I love these long, lazy weekend days around the tavern.  Its not nearly as crowded in here, and you don’t have to keep shooing Mack away from your ale.

I’m really enjoying the Hogshead pubcast that Travis Prinzi is working on.  I’ve recently been rereading the Narnia and Prydain books, and have found a more enjoyment from them as I listened to the podcasts in parallel.

Low culture be dashed.  Anyone who tastes poutine will no longer care what level of culture it comes from.  I would eat poutine off a dirty log.

Mack: The Poutine thing is deemed “offensive” because there is a certain sort of Quebeckers who take themselves too damn seriously. Every culture has high culture and low culture. Samuel de Champlain represents high culture while poutine is part of our low culture. The no-fun crowd have an aversion to mixing the two, as if the lowbrow poutine is not worthy of being associated with the likes of Champlain. An American paralel would be to show Benjamin Franklin with a hotdog. It’s a mix of low and high culture but who would object?. But some (not all) Quebeckers see everything as an slight on their culture. They are insufferable. I loathe them.

Speaking of Quebec, we flew to Montreal yesterday for a family funeral. And now I find out that we may have another one shortly. These are sad days for my wife’s family as we say goodbye to people who are way too young to die. There is something about Christian funerals and burials, however. That pressing reminder that we are dust and to dust we will return. And then the Good News that in Christ death is swallowed up in victory. As Mark Dever says funerals are played on our own turf. Our Saviour gives us the upper hand.

Here’s a real Canadian controversy for you: Abortionist “Dr” Henry Morgentaler was awarded the Order of Canada for his life’s work. So far I have been impressed with the Canadian press. They are, mostly (and rightly), appalled. A columnist for the Ottawa Citizen called for every member of the order to resign from it. I wouldn’t be surprised if some did, particularly since many of them were honoured for work they did out of religious motivation.

I’d appreciate your prayers tomorrow.

I’ll get done with seminars at 3 CST, and back to my car in about an hour (hopefully) which will be 5 EST. Then I have about 10+ hours of driving, which will bring me back home in the wee hours Sunday.

Just pray for safety, etc. Much appreciated.

In general, I think that is too simple of a summation of what it is feminists actually believe to be fair. I’ll admit that I’m no expert on feminism, but from the little bit of Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza I have read, I can gather that this is not really how a Christian feminist would define himself. Feminists, typically of the post-structural kind, would identify themselves with a sort of liberation theology, whereby the very message of Jesus frees them (and all marginalized) from the oppressive narratives and language of the texts of the church. Your definition seems to imply that feminists focus on an explicit prejudice against men, which is not entirely the case for all, maybe even most, of them. The idea is, how would the church’s text, history, theology, etc. be different if women were not marganalized? Also, note that feminism is a wide and diverse movement, and unfortunately your definition above doesn’t do justice to that. I believe that an egalitarian can rightly be a feminist as well; there doesn’t necessarily have to be seperate categories.

Thank you for that, Ryan. Feminism comes in many colors. There are many different Christian feminist camps as well. I don’t see how Josh’s description fits anything I’ve ever heard of but maybe it’s out there somewhere.

Makes me want to dance under the light of the moon naked and howl for peace in the midst of patriarchal war mongering. JN!

For those who like to play around with numbers: I’ve experimented with the CO2 emissions figures available on the internet, but instead of reporting it on a per capita basis, I’ve worked out emissions by landmass. The results were quite intersting – top 3 countries were Singapore, Gibraltar and Bahrain. The UK came in at no. 20, the US at no. 49, and Canada at 123. India was 63, and China 129. See more here.

A neighbor just informed me that it is illegal in PA for a child under the age of 12 to operate a power push mower.   What complete nonsense. 

Look, the people who opposed the American Revolution were called “Tories”. Precisely how sympathetic do you think I’m likely to be to their cause? (sw)

This made me, as the kids say, LOL.

For some reason, people keep singling me out today. ;-)

Look, the people who opposed the American Revolution were called “Tories”. Precisely how sympathetic do you think I’m likely to be to their cause? (sw)

It’s Independence Day, folks.  All except the Canadians feel free to tell John H things like his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries.  :-)

Mack I do agree with this part of your argument, “The only people who really stand to benefit from this are the state and local governments employing the doughnut-munchers manning the speed traps.”

Like I said, I was just waking up. You’re right about this aspect, it is probably just a way to make sure that anybody can be given a ticket anytime anywhere for any reason with governmental impunity. Heck, they’ll probably put a clause in there that also allows random taser stops on folks who are pulled over. The real kicker will be how they’d sell that part of it. Let’s see. I know, they’ll say that random taser stops will make people aware of previously undetected heart conditions. Through the use of enhanced traffic stop techniques we can improve our overall quality of life. And if we can prevent just one non-lethal, potential heart-attack per thousand electrical burns and 3 accelerated demises per 2,000 traffic stops then that makes us safer in the long run. And what makes us safer makes us stronger. (jn)

You know, if I didn’t have a conscience I bet I could be a decent propaganda writer -I mean journalist. 

