The Just Price

Suppose I am the only person who can sell a widget to John Doe. It costs me $10 to sell it to him, including the cost of my time and a standard profit rate. He would pay up to $30 for it, if he had to. What price am I justified in charging, if I can make a take-it-or-leave-it offer?

Note that I am leaving John Doe better off than if he never met me even if I charge him $29.

Christmas, Saturnalia, and Sol Invictus

I've found another instance where consensus scholarship is heavily flawed. I'd always heard that Christmas Day was on December 25 because nobody knows exactly when Jesus was born and that is the date of pagan Roman festival that Christians wanted to supplant. Nope.

The big problem is that Saturnalia was December 17-23, the winter solstice is December 21, there was no traditional Roman holiday on December 25, and the evidence that Emperor Aurelian's new quadrennial festival of Sol Invictus, first celebrated in 274, was on December 25 is weak, dating from 80 years later. From Wikipedia:

There is no record of celebrating Sol on December 25th prior to CE 354/362. Hijmans lists the known festivals of Sol as August 8 and/or 9, August 28, and December 11. There are no sources that indicate on which day Aurelian inaugurated his temple and held the first games for Sol, but we do know that these games were held every four years from CE 274 onwards. This means that they were presumably held in CE 354, a year for which perchance a Roman calendar, the Chronography of 354 (or calendar of Filocalus), has survived. This calendar lists a festival for Sol and Luna on August 28th, Ludi Solis (games for Sol) for October 19th-22nd, and a Natalis Invicti (birthday of the invincible one) on December 25th.

Thus, Christmas is not like Reformation Day, an October 31 celebration chosen to substitute for Halloween, or like Hannukah. If it were, it would have been chosen to be December 17 or December 21. I have often read that December 25 was chosen because it is clear by then that days are getting longer, after the shortest day on December 21. How idiotic. That argument could be used for any day between December 22 and June 21. It certainly is not the case that the ancients didn't know that December 21 was the shortest day and had to wait a few days to make sure. Even the people at Stonehenge knew about the winter solstice. I suppose Aurelian chose December 25, if he did choose that date, so as to avoid conflicting with Saturnalia. It's also possible he did choose December 25, and picked it *because it was a Christian holiday*. He was no friend of Christians, and heavily promoted sun worship. See this:

A. Mellinus writes, "Aurelian was a stern, cruel, and bloodthirsty Emperor by nature, and although at first he had a good opinion of the Christians, he nevertheless afterwards became averse to, and estranged from them: and having, undoubtedly, by some talebearers, been instigated against the Christians, he allowed himself to be seduced so far, as to raise the ninth general persecution of the Roman monarchy against them, which persecution .he, however, did not carry out. For at the very moment in which the decrees written against the Christians, were laid before him by his secretary, that he might sign them, and when he was about to take the pen in hand, the hand of God suddenly touched him, smiting his hand with lameness, and thus preventing him in his purpose, so that he could not sign them." First book, fol. 87, col. 3; from hopisc. Victor. Eus., lib. 7. Post. Literal, Aug. de Civit. Dei., lib. 18, cap. 52. Oral.. lib. 7, cap. 16. Theodoret. Hilt., lib. 4, cap. 17.

To be sure, as is well described in "How December 25 Became Christmas" by Andrew McGowan we have no good evidence on how December 25 was established as Christmas Day (or January 6 for the Greeks). He shows that it is much more plausible that December 25 and January 6 were chosen because they are 9 months after March 25 or April 6, the dates (for the two groups) of the Crucifixion. How people came to think that Jesus had to be conceived on the day he died remains unclear. But this seems to be what happened.

The Huckabee Pardons and Methodism

Joe Carter has an excellent article on the Huckabee pardons at First Things. He reviewed them as a researcher for the Huckabee campaign. His article is sympathetic, but it casts serious doubt on Huckabee's judgement.

After reviewing hundreds of cases and interviewing numerous people involved in the process, I concluded to my own satisfaction that the governor’s actions and judgment were generally defensible. Yet there remained about a half-dozen situations in which even after reviewing all of the information I was unpersuaded that justice had been served. Although I was sympathetic with some of the justifications offered for making the decisions, I found them inadequate for a number of reasons....

For instance, the politically prudent tactic would have been to simply refuse to grant any leniency—ever. Other governors with their sights set on higher offices had learned that doing nothing—even to correct obvious instances of injustice—was unlikely to cause any long-term political damage. Keeping an innocent man in prison is less harmful to an ambitious politician than freeing someone who may commit other crimes.

Huckabee would certainly discover this political reality the hard way. Initially, I chalked it up solely to extraordinary political courage. Later, I tempered this view when I realized that this courage was mixed with a large dose of cluelessness. The governor seemed genuinely surprised that he was held responsible for the criminal acts committed by those whose sentences he had commuted as governor. It was as if he believed that simply having noble intentions and a willingness to make tough decisions would provide political cover. The notion that he should be accountable for future crimes committed by these men seemed as foreign to him as the idea that he should refuse all leniency. ...

Judging from the records, the governor also seemed to put a lot of weight on conversion stories—a common trait among evangelicals, who believe the gospel is sufficient for restoration and redemption of character.

Carter quotes someone else as saying

What Huckabee misjudged is his ability to judge the character of a convicted murderer and rapists, a lapse out of a character for a pastor who believes in the sinful nature of an — or a lapse in character for a pastor who believes in redemption.

