It's No Pun

I see (h/t aldaily) that the New York Times published an op-ed on puns earlier this week. Now those who know me well realize my penchant for puns at all times, not just in New York. I was, however, disappointed by the negative spin with which puns were described. "(T)he feeblest species of humour"; "impeaching the moral character of the offender" -- clearly the writer hardly knows a good pun when he sees one.

Lest readers of Mr. Tarakovsky's column be inclined to agree with him too quickly, I thought it my duty to point out the facts within his article which suggest logical readers should vindicate, rather than ostracize, those who engage in the punning practice. Why should I feel shamed just because Mark Twain's first book was punless when Shakespeare used them throughout? I prefer Edmund Burke over Samuel Johnson, even if that causes me, as I fear both family-members and colleauges will attest, as among "the scourge of dinner tables and the despised prolongers of office meetings."

Tartakovsky concludes his invective with a confession of getting "curried" away with puns at a Thai restaraunt, counting punning as a "non-deadly sin, easier to excuse than resist." In demonstration of self-restraint, I will conclude this entry by resisting the pun, proving that it need not be a vice but rather an form of communication that contains its own aesthetic appeal, albeit one admittedly that requires an acquired taste of appreciation.

Monday morning miscelleania....

Back at the home office this week, with a file full of blogging ideas, a brain full of interesting projects to explore, and a to-do list filled with important tedium that will put the former items on hold and make this entry simply a few point form links to get the week off to a quick start....

- Wes and Janice Balda make a great point in Friday's Comment essay - while it is easy to blame "nameless others" for the economic mess we are in, we all share in the blame. 'Was there not some evidence of it when the same franchise multiplied like rabbits on street corners and the price of their consumable goods was more than most people make in an hour of work? So to some degree we disappointed ourselves—we didn't say "no" a lot earlier, we didn't express outrage, and we didn't vote by withholding our cash. We often did not practice responsibility in our personal financial habits or contribute to a healthy economy.' Guilty.

- There have been several news stories in the past week about who might be the next leader of the Conservative Party after Stephen Harper, about discontent in the ranks, with CJAD (h/t nationalnewswatch) carrying a story this morning which starts " Canada could soon have two right wing parties again." I have argued for some years that the Conservative party is a divided party, with not just two but rather at least six identifiable camps. While power is a glue that helps hold such diverse coalitions together, the lesson of the eighties proves that it hardly has the holding power of crazyglue. Still, I would be quite surprised to see new serious political parties emerge over the next few years unless and until electoral reform is implemented which would make our system more suppportive of the role of minor parties.

- I had a few hours to kill between the conclusion of my meeting on Saturday afternoon and my Saturday evening flight home to Calgary, so took the train and visited the Art Institute of Chicago. I am hardly an art connoisseur and will avoid embarrassing myself with amateur art critique, but I must say I found it quite compelling to walk through the different rooms that displayed European art by the centuries and to observe how much the themes and styles of the art indicated about the history of the time. I confirmed that I find the fifteenth and sixteenth century much more interesting than the nineteenth. I also realize I will need to do a bit more background reading and work before my planned European trip this summer in order to better make use of the opportunities that trip might provide.

Studying the Outcomes of Christian Education

Heading to Chicago this morning for the first meeting of an Advisory Group set up to assist Cardus' upcoming study on the outcomes of Christian education (K-12). Over the next two years, we intend through both qualitative and quantitative research methods, to learn more about:

- Does Christian education fulfill the promise of academic excellence?
- Does Christian education fulfill the promise of spiritual formation?
- Does Christian education fulfill the promise of cultural engagement?
- How does the content and method of our teaching impact these outcomes?

More information on the study can be found on the Cardus website and a lot more detail will be forthcoming over the months to come. This project builds on a most interesting conference I was privileged to chair in December 2007, the results of which are summarized in The California Table Report. The promo blurb for that document reads, "An energetic group of thirty-seven educators, administrators and business and cultural leaders gathered in California in December 2007 to begin an intense discussion of:

* how culture movements happen,
* how education can better contribute to culture change, and
* how networks of passionate leaders can cultivate and embrace change together.

Out of the California conversation has come one overarching call: to keep talking and create a North American debate about the future of education."

The next 24 hours promises a similarly engaging discussion with about a dozen very qualified and interesting people. I look forward to meeting them and learning from them.

Staying current - two steps forward, one step backward

I am on the road again and briefly checking websites, emails etc. between meetings. It is interesting how the definition of 'staying current' has changed with technologies. I just finished a staff discussion regarding our distribution strategy for one of our publications, and the extent to which the availability of print copies were essential for some audiences, while almost totally irrelevant to others. Not only are demographics part of this equation; the nature of the magazine and its appeal also ties in. I noted how personally, I have just resubscribed to three magazines journals (Economist, First Things, and Books and Culture for those who are interested) since my attempts at on-line reliance were unsatisfactory, largely because it did not allow me to utilize my travel time to read these magazines or to use my pen to highlight or make notes in the margins alongside articles, let alone rip out the relevant pages to put inside of my journal as a reminder to myself to follow up on a question that arose while I was reading. Various strategies to use technology (and I travel with a laptop and blackberry) to replace my old fashioned strategies have not succeeded.

