Opinion Central Poll 2009.19: Final Results

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?

Doctor of Ministry Intensive

Starting today I will be teaching a D. Min. intensive all week until Friday noon. The course is entitled "Theology and Ministry in Postmodern Context."

It is unlikely that I will have much time for blogging this week. I will, however, be posting the MBWR this weekend and then will resume my regular blogging schedule.

Have a blessed week!

Audio Sermon 04.26.2009

"The Lazarus Effect"* (John 11:1-7, 17-27, 38-44)

*Taken from the title of the novel by Ben and Ann Witherington which I have not read, but hope to soon.

A Prayer for the Third Sunday of Easter

Father in heaven, author of all truth, a people once in darkness has listened to your Word and followed your Son as he rose from the tomb. Hear the prayer of this newborn people and strengthen your Church to answer your call. May we rise and come forth into the light of day to stand in your presence until eternity dawns. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.13.192

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

*Rules for Inclusion

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

Dale Tedder writes on small groups and the primacy of the Word.

Joseph Slife posts on the upcoming spring session of the UM Judicial Council.

Thoughts from Andrew Thompson on role models, on and off the field.

It's been ten and twenty years ago for Scott McKay.

John Battern offers a new perspective on the UM constitutional amendments.

"Fruitful Theological Debate?" part 1 by Craig L. Adams.

Bishop Robert Schnase challenges us to share Christ "as the way opens."

Betty Newman presents a prayer preface on worship.

An almost baptismal drowing... er immersion... performed by Abi Carlisle-Wilke.

Gerry Charlotte Phelps ponders the Somali refugee problem.

Dave Warnock posts the first in a series on Methodist stationing.

On writing in library books by Kevin Watson.

Dave Faulkner reflects on a lost day.

Time flies for Lorna Koskela.

Sky Lowe-McCracken reminds us that because of the resurrection of Christ, it's all good.

Rick Mang could be at a "crossroads."

The misguided notion-- and demise-- of Social Security according to Michael Daniel.

Ken Carter posts some thoughts on the sacrament of creation.

David Hallam writes on responding to the flu pandemic.

Questing Parson rants on poisoned stewardship.

A rationale from Matt Kelley on why they are baptizing their infant daughter. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Sally Coleman is feeling flat but recognising privilege.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Galatians 6:4.

A post on the Father's timing from Deb Spaulding.

Steve Heyduck says, "Don't blame the lost." Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on Daniel 2:31-49, 1 John 2:18-29, Luke 3:1-14.

Henry Neufeld offers thoughts on the value of short-term mission.

Small concrete actions and gifts-- A post by Kim Matthews.

Tony Mitchell preaches on a new level of consciousness.

Are you looking for ways to make your mark? Read Olive Morgan.

Guy Williams cogitates on the Susan Boyle narrative.

Andy Bryan has found firm footing in the midst of trying times.

Things that happen at Starbucks according to Joseph Yoo.

Brian Russell outlines reading the Bible missionally for the church and the world.

The beginning of a series on the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John from Mitch Lewis.

Dave Morris is going deeper with Rethink Church.

Dave Camphouse posts his bootcamp notes.

"The Spirit and Discipline Make the Christian"-- A presentation from Steven Manskar.

What does it mean to be post-traditional? Jay Voorhees asks the question.

Jonathan Marlowe reflects on his attendance at the College of Pastoral Leaders.

Brian Vinson writes on successful preaching.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.12

Miss. woman gets shot in head, but makes tea

By JAY REEVES (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press

April 17, 2009 8:02 PM EDT

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - A Mississippi woman who was shot in the head not only survived but made herself tea and offered an astonished deputy something to drink, authorities said Friday. Tammy Sexton, 47, remained hospitalized three days after being wounded by her husband, who killed himself after he shot his wife. A bullet struck her squarely in the forehead, passed through her skull and exited through the back of her head, authorities said. She is expected to fully recover.

"There's no way she should be alive other than a miracle from God," said Sheriff Mike Byrd of Jackson County, Miss.

Byrd said deputies were looking for Sexton's husband, Donald Ray Sexton, earlier in the week to give him a document ordering him to stay away from his wife. Court records show he was put on probation for six months on April 9 for domestic violence.

He showed up at their home in rural Jackson County in Southeast Mississippi about 12:10 a.m. Tuesday and confronted his wife as a relative ran next door to call police, the sheriff said.

"She was at her bed, and he shot her right in the head," Byrd said. "Then he went out on the back porch and shot himself."

A deputy was greeted by the woman when he arrived minutes after she was shot with the slug from a .380-caliber handgun.

"When the officer got there she said, `What's going on?' She was holding a rag on her head and talking. She was conscious, but she was confused about what had happened," he said. "She had made herself some tea and offered the officer something to drink."

Byrd said the bullet apparently passed through the lobes of the woman's brain without causing major damage. She was rushed to a Mobile hospital by a helicopter.

While such cases may be rare, a neurosurgeon who wasn't involved in Sexton's case said such an outcome is possible. Medical journals also confirm people have been shot in the head with little or no lasting injury.

"There is a space in the brain where a missile could pass without doing any major damage. Is it possible? Yes. It would be rare," said Dr. Patrick Pritchard, an assistant professor of surgery at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.

The sheriff called the case bizarre.

"You just don't hear of something like this. Somebody gets shot in the head and they're dead," Byrd said.

---

Associated Press writer Holbrook Mohr in Jackson, Miss., contributed to this report.

The Quotable C.S. Lewis #17: Love is an Affair of the Will

"Some writers use the word charity to describe not only Christian love between human beings but also God's love for man and man's love for God. About the second of these two, people are often worried. They are told they ought to love God. They cannot find any such feeling in themselves. What are they to do? The answer is the same as before. Act as if you did. Do not sit trying to manufacture feelings. Ask yourself, 'If I was sure that I loved God, what would I do?' When you have found the answer, go and do it."

"On the whole, God's love for us is a much safer subject to think about than our love for Him. Nobody can always have devout feelings: and even if we could, feelings are not what God principally cares about. Christian Love, either towards God or towards man, is an affair of the will. If we are trying to do his will we are obeying the commandment, 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.' He will give us feelings of love if He pleases. We cannot create them for ourselves, and we must not demand them as a right. But the great thing to remember is that, though our feelings come and go, His love for us does not. It is not wearied by our sins, or our indifference; and, therefore, it is quite relentless in its determination that we shall be cured of those sins, at whatever cost to us, at whatever cost to Him."

