Ad Fontes: Princeton Theological Seminary Reads Calvin

In 2010, a group of professors and pastors decided to read the 1541 edition of Calvin's Institutes. That same year, Princeton Theological Seminary created a website for the group. The website is called "Ad Fontes", and it contains a number of resources for the study of the 1541 edition of the Institutes and Reformed theology. One resource is a series of short talks that touch on some of the central theological issues addressed by the Institutes. These talks are a good resource for anyone who is interested in Calvin or the Reformed tradition. Some of the talks presuppose a basic familiarity with Reformation thinkers such as Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, and Bucer, but even those who lack such a background should find much in the talks that is accessible. Personally, I found the talks on prayer and the sacraments to be rather helpful. The website can be found here, and the 1541 edition of the Institutes can be found here. The talks can also be downloaded through iTunes.

Online Classes and Lectures: Some Recommendations

In recent years, many colleges and universities have decided to open their doors to the public free of charge. These schools haven’t increased their enrollment rates or suspended tuition costs, but they have made a number of their classes freely available to the public online, and many have made individual talks and symposia freely available online as well. It costs over $40,000 to attend MIT, Harvard, Yale, or Stanford each year, but you can download hundreds of hours of classes and talks from those universities free of charge. How can you find these materials? Well, there are a number of ways, but perhaps the simplest is to go to iTunes and browse the iTunesU (that’s “iTunes University”) service. Alternatively, you can search for individual schools or subjects by name and see what comes up. The range of available materials is truly impressive. You can listen to classes or lectures on subjects ranging from Assyriology to Zoology. And again, it’s all free. Listening to these materials is a great way to improve your education, and it’s also convenient – I download them to my iPod and listen to them while driving, while doing housework, or even while cooking. (See my previous post on using your iPod to learn more about the Bible.)

I have listened to a number of classes and lectures over the years. Here are some of my favorites:

Isabelle Pafford, “Hist 4A – The Ancient Mediterranean World” (Berkeley, Fall 2007)

Donald Kagan, “Introduction to Ancient Greek History” (Yale)

Paul Freedman, “The Early Middle Ages, 284-1000” (Yale)

Keith E. Wrightson, “Early Modern England” (Yale)

Isabelle Pafford, “Hist 106B – The Roman Empire” (Berkeley, Spring 2008)

Joanne Freeman, “The American Revolution” (Yale)

Margaret Lavinia Anderson, “Hist 5 - “The Making of Modern Europe, 1453 to Present” (Berkeley, Spring 2007)

John Merriman, “European Civilization, 1648-1945” (Yale)

Daniel Sargent, “Hist 130B – The United States and the World Since 1945” (Berkeley, 2010)

Robert J. Shiller, “Financial Markets” (Yale, 2011)

Christine Hayes, “Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible)” (Yale)

Dale B. Martin, “Introduction to New Testament History and Literature” (Yale)

John Goldingay, various courses at Fuller Theological Seminary

Thomas Sheehan, “Historical Jesus” (Stanford)

J.I. Packer, “History and Theology of the Puritans” (Reformed Theological Seminary)

David Calhoun, “Reformation and Modern Church History” (Covenant Theological Seminary)

David Calhoun, “Ancient and Medieval Church History” (Covenant Theological Seminary)

Martin W. Lewis, “GEOG 3 – Geography of World Cultures” (Stanford)

Giuseppe Mazzotta, “Dante in Translation” (Yale)

John Rogers, “Milton” (Yale)

These classes are all outstanding, and I have enjoyed them all. If you are interested in history, then I highly recommend the classes by Pafford, Kagan, Merriman, and Anderson. They are some of the best history professors that I have ever heard, and I took a lot of history classes as an undergraduate student. Shiller’s class on financial markets is a great introduction to the subject, and anyone who is interested in geography, linguistics, or languages should listen to Lewis’s class. With regards to religion, the classes by Hayes, Martin, and Sheehan are all excellent, but they are also critical – conservatives may find them disagreeable, though they might want to listen to them anyway. (I should say that I agree with much of what Hayes and Martin say about the Bible, but that I disagree with much of what Sheehan says about it. Still, I find it challenging to listen to Sheehan, and I have learned a lot from him. Calhoun, Packer, and Goldingay are conservative.) The classes on Dante and Milton are special favorites of mine; I plan to listen to them again soon.

