Is Sotomayor Deceiving Conservatives?

Here's an interesting post by James M. Hamilton on the link between theological and political liberals and its effect on the Sotomayor hearings.

Popes and Kings: Benedict XVI Calls for New Financial Order

On Tuesday, Pope Benedict XVI issued an encyclical statement, the most authoritative papal statement, challenging the current economic principles which led to the recent, global, economic recession. His document, Charity in Truth, was released one day before the Group of Eight economic summit. Pope Benedict even gave a copy of his treatise to President Barack Obama.

In his encyclical, Pope Benedict blames the economic decline on a totally free market and called for a new, global, financial order to give oversight. He suggests that this monetary oversight committee should be given authority to ensure compliance and suggests that it mandate redistribution of wealth. Before digging into these weighty topics, a few of his other statements should be regarded.

"The conviction that the economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from 'influences' of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way." He continues, "In the long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they promise." He also said, "Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty."

These latter statements are completely true and wise. "Capitalism," without any restriction, slides into sinful selfishness, not beneficial self-interest, very quickly. Of course Capitalism itself is not the problem. The Pope hits the nail on the head when he says that the current economic crisis is "clear proof of the pernicious effects of sin." Sin is at work in both the individual and corporations (conglomerations of individuals).

I have mentioned Adam Smith before. The author of Wealth of Nations lived in the upswing of Enlightenment, during which morality was being philosophized, measured, and systematized. This would eventually lead to its removal from its Christian Scriptural moorings. But, in his day, almost all philosophers were still card-carrying members of "Christendom." Adam Smith's brainchild, the unseen hand of Capitalism, could not have been conceived apart from its Christian underpinnings. Capitalism only works when married to personal, individual, restriction, and divorced from governmental restriction. This is the inherent fragility and ultimate downfall of the system. As people move away from notions of faith, morality and individual responsibility, and begin looking for government to dictate lifestyle and law, Capitalism gives-way to something different; something that bears only a passing resemblance to its namesake. This bastard of Capitalism, and not Capitalism itself, is the philosophy to which the Pope is objecting.

I am so glad that the Pope rightly said that what he has seen is wrong. But, to return to his original suggestions, his solutions are very wrong themselves. I suppose I don't blame him, he is a church leader and not an economist, but he wields great power and misplaced suggestion with such a platform is dangerous. It is obvious that he has not seen the difference between Capitalism and what I have previously labeled "unbridled consumerism."

There are several things wrong with the Pope's proposal. First, it smacks of the same foolish pride that has infected our political figures and CEO's - that having the "right" individuals or developing new programs will solve the problem. Recently Barack Obama was quoted as saying, "the winds always blow in the direction of human progress."* President Obama and Pope Benedict never learned the lessons of WWI. Humans are not inherently good and we are the same creatures we always were. Every time we bask in our own glory, we will be sure to learn the ugly truth the hard way (remember 9/11). We are infected with sin . . . every one of us. To put key people in control of the world's money is of utmost foolishness. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. A program of this nature is doomed to misappropriation (theft), greed, and envy. Likely, it will bring with it all sorts of other deadly sins. Further, those whom the Pope associated with the suggested program (the U.N., industrialized nations, etc.) are Darwinists who believe things completely in opposition to Scripture. They will not uphold his suggestions. The Pope should know this!

Second, the Pope suggests that this oversight committee should mandate redistribution of wealth. This flies in the face of all Christian teaching. Scripturally, only in the nation of Israel was giving to the poor commanded. Excess was to be left, offerings and alms to be given, and hospitality was to be shown. These actions were tied to national blessing. Even then, God placed safeguards to keep wealth within each family. In the New Testament, however, these actions are spiritualized and are made voluntary. Remember in Acts 5, when Ananias and Sapphira sold their property and were killed by the Holy Spirit. They were not killed because they held money back, but because they lied to the Holy Spirit, saying that they had given the full amount. Peter asked Ananias prior to his death, "Didn't [the land] belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal?" God loves a cheerful giver, he does not enforce redistribution of wealth. The Pope should know this, too!

Finally, I found a comment that the Pope made very disturbing. He said, "The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly - not any ethics, but an ethics which is people centered." It is the "people centered" part that strikes me. Because humans are sinful and are in need of a holy God and that God's Word, the world has need of ethics which are God centered, not human centered. I catch his drift, that many are suffering because of the greed of a few. But human, governmental, oversight over global markets is not the solution, rather it is a guarantee of further misery later. What we need, and what the Pope should have suggested, is that the world, which is obviously languishing in sin, needs Jesus more than ever. The Church should be responding not with encyclicals but with missionaries. The Pope should know better!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source articles associated with this post:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090707/ts_nm/us_pope_encyclical

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090707/ap_on_re_eu/eu_vatican_encyclical

* The Courier-Journal, Obama Affirms Africa's Promise, Louisville, KY, Sunday, July 12, 2009.