I notice that my colleague Alissa Wilkinson, guest-blogging today on the Acton site, approaches this from another angle -- the availability of dollars to publish. As someone responsible for the ensuring there is money to pay the bills for various publications, I can attest to the truth of what she writes. But I also know from my own experience that the line forward is not a straight one. The natare and motivation for keeping current with the content is a key factor as to how much I am prepared to pay for access, and the importance that I place on the form in which that content is delivered. And technology, for all its advances, still does not have all of these questions sorted through. Using new media is undoubtedly a matter of two steps forward and one step back.

Is being left-wing more rational?

One of the perks of chairing Redeemer University's Board of Governors is a subscription to the magazine University Affairs. The February print issue contains a column (found on-line here) that suggests the reason there is a left-wing bias among academics is not due to any conspiracy, but rather because "it is just harder to hold right-wing views in the face of compelling evidence against them."

"But if you want to reject subjectivism with respect to political views, then you're committed to saying there are ways of rationally evaluating political views and deciding among them. In that case, the predominance of left-wing scholars in academia starts to seem like not merely the fortuitous outcome of self-selection on the basis of personality but rather a growing consensus of knowledgeable people -- and therefore something to be respected."

The hubris of this argument is really quite remarkable. It amounts to saying that "since most educated people agree with me, I am right and you are dumb." The author allows that "conservative views should be researched and taught" -- sort of like studying a less advanced form of life in the evolutionary process, I guess -- but "it is less necessary for scholars to believe them" (and if they do believe, is that ipso facto evidence that they are not real scholars?)

Yesterday I blogged about the various actions in recent weeks that effectively served to restrict free speech. Before reflecting on this piece, I was planning to blog about the stupid attempt at satire by Fox News. However, there is not really much to say about that misinformed and insensitive commentary, except to observe it as another illustration of our growing incapacity for meaningful civil dialogue if everything is nothing but fodder for a joke. However reading this, I actually found it similarly offensive. Effectively this author is doing the same thing -- only she uses elitist hubris instead of humour, to marginalize those who disagree with her.

Although more on the right of the political spectrum than the left, I actually do not identify myself as either left or right wing, finding plenty in both camps to both agree and disagree with. We are in desperate need to engage in a public conversation that engages the diverse segments of our plural society. The very fact of our diversity is a consequence of different world-views, philosophies, religions -- feel free to pick the category that most accurately describes the first principles you adhere to. Where ever they come from, they are first principles that end up shaping the way you understand everything, including what appears to you to be objective or subjective. You can change first principles, but that amounts to conversion. By this I do not mean a postmodern relativism in which there is no such thing as truth but only what you experience as truth. I firmly believe (yes, it takes faith, just as an atheistic assumption that everything can be proved through scientific method takes faith) that there is objective truth but I also acknowledge my own finiteness and biases in seeking that truth, of which the logical consequence to me is humility rather than hubris.

We need a public conversation but it seems to me that such a conversation is best had when we admit our presuppositions and biases and openly deal with the evidence that is raised on both sides of a question. Too much time is spent these days figuring out how we can keep our opponents from being heard, making fun of them, or marginalizing them. But I guess, if only one particular perspective on life is the inevitable consequence of taking an objective view of the evidence, I am just too unenlightened or don't have the right academic credentials to participate in this conversation after all.

Are we Too Casual about Free Speech?

A number of recent news items have highlighted how easy it is for free speech to become entangled in political agendas. First there were the voices suggesting that former US President George Bush should not have been allowed into Canada for a speech in Calgary last week because he was a war criminal. One group formally requested the RCMP to investigate the former US PResident on these charges.

Last week, British MP George Gallaway was denied entry into Canada by border officials, and the Minister of Immigration refused to overrule them and provide a ministerial permit. Mr. Gallaway is controversial because of his public support for Hamas and Hezbollah and allegations that he is a terrorist sympathizer.

Mr. Bush's speech was a "for fee" speech organized by the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. The details of Mr. Gallaway's proposed tour are a little more hazy but for the purpose of argument, let's assume that they would probably be leftist political organizations who sympathize and even publicly demonstrate in favour of Hamas and Hezbollah, but do not run afoul of Canadian terror laws of funding terrorist organizations. In boht cases, it would seem to me the primacy of free speech trumps our political disagreements and we should provide opportunity for these men to speak, and for their opponents to protest their speeches, as part of the political dialogue.

Too often in political debates, we rely on procedural maneuvers to restrict the voices of those with whom we disagree, and somehow think it strengthens our cause. The opposite is usually the outcome. Our position is strengthened when the opposite arguments are heard, and answered, and the person who isn't sure what to think of the matter has an opportunity to draw their own conclusion. Attempting to silence one's opposition and avoid debate usually tells us more about the confidence (or lack thereof) in the strength of one's own arguments.

While the above two examples deal with political perspective, I think the same holds true when it comes to public argumentation regarding religion. Calgary is now included among the cities in which atheist bus ads are being run, countered I notice by ads promoting the existence of God sponsored by a multi-faith coalition. Although I only know about this from the news media and not from having seen the ads themselves, despite looking for them, I think the open advertisement of one's faith perspective (which is what the atheists are doing too, for even they must admit that to prove a negative can only be done through faith) is a healthy expression of free speech that should be encouraged.

