jump to navigation

It’s not as hot as NASA originally thought… August 13, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Global Warming.
2 comments

Mark Steyn reports that NASA has revivsed its previously released data on the hottest years on record. Turns out the 1930s were hotter than the 1990s, and FDR did nothing to stop the climate change!

They’re not issuing any press releases about it. But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures. The “hottest year on record” is no longer 1998, but 1934. Another alleged swelterer, the year 2001, has now dropped out of the Top 10 altogether, and most of the rest of the 21st century – 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 – plummeted even lower down the Hot 100. In fact, every supposedly hot year from the Nineties and this decade has had its temperature rating reduced. Four of America’s Top 10 hottest years turn out to be from the 1930s, that notorious decade when we all drove around in huge SUVs with the air-conditioning on full-blast. If climate change is, as Al Gore says, the most important issue anyone’s ever faced in the history of anything ever, then Franklin Roosevelt didn’t have a word to say about it.

Read the full column here: Warmongers and cheeseburger imperialists

The mess we’re in… August 13, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Politics.
2 comments

Robert Novak gives us excellent insight into precisely why the Federal budget deficit will always be a deficit. At least one congressman with integrity stood on principle against the entire House of Representatives as he demanded justification for millions of dollars of earmarks that aren’t needed nor have they been requested by various departments of the government. These earmarks serve only one purpose: rewarding constiuents back home for their support.

Read Mr. Novak’s excellent column: House of Corruption?

Junk Bonds and American Ambivalence August 9, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Barry Bonds, Baseball.
3 comments

At 8:51 pm PST on Tuesday, August 7 a collective yawn rippled across the American continent, originating in San Francisco and sweeping through to New York City like a continent-wide version of “The Wave.” So intense was the ambivalence to Barry Bonds surpassing Hank Aaron on the career Home Run leaders list it generated weather patterns resulting in the first ever tornado reported in Brooklyn, NY the next morning.  Of course it could also be the tornado was an omen of the displeasure felt by the Great Bambino himself, given that Babe Ruth played 15 years of his career for the New York Yankees and is buried just north of New York City. (Insert smiley emoticon here)

Baseball milestones are hard to come by. Babe Ruth’s Home Run record stood for 39 years. When Barry Bonds stepped to the plate last Tuesday night in San Francisco, Hank Aaron’s record had stood for 33 years. Given the significance and the rarity of it all you would think this nation would be abuzz. It wasn’t and it isn’t.

There is more to the ambivalence about Bonds than just the steroid scandal, but steroid questions certainly are a contributing factor. The steroid cloud has followed Bonds on every road trip this year, only dissipating in the friendly confines of AT&T Park. I recently asked the great baseball Hall of Fame broadcaster Ernie Harwell, the voice of the Detroit Tigers for more than 30 years, if he felt the steroid questions surrounding Bonds diminished in any way his accomplishment. He told me,

Well, I think it sullies the record somewhat, to some extent. But on the other hand I feel like he has, if he sets the record he sets it and should be officially in the record book. Baseball has always been a great survivor to all the bad things that people do to it, and I think eventually baseball fans will look back on the 1990’s as a historical period in the game where people took drugs and used steroids and certain guys hit more home runs after they bulked up. But right now everything’s so fuzzy about the evidence that it’s hard to make any kind of a decision or discernment about the situation. I think we’ve all really got to sit back and wait until it’s sorted out and we find out what really happened before we make a decision. But in general my answer would be, I think the record should stand. He’s a great player, there’s no question about that. He’s just one of several that, at the moment, seem to be involved in this situation.

When Hank Aaron was chasing Babe Ruth in the summer of ‘73 and the spring of ‘74 this country was on the edge of its seat in anticipation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just ten years old. Every child growing up in America was told that this country provided opportunity for any one to accomplish anything. Given the realities of the struggle for civil rights in the 1950’s and 1960’s I doubt that most black children believed it. In the shadow of the accomplishment of real civil rights legislation, America watched as a black kid from Mobile, Alabama grew up to achieve the impossible. The American Dream came true right in front of our transfixed eyes.

Aaron’s pursuit of Ruth ignited a nostalgia in the hearts of Americans, reminding us of a time when the game was truly a game, played in cornfields and cow pastures, for love not money. The pursuit gave us visions of the Golden Age of Baseball, recalling the names of not only Ruth, but Gehrig, Greenberg, and DiMaggio, heroes enshrined in the collective imaginations of little boys who took on the identity of their heroes on sandlots, playgrounds, and alley’s across the country. For a few months in the summer of ‘73 and the spring of ‘74 this country was given a glimpse of baseball as it was meant to be.