In addition to these classes, I would also like to recommend some of the lectures that I have heard over the years. Many of these were originally given as free-standing talks, but some were delivered as parts of symposia, and others were interviews:

Bryan Ward-Perkins, "The Fall of the Roman Empire" (Oxford)

Oliver Taplin, “Oliver Taplin on Classics” (Oxford)

John Broome, “John Broome on Rationality” (Oxford)

David Abernethy, “Trans-Saharan Trade Routes and Medieval Kingdoms of the Sahel” (Stanford)

David Abernethy, “A Tale of Two States: Development in Karnataka and Kerala” (Stanford)

Vali Nasr, “The Shia Revival and Politics of Change in the Middle East” (Stanford)

Abbas Milani, “Iran and the Rise of Radical Islam” (Stanford)

Martha C. Nussbaum, “The Real Clash of Civilizations: Democracy, Religious Violence, and the Case of India” (Yale)

Sinclair Ferguson, “Blessed Assurance and Bickering Theologians: A Doubtful Debate” (Reformed Theological Seminary)

N.T. Wright, “Jesus and the People of God: Whence and Whither Historical Jesus Studies and the Life of the Church” (Wheaton College)

Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Wrighting the Wrongs of the Reformation? The State of the Union with Christ in St. Paul and in Protestant Soteriology” (Wheaton College)

David Bevington, “The Collected Works of Ben Jonson” (University of Chicago)

Martha Roth, “Chicago Assyrian Dictionary: The Final Chapter” (University of Chicago)

Larry Zbikowski, “Dissecting the Language of Music” (University of Chicago)

There are a number of classes that I plan to listen to in the near future. I have decided to include these as well (in case they should interest anyone):

John Geanakoplos, “Financial Theory” (Yale)

Jonathan Holloway, “African American History: From Emancipation to the Present” (Yale)

Charles Bailyn, “Frontiers and Controversies in Astrophysics” (Yale)

Paul H. Fry, “Introduction to Theory of Literature” (Yale)

John Merriman, “France Since 1871” (Yale)

David W. Blight, “The Civil War and Reconstruction Era, 1845-1877” (Yale)

Craig Wright, “Listening to Music” (Yale)

Roberto Gonázlez Echevarría, “Cervantes’ Don Quixote” (Yale)

Ian Shapiro, “The Moral Foundations of Politics” (Yale)

Thomas W. Laqueur, “Hist 5 – European Civilization from the Renaissance to the Present” (Berkeley)

Daniel Sargent, “International and Global History Since 1945” (Berkeley, 2012)

Martin W. Lewis, “Global Geopolitics” (Stanford)

Susanna Braund, “Virgil’s Aeneid” (Stanford)

Emma Smith, “Approaching Shakespeare” (Oxford)

Emma Smith, “Not Shakespeare: Elizabethan and Jacobean Popular Theater” (Oxford)

Before closing, I should mention Shelly Kagan’s “Death” class at Yale. It is one of the most popular of Yale’s online classes, and it is also incredibly popular with undergraduate students at Yale. (I was fortunate enough to serve as a teaching assistant for the class when I was at Yale; it was one of the most memorable teaching experiences that I have had.)

Finally, if you’re interested in philosophy, then you should try listening to Philosophy Talk. Philosophy Talk is a radio program hosted by Stanford professors Ken Taylor and John Perry. The shows are engaging and accessible, and most of the guests are interesting. I spent many hours listening to Philosophy Talk in graduate school, and I have fond memories of the program. My favorite shows include those on Hegel, Friendship, Mental Imagery, and Separation of Powers. I have heard good things about Philosophy Bites as well, but I haven’t really listened to it yet. Still, you may want to try it. (Philosophy Talk and Philosophy Bites can both be found online. Philosophy Talk was free when I listened to it years ago, but it may now cost a few dollars to download each show. Philosophy Bites is free, I believe.)

A Simple Piece of Advice for Finding Time to Learn about the Bible

My advice can be summarized in three short words: buy an iPod. Many older Christians do not use iPods at all, and many young Christians only use them to listen to music. But iPods afford numerous opportunities for learning more about the Bible. How, you may ask? Simple. You can download whole books of the Bible to your iPod. In addition, you can download sermons, lectures, or even whole classes on particular books of the Bible, biblical theology, or the history of biblical interpretation. Many good sermons, lectures, and classes on the Bible can be downloaded from iTunes free of charge. And, while one typically has to pay a fee to download a whole book of the Bible, the cost is usually reasonable, and one can choose from a variety of different translations. I myself have been listening to the JPS translation of Leviticus for several months, and I plan to start listening to the JPS translation of Numbers soon.

Ok. Suppose that you have bought an iPod, and that you have downloaded some books of the Bible, and perhaps a few sermons or lectures. How do you find the time to listen to them? Again, the answer is simple. You can listen to your iPod when you're getting ready in the morning, when you're driving, when you're doing housework, or when you're out on a walk.* In fact, I listen to my iPod at all these times. Of course, you may find it difficult to give your full attention to listening to a book of the Bible or even a sermon while doing these things. However, even if you are distracted by traffic or housework, you can still learn a good deal from listening to your iPod. (Of course, you shouldn't listen to your iPod in the car if you feel that it's dangerous to do so.) In particular, I think that it's a good idea to listen to any book of the Bible that you are currently studying. This can help you learn the text of the book better so that you get more out of your time when you sit down with a hard copy of the Bible in hand.

