Movie Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

The story revolves around the rescue of Indy's old lover and her son from Communists intent on taking control of a technology/force that would allow easy world conquest. Indy must return the skull to its proper location deep in the rain forests of South America.

It's a mediocre movie. Weak story line, poor special effects, only adequate direction. It's a story of aliens and conspiracies to cover them up. It looks like nothing more than an opportunity to milk the Indy franchise. George and Steven needed to belly up to the heifer one more time.

Is it fun? Yes. But not one that you'll want to purchase or see more than once.

Any redeeming qualities? It is anti-Communist. That's good, but not much to ask of a movie.

I give it a 2.5 out of 5.

Street Fighters in Suits

Watching this campaign is fascinating. And sickening. Makes me feel like a voyeur of some sort
.
Hit them below the belt -- Their religion isn't suitable.
And while you're at it, hit the pastors who sit on the sidelines.

Hit them in the head -- Go after their wives.
Any wife who jumps into this fight probably knows its coming anyway.

And watch that trash coming in from the stands -- The spectators have become participants.
It seems they think they're important.

I don't think I'll ever run for office.

Christian Valuation

It's not that Christianity contains any values that others might not be able to come up with on their own. (I suspect that they might not have this facility because values and ethics require a base, a suitable starting point. But I digress.) The value of Christianity to society can be found in its values, the things that it brings to any and all cultures which benefit them. One of these in current debate is the matter of ethics.

The value of an ethic is the fruit that it produces. Yes, this requires a moral judgment and yes, any judgment can tend to be intolerant of error. But ethics is not merely about orthodoxy – it is the application of these ideas to practice.

Some would say that Christianity brings nothing meaningful, that Christianity is merely superstition, or, at best, a type of formality that belongs inside the four walls of a building. After all, it is supposed, Christianity has nothing of value because it can say nothing of value.

Beginning the 1930s, the logical positivists were fond of insisting that the sentences Christians typically use -- 'God loves us' or 'The universe was created by God' or 'God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself' -- do not, as they are ordinarily used, say anything at all; they express no propositions at all; they are really disguised nonsense ... The positivists appealed to the dreaded "Verifiability Criterion of Meaning," according to which a sentence makes sense, is literally significant, of is cognitively meaningful only if it is 'empirically verifiable' (or falsifiable) -- only if, that is, its truth (or falsehood) can be established by something like the methods of natural and empirical science.[1]

The presence of a Christian ethic in the social fabric, or even in law, represents a coherent and empirically verifiable value for the world. This is the Salt and Light, the value, that Christians can be to the world because it represents the things that the world wants.

What has Christianity brought the world? Two stand out: The end of a great deal of suffering and ontological equality for all. Today’s ethical debates on life and human dignity have the potential for an even greater value.

---

[1] Plantinga, Alvin, Warranted Christian Belief, 2007, Oxford University Press, p. 7-8

Christians and Science

Today's religious bigots continue to spread the venom that Christians, specifically those who accept special creation, are somehow anti-science. The canard states that, by rejecting evolution and its propogation as indisputable fact, these people should also reject germ theory and immunology and more of the advances of modern science because it is somehow beyond all criticism, at least with regard to its apparent legitimacy. We are apparent seeking the overthrow of "all of modern science. "

In competing with evolutionary theory there are several important starting points, stated here as they relate to our apologetical methods. The first is that naturalism cannot and should not be taken as a primary paradigm. This is the core issue and the work of Plantinga and the other reformed epistemologists confronts this issue. The issue comes down to a simple point -- the naturalist has no basis for certainty about anything, and that includes naturalism. This has been a lengthy discussion for the last decade or so, and will certainly continue for decades to come.

Second, is the structure of evolutionary theory. The processes of genetics and trait transmission are not in dispute. Even Michael Behe, of Irreducible Complexity fame, in The Edge of Evolution gives full acknowlegement to this. it is not a matter that is in dispute. What is in dispute is the framing of these theories. Empiricism belongs in experimentation but the rest is inductive and so escapes real logic.

There is much more work to be done in the current offensive against naturalism. One topic that I'd like to pursue in the coming years is the question of intelligence and freedom in a determined world. It would seem that, if all were determined by mere material agencies, that free will does not exist. But it does. This is a paradox of contradiction that should be a significant challenge to the naturalist.