Now that you’ve brought this to my attention I now realize it was sleep induced optimism on my part. My endorsement of this proposal is now ended.

Mack, I have no idea either. But then, it happened in Quebec. Actually, coming to think of it, that is a satisfactory explanation all by itself (jn).

Strawfoot, I wouldn’t call it socially or fiscally conservative to increase government regulation of peoples’ driving habits.  As far as gas prices are concerned, the conservative response ought to be:  if people want to waste their gas, let ‘em, it’s their choice.  The only people who really stand to benefit from this are the state and local governments employing the doughnut-munchers manning the speed traps.

Plus, I don’t think that would work at all.  On a lot of interstates around me the speed limit is technically 55 but you won’t get pulled over for doing anything under 70.  I’ve literally never gotten one ticket in my life, and I average 85-90 MPH on the interstates (I’ve slowed it down to 65 avg in the past few months though).  And I don’t own a radar detector.  Go figure.

My sister reckon’s she’s saving about £25 (~$50) a week by driving at 56 mph rather than her usual 80 mph (somewhat higher than the 70 mph speed limit – yes, that’s right, I just busted my own sister for speeding for the sake of a blog post (jn) – but about average for UK motorways).

Multiply that by an entire country – and, yes, OK, fair enough, divide by 2.5 to take account of the vastly higher petrol prices over here (sw) – and that’s quite an impact.

yawn Still rubbing my eyes and waking up here, but does this article say what I think it does? Speed limit.

Is this a current Republican offering a socially and fiscally conservative, ecologically conservationist bill with no neocon strings attached that would save lives? I need some caffeine and then I’ll read it again because at first glance it looked like it made sense.

I want less government too, but is there a candidate in the last twenty years (short of libertarians) who would actually shrink the size of government?  At least democrats don’t pretend they want less government.

Tom, in all seriousness, you are right about Jesus not being a “conservative” politically, and not liberal or moderate either, definitely not moderate!

When I advocate for conservatism, I can’t invoke Jesus.  A lot of it for me has to do with personal freedom and the experience of the inefficiency of government.  I pastored in D.C. metro area for 14 years.  I learned a lot about government work.  It’s a great gig if you can get it.  Banker’s hours, with incredible benefits, early retirements.  The workers I knew were very conscientious about their work, but the structure often demoralized them…..   So more government  bureaucracy is exactly the wrong answer to solve the problems we face. 

Happy Revolution Day, all of you (apart from the Canadian ones – you had your fun earlier in the week (sw)).

Of course, y’all had better not be reading this. Turn it off! Get out there! Have fun!

Randy, I’m not trying to bully anyone. I agree the Carter years were bad, but at least he didn’t get us embroiled in a war that we should not be fighting. That, to me, is what puts Dubya over the top as far as being the worst president. Recent events, such as the Taliban coming back into power in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden hiding out in Pakistan, our supposed allies (ha-ha) just verifies that the Bush administration is spending the lives of our troops (not to mention a trillion dollars) fighting the wrong war. There was plenty of evidence that the intelligence about Iraq having WMDs was flawed, but, as someone else stated, they were determined to go to war with Iraq anyway. And if the rationale was to take out Saddam, well, we did it, so “Mission Accomplished”, right? Ha-ha. No, they have to come up with other reasons now, and if those “reasons” to stay sound hollow, all we hear is idiocy like “If we withdraw from Iraq the terrorists will just follow us here” as if they don’t have a freaking map or something.

Yes, the Carter administration was bad, but at least Jimmy Carter did work out a peace treaty between Israel and Egypt that stands to this day. What has GWB done besides mishandle the two biggest catastrophes of his administration; 9-11 and Katrina?

Just one other note and then I’m done. If we are looking at things from a Christian (read “Jesus”) perspective, there is no way a thoughtful Christian can conclude that Jesus abided by conservative principles any more than He abided by liberal principles. He was for what is right, not right wing, and the right-wingers, to me, have to go outside Christian principles if they put a big priority on looking for someone that is “conservative” all down the line. The reason I admired the John McCain of 2000 is that he would stand for what he thought was right, no matter if it was considered “conservative” or not. Which is why I do not admire the John McCain of 2008.

Bob, that’s her line.  I can confirm from experience that it works well, though!  (I guess this makes me a Feminist by Josh’s definition…? (jn))

Spike, you just made me laugh myself into a fit of coughing.  Well done!

How can an opinion be verifiably false? 

Tom was stating opinion as if it were fact and so was I. My statement is just as valid as Tom’s. That’s what I was saying. Tom has a habit of stating his opinion in that way.

If I say something deliberately provocative, I try not to fly off the handle if someone disagrees with me. I expect disagreement. Tom expects to bully people into agreeing with him. That may work in meatspace, but since I’ve never met Tom …., it doesn’t work with me in this space.

Strawfoot: Pennies… trying to remember. Those were the 25¢ things we used to buy things before credit cards, right? Retro.

There was no way, short of Saddam and the Republican guard all inexplicably shooting themselves, that we were not going to war with Iraq.