Happy Dependence Day

Here we find ourselves again, that day on which we wear clothes with red, white, and blue on them; wave flags; eat barbecue; watch parades and fireworks; and go on vacation with the family. A day of celebration. The Fourth of July. But is this what the Fourth is all about? Have we forgotten its alternate name; Independence Day? What does independence really mean?

Americans are free. We can pursue almost any goal and do almost anything without care of any spiritual, legal, or national repercussions. We do what we want, when we want, and nobody can tell us otherwise. But is this a good conceptualization of freedom?

So, we have two running concepts: independence and freedom. While we tend think of these concepts as linked, maybe we should see them separately. So let us examine what these concepts mean and their contextual, not etymological, origins.

Independence. Long before any of us were born, settlers were filling this land, settlers who fled religious persecutions, taxation, the whims of kings, and famines. They wound up in colonies that were still oppressed and taxed by the nation they came from. Eventually, these burdens grew so heavy the colonists revolted. War ensued between the American colonies and their sovereign, Great Britain. This was our Revolutionary War. We overcame better trained and outnumbering forces to win our independence. We recognize July Fourth, 1776 as our Independence Day, although it was merely the day our colonial congress ratified the Declaration of Independence, not the day we won the war. Independence was won from tyranny in order to develop a new and sovereign nation of peers. This bitter independence was the fruit of great adversity and self-sacrifice, not selfishness and lazy arrogance.

The spirituality of the age was Deism and Unitarianism, a denial of miracles and a possibly mis-focused self-reliance. Yet most people of the time still recognized a sovereign God and directed prayer to Him, realizing their utter dependence on his Word and providence. Despite their independence from Great Britain, they were dependent on God.

Today, we are a nation of consumers. We demand our own way and angrily accost any who do not give us what we want. Our nation (and, subsequently, the whole world) has been brought to its knees because of a chronic infection of selfishness. We have become a people carried completely by our whims for a single reason - a loss of the concept of the sovereignty of God. God's sovereignty has been replaced by a belief in the sovereignty of the individual. Our battle for independence is no longer against flesh and blood but against the one unseen Ruler who brought all things into being and shaped us for his own glory; the greatest affront to humanistic sensibilities. This kind of independence is sinful at its core.

Freedom. If independence is self-reliance, what is freedom? Freedom may be thought of synonymously with liberty, the ability to perform actions or pursue ends by one's own volition. In this sense, freedom is linked to independence. In this conceptualization, freedom may only occur when one is independent. It is for this concept that the revolutionaries wrote, fought, bled, and died. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These are considered inalienable rights, that is they are reckoned to be inherent to humanity, and may not be taken away by any healthy government.

But what makes these rights inherent? What is innate in man that gives him rights beyond the rest of creation? After all, we would not consider these rights to operate upon the life of a goat, would we? These rights are not inherent in man's nature by the act of man or the grace of man, or merely because of the sum of his parts. Instead, these rights are inherent because of the image of God placed within man and separating him from the rest of creation. I think this is a concept that was widely recognized within the generation of our nation's founders; a concept that has been almost completely lost in our present society.

Liberty, freedom, should not be seen as merely the ability to pursue one's own ends, but to pursue the right ends. Put another way, we are not given freedom for selfish pursuits, but freedom from selfish pursuits and for submission. We are free to worship God rightly and to avoid sin rather than be enslaved by it (Romans 8:8-21). Who experience these truly inalienable rights? Only those in Christ; all others are slaves to sin (Romans 6:19-21). Jesus has restored the perfect image of God within man and stands in our place (Romans 3:21-26; Ephesians 5:2b). He also gives us the Holy Spirit who changes our hearts and actions (2 Corinthians 3:17-18). Freedom then has suffered a redefinition within our society and must be redefined back to a biblical understanding. Without God, his law and grace, there can be no freedom.

So we have established that we have been celebrating wrong concepts. Rather than celebrating our liberty to do as we please, offending a holy God, we should celebrate a liberty to obey a holy God and worship him rightly. Our only meaningful independence is quickly shown to be independence from the tyranny of sin and complete dependence on the sovereign nature and will of God. You cannot serve two masters and you cannot set yourself up as a god because you were not created in your own image. We were designed with certain inalienable qualities, the chief being our given image of God. Those who know Jesus Christ, through his Holy Spirit, should operate in dependence upon him. Those who do not know Jesus Christ should see their depravity and marred image and repent of their sin.

Now that the fourth is nearly over and there is time to reflect, I would suggest we offer our declaration of dependence. Gladly, this can be done any day. Happy Dependence Day!

