U. S. Grant’s Expulsion of the Jews

Jim Tucker links to a story from the Civil War–U. S. Grant attempted to expel the Jews from territories he occupied; Lincoln countermanded the order.

Judaism and Original Sin

Interesting reflections from my friend, Rabbi Stuart Federow. Another perspective.

Here’s a fuller discussion of the Jewish teaching that we have two impulses, the yetzer hara and the yetzer hatov.

Judaism 101 on “Human Nature.”

The yetzer tov is the moral conscience, the inner voice that reminds you of G-d’s law when you consider doing something that is forbidden. According to some views, it does not enter a person until his 13th birthday, when he becomes responsible for following the commandments. See Bar Mitzvah.

The yetzer ra is more difficult to define, because there are many different ideas about it. It is not a desire to do evil in the way we normally think of it in Western society: a desire to cause senseless harm. Rather, it is usually conceived as the selfish nature, the desire to satisfy personal needs (food, shelter, sex, etc.) without regard for the moral consequences of fulfilling those desires.

The yetzer ra is not a bad thing. It was created by G-d, and all things created by G-d are good. The Talmud notes that without the yetzer ra (the desire to satisfy personal needs), man would not build a house, marry a wife, beget children or conduct business affairs. But the yetzer ra can lead to wrongdoing when it is not controlled by the yetzer tov. There is nothing inherently wrong with hunger, but it can lead you to steal food. There is nothing inherently wrong with sexual desire, but it can lead you to commit rape, adultery, incest or other sexual perversion. …

People have the ability to choose which impulse to follow: the yetzer tov or the yetzer ra. That is the heart of the Jewish understanding of free will. The Talmud notes that all people are descended from Adam, so no one can blame his own wickedness on his ancestry. On the contrary, we all have the ability to make our own choices, and we will all be held responsible for the choices we make.

Now, it is anachronistic to project medieval Jewish distinctions back into New Testament times, but this does put the temptations of Jesus in the wilderness into an interesting light. Jesus’ first temptation is to turn stones to bread–to satisfy hunger, something that is not wrong in itself. But Judaism would see that desire as arising in the yetzer hara. Without that impulse, we would not be inclined to do the basic things that keep us alive–but it can be misdirected, and so must be controlled.

Update: A friend sends me a link to an article by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein–”Senator, You’re No Jonathan Edwards.”

She then says,

Sorry to sound critical, but I am again amazed at the blanket assertion that the distinctions are medieval…. First, there really is no proof that these decidedly stop at the Middle Ages. With a culture that has been heavily dependent on oral tradition as well as written, we may never know for sure the age of some idea, approach, or practice. Secondly, just as with the account of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness, as I’ve sat at the feet of rabbis in this last decade, I’ve been consistently struck by how much rabbinic traditions shed light on New Testament passages. I can learn some particular tradition that was written down late, such as from The Zohar, and suddenly, the teaching will make very clear why a certain passage in the New Testament is composed the way it is. Some day, I’ll collate these….

To which I respond–Indeed. I accept all you say. Understand that I threw in the statement (“it is anachronistic to project medieval Jewish distinctions back into New Testament times”) to cover myself from the accusation of being anachronistic by citing this, since I’ve sometimes been critical of those who would try to interpret the Last Supper narratives in the light of the medieval seder (e.g., Scott Hahn, with his forced interpretation of the four cups). I agree with you that the Jewish tradition here does shed light on the New Testament stories. That’s the reason I made the connection. If you (or anyone you know) can send me some specific Talmudic and Kabbalistic references to help elaborate this discussion, I would be very grateful.

New Church Planting Research

From Ed Stetzer. Download here.

David Larson on QOD

David Larson reflects on the QOD conference over at Spectrum, focusing on the final day’s communion service.

Reflections on the QOD Conference–2

Some further reflection on the questions discussed at the recent conference at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the 50th Anniversary of Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine.

Adventists leaders published the book in response to conversations with Donald G. Barnhouse and Walter Martin; these answers satisfied the evangelicals, but caused multiple controversies within Adventism over the years. An annotated edition of the book with a very helpful historical introduction by George Knight was republished in 2003; the original edition can be read on-line.

Reflecting on this from the perspective of having been away from Adventism for over two decades, having studied at Lutheran and Catholic institutions of higher education, it seems to me that the different parties have more in common than I think they realize or want to admit. All agree Christ was fully human and fully divine, and that his humanity was affected by heredity, and was the weakened, mortal flesh we share. All agree he is substitute and example. All agree as a high priest he is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. They all agree he could have sinned (something Catholic and most Protestant theologians would deny), but never wavered. All agree that while we are born separated from God, his relationship with the Father and the Spirit was never broken. All agree that Seventh-day Adventists are fully Arminian. All agree that Jesus is coming and that there will be a time of trouble and that those who live through it will have a very intense experience that will require them to cling closely to Christ. All agree, I think, that the Holy Spirit will continue to uphold them.

