Faith, Freedom and Frags

Why I'm not blogging (much)

After much thought, I've realized why I'm not blogging very much anymore. What I really wanted, and still want, from blogging is discussion, not just my own voice in the wilderness. I truly want to understand other peoples point of view. Right now there are so many opinions and views I disagree with, and I seem to have less and less understanding of how they could possibly believe the crazy things they believe (yes, I know I'm the one with the crazy beliefs).

But I haven't been getting that, and more interestingly, I have not seen it in any other places. Usually a blog is manned by an individual, or multiple individuals of a very similar ideology. The discussions that do happen are usually in comments sections or on forums. And those are very much a hit and miss affair. Even when there are good discussions, they almost never continue long enough to reach any kind of understanding. Or, they are overwhelmed by the strident, the rude or the smug, never recovering. I've been involved in several of these and only ended up frustrated.

I want people who truly desire to get to the root of our different world views. I want some people who would commit to a long term discussion, to questions with thoughtful answers, to stopping before typing to make sure you really understood the point. It's not easy, but it's certainly worth trying. Most of what we have these days is just disagreement, not discussion. Even the "tolerant" people are usually as smug and self-righteous as the "intolerant", imagining themselves as superior than those ignorant, unwashed masses.

So, to my friends and the few who read this, I ask if anyone is really ready to talk? Obviously, it would help if you had significantly different views than mine, though I'm sure there's not a soul alive I agree with 100%. But mostly, let's just try and figure out why the other person is so hopelessly misguided! And that does need to be the presumption: misguided, not evil, or stupid, or selfish, or clueless. You guide a "lost" person by first going to where they are, and then traveling with them to known territory. And you may find out in the process that they're not lost at all.

Any takers?

Subjective vs. Objective and Xbox 360's

Apparently, some enterprising folks have bought Xbox 360's solely for the purpose of reselling them at what looks to be a considerable profit. While I do not understand paying $600 or even $1000 just to get a gaming console a few weeks sooner, I see nothing wrong with people providing this service to others. If they wish to pay so much, it is good for them that it is available.

Since I continue to stay away from much of what counts for official "news" these days, I have been following games and technology as much as ever. So now I get my economics lessons from there instead.

There is a conception among many people (and for a very long time) that certain goods or services have a "fair" or "reasonable" price. From my observations, this amounts to little more than animism, assigning human like attributes to mere physical objects. The way I see it, ALL value is inherently subjective, in that it is ONLY subjects (aka, conscious entities) that assign value to anything, and that there is in no such thing as objective value, since objects in and of themselves cannot place value on anything.

Take a glass of water, for instance. There is no way to reckon any kind of objective value to it. It ALL depends on the context and the person assigning value to it. I may not value it very highly, a few pennies if it isn't some kind of bottled water. But if I were in the desert for a couple of days, I might give up everything I have to get that glass of water. The value of an object is determined not only by how much the subject cares for it (preferring Mozart to Bach, for instance), but also where in time and space that object is.

Here's the kicker: I believe that all moral values are ALSO entirely subjective. This might surprise those of you who know my religious beliefs, but I think it fits perfectly. I have determined that it is not the moral values of God that are objective, but it is that God himself values certain things, and He is, essentially, the only subject that matters (He being eternal, infinite and having created all objects in the first place). I find this actually fits rather well with Christian, Jewish and Islamic understandings of God, and particularly the Christian attitude of seeing God as a Person to whom we can relate. God is not bound by rules or morals outside of Himself, rather His preferences (yes, just what he likes and doesn't like, the way you prefer chocolate to vanilla) determine morals in the only sense that matters.

Feel free to call me crazy, blasphemous or stupid, but it'd be nice to get some feedback on this one.

Churches and "Tax Exempt Status"

Am I the only person who finds this absolutely horrifying?  (registration may be required)

Essentially, the IRS is harrasing a (rather excessively) liberal Christian church because the pastor made speeches against the Iraq war right before the 2004 elections. This, they are arguing, constitutes political activity and could mean that the church will lose it's tax exempt status.

Is this really where we are now? What a pastor (or any religious leader) says from the pulpit is monitored by the government and used to punish the church? This is freedom of religion, or freedom of speech? Huh?

The church didn't even specifically endorse a candidate or policy. But so what if they did? Do you have any idea the kinds of things advocated in the churches of the thirteen colonies? These were hotbeds of discussion and advocacy of all kinds of positions. And why the heck shouldn't they be?

