Monthly Archives

December 2017

Necessary Reforms in the Christian Church

By | Cleric Plans | No Comments

BEHAVIORAL REFORMATION

The first task before the Church is to come to agreement about what constitutes proper Christian behavior. Until our behavior is consistent with our message, we will not succeed in fulfilling the purposes for which the Church was left on Earth. We have been characterized as the bride of Christ, and Scripture attests that our holy and godly lives will speed the return of Christ (2 Peter 3:12.) To date, our behavior, both individually and collectively, has largely been characterized by three qualities, none of them good.

1) Indolence. The Church, by and large, is lazy. It has been said that after all is said and done, more is said than done. This is true, but also wrong. The Church has a job to do and when we don’t do it, it is left for the next generation. The early Church expected Christ to return quickly, yet his only return to date has been in judgment on the political and religious institutions of Judea in AD 70. It has gotten to the point that theological innovations such as Dispensationalism actually counsel and encourage passivity and laziness as a sign of Christian piety. The Biblical metaphor of the Church as the Bride of Christ explains the delay in Christ’s return. The sensitive groom, knowing of his bride’s preoccupation and lack of preparation, avoids embarrassing her by coming too soon. His patience is great, but why try it further? We are the heritors of very good news about God and ourselves. Why should we delay in getting that news out, through word and deed?

2) Preoccupation with position. Even though the Church is ineffective and lazy, she has not been still. The Church has set new standards for preoccupation with matters of organization, staffing, economic security and busy-work. Whenever opportunities to institutionalize present themselves, Christians show themselves to be quick studies and ardent workers. Hierarchical control, titles, and rank are particularly appealing to those enjoined by our Lord to serve others. We secede, morph, reform and reorganize to our own shame and guilt. Organizations, each with its own leaders, sycophants and servants, abound, while mergers and agreements are few. The fractures of Christianity, East vs. West, Roman vs. reformed, church vs. parachurch, are sad testimony to fragmentary revival in the past, nurtured and kept alive by human pride in the present.

3) Moral Disobedience. Christians have no rights. We cede them to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. This refers to our whole selves: mind, body and spirit. When we reassert our rights in any of these realms, we go against the very nature of the Christian experience. Moral liberals invoke Jesus as Savior, as well they might. They forget, however, that He’s also Lord, and you can’t cut Him in half. If you agree you have past sins that require forgiveness, you’ve also got to agree with God’s assessment of your incapacity to change and function aright in the future. God has provided a comprehensive set of guidelines on how we should behave so as to “abide” in His Son. That would be the Bible, in a plain sense reading. The job of the Church is not so much to rehearse the saving acts performed by God on behalf of humanity, as important as those are. The real job of the Church is to offer ethical instruction so we might not abuse our status as saved and sanctified people who are already in God’s good graces. The Bible is old, but the principles outlined therein are new and dynamic. It’s the job of the modern cleric to interpret that record in a way that is faithful, accurate and relevant to modern needs. Failing in that regard, the Church is at best a repository of quaint, sanctimonious religious traditions of the most offensive and dangerous type.

In Acts 15 the first ecumenical council of the Church is reported to have taken place. The question before the Church was this: what standards of behavior must be enjoined upon new, Gentile converts to Christianity? Their response deserves study in the present context. What was decided was this: new converts should be subjected to the minimum in terms of behavioral requirements, and next to nothing in terms of cultural or ritualistic requirements. The four things mentioned were abstention from food polluted by idols, sexual immorality, eating meat from animals that were strangled, and from eating blood. Although the dietary restrictions carry a great deal of cultural baggage, a refined set of guidelines for today might read thus: abstain from sexual immorality, avoid getting involved in empty ritual, and don’t do anything that would offend other people as being unseemly. We should ask no more of converts today, yet no less of Christians either.

In addition to an agreement on what constitutes proper Christian behavior for the future, the Church needs to offer a blanket, unconditional apology to the world for much of her behavior over the past 2,000 years. Although different individuals and groups are guilty of inconsistent and harmful behavior at different times, the watching world ascribes all to our Lord and His Church without regard for subtle distinctions. We must accept this, and accept blame collectively and graciously. Continued blame shifting and denial will only slow the process of recovering our credibility and our ability to engage in fruitful ministry.

The apology should include reference to specific historical events, general attitudes and also doctrinal errors. In many ways, the Church has adopted methods that her Lord specifically proscribed. For example, our Lord never forced people to believe or do anything; he left them to their own decisions. Yet in spite of this gracious example, the Church has, unfortunately, required that people submit to sacramental rituals or adopt creedal confessions under threat of corporal, economic or even capital punishment. Likewise, in many times and places the Church has put a premium upon the acquisition of political power and economic wealth instead of favoring a less secular agenda. In addition to actions that betray the methods and intentions of our Lord, the Church has often been passive and unmoved in the face of opportunities for self-sacrifice and ministry. National and institutional churches have often sided with the political and social agendas of temporal regimes instead of standing in solidarity with the neglected and abused of the world. There are happy exceptions to these observations, but they are fewer and more infrequent than is allowed by an ethos that claims to look beyond the temporal and transient to a more complete and abiding reality.

THEOLOGICAL REFORMATION

There are many Christians who consider themselves reformed and fully arrived in terms of revelation and resultant doctrine. This should not be the case. The Reformation of the 16th >century attempted to answer the question of who arbitrates human salvation, God or the Church. The answer, to the dismay of the medieval Roman Catholic church in the West, is God alone. This is not enough. There are other questions, no less important or compelling, that the Church needs to answer for our own welfare and that of the listening world. We need to be more clear about how a holy God brings about the salvation of a sinful humanity, and just exactly what kind of response is expected of that humanity. Past formulations, even those in the reformed tradition, are deficient and destructive in terms of what they say about God and us. The Reformation of the 16th century is both too narrow in scope and incomplete in extent.

The fundamental stumbling block to all Christian theologians grows out of a defective, Western notion of chronological time. According to Christian dogma, Jesus of Nazareth submitted to execution at the hands of a sinful humanity in order to perform a great exchange. Jesus, sinless, submitted to the punishment reserved for sinners, and thereby bore the penalty for all human transgressions. As a consequence of that substitution, humans were transferred to the position of perfection and freedom reserved for Jesus who was Himself without sin or blemish. What was His is now ours, but only because what was ours is now His. On this Christians, for the most part, agree. Where the disagreement comes in is when we try to explain how an event in the past; perfect, efficacious and complete, can be reconciled with on-going sin and rebellion on the part of the humans who were intended to be the objects and recipients of such grace.

The solution proffered by the Roman Catholic and reformed churches alike has been to try to bring the sacrificial death of Christ into the strictures of chronological time. The Roman church has done this by saying that in the sacrament of Holy Communion, the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is repeated in a discrete, contemporary manner to the benefit of those who partake of the sacrament. That which is historical and distant is thereby reintroduced into the present in a way that is relevant in terms of time and space. In transubstantiation God is brought to us in a physical and temporal manner that is under human control, if we have the proper liturgy, personnel and materials.

In response to and in opposition to this view, the reformed church has developed the ideas of election and predestination to solve the riddle of how God can act in the death of Jesus Christ and still encounter sin and rebellion in the present day. Rather than say the death of Jesus Christ must be rehearsed sacramentally by the Church, the reformed church says that the death of Jesus Christ is limited by God of His sovereign free will in terms of both space and time. By the doctrine of election, God’s grace is limited in terms of who receives grace. Some are chosen, some are not. The behavior of individuals is controlled not by free will or the content of our character, but by the express, divine will that some should be created for destruction and eternal torment. Similarly, the related doctrine of predestination says that such decisions are made before Creation, and that nothing in our bearing or desires can sway what’s already been determined. Thus, the reformed church feels it has improved upon the Roman doctrine of transubstantiation: rather than manipulating God through ritual to bring Him to the aid of a specific individual in time and place, the reformed thinker says that God is self-limiting in terms of when and to whom His grace is allocated. In doing this, the reformer protects God’s sovereignty. In solving one problem, however, the reformer creates at least two.

Simply put, reformed doctrine renders the importance of human choice and action moot. If what happens to me is already set by divine decree, why bother being good or bad? Why live out human history? Why strive? Further, how shall we frame our appeal to the lost and rebellious? Do we simply say we’ve been chosen and they’ve not? Are there no grounds for repentance and reform? What kind of God creates some to damnation, without regard for their behavior? Thus, reformed doctrine succeeds in preserving God’s sovereignty, but does so at the cost of our ability to minister to either Christian and non-Christian. The reformer doesn’t try to bring God here and now, which is good. What he offers by way of substitute, however, is possibly worse. The reformer says that the here and now don’t matter, as they are illusions created by a cruel and capricious God.

