Manger lacked inaugural pomp

By Krista Kafer (krista555@msn.com) “Ritter’s inaugural week jampacked” the Rocky Mountain News’ headline exclaimed a few days ago. The week for Gov.-elect Bill Ritter is to begin on the 9th of January with the swearing-in ceremony. Two days later, the new governor will be honored at an inaugural dinner followed by a concert featuring his favorite country music star. Next the governor will be whisked away on a train tour of the Front Range ending in Pueblo where a spaghetti dinner awaits him at the Pueblo Union Depot. The inaugural committee is busy sending invitations to dignitaries, Members of Congress, other elected officials, and civic leaders. The cost of the events is expected to top out at $750,000.

What if the plans were different? Imagine if instead of Denver and the Front Range, the new leader chose to go to La Junta on the plains. Rather than invite prominent officials, civic leaders, campaign funders, and other distinguished individuals, he invited the night cleaning crew from the nearby Wal-Mart and some unknowns from out of the country. And what if instead of surrounding himself with flashing cameras and cheering supporters, he chose a bunch of pack animals. Then rather than take the stage as a man in his prime attired in a suit and tie, he entered as a tiny infant swaddled in scraps of cloth.

Why would he do that? Leaders announce their arrival with power and grandeur not weakness and austerity. Yet, 2000 years ago, when God came down to walk among men He chose the company of beasts of burden, the working poor, and foreigners – those outside the circle of power. What does that say about this ultimate leader of men, Jesus of Nazareth, that he chose them to be his honored guests?

I am reminded of a passage in the Old Testament where the prophet Elijah weary and despondent listens for God’s message.

“Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper.” 1Kings 11-13

In the whisper Elijah heard God.

An image stirs in my mind rough-hewn and earthy, a hard contrast with the glitz of inaugural events I’ve attended. I am listening to the hooves of donkeys scraping at the hay, the praises of shepherds huddled in the doorway, and the cries of an infant in the arms of a new mother. Here God’s message begins in a whisper audible among common sounds.

Like Elijah, I am weary and the message resonates in a deep place. It is a comfort to me that while I expect to find God in the great and triumphant, He often prefers to speak in humble places. Outside of the circle of power, among animals, the poor, and foreigners, He entered his kingdom. He is truly with us.

Merry Christmas.

The House of Christmas

By G. K. Chesterton There fared a mother driven forth Out of an inn to roam; In the place where she was homeless All men are at home. The crazy stable close at hand, With shaking timber and shifting sand, Grew a stronger thing to abide and stand Than the square stones of Rome.

For men are homesick in their homes, And strangers under the sun, And they lay on their heads in a foreign land Whenever the day is done. Here we have battle and blazing eyes, And chance and honour and high surprise, But our homes are under miraculous skies Where the yule tale was begun.

A Child in a foul stable, Where the beasts feed and foam; Only where He was homeless Are you and I at home; We have hands that fashion and heads that know, But our hearts we lost - how long ago! In a place no chart nor ship can show Under the sky's dome.

This world is wild as an old wives' tale, And strange the plain things are, The earth is enough and the air is enough For our wonder and our war; But our rest is as far as the fire-drake swings And our peace is put in impossible things Where clashed and thundered unthinkable wings Round an incredible star.

To an open house in the evening Home shall men come, To an older place than Eden And a taller town than Rome. To the end of the way of the wandering star, To the things that cannot be and that are, To the place where God was homeless And all men are at home.

The death-wish of secularism

By Dave Petteys (dpetteys@comcast.net) A recent article in the London Times discusses how British schools will now no longer teach right from wrong. Initially, teaching moral values was considered the province of the family. But in an age of latch-key kids and two-earner households, schools have assumed the role. They teach secular moral relativism and moral equivalency as THE only philosophy of life that has merit, ridiculing traditional Christian values.

Recently, two American soldiers were kidnapped and beheaded without a peep from the media. The rhetorical question: “Where was the outrage, considering the fuss at Abu Ghraib?” The answer is more than the media’s agenda to undermine the Administration’s efforts in the Middle East. It also has to do with this moral relativist vacuum.

There is a massive assault on Western Civilization by Islam. The news is greeted with a yawn and a “whatever!” The last two generations of Americans have been taught by the Left that our unique gift of liberty and prosperity is to be taken for granted and that it is no better than any other society. Barbarous depredations by Islamists are greeted with moral equivalency: “well, we did the same thing to them 500 years ago, so you can’t blame them!” The current greatest virtue is “tolerance and understanding”, not exactly an overriding principle that inspires people to give their lives. Images of violence make little impression on a generation weaned on violent video games. One can always go “Game Over” and exit to the refrigerator.

On one side, we have the Islamists who would give the world the choice “convert or die!” On the other side are free men of faith that will fight! The secularists are caught in an unsustainable middle, not really understanding the problem, mistakenly believing they can opt out.

Some questions for the humanists

The age-old doctrine that "man is the measure of all things" takes contemporary form in the Humanist Manifesto, as neat a one-page summation as you will find anywhere of the belief that people are perfectible, the future is bright, and God is unnecessary. "Analysis by critical intelligence" is the touchstone of knowledge, according to the humanist worldview. Yet by this very standard, the manifesto itself proves to be groaning with questionable assumptions and assertions. Among them, listed in less than an hour the other day, as fast as I could type, were the following:

(References are to the 11 paragraphs of Humanist Manifesto III, online at www.AmericanHumanist.org)

1. Questions on Paragraph 1

a. How is “progressive” defined, and what is the evidence for its validity as a concept?

b. Why is supernaturalism excluded?

c. How is responsibility justified and enforced?

2. Questions on Paragraph 2

a. What are the specific antecedents in human thought from which humanism has “evolved through the ages”?

b. What values and ideals, if any, are not subject to change?