There are issues that undergird the differences that need further exploration. Some self described “evangelicals” are comfortable using the term “original sin.” The phrase was stricken from an early draft of QOD but the idea remained. It isn’t found in earlier Adventist theology and doesn’t appear in official Adventist publications after this. Both liberals, like David Larson, and conservatives, like his recently deceased father, Ralph Larson, have problems with it. This raises a number of questions when we speak both about Christ’s inheritance and ours. What is the nature of sin? What exactly do we inherit? If sin isn’t inherited guilt (as Catholics teach), is it some sort of “substance” or “infection” that can be passed along, as some Protestants seem to suggest? Or is it better spoken of as a broken relationship and acts of the will? David Larson asked whether we might be operating with an understanding of the human person derived more from Aristotle and Plato than from the Bible.

There wasn’t much discussion of the larger Christian history of discussion about these issues. Douglass and an Evangelical scholar, Donald Dayton, pointed out that many theologians have shared a belief that Christ took our fallen nature (including Edward Irving, Karl Barth, and Colin Gunton). I think it would be good for some historians and theologians to explore their thought and how it compares with the thought of Adventists who share this perspective.

There remain strong emotions and convictions, however.

Some on the “right” still speak of “apostasy” (Larry Kirkpatrick and the Standishes, for example)–even though M. L. Andreasen himself apologized for his actions (which had led to the revocation of his ministerial credentials).

Some who would describe themselves as “liberals,” “evangelicals,” or perhaps even “centrists,” on the other hand, are convinced that the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a whole has rightly moved away from the teachings defended by M. L. Andreasen (the leading critic of Questions on Doctrine in the 1950s) and Herbert Douglass (who has defended the same views throughout his career of denominational employment).

To the latter group I have a question. If these ideas are to be seen as belonging to the “lunatic fringe” (a term used by Donald Barnhouse, supposedly quoting L. E. Froom), and have no place in Adventist thought, why then do books advocating them continue to be sold by Adventist Book Centers, and published by Adventist publishers? I’m thinking of books like Andreasen’s, The Sanctuary Service, the main source for his “last generation theology,” still published by the Review & Herald, and Douglass’s, Why Jesus Waits, still published by Pacific Press. Douglass said that the section on the book of Hebrews in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary was also Andreasen’s work (no word on whether this was impacted in the later revised edition).

Rather than seeking to lop off one side or the other, is it not better to acknowledge that the General Conference in session has never taken an official stand on the controverted details, and thus there is room for debate within the church? And that such debate must not divide the church, nor detract it from its mission–a concern expressed recently by GC President Jan Paulson.

Of course we can gain victory, but that will not be by settling the precise human nature of Christ; it will be by experiencing the “power of His resurrection”. It will not be by the power of His example; it will be by the “power of his resurrection”, for in that lies the power to live a new life. Let us strive in our preaching, teaching, and writing to direct the attention of our people to the Risen One, for he can work wonders in our lives.

I say to you as leaders: We have the statement of 28 Fundamental Beliefs. They hold together our core identity in terms of faith and doctrine. Resist any tendency to pluck out strains from any of these and make them into a separate and new doctrine which will divide the Seventh-day Adventist global community! We are in such a rapid global growth today as a church, and to me it is important that we have the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, as stated, understood and held to by all the new members who are joining us. That in itself is a monumental task. The wonderful fact that we are growing rapidly around the globe is also our great challenge, and we cannot afford to become distracted.

I think the conference at Andrews, by calling constantly for humility, by bringing us daily to our knees, by ending with us washing each others’ feet and sharing in Christ’s broken body and shed blood, showed us that while we can continue to discuss and study, the way forward is as brothers and sisters who have a shared message to tell to the world.

See also Initial Reflections on QOD Conference and Richard Rice on QOD.

Revising the History of AIDS

New research shows HIV came to US in 1969 from Haiti.

Richard Rice on QOD

Richard Rice (one of my professors at Loma Linda) blogged daily about the QOD conference at the Spectrum blog (I only learned of this at the end of the conference, as I spent very little time on-line during the week, only enough to check my mail). It’s a good starting place if you want to know what went on.

• Bulletin Number One
• Bulletin Number Two
• Bulletin Number Three
• Bulletin Number Four

Reflections on the QOD Conference–1

I’m home. I pulled into my driveway after midnight last night, ending a journey that took me through five states in one day (from Michigan, through Indiana, to MDW in Illinois, a short stop in St. Louis, Missouri, and home to Texas). I’m exhausted, and the experiences of the past week will take a long time to unpack and sort through.

I went to Andrews University for a conference on the 50th anniversary of the book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. It was a time for me to catch up on theological conversations, as well as to reconnect with old friends. I saw a former professor, a former fellow student, fellow AUC alumni, an old friend of my wife, some blog readers, a current church member, some other Houstonians, and folks whose writings I first read thirty years ago.

I’ll have a lengthier post about the content of the weekend (that might not be for a few days). The highlights of the conference were first, that it happened. Two young scholars, Julius Nam and Michael Campbell, succeeded at something that an older generation never attempted: bringing together a wide diversity of protagonists to talk face to face with one another about subjects they have spent years writing about (often very emotionally). The background to this includes Julius Nam’s 2005 Ph.D. dissertation (Reactions to the Seventh-day Adventist Evangelical Conferences and Questions on Doctrine, 1955-1971), and the publishing in 2003 of the annotated edition of QOD (through the efforts of Ron Knott, Director of Andrews University Press, and George Knight, recently retired from the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary). It was evident throughout the conference that all the participants benefited from the historical research done by Julius and George, which has given us a common understanding of what happened 50 years ago, and what mistakes were made by people of all sides.

