Riverwood Presbyterian Church

Faith and Science

Nomenclature and Classification as Scientific Truth

by Tim Lien

Last week, in Chester England, scientists revealed the five Komodo dragons that were born in captivity to Flora, their mother (also a Komodo dragon.)

Nothing is exceptional about this fact, except that Flora had not been exposed to a male Komodo—thus, making this, essentially an asexual and “virgin” birth. You can read all about it here.

Scientists were shocked when this happened, because there had not been a documented occurrence of this kind among Komodo dragons. So, before this event, scientists could forcefully say: “Komodo dragons do not asexually reproduce. They never have. They are not among the species that can participate in the process of parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction) And they never will.” But then Flora went and got asexually impregnated.

So to explain this puzzling turn of events (which stymied true explanation) respected scientists simply changed their current frame of reference and allowed for parthenogenesis to occur within the species of Komodo dragon.

Interestingly enough, Science has generally followed this pattern: 1) Refuse to accept the unknowable and non-tangible. 2) If it has to be accepted due to overwhelming tangible evidence, then name it. And by naming and classifying it, you limit it. You limit the occurrence of Phenomena. (Incidentally, naming is a powerful tool throughout the biblical record.)

And so, dear Science, I would like to submit a scientific designation for something you deem unknowable, so that together, we can limit its occurrence and change the current scientific framework: theotokos: mother of God, or if that is unsuitable, perhaps, Incarnationus Deum: the incarnation of God.

Books

On “Thirteen Moons” and Selective History

by Jimmy Hopper

The Riverwood Book Group recently completed Charles Frazier’s second novel, Thirteen Moons; his first novel, Cold Mountain, having been an extraordinary effort. As always, we had some great conversations about the book and the ideas generated both by the book and by the conversations.

Thirteen Moons essentially concerns the Southern Cherokee tribes and their interaction with the United States, the new nation formed on lands that they, and other tribes had considered their own. The group enjoyed the novel but it was, in my opinion, a mixed bag with a driving narrative through the first third and the “Trail of Tears” section, but meandering otherwise. It seemed to me that Frazier tried to both realistically portray certain of his characters but to also use them as symbols for such ideals as youth, a way of life, etc. In some cases, particularly the the part Indian girl Claire, he ended with neither.However, this post isn’t a book review, but a look at selective history.

The term, “Trail of Tears,” has been known to me since my youth, but as a fact of American history; and I’m an aficionado of American history, I knew nothing except that it concerned the removal of Southern Indians to Oklahoma. I knew no details, no human history, no politics; nothing except the fact that the removal had to do with the land being overrun with settlers and there was no place for the Indians. I guess I should have figured something, if only because of the word “tears” in the description. Walking from North Carolina to Oklahoma is with your possessions is enough to make one cry, I supposed. I also should have figured out how it was done from the simple fact that Andrew Jackson was president at that time. There was simply no way there was any consideration for humanity toward them from a man who didn’t consider them human.

The truth of it is that the entire episode was a disgrace; one in a long series of disgraces culminating in the Wounded Knee massacre that now exemplifies the taking of this country from its original inhabitants. I remember reading Thomas Jefferson’s comments to Meriweather Lewis regarding the tribes he would find “beyond the wide Missouri” and realizing that the the Manifest Destiny was there from the beginning as a matter of right. The tragedy of the Trail of Tears is well described in Thirteen Moons, in fact, the capture and execution of “Charley” (Tasli in history) and his men is unforgettable. There is a sense in which the Cherokees and Creeks were lucky, however. There was still an Oklahoma to which they could be sent. As the movement neared the Pacific Ocean, limited genocide became more in vogue. The ganeral aspect of untaught, sanitized American history probably served the country well when an astonishingly patriotic nation was called on to save the world from Fascism in the 20th Centrury.