In closing, regardless of how many hours you already spend each week on Scripture, buying an iPod will provide you with new opportunities for learning more about the Bible.

(*Note that you will probably need a docking station if you want to listen to your iPod while brushing your teeth or washing dishes. If you decide to buy a docking station, make sure that it has high sound quality. Also, if you want to listen to your iPod while driving, then you may want to buy an adapter. This will allow you to listen to your iPod through your car's radio so that you don't need to use headphone, which can be dangerous while driving. Finally, you can listen to books of the Bible and other items on your computer, but you can't listen to your computer in the car or on a walk. What makes iPods so useful is their portability.)

Some Words for Jesus on Christmas Day

Today we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In preparing for this day, I have been thinking the past few weeks about the life and ministry of Jesus. There are so many things to love about Jesus and to thank him for. I want to share a few of these things here, and I want to address them to Jesus himself - my Lord and my God.

I love how devoted you were to prayer. (Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16, 6:12; Matthew 26:36-46)

I love how dedicated you were to the mission that God gave you. (Mark 1:35-39; John 17:12)

I love that you not only healed lepers, but that you healed them by touching them, though this would have made you ritually unclean according to Old Testament law. (Mark 1:40-45)

I love that you didn't call priests and scribes to be your apostles, and that you didn't begin your ministry among the spiritual elite of Jerusalem, but that you called fishermen and tax collectors to be your apostles, and that you began your ministry in the villages of Galilee. (Matthew 4:18-22, 9:9-13, 10:1-4)

I love that you dined with sinners, lepers, prostitutes, and tax collectors. (If you had chosen to incarnate today, I imagine that you would have dined with burned-out drug addicts, ex-convicts, politicians, lobbyists, HIV patients, and, of course, prostitutes.) I love that you allowed a woman of low social standing - perhaps a prostitute herself - to wash your feet with her hair when dining at the table of a man of high social standing. (Mark 2:13-17, Luke 7:36-50, 19:1-5)

I love that you healed everyone who came to you, including Jews and Gentiles - even the servant of a Roman centurion. I love that you healed a woman of a hemorrhage that may well have led to her being socially ostracized on the same day that you raised the daughter of a high synagogue official from the dead. (Matthew 8:5-13; Mark 5:21-43, 7:24-30, )

I love that you were such a powerful teacher. The Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper Discourses are some of my favorite teachings of yours, but all of your teachings are priceless. They are all true, and they are all life-giving. They are unparalleled by anything else, and I treasure them dearly. (Matthew 5:1-7:29, Mark 8:34-38, Luke 16:19-31, John 14:1-16:33)

I love that you fed thousands of people from a few pieces of bread and fish. I love that you walked on water, calmed storms, cured all manner of diseases, and raised people from the dead. I love that even though you were capable of performing such deeds, you did so relatively sparingly, and always for the good for others. (Mark 4:35-41,5: 21-43, 6:34-52, 7:31-8:10, 8:22-26, 10:46-52)

I love that you washed the feet of your disciples. (John 13:1-20)

I love how completely morally good and virtuous you were. When I read passages such as Mark 3:31-35 and 12:28-34 and Luke 11:27-28 and 14:12-14, I am filled with admiration for your great goodness, and I feel myself deeply stirred by the moral example that you set for us all.

I love that you were so gracious and patient with us, and that you were so forgiving. (Mark 8:14-21, 9:14-29, 10:35-45; Luke 22:31-34; John 21:15-19)

I love that went to the cross for us. In doing so, you rescued us from sin and death, but you also demonstrated a measure of humility, courage, and self-sacrifice the likes of which the world will never see again.

I love how you revealed yourself to Mary Magdalene at the tomb, and that you ate fish with the disciples before departing for heaven. (John 20:11-18, 21:1-14)

I love that you loved us so dearly, and that you called us your friends. (John 15:11-17)

Lord Jesus Christ, I thank you for dying for me. I thank you for saving me from sin and death, and for reconciling me with the Father. I thank you for sending the Holy Spirit to me and to all believers. I thank you for your teaching and your moral example. I thank you for healing me of depression and anxiety. You have already brought me back from the dead; you have rehabilitated my crushed spirit and breathed new life into me. Thank you for this. And thank you for bringing me to repentance. Thank you for showing me that I was lost to sin, hostile to God in mind and a stranger to the covenant promises. Thank you for justifying me by faith, and calling me to be one of your people. Thank you for showing me that real happiness consists in self-denial, humility, and self-sacrificial love; that there is far more joy in building up others than in asserting oneself; and that true contentment comes from serving God and others. Thank you for calling me not only to faith, but also to discipleship.

