Proving God's Existence Absolutely: Our Modern Desire for Certainty

Recently, a lot of talk has been swirling around a series of debates between atheists and theists (mostly Christians) and between supporters of Intelligent Design (mostly protestant Christians as well) and its detractors?

On ABC, the 1990s TV star Kirk Cameron and author and preacher Ray Comfort debated two members of the Rational Response Squad, a group of atheists that try to persuade people to denounce theism.

There has also been talk surrounding proponents and opponents of ID. You can see examples on blogs and on campus news papers and so on.

Supporters of ID and evangelical theists arguing in favor of God, are struggling to wear the mantel of "science" as a way of legitimating their claims. In our time, in large part, "science" is the arbiter of truth. So everybody wants a piece of "science." Just listen to pastor Comfort on ABC. He states the point clearly in his opening remarks when he disagrees with those that say God's existence can't be proven (namely, he seems to be referring to the atheists he opposes on the stage):

I believe God's existence can be proven absolutely, scientifically without even mentioning faith.

What is interesting here is the commonsense belief that "science" is the arbiter of truth. The mantel of "science" can prove God, as the theists see it. And as the atheists argue it, "science" shows that evolution and life can form without God and that God is an irrational and superfluous idea.

There is a similar reliance on "science" to determine legitimacy and truth in our age when it comes to the struggle surrounding ID and its opponents. Opponents are generally supporters of "science"--often they are biologists, chemists, anthropologists etc (or other people in positions with something at stake in the debate) at universities. More significantly, ID proponents also want a piece of "science." They desire the legitimacy the mantel carries. To call ID "science" is to see it as a legitimate way of finding the truth of the matter. To call ID "science" is to hoist it up onto the symbolic platform that "evolution" rests. (A platform, one might add as an aside, that ID supporters are directly challenging by referring to it as "just a theory" and so on.) It is to give ID social significance and weight--I mean, ID would be "science" after all.

It seems that the aim of many ID proponents and evangelical theists is to fashion God into a rationally explicable phenomenon. From the evangelical perspective, I get the feeling that putting God in terms of "science" is seen as an effective way to spread the Good News. That God can be explained by "science" is a symbolic weapon that is strategically valuable for evangelicals. That God can be explained by "science" and isn't just "irrational" and "backward" beliefs is seen a leverage point, particularly among more educated communities. But at the same time, the desire to fashion God into an explicable being is implicitly a reaction to the dominance/prominence of the claims that faith is "irrational" in the first place.

If the "rationality" or "irrationality" of faith is not of significance to you, then its probably the case that being able to explain God with "science" is not all that important either. To some people, God is ultimately an ineffable experience. God is bigger than "science," they might say.

In these debates between atheists and theists, supporters of ID and opponents of the way of thinking, we are seeing a clash between foundationalisms--scientific realism and religious fundamentalism. But one foundationalism is politically, socially and economically weaker than the other. The foundationalism rooted in Scripture is weaker than the foundationalism rooted in the Laws of Reality. For many, Scripture may well be able to account for "science" and account for the features of Reality like the "circular" shape of the earth (as Comfort said), but in the everyday arena, "science" is used to justify God. Implicitly, then, Scripture is incomplete if it alone cannot explain God. In some sense, "science" is a contemporary crutch, a modern foundation on which Scripture can rest.

Pull them apart. These are two different areas of culture that fulfill different desires. One enables us to control and predict the world of things. The other enables us to hope and love bigger and bolder and to go beyond the merely possible.

Relating to Postmodernism: A Rough Typology of Evangelical Positions

I'm going to risk making a typology of relations between evangelicals and "postmodernism." It is not meant to represent a fixed and forever stable arrangement, but a way to help us organize our thinking about the topic and more clearly see where people stand. The borders between types are porous and continually under revision, to be sure.

I suggest that three relations between evangelicals and postmodernism can be made out from the ongoing conversations. Each relation is multidimensional. They consist of at least a value judgement (postmodernism is good or bad, inferior or superior) and a movement (a move toward embracing postmodernism, a move away from postmodernism).*

1) Some Evangelicals reject postmodernism as making no sense and they consider it dangerous to their faith.

In a review of a certain book, one evangelical put it this way:

It is a helpful warning about the dangers of postmodernism. But this explicit warning has a subtext not intended by the writers. This subtext is an urgent cautionary reminder of the dangerous direction that the evangelical movement has taken.

Or a critical blogger's view on the matter. In this quote, he questions the evangelical and conservative credentials of an author known to be linked to the Emerging Church movement:

Here’s a bit more information for you concerning Dan Kimball, and I do happen to think he’s a nice guy, which shows he is actually quite dangerous to the historic orthodox Christ faith we know is the Truth.

These two voices define postmodernism and the faith practices and leadership that are emerging from those conditions as dangerous to more traditional understandings. The relationship they establish is oppositional. The traditional view is seen as superior to the emerging views. There is also a movement to distance, to not genuinely engage or try to understand, but to denounce and dismiss.

2) Some evangelicals are more or less attempting to make sense of this new cultural context that people often refer to as postmodernism. Yet this engagement does not render identity. Rather, these evangelicals continue to be grounded by modern beliefs and faith practices.

One of the more popular voices in this camp articulates his view toward postmodern faith practices and beliefs:

Contemporary evangelicals face the responsibility, not only of becoming conversant with the Emerging Church, but of continuing a conversation about what this movement really represents and where its trajectory is likely to lead. Some of the best, brightest, and most sensitive and insightful individuals from the younger evangelical generation have been drawn to this movement.

Echoing the sentiment of other popular authors, he remains critical:

Yet, "Once we have acknowledged the unavoidable finiteness of all human knowers, the cultural diversity of the human race, the diversity of factors that go into human knowing, and even the evil that lurks in the human breast and easily perverts claims of knowledge into totalitarian control and lust for power--once we have acknowledged these things, is there any way left for us to talk about knowing what is true or objectively real? Hard postmodernists insist there is not. And that's the problem."