--Mere Christianity

Opinion Central Poll 2009.18: Final Results

Are organizations like MoveOn.org and other supporters of the president engaging in the Chicago style politics of intimidation?

What Does Your Congregation See?

A couple of years ago, I attended a conference on ministry in the downtown setting. One of the things the pastor of the church, where the conference was being held, asked the pastors gathered there was, "When your congregation assembles for worship on Sunday morning, do they look at the empty pews and see the people who used to sit there, or do they envision the people who they hope will sit there in the future?"

This is a great question. Too often the folk in a declining church tend to look back at the glory days of when the sanctuary was at 80% seating capacity on Sunday morning, Sunday school classes were bustling, and children and youth were everywhere. When they walk into the church on Sunday morning they see what was, not what can be.

Two things are indispensable for the mission of the church-- vision and commitment. Jesus told a would-be follower, "Those who put their hands to the plow and look back are not fit for the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:62). There is nothing wrong with looking back on the past; indeed, a reminder of where the church has been is critical as the church moves into the future. But when the past history of the church is viewed as the golden age of that congregation, and when the empty pews only remind people of what was and not what can be, there is no compelling vision that will move the people of God forward in fulfilling the Great Commission.

But having a vision for the future is not enough. A church must be committed to bringing that future to pass by its willingness to do whatever is necessary. The problem often is not that the faithful in the pews do not want new people, but they are not willing to do whatever it takes to fulfill that desire. The desire for comfort is stronger than the willingness to sacrifice.

But when a church truly catches a vision and sees what is possible with the help of God, and with the willingness to do what is necessary to bring that vision to pass, the possibilities can become a reality. The past then will not be something to be relived, but it will instead be the foundation on which the present and the future rest.

Aquinas on Virtue #5 (The Theological Virtues: Faith)

As stated previously, Aquinas did not believe that the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity were means between two extremes, unlike the moral virtues. While the moral virtue of courage could be exercised in an extreme way as reckless behavior, the theological virtue of faith was more virtuous the more it was habituated. In other words, it is not possible to have too much faith in God.

The virtue of faith "perfects the intellect." Faith is a virtue "because it is a habit of the mind." Faith is what allows us to assent to what is unseen. Yet, one misunderstands Aquinas if faith is interpreted in fideistic fashion, that is as something that is opposed to reason. For Aquinas faith and reason are not synonymous, to be sure, but they, nevertheless, work hand in hand. Indeed, for faith to be the theological virtue that perfects the intellect it has to be concerned with what makes sense. In one sense, faith believes what is unseen precisely because of what is seen and experienced, that is, what is known in this existence. But faith moves beyond this existence to encounter ultimate questions of why human beings exists asking questions that concern the purpose of the entire universe itself.

And yet caution is necessary, for to state the connection between faith and reason in this way can lead to serious misunderstandings of Aquinas as well if he is read superficially, particularly when it comes to faith in God. For Aquinas, the notion of mystery is not what the theologian falls back on when the discussion of God has been exhausted in human terms; rather mystery is what the theologian starts with before the deliberations over God's person and nature begin. Thus mystery is not employed once there is nothing else to say, but mystery provides the context as the finite attempts to understand the infinite. Such an approach to the discussion of God assists in safeguarding against the human tendency toward idolatry in theological discussion. To affirm mystery is to acknowledge that God is indeed God and human beings are not.

The virtue of faith makes it possible to embrace the large picture of human existence and believe in God in spite of the truth that there is so much men and women do not know, are uncertain of, and in fact doubt. What we do not know means that faith cannot be reduced to what is rational, but faith cannot be exercised without the rational. Without faith, reason can find no ultimate answers; without reason, faith is intellectual suicide. Faith does not ignore scientific knowledge, and indeed incorporates it in the habituation of one's moral living; but only faith can make ultimate sense of what we know of the world and the universe, as faith asks the ultimate questions of existence and purpose... as it asks the ultimate question of God.

Thus faith displays more than knowledge. It manifests wisdom. Such wisdom is not stagnant; it grows and develops and changes in the believer over time as he or she continues to search what is embraced by faith while many questions remain unanswered.

The theological virtue of faith precedes the theological virtue of hope; for without faith in God, one cannot hope in God.

Audio Sermon 04.19.2009

"God is with Us" (Luke 24:13-35) Guest Preacher: Tim Lewis

A Prayer for the Second Sunday of Easter

Heavenly Father and God of mercy, we no longer look for Jesus among the dead, for he is alive and has become the Lord of life. From the waters of death you raise us with him and renew your gift of life within us. Increase in our minds and hearts the risen life we share with Christ, and help us to grow as your people toward the fullness of eternal life with you. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Opinion Central Poll 2009.17: Final Results

Do you exercise regularly?

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.12.191

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

*Rules for Inclusion

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

"Not Fade Away"-- A sermon by John Carney.

Mitch Lewis thinks the church should be accounting for its people as seriously as the Army.

John Lomperis writes on the upcoming "Theology of the Body" Conference in New Bern, North Carolina.

Is John's Gospel hating on the other Gospels? Jeremy Smith asks the question.

"Disobedience in the Desert"-- Exegetical insights on Numbers 20:1-12 from Brian Russell.

Bishop Robert Schnase writes on inheriting the faith through generations of translators.

Joseph Yoo suggests that many churches need to see a doctor.

Mark Winter writes on Easter Sunday as a sign from God.

Andy Bryan wonders if the cure is worse than the disease.

"Who Do You Say that I Am"-- An Easter sermon by Beth Quick.

What Guy Williams doesn't know he's teaching.

Olive Morgan reflects on the truth of the resurrection.

Tony Mitchell preached an Easter sermon entitled, "I Was There."

Reflections from Kim Matthews on grace... just because.

Reality, Perception, and Tea-- Insights from Henry Neufeld. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Jim Parsons posts on no open minds and no open doors.

