Simul Justus Et Pecator

The Flip-Flopper Strategy

2011-11-28T19:21:00.000-08:00

According to this NY Times story, The Obama 2012 campaign has been studying the strategies of past incumbent presidents, including President Bush's in 2004. One of the big themes of Bush's campaign was that John Kerry was a flip-flopper. Now, that same label is being pasted on Mitt Romney.

I wonder if this is purposeful imitation? In any event, I don't think it will work. Primarily, people won't care because Obama is so unpopular. But also it won't work because the flip-flopper label fits our stereotypes about Democrats. Bush was manly; Kerry was cerebral, weak, etc. He seemed like a flip-flopper. But the street doesn't run both ways. People aren't worried about whether a Republican has the courage of his convictions (which is different than saying Romney does have the courage of his convictions). People know a Republican will launch the nukes (even though only a Democrat has ever done so). And Obama is thought of as weak himself. So, if you have a guy who people think is weak calling a guy people are inclined to think is strong a "flip-flopper," it just won't track. It's like Barney Rubble calling Fred Flinstone dumb.

This isn't a new thought, but I think from a P.R. standpoint, Obama should emphasize the downsizing Romney allegedly oversaw while he was in the private sector. The ads should say, "This guy made millions of dollars a year, and guess what his job was? Firing people" then cut to a picture of a bunch of guys in hard hats walking away from a job site with their lunch pails and pink slips. I'm not saying that's an accurate portrayal of anything, but I think it would be more effective than the flip-flopper scheme.

John Calvin the Writer

2011-11-20T18:50:00.000-08:00

I'm not up on the latest (or any) Calvin scholarship. But I go to a lot of churches where he's read and revered, and here's something they don't usually tell you: the Philosopher of Geneva can turn a phrase. The man can flat out write. Take this sentence:
"It is right to expose this frantic and flagitious extravagance, and therby deprive the worship of images that gloss of antiquity in which papists seek to deck it."

First Book, Chapter 11, Part 16.

Writing teachers tell you to avoid adverbs. But they mostly mean don't write "the girl was very, very pretty." It's weak adverbs that are the problem. But an unusual and/or startlingly apt adverb is a thing of beauty. Like Calvin referring to someone's extravagance as "frantic." I defy someone to find another instance of extravagance being modified by frantic, let alone flagitious (I won't lie; I don't know what it means, but I'm guessing "tiresome").

And then there is the phrase "gloss of antiquity," which so artfully conveys the slapdash attempt by the "papists" to "deck" their idolatry in a cloak of shoddy history.

Calvin writes crisp, strong words - and with art, but not art that needlessly embellishes, but art that conveys serious thoughts while still managing to delight.

Keller and Brooks

2011-11-19T08:53:00.000-08:00

Am I the only one who thinks Tim Keller and David Brooks seem a lot alike? You can listen to Brooks here or Keller here.

A new generation of Evangelicals?

2011-11-18T06:41:00.000-08:00

When I came to teach law at a Christian university, I suspected that my students would largely be interested in Republican politics, especially of the Jesus for President variety. And there are students who fit that profile. But interestingly the larger more vocal contingent is focused on something completely different: global justice and human rights with emphases on sex trafficking and slavery. They're compelled by situations like this one, where a six-year-old girl was raped 20 times a night in a Cambodian brothel.

When I became a Christian in 1997, there seemed to be a lot of enthusiasm among young Evangelicals for U.S. politics. But I think that enthusiasm has waned considerably, being replaced by new concerns like global justice and community service.

I wonder why the change occurred (I suspect it's due to the ineffectiveness of the stuff we were doing in the 90s and maybe the Bush Administration), but, in any event, I think it's probably a good change.

Prediction 2012

2011-11-15T17:20:00.001-08:00

I'm calling it now: Mitt Romney.

--
It was brought to my attention that this post may suggest I'm making the ultraobvious prediction that Romney will be the Republican candidate for President. To clarify, I am predicting that Romney will beat Obama for the Presidency.

story idea

2011-11-06T15:53:00.001-08:00

In a reversal of normal hypocrisy, a man tells people to do the wrong thing, but himself always does what is right...

