August 14, 2007

Work in progress--please be patient?

This blog started at one time, then it stopped, then it started again and moved to another site. Now it's back.

I'm trying to figure out what to do with it. There are fragments of series, some seeds of good ideas that really need to be worked out, and downright blabber.

For what it is worth, it's here. It may be worth more another day. In the mean time, enjoy?

Work in progress--please be patient?

Contemporary Christian Intelligentsia

Does one have to be stupid to be Christian? Some atheists think so. One way this can be shown to be really foolish is by looking at contemporary academics who are merely Christian. I’ve come up with a list of just under 1,000 (see below).

If you know someone I’m not including, please comment. I am considering an online database that is searchable by expertise, affiliation, and scholar name. Anyone interested in helping with this task, please comment.

This may assist anyone who is curious about a particular issue to find solid Christian thinking on it. If you have suggestions on how this idea might be improved and/or made more useful, please comment.

In the mean time, here is the list in (kind of) alphabetical order by first name or last name.

A. J. Smith
A. Scott Moreau, D.Miss.
Adams, Janet
Aida Besancon Spencer, Ph.D.
Alan Bandy
Alan Jacobs
Alan R. Jacobs, Ph.D.
Alan Savage, Ph.D.
Alan Seaman, Ph.D.
Alexander, George P.
Alfred J. Brown
Alice P. Mathews, Ph.D.
Alister C. S. Chapman
Alister McGrath
Allan Coppedge
Allan M. Nishimura (1981) Distinguished Professor of Chemistry
Alvaro L. Nieves, Ph.D.
Alvaro Nieves
Alvin Padilla, Ph.D.
Alvin Plantinga
Amy Black, Ph.D.
Amy Sherman
Anderson, Jon
Anderson, Tamara
Andrea G. Gurney (2005) Assistant Professor of Psychology
Andreas Kostenberger
Andrew D. Mullen (2001) Associate Professor of Education
Andrew E. Hill, Ph.D.
Andrew R. Brulle, Ed.D.
Andrew Ruys
Anne Schreiber, Ph.D.
Annette H. Tomal, Ph.D.
Anthony B. Bradley
Anthony, Michael J.
Anthony, Michelle D.
Apkarian, Marc
Ardel B. Canedy
Arnold, Clinton
Arthur A. Rupprecht, Ph.D.
Arthur W. Lindsley
Ashley Woodiwiss, Ph.D.,
Baker, Loren
Barber, Betsy
Barrett McRay, Psy.D.
Barry H. Corey, Ph.D. (Academic Dean)
Barry J. Beitzel
Bartlotti, Leonard N. (Len)
Ben Mitchell
Ben Voth
Ben Witherington, III
Berding, Kenneth
Bernard d’Abrera
Berryhill, Gene
Bill Edgar
Bloom, John A.
Boersma, Micheal J.
Boespflug, George
Bonnie Mallard
Bourgeois, David
Brandon, Kate
Brenda S. Smith (1989) Professor of Psychology
Brett C. Foster, Ph.D.
Brian M. Howell, Ph.D.
Brian McConaghy
Brian McLaren, L.L.D.
Browning, Annette
Bruce Chilton
Bruce Ellis Benson, Ph.D.
Bruce F. McKeown (1988) Professor of Political Science
Bruce Howard
Bruce Howard, Ph.D.
Bruce L. Fields
Bruce L. Gordon
Bruce N. Fisk (1999) Associate Professor of New Testament
Bruce Waltke
Bruce Ware
Bryan Chapell
Buchanan, Paul
Buckles, Thomas
Burton L. Goddard, Th.D., S.M.
Bustamante, Armida
C. Ben Mitchell
C. Hassell Bullock, Ph.D.
C. John “Jack” Collins
C. Ray Rosentrater (1980) Professor of Mathematics; Associate Dean for Curriculum
C.E. Hill
Callis, Daniel
Campbell, Marla
Canning, James
Caprice Hollins, Psy.D.
Carl Raschke, Ph.D.
Carlos E. Puente
Carol M. Kaminski, Ph.D.
Carolyn Hart, D.M.
Carr, Jane
Carter R. Crockett
Cary G. Gray, Ph.D.
Catherine Clark Kroeger, Ph.D.
Chandra S. Mallampalli (2001) Assistant Professor of History
Charles E. Farhadian (2004) Assistant Professor of World Religions and Christian Mission
Charles M. Sell
Charles Weber, Ph.D.
Cheri L. Larsen Hoeckley (1997) Associate Professor of English
Cheri Pierson, Ed.D.
Christensen, Daniel
Christerson, Bradley
Christian Apologetics Faculty
Christina Bieber Lake, Ph.D.
Christine Colón, Ph.D.
Christine Goring Kepner, Ed.D.
Christine J. Gardner, Ph.D.
Christopher Michael Langan
Christopher Mitchell, Ph.D.
Cimbora, David M.
Ciocchi, David M.
Clarence (Jimmy) Agan
Claude Mariottini
Clifford John Collins
Clinton S. Shaffer, Ph.D.
Coe, John H.
Colin Brown
Colin Greene, Ph.D.
Colin R. Nicholl, Ph.D.
Conrad Johanson
Cook, Clyde
Cornelius Hegeman
Cornelius Hunter
Cozad, Janet
Craig A. Blaising
Craig Barnes, Ph.D.
Craig Blomberg
Craig Evans
Craig L. Ott
Craig, William Lane
Crawford Loritts
Crisp, Thomas M.
Cruzen, Matt
Cunningham, Shelly
Curt Thompson, MD
Curtis Funk, D.M.Ed.
Curtis W. Whiteman (1976) Professor of Historical Theology
Curtis, Edward M.
Cynthia Neal Kimball, Ph.D.
Cyrus Gordon
DA Carson
Dallas Willard
Dan Allendar
Dan Allender, Ph.D.
Dan Blazer
Daniel Dix
Daniel Doriani
Daniel Horn, D.M.A.
Daniel I. Block, D. Phil.
Daniel L. Burden, Ph.D.
Daniel L. Kim
Daniel M. Doriani
Daniel Millar Master, Ph.D.
Daniel Sommerville, D.M.
Daniel Treier, Ph.D.
Daniel W. Zink
Darlene B. Hannah, Ph.D.
Darrel Falk
Darrell Bock
Darren Craig, Ph.D.
David A. Currie, Ph.D.
David A. Dean, Th.D
David A. Vander Laan (2000) Assistant Professor of Philosophy
David Aikman
David B. Calhoun
David B. Fletcher
David B. Newton (1990) Professor of Economics & Business
David Baker, Ph.D.
David Bruce Fletcher, Ph.D.
David Clyde Jones
David E. Johnston, Ph.D.
David E. Lauber, Ph.D.
David Edward Maas, Ph.D.
David F. Marten (1983) Professor of Chemistry
