[%] A Thousand Miles apart

Whilst deep undercover, our man JIBBS has delivered a very timely link -- timely, considering the substance of the nutter series. If you didn't like the nutter series, you won't like this, either.

I'm putting it here to give you something to read which will make you forget that I haven't started my series on marriage yet. I know you haven't actually forgotten, but neither have I.

I have also scanned a bunch of new images for the blog this weekend because I was starting to feel like we were getting stale. And while we're doing some Monday house-cleaning, I'm looking for somebody who knows something about Javascript and XML to help me get over a case of the stupids. And no, Challies, I can't pay for the help.

[#] nutter cheap gelato dessert

OK – this is part 7 of 7, and of course if you have not read the original nutter post, well, you must be new around these here parts.

So my point in the nutter series, I think, was to answer the question "How do you create good will for Jesus?" My first point was that you can't do it if you're not actually referring to Jesus about whom Peter said on Pentecost, "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."

My second point was that you cannot let the culture dictate the terms of engagement regarding the Gospel. If the culture says to you, "I'm not going to listen until you are willing to treat me as an equal truth claim," you should not change the Gospel to make it more nicey-nice for the unsaved; if the culture says, "NYAH NYAH NYAH! I'm putting my fingers in my ears!" you are not empowered to turn the proverbial amp up to proverbial 11.

My last point in this nutter series is this: if being a nutter for Jesus is not these things, what is it? You know, in writing this series I reflected on Hewitt's book the Embarrassed Believer, which I have now also read, and there's something important that Hewitt says plainly: Christians are somewhat cowed when it comes to advancing their faith.

And he's right – but the problem is that he doesn’t really know why he's right. He has identified the symptom – which is a Christian witness which walks around like Schleprock from Pebbles and BamBam – but he doesn’t really know what a decent Christian witness would look like.

So here's what I think it looks like, and you can take your shots at it as you see fit:

the cornerstone of that witness is the Gospel (cf. Acts 2, 1Cor 15, Gal 1-3, Romans 1:16)

the framing and sheetrock of that witness is the personal reformation the Gospel calls us to (cf. Acts 2, Romans 8, James 1&2)

the business of that witness is the love of Christ, but the love of Christ is not the same love the culture will demand you show it (cf. 2Cor 5 & 6, Eph 5, 1John 3)

In that way, I am a nutter for Christ. My expectation in being a nutter for Christ is that if He is lifted up, all people will be drawn to Him. If you don't like me, chin up: I didn't ask you to like me. There's really not much there to like anyway.

oh yeah – the rest of the series is here: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

[?] Or bust, right?

I have a new goal for the blog, and it puts my dreams of TTLB domination to shame.

I found this list today, and I noticed that there are no "God Blogs" on it. I'm talking to you, Hugh Hewitt, btw.

It is my new blog goal to shamelessly get this blog into the Technorati top 100. Many of you are appalled; some are offended; some are even delinking me as we speak to pummel my sense of decency back into a manageable pudding.

It will not work. By hook, by crook, by word of mouth, and by shameless self-promotion, I will break the T-100. For Jesus and the Gospel, people. If Mark Driscoll can call Dog the Bounty Hunter a good Christian witness to society, I can get this blog into the T-100.

You watch me. A year ago, nobody knew about this troubling and gaudy blog. A year from now ...

... eh. I'll probably be in jail.

[%] Triablogue, revised edition

Listen: if you haven't popped in to Triablogue lately, you need to head over there. They have revised the seizure-inducing orange template for a much more modest design, and the content -- DUDE!

I know that "DUDE!" is not much of a theological or historically-christian endorsement, but it's like the league of extraordinary reformed gentlemen over there.

Go see for yourself.

And I have no idea what the image at the right has to do with Steve Hays. He paid his protection money, and I'll keep my mouth shut.

nutter post 6.9

Notice how this particular post doesn't have my cumulative index code prefix on it? Yeah, that's because it's an update that I want to post but not remember after I've done it.

I don't know how you run your blog, but usually I have a running list of notes that I use to continue my progress forward -- in order not to drop the last post in a series, or what have you. Most of the time it simply tracks my train of thought so I don't find myself ina tunnel with a set of lights coming in the other direction.

Today, I have to admit something: I cannot make heads or tails out of my notes for the last post in the "nutter" series. I am sure they made a lot of sense when I wrote them down, but right now they might as well be in sanscrit backwards so I can only read them by looking in a mirror. I'm going to have to spend an hour or two trying to trace my thoughts down beginning with the e-mails that spawned this series, so you might want to find something more important to do.