Evangelicals speaking from this position seem to cast a more ambiguous judgement toward postmodernism and the faith practices that emerge from it. They are closer to postmodernism than those evangelicals in position 1 insofar as they are willing to engage (though somewhat suspiciously). The relation is one of resemblance. This perspective enables them to see that people expressing postmodern practices are complex and layered, with more or less "hard"/rigorous/consistent philosophies in circulation. While evangelicals in position 2 seem to be more willing to engage, they continue to remain rooted in certain modern conceptions, such as propositional truths and their relevance to their faith. Thus, on certain fundamental issues, there are disconnects between positions 2 and 3. One of the key consequences of this paradigmatic gap is misunderstanding and contention.

3) Some evangelicals identify themselves and their faith communities as "postmodern." Not to conflate all so-called postmodern evangelicals into a coherent whole, there are varying flavors and stripes. In relation to positions 1 and 2, however, these evangelicals find postmodern faith practices and ways of believing to make sense. It isn't simply a relativism of the faith, as those in 1 and 2 argue, but a reconstitution of what it means to be Christian and particularly to be evangelical.

As one postmodern evangelical framed the attraction to this new theology:

Deconstructive theology is an excellent rejection of the evangelical-fundamentalism of their youth and all its ills in the face of a radically pluralist, post-Christendom, post-modern world. Many emerging church folk are allergic to anything that smacks of a.) an intolerant judgmental exclusivism, b.) an arrogant, even violent, certainty about what we do know, and c.) an overly-rationalized hyper-cognitive gospel that takes the mystery out of everything we believe. If I have over-stated myself, forgive me. But I too have felt these pangs in relation to my own evangelical upbringing. Deconstructive theology is an excellent avenue of resistance to all these maladies.

Or in the words of another:

Obviously, I feel strongly that the road to inner peace and connection with our Creator is through Jesus. If you are one of the more than two billion Christians in the world, you may feel the same way. But in case you don't.... I'm not going to try to convince you that you can only do these thing if you believe in Jesus--I've seen lots of people try to convince other people about Jesus, and it's rarely successful.

The point seems to be to experience God with others; indeed, to find God in the Other and not just attempt to convert them. The aim is to not assume that we have a Secret, but to recognize that Others can know too. It is about relating to Others, to God and to oneself in a fruitful way. It is about moving beyond the management and confinement of Christ to the religion of Christianity. Evangelicals speaking from position 3 see the possibilities of postmodernism. It enables a liberating break from the foundational and fundamentalist viewes espoused by the dominant traditions articulated by positions 1 and 2.

To briefly conclude the typology, I've argued that evangelicals relate to postmodernism in three ways. Where some view postmodernism with critical skepticism and even fear, others embrace it with open arms. The difference is concrete. The question is how to deal with it. Can we relate to difference? Or must it be converted or excluded?




*On analyzing relations between self and other, I drew from Tzvetan Todorov's The Conquest of America

The Challenge of Relativism, or, The Problem Created by Absolute Descriptions

John Piper writes an apparently compelling essay on the issue of relativism. The piece is entitled: "The Challenge of Relativism."

The essay hinges on a key distinction between two kinds of descriptions.

John Piper makes a distinction between two kinds of descriptions, "daily speech" and Absolute Talk. Daily speech deals with issues like height and weight. These are topics that are measured by "human beings." Absolute Talk, however, deals with issues like "sexual relations between two men." These are topics that are judged according "God's will" as revealed in the Christian Bible.

What warrants these analytical distinctions between daily speech and Absolute Talk and between human standards and God's standards? Is it warranted to divorce the question of sexual relations between two males from the daily speech and deliberation between human beings? Can human beings not decide for themselves about the issue of sexual relations?

Piper does not justify the distinctions he makes between descriptions. He simply asserts them as if they were natural, as if talk of height and weight are naturally topics of daily speech and talk of sexual relations is naturally Absolute Talk. It seems that on some issues Piper is content to flesh out the "context or the standard" people are "using for measuring the truth of the statement," while on other issues he is keen to escape from the finitude of one's time and place.

Perhaps the issue of sexual relations can be decided by human beings, just as the topics of height and weight. Perhaps we should say that all talk is daily speech and no talk is Absolute, even talk of sexual relations between two men. In other words, descriptions are descriptions are descriptions. There is no justification in elevating one description above another. They are all descriptions made by someone in a time and place.

Relativism only makes sense in the context of Piper's essay once the distinction between daily speech and Absolute Talk is made. If no distinction is made, then the problem of relativism ceases to be a problem. Because, as Piper makes amply clear in the opening paragraphs of the essay, daily speech is not relative. The problem of Relativism is dependent on the assertion of Absolute Talk.

"The Challenge of Relativism" is really only a challenge if we insist on positing a divide between our daily talk and some kind of Absolute, non-human description that is Valid in All Times and All Places. If we situate all our descriptions in their contexts and we don't try to elevate some descriptions to the status of Absolute Talk, then the challenge of relativism is avoided all together.

Woody Guthrie and Jesus Christ

Woody Guthrie said:

I wrote this song looking out of a rooming house window in New York City in the winter of Nineteen and Forty. I thought I had to put down on paper how I felt about the rich folks and the poor ones.

This was quoted the liner notes for "Bound For Glory: The Songs and Story of Woody Guthrie," FOLKWAYS , 1956, p. 8.

The song goes like this:

Jesus Christ was a man who traveled through the land,
A hard working man and brave.
He said to the rich "Give your goods to the poor."
But they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand,
His followers true and brave,
One dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Has laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

He went to the preacher, He went to the sheriff,
He told them all the same,
"Sell all of your jewelry and give it to the poor,"
But they laid Jesus Christ in his grave.

When Jesus come to town, all the working folks around
Believed what He did say,
The bankers and the preachers they nailed Him on a cross.
Then they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

The poor workin' people, they followed Him around,
They sung and they shouted gay,
The cops and the soldiers, they nailed Him in the air,
And they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Well, the people held their breath when they heard about His death,
And everybody wondered why,
It was the landlord and the soldiers that he hired,
To nail Jesus Christ in the sky.

This song was written in New York City,
Of rich man, preacher and slave,
But if Jesus was to preach like He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave.

