Man, including his politics, is in the image of God.  Caesar too bears God's image and inscription - meaning, he is made to be rendered unto God -  though ruled by sin, and subject to futility and death. That's to say, it is not our message that man saves himself.

When we preach Christ, we are speaking of the complete and final defeat of death, of misery, of sin and injustice, everywhere.  Nothing less.  Meanwhile, when for now we remain subject to corruption, we proclaim that his death and life are given in the earth, changing us by faith in him.

But man is inclined to show himself as though he were God, and his actions as acts of salvation, whether he acknowledges any god or not.  He confuses himself with the Redeemer, and thus with the passing of time God seems to pass away. Anything out of man is at best a flower which is here today and then fades.

For our redemption to be seen in politics, we must not preach redemption by politics.  We are never the ones we're waiting for.

The leftist blogs are assuming that the choice of Palin was made carelessly, without a sufficient vetting process, made in a desperate attempt to grab headlines from a triumphant Democratic Party Convention. I suppose that by eagerly seizing on every rumor that comes along, they have a method for thoroughly testing their theory. 

Palin is the sort of Republican that they'll have difficulty beating in the usual way (she isn't an old, establishment male), so that it won't work as easily in this case to say that she is on the wrong side of things simply because of who she is.   She needs to somehow appear to her own side as someone that her own base cannot support.  Rather than beating her, it appears they've decided that they'll need to try to destroy her.  So, they're digging up stories, one of which eventually might turn out to be true, that they hope will successfully stick to her and ruin her in the eyes of those who would have otherwise voted for McCain.

But that is a problem in itself.  It forces the Obama campaign to constantly scramble to recover the credibility that is lost by all this muckraking. Getting past this kind of thing, treating one another with respect, patience and even admiration, was the clearest and strongest part of Obama's Convention speech, where he tried to answer the nagging question of what "we" mean by "change".  The campaign itself is working hard to stand above the supporters.

Will Obama be able to get past arguing with his base about the most fundamental principles of the campaign?  Obama seemed willing to admit that, the only thing that can be realistically expected from talking about change, while yet unwilling to to be changed ourselves, is not a new world but just more socialism as a cheap substitute for virtue, which ultimately breeds profound cynicism about government and the promises politicians make.

What if he can't persuade the people who support him, that the only real engine of change is a changed people, not a change of the guard in Washington?  What if he doesn't really, after all, believe that?  Then, between now and November might be enough time for it to be made clear that, by "change" is only meant, "things 'we' expect the rich to pay for, so that 'we' don't need to change ourselves". 

Can 'we' put all the blame on someone else, even after "we've" admitted that real change begins with ourselves and not with government?  If in the end, what 'we' mean by change is just, more of 'your' money, then, Yes 'we' can.

The world decides what is good or evil by measuring whether the action produces fear. Is there a threat of uninvited harm in an action?  Then, it is wrong.  With second-hand smoke and global warming, just as with pedophilia, the world maintains moral discipline by fear.  This is why those who speak of homosexuality as being immoral are answered with the charge of being "homophobic".  This bespeaks a moral philosophy based on taboos and fears.  The fact that our society responds to this charge, and changes its morality accordingly, indicates that we have become a society that confuses morality with fear.  We are deciding good and evil from our gut.

The people of the world decide what is good or evil for themselves, by the measure of lust.  Is any action gratifying?   Does it satisfy a hunger, and leave you feeling happier?   With pornography as with homosexuality, you will be advised that, appetites should not be denied, because to do so is to deny who you are.  The world will allow you to do these things, if by doing them you do not make the world afraid.

None of this is really about "choice" or "freedom", which are ideas brought in from outside of the equation, to glorify lust and to chasten fear.  Choice is not the principal factor in selecting the things for which we lust.  We fear things, sometimes against our will, so that fear also is not principally a matter of choice.  In a fear-based morality, there is a never-ending struggle between lust which defines personal good, and fear which defines what cannot be permitted.

Lust and fear are fleshly analogies that correspond, but only in their own fleshly terms, to the spiritual realities of good and evil.  As with all analogies, the correspondence is reliable only as long as the dis-analogy is understood.  But if there is no understanding of the spiritual reality, thinking of good and evil in terms of lust and fear is an invitation to deception and manipulation. 