This was a week of prayer. Each day began with prayer, and messages urging us to unity, humility, and Christian brotherhood. The conference ended Sabbath morning with footwashing, communion, and a sermon by Angel Rodriguez urging us to step back from arguing to stand in awe and wonder at the foot of the manger–before taking up again that debate. This was a conference of scholars. Scholars do debate. But we can’t forget that mysteries ultimately need to be wondered at, not explained. Theology must begin and end in doxology.

That these diverse viewpoints and differing personalities were able to come together in the hoped-for spirit of prayer and Christian dialogue reflects well on the planners, the sponsors, and the participants. Perhaps (as is usually the case at academic conferences) the times of breaking of bread (in the cafeteria and in homes) were as significant as the papers read and discussed. I engaged in table talk with Russell and Colin Standish, David Larson, Herb Douglass, and countless others. Getting to know one another, getting a sense of the real person and not just the writer, is an essential step toward understanding. All debaters have a tendency to get caught up in the argument and to forget the flesh and blood people who are represented by footnotes and strawmen. Conversation about family and friends, sorrows and joys, can help to overcome that.

All issues were not resolved. Strong opinions remain. But some issues were raised and some insights obtained that will generate further reflection and study.

It was a great week–but I’m happy to be home.

Part two (Which I’m now reposting here for your convenience).

Some further reflection on the questions discussed at the recent conference at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the 50th Anniversary of Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine.

Adventists leaders published the book in response to conversations with Donald G. Barnhouse and Walter Martin; these answers satisfied the evangelicals, but caused multiple controversies within Adventism over the years. An annotated edition of the book with a very helpful historical introduction by George Knight was republished in 2003; the original edition can be read on-line.

Reflecting on this from the perspective of having been away from Adventism for over two decades, having studied at Lutheran and Catholic institutions of higher education, it seems to me that the different parties have more in common than I think they realize or want to admit. All agree Christ was fully human and fully divine, and that his humanity was affected by heredity, and was the weakened, mortal flesh we share. All agree he is substitute and example. All agree as a high priest he is able to sympathize with our weaknesses. They all agree he could have sinned (something Catholic and most Protestant theologians would deny), but never wavered. All agree that while we are born separated from God, his relationship with the Father and the Spirit was never broken. All agree that Seventh-day Adventists are fully Arminian. All agree that Jesus is coming and that there will be a time of trouble and that those who live through it will have a very intense experience that will require them to cling closely to Christ. All agree, I think, that the Holy Spirit will continue to uphold them.

There are issues that undergird the differences that need further exploration. Some self described “evangelicals” are comfortable using the term “original sin.” The phrase was stricken from an early draft of QOD but the idea remained. It isn’t found in earlier Adventist theology and doesn’t appear in official Adventist publications after this. Both liberals, like David Larson, and conservatives, like his recently deceased father, Ralph Larson, have problems with it. This raises a number of questions when we speak both about Christ’s inheritance and ours. What is the nature of sin? What exactly do we inherit? If sin isn’t inherited guilt (as Catholics teach), is it some sort of “substance” or “infection” that can be passed along, as some Protestants seem to suggest? Or is it better spoken of as a broken relationship and acts of the will? David Larson asked whether we might be operating with an understanding of the human person derived more from Aristotle and Plato than from the Bible.

There wasn’t much discussion of the larger Christian history of discussion about these issues. Douglass and an Evangelical scholar, Donald Dayton, pointed out that many theologians have shared a belief that Christ took our fallen nature (including Edward Irving, Karl Barth, and Colin Gunton). I think it would be good for some historians and theologians to explore their thought and how it compares with the thought of Adventists who share this perspective.

There remain strong emotions and convictions, however.

Some on the “right” still speak of “apostasy” (Larry Kirkpatrick and the Standishes, for example)–even though M. L. Andreasen himself apologized for his actions (which had led to the revocation of his ministerial credentials).

Some who would describe themselves as “liberals,” “evangelicals,” or perhaps even “centrists,” on the other hand, are convinced that the Seventh-day Adventist Church as a whole has rightly moved away from the teachings defended by M. L. Andreasen (the leading critic of Questions on Doctrine in the 1950s) and Herbert Douglass (who has defended the same views throughout his career of denominational employment).

To the latter group I have a question. If these ideas are to be seen as belonging to the “lunatic fringe” (a term used by Donald Barnhouse, supposedly quoting L. E. Froom), and have no place in Adventist thought, why then do books advocating them continue to be sold by Adventist Book Centers, and published by Adventist publishers? I’m thinking of books like Andreasen’s, The Sanctuary Service, the main source for his “last generation theology,” still published by the Review & Herald, and Douglass’s, Why Jesus Waits, still published by Pacific Press. Douglass said that the section on the book of Hebrews in the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary was also Andreasen’s work (no word on whether this was impacted in the later revised edition).

Rather than seeking to lop off one side or the other, is it not better to acknowledge that the General Conference in session has never taken an official stand on the controverted details, and thus there is room for debate within the church? And that such debate must not divide the church, nor detract it from its mission–a concern expressed recently by GC President Jan Paulson.