Now note, election and predestination are both words and concepts found in the Scriptures. They cannot be dismissed as simple errors on the part of the Biblical authors. They must be studied and reconciled to the whole counsel of the Bible, however, if they are to be rightly understood and used. We do not seek to reject these concepts, bur rather to understand them properly.

The only solution to the current stalemate in Christian theology as outlined here is to redefine the notion of time. We are enjoined by our Lord to love God with, among other things, our mind. Perhaps the greatest contribution to theology has come to us in the 20th century through a man who does not consider himself to be a theist, let alone a Christian, Albert Einstein. What Einstein pointed out is that chronological time is not an absolute. Time is interrelated with mass, distance, energy and speed in such as way as to be variable. Viewed in this way, it is a function of Creation, not the other way around. Time, as we know it, started with the Big Bang or Genesis 1:3, depending on your perspective. God, who preceded Creation and was its author, is therefore outside of time. He is therefore not troubled by the issue theologians have tried to solve for 2,000 years, and that is how Christ’s death and resurrection can have validity today within the limitations of time and space. With God, all is yesterday, today and tomorrow; He is the Lord of time. He is also everywhere at the same time. This is how we understand the Holy Spirit, to be Jesus Himself poured out for all humanity without physical limitation. Freed from the necessity of time, we don’t have to explain why some obey and others do not, though the cross of Christ is past. We do not have to bring God here and now at all; He’s already everywhere and at all times. The source of the problems we continue to experience must have some other genesis than the limitation of God through either sacrament or doctrine.

The answer to this dilemma is found when we examine some of the more confusing and hence under-reported passages of Scripture. What the Church has always said, for reasons of economic and polemical advantage, is that humanity is lost until it is found. Whether by ritual action or divine choice, God’s grace is limited to certain individuals at certain times. What the Bible really says, if we read all of it, is not that at all. Rather, what it says is that God’s grace is unlimited by time and space, and that all have benefited from the sacrificial death of Jesus of Nazareth around 30 AD in Palestine. In the language of Romans 5:9, all humanity of stands “justified” in the sight of God because of the obedience of Jesus Christ. The guilt of humanity, whether original or actual, has been atoned for, and is no longer held against us by God. The atonement of Jesus Christ is unlimited in terms of both time and space. He was, in the words of John, the atoning sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. This revelation, of course, is bad for business, as it makes it impossible to put God in a box and sell him to the highest bidder. Thus, the Church, both Roman and reformed, has suppressed this truth and peddled a diluted gospel in its place.

This is not the end of the tale, however, for we too must deal with the reality of human sin and rebellion. What Paul goes on to say in Romans 5:9 and other places, is that there is a coming wrath for those who do not “obey” the gospel. This is also the message of all the parables, where all are included in the beginning, good and bad alike. The consistent message is that although all humanity stands justified by the death of Jesus Christ, it is also possible for us to frustrate that grace and lose the benefits of that forensic sacrifice through continued rebellion against that same Jesus Christ. Jesus is two things: Savior and Lord. He has already saved all people, past, present and future. He’s also a living Lord, however, who does not force people to believe or obey. The Bible is clear, however, in both Testaments, that God will judge those who take such a standing and privilege lightly, and not show gratitude through subsequent obedience. What Paul says we need to be saved from is not so much the stain or original or actual sins, but rather the coming wrath of God against those who squander their justified status by obeying their base nature and recommitting Adam’s sin of erecting a parallel and lower moral standard of what’s good or evil. The issue is not, therefore, being lost until we’re saved, but being saved until we’re lost. All reformed promulgations about perseverance of the saints or eternal security have done great damage to the message of the gospel.

This sheds enormous light on the theological debate of the last two millennia. First of all, it shows what’s needed to please God. What God’s looking for is for us to show gratitude for what’s already been done for us in the loss of His Son. We show gratitude by agreeing with the moral verdict on sin as expressed in the Cross, and by thereafter striving to obey His Word as communicated to us in the pages of the Bible. When we fail, as we all will, rather than dilute the demands of the Scriptures or argue against the moral nature of the universe, we are to ask for help in meeting those unobtainable demands. We do have a role, but that role is only negative. Lacking any good thing in ourselves, we must nevertheless suppress our desires and displace our wills in favor of the desires and will of the Holy Spirit of the living Lord. As we surrender moral autonomy to the Spirit, He takes over and does through us that which we are incapable and unwilling to do on our own. God is looking for moral surrender on our part. Secondly, it establishes an objective standard for behavior which is beyond argument and cultural interpretation. What the Bible says is that the Father has granted all authority to judge to the Son, who in turn has passed that authority on to His Word, the Holy Scriptures. This is Jesus’ meaning of when He says the only unforgivable sin is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit caused the Scriptures to be written, and when we disobey them, we blaspheme Him and disqualify ourselves from Jesus’ atoning sacrifice.

Only when the Church reforms her theology can she legitimately ask the world to listen and obey. The current divisions in the Church are not signs of life but signs of death and stagnation. Doctrine has been established through the device of ecumenical councils in the past, and usually to good effect. The Council of Trent and the Synod of Dort, however, do not represent the mind of Christ, and we need to denounce them and move beyond them if we are to have a message that is accurate, comprehensible and helpful.

ORGANIZATIONAL REFORMATION

Like Peter on the Mount of Transfiguration, Christians seek to build booths to capture divine revelation and keep it for our future control and amusement. God, however, does not live in booths, and as surely as Moses and Elijah disappeared then, the Holy Spirit disappears today when we try to confine and control Him. Many of our ecclesiastical institutions are booths of our own invention and construction. The idea of the Church should not be to see how much we can build by way of superstructure, but how little. The little we do build must be vetted and reviewed on a regular basis to make sure that it’s still necessary and pleasing to God. Form must of necessity follow function. When the Church adopts forms and institutions at variance with her stated function, she imperils her continued favored standing with God. Most of the trappings of institutionalization in the Church are either distractions, duplications, or idols that need to be removed outright. There are some things that are necessary and justifiable, and these need to be conserved. What are they?

First of all, Christians need to be educated. The Gospel consists of propositional truth about historic events and spiritual realities that must be systematized, summarized, and communicated to the people of the world. This cannot be done unless we are educated. We are enjoined to love God with our minds, and this requires formal education and intellectual formation (Mt 22:37.) There is no Biblical precedent for ignoring the mind, except when it competes with the Spirit for primacy. Christians need to know history, languages, sociology, psychology, and theology in all her forms, particularly soteriology and ethics. If Christians could agree about what constitutes knowledge and competence, they could be educated together. Much was lost when Christians stopped providing quality education for the world at large. Only she can complement knowledge with wisdom. The Church has and always will need schools.

Secondly, the Church needs some authority structures to ensure moral accountability. Authority structures on earth are a reflection of the fundamental hierarchy of spiritual authority in heaven and throughout creation. Where sinful people are involved, there needs to be a method of accounting for behavior and rewarding the good while punishing the wicked; what is needed in the secular domain is also needed in the sacred. It is inevitable and indeed helpful for the Church to establish and maintain authority structures so that her work might be orderly and effective. Universal standards of moral behavior and technical competence will allow mutual recognition of Holy Orders. Those who dedicate themselves to ministry full time should be taken care of in terms of insurance, health benefits and pensions like their secular counterparts. Economies of scale are no doubt great in this area if Christians will cooperate and pool resources. The workers in the vineyard are few; let’s take care of them. Why do we fight over jurisdiction and rank when the harvest is spoiling in the fields?

Thirdly, the Church needs to engage the world in terms of leisure time and entertainment. Focus on excellence in the arts, sports and appreciation of nature should be priorities within the Christian community. As the basic survival needs of the world are met more and more readily, this imperative of ministering through entertainment will become increasingly important. This can and should be a local and distributed ministry due to cultural preferences, but opportunities for economies of scale and mutual aid will nevertheless be great.

Fourthly, all human activity requires buildings and their associated equipment, and divine endeavors are no exception. We need to be mindful of the purposes for which these things are being used, however, and we must remain in control of them, and not them us. When built, they should be excellent in conception and execution, so as to best represent the wealth and excellence of our Heavenly Father. When they take on a life of their own, however, they become idols that must be removed. They are a means to an end, and not an end in themselves. Even the historic appeal of items generated by past movements of the Spirit can prove a snare.

Finally, the Church needs to agree on a rational program of social and economic relief. All relief programs are not justifiable. Too often Christian initiatives palliate symptoms allowed by God to bring individuals to repentance. By interfering with the fundamental processes of punishment and correction that God has built into creation, the Church risks operating at cross-purposes with the Spirit and hurting both people and our Savior. On the one hand the Church is the conscience of society in a world of scarcity and decay. On the other, she has an obligation to discern what should be done and when it’s helpful and when it’s not. The current health care and welfare crises suggest it’s time for the Church to reenter these arenas of humanitarian activity.

