rick means that these was a certain ambiance about the service. I understand this, and I still find such service at regional Southern chains like Western, Piggly-Wiggly and the stores formerly owned by the Bruno family (Food World, FoodMax, etc.). Yet I'm curious about these "solid paying" jobs? Is that a fact? The cashiers and bagboys were making "solid pay?" I'll believe that the butchers and florists and managers at these stores make solid money. But truthfully, they probably do the same at Wal-Mart or Target. Cashiers and baggers tend to be young people, and while I feel a certain degree of Christian sympathy for grown adults working such jobs, no company should make those folks the crux of company policy.

Rick closes with the following statement:

I’m for free market competition, but Wal-Mart does not compete with local supermarkets, they annihilate them. So you save a few bucks buying cheap Chinese goods, the Walton family runs off with the cash, and hard working breadwinners are sent packing. Hey, if you can honestly rejoice in that as a victory for capitalism, go for it - but I can't.

It is true that Wal-Mart does not compete, but again I refer to the cases of imminent domain, government payouts for roads and stoplights and juicy tax breaks. That is where the competition stops. If Wal-Mart was denied those things and still crushed its competitors, I would have little room to argue on economic grounds. (Aesthetics are another matter) Yet Rick falls into a fit of rhetoric when he suggests that Wal-Mart shoppers are "buying cheap Chinese goods" while the Waltons get rich and the little guy shuts down. On the matter of Chinese goods, this may be true for clothes. However far more people buy food and household goods at Wal-Mart than they do clothes or furntiture. The fact is that the Waltons have been rich for decades. They're not getting rich on the backs of poor shop keepers; they became rich filling in a niche. I stand by my belief that Wal-Mart has reached a tipping point and is doing more harm than good, but let's do away with the myth that the lots of people are hurt financially. Most small businesses only employ a handful of workers, the majority of which are part-time. Then again, so are many of Wal-Mart's employees, which hurts the notion that a shiny new Wal-Mart will provide health insurance for an entire community.

I stand by my cricisms of Wal-Mart. Throw Target in there, too, though they get a fair amount of my money for reasons of proximity and neccesity at this stage in my life. I still find both stores to be aesthetically displeasing and catering to a dangerous whim in the American mind: the notion that convenience and dollar-value are more important than community and aesthetics. That's a hill I'll die on, but not the dangerous and slippery idea that the CEOs are "too rich."

Posted by Matt at 06:24 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

March 13, 2005

A Gen Xer talks Marriage

Last weekend I visited my parents for the weekend. On Saturday, my mother and father were out of the house for a while, leaving me with the responsibility of preparing dinner. Barbecued ribs. All five of us - the parents, the siblings and yours truly - were looking forward to the meal. My dad gave me some instructions and save for one crucial detail, I followed them to perfection. As it turned out, my mistake was correctable and we ended up having a pretty decent meal. My BBQ skills have lots of room for improvement, but I'm learning. When my father joined me in inspecting the goods on the grill, he joked that I need to take a class on how to grill. I pointed out that I had never before prepared ribs, and such knowledge is not organic in the American male. We had a nice laugh, but it caused me coalesce my thinking on the way my generation is learning to deal with being adults.

(As an edit, I should point that I am slightly ashamed, as a Southerner, of my inability to properly grill a slab of ribs. It's a problem I need to fix.)

Last fall - like a lot of other Christian bloggers - I read Al Mohler's comments on marriage. (See Part 1 and Part 2) My initial reaction was mixed. On one hand, I was thankful that a prominent Evangelical leader was questioning the notion that marriage was something to be delayed until we all had six-figure salaries and a massive 401K. On the other hand, I felt that Mohler was somewhat out of touch with reality. I continue to hold this dual opinion. Readers will notice that Mohler's columns are based upon a speech he gave to one of Josh Harris's conference. On dating. It seems as though Mohler's audience was primed for such a message. I wonder if his comments would be so well-recieved if given at any random Campus Crusade or RUF meeting on the campus of a major university like the Universities of Texas, Alabama, Georgia or Virginia.

A few weeks ago, Michael Spencer addressed some of his issues with Mohler's statements. Spencer's words provide a nice compliment to Mohler's. I think some marriage (no pun intended) of the two ideas would be quite fruitful. But let me chime in with the opinion of a twenty-somthing male, a voice that I don't hear much of in the blogsophere (at least as evangelicals are concerned). See the comments to Spencer's post and you'll see readers, and Spencer himself, noting that Mohler all but ignores the socio-economic factors affecting young people today. As I said before in my pieces concerning the Twixters phenomenon(follow thinks here and here), education lasts a lot longer than in previous years. Many, many students remain in undergraduate programs for five years, to say nothing of post-undergraduate education. It's disappointing that a prominent evangelical leader puts forth such an uncritical analysis of a major issue.

Equally disappointing is Mohler's failure to look in the mirror. Not as an individual, but as an evangelical. Where in the evangelical community is there a serious body of believers raising mature teenagers? I'm not talking about nice, clean-cut, cookie-cutter kids with good grades and a shelf full of CCM. Nor am I addressing the growing but still small number of bloggers who are clearly raising families in a traditional context that goes against the grain of our consumerist culture. I am talking about mature, reasonably adjusted young people who are equipped to handle some level of mature relationships. To call the message concerning dating and marriage within the evangelical culture mixed would be to speak too highly of a state of confusion. We're told to kiss dating goodbye. We're told to "court." We're told to only date someone we're willing to marry. We're told hang out in groups. We're told to not get married until after college. Your average evangelical youth group will hear a plethora of messages about dating and marriage and sex from all of the camps and conferences it attends, to say nothing of the words from parents and pastors and youth leaders. It should come as no surprised that a great many Christians in their 20s and 30s just don't know what they're doing. With all due respect, Mohler would be well-served to leave the seminary campus and spend some time on the campus of a state university. He might understand what life is like for the rest of us.

