Angst! Angst! Angst!

It would be one thing if people held opinions that differed from my own that I could respectfully agree with. It is quite another when they are madmen who in a just world would be shouted down from the rooftops. Trading Milton Bradley for Carlos Silva plus cash is so monumentally stupid that I question the sanity of anyone who would suggest such a thing.

In other news that makes me only mildly annoyed instead of inappropriately enraged, a close friend of mine believes something incorrect about a tongue twister. I will not share his name here, because I do not want potential future employers googling his name only to find out this career-threatening information.

Here is what he said:

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would[sic] chuck wood?
A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck would if a woodchuck would[sic] chuck wood.

Clearly, this is insane. For the following reasons:

1. It is completely meaningless, perhaps even Nihilistic if I knew what that meant. You are saying that "A=A" which, while true, does not need saying. If I asked "How much will it snow today?", it does me no good for you to say "As much as it will if it does". Or if I asked you "How many sugars do you want in your coffee?", it does me no good for you to reply "As many as I want". You are no Zen master.

2. It besmirches the industriousness of woodchucks. Woodchucks are fastidious animals. We can learn from them and follow their example. They would chuck as much wood as they possibly could, but due to the harsh physical and biochemical laws which govern the Universe, they do not have the physical capability to do so. To say that they would chuck as much as they would implies that the only thing stopping them is their will.

This is the best use of my time probably ever.

Stupidest Thing Lately Heard

I'm watching the pregame show before the Packers VS Bears game. Howie Long decides to sermonize about Drew Brees, who does a chant before he plays his games. Howie says something about how the troops love it, and that it is no coincidence that the Saints are 12-0.

Why are the Saints undefeated? Because Drew Brees does a chant for the troops and the people of New Orleans still devastated by Hurricane Katrina.

Long goes on to say, "Do you hear that, Wall Street? Greed isn't good. Peyton Manning and Charles Woodson have donated millions of dollars to children's hospitals. It is no coincidence that they are both having MVP-caliber seasons."

Why are Payton Manning and Charles Woodson playing well? Because they donate money to charity.

Why is Rome strong? Because of their superior virtue.

The Latest Facebook Attack on Conservative Values

By now you should all be aware of the ways facebook is undermining society with their recommendations of bands I don't like and their ads with pictures of girls with structurally unsound shirts. This is their latest:



I know absolutely no one else in the world is bothered by this. But I continue to carry the socially conservative fiscally liberal banner. For the children.

Emmy Rossum is totally pretty so shut up

There's something about Special Knowledge that makes people feel cool. You know something that other people don't- that makes you special, unique, different. It makes you chosen. You can exploit this knowledge to your advantage- you are powerful. I'd like to examine three variations on this theme, two of which I will rail against with the snarky invective that all the kids are doing these days, one of which I engage in myself.

1. Emmy Rossum is totally pretty so shut up.

This is actually a reference to an old movie review I read for the movie The Phantom of The Opera. The reviewer said that they recommended the movie because they really liked the actress (Emmy Rossum) who played Christine. Unlike those other actresses like Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan who are vain, conceited, self-indulgent, and as ugly on the inside as they are "conventionally beautiful" on the outside, Ms. Rossum has an inner beauty that shines through the prism of her unconventional (yet striking) outer beauty.

Just shut up! Emmy Rossum is so conventionally beautiful that I don't know where to begin. I guess with a picture?



There is another story here about how people accept narratives about people they've never met. Emmy Rossum is maybe very nice. Maybe she's mean. I don't know! But I'm more interested in this kind of Special Knowledge. The reviewer thought he (she?) had special knowledge of Emmy Rossum's beauty. No one else thinks she is beautiful, but I have a secret: I think she's gorgeous.

2. Poker is gambling. Poker is gambling. Poker is gambling.

Last week, I spoke with someone about the World Series of Poker, which is probably the biggest poker tournament in the world. They show it on ESPN all the time. There is a mysterious guy with long hair, sunglasses, and a cowboy hat who throws cards really hard at bananas. There is an Everyman named Chris Moneymaker (!!!) who had a normal white-collar job as an accountant before he entered the WSOP and won the whole thing.

So the guy I was talking to said, "when you think about it, if you really know how to play poker, it's not really gambling. If you know the odds and how to read people, you can control the game, win the game, you can't lose."

Whaaaaaat? There are perhaps a few dozen people in the world who are truly 'professional' poker players. There are thousands who consider themselves good enough to be professional. But even with the odds in your favor, it's still a big risk. No matter how good you are at calculating strategy or reading your opponent, you can't win if you don't get good cards.

In contrast to the Emmy Rossum scenario, I think this kind of Special Knowledge exists, or is true. It is true that some people employ better betting strategies, or can predict how another player will act. But my interest is in how over-emphasized this knowledge is. People may possess it but overestimate its impact.

3. SABR! It began with a bloody 'S'!

SABR is the Society for American Baseball Research. Using well-known baseball statistics like batting average as well as new statistics of their own construction, SABR-metricians, as they are called, seek to explain and investigate the game of baseball using scientific (ish) methods.

And the knowledge that they generate is powerful! Other General Managers of baseball teams don't think that this player is very good, but we know that he's very good. We will get him on our team and have great success, great power. The Oakland Athletics made the playoffs regularly despite having a low payroll because they had this Special Knowledge. They haven't made the playoffs anymore because the beans were spilled, the cat was out of the bag, the Special Knowledge became Common.

I enjoy SABR-metrics because I like that story, and I like answering questions in trustworthy ways. But my fantasy baseball team was very mediocre. Again, perhaps this knowledge is true, but people who have it overestimate its worth.

These are thoughts without conclusions. I'm not exploring how Special Knowledge is good or bad, or the differences between these three cases. I'm just expounding on a subject I've been thinking about lately. But if I had to give any summary, I'd say it's important to know the limits and usefulness of your knowledge.

The Time Has Come to Push the Button

Remember in The Dark Knight where they have two ships rigged with explosives, one full of criminals, the other full of non-felony Gothamites, and provide each of them with buttons that will explode the other ship, sparing themselves? If neither ship presses the button, they both get Blow'd Up after 30 minutes.

I thought that that was the weakest ethical dilemma involving death and buttons that cinema could produce. Until The Box. In The Box, there is a Big Red Button (on top of a box), where if you press it, you get a million dollars. But there's a catch: someone somewhere in the world dies that you don't know. I don't think it's supposed to be a big ethical teaser (so Andrew, please do not disparage me for my weak thesis, ungrounded assumptions, or errors in logic; I am against random murder, Raskolnikov), but it does show a disturbing and growing fascination in America with death and buttons. Or maybe it's just me. The movie is based on a book titled Button, Button. It's from the same guy who wrote I Am Legend. Say it with me: "Well, you know someone else was involved in that movie who in some ways is as famous as Leonardo Di Caprio. And his name is William Shakespeare. And some great movies have been made based on his plays: Hamlet, West Side Story, The Talented Mr. Ripley, Waterworld, Gladiator, Chocolat... "

Anyway, the best out-of-context sentence from the review for The Box:

He poses a lot more questions than he answers, and among the hypotheses you're left with are that Steward was bought back to life by aliens after NASA programs unwittingly alerted them to the humanity's[sic] presence and The Box is their way of testing our mettle before invading us.

I always enjoyed the sci-fi trope that aliens would use advanced technology to test us. I remember a Star Trek: Deep Space Nine book where Jake played a video game that demonstrated wisdom, compassion, and logic to prove to another alien race that humans were ok. Except it wasn't a game- it was real! It was Ender's Game meets Button, Button meets War Games (the only way to win was not to play). Man, if I could have told this story just 60 years ago, I'd be the most famous writer on the planet. And then it would be made into a movie!

Imagine this pithy one-liner from the alien: "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found..." [quick-cut to face] [quick-cut to alien] [quck-cut to face] [quck-cut back to alien] "...wanting." BLAMMMMMMOOOOOOOO.