Honorable Cause, Honorable Service (part 2)

Iraq/Saddam Hussein committed many wrongs. Among them was the regular and funded suicide homicide attacks on our ally Israel. In the minds of many this man needed to be dealt with in a serious manner. And he was. Our soldiers have served their nation well.

All war is terrible. Only a nut would actually like war. But it is a tragic necessity in our human condition. This is where a Christian moral voice can speak against wrongs, whether from our own troops (sadly enough) or from the enemy. In any case it is important that we keep in mind that these efforts should not be dealt with as political events but as matters of national security and national efforts. It is our war, not Bush's War, despite the rantings of PBS.

But Mr. Vincent Bugliosi wants to prosecute George W. Bush for murder in our courts. Usually this kind of tripe only makes it to the nutty left, like Crooks and Liars or Daily Kos. But now it is on HuffPo. Vincent Bugliosi is wrong. Dead wrong. And there is historical precedence.

1. We did not prosecute for the false start if the Spanish-American War.
2. We did not prosecute Truman or any FDR official for bombing civilians in Dresden or Hiroshima.
3. We did not prosecute LBJ or any other Dem or Rep for the lie that got thousands killed in Viet Nam.
4. We did not prosecute Clinton for the death of innocents like Ron Brown .

Bugliosi's statement rings more like a partisan election-year suggestion than a well-considered plan. There is nothing honorable in this level of rhetoric.

Honorable Cause, Honorable Service (part 1)

Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. --
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. -- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. -- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).

(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

Finally, He Gets It

Fred Clarkson finally gets it. He points out a very serious error of Michael Weinstein in describing much of evangelicalism and stated a proper conclusion:

As much as Weinstein is right about the principles he is upholding, and I am glad he is doing it, he is absurdly wrong in his description of the people who violate them.

fundamentalist Christianity--it's actually got a longer technical name, called pre-millennial dispensational re-constructionist Dominionist fundamentalist evangelical Christianity

There is, of course, no such thing. There are many groupings and belief sets under the wide category of evangelical Christianity; some of them disagree with one another quite strongly. Weinstein lumps them all together as though everyone believes in exactly the same things. This is a not uncommon error among people who come to be rightly concerned about the religious right. (That, along with unnecessarily inflammatory language.) Such errors undermine the credibility of all of our efforts, and often backfire as well.

Now I only hope that his future posts, and those of his counterparts, reflect the same accurate thinking. I will likely still disagree with him on many issues, but at least we now have a common definition that actually reflects reality. A good place to start might be with Rob Boston's insistance that disagreement with the homosexual agenda amounts to "hate". That is quite inflamatory and certainly an over-generalization. He might also look into the possibility of criticizing someone other than Christians on matters of faith in the public square.

Nonsense, Senator Obama

Obama To Tennessee GOP: "Lay Off My Wife"

If you don't want her to be a target, get her off the campaign circuit.

The Continuation of Intolerance

Some call it a canard when it is claimed that the Tolerance community actually practices intolerance toward those they disagree with. But examples abound. Take Chris Rodda's recent post on TalkToAction, for instance. He is all bent out of shape that the Boy Scouts might actually receive some money from the federal government.

First, the Boy Scouts of America not a religious organization. It is a private group that has a rather eclectic but mandatory religious requirement. It might even be seen as a bit unitarian as there is a great deal of tolerance for a variety of religious viewpoints within the organization. It is certainly more tolerant of religious viewpoints than many other organizations which receive federal monies. Like Planned Parenthood at roughly $100M annually, with little or no oversight. The Scouts are looking at a single-instance deal.

It's not like there is no discrimination against the Boy Scouts. There are multiple cities and situations where they either have no access to public facilities (which is clearly intolerance and discrimination) or have been removed from charitable roles (as with some local United Way chapters), and they have had to spend time and money in court to fight for the simple liberty promised in the First Amendment (in particular, freedom of association and peaceable assembly).

In all of Rodda's writing I'm still waiting for a call against all the examples of liberal religious views being federally funded. Like we can really expect that.

It will be a great day (at least in terms of their being consistent) when those who promote relativism's Tolerance actually begin to practice it without discriminator qualification. I might then be posting (or at least commenting) on TalkToAction. ;-) But I also won't hold my breath.