Conservatives Are Unenlightened Cretins: New Study Finds

O.k., that may be a little harsh, but here is a study that becomes more and more offensive the further one reads. This study recalls the pseudo-science of Phrenology which was used to supposedly "prove" the superiority of the "Aryan" brain, by head-shape, over those of other races.

The main argument of the article is that nature plays almost as much a part in human response to events as nurture. People who are disposed to morality are also more likely to be disgusted by things than those who are not. These are concepts that seem neutral on the surface, but as you read on, an agenda begins to be fleshed out.

David Pizarro, a psychology professor at Cornell University, says,

Liberals and conservatives disagree about whether disgust has a valid place in making moral judgments . . . Some conservatives think there is inherent wisdom in repugnance, that feeling disgusted about something - gay sex between consenting adults, for example - is cause enough to judge it wrong or immoral, even lacking a concrete reason. Liberals tend to disagree, and are more likely to base judgments on whether an action or a thing causes actual harm.

He continues,

People have pointed out for a long time that a lot of our moral values seem driven by emotion, and in particular, disgust appears to be one of those emotions that seems to be recruited for moral judgments.

Pizarro, himself, gives the purpose and the aim of the study, and it's pretty poor. His reasoning runs along these lines. A) There appears to be a difference between those who are disgusted by "immorality" and those who are not. B) (presumed) There is no God who has revealed his nature or a moral standard to man. C) Therefore, there must be something innate within specific individuals that separates them. D) Further, because there is no definitive standard for morality, in his view, it is lowered to an emotional reaction (namely, a negative one; disgust). If we follow the logic along its inevitable trajectory we see that: E) If morality is an emotional reaction that arises within some and not others, we can isolate and diagnose the naturally occurring reasons for the trait. F) Because morality is an obviously problematic trait (according to the perspective of the scientist and the article's author), we will try to find ways to remove those traits from society.

This article tries to assign an identifier for conservatism and moralism. And, to add insult to injury, the author of the article, Roy Britt, claims that these "moral" people are more likely to become "the worst cheats because they pursue what they believe to be a moral end at all costs."

This last statement is very telling, not about the subjects of the study, but about the conductors of the study themselves. Notice that he says that “they pursue what they believe to be a moral end.” Obviously, the author of this article does not hold a high view of moral people and sees no basis for morality except for emotions. The author does not appear to understand the concept of morality. The question for us, then, is what do we believe morality to be and what is the basis for living in a moral way?

I cannot answer for all conservatives, because conservatives are not all the same. Neither are they all believers in Jesus Christ. It may well be that some conservatives base their morality on personal bias. We who are Christians, however, see the basis of morality in the nature of God and man. We believe in the God who created man (Genesis 1:27) and revealed himself to mankind (Gen 17:1; 26:24; 28:13; Exodus 3:1-8), giving his law to the Hebrews at Sinai (Ex 20:1-23). He has given Scripture to reveal his set-apart and righteous nature as well as his desire for human action (John 7:38; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). The reason humans are to act with morality is because they are to reflect the nature of God (2 Corinthians 3:15-18; Colossians 3:9-10). So the Christian bases his or her morality on the Scriptural self-revelation of God. Scripture is the definitive and unwavering source of morality for the Christian. The Christian cannot base their morality on opinion or personal bias because that is tantamount to setting themselves up as their own God, which is precisely the problem with the practical atheist.

Both the author of the article and the scientist conducting the study are bringing their own personal biases to the study. They are making the exact subjective moral claims they accuse the caricatured moralists of. They also appear to be advocating their personal claim of immorality over the morality of others. So who are the morons related to this study?

Here are some verses related to the subject:

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)

All Scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness. (2 Timothy 3:16)

…Since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. (1 Peter 4:1-2)

For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. Therefore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God. . . (1 Thessalonians 4:7-8)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

A warning: when "science" is used to isolate a group of people as inherently different, persecution is not far behind. Expect more of these studies to trump up more "proof" that those who hold to traditional values are backwards and even dangerous to the health of society. Expect more people to listen, too.

Why I Have Voted Republican

I recently came across a snippet from Scot McKnight in which he detailed his motives for his leftward political stance. I found some things problematic with these motives.

I . . . lean left in politics. I tell my friends that I have voted Democrat for years for all the wrong reasons. I don't think that the Democratic Party is worth a hoot, but its historic commitment to the poor and to centralizing government for social justice is what I think government should do. I don't support abortion -- in fact, I think it is immoral. I believe in civil rights, but I don't believe homosexuality is God's design. And, like many in in the emerging movement, I think the Religious Right doesn't see what it is doing. . .