UPDATE
A poll on facebook asks, "Would you push The Box's red button?". The split is currently 56-44 in favor of not murdering a person for a million dollars.

Romans 4

I've put this off for a looooong time! For that, I apologize. Romans is so big, so important, and so unpackable that it's become a little daunting. I want to cover everything, explain every reference, learn about every illustration, allusion, or point, and I end up doing nothing because there's always more to do. But it's silly to feel like that! If I miss stuff, I can always go back. It's a blog, not a final exam. Shipping is a feature!

I'm encouraged to go ahead with this by three things: a book I checked out intended to be a Bible-study of Romans, a commentary given to me by a friend, and an after-church Bible study I've been attending on Sundays. I'm in different places in Romans in each of these, so if I seem a little scatterbrained or connection-heavy, you'll understand why.

Let's get moving.

Abraham Justified by Faith

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Paul uses two figures from the Old Testament (Abraham and King David) to further emphasize that we are saved through faith, not through our works. Aside from this fundamental point, this section also strengthens the idea that the Old Testament is tied to the New. Christ came not to found a brand new religion, but to serve as the Head and fulfillment of one that had existed since it was first promised to Satan in front of Adam and Eve that one of their offspring "will crush [Satan's] head, and you will strike his heel".

The picture that we are given in this section is one of an accounting book, or ledger, with assets and liabilities. God 'credits' the good things that Christ did into Abraham's account through Abraham's belief in Christ. Abraham's belief in Christ will be discussed a few chapters from now. David also says that God will not count a person's sins against them- they have been covered. We get rid of our liabilities and put them on Christ.

How do we get the right to do this? How do we switch these assets and liabilities? Some people were believing that we somehow earn this righteousness. Paul points out that the Bible doesn't say, "Abraham's belief earned him righteousness". It says "Abraham's belief was credited to him as righteousness".

From my Bible-study book:
1. Why was Abraham's faith not a work that earned the wage of righteousness?

This is a very important question! Sometimes we may think of faith itself as a good work, somewhat akin to helping old ladies cross the street. However, Paul also wrote in Ephesians that "it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God". Abraham's faith was a gift of God, not a work on Abraham's part.

2. In Psalm 32:1-2, David describes what God does when He credits righteousness to a person. How does David describe what God does?

An easy question: he says that God covers a person's sins and doesn't hold them against him. Jesus told this parable in Matthew 18: "the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.

'The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.'"

******************************************

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

This argument might be a little hard to understand if we don't know more details of the life of Abraham. The scripture that Paul was quoting in the section before was from Genesis 15. In it, God promises to give Abraham offspring and land. It's not until two chapters (and 14 years) later in Genesis 17 that he is circumcised. It's not until hundreds of years later that Abraham's descendant Moses will receive the Ten Commandments and the rest of the law. Therefore, Abraham wasn't righteous due to his observation of the law or circumcision- they hadn't been given yet. Instead, Abraham is credited with righteousness through his believing the promises of God: the promises of land, offspring, and a certain member of those offspring named Jesus, the Messiah.

3. Remember the Jews' beliefs about circumcision. Why was it important that God declared Abraham righteous before he was circumcised?

This is important because it meant that salvation is for all people, both circumcised Jews and uncircumcised Gentiles.

4. Circumcision was a sign (pointer) and a seal (outward ratification and guarantee) of the righteousness Abraham had by faith. What are the signs and seals of a Christian's righteousness by faith?

I think the signs can include the fruit of the Spirit spoken of in Galatians 5: "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.". These are outer things that are visible that serve of evidence of faith.

The seals of a Christian's righteousness by faith include the sacraments of baptism and holy communion. In a way, Christ's resurrection and ascension are also seals: they show that the sacrifice given by Jesus did the job.

5. Abraham is the physical forefather of all who are physically Jews. Of whom is he the spiritual forefather?

This is another easy question. Abraham is the spiritual forefather of people who share his belief in God's promises.

**********************
This is 13 verses out of 25. I'll do the remaining half within this blog post, too.

When Marketing Insults

Facebook makes its advertisements change depending on what is in your profile. So if you say you like Sufjan Stevens in your Music section, there will be an ad that says, "This new band sounds just like Sufjan Stevens!" even though the band sounds nothing like Sufjan Stevens.

But if you put in your facebook profile that you are single, you had better be prepared to be reminded of that fact pretty much constantly. Now, I think I've written on here before about the irony involved in an ad that had a woman with a surgically enhanced chest and only the hint of a shirt with a banner reading, "Looking for a Christian girl?", but I would like to take this opportunity to point out another ad for a facebook application called "Zoosk".

This ad involves an attractive woman who definitely is not wearing a shirt, but she is in the process of passing a basketball, so it's kinda PG-13 rated. Are marketing executives so openly disdainful of men 18-25 that they will simply combine two Things Guys Love (naked chicks and sports) and call it a day? Were the lesbians wrestling in beer unavailable? Was it Megan Fox who was going to cost too much money, or was it the Abrams Tank she was going to be driving?

And what is the female equivalent? Surely Zoosk has to market towards women- it's a dating site. Are there men without shirts reading poetry? Men without shirts in a tub filled with gold? Maybe more Vampire stuff? Sexy Vampires playing the piano?

Anyway, I will not be tricked so easily, Zoosk. I am frankly insulted by your ad and will never buy your product. Now if you'll excuse me, the Cubs are on TV and Megan Fox is singing the 7th inning stretch.

Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Peace, peace," and there is no peace!

Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, "Cross, cross," and there is no cross!


TO MICHAEL DRESSEL

Augustinian Prior in Neustadt, whom Luther deposed because he could not keep the peace with the brethren.

June 22, 1516.

Salvation and peace! But not such peace as is manifest to the natural man, but that which lies beneath the cross, viz. the peace which passeth all understanding. Thou art longing for peace, but in the wrong way; for thou seekest it as the world gives it, and not as Christ does. Dost thou know, dear father, that in this matter God deals in a wondrous manner with His people, having placed His peace in the midst of dispeace, nay, in the very thick of temptation and dissensions. “Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.” Therefore it is not he whom no one disturbs who has peace — that is the world’s peace, but he who is troubled on every side, and bears all quietly and joyfully. Thou sayest with Israel, “Peace, peace, and there is no peace.” Cry rather with Christ, “Cross, cross!” And yet there is no cross. For, as soon as thou canst joyfully say, “Blessed cross, of all kinds of wood there is none like unto thee.” Then, in that moment, the cross has ceased to be a cross. See, then, how graciously the Lord is leading thee to true peace in surrounding thee with so much of the cross. For he who seeks peace will find it. And the best way to seek it is, when affliction overtakes you, to receive it with joy, as a sacred relic, and cease searching vainly for a peace which commends itself to your lower nature. For God considers any such peace far inferior to His peace, which is inseparable from the cross and the troubles of this life. Farewell, and pray for me, dear father. May the Lord reign in you.

MARTIN LUTHER, Vicar.

Wittenberg.

This should not be this hard

This week, the CIA released the Inspector General Report from 2004, dealing with the enhanced interrogation techniques used on detainees. It's got the Internet tubes ablaze, I tell ya! There are very serious and strident views on both sides. Commentators the world over are asking questions, the biggest of which is:

Is torture justified if it results in the saving of lives?

This question is apparently hard. I think it's a rather slam-dunk "no"- torture is a violation of human rights, and two wrongs don't make a right. Getting a straight Biblical answer is a little difficult as the Bible doesn't explicitly deal with when it's ok to torture people. But it does say that "[the condemnation of those who say] 'Let us do evil that good may result' is deserved." Also, Christians are told to love their enemies, pray for those who persecute them, to turn the other cheek, and to treat their neighbor as themselves.

A pastor from my synod gave an answer here, and while they rightly point out that there is not (nor should there be) an Official Doctrinal Position, they also point out that if dropping the Atomic bomb was justified, torture is justified. So. There's that.