Simply put, my generation has not, whether by community, school or church, been prepared for the kind of life that Mohler attacks. It's not that he's wrong so much in his conclusion as he is wrong in his assumptions. This kind of maturity is not organic. We are not consciously turning away from a life of marriage and family. To join with the changes in socio-economic conditions, we have not and are not being raised to live the kind of life that Mohler advocates. For the singly thirty-something, the ball is in their court. But for the rest of America's Christians, the ball is in the court of parents and churches. Change must be brought about from the outside; children, teenagers and college students must have the support of their churches and families. We cannot be allowed to live as clean-cut hedonists through high school and college and then have people like Mohler expect us to be married and birthin' babies before we turn twenty-five. Growing up physically is natural; emotional and spiritual maturity must be supported by those around us.

Posted by Matt at 08:26 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 11, 2005

The Emergent Church and the Democrat Party

Here's a post from Matt Crash!

Hopefully I can do more this weekend. It all depends on whether or not I head over to A-town to catch the SEC tournament tomorrow and Sunday.

Posted by Matt at 11:03 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 09, 2005

More on the iPod world

A few weeks ago I discussed Andrew Sullivan's views on the new iPod world. Since then I found this post over at Crux Magazine's Signs of the Times blog. I took particular interest in the closing passage:

That might, incidentally, be all it takes: a willingness to stop off at a bar occasionally for a drink. If many people did that, maybe the yarn of society would start meshing together and something better would be knitted from it. It beats all the individualistic strands lying around in a heap today.

Just a few drinks at the bar. In what other era has civic mindedness made such an easy and enjoyable request?

Reasonable people will differ on the merits of stopping off at a bar, but let's keep the point intact. If needs be, substitute the word "coffehouse" for bar. Or maybe deli. Or cafe. Etc. These establishments become what Russell Kirk called "little platoons," place of voluntary communion among neighbors. This is why some of us are so upset to see Best Buy replacing the local record store and Home Depot replacing the local hardware. Think of the hardware store on a television show like Home Improvement or the coffee shop on Friends. Yes, those are television shows, but I think we all know that such places exist. I can think of several in my own community. Yes, the free market is good, but if we don't work to preserve local institutions, we'll lose them. Just imagine a world where the local barbershops are replaced by MasterCuts.

I know I treasure my mornings spent at the Crimson Cafe here in Tuscaloosa, and I know that countless friendships have been formed by the cafe's patrons. (Even better, I know of several Christians who are regulars. Their friendships with employees and other customers is likely bearing fruit for the Gospel.) Whatever we think about the drinking of the characters on Cheers, the fellowship they shared was a good thing. These institutions are good for the community and, I would argue, for the church, as well. Our bonds with our neighbors should, as much as possible, pre-exist before we decide to evangelize.

Posted by Matt at 06:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

mewithoutYou

I never got into Bleach. When I was fourteen and they first broke out, they seemed to me to be CCM's answer to Nirvana. I never really got over that. As I've said before, I'm not much into CCM. My favorite "Christian" band, though I doubt they'd describe themselves as such, is the amazing mewithoutYou. Post-punk, very-D.C. sounding. Just an incredible band. Sample these lyrics:

But if I didn't have You as my guide
I'd still wander lost in Sinai
Counting the plates of cars from out-of-state
How I could jump in their path as they hurry along!
And You surround me, You're pretty but You're all I can see
Like a thick fog...

Posted by Matt at 07:52 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 07, 2005

It Ain't Me, Babe

I don't know if any of our readers feel this way, but in digging out some old cds, I just remembered how fantastic Bob Dylan really can be. I've been enjoying Another Side of Bob Dylan quite a bit tonight. Perhaps I should add Chronicles Vol. 1 to my reading list.

And while I'm thinking of making purchases, I'll also look into Mark Roberts' suggestion of Bach's St. Matthew Passion. If anyone knows of a particularly good arrangement, please let me know.

Speaking of Bob Dylan, I think he's easily one of the five best American songwriters of the last fifty years. I'll also throw the late Townes Van Zandt into that group. While existential and lonely in many respects, Van Zandt wrote some incredible songs and was a tremendous influence on many Texas songwriters. I always enjoyed the following quote about Dylan and Van Zandt from the liberal but still great Steve Earle:

"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world, and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that."

I might not say it, but it always made me laugh.

Posted by Matt at 10:33 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 05, 2005

American's Stingy Christians?

Courtesy of Michael Spencer at the Boar's Head Tavern, I found this post over at the Thinklings discussing some recent comments made by Bono of U2:

"[Bush needs to] clear up some confusion about America's basic beliefs. Americans are overtly devout. And yet Europeans, who inhabit a more secular world, give more per capita than Americans to what the Bible calls "the least of these" - the world's poor. The United States is in 22nd place, last in the class of donor nations. (Add private philanthropy and it's up to 15th.) Europeans see the discrepancy, and they smell hypocrisy."

There's a lot to chew on in this quote. To begin with, Bono's initial exclusion of private philantropy gives up the ghost in a hurry. The majority of Americans - even some liberals - do not see the government as the chief means of accomplishing some task. It's not the way we work. We work for ourselves; the government only works when we commonly agree that some task cannot reasonably be performed on our own. (Think roads, briges and street lights) It has been this way since our founding. You would think that after two hundred something years, the Europeans would understand this. For all his time in America, Bono cannot see this.

Secondly, Bono should know by now that depsite the faith of our President and our religious heritage, America is not a nation of Christians in the sense that every American is a practicing Christian. This is the danger of some on the religious right who insist that America is a "Christian nation." The implication to those around the world, then, is that our nation will act in the manner of an individual Christian. This is nonsense for a nation in a hostile world. America is a huge nation, with vast land and a tremendous population. We have our own to care for in addition to those overseas. Bono has seen the plights of those in the Delta and surely he is aware of the poverty in the inner city. We must help those within our own borders, in addition to those around the world. Given our population and the needs of the American poor, surely a gap will emerge somewhere.

Here's an offbeat example. Last football season, every single NCAA Division 1 football program in the state of Alabama played in a bowl game. That's 100 percent, and it may very well be the highest percentage from that season. The catch is that Alabama only has four such programs. Imagine the same scenario in Bono's statistics. A small nation with high taxation handed over to the UN's relief programs will quickly outdo the U.S. Bono's using the stats to say whatever he likes, but he's ignoring reality.