Bill: Well, then we’d have to send in peacekeepers, wouldn’t we?

How can an opinion be verifiably false? If you know how, please tell me how I can empirically demonstrate to my wife that seafood is tasty. She is clearly deluded and living a lie, because when she eats fish or shrimp she claims that it doesn’t taste good. I’ve been trying to tell her she’s wrong but as usual she won’t listen. (jn)

Mack: Aquinas, Quaestiones disputatae de Veritate, 25.8. Works like a charm.

Things about Cornerstone that have been interesting and/or surprising.

1. Apparently they lose money on this project, but they consider it worth it as ministry.

2. There is a lot of talk about vegetarianism and veganism among the JPUSA folks and other adults here. The connections to get from discipleship to veganism escapes me completely, but it is a fairly major issue here.

3. The little coffee house here has a very long line all the time, but otherwise, the lines for most things are very short.

4. The hardcore crowd can go all day and all night, non-stop.

5. There’s only one small book stall here, but a hundred t-shirt/cd vendors.

6. Gyros are awesome. Thanks Jason :-)

7. There are a lot of people on the same journey I’m on. Rarely have I felt more affirmed in my own journey than today.

8. You can watch movies all day if you want.

9. Seen on the grounds by me or people I talked to: Spiderman, Elvis, Captain Jack Sparrow, men in dresses.

10. Port a potties are a great invention, but some things just shouldn’t have to be seen.

How can an opinion be verifiably false?  If you know how, please tell me how I can empirically demonstrate to my wife that seafood is tasty. 

Mack,  It’s simple, “because I say it’s so, that makes it so”—works like a charm.

Hey, isn’t it interesting how politics gets things riled up in here?  I think at some level people who like to discuss theology/ Christian issues are just hard wired to love/hate  politics and put lots of stock in it.    I’m soooo moving away from this, but in reality, I’m a big time conservative.   Reagan was moderate.  I wanted a real red-meat, fire breathing, 16 ounces to the pound conservative, the likes of which we’ve never seen in the modern age.  

Florida recruits and signs a ninth grader.

Randy: I’m pretty sure the U.N. inspectors said they weren’t there.

I think we went to war with Iraq because the administration thought we would kick their butts quickly.  Why not go to war with North Korea?  Why not go to war with Saudi Arabia?  Was Iraq truly the biggest threat to America at the time?

Randy,

you lived through the Carter years, so your statement about the worst president is verifiably false

How can an opinion be verifiably false?  If you know how, please tell me how I can empirically demonstrate to my wife that seafood is tasty.  She is clearly deluded and living a lie, because when she eats fish or shrimp she claims that it doesn’t taste good.  I’ve been trying to tell her she’s wrong but as usual she won’t listen.  (jn)

Also of course Saddam had WMD’s, he used them on the Kurds.  However, contrary to popular belief, WMD != nukes and the nuclear data was falsified.  But if you ask me, we have Congress to blame first and foremost for giving W carte blanche.

“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:  democracy just doesn’t work.”  -Kent Brockman (sw)

Tom, you lived through the Carter years, so your statement about the worst president is verifiably false. What I just said is every bit as valid as what you said.

And you are old enough to know the difference between lying and being wrong. Everyone—not just George Bush—asserted that Saddam had WMD. They weren’t there when we got there. That is not a lie. It either means we were all wrong or he got them out before we got there.

How did the KoolAid taste?

Can any of you Canadians explain why this was offensive?  I don’t get it at all.

Canada’s U.S. embassy apologized on Thursday for a party invitation that featured a prominent figure in Canadian history brandishing a large plate of French fries covered in cheese curds and gravy.

The dish—known as poutine—is often looked down on as a kind of staple fast food in the French-speaking province of Quebec, where some nationalists are quick to take offense at what they see as unfair treatment by the country’s English-speaking majority.

The e-mailed invitation to a Canada Day party on July 1 showed Samuel de Champlain, the French explorer who founded Quebec City on July 3, 1608, holding a plate of poutine.

Jean-Paul Perreault, president of the Imperatif Francais group, said the invitation was an outrage and an insult. He demanded an apology from Prime Minister Stephen Harper and said Foreign Minister David Emerson should resign.

Aaron: Yes, they would have.  There was no way, short of Saddam and the Republican guard all inexplicably shooting themselves, that we were not going to war with Iraq.

This just in from the BHT Press Corp:

Recent economic downturn creates alarming shortage of lucky pennies. It was only a year or two ago when lucky pennies could be found on the ground along any given sidewalk or parking lot. In fact, there were so many of them that only a fool would pick up the ones that were face-down. Now, grade-school children have nowhere to turn for a bit of good luck after they accidentally step on cracks in the pavement. The cause of this crisis is apparently due to people actually using pennies again to buy things like milk, groceries and gasoline. Cash drawers that used to be nearly devoid of the little copper wonders are now full to brimming with them. One gas station owner, (we’ll call him Joe) said, “It’s like adults have gone crazy and started breaking their kids’ piggy banks all of a sudden. I’m like ‘Hey buddy, could you spare me a dime? Really?’ because the only change I get now is pennies.” (JN)

I thought I’d try to lighten the mood a bit.