3. Questions on Paragraph 3

a. Is there anything we must believe?

4. Questions on Paragraph 4

a. Does science itself define the problems to be solved and the criterion for what is beneficial, and if not, how are these things determined?

b. What is the difference between science and critical intelligence?

5. Questions on Paragraph 5

a. Does the belief in unguided evolutionary change rest on evidence or faith?

b. How do you know that nature is self-existing and that our life is all there is?

c. By what empirical standard do you apprehend “things as they are”?

d. What do you mean by “the future”?

6. Questions on Paragraph 6

a. Do these contingent values exclude the notion of truth, or unchanging categories of right and wrong, good and evil?

b. Does concern for the global ecosystem imply animal rights?

c. Is the inherent worth and dignity of each person merely an arbitrary stipulation, and if not, where is it grounded?

7. Questions on Paragraph 7

a. How do you know life’s fulfillment does not emerge from selfishness?

b. What is so good about tragedies and death, and to that extent, why seek to avoid or resist either of them?

c. What warrant is there, and why, for private property and voluntary charity in times of want and times of plenty?

8. Questions on Paragraph 8

a. Does this mean you accept human nature as a given, something permanent, with all that this implies about relationships?

b. What causes cruelty, and how is it be eliminated?

c. In the world as it is now, what place is there for self-defense, punishment, and war?

d. Is your stance peace at any price, and if not, what price is too high?

e. By what process and authority is justice to be defined and enforced?

f. What evidence do you find in history that such a world as this is attainable?

9. Questions on Paragraph 9

a. How will you then treat someone who seeks happiness in the opposite direction?

b. What progressive cultures are those, and where do you place the United States and the United Nations in this context?

c. By what process and authority will this “just distribution” be effectuated?

d. Do you consider the problem of production and scarcity to be solved, leaving only distribution as consideration for policy?

e. Will the fruits of human effort be maximized through private property and free markets, or if not, how?

10. Questions on Paragraph 10

a. How do you define diversity, and why is it important?

b. How will you then treat someone of inhumane views – which are defined how?

c. What place is allowed for religious belief and practice in your secular society?

d. How are these civic and planetary duties to be enforced?

11. Questions on Paragraph 11

a. What obstacles do you acknowledge, internal or external to human beings, in the way of this progress?

b. How do you balance personal responsibility, as stated here, with the interdependence and global community mentioned above (Para. 8 & 9)?

A pagan bishop and her female Christ

Editor's Note: We invited Backbone bloggers to reflect on the ever-greater influence of the Humanist Manifesto, one of the strongest statements of the modern liberal or progressive worldview. Here is the first volley in the resulting dialogue.

By Dave Crater (crater@wilberforcecenter.org)

Last month, the first woman in the history of the Episcopal Church was elected to the post of Presiding Bishop. For the next nine years, she will serve as the primate, or highest ranking bishop, in the Episcopal Church, representing Anglicans in the United States to the global Anglican Church and to the rest of the world.

Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori, who three years ago supported the consecration of practicing homosexual Eugene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire – the first openly homosexual bishop in Episcopal history – in her inaugural sermon as Presiding Bishop observed the following about the crucifixion of Jesus:

“That bloody cross brings new life into this world. Colossians calls Jesus the firstborn of all creation, the firstborn from the dead. That sweaty, bloody, tear-stained labor of the cross bears new life. Our mother Jesus gives birth to a new creation -- and you and I are His children.”

Any genuine Christian would enthusiastically agree the cross of Jesus brings new life into this world, and that when Jesus walked out of His tomb three days after dying, He indeed became the “firstborn of all creation.” However, the imagery of female labor, and of Jesus as our mother, strikes the authentically Christian ear as curious, particularly when the masculine pronoun “His” is used at the same time. And well it ought, for this is not Christianity, but paganism baptized in Christian language.

Femininity worshiped as the spiritual source of life – often accompanied by temple prostitution and other sexual profanity – is a distinguishing feature of primitive pagan religion. Bishop Jefferts-Schori can perhaps be forgiven for mixing a masculine pronoun with her feminine metaphor, for she is appealing to the New Testament book of Colossians for spiritual authority, a book full of exclusively masculine language about both Jesus and God His Father.

Yet there is no doubt Bishop Jefferts-Schori was educated not for paganism, but for humanism. Before becoming a bishop, she was a scientific researcher off the coast of Oregon and holds a PhD in marine biology. Her doctoral dissertation addressed the history of organic evolution in the various layers of the ocean. She is a Darwinist, likely sympathetic with the doctrine of the Humanist Manifesto that, like biological life, our philosophical and ethical worldview has “evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.”

How else would she now justify the consecration of a homosexual bishop, something the Episcopal Church has opposed since its founding on these American shores? Only on the grounds that our values and ideals have now evolved to a higher plane.

Or perhaps a lower plane. Because human beings are incurably religious, as the great Christian theologian John Calvin once opined, humanism is an unstable compound. Humanism’s goal of pure naturalistic secularism, denying the very premise and raison d’etre of prodigious ecclesiastical structures like the Episcopal Church, is always the opening act for a slide downward to paganism, sometimes resulting even in quasi-religious criminal messiahs like Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin.

The Humanist Manifesto itself has a certain aura of scripture about it – an eastern quality of natural metamorphosis and human unity with a creation that has assumed the status of the divine. When this view of God and man then attempts to take up Christian language and hold ecclesiastical office, it should not surprise us that Christianity begins to sound very un-Christian, man begins to sound like woman, church becomes less and less sacred, and talk of values, ideals, meaning, and purpose becomes little more than a fig leaf for a thoroughly amoral conception of human life and society.

What has happened in the Episcopal Church is a microcosm of what has happened throughout the once-Christian West.