Well, let's just get it out in the open. I have always voted Republican. There, I've said it. I don't view myself as a Republican, mind you, but merely a conservative who is voting for the lesser of two evils. There is much to despise in the Republican party: a commitment to war, to financial greed, to big business over small business, etc. They have long held the image of the stuffy, Wall Street banker. I do think times are changing, however.

The Democratic Party has been changing, too. It has grown ever more left since FDR's public works and JFK's charm. It has begun to look more and more Bolshevik with each passing year. The commitment to the poor and the laborer has been replaced by lip service and a new commitment to a strong, centralized government. A strong, centralized government has been the beginning of all oppression in every nation throughout history, which is why the developers of our governmental system placed so much emphasis on state governments and on checks and balances. When state sovereignty is reallocated to a national level (it has), militias are abandoned (which happened after the Civil War in favor of a National Guard), and the other branches of government are largely one party (Democratic President, congressional majority, and judicial majority), we may expect government oppression.

Scot McKnight desires a centralized government for social justice, but history has shown us that a centralized government leads away from social justice. It also takes away personal responsibility for caring for those around you. How does it show Christ's love to sinners to give money to the government and allow them to spend it for you, especially when that government is committed to upholding and encouraging sin and unloving acts?

McKnight is also committed to civil rights. Yet I am unsure if he understands the concept. Civil rights are those rights granted under law. In our nation, they have typically been informed by democratic process - the majority rules. That is no longer the case. Now those with the highest lobbying budget and most vocal voice rule. Conservatives, by nature, are defeated on this new playing field. A centralized government, made of a largely homogeneous group, are less likely to grant civil rights, not more likely.

You may wonder why I am down on Democrats and not so much on Republicans. Republicans are usually conservatives, and conservatives usually don't like change. They like to move at a slower pace and preserve things that work. Further, conservatives, whether theists or not, tend to cherish their individual freedoms - to worship, to lifestyle, to the pursuit of happiness. This is tied to their desire for preservation. Our nation was founded on principles of individuality. Democrats, on the other hand, tend toward change. Things are not right unless there is something to kick against. Democrats, which have slowly become almost synonymous with Liberals, usually espouse one form of humanism or another. With this humanism comes collectivism (also known as communism). A strong centralized government is needed to keep the collective intact. Once the centralized government is in place, dissent is seen as an attack on the safety of the collective. Individuality becomes only one shade of a particular, collective, color (just think of how similar teenagers who want to appear "different" become).

So, as one who finds value in individual rights and the ability to order my life and spend my hard-earned money the way I see fit, I cannot, in good conscience, vote for those who specifically want to take those things away. I would suggest to McKnight, and others, that if they do not believe homosexuality and abortion are right - don't vote for the party that makes those things its platform. Vote for a party that will allow dissent and will change, albeit slowly, and then do the hard work of changing it yourself. So, yes, Dr. McKnight, you vote Democrat for all the wrong reasons.

Republicans don't have their acts together any more than Democrats, but there is a fundamental philosophical difference that makes this party a far wiser choice in the long run. If you want Panera rather than breadlines, if you want free market rather than government handouts, if you want free speech for holy things rather than only for pornography, then the Republican party may be the one for you.

Lastly, I think that the Religious Right knows pretty well what it is doing, and we're generally o.k. with it. At some point we must fight for wholesome things. Accommodation and compromise has not worked. It hasn't worked because we have been compromising with liars. Open your eyes and see the "freedom" that the Social Gospel has given communities - Pride; license to steal, rape, and murder; the wholesale slaughter of the unborn; dependence on the government for handouts; a lack of desire to work. Those communities which have embraced the liberal, socialistic line have embraced a bankrupt philosophy. If that alienates some people, I am alright with it.

Socialism does not work because it does not value the image of God which is exactly that thing that makes us human. It reduces us to bondage to ourselves, our desires. Ask the Russians how that worked for them.

North Korea Detonates Nuclear Bomb

North Korea detonated a large (10-20 kiloton) nuclear bomb within its own borders this morning as part of an underground test - as well as a threat to the rest of the world. The strength of the bomb is near that of the "fat man" and "little boy" bombs that flattened Nagasaki and Hiroshima in World War II. Also this morning, North Korea launched several test missiles, in violation of U.N. sanctions against the country.

We should remember all the promises that North Korea made that they were only pursuing nuclear testing in order to develop nuclear energy options to power their country. Obviously they were lying. Then again, who ever really believed them? It seems obvious, to me at least, that they are preparing for nuclear missile warfare. That should make all their neighbors, and the world, uneasy. This should also inform our decisions on how we deal with Iran - another nation that claims it wants nuclear capabilities only for energy reasons.