But even if we are uncertain about this question, I think there are a few relevant points that it assumes away. We can argue about what to do if we know that a terrorist has information about a bomb in New York. But what if we don't know what they know? What if we don't know that this person is a terrorist? Are there other techniques we can employ to get this information that don't involve torture? All of this is swept under the rug.

But I watched FOX News Sunday this morning, and people were very pro-torture. Juan Williams was doing very well making the case against torture: it's illegal, there are other ways to get information, the information we do get with it is unreliable because people just want the torture to stop, and it hurts America's image abroad hurting national security.

Chris Wallace would have none of it. Right before ending the show, he very snidely said, "And I suppose the fact that we haven't been attacked since September 11th is just a coincidence." I yelled loudly at my television.

Bill Kristol then points out that Abu Zubaida was interrogated using pussy techniques for a month before the men got to work, used their enhanced interrogation techniques, and got him to spill the beans. But according to this Washington Post article, Zubaida's post-torture information was not all that critical. High (always anonymous) CIA sources speak on both sides. One says the information was really important and useful, another says it wasn't.

How do we know who's telling the truth? Dick Cheney isn't an anonymous source, and he says that torture provided good intelligence that saved lives. But I don't really believe him because he has a vested interest in making the program important and effective. Also, his credibility is damaged from all of the things he said about Iraq.

Maybe there should be an investigation into this so we get some better answers. Attorney General Eric Holder has said that he's starting an inquiry. Unfortunately, it will not investigate the efficacy of torture or other techniques. It will not investigate who authorized torture to be used. But it will investigate if CIA operatives overstepped their authorization in some cases. So if you were authorized to torture someone, you're fine. If you exceeded that authorization and tortured them harder than you should have, you're in trouble.

But even this weak attempt at fact-finding and accountability is being met with hostility. Another talking head on Fox News Sunday, Mara Liasson, said that it would be better for the White House if Holder's investigation were allowed to proceed, but hoped that it would not find enough evidence to do anything. Suuuuper. Another member of the panel, Bill Sammon, thought that the investigation was damaging to the national security of the United States, and that Holder is Obama's little puppet. Maybe he's too used to the Attorney General doing whatever the President says from when George W. Bush was President.

So, in conclusion, the view that torturing people should not be done and that investigations into torture are warranted and should cover administration officials who authorized torture as well as the operatives who carried it out, makes me a crazy liberal.

I make fun of my name a lot

But sometimes, it's helpful to be reminded of the person you're named for. This is why I frown on names like Brady and Apple.

David said to the Philistine, "You come against me with sword and spear and javelin, but I come against you in the name of the LORD Almighty, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will hand you over to me, and I'll strike you down and cut off your head. Today I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel. All those gathered here will know that it is not by sword or spear that the LORD saves; for the battle is the LORD's, and he will give all of you into our hands."

As the Philistine moved closer to attack him, David ran quickly toward the battle line to meet him. Reaching into his bag and taking out a stone, he slung it and struck the Philistine on the forehead. The stone sank into his forehead, and he fell facedown on the ground.

So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him.

Quantum Mechanics and Miracles

You know what really grinds my gears? When people misuse quantum mechanics and mistakenly apply it to explain macroscopic phenomena and miracles.

The story goes a little something like this: the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that the momentum and position of a particle cannot both be known at the same time with infinite levels of precision. There is a little fuzziness- electrons are better described as waves than as balls. We can draw a cloud where we are sure the electron spends 95 or 99 or 99.9 percent of its time, but you can never draw a cloud big enough to capture 100 percent of the electron. Therefore, there is a chance no matter how remote that every electron and particle in your body will jump three feet to the right. Or you could punch a wall and your hand would go straight through it as the gypsum board particles hit the cosmic lottery and jump out of the way.

This is where miracles come in.

Some people posit that miracles operate under the guidance of quantum mechanics- God plays slots with the Universe and uses his omnipotence to make sure he gets three cherries whenever he wants. I do not think this is a very good understanding of God or quantum mechanics. God does not play dice with the Universe!

For evidence of this, I suppose I could just cite a few miracles from the Bible. Pay attention to how and why Jesus performs the miracles, and what they say about him.

Then [Jesus] got into the boat and his disciples followed him. Without warning, a furious storm came up on the lake, so that the waves swept over the boat. But Jesus was sleeping. The disciples went and woke him, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to drown!"

He replied, "You of little faith, why are you so afraid?" Then he got up and rebuked the winds and the waves, and it was completely calm.

The men were amazed and asked, "What kind of man is this? Even the winds and the waves obey him!"

How does Jesus accomplish this miracle? He 'rebukes the winds and the waves' and they 'obey him'. He could just as easily have told his disciples to turn around and close their eyes, said nothing, and when they turned back have everything be calm.

The image that we are given instead is the relationship between a Creator and his Creation: because Jesus is the Son of God and was the Word at the time the Universe was made, he can therefore have mastery over his creation and suspend any rule that he created in the first place. This is kind of like how an author who writes himself into a book has mastery over what happens to his character in that book.

Here's a second example from earlier in the same chapter of Matthew:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. "Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

Jesus said to him, "I will go and heal him."

The centurion replied, "Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes. I say to my servant, 'Do this,' and he does it."

When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Then Jesus said to the centurion, "Go! It will be done just as you believed it would." And his servant was healed at that very hour.

Again, Jesus is able to perform this miracle because he has divine authority, like how the centurion has authority over his troops.

Why is this an issue at all?

I think it is important to think about whether Jesus performed these miracles by playing by the rules of physics and rigging the deck or if he got rid of the rules completely.

First of all, the idea that even Jesus and God have to play by the rules of physics sounds somewhat like Deism to me. Deism says that God is a Divine Watchmaker who planned the course of world history by setting the speed of light, Planck's Constant, and Boltzmann's Constant at the beginning of time and hasn't intervened since. Since it is precisely this intervention that is told in the Old and New Testaments, I don't like Deism.

Second, it puts the Creator at the mercy of his own Creation, which is a Very Bad Thing. Some people (WHO SHALL REMAIN NAMELESS) do not believe in God because they think that events described in the Bible are physically impossible. Even though the events ARE, in fact, physically impossible, that does not mean that God cannot do them if God transcends physics.

Lastly, having this understanding of miracles develops our faith in the same way that exercise develops muscles. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says cannot be done takes a lot of faith. Believing that God is able to do things that physics says are astronomically unlikely takes less faith. And the entire point is that we are supposed to have faith in that greatest of miracles: the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Will there be Quantum Mechanics in Heaven?

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."

He who was seated on the throne said, "I am making everything new!"

Romans 3

So I got a book from the church library on Romans, and I think it will help my study. It's written to help a group Bible study leader, so its translation to blog form will be a little tricky, as there is a lot less interaction and group discussion. Just reading about scripture and writing somewhat coherent thoughts about it helps me understand it better, but comments from Andy or Chrissy or Ed or Sarah or anyone help too.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."

But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

The Jews Paul is writing to may have been upset with the earlier part of his letter. If they do not follow the Law, they are just as bad as the gentiles who do not follow the Law, and they are worse than gentiles that do follow it. So what good does it do to be a Jew? Paul has a couple responses, more of which will come up in chapter 9, but in his first response here he says that the Jews "have been entrusted with the very words of God."

1. In what ways is it an advantage to know God's revelation of Himself, His promises, His deeds, and His guidance for living?

I can think of three responses to this question:

A. God's revelation is unchanging and true. The words of the Bible don't change from country to country or from time to time depending on people's whims, the spirit of the age, or recent advances in scholarship. This means that we don't have to rely on ourselves for religious guidance- God has done it for us. This is a firmer foundation than not having God's revelation.

B. A knowledge of God's past promises and His deeds gives us comfort that He will keep His promises about our salvation, too. He delivered Daniel from the lion's den, Jonah from the belly of the whale, and the Hebrew children from the fiery furnace, so why not every man?

