Political disclaimer

January 9, 2008 By 24 Comments

Well, Ed Muskie cried in New Hampshire, which finished his campaign; Hillary Clinton cried in New Hampshire, which saved her campaign. This means we can expect more “passion” in the primaries ahead, God help us.

OK, you can probably tell what I think of Mrs. Clinton, as well as some of the other candidates. But, despite our indulgence in political punditry, the Cranach blog is not endorsing any of them. I mean, mobilizing the vast Cranach army with our precinct-by-precinct organization, could turn the election, and that would not be fair to the other candidates. But a presidential election raises so many issues about the intersections of culture, Christianity, and vocation that it is perfect fodder for this blog.

So we’ll look at many facets of these candidates and the issues they raise, for better or worse. And I’ll need your help as we all make up our minds.

Filed Under: Blog, Politics 24 Comments

What is an economic conservative?

January 9, 2008 By 38 Comments

It is said that John McCain is no true conservative because he did not support Bush’s tax cuts. Remember, though, that economic conservatism used to mean cutting spending and balancing the budget. To this mindset, the government should not spend money it does not have, which sometimes means raising taxes. Those old school conservatives would consider the current practice of cutting taxes while also increasing spending to be LIBERAL.

McCain is that old school kind of an economic conservative, being a consistent budget-trimmer and opponent of pork-barrel earmarks. Whether his economic policies are good or bad is a separate question. But it’s not correct to say he isn’t conservative. It just depends on what kind of conservatism you are advocating.

Filed Under: Politics 38 Comments

Vampires and Intelligent Design

January 9, 2008 By 12 Comments

Joe Carter tells about an interesting mathematical study proving that vampires cannot exist. If a vampire has to feed once a month and his victim becomes a vampire, and THOSE vampires drink people’s blood and turn THEM into vampires, the human race would DECREASE geometrically and the number of vampires would INCREASE geometrically. In two years, the human race would cease to exist. Since human beings DO exist, there must not be any vampires.

But look at the application. According to the authors of the paper, Costas J. Efthimiou and Sohang Gandhi, “Another philosophical principal related to our argument is the truism given the elaborate title, the anthropic principle. This states that if something is necessary for human existence, then it must be true since we do exist. In the present case, the nonexistence of vampires is necessary for human existence.”

The anthropic principal–that conditions had to be just right in a statistically-improbable way for human life to exist–is a concept much used against the theory of random evolution by advocates of Intelligent Design. Here is how Mr. Carter applies the argument from vampires:

The anthropic principle is often stated in a positive way, assuming that certain conditions must be met before human life can exist. At least two dozen demandingly exact physical constants must be in place for carbon-based life to exist, the slightest variation in any of these conditions–even to a minuscule degree–would have rendered the universe unfit for the existence of any kind of life, much less for humans.

But I believe Efthimiou and Gandhi’s paper provides an example of how the anthropic principle can be stated in a negative way. Vampires are a prime example of a class of objects (let’s call them V-class objects) whose non-existence is necessary for the existence of humans. In other words, if humans exist, then it is necessary that V-class objects do not exist.

At first glance this seems so obvious as to be unworthy of notice. Since we humans do, in fact, continue to exist, it shouldn’t be surprising that vampires (and other V-class objects) do not exist. But this begs the question of why humans exist and V-class objects do not. Their existence is, after all, as probable (or improbable) as the existence of humans. And the non-existence of any V-class objects is as statistically improbable as the aligning of dozens of independent physical constants that give rise to life.

The anthropic principle could therefore be restated as claiming that the existence of human life requires both (a) the alignment of several cosmological, chemical, and physical constants and (b) the non-existence of all V-class objects. The probability that each of these stochastically independent events could align precisely as they have, without any intervention, is roughly 0 — in other words, it can’t happen. The evidence therefore points to “fine-tuning” of these conditions.

Having reduced the chance hypothesis to a virtual impossibility we are left with the obvious conclusion that the fine-tuning is not only apparent but actual. The fine-tuning implies the existence of a tuner, hence we can conclude that the scientific evidence supports the conclusion that God exists.

Filed Under: Science 12 Comments

Preterists?

