Current Events Write-Up: Feud, Tim Keller, Benedict Option, Deficit Hawks, Introverts, Billy Graham Rule

Time for a Current Events Write-Up!  I missed last week because I was writing book reviews.

Romper: Is Pauline from "Feud" Based on a Real Person? The Ambitious Assistant Is a Fan Favorite, by Caralynn Lippo. 

I have been watching "Feud," which is about the conflict between actresses Bette Davis and Joan Crawford during and after the making of Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?  Last Sunday's episode was especially good.  In that episode, Pauline, who was director Robert Aldrich's assistant, was trying to get people to read her script, and she expressed a desire to be a director herself.  But women being directors at that time was extremely uncommon.  Pauline was discouraged, but then she talked with Mamacita, Joan Crawford's personal assistant.  Mamacita talked about how women are increasing in population, and there will be a greater demand for women directors who can help make films and shows that appeal to women.  "Your time is coming," Mamacita solemnly tells Pauline.  That made me wonder if Pauline ever became a successful scriptwriter and director.  And that led me to this article.

Wikipedia: B.D. Hyman.

Another character in the "Feud" series was B.D. Hyman, who was Bette Davis' daughter.  She had a brief role in Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?  I was curious to learn more about her, and I found that she became a born-again Christian, who wrote a book about the rapture. 

DalyFocus: Tim Keller's Reward Is In Heaven. It's Princeton that Loses the Prize, by Jim Daly.

Pastor Tim Keller was about to receive Princeton Theological Seminary's Kuyper award, then Princeton decided not to give him the award on account of his controversial stances.  I loved the last line of this post: "Princeton can keep its award, but in how he’s handled the 'slight,' Tim Keller is rewarding us by showing the Christian how best to respond in a post-Christian world."  That is something that I like about Tim Keller: he doesn't take himself too seriously.  As Daly says, "...the people who know and love Tim Keller are likely more bothered by this 'snub' than he is." 

Bob on Books: Review of The Benedict Option.

This is a good summary, review, and critique of Rod Dreher's The Benedict Option.

The Baffler: The Wrongest Profession: How economists have botched the promise of widely distributed prosperity—and why they have no intention of stopping now, by Dean Baker.

This is a critique of deficit hawkishness. 

Thought Catalog: 10 Things Being an Introvert Is Not an Excuse For, by Heidi Priebe.

Things for me to keep in mind!

Relevant Magazine: Twitter Tangles with the Billy Graham Rule.

When I saw this article, I thought, "Why can't Mike Pence set the boundaries that he wants, without having to put up with a bunch of leftist snark?"  But critics do well to highlight a possible problem: if men avoid women (i.e., not having a meal with them alone, not being in the same room with them alone) because they fear falling into an affair, will that close women off from job advancement opportunities?  I can still see a rationale for the Billy Graham Rule. When I was at Harvard Divinity School, we had a session on how pastors should not date parishioners, and we were encouraged to set boundaries.  But I can understand some of the concerns about the Billy Graham Rule.  Is there a reasonable middle ground?

Articles: How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul; Reading Little House as an Adult

I don't feel like doing an extensive Current Events Write-Up today, so I will just link to two articles that I found interesting.

The Atlantic: How Democrats Killed Their Populist Soul:In the 1970s, a new wave of post-Watergate liberals stopped fighting monopoly power. The result is an increasingly dangerous political system. Written by Matt Stoller. 

 

This is a lengthy article, so I read it over the course of a month.  According to the article, a prominent plank among 1930's New Deal Democrats was a commitment to anti-trust policies: smaller business is better than big business.  In the 1960's, however, economist and Kennedy advisor John Kenneth Galbraith expressed hope that monopolies could promote social justice.  During the 1970's, when Democrats were elected to Congress in the aftermath of Watergate, many of these Democrats rejected the populist anti-trust beliefs of the 1930's Democrats.  Bill Clinton would amplify this 1970's non-populist stance as President.  

Book Riot: Reading "Little House on the Prairie" as an Adult, by Kelly Jensen.

 

I've been watching the Little House TV series lately.  I was wondering if I would enjoy the books.  From this post, the impression that I get is that the books are not like the TV series!  I'd still like to read them for myself, sometime. 

Movie Write-Up: The Unauthorized Full House Story

I recently watched the 2015 Lifetime movie, The Unauthorized Full House Story, which was about the actors in the hit ABC sitcom Full House.  The movie went from the actors’ rise from obscurity and disappointments to Candace Cameron’s wedding to Russian hockey player Valeri Bure.

I liked how the movie depicted the actors as tight-knit, in good times and bad. Another interesting detail was how the actors shaped their characters.  Bob Saget had the idea of making Danny Tanner a neat freak, and John Stamos proposed that Uncle Jesse be an Elvis fan.

In terms of negatives, the movie tried to cover too much, so pieces were left unresolved.  For example, in the movie, Jodie Sweetin was upset because Candace was becoming close to Andrea Barner (who played Kimmy Gibler) and felt left out, but that was never revisited.  As this Rolling Stone article notes, the movie lacked notorious Full House catch-phrases, such as “Have mercy!” and “You got it, dude!”  (I think it did have “You’re in big trouble, mister!”)  The movie also had a lot of silliness.  Some of that was necessary to show that Bob Saget was raunchier than his TV dad character, but there was just too much of that.

The movie still had its share of serious scenes, though, and that enhanced the movie.  Bob Saget and Dave Coulier were coping with the deaths of their sisters.  And Bob Saget worked a lot on Full House and America’s Funniest Home Videos, and that cost him his marriage.

Like The Unauthorized Saved by the Bell movie, The Unauthorized Full House Story touched on religion.  In my favorite scene in the movie, Candace Cameron and John Stamos are talking.  Candace is upset because a magazine called her chubby, and John laments that the tabloids portray him as a big-time partier, leading his dad to think that he is immature.  Candace says that her brother, Kirk (Kirk Cameron from Growing Pains), tells her that things will be become clearer when she has a relationship with God.  John replies that it’s good for people to find ways to keep their head straight—-Kirk has religion, John has his music—-and Candace needs to find what works for her.

Many Christians may disagree with John’s characterization of religion as one of many ways to keep one’s head straight, saying it is much more than that.  They would have a point, and yet I agree that religion is a way to keep one’s head straight, and that religion is a personal decision.  I also appreciate that John did not denigrate Kirk Cameron.  And the scene struck me as an Uncle Jesse moment, as if Stamos were like Uncle Jesse even off-screen!

Current Events Write-Up: Taxes, Nat Hentoff, When We Rise, and Annette O'Toole

Time for this week’s Current Events Write-Up, in which I link to news articles and opinion pieces and comment on them.

Townhall: The Stars of Sexist and Racist Hollywood Shine Bright Tonight, by Paul Jacob.

I am glad that a conservative is criticizing sexism in Hollywood.  I hope that the criticism is sincere, though, and not just an attempt to argue that Hollywood is hypocritical for criticizing Trump, while having sexism in its own ranks.

Townhall: States Are Going Broke Because They Broke the Bank, by Stephen Moore.

Progressives point to Kansas as an example of tax cuts not working.  Well, Moore points to states that had high taxes, and that approach didn’t work, either!  What does work?

Townhall: One Rogue Liberal: The Shunning of Nat Hentoff, by Marvin Olasky.

I thought of writing a tribute to the late Nat Hentoff but I did not do so, since my familiarity with his work is rather cursory.  I liked what I read from him in the Opposing Viewpoints series that I read as a child, and I one time saw a book that he wrote: Free Speech for Me But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other.  I respected him for criticizing both sides of the political spectrum!  In this column, Olasky discusses another dimension to Hentoff’s thought: Hentoff was pro-life on the abortion issue.

Christina Cleveland: 15 Books for Fighting for Justice in the Trump Era.

Rachel Held Evans linked to this in her recent post on activism.  I plan to read some of those, starting with Palestinian theologian Mitri Raheb.

Clarissa’s Blog: Just Likers Strike Again.

Some are comparing the current protests at town-hall meetings with the Tea Party protests shortly after Barack Obama became President.  I find myself having more sympathy for the current protesters at town-hall meetings, than for the Tea Partiers.  The current protesters do not want people to lose their health insurance.  The Tea Partiers tended to dismiss those who needed help as moochers (or such was my impression).

Trump’s Speech to Congress.