The tyrant can appeal to fear, and the demagogue can appeal to lust, and the people can be herded like animals this way because there is no love of good or hatred of evil among the people.  When the knowledge of "evil" disappears, except for the loathing that grows up from within ourselves in the form of fear; and when the knowledge of "good" is gone, except for what we know of it in terms of our lusts; then, we have become a people moved by appetites who will surrender to terror.

In the real world, the murderer was considered insane, who does not recognize that it's wrong to murder.  The pederast who thinks that he's helping the children he abuses was considered seriously deluded, a moral cripple.  In reality, when we encountered someone who practices what is wrong without insight into his guilt, we called that person a dangerous sociopath.  In real life, what is more scary than someone who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong?  But reality is being left behind.

In real life, people had moral standards to which they did not perfectly adhere.  For example, we used to have people who promised life-long fidelity to one partner (of the opposite sex); and shamefully, many of these people failed.  It was not judged wrong that they acknowledged moral standards to which they later failed to adhere in practice.  What used to be wrong was, to attack moral standards because they did not accord with one's desires.  To lower the idea of right and wrong in order to justify actions was labeled moral degeneracy.   That's in the past.  Now, reality has been abandoned for politics.

Here, in politics, it's a virtue to lack a conscience.   People with a conscience fail, producing an experience of "guilt"; and in politics - as opposed to reality - to have a guilty conscience is the moral failure called "hypocrisy".  To avoid "hypocrisy" - the only moral failure left in politics - one must have no moral standards to which you would fail to attain. 

Now that all of life is politics, we all are sociopaths, and things are so much better.  Ideas of guilt and responsibility, that belonged to reality, are being replaced with glorious victimhood which makes heroes of us all.  In politics, people with a conscience, who uphold a moral standard even if they do not consistently live according to it, are the scary ones: these are the "hypocrites".  The courageous are those who throw away these notions and boldly laud what is, in reality, debased.  But soon, if only we can leave reality behind completely,  politics will be the way everything is done.  In politics, the goal is to purge hypocrisy.  And then, the world will live as one.  Imagine.

The word "courage" is badly abused in the election season.  When you hear someone called "courageous" during these times, what people are usually pointing to is a reckless disregard of restraints.  Be imprudent, and disrespectful, contemptuous of conventions including simple decency,  self-control, or truth, and they will engrave your statue with verses in tribute to your courage, because you dared to trample down this or that dictate of wisdom.  Never mind if what is trodden down is holy.  They will point to someone who managed to justify hating the good and loving the evil, and was not afraid to brag about it.  "Bully for such courage", they will say.  They mean careless, irreverent, brazen, shameless, pushy, uncivil, disloyal, incircumspect, and audacious.  Any bold vice is electable if it is called, "courage".

Listen, as the rhetoric ramps up for the election, how often the demagogue, the populist, the moral coward is called "courageous", precisely in the sense described. 

Mike Gallagher complains on his blog this morning,  in a brief post called The "Pillow Angel"? , about the parents of Ashley, the Seattle girl, who ordered surgery to stunt her growth.  Mike says this is "yet another attack on the culture of life in America."

I don't think so, Mike.  I admit that it's distasteful to think about, and provokes some Frankensteinish feelings about how "unnatural" it is.  But, the design of every one of the things the surgeons did was to assert life.

The fact is that Ashley will be carted around, her whole life - her disease makes this the case, not the surgeries.  The surgeons have approached her family as though they were her body - because her own body cannot sustain her.  They've treated her physical frame as though it were merely a member of the collective body of her family - if this member grows as large as it normally would, it will hurt the body as a whole, also hurting her health. 

Respect for life does not always lead you to pretty choices.  This case is not pretty.   But it is full of life.

On the first occasion in the history of the country at which a woman addressed Congress as the Speaker of the House,  Ms. Pelosi said,
There was lots of Mommy talk besides, but this comment stands out to me, for its distance, its whininess, its disrespect.  Mom wouldn't say this.  Mom has too much of a stake in being a part of things working out. This is a Nanny talking.

On day 2, maybe we can look forward to something that doesn't sound so supercalifragilisticexpialidocious, so familiar, so full of sentimentality and false wisdom, so otherwise meaningless.  Maybe in the future she can adopt Nanny 911 as her model instead.  Or, in this episode, does she play the dad who has excellent reasons for not doing what he knows he must? 

As a preemptive measure against a rumored plot to disclose the homosexual activity of Rev. Paul Barnes, the Denver pastor admitted to his church's board of elders that he is "guilty of infidelity", and resigned.  The rumor came to light through an anonymous phone-call, in which the caller revealed having "overheard a conversation in which someone mentioned 'blowing the whistle' on evangelical preachers engaged in homosexuality, including Barnes". 