Recently I found and read a historical marker on the street to the west of the new Tuscaloosa News building and near Capitol Park. It commorates a speech given by Chief Eufaula of the Alabama Creek Indians to the state legislature immediately before they embarked on the “Trail of Tears.” In it, he speaks of how he believed that the “men who built the great houses” had sought to destroy his people.” Now, he says that he feels that the “white Father doesn’t want harm to come to his “red children” but has their best interest at heart. He gets his shots in, though. They are being moved from the land of their ancestors, where “their fathers’ bones are buried.” They are forced to obey “laws they don’t understand.” He closes, poignantly, with the statement that “the Indian fires are going out in Alabama” and that, hopefully they will be re-lit in the west. He concludes with “This is all I have to say.” The sum of it is heartbreaking.

The question raised with the Book Group had to do with where the Christians were during all this. Christians were conspicious by their absence. There was not even one Bonhoeffer speaking out against injustice and evil, made official by an impersonal bureaucracy but still evil.

General Theology

Mysterious Ways

by Clay Staggs

Every time that I think that the state of the church (the global church, I mean, not Riverwood) can’t get any worse, I read something like this.

It seems that a Church of England congregation in Lincoln, England will be hosting a “U2-charist,” which the article describes as “an adapted Holy Communion service that uses the Irish rock group’s best-selling songs in place of hymns.”

Just about everything that could be wrong about this is. Here are some quotes from the article. I dare anyone to find anything in these remotely touching on the glory of God, the grace of God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or the Holy Spirit:

-“The event will focus on the Millennium Development Goals - targets set for the alleviation of world poverty”

-“The atmosphere will be further enhanced by a sophisticated lighting system that will pulse with the beat, and striking visual images of poverty and drought.”

-“It is also very important that we continue to try and find ways of worshipping that are surprising, challenging and fun.”

-“Rock music can be a vehicle of immense spirituality.”

-“The Millennium Development Goals are extremely important for the future of the world.”

Now, lest we tut-tut at the sorry state of the Church of England (true as that would be), consider the last line of the article:

“The idea of a “U2-charist” was first created in the US with the first such service held there in 2005.”

On a theological level, I can’t help but believe that this all stems from the contemporary church’s overwhelming rejection of the doctrine of election. After all, if it’s up to man to go out and evangelize and convert the unbelievers, a U2-charist may not be all that far-fetched. After all, it’s easier to recruit with rock songs and snazzy light shows than with the truth about sin, redemption, grace, and the over-arching sovereignty of God. The problem with this approach, though, is that eventually the concert has to end. Then what?

Culture Wars

They Have Rehab For That?

by Clay Staggs

OK, confession time. I am hooked on Grey’s Anatomy. It’s one of my favorite shows on TV. That said, there’s nothing to ruin a perfectly good movie or TV show like knowing what the actors are like in real life.

I have been reading about a recent dust-up on the set of the show where one of the lead actors (Isaiah Washington, who plays Dr. Burke) allegedly used a slur on the set to describe a castmate who has recently let it be known that he’s gay (TR Knight, who plays George). You can find some gossipy type articles about it here. Washington subsequently issued a statement apologizing. It’s here, and it seemed pretty thoroughgoing to me.

The reason that I even post such trivialities is the latest installment of the off-set drama. It seems that in today’s world, simply apologizing for doing something wrong is just not good enough. You need to go to rehab, and that’s exactly what Washington has done. You can read the whole ridiculous tale here.

This is not meant to excuse Mr. Washington’s behavior in any way, but rehab? Rehab for using a bad word (that he’s already profusely apologized for using)? When I first saw the article, I figured that he was going into rehab because he had some drug or alcohol problem. Nope. According to the ever-present “insider”, the honchos at ABC told Washington that to keep his job, he must “enter a program to examine why he would say such hateful words.” This means there’s actually such a program in existence. Really. I am not making this up.

As a Christian, intellectually, I know that the world has it’s priorities exactly backwards. But in my mind, I still have this (obviously ridiculous) expectation that the offended castmate will just say, “OK, apology accepted” and everyone just move on with their lives. But no. Off to the “treatment facility” with Mr. Washington. After all, why would anyone ever say hateful words?

Culture Wars

Risky Business

by Clay Staggs

It is always fascinating to see what the unbelieving world thinks about Jesus Christ. In today’s Sun (UK) newspaper, we get a glimpse of that.

Apparently the leader of the “church” of Scientology, David Miscavige, believes that Tom Cruise is going to be “worshiped like Jesus for his work to raise awareness of the religion.”