Tom, waging an illegal/unjust war is hardly a new thing: Ever read Grant on the Mexican War? Ironically though, back then the Democrats were the warmongers (and later too….). Fair, legal and just are words governments should aspire to, but generally do not describe their conduct. Politicians, from both the left and the right, win by idealism, and govern by realism…

Anyone who wants to know what 8 years of a Cheney presidency would look like have only to look at the last 8 years.  Utopia?  Only if I don’t really understand what the word means.

Question for Tom- Did Sadaam ever have WMD? Did he not make it appear that he had them so Iran would not attack them? We had real bad intel on this one but the whole “where are the WMD thing” does not hold much water in my opinion. As messed up as things are, in Iraq, if we absolutely knew we were not going to find WMD there wouldn’t they have come up with a different lie as to justify what we were doing.

Guys, I am excited about the change to come after this upcoming election. Hope is going to be restored to our land. Our glasses will be half full again when change sweeps the land. This great country of ours will be united under a message that will forever change us. Is anyone else just sick of election coverage. I was thinking how refreshing it will be after the election is over but realized that the race will just start up again after the new year for who will be running next. But at least change will be occurring.

There is no doubt that George W. Bush is the worst president of my lifetime of 52 years and very likely the worst president in U.S. history. He entangled us in an immoral and probably illegal war, and for what? Lies. Lies, lies, lies. Still looking for those WMDs, folks.

I didn’t mean to chime in on this, but when I see otherwise intelligent people like Josh (and Doug Groothuis on his blog) go immediately into Sean Hannity mode when it comes to politics it makes me shake my head. What really gets me is that Republicans (and I used to be one) can’t freaking let go of Reagan. They’re still looking for the new Reagan. Well, that’s just proof that they are living in the past. Keep looking for the new Reagan, you won’t find him, and it’s utterly pathethic that you want to basically raise him from the freaking dead (and this comes from someone who actually liked Reagan, but the world is a different place now.)

My biggest fear is that Obama is going to waffle on Iraq instead of planning for an organized and well-thought-out withdrawal. The Iraquis need to step up and start defending themselves. They don’t want us there, anyway, so the sooner the better. I don’t see what could be worse than this incompetent, evil (read Dick Cheney), and criminal administration.

TMH/John:

So this is what the underside of a bus looks like… (jn)

What I was rying to articulate was, ‘yes, the SOTM was about Jesus and/also it was pretty good advice, targeted to those particular people in the most challenging way.  So, it was pragmatic advice as well as being the truth about the Truth.  If Jesus was to give the same sermon today at the Mall of America, I suspect we’d get the sermon he would have delivered to the Romans instead (not the church, but the centurion types).

Picture yourself as a zealot coming to hear the next great revolutionary and you hear:

Blessed are the meek.  Return not evil. Turn the other cheek.

This is good advice if the present authorities will raze your town if you are caught doing any of these things, no?

With that said, I think my original position was  a bit of a stretch.  The truth about Jesus remains the truth no matter what the present authority’s pet peeve is.  We are obliged to be as much like him as we can.  So I withdraw my argument that the circumstances of Jesus day made our obligation to return love for evil any less potent than for today.

I’m curious to know if any of the BHTers have made changes as a result of the recent fuel / food situation? I plant to replace our 20 year old oil furnace with an oil / wood combo furnace. Justin and I have been cutting wood most days for the last few weeks. The furnace is expensive but if all goes according to plan, it will pay for itself in 1-2 years (assuming oil prices don’t drop dramatically). I put in quite a large garden this year. Many in this area have had the same idea. Unfortunately this has been the wettest spring / summer in recent memory so my vegetables aren’t faring well. Anyone else?

TMH: “pragmatic self-preservation” was a reference to Mark N’s earlier post on the subject. “Huh? What?” is a pretty good summary of my own views on the subject, too. (Sorry, Mark) (sw).

The good thing about the Lutheran law/gospel emphasis is that, while it can degenerate into hyper-Lutheranism, conversely it does stop us trimming the law to make it more palatable. The bits that make us say, “No! He can’t have really meant that!” are the bits that show us how far short we continue to fall. So yes, my inclination is to say that Jesus means us to obey the Sermon on the Mount exactly as he said it. But equally, he knows we won’t (and that when push comes to shove we probably won’t even want to – such as when we get into a situation where “resisting not evil” actually becomes an issue) and (as you put it) “the entire Gospel” is that we are forgiven for this. So like the song says, “I get knocked down, but I get up again”.

I was reminded of this by our gospel reading on Sunday, Matthew 10:34-42. In the first half of that passage, you have Jesus setting the most extraordinarily high standard for being counted “worthy” of him (see especially vv37-39). But then in the next paragraph we are told that even the smallest act of giving a cup of water to one of these little ones is sufficient for us to have our reward.

How do we reconcile these? Law and gospel. The first half is law: what we must do to make us worthy of Jesus. The second half is gospel: when we believe in Jesus then even the smallest act we do motivated by that faith is precious, not because it is inherently worthy or impressive, but because it reveals our faith and shows something of the love of Christ.