C. As creatures created by God, he knows us better than we may know ourselves about what will make us happy and healthy. Say, for example, that you did not have the Law and that your conscience had been hardened and dulled so that you did not believe that adultery was a sin. You would still suffer the bad symptoms (both spiritual and worldly) without being sure of the cause.

2. What responsibilities go along with being entrusted with God's words?

We must first work to understand them and take care of them. They should also be preached to everyone. Lastly, they should not be misused, misquoted, or misapplied, or else a non-believer would have reason to doubt God.

Also, knowledge of the Law implies that you accept to be judged on your adherence to that Law.

3. What implications does this have for Christians, who have even more of God's words than the Jews had?

We're supposed to be even more diligent and careful with what we've been entrusted. We have been given "treasures in jars of clay", as Paul wrote to the Corinthians.

Paul also wants to address a second objection. If God looks more righteous in comparison to sinful human beings, wouldn't sinning in a way bring glory to God? For the moment, Paul just brushes this aside as absurd and will deal more with the issue later.

Moving on.

What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one."
"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
ruin and misery mark their ways,
and the way of peace they do not know."
"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

This is the big conclusion that Paul has been building towards so far: everyone is guilty of breaking the Law, so they cannot be justified before God by using it. The indented verses above are quotes from various sections of the Old Testament and are included to prove to Jews that they are also condemned and that this message is nothing new.

I think that this message is not communicated strongly today. Even Christians believe that they are by nature sinful. In the infamous movie featuring the Sinners in the Pit, non-believing friends of mine came away believing that Christians had never been in the Pit.

For the students of philosophy and history, I blame this on Humanism. The belief that people, when you get right down to it, are innately good, decent, and honest, is neither psychologically true nor Biblical. However, it is a comforting and compelling belief. It is also popular. The antidote is probably examination of oneself and society at large according to the Ten Commandments, but this is something of a Catch-22: if people will not accept the moral authority of the Ten Commandments, then it is hard to convince them that they have sinned against them. Put another way, it is hard to tell a kleptomaniac that he is a criminal if theft is not a crime.

4. Jews have at least one advantage over Gentiles: they have been entrusted with God's words. However, in the final analysis, why are Jews and Gentiles essentially equal?

Jews and Gentiles are essentially equal because they both have sinned and are in need of God's grace.

5. What are some purposes of God's Law (3:19-20)?

Not only does the Law tell us how we should live in accordance with God's Will, but it also points out our sin and need for a savior when we fail to follow it. Students who still have their catechisms might remember the Law serving as Curb, Mirror, and Guide. That is, it curbs destructive behaviors and attitudes, lets us see our sins, and gives us positive advice in how we should live.

To quote the Book of Concord:

1] Since the Law of God is useful, 1. not only to the end that external discipline and decency are maintained by it against wild, disobedient men; 2. likewise, that through it men are brought to a knowledge of their sins; 3. but also that, when they have been born anew by the Spirit of God, converted to the Lord, and thus the veil of Moses has been lifted from them, they live and walk in the law[.]

6. Sketch an outline of 1:18-3:20 by giving titles to the main section and the subsections. Try to follow Paul's logic.

My Bible has sections of its own that I find useful. I guess the NIV did this?

1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: God's Wrath Against Mankind- Gentiles willfully disobeyed God and this made God mad.
2:1-16: God's Righteous Judgment- He was right to be mad and will judge the righteous and unrighteous.
2:17-29: The Jews and the Law- The Jews have the Law and claim to be righteous because of it, but this isn't true because they don't practice what they preach.
3:1-8: God's Faithfulness- God keeps his promises even if people who have the Law don't practice what they preach.
3:9-20: No One Is Righteous- Gentiles and Jews have all broken God's Law.

My Bible also has this outline:
1:18-3:20: The Unrighteousness of All Mankind
1:18-32: Gentiles
2:1-3:8: Jews
3:9-20: All People

Last section (Righteousness Through Faith):

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

There are a few competing ideas that need to be resolved: if God is all-loving and gracious, he will keep his promise made at The Fall and somehow save people from their sins. Also, he is a just God who cannot stand to be in the presence of sin and will reward sin with the punishment it deserves. How does God get past this paradox or dilemma?

Paul says that he gets past it by having Jesus pay the punishment for our sins on the cross, and by faith imputing his righteousness to us. He is gracious and loving- people who put their faith in Jesus are saved. He is just- those sins have been paid for.

Paul uses a few terms that have been stripped of their meaning to me due to overuse, so I'd like to look at them carefully again. First, is 'justification'. Again, using the vocabulary of the courtroom, to justify someone is to declare them (in the positive sense) 'righteous' and (in the negative sense) 'not guilty'. We are justified before the Judge (God) through Christ's redemption, which is given to us as a free gift that we call grace.

Redemption also needs to be defined, here. We sometimes think of redemption as doing a good action to offset a bad one ("Just when I think you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!"). But here the word is used in a different sense: it is a release by payment of a ransom. You could redeem a criminal or a slave by paying a price.

God could have been loving and gracious by simply suspending the rules, but that would not have been just. This is what Paul means when he says that 'we uphold the law'- God is not suspending the rules.

7. In your own words, explain how Jesus has enabled us to become righteous if we put our faith in Him.

Even though we have sinned against God, we are declared not guilty of those sins, because Christ led a righteous life and died an innocent death. "But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

But why doesn't God just give big kudos to Jesus and not impute it to us? I can't force Jesus to help me. Instead, he gives those kudos that God gave him to me. He did that not to earn my loyalty or love or devotion, but because he's a really nice guy who loves me unconditionally.

8. Why is the phrase 'freely by his grace' important?

It is important because it shows that we don't buy our justification through our actions. Our salvation is dependent upon the love and grace of God, rather than ourselves. This is more reassuring and comforting than depending even in part on our own righteous deeds: our deeds may sometimes fail, but God never will.

9. Why does God's way of righteousness make it impossible for anyone to boast about himself?

If God's way of righteousness is given freely, then no one can boast and say they deserve it more than another person in the same way that I can't claim I deserve more Christmas presents: they are gifts. Jews and gentiles are justified in the same way apart from the law given to Jews only, so Jews can't boast before gentiles.

Imagine that I told two people named Andy and Jordan that I would buy them ice cream depending on how well they played Monopoly. However, I gave Jordan $6000 and Andy only $500. I stop the game later and buy them both ice cream because they played the game 'well'- they were courteous to one another, they did not cheat, they rolled the dice and moved the game pieces correctly, etc., etc. It would do Jordan no good to claim that he deserved more ice cream for ending up with more money- I wasn't grading on that criteria, anyway.

Maybe that's a bad analogy in some ways, but it gets the point across.

Hump Day

Recently, the Badger Herald e-mailed me (and 30,000 of my closest friends) that the Herald Sex Columnist job was available for next year.

The idea of a Confessional Lutheran Sex Columnist was just inherently funny to me, so I wrote a submission, reproduced with critical feedback below. It managed to be geeky, prudish, slightly passive-aggressive, and clumsily written. Just like the story of my life! (Ba-dum ching!)

Dear Badger Herald,

I was originally going to title this e-mail, "Sex Opening", or "Sex Position", but both of those sounded too taboo. Here is my submission:

I love my ex. We can't ever seem to really break up. The sex is so great! We fight, but then makeup.... I can't seem to leave him. What should I do?

—Distressed and Horny


Dear DAH,

When you think of your ex-boyfriend, what do you think about? Do you think of the stupid things, the mood rings, the bracelets and the beads? Do you think of how he is an emotional freezer, a soulless robotic automaton devoid of genuine human love? Or do you think of the sex?

You are staying together, not because he challenges you, or because you intimately understand each other, or any of those vague, touchy-feely bullshit reasons. You are staying together because the sex is great. And that makes you a lizard-brained sheep. Or a sheep-brained lizard. Your entire relationship with another human being is being sustained by the sex, which is biochemically no different from eating large quantities of chocolate.

