The Bosque Boys

I was trying to reclaim my garden this afternoon from the grass that benefitted from our rains and the trip to Georgia. Our stony southwest Oklahoma soil is remarkably fecund if enough rain falls. Of course, I've added from my compost pile, and purchased manure, to build up the soil. As I was grubbing with my mattock (too rocky for a regular hoe still, maybe someday I'll get all the rocks out) I got to thinking about goddesses and the problem of referring to God.

Interesting, and perhaps not surprising, that so many cultures have an earth goddess, not an earth god. The rain from the sky, compared to semen in many belief-systems, falls upon the waiting earth, like a fertile womb, and new life comes forth. Fertile rolling hills, with some imagination, can remind one of the female form. The earth goddess and the sky god, uniting to bring life.

I am, as regular readers know, a Christian. And a preacher. So I refer to God a lot. Sometimes I use sexless terms: God saves because of God's love; God's actions glorify Godself. Theologically, this terminology is not wrong, because traditionally Christian theology has taught that God is without gender. But, sexless terminology works by not using pronouns; that makes for awkward speech, and sounds too impersonal.

When I use pronouns for God, I use the masculine. God himself, The Lord called and he said. I do so because Scripture usually does so. Perhaps you may say that I am using the inclusive "him" to mean both male and female. OK. But then, why is "she" not as acceptable as "he?" Why not an inclusive "she?" While there is a little bit of feminine imagery for God, overwhelmingly the imagery in the Bible is masculine: Lord (not Lady), King (not Queen), Shepherd (not Shepherdess). And, Jesus, now alive and living in heaven thence to return, is a man. Was the choice of a male incarnation accidental? Could God have taken human form as a woman, so that we worship Ruth the Christ? Speculation on this gets us nowhere. God chose to be incarnate as a man, with a Y chromosome, penis, and testicles. For now, at least, I'll use masculine imagery predominately, and masculine pronouns for God.

This afternoon in the garden I was contemplating another reason. Sky gods tend to be associated with power and action, and perhaps are more easily understood as transcending time and place. Earth goddesses are receivers, active in giving life indeed, but tied into the natural cycles of months and years, returning again and again, more easily understood as immanent, that is, within time and place. If we adopt feminine language for the Christian God, will our conception of God be altered, more tied up in Creation? I don't know.

Photognome points us to this article from CNN on an exhibit of personal papers from Isaac Newton. The papers show a man of science motivated by deep faith.

Science and religion are not intrinsic adversaries. That idea comes from the French philosophes who had their own anti-Christian agenda.

I want to pose a question that many will regard as heretical, especially south of the Mason-Dixon line, and that may render me unable to return to Texas. Question: Can a Christian remain faithful and participate in or watch football?

I know that lots of players and coaches at all levels are outspoken Christians. I know that many football games in the south are opened with prayer regardless of the courts. But the question is not Do Christians participate in and watch football, but rather can we do this and be consistent in the Faith?

Raised in Missouri, I grew up a Chiefs fan and a University of Missouri fanatic. On Saturdays I lived and died with MU and on Sundays I rooted for Len Dawson and company as though the fate of the world hung in the balance (and hated the Raiders as if they were the forces of the antichrist). In elementary school we played football at recess (tackle if we could get away with it, touch if the teacher on duty was paying attention). I was not and am not particularly athletic, but enjoyed playing football when I got to Jr. High and on for a while.

So, what causes me to ask this question? (more below)

» Read More

Anybody but me ever wonder how much the nature of the Islamic world is shaped by the fact that for most of the cultures in it, the ideal marriage partner is a first cousin? Think about it. For century after century they have been marrying first cousins.

I admired John Paul II. I think he was the right pope at the right time. His stand for liberty and against tyranny helped bring about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think Benedict XVI is now the right pope at the right time. He is taking an unflinching stand for the truth of Christianity against both the secular relativism so popular in modern Europe, calling that continent back to its Christian roots, and against the claims of Islam.

Here is a report on his recent remarks regarding inter-religious (i.e., between different religions) dialogue. I'll try to remember to link to the official text once it is available on the Vatican website. Hat tip Instapundit.

Here is a snippet:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict said on Wednesday Christians could not allow their beliefs and identity to be diluted for the sake of dialogue with other religions.

"We have to remember that this identity of ours calls for strength, clarity, and courage in the world in which we live," he told pilgrims and tourists at his weekly general audience.

I think we need to take a mental shower (or, to use another image, flush ourselves with brain bleach), after this week's sordid political news.

Let's think about God, and reason, and science.

