Headline Reuters: Losers are not traitors says China

As China witnessed defeat early last week in some of its top events, such as women’s football, many blamed state media for creating a tense atmosphere and putting pressure on athletes.

"The theory is that any loss must be due to some psychological problem affecting their performance," the semi-official China News said on Monday.

"It’s like Cultural Revolution rhetoric that ‘losing represents low-class consciousness’ or ‘love for the proletariat isn’t deep enough’."….

After the women’s "iron rose" football team was beaten by Germany last week, the entire team felt compelled to apologise [sic] to their country for the loss.

"The respect shown to losers reflects the cultural level of a nation and its people," the China Daily said. "Winners are heroes, but losers are not traitors."

In a honor conscience society like China, to lose is to let down all the people around you. When, like at the Olympics, the competition is framed as being between nation, then a loss is letting down your entire nation.

It is interesting to see that these Chinese papers realize their athletes do not perform at their best when their motivation is to avoid losing because of the shame.

Recall that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, took the opposite view of motivation, and would torture their athletes who would lose on the international stage.

Like Iraq under Hussein, John Wesley believed that fear of hell was the best motivation to holy living. He taught that one of the problems with the doctrine of predestination was that it:

directly tends to destroy that holiness which is the end of all the ordinances of God…. [T]he doctrine itself, — that every man is either elected or not elected from eternity, and that the one must inevitably be saved, and the other inevitably damned, — has a manifest tendency to destroy holiness in general; for it wholly takes away those first motives to follow after it, so frequently proposed in Scripture, the hope of future reward and fear of punishment, the hope of heaven and fear of hell.

Wesley opposed anything that would diminish the fear of hell among believers because that would remove their motivation toward holiness.

In contrast, the Heidelberg Catechism teaches that the obedience of a Christian flows from our gratitude for what God has done for us, rather than out of fear of punishment.

Q1: What is your only comfort

in life and in death?

That I am not my own,

but belong–

body and soul,

in life and in death–

to my faithful Savior Jesus Christ.

He has fully paid for all my sins with his precious blood,

and has set me free from the tyranny of the devil.

He also watches over me in such a way

that not a hair can fall from my head

without the will of my Father in heaven:

in fact, all things must work together for my salvation.

Because I belong to him,

Christ, by his Holy Spirit,

assures me of eternal life

and makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready

from now on to live for him.

The author of the Heidelberg Catechism understood what Wesley did not: people are freed to obey if they realized the threat of eternal punishment is removed from all those who are found in Christ. Realizing this, they don’t have to be threatened to obey, and they don’t have to do everything in fear of failing and facing damnation. Rather they want to please the God who has done so much for them. Obedience flows from gratitude rather than from fear.

From Creed or Chaos by Dorothy Sayers:

If this [Christianity] is dull, then what, in Heaven’s name, is worthy to be called exciting? The people who hanged Christ never, to do them justice, accused Him of being a bore; on the contrary, they thought Him too dynamic to be safe….

Now, we may call that doctrine [the Incarnation] exhilarating or we may call it devastating; we may call it Revelation or we may call it rubbish; but if we call it dull, then words have no meaning at all. That God should play the tyrant over man is a dismal story of unrelieved oppression; that man should play the tyrant over man is the usual dreary record of human futility; but that man should play the tyrant over God and find Him a better man than himself is an astonishing drama indeed. Any journalist, hearing of it for the first time, would recognize it as News; those who did hear it for the first time actually called it News, and good news at that; though we are apt to forget that the word Gospel ever meant anything so sensational.

Perhaps the drama is played out now, and Jesus is safely dead and buried. Perhaps. It is ironical and entertaining to consider that once at least in the world’s history those words might have been spoken with complete conviction, and that was upon the eve of the Resurrection.

I’ve always thought it odd how the nature programs discuss evolution as if they believe nature to be intelligently guiding the development of things. Occasionally, the programs themselves (in this case NOVA) will admit this odd way of talking:

It’s sometimes convenient, when trying to make sense of evolution, to think of changes within a species as having a purpose, as though mother nature has some intended goal that she sets out to achieve. "The bacteria want to survive," someone might reason when thinking about the declining effect of antibiotics, "and so they evolve into resistant strains." Of course, there is no purpose in evolution, just random mutations within DNA, most of which are detrimental to the survivability of an organism, some of which are beneficial. Because the beneficial changes can help the organism to survive, these changes are the ones that tend to carry on in subsequent generations.