Naturalism, with a Hint of Positivism

As I read through the evolutionary material from the various naturalists (most recently Gould and Mayr), there is one very striking commonality among them: Positivism. It’s not a social positivism like we saw in the 19th c. liberal movement, but is a modern mathematical (that is, with a calculated inevitability) positivism, a conviction that everything that happened went in the right direction because it had to. It was, as mathematician Rosenhouse puts it, a “lawlike” inevitability. Another aspect of this positivism is found in one of Gould’s evolutionary trait-inheritance mechanisms.

Reproductive drive: directional speciation as an important and irreducible macroevolutionary mode separate from species selection
Stephen J. Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, p. 724

His clarification beings as follows:

However, when we move to the species level, the analogous driving phenomenon of directional speciation suffers no constraint or suppression – and may represent one of the most common modes of macroevolution. Two major reasons underlie the high potential frequency for directional speciation 9as opposed to the rarity of its analog in the organismal level – see line III2a on the chart). First, as noted in several other context, the species-individual does not maintain integrity (as the organism does0 by suppressing differential proliferation of some parts over others. … Second, since new species-individuals must arise with sufficient heritable novelty to win reproductive isolation from their parent … all species births include genetic change as an automatic consequence. Any statistical directionality in such changes among species in a clade will produce a trend by drive. (p. 725)

Get that? This “trend by drive” presumes a particular directionality in the course of evolution. Now if this positivism isn’t weak enough, Gould descends even further into the murky depths:

Directional speciation, when based on irreducible species-level traits or processes, designates another category of intrinsically macroevolutionary change. (p. 726)

His use of the term “irreducible” is done in the same manner as Behe uses the term with respect to irreducible complexity. The target of the term is different as Behe explores the particulars of a molecular construct and Gould explores a process. But the manner is identical: The process of change at the species level cannot be reduced to simply discussing the traits of individuals within that species. It is a step which cannot be bypassed for any reason. He sees this process within all three states, organismic, interdemic, and special.

Gould provides multiple explanations of how this hypothetical process might work but faces a serious obstacle regarding an explanation of the presumption of direction. What he means clearly is the desired outcome, that is, today’s end and naturality reality. But a direction that is irreducible is a predetermination, whether by an external agency (ID) or in the mind of the theorist. Given that naturalist evolutionists have no tolerance for ID, we are left with a phenomenological conclusion that exists only in the mind of the theorist.

Metaphysical Determinism in Politics

Barak Obama Has Surrendered His Free Will
Yes, this candidate has begun pandering as plainly and openly as anyone else. (Perhaps not so) Amazingly, he is doing so with the full support of the Left that otherwise opposes religious pandering. Apparently he has no other choice.

If there were a sound reason to not vote for Obama, it is his inexperience. It's not simply a matter of Washington experience but of integrity experience. He is willing to change on a moment's notice to satisfy somebody. (Much like Lieberman's position changes when he joined Al Gore in 2000.) That makes him vulnerable. And for anyone concerned about an official's effectiveness, that should be a major concern.

Evolution is an Apologetic for Naturalism

That is, evolution is designed in such a way as to provide an explanation for the natural world. That explanation is an evidential approach at its core, deductive at the second step, and presuppositional in its broader framework.


Fig. 1: Component Relationships

Molecular biology is where hands-on science takes place. This is where classic experimentation is accomplished. But something happens here that is a first step. An assumption is made that genetics corresponds to evolutionary change. That is an inductive approach that makes a decision based on accumulated data. Finally evolutionary biology makes a presuppositional step to naturalism.

There is a correspondence to Christian presuppositional apologetics. As Richard Pratt describes VanTil’s two-step approach:

He proposed a two-step approach. First, believers should invite unbelievers to consider the evidence for Christian theism on its own terms, making certain that we do not follow the principles of unbelievers (Prov. 26:4). Does it cohere? Does it make sense of the world? If Christianity is true, does it not explain reality? Here apologists use every argument, great and small, to demonstrate the credibility of the claims of Christ. On the deepest (transcendental) level, we urge that the only sufficient basis (or presupposition) for human knowledge is Christian theism.

Second, believers should help unbelievers examine their own outlooks on life, so that they will not be so wise in their own eyes (Prov. 26:5). Do they cohere? Do they make sense of the world? If their world view is true, then why doesn’t it explain reality? Here evidences and arguments are used to demonstrate the futility of trying to understand anything on the basis of human autonomy. With the false self-confidence of unbelievers shaken, the truth of the gospel stands out clearly. If the Spirit is at work, it will become plain that Christ alone is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

The first step is the matter of evidence. Though the term is not used in the same manner as would either the naturalist or Christian evidentialist might use it, it is nevertheless an appeal to a type of evidence. That is what the naturalist does with molecular biology as it is framed with the idea of progress and turned from ever being brute facts into inductive support for evolution.