Of course we can gain victory, but that will not be by settling the precise human nature of Christ; it will be by experiencing the “power of His resurrection”. It will not be by the power of His example; it will be by the “power of his resurrection”, for in that lies the power to live a new life. Let us strive in our preaching, teaching, and writing to direct the attention of our people to the Risen One, for he can work wonders in our lives.

I say to you as leaders: We have the statement of 28 Fundamental Beliefs. They hold together our core identity in terms of faith and doctrine. Resist any tendency to pluck out strains from any of these and make them into a separate and new doctrine which will divide the Seventh-day Adventist global community! We are in such a rapid global growth today as a church, and to me it is important that we have the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, as stated, understood and held to by all the new members who are joining us. That in itself is a monumental task. The wonderful fact that we are growing rapidly around the globe is also our great challenge, and we cannot afford to become distracted.

I think the conference at Andrews, by calling constantly for humility, by bringing us daily to our knees, by ending with us washing each others’ feet and sharing in Christ’s broken body and shed blood, showed us that while we can continue to discuss and study, the way forward is as brothers and sisters who have a shared message to tell to the world.

The FBI and Torture

Steve Bergstein tells the horrific story of the ordeal suffered by Abdallah Higazy, who was coerced into a false “confession” after 9-11 by an FBI agent who threatened that he would have Egyptian security forces torture his family.

The long and the short of it was that an Egpytian national, Abdallah Higazy, was staying in a hotel in New York City on September 11 and the hotel emptied out when the planes hit the towers. The hotel later found in the closet of his room a device that allows you to communicate with airline pilots. Investigators thought this guy had something to do with 9/11 so they questioned him. According to Higazi, the investigators coerced him into confessing to a role in 9/11. Higazi first adamantly denied any involvement with 9/11 and could not believe what was happening to him. Then, he says, the investigator said his family would go through hell in Egypt, where they torture people like Saddam Hussein. Higazy then realized he had a choice: he could continue denying the radio was his and his family suffers ungodly torture in Egypt or he confesses and his family is spared. Of course, by confessing, Higazy’s life is worth garbage at that point, but … well, that’s why coerced confessions are outlawed in the United States.

So Higazy “confesses” and he’s processed by the criminal justice system. His future is quite bleak. Meanwhile, an airline pilot later shows up at the hotel and asks for his radio back. This is like something out of the movies. The radio belonged to the pilot, not Higazy, and Higazy was free to go, the victim of horrible timing. Higazi was innocent! He next sued the hotel and the FBI agent for coercing his confession. The bottom line in the Court of Appeals: Higazy has a case and may recover damages for this injustice.

As I read the opinion I realized it was a 44 page epic, too long for me to print out. I blogged about the opinion while I read it online and then posted the blog as I ate lunch. Then something strange happened: a few minutes after I posted the blog, the opinion vanished from the Court of Appeals website! I had never seen this before, and what made all the more strange was that it involved a coerced confession over 9/11. What the hell was going on?

I let some other legal bloggers know about this, particulary the How Appealing blog and Appellate Law and Practice. They both ran a commentary on the missing opinion. Then someone sent How Appealing a PDF of the decision (probably very few of them were floating around since the opinion was posted for a brief period of time) and How Appealing posted the decison.

Then things got even stranger. The Court of Appeals actually phoned How Appealing to request that he remove the opinion from his website since it contained classified information. The Court said that a revised opinion would come out the next day without the classified information. How Appealing actually refused to remove the opinion. Through it all, hundreds of people came to my legal blog to see my summary of the opinion. It was either my blog or printing out and reading a 44 page epic.

The next day, the Court of Appeals reissued the Higazy opinion. With a redaction. The court simply omitted from the revised decision facts about how the FBI agent extracted the false confession from Higazy. For some reason, this information is classified. Just as the opinion gets interesting, when we are about to learn how an FBI agent named Templeton squeezed the “truth” out of Higazy, the opinion reads at page 7: “This opinion has been redacted because portions of the record are under seal. For the purposes of the summary judgment motion, Templeton did not contest that Higazy’s statements were coerced.”

So the opinion, while interesting, is much less interesting because now we don’t know how the FBI extracts false confessions from people. Looking at things from another angle, we don’t know how the FBI gets suspected terrorists to tell the truth. Except that we do know this, because the opinion is still available from the How Appealing website. The horse is out of the barn, and the classified portion of the opinion is embedded in the Internet for all eternity. Not only is this decision not to remove the premature opinion now a subject of debate (people tend to think that How Appealing did the right thing in keeping the opinion available), but now we can see the part of the ruling that the Court redacted:

Higazy alleges that during the polygraph, Templeton told him that he should cooperate, and explained that if Higazy did not cooperate, the FBI would make his brother “live in scrutiny” and would “make sure that Egyptian security gives [his] family hell.” Templeton later admitted that he knew how the Egyptian security forces operated: “that they had a security service, that their laws are different than ours, that they are probably allowed to do things in that country where they don’t advise people of their rights, they don’t – yeah, probably about torture, sure.”Higazy later said, “I knew that I couldn’t prove my innocence, and I knew that my family was in danger.” He explained that “[t]he only thing that went through my head was oh, my God, I am screwed and my family’s in danger. If I say this device is mine, I’m screwed and my family is going to be safe. If I say this device is not mine, I’m screwed and my family’s in danger. And Agent Templeton made it quite clear that cooperate had to mean saying something else other than this device is not mine.”