But Hammerin’ Hank surpassing the Babe marked a turning point in the game of baseball. Something in the game began to change with the crack of his bat on that cool April evening in Atlanta. While it is said that Babe Ruth died on August 16, 1948, he really lived, at least in our imaginations, until April 8, 1974. That night the Golden Age of Baseball ended and a new era began. A new generation of baseball heroes has since emerged, some of whom can’t fill the shoes of the ghosts who preceded them on the diamond.

Today baseball no longer invokes images of pasture lands and innocence but rather corporate boardrooms, lucrative contracts, and multiple endorsements. Barry Bonds is the icon of this new era. Hank Aaron’s pursuit of the Babe raised us up, demonstrating that working hard and playing by the rules really does pay off. Barry Bonds’ pursuit of Aaron brought us down, reminding us of the lesser angels of human nature: of greed, avarice, and self-aggrandizment, of doing whatever one has to do to claim the fame, even if you have to bend a few rules along the way. America is ambivalent about Bonds because Bonds left America behind in his pursuit of one of baseball’s highest honors. We can only hope this nation will not have to wait three more decades for a real hero to restore the honor of the game by reclaiming a record now sullied by the selfish ambitions of Barry Bonds.

Solomon on Silicon Valley August 7, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Uncategorized.
add a comment

The New York Times reports  multi-millionaries in Silicon Valley don’t “feel rich” so they keep their noses to the grindstone, creating a new class known as “working-class millionaires.” The Times profiled several families who have made millions in the tech industry.  All of their stories boil down to the attitude of Tony Barbagallo “who over the last two decades has collected around $3.6 million in stock and options from companies he has worked for,” and Umberto Milletti who has ”fantasized about downsizing his life to ease the financial pressures he feels despite a net worth around $5 million.”

“You look around,” Mr. Barbagallo said, “and the pressures to spend more are everywhere.” Children want the latest fashions their peers are wearing and the most popular high-ticket toys. Furniture does not seem up to snuff once you move into a multimillion-dollar home. Spouses talk, and now that resort in Mexico the family enjoyed so much last winter is not good enough when looking ahead to next year. Summer camp, a full-time housekeeper, vintage wines, country clubs: the cost of living bloats.

To Mr. Milletti, it all looks like a marathon with no finish line.

“Here, the top 1 percent chases the top one-tenth of 1 percent, and the top one-tenth of 1 percent chases the top one-one-hundredth of 1 percent,” he said.

“You try not to get caught up in it,” he added, “but it’s hard not to.”

Solomon warned them: “I have seen all things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind” and “When I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:14 and 2:11).

Oprah v. Piper on Preping for Marriage August 7, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Marriage.
1 comment so far

The Queen of Pop Spirituality Oprah Winfry recently hosted Susan Piver, a Budhist and the author of For Women Only. They discussed the questions couples should ask before they marry each other. Read them here and then compare the nature of the questions and the priority of the questions with those offered by John Piper here.

In the new evangelicalism, pragmatism prevails over principle August 7, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Church Life, Culture, Emergent, Evangelicals, Jerry Falwell, Megachurch, Politics, Theology.
8 comments

Pragmatism has overtaken principle in defining the positions evangelicals will take on the important political/moral issues this election cycle. Last week, writing in an op/ed for USA Today, Mark Pinsky, the religion writer for the Orlando Sentinel, observed:

The emerging face and voice of American evangelicalism is that of a pragmatic, politically sophisticated, pastor of a middle class megachurch. A younger generation of ministers such as Rick Warren, author of The Purpose-Driven Life; Bill Hybels, of the pioneering Willow Creek Community Church outside Chicago; T.D. Jakes, the African-American pastor of The Potter’s House in Dallas, as well as a music and movie producer; and Frank Page, the re-elected president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Mark Pinsky is a reform Jew who has spent time examining evangelicalism and breaking down some of the stereotypes. He writes extensively about this subject in his recent book, A Jew Among the Evangelicals. Given his research there is certainly reason to take his perspective seriously. While I hope he is wrong there is every reason to believe he may be right.

