I have been thinking about predestination for several days now. I think it started in the Book Group discussion about Chesterton’s Orthodoxy. In a chapter about the paradoxes of Christianity, Chesterton makes this comment:
It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman; it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head: the difficulty thing is to keep one’s own.
We discussed this quote at some length and one of the group marveled at Chesterton dissecting the other paradoxes of Christianity but simply making this statement about the paradox of God’s will and man’s will without any other discussion. Chesterton came to Christianity by considering the world’s arguments and, because the world seemed to protest too much, seriously looked at what they were protesting against. Throught this, he was able to accept the arguments for orthodoxy as answering the questions of the world and philosophy. Given the answers provided by predestination (the omnipotence of God, etc.) and the Biblical demands for it; how could he make this statement of heresy without looking into it in the same way that he had so rigorously looked into the other arguments?
The Book Group decided that possibly it had to do with his self satisfaction at intellectually “discovering” the answers he had put forth. Given an orthodox option to not give God the credit for bringing him to salvation (note that this is different from God providing salvation,) he opted for intellectual credit. Someone in the Book Group brought up the fact that other, equally intelligent men had looked at the same questions and came to a final state of unbelief. The only real answer, and the Biblical answer, is predestination.
All of this was revisited in the excellent Sunday night segment of the What We Believe series. If God is God, ALL of salvation is His. And this is fine with me. My salvation is a responsibility that I’m glad God has taken on. Predestination is, in a very real sense, my security blanket. The historian, Paul Johnson, spoke to this issue in his book, A History of Christianity. Johnson said, in much the same way as Chesterton:
The terrifying doctrine of election, or damnation, was made palatable by the fact that election was proved by communion with Christ – that is, in practice, by membership of a Calvinist congregation: “Whoever finds himself in Jesus Christ and is a member of his body by faith, he is assured of his salvation.” So long as a man avoided excommunication, he was secure. Here is both the strength and weakness of Calvinism: if you do not accept the horrific argument of double predestination, it is abhorrent; if you do accept it, it is almost irresistible.
It is irrestible to me. I can take that to bed with me at night and sleep unconcerned. It is true security because it is of God and God alone.
Since my last entry on the topic, the presidential race has seen the departure of both John Edwards and Rudy Guliaini. The former is really no surprise; the latter, however, had been the candidate I thought would carry the day on the Republican side. Politics is strange and unpredictable.
Speaking of strange and unpredictable, the man with the momentum on the GOP side now appears to be McCain. I will confess that I never in a million years would have expected him to be nominatable, since he really hasn’t been a very good Republican for the last 10 years or so. But, following Romney’s loss to McCain in Florida, Romney faces an uphill battle to pull it out. The reason is that, even though it looks like a two man race, it really isn’t.
Huckabee remains in the race, and his supporters, mostly evangelicals, hold Romney’s fate in their hands. One would expect that evangelicals would be most indisposed toward McCain. Their signature issue, abortion, might suffer with McCain making nominations to the US Supreme Court. Recently, McCain has been quoted (though he disputes this) as saying that Justice Alito (widely thought to be anti-Roe) was too conservative for his tastes in a nominee. From Bob Novak:
“In fact, multiple sources confirm that the senator made negative comments about Alito nine months ago. …
“I found what McCain could not remember: a private, informal chat with conservative Republican lawyers shortly after he announced his candidacy in April 2007. I talked to two lawyers who were present whom I have known for years and who have never misled me. One is neutral in the presidential race, and the other recently endorsed Mitt Romney. Both said they were not Fund’s source, and neither knew I was talking to the other. They gave me nearly identical accounts, as follows:
“‘Wouldn’t it be great if you get a chance to name somebody like Roberts and Alito?’ one lawyer commented. McCain replied, ‘Well, certainly Roberts.’ Jaws were described as dropping. My sources cannot remember exactly what McCain said next, but their recollection is that he described Alito as too conservative.”
Wow. So here’s the calculus for evangelicals (that means us - Alabama votes Tuesday, and is predicted by all polling to be going for Huckabee): Huckabee cannot win, but is in the race still. With Rudy’s departure, moderates have one candiate in the race. Conservatives have two - Romney, who could still win, and Huckabee, who can’t. Should conservatives abandon Huckabee for Romney, then it’s a real fight that could stretch into April and May. If they stick with Hucakbee, they effectively insure the nomination of McCain. It will be interesting to see what develops.