Higazy explained why he feared for his family:

The Egyptian government has very little tolerance for anybody who is —they’re suspicious of being a terrorist. To give you an idea, Saddam’s security force—as they later on were called his henchmen—a lot of them learned their methods and techniques in Egypt; torture, rape, some stuff would be even too sick to . . . . My father is 67. My mother is 61. I have a brother who developed arthritis at 19. He still has it today. When the word ‘torture’ comes at least for my brother, I mean, all they have to do is really just press on one of these knuckles. I couldn’t imagine them doing anything to my sister.

And Higazy added:

[L]et’s just say a lot of people in Egypt would stay away from a family that they know or they believe or even rumored to have anything to do with terrorists and by the same token, some people who actually could be —might try to get to them and somebody might actually make a connection. I wasn’t going to risk that. I wasn’t going to risk that, so I thought to myself what could I say that he would believe. What could I say that’s convincing? And I said okay.

That’s how they do it, folks. If a foreign national is suspected of terrorist activity, the FBI will threaten to have a brutal foreign government punish his family. And punishment in a place like Egypt is not like punishment here. Punishment here consists of solitary confinement and a very long prison term. Punishment over there is torture.

Hat Tip: This Modern World, via Mark Shea.

See also New York Times.

“Itching Ears”

2 Timothy 3:1-5–”This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

2 Timothy 4:3-4–”For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

2 Peter 3:16-17–[Speaking of Paul's epistles] “in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.”

All these Biblical verses and more can apply to a new movie, “For the Bible Tells Me So,” directed by Daniel Karslake–the point of the film is to twist Scripture to provide divine blessing for homosexuality. CitizenLink.

The pattern is familiar–take every reference to homosexual acts in Old Testament and New and say, “It doesn’t really mean that.” Or, “The radical imperative of the Gospel goes beyond that.”

A Christian hermeneutic must start with God’s intention for man in creation–one man, one woman, given to each other, given the command to cleave to one another, and to be fruitful and multiply. Marriage is an institution in creation, grounded in the very being of man and woman, in their physical complementarity and longing for communion. All Biblical law, Old Testament and New, is rooted in this affirmation.

We are in the last days. When Christians can twist Scripture in such a way as to deny its most basic teachings about humanity, it is clear that the cup of iniquity has been filled to overflowing. When Christianity is demonized, and made to be a scapegoat because of the guilt that sinners feel, when they rush to silence its voice rather than repent of their sin, we must recognize that time is reaching its end. To those who feel oppressed by sin, to those who feel convicted by the law, we as Christians must say all the more fervently: There is hope. It comes not from denying your sin. It comes not from turning the law around to say something else. It comes not from urging a form of love which accepts any action. Rather, hope comes in the promise that there is forgiveness for everyone who repents. Turn from your sin, hear the good news–Jesus Christ will forgive you, and make you whole.

Michigan in the Morning

I’m heading off to Berrien Springs, MI, tomorrow for a conference on the 50th anniversary of the publication of the book, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. The questions were asked by Walter Martin and Donald Barnhouse. The answers were given by some folks in the Ministerial department of the General Conference. Not everyone was happy with the answers.

I’ll be able to meet some fellow bloggers and some old friends and get caught up on some theological conversations.

Is the President under the Law?

Yale Law School professor Jed Rubenfeld comments on the confirmation testimony of Michael Mukasey.

According to Judge Mukasey’s statement, as well as other parts of his testimony, the president’s authority “to defend the nation” trumps his obligation to obey the law. Take the federal statute governing military commissions in Guantánamo Bay. No one, including the president’s lawyers, argues that this statute is unconstitutional. The only question is whether the president is required to obey it even if in his judgment the statute is not the best way “to defend the nation.”

If he is not, we no longer live under the government the founders established.

Under the American Constitution, federal statutes, not executive decisions in the name of national security, are “the supreme law of the land.” It’s that simple. So long as a statute is constitutional, it is binding on everyone, including the president.

The president has no supreme, exclusive or trumping authority to “defend the nation.” In fact, the Constitution uses the words “provide for the common defense” in its list of the powers of Congress, not those of the president. …
If Judge Mukasey cannot say plainly that the president must obey a valid statute, he ought not to be the nation’s next attorney general.

“Deliverance” and Iraq

Unsettling commentary in Newsweek by Christopher Dickey comparing the movie, “Deliverance” (written by his father), to US involvement in Iraq. It’s Dick Cheney as Lewis Medlock. My hard copy just came in the mail, and I read it over lunch.

In the end, though, it is not the übermensch [Lewis, played by Burt Reynolds] who offers deliverance from the nasty, brutish horrors of the river and the men of the forest. It is the perfectly ordinary man, the just-getting-by guy, Ed Gentry (Jon Voight), who transcends himself to survive. He is not inspired by a vision of the future, he does not aspire to be tested by man and nature. He’s motivated by fear, pure and simple, and his desire to return to his normal life without that fear.