Here is a little thought experiment. Imagine that there was an advance in medicine. You could have an electrode implanted in your head connected to a button that would release endorphins in the pleasure centers of your brain. You wouldn't have to work hard to achieve your goals, or find deep satisfaction in the sublime grace of music, or anything mundane like that. Would such an operation be worth it? Would the pleasure you received be real? Would it be good for you?

I would answer that the operation would not be worth it. Love is more than a feeling, and pleasure more than the release of Dopamine. Love should inspire you to help, protect, and be willing to sacrifice yourself for your partner, not just smile dumbly. Unearned pleasure is ultimately unsatisfying; has The Matrix taught us nothing?

In the same way, sex is more than a physical act and brain chemicals. It brings couples together emotionally. It leads to the creation of another human life. It is a way for two people to become one flesh. If you are only on board for the physical pleasure side of things, stop: you're doing it wrong.

Sex is a great and wonderful gift. But its place is within the stabilizing sphere of marriage, where its emotional, spiritual, and biological aspects can best be appreciated.

This is the response of Alexander Garens, web associate of the Badger Herald, out-going sex columnist, and recent graduate in legal studies, Spanish, and Japanese:

I was slightly on board until the "no sex til marriage" mantra. I agree intercourse should generally be accompanied by sincere feelings, but reserved absolutely and exclusively for marriages? Don't be silly. You yourself referenced our lizard-brains-- that's exactly what our sex drive dilutes down to. This person should not stay with their ex when the only connection is the great sex, he/she should go find someone he/she feels passionately for AND can have great, intimate fun with, not wait til there's a wedding band on their finger.

So...embrace your lizard-brain? Anyway, this was a lot of fun, and I encourage everyone to write in with even more advice.

Romans 2

On to Romans 2. Paul's purpose of 'convicting the world' continues from chapter 1.

God's Righteous Judgment
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.

All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

As I'm reading this epistle, I'm reminded of how applicable it is to present-day spiritual problems. People often make the argument that because they were written 2000 years ago, these letters by Paul do not carry much weight: Paul could not have foreseen the invention of the steam engine, let alone the marvelous advancements made in Philosophy by Arthur Schopenhauer (squeeeee!).

However, there are two critiques made in this part of the letter that resonate very well today. The first is the over-arching theme of condemnation. Speaking through Paul, God reminds us that we are under his righteous judgment. I think a present failing of many people (myself included) is that we do not think of actions as being righteous or unrighteous. They may be wise or foolish. They may harm others or oneself. They may add to the total utility of society. The only time an action is wrong is when it infringes on the rights of another.

A second critique comes as a result of the first: recognizing the sinfulness of the world involves recognizing the sinfulness of oneself. You cannot condemn or judge other people without condemning yourself. Curiously, this passage was quoted to me as evidence in favor of condoning sin. However, I think the problem that Paul is addressing is an inconsistent or hypocritical application of God's Law, rather than just the application itself.

There is a similar account in Matthew 7, in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Again, it is the hypocritical application that is being attacked here.

Why is this relevant? A poll I read showed that a lot of young people felt that the church was hypocritical in its moral teachings, and that this hurt Christian credibility. How can you take Ted Haggard seriously when he engages in homosexual affairs? How can you believe what Jim Bakker says after all of the accounting scandals?

Aside from those two contemporary issues (a hard-hearted society and a hypocritical church), this section goes on to talk about the law written on men's hearts, as well as good works.

How about the law written on men's hearts? Does such a thing exist? Is there such a thing as a conscience? That it exists is a fairly unarguable fact: you know as well as I do that you feel bad when you do something bad. As Abraham Lincoln is quoted to have said, "When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad. That is my religion."

How, then, do we account for differences in moralities and consciences between groups throughout history? And isn't it a social construct anyway? If it is so malleable, how can God justly judge us? One answer presented here is that it's not God's fault if men dull their own consciences or those of the people around them. Besides which, God's giving of the Law serves as a perfect, codified version with which we are to check our consciences.

As far as righteous works are concerned, I'll quote Luther in a second, but it dovetails into the next few verses.

The Jews and the Law

Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.

This gives me opportunity to talk about another layer in the topic of righteousness and condemnation: inner and outer action. People can see outer actions, be they righteous or wicked, but is impossible for us to see inner actions. People could even be performing an outwardly righteous action (say, giving to the poor) for an inwardly unrighteous reason (say, for the fame and social status). The hypocrisy here is condemning outer actions and not condemning inner ones.

Here's Luther on the subject:

You must not understand the word law here in human fashion, i.e., a regulation about what sort of works must be done or must not be done. That's the way it is with human laws: you satisfy the demands of the law with works, whether your heart is in it or not. God judges what is in the depths of the heart. Therefore his law also makes demands on the depths of the heart and doesn't let the heart rest content in works; rather it punishes as hypocrisy and lies all works done apart from the depths of the heart. All human beings are called liars (Psalm 116), since none of them keeps or can keep God's law from the depths of the heart. Everyone finds inside himself an aversion to good and a craving for evil. Where there is no free desire for good, there the heart has not set itself on God's law. There also sin is surely to be found and the deserved wrath of God, whether a lot of good works and an honorable life appear outwardly or not.

Therefore in chapter 2, St. Paul adds that the Jews are all sinners and says that only the doers of the law are justified in the sight of God. What he is saying is that no one is a doer of the law by works. On the contrary, he says to them, "You teach that one should not commit adultery, and you commit adultery. You judge another in a certain matter and condemn yourselves in that same matter, because you do the very same thing that you judged in another." It is as if he were saying, "Outwardly you live quite properly in the works of the law and judge those who do not live the same way; you know how to teach everybody. You see the speck in another's eye but do not notice the beam in your own."

Outwardly you keep the law with works out of fear of punishment or love of gain. Likewise you do everything without free desire and love of the law; you act out of aversion and force. You'd rather act otherwise if the law didn't exist. It follows, then, that you, in the depths of your heart, are an enemy of the law. What do you mean, therefore, by teaching another not to steal, when you, in the depths of your heart, are a thief and would be one outwardly too, if you dared. (Of course, outward work doesn't last long with such hypocrites.) So then, you teach others but not yourself; you don't even know what you are teaching. You've never understood the law rightly. Furthermore, the law increases sin, as St. Paul says in chapter 5. That is because a person becomes more and more an enemy of the law the more it demands of him what he can't possibly do.

This section also talks about circumcision being "more than merely outward and physical." Circumcision marked the Covenant between God and Abraham. There is therefore a relation with the New Covenant that Jesus gives in the Lord's Supper. These sacraments are not just symbols or outer remembrances or ceremonies. There are important things going on. This is why Paul and many Christians get a little upset with open, anything-goes communion.

More Signs of the Apocalypse

Last night was Man VS. Monkey Night on Deal or No Deal.

Great Scenes in Movie History

1. Opening Scene to Star Wars: A New Hope.

This film should be studied for years to understand how all movies should start. Those little blue letters about a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...and then BOOOOOOM! John Williams hits you with that horn section, and the letters scroll up, and then you see that huuuuuge star destroyer, cut to where there's warning klaxons going on all over, the robots are running one way, the ship's crew are running the other, and then everyone gets in place.

It's quiet. A few ominous sounds of metal-on-metal, and then BLAMO again, as the stormtroopers blow up the door and start blasting everybody. And then, you guys, in the middle of this white-ish door steps through Darth f--king Vader.