In a tearful videotaped message, Barnes revealed his struggle and failures to the congregation, according to a December 11 story in the Denver Post.  (h/t Jollyblogger).

Updates:

• A follow-up story in the Post, Rev. Barnes, ex-church chart future.
  I'm not sure why the headline says "ex-church".  It appears that the neither the church nor the ex-pastor intend removal from the church.  The article says that Barnes offered details, and assured the elders that there are no children or church members involved.  Nevertheless, a spokesman said that the church anticipates that more revelations will be forthcoming.  So far, it appears that the elders and other members have reacted in an exemplary way.
• Another follow-up, Gay scandals could spark compassion:
  Comments from Tony Compolo and H.B. London Jr. are profitable.
  
• Frankly, this is another example of the disgrace of the Wesleyan doctrine of "entire sanctification" or "sinless perfection" - not the version that is taught (because who teaches it anymore?), but the version that is believed regardless of what is taught.  Many believe that "real Christians" don't do such things, or they can't do such things.  If he does such things, it is denied that he is a real Christian; or otherwise, if it cannot be denied that he is a believer, then the sinfulness of what he has done is doubted. 
  

It's annoying to read headlines about the Iraq panel which have the word  "failing" in quotation marks, but to find not one line of attribution for that word.  Certainly if our efforts to put down the violence continues "not working", and goes on being "grave and deteriorating", then of course the end will inevitably be failure.  But how does that word   end up in quotes: "failing"?

I know I'm being nit-picky.  But the word "failing" all by itself means that everything is moving in the direction of failure - and in the context of military actions, this equates to defeat.  Defeat is not what is happening: we win all the battles.  The losses on the other side are huge - an embarrassment, ironically.  Islamist factions continue to shoot at one another, as well as Americans.  We are not stopping the murder and mayhem - and this is getting worse.  Does this mean that we have "have failed in almost every regard" as an AP story put it? 

The Islamists cannot defeat us militarily, but they can inflict massive casualties on a people unwilling to absorb the cost of resisting them.  It is much easier to turn around diplomatic and military strategies than it is to steel the nerves of a nation.  I don't think that the Baker/Hamilton commission mentioned anything about how our leaders are "failing" in that more important regard.

tags: Iraq panel, Iraq Study Group "failing"

Update:

• When you hear "Tony Blair says the Coalition is now losing the war in Iraq ", don't you hear `We are now being defeated' ?  This is not what Tony Blair said, and it would not be accurate if he did.  We are not winning: we have not arrested the instability or put a stop to sectarian violence, but this is not defeat.  Our efforts to stop people from murdering one another is not succeeding.  This is a very different thing from saying we are "losing". 
  
• Hugh's, The ISG Report: The Emperor Has No Clothes, is a great aggregate post.
• Katherine's Bush-Blair Press Conference focuses on the media's determination to mold public opinion , rather than to inform it about both, the content and the importance of the ISG report.
• Changed title
  

What Islamists have learned: two maxims. An article by Michael Novak.

Update:

• A dishonorable peace is better than an inglorious war?  - Tark Mwain.

The article New Diaconal Opportunity Via NationalSOS.com is another example of why I'm glad that I stumbled into  the Mission Lawrence blog. 

Chuck Huckaby has an excellent eye for projects like this, that require vision but not much money or political activism to implement.  Here, he suggests that you add a $10 radio to your church and home emergency kits to assist in the building of an available-to-all emergency radio network.

Churches with buildings might also consider offering their facilities for training and drills, if yours is a particularly suitable location for such a thing.

When you care about your neighbor in this way, you can point to Christ with the lights turned on. You should also speak of Christ without doing this sort of thing. But, in those circumstances it's harder for people to see what you mean.

The Christian Science Monitor has an opinion column by Dinesh D'Souza, called Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history. 

Updates

• Dennis Prager spoke today with Niall Ferguson, Professor of History at Harvard about his book, The War of the World: Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West.    The great atheist regimes not only excel all others in murdering their own citizens, they also engineered history's most spectacular train-wrecks, the most disastrous wars thus far in history.    "Secular societies are much less able to withstand the temptations of evil".
• The question always arises whether Hitler was actually an atheist.  There are many ways of answering this, but they all strike me as quibbling.
  
