No, not literally--though I will be at a lake on vacation next week. So this site will lay dormant for the week.Although I had not attempted to contact Dr. Carson before the Cornerstone Festival, I have attempted to contact him since, and I'm glad to say that he responded promptly and has expressed willingness to converse further. I am hopeful that these conversations will remove misunderstandings and make points of agreement and disagreement more clear. . . .
In order to post this correction, I need to offer a rating. I've given the book 3 stars because, although I believe the book misinterprets my friends and me on some important points, it opens up important space for dialogue - and it offers some criticism which will be constructive and helpful. The book concludes with the hope that those of us in the emergent conversation will be open to correction, and I hope readers will be assured that we welcome critique, and will seek to learn from it all we can.
This weekend my wife and I watched a great movie most people have never heard of: Saints and Soldiers. This gritty WWII film opens with the the Malmedy Massacre (Dec. 17, 1944), where a German SS unit killed 86 American POWs. The film follows five soldiers who escape into the woods and reunite. The main protagonist, "Deacon," is a sharpshooter and a former missionary who always has a Bible in hand. I won't give away the storyline, but I will say that it's a movie well worth seeing.These are the stories of five ordinary women—Sarah Edwards, Lilias Trotter, Gladys Aylward, Esther Ahn Kim, and Helen Roseveare—who trusted in their extraordinary God as he led them to do great things for his kingdom. Noël Piper holds up their lives and deeds as examples of what it means to be truly faithful. Learning about these women will challenge readers to make a difference for Christ in their families, in the church, and throughout the world.
First, they did not flinch from blunt language in describing the wreckage of the inner city, unafraid of the accusations of racism and victim blaming that came their way. Second, they pointed at the welfare policies of the 1960s, not racism or a lack of jobs or the legacy of slavery, as the cause of inner-city dysfunction, and in so doing they made the welfare mother the public symbol of the ghetto’s ills. (Murray in particular argued that welfare money provided a disincentive for marriage, and, while his theory may have overstated the role of economics, it’s worth noting that he was probably the first to grasp that the country was turning into a nation of separate and unequal families.) And third, they believed that the poor would have to change their behavior instead of waiting for Washington to end poverty, as liberals seemed to be saying."
Where there is a shallow doctrine of sin, we can expect a shallow doctrine of the atonement. The expectation is not disappointed. Chalke is weary of the Evangelical obsession with preaching "Christ crucified", regards the idea of penal substitution as immoral ("a form of cosmic child abuse") and sees the cross exclusively as a symbol of love. There, Jesus absorbed all the forces of hate, just as Carol, the victim of an unfaithful husband, saved her marriage by taking all the pain to herself and granting her husband full pardon. The cross is a demonstration of just how far God as Father and Jesus as His Son are prepared to go to prove their love.
It is astonishing how such a doctrine has survived from the days of Abelard till now despite all its flimsiness. How can the cross be a mere demonstration: a gesture? If death is the wages of sin (as it surely is) and if Christ died, then the cross is penal in its very nature. His penal suffering is not a theory, but a fact, and the resulting theory adds not a single iota to the horror of what he endured. The narrative is that he suffered what sin deserved.
We shall never understand the cross unless we see it first and foremost not as an action of Christ the Son, but as an action of God the father. How can the sacrificing of His only Son demonstrate the Father’s love? Suppose we, for no reason, did it to ours; would that demonstrate our love? The cross cannot be a demonstration of the divine love unless there is something in the relationship between God and man to which the death of His Son was the only answer. With all the power of his soul, Jesus prayed that the cup might pass from him. With all the ardour of his being, the Father wished he could grant that prayer. Both were constrained by a self-imposed necessity. The Son of Man must suffer. "Die he, or justice must."
The lost message of Jesus? More like the familiar message of the liberal establishment, garnished with half-forgotten heresies.
So, to all who are looking for an even-handed, academically rigorous, evangelically committed, pastorally sensitive, culturally engaged treatment of the postconservative platform, you have found it. But more than that, you have found a proposal with an unchanging center, an immovable core, a place of genuine permanence. And for those of us who engage in a world without a center, that is a welcomed refuge indeed.
If a church wants to start taking church discipline seriously, what would you suggest?
My basic advice is not to do it—that is, do not do church discipline until your church membership is meaningful.
With most evangelical churches today, the membership is fairly meaningless. And it would be weird to have two deacons turn up on your front doorstep to confront you about adultery or gossip, because there's been no natural conversation about your spiritual life. Not only should we be talking about football and the weather after worship, but also about our own self-denial or lack thereof, our response to the Word just preached, the way we choked up at that older member's testimony, how we've cared for a distressed family, about our concern to evangelize Muslims in the area, and so on.
When it's natural to have serious conversations about real life with each other, that's when you can start practicing corrective discipline. And once you start doing these other things, once you see the culture of the congregation changed where it really is the shape of your discipleship and the center of your life, church discipline is as natural as can be.