Here's my comment

Very astute. We evangelicals are suckers for redemption stories. It is good that we believe in miracles. The problem is that the dominant belief in America is no longer the Puritan Total Depravity but the Methodist Moral Perfectibility, even though (or perhaps *because*) the pastors don’t teach theology to their flocks. Thus, we have the idea that church people don’t sin— at least not most church people— reinforced by nobody wanting to admit that they sin. Just one step further, and we have the idea that somebody who has converted will stop sinning.

And of course we’re rather gullible too, easily satisfied with words. We trust someone who says he’s changed and become a slave of Jesus even if he’s living with his girlfriend, shirking on child-support payments to his ex-wife, and selling pornography at the gas station where he works. It isn’t considered polite to question whether someone else’s faith is true.

Godless Presidential Thanksgiving Proclamations

Here's a comment I posted at the Baylyblog, on the subject of Obama's godless Thanksgiving Proclamation: I'm glad Threegirldad checked previous proclamations. He's right that Ford 1975 and Carter 1978 omit God. Carter 1977 and 1979 carefully talk about other people giving thanks to God without doing so directly in the Proclamation (like Obama 2009, which does quote George Washington thanking God). Carter 1980 does thank God ("As we pause on Thanksgiving to offer thanks to God...") Maybe losing the election earlier that month chastened our born-again President. He's wrong on Nixon 1969, though: "Yet Lincoln knew that the act of thanksgiving should not be limited to time of peace and serenity. He knew that it is precisely at those times of hardship when men most need to recognize that the Source of all good constantly bestows His blessings on mankind." Ford 1975 has quite a modern ring: "On the eve of our 200th year, Thanksgiving Day should be a day of special reflection upon the qualities of heart, mind and character of the men and women who founded and built our great Nation. Let us join in giving thanks for our cultural pluralism. Let us celebrate our diversity and the great strengths that have come from sharing our traditions, our ideas, our resources, our hopes and our dreams." Ford 1974 is more traditional: "It is a time when the differences of a diverse people are forgotten and all Americans join in giving thanks to God for the blessings we share - the blessings of freedom, opportunity and abundance that make America so unique." Ford 1976 is actually the most God-laden Proclamation I've seen. Maybe almost losing the primaries to Reagan and then losing the election to Carter improved his focus (and got him to fire some liberal speechwriters):

"Traditionally, Americans have set aside a special day to express their gratitude to the Almighty for the blessings of liberty, peace and plenty that have been bestowed upon a grateful Nation. The early settlers of this land possessed an unconquerable spirit and a reliance on Divine Providence that remains a part of the American character. That reliance, coupled with a belief in ourselves and a love of individual freedom, has brought this nation through two centuries of progress and kept us strong. As we cross the threshold into our third century as a sovereign and independent Nation, it is especially appropriate that we reaffirm our trust in Him and express our gratitude for the unity, freedom and renewed sense of national pride we enjoy today. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, President of the United States of America, in accord with Section 6103 of Title 5 of the United States Code, do hereby proclaim Thursday, November 25, 1976, as a day of national thanksgiving. I call upon all Americans to join on that day with their friends and families in homes and places of worship throughout the land to offer thanks for the blessings we enjoy. Let each of us resolve this Thanksgiving Day to make the coming year one in which our every deed will reflect our constant gratitude to God. Let us set a standard of honor, justice, and charity against which all the years of our third century may be measured. Let us make this Thanksgiving a truly special one.

Teaching Sheriffs the Bible

From the Baylyblog comes a story about demonstrators at the Planned Parenthood abortion clinic in Bloomington:

For the past year or so Ginger and I have been reading Scripture in an orderly fashion down at Planned Parenthood. Due to various constraints we end up reading Scripture mostly to the escorts and the pro-abortion sheriff who are there every week.

We always read Romans 1 & John 3, alternately. In addition, Ginger had the idea to start reading a different chapter each week so as to finish whole books. Our goal, of course, is to ensure that these people hear God's Special Revelation each week but we hardly dared hope that our goal of forcing them to know Scripture would really work.

I wasn't there today but as Ginger was reading Romans 1, she had to cough and during her pause the sheriff, Todd, finished her sentence with mockery, "and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error." Then he realized what he did and looked annoyed with himself. Ginger smiled and thanked him for "hiding Scripture in his heart."

Here's Romans 1:

1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, 2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) 3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: 5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: 6 Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: 7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with F3 my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers; 10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; 12 That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. 13 Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. 14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise. 15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Leibniz versus Newton on God's Intervention in Nature (and Leibniz on Locke too)

Professor O'Connor pointed me to two interesting passages from the famous correspondence of Leibniz with Samuel Clarke, a philosopher and follower of Newton. See http://www.archive.org/stream/philosophicalwri029664mbp/philosophicalwri029664mbp_djvu.txt, number 192-193.

IT appears that even natural religion is growing very much weaker. Many hold that souls are corporeal ; others hold that God Himself is corporeal. Mr. Locke and his followers are at any rate doubtful whether souls are not material and naturally perishable....

Mr. Newton and his followers have also an extremely odd opinion of the work of God. According to them God has to wind up His watch from time to time. Otherwise it would cease to go. He lacked sufficient fore- sight to make it a perpetual motion. This machine of God's is even, on their view, so imperfect that He is obliged from time to time to come to its assistance especially out of the ordinary course, and clean it, and even to mend it, as a clock- maker might his handiwork; and the less skilful the workman is, the more often is he obliged to rehandle and correct his work. According to my view, the same force and vigour goes on existing in the world always, and simply passes from one matter to another, according to the laws of nature and to the beautiful pre-established order. And I hold that, when God performs miracles, it is not to uphold the needs of nature, but for those of grace. To think otherwise would be to have a very low opinion of the wisdom and power of God.