All the rest of what Christians are so busy doing is probably not that necessary if not outright harmful. All the talismans, objects of veneration, relics, shrines, and such must be either destroyed outright or relegated to the care of museums. All physical edifices, human rank, position, titles, celebrations, empires, bank accounts, and works of art that the Church has accumulated over the millennia are so much religious humbug. Get rid of them all.

 

Call to Ecumenical Council

By | Cleric Plans | No Comments

At the beginning of the third millennium since the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, there is a need for the Church to meet in Council to reconsider both her nature and her work in the world. At present, there is little agreement amongst Christians regarding either matter. This should not be. By command of the One who redeemed us and who still abides with us, we are to reveal His saving acts and Lordship to a rebellious and benighted world. We have a task to accomplish, and for the past 2,000 years we’ve been largely unwilling or unable to fulfill that Commission. In order to remedy this tragic state of affairs, the assembled Church must set herself to three tasks:

1) Behavioral Reformation. To date, our behavior has largely been characterized by indolence, preoccupation with position, and moral disobedience. There are happy exceptions to this observation, but until our actions are consistent with our stated purposes, we will fail to achieve the goals established for us by our Lord. Inconsistency alienates both our human audience and our Divine source of power. Part and parcel with any amendment of life on the part of Christians, the Church must apologize to the world for past wrongs, of both omission and commission. Before we can ask others to take our message seriously, we must take our past history seriously.

2) Theological Reformation. The Christian message has become accreted with human traditions that were formulated for economic and polemical reasons. In addition, theological reflection has stagnated under the false impression that further information or clarity is unnecessary or impossible. Unclear about our own standing with God, we are unable to communicate with the world in an accurate and helpful manner about His past actions and current expectations.

3) Organizational Reformation. If the Church has historically underachieved in terms of self-awareness and theological reflection, she has been sedulous in institutional and organizational development. The Church has been and remains schismatic, quick to excommunicate and to build duplicate institutions. She has been commensurately slow to merge, reunite and streamline her operations. Jealous in matters of privilege and jurisdiction, she mocks the essential simplicity and unity of God’s self-revelation. Idolatry is no less a snare to Christians than to others with a less complete knowledge of saving history.

All who call themselves Christian are hereby called to this task of reform and renewal. This movement of the Holy Spirit is neither selective nor optional. The world, whom our Lord loves, and for which He gave His life, awaits our prompt and humble response. Our Lord Himself, the groom to whom the Church is betrothed, awaits as well. Today is the day for obedience.

“Do You Clip Pink?”

By | Cleric Climbs | No Comments

One of the great ironies I experience in climbing is hearing the word “ethics” fall from the lips of other climbers. Taken as a whole, there seems to be an inverse relationship between how well someone climbs rock and their knowledge of genuine ethics. Ethics as a discipline has to do with behavior, and more specifically how our behavior is to be understood in the light of moral theology. After all, if there’s no such thing as a standard of absolute right, there can be no such thing as absolute wrong. By any rational measure, ethics should begin with off-the-rock behavior, and only when those seminal issues have been dealt with should we talk about how we climb. But I digress. This magazine’s about climbing and not about campground behavior, thankfully, so I’ll limit my remarks to the “ethics” of the vertical world.

Before I talk about what ethics is, I need to point out what it is not. The iconic Yvon Chouinard once made an important distinction that we would do well to heed today. He pointed out that there are really two issues raised by climbing: one is indeed ethical, and the other merely stylistic. Ethics, to Chouinard, have to do with the impact we have on the rock medium itself: Do we leave the rock the way we found it? Is our climb destroying the rock or altering it in such as way as to deprive future generations of the experience we ourselves are having? The advent of nuts, cams and other forms of clean protection and aid has largely removed ethics as a problem in climbing, at least in terms of the rock itself. Ditto the poop tube. To those who would chip or glue I have one bit of advice: get better or go to an easier route. Or should I say that in French? At any rate, if you don’t wreck the rock and you leave your music, your drugs and your dumbass dogs at home, you’re pretty close to being an ethical climber.

Now Yvon wasn’t done there. He identified another issue evoked by our climbing, and that is the issue of style. When most climbers get pissed off and start bolting or chopping bolts, they’re really not concerned with ethics at all, but with style. Here’s the argument: The first ascensionist, who’s probably without a life, puts up a route. He does it without knowing what he’s going to find, and he probably puts in theminimum protection and anchors because he’s pretty good and no doubt in a hurry. To suggest he underbolts because he’s broke would be unkind and often untrue. When he’s done, he’s accomplished something that’s unique in alpinism; he’s gone somewhere nobody else has been before, and lived to tell the tale, at least to MountainProject.com. No matter how easy the route, there are special skills involved in the FA that will never beasked of any other. If he does it all with natural gear, great; there’s no problem. But if natural features are lacking, then he must decide, “How and where do I bolt?” The horror stories we’ve all heard about bolting on lead by hand, hanging from a skyhook on a crystal, etc. are enough to make us change our collective diapers. Such is the lot, but also the glory, of the first ascensionist.

If things stayed that way, all to the good. But sometimes these new routes are actually attractive and worth climbing, and that’s when the trouble starts. Another climber who might have a life reads about the route on the internet and decides to give it a try. Up he goes, cursing the whole time about the shitty beta offered by the FA’er. Many a route setter seems to take a perverse delight in offering minimal, if not downright misleading, instructions to “enrich” the climbing experience (epic potential) of those who follow. A good case in point is a climb here in Arizona at the Western Stronghold. The directions for the second pitch say you should go up and left “and belay when you get tired of the rope drag.” The correct spot was about 50 feet out. I, being expert at minimizing rope drag, went 120 feet out. Okay. The perils of this, shall we say, Spartan aesthetic are not limited to the realm of route-finding. Our second ascensionist goes up and finds that he’s not as confident as numero uno. He’d like a little help when the runout exceeds his sphincter factor, and he wants the belay and rappel anchors to be solid. If you’re not from Looking Glass Mountain, NC, you might want to attach to something besides some manky pine stub. So what happens? Out comes the bolt gun, and the route gets “fixed.” The FA’er may or may not be consulted, but it doesn’t really matter. The upgrades are made in the name of safety, and who can argue with that?

Well, most FA’ers will in fact argue. They perceive that the stud factor for the climb has just dropped like a 250 pound climber with an 8-year-old belayer, and with it, their personal machismo. They’re livid. This is their mark in the world. Instead of spraying bushes like a tiger or clawing trees like a grizzly, they leave their scent on the rock in terms of tough, run out, unsafe routes. The hypothalamus tells them there’s direct correlation between the length of their runouts and that of their sex organs, and they don’t want to lose street cred. The results of all this sandbox nonsense, of course, are the bolting wars we’ve had in Boulder and other spots where short approaches and an overactive outdoor recreation ethic allow good and not-so-good climbers to mingle. So far, there has not been a solution to this dilemma. Guys get into fist fights at Red Rocks, they have peace powwows in Boulder, and things may get calmed down, but the bitterness of competing interests remains. What’s to be done? I, for one, have an answer that should keep everybody happy. Here’s how it works.

First of all, the onus in not on the first ascensionist. The route author gets to make the climb as hairball as he wants. He can take tumbles from 30 feet out, rasp his skin to the bone, pull rap anchors, whatever his black heart desires. Free solo the damn thing for all we care: you’re not really contributing much to general social or economic welfare; you’re just having fun and calling it cosmic or meaningful. But just as the Indian learned that he didn’t own the great plains, you don’t own the rock either. Eventually, assuming your route isn’t a total choss pile five miles from the nearest road, somebody else is going to climb it. Now here’s the good part. The second ascensionist can only retrobolt if he promises to use bolts with pink hangers. Don’t worry about them being visible; I climb past bolts all the time and fail to see them even when they’re shiny and right next to me. Screw the BLM and the aesthetes; we’re talking about bringing peace to the pitches! Use bolts with pink hangers, and then the next guy coming along has a choice. Does he chicken out and clip pink, or does he go bold and savor the experience the first ascensionist had? The same goes for belay stances and rappel anchors. Don’t trust that twig that sways under your weight? Drill, but hang pink.

Think of the advance this represents! I’m one of those guys who never met a bolt he didn’t like. Well, almost. There’s a bolt just before the scary traverse on pitch three of Selaginella in the Valley that, if you clip it, will produce so much rope drag Hercules would start to whimper. But really, I’d rather climb, forget the drama, and simply enjoy the scenery. I know how long my member is, and it doesn’t shrink when I clip, even if it’s a retrobolt. The FA’er, who thinks he’s hung like Saddam, will have the privilege of asking, in a condescending tone of those who follow, “Well, (ahem) I know you did the route, but did you clip pink?”