Meeting

2011-11-05T10:46:00.001-07:00

If you've ever hated a meeting, you'll probably find this funny:

http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2011/10/i-hate-meetings.html

Bad lyrics

2011-10-29T12:00:00.000-07:00

Song lyrics are really hit or miss, and a lot of them miss badly. One of my favorite bands, Jars of Clay, sings the following in their song "Sunny Days":

"...the wait will make the heart grow stronger or fonder I can't quite remember anyway..."

The problem here is the "I can't quite remember anyway." What does this add to the song? I'm pretty sure what it adds is rhyme and time. But it adds no substance, unless the goal was to try to add a whimsical flaky quality. Jars needed the rhyme and the time; I get that. But they should have taken twenty more minutes and written something worth saying. Instead they wasted these 5 words (which is about 3% of the words in the song, which has 153 words total). They might as well have written "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, hey." There are whole novels that don't waste this many words.

Songs are about more than the words. They're about the mood created, the emotion evoked, and all sorts of technical musical things I'm not qualified to judge. But, they're about the words, too, which is to say their about meaning. And it's a black mark on your song if a part of it is meaningless.

Faith and obedience

2011-10-07T07:16:00.000-07:00

I often separate my faith in God from my obedience to Him. I think 'Of course I believe Jesus saves me from my sins,' but then I act as if whether I will obey Jesus is a separate issue. I act as if I may believe, but I may not obey.
But faith and obedience can't be separated like this. There aren't two Jesuses to believe in, one for saving me from my sins, another who might be Lord. When I say 'I believe in Jesus' it means I believe in the One who promised salvation but also requires obedience.

Yet another work related posts

2011-10-06T11:34:00.000-07:00

If the actual charge for your services tends to be higher than the price you tend to quote, change the amount of your quotes (by raising it).

Another work related proverb

2011-10-05T11:33:00.000-07:00

When you quote a range of prices for your services, try not to charge a lot more than the highest price you quoted.

Work related proverb

2011-10-04T11:33:00.001-07:00

What you do affects other people, so try to do your job well.

2011-08-30T09:31:00.000-07:00

For what man is not disposed to rest in himself (instead of God) so long as he is contented with his own endowments?

- Calvin, Institutes, Chpt. 1.1

Most Christians know the experience of being driven by trials or weakness to a fervent devotion to God. In great need, we hurry like the Prodigal to the Father, who graciously and lovingly receives and restores us.

But, there is another test that arises when we are not under fire. We lose our focus on and our feeling for God. We again begin to rest in ourselves. We know it's wrong, but we feel no pressure motivating us seek Him. We often require a new trial to drive us back to God.

A possible remedy for this crossed my mind today. The reason we lose our focus on God is because we have what we want and don't feel the sharp pains of immediate need. But, what if we were to remember that the good things we have, the things that were currently satisfying us, were from God? Instead of seeing them as alternatives to God that take us away from Him or obstacles to experiencing our need for His mercy, what if we consciously observed that they were tokens of His grace. Wouldn't we then delight in God as we celebrated his blessings on us, and wouldn't that help us keep Him at the center of our lives? We tend to perceive our blessings as if they didn't come from God; we think "my job is going well, things are working out, I'm healthy and happy" as if those things came about by accident or by our own doing. But, every good gift is from God, and perhaps by recognizing that fact we could better stay close to God in the good times as well as the bad.

not the healthy

2011-08-28T09:31:00.000-07:00

'We cannot aspire to God until we have begun to be displeased with ourselves.'

- John Calvin, Institutes, Chpt. 1.1

I've heard that the primary action that characterizes the Christian life is repentance. God wants us to turn to Him, to look to Him as God, as we were meant to do from the beginning. But, we tend to look anywhere but to God, and we especially tend to look to ourselves. Calvin makes the point that it is not until we grow dissatisfied with looking to ourselves that we will look to God.

This is why it is a strange blessing that we find so much to be displeased with in ourselves, and why it is so strangely sad that some people are not displeased with themselves (or at least not enough to admit it). The doctor doesn't come for the healthy, but for the sick. So, it's a blessing to realize you are sick so you can be seen by the Good Doctor. And, in this way, although it is also unpleasant, it is a great blessing that we are visited with so many troubles in this life. They drive us to Jesus.

Not in our own strength

2011-08-22T11:26:00.000-07:00

"Don't do it in your own strength, do it in God's."

"Let go and let God."