January 9, 2008 By 42 Comments

Can someone explain to me the position of the “preterists”? I had assumed that had something to do with that confusing tense construction in Greek, but it has reference to Christians who believe that Jesus ALREADY came back in 70 A.D. This position is held, as I understand it, by some conservative Calvinists who, if they are Presbyterians, would have to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, which commits a person to believing that “He will come again with glory to judge both the living and the dead.”

Why do preterists believe what they do? Are they breaking from historical Christian orthodoxy?

Filed Under: Theology 42 Comments

Post-partisan?

January 8, 2008 By 22 Comments

Over the weekend, we saw “National Treasure 2,” the fun-but-ridiculous romp through American history, in which, among many other incidents, the Nicholas Cage figure breaks into the Oval Office and kidnaps the president (sort of). What struck me was that the president in that movie was not mocked or criticized; rather, he was portrayed as a powerful yet benevolent symbol of America. He was respected, even as he was being “kidnapped,” and the movie gave him a strongly patriotic vibe.

I remember that sense of the presidency with Ronald Reagan, and I am old enough to remember it, which I picked up even as a child, with John F. Kennedy. We haven’t known that since then. I believe the nation, torn by so much divisiveness in our government, yearns to be unified and yearns to rally around a president whom they can look up to and who can bring them together. This, I think, is the primal appeal of Barack Obama. The only Republican who might be able to pull that off is John McCain.

This can be a dangerous sentiment, though, the mood that can turn a nation to a demogogue and a tyrant. These candidates are not that way, but I think we are seeing, for better or worse, a turn in American politics away from ideology. This is being opposed, of course, but those of us strongly committed to an ideology who may be swept away.

Barack Obama is said to embody a post-partisan appeal.

He is being lauded even by conservative pundits, including Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett.

Obama, alone among the Democratic candidates, is not demonizing Republicans, conservatives, evangelicals, or pro-lifers. Which is infuriating a good part of the liberal blogosphere. “Obama doesn’t fit our style,” says one leftist blogger. “He’s not combative. He’s not aggressive. He doesn’t talk about Republicans the way you’d hope he would.”

Similarly, many of us on the right cannot stand McCain. He is right on the war and on pro-life issues, but he is seen to be wrong on immigration, taxes, and campaign finance reform.

Is Obama’s post-partisanship just a way to sell his liberal program? What concessions will he make to conservatives if he really wants to reach out to them? Is McCain’s issue-by-issue approach a sign of fatal inconsistency or signs of a larger post-partisan synthesis?

Huckabee is similarly making a broad appeal, but will his evangelicalism keep him a polarizing figure, or might he too become a post-partisan president?

Filed Under: Politics 22 Comments

Republican Reformation?

January 8, 2008 By 16 Comments

Provocative thoughts on the meaning of the Huckabee upset–as well as why cultural issues trump economics–from David Brooks:

Huckabee won because he tapped into realities that other Republicans have been slow to recognize.

First, evangelicals have changed. Huckabee is the first ironic evangelical on the national stage. He’s funny, campy (see his Chuck Norris fixation) and he’s not at war with modern culture.

Second, Huckabee understands much better than Mitt Romney that we have a crisis of authority in this country. People have lost faith in their leaders’ ability to respond to problems. While Romney embodies the leadership class, Huckabee went after it. He criticized Wall Street and K Street. Most importantly, he sensed that conservatives do not believe their own movement is well led. He took on Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth and even President Bush. The old guard threw everything they had at him, and their diminished power is now exposed.

Third, Huckabee understands how middle-class anxiety is really lived. Democrats talk about wages. But real middle-class families have more to fear economically from divorce than from a free trade pact. A person’s lifetime prospects will be threatened more by single parenting than by outsourcing. Huckabee understands that economic well-being is fused with social and moral well-being, and he talks about the inter-relationship in a way no other candidate has. In that sense, Huckabee’s victory is not a step into the past. It opens up the way for a new coalition. A conservatism that recognizes stable families as the foundation of economic growth is not hard to imagine. A conservatism that loves capitalism but distrusts capitalists is not hard to imagine either. Adam Smith felt this way. A conservatism that pays attention to people making less than $50,000 a year is the only conservatism worth defending.