That was what Jesus did, after all, right? Now, I know that darkness cannot understand the light, however, this doesn’t even make sense. Raise awareness of what religion? Judaism?

The inevitable “source close to the actor” says the following of Cruise: “Like Christ, he’s been criticised for his views. But future generations will realise he was right.”

Follow the circular logic here. Christ was criticized all right, but for claiming to be both the Son of God and the only way to the Father. Have future generations realized that? If so, why are they looking for another christ (and in Tom Cruise of all places)?

I once heard Rob Looper say that man was created to worship, and if that worship isn’t directed at God, man will put something else in God’s place and worship that. I think this pretty much proves that thesis up. QED.

Politics

Bush Derangement Syndrome, or, Whose Side Are You On?

by Clay Staggs

I’ve heard conservative bloggers refer to “Bush Derangement Syndrome” - a condition where, out of sheer blind hatred for George W., his opponents are compelled to oppose everything he supports, regardless of whether that’s good for the body politic or not.

I now believe quite firmly that this condition actually exists. Here’s my proof. Fox News conducted a poll this week (full results here) and asked the following question: “Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week succeed?”

Now, the way that this question is phrased is quite telling. They didn’t ask “do you want the Iraq plan to succeed?”; rather, the question got to the same point, but asked the respondent whether he or she personally wanted Bush’s plan to succeed. Objectively and logically, since Bush is the commander in chief, if his plan succeeds, the military succeeds, and the country is victorious over the enemy. So, if one is thinking rationally, one must answer yes, unless, of course, one actually wants to see our enemies succeed. But then there’s the fact that for the plan and the military to succeed, it will necessarily mean that Bush has succeeded. The brilliance of the phrasing of the question is that it tests whether BDS exists.

The answers were 63% yes, 22% no, and 15% don’t know.

That means that a full 37% of the citizenry can’t bring themselves to wish for success (note that all they’re being asked to do is “want” success, not actually do anything to achieve it themselves, like plant a victory garden or anything). That 37% either actually wishes for the success of the jihadists or suffers from BDS. I would suggest that the 15% that doesn’t know is suffering from BDS. What’s there to even think about? Either you want us to win, or them. At least the 22% is honest and forthright, though whether they’re actually behind the enemy or BDS sufferers themselves is impossible to say.

I don’t know which is worse - BDS or pulling for the enemy - and it probably doesn’t matter anyway. If anyone doubts that the American dominance on the world stage will come to an end (like Britain, Rome, etc.) - and soon - just think about this poll. After all, a house divided against itself……

Culture Wars

Swearing to Allah

by Tim Lien

If everything goes as planned, after next week, all the investitures for public and civil offices will be completed. These ceremonies make everything official, honorable, and serious, and they culminate in “the swearing in” of our candidates for public office. Traditionally, the oaths have been made while the candidate places his/her right hand on the Judeo-Christian Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (aka the Bible).

Last month The American Family Association (AFA) sent out an email alert to all American Christians decrying the intentions of Representative-elect Keith Ellison (Muslim, D-MN) to use the Koran during his swearing-in ceremony. You can find most that email’s contents here:

The AFA was ignited mostly by Jewish columnist Dennis Prager’s article earlier that week. Prager insisted that, regardless of faith, the United States should use the Bible for all inductions, ceremonies, and swearing-ins. You can find his article here:

However, since we are a nation of laws, (as Clay Staggs often reminds me) there is no law that conscripts any official-elect to use the Bible for any vow/oath as a requisite for office. He found an excellent clause in the U.S. Constitution that was very plain:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

You can read Article VI, in its entirety, here:

In fairness, the AFA finally figured out that they could do nothing (legally) except express outrage—outrage which I believe is unfounded and unbiblical. But they did manage to issue an action point for all concerned Christians:

Take Action 1. Send an email asking your U.S. Representative and Senators to pass a law making the Bible the book used in the swearing-in ceremony of Representatives and Senators.