So drop the ethics talk; you really don’t know what you’re talking about. Your concern is style, and this is one solution that keeps everybody happy. Abandon the notion that “one size fits all,” and realize we do the same thing for very different reasons. Some of us poor suckers actually have jobs, families and responsibilities that cannot absorb a broken ankle/leg/back/neck and keep on grooving. Some of us are okay climbers who are good enough to have fun, but who, compared to the luminaries of the sport, really suck now and always will. The secret to garnering our respect is not to make things so hard we can’t do them, but to allow us to do them on our terms, so we can then marvel at the conditions you did them under. My wife tell me style always involves color, and for many of us, that color is going to have to be pink.

This article is not blatantly sexist. It does not imply that all first ascensionists are male. It does, however, imply that all first ascensionists who whine about retrobolting are often male.

A Guide to the Curious: What’s My Social Class?

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

According to De Toqueville, one of the great advances made by the United States over the societies of Europe was the abolition of class distinctions based merely upon accidents of birth or wealth. Our man Alexis pointed out that Americans, unhindered by such detritus from the past, tend to greater flexibility, civility, and general ease than our stuffy forebears. This is no doubt true, and many a person has benefited from being able to rise in society unhindered by arbitrary prejudices. It can also be argued, however, that the eradication of all social class distinctions has left Americans in something of a cultural vacuum. Without class distinctions it’s difficult to avoid making mistakes in friendships, business associations, and especially marriage! Thus, an attempt is in order to try to resurrect at least a skeletal class paradigm that can help us navigate the treacherous waters of social intercourse without running hopelessly aground.

A word about political rectitude: isn’t it political blasphemy to talk of social distinctions? Isn’t this an attempt to breath life back into a corpse better left dead? By no means! The problem with Old World schemes was not that they made distinctions between people, but that they made distinctions in an arbitrary and subjective way. Let’s see if we can talk about behavior while remaining fair and objective.

The first step is to give yourself 1,000 points as a starting point. This reflects the assumption that as we are born, we are perfect in God’s eyes, la Psalm 139. Step two is to take your clothes off and stand in front of a full-length mirror. Step three is to review the following guidelines, look at yourself, and then subtract points on the basis of what you see. What could be easier? Let’s get started!

Tattoos – Leviticus 19:28

Are there any tattoos anywhere on your body? If so, deduct 25 points for each rendering. If you have a tattoo, and it’s misspelled, or refers to somebody you’re no longer related to, subtract an additional 25 points for each occurrence.

 

Body Piercings – Job 40:24

Do you have any holes in your body you didn’t have when you were born? If you are a man, subtract 10 points for each extra hole. If you are a woman, and you’re old enough to drive, you get two holes for free, if they’re in your ear lobe. Any other holes, anywhere else, and you must deduct 10 points for each. If there’s a hole in your tongue or your private parts, then take off 100 points for each, because there’s obviously a hole in your head as well.

 

Facial Hair – Leviticus 19:27

If you are a woman and you have facial hair, subtract 50 points.

If you are a man, and have any facial hair, subtract points according to the following table:

[table id=1 /]

Hair – 1 Timothy 2:9

If you are a man, deduct points according to the following table:

[table id=2 /]

If you are a woman, deduct points according to the following table:

[table id=3 /]

Make-up -Jeremiah 4:30

If you are a man and use any make-up whatsoever, deduct 200 points

If you are a woman, subtract points according to the following table:

[table id=4 /]

Jewelry 1 Peter 3:3

If you are a man, you’re entitled to one ring on each hand, assuming one is related to marriage and the other education or profession. You may also have a cross on a chain around your neck, the smaller the better. All other accoutrements require a 20 point deduction. Handcuffs are not jewelry, and impose a 200 point penalty. If you are a woman, you’re entitled to a wedding band, a cross on a chain around the neck, and two earrings, one on each ear. All other items require a 15 point deduction. If you are pregnant and do not have the wedding band, then deduct 500 points.

 

Body Shape – Jeremiah 5:27

If you are a man and can’t see your penis when you look down, subtract 100 points. If you are a woman and you can’t read the scale when you look down, subtract 100 points. If either gender has had a face lift, subtract 100 points. If either gender has had a boob job, subtract 200 points. If you’ve had a sex change operation, subtract 1,000 points.

 

Dental – Psalm 3:7

>Open your mouth. Subtract 20 points for any missing tooth apart from wisdom teeth. Subtract 100 points if your teeth are not white due to tobacco use. Subtract 15 points if your teeth are not white because you are British. Subtract 50 points if you needed braces and never got them. Close your mouth, put your clothes on, and sit down.

Wasn’t that fun? The beauty of it is that it’s totally fair and totally objective. You’re never penalized for something you didn’t do to yourself, and there’s no fudging on account of cultural norms. It’s all based on the Bible, so it’s got to be correct! Now, add up your deductions, and compare your score with the following classes:

Score Class Remarks

[table id=5 /]

How to Pick a Church – The Game

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

“In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good.” I Cor 11:17

We all know that you should choose a church based on important things like, is it close, is the building nice, and most importantly, is the minister good-looking? Assuming success on those scores, however, there are still important factors that set churches apart. Now, for the first time, you have before you a scientific, tried and tested system for separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to where you spend Sunday morning.

The first serious question the potential church goer must answer about a church is this: do they believe anything? More particularly, do they believe in a plain sense reading of the Bible? If not, they are liberal, and they figure God’s changed his mind. If they believe we still live in a moral universe, they are conservative and okay. How do you know the difference? Ask this one question: “What do you think about ordaining practicing homosexuals?” If they’re for it, subtract 25 points. If they’re against it, add 25 points. If the minister is a practicing homosexual theirself, subtract 50 points.

If they believe heterosexual relations within Holy Matrimony are the norm, then you turn to the second question: do they have a brain? Belief and brains have often been construed as incompatible, so be prepared for disappointment. First, stand outside and look at the building. If they have a sign with pathetic religious aphorisms on it, subtract 10 points. If it lists service times only, add 10 points. Next, go inside and take a look at the minister’s wife’s hair. If it’s piled up higher than physics should allow, subtract five points. Look at his; if it’s a comb-over, subtract 5 points. Then look at the plants around the altar/pulpit. If artificial, subtract 5 points. If cut but real, add five points. If real and alive, add 10 points. Then, listen to the minister talk. If he has a hillbilly accent, subtract 5 points. If he chews gum while talking, subtract five points. If he walks around with a microphone, subtract five points. If he uses a microphone while baptizing by immersion, subtract 10 points. If he wears a blue suit, subtract 5 points. If the sermon’s longer than 20 minutes, subtract one point per minute. If prayers are invoked with “God, we just…” or says God is “awesome,” then subtract a point for each violation. Ditto with grammatical errors such as using “me” in the nominative case, using “lay” instead of “lie,” and ever saying “myself.” If they use the King James Bible, subtract 10 points. If they use the NASB, add 10 points. If they use the Scofield Reference, Ryrie Study or Dake’s Annotated Bibles, leave immediately; the game’s over. If the sermon invites you to get saved, subtract 15 points. If the sermon attempts to apply Biblical principles of behavior to modern problems, add 100 points.

If the score’s somewhere around zero or above, continue to the last phase, which involves sitting through the service. Use this time to study what is said and done that would indicate the church’s attitude toward the Holy Spirit. If they believe He last spoke before the Reformation, subtract 50 points. If they think He last spoke through Martin Luther or Thomas Cranmer, add 25 points. If they think He was at the Synod of Dort more than 20% of the time, subtract 75 points. If they think He only speaks today and everything in the past is junk, subtract 25 points. If the minister’s read Rick Warren’s books, add 10 points. If the minister’s name is Rick Warren, add 50 points. If the minister prays, add 1 point. If the people pray, add 25 points. If the people pray that their enemies would be exposed to temporal defeat to achieve eternal gain, add 100 points. If the service is over 70 minutes long, subtract a point for each minute.

There you have it. If the score’s below 0 and you want to go, you had better believe in Eternal Security. If the score’s between 0 and 75, you can go and not be damned immediately. If it’s above 75, the minister may actually be a Christian who listens to God. Put money in the plate and pray for the place. You win.

A Christian Woman’s Guide to Picking a Man

By | Cleric Laughs | No Comments

The Problem

&nbsp

Being the emotionally sensitive man that I am, it has only taken me 18 years of work in the ministry to detect an undercurrent of dissatisfaction amongst women regarding the quality of the men they have become allied with. Surprisingly, many of the gents who arouse this ire are themselves, at least in their own estimate, Christians. When I hear the stories of sin, bad judgment and outright stupidity women have had to endure, I have to ask myself, how did these women end up with these losers? Didn’t they at some point have a chance to say “no?” Was there no warning?  Whether early in the game or late, our society does in fact give women the chance to say “no.” Whether in response to the question, “Hey baby, can I buy you a drink?” or “Will you marry me?” we grant women the all-important opportunity to decline. The problem, then, must be that women don’t have a proper understanding of what criteria must be met before that “no” becomes a “yes.” This, then, is a guide intended to fill the void, a comprehensive and Biblically-based guide for how a woman, especially a Christian one, should go about separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to men.