In the early parts of the story, Ed thinks Lewis is a little nuts, but he’s fascinated by the idea that Lewis might be right about—something—he’s not sure what. Obsessions like those of Lewis Medlock can create their own charisma, inspiring fear while pretending to resist it. Untested ersatz fortitude often looks impressive. The other businessmen from Atlanta, the soft-spoken Drew (Ronny Cox) and porcine Bobby (Ned Beatty), think Lewis is a lot nuts. In fact, they think he’s dangerous. And they’re right.

Me, I think Lewis is Vice President Dick Cheney’s closet fantasy of himself, and as such, a sort of model for the Bush administration as a whole. And Ed, he’s about the rest of us, just scared and trying to get by. And the river? That’s the war in Iraq.

Traditional Anglicans Seek Union with Rome

The bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion (claiming 500,000 members) are seeking reunion with Rome.

The Legionaries of Christ

The Legionaries of Christ are suing a noted critic, former Legionary priest John Paul Lennon (REGAIN), demanding that he return certain secret documents, including the order’s constitution, norms for etiquette, etc. Why these things should be secret in the first place is a mystery.

Reportedly, the Vatican has directed the order to get rid of a couple of secrets–its private vows:

1. Never to desire, seek or scheme to obtain responsibilities or positions in the congregation for himself or others. …

2. Never to criticize externally the acts of government or the person of any director or superior of the congregation by word, in writing or any other way. And if he knows for certain that a religious has broken this commitment, to inform the latter’s immediate superior.

Links: Life-After-RC, National Catholic Reporter article, Washington Post.

Rudy Giuliani and Msgr. Alan Placa

ABC reports: Guiliani Defends, Employs Priest Accused of Molesting Teens. It’s not a new story: AP October 4, CNA June 28, Salon June 22, Blog Feb 25. Giuliani continues to claim his high school pal has been “unjustly accused.”

Msgr. Alan Placa was not only accused of molestation as a priest, but was also a lawyer, and vice-chancellor of the Diocese of Rockville Center (one of the most notoriously liberal dioceses in the 80s and 90s), and responsible for investigating accusations of sexual abuse against other priests (and assisting other dioceses). Placa has been on leave for five years, but continues to live in a rectory, and is still listed as a “priest in residence.”

Placa has been accused of high handed and deceptive tactics in his role as investigator:

Several families, for instance, have accused him of trying to extract information from victims in his capacity as a spiritual adviser, then using that information to help the diocesan legal strategy.

“He wore the collar when it was appropriate, and he took it off when it wasn’t,” said Cary Scott Goldinger, a lawyer in Garden City who has represented several clients who accuse priests of abuse. Monsignor Placa has denied doing that.

In recent months, some families have also focused on Monsignor Placa’s connection to the House of Affirmation in Whitinsville, Mass., a now-defunct treatment center for troubled priests that became the target of at least two lawsuits charging sexual abuse, and numerous other lawsuits charging financial improprieties in the 1980’s.

In one of the abuse cases, Mark Barry of Uxbridge, Mass., said he had been molested repeatedly as a child in the 1970’s by several priests engaged in a child sex ring, chiefly the Rev. Thomas A. Kane, the executive director of the House of Affirmation. Court papers in the lawsuit against Father Kane; the bishop of Worcester, Mass.; and the House of Affirmation show that the first person Father Kane contacted when learning about Mr. Barry’s accusations was not a local lawyer, but Monsignor Placa.

In an interview, Monsignor Placa said he did serve as a legal consultant on the case, which was filed in 1993. He said one of the people who was on the House of Affirmation’s board of directors was another Long Island priest and longtime friend, Msgr. Brendan Riordan.

Riordan is pastor of the parish where Placa now lives–they have owned several properties together.

Update: Rod Dreher comments.

The Atlanta Drought

Rod Dreher on the drought in Atlanta. He links to a New York Times article on how Atlanta has fiddled while the water supply has dropped.

The response to the worst drought on record in the Southeast has unfolded in ultra-slow motion. All summer, more than a year after the drought began, fountains sprayed and football fields were watered, prisoners got two showers a day and Coca-Cola’s bottling plants chugged along at full strength. On an 81-degree day this month, an outdoor theme park [Stone Mountain] began to manufacture what was intended to be a 1.2-million-gallon mountain of snow.

By September, with the lake forecast to dip into the dregs of its storage capacity in less than four months, the state imposed a ban on outdoor water use.

Golf courses continue to be watered, as they are designated as “agricultural.”

Further north, Duke University and University of North Carolina continue to water their Astroturf. Responded a coach, “We made a commitment that we would not water at our homes.”

Planned Parenthood’s Abortion Statistics

Marcel Lejeune has a statistician friend take a look at a recent Planned Parenthood report on abortion worldwide, and finds some problems in their methodology.

Moral Equivalency?

Many Catholic apologists are pointing to the recent story about sexual abuse in public schools and crowing–”See, you can’t fault celibacy or anything else unique about the priesthood! Schools have the same problem!”

But do they? Is it the same problem?

AP reports 2,570 cases of teachers being removed for sex-related problems (out of 3,000,000 teachers). 1,801 of those cases involved “young people” (not defined)–80% of those were students–or 1,400 cases.

So, that’s 1,400 of the 3,000,000 teachers who’ve been working the past five years. Catholic numbers are 4,400 of 110,000 priests who’ve been in service over the past 50 years.

The report doesn’t break down the cases by sex. Some involve female teachers with 16 (or 17 or 18) year old male students, but the report says (not surprisingly) that most of the teachers are male.