These phrases and others like them are pretty common among Christians. I agree with them entirely. But, whenever they're said, I always wonder if we know what they mean. Maybe it's just me, but for a long time, I thought these were essentially meaningless, and I was completely baffled when they were said to me as if they solved anything. For example, the preacher tells me to love my neighbor as myself, but not to do it in my strength, but by faith (or by God's strength). Sounds good, but what does it mean? When I rise from the pew, go out into the world, and am posed with a real life challenge to love my neighbor, how do I draw on God's strength and abstain from using my own?

I think "let go, let God" is exactly the right idea. But, it seems that often it's said as if it's completely self-explanatory what it means. Unlike Sampson, I've never been seized by the Spirit of God and found myself endued with superhuman powers. Rather, when I face my challenges, I find that basically it's the same old "me" in the driver's seat, even when I try to "live by faith."

So the question is how do I draw on God's strength? I think it can be explained a bit more fully than it sometimes is. It's a long topic, really, but, I think there are a few short answers:

1. Confession and prayer. When faced with a challenge, we should confess to God and ourselves that we have no ability to satisfy God's standards on our own. We can say to God (as recommended by Brother Lawrence and others), "God, you know me, and you know that I have no ability to perform your will unless by your grace you enable me." If God then enables us to do His will, then good!

2. Look at our motivations. We might be trying to do the right thing for the wrong reason. For example, maybe we want to look good in front of other people. So, I might try to love my neighbor, but my real motivation is not to look like a sinner in front of others. But, God offers us an array of motivations that can strengthen us to do his work. Just to name a few examples, a heart changed by exposure to His grace or faith in a coming reckoning before God. By supplying our motivation, God is supplying our strength to do his will.

3. Trust in God's promises. We often do things based on our own resources. So, if we have plenty of time, we might use some of that time to serve. Or if we have plenty of money we might give. Or if we think we're really talented or good at something, we might try to minister in that area. But, if we lack the necessary resources, we often decide not to serve God. This is service in which we are relying on ourselves, not "acting in faith." But, instead of only obeying and serving in areas where we know we've "got it covered," we can trust in God's promises and act accordingly. So, if we believe that "the Lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want" and "He leads me in paths of righteousness for His name's sake," we can act based on God's resources. So, if we feel called to serve, we can simply do so, and trust that God will provide the time or money or abilities we need. God's work is His endeavor, and He will make it succeed.

Much more can and should be said, but these are some overview thoughts on what it means to "let go and let God."

Things not seen

2011-08-21T11:26:00.000-07:00

The most important things in life are invisible.

Right and wrong. Good and evil. Meaning. God.

The things we can see with our eyes and touch with our hands are only given their importance by things we perceive in our souls.

The Bible Theory

2011-08-17T19:48:00.000-07:00

A good theory explains lots of data. And one great strength of the Bible is it explains lots of data. In fact, without claiming to understand comprehensively all theories of life, I'd argue that the Bible explains more data than any other theory. The other theory I've tested pretty extensively is hedonism. That one failed for me in a pretty ironic way: it stopped being enjoyable.

But, for about fourteen years now, the Bible has continued to offer explanations of life that I consider highly persuasive. Even as life has changed, and I've encountered different things, I've yet to come across any data the Bible doesn't explain better than the competing theories.

haha funny

2011-08-16T17:25:00.000-07:00

Tonight at Barnes and Noble, I saw a book with this title:

"Satan I will not let you have my children."

But, isn't this the kind of issue where reasonable people can disagree?

---

(that was a joke for those of you who sometimes don't get my sense of humor)

The Bible puts me in a good mood

2011-08-13T09:26:00.000-07:00

Seriously, when I start getting those modernistic, alienated from myself and the world doldroms (Welsh Rats, Steinbeck called them in East of Eden or "highly abstracted" like Walker Percy), if I sit down, pick a few Bible verses and spend a little time thinking about them, my mood improves. And, it's not just because I read cheery verses. Sometimes it's verses that tell me what I'm doing wrong. But, still, it makes me feel better. I think it's like going to the gym, but for my soul. A good workout gets the spiritual endorphines flowing.

Camoflauge

2011-08-13T06:30:00.000-07:00

I had to pick a new bumper sticker for my car. It used to be my wife's car. She put the first sticker there, and it was peacenicky. It's not that I have no peacenicky sentiments, but I'm really not one for making important statements on my car bumper, venerable a tradition as that is in this great land of ideas.