I have heard opinions advocating the restriction of free speech from the advocates on the political left and right as well as those from a wide variety of faith perspectives in recent weeks. I am no libertarian and fully believe that there are some reasonable restrictions that need to be put into place ("the yelling of fire in a theatre" argument) but we need to be extremely careful and cautious when suggesting that someone'v voice should not be heard. And while it is always more pleasant to defend the right of someone to speak with whom you agree, perhaps the better test of our commitment to democracy and fairness is how vigorously we defend the speech of those with whom we disagree.

Christian Politics in Perspective

Yesterday's point about humility caused me to re-read my notes prepared for my Crossroads speech. In it, I compared the responsibility of Christian politics to being asked to water shrubs in a desert. Attached are a few of my concluding thoughts:


Christian political involvement takes place Coram Deo – before the face of God and therefore of necessity involves a humility. A humble spirit recognizes that there is room for political disagreement.

It also draws our attention to judgment and the second coming . A Christian ought to look with anticipation to that coming – what we have now is just proximate justice. It is a shrub in the desert. What is coming is the garden transformed to a city.
It drives us to consider the work of Christ. It is not only his active obedience – rendering to Caesar what was Caesar’s; submitting to political authority, even unjust political authority in his trial – but also his passive obedience, paying the penalty for our disobedience and imperfections, also in our political lives.

The works of God are not ends in themselves, but give us a window by which we can learn more about who God is. Paul talks about the great privileges of spiritual gifts that were present in the congregation of Corinth but observes how they pale in comparison to what is coming. “Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.” God is the great lawgiver and has ordained governments as His ministers, to implement laws that reflect His justice and glory. In the midst of the injustice of neglected thirsty political shrubs and the sandstorms that make visibility nearly impossible, we need to trudge on reminding ourselves that the desert does not go on forever, that there is another side.

Then, when we get tired and discouraged, we can be renewed by that perspective. Ultimately, this ought to lead us to worship – the sense of who we are and who God is – sovereign lawgiver, ruler and redeemer of creation. If creation is groaning in anticipation (Romans 1), then should not those who are image-bearers of God be similarly dreaming as we water our political shrubs of the glory and beauty of politics done right – of life lived in communion with God and our neighbours.

So what I have for you today is not a messianic “Yes we can!”, but a more basic “love we must”. It doesn’t reduce to 15 point action plan or a pithy sound bite; rather it’s simply some elementary political gardening advice.

Prepare for the reality of the desert. Learn to see the beauty in the cactus, including its prickles.
Keep watering, even when it seems insignificant.
Keep your eyes open, and water those plants on your path that are most in need.
Observe the big picture – look at the sun and sky and keep the shrubs in proper perspective.
Refresh yourself with the good water that is in your bucket.
And keep focused on the other side. Beyond the desert is a garden.

Public Calvinism should be Humble

This will be the final blog for now on the Time list. What started as a few reflections prompted by the release of the Time list last weekend has morphed into a mini-essay on the public implications of Calvinism. To review the thesis as it has emerged: Calvinism’s appeal must at least in part be explained by its coherence. Its power and impact stems from its comprehensiveness. In this final contribution, I want to point out a note of caution as its application always lacks consistency.

It is a feature of Calvinism that many Calvinists pay too little attention to. By our own theology, we ought to modest in our assertions and confidence that we have all of the answers to the questions that face our day. If we truly believe in total depravity, then it applies to me too! The line between good and evil, wisdom and foolishness, insight and folly – does not run between the elect and non-elect but through the human heart. At a personal level, sanctification is something that is progressive; however whatever progress towards holiness is made in this life, it is a very small piece compared to what will occur after this life. Similarly, at the historical level. Yes, there is progress in history as we move from the garden to the city, and the simultaneous unfolding of Gods works of creation, providence and redemption point to the glory that is to come. But our finite perspective on this infinite plan, as well as the continued effect of the curse, means that any judgments I come to regarding our present circumstance are of necessity based on very little and very flawed knowledge. If we respond only with human logic, it argues for a passivity but such a response ignores the fundamental calling and hopeful perspective that frames the Calvinist's understanding of the world and his place in it.

Andy Crouch summarizes this dilemma well in Culture Making when he says (p 187):

“So we are confronted with a paradox. Culture – making something of the world, moving the horizons of possibility and impossibility – is what human beings do and are meant to do,. Transformed culture is at the heart of God's mission in the world, and it is the call of God’s redeemed people. But changing the world is the one thing we cannot do. As it turns out, fully embracing this paradoxical reality is at the very heart of what it means to be a Christian culture maker.”

This leads to a second observation. Not only do many Calvinists in the public square fail to live out their calling with the appropriate humility that our own theology calls for, but we also have too often been guilty of using our Calvinism to define our agenda, rather than our approach. There are many historical examples that come to mind in which “the ends justified the means” and all sorts of indefensible actions have taken place in the name of implementing an agenda which was motivated by Calvinism. The results were always less than satisfying and not that long lasting.

In my presentation to the Living at the Crossroads conference (audio available here) in January, I mused a bit on this point.

