Conservative Evangelicals and Shibboleths

In Judges 12, the Ephraimites are at war with the Gileadites. Because the two tribes were closely related, it was difficult to tell who was a friend and who was an enemy. But because the two groups had different accents, they used code words to distinguish friend from foe. When someone was suspected of being an Ephraimite, the Gileadites would ask him to say the word "shibboleth." If the person had an Ephraimite accent and pronounced it "sibbboleth," the Gileadites would kill him on the spot.

We have our own shibboleths in conservative evangelicalism. We size people up as either "with us" or "against us" based on what they believe about certain issues we deem important. Some of our shibboleths are:

Your view on hell
Your view on homosexuality
Your view on the role of women in the church
Your view on the environment
Your view on postmodernism
Your view on evolution
Your view on inerrancy
Your political affiliation
Your view on the "emerging" or "emergent" church

When we hear someone's views on these issues, we categorize them as either "with" us or "against" us. When we ask the question, "What do you think about hell?" we don't care so much about what influences their theology of the righteousness of God and eschatological justice, we just want to know if they are "with" us or "against" us. Are they a liberal, or are they one of the good guys? (Or, conversely, are they a fundamentalist, or are they one of the good guys?)

I realize that shibboleths are a part of all cultures and sub-groups and evangelicals aren't the only guilty parties, but I think we take it one step further.

If our preachers don't regularly preach on the shibboleths, we start to questions whose side they're on, anyway.

I think that is why evangelical preachers are accused of preaching nothing but hellfire and brimstone and why God hates the gays--if they don't, people question their conservatism.

Now, I am all about preaching the Bible and teaching the truth. But really, how much ink is spilled in the Bible on these topics compared to how much they're brought up in church? How many times did Jesus tell people they were going to hell and that this meant a literal place with literal fire that consciously torments you literally forever? How many people did Paul hand over to Satan because they were postmodernists?

I take the conservative position on most of the above issues. But perhaps what makes me different is that I have friends who don't. Some of these people are a lot smarter than I am. Some of them love God a lot more than I do. Some of them know the Bible a lot better than I do. Not everyone who takes a "liberal" position on these issues is trying to destroy the Gospel. They read the same Bible as me and serve the same God. They just see things a bit differently. I disagree with their ideas, but I am okay with some diversity in the body of Christ.

There is a time and a place to set boundaries. The great church councils decided that there is orthodoxy and heterodoxy. Jesus cared a lot about what people believed about Him. But I think we define orthodoxy a lot narrower than those who have gone before us. Maybe we need to learn to hold fast to what is essential, but to show some humility in other areas.

Jesus was most interested in telling people to follow Him and build for the kingdom of God. Paul was most interested in telling people about the life-changing effects of the cross and the indwelling Holy Spirit. John was most interested in the significance of Jesus--who He was, why He died, and what difference it makes in the way we treat each other. Maybe these are the things we should care about, too.

Over a thousand years after the conflict between the Ephraimites and the Gileadites, shibboleths came up again in the community of faith. This time it happened in the city of Antioch. The Jews of the day went to great lengths to distinguish themselves from the godless Gentiles. They didn't eat meat sacrificed to idols, they didn't work on the Sabbath, and they circumcised their sons. There was never a question of whose side they were on--their lifestyle made it apparent. But Peter, the apostle to the Jews, started eating with the Gentiles in Antioch. But when the kosher good ole boys came up from Jerusalem, he changed his ways. He made sure his eating habits said "shibboleth" and not "sibboleth."

But Paul called him out. Peter wasn't living the Gospel.

In Galatians 3:26–28, Paul writes, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

The Gospel transcends the shibboleths.

The Good Life Sermon Number 6

Last Sunday I taught the sixth message in a ten-week series called The Good Life: Redeeming Suburbia through Counter-cultural Living. Every week we contrast a myth of suburbia about living the good life (taken from David Goetz's book, Death by Suburb) with a message of Jesus about living the good life (taken from the Gospel of John).

This past week we looked at the myth, "I Need to Make a Difference with My Life." We talked about how we all have this feeling that God wants us to do something great with our lives. Does He? Maybe He just wants us to be faithful. We looked at Jesus' interaction with Pontius Pilate, the hidden righteousness, and the importance of doing good, even when no one is looking.

You can listen to this, or any of my other sermons here.

