Not a heretic
May 18, 2006
Oh no, not me! I was doing some random browsing around the web, a practice I generally try to avoid, and stumbled on an online quiz to determine if I am a heretic. There were about 40 statements about Jesus Christ, and for each statement I was given seven choices for answers, ranging from a simple “I agree” at one extreme to “I disagree” at the other. The statements looked interesting, so I dived in and took the test. To cut to the chase, here is how I scored:
Chalcedon compliant
100% Socinianism
58% Monophysitism
58% Apollanarian
42% Nestorianism
42% Modalism
33% Arianism
25% Adoptionist
0% Docetism
0% Gnosticism
0% Pelagianism
0% Albigensianism
0% Monarchianism
0% Donatism
0% Are you a heretic?
created with QuizFarm.com
I confess that I haven’t the foggiest idea what many of the various isms mean, but I do know about the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD, and I’m very glad that I am 100% on board with those old guys.
About a third of the statements were easy for me as an extremely amateur theologian to answer. On the next one-third I sort of understood the question but wasn’t sure, so I marked the middle choice. The rest were fairly easy to disagree with.
There’s a link at the bottom of the test results if you want to take a stab at it.
Dave, who is still working on his christology.
Economists to Politicos:
May 17, 2006
That economists and politicians view the world through a different set of glasses is not surprising, and immigration is a good example of how different those views are.
Marginal Revolution: Open Letter on Immigration
Immigrants do not take American jobs. The American economy can create as many jobs as there are workers willing to work so long as labor markets remain free, flexible and open to all workers on an equal basis.
How many of us believe that simple declaration? To the economist (and to me) the working of a free labor market is self-evident and easily demonstrated. To our elected officials it is counter-intuitive, so they take the popular position that immigration threatens American jobs. But job availability is not a zero-sum game where there are only so many jobs and a job taken by an immigrant necessarily means one less job for American workers. A free and healthy economy will indeed create as many jobs as there are workers available.
Dave, still fascinated with the way economies work.
Immigration mess
May 15, 2006
President Bush speaks on immigration tonight. I fear that we will hear mostly silly political posturing, but I’m ready to be surprised. While we wait, this article has some interesting things to say about the situation.
If the President wants us to believe he’s finally heard our demands for a secure border, he won’t waste the entire speech talking about “jobs Americans won’t do” — a crock if there ever was one. It’s “wages Americans won’t pay” that creates a market for illegal labor in the first place. He won’t waste time cadging support for amnesty by telling us how illegal immigrants are good-hearted people who just want to feed their families. By that measure, if I steal a car in order to go to work to feed my family, not only should I be forgiven, but allowed to keep the car.
This is an essential point: The reason that good people enter the country illegally is essentially economic. The American employer needing low-skill labor has two choices. He can either purchase that labor at a price that will attract American workers, or he can offer to pay wages that are too low to attract American labor but very attractive to Mexican laborers who find it difficult to support their families under the current economy at home.
Is the root cause of illegal immigration really that simple? I think it is. Does this suggest an easy solution to the problem of what to do about the myriad of illegals already in the country and being productive? Unfortunately, no. I hope that the President will offer some fresh ideas tonight.
Dave, always optimistic.
Ephesians 5:1-5
May 14, 2006
Live in Love
5:1Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved children 5:2 and live in love, just as Christ also loved us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God. 5:3 But among you there must not be either sexual immorality, impurity of any kind, or greed, as these are not fitting for the saints. 5:4 Neither should there be vulgar speech, foolish talk, or coarse jesting–all of which are out of character–but rather thanksgiving. 5:5 For you can be confident of this one thing: that no person who is immoral, impure, or greedy (such a person is an idolater) has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Practically speaking, to imitate God is to imitate Jesus Christ. The books of the New Testament allow me to know the historical Jesus sufficiently to follow Paul’s command to imitate God in my life. I think that this is not just an ethical imperative. True, I can learn from Jesus’ human relationships, but I also can learn from his relationship to the Father. This passage seems to me abundantly clear in its meaning. I often fail to live up to Paul’s standard, but I know for sure what the standard is. -sdg-
Do Stories Matter?
May 13, 2006
Another take on “the baddest book.”
Kruse Kronicle: Emergent Conversation and the Da Vinci Code: Do Stories Matter?
Keith Demko, in his a comment to Kruse’s article said, “There is an old adage that says that the Word of God is an anvil that has broken many hammers. God doesn’t need my defense, just my witness. Fortunately, that is all he asks.”
Well said.
Dave
The baddest book
May 12, 2006
Christians and churches all over the country are making a terrible noise about a certain book and a movie by the same name. Because why? Because it misrepresents Christian history, that’s why, and we gotta do something about it! We gotta defend God’s honor!
Since when does the sovereign God need help in defending himself? I say that if you think it’s a bad book, don’t read it. Surely you can find a good book to read.
But what about all those people who may read it and believe it? To this I say that our responsibility as Christians is to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ, to raise up Jesus and let the power of the gospel transform minds and hearts. Why should we dignify a bad book by defending ourselves against it? Someone once said that the best defense is a good offense, which suggests that our response to bad books should be to herald the Truth of God in a way that makes it is clear what is true and what is not.
For example, our baddest book might suggest something off the wall, like that Jesus was involved in a sexual affair. We are tempted to react in righteous indignation, saying, “Did not!” (which always elicits a righteous “Did too”).