>The sermon on the mount is first and foremost about Jesus himself: he is the one who refused to resist evil, turned the other cheek, went the extra mile, loved his enemies, prayed for those who persecuted him. That was not about pragmatic self-preservation for him: quite the opposite.

Pragmatic self-preservation? Huh? What?

John H: Consult your inner Lutheran and tell me if I can say the SotMt was fulfilled at its deepest level by Jesus, but that when you heard it that afternoon, you would have correctly assumed Jesus was telling you that God intends for those in the Kingdom to be people who pray for their enemies. And to the extent that they do so less than perfectly, Jesus is our perfect righteousness, but that is the entire Gospel, not the stated message of the SotMt as recorded in Matthew 5-7.

It was great to meet BHT fellow Jason Blair and family/friends, and to also meet former BHTer Mike Shea, who clearly is craving the red meat of BHT controversy. He complimented a reference to Lutheran theology and winced when Jason said “N.T. Wright,” so I know he’s still one with us.

Really, ‘twas a pleasure to have both of these good brothers at today’s seminars. It’s hard to teach in a tent with no walls surrounded by every kind of noise. But what great groups for both seminars, and so many friends and readers.

It was exhausting though, and I’m glad to have the chance to rest and tweak my talks for tomorrow.

Cornerstone is the goth/hardcore/punk/death metal/emo/alternative capital of Christendom. You’ve never seen anywhere what you can see here.

By the way, in my seminar on vulnerability, I ingested a bug as I was answering one of the last questions, and nearly choked to death. How vulnerable is that?

John, you jaded Brit.  You probably don’t realize that American Presidents conclude their speeches saying God Bless America, and that most of them have supported prayer in school!  You probably don’t realize how many of them have attended Billy Graham crusades, and that Eisenhower was baptized by Graham. 

Of course, I happen to know that Jesus’ favorite Prime Minister is Madame Thatcher.

jn..

EDIT: The pesky problem with figuring out who Jesus’ favorites are that my favorites keep intruding and presenting themselves as HIS favorites…..    Oh well, I still love Thatcher, and I know Reagan is also in Jesus’ top ten. 

Jesus’ 10 Favorite American Presidents

Wouldn’t that be a bit like Jesus’ 10 Favourite Roman Caesars?

I don’t believe in continuing revelation (in the sense of “new” revelation), so I’ll just hazard a guess that Jesus would stick with his previous revelation in Psalm 146: “Do not put your trust in princes…”

(Note: I’m not having a swing at American presidents specifically, here. One could say the same thing about British prime ministers or German chancellors or whoever.)

I’d bet my house that if we had a list of Jesus’ 10 Favorite American Presidents in terms of how they governed and lived every single BHT-er would be shocked at who was present, and who was absent on that list.

We need someone who believes in continuing revelation to come up with that list for us though..

jn

Yahoo posted this 18 minutes ago.  Obama’s flipped a flop and converted some of his “produce empty hope rhetoric” brain cells to “don’t be an idiot about Iraq” brain cells.

I’m thinking a big machete or sword would be best against zombies.  Guns just make holes, but if you really want to stop a zombie you have to start chopping off body parts.

Chainsaws are just impractical.  They’re heavy.  They run out of fuel.  You have to add bar oil and re-tension the chain every time you refuel.   You might flood them if you don’t choke them just right in the stress of being zombie-stalked.  Plus if you’ve ever used a chainsaw, you know it tends to spray whatever you are cutting back at you.  You really want zombie-chum getting all over you?  Who knows what that will do?

A big knife-like thingy is the way to go.  Zombies always hold their arms out like they’re asking for it anyway.  Once the arms are gone you have a clear swing at the head.  It’s like playing Highlander with opponents who don’t move real fast.

Yes, Bill, I’m worried.  If Obama governs the way he’s talking, we will look back at the Bush entitlements and regulations as a mere appetizer for the main course.  I know little about McCain, but have low expectations.  This is why I find your statements about how it can’t get any worse than Bush so ludicrous.  It has been far worse, and it can get much worse as well.   Furthermore, Bush’s abuses of power built upon the Clinton years.  You really think we’ve maxed it out, and the next President will let the legislature or the SC or whomever take some of that power back?  I don’t.  Clinton and Bush set 16 years of precedent.  And by the way, I think Clinton was worse.  At least Bush got UN approval for his war, and we really did find mass graves in Iraq.  He’s been ham-fisted in his approach to terrorism, but unlike the last President, he actually had an approach to terrorism instead of getting his rocks off with interns while Osama planned 9/11.   His tax cuts also prevented the recession that was brewing at the end of the Clinton years.  Unfortunately, no one did anything about the relaxed usury laws of the 90s (Clinton again!) and here we are in the midst of a subprime lending crisis.