I think that theologians need to take advantage of the Internet and especially the blogosphere to fulfill their role of "informing the laity." Journals are an excellent way for them to stay up on current thought but it needs to trickle down into the pews.Well, just a few minutes ago the the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals launched a new e-zine: Reformation 21, which I hope will accomplish what Joe is calling for.
Reformation 21 is an online magazine (ezine) created to serve, edify, and educate Christians by presenting an authoritative reformed perspective, while embracing various denominational positions, on a variety of relevant historic matters, current issues, and thoughtful positions that inform, inspire, and challenge Christians to think and grow biblically.
Republicans are the ones who have always been most intent on punishing unwed mothers, cutting programs for the poor, trashing our cities, limiting educational opportunity, weakening anti-discrimination law, and pursuing a "prisons first, justice last" program of civil peace. It’s to Republicans that we can first look for policies that have retarded black economic progress, and that now account for the record rates of black incarceration and persons of color on death row. Between the two major parties, surely, the Republicans have done the most to make black life nasty, brutish, and short. And so, for blacks, the question of which party to vote for has pretty much answered itself.
The absence of fathers means, as well, that girls lack both a pattern against which to measure the boys who pursue them and an example of sacrificial love between a man and a woman. As the ministers were at pains to say last week, it isn't the incompetence of mothers that is at issue but the absence of half of the adult support needed for families to be most effective.
Interestingly, they blamed the black church for abetting the decline of the black family -- by moderating virtually out of existence its once stern sanctions against extramarital sex and childbirth and by accepting the present trends as more or less inevitable.
According to an open letter released by the Seymour Institute:
"Every black Christian man and woman must take seriously the charge to live in a sexually responsible manner, honoring the sacred nature of sexual intimacy," the letter states. "By their fidelity to each other, parents must provide an environment of trust and emotional security in which to raise their children and teach them by example and precept to respect and honor their bodies."And they define marriage as a "permanent, exclusive, inviolable bond, between one man and one woman, that fosters the realization of each partner's potential in all areas of life, that provides the deepest levels of companionship, fidelity and unselfish love, that furnishes order and structure for daily life, that creates emotionally safe space for the rearing of children and for the transmission of core moral and spiritual values to the next generation."
Rasberry concludes:
You can order the booklet here.They didn't say -- but might have -- that black America's almost reflexive search for outside explanations for our internal problems delayed the introspective examination that might have slowed the trend. What we have now is a changed culture -- a culture whose worst aspects are reinforced by oversexualized popular entertainment and that places a reduced value on the things that produced nearly a century of socioeconomic improvement. For the first time since slavery, it is no longer possible to say with assurance that things are getting better.
As the Rev. Jesse Jackson said in a slightly different context, "What began as a problem has deteriorated into a condition. Problems require solving; conditions require healing."
How to start the healing? Rivers and his colleagues hope to use their personal influence, a series of marriage forums and their well-produced booklet, "God's Gift: A Christian Vision of Marriage and the Black Family," to launch a serious, national discussion and action program.
In truth, though, the situation is so critical -- and its elements so interconnected and self-perpetuating -- that there is no wrong place to begin. When you find yourself in this sort of a hole, someone once said, the first thing to do is stop digging.
In J.I. Packer: A Biography, Alister McGrath recounts the story of Packer's childhood accident:
It was 19 September 1933. A new school year had begun in England. A seven-year-old boy had just started to attend the National School in the English cathedral city of Gloucester. He was shy and uncertain of himself in his new surroundings. He was already being bullied. Another boy chased him out of the school grounds on to the busy London Road outside. A passing bread van could not avoid hitting him. He was thrown to the ground with a major head injury. The young boy was taken to the Gloucester Royal Infirmary and rushed into an operating theatre. He was discovered to have a depressed compound fracture of the frontal bone on the right side of his forehead, with injury to the frontal lobe of the brain. It was potentially very serious.
Every schoolboy of the period longed for the day when he would own a bicycle of his own. Usually around the age of eleven, at the point when a schoolboy would enter senior school, parents would mark their son's 'coming of age' by giving him a bicycle as a birthday present. Packer dropped heavy hints that he expected to receive the cycle, like all his friends. However, his parents knew that they could not yet allow their son to have a bicycle. If he were to have any kind of accident, the earlier injury could lead to something much more serious, and potentially fatal. but what could they give their son instead?