Notice how the relationship between the poor and the rich is the focus of this song and how this song emphasizes the economic and class aspects of Jesus' words and actions. Woody's mind wasn't on sexual purity, as many Evangelicals today.

What happened to the significance of this storyline? Why do so few speak of this aspect of Jesus' words and actions today? How did this storyline get overtaken by a far more dominant storyline that focuses on maintaining sexual purity and paternalism?

If at one time in American history there were different kinds of evangelical Christians voicing their interpretations, like Woody Guthrie and his song about Jesus Christ, what happened between then and now?

Beating Around the Ontological Bush

Tom Gilson, over at the Thinking Christian, posted this link to a great discussion (by John Mark Reynolds) of the relationship between science and religion.

Much of what Mark writes is agreeable to me. When he says, for instance:

If all sides of the religion-science debate admit that they are at best telling “likely stories,” then they can go about their work in peace. Each side can continue to use their own philosophic assumptions to spin new theories to explain the ever-increasing amount of data collected. Each side can tell their own story and the intelligent “neutral” can decide for himself.

But I would like to make two critical comments about the working philosophical assumptions/assertions that structure Mark's argument. My aim is simple: to make space for alternative possibilities and ways of thinking about the relationship between science and Christianity.

One: Mark's argument asserts/assumes a dualistic ontology. Though, it should be noted that his dualism is more tempered than a straight up Cartesian dualism. What does this mean? To use Mark's words, this means that:

The truth may be out there, but it can be hard to know....

The truth about the world is there. The world is real and it is knowable. It is not, however, knowable with absolute certainty. This Cartesian certainty is just not available to humans after the Fall. Humanity is cut off from the world and from each other. The mere use of language to communicate guarantees that misunderstanding and mistakes will occur.

In other words, at its ontological foundation, Mark posits a metaphysical divide between the subjective observer and between the objective observed.

Two: Mark presupposes that language is at base a vehicle for communication. He uncritically assumes a correspondence theory of truth. Mark is working from a referential epistemology, wherein subjective observers tell stories that more or less accurately match/mirror/correspond to Reality. The Truth of something, its essence, is Objective and Timeless. But because people are fallible, theories and communications between people can never perfectly mirror Reality--stories can only approximate Truth.

Where do we go from here? We've identified that Mark is working from a dualistic ontology and that he employs a correspondence theory of truth. My next move is to suggest that while Mark is articulating one ontological-epistemological combination that has a rich history in Western metaphysics, there are other possible combinations.

Instead of a dualistic ontology that posits a divide between subjects and objects, we might assume a monistic ontology. This ontology does not posit a divide between subjects and objects. On the contrary, I argue that humans and their beliefs cannot swing free of their surroundings--they are intimately bound together. It is not subjects and objects, but combinations of relationships that give form and shape to concrete realities.

Epistemologically, a monistic ontology calls forth something other than a correspondence theory of truth. If there is no gap between subjects and objects, the problem of corresponding words to things isn't much of a problem anymore. On this view, words and stories are not primarily referential, but constitutive. Words and stories work as social bindings that tie people to their surroundings, giving them meaning and form.

So, we have a monistic ontology and a non-referential epistemology, which contrasts with Mark's dualistic ontology and correspondence theory of truth. These two different ontological-epistemological combinations work as philosophical groundings that enable us to spin different kinds of stories about different topics.

Thus, we have two kinds of stories about truth.

Instead of saying that the truth is "out there" and it is our duty to search it out, I would propose that the truth is immanent and it is our duty to make it happen here and now.

The fruits of truth are to be born out of our acts toward others. And it is from our conduct, our heart and our way, that we are judged (Jeremiah 17:10).

Bearing Sour Fruit

On 27 March I wrote at the end of a post:

Don't point to a piece of empirical evidence and say: "look here, my faith in God is proven." Rather, demonstrate to me the validity and trustworthiness of your faith by showing me the fruit that it bears. Show me truth, love and justice in your actions.

There are any number of ways that a Christian can act in the name of God. Sometimes the fruit of those words and actions isn't sweet at all. Sometimes its quite sour and distasteful. We should ask: In God's name, what are you saying/doing? Below is an instance in which a Christian leader is bearing some sour and distasteful fruit.

From the August 22 broadcast of The 700 Club:

ROBERTSON: There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with.

Pat seems to be putting on display his nationalistic zealotry and weaving through it, his power and position as a key Christian leader. The fruit is ugly and dangerous, if you ask me.

Resemblance

"Who and what is next?"

Roberta Sklar, spokeswoman for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force responded to the President's support of a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage:

"If he endorses amendments such as this, which blatantly discriminates against a class of people, you would then have to wonder who and what is next."

Ms. Sklar's statement brings to mind another time in history. One of Hitler's first acts after taking office on January 30, 1933 was to ban homosexual organizations. From the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:

" Soon after taking office on January 30, 1933, Hitler banned all homosexual and lesbian organizations. Brownshirted storm troopers raided the institutions and gathering places of homosexuals."

"On May 6,1933, Nazis ransacked the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin; four days later as part of large public burnings of books viewed as "un-German," thousands of books plundered from the Institute's library were thrown into a huge bonfire." more

The photo below shows the burning of homosexual books in Berlin.

"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." Heinrich Heine, nineteenth century German author.

"On Sunday evening, members of the Harvest Assembly of God Church in Penn Township sing songs as they burn books, videos and CDs that they have judged offensive to their God."

Published in the Butler Eagle, March 26, 2001. Courtesy of the Butler Eagle

From "Playing with Fire" by James Carroll of the Boston Globe (3/9/04):

God as Hypothesis

Many Christians whether they are aware of it or not, view the Bible and their faith through the lens of referential epistemology (or also known as a correspondence theory of truth).

What does all that gibberish mean?

It means that many proclaim the Words of the Bible to accurately fit or correspond to the world out there. As a result of this epistemological stance, we see books like Josh McDowell's mega-popular: Evidence that Demands a Verdict. In this book, McDowell lays out empirical evidence that he argues attests to the validity of the Christian faith. Or said differently, McDowell tests the Words of the Bible against the historical record in an attempt to justify the Christian faith to doubters. So, for instance, on page 68, he uses archaeological evidence to confirm the trustworthiness of Scripture.