The web source says:

Clarke thinks that the passage to which Leibniz is referring is the following, from Newton's Optics: ' Whilst the comets move in orbs very eccentrical, with all variety of directions towards every part of the heavens; 'tis not possible it should have been caused by blind fate, that the planets all move with one similar direction in concentrick orbs; excepting only some very small irregularities, which may have arisen from the mutual actions of the planets and comets upon one another; and which 'tis probably will in length of time increase more and more, till the present system of nature shall want to be anew put in order by its Author.' (The translation from Newton's Latin is Clarke's.)

Most-Used Bible Verses

TopVerses.com has a list of Bible verses that they somehow calculate are most-used. It's interesting to see what's on it, and a good list of important verses. They don't give actual counts, though, so it's just ordinal.

Sharing the Gospel

My wife made a good point to me tonight. Some people think that the way to show people that Christianity is good is to behave well, so they are impressed with Christians. There is something to that, but it goes off on a tangent. Christianity is good because it is true. Even as something we wish to be true, it is not so much that it will make me a better person as that it gives me hope even though I remain a bad person. Even if I don't succeed in becoming pure--- and nobody does, really--- God forgives me, as a father forgives a naughty child.

One reason this is important is that Christians really cannot succeed in preaching the Gospel by showing off what good people they are. The World is not impressed by Christian virtue; only by worldly virtue. Often those things coincide--- bravery is both a pagan and a Christian virtue--- but not always. In fact, the World usually thinks that the more Christian you are, the more you are a duped fanatic. Just think of the extreme Moslems--- we are not so much impressed by their bravery as appalled by their willingness to kill people. They do not convert by their example. At best, they make people take a look to see what makes them so brave.

Moreover, thinking that to convert people to Christianity means you must be exemplary in all ways makes us ashamed to admit our Christianity. I do not want people to see how deficient I am and decide that Christians are weak and thoughtless people. It is better if I forget about impressing them with my strength, and concentrate on letting God use me as he wills to convey information or whatever else I may do for Him.

Proof from Intuition and Failed Attempts to Prove Formally

An insight from Trent Dougherty at Prosblogion:

In fact, I think that sometimes repeated failure is evidence for the insight when it is repeated failure by multiple people. Think of the history of failure to prove Fermat's last theorem. Personally, I never doubted the theorem for a second and I doubt I am alone in believing that the repeated failure to provide a proof did not provide much if any evidence that it was false. Or consider what a history to prove Goldbach's conjecture would look like (I haven't looked to see if there is an actual history of attempts to do so). The very fact that so many people have the insight that it is true is what is guiding all these (sadly failed) attempts, and the (partial) independence of the testimony can be surprisingly strong evidence when modeled probabilistically. And it helps when there is considerable conceptual similarity among the attempts, for the insights are often of the form "considerations pertaining to X support Y" (and we just can't get the bridge in formal logic yet).

Cowardice at Yale University Press

From VC:

Yale University Press has decided not to include controversial Danish cartoons depicting Muhammad in a book about the cartoons and the resulting controversy. Other depictions of Muhammad slated for inclusion in the book, The Cartoons that Shook the World, have also been pulled. The NYT reports:

The book’s author, Jytte Klausen, a Danish-born professor of politics at Brandeis University, in Waltham, Mass., reluctantly accepted Yale University Press’s decision not to publish the cartoons.

John Donatich, the director of Yale University Press, said by telephone that the decision was difficult, but the recommendation to withdraw the images, including the historical ones of Muhammad, was “overwhelming and unanimous.” The cartoons are freely available on the Internet and can be accurately described in words, Mr. Donatich said, so reprinting them could be interpreted easily as gratuitous.

He noted that he had been involved in publishing other controversial books . . . and “I’ve never blinked.” But, he said, “when it came between that and blood on my hands, there was no question.”

HARRY POTTER AND THe CHRISTIAN

Some Christians think that Halloween and the Harry Potter books are bad, as encouraging witchcraft. I will not talk about Halloween here, but I will talk about the Harry Potter books. I've had occasion to praise them recently, because while my son and daughter were in the hospital we read one of them out loud, and it was useful for them and for me. It distracted from their physical pain and from all of our pain from recent loss of loved ones, allowing switches back and forth from mourning to imagination. Harry Potter's world worked this magic because it is a mixture of the mundane and the wondrous, because it has many novel contrivances, and because it is full of suspense. A few other books can do this too--- the Oz series, for example, or Tolkien, or Narnia--- but the hospital happened to have Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone at hand.

On the other hand, what of this passage from Deuteronomy 18?

Deuteronomy. 18:10-12. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the LORD: and because of these abominations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee.

At first sight, this passage seems to condemn not just Harry Potter, but Tolkien and Oz. (Narnia is exempt, I think-- I don't recall good magic in it.)

But wait. We must ask what the words in Deuteronomy mean. Some Christians use the Ten Commandments to condemn not just murder but the death penalty, war, and resistance to crime. Indeed, one could use it to advocate vegetarianism--- does "Thou shalt not kill" have an exemption for animals? Actually, what about killing plants? So we must pay attention to translation and meaning.