David F. Wells, Ph.D.
David G. Horn, Ph.D.
David G. Lawrence (1974) Professor of Political Science
David H. Lumsdaine, Ph.D.
David Howard
David Humphreys
David Ianuzzo, Ph.D.
David J. Hesselgrave
David J. Hunter (2000) Associate Professor of Mathematics
David J. P. Hooker, M.F.A.
David K. Y. Chiu
David L. Larsen
David M. Fouts
David M. Knight
David Setran, Ph.D.
David W. Chapman
David W. Pao
David Wenham
Davidson, Christopher
Dean Arnold, Ph.D.
Dean O. Wenthe
Dean Reginald Rapp, Ph.D.
Deborah S. Dunn (1997) Associate Professor of Communication Studies
Decker, Jeffrey
Decker, Murray S.
Del Ratzsch
Dennis P. Hollinger, Ph.D
Dennis R. Magary
Derek McNeil, Ph.D.
Developmental Biology
DeWeese, Garrett
Diane Powell
Dill, Glenn
Dillard W. Faries, Ph.D.
Dirks, Dennis
Dollar, Harold E.
Donald A. Josephson, Ph.D.
Donald C. Guthrie
Donald E. Hartley
Donald E. Price
Donald Guthrie
Donald Ratcliff, Ph.D.
Dorothy F. Chappell, Ph.D.
Doug Geivett
Doug Groothius
Douglas A. Sweeney
Douglas J. Moo, Ph.D.
Douglas K. Stuart, Ph.D.
Douglas Moo
Douglas Penney, Ph.D.
Douglas, Don
Dr Adrian Chatfield
Dr Andrew Goddard
Dr Benno van den Toren
Dr Elaine Storkey
Dr Graham Tomlin
Dr Peter Walker
Dr. Alison Barfoot
Dr. Alistair Hanna
Dr. Bryan Chapell
Dr. Chad Meister
Dr. Cheryl Bridges Johns
Dr. Cornelius Plantinga
Dr. Craig J. Hazen
Dr. David P. Gushee
Dr. David S. Dockery
Dr. Dean Ulrich
Dr. Duane Litfin
Dr. Erika Moore
Dr. Frank James
Dr. Grant LeMarquand
Dr. Greg Ganssle
Dr. H. Lawrence Thompson III
Dr. Hillary Bercovici
Dr. James K. Beilby
Dr. James Packer
Dr. James White
Dr. Jeffrey Mackey
Dr. John H. Rodgers, Jr.
Dr. John Woodbridge
Dr. Justyn Terry
Dr. Kent Hill
Dr. Leander Harding
Dr. Luis Carlo
Dr. Michael Rae
Dr. Os Guinness
Dr. Paul Copan
Dr. Paul R Eddy
Dr. Peter C. Moore
Dr. R. Scott Smith
Dr. Richard B Davis
Dr. Richard Mouw
Dr. Richard Turnbull
Dr. Robert B Stewart
Dr. Rodney A. Whitacre
Dr. Ron Sider
Dr. Sarah Sumner
Dr. Stewart E Kelly
Dr. Terence Kelshaw
Dr. Thomas Oden
Dr. Timothy George
Dr. Wolterstorf
Duane H. Elmer
Duane Litfin, Ph.D.
Duvall, Nancy S.
Dwight Friesen, D.Min.
E Ray Clendenen
E. David Cook, Ph.D.
E. John Walford
E. John Walford, Ph.D.
Ebeling, Ruth E.
Eckhard J. Schnabel
Edd S. Noell (1986) Professor of Economics & Business
Edith L. Blumhofer, Ph.D.
Edward T. Peltzer
Edwards, J. Kent
Edwards, Keith J.
Edwin Yamauchi
Eileen J. McMahon (2004) Assistant Professor of Biology
Eldin Villafane, Ph.D.
Emily Jane Langan, Ph.D.
Erlyne F. Whiteman (1974) Associate Professor of Kinesiology and Theatre Arts
Eugene Lemcio
Eugene R. Swanstrom
Evvy Hay Campbell, Ph.D.
Ewan Michelle Russell, Ph.D.
Feller, Robert
Filip Palda
Finley, Thomas J.
Fisher, Gerald
Flory, Richard
Forrest M. Mims III
Francis Beckwith
Frank Tipler
Frank W. Percival (1975) Professor of Biology
Fred Field
Fred G. Van Dyke, Ph.D.
Frederica Mathewes-Green
Frederick Skiff
G. Wenham
Garcia, Robert
Garth M. Rosell, Ph.D.
Gary A. Parrett, Ed.D.
Gary A. Rendsburg
Gary D. Pratico, Th.D.
Gary M. Burge, Ph.D.
Gary Neal Larson, Ph.D.
Gary Rendsburg
Gayle H. Tucker (1976) Professor of Education
Geivett, Douglas
Gene L. Green, Ph.D.
Genzo Yamamoto, Ph.D.
George Arasimowicz, Ph.D.
George H. Williams, Jr., Ed.D.
George W. Knight, III
Gerard Sundberg, D.M.A.
Gewe, Anne L.
Gina Lynne LoSasso
Glenn Andrew Peoples
Glenn P. Town (2003) Professor of Kinesiology
Gonzales, Michael
Gordon L. Isaac, Ph.D.
Gordon P. Hugenberger, Ph.D.
Grace Ying May, Th.D.
Grace, Christopher R.
Graham A. Cole
Grant Osborne
Greene, Katrina T.
Greg Beale
Greg Boyd
Greg Headington
Greg R.Scharf
Gregg H. Afman
Gregg R. Allison
Gregory Beale, Ph.D.
Gregory H. Spencer (1987) Professor of Communication Studies
Greta L. Bryson, Ph.D.
Grove, Timothy
Gruendyke, John
Guillermo Gonzalez
Gwenfair Walters Adams, Ph.D.
H. Michael Sommermann (1985) Professor of Physics
H. Wayne House
H. Wayne Johnson
H. Wayne Martindale, Ph.D.
H.G.M. Williamson
Haddon W. Robinson, Ph.D.
Hall, Elizabeth Lewis
Hall, Todd W.
Hans F. Bayer
Harman, Les
Harold A. Netland
Harold O. J. Brown
Havoonjian, Harvey
Hayward, Douglas
Hazen, Craig J.
Helen M. De Vries, Ph.D.
Helen Rhee (2004) Assistant Professor of Religious Studies
Hellerman, Joe
Henderson, Joseph
Henri A. Blocher, D.D.
Henry F. Schaefer
Henry L. Allen, Ph.D.
Henry S. Baldwin
Henry Schaefer
Henry, Dee
Hetzel, June
Hill, Pete
Holloman, Henry
Horner, David A.
Howard Whitaker, Ph.D.
Hubbard, Moyer
Hulling, Cliff
Hultberg, Alan
Hung, Li-Shan
Hutchison, John
I Howard Marshall
Iain Provan
J. Budziszewski
J. Carl Laney
J. Lee Jagers
J. Ligon Duncan III
J. Nelson Jennings
Jack Cottrell
Jacquelyn Smith-Bates, Ed.D.
James A. Borland
James A. Clark, Ph.D.
James Borland
James C. Wilhoit, Ph.D.
James Davison Hunter
James Dunn
James E. Taylor (1993) Professor of Philosophy
James Emery White, Ph.D. (President)
James F.Plueddemann
James Halteman, Ph.D.
James Houston
James K. Hoffmeier
James Keener
James M. Houston
James Mathisen, Ph.D.
James R. Moore
Jane E. Beal, Ph.D.
Jay A. Sklar
Jay Richards
Jay Wesley Richards
JB Pritchard
Jed Macosko
Jeffrey D. Arthurs, Ph.D.
Jeffrey Heyl
Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Ph.D.
Jeffrey K. Greenberg, Ph.D.