I am truly the least of your disciples. I rejected you for the first twenty years of my life; and, when I finally confessed that Christ is God, it still took me more than a decade to really accept Him as my Lord and Savior. I have been prideful, arrogant, ungrateful, and self-centered, loving myself more than all things - which is to say, loving myself very badly and others even worse. Still, you were determined to count me among your disciples. What can I say? I have been saved by the God of the universe, and at tremendous cost to Himself. I have finally begun to understand something of what St. Paul meant when he said that he counted everything a loss because of Christ. Bless you Lord Jesus. Let every knee bend before you and declare that you are Lord, and may your name be magnified throughout heaven and earth.

A Christmas Meditation of My Own

A few days ago, I wrote about a Christmas meditation by Frank Turk that was originally posted on the PyroManiacs blog. Today, I would like to write a short Christmas meditation of my own. My meditation may seem a bit unusual at first; but, if you persevere to the end, I think that you will find it quite traditional in several respects. I will begin with some remarks about the nature of God.

The Bible teaches that God is powerful, intelligent, wise, and morally good. It also teaches that God is perfect. And, while we may not fully comprehend the truth that God is perfect, we know that God's perfection implies the perfection of every attribute of God. In other words, we know that if God is perfect and that God is powerful, then God's power must be perfect. And the same goes for the other attributes of God that we mentioned before - if God is perfect and God is intelligent, wise, and morally good, then God's intelligence, wisdom, and moral goodness must all be perfect.

Unfortunately, we cannot fully grasp the extent of God's perfections. Still, we can grasp something of them. In particular, we can know that the following claims about God's perfections are true:

There is no limit to God's power. If God wished, He could command all disease to be healed. For example, He could command all cancer and heart disease to vanish from the face of the earth. He could raise the dead. He could command a healthy tree to wither and die. He could command a tree to be uprooted and planted in a different place. He could command the Rocky Mountains to be transported to Asia. He could command the planets to change their orbits. He could even command every galaxy to trade places with another. He could endow a rock with intelligence or prevent an ice-cube from melting even if it were tossed in a blazing furnace. He could command everyone in Sweden to start speaking Finnish, and He could command everyone in Finland to start speaking German. But that's not all. God could command the very laws of nature to change. Miracles may involve the suspension of the laws of nature, but God can alter the laws of nature as many times as He likes and in any way that He sees fit. God could alter the fundamental forces of nature (e.g., gravity) or nullify them altogether. He could cancel the law of inertia.

God created matter, He created all immaterial beings, and He created the laws that govern all matter and immaterial beings. But God did not merely create the world - He also sustains it. If God withdrew His support from the world for but a single moment, it would straightway dissolve into nothingness. There is no atom, tree, rock, planet, black hole, solar system, or galaxy that does not owe its being to God. And, of course, the same is true of us. Still, these facts do not exhaust the power of God. For God also created space and time, and He has complete power over them. God could command all space to shrink to the size of a point. Or, if He were a fan of the early Beatles, He could command the world to return to the 1960's. This is part of what it means to say that God's power is perfect.

There is no limit to God's intelligence. God knows every fact about every subject matter. If you were to pose a question to God, then He could answer it, no matter what subject the question concerned (provided, of course, that the question was meaningful and had a real answer). God knows everything that there is to know about mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, economics, finance, computer science, and the humanities - including the fine arts, music, history, literature, and philosophy. He also knows everything that there is to know about management theory, automotive repair, sports, and cooking. And, of course, He knows all particular matters of fact. God knows what you're thinking right now, and He knows what Kublai Khan was thinking on the morning of his twenty-third birthday. He knows exactly how many atoms the universe has contained, and He knows the complete history of every one of those atoms. God knows the total mass of every piece of copper on earth. He also knows the total mass of every helium atom in the universe. God knows exactly what caused the American Revolution, the French Revolution, and the fall of communism. He also knows exactly what caused the fall of the Roman Empire and the fall of the Ming Dynasty. God knows every possible reading of Finnegans Wake. God sees everything, whether it be the coffee you are drinking or some space dust that is presently in the vicinity of the Orion Nebula. God knows every moral truth. For example, God knows whether there are any scenarios in which it is morally permissible to deceive another human being; and, if there are any such scenarios, He knows what they are. God knows the future. He knows what you'll do tomorrow. He knows the name of every human being who will ever see Ghostbusters. He knows how many times Bach's music will be performed before the end of the world, and He knows how many of those performances will be good. This is part of what it means to say that God's intelligence is perfect.