In the case of Deuteronomy, what do enchanter, witch, charmer, wizard, and necromancer mean? I don't have time now to go to the Hebrew, though that is clearly relevant. Note first, though, that here we seem to have five distinct kinds of magic, besides the other kinds in the passage which don't apply to Harry Potter's kind of magic at all. (I know there's divination in the novels, but it's peripheral and Harry and his friends don't do real divination and consider the subject "pseudo-magic".)

Whatever they mean, I don't think it can apply to what Harry Potter and friends are doing. What they are doing is not really magic, but science. Harry, Ron, and Hermione do not reach into a supernatural world to engage the power of spirits. There are a few ghosts in the book, but notice how no spells make use of them, and how little different the ghosts are from people except in their immortality and nonphysicality. Rather, what the Hogwarts kids do is learn how to use wands to manipulate things, and what kind of magical creatures and plants lurk in the world unobserved by ordinary people. Most people-- Muggles-- can't use wands, just as most people can't do calculus (and never could, because they're not smart enough). Those who can have to go to school and learn it just like biology or trombone. It's called "magic", but how is it different from "chemistry"?

I'll have to continue later. But I'll make a second point here. Look at the context of Deuteronomy 18:10-12. What's in front and behind it?

18:9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations....

18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the LORD thy God.

18:14 For these nations, which thou shalt possess, hearkened unto observers of times, and unto diviners: but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do.

It's "the abominations of those nations" that is condemned. The Canaanites are condemned in the Bible to a degree beyond any other people. Thus, it may be just their forms of magic that are being condemned here. Or, it may just be their evil use of it.

A couple of references (which do not make the points I make above, I think):

"Are all witches equal? Six types of Witchcraft" (note: I suspect this site is not to be trusted farther than you can test their arguments yourself--but that is usefully far).

"Religious debates over the Harry Potter series," not to be considered as unbiased as most Wikipedia articles, but moderate in tone, fair, and with lots of citations so you can check up on it.

The Theology of Prayer

A couple of relevant theological questions:

1. Is it okay to pray for the souls of the dead, e.g. my father?

Answer: Yes. We can certainly pray for the souls of the living. That is, we can pray that it is God's will that He has chosen them for heaven. We can pray for them no matter how wicked they are or how imperfect their faith in God. We can pray not only that they change their behavior or belief, but that God will have mercy on them despite their sins. Indeed, we all need that mercy and should pray for it for ourselves; we all sin, and it is just a matter of degree.

God is not stuck in time as we are. He has a plan, and we pray even though He has that plan and knows what will happen anyway. Thus, it is fine to pray even if something has already happened. If we hear of a plane accident, we can pray that our friend on the plane has survived, even though at the time of our prayer he is already either killed or not.

Thus, we can also pray for the soul of someone who has already died. We can pray either that he had a deathbed conversion or that even if he didn't, God will be (was? is?) merciful.

2. Is it okay to ask a dead person, e.g., my daughter Elizabeth, to pray for me?

Answer: I don't know. This came up because a lady asked me if she could pray to Elizabeth to pray for her. This is what Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic people are supposed to do when they pray to saints. (What commonly happens is that they pray to the saint directly--- "Please cure my cancer" as opposed to "Please pray to God to cure my cancer"--- but it is properly considered idolatry to make direct requests, I think.)

It is wrong to ask someone to pray for me on the grounds that they have special clout with God because they are especially holy. The Roman Catholic doctrine that saints have superogatory merit that they can give away to the rest of us as a sort of spiritual cash is an evil doctrine. Saints are, we may hope, members of God's elect, but not on account of their special virtue, nor do they have special power with Him. My Lizzie was especially spiritual, and gave more evidence than the vast majority of us of being one of God's children, but she was a sinner too, and showed it in daily life.

Nonetheless, it is good to ask fellow Christians to pray for us, and Lizzie is a fellow Christian, even though she is dead. So, is it proper to ask her to pray for us now, not as a special saint, but as a saint such as we hope we are ourselves? I don't know.

Authority in American Culture

Pastor Bayly's sermon yesterday on authority in America, "In Heaven and on Earth" (MP3 available), was very good. What is below was inspired by it, taking some of the themes and examples and expanding on them. They are notes, with little effort to put things in sequence, to introduce, or to conclude.

A good doctor knows which of his patients are in danger of heart attacks. When he first meets us for a check-up, he says, "Strip" and asks us lots of personal questions. We'll do anything to try to live a little longer. Or, more accurately, we will at least listen quietly as he tells us how to behave and say to ourselves, "It's his job to tell me all that. He has authority to say it, even if I don't intend to listen to his advice. After all, he cares about my health, even if I care more about other things like eating all the ice cream I want. I know he's right, and I knew it before I came in, but, after all, he wouldn't be a good doctor if he didn't bug me about it. "

A good pastor knows which of his people are in danger of adultery. But what happens if he tries to care for someone's soul as carefully as a doctor cares for the person's body? Nobody would ever think of going in to his pastor for a check-up. If he did, he would be offended if the pastor asked personal questions. And if the pastor tells him what to do, or warned him of future dangers, he would say to himself, "That's none of a pastor's business. I haven't done anything wrong, and I won't, and he's just meddling because he's a busybody; he must like bossing people around." Or, he might add, "Yes, I know I'm skirting on the edge of temptation, but since that's obvious, the pastor doesn't have to rub it in, and I know how to stay out of real danger."

In our culture we give our doctors lots of authority, but not our pastors. In fact, pastors are a lot lower on the hierarchy of authority than dental technicians.