I liked this part of Trump’s speech, especially that last sentence: “I just met with officials and workers from a great American company, Harley-Davidson.  In fact, they proudly displayed five of their magnificent motorcycles, made in the USA, on the front lawn of the White House.  (Laughter and applause.)  And they wanted me to ride one and I said, ‘No, thank you.’  (Laughter.)  At our meeting, I asked them, how are you doing, how is business? They said that it’s good.  I asked them further, how are you doing with other countries, mainly international sales?  They told me — without even complaining, because they have been so mistreated for so long that they’ve become used to it — that it’s very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate.  They said that in the case of another country, they taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent.  They weren’t even asking for a change.  But I am.  (Applause.)”

And the Republicans, who are ordinarily free traders, applauded!  On that note, see Pat Buchanan’s It’s Trump’s Party Now.

CNS News: ABC Mocks Catholics in ‘When We Rise’ Miniseries, by Bill Donohue.

This last week, I watched the “When We Rise” miniseries, which was about the American gay rights movements from the 1970s to 2015.  I enjoyed it: I liked how the characters found each other and also the series’ presentation of the different views among gays and lesbians.  Donohue’s column stood out to me because it made me ask: Was it wrong for the miniseries to present gay characters who criticized Catholics?  How would people respond if a miniseries criticized Orthodox Jews?  I don’t find what the miniseries did to be objectionable: What is wrong with presenting characters who have problems with the teachings of Catholicism?  For that matter, I don’t think it would be problematic to present characters who have problems with Orthodox Judaism!  There should be some line, though: We should not stereotype an entire group of people.  Where that precise line is would merit discussion.  I should note that, later in the miniseries, there was a positive depiction of a Catholic nun, who reassured a lesbian mother that it was not the mother’s fault that her daughter was acting out.

Christian Post:5 Historic Omissions in ABC’s LGBT Miniseries ‘When We Rise.’

I still liked the miniseries, but I do wish that it had mentioned that Ronald Reagan was against Proposition 6, as the movie Milk actually did.  This article links to a column that Reagan wrote about the measure.  The article also says what happened after that dramatic Charles Socarides scene.  And I have to admit: that explanation in the miniseries about why the anti-same-sex “experts” were not showing up in court to testify did strike me as a little one-sided.

Sechrest Things:Women In Horror: Annette O’Toole Talks Stephen King’s IT.

I like Annette O’Toole in IT, Smallville, and, more recently, the miniseries 11.22.63.  This interview was worth reading.  I especially liked this question:  “For me, your portrayal of Beverly Marsh ranks right up there with the best, and if you’ll indulge me my James Lipton moment, I’ll tell you why. … At the start of the movie, we see each of these characters get ‘the call’ saying old Pennywise is back and they’ve got to return to Derry. Pretty much every one of them has a total nervous breakdown upon getting this call. Except for Bev. For her, it’s a moment of transformation, of remembering who she really is. In the first moments we see her, she’s a somewhat neurotic, anxious, mess of a woman, but once she removes herself from the abusive partner and gets in that taxi, there’s a kind of peace and calm that settles over her. So before Bev even leaves, she’s already begun fighting ‘the demon,’ dealing with those scars from her childhood. This shows us that Bev is stronger than the lot of them. Bev is the key, really. You convey all of this in a matter of seconds. How did you prepare emotionally for those more traumatic moments we see at the beginning of the film?”

I love the taxi scene.  The driver warmly asks Bev where she is going, and she replies that she needs to get to Maine.  The driver responds, “Then we’ll find an airport that goes to Maine.”

Current Events Write-Up: Gorsuch, Disability Rights, Health Care, the Senate, Little House, the Big Bang Theory, Etc.

Time for a Current Events Write-Up.

Neil Gorsuch
 
Washington Post: Neil Gorsuch belongs to a notably liberal church — and would be the first Protestant on the Court in years, by Julie Zauzmer.

I learned of this article from Steve Hays, who linked to it on Triablogue.

I especially liked this part of the article: "Staff at St. John’s declined to speak about Gorsuch on Wednesday. One member, who has ushered at services with Gorsuch, said she didn’t even know he was a judge."

Huffington Post:Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Showed Support For His Clerk’s Gay Marriage: But people close to the judge can’t quite predict how he’ll rule on big social issues.

The title says it all.  He personally may have progressive ideas, but that does not necessarily preclude him from making conservative decisions, on the basis of a conservative judicial philosophy.

ACLU: Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch Has a Troubling History When Ruling on Disability Rights Cases, by Claudia Center.

This troubles me, as someone on the autism spectrum.

Disability and Gun Control
 
Reason: The House Passes a Gun Measure Supported by the ACLU and Mental Health Advocates. Media Hysteria Ensues:Bad reporting, and bad attitudes, make a sensible move to prevent the government from discriminating against certain Social Security recipients seem like sheer madness, by Brian Doherty.

We've read the story about how the House Republicans voted to allow the mentally ill to get guns.  Here is another perspective on the story.  And it links to the ACLU's letter about this issue.  To quote the ACLU letter: "...regulation of firearms and individual gun ownership or use must be consistent with civil liberties principles, such as due process, equal protection, freedom from unlawful searches, and privacy. All individuals have the right to be judged on the basis of their individual capabilities, not the characteristics and capabilities that are sometimes attributed (often mistakenly) to any group or class to which they belong. A disability should not constitute grounds for the automatic per se denial of any right or privilege, including gun ownership."

Health Care
 
Townhall: States Should Protect Direct-Pay Health Care Models, by Michael Hamilton.

Sounds good.  It aims to bypass the insurance companies and the overhead that dealing with them entails.  See here for wikipedia's article, which links to sources, pro and con. 

Townhall: Free Dr. Tom Price!, by Andrew Mangione. 

Tom Price is President Trump's selection for the Department of Health and Human Services.  Andrew Mangione praises the legislation that Price supported or introduced in Congress.  Mangione states that Democrats should "look at Dr. Price with clarity and identify what his colleagues already recognize - a passionate advocate for patients, seniors, women, physicians, families and veterans."

Trump and the Muslim World
 
Townhall: The Coming Clash With Iran, by Pat Buchanan.

Pat offers another perspective.  Allow me to quote: "Iran-backed Houthi rebels, said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship and Tehran tested a missile, undermining 'security, prosperity, and stability throughout the Middle East,' placing 'American lives at risk.'  But how so?   The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled to immunity from retaliation in wars that they start?   Where is the evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war his war?”

CNN Politics: 100 evangelical leaders sign ad denouncing Trump's refugee ban, by Daniel Burke.

"Signees include Pastor Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York, Christian author Ann Voskamp, Bill and Lynne Hybels of Willow Creek Community Church, preacher and author Max Lucado, Pastor Eugene Cho of Quest Church and Leith Anderson, president of the National Association of Evangelicals."

Also, Dr. Gordon Hugenberger is on the list.  I used to hear him speak when I visited Park Street Church in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Senate
 
New York Times: Kirsten Gillibrand and the Anti-Trump Left: 2020 Foresight?, by Ginia Bellafante. 

"When David A. Paterson, then governor of New York, appointed Kirsten E. Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat in 2009, there was little feeling that she would become a key voice in a movement of resistance from the left. As a Blue Dog congressional Democrat representing an upstate district, Ms. Gillibrand had an A rating from the National Rifle Association. She had an uptown bearing but talked about the guns she kept tucked under her bed. Working as a young lawyer, she defended the tobacco industry."
I love stories like this: people acting as you don't expect!  I like the movie Separate But Equal, which was about a companion case to the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision banning racial segregation in schools.  President Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren to the Supreme Court, and opponents of segregation wondered how Warren would decide.  When they learned that Warren was the Governor who participated in the internment of Japanese-Americans into internment camps, they were not very optimistic!  But Warren surprised them.  Not only did he vote against segregation, but he encouraged all of the other justices on the court to take a principled stand against it.  I hope that President Trump acts against negative expectations and accomplishes groundbreaking reforms.

Yahoo News: Bernie Sanders Reads Coretta Scott King’s Letter on the Senate Floor, Calls GOP Silencing Elizabeth Warren ‘Incomprehensible’, by Tierney McAfee.

Elizabeth Warren was silenced from reading Coretta Scott King's letter on Jeff Sessions before the U.S. Senate, but then Bernie went on to read it!  I think there is another side to Sessions' record than the one that the Left presents.  Still, I believe that Senators should be allowed to read Coretta Scott King's concerns about Sessions: Sessions was not only a Senator, but a nominee for Attorney General.  (Now, of course, he actually is Attorney General.)

Historical Interest
New York Times: Finding America, Both Red and Blue, in the ‘Little House’ Books, by Maria Russo.