Jeffrey M. Schwartz, M.D.
Jeffrey P. Greenman, Ph.D.
Jeffrey P. Schloss (1981) Professor of Biology
Jeffry Davis, Ph.D.
Jennifer L. Busch, Ph.D.
Jenson, Matthew
JI Packer
Jill Peláez Baumgaertner, Ph.D.
Jillian Lederhouse, Ph.D.
Jo-Ann Badley, Ph.D.
Joel Green
Johann S. Buis, D.A.
John Allen Hoyman
John Angus Campbell
John Beck
John Bloom
John C. Hayward, Jr., Ph.D.
John D. Blondell
John F. Kilner
John Harvey Walton, Ph.D.
John Jefferson Davis, Ph.D.
John Kilner
John Lennox
John M. Frame
John M. Monson, Ph.D.
John Mark Reynolds
John Martin Haase
John Piper
John R. van Keppel, Ed.D.
John Roche
John S. Feinberg
John Stott
John Timothy Vessey, Ph.D.
John W. Nyquist
John W. Sider (1972) Professor of English
Johnson, David C.
Johnson, Rex E.
Johnson, Virginia M.
Jon C. Laansma, Ph.D.
Jonathan E. Leech (1985) Professor of Mathematics
Jonathan Kvanvig
Jonathan Wells
Jonathan Witt
Jones, Clay
Joseph Leonard Spradley, Ph.D.
JP Moreland
Judith L. Alexandre
K. Lawson Younger, Jr.
Karen H. Jobes, Ph.D.
Karen M. Andrews-Jaffe
Karin Redekopp Edwards
Karin Redekopp Edwards, D.M.
Karl D. Stephan
Karl Lehman
Karl Stern
Kathleen S. Kastner, D.M.A.
Kathryn T. Long, Ph.D.
Keas, Michael N.
Keith E. Yandell
Keith V. Bjorge
Kelly S. Flanagan, Ph.D.
Ken Myers
Kenneth C. Way
Kenneth Chase, Ph.D.
Kenneth de Jong
Kenneth L. Swetland, D.Min.
Kent L. Gramm, Ph.D.
Kent W. Seibert, D.B.A.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer
Kevin M. Carlson, Ed.D.
Kim P. Kihlstrom (1999) Associate Professor of Computer Science
Kim, Christina
Kim, Jonathan H.
Kim, Kangwoon
Kinnison, Cynthia
Kleist, Aaron J.
Klink III, Edward W.
Krammes, Berry A.
Krish Kandiah
Kroeker, Dean
Kuld, Paul
Kurt Johns, Ph.D.
L. Jonathan Saylor, Ph.D.
L. Kristen Page, Ph.D.
L. Steve Butler
LaBarbera, Robin
Langenwalter, Paul E.
Langer, Richard C.
Larry Crabb
Larry L. Funck, Ph.D.
Laura A. Barwegen, Ed.D.
Laura M. Montgomery (1990) Professor of Anthropology
Lawrence Gage
Lawson, Kevin E.
Leah Seppanen Anderson, Ph.D.
Lee Joiner, D.M.A.
Lee, David
Lee, Michelle
Leland Ryken, Ph.D.
Leonor A. Elías (1999) Associate Professor of Spanish
Leroy Huizenga, Ph.D.
Lessard-Clouston, Michael
Lewis, Kevin Alan
Lewis, Todd V.
Leyda, Richard J.
Liang, John
Liesch, Barry
Lin, Albert C.
Lin, Shieu-Hong
Linda Cannell, Ed. D.
Lindy Scott, Ph.D.
Lisa J. De Boer
Lister, Rob
Llizo, Robert
Lock, William R.
Lois McKinney Douglas
Longinow, Michael
Lonnie J. Allison, D.Min.
Lunde, Jonathan
Lynn H. Cohick, Ph.D.
Lynn O. Cooper, Ph.D.
M. Grey Brothers
Mabie, Frederick J.
Madeleine L’Engle
Malandra, Marc
Marilyn C. McEntyre (1996) Professor of English
Mark A. Husbands, Ph.D.
Mark Dalbey
Mark Goodcare
Mark H. Senter III
Mark Noll
Mark P. Niemczyk, Ph.D.
Mark R. Discher
Mark R. Saucy
Mark R. Talbot, Ph.D.
Mark Robert Amstutz, Ph.D.
Mark Roberts
Martin Crain
Martin I. Klauber
Martin Poenie
Mary (Scottie) May, Ph.D.
Mary B. Collier
Mary Ellen Hopper, D.M.A.
Mary Vanderschoot, Ph.D.
Matthew Campbell, Ph.D.
Matthew Connolly
Matthew Flannagan
Matthew Roberts, Ph.D.
Matti Leisola
McIntosh, Gary L.
McKinley, John
McMahan, Alan
McMillan, Murray
McQueen, Jr, William M.
Medberry, Margaret P.
Melissa L. Franklin-Harkrider, Ph.D.
Menjares, Pete
Meredith Kline, Ph.D.
Michael Behe
Michael D. Reynolds
Michael D. Shasberger (2005) Adams Chair of Music and Worship
Michael D. Williams
Michael J. Behe
Michael W. Howell, Ph.D.
Michael W. Mangis, Ph.D.
Michael Wesley Graves, Ph.D.
Millard Erickson
Miller, Gary A.
Miller, Paula
Miriam L. Charter
Miriam Stark Parent
Miroslav Volf
Mohler, James
Moreland, J.P.
Muehlhoff, Timothy
Mullis, Richard
Murray Harris
Murray J. Harris
Muzaffar Iqbal
Nadine C. Folino Rorem, Ph.D.
Nadine Foline-Rorem
Naidu, Ashish
Nakamura, Kayo
Nancey Murphy
Nancy A. Murphy, D.Min
Narramore, Bruce S.
Natalia Yangarber-Hicks, Ph.D.
Nathanael Blake Hearson
Neal, Leroy E.
Neil Broom
Nestor Ivan Quiroa, Ph.D.
Nicholas Perrin, Ph.D.
Nicholas Wolterstorff
Nigel Cameron
Nivaldo J. Tro (1990) Professor of Chemistry
Noah Toly, Ph.D.
Norman Geisler
Norman J. Ewert, Ph.D.
NT Wright
Nuñez, Emilio
O’ Donnell Day, Ph.D.
Obrist, Amy
Oliver J. Claassen
O’Quinn, Doretha
Orr, Matthew C.
Os Guinness
Owen, Marlin E.
Pablo Polischuk, Ph.D.
Paige Patterson
Pak, Jenny
Patti Wilger Hunter (2000) Associate Professor of Mathematics
Pattle Pak-Toe Pun, Ph.D.
Pattle Pun
Paul C. Egeland, Ed.D.
Paul Cahill, Ph.D.
Paul C-H Lim, Ph.D.
Paul D. Gardner
Paul F. M. Zahl
Paul G. Hiebert
Paul Isihara, Ph.D.
Paul J. Willis (1988) Professor of English
Paul L. Morgan (1979) Professor of Economics & Business
Paul Nelson
Paul Tournier
Paul W. Delaney
Paul W. Robinson, Ph.D.
Paul Willard Wiens, D.M.A.
Payne, Raphael R.
Pelton, Daniel
Pennoyer, F. Douglas
Perez, Graciela
Perry G. Downs
Peter Beck
Peter Berger
Peter H. Walters, Ph.D.
Peter J. Hill, Ph.D.
Peter Jones
Peter K. Walhout, Ph.D.
Peter Kreeft
Peter Kuzmic, Dr. theol.
Peter T. Cha
Peter T. O’Brien
Peter Zoeller-Greer
Peters, David C.
Peters, Greg S.
Philip D. Douglass
Philip Johnston
Philip Skell
Phillip Johnson
Phillip W. Sell
Philosophy of Physics
Phyllis Mitchell, Ph.D.
Pichaj, Marc
Pickett, Todd
Pierce, Ronald
Pike, Patricia L.
Pittle, Kevin D.
Poelstra, Paul L.
Porter, Steven L.