The U.N. is convening meetings today on what they should do about North Korea. We may rest assured that they will talk about it, wring their hands, and finally . . . do nothing. They are unwilling to risk war with North Korea or China. And so they will cooperate with North Korea's demands and allow North Korea to grow stronger. I am all for individual national sovereignty; I think all nations should govern themselves in their own best interest; but North Korea poses a threat to all Asia at this point and is quickly growing into a threat to the entire world. Now is the time to destroy the threat, before a long and drawn out conflict ensues. The smart soldier picks his battles, their time and place, and this is a battle that will need to be fought. They have just threatened the world and it is time for the world to respond in force.

It is appropriate that this event should occur on Memorial Day - a day when we Americans solemnly remember those who gave up their lives to protect us and to preserve our nation. Memorial Day started in 1868 as "Decoration Day" a day to string flowers together and drape on the graves of the Union soldiers who died to preserve the United States in the American Civil War. It was later expanded to memorialize all the fallen in every war and conflict. Let us take the time today to reflect on the ultimate sacrifice these men (and women) have faced to protect innocent lives and the security of our own nation and our allies'.

North Korea is a rogue nation that has threatened our allies (namely South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan) and our own national security and interests. We must be prepared for more U.S. soldiers to die, defending right and innocent lives overseas. If we don't act soon, we may face more innocent deaths here.

Illegal Immigration And Local Gang Activity

There has been a debate in recent years over whether or not illegal immigration would hurt our economy. The assumption was that those who crossed into the U.S. from Mexico, Cuba, and other countries were only looking for a "better life." These people were then compared to the forefathers of our own citizenry.

What we have not been told about, however, is the rise in gang activity due to immigration. When it is talked about, we are generally led to believe it is the Southwest's or Florida's problem. That is not the case. Salvadoran, Mexican, Cuban, Guatemalan, Columbian, and Puerto Rican gangs are all very active in almost every state. Their activities have included drug trafficking/dealing, rape, mutilations, robbery/theft, and murder. Much of their crime has been perpetrated against U.S. citizens. William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration said to WorldNetDaily, "Many illegal aliens have a rape and pillage mentality toward America. The government has shown them they can break our laws on many levels without much fear of enforcement." Further, wars between the gangs have spilled over from South/Central America to the U.S. Certain gangs have specialized in especially brutal means of torture and murder. The Salvadoran MS-13 gang's favored execution device is the machete. Many of these gangs have been trained in guerrilla warfare tactics.

These gangs have spread, amongst the illegal immigrant population, to all major cities and even smaller towns. You are as likely to find them in Iowa as in L. A. Recently, Shelbyville, a small city in Kentucky, sounded the alarm over gangs who have set up a drug ring there. Shelbyville police are ill-equipped to deal with the encroaching gangs or the violence they are sure to bring. Police in Kentucky are bracing for the start of a war between two Mexican factions - the "Federation Cartel" operating out of Louisville, and the "Gulf Coast Cartel" out of Lexington.

If the police are worried about a war, shouldn't we be? We are not running into the same old gangs; street thugs who have no centralized leadership; these are highly organized groups with ties to cartels and educated business organizations who will stop at absolutely nothing to control territory and make money on drugging our nation. There is even some evidence to suggest that these gangs have rigged several local elections within the United States in order to keep law enforcement blind to their activities. Mexico is being ripped apart by these gangs, and their economy has virtually collapsed as they have lost needed tourism revenue and communities have shut down from fear of the gangs. The gangs rule much of the nation. We still have an opportunity to stop the same fate from befalling the U.S.

How? Here are several practical steps. First, stop glamorizing gang activity - don't watch or buy movies or video games that support or glamorize gang related activity. Keep your children from becoming involved with these themes. Second, call your local police headquarters and ask what resources they have about local gang activity and what practical steps they have taken (and suggest for you to take) to work against the gangs. Third, take gun safety courses and/or martial arts classes. learn how to handle yourself and a weapon in a difficult situation (especially women). Some communities require special permits to own handguns - check with local authorities. Fourth, Assemble a local gang taskforce with the police (if one does not already exist), find ways to serve the task force and the community. Fifth, Start a community cleanup group - get other responsible people to help and start removing graffiti, picking up trash, tutoring, building safe park playgrounds and community gardens, and other means of restoring pride in your community. Help those who cannot afford to keep their houses up. Sixth, write your senator or U.S. representative and ask them to vote for more funding to close our Southern borders. If we cannot police our own populace, we should find ways to slow the influx of invaders. Seventh, ask your local police and our government (again through your senators and representatives) to better police our populace and deport those who are here illegally, particularly those who have been caught doing other criminal activity.

In short, proactively demonstrate your commitment to a nation that believes in law and grace. We do not have to go down the same road as Mexico. Without your involvement, however, it is inevitable.