Our culture is similarly deferential to government. Americans may be a little less deferential than Europeans, but not much less. If the government says, "Take off your shoes" at the airport, we do it, and we are happy to be degraded that way, because it shows the government cares about our safety, even though we know--or anyone would know if they gave it a moment's thought--- that taking off shoes doesn't really help safety at all. I say this because our government is truly elected, and the foot- stripping policy is obvious and simple enough that it wouldn't last if most people didn't like it.

Let's think about a couple of other examples. Suppose the church elders met 30 years ago and decided to tell the congregation, "You must all buy child seats for your cars and tie your children up in them." We would be outraged. In fact, suppose a father had told his wife, "We need to take the money we were going to spend going out on our next two date nights and buy a car seat, and you must always strap Joey into it, no matter how late you are or how much he cries." The wife would be outraged, and either fight or mutter to herself, "I at least deserve to be consulted. He doesn't know how much our date nights mean to me. And he's not the one who has to deal with getting Joey into the car seat just to travel half a mile to the grocery store."

But what in fact happened was that the government issued the command, with absolutely no consideration of our particular family budget or needs, and no ability to ask about exceptions for special circumstances, because the government is so distant from us that there's nobody to ask about them. And we loved it. Most of us thanked the elected officials for thus compelling us, by re- electing them. Others of us didn't love it. We muttered to ourselves about how stupid the regulation was in our particular cases. But few of us objected in principle to the idea that the government could tell us how to raise our children. We think the government does have that authority. And we truly think it is authority. The government does use violence to enforce its will-- in the sense that if you try to thwart it, the government will send men with guns to put you in jail, and to kill you if you fight them. But that is not the main reason we obey. Even if there are no police around, we obey, because we know it is the law, an authority, and we obey authority even if it is unjust and mistaken. Or, if we disobey, we do it guiltily, feeling in our hearts that we are doing something wrong.

A board of elders wouldn't issue an edict about child seats. But let's think about a couple of other examples. What about smoking? Suppose the elders said that smoking was a vice and nobody could remain a member in good standing if he smoked in public. What a legalistic, fundamentalist, church that would be! Or what if a man told his wife not to smoke when she's out shopping. What a tyrant! After all, he's not even there to be bothered by the smell of the smoke, so what business is it of his? But when the city council tells us not to smoke in public, we meekly obey, even if we grumble. It has authority; the church and the family do not.

I've been driving in the point, but let's think about one more example, the one Pastor Bayly used in his sermon. What if a teen- age girl wears short skirts in church, sitting up front and displaying plenty of leg so she can enjoy being noticed by men. The pastor tells the father, "Your daughter is dressing immodestly. Tell her to cover herself up more." What will the father's response be? He will be ashamed, for sure. In many many cases he will also be outraged by the pastor's interference. After all, his daughter is just wearing the kind of clothes lots of people wear every day. If the church is one where people dress up a little for worship, he'd accept the point--- for Sunday, at least. But if it is the typical American church where jeans and tennis shoes are perfectly acceptable, he'd feel singled out.

Consider the same admonition coming from a real authority: the government. If the girl's school sends a note home-- a cold, impersonal note-- saying that her skirt must reach down to at least within 1.5 inches o her knee, the parents will pass along the note to the girl and tell her to obey. The school secretary, after all, has authority.

That's just at school, of course. What if the government issued a skirt rule for all public places? We don't know the answer to that. But I would place my money on public acceptance of the new rule. A few radicals would object, protest, and be arrested. But most of us would accept it, especially if the newspapers added their support to the government.

Let's go back to the pastor telling the father about his daughter, though. The pastor's not the only weak figure in America. There's another reason the father would feel ashamed and outraged, a more subtle one. It's that he would feel he, too, lacks authority. He might like to tell his daughter to dress modestly, but he doesn't dare. His wife would object. She would say things like, "You're so legalistic. You don't really care. You object to her short skirt, but you don't even go to see her play volleyball at her school. If you really cared, you'd start spending more time with her. So don't talk about clothes. You don't know anything about how girls dress, anyway."

His daughter would certainly object. She's too old to spank, and she's buying the clothes herself. All her friends would think her father was totally unreasonable, or at least would tell her that when she complained.

The father would rather not tell his daughter to do things. So he gets angry at the pastor. He is all the more angry because he agrees with the pastor. He knows what the young men are imagining doing with his daughter-- and the old men, too. He knows she is enjoying knowing that the boys are thinking those thoughts. He knows he should be talking to her about it, but he doesn't have the guts. And he has the depressing feeling that even if he did go through that painful process, it wouldn't work. He'd end up getting his wife and daughter angry at him, with no real result. Maybe he'd win on that particular issue-- if he fought hard. But they'd pay him back double on every other issue. So he feels beaten in advance. Why does the pastor have to rub in his humiliation? If he, the father, has no authority, how can the pastor have it?

All these kind of thoughts are going through the mind of the pastor, too. He's in an even weaker position, since the angry church member can leave or can try to get him fired. That's why pastors ordinarily give up on specific admonishment. Maybe they're even right to do so, at least if they continue with general admonishment and with discipline for more serious sins. If so, the problem is even bigger-- it's so big that we have to give up the most effective form of church discipline entirely, saving up what little authority the church has for less costly expenditures of it or for only the most church-destroying sins.

The Environmentalist Religion

Tom Smith:

One thing I don't like about cap and trade is that I can no longer say,for example, how could the Aztecs devote their entire cultural-political system to something as irrational as sacrificing humans to the sun? Here we are engaged in something only somewhat more rational.