Puls, Jonathan
Purgason, Katherine
Quinn Tyler Jackson
R. Albert Mohler
R. C. Sproul
R. Edward Zimmerman, D.M.A.
R. Laird Harris
R. T. France
Rae, Scott B.
Randall J. VanderMey (1991) Professor of English
Randy Rheaume
Ravi Zacharias
Ray Ortlund, Jr.
Raymond C. Ortlund, Jr.
Raymond F. Paloutzian (1981) Professor of Psychology
Raymond F. Pendleton, Ph.D.
Raymond J. Lewis, Ph.D.
Raymond Phinney, Ph.D.
Reggie M. Kidd
Rhee, Victor
Richard A. Burridge
Richard E. Averbeck
Richard Eugene Butman, Ph.D.
Richard Hays
Richard L. Schultz, Ph.D.
Richard Lints, Ph.D.
Richard Lovelace, Th.D.
Richard R. Cook
Richard Sternberg
Richard Swinburne
Richard W. Pointer (1994) Professor of History
Rigsby, Richard O.
Robert A. Peterson
Robert A. Watson, Psy.D.
Robert C. Koons
Robert E. Coleman
Robert E. Coleman, Ph.D.
Robert E. Fillinger, Ed.D.
Robert H. Gundry (1962) Scholar-in-Residence, Religious Studies
Robert H. Krapohl
Robert I. Vasholz
Robert J. Gregory, Ph.D.
Robert J. Priest
Robert Kaita
Robert L. Gallagher, Ph.D.
Robert Larmer
Robert Lee Brabenec, Ph.D.
Robert O’Connor, Ph.D.
Robert Omedi Ochieng (2005) Assistant Professor of Communication Studies
Robert W. Burns
Robert Yarbrough
Robin Collins
Robison, Jeanne
Rodney L. Cooper, Ph.D.
Rodney Scott, Ph.D.
Roebuck, Erick
Roger H. Kennett, Ph.D.
Roger Nicole, Th.D., Ph.D., D.D.
Roger Warren Lundin, Ph.D.
Roland Hirsch
Ronald M. Enroth (1965) Professor of Sociology
Rood, Judith Mendelsohn
Rood, Paul
Rouse, Matthew
Roy E. Barsness, Ph.D.
Roy E. Ciampa, Ph.D.
Roy Joseph, Ph.D.
Royce Gordon Gruenler, Ph.D.
Rundle, Steven
Russell W. Carlson
Russell W. Howell (1978) Professor of Mathematics
Russell, Sue
Russell, Walter
Ruth E. Tucker (1976) Professor of Education
Ryan A. Jorden (2000) Assistant Professor of Kinesiology; Assistant Coach, Men’s Soccer
Rynd, James
S. Anna Stepanek, Ph.D.
S. M. Baugh
Sally E. Morrison, Ed.D.
Sally Schwer Canning, Ph.D.
Samuel A. Shellhamer, Ph.D.
Samuel Dz-Sing Ling
Samuel R. Schutz, Ph.D.
Samuel Zadi, Ph.D.
Sanders, Fred
Sandra Fullerton Joireman, Ph.D.
Sands, Kathy
Sarah Holman, D.M.A.
Sarah R. Borden, Ph.D.
Saucy, Robert
Schmidt, John
Schubert, Melissa
Scot McKnight
Scott J. Hafemann, Ph.D.
Scott M. Gibson, D.Phil.
Scott M. Manetsch
Scott Minnich
Sean M. McDonough, Ph.D.
Sean Michael Lucas
Seth Norton, Ph.D.
Sharon Ewert Coolidge, Ph.D.
Sheri L. Abel, Ph.D.
Sherwin, Nick
Shirley A. Mullen (1983) Provost and Professor of History
Sibold, Claire
Sidney L. Bradley, Ph.D.
Simonson, Kurt
Smith, David
Smith, Jr, Lyle H.
Smith, Scott R.
Soo-Chang Steven Kang, Ph.D.
Spears, Paul
Stan D. Gaede (1996) President
Stan Lennard
Stanley E. Anderson, Jr.
Stanley Grenz
Stanton L. Jones, Ph.D.
Steffen, Tom
Steinmeier, Cherry
Stephan H. Cook
Stephanie Neill, Psy.D.
Stephen Meyer
Stephen O. Moshier, Ph.D.
Stephen P. Greggo
Stephen R. Spencer, Ph.D.
Stephen S. Garber
Steve Call, Ph.D.
Steven C. Roy
Steven R. Hodson (1996) Professor of Music
Steven R. Loomis, Ph.D.
Steven W. Klipowicz, Ed.D.
Stewart DeSoto, Ph.D.
Stewart, Shawna
Stranske, Tim
Strauss, Gary H.
Styffe, Glenn
Sunukjian, Donald
Susan E. Penksa (1997) Associate Professor of Political Science
Swain, Lisa
TA Robinson
Talley, David
Tamplin, Melissa
Tarpley, Doug
Taylor, Deborah L.
Ted W. Ward
Telford C. Work (2003) Assistant Professor of Theology
Ten Elshof, Gregg A.
TenElshof, Judy
Terence H. Perciante, Ed.D.
Terri S. Watson, Psy.D.
Terry R. Schwartz, D.M.A.
Terry Rickard
Theoretical Dynamics
Thoennes, Donna
Thoennes, Erik
Thomas D. Jayawardene (1988) Professor of Sociology
Thomas G. Fikes (1998) Associate Professor of Psychology
Thomas G. Oey
Thomas H. McCall
Thomas J. VanDrunen, Ph.D.
Thomas R. Schreiner
Thurber, Edward
Tiffany Kriner, Ph.D.
Timothy C. Tennent, Ph.D.
Timothy J. Wilkinson, Ph.D.
Timothy S. Laniak, Th.D.
Timothy T. Larsen, Ph.D.
Tite Tienou
Todd M. Johnson, Ph.D.
Tony Ladd, Ph.D.
Tony Payne, D.M.A.
Tremper Longman III, Ph.D.
Tremper Longman, III (1998) Robert H. Gundry Chair of Biblical Studies, Old Testament
Trey Buchanan, Ph.D.
Tyler Williams
Udo Middleman
Uranga-Hernandez, Yvana
Van Lant, Kevin
Van Tholen, Rachel
Van Zandt, Cassandra
Vern S. Poythress
Vincent Bacote
Vincent Bacote, Ph.D.
Vishal Mangalwadi
W. Bingham Hunter
W. Jay Wood, Ph.D.
W. Wilson Benton, Jr.
Walter Bradley
Walter Brueggeman
Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Ph.D.
Walter Kaiser
Walter L. Liefeld
Walters, Keith A.
Wamagatta, Evanson
Ward Allen Kriegbaum, Ph.D.
Warren F. Rogers (1994) Professor of Physics
Warren Throckmorton
Wayne F. Iba (2003) Assistant Professor of Computer Science
Wayne Grudem
Weathers, Matthew
Welter, Tamara
Wilber B. Wallis
Wilkins, Michael
Willem A. VanGemeren
Willem A. VanGeren
William A. Dembski
William Alston
William B. Nelson, Jr. (1986) Professor of Old Testament
William Clark, Ph.D.
William Cook
William D. Mounce
William D. Spencer, Th.D.
William Dembski
William F. Murray, Ph.D.
William Lane Craig
William M. Struthers, Ph.D.
William Phemister, D.M.A.
William Provine
William S. Barker
William Weinrich
William Wharton, Ph.D.
Williams, John K.
Williams, Matthew
Wilshire, Leland E.
Woodward, Philip
Worden, William J.
Younghun Kwon
Zachary W. Eswine
Zukerberg, Cheryl