Now, several things first: 1) I want people to become believers in Christ—the exclusive and only Savior of souls. 2) I can appreciate activism. 3) I like America 4) I like families. With that out of the way, my statement is this: The duties of the office dictate the requirements for the office. Simple, I know. Additionally, I am against petitioning for such a law that would propose this as requirement. I know this may bring up the aged discussion in regards to the separation of Church/State, but this is another example where belief simply does not have the biblical mandate to force others (alien beliefs, persons, or cultures) to comply with God’s laws. It is only within the context of the covenant community (read: Church universal) can these be made requirements.

Culture Wars

Dobson on McCain

by Clay Staggs

Interestingly, Dr. Dobson has poked his toe into the political waters of the GOP 2008 presidential primary. He is opposed to John McCain’s candidacy. Apparently McCain’s position on gay marriage is unacceptable to Dobson.

I find this interesting on a number of fronts. First of all, McCain has always been solidly pro-life. This makes me wonder whether there’s a new litmus test politically for being a social conservative. Does being squishy (assuming McCain is that) on gay marriage trump being pro-life?

Second, I can’t help but wonder whether this is cover for having other problems with McCain. The reason I suggest this is that McCain’s position, set in full context, seems non-controversial to me. McCain made the comment which was the basis for Dobson’s criticism on a TV talk show. That comment was:

I think that gay marriage should be allowed if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that. But I do believe in preserving the sanctity of a union between man and woman.

However, moments later, in the same event on the same show, McCain clarified what he meant:

On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that if people want to have private ceremonies, that’s fine. I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal.

You can read McCain’s whole exchange here. Dobson appears to have neglected to mention the later clarification.

Now, I think there’s LOTS to disagree with McCain about, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I’ll say he’s not my first choice (or my second) for the GOP nomination in 2008. That said, I think it’s a bit disingenuous to attack him for being soft on gay marriage when all he said was that it’s OK for folks to have ceremonies (that are legally meaningless). How can you stop that anyway? It’s going on right now.

The core problem here, really, is Dobson’s wading into the political arena. Though as an individual citizen he certainly has the right to speak, as a religious leader, he’s painting a bullseye on himself and his organization. The IRS is already suspicious of these non-profit groups’ activities that blur the line between their tax-exempt purpose and political advocacy (which is forbidden for non-profits). Making comments like this, no matter how careful you are to distinguish between your personal views and those of your organization, doesn’t help your cause. And it surely won’t serve them well if in January 2009, we’re inaugurating President McCain.

Culture Wars

Re-watching “Chariots of Fire”

by Jimmy Hopper

Sunday night at the latest Riverwood movie night, we viewed “Chariots of Fire,” and I was again amazed at what a fine movie it is and how clearly it speaks to the Christian message. I saw it when it first was released and remember distinctly telling Carolyn during the telecasting of the Academy Awards that this was one movie that had no chance to win, simply because of its theme. I also distinctly remember my total shock when it won Best Picture. At the time I thought that I had misjudged the “culture wars” and maybe there was some creative integrity involved (it was easily the best film of the year, in my not so humble opinion.) As you know, the film tells the story of the 1924 Olymipics in Paris and of the excellent British track team that competed that year. It focus on the interaction between Eric Liddell, born in China to missionaries; and Harold Abraham, the son of a Jewish financier. Within this framework, it speaks to the Christian life lived out.After watching it again Sunday night, I thought I might offer some thoughts on how it particularly displayed Christianity.

There were several interesting themes. There was the question of whether Eric should run at all but perhaps should concentrate on the mission work. His sister in particular puts pressure on him not to run, afraid that he will be intoxicated by it and won’t return to China. Eric explains that he needs to do so; that God made him for the China mission, but he also made him fast. He will run to glorify God who made him as he is. The idea is that we, as Christians, are not to turn away from God’s good gifts in the world but are to enjoy and utilize them to his glory, as did Eric Liddell.

The theme that dominates the movie, however, is the contrast between the fast Christian and the fast non-Christian. Harold Abraham runs, and runs well, but he must win, or he suffers. Part of this is his perceived victim status as a Jew operating in the British upper class and at Cambridge University. One of the most subtle moments in the movie is when Abraham, after decrying his status, sings “He was an Englishman” from a glee club presentation. He can’t be happy, even when he wins, because he is driven only by his own desires and self glory. He ends up winning, but not against Liddell, since Eric wouldn’t race on Sunday and runs in a different race. This seems to taint Abraham’s triumph to some degree. When Abraham takes a gold medal in the Olympics, he waits on the train at the London station until the rest of the happy, celebrating team leaves, and then exits by himself, meeting Sybil and leaving only with her.