So what's wrong with this?

One big problem is that people are inadvertently using a modern epistemological theory to support or prove their faith in the Bible. Historically, the correspondence theory of truth is a modern invention of philosophers of science. It is an epistemology that is only a few hundred years old, while the Bible is much, much older.

But really why is this problematic?

Well, because folks like McDowell are implicitly setting modern scientific practice (testing against empirical evidence the accuracy of a word) as the standard the Bible and its Words must pass before its valid. McDowell and his likes seem to want to make God into a hypothesis that can be tested against the evidence. The more evidence for God the more valid and trustworthy the Christian faith.

This way of talking about faith also has the effect of getting Christians caught up in battles with other empiricists. Thus, look at the recent books written by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, Sam Harris and others that try to refute Christian faith on empirical grounds. Or, they try to reduce Christian faith or religion more generally, to an empirical/material cause (e.g. a genetic or neuron-chemical brain function). In response, Christian apologists do double time in an effort to pick apart these arguments and offer counter evidence that attests to the validity of their faith.

But is faith in God really about empirics? I don't think so, or at least its not necessary.

To quote John D. Caputo on this: "Religious truth is not the truth of propositions, the sort of truth that comes from getting our cognitive ducks in order, from getting our cognitive contents squared up with what is out there in the world, so that if we say 'S is p' that means that we have picked out an Sp out there that looks just like our proposition."

Religious truth is of a different order. Saying that "God is love," for instance, is not about finding and testing "God" and "love" against the empirical record.

To continue with Caputo: "So if we say 'God is love,' that means that we are expected to get off our haunches and do something, make the truth happen, amidst our sisters and our brothers....in spirit and in truth, which means in deed, for the name of God is the name of a deed."

So, in short, we need to make the break and realize that faith in God is not dependent on some empirical piece of evidence and no amount of evidence is going to prove God or the Christian faith to be valid or trustworthy. McDowell may be doing a popular apologetic exercise that aims at convincing a modern-minded crowd of doubters--but he is doing damage too, as he risks reducing God to a rationally explicable and empirically testable phenomena. I would urge that the validity and trustworthiness of Christians and their faith is a matter to be made, a deed to be done and demonstrated to doubters. Don't point to a piece of empirical evidence and say: "look here, my faith in God is proven." Rather, demonstrate to me the validity and trustworthiness of your faith by showing me the fruit that it bears. Show me truth, love and justice in your actions.

JesUSAves

What does this image do? It yokes Jesus, USA, and Saves into a whole. The image ties the secular (USA and corporate produces) together with the sacred. It seems to produce a historically salient nationalistic/patriotic fantasy that the USA is an exceptional state, a state touched by the hand of God and infused by manifest destiny.

Or maybe not? What do you think?

"Homosexuality": The Creative Work of Evangelicals (Part 2)

In part one, I tried to demonstrate that the issue of 'homosexuality' is not a point of discussion in the Bible. It is a contemporary issue tied to the social and political conditions in the United States, particularly during the 1970s and 1980s. Moving beyond this argument is the point of this second part.

Instead of arguing that those evangelicals that say 'homosexual practice' is mentioned in the Bible are wrong, I'll take a different tact. When someone says something to the effect: "the Bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin." The questions that guide this analysis is: What are they doing? And, How are they doing it?

My argument is that many evangelicals continually weave the contemporary word 'homosexuality' and its attendant meanings back onto the Biblical text through the process of story telling. They take a topic that emerged enforce during the 1980s and project it back into history. The effect of this re-reading is to tie the Bible to the present political issue of 'homosexuality' in a way that justifies the speaker's condemnation on Biblical grounds.

As Albert Mohler demonstrates, the story telling happens smoothly. Watch as he creatively weaves 'homosexuality' to the Bible.

Let's get this straight -- God's condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God's Word. The Bible could not be more clear -- all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator's rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God's express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God's verdict.

This creative weaving powerfully enables Mohler to define 'homosexuality' as 'sin' and 'rebellion against God's express will.' It situates Mohler as the knower of this fact (while not explaining how he knows) and it implies that Mohler is in God's good graces compared to the sinful 'homosexual.' But more importantly, Mohler is acting to define the limits of what constitutes the evangelical viewpoint on the contemporary issue of 'homosexuality.' 'Homosexuality' is beyond the pale and the Bible is used to justify this perspective on the matter.

Usually this creative reading of 'homosexual' is sewn into three places in the Bible:

Leviticus 18:22 which reads "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is
detestable."

Leviticus 20:13 which reads "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

Romans 1:26-27 which reads "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

From these versus, it is inferred that the Bible was referring to 'homosexuality.' The explanation for this inferential leap from the empirical evidence to 'homosexuality' is conveinently left out of the discussion. The differences in the contexts in which the Bible was written and our contemporary contexts is absent from the discussion. Instead, a condemning story is told with certainty--'the Bible says clearly that homosexuality is a sin.'

The Bible can be read differently. This is not the only way that these verses can be read. For instance, take Blogging the Bible: What's Really in the Good Book. David Plotz is not an evangelical. He characterizes chapter 20 of Leviticus in these words:

Chapter 20
This is the Law and Order: SVU chapter, where the Lord specifies punishment for sex crimes. The most popular sentence: "They shall be put to death." Execution is the price for sex between: adulterer and adulteress; man and stepmother; man and daughter-in-law; man and man; man and beast; woman and beast. A threesome of man, woman, and her mother is singled out as especially heinous: The punishment is not just death but getting burned to death. God allows a few tender mercies: Marrying a sister is punished only by excommunication. Sex with a menstruating woman—that rates only banishment. And sex with an aunt or sister-in-law merely guarantees the culprits will die childless.