These are gaps in ideas between Europeans and Americans, and it is a difference that may have to exist between evangelicals and Catholics on both sides of the pond. I'm not sure there's much to change this in the near future. Still, American Christians should be very cautious in labeling America a Christian nation. The problem does not lie in our defintions; the trouble comes with everyone else's definition. Unless we're prepared to move beyond the Dobson-esque cliches, and defend the American approach to government, economics and charity, to say nothing of condemning our materialistic culture, we're going to live a world of confusion that will only grow worse with time.

I concede that there is always more to give. There is always one material thing we can do without, and there is another one, five, ten dollars we can spare to ease the plight of those suffering in America and around the world. Yet let us not be lulled into a sense of guilt and anxiety over the self-righteous misunderstandings of the rest of the world.

Posted by Matt at 11:49 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 25, 2005

More on Wal-Mart

Concerning my Wal-Mart post below, I initially failed to check out Hewitt's link to a post by Professor Bainbridge. My goodness! The professor absolutely nails the case against Wal-Mart. It's a must read.

Check out Professor Bainbridge on the conservative case against Wal-Mart.

Also: Jay Nordlinger practices more Wal-Mart love in this morning's Impromptus. Maybe I am an elitist, but I invite Nordlinger to leave his operas and symphonies in New York City. Come to any medium-sized city south of the Mason-Dixon line and check out the Wal-Mart Supercenter on the edge of town. The first trip might be nice, but keep going and see how "great" the store can be. Not so much, really.

I just love how big-city conservatives praise flyover country as though it is the noble Shire, a Tolkien-esque world of peace and tranquility. Sorry folks, it's just not true. Sure there are open fields and mountains and nice folks and fishing and hunting and college football and fine churches, but there's also crystal meth labs, depressing Wal-Marts, poor aesthetics, dirty McDonalds and the same set of strip malls in every single town.

The view of red state America might be fine from Manhattan or L.A. And no, things are not insufferable. But they're not the Paradise some of our conservative brethren would like to believe. They would be well-served to leave the Beltway and spend significant time in a suburban red state area. They might find that spending every Friday night at the same medium-sized Barnes and Noble gets old in a hurry.

Posted by Matt at 07:53 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 24, 2005

Hewitt and Wal-Mart

Hugh Hewitt contintues the proud coastal conservative tradition of loving Wal-Mart. I'll say it loud and I'll say it proud: I loathe Wal-Mart. It's an ugly store. It takes over every town it visits. Yes, it provides jobs but conservatism should stand for something other than a financial bottomline. And even conservative and libertarian types have noted that Wal-Mart has become notorious for abusing imminent domain.

My colleague Jim detailed it earlier this week. I also discussed the battle of Target vs. Wal-Mart back in the fall. And yes, I know, Target made a boneheaded corporate decision regarding the Salvation Army, but it wouldn't take me long to find some information about Wal-Mart's delightful reputation of employee abuse. Then we can all have a fun contest to see which corporation is nicer. And here's a newsflash - no one is winning that contest.

Posted by Matt at 11:33 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 23, 2005

iPods and Our Love/Hate Relationship

A few weeks ago, over at Matt Crash!, I pointed to this piece in the New Atlantis. The crux of the article was that technology has left us more isolated than in the past. I tend to agree. I can walk around campus and see otherwise normal people zoned out, thin white wires connecting their ears to the iPod in their pocket. Lord knows I've got nothing against an iPod, but surely we can make it from the car to class without slowly fading into our own world of music.

Apparently I'm not alone in my criticism. Andrew Sullivan had a similar argument last week's piece for the Sunday Times. He's not always right, but when he's on - he's on.

Witness this quote:

You get your news from your favourite blogs, the ones that won’t challenge your view of the world. You tune into a satellite radio service that also aims directly at a small market — for new age fanatics, liberal talk or Christian rock. Television is all cable. Culture is all subculture. Your cell phones can receive e-mail feeds of your favourite blogger’s latest thoughts — seconds after he has posted them — get sports scores for your team or stock quotes of your portfolio.

I discussed the idea of split subcultures in a post last week. See here, and I would like some comments on the idea.

Posted by Matt at 06:31 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

New Blog Suggestion

Ben Cole at the Pen and the Sword expalins why conservatism is a good kind of dangerous and liberalism is, well, done.

Posted by Matt at 08:43 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

February 22, 2005

Outting the Simpsons

My thoughts on the gay Simpson.

Posted by Matt at 11:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Take Two and Call Me in the Morning

Jonah Goldberg has some advice for the blogosphere.

I tend to agree with him.

Posted by Matt at 07:23 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 21, 2005

Hunter S. Thompson - Dead.

Hunter S. Thompson has killed himself.

What a tragedy. Thompson fully embraced the hedonism and nihilim of our age in a way that would have given Fitzgerald nightmares. But what an incredible writer.

It's a shame that his life never, at least to public knowledge, found the true peace and happiness that's found in Christ.

Posted by Matt at 12:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 19, 2005

Like Peas in a Pod...

I've yet to read Jose Canseco's new book, but when I heard Allen Barra - as credible a source as any - say it wasn't worth the read, I pretty much marked it off my list. The reason being? Jose Canseco is about as great a truth-teller as Michael Moore. Funny then, that Slate's Bryan Curtis should give the man even an ounce of respect. At the same time, it's not all that surprising that the increasingly-erratic Andrew Sullivan should quote Curtis' review.

Is this supposed to be Sullivan's way of taking a shot at professional sports? Is he suggesting that there's a lot of homoeroticism in professional sports?

I would say that Sullivan has become a collosal bore (give him a week or two), but he's dead-on concerning Larry Summers.

Posted by Matt at 07:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

A St. Patty's Day Gambit

I missed the article when it first appeared on Tuesday, but John O'Sullivan has some advice for the President:

Disinvite Sinn Fein leaders from St. Patrick's Day festivities at the White House.

Posted by Matt at 01:31 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 18, 2005

Is Liberalism Dead?

Is liberalism dead? Thus sayeth The New Republic. This is particularly interesting in light of our discussions of liberalism's intellectual tradition. I'll likely pick up that meme later this weekend. I realize I'm going on and on about it, but the intellectual underpinings of a movement and (this is crucial) its implications for public policy must be understood if one is to offer either support or condemnation.

Posted by Matt at 10:48 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 17, 2005

Random-ness

I promise to continue blathering on about economics later this weekend (I know; you're all thrilled). For now, here's a few things to read and ponder.

