Dorothy Sayers, one of the most intelligent lay-theologians of the 20th century, a member of the famous Inklings and a first-rate mystery writer, wrote a piece called “The Dogma is the Drama” contained in the collection Letters to a Diminished Church. In it, she passionately argues that theology is dramatic and beautiful, a crucial part of living life well. However, she laments the fact that so few actually understand Christian dogma or doctrine.

I haven’t had time to do much blogging lately because of my teaching responsibilities (term paper time!) and because of other commitments. So I thought I’d let Sayers do some speaking. Below is a sample from what she thought the “average” persons might put on an examination paper about Christian doctrine. I’ll start with her hilarious entry on “God the Holy Spirit.”

Q: WHAT DOES THE CHURCH THINK OF GOD THE HOLY SPIRIT?

A: I don’t know exactly. He was never see or heard of till Whitsunday. There is a sin against him that damns you for ever, but nobody knows what it is.

I’ll try to stay away from whatever that sin is until the next time…

I am busy working on a few projects right now, so I haven’t had time to contribute anything of substance, but I did want to highlight a few pieces of good writing and thinking. 

First off, and by far the most important, is this widely circulated piece by Victor Davis Hanson.  You might think the fall of the West would be something that Liberals and Conservatives could work together to stop.  That would require, though, Liberals not thinking that Conservatives were on the same moral plane (or lower!) as the aggressors in the Middle East.

Secondly, Terry Teachout highlights the decline of dance as an art form (as opposed to Swing and Ballroom) in American culture.  Who knew that ballet used to hold a spot in the American consciousness? 

Thirdly, Charlie Lehardy penned this essay on Johnny Unitas.  Lehardy should have been the one to write the book–his essay is a beautiful and stirring piece of prose.

Finally, Keith Plummer highlights the tendentious and troubling nature of biopsychiatry, while expressing dismay at the lack of critical reflection about its use within the Christian community.  I’d love to hear some of Mere-O’s excellent readers (and other posters!) chime in on the questions Plummer raises.

Apparently, it has been a bad car day for the Anderson boys.

Sandwiched between a Jeep Charokee and a Toyota Tacoma, my wife’s 2004 Accord took a beating. We’re both okay (stiff necks and broken hearts excepting). My wife’s once-beautiful car, however, is not.

Immediately after making sure my wife was okay and calling 911, I began ruminating on the problems posed by physicality. Just think: in a disembodied state, we wouldn’t have to deal with the claims adjustors, mechanics, and policemen that make car accidents so time consuming. Good times, indeed.

This Thanksgiving, we’re thankful for seatbelts and protection. And for the Incarnation. It is events like these that make me long for the New Creation inaugarated by Jesus at Christmas.

Which is, by the way, merely a month away. Perhaps someone will get me one of these to replace the Honda.

The recent election was still the topic of choice among people in the D.C. area. Many of the young people I met were either elated or despondant at the turn of events. “It’s a tough time for a Republican to get a job,” one young man lamented. “The market is glutted with resumes.”

This morning, Hugh linked to this article on the impending shake-up in the House office space. While it seems trivial, my amazing host in DC works in a Congressional office and was distraught over this very issue. If nothing else, the shake-up means that Republicans will have a more difficult time doing the work they need to do on the Hill. Divide and conquer is the Pelosi strategy, and it will work.

But the deeper issue for Republicans, and one that went totally unnoticed before the election, is the loss of personel that the new Democrat majority will mean. Because Republicans were able to chair committees, they were given more staffers–staffers that will now be replaced by Democratic staffers. Even more perniciously, because Republicans have had the majority for so long, they have been able to build up an infrastructure around staffers who have been on the Hill for years and do their work very well. In otehr words, the loss of the Republican majority means lots of good Republicans beyond the politicians themselves are out of work.

This is, I dare say, a devestating blow to the Republican party. It is worse than I realized before being in DC. Prior to the election, everyone focused on the ramifications on policy that Democrats would enact. What no one said was that putting Democrats in charge would undercut the Republican infrastructure that has been in place some 10 years.

While it is possible that the infrastructure was bankrupt and needed a shake-up anyway, such an argument is thoroughly short-sighted. Talented staffers with years of experience who are now out of work will be hard to draw back to the Hill. The costs of this election will extend beyond the policy decisions of the next two years. Teams take time to build, and people take time to train. And offices take time to move.