Really, I blame Dan over at TeamPyro for sending me down the rabbit hole of Jerry Falwell's alleged theological swan-dive. That took a lot of time and energy yesterday, and I'm still trying to shake that one off.

[%] Right note, wrong song

So with blogger having rickets today, I have been blog-reading rather than blog-writing, and I stumbled onto this piece from Malkin called "A Manifesto Against Islamism".

All things being equal, you have to give the nod to statements like

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

Very Federation of Planets, wouldn't you say? I also liked the next part, which tries hard to be very 21st Century Continental Congress:

We reject cultural relativism, which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

There's some creepy pomoisms in there, but if that's all there was to this document, who'd not sign it?

The problem is that it is all prefaced by this lovely preamble:

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Before we opine on the emphasized text, let's remember something here: Malkin doesn't claim to be a God-blogger. So whatever we think about her excitement about this Danish manifesto, let's not try to impose on her the same kind of concern we'd have if Hewitt or someone else (LaShawn Barber and Challies would not have these kinds of problems; they are, to my knowledge, sound thinkers when it comes to worldview issues) who claims to be an advocate for faith in the blogosphere was getting out the pom-poms for this call to arms.

That said, Malkin wants the NY Times to publish and endorse this manifesto. Frankly, I don't see any reason why NYT shouldn't as they don't really have a dog in the fight I am about to outline here, but should you and I – the Christians who are bloggers – sign up for this manifesto and not ask any questions?

My first gripe about this document is the underlined words, above. The values this document is extolling – equality and freedom, anyway – are not "secular" values. At least, not as they have been developed and turned into law in the West. And more concerning is the value of "secularism", by which I have no idea what is meant, and of which I have deep concerns as it relates to the matter of "freedom" and "equality".

But even if we don't get too worked up about those head-fakes against the Islamist radical agenda, we have the problem that these folks think that this is not a clash of civilizations. Listen: civilization is not marked off by geopolitical boundaries or race. "Civilization" is marked off by things like civil rights, protection under the law, right to property, and intellectual freedom. It's marked off by the ability to disagree without having to burn down each others' embassies. It's marked off by methods of social, economic and political commerce.

If these values we are talking about here are truly "secular" and "universal", why, exactly, do the Islamists fear and loath them? And why particularly are they absent in purely secular societies like Cuba, China, and the old Soviet Union? "Universal" means "as seen everywhere" – but certainly, these values are not seen everywhere. Where they were developed, implemented, worked out and still function best is in Christian societies where the Gospel is preached and practiced.

"But cent, you evangelical cretin," comes the heckler from the God-free zone, "You can't possibly mean to say that the United States is currently a 'Christian society', can you? Doesn't that militate exactly against the raison d'etre for your blog?"

If that's what I was saying, it would, in fact, militate against the raison d'etre for this blog – and I'll thank you for not using that kind of language around here. The reason why this kind of manifesto is so dangerous in the West today – and particularly in the U.S. today – is that the very weak social connection we have to the foundations of our culture puts us in jeopardy of trading away our culture and our civilization. Our freedoms today hang on by rote, not by logical necessity. If we did not have constitutional philosophy forged in large part by Christian notions of justice and liberty, we would not have even the few freedoms we have left.

Because our civilization in fact has become secularized, we are in danger of losing it because our civilization was not founded to be secular at all.

Let's not accidentally paint the history of Christian idealism in the West as an ivory tower, OK? Christian idealism has lead to some anti-Semitism; it has lead to some oppression of minority groups, ideologically and racially; it has lead to some political land-grabbing. But it has also lead to the idea that men are equal before God, and therefore equal before the law; it has lead to the idea that law should be an extension of God's will for man – and the "God" there is not Allah but the God who raised Jesus from the dead. And it has lead to the idea that man earns justice, but also has an obligation to show mercy because of the mercy demonstrated by Christ.

Let me speak for myself: in opposing Islam, I am not a crusader carrying a white banner with a red cross on it. I have no stake in politically subjugating the Muslim people of any race. I oppose Islam – the Islam which murders innocent people based on the alleged offenses of their countrymen, the Islam which uses "you hate me – shut up!" as an argument in political discourse, the Islam which bombs its own holy sites to foment hatred of its perceived enemies – because it stand opposed to the foundation of our society, and that foundation {even today, when it is on the decline} is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I stand in opposition to Islam with the Gospel – not with a bank account, or a girl on each arm, or a nice car, or even a college education. I stand opposed to Islam with a Gospel of peace with God.