I love the Little House on the Prairie TV show!  The politics of Little House has long fascinated me!  I have known that Laura Ingalls Wilder's daughter Rose was instrumental in the libertarian movement, and that Laura Ingalls Wilder herself was a critic of the New Deal.  As the article notes, however, LIW herself benefited from the government.  I would be interested in reading something about the politics of the TV series, which this article does not explore.  Michael Landon was supposedly a Republican, yet my impression is that Little House and Highway to Heaven were very progressive, politically-speaking. 

Entertainment
 
Glamour:The Big Bang Theory Season 10 Episode 14 Recap: This Is Why We Should Be Kind to Others, by Jessica Radloff.  

I loved this reflection on the show: "Season 10—even seasons eight and nine—has been more than just guaranteed laughs each week; it's become a weekly therapy of sorts. From anxiety to hoarding to intimacy, the show has somehow found a way to effectively weave in topical issues 24 episodes a season. For a series that started off about a couple of nerds having problems interacting with the hot girl…well, this is no longer that series.  'The writers are realistic about these characters maturing and evolving, and they have [done that] in wonderful ways,' Johnny Galecki (Leonard) acknowledges. 'You couldn't watch 10 seasons of these guys not being able to get a date.' True, but never did we expect the show to evolve into something of a social discussion each week either."

Current Events Write-Up: Pharmaceuticals, Barack Obama's Departure, a Three-State Solution, Patricia Heaton, Anne Frank, Etc.

Time for another week of links to news and opinion pieces!

Pharmaceuticals

“Cory Booker and 12 Other Dems Just Stopped Bernie Sanders’ Amendment to Lower Prescription Drug Costs,” by Walter Bragman.

Bad news!  Bernie Sanders proposed an amendment that would allow importation of cheap prescription drugs into the United States, and Cory Booker and twelve Democrats helped kill it.  Of course, most of the Republicans voted against it, too.  And yet, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul voted for the amendment!  Good for them!  And is that not a conservative approach: allow competition to bring down prices?  UPDATE: See here for Cory Booker's side of the story.

Meanwhile, at the Halls of Justice!  Peter Welch is a Democratic Congressman from Vermont, and he praises Donald Trump for finding common ground with him on pharmaceuticals:

“Today, President-elect Donald J. Trump strongly endorsed an issue I have been pushing hard for in Congress – requiring the federal government to use its significant bulk purchasing power to cut the price of prescription drugs for seniors and taxpayers. Here is what he said at this morning’s press conference:  ‘We’re the largest buyer of drugs in the world. And yet we don’t bid properly. We’re going to start bidding. We’re going to save billions of dollars over a period of time.’  Music to my ears. It’s crazy that Medicare buys drugs at wholesale but pays retail prices. I’ve introduced a bill that would require price negotiations with Big Pharma. It will cut drug prices, save taxpayer dollars, and shore up the Medicare trust fund. I’m ready to get to work with President-elect Trump to pass this commonsense legislation.”

Over at the conservative web site Townhall, Devon Herrick writes on how “Congress Should Take Steps to Make Drugs More Affordable.”  He criticizes, among other things, how the FDA takes a long time to approve new drugs.  At the conservative web site, The Federalist, Margot Cleveland actually praises President Barack Obama for moving in the direction of correcting that!  Yet, as far as Herrick is concerned, there is more work to be done: “The FDA’s bias toward approving newer, first-in-class therapies has increased approvals for expensive drugs to treat rare diseases, which are at a historic high. Approvals of me-too drugs are down, however, which limits competition within drug classes, leading to higher prices, and limits patient choices.”

Jill Stein and the Russian Hacking

Jill Stein posted a link to an article by David Swanson, questioning the U.S. Government’s Russian-hacking report and defending Wikileaks against the U.S. Intelligence community.  That’s the Jill Stein I voted for, not the one who has been challenging the election results!

The Donald: A Different Kind of Republican

I enjoyed Reihan Salam’s article on Slate, entitled “Will Donald Trump Be FDR or Jimmy Carter?”  Salam is not too optimistic about the coming Donald Trump Presidency, as far as I can see.  Yet, I appreciated an observation that Salam made, and I have made the same observation myself.  In the past, many Republicans ran their campaigns by distinguishing between the makers and the takers, shaming the poor who receive assistance from the government.  Remember Mitt Romney’s 47% comment!  Trump’s campaign did not do that, as far as I can recall.  Rather, Trump’s campaign held that people are struggling economically on account of a systemic problem.  Trump blamed illegal immigrants, and many may not care for that kind of scapegoating, but Trump also criticized big corporations for sending jobs overseas.

President Barack Obama

George Stephanopoulos at ABC This Week interviewed President Barack Obama.  I especially appreciated this moment of candid self-criticism on the part of the President: “And so [Democrats ha]ve got to do a better job of showing up. And I was able to do that when I was the candidate. But I have not– I’ve not seen or– or presided over that kind of systematic outreach that I think needs to happen.”

As I read my friends’ expressions of sadness over the coming departure of Barack Obama from the Presidency, I have wondered why I have not shared their sadness.  It may be because I rarely see Barack Obama speaking to the public: it’s like he’s in hiding, so he has not made much of an impression on me.  And, when he does come out, it’s often to lecture, which comes across as rather self-righteous.  But don’t get me wrong: there have been times when I have appreciated what Barack Obama has had to say.  When he expressed openness to conservative ideas on bringing down the cost of higher education and health care, I applauded him.  That was the Barack Obama I loved in 2008: the transformative candidate!

At Townhall, Jeff Jacoby has a column, “Barack Obama’s Legacy of Failure.”  There’s not much that is new there, but the section on foreign policy got me thinking, or at least reminded me of some things that I have been thinking lately.  I have been gravitating towards the conservatism that supports isolationism, which is not to say that I embrace the domestic policy of the right, but rather than I enjoy reading conservatives who support a non-interventionist foreign policy, as opposed to the neo-cons.  That is one reason that I like Donald Trump, at least for the time being.  But Jacoby’s column criticizes President Obama for being non-interventionist on foreign policy.  And isn’t that accurate, on a certain level?  Permitting the Arab Spring.  Being reluctant to bomb Syria.  Aren’t those examples of President Obama’s non-interventionism?  Of course, one can point out the opposite, too: President Obama’s support of regime change in Libya, and his use of drones.  Still, I wonder if his non-interventionism has worked.  Yet, as a counterweight, I do not want the U.S. to go back to the disastrous interventionism of the Iraq War.

James David Audlin had a status comparing the vilification of President-elect Trump with the 2008-2009 vilification of President-elect Obama.   Of course, people are responding by saying that is a “false equivalence,” a term I have heard often over the last several months.  Okay, maybe there are differences between the criticisms of the respective Presidents-elect.  Still, I find that I am turned off by the criticisms of Trump today, as I was by the criticisms of Barack Obama in 2008: the caricatures, the mockery, the attitude that he cannot do anything right, the tendency to read a sinister motive into everything he says and does.  The criticisms of Obama in 2008 were among the factors that moved me to the left.  Today, the criticisms of Trump are not moving me to the right, so much, but they have encouraged me to read more from the right.  Actually, the reason that I liked Obama in 2008, and a reason that I like Trump now, is that both expressed openness to ideas of the other side of the spectrum.  I am not so much against constructive criticism: it may actually move Trump in a positive direction, as Trump looks for queues about what to do.  The vilification is what turns me off.

Israel

Over at Townhall, Bruce Bialosky has an interesting article entitled “The Three State Solution.”  We hear a lot about the two-state solution.  But, as Bialosky notes, there are actually two regions that have Palestinian authorities: Gaza, led by Hamas, and the West Bank, led by Fatah.  And, according to Bialosky, the West Bank under Fatah is more prosperous than Gaza under Hamas.  I appreciate that Bialosky does not lump the Palestinians together.

Entertainment

Christianity Today had an interview with actress Patricia Heaton.  Heaton has had two successful sitcoms: “Everybody Loves Raymond” and “The Middle.”  I love both shows!  Heaton talks about the insecurities that exist in the acting career, the contrasts between acting in “Everybody Loves Raymond” and acting in “The Middle,” and her own Christian faith and charity work in the Third World.

Historical Interest

“The Holocaust Survivor Who Hated Anne Frank,” by Philip Graubart. 

Basically, she thought that Anne Frank was mean and spoiled!  Graubart astutely says:
“She didn’t like Anne Frank. At first I couldn’t absorb the sentiment, couldn’t really believe my ears. It was like hearing a Catholic say she wasn’t fond of the Virgin Mary, that she was sick of all her tiresome bragging. Virgin birth – big deal. But then I realized that Trudy’s distaste for Anne Frank the person – whatever girlhood tiff set it off – returned the Holocaust to where it belongs, in prosaic human history. It’s not a myth, or a sacred narrative, with demigods and martyrs and supernatural heroines. It’s not a biblical story, a tragic moment pointing to redemption. It’s a story of girls and boys, Annes and Trudys, and their brothers and sisters and parents, murdered and tortured the way humans have murdered and tortured since time immemorial.”