And just as the Christian presuppositional apologist takes that second step where Christian theism becomes the sufficient explanation for reality, so too does the naturalist grab hold of presupposing evolution as the evidence for naturalism. This is the presupposition that the naturalist cannot live without. There is no direct link between the supposed brue facts and the inductive conclusion of evolution and there is nothing but presupposition that takes one from evolution to the metaphysics of naturalism.

Where's the Ethic!

We all remember those wonderful Wendy's commercials. The kind little lady lifts the top half off the burger only to reveal a tiny patty covered with a large pickle. Her indignant response was fully justified. It was a question of morality and ethics. The customer should get what is expected, what they paid for. No less is right.

So what of the modern relativist? Can one claim that morality is relative and still claim a moral high ground? Let's take a little different approach to the issue than people normally attempt. The standard approach by way of Kantian relativism has been used to its fullest extent. So let's instead head into noetic concerns.

If, as Plantinga concluded in Warrant and Proper Function, that naturalism cannot produce certainty of knowledge, then it most certainly cannot produce a certain ethic. The result of this is not relativism but a more simple emptiness. Even relativism requires some sense of personal knowledge and a sense of at least subjective certainty that any personal knowledge is at least personally correct. But for the naturalist this lack of even subjective certainty leaves the individual with nothing certain.

It is consistent that Stephen Pinker (and Jason Rosenhouse) diminish religious ethics. But it is inconsistent that they promote any ethic. Any sense of correctness and incorrectness, of right and wrong, of good and bad -- all of these require some form of ethic but that is an ethich which cannot be known.

Here we have an open door to confront naturalism an one of its inherent problems. This is an opportunity to show them the beef.

Thoughts on Philosophy and Theology

So much of theology has been influenced by various forms of Platonism over the past centuries that challenging it is difficult. The Emergents and other postmoderns make the move by returning to NT primitives. This has some value in cleaning up theology. The fundamentalists, especially the premillennialists, make the same move by being Biblicists, not having rejected nearly as much as the postmoderns, but still attempting to cling to the NT primitives and just a small amount of developed theology. In both cases, however, the influence of Hellenistic components has been difficult, if not impossible, to escape.

In the current issue of Faith and Philosophy (vol. 25, no. 1) Katherin Rogers provides one of the most exciting statements to this effect that I've read and enjoyed in a long, long time:

Classical theism holds that God is simple -- His nature is identified with His omnipotence, His omniscience, and His perfect goodness. On this view, not only can there be no demand for how God "comes to know" necessary truths, but there is no explanation at all for God's knowledge of necessary truths beyond the simple fact of His necessary existence.

This "anti-Platonic" analysis of the relationship of God to necessary truth has the further advantage that it does not hypothesize a world of ontologically dubious platonic abstracta just "there" in the universe.

This statement prompts several thoughts. First in my mind is that there is significant value in being aware of and constructing our theologies, not apart from the tools of philosophy, but with an awareness that sometimes these tools can unknowningly become part of theology, thus corrupting theology. I doubt highly that Augustine and Aquinas were aware of the shift that they were putting in place as they interpreted and advanced theology through the eyes of Aristotle and Plato. And I also doubt highly as to whether today's fundamentalist theologians are aware that their attempts to be "Biblical" might be affected more than they think. Such clarity by Rogers is refreshing and should be taken into consideration by theologians and teachers everywhere.

The latter concern is by implication but follows the former by implication. For the Christian theologian to be ignorant of the philosophical methods and practices of the world around us is to be unaware of their past and present affects on theology. To do this leaves us vulnerable to accepting past problems (like Platonism's influence) totally unaware of the situation. One does not have to become a Platonist (or Marxist or whatever) to understand and deal with those issues in one's systematics. But an ignorance of these issues most certainly leaves theology vulnerable.

Philosophy, per se, is not the enemy. The content of particular philosophies may be, but the tools of understanding are not. They are there to be employed toward the development of better theology and the furtherance of the Gospel. We need only to be more aware of the past and present.

The Past Ain't What It Used To Be

It used to be that self government was good. But no longer.
It used to be that love of country was good. But no longer.