Eric Liddell, on the other hand, runs and wins (God did make him fast) but the movie makes it plain that his enjoyment is in the act of running. His joy overflows when he runs, and his joy (and his life) is securely founded in his status as a child of God. At the station, he celebrates happily with the team, filled with delight at the victory of all.

Both young men have run-ins with authority and both rebel for different reasons that are significant. Abraham hires a coach, and when his amateurism is questioned by Cambridge, refuses to run for Cambridge anymore because he feels that the coach is necessary for him to beat Liddell. Liddell refuses to run also because the Olympic trials for his race are on Sunday. His run-in with authority comes when the committee (including the Duke of Windsor) try to talk him into running against his principles. The Duke informs him that his country and king come before God. This fairly drips with irony since the Duke will abdicate his throne a few years later, not from principle but from the desire to marry a divorced American woman.

There is much more; it was a rich movie; but I’ll close with this. Our movie night movies are picked to be thought provoking and to help us deal with our culture as Christians. The next movie night will show Shadowlands, whose theme is Christians dealing with grief and is based on the life of C.S. Lewis. I encourage you to attend and enjoy fellowship, popcorn, drinks and a thoughtful movie.

On “God’s Chosen People,” an earlier version…

by Jimmy Hopper

I am a member of the cult that believes Patrick O’Brien’s series of novels about the Napleonic sea wars are the best historical novels ever written, so it was natural that I would be interested in Arthur Herman’s history of the British navy, To Rule the Waves, especially since it had a painting of the battle of Trafalger on the front. I was not disappointed. The influence of the British navy on world history is interesting history.

As always, however, I read through a Christian lens and Herman’s ongoing commentary about a book, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs (he cites it some 15 times in his book) really fascinated me. I have heard of Foxe’s Book of Martyrs numerous times, mostly in terms of persecution of modern missionaries. For that reason, I had in my mind that it was probably a relatively recent book; or even an early book that is updated as different eras come and go. I was shocked to find out that there is only one version, and that it was written in Elizabethan England in 1563. It became the mostly widely read book in England; even more than the Bible. Its author was John Foxe, born in Boston in Lincolnshire which, by the way, was the reason for the naming of the American Boston in the Puritan colony of Massachusetts and speaks to the prominence of Foxe in Protestant England in his day. Its chief focus was the Catholic persecution of Protestants under Mary and Philip II of Spain. Foxe himself was forced to flee to the continent to avoid said persecution. But it is not the contents but the pervasive influence of the book that Herman speaks of so often.

Herman believes that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was responsible for a feeling that the English were God’s chosen people. Foxe describes Elizabeth as “the new Constantine, sent by God to protect the true religion and bring peace and harmony to the world.” Herman adds this commentary:

All this was a travestry of historical facts, although very flattering for the new Queen: but Foxe’s message went beyond mere political propaganda. He had deliberately recast the history of England by turning it into a religious community embarked on a sacred mission. (Readers) learned that being English meant enjoying a privileged relationship with God, much as the Jews had enjoyed before the coming of Christ. Foxe had set in motion the idea of England as God’s Elect Nation, and a view of the cosmos summed up by Elizabeth’s Bishop of London, John Aylmer, when he simply proclaimed that “God is English.”

The arrogance of the English aristoracy is legendary throughout history but Herman argues that a form of arrogance was also part and parcel of the the psyche of the common people because of the attitudes fostered by Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. The obvious problem to Christians (such as myself) who read Herman’s theory has to do with his association; that this attitude was responsible for attempts at genocide in areas of Ireland, and was justification for conquest. While I think Herman carries it a bit far (surely the wealth of the new world and Asia had something to do with it,) there is something of a basis for his theory.