Alberto Cutie, Celibacy, Sex, and the Church

WARNING: ADULT MATERIAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As the title suggests, this article is pretty broad. Yet I think that the subject matter is essential for discussion in our day. I am going to attempt to discuss sexuality from a biblical understanding, compare and contrast Protestant and Catholic views, and give my opinion on Cutie's recent actions.

All have likely now heard of Reverend Alberto Cutie (pronounced Koo-ti-ay). He was photographed by paparazzi on a beach in Miami with a female lover, kissing her with his hand down her bikini. The reason the paparazzi became involved was that he is a television and radio personality with internationally broadcast shows. He is especially well-liked in Latin America.

His indiscretion has resulted in his losing the ability to pastor his parish and offer communion, while his Archdiocese figures out how to handle the situation. Their censure further resulted in a public outcry against Church strictures, especially concerning celibacy, and even a march to reinstate Cutie as priest over his parish. Cutie's initial response was that he has been with the woman for years, that he loves the woman, and that he would not give her up even if it meant losing the priesthood. He has since backed-off of that position somewhat. He has said that he does not want to be the poster boy for anti-celibacy, but then, ironically, added that he thinks celibacy should be a choice.

So many philosophies and considerations are at play here that it is hard to discuss this in a whole way without writing a book. Beliefs about the origin and descent of man, beliefs about what humans can and should do, beliefs about God and the Bible, beliefs about Catholicism, all are in operation. But much of what is being thrown around as relevant are merely human philosophies; opinions created by skeptical and sinful people. Is there any demonstrably authoritative source that tells us what we should think about this situation? After all, it seems that most of the people who want to reinstate Cutie appeal to internal feelings - is that enough?

I would suggest that Scripture is the only authoritative source for understanding this situation rightly. Now, I must mention that this is a Protestant response. Catholics have generally supported the idea that both Scripture and the Catholic Church are sources of authority. They believe this because they understand the Pope to be the "Vicar of Christ" on earth, the only one who holds the keys of the kingdom, which they understood Christ to offer to Peter alone (Matthew 16:15-19). Protestants, however, read this passage as a gifting to the Church and not to Peter, or his successors, alone. Further, Protestants find the term "Vicar of Christ," essentially meaning "in place of Christ" to be blasphemous. So, like Luther, I must say, "I put no trust in the unsupported authority of Pope or councils, since it is plain that they have often erred and often contradicted themselves. . ." Therefore, also like Luther, I place my trust in Scripture alone, which is the very word, will, and self-revelation of God.

So what does Scripture say about Alberto Cutie's actions and the Catholic Church's response? Quite a bit, in fact. From here I plan to lay-out an argument for a proper understanding of human sexuality and then contrast it with both the Catholic Church's demands and Cutie's actions.

First, what should human sexuality look like? Genesis 2:20-25 portrays God's creation of woman for man and for the unifying act of sex. It clarifies what this should look like. "For this reason [that woman was taken from man] a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and they will become one flesh." It goes on to say of this bond, "The man and his wife were naked, and they felt no shame." There are many implications from this short section of Scripture: 1) sex is meant for marriage and should not happen outside the marriage bond; 2) there are only two people involved in the marriage - the man has left his parents, and the singular is used of both "man" and "wife" (not "men" or "wives"); 3) man and wife portray opposite sexes - one man, one woman (please also see Genesis 19; Leviticus 18:22; Judges 19; Romans 1:20-28); 4) humans are joined in a unique way through the sexual act - "they will become one flesh;" 5) nakedness is meant for marriage and is not shameful within its bounds - which also implies that it is shameful outside of its bounds; 6) If we look at the context, this relationship was created by God and occurs before the fall of mankind into sin. Sex, within marriage, is good!

Already we see a glaring difference between a biblical understanding of sexuality and the understanding(s) of the culture around us. How else does the Bible instruct us about sexuality? Job, a righteous man whose faith was tested, said, "I made a covenant with my eyes not to look lustfully at a girl" (Job 31:1). Jesus also said, "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). The Apostle Paul commands the Colossian church, "Put to death . . . whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed" (Colossians 3:5). The Bible is clear that these things are wrong. But why are they wrong? Lust and sexual immorality (whether hetero- or homo-sexual) are wrong because they twist the image of God reflected in man. God created man to reflect his glory to the rest of creation and created sexuality as a good thing to demonstrate union. When these concepts are twisted, it is sin. Paul is adamant: "among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality" (Ephesians 5:3).