So, I decided to get a sticker representing a sports team. The teams I really like, the Lakers and Duke, however, would not do. If you don't love those teams, you hate them. And, my new city has a crime problem, and I'm not looking for trouble.

I went with the Chicago Bears. Nobody really hates the Bears, right? They're just not that good. They've had good days, but those're a long time ago. I'm pretty sure no one will vandalize my car over Da' Bears.

The Cost of Doing Business

2011-08-12T09:13:00.000-07:00

I recently moved. In addition to the normal challenges of moving, there have been numerous other problems. These are the type of problems that appear to be "normal" when participating in today's world. The movers are a week late delivering my furniture and household good. There are many hicups getting my health insurance; for example, everyone who's anyone needs to see my initial COBRA election form, but no one can provide me with the magic form. The bathroom in our hotel has broken in various ways. My visiting in-laws have spent several hours haggling with their insurance company and driving around town for a prescription that they pre-arranged a month ago, but wasn't properly arranged by the powers that be at the almighty call centers.

It's just the cost of doing business nowadays. But, I'm wondering, what is that cost? All this time spent hacking through the thorny bramble of life has some actual cost, calculable in time or dollars or gold bullion. I wonder what this cost actually is.

Presumably, the costs of modern life are outweighed by the benefits. We could all become Shakers if we wanted. But, I wish I could see a calculation of these costs and benefits.

Laugh test

2011-08-10T18:31:00.000-07:00

"Buying and selling your home has never been easier."

usaa.com

Haha

Defecting

2011-07-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

Back in 1999, I remember a lot of U.S. citizens saying they'd move to Canada if Bush became president. They reiterated this sentiment in 2003. This morning I read a comment thread on Slate's Political Gabfest Facebook page wherein many people said that the unreasonableness of the debt ceiling debate was again making them think about immigrating from the United States, preferably to another planet.

Who wants to bet that none of them actually go?

Budget cuts

2011-07-22T11:03:00.000-07:00

In the debates over budget cuts for the federal government, part of the discussion is about where the cuts should come from. Some want it to come from military, others from entitlement programs, etc. But, what about proportionate, across the board cuts? For example, why don't they just cut 5% (or whatever) from all programs. This seems inherently fair and would avoid the problem for politicians of having to favor one interest group over another.

Slandering Driscoll

2011-07-20T10:27:00.000-07:00

This article claims that Rachel Evans slandered Mark Driscoll when she called him a bully. The gist of the article is that she should not have confronted him publicly (It also seems to assert without proving that somehow Evans lied about Driscoll). But, if the problem is public confrontation, what about Paul opposing Peter to his face?

I find your lack of faith ... disturbing.

2011-07-15T14:40:00.000-07:00

I like Star Wars as much as the next guy, but isn't this a bit late?

The Gospel and anger

2011-07-14T11:32:00.000-07:00

The Gospel resolves our anger that stems from injustice. Because asinner has to recognize himself as damnable, he should lose much of the feeling he has that he deserved better than any injustice he suffered. If I'm good and you're bad, then I should be mad when you wrong me. But, if I'm bad and you're
bad, then, it's not right that you wrong me, but, as a sinner who sins constantly, I don't have that much reason to expect differently from anyone else.

Further, the damnable sinner has received God's grace. In the proper throes of thankfulness, joy and relief, the saved sinner shouldn't be too easily distracted by wrongs done to Him. It's like Bill Gates gave you a billion dollars, so you can't get too mad about someone stealing a hundred dollars from you - it's just not worth focusing on, and focusing on it demonstrates that the sinner hasn't much perceived his glorious inheritance.

Finally, since our ultimate destiny and well-being in Christ is perfectly secure and superabundantly wonderful, the saved person, again, doesn't need to be overly concerned about injustices he's suffered at the hands of humans.

The emotion of anger generally places a grossly disproportionate emphasis on the wrong things (injustices among humans), and it should "grow strangely dim" in the light of His grace.

Easy cases

2011-07-12T15:14:00.000-07:00

In legal commentary, much is made of the fact that certain cases are hard to decide. The general upshot of this point is that law is not something objective or inherently reasonable but instead is only another form of arbitrary power. A judge is not someone who comes to correct legal decisions based on objective standards, but is someone who uses the judiciary to impose his or her own agenda.