I wonder if in the course of our political engagement during the past few decades, the Christian community has not been guilty of too single-minded a focus on our “agenda” and have not been responsive to the needs that came across our path. We have been good at pushing solutions to problems that our neighbours aren’t that concerned about, but have failed to answer the questions are neighbours are asking. We have identified our causes, but have not been adequately concerned about competence and cultivating the expertise and skills to respond to the issues of the day that are not of our own choosing.

Last election I was asked to contribute an editorial to Christian Week magazine on what factor should decide how Christians vote. I suggested a threefold criteria – Competence, Character, and Conviction. Yes, agendas matter. Ideas have legs. But not all ideas have legs. And the difference between those that do and those that don’t is not necessarily the caliber of those ideas. The advance of one issue is often the result of leverage and credibility earned by dealing with other issues. Although we need to be strategic in our thinking and approach to public life, we must take care to live our political lives with our eyes and ears open, to be responsive to the needs of our neighbours, hear the cries of the vulnerable, and respond to the issues of the day. As Christians, we understand that also the lives of nations are in God’s hand, that God moves the heart of a Cyrus to accomplish his purpose and directs the flight of a randomly shot arrow to strike in the chink of the anonymous Israeli king’s armour in a way that changed national history.

There is the temptation for Christians involved in politics to begin thinking consciously about applying a Christian worldview to the issues of the day, soon baptizing our approach and our positions on issues as “the Christian answer”. Those on the left and on the right of the spectrum have been guilty of a smugness. Don’t misunderstand. Politics is about making decisions – taking stands. But its messy and difficult. And most of choices involve issues not on our platform, but issues not of our own choosing. In public life, you are usually choosing between two less than perfect options. I think of leadership as the courage to choose when all the options appear equal. And you have to choose. You have to answer the questions our neighbours are asking.

A biblical understanding of wisdom is essential here. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” (Prov. 1:7). “In the multitude of counselors there is safety.” (Prov 24:6). We also need a robust doctrine of providence. Not only do we need to consider the important goodness the God has put and preserved in the creation, but also the doctrine of providence of God in which we confess that “the almighty and everywhere present power of God… upholds and governs” all things. (Lords Day 10).

The instruction of Isaiah 46:9-13 is relevant here:
remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying,'My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,'
calling a bird of prey from the east,
the man of my counsel from a far country.
I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass;
I have purposed, and I will do it.
"Listen to me, you stubborn of heart,
you who are far from righteousness:
I bring near my righteousness; it is not far off,
and my salvation will not delay;
I will put salvation in Zion,
for Israel my glory."

This post has already gone on too long and the deadline on my 30 minute writing limit is three minutes away so a final concluding word. This post has been prompted by a mainstream media acknowledgement of Calvinism as an idea with world-changing influence and implications. As a Calvinist who has spent most of my career dealing with public issues in the public square, but trying to do so making explicit connections to my core beliefs, such an acknowledgement is welcome and overdue. However, we ought to also take care that we not get carried away with either a suddenly being “in vogue” as if that validates our perspective. In fact, we need to be conscious of the particular dangers that accompany such attention. Any honest history of Calvinist influence in the public square – also through history – will reveal that society has influenced Calvinism as much as Calvinism has influenced society. For all the ideals that the Puritans had in sixteenth century England, the results on their revolution did not live up to the standard nor satisfy their aspirations. The reform of Thomas Chalmers’ early nineteenth century Glasgow parish stands as a wonderful testimony to Calvinist word and deed, but lasted only a generation. The United States “city on the hill” project, as inspired as it was by puritan ideals, ended up demonstrating as much of civil religion as genuine piety. This is not to dismiss either the importance or opportunity provided to us by this platform But in true Calvinist fashion, it is to acknowledge that while we seek to live faithfully and carryout our responsibilities – also our public ones – the results are in the hands of God and will achieve His purposes, most likely in ways that I do not expect or imagine.

Times Ideas cont....

6. Africa, Business Destination. Foreign investment is larger than foreign aid in Africa, although there are lots of problems and concerns remaining. While globalization of the sort described in Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat (my review here) is part of the story, ever since I read Philip Jenkins 2002 work The Next Christendom, it has appeared evident to me that western civilization is in the process of being displaced in the world rankings. While it isn't a narrow "calvinist" lens that makes this observation, it is clear that the calvinist focus on the integration of all aspects of life (spiritual, physical, social etc.) does connect to what is going on in AFrica.

7. Rent-a-country. This refers to a growing reliance on imported food throughout the world and with it, a growing economic and security interdependence. It is interesting to consider the geo-political implications of our growing world integration, also in view of the theories of federalism which have dominated western political thinking for several centuries. The father of federalism? A sixteenth century calvinist by the name of Johannes Althusius whose political theories have clear linkages to his theology.

8. Biobanks. The tension between the cultural mandate -- to discover what is latent and possible within the creation -- and total depravity -- the inclination of fallen humanity to do evil rather than good, has been part of human history as understood from a calvinist perspective. Biobanks are just the latest example of how research breakthroughs hold forth positive promise and hope (logical to the calvinist because the capacity of creation is part of God's created goodness) but the very same technologies have some much potential for evil (which comes as a result of the fall.) A consistent application of calvinist theology in a worldview has historically and will continue to result in research, science and development as this is a logical consequence of the theology.