This message of sexual purity is not just a matter of tradition or a matter of choice. It wasn't just en vogue to practice sexual purity and now, in modern times, it is passe. Sexual purity is not only a matter of the exertion of church control over people. Instead, sexual purity is commanded by God. This is obviously not a popular message within our culture and has earned believing Christians a reputation as prudes - a reputation that we should gladly accept and wear with pride. But not all churches are sending the same message. Many Liberal and even emergent churches are accommodating to the culture's atheistic philosophies, including those on sex. Many of these churches accept illicit hetero- and homo-sexual relationships within their congregations in the name of "love." Yet we must not say it is in the name of Jesus Christ! Jesus is the one who said to the woman caught in adultery, "Go now and leave your life of sin" (John 8:11). We must not say that what God has condemned is good.

So what does this all have to do with Alberto Cutie? Much. Cutie, rather than giving up his priestly role, has had an illicit, adulterous, relationship with a woman. Some, like Time's Tim Padgett, wink at the scandal, telling us we should be glad that the indiscretion was with an adult woman. Certainly this is not a biblical response. From a Catholic perspective, he has transgressed his vow of celibacy - an oath he made for the duration of his priesthood. From the same perspective, it is made worse that the relationship is with a divorced woman because of the Catholic Church's stance against divorce (tradition). From a biblical perspective, however, they are committing adultery because she is divorced (Matthew 5:31-32). Further, he has lusted and committed sexual immorality with her because he is not married to her. Lastly, he has broken a vow made before God (Numbers 30:2; Matthew 5:33-37). Despite public opinion, Alberto Cutie should be defrocked (removed from the priesthood) for his disregard for Scripture and the Catholic Church's ecclesiastical traditions - traditions he vowed to uphold.

As for the vow of celibacy, It has no concrete basis within Scripture. Paul says to the Corinthian church, "It is good for a man not to marry." But he goes on to say, "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband . . . if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion" (1 Corinthians 7:1-2, 9). Nowhere in the Old or New Testaments does Scripture suggest that people should marry the Temple or the Church. Serving men are not married to their duties. The Church, instead, is the symbolic bride of Christ. We all, after a fashion, are wed to Christ, but the Catholic Church has taken the concept too far, to almost a sick level, and certainly has not done a good job of taking into account the nature of human frailty and sin. I agree with Cutie that celibacy should be a choice for priests, nuns, and monks (as well as Protestant pastors, who are so often required to be married). As for Cutie, however, he is held to a vow he made; a vow he broke. He must live with the consequences of his actions.

Martin Luther's Steadfast Commitment to Scripture

On April 18, 1521, Martin Luther gave a measured response to a diet (pronounced "deet", an Imperial assembly) at Worms in western Germany. Luther was called by the Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, to account for many of his writings and for his rather caustic 95 theses, which outlined many of the abuses of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

The outcome of this trial was that Luther was branded a heretic by the Church and would have led to his execution by burning at the stake if he had not been abducted by his supporter, Prince Fredrick III of Saxony, who hid him in Wartburg Castle. Prince Fredrick then began a coup with a number of Europe's Princes who were sympathetic to Luther which successfully convinced Charles V not to take the prescribed action against Luther.

It must be made clear that Luther had not initially intended to protest Catholicism or to start a different Church. His intent was to reform the Catholic Church, supposing the Pope and other Catholic leaders to be both reasonable and open to the conforming influence of Scripture. What Luther did not realize at first and was later shocked by, leading to the 95 theses, was that these leaders were motivated more by politics and power than Scripture. Thus, the change that Luther envisioned was unwelcome because it threatened their power structure.

After the Diet of Worms, Luther became a Protestant (that is he protested against the Catholic Church). He devoted his life to the creation of a Church that he felt was faithful to Scripture. His protection and his protest led directly to the Reformation movement in Europe, the development of the Protestant denominations, and to the concept of religious tolerance and freedom. Different reformers have amended Luther's views to varying degrees through the years, resulting in the many denominations we see today.

What would the world be like if Luther had not existed, or if he had been executed as a heretic and his books burned. Would we all still be Catholic? What would the Catholic Church look like? It was because of Luther that specific movements began within the Catholic Church such as the Anti-reformation, which, in-turn, led to the "Catholic Reformation." While the Catholic Church contains elements that Luther would still reject, it is a much different church than it was.

Many good things came out of Luther's reformation: religious freedom, the concept of Sola Scriptura (Scripture alone as a guide for action), the concept of the priesthood of the individual believer (we have no mediator between Christ and us), the separation of church and state, etc. But there have been some bad things that have arisen due to these good concepts: the enlightenment, skepticism, secularism, modernism, postmodernism, and socialistic humanism. These are twistings of good concepts that show us the nature of ubiquitous human sin. These twistings were held at bay by the oppression of the Catholic Church.