Crux Magazine discusses Ten Fils That Ask the Right Questions. Well worth the read. Very challenging stuff here, and some great movies, to boot.

Michael Spencer is explaining himself. You won't agree with all of it (I don't), but it's a thoughtful read. Check it out.

Spencer also wades into matters of Scripture, and Jollyblogger offers a kind rebuttal. Again, you'll likely fall more on side than the other, but this is a really interesting discussion.

Fox-hunting banned in England. Say it with me now: Laaaaaaaaame.

I said I'll deal with economics and Scripture later - see Mark's post below on the Barnabas Project - but one final thing (for at least twenty-four hours) about Jim Wallis. One of my major, major issues is that Sojourners is presented as a bridge-builder. Not so, folks. Click the link. Read the action alerts page. First, is there anything on this site that your typical National Review-reading conservative (not the populist, Neil Boortz breed) could agree with? Second, is the content of this site markedly different from the folks at A.N.S.W.E.R., IndyMedia or even Michael Moore? I mean come on - they're railing against "death squads." What is this, El Salvador in the 1980s?

I'm just asking, but I sure would like an answer.

Posted by Matt at 06:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Free Speech on Campus

Interesting free speech issues have emerged on the campus of the University of Alabama. On the one hand, a group of students preparing to perform The Vagina Monologues has been kicked off campus for no apparent reason. At the same time, the faculty Senate is proposing something of a speech code for University-funded events. This is somewhat different than an across the board speech code, but it certainly raises an eybrow. Some students are opposing the measure.

I actually think the University was wrong to deny the women the opportunity to use student facilities to perform their play, however lewd it might be. (And it is, believe me - I saw it once on HBO) The speech issue is somewhat trickier. The Faculty proposing the resolution is doing so on the grounds that only University-sponsored events would be subject to restrictions. It still makes me uncomfortable. Slippery-slope and all that. It's bad enough we're forced to have a "free speech zone."

Posted by Matt at 10:16 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 16, 2005

Drugs Are Bad, Mmmmkay?

Hugh Hewitt and Andrew Sullivan (second point) are talking about Crystal Meth. I don't support any kind of recreational drug use, though like most conservatives, I support some loosening and restructuring of the existing drug laws. Crystal Meth is a complete exception - this is a very, very dangerous drug. I can honestly say that I don't know anyone who has used this drug, at least to my knowledge. Yet every article I've ever read on it, including a huge Rolling Stone piece a few years back, is just terrifying in its depiction. Everything suggests that this is the most dangerous drug out there; more than heroin or any form of cocaine.

I'm not sure what we can do about it, though Hewitt suggests an attempt be made. Here's a starter: Honesty. Honesty from the government. Make sure D.A.R.E. officers tell kids that meth is far more dangerous than pot or beer. Pot and beer might make you a bum, but meth will turn your brain into sludge. The anti-drug warriors should be just as honest. I don't want to hear the folks at Reason suggest that crystal meth usage is acceptable. It's not. It's dangerous, and if it makes its way into the cities the same as cocaine or heroine...well, we're all in a lot of trouble.

Posted by Matt at 10:57 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

February 15, 2005

I'm thinking out loud.

Posted by Matt at 08:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 14, 2005

Is This Torture?

Andrew Sullivan is - gasp! - having another hissy fit over torture. I'll confess to having some questions about all this, but is this complaint legit? See Quote #2. Is it really so outrageous that skanky-looking woman sits on a prisoner's lap? Heaven forbid that we prod at a cultural sensibility. Cutting off limbs is one thing; nitpicking at a repressive Arab culture is something else entirely.

Posted by Matt at 07:31 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 12, 2005

First Principles

See my post below for more on Christians and politics, but as it pertains to First Principles, let me make an explanation. First Principles is not a term referring to set body of laws, like the Ten Commandments or the Bill of Rights. It refers to the idea that there are universal truths. The self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence are first principles. The belief that human life should be respected is a first principle. The belief among conservatives that government has no right that the citizenry has not first granted it is a first principle. So too is the notion that any right granted the people was first endowed by our Creator.

So let us not be confused about what I mean. I am not just referring to the values enumerated by Russell Kirk, though they are of high importance. I would point out here that if you need a primer on true conservatism, turn off Sean Hannity and pick up a copy of The Conservative Reader.

I am in no way trying to sound elitist, but if we are to call ourselves conservatives, we should truly have a proper definition of the term. If you regard Bill O'Reilly as a conservative, you have a faulty defintion. If you think the President's idea of government is truly conservative, you have a faulty defintion. I don't mean to imply that there should be a test for anyone claiming the term, but doggone it - words have to mean something. Hmmph. Maybe I do think there should be a test.

I say all that to further expand on what I define as conservatism and the value of first principles. Rick mentioned the greed and sublte racism of many suburbanites. I concur! I see in my home city of Birmingham suburbs that are flourishing while the inner cities rot. Developers are chomping at the bit to develop a very sensitive watershed on the Cahaba River while the only ones trying to put on the brakes are liberals. It's liberals who are working to renovate downtown Birmingham, and it's probably the same in any metropolitan area. Beleive me, I understand the problem. I said in another post that too many evangelicals - typically GOP voters - have not worked with the less fortunate in poor neighborhoods. I lump myself in with that group, though I've managed to be a part of a few mission projects.

Where I take issue is with the idea that the state is an adequate tool for reducing poverty. I say reduce because I believe, as Scripture and millenia of recorded history assert, the poor will always be with us. It shall never be eradicated, though Christ commands us to help the fatherless and the widow. How do we do this? Do we abdicate our own responsibilities as believers and a Church, and do we deliver it to the State? Do we give our alms as taxes? I should hope not. And the problem here is not so simple as to say "well, in my town, I see..." Has no one read Hobbes? Do we not understand that the State is almost never a flexible tool to accomplish our ends? The state has never demonstrated a capacity for working in a timely, efficient manner. The government cannot fix a road in a timely fashion; you've got to be pretty generous to think it can help the homeless. The problem with cuts in housing is not that the cuts are being made. The problem is that the program existed in the first place. Furthermore, the use of the government as a means of charity is dangerous in that it numbs our capacity to feel concern. We can write off a neighborhood because we know everyone will get their check each month. The safety net becomes a hammock and we slowly lose our willingness to help. Why help a neighbor when the government does it for you? The desire to help takes on a particular irrelevance when taxes go up. I would ultimately argue that we are better served when the government does absolutely nothing, and concerned Christians filled with a desire to see people come to Christ show a willingness to get their hands dirty in bad neighborhoods. We'll have to show a willingness to help people get on their feet, to avoid companies that trash the environment, to slow the spread of urban sprawl by fixing our schools and revitalizing old neighborhoods. I implicate myself in this, and I pledge to work towards solving many of these problems.