This comes back to taxes. John Marshall, arguably the most influential Supreme Court Justice ever, said "That the power to tax involves the power to destroy ... [is] not to be denied". What clearer evidence do we need than seeing the freedom of religion and speech directly attacked, using solely the heavy hammer of taxes? This is considered justified and good by BOTH political parties, and it makes me sick. If political speech is specifically attacked by this attrocious policy, what can't be? Excuse me while I go weep for our country.

Tool, Christianity and Honesty

I watched a few Tool (yes, the band Tool) music videos today. This group has always fascinated me. They are, first and foremost, excellent musicians. They use harmony, rhythm and dynamics in ways that most modern bands don't even know exist. Their lyrics are based in all different kinds of philosophy and have quite a lot of meat to them.

However, their content is close to pure evil. If it weren't for their honesty, for their candor in how they view the world I would say it was evil, and I do not use such a word lightly. For the uninitiated, their first album was entitled "Opiate", as in "religion is the opiate of the people". They are as antagonistic to Christianity as possible, and not just in some "Christianity sucks" kind of way. It is a much more subtle, much more powerful opposition. Think Nietzsche as a musician.

What's frustrating is that their brutal honesty on the nature of the world, and particularly the nature of the world without God could be as easily a powerful message FOR Christ as one against. As C. S. Lewis wrote in The Screwtape Letters, great sinners and great saints are made of the same material. They have passion and honesty, and they do not flinch. We don't see the kind of compelling honesty in many Christians these days.

Let me be more precise. We don't see Christians talk about their doubt, about the frustration of not knowing, but instead relying on our faith. We don't see the kind of lamenting our separation from God that you would expect. At church it is mostly "sweetness and light". To be fair, not always. But mostly. The songs we sing in particular. I suppose the purpose of songs are to worship God, not to indulge our angst. Yet, look at Psalms and Ecclesiastes! Ecclesiastes in particular ends up sounding a lot more like Tool than it does Third Day.

And this "fakeness" hurts the church, and hurts the unbelievers. We know there is pain, pain we can't understand, pain that destroys lives and brings despair. But "all things work together for them that love the Lord". Certainly this is true, but not even Job was given the specifics of how things worked together for good, and was rightly rebuffed by God when he demanded to know. Thus we are left again with Hope, Faith and Love, but not Certainty, Security or Happiness. Our human minds want those last things, but will not get them. They are illusions, thirsts that are never satisfied.

Why not present ourselves for what we almost certainly are: Sinners unable to even grasp our own salvation? If it weren't for God's effort on our behalf, we would not even seek after Him. Our understanding is so small, our capacities so inadequate. We are just lost people, but with the joyful surprise that God has found us. All He has given is somewhere to look. It's as if we were deep under the ocean, not knowing where up was, running low on breath. God is the light above us that tells us where to swim. We swim there because we have no other way to go.

I'm tired of fake certainty. Unbelievers see it, and they know it is fake. They know we suffer, that there are hidden things we do not understand ourselves. They wonder where it is, why we hide it, what we are afraid of. What are we afraid of?

The Blasphemous "Flag Desecration" Ammendment

Quick comment on this: You can only "desecrate" things that have been sanctified, things that are holy. Are we now saying that our country's flag is a holy symbol? It seems an awful lot of Christians need to read up on that whole Second Commandment thing.

"Consummerism", Capitalism and Christ (Part 1)

Time to write again! I've been too busy (see my other recent post). But here are some thoughts:

My wife Kim and I have spent a good deal of time recently studying financial planning and concepts. I of course have been studying economics for years, so extending this knowledge into the more practical applications of "What should I do with the resources that God sends my way?" is a fairly easy fit. Happily, this has coincided with a sermon series at church, so we've been getting information from all angles.

It has been quite informative. It has helped me to better define some ideas I've had for a while, and Kim's enthusiasm and vigor on the subject has been a great way for the two of us to grow closer. To oversimplify the various financial books we've been reading:

1. Don't spend more than you make. Save lots. Be cheap.
2. Study money and how it is made and discover what your talents are that can help you use the money you save to make more money.

Couple this with the spiritual lessons:

1. You are merely a steward for resources God has given you.
2. Money (and indeed anything wordly) will never give you the satisfaction and wholeness you are looking for. It can very well keep you from those things.

Finally, throw in some basic economics:

1. Wealth is created when consumption is delayed in order to invest current goods to improve future production. Think taking time (current goods) to build a spear (captial good) to catch fish instead of just catching them with your hands all day.
2. Having money or goods now is always worth more than later. The degree to which a person or society values now over later is called "time preference" and is the single most influential economic indicator for future success. The more you value later compared to now, the better off financially you will be later.