Andrew Stoddard shares some personal reflections related to Easter and life. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Steve Heyduck is rethinking rethink church.

Thoughts from Richard Heyduck on Carlos Blovell's book, Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals.

Handwritten testimony written by Deb Spaulding.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Mark 16:1-7.

Sally Coleman offers narrative meditations for Easter Sunday.

Commentary from Joseph Slife on Maxie Dunham and Eddie Fox and the proposed constitutional ammendments to be presented at this year's Annual Conferences.

Matt Kelley reflects on the proposed constitutional changes.

A story about having breakfast with the Questing Parson.

David Hallam is cleaning the church.

Kim Fabricius on Kierkegaard and freedom of choice.

"Easter for Disoriented People"-- Sermonic reflections from Ken Carter.

Michael Daniel wonders if our politicians are playing us for fools.

Rick Mang posts some thoughts on a much needed prayer walk.

Kathy James reminds us that we are valued nonetheless.

Cogitations on teleprompter prayers from Andrew Thompson.

"Of Narrow Gates and Hard Roads"-- A devotional by Dale Tedder.

De-Baptism? Read Daniel McLain Hixon.

Sky Lowe-McCracken reflects on fighting the demons.

Lorna Koskela counsels us, "Don't give up!"

Dave Faulkner writes on re-imagining persecution and funeral music.

Are there Wesleyan basics worth reclaiming? Kevin Watson raises the question.

Dave Warnock offers more perspectives on life with a young baby.

Scott McKay proclaims, "He is risen!"

Rebuilding high civilization according to Gerry Charlotte Phelps.

Stephen Taylor posts on the other March Madness.

Abi Carlisle-Wilke reflects on the Monday after Easter Sunday.

Betty Newman publishes her Easter sermon for children.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.11

2 women accused of staging fake funerals

THOMAS WATKINS (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press

April 14, 2009 3:14 PM EDT

LOS ANGELES - It was quite a send-off for Jim Davis, or so the people paying his funeral bills were led to believe.

They were told Davis was laid to rest at Abbey Memorial Park in Compton after being placed in an ornate, top-of-the-line casket lined with elaborate floral arrangements. Altogether, the bill to bury Davis at the palm-lined cemetery came to nearly $31,000.

But there was a problem: There was no Jim Davis. He was dreamed up by a group of scam artists, authorities say.

And prosecutors say the coffin that was lowered into the ground was made out of cheap plywood or cardboard, filled with either rocks or butchered meat and animal bones, apparently to convince those who handled it that there was a body inside.

Faye Shilling, 60, and Jean Crump, 67, were indicted last week on federal charges that they scammed insurance companies and funeral-related businesses out of as much as $1 million by taking out policies on fictitious people and then staging their funerals.

Two other women previously pleaded guilty in the case. The indictment lists just two fabricated deaths, but authorities said there may have been as many as seven.

The participants went so far as to file phony death certificates, and bought a $3,354 burial plot for "Jim Davis," investigators said. Davis was the only one "buried." The others were supposedly cremated, evidently because that was easier to pull off.

"The allegations, if true, are quite shocking," federal prosecutor Anthony Montero said Monday after Shilling and Crump pleaded not guilty to fraud. "It does demonstrate an enormous level of deception and a commitment to hide their fraud."

The women were freed on $10,000 bail. In a telephone interview with The Associated Press, Shilling said: "I am hurt, just hearing things that I know are not true. Someone is trying to destroy me, but why?"

The prosecutor said a small group of mourners attended Davis' graveside service in 2006, but he would not say who they were. He said he did not know whether a clergyman officiated or anyone gave a eulogy.

The scheme began coming apart several weeks after the funeral, when an insurance investigator began snooping around, the prosecutor said. He said the participants panicked and dug up the coffin, claiming later that they had had Davis' remains cremated and scattered at sea.

Lydia Eileen Pearce, 37, owner of the Steward-Pearce Mortuary in Long Beach, and Barbara Lynn, 54, a notary, previously pleaded guilty to fraud and face as much as 20 years in prison when sentenced. Montero said more arrests are possible.

He said the women used their knowledge of the insurance and funeral industries to pull off the ruse.

"How else are you going to get a coffin buried with no body in there?" the prosecutor asked.

As a phlebotomist, Shilling drew blood from people applying for insurance, Montero said, which gave her expertise in how such policies are set up and paid out. Crump worked in a now-defunct Long Beach mortuary.

In the case of "Jim Davis," prosecutors said the women persuaded two insurance companies to issue policies on his life worth a total of $700,000. A doctor was also allegedly offered $50,000 to create a fake medical history for him. But the prosecutor would not say whether the doctor took the money.

After Davis supposedly died, prosecutors said, the women persuaded two companies, which pay the upfront costs of funerals in exchange for a fee and reimbursement later, to cover grossly inflated funeral costs.

The case surprised many in the funeral industry.

National Funeral Directors Association spokeswoman Jessica Koth said that although there are reports from time to time of scams involving funeral workers skimming from trust funds, she had never heard of an entire fake funeral.

Bernadette Palombo, a professor at Louisiana State University who wrote a paper on the growth of fraud in the funeral industry, said she, too, had never heard of such an elaborate scheme.

"This is certainly creative," she said.

Christ as Ethical Model #1: Introduction

The title of this post, "Christ as Ethical Model" is in some sense deceiving. The reason for this is what Stanley Hauerwas argued many years ago, "The ethical significance of Jesus" suggests that it is possible to know Jesus apart from that significance (Hauerwas, The Peaceable Kingdom, p. 74). It's as if we can know Jesus and then speak about the moral implications of knowing Jesus. But, if I may state the matter again in Hauerwasian fashion, Jesus is not a proponent of an ethic; Jesus is an ethic. Seen in this way, it is impossible to separate the person and work of Jesus Christ from Christian ethics. Thus accounts of Christian ethics that are formed on abstract rules and principles fall short of the adjective "Christian." It is indeed the case that one may indeed promote principles such as "love one another," but what that means in Christian context can only be understood incarnationally. In other words, it is Christology that gives "flesh and bones" to what it means to love one another.