2. The Scene In That One Church from Saving Private Ryan

Medic Wade: Actually, the trick to falling asleep is trying to stay awake.
Mellish: How is that, Wade?
Medic Wade: Well, when my mother was an intern, she used to work late through the night... sleep through the day. So the only time we'd ever get to talk about anything is when she'd get home. So what I... I used to do, I used to lie in my bed and try to stay awake as long as I could, but it never worked 'cause... 'cause the harder I'd try, the faster I'd fall asleep.
Private Reiben: Yeah well, that wouldn't have mattered none in my house. My ma, she would've come home, shook me awake, chatted me up 'til dawn. I swear that woman was never too tired to talk.
Mellish: That was probably the only time she could get a word in.
Medic Wade: Only thing is, sometimes she'd come home early, and I'd pretend to be asleep.
Mellish: Who, your mom?
Medic Wade: Yeah. She'd stand in the doorway looking at me... and I'd just keep my eyes shut. And I knew she just wanted to find out about my day - that she came home early... just to talk to me. And I still wouldn't move... I'd still pretend to just be asleep. I don't know why I did that.

Gets me every time.

3. Closing Scene to Field of Dreams.

Where he asks his dead dad to go play catch? Oh man, you'd have to be some sort of cold unfeeling robot (or a girl) to not cry at that. I don't know if women will understand that movie at all- probably not. It's probably like Brian's Song in its ability to make men cry, while women don't get it. So remember, sports-obsessed culture, if you want to tug on the heartstrings, make a movie about sports. Or war. Or wargames. I cry every time I play tic-tac-toe, now. Only Jordan will get that joke.

4. The scene in The Jerk where Navin gets randomly shot at.

I laugh throughout this movie, but never as hard as when Navin gets overenthusiastic about the Phone Book: "The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here! Things are going to start happening to me, now!" Cut to scene of maniacal killer selecting his victim at random from the phone book: "Navin R. Johnson, random sonofabitch milkface bastard."

And then the cans. "He hates these cans! STAY AWAY FROM THE CANS!!!" Steve Martin's horror when he finds that he's accidentally taken refuge behind a Coca-Cola machine is priceless.

5. Rain Scene from The Notebook.

It's so over the top that I can't help secretly liking it. "I wrote you every day for a year. It wasn't over. It's still not over." Ker-smooooooooooooooooch.

That's it. Those are the five best, ever. Everybody else go home. Where are you going to go from there? Forget about it.

Romans 1

Now with blockquotes!

Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ.

To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

This is a notable way to start out a letter to Christians in Rome. I can only assume that some would be Jewish converts, but that a larger share would be Gentiles. Would the Gentiles much care if Jesus had been promised and prophesied about many years before? Would they understand what it means that Jesus is related to David?

There is a common motif found throughout the New Testament that Paul also uses here. Elsewhere, when people talk about the flesh or the spirit, these are placeholders for the deprived state of human nature before God's grace, compared to the soul that has been renewed. Remember when Jesus is about to be betrayed, his disciples fall asleep when they should be praying, and Jesus says, "The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

So what does Paul mean when he says that "who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead"? The 'human nature' that Christ has that Paul is talking about is part of Christ's Humiliation: that period of time that Jesus gave up his full powers as God and became a man that ate, slept, cried, walked, drank, and talked.

The Resurrection, then, is part of his Glorification- those periods when Jesus is revealed to be the Deity he is. The NIV translates the word 'Spirit' in this passage with a capital 'S', that is, the Holy Spirit. This might be taken to mean that the Holy Spirit declared Jesus to be holy, or something. It's confusing. But it doesn't really show that Flesh VS Spirit motif very well. A WELS seminarian, who is much better at this stuff than I am, writes an alternative translation:

"He was by the resurrection from the dead designated as the Son of God in power, in full accord with his spiritual mode of existence, an existence characterized by holiness.”

Paul's Longing to Visit Rome

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. God, whom I serve with my whole heart in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God's will the way may be opened for me to come to you.

I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith. I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that I planned many times to come to you (but have been prevented from doing so until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.

I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

This is an excellent statement of the gospel's purpose. God is using it in order to save everyone who believes. Whenever people complain that God doesn't do anything, you can show this passage. God is using the gospel as his tool to redeem mankind. Compare popular conceptions of Christianity to this. Jesus may well be nice and good and want us to treat other people with kindness and respect, but the entire point behind this story is salvation, not behavior modification.

Lastly in this section, Paul begins one of the biggest themes of his epistle: righteousness. Don't make the mistake I sometimes make after watching too much Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure and think of righteousness as an all-encompassing generally positive modifier. It has a clear meaning: doing the right things. Following God's Will perfectly.

The Bible often uses the illustration of a courtroom, with God as the Judge. People come before him, and are accused of wrongdoing (The Accuser is a popular euphemism for Satan). If they are righteous, they don't have anything to be worried about. But if they are unrighteous (hint: this covers a LOT of people), they are in trouble. Paul is saying that there is some way to be made righteous before God, even if you are unrighteous.

God's Wrath Against Mankind
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

The first part of this section is cool because it deals with a variety of issues I've written about before: evolution, Creation, environmentalism, and the culpability of mankind.

Agnostics I've talked to bring up this point a lot: you are a Christian because your parents are Christian and that is what you have been taught. How is it fair for God to deny salvation to people who, through no fault of their own do not have access to Christian parents or the Bible or seminaries or missionaries?

Paul answers here that no one should be able to make that claim. The evidence of God's Creation is so powerful and manifest that "men are without excuse". All societies at one time had an understanding of God. Some threw that understanding away, exchanging an inconvenient truth for a lie.

Evolution and other sciences like astrophysics directly combat this point. The evidence of God's Creation is not convincing at all. We've looked and looked and looked, and our best answer is NOT that God made the universe, but that we exist as a cosmic fluke.

Environmentalism has a role to play in this, too. In this section, Paul says that the natural world testifies to the attributes of God. If we treat the natural world better, those attributes can better be seen. The restoration of the natural world would also be a great way to communicate the restoration of our place as children of God.

Now on to the homosexual stuff. You simply cannot maintain biblical integrity and claim that homosexuality is not a sin: it's condemned strongly here, elsewhere in the New Testament, as well as the Old Testament. Some people will actually try to do this, and tie themselves up in knots. If you accept only certain parts of the Bible, this is not a big problem: St. Paul was correct in his teachings of atonement, sanctification, and faith alone, but not this part about homosexuality.

I do not know why some American church bodies have reversed course on this issue. Which is more probable: the teachings of the church have been incorrect for thousands of years, or that modern churches are falsely changing doctrine due to social pressure? This may be one of the only times in recorded church history when churches have openly sanctioned activities that are condemned by scripture. Paul might have written today, "Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Barack Obama: Socialist?

There can be only one answer when Barack Obama funds million-dollar bonuses at AIG with taxpayer money and gives $25 billion to the Big Three (on the condition that they lower their labor costs to be more in line with other companies).

Barack Obama is afraid of being called a Socialist, so he is doing the most non-Socialist policies possible.

On Green Lantern

So one of my favorite comic book heroes growing up was Green Lantern. For those of you who are in denial about their past, Green Lantern used the green power of a green ring he got from the good people of Oa. Or possibly Ao. He had two flaws:

1. His green powers wouldn't work against the color yellow. So he'd, like, make a green gun and shoot it at you, and if you were wearing a yellow hat, you'd be ok.

2. He would sometimes run out of power in his ring, and have to refill it using, get this, a Green Lantern. I guess sometimes even that green lantern would get low, so he'd have to go back to Oa every now and then.

So that was fun. Until they started messing around with the story. All of a sudden, they came out with new green rings that did work against the color yellow. But wait! Then they didn't work against yellow, once again. But wait! There wasn't a flaw in the rings all along! It was simply the fear and belief in the powerlessness against the color yellow that created a self-fulfilling prophecy that made them powerless against the color yellow.

Also, eventually, the planet of Oa was destroyed. You would think that this would end the entire sequence. Instead, the new (and last) Green Lantern has a ring of unlimited green power. That has no weaknesses.

Then he got a sidekick, Green Arrow. Green Arrow didn't have any superpowers or rings of unlimited power, but he did have arrows. Special arrows that would freeze people or stun them or release noxious gas or explode. Except he had a moral thing against killing people.