But Bruce Thornton writing in Victor Davis Hanson’s Private Papers points out that contrary to NOVA’s disclaimer, this is more than just a way of speaking. There must be a creative and purposive power guiding evolutionary development. Since Darwinists have denied that this power is God, they are left believing in the power of the evolutionary process itself.

For many defenders of evolution, Darwinism indeed is part of a religious system whose tenets are as much a consequence of faith as of reason. This religion is atheism, a belief that arises not from evidence but from faith, as any sophomore philosophy major can tell you. The first principle of atheism is materialism: the belief, equally unproven by science, that all reality is material and so everything must be explained by material causes and forces blindly following the laws of physics. In other words, as Robert C. Koons notes, "Darwinism has been part of a metaphysical attack on the very idea of agency, both human and superhuman, that has been ongoing for two hundred years."

Thus Darwinism, like Freudianism and Marxism, is another example of modernity’s attack on the very idea of the human, a reduction of people to mere things in the world completely determined by the brute forces of nature. Needless to say, to dismiss free will and spiritual reality is to make not a scientific claim, but rather a philosophical or a religious one: "What the science educators propose to teach as ‘evolution," Phillip E. Johnson notes, "and label as fact, is based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly controversial philosophical presupposition." God, however, has not been done away with by evolution; all his creative and purposive powers have now been bestowed on "random mutations" and "natural selection."

The NOVA site admits this belief that reality is material, and therefore everything must be explained by material causes. They acknowledge that this rules God out of any scientific discussion. NOVA says in response to the FAQ: Does evolution prove there is no God?

Like other scientific theories, including Copernican theory, atomic theory, and the germ theory of disease, evolution deals only with objects, events, and processes in the material world. Science has nothing to say one way or the other about the existence of God or about people’s spiritual beliefs.

In other words, NOVA has nothing to say about God, as long as you keep Him in the spiritual realm. If you try to let Him into the physical world, then they will have something to say. At that point, they will have to either deny He exists or to deny that He does anything in the physical world. So you are welcome to your belief in God, as long as you keep Him contained in a spiritual box where He won’t disturb anything. Who needs faith in God when you have faith in evolution?

Q.104. For what do we pray in the fourth request?

A. In the fourth request (Give us this day our daily bread) we pray that we may receive an adequate amount of the good things in this life as a free gift of God and that with them we may enjoy His blessing.

I just have two questions:

1. What happens if a paper dragon breathes fire?
2. Do you think the person who made this knows how to fold a one dollar bill so that George Washington’s head becomes a mushroom?

AP Photo:

Caption: “A work of origami, or paper folding, is shown on display during the origami convention in Tokyo, Friday, Aug. 20, 2004. Showcasing a renaissance in the ancient Japanese art of origami, some of the best paper-folders in the world descended on Tokyo on Friday for a three-day competition and convention to celebrate the artistic possibilities of origami, which is believed to have been used to create sacred ornaments at the Grand Shrines of Ise, the center of Japan’s native shinto religion. (AP Photo/Junji Kurokawa)”

Here are a few more thoughts on the topic: How would Jesus vote?

As I stated in the earlier post, I anticipated the liberal response that Jesus was a social reformer concerned with all the same issues of social justice that animate the left. Therefore in their opinion, Jesus would, just as they do, fully support the Democratic party.

The thinking within liberal “Christianity” that the purpose of religion is to support political ends is nothing new. It goes way back. J. Gresham Machen wrote Christianity and Liberalism in 1923. (I purposefully put the scare quotes around “Christianity” above when referring to liberal “Christianity” because the whole point of Machen’s book was that Christianity and Liberalism are two different and opposed religions. If you have never read the book, I highly recommend that you do.) Machen says the following:

Whatever may be thought of this attitude toward religion [of using it merely as a means to an end], it is perfectly plain that the Christian religion cannot be treated in any such way. The moment it is so treated it ceases to be Christian. For if one thing is plain it is that Christianity refuses to be regarded as a mere means to a higher end. Our Lord made that perfectly clear when He said: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother … he cannot be my disciple” (Luke xiv. 26) [ellipsis in original]. Whatever else those stupendous words may mean, they certainly mean that the relationship to Christ takes precedence of all other relationships, even the holiest of relationships like those that exist between husband and wife and parent and child. Those other relationships exist for the sake of Christianity and not Christianity for the sake of them. Christianity will indeed accomplish many useful things in this world, but if it is accepted in order to accomplish those useful things it is not Christianity. Christianity will combat Bolshevism; but if it is accepted in order to combat Bolshevism, it is not Christianity; Christianity will produce a unified nation, in a slow but satisfactory way; but if it is accepted in order to produce a unified nation, it is not Christianity; Christianity will produce a healthy community; but if it is accepted in order to produce a healthy community, it is not Christianity: Christianity will promote international peace; but if it is accepted in order to promote international peace, it is not Christianity. Our Lord said: “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.” But if you seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness in order that all those other things may be added unto you, you will miss both those other things and the Kingdom of God as well….

[pages 151-152]

The modern liberal is optimistic with reference to these institutions; the Christian man is pessimistic unless the institutions be manned by Christian men. The modern liberal believes that human nature as at present constituted can be molded by the principles of Jesus; the Christian man believes that evil can only be held in check and not destroyed by human institutions, and that there must be a transformation of the human materials before any new building can be produced. This difference is not a mere difference in theory, but makes itself felt everywhere in the practical realm. It is particularly evident on the mission field. The missionary of liberalism seeks to spread the blessings of Christian civilization (whatever that may be), and is not particularly interested in leading individuals to relinquish their pagan beliefs. The Christian missionary, on the other hand, regards satisfaction with a mere influence of Christian civilization as a hindrance rather than a help; his chief business, he believes, is the saving of souls, and souls are saved not by the mere ethical principles of Jesus but by His redemptive work. The Christian missionary, in other words, and the Christian worker at home as well as abroad, unlike the apostle of liberalism, says to all men everywhere: “Human goodness will avail nothing for lost souls; ye must be born again.”

[page 156]

What is frightening to me as a conservative, evangelical Christian, is to see the inroads this liberal thinking has made within evangelical Christianity. Reading through Machen’s book, much of what was in the liberal church of his day is now in the evangelical church. Just as some within the liberal church proclaim that obviously Jesus would vote for the Democrats, there are many within the conservative, evangelical wing of Christianity who argue the contrary that Jesus would obviously vote for the Republicans.

There was an interesting quote from the original article that I did not include in my earlier post, but will add it here because it is germane to the discussion:

In fact, Jesus might not support Bush or Kerry — or anyone else, for that matter.

“Jesus was not one to take sides on political issues,” said Derek Davis, director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor University in Waco.

While there were obviously no Democrats or Republicans during the time of Jesus, different groups vied for attention, including the fundamentalist Pharisees, the aristocratic Sadducees, the spiritually devout Essenes and the revolutionist Zealots.

“Interestingly, Jesus never sided with any of these groups but remained above such earthly disputes,” Davis said. “This does not mean we should do the same. He was God. We are mere humans.”

Davis makes a good point. Jesus didn’t involve Himself in the politics of the day. It wasn’t because the politics weren’t important; it is because He had a different mission: the salvation of His people from their sins.

Interestingly, most people of the time missed who He was, because they were looking for the Messiah to be a political leader who would free them from the tyranny of Rome. They missed their need for a saviour from something bigger and more important than political slavery. They missed their need for a saviour from their slavery to sin. And in so doing, they missed their Saviour.

I’m afraid when people start arguing about who Jesus would vote for, they are again looking to Jesus as a political saviour, who will lead them to the candidate who will bring them salvation. Instead we need to look to Jesus for salvation from the guilt and judgement due upon our sins. And as people are saved and transformed, we can then expect to see our institutions and nations transformed as well. For it is only as the people who make up the institutions and nations are changed that we will see the institutions and nations become more godly themselves.

Does that mean that politics is unimportant and the Christian shouldn’t take part in it? Of course not. Christians should vote, and run for office. Christians should study the scriptures to understand what God’s word says about the issues of our day, and we should seek to guide our government to govern in accordance with this understanding. But Christians must always remember that our efforts in politics are the same as the efforts of any other citizen seeking to influence the people and the government: we seek to have them do what we think is right.

As a Christian, I pray that God will convert the people around me to Christianity. It is God’s work and it is for His glory for Him to bring people into His kingdom. But I do not seek to convert people to my political views. I happen to think my views are right, and I believe they are Biblical. I’ll share them with you. Perhaps you may agree with me. Perhaps you will not. And if you can convince me that my current political views are not Biblical, I will reject them and embrace what I then understand to be Biblical. But my desire is to see people converted to Christianity, not to my politics.