In an earlier post I tried to explain Pope Benedict XVI's remarks that drew so much fire. Here. (includes link to Pope's speech in English) [As a footnote, I should have been more precise and spoken of mainstream Sunni Islam. Shia Islam has tended to view Allah as adhering to justice (by which Shiites usually mean the bloody vindication of their faith against others, especially Sunnis)].

Cardinal George Pell summarizes Benedict's point within this address. The relevant paragraphs are:

Pope John Paul wrote magnificently on faith and reason and on the essential relationship of truth and freedom and I want to say a few words on the equally essential link between love and reason or rationality.

Recently Pope Benedict has been in the news for his academic address at Regensburg his old university and once the seat of the Holy Roman Emperors. His passing references to Islam dominated the media, but most of the speech was about the importance of God for every society, and especially Western societies like ours and to emphasise that rationality, reason is an attribute of God. God is not cranky, or capricious. God is truthful.

The Pope quoted the beginning of John’s gospel. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God,” pointing out that the Greek word “Logos” means both word and reason.

The Holy Father acknowledges that this reverence for reason was taken into Revelation, into John’s gospel from Greek philosophy and this was a providential conjunction. Here lies one of the secrets of European and Western civilization. Here lives the reason for our Catholic schools, for our reverence for education, why Catholics should never be fundamentalists and can never be post moderns who reject the idea of truth.

Here is an address from two months ago by Cardinal George Pell on Christianity and science. Below is a thought-provoking excerpt.

(more below)

» Read More

Thinking Out Loud:

1. The majority of college-educated white Americans vote Republican (although a slimmer majority of Americans with graduate degrees vote Democrat); the vast majority of evangelical whites in this country vote Republican.

In a nutshell: Well-educated (presumably intelligent) God-fearing white America votes Republican.

What explains these numbers?

The Republican Party has become the party of common sense. We have approximately 12 million undocumented (illegal) immigrants in our country. We should do something to stop that. Common Sense. Terrorists are trying to kill us. We should try to kill them first. We should treat them roughly and follow them around and listen to what they are saying on their cell phones. Common Sense. America is a good place. That is why so many people are trying to come here. Common Sense. Men should marry women. Common sense. Lower taxes and smaller government good; an intrusive and bloated federal government that sees our collective pocketbook as a blank check is bad. Common Sense. Peace through strength. Common Sense. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Common Sense. Put criminals in jail, and they will commit fewer crimes. Common Sense. And I could go on.

Moreover, the rhetoric of the Republican Party acknowledges the God that the majority worships and honors expressions of love for the nation, which a majority still believe to be the "last best hope for mankind." During the generation following the Civil War, the Republican Party chastised the Democrats: "Not every Democrat was a traitor, but every traitor was a Democrat." Today, it seems as if not all Democrats are America-haters, but all America-haters are Democrats. It is easy to make the case in the heartland that the Republican Party is for God and country (and the other guys are not so sure).

2. Even with the bloody ugly mess that is Iraq, most college-educated, white evangelicals want to support President Bush. Even with the bloody ugly mess that is the federal budget and current bloated bureaucracy, most college-educated, white evangelicals want to vote Republican this November.

Coming into this weekend, you could start to smell another Republican surprise. The polls were turning around (and the polls never accurately measure Republican strength--so you can always add a few points to what ever Zogby says the GOP total is likely to be). The President was moving up. The generic "Republican Congress" was moving up. Individual races were looking much better.

Why? Americans want to vote Republican despite Republican failures. Americans continue to trust Republicans. Yeah, they make mistakes, but at least they see the world in a realistic way (according to our perspective). George Bush is a guy like me.

3. Then we get Foley. A case of perversion and arrogance. I had never heard of Mark Foley before Friday night, but he was an important person in the GOP hierarchy. And he was also a sexual (homosexual) predator whom the GOP leadership allowed to roam the halls of Congress and solicit underage pages unchecked. Once again, the party of morality faces a moral crisis.

If we were in a mood last week to forgive Republicans for their faults (if only because the alternative was so repulsive), we were shockingly reminded this weekend that the GOP is sick. Washington is sick. Congress is sick. The system is sick. You can feel Republicans losing steam even as we speak.

Thinking Out Loud:

I spent my Sunday morning getting ready for church and watching President Clinton get red in the face on my TV screen. Some observations:

1. I had almost forgotten about the "Clinton paranoia." Everybody is out to get him. Fox News. Right-wingers. Neo-Cons. Right-wing conservative television producers. That diabolical Chris Wallace. ABC. The 911 Commission. Everybody except Richard Clarke.

2. I had almost forgotten the disdain that I felt for President Clinton from 1998 until on or about the presidential portrait unveiling in 2004 (archived here).