9. Survival Stores. I will confess that among the ten trends listed, this one baffles me the most. I am not familiar with the concept of survival stores, and from the description, fail to see how they they differ that dramatically from grocery stores which now have electronics sections, Canadian Tire stores that offers banking services, or the Walmart that seems to sell almost everything required for "survival." It the point is that it's now hip to be frugal rather than engaging in conspicuous consumption, (or in other words, thrift and frugality are in again), then we are back to the basic implications of a calvinist perspective on work and wealth which Max Weber suggested contributed to the rise of capitalism in the first place.

10. Ecological Intelligence. The point is that there is a growing awareness of the ecological effects of our choices and with a growing literacy about environmental matters, behaviour will be affected. I have previously blogged about the biblical principle of sabbath and while it is admittedly more honoured in word than in deed, Calvinists have every reason to be among the most environmentally conscious of any.

The point of this review is not a triumphalistic "calvinism has all the answers" response to the issues of the day. Rather, it is an attempt to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of Calvinism, which I would argue, provides part of the genius for its power and influence not only on those who identify themselves as such, but on society as a whole.

In a final blog on the subject tomorrow, I will muse about some of the downsides of calvinism and how it is being practiced as a world-changing idea.

Time's Ten Ideas Through the Lens of Number Three

In Monday's entry, I reflected on the inclusion of Calvinism as one of the "10 Ideas Changing the World right Now" from a personal appeal perspective. It is the coherence of Calvinism in providing a single world-view that explains -- not always pleasantly, but in a way that rings true to observation and experience -- the spiritual, physical, and social dimensions of life fit together and make sense. I have not found on the Time website an explanation of the criteria that guided their choices, so am not clear whether their inclusion of Calvinism was an acknowledgment of a sociological reality ("there are a lot of people starting to adhere to Calvinism and worship in Calvinist churches") or whether it was an evaluation of the potential implications of the idea ("when people start to take Calvinism seriously, it has far reaching implications that you will notice"). Tied to this is the confusion that has arisen around the label "New Calvinism", which is understood by many to refer to that branch of Calvinism that draws its inspiration from Abraham Kuyper, but seems in this article to refer to "new" in the sense of current and emerging, in contrast to old and established. (In an essay published in the 2008 Comment, I used the term Neo-Puritan to describe this movement, suggesting that the time was ripe for a neocalvinist-neopuritan dialogue in order to forge a public theology that more adequately answers some of the questions of our time.)

What Time intended is beside the point. What they published provides an opportunity to illustrate the comprehensiveness and power of the Calvinism, also in the public square. When Calvinism takes hold, it is not just something that impacts Calvinists. It has comprehensive implications for a society when it is consistently lived out. Last week, I was trying to explain to someone why what I believed mattered to my neighbours, and was not simply a private matter that they could live with out of respect for my religious freedom and because "I'm happy it works for you -- I'll find truth in my own corner." I used an ecological metaphor. When we live together, we share the air and water -- they don't respect the boundaries of private and public we set between us. So it is that personal religious beliefs, when taken seriously, end up not being all that personal. That is not just true for Calvinism -- it is as true for secularist belief, Islamic adherence, or new age philosophy. Our beliefs impact the social ecosystem in which we live and ultimately, the purity and health (or lack thereof) of the prevailing belief systems that shape our politics, economics, culture and every other aspect of society are impacted.

To be sure, predicting what the impact of a society in which calvinism is an idea of influence is hardly a simple matter. There are many who identify themselves as calvinists who have widely differing perspectives on what an ideal society might look like. To learn from history, the USA, the Netherlands, and Scotland are all countries in which calvinism played a significant historic role. As I pointed out in my chapter on work in Living for God's Glory, while these three countries "have a similar legacy of views regarding work, vocation and thrift, it is telling that the phrases 'being Dutch' and 'being Scotch' evoke thrift, while the phrase 'being American' suggests the acquisition of possessions." The three countries reflect the influence of a common theology with very different results.

Reading through the other nine ideas on Time's list, I could not help reflect on how the lens of calvinism impacts them all. Very cryptically....

1. Jobs are the new asset. Max Weber's famous thesis that Calvinism influenced the rise of western capitalism needs to be nuanced and debated (buy Living for God's glory if you want more of my views on that), but few would dispute the fact that Calvinisms emphasis on all persons having a calling from God, and as such, distinctions between sacred and secular occupations in terms of legimitacy before God are unscriptural, has had profound impacts on society's where these views were widely held.

2. Recycling the Surburbs. Cardus has an entire project entitled Stained Glass Urbanism in which we are examining the intersection of faith, faith institutions and city-building.

4. Reinstating the Interstate. Not to sound too much like a Cardus promoter (although I am the Director of Research, so I guess it is permissible), but we have for several years promoting the concept of "trade corridors" arguing that trade involves not only physical infrastructure such as roads and ports to move goods, but ends up impacting our culture and very nature of society. Who we trade with help shapes who we are -- and it is important that various institutions of society are involved in these choices and not just government, themes we deduce from sphere sovereignty which has calvinist origins.