Lastly, Rick made the remark that God can use the state to accomplish anything he desires. This is certainly true. God is sovereign, and I would not dare suggest that he could not do so. Yet there is nothing in Scripture or in any part of Christian history to suggest that God ultimately intends for the state to be the means of charity and goodwill. Again, if anyone - Jim Wallis or Howard Dean or whomever - can thoughtfully and rationally prove otherwise, I'll renounce my conservatism. I simply do not believe it can be done. I believe the government is ordained as a means of protecting endowed rights. It can work to provide infrastructure, regulate commerce and provide for common defense (sounds familiar, doesn't it?), but I refuse to accept any notion that the state is an effective means of charity, and I refute any suggestion that Scripture makes a command to the contrary.

Government-run charity has not and will not work. The New Deal failed. The Great Society failed. Any similar prgrams paid for by confiscatory taxes and run by government bureaucrats will fail as well. Call it high-minded if you like, but faith-based charities run by honest folk simply have a different character, and will ultimately do more good in changing the lives of the less fortunate in America.

Posted by Matt at 11:21 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

Jesus and the Tax Man

Michael Spencer posted this link about Jim Wallis over at the Boar's Head Tavern. I think it fits in nicely with my post concerning Christians and First Principles.

Let me make a caveat and then post a question for Rick and others who are open to the Democrats if they soften up on "moral issues."

I am the first to admit that the GOP is not strong on the environment. I've been listening to Rush Limbaugh for thirteen years now (I'm only twenty-three) and I still think he stereotypes and degrades the environmentalist movement. Sean Hannity does the same thing, though green types rarely help themselves. I think many, many Republicans and certainly many conseratives have too much faith in the free market and not enough visible concern for the poor. I'll even go so far as to suggest that race plays something of a factor here, as it becomes easy for white suburbanites to overlook folks of other races who live on the wrong side of town. Furthermore, I'm not a big fan of the Falwells and Dobsons. I would generally, though not absolutely, sympathize with Spencer's view of Dobson. I have far greater respect for Christian leaders like Richard Land and Al Mohler.

With that out of the way, let me get to my issue with Wallis and other social-justice Christians. I believe the Church can do a lot to alleviate suffering in this world, and I think we can be doing more. I don't mean to unnecessarily criticize and I know that not every church can run a soup kitchen. Wallis talks a lot about helping the poor, and I want to stand with him on that point. I just can't support a guy who believes that progressive taxation is some sort of Biblical mandate. Can anyone else? I see the Bible with a lot to say about caring for the less fortunate, but I never see Scripture advocating that we use the state as a means of doing so. If anyone can provide with clear Biblical teaching and some church history that suggests otherwise, I'm all ears, but I've yet to see it.

Additionally, look at the Sojourners website's list of Current Action Alerts. Compare it with what you read on Z-Mag or IndyMedia. See much of a difference? I don't. It's not moderate or in the middle. It's full-tilt liberalism that refuses to be labeled as such. And that's the rub. Wallis isn't just suggesting that the GOP be more "caring." He's softening up Christians to the idea of voting for the Democrats. Remember O'Sullivan's rule: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.Does anyone really believe that the Democrats are doing soul searching? As it relates to winning back the Senate, sure they are. But I don't think for a single moment that Harry Reid or Barbara Boxer cares a thing - in political terms - for religous, red state voters. On a private level, I make no speculation about their dealings with God. That's not for me to judge. But on a political level, I think Wallis is a tool for the Democrats, and he knows it.

Again, I'll concede that evangelicals could do far more to help the helpless. I know plenty of friends who made it through six years of youth group at conservative evangelical churches and were never involved in any project to help the hurting around them. That has to be turned around.

I return to my post about First Principles. I don't believe that the state is an effective means of curing poverty. It has never proven to be such a thing. For every greedy Republican, I truly believe that there are conservatives who believe in charity and the power of the market to help alleviate poverty. If Christians are going to vote in favor of tax cuts and a multitude of free market proposals, we must commit ourselves to working in our own communities and those around us - perhaps even those populated by folks of another race. I'm not out to point fingers but surely we can all agree that there is a problem. I just don't think that Wallis' Euro-socialism for Jesus is the answer. That's where I was going with my post on First Principles: What does Wallis believe about the State? the Church? What is the role of each? What does Scripture command? What has the Church historically believed? Was it wrong or right? Why? Is conservatism wrong? Is liberalism right? This is a hard fence to straddle. My guess is that he won't have much success, and it is dangerous to follow him to closely.

I touched on this last weekend. See here.

Posted by Matt at 09:16 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack

Bad Christian Art?

Joe Carter is asking some tough, but needed questions.

Posted by Matt at 02:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Christians and First Principles

I'm not a huge fan of what we traditionally call "Christian" music. I don't have much against it; I'm just picky. A lof of my favorite bands are full of believers; Over the Rhine, mewithoutYou, Pedro the Lion, the Innocence Mission, Damien Jurado. I was a pretty big fan of Caedmon's Call in high school and my freshman year of college, right before I developed a ridiculous jazz and blues fetish. (This is going somewhere - I promise.) So when I started hearing some mp3s of Derek Webb (former CC singer) and reading interviews, I liked what I heard and read. He's going to be in town in a few weeks for a free show, so I'll definitely be there.

This morning I was checking out his website. The links page was full of good stuff until I saw the link to Sojourners.

I'm not one who believes that a commitment to Biblical Christianity forces us to make a lifelong commitment to either the political Right or the Left as they exist right now in America. And I'm not calling Jim Wallis a heretic or anything of that sort. But I know where Wallis's ideas lead, and that's straight to the Democrats. And something about the way it's done really bothers me.

