Religious Questions for the Republican Candidates

The New York Times' BILL KELLER wants to ask some interesting religious questions of Republican candidates. I think answering them for myself might be helpful, or at least fun. 

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith?

Absolutely. Obama got such questions. 

2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates, or thinkers whose books they recommend?

Yes.  It is fair to ask the question, but stupid to think that anyone really agrees with everything that someone else says. The reason Obama was surprised by the Jeremiah Wright quotes was that he had not attended that church enough to know what "his" pastor believed. I find it funny that the quotes from Wright that gave Obama the most trouble I agreed with. 9-11 was indirectly caused by our foreign policy since WWII. "Chickens coming home to roost" fits the situation as I see it. 

3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice?

The early American founders were not Christians, although they claimed to be. If you define Christian as someone who says they are Christians, then we are a Judeo-Christian Nation. This question is often linked to other questions about supposed "dominionists"—usually misrepresenting what they teach and assuming that all dominionists agree. Most of the dominionists that people love to quote, the radical ones, do NOT believe that we are a "Judeo-Christain" nation. Most of them want us to be. This would require, in their view, a new constitution. Many of the "dominionists" would remove the "Judeo" part. There is some truth in the anti-dominist propaganda that has been appearing of late, but it is a minority position among dominionists. Gary North is a dominionist and he advocates that someone should not vote unless they swear an oath that they believe in the Trinity. The radical dominionists have absolutely nothing to do with Bachman, for example, she is a woman. 

4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience?

It would seem to me that such conflict is rare. As long as we are allowed to home school, and not forced to join the military, I can see few potential conflicts. There are such conflicts in other countries. But yes, if there is a conflict, one's faith, whatever it is, should come first. 

5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist?

I would appoint a Muslim, but probably not an atheist. Anti-social people with the medical condition of Asperger’s should not be in politics. So, no, I would not appoint Karl Rove to the Supreme Court. Most of the mass murders of the last century were committed by atheists or de-facto atheists. (My tongue is a little bit in my cheeck on this answer)

6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates?

These are two separate questions confounded into one question. This is, to a degree, equivocation. Can an individual Mormon be a Christian? Yes. Can the Mormon Church be considered a Christian denomination? No. The Mormon world view is just too goofy. They think that "god" used to be a human being on another planet. As good Mormon boys and girls learn, "God once was as man now is." 

Their founders, and this has not been repudiated officially, think that there is a Mrs. "god" with whom god has sex and that this produces souls. Another founder thought that god the father had sex with Mary and the result was Jesus. I doubt I would vote for a person who wears secret magical religious underwear. 

7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth?

I am aware of exactly one dominionist that holds this view—Gary North. No doubt there are others. I think that many Americans do not want serious Christians in politics, and that is their goal with this dominion meme. 

8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools?

Which version of the theory are you talking about? My biologist friend Henrik and I had an interesting Facebook discussion on this. I will not repeat it here but the bottom line is that the way he defines evolution, I do not have much disagreement with it. For example, micro-evolution is clearly proven. The issue I have is a subset of evolution—materialism. No one can be a theist of any stripe and believe that. There are things apart from the physical creation. 

9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

Absolutely not, but then again I do not believe in public schools either. 

 Bill Kellers Questions are "making the rounds" in the blogosphere, here and here, for example. 

This is the post I wish I had written on these questions. 

There is another question Keller wants to ask Bachman that I will talk about tomorrow.

The 5 Stooges of Truth

A frequent commentator here at Prophecy Podcast, Eddie H. Nessul, commenting on the blog post Three Stages of Truth on Friday said this:

I remember the THREE STAGES vividly from my youth. They were a big influence on my thinking and development. 

Watched them every day. Yep,... Larry, Moe and Curly were hilarious! Hats off to the THREE STAGES!

Eddie's analogy fails at several levels, the most important being that there were 5 stages err, Stooges. (Yes I know there were 7 all together.)

First there is Moe—the typical leader. He thinks he knows the truth and has convinced everyone else in his group that he does. 

Larry is typical of many followers, especially in political parties and churches. Larry knows he does not know, but thinks Moe does. 

Curly has no concern himself with truth…soitenly! He just wants to have fun. 

Shemp is another kind of leader. He knows he does not know the truth, but pretends he does to keep his hierarchical place in the group.

Finally we have Curly Joe. He knows the truth, but does not say anything because the truth is not palatable. But when the crisis comes he says what he must to keep Moe from leading the Stooges to an even worse disaster than normal. 

My goal here at Prophecy Podcast is to be Curley Joe. I will try to quietly point out the evils of Babylon and how to avoid them. I will point out that Moe and Shemp are leading you down the wrong path. 

In the words of Jesus:

Matthew 15:13-14

The Message (MSG)

 ^13-14Jesus shrugged it off. "Every tree that wasn't planted by my Father in heaven will be pulled up by its roots. Forget them. They are blind men leading blind men. When a blind man leads a blind man, they both end up in the ditch."

Stay out of the ditches, do not follow Moe. 