Christology is thus intrinsically central to Christian ethics. The church is a community of people who form their lives around their Christian convictions about Jesus, which means that Christology and ecclesiology are essentially related as well. Thus there should be no distinction between Christian ethics and Christian social ethics Every ethical issue is a social issue. Christian family practices in daily life and the pursuit of personal holiness fall under the category of Christian social ethics in the same way as poverty, ecology, and abortion are social concerns. The distinction between Christian personal ethics and Christian social ethics distorts the very nature of Christian convictions. While "personal" (I even hesitate to use the term in this way) morality may present a different mode of concern in some ways to the Christian church, it is no less a community concern than questions of justice. Indeed, such personal issues are also justice issues. Just because a particular matter is "personal" does not make it less social.

For Your Amusement on Tax Day

This following is all true and offered in the spirit of Mark Twain who said, "The only difference between a taxman and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin."

-An Iowa man claimed a $240,000 tax refund for all his previous payments to the IRS claiming that the US was a fictional entity and could not hold jurisdiction over him because he was a citizen of heaven.

-The number of times around the earth all the pages of tax forms and instructions filed each year by American tax payers if laid end to end-- 60.

-The owner of a Pittsburgh furniture store attempted to deduct $10,000 from his taxes as a "consulting fee" after paying an arsonist to burn down his building so he could collect the insurance money.

-1817-1861: The years in which the federal government collected no income taxes. I say bring back the good ole' days!

-1916 was the year that the IRS deleted the word "lawful" before the word "income" thus making it possible to tax money earned illegally.

-In 1970 the poverty level income for a family of four was $3,932 on which they paid $146 in taxes. In 2006, the poverty level income for a family of four was $20,444 on which they paid $5,142.

-There are 9,097,000 words (give or take a few) in the current tax code, an increase of 652% since 1955.

-The average American tax payer works 120 days to pay his or her income tax.

-In 2008 there were 351,191,000 visits to the IRS website. That was an increase of 61% from 2007.

-April 16 is unofficially called "Divorce Day" as there is a sharp increase in filings for separation after spouses considering leaving have access to the new financial information.

I believe it is appropriate to end this post with the words of Will Rogers: "The difference between death and taxes is death doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."

The Quotable Seneca (c. 4 BC - AD 65)

"We should conduct ourselves not as if we ought to live for the body, but as if we could not live without it."

"Toil to make yourself remarkable by some talent or other."

"To be always fortunate, and to pass through life with a soul that has never known sorrow, is to be ignorant of one half of nature."

"One should count each day a separate life."

"If one does not know to which port one is sailing, no wind is favourable."

"Unjust dominion cannot be eternal."

"To be feared is to fear: no one has been able to strike terror into others and at the same time enjoy peace of mind."

"The first step towards amendment is the recognition of error."

"All art is an imitation of nature."

"Be silent as to services you have rendered, but speak of favors you have received."

"Difficulties strengthen the mind, as labor does the body."

"Enjoy present pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones."

"I shall never be ashamed of citing a bad author if the line is good."

"If virtue precede us every step will be safe."

"It is a great thing to know the season for speech and the season for silence."

"It is a youthful failing to be unable to control one's impulses."

"It is not because things are difficult that we do not dare; it is because we do not dare that they are difficult."

"It should be our care not so much to live a long life as a satisfactory one."

"He will live ill who does not know how to die well."

Opinion Central Poll 2009.16: Final Results

Are you confident that you currently have job security?

Survey Shows How Liberals and Conservatives Differ on Matters of Faith

Barna has published the results of a recent survey on how those who identify themselves as liberals and conservatives differ on the beliefs, practices, and politics. I am only going to list, though not exhaustively, the results without commentary. Anyone is welcome to offer their insights and comment, but I ask you to read the entire report before doing so.

The religious beliefs of liberals and conservatives:

-Religious faith is very important in life (liberals 54%, conservatives 82%)

-Faith is an increasingly important moral guide in life (liberals 38%, conservatives 70%)

-The church they currently attend is very important in helping them find direction and fulfillment in life (liberals 37%, conservatives 62%)

-Their primary purpose in life is to love God with all their heart, mind, strength, and soul (liberals 37%, conservatives 76%)

The religious practices of liberals and conservatives:

-Read the Bible, other than at church events, during the past week (liberals 33%, conservatives 57%)

-Attend a religious service during the past week (liberals 35%, conservatives 62%)

-Pray to God, other than at a religious service, during the past week (liberals 76%, conservatives 91%)

-Have ever participated in a short-term mission trip, either within the U.S. or in another country (liberals 6%, conservatives 12%)

-Those who categorize themselves as "unchurched" (liberals 40%, conservatives 19%)

I have not enumerated the results of the faith alignment of liberals and conservatives, nor the political impact of their faith choices. That information is also available in the report.

Barna concludes: "Every person's central choices in life are driven by their worldview, and everyone's worldview is greatly influenced by their spiritual inclinations. The social and political preferences of people are closely tied to their spiritual beliefs and practices. One of the great challenges to our nation's leaders is to help people of different spiritual and ideological perspectives maintain dialogue and an appreciation of each other's innate value despite those divergent points of view."

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Easter: Taming the Wild Beasts

After the Sabbath the women make their way to Jesus' tomb to lovingly finish their obligations toward their Lord. In haste, they could not complete the anointing of Jesus' body before burial. Now that the Sabbath is over, they make their way toward the tomb, just after sunrise, to do just that.

Their main concern is who will assist them in removing the massive stone that has sealed Jesus' body in its burial cave. The male disciples remain in hiding, either nowhere to be found, or they simply refuse to put themselves at risk by venturing out into the light of day.

To their shock the women discover that the stone, for some unknown reason, has been moved. The entrance to Jesus' grave is open. Creating a sense of fear they encounter a "young man" dressed in white. They are not prepared to meet the living in a place reserved only for the dead.

They then receive the bewildering and unbelievably incredible news. Jesus is no longer in the grave because he is no longer among the dead. He has risen. The "young man" then gives the women a message to his disciples and Peter. Why is Peter singled out separately from the rest? Could it be that, because of his denial, Peter is, for the moment, out of the band of men who had followed Jesus? Could it more likely be that in mentioning him by name, the "young man" hopes to comfort Peter in the knowledge that his Lord still wants something to do with him, even though he had denied publicly he wanted anything to do with the Lord?