One final thought: it is possible to dwell too long on defeat and not look forward to the future. Republicans, though, seem in no danger of doing so. Rather, they could stand to think hard about the decisions they made and force themselves to learn any lesson possible from this election. One such lesson, I think, that will need to be learned is that elections are not necessarily just about policy or Representatives or Senators. They are about the staffers, the grunts, the office space that make it easier to do work Republicans need to do. Keeping a permanent Republican majority, though noxious to Democrats, is a worthwhile goal if only because stability allows good work to be done.

Cause of death:  missing the wife.  10 days is a long time to be gone.

First stop:  Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, NC for the National Apologetics Conference.

The conference:  I didn’t attend any of it, but talked with parties interested in Wheatstone Academy, the single most important ministry for young Christians.  That said, the conference was huge–some 2500 people attended, with representation from all 50 states.  And they’ll probably double their attendance next year.

Southern Evangelical Seminary:  cool things are happening here.  Really.  They have a motivated and energetic new president, Norm Geisler holding down the fort, and a growing number of students who are bright, sincere, and deeply devoted to Jesus.  I have a hunch we’re going to hear a lot more out of this place in the future.

Charlotte:  Beautiful.  I fell in love with the south.  If anyone in Charlotte wants to give me and my wife a job, I would be happy to move.  Really. 

Getting worked by SES prof Jason Reed, a Thomist studying under Eleonare Stump, on universals:  priceless.  Believe it or not, this post by Joe followed me into the south and got me in trouble with the smart guys there.  Jason is a brilliant young man with a bright, bright future.

Montreat College:  business took me out to this tiny school nestled against the Blue Ridge Mountains (at least I think they are the Blue Ridge Mountains).  On Montreat’s campus is a Presbyterian Church that Billy Graham apparently calls home.  He apparently lives in Montreat, at least when he is in the area.  Montreat College suffers from being so disconnected from the rest of the world, but if you want a gorgeous campus where good things seem to be happening, Montreat isn’t a bad choice.

Next stop:  Washington D.C. for the Evangelical Theological Society general convention.

Washington D.C.:  One local put it best when she described D.C. as a charming Southern city.  It struck a chord:  D.C. feels like the south still, despite the influx of people from around the country for political purposes.  Having traveled from Charlotte, the comparison made a lot of sense.

The White House:  Thanks to my amazing host in D.C. I was able to tour the West Wing.  It is a distinctly American building:  not ornate, but elegant.  Aesthetics are at the service of pragmatics.  It is an appropriately modest building that is fitting for the office of the President.

The Capitol:  The Rotunda is spectacular.  Worth a visit to D.C. by itself.

The Library of Congress:  This exhibition on American cartoons was particularly fascinating.  The interior of the library is fascinating in the way it pays homage to various thinkers behind the American ethos.  An eclectic conglomeration of individuals, it is a monument to the pluralism of American society.  The reading room, though with a very different style and purpose, is far more impressive than those of Oxford. 

The Folger Shakespeare Library:  fascinating exhibition right now on technology and the art of writing in Shakespeare’s time.  I did not have time to see their performance of Midsums, but the theater there is cozy and beautiful.

Family Research Council:  I was lucky enough to have lunch there with Joe, Charmaine and Jack Yoest , Doc Reynolds, Roger, David Wayne (who decided to name me, “Matt I-can-take-Joe-Carter-in-a-philosophical-debate-any-day Anderson”), Jared Bridges and a number of the FRC staff and Witherspoon Fellows.  Great times.

Combine all of those stops with a trip to the National Portrait Gallery, a reunion of friends from the Oxford days, an evening listening to the erudite Lauren Winner opine, and hours spent hunting through books while pushing my own at ETS, and it was a very busy trip.  It’s good to be home.

One of the highlights of the Evangelical Theological Society meeting for me was seeing two of my intellectual heroes of Middlebrow fame, Dr. Fred Sanders and Dr. John Mark Reynolds, give interesting papers. It is a lofty compliment. Dr. Reynolds ably defended “Constantinianism” while Dr. Sanders, well, raised a few questions for those who deploy the Trinity in their position papers on gender issues. I didn’t take notes during Reynolds’s paper, so here is a (very) rough outline of Dr. Sanders’s paper.

