Obama at a Saturation Point?

Peggy Noonan today in the WSJ:

A final point: In the time since his inauguration, Mr. Obama has been on every screen in the country, TV and computer, every day. He is never not on the screen. I know what his people are thinking: Put his image on the age. Imprint the era with his face. But it's already reaching saturation point. When the office is omnipresent, it is demystified. Constant exposure deflates the presidency, subtly robbing it of power and making it more common. I keep the television on a lot, and somewhere in the 1990s I realized that Bill Clinton was never not in my living room. He was always strolling onto the stage, pointing at things, laughing, talking. This is what the Obama people are doing, having the boss hog the screen. They should relax. The race is long.

Can a fallen pastor ever redeem himself?

That's the sub-headline to a Slate.com article on Ted Haggard by Patton Dodd, who was "Haggard's writer and editor for eight years." He briefly narrates the sad tale of Haggard's shifting postures of humiliation and self-justification, but closes reflecting on the limited possibilites open to fallen pastors.

The problem for people like Ted Haggard [...] is that he was in a position of public trust. Once fully lost, that trust can never be fully restored. Robert Downey Jr. can become an A-list actor, ruin himself with drugs, sober up, and become an A-list actor all over again. A businessman, a scholar, or a parent can do something similar. Why can't Haggard? Because his very public career was based on the antithesis of his failures. Downey wants only to be a damn fine actor, and he can be that no matter the content of his character. Haggard wanted to be a minister, a position that makes claims on his behavior—claims that Haggard professed to be equal to. Haggard didn't have to be a big supporter of President Bush, or outspoken against homosexuality, or any of the things that charged his public life. But he did have to have character that was consistent with the values that he so loudly espoused. His life did have to be consistent with what he preached, because preaching is based on public trust within the preacher's community of followers. Integrity is the deal-maker, hypocrisy the deal-breaker.

Most people who fail need only redeem themselves with their most immediate friends and family. They can ask forgiveness of every person they've wounded. How could Haggard ask forgiveness of 30 million—or even the 14,000 members of his former church? Sitting across from Oprah is no substitute for sitting across from those you've hurt. But he can go away quietly, do the work of atonement, and let tales of his renewed life spring up naturally [...].

Haggard can't enter a pulpit, and he shouldn't seek to be a spiritual leader, at least not for eons. He can enter a congregation somewhere, and if he wants to do that, he should, as a fellow traveler with other seekers. And that congregation should embrace him. That's what his spiritual restoration would look like.

Sobering thoughts for all those aspiring to shepherd God's people. These consequences, which Haggard seems unwilling to acknowledge, are present signals of the eternal reality that all pastor's will be called to give an account. With the double honor he cherished comes a double requirement.

May God's mercy protect us from such resounding failure.

Prepared for the Storm?

I realize tomorrow might be the storm of the season, but I think the Courier-Journal is going a little overboard for Louisville, KY.

La Policia Mexicana

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

Rick Warren's Prayer

Justin Taylor posts the transcript here. Warren had an incredibly difficult task and he showed much wisdom and grace in answering it.

Oprah and Obama

Today is a day of grand, sweeping statements. I know that I commended Peggy Noonan's advice earlier to "suspend all disbelief" but this is too much:

Asked her feelings about being here, Oprah said "it's beyond the dream. We're just here feelin' it with the throngs of people. It's amazing grace personified."

If that's not messianic language, I don't know what is.

Evil in the Movies

Steven D. Greydanus has an interesting CT article on the portrayal of evil forces in movies, specifically how it is often indebted to Christian themes and images. (It's an article from July, but I only just read it although I can't remember the source for the link. Apologies.)

Among other things, Greydanus observes the prominence of hellish figures over heavenly powers.

Whatever the balance of power between good and evil in these films, there's an obvious sense in which nearly every film in the genre portrays a world in which the powers of hell seems to play a far more active and visible role in the world than the powers of heaven. Demons and other unholy things may or may not be checked or destroyed with crucifixes and the like, but seldom if ever is there any hint that angels also are active in human affairs.

How come? He surmizes this is due to the tremendous difficulty we have at creative portrayals of heaven.

Why is there so much hell and so little heaven in these movies? Partly, perhaps, it's because filmmakers simply don't know what to do with God—not just theologically, but for the sheer dramatic difficulty posed by omnipotence. It's the Superman dilemma times infinity: Against that much power, how do you make the enemy a credible threat? Even Gandalf's power was ultimately too intimidating for Peter Jackson and company; once it became clear the wizard could drive off the flying Nazgul, the filmmakers feared the enemy might seem too diminished. (This was the rationale for the problematic scene in which the Witch-King shatters Gandalf's staff.)

Another reason for the neglect of heaven is simply that heaven is harder to do. C. S. Lewis noted this point in his preface to The Screwtape Letters, in which he regretted being unable to offset Screwtape's diabolical perspective with a parallel heavenly correspondence presenting "arch-angelical advice to the patient's guardian angel." While the task of twisting his mind into a hellish perspective was for Lewis oppressive but not difficult, assuming an angelic voice seemed to him all but unachievable.