 

Men are simple creatures, and so a discussion of them can and should be kept simple as well. Men have two needs, food and sex, and with divine symmetry, they also have two functions in the family. Paul, in his famous passage in Ephesians chapter five, says that men should treat women the way they treat their own bodies, by 1) feeding them and 2) caring for them. At the risk of being branded a quisling to the XY faction, I will now describe what a latent wife-feeder might look like. Part II of the Guide will explore if he is also capable of caring for you. In a penultimate essay I will prescribe a list of do’s and don’ts for locating a man, and then Part IV will conclude with The Great Secret: how to land the catch.

 

Today: Can He Feed Me?

 

Let’s start with a man’s first obligation: feeding a wife. This complex task is accomplished through an activity many men find abhorrent: finding and keeping a job. Thus, the first question you should ask a male candidate while you are out trolling is this: “What do you do for a living?” If the answer is, “I am in between jobs”…”I’m a freelance (insert lame job here)” or “I design web pages,” smile and say, “What a wonderful career” and head for the door. Assuming they have a job, which actually pays something, your next question should be designed to ferret out just what kind of job it is.

 

The problem here is that all jobs are not created equal. Society rewards those who have skills it needs by paying them in proportion to that need. Thus, society doesn’t need unskilled labor much, and so it doesn’t pay those people a lot.  Witness most clergy. It does need those with real talent and dedication, however, and so it tends to pay doctors and basketball stars a lot more.  What’s important here is that the job at least have the potential to pay well, preferably with a salary. A salary means an amount paid, rain or shine, each year, to get the job done.  Hourly wages don’t pay when you’re sick or on vacation, and hourly wage jobs usually don’t have any fringe benefits like health or life insurance or pensions.  These things may seem trivial now, but unless you have them, your marriage is likely to be a financial rodeo. And what makes a man attractive, actually, if not this ability to bring home the bacon?  Look at Anna Nicole Smith. She obviously doesn’t care what a man looks like, or how well he dances. Her motto is, “Where there’s a will, there’s a way.”  Sure she’s a mercenary, but she’s also proof women can overlook a lot if there’s a promise of financial security  We live in a world of scarcity, and society actively punishes those who have not taken steps early on in life to gain marketable skills.

 

And this brings us to the corollary matter of education. You see, the guy can only advance in his chosen field of endeavor to the extent that he knows what he’s doing. This means education beyond junior high, girls. There was a time when a high school diploma meant the key to success; but those days are deader than disco. Today, you’ve absolutely got to have something more in your holster than reading, writing and ‘rithmetic. There are exceptions to this rule of being educated, however. Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard to write DOS, but last I heard, this is not the norm. Date the good-looking guy who cleans your swimming pool and you may have fun for a season, but in the end, he’ll never earn a decent salary. If you want a man who can bring home the dollars, then by all means go after the class nerd who’s already written a program to combat spam and who’s three months away from being a millionaire.  Drop the idea that you care about what a guy looks like, or what kind of moves he has.  All that is crap.  What counts first and foremost is simply this: can he make enough money so that you don’t have to work and life’s not one on-going financial battle? Somebody’s got to be refreshed come evening time, when the real work of living starts.

 

 

Next Issue: Can He Care For Me?

Part II: Can He Care for Me?

 

 

In Part I of the Guide, I revealed the sine qua non of picking a man, that he possess a useful skill. That, in turn, usually means education. I don’t want to subscribe to a crude economic determinism, but without a real career, a man’s just a drag on his family. Besides, when a man’s educated, he learns more about the larger world, and can actually, believe it or not, develop some sensibilities which have a nice domestic touch. Imagine, if you will, a man who can actually read books with big words in them and no pictures (like the Bible,) listen to spoken addresses (like sermons,) and actually see tomorrow’s implications for today’s actions. A famous sociologist has said that the only real difference between the social classes is that upper class people can think about tomorrow, while lower class people cannot. Staying in school to get an education or at least some sort of valid trade skill is a prerequisite for being a good husband and father, which is a pretty good definition of what it means to have class.

 

That said, what about the second function men are to perform for women, the “caring” for a wife? I know that using the words “man” and “caring” in the same sentence is to invite scorn and disbelief, but indulge me for the moment. The fact is, women are physically weaker than men, and need to be protected from things that will do them harm, such as other stupid men, cars with flat tires, jars that won’t open, taxes and bill-paying. Women can do just about anything if they put their mind to it, but that doesn’t mean they should. It’s not about ability, but about manners. Emily Post says manners are the art of making people feel comfortable, and a man can actually make a woman feel good on occasion if he’ll take over some basic responsibilities.

 

Simply put, the man you are looking for will make sure you do not have to be afraid of the predations of other men or machines. He will say nice things about you to his friends, he will oppose those who give you trouble, and he will know how to do simple mechanical procedures so that you will not have to. He will change the oil in your car, check on the pressure in the tires, he will wash the thing and empty his beer cans out of the back seat if the kids need to go along. He will know how to drive a stick and help you to learn to do so as well. He will know how to set up the VCR to tape Access Hollywood, ER and American Idol for you, even when he doesn’t want to watch them himself.  He will do the taxes, balance the checkbook, have a family budget and work with you to keep shoe acquisitions in line with income. He will not have dippy habits like golf, gambling, drinking to excess or anything else which hurt his ability to earn or manage money. He will mow the lawn, clean the gutters, and fix appliances when necessary without calling the repairman.

 

Finally, a man should protect his wife from the most dangerous thing of all, your own children.  No man worthy of the name will shirk his responsibility of disciplining the children.  He will believe in corporal punishment, while being able to distinguish between honest mistakes, fatigue and outright rebellion on the part of the child. Such a father makes sure that the kids are secure within limits, so that his wife can be a mother and not a monster. God has ordained that in order to make kids, you need a mother and father.  It is His plan that the dude stick around and deal with the fruit of his fun.  Every family needs a parent to minister justice, and one to minister grace.  This is to reflect Jesus’ dual role as Savior and Lord.  How you divide up the work is up to you, but it can’t be done right without a man around.

 

Next Issue: The Yeti, The Unicorn, and the Desirable Man

Part III: The Yeti, The Unicorn, and the Desirable Man

 

 

By now you’re no doubt saying, “Such men exist only in The Princess Bride and other fairy tales.” Not so. There are actually good men out there, but unfortunately, they’re hiding.  Hunted to near extinction within the Church, many have sought refuge in other habitats where they can live in peace. Your job, ladies, is to go and find them. As I’ve already hinted, your first move might be to stop looking in church at all. I will go so far as to say that many of the character traits you want in a man; a love of truth, a penchant for honesty and fair play, a sense of humor and a brain may prove incompatible with church attendance. Face it, many churches are so often dull, religious, hypocritical and downright incorrect in what they believe and teach that they’re not worth the lightning God could use to destroy them.  So step number one is to stop looking for the guy who’s already converted. It’s easier to make a man a Christian than to make a Christian a man, if you know what I mean. This doesn’t mean you should engage in missionary dating to the extent that you deny your moral stance.  It simply means that the revelation of the Lordship of Jesus Christ can dawn upon a man in an instant, while the necessary preparations that make him a suitable life partner take years and years, with or without the accoutrements of religion. You can find unattached straight men in church, but be prepared for Islamic levels of repression, stultified love-making, and a generalized candy-assed approach to life.

 

So if they’re often not in church, then where are they?  God made men to be fighters, in part so they can protect their women-folk.  To a great extent, however, modern society has robbed men of their opportunities to prove themselves in conflict. Real men will, if given the chance, find other avenues for releasing the aggression and competitiveness God has instilled in them.  This is the explanation of all the “extreme” sports and diversions that are gaining popularity. Thus, instead of going to a singles Bible study where the “men” are hopelessly picked over, think of hobbies, cultural activities and recreation that you can relate to where real men might be found and hunted. Don’t worry that rock climbing, mountaineering, auto racing, skiing and scuba diving are dangerous; worry that you might marry some poltroon who doesn’t see the challenge in such things. Besides, that’s why God invented life insurance.