Contemporary Christian Intelligentsia

December 28, 2005

Inclusive Community 3

So as it turns out, my posting has not been as consistent as I wish. Among other things, it just takes a lot of time. At any rate, I want to continue thinking about inclusive community and mention something else (continuing from the previous post).

In the last two posts, I said that an inclusive community is one in which individuals are drawn up into the fellowship of the Trinity with Christ as the entry gate and very foundation for inclusion. This post might seem somewhat unrelated, but it struck me when I was reading a book today. I'll get to what I read in Henri J.M. Nouwen's Intimacy, but before I get to Nouwen, I need to set him up by looking at the nature of a community with respect to story.

NT Wright, a top-notch scholar referenced by many within various shades of theology, explains who Jesus of Nazareth was via the accompanying Judaism leading up to His incarnation. By doing this, Wright appropriately identifies the story, beliefs, symbols, and praxis into which Messiah came. Wright's work has relevance.

Story is the larger narrative about reality that a community tells itself that it actually believes to account for the universe. Beliefs are answers to those questions about life that result. An example is Lewis's The Problem of Pain in which he answers the question of why pain if God is good and all-powerful, two components of the Christian story. Next are symbols, those things which represent the story in daily living. An example of this in the American West would be the World Trade Center, which Islamic fundamentalists accurately identified in their terrorist attacks of 9/11. Finally, the praxis--how one orders his life, almost as if to make himself a symbol.

A relevant digression--my time in evanglistic campus ministry taught me (unknowingly) that this wholistic worldview change we were inviting others toward involved much more than literally going through four steps and a prayer. I'm convinced that real preaching of the gospel requires telling the story while being willing to think through the questions (a ready defense a la Peter), appropriately symbolizing one's world, and living out the love of God and neighbor as self. Mere pragmatism ("well, the four laws work") is never an adequate response to justify a method that is more like a sales pitch.

Now to how this relates--to be a community, an inclusive community must have a story to tell about reality, and this story is tied up in Nouwen's quote. In his book, there is a discussion of community amidst describing the experience of depression on seminary campuses. Nouwen nails it here:
Religious community is ecclesia, which means called out of the land of slavery to the free land.
That's one key component of any inclusive community's story worth its contemporary salt. As NT Wright says over and over again, Jesus is Lord and Caesar isn't. Or as he has put it more recently, Jesus is Lord and Mammon, Aphrodite, and Mars aren't.

Here's what I'm saying--the story to tell is that Jesus is Lord and all things that keep one in bondage are not any longer. And the inclusive community is one that expands its own understanding of just how much Jesus is Lord by seeing His Lordship extended into the bondage of those in the community. The community becomes more inclusive as those within it risk in faith that Jesus really is Lord, even over modernity's trinity--money, sex, and power. That is the story an inclusive community finds itself living in today.

Next, I will comment on how the extension of Jesus' Lordship might involve those within a community.

Inclusive Community 3

December 05, 2005

Point-by-point response to 'On Pornography'

I received an extensive response to my last post on pornography. I have copied and pasted it here for the reader who may not have an account with blogs4God. My next post will be my pushbacks, clarifications, and a honing of the argument.

Submitted by Fletch on Fri, 2005-12-02 06:00.

Before I argue these points I want to say that I am an artist and I live in the cognitive realm of aesthetics (one of the points being argued here). I also believe pornography to be harmful. I am not here defending porn, I just don’t think that the arguments being made are very good ones. Also, as you will see I have avoided any ad hominem attacks and I would appreciate the curacy being returned in kind. Finally, I apologize for the lengthy comment. But I felt that to do justice to the post such a long comment was required. I have quoted the points in the order they were made followed by my responses. There are places where I have used the names of thinkers and theologians, unfortunately university was a long time ago and I may have mixed individuals up. For that I apologize. You could make the effort to point those mistakes out, but I would only assume you are doing so because you are unable to argue the points in and of themselves. You said at the beginning of the post that you wished to strengthen your argument. This very long comment is merely an attempt to aid you in that effort. Please take it in that spirit.

“First, reality exists--that is, there is an existence that is real in which we find ourselves. While this has been a subject of great debate in the last century among philosophers, I'm making this assumption because I think it is the best conclusion of all options of which I'm aware.”

I am not sure why this is a necessary assumption. If one were to assume that reality as you are implying does not exist pornography could still be seen as harmful For example, let us just say for the sake of argument that what we all perceive as reality is really just a dream that I am having. You don’t really exist outside of that dream. My persona does not exist outside of that dream. Neither does this blog, nor anything else for that matter. In this dream world that we are in the destructiveness of pornography is manifested in broken homes, child molestation, spousal abuse, and so on. According to the constructs of this dream world there is harm done, even if it is only harm done in the dream. One might say that because it is only “dream world” harm and it is not “real” it is not evil because the evil was not done to real families, children and spouses, but that does not matter. For us in our non real dream world we still experience the harm, therefore the harm done is an evil. I am reminded of a story about Mark Twain, and I don’t remember the exact details so forgive me. Twain had some kind of business arrangement with a solipsist. Apparently Twain was late on his payment to the solipsist who subsequently sued him for the cash. Twains quip is brilliant. He remarked that the man sued him for “a very real check.” The point being that even if someone does not believe that reality exists that person still behaves as if actions have consequences.

“Second, good is good, meaning that if something has the quality of goodness, it is desirable objectively. This hinges on the first assumption and establishes an objective measuring stick of what is good regardless of what might be one's distorted desires.”

Well, first, good theology teaches us that we don’t desire what is good. We desire what is evil, that is what total depravity is all about. If you don’t agree go ask John Calvin, John Edwards, and Jesus. Second, you contradict yourself here. First you say that “if something has the quality of goodness, it is desirable objectively” then you say that “establishes an objective measuring stick of what is good regardless of what might be one’s distorted desires.” So you affirm that desires can be distorted. Yet, you would also have us use our desire for what is good as a measuring stick for what is objectively good. But then how can we have simultaneously distorted desires and still know with any kind of certainty that what we think of as objectively good and worthy of desire isn’t just another result of our distorted desires. Perhaps a better approach would be to use a standard that transcends us and our desires. Why not base the standard upon what God (who is beyond us) desires? This will not float with someone who does not believe in God but you stated above that you are seeking an argument for the Christian, not the person who does not believe in the Christian God. Further, it is a good thing that Plato or Socrates isn’t reading this, they would have us all in knots trying to explain to him how good could be absolutely defined, or known, or could be intrinsic to anything. Let alone define beauty. What is more the great Augustine wouldn’t be so bold as to proclaim that goodness or evil reside in anything corporal. He would argue that God is the standard of what is good, and that evil is the absence of good.