So what does this have to do with the 21st Century? First and most obviously, Christianity, the church of Jesus Christ, is not and will never be a political or national entity. It is so much more that there is no comparision possible. When man declares that God’s special province is something of man, i.e. a nation or political system; he speaks of something untrue Biblically after the coming of Christ and the demise of the original “chosen people.” God’s “chosen people” is His church, and they are from every nation and tongue. When they are declared to be otherwise, I always look askance at it and wonder why. Is it simply spiritual elitism or is there a profit or power motive?

Secondly, when these declarations are made; and when they carry real political power, eventually there is going to be denigration of Christ’s church by the world because, at base, the declarations are false and because those making or profiting from them are human and fallen. We, as Christians, are constantly finding that we must explain/excuse the fallenness of man, or we are simply tarred with the same brush.

God’s Church in the first century was made viable by the martyrdom of the saints. God’s Church was advanced throughout the ages by the martyrdom of saints who considered their lives as nothing because of Christ. A recounting of their deeds and sacrifices is a laudable enterprise. It’s just not right, though, in Elizabethan England or today to assign the Church of Jesus Christ to the province of man’s institutions.

General Theology

Falls Church Fallout

by Clay Staggs

Here’s a great post by a blogger who takes on the Washington Post over its characterization of her church, the Falls Church, which happens to have recently split with the ECUSA. Note that the Post actually manages to call Episcopalians the “frozen chosen.”

I think I’m offended - that’s us!!

Read the whole thing, as they say.

Politics

How Quickly They Forget, or, What’s Italian for “Hypocrite”?

by Clay Staggs

Great Observation from the guys at Powerline this morning. I can’t add to this (aside from perhaps wondering how the UN can do anything like a global ban on anything), so I’ll simply copy and paste:

CNN Europe reports that Italians are shocked—shocked!—by the cell phone video of Saddam Hussein’s execution, and are calling for a United Nations ban on all capital punishment:

Italy will campaign at the United Nations for a global ban on the death penalty, Prime Minister Romano Prodi said on Tuesday, after graphic images of Saddam Hussein’s hanging shocked people around the world.

Italian politicians of all political parties expressed disgust at Hussein’s execution, with even former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi calling it a “political and historic error.”

Pressured by a week-long hunger strike by a 76-year-old campaigner against Hussein’s execution and the death penalty in general, Prodi said Italy would push the U.N. for a “universal moratorium” on capital punishment.

Iraq’s government made the obvious rejoinder:

The Iraqi government has hit back at Italy for its criticism of Hussein’s execution, accusing it of hypocrisy, especially after World War Two dictator Benito Mussolini was killed by partisans and hanged upside down in a Milan square in 1945.

“They have no right interfering in the affairs of another country,” government official, Yaseen Majeed, was quoted as saying in La Repubblica daily. “Mussolini’s trial only lasted one minute.”

Politics

Eulogy Potshot

by Clay Staggs

I really enjoy a good political argument. But, to paraphrase Ecclesiasties, there’s a time and a place for everything. And a funeral is NOT the place for cheap political shots.

Here’s an excerpt from the AP report about former President Ford’s funeral service at the National Cathedral:

In his homily, Episcopalian minister Robert G. Certain touched on the fractious debate in the church over its growing acceptance of homosexual relationships, and said Ford did not think the issue should be splitting Episcopalians. He was Ford’s pastor at St. Margaret’s Church in Palm Desert, Calif.

“He asked me if we would face schism after we discussed the various issues we would consider, particularly concerns about human sexuality and the leadership of women,” Certain said. “He said that he did not think they should be divisive for anyone who lived by the great commandments and the great commission to love God and to love neighbor.

The Episcopal Church has been under pressure from traditionalists for its 2003 consecration of the first openly gay bishop. Several prominent Virginia parishes have recently broken away from the church in protest.

Is this really necessary? Can the country not have a day without an argument over gay rights or whatever the issue du jour is? Has our level of debate become so intolerable that the dead can’t even be properly euolgized without these potshots?

I’m sure that no one agreed with him all the time, but by all accounts, Gerald Ford was a decent human being. It’s a shame that each side of the political aisle has so little respect for each other (and the dead) that we can’t even take a day to simply reflect on and honor the life of a good man who happened to be the President of the United States.

After all, the battle will pick right back up tomorrow.