So here's my question for my colleagues and our readers:

Do Chritians in America today - Catholics and Protestants - believe in First Principles as a matter of politics? Not regarding theology or philosophy; a huge swath of us do. I'm talking about our views on economics, foreign affairs, public policy. Do we believe in First Principles that are transcendent to every society? My fear is that we don't. What do you think?

For more on the definition of First Principles, see here and here. Yes, I realize that those links are to conservative sites. if liberalism had any cogent body of philosophy outside of Foucault and Rousseau, I might have something work with. Jim Wallis might also have something to defend.

Posted by Matt at 11:02 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

February 11, 2005

More on Twixters

I've written before in defense of my generation of "Twixters." (See here and here) I think most of the criticism thrown our way - whether from Rush, NRO, Al Mohler or whomever else - is overwhelmingly undeserved.

The folks at Signs of the Times blog agree in this post and this one.

The blog is part of the new Crux Magazine, which promises to be really great.

Posted by Matt at 06:51 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

February 09, 2005

Food for Thought

I'm an unapologetic fan of my television. Despite the trite and the obscene stuff out there, I think a lot of quality work is still to be found on the tube. Yet I think this quote from Paste's interview with Tom Waits, one of my favorite songwriters, really speaks some truth about culture:

P: Wait a minute! No TV? That means you’re missing some great new shows this season, like Lost and Desperate Housewives!

TW: I heard they’re good. But I’m afraid of incorporating all that into my diet—I’m afraid it’d just send me off. I dunno, it’d be like eating Styrofoam. You remember in the old days, when you’d send away for something from the back of a cereal box? And you had to wait for 30 days, and it was coming from Battle Creek, Michigan? Life is different now, because in the time that it took for it to arrive, a lot of wonder took place. I remember wondering about the town of Battle Creek—What’s it look like? Is it like the North Pole? Who lives in it? Is there an actual creek?

Posted by Matt at 06:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Sex and the Evangelical Campus

Stanley Kurtz has a piece up on NRO today concerning Naomi Schaefer Riley's God on the Quad. I don't mean to sound whiny or cynical, but I have a question:

Why is it that when religious universities are mentioned in pieces like this, it's almost never an evangelical institution? I realize the book itself deals with evangelical schools, but why does Kurtz find it acceptable to make an ommission?

Posted by Matt at 06:13 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

February 08, 2005

Green Christians

A reader alerts me to this Washington Post article on the Greening of Evangelicals. (Registration required) I won't comment on the global warming aspects, because science gives me a headache and I've known reasonable people on both sides of that aisle. Still, this article demonstrates one way in which Christianity is not the same thing as Republicanism, even if Jim Wallis might snidely suggest otherwise. Furthermore, I would argue that environmentalism should be an area where conservatism can, but does not have to, break with the GOP. For more on this, and because I love stirring up a hornet's nest, see Rod Dreher's NR cover piece on the topic a few years back.

Posted by Matt at 06:23 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Major Props

Michael Spencer is showing some major love for SCO over at the Boar's Head Tavern.

See the last bulletin.

Thank you, sir!

Posted by Matt at 06:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

I Love a Good Firestorm

Derb on I.D.

I post without comment.

I will, however, heartily concur with one part of Jonah's ID post:

"But regardless of the merits, I think the Christian Right (and some sympathetic neoconservatives) make a political mistake when they switch their agenda from concrete policies to the teachings of science, religion and metaphysics. Abortion is about deeds. It is an area where science is increasingly on the side of the pro-lifers. Gay marriage is about fundamental social arrangements. Trying to get rid of evolutionary theory in favor of intelligent design or creationism is an abstract battle which saps energy from more important issues and makes it easier to dismiss the Right on other fronts. An atheist or agnostic with an open mind can be affected by pro-life arguments. It's very difficult to imagine them being swayed by assertions the world was created in six days."

Posted by Matt at 06:11 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

February 07, 2005

Wimps and Twixters

Al Mohler astutely notes that we are becoming a nation of wimps. I love his analysis, but it naturally begs the question: Why is he so surprised to learn that young adults act like kids?

I had a lot to say about this a few weeks back. See here and here.

Posted by Matt at 06:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More on Bill Bellichick

On the topic of Bellichick's greatness, I think it's fair to say it's too early to make the call. There are other coaches with as many Super Bowl wins, and one coach with more. I think the one thing that helps Bellichick's case is that he is doing this at a time when teams aren't supposed to win three out of four championships. The system is designed to keep everything even, and Bellichick and his staff have found a way to overcome that. The key now is to see if Bellichick can maintain this current winning streak without Charlie Weiss and Romeo Crennel.

Here's one question to consider. I've always looked at Lombardi, Walsh and Gibbs the same way I look at Bryant and Paterno on the college level. They're tough, hard-nosed coaches who are tremendous motivators. They won and they are still revered. A guy like Bellichick or Norm Chow seems less like a motivator and more like a systems analyst. They're so cerebral in a way that Lombardi didn't seem to be. Maybe Bryant and Lombardi were just as smart, and it's all a matter of image.

Am I right or am I wrong?

Posted by Matt at 06:33 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Dixie Fuller

Jim, that's unfortunate about Millard "Dixie" Fuller. He is a fellow graduate of the University of Alabama. I had the pleasure of hearing him speak at UA's December commencement, when my good friend Eric G. Mann walked across the stage. He is a class act, and I hate to see something like this happen. Your questions about Habitat remind me of the eternal necessity of O'Sullivan's First Rule:

All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.

Incidentally, Millard Fuller was named after Millard "Dixie" Howell, who played for the mighty Crimson Tide, and was named MVP of the 1935 Rose Bowl.

Posted by Matt at 06:21 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Lent

Mark Krikorian has a nice post regarding Lent.

“I have sinned against the rays of your dawn, dark sinner that I am.”

Beautiful.

Posted by Matt at 06:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

NRO's Misunderstanding...

Some dear reader tries to inform Kathryn Lopez about the ways of flyover country.

Here's the dirty little secret: Most of the best country artists aren't conservative. And there's lots of good "country" music flying under the radar.

Posted by Matt at 06:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Not "No," But...

Sounds like someone is tired.

Can't say I blame him.