"He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you." That is the message to the disciples. "He is going out ahead of you." The disciples could not keep up with Jesus in life, and now he has gone out ahead of them into new life. Not even death could slow Jesus down. The Lion of the Tribe of Judah cannot be tamed. Instead, Jesus has tamed the Principalities and Powers. Jesus has entered into the jaws of death itself and pulled its teeth. As he entered into death and has now emerged out the other side into new life, Jesus remains on the move. All the disciples can do is follow him doing their best to keep up. All they can do is obey the command of the "young man"... Go and tell.

Quote of the Day 2009.7: The Question of Jesus' Resurrection

"The question of Jesus' resurrection continues to haunt the thinking and writing of many scholars."

"[T]he early Christians looked forward to a resurrection which was not a mere resuscitation, nor yet the abandonment of the body and the liberation of the soul, but a transformation, a new type of body living within a new type of world. This belief is embroidered with biblical motifs, articulated in rich theology. Yet in the gospel narratives we find a story, told from different angles of course, without such embroidering and theology-- told indeed in restrained, largely unadorned prose. Yet the story is precisely of a single body neither abandoned, nor merely resuscitated, but transformed; and this, though itself totally unexpected, could give rise to exactly that developed view of which I have spoken. The Easter narratives, in other words, appear to offer an answer to why the early Christian hope and life took the form and shape they did."

"I suggest, in fact, that the gospel stories themselves, though no doubt written down a good deal later than Paul, go back with minimal editorial addition to the very early stories told by the first disciples in the earliest days of Christianity. They are not the later narratival adaptation of early Christian theology; they are its foundation."

"This does not mean, of course, that they are photographic descriptions of 'what happened'. No historical narrative is ever quite that. But they challenge today's historian, as they challenged their first hearers, either to accept them or to come up with a better explanation for why Christianity began and why it took the shape it did."

"...I would not pretend to have found an argument that would force a sceptic to admit that Jesus 'must have' been raised from the dead. It is always open to anyone to say, at least, 'I can't think of a better explanation, but I know there must be one, because I intend to hold to my presupposition that dead people don't rise.' Cautious agnosticism is always an option. What historical investigation can do, and in this case I believe must do, is to clear away the overgrown thickets of misunderstanding, misreading, sheer bad history, and sometimes willful obfuscation, in order that the main texts can be allowed to say what they are saying and the main questions may stand out in their stark simplicity."

"Historical investigation, I propose, brings us to the point where we must say that the tomb previously housing a thoroughly dead Jesus was empty, and that his followers saw and met someone they were convinced was this same Jesus, bodily alive though in a new, transformed fashion. The empty tomb on the one hand and the convincing appearances of Jesus on the other are the two conclusions the historian must draw. I do not think that history can force us to draw any particular further deductions beyond these two phenomena; the conclusion the disciples drew is there for the taking, but it is open to us, as it was to them, to remain cautious. Thomas waited a week before believing what he had been told. On Matthew's mountain, some had their doubts."

"However, the elegance and simplicity of explaining the two outstanding phenomena, the empty tomb and the visions, by means of one another, ought to be obvious. Were it not for the astounding, and world-view-challenging, claim that is thereby made, I think everyone would long since have concluded that this was the correct historical result. If some other account explained the rise of Christianity as naturally, completely and satisfyingly as does the early Christians' belief, while leaving normal worldviews intact, it would be accepted without demur."

"That, I believe, is the result of the investigation I have conducted. There are many other things to say about Jesus' resurrection. But, as far as I am concerned, the historian may and must say that all other explanations for why Christianity arose, and why it took the shape it did, are far less convincing as historical explanations than the one the early Christians themselves offer: that Jesus really did rise from the dead on Easter morning, leaving an empty tomb behind him. The origins of Christianity, the reason why this new movement came into being and took the unexpected form it did, and particularly the strange mutations it produced within the Jewish hope for resurrection and the Jewish hope for a Messiah, are best explained by saying that something happened, two or three days after Jesus' death, for which the accounts in the four gospels are the least inadequate expression we have."

"Of course, there are several reasons why people may not want, and often refuse, to believe this. But the historian must weigh, as well, the alternative accounts they themselves offer. And, to date, none of them have anything like the explanatory power of the simple, but utterly challenging, Christian one. The historian's task is not to force people to believe. It is to make it clear that the sort of reasoning historians characteristically employ-- inference to the best explanation, tested rigorously in terms of the explanatory power of the hypothesis thus generated-- points strongly towards the bodily resurrection of Jesus; and to make clear, too, that from that point on the historian alone cannot help. When you're dealing with worldviews, every community and every person must make their choices in the dark, even if there is a persistent rumour of light around the next corner."

You can read N.T. Wright's entire article, "Jesus' Resurrection and Christian Origins," here.

Good Friday: A Chance Encounter in a Divinely Orchestrated Drama

Jesus is taken to Pilate, who questions Jesus, but Jesus makes no reply. Perhaps Jesus fulfills Isaiah's prophecy in remaining silent; in addition, Jesus has no reason to defend himself before Pilate or anyone else for that matter. He is accused of treason. In one sense, this may be a false accusation, since he has no interest in leading a revolt against Rome. Yet, anyone who proclaims the coming of God's Kingdom threatens the powers that be in this world. In one sense, Pilate may see Jesus as no threat; in another sense, he brings into question any who rule apart from God's reign.

In keeping with his Passover custom, Pilate is willing to release Jesus if the people desire. It is entirely possible that Pilate would like to see Jesus freed simply to "stick his finger in the eye" of Caiaphas, whom Pilate despises. But the crowd wants nothing to do with Jesus. Perhaps the many who had followed Jesus have come to realize that the liberation he offers will leave Pilate in charge. If Jesus refuses to be the Messiah they desire him to be, it is better to release Barabbas; someone who, in brigand-like fashion, has demonstrated in no uncertain terms what he is willing to do in order to "liberate" God's people.

"Crucify him!" Crucify him!" The crowd shouts in a fashion that echoes through the centuries, speaking for all who have sinned and fallen short of God's glory. And although Pilate would like to be exonerated of his complicity, he too is also responsible for Jesus' death. No one is innocent.