Nowhere does Plotz use the word 'homosexual' to frame any of the discussion of Leviticus. He is reading the same texts (generically, the Bible) as everyone else, yet interpreting it differently than many evangelicals. Plotz's reading stays closer to the empirical text by using 'man and man' language. He does not sew into the Bible text the word 'homosexual' and thus avoids the overt politicization that comes with its use.

Thus, evangelicals are not wrong; or at least that is not my argument.

I'm just saying that to "keep thinking" about this issue seems to be another way of saying: Let's keep talking about and acting out this storyline that ties 'homosexuality' to the Bible. Let's bring this worldview to life. Let's creat it and sustain it.

"Homosexuality": An Extra-Biblical Storyline (Part 1)

It is commonplace to hear that "the Bible says clearly that homosexual practice is a sin" or some similar derivation of that.

Yet a quick peek into any of the popular translations of the Bible today reveals that 'homosexuality' or 'homosexual practice' are not empirically in the texts themselves. There is no mention of these 'sins,' as is commonly argued.

More to the point, 'homosexual' has a rather modern history.

homosexual (adj.)

1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex).

" 'Homosexual' is a barbarously hybrid word, and I claim no responsibility for it." [H. Havelock Ellis, "Studies in Psychology," 1897]

The noun is first recorded 1912 in Eng., 1907 in French. In technical use, either male or female; but in non-technical use almost always male. Slang shortened form homo first attested 1929. The alternative homophile (1960) was coined in ref. to the homosexual regarded as a person of a particular social group, rather than a sexual abnormality. Homo-erotic first recorded 1916; homophobia is from 1969.

Historically speaking, then, it would have been impossible for the word 'homosexual' to appear during the time of the Bible's writing, since it was first produced in a late nineteenth century book. This is significant because it directly challenges the claim that the "Bible says clearly" anything at all about 'homosexuality.'

When did 'homosexuality' emerge as a problem for evangelical Christians?

To shed some empirical light on this question, I turned to Google's new "News Archive" search feature. Here I searched for this combination of words: "homosexual + evangelical." For all the available years, the results look like this:

Pre-1950 = 4
1950-1959 = 29
1990-1992 = 455
1993-1995 = 521
1997-2002 = 1300
2003-2006 = 2190

Before 1959, just over thirty news articles appeared. The frequency of these word pairs is fairly limited. Between 1960 and 1990, however, things started to come together.

What was going on during this time?

Given this officially recognized designation as a class of people, 'homosexuals,' started speaking out in the name of 'Gay rights' and 'equality' for 'homosexuals.' Also, the political, moral, economic, and ethical issue of AIDS emerged as a problem in the United States.

Particularly during the late 1970s and 1980s, networks of people identifying themselves as 'evangelicals' and 'fundamentalists' were politically energized around various politico-religious leaders and issues. To quote Susan Friend Harding, the 1980s saw a "born-again Christian cultural diaspora" that "sent inerrant Bible-believers into the vast professional middle-class reaches of America."

The diffusion of information networks like the Internet and cable network TV lowered the cost of mass communicating to large national and transnational audiences. Of particular significance, was the rise of televangelism and the birth of an industry of mass marketed Christian products, services and merchandise.

Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States and was heroisized by many right leaning Americans as bringing down the Iron Curtain and pushing the Godless Soviet Union to collapse.

Other conditions undoubtedly were involved in making the expansion possible. The point is that the 1980s saw the conditions made ripe for an explosion of talk about 'homosexuals' and 'evangelicals' in the news. Thus, the early 1990s saw a precipitous rise in the number of articles.

The point of all this is to say that the politicization of the issue of 'homosexuality' is rather new. Being against 'homosexuality' is not a Biblical axiom. The Bible says nothing about 'homosexuality.' It is a contemporary political topic that self identified evangelicals talk about. In short, my argument is that 'homosexuality' is a contemporary storyline that emerged after WWII and crystallized as an issue for evangelicals during the late 1970s and 1980s.

Yep, Sex is on the Evangelical Mind

A few days ago I made a post about how many evanglicals have sex on the mind. Then today I ran across the Baptist Press News article that only served to fortify my view.

In Kentucky, over 700 students gathered at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary to talk about God and Sex.

As the Dean of the School of Theology, Russel D. Moore said: “Right now in this generation there are a couple of white hot issues that are the key touchstones of apologetic interest, and sex is right there at the center of it"

Yes, like I've been saying...or better yet, in the words of the BPN article: "sex is not a secondary issue."

Sex is on everybody's mind it seems.

Sex on the Mind--Evangelicals in America

No, it's not enough to follow Jesus of Nazareth. It is not enough to have a burning passion for the poor. It's not enough to strive toward some semblance of social justice. We have to have sex on the mind.

Let me illustrate.

According to the Baptist News Press, five churches in North Carolina are at odds with the Baptist State Convention over the issue of homosexuality. Last fall, the Convention voted by nearly a three-fourths margin to "change the convention's articles of incorporation regarding membership."

On what issue, you might guess, are the Convention's articles to be changed and made more exclusionary? Sex!

The original BSCNC membership article stated, “A cooperating church shall be one that financially supports any program, institution, or agency of the Convention, and which is in friendly cooperation with the Convention and sympathetic with its purposes and work.”

The addition to the article states, “Among churches not in friendly cooperation with the Convention are churches which knowingly act to affirm, approve, endorse, promote, support or bless homosexual behavior. The Board of Directors shall apply this provision. A church has a right to appeal any adverse action taken by the Board of Directors.”

The deacons at St. Johns, one of the five offending churches, noted that

as a “community of the new creation,” we are “open to all and closed to none. This includes a welcome to gay and lesbian persons who wish to follow Christ with us here.”

“We have not changed our mission,” St. John’s said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the [Baptist State Convention] has changed its mission and has chosen to narrow its membership to exclude churches and institutions that do not adhere to its exclusive and discriminatory view of who is welcome in its fellowship.”

Both the NC State Convention and St. John's church have sex on the mind. But more than being simply on the mind, the State Convention and the church govern themselves around the issue of sex--sex is a topic that justifies exclusion and inclusion into this or that community. How we think about and act toward sex helps define who "we" are.