There is no limit to God's wisdom. God knows what every human being - and, indeed, living thing - needs to flourish. He understands the nature of emotional health and growth. He knows what human beings need to do in order to achieve emotional maturity - and how to maintain it. He knows which habits will lead to success and which to failure, and He knows how to cultivate the former habits and avoid the latter. He knows what to do in every possible social situation. He knows what to say to someone who is considering a career change, someone who lacks confidence and needs motivation, someone who has suffered a tragic loss. He knows everything about relationships. He knows when and how to apologize, when and how to express gratitude, when and how to give advice. He knows whether every plan can succeed; and, if so, what courses of action would lead to its success. He knows what players the Chicago Bears should recruit in the off-season and how they should practice if they want to have the best possible season next year. He knows what Singapore could do to attract more foreign investment. He understands everything that there is to understand about the nature of rationality. In particular, He understands every possible philosophical account of the nature of rationality, and He can critique every one of these accounts with perfect accuracy. This is part of what it means to say that God's wisdom is perfect.

There is no limit to God's moral goodness. God has never done anything that is less than perfectly morally good. Thus, He has never performed an action that is less than perfectly morally good, and He has never had a thought or emotion (supposing God feels emotions) that is less than perfectly morally good. God possess all moral virtues, and those virtues are perfected in Him. God is perfectly honest, compassionate, generous, humble, gentle, magnanimous, prudent, trustworthy, just, and merciful. His mercy triumphs over His justice, but His mercy and justice each remain perfect. Not only does God always do the morally right thing and think the morally right thing - He is never conflicted about doing so. For example, God has never been in a state of conflict over whether He should tell the truth, for He has never been tempted to lie. Indeed, He has never been tempted - even in the smallest degree - to do or think anything that was anything less than perfectly morally good. This is true of God the Father, it is true of the Holy Spirit, and it is also true of Jesus of Nazareth. God's nature is so strongly (that is, perfectly) committed to moral goodness that even when His nature was joined with that of a human being, God was never tempted - not in the slightest, not for a single moment - to do anything that was even slightly imperfectly good. This is part of what it means to say that God's moral goodness is perfect.

Thinking about God's perfections can help us to appreciate the awe and wonder of the Christmas story. Not sure how? Then think about the following things. Think about the fact that even though God is perfectly powerful, intelligent, wise, and morally good, He decided to save man from sin and death. Think about what we have said about God's perfect power, intelligence, wisdom, and moral goodness. For example, think about the fact that God created matter, and that He has never even been tempted to think - let alone do - anything that is less than perfectly morally good. Now think about the fact that man has rejected God from the very beginning - that we have spurned God, denied Him, cursed Him, and hated Him. And it's not just God that we have hated and abused - we have hated one another as well as ourselves, and we have abused every good thing that God has given us. As the Bible says, we have devoured one another. We are selfish, evil, God-hating, man-hating, life-hating creatures. We are spiteful, envious, jealous, and malicious. We lie, cheat, steal, and murder. But despite all this, God decided to save us. And not only that, but He decided to save us by becoming one of us - yes, one of us hopelessly imperfect creatures, though there was nothing imperfect about God when He became man - to live among us, to teach us, to be rejected by us, to be murdered by us, and all of this to save us. Think about that. Think about the fact that the God who created matter and who has never even been tempted to think anything that is less than perfectly morally good decided to sacrifice His son to save us, and that He did this because He loves us.

The story of Christmas is incredibly powerful when one considers that God became man in order to save us from sin and death, and that He did this through allowing Himself to be wrongly accused, wrongly convicted, spat upon, beaten, tortured, mocked, and murdered. It is even more powerful when one considers that God did all this for us knowing full well that even those who believed in Him would continue to sin and doubt. However, I think that the story of Christmas is still more powerful when one considers God's nature, and in particular His perfections. God created the Pleiades and Orion, and He could alter the force of gravity. Yet He decided to take the form of a human being and thus subject Himself to hunger, thirst, pain, and suffering. God knows all things and understands all things - He knows everything that will ever transpire in the world, and He knows every nook and cranny of the universe intimately. He delights in nebulae and quasars trillions of light years away. Yet He decided to confine His mind to a human body and to navigate the world by human senses. God is morally perfect in every way, and He has been a perfect king and father to His people. Yet He decided to allow His children to deny, insult, assault, and even murder Him - He who is perfectly compassionate, gentle, merciful and kind.

I hope that I have successfully conveyed something of the awe and wonder of the fact that the God who became man to save us from sin and death is perfect in His power, intelligence, wisdom, and moral goodness. However, to appreciate this fully, one must spend time thinking about God's perfections. One must ponder - even meditate on - the fact that the God who created the universe decided to be born into poverty as a Jewish peasant; that He had to work with His hands for a living; that He had to eat and drink like the rest of us, sleep like the rest of us, and clean Himself like the rest of us; that He was subject to cold and heat as well as hunger and thirst; that He experienced childhood and puberty; that He was a son, a brother, and a nephew, as well as a friend; that He knew all the limitations - except for the moral limitations - of human existence; that He knew all the pains and joys of human life; and that He began His life among us as a baby in Roman Palestine.

