Frightening Things

I saw United 93 last night. It was a pretty flawlessly executed production, truly respectful to those individuals involved in the tragic events and fairly devoid of political statements. My wife cried through much of it. I left feeling solemn and a tad angry, not at the film, but at how quickly we have forgotten.

Shortly after 9-11-2001, we were a nation united behind the proposition that we had been attacked and that we were willing to do what was necessary to win the war on terror. Then things slowly changed, partly due to election year politics and an double-talking anti-war candidate in the Democratic ticket. Evidence of weapons of mass destruction, attested to by intelligence agencies in multiple countries and multiple US agencies and administrations somehow became an issue that only President Bush lied about, and many in the masses bought the conspiracy theory. Evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam have been routinely downplayed, as if no “operational” connection in the 9-11 report means no connection at all and no threat. There is evidence now that Bin Laden and Zarqawi have some degree of alliance in Zarqawi’s current efforts to destabilize Iraq.

Now, while Islamic protesters in New York speak of mushroom clouds over Israel and
Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton lead anti war marches where folks carry signs claiming Bush is more evil that Bin Laden. I seriously doubt we have the collective stomach to sacrifice much of anything to prevent a greater evil. Which leads to the frightening possibilities...

One has to be careful to read things with a skeptical eye, but I’ve been seeing speculation about Al Quaida acquiring nukes over and over again for the past few years and I don't know what to make of them. WorldNetDaily reports that Al Queda has not only sought, but obtained suitcase size nuclear weapons and that those weapons are already in the United States. Furthermore, the same online paper claims that there is real proof of this to be presented at a national Press Club terror symposium in Washington. They add that Iran has received a shipment of missiles from North Korea that would make striking Europe by Iran a real possibility.

Skeptics suggest that any suitcase nukes Bin Laden may have obtained would likely not be effective any longer, due to decay of components and the need for replacement by highly skilled technicians. Others doubt how far Iran's nuclear program has really progressed, but given the anti-war climate, nuclear blackmail seems likely to be successful if Iran goes much further.

But others counter that Bin Laden is not so dumb as to not plan for maintenance of suitcase nukes if obtained. Considering the patience and sophistication of previous attacks, I tend to think this guy could figure out ways to pull it off.

Whether any of this really is verifiable, I don’t know. What I do know is that it makes sense. Radical Muslims have been increasingly vocal and bold of late. Iran has made no secret of its plans for Israel and has shown no hesitation to provoke the West. One wonders if the reason for the boldness is that these jihadists have something up their sleeve. One wonders if there is a quiet confidence that we will be weak, we will continue to back down, continue to capitulate, and at the right moment, mushroom clouds over Washington, New York, L.A., Chicago, and Dallas will remove the main obstacle to global Islamization.

What I do not understand is why so many in this country do not take the threats seriously after three decades of Islamic terrorism and the death of 3000 civilians five years ago. Clearly radical Islamic terrorists have stated intentions of wiping out both Isreal and the United States, they have a history of carrying out attacks and have no qualms about killing civilians. To me that is all we should need in the way of evidence and motivation to keep the resolve we had on 9-12 or 9-13 of 2001, and to make silly criticisms of “pre-emptive war” irrelevant. War began on 9-11 and was not started by us. To back out of Iran now and pretend we live in a pre 9-11 world is a plan for suicide. If we are unwilling to battle Zarqawi in Iraq, where then would we battle him?

One can always hope that films like United 93 will help us to remember what this is about, but I am not optimistic.

An Un-Orthodox View of Hell

Frederica Matthewes-Green has written an article called "Why We Need Hell. It has been posted on her own site as well as on Virtue Online. It is an apologetic for the concept of Hell from an Eastern Orthodox perspective. The reality of Hell is something fire and brimstone revival preachers often return to and is a topic which needs to be emphasized from time to time - the notion that there are eternal consequences to our actions. And that is a healthy thing, if it is balanced and not manipulative.