For the politico-nerds like me, some interesting calculations about the delegate count can be found here. The long and short of it is that McCain will only be about halfway to the delegates needed to win the nomination after Tuesday, assuming current polling is accurate.
Now, if the Republican race looks interesting, it pales beside the dems. The Clinton machine versus the politics of hope. My money’s on the machine, but with Teddy Kennedy endorsing Obama, who knows anymore?
I had resolved not to blog anymore about politics until after the SC election on Saturday, but this is just too much to pass up.
Check out this video of the former president unloading on a CNN reporter.
Wow. Duane Patterson fisks this tirade here, if you’d like to see line by line analysis.
I have two comments. First, what goes around comes around. Of all the people who have no right to be complaining about others manipulating the media (even if it were happening, which it’s not), Bill Clinton has got to be at the top of that list.
My second comment is made from my well-publicized position as a Republican. The more folks see and hear junk like this, the less likely they will be to vote for 4 more years of it on their TV screens. I believe people will vote against her just to avoid the paranoid, egomaniac melodrama all over again. To any Democrats reading this: PLEASE NOMINATE HILLARY CLINTON.
It’s been a while since I opined on the presidential race, and much has changed since then. So, here goes:
The Democrats first. Boy oh boy did HRC and Obama go after each other last night in that debate. Here’s the video in case you missed it.
As a Republican, that’s just about the best thing that’s happened this campaign season. The Dems are on the verge of doing something historically stupid: fracturing their coalition. Hillary (Bill too, for that matter) is insulting Obama, and for some reason that I can’t divine. She’s the frontrunner. It makes her look desperate, and it looks like she’s picking on the first viable minority candidate for president. Minority voters don’t seem to like this too much, even if they’re not inclined to vote for Obama in the first place. The demographics of the Democrat party are such that without MAJOR support from minorities, they can’t win. I think the Clintons may wind up splitting the party to secure her nomination.
Oh, and this picture (running in the NY Post and on Drudge) of Bill snoozing at a MLK celebration while MLK III is speaking can’t help either:
Now, for the GOP. Fred Thompson is out. Because Huckabee didn’t win in South Carolina, it is now apparent that he will not be the nominee. After all, if a southern evangelical can’t win there, where can he win?
That leaves Rudy, Romney, and McCain. I have always thought that Rudy would be the nominee. I am beginning to wonder, though. Rudy made a very explicit strategic decision not to compete in any primary until Florida, which votes on Jan. 29. Given how muddled the field is, this could be seen as brilliant, since there’s no clear frontrunner, and he’s conserved his resources for the truly large delegate-rich states. On the other hand, all the press has been talking about lately are Romney, Huckabee, and McCain, since they’ve actually been competing. The other downside for Rudy is that if he loses Florida, which he acknowledges is his firewall, can he continue?
We should learn a lot from Florida. It is open only to registered Republicans. Crossover independents in NH and SC have benefited McCain tremendously. He will not have that advantage in Florida. Moreover, Florida is a winner-take-all state in awarding delegates to the Republican convention.
So, if Rudy wins, it will likely take the wind out of McCain’s sails (both of them appealing to moderate and swing voters and national security-minded voters), and validate Rudy’s strategy. Rudy will be hailed as a strategic genius and his candidacy reinvigorated. If Romney wins, he will begin to amass a large lead in delegates (he already leads all other candidates), and can rightly claim to have defeated McCain and Rudy in a true test among Republicans. It would also demonstrate that Romney can win in the South. If McCain wins, Rudy is sunk, and we have a two-man race between McCain and Romney, which McCain will likely win on momentum and favorable mainstream press coverage.
So, all eyes on Florida. It should be an interesting week.
Glenn Reynolds calls it the “Pee-Wee-Hermanization of the American male,” and I think he and Tim are onto something. There seems to be a definite trend in pop culture to make men effete. What’s wrong with men dressing like men, and, by extension, acting like men? Women out there, would you be attracted to a man who dressed like this? Personally, I wouldn’t be caught dead in it.
Then again, I don’t know anybody who would, really. Am I out of touch, or is Brooks Brothers?
“…the proper form of thanks is some form of humility and restraint: we should thank God for beer and Burgundy by not drinking too much of them.”