Once Pilate hands down the order for Jesus' death, the guards, more-than-expertly trained in the gruesome art of crucifixion, take over. There are no rules laid upon them. There is no debating as to what constitutes torture. The only thing they need to make sure of is that they do not kill Jesus before he can be nailed to the cross. The Romans want to make sure that the people witness Jesus' fate in order to deter others from leading a band of revolutionaries.

In leading Jesus to Calvary, he is simply not capable of carrying the cross-beam to the hill of his death. They enlist a passer-by, who is simply minding his own business, to carry the cross for Jesus. How true it is that a chance encounter in life can change a person forever. We know nothing of Simon of Cyrene, other than the fact that he was coming into Jerusalem from the country. What we can perhaps surmise is that somehow this unexpected event for Simon transformed his life; for the Gospel of Mark connects Simon to his sons, who were known by Mark's audience. Perhaps Alexander and Rufus were followers of Jesus because their father, Simon became a follower of Jesus.

As Jesus hangs upon the cross, the people say, "He saved others, but he can't save himself." This is not a surprise to those who truly know Jesus. It would be impossible for Jesus to save others if he did save himself. He tried to tell his disciples, and all would listen to him, of the sacrificial nature of God himself. But since they cannot understand what it means to lose one's life in order to find it, they simply resort to hurling insults upon him until he dies.

Joseph of Arimathea approaches Pilate asking for Jesus' body. Perhaps Pilate grants the request as one more way to "stick his finger in the eye" of Caiaphas. Instead of throwing Jesus' body to the dogs by the side of the road, Pilate permits Jesus a proper Jewish burial. No doubt, Caiaphas was not happy about this, but then Pilate had willingly done Caiaphas' dirty work. Why should Pilate care, at this point, what the high priest thinks.

Maundy Thursday: Divine Moments and Human Foibles

There are those looking to get rid of Jesus. In cleansing the Temple, Jesus has pronounced God's judgment upon it. For the religious leadership this was the final straw. They now look for a way to kill him, but given that the Passover is upon them, they need to exercise caution; messianic fervor and national pride is running high, and the last thing the chief priests and the teachers of the law want is an uprising that will result in a Roman crackdown.

As Jesus gathered for the Passover meal with his disciples and others, emotions and spirits were no doubt conflicted. The joy of the Passover celebration was tempered by the rising tensions swirling in the air around Jesus. What joy there was was squelched when Jesus announced, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me—one who is eating with me." To be willing to have table fellowship with one you know you are about to turn in is an egregious breach of hospitality customs in the first century Jewish world. It is bad enough to betray Jesus, but for the betrayer to sit at the table with Jesus in "friendship" is dastardly to say the least. Before the meal ends, Jesus will take the Passover meal and its centuries old ritual, and transform it into something that will echoes through the centuries in a uniquely Christian way.

Betrayal is not the only thing on the mind of Jesus; denial is close at hand as well. Simon Peter, whose verbal bravado throughout the Gospels is louder and more courageous than his follow-through, insists that he will go to the death for Jesus. The other disciples, in like fashion, promise the same. How disheartening it must have been for Jesus to know that in the last hours of his life, the men he spent most of his waking moments with would abandon him in his greatest hour of need. Moreover, the disciples' desertion would be made all the worse in their inability to stay awake in the Garden of Gethsemane. Surely by now they know that things have become quite serious, and that the climactic moment is at hand; and yet, while Jesus prays in torment, Peter, James, and John cannot even keep their eyes open.

As Jesus is arrested, one attempts to defend him cutting off the ear of the servant of the high priest. Jesus rejects such a response. He has refused throughout his ministry to lead a violent revolt, and he will not resort to it now even when threatened. Perhaps for the disciples, this is the final confirmation for them that Jesus will not be the kind of Messiah they desire. Perhaps, for them, running for their lives so that they might live and fight another day with another Anointed One, makes perfect sense. Here Jesus rejects, for one final time, what the disciples have desperately wanted him to do; here is where he can take his stand against Rome. He does not.

As Jesus stands before the Sanhedrin, the religious ruling council, the outcome of the trial has already been decided before it is over, and Jesus' response ensures the outcome the high priest desires. They begin to strike him and make fun of him, no doubt a painful affair for Jesus; but even more painful for him is what is happening out in the courtyard while Jesus is being beaten. Jesus' words to Peter are coming true as his number one disciple not only denies him three times, but swears a divine oath in affirmation of his ignorance, not only lying to those around him, but doing so in the name of the One is truth.

The rooster crows a final time and Peter responds in the only way appropriate for such profane perjury; he breaks down and sobs inconsolably.

Aquinas on Virtue #4 (The Theological Virtues)

As stated in the previous post, it was Aquinas' differentiation between acquired moral virtue and divinely infused moral virtue that turned his attention to theological virtue.

According to Thomas, the moral and intellectual virtues are essential for human happiness, but they are insufficient for the attainment of perfect happiness that consists of the beatific vision of God. This kind of happiness cannot be humanly achieved, but requires divine intervention. The former happiness that results from the moral and intellectual virtues is in keeping with divine purposes but are only according to human nature. The latter happiness surpasses nature moving into the realm of the divine. This beatific vision is possible because of the theological virtues which have God himself as their telos, their end, and not just the things that lead human beings toward God. It is not only this that makes certain virtues theological, they are also theological in that they find their source in God.

The theological virtues supply the desire and motivation to seek their ends. The will and the mind in and of themselves lack the desire to seek God. Thus even the love we have for God himself finds its source in God. What is critical here in reference to the moral and intellectual virtues, is that Aquinas argues that when God infuses the theological virtues into an individual, he infuses all of the moral and intellectual virtues as well.

In his discussion of the intellectual and moral virtues, Thomas, utilizing Aristotle, suggests that the virtues provide a means between two extremes. For example the intellectual virtue of understanding is the mean between ignorance and being a know-it-all. Courage keeps one from the extremes of cowardice and reckless behavior. Self-control keeps one away from indulgence on one hand and extreme asceticism on the other. But such does not appear the case with the theological virtues. Since God himself is the object of these virtues, they are not means between extremes, but rather the more they are employed to the extreme, the more divine happiness can be realized. In other words, it is impossible to believe too much in God, to love God too intensely, and to hope in God beyond all reason.