“Third, that which exists, as intended, is good, including sexuality and beauty. This is largely the conclusion one must make unless one is caught in believing in a malevolent deity or is otherwise stuck in cycles of speculation”

You don’t have to be a follower of Mani to think that “that which exists, as intended” is not by necessity good. But because this is has been the consensus of 2000 years of “orthodox” Christian theology I will concede your point. More importantly however I would be careful to distinguish between sexuality as a human social behavior and beauty as an esthetic. You seem to imply that sexuality is in the same realm as beauty, but the truth is not so. You are mixing categories. Further, there are many “sexualities” one of which you are trying to argue is not good, that is pornography. And how would one be “stuck in cycles of speculation?”

“Fourth, art bridges artist and viewer by providing a lens through which an artist can point to something aesthetically pleasing. If one assumes one through three, it is obvious that beauty has an objective quality. I like to think of it as a web that has a lot of room in it for movement depending on one's preferences, yet the web represents that which is within the range of the beautiful. If something falls outside the boundary of the web, it is no longer objectively beautiful, although it might cause feelings of pleasure for some.”

Your premise that art “bridges artist and viewer by providing a lens through which an artist can point to something aesthetically pleasing.” Is a very narrow definition of art. What about simply as a means of expression? I am a photographer and poet and I have no such intentions of bridging anything, or providing any kind of lens. It is simply a means of catharsis. For others it is a means of expression, and many other things for many other artists. And if I were to concede the point, then there is still the issue of what is “aesthetically pleasing.” One must assume based on how you phrased the statement that you mean what the artist finds to be “aesthetically pleasing” yet there are many expressions of art that you would not find aesthetically pleasing because you would say they are pornographic. No two people find themselves in total agreement on what is aesthetically pleasing. That is why there is often so much controversy surrounding art. Many today find Van Gough’s work to be aesthetically pleasing, yet when he was alive no one appreciated his work. So who is correct in their conclusion about the pleasing nature of his art? His contemporaries who found him cluttered and his work ugly, or those who today appreciate his work?

“Fifth, pornography titillates a viewer via one's sexual nature. This is virtually impossible to deny.

Ok, there is much here. First, there are many things that you or I might find titillating that isn’t porn. Your syllogism is as follows: Porn titillates. All things that titillate are pornography. Therefore, if someone is titillated by something it is no longer art and must be pornography. Yet there are many things that are both art and titillating. The problem is that there are as many ways for the human “sexual nature” to be titillated as there are humans. There are dudes who are “titillated” (can’t we just drop that word and say turned on?) by shoes. Yet for some the designing of shoes is an expression of art. So are shoes pornography? You see, you are still trying to make objects exist as intrinsically good or evil as opposed to the use of the objects.”

“I've heard it said that pornography is really about power (an arguable point) and is not in fact associated with sexuality at all (an unreasonable point).”

You say that you have “heard it said that pornography is really about power (an arguable point) and is not in fact associated with sexuality at all (an unreasonable point).” But you see, you have given away the game here! That is the very grounds we should be making our stand. Pornography IS about power and not sexuality as God intended. The thing about sexuality is that it is an expression. In paradise (and I wasn’t there so I can only assume from reading Genesis) Adam and Eve’s sexuality was an expression of their communion. A physical expression of a spiritual reality. And after the fall that is the goal of married sexuality. With pornography the dude sitting in front of a screen or looking at the magazine viewing pornographic images wields power over the individuals he/she is viewing. Their humanity is taken from them and they become objects of his/her control. He/she is expressing that need for power through sexuality. That is basic to our understanding of sexual predators, that they seek power through sex, not sex in and of itself. Was it Foucault who based much of his work on this premise? I do not follow his conclusions but I would agree that sexuality often is an expression of power.

“I would argue that one cannot be privy to nudity and not have one's sexual nature touched.”

As to your argument that “one cannot be privy to nudity and not have one’s sexual nature touched” well I would disagree. Michelangelo’s David is nude and he doesn’t do anything for me. When I was studying at university for a degree in Sports Medicine I saw a lot of naked bodies. I don’t think I was ever “touched.” Perhaps there were times when I was struck by the beauty of the athletic form (male and female) - how fearfully and wonderfully we are made - that I was moved to worship God. It was all very clinical and the mindset was to see the possibilities for strength and agility that we all posses as humans, and I often my peers who did not assent to God‘s existence had to give me the point that if we are the result of random mutation and happy coincidence then how happy and how amazing the coincidence must be.

Certainly, one has the choice to engage the sexual connection, but even in cases where one does not choose to do so, it is usually because it is not a desirable sexual connection, proving my point.

How exactly does this prove your point? What exactly is your point here? If one “does not choose to [engage the sexual connection], it is usually because it is not a desirable sexual connection.” By engage the sexual connection I have to assume you mean let oneself indulge fantasy in one’s mind and/or act on the fantasy. But if it is not a “desirable sexual connection” then there is no sexual connection because one is not “titillated.” If you mean that one doesn’t act on the sexual connection then how does that prove your point that “one cannot be privy to nudity and not have one's sexual nature touched?” Are you expanding your sylogism to not only say that “Porn titillates. All things that titillate are pornography. Therefore, if someone is titillated by something it is no longer art and must be pornography.” AND that “everyone who is “privy” to nudity has their “sexual nature touched” but they don’t act on it because nudity is titillating?”

Sixth, sexuality is inherently tied to personhood, even resulting in the creation of another person. This last assumption can be seen most evidently in the ways that self-labeled homosexuals take disapproval of homosexuality as an attack on their very personhood. Given these assumptions, the argument goes something like this. Because sexuality is tied to personhood, engaging the sexual nature of another requires respect for another's personhood.

How does that follow?

To respect another's personhood, one must love another selflessly, creating a wall around space in which one might be free to be. Commitment to another's well-being (that is, wanting another to be all that one was intended to be) is required to love selflessly.

So are you hear going to argue that we are capable of “selfless” love? Augustine and Edwards and Lewis would take issue with that. There is always the taint of self interest in every human activity. And your statement equating well-being with being “all that one was intended to be” is more American and Transcendental than Christian. Love to others as defined by Jesus is to seek the good of the other, not the potential. It is to not only to seek to not to harm, but to protect. When Jesus says that to love your neighbor is to love them as yourself he is in part saying to protect the other from ourselves. At the heart of loving self is to protect oneself. Therefore to love your neighbor as yourself you must protect your neighbor, in particular from your own self interests. That assumes that by nature we are self interested. That is why even our best intentions must be redeemed by Christ because they are tainted with self interest.

Anything engaging one's sexuality apart from that commitment is actually violating one's personhood, cracking one's eikon (per Scot McKnight).

Why not just say that to play at sex is to play with emotions because sex and emotion are linked and to play with someone’s emotions is to violate the command to love them. But how does this apply to pornography for the Christian? Are Christians breaking into the porn industry much as they have the music and publishing and bumper sticker industry? It might be better to finish this thought by pointing out that by viewing pornography the Christian is consenting to an industry that dehumanizes women.

Pornography, even if not intended for pure titillation (such as in some of the soft-core pornography readily available that blends beauty with sexuality and might be considered art), still does so apart from a commitment to the viewer as intended. Therefore, any imagery that titillates results in the wounding of an individual's personhood.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are many things that are intended for good but are used for evil, or because of human fallen nature become perverted. And there are many things that many would not find titillating that the few do find titillating (remember the shoes) so are those things therefore wounding of an individuals personhood? Should we do away with glossy ads of shoes? What about leather, should my friends who ride Harleys only were canvas because there are individuals who are turned on by the sight of leather because they are unintentionally wounding that individuals personhood? Where does it stop? Veils? Burkas? Or is there a point at which the responsibility is on the individual? Yes, that may be very subjective, but there are many things Christians affirm that are subjective. Only God determine what is objectively good or evil and he has given us a very short list (compared to the ones we come up with).