Among these are cases like Stephen Murmer, fired for painting with his butt (despite the fact he did all he could to keep his painting career separate from his school teaching).

Can these instances really be compared with what has happened in the Catholic Church? No. The Catholic problem isn’t just about priests who want to have sex with young people under 18. It’s about homosexual priests who prey overwhelmingly among young men, mainly teenagers. It’s about a culture of homosexuality that has pervaded many seminaries and dioceses and religious orders … that sought to change Catholic teaching on morals … about homosexual priests and bishops who covered up for one another … about bishops who moved offenders again, and again, and again, and again. And it was all being done by people who supposedly had an “indelible character,” recipients of a sacrament that supposedly gave them an extra helping of the Holy Spirit, who were believed to speak with divine authority. And how many of those bishops have been removed …?

Is that what’s happening here? It doesn’t sound like it. Still evil–but it isn’t the Catholic problem.

So you don’t forget all that’s involved in the unique Catholic scandal, see Roman Catholic Faithful, BishopAccountability.org, and Goodbye, Good Men.

Civil Disobedience …?

UCC Leaders John Thomas and Linda Jaramillo got themselves arrested at the White House last week, as they planned. It wasn’t for trying to deliver a petition, but for protesting in a security zone that was off limits to protesting, “when their request for a meeting with the White House’s public liaison office was refused.” All they had to do was give the petition to the guard and walk away. But that wouldn’t have gotten them publicity. Was this civil disobedience? No. They weren’t protesting the rules about where they could protest. They weren’t claiming that was an unjust law. Articles: Adventist Review, American Spectator, UU World.

Emergent Event in Austin

There was an Emergent event in Austin this weekend. Here’s a recap.

On Marriage and Family

Some Seventh-day Adventist statements on marriage and family:

From the Fundamental Beliefs:

Marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus to be a lifelong union between a man and a woman in loving companionship. For the Christian a marriage commitment is to God as well as to the spouse, and should be entered into only between partners who share a common faith. Mutual love, honor, respect, and responsibility are the fabric of this relationship, which is to reflect the love, sanctity, closeness, and permanence of the relationship between Christ and His church. Regarding divorce, Jesus taught that the person who divorces a spouse, except for fornication, and marries another, commits adultery. Although some family relationships may fall short of the ideal, marriage partners who fully commit themselves to each other in Christ may achieve loving unity through the guidance of the Spirit and the nurture of the church. God blesses the family and intends that its members shall assist each other toward complete maturity. Parents are to bring up their children to love and obey the Lord. By their example and their words they are to teach them that Christ is a loving disciplinarian, ever tender and caring, who wants them to become members of His body, the family of God. Increasing family closeness is one of the earmarks of the final gospel message. (Gen. 2:18-25; Matt. 19:3-9; John 2:1-11; 2 Cor. 6:14; Eph. 5:21-33; Matt. 5:31, 32; Mark 10:11, 12; Luke 16:18; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11; Ex. 20:12; Eph. 6:1-4; Deut. 6:5-9; Prov. 22:6; Mal. 4:5, 6.)

An Affirmation of Marriage

Issues related to marriage can be seen in their true light only as they are viewed against the background of the divine ideal for marriage. Marriage was divinely established in Eden and affirmed by Jesus Christ to be both monogamous and heterosexual, a lifelong union of loving companionship between a man and a woman. In the culmination of His creative activity, God fashioned humankind as male and female in His own image; and He instituted marriage, a covenant-based union of the two genders physically, emotionally, and spiritually, spoken of in Scripture as “one flesh.”

Arising from the diversity of the two human genders, the oneness of marriage images in a singular way the unity within diversity of the Godhead. Throughout Scripture, the heterosexual union in marriage is elevated as a symbol of the bond between Deity and humanity. It is a human witness to God’s self-giving love and covenant with His people. The harmonious affiliation of a man and a woman in marriage provides a microcosm of social unity that is time-honored as a core ingredient of stable societies. Further, the Creator intended married sexuality not only to serve a unitive purpose, but to provide for the propagation and perpetuation of the human family. In the divine purpose, procreation springs from and is entwined with the same process whereby husband and wife may find joy, pleasure and physical completeness. It is to a husband and wife whose love has enabled them to know each other in a deep sexual bond that a child may be entrusted. Their child is a living embodiment of their oneness. The growing child thrives in the atmosphere of married love and unity in which he or she was conceived and has the benefit of a relationship with each of the natural parents.

The monogamous union in marriage of a man and a woman is affirmed as the divinely ordained foundation of the family and social life and the only morally appropriate locus of genital or related intimate sexual expression. However, the estate of marriage is not God’s only plan for the meeting of human relational needs or for knowing the experience of family. Singleness and the friendship of singles are within the divine design as well. The companionship and support of friends looms in importance in both biblical testaments. The fellowship of the Church, the household of God, is available to all regardless of their married state. Scripture, however, places a solid demarcation socially and sexually between such friendship relations and marriage.

To this biblical view of marriage the Seventh-day Adventist Church adheres without reservation, believing that any lowering of this high view is to that extent a lowering of the heavenly ideal. Because marriage has been corrupted by sin, the purity and beauty of marriage as it was designed by God needs to be restored. Through an appreciation of the redemptive work of Christ and the work of His Spirit in human hearts, the original purpose of marriage may be recovered and the delightful and wholesome experience of marriage realized by a man and a woman who join their lives in the marriage covenant.