Awaiting Redemption Redirected

I was very close to shutting this blog down for good, but I'm not going to do that. The past few months have been good for me--much better than the six months previous. I think that my participation in online communities and discussion groups was distracting me from the things I enjoy most in life. When I cut the internet out of my life for a season, I rediscovered who I am.

The internet can be stimulating. I enjoy lively discussion of ideas. I love the reevaluate what I believe, why I believe it, and what difference it makes to the world. My interests are mostly in theology, ethics, and Christian origins, and most people are bored with the things that excite me. Thus, blogs and discussion boards can be a much-needed outlet for my intellectual and spiritual curiosity.

I started this blog as a way of thinking out loud--of putting my thoughts about life, God, and especially "already/not yet" spirituality, on to paper (or rather server space). The key to a good blog, I heard, is to update it every day. So I tried.

Big mistake.

I wasted so much time in stupid discussions about things like the Emergent church, the New Perspective on Paul, and how we know what we know, that I neglected the things that really matter. I have since made it a priority to take care of myself. I need to get exercise. I need to watch what I eat. I want to spend time with the people who matter most to me. I need to pursue God. I need to figure out once and for all how Christianity "works." I need to be more aware of the needs of the people around me. I need to become the person that I want to become. Or, as Elvis Presley once put it so profoundly, "I need a little less conversation and a little more action."

I am going to keep the blog going. I do find it to be helpful in some ways, and I think I will probably start another blog some time in the future if I put this one to rest. I figure I can just save myself a step by leaving this one active. I am not going to update it every day--only when I have something to say.

Thanks for reading.

Blog on Hiatus

Hello!

Every now and then I take inventory of my life and ask myself tough questions. I examine what I do, why I do it, and what effect it has on my life. Recently, I have been in kind of a funk, so I am making some changes. One notable change that I am making is a fast from unnecessary online activity.

I have journaled off and on as a spiritual discipline. When I finished my last journal I thought I might join the 21st century and blog instead of journaling. Awaiting Redemption kind of started as a way of "journaling out loud" the things I was thinking about. The problem with blogging is that it is public and it never goes away. So, I have had to be careful about what I say and how I say it (of course, this hasn't kept me from saying things I regret). While I can scribble a thought in a journal, I have to proofread and rewrite a blog. While blogging about the books I have been reading is extremely helpful in retaining what I read, the time commitment involved in maintaining this blog and conversations elsewhere is too overwhelming. I want to do something different.

The fast will last for 3 months. I will reexamine my life on November 11. If all is well, Awaiting Redemption will probably be shut down. If things are not well, then I may conclude that the problem lies elsewhere. I may consider firing up the blog-o-matic once again.

Thanks for reading! Take care.

Original Sin: A Cultural History by Alan Jacobs (Chapter 5)

In chapter 5 of Original Sin, Alan Jacobs wrestles with the role that supernatural forces (read "Satan") play in our every day decision making. When we commit evil deeds, is it because "we simply chose," "we have a sinful nature," or because "the Devil made us do it"?

Jacobs meanders through Milton's Paradise Lost, J.R.R. Tokien's The Lord of the Rings, Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and and the Chamber of Secrets and the 2004 movie Hellboy (yes, that Hellboy) for various approaches to the question.

Jacobs shows the similarities between these works in showing that our own desires and the promptings of the Devil are often impossible to differentiate. Does Frodo grasp the ring because he wants it or because the ring has power over him? Tolkien is deliberately vague. Is Faustus corrupted because he chooses to listen to the "bad angel," or does he listen to the bad angel because he is corrupted? Marlowe is vague. In both cases, internal desires and external pressures are difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish.

Jacobs concludes:

"Do we sin because we heed the devilish voice in our ears? Or do we heed that voice because we have already sinned? Whatever answer we might give has little practical significance. The divided self is our inheritance no matter what, and in the pain and disorientation of that experience we may not even care whether we are torn from the inside out or the outside in." (Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History [New York: HarperOne, 2008], 95.)

Is Jacobs right? Can we discern between "devilish promptings" and our own desires? Does it matter?

Original Sin: A Cultural History by Alan Jacobs (Chapter 4)

In chapter 4 of Original Sin, Alan Jacobs looks at The Feast of All Souls and it's significance to belief in original sin.

All Souls Day is on November 2, the day after All Saints Day. While All Saints Day celebrates the saints' intercession on behalf of the church militant, All Souls Day celebrates the church's intercession for the souls in Purgatory.