  One of the most final answers comes from Hitler's letter to Himmler, supposedly dated October 14, 1941.  I cannot entirely trust a document that was supposedly written on the very day that Hitler withdrew Germany from the League of Nations, but most statements can be reproduced from elsewhere. What all documents establish is the basic fact, hardly controversial, that Hitler was a populist manipulator who spoke in such a way that he united an entire nation behind his outrageous ego.  So far as he believed in God, he was as was Muhammad,  such a singular spokesman for God that God doesn't matter at all apart from him.
  

  "Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet be explained - that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the party's program. Time will pass until the moment when science can answer all the questions.
  
  "So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death ...
  
  "... One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of a belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretize the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?"
  Hitler to Himmler, October 14, 1941
  

Update:

• From the comments at The Procrustean ...
  

dmm writes:	Tuesday, November, 28, 2006 5:41 PM
Atheists in Agony?
Interesting opinion piece in NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/27/opinion/27Shweder.html

• ... and the followup post.
  

What is it, in our biology, that causes a man to desire a woman?  Why does the thought of companionship become joined to sexual feeling for my wife, and not for my best friend? What is it about me that my wife finds exciting?  I don't understand that.  Do you?

I imagine that most people can relate to the question I'm asking, on some level.  People find themselves having desires that they did not seek, or even want once they were formed.  This might be awakened by pornography, a curiosity followed, some encounter or crime, or who knows where.  No one can fully explain their attractions, and this is especially true of those that are contrary to conscience. 

To some extent sexual attraction clearly has a biological foundation - but there is more to it than this.  Everything about us has social meaning and significance, and religious importance, as well: it is our design that we are not merely machines made of meat.  These complications of our nature add to the tormenting powers of desire.

Because we are more than our biology, there are many matters in which we cannot simply follow desire, but must say "no" to the flesh, "no" to the gene of desire; it is in these things that we must ask for grace to escape temptation.

This is how each person is trained in the knowledge that the fullest explanation of the human self is not even found in our selves - but in God who made us in his image, and who calls us to himself in Christ.  

News today says that Bishops OK Guidelines for Gay Ministry.

The most remarkable statement made in the linked article was from a representative of the New Ways Ministry, an independent Catholic organization that advances the same-sexual liberation movement into the Catholic Church.


Incredible.  While I look for an actual full version of the bishops' statement, this astonishingly deceitful comment is worth responding to, on its own.

The quoted speaker knows that it is the 'gay' movement ITSELF that confines persons within a one-dimensional definition - it is precisely this that is so offensive about the movement.  This is the essence of the movement: and without it, there would be no movement at all.

Christian orthodoxy, on the contrary, liberates people from the confines of this false, oppressive, one-dimensioned idea of a person: 'gay', 'lesbian'. This materialistic, sensualist, idolatrous and fatalistic mentality has also reached into the church, deceiving people into the belief that biology - so far as it is the foundation of desire - is an inexorable doom, and deterministic over the entire person.  The "born that way" people, not the church, teach that temptation implies a divine obligation to surrender to temptation.

This document is certainly not perfect; I can say this presumptively.  But the quoted liar perversely attributes to the Church what truly describes his own "ministry", and probably not this document.  The same-sexual doom movement defines whole persons in terms of the sexual dimension only - precisely what the Gospel condemns.  It is the Gospel that promises freedom, where the 'gay' movement declares enslavement.

Updates:

• http://www.usccb.org/dpp/Ministry.pdf - full text of the statement entitled "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care" - note this statement (p. 6):
  
  
  While the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.
  
  
  This is what the 'gay' activists repeatedly deny.  Gay activists deny that the person has dignity and value if the homosexual act is "sinful", and the inclination is "disordered".  Their idea of a person is no larger than their idea of the inclination.  That's why we have "gay websites", "gay actors", "gay spirituality", "gay literature": the entire person is swallowed up by the "sexual dimension".  It is appallingly anti-human, as though man were nothing more than his appetites, like a beast.
  
• Catholic News Service, Nov 15:  Bishops adopt statement on pastoral care of homosexuals

• Holy Fool a Roman Catholic blog, has an assessment similar to mine: Shepherds showing spine
• In the comments on Medved's article about Elton John, a contributor says:

tags: catholic bishops, temptation, homosexuality

Because "religion has always tried to turn hatred towards gay people", and "doesn't seem to work" in avoiding conflict, Elton John suggests that "From my point of view, I would ban religion completely".

tags: secularism religion Elton+John