This is not a call for prohibition, nor even moderation in and of itself, but a call to enjoy all that God has given for our pleasure. He makes a point at another place that we often are so appalled by apparent restrictions on pleasurable things that we forget how wonderful the gift is in its proper usage. It is also important to remember that the point at which the object (or sensation of pleasure) becomes that which is desired over the One who gave it, is the same point at which pleasure disappears and things such as boredom, disgust and self loathing.
I encourage you to join me in learning to savor life & thereby become able to drink it to the dregs and enjoy it the whole time!
Like Geraldo, I will make marks in the sand to let you know where I am for the pastor’s conference. I can put it in a way only Tuscaloosans can understand: Auburn Avenue and Monroe Louisiana. Both of those references sting a bit for the UA faithful. Here’s a great quote from one of Douglas Wilson’s talks:
“One of the greatestest miracles that Jesus ever did was listen to his disciples talk about theology without punching them.”
This conference is excellent; it is entitled “Liturgy and Life.” And it’s even better than it sounds.
Questions for discussion:
1) Klaatu has been described as a Christ-like figure. What is the first evidence in the film that this is so?
(Hint: Pay close attention to the suit he “borrows” from the cleaners.)
2) How are the people in authority on Earth portrayed? Is this a fair representation?
3) Klaatu’s home is portrayed as a civilization without wars. Is this a realistic goal for mankind? Did
Christ come to bring this kind of “peace”?
4) What are some of the personality traits that Klaatu exhibits which make him a Christ-like figure?
5) Do you see any Christian parallels in the robot Gort? If so, what are they?
6) Does Klaatu’s final message to mankind have a Christian theme? Why or why not?
One of the Christian web blogs I enjoy is written by Greg Wilbur, Music and Arts director at King’s Meadow Presbyterian Church in Nashville. Greg was a Riverwood college student and while in graduate school at Alabama in the late ‘80’s and early 90’s, he directed the Riverwood Choir. His blog addresses mainly worship, movies, books and culture. The link to the Wilburblog is here.
While reading it recently, I came across a link to a fascinating article from the New Yorker magazine about the demise of reading in Western culture, Twilight of the Books: What will life be like if people stop reading? You can access it here. It is a long article that addresses a number of interesting issues about reading, cultural history, the effects of television, education, how we think, and the potential for historical change in culture. It is well worth the time it takes to read, espcially if you are a parent or are interested in education.
One of the really interesting ideas that the author develops speaks to the way our new visual arts, television and movies (as opposed to reading) increases emotionalism and personality cults in our culture. I have often been literally amazed at the emotional response to celebrity foibles, to the deaths of relatively obscure public figures (i.e. Princess Di), and espcially to the the choreographed emotional “worship” in American evangelism. There are a number of reason to decry these trends. One that I keep returning to is how emotionalism tends to be perhaps the most significant factor in the assualt against the concept of truth; if it is true for you, etc. This “true for you” is almost always an emotional response to how we want things to be and in my judgment is a devastating consequence of these new cultural trends.
One of my life heroes is Thomas Jonathan Jackson. In fact, he’s the only man
whose portrait hangs in my house besides my husband, father, and sons. I read this description of him, sent to a newspaper in the winter of 1861, written by a soldier serving under him in the Stonewall Brigade: “Wherever the voice of our brave and beloved general is heard, we are ready to follow. I have read of the devotion of soldiers to their commanders, but history contains no parallel case of devotion and affection equal to that of the Stonewall Brigade for Major General Jackson. We do not look upon him merely as our commander – do not regard him as a severe disciplinarian, as a politician, as a man seeking popularity – but as a Christian, brave man who appreciates the condition of a common soldier; as a fatherly protector; as one who endures all hardships in common with his followers; who never commands others to face danger without putting himself first in the van…” Jackson was, of course, a deeply devout Christian; a Presbyterian of the strongest Calvinistic bent. That’s the foundation upon which his distinguishing virtues were built. As I read this commentary on his “leadership style”,
I thought of my husband, my sons, and the men of Riverwood. I pray for each of them,
that whatever field of endeavor they are in, whatever victories they achieve or failures they endure, they will possess similar qualities as men given responsibility for others by God. As they do so, I pray they will earn similar regard by those under their care, and that in our own way, we will possess similar respect and so make their load of responsibility easier to bear and more eagerly assumed.