A note on that event in the WH: With charm and grace, President Bush attempted to rehabilitate the former President among conservatives (which was not a popular endeavor with many of my brethren). Nevertheless, President Bush modeled respect for the office and the system that investigated President Clinton and found him "not guilty." If you have never watched the ceremony, it is a must-see for students of the presidency.

Anyhow, the disdain is back. I am having flashbacks of the Clinton attack mode (grenades lobbed indiscriminately while he bemoans the "politics of personal destruction"). President Clinton is personally vicious and relentless in this state, entirely lacking the ability to see the field from outside his immediate self interest. Yesterday, his abject rudeness toward Wallace was extremely uncomfortable to watch.

3. He looked very bad. Gray, tired and craggy.

4. I am reminded that President Clinton was not the smooth operator that we often remember. He went more than a year without granting one interview during the Monica imbroglio. He proved adroit at avoiding hostile media questions, but not especially skilled in confronting or besting the press. Rather, he was insulated from the press, and expert at using them to deliver his message of the day. Without his phalanx of media advisors and operatives, he seemed much more vulnerable (even disoriented). One wonders how he would fare at this, if he had to do it for a living.

The full transcipt from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (from RealClearPoltics).

Some thoughts off the top of my head on today's revelations:

1. President Bush needs to get back to Washington. It is hotter than Hades in Central Texas. Cindy Sheehan is here. The President had a very short trip planned anyway. Go back to Washington. You need to be seen in control.

2. This attack is certainly at least part (not necessarily all) of the next big terrorist event. Cheers for MI-5. Congratulations to the good guys for foiling this attempt. But something seems to be in the air. The al Qaeda crowd is carping too much. Unaccounted-for Egyptians on student visas. Young muslims in Ohio buying mass quantities of cell phones. Caution seems to be the word for the day.

3. We have got to stop boasting about our success in keeping America terror-free over the past five years. Isn't anybody in the administration a baseball fan? You never talk about a no-hitter in the dugout. You never brag to the press about your winning streak. As things have turned uglier in Iraq, and the President's popularity has plummeted, the administration (the VP is especially guilty of this) has increasingly fallen back on its success in preventing a terror event. Stop saying that! Let us stay tough and vigilant and keep our mouths shut.

Thinking Out Loud:

If someone had come to me ten years ago and told me that there were some excess human embryos laying around in a freezer somewhere, the waste product of a completed in vitro fertilization procedure, and we could use those terminal embryos in an experiment that might lead to advances toward curing diseases, I am almost certain that I would have said (without hesitation): "go for it!."

But it is not ten years ago. Unfortunately, I have listened long and hard to nearly a decade of debate, and now I am unflinchingly ambivalent.

I grew up believing that "life began in the womb." "Life begins in the Petri dish" takes some getting used to. After almost a decade, I still wonder: if the embryos are human life, why are we allowing so many to be created and then frozen and eventually destroyed? Isn't that a much bigger problem than experimentation?

But I also hear the voices who are troubled by the larger issues in this debate. I believe in the sanctity of human life. I agree that there are dangerous precedents in what we do here. And I wonder about the long-range implications of the genetic engineering aspect of this process.

In this debate, I have been most swayed by my negative reaction to what the proponents have said. Today on C-SPAN Tom Harkin was trying to explain how "potential human life" was not as valuable as "real human life." Listen to a politician for a while, and you start to realize how fraught with future peril this process (how slippery this slope) really is.

On the other hand, Orrin Hatch and Gordon Smith (two GOP stalwarts of conservatism) are set to vote for the Harkin-Specter bill today.

A few things worth considering:

1. There is no "federal ban" on embryonic stem cell research. This is a debate about funding. Shall we as a community spend our common funds in this particular way?

2. There is too much hype and politicization. Our sick friends and relatives are not being held hostage by this policy decision. No one is going to "get up and walk" in the foreseeable future, if this bill passes and the President signs it into law.

3. Many researchers and entities are working on embryonic stem cells. Big states and other nations are coming up with big dollars to move this along. The federal money is mostly symbolic (and political).

4. It is true, according to reputable opinion polls, that a large majority of Americans favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. But that does not mean that a presidential veto circumvents the "political process." A presidential veto is the political process. All the people elect the president, and we expect him to execute the duties of his office to the best of his ability and, as Lincoln said, "with firmness in the right as God gives [him] to see the right."

5. There is precedent for localizing troubling national moral issues. The federal government has often punted on intractable moral questions (e.g., slavery, temperance, sex). A decision not to fund embryonic stem cell research with federal money because of the lack of moral clarity is a compromise not at odds with our history.