Jacobs notes how these two holidays are two sides of the same coin. On the first day, the church recognizes it's weakness and its need for intercession. On the second day, it recognizes its power and responsibility to pray for those who have gone before. Both days point to the same truth--we are all in this together, and judgment awaits both the high and the low.

Jacobs then goes to show how original sin is the great equalizer. It is usually the aristocracy that is appalled at the doctrine--they don't want to see themselves as just as deprived as the masses. Jacobs illustrates this point with a quote from the Duchess of Buckingham, commenting on the preaching of George Whitefield:

"I thank Your Ladyship for the information concerning the Methodist [sic] preachers . . . [but] the doctrines are most repulsive and strongly tinctured with the impertinence and disrespect towards their Superiors, in perpetually endeavoring to level all ranks and do away with all distinctions. It is monstrous to be told you have a heart as sinful as the common wretches that crawl on the earth. This is highly offensive and insulting; and I cannot but wonder if your ladyship should relish any sentiment so much at variance with high rank and good breeding."

Is original sin the great equalizer?

Why are the powerful powerful? Why are the "wretches" wretched? What would Pelagius say? Augustine?

Worst Preacher Ever Contest

So, this is hilarious. Scotteriology has a tournament bracket of the worst preachers ever. (HT to The Boar's Head Tavern)

The first days of voting are for John Crowder (#1 seed) vs. Pat Robertson (#16) and Joel Osteen (#8) vs. Kenneth Copeland (#9).

I don't want to influence your voting, but I chose Robertson and Copeland. John Crowder is new on the scene--he's your typical kooky ultra-charismatic. He compares the work of the Holy Spirit to drugs and alcohol and is famous for preaching while "drunk in the Spirit." He coined the term "jehovajauna." On the other hand, Pat Robertson has said more offensive things in the name of Christ than anyone else in history (there is a link on the bracket to the top 10). I vote for the upset!

Joel Osteen is super famous and he preaches a prosperity gospel. But, I read his book, and it's not that bad. I wouldn't recommend it, but I didn't burn it either. IMO, he is a moderate prosperity preacher, or "prosperity lite," as some like to call him. Copeland, on the other hand, preaches nothing that resembles the Gospel. He is the archetypal prosperity preacher, complete with the $20 million jet.

Visit Scotteriology and vote!

Original Sin: A Cultural History by Alan Jacobs (Chapter 3)

In chapter 3 of Original Sin: A Cultural History, Alan Jacobs investigates the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve, and then describes how the events were interpreted by Pelagius, Augustine, Julian, and (briefly) the Eastern church.

Jacobs notes that the Adam and Eve narrative is remarkably simple. Adam is told not to eat the fruit. Eve eats. Adam eats. Both are expelled from the garden and cursed (as is the serpent). That’s all there is—there is not theological explanation for the significance of the story.

In fact, the story raises more questions than it answers. How did Adam and Eve know what death was if they had never seen it? How did Adam and Eve contemplate rebellion if they had no sin nature? What does it mean that the fruit was “good for food and pleasing to the eye”? Does this imply that they were envious of forbidden fruit before the fall? Isn’t envy evidence of sin?

Jacobs’ point in illuminating the problems in the Eden narrative is to point out that most of the ink spilt on this issue relates more to Paul’s interpretation of the story (specifically Romans 5) than it does to comment on the actual story.

The most famous debate over the interpretation of Romans 5 was between Augustine and Pelagius. Pelagius was a monk and an extremely pious man. He felt that too many people blamed a “sin nature” for decisions that they willed. He felt that the will was free from the influence of any kind of sin nature so that people were free to choose what they wanted. Thus his critique of his fellow Christians was that they just needed to will to be better.

Much good could be said about Pelagius. He was a pious man. He did a lot of good, and he valued the life lived for God. However, because he denied any external influences on the will, Pelagius offered no hope for growth. At all points of a person’s life, he has the capacity to walk away. There is no such thing as “discipline,” “transformation,” or “character.” Thus, Pelagians live in constant fear of Hell. They may have lived a good life up to the present, but the next 10 minutes could be different.

Augustine spent much of his life refuting the widely popular Pelagius, arguing that people inherited a sin nature from their father, Adam. He successfully had Pelagianism condemned as a heresy at the Council of Carthage.