Dr. Fred Sanders. “As Above, So Below: Appeals to the Trinity in Theological Accounts of the Human Family.”

Dr. Sanders begins with some reflections about the state of the Trinitarian question with respect to gender. Specifically, it is sad that gender questions have produced the most literature on the Trinity in recent years by people hijacking the Trinity to refute their opponents in the gender debate. Complementarians see hierarchy in the Trinity as they focus on the Majesty of the Father, while egalitarians see the equality of essence with respect to the persons. But the Trinity is interesting for its own sake: it is interesting for more than the partisan question.

Sanders then moves into the bulk of his argument. He begins by pointing out that it is not self-evident that the doctrines of human community and the Trinity impinge upon each other. Each has its own internal logic. Specifically, the doctrine of the Trinity falls under the doctrine of God, while accounts of gender belong to the doctrine of creation. And it is the doctrine of God that theologizing is properly about: the Trinity is, in a sense, too big for the creed. Accounts of gender, however, are not important enough to make it into the creed.

The two doctrines are often related through the imago dei, which is used to create a threefold relation between man and God: imaging, reflecting and imitation. In other words, “As above, so below.” They attempt to explain what is seen–gender and human relations–through what is unseen. This sort of logic, though, exposes the doctrine of God to projections. The mystery serves as a mirror: there is no way to judge between competing visions of into the mystery.

Sanders points to, for instance, Miraslov Volf who sees in the Trinity a grounding for a free church ecclesiology. He points out a number of other examples of theologians who see in the Trinity positions they already hold to. Sanders point? In employing the Trinity for doctrines other than the doctrine of God, we tend to find what we want to find.

But the nature of the “imago dei” relationship, though, makes us see similarity with God when we maybe should be looking for difference. For instance, the doctrine of perichoresis, or the mutual indwelling of the Persons of the Trinity, is sometimes invoked to explain the communion of the members of the Church. But is that a similarity with human relations, or a property that God has that we do not? To claim it is a similarity is to make a category error: it is to ascribe to humans something that is properly God’s.

What, then, is the proper image of God? It is the image He has given us in the economic Trinity. God is not different with us than He is in Himself.

How, then, are the doctrines of the Trinity and theological anthropology related? They are not in an imaging relationship. Trinity needs to be thought out independant of the gender question, while the gender question needs to be thought out independant of the Trinity question, and then they need to be related. They are independant of each other. In addition, answering the Trinity question through the gender issue runs the risk of not recognizing the exclusivity of the economic image. Finally, removing the imago dei relation with respect to the Trinity question undercuts imitation projects.

Those are my notes. No doubt Doc Sanders will reel in horror when he sees how I butchered his paper. Ah, blogging. Dr. Sanders, though, was most impressive in his delivery and argumentation. This paper was absolutely fantastic, as it made both sides in the gender debate reflect very carefully on their appeals to the Trinity to defeat the other side. I am hoping that it gets published very soon so that it will be available in print for all of us to read.

Two other thoughts: Dr. Sanders did, if memory serves me, point out the difference in importance of the Trinity and gender questions by highlighting their respective presence in the creeds. In other words, while the Trinity is of chief importance, the doctrine of theological anthropology does not get a mention. However, I might argue that the creeds, like Scripture, assume a theological anthropology that has currently come under attack. If this is right then while the center is still the Trinity, gender questions might be only two steps away from the center in a direction the creeds did not go because they presumed a certain position on the issue.

In addition, what was not clear in Sanders’s presentation was how revelation plays in to our understanding of the relationship between the Trinity and theological anthropology. At the core of the debate of the gender issues is a question about what has been revealed about man in Scripture. While Sanders’s main point, I think, is to drive a wedge between the gender and Trinitarian questions in order to keep them as separate theological issues, the bridge between is revelation. If Paul or Scripture assumes a certain position on theological anthropology because of its theology, then the chasm must be crossed. Sanders seemed to agree to this in the Q&A time.

I recently returned from the general convention of the Evangelical Theological Society, and while I did not attend many papers, I had an extraordianrily enjoyable time. Here is an explication of one of the papers I attended.

Russell Moore. Why Larry Flint is Not a a Complementarian: Gender, Abuse and Social Justice.