Hate Bush all you want, fine.  Nobody likes him.  But you’re acting like he’s the worst we’ve ever had and the worst it could ever be.  I think an Obama presidency will be far worse for the country and the world, since you mention it.  We’ve made a lot of progress in Iraq (violence is at its lowest level in 4 years), and Obama wants to plunge the country back into all-out civil war.  The economy isn’t actually all that bad, and Obama wants to “fix” it by taxing the crap out of everything.  Oh, that will bring joy and hope to all the children.  You think gas is expensive now?  The government is too big now?  Well, at least Obama’s more likely to pursue brain-dead CO2 regulations. 

But, like I said, I think I want Obama to be President.  He’s a little bit of Carter, a little bit of Johnson, and a little bit of FDR.  Clinton reinvigorated the Republican party, although Bush spent all that capital in his 2nd term (and IMO was exactly the wrong sort of nominee in 2000; the Republicans needed daring, not safe).  Obama’s great dream of presiding over a lurching gait into a workers’ paradise may be just what we need to get another Reagan.

Spike,

So the priest doesn’t say the words of institution?

No, that is absolutely false.  A priest, and only a priest, says the words of institution.  But as I said before, the laity commonly is involved with the distribution of the Eucharist in Roman Catholic masses.

Anyway, my point was there are some things y’all think a whole class of people (laity) shouldn’t do that Protestants might be apt to label as the work of Jesus.

That’s probably true.

After 8 years of this administration and you are worried about the next president expanding the role of the government?

I can assure you I’m not worried about them shrinking it excessively. Both candidates see Bush as a good start on a big project.

I’m with Spike. Carter was ineffectual. Bush is deliberately bad. Bush ignores our laws and “reinterprets” our own laws when it suits his purpose. He defies the other branches of government, imprisons our own citizens without due process, tortures his enemies, and carries us into unnecessary wars. He has an abysmal environmental record, ignore trade agreements, and uses evangelicals and they’re too dumb to notice. He values loyalty over integrity and will do whatever he daxx well pleases whenever he daxx well pleases.

Someone tell me what has Bush done right?

After 8 years of this administration and you are worried about the next president expanding the role of the government?

Ryan, welcome, and thanks for the post re: defining feminism.  I was about to write something on the various types of feminism and the problem with defining feminism as the belief in female superiority over males, but I don’t have the time, and your post gets the point across just fine.

Josh wrote:

If you believe that women have special and unique gifts in addition to having all the gifts that men have, rendering men superflous and possibly detrimental to the Church, you’re a feminist.

In general, I think that is too simple of a summation of what it is feminists actually believe to be fair. I’ll admit that I’m no expert on feminism, but from the little bit of Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza I have read, I can gather that this is not really how a Christian feminist would define himself. Feminists, typically of the post-structural kind, would identify themselves with a sort of liberation theology, whereby the very message of Jesus frees them (and all marginalized) from the oppressive narratives and language of the texts of the church. Your definition seems to imply that feminists focus on an explicit prejudice against men, which is not entirely the case for all, maybe even most, of them. The idea is, how would the church’s text, history, theology, etc. be different if women were not marganalized? Also, note that feminism is a wide and diverse movement, and unfortunately your definition above doesn’t do justice to that. I believe that an egalitarian can rightly be a feminist as well; there doesn’t necessarily have to be seperate categories.

I know there are others in the bar more widely read than I am on this subject, so hopefully they can offer a needed corrective to what I just said, because I’m sure that I’m not entirely correct. 

Hoover responded to the Depression by choking international trade with tariffs and enacting bizarrely confiscatory taxes. Actually, it’s not all that unlike what Obama wants to do about the current burp in the economy.

Hoover’s actual actions were bad, but he has two defenses: 1) Back then, Keynesian economics still sounded plausible, and 2) he was barely getting started compared to what the next guy did. We would have been out of the depression a lot faster with just high taxes and a punitive (yet excellently-named) tariff to deal with.

Re: actual conservatives: Sure, unless Obama has a knack for messing stuff up and looking good while doing it. As FDR showed, if you can do that, there are no limits. I’m hoping Obama has a more moderate amount of charisma.

Josh: Thanks for the clarification of terms. I wonder how many conversations I’ve misinterpreted because no one spelled that out for me.

Okay, Carter was a lousy president, but his administration was less lousy than it could have been because he was that particular kind of lousy president who only lets bad things get worse. He passed dumb policies and advanced government bloat, but he basically did nothing important.

Bush, on the other hand, still passes dumb policies and advances government bloat, but he works hard to seek out new problems to exacerbate. While Bush is actively destructive, Carter was just too ineffective to reach that level of achievement.

Finally, even if a zombie doesn’t eat, it doesn’t repair tissues, so its energy consumption is lower.

Mack: I’m learning so much today. So the priest doesn’t say the words of institution? I think I assumed the “priest only” part of the mass was comparable to the pastor’s part in Protestant communion.

Anyway, my point was there are some things y’all think a whole class of people (laity) shouldn’t do that Protestants might be apt to label as the work of Jesus. I guess I should have said something like declaring forgiveness of sins. You tell me.

This does not, however, amount to the laity “justifying the church through offering up the body of Christ”, since the sacrifice is done by the priest, the alter Christus in Catholic theology.