Augustine’s more successful nemesis, however, was Julian—a family friend born around the time of Augustine’s conversion. Julian was a brilliant young man and a supporter of Pelagius who was exiled after the Council of Carthage. Unlike Pelagius, Julian was not a monk. He was more like a spoiled brat—an aristocrat and landowner who spent all of his time writing scathing books against Augustine.

Julian’s main criticism of Augustine was the way in which his theology of original sin portrayed God. Because the church adopted Augustine’s view of original sin, they believed that all un-baptized infants who died went immediately to Hell. Further, Augustine had some strange views on sexual ethics, which Julian exploited.

Augustine believed that part of the curse on man was that his sexual organs rebelled against him much in the way he had rebelled against God. Thus, involuntary erections are symptoms of the fall. Further, Augustine identified the root of sin in man as concupiscence, which often exerted itself in lust. Since lust is sin, sex between married couples necessarily involved an element of sin.

Augustine wrote On Marriage and Concupiscence to defend the institution of marriage, and he reformed his views on the destination of un-baptized babies, but the damage was done. To this day, Augustine’s notion of original sin is often compared to his strange views on sex and un-baptized babies. Augustine died before they could settle the argument. Found on his desk after his death was an unfinished work called Contra Julianum

In my opinion, Pelagius’ interpretation of the nature of people runs contrary to the biblical notion. This doesn’t mean that Augustine is right, but I think that there is evidence that sin is more than just a behavior—it is a force that influences the decisions we make. The fact that Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy doesn’t help his case, either.

On the other hand, Augustine’s views raise some serious questions. If people are conceived sinners, what do we do with the death of the unborn or the death of babies? We often punt to “age of accountability” answers, but is there biblical support for this?

Further, the “age of accountability” leads to some troubling conclusions. One of the reasons that Andrea Yates gave for drowning her five kids in the bathtub was that she was a bad mom and that her kids were going to turn out bad. She wanted to kill them so that they would go to heaven before they reached the age of accountability.

Augustine’s answer to the problem was that perhaps God had something else in mind for babies. He believed that God’s justice demanded such a case. I don’t know what biblical support he had for this, but you could make a case for it based on reason and Isa 55:8, which is spoken in the context of God forgiving people whom we might not expect to receive forgiveness.

I find the case for original sin compelling. I find the objections raised by Julian disturbing. I find the solutions to the problem confusing. I think I have to punt on this one and say, “God is too good to be unkind and too wise to make mistakes.”

Psalm 21

Psalm 21 (NET) reads:

For the music director; a psalm of David.

O LORD, the king rejoices in the strength you give;
he takes great delight in the deliverance you provide.

2 You grant him his heart's desire;
you do not refuse his request. (Selah)

3 For you bring him rich blessings;
you place a golden crown on his head.

4 He asked you to sustain his life,
and you have granted him long life and an enduring dynasty.

5 Your deliverance brings him great honor;
you give him majestic splendor.

6 For you grant him lasting blessings;
you give him great joy by allowing him into your presence.

7 For the king trusts in the LORD,
and because of the Sovereign LORD's faithfulness he is not upended.

8 You prevail over all your enemies;
your power is too great for those who hate you.

9 You burn them up like a fiery furnace when you appear;
the LORD angrily devours them;
the fire consumes them.

10 You destroy their offspring from the earth,
their descendants from among the human race.

11 Yes, they intend to do you harm;
they dream up a scheme, but they do not succeed.

12 For you make them retreat
when you shoot your arrows at them.

13 Rise up, O LORD, in strength!
We will sing and praise your power!

This psalm praises the Lord for his preservation of the Israelite king. The first six verses describe what the Lord has done for the king, and the basis for this blessing is in verse 7—“For the king trusts in the LORD, and because of the Sovereign LORD's faithfulness he is not upended.”

The psalm presents the king and the Lord in a covenant relationship. The king upholds his end by “trusting” in the Lord, i.e. following the law and not worshipping other gods, and the Lord stays faithful to the covenant by defeating the king’s enemies.

To me, this is a reminder of the faithfulness and power of God to complete the work He has begun in the church. It’s easy to get discouraged and think that this thing called Christianity is a meaningless dead-end, but psalms like this remind us that God is in control and that nothing is going to thwart His plans. We may not always understand His plans, but we can trust that He knows what is going on.

“Father, I confess my lack of faith in many situations. I am too easily discouraged; too simply disheartened. I thank you for the words of this psalm and I pray for the confidence of its writer. I confess that You are in control of history; that You have a plan; and that everything is happening according to that plan. We look forward to the day when you bring history to its consummation and put sin and death into submission to Christ. You are good. Amen.”