Joy and Song and John Ford

From a very very good essay on John Ford movies:

For an atheist, even those functional atheists who make a hobby out of churchgoing but who do not actually believe that any of the Creed is true, cannot sing, not in Ford's sense. People may sing for diversion, or may listen to singing for entertainment, and there's nothing wrong with that. But if you have no sense for the mysterious and transcendent -- if you do not bow in humility before the mysteries of Man and Woman and Child, let alone God -- then you have nothing that will unite you and your fellows in gratitude to sing about, and certainly no one beyond yourselves to sing to. The clodhopping farmers of Drums Along the Mohawk are happy to be together at the barn dance to celebrate a wedding, not just because a wedding is an excuse for drinking, but because any wedding is to them like a moment's reentry into Eden, or a moment's foreshadowing of heaven. The secular world is optimistic, sure, and can provide a lot of fun, sometimes of the harmless kind. But it knows neither hope nor joy.

This has some important relation to the 2007 Korean movie Le Grand Chef which we saw last night with the Wildenbeests, Buddhist/traditionalist though that movie is. Come to think of it, the protagonist of that movie may have to be Buddhist because it is about tradition and loyalty, but his attitude is highly Christian-- that simple work is ennobling, that bodily pleasures and existence in this world are good, and that what is gained by sin is not worth having.

Church Music

This is a long-term post that will collect my ideas on church music. I will start it small, just to get it going.

1. Keep in mind that church music is not a performance for an audience, even an audience of God. The congregation is there too, and they're supposed to be worshipping. If you want a concert for God, do it with no congregation present.

This idea has lots of implications. One is that there should not be instrumental interludes, preludes, or postludes, during which the congregation waits nervously. Another is that beauty is not the main goal (if it were, you'd expel the congregation, because they cough, sing badly, etc.)

2. If there is a solo, let the congregation chip in at the last verse.

3. Don't have undignified children songs with gestures, etc., except for children. It is degrading for adults, insulting the Dignity of Man.

4. Overheads slide person is most important person.

5. People should be able to hear each other singing.

6. Don't jazz up arrangements just for the sake of putting personal imprint on it. Old arrangements are old for a reason-- they're good.

7. Clapping is good for kids and illiterates. Make sure they can participate somehow.

8. Have strong male voices leading.

9. Not too many verses of any one hymn.

10. Explain hymns in advance.

Ethics vs. Religion in Government

Richard Painter at VC:

I do not address this as a matter of constitutional law, or theology, which I leave to others. I am saying that government entanglement with religion is difficult from a government ethics lawyer’s perspective. The more entanglement there is, the more difficulty there is. Combine religion with partisan political activity, as many government officials now do, and the ethics lawyer confronts a three way mix of Hatch Act regulations, the Establishment Clause and government ethics regulations. I pointed out in an earlier post that ethics problems often begin when someone thinks he or she can wear two hats instead of one. Try three.

My comment, after a number of others noting that religion in government is more persecuted than persecuting:

I, too, see some lawyerly blindness here. Most of us get a lot more nervous about lawyers hanging around the White House than clergymen. A clergyman might pray that I be damned (though I can't think of any real ones that would actually), but an ethics lawyer might take away my money, my job, or my liberty, using the power of the state.

Similarly, it's a lot more threatening when someone says, "We all believe in affirmative action, don't we--- since it's it's racist not to and you're all forbidden by law to discriminate" than when someone says, "We all believe in the supremacy of the Pope, don't we-- since if you don't, you're not a Roman Catholic." When people call their faith-held belief "ethics" they're a lot more dangerous than when they call them "religion".

Standing in the Gap

Here's a mixture of what I was taught in Sunday School last week and what I thought of myself.

Ezekiel 22: 23-31 is the key.I use the English Standard Version:

23 And the word of the Lord came to me: 24 “Son of man, say to her, You are a land that is not cleansed or rained upon in the day of indignation. 25 The conspiracy of her prophets in her midst is like a roaring lion tearing the prey; they have devoured human lives; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in her midst. 26 Her priests have done violence to my law and have profaned my holy things. They have made no distinction between the holy and the common, neither have they taught the difference between the unclean and the clean, and they have disregarded my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. 27 Her princes in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, shedding blood, destroying lives to get dishonest gain. 28 And her prophets have smeared whitewash for them, seeing false visions and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord God,’ when the Lord has not spoken. 29 The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery. They have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the sojourner without justice.

These prophets include most Christian pastors in America and Europe today. They profane the holy and care about Man, not God. They blur the difference between Christian and non-Christian, between God and Man, between truth and falsehood, and between right and wrong. They flatter the leading citizens in their congregation and excuse their misdeeds. They criticize, if anyone, only people outside their congregations.

This is obviously true of liberal Christians, but is equally true of evangelicals. The evangelical pastor whose concern is simply to get people to go to church-- or even to "save souls"--- is blurring distinctions to do so, and flattering his congregation.

30 And I sought for a man among them who should build up the wall and stand in the breach before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none. 31 Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them. I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath. I have returned their way upon their heads, declares the Lord God.”

The "man in the breach" or "man in the gap" is what we should each strive to be. Without him, the land is destroyed. Sodom did not have twenty (was it?) righteous men, and so perished.