If you want to sign a manifesto, sign that one. Or better yet, live it.

[%] timed out?

I complained about this blog a while ago, and it seems to have died its own death -- apparently Dr. Reynolds and Dr. Mohler don't have anything nice to say about Papal Encyclicals.

[#] hmrph

A couple of weeks ago, I posted this post as a matter of introspection, and because I can't let anything go ever, I have been thinking about it since then.

When I made that post, I said this:

I already know how you feel about the Santa topic, which is why I stopped blogging about it. There have been almost 100 posts since the last Santa post, so let's deal with today, shall we?

Nothing wrong with that, right? Yeah, the problem is that I put that in there instead of apologizing to the people who got stepped on -- for the most part, stepped on unjustly -- in the exchange in question.

Upon lengthy review, I left a boot print on a large segment of people in the way I handled that topic, and that wasn't the right thing to do. If you felt the boot imprinting upon you, I apologize for being the foot inside that boot. I was wrong for making some aspects of that discussion personal, and I apologize.

[*] John 10, and the other sheep gate

In a rancorous attempt to never get part 7 of the nutter series completed, Dan at TeamPyro has alerted me to this article in the Jerusalem Post, which says, among other things, this:

An evangelical pastor and an Orthodox rabbi, both from Texas, have apparently persuaded leading Baptist preacher Jerry Falwell that Jews can get to heaven without being converted to Christianity.

Televangelist John Hagee and Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg, whose Cornerstone Church and Rodfei Sholom congregations are based in San Antonio, told The Jerusalem Post that Falwell had adopted Hagee's innovative belief in what Christians refer to as "dual covenant" theology.

This creed, which runs counter to mainstream evangelism, maintains that the Jewish people has a special relationship to God through the revelation at Sinai and therefore does not need "to go through Christ or the Cross" to get to heaven.

Scheinberg said this has been Hagee's position for the 25 years the two have worked together on behalf of Israel and that Falwell had also come to accept it. Falwell sent a representative to the San Antonio launch of Christians United for Israel in early February, as did popular televangelist Pat Robertson.

My first reaction is that partnering with CUFI does not mean that one has signed off on the doctrinal statement, although you'd think a Fundamentalist Baptist like Dr. Falwell would have some probity about separating over doctrine.

However -- all kidding aside -- I have an e-mail in to Dr. Falwell's office to see what he has to say about this. Where's SharperIron when you need them?

UPDATED: Dr. Falwell has issued a statement regarding the report from the Jerusalem Post. I think he explains in no uncertain terms his position on the Gospel and the exclusivity of Jesus Christ. I thank him for his swift and certain response, and for not being ashamed.

It is also worth noting that Dr. Falwell had someone take the time to respond to me personally about my concerns -- even if it was only to link me back to his statement at his web site. Today I was just a guy with an e-mail account who had a complaint, but my concerns were noted and approrpiately dealt with.

[*] My Media Goat

HOLY MOLEY! WELCOME SLATE.COM READERS!

If you haven't today read this story on President Bush's visit to Afghanistan, do so at your leisure. However, leave your goat in the pen lest the details of this report get him or her.

First of all, who's the Woodward or Bernstein asking the question, "do you think the U.S. will ever capture Osama Bin Laden?" (or words to that effect) That's not even a softball: that's a rice cake. What is the President of the United States supposed to say to that?

"Well, Charlie, the world is a very complicated place with many nuanced subtexts in international relations. The apprehension of Bin Laden is a high priority which may never materialize, but even if we think it's completely futile we are committed in the budget to spend another $300 million to find him."

Please.

What's worse, I think, is the second paragraph of the article I linked to:

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- President Bush, on an unannounced visit to Afghanistan, vowed Wednesday to stand by this emerging democracy despite a resurgence of violence, saying "the United States is not cut and run."

He also pledged that Osama bin Laden and other planners of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks would be caught despite a mostly futile five-year hunt.

The emphasis is mine. "Mostly-futile"? Who is in Guantanamo Bay allegedly being tortured because they are not allowed to starve themselves to death if the effort has been "mostly futile"?

These guys are too much.