5. Amortality, shorthand for various attempts to resist the onset of age, is an idea that is very uncalvinist in that is presumes the present life is all there is to focus on, and emerges from a worldview that rejects the idea of progress in history and transcendent purpose. In the absence of such a purpose, satsifaction must be found in present experience.

.... to be continued tomorrow

Blog Changes in the works....

You now can access this blog at its historic address (http://rpennings.blogspot.com/) as well as at a more intuitive address (www.raypennings.com). In the not too distant future (measured by weeks, not days), this blog will also undergo a visual transformation. The basic thrust and content will remain unchanged: three or four entries per week that aim at a reflective "beneath the surface" analysis or linkage to current events, through an explicit public theology lens, but hopefully at least the aesthetics and perhaps even some of the other features will be improved.

Although finding the time to blog is occasionally difficult, I do find the discipline personally useful and helpful in organizing and articulating my thoughts. While a public forum of this nature does require some care in that "thinking out loud in public" can be a dangerous occupation, my reflections here are intended as quick response hits (I limit my time in writing any entry to 30 minutes)so what you get are not carefully nuanced and wordsmithed opinions but rather as a more "from the gut" response to the topic in question.

I started and continue this blog because it does provide value for me, but increasingly, I am noticing a more consistent readership, some of whom have let me know who you are and have extended appreciation for what you find here. While such feedback is flattering and appreciated, I will also try to honour your interest by clarifying and making the focus of this blog more consistent. What exactly that means is still a bit fuzzy in my mind but will be shared as it unfolds. In the meantime, if you have thoughts / suggestions, feel free to share them. (send emails to raypennings@gmail.com).

In the meantime, you may want to change the address in your favourites to raypennings.com since I am not sure how long blogger is going to do the double posting or redirects.

Time Magazine thinks Calvinism is Changing the World?

I will confess surprise to seeing "New Calvinism" at #3 in Time Magazines cover story this week "10 Ideas Changing the World Right Now.".

The Time piece explains the appeal of Calvinism this way:

John Calvin's 16th century reply to medieval Catholicism's buy-your-way-out-of-purgatory excesses is Evangelicalism's latest success story, complete with an utterly sovereign and micromanaging deity, sinful and puny humanity, and the combination's logical consequence, predestination: the belief that before time's dawn, God decided whom he would save (or not), unaffected by any subsequent human action or decision.

I will probably provide a few blog entries on this subject over the next while, as several thoughts have come to mind that I haven't really seen covered elsewhere yet. In this first entry, let me briefly comment on the coherence of Calvinism.

I have heard Michael Metzger at the Clapham Institute repeatedly frame discussions in the context of "ought, is, can, and will." Creation tells us how things ought to be; after the fall we have to come to grips with how things are; redemption provides hope for what can be; and the eschaton provides the confidence that this hope will become real.

The comprehensive worldview inherent in Calvinism - rooting salvation in the sovereignty and will of God rather than the choice or activities of man -- brings coherence and consistency to life. Salvation does not become a life boat to deal with the reality of sin and death but is somehow disconnected from everyday life -- it places the entire world within a single context of purpose and meaning. The world is about God, not man. While this is a humbling truth for us to come to grips with, it is a liberating truth when it is realized and lived because there is a meaning far beyond ourselves.

To reformulate the Four-fold state of human nature (my preference over the more typical creation-fall-redemption framework commonly used in Christian worldview discussions):
1. The world has been made with a purpose and meaning. God existed before the world and He will exist after it and everything that exists and happens has an explanation.

2. The problem and reality of evil is dealt with. The world is not divided between good guys and bad guys (which is a hopeless scenario, given that when this is your worldview, all you can do is spend all of your life trying to become a good guy, which given the imperfection in each of us, leads to the angst-producing question of "How do I know my good is good enough?"

3. There is hope. God provides salvation and the accomplishment and application of it is His sovereign work. While I cannot rationalize fully how His sovereignty and my responsiblity co-exist, when I acknowledge my finiteness and His infinity, there is a rational explanation for my incomprehension and accepting my place in the world, it gives me reason to take Him at His word, have faith that His gospel offer is sincere and well-meant, and rely wholly on the work of Jesus Christ who not only paid the guilt of sin, but also provides the obedience so that my imperfections are not a hindrance to my acceptance.

4. There is future. God made the world for His glory and with a desire to commune with man as He did with Adam and Eve in the garden. Although sin has ruptured that relationship, we are heading to a future glory where the world will be refined and God will commune with His redeemed. There is a point to history - we are moving from the garden to the city.

5. Life matters. Since God made everything, everything matters. There is consequence and purpose to what we do. While Calvinism's critics suggest that the doctrine of sovereignty leaves us as pawns following fate, I find the opposite to be true. Within the framework of God's revelation about the world and its purpose, the calling and responsiblity of every person is clear and there is a context for living it out. It seems to me that the alternative worldview of an evolutionary mechanistic unfolding of life is a much more hopeless perspective. Then, we are subjected to forces beyond our control, for a life that may or may not last for about 80 years.

6. God is a person. It was God's desire in creating humanity to have fellowship with his created persons. He made man in His image, and as such, man can also commune with Him, do many "god-like" things (create, govern, reason, love, imagine), and realize full fellowship with Him.