Current Events Write-Up: Rex Tillerson, "Fake News," the Bill of Rights, Alan Thicke, and More

I’ve got some current events and opinions links for this week!

The Trump Cabinet

President-elect Donald Trump selected Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson to be Secretary of State.

Pat Buchanan is happy with the decision, from the standpoint of supporting a more non-interventionist foreign policy: “Most businessmen are interested in doing deals, making money, and, if the terms are not met, walking away, not starting a war.  And here is the heart of the objection to Tillerson. He wants to end sanctions and partner with Putin’s Russia, as does Trump. But among many in the mainstream media, think tanks, websites, and on the Hill, this is craven appeasement. For such as these, the Cold War is never over.”

Robert Reich is concerned: “Trump’s pick for Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, is the first nominee for that office whose résumé and wealth hinge on his partnerships with tyrants around the world.”

And prominent social conservative Tony Perkins lambastes Rex Tillerson, noting Tillerson’s socially liberal positions.

Moving on to the President-elect’s choice for Interior Secretary, Wes Siler of Outside has an article entitled “Trump’s Interior Pick Is the Last Hope for Our Public Lands: Former Navy SEAL Ryan Zinke Opposes the Republican Land Heist. He May Be the Best Environmental Hope We Have in This Administration.”  As you can tell, the article, overall, lauds Zinke, and what Siler says deserves just as much consideration as the anti-Trump narratives. Yet, near the end, the article briefly mentions aspects of Zinke’s stances that may be of concern to many environmentalists.

More on Trump

Bill Gates recently spoke with the President-elect, and Gates has expressed optimism: “But in the same way President Kennedy talked about the space mission and got the country behind that, I think whether it’s education or stopping epidemics … [or] in this energy space, there can be a very upbeat message that [Trump’s] administration [is] going to organize things, get rid of regulatory barriers, and have American leadership through innovation.”

Eleanor Clift was on the McLaughlin Group with Pat Buchanan for decades.  In a Daily Beast article, she talks about Buchanan’s reactions to the Trump campaign and the Trump transition.  I’m not endorsing everything Buchanan says, but I am interested in his analysis.

At the Literary Hub, Jordan Rothacker has an interview with John Reed, who wrote a parody sequel to George Orwell’s Animal Farm.  One of the lines I liked: “Do you realize that quite a few Marxists are in the upper echelons of global corporations? It’s because they understand the system.”  But here’s where Reed talks about Trump: “As much as I loathe Trump, he doesn’t like the new paradigm either. At least internationally. He’d prefer isolationism, which is not something he’ll be able to advance in slightest. This idea that we can export our power structure, and by so doing expand our economic dominance, is central to corporate strategy. I do suppose on the domestic front, Trump fits in rather precisely.”

Townhall had some articles on Trump’s trade policies.  Stephen Chapman is obviously not a fan, for his article is entitled “Trump’s Self-Defeating Trade Policy.” Chapman lucidly explains his position.  This part was especially helpful in explaining potential drawbacks to protectionism: “U.S. automakers use a multitude of imported components. Most of the cars built on our soil, in fact, contain more than 25 percent foreign parts. A lot of other products assembled here include materials or pieces made elsewhere.  As a result, any duties slapped on imports would inflate costs for American manufacturers, making it harder for them to sell both at home and abroad. It would even hurt other U.S. firms that buy and use imported goods in their operations. In an era of global supply chains, punishing foreigners amounts to punishing American companies and their workers.”

Seton Motley, on the other hand, had an article entitled “Actual Free Trade and Trump Trade Are Absolutely, Perfectly Compatible.”  At first, the article complains about GOP strategies in government.  But it had some interesting insights about trade: “Actual free trade deals – should be, like, eight pages. ‘This agreement eliminates the following tariffs, taxes and subsidies:….’ The Trans-Pacific Partnership – has reached (at least) 5,544 pages. That’s not a free trade deal – that’s a cronyism-packed, government-riddled nightmare mess.  And these ‘free trade’ deals – routinely ignore the anti-free trade practices of the nations with which we are trading. To wit: China. Trump has long and rightly pointed out how damaging to us is China’s currency manipulation. And China imposes all sorts of tariffs on all sorts of U.S. imports, which we continually, blithely ignore – in the name of one-way, America-damaging ‘free trade.'”

On ABC This Week

On ABC This Week last Sunday, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill had thoughts about how Democrats can “win back those rural, small-town voters…they have lost” (from George Stephanopoulos’ question).  She said:

“Well, I think it’s important that we show up. I think it’s important that we communicate directly with all those working people.  You know, I was really shocked this week that, after all of this talk about coal miners and all of this talk about Buy America, the Republicans and the House of Representatives gutted health care and pension protections for coal miners and removed the Buy America provision that had been put in the bill in a bipartisan basis.  So I think we have got to call out the Republicans, where their walk doesn’t match their talk, and I think we also have to make sure that we communicate clearly that we are the party that cares deeply in our core about working people in this country.”

Fidel Castro

The controversial Richard Falk had things to say about Fidel Castro and the Western media’s response to his death:

“I have been bemused by the captious tone and condescending assessments of mainstream media in the West reacting to Fidel Castro’s death on November 25, 2016. Typical was coverage in The Economist, which while acknowledging Castro’s epic historical role, and even grudgingly admitting that he achieved world class health care and universal education in his impoverished country, reached the ‘politically correct’ conclusion that these achievements were ‘outweighed by his drab legacy. Much of the human capital was wasted by his one-party system, police state, and stagnant centrally planned economy.’…In contrast to generally condescending appraisals in the West, I call attention to two extraordinary essays of appreciation written by cherished friends. One by Sri Lanka’s lead diplomat and cultural critic, Dayan Jayatilleka, published as an opinion piece in the Colombo Telegraph beneath a suitable headline, ‘A Farewell to Fidel: The Last of Epic Heroes,’ Nov. 26, 2016. Dayan not only celebrates Castro’s heroic revolutionary achievement in transforming Cuba from its gangster state identity in the Batista period to a vital outpost of Third World progressive ideals. He also underscores the admirable ethics of liberation violence that guided Castro’s revolutionary practice in ways that exhibited disciplined respect for the innocence of civilian life. For greater detail see Jayatilleka fine appreciative study, Fidel’s Ethics of Violence: The Moral Dimension of the Political Thought of Fidel Castro (London: Pluto Press, 2007). This conception of the ethics of political violence has been essentially absent from the manner in which the struggle between terrorist groups and sovereign states has been waged in various combat zones, especially since the 9/11 attacks. Jayatilleka’s assessments have been confirmed and extended in the recently published book by Nick Hewlett entitled Blood and Progress: Violence in the Pursuit of Emancipation (Edinburgh, Scotland: University of Edinburgh Press, 2016).”

That part about “ethics of liberation violence” that respected innocent “civilian life” stood out to me.  How would one reconcile that with human rights abuses in Cuba?  Perhaps one can say that the victims were neither innocent nor civilian, in the eyes of the Castro regime, but were counter-revolutionary.  In any case, Castro’s articulation of an ethics of liberation violence does not surprise me, since Castro did think about issues, including religion.  But there are people who would probably disagree with the idea that Castro respected innocent civilian life.  Falk’s post is also interesting because it talks about different reactions to Castro’s death.

“Fake News”

Facebook is devising a new “fake news” policy, which would label and possibly marginalize “fake news” sites, on the basis of what “fact-checking” sites say (or so I understand the proposed policy).
William LaJeunesse of Fox News has an illuminating article entitled: “Facebook’s War on ‘Fake News’ Has Skeptics Asking: Who Decides?”  The article explains the concern some conservatives, and even some non-conservatives, have about Facebook’s policy, along with Mark Zuckerberg’s attempts to clarify it.

Historical Interest

It was Bill of Rights Day this last week.  Ed Feulner of Townhall had an article entitled “We Almost Didn’t Have the Bill of Rights.”


Feulner says that some people opposed the Bill of Rights because they thought people already had those rights, without the government needing to recognize them explicitly.  For the government to codify those rights would be to imply that the rights came from government, as opposed to being natural, or given by God.  If Feulner is correct, I wonder how that would correspond with the view that, prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights restricted the federal government but not the state governments.  If a right is natural or given by God, would that not imply that a state should not be able to suppress it?  On a related note, see Steve Hays’ post, The Bill of Rights.