Related statements:

• An  Affirmation of Family
• On Sexual Behavior
• On Homosexuality
• On Same-Sex Unions

“Do You Like Pina Coladas and Getting Caught in the Rain …?”

As in the song, on-line chatters meet–and get a surprise. “Sweetie” and “Prince of Joy” found each other in a chat room, and each was amazed to find someone who was very sympathetic to their marital problems. They arranged a meeting–and were shocked to discover that they had been chatting with their own spouses. Sana and Adnan Klaric are now suing for divorce, accusing each other of being unfaithful.

Man Cited for Flag Burning in San Antonio

David Bohmfalk was cited for burning a flag–a Mexican flag–in front of the Alamo.

Authorities say his actions left some of the Mexican nationals in the Alamo crowd feeling burned. However, Bohmfalk’s attorney, Jason Jakob, says, freedom of speech is Bohmfalk’s constitutional right.

“My client felt so strongly, and exercised protest, by burning that flag,” Jakob said.

Bohmfalk says while he was detained by police, he was harassed, his life was threatened, and he was even assaulted by some tourists who spit on him. Ironically, all these offenses are punishable by law. Jakob says flag burning is not.

“In America, every day we see people burning the American flag and it’s become desensitized,” Jakob said. “If we can allow that, we can certainly say that the Mexican flag can be burned.”

As a former Texas police chief and military veteran, Bohmfalk says he knows his rights, and is fighting for them.

“Why should a foreign flag get any better protection than the American flag?” he said.

Hat tip: Kesher Talk.

Update: Prosecutors have dropped the charges. Not good enough, says his lawyer.

“Catholic Fascism: 1930s Austria”

Gerald Augustinus writes about the “clerical fascism” of Austria (which he compares to Spain, Portugal, Hungary and Croatia). He speaks of his family’s own experience, and concludes:

While the Church has benefited from the American model of separation of church and state, it had to be dragged there kicking and screaming. …

So next time someone knocks America’s “Calvinist” or “Enlightenment” ideas, institutions and so forth….think of how America kept the domestic Catholic Church “honest”, so to speak.

In previous posts, he commented on Fr. Charles Coughlin (antisemitic priest who was silenced by FDR because of his pro-Nazi radio broadcasts) and on a Richard John Neuhaus article on strange bedfellows.

Sexual Abuse Crisis in the Schools

Sexual Misconduct Plagues US Schools; AP Finds 2,500 Teachers Punished in 5 Years.

Young people were the victims in at least 1,801 of the cases, and more than 80 percent of those were students. At least half the educators who were punished by their states also were convicted of crimes related to their misconduct.

The findings draw obvious comparisons to sex abuse scandals in other institutions, among them the Roman Catholic Church. A review by America’s Catholic bishops found that about 4,400 of 110,000 priests were accused of molesting minors from 1950 through 2002.

Clergy abuse is part of the national consciousness after a string of highly publicized cases. But until now, there’s been little sense of the extent of educator abuse.

Beyond the horror of individual crimes, the larger shame is that the institutions that govern education have only sporadically addressed a problem that’s been apparent for years.

I don’t recall having seen that 4,400 figure for priests. That’s 4%–a staggering figure.

An Invitation

If you are in Houston, I invite you to come to Houston International any evening this week for an evangelistic series, “Now Is the Time … to Come to Jesus.” The evangelist is Cesar Cardenas of Medellin, Colombia. 7:30 p.m. nightly.

Ecclesia Plantanda

Ecclesia Plantanda–”the church must be planted”–was the motto of Henry Melchior Muhlenberg, the patriarch of American Lutheranism. I learned it at Gettysburg Lutheran Seminary, but that was the only reference to church planting in my seminary career–and it didn’t get that much mention in my undergraduate education at Atlantic Union College.

Times have changed. Church planting is the hottest topic in evangelism today, getting 1,190,000 hits on Google.

The Texas Conference is the leader in church planting in the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, it has been said. It’s central to the vision of my senior pastor, Kendall Turcios. During my first staff meeting with him, he handed me a half dozen books, including Russell Burrill, Rekindling a Lost Passion: Recreating a Church Planting Movement. Today we hosted an area wide church planting conference, and heard testimonies from several new plants. The main speaker for the day was that same Russell Burrill.

I’ve been giving some thought to this, as I’ve noticed that our English speaking churches are in the suburbs–yet Houston’s young adult population is in neighborhoods like Westchase, Galleria, Uptown, Montrose, Medical Center, and Rice Military. Time for us to plant a church within the loop if we are serious about evangelizing young adults.

Harry Potter. Again.

So. While Jo Rowling now is more comfortable talking about her spiritual beliefs as they appear in the books, and has satisfied some Christians, she’s now thrown down the gauntlet in another direction–telling an audience than Dumbledore is gay and had a thing with Grindelwald. I’m just shaking my head wondering why in the world she felt it necessary to say that.

“Problematic Texts”?

Should interfaith dialogue be about explaining away passages that make others uncomfortable? Is that dialogue, or unconditional surrender and relativism?