While Lewis did later achieve some success in dramatically depicting the outskirts of heaven in The Great Divorce, the general disparity of depicting heaven and hell in art and drama has been felt by many. It's not hard to see why. Beauty is more elusive an effect than grotesquerie; misery and wretchedness are far easier to inflict, and therefore to imagine and express, than joy and beatitude are to bestow or evoke.

Your thoughts?

How to Enjoy the Inauguration

Peggy Noonan offers great advice on how to enjoy the Presidential Inauguration:

What is required for full enjoyment of an inauguration, from opening prayers to speeches to marching bands is, in the great 19th-century phrase, the willing suspension of disbelief. If you don't put your skepticism aside, you will not fully absorb and experience the drama. You must allow it to be real for you. Those two young people on the stage did not really take poison and die, but Romeo and fair Juliet did, and that is the reason the audience, which knows the actors still live, says, with genuine feeling, "Oh, no!"

To believe, suspend disbelief. We have been through this before, the flags and fine speeches, the brass donkey paperweight, the glass elephant, the rise and fall of administrations, the coming and going of figures great and small. It's good to put that aside for a few days, to remove yourself from politics, partisanship and faction, to suspend your disbelief, to be grateful that the signs and symbols endure, as does the republic, and raise a toast: "To the president of the United States."

I hope I'm marked with such graciousness.

How to Not Send Embarrassing Emails

Google has a solution.

Powlison on the Counseling Revolution

I always benefit from the writing of David Powlison. Today was no exception. Here are a few excerpts from his four-part article, "Cure of Souls (and the Modern Psychotherapies)" (JBC 25:2):

Warning against the use of caricatures and heated language in legitimate disputes with other Christians:

Sneering obliterates all discussion of profound issues. God's children are rarely edified by scathing words. When we look at each group through the worst of the other's language, both groups appear shamefully disreputable. Reckless and factious words fail the test of constructive, gracious, gentle speech to which God binds us and by which He will examine us (Eph. 4:15, 29; 2 Tim. 2:24f; Matt. 7:1-5). In fact, there are some true bashers and heretics around. But provocative language and sweeping generalizations usually serve to provoke, nurture, and justify the worst tendencies in human nature, not the further outworking of our redemption. It is always good policy to interact with the best representatives of a point of view, not the worst representatives. We feel self-righteous when we post and posture next to our caricatures. We must listen, think, and argue well when we engage a thoughtful disputant.

Then, Powlison seeks to counter caricatures of biblical counseling and integrationist models of Christian counseling,

So-called psychology bashers - those who believe in the sufficiency of Scripture for generating a comprehensive counseling model - do fundamentally disbelieve the modern psychologies, taking them to be systematic counterfeits and pretenders in the final analysis. They believe tha thte Bible fiercely resists syncretism. But they still claim that something can be learned from the psychologies: wrong does not mean stupid; error must borrow elements of truth to be plausible; God often allows observant and persuasive error to expose lacunae, crudities, and distortions in His own children's thinking and practice. That Scripture is 'sufficient' to transform us never means that the Bible is 'exhaustive.' It does not mean tha thte Bible's message for us is accessed and communicated only through proof-texts. All application of Scripture demands tha twe engage in a theological and interpretive task. Good, true, faithful theology is closely grounded in the text, but often says a somewhat differnt thing than the text says, because it speaks to a different set of questions. Face-to-face ministry must use the Bible in the same way; ministry is not simply a matter of inserting proof-texts into conversation. All minsitry demands sensitivity and flexibility to the varying conditions of those to whom one ministers.

Though one might find some exceptions, most supposed psychology bashers are not anti-counseling. Most work to develop and practice loving and effective cure of souls as the alternative to secular or quasi-secular psychotherapy. The debate is not whether or not to counsel; the debate is about what sort of counsel to believe, what sort of counseling to do, what sort of cure to offer.

So-called psychoheretics - those who believe that Scripture does not intend to be sufficient for generating a comprehensive counseling model - do see an essential role for the secular psychologies. Psychological disciplines offer some sort of necessary truth; psychological professions offer some sort of necessary and valid practice. But the so-called psychoheretics still claim that the Bible must provide the final authority. That Scripture is not sufficient does not mean the Bible is irrelevant or that it ought to be subordinated to secular psychologies, but that the Bible itself mandates looking and learning from outside. The Bible itself resists biblicism.

Though one can find exceptions, most supposed psychoheretics are not out to swallow the camel of secularity and foist it on an unsuspecting church. Many work to critique the secularity of the modern psychologies and to screen out what seem to fail the test of Scripture. Why do they become psychologists? Glaring defects in the church's current understanding and practice are the main reason they expend time and effort to do hard study of human beings. In this culture, that often means to study psychology. Where else is one permitted and disciplined to gaze steadily into the complications and miseries of the soul? Where else do defective relationships come under scrutiny? Where else can one be taught to probe the details of life lived, and then to offer timely and patient aid? Theological and pastoral training typically does not look closely enough or get hands-on enough to engender case wisdom and a patiently probing counseling process.

A Wonderful Story

Read this short story of answered prayer and praise God for His tremendous kindness to His children. I'm so encouraged everytime Brandon shares it.

Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for He who promised is faithful. Hebrews 10:23

Children's Television

I guess this is what I have to look forward to.

Why I Check Out Too Many Books From the Library

I often go to the library and check out more books than I could possibly read in the allotted time. In fact, I usually have no plans to read any of them through because I am already working through some of my own. My wife is always relieved when I finally return them. I don't know why, though, because I always return home with a new batch. But there is method to my madness.

Worthwhile books are being published constantly, at much faster paces than any schedule or book budget can swallow. Many of these books only support casual interests -- if I'm honest, very few of these will ever be picked up by me again. However, I can imagine a significant number being vitally relevant to life and ministry.

Even these, though, are necessarily passed over for books pertaining to present concerns. My reading list is mostly driven by what's going on now or in the near future (e.g., I'm having a baby boy in April). I wish it were not so, but I'm young and immature: most of what I face is brand new and I need lots of help. The "Best Books of 2008" are going to have to wait.

So, here's my dilemma: New books, many which come highly recommended, "must-reads" even, are published at a time I cannot or should not read them. They may be relevant in the future, but they also may be always irrelevant. How can I remember the title, author and general content of these books in the event that they become pertinent?

One way for me to remember is to become better acquainted with these books. If I have a little spare time on campus with no current reading project at hand, I usually head over to the New Titles sections of the bookstore or the library. I usually spot things first at the bookstore and give cursory looks at the contributors, publisher's description, list of blurbs, and table of contents. This gives the book a little traction. It gains more of a foothold with each pass, either in person or in blog posts, news articles or podcasts.

Then, I'll often spot the book again in the library. (The lead time can be a couple months.) If my recollection of my first once-over is good, I'll pick it up again with other books of interest. If it looks promising, I check it out and take it home. Once it's home, I can look more closely at the table of contents, read the preface and introduction or conclusion. Even seeing it repeatedly in my home is going to give it some permanence. (For help in systematically "skimming" a book, check out Mortimer Adler's How to Read a Book, specifically chapter 4.)

All this legwork helps create a category in my mind for a particular type of resource. It's like going out on a date with the book -- it didn't develop into anything serious but by now I should at least know her name! Even if I can't remember the title and author, I know there's a book out there which fits my need. I just need to find it. Really, I'm surprised at how often I remember books when I need them. When topics need to be researched, I'm usually off to a good start before I even get to the library.

If you love books but, for whatever reason, you aren't a voracious reader, I commend this practice to you. It's one of my all-time favorite things to do. You get to take home brand new books and act like they're yours. It'll help any frustrations with your lack of reading time. You get to read more widely than you could otherwise justify. As you're exposed to more and more books, you're able to better distinguish between the good and the bad. Hopefully, you grow more reserved in your use of "must-read" (warning: personal pet-peeve). You'll be a storehouse of bibliographic knowledge for others in need of good reading. You yourself will never be without a good book.

Go on. Give it a try.

[Stay tuned. In a few days, I'll talk about how I backup my memory.]

Geography Is Destiny (Books to Read No. 6)

Benjamin Schwartz reviews Europe Between the Oceans by Barry Cunliffe in an Atlantic Monthly book review, "Geography Is Destiny." It is a book about archaeology, a subject which I recognize I should be interested in as a student of ancient peoples but have great difficulty enjoying. It was really hard to list this in my "Books to Read" category. I don't think I'm imaginative or patient enough to reap its rewards.

Schwarts acknowledges that most archaeological books are boring. That's why he's surprised to find the Cunliffe's book, "at once compelling and judicious, is an extraordinary book." (In fact, it's one of The Atlantic's top 6 books of 2008!) Basically, Cunliffe profiles Europe's history between 9000 BC and 1000 AD with special attention to the influence of geography and climate. He notes how the interactions of peoples were in some sense dictated by the earth they were given.

This is an unusual lens with which to view history. We are accustomed to historiography which majors on biography. Traditional history follows each era's villains and heroes, directing the world's future like Homer's demigods warring above the Trojan plains. We also read the so-called "People's History," a history of the masses. It's the democratic way to read history.

But Cunliffe offers a history which pays little attention to humans. Schwartz foresees that this will be difficult for most. "Cunliffe’s approach will jar readers accustomed to being informed of the epoch-making quality of every inauguration speech." Not so Cunliffe, who sees today's news as "the events and personalities flitting on the surface."

He summarizes the impact of such a reading:

These books contain hardly anything about the great deeds of Great Men, and none offers much to flatter our images of ourselves. But in their marriage of exactitude and far-reaching vision, they clarify the scale of the human enterprise and remind us that the events that seem so significant today are, as Braudel put it, little more than “surface disturbances, crests of foam that the tides of history carry on their strong backs ... we must learn to distrust them.”

This reading of history brings to mind biblical passages which emphasize God's control over creation. Indeed, the biblical rationale is often, 'God controls creation. Therefore, God controls everything, including you.' Proverbs 21:1 reads, "The king’s heart is a stream of water in the hand of the LORD; he turns it wherever he will." Cunliffe's findings help bring these truths home.