I'm not too worried about what televangelists say about God judging the US. When he does, will we know it? Do we have so little of a moral conscience that we allow ourselves to throw away all of God's creation and and still think we are blessed?

If we stopped all abortions and homosexual unions, would that bring God's blessings? I don't think so. And I don't necessarily think it would curb His justice, either. He does not want outward change but inward change. What we are seeing today is taking place first in the heart. If we curb the expression but the heart stays the same, then God's judgement is still forthcoming.

God cleanses by both forgiveness and judgement. I prefer forgiveness. Neglecting His Grace is a costly error.

Perhaps "God Bless America" is presumptuous. The request that "God Damn America" appears a bit self-loathing. "God, forgive America" seems more in line with these past five decades, the state this nation, and God's higher desires.

Theology, Politics, and Where They Meet

Some Background to the Issue
The place of Christian theology to the world of politics is one of today’s most frequently debated topics. Questions are raised across the whole spectrum from church submission to government on to government control of the church. It seems that the subject is not without the myriad of opinions that any other controversy would create, and seems to have as many options as there are participants.

Christian theology is generally driven by its future hope. That is, the motivating factor for a Christian’s involvement is eschatological – the Christian’s perspective on the future that the Lord has planned drives the direction that we set and thus how we behave today. But this is not a monolithic position. There are three main perspectives on Christian eschatology and each has its own implications as to the church’s relationship with the political world. And it all revolves around the understanding of what the Millennium is.

The term “amillennial” means that there is no clearly-demarked millennial period when the Lord will rule the earth. The “a” prefix is a negative and indicates “no” millennium. But it’s not really “no” millennium but “no literal” millennium but a “figurative” millennium. That is, the millennium is not a period of time but a condition of time, placing the emphasis on the kingdom rather than on the calendar.

There is a parallel to this known as “post-millennial” theology. The millennium is seen as a past time that is specific but when it is (or was) is unknown until it comes to completion. In one sense there is no known millennium, nothing that can be pre-determined.

Both of these tie the kingdom and implementing the character of the kingdom to the millennium. They see the mission of the church to establish the kingdom and one way they see the kingdom as a household. The household is for the benefit of all even though not all members of the household are family.

Finally, there are the “millennial” theologies that look forward to a future and specific thousand-year reign of Christ. Because they see this kingdom as a future happening they also see the mission of the church as something other than a household. The perspective is to see the evangelistic mission of the church as the first priority. Saving souls takes priority.

There are two primary variations on this theme. The historic premillennialist and the dispensationalist differ with their understanding of the nature of the church and the identity of Israel. For the historic premillennialist the church is the people of faith through all the ages, but for the dispensationalist the church began at Pentecost, even though there have been a people of faith through all the ages.

All of these anticipate the return of Christ. It’s not that He would necessarily return Very Soon Now, but that he might return at any time. For the amillennial and post-millennial theologies, His return is determined more by the suitability of the kingdom as established on earth, being ready for His return. For the premilllennial perspective the kingdom is not of our doing, and His kingdom will be established at the time of His choosing in the future.

While Roman Catholicism has always been post-millennial, during the 19th c. a great deal of Protestantism, both evangelical and liberal, was equally post-millennial. That was the Modern century where Reason attempted to build a better world through social change. Even theologically liberal eschatology looked forward to a better world but through the new liberalism and the new society of Marx’ ideals rather than through the Kingdom of God. These were the “do-gooders” of the era who were parodied in Pollyanna.

Implications and Options

The impact of any theology upon politics can be either direct or indirect. Direct impact can be accomplished when that theology makes direct statements to the subject of politics or when the theology calls for a specific relationship with the area of politics. Indirect impact can take place when the efforts and energies encouraged by a theology have an impact that crosses into the realm of politics.

The outworkings of this relationship can take any of several forms depending on, among other things, the power, receptability, and intentions of each party. As a result, the relationship has taken multiple forms over the centuries and may certainly take additional form in future generations.

Fig. 1: Church and state united

Familiar to many is the complete mix of church and state as seen in England. This is the closest thing to a “theocracy: because the church is completely mixed and in a dominant position.







Fig. 2: Church controlling state

Throughout Europe there was a time when church was seen as dominating state. This was the ecclesiastical organization: Rome, Geneva, the Lutherans. It was not simply the belief system but the power of the church leadership to manipulate events. Rome frequently did this through the withholding of sacramental grace to national leaders. The threat of a loss of salvation, or worse, excommunication, gave great influence over national events.