While the old guard evangelicals (the late Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al) have their blemishes, they are men of principle, unwilling to compromise truth to facilitate a conversation with those committed to error.

Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, T. D. Jakes, Frank Page, and Joel Hunter have taken positions on social issues which are light on theology, more interested in achieving pragmatic outcomes by compromising on issues important to conservative followers of Jesus Christ than they are in standing on theologically informed principle. Pinsky observes,

Pastors like Hunter, Warren, Hybels, Jakes and Page have a shared vision. They want to change the tone of the national political debate, making it less confrontational, and to open the movement to tactical coalitions with mainline Christian denominations, other faiths and even liberal secularists on a broad spectrum of issues…the younger pastors want to broaden the evangelical agenda beyond what Hunter calls “below the belt” issues linked to sexuality. For them, people of faith should engage issues such as AIDS, Darfur, economic justice, war and peace, prison reform and human trafficking. For Dobson and Robertson, this represents an unacceptable dilution of focus and a squandering of political capital.

If Pinksy is correct in his assessment of this new, progressive breed of evangelical leaders, their agenda eerily resembles the social gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries which killed the mainline denominations, a death from which those denominations still have not resurrected. Warren, Hybels and company are poised to lead evangelicals down the same path, trading the authority of the word of God for the tenets of modern psychology and self-help. This new generation of evangelical leaders see the source of human misery (poverty, AIDS/HIV, etc) as partially attributable to evangelical indifference to the plight of the suffering, which could, in their view, be cured with substantial (monetary) involvement in political organizations like the One Campaign.

This is not to say that Christians should not be involved in practical ways to relieve suffering. There is no question that conservative evangelicals must do more in practical ways to touch the poor and suffering as Jesus did. But this new generation of evangelicals is shifting our priorities, ranking social programs ahead of gospel preaching and evangelism.

Relieving suffering is a vital part of the gospel, but it is not the priority of the gospel. Relief from suffering follows from repentance from sin. Jesus connected physical suffering with sin (Matthew 9:1-8). So did James (James 5:15,16), as did the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 11:27-30).

The first priority of evangelicals is to be evangelists, boldly proclaiming an unpopular gospel that calls men to account for their sin and to repent. Clean water wells in Africa will do nothing to stop the spread of AIDS/HIV so long as the behavior associated with the disease continues. The gospel addresses the behavior with a real cure: making men and women new creations in Christ.

Yet these more hip, relevant, and progressive leaders-in-waiting characterize as “fundamentalists” those who want to put the gospel and evangelism ahead of socialism. Pinsky again

This is how rough and tumble the public conversation has become: Hunter and others have even revived the term “fundamentalist” — a word more often used by liberals — as an epithet for their more conservative adversaries. He refers to Dobson as “the 800-pound gorilla” among evangelical leaders…

Only a reformation can save us from ourselves, and our leaders. God give us an evangelical Martin Luther to stand against those within the evangelical church who would water down its message in order to make bed-fellows with the world, committed more to pragmatic outcomes than theologically informed spiritual principles. Such is this new generation of evangelical leaders.

What makes a person truly “Christian”? August 7, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Jonathan Edwards, Theology.
4 comments

Sam Storms joins me this afternoon on The Paul Edwards Program to discuss his new book, Signs of the Spirit: An Interpretation of Jonathan Edwards’s “Religious Affections”.  Jonathan Edwards was an 18th century American theologian and pastor in New England. His preaching is credited with igniting the Great Awakenings of that century. His treatise Religious Affections is widely considered the most important and accurate analysis of religious experience ever written. Edwards’ primary concern in that work was to determine, as much as possible, “what are the distinguishing qualifications of those that are in favor with God, and entitled to his eternal rewards.” Simply put, he endeavored to identify what constitutes true and authentic spirituality. What makes a person truly ‘Christian’? Are there certain features or characteristics in human thought and behavior that serve as “signs” of the saving activity and presence of the Spirit of God? Is it possible for us to know with any degree of certainty whether or not a person who claims to have experienced the saving grace of God is truly born-again?

John Piper: The I-35 Bridge reminds us, “You shall all likewise perish” August 3, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in John Piper.
8 comments

If you have not yet read John Piper’s moving response to the bridge collapse in Minneapolis, please do so. The link is below. Bethlehem Baptist Church and DesiringGod Ministries are within a mile of the I-35 bridge spanning the Mississippi.