 

So not only are Christian girls looking in the wrong places, they’re erecting qualifications which may sound spiritual, but which are in fact unbiblical. For starters, don’t faint if the guy drinks a little. Now if he drinks wine coolers, Zema or bourbon of any brand, beware, as the devil has hold of his soul.  Beer and single malt scotch, however, represent what God intended barley to be used for.  At least, that’s what Friar Tuck would have us believe.  Ben Franklin said that beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy, and I agree.  Wine, too, unadulterated, makes man’s heart glad, and Jesus made 180 gallons of the stuff, for crying out loud. The Bible rightly inveighs against drunkenness, but it endorses reasonable drinking. If you want a man, don’t hurt the odds by being so religious.

 

What I’m driving at is that you want a man, not a mere male. He needs to be able to roust himself to face and meet any challenge in a creative manner and to bring about a positive outcome. If he can solve problems in his vocation and avocations, he can also bring those skills to bear upon problems on the home front. Don’t worry that he be part of your particular religious clique, worry that he’s honest in all his dealings and knows and follows the Golden Rule. That’s all God cares about, and so should you.

 

Next Issue: How to Land the Catch

Part IV: How to Land the Catch

 

 

Women can usually keep their heads and show pretty good judgment when dealing with men as an abstraction. Where trouble usually comes in is when they have somebody on the line who actually seems to be one “who will do.” Threats abound: other women, bad living situations, financial pressures, and worst of all, the dreaded biological clock. The temptation is to resort to chicanery or outright treachery to stand out from the crowd and get the man to propose.

 

Prudence requires that the first words of guidance on this topic be clear and unequivocal. If you want God’s help at all, you can’t use the devil’s techniques. This means you absolutely cannot engage in shortcuts in order to “help” God find you the proper spouse.  This means you must carefully avoid all of the following techniques which may work in the short run but not in the long.

 

1) Having sexual contact of any sort with the guy before you’re married. If he’s a man of quality, your chastity will increase your desirability, not decrease it.  The gentleman won’t even try to hustle you. If you think sex will help, read 2 Samuel chapter 13 on how sex changes a man’s feelings. Not only does premarital sex offend God and hurt your chances for enjoying sex in marriage for the rest of your living days, it tends to lock you into a choice which passing time may suggest is wrong. Never invest in a guy to the point that you can’t, up until you’re at the altar, say, “I’ve changed my mind.”

 

2) Splitting up an existing marriage by luring the husband away. If he’ll do it to her, he’ll do it to you too. See Malachi chapter 2 for God’s view of divorce. Retreads make bad tires, too. A man’s attitude toward his vows is paramount. Vows are to God, and does this man have the potential to fear God? Put another way, does he fear and respect those authority structures through which God already works?  What does he make of his parents, his teachers, the boss, the police, the IRS and the President? If he can’t submit to God’s agents, what makes you think he’s going to submit to you when God speaks to him through you?  You see, a woman finds peace and fulfillment not when she’s in charge, but when she’s taken care of in every way.  As for all people, male and female, the point is not to be in the top position, but in the proper position. Passion for a woman is tied to letting go, not taking over. Thus, if you want a man you can trust in important matters, he’s got to be somebody who is himself under authority. To the extent that he keeps his vows and is accountable to higher ups, you can lose yourself to his advances, be they practical, romantic, sexual or spiritual.

 

3) Lowering your standards because he’s the only game in town. Our God is a God of excellence and not compromise. Now all men are, to one degree or another, a “work in progress.” When God made you a helpmeet, he was pointing out that men do need help. But women have needs too, and only a real man can meet those needs. Don’t rush into marriage, and you won’t be subject to the curse of Genesis 3. Bill Gothard used to paraphrase the last part of verse 16 with the words, “You’ll try to control your husband, but he won’t let you.” For goodness’ sake, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. You may get the creep to dress better, but you’ll never alter his basic DNA. What you see is, for better or worse, basically what you’ll get.

 

And this brings us to The Great Secret. In addition to avoiding doing dumb things, there is something positive you can do to get the guy to propose. What you do is pray to God, and give Him permission to choose for you.  Don’t go and say, I want this or that one, but rather, give God a list of specifics about what you want, and let Him find the guy who fills those requirements. I’m not advocating an attitude of “Give me anybody.” I’m saying that your prayers should be specific in terms of qualities, but vague in terms of names. When you ask for just old anybody, you dishonor God and imply He doesn’t care or can’t produce. When you get specific and picky, however, you suggest that He’s in fact all-knowing and almighty. All this takes time, as men may take awhile to obey God’s prompting. But if you remember that He’s the one who gave you these needs in the first place, you should be able to trust Him to meet them as well. Most women fail not because they ask too much and become spinsters; most women fail because they ask too little and marry before God tells them to.

 

So ladies, repeat after me, “No, thank you.” These are the most important words you can ever speak when confronted with the advances of the Homo Sapien male. Whatever you do, do it from faith, because otherwise it’s sin. If men were challenged to get their acts together before women would cooperate with them, they might actually become the useful, domesticated creatures God intended them to be when he made them for Himself, and by way of gift, for you.

 

 

The Rev. Robert McLeod is the author of Everything You Know is Wrong: The Case for a New Reformation.  It is published by Fenestra Publishers, Tucson, Arizona.

The Forgotten Phenomenon

By | Cleric Comments | No Comments

What would you say if I told you there is a concept in the Bible that would help us make better decisions in every area of our lives, personal and political, if we would but know about it and put its lessons into practice? Well, there is one, and we’ve often ignored it at our peril. Let me highlight this concept as it’s encountered in the Bible, then I’ll apply it in today’s world.

In Luke Chapter 11, verses 24 through 26, we read the following:

“When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid
places seeking rest and does not find it. Then it says, ‘I will return
to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house swept clean
and put in order. Then it goes and takes seven other spirits more
wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final
condition of that man is worse than the first.” NIV

Jesus of Nazareth was the greatest expert on human nature ever born. What he says here is that it is not enough to clean house and get rid of nefarious influences, there must also be a subsequent infilling. As he explains in this other teachings, this is because we are all slaves by nature. In spite of what we like to imagine, we lack the ability to chose aright and follow up with proper action. We are subject, no matter what we hope or say, to forces greater than ourselves. Thus, when our lives are “swept clean and put in order,” there will still be a power vacuum in our lives that invites greater powers in. The question is therefore not, am I dominated, but rather, what is it that dominates me? Is it a demon, or is it God? You will be controlled by somebody or something; the only thing we can choose is if that entity is benevolent or evil. As we shall see, this goes for individuals, as Jesus’ example depicts, as well as for groups of people, as we read about in the newspapers. Let’s see if this isn’t true.

First, look at the individual behavior of those not explicitly Christian. What happens at AA meetings, where there is no mention of Jesus of Nazareth? First of all, hopefully everybody is sober. There is a demon of alcoholism, a spirit that derives worship when we bow down to the bottle and not to our Savior. Don’t believe this is true? Watch an alcoholic or any drug addict, and you’ll see that there is a supernatural, evil, and irrational dimension to their behavior that seeks their ultimate destruction. The creativity, the relentlessness, the sheer single-mindedness of their obsession with alcohol or drugs is full and sufficient testimony to the existence of personal, intelligent evil. So back to the meeting. Most of the time, there’s no alcohol, but what is there instead? Often it’s cigarettes and coffee, in excess. The people are still addicts, they still offer worship to, in the words of Pat Robertson, a different “vegetable.” They worship the tobacco plant and the coffee bean, not a fungus. This is no doubt an improvement, but the underlying dynamic is intact.

Overt Christians are not exempt from the same pressures. Many Christians meet Jesus and rejoice in the forgiveness of sins he has already purchased for them. If they don’t fill themselves with fellowship and teaching, however, what usually happens? They fall away, as Jesus predicts when talking about the seed sown in shallow soil, and are lost. They realize they are forgiven, but they are not filled. Remember, we have two problems. One is guilt over past sins, and the other is powerlessness to stop sinning in the future. If you have the former but not the latter, you will become discouraged and subject to even greater condemnation for having known the truth and done nothing about it.

Then, and more to the point in an election year, we see the same phenomenon in human behavior on a national scale. If I have one criticism to make of U.S. foreign policy over the past century, it is that we think other people are like us. We derive our ideals that forged our liberal capitalist democracy from our history as being subject to British common law. The ideals of common law were hammered out over the past millennium, and can be formally traced to the Magna Carta in 1215. We and other British colonies are unique in this heritage, yet we think everybody shares our democratic ideals. Not so. Even the French have a very different attitude towards law, government and the rights of man from the British.