Taken together, this provides a coherence and consistency that few other worldviews can compete with. Of course, to present it this way as simply a rationalistic worldview is to miss the heartbeat and vibrancy of faith -- something that Calvinism's logic tells us can only be realized through a miracle of grace worked by God, since by nature we are incapable of even choosing good and in fact "dead in our sins" such that promoting human spiritual agency makes as much sense as telling bodies in a cemetery to wake up. Still, in obedience to the command to preach, Calvinists preach, as irrational as such an activity seems to the logic of Calvinist theology, beleiving that the Spirit working through the word is the divinely-ordained means of regenerating life in dead sinners.


Nonetheless, it is the coherence of Calvinism which must be part of the consideration as we seek to understand why Time might see its influence. Ultimately its power and influence is deeply personal, as salvation is worked in the hearts of individuals, but its impact go far beyond the personal and impact social orders and society as a whole, including those who do not subscribe to Calvinism. A future post will make a few observations about Public Calvinism.

Cambridge Reformed Conference on Christian Joy

This evening I had the privilege of listening to Rev. Ian Hamilton of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church in Cambridge, England address the subject of Christian Joy. After placing his text, Phillippians 4:4 (Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say rejoice!) in the context of the apparent unreasonableness of Christian theological and experiential claims, Rev. Hamilton highlighted that Christian joy is not a matter of emotions or feelings. The foundational basis of Christian joy is not circumstances – not even in the blessings and the benefits of the gospel – but in the Lord. Joy comes when we discover God himself as the blessing of the gospel.

Rev. Hamilton proceeded to expound five biblical principles / doctrines which help us better understand the character of Christian joy.

1. The Sovereignty of God. The Christian belief that the world is not an amoral and mechanistic universe, but rather the purposeful creation of God that is heading toward achieving its divine purpose, provide comfort, especially when we understand it not as a puzzle to unravel but a pillow to rest our spiritual heads on.
2. God’s covenant love for His people. Quoting from Gerhardus Vos, “God’s love for His people is everlasting meaning He will never stop loving us because He never started.” His love always is.
3. We have in Christ Jesus an imperishable salvation. No one can pluck God’s children out of His hand.
4. All of God’s promises are yea and Amen. The greatest practical help for the Christian is a greater understanding of the person of God. Quoting Luther to Erasmus: “Your God is too small!”
5. The joy of knowing the Lord is your God and you are His child.

There is nothing particularly sanctified about an eloquent Scottish accent and cadence, although I will confess that these made Rev. Hamilton easy and pleasurable to listen to, also in the context of a relatively full sanctuary with many acquaintances from churches across Ontario I had not seen for some time.

The rousing singing of the final hymn captured the mood:
With numberless blessings each moment he crowns,
And fills with a fullness divine,
I sing in my rapture, O glory to God!
For such a Redeemer as mine!

From today's Hamilton Spectator

My colleague Michael Van Pelt, senior fellow Jonathan Wellum, and long-time acquiantance and Cardus friend Wade vanBoestelen all are quoted in an article in today's Hamilton Spectator that talks about the relationship between spiritual values and markets.

Jonathan Wellum, CEO of AIC Ltd., says such values -- already lacking in the cutthroat financial world -- were obliterated in the long run of prosperity that collapsed in 2008.

Selfishness, materialism and a need for instant gratification drove the markets and played out in the economy for years, says Wellum, head of the Burlington-based funds firm with $3 billion in assets.

"Now, we need men and women with purpose, who think long-term, who draw lines, who stand on fixed principles, unwavering, disciplined, treating each other with the highest respect," he says.

Wellum, who writes about the financial crisis in this month's edition of the evangelical magazine Faith Today, says people are just starting to understand the forces behind the cataclysm last fall.

He says a whole generation -- not just its corporate chieftains -- is to blame.

"In a nutshell, we got to this point as a result of three decades of baby boomers -- those of us born between 1946 and 1964 -- living far beyond our means," he says. "Who took the cruises and bought vacation properties based upon future earnings and stock market returns that were unsustainable?"

...

Michael Van Pelt, head of a Hamilton-based think-tank called Cardus, says basic values belong in all parts of life.

"We have ignored some of these fundamentals, some of which happen to be deep, important and religious principles," he says.

Faith-based values are often front and centre in times of economic stress.

...

"Whenever you go through a period like this, people start to re-evaluate what they're doing in their lives," says Wade Van Bostelen of IPC Investment Corp. in Burlington. "We have a belief system in place that says there's something more we have to answer to than just ourselves."

Winsome Theologizing

As an orthodox Christian working in the public sphere and with many whose faith convictions differ from mine, I am always struggling with the tension between two principles that I am convinced are both biblical imperatives.

1. Doctrine matters. In fact, contrary to the prevailing assumption that doctrine divides, I am convinced with Augustine that all truth is God's truth. ("A person who is a good and true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found, gathering and acknowledging it even in pagan literature, but rejecting superstitious vanities and deploring and avoiding those who 'though they knew God did not glorify him as God..." On Christian Teaching II.75). Having a curiousity and a desire to discover truth is a great part of being our humanity. That means, in my view, we should view the study of the scriptures and the great confessions and classic works throughout history not as providing us fodder for disagreement with our fellow man but rather as tools by which we can come to more coherence in our understanding of the world. This is not the place to expand at great lengths on how we deal with data that comes from the two books of revelation (general and special) except to affirm that with the reformers of old, I hold to primacy and perpiscuity of Scripture.