Piper has the uncanny ability to use words to bring God to bear in tragedy. His words stopped me in my tracks:

The word “bridge” does not occur in the Bible. There may be two reasons. One is that God doesn’t build bridges, he divides seas. The other is that usually his people must pass through the deadly currents of suffering and death, not simply ride over them. “When you pass through the waters, I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you” (Isaiah 43:2). They may drown you. But I will be with you in life and death.

Read the full post here: Putting My Daughter to Bed Two Hours After the Bridge Collapsed

Did Jesus say, “Get off the property” or “Come unto me”? August 1, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in Catholic Theology, YouTube.
4 comments

(Reuters) - A Roman Catholic priest who unleashed a torrent of expletives and racist abuse against skateboarders outside his Australian cathedral, only to have the outburst filmed and placed on YouTube, has been put on leave.The Reverend Monsignor Geoff Baron, the dean of St Patrick’s Cathedral in Australia’s second biggest city, Melbourne, was videotaped swearing at and abusing a group of teenagers using the cathedral grounds as a skate park.

Read the full story: Priest on leave after YouTube outburst

WARNING: The YouTube video below contains graphic images and profane langauge. Viewer discretion is advised.

Why John Piper is wrong about racially diverse images of Jesus August 1, 2007

Posted by Paul Edwards in John Piper, Racism, Theology.
13 comments

Last week in a post at the DesiringGod blog, John Piper responded to a question about portraits or pictures of Jesus. Part of what he said:

I’m a little hesitant about portraits of Jesus at all. There’s that argument about whether that’s breaking the first Commandment — don’t make any graven images, don’t have pictures of Jesus in your house. The reason I’m not a stickler on that is because Jesus became incarnate, therefore we know he had a face. God the father didn’t have a face, except insofar as He and the Son are one.

jesus-face-29.jpgJesus had a face and even though we don’t know what it looked like I think renderings of it to show various things are okay. And if we’re going to do that, they should be real diverse. I think they should be real diverse because you lock in on that famous one–I don’t know what it’s called, the one with the long hair, kind of the idyllic face and the blue eyes—that’s absolutely absurd.

But I think there should probably be black portrayals of Jesus, and white portrayals of Jesus, and Chinese portrayals of Jesus. And everybody knows that they’re not accurate. There isn’t one that’s accurate. That’s why it’s legitimate to do lots of inaccurate works. Because you just say we all know that we don’t know what he looked like so what we want to say with our inaccurate Jesus is something true about Jesus. Namely, he’s there for everybody.

On what basis should there be “black portrayals of Jesus,” and “white portrayals of Jesus,” and “Chinese portrayals of Jesus”? Piper bases his reasoning on the fact that any portrayal of Jesus is inaccurate, so why not say something that is true about Jesus in the midst of the inaccuracy: “Namely, he’s there for everybody.”

But do racially diverse images of Jesus really convey the message that Jesus is “there for everybody”? Does the fact that Jesus indeed was God incarnate in the flesh of a Jewish male, and not in the flesh of a African male, or a European male, or a Chinese male, make it any less true that “he’s there for everybody”? The image is the shadow, the type. The incarnation is the real thing. Is the real incarnation of Jesus in a non-diverse image therefore not effective in conveying the truth that Jesus is “there for everybody“? I know Dr. Piper does not believe that!

Jesus was not incarnated in reality in the form of every race. He “took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.” He was found “in fashion as a man” (Philippians 2:7,8). Biblically speaking, Jesus shows that he is indeed there for all of humanity in the incarnation: “Forasmuch then as children are partakers of flesh and blood, he himself likewise took part of the same” (Hebrews 2:14) It is Jesus’ HUMANITY - not his race - that demonstrates he is “there for us.” And in his humanity as a Jewish male “he redeemed us to God by his blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” making us a new nation - a kingdom of priests - a people for his own possession without regard to race (1 Peter 2:9).

To suggest that we need racially diverse images of Jesus cheapens the reality. The reality is that Jesus, through his humanity and as God in human flesh, died to banish racial, social and class distinctives. In Christ we “…have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:10,11). All the nations of men are made “of one blood” (Acts 17:26) and are redeemed by “his own blood” (Hebrews 9:11-15).

We don’t need white images of Jesus, black images of Jesus, Chinese images of Jesus, or even Jewish images of Jesus. We need Jesus! “That I may know HIM, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death” (Philippians 3:10). The image is a mere distraction from the reality that is the person of Christ.