So what happens is this: we Americans go to the rescue of beleaguered people and deliver them from their oppressors. We have done this time and again, and the results of those ventures vary to the extent that we recognized the existence of a power vacuum after their deliverance. In cases where no vacuum was allowed, the transition and recovery were smooth. Witness Germany and Japan after WWII. The Marshall Plan, NATO and the presence of U.S. troops were sufficient to maintain order and allow an indigenous leadership to take hold. But what about when we allow a vacuum to develop without taking steps to fill it? Examples abound in the past 100 years. In approximate chronological order:

  • Europe and the Middle East after WWI. The Versailles Treaty with its unrealistic, vindictive terms left the greatest power vacuum the world had ever seen. Germany, deprived of the Kaiser and the General Staff, hatched Hitler and his bag of tricks. In the Middle East, the fall of the Ottoman Empire produced not a free and self-governing group of nations as T. E. Lawrence recommended, but rather a crazy quilt pattern of colonial dictates that had nothing to do with nationalities, sensibilities, or the promises made to the actors by the victorious allies. The result is the mess we have today, with Britain “giving” what they don’t own (Palestine) to somebody who doesn’t deserve it (Jews), to paraphrase and Arab leader. You know the rest of the story.
  • India and Pakistan after the British. Whoa! Talk about trouble that’s yet to subside, take a look at these two nuclear powers! They were separated on the basis of religion, but find that even the world’s highest mountain range is too low to keep them from each other’s throats. Many of the British practices were unfair and exploitative, but at least there was an enforced peace.
  • Viet Nam after the Americans. Throw out the U.S. and what do you get? A corrupt, unmotivated ruling elite who pillage and exploit without helping the cause. And that was before the North Vietnamese won!
  • Iran after the Shah. Was he good? Not always, but he was not all bad. He did much to modernize Iran and lead the people out of the retrograde influences of Mohammedism that handcuffed the people up until the Shah’s rapprochement with the West. And after he was ejected? Some of the most harsh, ruthless and unstable ideologues seen in this century. Why? A power vacuum.
  • Soviet Union after the Communists. Yeltsin was corrupt and unable to fill the resulting power vacuum, and so now we have KGB strongman Putin taking his place. Is this a coincidence, or the result of a natural law at work that abhors a vacuum? Q: When it comes to invading other countries to “put down civil unrest and rescue our nationals,” what is the difference between Putin and Hitler? A: Putin speaks Russian.
  • South Africa after apartheid. This was every liberal’s flavor du jour in terms of foreign policy reform when the whites were in charge. The Boers were morons in many ways, and deserve the fate they received at the hands of the blacks when the sun set on their little game. Yet at least they had an orderly nation with the best economy on the continent when they ruled. Remember, the Bible talks a lot more about the importance of order than it does civic freedom. So what do South Africans have now that the blacks are in charge, but the highest incidences of rape, AIDS, venereal disease, social and political mayhem and economic collapse on that same continent? Except perhaps Zimbabwe after Ian Smith? But at least blacks are in charge in both places, so you don’t hear a peep from the Hollywood elite. Racism at its worst. Again, a power vacuum was to blame.
  • Iraq after Saddam. We see that Hussein is a problem, so we head in and give him a new style necktie. Is he the problem? In large degree yes, but he’s not the only problem. The real problem is that Iraq, like so many cultures that have not experienced an Enlightenment, is tribal in nature. The request of the indigenous leaders after Hussein’s expulsion was for statues of George Bush, to be the new tribal chief, if you will. Yet what did we do? We offered them democratic elections, something they were unfamiliar with, as if they were electors in Iowa voting in the first caucus of the year. The result? A power vacuum that almost cost Iraq its future and the American administration its legacy.

These examples are presented in a necessarily incomplete degree, yet the point remains: in national life as well as that of the individual, we cannot tolerate power vacuums. Evil never rests, and we are most susceptible to its incursions after we are relieved of oppression. If the void, whether personal or national, is not quickly filled with good, it will soon be filled with bad. The choice is not normal>whether or not it is filled, but with what it will be filled. A person sweeps and puts their life in order through repentance, and it follows they must in very short order be filled with the Holy Spirit if they are to gain power to succeed. A nation that tosses out the oppressive leader must also install a more benevolent regime, with all celerity, if their fate is not also to be “worse than the first.” Jesus knows us better than we know ourselves, and it behooves us to stick our noses in the Bible and save ourselves the peril of rediscovering these truths anew in each generation. Until we deal with our inherent powerlessness, both individual and collective, we’re just palliating symptoms and repeating life’s, and history’s, errors.

Global Warming is Crap

By | Cleric Comments | No Comments

RougeCleric’s purpose is not to pursue political agendas as an end in themselves. Antagonists in the political arena are already separated by profound and insoluble philosophical differences, and are thus unable to come to any common understanding or conclusions. The inevitable result of political dialogue is thus enmity and division. We would do well to avoid such activities. It is our purpose, however, to comment on political issues, amongst others, if in doing so we can show how regenerate thinking can solve those philosophical problems and thereby achieve new insight and rapprochement. Who has something to add to the caldron of social debate if not Christians? Because of their reconstituted minds, Christians should be the first to examine the divisive issues of our time, and show where sinful Man has lost his way and needs to repent even of the way he thinks.

This avoidance of logical thought is to the eternal discredit of the Church. Logic can, and should, play a huge role in the conversion of the world to the Christian Gospel. When does the sinner decide to change his wicked ways, if not when he logically concludes that he must? The drunk decides to stop drinking, because worship of the bottle has destroyed his life. The thief decides to stop stealing because he’s in jail and deprived of his freedom. Is that not why they’re called penitentiaries? The homosexual or heterosexual philanderer decides to leave his life of sin because his past choices have debased one of God’s greatest gifts. Are not these examples, one and all, of people engaging in logical, ordered, analysis of cause and effect as encountered in God’s creation? When we allow subjectivity and “faith” to enter into the debate, we lose hold of our greatest tool, and that is the ability to think straight.

Nowhere is logical, objective thinking more rare than in the current debate, highly politicized by an election year, about global warming. Wherever you turn, be it in specialty magazines about cars, climbing, the outdoors, or in the pontifications from the Democratic nominees in debate, there’s one issue that is swallowed hook, line and sinker by everybody, and that is that the world is warming up due to anthropogenic (man made) carbon dioxide. Is this true? Who has studied the issues? Upon what are their alarming predictions based?

If you do any research at all into the issue, you’ll find some interesting facts that will cause you to reconsider your position. Here are some examples:

    • Humans are responsible for 2% to 5% of all carbon dioxide produced in the atmosphere; the rest is from natural sources. Carbon dioxide comprises from 3% to 4% of all greenhouse gases by volume, the largest of which is water vapor from the oceans. Thus, humans are responsible for .2% of all greenhouse gases, or less.
    • Global temperatures have risen about .6 of a degree Centigrade during the past century, with much of the gain coming BEFORE 1940, BEFORE the bulk of fossil fuels were burned. 80% of the fossil fuels burned in the 20th century were used since WWII, a period which until 1976 was a COOLING trend. Furthermore, high altitude temperature readings for the 20th century show no consistent trend in terms of temperature change.
    • The current rise in global temperature is observable only in contrast to the “Little Ice Age” which concluded at the end of the 19th century. Claims of global warming do not consider paleoclimatological data which suggest that there have been many periods of warmer and cooler weather, all of which occurred without the benefit of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.
    • Fossil, sedimentary and ice gas data suggest that past temperature fluctuations are indeed accompanied by changes in carbon dioxide levels, but that the changes in carbon dioxide FOLLOW temperature changes by about 800 years. Thus, carbon dioxide production is dependent upon temperature, not the other way around.
    • The earth receives about 342 watts of solar energy per square meter. This should be compared to the amount of energy carbon dioxide is expected to add, which is only 1.5 watts per square meter. This latter figure should be contrasted with the amount of solar energy a cloud can absorb or reflect, which is calculated to be about 78 watts per square meter. Thus, a cloud can have 52 times the influence of carbon dioxide in terms of affecting our global temperature.
    • The best correlation between global temperature and any other natural phenomena is found with solar activity in the form of sun spots. Although the exact linkage is ill-understood, it appears as though cosmic rays affect the upper atmosphere of the Earth, inhibiting the condensation of lower level clouds and allowing more solar radiation to strike the Earth and increasing surface temperatures.
    • Many of the world’s most prominent scientists involved in paleoclimatological and atmospheric studies have abandoned the global warming ship.
    • The computer simulations that predict a sudden rise in global temperatures are mere approximations of the exceedingly complex system that is our biosphere, and they have consistently shown themselves to be subject to the prejudices of their authors. Water vapor feedback loops programmed at exponential gain produce temperature rises, no matter what data are entered into the equation. The predictions are embedded in the algorithms, not the observed data.