So, take these principles, throw them in the pot of my always too busy and over complicated mind, stir for about three weeks and what do you get? Stay tuned for part 2...

Conservatism and libertarianism

I have for a while been of the opinion that conservative society and libertarian government are absolutely dependent on each other. In other words, without one the other cannot sustain itself. I admit much of my opinion on this stems from Hans-Hermann Hoppes excellent "Democracy: The God that Failed", but quite a lot of it has my own take on things as well.

For starters, definitions:

• Conservative society: Society that values family, church, community, morals and good behavior. It recognizes that there is a natural order to things and that to fight against such order is to invite chaos.
• Libertarian government: Government that more or less stays out of they way of the activities of it's citizens, ultimately to the point of not existing at all.

These aren't complete or perfect definitions, but enough to get us started.

Libertarian government cannot survive without conservative society

Historically, the idea of a libertarian society has not been an image of one where everyone is free to do lots of drugs, have lots of sex and generally act however they feel like. There is a modern contingent of libertarians for whom this is the goal, but I believe they are misled.

For me, the only way we can attain and preserve libertarian government is to have alternative institutions that perform most (or all) of the functions that a more powerful government performs. For example, while I believe drug use should indeed be "legal" in a libertarian society, I also believe that it should be widely viewed as destructive, and that those who continually use drugs would be relegated to the outskirts or fringes of society because "respectable people" would have the freedom to not associate with such. This would apply to a wide variety of behaviors: polygamy, extramarital sex, shady business dealings, profanity, obscenity, actively advocating a strong State, and so on.

The point behind the dissaproval and exclusion of these behaviors is that each of these serves to break down the core institutions that hold a libertarian society together: the family, churches, business communities, neighborhoods, and so on. In the absence of such standards, these institutions would continually weaken, leaving quite a lot of chaos and a power vacuum that would almost certainly be filled by a stronger State. Libertarian government could not stay limited when important social order was not provided by other institutions.

Conservative society can not survive without libertarian government

On the flip side of this, everything that conservatives value is directly fought against by non-libertarian governments. Roles that families traditionally fulfill, from basics such as raising children and providing essentials to extended roles such as pressure to do well in work, learn skills and behave as decent individuals are instead taken over by public schools, welfare and juvenille "justice" systems.

Every step forward in power and influence that the government takes is taken from the power and influence of other institutions. Churches no longer are expected to feed the hungry and clothe the poor, because welfare takes care of that. Families are no longer expected to take care of their elder members since social security takes care of that. Neigborhoods and communities now provide hardly anything of value, since coercion (taxes) is used when co-operation would work. Want to fix the sidewalks in your neighborhood? Why not get your neighbors together and do it yourself instead of taking taxes from total strangers who have never even seen these sidewalks?

And yet almost every modern day conservative accepts as a complete given that public schools, welfare and social securty need to "reformed" and "rescued", not eliminated. These corrosive invasions and usurptations of traditional family, church and community roles break down relationships between father and son, neighbors, clergy and laity. To claim to be conservative and to advocate these institutions is to advocate a contradictory and useless position.

Chicken or the Egg?

Clearly, there is a bit of a circle in this. Increased government leads to weakened alternatives, leads to increased government. Which comes first? Where do we start to reverse the sequence?

It is hard to tell which comes first. Having the power of the state readily available is a horrible temptation, encouraging families and churches to give up their authority in exchange for the "peace of mind" provided by believing that the state will take the responsibility off their shoulders.

More clear, to me, is how to reverse the circle. Alternative institutions must be continually built up. Churches must once again take the primary role in providing for the needy. Families need to take the primary role in providing education and child rearing. These are actions that can happen right now, today. The growth of homeschooling and other public school alternatives is a very encouraging sign and a good example of how we should procede. Creative and determined people should be working to think of alternatives to force and coercion, the epitome of State power. As these instutions regain their power and influence, the State provided alternatives will seem more unnecessary and destructive, until it is all but a technicality to eliminate them.

There is much more to be said here, and this is hardly a perfect essay. I hope, though, that it will provide some food for though for all my conservative, libertarian and even liberal friends.

Are people good or bad?

I had a conversation with my sister today about "mean people". She had a very bad experience at Costco today and was in the mindset of "people are bad". I know lots of people who agree with this position, which is the dictionary definition of cynicism.

I tend to be on the other side. It's not that I don't agree that "mean people" exist, it's just that I am more inclined to see the reasons behing their meanness, to the point where I will make up such reasons despite having no evidence to show for them. Some call this naivete, but I'm well aware that I am probably wrong often.