Posted by Matt at 11:17 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Question of the Day...

In the wake of the Patriots win in Super Bowl XXXIX, one big question is being tossed around:

Is Bill Bellichick the greatest coach in the history of the NFL?

I'll post my thoughts on this later today. For now, do our readers have any ideas?

Posted by Matt at 10:16 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

Mickey Gets It

Mickey Kaus takes down Frank Rich on Nipple-Gate. Scroll down the headline concering...well...the nipple, since apparently Slate can't spend a few extra bucks on permalinks. Good points, by Mickey, though.

Posted by Matt at 08:32 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 06, 2005

The Conservative Mind

Here's a nice post on intellectual conservatism.

Posted by Matt at 09:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Sorry State of Education

Erin O'Connor notes a very disturbing trend.

O'Connor doesn't get into the merits of public education versus those the private sector, but studies like this demonstrate there is a real and deep problem out there.

Posted by Matt at 07:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Is Anyone Else Surpised

Two former Presidents appear at the Super Bowl.

"Ultimately, though, Clinton didn't pick a winner."

I am shocked...shocked!

I'm also shocked that New England's defense isn't doing any better right now.

Posted by Matt at 07:06 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

Super Bowl Talk

The idea of Michael "Never Met An Anti-American Cause I Didn't Like" Douglas introducing the nation's colors...well, that's just too ironic. And not in a funny sort of way.

Posted by Matt at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Are You Sure It Wasn't....Nothing?

Catherine Seipp is excited about the return of Family Guy.

Yep, me too.

Posted by Matt at 12:35 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Whew

All apologies for my silence. I was slammed with a twenty-four hour stomach bug, the kind that makes you question the universe at five a.m.

But we're all better now. We hope. It's Super Bowl Sunday, and even more than the commercials, I'm excited about watching a game that has the potential to be very, very good.

My own prediction: The Patriots win by a field goal, with a score of...let's say...27-24. Tom Brady gets another MVP, and his ticket to Canton.

Posted by Matt at 12:25 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 04, 2005

This Is Getting Old

NRO continues its noble savage fixation with red state America.

Posted by Matt at 03:28 PM | Comments (0)

Christian Politics

Rick's post about his coalescing of faith and politics reminded me of Rod Dreher's powerful piece for Touchstone Magazine a few years back. The article was somewhat controversial, prompting this reply from editor S.M. Hutchens, entitled "Practical Atheism."

Hutchens nailed his argument to the door of Church of the Christian Left with this point:

We know with certainty that abortion and sodomy are evil, but we do not know with any certainty whether any particular disbursement of funds for the poor is good or bad or mixed. Our faith directs us to give alms, quietly and generously, and to bless and care for the widows and the fatherless, but it also tells us that those who will not work shall not eat. Distinctions, often difficult ones, must be made in our policies between who should be marked as poor and who should not, and on how collective monies should be spent or not spent for their relief, the kind of distinctions that have historically marked differing party philosophies, and upon which Christians have historically had differences of opinion. A Christian may think the Democrats’ social, economic, or environmental programs are superior to the Republicans’, but he knows that the Democrats’ moral policies are aggressively ungodly.

I have come to firmly believe that liberalism, as it exists today, is not compatible with Scripture. That so many Christians can be led astray by Jim Wallis' socialism in Christ's name is further evidence that the Christian mind is slowly eroding.

This speech by Robert P. George further explores the idea.

(Note: I'm not labeling Rick a liberal, nor am I tossing him in with Jim Wallis. His post simply brought to mind an issue that slightly predated this recent blog explosion. I felt the issue was worth revisting.)

Posted by Matt at 03:17 PM | Comments (4)

February 03, 2005

Mow Your Own Lawn

Interesting post by John Derbyshire at the Corner.

I've often wondered about this, as well. Certainly there are some jobs that parents might want their teenagers to avoid for issues of safety and a desire to enjoy being a teenager, but are we now incapable of mowing our own lawns? Painting our own houses? There are very few jobs Americans can't do; there are just a lot of jobs we won't do. Why? I'm not completely confident in my thesis, but I'll take a shot.

One of the reasons poor white Southerners supported secession was they felt that free blacks would make their own work seem less meaningful. If the slaves were freed to work on their own, then suddenly poor whites would find themselves at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder and in the same basket as the former slaves. At the time, one was hard-pressed to find a stronger form of degradation. Perhaps a similar thing has occurred today. Americans are no longer willing to work in manual labor because they'll find themselves working with poor immigrants.

I'm not trying to paint my fellow Americans as racists or nativists. There are practical barriers to immigrants working well with Americans, namely the issue of language. But aside from that, I wonder if our new attitude goes something like this:

I'll work a summer job at the Gap with other middle class kids, but I won't work at Burger King. I mean...have you seen who else works there?

Posted by Matt at 11:25 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

More on the Passion

For a few additional thoughts on the Oscars, see here and here.

Just some food for thought.

Posted by Matt at 08:57 AM | Comments (0)

February 02, 2005

Some Additional Thoughts

A few more thoughts on the State of the Union address:

Yahoo! has some nice pictures of the most touching moment of the speech. Simply beautiful.

What's the deal with Sheila Jackson Lee and Dennis Kucinich getting aisle seats? Did they wrangle to get them?

David Frum's take is spot on.

Posted by Matt at 11:31 PM | Comments (0)

State of the Union Thoughts...

It's quite obvious that W. loves his job. Whether light-hearted or serious, the President was having a blast tonight with the State of the Union address. A few quick thoughts.

I really enjoy the way the President swings for the fences. His aims for the tax code and Social Security are bold, and he is an unabashed social conservative. No conservative can take issue with this speech, save the vague remarks on immigration. I loved the remarks on Social Security, the manner in which the President called upon the words of both Democrats and Republicans. I enjoyed hearing his vision for the Middle East, calling on Syria, Egypt and Saudi Arabia to work for greater freedom. GWB was just...on...tonight. Three cheers.

In other random news...Joe Lieberman looked lonely. The First Lady looked stunning, as always. I need a Texas girl. John Kerry looked satisfied enough. Was he wearing a Vineyard Vines tie? He's an aloof old lout, but a well-dressed one. The boos and groans on the parts of Democrats were a display of sheer classlessness. Then again, what else did we expect? The GOP, on the other hand, seemed very fired up. It can't be a bad thing.

