What Difference Does It Make?

Interesting stuff coming out of Washington since Steve Hayes at the Weekly Standard produced three different versions of "talking points" eventually used by Susan Rice to blame the attack on the Consulate in Benghazi Libya that killed Ambassador Chris Stephens and three others on an anti-Muslim video.

Even  ABC news has reported that the talking points underwent 12 revisions.  Jay Carney had claimed only single edit.  We now know that is untrue and that the decision to make the changes came from the State Department.


Scour the internet and even Mother Jones and the Huffington post are now paying attention to the story.

One might ask "What difference does it make?" to a blogger who mainly is concerned with theological issues.  (More)

Science Deniers - the 70s

A bit late for Earth Day, but given that conservatives are incessantly labeled "science deniers" this article caught my eye.   Jon Gabriel at Freedomworks has compiled a list of the the 13 worst Earth Day predictions.  (He quotes Ronald Baily from Reason.com, "Earth Day, Then and Now")

Being a 1977 high school  graduate, I disagree that the 1970s were a lousy decade.  We did have Star Wars, The Doobie Brothers and plenty of denim and some of the best muscle cars ever.  But I do remember the fear-mongering about the coming ice age.  It is precisely why the global warming alarmism of today gets taken with a grain of salt by conservatives from the get-go.

A few of the highlights - or rather lowlights.(More)

Traditional Marriage, Children and the Economy

Interesting read at Mecatornet about the effect of the erosion of traditional marriage onr the economy.  Key paragraphs:

"A productive household does not simply happen when parents beget a child. The foundation for a productive household begins with marriage. Other arrangements cannot measure up, not for the child, not for the couple, not for society, and certainly not for the economy.

"Cohabitation does not take the place of marriage, and there are very strong indications that cohabitation may rival single parenthood as the largest generator of child poverty, while divorce is the cause of most women and children entering poverty in any given year. If marriage makes the world and economy go ’round, these newer family structures truncate productivity, and society begins to limp along."

Not exactly new news.  

Kingdom - Not of This World

A lot of focus is placed in progressive circles on the "here and now" implications of the "kingdom of God".  A number of themes emerge, most of which made me vaguely uneasy.

One theme seems to be positing the Kingdom of God as a counter to the "Constantinian" view of the church, in essence to say that Christians (read conservatives) shouldn't be on a quest for political power.  (This misses the point of conservatism altogether which is largely a quest for the limitation of power.)

Another theme suggests that the Kindom of God means the church is its own political force in exemplifying a nonviolent society committed to social justice and radical equality.

But what exactly is the Kingdom?   (More)

Jim Wallis Supports Same Sex Marriage - Why I am Not Surprised

Headline at Christian Post "Jim Wallis Now Supports Same-Sex Marriage".

First of all, no surprise here.  Anyone who has read the Sojourners site at all could see how the social justice bent of the overall ethos there and the progressive theological influences would make this a logical step.  Add the overwhelming support for same sex unions from those who comment there and the criticism Wallis faced from the left for not doing this sooner...let's just say I'm not in the least surprised.

What interests me is the reasoning and the approach Wallis takes.  He begins by talking about the overall decline in marriage in the culture at large.

"We are losing marriage in this society. I'm worried about that – among low income people, but all people. How do we commit liberals and conservatives to re-covenanting marriage, reestablishing, renewing marriage?"

Now that sounds like something conservatives and liberals could agree on, right?  (More)

Future of Evangelicalism - Roger Olson

Roger Olson has a lengthy two-part post up about the future of Evangelicalism (see here and here).  The gist is that evangelicalism as an ethos can still carry on according to five basic concepts based on the Noll/Bebbington quadrilateral of biblicism, conversionism, crucicentrism and activism, to which Olson adds a respect for historic orthodoxy.  But Olson thinks evangelicalism as a movement is dead.  It has fragmented into three basic groups. 

One he describes as "conservative, neo-fundamentalist" and identifies the Gospel Coalition as an example.  The second group he describes as "conservative, mediating evangelicals" and lists Christianity Today as one example.  Finally he identifies the "postconservative evangelicals" and includes Scot McKnight and Sojourners magazine as examples. 

I have to say I generally agree with him on this one.  As a movement, evangelicalism is at war with itself, particularly in relation to biblicism and activism, for conservatives and progressives define those terms very differently.  For progressives, the cross is increasingly about Christ identifying with the oppressed and is less an less about atoning for sin.  For progressives activism is increasingly about rejecting conservative concerns about the sanctity of life, individual responsibility and preservation of the nuclear family - activism is increasingly about grievances of oppressed groups, liberal definitions of social justice, radical inclusion and eradication of boundaries including advocacy of same-sex relations in some form.    Even the Noll/Bebbington quadrilateral fails to unite evangelicals these days.  (More)

Atonement and Resurrection

Critics of the Penal Substitution viewpoint generally object to PSA on an emotional level, that is, the image of Christ being punished to satisfy some standard of justice seems unfair (since he was innocent) and makes God look vindictive and violent.  Of course many of those who object are progressives who question pretty much everything and want to reinvent atonement according to some social justice narrative.  So in some of the wild new atonement speculations, Jesus died to identify with the poor, the marginalized, the oppressed.  Depending on how far they have gone in redefining sin and justice, the very notion of needing salvation from moral guilt and judgment seems nonsensical to some.  Others want the cross to be about politics, the Roman empire executed Jesus so real Christianity is about resisting empires (usually Western democracies get classified as empires while Communist regimes and Muslim caliphates get a pass).

But others are still somewhat connected to orthodox faith and even to evangelicalism and merely have been influenced by the emotional response of some to the "cosmic child abuse" charge.   Isn't there a better way to think about this whole sacrifice thing?  (More)