On the morning of his eleventh birthday, in 1937, Packer wandered down from his bedroom to see what present awaited him. The family had a tradition of placing birthday presents in the dining room of the house. He expected to find a bicycle. Instead, he found an old Oliver typewriter, which seems to him to weigh half a ton. It was not what Packer had asked for; nevertheless, it proved to be what he needed. Suprise gave way to delight, as he realized what he could do with this unexpected gift. It was not more than a minute before he had put paper into the machine, and started to type. It proved to be his best present and the most treasured possession of his boyhood. (pp. 6-7)
Has anyone ever criticized (E)mergent (capital E) and been received? That is, has McLaren or Tony Jones or anyone else who officially speaks for (E)mergent (capital E) ever said--"...You know, that's a good word-- something we need to work on. I think you missed it in a few places, but that is a place where we're flawed--Thanks"I admit that I have not read much of any of these men's work. However, it just rings kind of strange to me that in the face of critique, your response is that you were caricatured, or misunderstood, or misinterpreted.
Here's my take on Emergent responses to criticism:
Kevin,
In my view it seems like there is almost a shell-game going on with some Emergent proponents, such that it's impossible to offer valid criticism. If you criticize Paggit on a theological issue, the response is that he's not a theologian but a practicioner. If you criticize McLaren for an off-the-wall comment, the response is that he's merely making you think. If you offer a generalized critique, you're told there's no movement. If you make a specific critique of an individual, you're told that he doesn't represent everyone. The flip side of it, though, is that evangelicalism is caricatured as walking lock-step, such that sweeping generalizations are made whereby all of its members appear isolated, anti-intellectual, fundamentalistic, etc.
Just a few thoughts for you.
JT
Someone who viewed his battles from a long-term perspective was the great Christian abolitionist and parliamentarian William Wilberforce. This perspective enabled him to take setbacks—and there were plenty—in stride. If he lost one skirmish over the abolition of the slave trade, he would learn from it and return better prepared.
And Wilberforce never lost sight of the need to persuade those outside the seat of power. That's why he distributed literature all through England. So, by the time Parliament banned the slave trade, the people of England were in agreement with him. And Wilberforce would never have allowed the excesses of the twenty-four-hour news cycle to get to him, even if the reported setbacks were real. Neither should we.
There's a website up and running now for the Reason for the Hope Within Conference, Nov. 17-19 near Philadelphia. Speakers include J.P. Moreland, Francis Beckwith, William Lane Craig, Ben Witherington, and others. (Oh yeah, and a guy no one has ever heard of: Justin Taylor. I'll be talking about the emerging church at a breakout session.)To plant a church that honors God a man must preach and teach the Bible with all of the strength and fortitude of an ox that can pull a multitude of people in his wake (1 Timothy 5:17-18). Satan routinely sends heretics, nutjobs, and false teachers of all kinds into a church plant because it's systems are yet fluid, it's leadership is yet unsettled, and it's relationships are yet uncultivated. Therefore, you must ensure that sound doctrine regularly proceeds from your lips and pen so that love for Jesus and love for others (Christians and non-Christians alike) are the marks of health in your church plant.
To plant a church that honors God a man must fight like a dependable soldier of Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 2:3-4). Throughout his letters Paul continually admonishes Timothy to fight a good fight. And with the world, the flesh, and the devil conspiring to thwart your work you must do likewise. Soft men who are prone to avoid conflict or crumble under pressure will end up like an acquaintance of mine whose church plant collapsed as he lay on his living room floor crying like a baby while Hymenaeus and Alexander proceeded to take over.
To plant a church that honors God a man must train and compete with the precision of a skilled athlete (2 Timothy 2:5). Lazy men who adore their hobbies rarely plant much of a church because they end up wasting time, wasting energy, and being undisciplined with everything from their Bible to their fork as they tend to read too little and sleep and eat too much.
To plant a church that honors God a man must sweat at his labor like a farmer (2 Timothy 2:6). Many young men are attracted to ministry because, as one pastor said, it's a job indoors that does not require any heavy lifting. But, when done rightly, ministry in general and church planting in particular, is work. Like the farmer who owns his own land no one will wake you up in the morning, set your schedule, or give you a performance review to let you know how you are doing. So, like the hard working farmer you will need to simply get yourself up every morning and work hard gathering people, studying and teaching, raising money, locating facilities, building systems, and the like.
The sad truth is that there are seemingly few men who are qualified to hold the title of pastor/elder, let alone be the founding pastor of a church plant. Jesus said as much and commanded us to pray for God to raise up workers and send them into the harvest and so we do.
Here's an excellent commentary by Acton Institute Research Fellow Anthony Bradley, meditating on Thomas Sowell's new book, Black Rednecks:
Multiple sources are confirming that President Bush tonight will nominate Federa; Appeals Court Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. Roberts has long been on conservatives' Supreme Court Dream Team.
“Although as individuals we reflect a wide spectrum of political party affiliation and ideology, we are united in our belief that John Roberts will be an outstanding Federal Court of Appeals Judge and should be confirmed by the United States Senate. He is one of the very best and most highly respected appellate lawyers in the Nation, with a deserved reputation as a brilliant writer and oral advocate. He is also a wonderful professional colleague, both because of his enormous skills and because of his unquestioned integrity and fair-mindedness.”
