Posted December 18, 2009 by Charles
A friend of mine who is a minister in Canada reacts to the news about Matt Chandler’s cancer, and Matt’s attitude about God’s sovereignty:
“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ.”
Phil 3: 7-8
I believe that with all of my head but when a challenge comes, I am disappointed with how my heart replies. Despite what I know I am shocked that God would allow one of his servants to suffer like this. I know better but I can’t believe that God could let this happen.
Read the whole thing.
Posted December 14, 2009 by Charles
This morning in church the pastor quoted C.S. Lewis’ well known “lunatic, liar, or lord,” trilemma during his sermon. I didn’t sleep much last night, so I was primed to chase a rabbit, and this was it.
Immediately this argument, which I had accepted wholeheartedly as a freshman in college and held in the back of my mind ever since, struck me as problematic. It became clear that the problem for me was the assertion that a person isn’t “morally reliable” if they are deceived or deceptive. In either case, it is not only acceptable, but perfectly logical to accept moral teaching from a lunatic or a liar.
In the Modern era morality is not the stable and absolute entity that it is in earlier times, and in the postmodern era it is no longer even broadly coherent. It is understood as a social and cultural construct, and in the pluralistic societies of the Western world, it is also understood as an individual construct. We can, as individuals or societies, develop our own personal or local moral codes through our own invention and through collecting the parts of existing codes that we accept as valid.
Read more
Posted December 4, 2009 by Charles
Sean Hannity was busy this afternoon comparing the public responsibility of Tiger Woods to that of elected officials. They’re the same, he says, because when you become a “public figure” your private life is no longer private. So people like Tiger are wrong when they say that their’ private indiscretions shouldn’t require public confessions. They are examples and role models, whether they want to be or not.
In this line of reasoning, Tiger’s infidelity is as significant to the public (and as much of a violation of trust) as those of Bill Clinton and Mark Sanford. These men all “became” public figures, making them responsible for being morally trustworthy and confessing their mistakes to the country.
Read more
Posted December 4, 2009 by Charles
D.C. Councilman Michael Brown
I’m getting tired of hearing African American leaders toss the Three-Fifths Compromise into discussions about discrimination in America.
Yesterday on Laura Ingraham Washington, D.C. Councilman Michael Brown was on with a local bishop discussing a same-sex marriage initiative in the District. He views it as a civil rights issue. I (emphatically) do not. It’s definitely a rights issue, but not one about equality. We’re not talking about creating “marriage equity”, we’re talking about changing the definition of marriage, which has been the same since it started. As it is, everyone (including homosexuals) can marry whoever they want, as long as they are (1) of legal age, (2) not currently married to someone else, and (3) of the opposite gender. There are no rights being denied to anyone. This is an issue of creating rights, not restoring or honoring them. Anyway, that’s beside the point.
Brown, who is in favor of the initiative, based his whole argument on the civil rights issue, frequently mentioning drinking fountains, colored restrooms, and segregated schools. It was silly. I’m surprised he didn’t mention people getting firehoses and dogs turned on them. That’s really similar to a bumper sticker that says, “It’s not Adam and Steve.” (those stickers are also idiotic, BTW)
But at one point Laura was talking about the Constitution, and he says, “In the Constitution an African American is 3/5 of a person!” He was, of course, trying to argue that the constitution is not a good measuring stick for civil rights. He doesn’t seem to know much about the purpose of the compromise, or the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.
Read more