“So what are we to do about this baddest book and movie that will be read and seen by millons? What if people belief that stuff?” you say. Good question and one that somehow brought to mind a book gathering dust in my library. It’s Heralds of God by James S. Stewart, a book that was written for preachers, not the likes of me. I read it many years ago when my preacher wasn’t watching, and it taught me a lot about the tension between world and gospel.
Why not just call it a bad book and then direct our sermons and conversations to holding up the real Jesus for all to see? Preacher or not, we can all be “heralds of God.”
Dave, not very worried about just another bad book.
Political power
May 11, 2006
Peggy Noonan opines about the corrupting effect of political power in Washington in her latest Opinion Journal article. If you find yourself agreeing with her discouraging analysis, just remember that other political systems are very likely to be as bad, if not worse. Most of us live pretty well in spite of the wrongheaded ideas of whichever political party happens to be in power.
The oddest thing about Republicans and Democrats in power is that they always know the technical facts, always know about fund raising, always know what the national committee is saying about getting turnout. But so often they don’t know the message or even have a message. Which is funny, because they’re in the message business. They’re like shoe makers who make pretty shoeboxes but forget to make the shoes.
…
One gets the impression party leaders, deep in their hearts, believe the base is . . . base. Unsophisticated. Primitive. Obsessed with its little issues. They’re trying to educate the base. But if history is a guide, the base is about to teach them a lesson instead.
Could it be that the reason for this ugly state of political affairs is that we are no longer (if we ever were) a Nation under God? Our culture reflects a thoroughly secular worldview. I suggest that we are experiencing the natural result of any worldview that depends on human smarts to govern wisely. Until the political process begins to consider our relationship to God in the public square, we have little reason to consider improvement any time soon. It seems to me that this is what thousands of years of human history should be teaching us.
Dave, hanging in there.
Quick: Is economic exploitation good or bad?
May 9, 2006
If your economic education is influenced by what you hear from many pulpits, your knee-jerk answer to the question will likely be that exploitation is a bad thing.
Kruse Kronicle: When Exploitation is Mutually Beneficial
None of this is to downplay the fact that conditions of life in poor countries are positively awful compared to our own. The point is to emphasize that the surest way to bring these countries up to more tolerable standards of living is through free trade, the process by which the capitalist exploits the worker and the worker exploits the capitalist. To the extent that poverty still exists on our planet, it is due to insufficient exploitation. The only way to defeat absolute poverty is by greater productivity, and that means leaving people free to engage in mutually beneficial exploitation. More, and faster please.
OK, now let me ask the question again. You may not be quite ready to affirm that “more and faster” exploitation is an unalloyed Good Thing, but I submit that Kruse’s argument bears some thought.
The article reminds me of what I have been reading about the exploitation of Latino ball players by Major League Baseball. Is the deliberate cultivation of players in Latin America mere flexing of economic muscle by rapacious club owners, or is it mutually beneficial to player and owner alike? What do you think?
Dave, thinking that at least it is better for the fans.
Ethanol madness
May 8, 2006
As petrol prices rise, policymakers and venture capitalists are suddenly embracing funky alternatives. Will the fad last?
In a word; no.
Alternative energy | Canola and soya to the rescue | Economist.com
When oilman George Bush calls for more research into ethenol and biodiesel, you know that the beltway disease has struck again. Panic on the Potomac.
Growing corn to be used as a fuel additive just doesn’t compute with me. Of course, corn processed through beef cattle to satisfy our appetite for steak also jams my mental CPU. Since I don’t grow row crops for a living, I can assert with impunity that market forces will do a better job of maximizing the economic output of use of land than Government planning. On the other hand, I am only one generation away from the farm, which means that I still harbor suspicions that I really don’t know what I’m talking about on agriculture matters. Most of our congresspersons are not so hindered.
The linked article seems to do a good job of summing up the American dilemma.
The notion of American farmers defying the tide of capitalism to grow their own fuel is a glorious delusion. But … Congress has some big decisions to make about biofuels. To what extent, if any, should government subsidise this nascent industry? Already it has received plenty of help. Ethanol producers get a tax credit worth 51 cents a gallon, much to the delight of industry powerhouses such as Archer Daniels Midland. There is also a 54 cents-a-gallon tariff on imports of ethanol from Brazil. Starting with the removal of that tariff, Congress needs to rethink its wrong-headed energy policies. Nathanael Greene, of the Natural Resources Defence Council, argues that the federal government’s most important immediate step should be to enact a loan guarantee to create America’s first cellulosic ethanol plant, which would probably be built in Idaho.
Dave, still wondering whether biofuels are good or bad for us.
Ephesians 4:25-32
May 7, 2006
4:25 Therefore, having laid aside falsehood, each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another. 4:26 Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on the cause of your anger. 4:27 Do not give the devil an opportunity. 4:28 The one who steals must steal no longer; rather he must labor, doing good with his own hands, so that he may share with the one who has need. 4:29 You must let no unwholesome word come out of your mouth, but only what is beneficial for the building up of the one in need, that it may give grace to those who hear. 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 4:31 You must put away every kind of bitterness, anger, wrath, quarreling, and evil, slanderous talk. 4:32 But instead, be kind to one another, compassionate, forgiving one another, just as God in Christ also forgave you.
This week’s passage deals primarily with how to relate to our fellow Christians. Paul seems to be saying that we can “speak the truth” to our brother or sister in Christ in a way that would not be appropriate or beneficial for our unbelieving neighbor. A tall order, sometimes. The key, of course, is that any compassion and kindness that I am able to exhibit flows from knowing that God was compassionate and kind to me first. -sdg-