A similar article appeared in the NY Times this morning. James Dobson, Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins and other conservative Christian leaders wrote a letter to the National Association of Evangelicals. Their aim was to put pressure on Rev. RichardCizik, the DC policy director.

Why, you might ask?

“We have observed,” the letter says, “that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time.”

Those issues, the signers say, are a need to campaign against abortion and same-sex marriage and to promote “the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.”

The NC Baptist Convention, St. Johns and the various evangelical leaders that signed the letter seem to have sex on the mind and a burning passion for the politics of sexuality and purity.

With sex on the mind, where does that leave the poor? Or the environment? Are they secondary? Tertiary? Are their care not an issue of morality?

Make some mental space for issues other than sex.

Christianity and Culture

In "Keeping Current With The Culture," Bill White says

How many of these terms can you identify? Metrosexual. Bennifer. Blogging. G-Unit. Is it hard to stay on top of the constant stream of culture swirling around you? (Metrosexual: a heterosexual who embraces much of homosexual culture; popularized by the wildly successful TV show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Bennifer: the movie star couple Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez. Blogging: a Blog is a web log (an online journal); blogging is using your online journal for the purposes of criticism, which then has extensive influence because web search engines link to them. G-Unit: The band of top-selling rapper 50 Cent.)

If we are to be like the men of Issachar "who understood the times and knew what Israel should do" (1 Chronicles 12:32), we need to study the culture. Here are a few pointers on how to catch the culture in order to bridge the gap from the unchanging gospel to the contemporary world.

The idea seems to be that culture is bad or denigrating to the word of God and that all culture is popular culture. As the subtitle to Mr. White's piece allows, this is "How to study the contemporary world without being shaped by it." The suggestion is that Mr. White is not part of the contemporary world.

Mr White offers four strategies for studying contemporary culture but not being shaped by it.

Listen to Non-Christian Radio
Watch Commercials
Study Their Bible (e.g. Entertainment Weekly)
Find a Culture Coach (e.g. a 'non-Christian,' or what he calls 'Normal People')

I hate to break it to Mr. White, but culture is more than popular and it can't simply be reduced to something bad and impure. Mr. White, whether he knows it or not, participates in a subculture--not even a subculture in the US, a fairly dominant culture in fact. Understanding what it means to be an evangelical Christian is perhaps the first sign that one is operating within this cultural matrix.

To quote The Interpretation of Cultures, by the late Clifford Geertz, an anthropologists that made his living studying culture, "culture consists of socially established structures of meaning" that makes members' actions intelligible to those participating in that (sub)culture.

So, here is another way of seeing Mr. White's actions.

Mr. White participates in a subculture, or a structure of meaning, in which it is intelligible for fellow members (particularly those engaging in preacherly discourse) to understand their actions as outside culture.

I would argue that Mr. White is not literally getting outside culture. I mean, if he were outside culture, then no one could understand what he means. He would be unintelligible to fellow preachers and to me--his words would be akin to a strange language or dialect of clicks and grunts that make no sense. But since he makes sense to us and to evangelical preachers around the world, we can see that Mr. White is participating in a culture.

In drawing a clear boundary between Christians on the one hand and non-Christians (or 'Normal People') on the other hand, Mr. White is asserting a division between inside and outside. This set of actions helps define the cultural identity community in which Mr. White participates in relation to Others--namely popculture. In his discourse, then, we see that popculture is a figure of difference and Otherness against which Mr. White organizes himself and speaks for/with a community of evangelical preachers. Mr. White is not outside culture. Rather, he is performing a cultural script that makes a lot of sense to evangelical preachers.

Asserting the Present and Settling the Past

This morning on the Baptist Press News, Rev. Henry Blackaby opens with these words:

Faith, or belief, can only operate in the present. It takes no faith to believe what has been –- that’s settled. Likewise, it takes no faith to believe what God can do, for with God all things are possible. Faith functions in what you believe God is going to do right now.

The assertion that "It takes no faith to believe what has been--that's settled" is an interesting rhetoric because it works to close down the possibility of re-thinking "what has been." Contrary to Rev. Blackaby's claim, history is the site of much struggle over just what did happen. Historical revision and the emergence of new primary source data continually challenge the dominant interpretations of "what has been." History, in other words, is far from "settled."

The act of saying that history is "settled" is a conservative move to hold in place a particular interpretation that one happens to be fond of. To say that it is "settled," is another way of saying that there is no debate, no disagreement, no alternative views, not chance for re-reading "what has been." Any close reading of the data, historical works on the topics of faith and God or the Bible itself, reveals a number of different possible readings.

Rev. Blackaby seems to be trying to stabilize a particular interpretation of faith and God. One that no doubt sustains his reading of the Bible--because, of course, we shouldn't assume that Rev. Blackaby is attempting to undermine his own faith in the vision of God that he articulates.

Faith is constituted by history. Rev. Blackaby fails to see this, because history for him is "settled," which is another way of saying the struggles out of which this history grew, has been forgotten or at least downplayed. Rev. Blackaby apparently sits at the edge of history--"in the present." And like the historical struggle that he has forgotten, Rev. Blackaby does not see his role, his effort in carrying forth this particular interpretation of faith and God. Rev. Blackaby does not recognize his concrete effort in the "present" to maintain a specific interpretation.

We are all carriers of some history. We all bring some history with us into the present. And with that effort, we contribute to the struggle that made that history the history and not just one of the many histories that could have been.

What are we to do with Christians wanting to do something about Islam?

"What are we to do about Islam?" is a question Mike Licona asked in this morning's Baptist Press News. By 'we', Mike is referring to Christians. His talk presupposes that 'we' are a corporate actor, an agent, with the capacity to 'do' something. It ignores the fact that Christians are divided into many different sects--there are Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Universalists, etc. But this forgetting of the sectarian differences that constitute late modern Christianity, is a move made possible by the figure of 'Islam.' In other words, in Mike's talk, it is the face of difference that helps solidify 'we' against them. And it is most certainly a 'we' versus them mentality that organizes Mike's thoughts. This becomes clear when he says:

The objective of many Muslims is to Islamicize the world. When a person or a country stands in the way of Islam’s efforts, these regard it as a “war on Islam.” This does not mean all Muslims hate Christians. For over a thousand years there have been many friendships between Muslims and Christians. However, Muslims who have befriended Christians have disregarded the Koran in the process, since it prohibits such friendships (Q 5:51).