But Matthewes-Green’s article raises some troubling questions about the meaning of the very concept of Hell. I had read before, in Franky Schaeffer's brutal Dancing Alone of an Eastern understanding of Hell which states that Hell is not so much a place where one is punished for his or her deeds and rejection of salvation, but rather is simply a state of natural consequence for the pattern of one’s life. Such a view removes the image of God as an angry executioner. In this view, all human beings wind up in a state of eternal existence in the presence of God, but for some, for those who have rejected God’s grace, His very presence is itself a state of torment. God is described in scripture as a consuming fire, so, according to this understanding, to reject God and then spend eternity in His presence will be a Hellish eternity. Mathewes-Green's article refers to more detailed explanations of this view from Peter Chopelas and Dr. Alexander Kaomiros.

Turning Around the Mainline - A Synopsis

Thomas Oden's latest booke is called Turning Around the Mainline

Thomas Oden is the driving force behind Paleo-Orthodoxy, the blending of two concepts, right belief rooted in ancient and lasting consensus. This concept has been a bit of an inspiration for me personally, suggesting a way past the runaway pluralism of both modern and postmodern trends.

For the last few generations, the leadership of mainline denominations has been the opposite of orthodox and has embraced ideas that are anything but ancient or consensual. Over the last two centuries, there has been a gathering momentum in the mainline to see both scripture and the classical doctrine with a skeptical eye and to revise the teachings of the churches in accordance with modern assumptions. Thus national leaders could profess a “Christianity” that denied the resurrection of Christ, embrace radical political agendas and turn traditional morality completely upside down.

But this trend has been one that primarily affected the clergy, many of whom were educated in the radical sixties and have more recently ascended to denominational leadership. Such leaders have made sweeping decisions regarding doctrine, morality and church policy that have been baffling and often offensive to the orthodox laity and have managed to shut orthodox clergy out of positions of influence.

Is The Reformation Over - Ecclesiology

In previous posts dealing with the Mark Noll book “Is The Reformation Over?”, I summarized a few thoughts regarding substantial agreement on terminology (if not meaning) on the issues of justification by grace through faith and the authority of scripture. I also expressed my opinion that in spite of growing commonalities on those points the reformation is not yet over. Noll indicates in his book that ecclesiology is the remaining obstacle, and it seems to be a significant one.

Even though Rome has made statements regarding justification by grace through faith, there remains in Catholic theology a belief that such justification is channeled through the church, and specifically through the ecclesial offices of pope, bishop and priest. One reason for this belief is the Pauline imagery of the church as the body of Christ, which is extended in Catholic thinking through the historical Episcopal office.

“Christ and his church are one! This basic confession explains why Catholics can offer salvation through baptism into the church. … It is why Ignatius, who died in 110, could say that only priests in connection with a bishop, in connection with the Pope, can offer valid sacraments.” p. 146-147

The Clash of Civilizations

Chuck Colson has an absolutely must read article today on the clash of civilizations. He speaks rather broadly about the clash of cultures here in the United States toward the end of the article, the postmodern denial of truth in favor of cultural deconstruction, but a major portion is devoted to radical Islam. I simply offer the following excerpt.

"We say there is one God in three. The Trinity. They see the Trinity as blasphemy. We understand grace, that God loves us. They don’t. They understand Allah’s forbidding law. We understand that we are responsible for the sin in the world. They don’t. They believe that people are basically good, corrupted only by Western decadence. So that once Islam takes over by jihad, there will be peace forever.

"We believe in redemption. There is no redemption for the Muslim. He walks across the sword of judgment and can fall off on one side or the other. He may make it, or he may not make it.

Is The Reformation Over - Scripture

In my last post, I cited a few examples of how Mark Noll’s book "Is The Reformation Over?” documented a forty-year long process of dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and various protestant groups. On the issue of justification by grace through faith, numerous statements seem to indicate that the Roman church has become willing to accept, at the very least, the Protestant phrase “by grace through faith”.

It should be understood that Catholics, in my opinion, do not define grace in quite the same way Protestants do, so the chasm is not completely filled, yet the facts that such dialogue has occurred and led to substantial statements of agreement with Protestant sounding wording is something that needs more attention in both the Evangelical and Catholic world.

Noll’s book discusses as well Rome’s recent stance on the authority of scripture. It is the common view among evangelicals that Rome places tradition over scripture, so that scripture must mean only what the church says it means, sort of like many “living document” theorists view the U.S. Constitution. And certain Catholic dogmas, particularly Purgatory, Papal infallibility and the assumption of Mary, are cited as prime examples where tradition has defined doctrines not clearly found in the written text.