It’s not so much that the church took the place of the state but that the church held sway over the power of the state. It’s not a theocracy but it is political control

Fig. 3: State controlling church

Then there is the modern view that we know in the US and other nations having a socialist bent. Though the degree may differ, in Europe the church is very much under the hand of government authority. In communist countries the church is either outlawed or under serious scrutiny as it is in China and Cuba. In the US we have a great deal more freedom but there is still some restriction on religious speech as it might affect the realm of politics.

One protestant reaction to this situation created the “free” church. One example is the Evangelical Free Church with a heritage in the Norwegian and Swedish free church movement.

Figure 4: Complete separation

This is the ideal that is stated by a good number of secularists and many in the church. The idea is that neither one will control the other. They may speak to issues that affect the other party but there is no actual, ecclesiastical control by the church and no legislative regulation by the state.





Fig. 5: Jockeying for Position

Reality often gets in the way of providing clean definitions. In the US the church and state are in a constant struggle. Though there are dominionist factions that want to control the state, the more common struggle of the church is to break free from the regulatory control of government.




Fig. 6: Dialogue

The ideal that I have in mind would be mutual interaction, a touching of influence, a meeting of the minds. Christianity has much to offer the secular world in terms of ethics and related moral issues that are imperatives in today’s society. At the same time we can listen to the voice of government and maintain a civil dialogue.


But reality again gets in the way and on multiple fronts. Many secularists want to eliminate religion altogether. Socialists work to place the church under the state thumb. Dominionists work to control government. Reconstructionists seek to rebuild some sort of Christian nation. I suspect that the arguments will go on for generations.

Considerations
So what is the First Amendment about? My understanding is that the goal was to prevent (hence the restriction on Congress) #1, #2, and #3. It certainly is not to create any of #1, #2, or #3. We (most of us, anyway) do not want a church-run state, a state-managed or state-regulated church, or a mix of church and state. Unfortunately it seems that a mild form of #3 is what has been created through the efforts of various organizations.

The end result of eschatology, the nature of the kingdom and the church, affects which of these a church will support. The dominionists are, by their nature, post-millennial and that leads to the direction of church control. The amillennial approach also ends in the direction of church control. But even these can vary from #1 (church-state mix) or #2 (church controlling state).

But though they may tend toward this direction, many protestant amillennialists do not teach this church-state mix but the alternative of social influence. The result is what we know as the “culture war”. In this case the church is not trying to become dominant over government but over social institutions. (The First Amendment does not address this.)

Finally, there is the premillennial and dispensational crowd. By and large, except for the recent flirtation with the culture wars, the premillennial community is first concerned about evangelism. Even with their participation in the culture wars, many like James Dobson still speak of the primacy of the Gospel in their work. It may not be wholly consistent, but it is the reality.

The theological inconsistency of many, as with Dr. Dobson, stems from something really simple: Most people are not theologians. Few people take the time to study history, theology, and philosophy to discover their roots and a consistent direction for their behavior within their stated belief system. It’s part of the condition of the church.

Likewise many secularists and socialists commit the same error. Naively supporting some forms of control they do not realize the potential consequences of their efforts and the damage that can be done to Liberty. This is so because one’s philosophical underpinnings have the same net effect as theology. Our world views drive us to our behaviors, but we do not always take thought to be as serious as action.

An Apologetics Taxonomy

Christian apologetics is often viewed as having five categories: Classical, Evidential, Cumulative Case, Presuppositionalism, and Reformed Epistemology. Theopedia has a basic, though very obscure, explanation of these areas, borrowed from Five Views on Apologetics by Stephen Cowan.

The first three (Classical, Evidential, and Cumulative Case) all depend upon evidence as their starting point. Presuppositionalism does not start with evidence. This approach instead acknowledges the step from facts to the metaphysical and builds first on that presupposition instead of first building on the facts of history.

All four of these can be seen as broader categories, able to encompass a myriad of different sub-categories. But Reformed Epistemology is a narrow field in its own right. So in that sense I wold suggest that it be classed under the broader scope of Philosophical Theology as an apologetic approach. Doing this would allow this PT category to address a broader range of concerns such as naturalism and ontology.

My conclusion here is that apologetics be seen in two levels. First, the broader area of Evidentialism that would include the Classic, Evidential, and Cumulative Case methods. Then the Philosophical would include Presuppositional and Reformed Epistemology.