A home run for the president, the SCOTUS, and for the United States.
Judge John Roberts may be the smartest lawyer I have known, and he combines that intellect with a graciousness and good humor that will make it hard for any except the most extreme ideolouges to oppose him. Here's his bio, but it cannot fully convey the great intellectual force which Justice Roberts will bring to the SCOTUS.
Peter Robinson:
A couple of decades ago in the Reagan White House, John Roberts and I had adjoining offices, and we've kept in touch, in a desultory way, ever since. What can I tell you about him? That he's one of the nicest guys I've ever met. Devout but light-hearted, a devoted husband, and the doting father of two adopted children.... We'll all have to wait for the slicing and dicing of John's legal work to form views of his judicial philosophy, but I can tell you from personal knowledge that what we have here is a thoroughly marvelous human being.
First we stressed that all authority is from God and that the existence of civil authority and civil order is good for us. Verse 4: “He [the civil magistrate] is God’s servant for your good.” Anarchy, mob rule, vigilante justice is terrifying not comforting.
Second, we talked about why Paul spoke with such sweeping unqualified terms when he described the goodness of government, especially in verse 3: “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad.” He knows there are exceptions to that. We answered: because he wanted Caesar and all authorities to know what ought to be, and he wanted us to lean hard toward submission and not rebellion.
Third, we looked at biblical examples of civil disobedience and what it should look like if it must be.
In this fourth and final part I believe we should focus on the way Romans 13 relates to our positive engagement with government in a country like ours where in a certain sense the government is us. That is, we should ask: How does submission to civil authority work when the ones submitting have created what they submit to? Or what does Romans 13 teach us about responsible Christian involvement with the processes of government in America?
There are at least two teachings in this passage that prompt the reflections I will share. First, is the teaching of verses 1-2 and the question of submission. And, second, is the teaching of verses 3-4 and the question of bringing the moral law to bear on legislative and judicial action.
Here are the complete manuscripts:
The AP reports that President Bush has chosen his nominee for the Supreme Court: "The announcement was set for 9 p.m. EDT from the East Room of the White House. The nominee's family was expected to be with Bush and the candidate."[I]n America, submission to “governing authority” is first submission to a constitution. This has significant implications for the way the constitution is interpreted and applied—which is a weighty issue in American life at the present time. One implication is that a constitution (or a contract or a lease or a statute or a Bible) cannot have authority over us if we can make it mean whatever we want it to mean. In other words, if you don’t believe that there are objective, original intentions of the authors of the Constitution that define and control its meaning, then you will give to it your own meaning, and that is the opposite of submission to it. So one great implication of saying that God calls us to submit to the Constitution (including its due process for amendment) is that it implies that the Constitution has a fixed, objective meaning.In the days to come, as appointments to the Supreme Court are put forward, we will be hearing much about how judges interpret the constitution. I am saying that implied in Romans 13 and in the Bible as a whole is the truth that documents can have authority no further than they have objective unchanging meaning. And the Constitution should have authority and therefore it should be interpreted according to the objective meaning given by the authors, along with all the proper applications of those meanings which the authors may not have foreseen.
Conservatives have been told that President Bush won't nominate Alberto Gonzales. "Senior administration officials have told select conservative leaders that President Bush is likely to nominate either Edith Jones or Edith Clement, members of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the conservative source said. It is also possible that would nominate Michigan Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan or former Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whom the Senate recently confirmed to the 5th Circuit."SCOTUS [JPod]Update: The buzz seems to be centering around Clement.
Bet the house on one of three names: The two Edith, Jones or Clement -- or the daring and exciting one, Janice Rogers Brown. Of course, there's always Miguel Estrada in the back pocket...
Posted at 09:00 AM
WATCH BENCH MEMOS [K. J. Lopez]
Today feels like the day for a SCOTUS announcement... I'd make sure BM is bookmarked.
Posted at 08:55 AM
Indeed, the most powerful line of the film is when the protagonist is asked by a reporter why now he is winning in the ring when previously he could win for "neither love nor money." Russell Crowe's character replies that now he knows what he is fighting for: "milk." This comes on the heels of scenes in which the mother pours water into the milk jug to try to feed the family's small children against the ravages of Depression-era poverty.This, along with a scene in which Crowe's character gives his helping of meat to his hungry daughter right before he is to go to a fight, struck me as deeply meaningful. They also indicate precisely why the film is so, well, odd to most moviegoers. It is patriarchal in the most biblical sense of the word.
In this film, there is no wise-cracking nine year-old boy with a heart of gold to correct the bumbling parents. There is no cherubic four year-old girl who alone knows that the real meaning of life is within. Instead, there is a dad who understands that it is up to him to provide for his wife and his children. And there is a wife and children who love him for it.