On the Verge of a Paradigm Shift of Missional Christocentric Networked Exponential Mega Churches

I wanted to like the book on the verge by Alan Hirsch and Dave Ferguson, I really did. (My first clue should have been the cutesy capitalization of their book, they are not e.e. cummings.)  The ideas in the book, whatever they are, might transform churches. But until the authors learn to abandon jargon, no one will be able to figure out what they are saying. Is it really that bad you might ask? Here is an example from page 43:

So when exponential/viral/networked thinking informs church growth savvy, which in turn is being reframed around missional-incarnational theology, then history is in the making. 

This may be true, whatever it means. The Venn diagram that followed this jargon fest was somewhat helpful, but if the terms remain undefined, communication is lacking. If I really wanted a church like this, I would just join Amway. 

The authors reference a lot of interesting books. I am reading one right now that they praise—Made to Stick by Chip and Dan Heath.  If they had understood the book they praise they would have written a book without jargon. Stick's main point that I have gotten so far is to NOT “bury your lead.”

In journalism, the failure to mention the most interesting or attention grabbing elements of a story in the first paragraph is sometimes called "burying the lead." 

In other words, make what you are saying crystal clear right from the start. on the verge miserably fails this standard. If they do not understand one of the books they praise, I have to wonder if they also do not understand the other books they talk about. 

Mega Churches have a big problem trying to form a community. Most of the attendees do not become active in the congregation. They attend for the required one hour and then they go home. Most Mega Churches understand this is a problem and try to alleviate it though small groups. Some succeed, but based on the constant restating of this problem in Mega Church books, my guess is that many fail in this attempt to form a community.

Hirsch and Ferguson decide that they do not have enough jargon, so they invent more jargon on this issue. The new word is communitas, which the authors tell us is different from community. How is it different? I am not sure, but the authors assure us it is. But of course the authors will never abandon some "good" jargon, especially jargon that makes things foggy so they can appear deep. 

New ideas are not necessarily good ideas. I remember the introduction of Edible underwear. No doubt it sells in some shops. But I doubt it will ever achieve mass market appeal. on the verge is the publishing equivalent of edible underwear. Maybe there is a new wave of churches like the ones this book promotes. But this book will not help these churches, in fact it stands in the way. on the verge is destined for those book stores that periodically show up in abandoned K Marts-selling books no one wants at bargain prices.

Update on Saturday, August 13, 2011 at 6:10PM by [Positive Dennis]

Bill Watterson, cartoonist of Calin and Hobbes had Calvin say this:

The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!

Bush And Bible Prophecy

I will just admit it and get it behind me. Bush was a terrible president-one of the worst ever. But even with this as a granted position, I have trouble believing a lot of the things that are said about him. For example, I have never believed that Bush let his view of Bible prophecy affect his policies. I have been wrong:

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France's President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

I still have a problem thinking this is true, but unfortunately for me it is now confirmed by Chirac:

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush's invocation of Biblical prophesy (sic) to justify the war in Iraq and "wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs".

Those of you who know me know that I have no trouble having something to say. But I was struck dumb when I read this. First, the God and Magog prophecies really do not have anything to do with Iraq. In the Pop Theology way, it is often interpreted as Russia invading Israel. If this prophetic scenario is correct, then you would not want any troops in Iraq as that would prevent the Russians from attacking. The way Pop Theology gets the Russians in this prophecy is to mangle Hebrew. The word for head or leader in Hebrew is ro'sh, and the prophecy in Ezekiel 38 that mentions Gog and Magog mentions the leader, the “rosh.” Which sort of sounds like “Russia.” Or not. One of my pet peeves in addition to Pop Theology is Pop Etymology.

The whole point of the prophecy is that God directly intervenes. There is no need for American troops. Here is the reference in Revelation 20:

7 When the thousand years are over, Satan will be released from his prison 8 and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth—Gog and Magog—and to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. 9 They marched across the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of God’s people, the city he loves. But fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

The reference in Ezekiel 38 is similar:

18 This is what will happen in that day: When Gog attacks the land of Israel, my hot anger will be aroused, declares the Sovereign LORD. 19 In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel. ...  22 I will execute judgment on him with plague and bloodshed; I will pour down torrents of rain, hailstones and burning sulfur on him and on his troops and on the many nations with him.

How either of these can be used to support a war in Iraq is beyond me. In an interesting twist, some Jewish rabbis, using their own version of pop theology, declared Bush to be the ro'sh of Gog. This actually makes a little more sense. 

In a weird coincidence, all Skull and Bones members (the secret society many presidents have belonged to) are given special names:

The name Magog is traditionally assigned to the incoming Bonesman deemed to have had the most sexual experience, and Gog goes to the new member with the least sexual experience. William Howard Taft and Robert Taft were Magogs. So, interestingly, was George Bush.

George W. Bush's name was "Temporary" since they never got around to giving him a nickname. I wish he had been temporary, but his policies continue in president Obama.

Scary Mary

I guess it depends on the perspective. 

This relates to a theme I have been developing. The way we look at the world, which I have been calling templates, can change a children's movie like Mary Poppins into a totally different movie. Each of these scenes are from the movie, but with the eye of someone with a template, the movie changes. In the same way we need to be sure we do not do the same in our personal lifes. How should we look at the world? What things should we think about? 

Here is the advice of the Apostle Paul in Philippians 4:

⁶ Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. ⁷ And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

 ⁸ Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. ⁹ Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

Is this your template?