2. Winsomeness matters too. Our affirmations of truth must always take place with a spirit of humility. I must recognize that my eyes and judgement have also been affected by the fall. The hubris of claiming "I have the truth so listen to me" is as much an idolatry as ignorance or suggesting that there is no truth to be found (which places our own judgement in the place of God's revelation.) My faith includes a "certain knowledge" of which I have an "assured confidence" (references to the Heidelberg Catechism defination of faith) however to say that is quite differnt than pronouncing "the biblical position" on immigration policy, the role of the state, or how to deal with the economic crisis. That is not to suggest I have no opinions that I cannot link back to scripture regarding these subjects, but I do need to hold these opinions with humility, recognizing I have a great deal to learn and that in dealing with these issues, there are others who may be given insight into these matters that I do not have and from which I ought to learn.

Over the weekend, I had an intersting chat regarding various approaches to politics that Christians undertake. Reflecting on the merits between adopting a "proximate justice" approach (which probably describes my own position) and a more purist approach ("this is what the application of scriptural principle teaches and therefore this is what we must stand for, without compromise regardless of the consequences), I was struck that the difference does not only involves what is doable. Often the debate is waged at that level - some suggest that we do not put forward our "real positions" because they are politically untenable. However, on most of the issues of the day, we perhaps need to be somewhat more cautious than we have been in baptizing particular positions or candidates as "the" Christian solution to an issue.

To clarify a bit further, I would strenuously agree with those who suggest we have been far too timid in asserting the relevance of our faith, especially over against the dogmatists of our era who firmly believe that faith in reason and the empirical method are the only acceptable frames for public discourse. However, when we move from principle to specific policy, we need to learn how to be winsome and engaging in order to enter into genuine public conversation, rather than smugly satisfying ourselves that we have said what we think is right, and don't need to listen and learn from others.

In this vein, I was struck by the approach that John Calvin took in connection with no less serious an issue than the divinity of Jesus Christ. After reviewing some of the historical debates, Calvin says: "The modesty of these holy men should be an admonition to us not to instantly dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who may be unwilling to swear to the terms which we have devised, provided that they in this do not betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat, but are willing to ponder the necessity which compels us so to speak, and may thus be gradually accustomed to a useful form of expression." (Institutes, I.13.5). However, a few paragraphs later, when dealing with those who he judges have no interest in honest dialogue, but are only interested in pursuing "perverse dreams", Calvin explains his different approach. "Hitherto our chief object has been to stretch out our hand for the guidance of such as are disposed to learn, not to war with the stubborn and contentious..." (I. 31. 21).

If Calvin could adopt such an approach and place such a premium on winsomeness on no less an important issue than the divinity of the second person of the Trinity, then surely we have something to learn about winsomeness when it comes to the application of biblical principles to the issues in the public square that we face in our day.

Building Community

Blogging has been sparse this week, as I was on a three-day trip with my son's schoolmates and their families. It is somewhat of a unique school community, in that it runs a blended program (two-days of instruction at school per week; three days of assignments done at home per week)with a classical education philosophy. Once per year, the school arranges a mountain excursion in which as many of the families as are able come to a lodge, have communal meels, and join together for outdoor activities and education. I never thought I would find myself snowshoeing a few thousand feet up a mountain, learning some elementary survival techniques, and "bushwacking" my way down, at times over (and even in) snow a meter deep, but it was all done, injury free (discounting aches and pains) and great memories are had.

Reflecting on the experience of the past three days, it is fascinating to watch how community is created. The kids and staff know each other well, but for many of us parents, we were relative strangers 72 hrs. ago. However, through shared experiences, simply spending time over meals and through conversation, we have a pretty good sense of what makes each other tick. In fact, I feel as if I know some of these people better than I do some people with whom I have had years of contact.

I know that staff retreats and the "goofy games" that are sometimes part of them are not quite as in vogue as they were in economic boomtimes, but the experience of the past few days reinforces in my mind their importance. Building trust and learning to know your co-workers as people and what makes them tick is essential for working together efficiently and building the synergies that make organizations effective. While the budget returns on such endeavours are not instant or easily measurable, they are undoubtedly real and seeing the "staff retreat" line as a budget line that can be cut without consequence is probably, in most instances, a mistake.

PS. Speaking of getting to know each other's personal quirks which is an inevitable part of spending such time together, my inbox this morning contains a joke that my neice (whom I do not really get to spend much time with, given we live in different provinces) sent specifically to me, indicating that this might appeal "to your interesting sense of humour." It did, and I share it, recognizing the risk that my colleagues may determine that staff retreats in fact should be cut to avoid them being subjected to jokes like this. C'est la vie.

If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys deranged, models deposed, and dry cleaners depressed?

Laundry workers could decrease, eventually becoming depressed and depleted! Even more, bedmakers will be debunked, baseball players will be debased, bulldozer operators will be degraded, organ donors will be delivered, software engineers will be detested, the BVD company will be debriefed, and even musical composers will eventually decompose.

On a more positive note, though, perhaps we can hope politicians will be devoted.