It seems to me that if our culture could understand something of the world behind "Cinderella Man," we might be able to grasp better the meaning of the gospel. After all, Jesus compares life in Christ to a father who would never give his son a stone when he asks for bread (Matt 7:9). This is especially significant since Jesus himself refused to turn stones into bread, opting instead to trust in the provision of a Father who promises to feed all his sons with the Bread that comes down from heaven (Matt 4:4). Only by taking on the Evil One and offering up his life under the curse of the law is the Righteous One able to usher us into the presence of a messianic banquet.
It seems to me that if one were to ask the crucified Jesus of Nazareth what he was fighting for, his answer might be: "bread."
That is servanthood. But it is also headship. It is patriarchy. We don't remember it, and that's a shame.
A while back my wife and I caught a portion of a radio interview of Tim Kimmel by Dennis and Barbara Rainey. Kimmel was speaking about his book, Grace-Based Parenting. Author Tim Kimmel has written a book that helps parents navigate the dangers of two extremes in parenting—legalism and permissiveness. He clearly describes a style of parenting that preserves the need for boundaries, obedience, respect, and discipline but which also appropriately considers “the three driving needs” of children—a need for security, a need for significance, and a need for strength. He does this by focusing in on the climate in the home. He accurately observes that there is a place for rules and strictness in the home, but how they are presented makes “all the difference on how they are received.”
Kimmel observes that much of the parenting of Christians is based on fear—fear of the world and the deteriorating culture, fear of other parents, and fear of the opinions of the church. This in turn encourages parents to focus on behavior rather than on the heart of their children. Kimmel instead encourages parents to parent their children as God parents His children—with grace. “Grace-based parenting mirrors God’s love, reflects His forgiveness, and displaces fear as a motivator for the choices we make.”
Grace-Based Parenting points out the fallacy of basing our parenting on the desire to raise “safe Christian children” by depending on the control of the environment around our children in order to shape them. He calls this a “disaster in the making” and warns that this effort “will produce shallow faith and wimpy believers.” Instead, Kimmel urges us to raise strong children and to move beyond outer problems and address the inner problems of our children.
One of the most critical strengths of this book is the atmosphere of grace in the home that Kimmel portrays as well as the matter-of-fact, yet gracious manner in which he notes that parents and children are sinners and must be dealt with as sinners. Consider these comments from the chapter, "The Freedom to Make Mistakes":Dr. Tim Kimmel has effectively and winsomely written a much-needed message to Christian parents.
“Legalistic parents maintain a relationship with God through obedience to a standard. The goal of this when it comes to their children is to keep sin from getting into their home. They do their best to create an environment that controls as many of the avenues as possible that sin could use to work its way into the inner sanctum…. It’s as though the power to sin or not to sin was somehow connected to their personal will power and resolve…. These families are preoccupied with keeping sin out by putting a fence between them and the world.
The difference with grace-based families is that they don’t bother spending much time putting fences up because they know full well that sin is already present and accounted for inside their family. To these types of parents, sin is not an action or an object that penetrates their defenses; it is a preexisting condition that permeates their being. The graceless home requires kids to be good and gets angry and punishes them when they are bad. The grace-based home assumes kids will struggle with sin and helps them learn how to tap into God’s power to help them get stronger.
It’s not that grace-based homes don’t take their children’s sin seriously. Nor is it that grace-based homes circumvent consequences. It isn’t even that grace-based homes do nothing to protect their children from attacks and temptations that threaten them from the outside. They do all these things, but not for the same reasons. Grace-based homes aren’t trusting in the moral safety of their home or the spiritual environment they’ve created to empower their children to resist sin…. They assume that sin is an ongoing dilemma that their children must constantly contend with.
[Children in a grace-based family] are accepted as sinners who desire to become more like Christ rather than be seen as nice Christian kids trying to maintain a good moral code. Grace is committed to bringing children up from their sin; legalism puts them on a high standard and works overtime to keep them from falling down.
Grace understands that the only real solution for our children’s sin is the work of Christ on their behalf…. Legalism uses outside forces to help children maintain their moral walk. Their strength is based on the environment they live in. Grace, on the other hand, sees the strength of children by what is inside them—more specifically, Who is inside them.”
Powerline's Scott Johnson explains in the Daily Standard why Minneapolis has once again become Murderapolis.
In a previous post on the top 50 churches in America, I'm sure a number of readers didn't recognize the name of Mark Driscoll, pastor of Seattle's Mars Hill Church (which has grown from 9 to 4000 in 10 years) and founder of the Acts 29 Network ("A network that helps plant Gospel-centered, missional, church-planting churches to a postmodern mindset"). He is also the author of Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out (Zondervan, 2004)--a book I started this afternoon and hope to finish before I go to bed. He also has a book in the hopper with Zondervan, explaining how Mars Hill became a missional megachurch.