Of course, in order to understand why these theological virtues differ in their "extreme" practice from the intellectual and moral virtues, Aquinas must delineate what he means by the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity.

The Quotable C.S. Lewis #16: It's Not About You

"How is it that people who are obviously eaten up with Pride can say they believe in God and appear to themselves very religious? I am afraid it means they are worshipping an imaginary God. They theoretically admit themselves to be nothing in the presence of this phantom God, but are really all the time imagining how He approves of them and thinks them far better than ordinary people: that is, they pay a pennyworth of imaginary humility to Him and get out of it a pound's worth of Pride towards their fellow-men. I suppose it was of those people Christ was thinking when He said that some would preach about Him and cast out devils in His name, only to be told at the end of the world that He had never known them. And any of us may at any moment be in this death-trap. Luckily, we have a test. Whenever we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good-- above all, that we are better than someone else-- I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God, but by the devil. The real test of being in the presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget yourself altogether."

--Mere Christianity

The Underlying Narrative of the Obama/Notre Dame Controversy

Much ado is being made over the protests of many in the Catholic Church, including its leadership, over the invitation offered to President Obama to speak at the commencement of the University of Notre Dame in May because of his support for abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. The national media doesn't understand what all the hoopla is about, which is usually the case when it comes to matters of religion. I have read commentary on the issue from political pundits who think all this is nothing more than right wing extremism from people whose religious views are out of date. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is an underlying narrative that is being played out in the midst of the Notre Dame controversy. It has bubbled beneath the religious waters for some time, it is now emerging to the surface, and it will only become more pronounced. What is happening at one of America's most prestigious Catholic universities is less about President Obama per se and more about the long-time shift going on within Catholicism in America and the Vatican's response to that shift. From the perspective of the bishops of the Catholic Church, three problems have emerged in America that undermine Catholic moral teaching.

First, America's Catholics have, for a long time, been a strong voting block for the Democratic Party. This was not a problem in the 1950s and 60s when abortion was illegal and embryonic stem cell research was not something within the reach of science. In fact, at one time, more than a few Catholic leaders publicly expressed kindred views with the Democratic Party on labor issues and matters of foreign policy. But with passing of time, abortion is now not only legal, most Democratic politicians support it, and President Obama has said he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act that will make abortion a fundamental right for women in America with the states unable to impose any kind of restrictions, including parental notification. Yet, with this decisive and pronounced shift to the moral left in the Democratic Party, Catholics have not shifted their votes away from the Party they have supported for years. This clearly indicates that Catholics have come to view other political issues, especially economic ones, as having more significance than abortion and the destruction of human embryos.

Second, are the many Catholic politicians in America, who have touted for years a bifurcated morality telling their constituencies that, while they are personally opposed to abortion, they could never force their views, since they are religiously based, on anyone who does not share their convictions. Of course, many of these same politicians do not think twice about imposing their moral views on the rich by raising their taxes to help the poor (and quoting Scripture in the process), but that is another subject for another time.

Third, and related to the first two, Catholic voters in America are increasingly basing their votes on two assumptions the church believes to be false. Some have accepted the bifurcation of morality that their Catholic brothers and sisters in politics are employing in order to justify their votes, while others are increasingly rejecting Catholic moral teaching on abortion. This latter group has been following more and more in the "moral" footsteps of "mainline" Protestantism which has increasingly fallen in love with the spirit of the age.

It was the previous pope, the late John Paul II, who decided that it was time to act in order to remind Catholics in America that its teaching on abortion, and by extension the destruction of human embryos, was and is central to Catholic understandings of morality. Catholics not only could not negotiate this, neither could they discard it as politicians and voters. His successor, Pope Benedict XVI has continued the reminder.

The Vatican's concerns over the direction of Catholicism in America has led to more and more bishops in America speaking directly on this issue to their constituency. This is the underlying narrative playing out when some bishops suggest that Catholic politicians be denied the Mass if they do not oppose abortion, not only with their words, but with their policies. It is also what is going on when other bishops stated in the last election that Catholics should not vote for any candidate who would not protect the unborn from conception to birth. In Catholicism, abortion is not about personal preference, it concerns one's identity as a Catholic. This is what the archbishop of Chicago, Francis Cardinal George was referring to when he stated, "So whatever else is clear, it is clear that Notre Dame didn't understand what it means to be Catholic when they issued this invitation."

Moreover, President Obama unwittingly threw down a challenge to the Catholic Church on the day he lifted the ban on government funding for embryonic stem cell research, when he stated that he was separating politics from science and restoring science to its "rightful place" (a presumptive notion to be sure), thus discarding in cavalier fashion centuries of intellectual depth and rigor that have been brought to bear on issues of life from Catholic theologians and scientists. In actuality, it was President Obama's justification for lifting the ban that lacked intellectual depth and rigor. This challenge was not lost on Bishop John d'Arcy of the Fort Wayne-South Bend Diocese when he stated, "While claiming to separate politics from science, he [President Obama] has in fact separated science from ethics and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life."

For those on the evangelical left who have responded in disagreement with the Catholic bishops' opposition to President Obama addressing the Notre Dame commencement on the premise that the university should be a place of dialogue, I ask them consider if they would feel the same way if Notre Dame had invited a self-avowed white supremacist? And while many Protestants are no doubt offended by the comparison of those who are "pro-choice" with those who are racists, they need to understand that in Catholic moral theology and tradition, opposition to abortion is as indispensable as the rejection of racist views and policies. Securing the rights of children regardless of their status inside or outside of the womb is morally equivalent to securing the rights of all persons regardless of skin color and/or ethnicity. Those who disagree may do so, but they must endeavor to respond in a way that is as intellectually rigorous and as theologically competent as the Catholic moral theologians with whom they disagree. Often such responses have fallen far short of the depth and rigor tests, and thus remain unconvincing.

This is the underlying narrative that is playing itself out in South Bend, Indiana; but it no longer sits just beneath the surface. It has taken central stage in Catholic moral reflection in America.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

Lenten Levity--Palm Sunday

A young woman brought her fiance home to meet her parents. After dinner, her mother told her father to find out about the young man.