Ezekiel 13, entire chapter:

1 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the prophets of Israel, who are prophesying, and say to those who prophesy from their own hearts: ‘Hear the word of the Lord!’ 3 Thus says the Lord God, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! 4 Your prophets have been like jackals among ruins, O Israel. 5 You have not gone up into the breaches, or built up a wall for the house of Israel, that it might stand in battle in the day of the Lord. 6 They have seen false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘Declares the Lord,’ when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word. 7 Have you not seen a false vision and uttered a lying divination, whenever you have said, ‘Declares the Lord,’ although I have not spoken?”

Again, the prophets are pastors (and members) who go to their own hearts (which usually means their self-interest and their cultural biases) rather than the Bible or natural law for truth. They say that what God wants is what they want. This is blasphemy as well as bias. It is, of course foolish. Much better would it be if they took Nietzsche's course and admitted outright that they were beyond good and evil and wanted to create their own values. At least they would not be blasphemously ascribing their desires to God.

8 Therefore thus says the Lord God: “Because you have uttered falsehood and seen lying visions, therefore behold, I am against you, declares the Lord God. 9 My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and who give lying divinations. They shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel. And you shall know that I am the Lord God. 10 Precisely because they have misled my people, saying, ‘Peace,’ when there is no peace, and because, when the people build a wall, these prophets smear it with whitewash, F57 11 say to those who smear it with whitewash that it shall fall! There will be a deluge of rain, and you, O great hailstones, will fall, and a stormy wind break out. 12 And when the wall falls, will it not be said to you, ‘Where is the coating with which you smeared it?’ 13 Therefore thus says the Lord God: I will make a stormy wind break out in my wrath, and there shall be a deluge of rain in my anger, and great hailstones in wrath to make a full end. 14 And I will break down the wall that you have smeared with whitewash, and bring it down to the ground, so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you shall perish in the midst of it, and you shall know that I am the Lord. 15 Thus will I spend my wrath upon the wall and upon those who have smeared it with whitewash, and I will say to you, The wall is no more, nor those who smeared it, 16 the prophets of Israel who prophesied concerning Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her, when there was no peace, declares the Lord God.

The culture builds a wall of prejudices to protect its self- interest. The prophets put on the final touches, the paint. The paint is a trivial part of the wall, really, and adds no strength, but it makes it look nice.

The prophets also twist words. Confucius made a big deal of "the rectification of names", and he was right. The pastors and other proclaimers of truth say that a situation is good when it is not. Calling a war peaceful, a society virtuous, or a people happy will not create peace, virtue, or happiness.

17 “And you, son of man, set your face against the daughters of your people, who prophesy out of their own minds. Prophesy against them 18 and say, Thus says the Lord God: Woe to the women who sew magic bands upon all wrists, and make veils for the heads of persons of every stature, in the hunt for souls! Will you hunt down souls belonging to my people and keep your own souls alive? 19 You have profaned me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, putting to death souls who should not die and keeping alive souls who should not live, by your lying to my people, who listen to lies.

20 “Therefore thus says the Lord God: Behold, I am against your magic bands with which you hunt the souls like birds, and I will tear them from your arms, and I will let the souls whom you hunt go free, the souls like birds. 21 Your veils also I will tear off and deliver my people out of your hand, and they shall be no more in your hand as prey, and you shall know that I am the Lord. 22 Because you have disheartened the righteous falsely, although I have not grieved him, and you have encouraged the wicked, that he should not turn from his evil way to save his life, 23 therefore you shall no more see false visions nor practice divination. I will deliver my people out of your hand. And you shall know that I am the Lord.”

There are people, including even women, who are out to destroy your soul. They want to consume your soul to magnify their own, in the same manner as the devils in C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters, or Mephistopheles in Faust, or, I think, as Neitzsche's liberated man with his Will to Power.

"Soul" here is from a Hebrew word that I think (I could be wrong) means "life" as well as "soul". Some souls *should* be killed. The false prophets keep some souls alive that they should kill, as well as killing souls they should keep alive. Note that this passage makes it clear that some people's souls are detestable. Not everybody should be encouraged. The evil should be disheartened by the prophets.

Keep in mind that "Baal" is the Canaanite word for "Lord". When false prophets were calling on "Baal", they were calling on "the Lord". It was just the wrong Lord.

People use God as a way to solve problems. This is like magic-- which is why magic is so criticized in the Bible. It is treating God as a Means, not an End.

Pagan gods are treated this way routinely. Nobody thinks of loving Zeus or the ancestor spirit as anything but weird. Rather, those gods are powerful spirits not all that different from humans or from gravity who must be treated carefully in order to manipulate their behavior.

Roman Catholic saints are the same kind of petty god. You pray to St. Mary, and she cures your flu. Many people wouldn't dare use the Almighty God for such a trivial purpose, so they pray to St. Mary instead.

Works Religion is the same way. Fast, and God will do things for you. Abstain from wine, and God must keep his end of the deal by making you rich.

Isaiah 58:

1 “Cry aloud; do not hold back; lift up your voice like a trumpet; declare to my people their transgression, to the house of Jacob their sins.

We should condemn sins.

2 Yet they seek me daily and delight to know my ways, as if they were a nation that did righteousness and did not forsake the judgment of their God; they ask of me righteous judgments; they delight to draw near to God. 3 ‘Why have we fasted, and you see it not? Why have we humbled ourselves, and you take no knowledge of it?’ Behold, in the day of your fast you seek your own pleasure, and oppress all your workers.