- Read more of Kim Lawton's interview with Brian McLaren.
- Video Extra: What is the Emerging Church? Listen to participants at the 2005 Emergent convention describe what an emerging church means to them. (Requires Real Player)
- Revisit R&E's July 8, 2005 report on the Emerging Church.
The Church Report recently released its list of Top 50 Most Influential Churches in America. No big shock that Saddleback and Willow Creek are numbers 1 and 2. Bethlehem Baptist Church (John Piper) is no. 19, and Mars Hill Church (Mark Driscoll) is no. 23.
Albert Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, and C.J. Mahaney all sat down recently to discuss their Together for the Gospel conference.In early March, 2005, the four of us had the rare opportunity to be together--this time in Louisville, KY. We sat down in Al Mohler's office at Southern Seminary for an hour-long interview, led by Mark Dever, to discuss our goals and hopes for this conference. The conversation ranged from how our doctrinal differences still find unity in the gospel to many quick-witted jokes at each other's expense. This is a preview of the conversations, the humor, and the fellowship we expect to enjoy at the conference itself.
Below you will find six video clips from this interview. In these discussions, we talked about why we wanted to host this conference even though we have some differences in our doctrines and practices, why we invited our three special guests, and what we believe will be beneficial about this conference to pastors hailing from various denominations.
Fred Barnes reports that President Bush is leaning away from nominating Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court:THOUGH HE DEFENDED Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against conservative critics, President Bush now appears highly unlikely to nominate Gonzales to replace retiring Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Nor is Gonzales expected to be chosen to fill a second vacancy on the high court should Chief Justice William Rehnquist or another justice steps down in the near future.
The president, of course, could change his mind and pick Gonzales. But a better bet now is that he will choose a woman, an option recommended by First Lady Laura Bush. Judge Edith Brown Clement of the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals is considered a possibility. Bush, who met with Senate leaders yesterday to discuss the court vacancy, is expected to announce a nominee by the end of July.
Read the whole thing.
The Washington Times reported yesterday that "The NAACP will target private companies as part of its economic agenda, seeking reparations from corporations with historical ties to slavery and boycotting companies that refuse to participate in its annual business diversity report card." Powerline's Paul Mirengoff, in a brief analysis, gets it right with his headline: The NAACP Resorts to Extortion.
How do you respond to the word tolerance? Unfortunately—in my own mind at least—it’s become a fairly bad word, in part because it’s become code for “shut up and don’t critique.” In their new book, The Truth About Tolerance: Pluralism, Diversity and the Culture Wars, Brad Stetson and Joseph Conti seek to resurrect the classical notion of tolerance, showing its compatibility with and dependence on truth.
Stetson and Conti critique both soft-headed hypertolerance (tolerating what ought not be tolerated) and narrow-minded intolerance (failing to be tolerant when we should). Instead, they argue for critical tolerance (which returns to the historic, classical understanding of the concept which contains two poles: both allowance and critique).
The classical understanding of tolerance looks an evil, or a generally reviled action, and determines that its legal suppression would create an even greater evil.
They argue that “true tolerance is not the province of the secular liberalism that so strongly favors American life, and that unfettered debate about traditional moral conviction—especially religiously grounded ones—is ironically imperiled by what passes for tolerance today.”
They summarize ten basic principles which comprise the Judeo-Christian conviction regarding the operation of true tolerance in a largely secular and pluralistic society as follows:
For one of the chapters in the book, see The Truth About Truth (chapter 5).
Ted Olsen does a helpful job of sorting through Attorney General (and possible Supreme Court nominee) Alberto Gonzales's ruling on abortion, and suggests some caution in conservative Christians jumping too quickly to conclusions about his views.
When Mark Talbot--Associate Professor of Philosophy at Wheaton College--was 17 years old, he fell over 50 feet off of a rope swing, breaking his back, leaving him partially paralyzed for the rest of his life.
Oh my. Once you see this video clip of Suzanne Hinn's wild, stream-of-consciousness, inappropriate-imagery preaching, you'll be convinced that Benny is quite thoughtful and careful and calm by comparison! Benny Hinn has threated to sue the religious satire magazine The Door for distributing the clip.
Want to know more about a specific location? Dive right in -- Google Earth combines satellite imagery, maps and the power of Google Search to put the world's geographic information at your fingertips.
 | Fly from space to your neighborhood. Type in an address and zoom right in. | |
| Search for schools, parks, restaurants, and hotels. Get driving directions. | |
| Tilt and rotate the view to see 3D terrain and buildings. | |
| Save and share your searches and favorites. Even add your own annotations. |
Let no man seek his own, St. Paul says. This is an essential part of discerning the Lord’s body. We are to discern the Lord’s body, among other ways, in one another.