It's not a knock-out argument, but it at least puts forth some semblence of rational thought to the idea that pornography is harmful. Of course, this line of thought falls apart if you make the assumptions of the enemy's system. Within that view, desiring another's best includes the destruction of beauty, and thus, pornography is embraced, especially because it violates one's personhood, which in the end is really an attack on the glory of God by via His imagers.

Oh, but you don’t have to make any of your arguments to prove that porn is harmful Our society or “the enemy” as you put it already assumes the harmful nature of porn. It is against the law to let a minor view it. Almost every week Opra or “Dr” Phil has some poor soul who’s life was destroyed by porn. And you cannot make the case that “within [the] enemy’s system desiring another’s best includes the destruction of beauty.” So are all people who are not Christians and therefore who don’t hold to your “view” of the world in the enemy’s system? If so are they incapable of protecting beauty? And must you assume that on the premise that because they are in the “enemy’s system” that they “embrace” pornography “especially because it violates one’s personhood?” Could it be that those who are not Christians are just like us? That they like us value the beauty of the person and would seek to protect it, though they falters at points? Could it be possible that the general population isn’t much different in that there are individuals with in both groups that struggle with porn not because they wish to, or think it is ok to “violate one’s personhood” but because they like Christians are broken and sinful and in need of healing?

You said that you are attempting to put your thinking into terms that someone my possibly see that a Christian might have reasons for their beliefs. Long gone are the days when the Christian could assume that his/her listener shared the same presuppositions concerning goodness, beauty, and truth. If we are to demonstrate our reasons for what we believe we must speak the same language and not assume many of the points that you have made here. We must attempt to argue using our listeners own assumptions about reality. And I think that an argument contra porn can and should be made in such away. However to me it seems you are attempting to argue from categories that a person who does not follow Christ doesn’t even recognize.

Again, as I said above, please take these comments as intended. That is, as an effort to help you clarify your argument, not as an attack. They were intended as an aid. I hope you have read them in that spirit.

Point-by-point response to 'On Pornography'

November 28, 2005

Inclusive Community 2

This is the second in a series of thoughts on what it might mean for a local congregation to be an inclusive community. In the first, I discussed the meaning of inclusive culture and its basis on the Trinitarian fellowship (see here). In this post, I want to discuss what a community must be aware of when attempting to create an environment that might be described as inclusive.

This thought had been percolating for days, and then I found the words that I had wanted, but they weren't mine. On Sunday, I came across a short little gem--Leslie Newbigin's Truth to Tell. He's well known for his discussion of the gospel and truth amidst pluralism. In this book (pp. 63-64), immediately following a discussion of the New Age and nature worship, as if an organ began to pipe and a bride began her march, Newbigin says
Nor can we accept a kind of pluralism which confuses the normal with the normative, which supposes that the unity of humankind can be achieved by raising no question of ultimate truth, a false and deceptive ecumenism which advocates unity as an end in itself and denies the central claim of the gospel, that it is Jesus, the crucified and risen Jesus, who is alone the center around which alienated human beings can be drawn together in a reconciled fellowship.

In essence, the search for unity in diversity, for a place in which diverse persons (especially the boundary-definers--see yesterday) are actually included, the idol of unity can creep in that ultimately denies the reality of Jesus as the only unifier. One must not lose sight of the core of the gospel and the presuppositions on which it is properly understood--a Jewish Messiah seen as the Savior of the world, supposing creation, fall, and redemption.

If these are lost, then the foundation on which anyone can actually be welcomed is lost. At that point, all that one is left with is feeling welcome, and it is not a loving thing to make one feel welcome when they are not. At that point, either you are serving the idol of unity (humanism) or you are serving yourself ("we're so inclusive"). Apart from the ultimate reference point on which a real inclusive community can actually be found, one is left with illusions and deceptions, and that is ultimately of the kingdom of the prince of this dark world.

Read the next post in this series.

Inclusive Community 2

November 27, 2005

Inclusive Community 1

Per the encouragement of some close friends, I decided to start blogging on the idea of inclusive community. There will be a series of posts that you can follow from one to the next. So, let us begin...

First, an attempt to define the terms: "inclusive community" likely refers to a space in which a diversity of people experience an invitation to be and are welcomed as part of (this comes from what I gleaned during conversation with these friends). I want to discuss each of these terms in turn.

Inclusive modifies community describing what kind of community it might be (we'll get to that in a minute). The use of inclusive might suggest a few things. It might suggest a community that is broad in scope (potentially covering or allowing for all possibilities of diversity), it might more specifically refer to a group of believers without regard to rigidly sectarian barriers, or it might mean a grouping that includes the stated barriers (whether sectarian or otherwise). While the last option more often refers to mathematical notation, it seems that it might be a good metaphor for a local congregation as it stays committed to being a place of access for the least of these, the boundary-defining ones, to the Trinitarian fellowship via the cross.

That leads me to the second word--community. Just as "university" results from the pursuit of unity in diversity, so it is with the amalgamation of diverse people seeking to form a common grouping. A community implies a group of people coming together around a commonality to form a unity. In the context of a local congregation, the commonality is God--specifically as revealed through Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. As Paul the Apostle said in Galatians 3, in Christ there is not one who, being in Christ, is thereafter defined by any other category. All are invited into the fellowship of the body, and this fellowship, as John said in his first epistle, is with the Father and His Son. It is the invitation to the Son's banquet (Luke 14), the memorial feast of which is Himself.

So, in sum, a local congregation might be called an inclusive community if it provides an equal invitation to all persons within an intended scope, especially the boundary-definers, to the fellowship that the Holy Spirit draws us up into, which is with the Father and the Son via the cross of Christ.

Go on to the next in this series of posts.

Inclusive Community 1

November 19, 2005

Revisions to blog...

I know I haven't posted in a few weeks. I have been trying to update the page and make some template changes as well. Please be patient with me.

Revisions to blog...

October 19, 2005

Midweek In Blog -- October 19, 2005

This is the second in a series of weekly reviews of the blogosphere. Topics this week include Sex & Culture, Harriet Miers, Iraq, Intelligent Design, and Christian Spirituality.

Sex & Culture
Joe Carter of the popular Evangelical Outpost offered a few posts relating to sexuality and culture. The first post consists of 12 things Christians can do to be part of God's movement to redeem sexuality in our culture by rescuing it from industrialization. Among them, according to Carter, we should continuously point out:
  • Sexual intercourse is a non-verbal expression of profound commitment, openness, and trust.
  • “Good” sex is not found by following a formula...Sex cannot be measured...anymore than a good conversation can be measured by the number of words spoken.
  • Sex is intended to be viewed from the place of a first-person participant, not a third-person observer.
  • You can’t have multiple sexual partners and not become desensitized to the beauty and intimacy of marital intercourse.

In his second related post, Carter observes a correlation between Picasso's sexual ethic and his artistic style, ranging from realistic to grotesque as Picasso experienced love or lust in varying degrees.
For Picasso, the dignatas of a woman was entirely dependent on his feelings for her. When in the throes of love he could see the intrinsic worth; when in the faded glow of lust, he could only look upon her with disgust. “It must be painful for a girl to see in a painting that she’s on the way out,” Picasso mused.