“Justifying the church through offering up the body of Christ” was supposed to refer to Jesus primarily, and the priest secondarily.

Spike, Obama hasn’t been president yet.

If he becomes president, we’ll see. Up until now, it’s only empty words. I hope that something happens in the next few months to show the average American just how empty.

He may well prove to belong in the FDR category in terms of making things worse rather than better. Like I said, we’ll see. I do seriously doubt he will prove to be like FDR in bringing hope in the dark. So far, all he has done is to say the dark is darker than it really is. Any idiot can do that. Read the newspaper.

Wesley Clark supports Obama because McCain lacks leadership experience. That’s rich.

What I want is a president who know which end of the gun to point at the bad guys. Not some guy who wants to be smarmy with the bad guys. You can get smarm anywhere.

When it came to economics, Carter was completely inept, and when it came to foreign policy, he was one the worst of Cold War era, although it’s hard for me to say if he was worse than JFK or LBJ.  Carter didn’t start or massively escalate a pointless war, although he may have been too incompetent to accomplish that, which is why Reagan was fortunate to not inherit an all-out war with Iran.    So no, I don’t think we can be too hard him.

Hoover responded to the Depression by choking international trade with tariffs and enacting bizarrely confiscatory taxes.  Actually, it’s not all that unlike what Obama wants to do about the current burp in the economy.

I hope Obama gets elected because it dramatically increases our chances of getting a real conservative in the Oval Office in 4 or 8 years.

Great post Josh.  Thanks for the clarity with which you write and think. 

  I’m a complementarian, but I would extend the need for women to be joined by men in making unique contributions to our task of expressing the fullness of Christ ( Ephesians 4:14-16 ) to the need to include children, elderly, all races, cultures, experiencing the grace of Christ and putting that transformation on display for the angels Ephesians 3:10 .  The angels would then take notes on the manifold wisdom of God as displayed in the church.  As it is, the angels probably just shake their heads a lot and have to filter out a whole lot of ….

Conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics say that the zombies will run out of gas, too.   All you have to do is stay ahead of the zombies until they run out of chemical energy to turn into kinetic energy.

Regarding terms…

If you believe both men and women are needed in the Church because they each have unique and special gifts, you’re a complementarian.  Some proponents of women’s ordination are complementarians, because they believe that women bring necessary balance to the formerly male-only clergy.

If you believe that it is irrelevant whether men or women are doing a particular sort of work or even present at roll call, you’re an egalitarian.  Advocates for gay marriage generally use egalitarian arguments.  The peer-review process for scientific journals is egalitarian, at least in theory.

If you believe that women have special and unique gifts in addition to having all the gifts that men have, rendering men superflous and possibly detrimental to the Church, you’re a feminist.  Many proponents of women’s ordination are feminists—they say that women bring all sorts of important nurturing characteristics to the Church, but deny that men have any unique masculine qualities of their own to recommend them.

If you believe that men have special and unique gifts in addition to having whatever gifts women might have, rendering women useless and possibly harmful,  you’re a masculinist.  This one obviously isn’t compatible with women’s ordination.

Christopher Hitchens’ waterboarding article is now up at Vanity Fair’s website. The Times has a good summary.

People need to lay off of Carter, and to a certain extent Hoover. Both of them were presidents in whose terms really crappy things happened, but neither of them was much at fault.

Agreed, more or less, but both of them did stupid economic crap that exacerbated the problems. FDR did that too, but he did it with style and panache, so what he lost in “actually making the problem better rather than worse” points, he won back in “hope.” Comparison with an Obama presidency goes here.

Mark N: ooh, good. It’s ages since I last had some fun with Google Fight.

This one could have saved an awful lot of time and effort in the tussle between the BHT and Triablogue last month. Who needs closely-argued 10,000-word blog posts when you’ve got Google Fight?

On second thoughts, perhaps using Google Fight to resolve blog wars isn’t such a good idea. (jn)

Mark Driscoll gets his arse handed to him by Rob Bell

Spike,

I think what I meant was more along the lines of actually performing the mass itself, and, correct me if I’m wrong, but y’all just don’t go for it for anyone but a priest does that, right?

Short answer: yes.

And sure, why would justifying the church through offering up the body of Christ not be the work of Jesus? Makes sense to me.

Well, what you said was “laity administering the Eucharist”, which does occur in almost all parishes worldwide (I think) since about 1970-something. The priest consecrates the bread and wine so they become the Body and Blood, and then lay people come up, receive the Body and Blood from the priest, and then with the priest distribute it to the people who choose to receive.

(aside: some people within the Church do not approve of this practice, and I think it is technically only allowed in “emergency situations” if I remember correctly; some have proposed bringing back subdeacons as a remedy)

This does not, however, amount to the laity “justifying the church through offering up the body of Christ”, since the sacrifice is done by the priest, the alter Christus in Catholic theology.

I find Josh’s apparent ignorance of hyperbole to be especially ironic, since it’s, you know, Josh.