Psalm 20

Psalm 20 (NET) reads:

For the music director; a psalm of David.

May the LORD answer you when you are in trouble;
may the God of Jacob make you secure!

2 May he send you help from his temple;
from Zion may he give you support!

3 May he take notice of your offerings;
may he accept your burnt sacrifice! (Selah)

4 May he grant your heart's desire;
may he bring all your plans to pass!

5 Then we will shout for joy over your victory;
we will rejoice in the name of our God!
May the LORD grant all your requests!

6 Now I am sure that the LORD will deliver his chosen king;
he will intervene for him from his holy heavenly temple,
and display his mighty ability to deliver.

7 Some trust in chariots and others in horses,
but we depend on the LORD our God.

8 They will fall down,
but we will stand firm.

9 The LORD will deliver the king;
he will answer us when we call to him for help!

The key verse to this psalm is verse 7, “Some trust in chariots and others in horses, but we depend on the LORD our God.” What a tough way to live. I feel that phrases like this are kind of thrown around flippantly in Christian circles, but how many of us would have been willing to go into battle without horses or chariots, depending on the Lord for victory? I think that is what the psalmist is getting at. Time after time in the Old Testament the Lord helped Israel defeat armies that on paper were more powerful than them. This led them to say, “The horses? The chariots? They don’t matter. The Lord gives the victory.”

Today, we are scared to death to rely on God for “victory.” It is far easier to show up with our horses and chariots. After all, we can control the horses and chariots. We know what they can do. We can bridle the horses. We can steer the chariots. But God? He’s different. He doesn’t tell us what He’s going to do. He doesn’t tell us how our life is going to end up. He doesn’t tell us how we’re going to make it with no horses and no chariots.

That’s scary.

That’s faith.

Original Sin: A Cultural History by Alan Jacobs (Chapter 2)

In chapter 2 of Original Sin, Alan Jacobs discusses the life and thought of Aurelius Augustinus--St. Augustine of Hippo.

Augustine is widely considered one of the most brilliant minds in western history--certainly the most brilliant of his day. Although his mother was a Christian, Augustine thought little of Christianity and left home to study the philosophies of his day. He was drawn to Manichaeism, a dualistic faith that saw life as an endless tension between the powers of good and evil. When the top Manichaean minds were unable to answer his remaining objections to their faith, he left, discouraged.

Plagued by the question, “What is wrong with us?”, Augustine eventually turned to the faith of his mother. While wrestling with his thoughts one day, he heard a child singing “Tolle, lege,” “Take it and read.” He opened the Scriptures to Romans 13 in which Paul wrote, “Let us live decently as in the daytime, not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in discord and jealousy. Instead, put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to arouse its desires.” In Christianity he found the answer to his questions.

Jacobs writes that Augustine has been inaccurately portrayed as sexually promiscuous in his youth. Augustine says that he struggled with “lusts of the flesh” and “carnal” desires, but Augustine uses these terms in a general sense of “desires that make us do what we don’t want to.” Augustine may have been frustrated with his sexual indiscretions, but a straightforward reading of his works doesn’t demand that. (Augustine says that he lived with a concubine for twelve years before his engagement, at which time he dismissed his mistress according to the customs of his day. Unable to live chastely, he took another mistress in the time between his engagement and marriage. One of the reasons why Augustine was unable to completely cut off ties with his mistress was that he loved her and only sent her away to honor the marriage that his parents had arranged for him. Although Augustine was frustrated with his lack of self-control, he doesn’t say that he lived an unbridled sexual life.)

Jacobs argues that Augustine’s question was not, “Why was I so bad as a youth?” but “Why am I unable to live the way I want to live?” He saw the answer to this question in Romans 5, according to the interpretation now called “the Augustinian view” (as described here).

Jacobs’ discussion of Augustine reminds me of an online conversation I had with some folks on Jesuscreed.org. I think the discussion started with Tim Keller’s book The Reason for God and whether our sense of justice was evidence for the existence of God. Some commenters argued that it was not, saying that altruism could be the result of evolution (i.e. it is beneficial to the group that we treat each other justly, so those with a sense of justice survive natural selection). Others argued, like Kant, that justice was “reasonable,” so that someone with an evolved sense of reason would naturally be just.