So, unlimited power that can be unleashed with a thought. And a sidekick who doesn't kill people and has no superpowers.

On Flying Carpets

Let's say that your magic carpet could, in fact, fly. It is still a terrible idea! There is nothing to hold on to, there is no protection from the elements, including the winds at high elevations, and it is not pressurized.

On Love

In light of today being Valentine's Day, as well as hearing a sermon about love two weeks ago, I've decided to do a blog post On Love.

This is a terrible idea! Now with 30% more cynicism!

Thesis 1: Love is nebulous, and this is a bad thing. Love is so broad a topic and so broadly defined, that eventually it becomes a completely meaningless and useless construction. This is a Very Bad Thing, because verbal communication should convey meaning. Imagine the following scenario:

Ben Affleck: I have to go blow up an asteroid to save the Earth!
Liv Tyler: But I love you!
Ben Affleck: What does that mean?
Liv Tyler: It means that you're the sunshine of my life.
Ben Affleck: In this metaphor, am I the sunshine because I provide you with sustenance in the form of animal crackers?
Liv Tyler: Uh...
Ben Affleck: Perhaps it is because I provide you with 'light' so that you can see what you're doing. You get confused about something, and through my council and digging-ability, I help you understand it.
Liv Tyler: Kind of.
Ben Affleck: Is it because my regular and periodic appearance makes you feel secure?
Liv Tyler: Kind of. My love for you is like a truck, Berserker!
Ben Affleck: This broad definition of love is confusing me. I can't concentrate on blowing up this asteroid.

KA-BOOOOOOOM!

Other Bad Love Definitions Either Made Up Or Remembered By Me:

Love is that magical jelly-bean inside your heart that grows into a rainbow bridge when you water it with kitten smiles.*

Love is never having to say you're sorry.

Other Bad Love Definitions Found On Urban Dictionary:

For others, love is the ever-present peace, the constant comfort and the assuring knowledge that the one you love is there.

Imagine, an ever-present peace that only appears when someone you love is around!

That feeling you get when he holds your hand hugs you, simply looks at you. Your stomach flip flops and you can't think straight but can think just how amazing he is. You get in so deep you forget everything and spend hours with him without even realizing its been hours. THE MOST AMAZING FEELING IN THE WORLD!!!!!

I cannot think coherently, but I do think that you are amazing! Also, if you would like to not think straight and forget hours of your life, you could just drink antifreeze.

love is undefined, it has no right and wrong meanings, it's just there for you to overcome, loook back on, and fall deeper into, it's something that cannot be controlled.

This is a website whose express purpose is to define things. Also, I believe that love is the capital of Maryland. I hope I don't fall deeper into the capital of Maryland! It cannot be controlled!

So, let's talk about Romeo and Juliet.

OK, so Romeo and Juliet is the Greatest Love Story in the History of the World, right?

No. No, it is not. That is something that your 9th grade English teacher told you so that you would actually read the book. By the end of the play, Romeo and Juliet are both dead, as are Mercutio and Tybalt. This play is a tragedy, and uses love as an instrument to get to its tragic end. That doesn't reflect very well on love, does it?

Moreover, the message of the play itself is that the love between Romeo and Juliet is paper-thin. Romeo is very impulsive: his decision to crash the party, run away and get married, kill Tybalt, and kill himself are all spur of the moment decisions. He was totes in Luv with Rosaline not a week before. This is not an argument in favor of "love at first sight": it's an argument that Romeo is making a huge mistake.

Towards a Better Definition

I'm much better at being snarky and criticizing the efforts of others with enormous levels of bile, jealousy, and cynicism than making a positive contribution of my own. Blame Connor Oberst.

I'm of half a mind to just split love up into three things like the Greeks did. So love between friends is called 'Philia', and has different characteristics than love between romantic couples called 'Eros', which has different characteristics from 'Agape' love between God and Humanity.

But we speak American, so we're stuck with one word.

But here goes nothing: Love is the irrational motivation to unconditionally help meet the physical, emotional, or spiritual needs of a person or group.

1. Irrational. It is irrational to meet the needs of other people at the expense of your own well-being. Ask Ayn Rand about this. However, self-sacrifice is a big part of love. Ask a parent if they would be willing to die for their children. Many would say yes. And lest we think that this is motivated by a rational desire to ensure the survival of the species, I think it is safe to say that many children would be willing to die for their parents. Many husbands would be willing to die for their wives. Many wives would be willing to die for their husbands. There is no rational reason for this.

2. Motivation. I resisted the urge to refer to love as an emotion, because you can feel different emotions while experiencing love. For example, you might feel very happy when someone you love is around. You might feel sad when they leave. You might feel disgusted when trying to help someone. You might feel angry.

The idea of motivation also implies taking action. A love that doesn't cause you to do anything isn't very strong.

3. Unconditional. I know, I know- my history of Bible studies on Sunday mornings is showing. I'm trying very hard to be secular in this post, as it seems like nearly all my blog posts devolve into Jesus-tinted rants. But I think it's very helpful to say, "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us."

This death was unconditional: Jesus didn't die on Good Friday, provided that we pay him fifty bucks on Easter Sunday.

Try a few secular examples. When you call a friend on their birthday, is this so that you will get a call from them on your birthday? Do you pick up someone's dropped groceries so that people will think that you're a good person? Do you get a person flowers because if you don't, they will become angry?

4. Meeting people's needs. This is an imprecise and clunky part of the definition. Again, I would like to convey the idea that love involves action. But 'meeting needs'? Getting a list of things that people need would be hard and controversial. Also, it's difficult to express 'tough love' in this framework. Sometimes it can be a very loving thing to do to tell someone how much their preoccupation with getting ahead in their career is damaging their health. Or whatever.

So that's it. Happy Valentine's Day!

*Note: "Love is that magical jelly-bean inside your heart that grows into a rainbow bridge when you water it with kitten smiles." is the single best sentence I have ever constructed.

Environmentalism: Think like a Psychologist

When thinking about environmentalism and environmental ethics, I typically approach the subject from a Christian perspective. We should protect the environment not just for human health, natural capital, aesthetic beauty, sustainability, or the moral considerations of animals, but also because "The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it."

This handy technique saves me an awful lot of time when arguing about ethics or morality in general. When someone asks why premarital sex is wrong, I can simply say, "Because God says so." and smugly retreat into the background. I don't have to back up the assertion with facts about disease or unwanted pregnancy or emotional dependency or divorcing a teleological act from its natural conclusion or larger sociological implications. That's putting the cart before the horse: sin causes Bad Effects, but Bad Effects don't offer complete insight into sin.

Instead, my main task in investigating ethics or morals is to use the principles set forth in Scripture. "Did God really say...?" This is easier done in some cases (premarital sex, homosexuality, Baal worship, lying, cheating) than in others (just wars, politics, economics).

I realize this isn't very convincing to people who do not accept the authority of Scripture. "Who cares what your God says? I don't think he's real!"

Getting people to act ethically when they don't accept the authority of Scripture is the point of this post, with a specific emphasis on environmental ethics. How do we do this? Is it even desirable?

I. Appeal to self-interest and self-preservation.

1. Point out dire direct effects of products/services.

Lead paint causes birth defects in children. Let's use less of it. Mercury is toxic and comes from coal. Let's burn less coal. PCB's and Naphthalene and Arsenic and Radon and VOC's and particulate matter all directly adversely affect human health, so they should be regulated.

I know this technique seems totally obvious, but it really wasn't popular until Silent Spring and the creation of the EPA.

2. Point out indirect environmental effects.

No one will be able to eat any fish at all if we overfish resources to extinction. CFC's aren't terrible by themselves, but they deplete stratospheric ozone levels and indirectly harm human health. Carbon Dioxide isn't particularly toxic, but causes global climate change, which will be a Very Bad Thing.