People need to lay off of Carter, and to a certain extent Hoover. Both of them were presidents in whose terms really crappy things happened, but neither of them was much at fault.

There are plenty of perfectly good Catholics who both approve of and actively participate in liturgical abuses, and for all you know I could be one of them! (jn)

Geez, sorry Mack, I don’t know what I was thinking! I think what I meant was more along the lines of actually performing the mass itself, and, correct me if I’m wrong, but y’all just don’t go for it for anyone but a priest does that, right? And sure, why would justifying the church through offering up the body of Christ not be the work of Jesus? Makes sense to me.

Here are some presidential administrations off the top of my head that were far, far, far, far, far, far worse for this country: Johnson, Carter, Grant, Pierce, Buchanan, van Buren, Hoover, and Tyler.

Since Reconstruction policies and Dred Scott aren’t going to be particularly hot topics for 2008, how about executive power? Bush has expanded the war powers of the presidency and broadened the definition of war to be any time when someone with a beard says “darned Americans.” That alone is at least as bad as anything Van Buren or the pre-Civil War slacker presidents did. It’s going to take a constitutional amendment or a revolutionary SCOTUS ruling to roll that one back. Because of this, plus Iraq and sundry other pet peeves, I would count Bush to be about as bad as Johnson or Hoover. The good thing about Johnson and Hoover is that the damage was self-limiting. On the other hand, if Bush and the neocons don’t likewise burn themselves out (although I suspect they will) things have the potential to keep getting worse. There’s no denying that Bush has started some bad trends that just shouldn’t continue.

It’s in my Amazon wish list.  Do I smell an iMonk book review in the making?

So, Mark W, let’s think about this.  Zombies can’t “die” without a serious blow to the head.  In fact, they can keep coming at you even if they have a huge hole right in the middle of them.  They are like the Energizer bunny in that respect.  And you want to set them on fire?  What if you had to go into a building after setting 15 of these things on fire?  What would happen to you then?

Read and learn, folks.  This is no laughing matter.

Driscoll’s valid point is that when men abdicate their place in the church, the church is impoverished for it.

My wife said the exact same thing whe she read the Boar’s Head commentary on the Driscoll satire.  Interestingly, she didn’t recognize it as satire and thought it really was a transcript of some of his sermons.  “It sounds like something he’d say”.

I don’t know how to spell.  Bureaucracy not bureacracy.  But I know bureaucracy is to be feared.  Unaccountable power, absolute power, extended complication, multitudes of sinners compounded inefficiencies, and most importantly, the loss of freedom, incentives, and flexibility. 

Spike said:

when Mack discourages laity from administering the Eucharist, your denomination would call that sin?

Whoa, now! Firstly, where do you get off assuming that I’m the type of Catholic that discourages abuse of the liturgy? There are plenty of perfectly good Catholics who both approve of and actively participate in liturgical abuses, and for all you know I could be one of them! (jn)

Seriously, though, why is the physical distribution of the Eucharist the “work of Jesus”? What does that phrase even mean exactly?

Josh S: A big “Amen” to everything you just said. I’m pretty worried about both upcoming candidates, but nothing in the foreseeable future compares to the hell people have had to go through in the past.

Ryan, welcome. I’m glad you’re here, if only because it means I’m no longer the new guy. (sw)

While I think most all of us can sympathize with getting exasperated over political leaders, the reality is we do not know enough of the facts with enough assurance.

All I do know is that Obama and McCain are calling for more government control, and in Obama’s case, lots more taxes, and a whole new huge bureacracy.   Could either one of these guys running be worse than Bush.  Most definitely!

I almost caused a riot at the YMCA locker room when I told two liberals (just to yank their chains) that I just wished that Dick Cheney could run.  That if we wanted utopia, we needed 8 years of Cheney.  I think these guys are still sputtering and fuming….

There are two squad cars outside of my home right now (really), I knew those comments about homeland security would come home to roost. (jn, maybe)

UPDATE:  They’re gone and I’m still here…phew!

I cannot, in my wildest imagining, think of anything worse for our country or the world than a third Bush term. 

Really, Bill?  Not even in your wildest imagining?  I guess you don’t have a vivid imagination, because I can imagine modern day France, with its 20% unemployment and annual riots.  I can imagine Soviet Russia.  I can imagine Nazi Germany.  I can imagine Talibani Afghanistan.  I can imagine Mugabe’s Zimbabwe.  I can imagine a nuclear war.  I can imagine the American Civil War.  I can imagine entangling alliances leading to endless warfare over scraps of ground in Europe.  Seriously?  Get some perspective.  Here are some presidential administrations off the top of my head that were far, far, far, far, far, far worse for this country:  Johnson, Carter, Grant, Pierce, Buchanan, van Buren, Hoover, and Tyler.  The worst things you can say about Bush is that he’s expanded some entitlement programs to pre-Reagan levels—but hasn’t screwed things up even a tenth as much as Johnson and Carter did—and we’ve got a fairly unpopular, but very low-casualty war going on.  It doesn’t even compare to Vietnam.  And you’re acting like he’s worse than Hitler.