It's true there are hard cases. But, there are far more easy cases. There are situations that never go before a judge because everyone knows from the outset what the right answer is. There are cases that are ruled on by a lower court that never get appealed because the losing party knows the law is against him. There are many cases that do get appealed, but the appeal is summarily dismissed by the appellate court because it's an easy case, and the losing party was just taking its best shot.

The hardest cases go to the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the main reasons SCOTUS will take a case is because there is widespread disagreement among lower courts, which is a good sign that it's a hard legal problem. SCOTUS' judges are relatively diverse politically. Yet, nearly a supermajority of the time, even the judges who most often disagree, come to agree. Specifically Ginsburg, part of the liberal wing of the Court, agrees with Alito, part of the conservative wing, 63 percent of the time (scotusblog.com). And these two are the two SCOTUS judges who disagree most often.

So, on even the hardest cases, judges seems to be able to largely agree. This is at least consistent with the idea that law is objective and inherently reasonable. There are other explanations for the high level of agreement among judges, for example, that they are all enculturated to believe in the values of the majority. But, it does seem that the existence of "hard cases" is not a good reason to doubt the objectivity of law.

Imputation

2011-07-11T09:31:00.000-07:00

There's a glorious doctrine in Reformed Christianity that says that those who put their faith in Christ, in addition to having their sins forgiven (propitiation), are credited with His righteousness. So propitiation for sins would be as if someone forgave you all your debts; imputation of righteousness is as if someone also gave you a billion dollars.

This doctrine is usually taught from 2 Cor. 5:21: God made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.

But, there's lots of other places where this same thing is taught. I've recently been thinking about this passage, Colossians 1:21-22: "Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation ... " You can see both propitiation and imputation working together here. On one hand, in order to be holy and free from accusation before God, you need to have your sins wiped away. But being holy and without blemish also seems to imply a meritorious perfection that is now the characteristic of anyone who trusts Christ.

The Republican field

2011-07-09T13:17:00.000-07:00

Why isn't there anyone in the Republican field of candidates for President like David Brooks? Or William Buckley? Or George Will for that matter?

I'm speaking out of turn because I don't know each candidate that well, but I'd venture that there isn't a single Republican presidential candidate who could be characterized as an intellectual, someone for whom thinking is a primary way of engaging the world. Maybe Ron Paul fits that description, but, in general Republicans, don't go in for intellectuals for President.

This is odd to me because there is a robust conservative intelligensia.

This doesn't seem to be true for Democrats. President Obama seems quite a lot like many smart Liberals that you'd meet at a university.

Six blogs

2011-07-08T22:38:00.000-07:00

This is my sixth blog. I think the slogan for a blog with this title should be "if at first you don't succeed, try, try again."

My first blog Zealous Convert was my most sustained effort. It would be characterized, I suppose, as "devotional." After a few years of blogging, I just ran out of steam. And, as I developed a new Gospel-centered perspective, I thought the title wasn't quite right anymore.

My second blog, kennyching.wordpress.com, was for my writing. But, at some point I felt my law firm wouldn't like to see me in the light of my creative and journalistic writing, so I password protected it. Maybe that was chickening out.

My third blog was The Gospel Changes Everything. The title there reflected my new philosophy of Christianity pretty well, and I blogged consistently for a few months. I got derailed from that effort, maybe in more ways than one, when my son, Joshua, was born with Pierre Robin Sequence.

My fourth blog was The Chronicles of Gog. That was for brainstorming on a story I want to write someday in which I set a fictionalized version of the biblical story of Samuel in a postapocalyptic Chicago.

My fifth blog was Wise Doves. I was trying to write on Christian social justice with my wife, Erin. We did that for awhile. I tried to get other bloggers to join me, but that didn't happen. Then I lost interest? Which was exactly the problem I was trying to combat with the blog. Alas.

Now this is my sixth go. Simul Justus Et Pecator: righteous and at the same time a sinner, a quote from Martin Luther. Here, maybe I'll just be myself. Torn between two worlds. Striving, failing, but hoping. A little of this and a little of that.

At a bare minimum I've shown I can come up with names for blogs.