As you partake of the Supper, do not close yourself up into a little private spiritual room. Feel free to look around at your brothers and sisters. Think of them, pray for them, consider how you might seek their best interest. In doing this, ask God to bring to mind ways that you might bring a blessing to them. Look around you in faith, and if you do, then you will see Jesus Christ.
Too often we view the Supper negatively. Of course it is important to put away all malice or envy. But do not stop there. Consider how to seek another man’s well-being. Doing him good is not the same thing as not doing him evil. In turning away from sin as we approach the Supper, as we ought to do, let us be careful not to set the standard too low.
At the last day, Jesus will commend those who saw Him in the prisoner, in the hungry, in the ill-clothed. He will reject those who rejected Him in these same people. Do not be like those who are willing to defend and excuse and demand explanations, while standing before the Maker of heaven and earth, and to do this moments before their condemnation. If that kind of moral stupidity is to be avoided then, the best course is to avoid it now. Look to your neighbor -- and don’t ask who is your neighbor -- and take this food to nourish you for the pleasant task of loving one another.
This weekend I had the privilege of conducting an email interview with Richard Garnett, Lilly Endowment Associate Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame. Professor Garnett is also a blogger, contributing to Mirror of Justice (a blog dedictated to the development of Catholic legal theory) and National Review Online's Bench Memos ("All Eyes on the Courts"). Of particular interest is that he served from 1996-1997 as a law clerk for Chief Justice Rehnquist. I am grateful to Professor Garnett for his time and for offering his insight here.JT: It seems all but inevitable that Chief Justice Rehnquist will resign very soon. Much will be written about him in the days ahead, analyzing his legacy on the court. But you were in a unique position to know him personally and to work for him professionally, clerking for him from 1996-1997. Can you tell us a little bit about that experience? What is the Chief Justice like as a person?
RG: Working for the Chief Justice was a wonderful experience. He is a top-shelf lawyer, an excellent judge, a gifted administrator, and a decent and down-to-earth person. It’s not really possible, in a few sentences, to explain what he’s like “as a person,” and I don’t imagine that I know him any better than hundreds of others who’ve worked with him over the years. For me, what sticks in my memory about the Chief is his even keel, his complete lack of snobbery or pretension, his balanced and “long view” attitude toward the Court’s work and his own decisions, and the care he took to teach, and not merely to supervise and command, his law clerks. I have a great job, and I owe a great deal of my professional happiness to the Chief.
JT: How do you think history will judge the Chief Justice?
RG: I think he will be viewed as one of the great Chief Justices: He has run the Court well and efficiently, and enjoys the respect and affection of all the Justices with whom he has worked. He has been an effective administrator of the Judicial Branch generally, and of the Judicial Conference. I think he has been an effective advocate for the judiciary, and for the rule of law, in Congress and in the public square. He’s done a valuable service to the education of Americans generally about the Constitution, and our history, through his popular history books (All the Laws But One, Centennial Crisis, etc.). In terms of the Court’s doctrine, he not only contributed to, and presided over, important developments in criminal procedure and habeas corpus, religious freedom, federalism, state action, and federal Indian law, he also—more generally—helped to fundamentally transform our conversations about the Constitution, by re-introducing important premises about enumerated powers, state sovereignty, and originalism that had been forgotten, or pushed to the margins, during the 1960s.
JT: Seven of the justices on the current court were nominated by Republican presidents. Of those seven, it seems that conservatives have only really been happy with Rehnquist and Thomas. [Ed.—I inadvertently left Scalia out of the question here.] Why has there been a failure to appoint genuinely conservative justices?
RG: Conservatives have been happy with Justice Scalia, too, of course. (That said, many conservatives probably did not appreciate Justice Scalia’s view that flag-burning is protected by the First Amendment, or that the use of a heat-detector on a house constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.). My first point would be to warn about labels like “liberal” and “conservative.” Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist, for example, differ markedly on First Amendment matters; Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas have different views about the “privileges or immunities” and “necessary and proper” clauses; etc. Next, “conservatives” should remember that Justices Kennedy and O’Connor have been—in the vast majority of cases—fairly consistently “conservative” Justices. (Obviously, their votes in some of the culture-war and social-issue cases have frustrated some conservatives).
As for the “failure,” I just don’t know. I suspect that the hearings on the nomination of Judge Bork so poisoned the process that—at least for a time—Republican administrations felt safer going with easier, unknown nominees like David Souter and Anthony Kennedy.
JT: Do you believe opposition-party senators have an obligation to support a nominee if they believe he is qualified, even if they disagree with his ideology?
RG: No. That is, I don’t think they have an “obligation” to support a nominee whose ideology they oppose. Generally speaking, though, it seems to me that minority-party senators should understand that elections matter, and that the President’s nominees will, almost by definition, have views that differ from minority-party senators’. I do think there is an obligation to be honest, and to not use ridiculous epithets like “extremist” or “reactionary” or “radical” to describe nominees who are simply “conservative” or “constitutionalist.”