The validity of the research cited here is, of course, open to question, but a definite pattern emerges when the data are consulted. Those who have looked at the facts are anything but convinced that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is the civilization killer as it’s portrayed in the popular press. The question for Roguecleric, though, remains: why would people be so eager to adopt this highly suspect interpretation of our climatological predicament and tout it as received truth?The answer to this question returns, of necessity, to philosophy. Remember what the Bible says about Man. We are not rational, but irrational, creatures. Rational behavior would be this: study the facts, draw a conclusion, and then modify your behavior to align yourself with the facts. What we do, of course, is the opposite. We decide what we want to do, then we look for “facts” that justify our prior decision, and go with them instead. Philosophy is the study of how we think or fail to think, and the whole global warming debate is a classic example of the latter. There are at least three reasons why the liberal political machine, the environmental movement and the media are so attracted to the global warming bandwagon.

    1. • First of all, it lets them blame others for their problems; an important psychological necessity for the idle. Remember what Adam said when confronted with his sin. “It’s the fault of the woman you gave me.” Thus it was the woman’s fault, and God’s fault for giving her to Adam, but it was not Adam’s fault. Blame shifting was therefore the first sign of human sin. The global warming people, most of whom do nothing to contribute to the economic pie, are jealous of those who actually work to make the world a better place. They don’t grow crops, they don’t mine resources, they don’t manufacture or distribute anything; they just consume. So what do they do with their neurosis? They blame those who make their lifestyle possible for hurting the environment. It’s simply guilt talking.
    1. • Secondly, it turns the tables on Man’s role in creation. According to the Scriptures, Man has been put in charge of the garden to make it more orderly and beautiful. Plants, animals, all are here to be used to our advantage. This is not to say that we’re to misuse Creation, as it does not belong to us. We are stewards of that which ultimately belongs to somebody else, and we will be held accountable for the use, or misuse, of what’s entrusted to us. We are not, however, slaves to that which we are to superintend. The world is not, in the lamentable words of Eucharistic Prayer C in the Book of Common Prayer, 1979, a “fragile earth, or island home.” It’s pretty damn robust, and has a God-given capacity to rejuvenate itself after profound abuse from humans. We are not to feel guilty about being at the top of the pyramid in the animal kingdom, the food chain, or any other aspect of Creation.
    1. • Thirdly, the global warming mantra distracts us from the real issues in the human experience, notably the increase in sexual sins and the resultant slaughter of unprotected, unborn children. By acting put out over global warming, the would-be moralists are able to issue sanctimonious denunciations of the rest of us, while doing nothing of substance to help the human condition. What’s more important, sixth tenth’s of a degree in temperature, of the fact that more than half the babies being born are not born of married parents? At best these people are like Diogenes, who trundled his clay pot around the streets of Athens in an energetic display of action with no clear goal in mind. At worst, they are masking their own moral shortcomings by pointing their fingers at others.

So what are we to do? First of all, ask the next proponent of global warming you meet for the source of his “facts.” Which study is he referring to? What paleoclimatological data support his conclusions? Sea shell isotopes, ice gases from Greenland, soil sediments from Canada? Whose model are they referring to? The ones that make the same prediction, no matter what data are entered into them? Let’s get real. I’m the son of the world’s foremost expert on computer simulation, and I know how these models of “soft” systems are done. They tell you more about the philosophy of the modeler than they do about the system under consideration. Secondly, you must make sure your elected leaders are supported when they refuse to be drawn into the global warming worldview. God bless George Bush. Forget Kyoto. We’re going to run out of fossil fuels soon enough, and we’ll have a whole new set of problems when that happens. Finally, ask those who espouse this worldview how they got where they are currently standing. Did they ride a bicycle? Did they walk? Do they do anything that uses energy? Do they have a car? Do they go to concerts to support the environment? Why are they entitled to use energy, and we aren’t? Don’t they know that their beloved poor and disenfranchised will be the FIRST to suffer if the world economy is disrupted by attempts to shut it down?

We are enjoined by Scripture to love God with our whole selves, body, spirit, and MIND. If you can’t think clearly about the created order, what makes you think you can come to any accurate and sane conclusions about more weighty matters? Let’s practice on the little stuff, like science, then we can move on to the big stuff, like the stewardship of a beautiful creation and the discovering the purpose of Man therein.

 

Left Behind: Will It Really Happen?

By | Cleric Listens | No Comments

An article in a recent issue of the Orlando Sentinel noted that the Left Behind series of novels had moved beyond the realm of Christian readers and was enjoying success in the secular world. Total sales are expected to exceed 30 million copies by the end of the year, with the inevitable video and movie to follow. My first reaction to this news was one of satisfaction; I’ve always admired Tim LaHaye for his work in personality typing and human sexuality. I hadn’t read his new books on a pretribulation rapture, but I figured the public could always use a good scare. It was only after researching dispensationalist eschatology that I decided that Mr. LaHaye and his speculations will probably end up doing more harm than good.

First, a few definitions:

Tribulation – refers to the “great tribulation” of Rev. 7:14.

Dispensationalism – the belief that God tests man according to different dispensations or standards throughout history, resulting in human failure in each case.

Eschatology – from the Greek eschaton, or End; the doctrine of end times.

Rapture – from the Latin rapio, meaning to seize or carry away.

Pretribulationists contend that Jesus will return to the Earth in a secret, hidden rapture, and carry away his faithful Church either 3 ½ or seven years before his final return. Millions of people, Christians, will simply disappear. Those left behind will be the unbelieving majority, left to fend for themselves. In the interim period, a great Tribulation will fall on the world in judgment for not believing and obeying the Gospel. Thus, the Church will be spared the agony of this time, which precedes the destruction of the world.

There are many popular teachers who espouse this view, and it is widely accepted in fundamentalist circles. Contemporary figures who hold to a pretribulationist view include Charles Stanley, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Hal Lindsey, Jerry Falwell, and the above-mentioned Tim LaHaye. The chief vehicle for its spread, however, has been the Scofield Reference Bible; an annotated version of the Scriptures popular among evangelicals since the turn of the century and still carried in many Christian book stores.

The question before us is this: is the pretribulationist view correct? If you study the writings of the early Church Fathers, look at the Creeds, examine the writings of the post-Nicene and medieval Church, read the Reformers or anybody prior to the 19th century, you will find nobody advocating this perspective. Nor will you find it in the Bible, although tortured attempts are made to inject it into the pages of Scripture. The fact is, the first person to mention such a possibility was a certain Margaret Macdonald, of Port Glasgow, Scotland, in March of 1830. During prophetic trances, she outlined the basics of a two-stage return of Christ. Her ruminations were taken by two men, Edward Irving, a Scots Presbyterian, and John Darby, an English priest in the Anglican Church, who systematized them and disseminated them to an eager audience. Through the media of books, newspapers, and Plymouth Brethren meetings conducted by the Rev. Mr. Darby, these views gained popularity. Today they are accepted without inquiry by many evangelicals, who are ignorant of their recent and highly controversial provenance.

Aside from the blatant eisegesis (injecting our meaning into the words of Scripture) conducted by pretrib advocates, we need to look at the theological implications of their position. What they contend is that God would never allow his Church, the Bride of Christ, to undergo tribulation. This is, of course, at odds with what we know of God from the Scriptures and our own experience. While God does not inflict his wrath upon us, he doesn’t always spare his elect from the wrath of the Enemy, godless men, nor a fallen natural order. In fact, the unjust suffering of his saints is often the vehicle he uses to “complete what is behind of the afflictions of Christ.” It is in our willingness to suffer in this transitory life that makes real and manifest the Kingdom of God to which we owe true allegiance. Darbyists ignore this fundamental truth, and hang their schemes on a superficial, carnal version of Christian triumphalism which is at odds with both Scripture and experience.

My purpose is not to offer a comprehensive eschatology, but to point out that the pretribulationist interpretation is faulty in and of itself. It is based upon a futurist interpretation of the Revelation of St. John, contending that it is not a letter to seven historic churches in Asia, but to the Church of 2000 whatever. The dominant view of the larger Church, however, is that the proper interpretation is not futurist, but preterit, or historic. It is a letter of encouragement sent to these seven churches to give a God’s eye view of events during a time of intense persecution and uncertainty. It depicts the removal of the Old Covenant and the institution of the New, with Christ on the throne. The Israel of God’s devotion is the Church, not a racial or political group. Although there is conflict in heaven and on Earth, the Lord Jesus is in charge, and we are assured of victory now, not just in the future. We do not know when Christ will return, but we do know this: he will come once, not twice. Whatever happens in the meantime, good or bad, it will happen to all. There is no question that there will be a raising of the dead in Christ and a rescue of those who still live in Him; problems come when we start to predict that earthly history will then continue after that most blessed event, whether good or bad.

I’ve read detailed statements statements Mr. LaHaye has written defending his eschatological views. I am unimpressed. While I applaud his ability to cross over to the secular world and engage the unchurched public with a message of impending judgment, I wonder if he carried anything Biblical in the crossing. It seems to me that in making the jump, the most important thing Left Behind was his Bible.