Yes, I think it is that Russell Moore of Touchstone Magazine’s Mere Comments. Speaking of Touchstone, the good folks there are in a financial bind this year and are asking for money. Keep the paper going, as it is one of the most important popular level journals in Christendom. Another great group, the Amercian Chesterton Society, is also in need of funds. Dig deep. That said, to the paper.

Biblical patriarchy is the answer to, rather than the source of abuse.

Self-sacrifical patriarchy has not been linked with abuse. However, “Hyper-masculinity,” which is a bastardization (my word) of patriarchy, has been. Moore cites the study by W.Bradford Wilcox that concluded traditional patriarchal homes were ’softer’ than egalitarian homes (see here). Hyper-masculinity is the problem, not patriarchy. The answer to the problem of hyper-masculinity is not vague egalitarian equality, but men who will protect women and churches who will hold men accountable.

Women’s worth is determined by sexual availability to men. This is for both evangelicals and the broader culture. “The supermodels shall inherit the church.” Why are women still degraded? Partly because culture presents women as aggressors. Women should not appear feminine in order to move up the corporate ladder. Moore grants that all of this is driven by patriarchy, but a pagan patriarchy driven by the Father of lies. It is a patriarchy that makes women in man’s image.

Both egalitarians and complementarians tend to think of headship and authority badly.

How egalitarians think of headship: “Wife, get me my chips.”

How complementarians think of headship: “Esteemed wife, please get me my chips, then let’s pray.” Heh.

Biblical patriarchy is self-sacrifical. A man provides for a family (see Paul’s claim that an individual who does not is worse than an infidel). Abuses of headship are not headship at all. The Father’s glory is found in the exaltation of Jesus. The Patriarchy of God is Christo-centric. The headship of a man over a woman is an authority seen in washing the feet of the wife. When Jesus washes the feet of his disciples, he is washing the foundation stones of His Church. He is always servant, always head. See also Joseph of Nazareth, who cares for his wife and child.

The self-sacrifice of patriarchy depends upon the notion the weaker vessel can be hurt, and it is the responsibility of the man to protect and serve her. Protecting women begins with acknowledging this claim in the church. Social justice begins with ecclesiastical justice. Evangelical feminism cannot protect women because it cannot show how women need protection. My note: Moore seems to presume as factual that women do need protection. That’s not necessarily a problem, since if it is a fact, then egalitarianism is necessarily deficient in the way he suggests. However, Moore does not elaborate on this point (unfortunately).

An abusive man in a congregation is a heretic and a blasphemer–he presents to the outside world the image that Christ hates his Church. Men who hit their wives have surrendered their headship. It is the responsibility of the Church to take an active role in correcting the problems of paganized patriarchy.

Okay, I was going to summarize Moore’s talk by revising Chesterton’s famous quote about Christianity, but Moore beat me to it. “It is not that patriarchy has been tried and found wanting: it is that it has not been tried at all.”

Q&A: #1: What resources do patriarchalists have to empower women so that they are less likely to be abused? Answer: Churches that address what it means to be a man or woman. Secondly, we must have an understanding of the dignity of women that is not borrowed from the secular world. In other words, women should be viewed as dignified not only for the ways in which they act like men.

#2: Didn’t hear the question, but the answer is great. With respect to sociological studies, the best judge of patriarchy is not how men use the Biblical statements, but whether they are in fact ecclesiastically grounded and accountable.

Someone else: Sociology and psychology are being neglected by Moore. “You’re not willing to take into account any facts.” Answer: Sociology and psychology look around at men who identify themselves as evangelicals and patriarchalists, not at men who are ecclesiastically centered. In other words, they examine men who claim to be Christians but may in fact not be living a Christian life at all. Theologizing should not be done according to sociology, but Scripture.

This exchange highlights the fundamental disagreement between patriarchalists and egalitarians: egalitarians tend to submit their theologizing to the statistical norms of psychology and sociology, while patriarchalists tend to make arguments from Scripture. Moore is arguing that many men who identify themselves as patriarchalists, they are in fact not patriarchalists.

Moore should have made more of Chesterton’s line: patriarchy has not been tried and failed (like those who would appeal to sociological studies that contend patriarchy leads to abuse might suggest), but that it has not been tried at all.

One final thought: evangelical egalitarians seem to want to redeem patriarchy by rejecting it. Evangelical patriarchalists, however, actually want to redeem patriarchy. Moore’s distinction between pagan and Christian patriarchy is a crucial one, and participants on both sides of the discussion would do well to keep it in mind.