Sinful people often are religious, and act as if they are righteous. This is works-religion. Christians live a righteous life, and expect God to pay them for it. But their aim is to satisfy their earthly desires, and while they may go to church weekly, tithe, and not swear, they still take advantage of their employees.

4 Behold, you fast only to quarrel and to fight and to hit with a wicked fist. Fasting like yours this day will not make your voice to be heard on high. 5 Is such the fast that I choose, a day for a person to humble himself? Is it to bow down his head like a reed, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? Will you call this a fast, and a day acceptable to the Lord?

6 “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of wickedness, to undo the straps of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke?

Lots of people do good deeds so they can get away with doing more bad deeds too.

7 Is it not to share your bread with the hungry and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover him, and not to hide yourself from your own flesh?

We ought to look out for those in need. I don't do that enough.

8 Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard. 9 Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and he will say, ‘Here I am.’ If you take away the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger, and speaking wickedness, 10 if you pour yourself out for the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then shall your light rise in the darkness and your gloom be as the noonday. 11 And the Lord will guide you continually and satisfy your desire in scorched places and make your bones strong; and you shall be like a watered garden, like a spring of water, whose waters do not fail. 12 And your ancient ruins shall be rebuilt; you shall raise up the foundations of many generations; you shall be called the repairer of the breach, the restorer of streets to dwell in. 13 “If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the Lord honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; 14 then you shall take delight in the Lord, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.”

A good approach to reading the Bible: Ask of every passage: How would I interpret this if my goal was to undermine it and defeat it and reduce it to a "tame" meaning of complete blandness or something that agrees with what I want to think anyway? Also ask how someone who wanted to defend your culture would interpret it so as to defeat it. The Christian life is a battle. Battles have real weapons and casualties. The warrior hurts other people, and kills them. THey wound him, and maybe even kill him, and kill his friends. Some people are wounded and need medics. Some people are traitors. Ruses are used, and ambushes, and cutting off of supplies.

I hear that boxers tend to think, unconsciously, "If I don't hit the other guy hard, he won't hit me hard either". Coaches know this, and train it out of their boxers. Don't think that if you hit a trained enemy softly, he will hit you back softly. He won't.

Homosexual Orientation versus Homosexual Behavior

Here's a comment I posted at Prosblogion:

The distinction between "sexual orientation" and "sexual behavior" is absolutely crucial, and I was thinking on blogging on this myself, so I read this with interest. I see that the lawyer quoted above didn't understand the distinction. I too would like to know if city regulations do.

Someone commented:

"If I owned a business, I'd discriminate in my hiring practices, quite reasonably I think, against non-sober alcoholics. The view of those who are supporting the original petition appears to be (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong about this) that I would thereby discriminate against an alcoholic who has been sober for ten years. Isn't this just absurd?"

That's right. I'm sure Christian colleges are happy to hire people with homosexual orientation who are strongly opposed to homosexual behavior. The former alcoholic is the best crusader against drink, and it is common to encounter reformed homosexual pastors who specialize in work with homosexuals. If anybody finds a case where a strong advocate of anti-sodomy laws is denied a job because he used to practice sodomy, please let us know.

In fact, orthodox Christian belief is that everyone has a "sin orientation"; it is just that some of us control our outward behavior better than others do. This is really the same as the idea that we are all potential criminals--- murderers and thieves, for example--- but some of us, including most people with college degrees, are better at restraining themselves in light of their material incentives and the chance of getting caught.

There is something I don't think any other commentor has mentioned: the "legislative history" of anti-discrimination rules. If a judge were to rule on whether the rule were literally against homosexual orientation or were against orientation and behavior, he would first look at the text. The text is clear--- it's just orientation--- but commonly even a fair-minded judge wouldn't stop there. He would go on to look at intent and at whether the words had a broader meaning in the particular context. A big part of that is to look at legislative history. If *everyone* in the debate over enactment-- both proponents and opponents--- talked as if the words included behavior, then it would be reasonable to read the words that way. If everyone just talked about orientation, or, even better, proponents explicitly said that the rule was written purposely to allow discrimination based on sexual behavior, then the words ought to be read literally. (If the legislative history is mixed, then it isn't much use.)

I could be wrong, but I bet most anti-discrimination rules were enacted by means of arguments based on orientation, not behavior. If so, it's not fair to switch the meaning afterwards to include behavior. An argument such as "we shouldn't allow discrimination on the grounds of characteristics a person can't alter" argues for a rule against orientation, but implicitly concedes that discrimination on behavior is okay.

To be sure, forbidding sodomy hurts people who are tempted by sodomy more than those who are not, and in that sense discriminates on the basis of orientation. But that is a false sense. It is equivalent to saying that forbidding sexual harassment, or even rape, discriminates against men, and so a university should not punish it if they have a policy against sex discrimination.

In the courts, the "disparate impact" argument is treated in complicated ways, and in ways that are different depending on the type of discrimination. Race effects are scrutinized much more closely than gender effects, for example.

I'll repeat what earlier comments said: If anyone knows what courts have said on whether the term "sexual orientation" includes "sexual behavior" please let us know.

Scientists and Philosophy of Religion

Professor Smith's God and Darwin at The Right Coast, is good, tho not entirely right. I'm just working on a paper I'll send him: "The Concealment Argument: Why Christians Should Be Agnostics." Logic and Biblical evidence suggest that God wishes that some but not all humans become convinced of His existence and desires. If so, this suggests that attempts to either prove or disprove such things as God's existence, past miracles, or present supernatural intervention are doomed to failure, because God could and would take care to evade any such efforts.