Death

Growing Pains actor Alan Thicke passed on this last week.  Thicke played the dad, Jason Seaver.    This article talked about the kind of dad he played.  I remember two episodes in particular.  On one, Mike, Jason’s oldest son (played by Kirk Cameron), saw the ghost of his uncle, jogging into the kitchen, just like the uncle did before dying.  Mike told Jason, and Jason calmly and wisely suggested that Mike find out what the ghost wants.  Jason was a psychologist, and yet he did not dismiss what Mike saw.  He listened, took Mike seriously, and was understanding.  On another episode, Mike gets a bad grade from his psychology professor, so Jason does Mike’s homework.  But that gets a bad grade, too!  So Jason has a debate with Mike’s psychology professor!

Church Write-Up: Teamwork, With Some Downton Abbey and Vanhoozer Thrown into the Mix!

At church last Sunday, the pastor was preaching about being on a team.  It was “Jersey Sunday,” so many people in church, including the pastor himself, were wearing jerseys of their favorite sports team.

The pastor talked about how none of us is self-sufficient.  We need other people.  In this part of the sermon, the pastor was not saying that we need to be social, though he would eventually imply that.  Here, he was just saying that we all depend on other people, since we cannot do everything ourselves.  Even loners need other people to provide electricity to their homes, whether or not they ever actually interact with those people!

The pastor also said that we, by ourselves, do not know everything.  That is why we need other people to give their opinions.  The pastor may have an idea about a particular area, but someone with more experience in that area can say whether or not the idea is good.

The pastor referred to the Gospel text in which Jesus sends the disciples out two-by-two.  See, for example, Mark 6:7 and Luke 10:1.  Why did Jesus send the disciples out two-by-two?  According to the pastor, it was so that the two disciples could encourage each other when they were persecuted, as Jesus did say that persecution was a possibility.

The pastor talked about working as a team on church ministry projects, and not caring about who gets the credit.  We can serve, and our names may not be mentioned from the pulpit!  Still, God appreciates our service.

The pastor made the point that God is in the business of uniting people, whereas Satan is in the business of dividing people.

Then the pastor talked about the family, saying that we are responsible to the family in which God placed us.  The pastor referred to Ecclesiastes 4:9-12, which talks about how two are better than one: if one falls down, the other can lift that person up!  The pastor said that this is a sensitive passage for many, since they are alienated from or at odds with their family.  The pastor remarked that it is a blessing for his children actually to want to talk to him!  He then said that people may have a successful business and be liked by the community, but if their family life is not in order, then God looks down at them from heaven and shouts “Boooo!”

The pastor stated that God does not make us loners.  Rather, God brings us into community, through the Gospel.

I was grumbling against this message on the way home from church, and throughout the week.  More than once this week, I said to God, “Well, booo on you then!”  And, as is often the case, I responded to God’s alleged idea that we should all be one happy community with “Dream on!”  But hate or contempt towards God or anyone else does not make me feel emotionally at peace or uplifted, so I try to avoid such feelings.

As is usually the case, I seek some area of common ground with the sermon, even if it makes me mad.  I personally abhor the idea that God boos those who fail to navigate their way successfully through the world of interpersonal relationships, even with their own families.  Still, I do believe that God likes to see peace, harmony, love, and reconciliation.  “But Jesus said that he came to bring a sword and division—-see Matthew 10:34-36!” True, there are times when one may need to choose God or some higher principle over approval from our families.  Still, God’s path does aim towards unity.  I do not mean uniformity, since people are different and may disagree with each other, as even the pastor acknowledged, but I am referring to unity in love.  The Bible emphasizes love, mercy, tender-heartedness, and forgiveness repeatedly.

We recently started watching Downton Abbey.  As viewers of the show may know, Lady Mary and Lady Edith hate each other!  Lady Mary probably views Lady Edith with contempt, regarding her as whiny, mealy-mouthed, unattractive, and boring (not to mention underhanded).  And Lady Edith sees Lady Mary as, well, a witch with a capital B!  I can empathize with both of them, on some level (more so with Lady Edith), but just once I would like to see Lady Mary and Lady Edith appreciate each others’ strengths, or at least treat each other with maturity and respect, even if they never become the best of friends.  That, I think, is how God is with us.  God knows why we are angry with each other, and God understands what buttons were pushed to make us upset.  God is aware of our frustrated desires, our unmet needs, our baggage, and our interpersonal weaknesses.  I doubt that God responds to that with derision.  But God would like for us to treat each other with maturity, respect, dignity, and maybe even some appreciation.

In responding to the sermon, I found myself talking back to God, as I said.  Yet, I also talked back to myself.  “Why does your heart have to be so hard?”  Believe me, even after writing this post, there will be people from whom I will be alienated.  But why do I have to be so cold?

What the pastor was saying about God not making us loners (though that is still what I am, so there!) reminded me of a passage in Kevin Vanhoozer’s Biblical Authority After Babel.  It is on page 136 of the Adobe Digital version, and Vanhoozer is contrasting human attempts at community with the community that God creates through the Gospel:

“The basis for the reconciling practices that constitute the Christian community is the cross of Christ.  One important difference between the church and godless congregations is that the church is not trying to accomplish reconciliation but rather is attempting to bear witness to what God has already achieved.  As Dietrich Bonhoeffer says in Life Together, ‘Christian community is not an ideal we have to realize, but rather a reality created by God in Christ in which we may participate.'”

Book Write-Up: Calvinism and the Problem of Evil

David E. Alexander and Daniel M. Johnson, ed.  Calvinism and the Problem of Evil.  Eugene: Pickwick Publications (an Imprint of Wipf and Stock), 2016.  See here to purchase the book.

Calvinism is a Christian belief system that holds that God, before the foundation of the world, predestined the specific individuals who would be saved and damned.  It thinks that people are so sinful that they are unable to repent and believe in Christ apart from God’s transforming grace, and that conversion is inevitable when God’s regenerating grace works on a person.  There are many Calvinists who also maintain that God foreordained everything that would happen.

The problem of evil is a philosophical problem that asks how evil can exist, if God is omnipotent and benevolent.  If God is both omnipotent and benevolent, would not God stop evil, which hurts so many people?

Many Christians address the problem of evil by appealing to libertarian free will.  The idea is that God allows people freely to make their own decisions, since they can only accept God authentically if that is the case.  Their version of free will is called “libertarian” because it presumes that people’s decisions are uncaused and that people were able to choose differently from the choice that they actually made; this, the idea goes, is why people are morally responsible.  Not only have many Christians appealed to libertarian free will to explain why God permits evil choices today, but they also believe that it is relevant to God allowing Adam and Eve to sin, in a sin that brought evil and chaos into the world.

Calvinism differs from this approach.  It tends to reject libertarian free will, embracing instead compatibilism, which holds that there are causes to (or, perhaps, influences on) the choices that people make.  Rather than regarding people as morally neutral and thus able to choose equally between good and evil, it holds that people have a propensity towards evil as a result of original sin, and yet that God can change the desires of those whom God elected unto salvation.

As David E. Alexander and Daniel M. Johnson state in their introduction to Calvinism and the Problem of Evil, Calvinism has been rather marginalized in Christian discussions of the problem of evil.  The reason is that many Christians think that Calvinism makes the problem of evil worse rather than solving it.  If Calvinism believes that God not only permitted, but foreordained, that evil should exist, does that not make God the author of evil?  Does Calvinism make people into robots rather than rational agents with choice?  Moreover, how can God send people to hell for something that they cannot control, namely, God’s decision to choose them for damnation rather than salvation?

This book interacts with these questions, and others.  In terms of another question with which the book interacts, there is the question of how Adam and Eve could sin, when God made them good.  Calvinists can understand how people born with original sin and a corrupt nature can sin: it is their nature.  But how could good people sin?

In this review, I will comment about each chapter.

Chapter 1, “Calvinism and the Problem of Evil: A Map of the Territory,” by Daniel M. Johnson, is lengthy, yet well-written and lucid.  Unlike some of the later essays, it tends to avoid arguments in which letters stand for concepts.  It lays out different Calvinist perspectives on such questions as how Adam and Eve could sin.  It said that God has a reason to damn at least some people as an object lesson of God’s justice, and the reaction that immediately occurred in my mind was: “But Calvinism does not just say that some people will be damned, but that a lot of people will be.  Why would God do that?”  A later essay in the book would address this question.