A Christmas Meditation from the PyroManiancs

There are a number of Christian blogs that I read on a regular basis and from which I have learned a great deal. One is the PyroManiacs blog, maintained by Team Pyro, whose current members are Phil Johnson, Dan Phillips, and Frank Turk. I should mention straight off that Johnson, Phillips, and Turk are strongly reformed in their theological views. Thus, they are significantly more conservative than I am on many theological and social issues, as I am only moderately reformed in my theological views and am quite liberal on a number of social issues. At any rate, I think that the guys at PyroManiacs have an unusually deep understanding of the Gospel, the Bible, and the nature of Christian discipleship. They also write well. If you haven't checked them out already, then I would recommend doing so. Anyway, Frank Turk just published a meditation on the meaning of Christmas that I wanted to share. The full text of the meditation can be found here. What follows are some excerpts:

“Look: a few years ago I made a point of telling everyone that God's view of Christmas is a strange and amazing balance between his threat to bring justice to disobedient people and his promise to save them from their utter disregard for him.  Another time I made it a point to tell you that the miracle at Christmas is not that a legion of fantastic beings sang out to God's praise in a field -- it was that a baby was born and laid in a manger, fulfilling the promises of God with God Himself.  That was a pretty good one.

This year, let me say this: in this world where your home may seem empty because of a gigantic loss, and where the death of innocents seems to be an insurmountable sign of how the times have turned, God has already taken it upon himself to change the status quo.  The point here -- the actual reason that there is a Christmas, actually a moment when the world affected by the church of God stops and stares, expecting to see something completely amazing -- is that Jesus, who is God, didn't try to remain equal with God. Instead he gave up everything, and was born in a manger to become a slave, when he became like one of us. Jesus was humble the way only God can be humble, surrendering the Glory which Isaiah saw in the throne room of God to become a miracle wrapped in rags. He obeyed God -- and his obedience didn't stop at being born in a barn.  His obedience took him lower still, to a death on a cross when he deserved worship and honor and power, so that the death of innocents would, in an eternal and permanent way, be defeated forever.

Jesus is not just some ephemeral housekeeper who can tidy us up right now -- or at least until we toss ourselves back into the filth. He's not someone who merely helps us avoid the worst right now, as if God has nothing better to do than to stop us from doing exactly what we want to do.  His story is not just a story about truth: he's the one guy who understands our weaknesses because he has suffered through them all, refusing to sin, and then he died for them all so that they can all not only be defeated, but forgiven…

This Christmas, I beg you: look for him, find him, and throw yourself on him, because in that stable, and at his cross, and ultimately at his empty tomb and his seat at the right hand of God, is your only hope in this world where death is the common end.  Let nothing you dismay: for Jesus Christ our savior was born upon this day to save us all from death and sin's power when we had gone astray.  Those are the tidings of comfort and joy.”

The story of Jesus is so beautiful, so powerful, so wondrous, that I often find myself unable to express my thoughts and feelings about it in words. Frank Turk has done an admirable job explaining the significance of our Savior's birth, and he has also captured something of its beauty, power, and wonder. I'm grateful to have stumbled upon this meditation, and I'm sure that I'll read it again in the coming days.

Good Night, and Good Luck

I have rarely discussed politics on my blog; and, on the few occasions that I have done so, I have studiously avoided taking a stand on any political issue. This is not by accident, nor is it the result of indifference. I have long been interested in politics myself, and I believe that all citizens have an obligation to take an active part in politics. In particular, I believe that all citizens have a duty to educate themselves about political issues as best as they are able, and that they have a duty to discuss politics with their fellow citizens. For how can a voter be truly informed if he does not understand something of how his fellow citizens see the state of the country? And don’t we all have an obligation to test our beliefs and to encourage others to do the same? I certainly think so. Nevertheless, I have often shied away from talking about politics with others. The reason is simple - in my experience, few people are willing to participate in a calm, reasoned discussion of political issues. And, since I generally prefer to avoid conflict whenever possible, I made the decision long ago to simply refrain from talking about politics. In fairness, my decision to refrain from talking about politics was also motivated by the concern that such conversation was pointless, and that I was wasting my time on it. However, if I am honest with myself, my decision was motivated more by a desire to avoid conflict than by a concern not to waste my time. At any rate, the decision was wrong, as I shall explain below. But first I want to say a few words about the proper model for political discourse.