More commentary to follow, I'm sure, here and around the blogosphere.

Posted by Matt at 10:02 PM | Comments (2)

Eason Jordan's Motormouth

Hugh Hewitt is talking about the Eason Jordan dustup at this site. He took some submissions, and among them was my good (and recently engaged!) friend Eric G. Mann.

Posted by Matt at 07:12 PM | Comments (0)

Conservative Intellectualism Redux

The comments thread regarding my post below makes me think that I have not been very clear in my concern over the lack of evangelical involvement in intellectual conservatism. Let me try to explain.

I am not going to publish a long essay expounding upon my definition of intellectual conservatism. When I speak of intellectual conservatism, I am speaking of the work of people like William F. Buckley, Norman Podhoretz, Russell Kirk and George Will. There are certainly more names to be added to that list, but that should give you an idea of what I mean. If that list doesn't mean much to you, then I would highly suggest you turn off your computer and run buy everything you can find by those men. I appreciate the work of folks like Michael Behe, but I want to go a step further.

I would put Behe and Dembski in a different league. These men are on the side of some, though by no means all, conservatives. Yet they are not political conservatives in the sense of a Buckley or Will. Their work is relegated to a specifc cause. That's what I'm talking about here in a nutshell: politics. Not Dobson-esque activism. Not intelligent design. Not media criticism. Not pro-life, anti-embryonic stem cell research, pro-FMA activism by folks like Robert P. George (a Catholic, by the way). The men above would no doubt support such matters, but they will be remembered as conservatives well-versed in all things political. I realize that WFB and Podhoretz are giants. They are men of letters that will long be remembered for their influence in the last fifty years. Yet I am strongly concerned that the evangelical movement is not seeking to become part of the mainline conservative movement found in the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute or the magazines and journals I've already discussed. There's no bias here. There's just a lack of involvement on the part of evangelicals.

Where are the evangelical college professors? Yeah, I know they're teaching at evangelical institutions, but why aren't they teaching at major research universities? Why aren't they working at conservative and libertarian think tanks? I'm not talking about working inside the mainstream media; that's a rant for another day. I'm speaking about evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly conservative in their politics, who are not involved in the intellectual defense of the movement. Again, I'm not talking about specific issues like intelligent design or gay marriage. I'm talking about the entire scope of American politics.

Again, there is no bias here on the part of conservatives. If such were ever discovered, I should hope it is dealt with severely. Until that day, evangelicals should seek to find influence in the think thanks and policy institutes just as much as we seek it in the blogosphere and in the halls of Congress. I listed a few important conservatives, and certainly we could add more names. To date, evangelicals have not added a name to the roster. I pray it is not just a question of "if", but "when..."

Posted by Matt at 06:23 PM | Comments (1)

Trouble in Dixie

Readers of my personal blog will know that I've been in a firestorm over the federal trial of Logan Young, a former booster of the University of Alabama.

Young's trial ended today, and I have a few thoughts up over at Matt Crash! If you're aware of this trial, or if you are a fan of college football, follow the links. I'll have more to say here at SCO over the weekend.

Posted by Matt at 06:18 PM | Comments (0)

More on the Intellectual Evangelical

Mark addressed my post below, and I think he makes a strong case that while there is room for improvement, things aren't nearly as bad as they seem. But allow me to flesh out my own idea a little bit. I'm thankful for men like Ravi Zacharias and Lee Strobel, but in terms of intellectual conservatism - in the tradition of Russell Kirk, William F. Buckley, Norman Podhoretz and George Will - where are we as evangelicals? I'm not trying to throw stones; I'm twenty-three and still trying to read my way through the conservative canon, to say nothing of the Western canon as a whole.

I said in my original post at Matt Crash! that I felt blogs and Dobson-esque social activism can be a good thing (though not neccesarily). I stand by that, but I wonder if, in addition to our great theologians, apologists and philosophers, evangelicals will ever have a Bill Buckley or a Norman Podhoretz?

(Note: I originally attributed Mark's post to Jim, but have since made a correction. Also note the comments section in my post below that Rick and our pal DaddyPundit have reminded me that the Weekly Standard's Terry Eastland is also an evangelical. I stand corrected.)

Posted by Matt at 08:51 AM | Comments (8)

February 01, 2005

The Conservative Evangelical Mind

About a week ago I posted the following link over at Matt Crash! In the post, I discuss the lack of evangelical involvement in intellectual conservatism. Think about this for a moment. The major conservative publications are National Review, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, the American Spectator and perhaps the New Criterion. I can think two evangelicals working for those publications: Fred Barnes and Hugh Hewitt. That's it. No one else. This is rather disheartening.

Evangelicals with a conservative bent should ask themselves why we have found ourselves in this predicament. It can easily be fixed, mind you, but here at our new venue, I hope to call attention to this issue. I don't mean to imply that the our friends at these publications - be they Catholic, Orthodox, Hebrew or otherwise - are in any way bad. Indeed this is not the case. Yet if evangelicals want to maintain the influence we constantly discuss, then it's imperative that we train our minds to become part of the vibrant intellectuall spirit of conservatism.

Posted by Matt at 10:35 PM | Comments (3)

Is this thing on?

Good morning, blogosphere! So here we are at the new Stones Cry Out super-duper megablog. Thanks for joining us.

I would love to start my first post here with some profound insight into the ways of the world, but alas, after a night at the symphony I woke up late and it's cold and rainy and well...I've got nothing.

My colleagues Rick, Jim, Mark and Drew are already bringing the content. I shall return later, but until then check out Al Mohler's thoughts on the Iraqi election.

Sidenote: I wonder how many GWB supporters paid attention to the Iraqi election returns? I'm not questioning anyone's support of the President, but if someone is not a political junkie, it might be easy to overlook what happened. I know a lot of war supporters looked on the whole matter as a security issue, and the liberation itself was not as important. I hope the emphasis can be placed now on self-determination for the Iraqis, and that our countrymen who cheered Saddam's capture can also cheer the self-liberation of the Iraqi people. The tip of my right finger is stained with ink in support of their cause.

Posted by Matt at 10:04 AM | Comments (1)