JT: Do you think a filibuster of President Bush’s nominee will be likely?
RG: No, I don’t. The interest groups will cause a great deal of noise—because this helps to raise money—and some Senators will make a scene (getting ready for the 2006 and 2008 elections), but I do not believe there is any plausible Bush nominee who would trigger a sustainable filibuster. I suspect there are enough Democrats who realize that a filibuster would almost certainly trigger the “constitutional option.’
JT: I suspect that in the days ahead, we’ll be hearing a lot about “originalism” and “strict constructionism.” Can you explain those terms and how they differ?
RG: That’s pretty hard, in this space! Both of these terms are sometimes used more as symbols, or codes, than as technical terms about interpretation. One important distinction, of course, is between “original intent” (i.e., what those who drafted, passed, and / or ratified the law or provision in question “intended” for it to achieve or mean) and “original meaning” (i.e., what the relevant text and words would generally have been understood to mean at the relevant time). By “strict construction,” I suppose a fair definition might be something like this: “An approach to legal texts that avoids, to the extent possible, relying on judges’ policy preferences, or judgments about the wisdom of laws, or guesses about the texts’ deeper ‘purposes,’ and that proceeds instead in a way that is meaningfully constrained by the forms and rules laid down.”
JT: And how would you define “The Living Constitution”?
RG: This is also tricky, and I apologize in advance for oversimplifying. The “living Constitution,” I think, connotes an approach to constitutional interpretation that candidly refuses to be bound by a provision’s “original meaning” (assuming it is knowable) and that instead assumes that a provision’s meaning should be understood and developed against a backdrop of evolving understandings of the fundamental values thought to be embodied in the Constitution and the changing needs and structure of society.
JT: Will Roe play a major role in the nomination proceedings? How would you counsel a nominee to answer the question: Would you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
RG: In my view, nearly all of the turmoil and controversy surrounding Supreme Court nominations—or judicial nominations generally—is attributable to Roe v. Wade and to our divisions concerning abortion. I do not believe a nominee should answer, or should be expected to answer, the question, “Would you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?” I believe, though, that everyone should respect a nominee’s view that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided (as it certainly was).
JT: With the retirements of Rehnquist and O’Connor, do you think President Bush will be tempted to “split the baby,” i.e., nominate one “conservative” and one “moderate”?
RG: As your “scare quotes” suggest, these labels are misleading; Justice O’Connor’s current status in the press as a “moderate” overlooks how conservative she has been in so many areas. Putting that aside, it seems to me that President Bush will take seriously the promises he made during two campaigns to appoint conservatives to the Court. This does not mean, though, that he will not nominate Attorney General Gonzales (who is, after all, almost certainly a “conservative” in nearly every respect). I would not expect him, though, to consciously “split the baby” in order to please the press or his political opponents.
JT: It’s well-known that President Bush has a strong friendship with Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and does not appreciate conservative criticism of Gonzales. On the other hand, President Bush has expressed his desire to appoint a “strict constructionist,” and says that he would like a Justice most like Scalia and Thomas. Which pole—I’m tempted to say “friendship and loyalty vs. principle”—will win out in the end?
RG: I simply do not know whether or not the Attorney General’s critics are correct in assuming that he is not, in fact, a “strict constructionist.” I do not believe, though, that President Bush would nominate Alberto Gonzales merely for reasons of friendship and loyalty; if he does nominate him, it will—I believe—be because the President has confidence that Gonzales actually is a “strict constructionist.”
JT: Would appointing Gonzales be bad for the country, given that Gonzales would presumably have to recuse himself on cases related to affirmative action, terrorism, partial-birth abortion, etc.?
RG: I have not studied the matter as carefully as some, so I do not know if, in fact, the Attorney General’s recusal obligations would be as sweeping as some have concluded. That said, it does seem to me that it would be undesirable for a new Justice to be recused from many high-profile cases.
JT: Do you think it is more likely that President Bush will elevate someone already on the Court to the role of Chief Justice, or that he’ll look outside the Court?
RG: In my view, the most likely internal candidate is Justice Scalia. Justice Scalia would certainly be confirmed, though the Democrats and the activist groups would certainly have a field day criticizing him. I guess my hunch is that the President will nominate someone from outside the Court to replace the Chief Justice.
JT: Conservatives have mentioned a number of judges they would like to see nominated: Mike Luttig, Mike McConnell, John Roberts, Emilio Garza, Edith Jones, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, and others. Whom would you most want to see picked?
RG: No comment! All of these judges are top-tier jurists and very good people. From that list, the President could not go wrong. (Some would, I suppose, cause more political turmoil than others, though.)
JT: Final question: what is your prediction? Who will President Bush nominate?
RG: Any prediction I might make would almost certainly be wrong, and so is not worth your time.