I would like to take a minute to talk about Global Climate Change and how it relates to human self-interest. When we talk about self-interest, it's natural for our first tendency to be to think about death or disasters. In the movie 'The Day After Tomorrow', global warming causes hurricanes and floods and ice storms that freeze airplanes that are flying through them and wolves to escape from zoos that eat people.

But I don't think that escaped wolves will be our biggest enemy. Instead, Climate Change will be. You won't be able to grow the same crops you did before. What was once a fertile area is now inhospitable, while a place that was desolate is now really nice- and really undeveloped. People will have to move and adapt. It will be very costly, and maybe the gain in new fertile areas will offset the loss of others. But with a huge chunk of the Earth's surface dominated by human development already, it will be hard to change.

Imagine you are playing Civilization IV. You place your cities, roads, and improvements based on the conditions you see. If those conditions change, if a grasslands turns into a hill, a hill into a mountain, a mountain into a desert, a desert into a flood plain, it will be little consolation that there is no net change in your resource distribution, all told. You will be pissed that you built all those windmills where you would have built a mine given a second chance, and that if you had placed London three squares to the right, it would be making more beakers.

3. Relate environmental issues to sustainability.

This week in discussion, a classmate said, "The term sustainability is so broad, that we decided that sustainability is what you get out of it." I disagree.

Sustainability is providing for current needs in a way that does not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

This is related to human self-interest thusly: if we compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs, everybody dies in the future. We can use coal to make electricity if we want, but eventually, we will run out of coal, and then we will have nothing to make electricity.

I will try another analogy from a computer game because I am feeling Super Dorky today. In the game 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic', you play an enterprising young Jedi Knight who battles evil robots. To help you, you can use things called 'stimulants' that temporarily make you harder, better, faster, stronger. Now you can use those stimulants anytime you want, but you probably want to save them for later in the game when it gets harder. If at some point in the game you were using stimulants faster than you were finding them, many people would be critical of that strategy. They would say that if you kept employing the strategy, you would get to the end of the game and die. The needs of the future would not be able to be met.

II. Appeal to other ethical considerations.

Beyond self-preservation, there are other ethical considerations that a vast majority of people view as intuitively legitimate.

1. Environmental Equity

Because poor or disadvantaged people disproportionally live on marginal land, environmental problems that damage that land therefore disproportionally hurt those people. This argument is often advanced about global warming. Poor people living in the land right by the desert are hurt by droughts that they didn't even cause. No one wants toxic waste in their backyard, so disposal sites are located nearest the people with the weakest political power.

2. Aesthetic Considerations

Forests are pretty. So are tigers. Dolphins, especially! I normally am very disdainful of these arguments because they are so subjective and an appeal to emotion. However, those of us who are not evil robots will give some weight to emotions. Our emotions and our consciences are trying to tell us something. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe!

Questions for the Reader
Can anyone else think of any other reasons why other people might follow environmental ethics? Can you think of ways that I can articulate religious justification for environmental stewardship without coming across as a crazy man?

On to the earlier reason for this post

Initially, I wanted to talk about another thing that was said in the environmental discussion. We were talking about the future of sustainability, and what an environmentally sustainable world would look like. We mentioned advances in technology and social/political organization. They were very "Hope is the Future Change Our Children Can Believe In" kinds of ideas. Apparently, we need to vote for Barack Obama to Unite the Clans, and he will use his Leadership to make the world Sustainable.

Then another person talked about economics. He said that businesses would change, and that there would be less Corporations, and more local, smaller organizations. You see, these Corporations, they...they sit in their Corporation Buildings being all...uh...Corporation-y, see?

So does it follow that there will be less corporations? I don't think so. Are we going to seriously argue that everything needs to be local? A community needs to grow its own food to be sustainable? Its own steel, its own smelters, its own semiconductors, its own manufacturing? That would be silly. If Kansas can grow wheat for both places, why not have Pittsburgh trade them some steel for its wheat? So comparative advantage is good, as is trade. That doesn't necessarily guarantee that corporations have to exist or be huge, merely that efficiencies can be found on large scales.

What about industries that are capital-intensive? What about reducing barriers to entry into markets? What does adding sustainability into the mix add to the equation? I would argue, nothing. This is where psychology comes into the mix. I posit that this person thinks that there will be smaller corporations because Environmentalism is a Leftist issue, as is Hating Corporations. Sustainability to Environmentalism to Liberalism to anti-Corporatism.

Questions to the Reader
Am I correct in identifying this person's thinking? When are we guilty of doing this ourselves? What happens to corporations in the future?

Guitar Solos

In light of previous discussions around the apartment, and with the express purpose of writing about nothing I promised to write about, I'd like to do a little list of my Personal Favorite Guitar Solos.

In case you don't remember, I have been a proponent of the idea that some music is better than others. Though my hold on the idea is more tenuous in the wake of The Night Dave Lost Every Argument, it's important to note that if you disagree with my solo list, you are Objectively Wrong, and should make your own inferior list.

5. This is the catch-all spot for bad or silly songs that nonetheless have face-melting guitar solos. These songs have a very 80's feel that perhaps reminds me of my childhood.

"My Sharona" by The Knack.
"Blinded by the Light" by ELO.
"Jenny (867-5309)" by Tommy TuTone.
"Cold as Ice" by Foreigner.

4. "Sultans of Swing" by Dire Straits. Mark Knopfler remains one of the most underrated musicians of all time I tell you!

This song is a good illustration of one of the many great uses of music: shared cultural influence. Story 1: my roommate and I bonded almost immediately after I suggested we go see a band that night. He replied that he "don't give a damn about a trumpet playing band", and I finished off the lyric, "it isn't what you call Rock 'n Roll?" Story 2: When asked what I was eating at the cafeteria, I Knopfler-ed 'Creole. Creole.' It's the kind of inside-joke allusion that I do too often and no one knows what I'm talking about, but it worked that time.

3. "Nanook Rubs It" by Frank Zappa. I'd like to put a lot of Zappa on here, including "Sofa no. 1", or "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace", both of which are entirely instrumental. "Sexual Harassment in the Workplace" has the single blues-iest note I've ever heard, which he just sits on and slowly bends for about 13 seconds. But I'm trying to be consistent, and songs that are entirely instrumental just don't qualify.

"Nanook Rubs It" is as good an explanation of Zappa as anything, really. If you get it, you get it, if you don't, you hate it and you hate me and my musical taste. It's the absurd story of an Eskimo named Nanook who rubs yellow snow in the eyes of a fur trapper (who is strictly from commercial), and the solo manages to represent the anger and sorrow of Nanook for his favorite baby seal, as well as the 'vigorous circular motion hitherto unknown to the people in the area: rub it'. It's just an excuse to jam out, and this lick is the kind of funky jazz that you blare in your car if you're trying to pick up chicks.

2. "Bell Bottom Blues" by Eric Clapton. I had a very hard time deciding between "Crossroads", "I'm Tore Down", "Layla", "Blues Power", "Cocaine", "Steppin' Out", and pretty much everything else.

"Layla" is perhaps the best-known, which is to its detriment; you can't be cool if everyone knows and loves you. Also, the song is helped immensely by its piano, and this is a list of guitar solos. Lastly, I am still livid from an argument years ago over whether the classic or acoustic version is better. Without that opening lick, piano transition, and screaming-desperate singing, the acoustic version has always seemed like just a novelty to me.

But I had to pick "Bell Bottom Blues" because I'm partial to solos that describe feelings better than lyrics ever could. The man is blue, but you get a better sense of that through the solo than when he sings "Do you want to hear me beg you to take me back? I'd gladly do it."

1. "Comfortably Numb" by Pink Floyd. According to legend, "Comfortably Numb" was finished by David Gilmore before it found a home in the mostly-Roger-Waters-led The Wall. Not only is it my favorite song off one of my favorite albums, but like "Bell Bottom Blues", it succeeds in creating feelings of isolation, fear, yearning for human contact, and a drug-fueled stupor. I would compare it to Raskolnikov's fever in Crime and Punishment, but that's a little grandiose, don't you think?