AnotherThink has a clever article on bragging and comparing ourselves with other people. This can be unhealthy. Jesus compared Himself with God. That is audacity.

So I didn’t like Switchfoot’s new video “Oh, Gravity,” but I think their new album has plenty of promise. I like the sound of what I hear on their website and I will eagerly ask for their new CD for Christmas (it looks like it will be coming out on Christmas).

This new CD presents an edgier Switchfoot. Perhaps the new direction they are taking their music won’t be as likeable as the great music on the Beautiful Letdown album, but at least they are continuing to expand their creativity. It seems the worst thing that can happen to a pop-rock band, like the band in consideration, is to get caught in a cotton-candy, over-produced rut. Even if the album does let me down, I will see it as a success insofar as they explore new territory.

You can see samples of Switchfoot’s videos on Yahoo Music and also buy one if you like what you see. Their “Stars” video is awesome – creative, cool, and unexpected.

I went to watch Switchfoot’s new video “Oh, Gravity” at Yahoo Music. I didn’t much enjoy the video, but I did find the anti-drug advertisment putting forth a surprising message. Apparently, the commercial doesn’t come up every time you play the video, but I found a transcript here.

The ad essentially argues that sitting on the couch smoking weed is not a happy way to live life. The protagonist teenage boy admits that smoking pot won’t get him in trouble or hurt anyone else, instead he’ll just do nothing on his friend’s couch. He compares this with the alternative of being “active,” getting out there and doing fun stuff: biking, ice-skating, playing basketball. He gets off the couch at the end and decides, “Me? I’ll take my chances out there,” gesturing out to where the action is.

Most anti-pot commercials I’ve seen before put forth the old “slippery-slope” argument: if you smoke pot, you’ll end up hooked on cocaine or heroin. When employing this argument on drug-using or pro-legalization of marijuana folk, I find that it isn’t very persuasive based on experience. This new angle seems more effective since it appeals to a positive good instead of trying to strip away happiness. I’d be interested in hearing thoughts on this tactic: Is it too lenient on marijuana users, i.e. does it downplay a real danger? Would Aristotle use this argument?

Also, check out analysis of the ad at iLiberty.org. Disappointingly, they don’t deal with the claim of the ad. Instead, they point to statistics that show how many are arrested for using pot. I would be interested in an argument by a pro-legalization person against the angle of the ad.

Andy Rau cites a survey finding most Americans only have two close friends. Lonliness is a big problem in the US. How will the church address it?

A bishop in the Church of England recently argued that doctors should allow babies with severe disabilities to die. FRC writes briefly about it here.

This link is to an all-around neat blog that has been doing some commentary on Gustave Dore woodcuts of scenes of the Bible. For your enjoyment…

Yes, believe it or not, Billy Graham and Woody Allen were on the same TV show together talking candidly about sex and a multitude of other funny things. It’s priceless. See the video here.

I’m actually pretty impressed with Billy Graham’s sense of humor. His solidness compared to Allen’s light moral character contrast remarkably.

Thoughts?

In a recent post by Dr. Fred Sanders at Middlebrow, he examines Dorothy Sayers’ project to get the Christian message out. She sure didn’t spare words for those who displayed intellectual laziness and apathy:
(Sanders): “…The average person has a boundless ignorance of Christianity, rooted in their laziness and thoughtlessness. ‘Nine people out of ten in this country are ignorant heathens,’ [Sayers] said in 1939. “I do not so much mind the heathendom, but the ignorance is really alarming.” And a few years later, when a broadcaster asked her to write a short letter explaining Christianity for the average person, Sayers spat back:

“The only letter I ever want to address to ‘average people’ is one that says — I do not care whether you believe in Christianity or not, but I do resent your being so ignorant, lazy, and unintelligent. Why don’t you take the trouble to find out what is Christianity and what isn’t? Why, when you can bestir yourself to mug up technical terms about electricity, won’t you do as much for theology before you begin to argue about it? … You would be ashamed to know as little about internal combustion as you do about the Nicene Creed.”

Ouch. I think I’ll go brush up on the Nicene Creed now. Seriously. I think this challenge hits where it hurts for American evangelicals. Theology is important and we don’t know it. Off to my Creed book…