Chapter 2, “Molinist Gunslingers: God and the Authorship of Sin,” by Greg Welty, argues that Molinism has the same problem that many think Calvinism has.  Molinism holds that God foresaw different possible worlds and chose to create a world in which people freely sinned.  For Welty, one can accuse Molinism of presuming that God is the one who is responsible for sin, which is what critics of Calvinism say about Calvinism.  Welty perhaps could have made this point without all of the elaborate argumentation, but he still raises an interesting question, one that subsequent essays will raise, as well: Do non-Calvinist Christian beliefs run into the same problems that many think are inherent to Calvinism?  This chapter is also effective because it cites Scriptures in which God is portrayed as somehow causing, or being behind, people’s evil deeds, only God uses those deeds for a positive and just end.  The question that occurred in my mind was this: Even if there are cases of determinism or compatibilism in the Bible, does that mean that all decisions are foreordained or influenced by factors beyond the decider’s control?  Maybe God can use a person who has voluntarily become evil as a tool for God’s just purpose.

Chapter 3, “Theological Determinism and the ‘Authoring Sin’ Objection,” by Heath White, proposes that God foreordained evil but did not intend to do so.  This does not imply that evil was God’s accident, but rather that God had a just and righteous purpose in mind (God’s glorification and display of God’s righteous character), and God foresaw that a world that had evil would best achieve that purpose.  In my opinion, this model somewhat presents God as limited by the alternatives in front of God.  This chapter was rather helpful in concisely explaining the difference between supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism.

Chapter 4, “Not the Author of Evil: A Question of Providence, Not a Problem for Calvinism,” by James E. Bruce, concerns the thought of Francis Turretin (1623-1687).  According to Bruce, Turretin said that God acts on people, and yet people remain free and rational agents.  Like Welty, Bruce cites Scriptures in which God seems to cause certain people’s evil acts.  Of particular interest was Bruce’s discussion of Turretin’s interaction with Proverbs 21:1, which states that the king’s heart is like water in the hands of the LORD, who turns it wherever the LORD wills.  According to Turretin, God here is not tempting the king to sin, for that would be impossible: James 1:13, after all, emphatically denies that God tempts people to sin.  Rather, for Turretin, what is going on is that God is providing the king with righteous ideas knowing fully well that the king will use those ideas in wicked ways.  That view was new to me!

Chapter 5, “Orthodoxy, Theological Determinism, and the Problem of Evil,” by David E. Alexander, essentially argues that many Christian beliefs presume compatibilism or are more consistent with compatibilism than with libertarianism.  These are Christian beliefs that even non-Calvinist Christians hold.  They include such beliefs as original sin, the inspiration of Scripture, Christ’s sinlessness, and God’s sovereignty.  This is a legitimate point, yet questions can be asked.  Does God have to determine everything, to be sovereign?  Cannot God be sovereign over the big picture without controlling every little detail (even through secondary causes or means)?  Cannot God mitigate original sin and provide people with more ability to choose with prevenient grace, or common grace?  This chapter also addresses the topic of hell and proposes that God shows some love to people in hell by keeping them alive there.  This is a difficult concept for me, since they are being eternally tormented in hell.

Chapter 6, “Discrimination: Aspects of God’s Causal Activity,” by Paul Helm, likens God’s love for the elect to people legitimately loving their own family more than outsiders.  Helm seems to question whether a world in which there is absolute equality among people is even possible.  Helm also challenges the idea that Calvinists believe that God forces the elect to convert, or brainwashes them: it is rather a matter of enlightenment, of awakening.

Chapter 7, “On Grace and Free Will,” by Hugh J. McCann, is noteworthy because it recognizes and wrestles with different dimensions of human decisions.  On the one hand, we did not technically decide what the desires that influence our decisions would be: those desires are just there.  On the other hand, it does appear that our decisions are spontaneous and that we are active in making them.  McCann seemingly attempts to posit that determinism and compatibilism can co-exist with human free will.  Another noteworthy element of this chapter is that McCann rejects any idea that God deliberated prior to creation, for McCann believes that God knew what was correct and made what was correct, without really needing to deliberate.  That seems to differ from Heath White’s model (chapter 3) of God surveying various options, depending on how literally White took this model.

Chapter 8, “The First Sin: A Dilemma for Christian Determinists,” by Alexander R. Pruss, engages the question of how Adam and Eve could sin, being good.  This chapter is detailed and complex, but it is still useful because it interacts with options.  Pruss does appear to have a problem with Jonathan Edwards’ model, in which God somehow influences Adam and Eve to sin by withdrawing grace from them.  This shows that there is diversity among Calvinists.  (UPDATE: Actually, Pruss is a Catholic.)  Pruss also seems rather open to libertarian free will being something that Adam and Eve possessed.

Chapter 9, “Calvinism and the First Sin,” by James N. Anderson, also addresses how Adam and Eve could sin, being good.  Anderson relays a helpful analogy from Alfred Mele, in which an ordinarily self-controlled woman named Ann gives in to alcohol when she is pressured.  Anderson also elaborates on the authorial model of God’s providence, a model that was briefly mentioned by previous contributors, but which Anderson explained more fully.  In this model, God is likened to an author: a character is acting as he is acting because of what the author wrote, and yet the character is still acting according to his own free will.  In reading this, I thought of the show, Once Upon a Time, in which an author wrote what the characters did, and they did it, while acting freely.  Moreover, Anderson interacts with Molinism, the belief that God foresees but does not foreordain evil, and open theism, which denies that God even knows the future.  These are non-Calvinist views.  Anderson believes that divine foreknowledge is rather deterministic itself, for, if God foresees something, does that not make it inevitable?  (I one time debated this question with an Intervarsity sponsor, and his answer to the question was “no.”)  Anderson also holds that open theism presents God as a gambler.  To that, I ask this question: Can one legitimately believe that God does not know every detail of the future and yet still exercises sovereignty over the big picture?  God can control how God will act, after all, whether or not God entirely knows how we will act.

Chapter 10, “A Compatibicalvinist Demonstrative-Goods Defense,” by Christopher R. Green, explores interesting questions.  Green interacts with the question of whether God could have used nightmares to teach people about God’s righteousness and justice rather than actual evil.  He makes a point about animal suffering, contending that it may be an example of God showing God’s consistency and faithfulness through the regularity that exists in nature, which Jeremiah 33:20 states is the case with the day and the night.  (As an animal lover, I consider that to be a grisly way for God to demonstrate God’s nature; still, animal suffering is a theological problem.)  Green also talks about how God can use a person’s story for future generations, without that person’s knowledge, as God did with the characters in the Bible.  One’s participation in the divine drama, in which evil is a reality with which people deal, may show people what God is like and edify future generations.

Chapter 11, “Calvinism and the Problem of Hell,” by Matthew J. Hart, articulates the thoughts of Jonathan Edwards to argue that so many people are damned to hell to edify the glorified elect: to enhance their appreciation of their redemption, as they realize that they themselves could have been damned, apart from God’s grace.  To this, I ask whether glorified Christians will have any love for the people in hell.  Are we not on earth, after all, to learn to love others, and is that not more important than for us to relish our own advantages?  Hart also addresses the question of whether God is responsible to love everyone God brought into being and sustains, even the non-elect.  Hart invokes an analogy in which a capsule produces adult males.  Are the creators of the capsule required to love those adult males, to the same extent that they love their own families, even though they technically created the adult males?  Hart’s answer seems to be no, and he believes that this resembles God’s stance towards the non-elect.  This analogy made me question the effectiveness of analogies in explaining the Bible: Is a sci-fi analogy, like this one, a bit anachronistic?  Should not something on the radar of the biblical authors be cited, instead?

Chapter 12, “Calvinism, Self-Attestation, and Apathy toward Arguments from Evil,” by Anthony Bryson, challenges an idea held by some Calvinists that the Bible is self-attesting: that Christians know it is true because it is God’s word, period!  According to this view, to appeal to, say, reason or evidence to substantiate the Bible is to say that there are criteria for truth above God’s word, and this is wrong.  For Bryson, this belief influences some Calvinists to conclude that the problem of evil is not a significant problem.  If we know that God is real because the Bible is God’s word, after all, then the problem of evil cannot challenge God’s existence.  Bryson disputes this.  This chapter will be challenging and difficult for those who are unfamiliar with epistemological externalism and epistemological internalism.

Overall, this book does provide food for thought.  It explores and interacts with various possibilities.  A possible disadvantage is that the book was rather clinical and abstract in its discussion of evil, rather than acknowledging the real-life damage that evil brings.  Whether the book successfully makes the God of Calvinism look any better is a subjective judgment: I did not always think that it did.  A definite positive of the book, however, is that it shows how diverse Calvinism can be, and it highlighted some interpretations that were new to me.