So, in effect, it is Christian people and countries versus Muslims and their apparent efforts to 'Islamicize the world.' But in noting that Muslims do missionary work, Mike obscures the enormous time, energy and finances that evangelical Christians spend on missionary work. In some sense, then, what we are seeing here is a turf battle between Christianizing and Islamicizng agents. Mike is a Christianizing agent.

As a Christianizing agent, Mike articulates three ways of dealing with Islamic agents. The first:

Understand that we stand in the way of Islam intentionally. We believe that Islam is a religion that promotes false teachings about God. The Apostle Paul wrote, “But even if we (or an angel from heaven) should preach a Gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be condemned to hell!” (Galatians 1:8). Since Islam’s message differs fundamentally from the Gospel, it is clear what Paul taught regarding the fate of Muhammad and those who propagate Islam. A few years later Paul wrote, “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). It is the responsibility of evangelical Christians to promote the Gospel of Christ to the exclusion of the core messages of other religions -- including Islam. In the eyes of Muslim Islamicists, this places evangelical Christians at war with Islam.

Again, 'we' is used by Mike to signify the boundaries between the Christian community and the Muslim community. These boundaries, as Mike says clearly, must exclude the 'core messages of other religions because 'Islam's message differs fundamentally from the Gospel.' But does it? Mike is using a logic of differentiation here. One might say that fundamentally, Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all three religions tied together through the figure of Moses. And, all three religions are monotheistic. So, Mike's logic of differentiation effectively obscures the historical links between the three religions. Mike is politicizing the relationship by hardening the boundaries into an a-histoircal configuration that fits nicely with the contemporary fears many Americans have of Muslims. Thus,

It is natural to feel anger and hatred toward Muslims who want to kill us. On a national level, we can support politicians who are committed to hunting down and destroying terrorists, upholding free speech, and standing in the way of Muslim thugs who declare war on everything which does not allow Islam to dominate. On a personal level, Jesus tells us plainly what our response should be:

"But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.... If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. ... But love your enemies, and do good ... and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men" (Luke 6:27-35).

So, in saying that it is 'natural to feel anger and hatred toward Muslims that want to kill us,' Mike is legitimating and normalizing this response over other possible responses. Other responses that include, turning the other cheek, as Jesus might have suggested. But more than that, Mike is conflating the US war on terrorism as part and parcel of a Christian response. This comes through most clearly when he says they want to 'kill us'--meaning 'us' Christians and 'us' Americans--and then when he appeals to a national-scale war-making effort. What is fascinating is how love and war work together in Mike's discourse. This helps construct the difference between the nation on one hand and the individual on the other hand and legitimate the violence that the nation perpetrates against others and the missionary work individual Christians do. In other words, as the nation wages war, realize that Jesus calls us to a "holy war" -- the difference is that our holy war actually involves, well, holiness, and does not involve weapons and violence.

Thus, 'we' are clearly different than them. 'We' are holy and they are not. 'We' are waging a legitimate war and they are not. 'We' have the right religion and they do not. But can these strict 'we'-they boundaries not be deconstructed? Is Mike not helping to cultivate fear? Is Mike not helping discipline those that call themselves Christian? I wonder if Mike has ever met a Muslim.

Where are the "Poor" People?

In a Baptist Press News article, a theologian says that Bush's presidency fairs well on Biblical grounds.

Grudem weighed the Bush presidency on 10 major issues that included protection of life, marriage/family and the courts, human dignity, the political process, the environment, economics, the war on terror, communication skills and personal character and faith....

...Bush has consistently given the nation a stalwart example of kindness and moral leadership consistent with an evangelical Christian worldview, Grudem said....

“I am so very thankful for an outstanding, I think excellent president,” Grudem said. “What more could we ask from a president, the man who has the most difficult job in the whole world? I think [he] has continually exhibited personal conduct that is above reproach, giving moral leadership to the nation by example of life and by kindness that amazes me toward those in politics and in the press who continue relentlessly to attack him.

What exactly has Bush done to gain all this praise? According to Gruden, Bush has spread religious and political freedom around the world, he has preserved the lives of unborn children by signing into law the partial birth abortion ban, he has appointed federal judges that are strict constructionists, he has upheld the Biblical understanding of marriage, defended the nation against terrorism, called evil evil, and made allies with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Lebanon.

The aim of this post is not to empirically challenge these claims, even though their accuracy is certainly up for questioning.

My real concern is with Gruden's claim that Bush is an example of a good Christian. If Bush is an example of a good Christian, then I believe that that doesn't bode well for Christians more generally. Gruden's claim ignores the large number of people that self-identify as Christians that dislike Bush and think his policies are morally, biblically and legally questionable. To take one example, Jim Wallis has called President Bush's troop "surge" a "criminal" act. Those are words clearly not of praise and admiration.

Bush is not a good example of Christians writ large. On the contrary, Bush is a good example of one loud, politically charged, Christian sect's vision of Christianity. Gruden reflects and reproduces this sect and the policy issues they push forward--largely, the issues are bound up with purity and pollution. Take the issue of marriage as an example. Gruden says:

The president has also upheld the traditional biblical view of marriage and has opposed “same-sex marriage” by supporting a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Grudem said it is properly within the government’s domain as defined in Romans 13:1-7 to encourage traditional marriage, because when it does so, the ruling authority is exercising its God-ordained role of restraining evil and rewarding good.

By pollution and purity, I mean that Gruden and Bush come together around the notion of marriage as consisting of one man and one women, each with their proper roles and divisions of labor naturally attached. Purity is achieved through the gestures of separation that attempt to fix this interpretation, this particular meaning, as a Devin formula that is outside of human argument and disputation. Anything different than one man and one women, this single formulation of marriage, allows dangerous mixtures that threaten (as Gruben sees it) to destroy the "lives of our children and grandchildren and...our freedom to preach from the Bible.”