In the end, though, from a Christian perspective it doesn't matter! Our actions towards others should still be the same, whether we think they are good or bad. We are to bless those who curse us, love our enemies and welcome hardship and persecution. Easier said than done, no doubt. But the whole discussion about people being "good" or "bad" takes on an entirely irrelevant tone in the light of Jesus' attitude towards everyone. He certainly had cause to decide that people were bad, since compared to Him they most definitely are. But he chose to love them anyhow. Even those who nailed him to the cross he asked that the Father forgive, for they didn't know what they were doing. Ironically, someone who tends to be more optimistic about people may fall into condemning "bad" people far worse than the cynics, simply because we eroneously belive that they are somehow an exception.

I know for a fact how flawed and sinful I am, yet Jesus forgives and loves me, and it is all I can do to remember that everytime someone cuts me off in traffic or yells at me when I don't deserve it.

New Pope and anti-Catholicism

So, the Catholic Church has selected a new Pope. He seems like he's not going to change much, and that sounds fine to me. What is with all these expectations that an institution that has outlived empires and is older than every established government on this planet will change it's basic doctrines in less than 1/20th of the time it has existed? And why would that be a good thing?

As most of you know, I am not Catholic. However, I have noticed again and again an assumption on the part of my Protestant bretheren that if someone is Catholic, they are either probably or certainly not actually saved. Many won't even refer to Catholics as Christians.

I disagree with "The Church" on many, many things, both doctrinal and practical. I have no desire or inclination to convert, yet I cannot understand these assumptions. I disagree with many other denominations, and as can be surmized by the few things I have written here I disagree with just about every Christian individual out there as well. I assume I am probably dead wrong on quite a lot of what I believe. There are certain points, however, where I am as close to certain as I think a human can get.

The question is, are Catholics so far out of what Protestants believe that they cannot be considered Christian? Most Christians, Catholic and non, would argue that groups such as Mormon's and Jehova's Witnesses are not Christian. But this is because they deny very basic points points such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ and redemption through Grace alone. Catholics, despite what you may have heard, do not deny these basic tenents. In fact, they have defined, refined and championed them throughout history (and yes, they've done horrible things also, but that's not the point right now).

That there are many Catholics who may be confused about these things is hardly disputed by anyone. That does not mean that this is what the Catholic church teaches, though they do seem to lack the clarity of message that you find with Protestants, spending much time talking about peripheral doctrines (the Saints and Mary in particular).

The other big thing that Protestants disagree with Catholics on is Tradition as a way of determing God's will. Sola Scriptura, meaning Scripture Alone is the assertion of Protestants.

However, even Protestants rely on tradition! They use it, first and foremost, in deciding what constitutes Holy Scripture in the first place! As a good Catholic friend of mine said (and he knows who he is) there is no table of contents in Scripture. There are other areas as well where tradition is relied upon. Many doctrines of Christianity are simply not obvious from Scripture alone. The Trinity is certainly one of those. And the gradually shifting views of eschatology can only be attributed to tradition.

But here I believe tradition to be an informal collection of wisdom and doctrine revealed to Christians through the Holy Spirit, not a formal organization with specific recipients of such wisdom. And I believe that the Catholic church has strayed a bit from Scripture in some areas, at least as I understand it.

Well, that's a mouthful so I think I'll take a break. Looking forward to hearing any comments y'all have!

What is a Church?

I've been thinking a lot lately about what a church is, should be and could be (in a Christian context, at least). I've been at my current church (First Baptist Church of Los Altos) for more than 10 years now, was married there and seen many friends and family members baptized there.

As such I am rather commited to this community. Yet, many times and particularly lately I wonder whether we live up to what God had in mind. In my idealistic view, a church should be very much a family, providing stability, closeness, guidance, reproof when it is in order, and even material assistance when it is needed. Examples of this abound in the New Testament. And from a political view, I see churches as a primary competitor to the government, not in a direct "revolutionary" sense, but in the sense that people should look to churches to provide many things that governments would like or do provide on their own. If churches truly did provide for the poor, or give education to their members or even better proclaim moral guidance, the case for removing such "responsibilities" from the purview of government would almost make itself.

I know that no earthly church will be perfect, but we seem so far off now. Most of the relationships seem superficial, even good sermons seem to avoid some of the hardest truths about our lack, and even when the message is right, the actions never seem to follow. I am sure that much of the disconnect I feel with my bretheren is because of my own lack of action. So what can I and the rest of the congregation do?

Just first thoughts for now... Leave a comment if you have any ideas.