I apologize for any unintentional distortions on my part in describing Calvinism or the views of these authors.
I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher, in exchange for an honest review.

The Struggling Jesus and Word of Faith Christology

A couple of comments about Christology stood out to me recently.  This post is not entirely about the debate in the theology-blogosphere about whether God the Son is eternally subordinate to God the Father, in a functional sense.  But it will intersect with that debate, somewhat.  This post concerns Word of Faith Christology, or, more accurately, the Christology of some within the Word of Faith movement.

I was listening to a sermon online that was given at a church that I have attended occasionally.  The church can probably be associated with the prosperity Gospel and the Word of Faith movement.  At the same time, it does not just preach that believers can prosper financially or influence reality by speaking words of faith out loud, for it also talks about God’s broader work in the world.  The church talks about other topics besides how God can bless me, me, me.

The preacher is going through the Book of Ezra.  In Ezra 4, adversaries of the returning Jewish exiles approach the Jewish leaders and offer to help the returning Jews to rebuild the Temple.  The Jewish leaders reply as follows:

“Ye have nothing to do with us to build an house unto our God; but we ourselves together will build unto the LORD God of Israel, as king Cyrus the king of Persia hath commanded us” (v 3, KJV).

The lesson that the preacher got out of this passage was that the Jewish leaders were being a bit presumptuous.  We will build, they say?  Apart from God, they can do nothing!

The preacher then talked about Jesus.  Jesus on the cross prayed, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34 KJV).  Why did Jesus ask his Father to forgive the people who were putting him to death?  Why didn’t Jesus forgive them himself?  According to the preacher, Jesus was not making the same mistake that the returning Jewish exiles made in Ezra 4.  Jesus realized that he by himself could do nothing.  He by himself could not forgive those who were putting him to death, for, according to the preacher, Jesus was struggling with resentment and unforgiveness.  Jesus, in light of his own limitations, was leaving forgiveness to God, the only one who could forgive.

How orthodox that view is, well, that is a good question!  Christians believe that Jesus never sinned (II Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 4:15; 9:28).  Could Jesus experience resentment and feelings of unforgiveness, without technically sinning?  On the one hand, such feelings would arguably go against love, which is part of the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22).  Forgiveness of sins was also a significant aspect of Jesus’ ministry, and Jesus exhorted his disciples to forgive seventy times seven (Matthew 18:22; Luke 17:4 mentions the criterion of repentance to receive forgiveness).  On the other hand, if Jesus had any feelings of resentment and unforgiveness, perhaps they could count as righteous indignation, which is arguably not sinful.  God often expresses that kind of frustration in the Old Testament.

There is also the issue of Jesus being God, even when he was a human.  Jesus had to depend on God because he by himself could do nothing, the preacher says?  But Jesus was God!  And yet, as seems fairly clear in the current Trinitarian controversy in the theological-blogosophere, orthodox Christianity seems at least to acknowledge the possibility that the situation with the incarnate Christ is not entirely the same as the situation with God the Son before he came to earth.  That is because the incarnate Christ had a human nature along with a divine nature, whereas the preincarnate Christ only had a divine nature.  Many who deny that God the Son was eternally subordinate to God the Father in function would say that such a concept of subordination posits two contrary wills between the Father and the Son, and that would be incorrect because the Father and the Son are united in their will: if the Son has to consciously obey and submit to the Father, does not that imply that the Son technically has a will that runs contrary to the Father’s will, and that the Son needs to subordinate that contrary will in obedience to the Father?  That cannot be, they say!  At the same time, those who deny eternal functional subordination on the part of the Son still have to deal with biblical passages about the Son submitting to the Father in obedience (Matthew 26:42; John 5:30; I Corinthians 11:3; Hebrews 5:8).  The route that they often take is to say that the Son, as a human being, submitted to the Father.  The Son did not submit to his Father before coming to earth, according to them, for the Son and the Father were united in will at that time.  But they maintain that the Son did submit to the Father in obedience after coming to earth and taking on human nature: Christ’s human nature adds something significant to the equation.  This, many of them say, is the orthodox Christian position.

That said, would such a position be consistent, on some level, with what the preacher was talking about in his sermon?  Jesus, in his human nature, had to depend on the Father because he was inadequate in himself to do anything.  Jesus still had a divine nature, though, but there are Christians who say that Jesus gave up certain divine privileges in being a human: those divine capacities were still present, but Jesus was not using them.  I cannot be too dogmatic here, however, for I would not be surprised if Christians would tell me that what the preacher said was unorthodox and that the church fathers would be appalled at his comments.

Now for the other comment on Christology!  I was home alone for the past few days, so I watched some things on television that I do not ordinarily watch, because they are not exactly the cup of tea of others in the household.  I was watching Joyce Meyer.  She has been associated with the Word of Faith movement, and, indeed, she has spoken about the importance of words and speaking words of faith out loud.

Joyce was talking about how Jesus at his trial did not say a word.  She said that this long puzzled her, but then it dawned on her why Jesus remained silent: Jesus was in a trying time and did not want to give the enemy (Satan) a foothold by speaking words of complaint and bitterness.  That reminded me of what that preacher said in that sermon that I heard.  Of course, there are other explanations for why Jesus was silent at his trial.  Jesus had a mission to die for our sins, so he did not fight his execution.  I Peter 2:23 states: “Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously” (KJV).  Can this intersect, at least somewhat, with what Joyce was saying?

In terms of Christian living, what the preacher and Joyce said resonates with me.  I recognize my own limitations: I by myself cannot forgive, and thus I need to rely on God’s power and activity.  Or, at least, there are some days when it is easier for me to think good, loving, peaceful, forgiving, and compassionate thoughts, and some days when that looks like an impossibility.  Jesus in John 15:5 says, “without me ye can do nothing” (KJV).  And, in reference to what Joyce was saying, I may be simmering on the inside, but I have to watch what I say in those situations.  Often, it may be better for me to say nothing.  To speak in such a situation could disrupt my own peace and the peace of others (which is not to dismiss the appropriateness of confrontation, in certain situations).

But was Jesus on earth in the same boat that I, and many others, are in, in such cases?  Is it unorthodox or heretical to suggest that?  Jesus had a walk with God.  As a human, he showed us how to walk with God.  Did Jesus struggle, like we do?  Hebrews 4:15: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (KJV).

Scattered Ramblings on Contentment and Hope

A few weeks ago, I watched the 1955 movie, A Man Called Peter, which was about Peter Marshall, a preacher and Senate chaplain.  I did not know much about Peter Marshall himself, but I enjoyed his wife Catherine’s book, Christy, along with the TV series and the movies that were inspired by it.  And, a decade ago, I listened to a cassette tape in which his son, Peter, Jr., was vigorously arguing that America was a Christian nation.

But let’s not get on that controversial tangent!  In this post, I want to use as a starting-point a story-line in the movie.  Catherine in the movie gets tuberculosis and is bedridden.  She and her husband pray continually for her to be healed, but to no avail.  Peter wonders if God is punishing him for being prideful, on account of his numerous followers and his prestigious contacts.  At one point, though, Catherine simply accepts her condition.  She tells God that, if she is to remain an invalid for the rest of her natural life, then so be it.  It is at that point that she is healed.  She and Peter both agree that God decided to heal her after she finally accepted her condition.  It’s as if God was waiting for her to stop striving, to make peace with her lot, and to let go.

The theme that I want to highlight is the tension between contentment and persevering in faith.  Both themes are found in Scripture.  On contentment, the apostle Paul says in Philippians 4:11-13:

11 Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content.
12 I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.
13 I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.  (KJV)

To quote the old hymn, “Whatever my lot, thou hast taught me to say, It is well, it is well, with my soul!”

And yet, there are also Scriptural passages about persevering in prayer and in faith, which implies not accepting the status quo.  Luke 18:1 introduces a parable by saying: “And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint” (KJV).  The parable is about an unjust judge who finally gives a woman justice after she has repeatedly asked him for it.  Similarly, in Luke 11, Jesus teaches his disciples to seek and to ask, and he tells them a story about a person who begged his friend at night to give him three loaves.  He got what he wanted, after his frequent requests.

Many Christians apply the theme of perseverance in prayer and faith to their own desires.  They are believing God for a good job, or a spouse, or healing.  Whether they are justified to apply these passages to these kinds of desires is a good question.  The passages themselves relate to something rather specific.  The story in Luke 18 is about God coming to avenge God’s elect, presumably for the persecution that they have received (Luke 18:7).  Essentially, the afflicted Christians are to pray continually for the coming of the Son of Man, to hold on in faith that the Son of Man will come and bring justice.  In Luke 11:13, Jesus says that God will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask.  What are people supposed to seek, knock, and ask for, in Luke 11?  The Holy Spirit.  Within Luke-Acts, that was probably fulfilled in Acts 2, when God poured out the Holy Spirit onto the Jewish Christians on the day of Pentecost.