Carter's third related post discussed the extent to which advertisers have taken their logic to include sex in advertising. He quotes Chuck Klosterman as saying, "They (advertisers) are actually trying to sell a lifestyle that consumers haven’t even considered as a remote possibility." In typical fashion, Carter provides various ads that serve as data for his point--polyamorous advertising is on the rise. He concludes with:
How long will it take those pushing these polyamorous ads to come to the same conclusion and realize that the public simply isn't ready for it (polyamory)?

Harriet Miers
In addition to believing that Separation of Powers would be enough to prohibit Miers' nomination, this week Paul Deignan at Info Theory concluded that Miers is pro-Roe politically, although she may be pro-life personally. How did he do so?
The analysis revolves around one appointment and one appointment only: SCOTUS justices...What has the President said on Roe? That was indeterminate but did favor the hypothesis that Bush is "personally pro-life" but politically pro-Roe...What of the President's actions? Here there is conclusive proof that Bush is pro-Roe in the nomination of SCOTUS justices.

On the other hand, SkyePuppy has concluded that she is pro-Miers. She weighed the arguments of Laura Ingraham and Hugh Hewitt and found Ingraham's wanting.
In the end, I found Hugh's arguments more compelling. Constitutional law is not rocket science. The Constitution is short and quickly read--even with all those ammendments--and it's fairly easy to understand. Since conservatives are looking for an originalist or a strict constructionist (someone who will look to the Constitution itself and not make stuff up that the Constitution doesn't say), then we don't need a nominee who has spent his or her entire career analyzing the kind of constitutional case law that determines that localized endangered toads threatened by a housing development somehow fall under the interstate commerce provisions of the Constitution.

Since the Constitution isn't that hard, and the constitutional legal establishment is starting to sound like they're suffering from some intellectual inbreeding, now seems like as good a time as any for some fresh blood to be introduced into the "family." Provided that the fresh blood is sharp and capable. Hugh has posted emails and links to blogs that have spelled out the stellar qualities of Harriet Miers.

Townhall is currently running an online poll associated with the Miers nomination. As of 12:53 AM, October 19, 65 percent of the 519 respondents vote for conservatives who are uncomfortable with the Miers nomination to urge the President to withdraw the nomination.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted unsolicited advice for Harriet Miers with respect to answering questions on Roe. You decide if it is good advice.
Suppose Miers testifies to the following:
  1. She believes Roe was wrongly decided, and has expressed that view from time to time in conversation.
  2. Her disagreement with Roe is not based on her opposition to abortion, but rather on her opposition to judicial usurpation. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the idea that the Court suddenly "discovered" the right after nearly 200 years is ridiculous.
  3. She doesn't know whether she would vote to overturn Roe, because that would depend on issues relating to stare decisis that she hasn't yet analyzed, and she would not make that kind of decision without hearing the case before her, studying the authorities and the arguments of the parties, and discussing the issues with her colleagues on the Court.
Mightn't that approach solve a number of problems?

John Hawkins has a post titled "What Has Been Accomplished In Iraq? More Than You Might Think." In the midst of confusion about what was and was not said, there are some good things to notice about Iraq.
The war hasn't been easy, nor is it likely to suddenly become so because of this election, but we're moving steadily, inexorably towards a free and Democratic Iraq that's capable of defending itself from terrorists without Coalition troops on the streets. When that day comes, we'll be able to bring our troops home for the respite and victory parades that they will so richly deserve.

Hammorabi has decided that the constitution will likely pass. It can only be rejected if the majority of votes reject it or if two thirds of the votes in three provinces or more vote for no. In "The Results indicate YES vote for the Iraqi constitution", these conditions are shown to not be likely.
  • The nine southern provinces from Basra to Hila voted between 75-95% by yes.
  • Baghdad region voted by 65-75% yes.
  • The three northern Kurdish provinces voted by 70-80% yes.
  • Kurkuk and Diyala voted for 60-65% yes.
  • Ramadi is gloomy but expected to vote for no.
  • The birth place of Saddam Tikrit (Salah-aldeen) voted by 75% for no.
  • Even taking Tikrit votes in account, this (2/3 of 3 provinces vote no) will need at least another 2 provinces to say no by more than 66%. Even if Ramadi achieved this, (it) is not enough. Mosel votes were 643,000 from which until today we got the results of 419,000 ballots counted. Out of this 419,000 there is 75% voted yes.

Mary Katharine Ham, at Townhall's C-Log, has a similar post about refusing to see the good coming out of Iraq.
As Rob Anderson notes, "there's nothing admirable about using one injustice as blinders for another."

Abu Ghraib shouldn't keep liberal-minded Americans from recognizing the gains being made in Iraq for universal humanitarian causes, but I'm afraid it does-- which, now that I think of it, is just another example of cultural relativism gone too far.

Intelligent Design
Recently, Eugenie Scott has suggested introducing theology into the classroom. On Darwinian Fundamentalism, Lawrence Selden explains how Eugenie Scott's latest recommendations violate the separation of church and state.
Her final sentence makes it all too clear: Johnny, you don't have to "make a choice between evolution and religious faith." Just switch to a different religious faith! You can even stay a Christian- just switch denominations! It is so easy these days to be a good Episcopalian and buy into Darwinism hook, line and sinker. Hey, I might even write you a good recommendation if you do.

Where can you find Eugenie Scott's strategy guide? Why on a web site funded in part by the US Government, of course. Follow the link Dealing with Roadblocks & Misconceptions, and then the link Dealing with Antievolutionism. Et voila! The juicy stuff is on page 2. Establishment of religion in three easy steps, brought to you by the National Science Foundation.

Krauze over at Telic Thoughts has posted on how his ID conversations usually start. First is the question of ID's stance on common descent and then frustration because ID can't be pigeon-holed--resulting in this statement:
You’re just a bunch of fundamentalist post-modernists, quoting scientists out of context and using the Wedge to turn the US into a theocracy and send all of our jobs to Taiwan. And besides, who designed the designer?

Christian Spirituality
Ben Witherington has a great post on prayer he has called "Chrysostom, Mother Teresa, and George Herbert on Prayer". The snippet from John Chrysostom's Homily on Hebrews 14.9:
There is war in the marketplace; the affairs of every day are a fight, they are a tempest and a storm. We therefore need arms, and prayer is a great weapon. We need favorable winds; we need to learn everything, so as to go through the length of the day without shipwrecks and without wounds. For every single day the rocks are many, and oftentimes the boat strikes rock and is sunk. Therefore, we have especial need of prayer early and by night.

StatGuy at Magic Statistics offers some thoughts on St Luke the Evangelist.
Luke's unique perspective on Jesus can be seen in the six miracles and eighteen parables not found in the other gospels. He is the one who tells the story of Lazarus and the rich man who ignored him. Only in Luke's gospel do we hear Mary's Magnificat where she proclaims that God has brought down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted those of humble estate; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away (Luke 1:52-53). St Luke also has a special connection with the women in Jesus' life, especially Mary. It is only in Luke's gospel that we hear the story of the Annunciation, Mary's visit to Elizabeth including the Magnificat, the Presentation, and the story of Jesus' disappearance in Jerusalem.

Midweek In Blog -- October 19, 2005