Will Huckabee move on and lead this new conservatism? Highly doubtful. The past few weeks have exposed his serious flaws as a presidential candidate. His foreign policy knowledge is minimal. His lapses into amateurishness simply won’t fly in a national campaign. So the race will move on to New Hampshire. Mitt Romney is now grievously wounded. Romney represents what’s left of Republicanism 1.0. Huckabee and McCain represent half-formed iterations of Republicanism 2.0. My guess is Republicans will now swing behind McCain in order to stop Mike. Huckabee probably won’t be the nominee, but starting last night in Iowa, an evangelical began the Republican Reformation.

His third point is the best, articulating well how “it’s not the economy, stupid”; rather, “it’s the culture, stupid.” But do you think the Republican party needs a reformation? And, if so, who is its Luther?

Filed Under: Culture, Politics 16 Comments

Petty, mean, & vindictive

January 8, 2008 By 2 Comments

Have you heard about how Hillary Clinton’s motorcade blocked Obama’s at the airport?

Filed Under: Politics 2 Comments

“Forgive them! Forgive them!”

January 8, 2008 By 12 Comments

Sunday at the burnt out Lutheran church we blogged about last weekend, from the Los Angeles Times:

In Nairobi’s slum district of Kibera, people prayed for peace Sunday under the charred cross and blackened walls of the burned Lutheran church. But in the narrow alleys just 100 yards away, the thugs with machetes still rule.

When the service ended, the parishioners in their Sunday best walked home through neighborhoods still teetering on a knife’s edge.
. . . . . . . . .

More than 300 people have died in the violence.

When one parishioner, Rebecca Muthoni, a 38-year-old Kikuyu, plodded to the Lutheran church Sunday, her heart was heavy. Muthoni’s shack and the kindergarten where she taught children had been torched, as well as her church.

As Pastor Dennis Meeker prayed, Muthoni fell to the ground, tears flowing from her eyes, crying out hysterically: “Forgive them! Forgive them!”

As she yelled, Meeker repeated over and over, “We shall persevere.”

“My pain is really deep,” she said after the service. “I am feeling bad in my heart. I have no house and no job. And I am the only breadwinner in the family.”

The fire left the church walls intact, but there was a black scar on the wall behind the altar with a white patch in the center. Meeker plans to leave it there to remind people what happened in Kibera over the past week. He said Tuesday’s attack by looters could destroy the building but not the church, and urged the congregation to forgive.

“You struggle with anger. You struggle with weeping,” said Meeker, an American who arrived from Iowa in September. “I don’t think you can make sense out of it. In fact, this is caused by politicians because we were really living in peace and going along well until the presidential election.”

A friend of mine who has done mission work in Kenya and who has sources there says that two other Lutheran churches in the countryside were burned. She heard that 35 parishioners taking refuge in one of the church buildings perished in the flames. I can’t find any other references to that. Does anyone know?

Conditions are said to be much improved now, but we need to be praying for the people and churches of Kenya. May they all display that spirit of the grieving woman who cried out not for retribution against the people who destroyed her home, her livelihood, and her church but that God would forgive them.

Filed Under: Church 12 Comments

The Golden Aardvark Award

January 8, 2008 By 4 Comments

Thanks to Aardvark Alley for bestowing on this blog the coveted Golden Aardvark Award for our Christmas re-runs. This entitles the honoree (and we were one of many) to proudly display this emblem:

The Golden Aardvark Award

Filed Under: Blog 4 Comments

Huckabee reconsidered

January 7, 2008 By 100 Comments

In her thought-provoking discussion of the caucus results, Peggy Noonan recounts a line Mike Huckabee delivered when Jay Leno asked him why he was doing so well against Mitt Romney:

“People are looking for a presidential candidate who reminds them more of the guy they work with rather than the guy that laid them off.”

Whatever you think of the guy, that is a very funny and dead-on satirical quip. If Leno is looking for some scab writers, Huckabee just might fit the bill.

Some people don’t like Huckabee because of their aversion to and fear of “the Christian right.” Others don’t like him because he is not a “true conservative,” being too populist. If taken together, those seem to be contradictory concerns. If Huckabee is the new standard bearer for that movement, has the Christian right morphed into a Christian middle?

Perhaps the biggest problem with Huckabee for conservatives is that he would be the Republican version of George McGovern, pleasing an important element of the party’s base but destined to lose in such a spectacular way in the general election that he would knock that base out of influence for years.

What do you think?

Filed Under: Politics, television 100 Comments