When we enter into a political discussion, we should always treat the other person with dignity, and we should always be open to learning something new. Our goal should not be to impose our views on others, but to hear from others that may be better informed than we, or who may have thought through the issues better than we. If we are fortunate enough to meet with such individuals, then we should consider revising our beliefs accordingly. If not, then the effort will still be worthwhile if only the discussion has been conducted in the proper spirit. Sadly, too few political discussions in this country - private or public - are conducted in this way. We need more maturity in this country. We need more patriotism. We also need more compassion and humility. We need to remember that no one person or political party has a monopoly on intelligence, wisdom, or moral integrity. We need to remember that men and women have shed their blood in the defense of this country, and that many continue to risk their lives every day for this same reason. Some of these men and women have been registered Democrats; others have been registered Republicans. But they are all heroes, and neither major party can lay claim to their service. Finally, we need to remember that we are all Americans, and, more importantly, that we are all human beings. How could we forget these things? They're so obvious, but somehow we manage to lose sight of them regularly. Let's not do that anymore. 

When I think of how reluctant I have been to talk about politics with others in recent years, I'm ashamed of myself. It is never acceptable to stop trying; it is never acceptable to check out. The stakes are too high, and too many people have made the ultimate sacrifice to help ensure our freedom. We cannot waste that freedom on petty squabbling, small-mindedness, or meanness. But neither can we allow it to rust through disuse. This is a great country, and we must not take it for granted. We must all do our part to contribute to the common good. There are conflicts that we would be wise to avoid. Nonetheless, it is neither possible nor desirable to avoid all conflicts, and there are many conflicts that we must have the courage to face. Similarly, it may be wise to avoid wasting one’s time on some ventures, but success is never guaranteed in this world, and there are many ventures that demand our commitment regardless of the odds of success. It is wrong to avoid all political discussion out of concern to avoid conflict or to safeguard one’s time. We must actively participate in politics; our obligation is clear.

In the coming months, I won't have many opportunities to contribute to this blog, and I want to use most of the opportunities that I will have writing about faith issues. Still, I would like to begin writing about politics when I have the time - in a few months, perhaps. In the meantime, I would like to share a speech by the journalist Edward R. Murrow. The speech was given at the RTNDA Convention (Radio and Television News Directors Association) in Chicago in October, 1958. I don't know much about Murrow himself, though I do know that he strongly opposed Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Red Scare that followed WWII, and that he greatly influenced broadcast journalism. In his speech, Murrow addresses the importance of active, informed political participation through a critical discussion of television and radio journalism. He argues that television and radio must not be used simply to entertain, and that people in the media have an obligation to provide the public with serious, intelligent reporting about the important political issues of the day. I think that Murrow was right to argue for the existence for such an obligation, and I think that his concern about the proper use of media is just as relevant today as it was in the 1950's - though, of course, we today have the internet in addition to television and radio. In the movie Good Night, and Good Luck, the actor who plays Murrow (David Strathairn) delivers a highly truncated - though still powerful - version of the speech. Here is the video:



There are several lessons that can be drawn from this speech, but perhaps the most practical one is this: we need to hold the media to a higher standard of accountability by decreasing the demand for cheap, partisan opinion pieces and increasing the demand for balanced, critical journalism. If more people desired quality news coverage, then the media companies would have no choice but to provide it. After all, we're the ones paying their salaries. If this lesson isn't clear from the video, it's should be clear from the original text of the speech, of which the following is a long excerpt:

"This just might do nobody any good. At the end of this discourse a few people may accuse this reporter of fouling his own comfortable nest, and your organization may be accused of having given hospitality to heretical and even dangerous thoughts. But the elaborate structure of networks, advertising agencies and sponsors will not be shaken or altered. It is my desire, if not my duty, to try to talk to you journeymen with some candor about what is happening to radio and television.

I have no technical advice or counsel to offer those of you who labor in this vineyard that produces words and pictures. You will forgive me for not telling you that instruments with which you work are miraculous, that your responsibility is unprecedented or that your aspirations are frequently frustrated. It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other. All of these things you know.

You should also know at the outset that, in the manner of witnesses before Congressional committees, I appear here voluntarily -- by invitation -- that I am an employee of the Columbia Broadcasting System, that I am neither an officer nor a director of that corporation and that these remarks are of a "do-it-yourself" nature. If what I have to say is irresponsible, then I alone am responsible for the saying of it. Seeking neither approbation from my employers, nor new sponsors, nor acclaim from the critics of radio and television, I cannot well be disappointed. Believing that potentially the commercial system of broadcasting as practiced in this country is the best and freest yet devised, I have decided to express my concern about what I believe to be happening to radio and television. These instruments have been good to me beyond my due. There exists in my mind no reasonable grounds for personal complaint. I have no feud, either with my employers, any sponsors, or with the professional critics of radio and television. But I am seized with an abiding fear regarding what these two instruments are doing to our society, our culture and our heritage.

Our history will be what we make it. And if there are any historians about 50 or 100 years from now, and there should be preserved the kinescopes for one week of all three networks, they will there find recorded in black and white, or color, evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live. I invite your attention to the television schedules of all networks between the hours of 8 and 11 p.m., Eastern Time. Here you will find only fleeting and spasmodic reference to the fact that this nation is in mortal danger. There are, it is true, occasional informative programs presented in that intellectual ghetto on Sunday afternoons. But during the daily peak viewing periods, television in the main insulates us from the realities of the world in which we live. If this state of affairs continues, we may alter an advertising slogan to read: LOOK NOW, PAY LATER.