So whether it is the left or the right, Democrat of Republican, I am very leery of people who try to influence the current political debate by telling us how Jesus would vote. I’m afraid that they have missed the whole point.

Here is what might be a previously unreleased photograph from a cut scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey. It is done so well, you can’t even see the wires.

AFP Photo:

Caption: “Ivan Lee (L) of the U.S. flies as he lunges at Russia’s Stanislav Pozdniakov (R) during the men’s fencing team sabre bronze medal duels at the Athens 2004 Olympic Games August 19, 2004. REUTERS/Arko Datta”

Headline AP: Woman Celebrates 95th Birthday on Harley

So far, I’ve celebrated zero birthdays on a Harley, so even if I start with my next, I’ll probably never make ninety-five of them.

Headline AP: Religion Experts Ask How Jesus Would Vote

AUSTIN, Texas – Just a few miles from George W. Bush’s former office at the state Capitol, a panel of religious experts weighed a question with relevance to many people of faith: How would Jesus vote?

It’s a complex topic that can’t be boiled down to simple political terms, said religious leaders who attended a Texas Faith Network conference in Austin on Tuesday. Many at the conference voiced concerns that the religious right dominates discussions of faith and morality in politics. They complained that issues such as abortion and gay marriage seem to take priority over hunger, corporate crime and even the war in Iraq….

“If ever there were a bleeding-heart liberal, it was Jesus Christ,” [James C.] Moore said at Congregation Agudas Achim synagogue. “I think the carpenter from Galilee was the original Democrat.”…

“As I read the Scriptures and as I understand faith, God’s side is the group that’s feeding the poor, caring about children, making sure that people have enough food to eat — not killing others,” said [Rev. Timothy] Tutt, who opposes the war in Iraq….

Michael Jinkins, a pastoral theology professor at Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary, said: “Based on my reading of the Gospels, I think Jesus might surprise us all on his voting record. He was far less ‘religious’ than the people who criticized him most.”

From just reading the headline, I expected quotes like those. It is funny how people like to convene these panels of experts who will tell us what Jesus would do with the issues of today. They tell us that Jesus wouldn’t drive an SUV, or He would give universal governmental health care, or He would only use solar power. Things like that. It is interesting that they always tell us that Jesus would support their own pet project (and their pet project usually is a government project).

So from some of the people at this panel, Jesus would be a liberal Democrat, opposed to liberating Iraq. Why? I think it has less to do with scripture and more to do with their own personal beliefs.

So, HWJV (How Would Jesus Vote). I’ll give you the answer. If He lived where I live today, He would vote by pulling the little lever in the polling booth, since my community doesn’t have paper ballots or touch screens.

That’s all you’ll get from me. I’m going to weigh the various candidates, particularly in light of the issues that are most important to me. In light of their positions on those issue, and their personal integrity and character, I’m going to decide who I think is the best candidate for the particular office. I will share the reasons why I support or reject the candidates. But one thing I won’t do is presume to speak for God by announcing that I know the mind of God enough to declare how Jesus would vote.

I really enjoy reading G.K. Chesterton. In a lot of cases, I don’t understand what he is trying to say, or I completely disagree with it, but I love the way he says it. I can’t help but admire his way of crafting words. Here is an example. I don’t fully understand what he is driving at, and I completely disagree with the idea that believing in predestination will drive you mad. But despite all that, I still greatly enjoy reading what he has to say.

From Orthodoxy: Chapter II – The Maniac

Imagination does not breed insanity. Exactly what does breed insanity is reason. Poets do not go mad; but chess-players do. Mathematicians go mad, and cashiers; but creative artists very seldom. I am not, as will be seen, in any sense attacking logic: I only say that this danger does lie in logic, not in imagination…. Perhaps the strongest case of all is this: that only one great English poet went mad, Cowper. And he was definitely driven mad by logic, by the ugly and alien logic of predestination. Poetry was not the disease, but the medicine; poetry partly kept him in health…. He was damned by John Calvin; he was almost saved by John Gilpin. Everywhere we see that men do not go mad by dreaming. Critics are much madder than poets. Homer is complete and calm enough; it is his critics who tear him into extravagant tatters. Shakespeare is quite himself; it is only some of his critics who have discovered that he was somebody else. And though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.