While Luther fought for good and noble purposes, and offered true eternal life, not through the advocacy of the Catholic Church, but through the plain understanding of Scripture and direct access to God, he left the door open to specific negative implications. In a time where people languished for a personal relationship with God, these implications could not have been foreseen. Yet with the advent of enlightenment philosophies, and later impotence within the churches, the effect has been a large-scale rejection of faith in the name of the same freedom that Luther fought for.

Should we wish that Luther had not fought? No. We should wish that the Pope had been humbled and changed Canon laws. We should attempt to hold to Scripture and conscience as Luther did and yet find common ground with other Christian brothers, unifying as much as possible in order to honor Jesus Christ.

Here is a clip from the 2003 movie Luther, portraying Luther's trial at the Diet of Worms.




Here is a "Martin Luther Rap" that is quite ingenious.

Conviction and Hope: 2 Chronicles 16:9

At work yesterday a friend brought up a verse he has been meditating on; 2 Chronicles 16:9, [T]he eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. I remembered the verse as soon as he read it, but I was amazed at its sudden implications. It was one of those moments where I felt completely undone by the word of God. Scripture is truly sharper than any double-edged sword (Hebrews 4:12).

This semester has brought many challenges as I try to balance several jobs and projects with school. I have very little down-time and while I thought I was relying on the Lord for support, this passage made me realize how far away from God my heart has been. Like Asa in the context of the 2 Chron. passage, I have looked to my own strength and my own devices, going to the "King of Aram" for help, rather than waiting upon Yahweh.

Yet I also realized another implication. While Asa was condemned by God, You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war, I do not stand condemned. Romans 8:1 says, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Romans 8:9-11, You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Romans 8:15-16, For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children.

It is not good for me to live for myself or by my own power. Instead, I should devote myself to relying upon the awesome power of our sovereign God. And I am able to do this through the Spirit who strengthens me after humbling me and breaking down my defenses. What a good God we have to faithfully bruise us in order to conform us to the image of his Son! I am a man of unclean lips and an unclean heart. I stand judged and humbled for my sin and yet I have been found innocent and faithful, not through any doing of my own, but through the righteousness of Jesus Christ! I have nothing to boast in but that I know the Lord!

A third implication came to me from the 2 Chronicles verse which has revised how I have viewed God lately. I have been so busy and have seen God as somewhat aloof. Yet 2 Chron says that God actively seeks out faithful ones to strengthen. God not only wants us to be righteous in our actions, he looks for those who are committed in faith to him and strengthens them. What a hope and joy for the believer! I do not have to do things by my own power. I will call upon Yahweh and he will be faithful to save me (even if that salvation doesn't look like I expect it to). Our God is the same God who continually saved Israel. He is not weak or powerless. He is mighty to save (Zephaniah 3:14-20).



A side note: For those who might look at the 2 Chron and Zeph passages and say that the may only be rightly understood as promises to a national Israel, I would point out Deut 9:21/Isaiah 42:1-9/1 Peter 2:9-10, and Jeremiah 31:31-34/John 14:26/Acts 2:1-39. These passages forsage the the opening of the "Israelitish religion" for all believing people. It is through the work of Jesus that we can apply the Old Testament to ourselves today.

Frustration over Consumerism

I am staring at a mass of wires. They take up most of my desk. These are odds and ends, adapters and cords that go to many different electronic gadgets. What amazes me is that none of them fit any of the others. I was frustrated today. I realized that the phone I bought had adapters . . . that would not fit any of the accessories I already had. This means I have to go out and buy either new adapters or new accessories. Neither is an appetizing prospect as I know my little pile of "just in case" wires will grow. Someday I will finally work up the nerve to get rid of them.

This is one price of consumerism. Don't misunderstand me, I believe that Capitalism works. Consumerism is a perverted Capitalism, run amok. We champ at the bit to spend more money on things we don't need or replace things that don't need replacing. We invent more refined gadgets to do the same thing less refined ones did. Why is a micro USB port so much better than a mini USB? Why can't the adapter fit the older technology? The answer to these questions is . . . money. There are whole businesses devoted to making these cables and adapters and selling them for eight to ten times what they're worth. It makes these businesses money to prevent the technologies from fitting together. Really, three cords to fit one piece of equipment to its accessory?

Sometimes I wish I had been born many ages ago when things were somewhat simpler and technology crept along at a snail's pace. A time when I could stop and look and ponder things. I have longed to watch things grow, to notice how things move, to enjoy the creeping and crawling and flying things of the world. Instead, I am the one flying about trying to earn money to buy more adapters, more stuff, more "life". I loathe this kind of "progress".

This is half my bag of accessories and adapters. Most have been produced by the same company. Not one links to another! I cannot make one of my cell phones link both to an ear piece and to the computer (not at the same time) with these wires. I need more wires, each at 1/3 the price of the phone itself! I haven't much more to say except: consumerism is bad!