But can one believe God for other things?  There are passages in the Bible about God providing for people, or God blessing people with good things.  Who is to say that this cannot include a job, or healing?  So often in the Gospels, sick people are healed according to their faith.  One should not condemn people who remain sick or who die in sickness by telling them that their faith was not strong enough.  Bad fruit has come from that approach.  But why can’t people continually hold on to God in faith, keeping hope alive that God may heal them, or grant them the longings and desires of their heart?

In the 1990’s, there was a television show, Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman.  In a very depressing plot-line, the town’s pastor, Timothy Johnson, was going blind.  The Christians of the town continued to pray for God to heal him, and Timothy was trying to hold on to some hope that this healing would occur.  But Sully wanted Timothy to prepare for his coming blindness, and he made Timothy a cane so that Timothy could get around once he became blind.  Dr. Quinn transformed something that she heard from her Native American friend Cloud Dancing into a Christian message for Timothy: that trials occur because God is preparing us for a new stage in life.  (Cloud Dancing said “the spirits” did this.)  The show presented a question: Should Timothy hold out hope and continually pray for God to heal him, or should he simply accept his condition and try to cope with it?  The show supported the second option.

Accepting one’s condition and trying to be happy or content with it can make one feel better.  Being consumed with continuous, unmet desires can lead to feelings of restlessness, discontent, and unfulfillment.  Acceptance, by contrast, can bring a person inner peace.  At the same time, do we truly want to say that God is against us dreaming and hoping?  Life would be boring without our dreams to keep us going.

I was listening to a sermon yesterday.  This was from the prosperity church that I occasionally attend.  The pastor in that particular sermon, however, was preaching contentment rather than hoping for prosperity or increase.  He was saying that, if we find that Jesus is not enough for us, then we are making that something else that we “have” to have into an idol.  He was saying that we should find our contentment and joy in our personal relationship with Jesus.  We should have contentment, because Jesus should be enough.

In terms of my own personal journey, in some areas I have accepted my situation, and in some areas I have not.  I am content with remaining single for the rest of my life.  Maybe there is some hope for a romantic relationship somewhere in my mind, but it is not as consuming as it was back when I was in my twenties.  I have more contentment and acceptance now, in that area of my life.  At the same time, as my student loans loom in the background, I am trying to believe God that, at some point, God will provide for me financially, through employment.  (Of course, I have to do my part, too.)  In some cases, the status quo is tolerable.  In other cases, change is necessary.

On finding contentment in Jesus, that is something I struggle to do, from my Christian agnostic perspective.  I was reading an article yesterday, though, about academic envy, and it sensitized me to how even secular people need something to hold onto for their feelings of self-worth, apart from the vicissitudes of feast and famine, success and failure.  To quote from the article:

“Another friend and colleague said she relies on work-life balance to avoid feelings of envy in the first place. From her perspective, it’s far easier to avoid the traps of professional envy if you don’t rely on your academic successes to define who you are as a person. ‘My self-worth isn’t defined by how many articles I’ve published,’ she told me.”

Contentment.  Dreams.  Holding on to something larger or broader than success or failure.  All of these are important for a healthy outlook.

Reading Vanhoozer in Light of Ancient Aliens

I reviewed Kevin Vanhoozer’s Pictures at a Theological Exhibition a few days ago.  I forgot to include an item in that review that I was planning to include.  Maybe that’s for the best, as you will see below.

Basically, the deal was this: I was watching an episode of Ancient Aliens not long ago, and that was generating in my mind some theological questions.  Vanhoozer actually addresses similar questions and issues in an essay in his book.  The essay is entitled “Enhancement in the Cathedral: Power, Knowledge and Smart Pills.”

Let’s be clear: Vanhoozer does not interact specifically with Ancient Aliens.  I probably did well not to include a reference to Ancient Aliens in my review, since many scholars scoff at that show, or roll their eyes at it.  Just tossing out the term “Ancient Aliens” in my review would be poison.

But allow me to share my thought process.  I was watching an episode of Ancient Aliens entitled “The Next Humans.”  It was episode 3 of Season 11.  See here for somebody’s review of it.  On that episode, people were talking about how we may be on our way towards positive breakthroughs, in terms of our health, lifespans, and intelligence increasing.  Aging may be counteracted.  Organs can be replaced.  Cells will be repaired.  Technology can play a role in a lot of this.  According to the episode, we are actually moving in this direction right now.

How true this is, I have no idea.  My Mom’s husband is a scientist, and he was disputing what Ancient Aliens said on another episode, about human and rabbit DNA being mixed together.  He was saying that this was not what happened!  In addition, when I am watching Ancient Aliens and see a person labeled a “Futurologist,” I wonder what the heck that is.  Where do futurologists get their qualifications?

But suppose that there is some validity in what Ancient Aliens was saying about “the Next Humans.”  Would that be a good thing?  Would that be a bad thing?

I thought about the Tower of Babel story in the Book of Genesis.  God stepped in to stop the people from building a tower that would reach to heaven, saying that, if they have started to do that, nothing they imagine will be impossible for them (Genesis 11:6).

Then there is the question of whether we would want a world without any suffering and death.  You know the usual theistic theodicies: God permits suffering because that builds in us character.  It gives us depth.  People who have not suffered can be pretty shallow.  Suffering makes us more compassionate.  The possibility of death humbles us.  Our limitations, in general, humble us.

Then there is the practical issue of over-population.  If people are not dying, won’t there be too many people, but not enough resources?  Maybe our augmented intelligence will be able to find a solution to that problem!

But my mind had its share of “on the other hands.”  For instance, I have no objection to other inventions and devices that have reduced suffering and prolonged life.  I use soap.  I take an Aspirin when I have a headache.  Looking outside of myself, I am happy that more women can bear children and live through childbirth, rather than dying.  The mother can then enjoy her children.  The children can have a mother.  Should I oppose these things on account of some “no pain, no gain” belief system?  I don’t think so.

Another question enters my mind.  God is powerful, right?  God is far more powerful than we are.  Why, then, should God be intimidated by us trying to enhance ourselves?  God would still be more powerful than us, even after we enhance ourselves!  And, because of that, people may still feel some need for God in their lives, even after their enhancements.  Yet, God did seem to feel somewhat threatened in the Tower of Babel story, and this was at the prospect of building a Tower.  We know now that the Tower would not have even reached the heaven where God dwells, since there is so much outer space out there.  Why would a great God feel threatened?

Now for the Vanhoozer essay.  Like I said, Vanhoozer did not mention Ancient Aliens, nor did he really interact with anything that was on that Ancient Aliens episode.  But he was talking about attempts to enhance human nature.  He referred to smart pills, which would be like steroids for the mind.  Vanhoozer was critiquing enhancements from a Christian and a bioethical standpoint.

Vanhoozer took great pains to distinguish enhancements from healing or medicine.  Healing and medicine restore our bodies, rather than enhancing them.  For Vanhoozer, enhancement is a bad idea for a variety of reasons.  For one, God made us as we are, and we should not try to tamper with that.  Also, our limitations build in us character.  And, according to Vanhoozer, seeking to enhance ourselves in this life focuses on prospering in this life and this world, when we should be seeking treasures in heaven (a la Matthew 6:19-21).

I am still rather ambivalent in terms of how I feel about this issue.  I doubt that God is threatened by anything human beings can do.  At the same time, God may not feel that human beings are ready for certain things.  He may believe that they lack the character to handle certain things properly.  There are plenty of sci-fi stories about people attaining godlike powers, yet lacking the wisdom or the character to use them in a way that benefits themselves or others.  I think of the Star Trek episode “Where No Man Has Gone Before.”
The New Testament teaches that God has a plan to exalt human beings, at least the ones who follow him (see II Timothy 2:12, for example).  In a sense, Christianity itself is about human enhancement: God gives people the Holy Spirit, and they grow in wisdom and character and even gain eternal life.  But that is enhancement God’s way, and it entails having a good moral character.

I have no plans to oppose technological advancements, even those that can enhance human nature.  God will permit what God wants, and God will step in and stop what God wants.  That does not mean there should be no bio-ethics at all.  If we are to enhance our nature, we need to make sure that everyone gets enhanced, if possible, so that nobody is left out in the cold or gets stigmatized or marginalized.