I offered a response to these ideas that, while nobody seemed to find it convincing, was not refuted. Until someone shows me where I am wrong, I am sticking to this as a modified version of the argument for God from justice.

It is not so much our belief in justice that “proves” God, but the combination of our belief in justice and our inability to carry it out. Why is it that everybody believes that things should be just and fair, and yet nobody is just or fair? Evolution cannot answer this question. It is not the gazelles that think they should be faster than the lions who survive, it’s the ones who actually are faster than the lions. In the same way, belief that things should be just doesn’t help a group unless people actually are just.

In the same way, justice may be reasonable, but why are so many reasonable people unjust? Is it just because they can’t make the logical connection between their actions, or is there something else at play?

In my opinion, it is tough to explain our desire for justice and our inability to carry it out from evolution or from reason. It is better explained with theism. Augustine asked the right question: “What is wrong with us?” Like Augustine, I think that Christianity provides the most satisfactory answer to this question—sin.

The Good Life Myth #3: I Want My Neighbor's Life

The latest message in my sermon series called The Good Life: Redeeming Suburbia through Counter-cultural Living is up on Believers Fellowship's sermon audio page.

In the series, I have been comparing the myths of suburbia about living the good life with the message of Jesus as presented in the Gospel of John. This week's suburban myth was "I want my neighbor's life." Suburbia tells us that the secret to happiness is owning the things that our neighbors own. This leads us to a life of rampant consumerism. In contrast, John the Baptist lived by the mottos, "A man can only receive what is given to him from heaven" and "He must become greater, I must become less." We looked at how these mottos challenged the suburban lifestyle of consumerism.

Original Sin:A Cultural History by Alan Jacobs (Chapter 1)

In his book, Original Sin: A Cultural History, Alan Jacobs seeks to give a cultural defense of the Christian doctrine of original sin. See here for a brief explanation of the doctrine.

In chapter 1, Jacobs summarizes stories from 6 different cultures that echo the Christian notion of original sin.

First, there is the ancient Greek story of Cassandra—pulled from the alter of Athena by the Locrian prince Ajax, then later raped and murdered, bringing a curse upon the Locrians. For 1000 years after the crime, the Locrians had to send two virgins to Troy to serve in the Temple of Athena to appease for the crime of their ancient ruler.

Then, there is Plato’s Laws in which the philosopher investigates the evil nature of man and concludes that he must inherit “an infatuate obsession” from a crime committed long ago.

Third, there is the Hebrew story of David and Bathsheba. King David commits adultery with Bathsheba and then conspires to kill her husband when she finds out she is pregnant. When the prophet Nathan confronts David with his sin, he prays “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

Fourth there is the Chinese sage Xun Zi who said that man was inherently evil, but that he could be managed by the sages.

Fifth there is the Nigerian lore that the creator god Olodumare has left the world because he was annoyed at the women smashing yams on the earth below.

Finally, there is the Papua New Guinean tribe, the Urapmin, who, when converting to Christianity, found it impossible to live the way they wanted.

I love Jacobs’ approach to the doctrine of original sin. In seminary, I wrote a lengthy paper on the prepositional phrase eph hoi in Romans 5:12, literally translated “upon whom,” but rendered “because” by most translations. (Rom 5:12 says that death spread to all men eph hoi all sinned. My paper concluded that the grammar and argument of the passage suggested that death spread to all men “because” all sinned in Adam. This is the traditional Reformed position.) As fascinating as my study of obscure Koine Greek grammar rules was, Jacobs approach is a far more intriguing “proof” of original sin—especially to those outside of the evangelical camp.

Perhaps Chesterton was right—original sin is the only Christian doctrine that is empirically validated. It has been my experience that most people are inherently selfish. I especially liked Jacobs’ description of Xun Zi’s disagreement with fellow sage Mencius. Mencius “proved” that people are essentially good because all people will rush to save a child who is about to fall into a well. Xun Zi retorted that this was because we have nothing to gain from a child falling into a well. If we did, not only would we not save the child, we might give him a push. True!

Gerard Baker and the Cult of Obama

This is hilarious. Hat Tip to The Conservative Reformed Mafia. Read the article here.

Tremendous Upside

My new fantasy football team name is Tremendous Upside. This is the image I want to use for my logo, but ESPN won't let me upload anything. It will let me link to an image that has been uploaded elsewhere, so I am putting it here for the link. I hope the experiment works.