The father invited the fiance to his study for a talk.

"So what are your plans?" the father asked the young man.

"I am a biblical scholar," he replied.

"A Biblical scholar. Hmmm," the father said. "Admirable, but what will you do to provide a nice house for my daughter to live in?"

"I will study," the young man replied, "and God will provide for us."

"And how will you buy her a beautiful engagement ring, such as she deserves?" asked the father.

"I will concentrate on my studies," the young man replied, "God will provide for us."

"And children?" asked the father. "How will you support children?"

"Don't worry, sir, God will provide," replied the fiance.

The conversation proceeded like this, and each time the father questioned, the young idealist insisted that God would provide.

Later, the mother asked, "How did it go, Honey?"

The father answered, "He has no job and no plans, and he thinks I'm God!"

A Prayer for Palm/Passion Sunday

Almighty and everliving God, in your tender love for the human race you sent your Son our Savior Jesus Christ to take upon him our nature, and to suffer death upon the cross, giving us the example of his great humility: Mercifully grant that we may walk in the way of his suffering, and also share in his resurrection; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Book of Common Prayer

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2009.11.190

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

*Rules for Inclusion

Special Note: There will be no MBWR next weekend as I, along with many of you, have plenty to do for Holy Week and Easter Sunday. The Weekly Roundup will return the following weekend.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

Joseph Slife writes on the GBCS's support for the repeal of the conscience rule for healthcare workers.

Bishop Robert Schnase reflects on gifts that everyone has to give.

Andrew Thompson shares some thoughts as he is headed into a busy weekend.

Part 5 of The Quest for the Historical Jesus: Passion Week from John Montgomery.

Chris Roberts publishes more on faith, politics, and Lent.

What do you think? Is it an ending or a beginning? Read what David Morris thinks.

Kathy James recounts a teenage perspective on women in ministry.

Rick Mang reminds us that traumatic stress is alive and well.

Michael Daniel believes that government involvement in business is a dangerous precedent.

"Grief as the unfinished agenda of God"-- A sermon from Ken Carter.

Mitch Lewis writes on the cross as what defines the church.

Richard Hall is a reluctant universalist. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Reflections from David Hallam on healing hands and heavy hands.

Is the Parson slipping? Read Questing Parson to find out.

Lorna Koskela writes on John Wesley and the rich/poor divide.

Thoughts on calling and vocation from Matt Kelley.

David Camphouse posts his sermon notes on Jeremiah 31:31-34.

Sally Coleman his doubting and feeling out of sorts.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on James 2:19-20.

Recognizing the call-- A devotional from Deb Spaulding.

Richard Heyduck cogitates on the cult of accountability.

Steve Heyduck ponders theology and ministry. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Andrew Stoddard post reflections on Jeremiah 26:1-16, Romans 11:1-12, and John 10:19-42.

Pastor Cynthia is pondering the connection.

A sermon by Jim Parsons on Mark 11:1-11.

Henry Neufeld on embracing the mysteriousness of God.

Are you focused on God? Kim Matthews raises the question.

Tony Mitchell asks the question, "Will the future be any different than the past?"

Olive Morgan highlights the church's highlighting of new evidence on problem gambling.

Guy Williams publishes his preaching study on John 20:19-31.

"Peter the Rock"-- A sermon from Beth Quick for the fifth Sunday in Lent.

For Andy Bryan it was the last stop of the day and he almost missed the grace of God.

Mark Winter wants us to know that the revival fire is burning bright.

Joseph Yoo proclaims, "It's not about me."

How do we lead existing communities forward to embrace mission? A post from Brian Russell.

Jeremy Smith wonders if ministry should simply be a blind imitation of the past.

An update on Episcopalian syncretism from John Lomperis.

Craig L. Adams ponders the mysterious struggle of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

I Relate to this Commercial

The older I get, the less I tolerate winter.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2009.10

Lemon cola becomes holy water in baptism

From Reuters

Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:22pm EDT

OSLO - A Norwegian church used lemon-flavored cola instead of water in a baptism ceremony after its taps were temporarily turned off because of freezing temperatures, daily Vaart Land said Tuesday.

Priest Paal Dale from the town of Stord, about 150 miles west of the capital Oslo, improvised during a recent cold-spell by dabbing the lemon fizzy water on a baby during a baptism ceremony, it said.

"It had gone flat," Dale was quoted as saying by the newspaper. "Only the lemon smell made this unusual."

Dale said the child's family were informed about the switch only after the ceremony because the priest "had a need to inform" them about the lingering lemon scent.

"They didn't say much, but I assumed they smelled the aroma as well," Dale told Vaart Land.

Reporting by Wojciech Moskwa

Opinion Central Poll 2009.15: Final Results

Would you support a second government bailout?

Quote of the Day 2009.6: The Christian Idea of Freedom

"In Liberalism, freedom is defined negatively as: "freedom from constraint." Individuals must be free to do whatever they want. Whether I can do whatever I want is the ultimate test of whether or not I am free."

"This is very different from the Christian idea of freedom as the will being drawn toward the good. For Christians, being free means doing God's will and thus fulfilling our true nature as His creatures. As Pope John Paul II put it, in accordance with the mainstream of the Christian tradition,"

"Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man's true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness." (Veritatis Splendour, 72)

"To obey the Word of God is to do that for which we were created and to find joy. But to go against the Word of God is to become enslaved to our appetites and to lose our freedom."

"What I want to argue here is that the liberal notion of freedom is self-contradictory. Louis Groarke's article "What is Freedom? Why Christianity and Theoretical Liberalism Cannot Be Reconciled" (Heythrop Journal, XLVII (2006), pp. 257-74) is one of the best statements of why this is so."

"Groarke argues that in liberalism, freedom is the first principle, the highest good. Freedom is defined as "freedom from constraint" meaning that an individual is free when he or she is able to choose whatever he or she wants without being coerced by anyone or anything."

"As popularly stated, liberalism has two components: 1) the idea that freedom is non-interference and 2) the no-harm rule...."

You can read Craig Carter's entire post, "How Secular Liberalism is Incoherent and Nihilistic," here.