For surely we shall pay for using this most powerful instrument of communication to insulate the citizenry from the hard and demanding realities which must be faced if we are to survive. I mean the word survive literally. If there were to be a competition in indifference, or perhaps in insulation from reality, then Nero and his fiddle, Chamberlain and his umbrella, could not find a place on an early afternoon sustaining show. If Hollywood were to run out of Indians, the program schedules would be mangled beyond all recognition. Then some courageous soul with a small budget might be able to do a documentary telling what, in fact, we have done -- and are still doing -- to the Indians in this country. But that would be unpleasant. And we must at all costs shield the sensitive citizens from anything that is unpleasant.

I am entirely persuaded that the American public is more reasonable, restrained and more mature than most of our industry's program planners believe. Their fear of controversy is not warranted by the evidence. I have reason to know, as do many of you, that when the evidence on a controversial subject is fairly and calmly presented, the public recognizes it for what it is -- an effort to illuminate rather than to agitate.

Several years ago, when we undertook to do a program on Egypt and Israel, well-meaning, experienced and intelligent friends shook their heads and said, "This you cannot do -- you will be handed your head. It is an emotion-packed controversy, and there is no room for reason in it." We did the program. Zionists, anti-Zionists, the friends of the Middle East, Egyptian and Israeli officials said, with a faint tone of surprise, "It was a fair account. The information was there. We have no complaints."

Our experience was similar with two half-hour programs dealing with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Both the medical profession and the tobacco industry cooperated in a rather wary fashion. But in the end of the day they were both reasonably content. The subject of radioactive fall-out and the banning of nuclear tests was, and is, highly controversial. But according to what little evidence there is, viewers were prepared to listen to both sides with reason and restraint. This is not said to claim any special or unusual competence in the presentation of controversial subjects, but rather to indicate that timidity in these areas is not warranted by the evidence...

One of the basic troubles with radio and television news is that both instruments have grown up as an incompatible combination of show business, advertising and news. Each of the three is a rather bizarre and demanding profession. And when you get all three under one roof, the dust never settles. The top management of the networks, with a few notable exceptions, has been trained in advertising, research, sales or show business. But by the nature of the corporate structure, they also make the final and crucial decisions having to do with news and public affairs. Frequently they have neither the time nor the competence to do this. It is not easy for the same small group of men to decide whether to buy a new station for millions of dollars, build a new building, alter the rate card, buy a new Western, sell a soap opera, decide what defensive line to take in connection with the latest Congressional inquiry, how much money to spend on promoting a new program, what additions or deletions should be made in the existing covey or clutch of vice-presidents, and at the same time -- frequently on the same long day -- to give mature, thoughtful consideration to the manifold problems that confront those who are charged with the responsibility for news and public affairs...

I do not advocate that we turn television into a 27-inch wailing wall, where longhairs constantly moan about the state of our culture and our defense. But I would just like to see it reflect occasionally the hard, unyielding realities of the world in which we live. I would like to see it done inside the existing framework, and I would like to see the doing of it redound to the credit of those who finance and program it. Measure the results by Nielsen, Trendex or Silex -- it doesn't matter. The main thing is to try. The responsibility can be easily placed, in spite of all the mouthings about giving the public what it wants. It rests on big business, and on big television, and it rests at the top. Responsibility is not something that can be assigned or delegated. And it promises its own reward: good business and good television.

Perhaps no one will do anything about it. I have ventured to outline it against a background of criticism that may have been too harsh only because I could think of nothing better. Someone once said -- I think it was Max Eastman -- that "that publisher serves his advertiser best who best serves his readers." I cannot believe that radio and television, or the corporation that finance the programs, are serving well or truly their viewers or listeners, or themselves.

I began by saying that our history will be what we make it. If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us.

We are to a large extent an imitative society. If one or two or three corporations would undertake to devote just a small fraction of their advertising appropriation along the lines that I have suggested, the procedure would grow by contagion; the economic burden would be bearable, and there might ensue a most exciting adventure -- exposure to ideas and the bringing of reality into the homes of the nation.

To those who say people wouldn't look; they wouldn't be interested; they're too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: There is, in one reporter's opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose? Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box. There is a great and perhaps decisive battle to be fought against ignorance, intolerance and indifference. This weapon of television could be useful.

Stonewall Jackson, who knew something about the use of weapons, is reported to have said, "When war comes, you must draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." The trouble with television is that it is rusting in the scabbard during a battle for survival."

The full text of the speech can be found here and here.

God bless the United States of America.