The one question that I want to ask is this: where are the poor people? Gruden doesn't actually mention the plight of the materially "poor" in his talk, and Bush did very little in concrete terms for the "poor." But throughout the Old and New Testaments, the concerns of the "poor" are addressed on numerous occasions. Take one instance, Jesus said: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" (Matthew 19:21). The lack of concern for the "poor" in relation to the concern for "marriage," can be seen as issue of purity too. During the life and time of Jesus, the socially marginalized (poor, women, lepers, tax collectors) were brought into the circle of people following Jesus. This symbolically challenged dominant ideals of purity structuring Jewish practice. Today, the poor continue to be marginalized by some religious and political elite (e.g. Gruden and Bush) and I believe that it continues to be tied up in issues of purity and pollution, and biblical interpretations that emphasize spiritual well being over material well being.

Soul Winning with Tax Financed Evangelism

In "Religion for a Captive Audience, Paid for by Taxes," we learn about taxed-financed Christian evangelism in prisons.

Life was different in Unit E at the state prison outside Newton, Iowa.

The toilets and sinks — white porcelain ones, like at home — were in a separate bathroom with partitions for privacy. In many Iowa prisons, metal toilet-and-sink combinations squat beside the bunks, to be used without privacy, a few feet from cellmates.

The cells in Unit E had real wooden doors and doorknobs, with locks. More books and computers were available, and inmates were kept busy with classes, chores, music practice and discussions. There were occasional movies and events with live bands and real-world food, like pizza or sandwiches from Subway. Best of all, there were opportunities to see loved ones in an environment quieter and more intimate than the typical visiting rooms.

But the only way an inmate could qualify for this kinder mutation of prison life was to enter an intensely religious rehabilitation program and satisfy the evangelical Christians running it that he was making acceptable spiritual progress. The program — which grew from a project started in 1997 at a Texas prison with the support of George W. Bush, who was governor at the time — says on its Web site that it seeks “to ‘cure’ prisoners by identifying sin as the root of their problems” and showing inmates “how God can heal them permanently, if they turn from their sinful past.”

Christmas, Christianity and America

Tom Gilson recently drew from David Limbaugh in a blog discussion about the shutting of the Nativity scene in Chicago. I commented on Gilson's blog and wish to follow up here.

Much hand wringing goes on over the place of Christmas in America. Over the past few years, the notion of a 'war on Christmas' has been raised by various commentators. There is a war, they suggest, aimed at the holiday and even the religion itself. It is waged around the country by 'secular humanists,' 'liberals,' and the usual lot of contemporary enemies of Christ. Usually, the story goes, Christians are the underdogs being shouted down by whatever counter-Christian force they happen to face.

Another way of seeing the situation is that the ruckus raised by many Christians over the status of Christmas in America, arises from the demise of the presupposition that Christmas, Christianity and America go hand in hand. They no longer do. The presupposition is no longer an unproblematic way of life today, as there are any number of different religious, ethical and metaphysical persuasions animating people in America.

Historically, one might see today as akin to the period of time after Jesus' death when Christianity was just forming as a movement. It was not hegemonic then and in America that hegemony is rapidly being challenged today.

Talking about a 'war on Christmas' is more than an empirical observation that reflects reality. It is a way of framing the situation, a metaphor that works to inscribe meaning to unfolding events and give them shape and order. A 'war on Christmas' functions to mobilize the troops, so to speak, as it neatly ties into the notion of 'spiritual warfare,' whereby Good and Evil are ultimately animating events on earth and the 'war on Christmas' is simply part of this broader battle. The articulation of a 'war on Christmas' is a way of effecting a divide between those that belong to the community (friends of Christ) and those that do not (enemies of Christ).

In other words, in a period of time when the dominance of the presumption of Christianity is waning in America, the 'war on Christmas' is a way of hardening symbolically important sites that anchor the Christian storyline to the sociopolitical context in the United States.

A Divine American Leadership?

Russel D. Moore wrote a pespective piece in the Baptist Press entitled: Nancy Pelosi is my Prayer Partner. The point that I want to comment on is Moore's claim that:

The news networks tell us that the new majority in the United States House and Senate is the result of a "wave" of Democratic Party voters. From a human and historical vantage point, that's true. But as those who believe in the providence of God, it is also true that "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God" (Romans 13:1). For whatever reason, on Election Day God decided that Nancy Pelosi will be sitting behind President Bush at next year's State of the Union address. And God decided that outgoing Speaker Dennis Hastert would not be seated there.

He says further that Christians can be critical of their leaders, that Christians should not acquiesce to their government, and that Christians should respect those leaders they politically differ from. But, and here is where this blog comes in, What does it mean/do to believe and act as if your leadership is somehow devinely linked?

A key effect of acting like American political leadership is divinly installed is that ultimately, whatever the leadership does and for whatever reasons and even if it is evil (as Moore says Pelosi's stance on abortion is), these leaders are still tight with God. This creates a tension for folks like Moore. How is that God installed someone in office that does evil works? What kind of God is that? And why should anyone praise and pray to this God that puts evildoers in office?

Moore doesn't account for these problems, which points to a broader problem of the Baptist sect that I have encountered before--there is a theological sloppiness that haunts their beliefs. It bugs me. Work it out! Think it out! Don't be complacent with blatantly contradictory positions. They don't help your cause.

But more than that, the belief that the political leadership is somehow linked with God is a mode of interpretation with deep historical roots. Moore, like a good trooper, taps into this discourse. He keeps it alive and performs it for us, an audience that is not familiar with this kind of interpretation. So, a second effect of Moore's claim that our political leadership is divine is to thrust an alternative interpretation of events onto the scene. In other words, Moore challenges the dominance of modern 'secular' politics by making the claim that the political leadership is linked to God.

Thirdly, what about the leadership of other countries? Are they also divinly inspired? Is Kim Jong Ill also annointed by God? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran also divinely inspired? To follow Moore's logic, one might think so. But who knows? As a mentioned above, there is a certainly a bit of sloppiness to his case.